CVF and plans for the Harrier force

[fagin's goat]

Seems to have gone very quiet on this bearing. Any rumours (this is a rumour net is it not?) on the possible early demise of the GR7/9 as a savings measure? Guess with Eurofighter top priority in STC something will have to give in the run-up to a general election when cash is tight and lots is being spent on/in Iraq. Bottom line is an early loss of Harrier puts a big questionmark over ability of UK to introduce CVF and build up a viable fixed-wing capability onboard. A gap in FW at sea would be terminal from an experience continuity point of view.

Could we not end up with one CVF* which could deploy helicopters for 'expeditionary' ops, trusting US forces to bring any embarked AD/CAS required?

*CVF could gently be re-badged LPH (Big) or similar, justified on "experience in recent theatres" and fact that by then we will have seen UK forces managing OK without embarked AD (sad though that may be) for some time.

[Si Clik]

Since the sea going GR7/9 force is probably going to be 25%of the UKs fast jet fleet I think you're fishing for a story.

The current commitment to CVF/JSF and JFH is one of the so-called workstrands (options for cuts) that was never considered.

As with everything out there at the moment I would say wait and see.

Its only a month or so before we all get to here it straight.

:hmm:

[fuel2noise]

Yeah! I'm not holding my breath on this one. Can't see Tony's carrier being axed on the strength of GR7/9 being binned.

[SirToppamHat]

My understanding is that the announcement is (required) to be made 15 days prior to the end of the session. I've a feeling one of the Gp SO1s briefed it during a recent visit to explain how the whole of my Branch is going to invade Lincolnshire shortly.

Having been briefed on a whole range of issues covered elsewhere on this forum (closure of Neatishead, Buchan and eventually Boulmer, move of everything to Scampton/Coningsby), briefers (there were several) were then asked by a flight sergeant "Sir, what's closing next?", receiving the response that an announcement was likely well before the summer recess.

It was interesting that, although it had been considered, it had not been possible to close Wittering as part of the Minor Units Basing Study. Didn't tell us why, but believe it is to become one of the Logs Hub Units.

[Impiger]

Wittering?

From previous work I seem to recall the closure of Wittering doesn't stack up terribly well financially. The base can't be sold off for much dosh because in the land deeds for the valuable bit (tech and domestic sites alongside the A1) there is a clause requiring it to be returned to the original owners at the original price paid when no longer needed for defence purposes. Several air bases have similar clauses which rode a coach and horses through many of the investment appraisals we conducted during Options for Change and Estate Rationalisation in the mid-nineties.

Fagin's Goat>

I think your rumour is a bit wide of the mark especially as I think the Jaguar is the more likely fall guy in the reduction in air to mud capability. However, how's this for a different construct:

Review of plans leads to conclusion that we could take a risk and have only one CVF. Because we love France so much we have decided on ever closer union between our CVF plans and theirs. This will then be blamed (sorry used as a reason) for a significant delay in the programme slipping ISD by 4 years (spookily close to current reality and JSF development). GR7/9 force remains intact as it is among our more capable and flexible assets once the Jag has been paid off.

As for the rest of the speculation that abounds - I wouldn't want to be a naval officer - the surface fleet is likely to take a hammering not because of any defence reason, just because their programmes are at the stage where cancellation and delay solves the cash crisis.:sad:

[SirToppamHat]

It has already been stated that the MoD has no plans to use Coltishall once the Jag is no more.

If the Jag sees out its full term, what value will the airframes have? If, on the other hand, they are made available early, they could have some resale value.

Didn't the King of Jordan visit Coltishall recently? Just to see his old Sqn, obviously.

Which nations fly Jags?

Once Neatishead goes, the Colt Messes will not be able to survive without the cash from its troglodytes.

Rumour has it Colt to close by 2006. Norwich airport mysteriously to relocate north (by about 6 miles). Vast swathes of houses to be built on old Norwich Airport (RAF Horsham St Faith) and associated FQ patches.

This is a rumour forum after all!

:p

[pr00ne]

SirToppamHat,

Most of what is left in blue suits at Sealand and Stafford are to move to Wittering, leading to Logs support units at Wittering and ISR support units at Scampton, anyone know if TSW is to move from Stafford as well?

[Impiger]

Jaguar Users?

France may still have some. Oman for sure. Equador.

I think thats it.

Ours are very capable and I'd have thought Oman would be a good home - not sure how much fatigue life they have left though.

[DuckDodgers]

France retired ALL of their Jaguars a few years ago and Jordan will not be purchasing them, KOJ came over for 6 Sqns 90th B'day.

You all forgot INDIA the biggest Jag operator of all, now there's a cheap sale possibility?!?!

[JessTheDog]

There won't be much change in Fleet air defence capability if the GR7/9 is scrapped - the GR9 was simply going to have sidewinders strapped to it, on organic sensor. Somebody probably reckoned you could put a datalink in it, without considering that you need a sensor somewhere for information to link!

The Government/MOD have no interest whatsoever in either the welfare of their troops/sailors/airmen or their ability to do the job, merely their ability to appear on CNN/Sky and gain foreign policy brownie points:yuk:

[fuel2noise]

JesstheDog makes a valid point about practical value of GR7/9 in air defence. In any case who would want to spend their life at sea when you can have Lincolnshire or wherever!

[Navaleye]

I can't see the govt. killing the Harrier. I think it is likely that some FJs will go and the Jaguar force will probably be "retired early". Agree with the earlier sentiments about HMG not giving a stuff about service people.

[NigelOnDraft]

JessTheDogThere won't be much change in Fleet air defence capability if the GR7/9 is scrapped - the GR9 was simply going to have sidewinders strapped to it, on organic sensorNot sure what you are on about? GR3/5/7 all take winders? Or is there some special winder out now that the GR9 might take, that the 7(A) cannot?

[fagin's goat]

Winders or not, GR3/7/9 isn't going to do a fig for carrier group air defence. If we can rely on the Septics for that now, why bother re-introducing it in the future carrier? Won't Typhoon do it all in conjunction with a re-vamped tanker force from ashore?

In any case I reckon binning Jag won't save the bucks required and something else fast will have to be axed in the near future. On the other hand my tea leaves could be wrong!

:sad:

[pig fist]

"trusting US forces to bring any embarked AD/CAS required?"

Fagin, me old - need to update you as to the way things stand from where I'm sitting, shining my arse. The GR7 is probably the best CAS platform around due to a variety of reasons; we carry a mixed but useable warload (including E-Paveway), we are a can-do outfit, we don't bomb our mates (or John Simpson). Op Telic proved that the US don't have the flexibility required for CAS in built up areas - JDAM/Storm Shadow only so much use - especially when GPS jammers available to the opposition. The only way we could improve the quality of UK CAS would be to fit Litening pods to the GR7 or buy F-15E's by the bucket load. Try landing that on a CVS.
As for AD - talk to the Americans regarding the much vaunted world of fighters - F-22 is now the F/A-22 (with non-stealthy pylons), the F-15C retirement date is being pushed right and the operators won't be surprised to see a mixed role being forced upon them anytime soon.

Give the GR7/9 ASRAAM and IRSTS, icw decent GCI/ABM, and that'll give any 3rd world air force a daylight headache. Or, alternatively, keep F/A 2 going but chuck some more bombs on it more often. I hear they are quite good at bombing............whoops, thats another thread!

Upshot - GR7/9 here to stay, Jags going, F3s staying until Typhoooooooooon eventually enters service in mucho numbers. Let's face it, md-moving V popular these days - especially when the opposition are armed with sharp slices of kiwi.

[JessTheDog]

NigelOnDraft said:

Not sure what you are on about? GR3/5/7 all take winders? Or is there some special winder out now that the GR9 might take, that the 7(A) cannot?

I was meaning the difference between a subsonic platform with Blue Vixen/ASRAAM capability - BVR, all weathers - and a subsonic platform with sidewinder - visual only. Sidewinder is a very good missile for what it is designed for, which is emphatically not long range engagement of multiple targets.

Anyone who says the GR7/9 with sidewinder is a credible air defence platform is either a lying defence minister or someone in a time warp from the 1960s!

[Impiger]

Fagin's Goat

And just what are we defending the Fleet from? Not much threat out there that can't be countered by backing the old CVS/F away a bit. That is why the single role AD fighter is on the way out to be replaced by more capable/flexible platforms. RN have wised up to this and want Type 45 to be more land attack oriented through TLAM than AD specialised - though they'll still have the only UK TBM defence capability.

[JessTheDog]

The 45 will only be able to see as far as the horizon. The CVS/LPH has very capable Sea Kings but these can't do a great deal other than observe and report.

Bottom line is, if we don't need carrier-borne fixed wing aircraft, why are we going down the JSF route? A capability is a capability, and a capability gap is exactly that!

[Navaleye]

Impiger,

The whole point of having the CVS close in is that they need to be there. You can't conduct expeditionary warfare from 200 miles off shore.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

And even if you do stay offshore, the enemy may come out to meet you and give you a nasty surprise....

Alternatively they could win by attacking the seaborne logistics.

[fagin's goat]

oh yes! And CVF would make the juiciest target for a small submarine in shallow waters. If people wish to ignore the ASW threat now (cos it is all too difficult and expensive, etc.) some enteprising rogue state might just see the sense of obtaining one to rot up our command estimate!

[Purple Rupert]

Fagin's Goat may have a point here. Been away on the last of the available exchanges with Uncle Sam and so missed all this latest about CVF etc. My understanding is that the FAA/JF2000/FA2 is in terminal decline and whilst it is sad that this is happening, the blame lies in not creating a force that is sustainable - 5 aircraft each was it for each of the 2 front line FAA Sqns? - please!!. Frankly as a tom in a shell-scrape, I don't give a fig about the livery of the CAS just so long as it gives the opposition a bit of grief! Trouble is I'm intensely nervous of having to rely on on GR7s (not before stand-easy). The worm's eye view sees JSF being entirely light blue with the odd dark blue strand woven within. The platform will therefore, by default, be late, way over budget, not fit for task and an enormous diversion of much needed resources to TODAY's front line.

[fuel2noise]

Fog over the UK and time to respond to some of the tosh on this strand!

Impiger.... OK recent ops suggest the UK carrier wont have to worry about air threats or any submarines for that matter. Is that always going to be the case when Tony sends a carrier task force to some awful trouble spot?

Not sure where Purple Ronnie has been while the real world moves on but he may be proved correct when we end up with the wrong aircraft too late and over budget. Guess it all depends on how the defence budget holds out over the next year or two with an election on the horizon.:ugh:

[JessTheDog]

Good reminder about the sub threat.

One other point about air cover. It's not just about shooting down threats, it is about not shooting down when appropriate. The ability to have an aircraft up means that anything suspicious can be visually ID'd well up threat. This may save a USS Vincennes-type incident.

I know the GR7/9 could do this as well as the FA2, but it would be in the poo if there was a credible threat!

I think Tony believes that it is simply a matter of parking a carrier and sending the boys in by helo to rescue the poor children for a nice photocall, or whatever..........

[fagin's goat]

Just noticed Ceefax running a story that Royal Navy First Sea Lord is warning of major cuts in personnel numbers, ships and possibly submarines. Guess he has been taking notice of pprune threads covering similar ground over recent days!

If the CVF and its jets are to survive it will be interesting to see what else will have to go to balance the books. Are we in for another round of redundancies I wonder? Won't look too good while the so called war against terror is in full swing.:{

[Archimedes]

The Ceefax story comes from comments in the Times - see Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1107033,00.html)

[JessTheDog]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3718567.stm

STOL variant of JSF is too heavy to takeoff/land at required speeds for carriers!

What a bloody farce!

[BEagle]

So - we're getting rid of the Sea Harrier to save money, even though it's far from certain whether the replacement a/c can even use the absurdly expensive little grey boats it's supposed to operate from?

Who on EARTH is running things in the mad MoD-box these days?

[Vapour]

Perhaps we should have gone for the conventional, rather than the VSTOL, version of the CVF after all.

Personally, as a fish-head myself, I think we're going to be spending the next few (or maybe not so few) years desperately hoping that the fleet doesn't get sent anywhere without either the Americans or suitable host-nation support for the F3s or EFA. Otherwise, if it all turns nasty, I suspect my life-jacket might turn out to be my best friend.

[John Farley]

STOL variant of JSF is too heavy to takeoff/land at required speeds for carriers!

Pardon?

[BEagle]

Presumably it means that the JSF is currently too chubby to be able to achieve the required STO speed to get off the deck of the little boats planned for the navy's future?

But isn't it supposed to be a STOVL a/c? Surely it's capable of VLing?

[JessTheDog]

Believe that vertical take off uses up fuel at an extraordinary rate, certainly in the case of the GRs and FAs.

[John Farley]

Good grief!

Let us get our act together chaps. The JSF aircraft is in the way over 40,000lb category at launch. So 3,500lb will hardly be noticed in STO ski jump distance. 10 ft or something. Unless they reduce the weight or increase the thrust the VL weapons bring back will be down which is not good but only in the ISA +35 stuff. And no doubt Rolls will be doing their bit to help and BTW the engine is currently up (as in greater than) on the spec min thrust and would you believe down on (as in less than) weight blah blah blah.

Now young Jess. Both the Harrier and the JSF are powered by jet engines. Funny things jet engines as the amount of fuel you can burn in them depends on how much air you can wedge through them. In the hover you are sucking the stuff in through every hole you can make available whereas at high IAS it is rammed through. So if you want to see a high (let alone max) fuel rate I am sorry but you will have to get some speed on – it is no good hanging around in the hover. As to the fuel used on a VTO plus accel to wingborne cruise speed on the heading you want, it is less from a VTO than a conventional takeoff. Funny things conventional takeoffs they have to happen in the direction the runway happens to be pointing (unlikely to be your optimum heading to target) and you have to mess about taxiing to get to them. Whereas you can VTO from where you are, yaw round to face the bad guy and nozzle orf in the required direction. Making Bob your Uncle. Not that it matters a damm as both ways will use less than 200 lb out of goodness knows how much.

How do these totally false myths keep going for 44 years????? It must be what keeps IFAs in business – one is one born every minute.

[Navaleye]

John,

From public accounts the F119 is already producing 2,500lb more thrust than expected at its current stage of development. If true we are talking about maybe 1,000lbs. Funny these stories creep out on a hot sunday morning with bu**er all else happening.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Since this relates to the FAA, carriers etc, I think it apt to post a link to the Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152 ) thread.

[Flatiron]

A propos nothing at all, did you know that the F-35B has 17 clamshell doors for all that hovering etc? Microswitch reliability will have to be a damn sight better than in my day!

[BillHicksRules]

Dear all,

The CV(S, F or whatever it ends up as) is a political tool with very little going for it in real military terms compared to that which it replaces, for the following reasons,

1) Too small to be an effective force projector
2) Too big a target to survive without massive layered defences which by the time of introduction are unlikely to exist (sacrificed to pay for CV)
3) Too many compromises made in the design and projected outfitting to bring it in to an affordable budget
4) It will cost at least 25% more than expected and it is already behind schedule.
5) What will it carry when the probable cancellation of JSF takes place (or at least the UK withdraws from the JSF programme on cost grounds)

Cheers

BHR

[fagin's goat]

BHR makes some v pertinent points. Hazard of CVF/JCA is political and financial in the years between now and in-service date. Can anyone honestly claim that costs will remain as stated today? Name a major UK military programme that has cost less than expected! Will the tax-payer be up for the final bill? Will Tony be around to enjoy the toy he is ordering in any case?! Food for thought......

[KM-H]

"did you know that the F-35B has 17 clamshell doors for all that hovering etc?"

Where did flatiron get this count from? I make it:

1 x Upper Lift Fan Door
2 x Upper Aux Inlet Doors
2 x 3BSD Doors
1 x Lower Lift fan door

Any advance on this count?

regards,

KM-H

[Archimedes]

I think it works as follows:

Top of fuselage:

2 x doors for lift fan
2 x doors aux air intake

Under fuselage

2 x doors for jet nozzle
2 x doors for lift fan
2 x doors deployed in front of jet nozzle (assume these are LIDs??)

this makes 10. The other seven, I presume, are the undercarriage doors - the production F-35 is, AIUI, to have three doors covering the nose gear and two on each main gear bay.

But no doubt Flatiron will correct me!

[KM-H]

Archimedes,

The two upper lift fan doors have been replaced by a single door.

There are no LIDS per se, the inner weapon bay doors are used for this. I think that makes the count 7 dedicated STOVL doors, plus the undercarraige.

Typo on my previous - there are two lower lift fan doors.

regards,

KM-H

[Archimedes]

Ah - my count was based on counting all the open doors in a picture of a hovering X-35 in (I think) RAF Air Power Review, so that would be pre-door change, I guess.

[Flatiron]

Sorry about clamshell doors confusion. Fat-fingered in '17' when should have typed '7'.

[LowObservable]

JSF-STOVL design OEW (per JSF site) = 30,700 pounds
+
Overrun of 3,300 pounds
=
34000 pounds

JSF vertical thrust as of latest number I heard = 37,500 pounds

KPP Bring-back: 2 x 1000 lb JDAMs and 2 x AIM-120, plus reserve fuel

[John Farley]

I will be surprised if the numbers don't work out something like these. Rolls are responsible for the whole LiftSystem (as they call it) and there are more R-R smiles than glum looks about these days
http://img47.photobucket.com/albums/v145/johnfarley/My_guess.jpg

[LowObservable]

That's 41800 pounds by my arithmetic, and I'm guessing that it's sea-level ISA.
The nice thing about the JSF lift system is that you don't subtract power for control - it all switches quickly from left to right and fore to aft, so the full amount is available for V.
The first question is how much (10 per cent?) of a thrust margin I need to descend under control and be able to kill my descent rate at touchdown.
The second question is how much reserve fuel I need. What killed the C/D Hornet was that Navy night-time fuel reserves were 4,000 pounds. It might be argued that JSF needs less because it doesn't need burners to "bolter" and that a missed approach will be less energetic, but I'd still guess that you want 3,000 on board.
So 90 per cent of 41800 is 37620, less fuel reserves is 34620 - and if there's really a 3,300 pound overrun...
Gravity sucks.

[John Farley]

LowObservable

Handling margins of the order you mention – well certainly 5% of thrust - are a very sensible cushion for a Harrier being flown to a VL manually. I would guess that the JSF flight control system could make do with considerably less. I also don’t think such a system needs to ‘kill the rate of descent’ indeed it was considered poor jetmanship to attempt a last moment gentle touchdown on a Harrier. Far better to hover at the right height and place and then set up the right RoD and then let it go down and hit.

IMHO the crunch will come when they weigh ship 1.

In my experience it is quite difficult to stop individuals in a design team from padding out their ‘bit’ It is only human nature to try your best to ensure that your bit actually comes in lighter than estimates, or comes in with less drag than you admitted to etc

[Navaleye]

I think that the design studies for CVF have settled on a compromise design of 58k tons standard and 62k tons full load. This fits in with the designf or the French CTOL version. I can't see a slightly overweight F35B impacting this too much, as it is afterall designed to operate of 40k ton US amphibious assault ships.

[timzsta]

If PPRUNE was available in 1966, when Denis Healy scrapped CVA01, I wonder if how similar the thread would have been to this one.

I have said it before or PPRUNE - there are senior people in Strike who have wanted, ever since JFH was conceieved, to get rid of the Harrier in toto. No Harrier = no CVS / CVF. That means fast jet flying for the UK military will only be conducted by the RAF. Which is what these individuals have wanted since the FAA claimed all the plaudits in the Falklands when they were Junior Officers stuck back in blighty watching the Sea Harriers in action on the Mess TV in 82.

[SSSETOWTF]

Timzsta,

Is your post based on any fact at all, or are you making up some random conspiracy theory? Do you not think that since 1982 the fast jet JO's you talk about have had plenty of opportunities to win their own plaudits? I mean there have been more than a couple of pretty big ops in the meantime in which the RAF haven't exactly embarrassed themselves, wouldn't you agree? Just curious.

[pr00ne]

Timzsta,

What a load of old hairy round things!!

Do you have any idea of the make up of the SHAR units in 82? A goodly number of the high scoring SHAR jocks WERE RAF JO's and there was light blue throughout the force.

BTW, JFH maybe a joint unit in name and will have a high dark blue content at all levels, but make no mistake, it is an RAF controlled outfit and the light blue will be in the majority on the force.

[Navaleye]

From memory 801 NAS had four light blue pilots out of 11 used in Corporate and 800 NAS had 7 out of 18. 6 when Bertie Penfold went home. That's not exactly a majority. That ratio went down considerably as time went on.

[Archimedes]

NE,

don't think that p00ne was saying they were in a majority during Corporate. IIRC, the light blue presence was about 25% of the SHAR force, and accounted for about 25% of the victories.

[althenick]

Yeah .... And the RAF also tried to Claim more medals than the other 2 sevices put together! Take a look on the Crab's official website for the the 20 year Anniversary of the South atlantic and its written like they defended the fleet with nimrods and as for Black Buck? one can only laugh a complete waste of time, fuel, and money. There was no military gain in using it. I heard some Pr@t say that it served as a deterent. What Utter Bo11oxs! we had a deterent that was much more effective - it was called polaris. rant over - Sorry.:(

[Archimedes]

althenick,

This has been debated before (I forget which thread), but Polaris wasn't much of a deterrent - turing Buenos Aries into a glass car park if things went wrong wasn't an option - certainly not after the diplomatic effort that went into the UNSC Resolution, and it would probably even have upset the Americans a tad. That's without the wider international implications of firing Polaris against a non-nuclear weapons state, etc, etc.

If Polaris had been used, there is a case for saying that the fall ouot (no pun intended) would be such that the Argentine flag would now fly over Port Stanley (or Puerto Argentina as I think it would now be know).

The raid upset the Argentines sufficiently to guarantee that no fighters were based on the Falklands, and I have spoken to an FAA (with the last 'A' being 'Argentina') officer who stated that in his view the raid did cause enormous consternation. The only doubt I'd inject into that is that he was a cadet in 1982, so his view might well be based just on his locality, rather than in the highest circles.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Some would contend that the reason the Argentines withdrew their fighters from the Falklands was because they were no match for the Sea Harrier - and that their high command wished to preserve their aircraft for during/after the landings.....

As for Black Buck I suspect part of the reason was political, in order to show that we meant business.

Why has a thread about a serious issue turned into yet another dark blue versus light blue bunfight?

[Archimedes]

That's a very good question, WEBF...

[Jackonicko]

Why a bunfight?

Because someone said: "since the FAA claimed all the plaudits in the Falklands when they were Junior Officers stuck back in blighty watching the Sea Harriers in action on the Mess TV in 82."

Thereby ignoring the contribution made by light blue SHar mates, Harrier GR3 mates, the Nimrods, Vulcans, Victors, Hercs, Chinook, Canberras, etc. etc.

And anyone seriously discounting the effect of the Black Buck missions is mistaken, if not deranged. The timely use of the Vulcan did force the FAA to cancel the deployment of fighters to Stanley, it did damage the runway, it did demonstrate that 'nowhere was out of reach' and the SEAD Black Bucks achieved a real military effect.

[Navaleye]

Lets have a look at the facts.

1. Port Stanley airport could not operate Mirages.

2. It could, at a push, operate A4s if RHAG gear was installed. It turned out the Arg AF did not have any.

3. The Vulcan raids were militarily useless but had some psychological effect, mostly on light blue. On one occasion they used 167,000lbs of fuel to drop 21 un-fused bombs on Stanley airfield. Strangely not one on the runway proper.

4. If the UK wanted to attack the mainland it would have been far more effective to have used SHARs at night. Navhars was well up to the job as was later proved in subsequent excercises.

5. The Arg Mirage IIIs ditched their drop tanks in the early days of the conflict and had no replacements. One one accasion Invincible put Shars up at night within 60 miles of the Arg coast. No one came up to play.

4. The Fleet Air Arm broke the back of the most powerful air force in South America with 20 or so little jets. Were the RAF bitter? - You bet your butt.

[althenick]

All,

In Sharkey Ward's Book he says that there was a buzz going round about throwing a Polaris missile (- warhead) at Beunos Ares, to me that would have served as a much bigger deterent that a Vulcan trying to bomb Stanley. It would have brung the seriousness and reality of the war to the Argentian population with minimum casualties. As for the RAF's medal claim - you've got to admire them! At least they know how to take care of themselves using the media and politics. I wish their Lordships RN were more like minded.

[NURSE]

if we'd had tomahawk then it would have been alot cheaper to lob a few of those at port stanley airfiels we might actually have hit the runway. and maybe 1 or 2 at mainland Argentina.
As to the CVF its starting to sound alot like CVA 01 I only hope the colaberation with the French will bring some 'Recent' experience on building a modern carrier. But odds on the thing will never see water and be cancelled as part of a realignment of our forces to allow more money to be diverted from the defence budget to pay for education the NHS the social security budget and in paying for thousands more people to come to the UK to claim benefits.
And the RAF will become a single type service with Typhoon.

[fuel2noise]

WEBF.... of course any thread on embarked aviation is going to end in a crab v wafu scrap! If the Lord had meant the Air Force to operate our embarked aircraft he wouldn't have blessed us with the Fleet Air Arm (in naval ownership!).

Conspiracy theories or not, those who join the RAF do not do so, in the main, to serve for long spells at sea. There IS an ethos issue at stake which is politically incorrect but the future will be judge and jury. Let us see what happens when the gastly reality of manning CVF squadrons happens......

[pr00ne]

althenick,

Are you mad?! Lob a Polaris at Beunos Aires? Even if it was minus a warhead that one single action would have lost the UK all of it's international support and turned us into an isolated and loathed nation.

Nurse(y?)

Tomahawk was a nuclear only system in 82 and didn't exist as a conventional tactical weapon.
Again, even if the US had allowed export, which they wouldn't, and even if we had had a conventional version, which we didn't, lobbing a few at mainland Argentina would have lost us the war as sure as if we had lost both carriers.

Navaleye,

If you think the Vulcan raids were militarily useless then I guess you have no idea of what the military is all about.

You also claim...........

"4. The Fleet Air Arm broke the back of the most powerful air force in South America with 20 or so little jets. Were the RAF bitter? - You bet your butt."

The RAF were an integral part of the force that did that, get your facts right.

[Navaleye]

PrOOne, If you weigh the effort against the result (and the cost!), then I think my comments were entirely justified. I have met many officers who think likewise. Opinions will differ and luckily we live in a democracy. My comment about the RAF being displeased about the air war being run by Fleet Headquarters Northwood and not Strike Command has been proved to be true.

[pr00ne]

Navaleye,

Sorry mate, I was directly involved at the time and you are talking out of your a**se.

You are mixing up the geopolitical situation of 1982 with that of today.

There was no JFH in 82 and no squabbbling about the SHAR. There was no light blue dark blue struggle over it's control or it's use. Northwood was a series of joint HQ's, both NATO and national, there was a lot more to worry about then at RAF Northwood, we were at the height of the Cold war window of vulnerability and the RAF focus was very much on Germany and the immediate area to the East!

[Navaleye]

So was I! Perhaps my perspective was different from your own.

[pr00ne]

Navaleye,

Mine was from a bunker in North West London, yours?

[Navaleye]

A facility overlooking Portsmouth. I fondly remember the Bunker in North West London's excellent access to nearby Indian Food!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

This so called tale has an urban myth quality about it.....no credibility though.

Firing a Polaris withno warhead would only have done to things...

1. Made the UK look like complete idiots
2. Caused huge diplomatic problems
3. Annoyed the US, no more trans - Atlantic help...

How much damage would an empty RV do anyway?

[althenick]

"How much damage would an empty RV do anyway?"

To Beunos Aries - very little. To the physce of the Argentiean Population - Tonnes.

[Archimedes]

And the damage to Britain's carefully-crafted diplomatic position?

Catastrophic!

[Navaleye]

I think this myth gestated in the bar in Invincible on the way down to the FI. I've not heard of anything that gives it any weight. Some wag just pointed out to me that a Polaris without a dummy warhead of the appropriate weight/Cg probably would not fly. I also don't think the Americans or the Russians would appreciate Polaris missiles popping out of the ocean without warning.

[Archimedes]

I seem to recall that the 'drop a Polaris on BA' approach is alleged to stem from a spot of original thinking from somewhere within the premises of the Hereford Gun Club (it was duly noted in one of the first 'My life as a hooligan' books, published in the late 1980s).

[steamchicken]

So - even if it didn't whirl off course wildly due to cg out of limit, it would make a small hole in the ground after putting a big and scary streak in the sky. You just know that everyone in Argland would be convinced they had been irradiated and making up stories to support that. Not to mention the world political crisis erupting in the minutes after both the US and Soviet radars and infrared picked up the bird. Alternatively, imagine the upburst of patriotism after they realised we thought they were savages who would be scared of a big firework without anything up the spout!

[Navaleye]

I don't even think it would make a small hole in the ground. You are more likely to end up with a heap of crumpled metal al la Scud at Tel-Aviv.

[Navaleye]

Looks more promising that we thought!

F-35 STOVL Propulsion Demonstrates Hover Thrust
(Source: Pratt & Whitney; issued May 24, 2004)


WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. --- For the first time, Pratt & Whitney’s (P&W) Short Take-Off & Vertical Landing (STOVL) Propulsion System for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has demonstrated 39,700 pounds of thrust, the level required for the unique combat aircraft to hover. At the same time, weight reduction initiatives have brought the F135 engine system below its contracted target weight.

This demonstration confirms pre-test predictions established for the F135 propulsion system and provides strong evidence that the production configuration of the F135 will achieve specification requirements for hover thrust. With completion of this demonstration, the F135 Team has accomplished another significant milestone on the path to qualifying the F135 engine.

The latest review of the F135 STOVL System revealed that the achieved-to-date (ATD) weight is below the contracted weight target value. An on-going weight management plan will result in a STOVL weight at 3% to 6% below the contracted target. The weight achievements are critical for F-35 performance. The F135 STOVL team continues to investigate additional weight reduction and performance enhancement opportunities with Lockheed Martin, Rolls-Royce and the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office.

“These achievements are especially significant in light of the intense focus on STOVL aircraft performance”, said Bill Gostic, Pratt & Whitney’s F135 program director. “Congratulations to the whole F135 team for making this achievement a reality. The results of the STOVL test are critical to our success and you made it happen.”

The F135 Propulsion System Team consists of P&W, the prime contractor with responsibility for the propulsion system and system integration for all variants; Hamilton Sundstrand, provider of the F135’s control system, external accessories and gearbox; and Rolls-Royce, providing the Rolls-Royce LiftFan, 3 Bearing Swivel Module and Roll Posts to the STOVL (Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing) F-35B. The technologically advanced F135 has evolved from the highly acclaimed F119 engine powering the F/A-22 Raptor.

Pratt & Whitney, a United Technologies company, is a world leader in the design, manufacture and service of aircraft engines, space propulsion systems and industrial gas turbines.

[John Farley]

Looks more promising that we thought!

Speak for yourself young man....