CVF and Carrier Strike thread

A big flat-topped ship with something on the top, and a little ship.

This one seems to show 2 Apaches? aboard PWLS:
edit note: I am a mong
 

Yokel

LE
You mean BOST ;)

No I meant the FOST organisation.

Going back to issue of Merlins and ASW, I was trying to make the point that in a genuine crisis 820NAS could have taken a couple of extra cabs with them.
 
I know - I forgot to add "in the Falklands". My guess is that without the ski jump then the Sea Harrier would have had trouble maintaining combat air patrols at the same range and for the same duration.
There was an article in one naval orientated magazine that said on one Nato exercise in the Atlantic during the cold war where one of the Invincible class was paired off with a big USN carrier the sea state was too rough to launch their aircraft, but the RN carrier could still get its Sea Harriers in the air. It also said that if we had a conventional carrier during the Falklands the operation could have failed as a lot of time the seas were too rough to launch conventional aircraft, although the Sea Harriers and the RAF ones always got into the air. How true that is, I don't know.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
There was an article in one naval orientated magazine that said on one Nato exercise in the Atlantic during the cold war where one of the Invincible class was paired off with a big USN carrier the sea state was too rough to launch their aircraft, but the RN carrier could still get its Sea Harriers in the air. It also said that if we had a conventional carrier during the Falklands the operation could have failed as a lot of time the seas were too rough to launch conventional aircraft, although the Sea Harriers and the RAF ones always got into the air. How true that is, I don't know.
Yes and no. Ark could have attacked mainland airbases.
 
There was an article in one naval orientated magazine that said on one Nato exercise in the Atlantic during the cold war where one of the Invincible class was paired off with a big USN carrier the sea state was too rough to launch their aircraft, but the RN carrier could still get its Sea Harriers in the air. It also said that if we had a conventional carrier during the Falklands the operation could have failed as a lot of time the seas were too rough to launch conventional aircraft, although the Sea Harriers and the RAF ones always got into the air. How true that is, I don't know.

I doubt it, the SHAR SHOL was pretty restrictive.

I imagine some fanbois will claim it could vertical launch, and thus not need to worry about a SHOL.
 
Yes, if you wanted straight up and straight back down again, pretty much.

Remember the rather hopeful illustrations of lily-padding off the back of frigates?

I've got a book from the 80s where we were going to use random converted MVs.
 
Trials off the back of HMS Somerset?

main-qimg-bab5d6f671fb1bea95bcb1d89e3b9c13
 
It's more to do with recovering the aircraft and how much the ship pitches and heaves. The CTOL aircraft recover on a particular glideslope at 120+ kts relative, so when the landing point and/or the ships stern are moving vertically beyond a certain value (which is relatively small) it can get tricky to say the least. Consequences including ramp strike (hit the aft end of the flightdeck), excess loads on undercarriage etc.

How much those points move is a combination of the size of the ship and it's response to the waves. Bigger the ship, lower the movement. Our relatively small CTOL carriers would have struggled.

For STOVL, the relative speed is pretty much zero and they can recover close to midships where the pitch motion is minimised, so the size effect is lessened as well to a degree.
 
Last edited:
better than getting your Lion's claws out.
Oops, the photo was captioned as HMS Summerzet in the article I read. Will go outside and flagellate myself without mercy.
 

Yokel

LE
I doubt it, the SHAR SHOL was pretty restrictive.

I imagine some fanbois will claim it could vertical launch, and thus not need to worry about a SHOL.

It could have done with a larger carrier to land on. I think the point was that it could recover in sea states that would have made conventional carrier operations dangerous with Hermes sized carriers.

Scimitars or Sea Vixens in the South Atlantic as opposed to the Sea Harrier?

Back to the present - am I wrong for being a tad disappointed not to see two or three Merlins operation from Prince of Wales in a surveillance role?
 
It could have done with a larger carrier to land on. I think the point was that it could recover in sea states that would have made conventional carrier operations dangerous with Hermes sized carriers.

Scimitars or Sea Vixens in the South Atlantic as opposed to the Sea Harrier?

Back to the present - am I wrong for being a tad disappointed not to see two or three Merlins operation from Prince of Wales in a surveillance role?

Given that a SHOL consists of relative wind, pitch and roll, and ship size only impacts on two of those, I doubt it.
 

Latest Threads

Top