CVF
If CVF and JCA is too expensive, then lets buy Rafale instead. Commonality of air type and platform with the French and conventional capability as well. Oh, but then the light blue won't get the toy they want to replace GR9 will they!
To those people who talk about using JCA more flexibly by having them ashore rather than on "the boat", you clearly do not have any clue about what it takes to get current "day and night" and "operational" on a carrier. You cannot just hop on for a few days, fly a few circuits and pop off again. It takes a long to get a whole squadron current and more importantly maintain that currency. That it is why it is such an effective platform, because not many nations of the world can do it.
Also, comparing CVS with CVF when talking about how useful these platforms are, is like comparing an HS125 with a Tristar. They may have two wings and carry passengers but they are totally different.
If CVF had been around in 82, then there would have been no loss of Sheffield or loss of life in Bluff Cove, Sierra Leone would have been a breeze, Deny Flight in Bosnia would have had a massive boost and as to the last 2 Gulf Crises..........They are not like for like, the CVS is compromised on deck size etc and it is a testament to the UK that we have managed to make do with these ships for so long in such a diverse role.
Comments like saying cancel CVF, cancel Typhoon etc are extremely niave. No-one will see the money...it will disappear into the NHS or end up paying for legal aid for illegal immigrants.
Typhhon is needed, CVF is needed, more SH are needed, a decent tanker is needed, MASC is needed, a conventional ship launched FJ is needed (Dave C or Rafale), a Nimrod replacement is needed..etc etc.....they are all needed and Jacko, if you spent more of your energy and obvious intelligence fighting for all these things rather than trying to cherry pick, maybe, just maybe, your lobbying might make a difference.
To those people who talk about using JCA more flexibly by having them ashore rather than on "the boat", you clearly do not have any clue about what it takes to get current "day and night" and "operational" on a carrier. You cannot just hop on for a few days, fly a few circuits and pop off again. It takes a long to get a whole squadron current and more importantly maintain that currency. That it is why it is such an effective platform, because not many nations of the world can do it.
Also, comparing CVS with CVF when talking about how useful these platforms are, is like comparing an HS125 with a Tristar. They may have two wings and carry passengers but they are totally different.
If CVF had been around in 82, then there would have been no loss of Sheffield or loss of life in Bluff Cove, Sierra Leone would have been a breeze, Deny Flight in Bosnia would have had a massive boost and as to the last 2 Gulf Crises..........They are not like for like, the CVS is compromised on deck size etc and it is a testament to the UK that we have managed to make do with these ships for so long in such a diverse role.
Comments like saying cancel CVF, cancel Typhoon etc are extremely niave. No-one will see the money...it will disappear into the NHS or end up paying for legal aid for illegal immigrants.
Typhhon is needed, CVF is needed, more SH are needed, a decent tanker is needed, MASC is needed, a conventional ship launched FJ is needed (Dave C or Rafale), a Nimrod replacement is needed..etc etc.....they are all needed and Jacko, if you spent more of your energy and obvious intelligence fighting for all these things rather than trying to cherry pick, maybe, just maybe, your lobbying might make a difference.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ev
I'm not up to speed on the projected split of F35's between the FAA and RAF, or if all F35's will be lumped into one "Joint force" as present? However I'd suggest that not having dedicated squadrons under RN command would be a serious error.
Set aside controversy over carriers for one moment and imagine an infantry battalion. No one in their right mind would suggest that an infantry battalions weapons be under the command of a seperate organisation (even within the army) to that of the battalions CO.
Back to carriers. A carriers defensive and offensive weapons are its aircraft. We can probably imagine a set of circs in which some "joint" organisation prioritised F35 deployment elsewhere leaving the carriers weaponless. It is of course very rare in wartime to not need air superiority, therefore any pull back of carrier based aircraft is bound to lead to losses in any "secondary" theatre, so any such decision would be prompted by extraordinary circumstances of national threat (1940 springs to mind and the controversy over withholding RAF squadrons in the UK during the invasion of France). The obvious conclusion then is that we don't have enough aircraft, not that we don't need carriers.
My ideal world solution to this obvious problem would be to bin F35 and concentrate upon Typhoon. Withdrawal from the F35 program would save around £8bn (if memory serves) out of the £12bn CVF/F35 package. Build the carriers as CTOL (accepting incremental increase in costs of construction & manning) and build Tranche 3 and 4 (yes, we'd need more Typhoons, not less) as carrier capable. Even with additional costs for CTOL and an extra few squadrons of Typhoon, the MoD would still save several £bn over current plans.
"awaiting incoming" as they say
I'm not up to speed on the projected split of F35's between the FAA and RAF, or if all F35's will be lumped into one "Joint force" as present? However I'd suggest that not having dedicated squadrons under RN command would be a serious error.
Set aside controversy over carriers for one moment and imagine an infantry battalion. No one in their right mind would suggest that an infantry battalions weapons be under the command of a seperate organisation (even within the army) to that of the battalions CO.
Back to carriers. A carriers defensive and offensive weapons are its aircraft. We can probably imagine a set of circs in which some "joint" organisation prioritised F35 deployment elsewhere leaving the carriers weaponless. It is of course very rare in wartime to not need air superiority, therefore any pull back of carrier based aircraft is bound to lead to losses in any "secondary" theatre, so any such decision would be prompted by extraordinary circumstances of national threat (1940 springs to mind and the controversy over withholding RAF squadrons in the UK during the invasion of France). The obvious conclusion then is that we don't have enough aircraft, not that we don't need carriers.
My ideal world solution to this obvious problem would be to bin F35 and concentrate upon Typhoon. Withdrawal from the F35 program would save around £8bn (if memory serves) out of the £12bn CVF/F35 package. Build the carriers as CTOL (accepting incremental increase in costs of construction & manning) and build Tranche 3 and 4 (yes, we'd need more Typhoons, not less) as carrier capable. Even with additional costs for CTOL and an extra few squadrons of Typhoon, the MoD would still save several £bn over current plans.
"awaiting incoming" as they say
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Violet
"put some warheads on a Storm Shadow, or buy into ASMP-A. But dump Trident. Dump the missiles. Dump the boats. Dump the bases."
Very tempting, but it always smacks of too many years of peace.
When the UK needs its deterent it will be because all else has failed. Either we face a nuclear threat to these islands or we have been defeated in a conventional war and are about to be invaded. In this second scenario all the platforms capable of launching a cruise based nuke will either be wrecks on the ocean floor or crumpled wreckage littering a battlefield somewhere.
Whilst I believe the RAF should get back into strategic bombing, with nukes as an option, the ultimate deterent continues to be SSBN's until another technological revolution overtakes and replaces them.
"put some warheads on a Storm Shadow, or buy into ASMP-A. But dump Trident. Dump the missiles. Dump the boats. Dump the bases."
Very tempting, but it always smacks of too many years of peace.
When the UK needs its deterent it will be because all else has failed. Either we face a nuclear threat to these islands or we have been defeated in a conventional war and are about to be invaded. In this second scenario all the platforms capable of launching a cruise based nuke will either be wrecks on the ocean floor or crumpled wreckage littering a battlefield somewhere.
Whilst I believe the RAF should get back into strategic bombing, with nukes as an option, the ultimate deterent continues to be SSBN's until another technological revolution overtakes and replaces them.
Sunk,
Again, it depends on what you think the "independent deterrent" is for. In the old world - an old world that might reconstitute itself someday - it was to deter against a calculated nuclear strike from the Soviet Union, one that was calibrated to be (in the eyes of a US president) not worth Atlanta or Portland.
That was why both the French and the Brits found it essential in the 1960s to consider a hedge against limited ABM developments (France's supersonic low-level CMs and the UK's Chevaline) which would have done little against a Soviet or US attack but would have rendered their independent ballistic missile forces useless.
So, where might a nuclear strike come from? And would it have an effective counterforce element? If not, Storm Shadows, Typhoons and tankers would survive. So VC (godless Communist and cat molester that he may be) could be right.
As for the need to maintain the nuclear submarine industrial base... it seems that, they way things are going, the UK is well on the way to dismantling its independent combat aircraft development infrastructure and becoming a subsidiary of Fort Worth. So which is more valuable? World it not make more sense to join forces on SSNs with the US? (While, perhaps, sounding them out on the future role of advanced non-nukes?)
The overall problem, increasingly, is that (a) CVF/JCA looks as if it is going to starve a lot of other efforts to death; and (b) in that light, is it important enough, or good enough? If we can't fix (a) then we have to answer (b).
Again, it depends on what you think the "independent deterrent" is for. In the old world - an old world that might reconstitute itself someday - it was to deter against a calculated nuclear strike from the Soviet Union, one that was calibrated to be (in the eyes of a US president) not worth Atlanta or Portland.
That was why both the French and the Brits found it essential in the 1960s to consider a hedge against limited ABM developments (France's supersonic low-level CMs and the UK's Chevaline) which would have done little against a Soviet or US attack but would have rendered their independent ballistic missile forces useless.
So, where might a nuclear strike come from? And would it have an effective counterforce element? If not, Storm Shadows, Typhoons and tankers would survive. So VC (godless Communist and cat molester that he may be) could be right.
As for the need to maintain the nuclear submarine industrial base... it seems that, they way things are going, the UK is well on the way to dismantling its independent combat aircraft development infrastructure and becoming a subsidiary of Fort Worth. So which is more valuable? World it not make more sense to join forces on SSNs with the US? (While, perhaps, sounding them out on the future role of advanced non-nukes?)
The overall problem, increasingly, is that (a) CVF/JCA looks as if it is going to starve a lot of other efforts to death; and (b) in that light, is it important enough, or good enough? If we can't fix (a) then we have to answer (b).
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
But however hard you jam your fingers in your ears and shout "Lah Lah Lah",
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
Cancel both and there is at least £15 Bn of unspent money potentially available for all of the other stuff that we need.
Last edited by sense1; 10th Mar 2008 at 19:40.
It will be £15 Bn from a very small pot, however, and will not be separately funded. The Government won't take the £15 Bn away from the defence budget, so that all, most or at least some of the money will be available for other things.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger/SaN
Unless you raise your view about air power above the tactical "think what a worked-up Sqn of JSF on a carrier could do" type of comment, you are not going to do CVF any favours. Yes, it takes work to get ship and aircraft to combat ready - but ALL the assets here are the joint commander's. If he (or she) judges that the jets are more use ashore (as may well be the case with a low number of FJ FE@R) then so be it. If the carrier has to be "weaponless" then that's because the weapons are needed elsewhere. Carriers may give the best chance of early intervention, but they'll never match the sortie rate from Tarmac and are not invulnerable. Having carriers should give us flexibility; tying jets to ships or RN command takes that away (and is contrary to our joint doctrine).
Unless you raise your view about air power above the tactical "think what a worked-up Sqn of JSF on a carrier could do" type of comment, you are not going to do CVF any favours. Yes, it takes work to get ship and aircraft to combat ready - but ALL the assets here are the joint commander's. If he (or she) judges that the jets are more use ashore (as may well be the case with a low number of FJ FE@R) then so be it. If the carrier has to be "weaponless" then that's because the weapons are needed elsewhere. Carriers may give the best chance of early intervention, but they'll never match the sortie rate from Tarmac and are not invulnerable. Having carriers should give us flexibility; tying jets to ships or RN command takes that away (and is contrary to our joint doctrine).
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark,
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the scenario. 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. We certainly won’t have the luxury of the USN in being able to maintain carriers spread around the world. Obviously that can sometimes work to our advantage, as in the Falklands War where the inexorable transit south of the Task Force gradually ratcheted up the pressure on Galtieri and his hoods.
Also, HNS/overflight also applies to maritime aviation at times. In the Afghan ops, carrier assets from both the US and France have used land FOBs on a regular basis and still require overflight rights from specific nations.
RAF E-3Ds flew their first missions over Afghanistan from a ME nation within 36 hrs of the order to deploy from the UK. Other RAF ISTAR and tanker assets were doing likewise. RAF Tornado F3s were flying DCA over Saudi within a similar timescale in Aug 90 as were USAF F-15Cs.
Similar logistics are applicable for carrier assets. You still have to be resupplied with weapons and fuel. RFA can do some of this but not all. Often a single C-130 or C-17 delivering our pre-packed Fly Away Packs can be sufficient to get a det operational and flying it’s first missions. Multi engined and rotary types can often self deploy all the elements required for austere ops. We’re pretty good at getting set up and going quickly from a bare base these days. Swings and roundabouts.
Yes.
Agreed.
Widger,
Agreed.
Err, why would Sierra Leone have been a breeze with CVF other than we could have done it from a single hull rather than requiring a CVS and Ocean? In fact, while we’re at it, one of the most useful aspects of CVF would have been its ability to host a modest Joint HQ structure. Unfortunately, we’ve chopped the ops room requirement!!!
As far as the Balkans go, I flew through the entirety of the Croatia, B-H, Albanian and Kosovo campaigns and there were very few times when there was not at least 2 carriers in the Adriatic. These would be a combination of USN and French conventional carriers, USN LPDs and RN CVS. Very occasionally the Spanish or Italians would also pitch up with one of their STOVL carriers. During major ops or periods of tension it was common to have up to 5 carriers including 2 US CVNs off Jugoslavia or Albania.
Yes they helped ease the workload on the land based assets. Yes they helped when the whole of Italy went red (equally I can remember several occasions when the Adriatic went red and F-14s, FA-18s, EA-6Bs and SUEs were spread all over Italy). But they didn’t introduce a stellar change in how the ops evolved. (To be honest, we would dread the arrival of a USN CVN due to their tendency to become the largest threat to flight safety in the Northern Hemisphere…ooops, sorry, irrelevant thread creep!).
The same argument goes for GW1 and its sequel.
SaN,
As has already been intimated, a CAG will normally be allocated to the Air Component Commander who answers to the Joint Commander. The ACC would most likely be a coalition AF guy, but could equally be a naval (or indeed Army
) aviator. (Incidentally, I am a strong proponent of retaining an independent organic naval and army aviation.)
So once again chaps we return to the age old argument: land based and maritime air are complimentary.
Regards,
MM
…CVF will give the government a day 1 capability, at a high sortie generation rate regardless of HNS…
Also, HNS/overflight also applies to maritime aviation at times. In the Afghan ops, carrier assets from both the US and France have used land FOBs on a regular basis and still require overflight rights from specific nations.
…whereas it could take weeks to build up to a 36 a/c DOB especially if strat/tac air is also supporting a land force build up at the same time.
…What does it cost (in terms of strat and tac air transport, shipping etc) to deploy 36 multi-role jets for, say, 20 days high intensity warfighting?
Particulalry if they have to move DOBs before the fighting starts. And have we ever done so?
…I am too far removed from the Service to know these things.
Widger,
If CVF had been around in 82, then there would have been no loss of Sheffield or loss of life in Bluff Cove...
Sierra Leone would have been a breeze, Deny Flight in Bosnia would have had a massive boost and as to the last 2 Gulf Crises..........
As far as the Balkans go, I flew through the entirety of the Croatia, B-H, Albanian and Kosovo campaigns and there were very few times when there was not at least 2 carriers in the Adriatic. These would be a combination of USN and French conventional carriers, USN LPDs and RN CVS. Very occasionally the Spanish or Italians would also pitch up with one of their STOVL carriers. During major ops or periods of tension it was common to have up to 5 carriers including 2 US CVNs off Jugoslavia or Albania.
Yes they helped ease the workload on the land based assets. Yes they helped when the whole of Italy went red (equally I can remember several occasions when the Adriatic went red and F-14s, FA-18s, EA-6Bs and SUEs were spread all over Italy). But they didn’t introduce a stellar change in how the ops evolved. (To be honest, we would dread the arrival of a USN CVN due to their tendency to become the largest threat to flight safety in the Northern Hemisphere…ooops, sorry, irrelevant thread creep!).
The same argument goes for GW1 and its sequel.
SaN,
I'm not up to speed on the projected split of F35's between the FAA and RAF, or if all F35's will be lumped into one "Joint force" as present? However I'd suggest that not having dedicated squadrons under RN command would be a serious error.
) aviator. (Incidentally, I am a strong proponent of retaining an independent organic naval and army aviation.)So once again chaps we return to the age old argument: land based and maritime air are complimentary.
Regards,
MM
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NW England
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger raised an interesting point in his post #102 about the choice of the STOVL F35B for JCA.
What is the rationale behind this choice? Is it:
1) Cost of Training
The cost/difficulty of training for conventional (as opposed to STOVL) carrier ops is disproportionately high given that the majority of JCA will be flown by the shore based RAF and as Widger says:
2)Benefits of Stealth
Neither Rafale nor navalised Typhoon are stealthy although F35C is.
3)Historical
JCA is the Harrier replacement and as Harrier is STOVL so JCA must be also. However the RAF is no longer operating out of Gutersloh with 3rd Shock Army menacingly close.
4)Aspirational
F35B is the latest American toy in the shop and we've just got to have it.
5)None of the Above
What is the rationale behind this choice? Is it:
1) Cost of Training
The cost/difficulty of training for conventional (as opposed to STOVL) carrier ops is disproportionately high given that the majority of JCA will be flown by the shore based RAF and as Widger says:
To those people who talk about using JCA more flexibly by having them ashore rather than on "the boat", you clearly do not have any clue about what it takes to get current "day and night" and "operational" on a carrier. You cannot just hop on for a few days, fly a few circuits and pop off again. It takes a long to get a whole squadron current and more importantly maintain that currency.
Neither Rafale nor navalised Typhoon are stealthy although F35C is.
3)Historical
JCA is the Harrier replacement and as Harrier is STOVL so JCA must be also. However the RAF is no longer operating out of Gutersloh with 3rd Shock Army menacingly close.
4)Aspirational
F35B is the latest American toy in the shop and we've just got to have it.
5)None of the Above
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perconator,
for Option 5 could it be:
a. The US marines need a STOVL platform and if the UK joins them it is politically more difficult to cancel.
b. By having a short-range aircraft without much bombload it doesn't draw attention to how TLAM is not really 'strategic'?
(just kidding)
Also "the shore-based RAF"... have you missed the formation of the JFH and the planning for JCA? RAF and RN Harrier units are interchangeable at sea and on land and are planned to continue to be so with JSF.
But seriously:
Command States: I really think we need to get this right. A couple of posters have talked about things like having JSF "under RN command". Let's examine this.
We were supposed to have realised in WW2 that the three services do not fight three separate wars. Tactical aircraft will (almost always) be under OPERATIONAL command of the JFACC, regardless of which service operates them or exercises full command. This means two things:
1. IT DOES NOT MATTER, IN OPERATIONAL TERMS, WHETHER JSF (or any other carrier based-type) IS OPERATED BY THE RN OR THE RAF. No, really. I have a view on this, but it's based on what is best value for defence in terms of generating op capability, as opposed to the really important question of how the force elements are employed.
2. Our aim should be to deliver military power when and where it is needed, in the most effective and efficient way. To me, that means we cannot tie up a significant portion of our fast-jet force as dedicated assets to be sailed around on a carrier when the real fight might be elsewhere. I'm not ignoring the real issues about work-up, currency, etc, but unless we have an appetite to make step-ashore work (as SRO(C) advocates) then carriers become a less and less attractive way of projecting air power in an age when we are unlikely to have lots of jets.
for Option 5 could it be:
a. The US marines need a STOVL platform and if the UK joins them it is politically more difficult to cancel.
b. By having a short-range aircraft without much bombload it doesn't draw attention to how TLAM is not really 'strategic'?
(just kidding)
Also "the shore-based RAF"... have you missed the formation of the JFH and the planning for JCA? RAF and RN Harrier units are interchangeable at sea and on land and are planned to continue to be so with JSF.
But seriously:
Command States: I really think we need to get this right. A couple of posters have talked about things like having JSF "under RN command". Let's examine this.
We were supposed to have realised in WW2 that the three services do not fight three separate wars. Tactical aircraft will (almost always) be under OPERATIONAL command of the JFACC, regardless of which service operates them or exercises full command. This means two things:
1. IT DOES NOT MATTER, IN OPERATIONAL TERMS, WHETHER JSF (or any other carrier based-type) IS OPERATED BY THE RN OR THE RAF. No, really. I have a view on this, but it's based on what is best value for defence in terms of generating op capability, as opposed to the really important question of how the force elements are employed.
2. Our aim should be to deliver military power when and where it is needed, in the most effective and efficient way. To me, that means we cannot tie up a significant portion of our fast-jet force as dedicated assets to be sailed around on a carrier when the real fight might be elsewhere. I'm not ignoring the real issues about work-up, currency, etc, but unless we have an appetite to make step-ashore work (as SRO(C) advocates) then carriers become a less and less attractive way of projecting air power in an age when we are unlikely to have lots of jets.
Last edited by Occasional Aviator; 12th Mar 2008 at 00:40.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perc
I think the reason for F35B is mostly because it doesnt need a catapult, and that apparently saves quite a bit of cash. The fact that it completely cripples capability compared to the C is, of course, not really relevant. Also, to be honest talking to various people I can't help but feel there is a bit of number 3 there as well.
Having said that, I still think that F35B is better than Rafale or (god forbid) navalised Typhoon. The stealth just adds another capability to the UK armed forces. Just so long as the target is susceptible to 2 x 1000lb and not too far away! The C would be soooooo much better and apparently its not too late to change!
I think the reason for F35B is mostly because it doesnt need a catapult, and that apparently saves quite a bit of cash. The fact that it completely cripples capability compared to the C is, of course, not really relevant. Also, to be honest talking to various people I can't help but feel there is a bit of number 3 there as well.
Having said that, I still think that F35B is better than Rafale or (god forbid) navalised Typhoon. The stealth just adds another capability to the UK armed forces. Just so long as the target is susceptible to 2 x 1000lb and not too far away! The C would be soooooo much better and apparently its not too late to change!
To me, that means we cannot tie up a significant portion of our fast-jet force as dedicated assets to be sailed around on a carrier when the real fight might be elsewhere.
I suppose that is just like the E3 force "flying around the world", couldn't possibly be doing anything useful! (Sarcasm!)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OA,
Interesting couple of issues there.
If we are talking about an individual theatre then I'd have little issue with a Joint Force commander having overall operational command. The problem arises when naval assets are needed elsewhere. The thing about ships is they can move around the place and its often the case that the MoD will need to move ships around from one theatre to another to respond to events, or shift emphasis. If the JF Commander has deployed all his F35's ashore, where will the navy pick up extra F35's from?
Secondly, there are "real fights" and secondary theatres. Where F35's are needed for the "real" fight who is going to tell the secondary guy he can't have any air cover? Putting F35's ashore emasculates the RN- its like emptying a battleships magazines because the shells are needed elsewhere. Our £2bn worth of carrier becomes a useless liability.
The only sane answer to all this Treasury driven nonsense is to procure more aircraft- not enter a fantasy world in which- like cheap martial arts movies, the bad guys patiently line up to attack the good guy one after another.
Bin F35B, adapt Typhoon for CTOL and buy more of them, consider buying F35C in a decade or so as a "nice to have" for first day strike. In the meantime talk of ditching carriers to meet Treasury driven and wholley artificial monetary constraints (this isn't the 70's the UK is now the 5th wealthiest country in the world, no longer the "sick man of Europe" ) simply sets people who care about UK defence at each others throats and does Gordon Browns dirty work for him. The answer is a realistic defence settlement, not squabbling amongst ourselves.
Interesting couple of issues there.
If we are talking about an individual theatre then I'd have little issue with a Joint Force commander having overall operational command. The problem arises when naval assets are needed elsewhere. The thing about ships is they can move around the place and its often the case that the MoD will need to move ships around from one theatre to another to respond to events, or shift emphasis. If the JF Commander has deployed all his F35's ashore, where will the navy pick up extra F35's from?
Secondly, there are "real fights" and secondary theatres. Where F35's are needed for the "real" fight who is going to tell the secondary guy he can't have any air cover? Putting F35's ashore emasculates the RN- its like emptying a battleships magazines because the shells are needed elsewhere. Our £2bn worth of carrier becomes a useless liability.
The only sane answer to all this Treasury driven nonsense is to procure more aircraft- not enter a fantasy world in which- like cheap martial arts movies, the bad guys patiently line up to attack the good guy one after another.
Bin F35B, adapt Typhoon for CTOL and buy more of them, consider buying F35C in a decade or so as a "nice to have" for first day strike. In the meantime talk of ditching carriers to meet Treasury driven and wholley artificial monetary constraints (this isn't the 70's the UK is now the 5th wealthiest country in the world, no longer the "sick man of Europe" ) simply sets people who care about UK defence at each others throats and does Gordon Browns dirty work for him. The answer is a realistic defence settlement, not squabbling amongst ourselves.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is absolutely crucial who exercises command and control of JCA.
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.
FJ assets need to be commanded and controlled by a CAOC working for an ACC. CVF should hopefully provide a very flexible platform from which to operate an array of the ACC's assets, but that is all it is.
Some land-based proponents need to just relax a little bit and accept that no-one is trying to steal aeroplanes and lock them in the hangar aboard CVF. Some maritime proponents need to accept that the CVF will never compete with a full-up airfield for scale and support.
In short, there will be occasions where an ACC will want his assets to be flying from a boat, and others when he won't. The key is that the RN cannot give anyone a career path that ends up as an ACC, and doesn't possess the kit to host a light-blue/ coalition ACC and his staff afloat.
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.
FJ assets need to be commanded and controlled by a CAOC working for an ACC. CVF should hopefully provide a very flexible platform from which to operate an array of the ACC's assets, but that is all it is.
Some land-based proponents need to just relax a little bit and accept that no-one is trying to steal aeroplanes and lock them in the hangar aboard CVF. Some maritime proponents need to accept that the CVF will never compete with a full-up airfield for scale and support.
In short, there will be occasions where an ACC will want his assets to be flying from a boat, and others when he won't. The key is that the RN cannot give anyone a career path that ends up as an ACC, and doesn't possess the kit to host a light-blue/ coalition ACC and his staff afloat.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Control
Isn't the current predicament with JFH, and the lack of jets for the carrier mainly down to a lack of an alternative? i.e. its the same with the helicopters. We have legacy assets which aren't up to the job, so we are having to push the load on to the small number of types that do. The Harriers are being overworked true, but they have certainly demonstrated their worth and the utility of STOVL. We obviously need to get both FAA squadrons up and flying, but the real answer to the current problem is to get Typhoon moving earth as soon as possible.
Getting Typhoon to Kandy is one thing, but it doesn't solve the valid points that Orca makes about the way the RN/FAA is currently set up and the seeming lack of progress in getting ready to do large-scale ops vs the current handful of jets on a CVS.There is no reason why CVF could not host a CAOC - at least for a smaller theatre. The vast majority of the infrastructure (comms, accommodation, intel & planning space etc) is already there aboard ship. The thing that is missing is trained bodies to man it (no reason why they shouldn't be light blue), which ties into a wider FAA malaise where with no higher career path (although there used to be) - it's difficult to get much beyond a squadron command or Wings before banging out.
adapt Typhoon for CTOL
Hello, Sunk at Narvik.
Do you actually believe in that possibility?
I gather that the Sea Typhoon proposals were based on "todays' computers being able to predict ship's movements and communicating with the aircraft whose fly-by-wire controls could ensure a soft landing".
I fear for repeated wave-offs until fuel runs out, damaged aircraft or genuine ramp-strikes.
Best regards, Transall.
Hello, Sunk at Narvik.
Do you actually believe in that possibility?
I gather that the Sea Typhoon proposals were based on "todays' computers being able to predict ship's movements and communicating with the aircraft whose fly-by-wire controls could ensure a soft landing".
I fear for repeated wave-offs until fuel runs out, damaged aircraft or genuine ramp-strikes.
Best regards, Transall.