CVF and Carrier Strike thread

My concern would be the lack of numbers
For what?

It’ll be quite a while before we can even think about putting a full UK CAG of 40+ jets on. However, as ever, carriers rarely operate in isolation during ops.

Certainly, your scenario of 48 jets will be able to do an awful lot.

What's that "Q" painted on the deck for?
It’s to show which ship it is. PoW will have a different letter (P?) just as Invincible used to have a ‘V’, Illustrious an ‘L’ and Ark Royal an ‘R.’

Regards,
MM
 
It’s to show which ship it is. PoW will have a different letter (P?) just as Invincible used to have a ‘V’, Illustrious an ‘L’ and Ark Royal an ‘R.’

Regards,
MM
Yeah, you don't want to land on the wrong carrier (if ever both of them were operating in close vicinity)!





It's the equivalent of passing out at a party to wake up next morning to find your face has been graffitied.

Though, I recon with the F35B antics like these won't be tolerated as much. ;)
 
For what?

It’ll be quite a while before we can even think about putting a full UK CAG of 40+ jets on. However, as ever, carriers rarely operate in isolation during ops.

Certainly, your scenario of 48 jets will be able to do an awful lot.



It’s to show which ship it is. PoW will have a different letter (P?) just as Invincible used to have a ‘V’, Illustrious an ‘L’ and Ark Royal an ‘R.’

Regards,
MM
DCA, OCA, strike, CAS, recce etc etc

Plus maintenance
 
What's that "Q" painted on the deck for?
1. It is her flight deck code. Ocean used to have a big 'O' (stop sniggering) and I presume Prince of Wales will have 'P'.

2. To remind Pilots that they should have had a pee before taking off.

3. Because forming an orderly queue is very British.
 
Um, the scarey I had an N on it.
My bad, thanks for the correction!

DCA, OCA, strike, CAS, recce etc etc

Plus maintenance
Again, it would depend on the scenario.

However, very simplistically for a 48 Jet CAG against a simple threat in a 24 hr period assuming standard support from AAR/AWACS etc:

1 x DCA CAP and 1 x Deck Alert: 8 x jets.

1 x CAS CAP: 16 x jets.

2 x OCA/strike vuls: 12 x jets (4 x sweep/ 8 x strike).

In terms of ISR, all jets can do that simultaneously with normal tasking to a large extent. Likewise, CAS and strikers would be swing role, just as most fighters are these days. That means they can also contribute to OCA and DCA during transit and when on task.

That leaves 12 jets for maintenance.

However, the above figures are utterly moot as it depends on a million and one factors.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
Can 1 carrier with 48 F35 carry out CAP (for a carrier and amphibious task group) as well as operational and tactical ground attack ops simultaneously?

Can the RN defend a carrier and an amphibious task group simultaneously ?

CVF with 48 F-35 would be on par with a CVN which in the real world would try not to carry much over 56 jets... they can carry more, but have increased multiple moves slowing down decks ops, and increased bent wing tips. Note the very substantial deck redesign of the Ford Class to mitigate these issues.
48 is not the maximum CVF can carry, they could over 70 if you are willing to trade the fast deck times for extra planes.
 
(...) I don't think this is any different to any other procurement. You simply have less leverage and there is less incentive for a manufacturer to afford you favours.
This has nothing to do with commercial negotiations. This has to do with bringing a whole new class of technology into service alongside existing ones and the associated support costs for it.

(...) Like Crownsnest?
I was thinking more a long the lines of the example that I gave - something that supplements what Crowsnest does.

And to a very large extent, we already do this, it's called the Recognised Maritime Picture and we can use a UK RMP, a NATO RMP or others. This is something we've done for years and continually improve using a host of technologies.
And this is an example of a technology which can be used to do the improving.

The conversation goes back to where I said:
It is easy to see quite a few potential roles for RPAS/UAV of various types, but most likely the main benefit will come from doing new things or doing them in new ways rather than focusing on replacing existing platforms one for one.
To re-iterate the original point, the UK should not get hung up on just duplicating existing manned platforms using unmanned ones, or aping the American approach on a smaller scale. Instead, the UK should focus on the actual problems that need solving and see how new technologies can solve them.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
This has nothing to do with commercial negotiations. This has to do with bringing a whole new class of technology into service alongside existing ones and the associated support costs for it.
Missing my point that a lot of the infra exists and has dual use, the vehicle may be new but we've used similar for a long time. Its not that new.

terminal said:
And this is an example of a technology which can be used to do the improving.
MDA is a capability that is supported by numerous technologies, all of which we continually adapt and improve.

terminal said:
To re-iterate the original point, the UK should not get hung up on just duplicating existing manned platforms using unmanned ones, or aping the American approach on a smaller scale. Instead, the UK should focus on the actual problems that need solving and see how new technologies can solve them.
I can see you're not involved in the CapDev of any of these. The costs for entry into some of the capabilities required are significant and not just that it's equally as much about participating in larger information/intelligence schemas. That's why we work collaboratively, it's not aping. The platform is just one, relatively small part of the capability we want to solve the problems we understand.
 
Can 1 carrier with 48 F35 carry out CAP (for a carrier and amphibious task group) as well as operational and tactical ground attack ops simultaneously?

Can the RN defend a carrier and an amphibious task group simultaneously ?
Don't pre-suppose that they need to conduct CAP. The Air Defence Comd may well have another solution; using F35 for CAP could be a very poor use of resource.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
Don't pre-suppose that they need to conduct CAP. The Air Defence Comd may well have another solution; using F35 for CAP could be a very poor use of resource.
I suspect that all comes down to geography and resources. I'm not a WAFU but don't believe F35 is primarily for CAP, it's strike/ISR role is its prime driver but it will have to be able to provide organic CAP as and when required to do so.
 
Last edited:
HMS Queen Elizabeth arrives in Norfolk, USA

The 'WESTLANT 18' Task Group units will be in Norfolk to onload the equipment and personnel required to conduct first of class flying trials with test F-35B Lightning fighter jets from the Integrated Test Force (ITF), based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland.

Things seem to be proceeding.

On a slightly different topic, despite @Magic_Mushroom suggesting otherwise:

Sea King flypast ends 49 years of service by veteran helicopter | Royal Navy


 
HMS Queen Elizabeth arrives in Norfolk, USA

The 'WESTLANT 18' Task Group units will be in Norfolk to onload the equipment and personnel required to conduct first of class flying trials with test F-35B Lightning fighter jets from the Integrated Test Force (ITF), based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland.

Things seem to be proceeding.

On a slightly different topic, despite @Magic_Mushroom suggesting otherwise:

Sea King flypast ends 49 years of service by veteran helicopter | Royal Navy
Hopefully less of an issue with the bars as Norfolk is used to having a ton of them sailor types running around all the time.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top