RN aircraft carrier to head for the Gulf

[LFFC]

A Royal Navy aircraft carrier is to head to the Gulf next spring, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7074268.stm).

[L J R]

...To do what?

[LateArmLive]

...........to do an exercise that has been planned for months, although we in the media are trying to make it sound exciting and warry.......................

[danieloakworth]

Must be cooling down out there.

[In Tor Wot]

Do the Iranians need a carrier and all those ipods that badly? :E

[BEagle]

If the exercise exposes the vulnerability of those little grey flat-tops without organic air defence aircraft (cue a certain PPRuNer :hmm: ), it will be no bad thing.....

"Our Aircraft Carriers are Sitting Ducks without Falklands Fighter Jets" scream The Scum's headlines in Spring 2008.......


Annnnnnnnd ...Hack!

[The Helpful Stacker]

But surely the easiest way to remove a threat to something is not place it in a position where it is under threat?

What will Ark Royal be doing? What will be embarked on her? Will there be plenty of gin available for all those functions?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Thank you very much LFFC, we go for months without "anyone" bleating on about out of date puffer jets and now you go and hand him another soap box on a bloody plate :p

[The Helpful Stacker]

SFFP - Hey thats not fair. The FA2 had a very important role maintaining the WAFU as a stand-alone aviation arm. Now that its gone folk in government are starting to question why we have the WAFU at all and that must be a bad thing?

When budgets are tight surely it makes sense to keep three air arms, strength in numbers and all that.

[Avitor]

One went to the Gulf pre Iraq. :sad:

[Widger]

I refer the honourable gentlemen to the previous deployment of ARK to that region when she spearheading the assault on the Al Fawr peninsula, the first UK troops (non SF) to land on Iraqi soil were from that very platform. Helicopters from that very platform also provided very important surveillance cover for forces on the ground.

Just because the SHAR is gone:{ that does not mean these platforms are redundant. There is so much more!

[peterperfect]

Note to Navs: Dubai Shopping Festival ends 28th Feb......

[mustflywillfly]

Wow a CTG conducting a very normal training excersise which takes place pretty much every other year. Can't believe it is news worthy.

[hulahoop7]

Well Ark will be carrying flightdeck full of Merlin HM1s.. and will no doubt be accompanied by a Sonar 2087 Type 23. So she'll be sub hunting... I wonder why.. and in order to protect what?

[c130jbloke]

HMS Illustrious will be in waters near Iran alongside the destroyer, Edinburgh, and a frigate, Westminster.
The MoD said the operation was about practising being a battle group.
3 ships = battle group ????
:bored::bored::bored:

[Gainesy]

Well I suppose if the three floaty grey target thingys represent about a sixth of your fleet you could pretend its a battle group. Anything black and wearing nets :suspect: going with them?

[Navaleye]

No statement about what nation's Harriers will form the fixed wing component. Maybe Italian this time?

[Occasional Aviator]

Why would we need to put harriers on board Lusty if she's going to be operating close to lots of runways with lots of friendly military jets operating from them?

[Navaleye]

Why would we need to put harriers on board Lusty if she's going to be operating close to lots of runways with lots of friendly military jets operating from them?
Because if the Iranians do have 11,000 rockets, its a fair chance that's where a lot of them will be going.

[ORAC]

Because if the Iranians do have 11,000 rockets, its a fair chance that's where a lot of them will be going. All the more reason not to put our pointy things on board. :}

[Occasional Aviator]

ORAC,

you clearly haven't done staff college. Suggesting that an aircraft carrier might be vulnerable is so un-PC it's not true. Almost as bad as asking how TLAM can be considered strategic.

[Jimlad1]

"Suggesting that an aircraft carrier might be vulnerable is so un-PC it's not true."

In the same way that suggesting that airbases stuck in the desert, with readily available lats and longs aren't remotely vulnerable?

[airborne_artist]

with readily available lats and longs aren't remotely vulnerable?

And with lots of high-quality satellite shots on Google Earth as well .....

Despite the USS Cole incident, it's a damn sight easier to keep insurgents away from a carrier than it is from a land-based airfield.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Despite the USS Cole incident, it's a damn sight easier to keep insurgents away from a carrier than it is from a land-based airfield.

Iran hardly needs to resort to insurgents to take out a carrier though does it? How many anti-ship missiles do the Iranians have?

No matter how mobile Ark Royal may be the Gulf is only so big and the Iranians have plenty of eyes. On the other hand how many missiles would the Iranians need to use against one of the many stupidly large airbases that coalition aircraft are based at in order to knock one out?

If I were a JFH type and were due to go to the Gulf in the near future I know where I'd prefer to be based and it isn't on a big, grey, missile magnet.

[Navaleye]

I would argue that these so called "missile magnets" are quite well defended against Iranian missiles mostly of the subsonic variety. The T42s are proven against Silkworm, The T23s Sea Wolf ditto and much more plus CIWS on all. I'd rather be on a defended warship than an air base waiting for a Scud.

[Magic Mushroom]

Oh FFS!
Let's all start waving willies and turn it into the usual adolescent argument about land based vs carrier based air power shall we:ugh:
Each have their strengths and weaknesses over the other.
The reality is this is no big deal. A CVS, most likely with a few jets (the nationality of which is frankly not too important) and helos goes to the Gulf, as it has done many times before. It's hardly likely to impress the Iranians and I hardly think the US invasion plan revolves around Lusty.:rolleyes:
Regards,
MM

[Navaleye]

Spanish and Italian Harriers its seems and practising air defence as well! Hope we can count on the Spanish and Italians when Uncle Sam starts the next shooting war. One of our number is on-board now by the way.
Here (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.10526)

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/illustrious1_20071015162447.jpg

[Magic Mushroom]

It's a shame the Italians and Spanish don't take their turn doing something operational in Afghanistan for a change.

[LateArmLive]

What does Ark have to do with this thread? You certainly won't find any fixed wing on that barge :}

[West Coast]

"Unknown aircraft at coordinates xxxx you are approaching a Royal Navy warship, turn away immediately or I'll tell you to turn away again"

Works for the Bobbies...

We got a few former USN F4's out in the desert we can give you. Just eject alongside the boat when you return from a mission.

[BEagle]

They probably just misidentified a lighthouse...;)

Ah yes, maybe the MoD will take you up on the offer of those old F4Js....again. But put them on the RN's little grey flat-tops and they'd probably capsize.

[West Coast]

You don't want the S models?


Running for my hole now....

[ORAC]

You don't want the S models? Turned 'em down the first time. Apparently them slats would confuse our boys...... :rolleyes:

[West Coast]

Yeah, who wants slow speed handling characteristics landing on the boat.

On the flip side, a mean looking aircraft looked that much meaner with that extended nose gear look seen on RN carriers. Makes it look like its ready to spring on its prey.

[buoy15]

The MoD mouthpiece prat must have been ad-libbing or pissed. How about
"The idea is to continue showing the Flag, and demonstrate to these 3rd world countries how to host a strategic cocktail party - Illustrious has completed re-fit - at a cost which would have easily bought them a Navy. She is not a vunerable defenceless target - lessons have been learned - we must draw a line under this and move on":8

[BEagle]

The folks at Miramar thought that the Brits were actually going to see sense and buy a squadron of F-14s....

They couldn't believe their ears when they heard that it was old Phantoms which were being bought. "The F-4S was a great jet, but it's history now", they said.

"Umm...actually, we're buying F4Js"

"You WHAT??!! Some of those were in 'Nam!"

But the F4J(UK) was much loved by 74 Sqn. That was its official title, although some spotter magazines kept trying to call it the 'Phantom F3'.

Some years after 74 got their jets, someone found a very dead lizard inside one! And it was rumoured that a couple had indeed received combat damage in Viet Nam.

[Navaleye]

Sea Power article here. (http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/sample/?pg=16)

Apparently the USMC on Illustrious did more deck landings in two weeks than Joint Farce Harrier managed in the last 12 months.

[dallas]

...To do what?

to do an exercise that has been planned for months

Like Saif Sareea in 2002/3. That didn't lead to anything. :eek:

[Magic Mushroom]

Apparently the USMC on Illustrious did more deck landings in two weeks than Joint Farce Harrier managed in the last 12 months.
Apparently, RAF and RN Harriers have made a bigger contribution to British ops in Afghanistan in 2 weeks than the USMC have managed in the last 12 months.:ugh:

Interesting that your link also argues that large carriers are not needed!:hmm:
Regards,
MM

[Navaleye]

Well said Nostrinian. Many people share your sentiments. Only the USN travels first class these days our guys and gals end up in steerage.

[Oggin Aviator]

Only the USN travels first class these days our guys and gals end up in steerage.
I think you will find the standard of accommodation on a British Warship, across all ranks, is far higher than its equivalent in the USN (if that was what you were referring to).
Granted we dont have a 8 ship + sub accompanying force ........

However I feel Nostrinian is being overly pessimistic, what actually happened to a CVS in 98 and 99 in the Gulf? I was in the Gulf in 98 on a CVS and it was quite quiet. A bit of Southern Watch for the jets as I recall.

Oggin

[Navaleye]

Oggin, I wasn't really referring to mess deck arrangements, just the general capability provided. I did get to spend a few days on the Winston Churchill not that long ago and I found it more than comparable to a T42 - except one :yuk:

[doubledolphins]

Could not agree more, but "on the"? sorry I know this is for aviators, but still!
PS I supose you mean USS Winston S Churchill not the Tall Ship of the same name. (Sold in 2000, though she is out there somewhere!)
Don't worry I'll get back in my box!:ok:
PS this lot might think a T42 is a small american aeroplane (Beech Baron). Or even a tank and not one of the finest classes of small helicopter operating platform ever built.

[Occasional Aviator]

Sorry guys, I'm having difficulty getting to grips with what the issues are here. First, a ship is going to the Gulf to do a routine exercise. No issues there are there? Second, the harrier force is being run ragged in Afghanistan and so doesn't have the capacity to put any jets on the ship. Well, those sort of priority choices go along with being overtasked. Third, the SHAR was retired several years ago so the UK couldn't put any on the ship anyway, and why would they need to in an area of known allied air supremacy? What's so scary about being on a carrier (which we keep getting assured is well defended against missile attack etc) that doesn't apply equally to being on a T23 or T42?

[Engines]

OA,

I'm honestly not trying to score any cheap points, or open any interservice spats but...can someone explain (either on this thread or via a private message) exactly why putting about 8 Harriers in the Stan means that the Harrier Force is 'run ragged'? There is a fairly substantial fleet of aircraft and the improved support arrangements should be generating more aircraft to the front line.

This actually equates to deploying a squadron, and we have three gusting four. So, where is the stretch? Grateful for any explanations...

Engines

[Magic Mushroom]

Here we go again...:ugh:

[Oggin Aviator]

If the OA you were asking is me (probably not!) all I'll say is force generation is like a pyramid - you need a solid base at home to provide the capability on the front line - JFH are massively busy supporting Herrick, both there itself and back at Cott, and they are doing an awesome job, imho.

Btw the Naval Strike Wing are now out there - thoughts with them at the moment (particulary this weekend) as they were with "Happy" IV recently.

Oggin

[Magnersdrinker]

So they getting a carrier in place now, in a few weeks time they will announce a few squadrons of Tornadoes to Bahrain next year for an excerscise, then they will increase the det of 10s out there blah blah blah , all there just in time for the new american 3rd fleet to arrive , i guess i best put some leave in then as thats the date we prolly going in !!! heheh or am i just been cynical !!! :}

I guess im mybe wrong , there is no Typhoons there so there is no way we can win a war , after all the Typhoon is the only aircraft in the RAF (according to all 2* above )

[WE Branch Fanatic]

This deployment is very much a non story. Likewise the shortage of carrier capable fixed wing aircraft post Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152) is not exactly news. Hopefully the situation will improve when the Typhoon takes over the Herrick commitment.

But Illustrious will not just carry Harriers. See here (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/01/219034/uk-royal-navy-helicopters-prepare-for-afghan-and-gulf.html).

The RN's 814 NAS maritime attack squadron will deploy its six AgustaWestland EH101 Merlin HM1 helicopters aboard the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious next January, marking the service's largest embarked deployment of the type.

"This is the first time we will get six [Merlin] aircraft to sea in a single platform, and it will test the capability," says Merlin force commander Cdr Steve Murray.

In advance of its deployment to the Gulf region, 814 NAS will soon begin working up on HMS Illustrious, with crews to hone their skills in the Merlin's core role of anti-submarine warfare in the North Atlantic. However, the sonar-equipped aircraft can also have its role adjusted within 2h to carry up to 11 fully equipped troops or eight stretchers. "Gone are the days when you can focus on a single role," says Murray.

The 814 NAS returned to RNAS Culdrose in Cornwall in mid-August, following a 15-month tour of duty that culminated with the unit performing maritime monitoring operations in the Gulf region, operating from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel RFA Fort Victoria.

The deployed Merlins are expected to carry L-3 Wescam MX-15 electro-optical/infrared sensors to assist in their surveillance operations, which navy sources suggest could include monitoring movements by Iranian submarines.


The aircraft from Culdrose (both Merlin and Sea King) have been spending a lot of time in recent years performing ISTAR roles East of Suez. The war on terror isn't just on land.

[Confucius]

Anything black and wearing nets going with them?

Or indeed Wrens wearing black fishnets...?

[hulahoop7]

Well when operation Iranian Freedom kicks off I imagine that the USN would be a little worried that the devilish Iranians might hit one of their CVNs with a sneaky sub. If Lusty just happened to be around at the same time with a deck full of the best ASW helicopters in the world, and was escorted by a T23 with the best anti-submarine sonar in the world that might be very fortunate..... but that would just be a crazy coincidence.:hmm:

[Gainesy]

Btw the Naval Strike Wing are now out there

So, eight or nine jets is now known as a Wing.

Christ, how did we get to this sorry state?:(

[WE Branch Fanatic]

hulahoop 7

The threat to a US CVBG from the Iranian submarines is very probably overemphasised, due to the carrier's escorts and aircraft. However, the threat to merchant (ie oil) shipping is very real. A couple of supertankers being attacked would drive the price of oil up, and cause a very real headache for the international community. In addition to there Kilo class boats the Iranians have small coastal submarines.

In addition to direct torpedo attack, they could lay mines clandestinely via submarine. Iran is thought to have in the order of 3000 mines (according to Jane's), including nasty rising vertical mines.