Why does the RAF use OC and not CO?
Anyway -
@Not a Boffin continues to
struggle over on PPRuNe, trying to convince the doubting Thomas' that a carrier's sortie rate is a better metric of her capability than the theoretical number of aircraft she could carry, that manpower limits need to be considered when considering things, and through life costs need to be considered when thinking about powerplants.
PN:
Some years ago the Captain of Ark Royal reckoned that the capacity of a modern CV was one aircraft per 1,000 tons. On that basis he said the QE could have 65 aircraft. Clearly we have compromised - big carrier, smaller air group.
Nab:
There are caveats to that. If we really wanted to - and bought enough aircraft - you could fit 60-ish on the deck and hangar. But operating them would require extensive deck manoeuvres, which means lots more bodies, which means lots more accommodation. You could reduce the accommodation standard and cram more people aboard, but it's people that cost, hence the big ship to allow a relatively small number of people to operate up to 40 cabs.
The old Ark (IV) managed around 36 cabs on 56000 te - so quite a bit more than 1000te/cab - and required 2500 crew.
Given manpower is the Navy's key limit, is personnel per aircraft a better measure of effectiveness than ship tonnage per aircraft?
The whole thread is dominated by the thought that because the QEC design is different from a US design, and we a doing things differently (like STOVL) we have it wrong. See this post from
KenV:
No tankers: But you only really need then for refuelling aircraft struggling to land on, so not such a problem for us then. During missions you still need land based tankers for AAR - no?
No COD: Discussed at great length, but the QEC can still take any sort of VERTREP or HDS, RAS, or put into port. A larger ship means you can carry more spares too.
No AWACS(sic): I assume he means the E-2 Hawkeye. A great aircraft, but it cannot fly as fast or as high as the E-3 Sentry, and is limited by a small crew. You might argue to most important part of naval AEW is to have a radar at a few thousand feet above sea level to detect low fliers. The F-35 will
No jammers: Has anyone other than the US had dedicated ECM aircraft - standfast the German Tornado ECR? I though the thinking had always been that the jets carry their own ECM? Also I thought the F-35 has real Electronic Warfare capability?
The whole discussion about carriers has been characterised by daft assumptions, a failure to appreciate that technology changes, and the lazy argument that because carrier operations often have land based tankers and AWACS support - you can use land bases. Nevermind that AWACS/AAR/transport aircraft are larger than the jets, with more range and endurance.
Spleen venting to be continued.....