HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
AstonZagato said:
Could Ospreys operate off the QE? Could they provide AEW? I believe that they can provide air to air refueling- could that be used for the f35?
The USMC have no problem operating V22s off their baby carriers so QE would be entirely possible. I think AEW has been looked at but the propellors are something of an issue; it would require some very clever software to see through the noise and avoid blind spots. There's no reason they could not do AAR, although the disrupted flow off the propellors might make plugging in exciting. All of which is academic as there's no danger of money being found for a new aircraft type and the associated training and logistic chain; the FAA will be lucky to get enough F35Bs for a squadron + OCU + spares, never mind 'nice to have' extras like V22.donutsina911 said:
Mojocvh said:
LOL you mean littering the seabed with unfused ordinance the puffer jet couldn't bring back 
or are you just mix and matching to suit yourself ??
Pity the stealthy F35B can't really do fleet defence [will it ever?] despite the excellence of the ASRAAM
One thing about carriers, they don’t let the little boats get in the way, no sir!!
'LOL'? are you twelve? or are you just mix and matching to suit yourself ??Pity the stealthy F35B can't really do fleet defence [will it ever?] despite the excellence of the ASRAAM
One thing about carriers, they don’t let the little boats get in the way, no sir!!
Crab slagging off Sea Harrier shocker. I was responding to V8Fettler's daft comments about the Harrier - this thread is about QE.
If you want to show off your knowledge of planes including one that isn't even in service, the thread for you is here:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Full of posters who've neither flown or directed a FJ asset, but with plenty of free time on their hands and access to Wikipedia. You'll be right at home...
Mojocvh said:
donutsina911 said:
Mojocvh said:
Just be sure and the the RAF know when you need some more countries moving around the map.
In English?Mojocvh said:
Our aircraft used to spend literately hours, whilst employed during JMC, being sent in the wrong direction by the RN, seems some traditions are set in stone...
Mojocvh said:
Our aircraft used to spend literately hours, whilst employed during JMC, being sent in the wrong direction by the RN, seems some traditions are set in stone...
But in the meantime, why don't you remind everyone what you did in the RAF? What first hand knowledge do you have directing air assets in either a JMC or operationally? In a dozen post JMC debriefs/piss ups, I don't recall a single moan from our RAF colleagues about being sent in the wrong direction. I call bulls
t.Godalmighty83 said:
Do the rest of us need some sort of filter to cut through this odd intra-service BS?
No, it's just that the BS spouted by some, who, arrogantly, look at everything through a dark blue filter, would see the country left {even more] defenceless.A hint.
Put a spot on a large scale map and draw the range of a F-35B around it with a compass. I don't think even arguing about "top speed" is going to make the obvious limitations any easier to swallow than the billions that will have been thrown down this particular defence black hole...
Oh, and despite a certain posters vitriol, he actually cannot,factually,counter my initial posts criticisms, put to him. re F-35 can he.
So what are the F-35B's strengths?
Godalmighty83 said:
Yes and the Navy has shot down more enemy aircraft since the Korean war then the RAF... blah blah blah. How about that carrier thing which is getting built? Can we get back on that for a while without talk service willy waving or making up fictional super-planes.
What he said.donutsina911 said:
Mojocvh said:
Our aircraft used to spend literately hours, whilst employed during JMC, being sent in the wrong direction by the RN, seems some traditions are set in stone...
But in the meantime, why don't you remind everyone what you did in the RAF? What first hand knowledge do you have directing air assets in either a JMC or operationally? In a dozen post JMC debriefs/piss ups, I don't recall a single moan from our RAF colleagues about being sent in the wrong direction. I call bulls
t.tter pal.
VE Fettler said:
Belize demonstrates that aircraft carriers can operate without layered defence. You've stated that Ark (Buccs) would have required an escort in 1982, I've suggested Conqueror to meet your requirements for an escort, you've provided no reason why Conqueror couldn't have been used in that role. I've also suggested Antrim and Plymouth to meet your requirements for an escort, and likewise you've provided no reason why Antrim and Plymouth couldn't have been used in that role.
Just to be clear, you think Guatemala with a single 45 foot patrol boat and a handful of F-51 Mustangs is comparable to a Argentine navy with modern carrier aviation, Type 42s, submarines, Exocets and a Cruiser with 6" guns and a similarly modern air force?V8 Fettler said:
Your post confirms that escorts for Ark (Buccs) would have been available, if escorts were required. I'm sure that Thatcher would have diplomatically ensured that the command structure was amended to permit one sub to escort Ark (Buccs), if escorts were required. Can you imagine the conversation? "I'm sorry Mrs Thatcher, we can't provide a submarine to escort the Ark (Buccs), even though we're sending three down there".
There are unknowns with any "what if" scenario e.g. where is the Ark (Buccs) on April 2nd 1982? Reliability? Performance? If Ark (Buccs) needs refuelling then Ascension is the answer. Don't forget, Ark (Buccs) only needs to get within - say - 1000 nautical miles of the Falklands to reach out with Buccs. Her designed range at 25(ish) knots should have been around 5000 nautical miles.
Militarily, why recover South Georgia before attacking Argentine resources on the Falklands? The US got it right in WW2 in the Pacific: get to the primary target as quickly as possible. I can see the political reasons to support the recovery of South Georgia during a period of time when there is minimal ability to strike at the Argentinians on the Falklands. As an aside, the Ark (Buccs) could probably sit between South Georgia and the Falklands providing air cover for both (including fixed wing AEW).
With Ark (Buccs), the requirement to get the task force to the South Atlantic was not so urgent, Ark (Buccs) could strike effectively at the Argentinians with little support required from other vessels. Certainly wouldn't place the Atlantic Conveyor and similar in the dangerous positions that occurred in reality.
Why would the British need Harriers in the Falklands if Phantoms and Buccs were available?
By all means have some diplomacy of you wish, but not too much, wouldn't want to give the Argentinians hope nor the opportunity to build their defences on the Falklands. If diplomacy has to happen then my preference would be for it to occur in the knowledge that Phantoms and Buccs might appear over international waters in the South Atlantic at any time. The Phantoms would have stopped the air supply route immediately.
How does the close approach of the Hermes and Invincible at night deter the Argentine strike aircraft during daylight? Phantoms from Ark (Buccs) would have dealt with the problem to the west of the Falklands (see circles).
EscortsThere are unknowns with any "what if" scenario e.g. where is the Ark (Buccs) on April 2nd 1982? Reliability? Performance? If Ark (Buccs) needs refuelling then Ascension is the answer. Don't forget, Ark (Buccs) only needs to get within - say - 1000 nautical miles of the Falklands to reach out with Buccs. Her designed range at 25(ish) knots should have been around 5000 nautical miles.
Militarily, why recover South Georgia before attacking Argentine resources on the Falklands? The US got it right in WW2 in the Pacific: get to the primary target as quickly as possible. I can see the political reasons to support the recovery of South Georgia during a period of time when there is minimal ability to strike at the Argentinians on the Falklands. As an aside, the Ark (Buccs) could probably sit between South Georgia and the Falklands providing air cover for both (including fixed wing AEW).
With Ark (Buccs), the requirement to get the task force to the South Atlantic was not so urgent, Ark (Buccs) could strike effectively at the Argentinians with little support required from other vessels. Certainly wouldn't place the Atlantic Conveyor and similar in the dangerous positions that occurred in reality.
Why would the British need Harriers in the Falklands if Phantoms and Buccs were available?
By all means have some diplomacy of you wish, but not too much, wouldn't want to give the Argentinians hope nor the opportunity to build their defences on the Falklands. If diplomacy has to happen then my preference would be for it to occur in the knowledge that Phantoms and Buccs might appear over international waters in the South Atlantic at any time. The Phantoms would have stopped the air supply route immediately.
How does the close approach of the Hermes and Invincible at night deter the Argentine strike aircraft during daylight? Phantoms from Ark (Buccs) would have dealt with the problem to the west of the Falklands (see circles).
As explained by others Plymouth and Antrim were hardly suitable to acting as the sole escorts to Ark Royal, even if they were available to do so. The Counties were in particular demand on the gunline due to their dual 4.5" guns.
Submarine C2
The War Cabinet would not have got involved in a tactical decision like this. We know that because Admiral Woodward strongly contested the control of submarines through Northwood throughout the war, not least because Northwood favoured the standard tactic of allocating each boat its own patrol area to avoid the risk of them running into each other. Woodward argued, however, that there were no other nuclear submarines in the area so any SSN could be assumed to be friendly (although it was never entirely clear to what extent the Russians were in the area). Yet Flag Officer Submarines remained in control of task group. Both he and Woodward (who was only in command of the carrier task group) were subservient to Admiral Fieldhouse, who was Commander Task Force from Northwood.
Ark Royal
Both Hermes and Invincible had just returned to Portsmouth from exercises and their crews were about to go on Easter leave. All probability that is exactly where Ark Royal would have been too. If she wasn't, then it is likely her response time would be even slower as she would need to return to Portsmouth to Store for War and take on a full air group (Almost every available Sea Harrier and Helicopter were crammed onto Hermes and Invincible, well in excess of their normal peace time air groups.
Standing off 1,000 miles is useless. You can't maintain a Combat Air Patrol at that range - the small air group aboard Ark Royal will minimal time at their CAP position before they have to return and will struggle to keep that up 24/7 for more than a couple of days. Ascension is 3,800 miles from the Falklands. As soon as you sail down towards the Falklands, she'd have to turn around and head back to Ascension if she is going to have the fuel to get back! You need RFAs with the carrier battle group and STUFT shuttling back and forth with more fuel.
Hermes had to do a full boiler clean while on station during the war due to the amount of steaming she undertook.
And hang on, where's the speed advantage you talk about if Ark Royal cruises down at only 25 knots?
South Georgia
Op Paraquat was politically important because it was early victory that was preceived to be relatively low risk (as it happended, the whole thing came very close to disaster. Crucially, there was a recognition that no landing would take place until mid-May at the earliest so it was though vital that we keep morale at home high during the long wait, lest anyone start asking awkward questions about whether we were actually going to do anything. It was also important diplomatically as it gave us a foothold in the South Atlantic again should a ceasefire be declared before we could establish a presence in the Falklands. Lastly, it was military important because it offered a more sheltered option to the main Tug, Repair And Logistics Area (TRALA) during the conflict. It was extensively used by RFA vessels an STUFT to transfer stores and troops to the the main task force or San Carlos.
Ark Royal would have been of very limited assistance in South Georgia. It was Naval Gunfire Support and the landing of a scratch group of marines and special forces that forced the Argentine surrender. Likewise it was ASW helicopters from Antrim, Plymouth, Endurance and Tidespring that caught and disabled ARA Santa Fe.
Reconnaissance was already provided by RAF Victors and Nimrods flying from Ascension and Chile, as well as Satellite imagery and communications interception by Endurance and the Chileans.
Urgency
Getting the rest of the task force down south was urgent regardless of whether it was Hermes/Invincible or Ark Royal. The task force was operating to a deadline of the on-set of the Southern winter (mid-late June). It was ultimately the land forces that forced the surrender of the Argentine forces in the Falklands. And Ark Royal could not have fulfilled all the tasks required of the carrier task group by herself. There were the nightly SF insertions, escorts on the gunline at Stanley, capturing a spy trawler and engaging patrol boats. HMS Alacrity was even sent into the Falkland Sound to check for mines.
Harriers
As someone else mentioned, Harrier with the ramp and VSTOL can operate in sea conditions that prevent conventional carrier operations. On one occasion, the fog was so thick a Harrier had to be guided down by pointing a light up through the fog for the Harrier to descend vertically to the carrier.
More critically, VSTOL carrier operations is an easier skill to learn compared to CATOBAR operations. Not only did this enable FAA Sea Harrier pilots serving on the OCU (899 NAS) to form a third squadron (809 NAS) to augment 800 and 801 but also allowed RAF Harriers to be seconded to Sea Harrier and the use of RAF GR3 Harriers with comparatively limited training. This simply would not have been possible with the RAF's Phantoms and Buccaneers given the specialised CATOBAR experience required.
As well as Harriers and Chinooks, Atlantic Conveyor also carried a complete Harrier Forward Operating Base kit - the intention being to establish a FOB at San Carlos after the landings. This links back to the concerns about a ceasefire being agreed before we could forced the Argentine surrender. It was linked to concerns about losing one of the carriers. Although the Harrier FOB kit was lost with Atlantic Conveyor, enough matting was still available to establish a small runway onshore from which Harriers and helicopters could refuel, which proved very useful during the final push to Stanley.
At the end of the war, a temporary strip was created at Stanley airfield while Royal Engineers worked on repairing damage and clearing mines and other war litter. Harrier GR3s armed with sidewinders were based there in the air defence role from 4 July. This allowed Hermes and her Sea Harriers to depart for the UK while HMS Invincible hung around until HMS Illustrious' arrival (rushed into service and completing her sea trials on the journey south) - one of the advantages of having three carriers vs one. It wasn't until October 1982 that Stanley was extended sufficiently to base RAF Phantoms there.
So if your Ark Royal had won the conflict, how would you have secured the peace afterwards? There was always the concern that the forces on the Falkands may have surrendered but the mainland hadn't. You can't keep Ark Royal down south indefinitely given the winter conditions in the South Atlantic.
Diplomacy
Diplomacy cannot be ignored. We needed the support of our allies. France were particularly helpful in marshalling support for EU sanctions, working with SIS to prevent Argentine acquiring more Exocets and conducting Dissimilar Air Combat exercises with our carriers as they sailed through the Bay of Biscay. Chile provided plenty of intelligence (including the location of the Belgrano), basing for Nimrods and permitting a quick extraction of the Special Forces recce team that was sent to recce the Argentine Exocet airfield. Even New Zealand assisted by covering a Royal Navy task to allow another escort to be sent south.
And of course, there was the Americans. Not only did the Pentagon arrange extensive material support (and even the offer of one of their carriers) but Al Haig ran the shuttle negotiations initially. Remember there was significant Latin American faction in the State Department who thought the US should side with the Argentines as their allies against left wingers in South America. It was through careful work at the UN Security Council and ensuring that Al Haig put his final proposals to Argentina first so we weren't seen to be ones rejecting them that helped cement our case. Don't forget, the widely held view (even with MOD Main Building) was that we wouldn't be able to do it.
In the event, negotiations continued right up until the landings in Mid-May with both Peru and the UN Secretary General picking up the baton from Al Haig.
The importance of diplomacy during the conflict cannot be understated. After all, the Junta's original plan (before they cocked everything up with South Georgia) was to do a soft-invasion later in the year and win the support of the UN General Assembly. Thatcher was not a warmonger in 1982.
Air Supply Route
How early would you have shot down an unarmed Argentine C-130, Fokker, BAC 1-11, Boeing 707/737 or Learjet? As the carrier task group approached the Falklands on 21 April, it was shadowed by an Argentine Boeing 707 reconnaissance jet. It was chased away by an unarmed Sea Harrier. This was well outside the defined MEZ and therefore the Rules of Engagement did not permit it to be shot down. Indeed, a new ROE was rapidly put in place by London that Sea Harriers were to 'visibly escort the aircraft and dissuade it from overlying the force'. Woordward misunderstood verbal advice he had been given by Northwood and came very close to shooting down a Brazilian airliner flying to Durban.
It was only later in the war that a Sea Harrier shot down a C-130 resupply (after C-130s had already been used in crude bombing role) and HMS Exeter shot down a Learjet with her Sea Dart.
By contrast, the 1 April was clearly the start of a full blown war. We attacked Stanley with Black Buck 1 supported by Harriers while Argentina launched multiple waves of aircraft and thought they had successfully hit a number of our warships. In other words, neither side could be portrayed as the aggressor or victim, both were now on the same footing.
The close approach of Hermes and Invincible has nothing to do with deterring daylight air raids and everything to do with the all other missions they needed to carry out in advance of the landings.
FourWheelDrift said:
In case he isn't being sarcastic. Only one Sea Slug launch during the Falklands against an aircraft, it missed. 20 years old at the time and already obsolete and useless as it couldn't target low flying objects. So bad they used a few up by firing them at Stanley Airfield, a big enough target as Sea Slug couldn't miss.
Yep, Antrim rigged the Sea Slug to fire unguided in the hope all the smoke and boosters might help put the Argentine pilots off their aim. Also safer for the ship to get rid of the missiles if attacked.Glamorgan's use against an on-shore radar and Stanley airfield also had the side effect of stopping the fighting on land momentarily. The Army actually contacted Glamorgan to offer assistance as they thought she had blown up.
Detailed account here - http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/83...
"This thread is about HMS Queen Elizabeth"
In that case just what will it's, quite limited, purpose be?
OK if we discount USMC [at a stretch] just what significant Naval Air Arm will the RN be cross operating with ??
NONE.
I'm sure the jets will be deployed away from QE but who will be coming on-board??
To paraphrase FWD above " 20 years old at the time and already obsolete
You may well be talking about the F35B by the time it gets on-board with the RN..
In that case just what will it's, quite limited, purpose be?
OK if we discount USMC [at a stretch] just what significant Naval Air Arm will the RN be cross operating with ??
NONE.
I'm sure the jets will be deployed away from QE but who will be coming on-board??
To paraphrase FWD above " 20 years old at the time and already obsolete
You may well be talking about the F35B by the time it gets on-board with the RN..
Edited by Mojocvh on Saturday 2nd January 19:47
"This thread is about HMS Queen Elizabeth"
In that case just what will it's, quite limited, purpose be?
OK if we discount USMC [at a stretch] just what significant Naval Air Arm will the RN be cross operating with ??
NONE.
I'm sure the jets will be deployed away from QE but who will be coming on-board??
To paraphrase FWD above " 20 years old at the time and already obsolete
You may well be talking about the F35B by the time it gets on-board with the RN..
In that case just what will it's, quite limited, purpose be?
OK if we discount USMC [at a stretch] just what significant Naval Air Arm will the RN be cross operating with ??
NONE.
I'm sure the jets will be deployed away from QE but who will be coming on-board??
To paraphrase FWD above " 20 years old at the time and already obsolete
You may well be talking about the F35B by the time it gets on-board with the RN..
Edited by Mojocvh on Saturday 2nd January 20:18
Mojocvh said:
"This thread is about HMS Queen Elizabeth"
In that case just what will it's, quite limited, purpose be?
OK if we discount USMC [at a stretch] just what significant Naval Air Arm will the RN be cross operating with ??
NONE.
I'm sure the jets will be deployed away from QE but who will be coming on-board??
To paraphrase FWD above " 20 years old at the time and already obsolete
You may well be talking about the F35B by the time it gets on-board with the RN..
I think the comments from RN, RAF and Army officers from 2.41 onwards should help answer your questions around 'purpose' and who 'will be coming onboard.'In that case just what will it's, quite limited, purpose be?
OK if we discount USMC [at a stretch] just what significant Naval Air Arm will the RN be cross operating with ??
NONE.
I'm sure the jets will be deployed away from QE but who will be coming on-board??
To paraphrase FWD above " 20 years old at the time and already obsolete
You may well be talking about the F35B by the time it gets on-board with the RN..
Edited by Mojocvh on Saturday 2nd January 19:48
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEIH_2lEHCQ
Mojocvh said:
Put a spot on a large scale map and draw the range of a F-35B around it with a compass.
ThinkDefence already provided one
The order is Harrier, Dave-B, Dave-C
Both B and C on internal fuel with the harrier on two external tanks, although it's worth noting that the range listing for the B listed in most sources is the USMC profile and there is mention that the RN profile is slightly greater due to a higher take off capacity. Oh, and if historical precedent holds as an arrested aircraft the C will typically land with much greater reserve fuel due to the risk of bolting leaving the gap between the two to be much closer.
Of course other aircraft can go further, once laden up with draggy external tanks on top of the draggy external weapons.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff