Crab-Bashing

[Occasional Aviator]

I have just read an article in today's Sunday Times about the RN facing activity cuts because of the 'black hole' in defence funding. The last sentence was:

"All significant projects, including two aircraft carriers, have been delayed indefinitely after a campaign by the RAF to undermine the rationale behind their procurement and that of the Joint Combat Aircraft that will fly off the carriers."

I'm sorry, but that is just the most inaccurate and misleading sentence I can ever remember reading in a national newspaper.

Never mind that the delayed programmes include Army and RAF programmes. Never mind that CAS has stated publically that he is in favour of the carrier procurement, and that our internal briefings ask us to support this line. Never mind that JCA will be operated by both the RAF and the RN, with at least half flown by the RAF. Whoever has briefed this piece of rubbish to a journalist clearly has no concept of how the procurement process works if they think that a single-service staff could realistically delay a procurement by briefing against it.

Why is it that whenever anything goes against the carrier programme (or, for that matter, against things like the Royal Artillery's aspirations for UAVs) that the RAF is blamed?

But most of all, haven't people learned that the services briefing aginst each other to the press does no-one any favours?

Disgusted,

OA

[Jackonicko]

Astonishing from Mick Smith, normally one of the better of the Fleet Street Defence boys.

December 9, 2007

Cash shortage to keep navy in port
Michael Smith

MOST of the Royal Navy will be tied up in dock next year, frozen by a £15 billion “black hole” in the Ministry of Defence budget over the next decade, writes Michael Smith.

As the MoD fights proposals for £12 billion of defence cuts over the same period, only ships supporting operations in the Gulf will leave port. The soaring cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increasing reluctance of the Treasury to fund them is adding to the pressure.

“The navy is looking at what options they have because the amount of funding is just not there,” one source said. “The overheating of the equipment budget is putting pressure on everyone.” The only major exercise expected to go ahead is Orion 08, in which the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, the destroyer Edinburgh and the frigate Westminster will head for the Gulf, defence sources said.

The navy is now resigned to losing five frigates, four Type22s and one Type23, taking it down to a record low of just 20 destroyers and frigates – insufficient to mount a major taskforce without coalition help.

All significant projects are threatened, including the navy’s two new aircraft carriers, which could be delayed after a campaign by the RAF to undermine the rationale behind their procurement and that of the Joint Combat Aircraft that will fly off them.

The RN has been briefing assiduously and effectively, so that while everyone knows exactly how much the Navy has suffered since '87 (thanks to nice little graphics in the Times), no-one knows that the RAF's frontline strength has been slashed by even more over the same period.

RN: 1987-2007
54 to 25 frigates/destroyers, 15 to 9 subs, etc.

RAF: 1990-2008
30 to 13 Fast squadrons, 4 to 2 MR squadrons, etc.

Presumably some brave matelot has been whining to Mick about this terrible treatment, whereas the RAF has failed to put its own case across.

But to simply state the existence of such a campaign, without any supporting evidence, and without caveat, seems amazingly slipshod and careless, however understandable.

[round&round]

I see the utility of the carriers. However, like many others, I have to ask if the UK can afford to buy and operate such expensive pieces of kit. What proven in-service equipment will be retired early or not updated to fund these ships? The government, be it red, blue or any other colour of the rainbow, isn't going to give defence a big increase for decades and we will also continue to be used as the election cash-cow whilst the British public doesn't view us as a voting issue. The only answer is to cut our cloth to fit the table and accept that we're a "conference north" outfit and most definately not Premier League. 4-Stars can't accept it though cause they desperately want to talk the talk with the big boys.

I rather suspect it was the view of "I like them but we honestly can't afford them" is probably what was said - not much of an angle in that though.

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

I'm sorry, but that is just the most inaccurate and misleading sentence I can ever remember reading in a national newspaper.



Chicago Daily Tribune, November 3, 1948. http://www.deweydefeatstruman.com/DeweyTruman%20009.jpg

[Lamenting Navigator]

You can tell that the RN briefed the journo if the text lays into the light blue. Not playing ball, chaps, our time for revenge will come.

[Occasional Aviator]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh,

I wasn't born then. But you could try 'Bush wins outright'. In any case, my national newspapers are not the same as your national newspapers!

I am, of course not including the Sunday Sport, with headlines like 'Bus found on the Moon'. I expect a bit more of the Sunday Times though.

[althenick]

You can tell that the RN briefed the journo if the text lays into the light blue. Not playing ball, chaps, our time for revenge will come.
You had your revenge back in '66. If an RN source has indeed said this then it will be the 1st time in 40-odd years that someone has stood up for the service publicly.

[mossie_uk]

Gentlemen, and ladies of course, the only thing that amazes me is that you are still suprised when a journalist publishes absolute bollocks with no regard to the truth whatsoever. On any given day of the week you can see obviously made up stories, an example is the latest idea of Christmas madness, apparently it is no longer acceptable for Santa to say Ho Ho Ho in case it offends our afro-carribean cousins. sheer bloody stupidity and a prime example of a made up story in the mainstream tabloids.

[Magnersdrinker]

Yeah Mossie you just have to look at the Nimrod fiasco and the amount of complete pish that the press gets hold off, juggles it around and prints crap only to make there papers sell more. :*

[Occasional Aviator]

Allthenick,

actually, articles like this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=OCAR1BC1WUKRJQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/12/02/navy102.xml) are surprisingly common - don't recall one about the RAF though...

Having said that, I'm not blaming an RN source - more likely the correspondent talked to someone embittered and not in the know and put his own interpretation on it. By the same token, I don't think it helps to allow decisions taken over 40 years ago to colour one's views of what today's staff officers are doing - whichever opinion you hold. How about we just get on with defence business and stop sniping? If someone has questioned the utility or rationale for carriers, it's probably part of the scrutiny that all programmes go through regularly, not some devious crab plot to... er, reduce the number of aircraft the UK operates??

[althenick]

OA,
Your right off course, It only take one mis quotation and there you go.
However my opions are not coloured just by what happened 40 years ago but also 25 years when the RAF defended the fleet with Sidewinder armed Nimrods (Aye Right as we say in Glasgow) and the RAF's evolving thoughts on jointery...
1- Let an RN 3* have control over JFH, Maritime Assets, and SAR then Re organise commands so that they manoever said RN 3* position out of job.
2- RAF get RN Fixed wing assets and then (coincidently i'm sure - NOT) they get canned.
3- RN plays the RAF game and 801 cant stand up due to lack of QFI's - I dont understand why this has changed?
The Airships may not be able to play the publicity game very well but they sure as hell can play politics. That is not a criticism but something that maybe their Lordships could learn from.

[circle kay]

Althenick
Little confused by your post. Are all Dark Blue aviation assets now controlled by AOC 1 Gp or just JFH? If the fixed wing NAS set up is such a wonderful organisation compared to a RAF Sqn why are the wheels falling off for lack of RAF QFIs? With your superb overview of all things Naval can you explain why the cut to the bone RN, who everyone including the Girl Guides has it in for, still needs 3 home ports and 2 RNAS? Apart from that's where all the Andrew have bought houses.

[Jimlad1]

"still needs 3 home ports and 2 RNAS?"

Because to close any one base port in a marginal constituency is deemed to be politically unacceptable by whichever party happens to be in power. The same could be said of the plethora of airfields that are still out there in general - IIRC the MOD's privatisation of airfield support services tender cited the need to provide cover at roughly 120 airfields.

[Bismark]

I'm sorry, but that is just the most inaccurate and misleading sentence I can ever remember reading in a national newspaper.

OA,

Below is an extract from Lord Craig's speech in the Lords on 7 Nov.


If the axe is to fall on a major programme and the deterrent is to continue, as I believe it should, what should it be? I fear the future carrier programme must be most at risk. If we are to be largely committed in Afghanistan for decades, and so unlikely—indeed, unable—to be much deeper embroiled elsewhere, there are no tasks for a strike carrier force that cannot be better mounted from bases in or around Afghanistan. We needed our carriers when Argentina invaded the Falklands, but now there is a main base airfield at Mount Pleasant. Even if the Argentinians,

7 Nov 2007 : Column 41

seeing us so stretched elsewhere, were to be tempted to reinvade the Falklands, their task would be infinitely more difficult for them than it was in 1982 even if we no longer had a carrier. Elsewhere in the world, with any possibility of major conflict within carrier reach, we would be in partnership with the United States and our carrier capability might be more desirable but not necessarily essential.
On a more detailed level, I fear that the gap of eight to 10 years between the withdrawal of the Sea Harriers in 2006 and getting the carriers and Joint Strike Fighter into service will face the Fleet Air Arm with an almost impossible problem of recruiting, training and retaining enough fast-jet pilots and engineers and developing their essential leadership and other expertise on time. Already at RAF Cottesmore, where the remaining Sea Harrier naval pilots and ratings are based, there are shortfalls in skills, which are being met by Royal Air Force personnel. The impact on the defence industry, particularly shipbuilding, cannot be overlooked, but one does not need four acres of open deck to operate UAVs, which might provide a more realistic and affordable long-term capability for maritime aviation.

So are the RAF not briefing against the RN???

Girl Guides has it in for, still needs 3 home ports and 2 RNAS?

CK,

So how many RAF airfields would it take to house the 170-ish RN a/c?

[Something witty]

It's not quite as simple as just sticking everything in one port... for instance all the handling facilities for the V-boats would need to be moved south... no small task... and the draught of a V-boat is collosal so they arent so easy to get into Devonport, although it is (just) possible. Since we can never be sure of the future, I for one feel distinctly uneasy over the idea of a single port...asymetric warfare is all the rage - mines anyone? Delayed entry into Umm Qasar... be like having just the one runway for the light blue - fine until you cant use it at an inconvenient moment. Bad idea.

As for two RNAS, would seem a reasonable number - Yeovs has 848, 845, 846, 847, 815, 702 and 727 NAS plus HQ CHF MAOT, RNFSAIC..... Obviously used to have 899 (?) /800/801 too until SHAR's untimely demise.

How many RAF bases support as many as 7 squadrons? (9 if you count SHAR a few years back... 727 only recently arrived)

Not many I would guess. Dont get me wrong, I don't suggest RAF should cut more bases - there are too few already - but please dont suggest that the RN is 'base heavy' in aviation terms!

EDIT: would also guess that the deep waters around NW Scotland lend themselves better to V-boat ops than the shallower and much busier waters of the western approaches.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

althenick/Bismark

These things are discussed else where on PPRuNe, particularly on the Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152) and Future Carrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221116) threads.

On a more detailed level, I fear that the gap of eight to 10 years between the withdrawal of the Sea Harriers in 2006 and getting the carriers and Joint Strike Fighter into service will face the Fleet Air Arm with an almost impossible problem of recruiting, training and retaining enough fast-jet pilots and engineers and developing their essential leadership and other expertise on time.

Lord Craig isn't the only one worried! It is already recognised that there is a danger that we will get a generation of RN aviators who are not familiar with operating from HM Ships, or even RFAs. This applies to both fixed wing and rotary.

[Jackonicko]

Bismarck,

Stout chap though he is, Lord Craig is a single private individual, and a private individual who last served 16 years ago, in 1991.

Anything that he says is hardly "the RAF briefing against" anything or anyone.

And everything he says about carriers is bang on the button for me.

A 'nice to have' niche capability, but one that is seldom actually needed, which can be provided by allies on the rare occasions that it is, and one whose sheer cost threatens to distort the entire defence budget and cripple the forces that we do need, every time that we go to war.

JFH seems to be 'non-embarkable' at the moment, due to its other commitments. I wonder how long it will be before the absence of this capability will be militarily significant?

[BristolScout]

The carrier question will always result in lively light blue/dark blue discussion. My concern is that a carrier needs an escort group of frigates, destroyers etc. or it ends up as being no more than the juciest target on the ocean. There is no commitment to building more escorts and the ships that will be in service when the carriers come on line are fully committed to the Navy's other tasks. It follows that an RN carrier can only realistically operate as part of a foreign - ie USN -battle group. So much for military independence.

For what it's worth, I had the privilege of serving on a joint RN/RAF squadron in the days of my youth. The inter-service sniping was alive and well then, albeit cordial and laced with mutual respect. The real aggro occurred between the 'traditional' navy and the Fleet Air Arm. When it comes to politics, the sailors want ships, not aircraft, so don't blame all the ills of naval aviation on the RAF.:sad:

[minigundiplomat]

One of the things that has always impressed me about the RN, is the steadfast way that any member will tell you that the RN does it better.
One of the things that always amuses me about the RN is that the guy telling you all this is normally in an RAF Mess either on exchange, placement or having transferred.
At the moment, we have a great deal of RN/RM exchangees at Odius, for which we have not reciprocated. That helps us out of a manning crisis, but at the expense of creating a RN manning crisis, as few return.
The carriers will bring a huge capability to mount worldwide ops, and the RN should have them and the appropriate aircraft to go with them.
They should however, cease trying to bring down the RAF to keep themselves afloat, and concentrate on doing what they are good at.
The Army will never go for a carve up of the RAF for two reasons.

1. The Army could not sustain the RAF Fleet of SH. They are an extremely capable outfit, but the sheer size and logistics would overwhelm them, particularly as I see all the experienced eng support PVR'ing if such a move was seriously considered. They are doing an outstanding job with the Apache, but they are at full stretch.

2. The Army knows, there is a high likliehood that when overland CAS is needed, the assets may well be miles offshore conducting 'bluewater ops' or pursuing a Naval agenda. I witnessed this on Joint Winter 05, when 845 had to FOB in Northern Norway, so the carrier group (supporting the RM) poked off to do blue water ops leaving the FAA out of range.
This is far from a dig at the FAA, but they do not run the RN. The ship drivers do.
This will be a particularly familiar feeling to any RAF member not in the FJ world, where any decision is made on the premise of FJ sustainability.

Just my humble opinion. Ducking for cover

MGD

[Bismark]

and one whose sheer cost threatens to distort the entire defence budget and cripple the forces that we do need, every time that we go to war.
Jacko,
I agree with you about Craig but it is the same mantra coming out of Strike Cmd etc.
Re the above quote, it is not CVF that is distorting the Defence Budget but Typhoon where we are seemingly locked in to a contract for 230 -odd un-needed FJs....I think the Typhoon buy is the most expensive defence contract ever and most of the a/c are not needed. Please do not blame CVF.
It follows that an RN carrier can only realistically operate as part of a foreign - ie USN -battle group. So much for military independence.
Bristol,
Not true...the RN has and will have the capability to operate independently with FF, DD and SMs. However, I am not sure the RAF has the ability to operate outside a US dominated coalition who provide the necessary EW/SEAD etc.

[Pontius Navigator]

The RAF had a problem betwen Javelin and F4 with some backseaters maintaining capability in Sea Vixens but many converted to other types and that gap was only 4 years.

The RN problem returning to large carrier ops will almost be of the same magnitude as the Russian Navy.

[Occasional Aviator]

Allthenick/Bismark,

Individuals have their opinions, but as a crab who keeps up with internal briefing notices, I can assure you that the RAF are NOT briefing against the carriers.

The carrier programme may have been questioned, but this is called SCRUTINY and it happens to every major project. Do you not think that some cutting questions have been asked about Typhoon?

JFH is an interesting one, as if you are close enough to it to know the facts you will know that the RAF harrier force feel pretty stitched up about it too. Don't forget that in the interests of political correctness we had our force slashed to try and get a force of 2 RAF sqns and 2 RN sqns out of basically a 3:1 ratio of people and jets. You can try to blame the RAF but in the end the fact is that 801 did not stand up because the RN couldn't man it under the system that had been agreed jointly. That isn't a good thing and is probably cold comfort for the RAF harrier pilots now unable to get a flight commander tour, but it

I sympathise about AOC 3 Gp, but don't forget it was always going to be a rotational/competition post anyway, and that the vast majority of the Gp was RAF.

Also I don't believe that the SHAR was binned because of a devious crab plot. The decision was taken against the following background:

1. UK policy at the moment is to take risk against air defence in all environments and current operations are crying out for CAS.

2. The SHAR was an air defence aircraft and the GR7/9 is a CAS aircraft.

3. The IPT has to pay for both.

4. The SHAR was seven times as expensive to support as the GR7.

What decision do you think you would have reached? And before you suggest that the RN was targetted, remember the RAF lost its jaguar fleet following a very similar logic path.

Also I think you must be confused about 'sidewinder-armed Nimrod'.

I am not having a pop at the RN, I actually admire the senior service. I would also like the UK to have carriers (although I have to admit that nobody has yet given me a convincing reason why the RN need to fly any of the jets).

How about this for a compromise: we all agree to support UK defence in the best way we can. This, to me means:

- asking pertinent questions about equipment programmes so that when the MOD is in a financial hole to make sure we're buying the right kit.

- accepting that our own programmes will come under scrutiny and not getting precious when someone questions them.

- understanding that sometimes things don't go your way and that just might be the way things are, not that someone else is out to get you.

- not leaking to the press or dripping to journos about what you perceive other services are doing to yours.

How about it?

[Bismark]

OA,

I don't disagree with much of what you have to say but I do not hear siren voices from the RN trying to talk out RAF programmes but you have to admit there is alot the other way round. For example, you ca't see why the RN should be flying a/c from the CVF - why not? it is the RN that has the longest history flying from the sea (approaching 100 years);developed aircraft carriers in the first place, developed cats and traps, developed the ski jump etc etc. The FAA history in air combat shapes up pretty well against the RAF, indeed I think since WW2 the FAA has a better record against an enemy. Ops from the sea generally need sea minded people and generally that starts at the recruiting stage.

With regards to JFH my buddies round here tell me that the RN could operate the second sqn under RN operating rules - after all it is a RN sqn not an RAF one. Apparently the only person missing was a JO QFI - a system the RN has never operated.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I think the Typhoon buy........and most of the a/c are not needed

Bismark you do yourself a disservice by spouting such rubbish!! Not needed? That would be not needed to replace the F3, the GR3 and ultimately the GR9 and possibly GR4. You are doing exactly what you accuse Lord Craig of doing, only you are briefing against the RAF to try and protect the RN. I am a supporter of the CVFs (despite being light blue) but in this case Lord Craig is spot on. The CVFs and the (soon to be very) late JSF will not help in the current operational environment. They are the only thing that we could afford to delay.

And I think you will find that Trident and son of Trident were/will be more than Typhoon. Actually I think CVF+JSF will be more as well!! Lies, damn lies and statistics.:=

[Occasional Aviator]

Bismark,
I take your points, BUT:

If you check the command arrangements, JFH is under full command of the RAF. 801 Sqn therefore would have been an RN-badged RAF Sqn.

It makes complete sense, not least from a safety point of view, that a sqn operating RAF aircraft under RAF command should work to RAF rules.

The RN agreed to move to the RAF system for a number of reasons - not least that this will be the most efficient way of operating JSF in future - one of the big drivers behind forming JFH was to build capacity for JSF.

I understand that the reason why the RN did not used to have JO QFIs on the Sqn was due to the way the RN ran its OCU (where I believe the JO QFIs would have been) - so not being able to generate a QFI for the sqn is merely a symptom of force undermanning. Although you could have manned the sqn under RN rules, it would not have had the support needed and would not be able to generate the FE@R required for its task - RN Sqns were structured around providing jets for embarked ops which are flexi serviced, then come back and go into the shed while the people take their end-of-tour leave. It works well if you can accept that dip, but JSF will be operated in the way the RAF always have - to keep the sqn on readiness all the time. I believe this is also how the French navy run things, and one of the reasons why they need more space below decks.

In answer to the question about who should fly the jets, I dont have a really strong view - but for me the question is why rather than why not. RN FJ pilots now and in the future go through exactly the same training as RAF harrier pilots (stand fast Dartmouth), and the end product in the JFH is interchangeable. Running a force of around 210 fast-jet pilots is difficult enough for the RAF, which has places to send people who aren't quite up to single-seat and a commensurate buffer in terms of a training margin and ground jobs. Oh, and a realistic career for flyers beyond SO1. Trying to run a small cadre of FJ pilots independently just seems like an inefficiency and not best value for defence - so for me the question is why bother rather than why not. Yes, you need some sea-mindedness but this will come with operating at sea, and the whole carrier strike thing is justified around Land Attack, not defending the fleet against air attack (which I think the T45 does rather well actually). If you really need to address the presentational aspect let's give some of the sqns RN numbers and get the pilots to wear gold braid rather than bar-codes when at sea. Having said that, if it comes down to a political need to keep some pilots as RN, then so be it.

Happy to be corrected about any of this, but I stand by my main point - tough things are happening to everybody in defence at the moment, and simply blaming all your woes on the RAF is neither accurate nor helpful.

[Jackonicko]

Attacking the holy cow of independent, Navy-owned RN fixed wing aviation, OA?

And doing so with logic, forebearing the usual emotion and appeals to tradition and ancient history (1982 and all that).

There will be tears.....

[althenick]

OA et al
An informative post but if I may question/ comment on the following
If you check the command arrangements, JFH is under full command of the RAF. 801 Sqn therefore would have been an RN-badged RAF Sqn.
It makes complete sense, not least from a safety point of view, that a sqn operating RAF aircraft under RAF command should work to RAF rules
Why should it be under full RAF control? Does that mean the RAF Seakings should come under RN control or the Merlins for that matter. The RAF seem to bang on about safety but seem to have more accidents than the RN, I would have thought this would have been the other way round.
In answer to the question about who should fly the jets, I dont have a really strong view - but for me the question is why rather than why not. RN FJ pilots now and in the future go through exactly the same training as RAF harrier pilots (stand fast Dartmouth), and the end product in the JFH is interchangeable. Running a force of around 210 fast-jet pilots is difficult enough for the RAF, which has places to send people who aren't quite up to single-seat and a commensurate buffer in terms of a training margin and ground jobs. Oh, and a realistic career for flyers beyond SO1. Trying to run a small cadre of FJ pilots independently just seems like an inefficiency and not best value for defence - so for me the question is why bother rather than why not. Yes, you need some sea-mindedness but this will come with operating at sea, and the whole carrier strike thing is justified around Land Attack, not defending the fleet against air attack (which I think the T45 does rather well actually). If you really need to address the presentational aspect let's give some of the sqns RN numbers and get the pilots to wear gold braid rather than bar-codes when at sea. Having said that, if it comes down to a political need to keep some pilots as RN, then so be it.
Take a look at the history of the fleet air arm between day of all fools 1918 and 1937 it was "owned" buy the RAF but paid for by the RN At the start only the Observers in the squadrons were dark blue by 1920 the squadron manning was 87% RN now I dont know why that would be but I suspect it was a number of factors such as RAF Recruitment & Retention being affected by Having to go to sea for long periods of time and Trenchards view that Carrier ops were dangerous and Long Range bombers could achieve the same thing.
Despite the RN holding the purse strings they had no say in what aircraft they got. Just over the pond the USN were flying Hellcats/Wildcats and all other forms of modern A/C - The fleet Air Arm's Air Defence was provided by the sea skua which couldn't even match the Luftwaffe's premier Recce Aircraft, the condor in terms of speed and ceiling.
When the RN finally got control of the FAA back it was no where near prepared for war. Aircraft production was focused on fighter production for the RAF (quite rightly) but no one was prepared to come up with a naval fighter. The best british offering was the sea hurricane and later the Sea Mosquito all of which were compromises.
Now at this point i'd like to ask a question, can any one out in PPRUNE-land name ONE repeat ONE Land based fixed-wing Aircraft that was a great success at sea?
None as far as ? know
Now name one Naval Aircraft that successfully came ashore? I can think of one british and several american.
My own Conclusion - As long as this and future governments operate an interventionist foriegn policy we will require Fixed and rotary wing Aircraft at sea. As for Fighters, Well nearly every tin-pot nation on this earth has an airforce and most have an air combat wing.

As for who should operate these aircraft at sea. Well my own thoughts are ask those who operate the aircraft at the moment. If I had joined the RAF, it wouldn't have been to go to sea, So yes the RN should operate them, but with a common support system. I think jointery is a dynamite Idea. Common Aircraft and common support. My heart however goes out to the light blue who are embarked on various pussers war-canoes who dont want to be there, i'm also mindfull of the Wafus deployed ashore and living in trenches. I think the current situation can only have an adverse effect on morale, recruitment and retention.

Sorry if i've rambled

PS - Jacko - Ancient history eh? - What does that make the Battle of britain then? Having fighters to protect british airspace, we dont need them surely?

[Flatus Veteranus]

I shouldn't hold your breath waiting for future "liberal intervention operations". Brown is doing his damndest to wriggle out of the present lot. Besides what worthwhile contributuion could carrier-based air power have made in Iraq or Afghanistan?

I rather thought the Javelin and Vixen was both developed to the same OR. That time the RN picked the right one! Pity they stabbed the RAF in the back by ditching the supersonic Harrier replacement in about 1964 and buying the F4.

What is so magic and ancient about the 800-series squadrons? Why not restore the old 200-series ex-RNAS squadrons to operational service, and renumber their ex-RFC counterparts. Eg, restore Naval 8 (208) and renumber 8 Sqn.

[radicalrabit]

BeiNg entirely unqualified to say anything other than from a laymans point of view as its almost 25 years since I left the military, Carriers are a great tool for a specific job the downside being anti ship missiles tend to sink them and all the assetts deployed thereon causing severe loss of functional fighting ability of a deployed unit. The answer to the problem is not to therefore not have them but to have more of them.
The various governments we have suffered from have been militarily inept to put it mildly going from one underfunded, under armed unprepared and ill equipped forray into the wrong theatres after another. Being dependent upon the U.S. or European Countries for anything at all is bad planning and the sooner we stop wasting the finite resources we have on infinite world problems and start rebuilding our depleted forces the better. Following Uncle Sams bulldozer tryng to mend the fences has to stop and we need a policy of our own that we stick to instead of constantly being dragged out to do something we need never have done.

The Russians realised Afganistan is a no win situation and despite our best efforts we are ill equipped to do any better than the Russians did. Anyone disagree? What is the long term positive outcome for the region that is both desirable and achievable? We have no idea and therefore no opportunity to effective reach that end. OK END OF SPOUT My view was give the Navy the tools to do their job with and let them get on with it. Sailors being at sea. Likewise give the RAF the kit they need when they need it and not a decade after it was required . By the time our new fighters get airborne they are already verging on being obsolete because we dont in my memory have a record of having the best kit available. apart from the Lightning maybe.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Now at this point i'd like to ask a question, can any one out in PPRUNE-land name ONE repeat ONE Land based fixed-wing Aircraft that was a great success at sea?


Harrier? Spitfire? Hurricane? B25 (IIRC)

[BristolScout]

Althenick.

Your exam question to name a single land-based aircraft that was a success at sea. What about the Hurricane?:)

[Jackonicko]

B-25 (!) Venom. Harrier. FJ Fury.

[Occasional Aviator]

A good historical background allthenick, but it doesn't actually address my point.

[Not_a_boffin]

One of your points that does need addressing is the supposition that fleet AD can be handled by T45 (still some way off service entry). I remember similar comments on Sea Wolf and Sea Dart many years ago until it all went a bit pear-shaped down south.

There is no substitute for the ability to visually intercept and ID potential threats and deal with them if necessary, particularly when restrictive RoE are in force (USS Vincennes anyone?). The ability to counter LR surveillance and targetting aircraft also tends to be a bit handy - difficult if you have the "X" nm max range of A30. Finally, kill the archer not shoot his arrows remains a good maxim.

Some will say that E3 and other land-based assets might be able to provide this, but that logic didn't work in GIUK and there's no reason it should work now. That is why a good MASC solution and a half-decent AD capability in the CAG is still part of the requirement. It's not an "either/or" problem.

[Tac Dee Cent]

Besides what worthwhile contributuion could carrier-based air power have made in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Flatus

I'm either missing the irony or biting far too easily. What about the small issue of an American battle group STILL operating in the NAG and the support they have provided in theatre over the last how many years? Oh and not forgetting the whole Al Faw assault being maritime aviation (inc Ark Royal based CH47s), but that isn't FJ stuff so I guess it doesn't count.:E

[Occasional Aviator]

NaB,

Thanks for your points, I agree. I did not mean to suggest that T45 provides a complete defence against air attack, but I refer you to my earlier point that policy is to take risk against air defence at the moment. In any case, these things have been covered, and are probably better discussed on WEBF's thread.

What I was trying to get at is that we can't all have every bit of capability that we want. I don't think it's the fault of Typhoon, or CVF, or Astute, or FRES - it's just 'cos we don't have enough money. I'm all for reasoned debate but if some things are 'off limits' like questioning whether CVF should be delayed (not cancelled), or whether it's best value for defence for the RN to have its own private air force, and discussing them leads to name-calling, accusations of negative briefing campaigns, and long rants about how the RAF was a bunch of bastards to the FAA 50 years ago, then we're not going to get very far.

It may be that not everything that's wrong with naval aviation is the fault of the RAF.

[Not_a_boffin]

Concur. What is wrong is that the RN as a whole failed to plan properly for the required expansion of the FW community, MoD as a whole has failed to fund adequately any of it's capabilities, with the possible exception of Health & safety, equal opportunities and corporate branding........This has much to do with the ability of the MoD to undertake proper costing studies and understand the implications of both risk and contract change.

The problem with "taking risk" or "capability holidays" is that sooner or later, left to those in DEP and the PUS organisation and often DEC as well, they become permanent assumptions. Ditto "delay" sooner or later becomes cancellation. For example, were a delay to CVF to be contemplated, the new shipbuilding JV would (rightly) cry foul and the price would increase. The existing ship and aircraft may be able to extend to cover the gap, but equally likely may not. Delay likely to equal gap = eventual cancellation. If anything could be delayed, it might actually be Tranche 3, as there are 100+ jets delivered or on order, apparent interest in export sales to keep the line going and the programme cost of Typhoon dwarfs that of CVF - OK large chunks of it already committed, but thats what cashflow management is all about.

[althenick]

OA

Sorry if my post sounded like a rant but what I was trying to get across in my own inarticulate way is the reasons for retaining an Independent Naval Air wing and in particular Fast Jet pilots that is if we get the carriers. I dont believe at any point did I Crab Bash. The bottom line is that what you were suggesting that is "why not" then I answer that its already been tried, tested and failed.

As for the Aircraft

Sea fury - Ok thats 1
Sea Venom - Slow by Fighter A/c Standards of the time and didnt have the legs.
Seafire and Sea huricane - Ditto and add the retreval problems that seafire had.
Harrier- A happy coincidence that it was good but again didn't have the legs.

Now Buccaneer, Phantom, Tomcat, Corsair, All designed for carrier ops and all went on to serve with various Airforces.

BTW - T45 is as yet to be tested, so any comment on it's capability is speculation

[Tourist]

The previous RN posters are strangely reticent to give the real reason why the RN needs Carriers and our own organic aviation.

There have to be some aircrew in our military who get the job done, effectively, cheaply, and with a great deal of panache, without whingeing constantly about pay/conditions/workload/broken nail .

....and I give you.....the Fleet Air Arm!

[Roland Pulfrew]

althenick

Stop changing the rules. := You asked:

Now at this point i'd like to ask a question, can any one out in PPRUNE-land name ONE repeat ONE Land based fixed-wing Aircraft that was a great success at sea?

So far we have Spitfire, Hurricane, Vampire, B25, T45 (no mention of Op Capability:=), Fury, Harrier - so significantly more than ONE repeat ONE
And I would like to add a few more from the very early years of carrier ops!!!

[Flatus Veteranus]

T D C

I said "worthwhile"

Tourist

"cheaply" ?????!!!

[Tourist]

Flatus

It means "not expensive" or "no 5 star hotels" or "field conditions means your tent does not have electricity" or "a 2 a/c deployment somewhere nice does not need 50 maintainers" or "defending the uk from marauding 737s does not require 260 typhoon" or " an airbase can hold more than 10 a/c"

etc etc

Tomorrow we will work on "panache"

going to be a tricky one I think, and I have no idea how I am going to explain stoicism to you crabs

[Archimedes]

Presumably you'll be spending today working on 'banter'....? :}

[althenick]

althenick
Stop changing the rules. You asked:
Quote:
Now at this point i'd like to ask a question, can any one out in PPRUNE-land name ONE repeat ONE Land based fixed-wing Aircraft that was a great success at sea?
So far we have Spitfire, Hurricane, Vampire, B25, T45 (no mention of Op Capability), Fury, Harrier - so significantly more than ONE repeat ONE
And I would like to add a few more from the very early years of carrier ops!!!
Yesterday 20:41

Roland
Trust me none of these aircraft were regarded as a great success at sea and i'm even going to now include the sea fury. I'm not just talking about it's effectivness in the air but other factors such as range and design for purpose.
Sea Fury - Great A/c but it was already behind it's time - and before anyone says that it could take on a Mig 15 i would say that was down to the pilot being better than his opponent (good kill though :ok: )
Hurricane - Too heavy once navalised, also no folding wings
Seafire - Early models - as for hurricane . All Models - also with an extremely high accident rate particularly on retreval.
Vampire - Again wieght and range penalties on Navalisation
B25 - You've piqued my curiosity - did one ever land on a carrier??? Doolitles raid was an excellent idea.
Harrier - Like I said a happy coincidence. It was never invisaged as a sea going A/c when designed but as I said before a Naff Range, but very good at its job.

[Jackonicko]

The Sea Fury should be compared with its direct contemporaries (eg F4U-5N) and not the jets which came immediately afterwards. And for its original role, it was pretty good.

You have to remember that frontline aircraft did not last long in those days before being rendered obsolete.

The Hornet, Attacker and Sea Hawk (P1040) were all derived from land based fighter designs, and so was the Sea Vixen. The Sea Hawk, in particular, was notably good, and would meet your criteria (name ONE repeat ONE Land based fixed-wing Aircraft that was a great success at sea?) .

And so was the Venom - in its time, and in its FAW/NF role.

And while some of the great aircraft designed as naval fighters were successful when adapted for land based ops, they were often not as good as aircraft designed for such use from the start. The F4U Corsair, for example, was a great aeroplane, but it wasn't in the same class as the P-51/P-47, the Spitfire or the Fw190. F-14 or F-15? F-16 or F/A-18?

[Occasional Aviator]

This will be my last post on this thread.

I intended to discuss why it was that people believed that the RAF was conspiring against them whenever things didn't happen how they wanted in an aviation matter. (In fact I don't think that's possible. If you think for a moment how difficult we find it to come up with a coherent line on any of our own issues, how could we run a covert campaign against anyone else?)

Since then we seem to have had:

- RAF types similarly bemused.
- RN types protest that it’s true, the RAF has it in for us – and by the way, we really really need carriers.
- Merest hint of questioning the requirement for carriers/independent naval aviation arm leads to heated debate that belongs on the Future Carrier thread.
- Side discussion about whether aircraft designed for a land-based role can be adapted for use at sea (which, arguably, might be better in the JSF issues thread – tongue firmly in cheek).

I'll get my coat.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Tourist

To me "cheaply" means the delivery of ordnance on target at the lowest overall cost per unit - including all the infrastructure. Now it seems to me as a simple ex-crab that, if it were cheaper by this definition in most cases to base the delivery aircraft on board ship rather than on land, then inevitably there would be very few airfields around and lots of carriers. For instance, now that we have gone to the considerable trouble and expense of building a major airfield on the Falklands, why do the fisheads go on bleating about how we might need carriers to do CORPORATE all over again?
WIth ex-FAA people in my family I yield to no one in my admiration for the "Branch". But they are not supermen. In the mid-50s I had the great pleasure of being on an RAF fighter squadron lodged temporarily at Hal Far. While we were there we had plenty of opportunity to mix it with FAA Sea Hawk squadrons from Med Fleet carriers and, believe me, we were not found wanting. Even the (WRNS-manned) ciné assessment section at Hal Far had to admit that. Our airmen were esily the smartest unit on Divisions. The Commander told me that. And one night I was dug out of my pit by the "Officer of the Watch" (the Boss was on leave) and asked to produce a maximum effort search at first light for the crew of a Gannet which had gone over the side of a carrier. We produced our full UE of 16 aircraft at 0600, which was a damned sight more than the local FAA units could achieve. And when we were asked to support an amphibious exercise at St Paul's Bay one Saturday afternoon, when we had done our simulated "strikes" on the beachhead we laid on an impromptu display of formation aerobatics which got the full attention of the local press. Now that is what I call "panache".
I do not know why the FAA is so paranoid about the Crabs. The ususal explanation for such "chippiness" is a deep feeling of inferiority. Anyway it is boring and high time the Branch grew up.

[Engines]

On JFH, I'd like to respond to some points in recent posts by OA:

Don't forget that in the interests of political correctness we had our force slashed to try and get a force of 2 RAF sqns and 2 RN sqns out of basically a 3:1 ratio of people and jets.

The JFH force structure was developed by Strike and 3 Gp as the response to standing down SHAR. Getting 4 squadrons out of 3 was always going to be a stretch - the air staffs were told this at the time. Force slashed? Only if you're talking about numbers of RAF Harrier drivers. Not sure where 'political correctness' comes in.

You can try to blame the RAF but in the end the fact is that 801 did not stand up because the RN couldn't man it under the system that had been agreed jointly.

Not true. The QFI issue emerged as the units were standing up. It was pushed by a certain RAF senior officer. Under RN rules, 801 did not need to do it, and the need had NOT been 'agreed jointly'.

I sympathise about AOC 3 Gp, but don't forget it was always going to be a rotational/competition post anyway, and that the vast majority of the Gp was RAF.

Wrong on both. AOC 3 Gp was a dark blue post. Group HQ was around 50/50 RN/RAF.

1. UK policy at the moment is to take risk against air defence in all environments and current operations are crying out for CAS.

Accepted - and we're buying Typhoon why?

2. The SHAR was an air defence aircraft and the GR7/9 is a CAS aircraft.

Both had secondary roles. All aircraft do. JFH was supposed to exploit both, for the benefit of both.

3. The IPT has to pay for both.

Statement of the blindingly obvious. If you have an aircraft to support, it needs to be paid for.

4. The SHAR was seven times as expensive to support as the GR7.

Wrong. Plain wrong. Really wrong. PM me and I'll put you right here.

It makes complete sense, not least from a safety point of view, that a sqn operating RAF aircraft under RAF command should work to RAF rules.

The RN agreed to move to the RAF system for a number of reasons - not least that this will be the most efficient way of operating JSF in future - one of the big drivers behind forming JFH was to build capacity for JSF.

The RN did not agree to move to the RAF system. The key aim of JFH was to try to achieve 'convergence' - put two forces alongside one another and develop better ways of doing things. OA, you are spot on that bashing between the services is a 'no win' game. JFH was formed to break through that. Bald statements like 'from a safety point of view' and 'the RAF system...will be the most efficient way of operating JSF' are exactly what they were trying to break through.

Although you could have manned the sqn under RN rules, it would not have had the support needed and would not be able to generate the FE@R required for its task - RN Sqns were structured around providing jets for embarked ops which are flexi serviced, then come back and go into the shed while the people take their end-of-tour leave.

Actually, words nearly fail me here. Assertion after wrong assertion. RN squadrons did, and could have, generated their FEAR. They'd done so for many years. Go back into the shed? End of tour leave? Fantasy. Wrong. Not true.

It works well if you can accept that dip, but JSF will be operated in the way the RAF always have - to keep the sqn on readiness all the time.

In my direct experience, RAF squadrons were not 'on readiness all the time' - the station used all the assets to maintain the force FEAR. Actually, quite a good way of doing it.

OA, what bothers me is that this sort of assertion is exactly what the bottom feeders in the Treasury thrive on. And there's rather a lot of it about just now. The best way forward would be to use the differences to advantage - compare them, test them and use them to build new and better ways of getting the best out of our units. The RN, the RAF and the Army all have great ideas and systems for running aircraft. They also all have some that are not so great. 'Jointery' should not mean 'choose one'.

Sadly, in many cases, senior officers (any service) will resist such change because it threatens their promotion and power base. If they don't get their collective act together soon, there could be some serious defence cuts hurt.

Best Regards

Engines

[Tourist]

"Our airmen were esily the smartest unit on Divisions. The Commander told me that."

Oh dear Oh Dear

Definition:- The Commander. The token GL fishhead who's only job is to really give a toss about smartness and shiny shoes.

Definition:- The RAF. Civvies who really really believe that when it comes to the RAF uniform, you can, in fact, polish a turd.

[Jackonicko]

Engines,

I'm afraid that you're brave attempt to refute the allegation that:

"Don't forget that in the interests of political correctness we had our force slashed to try and get a force of 2 RAF sqns and 2 RN sqns out of basically a 3:1 ratio of people and jets."

is itself in error.

"The JFH force structure was developed by Strike and 3 Gp as the response to standing down SHAR."

The response required to avoid ruffling RN feathers....

"Getting 4 squadrons out of 3 was always going to be a stretch - the air staffs were told this at the time. Force slashed? Only if you're talking about numbers of RAF Harrier drivers. Not sure where 'political correctness' comes in."

Before the JFH fiasco the RAF had three HUGE Harrier squadrons (1, 3, and IV) 13 jets each, fully manned, with a big OCU and plenty of Harrier mates on exchange. The Navy could bring two, tiny eight aircraft squadrons and a smaller training unit to the party. Logic would have dictated a 3:1 or 2:1 mix - not a 50:50 mix.

and you're as badly wrong on your other points, too.

Unpalateable though it may be to someone from the Navy, OA got it absolutely right.


Tourist,

Comic genius. Cheap and obvious is sometimes good comedy. You are the Benny Hill of PPRuNe.

[Magic Mushroom]

This is one of the saddest threads on PPRUNE for a long time. When will our 2 services learn? Pathetic. :ugh:

[Tourist]

Why thank you Jacko!

Now it seems to me that Engines is either a masterful bullsh1tter, or somebody who has a lot of experience in the harrier world, yet you, a journalist who flew a buldog once are arrogant enough to make statements like "and you're as badly wrong on your other points, too."

That would make you the Micheal Winner of the Journalist world.:)

[Widger]

fight, fight, fight, fight.

Unfortunately Jacko, you previous post history shows you have a very narrow and extreme ight blue bias to your point of view and you regularly allow this bias to get in the way of considered debate, looking at both sides of the argument. Most posters on these forums give considered views that take into account the good and bad elements of all three services. Magic Mushromm is a good example, despite his loyalty to one service in particular.

Your regular rant across the pages of Pprune "scrap the carriers" is getting a bit boring now.

[Jackonicko]

Tourist,

Michael Winner ain't a journo.......
....... and he can spell.

I'd prefer the 'Piers Morgan of PPRuNe' really.

As to Engines, his posts contain a puzzling mixture of fact and bol.locks. Fortunately there are plenty of other Harrier mates on PPRuNe (and others accessible on the end of a phone) who have confirmed the sad story of JFH manning - eg that the SHar force was never big enough to provide half of JFH, and its demand to do so was based on senior service willy waving, and not on what was best for the force or for the tax-payer.

Widger,

Anyone who dares question the carriers is going to be accused of bias. Anyone who puts forward a sensible argument against them is going to be accused of ranting.

I'd have thought, however, that you were bright enough to see the difference between a straight, all-out anti-carrier position (carriers are of no utility, however much we have to spend) and a reluctant acceptance of financial realities.

It's simple. When the defence budget is as tight as it is now, then spending several billion on carriers, and many billions more on JSF, on an asset that is neither responsive nor autonomous, represents an unwelcome diversion from the real priorities and necessities.

Now if we were back in 8% GDP days, I'd probably be 'ranting' about why only two carriers and not three.....

[Clockwork Mouse]

Widger accuses Jacko of having a narrow and biased point of view while most posters on these forums give considered and balanced views! Haven't laughed so much in months!

[Engines]

Jackonicko,

I'd like to respond to your points, if I may:

You said that : "The JFH force structure was developed by Strike and 3 Gp as the response to standing down SHAR." was: The response required to avoid ruffling RN feathers....

By that time RN feathers were fairly ruffled anyway. The development of the 4 squadron structure was, I can assure you, very much a 'joint' effort.

Your point:

Before the JFH fiasco the RAF had three HUGE Harrier squadrons (1, 3, and IV) 13 jets each, fully manned, with a big OCU and plenty of Harrier mates on exchange. The Navy could bring two, tiny eight aircraft squadrons and a smaller training unit to the party. Logic would have dictated a 3:1 or 2:1 mix - not a 50:50 mix.

Deserves a response. Comparing RAF and RN squadron strengths was just one area where JFH had to work across two dissimilar systems. The RAF unit strengths (and I'm not going to reveal what they were) included aircraft in maintennace at second line. RN units did not. As a result, actual numbers of aircraft available to fly on the units were much closer than you might suppose. The RN and RAF OCUs were of a similar size in terms of aircraft establishment. RN units, like their RAF counterparts, were fully manned - but to very different manning principles and systems. Again, part of the JFH challenge was to bring those together and build best practice to meet the operational need.

I'm not sure that using terms like HUGE and 'tiny' when describing squadron sizes (or anything else) really gets anyone further forward. You may disagree.

If you'd like to PM me on the other areas where I was 'badly wrong', I'd be happy to reply.

The key thing, as far as this thread goes, is that 'crab-bashing' is a pointless activity in our current circumstances - all 3 services sink or swim togther just now (if you pardon the phrase). That's why I've taken care to avoid doing it.

Regards

Engines

[Engines]

Jackonicko,

I'm honestly puzzled by your statement that my posts contain 'a puzzling mixture of fact and b******s'.

As I said, I'd be happy to swap PMs on exactly where you think I'm going astray. :)

Regards

Engines

[glad rag]

Scrap JSF/Trident replacement save ££££wonga.
Put %££££wonga into carriers and make them "full" sized with reactors.
Put % of remaining of wonga to buy off the shelf modern twin engined naval multirole aircraft, Ghia model. Don't care manufacturer so long as it's got twin engines. If BAES want a (bigger) share of the pie they work for it.
As F3 mates draw down man aircraft with F3 crews initial fleet defence role. Continue this with training/mud crews to complete multirole work up.
Give, YES, GIVE what is left to Army let them buy what they want, boots, guns that work, choppers, smart kit whatever.

Well it's almost Christmas...........:cool:

[minigundiplomat]

Looking at previous posts Jacko, you don't exactly take any critisism of the Merlin without some ill informed riposte.

Who exactly has a biased and narrow view?