CVF and Carrier Strike thread

No, not remotely upset - you're mistaking my mixture of disdain and pity for your ability to expose the depths of your poor research with every post (I note that you've skirted around the fact that you tried to call me a liar in your post). I think I could, if required, call upon several members of this forum, including at least two RN officers, who would tell you that I don't get upset by a random series of electrons posting rubbish on the internet, just mildly amused before seeking to correct inaccuracy and misperceptions which endure. Don't flatter yourself.

When I can be bothered - and it might be a very considerable time ranging between several hours to never at all, as my son wants me to build Lego with him, and he's far more important than trying to demonstrate that your ego on this is somewhat overblown - I'll refresh the memory of the files and give you a response. Or I might not, since the thread is about looking forward to CEPP rather than revisiting events of half a century ago.

As a starter for 10, though - it wasn't only two squadrons of F-111s, but an array of aircraft types (including MPA) and the detail in the files I'm beginning to think you haven't read on support is fairly extensive. I'm not sure that I quite believe all the detail myself, but that was never the point: you don't like the fact that your fondly-held tale of Australia moving has proven to be ill-founded. Indeed, if anyone's getting upset at some random electrons on the web, it's you.

Now, if you'll excuse me the Sons of Garmadon HQ (whatever TF that is) requires building. Ta ra.
Does Lego float? Could you build a lego aircraft carrier? When I was very young I vaguely remember my ex matelot father starting to build a wooden carrier in the garden. I think work was stopped after I got injured (severely). I have always wondered if Dad chose a carrier as the flush deck was easier than superstructure.
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
No, not remotely upset - you're mistaking my mixture of disdain and pity for your ability to expose the depths of your poor research with every post (I note that you've skirted around the fact that you tried to call me a liar in your post). I think I could, if required, call upon several members of this forum, including at least two RN officers, who would tell you that I don't get upset by a random series of electrons posting rubbish on the internet, just mildly amused before seeking to correct inaccuracy and misperceptions which endure. Don't flatter yourself.

When I can be bothered - and it might be a very considerable time ranging between several hours to never at all, as my son wants me to build Lego with him, and he's far more important than trying to demonstrate that your ego on this is somewhat overblown - I'll refresh the memory of the files and give you a response. Or I might not, since the thread is about looking forward to CEPP rather than revisiting events of half a century ago.

As a starter for 10, though - it wasn't only two squadrons of F-111s, but an array of aircraft types (including MPA) and the detail in the files I'm beginning to think you haven't read on support is fairly extensive. I'm not sure that I quite believe all the detail myself, but that was never the point: you don't like the fact that your fondly-held tale of Australia moving has proven to be ill-founded. Indeed, if anyone's getting upset at some random electrons on the web, it's you.

Now, if you'll excuse me the Sons of Garmadon HQ (whatever TF that is) requires building. Ta ra.
So your flounce at the honour of the RAF being impinged actually predicates on... Them not understanding airpower, logistics or numerous other areas....

Think I'd prefer to be seen as a wee bit machiavellian and accept some piss taking for it than incompetent.

And for gawds sake keep your feelings to yourself. Paragraph long strops describing how you aren't in a strop are turgid and embarrassing to read.
 
D'you here there? Personnel are reminded that handbags are not permitted on the flight deck. Personnel are to be reminded that reading about history and drinking from the glass of bitterness is NOT to take precedence over looking forward. That is all.
 
So your flounce at the honour of the RAF being impinged actually predicates on... Them not understanding airpower, logistics or numerous other areas....

Think I'd prefer to be seen as a wee bit machiavellian and accept some piss taking for it than incompetent.

And for gawds sake keep your feelings to yourself. Paragraph long strops describing how you aren't in a strop are turgid and embarrassing to read.
Flounce? Oh no, m'dear chap. I'm afraid that you're more than a wee bit incompetent and about as Machiavellian as my mother's cat - but as noted, less important than you like to think.

So (and with apologies to other Arrsers for the length of what is to follow), let's look at your challenges that the RAF:

1. Didn't understand air power
2. Didn't understand logistics
3. Didn't give any consideration to maintaining two squadrons of F-111s from austere bases.

The first critical point to note is that the original F-111 plan (versus the order) was for 130 aircraft, reduced to 110 and with the initial plan being for 50 airframes. Various political factors saw the AFVG (Anglo-French Variable Geometery) programme substituted for the later part of the F-111 plan. Thus already, your blithe assertions about 'two squadrons of F-111s) is wrong. But we'll come back to that in a bit.

The first point to consider is that the Island Strategy (or Island Stance) was not, initially conceived as an alternative to carriers, but as a complement to them. The original plan was for the use of island air stations such as Gan (that austere location with an 11,000ft runway and all the facilities you'd find at a normal RAF stations, with the added bonus of fed up unaccompanied personnel) for use of Transport Command. [National Archives (NA), Air 8/2354].

Unfortunately, AM Huddleston, who'd proposed this, moved on from his post and the proposal came, over the course of 1962 to be seen as a possible cost-saving alternative to the carrier force in toto. Thorneycroft, then Minister of Defence, asked for more detail on the proposal, and in late 1962, the question turned into one of whether the RAF could replace the carrier force [NA, DEFE 7/1782 & DEFE 19/20]

Under this proposal, certain islands would be used for tactical transport aircraft to deliver troops, with air support - the 'fast jet element' - coming from four locations in the Indian Ocean

1. Gan. As already noted, this was not an austere location
2. Masirah. This was already an RAF airfield. It routinely maintained short detachments. The logistics problems meant that it was limited to unsophisticated aircraft types like...

(https://forcesreunited.files.wordpr...ent-at-raf-masirah-william-nicholls.jpg?w=550) if this doesn't show up)

3. Cocos - extant airfield, which would be brought up to the necessary standard to operate combat aircraft

4. Aldabra - the 'problem' in that it required an airfield of the requisite standard to be built. The island was (and is) of considerable scientific/ecological importance, and as soon as the idea of a large military airport - note, not an austere base - was mooted and became public, there was considerable opposition [see, inter Alisa, DJH Griffin, 'The Aldabra Research Station', Royal Society Journal of the History of Science, Vol 21 No. 1 (1974)].

So, the main plank of this supposedly logistically impossible concept involved two fully-founded, extant RAF stations capable of operating everything up to Vulcans for short detachments, one extant airfield which would be upgraded, and the building of a major airfield on Aldabra, again which doesn't fit with the Flight notion of an unsustainable operating base for fast jets.

Forward operating bases in the more austere locations - I'll type this slowly for Flight's benefit - were never meant to be used for aircraft like TSR2 or F-111. Those aircraft would, in the Indian Ocean AOR, come from the above four bases, along, if necessary, with V-bombers. These operations would be further supported by use of extant bases in Aden, Singapore, Australia (non-mobile version) and Thailand (with a recognition that Aden was likely to go sooner rather than later and that access to bases would have to be negotiated with governments - one of the details which, IMO, was somewhat glossed over, particularly viz-a-viz Thailand, although there were arrangements for Hunters to deploy from Singapore, showing that this wasn't an insuperable issue). Does Thailand fit the criteria of a base incapable of operating the F-111?

Er....



...no. [F-111, COMBAT LANCER, Sept 1968]

Anyway...


In the worst case scenario, the mounting bases (the four above), would be 1000 miles away from the fighting [this is where the 1000 mile figure comes into play - but because of the airfields elsewhere, Australia didn't need to be moved.] Air support further forward could be provided from any FOBs through the medium of VSTOL aircraft in the form of the P1154 (although NB that this was a half-formed idea) That was, of course, cancelled and replaced by the P1127, later Harrier [Peace Be Upon Its Cold Nozzles]. As we know, the Harrier couldn't operate from austere locations because, as Flight says, the logistics of operating an aircraft which had complex engineering needs was beyond the scope of the Air Staff's thinking, as we can see below



But here's where we run into another issue when it comes to the Flight View of the World. And this is that this all took place before the F-111 was ordered (indeed, before the TSR2 had first flown) and ended in July 1963 with the decision that while the island strategy was credible - clearly, as Flight wasn't involved in the process, the array of senior RAF officers, RN officers [the RN accepted that the concept was credible but limited, by the way], politicians, scientific advisers like Zuckerman didn't have the penetrating insight to show that they were fools - it didn't give as complete or as assured a level of coverage as having aircraft operating from extant bases along with carriers operating closer to the AOR. [NA Air 20/11423, also see NA Air 20/11424]

And - again, there's a slight problem with the notion of crab idiocy here - the Chief of the Air Staff argued/conceded that the complementary nature of land and carrier based air was what was required [NA, Air 20/11423]. And Zuckerman's study group, examining the nature of likely interventions, concluded that 'intervention by invitation' was most likely, which would enhance the amount of host nation support available for air operations. And that those air operations would require RAF Transport Command.

The Admiralty - rightly - noted that sustainment of those units at the end of the transport trail would require considerable support, but this argument had a problem, in that it recognised the need for airfields to sustain transport operations. The Air Ministry swiftly responded that if airfields capable of operating a sustained air bridge were required, then building anything new as a 'staging' base made no sense, since the additional work required to make them fully operational for transports and combat air - no austerity here in the thinking/planning, let's recall - was relatively minimal, and the airfields would not represent maximum value for money otherwise.[ibid]

But by July 1963, the benefits offered by having carriers and land based aircraft had convinced the Chief Scientific Adviser and the order for CVA01 was issued.

Unfortunately for service harmony (I'll tackle Mountbatten as a separate issue later on] the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the egregious Reggie Maudling, was busy overheating the economy, which would create the situation where the cost of CVA01 and the future air programme would collide in fairly short order. To which I'll return at a later point.

But, insofar as Flight's contentions go - we'll be charitable and note that he's not spotted that much of the island strategy/non-movement of Australia occurred earlier than he appears to assume because of some minor brain fade, rather than not knowing WTF he's actually on about:

1. Knowing nothing about air power - not a charge levelled by the RN, not a charge levelled by anyone who actually knows anything about air power, since, in jargon/doctrine terms, the Air Staff was talking about the reach, rapidity and flexibility of air power (while not mentioning issues of impermanence)

2. Knowing nothing about the logistical and engineering challenges of operating from austere bases - well, the problem here is that they weren't talking about operating from austere bases.

So, for the first part of the whole debate, to borrow a word from one of Flight's fantasy world of history posts a little earlier,

Your entire argument predicates upon this. And it's utter bollocks.
Well, at least Flight is following Clint Eastwood/Harry Callaghan's dictum that a man has to know his limitations. It's just a little sad that he's choosing to illustrate his limitations of knowledge in such a public manner. Ah well...
 
Exactly as you come across, in addition to being chippy, having anger management issues and being a bit of a <expletive of choice> on any thread you post in.
 
That's overflow accommodation. My COS is in there and whilst not brilliant it's short term (weeks) and has some major benefits

We closed that down a long time ago. It's DCPPA or whatever now.
As an aside, is Blockhouse officers mess the inheritors of HMS Dolphin wardroom? Just wondering if I can exercise the life membership I was forced to pay for in 199x
 
A wooden aircraft carrier in the garden?
Where else would we put it?

Well, at least Flight is following Clint Eastwood/Harry Callaghan's dictum that a man has to know his limitations. It's just a little sad that he's choosing to illustrate his limitations of knowledge in such a public manner. Ah well...
Are you saying you think the F-35 should have been named Magnum? Has any aircraft been so named?

What exactly is Flight's angle?

Is he pro carrier or anti carrier?
Pro or anti F-35?
Pro or anti STOVL?
What colour uniform?
Why spend time (and bandwidth) talking about things that may or may not have happened in the sixties and have no relevance today?
 
Last edited:
Crikey.

Anyway, on the vague topic of carrier air power, I see the yanks have deployed the USS Essex with a load of Marine F35Bs.

I know it's an LHD amphibious assault ship but it will still be interesting to see how the Marines manage F35B flight ops while at sea and, perhaps, contrast and compare with our approach on the QEs.

Essex Amphibious Ready Group Quietly Deployed on Tuesday with Marine F-35s - USNI News



Wasn't sure whether to post here or in an F35 thread so entirely happy if the mods decide to move if appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Essex is not the first ship to deploy with F-35B. Nor the is the F-35B the only shipborne STOVL aircraft operationally deployed....

Anyway, just thinking about the two QEC ships themselves. In the old days carriers were powered by steam. Then the Invincible class CVS had four Olympus gas turbines. Then when the Type 23 frigate was being designed, it was decided to use diesel electric propulsion (as well as gas turbines for high speed) for acoustic quietness for ASW.

The QEC has both gas turbines and diesel electric, and the shafts will be driven by electric motors. As such they will be capable of quiet running should they need to. The QEC is the quietest carrier in the world, something the self appointed anti carrier SMEs overlook.

It was only the news of the new British Antarctic Survey ship being launched, with diesel electric propulsion capable of near silent running, that made me think of this.
 
It was only the news of the new British Antarctic Survey ship being launched, with diesel electric propulsion capable of near silent running, that made me think of this.
I mean this in all sincerity - you need to get a life or failing that, at least get a (proper) job. Your obsession with big ships is not doing you any good. H_M.
 
My background is in Engineering, therefore I take an interest in manufacturing. Hopefully you agree that it is important that Britain continues to design and build things.
 
The QEC has both gas turbines and diesel electric, and the shafts will be driven by electric motors. As such they will be capable of quiet running should they need to. The QEC is the quietest carrier in the world, something the self appointed anti carrier SMEs overlook.
End of the day it's still a big f-ing ship which will still make a ton of noise, silent propulsion or not.
 
So use your background constructively rather than banging on about your favourite hobby horse on here...
This is a thread in the Royal Navy forum. Yokel has served with the Royal Navy in a variety of roles and comments on Royal Navy matters with enthusiasm and a certain degree of background knowledge instead of simply expressing opinionated ignorance.

You?
 
This is a thread in the Royal Navy forum. Yokel has served with the Royal Navy in a variety of roles and comments on Royal Navy matters with enthusiasm and a certain degree of background knowledge instead of simply expressing opinionated ignorance.

You?
Not a matelot and not obsessed with big ships either, although I happen to think that the Navy has had a raw deal until recently. I don't find anything that he posts particularly incisive, rather a rehashing of old arguments. And your credentials are?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top