Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

CVF and Carrier Strike thread

It is. That's why I used to go across the river into Canada back in the day to get served in bars legally. Or might have used something called a fake ID. Allegedly.

Exercise Purple Star, 1996, involving personnel in North Carolina.

Exercise seems to have worked quite well, and and the question of legal age drinking was - as I recall - made crystal clear to the UK participants.

With the main exercise completed, there still the need to get people back to the UK. At the US Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, there were large numbers of UK personnel waiting to go home. Numbers reduced daily.

I recall a morning briefing during this latter period when a RMP officer reported a problem with British Army personnel having gone downtown. (they were reported as being Paras.)

They apparently went into bars and drank alcohol, although some of them were actually under 21!

It worked for a while, and then they were refused further drinks. They apparently tried again at other bars, but the bush telegraph worked and they found themselves out of luck.

The RMP officer then reported that three of these Paras walked back to Cherry Point, but on the way broke into the Motor Pool compound and got access to the battery acid top-up store, from which they drank liberally.

The morning briefing audience were appalled.

The RMP officer then reported: "I understand that they are all being charged this morning".

There was a moment of silence before a roar of approval. Despite evidence to the contrary, it appeared that the RMP did have a sense of humour.

I'm sure the ship's company of HMS Queen Elizabeth were briefed about under age drinking in the USA.
 
Is there any chance of getting back on topic? I am sure ARRSE must have threads dedicated to drinking, drinking games, and problem drinking. The exception to my request is if anyone has an entertaining idea for a carrier themed drinking/dining establishment, such as a 'carrier landing' game for a chance of winning free food and drink.
 
Airfix Flight Deck Game ~ 1973

and a bottle of port.
Airfix-Flight-Deck-Game-1973_700_600_4BI02.jpg
 
The way that many military RPAS originating in the US operate today involves considerable economies of scale that only a few countries can afford. You need a satellite network, ground stations, and very often sovereign satellite launch capability.

I’m not sure I’d refer to them as economies of scale given the additional personnel, infra and J6 architecture required to operate them. RPAS can provide fantastic persistence once they’re established in theatre. But they can currently only really be used in non-contested environments and come with big overheads. A former USAF CSAF once stated publicly that his ‘...greatest manpower challenge was manning...[his]...unmanned aircraft...’!!!

However, you’re correct regarding the vulnerability of satellites.

...On the other hand, UAV systems which rely on line of sight back to platforms such as ships or conventional aircraft that are in the same area don't face the same limitations...

That’s true to an extent although even LoS UAS require significant manpower, bandwidth and infra considerations which are not required for manned assets. For instance, the small British Army Hermes 450 det in Afghanistan had more people than the RAF Tornado GR4 det and were unable to expand capacity due to infra issues.

Unfortunately, even LoS UAS require frequency spectrum surveys, spectrum coord, and the deployment of Ground Data Towers, Ground Control Stations and other infra, much of which will require surveys and AT to deploy.

...To relate this to naval use, it is easy to imagine long endurance UAVs being used to extend the sensor range of an aircraft carrier without relying on a satellite to act as a relay...

But if you’re keeping them LoS, you’re realistically only extending your sensor coverage by around 150nm and probably less in an ECM environment. That’s not much in Air Power terms.

I can see the MQ-25 being parked within LoS of mother to cover recovery issues as often happens with the FA-18E/F now. However, much beyond that and they’ll need SATCOM.

The UK is also doing a lot of work on using very high altitude long endurance UAVs as communications relays, although I suspect that these would need to be sent from land bases rather than launched at sea because of their size and fragility.

The current trials variants are certainly fragile and also have a very small payload.

As yet another combination, UAVs could be launched from a carrier, taken over by a manned aircraft (I'm imagining something with a set of manned consoles in the back, rather than a fighter), which then uses them to conduct various missions out of range of the carrier while themselves maintaining a safe distance from local threats.

Control from both larger C2 assets and combat assets is already being conducted. ‘Assigning’ them to a manned combat asset would allow the ‘loyal wingman’ concept to be developed further and this is already happening in trials. This would also reduce reliance upon SATCOM.


From the product description:

‘...the challenge of the game is to land an RAF Phantom onto the deck of an Aircraft Carrier...’

Brilliant!!! :)

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure I’d refer to them as economies of scale given the additional personnel, infra and J6 architecture required to operate them. A former USAF CSAF once stated publicly that his ‘...greatest manpower challenge was manning...[his]...unmanned aircraft...’!!!

However, you’re correct regarding the vulnerability of satellites.



That’s true to an extent although even LoS UAS require significant manpower, bandwidth and infra considerations which are not required for manned assets. For instance, the small British Army Hermes 450 det in Afghanistan had more people than the RAF Tornado GR4 det and were unable to expand capacity due to infra issues.

Unfortunately, even LoS UAS require frequency spectrum surveys, spectrum coord, and the deployment of Ground Data Towers, Ground Control Stations and other infra, much of which will require surveys and AT to deploy.



But if you’re keeping them LoS, you’re realistically only extending your sensor coverage by around 150nm and probably less in an ECM environment. That’s not much in Air Power terms.

I can see the MQ-25 being parked within LoS of mother to cover recovery issues as often happens with the FA-18E/F now. However, much beyond that and they’ll need SATCOM.



The current trials variants are certainly fragile and also have a very small payload.



Control from both larger C2 assets and combat assets is already being conducted. ‘Assigning’ them to a manned combat asset would allow the ‘loyal wingman’ concept to be developed further and this is already happening in trials. This would also reduce reliance upon SATCOM.



From the product description:

‘...the challenge of the game is to land an RAF Phantom onto the deck of an Aircraft Carrier...’

Brilliant!!! :)

Regards,
MM

The Phoenix Think Tank are watching. Just saying, like.
 
Is there any chance of getting back on topic? I am sure ARRSE must have threads dedicated to drinking, drinking games, and problem drinking. The exception to my request is if anyone has an entertaining idea for a carrier themed drinking/dining establishment, such as a 'carrier landing' game for a chance of winning free food and drink.

This is the 500th page on the topic. My post followed earlier ones about personnel from HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH being involved in hassle with police in Florida. My point was that sailors - and, indeed, any young service personnel - will misbehave. And that even the RMP can make a joke about it.
If you don't find this relevant to the first visit of the RN's latest aircraft carrier to the USA and reports about the vast numbers of SIX sailors being in trouble, then I must apologise publicly to all those who have been offended.
 
‘...the challenge of the game is to land an RAF Phantom onto the deck of an Aircraft Carrier...’

Brilliant!!! :)

Regards,
MM

Was this just the website description or did the original Airfix notes and instructions say this? In the words of Gunnery Sergeant Holt USMC (star of the 1990 US Navy video Pressure Point):

Attention to detail
Attention to detail
ATTENTION TO DETAIL*



Anyway - I was thinking of something like this:



In On Yankee Station, Cdr John B Nichols USN (Rtd) claim the seat and cockpit from an old F-8 Crusader was used to provide a similar 'toy' to aviators taking R n' R at the Officers' Club (the one frequented by fliers) at NAS Cubi Point (spelling?) in the Philippines during the war in Vietnam.

This is the 500th page on the topic. My post followed earlier ones about personnel from HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH being involved in hassle with police in Florida. My point was that sailors - and, indeed, any young service personnel - will misbehave. And that even the RMP can make a joke about it.
If you don't find this relevant to the first visit of the RN's latest aircraft carrier to the USA and reports about the vast numbers of SIX sailors being in trouble, then I must apologise publicly to all those who have been offended.

I was not specifically reply to you, but all the posts about drinking and tipping etiquette seem out of place. I think it odd that a few drunken acts get so much publicity.

*My English teacher said the same thing.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure I’d refer to them as economies of scale given the additional personnel, infra and J6 architecture required to operate them.
There are economies of scale in that there is a certain minimum investment in satellite and associated infrastructure before you can even get into the game. This works against smaller countries in that these costs are not incremental and so the cost per RPAS is higher for a smaller number of them than it is for a larger number. Or to put it another way, economies of scale work against smaller operations, not just in favour of larger ones.

This means that a strategy that is based on doing the same thing that the US is doing, but on a smaller scale, may not be economically viable.


That’s true to an extent although even LoS UAS require significant manpower, bandwidth and infra considerations which are not required for manned assets. For instance, the small British Army Hermes 450 det in Afghanistan had more people than the RAF Tornado GR4 det and were unable to expand capacity due to infra issues.
We are talking about naval applications here however, and the carrier brings its own infrastructure with it.

Unfortunately, even LoS UAS require frequency spectrum surveys, spectrum coord, and the deployment of Ground Data Towers, Ground Control Stations and other infra, much of which will require surveys and AT to deploy.
I would imagine this is less of a problem at sea, as there won't be any ground control stations or towers, and fewer local users of radio spectrum. See below for more context.

But if you’re keeping them LoS, you’re realistically only extending your sensor coverage by around 150nm and probably less in an ECM environment. That’s not much in Air Power terms.
I did say "to extend the sensor range of an aircraft carrier". This would be a useful capability which should be pretty straightforward to implement and can be deployed at almost any time without drawing on any outside resources.

For example, imagine passing through a busy marine environment where there are hundreds of vessels of different sizes moving in various directions on a continuous basis. Which of them are whom they say they are, and which ones are something else? It may pay to have something which can take a closer look on an almost continuous basis.

You could launch jet fighters to overfly them, but that will be running up the air frame hours and also may not be well received by the country who owns the waters you are sailing through. You could do it with helicopters, but you may want to be saving your helicopters for other tasks such as looking for submarines. Or you could have some UAV/RPAS operating less conspicuously ahead of you to do this job.

Control from both larger C2 assets and combat assets is already being conducted. ‘Assigning’ them to a manned combat asset would allow the ‘loyal wingman’ concept to be developed further and this is already happening in trials. This would also reduce reliance upon SATCOM.
The "loyal wingman" concepts that I have seen written about seem to revolve around something that works in conjunction with fighters. I was thinking more in terms of some sort of UAV which is launched by the aircraft carrier, and could be optionally taken over by a manned aircraft along the lines of Sentinel (or similar) and operated by them, and when done handed back to the carrier.

I understand that you say that something comparable to this is already being done, but I was giving an example of how UAVs or RPAS launched by a carrier could work with other resources to achieve effects that neither could on their own.
 
Is there any chance of getting back on topic? I am sure ARRSE must have threads dedicated to drinking, drinking games, and problem drinking. The exception to my request is if anyone has an entertaining idea for a carrier themed drinking/dining establishment, such as a 'carrier landing' game for a chance of winning free food and drink.

@Yokel .....well what do you expect when your country's carrier has a pub onboard!
 
Was this just the website description or did the original Airfix notes and instructions say this?...

Just the website.

The original Airfix notes and instructions stated:

'Due to poor RN manning priorities and general apathy towards fixed wing aviation, your toy will sit around unused for months on end if you apply 'Royal Navy' decals. Therefore, we recommend you pretend to be an RAF pilot to ensure maximum use of your expensive new aeroplane.' ;)

@Magic_Mushroom ....of course. The ac doesn't have the nose wheel extension, so must be RAF...hence the "challenge."

Man up! The toy only did recoveries iirc so nosewheel extension was not engaged!

Regards,
MM
 
...This means that a strategy that is based on doing the same thing that the US is doing, but on a smaller scale, may not be economically viable...

Ah gotcha and agree.

...We are talking about naval applications here however, and the carrier brings its own infrastructure with it...

Agreed. I've made that point previously or that ships could be employed as a GCS for land based RPAS under certain circumstances.

...I would imagine this is less of a problem at sea, as there won't be any ground control stations or towers, and fewer local users of radio spectrum. See below for more context...

Agreed in that it can be pre-planned under blue water type ops, even though a TG can be pretty busy in the EM spectrum itself. However, once you get close to shore and/or integrate into Joint ops, spectrum management will still be a major factor.

...I did say "to extend the sensor range of an aircraft carrier". This would be a useful capability which should be pretty straightforward to implement and can be deployed at almost any time without drawing on any outside resources...

Agreed. Assets like Scan Eagle, Integrator and the Schiebel S-100 are - like land-based UAV - excellent for such a role and it's disappointing the RN still lacks this capability.

...I understand that you say that something comparable to this is already being done, but I was giving an example of how UAVs or RPAS launched by a carrier could work with other resources to achieve effects that neither could on their own.

Agreed. I'd anticipate MQ-25 falling into this category in exactly the same way as manned carrier assets are normally controlled by land-based C2 assets once launched.

Regards,
MM
 

New posts

Top