pdf27

UK carrier doctrine is heavily against deck parks, and always has been. Probably largely because of the nations with carriers we will tend to be operating in worse weather than anybody else on average, so the aircraft will be in more need of hangarage. That isn't to say that the UK doesn't use deck parks and hasn't used them on occasion, but we do tend to avoid them if possible.

__________________
Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

rickusn

It looks to me depending on how many aircraft they deploy with that deck parks will be integral:

BBC NEWS | Scotland | MoD confirms £3.8bn carrier order

Cvf

And having 24 aircraft jammed in the hanger is not efficient either.

Likely why the BBC link states 16 in the hanger out of a total of 40.

It shows 28 and a helo on the flight deck but the four on the lifts may be artistic license. Total: 45

Although the other link shows what looks to be the same 28 plus the helo, plus four other helos along with 24 in the Hanger. Total 57.

So while large deck parks may seem to some inefficient it looks to me more like a case of choose your poison or in the extreme both.

I think that the total of 56 aircraft to be a bit unrealistic although Im sure possible.

But for the UK weather and the early WWII experience certainly dictated against deck parks.

But the USN certainly accounts for weather with their deck parks, I would think, having to be able to operate anywhere in the world at amoments notice.

Wabpilot: Please impart some of your vast experience on this subject for us.

wabpilot

By the time I got in the service, the RN had pretty much given up on storing all their aircraft on the hangar deck. They learned from experience. The Invincibles had an awful hangar design that all but required them to deck park most of their air group. With STOVL operations, you can use more of the deck for parking. But, when you start to dedicate a spot here to the ready chopper and a couple of spots there to the alert five birds even flight deck space becomes a premium. I think that more than anything lead the Brits to remove the Sea Dart and plate over the bow.

Looking at the posted deck layouts the new CVFs look fairly conventional, but for the wasted space for the ski jump. I think the ship is going to be long enough for the F-35B to launch at gross weight without a ramp. However, I also think the RN is probably going to retain the ramp on at least the first CVF as insurance against cancellation. We did a test that showed the F-18F could launch at gross weight without a catapult if it had 400 feet of deck run and a 12 degree ramp. Of course, they would need cross deck pendants for recovery. Intersting how the CVF is configured "for but not with" arrester gear. Of course, if the frogs really do buy in, they'll want to use their own Rafales. (A much better aircraft overall than the F-35B, I might add.) I have a buddy who is now retired the iron works. One night over some adult refreshments he and I put our slide rules to the test and figured that the Rafale at gross weight on a warm day might just be able to launch off the ramp too. (You children who don't know how a slide rule works do not know real engineerin'.) The E-2C is a much bigger problem with ramp launches. No amount of adult refreshment and no amount of slide ruling can fix that.

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Tasman

Regardless of the numbers of aircraft shown on drawings in the British media, the maximum number of aircraft planned for the CVFs is 40 (including helos).

I am concerned at the small size of the normal airgroups planned for the CVFs that are reported by the usually reliable Richard Beedall in Navy Matters.

According to his info the normal peacetime airgroup is likely to comprise just 9-12 F-35Bs, 6 Merlins and 4 of the new Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC) helicopters. This seems to me to be a waste of such a potentially powerful ship. It is evidently expected that a second F-35B squadron would be embarked in a crisis or for a major exercise every second year. Contingency planning for wartime would enable the F-35 force to grow to 30-36.

The airgroups listed by Beedhall are:

Peacetime
F-35B x 9-12
Merlin x 6
MASC x 4

Major Exercises/Crisis
F-35B x 18-24
Merlin x 6
MASC x 4

Wartime
F-35B x 36
MASC x 4

or

F-35B x 30
Merlin x 6
MASC x 4

An alternate LPH complement could be:

18 x Medium lift transport helicopters (Merlin);
6 x Heavy lift transport helicopters (Chinook);
6 x WAH-64 attack helicopters;
4 x Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control
helicopters/UAV's

Navy Matters | Future Aircraft Carrier Part 23

Apparently the RN believes it will actually be able to generate a greater sortie rate with a 40 plane airgroup than it would with additional aircraft resulting in a more crowded flight deck. Hence the reason for 40 being given as the maximum figure. Plans to operate just one F-35B squadron during normal peacetime cruises suggests to me that there is a desire to save money, an expected shortage of aircraft, a shortage of pilots, or all three.

Cheers

__________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future.

Stan

I would be happy to have as standard 24 f-35 and wartime 36.

It should be standard to have 24 on board.

wabpilot

I watched a Beech 18 with an asymetric RATO failure. It wasn't pretty. That being said, I think the best argument for leaving RATO in the dust bin of history is weight. The weight is there whether you need it or not and most of the time you do not need it.

wabpilot

I too am concerned. I wonder just where the trained crew will come from to man and support the added F-35s in time of war.

Stan

I guess from the RAF. 90 of the F-35b will be going to them so I guess they will be trasnfered to the Carriers?

I guess they would need training though. Although not as much as if they had been flying F-35c

glyn

pdf27

One of the major arguaments for using the F-35 B variant is that the RAF will also be using it to replace their Harriers. Converting land-based STOVL pilots to sea based ones is pretty easy - the UK has been doing it for decades now. Thus, in an emergency they can simply park RAF jets on the carrier and operate as normal. There will be bigger differences in the type of mission trained for (the RAF will be predominantly strike, the FAA ones will have an air superiority mission too) than in the type of training required to fly off the carrier. You can plan around that years in advance.

PubFather

AFAIK what is envisaged is a continuation of current practise. The GR7/9s are the only aircraft operating off the current CVS's - and they fly under RAF auspices.

The figure of 9-12 FAA F35Bs in peacetime is the most likely, and as you point out, will probably be primarily fleet air defense. The RAF will use the carriers as a floating airbase if required in wartime/crisis.

One interesting (although slightly lunatic sidenote) is that it is likely that of 132 F35s to be ordered, 2 squadrons worth will probably be the "C" variant for the RAF to replace the Tornado in the deep-strike role.

This raises the very interesting prospect of the RAF operating a specialised naval variant of an attack aircraft, while the navyis unable to fly the same aircraft from its brand new, full-sized carriers.... only in the MOD!!

In terms of the figure of 40 - some of the "rationale" for this goes back to the requirements stage. The Navy wanted a carrier that could operate roughly twice the number of aircraft than the Invincible class. It was found that 60-65000 tonnes was a more effecient size to operate this number of aircraft from than the originally envisioned 40,000 tonne vessels. The Invincibles can't really operate that number of aircraft comfortably and carry an EMF. More than forty was never considered to be particularly affordable either.

__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto

"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

rickusn

Wabpilot:

"slide rule" LOL

Your severely dating yourself.

I doubt if anyone under 50 ,unless maybe a math whiz, ever even heard of one.

Im 51 and remember I was quite adept with one but damned if I can remember the last time I used one. The year was probably around 1972/73.

If I remember correctly my Uncle was selling multi-function hand-held calculators for $29.95 the summer of 1974.

Geez that seems like a longggggg time ago.

LOL

glyn

.

wabpilot

No it's not easy. The USMC which gets all its aviators through the naval training pipeline does not have an easy time converting to carrier ops. It takes them six weeks of intensive work for a Category C aviator, or four weeks for a Category D aviator. That does not count the rest of the crew. Marines tend to know their way around a ship. But, the Air Force does not send their people to "A" school, so they have no clue how to work on the boat. To have a ground bound squadron ready to go aboard ship is going to require a lot of additional training. In fact, if the JFH squadrons are really effective from ships, they will look a lot like USMC Harrier squadrons. Everyone will be trained and they will periodically deploy aboard ship. Anything else will be an unmitigated disaster the first time there is a fire drill. You just don't one morning wake up and quickly convert land based squadrons to ship based ones. That takes a long training course.

Next, once the additional squadrons are aboard, who is going to handle intermediate maintenance? The peace time AIMD will be far too small to handle a doubling of the number of airframes. Again, with airmen, not sailors, the RAF maintenance people will be in deep trouble aboard ship.

I think if RAF squadrons are going to surge onto the CVFs, the F-35 squadrons will have to look a lot like the USMC. They will have to have an ongoing training program to make them naval aviators and naval maintainers. They will have to go to the same schools, as the navy, have the same training experiences and spend a lot of time at sea to keep those skills current.