Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers [Archive] - Page 2

Jackonicko

25th Dec 2008, 10:27

Mick,

Easy - I took such exams before I was senile, and usually when sober.

Never post when drunk, especially when you're not used to it.

I meant Suez, of course, and then got mentally sidetracked.

With my arithmetic and your knowledge of defence we're a powerful combination. :p

Timex,

Don't make me go over Sierra Leone again, per-lease. (Carrier got there first because they held back the Jag squadron on the Azores, with basing permission for Dakar. And tell me again what weapons the Harrier brought to that fight? What was that again? Sudden aircraft noise?). As for Telic, it was quite possible without carriers, as Granby showed.

Bismarck,

You quote one example, I could quote plenty of others - the speed with which the Jags got on Granby, out to Italy for the Balkans stuff, and the lack of support required. Sierra Leone, if you like. And Typhoon could do it with an even leaner tail.

Whereas your CVS/CVF, SSN, AD destroyer, RFAs, oilers and the like take much longer, and cost far more.

Re the deterrent, in the post Cold War world, I'd have been happy seeing it as a secondary capability, split between some sub-launched Tomahawks and a nuclear-tipped Storm Shadow. Enough to deter, cheap enough to afford.

If the Navy want to provide the gold plated (and arguably less than nationally autonomous solution) than that's a Navy priority, and gold plated carriers as well seems a bit much.

LowObservable

25th Dec 2008, 12:05

All this homegeneous tortoise talk is making my head spin. Merry Christmas anyway.

timex

25th Dec 2008, 12:57

Jacko, how many troops can a Jag carry?

Tourist

25th Dec 2008, 15:09

Also Jacko, they may have been able to get there, but did they have the support required to actually do anything, ie bombs, bullets, planning facilities, accomodation.
ie, all the stuff that va carrier turns up with day one ready to go for extended ops

Wrathmonk

25th Dec 2008, 15:39

Has a Harrier ever had to ditch serviceable weapons into the ocean because it was too heavy to land back on a carrier or is this all an urban myth? And can they guarantee that they can get airborne with a useful weapon load (i.e more than one bomb and a rocket pod)? And will Dave B be any better?:E

Impiger

25th Dec 2008, 17:04

Not sure about the GR9 with the new bigger engine but the old SHAR definitely had to during the Kosovo campaign (or they were telling porkies to us at the CAOC) their standard load was AIM 120 plus a 1000lb bomb which wasn't really needed as the task was air defence but a number were jettisoned inert. To be fair, as I always am, the USN faired no better and often had to dump unexpended weapons as to bring them back to the ship was too risky. Will Dave be better - I'd darn well hope so or we won't have moved forward very far in 20 odd years!

Gullwings

25th Dec 2008, 17:17

Jackoniko

Sorry to disappoint you. Just because I am relatively new to this website it does not mean that I am a 12 year old spotter, or that I do not have a wide range of armed forces experience or knowledge.

Not only can you not do maths, you obviously have trouble reading too. (As I have previously mentioned I have worked closely with all of the services.) This has been both pre and post the Falklands. It has also included working at an RAF base where we shared the same hangar and operated virtually the same type of aircraft as the RAF. (A great opportunity to experience for myself the different ways that the RAF and FAA maintained and operated basically the same type of aircraft for exactly the same types of Army/Marines support tasks. It certainly was quite an eye opening experience and it was particularly interesting to discover that the RAF needed two different tradesmen to carry out the same types of work as just one of our FAA combined tradesmen.

During that time our four aircraft were sometimes carrying out not only their own operational tasks, but also those of the RAF aircraft. Particularly during one period when in fact 7 of their 8 aircraft were unserviceable! (So for those who recently commented about Army poor aircraft serviceability rates I can assure you that the same can even happen to the Royal Air Force!)

With regards to your following previous stupid comment about the other UK forces lower levels of training and experience: -

“The RAF has the support and engineering infrastructure required to get the most out of the most complex platforms, and to train their aircrew.”

It is not only the RAF that can get the most out of complex platforms and train their crews. You do not get a much more complex helicopter platform than the FAA version of the EH101, which uses a lot more different avionics and weapon systems. These are even operated and maintained on smaller ships for very long periods of time away from any land based support. They also somehow manage to do that without any need for RAF personnel to be present.

The same can equally be said for the Harrier, including the Sea Harrier which also had very state of the art avionics and weapon systems!

Furthermore, when ‘any’ of the UK armed forces require in-service repairs for very seriously damaged helicopters anywhere in the world (including for serious battle damage), I suspect that the FAA still provides the highly trained and experienced structural repair teams to carry out that work. (Even for the RAF!) If I remember correctly, some AAC technicians also sometimes joined those teams as well! Therefore, the FAA and AAC are not as useless as you often state.

With regards to another one your previous stupid digs at the other UK Forces: -

“The chain of command understands and knows how to use air power. It does not mis-use assets, and does not allow aircraft to be diverted to act as the Colonel's taxi”

You must have been seriously drunk when you also made that very blinkered statement. I, like many other people, (including honest RAF personnel) could quote many equally bad (if not worse) examples of the RAF mis-using assets, but I will spare the RAF’s blushes on that subject!

Yeoman_dai

25th Dec 2008, 17:43

Gullwings
Exactly.

Jacko
An RAF squadron has to have a base to operate from, within a useful combat range of a conflict. What if, in a future scenario, we can't get that? But with a Carrier....

Carriers can also carry troops, in a pinch, carry refugees, disaster victims, and do something that the RAF can never-ever do, which if 'fly the flag', sail into ports and show just how impressive and important Britain really is - and why they should continue to trade with us. World politics is just one big willy waving exercise, and we need to show we have a big willy if we ever want to secure lucrative trade deals.

So yes, its expensive, but long term having two big carriers are essential.

Plus, you make it seem that the entire Royal Navy is there simply to supply a carrier. We need all those ships for other things, Jacko, and so what if they'd be deployed with the carrier, they'd just be somewhere else on the oceans using money - so the need for a defensive fleet is really no argument at all.

Also, I've had another thought about you're post about the RAF being so top heavy because the officers fly.... the problem the RAF has, is blatant rank creep, in that you have squadron leaders flying single aircraft and not commanding squadrons. Yes, ok it because training takes so long, but if you have such a situation, it needs changing - so don't give pilots a commission until they finish training! The Army and to a lesser extent the Navy manage it, so why can't you? Is it the need of the RAF to validate itself and give itself a compatitivly high number of senior officers so that they can compete with the Army - despite being much much smaller?

boo121

25th Dec 2008, 20:16

To be honest, tradition in this case trumps the need for it imo - but everyhing these days is money driven and there is no current need for carrier-borne aircraft.

Harriers are being replaced by the jca anyway - and the typhoon is being scraped soon cos the spanish are useless And the aircraft doesn't live up to what it says on the tin.

Tourist

25th Dec 2008, 22:05

Boo,
Does your mummy normally let you stay up this late, or is this a special Xmas treat?

exscribbler

25th Dec 2008, 22:38

Tourist: Just give him time; he'll learn all about the need for carriers if he listens to thee!

Boo: I've one thing to say to you...

http://www.terrane.co.uk/ProdImg/EB6514_1_Large.jpg (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:popUp('imageFull.asp?ImageName=EB6514_1_Zoom.jpg',470,5 70,'no'))

WE Branch Fanatic

25th Dec 2008, 23:51

Jacko

As for Telic, it was quite possible without carriers, as Granby showed.

But Granby didn't involve an amphibious assault by UK Forces. Telic did, and Ark Royal and Ocean were key to British operations, particularly the assault on the Al Faw peninsula. You may find this link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/iraq-ops_lessons_ukmod_dec03_chap4.htm) to be of interest.

The performance of Royal Navy (RN) forces in successfully accomplishing their objectives confirmed the development of the RN’s joint and expeditionary capabilities since the SDR.

The operation underlined the strategic value of the sea for the application of combat power, early theatre entry and power projection. This took the form of amphibious forces, sea-based helicopters, cruise missiles, and the use of naval fire support and logistics during the Al Faw operation.

XT668

26th Dec 2008, 22:05

My career within the Fleet Air Arm involved Wessex Vs, which was great fun, and I wouldn't have missed it. The reason I never even got the opportunity to try and fly jets was thanks to a combination of Healey and the Air Farce. Healey was trying to cut the Defence budget, (and largely succeeding), the Air Farce moved Australia on the world map to show that a squadron of F111s could cover all of the globe at any time, from anywhere.
Not much changed except that at least Healey wasn't Scottish!

There's not much that can project power like a carrier.....(unless it's an SSBN!)....of course the V force proved itself at Stanley, didn't it...

Evalu8ter

27th Dec 2008, 08:05

WEBF,
Technically Al Faw was not an amphib assault. The assault waves were all flown from a TAA in the Kuwaiti desert. Why? Because the carriers were kept outside seersucker range and that prevented the Sk4s from completing a round trip with a viable load. Therefore, only once the possible launch areas had been over-run did the carriers approach and make the logs ripple work. About 90% of the men/materiel on the first 3 waves were flown by RAF Chinooks, carried (and occasionally dropped...) over Kuwait. The Junglies worked their butts off (as ever) but were struggling to carry an effective payload. The RM hovercraft/landing craft had real problems with mined beaches, and this delayed the build up of combat pwr (esp in anti-tank weapons) which caused panic on day 2 when Int reported T-72s leaving Basrah! Curiously, these issues receive scant attention in RN histories...

NGS was successful in confusing all of the helo pilots as the traces were constantly changing; even worse, the bombardment served to churn more sand into the sky and further reduce in-flight visibility (down to 1000m in places) which was really nice at night.

There is a risk of "Black Bucking" Al Faw. The RN were in danger of a peripheral part in OIF as it was going to be a Land & Air focussed campaign. Al Faw gave them a piece of the action - but people must be careful not to overplay the card as, arguably, the RAF did with the Vulcan in the Falklands.

Al Faw could have been done totally from the land; Carriers were NOT necessary. However, as mentioned in other posts, it was nice to go back to an air-conditioned bed and not a tent...

BlueRooster

28th Dec 2008, 01:45

A long time reader of Pprune threads, this debate is the first to prompt my twopence worth.

I have to say that apart from DBTW and Wrathmonk, I don't agree with much here.

The Fleet Air Arm will only lose fixed wing if Navy wants it to.

Others, bigger and badder than anyone in current lofty political, bureaucratic and defence circles, have tried that caper before, and the net result was Sea Harriers ruling the air over Port Stanley.

As for the RAF, the lobbies and bars of Wesminister are now home to a creeping discussion by MPs of both parties as to why the Navy, Marines and Army are always ready to go and unleash grief on the bad guys, but the RAF has a Peking telephone directory of excuses as to why its aircraft are so rarely available.

Lastly, someone here claims to work as journalist. I have considerable experience of the media, and have yet to so much as hear an unsubstantiated rumour of a hack writing anything when off-duty, let alone when there's no pay cheque involved

Mick Smith

28th Dec 2008, 17:48

Lastly, someone here claims to work as journalist. I have considerable experience of the media, and have yet to so much as hear an unsubstantiated rumour of a hack writing anything when off-duty, let alone when there's no pay cheque involved

What a complete load of tosh.

Stitchbitch

28th Dec 2008, 19:04

Evalu8ter - Don't forget the Puma also took part in Al Faw and did it's fair share.

Gullwings - the AAC doesn't have any technicians, the REME has plenty.
:ok:

Evalu8ter

29th Dec 2008, 07:21

Stitchbitch,
Indeed, esp after the -46 crash when the AAS Puma/CH47s picked up the slack at a moments notice.

All the more evidence that Al Faw did not NEED carriers. The expense of sailing a 10-ship flotilla all the way to the NAG to invade a country with 20-odd miles of coastline could be seen as a bit excessive. The Helos and troops could have been sea or air freighted to Kuwait and moved to TAA Viking a lot easier!!

Gullwings

29th Dec 2008, 11:33

Stitchbird
You are correct. That is a fair cop! I hope however that most people understood the point that I was trying to highlight.

Evaluator
Perhaps on that particular occasion in Al Faw the RAF may have been able to manage themselves, but as in most conflicts/wars since WW2 I am sure that our other UK forces (and perhaps even some RAF personnel) will have appreciated the very experienced, capable and willing support that the FAA provided. (As always, the FAA tries to do its best with whatever equipment it has available to use.)

With regards to your previous Statement: -

"NGS was successful in confusing all of the helo pilots as the traces were constantly changing; even worse, the bombardment served to churn more sand into the sky and further reduce in-flight visibility (down to 1000m in places) which was really nice at night.”

I am surprised to learn that our ships may have just been randomly firing their guns all over the place for no good reason. I doubt whether it was just to annoy the RAF and perhaps their own FAA pilots? Are you sure that the troops on the ground were not requiring and directing such gun fire support where they needed it to carry out their attacks and minimise their own casualties, etc? When directed by skilled spotters on the land those guns are usually known to be extremely accurate and very valued by our troops. Apologies for any inconvenience caused if this was not the case.

Engines

29th Dec 2008, 12:22

Stepping carefully into this thread:

Military campaigns, especially the more recent US led ones, have been characterized by a (very understandable) desire for overwhelming force to reduce casualties. That seems to translate to throwing all available assets at the problem. Looking at Al-Faw and other engagements, perhaps we shouldn't have been surprised that 10 ships were sent, NGS was used, and a mix of RAF, FAA and AAC assets were used. Perhaps we ought to be mighty proud that the UK has the skill and professional aviators, soldiers and sailors to execute an true 'all-arms' assault like this one.

This thread, like many others, has at times dropped into the 'black/white' type of argument where opposing views are presented as sole choices - 'RAF or FAA' is a prime example. That's unfortunate, in my view. I've spent my professional life working with all three Services and it's my view that we have, through accident or design, developed a military skill set that is nearly unmatched anywhere else. We have an outstandingly professional Air Force, a capable and flexible FAA and an extremely effective AAC - and you could swap those adjectives around in any combination. Are they big enough? No. Are they starved of funds? Yes. Are they all good? Hell, yes.

And that's the crux of this thread. One Service (the RAF) has, via CAS, decided to openly attack ownership of air capability by the RN and the Army. This is being denied by the MoD, but it's happened, and happened at the highest levels. It's a crying shame, because a) he is going to lose, b) he is damaging the reputation of his service in the process and c) our lords and masters probably have better things to do than chew over these old bones. 'One nation, one air force' is possibly one of the most inane sound bites masquerading as a policy that I've ever heard.

Engines solution? Not sure I have one,, but a good start would be to look at using all three Services' skill and equipment sets to try to build a UK equivalent of a US Marine Corps (MEU) type capability, with a fully engaged air component, and exploiting CVF to the full. Flexible, deployable, and with plenty of punch. It would be a real shame if inter-service rivalries got in the way, but I fear that they already have.

Best Regards to all as ever,

Engines

Evalu8ter

29th Dec 2008, 12:41

Gullwings,
I was not trying to "big up" the RAF with my last post. Despite being a crab, a quick check through my posts should convince you that I am a proponent of maritime based aviation (in all forms). As I said, the Junglies worked their socks off (as they always do) but it is utter tripe to claim that Al Faw could not have been done without carriers. From a planning point of view it would have been much, much simpler to run the whole show from the northern Kuwaiti desert. My point is that with a plethora of HNS, carriers were not essential. Who is to say that the next time we won't need them, badly? Just don't try and dress OIF up as a "carrier essential" campaign -it wasn't. NGS was important to start with, but got increasingly unnecessary and inconvenient as all viable targets were removed - don't forget we had a pet AC-130 plus A10s and F18s over the top for the important initial phases. My impression was that a lot of the shells that the DD/FFs fired were in order to make the post-war statistics more compelling in support of NGS, rather than the efficient prosecution of targets.

Engines,
Erudite as ever my friend. As you well know, the thought of a UK MEU based around CVF to be a favourite of mine. We just need to stop the zoomies thinking only of Carrier Strike and to start thinking of "Carrier Flexibility".

Oh, and not all crabs think like our glorious "the answer is typhoon, now what's the question" leader and desire anschluss with the AAC/FAA. Most of us are RW pilots and we have a good idea what would happen if he got away with it....

PS-Seasons greetings Engines. Best wishes for the new year to you, Mrs E and the APUs.....

minigundiplomat

29th Dec 2008, 13:06

It's funny,

the man who wants to take on the air assets of all 3 services (CAS) visited HERRICK last year. He visited all the RAF detachments with the exception of one....1310 Flt.

It shows how far up his list of priorities RW is. I'm not in favour of a single air entity, the AAC adds a great deal to the party and I would hate to see them disbanded, absorbed or watered down.

The FAA also adds a great deal, but their survival instinct (possibly well tuned) has lead them down a path of endless PR and Spin which culminates in the kind of claims made about Al Faw, which Evalu8tor and Stitch Bitch have addressed well.

If you want a fight, keep your powder dry. The 'typhoon in a teacup' caused by CAS will quickly blow itself out. The 'dark forces' in government who have caused this backbiting through starvation of funds will still be there.

They, it seems, are the supreme justification of NGS.

Engines

29th Dec 2008, 17:09

Evalu8ter,

And best wishes to you and the brood, mate. I fully agree that trying to make too much out of any 'all arms' campaign is fraught with danger. I can't agree that shells will have been fired by DD/FF to make the post war stats look good. Given the economics of firing NGS (those barrels ain't cheap), and the dire consequences of a ship running out of rounds or barrel life while on the gun line, every round will have been called for.

MGD,

The FAA has not, and never has, gone down a path of 'endless spin and PR'. In the past, the traditions of the 'Silent Service' kept such facts as 'all enemy aircraft shot down in air to air combat since the end of WW2 were shot down by the FAA' well below the radar. It's not always been reciprocated. I once sat at a major RAeS event in London and heard a previous CAS inform the audience that 'the RAF had supplied all the helicopters that were based in Split' - no mention of the FAA's SK4s whatsoever. A straight lie.

These days, where their people have done a good job, (e.g. the good job done by the SK7s in the Gulf) the RN has made sure the public know about it. That's because a lamentable lack of knowledge about the armed forces leads many UK citizens to assume that all aircraft are owned by the RAF.

The point here is that the FAA (and the Army) do not want a fight. CAS does, and has started a highly damaging one. It's not 'blowing itself out', either - I agree that it will subside, but at some cost in loss of mutual trust and tons of extra work for hard pressed MoD staffs (and unnecessary expenditure of dry powder). The 'dark force' behind this round of backbiting is one person, and one alone.

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

The Helpful Stacker

29th Dec 2008, 17:21

...That's because a lamentable lack of knowledge about the armed forces leads many UK citizens to assume that all aircraft are owned by the RAF....

And that, I'm afraid to say, is complete cods.

How many times were pictures of RAF SHF (as well as FAA SK a/c) operating in Ulster labelled as 'Army Helicopters' by even some of the more respected media organisations?

Engines

29th Dec 2008, 21:10

Stacker,

My quote:

That's because a lamentable lack of knowledge about the armed forces leads many UK citizens to assume that all aircraft are owned by the RAF.

Sorry, not complete cods, in my view. I've encountered it many times in many circles, over a number of years.

Fair point about 'Army' helicopters in the province, I accept.

My point is that the position of the RAF as the UK's majority operator of military aircraft is not, and has never been, in serious doubt since 1918. Which makes the current subject of this thread all the more relevant. No one 'picked a fight' with CAS on ownership of military aircraft - he picked this one all by himself. Bizarre.

Best regards as ever

Engines

Jucky

30th Dec 2008, 12:55

Engines,

Couldn't agree more that most people seem to think that all aircraft are operated by the RAF. I remember once being stood in front of a Lynx (with ROYAL NAVY in big white letters on the tail) at RNAS Yeovilton on Air Day when a member of the public asked me what life was like in the RAF!:ugh:

The Helpful Stacker

30th Dec 2008, 13:11

Strange as it may seem Jucky I and no doubt many more personnel who have served/are serving in the RAF can give you examples of the general populace mistaking them for Army personnel.

In one instance whilst at a town show I was asked how long I had been in the Army and even though admittedly I was in DPM clothing it had displayed upon it a large 'ROYAL AIR FORCE' badge, I was wearing an RAF blue/grey beret with RAF cap badge and was stood in front of a huge RAF careers stand, handing out RAF careers gizits.

Question is, is the stupidity/ignorance of the general public the main driver for the complete paranoia of some in the Royal Navy or is there something much deeper that drives their love of tin foil hats and persecution complex?

Tourist

30th Dec 2008, 14:14

"Question is, is the stupidity/ignorance of the general public the main driver for the complete paranoia of some in the Royal Navy or is there something much deeper that drives their love of tin foil hats and persecution complex?"

THS

You try to mock us for being silly, but do you deny that the CAS has made a move to kill us off recently with his "one nation one airforce" crap?
Do you deny that the RAF managed to kill off our big carriers previously by moving Australia?

If you deny either you are a tit, and if you accept these to be the case then you must accept that our "paranoia" is perfectly reasonable.

Jucky

30th Dec 2008, 14:36

Question is, is the stupidity/ignorance of the general public the main driver for the complete paranoia of some in the Royal Navy or is there something much deeper that drives their love of tin foil hats and persecution complex

The answer is an element of both. Firstly lets address public stupidity/ignorance.
Most of the work the RN does is out at sea over the horizon beyond the view of the public. It is fairly unglamorous work but essential none the less, but doesn't make any headlines unless the matelots have been taking drugs or fighting and wrecking the local town or getting captured by Iranians etc.
We now only have three main naval bases and two air stations (most of which are biased to the South and West of England) and unless you live near these you won't have much exposure to the RN. The RN has always been historically poor at PR and has only just woken up to this fact in the past few years. AFAIK the only Media Ops people we have are RNR or Civvy contractors.

Secondly, there is something much deeper that drives the RN persecution complex.
Historically when the RAF took control of aviation from the Admiralty, it wasn't long before maritime aviation was neglected and the Admiralty had no control over it. They then introduced the title of the Fleet Air Arm of the RAF in 1924 in an effort to re-establish some control over maritime aviation, however with the war looming the Admiralty took control of the Naval Air Branch in 1937 later to be renamed the Fleet Air Arm. Then later the 60's and 70's after the cancellation of CVA-01, the carriers and along with it FW aviation. We were lucky to be able to retain some FW capability with Sea Harrier.

So as you can see we have historical reasons to be worried about the early withdrawal of Harrier. I really don't believe that the RAF would be interested in looking after maritime aviation if the FAA no longer operated FW. There are a lot of other issues already touched on in terms of experience and force regeneration if we had a gap in FW activity between Harrier and Dave B.

The real answer is that we need the FAA, AAC and RAF as we all have specialist knowledge in different fields that we bring to the party. If the FAA or AAC were consumed by the RAF I feel that that RN and Army would not get the specialist services that the FAA and AAC provide their parent services. Disbanding the RAF would not work either as by the same token those at the top of the RN and Army who are not aviators don't really understand aviation and how to utilise it properly. Therefore the Government need to stop f**king around and start funding us properly if they want UK PLC to remain on the world stage as a major player, or we drastically reduce in size, become a small defence force capable of policing our own borders and not much else.
The Defence Chiefs also need to stop fighting each other, grow some balls and stand up to Comrade Brown and his cronies and demand the kit we need instead of tearing each other apart over the scraps (which I suspect the certain members of the Government just love).
The last time I checked I was British, as are most of you on the forum. I signed up to fight for Queen and Country (as well as to fly some great hardware) as I am sure most of you did. That means fighting alongside my brethren in the RN/RM, Army and RAF to protect the interests of the UK.

The Helpful Stacker

30th Dec 2008, 15:03

Tourist - You have just shown the parinoia I speak of in that last post and whilst you are not the Royal Navy at large your view is one I have heard from many within the senior service.

Do you deny that the RAF managed to kill off our big carriers previously by moving Australia?

Far be it for a humble ex-stacker to question this but would you concede that there may have been a little more to the cancellation of CVA-01 than just a little bit of geographic licence? How about the newly-elected Labour government who realised that the UK was bankrupt and was trying to cancel as much as it could (which also included the P1154 and TSR2 as well as CVA-01)?

Stoking inter-service rivalries is a tried and tested tactic of the government in order to provide easy targets for cancellation as it seems that with the treasury where there is doubt there is no doubt. Unfortunately the Royal Navy plays straight into the government's hands everytime. Rather than plan for the future the RN is guilty of what many accuse the RAF of with Typhoon, planning for a war that has already passed.

Carriers are the late-20th century battleship. Big, impressive, expensive to operate and build but at the mercy of much cheaper weapons unless you have the funds to adequately protect them, but of course then they are a burden as much as an asset.

Cue someone mentioning carriers will be needed to fight a war that happened nearly 27 years ago?

All in my humble opinion of course.

Wiretensioner

30th Dec 2008, 15:05

Well has he resigned yet? Or as usual just the usual bluster and hot air!

Tourist

30th Dec 2008, 15:07

THS.
"Carriers are the late-20th century battleship. Big, impressive, expensive to operate and build but at the mercy of much cheaper weapons unless you have the funds to adequately protect them, but of course then they are a burden as much as an asset."

That's why so many nations are currently either building carriers or getting the ones they have servicable is it?:rolleyes:

The Helpful Stacker

30th Dec 2008, 15:09

If the FAA or AAC were consumed by the RAF I feel that that RN and Army would not get the specialist services that the FAA and AAC provide their parent services

Jucky - Since the RAF SHF (and RN CHF) was merged into the JHF and its budgeting passed to LAND its priority has been dropped and the Army for which they both provide a service to is consequently arguably getting a poorer service than it would have had SHF/CHF still been budgeted from their parent services.

Tourist - You obviously missed this bit then,

..unless you have the funds to adequately protect them..

L1A2 discharged

30th Dec 2008, 15:31

Just because you may be paranoid does not mean that there is no-one out to get you.

But paranoia is better than mononoia - in that case there is definitely one person out to get you, everyone else knows who it is but is not telling you.

Tourist

30th Dec 2008, 15:40

Well THS, as one of the worlds 5 or 6 largest economies depending on who you ask, I think we qualify.

The Helpful Stacker

30th Dec 2008, 16:46

Having the funds and having a government willing to use those funds for certain ends are, I'm sure you are well aware, two completely different things.

Biggus

30th Dec 2008, 18:21

Reference protecting carriers (and I am not necessarily a 'carrier basher'), I'm sure the following has already been posted somewhere on pprune...

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html)

If you invest in carriers, and I'm noy saying you shouldn't, then you need to protect them properly. And for all the RN guys who come on here saying how difficult they are to sink, talk to your own submariners - they will tell you with total confidence that they believe a well crewed and commanded SSN or SSK can penetrate a screen and sink the carrier! So one part of your own organization (the RN) knows/believes they are vulnerable.

Wrathmonk

30th Dec 2008, 19:52

Wiretensioner

Simple answer - No. And I don't think he ever had any intention to - I even suspect the "threat" didn't even originate from his office - more MOD MB staff officer rumour mill, overheard in the Red Lion etc! But he may well win either way. My reasoning - I don't think there has ever been any intent to totally scrap the Harrier. IMHO the Harrier will be reduced in numbers with the FAA/RAF manning reduced accordingly. CNS will then be able to claim "victory" at seeing of the nasty Torpy bloke and his secret disband the FAA plan and thus be seen as a "hero" amongst his men, retire gracefully (Apr 09?), be elevated to the HofL etc etc.

If only some of the contibutors to this thread could get themselves into a position (or even join the military!) where they could influence such debates then life would be so much easier. And yes I have been in that position (for my sins) before anyone asks. And yes I am RAF but still believe a reduction in Harrier (given the creek the MOD are up with no paddles in sight) is the only way the carriers and carrier borne fixed wing aviation will survive the next few planning rounds. It is only going to get more brutal - if Tornado GR4 has survived because of its intending deployment to AFG it is only a stay of execution! And, again, I don't care what colour cloth the drivers are - as long as they are the best person for such a task.

I'd like to think it's all going to get get better in 2009 but I don't think reducing one op will do anything more than offer up more for the salami slicing machine. Happy New Year anyway!

minigundiplomat

30th Dec 2008, 22:18

Do you deny that the RAF managed to kill off our big carriers previously by moving Australia?

Oh, it's the RAF's fault you drove into Norfolk Island a few years back. We obviously moved it when you weren't looking and didn't change the charts (not that anyone seemed to be reading them at the time).

Tourist

30th Dec 2008, 22:37

minigun

That's right, because nobody in the RAF has ever fecked up and crashed because they were stupid eh?

Add up the cost of all the RAF a/c lost due to pilot error or negligence, and I assure you that it will be more money than the surface fleet have cost due to running aground.
..............then again, that probably goes for the FAA as well..:uhoh:

I can't believe I just defended the fisheads..........:ooh:

exscribbler

30th Dec 2008, 23:01

Tourist: You must defend the fishheads; solidarity and all that.

You'll be pleased to hear that Mrs Ex seems to think all helicopters should have RN painted on them. I wonder where she got that idea from...

Wrathmonk

31st Dec 2008, 10:31

Tourist

Add up the cost of all the RAF a/c lost due to pilot error or negligence, and I assure you that it will be more money than the surface fleet have cost due to running aground

Given the RAF is a mere 90 and a bit years old, and as everyone keeps telling us the Navy is the Senior Service, I'm sure that a good spin doctor could (hopefully!) dispute that statement!:p

soddim

31st Dec 2008, 10:38

Maybe Tourist's 'assurance' should now be supported by the figures he must have had in order to make that post?!

anotherthing

31st Dec 2008, 10:55

THS

Strange as it may seem Jucky I and no doubt many more personnel who have served/are serving in the RAF can give you examples of the general populace mistaking them for Army personnel.
Indeed 'tis very strange... I'd have thought you were more likely to be mistaken for members of the RAC with that uniform :}

minigundiplomat

31st Dec 2008, 11:12

Indeed 'tis very strange... I'd have thought you were more likely to be mistaken for members of the RAC with that uniform http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Mmmmmm, as opposed to flares, a tea towel round the shoulders and a kiss me quick hat?

anotherthing

31st Dec 2008, 11:56

MGD -

That uniform is for the oiks (:ok:), but yes - they never get confused for any other service in that rig.

It may seem like a silly rig, but it's because the RN has real history and tradition :}

The bell bottoms were designed to make it easier to roll up the trouser legs when swabbing down the decks, the tea towl was to stop the main uniform getting soiled by the tar used to tie back a sailors hair, the cap - I admit, who knows, but it's no worse than the RAF thunderbirds hat :}:}

Tourist

31st Dec 2008, 12:47

Soddim

I will show you mine if you show me yours......

Get me the RAF statistics for pilot error or negligence (outside wartime to make it fair on you) for the last 90 yrs, plus approx cost per airframe and I will get the figures for the same period for warships lost or damaged. I will even assume that all warship accidents are human error rather than mechnical failure.
I will lay a £50 wager to charity of your choice that the RAF has cost more through avoidable accidents.

I would even make a gentlemans wager that the FAA has cost more than the surface fleet.

Care to take the wager?

Brain Potter

31st Dec 2008, 15:28

Do you deny that the RAF managed to kill off our big carriers previously by moving Australia?

This accusation appears to be one of the main influences for the modern navy's contempt for the RAF. However, the argument does not really stand-up to scrutiny.

Let's start by accepting the simplistic view that it was an either/or between carriers and a long-range land-based strike force, which by then was going to be the F-111K. The view that the carriers were cancelled because RAF lied about theoretical land-based air coverage of the Indian Ocean conveniently ignores the fact that the Wilson Government decided to withdraw from East of Suez, so any touted capabilities in that area were irrelevant. Moreover, despite the F-111K's continued relevance to a NATO-area only policy, it was still cancelled on cost grounds a year or so later. I cannot see any way that CVA-01 would have survived the withdrawal from East of Suez, even if the F-111 had been cancelled first.

The RAF lost it's hold on the strategic role when Skybolt was cancelled and the UK ordered Polaris. The air marshals of the 1960's had been brought up as practitioners of strategic bombing and the loss of this role together with the demise of TSR2 must have been a bitter blow for them. Would anyone really have expected them not to fight for the F-111? If the Royal Navy really want to look for people to blame over this issue they should perhaps look at their own staff officers who clearly hadn't done enough work on the F-111 "threat". Blaming the opposition for winning an argument seems to be somewhat immature.

soddim

31st Dec 2008, 15:32

Tourist - you were the person who posted the assurance - how could you make such a statement if you had no access to the figures?

I am certainly not going to even try to bail you out of the position you are now in - come on, give us the facts that led to you posting your assurance.

I have not argued with your point - you might be right - but I want to see the figures from which you were prepared to assure everybody that you were right.

You did not make a wager - you assured everybody, so put up or shut up.

Tourist

31st Dec 2008, 16:12

Soddim

Just think of the fun you can have if I am wrong...

There are many things in this world that I know to be true without having the figures to hand, and would willingly stake my life on them.

I assure you that I cannot jump as high as the worst pro basketball player, even though I have never measured my jump, nor know how high they jump.

I assure you that the average helicopter pilot spends more time in the hover than a harrier pilot, but I don't know the figures.

Do you honestly believe that it is necessary for me to prove either statement for them to be reasonable?

You should either accept that my original assurance re RAF costs due to pilot error/negligence is a reasonable statement, or zip up your man suit and take the wager............

.............wet pants:ok:

Tourist

31st Dec 2008, 16:22

Brain Potter

"Would anyone really have expected them not to fight for the F-111? If the Royal Navy really want to look for people to blame over this issue they should perhaps look at their own staff officers who clearly hadn't done enough work on the F-111 "threat". Blaming the opposition for winning an argument seems to be somewhat immature."

I am almost speechless.
You seem to consider lying to the government about military capability solely to win an argument against the RN a perfectly acceptable action. As far as I am concerned, bickering between services is perfectly justified as long as you truly believe that your service can offer the best results. To knowingly mislead about abilities, and thus lose a capability to operate in an area is tantamount to treason in my eyes.

I will gladly remain immature and honourable, and hope our staff officers never start doing "enough work":mad:

soddim

31st Dec 2008, 16:33

Tourist - you're simply not going to turn this one around without justifying the assurance you gave.

I say again - put up or shut up.

minigundiplomat

31st Dec 2008, 16:39

Wow,

all this fom an innocent jibe about Norfolk Island and the RN. In the spirit of New Year, why don't you both take the moral high ground and just agree to disagree?

Lyneham Lad

31st Dec 2008, 16:48

Wow,

all this fom an innocent jibe about Norfolk Island and the RN. In the spirit of New Year, why don't you both take the moral high ground and just agree to disagree?

...before this thread finds itself consigned to Jet Blast :eek:

Oh, and by the way, a Happy & Prosperous New Year to all Ppruners :ok:

soddim

31st Dec 2008, 16:53

There's no argument from me - I simply want Tourist to justify his 'assurance'.

A man of integrity would not post an assurance he was unable to substantiate.

The point he makes might be right but without producing the figures he appears to be unable to give his assurance.

Could be the last?

1st Jan 2009, 17:31

So, has he resigned then?

exscribbler

1st Jan 2009, 20:27

Wrathmonk: The RN was founded by Henry VIII in 1509 - so this year's the... umm... er... not an easy calculation... :E

Brain Potter

2nd Jan 2009, 09:29

Tourist,

Every military equipment project, indeed probably every government project, involves a certain amount of manipulation of facts to suit a particular viewpoint. If you are so naive that a revelation of such "staffing" techniques leaves you speechless then it is fortuitous that you don't work in procurement because you would be mute.

Moving Australia was a fairly underhand tactic, but you seem determined to focus on that particular "outrage" in the face of all the other reasons that the RN carriers were cancelled. Primarily, the UK was almost broke and the Govt had decided to withdraw from the post-colonial responsibilities East of Suez to concentrate on the very real threat from the Soviet Union in NW Europe and the North Atlantic. In the years preceding that particular White Paper the Navy, in the shape of Mountbatten, made strong assertions about minimum ship size and numbers in pursuit of a replacement carrier fleet. In effect they priced themselves out of the market with their own ambitions, which in-turn encouraged a poverty-stricken HMG to seek other solutions until finally facing facts and deciding to withdraw from a global role. Once that decision was made HMG knew that bases such as Gan would disappear, and arguments about theoretical air coverage of the region were irrelevant.

You say:

To knowingly mislead about abilities, and thus lose a capability to operate in an area is tantamount to treason in my eyes.

but you are missing the fundamental point. The government made a conscious decision to cease operating in that area. That saved them the expense of maintaining bases, personnel and equipment (including carriers) required for such operations. Withdrawal from East of Suez did not take place because of an inability to provide air cover, it was a political decision mainly motivated by financial constraints. The RAF also lost a tremendous amount of capability as a consequence, including about half the transport fleet.

All three services exist to execute whatever policies the government decides to pursue. From the late-sixties through to the end of the cold war UK forces were deliberately configured to fight in the NATO area. The surface Navy's role became ASW in the G-I-UK gap and thus a strike carrier force was not needed. History seems to suggest that the primacy of the small-ship rankles within certain circles in the Navy who regard it as less prestigious. It seems to suit those with such a viewpoint to perpetuate the myth that the RAF engineered the demise of the carrier force, rather than to accept that the nation's defence posture as laid down by the government did not require such vessels.

Still, it is easier to maintain a sense of outrage at "The RAF" than at the dead or forgotten politicians of the Wilson government.

Jumping_Jack

2nd Jan 2009, 11:47

Back to the thread title...has he resigned yet? Thought not.....:hmm:

curvedsky

2nd Jan 2009, 13:01

What a load of rubbish about Kandahar runway being too short - too short for what?

In the mid 90s we used to regularly fly both a G-III & a G-IV into Kandahar taking Gulf state VIPs there to hunt houbara.

At cruise height and approaching the Pakistan airspace boundary we called Kandahar ATC on HF. The sole ATC person immediately replied on a car battery driven HF set ... "cleared to land".

Some 20-30 minutes or so later having descended we scouted the area for the resident Migs - do it yourself ATC - then landed on the 6,000 feet or longer runway. (Memory fades and no Jeppeson to hand.)

The Afghani English speaking ATC chap was always very helpful and operated from the semi derelict tower close to the sometime beautiful air terminal. The arching building had perhaps 90% of the windows broken or missing and no passenger traffic.
Occasionally the resident Mig pilots came to see our aircraft and showed great interest in the G-IV glass cockpit. Plenty of common aviation gesticulations were observed and made but language was a major problem. Coffee and a few cakes & sandwiches from our hosties ensured that all were happy!

The Afghan Migs regularly flew in and out OK and enjoyed flying low over our parked aircraft. There were battle wrecked Russian 4 jets all over the airfield, some within yards of the taxiways, but the airfield was quite useable.
However, on one departure we saw several men who had been painting the white centre line markings move off the runway as they heard and saw us taxying. On the take off roll at 120 kts or so we came across paint buckets and planks left on the runway in the ready to paint positions ... a little shift to the left half width of the runway and we were on our way to Quetta to pick up fuel and some pax. (A 'pairs' take-off without the other aircraft.)

PS 2008 - Google now lists and shows runway as 05/23 10,500' x 148' asphalt and at 3,317' amsl

Magic Mushroom

2nd Jan 2009, 23:32

At last, Brain Potter finally brings some intelligence to what is possibly the most puerile thread I’ve ever read. I don’t know what is sadder. The hoop that is being posted here or the fact that some grown men had nothing better to do on Christmas Day than to add to it! Unbelievable.

Tourist, Bismark and Gullwings in particular have demonstrated quite breathtaking levels of hypocrisy by posting biased, factually incorrect and historically inaccurate information; the very failings they so vociferously accused other posters of. Indeed, I’m beginning to suspect that one of you is Lewis Page!

May I suggest that you at least have the courtesy to research your subjects correctly prior to posting. If you cannot remain objective in a debate, you add nothing to it.

Do you deny that the RAF managed to kill off our big carriers previously by moving Australia?

BP has hit the nail on the head with his post regarding the usual ‘the nasty Crabs moved Australia/Diego Garcia/Gan* 50/100/200* miles to undermine CVA-01’ claim.

To further his comments, this urban myth has been subjected to a fair degree of academic scrutiny of which I believe at least one contributor to PPRUNE has been privy to. As with the Hansard verbatim records of contemporary official debates, the CVA-01 saga was well documented and is available for public scrutiny. Interestingly, nowhere in the official documentation of the period is there recorded any suggestion that the RAF moved land masses to undermine CVA-01. Nor, to my knowledge have any of the RN personnel involved in the debate at the time ever made similar claims.

In fairness, I suspect that TSR2/F-111K* performance data for the aircraft was manipulated by both sides to add weight to their arguments. I suspect that therein lays the genesis to this particular conspiracy theory as factors such as ambient temp, payload, cruise speed and sortie profiles can easily impact upon stated range figures by hundreds of miles.

What has been acknowledged by numerous sources (including Baron Healey’s autobiography) however is that there were other factors in the demise of CVA-01 which far overshadowed any nefarious intentions my own Service may have had. Moreover, I would suggest that the RN itself was the chief (naval?) architect regarding the demise of CVA-01.

As intimated by BP, the Wilson Government had correctly identified that the UK was unable to support its existing overseas commitments. Accordingly they sought to withdraw ‘East of Suez’ and focus upon NATO. Whilst carrier based air power was (and in my opinion remains) not at variance to such a Eurocentric policy, the RN showed little flexibility in negotiations regarding CVA-01 (and the associated Type 82 DDG) requirements. This intransigence alienated Healey as well as the Treasury. The Senior Service’s position was further weakened by poor staffing resulting in unconvincing and flawed arguments for fixed wing carriers.

During a similar period, the RN was manoeuvring to assume the nuclear deterrent in the form of Polaris. As with Trident and SSBN(F), this procurement involved enormous cost and inevitably eroded the wider capabilities of the RN, notably any hope of retaining an expansive fixed wing carrier fleet. Indeed, I would suggest that the procurement of Polaris was utterly disastrous for the Senior Service in the long term and was arguably the most significant reason for the demise of CVA-01.

Whilst I would certainly agree that the RAF and RN were engaged in mutually and exceptionally damaging inter-service politics during the 1960s let’s cut all the propaganda that it was one sided. Mountbatten (as CDS) and the RN argued vociferously against several major RAF projects at the time, notably TSR2 and HS681. Indeed, the then CDS personally intervened with an RAAF delegation to kill off Australia’s consideration of an export order for the former. This stance was ultimately crippling for the UK aerospace industry and it has never recovered.

Worryingly, when you look at the CVA-01 v F-111K tombstones, it is easy to see parallels with today. CVA-01/CVF. T82/T45. Polaris/Trident replacement. F-35/P1154RN and RAF. It all seems rather familiar. In addition, having heard several flag officers state that ‘I don’t care who flies the aircraft, as long as we get CVF’, I sometimes wonder if the wider RN care one jot for the FAA beyond it being a leverage to obtain some big carriers.

I sincerely hope that the Treasury do not succeed in the ‘divide and conquer’ tactics again. Regrettably, the bias of some posters on this thread only garners ammunition for the civil servants.

For my part, I hope that we do not adopt the Israeli practice where AF aircrew operate all manned aircraft, whether it be from land or sea.

XT668

I have my own thoughts and opinions on each of my sister services. However, I would never lower myself to publicly referring to one as a ‘farce’ and you would do well to remember the conditions which all 3 services are operating under at this time. Conditions which you will be unable to appreciate just as I am unable to appreciate the conditions you served under several decades ago. Posts such as yours are disrespectful to those members of my Service who have died on current operations and those who continue to place our lives on the line. Frankly, such comments do a disservice to your own former Service, many of whom operate alongside the RAF on current ops with mutual respect.

As a former Wessex aviator, you may be interested in viewing this (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7oSbmJxjsT0&feature=related) and this (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SQiqJ-X__3A&NR=1) link covering the evacuation of a mortally wounded soldier in Afghanistan by an RAF Chinook crew. If you still consider the RAF a farce after having viewed it then that is your prerogative. However, please have the good manners to keep such sentiments to yourself.

What a load of rubbish about Kandahar runway being too short - too short for what?

Google is your friend curvedsky. You may find that there has been a minor conflict which directly affected Afghanistan and Khandahar airfield between 1998 and 2005 when the GR7s first deployed.:ok:

Regards and best wishes for a safe 2009 to all.

MM

* Proponents of CVA-01 conspiracy theories should delete as appropriate and insert their favoured option.

Gullwings

3rd Jan 2009, 10:34

Magic Mushroom

Which of all of my comments have apparently demonstrated such breathtaking levels of hypocrisy, are biased, factually incorrect and historically inaccurate?

The only reason why I started replying in this thread was simply because of the obvious need to counter some of the very RAF biased and ridiculously unfair statements that were being made about the other UK Forces by some people in this thread. It is important to highlight the other side of an argument in threads such as this one and I have tried to do that honestly based on personal experience and observations.

All of the services have important roles and it is very sad when some people try to put the RN/FAA and Army/AAC levels of training, capabilities, experience and roles down unfairly.

L1A2 discharged

3rd Jan 2009, 11:07

MM, As with the Hansard verbatim records of contemporary official debates,

Unfortunately Hansard is not verbatim. The exact words can be changed by the recorders / editors in conjunction with the person who said what is being recorded.

http://education.niassembly.gov.uk/information/Official_Report.pdf has an explanation of how it works.

NYF

4th Jan 2009, 20:05

Magic Mushroom - For what it's worth, Ray Lygo gives a clear account of his discovery that Australia had been moved 200 miles to the west in his autobiography. Not saying it's right or wrong, only that he makes the claim ...

Pontius Navigator

4th Jan 2009, 21:48

As intimated by BP, the Wilson Government had correctly identified that the UK was unable to support its existing overseas commitments. Accordingly they sought to withdraw ‘East of Suez’ and focus upon NATO.

I have evidence that the Wilson Government in 1964/65 actually wanted to retain east of Suez bases at the expense of NATO. When Patrick Gordon Walker and Denis Healey met Dean Rusk on 7 Dec 64 Rusk was at pains to say that the US needed UK in Asia as we could do things in places where they could not.

I believe the SEATO UK/US AOR boundary was 105 deg E.

It was certainly the UK Government's plan to "intention to run down the size of the UK’s armed forces over 10 years as defence spending would be maintained at its present levels"

Magic Mushroom

4th Jan 2009, 22:34

Which of all of my comments have apparently demonstrated such breathtaking levels of hypocrisy, are biased, factually incorrect and historically inaccurate?

Where do I start Gullwings? To avoid repetition, if you wish, I'll PM a few examples.

The only reason why I started replying in this thread was simply because of the obvious need to counter some of the very RAF biased and ridiculously unfair statements that were being made about the other UK Forces by some people in this thread.

Yes there were equally blinkered comments from some of the pro RAF/anti CVF corner. But I believe that bias being used against bias serves nobody.

...Ray Lygo gives a clear account of his discovery that Australia had been moved 200 miles to the west in his autobiography. Not saying it's right or wrong, only that he makes the claim ..

TVM NYF. I think I may have read that bio many years ago but will re-check.

Regards,
MM

NYF

5th Jan 2009, 10:37

No problem. It was brought to his attention while he was Deputy Director of Naval Air Warfare in the MoD. You'll find it on pages 285 and 286. Save you the trouble of wading through the whole thing ...

muttywhitedog

5th Jan 2009, 18:30

Well has this fella resigned yet?

(If enough of us ask then perhaps we can get an answer):ugh:

Tourist

5th Jan 2009, 23:09

MWD

Read the title of the post.
If indeed he did threaten to resign, it would surely make sense for him to resign if they do scrap the harriers, not before they scrap the carriers, or if they don't scrap the carriers?
Just a thought......

soddim

6th Jan 2009, 14:09

Very senior RAF officers do not resign - they serve through whatever the politicians do to their service and personnel and invariably draw their full pension on normal retirement.

Resignations on a point of honour are reserved for the other two services it seems.

MrBunker

7th Jan 2009, 09:25

Was it not the head of the RN who was threatening to up sticks and go?

maxburner

7th Jan 2009, 14:15

So, has he gone yet, or is it all hot air?

Mick Strigg

7th Jan 2009, 18:07

A well written article here:

RAF in plot against Fleet Air Arm again ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/08/slug_balancers_strike_again/)

Interesting fact about how many aircraft have been shot down by fighters since WWII.

pr00ne

7th Jan 2009, 18:44

Well written????????????????

Chump.

RAF and it's continuing love of strategic deep bombers? Please!!!!!!!

Archimedes

7th Jan 2009, 19:15

Bit harsh, Proone - Lewis Page writes reasonably well.

It's just that his reasonably crafted prose can't hide the fact that the substance of everything he produces is badly researched, ill-thought out and hopelessly prejudiced.

Jackonicko

7th Jan 2009, 19:21

As with all of Page's stuff, the style's pretty readable, but the content is utter $hite.

Modern Elmo

8th Jan 2009, 01:24

RAF in plot against Fleet Air Arm again
...

1930s, 1970s ... disaster every time they do it

By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Government, 8th December 2008 15:03 GMT

...

But there is actually a solution, and it doesn't need any more money than is there already.

Simply upgrade the carriers to include catapults and wires. Buy the cheaper US Navy arrester-hook version of the F-35, not the expensive and probably troublesome jumpjet. Buy nice cheap carrier radar planes, as lots of people do worldwide. All this will actually cost less over time than the current jumpjet ships and custom rotary-wing radarcraft plans.

RAF in plot against Fleet Air Arm again ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/08/slug_balancers_strike_again/page4.html)

Very expert opinion, yes indeed.

althenick

8th Jan 2009, 02:55

As with all of Page's stuff, the style's pretty readable, but the content is utter $hite.

... Yeah Typical Bl00dy jouro, Their all the same :ok:

Tourist

8th Jan 2009, 09:55

Modern Elmo

"But there is actually a solution, and it doesn't need any more money than is there already.

Simply upgrade the carriers to include catapults and wires. Buy the cheaper US Navy arrester-hook version of the F-35, not the expensive and probably troublesome jumpjet. Buy nice cheap carrier radar planes, as lots of people do worldwide. All this will actually cost less over time than the current jumpjet ships and custom rotary-wing radarcraft plans"

Interesting that you picked that paragraph to mock.
I don't agree with Lewis on everything, and as always his attention to detail is not as good as his overview in my opinion, but you would find few to argue with the paragraph above. Political considerations aside, Cat and Trap, Carrier variant F35 and E2 would be our dream result.

Sunk at Narvik

8th Jan 2009, 11:48

On the face of it I'd agree, particularly the AEW options would be far more attractive. However, if we consider the possibility that if (big if) Ocean and Ark eventually get replaced, we may find that going STOVL offers the option of building two commando carriers with ski jumps, similar to the Navantia designs being built by Australia. If that ever becomes the case having four STOVL capable carriers would offer advantages over two dedicated CTOL carriers only.

LowObservable

8th Jan 2009, 13:41

But as the USMC is finding out, Dave B is a big aircraft and hard to support on a mid-sized ship - particularly along with transport helos, grunts, grunt food &c. For a "commando ship" role you'd be better off with a smaller, CAS-optimized "Harrier III".

glad rag

8th Jan 2009, 18:29

Quote
"but you would find few to argue with the paragraph above. Political considerations aside, Cat and Trap, Carrier variant F35 and E2 would be our dream result."

Which is what most have being saying from day1 along with reactors to power the bloody things.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

9th Jan 2009, 09:30

Before we get carried away with a nuclear powered option, remember that would limit the ships to X/Z Berths. Such berths don't grow on trees, particularly when considered against deployments. CVF is supposed to increase our flexibility.

glad rag

9th Jan 2009, 19:44

CVF is supposed to increase our flexibility.

Not on it's current planned form, that's for sure.

Then again define "flexibility":hmm:

WE Branch Fanatic

9th Jan 2009, 21:38

What makes you say that?

glad rag

9th Jan 2009, 22:43

Everything that has been removed from the original design concept along with the fixed wing aircraft variant destined to fly off them for starters.

Not_a_boffin

10th Jan 2009, 09:38

Gladrag - have to disagree with that (though not the logic behind it). The original design concepts done in 1996-ish IIRC all looked like a CVS that had been fed steroids and the f/w assumption of choice back then was what was known as SSF (STOVL strikefighter) - essentially the MDD a/c. Imagine the surprise when that didn't make it to demonstrator stage!

As for having a tea-kettle, that idea was binned around the same time, without much detailed study as I recall, largely on the basis that the USN were having an absolute nightmare disposing of their CGN and SSN/SSBN. One of the driving factors was the perceived difficulty and expense in disposal - remember we now have upwards of 15 decommissioned boats sat in Rosyth or Guzz, some of which have been there since 1980 or so.

In terms of capability no-one would dispute that a CVN would be somwhat better than an F76-powered ship, but as GBZ points out, there would be major hits elsewhere. The thing that would really kill it would be the need for more than two ships (given reactor overhaul and refuelling timescales - yes it would need refuelling for a 50yr life) to guarantee availability which was one of the planks of the ST(S) dossier - two big ships for the price of three smaller ones based on much improved (?) / reduced maintenance demands.

More to the point, due to the endless dithering over letting the contract, we're now in a position where there is no plan B and no time / money to generate one. UK Maritime aviation has essentially bet the farm on CVF and to a lesser extent Dave B. The ship is at least big enough to adapt to most things and that's it's big plus point - I'm sure there will be a number of emb8ggerances due to the h'apporth of tar savings that will be applied, but they can be rectified over time.

glad rag

10th Jan 2009, 11:13

In terms of capability no-one would dispute that a CVN would be somwhat better than an F76-powered ship

And that should be the ONE and ONLY concern.

Disposal of life ex assets, whilst obviously important, should not lead to the emasculation of the end product.

Have the MOD (RN) planners been taken over by treehuggers??

The Helpful Stacker

10th Jan 2009, 21:21

Its a good thing the price of F76 isn't going to rise over the planned 50 years the CVF's will be operational for.

Modern Elmo

11th Jan 2009, 00:42

But as the USMC is finding out, Dave B is a big aircraft and hard to support on a mid-sized ship - particularly along with transport helos, grunts, grunt food &c.

False, no, not true at all. You just made that up

For a "commando ship" role you'd be better off with a smaller, CAS-optimized "Harrier III".

No.

Modern Elmo

11th Jan 2009, 01:14

The USA’s New LHA-R Ships: Carrier Air + Amphibious Assault (updated)

21-Oct-2008 11:21 EDT
Related Stories: Americas - USA (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/geographical-focus/americas-usa/), Contracts - Awards (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/industry/contracts-awards/), Contracts - Modifications (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/industry/contracts-modifications/), Eng. Control Systems (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/electronics-it/eng-control-systems/), Expeditionary Warfare (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/military-overall/expeditionary-warfare/), FOCUS Articles (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/did-site/focus-articles/), Forces - Marines (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/military-overall/forces-marines/), GE (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/corporation/ge/), New Systems Tech (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/innovation/new-systems-tech/), Northrop-Grumman (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/corporation/northropgrumman/), Policy - Doctrine (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/military-overall/policy-doctrine/), Policy - Procurement (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/military-overall/policy-procurement/), Power Projection (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/logistics-support/power-projection/), R&D - Contracted (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/innovation/rd-contracted/), Raytheon (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/corporation/raytheon/), Surface Ships - Combat (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/naval-equipment/surface-ships-combat/)
http://ads.watershed-publishing.com/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=378&campaignid=253&zoneid=2&source=geographical-focus,industry,electronics-it,military-overall,did-site,corporation,innovation,logistics-support,naval-equipment&channel_ids=,&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenseindustrydaily.com%2Fthe-usas-new-lhar-ship-class-carrier-air-amphibious-assault-updated-0870%2F&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defenseindustrydaily.com%2Fthe-usas-new-lhar-ship-class-carrier-air-amphibious-assault-updated-0870%2F&cb=fc762fafbe
Advertisement

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_LHA-R.jpg (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_LHA-R_lg.jpg)LHA-R Concept
(click to view full)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SITE_DII_Mark.gif
Modern U.S. Navy Amphibious Assault Ships project power and maintain presence by serving as the cornerstone of the Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG) / Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). A key element of the Seapower 21 (http://www.nwdc.navy.mil/Concepts/Sea_Power_21/Sea_power_21.aspx) doctrine pillars of Sea Strike and Sea Basing (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8284&type=0), these LHA/LHD ships transport, launch, and land elements of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) via a combination of LCAC hovercraft, amphibious transports and vehicles, helicopters, and aircraft.
Designed to project power and maintain presence, LHA-Replacement (LHA-R, aka. LH-X (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhx.htm) and now the America Class) large deck amphibious assault ships will replace the LHA-1 Tarawa Class (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lha-1.htm). They’re based on the more modern LHD Wasp Class (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/wasp/) design, but remove the LHD’s landing craft and well deck. The end product is essentially a revival of the World War 2 escort carrier concept, with integrated berthing, cargo, and light vehicle spaces for Marines. LHA-R ships will be almost 80 feet longer than USS Wasp and 10 feet wider, since they don’t have to fit through the Panama Canal. As a result, these ships will weigh in at 50,000 tons/ 45,700t fully loaded (http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/lha.htm) rather than 42,400t full load for LHD 8. Though DID uses the term “escort carriers” due to the size of their aerial complement, note that their overall displacement will be larger than France’s 43,000t FNS Charles De Gaulle nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
DID’s FOCUS articles offer in-depth, updated looks at significant military programs of record, and this is DID’s FOCUS Article concerning the America Class LHA/CVLs. The latest development is the formal selection of its propulsion system, which is not exactly a surprise…

...
Displaying 284 of 2,808 words (about 8 pages)

The USA’s New LHA-R Ships: Carrier Air + Amphibious Assault (updated) (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-new-lhar-ship-class-carrier-air-amphibious-assault-updated-0870/)

The part about hovercraft is wrong -- Elmo.