Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
This Libya business will continue for a long time I expect. Two carriers involved now, and a US amphibious ship with AV8B+s. Will their contribution be studied in any post Operation Ellamy lessons learnt report?
What do we make of this?
THE government has moved to deny the Royal Air Force asked for an aircraft carrier to be sent to Libya to help enforce the no-fly zone.
It was rumoured the Prime Minister turned down air force chiefs who wanted a carrier and axed Harrier jump jets to be brought back to life to help out with the Libya mission.
Top defence analyst Francis Tusa told The News: ‘I’ve been told by grade A1 sources that the RAF wanted a flat-top but Number 10 simply wouldn’t allow it. I think they’d rather cut their own fingers off before that happened.’
The use of carrier strike would be embarrassing to the government after its controversial decision to axe HMS Ark Royal and the Harrier jets last year.
A Downing Street spokesman said: ‘This is not true. There’s been no request from the RAF.’
Mr Tusa said the RAF requested a carrier because Tornado jets cost £35,000 per hour to fly.
He added that Italy is charging ‘eye-watering’ amounts for use of a base. This was not confirmed by the MoD.
Also discussed here on the Daly History Blog.
And what if the situation in Yemen gets worse? Failed states on both sides of the Gulf of Aden, with AQAP and Al Shabab linking up to attack shipping?
As for Cdr Ward's blog - to be honest if the media do pay attention then good.
What do we make of this?
THE government has moved to deny the Royal Air Force asked for an aircraft carrier to be sent to Libya to help enforce the no-fly zone.
It was rumoured the Prime Minister turned down air force chiefs who wanted a carrier and axed Harrier jump jets to be brought back to life to help out with the Libya mission.
Top defence analyst Francis Tusa told The News: ‘I’ve been told by grade A1 sources that the RAF wanted a flat-top but Number 10 simply wouldn’t allow it. I think they’d rather cut their own fingers off before that happened.’
The use of carrier strike would be embarrassing to the government after its controversial decision to axe HMS Ark Royal and the Harrier jets last year.
A Downing Street spokesman said: ‘This is not true. There’s been no request from the RAF.’
Mr Tusa said the RAF requested a carrier because Tornado jets cost £35,000 per hour to fly.
He added that Italy is charging ‘eye-watering’ amounts for use of a base. This was not confirmed by the MoD.
Also discussed here on the Daly History Blog.
And what if the situation in Yemen gets worse? Failed states on both sides of the Gulf of Aden, with AQAP and Al Shabab linking up to attack shipping?
As for Cdr Ward's blog - to be honest if the media do pay attention then good.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 24th Mar 2011 at 21:56.
Of course a counter argument could be made that we (the UK) have still managed to contribute to the coalition without a carrier or a carrier borne aircraft so do we really need them at all?
And this is not an anti-carrier rant - it could be taken a stage further. If we have managed with 5 sqns of GR4s (7 at the moment ... but not for much longer
) and even less Typhoon squadrons, and still managed to be engaged on two separate ops, then why are there complaints about those aspects of the SDSR???
Now I appreciate that FI / HNS etc will be rolled out again (and again) but IMHO there is huge potential to shoot oneself in one's foot by this continual highlighting of supposed shortcomings when, as far as those with their hands on the purse strings, we seem to be coping!
Edited your quote WEBF so that it's probably closer to the truth!!!!
And this is not an anti-carrier rant - it could be taken a stage further. If we have managed with 5 sqns of GR4s (7 at the moment ... but not for much longer
) and even less Typhoon squadrons, and still managed to be engaged on two separate ops, then why are there complaints about those aspects of the SDSR???Now I appreciate that FI / HNS etc will be rolled out again (and again) but IMHO there is huge potential to shoot oneself in one's foot by this continual highlighting of supposed shortcomings when, as far as those with their hands on the purse strings, we seem to be coping!
I’ve been told by grade A1 RN sources that the RAF
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
As for Cdr Ward's blog - to be honest if the media do pay attention then good.
Mr Tusa said the RAF requested a carrier because Tornado jets cost £35,000 per hour to fly.
He added that Italy is charging ‘eye-watering’ amounts for use of a base. This was not confirmed by the MoD.
He added that Italy is charging ‘eye-watering’ amounts for use of a base. This was not confirmed by the MoD.
Anyway, it'll all be over by Christmas!
?
FB
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finningley Boy,
What an excellent comparison.
A war of national survival versus a skirmish of choice in a UK that is trying to find billions in public spending savings.
What an excellent comparison.
A war of national survival versus a skirmish of choice in a UK that is trying to find billions in public spending savings.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the people who comment on there as well, mad as a shoebox full of wasps....
Do they not google before spouting off complete carp?
Sharkeys' blog comments:-
TheRagingTory,
-- We could have integrated all of our weapons onto harrier and typhoon with plenty of change left over if we retired Tornado.
I'm afraid not. Try approaching BAE Systems and asking them to integrate a weapon earlier than you originally asked for - and be prepared for a bill stretching into the £1000s of millions. It as just as easy as you intimate - unfortunately not as cheap, given the monopoly position held by our "favoured" supplier.
Alternatively, Hansard:-
Mr. Quentin Davies: The cost of developing the original Brimstone Missile System was £370 million. Dual Mode Seeker (DMS) Brimstone was developed as a variant of the original Brimstone system. Development costs specifically for the DMS variant amounted to about £10 million.
Do they not google before spouting off complete carp?
Sharkeys' blog comments:-
TheRagingTory,
-- We could have integrated all of our weapons onto harrier and typhoon with plenty of change left over if we retired Tornado.
I'm afraid not. Try approaching BAE Systems and asking them to integrate a weapon earlier than you originally asked for - and be prepared for a bill stretching into the £1000s of millions. It as just as easy as you intimate - unfortunately not as cheap, given the monopoly position held by our "favoured" supplier.
Alternatively, Hansard:-
Mr. Quentin Davies: The cost of developing the original Brimstone Missile System was £370 million. Dual Mode Seeker (DMS) Brimstone was developed as a variant of the original Brimstone system. Development costs specifically for the DMS variant amounted to about £10 million.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
From Reuters 'UK NEWS' Mar 21, 2011 02:33 GMT
It doesn't even mention the vulnerability of big carriers to missile/ submarine attack.
Libya crisis could scupper British aircraft carriers once and for all
So the world has unfurled a no-fly zone over Libya, apparently undeterred by the lack of Royal Navy aircraft carriers. Judging by the uniforms gracing the steps of 10 Downing Street on Friday and the attacks launched over the weekend, Britain’s military top brass haven’t been put off either.
Britain's Defence Secretary Liam Fox and the Chief of the Defence Staff General David Richards arrive in Downing Street
The Libya crisis has, until now, provided a platform for the “Save our Aircraft Carriers Campaign” to champion its cause but in the process they’ve thrown down some whopping red herrings.
First we were told Britain could have done a better job extracting citizens from Libya if it had an aircraft carrier. In the event nature’s own aircraft carrier, Malta (immune to rough seas and mechanical failure) proved a perfectly good operations centre from which to manage rescue efforts. If Britain’s response was slow, that had more to do with the speed of decision making than the available military hardware.
Even if HMS Ark Royal had been in service, victualled, crewed and ready to put to sea from Portsmouth, she would have taken a good four days to reach Benghazi sailing at full steam the whole way, through still waters. Had she been in the Gulf of Oman supporting operations in Afghanistan, it would have taken closer to five days at best. Once in theatre she would have required defence from air attack and even the threat of submarines should any of Gaddafi’s Soviet-era vessels still be operational.
A member of the British military forces steps out of a Royal Air Force Hercules transport plane at the Malta International Airport outside Valletta
The C-130 Hercules aircraft the Royal Air Force and Special Forces used in the end to land in Libya’s Eastern Desert and to evacuate people can fly from Wiltshire to Tripoli in under 5 hours.
A second strange conclusion was that without aircraft carriers, Britain would be forced to police a no-fly zone from Cyprus – putting its jets out of easy range of Libya. Why Cyprus? NATO allies Italy and the United States run an airbase at Sigonella in Sicily which is less than a third of the distance from Tripoli.
Another argument deployed in favour of carriers has been the Falkland Islands but the smartest strategy there must be to defend them properly in the first place, maintaining or bolstering the Typhoon jets and Rapier surface-to-air missiles already based there. In the unlikely event the islands were left open to occupation, retaking them would be almost impossible –aircraft carriers or not – because unlike in 1982 there is a proper airfield from which any enemy should be able to establish and maintain air superiority. Land-based aircraft, with much higher sortie-rates, have a huge strategic advantage over marine-based jets and whoever controls Mount Pleasant Airfield controls the Falklands.
From a historic, nationalistic and sentimental point of view it is easy to understand why a proud naval nation would want to hang onto its aircraft carriers and it can’t be much fun for a First Sea Lord to inspect his fleet from the deck of an assault ship instead.
But let’s face it, Britain’s retention of its permanent seat on the U.N. security council will have more to do with its submarine fleet and the nuclear warheads it carries than HMS Ark Royal, which is after all half the size of France’s PA Charles de Gaulle and one fifth the size of U.S. Nimitz aircraft carriers.
There are of course scenarios where aircraft carriers would prove useful but our main NATO ally has plenty of them and with money tight, what’s left of Britain’s plans for a new generation of aircraft carriers is starting to look like a luxury rather than a must-have for defending our shores and our allies.
As I write, the Ministry of Defence is detailing how it launched Tomahawk missiles from a Trafalgar Class submarine during this weekend’s initial attacks on Libya’s air defence systems and fired Stormshadow missiles from Tornado GR4 jets which flew 3,000 miles from Norfolk and back again without landing in Sicily (let alone Cyprus) thanks to support from air-to-air refueling and surveillance aircraft.
If Operation Odyssey Dawn goes to plan, the absence of British aircraft carriers will only strengthen the Treasury’s hand when looking for any further cuts. The vulnerability of the next generation of Queen Elizabeth Class carriers, due to enter service in 2014 and 2016 and being built by defence contractors including BAE Systems, was already striking when Reuters took a close look last month at the state of Britain’s 15 biggest defence contracts. Running through the list it was clear that many of them were so close to completion as to limit the benefits of any cancellation.
More importantly though, most also looked to be more strategically important than aircraft carriers, particularly if one assumes Britain’s military priorities in the coming decades are going to be defence of the realm, supporting international humanitarian operations and crisis response.
The biggest UK procurement project, the 21 billion pound Typhoon Fighter Aircraft (Eurofighter), is well advanced with several squadrons already operating what will be the backbone of the RAF, replacing ageing Tornados and Jaguars. Air force chiefs would argue that without them there is no air force.
Next is the 12 billion pound Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft, essential if Britain is serious about deploying with speed to far-flung parts of the world as it has done in Libya and might one day need to do to bolster its presence at Mount Pleasant Airfield in the Falklands.
Third on the list is the Royal Navy’s well-advanced, 7 billion pound nuclear-powered Astute attack submarine fleet, able to carry out covert missions in a way that aircraft carriers cannot.
Then there are the Type 45 “Stealth” Destroyers, of which four are already in service or undergoing sea trials. Their Sea Viper (PAAMS) missile system, Sampson radar and Aster surface-to-air missiles with a range of up to 120 kilometres would theoretically be ideal for keeping the skies above Benghazi clear.
The aircraft carriers, with a 5.9 billion pound price tag, are the next biggest project. Ditching them might free up resources to replace the scrapped Nimrod MRA4 Reconnaissance Aircraft seen by many as essential to the defence of British waters – unlike aircraft carriers which have always been about projecting power abroad rather than defending the homeland.
File photo of the F-35 Lightning II planes arriving at Edwards Air Force Base in California
Abandoning the carriers might also allow the Ministry of Defence to scale back preliminary plans to buy around 150 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters designed to fly from land and ships, although not without upsetting its project partners in the Pentagon.
There is a broad consensus that a replacement for the C-130 Hercules – used to rescue Britons from Libya’s interior – is essential to rapid response and to deployment if Britain plans to retain an army of any kind. It will come in the form of the over-budget but well-advanced A400M Large Transport Aircraft.
Britain’s defence equipment should prioritise stealth (exemplified by submarines), speed (in the shape of fighter jets among other things), range (tanker aircraft), accessibility (transport aircraft), deterrence (Trident) and punch (such as state of the art cruise, SAM and AAM missiles). While operations in Libya may not show aircraft carriers to be obsolete, it could well reveal how they struggle to be a class-leader in any one of these fields.
When England defeated the Armada in 1588, it was thanks in no small part to the ability of its faster, smaller “race-built” ships, boasting more technically advanced armaments, to sneak up on and outmanoeuvre Spain’s large but cumbersome galleons. Stealth, speed and punch then. Not size.
British navy chief Admiral Mark Stanhope inspects a guard of honour during his ceremonial reception in New Delhi
This debate has some way to run yet. In the words of Ark Royal’s own motto, “Zeal does not rest”. Defenders of aircraft carriers will no doubt be hoping that U.S., French, Italian or Spanish carriers lumbering towards Libya will make a useful contribution in the coming days or weeks. All the while though, their detractors will be arguing things are going to plan without them and that the time has come for Britain to swallow its pride and live without big, shiny aircraft carriers of limited usefulness.
So the world has unfurled a no-fly zone over Libya, apparently undeterred by the lack of Royal Navy aircraft carriers. Judging by the uniforms gracing the steps of 10 Downing Street on Friday and the attacks launched over the weekend, Britain’s military top brass haven’t been put off either.
Britain's Defence Secretary Liam Fox and the Chief of the Defence Staff General David Richards arrive in Downing Street
The Libya crisis has, until now, provided a platform for the “Save our Aircraft Carriers Campaign” to champion its cause but in the process they’ve thrown down some whopping red herrings.
First we were told Britain could have done a better job extracting citizens from Libya if it had an aircraft carrier. In the event nature’s own aircraft carrier, Malta (immune to rough seas and mechanical failure) proved a perfectly good operations centre from which to manage rescue efforts. If Britain’s response was slow, that had more to do with the speed of decision making than the available military hardware.
Even if HMS Ark Royal had been in service, victualled, crewed and ready to put to sea from Portsmouth, she would have taken a good four days to reach Benghazi sailing at full steam the whole way, through still waters. Had she been in the Gulf of Oman supporting operations in Afghanistan, it would have taken closer to five days at best. Once in theatre she would have required defence from air attack and even the threat of submarines should any of Gaddafi’s Soviet-era vessels still be operational.
A member of the British military forces steps out of a Royal Air Force Hercules transport plane at the Malta International Airport outside Valletta
The C-130 Hercules aircraft the Royal Air Force and Special Forces used in the end to land in Libya’s Eastern Desert and to evacuate people can fly from Wiltshire to Tripoli in under 5 hours.
A second strange conclusion was that without aircraft carriers, Britain would be forced to police a no-fly zone from Cyprus – putting its jets out of easy range of Libya. Why Cyprus? NATO allies Italy and the United States run an airbase at Sigonella in Sicily which is less than a third of the distance from Tripoli.
Another argument deployed in favour of carriers has been the Falkland Islands but the smartest strategy there must be to defend them properly in the first place, maintaining or bolstering the Typhoon jets and Rapier surface-to-air missiles already based there. In the unlikely event the islands were left open to occupation, retaking them would be almost impossible –aircraft carriers or not – because unlike in 1982 there is a proper airfield from which any enemy should be able to establish and maintain air superiority. Land-based aircraft, with much higher sortie-rates, have a huge strategic advantage over marine-based jets and whoever controls Mount Pleasant Airfield controls the Falklands.
From a historic, nationalistic and sentimental point of view it is easy to understand why a proud naval nation would want to hang onto its aircraft carriers and it can’t be much fun for a First Sea Lord to inspect his fleet from the deck of an assault ship instead.
But let’s face it, Britain’s retention of its permanent seat on the U.N. security council will have more to do with its submarine fleet and the nuclear warheads it carries than HMS Ark Royal, which is after all half the size of France’s PA Charles de Gaulle and one fifth the size of U.S. Nimitz aircraft carriers.
There are of course scenarios where aircraft carriers would prove useful but our main NATO ally has plenty of them and with money tight, what’s left of Britain’s plans for a new generation of aircraft carriers is starting to look like a luxury rather than a must-have for defending our shores and our allies.
As I write, the Ministry of Defence is detailing how it launched Tomahawk missiles from a Trafalgar Class submarine during this weekend’s initial attacks on Libya’s air defence systems and fired Stormshadow missiles from Tornado GR4 jets which flew 3,000 miles from Norfolk and back again without landing in Sicily (let alone Cyprus) thanks to support from air-to-air refueling and surveillance aircraft.
If Operation Odyssey Dawn goes to plan, the absence of British aircraft carriers will only strengthen the Treasury’s hand when looking for any further cuts. The vulnerability of the next generation of Queen Elizabeth Class carriers, due to enter service in 2014 and 2016 and being built by defence contractors including BAE Systems, was already striking when Reuters took a close look last month at the state of Britain’s 15 biggest defence contracts. Running through the list it was clear that many of them were so close to completion as to limit the benefits of any cancellation.
More importantly though, most also looked to be more strategically important than aircraft carriers, particularly if one assumes Britain’s military priorities in the coming decades are going to be defence of the realm, supporting international humanitarian operations and crisis response.
The biggest UK procurement project, the 21 billion pound Typhoon Fighter Aircraft (Eurofighter), is well advanced with several squadrons already operating what will be the backbone of the RAF, replacing ageing Tornados and Jaguars. Air force chiefs would argue that without them there is no air force.
Next is the 12 billion pound Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft, essential if Britain is serious about deploying with speed to far-flung parts of the world as it has done in Libya and might one day need to do to bolster its presence at Mount Pleasant Airfield in the Falklands.
Third on the list is the Royal Navy’s well-advanced, 7 billion pound nuclear-powered Astute attack submarine fleet, able to carry out covert missions in a way that aircraft carriers cannot.
Then there are the Type 45 “Stealth” Destroyers, of which four are already in service or undergoing sea trials. Their Sea Viper (PAAMS) missile system, Sampson radar and Aster surface-to-air missiles with a range of up to 120 kilometres would theoretically be ideal for keeping the skies above Benghazi clear.
The aircraft carriers, with a 5.9 billion pound price tag, are the next biggest project. Ditching them might free up resources to replace the scrapped Nimrod MRA4 Reconnaissance Aircraft seen by many as essential to the defence of British waters – unlike aircraft carriers which have always been about projecting power abroad rather than defending the homeland.
File photo of the F-35 Lightning II planes arriving at Edwards Air Force Base in California
Abandoning the carriers might also allow the Ministry of Defence to scale back preliminary plans to buy around 150 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters designed to fly from land and ships, although not without upsetting its project partners in the Pentagon.
There is a broad consensus that a replacement for the C-130 Hercules – used to rescue Britons from Libya’s interior – is essential to rapid response and to deployment if Britain plans to retain an army of any kind. It will come in the form of the over-budget but well-advanced A400M Large Transport Aircraft.
Britain’s defence equipment should prioritise stealth (exemplified by submarines), speed (in the shape of fighter jets among other things), range (tanker aircraft), accessibility (transport aircraft), deterrence (Trident) and punch (such as state of the art cruise, SAM and AAM missiles). While operations in Libya may not show aircraft carriers to be obsolete, it could well reveal how they struggle to be a class-leader in any one of these fields.
When England defeated the Armada in 1588, it was thanks in no small part to the ability of its faster, smaller “race-built” ships, boasting more technically advanced armaments, to sneak up on and outmanoeuvre Spain’s large but cumbersome galleons. Stealth, speed and punch then. Not size.
British navy chief Admiral Mark Stanhope inspects a guard of honour during his ceremonial reception in New Delhi
This debate has some way to run yet. In the words of Ark Royal’s own motto, “Zeal does not rest”. Defenders of aircraft carriers will no doubt be hoping that U.S., French, Italian or Spanish carriers lumbering towards Libya will make a useful contribution in the coming days or weeks. All the while though, their detractors will be arguing things are going to plan without them and that the time has come for Britain to swallow its pride and live without big, shiny aircraft carriers of limited usefulness.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Try approaching BAE Systems and asking them to integrate a weapon earlier than you originally asked for - and be prepared for a bill stretching into the £1000s of millions"
Try to imagine telling the British Public that having purchased an aircraft as a fighter, we proceeded to order more, justifying the cost by classing said aircraft as being "swing role" but not funding the mods required to make it into one.
With Tornado in action over Libya and using Brimstone, it's only a matter of time until someone twigs.
Try to imagine telling the British Public that having purchased an aircraft as a fighter, we proceeded to order more, justifying the cost by classing said aircraft as being "swing role" but not funding the mods required to make it into one.
With Tornado in action over Libya and using Brimstone, it's only a matter of time until someone twigs.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoon development of Brimstone and Storm shadow is, I believe, underway. It was always going to be done after air-to-air capability was cleared.
PW IV is progressing as well.
PW IV is progressing as well.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken
FNS Charles de Gaulle and USS Kearsage are at sea off of Libya now, flying air support missions to back up UN Resolution 1973.
We now know that Malta did allow the extraction of civillians but refused to permit NFZ missions. Some other countries, though happy this time to allow HNS, did so only after delay, and with the imposition of certain conditions relating to political control.
We knew that post SDSR, HMG envisaged only one FJ carrier, that it could not change the build programme without providing alternative work for UK shipyards or pay compensation to BAe. We also knew that the F-35 purchase was being changed from the Model B to C with the numbers required now much reduced.
Based on all the above, the standard of journalism in this piece from Reuters fails to inspire much confidence
A carrier like everything else is vulnerable to attack. That's why when needed, it can be defended by submarines and aircraft against an ASW threat and/or by SAM and CIWS carrying escorts. It can also move its location. Land based aircraft and airfields equally at risk once air control is lost or the threat from TLACM's cannot be countered. This is being demonstrated over Libya at this moment!
Final point Libya is on the edge of Europe and closer to most places we fly to on holiday. Can Reuters chappie guarantee the next crisis will be in a State as conveniently located
FNS Charles de Gaulle and USS Kearsage are at sea off of Libya now, flying air support missions to back up UN Resolution 1973.
We now know that Malta did allow the extraction of civillians but refused to permit NFZ missions. Some other countries, though happy this time to allow HNS, did so only after delay, and with the imposition of certain conditions relating to political control.
We knew that post SDSR, HMG envisaged only one FJ carrier, that it could not change the build programme without providing alternative work for UK shipyards or pay compensation to BAe. We also knew that the F-35 purchase was being changed from the Model B to C with the numbers required now much reduced.
Based on all the above, the standard of journalism in this piece from Reuters fails to inspire much confidence
A carrier like everything else is vulnerable to attack. That's why when needed, it can be defended by submarines and aircraft against an ASW threat and/or by SAM and CIWS carrying escorts. It can also move its location. Land based aircraft and airfields equally at risk once air control is lost or the threat from TLACM's cannot be countered. This is being demonstrated over Libya at this moment!
Final point Libya is on the edge of Europe and closer to most places we fly to on holiday. Can Reuters chappie guarantee the next crisis will be in a State as conveniently located
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Try approaching BAE Systems and asking them to integrate a weapon earlier than you originally asked for - and be prepared for a bill stretching into the £1000s of millions"
Try to imagine telling the British Public that having purchased an aircraft as a fighter, we proceeded to order more, justifying the cost by classing said aircraft as being "swing role" but not funding the mods required to make it into one.
With Tornado in action over Libya and using Brimstone, it's only a matter of time until someone twigs.
Try to imagine telling the British Public that having purchased an aircraft as a fighter, we proceeded to order more, justifying the cost by classing said aircraft as being "swing role" but not funding the mods required to make it into one.
With Tornado in action over Libya and using Brimstone, it's only a matter of time until someone twigs.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaz
Underway but to be delivered when and at what cost?
Was this not the question that Qatar could not not get answered and hence stopped them buying from us?
Underway but to be delivered when and at what cost?
Was this not the question that Qatar could not not get answered and hence stopped them buying from us?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the ongoing development process. It's already dropped PW 4.
DATE:08/03/11
SOURCE:Flight International
BAE continues Typhoon Paveway IV testing
By Dominic Perry
BAE Systems has completed the first release of a Raytheon Paveway IV precision-guided bomb from a Eurofighter Typhoon, using the aircraft's avionics system to release the weapon, as it works to enhance the fighter for a ground-attack role.
Typhoon test pilot Nat Makepeace, who was in charge of development aircraft IPA6 for the trial at the Aberporth range in the UK, says: "This was a successful test flight demonstrating the avionics system is able to use GPS data and target information sourced from the aircraft to prepare for the release.
"All communication with the aircraft and safe release of the bomb went to plan."
The test was part of BAE's ongoing programme to integrate Paveway IV with the aircraft. Environmental and jettison trials have already been completed.
Paveway IV is expected to be available to the UK Ministry of Defence in early 2012 when the Royal Air Force will start operational evaluation.
It is part of the Typhoon Future Capability Upgrade programme.
Edited to add:- I'm no Typhoon fan-boy, as when it does become capable GR4 (and me!) are headed for retirement!
These improvements have been planned from the off, it takes a while to strap weapons on to different platfoems - especially the more modern ones - bizarrely!
DATE:08/03/11
SOURCE:Flight International
BAE continues Typhoon Paveway IV testing
By Dominic Perry
BAE Systems has completed the first release of a Raytheon Paveway IV precision-guided bomb from a Eurofighter Typhoon, using the aircraft's avionics system to release the weapon, as it works to enhance the fighter for a ground-attack role.
Typhoon test pilot Nat Makepeace, who was in charge of development aircraft IPA6 for the trial at the Aberporth range in the UK, says: "This was a successful test flight demonstrating the avionics system is able to use GPS data and target information sourced from the aircraft to prepare for the release.
"All communication with the aircraft and safe release of the bomb went to plan."
The test was part of BAE's ongoing programme to integrate Paveway IV with the aircraft. Environmental and jettison trials have already been completed.
Paveway IV is expected to be available to the UK Ministry of Defence in early 2012 when the Royal Air Force will start operational evaluation.
It is part of the Typhoon Future Capability Upgrade programme.
Edited to add:- I'm no Typhoon fan-boy, as when it does become capable GR4 (and me!) are headed for retirement!
These improvements have been planned from the off, it takes a while to strap weapons on to different platfoems - especially the more modern ones - bizarrely!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Final point Libya is on the edge of Europe and closer to most places we fly to on holiday. Can Reuters chappie guarantee the next crisis will be in a State as conveniently located
We are no longer a world power, why do we have to be a world policeman? If it's not taking place in Europe & its environs then why do we need to be involved? We don't need a carrier for the Falklands, where exactly might we?
The US & the French have turned up off Libya with carriers & Harriers, but does that mean that we have to? That would be a playground mentality, not the basis for a sound foreign/ defence policy.
And can the USA even afford carriers? From a US commentator:
Washington tells us we have a $15 trillion national debt and the Congressional Budget Office says debt will hit $20 trillion by 2020. Staggering numbers, but if you add Social Security, Medicare, retirement pay congress awards itself, and all the other unfunded obligations, the American Enterprise Institute says the national debt is $112 trillion! At the rate we are spending, before we get to 2020 we will not be able to fund the budget and pay the interest on our debt to China or anyone else.
What to do? More taxes? Every person and every company in America does not make enough money to pay the interest on $112 trillion. Print more money? Long before the presses melt, no one will want dollars. Swiss francs will be back in style. The only way to avoid an Argentine-style crash is to stop spending on new programs and to cut spending on old programs. That means decreased Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits, decreased retirement benefits for government and union retirees, and decreases or elimination of every other so-called “entitlement.” When we make a serious start on those reductions and use the resulting surplus to pay down our debt, we will once again be a productive and creditworthy nation.
What to do? More taxes? Every person and every company in America does not make enough money to pay the interest on $112 trillion. Print more money? Long before the presses melt, no one will want dollars. Swiss francs will be back in style. The only way to avoid an Argentine-style crash is to stop spending on new programs and to cut spending on old programs. That means decreased Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits, decreased retirement benefits for government and union retirees, and decreases or elimination of every other so-called “entitlement.” When we make a serious start on those reductions and use the resulting surplus to pay down our debt, we will once again be a productive and creditworthy nation.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Libya is no more a case for or against carriers than the Falklands War forever proved their worth. The fact that we did have carriers in 1982 meant that having mis-judged the political situation in the Argentine (Lord Carrington resigned) we were then unable to protect British interests.
Along with other military assets, our carriers allowed Mrs T to have some chance of re-taking the Islands by force if necessary, without unacceptable risk and great loss of life. In deciding to do so, she saved her reputation and that of her Government and many of us around at the time would say, of the UK as a whole. Mrs T could just have accepted what had happened and brought the Islanders home. An interesting point given that later that decade, the Hong Kong issue was solved by giving China what it wanted and stripping residents of many of their rights to British citizenship.
So you are correct. If we are skint, do we really need to provide for anything other than homeland defence? I think with Libya and the two dozen plus conflicts we have become involved with since World War Two, you have a clue to the answer. HMG believes that our interests are global in nature and our Armed Forces' must reflect the need to defend against potential threats to them. That's why the carrier(s) F-35, AAR Tanker's etc survived SDSR. Recent events simply bring into focus the assumptions made for the pre 2020 period that allowed the more immediate cut backs in certain capabilities.
When we help to bail out Portugal as was also the case with Ireland, it will be to protect British interests and the money will be found
Along with other military assets, our carriers allowed Mrs T to have some chance of re-taking the Islands by force if necessary, without unacceptable risk and great loss of life. In deciding to do so, she saved her reputation and that of her Government and many of us around at the time would say, of the UK as a whole. Mrs T could just have accepted what had happened and brought the Islanders home. An interesting point given that later that decade, the Hong Kong issue was solved by giving China what it wanted and stripping residents of many of their rights to British citizenship.
So you are correct. If we are skint, do we really need to provide for anything other than homeland defence? I think with Libya and the two dozen plus conflicts we have become involved with since World War Two, you have a clue to the answer. HMG believes that our interests are global in nature and our Armed Forces' must reflect the need to defend against potential threats to them. That's why the carrier(s) F-35, AAR Tanker's etc survived SDSR. Recent events simply bring into focus the assumptions made for the pre 2020 period that allowed the more immediate cut backs in certain capabilities.
When we help to bail out Portugal as was also the case with Ireland, it will be to protect British interests and the money will be found
Last edited by draken55; 25th Mar 2011 at 13:59.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
That's why the carrier(s) F-35, AAR Tanker's etc survived SDSR.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken
I can post a copy of the BAe letter to the PM dated 6 October 2010 that was leaked if you are not convinced. It confirms the request was for cancellation costs in respect of Prince of Wales alone.
If you can't find this from searching the web let me know and I will do so.
As to posture, I would have liked to seen that of Tornado pilots returning from their bladder testing Strom Shadow sorties.
I can post a copy of the BAe letter to the PM dated 6 October 2010 that was leaked if you are not convinced. It confirms the request was for cancellation costs in respect of Prince of Wales alone.
If you can't find this from searching the web let me know and I will do so.
As to posture, I would have liked to seen that of Tornado pilots returning from their bladder testing Strom Shadow sorties.
Last edited by draken55; 26th Mar 2011 at 10:43.
Finningley Boy,
What an excellent comparison.
A war of national survival versus a skirmish of choice in a UK that is trying to find billions in public spending savings.
What an excellent comparison.
A war of national survival versus a skirmish of choice in a UK that is trying to find billions in public spending savings.
I can most certainly appreciate the subtle difference between the two scenarios, but yet again the point still stands, this is capital expenditure, not Defence Budget expenditure and while that is a mute point as far as the tax payer is concerned its still not really the concern of the R.A.F. But again, the pro-Harrier argument is all here, has anyone on that side factored in the full cost of ordering HMS Ark Royal or Illustrious to the Mediterranean from say the Gulf Straits or the Indian Ocean, had they been at that point last Weekend? Or would this simply not have arisen?
FB
Originally Posted by draken 55
As to posture, I would have liked to seen that of Tornado pilots returning from there bladder testing Strom Shadow sorties.
GR1/4 crews have long been used to lengthy sorties (my first 8 hour one was back in '92). T'aint no big deal.