CVF and Carrier Strike thread

Is it me or does Australia look like it's a few miles out?

Regards,
MM
Congratulations! You win tonight's star prize, a week in the paradise island of Greneda, with full board at the luxurious Sharkey's Lodge. As an extra special treat, an after dinner speaker will entertain with tales of the past.....
 
Last edited:
Exactly but they are part of a layered air defence to protect the carriers and the RN don’t have (and won’t have) another fixed wing capable of operating from the carriers
Small point but when the carrier is launching air defence sorties it is not just to protect herself*, but the whole task group/joint force. If another aircraft type is doing that one day then they will form part of layered defence.

All fighters types should be used to being directed by AWACS aircraft, other AEW aircraft, fighter controllers in bunkers(?), and fighter controllers in ship's operations rooms. Likewise RN ships should (and are) used to working with a range of aircraft - such as warships in the Gulf working with RAF Typhoons and other land based aircraft, as well as US and French carrier based ones.

*I know I keep banging on about this, but nobody ever claims land based fighters exist to protect the airfield, so why make that claim with carrier based ones?
 
Last edited:
Small point but when the carrier is launching air defence sorties it is not just to protect herself*, but the whole task group/joint force. If another aircraft type is doing that one day then they will form part of layered defence.

All fighters types should be used to being directed by AWACS aircraft, other AEW aircraft, fighter controllers in bunkers(?), and fighter controllers in ship's operations rooms. Likewise RN ships should (and are) used to working with a range of aircraft - such as warships in the Gulf working with RAF Typhoons and other land based aircraft, as well as US and French carrier based ones.

*I know I keep banging on about this, but nobody ever claims land based fighters exist to protect the airfield, so why make that claim with carrier based ones?
Yes they do defend the task group (which means they may have a much wider area to cover).

Who says that the next war with involve a coalition or that the UK CBG will not be assigned an independent mission?

Who says the next war will be in a location where land based fighters can support the UK CBG?

Airfields don’t sink hundreds of miles off the coast
 
Yes they do defend the task group (which means they may have a much wider area to cover)...
Why?

...Who says that the next war with involve a coalition or that the UK CBG will not be assigned an independent mission?...
It's unlikely and if we are conducting a UK national op, it's unlikely to be a peer opposition from an A-A perspective (although SAM threats are more likely to be a factor).

...Who says the next war will be in a location where land based fighters can support the UK CBG?...
See above. However, once again, it's not just fighters that are in this equation.

Ultimately, you appear to question whether the QEC Air Group will have sufficient capacity to conduct the basic requirements of organic AD, CAS/Strike and ISR. I would argue that it self-evidently will by 2023ish once our F-35 numbers have grown.

Regards,
MM
 
Yes they do defend the task group (which means they may have a much wider area to cover).

Who says that the next war with involve a coalition or that the UK CBG will not be assigned an independent mission?

Who says the next war will be in a location where land based fighters can support the UK CBG?

Airfields don’t sink hundreds of miles off the coast
In that scenario air defence would be the priority task for the task group, and the air group. The F-35B is fortunately fully capable of the full gamut of roles. The point about carriers is flexibility - something that was limited in the past by aircraft that were not so flexible.

I think the task group will be capable of independent missions - I have no doubt UKCSG etc will have this in mind.

Ultimately, you appear to question whether the QEC Air Group will have sufficient capacity to conduct the basic requirements of organic AD, CAS/Strike and ISR. I would argue that it self-evidently will by 2023ish once our F-35 numbers have grown.
Not forgetting task group ASW with enough Merlin HM2 for 24/7 dipping.
 
Because the CBG could be dispersed over an area


It's unlikely and if we are conducting a UK national op, it's unlikely to be a peer opposition from an A-A perspective (although SAM threats are more likely to be a factor).
Absolutely but possible



See above. However, once again, it's not just fighters that are in this equation.

Ultimately, you appear to question whether the QEC Air Group will have sufficient capacity to conduct the basic requirements of organic AD, CAS/Strike and ISR. I would argue that it self-evidently will by 2023ish once our F-35 numbers have grown.

Regards,
MM
hopefully if no further cuts
 
Because the CBG could be dispersed over an area...
It could but it would be a poor PWO who allowed his TG to be dispersed in such a manner that his DCA coverage was degraded. However, even if he did, you just launch more DCA or bring more to GCAP readiness. Ultimately, if the QEC have around 40 jets embarked, I can't think of too many scenarios where they'd be outgunned.

...hopefully if no further cuts
There will always be a tension between when jets are required for land based v carrier ops/trg. However, even if no further jets were procured beyond the 48 already on the receipt, that's enough to guarantee a single CAG of 30 going which is still no mean capability.

Regards,
MM
 
It could but it would be a poor PWO who allowed his TG to be dispersed in such a manner that his DCA coverage was degraded. However, even if he did, you just launch more DCA or bring more to GCAP readiness. Ultimately, if the QEC have around 40 jets embarked, I can't think of too many scenarios where they'd be outgunned.



There will always be a tension between when jets are required for land based v carrier ops/trg. However, even if no further jets were procured beyond the 48 already on the receipt, that's enough to guarantee a single CAG of 30 going which is still no mean capability.

Regards,
MM
So is the 48 figure which is being brandished around the total for naval ops or for both land and naval? I know you fellas are now doing the whole uber style shared ac with the F35.
 
So is the 48 figure which is being brandished around the total for naval ops or for both land and naval? I know you fellas are now doing the whole uber style shared ac with the F35.
The official number we're getting is 138 right now, all F-35Bs which will ultimately probably allow around 80 all up to be maintained for Land and/or Maritime ops as required with the remainder in depth servicing, upgrades or storage.

In reality however, I fear the final number we procure will be more like 100. All sqns will be joint RN/RAF manned and all aircrew will be capable of being embarked on the carriers.

Regards,
MM
 
The official number we're getting is 138 right now, all F-35Bs which will ultimately probably allow around 80 all up to be maintained for Land and/or Maritime ops as required with the remainder in depth servicing, upgrades or storage.

In reality however, I fear the final number we procure will be more like 100. All sqns will be joint RN/RAF manned and all aircrew will be capable of being embarked on the carriers.

Regards,
MM
We need to export more. Perhaps things like aircraft lifts and landing aids for other countries withing F-35B from ships could be something the defence export people can target?

In the nineties an editorial in Janes Fighting Ships referred to the idea of a 'thousand ship Navy' - the US Navy plus NATO plus other allies. I wonder if the concept still exists? If it does, the two carriers will be significant contributions. Being STOVL they do not have have the training burden to CTOL and catching a wire, but being non nuclear they will not need the lengthy refits needed by US/French carriers - so does this get reflected in calculations of how many carriers the West (and others) have available?
 
We need to export more. Perhaps things like aircraft lifts and landing aids for other countries withing F-35B from ships could be something the defence export people can target?...
As you'd probably expect, the vast majority of revenue from Defence sales - approximately 80% - comes from aerospace. The maritime sector generates a further 15% with Land the remainder.

Therefore, sales such as landing aids and lifts would make very little difference overall, even if all the money went back into Defence.

...In the nineties an editorial in Janes Fighting Ships referred to the idea of a 'thousand ship Navy' - the US Navy plus NATO plus other allies. I wonder if the concept still exists? If it does, the two carriers will be significant contributions. Being STOVL they do not have have the training burden to CTOL and catching a wire, but being non nuclear they will not need the lengthy refits needed by US/French carriers - so does this get reflected in calculations of how many carriers the West (and others) have available?
I doubt the concept existed anyway beyond a journalist's thinking. I don't believe it was ever in any NATO doctrine and it certainly isn't now. I suspect that NATO would struggle to generate even 100 top class surface combatants and 25 submarines; far less when the US is removed from the equation. It's the Russian submarine threat which worries me by far the most and I believe the Arctic should be our strategic focus from a maritime perspective.

Regards,
MM
 
As you'd probably expect, the vast majority of revenue from Defence sales - approximately 80% - comes from aerospace. The maritime sector generates a further 15% with Land the remainder.

Therefore, sales such as landing aids and lifts would make very little difference overall, even if all the money went back into Defence.
It would make a difference to those companies and their employees - and help us build influence and relationships with allies. I consider the maritime and aerospace sectors do overlap - if ground support equipment counts as aerospace - where do you place things that are fitted to ships to support flying? Where do sales of naval helicopters fall?

I doubt the concept existed anyway beyond a journalist's thinking. I don't believe it was ever in any NATO doctrine and it certainly isn't now. I suspect that NATO would struggle to generate even 100 top class surface combatants and 25 submarines; far less when the US is removed from the equation. It's the Russian submarine threat which worries me by far the most and I believe the Arctic should be our strategic focus from a maritime perspective.
I am sure I have heard to repeated that submarines are tools of sea denial, carriers are platforms of sea control. The fact that carrier operates with a friendly SSN and a nice number of ASW helicopters for 24/7 dipping (the PWO(U) in my chain of command makes me say this) complicates things.

There is not much sand in the arctic, and not many submarines in the sand, therefore defence decision making for the last fifteen or so years...
 
I doubt the concept existed anyway beyond a journalist's thinking. I don't believe it was ever in any NATO doctrine and it certainly isn't now. I suspect that NATO would struggle to generate even 100 top class surface combatants and 25 submarines; far less when the US is removed from the equation. It's the Russian submarine threat which worries me by far the most and I believe the Arctic should be our strategic focus from a maritime perspective.

Regards,
MM
MB. To be fair, who else could even come close to that?
 
It would make a difference to those companies and their employees - and help us build influence and relationships with allies. I consider the maritime and aerospace sectors do overlap...
Agreed.

MB. To be fair, who else could even come close to that?
Russia in terms of submarines (very bad), Japan (good) and China (bad).

Regards,
MM
 
As you'd probably expect, the vast majority of revenue from Defence sales - approximately 80% - comes from aerospace. The maritime sector generates a further 15% with Land the remainder.

Therefore, sales such as landing aids and lifts would make very little difference overall, even if all the money went back into Defence.



I doubt the concept existed anyway beyond a journalist's thinking. I don't believe it was ever in any NATO doctrine and it certainly isn't now. I suspect that NATO would struggle to generate even 100 top class surface combatants and 25 submarines; far less when the US is removed from the equation. It's the Russian submarine threat which worries me by far the most and I believe the Arctic should be our strategic focus from a maritime perspective.

Regards,
MM
So should RN be most concerned with ASW and policing the GIUK gap?
 
So should RN be most concerned with ASW and policing the GIUK gap?
I think it's fair to say this is already very high on their agenda given the exponential increase in Russian submarine activity in recent years.

Regards,
MM
 

New Posts

Top