Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Indeed - backed up by Mr Bear, there was that fear.
I know how bad things are - but you wouldn't believe it looking at the jetties in Pompey this w/e. I'm surprised Ark doesn't have a singleton though, given that by Tuesday the jetties will be empty again.....
I know how bad things are - but you wouldn't believe it looking at the jetties in Pompey this w/e. I'm surprised Ark doesn't have a singleton though, given that by Tuesday the jetties will be empty again.....
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could the following have happened without carriers?
1917: Cuxhaven airship raids
1940: Taranto
1941: Pearl Harbour
...
Admiral Nelson: "Battleships are made to be sunk."
If you only have two, how many can you risk losing?
Ship Hull No. Comm. Decomm.
[or loss] Disposition
Langley 1 20 Mar 1922 27 Feb 1942 Conv. to AV 3; Sunk as a result enemy action about 75 miles south of Tjilatjap.
Lexington 2 14 Dec 1927 8 May 1942 Sunk as a result of enemy action at the Battle of the Coral Sea.
Saratoga 3 16 Nov 1927 on 21 February 1945, Saratoga was detached with an escort of three destroyers to join the amphibious forces and carry out night patrols over Iwo Jima and night heckler missions over nearby Chi-chi Jima. However, as she approached her operating area at 1700 on the 21st, an air attack developed, and taking advantage of low cloud cover and Saratoga's insufficient escort, six Japanese planes scored five hits on the carrier in three minutes. Saratoga's flight deck forward was wrecked, her starboard side was holed twice and large fires were started in her hangar deck, while she lost 123 of her crew dead or missing. Another attack at 1900 scored an additional bomb hit. By 2015, the fires were under control and the carrier was able to recover aircraft, but she was ordered to Eniwetok and then to the west coast for repairs, and arrived at Bremerton on 16 March.
...
Yorktown 5 30 Sep 1937 7 Jun 1942 Sunk due to enemy action at the Battle of Midway
Enterprise 6 12 May 1938 17 Feb 1947 Repaired at Pearl Harbor from 10 September to 16 October 1942, Enterprise departed once more for the South Pacific where with Hornet, she formed TF 61. On 26 October, Enterprise scout planes located a Japanese carrier force and the Battle of the Santa Cruz Island was underway. Enterprise aircraft struck carriers, battleships, and cruisers during the struggle, while the "Big E" herself underwent intensive attack. Hit twice by bombs, Enterprise lost 44 killed and had 75 wounded. Despite serious damage, she continued in action and took on board a large number of planes from Hornet when that carrier had to be abandoned.
...
Damaged slightly by an enemy bomb on 18 March, Enterprise entered Ulithi six days later for repairs. Back in action on 5 April, she supported the Okinawa operation until again damaged (11 April), this time by a suicide plane, and forced back to Ulithi. Off Okinawa once more on 6 May 1945, Enterprise flew patrols around the clock as the menace of the kamikaze increased. On 14 May 1945, the "Big E" suffered her last wound of World War II when a suicide plane destroyed her forward elevator, killing 14 and wounding 34 men. The carrier sailed for repairs at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, arriving 7 June 1945.
Wasp 7 25 Apr 1940 15 Sep 1942 Sunk due to enemy action southeast of San Cristobal Island
Hornet 8 20 Oct 1941 26 Oct 1942 Sunk due to enemy action at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands
...
Franklin 13 31 Jan 1944 17 Feb 1947 Stricken from the Navy List 10 Oct 1964 Before dawn on 19 March 1945 Franklin who had maneuvered closer to the Japanese mainland than had any other U.S. carrier during the war, launched a fighter sweep against Honshu and later a strike against shipping in Kobe Harbor. Suddenly, a single enemy plane pierced the cloud cover and made a low level run on the gallant ship to drop two semi-armor piercing bombs. One struck the flight deck centerline, penetrating to the hangar deck, effecting destruction and igniting fires through the second and third decks, and knocking out the combat information center and airplot. The second hit aft, tearing through two decks and fanning fires which triggered ammunition, bombs and rockets.
Franklin, within 50 miles of the Japanese mainland, lay dead in the water, took a 13° starboard list, lost all radio communications, and broiled under the heat from enveloping fires. Many of the crew were blown overboard, driven off by fire, killed or wounded, but the 106 officers and 604 enlisted who voluntarily remained saved their ship through sheer valor and tenacity. The casualties totaled 724 killed and 265 wounded, and would have far exceeded this number except for the heroic work of many survivors. Among these were Medal of Honor winners, Lt. Cmdr. Joseph T. O'Callahan, S. J., USNR, the ship's chaplain, who administered the last rites organized and directed firefighting and rescue parties and led men below to wet down magazines that threatened to explode, and Lt. (j.g.) Donald Gary who discovered 300 men trapped in a blackened mess compartment, and finding an exit returned repeatedly to lead groups to safety. USS Santa Fe (CL-60) similarly rendered vital assistance in rescuing crewmen from the sea and closing Franklin to take off the numerous wounded.
...
Princeton 23 25 Feb 1943 24 Oct 1944 Sunk On 20 October 1944, landings were made at Dulag and San Pedro Bay, Leyte. Princeton, in TG 38.3, cruised off Luzon and sent her planes against airfields there to prevent Japanese land based aircraft attacks on Allied ships massed in Leyte Gulf. On the 24th however, enemy planes from Clark and Nichols fields found TG 38.3 and reciprocated. Shortly before 1000 on 24 October 1944, a lone enemy dive-bomber came out of the clouds above Princeton. At 1500 feet the pilot released his bomb. It hit between the elevators, crashed through the flight deck and hangar, then exploded. Initial fires soon expanded as further explosions sent black smoke rolling off the flight deck and red flames along the sides from the island to the stern. Covering vessels provided rescue and fire-fighting assistance and shielded the stricken carrier from further attack. At 1524, another, much heavier explosion, possibly the bomb magazine, blew off the carrier's stern and with it the after flight deck. USS Birmingham (CL-62), alongside to fight fires, suffered heavy damage and casualties.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-list1.html
1917: Cuxhaven airship raids
1940: Taranto
1941: Pearl Harbour
...
Admiral Nelson: "Battleships are made to be sunk."
If you only have two, how many can you risk losing?
Ship Hull No. Comm. Decomm.
[or loss] Disposition
Langley 1 20 Mar 1922 27 Feb 1942 Conv. to AV 3; Sunk as a result enemy action about 75 miles south of Tjilatjap.
Lexington 2 14 Dec 1927 8 May 1942 Sunk as a result of enemy action at the Battle of the Coral Sea.
Saratoga 3 16 Nov 1927 on 21 February 1945, Saratoga was detached with an escort of three destroyers to join the amphibious forces and carry out night patrols over Iwo Jima and night heckler missions over nearby Chi-chi Jima. However, as she approached her operating area at 1700 on the 21st, an air attack developed, and taking advantage of low cloud cover and Saratoga's insufficient escort, six Japanese planes scored five hits on the carrier in three minutes. Saratoga's flight deck forward was wrecked, her starboard side was holed twice and large fires were started in her hangar deck, while she lost 123 of her crew dead or missing. Another attack at 1900 scored an additional bomb hit. By 2015, the fires were under control and the carrier was able to recover aircraft, but she was ordered to Eniwetok and then to the west coast for repairs, and arrived at Bremerton on 16 March.
...
Yorktown 5 30 Sep 1937 7 Jun 1942 Sunk due to enemy action at the Battle of Midway
Enterprise 6 12 May 1938 17 Feb 1947 Repaired at Pearl Harbor from 10 September to 16 October 1942, Enterprise departed once more for the South Pacific where with Hornet, she formed TF 61. On 26 October, Enterprise scout planes located a Japanese carrier force and the Battle of the Santa Cruz Island was underway. Enterprise aircraft struck carriers, battleships, and cruisers during the struggle, while the "Big E" herself underwent intensive attack. Hit twice by bombs, Enterprise lost 44 killed and had 75 wounded. Despite serious damage, she continued in action and took on board a large number of planes from Hornet when that carrier had to be abandoned.
...
Damaged slightly by an enemy bomb on 18 March, Enterprise entered Ulithi six days later for repairs. Back in action on 5 April, she supported the Okinawa operation until again damaged (11 April), this time by a suicide plane, and forced back to Ulithi. Off Okinawa once more on 6 May 1945, Enterprise flew patrols around the clock as the menace of the kamikaze increased. On 14 May 1945, the "Big E" suffered her last wound of World War II when a suicide plane destroyed her forward elevator, killing 14 and wounding 34 men. The carrier sailed for repairs at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, arriving 7 June 1945.
Wasp 7 25 Apr 1940 15 Sep 1942 Sunk due to enemy action southeast of San Cristobal Island
Hornet 8 20 Oct 1941 26 Oct 1942 Sunk due to enemy action at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands
...
Franklin 13 31 Jan 1944 17 Feb 1947 Stricken from the Navy List 10 Oct 1964 Before dawn on 19 March 1945 Franklin who had maneuvered closer to the Japanese mainland than had any other U.S. carrier during the war, launched a fighter sweep against Honshu and later a strike against shipping in Kobe Harbor. Suddenly, a single enemy plane pierced the cloud cover and made a low level run on the gallant ship to drop two semi-armor piercing bombs. One struck the flight deck centerline, penetrating to the hangar deck, effecting destruction and igniting fires through the second and third decks, and knocking out the combat information center and airplot. The second hit aft, tearing through two decks and fanning fires which triggered ammunition, bombs and rockets.
Franklin, within 50 miles of the Japanese mainland, lay dead in the water, took a 13° starboard list, lost all radio communications, and broiled under the heat from enveloping fires. Many of the crew were blown overboard, driven off by fire, killed or wounded, but the 106 officers and 604 enlisted who voluntarily remained saved their ship through sheer valor and tenacity. The casualties totaled 724 killed and 265 wounded, and would have far exceeded this number except for the heroic work of many survivors. Among these were Medal of Honor winners, Lt. Cmdr. Joseph T. O'Callahan, S. J., USNR, the ship's chaplain, who administered the last rites organized and directed firefighting and rescue parties and led men below to wet down magazines that threatened to explode, and Lt. (j.g.) Donald Gary who discovered 300 men trapped in a blackened mess compartment, and finding an exit returned repeatedly to lead groups to safety. USS Santa Fe (CL-60) similarly rendered vital assistance in rescuing crewmen from the sea and closing Franklin to take off the numerous wounded.
...
Princeton 23 25 Feb 1943 24 Oct 1944 Sunk On 20 October 1944, landings were made at Dulag and San Pedro Bay, Leyte. Princeton, in TG 38.3, cruised off Luzon and sent her planes against airfields there to prevent Japanese land based aircraft attacks on Allied ships massed in Leyte Gulf. On the 24th however, enemy planes from Clark and Nichols fields found TG 38.3 and reciprocated. Shortly before 1000 on 24 October 1944, a lone enemy dive-bomber came out of the clouds above Princeton. At 1500 feet the pilot released his bomb. It hit between the elevators, crashed through the flight deck and hangar, then exploded. Initial fires soon expanded as further explosions sent black smoke rolling off the flight deck and red flames along the sides from the island to the stern. Covering vessels provided rescue and fire-fighting assistance and shielded the stricken carrier from further attack. At 1524, another, much heavier explosion, possibly the bomb magazine, blew off the carrier's stern and with it the after flight deck. USS Birmingham (CL-62), alongside to fight fires, suffered heavy damage and casualties.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-list1.html
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On JTFX and can confirm that there ain't that many UK DD/FFs around (unless you count an old stumpy 22 in Brazilian colours). We don't even warrant an oiler anymore and have to limp along at warpfactor economy to make sure we can even get across the pond and not dip below the min fuel levels! Still, at least the OAV went well and the exchange rate is good!
Suspicion breeds confidence
That'll be the Blue Oyster, I guess.....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Modern Elmo,
We have spoken before. You leave hanging statements without conclusions - I know you do have a point to make except that you have not made it yet.
In answer to your leading question the answer is both No and Yes. I could stop there
.
In the world wars the answer was of course No apart from Taranto where the RAF had, IIRC, torpedo bombers too. The difference was that the Royal Navy conceived a plan that others had not thought of. Carriers were only incidental.
And Yes. Today's air forces have global reach and could reach any part of the planet.
In your final list you omitted the Bismark. Although crippled by carrier borne aircraft she was finally located by land based MP.
The Repulse and POW were sunk by land-based aircraft. Attacks on the Scharnhorst were by land-based naval aircraft. The Glorious was sunk by land based aircraft.
This tale of woe underlines not the essential nature of carriers or indeed ships but their very vulnerability in littoral, in the widest sense, operations.
We have spoken before. You leave hanging statements without conclusions - I know you do have a point to make except that you have not made it yet.
In answer to your leading question the answer is both No and Yes. I could stop there
.In the world wars the answer was of course No apart from Taranto where the RAF had, IIRC, torpedo bombers too. The difference was that the Royal Navy conceived a plan that others had not thought of. Carriers were only incidental.
And Yes. Today's air forces have global reach and could reach any part of the planet.
In your final list you omitted the Bismark. Although crippled by carrier borne aircraft she was finally located by land based MP.
The Repulse and POW were sunk by land-based aircraft. Attacks on the Scharnhorst were by land-based naval aircraft. The Glorious was sunk by land based aircraft.
This tale of woe underlines not the essential nature of carriers or indeed ships but their very vulnerability in littoral, in the widest sense, operations.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HMS Glorious was sunk by KMS Scharnhorst and KMS Gneisenhau which, if memory serves, could not by any stretch of the imagination be described as 'land based aircraft'. 
Suspicion breeds confidence
RE: HMS Glorious.
The primary cause of her loss was down to the fact that her CO was clinically insane and was hell bent on returning to Scapa to Courts Martial his Commander (air) for questioning his mental state. S & G were able to intercept due to breaking the RN cipher at the time. The whole episode was/is well covered up.
KMS was the WW1 imperial German navy prefix. In WW2 it was KM.
The primary cause of her loss was down to the fact that her CO was clinically insane and was hell bent on returning to Scapa to Courts Martial his Commander (air) for questioning his mental state. S & G were able to intercept due to breaking the RN cipher at the time. The whole episode was/is well covered up.
KMS was the WW1 imperial German navy prefix. In WW2 it was KM.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave B v Dave C
Cross posted from Sea Jet thread... sorry meant to ask this here to allow the Sea Jet thread to die....
Genuine question.....
Despite the fact that F-35 BF-1 has now flown conventionally, there are persistent rumours that it's going to canned by the USMC in favour of Dave-Cs.
So it was interesting to hear someone pontificating that though the UK prefers Dave-B, no decision has been made yet, and that we could yet end up with Dave-C, and CVF with Cats and Traps.
Q1. Is this true?
Q2. Given the ostensibly "convertible" nature of the CVF / PA2 design, how late can the decision be made to go for CV CTOL design and still meet the 2014 ISD of QEII?
(Appreciating that as IOC for UK Daves is unlikely to be before 2018, and that this would mean operating increasingly knackered Harriers off a CTOL CV minus ski jump).
Cheers
S41
Genuine question.....
Despite the fact that F-35 BF-1 has now flown conventionally, there are persistent rumours that it's going to canned by the USMC in favour of Dave-Cs.
So it was interesting to hear someone pontificating that though the UK prefers Dave-B, no decision has been made yet, and that we could yet end up with Dave-C, and CVF with Cats and Traps.
Q1. Is this true?
Q2. Given the ostensibly "convertible" nature of the CVF / PA2 design, how late can the decision be made to go for CV CTOL design and still meet the 2014 ISD of QEII?
(Appreciating that as IOC for UK Daves is unlikely to be before 2018, and that this would mean operating increasingly knackered Harriers off a CTOL CV minus ski jump).
Cheers
S41
Squirrel 41
In answer to Q1 - I don't believe the final choice of Dave variant for UK has yet been made. It's all intimately tied in with the bring-back KPP, hence the ongoing effort to try and get STORVL to work.
As far as Q2 is concerned, the limiting factors are the long-lead times required for the cats and arresting engines, whether we buy US C13 & Mk 7, resurrect the BS6 and DA2 or bet the farm on EMALS/EARS. If its steam, then the delivery of a plant to go in the lower hull build modules would need to happen by mid-2010 at the latest. The upper deck bits are slightly less critical (though not by much) as those units will probably start construction early 2010.
Probably all too late for QE, but possible for PoW. As QE will be flying GR9 till 2018, one might suggest she completes with a ramp, and on service entry of QE goes for a first reserve/refit period to get her fitted out.
In any case, for Dave to hit the required IOC dates, they need to make the decision within about a year from now, no later.
In answer to Q1 - I don't believe the final choice of Dave variant for UK has yet been made. It's all intimately tied in with the bring-back KPP, hence the ongoing effort to try and get STORVL to work.
As far as Q2 is concerned, the limiting factors are the long-lead times required for the cats and arresting engines, whether we buy US C13 & Mk 7, resurrect the BS6 and DA2 or bet the farm on EMALS/EARS. If its steam, then the delivery of a plant to go in the lower hull build modules would need to happen by mid-2010 at the latest. The upper deck bits are slightly less critical (though not by much) as those units will probably start construction early 2010.
Probably all too late for QE, but possible for PoW. As QE will be flying GR9 till 2018, one might suggest she completes with a ramp, and on service entry of QE goes for a first reserve/refit period to get her fitted out.
In any case, for Dave to hit the required IOC dates, they need to make the decision within about a year from now, no later.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Zero wrote:
I'm not sure this really goes anywhere. I have actually done some proper research on this action, looking at how it changed SOF's CSAR policy, not just seen the film, and I offer the following comments:
If a nation with eleven carrier battle-groups can't have a carrier 'handy', what hope do we have with one or two?
Secondly, I don't see how carrier-based air could help in recovering a captured pilot in an african city. Carriers are useful, but they're not magic.
Thirdly, why on earth would you need a carrier to support a unit that was operating out of an airport, and had been deployed and sustained almost exclusively by airlift?
would the 'Black Hawk Down' incident have happened if there was a US or USMC carrier handy ?
If a nation with eleven carrier battle-groups can't have a carrier 'handy', what hope do we have with one or two?
Secondly, I don't see how carrier-based air could help in recovering a captured pilot in an african city. Carriers are useful, but they're not magic.
Thirdly, why on earth would you need a carrier to support a unit that was operating out of an airport, and had been deployed and sustained almost exclusively by airlift?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N-A-B,
As ever, very many thanks for your insights. Your assessment of QEII sounds very sensible, esp if POW is delivered with Cats for the 2018(ish) Dave IOC. But time must be getting tight on PoW if Dave BF-1 is not scheduled to do transitions and STORVL before next spring.
Of course, if QEII is delivered with a skijump, you could probably embark every GR9/9A from Cott at once, of course..... at the expense of room for a cocktail party I suppose.
Thanks again!
S41
As ever, very many thanks for your insights. Your assessment of QEII sounds very sensible, esp if POW is delivered with Cats for the 2018(ish) Dave IOC. But time must be getting tight on PoW if Dave BF-1 is not scheduled to do transitions and STORVL before next spring.
Of course, if QEII is delivered with a skijump, you could probably embark every GR9/9A from Cott at once, of course..... at the expense of room for a cocktail party I suppose.
Thanks again!
S41
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't worry about the Trident replacement programme too much. With the cutbacks to the Astute programme the skills base for building submarines will have vanished and there will be no one left to make them (at anything approaching an affordable price). Unless we are going to buy 'off the shelf from the US'...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Normandy
Age: 62
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cats
How would cats be powered?
If steam what pressures and temperatures are required? Would L.P. sat steam be adequate, presumably from some form of existing waste heat recovery.
If steam what pressures and temperatures are required? Would L.P. sat steam be adequate, presumably from some form of existing waste heat recovery.
Work on the new reactor for the Vanguard replacement has already started. Even so we can't buy an N Warhead "off the shelf" for a Trident upgrade or any other N deterrent system due to the N proliferation treaty. The existing weapon has to be replaced and that will be very expensive (not least because experienced manpower is not easily available).
The expense of staying in the N club is still the biggest threat to CVF in my view. I just don't see how we can sustain both major proammes and I think that the next Govt will see that the books can't easily be balanced without cutting something.
The expense of staying in the N club is still the biggest threat to CVF in my view. I just don't see how we can sustain both major proammes and I think that the next Govt will see that the books can't easily be balanced without cutting something.
Last edited by andyy; 28th Jul 2008 at 09:45.
Mr Boffin,
I'm sure you're mistaken. Gen. Davis said explicitly at Farnborough that all KPPs are being met or exceeded and that SRVL is merely a way to get extra bringback or to operate at higher ambient temperatures. I think he even said something about higher altitudes, in case one might want to cruise a CV on Lake Titicaca.
And he's a General, so he must be right.
(Google "sarcasm Betelguese")
I'm sure you're mistaken. Gen. Davis said explicitly at Farnborough that all KPPs are being met or exceeded and that SRVL is merely a way to get extra bringback or to operate at higher ambient temperatures. I think he even said something about higher altitudes, in case one might want to cruise a CV on Lake Titicaca.
And he's a General, so he must be right.
(Google "sarcasm Betelguese")
Suspicion breeds confidence
Back on topic more or less. Just back from across the pond and their is quite some interest in the CVF project now that has made it off the drawing board. In essence its 1/3 of CVN in terms of price and manpower, but 50% of 1st night stealth strike and 60% of sortie generation thereafter. It is perceived as being very good value for money all round.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Black Hawk Down / CVF mods'
Occasional Aviator,
A few posts back you queried ( fair enough ) my hypothesis that a USMC carrier’s prescence may have helped in the ‘Black Hawk Down’ incident.
I was taking my info’ from the book – quite possibly the most meticulously detailed account of an action I’ve ever read.
I haven’t even bothered seeing the film, as we know what it will be like, and even if the makers intend to do the subject justice – rather than just go straight for Hollywood B.S, - there’s no way such an involved situation could be covered in the short scan of a film.
At first glance one may well ask ‘what good would carrier back-up do ?’ but I can’t help thinking it would have done a lot of good.
The U.S. infantry, inc. special forces, were faced by mobs of thousands of bloodthirsty, drugged up and well armed ‘civilians’, who automatically put their tribal differences aside when it became ‘kill an American day’ – ironically the U.S. where there to provide aid, which is why they didn’t have too much in the way of firepower – a Spectre gunship had been requested to be around for the operations, but refused as it might look too military…
Appache’s probably wouldn’t have been much use, as the air was thick with a plentiful supply of RPG’s.
The mob/s had plenty of assault rifles & heavy machine guns, grenades etc, and in their drugged state were willing to advance & be mown down – there were also women with baby in one arm, gun in the other, and more skilled pro’ killers mixed in with the crowds.
Eventually the soldiers had to do what they’d never dreamed of, and fire into the crowds.
Unthinkable as it may seem from one’s comfy chair, I can’t help thinking a few Harrier passes with cluster bombs, rockets or gun would have made a big difference.
As it was the ‘little bird’ helo’s made repeated courageous strafing runs through the night.
This was a great deal more than ‘rescuing a pilot’, whole U.S. vehicle convoys were close to being wiped out…
---
On another tack, someone mentioned that as the CVF is likely to carry the Harrier GR9 ( and 2+ please in my book ) for what even now seems a rather long ‘stop-gap’ period, “ why not fit a ramp for the Harriers for now ?”.
Well why not keep the ramp ( may need to make the angle shallower ) for when the F-35 eventually turns up ?
I know, to the astonishment of myself and ex-colleagues who worked with Harriers of all flavours, it seems the F-35B did not have STO in mind originally and needs extra software & deep thought – I’d still say the ‘B’ would be the best, most flexible option, and if it suits the USMC it suits our Marines & forces too.
Everyone gets very excited about EM catapults etc, either as a new toy or the cost, but how about a ramp ? Works for the Russians…
I presume the ‘C’ u/c could take it if it can take a catapult, while it would help the ‘B’ in the now traditional way – is there a thrust / acceleration snag here ? I’d have thought not…
My two pennarth’…
DZ
A few posts back you queried ( fair enough ) my hypothesis that a USMC carrier’s prescence may have helped in the ‘Black Hawk Down’ incident.
I was taking my info’ from the book – quite possibly the most meticulously detailed account of an action I’ve ever read.
I haven’t even bothered seeing the film, as we know what it will be like, and even if the makers intend to do the subject justice – rather than just go straight for Hollywood B.S, - there’s no way such an involved situation could be covered in the short scan of a film.
At first glance one may well ask ‘what good would carrier back-up do ?’ but I can’t help thinking it would have done a lot of good.
The U.S. infantry, inc. special forces, were faced by mobs of thousands of bloodthirsty, drugged up and well armed ‘civilians’, who automatically put their tribal differences aside when it became ‘kill an American day’ – ironically the U.S. where there to provide aid, which is why they didn’t have too much in the way of firepower – a Spectre gunship had been requested to be around for the operations, but refused as it might look too military…
Appache’s probably wouldn’t have been much use, as the air was thick with a plentiful supply of RPG’s.
The mob/s had plenty of assault rifles & heavy machine guns, grenades etc, and in their drugged state were willing to advance & be mown down – there were also women with baby in one arm, gun in the other, and more skilled pro’ killers mixed in with the crowds.
Eventually the soldiers had to do what they’d never dreamed of, and fire into the crowds.
Unthinkable as it may seem from one’s comfy chair, I can’t help thinking a few Harrier passes with cluster bombs, rockets or gun would have made a big difference.
As it was the ‘little bird’ helo’s made repeated courageous strafing runs through the night.
This was a great deal more than ‘rescuing a pilot’, whole U.S. vehicle convoys were close to being wiped out…
---
On another tack, someone mentioned that as the CVF is likely to carry the Harrier GR9 ( and 2+ please in my book ) for what even now seems a rather long ‘stop-gap’ period, “ why not fit a ramp for the Harriers for now ?”.
Well why not keep the ramp ( may need to make the angle shallower ) for when the F-35 eventually turns up ?
I know, to the astonishment of myself and ex-colleagues who worked with Harriers of all flavours, it seems the F-35B did not have STO in mind originally and needs extra software & deep thought – I’d still say the ‘B’ would be the best, most flexible option, and if it suits the USMC it suits our Marines & forces too.
Everyone gets very excited about EM catapults etc, either as a new toy or the cost, but how about a ramp ? Works for the Russians…
I presume the ‘C’ u/c could take it if it can take a catapult, while it would help the ‘B’ in the now traditional way – is there a thrust / acceleration snag here ? I’d have thought not…
My two pennarth’…
DZ