UK Defence Forum

swoop wrote:Queenie would enter the basin and go straight into the dry dock regardless.

For goodness sake do not let any DM or Scum journalists see her being called 'Queenie', they'd soon jump on it and report back that the crew have nicknamed her that alongside 'Big Lizzie'!

Nothing new here, but a good read and some fantastic images.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-que ... ary-power/

I agree about the images, and the article is nicely written (in general enough terms for a wider distribution), but also gives a fresh and credible quote for the sortie rate (that we often discuss here).

OK, this " by 2023, we are committed to 24 UK jets onboard, and after that it’s too far away to say.” can be done at a push, but
- the 2026 fully operational date for CEPP does not figure at all, and
- the most dazzling fact-let is actually on the chart: getting two fully operational squadrons could stretch out all the way to 2034 (?)

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I agree about the images, and the article is nicely written (in general enough terms for a wider distribution), but also gives a fresh and credible quote for the sortie rate (that we often discuss here).

OK, this " by 2023, we are committed to 24 UK jets onboard, and after that it’s too far away to say.” can be done at a push, but
- the 2026 fully operational date for CEPP does not figure at all, and
- the most dazzling fact-let is actually on the chart: getting two fully operational squadrons could stretch out all the way to 2034 (?)

There's no great sortie rate mystery. For public consumption the party line is a sustained rate of two sorties per day per aircraft that can surge to three a day for a short while. So 36 F-35's at 2 a day equals a sustained 72 sortie rate that can surge to 108.

Of course in practice these numbers could and will be exceeded. But it all depends on the number of jets onboard.

Ron5 wrote:So 36 F-35's at 2 a day equals a sustained 72 sortie rate that can surge to 108.

Of course in practice these numbers could and will be exceeded

Yes, how come I thought 72 came from 3 x 24?
- the only part I take dispute with is the "of course"

Uptread we have a lot of good discussion about how not all sorties were created equal.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Uptread we have a lot of good discussion about how not all sorties were created equal.

I read it, mostly bollox.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Yes, how come I thought 72 came from 3 x 24?

Dunnno. The design point was a complement of 36 FJ's.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:the only part I take dispute with is the "of course"

Why? In stress conditions the ship will be overloaded, overworked, margins will be cut and rule books ignored. Such is the nature of things.

I think people are reading too much into those numbers in the article and put their own answers to get a conclusion they favour.

The 72 number is the ships theoretical maximum in terms of ship design for things like refuelling ammo loads etc.

The number of F35 sorties will be another number entirely it will depend on a whole other number of factors.

You won't be flying every jet three or even twice a day, everyday.

topman wrote:I think people are reading too much into those numbers in the article and put their own answers to get a conclusion they favour.

The 72 number is the ships theoretical maximum in terms of ship design for things like refuelling ammo loads etc.

The number of F35 sorties will be another number entirely it will depend on a whole other number of factors.

You won't be flying every jet three or even twice a day, everyday.

Take your reality elsewhere. It's not welcome here.

downsizer wrote:

topman wrote:I think people are reading too much into those numbers in the article and put their own answers to get a conclusion they favour.

The 72 number is the ships theoretical maximum in terms of ship design for things like refuelling ammo loads etc.

The number of F35 sorties will be another number entirely it will depend on a whole other number of factors.

You won't be flying every jet three or even twice a day, everyday.

Take your reality elsewhere. It's not welcome here.

True, however I'm always surprised at what is a fairly obscure bit of information and most people don't really talk about it on places like here. Yet put FJ and aircraft carriers together and it brings out a fascination with sortie rates for some unfathomable reason!

Are there any thoughts on the upgrading of the s1850m radar so that it is comparable to Smart-l-ewc as per on Dutch naval vessels ?

Ron5 wrote: Dunnno. The design point was a complement of 36 FJ's.

t

The design point was sortie generation (initial & sustained) which should not come as a great surprise to anyone as without any a/c up in the air the carrier's main offensive weapon system is 'inoperative'.

Of course, when we first allow for the planned Merlin complement, then stack the hangar full (but leave the lifts free for use) and then fill the deck (and allow the precious a/c to be exposed to salt over prolonged periods), we can have all 48 (of our planned JSF strength) onboard on one carrier, at once https://jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftc ... e-a-12.jpg

seaspear wrote:Are there any thoughts on the upgrading of the s1850m radar so that it is comparable to Smart-l-ewc as per on Dutch naval vessels ?

Going to an active array would be nice, but I wouldn't give it enormous priority at the moment. If the RN pursues such an upgrade for Type45, tagging the carriers onto that buy makes a ton of sense. But if you're talking carrier-only money, there are likely plenty of other priorities.

Halidon wrote:such an upgrade for Type45, tagging the carriers onto [that buy] makes a ton of sense.

Under any kind of threat situation there would/ should be a T-45 in presence.

Takes me to another question: Command facilities. T-45s are not equipped to flagship level. There were the Albions (and Ocean was upgraded), and then the carriers coming, so that was not deemed necessary/ was deemed an unnecessary and expensive overlap.
- however, one of the planning assumptions was CEC-level coordination in the AAW domain ( a subset for sure, but the one where being a laggard "could sink" the MTF, just like the lack of air cover "sank" TF 'Z')
- as CEC proc was canned, has enough "comms" been put in place for the sensor-shooter separation to become reality (also for the RN; USN is onto their next iteration already)?

Halidon wrote:If the RN pursues such an upgrade for Type45, tagging the carriers onto that buy makes a ton of sense.

You'd think so. If the UK has 9 S1850, and 7 are upgraded leaving the remaining 2 as S1850M might actually cost more in the long run.

Timmymagic wrote: and 7

Is our test installation on land the 7th in that reference?

topman wrote:

downsizer wrote:

topman wrote:I think people are reading too much into those numbers in the article and put their own answers to get a conclusion they favour.

The 72 number is the ships theoretical maximum in terms of ship design for things like refuelling ammo loads etc.

The number of F35 sorties will be another number entirely it will depend on a whole other number of factors.

You won't be flying every jet three or even twice a day, everyday.

Take your reality elsewhere. It's not welcome here.

True, however I'm always surprised at what is a fairly obscure bit of information and most people don't really talk about it on places like here. Yet put FJ and aircraft carriers together and it brings out a fascination with sortie rates for some unfathomable reason!

Seriously??

The MoD and the RN have from day one have repeatedly beaten the drum that CVF is the first carrier in the world designed to a requirement for sortie generation and you don't understand why folks talk about it.

Get a grip.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Ron5 wrote: Dunnno. The design point was a complement of 36 FJ's.

t

The design point was sortie generation (initial & sustained) which should not come as a great surprise to anyone as without any a/c up in the air the carrier's main offensive weapon system is 'inoperative'.

Of course, when we first allow for the planned Merlin complement, then stack the hangar full (but leave the lifts free for use) and then fill the deck (and allow the precious a/c to be exposed to salt over prolonged periods), we can have all 48 (of our planned JSF strength) onboard on one carrier, at once https://jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftc ... e-a-12.jpg

Sortie rate is an abstract number and as soon as they figured it could be satisfied with 36 aircraft, a rather concrete number, either would be used as design points depending on the circumstance.

Of course there was some iteration, the initial sortie rate targets were reduced to make sure the carriers could be built within their (mostly) politically set dimensions.

Ron5 wrote:

topman wrote:

downsizer wrote:

topman wrote:I think people are reading too much into those numbers in the article and put their own answers to get a conclusion they favour.

The 72 number is the ships theoretical maximum in terms of ship design for things like refuelling ammo loads etc.

The number of F35 sorties will be another number entirely it will depend on a whole other number of factors.

You won't be flying every jet three or even twice a day, everyday.

Take your reality elsewhere. It's not welcome here.

True, however I'm always surprised at what is a fairly obscure bit of information and most people don't really talk about it on places like here. Yet put FJ and aircraft carriers together and it brings out a fascination with sortie rates for some unfathomable reason!

Seriously??

The MoD and the RN have from day one have repeatedly beaten the drum that CVF is the first carrier in the world designed to a requirement for sortie generation and you don't understand why folks talk about it.

Get a grip.

Seriously yes, especially as a lot of the talk is of wishful thinking.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Halidon wrote:such an upgrade for Type45, tagging the carriers onto [that buy] makes a ton of sense.

Under any kind of threat situation there would/ should be a T-45 in presence.

True, and I've seen some pretty serious pushback against the prospect of overspending on CVN radars over here. But A) the economics of a T45 upgrade would likely improve if they can buy 2 more sets and spread the cost with the Carriers a bit and B) 2 (or more) rotating arrays could potentially be coordinated across multiple hulls to maximize coverage without having to go the mutli-face array route.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Takes me to another question: Command facilities. T-45s are not equipped to flagship level. There were the Albions (and Ocean was upgraded), and then the carriers coming, so that was not deemed necessary/ was deemed an unnecessary and expensive overlap.
- however, one of the planning assumptions was CEC-level coordination in the AAW domain ( a subset for sure, but the one where being a laggard "could sink" the MTF, just like the lack of air cover "sank" TF 'Z')
- as CEC proc was canned, has enough "comms" been put in place for the sensor-shooter separation to become reality (also for the RN; USN is onto their next iteration already)?

Our DDGs aren't equipped as flagships but are irregularly used as such, one is flagship of SNMG-1 at the moment. It's a pain for a number of reasons, but workable to run a small command staff out of a "regular" combatant. The lack of CEC is problematic for AAW/BMD, I'm not well enough versed in T45 or RN systems to say how well they're doing without it when they've taken part in BMD exercises. CEC upgrades should be backwards-compatible with legacy CEC systems (at least to an extent), at any rate nations are still getting in line for their CEC upgrades so we're doing something right.

I do not think even the Carriers have good Command capabilities, wasn't that one of the things removed to save a few pennies? WE know the RN wanted to move forward with CEC, but could not get any such programme funded as it was seen as "Nice to have" rather then essential back when these decisions were made. I mean the Big Bad bear and Dragon had not really reappeared on the threat radar then, and the threats that were visible weren't believed to be of such a threat that CEC would be needed to cope. The fact that the RN's new platforms were designed when the world was different, and these designs have been stuck to even though things have changed greatly during their construction is going to cause issues for the RN. Simply look at the defensive systems on the new Carriers, does anyone think they are adequate for high intensity naval combat? The lack of systems like CEC within a Carrier Group makes the formation vulnerable to massed missile attacks and the lack of BMD gives them no defence against the weapons of this type being developed to engage such formations.

Lord Jim wrote:I do not think even the Carriers have good Command capabilities, wasn't that one of the things removed to save a few pennies? WE know the RN wanted to move forward with CEC, but could not get any such programme funded as it was seen as "Nice to have" rather then essential back when these decisions were made. I mean the Big Bad bear and Dragon had not really reappeared on the threat radar then, and the threats that were visible weren't believed to be of such a threat that CEC would be needed to cope. The fact that the RN's new platforms were designed when the world was different, and these designs have been stuck to even though things have changed greatly during their construction is going to cause issues for the RN. Simply look at the defensive systems on the new Carriers, does anyone think they are adequate for high intensity naval combat? The lack of systems like CEC within a Carrier Group makes the formation vulnerable to massed missile attacks and the lack of BMD gives them no defence against the weapons of this type being developed to engage such formations.

Yeeeep.
Simply put, if you send them against peer opponent (but even that is wrong expresson, sorry but UK isn't in the same league with Russia and especially China), they will end at the bottom of sea. For pounding ISIS, they are fine.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Is our test installation on land the 7th in that reference?

Yes, I was including the installation above Portsmouth.

Lord Jim wrote:I do not think even the Carriers have good Command capabilities, wasn't that one of the things removed to save a few pennies? WE know the RN wanted to move forward with CEC, but could not get any such programme funded as it was seen as "Nice to have" rather then essential back when these decisions were made. I mean the Big Bad bear and Dragon had not really reappeared on the threat radar then, and the threats that were visible weren't believed to be of such a threat that CEC would be needed to cope. The fact that the RN's new platforms were designed when the world was different, and these designs have been stuck to even though things have changed greatly during their construction is going to cause issues for the RN. Simply look at the defensive systems on the new Carriers, does anyone think they are adequate for high intensity naval combat? The lack of systems like CEC within a Carrier Group makes the formation vulnerable to massed missile attacks and the lack of BMD gives them no defence against the weapons of this type being developed to engage such formations.

I seem to remember CEC being fitted to HMS Duncan for trials when new. I assume it has since been removed as no other vessels in the fleet had it also.

RNFollower wrote:seem to remember CEC being fitted to HMS Duncan for trials when new

Don't know about that, but we had an order in (5% of a production batch for several USN ships) and we cancelled it.
- so all the Links (16 and beyond...) which come nowhere near are now "the thing"

New photo (from HMS Forth) showing QE's Phalanx CIWS still under tents.



(Photo: S. Wenham)