Carrier Borne VC10 & Sentry anyone?

[Jimlad1]

Article in the Sunday times notes a leaked email about the possible closure of Trapiani (apparently home to VC10 & Sentry) for RAF units taking part in ELLAMY, followed up with a quote from a 'defence source' noting that if we had carriers then this wouldnt be an issue as we wouldnt be dependent on host nation support.

Ignoring that the RN was very dependent on HNS during ELLAMY, could someone tell me when the RN Carrier capable VC10 & Sentry variants entered service again? Not quite sure that I remember seeing them flying from the decks of ARK ROYAL...

[airborne_artist]

Had 'em for years, but so secret even the pilots flying them didn't know.

[Wrathmonk]

'defence source'

I believe WEBF has started a new job recently .... he might be working at the desk next to you!!!;)

[lj101]

It's not a rumour reference Trapani, it's unfortunately true....

[Willard Whyte]

Herc'll do just about anything. USMC uses the EC-130V (awacs)

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4S_0mk1Ukc1ErINus6ljiff34PYWT0H0TUQpZRVb aa3S_sPI9kA0y_CxC

No need for a '10 or E-3.

[Navaleye]

If we had a carrier on station, it would have had its own AEW and not needed AAR and got the job done much cheaper. Despite all. the BS, light Blue have contributed less than 10% of the sorties. We need 4 carrier capable F35 sqns to be truly effective. Most can see facts.

[Wrathmonk]

We need 4 carrier capable F35 sqns to be truly effective.

As much as this is getting very boring I don't think many people would disagree. But you can't bring a capability to the party if it doesn't yet exist. And two tiny GR9 squadrons are not the same as 4 F35 squadrons! And to buy part of what you wish for both the RAF and RN have taken significant hits. Can we move on from the historical Harrier/Carrier/GR4 point scoring and look forward to the future capabilities that will shortly arrive (assuming all the funding isn't diverted to pay for FRES....;))

Of course, given that most of Libya is now in "friendly" hands (and assuming air support is still required) the question that should be asked is why aren't the RAF and AH deployed into Libya (or have I missed something)? Whilst the RAF Regt may be 'stretched' to provide FP I'm sure the Army would jump at the opportunity to get boots on the ground if recent media rumours are to be believed about the proposed future size of the Army post-Afg. I'm sure there are some old'n'bold still around who can point the young blades as to the airfields they should be going to. And hopefully then there will be no tanker support required!

[Jimlad1]

"If we had a carrier on station, it would have had its own AEW"

Sentry does a lot more than just AEW.

" not needed AAR"

VC10 is about tanking other nations assets too, and not just our own. Its a very useful coalition capability.

"light Blue have contributed less than 10% of the sorties"

Its effect on the target and not statistics that matters. Overall sortie numbers compared to Kosovo are (IIRC) roughly the same, despite there being 30% less aircraft. But as 101% of statistics are made up, its not an issue is it :E

"We need 4 carrier capable F35 sqns to be truly effective"

Given the RN was struggling to fill 1 enhanced Sqn (and by all accounts I've heard spent nearly 25 years struggling to sustain the 2 front line / 1 training harrier squadron), I'm looking forward to seeing where these squadrons will come from. Have we adopted Imperial Cloning Vats yet?

[Not_a_boffin]

Jim

I think the last point re 800/801/899 is stretching it a bit. Don't seem to recall there being a problem pre JFH and the QFI shenanigans. However, standing by to be corrected by those who were in the SHAR force.

[Jimlad1]

"I think the last point re 800/801/899 is stretching it a bit. Don't seem to recall there being a problem pre JFH and the QFI shenanigans. However, standing by to be corrected by those who were in the SHAR force"

Very happy to be corrected as well - I am concious there were post JHF shenannigans, but I always had the impression from people I spoke to that the SHAR force struggled to keep sufficient pilots in the force. Again, very happy to be corrected, in which case I'll amend my posts.

[Wensleydale]

If Trapani is to close, are there rumours as to where the NATO FOB will move?

[Just This Once...]

Perhaps to the other NATO FOB that is well used to hosting E-3s.

Has good access to the beach too:

http://www.aewa.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=3813&g2_serialNumber=1

[Jayand]

Corsica, Malta, Cyprus, its not difficult!

[Tourist]

"Sentry does a lot more than just AEW"

And so does a bagger cab, and of course even the baggers can get more of their cabs airborne serviceable than the E3s.

Remind me of the E3 serviceability?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Remind me of the E3 serviceability?

Irrespective of it's serviceability rates it's bringing more to the party that the RN Carrier/Harrier force combined :=

Some of you guys really do need to start to let go :ok:

[Navaleye]

Yet again a complete failure to acknowledge facts. SSNs and TLAMs for precision strike. CVS and Harriers for CAS and Apache for local. No other assets would be needed and the whole thing could have been done at a fraction of the price.

The RAFs comtribution was a very expensive Pantomime.

[Just This Once...]

E-3 serviceability???

Tourist you are having a giraffe. With 2 ac away for months they have flown each and every day!

Can't get any better than that.

Muppet.:rolleyes:

[Ken Scott]

The RAFs comtribution was a very expensive Pantomime.

But, in the absense of any Carrier/ Harrier it was all there was, is or going to be for quite some time. Blame the politicos but no dark blue whinging or crying is going to make a difference, nor can you blame the RAF.

[Wrathmonk]

Yet again a complete failure to acknowledge facts

What, like the fact that at the time the conflict in Libya started there were no

Harriers for CAS

Getting very boring now.:ugh:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

The RAFs comtribution was a very expensive Pantomime.

Never quite sure what grates most with folk who write in this petulant manner, the fact that the RN were powerless do to do **** all or the fact that the RAF did and still are doing so well :=

[Jimlad1]

"The RAFs comtribution was a very expensive Pantomime."

Interesting - I was at the CAS airpower day last week (cracking day by the way fellas) and found that seeing the whole gambit of capabilities demonstrated, along with some very good explanations of the art of the possible and what was able to be done by the GR4 / Typhoon contribution extremely compelling.

I have a dark blue Commissioned background, and strongly feel that the RN did great work in Libya, and the actions of many of the ships companies were in the finest traditions of the Service. I am particularly thinking of the TLAM shooters, the MCMVs doing clearance operations and also HMS LIVERPOOL who repeatedly came under fire and responded. They should all be very proud of their efforts.

I am though getting increasingly embarrased at the footstamping, petulant toddler like tantrums of some elements of the naval supporters community, who seem to wilfully ignore the exceptionally capable airpower assets we still posess, and the wide range of ways in which it has helped in Libya. Having spoken with aircrew engaged in ops over Libya, and having seen the effects they delivered, I firmly believe that the GR4/Typhoon delivered a capability that the GR9 / SHAR could not have done.

Bluntly, to denigrate the efforts of some phenomenally brave people who risked their lives repeatedly over Libya, and also to view the work of those deployed away from home, placing ever greater strain on marriages and personal lives as a pantomine is, to me at least, very offensive and beyond my own view of acceptable inter service banter & rivalry. I truly hope Navaleye is not serving, as if he is, then in my own view at least, he is a disgrace to the Service.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Jimlad,

Outstanding response, doubt you will find a single currently serving soldier/sailor/airman who delights in what is currently happening around us but like you I am appalled by some of the stuff posted on here at the mo.

[Navaleye]

Well Jimlad,

I just happened to be on a US SSN on its final deployment before being retired and just sailed from Gib. It also had a an RN Navigating officer on board . No land based assset could complete the required tasking and said sub completeted the tasking in under one hour with TLAM.

Your arugment lack credibility because you were not there..

[Jimlad1]

Lets do some deconstruction shall we?

"I just happened to be on a US SSN on its final deployment before being retired and just sailed from Gib."
Thats jolly nice, well done you.


"It also had a an RN Navigating officer on board ."
Thats jolly nice too, but I'm not quite sure of the relevance to your story, except to show that we seem to get on and play nicely with the US.

"No land based assset could complete the required tasking and said sub completeted the tasking in under one hour with TLAM"

So what you're essentially saying is you were on an SSN that happened to be tasked to fire a TLAM against a suitable target for TLAMs (a missle which is incredibly useful, but not the answer to every targeering problem). Thats delightful to know - next time I, or any other Pruner need to launch a TLAM strike, then I'll know who to PM to make use of your extensive contacts list.

"Your arugment lack credibility because you were not there.. "

Not where exactly? In the SSN alongside you and admiring your chiselled godlike adonis features as your peered through the periscope to admire hordes of SHARS flying overhead in a co-ordinated airstrike led by the glorious St Sharkey of Ward, while your finger was poised on the big red button marked 'only to be pushed by WEO - if WEO is not present, check his pit'?

Is there an emoticon for 'speechless' by any chance, or shall I just settle for :ugh:?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Well Jimlad,

I just happened to be on a US SSN on its final deployment before being retired and just sailed from Gib. It also had a an RN Navigating officer on board . No land based assset could complete the required tasking and said sub completeted the tasking in under one hour with TLAM.

Your arugment lack credibility because you were not there..

So using your logic between the US SSN, our own Sub fleet who we already know did a fantastic job and the outstanding contribution of all the land based Air Assets we are getting the job done :ok:

[Tourist]

Just this Once

Well done, they got two airborne.

Two out of how many, remind me?

[The Helpful Stacker]

Two out of the two deployed.

That's what its all about isn't it, this military thing? Making assets count when it counts?

[Navaleye]

I'm perplexed as to what the issue is. The RAF said they could'nt do the job so some else did. seems easy to me

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I'm perplexed as to what the issue is. The RAF said they could'nt do the job so some else did. seems easy to me

Surely it's a team thing :ok:

[500N]

Jimlad1

"Not where exactly? In the SSN alongside you and admiring your chiselled godlike adonis features as your peered through the periscope to admire hordes of SHARS flying overhead in a co-ordinated airstrike led by the glorious St Sharkey of Ward, while your finger was poised on the big red button marked 'only to be pushed by WEO - if WEO is not present, check his pit'?"

Haven't had a laugh like that for ages, very good.

I now need a new keyboard and a fresh cup of coffee. :O

.

[Biggus]

Navaleye,

So when exactly did you retire...?

[Buster Hyman]

747 Aircraft Carrier Landing Flight Simulator - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ak-GPZ24oI8)

[500N]

Buster

That testing was a long time ago, ANSETT went bust on approx 10/11/2001.

Obviously the testing doesn't always go well.
747 Aircraft Carrier Landing Flight Simulator - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ak-GPZ24oI8)

.

[Buster Hyman]

Only just been declassified you see... :ooh:

[chopper2004]

Willard,

"Herc'll do just about anything. USMC uses the EC-130V (awacs)"

You mean the Semper Paratus crew :)

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/C-130H-AEW-USCG-1-S.jpg

[Willard Whyte]

Not sure why I typed USMC instead of USCG, but yes that's the frame I meant to refer to.

More info:

Federation of American Scientists :: Lockheed EC-130V Hercules (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/special/ec130v.html)

[Navaleye]

Biggus, given the current state of things, I'm not sure I will ever retire. I left the service in 94 but just happened to be in Gib and got know some of her officers who sneaked me aboard. it was USS Providence on her final trip. It confirmed my belief that subs are awful things and I can't imagine why anyone would want to spend 3 month on one. Mrs Navaleye unfortunately went suicide shopping because they would not let her on. At least I didn't take my best man with me.

[Biggus]

Navaleye,

Thanks for that, the idea that the USN is already retiring LA class SSNs makes me feel really old - it doesn't seem that long ago that they were state of the art boats.

You were brave. Not for going on a submarine, but for leaving your wife to go shopping alone with just her/your credit cards for company....... :)

[Not_a_boffin]

They've been retiring 688s for nigh on ten years now........

[Navaleye]

Biggus, I know what you mean. She was the 32nd Los Angeles class boat and is now 30 years old and her reactor is running out of puff. Her attack on Libya was against airforce targets. Particularly one airbase out of Tripoli and an arms.

I also got confirmation of what happened to the Kursk, but I'm keeping that to myself!

[Occasional Aviator]

Navaleye,

thank you for your analysis of the conflict from which I have just returned. I think you also said to another poster:

Your arugment lack credibility because you were not there.

I hope you don't mind if I quote this back to you, as well as Yet again a complete failure to acknowledge facts.

I would like to remind you of some pertinent ones (facts that is). You said:

If we had a carrier on station, it would have had its own AEW and not needed AAR and got the job done much cheaper. Despite all. the BS, light Blue have contributed less than 10% of the sorties.

Not needed AAR? Then why were we giving so much fuel to the Rafales and Super Etendards off the Charles de Gaulle? On costs, I hope you're not relying on the crayon calculations of Mr Ward - that's been done to death on another thread. Your stats on the RAF contributing less than 10% of the sorties? Depending on how you measure it you could come to that conclusion, although I hope you don't imagine that is any form of measure of effectiveness - if you do, you'll need to swallow the fact that the RAF contributed significantly more than the jets on the CDG, who actually didn't bring anything more than the FAF jets out of Solenzara...

SSNs and TLAMs for precision strike. CVS and Harriers for CAS and Apache for local. No other assets would be needed and the whole thing could have been done at a fraction of the price.

You are Lewis Page and I claim my £5. Precisely what are you intending to hit with your TLAMs, as I don't see any of the ISTAR assets we needed to do target development, and of course giving up big bombs and Storm Shadow would mean we couldn't have hit any of the hardened targets. Clearly within your "no other assets" you have some means of carrying out SEAD, JPR, COMINT, SIGINT, IMINT, battlespace management [no, Tourist, Baggers aren't equipped to dynamically manage a 100-line ATO from an altitude high enough to see as far as an E-3 can...] etc? Oh, and also, knowing the rate at which we can fire TLAMs and a generous allowance for sortie generation from CVS with Harrier, it would take you in the order of a week to carry out a typical day's strike serials for the period May to July.

Now, don't get me wrong - I do think carriers are useful, but I can categorically say that in this conflict they have not been essential - and actually, as long as we'd had the jets, I don't think we'd really have missed them on many occasions.

The point to be made here is at the start of the thread - someone in MoD has been briefing journalists something wildly inaccurate just to keep the carrier question in the news.

I thank Jimlad for his balanced view - I, too, am immensely impressed by what BROCKLESBY and the TLAM shooters achieved. I have some inside info on Liverpool so so less impressed there, but that should not detract. Frankly I have found the RN to be a really professional lot wherever I have found them, but all this carping and spinning that a carrier can do the job of the RAF is not helping anyone in Defence - including the RN, who are in my opinion being sold down the river to protect a totemic capability while their surface fleet (which really delivers, and is what they should be concentrating on) creaks with overtasking.

Jimlad, I was involved in delivering the show-and-tell the other week, so thanks for the feedback!

[Navaleye]

My point was simply this. If our witless government had kept our Harrier capability we could have put 16 Harriers in theatre at a fraction of the cost of what we have paid. The French and Italians both deployed naval aviation because it was ideally suited to the job. Launching Storm Shadow strikes from Marham was sheer madness. We and the USN had more than enough TLAM capability nearby to do the job.

[Occasional Aviator]

Sorry, but it's clear you either don't know enough about the situation or haven't read the previous posts, and those on other forums.

The French and Italians deployed carrier aviation, but as a small part of their overall effort and it was not by any means critical to the effort. It wasn't "ideally suited to the job", or there would have been some observable difference between what we got out of carrier-borne air and land-based air. Actually, there wasn't.

If you think that TLAM could have done the job of Storm Shadow, clearly you don't know enough about the weapons. The USN fired something like 102 TLAM on the first night, but the USAF still needed to drop several times that many bombs, and Storm Shadow was required as well - TLAM has a comparatively small warhead (just under a 500lb yield) and no penetrative capability. It has basically no capability against bunkers and other hardened targets.

I would very much like to have kept the Harrier in the RAF inventory, but even if we had been able to afford it it would not have replaced the capability provided by Tornado and Typhoon. Don't forget that Italy deployed AV8s on Garibaldi - and frankly, they didn't bring much to the party. Always difficult to measure, but it is clear that the Italian Typhoons contributed more than their AV8s.

If you wanted to spend a fraction of what we paid by sending a carrier, the implication is that we would not have deployed out AAR, AWACS, Sentinel, Nimrod R1, comms fleet, ISTAR ground facilities etc etc. You are deluding yourself if you believe you can run an air campaign from a carrier - even the US wouldn't do that. Focussing on what fast jets provide is the mark of a rank amateur in air power terms.