Carrier Aviation = Cheapest
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Capt Pugwash
Remind me again how long it took Ocean to fly a single AH sortie after it left port?
In April this year she deployed with other commando carrying warships to take part in both exercise Cougar 11 and Cypriot Lion. As soon as she was asked to deploy to the coast of Libya then she went. Right ship in the right place at the right time.
I guess these threads ALWAYS try to suggest that a carrier would always be in the wrong place at the wrong time simply does not hold water. HMS Ocean was NOT in the wrong 'ocean' She was in the correct sea with perhaps the correct weapons load.
Remind me again how long it took Tornado aircraft to fly from Norfolk to Libya and how many missions were flown by each aircraft from that location.
What would happen if Italy said NO! No RAF aircraft to launch attacks on Libya!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Right ship in the right place at the right time. "
err, no
that would have been Invincible / Illustrious / Ark Royal with a mix of Harrier / Sea Harrier. Maybe with some recce UAVs on board as well
err, no
that would have been Invincible / Illustrious / Ark Royal with a mix of Harrier / Sea Harrier. Maybe with some recce UAVs on board as well
The reason the idea of sticking V1s on a cargo ship is a non starter is legion. Firstly. the V1 is a remarkably innacurate device, and was prone to technical failure - chucking what was essentially a barely guided drone into an enemy country on the right heading, then hoping it lands somewhere which isnt full of disabled lesbian ethnic minority lesbian schoolgirls who are photogenic for enemy PR, and that it bombs something useful is a vain hope.
The next problem is that you cant turn back the clock - the techniques, machinery and manufacturing stlyes used to make the V1 no longer exist (damn you lack of Jewish slave labour...), and as such we'd need to make it to 21st century standards, which immediately puts the price up. To make it to 21st century standards means updating the design to put things into it that have replaced components etc, and before you know it you've got a brand new and jolly expensive missile on your hands.
As for the Q-Ship - firstly you'd need a major ship with massive alterations to do it, in terms of magazines, safety, fire control, targeting, damage control etc. 30 crew would be enough to stand 3 watches on the bridge and engines and thats it - how do you propose to sustain, support and fight the ship. The second problem is how do you propose to transmit firing orders to the ship to actually let lose its salvo of missiles? Then how does the ship fire and reload them without being fairly obvious to any vessels nearby?
Q-Ships were great in the days before AIS and 24/7 connectivity, wheras now they are a waste of time.
The whole idea is a tremendous waste of resources, and built on an impossible concept which would never actually work. Why not spend money on proper warships rather than something as dangerous to the crew as the enemy...
The next problem is that you cant turn back the clock - the techniques, machinery and manufacturing stlyes used to make the V1 no longer exist (damn you lack of Jewish slave labour...), and as such we'd need to make it to 21st century standards, which immediately puts the price up. To make it to 21st century standards means updating the design to put things into it that have replaced components etc, and before you know it you've got a brand new and jolly expensive missile on your hands.
As for the Q-Ship - firstly you'd need a major ship with massive alterations to do it, in terms of magazines, safety, fire control, targeting, damage control etc. 30 crew would be enough to stand 3 watches on the bridge and engines and thats it - how do you propose to sustain, support and fight the ship. The second problem is how do you propose to transmit firing orders to the ship to actually let lose its salvo of missiles? Then how does the ship fire and reload them without being fairly obvious to any vessels nearby?
Q-Ships were great in the days before AIS and 24/7 connectivity, wheras now they are a waste of time.
The whole idea is a tremendous waste of resources, and built on an impossible concept which would never actually work. Why not spend money on proper warships rather than something as dangerous to the crew as the enemy...
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by james
"Right ship in the right place at the right time. "
err, no
that would have been Invincible / Illustrious / Ark Royal with a mix of Harrier / Sea Harrier. Maybe with some recce UAVs on board as well
err, no
that would have been Invincible / Illustrious / Ark Royal with a mix of Harrier / Sea Harrier. Maybe with some recce UAVs on board as well
Not going to bite
Ark Royal, plus Phantoms, plus Buccaneers..
Where're my buccaneers?
On your buckin 'ead sir!
Never ever been a fan of those pretendie half hearted so called aircraft carriers. If you play the game then play it properly or not at all... Pussy cats and mousetraps is what pretty girls are made of.
Lets get back to convertible tankers carrying their Guy Fawkes rockets
I could give you details of these fantastic ships but that information is classified 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glojo
You;re right - the old Ark would have been better, I was only considering what we still had available, or may be able to regenerate
Jimlad1
just because the major aircraft companies have moved on, it doesn't mean the skills to build a cheap disposable airframe no longer exist. There are any number of engineering companies who have the metal-bending skills required
As for the comments re accuracy - all the hardware required to give decent targetting ability is built into any modern mobile phone. You just have to provide the control interface from it to the missile - which is just a matter of writing the code
As to your other comments. Building a self-loading magazine is a basic engineering problem. Explosion risk? No worse than sitting on a tanker. Probably safer as theres less flammable liquid involved. In fact that would be the only major problem - devising a safe automated fuelling system. But maybe even that could be resolved by using gel fuels.
You;re right - the old Ark would have been better, I was only considering what we still had available, or may be able to regenerate
Jimlad1
just because the major aircraft companies have moved on, it doesn't mean the skills to build a cheap disposable airframe no longer exist. There are any number of engineering companies who have the metal-bending skills required
As for the comments re accuracy - all the hardware required to give decent targetting ability is built into any modern mobile phone. You just have to provide the control interface from it to the missile - which is just a matter of writing the code
As to your other comments. Building a self-loading magazine is a basic engineering problem. Explosion risk? No worse than sitting on a tanker. Probably safer as theres less flammable liquid involved. In fact that would be the only major problem - devising a safe automated fuelling system. But maybe even that could be resolved by using gel fuels.
James - I'm guessing you've never served a day in uniform, and are still a sea cadet or overly keen amateur with no idea what really goes on in HM Forces?
If something was as cheap and as easy as you make it out to be, why dont you think its been done already? There is usually a very long list of very good reasons why things don't get done, which make a lot of sense once you look into it...
If something was as cheap and as easy as you make it out to be, why dont you think its been done already? There is usually a very long list of very good reasons why things don't get done, which make a lot of sense once you look into it...
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guess wrong on all counts
why hasn't it been done? Because the senior staff would lose their status and fleets of shiny toys, and the howls of complaint from the vested interests such as BAE and the MOD would be enormous
Its obviously not a total solution, and would have been useless in an all-out war against the Commies, but if all you want is a low-risk attack force against a country like Libya / Argentina with minimal capability to retaliate then its ideal.
Another reason its not been considered is that too many people in "the establishment" think like you: they've got a molehill in their garden which they call "K2"
why hasn't it been done? Because the senior staff would lose their status and fleets of shiny toys, and the howls of complaint from the vested interests such as BAE and the MOD would be enormous
Its obviously not a total solution, and would have been useless in an all-out war against the Commies, but if all you want is a low-risk attack force against a country like Libya / Argentina with minimal capability to retaliate then its ideal.
Another reason its not been considered is that too many people in "the establishment" think like you: they've got a molehill in their garden which they call "K2"
Last edited by jamesdevice; 19th Jun 2011 at 16:28.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jimlad
Posting on my clear understanding of the number of days munitions that can be carried on a CVS, and the RFA and how long this can be sustained for.
Its a simple fact - During sustained and intensive air operations, then beyond X date (X being classified of course) an RFA will no longer have stocks onboard of certain items and will need to put into port to get some more.
This requires access to fuel depots, an airhead to fly the parts in, ground personnel to move stuff from A-B etc. The RN has always set up FLS to support operations - it ran them from Bari during the 90s, it runs them from Bahrain now to support the Arabian Gulf.
The RFA are superb but they are unfortunately reliant on a shore chain until they develop star trek type transporters - although given the fantasy world that most CVF fanatics live in at present, I'm surprised they've not suggested that idea already..
Its a simple fact - During sustained and intensive air operations, then beyond X date (X being classified of course) an RFA will no longer have stocks onboard of certain items and will need to put into port to get some more.
This requires access to fuel depots, an airhead to fly the parts in, ground personnel to move stuff from A-B etc. The RN has always set up FLS to support operations - it ran them from Bari during the 90s, it runs them from Bahrain now to support the Arabian Gulf.
The RFA are superb but they are unfortunately reliant on a shore chain until they develop star trek type transporters - although given the fantasy world that most CVF fanatics live in at present, I'm surprised they've not suggested that idea already..
but whilst they go off station then we can use any other NATO vessel just like as been done for many, many years. It is not a problem.
"vested interests such as BAE and the MOD"
Interesting, so the MOD is a vested interest? I think that demonstrates that you don't know how the system works.
"Another reason its not been considered is that too many people in "the establishment" think like you: they've got a molehill in their garden which they call "K2" "
Nope, its not been considered because its a completely insane idea which meets no staff requirement, would be unbelievably expensive, deliver nothing which can't already be done for far less money and which has no credible military value in the modern world. But apart from that, if you want to convince yourself that the entire military community worldwide is full of vested interests who somehow think that flying a highly unreliable WW2 era rocket which hasnt been manfuctured for 70 years, off a merchant vessel not designed to do anything other than sail from A-B, and then send it into a warzone with no crew, no comms etc, in order to fire an obsolete weapon on a blind trajectory without any idea as to where it may land, then please do so.
"Yup, our 30,000 ton plus Royal fleet Auxillaries will 'very quickly' run out of stores and will need to replenish
but whilst they go off station then we can use any other NATO vessel just like as been done for many, many years. It is not a problem. "
I'm not saying its going to happen quickly, but the fact is that to sustain carrier ops, the RN and every other navy going requires a land facility at some point in the chain. Show me any naval campaign in the 20th or 21st century sustained at distance where a shore base was not utilised in some form or another.
More to the point, we only have 3 left of these store ships now, of which only 1 is designed specifically as the carrier AOR. There is no big RFA anymore - we have 5 tankers (2 Rovers, 2 Waves and I believe a Leaf still out there) and 3 store ships to support the entire RN effort worldwide. Only 5 years ago we had 9 tankers (3 Rovers, 2 Waves, 4 Leafs) and 4 store ships, and since then our commitments have increased. Other navies are also running short on supply ships, and there is a much reduced chance of them being available to support purely national ops. I'm not saying that there isn't the chance, but we have to be realistic as to what we can and cant do now.
Interesting, so the MOD is a vested interest? I think that demonstrates that you don't know how the system works.
"Another reason its not been considered is that too many people in "the establishment" think like you: they've got a molehill in their garden which they call "K2" "
Nope, its not been considered because its a completely insane idea which meets no staff requirement, would be unbelievably expensive, deliver nothing which can't already be done for far less money and which has no credible military value in the modern world. But apart from that, if you want to convince yourself that the entire military community worldwide is full of vested interests who somehow think that flying a highly unreliable WW2 era rocket which hasnt been manfuctured for 70 years, off a merchant vessel not designed to do anything other than sail from A-B, and then send it into a warzone with no crew, no comms etc, in order to fire an obsolete weapon on a blind trajectory without any idea as to where it may land, then please do so.
"Yup, our 30,000 ton plus Royal fleet Auxillaries will 'very quickly' run out of stores and will need to replenish
but whilst they go off station then we can use any other NATO vessel just like as been done for many, many years. It is not a problem. "I'm not saying its going to happen quickly, but the fact is that to sustain carrier ops, the RN and every other navy going requires a land facility at some point in the chain. Show me any naval campaign in the 20th or 21st century sustained at distance where a shore base was not utilised in some form or another.
More to the point, we only have 3 left of these store ships now, of which only 1 is designed specifically as the carrier AOR. There is no big RFA anymore - we have 5 tankers (2 Rovers, 2 Waves and I believe a Leaf still out there) and 3 store ships to support the entire RN effort worldwide. Only 5 years ago we had 9 tankers (3 Rovers, 2 Waves, 4 Leafs) and 4 store ships, and since then our commitments have increased. Other navies are also running short on supply ships, and there is a much reduced chance of them being available to support purely national ops. I'm not saying that there isn't the chance, but we have to be realistic as to what we can and cant do now.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOD is very much a vested interest
Vested in maintaining jobs forth the boys, spending money with companies who'll offer nice pleasant landing seats when people retire from the civil service, in spinning out contracts as long as possible so they'll be kept in a job for life, or at least until they can pick up a fat pension and move on to a role in industry
As for "a highly unreliable WW2 era rocket " - I seem to remember that reliability was actually quite high. Using modern engineering techniques and better quality modern materials (which does NOT imply increased cost) then the things would work reliably. As I said before, resolving the targeting issue would be trivial, using commercially available off-the-shelf parts
Your comments about communications are a red herring. Modern comms equipment can be provided as a low-cost containerised bolt-ons i while target info could easily be acquired as of now, by satellite, RPV or boots on ground
Vested in maintaining jobs forth the boys, spending money with companies who'll offer nice pleasant landing seats when people retire from the civil service, in spinning out contracts as long as possible so they'll be kept in a job for life, or at least until they can pick up a fat pension and move on to a role in industry
As for "a highly unreliable WW2 era rocket " - I seem to remember that reliability was actually quite high. Using modern engineering techniques and better quality modern materials (which does NOT imply increased cost) then the things would work reliably. As I said before, resolving the targeting issue would be trivial, using commercially available off-the-shelf parts
Your comments about communications are a red herring. Modern comms equipment can be provided as a low-cost containerised bolt-ons i while target info could easily be acquired as of now, by satellite, RPV or boots on ground
Last edited by jamesdevice; 19th Jun 2011 at 17:18.
So in other words, you have no idea what the MOD is do you?
In the most literal sense of the word, the MOD is the organisation which encompasses the 3 armed services, their reserves and the civil service.
The MOD as an organisation is essentially filling the roles of the strategic HQ which oversees the command and control, and direction of the armed forces, sets out their requirements and priorities and administers them.
The HQ element of the MOD (i.e. Main Building, DE&S etc) is mainly staffed by military officers who are posted in on 2 year tours, often from front line tours and often returning to front line tours. There is a civilian element to support them, but your idea that the MOD is somehow an organisation full of civilians trying to hamstring 'our brave boys' who only exist on the front line is so far from the truth as to be laughable.
Staff requirements are drawn up by military officers, based on their professional understanding of the needs and requirements of their service. The RN has never had a staff requirement to convert a merchant ship to a V1 carrier, and neither has any other armed force in the world. Why are you not getting the hint that its not 'closed thinking' thats preventing this, but that its a really stupid idea with no practical military value at all?
You really must stop believing all you see in the Daily Mail and other places because , its not usually true...
In the most literal sense of the word, the MOD is the organisation which encompasses the 3 armed services, their reserves and the civil service.
The MOD as an organisation is essentially filling the roles of the strategic HQ which oversees the command and control, and direction of the armed forces, sets out their requirements and priorities and administers them.
The HQ element of the MOD (i.e. Main Building, DE&S etc) is mainly staffed by military officers who are posted in on 2 year tours, often from front line tours and often returning to front line tours. There is a civilian element to support them, but your idea that the MOD is somehow an organisation full of civilians trying to hamstring 'our brave boys' who only exist on the front line is so far from the truth as to be laughable.
Staff requirements are drawn up by military officers, based on their professional understanding of the needs and requirements of their service. The RN has never had a staff requirement to convert a merchant ship to a V1 carrier, and neither has any other armed force in the world. Why are you not getting the hint that its not 'closed thinking' thats preventing this, but that its a really stupid idea with no practical military value at all?
You really must stop believing all you see in the Daily Mail and other places because , its not usually true...
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet if the MOD told you pigs fly you'd believe them
Anyway I rarely read the Mail - its target audience is blue-rinse Tory madams.
Don't think I quite fit the demograph
As for no staff requirement - history is full of staff requirements that change, get cancelled, don't make sense or are unattainable. Conversely there have been a fair number of weapons which made it into significant service and never had a staff requirement issued. The Tallboy bomb I believe was one...not only was there no staff requirement, there wasn't even a production order for them placed until AFTER they had been used
Anyway I rarely read the Mail - its target audience is blue-rinse Tory madams.
Don't think I quite fit the demograph
As for no staff requirement - history is full of staff requirements that change, get cancelled, don't make sense or are unattainable. Conversely there have been a fair number of weapons which made it into significant service and never had a staff requirement issued. The Tallboy bomb I believe was one...not only was there no staff requirement, there wasn't even a production order for them placed until AFTER they had been used
"I bet if the MOD told you pigs fly you'd believe them"
Of the two of us here its increasingly clear, only one of us has worked in the MOD and worn dark blue uniform. I'll stick with what I know from experience, rather than the stereotypes you desperately wish to cling to thanks.
"As for no staff requirement - history is full of staff requirements that change, get cancelled, don't make sense or are unattainable"
And yet you still cannot show any evidence of one that has come anywhere near meeting your requirement to take a 2nd world war unguided rocket and sticking it on a merchant ship in any military anywhere in the world. How curious...
"Conversely there have been a fair number of weapons which made it into significant service and never had a staff requirement issued."
Care to name some since WW2?
Of the two of us here its increasingly clear, only one of us has worked in the MOD and worn dark blue uniform. I'll stick with what I know from experience, rather than the stereotypes you desperately wish to cling to thanks.
"As for no staff requirement - history is full of staff requirements that change, get cancelled, don't make sense or are unattainable"
And yet you still cannot show any evidence of one that has come anywhere near meeting your requirement to take a 2nd world war unguided rocket and sticking it on a merchant ship in any military anywhere in the world. How curious...
"Conversely there have been a fair number of weapons which made it into significant service and never had a staff requirement issued."
Care to name some since WW2?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Care to name some since WW2? "
Well from memory (correct me if I'm wrong - I'm sure you will) AIM-9L for the Falklands
I seem to remember the AEW Sea King didn't arise from a staff target, but was an unsolicted offer.
Then theres a whole host of minor Falklands items which had to be purchased in a rush - often from regimental funds. High leg boots for one (trench foot problems). Bergens that were big enough (remember the film of the paras having to use BLUE bergens because ti was all they could get in a hurry!)
Of course I could go on to mention the numerous staff targets which have resulted in contracts which have turned into absolute disasters, but I'm sure you have them all off by rote
Please don't try to tell me the MOD has a clue what its doing when it comes to staff requirements and contracts
Well from memory (correct me if I'm wrong - I'm sure you will) AIM-9L for the Falklands
I seem to remember the AEW Sea King didn't arise from a staff target, but was an unsolicted offer.
Then theres a whole host of minor Falklands items which had to be purchased in a rush - often from regimental funds. High leg boots for one (trench foot problems). Bergens that were big enough (remember the film of the paras having to use BLUE bergens because ti was all they could get in a hurry!)
Of course I could go on to mention the numerous staff targets which have resulted in contracts which have turned into absolute disasters, but I'm sure you have them all off by rote
Please don't try to tell me the MOD has a clue what its doing when it comes to staff requirements and contracts
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big USN carriers (just as will be the case for PoW and QEC) have to carefully orchestrate launches and recoveries, so they are relatively inflexible on their own.
On U.S. carriers we trap about 160 aircraft a day at sea, but here it's just 35-40 a day," he said. "Also, on U.S. carriers we're able to launch and trap aircraft at the same time,
Buddy refuelling wouldn't deliver anywhere near enough fuel.
n Afghanistan and there are lots of similar misconceptions and overstatements of what carrier air brings there.
The time on task would be effected by the transit time (mitigated mostly through AAR), but the Harrier has the shortest endurance of the three.
Carriers are not the panacea and land based power will always be required however there is no doubt that we would have had a very valid use for our Harriers and Carriers in this conflict and who is to say it would not have expedited the whole thing.
We have the potential to have two large carriers in the future with a multi role aircraft capable of operating from land and sea. Then we have the ability to operate autonomously anywhere in the world and not be entirely reliant on other nations as we are in Libya. Then when land based air is set up the two can work in unison. Even the sorties from the UK needed overflight rights etc which were by no means guaranteed now were they.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remind me again how long it took Tornado aircraft to fly from Norfolk to Libya and how many missions were flown by each aircraft from that location.
What would happen if Italy said NO! No RAF aircraft to launch attacks on Libya!
The UK based Tornados flew a sortie each night flying into Italy on the third day when the targetting switched. They delivered more strikes than the pre-positioned TLAM sub which then had to leave to rearm, and were enforcing the NFZ after 72 hours - Typhoon did the same in 24 hours - not bad for an unresponsive act eh?
If Italy said no I guess we would have to ask another NATO nation. No NATO permissions, I guess that would be the end of the NATO operation then.
"Well from memory (correct me if I'm wrong - I'm sure you will) AIM-9L for the Falklands"
If memory serves correctly, the UK already had AIM9-L in service in 82, however our stocks were attributed to the central front, so we instead got access to US stocks. The weapon was in service.
"I seem to remember the AEW Sea King didn't arise from a staff target, but was an unsolicted offer."
IIRC the Sea King had previously been looked at, and ISTR there was an aspirational target raised at some point, although it may have been shelved to funding.
"Then theres a whole host of minor Falklands items which had to be purchased in a rush - often from regimental funds. High leg boots for one (trench foot problems). Bergens that were big enough (remember the film of the paras having to use BLUE bergens because ti was all they could get in a hurry!)"
So soldiers do what soldiers do best which is to buy kit to suit their needs? Falklands was a classic example of people adapting in an emergency to do something no one ever expected to do. Strangely enough the lessons were learnt and new kit was bought into service.
"Of course I could go on to mention the numerous staff targets which have resulted in contracts which have turned into absolute disasters, but I'm sure you have them all off by rote"
Well perhaps you'd like to name some, as so far you've managed to cite the whole evidence of a unit using blue bergans in a hurry. Not a hugely impressive track record so far.
"Please don't try to tell me the MOD has a clue what its doing when it comes to staff requirements and contracts "
I disagree - things have gone wrong, and no one doubts that. The important thnig to do is to work out WHY things seem to have gone wrong, and then one can look into a litany of confused aspirations, poorly defined requirements, changes in funding profiles, issues with new priorities etc.
However, the MOD has also done a damn good job at responding quickly - take a look at the forces in HERRICK - we've listened to troop requests, UOR kit to meet the massively changing operational environment is constantly coming into service - take a look at footage of troops today vs 2006 and its a totally different army out there. When I deployed on HERRICK I was using kit that no one had even thought of 18 months previously (and I know how fast it can go as I'd previously done the job where I had to help sign off on UOR acquisitions and found myself using kit that I'd helped approve not that long before).
Yes things go wrong, but a hell of a lot goes right as well.
I'd also echo other posters - what is your military experience (if any) as right now you come across as either a cadet, a wannabe or a very old and retired individual who doesnt know how todays forces work.
If memory serves correctly, the UK already had AIM9-L in service in 82, however our stocks were attributed to the central front, so we instead got access to US stocks. The weapon was in service.
"I seem to remember the AEW Sea King didn't arise from a staff target, but was an unsolicted offer."
IIRC the Sea King had previously been looked at, and ISTR there was an aspirational target raised at some point, although it may have been shelved to funding.
"Then theres a whole host of minor Falklands items which had to be purchased in a rush - often from regimental funds. High leg boots for one (trench foot problems). Bergens that were big enough (remember the film of the paras having to use BLUE bergens because ti was all they could get in a hurry!)"
So soldiers do what soldiers do best which is to buy kit to suit their needs? Falklands was a classic example of people adapting in an emergency to do something no one ever expected to do. Strangely enough the lessons were learnt and new kit was bought into service.
"Of course I could go on to mention the numerous staff targets which have resulted in contracts which have turned into absolute disasters, but I'm sure you have them all off by rote"
Well perhaps you'd like to name some, as so far you've managed to cite the whole evidence of a unit using blue bergans in a hurry. Not a hugely impressive track record so far.
"Please don't try to tell me the MOD has a clue what its doing when it comes to staff requirements and contracts "
I disagree - things have gone wrong, and no one doubts that. The important thnig to do is to work out WHY things seem to have gone wrong, and then one can look into a litany of confused aspirations, poorly defined requirements, changes in funding profiles, issues with new priorities etc.
However, the MOD has also done a damn good job at responding quickly - take a look at the forces in HERRICK - we've listened to troop requests, UOR kit to meet the massively changing operational environment is constantly coming into service - take a look at footage of troops today vs 2006 and its a totally different army out there. When I deployed on HERRICK I was using kit that no one had even thought of 18 months previously (and I know how fast it can go as I'd previously done the job where I had to help sign off on UOR acquisitions and found myself using kit that I'd helped approve not that long before).
Yes things go wrong, but a hell of a lot goes right as well.
I'd also echo other posters - what is your military experience (if any) as right now you come across as either a cadet, a wannabe or a very old and retired individual who doesnt know how todays forces work.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On 19 March, nineteen French Air Force aircraft entered Libyan airspace to begin reconnaissance missions, and flew over Benghazi to prevent any attacks on the rebel-controlled city.[201] Italian Air Force planes reportedly also began surveillance operations over Libya. In the evening, a French jet carried out the first Coalition airstrike, destroying a government vehicle , and followed up shortly afterward with a second airstrike that destroyed four tanks southwest of Benghazi.[202] US and British naval vessels fired at least 114 Tomahawk cruise missiles at twenty Libyan integrated air and ground defense systems.[203] Three United States B-2 Spirit stealth bombers flew non-stop from the United States to drop forty bombs on a major Libyan airfield, while other US aircraft searched for Libyan ground forces to attack.[204][205] Twenty-five coalition naval vessels, including three US submarines, began operating in the area.[206]
Libyan State TV reported that government forces had shot down a French warplane over Tripoli on 19 March, a claim denied by France.[207]
On 20 March, several Storm Shadow missiles were launched against Libyan targets by British jets.[208] Nineteen U.S. jets also conducted strikes against Libyan government forces. A loyalist convoy south of Benghazi was targeted. At least seventy vehicles were destroyed, and loyalist ground troops sustained multiple casualties.[209] Strikes also took place on the Bab al-Aziziya compound in Tripoli from late 20 March to early 21 March.
Libyan State TV reported that government forces had shot down a French warplane over Tripoli on 19 March, a claim denied by France.[207]
On 20 March, several Storm Shadow missiles were launched against Libyan targets by British jets.[208] Nineteen U.S. jets also conducted strikes against Libyan government forces. A loyalist convoy south of Benghazi was targeted. At least seventy vehicles were destroyed, and loyalist ground troops sustained multiple casualties.[209] Strikes also took place on the Bab al-Aziziya compound in Tripoli from late 20 March to early 21 March.
On 17 March, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution to impose a no-fly zone in Libyan airspace - think by that calculation, 4 hours later is not quite true....