Sea Jet
Suspicion breeds confidence
It used to be the case in the USN that a carrier captain had to have his "Wings". Relying in the sometimes conflicting advice of your Commander (Air) and squadron CO's without being able to make an informed choice between them is not always a good position for the CO of a carrier to be in.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye
the conflicting advise was never an issue when NAS Sqn bosses were two and a'halves... the fact that most if not all are now Cdrs might make an issue... but then I've always though the RN didn't rely on rank to establish responsibility (unlike the lighter hew service?)... and it could be accepted that Wings had authority over the sqn bosses (who worked for him)... I hope things haven't changed?
the conflicting advise was never an issue when NAS Sqn bosses were two and a'halves... the fact that most if not all are now Cdrs might make an issue... but then I've always though the RN didn't rely on rank to establish responsibility (unlike the lighter hew service?)... and it could be accepted that Wings had authority over the sqn bosses (who worked for him)... I hope things haven't changed?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Pierre Argh,
I think there is a lot of truth in what you say. I can see why the RN was forced into giving Sqn CO responsibility to three ringers (fewer planes to fly, fewer ships to drive makes career planning difficult and makes for retention problems). But I get the distinct feeling that we are ending up like one of the latter Star Trek movies when Capt Kirk beams to down a planet and introduces his landing party of 5 people of Commander rank. Too many Chiefs not enough Indians. Shame to see the passing of James Doohan as well the other week.
I think there is a lot of truth in what you say. I can see why the RN was forced into giving Sqn CO responsibility to three ringers (fewer planes to fly, fewer ships to drive makes career planning difficult and makes for retention problems). But I get the distinct feeling that we are ending up like one of the latter Star Trek movies when Capt Kirk beams to down a planet and introduces his landing party of 5 people of Commander rank. Too many Chiefs not enough Indians. Shame to see the passing of James Doohan as well the other week.
Navaleye
I think the reason many FAA squadron bosses have Commander rank is partly due to jointery - imagine having a light blue squadron aboard a CVS with a boss senior to the dark blue one. As for your more general comment, it is worth noting that the T42s are now commanded by three ringers and not four ringers as they used to be. Whatever the reason for this it may cause problems when you need someone senior to other ship COs to lead a group of several ships that are detached from the main body of a task force for whatever reason - NGS for instance.
Slightly more on topic, this week Navy News have had two stories on their website relating to anti air systems. On Wednesday they had a story about the latest version of Seawolf, and on Thursday they had this story about testing of Aster 30.
The continued investment in these systems suggests that not everyone is convinced that the air threat no longer exists.
I think the reason many FAA squadron bosses have Commander rank is partly due to jointery - imagine having a light blue squadron aboard a CVS with a boss senior to the dark blue one. As for your more general comment, it is worth noting that the T42s are now commanded by three ringers and not four ringers as they used to be. Whatever the reason for this it may cause problems when you need someone senior to other ship COs to lead a group of several ships that are detached from the main body of a task force for whatever reason - NGS for instance.
Slightly more on topic, this week Navy News have had two stories on their website relating to anti air systems. On Wednesday they had a story about the latest version of Seawolf, and on Thursday they had this story about testing of Aster 30.
The continued investment in these systems suggests that not everyone is convinced that the air threat no longer exists.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF, sorry to disagree however
Err, we did, for years and it worked out OK. At the end of the day it was Wings' job to sort out any conflictions.
If a particular CO is given command (or control) of other ships in his TG that's it, end of story, they are in charge irrespective of the ranks of other CO's out there. It doesnt have to be (although it nearly always is) the most senior dude out there.
As to your references to the Naval SAMs, agree with your thoughts. Binning of SHAR was political and/or financial not tactical and thats it.
imagine having a light blue squadron aboard a CVS with a boss senior to the dark blue one.
Whatever the reason for this it may cause problems when you need someone senior to other ship COs to lead a group of several ships that are detached from the main body of a task force for whatever reason
As to your references to the Naval SAMs, agree with your thoughts. Binning of SHAR was political and/or financial not tactical and thats it.
Navaleye - haven't had time to read it yet, but I will.
Oggin - My comments regarding ship COs and rank was based on my thoughts on what a Staff Officer from COMATG said during a talk on Amphibious matters, something along the lines of "One of the advantages of having a carrier there is a more senior Captain who can take a group of ships to do another task.....". Or something like that.
Navy News this week reported that Ross "Fatboy" got a flight in one of 801's T8s. One wonders why? And will it result in any SHAR/FAA/RN sympathetic coverage in the rag his missus edits? Not holding my breath.
This week, the MOD website confirms sale of three T23 frigates to Chile - so much for being mothballed.
In July 2004 the then Secretary of State, Geoff Hoon, announced a reduction in Royal Navy Destroyer and Frigate numbers from 31 to 25.
Funny how it fails to mention that this was against the advice of the First Sea Lord and CINCFLEET.
Oggin - My comments regarding ship COs and rank was based on my thoughts on what a Staff Officer from COMATG said during a talk on Amphibious matters, something along the lines of "One of the advantages of having a carrier there is a more senior Captain who can take a group of ships to do another task.....". Or something like that.
Navy News this week reported that Ross "Fatboy" got a flight in one of 801's T8s. One wonders why? And will it result in any SHAR/FAA/RN sympathetic coverage in the rag his missus edits? Not holding my breath.
This week, the MOD website confirms sale of three T23 frigates to Chile - so much for being mothballed.
In July 2004 the then Secretary of State, Geoff Hoon, announced a reduction in Royal Navy Destroyer and Frigate numbers from 31 to 25.
Funny how it fails to mention that this was against the advice of the First Sea Lord and CINCFLEET.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye / WEBF / anyone,
Did the RN ever consider the option of buying LHD Wasp class ships, or perhaps, the LHA(Replacement) instead of starting with a blank sheet of paper and all the massive associated design and development costs? GlobalSecurity.org quotes the price of an LHD as $1.8 billion, so you'd get some change out of the money allocated to CVF to buy yourself some LCACs if you were serious about having an amphibious assault capability (or even keep the SHar running if that was your thing....??). I believe the USN have just spent a load of money updating the design for LHD-8. Is the reason the RN don't want them associated with the politics of UK shipyards etc or is there some fundamental capability that the new carrier has to fulfil that an LHD can't?
I'm not saying they'd be exactly what you want, (they're not quite as big obviously) but they'd probably be a bit of step up in capability over Lusty & co. (I'm afraid I'm a little biased towards the LHD's having spent several months on one, so there may be a huge flaw in my logic that I'm missing)
Regards,
Single Seat ,Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Did the RN ever consider the option of buying LHD Wasp class ships, or perhaps, the LHA(Replacement) instead of starting with a blank sheet of paper and all the massive associated design and development costs? GlobalSecurity.org quotes the price of an LHD as $1.8 billion, so you'd get some change out of the money allocated to CVF to buy yourself some LCACs if you were serious about having an amphibious assault capability (or even keep the SHar running if that was your thing....??). I believe the USN have just spent a load of money updating the design for LHD-8. Is the reason the RN don't want them associated with the politics of UK shipyards etc or is there some fundamental capability that the new carrier has to fulfil that an LHD can't?
I'm not saying they'd be exactly what you want, (they're not quite as big obviously) but they'd probably be a bit of step up in capability over Lusty & co. (I'm afraid I'm a little biased towards the LHD's having spent several months on one, so there may be a huge flaw in my logic that I'm missing)
Regards,
Single Seat ,Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSETOWTF,
It's unlikely the USN would sell or even lend. A friend of mine is a former US CVN techie and told me alot of the Charades that went on when the French came to visit before bulding the CdG.
Basically it boiled down to the Navy not wanting ANY foreign power anywhere near its reactors.
It's unlikely the USN would sell or even lend. A friend of mine is a former US CVN techie and told me alot of the Charades that went on when the French came to visit before bulding the CdG.
Basically it boiled down to the Navy not wanting ANY foreign power anywhere near its reactors.
Suspicion breeds confidence
SSSETOWTF,
An LHD is certainly a more capable strike platform than a CVS (it should be with twice the tonnage) but cannot achieve the necessary sortie generation required of CVF. They can handle 20 or so Harriers, but only at the expense of their embarked military force. In a year or two, the RN will have more amphibious capacity then you can shake a stick at, it just doesn't need what an LHD brings to the party.
An LHD is certainly a more capable strike platform than a CVS (it should be with twice the tonnage) but cannot achieve the necessary sortie generation required of CVF. They can handle 20 or so Harriers, but only at the expense of their embarked military force. In a year or two, the RN will have more amphibious capacity then you can shake a stick at, it just doesn't need what an LHD brings to the party.
Basically it boiled down to the Navy not wanting ANY foreign power anywhere near its reactors.
On another tack, does anyone else think CVFs 25 knot top speed is a bit slow for a carrier?
Last edited by Bing; 10th Sep 2005 at 22:41.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Anyone from London going down to the Yeovilton air show this coming weekend and got a spare seat? Last chance to see the Shar for most of us and it would be good to bid farewell in person.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the LHD-8 re-design includes a gas turbine propulsion system. I was on board LHD-6 for a while and it comfortably operated 20+ Harriers and 2 CH-46 with a pretty healthy sortie generation rate (or so I thought), had eye-wateringly large magazines full of things to drop and shoot, and it didn't RAS anywhere near as often as I remember doing on the CVS (but I may be mistaken about that). I understand the RN requirement for CVF is for 50 odd aircraft in order to be able to sustain medium scale operations. If we really need that kind of capability, why not buy 3 or 4 LHDs, for about the same cash, and send 2 to a medium scale conflict? (I'm assuming that one CVF will always be in refit, or on work-ups, while the other is on-call - is that the way they're planned to be operated, or is Ocean included in the rotation?) On the LHD we also had over 1,000 grunts on board, plus all their vehicles, supplies & ammunition, the LCACs to put them ashore etc. I didn't see any limitation to the embarked capability at all due to the air group - they appear to occupy different spaces of the ship, as far as my uneducated eye could tell.
I haven't done the full ISS decision making exercise about this, and my knowledge of naval things is very limited - just asking really. I suppose I don't understand why you wouldn't want to buy a handful of (relatively) cheap LHD's with all their capability instead of starting from scratch and only being able to afford a couple of shiney new CVFs that only operate airplanes. I mean isn't saying you'll have all the amphibious capability you want, a bit like saying that you have enough maneuverability or thrust in your airplane and don't want any more? And if the US are prepared to sell us their newest F-35s (even if they won't tell us what's inside the boxes), I would have thought they'd entertain the notion of selling us at least the keels of a a ship design that's not really at the cutting edge of naval technology. Or would they?
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
I haven't done the full ISS decision making exercise about this, and my knowledge of naval things is very limited - just asking really. I suppose I don't understand why you wouldn't want to buy a handful of (relatively) cheap LHD's with all their capability instead of starting from scratch and only being able to afford a couple of shiney new CVFs that only operate airplanes. I mean isn't saying you'll have all the amphibious capability you want, a bit like saying that you have enough maneuverability or thrust in your airplane and don't want any more? And if the US are prepared to sell us their newest F-35s (even if they won't tell us what's inside the boxes), I would have thought they'd entertain the notion of selling us at least the keels of a a ship design that's not really at the cutting edge of naval technology. Or would they?
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
SSSETOWTF thought provoking stuff. Not able to answer any of your questions though.
Navaleye last night on Spotlight, the BBC South West news programme, there was a feature about about the Yeovilton air day, including the last chance to see the Sea Harrier. It also mentioned how fixed wing flying will end there when 801 disbands and they all move to Cott/Witt. Interestingly, it was this issue (reports of pilots threatening to PVR over the move) that got me involved with the Sea Jet issue, and brought me to PPRuNe (via Sir Tim Garden's website).
In a year or two, the RN will have more amphibious capacity then you can shake a stick at.......
Just hope they never need to be deployed in harm's way.
Talking of 801 NAS, they have been training aboard Lusty.
Navaleye last night on Spotlight, the BBC South West news programme, there was a feature about about the Yeovilton air day, including the last chance to see the Sea Harrier. It also mentioned how fixed wing flying will end there when 801 disbands and they all move to Cott/Witt. Interestingly, it was this issue (reports of pilots threatening to PVR over the move) that got me involved with the Sea Jet issue, and brought me to PPRuNe (via Sir Tim Garden's website).
In a year or two, the RN will have more amphibious capacity then you can shake a stick at.......
Just hope they never need to be deployed in harm's way.
Talking of 801 NAS, they have been training aboard Lusty.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 20th Sep 2005 at 18:06.
And now from Navy News - a feature on the Yeovilton air day, including the last (barring unforeseen things) public display by the Sea Harrier.
"Damn shame about losing the Sea Harriers,” said spectator Alan Titcombe. “RAF Harriers just don’t have the same presence. Naval aviation is glamorous.”
"Damn shame about losing the Sea Harriers,” said spectator Alan Titcombe. “RAF Harriers just don’t have the same presence. Naval aviation is glamorous.”
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously Alan TITcombe doesn't realise that "RAF Harriers" (I presume he means RAF/FAA GR7s) go to sea. And the GR7 will have 100% more presence than the Sea Jet in a few short months.
He's right about it being a shame though, but the coffers aren't bottomless.
He's right about it being a shame though, but the coffers aren't bottomless.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Slightly OT I know but the Beeb are running a story on a 1979 Harrier crash allegedly caused by viffing. Here
Was it regularly practised back then?
Was it regularly practised back then?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Has any consideration been given to maintaining a airworthy Shar for the Fleet Air Arm Historic Flight? The newest cab is only 6 years old and must be still be very serviceable. They already have all the spares needed (which will just be binned anyway) and there's a ready source of others from retired airframes. We keep the Sea Fury and Sea Hawk in the air to mark their achievements, so why not the Shar?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
I asked this very question to a senior SHAR mate recently and he said it's a non starter due to the complexities and cost of doing so. The Sea Fury and Sea Hawk are far more simple to operate and maintain.
Regards,
MM
I asked this very question to a senior SHAR mate recently and he said it's a non starter due to the complexities and cost of doing so. The Sea Fury and Sea Hawk are far more simple to operate and maintain.
Regards,
MM