Big decisions looming?

[Trumpet_trousers]

See here....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1425158,00.html

[Green Meat]

Four choices from what I can see:

1. We need AD / swing role more. Buy all Typhoons, might as well have them due to the penalty clauses. Bugger the carriers, who needs ovepriced cr@p that will take most of our remaining navy for the CBG in any case (duck for incoming from dark blue readers...). JSF land based plus a couple of helo carriers.

2. Bite the bullet, purchase no more Typhoons and build carriers with JSF to build a balanced force (for balanced force read putting eggs in every basket). Penalty clause for Typhoon? Either bite the bullet as they will cost more than the penalty clause to operate in the long run or renegotiate. God knows enough euro-bods have ignored treaties and so forth.

3. Buy both, stop pi$$ing money away elsewhere.

4. None of the above, and buy Gripens, put the completed Type-hoons in Duxford and Cosford next to the TSR2s...

Issues? Well, power projection for a start. Do we really need to power project with carriers when the only navy doing it seriously has seven (?) enormous CVNs with a larger complement of aircraft than most air forces. Are we seriously trying to compete?
Jobs. BWoS should have gone it alone in the first place and said sod the consortium. We could have built and put into service an indigenous fighter by now, and kept jobs into the bargain. I know where and how long ago we developed the CFC technology as I was there (but didn't develop it, can't steal anyone's thunder!). If I hear again that yet another country which takes up a huge proportion of the EU budget has cancelled its order to our detriment, I shall spit!
I was once accused of lacking in national pride when I suggested buying proven Scandinavian products, but damn it - the Vulcan was the last sodding British GA aircraft, could the Lightning have been the last AD?

I sure I've unleashed a torrent of invective about how much better the Type-hoon is than the Gripen, but damn it - which one was cleared operational seven years ago?

:mad:

Taxi!

[BEagle]

If the UK can't afford both, then as the least useful, the carriers should go!

But you can always ask for the latest gen direct from DPA. As it says on their website:

"As from 1st January 2005, you will be able to request information on current Defence Procurement Agency equipment programmes by using this contact email address: [email protected]"

OK - when is the FSTA decision going to be made?

[ZH875]

GM, I think you will find that the Buccaneer was the last British GA aircraft built.

Should never have scrapped either, bring back 'the old man's Air Force'.

[sangiovese.]

Latest guestimate is May.

[Oggin Aviator]

If the UK can't afford both, then as the least useful, the carriers should go!

< In this era or Expeditionery Warfare> How can a expeditionery moveable airfield with a technically superior aircraft be less useful than a cold war legacy aircraft requiring a fixed base which is less expeditionery?

I know there are more light blue than dark blue that frequent this forum so I'll probably get flamed however if the UK wants to keep some sort of place in the world then we need the carriers. Period. Why does the USN have so many if they are not useful? What is one doing right now - not warfighting but helping the humanitarian effort in Asia.

If we dont want to keep some sort of place in the world then admit it and dont buy EFA or CVF/JSF and spend the money elsewhere like supporting refugees from Eastern Europe or soap dodgers who cant be arsed to do a decents days work in their life.

[Green Meat]

ZH, how could I forget the beautiful Bucc? :( Oh the days of insulation tape holding the cockpit together. I cherish the upset caused when they carried lgb alongside the laser designator that the GR1 couldn't...

Bring them back indeed!

Oggin Av, maybe you can speak with authority here - exactly how much of our remaining surface fleet would be required to support a CBG in the same manner that the US CVN require? Is it feasible with our latest rationalisations?

[Archimedes]

Cancelling Typhoon bar Tranche 3 aircraft could be a little troublesome given the contract penalties. CAS is quoted in either JDW or the Torygraph (I think the former) as saying that Typhoon Tranche 3 'isn't on anybody's radar' at the moment, so it might be that the partner nations are going to quietly agree to bin that Tranche (although I had the impression that the Germans want/need their Tranche 3 aircraft to meet their force structure planning assumptions?).

As Jacko pointed out on another thread, the JSF participation deal that the UK has guarantees the right to contribute to production, and doesn't tie the UK to buying 150. There are no contractual penalties for not taking the aspired to figure (and there are now some commentators who query whether or not the JSF is going to be as useful for the UK's purposes as the Typhoon). I'd not be at all surprised to see the JSF buy reduced to about 75 (sufficient to put 30 aboard a smaller CVF with only one CVF (Lite) ready for ops at any one time).

Of course, OA is right - if the Dear Leader is serious about doing Expeditionary Warfare, both Typhoon and CVF are required. Just to complicate matters, there are rumours that the F/A-22 programme might be cut back to under 200 - in which case, the ability to provide an AD capable aircraft in coalition operations might not be a bad thing...

OA is spot on - if Blair, Brown and the poodle at MoD aren't prepared to fund defence then they need to stop @rsing about pretending that the UK can do everything while simulataneously going about cutting left, right, centre, up, down and sideways...

[Oggin Aviator]

Green Meat

That is a very valid question and I dont get paid enough to provide an answer, although I would assume it would take considerable resources yes, however as a matter of scale the USN has 8 or so CVNs (not all at sea at the same time) but has 290 or so other surface ships to form the CSG (Carrier Strike Group) - (CBG is a dated term now). The UK wants 2 CVFs and would need to form a mini CSG from the 30 plus surface ships plus 10 or so SSNs, so, assuming one at sea as the on call carrier about 5 to 7 other platforms. Not unreasonable, given the capabilty of the T45 when it comes into service and the advent of a true network centric force (with decent organic airborne C2 :D ) might make this requirement smaller. So it is achievable.

One could argue that the UK per se is not likely to suffer a direct airborne attack such as in 1940. Therefore, if you accept this argument, what are you going to do with all those Typhoons? Let them sit at Leeming and Leuchars just doing SCT all the time? Spend a whole lot of dosh detting them all over the world in a Strike role, with the RAF personnel's morale forever plummeting because they are away from home for more than a few weeks? Or have a carrier with some technically superior true swing capable aircraft patrolling the seas projecting power, promoting UK interests abroad, hosting awesome cocktail parties in exotic locations and able to step in relatively quickly to help in humanitarian or peace support missions when required?

As we appear to be locked into Typhoon, my answer would be to not cancel it and waste that money already spent, but to marinise it and put it on a CTOL CVF, then integrate smaller numbers of JSF when that finally hits the front line. This would provide a cheaper interim compromise soution.

I guess its for the Government to decide where their priorities lie.

[L1A2 discharged]

Don't know the contract penalty details, however my tuppenybit at just below turf level:

1. Cancel tranche 3 of Typ-hoon.
2. Build the carriers, get enough JSFs to put on them,
3. Cancel the Harrier FRS cancellation to keep something that works going until a replacement has matured.
4. Stop mucking about with the A400 concept and buy more large transport.
5. Stop bean counters removing the ability to produce bodies in the right colour uniforms to do all the jobs tasked, or stop tasking jobs above the level the Bean counters will pay for.:ok:

Marinate the Typ-hoon? how big a boat will it need to leap aloft from, given a meaningful deliverable on board.

;)

[Still having seat / keyboard interface problems - cordless keyboard]

[WE Branch Fanatic]

With regards to the USN, most of their surface ships (destroyer and above) carry Tomahawk so they contribute to offensive capabilities.

There is a trade off between carrier based aircraft and surface warships, a carrier's aircraft can have both the offensive and defensive capibility of quite a few surface vessels, and can give both sensors and weapons greater range, but aren't as flexible - particularly for low intensity stuff.

[Styron]

If the Carriers are cancalled Swan Hunters on Tyneside will close and Glasgow, Barrow and Other Ship yards will be hit hard.

Labour Goverments have tried to help their traditional heartlands but the cancellation of the CVF would be a kick in the teeth for many traditional labour areas at a time when the Labour party has alienated many rural areas with the hunting ban and base closures it is now trying to lose the urban vote, :p

[Green Meat]

Styr, so the defence of the nation should rest on Labour's tarditional heartlands? Wasn't there a strong rumour that the CVs would be sub-contracted to France in any case?

OA, so more practical than I would have suspected for the CSG (:ok: - my outdated outlook in all things naval, how I shall weep when the F14 goes). Of course, if the experience of our colonial bretheren is anything to go by, both JSF and Typhoon will be needed. I'm not sure I necessarily agree over no re-run of 1940 point, though. At the moment we cannot see that threat, but then neither could the majority of politicians of the late 1920s forsee a re-run of the Zeppelin raids of the first world war. I would rather hedge bets and maintain an effective defence which would be mature in procedure and operation when the next unstable era occurs than have to rely on hastily re-deployed expeditionary aircraft. On the other hand, at the moment I cannot see the situation that spawned the Harrier, nuclear bombardment of MOB, happening either.

What price the delay to navalise the Typhoon? I do think, however, that the role of a small CVF navy (as RN would become) should be more clearly defined - the USN can deploy expeditionary platforms in a number of seas at the same time, do we limit the UK to certain operating areas, and hence a restricted sphere of influence that a CSG would provide? Would we use the CVF to support Atlantic and Med operations, or Indian Ocean or...ad nauseum

[buoy15]

The last re-fit for Ark Royal was £180m - that's a lot of dosh for a rewire, removing SeaDart and a paint job.

However, it was considered worthwhile as it's next commission was a round the world jolly to show the flag and hold cocktail parties, encouraging overseas trade, (Government speak) Ha!

The Type 23 was a joke - for years it had no integrated command and control system and could barely defend itself in a shoot-out with the rest of the fleet. (I won't mention the rafting problems).
Even better: the dark blues declared the T23 to be "Excellent for Royal Yacht escort duties because it has a large paint locker, which is essential for tiddlying!!"
Whatever that means. Ha!

Do we really need expensive mobile airfields when we can use STUFT to support Harrier and helo type operations as was proven in the Falklands.

IMHO, the best ship in the RN inventory with any cred is the T42

I'll just finish my game of bowls and go and dick the Spanish - Sorry? is that not PC?

You only realise that you've got too much fuel when your on fire!

Waiting for the Flak

[Mikehegland]

What a load of complete tripe.


THE T23 WAS A JOKE .......

..... Having served on 3, I think it was the best class of warship in the Navy. Without giving too much away, the sonar was world class, so much so that I remember tracking a US submarine all the way across the atlantic and they didnt know we were there.





Do we really need expensive mobile airfields when we can use STUFT to support Harrier and helo type operations as was proven in the Falklands. ...

Pleeease.....without the Carriers, we would have not been able to complete the Falklands war.


It is clear that this thread is going to degenerate into a RN V's RAF willy waving contest.

[BEagle]

And without the longbow we would have lost at Agincourt.....

[WE Branch Fanatic]

T23 is very quiet and can sneak up on subs, ans has good sonar. The new 2087 is a huge improvement. The abilty to carry a Merlin.......And lots of Sea Wolf ready to go.

The T42 is old, getting old, in fact the Commons' Select Commitee (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/514550.stm) warned of a capibility gap between it and the Type 45 ..............this was before the abandonment of the SDR commitment to a level of 32 frigates/destroyers - or the premature retirement of the Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152). Or delays to the Type 45........

.........Or the number of FF/DD commitments increasing as part of the war on terror.

Apart from having no dedicated weapons for use against subs (still a threat in littoral ops) with the exception of those carried by the Lynx, the T42/Sea Dart system is old technology.

On another point, in 1982 STUFT were used to transport Harriers/Sea Harriers, but would they be able to be used for sortie generation? Command and control, ATC, etc....

[Gainesy]

With regard to STUFT, are there enough British registered (and type suitable) ships to now provide the level of support available in 1982?

[Lee Jung]

Do we really NEED 220 Typhoon? That's 22 squadons by my reckoning.

Once operational, we should as UK PLC sell a decent amount of them off at an intitial loss, as a proven aircraft, still making some money and guaranteeing industry their thru-life profit.

A400m is a white elephant, why aren't we just buying C17 and a few more hercs?

[Mikehegland]

the T42/Sea Dart system is old technology

It may well be BUT.....would you like to attack a T42 armed safe in the knowledge that the weapons system is 1960's technology...?...

You don't need modern technology to have a good, reliable weapons system....just ask the appache pilot who was shot down by a 12 bore !!!!!

[Archimedes]

Lee Jung,

The standard line is that the buy of 232 Typhoon is needed to sustain a 137-strong force of aircraft, which will make up 7 front line squadrons with 16 aircraft each. (The remaining 25 aircraft out of the 137 are the OEU and OCU airframes). The 95 'spare' aircraft would be the attrition reserve.

However.... it seems likely that there will only be six (and possibly only five) front-line Typhoon units, which would reduce the front line to 105 - 121.

The question of whether we need all 232 or slightly smaller number to meet UK requirements is not an easy one to answer though - factor in the lack of GR 4 airframes to take that fleet to its out of service date; add in doubts about whether the JSF will really be needed in the numbers currently spoken of....

[Styron]

Quote: Green Meat
Styr, so the defence of the nation should rest on Labour's tarditional heartlands? Wasn't there a strong rumour that the CVs would be sub-contracted to France in any case?

The Defence of Britain does not depend on Britain's Traditional Labour Heartlands but Labours Future does.

As for the CVF if we cancel it we may as well scrap the expensive Amphibous fleet we have recently built up as it won't be able to launch amphibous operations unless there is an airfield nearby.

Unless it deploys with US Carrier air cover. May as well scrap the Royal Marines infact lets just scrap the military as the world is such a safe and predictable place.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Styron

A very similar argument to the Sea Jet one.

[Lee Jung]

95 spare aircraft as an attrition reserve, christ the DAS must be cr&p!!!!!!!

The saving of cutting that reserve in half would more than pay for the recently cut 'lift' component of the 'rotorcraft' project. And a fully supported sistership for the flogged-to-death HMS Ocean.

Heard an intersting counter for the argument about the carriers being expensive. So far the 'new' Nimrod programme has produced (and is looking likely to produce) 4 x 1950s aircraft and a radar that allegedly doesn't work at a cost of £3bn. Stand by for a really friendly report from the NAO.

Apparently the galley is state of the art though.....

[Navaleye]

Q) What is coming this year?
A) An election.

Q) What always happens just before an election?
A) Lots of joicy ship building orders to buy some shipyard votes

Q) Where will the CVFs will be built?
A) Rosyth - Gordie Brown's constituency.

I expect that Eurofighter nations will come up with a compromise that lets them back out of T3.

I suspect the French are feeling quite smug. Having backed out of EF because it wasn't carrier compatible, they have an arguably more flexible/useful piece of kit.

Waiting for incoming :suspect:

Mikehegland: If you did attack a T42 in an a/c you would be in deep do-do, unless you are close in-shore of course. Its missile attacks that cause them problems and lots of them around.

[Archimedes]

LJ, I should've been more specific - as well as replacing aircraft lost in accidents, the 95 'spares' will also be rotated in and out of use to prolong airframe life. Remember that the Typhoon is currently slated for a service life of anything between 30 and 50 years, so the buy covers running out of airframe hours as well.

(Again, whether this still holds true is another matter).

[ZH875]

And remember that pilots keep crashing planes, so over a 30 year timeframe will 95 attrition jets be enough?.

[buoy15]

Mikeheg Matey Boy

Interesting

Must have been an LA - how far away or close were you? obviously no cueing eh? Must have been enhanced!

How did you maintain contact when refueling?

Did you constantlly hold attack criteria over 2000 miles?

No, this is not a pissing contest between the blues - just facts about assets and value for money - Aeroplanes have longer and faster legs than ships! Element of surprise springs to mind !

Military Jet Noise - The Sound of Freedom!
And less detectable than helo rotors

[jindabyne]

Navaleye

Given the weapon of choice (which I think we threw away), I'd be quite happy to attack any surface vessel from the air.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

But what if there was a CAP ahead of the ship? QED.

[JessTheDog]

CAS is quoted in either JDW or the Torygraph (I think the former) as saying that Typhoon Tranche 3 'isn't on anybody's radar'

It must be good then, stealth technology as well!! ;)

Q) Where will the CVFs will be built?
A) Rosyth - Gordie Brown's constituency.

This is not certain at all, if a Halliburton subsidiary are involved - as it appears - then the work is unlikely to go to Rosyth.

The UK Armed Forces should get what they need and if there is a divide and conquer approach from MoD/Treasury then there should be some very senior (and public) light blue/dark blue resignations, problematic in an election year when security is on everyone's manifesto. The divide and conquer tactic has already tied the infantry in knots.

[Maple 01]

But what if there was a CAP ahead of the ship? QED.

If all the JMCs I've been involved in are anything to go by the ships still die horribly, or even horribly, horribly. FA2 and RN radars against even half well planned COMAOs? I know who I’d put my money on……

[Mikehegland]

Buoy15

Im not going to give anything away with regard to ranges, sonar performance...but your comment on refuelling was interesting... you clearly don't understand ther concept of CODLAG.

The worst thing about serving on a T23 is the CODLAG and the lack of any requirement to refuel.

To put it in context, I spent 6 months delpoyed on a T23 and refuelled twice. Sad or what.


WRT the comments on the T42....We all know the pro's and cons of this fine ship...bt sadly it is in decline BUT will be relieved by the fantastic brand spanking T45.... Now there is a fine ship....

[jindabyne]

WEB

Provided it wasn't a Raptor CAP, and I was in a Typhoon, no problem.

[c-bert]

I thought Rosyth was the only dock in the UK large enough to construct CVF.

[Navaleye]

c-bert, it is, however Halliburton own a redundant oil platform manufacturing plant at Nigg which is a contender. I would rate Rosyth as number 1.

Mikehegland: I believe the T23 has a published range of over 9000 miles at cruising speed. Personally, the fewer refuellings the better - why did you enjoy them so much?

Maple 01: Actually the newer 996 and 1022 radars are pretty good, much much better than he old 992/965 combo. Sampson will be as good as any in the world.

[antipodean alligator]

At least you Brits are getting a mixed fleet of jets no matter what happens ( or can they really be that stupid?). Looks like we will be JSF or nothing...Jack of all trades........:yuk:

As a light blue suiter (although we recently reverted to our 1940's dark blue outfits down here!) I guess I'd be out of step by supporting the need for carriers......Even though they are a big radar blob for any ASM, at least they've got organic AD - Unless the pollies of the future decide to bin the JSF just as it matures to a useful state (SHAR-style). 2 little/medium carriers would do nicely. Not so sure about all 150 JSFs though!

As for marinising the Type-hoon forget it. As for Tranche 3, well....Is it really required? If you can stick a decent targetting pod on a Tranche 2 won't that suffice in true RAF "WHAT ELSE DID WE FORGET TO BOLT ON " fashion?

I'm quite sold by the idea of flogging off your excess airframes - BUT DON'T TRY TO SELL THEM TO US!!!!!!!!!

Surprised Jacko hasn't weighed in here yet!:rolleyes:

[Mikehegland]

Why did I enjoy the T23....?

Accommodation was spacious....

Fully integrated C2 system which as it turned out was (is) the best in the world (eventually)

Massive Flight deck.

Superb hangar with bags of room and loads of cupboard space...we even had a cupboard for your helmet and goonbag.

Lean manning made for more friendly, more team orientated Ship's Co.... There were no such things as stores parties..we all did it...RAS's was an entire ships event... one in all in...includuing ALL the officers.

All in all....Bloomin good steamers....

[Navaleye]

Fully integrated C2 system which as it turned out was (is) the best in the world (eventually)

As part of the team that designed it, I'll take that as a compliment :O

I think its a crying shame we are losing them. I'm sure the Chileans will look after them. I'm not quite sure what they will fly off them though.

[BEagle]

"WEB

Provided it wasn't a Raptor CAP, and I was in a Typhoon, no problem."

And unless it's a fully autonomous CAP, by the time Roger Waitout and his gang have assembled their excreta, the weapons will be well on their way inbound to their little grey floating coffin.

[jindabyne]

antipodean

In asking/asserting whether T3 is 'really required', you reveal a somewhat low appreciation of the RAF's ongoing Typhoon requirement. But then, having spent several excellent years amongst you, most (not all) operators (mainly from the Pig) were in denial mode about what we tried to explain. DoD at large, DSTO and the various strategic-thinking bodies were paying far closer attention to the various options - sadly for you, they were collectively neutered by a crass political decision. And Angus had no other choice but to go along. In the end, perhaps, and ironically, it was probably the absolute desire of then certain senior RAAF officials to go for a sole US solution centred on F22 that drove the politicians into the second-best JSF corner.

But you're quite right in expressing concern over putting all RAAF eggs into the one JSF basket. Personally I believe there's still a prospect that you'll re-visit the possibility of a Typhoon procurement (among other possibilities) - when, as others are now beginning to discover, the Oz planners eventually realise that JSF will not fulfil, by a mile, their long-term requirement. Or just maybe you might get your F22 wish (see that other pig?).

Tranche3? Dead. Tranche2Plus? Same as Tranche3,-ish.

Sorry - going way off

[Navaleye]

And unless it's a fully autonomous CAP, by the time Roger Waitout and his gang have assembled their excreta, the weapons will be well on their way inbound to their little grey floating coffin.

What weapons? The only combat aircraft with any anti-ship capability is the Nimrod/Harpoon combination and you probably wouldn't want to get within 200 miles of a CAP. A low level retard bomb release at 400yds brings you nicely within Phalanx range, assuming Sea Dart doesn't get you as you pop over the horizon.

"This is British warship one zero eight to unknown aircraft bearing 270. If you continue your attack profile, I will be forced to take defensive measures, this is your final warning, over."

[c-bert]

Typhoon/Tornado with Sea Eagle?

[BEagle]

Some sort of high speed stand-off ultra low level Anti Ship Missile-jobber would seem to be needed then, a chap might opine?

"Hola, leetle Breeteesh sheep. What a very leetle gun you have, senor.....!"

PS - How is the infamous Roger Waitout, hero of sooo many JMCs, these days?

Universal JMC debrief:

1. You weren't where you said you'd be, nor were you going in the direction you'd told us you would be.
2. You've invented yet another silly, overcomplicated way of defining which of Pusser's half dozen available frequencies you wanted us to use.
3. You sent us a rain forest's worth of signals when only a page was needed.
4. You launched the tanker too late.
5. Then shot it down
6. And the fighters - your fighters - it was refuelling.

[Navaleye]

Sea Eagle retired several years ago unfortunately. Even if they are in storage, no-one has been trained in their use for some time.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Why do we want to sink our own ships? Why not worry about other people trying to do the same?

[c-bert]

We're the only ones with interesting technology. Everyone else makes do with a Jet-ski and an RPG.

[RNAV8R]

I am rarely moved to post a reply on these forums, but the complete bo**ocks that has been trotted out on this thread deserves to be answered.
Regardless of uniform colour, dark or light hues of blue, we are part of a Joint Force wherever we operate. if you doubt that jump on the next train to lah lah land. As a result the arguments of our toys better than yours is purile and not worthy of intelligent military minds.
If the money is not available for both programmes (that hardly comes as a shock does it) then the one which most serves current MOD policy must be taken - those that dont need to be binned. EVEN if this means that costly penalties are incurred in cancelling a project, at least the costs of running a 'White Elephant' will not be bourne by the poor bloody taxpayer.
Current policy is based on Expeditionary Warfare where forces cannot rely on HNS - therefore you need a Carrier. To Project power you need to be able to host a viable weapon system on that carrier (I know GR7/9 is a brilliant tool, but it has short legs, heavy reliance on tanker support if any reasonable range is to be exploited, and bring back in the hot humid conditions (lets face it that is where the enemy is for the forseeable future) is dire). JSF, even the VSTOL version is designed to address these issues - and be Multi role - when exactly is the latest planned date for Typhoon to be able to deliver mud moving ordnance.
We would never need to operate a CVBG like the USA - they use a completely different Doctrine (we dont have a massive ARG or ESG yet have conducted several very succesful Amphibious operations since the Falklands)
For Christs sake - WAKE UP - smell the coffee guys, we dont need a new fighter (not at this price)- the USSR has gone! cannot argue with the need for a capable but cheap DCA asset for Homeland Priotection mmm what about those lovely latest gen F16s with an AMRAAM/ASRAAM mix????
OK Rant over - my uniform is dark blue but my tax bill hurts as much as the next man - let buy stuff that will get used. (F3's when was your last kill???Compare that to the last time Bombs were needed a long way from home!)
For those who need to refresh their memories - BR1806 and AP3000 as well as JWP1 will help
I await your vitriol

[Maple 01]

opens bottle of vitriol

AP3000? Read it, Typhoon all the way!

closes bottle of vitriol

[LoeyDaFrog]

OA is spot on - if Blair, Brown and the poodle at MoD aren't prepared to fund defence then they need to stop @rsing about pretending that the UK can do everything while simulataneously going about cutting left, right, centre, up, down and sideways...

Could not agree more!!!

[Jucky]

Well said RNAV8R! :ok:

Why can't we all get along? After all we are all the same side aren't we?

This thread smacks of the 1960's CVA-01 vs TSR.2/F-111K (all of which were cancelled eventually under a Labour Government)
Cancellation of CVA-01 left us with a dangerous maritime air power gap, do we really want to repeat that scenario again? (Although it looks like we will be facing that problem anyway with the loss of SHAR in the near future)

The following is a quote from the 22 Feb1966 Defence White Paper that formally announced the cancellation of CVA-01;

"The aircraft carrier is the most important element of the Fleet for offensive action against an enemy at sea or ashore and makes a large contribution to the defence of our seaborne forces. It can also play an important part in operations where local air superiority has to be gained and maintained and offensive support of ground forces is required."

It today's climate of instability this still holds true.

Despite being a dark blue we still need a land based AD capability such as Typhoon.

To loose the opportunity of having the flexibility of larger carriers and the air power they will be able to project would be a great shame.
It would also be a great shame if we did not have the land based organic AD capability that Typhoon will provide.
Flexibility is the key to air power and the more assets we have the better!

Tony Blair, lets not repeat history and learn from the mistakes of others.

I've had enough ranting for one day. I feel a sense of deja vu coming on! :hmm:

Jucky.

[Oggin Aviator]

Why can't we all get along? After all we are all the same side aren't we?

At the coal face we can and we do. Its when you get into the deeper echelons of MOD and DPA with its various IPTs etc, all after job security and funding that this rivalry and in fighting emerges. I guess many a career was made (and broken) by the CVA01 / TSR2 debacle in the sixties.

[Jackonicko]

RNAV8R

You had me expecting some rational and incisive thought when you said that “If the money is not available for both programmes (that hardly comes as a shock does it) then the one which most serves current MOD policy must be taken - those that don't need to be binned. EVEN if this means that costly penalties are incurred in cancelling a project, at least the costs of running a 'White Elephant' will not be borne by the poor bloody taxpayer.”

But unfortunately you disappointed me. Just for a moment I thought that someone had recognised that thesse multi-Billion carriers didn't serve MOD needs as well as cheap and cheerful FJ platforms. But alas you just turned out to be another anti-Typhoon dark blue suiter. Current policy may be based on Expeditionary Warfare, but more importantly it's based on coalition warfare, and since we never do anything without Uncle Sam or NATO (or both) plenty of other people can fill the carrier gap, if it's required.

It's also fundamentally founded on providing maximum capability at minimum cost, and a carrier represents an extremely expensive means of generating modest sortie totals.

You also repeated the usual fiction - that we cannot rely on HNS - therefore we need a Carrier. Every single time we've had to undertake ops since the Falklands HNS HAS been available. Every time since the Falklands, land based air power got there before a carrier could (or, in the case of Sierra Leone, could have done, had it not been held on the Azores…)

You then demonstrate your ignorance of Typhoon and its price. The R&D is bought and paid for and the marginal production cost (the only possible saving to be had from cancellation of T2 and T3) is lower than the cost of a new F-15, and not much more than an F-16. And there wouldn't be a saving anyway because we'd have massive penalties to pay to the boxheads. And as if that's not enough, Typhoon is contractually guaranteed to have lower operating costs and costs of ownership than current generation aircraft. F-16 wouldn't save money.

Typhoon will have an austere air-to-ground capability at FOC in 2007, with Enhanced PWII and Litening III. Austere, but, according to some very senior dudes, giving a superior all weather, day/night, precision attack capability than GR4 or Harrier GR7, and with weapons like Storm Shadow just around the corner at EOC.

While external carriage of Brit weapons (including ASRAAM and Storm Shadow has just been canned from the troubled, cost-escalating, over-weight JSF).

If we can afford it without unacceptable reductions to more useful, more cost effective elements in the force structure, I'd welcome the carriers as a useful, if specialised club for the Golf Bag, but if it's either/or, you'd have to be mad, blinkered or blind to select carriers over bought and paid for Typhoons.

Hope that's vitriolic enough for you!

[baffy boy]

I'm wondering why we are getting rid of ASW assets (T 23's, Nimrods, SSN's) and planning to spend loads of dosh on little floating airfields that are most vulnerable to..............submarines.
Lots of good AMRAAMS ASRAAMS Sea Wolfs or Sea Darts are going to do when a Kilo whaps a wake homing torpedo up your chuff.
Who's going to protect the carriers from das boot?

[Navaleye]

Fortunately, we do still have some T23s with the new Torpedo Defence System fitted. It will almost certainly be fitted to CVF. If you look at the stern of a US CVN, you will see what looks like a row of drainpipes. That's its TDS.

More here (http://www.mod.uk/dpa/news/pn2002/aug02/torpedo.htm)

[Navaleye]

you'd have to be mad, blinkered or blind to select carriers over bought and paid for Typhoons.

Jacko, I think you have been sniffing the Blu-tak again. If they have been bought and paid for as you suggest, why not just build the lot now? Answer: Because although the R&D is a sunk cost there is a very sizeable cheque for each one that has BWoS's name on it and the Govt is quite right to review its expenditure plans in light of changing events, just like a business and just as it did with the Shar which you supported.

I'm not going over the carrier vs typhoon argument again. They perform separate and different roles. Just how does the Typhoon satisfy the maritime strike capability required by the MoD? Perhaps you have more current information than their Lordships and Airships have to work on.

[Jackonicko]

"Although the R&D is a sunk cost there is a very sizeable cheque for each one that has BWoS's name on it"

Yes. About £42 m a pop. MUCH cheaper than an F-15, cheaper than Rafale. And up front purchase costs are a fraction of through life costs, and Typhoon's are contractually guaranteed to be so low as to make the aircraft directly comparable with F-16 et al.

And if we unilaterally cancel a Typhoon, the cancellation and penalty costs will be as high as the purchase cost (even excluding all that dole money for the whippet owning black pudding munchers). The only savings would be the in service costs so unless you can persuade the other partners to cut their orders by an equivalent amount you'd do better to buy all 232 and simply scrap them.

"Just how does the Typhoon satisfy the maritime strike capability required by the MoD?"

No less well than JSF, especially now you won't be able to hang UK weapons under its wings.

If you want to argue that carriers provide a useful niche capability, and that we can afford it without compromising 'bread and butter capabilities' that's fine, but to argue for keeping carriers over more useful, more flexible and more cost effective assets is lunacy.

[Navaleye]

I believe the govt is trying to gain political consensus with the Germans and others to reduce the numbers purchased and minimise/remove any penalty due. It makes common sense in changed world. The JSF is a generation ahead of the Typhoon and no-one puts all their eggs in one basket.

You still don't get the point, the MoD believes that carrier are a CORE capability so do the US, French, Russian and others, although I respect your right to think differently

£42 million keeps 5 T23s running for a year.

[jindabyne]

Well put as usual Jacko.

RNAV8R

You and others of similar view base your arguments on Typhoon being a solely AD asset that is no longer needed - failing to recognise that, whilst the aircraft WAS primarily intended to meet the RAF's need for a next generation air superiority asset, it was also specified with a POTENTIALLY robust A/S capability; and this is precisely why Typhoon is so important for FUTURE MoDUK capability. Once the swing-role is fully developed (yes it will take more time, but so what given the remaining life of GR4/7/9), the Typhoon force will not only provide world-beating AD (Raptor aside- but again so what)and, arguably more importantly, a hi-tech worldwide A/S function that will have the reach of any carrier borne force but with far greater response time (and please, the 'Falklands' is irrelevant in real contingency terms).

To reinforce Jacko's point - all of that is largely financially accounted for, and comes cheaper in life-cost terms than your proposed F16 alternative (and others).

So, IMHO, RNAV8R, if both programmes are unaffordable, I agree, let's bin the one that least serves current MoD policy. Our only difference is that I would choose the one that exists only on paper, is likely to incur cost-escalations (even excluding contractual costs of Typhoon cancellation) on a scale that would make those of Typhoon look like your average credit card violation, and would come to fruition long after Typhoon has achieved full maturity.

No vitriol - merely a purple and exceptionally logical opinion.

[Jackonicko]

JSF is not 'a generation ahead' of Typhoon, though it may enter service a 'generation behind'. JSF will never have Typhoon's BVR performance, and from a UK perspective, will never match Typhoon's A-G capabilities either.

JSF makes sense as a low cost complement to Raptor (as long as you have the USA's extensive air power infrastructure) and having paid the necessary fees, is industrially useful to UK plc. But whether we need to buy any is a moot point.

You carrier supporters believe that the UK needs to be able to do everything autonomously. The UK Treasury will not fund that, so hard choices need to be made. Carriers are seldom needed (never since 1982), and the capability they offer (which generates modest sortie rates at great expense, with a remarkably slow response time) is massively duplicated by our major allies. Fixed wing, land based FJs have been needed again and again and offer a cost effective means of delivering capability quickly. The choice, if a choice has to be made, is not rocket science.

[elderforest]

Just a thought, but couldn't the full 232 RAF Typhoon order be justified in itself by also replacing the Tornado GR4 with Typhoon?

Obviously the full batch 3 swing role version would be required, but this is more than capable of carrying almost all of the Tornado GR4 weapons - Storm Shadow, Brimestone, etc. All that remains is the RAPTOR pod . . . & Alarm ??

Makes sense: Single operating type, centralised pilot training/conversion & lower maintenance costs ...

Isn't the FOA (Tornado GR4 replacement) project deemed to be a JSF / Typhoon platform anyway?? Buy now . . . save later! Well, that's the theory anyway . . .

I'm not blue ... I just make the tea ...:cool:

[Navaleye]

Jacko, I admire your desire to outsource key defence capabilities to other nations. The F-35 is a strike a/c first and a fighter second. Since the design has not yet been finished, to claim that it will be inferior in all roles to a plane originally conceived 20 years before it is something of a sweeping statement. Raptor replaces the F-15 and the F-35 replaces just about everything else. It will be no less good than any of the types it replaces and probably much better. Its BVR capability will be more than adequate, especially with the next block of AMRAAMs that are being designed for it.

The Navy has no need for it to carry Storm Shadow that capability will be provided and exceeded by TacTom from SSNs. Better to have more room for other PGMs.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

This might interest you:

CVF stuff (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfmain.htm)

There's a lot of stuff there nd it is very comprehensive. I didn't write it, and it goes above my head, so don't ask me difficult questions....

[BEagle]

"CVA-01 vs TSR.2/F-111K"

You can blame Earl Mountbottom for that. He was the chief TSR2 assasin.

[althenick]

"CVA-01 vs TSR.2/F-111K"
You can blame Earl Mountbottom for that. He was the chief TSR2 assasin.
Didn't he propose that the RAF get a larger Thin-wing variant of the Bucc? And didn't the RAF resist getting the S2? And aren't they still lamenting its demise?:O

[RNAV8R]

Aha plenty of vitriol as expected.
I dont have the time for a full reply unfortunately - however I will say this:
Until we start to see things in a much more purple fashion we will continue to be targets of cuts as back biting and in-fighting dilute the military message to the Mandarins. We should be shouting, with one voice, if you want a job doing give us the tools and investment to achieve it REGARDLESS OF SERVICE.
If we want a homeland defence force (and i am not denying that may be the most viable option) then Typhoon should take the biggest slice of cake and the carriers should, of course, dissapear. If on the other hand we require the ability to influence world events we need the carriers/JSF combo. Typhoon is a legacy platform - designed for a Cold War scenario, doubt this and show your parochially focussed ignorance.
For those who misquoted me I was not holding up the Falklands as some form of 'how brilliant is the Navy' i merely removed it from the argument by stating that we have had successes in the Amphibious realm SINCE the Falklands.
As for undeveloped capability - that refers exactly to the Typhoon AS employability - and if that role is so important what the hell happened to Sea Eagly, a bloody capable weapon.
I am not a Dark Blue Barmy Gimp. I see the arguments for both, I certainly see the limitations of the current CVS and Fleet structure, I also see the incredible value of having a FJ force that can project power - anywhere in the world. I recognise that HNS is not always required but also know that is is not always available when required. in these circumstances we will need a robust Tanker Fleet to support any long distance action, unless of course we base such power projection assets on a floating airfield off the enemy coast. What a damn shame the Typhoon design would not seem to have the capacity to be adapted for CV operations (Thta would also stop the CTOL/VSTOL argument)
Sick of this argument now, my Gin is getting warm.

"AP3000? Read it, Typhoon all the way!"

Maple 01 - Doctrine should never be platform based, a much thorough reading by you is required!

"Current policy may be based on Expeditionary Warfare, but more importantly it\'s based on coalition warfare, and since we never do anything without Uncle Sam or NATO (or both) plenty of other people can fill the carrier gap, if it\'s required."

Jackonicko - over 1500 posts and such a doofus! Those same people fill the gap that Typhoon might (if all goes really well) be able to fulfil)

"If we can afford it without unacceptable reductions to more useful, more cost effective elements in the force structure, I\'d welcome the carriers as a useful, if specialised club for the Golf Bag, but if it\'s either/or, you\'d have to be mad, blinkered or blind to select carriers over bought and paid for Typhoons."

Jackonicko again. Just because something is bought and paid for does not, in any way, mean it is useful. I could draw a parallel with Betamax!

Anyway Gin now refilled with a healthy dose of ice!!!!

[jindabyne]

RNAV8R

You sound just like an old exchange observer of mine -----

Back to the red stuff

[Jackonicko]

"Typhoon is a legacy platform - designed for a Cold War scenario, doubt this and show your parochially focussed ignorance."

And what was the Cold War requirement?

To defeat 'son of Su-27' with a favourable enough exchange rate to counter enemy numbers. Which means that the aircraft can defeat the same threat (developed Su-27 assuming parity in radar and missiles) with a favourable enough exchange rate not to generate body bags in large enough numbers to alienate public confidence.

To be a multi-role air-to-air and air-to-mud fighter. Which means that it's still a multi-role air-to-air and air-to-mud fighter.

To be deployable, maintainable and supportable, and to be suitable for rapid reinforcement of the NATO Northern and Southern flanks with minimal support. Do I really have to explain the relevance of this in the post Cold War World.

To deliver capability in a timely and cost effective manner.

Fast Jets like Typhoon were NEEDED in Granby, Telic, and all the various post Cold War ops in the Balkans. We used carriers a couple of times, but they were never NEEDED. Which is supposed to be the white elephant again?

You say: "Until we start to see things in a much more purple fashion we will continue to be targets of cuts as back biting and in-fighting dilute the military message to the Mandarins. We should be shouting, with one voice, if you want a job doing give us the tools and investment to achieve it REGARDLESS OF SERVICE." But you only want that if the 'purple' solution floats and is painted an ugly shade of grey.

If we "require the ability to influence world events" we need the capabilities that make us the most valued contributors to a coalition, every time, providing the assets that are needed most often, and in the greatest numbers, or that other partners can't provide. Being able to supply a small carrier, with a skinny air wing doesn't really offer that when the US can deploy any number of bigger, harder hitting Air Wings. But being able to provide tankers, recce, SEAD and multi-role FJs is useful, and does allow us the influence you crave.

If we "require the ability to influence world events" we need assets that will get there on time, and that's seldom likely to be a carrier, especially if you only have two of them. Except in the Falklands, the carriers have never got there before land based air power did, or could have done.

You call me a 'doofus' and claim not to be a 'a Dark Blue Barmy Gimp'. Wrong on both counts!

You ask: "What the hell happened to Sea Eagly, a bloody capable weapon." My understanding is that it was not felt to be a good post Cold War, 'Littoral' weapon, and that any replacement that was (eg Kormoran) would be unaffordable.

You say: "What a damn shame the Typhoon design would not seem to have the capacity to be adapted for CV operations (Thta would also stop the CTOL/VSTOL argument)." It's actually easily adaptable, and a 'Marinised Eurofighter' was studied for FCBA. It required relatively minor alterations (including a podded main gear, a new nose gear, a periscope for high incidence approaches) and imposing a surprisingly small weight penalty (+340 kg for Ski-jump ops, +460 kg for Catapault ops).

[JessTheDog]

If the light blue contingent are arguing that the Typhoon is more important and the dark blue are arguing that the carrier capability is important, then if we consider the expertise of the two sets of professionals (bearing in mind single-service bias) we can assume that both are vitally important.

The problem is therefore not at this level but higher up. Both programmes are necessary and it is up to HMG to ensure that appropriate defence capabilites are provided. The Army have succumbed to regimental divide-and-conquer; it is counterproductive to have an inter-service slanging match on kit capability.

The fault lies firmly with HMG, specifically MoD and Treasury. We need commanders with the b@lls to say "we need this kit; if we don't get it we are incapable of meeting the full potential range of threats to our security or national interest; I will therefore popping round shortly to tender my resignation on the way to the Channel 4 News studio in this election year."

[SirToppamHat]

Just out of interest, if a senior officer, of, say 3-star rank were to make such a threat and carry it through, what would be their financial position? Do they retire on full pay? Remain on the active list?

I am talking about in military terms here rather than what impact such an action might have on any subsequent sinecures, directorships etc.

I would suspect that the line taken by most of those with an opportunity to make a statement by resigning would be along the lines of 'better to fight from within'. However, I can't help thinking that most of our stars are pretty quiet about things which must really be p*ssing them off!

[Jackonicko]

Useful kit is being sacrificed in all three services in order to avoid the slaughter of particular sacred cows. This is not conducive to intelligent procurement decisions.

The in service and support costs of Trident are huge, yet nobody is prepared to look at whether the system has any real relevance in the post Cold War world. Regardless of their military utility, some defend the Carriers for their tokenistic importance, and for the Blue Water navy delusions they represent.

Despite cuts, we still have large amounts of armour and large numbers of old fashioned, relatively heavy, non-mobile infantry batallions, as well as a hugely expensive Household Division expensively barracked in London, of all places.

Regardless of their usefulness and utility some support Typhoon, A400M and MRA4 because they are glamorous and high tech, and because they want to go down as the CAS/AOC/whatever on whose watch the RAF received the ******.

Cost effectively extending the life of in service systems to maximise the return on the taxpayer's investment, maintaining force structure to minimise overstretch, and 'telling it like it is' are obviously just not career and reputation enhancing for some of our senior officers. Thus no-one bats an eye when a Tornado with only 3,000 FH 'on the clock' becomes a gate guard (or pots and pans).....

The argument shouldn't be about carriers or Typhoon, it should be about whether we should be quite so sanguine in accepting a reduction to 12 or fewer FJ squadrons as being a price worth paying to modernise the type holding. I don't recall a time when the FJ force was deployed more often, yet it has never been smaller than it is now. How many FJ units did the RAF have on the eve of Granby? Was the force too big then? How big is it now? Is there, or is there not overstretch.

And I can't understand why this is still happening, since I can't remember when we had such high calibre, honourable, decent and intelligent men at CAS, C-in-C and Group AOC level. Is the culture too badly broken for individuals (even at these exalted levels) to make a difference.

The problem is that defence spending is just too easy to cut or limit, and no-one is willing to vote for the higher taxes that would be required to fund it properly.

[Jucky]

Found this picture thought it might be of interest! :E

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/images/typhoonn1.jpg
"Navalised Eurofighter Typhoon of 899NAS with tail hook down doing a slow pass by a CVF. A sight now unlikely to ever be seen!"

Enjoy!:rolleyes:

[ORAC]

But being able to provide tankers, recce, SEAD and multi-role FJs is useful, and does allow us the influence you crave.

And the PR9s are not being replaced when they retire... :{ :{

[BEagle]

.....and FSTA is still years away!

The UAV protaganists doubtless think that their little roboplanes are the way ahead. But not for quite a while, if ever...

Capability gap anyone?

[Navaleye]

I have reviewed the proposed weapons fit for the F-35 and its very comprehensive. I have also re-read the recent changes from the NAQ and they do not affect external carriage of Storm Shadow. It will be cleared for the following US and UK weapons.

* BSU-33
* BSU-49 Ballute
* BSU-85 Ballute (1000 lbs)
* BSU-86/B (mine)
* CBU-103/104/105 (WCDM)
* CBU-78/B Gator
* CBU-87/89/97
* GBU-12 Paveway II
* GBU-31 JDAM (907 kg) and GBU-31 JDAM PIP (F-35A/C only)
* GBU-32 JDAM (450 kg) and GBU-32 JDAM PIP
* Mk.20 Rockeye (Cluster Bomb, 250 kg)
* Mk.62 Quickstrike mine
* Mk.63 Quickstrike (mine)
* Mk.82 bomb (500 lbs)
* Mk.83 bomb (1000 lbs)
* UK 1000 lbs bomb )
* UK 540 lbs LDGB
* UK AIM-132 ASRAAM
* UK Brimstone
* AIM-120 AMRAAM

On the external stations, the following missiles, bombs and tanks can be carried:

* 1815 litre-tank, 2270 litre-tank
* AGM-158 JASSM
* AGM-65 Maverick
* AGM-84D-1 Harpoon
* AGM-84H SLAM-ER
* AGM-88 HARM
* AIM-9X Sidewinder
* BDU-57/58/60 laser-guided training round
* BSU50 Ballute (bomb)
* 20 mm M61belly gun pod (F-35B/C only)
* LAU-10 Rocket Pod
* LAU-61 Rocket Pod
* MXU-648 Cargo Pod
* SUU-20/SUU-5003 practice bomb and rocket dispenser
* UK Paveway IV
* Storm Shadow

[Archimedes]

M61? I thought that the gun (orignally meant to be a 27mm Mauser) was the GAU-12 à la AV-8B?

[buoy15]

Jucky

Good bit of trick photography

Is that the old HMS Albion, now with the Indain Navy?

Beags my bonny lad

Eyebrows Healy was responsible for the demise of the TSR2 (What a silly billy!)
He was the Defence Minister of the only (Labour) Government that ever broke up the jigs and stocks of a British aircraft production line.
Mind you, the MOD didn't help by changing the spec every 5 minutes.
We then went ahead with procurring the F111. which was later cancelled, with a penalty clause of £400m.

As an aside - Healy, Benn and a few other tw*ts were paid up Communist card carrying B*st*rds at the time.

Then that devious sod Wilson resigned overnight without a whiff of whatever from the press?

Not seen any of this released under the 30 years rule yet ?? Ha!

Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe!

[BEagle]

buoy15, whilst the announcement was indeed included in that infamous Budget Speech (traditionally delivered without interruption from HM Opposition), the CDS at the time, Earl Mountbottom, undermined the TSR2 at every opportunity in order to further the case for his beloved navy.

Any CDS who acted in such a manner played right into the hands of the politicians - and would certainly have known that.

Mind you, I was able to tell Mountbottom to his face, when I was flying Buccs (or rather struggling with the Bucc OCU course!), that it was a shame that the world-beating TSR2 had been cancelled by people who didn't understand its capability.....:ok:

[Jucky]

buoy15

It's an artist's impression of CVF.

I think you mean HMS HERMES now VIRAAT with the Indian Navy.

[buoy15]

Jucky and Beags

Good spot on both accounts!

Just checking

Did the Teabag RTB?

And was that the same speech that stopped the Rum, Bum and Baccy for the RN?

Beags, if you flew the "Brick ****-house" Well done mate!

" Low level is only when your port wing is slicing through a sea state 4 " - Ha!

[BEagle]

Beags, if you flew the "Brick ****-house" Well done mate!

Very kind - but I was crap and only managed 46 hours on the thing before they chopped me....

Then came 2 1/2 wonderful years on the Vulcan! Best quality of military life I ever had; no-one these days would believe how good it was!