Korea Sanctions Blockade
Suspicion breeds confidence
Not sure we could rustle up an airgroup for a CVS even if we wanted. We have one NAS now committed to Afg, any thing with a rotor is also there, availability on the other Harriers appears poor.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: .Lincs.
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The kipper fleet is without doubt stretched to the limit at the moment and probably couldn't support another Op. However it would begger believe if a maritime a/c couldn't support a maritime Op because it has effectively been side-lined into a 'overland' role. If the nimrod is required for what actually is its primary role, then I think its time to tell Comd ISTAR to get his sh*t in one sock, stop racking up the hours on a valuable asset doing a job that doesn't utilise two thirds of the crew, and let the kipper fleet get back to the job for which it is without any doubt the best in the world at.
Oh dear!
The RN has 25 escorts, of this fleet 1, yes one, is currently committed to operations in support of Iraq. Another is committed to Atlantic Patrol Task (North) and another is committed to Standing NATO Maritime Group2 in the Med. On top of this they have a couple of RFA’s and a MCMV deployed.
Can’t really see that there is massive overstretch there!
Afraid I disagree 100% with the article in the Torygraph, the UK has NO obligation to do a damm thing in support of a so far non existent blockade of North Korea.
If such a blockade is mounted then the US 7 th fleet and the South Korean navy should be more than capable of mounting it. If additional support is required then the Japanese have a large fleet and a huge Orion fleet they can utilise. Why should the RN get involved?
Navaleye,
Who needs the SHAR? To do what?
Mad Mark,
Afraid I cannot find a single parallel with the state of the UK military at the start of WW2. Nor is the political, international, military, economic or social situation in any way redolent of 1939.
The RN has 25 escorts, of this fleet 1, yes one, is currently committed to operations in support of Iraq. Another is committed to Atlantic Patrol Task (North) and another is committed to Standing NATO Maritime Group2 in the Med. On top of this they have a couple of RFA’s and a MCMV deployed.
Can’t really see that there is massive overstretch there!
Afraid I disagree 100% with the article in the Torygraph, the UK has NO obligation to do a damm thing in support of a so far non existent blockade of North Korea.
If such a blockade is mounted then the US 7 th fleet and the South Korean navy should be more than capable of mounting it. If additional support is required then the Japanese have a large fleet and a huge Orion fleet they can utilise. Why should the RN get involved?
Navaleye,
Who needs the SHAR? To do what?
Mad Mark,
Afraid I cannot find a single parallel with the state of the UK military at the start of WW2. Nor is the political, international, military, economic or social situation in any way redolent of 1939.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Why should the RN get involved?
Who needs the SHAR? To do what?
North Korean Airforce
Guest
Posts: n/a
Seeing as were so bloody busy that we couldn't spare a pot to widdle in if the FI were attacked again, I take that Bush would do the right thing and send a carrier force down south to scare the crap out of any Junta if needs be?
Or will we be like the little Danish kid plugging holes?
Or will we be like the little Danish kid plugging holes?
How do you work that out? Both the Ticos and the Burkes have extensive and highly modern ASW suites and are armed with SH60s and/or VL ASROC. Not to mention the SSN's. As you correctly mention, JMSDF is no slouch at ASW either. Plus there's 100+ P3's in theatre even in peacetime.
NavalEye
As you rightly point out, no f/w available. Back to sheltering under CVBG CAP and filling the decks with Merlin. Should be able to get 12 a/c to sea from 814/820 & 824 even if 700M have to help out and even if some aircrew go jungly on foreign airframes.....Mind you, every other task would be binned including the training function.
Pr00ne
The only reason for the UK or RN to get involved is to demonstrate commitment to the UNSC resolution iaw our responsibilities as a permanent member. Don't go counting numbers - today there are only 6 DD/FF alongside Pompey & Guzz, including those in refit. The rest are either on their way east, invading Sierra Leone or at sea training.....
Suspicion breeds confidence
Boff,
Quote from JFH CO
http://www.modoracle.com/?page=http:...l.h2f?id=11782
As far as I know we have a total of 7 aircraft in Afg. That makes an operational total of 21 for the entire force. Its hardly worth the effort.
Quote from JFH CO
Commander Bill Dean, Acting Force Commander JFH, said:
"A third of our front line force are currently in Afghanistan and if deployed the GR9 will represent a huge increase in safety to crews, support to ground forces and has been welcomed by my crews in theatre. It is the aircraft of choice for JFH.
"The GR9 represents the way ahead in terms of weapons needs as well as embarked and high intensity war operations. It has greater range, payload standoff survivability and communications and will be able to deliver offensive support with precision guided weapons prior to the introduction of the Joint Combat Aircraft."
"A third of our front line force are currently in Afghanistan and if deployed the GR9 will represent a huge increase in safety to crews, support to ground forces and has been welcomed by my crews in theatre. It is the aircraft of choice for JFH.
"The GR9 represents the way ahead in terms of weapons needs as well as embarked and high intensity war operations. It has greater range, payload standoff survivability and communications and will be able to deliver offensive support with precision guided weapons prior to the introduction of the Joint Combat Aircraft."
As far as I know we have a total of 7 aircraft in Afg. That makes an operational total of 21 for the entire force. Its hardly worth the effort.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Navaleye
If you read further down the MODORACLE link you posted; you'll see this:-
- Still think we should have kept the Sea Harrier though!
If you read further down the MODORACLE link you posted; you'll see this:-
All 69 of the RAF's existing GR7 aircraft are being converted at RAF Cottesmore to high tech Joint Force GR9s by BAe Systems, which has converted the first batch on time and on budget. 24 of the 69 are now in service with 20 (Reserve) Sqn, which is the Operational Evaluation Unit, and 1 (Fighter) Sqn
- Still think we should have kept the Sea Harrier though!
Suspicion breeds confidence
I did see that. JFH is supposed to have an established strength of 36 a/c (4 operational sqns of nine a/c) It sounds to me like they are a long way off from achieving that number.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not in the dark blue myself so not biased, but anyone that questions the need for an organic maritime AD asset is short-sighted. The ability to project power from a naval platform is useless without the means to dominate the airspace, something we now cannot do. The RN is now a subserviant partner to any maritime Op as it cannot protect its own ships without DCA from a foreign power. The GR9, whilst a great CAS/IDS platform doesn't cut the mustard, even if they strapped 2 ASRAAMs onto it.
It's about time the government either stumped up the money to back-up the international profile it craves from the use of it's military, or accepts the fact we are no longer capable of doing everything that is asked of us and commit accordingly.
Naval Typhoon sounds great though.....
It's about time the government either stumped up the money to back-up the international profile it craves from the use of it's military, or accepts the fact we are no longer capable of doing everything that is asked of us and commit accordingly.
Naval Typhoon sounds great though.....
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not in the dark blue myself so not biased, but anyone that questions the need for an organic maritime AD asset is short-sighted. The ability to project power from a naval platform is useless without the means to dominate the airspace, something we now cannot do. The RN is now a subserviant partner to any maritime Op as it cannot protect its own ships without DCA from a foreign power. The GR9, whilst a great CAS/IDS platform doesn't cut the mustard, even if they strapped 2 ASRAAMs onto it.
It's about time the government either stumped up the money to back-up the international profile it craves from the use of it's military, or accepts the fact we are no longer capable of doing everything that is asked of us and commit accordingly.
Naval Typhoon sounds great though.....
It's about time the government either stumped up the money to back-up the international profile it craves from the use of it's military, or accepts the fact we are no longer capable of doing everything that is asked of us and commit accordingly.
Naval Typhoon sounds great though.....
Not the Beermonkey I know. You've changed . . . .
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
'The Royal Navy throw their full force into the North Korean blockade.'
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cambs
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commander Bill Dean, Acting Force Commander JFH, said:
"A third of our front line force are currently in Afghanistan and if deployed the GR9 will represent a huge increase in safety to crews, support to ground forces and has been welcomed by my crews in theatre. It is the aircraft of choice for JFH.
"The GR9 represents the way ahead in terms of weapons needs as well as embarked and high intensity war operations. It has greater range, payload standoff survivability and communications and will be able to deliver offensive support with precision guided weapons prior to the introduction of the Joint Combat Aircraft."
I take it he means a third of our front line Sqns (only 7 ac), not a third of our force. Can anyone explain why the Cdr thinks that the GR9 will be the aircraft of choice over the 7A - I take it he means GR9A? Also, why has the GR9 got a greater range?
"A third of our front line force are currently in Afghanistan and if deployed the GR9 will represent a huge increase in safety to crews, support to ground forces and has been welcomed by my crews in theatre. It is the aircraft of choice for JFH.
"The GR9 represents the way ahead in terms of weapons needs as well as embarked and high intensity war operations. It has greater range, payload standoff survivability and communications and will be able to deliver offensive support with precision guided weapons prior to the introduction of the Joint Combat Aircraft."
I take it he means a third of our front line Sqns (only 7 ac), not a third of our force. Can anyone explain why the Cdr thinks that the GR9 will be the aircraft of choice over the 7A - I take it he means GR9A? Also, why has the GR9 got a greater range?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Financial Donation
Rumour has it that the Vulcan Restoration group have just recieved a large donation from the MoD as Tony thinks the Vulcan may reach the parts most politicians can not reach !
HMS Victory with a steam cat or a ski ramp....desarate times, desparate measures !
HMS Victory with a steam cat or a ski ramp....desarate times, desparate measures !
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the CVSs go East, they will need credible interceptor fighters to cover them. As Beermonkey said, though, MKs7 and 9 are not up to that. A mud mover is not what we need in that role, unless we don't mind taking hits.
It's been commented on earlier that this bit of bother isn't in our corner of the room. One of the problems of having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council is that it carries certain expectations, so, perhaps we can't just stay in our corner. I think the French may have the same considerations. Maybe they would provide our top cover?
It's been commented on earlier that this bit of bother isn't in our corner of the room. One of the problems of having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council is that it carries certain expectations, so, perhaps we can't just stay in our corner. I think the French may have the same considerations. Maybe they would provide our top cover?