DBTW
As well as being an aviation writer and enthusiastic amateur airman (PPL, etc), I’m a bit of an aviation enthusiast. You have to be to sustain an interest in all of this for as long as I have.
I doubt you could find an aircraft enthusiast alive who doesn’t like aircraft carriers. Who hasn’t watched ‘Top Gun’ for the carrier and flying scenes? I seize every opportunity to go on board a carrier.
And if we were still in a world where we could afford properly balanced forces, with 35 squadrons of frontline FJs, enough SH, etc. then I’d be fighting for CVF just as hard as anybody else. If we could afford niche capabilities that are ‘often useful’ but seldom actually necessary.
1) Eliminating carriers and carrier aviation does not eliminate a capability. Land-based air can project force – and can actually do so quicker/better/cheaper than a carrier.
2) Merely ‘Playing a part’ is not a ticket to survival. To survive, a military platform/system must play an essential part, and must do so cost-effectively, and paying for that part must not compromise other more useful capabilities. There are plenty of capabilities that have been shed that would be far more useful today than CVS has been – the Jags, Canberra PR9, some of the Hercs we parked, etc.
3) Even if the elimination of carriers marked an erosion of our ability to project power (and given that there are alternatives, it doesn’t) then that would be a better option than cutting the core role of air defence of the UK.
Bismarck
Why are we replacing a CAS aircraft, which is the capability the troops seem to want, with a non-CAS aircraft?
Tornado has a robust CAS capability, and the official line is that replacement of Harrier by Tornado represents only a change of platform, delivering the same capability. The Harrier force is crippled by overstretch and needed to come home. The deployment of Tornado represents a long-planned endex for Harrier. And Harrier is rapidly wearing out. Without replacement rear fuselages and other vastly expensive structural work, these tired airframes are nearing the end of their useful lives. Yes those lives could be extended, but only at a huge cost.
Why is F3 still in service when the RAF have declared Typhoon operational and on QRA?
Because we need a given number of AD Squadrons (in my view more than we now have, but certainly more than four dedicated units). We have just two Typhoon squadrons, and these are supposed to do more than AD. We don’t yet have enough aircraft to retire the F.Mk 3.
What is the GR4 doing in Iraq, there is no role for it? Indeed why do we still have GR4 when Typhoon is declared operational.
Tornado has robust ISTAR and A-G capabilities which are still occasionally needed in theatre. The Typhoon is not YET able to take on all of the A-G tasks of which Tornado is capable. Nor are there sufficient Typhoons in service to replace the old seven squadron F3 force, and the three squadron Jag force, let alone the seven squadron GR4 force.
There is only one reason - CAS does not want the RN (or AAC for that matter) flying aircraft....but who keeps crashing aircraft and UAVs at the moment????
What a load of utter Knob.
Phil Gollin,
“Well, if we don't need Harriers then I presume we don't need Daves - we can get along with Typhoons.
Excellent, more money saved.”
Excellent, more money for tankers, SH, FLynx, SEAD, and everything else we actually NEED.
Anotherthing
“Everyone knows your pro RAF and anti RN stance, as well as your lack of Armed forces service,”
You don’t need to have served as captain of a carrier, or Air Boss to appreciate the usefulness of a carrier, nor its limitations. Nor do you need to have served as an F3 or Typhoon pilot to have some valid opinions on UK AD. Armed forces service as (say) a stacker at Innsworth gives no more appreciation of platforms and procurement than you can get by spending more than 25 years talking to the practitioners of these military arts, many of whom you learned to fly with.
Nor do I have an ‘anti-RN stance’. Criticising one service (and I criticise all three, for different reasons) is not necessarily ‘anti’, so dry your eyes, Princess. It’s criticism, but its constructive and offered with some sympathy, empathy and fondness.
I would not structure UK forces to meet only the terrorist threat – I just would not be willing to distort them to meet one single scenario that is not going to happen again. Even if the Argies cut up rough down South, we now have a proper runway down there, with proper AD. And hopefully the RN won’t collude with the politicians and send the Argies mixed messages about our comittment by withdrawing Endurance, this time……
Lyneham Lad,
I doubt it. Even in the pro-defence community, the UKNDA has precious little credibility. And many of us believe that it’s fatally compromised by being too biased to RN interests.