No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair, it must be quite exciting to be close to a work of art like the Tu-160.
I just think it was really sweet of the Russians to descend and slow down so the F3 could keep up for the photoshoot..
I just think it was really sweet of the Russians to descend and slow down so the F3 could keep up for the photoshoot..
Last edited by Tourist; 21st Jun 2012 at 17:04.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The general light blue "Carriers are far too expensive for their benefits and we could use the money far more effectively" is a core argument that pervades PPRuNe and in fact the higher echelons of the RAF.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh ok, I'll tell you what the RN believe.
The RN believes that the Carriers are for projecting force in its various forms around the world.
We believe that the aircraft on them are for strike and for shooting down/sinking baddies.
Now I understand that the RAF has not been a supporter of shooting down baddies since WW2, but we in the RN still believe it is important to shoot someone naughty down every decade or so to justify all the cocktail parties and very expensive embarked aircraft.
The RN believes that the Carriers are for projecting force in its various forms around the world.
We believe that the aircraft on them are for strike and for shooting down/sinking baddies.
Now I understand that the RAF has not been a supporter of shooting down baddies since WW2, but we in the RN still believe it is important to shoot someone naughty down every decade or so to justify all the cocktail parties and very expensive embarked aircraft.
Last edited by Tourist; 21st Jun 2012 at 17:27.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd respectfully (and sadly) suggest that it's time for this thread to come to a natural end.
It's a free world and a free forum, so anyone can, of course, say what they like within the bounds of decency (and one would hope common courtesy) but we do seem to have fallen back into some fairly partisan and not very constructive exchanges from those who oppose the whole idea of carrier aviation, and those who support it. My thoughts, for what they are worth:
1. There's an endorsed need for two large and effective carriers - they have been a feature of the UK's defence planning since 1998 and they aren't going away. The Services now have the very big challenge of getting them into service and delivering the required capability. To quote others, 'dry your eyes and get with the plan.'
2. As an ex RN aviation professional I do sometimes find it a tad trying that members of Air Forces (who I always take care to complement on their professionalism and expertise) feel able to express a range of opinion, usually highly negative and occasionally downright hostile, on a subject they don't know very much about, namely naval aviation. I have to say that the more intelligent discussions I've had with RAF officers on the subject were with members of the SH community who have actually operated from ships. We often disagree, but at least it's an informed discussion we both learn from.
3. As an aircraft engineer and a taxpayer, I would gently point out that a Service which headed the procurement effort that resulted in the Tornado F3 is not exactly well placed to lecture anyone on the science and art of AD. The F3 cost the UK a bucketload of money, and was, for many years, quite simply ineffective as an AD aircraft outside the narrowest possible scenarios. Not the aircrews' fault in the least, but honest truth based on physics. I do, however, very much applaud the RAF's work in getting the Typhoon, which is a world class AD aircraft, into service. Eventually.
4. I would also (very gently) remind anyone of a naval persuasion posting here that the best way to make the case for naval aviation is to do just that - focus on the capability and how it is going to be managed, led and delivered from the largest warships ever built for the RN. After all, that is why the UK has bought the STOVL aircraft.
Best Regards as ever to all,
Engines
It's a free world and a free forum, so anyone can, of course, say what they like within the bounds of decency (and one would hope common courtesy) but we do seem to have fallen back into some fairly partisan and not very constructive exchanges from those who oppose the whole idea of carrier aviation, and those who support it. My thoughts, for what they are worth:
1. There's an endorsed need for two large and effective carriers - they have been a feature of the UK's defence planning since 1998 and they aren't going away. The Services now have the very big challenge of getting them into service and delivering the required capability. To quote others, 'dry your eyes and get with the plan.'
2. As an ex RN aviation professional I do sometimes find it a tad trying that members of Air Forces (who I always take care to complement on their professionalism and expertise) feel able to express a range of opinion, usually highly negative and occasionally downright hostile, on a subject they don't know very much about, namely naval aviation. I have to say that the more intelligent discussions I've had with RAF officers on the subject were with members of the SH community who have actually operated from ships. We often disagree, but at least it's an informed discussion we both learn from.
3. As an aircraft engineer and a taxpayer, I would gently point out that a Service which headed the procurement effort that resulted in the Tornado F3 is not exactly well placed to lecture anyone on the science and art of AD. The F3 cost the UK a bucketload of money, and was, for many years, quite simply ineffective as an AD aircraft outside the narrowest possible scenarios. Not the aircrews' fault in the least, but honest truth based on physics. I do, however, very much applaud the RAF's work in getting the Typhoon, which is a world class AD aircraft, into service. Eventually.
4. I would also (very gently) remind anyone of a naval persuasion posting here that the best way to make the case for naval aviation is to do just that - focus on the capability and how it is going to be managed, led and delivered from the largest warships ever built for the RN. After all, that is why the UK has bought the STOVL aircraft.
Best Regards as ever to all,
Engines
Oh ok, I'll tell you what the RN believe.
The RN believes that the Carriers are for projecting force in its various forms around the world.
We believe that the aircraft on them are for strike and for shooting down/sinking baddies.
Now I understand that the RAF has not been a supporter of shooting down baddies since WW2, but we in the RN still believe it is important to shoot someone naughty down every decade or so to justify all the cocktail parties and very expensive embarked aircraft.
The RN believes that the Carriers are for projecting force in its various forms around the world.
We believe that the aircraft on them are for strike and for shooting down/sinking baddies.
Now I understand that the RAF has not been a supporter of shooting down baddies since WW2, but we in the RN still believe it is important to shoot someone naughty down every decade or so to justify all the cocktail parties and very expensive embarked aircraft.
I'm sure the R.A.F. isn't shooting down Bad Guy averse, simply that the standard of preparedness has rendered the opportunity unnecessary since the end of the Second World War. It would have been "inappropriate", to use a modern term, for R.A.F. Interceptors to shoot down the odd Bear or Bison over the previous decades, just so's Lightning and Phantom crews could keep their hands in!
FB
Last edited by Finningley Boy; 21st Jun 2012 at 18:28.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finningley,
Honestly, I do have to chime in here. That's a fairly classic RAF response. As if the RAF had managed to avoid all that 'warry' stuff by just being so good.
Shame about all those 'other' wars since WW2 that RAF fighters weren't quite able to get to, in which the fighter pilots of our Royal Navy 'kept their hands in'. I seem to remember one just 30 years ago.
Sent in sorrow, not anger....
Engines
Honestly, I do have to chime in here. That's a fairly classic RAF response. As if the RAF had managed to avoid all that 'warry' stuff by just being so good.
Shame about all those 'other' wars since WW2 that RAF fighters weren't quite able to get to, in which the fighter pilots of our Royal Navy 'kept their hands in'. I seem to remember one just 30 years ago.
Sent in sorrow, not anger....
Engines
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to say it Engines, but you do realise that you just sank to my level.
I'm the argumentative one, your supposed to be Ppruned reasoned and reasonable debater.
This is only going to confuse people.
It'll all end in tears, mark my words..
I'm the argumentative one, your supposed to be Ppruned reasoned and reasonable debater.
This is only going to confuse people.
It'll all end in tears, mark my words..
Thread Starter
Engines - re ending the thread - I think the poor quality banter should cease, but the discussion on the merits of b/c has been interesting with some good points on various matters from e.g. Farley and others.
The points made about the capabilities of the f35 sensor suite is a good one that may change conventional thinking with regards to aew, though no doubt the crowsnest requirement is still valid.
At the end of the day it seems that the f35b has the legs of a gr4 (if that info was valid), a sensor suite up there with an f22 - with all that means for AD performance and e.g. the ability to include gucci ECCM modes - the benefits of stovl that have been well explained, and it also has the added benefit of tangible stealth. On that basis alone it stands out as being significantly better than anything we've ever had before. The fact that an f35c might do all that and go a bit further still is, as the saying goes, perhaps the 'enemy of the good'.
We do have our cv eggs in one basket, but it does seem like a pretty attractive basket that seems like to work largely as advertised. On top of that a decent chunk of all of the 1000s that will eventually be made will be made in the UK - tax revenues that will be good for the economy too.
F18, while tantalisingly available now, capable and off the shelf, actually looks quite poor in comparison IMO.
The points made about the capabilities of the f35 sensor suite is a good one that may change conventional thinking with regards to aew, though no doubt the crowsnest requirement is still valid.
At the end of the day it seems that the f35b has the legs of a gr4 (if that info was valid), a sensor suite up there with an f22 - with all that means for AD performance and e.g. the ability to include gucci ECCM modes - the benefits of stovl that have been well explained, and it also has the added benefit of tangible stealth. On that basis alone it stands out as being significantly better than anything we've ever had before. The fact that an f35c might do all that and go a bit further still is, as the saying goes, perhaps the 'enemy of the good'.
We do have our cv eggs in one basket, but it does seem like a pretty attractive basket that seems like to work largely as advertised. On top of that a decent chunk of all of the 1000s that will eventually be made will be made in the UK - tax revenues that will be good for the economy too.
F18, while tantalisingly available now, capable and off the shelf, actually looks quite poor in comparison IMO.
Last edited by JFZ90; 21st Jun 2012 at 19:14.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
Sincerely sorry, my bad. Finningley, my apologies also.
JFZ90, good points. The F-35 sensor and avionics suite is really the key, and in that respect it's aiming at a different balance. The team have deliberately sacrificed out and out air vehicle performance for range, internal weapons carriage and a comprehensive avionics fit. It's a very different aiming point from F-16 and other legacy aircraft, and will generate new CONOPs and tactics. The new crop of naval aviators will really be at the cutting edge.
Best Regards to all,
Engines
Sincerely sorry, my bad. Finningley, my apologies also.
JFZ90, good points. The F-35 sensor and avionics suite is really the key, and in that respect it's aiming at a different balance. The team have deliberately sacrificed out and out air vehicle performance for range, internal weapons carriage and a comprehensive avionics fit. It's a very different aiming point from F-16 and other legacy aircraft, and will generate new CONOPs and tactics. The new crop of naval aviators will really be at the cutting edge.
Best Regards to all,
Engines
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, must correct you there Engines:
The new crop of aviators who fly from carriers will really be at the cutting edge.
Semantics perhaps but two distinct interpretations...
The new crop of aviators who fly from carriers will really be at the cutting edge.
Semantics perhaps but two distinct interpretations...
Last edited by ICBM; 22nd Jun 2012 at 06:10.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Pipe down you lot. Getting back to "Cats and Flaps", this is how we used to do it. I would like to think that we are heading right direction to do it again. 
Navaleye
I too was excited for the RN and HMForces until the Cats 'N Traps cancellation was made. Now we're paying Waste O'Space over the odds for a pair of huge helicopter carriers with embarked fast-air of inferior performance, embarked helicopter AEW of inferior performance and an almost bankrupt bank balance that can't afford the surface fleet and MPAs (thanks again Waste O'Space!) to support these massive floating targets.
I was absolutely delighted when this Govt made the 'incorporate cats and traps' decision and thought this might be the start of resurgence for the RN back into the naval power premiership - sadly this whole debacle may see it slip further into the Vauxhall Conference League
I hope I am proved wrong over the next 10 years and that it is all the RN and HMforces have ever wished for.
BTW - One thing the F3 did prove was that you can polish one of Waste O'Space's finest turds; so call Crab Air if you want some tips in 5 years time!
LJ
I too was excited for the RN and HMForces until the Cats 'N Traps cancellation was made. Now we're paying Waste O'Space over the odds for a pair of huge helicopter carriers with embarked fast-air of inferior performance, embarked helicopter AEW of inferior performance and an almost bankrupt bank balance that can't afford the surface fleet and MPAs (thanks again Waste O'Space!) to support these massive floating targets.
I was absolutely delighted when this Govt made the 'incorporate cats and traps' decision and thought this might be the start of resurgence for the RN back into the naval power premiership - sadly this whole debacle may see it slip further into the Vauxhall Conference League
I hope I am proved wrong over the next 10 years and that it is all the RN and HMforces have ever wished for.
BTW - One thing the F3 did prove was that you can polish one of Waste O'Space's finest turds; so call Crab Air if you want some tips in 5 years time!
LJ
Suspicion breeds confidence
Leon,
I have some sympathy for your view and was equally pleased when the announcement was made. This was offset by the lunacy of only fitting out one carrier and throwing all that investment in the bin. Even with the B, these will still be potent ships. Twice the size and capability of Hermes, bigger than Ark (IV) and Eagle. The UK has always been an innovator in naval aviation and I have no doubt that that will continue with the QEC.
What is shameful that we could have had two sqns of Harriers flying off it during it during work up while we wait for the F35.
I have some sympathy for your view and was equally pleased when the announcement was made. This was offset by the lunacy of only fitting out one carrier and throwing all that investment in the bin. Even with the B, these will still be potent ships. Twice the size and capability of Hermes, bigger than Ark (IV) and Eagle. The UK has always been an innovator in naval aviation and I have no doubt that that will continue with the QEC.
What is shameful that we could have had two sqns of Harriers flying off it during it during work up while we wait for the F35.
Sorry, must correct you there ICBM,
They will be Naval Aviators who fly from the carriers of whatever cloth. To be just 'aviators' will not be enough and will not achieve the level of OC required to get the taxpayer its money’s worth!
This is the next challenge! To get through to the skulls of those of a certain persuasion, that you cannot do Maritime Aviation, part time. It will not work. Whoever flies off these platforms will need to spend a significant amount of time onboard and I will tell you why:
It will not be about just making a few visual approaches to the deck and then disembarking to the nearest hotel.
The first stage, will be familiarity with the deck.
The next, the whole procedure for preparing for departure on a crowded platform, including operating with rotary platforms and other jets, all within metres of yours, requiring strict adherence to procedures. (with a worked up ship's crew)
Then there will be practicing the launch, not in the benign environment of a dummy deck but on a slightly slick, pitching and rolling deck, with different weapon and fuel loads and different wind speeds.
Once airborne, there will be the whole issue of flying circuits to a moving airfield, where the runway often changes direction, sometimes without warning.
Visual approaches
Radar assisted approaches
Precision approaches
Practice missed approaches and short pattern circuits
Landing on a slightly slick, pitching and rolling deck, RVL and VL.
Parking the aircraft as directed, then off to the debrief.
Learning where things are on the ship...Survival Equipment, Engineering..Flight planning...Operations..plus all the domestic stuff like the laundry..Aircrew feeder etc.
Then get up and do it all again and again, then:
Do it again without the benefit of a diversion whilst mid Atlantic.
Then do it all again with weapons. Fly to an objective, carry out the task and then...once you have finally found the ship, land on it with marginal fuel and high landing weight, onto a slick, pitching and rolling deck without the benefit of a diversion.
Do it again and again until both you and the ship are operationally capable of operating anywhere in the world. By that time, it will probably be time to move to your next job.
You cannot do maritime Aviation part time. It you try to do so, you will fail in your task and at worst, someone will die from an accident.
Things that can go wrong:
Run out of fuel trying to find the ship.
Run out of fuel flying to a contact you thought was the ship
Land and then slide of the deck
Take off..engine failure and then ditch.
Nearly Fly into a rock/cliff/island that you did not realise was there
Pop out of cloud at 180 or so feet and not be able to see the ship. Be told ‘look right 1 mile’ and have to hover the distance to land on...without diversion.
Operate in a restricted environment such as a fjord with 3000' cliffs all around
Operate from a frozen deck in arctic waters
Operate from a deck of 50 degrees heat with heavy fuel and weapon load.
Operate from a deck in 70 kt winds, reduced to 40 kts by the ship steaming downwind with an aft facing landing
I could go on...all the above are actual events that have happened. All of the events were not fatal due to a combination of luck, skill of 'maritime aviators' and teamwork between the ship and pilot. This is just a taste of the hazards. Yes you get these ashore as well but, the marine environment is different in that you could be flying off Scotland one night, then wake up and find you are in unfamiliar Norwegian waters the next, without the time to acclimatise to the local weather or geography. It is an unforgiving place and to operate successfully, the whole capability, F35, Ship, deck handlers, Ops, ATC, warfare, Engineering, Weapon supply, etc all have to be at the top of their game. Then and only then will there be time to pop off to somewhere hot to conduct a bit of Defence Diplomacy.
They will be Naval Aviators who fly from the carriers of whatever cloth. To be just 'aviators' will not be enough and will not achieve the level of OC required to get the taxpayer its money’s worth!
This is the next challenge! To get through to the skulls of those of a certain persuasion, that you cannot do Maritime Aviation, part time. It will not work. Whoever flies off these platforms will need to spend a significant amount of time onboard and I will tell you why:
It will not be about just making a few visual approaches to the deck and then disembarking to the nearest hotel.
The first stage, will be familiarity with the deck.
The next, the whole procedure for preparing for departure on a crowded platform, including operating with rotary platforms and other jets, all within metres of yours, requiring strict adherence to procedures. (with a worked up ship's crew)
Then there will be practicing the launch, not in the benign environment of a dummy deck but on a slightly slick, pitching and rolling deck, with different weapon and fuel loads and different wind speeds.
Once airborne, there will be the whole issue of flying circuits to a moving airfield, where the runway often changes direction, sometimes without warning.
Visual approaches
Radar assisted approaches
Precision approaches
Practice missed approaches and short pattern circuits
Landing on a slightly slick, pitching and rolling deck, RVL and VL.
Parking the aircraft as directed, then off to the debrief.
Learning where things are on the ship...Survival Equipment, Engineering..Flight planning...Operations..plus all the domestic stuff like the laundry..Aircrew feeder etc.
Then get up and do it all again and again, then:
Do it again without the benefit of a diversion whilst mid Atlantic.
Then do it all again with weapons. Fly to an objective, carry out the task and then...once you have finally found the ship, land on it with marginal fuel and high landing weight, onto a slick, pitching and rolling deck without the benefit of a diversion.
Do it again and again until both you and the ship are operationally capable of operating anywhere in the world. By that time, it will probably be time to move to your next job.
You cannot do maritime Aviation part time. It you try to do so, you will fail in your task and at worst, someone will die from an accident.
Things that can go wrong:
Run out of fuel trying to find the ship.
Run out of fuel flying to a contact you thought was the ship
Land and then slide of the deck
Take off..engine failure and then ditch.
Nearly Fly into a rock/cliff/island that you did not realise was there
Pop out of cloud at 180 or so feet and not be able to see the ship. Be told ‘look right 1 mile’ and have to hover the distance to land on...without diversion.
Operate in a restricted environment such as a fjord with 3000' cliffs all around
Operate from a frozen deck in arctic waters
Operate from a deck of 50 degrees heat with heavy fuel and weapon load.
Operate from a deck in 70 kt winds, reduced to 40 kts by the ship steaming downwind with an aft facing landing
I could go on...all the above are actual events that have happened. All of the events were not fatal due to a combination of luck, skill of 'maritime aviators' and teamwork between the ship and pilot. This is just a taste of the hazards. Yes you get these ashore as well but, the marine environment is different in that you could be flying off Scotland one night, then wake up and find you are in unfamiliar Norwegian waters the next, without the time to acclimatise to the local weather or geography. It is an unforgiving place and to operate successfully, the whole capability, F35, Ship, deck handlers, Ops, ATC, warfare, Engineering, Weapon supply, etc all have to be at the top of their game. Then and only then will there be time to pop off to somewhere hot to conduct a bit of Defence Diplomacy.
Last edited by Widger; 22nd Jun 2012 at 11:19.
with some VERY salient points indeed.Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was it in November 2010 on HMS Ark Royal?
And (from the internet) it was in 2007 when 14 USMC AV8Bs embarked on Illustrious.
IIRC, the USN's last single engined FW to embarked would have been the A-7, retired in 1991.
And (from the internet) it was in 2007 when 14 USMC AV8Bs embarked on Illustrious.
IIRC, the USN's last single engined FW to embarked would have been the A-7, retired in 1991.
Last edited by Finnpog; 22nd Jun 2012 at 16:18.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect, the RN & FAA do like to bang on and self-promote about how naval aviation requires a lifetime of dedication. We all have our pet loves. Out of curiosity then, was there a significant increase in incidents/accidents whenever the RAF embarked their Harriers? To my knowledge, there wasn't - whether you talk about the GR3s in the Falklands, or the GR7s and 9s later. It would seem that if you put the emotions to one side, the numerical facts and figures are that you can actually do naval aviation part-time. As a die-hard land-lubber, I've done 9 months aboard carriers and couldn't see what all the fuss is about.
If you like, take a look at the USMC. Whenever they're due to do a boat det they do a couple of weeks of workups, read all the old manuals & briefs, and go off on a 6 month cruise, come back and forget all about it until the next time they need to deploy. So if both the RAF and the USMC have managed to do part-time naval aviation with the legacy aircraft, isn't it reasonable to assume that it might be even easier with a more advanced replacement? Just asking.
If you like, take a look at the USMC. Whenever they're due to do a boat det they do a couple of weeks of workups, read all the old manuals & briefs, and go off on a 6 month cruise, come back and forget all about it until the next time they need to deploy. So if both the RAF and the USMC have managed to do part-time naval aviation with the legacy aircraft, isn't it reasonable to assume that it might be even easier with a more advanced replacement? Just asking.