Royal Navy to Buy F18F
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
On the other hand, it has the same max AUW as the A, but the structure is5000lb heavier.
So, yes, it has a longer theoretical range, but with a fuel/weapon payload deficit - and and more if a gun is required, as it's not internal and takes up the centreline station with the associated drag/stealth handicap.
So, yes, it has a longer theoretical range, but with a fuel/weapon payload deficit - and and more if a gun is required, as it's not internal and takes up the centreline station with the associated drag/stealth handicap.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As hard as it is for Fishead types, the RN could be better served over the medium term by getting more FF/DD than CVF
However, despite being a Naval Aviator, I feel that we have been somewhat tribal in our vehement protection of the FAA's fixed wing capability. With the standard caveat that our fixed wing chaps do a fantastic job in an organisation fraught with politics. Had the RN gone to the RAF at the original design stage of the CVF and agreed that the RN would do what they are best at, driving and operating warships, and allowed the RAF to provide the tailored air group (FW) for deployments, along with rotational positions in key posts such as Wings, SATCO, DSATCO, Eng Officers etc, then their may have been more support for the project.
Instead, we return to being forced to adopt the "I need this, so he can't have that" form of inter-service procurement debate. UK PLC requires both CVF if it is to achieve it's current Foreign Policy aims. This does not mean that the RAF do not need new aircraft nor that the Army need updated armoured vehicles. However, the disproprtional force multiplication that is provided by a fully independent CVF which is able to deploy worldwide at short notice, self-sustaining and self-protecting, able to deliver air, land and maritime power without host nation support is invaluable.
I really think that cancelling or reducing the CVF project will be a decision that we regret for decades. The RN has given up too much over the last 15 years in order to procure these assets. The phrase for years has been "short term loss for long term gain". It would be dreadful to think that it has been "short term loss for long term decimation".
Jumping rapidly back to the thread subject. If the procurement of a COTS updated F18 saves £Billions compared to F35(any variant), then perhaps it's all the effect we can afford to purchase.
For proudfishead: I thought fisheads were ship drivers, not avaitors. 
Oh well, I tip my cap, one naval aviator (retired) to another.
In re the CV, it takes two to have one, and your industrial base (maritime) gets a few economies of scale benefit from having two versus one ... if one can afford it. <--- As you are well aware, that's the real beast of the issue.
I am out of touch with our continental friends, the French, who not only have a CV, but also chose to rejoin the NATO integrated command structure. Would your position be sound if your strat assumed a long term association with the French wherein you traded readiness phases (rotating "on call" so to speak within the European security realm), or is the global interest of the UK deep enough (still) to require the two in case an out of area requirement rears its ugly head ... I have an eye toward the South Atlantic, but hope to hell that doesn't come up again.
Oh well, I tip my cap, one naval aviator (retired) to another.
In re the CV, it takes two to have one, and your industrial base (maritime) gets a few economies of scale benefit from having two versus one ... if one can afford it. <--- As you are well aware, that's the real beast of the issue.
I am out of touch with our continental friends, the French, who not only have a CV, but also chose to rejoin the NATO integrated command structure. Would your position be sound if your strat assumed a long term association with the French wherein you traded readiness phases (rotating "on call" so to speak within the European security realm), or is the global interest of the UK deep enough (still) to require the two in case an out of area requirement rears its ugly head ... I have an eye toward the South Atlantic, but hope to hell that doesn't come up again.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ProudFH
Nail, head, bang - this is exactly my point. The budgetary choices - I don't aver from calling them "realities" as doubtless many in Main Building are terming them now, as we could have a £100bn defence budget if we chose to - are such that the RN could indeed find itself in a position in 2020 where the "fleet" looks like this:
- 2 x CVF
- 2 x LPD
- 4 x LSD(A)
- Some tankers (well, at least 2 x Wave Class)
- 6 x T45 / D-Class
- 10ish x T23
- 2 x T26
- 5 x Astute
- 2ish x T-Class
- 4 x SSBN
- Some MCMs
- Some OPVs
- Shedloads of P-2000s
- VICTORY + BELFAST
Which may be extreme, but an FF/DD force of 16 or 18 means maybe a round 12 actually deployable, and if the choice was that vs. an escort fleet of 20 - 25 and no CVF, then I'd have to think very carefully about what the RN's future role is. I simply think that for the budgets being discussed, especially if Trident is to be funded from the core defence budget, that the days of UK independent force projection are essentially over, and that as such CVF is an expensive exercise in gutting the rest of the RN.
For once, Mr. Torpy notwithstanding, it's not an RAF plot, sadly.
S41
The RN has given up too much over the last 15 years in order to procure these assets. The phrase for years has been "short term loss for long term gain". It would be dreadful to think that it has been "short term loss for long term decimation".
- 2 x CVF
- 2 x LPD
- 4 x LSD(A)
- Some tankers (well, at least 2 x Wave Class)
- 6 x T45 / D-Class
- 10ish x T23
- 2 x T26
- 5 x Astute
- 2ish x T-Class
- 4 x SSBN
- Some MCMs
- Some OPVs
- Shedloads of P-2000s
- VICTORY + BELFAST
Which may be extreme, but an FF/DD force of 16 or 18 means maybe a round 12 actually deployable, and if the choice was that vs. an escort fleet of 20 - 25 and no CVF, then I'd have to think very carefully about what the RN's future role is. I simply think that for the budgets being discussed, especially if Trident is to be funded from the core defence budget, that the days of UK independent force projection are essentially over, and that as such CVF is an expensive exercise in gutting the rest of the RN.
For once, Mr. Torpy notwithstanding, it's not an RAF plot, sadly.
S41
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had the RN gone to the RAF at the original design stage of the CVF and agreed that the RN would do what they are best at, driving and operating warships, and allowed the RAF to provide the tailored air group (FW) for deployments, along with rotational positions in key posts such as Wings, SATCO, DSATCO, Eng Officers etc, then their may have been more support for the project.
But as we are talking about air power from the sea, I will confine myself to that. You also mention about the other support areas. This is again difficult and a previous 1SL was keen to point out to good old Glenn, that the RN also has a wide support infrastructure to support maritime operations that the RAF does not. CVF will need "sea-minded" personnel from all areas not just pilots and back seaters of whatever colour. The RAF does not have an Aircraft Handling branch, who are the teams that look after the aircraft on the deck and who the FAA specialist fire-fighters, the RAF does not have a dedicated MET branch, whereas the RN has the HMs who have wide and deep experience of providing Met and Oceanographic support at sea. The RN ATC branch have broad experience of controlling from the sea, in the wide ocean and the Littoral, often without the aid of diversions and with basic equipment. Senior Air Department officers are drawn from squadrons with wide experience of operating at sea who are aware of all the extra challenges that operating from the sea imposes, including storm force winds, deck operating limits, runways that move and bounce about, logistics (ammunition, fuel, food, liquid oxygen etc) There are other supporting branches of the FAA, including engineers, bomb bosuns, photographers, aircraft controllers to name just a few. Whilst I remember, don't forget the fighter controllers, who served with distinction in 1982 and 1991 and in many areas since. They are all part of the wider FAA that support operations from the sea and for the RAF to replicate them would be hugely expensive and take years to build up the level of operational capability the FAA has accumulated over many many decades. Additionally, they are all ship's staff when embarked, with responsibilities beyond their primary duties....that only a career training in the RN will provide.
So, it is very easy to say that it does not matter who pilots the aircraft, but there are a whole host of other factors that underpin generating air power from the sea. IMHO operating air power from the sea is best left to the FAA. Operating from a fixed land base, is best left to the RAF and the Army. Everyone has something to bring to the table. It is unfortunate that when one area appears to be getting a new toy, everyone else gets jealous and want to play with it.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Widger
OK, I was right with you until you arrived at your conclusions about Fighter Controllers. RAF FCs have been going to sea with the Andrew for years, doing their primary job and also becoming watch-keepers. RN controllers who come to the RAF on exchange have, in my experience, struggled to come to terms with the job. 
Canadian Break,
I am sorry old chap but you are stretching the bounds of credulity there. Since about 1995 the rules for bridge watchkeeping qualifications have changed and whilst some RAF FCs may well have stood a watch occaisionally as OOW 2 or 3, there is no way any of them would have met the stringent IMO rules that are applied now to take charge of a watch at sea or would be allowed to stand a watch on a 65000 ton CVF. Please!!!!
You have successfully turned what was quite an adult conversation into an inter service p**sing match again!
I am sorry old chap but you are stretching the bounds of credulity there. Since about 1995 the rules for bridge watchkeeping qualifications have changed and whilst some RAF FCs may well have stood a watch occaisionally as OOW 2 or 3, there is no way any of them would have met the stringent IMO rules that are applied now to take charge of a watch at sea or would be allowed to stand a watch on a 65000 ton CVF. Please!!!!
You have successfully turned what was quite an adult conversation into an inter service p**sing match again!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RN ATC branch have broad experience of controlling from the sea, in the wide ocean and the Littoral, often without the aid of diversions and with basic equipment.
You do understand that, in contrast to Harrier operations at Port Stanley in 1982, F-18's and F-35's can fly well beyond line of sight of the surface task force?
This is again difficult and a previous 1SL was keen to point out to good old Glenn, that the RN also has a wide support infrastructure to support maritime operations that the RAF does not. CVF will need "sea-minded" personnel from all areas not just pilots and back seaters of whatever colour. The RAF does not have an Aircraft Handling branch, who are the teams that look after the aircraft on the deck and who the FAA specialist fire-fighters, the RAF does not have a dedicated MET branch, whereas the RN has the HMs who have wide and deep experience of providing Met and Oceanographic support at sea.
OK, RN aviation --> specialized for operations over water.
You won't complain when others claim that deep penetration over land = RAF business, will you?
You do understand that, in contrast to Harrier operations at Port Stanley in 1982, F-18's and F-35's can fly well beyond line of sight of the surface task force?
This is again difficult and a previous 1SL was keen to point out to good old Glenn, that the RN also has a wide support infrastructure to support maritime operations that the RAF does not. CVF will need "sea-minded" personnel from all areas not just pilots and back seaters of whatever colour. The RAF does not have an Aircraft Handling branch, who are the teams that look after the aircraft on the deck and who the FAA specialist fire-fighters, the RAF does not have a dedicated MET branch, whereas the RN has the HMs who have wide and deep experience of providing Met and Oceanographic support at sea.
OK, RN aviation --> specialized for operations over water.
You won't complain when others claim that deep penetration over land = RAF business, will you?
Elmo, not "over water", "from water". Where the pilot goes after that, it doesn't really matter, it's all about where (s)he lands afterwards.
Anyway, having seen the RAF pull a political blinder by agreeing to have a RN 2* in charge of maritime ops (including SHAR), and then, suddenly, conducting a re-organisation that chopped his job, including the reduction of the senior Harrier pilot (in role) from 1* to 4 ring (at best), I don't really trust the RAF to commit in a grown-up fashion about a CAG.
( quick ref for the 2* cuts: No. 3 Group RAF - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
Anyway, having seen the RAF pull a political blinder by agreeing to have a RN 2* in charge of maritime ops (including SHAR), and then, suddenly, conducting a re-organisation that chopped his job, including the reduction of the senior Harrier pilot (in role) from 1* to 4 ring (at best), I don't really trust the RAF to commit in a grown-up fashion about a CAG.
( quick ref for the 2* cuts: No. 3 Group RAF - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royal Navy FCs
Canadian B,
Your comments about Freddies coming ashore and struggling to handle the job may well have been valid several years ago however, having worked closely with the D School, I am confident that the standard of FC coming out of the RN has improved hugely. They are a professional bunch who have a superb approach to training. I would go as far to say that in some areas, they could show us a thing or two.
In days prior to the MDA system, RAF FCs were maxed out on every sortie dealing with civil traffic. This was the area that caught out the RN chaps who had previously been controlling a pair of SHAR off the west coast! The MDAs have taken the workload away in many areas to the point where the live phase of RAF FC training has reduced from 60-70 hours to 20-30.
Your comments about Freddies coming ashore and struggling to handle the job may well have been valid several years ago however, having worked closely with the D School, I am confident that the standard of FC coming out of the RN has improved hugely. They are a professional bunch who have a superb approach to training. I would go as far to say that in some areas, they could show us a thing or two.
In days prior to the MDA system, RAF FCs were maxed out on every sortie dealing with civil traffic. This was the area that caught out the RN chaps who had previously been controlling a pair of SHAR off the west coast! The MDAs have taken the workload away in many areas to the point where the live phase of RAF FC training has reduced from 60-70 hours to 20-30.
Whilst not wishing to extend this futile p@@@@@@g contest or to further cast assertions on the professional ability of Officer's from any service, can I just say that there are idiots and stars in every branch and every career and trade both within the armed forces and without. Be they bus drivers, trade unionists, doctors or dentists.
The main difference between the RAF ABMs and the RN FCs is that in the RN it is a sub-specialisation. This very fact means that there are few FCs that have more than 2 or 3 tours under their belt and accordingly, very few"career controllers"They are drawn from some of the brightest of the Seaman Officer Cadre and then after FC go on to become Warfare Officer's Executive Officers and Commanding Officers. Many of the 1, 2 3 and 4 stars that have walked the halls of the MOD are ex RN Fighter Controllers. They are, on a par with Submariner's, the RN equivalent of the 2 winged master race. So whilst they may not be specialists in controlling within the UK, they have, on the whole, with some exceptions, broad and relevant experience.
It is worth mentioning some examples, such as the FC that stayed at his post in 1982, whilst HMS Sheffield burned around him and the man next to him was missing parts of his body. This event is quoted is some books and I have heard the story first hand. A bit more stressful than crossing the Manchester TMA I think. Additionally, it is worth mentioning the controllers of Gloucester and Exeter in 1991, that sat in the Northern Gulf supporting Air Operations from destroyers designed in the 1950s. This was before 8 Sqn turned up on the scene.
The new T45s will finally, give the RN FCs the kit they should have had 30 years ago and CVF with F18 or F35, will bring them into a new age of controlling.
So I have no criticism of the RAF ABMs or the crews that fly the E3s........there is plenty of mud I could sling!!!!!!!!! but I won't. Whilst both sides of the fence have similar roles, in practice, their career paths are different and they are there, for different reasons as well.
DIRIGEAMUS
The main difference between the RAF ABMs and the RN FCs is that in the RN it is a sub-specialisation. This very fact means that there are few FCs that have more than 2 or 3 tours under their belt and accordingly, very few"career controllers"They are drawn from some of the brightest of the Seaman Officer Cadre and then after FC go on to become Warfare Officer's Executive Officers and Commanding Officers. Many of the 1, 2 3 and 4 stars that have walked the halls of the MOD are ex RN Fighter Controllers. They are, on a par with Submariner's, the RN equivalent of the 2 winged master race. So whilst they may not be specialists in controlling within the UK, they have, on the whole, with some exceptions, broad and relevant experience.
It is worth mentioning some examples, such as the FC that stayed at his post in 1982, whilst HMS Sheffield burned around him and the man next to him was missing parts of his body. This event is quoted is some books and I have heard the story first hand. A bit more stressful than crossing the Manchester TMA I think. Additionally, it is worth mentioning the controllers of Gloucester and Exeter in 1991, that sat in the Northern Gulf supporting Air Operations from destroyers designed in the 1950s. This was before 8 Sqn turned up on the scene.
The new T45s will finally, give the RN FCs the kit they should have had 30 years ago and CVF with F18 or F35, will bring them into a new age of controlling.
So I have no criticism of the RAF ABMs or the crews that fly the E3s........there is plenty of mud I could sling!!!!!!!!! but I won't. Whilst both sides of the fence have similar roles, in practice, their career paths are different and they are there, for different reasons as well.
DIRIGEAMUS