UK Defence Forum

In the comparison of numbers carried by aircraft carrier Harrier versus F35B , another consideration might be for the sorties able to be generated if the F35b is able to maintain five sorties a day which could provide a useful coverage at only half the designed for sortie rate
With the f35b shown taking off in the "wet" is there any idea of the sea state?

not sure sea state on video but im sure I heard somewhere they can operate upto sea state 6 ,unless someone knows different ?

inch wrote:not sure sea state on video but im sure I heard somewhere they can operate upto sea state 6 ,unless someone knows different ?

Comfortably it seems. I don’t know if anyone here has ever listened to the Pilot Episodes podcast? It’s crab focused as it’s led by an airplane enthusiast and features 3 current and past pilots who were BBM and Reds pilots but two of them also flew harriers and did carrier tours and one of whom is a senior staff officer currently involved with the carrier program. It’s an interesting listen, I’ve been surprised by their candour on aircraft types and one of the recent episodes featured a day out on HMSQNLZ. They “give away” one or two interesting little snippets including anecdotally how stable they have found her in really high sea states.

Thanks!

I've already got dozens of podcasts to listen to and now I've got another - and it's nearly two hours long.

seaspear wrote:the F35b is able to maintain five sorties a day

I'm pretty sure the way back when requirement from the Marines was 3 a day. But of course, the type of sortie makes a difference.

It depends on how LM interpreted that requirement, fewer longer sorties are more realistic of real world flying.

What FJ flies 5 sorties a day?

One that is really “in the the thick of it”. Fighter aircraft providing defensive cover for a Carrier in a very high threat environment, when as many sorties as are needed will require to be performed.

Scimitar54 wrote:One that is really “in the the thick of it”. Fighter aircraft providing defensive cover for a Carrier in a very high threat environment, when as many sorties as are needed will require to be performed.

You mean none then.

Ron5 wrote:I'm pretty sure the way back when requirement from the Marines was 3 a day. But of course, the type of sortie makes a difference.

Three sorties a day per aircraft for the first two? days, followed by 2 sorties per aircraft per day was the target, but I do remember a statement from early testing, where it was stated that they were actually achieving five sorties per day (can't remember whether it was the USMC or the RN testing, though)

Edit - pretty certain it was the USMC

I've listened to part of the podcast mentioned above (thanks to a three hour round trip to take my mother to a hospital appointment) and there was a claim made by Wings on HMS QE that they were better able to generate sorties on a 24 hours-per-day basis than a US Navy CVN.

The reasoning was that that CVNs require such a huge deck crew they're not resourced to do it on a full three-watch basis. I was driving at the time but I'm pretty sure that was the claim.

The interview starts around 45 mins into the pod.

Only if the Carrier has been sunk or disabled THEN.

Scimitar54 wrote:Only if the Carrier has been sunk or disabled THEN.

What exactly are you on about?

RichardIC wrote:I've listened to part of the podcast mentioned above (thanks to a three hour round trip to take my mother to a hospital appointment) and there was a claim made by Wings on HMS QE that they were better able to generate sorties on a 24 hours-per-day basis than a US Navy CVN.

The reasoning was that that CVNs require such a huge deck crew they're not resourced to do it on a full three-watch basis. I was driving at the time but I'm pretty sure that was the claim.

The interview starts around 45 mins into the pod.

Your poor mother- having to go to hospital (hope she is well and makes a speedy recovery) and having to listen to your podcast in the car!

dmereifield wrote:Your poor mother- having to go to hospital (hope she is well and makes a speedy recovery) and having to listen to your podcast in the car!

Nah, switched it off for that bit of the journey. I'll pass on your best wishes.

Ron5 wrote:I'm pretty sure the way back when requirement from the Marines was 3 a day.

topman wrote:What FJ flies 5 sorties a day?

Israeli jets, after the initial, longer range strike in the Six Day War.

Ron5 wrote:of course, the type of sortie makes a difference.

As per above, AKA CAS = Get there, drop a lot of ordnance... and get back again. Plenty quick.

Caribbean wrote: but I do remember a statement from early testing, where it was stated that they were actually achieving five sorties per day (can't remember whether it was the USMC

Which gives us the right (on USMC's part) answer = 4
- we are going over the old ground here, it's all there, in the F-35 thread

topman wrote:It depends on how LM interpreted that requirement, fewer longer sorties are more realistic of real world flying.

What FJ flies 5 sorties a day?

Sortie profiles were given. We not that dumb

Caribbean wrote:Three sorties a day per aircraft for the first two? days, followed by 2 sorties per aircraft per day was the target

That sounds more like a ship requirement.

The FY2018 Acquisition report stated up to six sorties a day for the F35B off U.S.M.C L.H.Ds and U.K aircraft carriers depending on circumstances I have read the Eurofighter as a comparison is capable of three on its land bases apologies for not being able to download the report

Ron5 wrote:That sounds more like a ship requirement.

Yes - that was based on (IIRC) five days operations without resupply. From a little bit of digging on the interwebz, I've seen figures of 5.5 sorties per day in initial surge, followed by 4 sorties per day, for a couple of days, before dropping to 2 to 3 sorties a day (presumably until fuel and munitions run out. I think the implication is (because the limiting factor on total sorties is the stores capability of the Carrier plus support ships) is that we may need fewer aircraft to achieve the originally planned sortie rate.

Yes - I know........

Caribbean wrote:we may need fewer aircraft to achieve the originally planned sortie rate.

And not lose any.
Another ;levelling of mud huts; scenario
In which F-35s would be expensive overkill

I'm a bit dubious about some of these sortie claims. The claimed sortie rates of the QE's always neatly fitted the number of F-35's deployed. So they (designers/RN) said 72 sustained sorties per day surging to 96 for limited periods i.e 36 aircraft at 2 sorties a day surging to 3 a day. I suspect the pilots get knackered doing the 3 a day for more than a couple days.

Ron5 wrote:I'm a bit dubious about some of these sortie claims. The claimed sortie rates of the QE's always neatly fitted the number of F-35's deployed. So they (designers/RN) said 72 sustained sorties per day surging to 96 for limited periods i.e 36 aircraft at 2 sorties a day surging to 3 a day. I suspect the pilots get knackered doing the 3 a day for more than a couple days.

Would make sense - but it has always been mentioned that there are more pilots than aircraft.

If we have 2/3 pilots per jet, surely humanity isn't the limiting factor?

Does it not also depend on the length of a sortie? i.e 3 per day could mean a different pilot doing 3 missions of 7 hrs per day allowing for 1hr turnaround on each mission for fueling (infight aswell? ) & re-arming or you could have 6 x missions of less endurance ( 3hrs ?) for example, so as with most things it may depend on fluid interpretations ...

No need to think in terms of 7 hour sorties ........ 2-3 hours would be about as much as it could be .............. without A2A refuelling, that is. Regretably, we don’t have any organic A2A assets either!

I suspect we are all showing our ignorance of such things. If only we had experts that posted here