Hms Queen Elizabeth

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, Daan said:

If the carrier is limited to a position far out in deep water where is freely maneuverable, the defensive strategy of deploying the diesel submarines has worked admirably in most theaters as the carrier's aircraft have been rendered irrelevant to the fight on land.

Somehow I doubt CMANO gives an accurate representation of ASW and the ship numbers of Yom Kippur are long gone. The submarines are still there and have become much more capable, but where is that halfway competent ASW screen nowadays? The RN is far too small to provide a sufficient numbers of escorts and perform its other tasks at the same time. Furthermore, have they been training on ASW as they did in the Cold War? Given the improvements in shore-based AshM and SAM systems and the proliferation of modern fighter jets, the submarines also have greater areas in which to hide from ASW forces.

With regards to aircraft numbers, the amount of Rafale Ms provides a clue as to what size fleet one needs to provide a steady number ready for deployment. The French Navy acquired 48 examples and the CdG seems to deploy with around 12 in peace time, very similar to the RN, but it has only one carrier of smaller size. In one exercise the CdG hosted 30 Rafale Ms, but that is an exception and not sustainable for a protracted period of high tension.

South Korea has just cancelled its plans for a F-35B STOVL CVX carrier in favor of more missile carrying submarines. A sensible decision in that theater.

Come on, thats a little of a broad brush isnt it? Its either right on the beach, or its the middle of the Atlantic? Yes of course there are competing operational concerns, we saw that all the time during the Falklands that led to the Atlantic Conveyor to missile attack. Its a wise operational commander whom is able to weigh up those concerns and tailor something that works. You dont need to be right inshore to use airpower. You dont need to be the middle of the ocean to minimise the problems of SSK's. But even assuming that, if you have any kind of tanker force, you dont really need to have a carrier immediately on hand, as we saw with even American LPH's parked in the Gulf, flying off Harrier strikes over Afghanistan.

CMANO is used by BAE as a dev and marketing tool. I suspect they probably put in a lot of unlisted data, but I dont think modelling submarines from 50 years ago is really going to be that hard to find data for. But like I say, try it out. The only submarines that can reliably intercept carriers are SSN's. SSK's, despire recent innovations in closed circuit engines, do not in my view have the sustained speed necessary to do it. Usually the best they can be used for is in barrier operations in shallow waters, where their stealth really can make them shine. Yes, they are far more capable than before, I dont deny it.  I still think any SSK that trys to catch up or run around a Carrier, even if that is possible at the speed they are capable of operating, is still going to make more noise than a well build SSN.

Agreed about the French, that sounds a reasonable model. So assuming two carriers with 30 jets each, maybe 10 to 15 as an operational and training reserve, I think we are probably going to get about 75-80. Far fewer than they 138 we were planning, but in light of how the devs are playing smart arse over the weapons they hang on them, we owe them no favours.

TBH, I think the South Koreans have much more to worry about than the North Koreans, which have been, other than their nuclear capablity, a non conventional threat for some time. I dont know what submarines they are planning to go for, but its incorrect to assume they are going to have the sustained capablity carriers have. Unless they fancy replenning them at sea of course.

[BansheeOne]

Well if you exclude even the Mediterranean and Carribean as "restricted waters" in addition to bodies like the Baltic and Persian Gulf, you do indeed take a lot of likely deployment areas off the board - by extension also the Arabian Sea, the Bay of Bengal, all the waters around the Malay Peninsula and the Greater Sundae Islands, the South and East China Sea, the Sea of Japan and Okhotsk.

Mind, carriers do of course operate in most of these areas, and you don't have competent adversaries operating submarines to counter them in all those. But the Chinese have already ostentatively penetrated a US carrier group off Okinawa once; so the threat is definitely real, and having sufficient escort capabilities is an actual concern. You can't just say "oh, we'll simply stay away from dangerous waters (which happen to be the ones off the shores where the crises happen you want to deal with) and outrun any diesel subs".

[futon]

When QE visited last year, she was part of a coalition. Even if USN is out do due new civil war, Japanese ASW will surround the QE so that QE can help secure air superiority over Taiwan.

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Well if you exclude even the Mediterranean and Carribean as "restricted waters" in addition to bodies like the Baltic and Persian Gulf, you do indeed take a lot of likely deployment areas off the board - by extension also the Arabian Sea, the Bay of Bengal, all the waters around the Malay Peninsula and the Greater Sundae Islands, the South and East China Sea, the Sea of Japan and Okhotsk.

Mind, carriers do of course operate in most of these areas, and you don't have competent adversaries operating submarines to counter them in all those. But the Chinese have already ostentatively penetrated a US carrier group off Okinawa once; so the threat is definitely real, and having sufficient escort capabilities is an actual concern. You can't just say "oh, we'll simply stay away from dangerous waters (which happen to be the ones off the shores where the crises happen you want to deal with) and outrun any diesel subs".

The Falklands, all around Africa, the vast part of the Pacific, the Northwest passage, the Barents Sea, the Norwegian Sea, Korea. All the old favourites. Besides, if you do have land based tankers, and somewhere to stage them out of, a carrier can have a remarkably large footprint, in places you would never think of actually  operating them. I was trying the CMANO scenarios pack based around the Queen Elizabeth, and it does demonstrate what a large footprint a few tankers make.

 

As I said, it's the commanders job to weigh up the advantages of where they operate against the risks. You can't always avoid the threat it's true. But it's not accurate to suggest the carrier is inherently a waste of money because occasionally it's at risk to a warship a fraction of its resources. You could use that arguement about any surface ship, and many AFVs too for that matter. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 hours ago, futon said:

When QE visited last year, she was part of a coalition. Even if USN is out do due new civil war, Japanese ASW will surround the QE so that QE can help secure air superiority over Taiwan.

And you are quite right.

It's worth pointing to the Americans, and the Japanese, form allied battleground around their flattops as well.

[lucklucky]

 

[Steven P Allen]

To quote one of my best friends:  "Ehhhh, oops."

[TrustMe]

Thats what happens when a RAF fighter is launched from a Royal Navy aircraft carrier.

[Stuart Galbraith]

'He was asking for it!' 

 

[Daan]

Isn't that a weird conclusion pointing to a chain of mistakes? If the engineering crew had not removed the 'Red Gear' the evening prior, shouldn't the deck crew AND the pilot on his pre-flight inspection encounter said Red Gear?

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

IIRC, they were practicing surge operations. Which illustrated neatly there are a limit quite how much you can surge I guess...

[shep854]

There is also the last visual check immediately before launch...

[Stuart Galbraith]

It doesn't help that in the F35, the intakes are designed to be difficult to 'see'. This probably would never have happened with a Harrier.

 

[DB]

It should be obvious that there was a procedural failing. I suppose one question is whether the RAF/RN personnel were using the same procedures and whether those are the same as USMC ones, and so on.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Obviously it was a failing, but evidently it was one exacerbated by the circumstances. You would after all expect the pilot to do a check before climbing in. Which points to my mind to a high operational tempo.

[shep854]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Obviously it was a failing, but evidently it was one exacerbated by the circumstances. You would after all expect the pilot to do a check before climbing in. Which points to my mind to a high operational tempo.

This why there are supposed to a number of separate people repeating the same checks. As you point out, though, when things get really busy distractions and oversights can still occur.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Not unknown even in the USN. There was a fascinating podcast, think it was Tomcatcast, that for an episode on the failed Phoenix engagement over Iraq. Supposedly the failure of a catapult led them to launch in an atypical position, and the guy on the day was not familiar with ensuring the wires were all plugged in. As you say, in a hurry, shit happens.

[kokovi]

A carrier will need some free area at sea to operate. Coordination of the air operation itself and with the screen will heavily restrict freedom of navigation for the carrier. In areas where conventional Subs operate it will be in danger, as it will be loud and probably be predictable for the sub after some time. I think it is risky to assume that a carrier would be safe from conventional or AIP subs because of its speed. If the carrier group is aware of the ASW threat and wants to run away, yes. But if they want to do air operations for some time in a certain area, time will suddenly be working for the submarine as NATO exercises have repeatedly shown. And aircraft ranges in games and Wikipedia are different from reality. If you want to find out whether range in reality is larger or shorter, think about the importance of tankers in operation Allied Force for tactical aircraft operating above Yugoslavia from Italian bases.

[Stuart Galbraith]

But of course, nobody says that the carrier cant defend the tankers that support them on station. There seems to be an implicit assumption tankers are 'cheating', but if they work, why not use them? Its still a better option than dragging  several strike fighters several hundred miles by tanker, when you can just give them a squirt to top up after the leave the deck.

I would agree that leaving carriers forever on a station is asking for trouble. You could, against a halfway serious opponent, not have the kind of Alpha station strikes you had with North Vietnam. But then, you can move your airfield, so there is no reason other than institutional inertia why you should. As we saw with the Doolittle raiders, even a single strike can achieve fairly remarkable results, even if you dont hang around to see what happens. In the era of the drone, when you can effectively throw air assets away if you wish, that is only going to increase the carriers scope to shoot and scoot.

[shep854]

And don't forget the weather, even for ASW.  Besides the obvious air and surface effects, rough weather can play merry hob with underwater conditions, giving subs wonderful opportunities to have interesting sneaks...

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]