Sea Jet
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I've been to the Bay of Bengal. And yes it is as humid as a Turkish bath (as are many other places on earth) so what price your precious Fleet air defence in such circumstances - let alone projecting power ashore (the RN's re-invented raison d'etre - and a role I completely subscribe to).
I'm sure you didn't mean to compare the SHAR with the Mig 15 or the F86 - or then again ........
I'm sure you didn't mean to compare the SHAR with the Mig 15 or the F86 - or then again ........
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T45/PAAMS/Aster is even better, better than even AEGIS. The tide has turned.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist that one!!
Regards,
M2
Suspicion breeds confidence
Aster 15 is in service on the C de G. It has intercepted supersonic high and low level threats. Not the full PAAMS system, an inferior version but still very good.
I didn't mean to liken the Shar and the Mig15, my point was as BEagle said most air cons have limitations and that can be exploited in combat just as the spams did in Korea once they figured out when the Migs aircon system would go into white out. I remember flying on Dan Dare Comets and they would frequently mist up on finals. I hope the Kipperbomber has a better system
I didn't mean to liken the Shar and the Mig15, my point was as BEagle said most air cons have limitations and that can be exploited in combat just as the spams did in Korea once they figured out when the Migs aircon system would go into white out. I remember flying on Dan Dare Comets and they would frequently mist up on finals. I hope the Kipperbomber has a better system
I've a few happy memories of flights to Menorca in the old Desperate Dan Comet 4s! 
Last edited by BEagle; 27th Feb 2005 at 09:09.
Suspicion breeds confidence
'Mornin BEagle. I always enjoyed flying on the Comets. They also had a 707 called "Sick Nellie" on which I had the longest ever flight to Honkers, but that's another story....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JF,
Many thanks!! That'll explain the AV-8S paintwork.
Navaleye,
Humble apologies and neck wound back! I Wasn't aware that CDG had ASTER 15 operational already.
Out of interest, with your naval experience, which would you view as the more capable system right now: ASTER 15 or SM2 ER with CEC capability?
Regards,
M2
Many thanks!! That'll explain the AV-8S paintwork.
Navaleye,
Humble apologies and neck wound back! I Wasn't aware that CDG had ASTER 15 operational already.
Out of interest, with your naval experience, which would you view as the more capable system right now: ASTER 15 or SM2 ER with CEC capability?
Regards,
M2
Suspicion breeds confidence
M2, That like comparing oranges with refridgerators they are completely different beasts Aster 15 is a short/medium range weapon. Aster 30 and the later 45 would be a better comparison. There's no doubt that Aster is the more agile and its faster. Standard OTOH has a longer range and a bigger warhead, but it is still limited by its semi- active seeker, so you are still having to timeshare TIRs which is a big draw back.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Further to althenick's post on the CVF- News Update thread I would like to add the following. As far as I know 1SL retires in July, the rumoured successor in Vice Adm Jonathan Band. He is very pro CVF and will keep the momentum up. Richard Beedal's comments are very accurate but I have to say he has been drinking from a half empty glass rather than a half full one of late. Read into that what you will. Regarding CVF, politicians NEVER place large warship orders 18 months before and election but usually a month or two before. Watch this space. I doubt a May election, October is more realistic IMHO and that fits with a summer Main Gate for CVF.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...... and his glass is always metaphorically half full. Practically his glass was always full full - especially when socializing with his WAFUs when he was an outstanding CVS Captain in the mid nineties. If he becomes 1SL from present post of CINCFLEET, I for one will be more than happy - he is an awesome leader and Officer.
Oggin
p.s. edit to say to be really really pedantic it is Admiral Sir Jonathon Band
Oggin
p.s. edit to say to be really really pedantic it is Admiral Sir Jonathon Band
Last edited by Oggin Aviator; 28th Feb 2005 at 20:15.
Power Projection
During the Cold War, the main role of the RN (and maritime elements of the RAF) was defending the Atlantic resupply roots against the Soviet threat, mainly from submarines but also from aircraft and surface vessels. A secondary role was to have an amphibious capability, largely dedicated to NATO's Northern Flank. It was this set up that led John Nott to make his disastrous 1981 White Paper. As the Cold War ended in the early nineties, the Services were reduced in size. Frigate numbers were cut, and this was partly justified by two things - the increasing capabilities of the new Type 23, and the move away from sub hunting as our main focus to amphibious type operations, with defence against submarine, surface, air and mine threats being in support of an amphibious operation.
As part of this, the UK has invested quite a lot in amphibious ships and other assets. We now have Ocean, the new LPDs Albion and Bulwark, and will soon have the Bay class LSD(A)s operated by the RFA, and Point class Ro Ros for strategic sealift. We have new landing craft, hovercraft, vehicles, longer range ammunition for the 4.5 inch gun, new communications systems, and quite a few other things. I would guess (from open sources) that the investment we have made must be at least £1500 million, possibly nearly £2000 million.
To quote directly from Richard Beedall's website, particularly this page:
From 2005, a Royal Navy Amphibious Task Group (ATG) - sometimes referred to by its American designation of Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) - will include at least one Albion Class Landing Platform Dock (LPD) as the command ship, one Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH - either HMS Ocean or if unavailable an Invincible Class in its secondary LPH role), and normally two Bay Class Auxiliary Landing Ship Dock (LSD(A)). The Embarked Military Force (EMF) will usually be major elements of 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines, although British Army units may also be embarked to a greater or lesser degree.
In an assault landing operation, the first wave of troops are landed on the beach by landing craft from the LPDs - HMS Albion and/or Bulwark - and by a "vertical assault" on vital points somewhat inland by helicopters from the LPH (e.g. HMS Ocean), to establish a beachhead and landing zone. The LSD(A)'s are initially positioned about 20nm offshore and remain over-the-horizon during the first wave assault, they may use landing craft and helicopters to help offload the second wave and subsequent waves of troops and equipment from themselves. When the beach area and landing zone have been finally confirmed as secure, the LSD(A)'s will approach the landing zone and from just one or two thousand yards off-shore will deploy Mexeflotes (motorised pontoons) to assist in the quick and efficient offloading of the heavy vehicles and equipment that they carry. Once a harbour has been secured, Point Class "Ro-Ro" Strategic Transport's and ships taken up from trade (STUFT) will bring in further reinforcements and re-supply the force.
Needless to say, the forces are all vulnerable to attack, particularly when actually carrying out a landing. A lot of the planning for our current amphibious forces started in the early nineties, when studies were started that would lead to building LPH and LPD(R). At the same time the planners were looking into potential threats and future vulnerabilities. It was about this time that the green light was given for the Sea Harrier to be upgraded from FRS1 to FA2 (including a number of new build aircraft, the last in 1998). We can only assume that the MOD/RN planners thought that this type of ATG would need air defence. George Robertson shared this view when he conducted the SDR. What has changed since then? Has the potential threat from aircraft and air launched weapons reduced? Is UK foreign policy now concerned with different parts of the world to those in the nineties?
Before you say "But we won't do this sort of thing without the Americans" I ask you to consider a few things:
1. We can't predict the future.
2. We could find ourselves in a multinational operation without the US, perhaps with other European nations or under the auspices of the UN.
3. Even alongside the US, UK forces will often operate in a different area to US forces, perhaps several hundred miles away. This idea is demonstrated both by NATO exercises and events in the Gulf. Thus not having organic air defence will cause major problems for both ourselves and others.
Last night I attended a presentation by a staff officer from COMATG. Although the Sea Harrier was only mentioned once - "It's a shame we're losing it" - I couldn't help thinking about the vulnerability of an ATG, and of course the cuts currently taking place will not help. Asymmetric threats were discussed at some length, and the possible means to protect against them. I fear an enemy could use aircraft in this way - if they lack aircraft with the right weapons to attack (big) ships then he might attack landing craft or helicopters full of troops, simply to inflict heavy loss of life.
We could respond (of course we won't until it happens, we are reactive after the event instead of anticipating threats and vulnerabilities) by fitting SAM systems to landing craft (and certain other vessels), and giving helicopters a self defence air to air system, but surely it would be cheaper (in both money and lives) and better to retain a certain number (one squadron?) of Sea Harriers than to suffer losses and then run around trying to do things urgently?
As part of this, the UK has invested quite a lot in amphibious ships and other assets. We now have Ocean, the new LPDs Albion and Bulwark, and will soon have the Bay class LSD(A)s operated by the RFA, and Point class Ro Ros for strategic sealift. We have new landing craft, hovercraft, vehicles, longer range ammunition for the 4.5 inch gun, new communications systems, and quite a few other things. I would guess (from open sources) that the investment we have made must be at least £1500 million, possibly nearly £2000 million.
To quote directly from Richard Beedall's website, particularly this page:
From 2005, a Royal Navy Amphibious Task Group (ATG) - sometimes referred to by its American designation of Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) - will include at least one Albion Class Landing Platform Dock (LPD) as the command ship, one Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH - either HMS Ocean or if unavailable an Invincible Class in its secondary LPH role), and normally two Bay Class Auxiliary Landing Ship Dock (LSD(A)). The Embarked Military Force (EMF) will usually be major elements of 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines, although British Army units may also be embarked to a greater or lesser degree.
In an assault landing operation, the first wave of troops are landed on the beach by landing craft from the LPDs - HMS Albion and/or Bulwark - and by a "vertical assault" on vital points somewhat inland by helicopters from the LPH (e.g. HMS Ocean), to establish a beachhead and landing zone. The LSD(A)'s are initially positioned about 20nm offshore and remain over-the-horizon during the first wave assault, they may use landing craft and helicopters to help offload the second wave and subsequent waves of troops and equipment from themselves. When the beach area and landing zone have been finally confirmed as secure, the LSD(A)'s will approach the landing zone and from just one or two thousand yards off-shore will deploy Mexeflotes (motorised pontoons) to assist in the quick and efficient offloading of the heavy vehicles and equipment that they carry. Once a harbour has been secured, Point Class "Ro-Ro" Strategic Transport's and ships taken up from trade (STUFT) will bring in further reinforcements and re-supply the force.
Needless to say, the forces are all vulnerable to attack, particularly when actually carrying out a landing. A lot of the planning for our current amphibious forces started in the early nineties, when studies were started that would lead to building LPH and LPD(R). At the same time the planners were looking into potential threats and future vulnerabilities. It was about this time that the green light was given for the Sea Harrier to be upgraded from FRS1 to FA2 (including a number of new build aircraft, the last in 1998). We can only assume that the MOD/RN planners thought that this type of ATG would need air defence. George Robertson shared this view when he conducted the SDR. What has changed since then? Has the potential threat from aircraft and air launched weapons reduced? Is UK foreign policy now concerned with different parts of the world to those in the nineties?
Before you say "But we won't do this sort of thing without the Americans" I ask you to consider a few things:
1. We can't predict the future.
2. We could find ourselves in a multinational operation without the US, perhaps with other European nations or under the auspices of the UN.
3. Even alongside the US, UK forces will often operate in a different area to US forces, perhaps several hundred miles away. This idea is demonstrated both by NATO exercises and events in the Gulf. Thus not having organic air defence will cause major problems for both ourselves and others.
Last night I attended a presentation by a staff officer from COMATG. Although the Sea Harrier was only mentioned once - "It's a shame we're losing it" - I couldn't help thinking about the vulnerability of an ATG, and of course the cuts currently taking place will not help. Asymmetric threats were discussed at some length, and the possible means to protect against them. I fear an enemy could use aircraft in this way - if they lack aircraft with the right weapons to attack (big) ships then he might attack landing craft or helicopters full of troops, simply to inflict heavy loss of life.
We could respond (of course we won't until it happens, we are reactive after the event instead of anticipating threats and vulnerabilities) by fitting SAM systems to landing craft (and certain other vessels), and giving helicopters a self defence air to air system, but surely it would be cheaper (in both money and lives) and better to retain a certain number (one squadron?) of Sea Harriers than to suffer losses and then run around trying to do things urgently?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 3rd Mar 2005 at 10:02.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I know many in the fleet would like to see 801 run-on until we have sufficient T45 to plug the gap. That would mean three years or so. 801 would have to expanded by absorbing part of 899 to cover the new pilot training needs, but money is the issue as always. It would also reduce the pool of pilots available for the GR9 fleet which has higher priority. The FA-2s are now owned by Strike Command and I'm sure the Airships would not want to sacrifice anything for the navy.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get rid of most of the 54 Tucanos currently stored in Shawbury, keep a few for spares...
Likewise to all the other gaff we have stored everywhere.
It would release funds to go elsewhere then....
Or is that stupid idea?
Likewise to all the other gaff we have stored everywhere.
It would release funds to go elsewhere then....
Or is that stupid idea?
While I'm not an engineer or an MOD procurement chap even I know a bit about fleet management, as I assumed most aircrew do. You always buy more aeroplanes than you need to man the front line and training roles, to allow for losses during the life of the type, management of flying hours evenly across the fleet, aircraft being off line for long term maintainence, etc, etc, etc.....
A navy ship can spent 18 months to 2 years in refit. Therefore the navy has more ships than it needs to man the front line to allow for this fact. It is no different with aircraft. As for why so many Tucanos, another factor is probably that the numbers bought were to support the larger RAF of the mid 90's. Cut back on Sqns, pilots etc, less need for training/recruitment therefore less need for training aeroplanes. No hiden agenda and none of it is rocket science!
A navy ship can spent 18 months to 2 years in refit. Therefore the navy has more ships than it needs to man the front line to allow for this fact. It is no different with aircraft. As for why so many Tucanos, another factor is probably that the numbers bought were to support the larger RAF of the mid 90's. Cut back on Sqns, pilots etc, less need for training/recruitment therefore less need for training aeroplanes. No hiden agenda and none of it is rocket science!
Talk of Tucanos and storage is digression. Unfortunately, nobody has commented on my concerns regarding amphibious operations and forces - see the previous page. Virtually everyone thinks that this is the future for major Navies.
On a related note, this link outlines the views on this by an Italian guy. If it is so obvious to him, why are our leaders so blind?
On that note, it would be interesting to hear the views of some of our European/NATO allies - particularly the Dutch, as the UK is probably meant to be responsible for the air defence of the UK/NL Amphibious forces.
On a related note, this link outlines the views on this by an Italian guy. If it is so obvious to him, why are our leaders so blind?
On that note, it would be interesting to hear the views of some of our European/NATO allies - particularly the Dutch, as the UK is probably meant to be responsible for the air defence of the UK/NL Amphibious forces.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 4th Mar 2005 at 15:46.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm...digression. Could it be that the thread digresses because the arguments have all become tired and pointless? I regret the loss of the SHAR as keenly as any in the light blue (3 years in JFH showed me what great blokes and excellent pilots the RN contributed to the force) but banging on and on about how exposed the Carrier/Amphib/GR9 packages will be will change nothing.
Yes, it's a loss.
Yes, it's stupid.
No, you won't be able to change it. Celebrate the capabilities and victories of the SHAR - look forward to CVF and F-35.
SBG
Yes, it's a loss.
Yes, it's stupid.
No, you won't be able to change it. Celebrate the capabilities and victories of the SHAR - look forward to CVF and F-35.
SBG
Unfortunately, I fear you may be right. If, God forbid, the worst does happen, will the Government use the same old excuse of "It's all the fault of the Tories?" It would appear Mr Blair is averse to risking his majority, or his image, but is only too keen to risk the lives of our Armed Forces.
And to think some US people are worried about the loss of the F14, even though they will have the Super Hornet.
Meanwhile - this link is not directly related to the issues of this thread, but is still interesting.
And to think some US people are worried about the loss of the F14, even though they will have the Super Hornet.
Meanwhile - this link is not directly related to the issues of this thread, but is still interesting.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But if memory serves me correctly, IV(AC) are due to take over in Khandahar from 1(F) fairly soon anyway. This also does little to prove the usefulness of the carrier when the jets have to land at Khandahar to refuel in order to carry out their operational mission. Great training opportunity and excellent work all round to get these jets from exercise to full-up ops, but don't make this out to be any more than it is. If we REALLY needed these extra sorties in-theatre, then they would be flown from Khandahar by the assets already there.
PR again, WEBF! You really should work in DCC....
SBG
PR again, WEBF! You really should work in DCC....
SBG