PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 17th Apr 2006, 11:05   #41 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazer-Hound

If we're only going to do Sierra Leone - type ops on our own, isn't CVF a bit overkill? Surely 'Ocean-plus' would be a more cost-effective solution?
We also have to assume the next conflict area will be by the sea!!!
FormerFlake is offline   Reply
Old 17th Apr 2006, 11:12   #42 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,129
Not an unreasonble assumption to make. I think around 90% of the world's population live with 500 miles of the sea.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline   Reply
Old 17th Apr 2006, 11:26   #43 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 6,721
Pity the GR7 low level combat radius is only 250nm then. (350nm at medium level, but then it would need a fighter escort.)
ORAC is offline   Reply
Old 17th Apr 2006, 12:45   #44 (permalink)
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hampstead
Posts: 2,232
Yep, the Harrier's pi$$y range is a legacy of its North German Plain days and precisely why we need a longer legged beast to replace it. Its better than nothing though.
Navaleye is offline   Reply
Old 17th Apr 2006, 13:10   #45 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
Not an unreasonble assumption to make. I think around 90% of the world's population live with 500 miles of the sea.
Some countries seem to get upset if you fly warplanes through them though. Unless the country is actually on the coast things can get tricky.
FormerFlake is offline   Reply
Old 17th Apr 2006, 20:13   #46 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by junglyAEO
Sounds like an ideal reason for having carrier based aviation then. You can get your pointy death bringers where you want them without relying on others' permissions!

jungly
But the countries then HAVE to have a coastline. Not much good if we ever decide to sort out Zimbabwe.

Carriers are limited and when ''money is to tight to mention' become less viable.
FormerFlake is offline   Reply
Old 17th Apr 2006, 20:41   #47 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,129
FF most countries DO have coastlines.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline   Reply
Old 17th Apr 2006, 20:44   #48 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 2,212
FormerFlake.
There are a lot more countries with coastlines than with neighbours who will give overfly/basing rights to Brits, so they are a lot more viable than land based a/c
Tourist is offline   Reply
Old 17th Apr 2006, 21:01   #49 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Carriers are limited and when ''money is to tight to mention' become less viable.

FF - I'm interested in how you would prefer the restructuring of HM's Armed Forces to go?

If not a carrier based strike capability then what? We could abandon the idea and form a Dutch style Navy I suppose, and accept the limitations that would bring. On the bright side we would be able to channel the money saved into the NHS or something worthwhile.

Presumably you're not suggesting we use the money for tons of helo's we couldn't protect, or a bunch more land-based FJ's we might not be able to deploy?

What's your less "limited" solution?

On the same but different subject, why are we talking about the GR7's legs here? It's the JSF's legs we should be interested in.
scottishbeefer is offline   Reply
Old 17th Apr 2006, 21:21   #50 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tourist
FormerFlake.
There are a lot more countries with coastlines than with neighbours who will give overfly/basing rights to Brits, so they are a lot more viable than land based a/c
And how many of countries on the coast are we likely to go to war with? Even if it is Iran we will probably fly out of Iraq. Sudan perhaps, but will JSF have the range? If it needs AR support then we might as well use the same base for the fighter/bombers.

The UK armed forces need far more AT and AR assets for a start. Plus we need a AR cabability for the C17s and a better AR facility for the C130s.

I am not aware of any issues with deploying Typhoon??

During Telic 50% of the ordance for the entire war was dropped by the B1B. Does that give you a clue to the assets we need?
FormerFlake is offline   Reply
Old 17th Apr 2006, 22:20   #51 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 901
On the subject of being off subject - dumping the JFK? I can't believe it. It seems like only yesterday that I was breakfasting on it off Malta, although it was actually 1969 when it was all new and shiny. It is still the most impressive piece of machinery I have ever been on.
Zoom is offline   Reply
Old 18th Apr 2006, 06:47   #52 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 2,212
Flake, read Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs.
I will be the first to admit I see some errors in his book in the areas of my specialist knowledge, but it still has some worthwhile points.
Tourist is offline   Reply
Old 18th Apr 2006, 10:29   #53 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,752
The author of 'Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs', Lewis Page, was described in early reviews as someone who had served in all three services.

I now read that he "began his military career as a reservist pilot in the Cambridge University Air Squadron. He grew disenchanted with the RAF and attempted to join the army, but was rejected for having a "frivolous attitude......."

I wonder.
Jackonicko is offline   Reply
Old 18th Apr 2006, 11:18   #54 (permalink)
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hampstead
Posts: 2,232
FormerFlake,

Suggest you do a Google search on the Beira Patrol.
Navaleye is offline   Reply
Old 18th Apr 2006, 11:25   #55 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 2,212
His background is unimportant. His arguments are well put.
Tourist is offline   Reply
Old 18th Apr 2006, 12:48   #56 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaleye
FormerFlake,

Suggest you do a Google search on the Beira Patrol.
Although i am always one for trying to use history to guide the future etc. I don't quite see the what you are getting at? The world is a very, very different place now. The threat is different, our resources are diffrerrent and the political will is different. The threats when these carrier finally grace our seas will be very different to those during the 50/60/70s as the Empire(s) broke up. Dam that Luke Skywalker.

A different arguemnt that shows up in the Beira Patrol is the lack of effective AEW for the Navy. Now if the new breed of Carriers were getting Hawkeye then the case becomes stronger. They could go back to the idea of strapping a radar to a HS125?

I have not at any stage stated carriers are a waste of time. I'm only trying to suggest that there may be more sensible ways to spend money.

It is also fair to say that Uncle Sam owes us a big favour which could include carrier support in the future.
FormerFlake is offline   Reply
Old 18th Apr 2006, 13:17   #57 (permalink)
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hampstead
Posts: 2,232
My point was that even a landlocked country needs a port somewhere. The problem with the Beira patrol was that it was in the wrong place. We has the Gannet then for AEW and it was Ok for the job.
Navaleye is offline   Reply
Old 18th Apr 2006, 13:47   #58 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 113
The more I think about it the more I begin to wonder if configuring HM armed forces in a similar manner to the USMC might not be a bad idea. Perhaps three Wasp - type ships with embarked JSF, heliborne AEW and ASW plus a hefty Royal Marine force might be a good thing. It would mean a major reconfiguration of the whole of the armed forces however unless the army (and more importantly the soldiers themselves) could be persuaded to accept sea basing for some of it's strength.
Pureteenlard is offline   Reply
Old 18th Apr 2006, 18:35   #59 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 140
P'Lard - Sea Basing is one of the fundamentals upon which we will operate. It's written in to all the UK doctrine and you can expect to see way more emphasis on it in future - not just for keeping troops but the logs package etc. No need to rely on HN support = mucho flexibility.

FF - Rely on the US to bail us out when we need a CV?! My friend, I've been resisting it but I'll have to bite...

...are you so naive and poorly informed because you are:

a- so new to the military that you haven't had a chance to work out what's going on yet, or...
b- not actually in the military (I note you say you're in Lisbon, unless it's JC Lisbon?), if so why are you on a military thread for serving or ex-mil, or...
c- Ex-mil but never took the time to actually read those glossy journals, just the Daily Mail, or...
d- are a journo fishing for some info, or...
e- are a 14 year old having a larf (hopefully it's this one)

Any of the above?

Goodness me. Let's try to keep the debate informed. If you don't know what you're talking about then please do a bit of reading about contemporary issues, or don't bother.

Last edited by scottishbeefer; 18th Apr 2006 at 18:55.
scottishbeefer is offline   Reply
Old 18th Apr 2006, 20:19   #60 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottishbeefer
P'Lard - Sea Basing is one of the fundamentals upon which we will operate. It's written in to all the UK doctrine and you can expect to see way more emphasis on it in future - not just for keeping troops but the logs package etc. No need to rely on HN support = mucho flexibility.

FF - Rely on the US to bail us out when we need a CV?! My friend, I've been resisting it but I'll have to bite...

...are you so naive and poorly informed because you are:

a- so new to the military that you haven't had a chance to work out what's going on yet, or...
b- not actually in the military (I note you say you're in Lisbon, unless it's JC Lisbon?), if so why are you on a military thread for serving or ex-mil, or...
c- Ex-mil but never took the time to actually read those glossy journals, just the Daily Mail, or...
d- are a journo fishing for some info, or...
e- are a 14 year old having a larf (hopefully it's this one)

Any of the above?

Goodness me. Let's try to keep the debate informed. If you don't know what you're talking about then please do a bit of reading about contemporary issues, or don't bother.
Your reply suprises me. Turning to personal insults when someone disagrees with you or plays devils advocate. You must be a British Military Senior Officer or a retired one.
FormerFlake is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 07:58.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network