CVF
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trans
Its been discussed a lot and I recall seeing a proposal (sketches) here on pprune a while back.
I'd be interested to see an elemental cost breakdown of the current aircraft- ie what % of cost is taken up by the airframe, engines, software, weapons systems etc. Doubt that'll ever be in the public domain however.
I'm not convinced by the fancy computer guiding the aircraft down in a howling force 8 though. I'd put the money into raising the cockpit, strengthening the fuselage, beefing up the landing gear and making whatever adjustments to the flaps deemed neccesary. As a laymen I'm taking out of my arse of course, but I'd hazard a guess those are the cheaper componants.
I see the F35B is still having budget and delay issues. I'm not entirely convinced the MoD has got the right deal over software "sovereignty" either. We have an unhappy history of taking the Yanks on their word. So the "capability holiday" stretches ever further into the future. Its almost a re-run of "no war for ten years".. and we all know what happened next.
Its been discussed a lot and I recall seeing a proposal (sketches) here on pprune a while back.
I'd be interested to see an elemental cost breakdown of the current aircraft- ie what % of cost is taken up by the airframe, engines, software, weapons systems etc. Doubt that'll ever be in the public domain however.
I'm not convinced by the fancy computer guiding the aircraft down in a howling force 8 though. I'd put the money into raising the cockpit, strengthening the fuselage, beefing up the landing gear and making whatever adjustments to the flaps deemed neccesary. As a laymen I'm taking out of my arse of course, but I'd hazard a guess those are the cheaper componants.
I see the F35B is still having budget and delay issues. I'm not entirely convinced the MoD has got the right deal over software "sovereignty" either. We have an unhappy history of taking the Yanks on their word. So the "capability holiday" stretches ever further into the future. Its almost a re-run of "no war for ten years".. and we all know what happened next.
"The answer is a realistic defence settlement, not squabbling amongst ourselves." And how are you going to ensure that, then? Do you think that this Government (or indeed any Cameron-led Government) would increase spending sufficiently that CVF+JSF would not be a distortion, and would not suck money away from other priorities.
Alistair Darling has just announced an increase of £900 m on equipment next year.
There isn't going to be a 'realistic defence settlement' any time soon, so priorities need to be set. Gold plated 'nice to have' capabilities like CVF have no place in the current over-stretched Defence budget.
"The only sane answer to all this Treasury driven nonsense is to procure more aircraft."
The only sane answer is to procure more of EVERYTHING. More aircraft, more frigates and destroyers, more kit for the cabbage eaters. But sanity is not going to appear.
Alistair Darling has just announced an increase of £900 m on equipment next year.
There isn't going to be a 'realistic defence settlement' any time soon, so priorities need to be set. Gold plated 'nice to have' capabilities like CVF have no place in the current over-stretched Defence budget.
"The only sane answer to all this Treasury driven nonsense is to procure more aircraft."
The only sane answer is to procure more of EVERYTHING. More aircraft, more frigates and destroyers, more kit for the cabbage eaters. But sanity is not going to appear.
If we really dig into things, one major reason for F-35B versus C was that the UK's experience bought it a much more important role in the program than its production offtake - under 5 per cent of planned output at best - would have done.
Another was that the UK was convinced (by things like the fly-by-wire Harrier demo) that a STOVL jet could be truly "amphibious" without the expensive, crew-time-dominating and airframe-life-eating recurrent training associated with cat-and-trap operations.
But there is a huge load-and-range cost associated with the B, as well as continuing risk; and Bs won't have the same range, fighter performance or weapons flexibility as a Typhoon. If the only way to deploy the jet is with CVF, that's not relevant; but if it's a situation where jets could be land-based regionally with tanker support, it is.
So the issue's this: in a given situation, do I respond with Typhoons and tankers to a regional base 500 miles from the ground combat area, or a CVF standing 100 miles offshore? (I can buy a whole lot of C-17s and tankers for the price of a carrier.) What do I need to defend my base in each case? There are no generic, simple answers.
Another was that the UK was convinced (by things like the fly-by-wire Harrier demo) that a STOVL jet could be truly "amphibious" without the expensive, crew-time-dominating and airframe-life-eating recurrent training associated with cat-and-trap operations.
But there is a huge load-and-range cost associated with the B, as well as continuing risk; and Bs won't have the same range, fighter performance or weapons flexibility as a Typhoon. If the only way to deploy the jet is with CVF, that's not relevant; but if it's a situation where jets could be land-based regionally with tanker support, it is.
So the issue's this: in a given situation, do I respond with Typhoons and tankers to a regional base 500 miles from the ground combat area, or a CVF standing 100 miles offshore? (I can buy a whole lot of C-17s and tankers for the price of a carrier.) What do I need to defend my base in each case? There are no generic, simple answers.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NW England
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks OA, BPLT and LO for your replies.
In retrospect, perhaps I should have asked why STOVL for JCA. If STOVL is the right answer then F35B is the only game in town.
It would seem that if the RAF and the RN were choosing in isolation from one another STOVL would not be chosen. Those navies with carriers large enough to operate them choose CTOL aircraft e.g. USN, MN and (once Gorshkov is converted) the Indian Navy. No other airforce (except USMC for its air capable assault ships) which has expressed an interest in JSF is opting for the F35B. So a major reason for choosing STOVL seems to be the "jointness" of the requirement.
LO identifies two very credible reasons for the choice. The first is both historical and commercial so must be right. The second is one I was alluding to in 1) in my previous post but put more succinctly
By following some quite sensible reasoning the UK appears to have found itself in a somewhat uncomfortable position. In F35B it is tied into an aircraft programme where it has little if any control over technical or commercial matters (in particular, cost). The aircraft itself suffers from a number of operational drawbacks compared to conventional FJs. The programme is very risky as weight growth has already led to a fundamental redesign of the structure and not many aircraft grow lighter through their service lives. Finally questions with regard to "sovereignty" are still outstanding.
Is STOVL the right choice for JCA?
In retrospect, perhaps I should have asked why STOVL for JCA. If STOVL is the right answer then F35B is the only game in town.
It would seem that if the RAF and the RN were choosing in isolation from one another STOVL would not be chosen. Those navies with carriers large enough to operate them choose CTOL aircraft e.g. USN, MN and (once Gorshkov is converted) the Indian Navy. No other airforce (except USMC for its air capable assault ships) which has expressed an interest in JSF is opting for the F35B. So a major reason for choosing STOVL seems to be the "jointness" of the requirement.
LO identifies two very credible reasons for the choice. The first is both historical and commercial so must be right. The second is one I was alluding to in 1) in my previous post but put more succinctly
Another was that the UK was convinced (by things like the fly-by-wire Harrier demo) that a STOVL jet could be truly "amphibious" without the expensive, crew-time-dominating and airframe-life-eating recurrent training associated with cat-and-trap operations.
Is STOVL the right choice for JCA?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STOVL
Keeping pilots CTOL current is no mean task. You’d have no chance of keeping a mixed RAF FAA force, and UK doesn’t want to pay for a huge dedicated air wing. French pilots rely on the US to keep their skills up. Cat/ trap costs, and it requires a lot of man power to keep it running. STOL set ups like the Russians and Indians will use are incredibly inefficient on deck space, sortie rates and also impose weight restrictions. One could say they go for that option because of a lack of an adequate alternative?
The US is rich enough to build carriers that have 4 cats, and the space for simultaneous landings and take off. No other country has built a carrier that big. Even PA2 won’t be up to that. Without it sortie rates plummet.
Weight issues aside, the B might be short legged compared to the C, but doesn’t look too bad when compared with contemporary jets. A huge proportion (over 90% I think) of the world’s human footprint is within 200miles of the oceans.
I understand that the UK strategy matches that of the USMC. Fight from your CV initially and then follow the forces inland to keep sortie rates high. The B can rough strip, which is very useful – as demonstrated by the Harrier in Stan. Keeps response times down and utimately the number of bombs dropped high.
While dispersal is less of a requirement since the end of the cold war, it certainly got the Israelis interested in the B. who to say it won't be useful to the UK again with the lifespan of the project.
The B might be limited to 2*1000lb internally but could carry more externally. This is the max for the current Harriers and smaller weapons appear to be growing in popularity. I understand that the B could carry 1 stormshadow.
If the B does meet its targets, I do think it is a good flexible fit for what the UK requires. It’ll do everything that the UK requires, and will compliment Typhoon well.
The US is rich enough to build carriers that have 4 cats, and the space for simultaneous landings and take off. No other country has built a carrier that big. Even PA2 won’t be up to that. Without it sortie rates plummet.
Weight issues aside, the B might be short legged compared to the C, but doesn’t look too bad when compared with contemporary jets. A huge proportion (over 90% I think) of the world’s human footprint is within 200miles of the oceans.
I understand that the UK strategy matches that of the USMC. Fight from your CV initially and then follow the forces inland to keep sortie rates high. The B can rough strip, which is very useful – as demonstrated by the Harrier in Stan. Keeps response times down and utimately the number of bombs dropped high.
While dispersal is less of a requirement since the end of the cold war, it certainly got the Israelis interested in the B. who to say it won't be useful to the UK again with the lifespan of the project.
The B might be limited to 2*1000lb internally but could carry more externally. This is the max for the current Harriers and smaller weapons appear to be growing in popularity. I understand that the B could carry 1 stormshadow.
If the B does meet its targets, I do think it is a good flexible fit for what the UK requires. It’ll do everything that the UK requires, and will compliment Typhoon well.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C2
Thanks to those who responded to my late-night, and possibly poorly-worded posts.
Sunk at Narvik et al -
I think we're wildly agreeing here. The solution is to have more aircraft. However, in the meantime, don't forget that aircraft can and do move between theatres just as ships do. And I'm talking about the Joint Commander, not the Joint Force Commander, making the call in those cases - so I'm not proposing anything, merely describing how our current system works. I would also expect expect carrier-based air (regardless of which Service flies it) to spend a lot of its time embarked. However, the argument that you can't ever leave a carrier "without its weapons", even if they're needed elsewhere only undermines the argument for having carriers; that's probably why SRO(C) pushes the 'step-ashore' capability.
And I am in favour of carriers - but I want to make sure UK defence gets the most out of them and the aircraft that fly from them - and as I don't think we're buying enough hulls or enough jets, I am just asking people to be flexible in how we use them. The jets are there to project air power, not to make the carrier work (Widger!). Actually I believe the carriers are (largely) there to project air power, but that's a fairly philospohical point.
Orca -
Before you start making bald statements about the RN not being able to command air assets, I'd take a look at the doctrine book. Neither the RAF nor the RN should be commanding force elements on operations - Joint Force Component Commanders should. Don't confuse these with services, and if the day were to come when our focus was a major maritime action with minimal air threat, then I would be the first one suggesting that the carrier air should be OPCON the MCC.
Sunk at Narvik et al -
I think we're wildly agreeing here. The solution is to have more aircraft. However, in the meantime, don't forget that aircraft can and do move between theatres just as ships do. And I'm talking about the Joint Commander, not the Joint Force Commander, making the call in those cases - so I'm not proposing anything, merely describing how our current system works. I would also expect expect carrier-based air (regardless of which Service flies it) to spend a lot of its time embarked. However, the argument that you can't ever leave a carrier "without its weapons", even if they're needed elsewhere only undermines the argument for having carriers; that's probably why SRO(C) pushes the 'step-ashore' capability.
And I am in favour of carriers - but I want to make sure UK defence gets the most out of them and the aircraft that fly from them - and as I don't think we're buying enough hulls or enough jets, I am just asking people to be flexible in how we use them. The jets are there to project air power, not to make the carrier work (Widger!). Actually I believe the carriers are (largely) there to project air power, but that's a fairly philospohical point.
Orca -
Before you start making bald statements about the RN not being able to command air assets, I'd take a look at the doctrine book. Neither the RAF nor the RN should be commanding force elements on operations - Joint Force Component Commanders should. Don't confuse these with services, and if the day were to come when our focus was a major maritime action with minimal air threat, then I would be the first one suggesting that the carrier air should be OPCON the MCC.
OA,
Just so you do not get me wrong, I completely understand that the CVF is about Strike and projecting Air Power. My point is, that there are unique and perishable skills about operating from a ship at sea. Hopping on for a week or so, does not an operationally capable force make. If the CVF is to be able to project power effectively, then a significant proportion of JFH will need to spend time on the boat. The two current campaigns have skewed somewhat, Defence focus. The UK will not be in Iraq forever (Afghanistan maybe). There will be other problems. You only have to look at recent Russian intentions in the Arctic over resources,, and the reaction of Canada etc, to see the future. As the Oil/Gas/Steel/etc runs out, resources are going to be a much more important issue. Yes, the best place to operate in Iraqistan at the moment is ashore, but you have to get there first. Who knows where we will be in 10 years from now. We may be in the South Atlantic, protecting the Falklands again. More likely, we will be off antarctica, protecting UK mineral companies and fishing vessels from aggression. (Think Cod Wars). Yes Stanley is there, but a CVF could stay on station, poised for weeks, not hours. Yes, come a big fight, you would need land based air power to resolve the issue, much as you need troops on the ground. But, in the build up to a conflict, maritime based air power, can loiter, out of sight, striking when required, with the back up form land based air also when required.
Well....that comment does not even deserve a reply
CVF is coming, once here the UK will have a fantastic asset that can be used for both operational and diplomatic purposes, projecting power all around the world, providing support for our friends and "speaking softly" to those who would do us or our interests harm. To suggest that it should be scrapped just because it does not fit the current crisis, does not mean it will not have significant utility in the future.
Just so you do not get me wrong, I completely understand that the CVF is about Strike and projecting Air Power. My point is, that there are unique and perishable skills about operating from a ship at sea. Hopping on for a week or so, does not an operationally capable force make. If the CVF is to be able to project power effectively, then a significant proportion of JFH will need to spend time on the boat. The two current campaigns have skewed somewhat, Defence focus. The UK will not be in Iraq forever (Afghanistan maybe). There will be other problems. You only have to look at recent Russian intentions in the Arctic over resources,, and the reaction of Canada etc, to see the future. As the Oil/Gas/Steel/etc runs out, resources are going to be a much more important issue. Yes, the best place to operate in Iraqistan at the moment is ashore, but you have to get there first. Who knows where we will be in 10 years from now. We may be in the South Atlantic, protecting the Falklands again. More likely, we will be off antarctica, protecting UK mineral companies and fishing vessels from aggression. (Think Cod Wars). Yes Stanley is there, but a CVF could stay on station, poised for weeks, not hours. Yes, come a big fight, you would need land based air power to resolve the issue, much as you need troops on the ground. But, in the build up to a conflict, maritime based air power, can loiter, out of sight, striking when required, with the back up form land based air also when required.
The RN generically has neither the people or the kit to Command and Control FJ assets at either the operational or tactical level. To do so would require a DTIO and JFACHQ type set-up, afloat.
CVF is coming, once here the UK will have a fantastic asset that can be used for both operational and diplomatic purposes, projecting power all around the world, providing support for our friends and "speaking softly" to those who would do us or our interests harm. To suggest that it should be scrapped just because it does not fit the current crisis, does not mean it will not have significant utility in the future.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to put in my 2 bobs worth...
I'm all for the carriers but I also find myself slightly warming to Jacko's argument against them albeit for different reasons.
If we really are going to get Dave B then would we not be better with an LHD design rather than a carrier? CVF seems to serve one purpose only though I think with a little imagination they could do more - hospital ship springs to mind. An LHD would surle be a more flexible asset with respect to deployment of air and land assets.
As for the "who should own the FJ assets p1ssing contest" Everyone's missed the point
PEOPLE MATTER!
If the light blue got hold of the FJ's they'd never see any time on a carrier. The RN would have no control over it, I suspect it would nearly always be deployed elsewhere. And ultimately the RAF would always give a No to any request. Why? - simple! If you ask RAF personell to go to sea for months on end then your soon going to have a retention problem, Start filling those gaps with other personell then you will have a recruitment problem. Every crab I have ever met (and there have been many) have said no to the sea option. I think the status quo (jointery) is still the best solution.
BTW I have just looked at the rn website. Nearly one in ten personell in the RN are in the FAA!
I'm all for the carriers but I also find myself slightly warming to Jacko's argument against them albeit for different reasons.
If we really are going to get Dave B then would we not be better with an LHD design rather than a carrier? CVF seems to serve one purpose only though I think with a little imagination they could do more - hospital ship springs to mind. An LHD would surle be a more flexible asset with respect to deployment of air and land assets.
As for the "who should own the FJ assets p1ssing contest" Everyone's missed the point
PEOPLE MATTER!
If the light blue got hold of the FJ's they'd never see any time on a carrier. The RN would have no control over it, I suspect it would nearly always be deployed elsewhere. And ultimately the RAF would always give a No to any request. Why? - simple! If you ask RAF personell to go to sea for months on end then your soon going to have a retention problem, Start filling those gaps with other personell then you will have a recruitment problem. Every crab I have ever met (and there have been many) have said no to the sea option. I think the status quo (jointery) is still the best solution.
BTW I have just looked at the rn website. Nearly one in ten personell in the RN are in the FAA!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RN generically has neither the people or the kit to Command and Control FJ assets at either the operational or tactical level. To do so would require a DTIO and JFACHQ type set-up, afloat.
I think it's an entirely accurate statement. The RN have only just started to look at establishing an N2 branch and have barely looked at the enormous J2/J6 issues surrounding exploiting the exceptional capabilities of F-35.
The aircraft will be able to contribute enormously to ISTAR in it's own right but only if the EW, threat and other data bases and J2 systems are there to support and maintain ops. Those will all need appropriate J6 which the RN have very little experience in.
Luckily there is a very capable SO1 at Fleet looking at these issues, but he is the first to acknowledge that they are significant weaknesses. Fleet are leaning heavily on RAF expertise in this area and envisage RAF personnel forming a major part of the CVF J2/6 manning at least initially. As ever, there are no funds to properly establish an N2 branch.
Likewise, FAA retention and career structure issues means that very little dark blue fast jet experience stays beyond the rank of Cdr and this also degrades the RN's ability to exercise appropriate C2 over RN assets. The outlook is not much better when several RN star ranks have stated that 'we don't care who flies the aircraft, as long as we get CVF'.
No particular hit on the RN but it is most certainly a true statement that right now, the RN lack the ability to support a medium sized Air Group of advanced fast jets.
CVF will be a Joint asset and will need Joint manning. RAF personnel will therefore go to sea and I have attended several Joint courses where the guys with the most sea time over a set period have been Harrier air or ground crews.
Regards,
MM
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger,
re your reply to my reply - again, we seem to be violently agreeing. I am not talking about "hopping on for a week or so". It is just that my unit of measure of air power naturally tends to be squadrons of jets, rather than carriers with jets on them. And in almost every post I have made on this subject, I have qualified my remarks by saying that I do appreciate that there is a great deal involved in getting a CAG effective. Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier when I suggested that jets should not be automatically tied to a carrier (in the same post that I said I would expect them to be embarked most of the time). I think we are on the same side.
Also, for clarity,
was posted by orca, not me. I found it naive and told him so in as many words in my last post.
Allthenick,
You're absolutely right that people are missing the point over who should own the assets - and I think you included. You said:
Please read my comments to orca - your comment merely shows that you don't understand our current doctrine. When it comes to ops, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH SERVICE OPERATES THE ASSETS. That is the status quo (jointery) to which you refer. The RN does not request Harriers from the RAF, PJHQ directs force elements to an operation.
As for going to sea, RAF personnel have done it and I don't see them running out of the doors. If you want to have an idea of how offensive I find your assertion, think how you'd feel if I said that Naval Strike Wing shouldn't be used in Afghanistan because they joined up to go to sea so will all leave if you based them on land. We're servicemen - we go where we're told and if the way we operate changes a few people might bump their gums but after a few years, no-one really remembers any different. Yes, people matter, and, yes, we DID have a problem in certain parts of the RAF getting to grips with what being expeditionary really means, but we are way past that now and still working on it.
re your reply to my reply - again, we seem to be violently agreeing. I am not talking about "hopping on for a week or so". It is just that my unit of measure of air power naturally tends to be squadrons of jets, rather than carriers with jets on them. And in almost every post I have made on this subject, I have qualified my remarks by saying that I do appreciate that there is a great deal involved in getting a CAG effective. Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier
when I suggested that jets should not be automatically tied to a carrier (in the same post that I said I would expect them to be embarked most of the time). I think we are on the same side.Also, for clarity,
The RN generically has neither the people or the kit to Command and Control FJ assets at either the operational or tactical level.
Allthenick,
You're absolutely right that people are missing the point over who should own the assets - and I think you included. You said:
If the light blue got hold of the FJ's they'd never see any time on a carrier. The RN would have no control over it, I suspect it would nearly always be deployed elsewhere. And ultimately the RAF would always give a No to any request. Why? - simple! If you ask RAF personell to go to sea for months on end then your soon going to have a retention problem, Start filling those gaps with other personell then you will have a recruitment problem. Every crab I have ever met (and there have been many) have said no to the sea option. I think the status quo (jointery) is still the best solution.
As for going to sea, RAF personnel have done it and I don't see them running out of the doors. If you want to have an idea of how offensive I find your assertion, think how you'd feel if I said that Naval Strike Wing shouldn't be used in Afghanistan because they joined up to go to sea so will all leave if you based them on land. We're servicemen - we go where we're told and if the way we operate changes a few people might bump their gums but after a few years, no-one really remembers any different. Yes, people matter, and, yes, we DID have a problem in certain parts of the RAF getting to grips with what being expeditionary really means, but we are way past that now and still working on it.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for going to sea, RAF personnel have done it and I don't see them running out of the doors. If you want to have an idea of how offensive I find your assertion, think how you'd feel if I said that Naval Strike Wing shouldn't be used in Afghanistan because they joined up to go to sea so will all leave if you based them on land. We're servicemen - we go where we're told and if the way we operate changes a few people might bump their gums but after a few years, no-one really remembers any different. Yes, people matter, and, yes, we DID have a problem in certain parts of the RAF getting to grips with what being expeditionary really means, but we are way past that now and still working on it.
http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=15992
I posted the above on e-goat barely 4 days ago and although a MORI poll it aint - I was none the less quite stunned by the result. Over 38 of the 55 who voted dont want to serve at sea. I was expecting maybe 20% at the most.
I know it doesnt completely vindicate what I have said but the bottom line is this - I joined the Navy to go to sea. Most Crabs dont want to go to sea and if this persists then there will be problems. It happened from 1921 to 1937, No one ever learns. As for NSW - I would be interested to hear what they think. Maybe i'll post similar on Rum Ration.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that the UK will only ever have one CVF at sea, it could be argued that there is a fair chance it may not be at the right place at the right time.
Only one or two carriers implies the syndrome attributed to the RN in WWI post Jutland battle: must keep the dreadnoughts "in being," therefore can't risk 'em in risky offensive ops!
Therefore, right place at the right time = out of harm's way.
Only one or two carriers implies the syndrome attributed to the RN in WWI post Jutland battle: must keep the dreadnoughts "in being," therefore can't risk 'em in risky offensive ops!
Therefore, right place at the right time = out of harm's way.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by percontator
No other airforce (except USMC for its air capable assault ships) which has expressed an interest in JSF is opting for the F35B. So a major reason for choosing STOVL seems to be the "jointness" of the requirement.
Italy, Spain. They choose to replace their AV-8B+ Harriers with F-35Bs, with Italy going with F-35As & Typhoon for their land-based needs, and Spain currently committed to Typhoon for their Air Force (but there is talk of possible joint purchasing arrangements).
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hardly central to a discussion of the aerial component of a 21st century aircraft carrier, I know.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Scientist,
It is pertinent to the carrier discussion though, what I think off as the kriegsmarine scenario- a small fleet of reletively good units but to few in number to be risked. With just two carriers, will the UK govt ever risk them in operations other than those dedicated to national wartime emergiencies?
A couple of examples- Hermes in the Red Sea during the 67 Arab Isreali war- too small but too valuable (See "Vanguard to Trident" by Eric Grove) to deploy, so despite investment in the carrier fleet, it was of little or no use.
Turkish invasion of Cyprus- why no UK operation to deter? (hint, only Ark Royal left)
Ark Royal to the Gulf in 90-91- to valuable to risk in the NAG so "supported" the coalition from the Med.
Two carriers is the absolute minimum but still constrains effective use in "wars of choice". To use military force to effectively support diplomacy requires the will to take risks. The only answer is a larger force of carriers which can sustain extended deployments and provide a buffer against attrition. Lets hope that after the two CV's are delivered, the UK Govt replaces Ocean and Ark Royal with two F35B capable "LHD's" similar to the Australian/Spanish designs.
It is pertinent to the carrier discussion though, what I think off as the kriegsmarine scenario- a small fleet of reletively good units but to few in number to be risked. With just two carriers, will the UK govt ever risk them in operations other than those dedicated to national wartime emergiencies?
A couple of examples- Hermes in the Red Sea during the 67 Arab Isreali war- too small but too valuable (See "Vanguard to Trident" by Eric Grove) to deploy, so despite investment in the carrier fleet, it was of little or no use.
Turkish invasion of Cyprus- why no UK operation to deter? (hint, only Ark Royal left)
Ark Royal to the Gulf in 90-91- to valuable to risk in the NAG so "supported" the coalition from the Med.
Two carriers is the absolute minimum but still constrains effective use in "wars of choice". To use military force to effectively support diplomacy requires the will to take risks. The only answer is a larger force of carriers which can sustain extended deployments and provide a buffer against attrition. Lets hope that after the two CV's are delivered, the UK Govt replaces Ocean and Ark Royal with two F35B capable "LHD's" similar to the Australian/Spanish designs.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two carriers is the absolute minimum but still constrains effective use in "wars of choice". To use military force to effectively support diplomacy requires the will to take risks. The only answer is a larger force of carriers which can sustain extended deployments and provide a buffer against attrition. Lets hope that after the two CV's are delivered, the UK Govt replaces Ocean and Ark Royal with two F35B capable "LHD's" similar to the Australian/Spanish designs.
I did article on Arrse about future requirements, and I said we should have the 2 CVF's, and as you say replace Ark Royal and Lusty with two upto date CVS's or as you say LHD's that can handle Harrier/F35's this way we would have potientially 4 carriers not two,
Duncan
I did article on Arrse about future requirements, and I said we should have the 2 CVF's, and as you say replace Ark Royal and Lusty with two upto date CVS's or as you say LHD's that can handle Harrier/F35's this way we would have potientially 4 carriers not two,
Duncan
SAN
I stand to be corrected, but would have thought that the resaon Ark did not go to the NAG during Granby was more to do with deconflicting her CAG from the clouds of coalition aircraft expected to be there at the time. IIRC at the time, 800/801 were still FRS1 units and therefore effectively capable only of WVR engagements. While I'm sure the ability to CAP the tupperwares with RN assets might have been valuable, and a CVS would be easier to handle than USS Midway which eventually ended up there, I suspect the decision not to send her was mainly based on co-ordination difficulties and a lack of compelling contribution rather than threat alone. Just think of the difficulties the USN encountered trying to access / operate with the ATO. Would a dozen SHAR1 have made a positive contribution or merely complicated matters?
I stand to be corrected, but would have thought that the resaon Ark did not go to the NAG during Granby was more to do with deconflicting her CAG from the clouds of coalition aircraft expected to be there at the time. IIRC at the time, 800/801 were still FRS1 units and therefore effectively capable only of WVR engagements. While I'm sure the ability to CAP the tupperwares with RN assets might have been valuable, and a CVS would be easier to handle than USS Midway which eventually ended up there, I suspect the decision not to send her was mainly based on co-ordination difficulties and a lack of compelling contribution rather than threat alone. Just think of the difficulties the USN encountered trying to access / operate with the ATO. Would a dozen SHAR1 have made a positive contribution or merely complicated matters?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turkish invasion of Cyprus- why no UK operation to deter? (hint, only Ark Royal left)
For the record Ark Royal was ordered to prepare for possible deployment to Cyprus in 74, but was stood down when the Turkish government gave assurances that the sovreignty of British bases on the island would be respected. Hermes in the Red Sea in 67? Exactly how were we involved in that war anyway?
I'm also pretty sure the RN is keeping any plans to replace Ocean and Ark Royal quiet at the moment whist CVF is being ordered. Ocean is being refitted to keep her going until 2022 and could probably be extended further if required. Similarly Ark could be extended if need be so that any replacement program does not clash with the CVF program. 2 CVFs +2 LHDs (in all probability what will be ordered) will give us enough platforms for any forsseable operations. For the last couple of decades we have had more aviation 'platforms' than officially stated. 3 CVS, 1 LPH and Argus,= 5 flat tops. Almost back to 60s levels...
For the record Ark Royal was ordered to prepare for possible deployment to Cyprus in 74, but was stood down when the Turkish government gave assurances that the sovreignty of British bases on the island would be respected. Hermes in the Red Sea in 67? Exactly how were we involved in that war anyway?
I'm also pretty sure the RN is keeping any plans to replace Ocean and Ark Royal quiet at the moment whist CVF is being ordered. Ocean is being refitted to keep her going until 2022 and could probably be extended further if required. Similarly Ark could be extended if need be so that any replacement program does not clash with the CVF program. 2 CVFs +2 LHDs (in all probability what will be ordered) will give us enough platforms for any forsseable operations. For the last couple of decades we have had more aviation 'platforms' than officially stated. 3 CVS, 1 LPH and Argus,= 5 flat tops. Almost back to 60s levels...