Crab-Bashing
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The RAF had a problem betwen Javelin and F4 with some backseaters maintaining capability in Sea Vixens but many converted to other types and that gap was only 4 years.
The RN problem returning to large carrier ops will almost be of the same magnitude as the Russian Navy.
The RN problem returning to large carrier ops will almost be of the same magnitude as the Russian Navy.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allthenick/Bismark,
Individuals have their opinions, but as a crab who keeps up with internal briefing notices, I can assure you that the RAF are NOT briefing against the carriers.
The carrier programme may have been questioned, but this is called SCRUTINY and it happens to every major project. Do you not think that some cutting questions have been asked about Typhoon?
JFH is an interesting one, as if you are close enough to it to know the facts you will know that the RAF harrier force feel pretty stitched up about it too. Don't forget that in the interests of political correctness we had our force slashed to try and get a force of 2 RAF sqns and 2 RN sqns out of basically a 3:1 ratio of people and jets. You can try to blame the RAF but in the end the fact is that 801 did not stand up because the RN couldn't man it under the system that had been agreed jointly. That isn't a good thing and is probably cold comfort for the RAF harrier pilots now unable to get a flight commander tour, but it
I sympathise about AOC 3 Gp, but don't forget it was always going to be a rotational/competition post anyway, and that the vast majority of the Gp was RAF.
Also I don't believe that the SHAR was binned because of a devious crab plot. The decision was taken against the following background:
Also I think you must be confused about 'sidewinder-armed Nimrod'.
I am not having a pop at the RN, I actually admire the senior service. I would also like the UK to have carriers (although I have to admit that nobody has yet given me a convincing reason why the RN need to fly any of the jets).
How about this for a compromise: we all agree to support UK defence in the best way we can. This, to me means:
- asking pertinent questions about equipment programmes so that when the MOD is in a financial hole to make sure we're buying the right kit.
- accepting that our own programmes will come under scrutiny and not getting precious when someone questions them.
- understanding that sometimes things don't go your way and that just might be the way things are, not that someone else is out to get you.
- not leaking to the press or dripping to journos about what you perceive other services are doing to yours.
How about it?
Individuals have their opinions, but as a crab who keeps up with internal briefing notices, I can assure you that the RAF are NOT briefing against the carriers.
The carrier programme may have been questioned, but this is called SCRUTINY and it happens to every major project. Do you not think that some cutting questions have been asked about Typhoon?
JFH is an interesting one, as if you are close enough to it to know the facts you will know that the RAF harrier force feel pretty stitched up about it too. Don't forget that in the interests of political correctness we had our force slashed to try and get a force of 2 RAF sqns and 2 RN sqns out of basically a 3:1 ratio of people and jets. You can try to blame the RAF but in the end the fact is that 801 did not stand up because the RN couldn't man it under the system that had been agreed jointly. That isn't a good thing and is probably cold comfort for the RAF harrier pilots now unable to get a flight commander tour, but it
I sympathise about AOC 3 Gp, but don't forget it was always going to be a rotational/competition post anyway, and that the vast majority of the Gp was RAF.
Also I don't believe that the SHAR was binned because of a devious crab plot. The decision was taken against the following background:
1. UK policy at the moment is to take risk against air defence in all environments and current operations are crying out for CAS.
2. The SHAR was an air defence aircraft and the GR7/9 is a CAS aircraft.
3. The IPT has to pay for both.
4. The SHAR was seven times as expensive to support as the GR7.
What decision do you think you would have reached? And before you suggest that the RN was targetted, remember the RAF lost its jaguar fleet following a very similar logic path.2. The SHAR was an air defence aircraft and the GR7/9 is a CAS aircraft.
3. The IPT has to pay for both.
4. The SHAR was seven times as expensive to support as the GR7.
Also I think you must be confused about 'sidewinder-armed Nimrod'.
I am not having a pop at the RN, I actually admire the senior service. I would also like the UK to have carriers (although I have to admit that nobody has yet given me a convincing reason why the RN need to fly any of the jets).
How about this for a compromise: we all agree to support UK defence in the best way we can. This, to me means:
- asking pertinent questions about equipment programmes so that when the MOD is in a financial hole to make sure we're buying the right kit.
- accepting that our own programmes will come under scrutiny and not getting precious when someone questions them.
- understanding that sometimes things don't go your way and that just might be the way things are, not that someone else is out to get you.
- not leaking to the press or dripping to journos about what you perceive other services are doing to yours.
How about it?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OA,
I don't disagree with much of what you have to say but I do not hear siren voices from the RN trying to talk out RAF programmes but you have to admit there is alot the other way round. For example, you ca't see why the RN should be flying a/c from the CVF - why not? it is the RN that has the longest history flying from the sea (approaching 100 years);developed aircraft carriers in the first place, developed cats and traps, developed the ski jump etc etc. The FAA history in air combat shapes up pretty well against the RAF, indeed I think since WW2 the FAA has a better record against an enemy. Ops from the sea generally need sea minded people and generally that starts at the recruiting stage.
With regards to JFH my buddies round here tell me that the RN could operate the second sqn under RN operating rules - after all it is a RN sqn not an RAF one. Apparently the only person missing was a JO QFI - a system the RN has never operated.
I don't disagree with much of what you have to say but I do not hear siren voices from the RN trying to talk out RAF programmes but you have to admit there is alot the other way round. For example, you ca't see why the RN should be flying a/c from the CVF - why not? it is the RN that has the longest history flying from the sea (approaching 100 years);developed aircraft carriers in the first place, developed cats and traps, developed the ski jump etc etc. The FAA history in air combat shapes up pretty well against the RAF, indeed I think since WW2 the FAA has a better record against an enemy. Ops from the sea generally need sea minded people and generally that starts at the recruiting stage.
With regards to JFH my buddies round here tell me that the RN could operate the second sqn under RN operating rules - after all it is a RN sqn not an RAF one. Apparently the only person missing was a JO QFI - a system the RN has never operated.
I think the Typhoon buy........and most of the a/c are not needed
And I think you will find that Trident and son of Trident were/will be more than Typhoon. Actually I think CVF+JSF will be more as well!! Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFH
Bismark,
I take your points, BUT:
If you check the command arrangements, JFH is under full command of the RAF. 801 Sqn therefore would have been an RN-badged RAF Sqn.
It makes complete sense, not least from a safety point of view, that a sqn operating RAF aircraft under RAF command should work to RAF rules.
The RN agreed to move to the RAF system for a number of reasons - not least that this will be the most efficient way of operating JSF in future - one of the big drivers behind forming JFH was to build capacity for JSF.
I understand that the reason why the RN did not used to have JO QFIs on the Sqn was due to the way the RN ran its OCU (where I believe the JO QFIs would have been) - so not being able to generate a QFI for the sqn is merely a symptom of force undermanning. Although you could have manned the sqn under RN rules, it would not have had the support needed and would not be able to generate the FE@R required for its task - RN Sqns were structured around providing jets for embarked ops which are flexi serviced, then come back and go into the shed while the people take their end-of-tour leave. It works well if you can accept that dip, but JSF will be operated in the way the RAF always have - to keep the sqn on readiness all the time. I believe this is also how the French navy run things, and one of the reasons why they need more space below decks.
In answer to the question about who should fly the jets, I dont have a really strong view - but for me the question is why rather than why not. RN FJ pilots now and in the future go through exactly the same training as RAF harrier pilots (stand fast Dartmouth), and the end product in the JFH is interchangeable. Running a force of around 210 fast-jet pilots is difficult enough for the RAF, which has places to send people who aren't quite up to single-seat and a commensurate buffer in terms of a training margin and ground jobs. Oh, and a realistic career for flyers beyond SO1. Trying to run a small cadre of FJ pilots independently just seems like an inefficiency and not best value for defence - so for me the question is why bother rather than why not. Yes, you need some sea-mindedness but this will come with operating at sea, and the whole carrier strike thing is justified around Land Attack, not defending the fleet against air attack (which I think the T45 does rather well actually). If you really need to address the presentational aspect let's give some of the sqns RN numbers and get the pilots to wear gold braid rather than bar-codes when at sea. Having said that, if it comes down to a political need to keep some pilots as RN, then so be it.
Happy to be corrected about any of this, but I stand by my main point - tough things are happening to everybody in defence at the moment, and simply blaming all your woes on the RAF is neither accurate nor helpful.
I take your points, BUT:
If you check the command arrangements, JFH is under full command of the RAF. 801 Sqn therefore would have been an RN-badged RAF Sqn.
It makes complete sense, not least from a safety point of view, that a sqn operating RAF aircraft under RAF command should work to RAF rules.
The RN agreed to move to the RAF system for a number of reasons - not least that this will be the most efficient way of operating JSF in future - one of the big drivers behind forming JFH was to build capacity for JSF.
I understand that the reason why the RN did not used to have JO QFIs on the Sqn was due to the way the RN ran its OCU (where I believe the JO QFIs would have been) - so not being able to generate a QFI for the sqn is merely a symptom of force undermanning. Although you could have manned the sqn under RN rules, it would not have had the support needed and would not be able to generate the FE@R required for its task - RN Sqns were structured around providing jets for embarked ops which are flexi serviced, then come back and go into the shed while the people take their end-of-tour leave. It works well if you can accept that dip, but JSF will be operated in the way the RAF always have - to keep the sqn on readiness all the time. I believe this is also how the French navy run things, and one of the reasons why they need more space below decks.
In answer to the question about who should fly the jets, I dont have a really strong view - but for me the question is why rather than why not. RN FJ pilots now and in the future go through exactly the same training as RAF harrier pilots (stand fast Dartmouth), and the end product in the JFH is interchangeable. Running a force of around 210 fast-jet pilots is difficult enough for the RAF, which has places to send people who aren't quite up to single-seat and a commensurate buffer in terms of a training margin and ground jobs. Oh, and a realistic career for flyers beyond SO1. Trying to run a small cadre of FJ pilots independently just seems like an inefficiency and not best value for defence - so for me the question is why bother rather than why not. Yes, you need some sea-mindedness but this will come with operating at sea, and the whole carrier strike thing is justified around Land Attack, not defending the fleet against air attack (which I think the T45 does rather well actually). If you really need to address the presentational aspect let's give some of the sqns RN numbers and get the pilots to wear gold braid rather than bar-codes when at sea. Having said that, if it comes down to a political need to keep some pilots as RN, then so be it.
Happy to be corrected about any of this, but I stand by my main point - tough things are happening to everybody in defence at the moment, and simply blaming all your woes on the RAF is neither accurate nor helpful.
Last edited by Occasional Aviator; 12th Dec 2007 at 08:08.
Attacking the holy cow of independent, Navy-owned RN fixed wing aviation, OA?
And doing so with logic, forebearing the usual emotion and appeals to tradition and ancient history (1982 and all that).
There will be tears.....
And doing so with logic, forebearing the usual emotion and appeals to tradition and ancient history (1982 and all that).
There will be tears.....
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OA et al
An informative post but if I may question/ comment on the following
Why should it be under full RAF control? Does that mean the RAF Seakings should come under RN control or the Merlins for that matter. The RAF seem to bang on about safety but seem to have more accidents than the RN, I would have thought this would have been the other way round.
Take a look at the history of the fleet air arm between day of all fools 1918 and 1937 it was "owned" buy the RAF but paid for by the RN At the start only the Observers in the squadrons were dark blue by 1920 the squadron manning was 87% RN now I dont know why that would be but I suspect it was a number of factors such as RAF Recruitment & Retention being affected by Having to go to sea for long periods of time and Trenchards view that Carrier ops were dangerous and Long Range bombers could achieve the same thing.
Despite the RN holding the purse strings they had no say in what aircraft they got. Just over the pond the USN were flying Hellcats/Wildcats and all other forms of modern A/C - The fleet Air Arm's Air Defence was provided by the sea skua which couldn't even match the Luftwaffe's premier Recce Aircraft, the condor in terms of speed and ceiling.
When the RN finally got control of the FAA back it was no where near prepared for war. Aircraft production was focused on fighter production for the RAF (quite rightly) but no one was prepared to come up with a naval fighter. The best british offering was the sea hurricane and later the Sea Mosquito all of which were compromises.
Now at this point i'd like to ask a question, can any one out in PPRUNE-land name ONE repeat ONE Land based fixed-wing Aircraft that was a great success at sea?
None as far as ? know
Now name one Naval Aircraft that successfully came ashore? I can think of one british and several american.
My own Conclusion - As long as this and future governments operate an interventionist foriegn policy we will require Fixed and rotary wing Aircraft at sea. As for Fighters, Well nearly every tin-pot nation on this earth has an airforce and most have an air combat wing.
As for who should operate these aircraft at sea. Well my own thoughts are ask those who operate the aircraft at the moment. If I had joined the RAF, it wouldn't have been to go to sea, So yes the RN should operate them, but with a common support system. I think jointery is a dynamite Idea. Common Aircraft and common support. My heart however goes out to the light blue who are embarked on various pussers war-canoes who dont want to be there, i'm also mindfull of the Wafus deployed ashore and living in trenches. I think the current situation can only have an adverse effect on morale, recruitment and retention.
Sorry if i've rambled
PS - Jacko - Ancient history eh? - What does that make the Battle of britain then? Having fighters to protect british airspace, we dont need them surely?
An informative post but if I may question/ comment on the following
If you check the command arrangements, JFH is under full command of the RAF. 801 Sqn therefore would have been an RN-badged RAF Sqn.
It makes complete sense, not least from a safety point of view, that a sqn operating RAF aircraft under RAF command should work to RAF rules
It makes complete sense, not least from a safety point of view, that a sqn operating RAF aircraft under RAF command should work to RAF rules
In answer to the question about who should fly the jets, I dont have a really strong view - but for me the question is why rather than why not. RN FJ pilots now and in the future go through exactly the same training as RAF harrier pilots (stand fast Dartmouth), and the end product in the JFH is interchangeable. Running a force of around 210 fast-jet pilots is difficult enough for the RAF, which has places to send people who aren't quite up to single-seat and a commensurate buffer in terms of a training margin and ground jobs. Oh, and a realistic career for flyers beyond SO1. Trying to run a small cadre of FJ pilots independently just seems like an inefficiency and not best value for defence - so for me the question is why bother rather than why not. Yes, you need some sea-mindedness but this will come with operating at sea, and the whole carrier strike thing is justified around Land Attack, not defending the fleet against air attack (which I think the T45 does rather well actually). If you really need to address the presentational aspect let's give some of the sqns RN numbers and get the pilots to wear gold braid rather than bar-codes when at sea. Having said that, if it comes down to a political need to keep some pilots as RN, then so be it.
Despite the RN holding the purse strings they had no say in what aircraft they got. Just over the pond the USN were flying Hellcats/Wildcats and all other forms of modern A/C - The fleet Air Arm's Air Defence was provided by the sea skua which couldn't even match the Luftwaffe's premier Recce Aircraft, the condor in terms of speed and ceiling.
When the RN finally got control of the FAA back it was no where near prepared for war. Aircraft production was focused on fighter production for the RAF (quite rightly) but no one was prepared to come up with a naval fighter. The best british offering was the sea hurricane and later the Sea Mosquito all of which were compromises.
Now at this point i'd like to ask a question, can any one out in PPRUNE-land name ONE repeat ONE Land based fixed-wing Aircraft that was a great success at sea?
None as far as ? know
Now name one Naval Aircraft that successfully came ashore? I can think of one british and several american.
My own Conclusion - As long as this and future governments operate an interventionist foriegn policy we will require Fixed and rotary wing Aircraft at sea. As for Fighters, Well nearly every tin-pot nation on this earth has an airforce and most have an air combat wing.
As for who should operate these aircraft at sea. Well my own thoughts are ask those who operate the aircraft at the moment. If I had joined the RAF, it wouldn't have been to go to sea, So yes the RN should operate them, but with a common support system. I think jointery is a dynamite Idea. Common Aircraft and common support. My heart however goes out to the light blue who are embarked on various pussers war-canoes who dont want to be there, i'm also mindfull of the Wafus deployed ashore and living in trenches. I think the current situation can only have an adverse effect on morale, recruitment and retention.
Sorry if i've rambled
PS - Jacko - Ancient history eh? - What does that make the Battle of britain then? Having fighters to protect british airspace, we dont need them surely?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I shouldn't hold your breath waiting for future "liberal intervention operations". Brown is doing his damndest to wriggle out of the present lot. Besides what worthwhile contributuion could carrier-based air power have made in Iraq or Afghanistan?
I rather thought the Javelin and Vixen was both developed to the same OR. That time the RN picked the right one! Pity they stabbed the RAF in the back by ditching the supersonic Harrier replacement in about 1964 and buying the F4.
What is so magic and ancient about the 800-series squadrons? Why not restore the old 200-series ex-RNAS squadrons to operational service, and renumber their ex-RFC counterparts. Eg, restore Naval 8 (208) and renumber 8 Sqn.
I rather thought the Javelin and Vixen was both developed to the same OR. That time the RN picked the right one! Pity they stabbed the RAF in the back by ditching the supersonic Harrier replacement in about 1964 and buying the F4.
What is so magic and ancient about the 800-series squadrons? Why not restore the old 200-series ex-RNAS squadrons to operational service, and renumber their ex-RFC counterparts. Eg, restore Naval 8 (208) and renumber 8 Sqn.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Derbyshire
Age: 67
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eggs in baskets?
BeiNg entirely unqualified to say anything other than from a laymans point of view as its almost 25 years since I left the military, Carriers are a great tool for a specific job the downside being anti ship missiles tend to sink them and all the assetts deployed thereon causing severe loss of functional fighting ability of a deployed unit. The answer to the problem is not to therefore not have them but to have more of them.
The various governments we have suffered from have been militarily inept to put it mildly going from one underfunded, under armed unprepared and ill equipped forray into the wrong theatres after another. Being dependent upon the U.S. or European Countries for anything at all is bad planning and the sooner we stop wasting the finite resources we have on infinite world problems and start rebuilding our depleted forces the better. Following Uncle Sams bulldozer tryng to mend the fences has to stop and we need a policy of our own that we stick to instead of constantly being dragged out to do something we need never have done.
The Russians realised Afganistan is a no win situation and despite our best efforts we are ill equipped to do any better than the Russians did. Anyone disagree? What is the long term positive outcome for the region that is both desirable and achievable? We have no idea and therefore no opportunity to effective reach that end. OK END OF SPOUT My view was give the Navy the tools to do their job with and let them get on with it. Sailors being at sea. Likewise give the RAF the kit they need when they need it and not a decade after it was required . By the time our new fighters get airborne they are already verging on being obsolete because we dont in my memory have a record of having the best kit available. apart from the Lightning maybe.
The various governments we have suffered from have been militarily inept to put it mildly going from one underfunded, under armed unprepared and ill equipped forray into the wrong theatres after another. Being dependent upon the U.S. or European Countries for anything at all is bad planning and the sooner we stop wasting the finite resources we have on infinite world problems and start rebuilding our depleted forces the better. Following Uncle Sams bulldozer tryng to mend the fences has to stop and we need a policy of our own that we stick to instead of constantly being dragged out to do something we need never have done.
The Russians realised Afganistan is a no win situation and despite our best efforts we are ill equipped to do any better than the Russians did. Anyone disagree? What is the long term positive outcome for the region that is both desirable and achievable? We have no idea and therefore no opportunity to effective reach that end. OK END OF SPOUT My view was give the Navy the tools to do their job with and let them get on with it. Sailors being at sea. Likewise give the RAF the kit they need when they need it and not a decade after it was required . By the time our new fighters get airborne they are already verging on being obsolete because we dont in my memory have a record of having the best kit available. apart from the Lightning maybe.
Last edited by radicalrabit; 12th Dec 2007 at 13:45. Reason: two g's in eggs
Now at this point i'd like to ask a question, can any one out in PPRUNE-land name ONE repeat ONE Land based fixed-wing Aircraft that was a great success at sea?
One of your points that does need addressing is the supposition that fleet AD can be handled by T45 (still some way off service entry). I remember similar comments on Sea Wolf and Sea Dart many years ago until it all went a bit pear-shaped down south.
There is no substitute for the ability to visually intercept and ID potential threats and deal with them if necessary, particularly when restrictive RoE are in force (USS Vincennes anyone?). The ability to counter LR surveillance and targetting aircraft also tends to be a bit handy - difficult if you have the "X" nm max range of A30. Finally, kill the archer not shoot his arrows remains a good maxim.
Some will say that E3 and other land-based assets might be able to provide this, but that logic didn't work in GIUK and there's no reason it should work now. That is why a good MASC solution and a half-decent AD capability in the CAG is still part of the requirement. It's not an "either/or" problem.
There is no substitute for the ability to visually intercept and ID potential threats and deal with them if necessary, particularly when restrictive RoE are in force (USS Vincennes anyone?). The ability to counter LR surveillance and targetting aircraft also tends to be a bit handy - difficult if you have the "X" nm max range of A30. Finally, kill the archer not shoot his arrows remains a good maxim.
Some will say that E3 and other land-based assets might be able to provide this, but that logic didn't work in GIUK and there's no reason it should work now. That is why a good MASC solution and a half-decent AD capability in the CAG is still part of the requirement. It's not an "either/or" problem.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sou' Sou' West
Age: 51
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Besides what worthwhile contributuion could carrier-based air power have made in Iraq or Afghanistan?
I'm either missing the irony or biting far too easily. What about the small issue of an American battle group STILL operating in the NAG and the support they have provided in theatre over the last how many years? Oh and not forgetting the whole Al Faw assault being maritime aviation (inc Ark Royal based CH47s), but that isn't FJ stuff so I guess it doesn't count.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NaB,
Thanks for your points, I agree. I did not mean to suggest that T45 provides a complete defence against air attack, but I refer you to my earlier point that policy is to take risk against air defence at the moment. In any case, these things have been covered, and are probably better discussed on WEBF's thread.
What I was trying to get at is that we can't all have every bit of capability that we want. I don't think it's the fault of Typhoon, or CVF, or Astute, or FRES - it's just 'cos we don't have enough money. I'm all for reasoned debate but if some things are 'off limits' like questioning whether CVF should be delayed (not cancelled), or whether it's best value for defence for the RN to have its own private air force, and discussing them leads to name-calling, accusations of negative briefing campaigns, and long rants about how the RAF was a bunch of bastards to the FAA 50 years ago, then we're not going to get very far.
It may be that not everything that's wrong with naval aviation is the fault of the RAF.
Thanks for your points, I agree. I did not mean to suggest that T45 provides a complete defence against air attack, but I refer you to my earlier point that policy is to take risk against air defence at the moment. In any case, these things have been covered, and are probably better discussed on WEBF's thread.
What I was trying to get at is that we can't all have every bit of capability that we want. I don't think it's the fault of Typhoon, or CVF, or Astute, or FRES - it's just 'cos we don't have enough money. I'm all for reasoned debate but if some things are 'off limits' like questioning whether CVF should be delayed (not cancelled), or whether it's best value for defence for the RN to have its own private air force, and discussing them leads to name-calling, accusations of negative briefing campaigns, and long rants about how the RAF was a bunch of bastards to the FAA 50 years ago, then we're not going to get very far.
It may be that not everything that's wrong with naval aviation is the fault of the RAF.
Concur. What is wrong is that the RN as a whole failed to plan properly for the required expansion of the FW community, MoD as a whole has failed to fund adequately any of it's capabilities, with the possible exception of Health & safety, equal opportunities and corporate branding........This has much to do with the ability of the MoD to undertake proper costing studies and understand the implications of both risk and contract change.
The problem with "taking risk" or "capability holidays" is that sooner or later, left to those in DEP and the PUS organisation and often DEC as well, they become permanent assumptions. Ditto "delay" sooner or later becomes cancellation. For example, were a delay to CVF to be contemplated, the new shipbuilding JV would (rightly) cry foul and the price would increase. The existing ship and aircraft may be able to extend to cover the gap, but equally likely may not. Delay likely to equal gap = eventual cancellation. If anything could be delayed, it might actually be Tranche 3, as there are 100+ jets delivered or on order, apparent interest in export sales to keep the line going and the programme cost of Typhoon dwarfs that of CVF - OK large chunks of it already committed, but thats what cashflow management is all about.
The problem with "taking risk" or "capability holidays" is that sooner or later, left to those in DEP and the PUS organisation and often DEC as well, they become permanent assumptions. Ditto "delay" sooner or later becomes cancellation. For example, were a delay to CVF to be contemplated, the new shipbuilding JV would (rightly) cry foul and the price would increase. The existing ship and aircraft may be able to extend to cover the gap, but equally likely may not. Delay likely to equal gap = eventual cancellation. If anything could be delayed, it might actually be Tranche 3, as there are 100+ jets delivered or on order, apparent interest in export sales to keep the line going and the programme cost of Typhoon dwarfs that of CVF - OK large chunks of it already committed, but thats what cashflow management is all about.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OA
Sorry if my post sounded like a rant but what I was trying to get across in my own inarticulate way is the reasons for retaining an Independent Naval Air wing and in particular Fast Jet pilots that is if we get the carriers. I dont believe at any point did I Crab Bash. The bottom line is that what you were suggesting that is "why not" then I answer that its already been tried, tested and failed.
As for the Aircraft
Sea fury - Ok thats 1
Sea Venom - Slow by Fighter A/c Standards of the time and didnt have the legs.
Seafire and Sea huricane - Ditto and add the retreval problems that seafire had.
Harrier- A happy coincidence that it was good but again didn't have the legs.
Now Buccaneer, Phantom, Tomcat, Corsair, All designed for carrier ops and all went on to serve with various Airforces.
BTW - T45 is as yet to be tested, so any comment on it's capability is speculation
Sorry if my post sounded like a rant but what I was trying to get across in my own inarticulate way is the reasons for retaining an Independent Naval Air wing and in particular Fast Jet pilots that is if we get the carriers. I dont believe at any point did I Crab Bash. The bottom line is that what you were suggesting that is "why not" then I answer that its already been tried, tested and failed.
As for the Aircraft
Sea fury - Ok thats 1
Sea Venom - Slow by Fighter A/c Standards of the time and didnt have the legs.
Seafire and Sea huricane - Ditto and add the retreval problems that seafire had.
Harrier- A happy coincidence that it was good but again didn't have the legs.
Now Buccaneer, Phantom, Tomcat, Corsair, All designed for carrier ops and all went on to serve with various Airforces.
BTW - T45 is as yet to be tested, so any comment on it's capability is speculation
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The previous RN posters are strangely reticent to give the real reason why the RN needs Carriers and our own organic aviation.
There have to be some aircrew in our military who get the job done, effectively, cheaply, and with a great deal of panache, without whingeing constantly about pay/conditions/workload/broken nail .
....and I give you.....the Fleet Air Arm!
There have to be some aircrew in our military who get the job done, effectively, cheaply, and with a great deal of panache, without whingeing constantly about pay/conditions/workload/broken nail .
....and I give you.....the Fleet Air Arm!
althenick
Stop changing the rules. You asked:
So far we have Spitfire, Hurricane, Vampire, B25, T45 (no mention of Op Capability), Fury, Harrier - so significantly more than ONE repeat ONE
And I would like to add a few more from the very early years of carrier ops!!!
Stop changing the rules.
You asked:
Now at this point i'd like to ask a question, can any one out in PPRUNE-land name ONE repeat ONE Land based fixed-wing Aircraft that was a great success at sea?
), Fury, Harrier - so significantly more than ONE repeat ONEAnd I would like to add a few more from the very early years of carrier ops!!!