RLE
et al
The current cut back, make do, and ignore risks attitude taken by our political leaders has done us no favours either.
Previous Governments attempted to save money by deciding that the Hercules did not need Explosion Suppressant Foam, by cutting the training hours for pilots, and by deciding that the Snatch Land Rover was good enough to deal with the threat from IEDs in Iraq. Did these decisions work out well? Or was there a very real cost in lives and capability? If cutting the training hours given to pilots contributes to an increased accident rate and fatalities, why does this logic not extend to carrier deck crews and others? How expensive would a single major crash on the deck be in terms of aircraft destroyed or damaged, damage to the ship, personnel killed or injured?
The best way to train carrier crews to deal with having embarked fixed wing aircraft is to embark fixed wing aircraft, and if the future is STOVL.....
I still think we need to have embarked fixed wing aircraft at sea before
Queen Elizabeth/
Prince Of Wales/F35B arrive in service - even if it is only a few borrowed AV8Bs attached to NFSF(FW). If ETPS can safely and economically operate small numbers of foreign jets (such as the Alpha Jet or Grippen) then why cannot NFSF(FW) operate say a couple of borrowed AV8Bs to give us a jet for UK based RN fixed wing jocks to fly, to embark on deck, and to contribute to trials and development of landing aids and other equipment? Would this not be an easier and simpler thing to do that the proposal I made
here (over a few posts/pages)?
Or embark foreign ones. Would embarking foreign Harriers be too embarrassing for the Government?
The capability argument is different. However, who knows what the next few years will bring? The civil war in Syria will increasingly cause security issues for the West, and the elections in Israel in the new year mean that a new Israeli Government will be forced to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue. The availability of US Navy carriers will be less than we might hope for, likewise France's
Charles De Gaulle, and the possibility increases that we will face crises in which we need the unique attributes of carrier based attack capability (including political dexterity and a reduced transit time), and carrier based fleet defence (no shipborne missile system has the same range as a fighter, nor can ship based system visually identify unknown aircraft or intercept and warn them off.
At the same time it would appear that relying on land based aircraft operating at extremes of range will become more of an issue as the RAF's AAR capability is reduced.
This article gives a hint at how costs could be kept low. Given that our politicians seem determined to get us involved in new conflicts, one might argue whether filling the capability gap would be more expensive than entering a new conflict, and having (say) a couple of Minehunters sunk. Or a spike in oil prices as we struggle to protect shipping?
Or are we sticking to the "no wars this decade" line? SDSR may have said that all conflicts this decade will involve conflicts only against enemies with an air force or navy, but potential adversaries might get a say. Nobody seems to have consulted them anyway - they still think that MiGs, submarines, missiles, attack helicopters, and naval mines are worth having.