Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Double Zero
4x T-birds and 1x AV8A isn't exactly a "few Harrier 2+s"!!! I suggest your source is wrong. If you don't believe me, take a look at http://www.amarc.info/
This list is "as of 18 Mar 10".
Regards
B Word
AMARC Inventory dated 18-mar-10Sorted by ref noListed by serial, type, location, arrival date and ref no159383 TAV8A ?????? 21-Oct-87 AN7A0039159382 TAV8A ?????? 21-Oct-87 AN7A0040159385 TAV8A ?????? 13-Nov-87 AN7A0041159379 TAV8A ?????? 13-Nov-87 AN7A0042159373 AV8A ?????? 15/04/1986 AXNC00015 aircraft listed
This list is "as of 18 Mar 10".
Regards
B Word
Isn't it time to go back to the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force???
JFH is nearly there already!
B Word
In April 1924, a year after the new carrier borne flights had begun to form they were given the collective title "Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force". This was soon abbreviated to the "Fleet Air Arm" although not officially taken on by the admiralty until 1953.
B Word
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B-Word,
my 'source' had no reason to lie, but may have been including secondhand Harrier 2+ available in a deal, just as the UK flogs Typhoons etc, though they're mainly from the production line.
It's said here and there that Harrier production has shut down, but I would bet anything that it could be started up again PDQ - and yes I am an engineer who knows what's involved, trained & qualified in that before becoming aerial photographer.
Before you say it, agreed not a qualified pilot, though I have taken part in a lot of flight trials & hands-on etc.
Have to go, bye. DZ
my 'source' had no reason to lie, but may have been including secondhand Harrier 2+ available in a deal, just as the UK flogs Typhoons etc, though they're mainly from the production line.
It's said here and there that Harrier production has shut down, but I would bet anything that it could be started up again PDQ - and yes I am an engineer who knows what's involved, trained & qualified in that before becoming aerial photographer.
Before you say it, agreed not a qualified pilot, though I have taken part in a lot of flight trials & hands-on etc.
Have to go, bye. DZ
Last edited by Double Zero; 16th May 2010 at 12:07.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it time to go back to the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force???
JFH is nearly there already!
B Word
In a word, NO!
Those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them. The Fleet Air Arm was transferred to Admiralty control because the Air Ministry had little or no understanding of the needs of the Navy or it's environment, was obsessed with 'Bombers' and thus starved the FAA of funds for new or adequate numbers of aircraft. Deja vu? Thus the interwar years left the RN ill equipped to meet the coming war and many ships and men were lost as a result. The FAA only thrived when it had a chance to build itself up again during the war years. During the time of RAF conrol, they insisted that the flight deck of a carrier be treated like any other airfield, so that during landing on no other aircraft were allowed on deck for safety reasons. Once a plan had landed it had to be folded and struck down to the hangar before the next could land on. The USN and IJN weren't restricted in this way and developed procedures that allowed far more efficient (and safe) ways of operating aircraft at sea, lessons that the RN had to learn in a hurry during WW2.
Now we are hearing that the RAF wants not only to operate all the Carrier FJs, they see the decks of the CVFs as 'alternate operating airfields' (or whatever buzz term is in vogue), just another option for basing aircraft overseas. It's the 1930s all over again!
We've already seen that if the Carrier aircraft are under RAF control, they won't see a carrier deck for years. When the RN let the light blue take over the Naval Harrier sqns, I think they did this sure in the knowledge the RAF would show thei hand early (long before JSF arrived), strengthenoing the RN's case for control of it's own Fast Air and weakening the RAF case. The best model for operating the carrier aircraft would be that of the 60s and 70s onwards, RN controlled and operated 800 series FJ sqns with volunteer RAF aircrew serving alonside the dark blue. That way those crabs who don't want to get their feet wet can stay ashore and those with an adventurous spirit can serve a tour or two attached to the FAA and broaden their horizons. After all, wasn't it the RAF of the 1930s that came up with the idea of the 700 and 800 series sqns for Naval operations? Lower numberplates were reserved for land based operations.
Apparently it worked very well before and those involved got on very well without resentment of who was in charge.
JFH is nearly there already!
B Word
In a word, NO!
Those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them. The Fleet Air Arm was transferred to Admiralty control because the Air Ministry had little or no understanding of the needs of the Navy or it's environment, was obsessed with 'Bombers' and thus starved the FAA of funds for new or adequate numbers of aircraft. Deja vu? Thus the interwar years left the RN ill equipped to meet the coming war and many ships and men were lost as a result. The FAA only thrived when it had a chance to build itself up again during the war years. During the time of RAF conrol, they insisted that the flight deck of a carrier be treated like any other airfield, so that during landing on no other aircraft were allowed on deck for safety reasons. Once a plan had landed it had to be folded and struck down to the hangar before the next could land on. The USN and IJN weren't restricted in this way and developed procedures that allowed far more efficient (and safe) ways of operating aircraft at sea, lessons that the RN had to learn in a hurry during WW2.
Now we are hearing that the RAF wants not only to operate all the Carrier FJs, they see the decks of the CVFs as 'alternate operating airfields' (or whatever buzz term is in vogue), just another option for basing aircraft overseas. It's the 1930s all over again!
We've already seen that if the Carrier aircraft are under RAF control, they won't see a carrier deck for years. When the RN let the light blue take over the Naval Harrier sqns, I think they did this sure in the knowledge the RAF would show thei hand early (long before JSF arrived), strengthenoing the RN's case for control of it's own Fast Air and weakening the RAF case. The best model for operating the carrier aircraft would be that of the 60s and 70s onwards, RN controlled and operated 800 series FJ sqns with volunteer RAF aircrew serving alonside the dark blue. That way those crabs who don't want to get their feet wet can stay ashore and those with an adventurous spirit can serve a tour or two attached to the FAA and broaden their horizons. After all, wasn't it the RAF of the 1930s that came up with the idea of the 700 and 800 series sqns for Naval operations? Lower numberplates were reserved for land based operations.
Apparently it worked very well before and those involved got on very well without resentment of who was in charge.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royalistflyer,
I question the need for the HMS White Elephant and HMS Massive Overspend.
Cheers
I question the need for the HMS White Elephant and HMS Massive Overspend.
Cheers
Please expand this question. In what way do do question the need for them. If it is political and a foreign policy matter then may I suggest you point your query to
Introduction to e-petitions | Number10.gov.uk
If its a military query then please give us all your thoughts on how you think the military should be structured. With your excellent 1-liners you obviously know better than the rest of us.
Cheers
ATN
Suspicion breeds confidence
The carriers are coming and rightly so. They will form the backbone of the UK strike capability for the next 20 years. Future force strengths will be based on this. We need Typhoon for UK air defence, F35 and carriers for the rest. This is what will happen. Lets not be naive.
I did Lewis Page an injustice. He never commanded a Minesweeper and is not qualified to write the tripe he does in the expectation that people might believe it. I bought his book and had a good laugh. An awful waste of otherwise good paper.
I did Lewis Page an injustice. He never commanded a Minesweeper and is not qualified to write the tripe he does in the expectation that people might believe it. I bought his book and had a good laugh. An awful waste of otherwise good paper.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GK121 -
Shhh! Just because you've been read in and now know that inverted M1.6 refueling is the secret weapon of KC-767 Next Dimension (or whatever it's called this week). 
WHATEVER YOU DO - DON'T TELL AIRBUS! (They're nasty Europeans, you know...)
S41
Shhh!
Just because you've been read in and now know that inverted M1.6 refueling is the secret weapon of KC-767 Next Dimension (or whatever it's called this week). WHATEVER YOU DO - DON'T TELL AIRBUS! (They're nasty Europeans, you know...)
S41
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is totally beyond me is why we would be building carriers without EMALS. Okay so some mentally challenged persons imagined that because the Harrier was good that we therefore had to have the vertical version of F-35 - without waiting to find out if F-35 was even affordable (and it isn't) but there are other types that may need to be flown - and the new carriers have NO catapult. If the F-35 vertical version doesn't work/is deemed too expensive now - we'd have little option but to buy the new larger two seat version of the F-18 (which we probably should buy anyway) -which DOES need a catapult.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm broadly in favour of the decision to replace the Ark and Lusty but think we should forget the F-35. It's far too expensive and we can't afford to buy enough of them to make the unit cost acceptable. (I wonder how many of our NATO allies will reach the same conclusion?)
It's far from proven and it will take a long time (and lots more money) before it matures into a true "bona" jet. The F-18 Super Hornet is a worthwhile contender but do we really need supersonic performance for a typical mission? I know it's got internal weapons and is supposed to be stealthy but I bet it will end up carrying external stores and be then limited to c. 600 kts or whatever.
My answer would be to opt for a conventional carrier design (with cats and traps) and instead adopt Ed Heinemann's approach when he (and Douglas) came up with the A4. i.e. something small, simple and therefore cheap enough to buy in quantity. ( It was even small enough not to need folding wings and it could still carry a decent payload.)
I'm not advocating opening the production line for more A4's but saying that a small bomb truck with say, a war load of 2 x 2,000 lb class LGB's (or various smaller weapons), an internal gun, ability to carry a short range IR AAM (or two) and a Sniper pod (or equivalent) plus EW and IR counter-measures.
The A4 could do most of these things though the Sniper pod was not one of them but it could do buddy tanking and recce.
The maxim has to be keep the airframe small, keep it simple and concentrate the new technology on the EW systems, sensors (link 16+) and a modern fuel-efficient but powerful (single) engine......that way we can afford to buy 100+ so if one goes "over the side" the loss is less than 1% of the inventory. At this rate, with F-35, if we lose one the loss would be >3% which is not sustainable!
A carrier with an air wing of 50 is also bound to be able maintain ac over target/on task and to generally to sustain ops for longer than air wing half that number. The added bonus is that by spending less (than would have been the case with F-35) there might even be cash to pay for 3 or 4 Hawkeye/COD ac, and even a T45 (Daring class) escort for mum.
MB
It's far from proven and it will take a long time (and lots more money) before it matures into a true "bona" jet. The F-18 Super Hornet is a worthwhile contender but do we really need supersonic performance for a typical mission? I know it's got internal weapons and is supposed to be stealthy but I bet it will end up carrying external stores and be then limited to c. 600 kts or whatever.
My answer would be to opt for a conventional carrier design (with cats and traps) and instead adopt Ed Heinemann's approach when he (and Douglas) came up with the A4. i.e. something small, simple and therefore cheap enough to buy in quantity. ( It was even small enough not to need folding wings and it could still carry a decent payload.)
I'm not advocating opening the production line for more A4's but saying that a small bomb truck with say, a war load of 2 x 2,000 lb class LGB's (or various smaller weapons), an internal gun, ability to carry a short range IR AAM (or two) and a Sniper pod (or equivalent) plus EW and IR counter-measures.
The A4 could do most of these things though the Sniper pod was not one of them but it could do buddy tanking and recce.
The maxim has to be keep the airframe small, keep it simple and concentrate the new technology on the EW systems, sensors (link 16+) and a modern fuel-efficient but powerful (single) engine......that way we can afford to buy 100+ so if one goes "over the side" the loss is less than 1% of the inventory. At this rate, with F-35, if we lose one the loss would be >3% which is not sustainable!
A carrier with an air wing of 50 is also bound to be able maintain ac over target/on task and to generally to sustain ops for longer than air wing half that number. The added bonus is that by spending less (than would have been the case with F-35) there might even be cash to pay for 3 or 4 Hawkeye/COD ac, and even a T45 (Daring class) escort for mum.
MB
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Of course we are all assuming that GB plc does not have a fire-sale and retrenches to an island state. Suppose we do pull out from wars of choice and determine that wars of need in other parts of the world are not our concern, then what?
While accepting that a proper carrier is of major strategic importance, if we decide that we shall reduce our profile on the world stages then we could do away with the carriers, reduce the capability of our frigates and do away with our destroyers.
While not being an advocate of the Typhoon, it may be the better weapon for a reduced island policing role.
While accepting that a proper carrier is of major strategic importance, if we decide that we shall reduce our profile on the world stages then we could do away with the carriers, reduce the capability of our frigates and do away with our destroyers.
While not being an advocate of the Typhoon, it may be the better weapon for a reduced island policing role.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Madbob
In principle, you make a good point, but it's not just a question of some "third rate state with AA-10A" (let alone Chucks and Ducks), the bigger question is what is this platform you refer to? About the only thing likely to be more expensive than Dave / F-35 / JCA / JSF is asking BAES to design "a cheap alternative" from scratch
For the record, I agree with the cats/traps/Dave-C point. If the decision is to continue with the two carriers (which I oppose, given the impact that this would have on the broader range of capabilities of the RN and the MoD in these financially straitened times), then the only sensible option is CTOL + Dave-C and E-2C/D. And if we can't afford that, then we shouldn't bother.
And then you have to less to worry about with opponents toting "Chucks", "Ducks" and other "Rockets"....
S41
In principle, you make a good point, but it's not just a question of some "third rate state with AA-10A" (let alone Chucks and Ducks), the bigger question is what is this platform you refer to? About the only thing likely to be more expensive than Dave / F-35 / JCA / JSF is asking BAES to design "a cheap alternative" from scratch
For the record, I agree with the cats/traps/Dave-C point. If the decision is to continue with the two carriers (which I oppose, given the impact that this would have on the broader range of capabilities of the RN and the MoD in these financially straitened times), then the only sensible option is CTOL + Dave-C and E-2C/D. And if we can't afford that, then we shouldn't bother.
And then you have to less to worry about with opponents toting "Chucks", "Ducks" and other "Rockets"....
S41
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deliverence
I take your point BUT I don't think we can afford a carrier-based platform able to mix it with the likes of the SU35 with a BVR missle. (If we were up against that kind of threat then a. we hopefully wouldn't be there alone and b. would have some land-based assets at our disposal such as the Typhoon/F22.)
I was thinking more of the kind of multi role the Harrier "family" (including SHAR could do) but using essentially a simple proven airframe many people will be familiar with which a. was designed in the "austere" period following WW2. b. designed, tested and produced in a short time. c. was cost effective. d. liked by its pilots and e. effective. (It wouldn't have stayed in service so long if it hadn't been good.)
With modern defensive aids, sensors and modern engine technology in a proven airframe (bin the high-tech STOV/L elements) and use of high-tech precision weapons - you have got all the ingredients you need. It doesn't need to be ultra agile or fast but if it had the subsonic performance of the Bucc that would do. So there's the answer, more Bananas! Buccs also had long legs (considerably longer than Tornado) and an internal bomb bay; what's more it was a 100% British carrier ac! Oh, dear nostalgia getting the better of me....
MB
I take your point BUT I don't think we can afford a carrier-based platform able to mix it with the likes of the SU35 with a BVR missle. (If we were up against that kind of threat then a. we hopefully wouldn't be there alone and b. would have some land-based assets at our disposal such as the Typhoon/F22.)
I was thinking more of the kind of multi role the Harrier "family" (including SHAR could do) but using essentially a simple proven airframe many people will be familiar with which a. was designed in the "austere" period following WW2. b. designed, tested and produced in a short time. c. was cost effective. d. liked by its pilots and e. effective. (It wouldn't have stayed in service so long if it hadn't been good.)
With modern defensive aids, sensors and modern engine technology in a proven airframe (bin the high-tech STOV/L elements) and use of high-tech precision weapons - you have got all the ingredients you need. It doesn't need to be ultra agile or fast but if it had the subsonic performance of the Bucc that would do. So there's the answer, more Bananas! Buccs also had long legs (considerably longer than Tornado) and an internal bomb bay; what's more it was a 100% British carrier ac!
Oh, dear nostalgia getting the better of me....MB
Last edited by Madbob; 16th Jun 2010 at 13:26.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
And of course that is another example of political expediency, both within Government and within the Services.
The RAF didn't want the Bucc as it would jeopardise thier buy of: TSR2, F111, AFVG, and would not modernise it when they eventually got it as that would jeopardise the Tornado and the Typhoon (possibly).
And within Government, once we cancelled the South African buy, what other country was going to risk buying an aircraft whose support was dependent upon a capricious Government?
The RAF didn't want the Bucc as it would jeopardise thier buy of: TSR2, F111, AFVG, and would not modernise it when they eventually got it as that would jeopardise the Tornado and the Typhoon (possibly).
And within Government, once we cancelled the South African buy, what other country was going to risk buying an aircraft whose support was dependent upon a capricious Government?
