Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

HMS Queen Elizabeth to exercise with a full deck

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

HMS Queen Elizabeth to exercise with a full deck

Old 7th Oct 2020, 15:50
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 756
Received 507 Likes on 183 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
9 ships (and probably an SSN as well) for 15 aircraft.....................
A depressingly typical spotter comment from A56. The aircraft (fixed wing & rotary) are there to support the mission of the task group, not the other way round.
Video Mixdown is online now  
Old 7th Oct 2020, 17:38
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,257
Received 126 Likes on 82 Posts
Historically speaking one can say that the corporate RN view is that aircraft, fixed wing and rotary, are additional weapons and sensors contributing to a task group's fighting ability. Each vessel is a platform with weapons systems fulfiling a specialist role in the TG. Even in the days of sail there were ships with specific roles e.g. frigates and bomb ketches. The carriers are multi-role platforms which can be fitted with different weapons (and balance thereof) to suit their principal current role. Currently a preponderance of fixed wing over rotary on HMSQNLZ but it could be the other way round if she was operating in a 'Commando Carrier' role in which case the ships comprising the TG would probably differ too.

As this is an aviation forum perhaps a tendancy to see the FJs as the primary weapon platform is understandable. For a landbased airforce everything is naturally centred on the aircraft.

I trust that in these purple days that aircrew and 'those who support the flying and maintain the equipment' are trained to cope well with swapping between these two paradigms.

Just my views of course.

Last edited by SLXOwft; 7th Oct 2020 at 17:55. Reason: fat finger
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 09:09
  #83 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,459
Received 2,594 Likes on 1,098 Posts
Not anti carrier, but come on, 15 jets. So how many does it take to form an effective CAP to protect the fleet, one assumes you need spares on standby on deck to take over when fuel is low etc. Plus say a couple on maintenance... It does not leave much of those 15 jets to be effective. say two in the air on CAP, two on the deck as back up replacements, 2 on maintenance, your down to 9.
BTW just guesstimate figures.

Wasn't the Illustrious a bit of a self licking lollipop, it carried enough SHAR's to protect itself, so the reason the carrier was there was effectively to provide protection for itself?
NutLoose is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 10:07
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 513
Received 156 Likes on 83 Posts
Originally Posted by NutLoose
Not anti carrier, but come on, 15 jets. So how many does it take to form an effective CAP to protect the fleet, one assumes you need spares on standby on deck to take over when fuel is low etc. Plus say a couple on maintenance... It does not leave much of those 15 jets to be effective. say two in the air on CAP, two on the deck as back up replacements, 2 on maintenance, your down to 9.
BTW just guesstimate figures.


Wasn't the Illustrious a bit of a self licking lollipop, it carried enough SHAR's to protect itself, so the reason the carrier was there was effectively to provide protection for itself?
Yet strangely, dets of 4-6 aircraft on BALTAP or Shader are somehow seen as perfectly acceptable. How strange.

The fleet does not exist solely to protect the carrier, in the same way that the carrier does not exist solely to protect the fleet. The entity as a whole provides both offensive and defensive capabilities over land and sea and under the water. The fleet can deny use of the sea and littoral land areas (and airspace above it) for the oppo and enable use of the sea for us and allies.

Given that Illustrious was never designed to be a proper aircraft carrier, rather an ASW helicopter carrier that was able to add a few jets, you may begin to discern the reason behind the much bigger QEC. The currently embarked 15 jets could be more than doubled if necessary (albeit subject to the current build-up of of the UK Lightning force which is a strictly temporary effect), something which you couldn't do with the old CVS because she was too small to be a carrier. The huge increase in deck area on QEC also means you can launch and recover more aircraft as a package, hold more aircraft at alert and do it all more efficiently. That ship can operate 30+ jets, plus rotary without breaking sweat and can move around the globe with all supporting people, spares etc, without needing to ask permission.

It's almost as if someone had thought this through.......
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 10:39
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 819
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by NutLoose
...Wasn't the Illustrious a bit of a self licking lollipop, it carried enough SHAR's to protect itself, so the reason the carrier was there was effectively to provide protection for itself?
Why so much bitterness? Ask the sailors, soldiers and airmen deployed to the Falklands in 1982 whether they regarded INVINCIBLE, the SHAR-equipped sister ship of ILLUSTRIOUS, as a "self-licking lollipop". ILLUSTRIOUS relieved her on station:

HMS Illustrious (R06)

...The war was won before Illustrious could be finished, but she did perform a useful service in the aftermath. Until the RAF airfield on the Falkland Islands was repaired, air defence of the area was the responsibility of the Fleet Air Arm. After Hermes returned to the UK, Invincible remained on station in the South Atlantic until September 1982. To relieve Invincible, the newly completed Illustrious was rapidly deployed, with 809 Naval Air Squadron (Sea Harrier) and 814 Naval Air Squadron (Sea King) embarked. Additionally, a pair of Sea Kings from 824 Naval Air Squadron were attached to the air group, which had been converted to operate in the AEW role. So rapidly was Illustrious deployed that she was commissioned while at sea. Rear Admiral Derek Reffell, Flag Officer, Third Flotilla, commanded the relief task group from Illustrious during this period. After the RAF airfield was repaired, Illustrious returned to the UK for a full shakedown cruise and workup period, and was formally commissioned on 20 March 1983...


Sea Harrier, the forgotten hero that won the war in the Falklands.

...The Navy’s SHARs went on to score 20 kills (none of which was achieved using the famous trick of stopping the plane midair by pointing the jet nozzles slightly forward inducing a 2g deceleration) to no loss in air-to-air combat. However, two were lost to ground fire (radar guided 30mm AA and a Roland missile) and a further two were lost to accidents during the conflict. The kill-to-loss ratio does not reflect the skill and braveness of the Argentinean pilots who had to face a truly astonishing fighter, which had remarkable slow flight characteristics, even without the thrust vectoring, and a superior radar...
FODPlod is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 10:45
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,808
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
ASW was the primary role of the Invincible class, and the reason they carried Sea Harriers to deal with Bears that would have performed a dual role of reece and guidance for Soviet submarine launched missiles.

This is a dated diagram, but still worth considering. Within the area protected by the fighters you have your ASW ships and helicopters, amphibious forces or shipping being escorted, possibly mine warfare forces.Often a carrier will be generating sorties in defence of the task group and other high value assets - which for some reason many commentators seem to forget.




ASW is still a carrier role - the Pingers use dipping sonar in conjunction with towed array equipped frigates.
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 10:52
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,254
Received 329 Likes on 194 Posts
"https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/10/07/russia-reports-successful-test-launch-of-hypersonic-missile/

MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday hailed the successful test launch of a new Zircon hypersonic cruise missile as a “big event” for the country. Speaking to Putin via a video call, Russian General Staff chief Valery Gerasimov said the test launch took place Tuesday from the Admiral Groshkov frigate located in the White Sea, in the north of Russia. President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that Russia has got a strong edge in designing new weapons and that it has become the only country in the world to deploy hypersonic weapons.

The missile successfully hit a target in the Barents Sea, he added. “Equipping our armed forces — the army and the navy — with the latest, truly unparalleled weapon systems will certainly ensure the defense capability of our country in the long term,” said Putin, In 2019, Putin had said the Zircon would be capable of flying at nine times the speed of sound and have a range of 1,000 kilometers (620 miles).


Asturias56 is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 11:06
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 819
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fash ye not. At least our easily-plotted static land bases are safe from sharks with frickin' laser beams!
FODPlod is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 12:05
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,257
Received 126 Likes on 82 Posts
Not just the UK and US governments that recycle "good news" stories then. TASS reported a successful launch of a Tsirkon (aka SS-N-33, 3M22, and Zircon) from the Admiral Gorshkov on 27 February. https://tass.com/defense/1124339"

In accordance with the program of the Tsirkon’s state trials, the Admiral Gorshkov test-launched this missile from the Barents Sea against a ground target at one of military testing ranges of the Northern Urals in early January," one of the sources said.
The other source confirmed this information, noting that "the range of the Tsirkon’s flight exceeded 500 km."
The source also informed that the test-launches of the Tsirkon hypersonic missile from seaborne delivery vehicles would be continued in 2020. "After the program of test-launches from the board of the Admiral Gorshkov is over, these missiles will be test-fired from nuclear-powered submarines," the source commented
.

Full name of the ship is Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov - I may be reading too much into the SU reference. Sad to see the great man downgraded from a CV to an FF but as Sergei Georgyevich is reputed to have said "'Better' is the enemy of 'Good Enough'".

Apparently the prototypes were air launched from Tu22s -
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 12:22
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 513
Received 156 Likes on 83 Posts
What's that you say? Ground target? Fixed & easily locatable? Like an airfield - or more precisely the easily identifiable POL, munitions and ops complexes of an airfield?

How terribly vulnerable. What a waste of money. Scrap them forthwith.
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2020, 12:45
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 819
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
What's that you say? Ground target? Fixed & easily locatable? Like an airfield - or more precisely the easily identifiable POL, munitions and ops complexes of an airfield?

How terribly vulnerable. What a waste of money. Scrap them forthwith.
But that implies launching covertly from a distant submarine, or a surface platform, or an aircraft beyond usual land-based AD range. Oh, hang on...
FODPlod is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.