CVF and Carrier Strike thread

Anyway - some of the proceeding comments have made me reflect that over the years some anti carriers critics have cited the limitations of some carriers as applying to all. For example, FS Charles De Gaulle and her operations being impacted by sea state.

I may be wrong, but I think her size was dictated by the largest vessel that could be constructed (in one piece) in a French yard. During operations in the Mediterranean in 2011 the sea state caused trouble. Would a 90 000 tonne Nimitz class CVN have been impacted the same way? What about STOVL operations from Hermes and Invincible in the South Atlantic in 1982?

A larger ship AND STOVL allows not only a higher sortie rate, but safe operations in rougher seas.
Of for crying out loud.

I defer to @ECMO1 on this but I’m pretty sure I recall instances where USN CVNs (Adriatic during the Balkans and Arabian Sea during the early stages of OEF), Clem/Foch (Adriatic), CdG (OEF), Spanish, Italian and RN carriers (Adriatic and JMCs) scrubbing off the ATO due to sea state. Similarly, airfields sometimes go red due to cross winds and fog.

Neither are an answer to World hunger.

Regards,
MM
 
I never disputed that, what I said was that the QEC is considerably larger than previous STOVL carriers and the French carriers. Whilst no carrier can ever launch sorties 100% of the time, the point of ship/air integration is to maximise availability.

A larger ship is less affected by weather than a small one, therefore the US CVN will be less affected than French ones. I am also willing to bet that the CVS and Italian and Spanish STOVL carriers were less affected than old conventional carriers of approximately the same size. If Hermes had been operating Sea Vixen and Buccaneers in 1982 instead of Sea Harrier and Harrier GR3, would the same sortie rate and launching/recovering jets in all sorts of weather have been achieved?

The QEC will, I suggest, be available in poorer weather than the CVS, or indeed CDG. It is really an argument against ideas for small carriers, but I would also suggest it needs to be considered by people who think that that because one design of carrier (or destroyer, or fighter, or tanker, or MBT) has a limitation every other one does.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Yokel, post: 8755027, member: 6671 Charles De Gaulle

I may be wrong, but I think her size was dictated by the largest vessel that could be constructed (in one piece) in a French yard. .[/QUOTE]

Maximum that could be built in Yard X, there was a larger Dock available but wasn't acceptable (possibly owned by a competitor to the builder)

She was also artificially constrained on size as she was a replacement for Clemenceau (or Foch) and therefore had to be a replacement so no 60K tonne design etc she had to be around the same size (some creative accounting dodged the worst of that).


CdG is a good example as to why 3x 35K tonne CVFs wouldn't be better than the 2 QE class the RN (almost) has
 
[QUOTE="Yokel, post: 8755027, member: 6671 Charles De Gaulle

I may be wrong, but I think her size was dictated by the largest vessel that could be constructed (in one piece) in a French yard. .
Maximum that could be built in Yard X, there was a larger Dock available but wasn't acceptable (possibly owned by a competitor to the builder)

She was also artificially constrained on size as she was a replacement for Clemenceau (or Foch) and therefore had to be a replacement so no 60K tonne design etc she had to be around the same size (some creative accounting dodged the worst of that).


CdG is a good example as to why 3x 35K tonne CVFs wouldn't be better than the 2 QE class the RN (almost) has[/QUOTE]

CdG always fascinated me. They decided to go for the very expensive nuclear propulsion but then thought hmmm let's keep the carrier size small...wonder what was the thinking behind it?
 
Maximum that could be built in Yard X, there was a larger Dock available but wasn't acceptable (possibly owned by a competitor to the builder)

She was also artificially constrained on size as she was a replacement for Clemenceau (or Foch) and therefore had to be a replacement so no 60K tonne design etc she had to be around the same size (some creative accounting dodged the worst of that).


CdG is a good example as to why 3x 35K tonne CVFs wouldn't be better than the 2 QE class the RN (almost) has
CdG always fascinated me. They decided to go for the very expensive nuclear propulsion but then thought hmmm let's keep the carrier size small...wonder what was the thinking behind it?[/QUOTE]

Kudos
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
CdG always fascinated me. They decided to go for the very expensive nuclear propulsion but then thought hmmm let's keep the carrier size small...wonder what was the thinking behind it?
Because nuclear must be better. Real navies have nuclear.

Doesn't matter whether it actually works or not, just has to have the "N" after the "CV" or nobody will take you seriously...
 
Because nuclear must be better. Real navies have nuclear.

Doesn't matter whether it actually works or not, just has to have the "N" after the "CV" or nobody will take you seriously...
I think it might be deeper than that. Over 50% (probably more now) of French electrical power generation is nuclear. France does not produce oil, and I have no idea if any of their old colonies produced oil. The problem with nuclear is the way the manning is increased and refits become lengthy and costly. Even the US are having problems with this. If France had two carriers then it would not be so bad... However - the need for steam for the catapults would have influenced the choice of powerplant.
 
Last edited:
I mentioned this the other day to a navy friend of mine back home in the U.S. and he was flabbergasted!
Yeah but USN carriers have drugs.

Regards,
MM
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
Back to the forthcoming flying trials:

Lightning pilots ramp up training for HMS Queen Elizabeth debut | Royal Navy

Two specially-modified F-35Bs and four pilots – Mr Wilson from BAE, the RN’s Cdr Nathan Gray, Sqn Ldr Andy Edgell and a US Marine Corps aviator – will conduct the trials aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth in two phases of trials this autumn, trials broken up by a high-profile visit to New York.

I presume Lt Cdr Wilson RNR of the RNR Air Branch forgot to put 'carry out deck landing in F-35B' in his Personal Training Plan and JPA objectives, and did not get his TAO in on time.
 
Were I a betting man, I'd hope that a 'gentleman's agreement' has already been cut between CAS and 1SL that the first F-35B landing on a QE will be conducted by a FAA pilot. That's what happened with the last GR9 CVS launch and, while it won't matter either way in a practical sense, at least it'll keep Sharkey Ward/Save the Royal Navy/Lester May etc from banging on about it being insulting and a 'Crab propaganda machine exercise'!

More challenging will be balancing the political desire to have UK F-35Bs embarked in meaningful numbers with OT&E for the type.

Regards,
MM
 
Can I bring myself to look in my copy of Sea Harrier Over The Falklands and look for the comment that STOVL should be the future of maritime aviation? Hmmmm... I cannot find it easily, but in the 'Layman's guide to fighter combat' he is almost evangelical about V/STOL, except for the fact only the most capable pilots could handle Harrier. If only there a V/STOL/STOVL aircraft that was simpler to fly?

Back to #WestLant18:


Captain Stembridge (until recently the Captain of RNAS Culdrose) is ex Sea Harrier (as was his predecessor at Culdrose). The Cdr(Air) aboard Queen Elizabeth is also ex Sea Harrier/Harrier GR7/9, and might have flown Hornets with the USN. Some serious SQEP!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top