Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm clearly not expressing myself very clearly, judging by the amout people have written in response to arguments I didn't think I was making!
Allthenick - I apologise, your grasp of the history of naval aviation is clearly superior to mine. I did say "ONE of the reasons...". What I was trying to say though, is that the issues regarding the RAF's attitude to maritime air in the 1920s are just not relevant today. It is also a fact that, during the inter-war years, maritime air suffered from underinvestment from BOTH the RAF and RN. In any case, capabilities are now supposed to be developed and funded by MOD centre, so which service operates the kit is frankly irrelevant.
I don't know what you're getting at here. I was trying to suggest that actually it should be the RN that provides the maintainers and enablers on board. Don't see why that would make RAF ORs leave.
My observation was that I have not yet heard a compelling, RP-proof justifcation for maintaining a tiny cadre of RN fast-jet pilots. Intuitively, I see a lot of merit in it, but I'd like to know what the arguments are.
This is the way I see it, and please correct me if I have misunderstood how the force will be run: if a young man joins the RN to fly JSF, after dartmouth, he does absolutely everything the same as his RAF counterpart. The training, conversion to type and so on, and when he gets to the front line in a mixed RN/RAF force, he is used totally interchangeably with his RAF colleagues.
There are clearly intangibles at play in terms of ethos imbued during officer training etc, but I believe sea-mindedness and an understanding of carrier ops will come from operating at sea, not from some secret effect from wearing gold braid on your shoulders rather than a bar-code. If the RAF JSF pilots are doing this as much as the RN pilots, why shouldn't they be just as good at it? Before you answer, think how you'd reply if I suggested that FAA pilots could never be truly air-minded because they weren't in the RAF - that's clearly not true, so I don't see why it should be different the other way around.
I'm not trolling, or suggesting that the RAF should own everything that flies, but I'm genuinely interested. What are the TANGIBLE advantages of maintaining some RN pilots in the JSF force?
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU,
Yes, absolutely. And also the self-same operations that an element of the RAF has experience of and trains for, and will do in future as part of the JSF force. Don't see your point.
Allthenick - I apologise, your grasp of the history of naval aviation is clearly superior to mine. I did say "ONE of the reasons...". What I was trying to say though, is that the issues regarding the RAF's attitude to maritime air in the 1920s are just not relevant today. It is also a fact that, during the inter-war years, maritime air suffered from underinvestment from BOTH the RAF and RN. In any case, capabilities are now supposed to be developed and funded by MOD centre, so which service operates the kit is frankly irrelevant.
Unfortunately the ranks make up the majority of RAF (but only just) so them voting with their feet wont do the RAF any good.
My observation was that I have not yet heard a compelling, RP-proof justifcation for maintaining a tiny cadre of RN fast-jet pilots. Intuitively, I see a lot of merit in it, but I'd like to know what the arguments are.
This is the way I see it, and please correct me if I have misunderstood how the force will be run: if a young man joins the RN to fly JSF, after dartmouth, he does absolutely everything the same as his RAF counterpart. The training, conversion to type and so on, and when he gets to the front line in a mixed RN/RAF force, he is used totally interchangeably with his RAF colleagues.
There are clearly intangibles at play in terms of ethos imbued during officer training etc, but I believe sea-mindedness and an understanding of carrier ops will come from operating at sea, not from some secret effect from wearing gold braid on your shoulders rather than a bar-code. If the RAF JSF pilots are doing this as much as the RN pilots, why shouldn't they be just as good at it? Before you answer, think how you'd reply if I suggested that FAA pilots could never be truly air-minded because they weren't in the RAF - that's clearly not true, so I don't see why it should be different the other way around.
I'm not trolling, or suggesting that the RAF should own everything that flies, but I'm genuinely interested. What are the TANGIBLE advantages of maintaining some RN pilots in the JSF force?
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU,
If the Carriers we are discussing are to be of any worth, they would be the spearhead of an offensive expeditionary Force and long before land forces were established. The self same operations that the Navy has experience of and trains and exercises for.
Last edited by Occasional Aviator; 16th Jul 2008 at 12:17.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by andyy
3. JSF in its STOVL form may well not yet happen - the ships are initially planned to go to sea with the Harrier GR9 but as we have seen with current ops they are in very short supply. For the first few years of life the ships will have very limited utility without an Air Group and any plan for cats & traps will require another major rethink (I am led to believe that there is a contingency plan to fit cats & traps at the first major refit - more expense and probably very difficult to engineer in if the hull & systems have not been designed for it in the first place!!).
A. "JSF in its STOVL form" absolutely WILL happen... for the USMC. The F-35B is the ONLY F-35 variant the USMC will buy, as it is specifically designed for them, and they won't buy either of the others. The -B is secure from that standpoint alone... but there is more.
Italy & Spain are also planning to order the -B... Spain for Juan Carlos I (and possibly the replacement for Asturias), and Italy for both Cavour (and possibly the replacement for Girabaldi) AND their Air Force, who has decided to buy both -A and -B versions for land use.
The only question is "will the UK buy the F-35B? Probably, as they are to be purchased for BOTH carrier and RAF land-based use... less than half are earmarked for regular use on CVF.
B. CVF's hull & systems have certainly been designed for fitting of catapults and arresting gear "at a later date"... that is a specific KUR in the design... "space & weight set aside for catapults and arresting gear"!
No "rethink" required... it is part of the plan & design from the start.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OA
"What are the TANGIBLE advantages of maintaining some RN pilots in the JSF force?"
Now we have carriers coming back, they will need Captains, who are traditionally pilots and in the case of proper carriers usually Jet boys.
I can't see the RN allowing RAF pumpers to skipper our ships, can you?
Until we lost our proper carriers, traditionally aircrew could get to the top in the Navy. They did this via the route of captaining ships. Once we lost them, it tended to be Nuke boat Captains, since they have the "teeth".
After years in the wilderness, we need some aircrew in the higher echelons of the RN to make sure that we utilise the capabilities of them properly. RAF pilots alone on our ships will not achieve this.
"What are the TANGIBLE advantages of maintaining some RN pilots in the JSF force?"
Now we have carriers coming back, they will need Captains, who are traditionally pilots and in the case of proper carriers usually Jet boys.
I can't see the RN allowing RAF pumpers to skipper our ships, can you?
Until we lost our proper carriers, traditionally aircrew could get to the top in the Navy. They did this via the route of captaining ships. Once we lost them, it tended to be Nuke boat Captains, since they have the "teeth".
After years in the wilderness, we need some aircrew in the higher echelons of the RN to make sure that we utilise the capabilities of them properly. RAF pilots alone on our ships will not achieve this.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
The RAF used to run motor launches well enough, just give them the CVF's.
How hard can it be to drive a big boat about and hold the occasional cocktail party?
How hard can it be to drive a big boat about and hold the occasional cocktail party?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Occasional Aviator. I was going to reply to your Srl 1840 but Tourist beat me to it more than adequately.
I am also reminded that aviation wasn't always used to best advantage down South in '82. That was largely attributable to both of the big fellahs, Fieldhouse and Woodward, being submariners. Personally, I found that preferrable to an air warfare genius with neither the training or experience for fighting at sea.
As Tourist says, the FAA is needed as a core offensive force as it's the means of cultivating air orientated ship commanders and Flag Officers. While Jointery has many merits if applied sensibly, it has many dangerous flaws if applied in a "all Services are the same and operational commanders can be picked and mixed" manner.
It's interesting that this Thread has 2 sub Threads;
a. cats and traps v STOVL and Air Group composition
b. how Carriers fit within current Joint doctrine and their single Service impact
I am also reminded that aviation wasn't always used to best advantage down South in '82. That was largely attributable to both of the big fellahs, Fieldhouse and Woodward, being submariners. Personally, I found that preferrable to an air warfare genius with neither the training or experience for fighting at sea.
As Tourist says, the FAA is needed as a core offensive force as it's the means of cultivating air orientated ship commanders and Flag Officers. While Jointery has many merits if applied sensibly, it has many dangerous flaws if applied in a "all Services are the same and operational commanders can be picked and mixed" manner.
It's interesting that this Thread has 2 sub Threads;
a. cats and traps v STOVL and Air Group composition
b. how Carriers fit within current Joint doctrine and their single Service impact
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The RAF draws its Harrier pilots (I refer to Harriers deliberately
) from a relatively large pool of pilot applicants.The RN, OTOH, has a far smaller pilot pool with all its FJ pilots having to fly the Harrier. In the RAF therefore some 20% FJ pilots (I guess) are Harrier pilots whereas it must be 100% RN.
Of the rest, the RAF probably has more billets for those who are not Harrier capable at the outset and, as importantly, lots more billets for those who grow old.
I would concede that the Harrier Command pool is the same size in both RN and RAF because that is the way it is Loaded
Put simply, RN pilot applicants have to eneter as the creme d'l creme or become helicopter aircrew.
Quote:
The only question is "will the UK buy the F-35B? Probably, as they are to be purchased for BOTH carrier and RAF land-based use... less than half are earmarked for regular use on CVF.
B. CVF's hull & systems have certainly been designed for fitting of catapults and arresting gear "at a later date"... that is a specific KUR in the design... "space & weight set aside for catapults and arresting gear"!
No "rethink" required... it is part of the plan & design from the start".
GK121
Hmmm, OK but your question about whether the UK will buy the B or not is massively valid.
There is also a big difference between "space and weight set aside for catapults and arrester gear" and actually being "part of the plan and design from the start". Where is the steam going to come from, for a start? The ship hasn't even got its power plant finalised yet. And don't tell me we are going to use an electromagnetic catapult - we'll never get a safety case for the a/c to carry any damn weapons. (And BTW my (very good) info is that Cats & Traps was never part of the original design and that it is a requirement that has been added later) one of the many changes that have vastly increased cost).
Finally, you have not made any attempt to answer my point about the operational limitations of having a Carrier with no on board AAR or long range AEW, or the problems of the limited strike outfit due to the problems of RASing Brimstone and Storm Shadow, much less any comment about the competing budgetary pressures.
So much faith and so little justification.
The only question is "will the UK buy the F-35B? Probably, as they are to be purchased for BOTH carrier and RAF land-based use... less than half are earmarked for regular use on CVF.
B. CVF's hull & systems have certainly been designed for fitting of catapults and arresting gear "at a later date"... that is a specific KUR in the design... "space & weight set aside for catapults and arresting gear"!
No "rethink" required... it is part of the plan & design from the start".
GK121
Hmmm, OK but your question about whether the UK will buy the B or not is massively valid.
There is also a big difference between "space and weight set aside for catapults and arrester gear" and actually being "part of the plan and design from the start". Where is the steam going to come from, for a start? The ship hasn't even got its power plant finalised yet. And don't tell me we are going to use an electromagnetic catapult - we'll never get a safety case for the a/c to carry any damn weapons. (And BTW my (very good) info is that Cats & Traps was never part of the original design and that it is a requirement that has been added later) one of the many changes that have vastly increased cost).
Finally, you have not made any attempt to answer my point about the operational limitations of having a Carrier with no on board AAR or long range AEW, or the problems of the limited strike outfit due to the problems of RASing Brimstone and Storm Shadow, much less any comment about the competing budgetary pressures.
So much faith and so little justification.
Your "very good" info is in fact somewhat far from the mark, as is the assertion that the power plant isn't finalised yet (its probably the most worked up part of the design and has been for some time).
BAE & Thales both put forward STOVL and cat n trap designs in 2002/3. MoD decided to hedge against the Dave-B variant missing it's KUR and asked for provision for a convertible design. The "changes" that have added cost are largely a myth. The cost increase is a result of failure to update the long-term costing lines when designs based around a flypro began to be generated in 2000-2001. Strangely enough, these were larger than the MoD concepts of 98 that merely stuffed 40 aircraft into a hull with no thought of operating them and on which the LTC lines were based. When the mis-match became apparent, the MoD spent three years (and several tens of million) trying to get a quart from a pint pot before bowing to the inevitable. Not requirement creep, merely failure to monitor costs continuously combined with a poor initial understanding of what the ship needed to look like.
BAE & Thales both put forward STOVL and cat n trap designs in 2002/3. MoD decided to hedge against the Dave-B variant missing it's KUR and asked for provision for a convertible design. The "changes" that have added cost are largely a myth. The cost increase is a result of failure to update the long-term costing lines when designs based around a flypro began to be generated in 2000-2001. Strangely enough, these were larger than the MoD concepts of 98 that merely stuffed 40 aircraft into a hull with no thought of operating them and on which the LTC lines were based. When the mis-match became apparent, the MoD spent three years (and several tens of million) trying to get a quart from a pint pot before bowing to the inevitable. Not requirement creep, merely failure to monitor costs continuously combined with a poor initial understanding of what the ship needed to look like.
NaB, I accept that I am talking about the original requirement up to about '98 but nevertheless that was what the budget was originally planned around. Increases in CVF budget since have been at the expense of some other projects.
The requirement was originally for a floating runway and no more. A Flat top commercial hull essentially. The combat power was to be invested in the aircraft, not the hull and the operational control of the air assets was to be driven from the accompanying T45. There was to be no Flag/ JTFHQ facilities either (indeed there was a proposal for a conversion of Ark Royal to a USS Mount Whitney type Command ship). I am sure that much has changed and that operational realism may have dictated some changes but I don't accept that there hasn't been requirement creep without accompanying budget increase to match.
Still no one has countered the issues surrounding the lack of AAW & AEW, the lack of utility with a limited weapon outfit that can't have reloads RASed, or the difficulties that the Defence budget will have in funding the Carriers at the same time as funding significant N reactor and weapon development.
Don't get me wrong, I would really like to see the CVF happen but I just don't think it will.
The requirement was originally for a floating runway and no more. A Flat top commercial hull essentially. The combat power was to be invested in the aircraft, not the hull and the operational control of the air assets was to be driven from the accompanying T45. There was to be no Flag/ JTFHQ facilities either (indeed there was a proposal for a conversion of Ark Royal to a USS Mount Whitney type Command ship). I am sure that much has changed and that operational realism may have dictated some changes but I don't accept that there hasn't been requirement creep without accompanying budget increase to match.
Still no one has countered the issues surrounding the lack of AAW & AEW, the lack of utility with a limited weapon outfit that can't have reloads RASed, or the difficulties that the Defence budget will have in funding the Carriers at the same time as funding significant N reactor and weapon development.
Don't get me wrong, I would really like to see the CVF happen but I just don't think it will.
Must have been a different requirement to the one I helped write all those years ago.......I can guarantee you that any significant increase in cost since 2003 has been as a result of costs incurred through MoD p1ssing about rather than requirements growth.
Specific points -
1.If anything the hull has become more "commercial" as time has passed in an attempt to drive costs out of it. A floating runway cannot possibly operate a TAG effectively without briefing/planning facilities, intel etc in addition to the usual maintenance, servicing facilities.
2. The growth in size (which has had the majority of the cost associated with it) has come from realistic consideration of a flypro. JFHQ(A) will have had some impact, but not substantially so.
3. All the combat power of the ship is invested in the TAG. I don't consider FTR CIWS to be combat power!
4. DCA is a function of what weapons Dave can carry (plus MASC capability) and while I would not for one moment suggest that it's ideal, it should be better than SHAR.
5. Not sure where your limited weapon outfit comes from. I've seen the mag designs and there's plenty of room. SS can be RASed (it's a design driver for MARS) but is in no way the primary weapon for Dave, nor is Brimstone.
Specific points -
1.If anything the hull has become more "commercial" as time has passed in an attempt to drive costs out of it. A floating runway cannot possibly operate a TAG effectively without briefing/planning facilities, intel etc in addition to the usual maintenance, servicing facilities.
2. The growth in size (which has had the majority of the cost associated with it) has come from realistic consideration of a flypro. JFHQ(A) will have had some impact, but not substantially so.
3. All the combat power of the ship is invested in the TAG. I don't consider FTR CIWS to be combat power!
4. DCA is a function of what weapons Dave can carry (plus MASC capability) and while I would not for one moment suggest that it's ideal, it should be better than SHAR.
5. Not sure where your limited weapon outfit comes from. I've seen the mag designs and there's plenty of room. SS can be RASed (it's a design driver for MARS) but is in no way the primary weapon for Dave, nor is Brimstone.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist, GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU,
thank you. Those are the sorts of things I needed to know, and hadn't thought of. I'm more in favour of a mixed force now.
The 'captain of a carrier' issue is interesting - I would have thought that there would be no way an RAF officer could get the necessary 'tickets' to do that. However, I think it will be a real challenge for general-list RN officers to have a meaningful flying career on JSF. Perhaps an increased assimilation into the air component would be the best way of giving aviators a career path?
thank you. Those are the sorts of things I needed to know, and hadn't thought of. I'm more in favour of a mixed force now.
The 'captain of a carrier' issue is interesting - I would have thought that there would be no way an RAF officer could get the necessary 'tickets' to do that. However, I think it will be a real challenge for general-list RN officers to have a meaningful flying career on JSF. Perhaps an increased assimilation into the air component would be the best way of giving aviators a career path?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally, you have not made any attempt to answer my point about the operational limitations of having a Carrier with no on board AAR or long range AEW, or the problems of the limited strike outfit ...
Just build two big boats dammit, and maybe a future generation will fill in the blank spots and missing equipment.
Just build two big boats dammit, and maybe a future generation will fill in the blank spots and missing equipment.
NaB, I obviously shouldn't take issue with the person that wrote the requirement but my info, whilst second hand, did come from 2 x 1*s who sat on the Sub Navy Board and discussed these issues ad nauseum, so its info that has some provenance.
"Long Range AEW"
Out of interest, could someone enlighten me - does "long range" typically refer to the aircraft endurance or the radar range; or a mixture of both? What is the optimum?
Do we even have a choice?
Thanks in advance.
Do we even have a choice?
Thanks in advance.
Not taking credit (blame!) for anything like the full requirement, but I have read all the dossier sections of ST(S) 7068 from cover to cover, ditto the Initial Requirements Document that was derived a couple of years later and the subsequent ship tech spec.
1*s at Navy Board committee meetings may think they've understood something but in my experience frequently hear what they want to, regardless of what is actually in the document.
Long range AEW ought to be a combination of platform and sensor, but also needs to be persistent as well (combination of speed and platform endurance) - something frequently overlooked.
1*s at Navy Board committee meetings may think they've understood something but in my experience frequently hear what they want to, regardless of what is actually in the document.
Long range AEW ought to be a combination of platform and sensor, but also needs to be persistent as well (combination of speed and platform endurance) - something frequently overlooked.
Not a Boffin
Thank you for that. Reading past posts it looks like at one time the plan was to transfer the Sea King mission system to a new platform. Is this still the case, because the problem with costings may get worse if it can't fit or needs major re-work? I'm assuming it is currently optimised in some way for a rotary wing platform, but don't pretend to understand the detail. But I do remember reading it was pretty expensive in the first place.
Thank you for that. Reading past posts it looks like at one time the plan was to transfer the Sea King mission system to a new platform. Is this still the case, because the problem with costings may get worse if it can't fit or needs major re-work? I'm assuming it is currently optimised in some way for a rotary wing platform, but don't pretend to understand the detail. But I do remember reading it was pretty expensive in the first place.
You are assuming there is a plan............
MASC IPT has existed within CVF IPT for at least four years. They have however (like Elmer Fudd) been vewy, vewy quiet.....
MASC IPT has existed within CVF IPT for at least four years. They have however (like Elmer Fudd) been vewy, vewy quiet.....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AEW
Maybe it's what you don't see. Is it just a coincidence that 30 out of the 44 ASW Merlins are being updated - leaving a handy batch of 12 (i can't remember how many have been lost)? Could these cabs be adopted...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why RAF pilots won't (want to) drive ships
Just to pitch in briefly with some of the issues required for an Air Force chap to get the necessary tickets to drive a ship (not to mention an internationally recognised qualification in the sport)....
...though obviously professional seamen (or "Warfare Officers" to mitigate the obvious puns) are on hand to help out...
a. It takes a very long time to accrue the necessary experience. Unlike flying, practice at the things most likely to cause damage (entering / leaving harbour, refuelling, transferring ammunition etc. etc.) doesn't happen every time you get on watch. If we're talking carriers, you might get one opportunity per month to get your hands dirty. Meaningful warfighting training is even less frequent. A phobia of certain training serials isn't particularly uncommon amongst junior watchkeepers. To put things into perspective, a pilot achieves solo standard in a little more than 10 hours flying, to tick the same boxes with a ship demands years of experience. It probably doesn't have to, but thats the way things are done. Naval pilots still have to succumb to several tours afloat before getting the reins of something worthwhile (aside from university training "ships" and minesweepers (the classic tick-in-the-box appointment)). One "heavy landing" will make you star of the Sun for the day.
b. Learning the job is a humdrum existance. Yes, the "evolutions" mentioned above are fun. There is nothing like ordering "Start and Select Port and Starboard Olympus" and hearing the shreik of the air starters preceeding the howl of 50,000 shaft horsepower coming on line, but the day to day cruising watches spent avoiding fishing boats get less coverage in the recruiting pamphlets. Neither, for that matter, does the task of getting the lookouts to look busy when the grown-ups are around. (they are required for their own training but, realistically, as it is your own arse on the line, you are obliged to cover their arcs as well as running the navigation, flying operations (launch / recovery), warfighting, telephone exchange / tannoy, training your relief ("replacement")).
c. It requires expert knowledge to be credible in front of the "Bridge Union" who deal with the day to day, varicose vein inducing tedium, and, when the sh1t really hits the fan, to enable the Captain (that's you) to make the decisions which will quickly determine the longevity of the hundreds of individuals below. (The applicant should be advised that he will have to weigh the advice of Heads of Department themselves equipped with relatively scant sea experience). Incidentally the XO of HMS Nottingham (vs little island off of Australia) was an aviator who did an exceptional job in circumstances which should have resulted in the loss of the ship.
d. Sleep. Most captains seem to do with very little of it. The working day is generally 0600 to Midnight. Within the small gap in the diary for rest, just remember that your Officer of the Watch is obliged to wake you for any vessel likely to come within 2 miles of the ship's course....you can't be too careful when it comes to WW2 german gunboats...)...
e. Rust. The sight of anything other than battleship grey in gloss will quickly become your personal bete noir. Unfortunately your front door will be pelted with that nasty salt water 24/7, resulting in a most displeasing first impression for visiting dignitaries, wives, lovers etc.
The job is a little bit different to getting the reins of RAF Cottesmore. But then again, join the navy and you'll get used to a bit of hard work
...though obviously professional seamen (or "Warfare Officers" to mitigate the obvious puns) are on hand to help out...
a. It takes a very long time to accrue the necessary experience. Unlike flying, practice at the things most likely to cause damage (entering / leaving harbour, refuelling, transferring ammunition etc. etc.) doesn't happen every time you get on watch. If we're talking carriers, you might get one opportunity per month to get your hands dirty. Meaningful warfighting training is even less frequent. A phobia of certain training serials isn't particularly uncommon amongst junior watchkeepers. To put things into perspective, a pilot achieves solo standard in a little more than 10 hours flying, to tick the same boxes with a ship demands years of experience. It probably doesn't have to, but thats the way things are done. Naval pilots still have to succumb to several tours afloat before getting the reins of something worthwhile (aside from university training "ships" and minesweepers (the classic tick-in-the-box appointment)). One "heavy landing" will make you star of the Sun for the day.
b. Learning the job is a humdrum existance. Yes, the "evolutions" mentioned above are fun. There is nothing like ordering "Start and Select Port and Starboard Olympus" and hearing the shreik of the air starters preceeding the howl of 50,000 shaft horsepower coming on line, but the day to day cruising watches spent avoiding fishing boats get less coverage in the recruiting pamphlets. Neither, for that matter, does the task of getting the lookouts to look busy when the grown-ups are around. (they are required for their own training but, realistically, as it is your own arse on the line, you are obliged to cover their arcs as well as running the navigation, flying operations (launch / recovery), warfighting, telephone exchange / tannoy, training your relief ("replacement")).
c. It requires expert knowledge to be credible in front of the "Bridge Union" who deal with the day to day, varicose vein inducing tedium, and, when the sh1t really hits the fan, to enable the Captain (that's you) to make the decisions which will quickly determine the longevity of the hundreds of individuals below. (The applicant should be advised that he will have to weigh the advice of Heads of Department themselves equipped with relatively scant sea experience). Incidentally the XO of HMS Nottingham (vs little island off of Australia) was an aviator who did an exceptional job in circumstances which should have resulted in the loss of the ship.
d. Sleep. Most captains seem to do with very little of it. The working day is generally 0600 to Midnight. Within the small gap in the diary for rest, just remember that your Officer of the Watch is obliged to wake you for any vessel likely to come within 2 miles of the ship's course....you can't be too careful when it comes to WW2 german gunboats...)...
e. Rust. The sight of anything other than battleship grey in gloss will quickly become your personal bete noir. Unfortunately your front door will be pelted with that nasty salt water 24/7, resulting in a most displeasing first impression for visiting dignitaries, wives, lovers etc.
The job is a little bit different to getting the reins of RAF Cottesmore. But then again, join the navy and you'll get used to a bit of hard work
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long range is also a function of altitude. The higher the better to extend over the horizon detection. The greater the detection range the further out must an attacker or intruder is forced to low level to deleay detection.
Threat direction is also a factor. Against a range-limited foe, if you stand far enough off the coast, then you have a narrow threat sector and can afford to stand further up threat from the CV.
For inshore operations you need 360 coverage and, depending on the AEW capability, you may need 2 or more platforms at a time to give adequate coverage.
Long range also has a usage when is comes to the &C aspect. The AEW platform can assist in recovery and vectoring AAR for returning jets.