Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
"How many CURRENTLY Carrier Qualified Fast Jet Pilots do the RN have?"
"How many Deck Landing "cat and trap" Instructors are there?"
"Are the SAR arrangements in place to provide cover for Fixed Wing Aircraft Carriers in far off Theatres of Operation ?"
"How many Tanker Aircraft will the RN deploy to extend the range of the limited number of aircraft capable of operating from the 2 planned Aircraft Carriers?
Are you trying to cloud the issue - again?
The MOD website is reporting the visit by CDS to HMS Ocean, during which he praised her flexibility.
The Apaches were ably assisted during the operation by other helicopters embarked on HMS Ocean. These included Sea King Mk7s of 857 Naval Air Squadron conducting maritime surveillance operations, and Lynx Mk7s of 847 Naval Air Squadron providing force protection and logistic support, as well as US Air Force HH-60 Pave Hawks.
The US airmen, from the 56th Rescue Squadron based at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, were on standby for personnel recovery or medical evacuation operations in the event of an incident involving any NATO aircraft or ships.
How much more flexible would a CVS with Harrier have been (Apache could still have been embarked)? Particularly since both the UK and France were deploying flattops to support Apache/Tiger, and shipborne ISTAR and CSAR was needed, and NATO warships were helping control the air operations? Also a UK carrier could have rotated with CDG if needed. But we were lucky, and the opposition folded. But what about next time?
The current speculation about Iran's nuclear programme and possible Israeli (or other) action should make us think. If this were to happen, it is likely that Iran would attack Western naval forces and merchant shipping in the Persian/Arabian Gulf. Iran has surface vessels of various kinds, many of them with anti ship missiles, submarines (including both Kilos from Russia and indigenous small ones), many shore based anti ship missiles, a reasonably large air force, and something like 3000 mines. It is conceivable that Iran may take action in a number of places - after all the Iranian coastline stretches for more than 1000 miles from Iraq to Pakistan.
It is entirely possible that UK (and other) forces would be working with restrictive ROE, because of the need to avoid a repeat of the 1988 shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner by a US Warship. It is also entirely possible that the Gulf states would refuse to let the West using their air bases. Nations may be willing to allow logistics aircraft to use their airfields, or RFAs to use their ports, but tooled up Typhoons or Tornados may be a different matter.
Without Harrier (or other carrier based jets) our forces would lack the means to intercept, visually identify, or engage potentially hostile aircraft at arm's length. Not to mention the value of delivering air/surface weaponry over the horizon, possibly against maritime targets.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 9th Nov 2011 at 22:58.
It is also entirely possible that the Gulf states would refuse to let the West using their air bases.
Gentleman Aviator
The Contract for Suspenders will be signed on Monday - stocking issues are yet to be confirmed.
"[supply of] WRNS skirts will be held up until the requirements of the sailors can be satisfied!"
ba boom
Join Date: May 2010
Location: the earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a former Naval Aviator I have to be honest and say that I have lost interest in Harriers and Carriers, although I am determined that one day WEBF will post a reply in a single sentance/paragrapgh without the use of copy/paste.
Stockings and suspenders however....I'm all ears (eyes!!!)
Stockings and suspenders however....I'm all ears (eyes!!!)
"It is also entirely possible that the Gulf states would refuse to let the West using their air bases."
Which given that we were reliant on shore access weekly to top up the RFA to RAS for the extant ELLAMY task group, would mean that in this situation we'd be completely fooked, regardless of whether we were using shore or maritime based air assets.
There is a disturbing unwillingness on the part of the pro-carrier aviation types to admit that they too are ultimatelly dependent on HNS - if Italy had not offered port access (plus land / air access for supply flights), we'd have been unable to sustain the ELLAMY task group for any length of time.
Which given that we were reliant on shore access weekly to top up the RFA to RAS for the extant ELLAMY task group, would mean that in this situation we'd be completely fooked, regardless of whether we were using shore or maritime based air assets.
There is a disturbing unwillingness on the part of the pro-carrier aviation types to admit that they too are ultimatelly dependent on HNS - if Italy had not offered port access (plus land / air access for supply flights), we'd have been unable to sustain the ELLAMY task group for any length of time.
Originally Posted by Jimlad1
...Which given that we were reliant on shore access weekly to top up the RFA to RAS for the extant ELLAMY task group...
I've been in self-supporting task groups, including RFAs, that haven't hit a port for weeks; months when necessary.
Jim
In terms of Ellamy, I suspect you'll find Italy was used for convenience / efficiency, possibly in terms of one supply flight serving both the RAF contingent ashore and the naval element afloat. There is a rather large sovereign Rock within spitting distance of the Op Area that I believe has a port, plenty of F44/F76, stores warehouses and an RAF base. No probs running an RFA out of there. As it's sovereign, probably less susceptible to changes in political winds.
You are correct to highlight that ultimately task groups are reliant on some form of land base - but not necessarily HNS, which as you should be aware is something different and can be subject to political constraints.
As far as any Op in the Gulf is concerned, Fifth Fleet could run a fleet train from Diego Garcia (UK Sovereign) backfilled from Guam / Singapore / CONUS, which UK assets could piggy-back on (as US assets also use the Armilla tanker). The nice thing about Naval logs is that at least we all use (relatively) compatible RAS kit, whereas the USAF are (largely) unique in using flying boom vs probe and drogue. Wouldn't solve the problems incurred by the retirement of the KA6 / KS3, but that's another story.
In terms of Ellamy, I suspect you'll find Italy was used for convenience / efficiency, possibly in terms of one supply flight serving both the RAF contingent ashore and the naval element afloat. There is a rather large sovereign Rock within spitting distance of the Op Area that I believe has a port, plenty of F44/F76, stores warehouses and an RAF base. No probs running an RFA out of there. As it's sovereign, probably less susceptible to changes in political winds.
You are correct to highlight that ultimately task groups are reliant on some form of land base - but not necessarily HNS, which as you should be aware is something different and can be subject to political constraints.
As far as any Op in the Gulf is concerned, Fifth Fleet could run a fleet train from Diego Garcia (UK Sovereign) backfilled from Guam / Singapore / CONUS, which UK assets could piggy-back on (as US assets also use the Armilla tanker). The nice thing about Naval logs is that at least we all use (relatively) compatible RAS kit, whereas the USAF are (largely) unique in using flying boom vs probe and drogue. Wouldn't solve the problems incurred by the retirement of the KA6 / KS3, but that's another story.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 9th Nov 2011 at 16:26.
Gentleman Aviator
cazatou
... exactly so! Was it WSC?
Edited to add:
... I think Sharky's free at the moment ......
I believe the phrase used was "until the needs of the Fleet have been satisfied".
Edited to add:
Where are you getting the Harriers and their Currently Qualified Pilots from?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stockings Tutus and Rifles?
Like these guys? The Greek Presidential Guard
Like these guys? The Greek Presidential Guard
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou. I think the argument has moved from the decision to gash the Harriers being bonkers to gashing the capability being bonkers. I believe the attendant argument is not so much the importance of having qualified Harrier drivers but having qualified FW handlers. The only options now seem to be inviting foreign FW onboard HM's carrier or send RN handlers/armourers to foreign FW ships: unless we use a Contractor operated Harrier "fleet" for continuation training.
Arguably, the ability of bright intrepid birdmen to pick up the skills and drills for maritime Ops will be less time consuming than keeping the support wallahs competent.
Taking up the earlier "support" red herring; even the current RFA could support a Carrier; if necessary, all the way from UK, Gib. Cyprus, ASI.
Arguably, the ability of bright intrepid birdmen to pick up the skills and drills for maritime Ops will be less time consuming than keeping the support wallahs competent.
Taking up the earlier "support" red herring; even the current RFA could support a Carrier; if necessary, all the way from UK, Gib. Cyprus, ASI.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a plan.
We will have sufficient numbers in all we need (pilots; handlers; maintainers; ship drivers etc etc) by the time we need them for QEC and F-35C.
There is always risk and it will not be the gold plated solution. Where necessary, I'm sure those other nations who also currently operate conventional carriers will assist and help mitigate specific shortfalls in experience (by mentoring our people on the job) or to assure the key roles.
This is a bit of an empty story until around 2019 when maybe we can crank up this thread again to see if I'm right?
It'll be fine.
We will have sufficient numbers in all we need (pilots; handlers; maintainers; ship drivers etc etc) by the time we need them for QEC and F-35C.
There is always risk and it will not be the gold plated solution. Where necessary, I'm sure those other nations who also currently operate conventional carriers will assist and help mitigate specific shortfalls in experience (by mentoring our people on the job) or to assure the key roles.
This is a bit of an empty story until around 2019 when maybe we can crank up this thread again to see if I'm right?
It'll be fine.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GBZ
The argument from WEBF is that the RN should have Harriers operating from the current Carriers. What he wants is the regeneration of the Harrier production line or purchase of aircraft from the US.
The argument from WEBF is that the RN should have Harriers operating from the current Carriers. What he wants is the regeneration of the Harrier production line or purchase of aircraft from the US.