Big decisions looming?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four choices from what I can see:
1. We need AD / swing role more. Buy all Typhoons, might as well have them due to the penalty clauses. Bugger the carriers, who needs ovepriced cr@p that will take most of our remaining navy for the CBG in any case (duck for incoming from dark blue readers...). JSF land based plus a couple of helo carriers.
2. Bite the bullet, purchase no more Typhoons and build carriers with JSF to build a balanced force (for balanced force read putting eggs in every basket). Penalty clause for Typhoon? Either bite the bullet as they will cost more than the penalty clause to operate in the long run or renegotiate. God knows enough euro-bods have ignored treaties and so forth.
3. Buy both, stop pi$$ing money away elsewhere.
4. None of the above, and buy Gripens, put the completed Type-hoons in Duxford and Cosford next to the TSR2s...
Issues? Well, power projection for a start. Do we really need to power project with carriers when the only navy doing it seriously has seven (?) enormous CVNs with a larger complement of aircraft than most air forces. Are we seriously trying to compete?
Jobs. BWoS should have gone it alone in the first place and said sod the consortium. We could have built and put into service an indigenous fighter by now, and kept jobs into the bargain. I know where and how long ago we developed the CFC technology as I was there (but didn't develop it, can't steal anyone's thunder!). If I hear again that yet another country which takes up a huge proportion of the EU budget has cancelled its order to our detriment, I shall spit!
I was once accused of lacking in national pride when I suggested buying proven Scandinavian products, but damn it - the Vulcan was the last sodding British GA aircraft, could the Lightning have been the last AD?
I sure I've unleashed a torrent of invective about how much better the Type-hoon is than the Gripen, but damn it - which one was cleared operational seven years ago?
Taxi!
1. We need AD / swing role more. Buy all Typhoons, might as well have them due to the penalty clauses. Bugger the carriers, who needs ovepriced cr@p that will take most of our remaining navy for the CBG in any case (duck for incoming from dark blue readers...). JSF land based plus a couple of helo carriers.
2. Bite the bullet, purchase no more Typhoons and build carriers with JSF to build a balanced force (for balanced force read putting eggs in every basket). Penalty clause for Typhoon? Either bite the bullet as they will cost more than the penalty clause to operate in the long run or renegotiate. God knows enough euro-bods have ignored treaties and so forth.
3. Buy both, stop pi$$ing money away elsewhere.
4. None of the above, and buy Gripens, put the completed Type-hoons in Duxford and Cosford next to the TSR2s...
Issues? Well, power projection for a start. Do we really need to power project with carriers when the only navy doing it seriously has seven (?) enormous CVNs with a larger complement of aircraft than most air forces. Are we seriously trying to compete?
Jobs. BWoS should have gone it alone in the first place and said sod the consortium. We could have built and put into service an indigenous fighter by now, and kept jobs into the bargain. I know where and how long ago we developed the CFC technology as I was there (but didn't develop it, can't steal anyone's thunder!). If I hear again that yet another country which takes up a huge proportion of the EU budget has cancelled its order to our detriment, I shall spit!
I was once accused of lacking in national pride when I suggested buying proven Scandinavian products, but damn it - the Vulcan was the last sodding British GA aircraft, could the Lightning have been the last AD?
I sure I've unleashed a torrent of invective about how much better the Type-hoon is than the Gripen, but damn it - which one was cleared operational seven years ago?
Taxi!
Last edited by Green Meat; 4th Jan 2005 at 20:32.
If the UK can't afford both, then as the least useful, the carriers should go!
But you can always ask for the latest gen direct from DPA. As it says on their website:
"As from 1st January 2005, you will be able to request information on current Defence Procurement Agency equipment programmes by using this contact email address: [email protected]"
OK - when is the FSTA decision going to be made?
But you can always ask for the latest gen direct from DPA. As it says on their website:
"As from 1st January 2005, you will be able to request information on current Defence Procurement Agency equipment programmes by using this contact email address: [email protected]"
OK - when is the FSTA decision going to be made?
Last edited by BEagle; 4th Jan 2005 at 20:12.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the UK can't afford both, then as the least useful, the carriers should go!
I know there are more light blue than dark blue that frequent this forum so I'll probably get flamed however if the UK wants to keep some sort of place in the world then we need the carriers. Period. Why does the USN have so many if they are not useful? What is one doing right now - not warfighting but helping the humanitarian effort in Asia.
If we dont want to keep some sort of place in the world then admit it and dont buy EFA or CVF/JSF and spend the money elsewhere like supporting refugees from Eastern Europe or soap dodgers who cant be arsed to do a decents days work in their life.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZH, how could I forget the beautiful Bucc? 
Oh the days of insulation tape holding the cockpit together. I cherish the upset caused when they carried lgb alongside the laser designator that the GR1 couldn't...
Bring them back indeed!
Oggin Av, maybe you can speak with authority here - exactly how much of our remaining surface fleet would be required to support a CBG in the same manner that the US CVN require? Is it feasible with our latest rationalisations?
Oh the days of insulation tape holding the cockpit together. I cherish the upset caused when they carried lgb alongside the laser designator that the GR1 couldn't...Bring them back indeed!
Oggin Av, maybe you can speak with authority here - exactly how much of our remaining surface fleet would be required to support a CBG in the same manner that the US CVN require? Is it feasible with our latest rationalisations?
Cancelling Typhoon bar Tranche 3 aircraft could be a little troublesome given the contract penalties. CAS is quoted in either JDW or the Torygraph (I think the former) as saying that Typhoon Tranche 3 'isn't on anybody's radar' at the moment, so it might be that the partner nations are going to quietly agree to bin that Tranche (although I had the impression that the Germans want/need their Tranche 3 aircraft to meet their force structure planning assumptions?).
As Jacko pointed out on another thread, the JSF participation deal that the UK has guarantees the right to contribute to production, and doesn't tie the UK to buying 150. There are no contractual penalties for not taking the aspired to figure (and there are now some commentators who query whether or not the JSF is going to be as useful for the UK's purposes as the Typhoon). I'd not be at all surprised to see the JSF buy reduced to about 75 (sufficient to put 30 aboard a smaller CVF with only one CVF (Lite) ready for ops at any one time).
Of course, OA is right - if the Dear Leader is serious about doing Expeditionary Warfare, both Typhoon and CVF are required. Just to complicate matters, there are rumours that the F/A-22 programme might be cut back to under 200 - in which case, the ability to provide an AD capable aircraft in coalition operations might not be a bad thing...
OA is spot on - if Blair, Brown and the poodle at MoD aren't prepared to fund defence then they need to stop @rsing about pretending that the UK can do everything while simulataneously going about cutting left, right, centre, up, down and sideways...
As Jacko pointed out on another thread, the JSF participation deal that the UK has guarantees the right to contribute to production, and doesn't tie the UK to buying 150. There are no contractual penalties for not taking the aspired to figure (and there are now some commentators who query whether or not the JSF is going to be as useful for the UK's purposes as the Typhoon). I'd not be at all surprised to see the JSF buy reduced to about 75 (sufficient to put 30 aboard a smaller CVF with only one CVF (Lite) ready for ops at any one time).
Of course, OA is right - if the Dear Leader is serious about doing Expeditionary Warfare, both Typhoon and CVF are required. Just to complicate matters, there are rumours that the F/A-22 programme might be cut back to under 200 - in which case, the ability to provide an AD capable aircraft in coalition operations might not be a bad thing...
OA is spot on - if Blair, Brown and the poodle at MoD aren't prepared to fund defence then they need to stop @rsing about pretending that the UK can do everything while simulataneously going about cutting left, right, centre, up, down and sideways...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Green Meat
That is a very valid question and I dont get paid enough to provide an answer, although I would assume it would take considerable resources yes, however as a matter of scale the USN has 8 or so CVNs (not all at sea at the same time) but has 290 or so other surface ships to form the CSG (Carrier Strike Group) - (CBG is a dated term now). The UK wants 2 CVFs and would need to form a mini CSG from the 30 plus surface ships plus 10 or so SSNs, so, assuming one at sea as the on call carrier about 5 to 7 other platforms. Not unreasonable, given the capabilty of the T45 when it comes into service and the advent of a true network centric force (with decent organic airborne C2
) might make this requirement smaller. So it is achievable.
One could argue that the UK per se is not likely to suffer a direct airborne attack such as in 1940. Therefore, if you accept this argument, what are you going to do with all those Typhoons? Let them sit at Leeming and Leuchars just doing SCT all the time? Spend a whole lot of dosh detting them all over the world in a Strike role, with the RAF personnel's morale forever plummeting because they are away from home for more than a few weeks? Or have a carrier with some technically superior true swing capable aircraft patrolling the seas projecting power, promoting UK interests abroad, hosting awesome cocktail parties in exotic locations and able to step in relatively quickly to help in humanitarian or peace support missions when required?
As we appear to be locked into Typhoon, my answer would be to not cancel it and waste that money already spent, but to marinise it and put it on a CTOL CVF, then integrate smaller numbers of JSF when that finally hits the front line. This would provide a cheaper interim compromise soution.
I guess its for the Government to decide where their priorities lie.
That is a very valid question and I dont get paid enough to provide an answer, although I would assume it would take considerable resources yes, however as a matter of scale the USN has 8 or so CVNs (not all at sea at the same time) but has 290 or so other surface ships to form the CSG (Carrier Strike Group) - (CBG is a dated term now). The UK wants 2 CVFs and would need to form a mini CSG from the 30 plus surface ships plus 10 or so SSNs, so, assuming one at sea as the on call carrier about 5 to 7 other platforms. Not unreasonable, given the capabilty of the T45 when it comes into service and the advent of a true network centric force (with decent organic airborne C2
) might make this requirement smaller. So it is achievable.One could argue that the UK per se is not likely to suffer a direct airborne attack such as in 1940. Therefore, if you accept this argument, what are you going to do with all those Typhoons? Let them sit at Leeming and Leuchars just doing SCT all the time? Spend a whole lot of dosh detting them all over the world in a Strike role, with the RAF personnel's morale forever plummeting because they are away from home for more than a few weeks? Or have a carrier with some technically superior true swing capable aircraft patrolling the seas projecting power, promoting UK interests abroad, hosting awesome cocktail parties in exotic locations and able to step in relatively quickly to help in humanitarian or peace support missions when required?
As we appear to be locked into Typhoon, my answer would be to not cancel it and waste that money already spent, but to marinise it and put it on a CTOL CVF, then integrate smaller numbers of JSF when that finally hits the front line. This would provide a cheaper interim compromise soution.
I guess its for the Government to decide where their priorities lie.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: EU Region 9 - apparently
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know the contract penalty details, however my tuppenybit at just below turf level:
1. Cancel tranche 3 of Typ-hoon.
2. Build the carriers, get enough JSFs to put on them,
3. Cancel the Harrier FRS cancellation to keep something that works going until a replacement has matured.
4. Stop mucking about with the A400 concept and buy more large transport.
5. Stop bean counters removing the ability to produce bodies in the right colour uniforms to do all the jobs tasked, or stop tasking jobs above the level the Bean counters will pay for.
Marinate the Typ-hoon? how big a boat will it need to leap aloft from, given a meaningful deliverable on board.
[Still having seat / keyboard interface problems - cordless keyboard]
1. Cancel tranche 3 of Typ-hoon.
2. Build the carriers, get enough JSFs to put on them,
3. Cancel the Harrier FRS cancellation to keep something that works going until a replacement has matured.
4. Stop mucking about with the A400 concept and buy more large transport.
5. Stop bean counters removing the ability to produce bodies in the right colour uniforms to do all the jobs tasked, or stop tasking jobs above the level the Bean counters will pay for.
Marinate the Typ-hoon? how big a boat will it need to leap aloft from, given a meaningful deliverable on board.
[Still having seat / keyboard interface problems - cordless keyboard]
With regards to the USN, most of their surface ships (destroyer and above) carry Tomahawk so they contribute to offensive capabilities.
There is a trade off between carrier based aircraft and surface warships, a carrier's aircraft can have both the offensive and defensive capibility of quite a few surface vessels, and can give both sensors and weapons greater range, but aren't as flexible - particularly for low intensity stuff.
There is a trade off between carrier based aircraft and surface warships, a carrier's aircraft can have both the offensive and defensive capibility of quite a few surface vessels, and can give both sensors and weapons greater range, but aren't as flexible - particularly for low intensity stuff.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Carriers are cancalled Swan Hunters on Tyneside will close and Glasgow, Barrow and Other Ship yards will be hit hard.
Labour Goverments have tried to help their traditional heartlands but the cancellation of the CVF would be a kick in the teeth for many traditional labour areas at a time when the Labour party has alienated many rural areas with the hunting ban and base closures it is now trying to lose the urban vote,
Labour Goverments have tried to help their traditional heartlands but the cancellation of the CVF would be a kick in the teeth for many traditional labour areas at a time when the Labour party has alienated many rural areas with the hunting ban and base closures it is now trying to lose the urban vote,
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Styr, so the defence of the nation should rest on Labour's tarditional heartlands? Wasn't there a strong rumour that the CVs would be sub-contracted to France in any case?
OA, so more practical than I would have suspected for the CSG ( - my outdated outlook in all things naval, how I shall weep when the F14 goes). Of course, if the experience of our colonial bretheren is anything to go by, both JSF and Typhoon will be needed. I'm not sure I necessarily agree over no re-run of 1940 point, though. At the moment we cannot see that threat, but then neither could the majority of politicians of the late 1920s forsee a re-run of the Zeppelin raids of the first world war. I would rather hedge bets and maintain an effective defence which would be mature in procedure and operation when the next unstable era occurs than have to rely on hastily re-deployed expeditionary aircraft. On the other hand, at the moment I cannot see the situation that spawned the Harrier, nuclear bombardment of MOB, happening either.
What price the delay to navalise the Typhoon? I do think, however, that the role of a small CVF navy (as RN would become) should be more clearly defined - the USN can deploy expeditionary platforms in a number of seas at the same time, do we limit the UK to certain operating areas, and hence a restricted sphere of influence that a CSG would provide? Would we use the CVF to support Atlantic and Med operations, or Indian Ocean or...ad nauseum
OA, so more practical than I would have suspected for the CSG (
- my outdated outlook in all things naval, how I shall weep when the F14 goes). Of course, if the experience of our colonial bretheren is anything to go by, both JSF and Typhoon will be needed. I'm not sure I necessarily agree over no re-run of 1940 point, though. At the moment we cannot see that threat, but then neither could the majority of politicians of the late 1920s forsee a re-run of the Zeppelin raids of the first world war. I would rather hedge bets and maintain an effective defence which would be mature in procedure and operation when the next unstable era occurs than have to rely on hastily re-deployed expeditionary aircraft. On the other hand, at the moment I cannot see the situation that spawned the Harrier, nuclear bombardment of MOB, happening either.What price the delay to navalise the Typhoon? I do think, however, that the role of a small CVF navy (as RN would become) should be more clearly defined - the USN can deploy expeditionary platforms in a number of seas at the same time, do we limit the UK to certain operating areas, and hence a restricted sphere of influence that a CSG would provide? Would we use the CVF to support Atlantic and Med operations, or Indian Ocean or...ad nauseum
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last re-fit for Ark Royal was £180m - that's a lot of dosh for a rewire, removing SeaDart and a paint job.
However, it was considered worthwhile as it's next commission was a round the world jolly to show the flag and hold cocktail parties, encouraging overseas trade, (Government speak) Ha!
The Type 23 was a joke - for years it had no integrated command and control system and could barely defend itself in a shoot-out with the rest of the fleet. (I won't mention the rafting problems).
Even better: the dark blues declared the T23 to be "Excellent for Royal Yacht escort duties because it has a large paint locker, which is essential for tiddlying!!"
Whatever that means. Ha!
Do we really need expensive mobile airfields when we can use STUFT to support Harrier and helo type operations as was proven in the Falklands.
IMHO, the best ship in the RN inventory with any cred is the T42
I'll just finish my game of bowls and go and dick the Spanish - Sorry? is that not PC?
You only realise that you've got too much fuel when your on fire!
Waiting for the Flak
However, it was considered worthwhile as it's next commission was a round the world jolly to show the flag and hold cocktail parties, encouraging overseas trade, (Government speak) Ha!
The Type 23 was a joke - for years it had no integrated command and control system and could barely defend itself in a shoot-out with the rest of the fleet. (I won't mention the rafting problems).
Even better: the dark blues declared the T23 to be "Excellent for Royal Yacht escort duties because it has a large paint locker, which is essential for tiddlying!!"
Whatever that means. Ha!
Do we really need expensive mobile airfields when we can use STUFT to support Harrier and helo type operations as was proven in the Falklands.
IMHO, the best ship in the RN inventory with any cred is the T42
I'll just finish my game of bowls and go and dick the Spanish - Sorry? is that not PC?
You only realise that you've got too much fuel when your on fire!
Waiting for the Flak
Guest
Posts: n/a
What a load of complete tripe.
THE T23 WAS A JOKE .......
..... Having served on 3, I think it was the best class of warship in the Navy. Without giving too much away, the sonar was world class, so much so that I remember tracking a US submarine all the way across the atlantic and they didnt know we were there.
...
Pleeease.....without the Carriers, we would have not been able to complete the Falklands war.
It is clear that this thread is going to degenerate into a RN V's RAF willy waving contest.
THE T23 WAS A JOKE .......
..... Having served on 3, I think it was the best class of warship in the Navy. Without giving too much away, the sonar was world class, so much so that I remember tracking a US submarine all the way across the atlantic and they didnt know we were there.
Do we really need expensive mobile airfields when we can use STUFT to support Harrier and helo type operations as was proven in the Falklands.
Pleeease.....without the Carriers, we would have not been able to complete the Falklands war.
It is clear that this thread is going to degenerate into a RN V's RAF willy waving contest.
T23 is very quiet and can sneak up on subs, ans has good sonar. The new 2087 is a huge improvement. The abilty to carry a Merlin.......And lots of Sea Wolf ready to go.
The T42 is old, getting old, in fact the Commons' Select Commitee warned of a capibility gap between it and the Type 45 ..............this was before the abandonment of the SDR commitment to a level of 32 frigates/destroyers - or the premature retirement of the Sea Jet. Or delays to the Type 45........
.........Or the number of FF/DD commitments increasing as part of the war on terror.
Apart from having no dedicated weapons for use against subs (still a threat in littoral ops) with the exception of those carried by the Lynx, the T42/Sea Dart system is old technology.
On another point, in 1982 STUFT were used to transport Harriers/Sea Harriers, but would they be able to be used for sortie generation? Command and control, ATC, etc....
The T42 is old, getting old, in fact the Commons' Select Commitee warned of a capibility gap between it and the Type 45 ..............this was before the abandonment of the SDR commitment to a level of 32 frigates/destroyers - or the premature retirement of the Sea Jet. Or delays to the Type 45........
.........Or the number of FF/DD commitments increasing as part of the war on terror.
Apart from having no dedicated weapons for use against subs (still a threat in littoral ops) with the exception of those carried by the Lynx, the T42/Sea Dart system is old technology.
On another point, in 1982 STUFT were used to transport Harriers/Sea Harriers, but would they be able to be used for sortie generation? Command and control, ATC, etc....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Do we really NEED 220 Typhoon? That's 22 squadons by my reckoning.
Once operational, we should as UK PLC sell a decent amount of them off at an intitial loss, as a proven aircraft, still making some money and guaranteeing industry their thru-life profit.
A400m is a white elephant, why aren't we just buying C17 and a few more hercs?
Once operational, we should as UK PLC sell a decent amount of them off at an intitial loss, as a proven aircraft, still making some money and guaranteeing industry their thru-life profit.
A400m is a white elephant, why aren't we just buying C17 and a few more hercs?
Guest
Posts: n/a
??
the T42/Sea Dart system is old technology
You don't need modern technology to have a good, reliable weapons system....just ask the appache pilot who was shot down by a 12 bore !!!!!