Islamic State: Charles de Gaulle carrier triples French firepower

[Lyneham Lad]

Interesting article/video on the Beeb website. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35518636) Have successfully resisted the temptation to state the obvious... (from a UK perspective).

[Courtney Mil]

Intersting vid - apart from a couple of minor points, it was a good report too. Nice hardware. I wonder when Britain might be able to field something like that: AWACS, air-to-air, strike, helos. Vive la France!

[langleybaston]

I found the France's one and only aircraft carrier, a bit snide:

its one more than we have, or are likely to have!

Thank God for the Silent Service. If only they could fly off a decent little multi-role modernised Folland Gnat [and recover it] what a game-changer that would be.

[BATCO]

LL and CM
Can't see the video through the local firewalls, but I've said it before - and I'll say it again, the French seem to get a lot of bangfor their euro.

In addition to their CV borne capabilities, elsewhere they also already get:
CSAR
BMD/SAM
MRA
something approaching what FRES should have given us
arguably, a wider range of RW and FW AT
a national capability to launch comms and surveillance satellites

and I'm sure there are other capabilities too.

Regards
Batco

[Courtney Mil]

Plus Force de dissuasion, BATCO, by air and sea.

[charliegolf]

I found the France's one and only aircraft carrier, a bit snide:

its one more than we have, or are likely to have!

Thank God for the Silent Service. If only they could fly off a decent little multi-role modernised Folland Gnat [and recover it] what a game-changer that would be.

Would cease to be very silent though Lang!:ok:

CG

[BATCO]

CM

Merci, oui, ils ont conservé une alternative à la SNLE (SSBN) comme vous l'avez remarqué.

Cordialement
Batco

[Courtney Mil]

Une alternative ainsi que le M45.

[NutLoose]

Ahh... all those Billions of Pounds tied up in the state of the art equipment to take on a bunch of so called Amateurs armed with £260 AK47's and £500 RPG's who have managed to take over significant portions of at least two countries who were armed with some of the best the West ( and East ) could provide.

It reminds me of the image of Millions of Pounds worth of British armoured vehicles reduced to lining up behind some chap walking down the road with a couple of hundreds Pounds worth of Metal detector looking for a £50 IED

Something wrong there.


.

[BATCO]

Nuttie
Certainly food for thought in your comments. But the millions of pounds worth of kit to find a 50 quid IED is not the end of the story. The point is that it costs that much to protect our people while finding/neutralising the IED IN ORDER FOR the population to be protected: if there were a cheaper way to deal with said IED, I'm sure we'd take it.

Regards
Batco

[Davef68]

What are the French tax levels?

[RAFEngO74to09]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_France

[Courtney Mil]

In practice, I would be better off paying tax on my RAF pension in France than in the UK. But HMG don't want me to do that.

[Herod]

I've just finished reading "Wings on my Sleeve", and there is quite a bit about the proposed CVA-01, to replace Eagle and Ark Royal by the mid-sixties. As with so many things military, it just never happened.

[Wander00]

CM - moi aussi

[Evalu8ter]

Herod,
Oh no...don't mention CVA-01 or the usual tribe will invade this thread with the usual complaints of "moving Australia" by the beastly crabs.....conveniently forgetting that dreadful RN Staffwork & hubris were larger factors....

Well done France; one comment though - they do have a lot of RW but they lack anything that can do heavy lift.....for now.

[Out Of Trim]

I have to say; I would have liked our aircraft carriers to have been nuclear powered, angled deck, cat & trap type proper carriers too!

How come we always end up with second best? :ugh:

[charliegolf]

I have to say; I would have liked our aircraft carriers to have been nuclear powered, angled deck, cat & trap type proper carriers too!

How come we always end up with second best? :ugh:

By insisting BAe Systems buils it?

CG

[Tengah Type]

French Income Tax

CM & Wanderoo

HMRC told me I have no option as my RAF and MOD Pensions must be taxed in UK. As a retread singlie my French Income Tax plus Social Taxes would be higher!

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

By insisting BAe Systems buils it?

Sadly, but typical crap from those who don't know! Bae Systems ( or whatever the tag is today) build what they are asked to do. The Military get what they ask for......even if it's a civil servant who "places " the order.

RogHead, long time Flt Ops test aircrew and grateful recipient of a BAE pension.:ok:

[ACW342]

charliegolf, i'm with R O G on this - you gets what you asks for. The MoD is famous for asking for something, usually thought up by a committee, and once the design is finalised and metal has been cut, then along comes Air Vice Marshall this, or Rear Admiral that or General the other and asks "can we have this extra bit please or can we have an extra BFG 2000 or can you make it invisible please" and lo and behold costs go up production times lengthen and by the time the item comes into service, the committee members, AVMs, Admirals and Generals have all retired on pensions much much higher than my pay band three retirement income.

[Heathrow Harry]

Sad but true - seems to affect the Navy worst but that's probaly because you can "add" a lot on a warship that weighs in at 8000 tons

tougher to make very big changes on an 11 ton fighter................

[Courtney Mil]

French Income Tax

CM & Wanderoo

HMRC told me I have no option as my RAF and MOD Pensions must be taxed in UK. As a retread singlie my French Income Tax plus Social Taxes would be higher!

Sorry for the thread drift here although the tax thing was a valid question about getting military value for money.

It's due to the dual tax agreement, which prevents you from being taxed twice on the same money. Government pensions are takes in the country of origin, not the country of residence.

More relevant, France is increasing its defence budget by €3.9Bn during 2016-19 aiming to bring them close to the NATO 2% of GDP. Given that so much of that is spent in France, it means that a lot of the cash is ploughed back into the economy.

[sailor]

Taking up Evalu8ter's point ; the crabs have about eight times the number of staff officers the Navy has for starters and I hope you are not in denial that to convince those in charge that the F1-11s' coverage of the world's oceans was possible with its radius of action Australia had to be moved - that ruse happened, but was pointed out by an eagle-eyed looker. Nonetheless CVA01 was sunk partly as a result of crabs' skulduggery.
More recently Sir Jock Stirrup as CDS after the decision had been taken jointly to scrap the Tornado and keep the Harrier, bent the Prime Minister's ear privately such that the reverse happened; that was a gross abuse of authority. As a result a bunch of newly updated Harriers were sold for peanuts to the Americans and shortly afterwards Libya blew up. Tornadoes were based in Italy at some ridiculous cost and miles away from the scene of action with all the consequences thereof when a carrier a few miles offshore would have had its aircraft over target in no time and have been able to deliver the same or more ordnance in multiple sorties in a much more timely manner had the original decision not been so unworthily reversed.
At the coalface crabs individually are not all bad; I had a bunch in my Squadron who were very capable, who had operating to and from the deck well sorted, who slotted in to life aboard with no problem, whose company we enjoyed and vice versa and who really enjoyed their exchange time. Mostly bachelors who had volunteered.
The manning of the F35Bs when embarked in future is going to be an interesting situation - how many light blues are going to enjoy the best part of a year at sea away from home and family I wonder should that happen ?
As ever the Senior Service need to watch their six o'clock in all negotiations with and whenever the devious crabs are involved ! Nothing has changed!

[Courtney Mil]

Wow, that was one hell of a tribal rant, sailor. Well done. I think I missed the point you were trying to make in all the bile and rabid foam, but it was a lovely read all the same.

P.S. I think you may have missed Evalu8tor's sarcasm.

P.P.S. Did they kick you out?

[Mach Two]

Sailor,

Not entirely sure how we jumped from C de G and its impressive air power to the RAF apparently conspiring to get rid of the Harrier. Perhaps you're an embittered ex-RN ex-Harrier mate who missed what was actually going on from around 1998 onwards and the joint decisions and efforts in which both the RAF and the RN VSOs were fully involved.

I don't think I know any RAF pilots that think (or thought at the time) that losing the Harrier was a good thing and I'm pretty certain that none of the RAF VSOs felt any different.

The choice to lose SHAR to pay for GR upgrades was, surprisingly, eagerly supported by the admirals as was the decision to form JF2000 and its successor. Then when it later came to serious military cuts, the Army was so engaged on the ground they were never going to be touched, but they did want CAS. The choice then between Harrier (great at CAS) or Tornado (CAS, medium bomber, all weather, range, etc) came down to numbers and the list of capabilities.

The Navy Cheifs hardly raised their voices as all this went on; well, not until it was all done.

Your anger is directed the wrong way, sailor.

[FODPlod]

I have to say; I would have liked our aircraft carriers to have been nuclear powered, angled deck, cat & trap type proper carriers too!

How come we always end up with second best? :ugh:
The overall cost of the nuclear powered, angled deck, cat & trap type 'proper' carrier USS Gerald R Ford is fast approaching $18 bn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald_R._Ford) (£12.4 bn) vs £6.2 bn (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28153569) for both our conventionally powered STOVL QECs (at least £1 bn of which was due to politically-driven delays).

The 75+ aircraft-carrying Ford requires a ship's company (the most expensive element of through-life costs) of 4,660 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald_R._Ford) vs 679 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_%28R08%29) for one of our 50 aircraft-carrying QECs.

That's before you begin considering the costs of operating and eventually decommissioning Ford's two reactors and all that entails.

It is therefore no surprise that certain sections of the USN and USMC are looking at our "second best" carriers quite enviously and can't wait for us to start sharing them.

[BEagle]

Dear me, sailor, that rant was even more ridiculous than something old Sharkey might have spouted...

Of course it'll be ridiculous if those big grey flat-topped targets go to sea without any fixed-wing Air Group. If the RN hadn't shot itself in the foot by phasing out the excellent Shar F/A2 when it did, keeping only the plastic GR9s with less air defence capability than the Scimitar, there'd be every prospect of some aeroplanes on board when the carriers finally do sail....

Many years ago we looked after an MP down at RAF Mount Pleasant, who was interested to know what we thought of the carrier idea - and whether conventional aircraft or V/STOL was the better option. He didn't seem to understand the logic that a carrier with catapults and arrestor cables could support either, so was the better choice than something which could only support V/STOL....:rolleyes:

As for short-range 'stealth' aircraft being flown from carriers, wouldn't any enemy with half a brain be able to track the carrier and suss out the potential targets?

But no - the UK is stuck with the absurdly expensive F-35B and carriers with neither catapults no cables. Whereas, as suggested by old Sharkey (and for once he was 100% correct), instead we should have bought F-18E/F/G (to be flown by the RN) and insisted on carriers with the necessary support capability.....:mad: Rafale could also have complemented the F-18E/F/G.

[MSOCS]

UK industrial participation doesn't make it absurdly expensive for us BEagle. With anticipated £3 being returned to the exchequer for every £1 invested in the JSF, it's a pretty alluring deal. You also get a 5th Gen Strike Fighter for that, plus the multitude of perks of being a Level 1 partner.

Ok reality:

The return on investment does depend on the total number bought.
BAe build every aft empennage for the F-35 A,B and C at Samlesbury.
Being Level 1 for a relatively low initial investment of £2Bn was a steal of an entry deal that has often stopped UK having to cough up extras as the Program has delayed.

Things aren't quite the same for our US cousins.

In the F-18E/F/G, if the MoD defence budget could cover it I'd agree with you 100%. I'm sure the RN would love a 4th gen fighter in the last few miles of its spiral development capability, over a platform In the first few miles of its journey.

[sailor]

I refute the accusation of ranting. I have expressed what I believe to be actual factual events which have occurred regarding CVA 01 and the decision to scrap the Harrier and keep the Tornado.
Having served in cat and trap squadrons and ships I do understand their capability, flexibility and mobility all of which leave land and airfield based aircraft at a huge - and I mean huge - disadvantage.
My example of Tornadoes based in Italy, requiring the use of an Italian airfield to mount what were therefore long range strikes on Libya with the consequential delay in arrival time over targets which were often well dispersed when the light blue cavalry eventually appeared over the horizon is but one of many similar instances in the past and will be repeated in the future. Agreement to the use of such foreign fields may not always be relied on - what, pray crabs, are you going to do then ? Mount another thousand tanker fiasco to allow another single Vulcan to inflict minimal damage by missing its target with the majority of its weapons again in another PR stunt ? Sorry must have forgotten that the last remaining Vulcan is now grounded !
Come on, fess up; the aircraft carrier positioned tactically close to the target be it (target!) on land or sea packs a much better punch in and on time than shore based aircraft operating often at the limit of their range. During the Indonesian confrontation of many moons ago two carriers were permanently on station for long periods of time away from the UK. Vulcan crews with their aircraft rotated out and back from the UK every few weeks at vast expense during that period so that the poor luvvies in light blue were not away from their families for too long. I could go on but I rest my case. A blinding glimpse of the obvious is sufficient to speak for itself !
Don't forget " Si vis pacem para bellum " Bring on our 2 new carriers - with, eventually, their embarked aircraft, hopefully manned by dark blue aviators to boot!

FLY NAVY !

[MSOCS]

Enjoy your retirement Sailor!

Dribble....dribble.

[Selatar]

Sailor,

Such amusing posts. Your obvious dislike for all things light blue destroys and credibility you have. I could spend many a post attacking the weaknessss of the RN both those observed in almost 20 years in service and those that I believe exist. I would not do so as despite those issues I respect the service and it's people immensely. That comes of working with and for so many dark blue people. Whatever perverted ex or serving RN cliche you come from please go back there.

[MSOCS]

I postulate that the "sunshine island" is most probably Grenada and I'll leave it at that.

A documented history of hilarious paranoia, RAF hatred and a self-evident level of tactical knowledge more suited to the Jurassic period. I believe there's a rather self-indulgent book out about Shar-man's experts down in the South Atlantic. If you can stomach the hubris it is a rather entertaining read but naturally one man's story isn't necessarily all truthful.

Seletar. The RN boys and girls I know today are brilliant. Unfortunately it's the dinosaurs that peddle most of the vitriol. I'm just glad more and more of the younger generation do a sideways look at those types and crack on with the job.

[Courtney Mil]

Sailor,

I didn't just accuse you of ranting, sailor, I accused you of writing "a hell of a TRIBAL rant." But if you refute my accusation, that's alright then.

Well, it would have been a refutation had you presented any evidence to support your position that the loss of the Harrier was a result of "a gross abuse of authority" and that, somehow, it was a Royal Air Force conspiracy (sorry, "skulduggery"). Judging by your declared age, assuming that there are facts in your profile, you were retired long before all your "actual factual events" took place; you weren't in the Forces, let alone the Headquarters when all these "events" took place, I was. You didn't see the joint effort that went into forming JF2000 and its successor at all levels. You didn't see the determination from both shades of blue to make it work for the good. There was no subterfuge.

You overlook the part your own 2-Star and other senior Naval Officers played in the Harrier disposal. Shifting the blame to the RAF is cynical and unfounded and is rather typical of your whole position; conveniently ignoring the bits of each "fact" that does not support your position. When the choice was between Harrier (300nm combat radius, 3650kg weapons) and Tornado (870nm combat radius, 9000kg weapons) the military and the politicians went for the obvious choice. The RAF had a lot to lose in the Harrier, so was certainly not what they would have chosen had it not been a "one or the other" choice. Again, the RN did not fight that hard, largely because the choice was that obvious and they had already set their gaze on two new carriers and a new VSTOL airframe.

I don't think anyone would disagree about the advantages of having a carrier with an embarked air wing for out of area ops if there are no land bases available. Your reference to Libya is completely, and I suspect deliberately, cynical. The RAF was not just sitting in Gioia del Colle launching the occasional mission that arrived too late to do any good. The national contribution to the coalition effort included 10 Typhoon and 16 Tornado, Sentinel R1 and Nimrod R1, VC10 Tankers and AWACS. The Royal Navy deployed 2 frigates, two attack submarines, a destroyer and a minesweeper. But all that was a small part of a massive coalition force and assets were tasked by the coalition.

There is no certainty that the UK's carrier with its air wing (had it existed) would have been employed in the manner you suggest. For example, despite the fact that the French deployed Charles de Gaulle, it was l'Armée de l'Air that flew the greatest number of strike missions in the operation - 35% of all the NATO strikes. Your suggestion that if the UK had been able to field a carrier it would have been deployed to the Libyan coast and negated the coalition need to use anything else is, frankly, naive and unfounded. It would have been deployed as the coalition saw fit and would have been tasked accordingly along side the USAF's A-10s, B-2s, Harriers, F-15Es and F-16s. Not an exhaustive list and I certainly don't intend to spend more time attempting to catalogue them all here.

As for the remainder of your two contributions to this thread, I would say only this. I think the first one is a tribal rant because it is clearly dripping with bile and is a disjointed collection of unfounded statements that appear to show how badly the RAF does things - despite describing some RAF Harrier pilots as individually "not all bad... ...very capable, who had operating to and from the deck well sorted, who slotted in to life aboard with no problem". Very magnanimous of you. Your considerable effort to refer to the RAF as "crabs" as many times as possible and the use of other disparaging phrases makes your contribution look more like hate mail than reasoned argument.

One last thing. I don't know what things were like in your old days, but the Forces have moved on a lot in the (what, 25, 26?) years since you left and your idea of fighting the other services more than the enemy is, thankfully, confined to the history books - although I'm sure there will be a few dinosaurs here that will be able to contribute more on that.

[BEagle]

Some pertinent words from 8 years ago:

watch?v=t0jgZKV4N_A&feature=player_detailpage

[Jimlad1]

One key and oft forgotten point about GR9 vs GR4 is that had GR4 been scrapped, the GR9 would have gone straight to HERRICK and ELLAMY etc. There would still have been no RN carrier operations because we'd have had to commit pretty much the entire force to land based operations to support existing commitments.

Its also forgotten that Ark Royal was only due to run on for another couple of years, that LUSTY was doing LPH work while OCEAN was in refit and that even if GR9 was kept, we'd have had maybe 2, possibly 3 years worth of an ability to put one carrier to sea occasionally with a few (maybe 6) harriers onboard.

I'm as dark blue as they come having served in the Naval Service, but even I can see that GR4 vs GR9 is a total no brainer.

[Heathrow Harry]

I find Sailors contribution utterly depressing..

after all these years he still thinks the PRINCIPAL ENEMY of the Royal Nay is the RAF......

sad, sad, sad...................... :{:{:{

[Mach Two]

Courtney Mil, I commend your post to the House. As you, Jimlad and MSOCS suggest, sailor's thinking, apart from being unbelievably venomous, is outdated, selectively factual and badly informed. Many of us here will be intrigued to see how he supports his arguments now that they have been put into the context of modern warfare and his use of apocryphal anecdotes exposed.

Perhaps we'll get more vitriol, a complete change of tack or simply an ignore in the hope the facts as you presented them will just go away.

[Courtney Mil]

I postulate that the "sunshine island" is most probably Grenada and I'll leave it at that

To be honest, MSOCS, I wondered that too. But that first paragraph of his is such a disjointed collection of unrelated attacks that it's either someone trolling or Sharkey's suffering a serious decline in his faculties - at least he can string a few words together even if their meaning was usual lost in, or discretided by the ridiculous paranoia. Sailor is just rambling.

I note that he hasn't managed to respond to a reasoned argument against his rant. I suspect this is someone trolling.

[sailor]

Interesting to see the number of responses aimed at the individual as opposed to accepting and acknowledging wrongdoings, cheating and other malpractices exercised by the brethren in light blue; facts cannot be denied whilst opinions may vary.
Naval squadron disembarked to RAF Tengah to support those taking part in the Indonesian confrontation accommodated in a tent close to the runway threshold. Sleep impossible due constant traffic at takeoff power and less so for landings; CO - Lt Cdr - on seeking better accommodation was told that making cabins - rooms perhaps in light blue terminology - available to naval aviators would mean that Pilot Officers would be required to double up and this was not acceptable. CO points to his 2&1/2 stripes and advises that those poor dears were outranked and we were very ungraciously finally accommodated properly.
Javelin outfit from UK demanded a month's day-flying familiarisation with the local Malayan area before undertaking nightflying and were granted it, whilst we Naval aviators straight off the carrier went straight into night operations. Another example of the endearing qualities so frequently evinced by our "brothers in arms".
Ask any pongo in Borneo or its environs at that time for the response they would get to a request for light blue helicopter support on a Wednesday afternoon or weekend. Before long they did not bother but went directly to the Naval choppers available knowing they would turn out for them.
These are just a few more examples at coalface level that might possibly indicate why I and a lot of my contemporaries hold crabs in roughly the same regard as we do politicians.
You want more examples ? There are plenty.
PS. Wrong island by a hemisphere - about as accurate as the crab Hunters' rockets aimed at the Torrey Canyon !!

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, sailor, now I understand. You're saying that Navy pilots are brilliant, brave, so skilled that they can go anywhere, do anything and RAF pilots are no use at all. Given the extent of the evidence you've presented, I am totally convinced that in my entire 30 year career I have been nothing more than a scab on the bottom of military aviation. I contributed nothing to the defence of the U.K. and the only difference I made to any op that I was sent to was to run up transportation and accommodation charges, whilst holding back the aim of the operation. Your argument is so convincing that I now want to devote my life to making up for the enormous mistake I made by wearing the wrong shade of uniform. How could I have known what a massive mistake I was making?

I was on a deployment once in 1952 when all the RAF pilots wanted beds to sleep in, but the Navy pilots said they didn't need to sleep because they were too busy flying. Everyone thought they were great and we were all tossers. I hated that and wished I'd joined the Navy instead.

[Herod]

Sailor.
Has it occurred to you that the Javelin crews may have wanted time to acclimatise to the tropics (I very much doubt a month, on the choppers during Bersatu Padu we got about three days), whereas the Navy, not travelling as fast as a Javelin, had already become acclimatised.

Further to your complaint about accommodation, I don't believe a word of it and, I think if you are honest, neither do you.

[glad rag]

RogHead, long time Flt Ops test aircrew and grateful recipient of a BAE pension.:ok:

Says it all really hook, line and sinker....

[Mach Two]

Ladies and Gentlemen, you have a megatroll in your midst. It will continue to make random posts with no interaction for as long as you react. Don't feed the troll. Resistance is futile.

[Bill Macgillivray]

Where did you learn to fly, Sailor, and what colour was the uniform?

[Mach Two]

You expect a reply, Bill? He's looking for a response and you just gave him one.

Don't feed the troll.

[BEagle]

Re. Torrey Canyon, I seem to recall that the FAA dropped all the 1000lb bombs, missing the stationary undefended target with 25% of them.....:\

It was the highlight of Westward News at the time - as was the controversy of the RAF's use of napalm to try to ignite the oil rather than letting it scatter.

Sad that a few vocal ex-FAA types seem to have such colossal chips on their shoulders....:(

[jindabyne]

And the Hunters didn't fire rockets.

[Courtney Mil]

Sailor,

As you ignored it the first time, I invite you again to answer my response to you at Post#34.

Sailor,

I didn't just accuse you of ranting, sailor, I accused you of writing "a hell of a TRIBAL rant." But if you refute my accusation, that's alright then.

Well, it would have been a refutation had you presented any evidence to support your position that the loss of the Harrier was a result of "a gross abuse of authority" and that, somehow, it was a Royal Air Force conspiracy (sorry, "skulduggery"). Judging by your declared age, assuming that there are facts in your profile, you were retired long before all your "actual factual events" took place; you weren't in the Forces, let alone the Headquarters when all these "events" took place, I was. You didn't see the joint effort that went into forming JF2000 and its successor at all levels. You didn't see the determination from both shades of blue to make it work for the good. There was no subterfuge.

You overlook the part your own 2-Star and other senior Naval Officers played in the Harrier disposal. Shifting the blame to the RAF is cynical and unfounded and is rather typical of your whole position; conveniently ignoring the bits of each "fact" that does not support your position. When the choice was between Harrier (300nm combat radius, 3650kg weapons) and Tornado (870nm combat radius, 9000kg weapons) the military and the politicians went for the obvious choice. The RAF had a lot to lose in the Harrier, so was certainly not what they would have chosen had it not been a "one or the other" choice. Again, the RN did not fight that hard, largely because the choice was that obvious and they had already set their gaze on two new carriers and a new VSTOL airframe.

I don't think anyone would disagree about the advantages of having a carrier with an embarked air wing for out of area ops if there are no land bases available. Your reference to Libya is completely, and I suspect deliberately, cynical. The RAF was not just sitting in Gioia del Colle launching the occasional mission that arrived too late to do any good. The national contribution to the coalition effort included 10 Typhoon and 16 Tornado, Sentinel R1 and Nimrod R1, VC10 Tankers and AWACS. The Royal Navy deployed 2 frigates, two attack submarines, a destroyer and a minesweeper. But all that was a small part of a massive coalition force and assets were tasked by the coalition.

There is no certainty that the UK's carrier with its air wing (had it existed) would have been employed in the manner you suggest. For example, despite the fact that the French deployed Charles de Gaulle, it was l'Armée de l'Air that flew the greatest number of strike missions in the operation - 35% of all the NATO strikes. Your suggestion that if the UK had been able to field a carrier it would have been deployed to the Libyan coast and negated the coalition need to use anything else is, frankly, naive and unfounded. It would have been deployed as the coalition saw fit and would have been tasked accordingly along side the USAF's A-10s, B-2s, Harriers, F-15Es and F-16s. Not an exhaustive list and I certainly don't intend to spend more time attempting to catalogue them all here.

As for the remainder of your two contributions to this thread, I would say only this. I think the first one is a tribal rant because it is clearly dripping with bile and is a disjointed collection of unfounded statements that appear to show how badly the RAF does things - despite describing some RAF Harrier pilots as individually "not all bad... ...very capable, who had operating to and from the deck well sorted, who slotted in to life aboard with no problem". Very magnanimous of you. Your considerable effort to refer to the RAF as "crabs" as many times as possible and the use of other disparaging phrases makes your contribution look more like hate mail than reasoned argument.

One last thing. I don't know what things were like in your old days, but the Forces have moved on a lot in the (what, 25, 26?) years since you left and your idea of fighting the other services more than the enemy is, thankfully, confined to the history books - although I'm sure there will be a few dinosaurs here that will be able to contribute more on that.

Or are you incapable of engaging in reasoned debate?

[sailor]

Jindabyne - suggest you read High Stakes: Britain's Air Arms in Action 1945-1990
By Vic Flintham partic. page 252, amongst other sources, to see how wrong you are.

BEagle - so 75% bombs on target does not seem a good result to you ?
I would say it is streets ahead of the "successful" lone Vulcan near-disaster PR stunt that won the Falklands war - one bomb on the hardstanding near the runway was it?
No chips on either shoulder but still a well balanced chap putting some facts before some who may not know them and many who still deny them !

Bill Mac - that place off the A19 by York because the light blues had finaigled the monopoly of all flying training. Subsequently honed into proper shape by the nautical boys to produce yet another ace of the base ahead in time of that other well loved beardie Sea Harrier solo Falklands war winner.

Herod - a full month before nightflying; more bar time acclimatisation nothing else and the accommodation details were factual; whether you wish to believe them or not is of little interest but you should not deny them.

Courtney Mil - your post # 41 - spot on lad ! Glad the veil has been lifted from your eyes at last - must be the benefit of local vino and garlic where you are.
Chances are the Senior Service would not have allowed you in, so my sympathies are with you on your second choice !

Your post # 34 - if I had the time I would participate in reasoned debate to a greater extent, but I have no desire to aim for the more than 5000 posts you have clocked up as I have better things to do with my time. The phrase get a life springs to mind regarding your prolific output; seems someone may be trying to relive their past.
I reiterate - CDS abused position by bending PM's ear privately and having previous agreed keep the Harrier decision reversed; try doing some research yourself on this fact.
Tornado radius of action is no advantage when instead of being more than an hour away in Italy your seaborne runway is a short hop away from the target which therefore cannot disperse before you get to it. Close support means many sorties providing greater weapon load in a given time - not wasted in transit cruise from a base a million miles away and costing a fortune in the process in fuel, runway rental and expensive accommodation for all involved, instead of a wardroom and messdecks which do not require another country's agreement to use.

Heathrow Harry - and the rest of the light blue brigade who are still in denial; I draw your attention to the obituary in the Daily Telegraph of a great Admiral who died recently, Admiral Sir William O’Brien who succinctly put his view of crab knavery thus:-

" Promoted to rear-admiral in 1964, he became Naval Secretary, dealing with officers’ career planning, promotions and awards. This was the time of a “carrier battle”, of which he wrote: “That the land-based national Air Force should have supported the politicians in stripping its sister service of this essential ingredient is sad. That this Air Force should have argued that all maritime requirements could be met by shore based aircraft is dishonest; that it should have been believed is astounding”.

So I am not alone in my views and could not have put it any better myself.

[Just This Once...]

Rarely do we see such uninformed, illogical and factually incorrect bile delivered with such overt bitterness. You must make for truly horrible company!

[BATCO]

... as well as hijacking an otherwise worthy thread.

CdG is bringing a great boost to French firepower in the region. It will be hard for the AAF/FAF to take on the baton when it is time to bring CdG back, but I guess they are working on it.

Whatever the actions over the end of the CV01 programme were, let's hope we have learned from it (and I think we have).

Regards
Batco

[BEagle]

Was the Torrey Canyon attacked at night? No.
Were the attackers exposed to hostile threats? No.
Did the PK of Op Black Buck 1 match theoretical predictions? Yes.
Was it a mistake to cancel CVA01? Yes.
Was it a bigger mistake to cancel TSR2? Yes.

As for dirty tricks, it was Mountbottom as CDS who was probably the most guilty in trying to promote the interests of his navy boyfriends over the national interest....:rolleyes:

[Tourist]

Without getting into the battle about the facts, I can confirm that, rightly or wrongly, the vast majority of the aircrew in the FAA believe what sailor is saying to be true.

Obviously that does not fit with the RAFs perception of reality.

My point is purely that sailor is not a lone lunatic raving or bitter, he is merely relating what the crewrooms of the RN believe to be true.

We all have personal knowledge of various aspects of this narrative, and these will influence our beliefs re the facts.

We will never agree, so not much point arguing again.......

[sailor]

Tourist - thanks for your perspicacious observation; both sides dyed in the wool beliefs sums it up.

Back to the original topic - carriers and their aircraft are very good news !

[BATCO]

.......- carriers and their aircraft are very good news !

Air arms and their aircraft in balance with naval and land forces are very good news.

Batco

[Minnie Burner]

I thought the geezer who stuffed us all was the famous ex-pongo major....

https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Ffamousdude.com%2Fimages%2Fdenis-healey-04.jpg&sp=3be2d9d1348f6a4be3af13b953619554

[BEagle]

Although their engines are fitted with thrust de-rating devices, are the Shar FA2s at Culdrose otherwise maintained in airworthy condition?

Although the very idea would cause MAA to have palpitations, perhaps the feasibility of restoring a number of the jets to flying condition should be studied? Presumably there are a few RN pilots on Typhoon who could be trained to fly the Shar FA2 from the Queen Elizabeth - even just in an operational training role?

It will be a national disgrace for the QE to be commissioned without a FW aircraft element, pending the eventual arrival of the F-35B.

[MSOCS]

Completely agree BEagle. But let's put things in a little perspective.

QNLZ will arrive without having had any aircraft onboard. Initially she will look at clearing RW ac and then the FW will come in around 2018 - these testing evolutions will produce the required evidence to support a Release to Service recommendation. Kinda vital really. MAA would agree!

After RtoS, an embarkation period will be needed to qualify the F-35 pilots to fly; to give the maintainers and deck hands and (well) all the ship's company the exposure to working together, Jointly. This will all be a build up to declaration of Maritime IOC.

The UK has stated a Maritime IOC date of 2020 but they'll make best endeavours I'm sure, because you never get two new toys and learn to fight and operate them together overnight.

That's the perspective I wish to bring to this discussion, now that it seems to have come back to a topic more related to the thread.

[RAFEngO74to09]

In addition, it is likely we will see USMC F-35Bs operated from the QE2 Class carriers which will assist with the workup of the ships' crews.


DSEI: U.S. Marine F-35Bs Will Operate From British Queen Elizabeth Carriers - USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2015/09/17/dsei-u-s-marine-f-35bs-will-operate-from-british-queen-elizabeth-carriers)

[BEagle]

While it will be helpful for USMC F-35s to be embarked on the QE, will they have to adapt to RN methods, or will they expect the RN to adopt USMC ways?

IOC of 2020 will mean a lamentable 10 year absence of naval FW from British carriers....assuming that the F-35B programme doesn't slip yet further to the right, that is...:hmm:

For all his faults, I do hope that old Sharkey will still be around to see the F-35B flown by RN pilots from a British ship!

[MSOCS]

BEagle, the US will work to QEC operating restrictions and limitations. This would be the same the other way around - if a UK F-35B operated from a Nimitz or something like the USS Wasp.

I also hope Sharkey gets to see the RN and RAF working together and leaving past disagreements in the ship's wake. It'll also show those grumpy old 'salts' and 'crabs' that their experiences were indicative of the times in which they served and will undoubtedly be the best antidote to their vapid views. Success breeds envy. In this case, envy that they can no longer reasonably claim that 'nothing's changed!'

[jindabyne]

Spot on MSOCS! Onwards and upwards, as is said!

[Bill Macgillivray]

"Old Sharkey" - for heaven's sake!!!! I was his QFI at Linton (we actually got on pretty well!). Maybe my stint on exchange with the RN helped, but I was "light-blue" all my service and never came across this pointless, childish and totally useless bickering that I see here!! Time we all worked the same way, as used to happen !!!

[Lyneham Lad]

Although their engines are fitted with thrust de-rating devices, are the Shar FA2s at Culdrose otherwise maintained in airworthy condition?


Bring back the FA2's? In which case, might as well bring this back... ;) Nostalgia's not what it used to be.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f84/Lyneham_Lad/Miscellaneous/Illustrious_1024_zpske1fr088.jpg

1989 - as seen from a Brittany Ferry.

[Royalistflyer]

BEagle's idea re the Shar FA2s at Culdrose makes some sense to me. There are several navys still operating late versions of Harrier. Surely buying some, having them gone over and brought up to scratch, so that we could at least field one unit of FAA might be a good move. For a start it would give us a unit that was used to carrier operations fairly quickly, and very cheaply. The Harrier is obsolescent but still very operable in the kind of uncontested space that we might be operating in. The USMC use of our ships worries me because I see not too far distant political problems. I'd rather see at least one carrier with one or two Harrier units aboard as soon as possible. The aircraft if acquired fairly soon and refurbished, could do a lot of working up on a land base before the carrier was ready to embark them.

[MSOCS]

How would you train or re-qualify pilots to fly the SHar after so many years. 899 NAS was closed down; so was the Harrier GR9 OCU.

How would you train or re-qualify the engineers.

Most, if not all, of the paperwork to run the Force was binned.

Much of the experience left the Service.

You'd almost be starting from scratch.

[Frostchamber]

A bigger problem, hell having frozen over first, might be flying them off the ice.

[Stitchbitch]

Bill M, it worked out that way on all the JFH boat trips that I went on. Banter aside, the dark blue had some very good people who suffered us with great patience and humor.

[Courtney Mil]

Royalist flyer,

Do you have any idea of the resources and money it would take just to recreate the support for that? The Government has committed all the funding it's willing to in SDSR and is happy with its plan as it stands. We'd better all hope the pound rallies a bit and that Brexit doesn't happen; any further dip in fortunes and all that could change.

[jindabyne]

CM

I agree. Except for your Brexit bit!

[Courtney Mil]

I'm not talking about anything to do with the outcome, what may happen afterwards or the effects that might have. I was referring to the effect of the announcement of the ref on the pound. Perhaps you're not as alive to the exchange rate as I am. God knows what effect the result of the ref will have on the pound. To buy any military hardware from abroad we need the pound to go up.

[Royalistflyer]

Does the USMC not still fly AV-8s? Could we not train all we need with them initially?

[Cazalet33]

Just the thing:

A naval battle against ISIL. That'll teach 'em who's master of the seas.

Can we join in? Pretty please?

We've got a minesweeper with a yellow-painted heli spot on the foredeck and everyfink.

[RAFEngO74to09]

There is no way some half-assed attempt to cobble together a bunch of reactivated RN or second-hand non-UK Harriers / AV-8s is feasible or affordable for the UK.

The main issues behind getting rid of the RAF Jaguar and Harrier fleets were the huge overheads in running on relatively small fleets of multiple different aircraft types - through life support contracts, spares, GSE, and type training courses for aircrew and ground crew to mention just a few. If fleets of 50-100 aircraft went to consolidate around the Tornado GR4 and Typhoon fleets, bringing in another smaller fleet just doesn't make sense.

I think there are 2 ways the UK might get some fixed wing use out of the carriers prior to the work up of the UK F-35B fleet.

One is through the already announced USMC F-35B option.

Another might be, if the USMC was willing, to do some type of exchange deal for a small det (say 4-6 aircraft) of USMC AV-8Bs to operate from the QE2 Class partly manned with a few more UK exchange pilots. The other side of the exchange might be to offer a few more RAF Typhoon exchange slots which might be attractive enough to the USMC to make their effort involved worthwhile - just a thought but probably way too much work in the timescale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHvVWu7sjek

[MSOCS]

Very well put, EngO.

There's also another key aspect: namely, the Government - having U-turned on F-35 and slashed fleets and carriers from the Defence arsenal - would effectively be admitting it had got it wrong. That's a 12-bore in the metatarsals that couldn't be blamed on Labour's financial dereliction for once.

[BEagle]

At the risk of raising politics, 'BREXIT' would be an unmitigated disaster for the UK! Better the devil you know, stay in and keep a foot in the European door, so that the UK can improve the PM's current concessions even further over the coming years.

Royalistflyer, I was only thinking of a few SHAR2s being used in a training role, for pilot and deck handling operations, not for operational use. I'm sure the US could train the necessary pilots. USMC AV-8Bs would indeed be another option - preferably leased and RN manned.

[RAFEngO74to09]

There would be no "spare" US AV-8B available to lease anyway until FY21 at the earliest and then you're back to bearing the unacceptable total cost of operation of aircraft that the US would otherwise store as attrition replacements for the rest of the fleet. Remember they lost several in the ground attack in Afghanistan.

The current plot is:

FY16: 6 x 14AE sqns > 5 x 16AE sqns.
FY17-FY20: 5 x sqns.
FY21: 4 x sqns.
FY22: 3 x sqns.
FY23: 2 x sqns.
FY24-FY26 (at least - the current 10-year plan): 1 x sqn

[Brain Potter]

BEagle,

Your idea might work, but only if somebody could buy those FA2s, put them on an N-registration and operate them as experimental aircraft under contract. If the MoD are required to be the airworthines authority, the cost would be prohibitive.

Maybe the FAA could rescue the FAA?

[BATCO]

CdG is now back in port, GAN disembarked and never to re-embark with the Super Etendard (M).

Batco

[Lonewolf_50]

There would be no "spare" US AV-8B available to lease anyway until FY21 at the earliest and then you're back to bearing the unacceptable total cost of operation of aircraft that the US would otherwise store as attrition replacements ..
Not to mention that the ones the USMC do have aren't getting any younger, fatigue life wise. As that airframe/system gets older, all kinds of bits and pieces and kit won't be made any longer ... which further drives up the cost of keeping a few squadrons of them flying. Suppliers need a certain volume to stay in business, or a certain price point.