Select committe Carriers
FOD,
You seem to have taken half a page to repeat what I said in about 5 lines....not related to Ms Hodge are you?
You seem to have taken half a page to repeat what I said in about 5 lines....not related to Ms Hodge are you?
(Plus I didn't see your post before submitting mine
)
Just watching the video. Interesting to note that, whilst the mind boggles at the blind stupidity of some of the questions, on the "4 rails vs 2 rails" issue, the admiral does not, to be fair to the civvys involved, explain exactly what a "rail" is. Whilst to 99% of the people on this forum it is entirely clear, let's be aware that most of the people on the other side of the desk barely understand what a carrier looks like, so he could have saved himself a little arguing (particularly from "blondie") if he'd explained with slightly greater clarity earlier the fact that having 4 cats rather than 2 doesn't mean differences in the individual cats!
Just watching the video. Interesting to note that, whilst the mind boggles at the blind stupidity of some of the questions, on the "4 rails vs 2 rails" issue, the admiral does not, to be fair to the civvys involved, explain exactly what a "rail" is. Whilst to 99% of the people on this forum it is entirely clear, let's be aware that most of the people on the other side of the desk barely understand what a carrier looks like, so he could have saved himself a little arguing (particularly from "blondie") if he'd explained with slightly greater clarity earlier the fact that having 4 cats rather than 2 doesn't mean differences in the individual cats!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With President Barack Hussein Obama, perhaps your chaps should get the downgraded export software as well?
He's also a security risk. But two wrongs don't make a right.
...
Is this British aircraft carrier -- I assume it's the second one -- going to have an angled deck extension?
And the first hull -- the Q. Elizabeth -- is still going to be scrapped or sold, if possible?
He's also a security risk. But two wrongs don't make a right.
...
Is this British aircraft carrier -- I assume it's the second one -- going to have an angled deck extension?
And the first hull -- the Q. Elizabeth -- is still going to be scrapped or sold, if possible?
Elmo,
Quite a few question regarding the British carrier and how we will conduct ops with the equipment we can afford. Blue-water ops may prove to be too risky for the UK with no friendly tanker above the carrier to cater for pilots who miss the wire a little too often or when the carrier cannot receive aircraft for whatever reason.
I understand that the HM Treasury is not keen on providing even more funds funds for a suitable carrier-capable AAR tanker either!
Quite a few question regarding the British carrier and how we will conduct ops with the equipment we can afford. Blue-water ops may prove to be too risky for the UK with no friendly tanker above the carrier to cater for pilots who miss the wire a little too often or when the carrier cannot receive aircraft for whatever reason.
I understand that the HM Treasury is not keen on providing even more funds funds for a suitable carrier-capable AAR tanker either!
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
Elmo,
Quite a few question regarding the British carrier and how we will conduct ops with the equipment we can afford. Blue-water ops may prove to be too risky for the UK with no friendly tanker above the carrier to cater for pilots who miss the wire a little too often or when the carrier cannot receive aircraft for whatever reason.
I understand that the HM Treasury is not keen on providing even more funds funds for a suitable carrier-capable AAR tanker either!
Quite a few question regarding the British carrier and how we will conduct ops with the equipment we can afford. Blue-water ops may prove to be too risky for the UK with no friendly tanker above the carrier to cater for pilots who miss the wire a little too often or when the carrier cannot receive aircraft for whatever reason.
I understand that the HM Treasury is not keen on providing even more funds funds for a suitable carrier-capable AAR tanker either!
I take your point FODPlod, but there is quite a shift in risk from operating a VSTOL or RW aircraft that could find a different spot (although I accept your comments regarding single spot frigates) to trapping a FJ with no other options save Martin Baker.
If we need to do it then we need to do it properly and get an AAR capable aircraft into the mix.
Or give up.
If we need to do it then we need to do it properly and get an AAR capable aircraft into the mix.
Or give up.
Are witnesses permitted to advise the chairman to 'calm down'?
What a rude bullying woman - and some go on about Thatcher
p.s. Mrs Bas advises that Cameron roughed her at PMQs
Here it is at 23:18.
She seemed to be slightly economical with the actualité.
What a rude bullying woman - and some go on about Thatcher
p.s. Mrs Bas advises that Cameron roughed her at PMQs
Here it is at 23:18.
She seemed to be slightly economical with the actualité.
Last edited by Basil; 18th Jul 2011 at 11:32.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that the HM Treasury is not keen on providing even more funds funds for a suitable carrier-capable AAR tanker either
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must admit the terminology of Rails, is a new one to me, never heard it before!! .After serving on two strike carriers for a term of 2years on each one.
We called them Port and Starboard Cat, and on the Massive!! Port/Starboard/Waist, Cat
We called them Port and Starboard Cat, and on the Massive!! Port/Starboard/Waist, Cat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Rails" because the basic technology is the same as that of a railgun, though at different speeds / loads https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Railgun
truth is though that with proper development the technology would to an extent eliminate the need for carriers: if a railgun can accurately throw a solid warhead 3-400 miles at MACH 10 (as has been suggested) then the range of targets needing carriers drops. However that capability is years away yet - if ever. Materials science needs to catch up first
truth is though that with proper development the technology would to an extent eliminate the need for carriers: if a railgun can accurately throw a solid warhead 3-400 miles at MACH 10 (as has been suggested) then the range of targets needing carriers drops. However that capability is years away yet - if ever. Materials science needs to catch up first
Bismark,
To flesh out your numbers:
2 aircraft AAR capable - at least 1 airborne, 1 ready on deck
Embarked 2 + 1 extended readiness + 1 spare/trg ac = 4 ac flt
Double flt the requirement for Harmony, UK training, roulement etc = 8
To provide 8 ac with minor recs etc = 11 aircraft Sqn
Virtual OCU commitment to augment US Navy trg or provide limited UK OCU = 2
Total fleet strength = 13 ac
For fleet / depth / fatigue / attrition management over 25 years=
11 (don't count 'virtual' ac) x 2.3 ac (pretty low multiple) = 25.3 aircraft
MoD will round down 25.3 to 24 'at risk' so just 24 aircraft and support required. Perhaps we could gamble this down to just 20 aircraft and trust to luck. Still a fair pile of money and the loss of 3 gusting 4 slots from the carrier plus a unique set of spares and engineering effort.
Or use the F35 in the buddy-buddy role, save the unique fleet, OCU, spares, support authority and have the worlds most expensive tanker flying circles.
It's not going to be cheap either way, so I guess we could park the carrier near a suitable diversion... or perhaps embark the aircraft at the 'div' in the first place.
To flesh out your numbers:
2 aircraft AAR capable - at least 1 airborne, 1 ready on deck
Embarked 2 + 1 extended readiness + 1 spare/trg ac = 4 ac flt
Double flt the requirement for Harmony, UK training, roulement etc = 8
To provide 8 ac with minor recs etc = 11 aircraft Sqn
Virtual OCU commitment to augment US Navy trg or provide limited UK OCU = 2
Total fleet strength = 13 ac
For fleet / depth / fatigue / attrition management over 25 years=
11 (don't count 'virtual' ac) x 2.3 ac (pretty low multiple) = 25.3 aircraft
MoD will round down 25.3 to 24 'at risk' so just 24 aircraft and support required. Perhaps we could gamble this down to just 20 aircraft and trust to luck. Still a fair pile of money and the loss of 3 gusting 4 slots from the carrier plus a unique set of spares and engineering effort.
Or use the F35 in the buddy-buddy role, save the unique fleet, OCU, spares, support authority and have the worlds most expensive tanker flying circles.
It's not going to be cheap either way, so I guess we could park the carrier near a suitable diversion... or perhaps embark the aircraft at the 'div' in the first place.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTO,
I can only assume you are from the RAF to come up with those numbers. Take out the trainers - do it with the USN. As it is a lease arrangement the USN could hold the risk on spares etc. So max 4 a/c should do it! Perhaps even pay-by-the-hour?
James,
She is also Lady Hodges (hubby is a Sir).
I can only assume you are from the RAF to come up with those numbers. Take out the trainers - do it with the USN. As it is a lease arrangement the USN could hold the risk on spares etc. So max 4 a/c should do it! Perhaps even pay-by-the-hour?
James,
She is also Lady Hodges (hubby is a Sir).
Bismark, your presumption on my background. I guess by your fantasy maths you have no idea about comparing aircraft ready to launch/airborne vs ready at 1st line vs 2nd line vs depth vs sustainment fleet.
Feel free to look-up any FJ FE@R ratio vs sustainment fleet you see fit. Go on, find the highest FE@R ratio from any FJ fleet in the world, take off another 20% for 'a hat full of miracles' and see what number you come up with. It doesn't matter if you badge all bar the last 4 ac as US Navy, they still have to be paid for and maintained!
That said, if you find us a way to get the US Navy to pay for everything then I am sure the treasury will offer you a job.
Feel free to look-up any FJ FE@R ratio vs sustainment fleet you see fit. Go on, find the highest FE@R ratio from any FJ fleet in the world, take off another 20% for 'a hat full of miracles' and see what number you come up with. It doesn't matter if you badge all bar the last 4 ac as US Navy, they still have to be paid for and maintained!
That said, if you find us a way to get the US Navy to pay for everything then I am sure the treasury will offer you a job.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark , hope you never reach the dizzy heights of an AEO on a Flat Top, you would be in for a rude awakening. 
A Squadron of 12 aircraft you would be lucky to get 6 serviceable at any one time..... unless you hold the magic pen, for the part 2 of the A7OO
A Squadron of 12 aircraft you would be lucky to get 6 serviceable at any one time..... unless you hold the magic pen, for the part 2 of the A7OO
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or use the F35 in the buddy-buddy role, save the unique fleet, OCU, spares, support authority and have the worlds most expensive tanker flying circles.
F-18's have no hardware modifications to do buddy tanking. The choice is between n-many dedicated carrier-based aar refueling aircraft, or n more buddy tanking fast jets available for other tasks when the refueling kit isn't carried. The US Navy has made the latter choice.
At longer ranger from the mothership, US Navy aircraft will be relying on land based aar tankers as well as AWACS aircraft, signals-gathering aircraft, P-8 antisubmarine patrol aircraft and so on. The carrier based E-2 Hawkeye aircraft are best for supporting combat air patrols around the task force.
Without big public fanfare, the US Navy has made a decision -- maybe an unintentional, tacit decision --to stop trying to do as much as its aviation as possible from aircraft carriers, or to operate several different types of specialized fixed wing carrier aircraft.
The big P-8 buy -- 117 or 127 of 'em? -- is part of that.
F-18's have no hardware modifications to do buddy tanking. The choice is between n-many dedicated carrier-based aar refueling aircraft, or n more buddy tanking fast jets available for other tasks when the refueling kit isn't carried. The US Navy has made the latter choice.
At longer ranger from the mothership, US Navy aircraft will be relying on land based aar tankers as well as AWACS aircraft, signals-gathering aircraft, P-8 antisubmarine patrol aircraft and so on. The carrier based E-2 Hawkeye aircraft are best for supporting combat air patrols around the task force.
Without big public fanfare, the US Navy has made a decision -- maybe an unintentional, tacit decision --to stop trying to do as much as its aviation as possible from aircraft carriers, or to operate several different types of specialized fixed wing carrier aircraft.
The big P-8 buy -- 117 or 127 of 'em? -- is part of that.
Last edited by Modern Elmo; 18th Jul 2011 at 02:56.
Elmo, I find myself agreeing with everything you say. The UK has a lot to learn from the US Navy as it transitions to the next generation of capabilities. The only problem is that our parsimonious government has decided that we are not worthy of any more cash yet 'spends' our existing capabilities like there is no tomorrow - which is pretty much what the last lot did with the rest of the economy.
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
I take your point FODPlod, but there is quite a shift in risk from operating a VSTOL or RW aircraft that could find a different spot (although I accept your comments regarding single spot frigates) to trapping a FJ with no other options save Martin Baker.
If we need to do it then we need to do it properly and get an AAR capable aircraft into the mix.
Or give up.