CVF and Carrier Strike thread

I think in fairness it's a 2-way street.

Historically, US aircrew tend to be less experienced than ours so learn loads from us. Equally, we tend to learn a lot on the maintenance side due to the greater resources the US have to throw at problems. That's certainly been true with RJ and I suspect will be mirrored on P-8.

Regards,
MM
 
ore recent pictures of a Chinook on one of Queen Elizabeth's lifts. Also, having lifts in the middle of the deck and hangar was problematic as it interrupted flight operations and took up hangar space.
Surely a lift takes up one lift's worth of hangar space whether it's in the middle, on one side, or stuck in the corner. Also, a lift in the middle of a hangar has potentially four spots available for either the cab coming down or the next one up, and a choice of three ways to fill or empty them, meaning a quicker turnaround when compared to what appears to be only one spot to load or unload the QE lift.
 
Equally, we tend to learn a lot on the maintenance side due to the greater resources the US have to throw at problems.
I would have thought that having less resources would naturally lead to greater ingenuity. Having a large supply of a given assembly means 1-for-1ing would be the preferred course of action, limiting the amount of experience the maintainers would get working on the sub-assemblies or diagnosing and repairing faults at component level.
 
I would have thought that having less resources would naturally lead to greater ingenuity. Having a large supply of a given assembly means 1-for-1ing would be the preferred course of action, limiting the amount of experience the maintainers would get working on the sub-assemblies or diagnosing and repairing faults at component level.
They have more jets so accrue experience more rapidly across a fleet.

Regards,
MM
 
Lusty with lift down:



You can see that it occupies a large part of the flight deck - including part of the STOVL take off run:



I spent a little bit of time aboard Lusty in 2997, when she had Harriers (4 Sqn RAF) and a Merlin (814 NAS) embarked. Going into the hangar you could see the amount of room occupied by the lift machinery. Some of the ship's staff and RAF maintainers commented on the ergonomic design of the hangar. But size constraints.....



A big hole in the deck, and two areas of hangar used up.

By contrast, the QEC deck lifts are deck edge as well as being larger. As such they do not use any hangar area:



Not only is the area small as a proportion of the deck area, but it is out of take off or landing areas for either fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft:

1524091417063.jpg


Aircraft lifts are an export for the UK: MacTaggart Scott | Aircraft Lifts



 
Sorry, my mistake. When you wrote

I thought you meant "due to the greater resources the US have to throw at problems", not "They have more jets so accrue experience more rapidly across a fleet."
Apologies. The other factor with RJ and to a lesser extent P-8 is that they've had them in service for far longer than us. 51 Sqn groundies learnt a lot from the USAF when operating from Offutt and Mildenhall.

Regards,
MM
 
Surely a lift takes up one lift's worth of hangar space whether it's in the middle, on one side, or stuck in the corner. Also, a lift in the middle of a hangar has potentially four spots available for either the cab coming down or the next one up, and a choice of three ways to fill or empty them, meaning a quicker turnaround when compared to what appears to be only one spot to load or unload the QE lift.
The abutting side lifts are part of the overhanging starboard sponson and don't take up hangar space.

HMS Queen Elizabeth diagram.jpg
 
But if the lifts weren't there, you'd have a couple of nice little alcoves to park some planes in.
How would you get them to/from the hangar? Why do you think woodworking tools are important on a flight deck anyway? Deck edge lifts also have the advantage that if one gets stuck in the down position it does not stop fixed wing flying. Things do not stop because the lifts are in action.

Even the design and position of aircraft lifts contributes to sortie rate.
 
Why smaller carriers would be bad idea for the Royal Navy

Not that the "smaller ships are cheaper and better" lobby will take heed. The idea of integration must confuse them - even things like moving the aircraft lifts out of the way of aircraft taking off and landing is only possible with increased size - which gives you improved stability and operating limits.,
Who needs lifts? I thought they could take off vertically...













I'll get my coat.
 
This World War Two training film (1942) reminds us that efficient deck and hangar usage (including lifts) has always been key to carrier operations and generating a good sortie rate.


Note the way that the film mentions that in rough weather the point on deck for the aircraft lands on moves forward to minimise the effect of pitching.
 
Last edited:
This World War Two training film (1942) reminds us that efficient deck and hangar usage (including lifts) has always been key to carrier opelations and generating a good sortie rate.


Note the way that the film mentons that in rough weather the point on deck for the aircraft lands on moves forward to minimise the effect of pitching.
But they can take off vertically, who needs lifts?
 
The politicians would also have done well to have listened to the RAF... I have a strong suspicion that Cameron professed himself bored with the issue because of the incessant whining and droning that was coming from the 'No Crabs on Carriers!' and 'It's not a proper carrier if it doesn't look like HMS Eagle' lobby at the time. As the SDSR came towards the final stages, muggins here - largely because various SO1s still had my phone number rather than any eminence on my part - was getting calls from bewildered staff officers who'd been asked to check that some of the most remarkable assertions being made by this lobby were, as suspected, not entirely accurate.

To cut a long story short, Fox was being assailed by supposedly learned submissions from retired senior officers as to the superiority of the Super Hornet over the F-35; as to how the F-35B buy was a Crab Plot, and that no WAFUs actually wanted the B-model; that the F-35B was a less capable aircraft than the Harrier GR7; that no serious carrier force would think about using STOVL; that the F-35C, given time, could become sentient and recite Sea Harrier Over the Falklands to an enthralled audience by 2020, while the F-35B would struggle with the word 'ugh' [I may be exaggerating slightly with that one, but not by much]; etc, etc.

There were mutterings that the Sec of State had 'found his brief somewhat more challenging than might have been expected', and I know that he received - quite improperly [not his fault] - an as-then unmarked essay from a WAFU, sent to a retired VSO as a courtesy after the VSO had assisted the student with part of his research and which, with an editorial commentary to explain that the student was being polite about the RAF because of his joint education and to reinforce some points that weren't actually made at any stage of the paper because the student had a peculiar liking for facts, the VSO had then sent to Fox to reinforce the need for a CTOL carrier [at the cost of the entire Tornado force], explaining that the nation would be betrayed, etc, etc, etc.

I suspect that in the face of the decision to bin the Harrier and the CVS, Cameron and Fox decided that the F-35C was just the right thing to at least mitigate the ire of the experts assailing them with advice. For the reasons jrwl and nab highlight in their comments, this was unfortunate, since a number of rather interesting... omissions had taken place in assessing whether this was actually a good idea as opposed to a good ideas in the minds of senior (rtd) RN officers who seemed to have credibility on these matters. IIRC, the line was that the RN staff were hamstrung by a need to play a certain amount of jointery on this, and retired sorts, unconstrained by this were able to tell the politicians the truths they needed to hear about carrier aviation. And I have a very strong suspicion that Fox bought it hook, line and sinker and Cameron, after hearing the rehash of the arguments for the umpteenth time lost interest because he was not a detail man. I suspect that if Hammond had been Sec of State at the time, he'd have said 'now hang on...' and the end result would've been a spreadsheet making clear that the retired sorts were wrong about how easy and cheap the change would be. But we had Fox. Given that his key sounding board was Adam Werrity - a man who'd have been better used as an ironing board - the chances of a monumentally embarrassing ****-up were high.

This, I think, was in no small part why Admiral Z issued his 'I will personally come round and kneecap you with a 4.5 inch gun if you brief against the RAF using nothing more than lies and wishful thinking' advice to a number of retired VSOs at the time of 2015...
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
The politicians would also have done well to have listened to the RAF...
I think it's testimony to the strength and quality of this post, that it leaves me unable to disagree with its opening line.

Bravo Zulu, sir: manoeuvre splendidly executed.
 
However, the common theme is that a lot of trouble could have been saved if the politicians had listened to the Navy.
That's not entirely true either. As Archimedes points out brilliantly above. The real issue was that while a core of people understood the intent of and rationale behind the original decision for Carrier Strike, they were outnumbered by a large number of people who didn't - or at least didn't agree with the solution - like the PTT at one end of the spectrum, the Trenchard branch of the RAF at the other, the cap-badge mafia in green and a number of dark blue in the sundodging fraternity. All complicated by the fact that the ships are so much bigger than their CVS predecessors and the trials and tribs of the JSF - some real, some imagined.
 
So what of the stories of key SDSR 10 decisions being made the weekend before the announcement and the First Sea Lord being ignored?

Surely anyone who was around in the nineties and into the new century would understand why we wanted bigger and better carriers? Also that STOVL was the right option for the UK.

I have mentioned being at a briefing by the Fleet Air Arm Command Warrant in 2009 in which he stated the plan to prepare for CVF and F-35B was to embark as many jets as possible for longer periods. The toxicity of the politics post Liam Fox's intervention could not have helped in dealing with post cut issues.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top