|
Thanks for the video 'MSOCS'. I can see the RN FAA ethos is in trouble. Here is the quote from the aforementioned article above.
‘How Carrier operations Work’ no date c.2013, Steve George BSc MSc CEng FRAeS Cdr RN “...The Airfield and the Aircraft Carrier Compared... ...Aircraft carriers have to contain all these facilities onboard, and so it is often assumed that they are enormous objects. Indeed, the term ‘floating airfield’ is often used to describe them, and this is understandable. With their apparently huge flight decks, towering structures and complex fittings and equipment sprouting from their sides, they can resemble the vast ‘starships’ of science fiction. Most people, if asked to compare an aircraft carrier with an airfield, would say that they are about the same size. However, this is not the case.... ...The airfield completely and massively dwarfs the ship. The aircraft carrier would fit comfortably on to one of the aircraft parking areas. And yet this ship is capable of taking and operating around 70 aircraft. Nearly twice as many aircraft are based in a fraction of the space along with fuel, weapons, people, hangars, workshops and communications systems and are still operated effectively and safely. Clearly, simply ‘downsizing’ or compressing land-based operations cannot do this. The solution is a totally different way of operating very different combat aircraft – and these differences, which lead to a totally different ‘ethos’, lie at the heart of naval aviation. The key difference is the depth of integration between the aircraft and its base. An airfield is an essentially passive supporter of the aircraft – stores, fuel and weapons are delivered to various separated areas to support missions, and the very long runways offer no more than a hard smooth surface to run along on. On board a carrier, the operation of aircraft has to be actively merged with the operation of the ship and its specialist systems, with the result that the aircraft completely depend on the ship to deliver combat capability. This is the central feature of naval aviation, and it leads to a different ‘world’, in which most of the basic tenets and assumptions of land based operation have to be discarded and replaced with different equipment and ways of operating. The most obvious element of this ‘world’ is the necessity to replace conventional take off and landing methods with completely different ways of launching and recovering aircraft using catapults and arresting gear – often described as ‘cat and trap’, or by the less elegant acronym CATOBAR (CATapult Operation Barrier [BUT?] Arrested Recovery). As will become clear, these techniques are complemented by a less obvious, but no less vital, culture of ‘naval aviation’ that successfully delivers combat power effectively, reliably, sustainably and safely. This culture drives the organisation & processes of the Royal Navy’s (RN’s) Fleet Air Arm (FAA)....” http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012...erations-work/ OR http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/wp-c...fcaropsPTT.pdf |
1 Attachment(s)
A more recent GEORGE quote specifically about STOVL (but for ADF) Ops & this LONG article is available online (PHEW) so just a small part is excerpted below. Meanwhile a long article from an RN Wig of Big Admiral Sir John Woodward GBE KCB 'bout difference between FAA & crab ops: http://www.publications.parliament.u...61/761vw39.htm
Making the STOVL F-35B Work for the ADF Steve George, Feb 2015 Defence Technology Review "Integrating Aircraft and Ships It’s best to start by understanding that putting military aircraft on ships has never been easy. Warships, even the massive US Navy (USN) nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, are not and never will be just ‘floating airfields’ – the raw constraints of physical space have driven naval aviators to develop new ways of launching, recovering, arming, maintaining and repairing aircraft since the earliest days. But they have consistently succeeded. Effective, safe and sustainable embarked air power has been demonstrated from a wide variety of ship/aircraft combinations over the past 100 years. Maritime fixed-wing aviation is an achievable art – and STOVL makes it even more achievable. Successful maritime aviation depends on a little known discipline called ‘ship/aircraft integration’. This is a systems engineering challenge, requiring thorough understanding and control of the various interfaces between the ship and the aircraft...." Defence Technology Review : DTR FEB 2015, Page 1 |
Originally Posted by MSOCS
(Post 9859631)
HMS Queen Elizabeth Takes To The Seas
"She's a mobile, four and a half acre AIRFIELD...." 0:35 Which is exactly what she is. "She isn't just a ship" by any means...far from it. QEC will project AIR POWER from the sea for decades to come. However, if you wish to promote her bite, please remember that her teeth are the embarked air and RM assets. The ship's raison d'être is to get the embarked "teeth" arms where they need to be to achieve the broader mission. It isn't a Dreadnought. It's a mobile, four and a half acre AIRFIELD, as the good Cdre clearly states. "This is a very flexible sea base. To see her as just a ship, perhaps, is a bit simplistic. She's [also] a mobile four-and-a-half acre airfield able to do a whole range of operations from her. So I think what this means for UK defence is she'll be deployed around the world, she'll be a very flexible asset and she'll host a whole bunch of capabilities from all three services into the future. Very exciting times ahead." So he regards QNLZ primarily as a ship. He doesn't seem to be conceding that she is just a "floating airfield" nor, indeed, "just a ship". She'll be equally capable of performing defence diplomatic missions, such as disaster relief or conducting goodwill visits, as launching a strike package against an inland target.I think we'll have to agree to disagree. From your caustic remarks about the conduct of air operations from a CVS, am I safe in assuming that you did not take comfortably to being embarked under the white ensign? ;) |
Deskwizard - thanks - tho' it looks like a minor fine or Caution coming rather than hang,drawing & quartering........................
|
Originally Posted by MSOCS
(Post 9857635)
WEBF,
I'm sorry but ultimately a carrier is a floating airfield, but with more complication than a land-based airfield. Cdre Jerry Kyd has even said so himself, on the record, and he's skipper of QNLZ. Other than the Ship being on DFC, ostensibly assuring that recoveries are "into wind" and maximise WOD to reduce relative speed over the deck on landing, all the other things you list are just as applicable to an airfield. You can squinny all you want about my point of view, but I've plenty of experience flying from land and carriers. Bottom line: the carrier is a floating airfield and has all the departments and procedures required to make it an effective one. They are slightly modified to land-based, but that's only to achieve a safe launch and recovery. The point is a carrier has all the functions and faculties of an airfield packed into a small physical space, and then some more, making integration critical. Most of the things need to make flying possible and safe are provided by the ship, not the embarked squadrons. On the old Harrier Decision and other threads (like this one from 2006), it was clear that some (RAF I assume) types thought that carrier flying had no perishable skills as "we turn up to the ship and fly.....". To use the things I stated for an aircraft recovery... Ship on right course/speed - OOW/bridge watchkeepers/Navigator/Marine Engineers Clear deck - Chockheads, also a whole ship need to avoid FOD Radar - Warfare branch operators and Weapon Engineering maintainers Radio Communications - WE(CIS) (communicators) and WE maintainers Visual aids - WE maintainers Therefore it can be helpful to consider a carrier operating aircraft as a warship operating her weapon system - her aircraft.
Originally Posted by MSOCS
(Post 9859453)
Warship? You believe the Carrier is the same sort of warship as an FFDD?! Cdre Kyd has himself stated that the carrier "is a floating airfield", so he (I presume) is also of "my ilk". Seriously, the floating airfield requires defending - not like many land-based airfields sure, but FOBs require defences of a different nature - but ultimately the weapon system on a carrier are the organic assets that take off and land on it. A couple of CIWS and .50 cals does not make the carrier the same "ilk" of warship as an FFDD. Not by a long stretch, yet the fundamentals of fire and flood control, manoeuvres and air C2 endure.
Stop deluding yourselves - the Captain of HMS Queen Elizabeth hath said so from his very mouth and he knows better than you! Oh, and ref your elitist point about land-based AFCO successfully carrying out the timing, i've personally witnessed absolute carnage at sea when I flew Harriers from CVS's....at one stage we were invited to conduct Case 3 approaches and join the "cake stand", only to have to point out to the sea-based ATCO that the cake stand at that time was in a mountain. The ship was too close to land and pointing the wrong way. Oh, and not to mention the numerous times "mother" wasn't where she promised she'd be at the end of a mission when fuel was low... Don't be too smug about crabs vs fish heads; both have stunned and embarrassed themselves in equal measure and neither can claim superiority over the other. ....the weapon system on a carrier are the organic assets that take off and land on it. Yes - which means the ship needs to be in the right place, right course and speed, radar etc working, communications circuits set up... So that makes the carrier a warship with very long range weapons? The ship was too close to land and pointing the wrong way. Oh, and not to mention the numerous times "mother" wasn't where she promised she'd be at the end of a mission when fuel was low... Don't be too smug about crabs vs fish heads; both have stunned and embarrassed themselves in equal measure and neither can claim superiority over the other. I wonder if some of the problems you raised were due to the lack of practice whilst Joint Force Harrier was committed to Afghanistan? But anyway - surely this points to the need for integration? The carrier is a platform for her air group, in the same way as any other ship with sensors/weapons. Aircraft launch or recovery demands actions from the ship and limits her ability to manoeuvre at will, not unlike a frigate deploying a towed array sonar, a destroyer firing a missile, or a LPD trying to offload troops into landing craft. |
Meanwhile a long article from an RN Wig of Big Admiral Sir John Woodward GBE KCB 'bout difference between FAA & crab ops: Old buggers who can't get past the loss of the Sea Harrier, still banging on about the Falklands. Until the higher levels of the 3 services stop sniping at each other - and that is all of them - and move forward instead of harking back (a particularly Naval tradition) then the politicians will continue to muddle on, wondering why the 3 main proponents of Defence don't seem to be able to get along. |
"We have reached out to"
Well with patter like that I'm sure that every diversity will be both managed and catered for both now and in the future .. :yuk: |
In a meaningful and totally inclusive fashion following in-depth consultation with all stake-holders I expect
|
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 9859809)
...Until the higher levels of the 3 services stop sniping at each other - and that is all of them - and move forward instead of harking back (a particularly Naval tradition)...
|
These inter-service spats are so predictable and so depressing - all you do is give the Treasury a weapon to pick one off after the other
Even the most blinkered must be able to see the whole and only point of an aircraft carrier is the Air Group? But the Air Group is totally dependent on the skills of the ship's crew to put them in the correct place and the correct time. You need BOTH, working together, to operate.................... |
I believe we are all in violent agreement. The air group of a carrier is part of an integrated weapons system that depends on all other components working properly.
However, the carrier has other functions too. To anyone who insists on trying to 'separate out' the air group as some sort of be-all/end-all stand-alone capability, I say that I never really understood the point of deconstructed rhubarb crumble, either. :) |
I suspect the irony of this statement escapes you. |
"However, the carrier has other functions too"
Scratches head........................ damn expensive vessel to do anything other than what it says on the tin surely? |
Other functions - not that I give a damn because.... not my country but - to me - interesting PDF from 10 Aug 2016 (one year ago so it may be out of date - crabs squib again).
Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers Air Maritime Integration Captain Nick Walker Royal Navy Naval Staff – Policy Carrier Strike and Aviation 10 Aug 2016 "...Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP) Protecting our nation’s interests An integrated and sustainable joint capability, interoperable with NATO, that enables the projection of UK Carrier Strike and Littoral Manoeuvre power as well as delivering humanitarian assistance and defence diplomacy, enabling joint effect across the maritime, land and air environments at a time and place of political choosing. (CEPP CONEMP, Single Statement of User Need)..." http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au...810_Walker.pdf (1.9Mb) "When a sailor learns to fly, he remains a sailor, and the air for him is merely the roof of the sea." Sir Walter Raleigh, ‘War in the Air’ 1922. Protecting our nation’s interests The subliminal power of definitions Maritime Power (AJP 3.1) Military, political and economic power exerted through the use of the sea, and exercised by sea, air and land resource. Air Power (AJP 3.3) The ability to use air capabilities to influence the behaviour of actors and the course of events." |
|
Oh 'Cap'n Dart' look at top this page then start scrolling up from btm of next page to see a bunch o'junk about that tinny drone.
|
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
(Post 9861262)
"However, the carrier has other functions too"
Scratches head........................ damn expensive vessel to do anything other than what it says on the tin surely? Infuriating, isn't it? ;) |
And imagine how many more platforms for all the above[and the manpower to man them] if there weren't two massively useless lumps floating about doing SFA
|
TBH I expect they will spend almost all their time doing all the things that FODPlod has said.........
My concern is (and always has been) not that they are useless but that under current (and foreseeable) financing levels they will draw away funds and personnel from the rest of the Navy to our overall detriment |
"When a sailor learns to fly, he remains a sailor, and the air for him is merely the roof of the sea." Sir Walter Raleigh, ‘War in the Air’ 1922. I love the idea that someone thinks all the Naval Aviators have spent long years at sea before they start their pilot/observer training and that they therefore bring something other than a few months at Dartmouth to the Sea Power party:ok: Most of the ones I ever flew with did everything they could to get a shore appointment to avoid going to sea. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:03. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.