Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Floating Airfields
And I think this is where the big issues are. Despite certain sections of the RN constantly implying that the RAF don't like the carriers or seee them as a threat, any air-minded person of any cloth surely is in favour of having the option of basing at sea.
This is going to be a problem though - with fewer and fewer force elements, we can't tie 36 aircraft to a ship which isn't always in the right place and can't generate the sortie rate you can from concrete. It's wasteful. So the problem comes when you have to maintain a capability to step aboard or ashore at short notice, and yet maintain the skill sets on the boat. If we don't start thinking of these vessels as floating airfields, we're going to screw up - but we also need to accept that some of our front-line air capability will be lost to maintaining the readiness of the (joint) team that makes carrier strike work if that's how we choose to be expeditionary.
Mind you, I still can't see a compelling reason why we should maintain a separate RN cadre of FJ pilots identically skilled to their RAF counterparts - that would also appear to be inefficient - but that's a subject that seems to be studiously ignored here.
This is going to be a problem though - with fewer and fewer force elements, we can't tie 36 aircraft to a ship which isn't always in the right place and can't generate the sortie rate you can from concrete. It's wasteful. So the problem comes when you have to maintain a capability to step aboard or ashore at short notice, and yet maintain the skill sets on the boat. If we don't start thinking of these vessels as floating airfields, we're going to screw up - but we also need to accept that some of our front-line air capability will be lost to maintaining the readiness of the (joint) team that makes carrier strike work if that's how we choose to be expeditionary.
Mind you, I still can't see a compelling reason why we should maintain a separate RN cadre of FJ pilots identically skilled to their RAF counterparts - that would also appear to be inefficient - but that's a subject that seems to be studiously ignored here.
If you read this thread you'll see how 'Dave' originated. It was meant as a sarcastic response to the range of cr@p choices on offer, but it appears that many people concluded that 'Dave' was actually a better choice than 'Lightning II'. And the name has stuck.
Why do RAF types think that they possess the God-given right to all things aeronautical? The RN originally lost it's fixed wing capability because the RAF claimed that it could provide air cover for the fleet on a world-wide basis. Hah! I remember being on an exercise in the Indian Ocean where aircraft from Sharjah could not even find our group consisting a Command/Helicopter Cruiser, five frigates, a LARGE tanker and two supply ships. The RAF do get their underwear in an uproar if anyone has the temerity to suggest that RN pilots may be rather better suited to flying from aircraft carriers than a seconded amateur.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Floating Airfields
exMudMover and OA:
Good comments. But there are some come backs I'd like to offer. Quote from one:
You fail to mention operating an effective Air Task Organisation and maintaining an effective Intelligence organisation – both essential tasks in war.
Yes, I did fail to mention them - my bad - but there were plenty of others I omitted. However, neither of these is a core 'RN' or 'RAF' skill - they need to be 'Joint' skills. And in both cases, exercising them on board a ship is not going to be the same as from a land base.
Going back to the Falklands to make a point is Ok, I suppose. Yes, at that stage, the RN was a little short on experience of actually developing close air support from carriers (wasn't everyone?), but this one is going a bit far, I think: :
In many cases the actions of those Senior Officers hampered or even negated the efforts of the hard-pressed RAF Ground Attack and Recce pilots, who were doing their utmost in the face of almost insurmountable operational difficulties.
Actually, I don't remember anyone down there, of any cloth, who wasn't 'hard pressed' and 'doing their utmost'. All aviators hard a hard job to do down there. And quite honestly, getting yourself across East Falkland on foot in one piece and engaging in close combat was probably a bit more 'operationally insurmountable' than working out how to fly a GR3 from Hermes. I'm glad I had to do neither.
Actually, we were making it up as we went along, and between all three Services, did a job that no other country in the world could have done - US included, by the way. It was an astounding military success, and everyone played a part.
You can't make carriers floating airfields by thinking that they are. The effective employment of air from these platforms demands different doctrine and CONOPS, different (but related) skill sets, and different priorities. In this way, you minimise the constraints of time and physical space on the ship, but maximise the advantages of mobile basing and freedom to manoeuvre.
OA actually makes the point very well, in my view - if we are going to get serious about maritime air, we will have to devote time, energy and resources to it that are currently doing something else. As to a 'separate RN cadre of FJ pilots identiaclly skilled to their RAF counterparts' - that, surely is not the aim. Why not have a 'cadre of skilled FJ pilots drawn from the RAF and RN'?
Good comments. But there are some come backs I'd like to offer. Quote from one:
You fail to mention operating an effective Air Task Organisation and maintaining an effective Intelligence organisation – both essential tasks in war.
Yes, I did fail to mention them - my bad - but there were plenty of others I omitted. However, neither of these is a core 'RN' or 'RAF' skill - they need to be 'Joint' skills. And in both cases, exercising them on board a ship is not going to be the same as from a land base.
Going back to the Falklands to make a point is Ok, I suppose. Yes, at that stage, the RN was a little short on experience of actually developing close air support from carriers (wasn't everyone?), but this one is going a bit far, I think: :
In many cases the actions of those Senior Officers hampered or even negated the efforts of the hard-pressed RAF Ground Attack and Recce pilots, who were doing their utmost in the face of almost insurmountable operational difficulties.
Actually, I don't remember anyone down there, of any cloth, who wasn't 'hard pressed' and 'doing their utmost'. All aviators hard a hard job to do down there. And quite honestly, getting yourself across East Falkland on foot in one piece and engaging in close combat was probably a bit more 'operationally insurmountable' than working out how to fly a GR3 from Hermes. I'm glad I had to do neither.
Actually, we were making it up as we went along, and between all three Services, did a job that no other country in the world could have done - US included, by the way. It was an astounding military success, and everyone played a part.
You can't make carriers floating airfields by thinking that they are. The effective employment of air from these platforms demands different doctrine and CONOPS, different (but related) skill sets, and different priorities. In this way, you minimise the constraints of time and physical space on the ship, but maximise the advantages of mobile basing and freedom to manoeuvre.
OA actually makes the point very well, in my view - if we are going to get serious about maritime air, we will have to devote time, energy and resources to it that are currently doing something else. As to a 'separate RN cadre of FJ pilots identiaclly skilled to their RAF counterparts' - that, surely is not the aim. Why not have a 'cadre of skilled FJ pilots drawn from the RAF and RN'?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Dave?
Don't disagree with Archimedes about the use of a normal name for the ac, but I assumed selection of the name Dave (as opposed to Phil, Algenon or some such) was something to do with a certain character by the name of Trigger (Only Fools and Horses), and his insistance on always calling Rodney 'Dave'.
Personally I am absolutely hopeless at remembering names, which was a particular problem a few years ago when coaching soccer to small children (aged 5-8). I got round it by explaining that if I couldn't remember someone's name, I would call them 'Dave', but that I expected them to shout back their proper names when I did so. Worked well, and meant the parents didn't get upset.
Sorry, just drifted off there ... happy days. I'll get me coat.
STH
Don't disagree with Archimedes about the use of a normal name for the ac, but I assumed selection of the name Dave (as opposed to Phil, Algenon or some such) was something to do with a certain character by the name of Trigger (Only Fools and Horses), and his insistance on always calling Rodney 'Dave'.
Personally I am absolutely hopeless at remembering names, which was a particular problem a few years ago when coaching soccer to small children (aged 5-8). I got round it by explaining that if I couldn't remember someone's name, I would call them 'Dave', but that I expected them to shout back their proper names when I did so. Worked well, and meant the parents didn't get upset.
Sorry, just drifted off there ... happy days. I'll get me coat.
STH
Engines
You say....I'm also bothered by the assertion that 'the target will be on land' - really? All the time? Ever heard of things called enemy ships?.....
Well I have a question. With the demise of Sea Eagle, which went before the Sea Harrier, I thought UK plc had got out of the game of attacking ships with fast jets? Or are LGBs/Brimstone supposed to be the solution.
I don't know what the proposed armament of Dave is in UK service, are we getting back into fast jet anti ship missions with its introduction?
You say....I'm also bothered by the assertion that 'the target will be on land' - really? All the time? Ever heard of things called enemy ships?.....
Well I have a question. With the demise of Sea Eagle, which went before the Sea Harrier, I thought UK plc had got out of the game of attacking ships with fast jets? Or are LGBs/Brimstone supposed to be the solution.
I don't know what the proposed armament of Dave is in UK service, are we getting back into fast jet anti ship missions with its introduction?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus,
I don't know how recent / accurate it is but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F35ctolstores.jpg doesn't appear to have any anti-ship missiles planned. Of course, when Dave gets 'directed energy weapons' all bets are off.....
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
I don't know how recent / accurate it is but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F35ctolstores.jpg doesn't appear to have any anti-ship missiles planned. Of course, when Dave gets 'directed energy weapons' all bets are off.....
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
SSSETOWTF
Unless the was a touch of sarcasm, from the same source you quote (Wikipedia, so obviously true!) it suggests that Dave won't get DEW ...
Unless the
was a touch of sarcasm, from the same source you quote (Wikipedia, so obviously true!) it suggests that Dave won't get DEW ...
Directed-energy weapons may be installed in conventional takeoff F-35 Lightning IIs, whose lack of a direct lift fan frees up about 100 ft³ (2.8 m³) of space with access to a drive shaft capable of delivering more than 27,000 hp (20 MW). Some concepts, including solid-state lasers and high-power microwave beams, may be nearing operational status.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots
Kbuk and Engines,
thanks for your comments. What I was getting at was this: currently the JFH pilots, whether they be RAF or RN, do the same training and are expected to do the same job. They're good at it and neither service could be described as 'seconded amateurs'.
As I understand the plan for JSF, the same thing will happen. Fine so far, but my question is whether this is actually best value for defence. The RAF has enough difficulty maintaining a suitable force of over 200 fast-jet pilots, and this is multiplied greatly when you try and maintain a small cadre in the RN - witness the issues that the Naval Strike Wing has experienced, and were much in evidence when I was at Yeovilton in the 90s. Everywhere else in Defence we seem to be reducing duplication, combining schools etc - I just don't see why we're not looking at this for fast-jet pilots. I don't have a problem with tokenism - fine, paint ROYAL NAVY on the side of RAF jets, and if necessary make the pilots wear gold braid when they're embarked instead of a bar code - but at least generate the force using economies of scale, integrate the pilots fully into the larger cadre and give them a career after flying. More carrier experience among the defence fast-jet force can only be a good thing.
thanks for your comments. What I was getting at was this: currently the JFH pilots, whether they be RAF or RN, do the same training and are expected to do the same job. They're good at it and neither service could be described as 'seconded amateurs'.
As I understand the plan for JSF, the same thing will happen. Fine so far, but my question is whether this is actually best value for defence. The RAF has enough difficulty maintaining a suitable force of over 200 fast-jet pilots, and this is multiplied greatly when you try and maintain a small cadre in the RN - witness the issues that the Naval Strike Wing has experienced, and were much in evidence when I was at Yeovilton in the 90s. Everywhere else in Defence we seem to be reducing duplication, combining schools etc - I just don't see why we're not looking at this for fast-jet pilots. I don't have a problem with tokenism - fine, paint ROYAL NAVY on the side of RAF jets, and if necessary make the pilots wear gold braid when they're embarked instead of a bar code - but at least generate the force using economies of scale, integrate the pilots fully into the larger cadre and give them a career after flying. More carrier experience among the defence fast-jet force can only be a good thing.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And Another Thing
Oh, and kkbuk,
Your comments give you away somewhat: "the RN lost it's [sic] fixed wing capability.."
As many have pointed out here, the game is no longer about which service has which toys. It's about delivering capablity for defence. Now, I'm not pretending to defend the decision to get rid of our previous carriers (I heard that Dennis Healey said that it was simply down to the RAF staff having a better presented case), but none of us are now in the game of saying "we must have X or Y capability" - we need to decide where we take risk. It may be that as we're taking risk against air defence across all areas in defence, that not having fixed-wing air "defending the fleet" is a risk MoD has decided to take. Is that foolish? Actually, I don't think so - the best protected assets against air attack anywhere in defence are those that are within sight of a T23 or T45. Fact.
Your comments give you away somewhat: "the RN lost it's [sic] fixed wing capability.."
As many have pointed out here, the game is no longer about which service has which toys. It's about delivering capablity for defence. Now, I'm not pretending to defend the decision to get rid of our previous carriers (I heard that Dennis Healey said that it was simply down to the RAF staff having a better presented case), but none of us are now in the game of saying "we must have X or Y capability" - we need to decide where we take risk. It may be that as we're taking risk against air defence across all areas in defence, that not having fixed-wing air "defending the fleet" is a risk MoD has decided to take. Is that foolish? Actually, I don't think so - the best protected assets against air attack anywhere in defence are those that are within sight of a T23 or T45. Fact.
Last edited by Occasional Aviator; 3rd Oct 2007 at 08:33. Reason: Spelling
"the best protected assets against air attack anywhere in defence are those that are within sight of a T23 or T45. Fact."
Probably - although only for the first few engagements and only if the RoE are right. Would you voluntarily let somebody who you know to be a bit of a wrong 'un stand next to you with a sharp pointy thing? Or would you politely suggest that he keeps his distance? Much easier with DCA, less so with MEZ/SAM only.....
Probably - although only for the first few engagements and only if the RoE are right. Would you voluntarily let somebody who you know to be a bit of a wrong 'un stand next to you with a sharp pointy thing? Or would you politely suggest that he keeps his distance? Much easier with DCA, less so with MEZ/SAM only.....
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, absolutely - but read my post again. It's about risk. Compare the defence you have inside a T45 MEZ with what the Land Component HQ can expect. HVM and maybe a Rapier det anyone? And in case it has escaped your notice, we just don't have anywhere near enough DCA even for medium-scale ops in any medium. We take risk against Air Defence - that is MoD policy. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be surprised that the RN doesn't have a completely full box of all the right toys, because no-one else does.
Fully understand that the great and good in town have decided to take risk on AD. However, I should have thought that the E3/Tiffy/F3 force at least provided some DCA capability or why is it there? Compare that to the as yet non-existent T45 (at least another year yet) and the ASaC force with airframes older than their crews.
It isn't about whether the RN has as many shiny toys as the RAF. The principal concern is that unless Dave is explicitly given at least a DCA role, then the training pipeline and squadron tasking (not to mention actual weapon support) will concentrate on air-to-mud, to the exclusion of all else. Not a problem if you're part of a shiny EAW with some E3/Tiffy support as part of the package, very much a problem if you're afloat with no HNS (large chunk of the envisaged role for CVF + TAG).
It isn't about whether the RN has as many shiny toys as the RAF. The principal concern is that unless Dave is explicitly given at least a DCA role, then the training pipeline and squadron tasking (not to mention actual weapon support) will concentrate on air-to-mud, to the exclusion of all else. Not a problem if you're part of a shiny EAW with some E3/Tiffy support as part of the package, very much a problem if you're afloat with no HNS (large chunk of the envisaged role for CVF + TAG).
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
It's a sobering thought, but in the whol eof my career the oldest aircraft I flew in was a 27 year old Shackleton. The Anson and Lancaster were younger and the venerable Dominie was just a year younger than the Shack when I stopped flying in it.
Most of the other aircraft still had wet paint - Dominie, when it was new, Vulcan, F4, Nimrod. As a pax the Brit, VC10 and Herc were also still 'wet'.
Now there are few around less than 20 years old.
Most of the other aircraft still had wet paint - Dominie, when it was new, Vulcan, F4, Nimrod. As a pax the Brit, VC10 and Herc were also still 'wet'.
Now there are few around less than 20 years old.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I see that HMS Illustrious will be departing for ex Noble Midas 07 in her role as high readiness Strike Carrier. Sadly it looks like JFH is not able to supply an airgroup and it seems the Spanish will be loaning one while PdeA is in refit. Where is the NSW when it is needed? They are certainly not getting much sea time.
SSSETOWF (if I got that right)
There's a plan to integrate Kongsberg's new JSM missile on Dave. Now, whether it will fit in Dave-B is another question, but I'm not betting the rent on it.
NaB
DCA would presumably call for more than two AMRAAMs... which will start to eat into the range without external fuel. And eventually an answer to MASC as well. Until then it will put a damper on sending Liz or Chuck into an area where someone has a squadron of Su-30s.
There's a plan to integrate Kongsberg's new JSM missile on Dave. Now, whether it will fit in Dave-B is another question, but I'm not betting the rent on it.
NaB
DCA would presumably call for more than two AMRAAMs... which will start to eat into the range without external fuel. And eventually an answer to MASC as well. Until then it will put a damper on sending Liz or Chuck into an area where someone has a squadron of Su-30s.
Navaleye
NSW are currently providing real support, to real ground forces, in real trouble. Shame the Spanish AV8's aren't there helping out instead of poncing around on Lusty as part of some exercise.
Do you understand Jointery at all?
NSW are currently providing real support, to real ground forces, in real trouble. Shame the Spanish AV8's aren't there helping out instead of poncing around on Lusty as part of some exercise.
Do you understand Jointery at all?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
What are you suggesting are the benefits for NSW if it were to get some seatime (as opposed to getting involved in actual CAS and dropping live ordnance on bad guys)?
As someone who's spent the better part of a year operating off carriers I never saw what the big deal was. From a pilot's perspective it's a big piece of metal to land and take off from, that's all. There are some deck procedures that differ slightly from taxiing around an airfield, and you do have to plan a join up after take-off, but otherwise it's hardly rocket science that needs constant reinforcement. The Spanish aircraft should be more than enough to get the deck handlers and ship's company up to scratch with operating aircraft so what's your big deal?
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
What are you suggesting are the benefits for NSW if it were to get some seatime (as opposed to getting involved in actual CAS and dropping live ordnance on bad guys)?
As someone who's spent the better part of a year operating off carriers I never saw what the big deal was. From a pilot's perspective it's a big piece of metal to land and take off from, that's all. There are some deck procedures that differ slightly from taxiing around an airfield, and you do have to plan a join up after take-off, but otherwise it's hardly rocket science that needs constant reinforcement. The Spanish aircraft should be more than enough to get the deck handlers and ship's company up to scratch with operating aircraft so what's your big deal?
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly