Small Crew Carriers

You are entirely correct, I fought the same fight at the Fires Center when I was in charge of the M777 and M119 programs from 2011 to 2014. It is not about what is the minimum number required to operate the system, but rather the manpower necessary to fight with the system. when you are operating any weapon system with 24 hours availability, the majority of the crew are performing other task. Realistically you can apply this even to a infantry Squad. Thanks to automation and weapons improvement, todays 9 man Squad is about 5 times more lethal and with more firepower than its equivalent 1985's 9 man squad. However, youcannot cut any additional person from the squad because it would become combat ineffective.
 

SsgtC

Banned
The bulk of the crew saving isn't in the air group, although it will obviously be smaller. It's using technology to cut the crew needed in things like munitions handling (apparently getting bombs/missiles from the magazine to the aircraft is almost entirely automated), the engine rooms etc. The UK have always used lower manning levels than the US anyway - we don't have enough people to have people as specialised as the US do, we've always had to do multiple jobs compared to the US equivalent.
I have a feeling that during wartime, the QE is going to jump from 1,600 personal to 2,000-2,500.
 
I have a feeling that during wartime, the QE is going to jump from 1,600 personal to 2,000-2,500.

Other than fluctuations in the air group (ie, taking on as many jets as the ship will take compared to having 12 on her for a routine cruise somewhere) or embarking a RM battlegroup and acting as a giant helicopter carrier, I doubt it to be honest. The RN just doesn't have the manpower to surge that many extra bodies onto the carriers. If we needed to find an extra 1,000 sailors at short notice the carriers would be sailing without escorts...
 

SsgtC

Banned
Other than fluctuations in the air group (ie, taking on as many jets as the ship will take compared to having 12 on her for a routine cruise somewhere) or embarking a RM battlegroup and acting as a giant helicopter carrier, I doubt it to be honest. The RN just doesn't have the manpower to surge that many extra bodies onto the carriers. If we needed to find an extra 1,000 sailors at short notice the carriers would be sailing without escorts...
Not necessarily a surge. But throughout history, navies have found that during wartime, per ship crew needs increase by 25-100%. This is mainly due to increased operational tempos necessitating more frequent crew rotations and increased maintenance needs.
 
Not necessarily a surge. But throughout history, navies have found that during wartime, per ship crew needs increase by 25-100%. This is mainly due to increased operational tempos necessitating more frequent crew rotations and increased maintenance needs.

I think 1,600 is the maximum she's designed to carry. I'm sure I read the ship can operate with fewer than 700 (although I doubt you could work on proper wartime routine with such a 'small' crew).
 
I think 1,600 is the maximum she's designed to carry. I'm sure I read the ship can operate with fewer than 700 (although I doubt you could work on proper wartime routine with such a 'small' crew).
Afaik ships compliment is less than 700 with the remaining 900 attached to the air group,

As to increasing capacity well there's room for 1600 bunks aboard, to increase crew numbers beyond that you can go to hot racks.
 
The most expensive part of a carrier over time is the crew and the operational limiting factor is have enough bodies to run the carrier.

What can one do to run a carrier with a lesser crew? Probably it might impact upon operational capabilities but is there a radical method which would allow carriers to be more affordable and have lesser carriers rather than no carriers. Or multiple carrier instead of one which means you can keep one at sea or at least in operational ready condition at any one time.
I'm not at all sure that I remember correctly that the final sentence in the above paragraph was part of the argument for the CVV in the 1970s.

Or put another way it would be easier to persuade Congress to buy CVV type ships instead of more Nimitz class because they would cost less to build and enable the USN to maintain the 15 carrier force that it wanted at the time.

IIRC the intention was that the building cost of one CVV would be half the building cost of a Nimitz. However, IIRC they could never reduce the operating cost of a CVV to half the cost of a Nimitz. IIRC they couldn't reduce the crew to less than half the size of a Nimitz and because the Nimitz classes nuclear powered machinery was cheaper to run than the CVV's oil fired boilers.
 
... Thanks to automation and weapons improvement, todays 9 man Squad is about 5 times more lethal and with more firepower than its equivalent 1985's 9 man squad. However, youcannot cut any additional person from the squad because it would become combat ineffective.

Does this mean if the squad has a casualty, say a broken ankle dismounting a vehicle, the squad becomes ineffective
 
Afaik ships compliment is less than 700 with the remaining 900 attached to the air group,

As to increasing capacity well there's room for 1600 bunks aboard, to increase crew numbers beyond that you can go to hot racks.

Does that include the US Marines who will be onboard for her first deployment in 2021 (one of the F-35B squadrons will be US Marines). I for one am really looking forward to seeing what happens when the Marines find out the Queen's ships are still wet. What could possibly go wrong?
 
I thought one of the draws of STOVL & QE CVA was supposed to be - it could surge more sortie than other CV with 144 sortie per day vs ????
 
Does this mean if the squad has a casualty, say a broken ankle dismounting a vehicle, the squad becomes ineffective
No, but it Lowers your capability, now you have to reshuffle your crew as you cannot longer mount a half sleep, half awake duty roster (nor fulfill al other details). If a squad gets two additional casualties, it will be considered combat ineffective ( under 60%) and would need to be reconstituted or merged with another squad.
 
Last edited:
... If a squad gets two additional casualties, it will be considered combat ineffective ( under 60%) and would need to be reconstituted or merged with another squad

I observed the same thing. when a 'small lean' infantry squad took two or three casualties it was pretty much done. No staying power.
 
I am not a naval expert even though I posed the OP but I do know that the reduction in crew of the Valentine tank from 4 to 3 with the turret going from a 3 to a 2 man turret (to fit in the 6 pounder/75 ROF gun) was found to be more of a problem with crew efficiency generally than with the loss of a dedicated loader in battle. Simply there was one less person to stand guard and to assist in the maintenance so the crew got less rest and were harder worked with more mechanical minor issues. Also not easy to find enough left handed commanders. The problem is worse than it might seem as the commander was often away from the tank out of battle especially if he were a troop or squadron leader and attending O groups and other admin affairs so the workload was increased not by 1/4 but by 1/3.
 
Top