Future Carrier (Including Costs)
What's wrong with scrounging an airgroup? If CVF is going to be the joint / combined enabler of the future then surely it's good to get practise now? It can only help GB PLC's image if in, say, 2020 we embark a "Dave" airgroup comprising of (potentially) GB, Australian, Canadian & USMC aircraft & aircrew. Not only does it politically offer coalition legitamacy to future campaigns, but also backfills our limited resources if, say, we were heavily involved in a landlocked country where we need the aircraft but not the Carrier......
Let's have the ships & operate them in the National, not Service, interest.
Let's have the ships & operate them in the National, not Service, interest.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Nice idea in principle, but all of the countries you mention have carriers with airgroups of their own. We on the other hand appear only to have the former. The USN have plenty of their own flat tops as well. I hope nothing nasty happens until 2020 when we should be able to scrape together enough Dave(s) to put a carrier airgroup together.
Navaleye,
Australia & Canada are both out of the FW embarked naval aviation game. Perhaps it's time to try to re-sell Invincible to Australia? Whilst Canada is after a Avn ship it is likely to be in the mould (or is it mold!?) of Ocean -ie a Amphib vessel. Thus, the opportunity for the UK to provide "HNS" could be appealing. It would also bring other F35 users (Norway / Denmark?) potentially into a coalition.
Australia & Canada are both out of the FW embarked naval aviation game. Perhaps it's time to try to re-sell Invincible to Australia? Whilst Canada is after a Avn ship it is likely to be in the mould (or is it mold!?) of Ocean -ie a Amphib vessel. Thus, the opportunity for the UK to provide "HNS" could be appealing. It would also bring other F35 users (Norway / Denmark?) potentially into a coalition.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Samson
Despite a quick search, I may have missed this elsewhere, but....
What has happened to CVF's Samson radar? I notice on the latest impressions that it seems to have been replaced by the T45's search radar.
Can anyone shed any light on this? Does it matter?
What has happened to CVF's Samson radar? I notice on the latest impressions that it seems to have been replaced by the T45's search radar.
Can anyone shed any light on this? Does it matter?
Suspicion breeds confidence
No it just has the L1850 long range air search radar. Without any SAMs to guide, Sampson would be overkill. Janes does report that CVF will have the same combat management system as the T45 and some (unspecified) aviation systems carried over from Illustrious & Ark Royal as well as the replacement for the Type 996 radar.
Last edited by Navaleye; 17th Sep 2007 at 06:34.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I hear 800 Sqn is soon to return to Afghanistan - so much for any useful naval ops for the next 6 months then, hence the need to beg an airgroup from another navy.
If I were 1SL I would be asking why the RAF why it is pinching the navy's only operational squadron when the RAF has all these GR4s:
9 Squadron --- RAF Marham
12 Squadron --- RAF Lossiemouth
14 Squadron --- RAF Lossiemouth
31 Squadron ---RAF Marham
617 Squadron --- RAF Lossiemouth
13 Squadron --- RAF Marham
15 (Reserve) Sqn --- RAF Lossiemouth
2 (AC) Squadron --- RAF Marham
Yet cannot provide enough aircraft to give the over worked Harrier Sqn a break and allow 800/801 to focus on maritime strike which is what it is supposed to do.
If I were 1SL I would be asking why the RAF why it is pinching the navy's only operational squadron when the RAF has all these GR4s:
9 Squadron --- RAF Marham
12 Squadron --- RAF Lossiemouth
14 Squadron --- RAF Lossiemouth
31 Squadron ---RAF Marham
617 Squadron --- RAF Lossiemouth
13 Squadron --- RAF Marham
15 (Reserve) Sqn --- RAF Lossiemouth
2 (AC) Squadron --- RAF Marham
Yet cannot provide enough aircraft to give the over worked Harrier Sqn a break and allow 800/801 to focus on maritime strike which is what it is supposed to do.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF Commitments
Navaleye,
it may have escaped your notice, but:
a. The Tornado wings are supporting operations in Iraq.
b. The Harrier force are supporting operations in Afghanistan.
c. Point (b) is currently slightly more in demand than Maritime Strike.
it may have escaped your notice, but:
a. The Tornado wings are supporting operations in Iraq.
b. The Harrier force are supporting operations in Afghanistan.
c. Point (b) is currently slightly more in demand than Maritime Strike.
Suspicion breeds confidence
a. The Tornado wings are supporting operations in Iraq.
In Afghanistan we have a different situation with insurgents on the ground engaging land forces in firefights which are in turn attacked daily by coalition aircraft. Our small Harrier force is not enough to cope. We should leave Iraq to the Americans now and put the GR4s where they are most needed, even if it does mean living in a tent.
NE - AIUI, there are some slightly more legitimate reasons other than an aversion to tents which explain why the GR4 force hasn't been/isn't currently operating from bases in Afghanistan...
The reasons have been alluded to on here (sometimes in a rather eliptical manner), but the allusions have been accompanied by the posters noting that they don't want to go into details because having a black Omega parked on your drive is dreadfully passe...
By the by, I think that the GR4s have been rather busier than you suggest, but they don't seem to get the same degree of press coverage that the Harrier fleet receives.
The reasons have been alluded to on here (sometimes in a rather eliptical manner), but the allusions have been accompanied by the posters noting that they don't want to go into details because having a black Omega parked on your drive is dreadfully passe...
By the by, I think that the GR4s have been rather busier than you suggest, but they don't seem to get the same degree of press coverage that the Harrier fleet receives.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye has a point about the GR4s and it is one often raised around the stations but there are some real facts to consider:
First the RN badged Harrier squadrons are part of the force which is, to use an Army expression, tour plotted by the RAF. While the JFH are deployed for their stint the RN badged sqns take their turn (and turn) until the whole force is relieved. That is efficient use of resources and the date of relief will be promulgated when the force is used to the prudent limit of its endurance and not before. Thus an embarked requirement will not yet enter the fray.
What replaces JFH in the Stan remains to be seen - it could well be the mighty GR4; or some Typhoons in the mud role or more of Uncle Sam's aircraft (or those of another Ally but I'm ney holding ma breath on that one). Rather depends on the timing of relief.
First the RN badged Harrier squadrons are part of the force which is, to use an Army expression, tour plotted by the RAF. While the JFH are deployed for their stint the RN badged sqns take their turn (and turn) until the whole force is relieved. That is efficient use of resources and the date of relief will be promulgated when the force is used to the prudent limit of its endurance and not before. Thus an embarked requirement will not yet enter the fray.
What replaces JFH in the Stan remains to be seen - it could well be the mighty GR4; or some Typhoons in the mud role or more of Uncle Sam's aircraft (or those of another Ally but I'm ney holding ma breath on that one). Rather depends on the timing of relief.
..and of course the Tornado Force has been supporting ops over Iraq non-stop since 1992. Plenty of engagement with the enemy over that period - then and now. And in the bad old days that was North and South Fly Zones at the same time. All without jumping up and down shouting "look at me, aren't we busy".
Is 801 ever going to stand up or has there been "smoke and mirrors" to hide the lack of FAA FW pilots
Damn operations getting in the way of a round the world tour cockers p!! 
Or is it the dastardly Air Forces attempt to have the FW aspects of the FAA disbanded!
Is 801 ever going to stand up or has there been "smoke and mirrors" to hide the lack of FAA FW pilots
Damn operations getting in the way of a round the world tour cockers p!! Or is it the dastardly Air Forces attempt to have the FW aspects of the FAA disbanded!
Suspicion breeds confidence
All of which would explain why up to 25 July 2007, Illustrious and Ark Royal spent a grand total of 80 and 68 days at sea respectively, much of that sans FW air group.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Aberystwyth
Age: 38
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: No GR4s at Kandahar
'The reasons have been alluded to on here (sometimes in a rather eliptical manner), but the allusions have been accompanied by the posters noting that they don't want to go into details because having a black Omega parked on your drive is dreadfully passe...'
Maybe I'm missing something and am 'out of the loop', non-service member that I am. I was under the impression that Kandahar was suitable for Harriers only due to the appalling state of its runway, with a fairly significant FOD problem, which made STOL and VL operations the name of the game to avoid further damage as other fast jets would be required to tear up and down the full length of the strip, potentially rendering it unusable - thus the commitment of JFH alone rather than the GR4 fleet.
That this should be the subject of so many veiled comments about black omegas and OPSEC concerns seems odd to me (that the runway is a bit shoddy would be obvious by the commitment of VSTOL aircraft rather than conventional ones - evidently open source information).
Is there another reason that I've missed that I'm not supposed to know about (a yes is all I ask for, I don't expect to be told in detail due to OPSEC
), and the runway concerns are just used as a convenient mask?I ask because it seems the French are 'apparently' moving their detachment of 3 Mirage 2000Ds from Dushanbe to Kandahar come the end of the month (again info obtained through open sources), which were it to happen rather removes the argument that as a field Kandahar is unsuitable for conventional fast jet aircraft.
Will - yes, the runway was in an appalling state to begin with.
My comments were based on the fact that there have been snippets on these means (although damned if I can find the post I'm thinking of) alluding to additional reasons why the GR4 hasn't been sent to Afghanistan. Note, though that there was an 'AIUI' in there - because there is a danger that I've misunderstood...
My comments were based on the fact that there have been snippets on these means (although damned if I can find the post I'm thinking of) alluding to additional reasons why the GR4 hasn't been sent to Afghanistan. Note, though that there was an 'AIUI' in there - because there is a danger that I've misunderstood...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No that had not escaped my notice, but I would ask if this is a sensible division of resources. In Iraq, the enemy is an IED more often than not. CAS is not much use in that environment. Attacks on insurgent forces by GR4s don't seem to be reported that often do they? Uncle Sam has more than enough a/c in Iraq to cover the requirements there.
In Afghanistan we have a different situation with insurgents on the ground engaging land forces in firefights which are in turn attacked daily by coalition aircraft. Our small Harrier force is not enough to cope. We should leave Iraq to the Americans now and put the GR4s where they are most needed, even if it does mean living in a tent.
In Afghanistan we have a different situation with insurgents on the ground engaging land forces in firefights which are in turn attacked daily by coalition aircraft. Our small Harrier force is not enough to cope. We should leave Iraq to the Americans now and put the GR4s where they are most needed, even if it does mean living in a tent.
I've spent a considerable time in Iraq with the Army and fast air and CAS is still very much needed, and regularly employed.Yes they are very different in nature. As a general rule, Afghanistan is more 'kinetic' than Iraq. However, the GR4s have engaged in live CAS with our own, as well as coalition forces recently. In some cases, the nature of this CAS has arguably been more demanding than a typical Afghanistan engagement. However, they are not just there to provide CAS. The
GR4 also makes a significant contribution to coalition ISR andis one of the most (if not the most) sought after fast air recce asset in Iraq right now.
You constantly suggest the GR4s should be supporting 'our' forces, you constantly mention 'our' Harriers and that 'we' should 'leave Iraq to the US'. Do you not understand that these aircraft are part of a coalition that we've commited to? They are apportioned by coalition CAOCs and ASOCs. We still have 5000 troops in Iraq. Even when the Army have withdrawn from Iraq, we can expect fast air to still be required as part of operational and strategic overwatch.
Finally, 800/801 is NOT there to provide maritime strike. It's there to contribute to a JOINT capability. That Joint capability includes maritime strike and CAS. Right now, that Joint capability is needed providing CAS to troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Not on exercise off the coast of the US. the place where those Joint assets are best placed to provide that joint capability is in Afghanistan, not on a carrier.
WolvoWill,
The GR7s were initially commited to Afghanistan because of the austere nature of the deployment location. Harriers generally require less support than GR4s, and had the advantage of STOL.
Subsequently, the airfield has been improved so that conventional fast air could be supported. However, the two fleets are each well established at their respective locations.
The GR4 aircrew remain keen to get involved in Afghanistan, as were the Jag sqn prior to disbandment. However, I suspect it is just too difficult for PJHQ to conduct a complete swap of assets. It is envisaged that Typhoon (which has a much smaller support tail than the Tornado) will replace the GR9s from next year to give JFH a much needed rest from ops.
However, I suspect that here are also some significant other political reasons why the Harriers have been kept on ops when we are probably about to face further cuts accross the board.
Regards,
MM
Suspicion breeds confidence
MM,
You are absolutely right. I've done bugger all since 1994, despite working for every systems integrator in the defence business and paying off my mortgage. I'm still very close to the navy and the FAA even though its only a hobby by now. I'll leave the rest up to you.
Cheers
N
You are absolutely right. I've done bugger all since 1994, despite working for every systems integrator in the defence business and paying off my mortgage. I'm still very close to the navy and the FAA even though its only a hobby by now. I'll leave the rest up to you.
Cheers
N
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Inner Planets
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
working for every systems integrator in the defence business and paying off my mortgage.
contractors!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen PLEASE!
The point raised is a perfectly legitimate question. The RN and FAA exist for a reason- one of those reasons is to provide a rapid and highly mobile force to protect/project UK interests overseas. Stripping it of its FW aviation seriously compromises its ability to perform that role.
If a crisis did occur, how long would it take to re embark JFH aboard Ark Royal and Illustrious?
What would replace them in Afghanistan?
Why did the MoD withdraw the Jags?
Does the Afghanistan mission over ride any other possible intervention missions the RN and JFH might be asked to undertake at short notice?
If so, why?
The point raised is a perfectly legitimate question. The RN and FAA exist for a reason- one of those reasons is to provide a rapid and highly mobile force to protect/project UK interests overseas. Stripping it of its FW aviation seriously compromises its ability to perform that role.
If a crisis did occur, how long would it take to re embark JFH aboard Ark Royal and Illustrious?
What would replace them in Afghanistan?
Why did the MoD withdraw the Jags?
Does the Afghanistan mission over ride any other possible intervention missions the RN and JFH might be asked to undertake at short notice?
If so, why?