Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

assuming there is an optimum number, I've not seen one ever mentioned.

You know full well how the a/c (fixed wing and others) movements are simulated, what can be done on the deck, when what is needed can only be done in the hangar, the turn-around times deteriorate as more missions are flown...
why are you suddenly playing dumb when you have been the expert all through? After all, you have the retired carrier ops experts living next door, so you can double-check, in case you are unsure...

[R686]

I was under the impression that 36x JSF plus 4x rotary aircraft plus 10% was the optimum number for strike and fleet defence, anymore than that the it degrades operations due to aircraft movement and refueling and arming. Yes while no doubt they could move more aircraft but it may have to do with ferry operations.

[Ron5]

I was under the impression that 36x JSF plus 4x rotary aircraft plus 10% was the optimum number for strike and fleet defence, anymore than that the it degrades operations due to aircraft movement and refueling and arming. Yes while no doubt they could move more aircraft but it may have to do with ferry operations.

No such thing as an optimum sortie or an optimum sortie rate or an optimum number of aircraft.

There is such a thing as: assume this sortie profile by this specific aircraft, how big a carrier should be be built to achieve x number of sorties for y number of days. Obviously there's a lot of parameters & assumptions beneath that such as: how much fuel & weapons does each sortie need, how long is each sortie, how much maintenance time is required between each sortie etc etc etc.

All of this goes into the requirements statement for the carrier and is not available to the general public.

In general terms, the effective limit of any carrier's capacity is the number of aircraft that can be parked and worked on. The more aircraft, the more sorties can be flown. So build as big a deck & hangar on the displacement as possible. We saw that with the Invincibles as succeeding refits enlarged aircraft parking and so increased the ship's capacity.

[R686]

I was under the impression that 36x JSF plus 4x rotary aircraft plus 10% was the optimum number for strike and fleet defence, anymore than that the it degrades operations due to aircraft movement and refueling and arming. Yes while no doubt they could move more aircraft but it may have to do with ferry operations.

No such thing as an optimum sortie or an optimum sortie rate or an optimum number of aircraft.

There is such a thing as: assume this sortie profile by this specific aircraft, how big a carrier should be be built to achieve x number of sorties for y number of days. Obviously there's a lot of parameters & assumptions beneath that such as: how much fuel & weapons does each sortie need, how long is each sortie, how much maintenance time is required between each sortie etc etc etc.

All of this goes into the requirements statement for the carrier and is not available to the general public.

In general terms, the effective limit of any carrier's capacity is the number of aircraft that can be parked and worked on. The more aircraft, the more sorties can be flown. So build as big a deck & hangar on the displacement as possible. We saw that with the Invincibles as succeeding refits enlarged aircraft parking and so increased the ship's capacity.

What you are saying is indeed correct each strike package will be dictated by the the operational parameters at the time, herein lies the problem it was the MOD who formed the requirements on aircraft number to carrier size as being the optimum size of the carrier for efficiency under CONOPS of the UK under budget parameters. The budget parameter's is just not the initial buy of the carrier's but also lifetime cost. You could have formed a max strike package using smaller multiple carriers or a larger single carrier. Size of the strike package is irrelevant, what is relevant in this instance is the efficient max size of a strike package for CVF.

[seaspear]

Would a large strike role require the escorts to carry the Merlins for the asw and s&r roles and still need 6 on the carrier for aew roles

[R686]

Would a large strike role require the escorts to carry the Merlins for the asw and s&r roles and still need 6 on the carrier for aew roles

That would depend on the role of the carrier and composition of the task group, but generally if the UK was to make a max effort with JSF I would expect the escorts to do the ASW work, plane guard can be done by either the carrier via one of the escorts.

[LordJim]

Don't forget that Merlins would also be placed aboard any RAFs operating as part of the fleet. Basically in an all out effort we would cram as many fixed and rotary assets on to the task forces decks as were available and we could fit.

[Ron5]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /86892660/

The RAF campaign to undermine carrier strike by replacing F-35B orders with F-35A gathers even more momentum. As the article states, the RAF tried for the F-35C and that didn't work out, so back on the F-35A kick which as been on the RAF's wish list since day 1.

Sigh.

[Ron5]

The QE can "easily" accommodate 24 F-35's in its 5 thousand sq m hangar which is equipped with 20 servicing stations. The 16 thousand sq m flight deck has 24 F-35 parking spots (12 service stations) which leave the elevators free (some CGI show the elevators storing an additional 4 aircraft) and enough room for 5 Merlins to operate AEW & plane guard. Looking at the diagrams, there's still a lot of room. Crowded, it is not.

Yes, I would assume in maximum strike configuration, the ASW Merlins would be embarked elsewhere.

Alpha strikes have somewhat gone out of fashion to be replaced with continuous cover over the battlefield waiting to respond to calls for fire. Never the less, one of the many advantages of STOVL is that multiple aircraft strikes can be launched in very short order. Appreciably faster than with cats and with a lot less crew.

As a complete aside, I was reading yesterday about carriers of old and was reminded of the Buccaneer S2. On it's maiden voyage (on Victorious?) a singleton was launched from the Irish Sea and conducted a simulated low level attack on Gibraltar before returning. No in flight refueling! Now THAT'S a carrier aircraft.

[Ron5]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... le-427136/

More about RAF pining for F-35A's so they don't have to go to sea. This dude wants RAF only F-35A's included in the 2020 defense review, that would be a full 3 years before the Royal Navy has IOC of a miserable grand total of two squadrons of F-35B's - 24 aircraft for two aircraft carriers. 12 each.

You couldn't make this up. What's next, a new world map on how the RAF will provide top cover for a QE carrying only Merlins? Sorry, I meant a QE with a tailored air group.

[downsizer]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... le-427136/

More about RAF pining for F-35A's so they don't have to go to sea. This dude wants RAF only F-35A's included in the 2020 defense review, that would be a full 3 years before the Royal Navy has IOC of a miserable grand total of two squadrons of F-35B's - 24 aircraft for two aircraft carriers. 12 each.

You couldn't make this up. What's next, a new world map on how the RAF will provide top cover for a QE carrying only Merlins? Sorry, I meant a QE with a tailored air group.

One guy, who will be out of the service long before any decision could even feasibly be made, chopsying off in a non official capacity at a trade show. It must be a done deal then....

Seriously, CS is secure. I will eat my own ass if we get any As at the expense of Bs and CS.

[Repulse]

Agree, it's all pure speculation. Also a whilst a pure F35B fleet would be great, ultimately once you get past 80-90 airframes then you've effectively maxed out your need for carrier based aircraft, so why not look at options for the remaining a/c to get to 138.

[ArmChairCivvy]

any RAFs operating as part of the fleet. Basically in an all out effort we would cram as many fixed and rotary assets on to the task forces decks as were available and we could fit.

A good point, but let's remember Merlins (in any config) can be upped in numbers by the RFA facilities, but carriers are essential for having any meaningful number of Chinooks in play.

Never the less, one of the many advantages of STOVL is that multiple aircraft strikes can be launched in very short order. Appreciably faster than with cats and with a lot less crew.

Another good point, and generally not appreciated for what it is worth.

[R686]

Agree, it's all pure speculation. Also a whilst a pure F35B fleet would be great, ultimately once you get past 80-90 airframes then you've effectively maxed out your need for carrier based aircraft, so why not look at options for the remaining a/c to get to 138.

I remember reading house of Common's report that the original planning assumption were for approx 150 aircraft.

People are forgetting they are not there just to replace harrier but tornado in the long run as well, and I personal think A's are the perfect replacement for them (tonka)capabilty wise offering greater manoeuvrable and heavier EO all with an internal gun, but on the other hand I can see the tactical advantage by an all B fleet in both carrier ops and using the in M-Farp
(Mobile Arming Refuling Point) like the USMC are planning So I'm not really fussed which way you go. Don't forget you still going to have Typhoons in the fillet which eventually will be need replacing with either a 5th gen or 6th gen aircraft

[ArmChairCivvy]

Don't forget you still going to have Typhoon

Invest in conformal tanks, and the Tonka replacement "job" done?

So, basically, easing out the oldest (not so easily upgradeable) Tiffies and then building back, up to the numbers that the inevitable Tonka retirement will leave pretty thin for a "while".

[Ron5]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... le-427136/

More about RAF pining for F-35A's so they don't have to go to sea. This dude wants RAF only F-35A's included in the 2020 defense review, that would be a full 3 years before the Royal Navy has IOC of a miserable grand total of two squadrons of F-35B's - 24 aircraft for two aircraft carriers. 12 each.

You couldn't make this up. What's next, a new world map on how the RAF will provide top cover for a QE carrying only Merlins? Sorry, I meant a QE with a tailored air group.

One guy, who will be out of the service long before any decision could even feasibly be made, chopsying off in a non official capacity at a trade show. It must be a done deal then....

Seriously, CS is secure. I will eat my own ass if we get any As at the expense of Bs and CS.

Very good to hear.

But I can't help but feel this turnip was showing extremely bad form. On the first week of an F-35B being in the country and at it's first public show, to actually come out and say (in so many words) "that's all very nice but it's not the aircraft we want and we're going to be politicking hard over the next few years to get that changed".

Personally, I'd fire him on the spot. Or at least an invitation to him and his hat for an 8 am meeting.

What he should have said is "The RAF is totally committed and working 100% on getting the F-35B's in service and operational from the UK's brand new carriers, we don't have time to speculate on future orders/capabilities that are decades away".

Mind you, he was just repeating what Pulford (sp?) said in February at the big CVF briefing. Perhaps the service is totally stone deaf about the appropriate time & places to go off cuff.

[Ron5]

any RAFs operating as part of the fleet. Basically in an all out effort we would cram as many fixed and rotary assets on to the task forces decks as were available and we could fit.

A good point, but let's remember Merlins (in any config) can be upped in numbers by the RFA facilities, but carriers are essential for having any meaningful number of Chinooks in play.

Never the less, one of the many advantages of STOVL is that multiple aircraft strikes can be launched in very short order. Appreciably faster than with cats and with a lot less crew.

Another good point, and generally not appreciated for what it is worth.

The Typhoons don't need conformal tanks to replace Tornado's, they need to be able to operate Brimstone & Storm Shadow. That capability being promised to be soon.

[seaspear]

I hope people understand Im not trying to argue against the need and value of the f35b to the R.N and would believe that the R.Ns need of the b model comes first ,but after having received sufficient numbers for its needs consideration should be given to the other services as to which model best suits their needs .
There has been little discussion of the deployment of the f35b in land operations if using as the U.S. marines have planed in forward areas from the airfields and closer to front lines ,then special equipment may be required if vertical takeoff was needed to avoid damage to the aircraft from effects of the debris kicked up by the propulsion .
The a&c models could only be used from airfields but having the longer range and ability to carry greater ordinance have different advantages it comes down to what are the plans to use the f35 and consideration of different resources still needed .

[shark bait]

I hope people understand Im not trying to argue against the need and value of the f35b to the R.N and would believe that the R.Ns need of the b model comes first ,but after having received sufficient numbers for its needs consideration should be given to the other services as to which model best suits their needs .

That argument is reasonable, however once the carrier requirement has been fully satisfied we will be left ordering only a few of the B's

Introducing a small number of unique aircraft would offset any marginal gains in performance.

[S M H]

The split buy lobby are not looking at the costs associated with running two types of aircraft. Or that the larger fleet of aircraft allows the rotation of airframes to extend the life of the type on hours due to the airframe fatigue. That a small bespoke fleet would suffer on carrier use only. The fact is that the numbers equate to the needs of carrier use and the R.A.F get a harrier replacement. The tornados replacement was killed of by Mr Browns government. The present incumbent of no 11 sacrificed everything other than the minimum expenditure to the alter of small government fiscal surplus. Therefore not having purchased enough aircraft to meet carrier embarked requirement for day I of operational use.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Tendency for F35A is reasonable. B and A are different, and A has clearly better performance in land-based operation.

They share the same engine (at least its generator), the same FCS and electronics, and the same wing-arrangement (under-wing pylons).
They differ in lifting-fan arrangement, internal weapon bay and 33% longer combat radius for As. So yes, they differ.

For me, the difference on A and B is somewhere between "Typhoon T.1 vs T.3" and "SeaHarrier vs AV8B". In the latter case, when MOD was asked to "reduce" its Harrier force, AV8B remained and SeaHarrier were disbanded. But, since Carrier is there, if similar reduction (echonomic recession?) takes place, this time in danger is F35As. Do RAF understand this situation?

[WhitestElephant]

Surely the RAFs long range deep strike capability could be satisfied with what ever follows BAE Taranis?

[SKB]

Can Taranis, Tornado, Typhoon or the F-35A be launched from a QE class carrier? No? Oh... ^ ^ ^

[Biggles]

The remarks by the good Air Cdre are typical of the ingrained RAF view that they want as little to do with Carrier Strike as possible. If they can limit the requirement to deploy to only 2 squadrons they will...hence the postulation for F35A. I hope he got a good B****ing from Andy Pulford! The 135 F35B through life purchase was based on the need for 4 deployable squadrons + all that goes with it.

Re the comment on the RAF's ability to man F35 more quickly than the RN - I do not think this is the case. I think the RN have more, available FW pilots in the maritime FW game than the RAF do. Indeed several have been flying combat missions over Afghan, Iraq and Syria.

[seaspear]

Comparing the Harrier to the F35 is like comparing apples to oranges,the F35 is so much more than a supersonic stovl , there can be the argument that one model may be more efficient to operate or cheaper but without knowing the comparitive running costs of both models and they can be expected to be different this could just be assumptions , certainly the a model is cheaper more agile ,is this needed in land based operations where threats are greater ? the ability to cover a wider area unrefueledshould also be a strong consideration ,but the guiding choice should be what best meets the doctrine of the R.A..F in achieving its requirements in land operations when in operations in support of the army for instance.