Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Also - so long as these ratings that are hell bent on creating fatalities on deck only kill themselves then we should be good.
Their not the ones strapped into pointy things with jet engines and large amounts of fuel that may crash into things or fall over the side. Good luck!
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
It seems to me that if the Navy lacks the skill sets to utilize the new carrier operationally, we may as well save the country a fortune and cancel it now.
Nice sophistry! I seem to remember being present during a briefing by the Fleet Air Arm Command Warrant Officer in late 2009, during which he stated that a priority task was to get more aircraft embarked at sea to build up skills and experience in preparation for CVF and F35. The loss of the Sea Harrier, and the commitment of Harrier to Herrick, had meant that these skills had faded. Yet we did embark Harriers from time to time, and embarked American, Italian, and Spanish ones. Why are we not doing this now?
Pre SDSR regeneration of carriers skills was seen as a priority. SDSR axed Harrier. Therefore if we are losing these skills it is down to SDSR. However, SDSR said that in the longer term we need carriers. The decision to go back to a STOVL future means that the claims that skill involved were of no use is not just an excuse (based on assuming that nobody would think about it too deeply - as they might start wondering if basics would still be basics) to help justify a hasty decision, but is completely inapplicable. Yet the problem is solvable - see points 9 to 12 here.
If we permitted ourselves to think outside of the SDSR box, we could probably devise a solution that gives UK based RN fixed wing pilots something to fly, AND provide an aircraft (even if it only a couple) to embark - in terms of preparing future carrier personnel is there any substitute for jets on deck?
The history of naval aviation is a history of courage and innovation. Yet none of out current political leaders (is this a clue where the problem is?) has the courage to admit a mistake, or to allow innovation. How many more wars do we want to lose, or needless losses to happen?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 29th Dec 2012 at 12:12.
Where did that comment come from? From ORAC's link:
The Navy makes a point of trying to gives its shipboard crews a chance to spend Christmas with their families, and for a few days the percentage of ships underway drops to the lowest point it will be all year. But many of these ships will be gone in two weeks as the pace of operations picks up again.
I suppose the problem is that there are three kinds of 'insider' - one of which isn't RN.
1. The FAA ones who think that if we continue to bash F-35B then we will have some chance of reversing the reversal and go back to F-35C or an interim buy of F-18E. (Hopelessly naive unless something massive happens to the F-35 project itself)
2. The Navy ones that don't get carriers and assume they offer little more than any other combatant. (These ones are genuinely mad but do exist in surprising numbers)
3. The Air Force ones who don't get carriers and assume that in both the long and short term we'd be better off buying flexible land based air. These chaps have a series of strong points and will form one half of a (somewhat emotive) debate that will rage until long after I'm pushing up daisies in the Yeovilton undershoot.
That any of the above would want to have a cosy chat with the Torygraph might be an indication that they (individually) are on crack.
"White elephants"? I suspect these particular "Royal Navy insiders" are neither "Royal Navy" nor "insiders". It looks as though someone has trawled a few Defence 'thinking' website forums and lazily assumed that the most vociferous critics have some sort of bona fide connection.
The Times and Telegraph headlines certainly bear no relation to Chris Parry's paper which paints the carriers in a favourable light even in their bastardised form; just not as capable or versatile as a CTOL version.
"jamesdevice Where did that comment come from? From ORAC's link: The Navy makes a point of trying to gives its shipboard crews a chance to spend Christmas with their families, and for a few days the percentage of ships underway drops to the lowest point it will be all year. But many of these ships will be gone in two weeks as the pace of operations picks up again."
Come on, Webfoot. Seriously, no country is going to take that number of ships off active duty unless theres a BIG reason, and christmas isn't a big enough reason. In the USA, Thanksgiving might just be enough in a quiet year......but not Christmas, at least not for the Yanks
Those ships are in harbour for year end budgetary reasons. Theres no money left in the kitty to keep them at sea. In two weeks, new year, new budget.....until the fiscal precipice cutoff. But as to how many go back to sea, I'm reminded of the American politicians way of counting budgets "one, two, many, too many"
I'd guess that you'd be lucky if more than 25% of those ships return to active duty in 2013 (as opposed to reserve status, laid up mothballed)
With just nineteen operational escorts (frigates\destroyers) I doubt very much that we will see any further cuts. Indeed it would be nice to se this figure increase.
The Chief of the Defence Staff has made it clear to his minister that the minimum number he considers acceptable is 33. If the response is to reduce the fleet even further then would this be more than just a slap in the face to this most senior officer?
Regarding flat tops with just dinky toys, what will happen if the US President decides to scrap the F-35B???
Would our leadership breath a sigh of relief and 'regretably' scrap both carriers
If we were embarking a significant number of these aircraft then I can understand having such a large carrier, but embarking a similar number or less to what is carried on the through deck cruiser asks a number of questions.
There is a degree of cluelessness about this which beggars belief.
Chris Parry has clearly been there and done that (and written very well on it). However, he is clearly referring to "what might have been" and that it is unlikely that the ships will offer the same capability as a CVN68. Well, whoopee-f8cking-do! There are also one or two factual errors - not least the assertion that the "requirement" dates from 1998 and Desert Fox.
The abstract from the RUSI paper reads thus :
"As a result of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review and emerging geopolitical considerations, the UK’s armed forces will look a lot like those envisaged by the 1998 Strategic Defence Review – with a return to an expeditionary, primarily maritime-based strategy. As such, the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, despite a chaotic procurement programme and the reversion to the F-35B Lightning II variant, are likely to prove valuable instruments of state power – not necessarily, or as originally intended, as ‘strike’ platforms, but as multi-purpose, highly adaptable and widely employable assets, capable of projecting high-impact military power, both at sea and from the sea."
Doesn't read like someone who thinks they should be binned to me. Funny old thing, the phrase "Dinky Toy" is conspicuously absent as well......
The sh1te that has appeared in the Telegraph as well as the ST has clearly been cherry-picked and quite possibly by someone who spends a significant amount of time licking windows for employment. Had one asked "are the QEC an improvement on CVS?" the answer would be yes. Had one asked "Other than the STOVL mode - which is not locked in for life (unlike CVS) - is QEC constrained in its potential?" the answer would be no. Had one asked "what organic AAR or buddy-buddy potential has the RN had since 1978?" the answer would be "f8ck-all". Had one asked "would you rather have QEC or not?", I'd be astounded if the answer was not "hell yes!"
All of this "debate" about QEC is essentially mischief making. Those still pushing the "it's only six jets" line need to take themselves outside and ask how many jets CVS was supposed to carry and if they get the right answer, then ask themselves whether there are any limitations over the next fifty years that would prevent QEC carrying more than 6 jets if required. Note that SoS has already said he envisages a minimum of 12 and that the deck is designed for the best part of 40. If F35B gets canned, then that is another debate, but wishful thinking won't make it happen either. There is a significant investment in the ships - and for the umpteenth time, they are actually big enough to have an alternative if we need to. Not something that you can do with your "Wasp/LHD" option.
Should QEC have had EMALS and F35C? Yes IMHO, but it ain't going to happen. Does that mean we should bin it and be a frigate & destroyer navy? Again IMHO, no. Will we have something significantly more capable than CVS and with the potential to grow further? Yes. Has the procurememnt been handled well? F8ck no - but a significant chunk of that has been down do (in no particular order) - a good SDR98 which was criminally underfunded by a certain one-eyed scottish pillock and not repaired by his "boss"; putting the aircraft acquisition in the hands of an organisation openly hostile to carrier-borne air; an RN hierarchy that at crucial times did not understand what it needed to ring-fence; and a high-profile equipment programme in the midst of the sort of land war SDR98 (and SDSR2010 for that matter) assumed would not be a UK commitment.
This is a long game capability. It will take some time to acquire, train, make use of and then understand the potential.
N-a-B - on Dave-B, it's fiscal cliff time in DC - so let's see how that goes. I'm still dubious that Dave-B will survive (indeed, very dubious). Does anyone know how long/how much it would cost to refit EMALS at this point?