CVF - News update
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see the UK splashing out on any type of fixed wing AEW platform for our new CVF's, probably end up having another Helo based system, Merlin/V-22 ASaC, depending on what types are available at that time of course.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look at this
Again, another little snippet from the web. written by Eric Grove (I think he did a series on the Royal Navy but can't remember the title) The whole piece makes interesting reading, however one bit strikes me as bizarre (but supports Richard Beedal's statement wrt conventional carriers)
I thought the RAF DIDN'T under any cicumstances want CTOL. Previous reply's on this thread make a lot of sense of this. Keeping aircrew current in Carrier ops etc. So have thier Airships seen the light and are prehaps going to commit more resources to carrier ops? Or is this a ploy to try and prevent the FOAS project being put into jeopardy?
Again, another little snippet from the web. written by Eric Grove (I think he did a series on the Royal Navy but can't remember the title) The whole piece makes interesting reading, however one bit strikes me as bizarre (but supports Richard Beedal's statement wrt conventional carriers)
This RAF’s reported advocacy of a large conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) carrier demonstrates the revolution wrought by the application of joint concepts to carrier aviation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jungly,
I don't think the RAF Airships would be foolish enough to try that as cancellation of JSF would also affect them adversely.
The Labour Gov't has too many votes riding on this one and the Tories (if they get elected) Still have enough Military-minded MP's who still remember what happened in the Falklands. I have a feeling there might be a bit of inter party one-upmanship going on. ie who can procurre the best carrier for the RN, as both parties seem to have pretty much the same foriegn policies which as we all know is the main deciding factor on how are forces are organised and equiped (NOT)
I don't think the RAF Airships would be foolish enough to try that as cancellation of JSF would also affect them adversely.
The Labour Gov't has too many votes riding on this one and the Tories (if they get elected) Still have enough Military-minded MP's who still remember what happened in the Falklands. I have a feeling there might be a bit of inter party one-upmanship going on. ie who can procurre the best carrier for the RN, as both parties seem to have pretty much the same foriegn policies which as we all know is the main deciding factor on how are forces are organised and equiped (NOT)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotary AWACS (that is what it needs to be to support JSF, not simply AEW) is not going to work. Helicopters do not have the speed to get the distance they would need to go in support of a JSF mission. We are talking with JSF of an aircraft with a combat radius in the region of 800nm. Why not try a bigger radar and have it closer to the ship. Don't think that would work either.
So I think somepeople in MoD may have at last realised the above, hence the delay as a rethink is thought about reference conventional launch and recovery - which has been driven not by the JSF but by the AWACS requirement.
It is my own sad opinion is that it is all academic as CVF just wont happen. In the next parliamentary term, according to Adm West at a recent Commons Defence Select Commitee, a replacement for Trident will have to be discussed and put in progress. The defence budget is simply not large enough to support both those projects simultaneously.
No British government would be willing to give up its seat on the Permanent UN security council, but it would be willing to give up carriers - as it has done in the past.
So I think somepeople in MoD may have at last realised the above, hence the delay as a rethink is thought about reference conventional launch and recovery - which has been driven not by the JSF but by the AWACS requirement.
It is my own sad opinion is that it is all academic as CVF just wont happen. In the next parliamentary term, according to Adm West at a recent Commons Defence Select Commitee, a replacement for Trident will have to be discussed and put in progress. The defence budget is simply not large enough to support both those projects simultaneously.
No British government would be willing to give up its seat on the Permanent UN security council, but it would be willing to give up carriers - as it has done in the past.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timzsta is dead right. There is simply not enough money in the pot to afford CVF without completely bu''ering the rest of the equipment programme (and not just the Navy's kit). Difficult choices ahead but cancelling CVF to afford a balanced force elsewhere is a no brainer.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
JSF?
The Guardian:
Europe risks US sanctions over China arms sales
America and Europe were yesterday being drawn ever closer into a trade war after senior US congressman issued a blunt warning to the EU over its plans to lift a 15-year-old arms embargo on China.
Talking explicitly about how it would retaliate for the first time, Richard Lugar, the powerful republican head of the Senate foreign relations committee, warned that the US would stop sales of military technology to Europe.
His Democratic counterpart, Senator Joseph Biden, warned that the lifting of the ban would be "a non-starter with Congress". Their tough words came after a meeting with President George Bush in the White House......
"Europe can do defence trade with China or it can do defence trade with the US. It can't do both," said Daniel Goure, a Pentagon consultant and a vice president of the Lexington Institute, a military thinktank.
European leaders hope to lift the arms embargo three days after Britain's expected general election on May 5, when the EU holds a meeting with the Chinese leadership........
The Guardian:
Europe risks US sanctions over China arms sales
America and Europe were yesterday being drawn ever closer into a trade war after senior US congressman issued a blunt warning to the EU over its plans to lift a 15-year-old arms embargo on China.
Talking explicitly about how it would retaliate for the first time, Richard Lugar, the powerful republican head of the Senate foreign relations committee, warned that the US would stop sales of military technology to Europe.
His Democratic counterpart, Senator Joseph Biden, warned that the lifting of the ban would be "a non-starter with Congress". Their tough words came after a meeting with President George Bush in the White House......
"Europe can do defence trade with China or it can do defence trade with the US. It can't do both," said Daniel Goure, a Pentagon consultant and a vice president of the Lexington Institute, a military thinktank.
European leaders hope to lift the arms embargo three days after Britain's expected general election on May 5, when the EU holds a meeting with the Chinese leadership........
It's about time this thread was elevated again. If only to kill off WEBFs Sea Jet. In the Torygraph today.
MOD to miss 2012 target for new carriers.
Apparently, according to Lord Drayson, no decision to go ahead with the carriers could be set while "critical" negotiations were under way with private contractors.
What's going on now?...First the threat of delay because of the French, now this. What is so "Critical" at this late stage? BAE want more money?
MOD to miss 2012 target for new carriers.
Apparently, according to Lord Drayson, no decision to go ahead with the carriers could be set while "critical" negotiations were under way with private contractors.
What's going on now?...First the threat of delay because of the French, now this. What is so "Critical" at this late stage? BAE want more money?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
PMFJI, but why would the Navy want AEW and a helicopter based one at that?
AWAC that can keep up with the jets and exercise aircraft control is surely the primary mission. Warning the fleet of an approaching enemy air attack must be lower on the priority list.
If air attack in today's world is likely then the answer is stand further out and use the longer legs of F35C plus tanker etc to extend the reach. If surprise attack is deemed a risk how many AEW helos would be needed to cover the attack sectors for 24 hrs?
AWAC that can keep up with the jets and exercise aircraft control is surely the primary mission. Warning the fleet of an approaching enemy air attack must be lower on the priority list.
If air attack in today's world is likely then the answer is stand further out and use the longer legs of F35C plus tanker etc to extend the reach. If surprise attack is deemed a risk how many AEW helos would be needed to cover the attack sectors for 24 hrs?
Pontius,
the Searchwater 2000 as fitted to the Mk7 Sea King has a much greater role than just AEW. That is why they are now designated ASACS. They also have the ability to support troops on the ground. This role was pioneered during the assault on the Al Fawr peninsula in GWII and utilised in many joint exercises since, such as supporting the Royal Marines during Ex Northern Lights in Norway.
As with most things in the Navy (crap airframe, great kit)!
the Searchwater 2000 as fitted to the Mk7 Sea King has a much greater role than just AEW. That is why they are now designated ASACS. They also have the ability to support troops on the ground. This role was pioneered during the assault on the Al Fawr peninsula in GWII and utilised in many joint exercises since, such as supporting the Royal Marines during Ex Northern Lights in Norway.
As with most things in the Navy (crap airframe, great kit)!
Letter to the editor in the Torygraph
Mike Critchley has a letter to the editor within the Torygraph today. He states that further reductions in the Fleet must stop, now that ministers have owned up to delays to the CVF.
Why the delay? Why no main gate? Is the programme going to be scrapped? Are BAE asking for more money?
Worrying times!
Posted on here to kill off WEBF's Sea Jet thread!
Mike Critchley has a letter to the editor within the Torygraph today. He states that further reductions in the Fleet must stop, now that ministers have owned up to delays to the CVF.
Why the delay? Why no main gate? Is the programme going to be scrapped? Are BAE asking for more money?
Worrying times!
Posted on here to kill off WEBF's Sea Jet thread!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
according to Adm West at a recent Commons Defence Select Commitee, a replacement for Trident will have to be discussed and put in progress. The defence budget is simply not large enough to support both those projects simultaneously.
There is simply not enough money in the pot to afford CVF without completely bu''ering the rest of the equipment programme (and not just the Navy's kit). Difficult choices ahead but cancelling CVF to afford a balanced force elsewhere is a no brainer.
We can definately afford CVF and we can also afford the budgeted 9 billion or so on top of the cost of the hulls for JCF. If we need to delete something to afford the Trident replacement, the only possible motive for deleting CVF would be political.
In the context of expensive procurement projects CVF is one of the cheaper and yet one of the most valuable and flexible assets the UK plans to procure.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be biased but I'd much rather see them spend the money on new Tankers and decent Pax jets than on two tubs with flight decks.
Wouldn't another Ocean be more useful?
Wouldn't another Ocean be more useful?
Rak..Rakasss...Rakahsh...Boyakasha
You miss the point old boy, why fly in such squalor, when you can cruise to your conflict in total luxury, whiling the days and hours away by the pool, content in the silence of life at Sea.
On a serious note. Ocean in comparison is itsy bitsy . We already have enough platforms to support the junglies and booties, what we need now is Strike Power! da da da da da da dad ad ad a da da da
You miss the point old boy, why fly in such squalor, when you can cruise to your conflict in total luxury, whiling the days and hours away by the pool, content in the silence of life at Sea.
On a serious note. Ocean in comparison is itsy bitsy . We already have enough platforms to support the junglies and booties, what we need now is Strike Power! da da da da da da dad ad ad a da da da
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But... that's our job....
Seriously though, apart from fleet air defence I can't really think of anything CVF could achieve that a Cruise lobbing sub or Ocean couldn't.
While I admit they're nice to have, I dont think they're as vital as they used to be, unless someone can name a state we're likely to get into a mid ocean carrier battle with in the next 20 years?
Seriously though, apart from fleet air defence I can't really think of anything CVF could achieve that a Cruise lobbing sub or Ocean couldn't.
While I admit they're nice to have, I dont think they're as vital as they used to be, unless someone can name a state we're likely to get into a mid ocean carrier battle with in the next 20 years?
1. See the Sea Jet thread 
2. Wouldn't another Ocean be more useful?
A larger version of Ocean, that can carry and operate V/STOL aircraft (ie JSF) has been suggested in some quarters as an alternnative CVF.
3. Seriously though, apart from fleet air defence I can't really think of anything CVF could achieve that a Cruise lobbing sub or Ocean couldn't.
Close Air Support for troops ashore? Organic Maritime Patrol? Organic AEW/ASACS?
4. I dont think they're as vital as they used to be....
Surely littoral operations make them more vital?
2. Wouldn't another Ocean be more useful?
A larger version of Ocean, that can carry and operate V/STOL aircraft (ie JSF) has been suggested in some quarters as an alternnative CVF.
3. Seriously though, apart from fleet air defence I can't really think of anything CVF could achieve that a Cruise lobbing sub or Ocean couldn't.
Close Air Support for troops ashore? Organic Maritime Patrol? Organic AEW/ASACS?
4. I dont think they're as vital as they used to be....
Surely littoral operations make them more vital?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I said <<AWAC that can keep up with the jets and exercise aircraft control is surely the primary mission. Warning the fleet of an approaching enemy air attack must be lower on the priority list>>
I did NOT say <<the Searchwater 2000 as fitted to the Mk7 Sea King has a much greater role than just AEW. That is why they are now designated ASACS. They also have the ability to support troops on the ground. This role was pioneered during the assault on the Al Fawr peninsula in GWII and utilised in many joint exercises since, such as supporting the Royal Marines during Ex Northern Lights in Norway.>> was not required or a role. To do this role with FJ control you need an aircraft with the speed and reach to get there.
<<Because...... HMS SHEFFIELD HMS COVENTRY>>
But fixed wing ASACS could do this further out. A 500 mile kill zone is better than 95.
I did NOT say <<the Searchwater 2000 as fitted to the Mk7 Sea King has a much greater role than just AEW. That is why they are now designated ASACS. They also have the ability to support troops on the ground. This role was pioneered during the assault on the Al Fawr peninsula in GWII and utilised in many joint exercises since, such as supporting the Royal Marines during Ex Northern Lights in Norway.>> was not required or a role. To do this role with FJ control you need an aircraft with the speed and reach to get there.
<<Because...... HMS SHEFFIELD HMS COVENTRY>>
But fixed wing ASACS could do this further out. A 500 mile kill zone is better than 95.
Announcement of an indefinite delay
In today's Daily Telegraph 'Letters', from Admiral Sir John Woodward:-
Sir - Your article about the Jervis Bay (Arts, October 28) was not simply about the bravery of a single ship and a single man. It was about what I have called for many years the "Jervis Bay syndrome", which drove us all in the Royal Navy.
It is the force that made us put our main armament in the front of the ships, not the rear. It is the force that made us go forward when all our instincts were yelling to go back.
It is the force that makes our ships generally worth any two similar of our enemy's. And it is the force that gave rise to the British sailor's saying: "You shouldn't have joined if you can't take a joke."
This week's "joke" is the announcement of an indefinite delay in the ordering of the new aircraft carriers (and presumably their aircraft). When combined with the removal from service early in 2006 of this country's only operational all-weather interceptor, the Sea Harrier, deployment of a naval expeditionary force against any but the most basic opposition, with no aircraft of its own, becomes the worst kind of joke yet dreamed up by an incompetent government.
I personally could not ask the modern sailor to "go forward" in these circumstances, but no doubt the politicians of the day will do so - from plain ignorance or refusal to face the facts.
Admiral Sir John Woodward, Bosham, West Sussex
Sir - Your article about the Jervis Bay (Arts, October 28) was not simply about the bravery of a single ship and a single man. It was about what I have called for many years the "Jervis Bay syndrome", which drove us all in the Royal Navy.
It is the force that made us put our main armament in the front of the ships, not the rear. It is the force that made us go forward when all our instincts were yelling to go back.
It is the force that makes our ships generally worth any two similar of our enemy's. And it is the force that gave rise to the British sailor's saying: "You shouldn't have joined if you can't take a joke."
This week's "joke" is the announcement of an indefinite delay in the ordering of the new aircraft carriers (and presumably their aircraft). When combined with the removal from service early in 2006 of this country's only operational all-weather interceptor, the Sea Harrier, deployment of a naval expeditionary force against any but the most basic opposition, with no aircraft of its own, becomes the worst kind of joke yet dreamed up by an incompetent government.
I personally could not ask the modern sailor to "go forward" in these circumstances, but no doubt the politicians of the day will do so - from plain ignorance or refusal to face the facts.
Admiral Sir John Woodward, Bosham, West Sussex
Last edited by Lyneham Lad; 31st Oct 2005 at 09:57.
Perhaps this letter from Sandy Woodward should be on the Sea Jet thread? Perhaps someone (Navaleye?) will put it there by the time I get home this evening?