CVF and Carrier Strike thread

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
Instead of asking the question I asked, you have answered a question I did not ask, and still got it wrong. Have you considered becoming a politician?

I think that @Not a Boffin would offer a different view - the QEC design was driven by the number of sorties that could be delivered per day. Does it really matter exactly what type of sortie that is (from a carrier design point of view), or whether the jets carry air to air missiles, bombs, or air to surface missiles?

The sortie rate was the number required to beat down a near peer country, not fight some air war against non existent Russian fighters over the north Atlantic.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
The sortie rate was the number required to beat down a near peer country, not fight some air war against non existent Russian fighters over the north Atlantic.

Having worked directly from the "CVF Residual Threat Study" in 20X at Filton, you're badly wrong on this one...
 

Yokel

LE
The sortie rate was the number required to beat down a near peer country, not fight some air war against non existent Russian fighters over the north Atlantic.

Does it matter what the sorties are for; if that number drives deck and hangar design? Providing x F-35B sorties per day - does that dictate that only air to surface ordnance can be carried?

I also imagine that y Merlin sorties per day was also in the specification, but I expect you will claim that they have no ASW role.

Please don't drag me into this utterly pointless willy-waving contest.

Can you both just get a room?

Do I need to take crayons?

I was taking a break from this thread and only dropped in post some links.

Having worked directly from the "CVF Residual Threat Study" in 20X at Filton, you're badly wrong on this one...

QED.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
Having worked directly from the "CVF Residual Threat Study" in 20X at Filton, you're badly wrong on this one...

wind Your way back to the heady days of regime change, it was all about how many planes required to deliver the sorties needed to bomb a putative sandy nation into submission.
It was never about ‘Fleet defence’ and all that stuff, we have bombs, but still no long range A2A missiles, and we haven't even specified a maritime anti surface capability for the F-35, unlike partners with NSM.

and the first operational use of the carrier and its F-35’s - bombing people in sandy places….
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
wind Your way back to the heady days of regime change, it was all about how many planes required to deliver the sorties needed to bomb a putative sandy nation into submission.

This was 2000-2001 and Iraq was (at that point) in its box; we'd only just done DESERT FOX to take out a few suspected WMD sites, and nobody was talking "regime change".

It was never about ‘Fleet defence’ and all that stuff,

Yes, it was. You didn't read the requirement documents, or the representative missions, did you?

we have bombs, but still no long range A2A missiles, and we haven't even specified a maritime anti surface capability for the F-35, unlike partners with NSM.

Which wasn't relevant to 2000, and we're only taking our time integrating Meteor for a lack of urgent need.

Likewise, where's the blue-water surface threat we currently need to smite that makes an ASuW capability the highest priority?

and the first operational use of the carrier and its F-35’s - bombing people in sandy places….

Just as we bought Typhoon primarily for air defence, but its first combat use was bombing sandy places.

Of course, that means that the only thing we'll ever need to do is bomb sandy places, now and forever...?


It's said that generals are always ready to fight the last War over again. It had been thousands of years since the last war between Tsort and Ephebe, but generals have long memories and this time they were ready for it. On both sides of the line, wooden horses were taking shape.
...
The sergeant cautiously opened the hatch in the horse's belly. When the expected flurry of spears did not materialise he ordered Autocue to let out the rope ladder, climbed down it, and looked across the chill morning desert. The new recruit followed him down and stood, hopping from one sandal to another, on sand that was nearly freezing now and would be frying by lunchtime. 'There,' said the sergeant, pointing, 'see the Tsortean lines, lad?' 'Looks like a row of wooden horses to me, sergeant,' said Autocue. 'The one on the end's on rockers.' 'That'll be the officers. Huh. Those Tsorteans must think we're simple.' The sergeant stamped some life into his legs, took a few breaths of fresh air, and walked back to the ladder. 'Come on, lad,' he said. 'Why've we got to go back up there?' The sergeant paused, his foot on a rope rung. 'Use some common, laddie. They're not going to come and take our horses if they see us hanging around outside, are they? Stands to reason.' 'You sure they're going to come, then?' said Autocue. The sergeant frowned at him. 'Look, soldier,' he said, 'anyone bloody stupid enough to think we're going to drag a lot of horses full of soldiers back to our city is certainly daft enough to drag ours all the way back to theirs.'
 
Last edited:
wind Your way back to the heady days of regime change, it was all about how many planes required to deliver the sorties needed to bomb a putative sandy nation into submission.
It was never about ‘Fleet defence’ and all that stuff, we have bombs, but still no long range A2A missiles, and we haven't even specified a maritime anti surface capability for the F-35, unlike partners with NSM.

and the first operational use of the carrier and its F-35’s - bombing people in sandy places….
Afraid not.

All the requirements studies of the mid-90s and beyond - including the supporting high-level and detailed operational analysis that supported the Staff Requirement Dossier for the project - included defence of maritime forces and forces ashore from an air threat.

The sortie generation studies and requirements all included air defence as well.
 
Obvious fûckwit is obvious…
 
To add to my post above ..... from wiki

The DP-65 (98U)[4][5][6] is a Russian special compact 55 mm ten-barreled remotely-controlled naval grenade launcher system based on MRG-1 seven-barrel grenade launcher. It also has a manual control mode.

DP-65 uses sonar Anapa-ME for underwater target detection. DP-65 high explosive grenades RG-55M are akin to miniature depth charges equipped with jet engine with an annular stabilizer.

In 1991, the DP-65 automated, small size, remotely-controlled Rocket Grenade Launcher system was developed and adopted by the Russian Navy.

DP-65 can be installed directly on watercraft and on the coast.

Designed to protect ships, waterworks, offshore platforms and other important marine and coastal facilities from combat divers, frogmen, and saboteurs. The grenades are believed to produce casualties to divers within 16 meters of the explosion.[7] They are employed by Grachonok-class anti-saboteur ships.[7]
View attachment 601017

Could you just have a charged capacitor ready for the moment a sonar detects a frogman or dolphin and electrify the water? It all seems a bit...Barnes Wallace to me.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Could you just have a charged capacitor ready for the moment a sonar detects a frogman or dolphin and electrify the water? It all seems a bit...Barnes Wallace to me.

Flash Gordon walt... do you want to have nets ready to catch the diver's body too?
 
Im curios about @PhotEx claims, wasnt our carriers primary mission in the FI to defend the fleet and secondly probably to take out helicopters and finally drop a few token bombs on the argies?

So why would we not consider that for any attack, we need air superiority first, so A2G must always be a second function as it is not possible without Air Dominance?
 

Alamo

LE
Im curios about @PhotEx claims, wasnt our carriers primary mission in the FI to defend the fleet and secondly probably to take out helicopters and finally drop a few token bombs on the argies?

So why would we not consider that for any attack, we need air superiority first, so A2G must always be a second function as it is not possible without Air Dominance?
I think you're making a commonly made mistake of comparing apples and oranges. F35 is not a modern version of SHAR, whose role was primarily defensive. F35, on the other hand, is a deep penetration offensive strike/ISR platform. The primary purpose of the carrier is to get F35 to where it needs to be to do that. If we then use F35 just to defend ourselves 'because we're there' it becomes a self-licking lollipop. Likewise, if we use the UK's deep penetration strike asset to defend the carrier, whilst simultaneously feeding Typhoons into the meat-grinder of, say, SA-21, we have completely missed the point.

(Note, I absolutely accept the power projection effect of Carrier Strike, the surface and sub-surface warfighting domains it has to operate in, and that it requires defending. But let's be honest, the point of carriers is aeroplanes)

Carrier Strike is a new, and different, capability. Employing 'this is the way we used to do it' or, even worse, 'this is how the USN do it' thinking will be a complete waste.
 
I think you're making a commonly made mistake of comparing apples and oranges. F35 is not a modern version of SHAR, whose role was primarily defensive. F35, on the other hand, is a deep penetration offensive strike/ISR platform. The primary purpose of the carrier is to get F35 to where it needs to be to do that. If we then use F35 just to defend ourselves 'because we're there' it becomes a self-licking lollipop. Likewise, if we use the UK's deep penetration strike asset to defend the carrier, whilst simultaneously feeding Typhoons into the meat-grinder of, say, SA-21, we have completely missed the point.

(Note, I absolutely accept the power projection effect of Carrier Strike, the surface and sub-surface warfighting domains it has to operate in, and that it requires defending. But let's be honest, the point of carriers is aeroplanes)

Carrier Strike is a new, and different, capability. Employing 'this is the way we used to do it' or, even worse, 'this is how the USN do it' thinking will be a complete waste.

A fair point and I am not calling it either way, its just an interesting topic to me that I have no experience of.

I wasnt really comparing it to SHAR (in my mind) but as to the conflict or conflicts we could find ourselves in when writing a requirements paper.

Would that mean the F-35 and a strike of ALCM and TLAM would aim to put the airfields out of operation and so AA would be a far less role which would be taken up by our Destroyers?

Or as was suggested, we left the box open to anything and everything we want to with the F35B
 

Alamo

LE
A fair point and I am not calling it either way, its just an interesting topic to me that I have no experience of.

I wasnt really comparing it to SHAR (in my mind) but as to the conflict or conflicts we could find ourselves in when writing a requirements paper.

Would that mean the F-35 and a strike of ALCM and TLAM would aim to put the airfields out of operation and so AA would be a far less role which would be taken up by our Destroyers?

Or as was suggested, we left the box open to anything and everything we want to with the F35B
If I may, I think you're making another commonly made mistake of envisaging Carrier Strike operating unilaterally.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
I think you're making a commonly made mistake of comparing apples and oranges. F35 is not a modern version of SHAR, whose role was primarily defensive. F35, on the other hand, is a deep penetration offensive strike/ISR platform.

Agree entirely (it's underestimated what a game-changer a flight of four F-35s is in capability terms) but part of that does include, a much greater AD capability than SHAR (even FA.2) offered, when operating somewhere that the enemy's aircraft might try to interfere with our cunning plans.

We can do much more with QECV/F-35B than we could with CVS/Harrier - which sweeps up "oh, and make sure the Bad Guys don't take out the carrier you need to fly from" almost en passant.

(Note, I absolutely accept the power projection effect of Carrier Strike, the surface and sub-surface warfighting domains it has to operate in, and that it requires defending. But let's be honest, the point of carriers is aeroplanes)

Again, fully agree - the point that the usual suspects miss is that it's not either/or, but a flexible spectrum. There won't be a force of F-35Bs tasked for task force air defence and nothing else through the campaign, there'll be tailoring to the situation (allowing for enough flexibility to adapt to the unexpected)

One theoretical campaign might - I've just made it up - involve a QECV poising close enough to Verdatia (a.k.a. the Bad People) for them to break some teeth on trying to find and strike it, then having F-35s smack the Verdatian IADS about enough that other NTO forces (the good guys) can get in past the smoking craters that used to be S-400 sites i.o.t. COERCE, DEFEAT, DESTROY, Red, while REASSURING, PROTECTING, DEFENDING Blue.

F-35Bs from the carrier flying DCA may be one part of that campaign but it's only one of the tasks they'll be undertaking as part of a joint and combined effort.

Air defence of the Carrier Strike Group happens in a scenario like that but it's a means to an end, not the entire mission; and having useful numbers of fifth-generation aircraft that are not only multi-role, but able to be swing-role, make it easier to achieve. (As the late, lamented Ed Rasimus used to say, "Air superiority is what real pilots do on their way to and from their targets")

(Apologies to @Alamo for grossly oversimplifying his part of ship...)

Carrier Strike is a new, and different, capability. Employing 'this is the way we used to do it' or, even worse, 'this is how the USN do it' thinking will be a complete waste.

This, in spades.
 

Alamo

LE
Agree entirely (it's underestimated what a game-changer a flight of four F-35s is in capability terms) but part of that does include, a much greater AD capability than SHAR (even FA.2) offered, when operating somewhere that the enemy's aircraft might try to interfere with our cunning plans.

We can do much more with QECV/F-35B than we could with CVS/Harrier - which sweeps up "oh, and make sure the Bad Guys don't take out the carrier you need to fly from" almost en passant.



Again, fully agree - the point that the usual suspects miss is that it's not either/or, but a flexible spectrum. There won't be a force of F-35Bs tasked for task force air defence and nothing else through the campaign, there'll be tailoring to the situation (allowing for enough flexibility to adapt to the unexpected)

One theoretical campaign might - I've just made it up - involve a QECV poising close enough to Verdatia (a.k.a. the Bad People) for them to break some teeth on trying to find and strike it, then having F-35s smack the Verdatian IADS about enough that other NTO forces (the good guys) can get in past the smoking craters that used to be S-400 sites i.o.t. COERCE, DEFEAT, DESTROY, Red, while REASSURING, PROTECTING, DEFENDING Blue.

F-35Bs from the carrier flying DCA may be one part of that campaign but it's only one of the tasks they'll be undertaking as part of a joint and combined effort.

Air defence of the Carrier Strike Group happens in a scenario like that but it's a means to an end, not the entire mission; and having useful numbers of fifth-generation aircraft that are not only multi-role, but able to be swing-role, make it easier to achieve. (As the late, lamented Ed Rasimus used to say, "Air superiority is what real pilots do on their way to and from their targets")

(Apologies to @Alamo for grossly oversimplifying his part of ship...)



This, in spades.
Fully agreed. Unfortunately, the (only) start point for a lot of people is 'We need x sorties to defend ourselves, you (the air component) can have the spare'.
 

Yokel

LE
I think you're making a commonly made mistake of comparing apples and oranges. F35 is not a modern version of SHAR, whose role was primarily defensive. F35, on the other hand, is a deep penetration offensive strike/ISR platform. The primary purpose of the carrier is to get F35 to where it needs to be to do that. If we then use F35 just to defend ourselves 'because we're there' it becomes a self-licking lollipop. Likewise, if we use the UK's deep penetration strike asset to defend the carrier, whilst simultaneously feeding Typhoons into the meat-grinder of, say, SA-21, we have completely missed the point.

(Note, I absolutely accept the power projection effect of Carrier Strike, the surface and sub-surface warfighting domains it has to operate in, and that it requires defending. But let's be honest, the point of carriers is aeroplanes)

Carrier Strike is a new, and different, capability. Employing 'this is the way we used to do it' or, even worse, 'this is how the USN do it' thinking will be a complete waste.

I have really tried not to post on this thread after the above posts by @Not a Boffin and @jrwlynch, but what does 'to defend ourselves' actually mean? If it means defending amphibious forces or logistic shipping, then surely that is a valid carrier role if a threat exists? Likewise defending ASW helicopters against MiGs.

Fleet air defence is so much more than defending the carrier, as is coordinated/task group ASW.
 

Alamo

LE
I have really tried not to post on this thread after the above posts by @Not a Boffin and @jrwlynch, but what does 'to defend ourselves' actually mean? If it means defending amphibious forces or logistic shipping, then surely that is a valid carrier role if a threat exists? Likewise defending ASW helicopters against MiGs.

Fleet air defence is so much more than defending the carrier, as is coordinated/task group ASW.
I’m suggesting that if you go to Point X in order to deliver offensive strike, and then don’t because you are using your offensive strike assets to defend yourself, you are better off not going to Point X in the first place. Either that or, more sensibly, use defensive assets for their primary purpose, and offensive assets for theirs.

I don’t think anyone’s suggesting defence doesn’t need to happen, but it should be way, way down the task list of F35.
 

Yokel

LE
I’m suggesting that if you go to Point X in order to deliver offensive strike, and then don’t because you are using your offensive strike assets to defend yourself, you are better off not going to Point X in the first place. Either that or, more sensibly, use defensive assets for their primary purpose, and offensive assets for theirs.

I don’t think anyone’s suggesting defence doesn’t need to happen, but it should be way, way down the task list of F35.

What if (like in 1982) you go to point X to achieve air and maritime superiority, and put a force ashore, and ground attack is a less of a priority? Or (like in old Cold War scenarios) you are protecting shipping and fighting the enemy in blue water?

The priorities with change from day to day, if not more, so the key thing is flexibility.
 
Last edited:

Alamo

LE
What if (like in 1982) you go to point X do achieve air and maritime superiority, and put a force ashore, and ground attack is a less of a priority? Or (like in old Cold War scenarios) you are protecting shipping and fighting the enemy in blue water?

The priorities with change from day to day, if not more, so the key thing is flexibility.
If you have a force ashore surely ground attack is a higher priority?

If you consider protecting shipping to be a good use of our sole deep penetration asset then I don’t think our positions can be reconciled.

Agreed.
 
Top