Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rduarte... I've been this thread for a bit, and I think you're missing a ranther pertinent ponit:
NONE of the VdeM's A-4s ever got off the deck to attack the RN in '82. And given the state of VdeM now - see www.hazegray.org and you find a note that reads "Note: The carrier Veintecinco De Mayo has been scrapped.".
Oh dear.
But on your broader point of whether the UK should follow the French Navy and make CVF, like PA2, a conventional carrier, the answer is clearly yes.
However, the airwing should then be Dave C and Hawkye 2000. Ooh, and maybe a C-2 as well.....
And yes, I have the highest regard for the professionalism of the French forces.
S41
NONE of the VdeM's A-4s ever got off the deck to attack the RN in '82. And given the state of VdeM now - see www.hazegray.org and you find a note that reads "Note: The carrier Veintecinco De Mayo has been scrapped.".
Oh dear.
But on your broader point of whether the UK should follow the French Navy and make CVF, like PA2, a conventional carrier, the answer is clearly yes.
However, the airwing should then be Dave C and Hawkye 2000. Ooh, and maybe a C-2 as well.....
And yes, I have the highest regard for the professionalism of the French forces.
S41
Suspicion breeds confidence
25th May was barely operational in 1982, can you imagine what she would be like now?
The Argentines knew that she was a prime target for the RN and if they kept her at sea for any period of time, she would be sunk.
The Argentines knew that she was a prime target for the RN and if they kept her at sea for any period of time, she would be sunk.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rduarte
You are very english, but never mind.
You need to buy the Rafale, it s better for France and Europe, not so good for the US,but excellent for the british tax payers.
You need to buy the Rafale, it s better for France and Europe, not so good for the US,but excellent for the british tax payers.
...Merde! - I just Bit!
Thread Starter
You need to buy the Rafale, it s better for France and Europe, not so good for the US,but excellent for the british tax payers - rduarte
If the new carriers were coming into service now, or a few years ago, then you would have a point, but since they won't be on the scene until sometime after 2012..........how long will the Rafale have been in service?
Compatibility with the French Navy is unlikely to be a major issue, nor is compatibility with the Americans. Compatibility with the RAF is the deciding factor, and they want a V/STOL aircraft after the Harrier, which means F35B.
By all means say you think we should get equipment from Thales, DCN, or even Dassault, but why are you so rude?
If the new carriers were coming into service now, or a few years ago, then you would have a point, but since they won't be on the scene until sometime after 2012..........how long will the Rafale have been in service?
Compatibility with the French Navy is unlikely to be a major issue, nor is compatibility with the Americans. Compatibility with the RAF is the deciding factor, and they want a V/STOL aircraft after the Harrier, which means F35B.
By all means say you think we should get equipment from Thales, DCN, or even Dassault, but why are you so rude?
Suspicion breeds confidence
rduarte,
We do not want the Rafale operating off our carriers. It is too limited. If the F35 is unavailable then the Super Hornet would be the aircraft of choice.
We do not want the Rafale operating off our carriers. It is too limited. If the F35 is unavailable then the Super Hornet would be the aircraft of choice.
"You are the west cubans,or if you prefer the US morons."
Perhaps. But emphatically not cheese-eating surrender monkeys!
Casse-toi, emmerdeur!
Perhaps. But emphatically not cheese-eating surrender monkeys!
Casse-toi, emmerdeur!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: France
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could I join this Brit bashing monolog Doudou?
I'm reading Jeanne d'Arc biography by Henri Guillemin.
Seems this Aircraft carrier battlefield has something in common with Orleans siege: godons were defeated by young girl leading civilians armed with knifes.
You'll win rduarte!
Seems this Aircraft carrier battlefield has something in common with Orleans siege: godons were defeated by young girl leading civilians armed with knifes.
You'll win rduarte!
Thread Starter
Perhaps we can get back to the issue?
The brouchure for this years Navy Days stated that CVF will enter service in 2012 and 2015. The same brouchure said twelve Type 45 Destroyers will be delivered......
Future Navy was supposed to be a major theme this year. There was a series of displays dedicated to it. However, whilst the promise was there, I think actual content was lacking. Surprised? No!
There are a couple of interesting discussions going on the the RN board on Ezboard (note I am not a user so none of the contributions are mine):
801 and 800 NAS to share just 12 aircraft
Some AEW Questions
The brouchure for this years Navy Days stated that CVF will enter service in 2012 and 2015. The same brouchure said twelve Type 45 Destroyers will be delivered......
Future Navy was supposed to be a major theme this year. There was a series of displays dedicated to it. However, whilst the promise was there, I think actual content was lacking. Surprised? No!
There are a couple of interesting discussions going on the the RN board on Ezboard (note I am not a user so none of the contributions are mine):
801 and 800 NAS to share just 12 aircraft
Some AEW Questions
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just thinking out loud here but...
The FAA have two flat tops they can deploy on - one of which is usually tied up alongside or acting as a Helicopter carrier when JHC require it. Why then do we requre at present 2 Squadrons of 9 Harriers? 12 aircraft is nearing the Max that you can put on one flat-top anyway so for the FAA to meet its RN commitments it has more than enough aircraft. Land deployment at present requires a presence of JFH in Afganastan. Surely this could be covered by Jaguar or RAF Harriers? The FAA Like the RAF have taken a real hit with respect to manpower and it will probably take longer to recover. However I do not see how they cannot meet the maritime committments at least. What may be open to debate is that if the FAA can meet all its commitments with a pool of 12 aircraft and presumably a comensurate drop in manpower then there will surely be questions asked as to why the RAF part of JFH cannot do the same?
The FAA have two flat tops they can deploy on - one of which is usually tied up alongside or acting as a Helicopter carrier when JHC require it. Why then do we requre at present 2 Squadrons of 9 Harriers? 12 aircraft is nearing the Max that you can put on one flat-top anyway so for the FAA to meet its RN commitments it has more than enough aircraft. Land deployment at present requires a presence of JFH in Afganastan. Surely this could be covered by Jaguar or RAF Harriers? The FAA Like the RAF have taken a real hit with respect to manpower and it will probably take longer to recover. However I do not see how they cannot meet the maritime committments at least. What may be open to debate is that if the FAA can meet all its commitments with a pool of 12 aircraft and presumably a comensurate drop in manpower then there will surely be questions asked as to why the RAF part of JFH cannot do the same?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dorset
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that the FAA can’t meet their commitments – they are supposed to be part of the RAF FEAR requirement. The failure to be able to field sufficient RN pilots is risking the Harrier Force’s ability to meet its declarations etc. The RAF is having to maintain Harrier pilots on the Force, and produce a greater number of IPS, because of the RN shortfall – not necessarily a bad thing for the RAF but is it not about time the RN came clean and admitted their problems so that the Force can plan for the longer-term?
Thread Starter
Some of us had these sort of suspicions when Joint Force 2000 (as it was back then) was announced - I felt concerned that a) the FAA would be taken over by the RAF and b) the needs of the RN for things like air defence and anti shipping strike would be forgotten about. 
The loss of a third of CVS capable aircraft (ignoring helicopters) represented by the loss of the Sea Harrier MUST have had an effect on manning. Certainly I remember reading Navy News in the mid 90s when it stated the RN had about fifty Sea Harrier pilots (possibly including ones on other duties) so my question is what went wrong, and when? Failure to recruit? Failure to retain?
A few years ago it was reported/alleged that a third of Sea Harrier pilots had threatened to PVR over the move to Cott/Mitt. With the loss of the fighter role as well, how many did go outside? Does anyone have any statistics?
Perhaps that is all part of the plan.
Anyway, I draw your attention back to the issue of MASC with this posting "over there".
The loss of a third of CVS capable aircraft (ignoring helicopters) represented by the loss of the Sea Harrier MUST have had an effect on manning. Certainly I remember reading Navy News in the mid 90s when it stated the RN had about fifty Sea Harrier pilots (possibly including ones on other duties) so my question is what went wrong, and when? Failure to recruit? Failure to retain?
A few years ago it was reported/alleged that a third of Sea Harrier pilots had threatened to PVR over the move to Cott/Mitt. With the loss of the fighter role as well, how many did go outside? Does anyone have any statistics?
Perhaps that is all part of the plan.
Anyway, I draw your attention back to the issue of MASC with this posting "over there".
Most of the Sea Harrier pilots that left were going to do so anyway, either due to having done their time, or getting to the point that the move wasn't worth it for the few months they had left in the RN.
I don't think there's any masssive hidden plan for the RAF to take over the Fleet Air Finger, it was the RAF that gave up half of it's jets to the Navy. Unfortunately, it has been obvious for quite some time now that the Navy were going to be unable to man it's two "new" sqns.
I don't think there's any masssive hidden plan for the RAF to take over the Fleet Air Finger, it was the RAF that gave up half of it's jets to the Navy. Unfortunately, it has been obvious for quite some time now that the Navy were going to be unable to man it's two "new" sqns.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dorset
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understood that the cost of updating the Sea Harrier was so high that it was always going to be a non-starter given the service life left in the airframes. Therefore, the RN jumped at the idea of getting its hands on half of the RAF’s fleet of GR7/9s to see them through until JCA. Unfortunately, it appears that the transition from the so called ‘ship-borne multi role’ ops to the GR7 role has proved harder than some believed – especially for the older element of the RN. This coupled with the shortfall of RN IPS has led to the shortfall. The RN may still have 50 or so Harrier pilots but the majority are approaching their sale by date and are leaving and certainly will not be around to fly JCA.