CVF and Carrier Strike thread

...For shipboard safety the USN mandates a thermo coating to delay the cook-off time. That is the rough surface on the bomb body. This is not required for bombs designed for shore use. So while USN weapons could be employed by the other services (differences in weapons delivery computers notwithstanding), the USN cannot embark their weapons due to safety concerns. Additionally, we cannot add the coating while deployed, has to be done by the manufacturer. Reference the discussion on the AGM-65 Maverick, the USN/USMC couldn’t take that weapon to sea until the E variant came out. It was equipped with extra safety devices built into the weapon.

It is these problems that inhibit joint logistics just a wee bit.

R/ECMO1
Agreed.

However, a bigger challenge on the QE will be that the USMC and RN/RAF will be using different weapons entirely.

...Is the US Navy still using...Sea Dragons...for Airborne Mines Counter Measures?...
Yep.

...I thought the AMCM role was moving to MH-60 type helicopters that can fit on the deck of something other than a flattop?
I believe that MH-53E AMCM missions are done exclusively from land.

Everything you need to know on the role’s future is here.

Regards,
MM
 
Traditionally the mine sweeping (hunting came much more recently) helicopters were based aboard ship, such as the USS Tripoli in the Gulf in January/February 1991. Tripoli herself struck a mine, and the Iraqis were trying to get her into range to fire a Silkworm at her.

I am sure the reason for moving the AMCM mission to a smaller helicopter is so that they can operate from other ships, or take up less deck space. Maybe put a few aboard a carrier? MH-60S will be unable to tow the minesweeping sled (basically a generator and electromagnets), but technology moves on and remotely controlled vehicles will perform influence minesweeping.

Just as on land, minefield slow our forces down, and offer the enemy an opportunity to attack. For some reason certain contributors to ARRSE seem to insist a Minehunter/MCMV is not a warship, despite existing to counter an enemy capability. I wonder if they think Sappers clearing minefields do not count as combat troops?

Anyway - this brings us back to carriers and their aircraft. Many moons (twenty five or more) at Navy Days someone said that looking after the MCMVs would be a frigate/destroyer job - to deal with hostile aircraft. With reduced numbers of frigates and destroyers this is likely to be another task for carrier aircraft.
 
Traditionally the mine sweeping (hunting came much more recently) helicopters were based aboard ship, such as the USS Tripoli in the Gulf in January/February 1991. Tripoli herself struck a mine, and the Iraqis were trying to get her into range to fire a Silkworm at her...
I need to check in the Mushroom Library but I think you'll find the MH-53Es in question were only providing heavy lift and VERTREP. Indeed, the type has been based in Bahrain for many years for this very reason.

I would certainly suggest that AMCM has never 'traditionally' been conducted from LPDs let alone CVNs; in the Gulf they were always doing that role from land.

...I am sure the reason for moving the AMCM mission to a smaller helicopter is so that they can operate from other ships, or take up less deck space. Maybe put a few aboard a carrier? MH-60S will be unable to tow the minesweeping sled (basically a generator and electromagnets), but technology moves on and remotely controlled vehicles will perform influence minesweeping...
It's all there in the ppt I linked to; basically it appears to be a 'systems of systems' approach. Moreover, the primary MH-60S AMCM payload appears to be a LIDAR system.

I doubt a carrier would be the platform of choice because that would separate some of the elements of the system.

Regards,
MM
 
AMCM is not something I'd rely on to get my ship thru a minefield.

Similarly, however cool it might be, CH53s are not good platforms for us to adopt. Their maintenance to flying ratio is utterly shocking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I need to check in the Mushroom Library but I think you'll find the MH-53Es in question were only providing heavy lift and VERTREP. Indeed, the type has been based in Bahrain for many years for this very reason.

I would certainly suggest that AMCM has never 'traditionally' been conducted from LPDs let alone CVNs; in the Gulf they were always doing that role from land.



It's all there in the ppt I linked to; basically it appears to be a 'systems of systems' approach. Moreover, the primary MH-60S AMCM payload appears to be a LIDAR system.

I doubt a carrier would be the platform of choice because that would separate some of the elements of the system.

Regards,
MM
Having a carrier sufficiently up threat for MCM operations is a bad idea, unless the carrier was acting an the LPH role anyway. However, hopefully you know me a bit better than that! I never say things I cannot back up!



However, the larger point is that MCM forces need to be protected, whether that is carrier or land based air defence, or the use of ship (and shore) based aircraft to deal with the threat from Fast Attack Craft as in 1991.
 
AMCM is not something I'd rely on to get my ship thru a minefield...
Agreed. RN MCMs were probably the highest valued non-USN asset in the CENTCOM AOR; even more so than the CdG CVN.

...Similarly, however cool it might be, CH53s are not good platforms for us to adopt. Their maintenance to flying ratio is utterly shocking...
Agreed; they’re very old now. However, hopefully the CH-53K new builds will address that. There’s certainly no other western rotary asset which can compete with its muscle.

...I never say things I cannot back up!


...
Sorry, but I still see little evidence of AMCM being conducted ‘traditionally’ from afloat.

Regards,
MM
 
Agreed. RN MCMs were probably the highest valued non-USN asset in the CENTCOM AOR; even more so than the CdG CVN.

Regards,
MM
Our minehunting sonar must be pretty good by now. Way back in 1962 a helicopter ditched off Portland. HMS Shoulton, the trials ship for the very first model, was sent for from Scotland to help look. One pass through the area and 'There's your helicopter, and furthermore the tail boom is broken'.
 
Anyway...

During the 2011 campaign against Gaddafi, certain carrier critics cited the operating limitations of FS Charles De Gaulle as a limitation of all carriers - ignoring the limitations caused by her size and also by CTOL. Sea state four was the limit as I seem to remember.

Does anyone know what the CVS operating limits for Sea Harrier and Harrier GR3/7/9 were? Presumably even with a 20 000 tonne ship STOVL operations were possible in rougher seas, just like the South Atlantic in 1982.

Back to the present - HMS Queen Elizabeth has launched and recovered F-35B in sea state six with fifty knot winds.


Those who argued for smaller carriers were arguing for reduced operating limits.
 
The pitch, roll and SHOL limits for FA2 and GR7 were pretty harsh: I can imagine they probably bent the rules in ‘82.

Never forget - the Harrier, regardless of type, was an aircraft that actively tried to kill it pilots. The SHOL existed for safety (of pilot and ship), nothing more, nothing less.
 
Yeah - which is why I never understood why people tried to argue that smaller carriers are better. I remember reading of the Falklands Sea Harrier drivers commenting that stop and landing was better than landing and then stopping.

If I am honest I cannot really relate to sea states or how often they occur but it all points to a bigger deck, vertical and not arrested landing, and an aircraft with a more easily controlled vertical landing. The Rolls Royce Pegasus was an awesome product, but controlling four nozzles was always going to be demanding, and a safe landing depended on the cooling water not running out.

However I can understand 'flying with fifty knot winds'. Could a CVS (with jets) do that? Or a CTOL carrier of the same size? Or CDG? Or the Russian, Chinese, and Indian STOBAR carriers?
 
The pitch, roll and SHOL limits for FA2 and GR7 were pretty harsh: I can imagine they probably bent the rules in ‘82.

Never forget - the Harrier, regardless of type, was an aircraft that actively tried to kill it pilots. The SHOL existed for safety (of pilot and ship), nothing more, nothing less.

landing one described by a USMC pilot as being “like sitting on a barstool balanced on the tip of pool cue”
 
...However I can understand 'flying with fifty knot winds'. Could a CVS (with jets) do that? Or a CTOL carrier of the same size? Or CDG? Or the Russian, Chinese, and Indian STOBAR carriers?
50kts and sea state 6 is enormously impressive at this early stage of testing. However, let’s not pretend sea conditions was the only thing that interrupted carrier ops during ELLAMY.

Maybe they were just trying to rock, have you considered that?
Either way, their grammar is a tad rusty! :)

Sadly, it appears to be in the ToRs for MoD media luvvies to be barely literate these days.

Regards,
MM
 
Wait till the hallowed Saint Sharkey sees the RAF name on the side of the F35. There'll be tears, tantrums and teddies thrown all over Grenada..........
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top