Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What surprises me is that no-ones trying to get Harrier 2+ involved- not as great air-air as the FA2, but it still carries AMRAAM & is indeed swing role, has commonality for spares and would fill the bloody great gap we have until the JSF is not only delivered but actually sorted out.
NVG on Sea Harrier was done a long time ago, before the Falklands - so probably a funding issue.
Recce' pods are also available, of various concoctions, though from personal experience I'd avoid anything beggining with V...
Re. lack of RN aircrew, a neighbour is an ex admiral, who used to fly Sea Vixens - he " had to give up flying to get his command " - fish-heads still rule in the Navy, as they did 25 years ago.
As for the idea of amphib' capability on carriers, I think they've got enough on their plate with the fighters, fuel, & COD, airborne refuelling, helo support, airborne search radar coverage a/c ( whatever bodge those all may be, seems a few Merlins & JSF buddy tanks to me) ...
Maybe could carry a largeish bunch of marines with landing craft in davits, though they would be vulnerable.
Presumably if given enough warning they could operate pretty much like the US Marines ( though as tradtional with UK, without the superb kit ) and be configured for it, with a few Harriers & lots of helos- not counting on JSF for quite a while - to support them.
NVG on Sea Harrier was done a long time ago, before the Falklands - so probably a funding issue.
Recce' pods are also available, of various concoctions, though from personal experience I'd avoid anything beggining with V...
Re. lack of RN aircrew, a neighbour is an ex admiral, who used to fly Sea Vixens - he " had to give up flying to get his command " - fish-heads still rule in the Navy, as they did 25 years ago.
As for the idea of amphib' capability on carriers, I think they've got enough on their plate with the fighters, fuel, & COD, airborne refuelling, helo support, airborne search radar coverage a/c ( whatever bodge those all may be, seems a few Merlins & JSF buddy tanks to me) ...
Maybe could carry a largeish bunch of marines with landing craft in davits, though they would be vulnerable.
Presumably if given enough warning they could operate pretty much like the US Marines ( though as tradtional with UK, without the superb kit ) and be configured for it, with a few Harriers & lots of helos- not counting on JSF for quite a while - to support them.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of going over old ground - why was the FA2 developed from the FRS1? It seems so obvious that it should have been based on a Harrier II platform. Was it cost, risk or an RN desire to take a distinctly different path to the RAF?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineering Procedures
A minor point. A few of the previous posters mention that the RN engineers now have to 'convert' to the 'RAF' system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that (just like the allowances), all 3 services were converting to the joint JAP system. Am I missing something?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain Potter,
I think the Navy just assumed they could have the seajets evolve - and no doubt money came into it.
The Seajet also is 100 knots faster than a Harrier 2/ AV-8B, and being all metal is much more durable in service life let alone warfare - I've seen this first hand...
The radar in the Harrier 2+ is a cut down version of the F-16 job, with accordingly detrimental range ( though it seems happy to guide AMRAAMS ) - while the FRS2/ FA2 used a big powerful radar & so was world-class...
Still reckon the Harrier 2+ would be a good stop-gap - Suspect a 'stop gap' for probably the service life of most aircraft !
I photographed a mock-up carrying 6 AMRAAMS ( not sure about 'bring - back', ask someone like John Farley ) , & it has the rather nice advantage of upward firing countermeasures as well as a beefed up airframe.
One thing's for sure - if things happen to kick off in a big way ( Russia, China - fill in the dots ) we're screwed without a decent carrier fighter !
The last time nasty people read something like this, they invaded UK territory...
I think the Navy just assumed they could have the seajets evolve - and no doubt money came into it.
The Seajet also is 100 knots faster than a Harrier 2/ AV-8B, and being all metal is much more durable in service life let alone warfare - I've seen this first hand...
The radar in the Harrier 2+ is a cut down version of the F-16 job, with accordingly detrimental range ( though it seems happy to guide AMRAAMS ) - while the FRS2/ FA2 used a big powerful radar & so was world-class...
Still reckon the Harrier 2+ would be a good stop-gap - Suspect a 'stop gap' for probably the service life of most aircraft !
I photographed a mock-up carrying 6 AMRAAMS ( not sure about 'bring - back', ask someone like John Farley ) , & it has the rather nice advantage of upward firing countermeasures as well as a beefed up airframe.
One thing's for sure - if things happen to kick off in a big way ( Russia, China - fill in the dots ) we're screwed without a decent carrier fighter !
The last time nasty people read something like this, they invaded UK territory...
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
I wish I could have summarised the issues as succinctly and eloquently as you have.
In my opinion the original concept of JFH was utterly sound. There absolutely are times and places where operating from a carrier would be my first choice. (e.g. during OIF when I slept very well in my air conditioned, NBC-proof cabin with plenty of creature comforts - a far cry from having to live in a tent at the end of the runway at Al Jaber) The capabilities of FA2 and GR7 complimented each other very well and the future really was bright... right up until the Ministers scrapped the SHar. I can't help but feel that the RN transition to the GR7/9 has been badly rushed, but, as you say, what we need to do now is focus on sorting the issues out quickly.
Double Zero,
As for the Harrier II+ questions - it definitely would have had advantages. There's nothing quite like having 180 flares, JDAM, triple-ejector racks, Litening II AT, a big engine as standard, a VREST and CAS page, great map overlays, AMRAAM, 5" rockets, napalm and a gun, that's for sure. But the range of the cut down APG-65 dish isn't fantastic, and you're always going to be a tad limited by the Harrier's inherent weakness of being a bit slower and lower than most modern air threats when you come to take first shots. There are obviously ways around the problem e.g buying Link 16 too. The staff solution would have been to integrate the Blue Vixen into a II+ airframe, but I don't think anyone ever dreamt there was the money for that. It's all too late now though as the Boeing line has closed so we just have to make do with what we've got. Until 2022....
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
I wish I could have summarised the issues as succinctly and eloquently as you have.
In my opinion the original concept of JFH was utterly sound. There absolutely are times and places where operating from a carrier would be my first choice. (e.g. during OIF when I slept very well in my air conditioned, NBC-proof cabin with plenty of creature comforts - a far cry from having to live in a tent at the end of the runway at Al Jaber) The capabilities of FA2 and GR7 complimented each other very well and the future really was bright... right up until the Ministers scrapped the SHar. I can't help but feel that the RN transition to the GR7/9 has been badly rushed, but, as you say, what we need to do now is focus on sorting the issues out quickly.
Double Zero,
As for the Harrier II+ questions - it definitely would have had advantages. There's nothing quite like having 180 flares, JDAM, triple-ejector racks, Litening II AT, a big engine as standard, a VREST and CAS page, great map overlays, AMRAAM, 5" rockets, napalm and a gun, that's for sure. But the range of the cut down APG-65 dish isn't fantastic, and you're always going to be a tad limited by the Harrier's inherent weakness of being a bit slower and lower than most modern air threats when you come to take first shots. There are obviously ways around the problem e.g buying Link 16 too. The staff solution would have been to integrate the Blue Vixen into a II+ airframe, but I don't think anyone ever dreamt there was the money for that. It's all too late now though as the Boeing line has closed so we just have to make do with what we've got. Until 2022....
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSSETOWTF,
Thank you for the compliment, but more than that thank you for reading my post.
A Blue Vixen GR9 was indeed looked at, but costs were going to be high, and at the time the RAF was (quite properly) wanting to get the GR9 programme sorted out. One could ask why so much money was poured into the F3/AMRAAM integration, when a Blue Vixen equipped GR9 would have been a very good alternative. (It might also have got the Vixen on to the AV-8B - the US were certainly interested in the world's only look down shoot down radar that was packaged into two halves to fit a Harrier).
One of the GREAT losses with the Shar demise was the stopping of the JTIDS integration prigramme - the aircraft was one day away from flying, and the value to the UK (especially Typhoon) of getting a really good radar/JTIDS combo in the air would have been huge.
However, the task is now 'go forwards' - and that will take some real leadership and ingenuity on all sides.
Small point for Occasional Aviator - yes, the JAPs are being applied, but take a look at some of them - they basically list the RN, Army and RAF procedures in turn. Convergence is the key - it's also quite hard. For JFH, the issue is that the squadrons are now run to JAP regulations, but to RAF orders and instructions - and that means the loss of the chance to really push the envelope. Example - getting GR7 detachments on the road with a 'stripped down' support organisation something like a ships' flight, or more like the old GR3 days - now that would really be expeditionary. But would High Wycombe wear it? In my view, sadly, unlikley - too many train sets threatened, as SSSETOWTF so accurately observes.
Thank you for the compliment, but more than that thank you for reading my post.
A Blue Vixen GR9 was indeed looked at, but costs were going to be high, and at the time the RAF was (quite properly) wanting to get the GR9 programme sorted out. One could ask why so much money was poured into the F3/AMRAAM integration, when a Blue Vixen equipped GR9 would have been a very good alternative. (It might also have got the Vixen on to the AV-8B - the US were certainly interested in the world's only look down shoot down radar that was packaged into two halves to fit a Harrier).
One of the GREAT losses with the Shar demise was the stopping of the JTIDS integration prigramme - the aircraft was one day away from flying, and the value to the UK (especially Typhoon) of getting a really good radar/JTIDS combo in the air would have been huge.
However, the task is now 'go forwards' - and that will take some real leadership and ingenuity on all sides.
Small point for Occasional Aviator - yes, the JAPs are being applied, but take a look at some of them - they basically list the RN, Army and RAF procedures in turn. Convergence is the key - it's also quite hard. For JFH, the issue is that the squadrons are now run to JAP regulations, but to RAF orders and instructions - and that means the loss of the chance to really push the envelope. Example - getting GR7 detachments on the road with a 'stripped down' support organisation something like a ships' flight, or more like the old GR3 days - now that would really be expeditionary. But would High Wycombe wear it? In my view, sadly, unlikley - too many train sets threatened, as SSSETOWTF so accurately observes.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disclaimer: I have no direct personal knowledge of this subject.
That said, from reading what everyone has written both here and elsewhere, and from the public history of the two services involved, and from personal experience with a military bureaucracy (USMC), I would suspect that the "joint JAP system" was the RAF system with the pages re-labelled.
After all, why make both services learn new procedures, etc when the larger "partner" has already been operating the only remaining type to be used?
Keeping the RAF way of dealing with the GR.7/9s would save a lot of money* over creating a whole new set of procedures and making both sets learn the new system.
I also suspect that while the SHARs were in service in JFH, that the RN types were dealing with them the way they had always done... and training any RAF cross-overs in the RN way.
*the prime goal of the Treasury-controlled MOD in these times.
PS: Engines confirmed this while I was typing it.
That said, from reading what everyone has written both here and elsewhere, and from the public history of the two services involved, and from personal experience with a military bureaucracy (USMC), I would suspect that the "joint JAP system" was the RAF system with the pages re-labelled.
After all, why make both services learn new procedures, etc when the larger "partner" has already been operating the only remaining type to be used?
Keeping the RAF way of dealing with the GR.7/9s would save a lot of money* over creating a whole new set of procedures and making both sets learn the new system.
I also suspect that while the SHARs were in service in JFH, that the RN types were dealing with them the way they had always done... and training any RAF cross-overs in the RN way.
*the prime goal of the Treasury-controlled MOD in these times.
PS: Engines confirmed this while I was typing it.
An interesting letter appeared in the Torygraph today [edit - bah! had become 'yesterday' by the time I'd cut and pasted!] about the carriers, from the editor of Warships IFR.
The bit I've emphasised seems....er... potentially controversial. Fair comment, or has the Torygraph succumbed to some nicely myopic single-service fanaticism?
The Daily Telegraph Letters
28 July 2007
Vital aircraft carriers
Sir - The Royal Navy is pulling its weight in both Afghanistan and Iraq by contributing Royal Marines and sailors to the front line (leading article, July 27), whether as Harrier pilots and helicopter aircrew, as medics or as part of 3 Commando Brigade. The Navy has also paid the blood price.
US Navy carrier air power is vital to beating the Taliban in Afghanistan and it also saves lives. Even though US Navy strike jets fly from the Indian Ocean they are able to apply more decisive effect on the battlefield than RAF Harriers flying from a nearby air base. With the two new aircraft carriers, Britain will finally be able to provide that sort of protection and firepower for its own troops, saving more lives and winning more battles. [My emphasis]
The carriers have been promised since 1998, and over the past 10 years both the Army and RAF have received their share of new equipment while the Navy has been drastically cut back, with old equipment not being replaced. Imagine how bad that has been for Navy recruiting.
The new carriers are sorely needed. To build them, much of the front-line strength of the current Royal Navy has been discarded, despite the vital job that even 1970s-era destroyers and 1980s-era frigates can still perform.
Why are our soldiers, sailors and airmen committed to endless campaigns on land when many of the strategic challenges to the security and prosperity of Britain are out there on the high seas?
Iain Ballantyne, Editor, Warships International Fleet Review, Plymouth, Devon
28 July 2007
Vital aircraft carriers
Sir - The Royal Navy is pulling its weight in both Afghanistan and Iraq by contributing Royal Marines and sailors to the front line (leading article, July 27), whether as Harrier pilots and helicopter aircrew, as medics or as part of 3 Commando Brigade. The Navy has also paid the blood price.
US Navy carrier air power is vital to beating the Taliban in Afghanistan and it also saves lives. Even though US Navy strike jets fly from the Indian Ocean they are able to apply more decisive effect on the battlefield than RAF Harriers flying from a nearby air base. With the two new aircraft carriers, Britain will finally be able to provide that sort of protection and firepower for its own troops, saving more lives and winning more battles. [My emphasis]
The carriers have been promised since 1998, and over the past 10 years both the Army and RAF have received their share of new equipment while the Navy has been drastically cut back, with old equipment not being replaced. Imagine how bad that has been for Navy recruiting.
The new carriers are sorely needed. To build them, much of the front-line strength of the current Royal Navy has been discarded, despite the vital job that even 1970s-era destroyers and 1980s-era frigates can still perform.
Why are our soldiers, sailors and airmen committed to endless campaigns on land when many of the strategic challenges to the security and prosperity of Britain are out there on the high seas?
Iain Ballantyne, Editor, Warships International Fleet Review, Plymouth, Devon
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst the Joint Aircraft Publication is used by all there are still single service issues, mostly with regard to authority levels at the different service ranks and rates because the level of training at each is different. One of the main issues which surrounded the JAP is that the RN phased its introduction into service over 2 years. When JFH was formed the RN had been using most of the legislation for a while, the RAF waited until all the orders were complete and took it on in its complete form. Like all legal documents the JAP is subject to interpretation and its taken a while for both parties to agree on that and has pretty much been done locally.
Incidentally the JAP wasn't written based on RAF procedures, it contained changes for all 3 services and is a sort of "best of all" document often containing the worst or most complex legislation from each service. The result seems that each service blamed the other for some of the more controversial issues, as ever!
Incidentally the JAP wasn't written based on RAF procedures, it contained changes for all 3 services and is a sort of "best of all" document often containing the worst or most complex legislation from each service. The result seems that each service blamed the other for some of the more controversial issues, as ever!
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
As you suspect Archimedes, more myopic than insightful;
That is all about having F-18 in the CAS role, they could just as equally be operating from land, but it so happens they are owned by the Navy and not the Air Force, so they fly from carriers. The statement is true, but it is about the CAS capability of the aircraft, not the transitional lump of floating steel used to get it airborne.
Hardly deserves a response, but Sea battles are about removing the Naval capability of an opponent in order to secure the overall Military objective, be it avoid an invasion or conduct your own. Perhaps they don't teach this in elementary school any more?
Even though US Navy strike jets fly from the Indian Ocean they are able to apply more decisive effect on the battlefield than RAF Harriers flying from a nearby air base
Why are our soldiers, sailors and airmen committed to endless campaigns on land when many of the strategic challenges to the security and prosperity of Britain are out there on the high seas?
It's really a numbers thing. Each of the USN boats carries a LOT of jets, versus a small number of GR7/9s at KAF. When we get our new boats, and IF we get the number of jets that we are talking about, then we would be able to put as many jets in the air. However, land-basing the jets at KAF would be the better option if the theatre is the same as it is today.
God, I hope we're not still there by the time we get these new carriers
God, I hope we're not still there by the time we get these new carriers
Agree entirely with your last sentiment, LAL.
It's not carriers versus land-based. They are entirely complementary. The question is this: Which puts aircraft over the target more efficiently, sea-based or land-based?
To answer this question we first need to know where the target is.
Then we need to know what land bases are available, from whom and on what terms. There's a political factor to that, too.
Then we need to consider that land based air (generally) offers more range at less cost, F-35A versus B being an excellent example.
Neither is it completely either/or, because there may be cases where a regional nation will host ISR or tanker assets but not shooters.
In the ideal world, we have both - because the CV (limited as it is in capacity) eliminates the need to make deals with people that we might rather not make deals with, and allows us to put force in place - invisibly, to anyone on land - without taking the provocative step of moving a bunch of combat aircraft into a regional neighbour's territory.
It's not carriers versus land-based. They are entirely complementary. The question is this: Which puts aircraft over the target more efficiently, sea-based or land-based?
To answer this question we first need to know where the target is.
Then we need to know what land bases are available, from whom and on what terms. There's a political factor to that, too.
Then we need to consider that land based air (generally) offers more range at less cost, F-35A versus B being an excellent example.
Neither is it completely either/or, because there may be cases where a regional nation will host ISR or tanker assets but not shooters.
In the ideal world, we have both - because the CV (limited as it is in capacity) eliminates the need to make deals with people that we might rather not make deals with, and allows us to put force in place - invisibly, to anyone on land - without taking the provocative step of moving a bunch of combat aircraft into a regional neighbour's territory.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hmm, maybe they shouldn't give mr Broon ideas about how he could justify cutting the JSF order by getting others, so to speak, on board. Raises the idea of a joint Anglo-French carrier force again as well, if they fit it with a catapult...
Learning To Fly Off Big Decks Again
In Atlantic Exercise, British Re-Learn Large Carrier Operations
Coalition Ops
The Marine embark — the first in which foreign aircraft have flown in rigorous operational scenarios from Royal Navy carriers — might one day pave the way for real-world operations.
For one thing, the Royal Navy has two carriers — Illustrious and Ark Royal — but not enough planes to equip them full time.
Mitchell, who spent a tour flying U.S. Marine Harriers in Yuma, Ariz., said commanders would have to become more imaginative in using coalition assets. The next step, he said, is “being a coalition within a ship, as opposed to a coalition of ships or a coalition of capabilities.”
He noted that Italian, Spanish and most recently Indian Harriers have already done photo-op-type landings on British carriers, and that the Italian and Spanish warplanes would return later this year for exercises.
“One of the strengths of this deployment is that if we end up in a coalition operation where we need the capability, which is currently a capability gap in the U.K., and if we need that gap filling for a particular operation and the only way of filling it on here is to invite the Spanish, Italians or the U.S. Marine Corps,” he said.
Mitchell declined to speculate on whether U.S. and British leaders might actually send U.S. aircraft on missions from U.K. ships. But he said, “There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we could operate as we are in a conflict.”.....
Learning To Fly Off Big Decks Again
In Atlantic Exercise, British Re-Learn Large Carrier Operations
Coalition Ops
The Marine embark — the first in which foreign aircraft have flown in rigorous operational scenarios from Royal Navy carriers — might one day pave the way for real-world operations.
For one thing, the Royal Navy has two carriers — Illustrious and Ark Royal — but not enough planes to equip them full time.
Mitchell, who spent a tour flying U.S. Marine Harriers in Yuma, Ariz., said commanders would have to become more imaginative in using coalition assets. The next step, he said, is “being a coalition within a ship, as opposed to a coalition of ships or a coalition of capabilities.”
He noted that Italian, Spanish and most recently Indian Harriers have already done photo-op-type landings on British carriers, and that the Italian and Spanish warplanes would return later this year for exercises.
“One of the strengths of this deployment is that if we end up in a coalition operation where we need the capability, which is currently a capability gap in the U.K., and if we need that gap filling for a particular operation and the only way of filling it on here is to invite the Spanish, Italians or the U.S. Marine Corps,” he said.
Mitchell declined to speculate on whether U.S. and British leaders might actually send U.S. aircraft on missions from U.K. ships. But he said, “There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we could operate as we are in a conflict.”.....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
You posted:
"1) Land based air power gets their quicker, cheaper, and sustains a higher sortie rate for longer. Since 1982 there has not been a single occasion when land based could not have got their first (please don't irritate me by quoting Sierra Leone). Land based air power is more useful, more often, and is cheaper and more effective."
There is an interesting passage in Neil McCarts book on HMS Invincible concerning the build up of British forces during November-December 1997's attempts to pursuade Saddam to let in UN weapons inspectors. According to McCart, the RAF were denied basing for Tornados in the Gulf so Invincible was despatched from a Carribean cruise to Gib, picking up No 1 (F) squadron RAF en route to join eight FA2's from 800 Squadron and various Sea King AEW/ASW helicopters. The ship "worked up" off Sardinia, during which one RAF Harrier was lost. As negotiations with Saddam ebbed and flowed the ship was sent to join "Deliberate Guard" in the Adriatic. Eventually she was despatched to the Gulf, arriving on 25th Jan 98.
Folks here my recall the Harrier that lost its canopy at 40,000 ft? This happened en route in the Gulf of Aden.
Of course, by January 98 the UK may have suceeded in obtaining host nation support for RAF Tornado squadrons? However the point remains that without HNS the only other option was the use of the RN's small CVS's- even if this involved sailing one of them half way around the world.
This seems to be a perfect example of the utility of mobile airfields.
cheers
S
You posted:
"1) Land based air power gets their quicker, cheaper, and sustains a higher sortie rate for longer. Since 1982 there has not been a single occasion when land based could not have got their first (please don't irritate me by quoting Sierra Leone). Land based air power is more useful, more often, and is cheaper and more effective."
There is an interesting passage in Neil McCarts book on HMS Invincible concerning the build up of British forces during November-December 1997's attempts to pursuade Saddam to let in UN weapons inspectors. According to McCart, the RAF were denied basing for Tornados in the Gulf so Invincible was despatched from a Carribean cruise to Gib, picking up No 1 (F) squadron RAF en route to join eight FA2's from 800 Squadron and various Sea King AEW/ASW helicopters. The ship "worked up" off Sardinia, during which one RAF Harrier was lost. As negotiations with Saddam ebbed and flowed the ship was sent to join "Deliberate Guard" in the Adriatic. Eventually she was despatched to the Gulf, arriving on 25th Jan 98.
Folks here my recall the Harrier that lost its canopy at 40,000 ft? This happened en route in the Gulf of Aden.
Of course, by January 98 the UK may have suceeded in obtaining host nation support for RAF Tornado squadrons? However the point remains that without HNS the only other option was the use of the RN's small CVS's- even if this involved sailing one of them half way around the world.
This seems to be a perfect example of the utility of mobile airfields.
cheers
S
During the period about which you write, shore- based forces in the Gulf area comprised six RAF Tornado aircraft operating from Saudi Arabia, supported by two RAF VC10 tankers in Bahrain, which contributed to the enforcement of the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. More assets were in Turkey for Northern Watch/Warden, and when additional air power was needed, in April 1998, four extra Tornados flew to Ali Al Salim (Kuwait) to join the eight already there.
These 12 Tornados participated in Desert Fox before 1998 was over.
At the time, there were a number of bases available for use, for which agreement had been reached, and - apart from the Navy's need to highlight the supposed usefulness of its self-licking lollipop - there was no need for a CVS deployment.
Moreover, the conditions in the Gulf highlighted the poor 'bring back' of the Sea Harrier, and the inability of the CVS to carry a meaningful air group. Carry enough SHars to defend the carrier group and you could not carry a viable number of GR7s (making the carrier a 'self licking lollipop' - impressive but of no practical utility. Carry enough GR7s, and you couldn't carry enough SHars to defend the group.
AGAIN: Since 1982 there has not been a single occasion when land based did not get, or could not have got their first.
These 12 Tornados participated in Desert Fox before 1998 was over.
At the time, there were a number of bases available for use, for which agreement had been reached, and - apart from the Navy's need to highlight the supposed usefulness of its self-licking lollipop - there was no need for a CVS deployment.
Moreover, the conditions in the Gulf highlighted the poor 'bring back' of the Sea Harrier, and the inability of the CVS to carry a meaningful air group. Carry enough SHars to defend the carrier group and you could not carry a viable number of GR7s (making the carrier a 'self licking lollipop' - impressive but of no practical utility. Carry enough GR7s, and you couldn't carry enough SHars to defend the group.
AGAIN: Since 1982 there has not been a single occasion when land based did not get, or could not have got their first.
I'm a little puzzled at the HNS issue re: 1997 - the US managed to get air assets, with permission to go in against Saddam, into three countries (Bahrain, Kuwait and Turkey) within two weeks of Saddam kicking the inspectors out. The Kuwaiti foreign minister, IIRC, was almost falling over himself in his eagerness to bomb the Iraqis.
Quite why there would've been an HNS problem that required CVS to deploy doesn't seem immediately obvious (doesn't mean there wasn't one, just that the reason appears not to have emerged).
Quite why there would've been an HNS problem that required CVS to deploy doesn't seem immediately obvious (doesn't mean there wasn't one, just that the reason appears not to have emerged).
Jacko
Happy to be corrected by someone who was on that deployment, but I believe the SHARs were there as escort to the GR7s, with strike packages of 4+4 being launched. The bring-back issue was actually to do with how many AAM they could recover with and what the resultant fuel load was (and hence AR demand). DCA (against the residual air threat as most of it had f8cked off to Iran) was undertaken either by 5th Fleet or land-based air.
Glad you highlight the fact we need bigger ships though!
It's also worth pointing out that the ships bring their own F44, life-support, workshops, bombs & bomb shops, C4ISTAR and security, rather than having to either use someone else's (if possible), fly it all out (doesn't work very well for fuel and large numbers of bombs), or (wait for it) have it shipped out by sea.......Securing it is a non-trivial problem in a less than benign environment as well.
Land based and CV-based are complementary - the enemy is at HM Treasury and their implants in the MoD.
Happy to be corrected by someone who was on that deployment, but I believe the SHARs were there as escort to the GR7s, with strike packages of 4+4 being launched. The bring-back issue was actually to do with how many AAM they could recover with and what the resultant fuel load was (and hence AR demand). DCA (against the residual air threat as most of it had f8cked off to Iran) was undertaken either by 5th Fleet or land-based air.
Glad you highlight the fact we need bigger ships though!
It's also worth pointing out that the ships bring their own F44, life-support, workshops, bombs & bomb shops, C4ISTAR and security, rather than having to either use someone else's (if possible), fly it all out (doesn't work very well for fuel and large numbers of bombs), or (wait for it) have it shipped out by sea.......Securing it is a non-trivial problem in a less than benign environment as well.
Land based and CV-based are complementary - the enemy is at HM Treasury and their implants in the MoD.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 31st Jul 2007 at 12:26. Reason: typo
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Land based and CV-based are complementary - the enemy is at HM Treasury and their implants in the MoD.
MM
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM,
Right on the button! There is a distressing trait for some proponents of either land or sea based air to justify their position by deriding the other - the frequent use of 'self-licking lollipop' in connection with CVS is especially irritating, if not plain rude.
Yes, it's a matter of physics that an aircraft can usually get to a place in the world before a ship - but with what, and to do what? By the time you add in the logistics tail and people needed to support the air, the timeline is not so advantageous as sending the CVF with the duty 'bombed up' RFA - and politically, a gradual build plus the ability to 'poise' can be of more use than putting 6 Fins on an airfield. Note I say 'can be' - not always.
Here's a thought or two - the piece by Henry Mitchell is thought provoking vis a vis the F-35B/F-35C debate. Coalition cross decking is very starightforward when STOVL is involved. This is NOT the case if cat and trap is involved. Back in the good old days, actual cross decking with the USN (even when the RN was a worked up cat and trap force) was a rare event and of little real value.
With a prospective F-35B buy across a number of countries, platforms like CVF could offer the UK the ability to host a wide range of allies. Politically, that is an attractive idea.
Comments?
Right on the button! There is a distressing trait for some proponents of either land or sea based air to justify their position by deriding the other - the frequent use of 'self-licking lollipop' in connection with CVS is especially irritating, if not plain rude.
Yes, it's a matter of physics that an aircraft can usually get to a place in the world before a ship - but with what, and to do what? By the time you add in the logistics tail and people needed to support the air, the timeline is not so advantageous as sending the CVF with the duty 'bombed up' RFA - and politically, a gradual build plus the ability to 'poise' can be of more use than putting 6 Fins on an airfield. Note I say 'can be' - not always.
Here's a thought or two - the piece by Henry Mitchell is thought provoking vis a vis the F-35B/F-35C debate. Coalition cross decking is very starightforward when STOVL is involved. This is NOT the case if cat and trap is involved. Back in the good old days, actual cross decking with the USN (even when the RN was a worked up cat and trap force) was a rare event and of little real value.
With a prospective F-35B buy across a number of countries, platforms like CVF could offer the UK the ability to host a wide range of allies. Politically, that is an attractive idea.
Comments?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I add a second note of thanks to MM!
We should all pull together in applying air power most effectively and efficiently. Sniping between CV or land-based capabilities doesn't help - and, believe it or not, almost everone I know in the RAF supports the idea of having carriers.
Enines and ChiefTIFF, thanks for clarifying the eng procs. However, I do think it is a little outdated to imply that the RAF engineering hierarchy will immediately oppose any increase in flexibility. I have worked with the FAA and seen some good procedures, and although the RAF has some baggage to get over (as I'm sure we all do), lots of good people are making real efforts to improve things and there have already been several instances of best practice from the RN being adopted by the RAF (and I'm sure from the Army too, although I can't think of any at the moment). As for the JAP merely being RAF procedures writ large, I can assure you it is not - the implementation team was led by a REME officer, after all!
However, at the end of the day, using RAF orders and instructions in order to service, maintain and rectify RAF aircraft seems to be a no-brainer, if not an essential element of the safety management system!
We should all pull together in applying air power most effectively and efficiently. Sniping between CV or land-based capabilities doesn't help - and, believe it or not, almost everone I know in the RAF supports the idea of having carriers.
Enines and ChiefTIFF, thanks for clarifying the eng procs. However, I do think it is a little outdated to imply that the RAF engineering hierarchy will immediately oppose any increase in flexibility. I have worked with the FAA and seen some good procedures, and although the RAF has some baggage to get over (as I'm sure we all do), lots of good people are making real efforts to improve things and there have already been several instances of best practice from the RN being adopted by the RAF (and I'm sure from the Army too, although I can't think of any at the moment). As for the JAP merely being RAF procedures writ large, I can assure you it is not - the implementation team was led by a REME officer, after all!
However, at the end of the day, using RAF orders and instructions in order to service, maintain and rectify RAF aircraft seems to be a no-brainer, if not an essential element of the safety management system!