No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new carriers will need proper AD
With either version of the F-35, the carriers cannot defend themselves - and please don't try to say the T45 will cover that.
Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 17th Jun 2012 at 20:40.
I know the 1 Sqn guys were doing a bloody great job. That wasn't what I said. This isn't about the FI 82 thing. It's about the future defence of the fleet and having the right assets to do it.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney,
I think that Justanopinion was actually referring to the Sea Harriers who were down there in 82 doing AD, not 1 Sqdn who weren't. (You were, weren't you?)
Having done what they had done to the Argentinian Air Force, The Shars were providing AD from Stanley and the two carriers day in day out until well into September 82. 1 Sqdn helped out. Truth be told, there was little or no credible air threat immediately after June 82, more on political grounds rather then military.
For what it's worth, the defence of any future carrier task group will be layered, with T45 as part of the layering. The AD part provided by F-35B would be complementary, not solo. The fact that the carrier can move around also helps reduce threats. Not something an airfield can do.
Best regards as ever
Engines
I think that Justanopinion was actually referring to the Sea Harriers who were down there in 82 doing AD, not 1 Sqdn who weren't. (You were, weren't you?)
Having done what they had done to the Argentinian Air Force, The Shars were providing AD from Stanley and the two carriers day in day out until well into September 82. 1 Sqdn helped out. Truth be told, there was little or no credible air threat immediately after June 82, more on political grounds rather then military.
For what it's worth, the defence of any future carrier task group will be layered, with T45 as part of the layering. The AD part provided by F-35B would be complementary, not solo. The fact that the carrier can move around also helps reduce threats. Not something an airfield can do.
Best regards as ever
Engines
Engines,
Right to the point as ever. The Falklands issue is a bit of an aside to this one. I was only saying that we took over from 1 Sqn at Stanley. Again, I would never belittle the SHars.
I go back to my main point, which is, we will have a carrier again. It needs the full group that goes with it. It needs the best AD (air superiority, perhaps) and then projection and and a proper strike/attack capability. But the AD comes first. As I said before, no use having a carrier if you leave it vulnerable and it gets hit.
Courtney
Right to the point as ever. The Falklands issue is a bit of an aside to this one. I was only saying that we took over from 1 Sqn at Stanley. Again, I would never belittle the SHars.
I go back to my main point, which is, we will have a carrier again. It needs the full group that goes with it. It needs the best AD (air superiority, perhaps) and then projection and and a proper strike/attack capability. But the AD comes first. As I said before, no use having a carrier if you leave it vulnerable and it gets hit.
Courtney
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 17th Jun 2012 at 21:25.
Sorry, I think the Harrier pilots, prior to the arrival of the mighty Phantom, may have felt they had been doing some rather sterling AD.
As Courtney says, F35B may do the job, or more likely it will be a compromise like the SHar was...
LJ
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LJ
The problem was that they didn't do sterling AD - way too many Argies got through with the loss of SHEFFIELD ,COVENTRY, SIR GALAHAD, ARDENT, ANTELOPE and ATLANTIC CONVEYOR (plus countless lives wasted or ruined)
Glojo
Ref: AEW
I couldn't agree more - as did BWord in post #1096 that started this debate
However, you can't kill them with electrons so you need a decent AD fighter to service the AEW detections.
LJ
Ref: AEW
I couldn't agree more - as did BWord in post #1096 that started this debate
However, you can't kill them with electrons so you need a decent AD fighter to service the AEW detections.
LJ
Engines (#1124): surely the entire history of air warfare has shown that carriers, despite their mobility, are quite vulnerable to air attack (esp Midway but also Coral Sea, Leyte Gulf), not to mention submarines - and that airfields, despite their immobility, are rather difficult to permanently disable (Battle of Britain, Stanley 1982, Iraq 1991)... just saying.
Last edited by Easy Street; 18th Jun 2012 at 00:24.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem was that they didn't do sterling AD - way too many Argies got through
Overall, given the circumstances the Harriers did sterling AD given the constraints of the poor decisions others made for them.
But thats not the issue.
You now have the scenario of a pair of large targets, built to commercial Lloyds safety standards - not military - with no armour, no native air defence, flying a mix of bomb trucks, geriatric AEW Sea Kings and a substandard antisubmarine platform (if they bother to embark ASW Merlin). Not enough T45 to screen the carrier, no spare ASW frigates and if the decision is to "go littoral" i.e. into the Iranian Gulf - no mine protection.
Without a balanced surface support group these carriers are dead ducks.
Without a balanced air defence group they are nothing more than floating coffins
What is the defence against mines? submarines? surface swarm? You can't claim "but the ship is mobile"...thats b******. If the ship has to be able to launch and recover its aircraft, it has to be within range of shorebased sensors and aircraft. ergo it is very very vulnerable, unless it was capable of self-defence against aerial attack. Which it isn't.
And PLEASE no b******S about "layered defence". What layers? Lets hope someone sees the launch and calls it in / oh that failed so the satellite will get it/ oh the T45 can see over the horizon.....oh it can't ../ oh F*** ...OK the fighters will get it / fighters what fighters..we drop bombs so f off...
Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 18th Jun 2012 at 12:16.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting view.
I would argue that in 1982 one power considered Stanley so vulnerable that it didn't base any high value assets there. They also, despite having a significant anti-shipping capability failed to so much as scratch the British carriers. So one could argue that Stanley was soft killed fairly easily and the carriers were unscathed. Others would argue that the carriers were partially soft killed as they were pushed east.
As for Iraq in 1991 perhaps we could have a quick look at the Iraqi airfields significantly damaged by air attack (a reasonable amount), the ability of Scud to take on fixed targets including airfields to the south (some/ a little) and the USN flat tops sunk by the Iraqis (nil).
As for Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe were doing a pretty good job of counter air, including airfield attack, until the (fairly well publicised) switch to the bombing of cities.
I suppose there are lies, damn lies, statistics and opinions on aircraft carriers!
I would argue that in 1982 one power considered Stanley so vulnerable that it didn't base any high value assets there. They also, despite having a significant anti-shipping capability failed to so much as scratch the British carriers. So one could argue that Stanley was soft killed fairly easily and the carriers were unscathed. Others would argue that the carriers were partially soft killed as they were pushed east.
As for Iraq in 1991 perhaps we could have a quick look at the Iraqi airfields significantly damaged by air attack (a reasonable amount), the ability of Scud to take on fixed targets including airfields to the south (some/ a little) and the USN flat tops sunk by the Iraqis (nil).
As for Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe were doing a pretty good job of counter air, including airfield attack, until the (fairly well publicised) switch to the bombing of cities.
I suppose there are lies, damn lies, statistics and opinions on aircraft carriers!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are in a polarised debate, so here's a question for you.
You are COMAO leader at CQWI 12-01, out of Lossie for argument's sake. You get a mission to attack Machrihanish with the RAF orbat at your disposal (whatever our FE@R is these days). There will be some GBAD and some DCA but the team should be able to crack it, don't you think? Usual brief - get the Typhoons airborne, all form the conga behind them and wait for the comforting shouts that the Alarms are airborne.
Your mate, gets day 2. Sink the Stennis. It's somewhere within 300nm. We think. It only has one picket ship - do your worst. There will be some DCA and a Standard 2 threat. Nowhere to hide and no Sea Eagle. Best of luck finding it without MR2 - and you need to be done by tea time because that's when they're launching their alpha strike at you.
Who has the better day? Can the entire RAF actually sink a carrier? Can it dismantle an airfield?
My answers: You. No. Yes.
You are COMAO leader at CQWI 12-01, out of Lossie for argument's sake. You get a mission to attack Machrihanish with the RAF orbat at your disposal (whatever our FE@R is these days). There will be some GBAD and some DCA but the team should be able to crack it, don't you think? Usual brief - get the Typhoons airborne, all form the conga behind them and wait for the comforting shouts that the Alarms are airborne.
Your mate, gets day 2. Sink the Stennis. It's somewhere within 300nm. We think. It only has one picket ship - do your worst. There will be some DCA and a Standard 2 threat. Nowhere to hide and no Sea Eagle. Best of luck finding it without MR2 - and you need to be done by tea time because that's when they're launching their alpha strike at you.
Who has the better day? Can the entire RAF actually sink a carrier? Can it dismantle an airfield?
My answers: You. No. Yes.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown the F-35B and I've chased it an awful lot in a legacy F-18. The F-35B easily out-climbs the Hornet in dry power and it out-accelerates it in burner through the transonic region. Whenever I did BFM in a Hornet the amount of time I spent between 7.0 and 7.5g could be measured in a handful of seconds (if at all).
So to me it is nonsensical to say that F-35B lacks performance and capability you need and then hanker after the Hornet. Happy to be told why I'm wrong by the Top Trumps brigade though?
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
So to me it is nonsensical to say that F-35B lacks performance and capability you need and then hanker after the Hornet. Happy to be told why I'm wrong by the Top Trumps brigade though?
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LJ
Ref: AEW
I couldn't agree more - as did BWord in post #1096 that started this debate
However, you can't kill them with electrons so you need a decent AD fighter to service the AEW detections.
I couldn't agree more - as did BWord in post #1096 that started this debate
However, you can't kill them with electrons so you need a decent AD fighter to service the AEW detections.
Choosing the aircraft has to be done alongside of choosing the type of base it operates from. Should we learn from previous conflicts and if so what lessons can be learnt from the Falklands where Harriers sometimes only had a 10 minute ability to remain over target before having to return back to their carriers, no tanking ability, back home to refuel. AEW, AEW and AEW.... The importance of that asset cannot be emphasised enough and the days of surface skimming missiles coming in from a maximum of 50 miles are over. Is the helicopter AEW capability good enough to detect long range incoming surface missiles and would we then need several aircraft to give adequate cover? Would choosing the -B prevent the Royal Navy from having the AEW cover it would need for any future conflict?
What will the aircraft carrier be used for?
If it is an aircraft transporter then load it to the gills with the F-35B and enjoy the ride.
If it is to be used as an aircraft carrier to project independent, self supporting power projection then we need a very large wallet or in RAF talk... handbag
If we want to play the big boy's game and have a completely self supporting battle group then it has to be done properly. At the moment the only AEW aircraft we have is the Sea King helicopter and is that good enough? Once we put the carrier into harm's way then it MUST have the best AEW available.
The type 45 destroyer is a state of the art air defence weapon but at what range can it detect incoming sea skimming missiles?
It will need to work in conjunction with a suitable AEW asset that is working away from the battle group, but still under the protective umbrella of it.This new carrier will probably be the most expensive asset in the Royal Navy and it has to be protected; I fear this issue has not received the attention it deserves or if it has then will ever be deployed to far away places where it cannot be defended by land based aircraft?
Wittering humour
Hopefully we have first class anti-submarine assets apart from the MR4A that can defend our carrier battle groups
Or is this an 'Astute' point 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glojo, I couldn't agree more!
The story now is that we're dropping at least £10 billion on the carriers and their on board assets, with water pistol AEW capability to defend them. The Sea king was great for the small deck carriers, but we are getting 70,000 tonne monsters with as many as 3 squadrons of very, very expensive jets deployed on them; and for the sake of saving £700 million this side of 2015, we're willing to put all those very expensive assets at risk. T
This of course, coming on top of the fact that Dave-B is the most expensive F35 to buy and operate, while simultaneously being the least capable, with the most limited scope for development and most likely to receive the chop in and defence sequestor.
Really?? The decision making process that went into the reversal was seen as logical, was it? Christ almighty.
The story now is that we're dropping at least £10 billion on the carriers and their on board assets, with water pistol AEW capability to defend them. The Sea king was great for the small deck carriers, but we are getting 70,000 tonne monsters with as many as 3 squadrons of very, very expensive jets deployed on them; and for the sake of saving £700 million this side of 2015, we're willing to put all those very expensive assets at risk. T
This of course, coming on top of the fact that Dave-B is the most expensive F35 to buy and operate, while simultaneously being the least capable, with the most limited scope for development and most likely to receive the chop in and defence sequestor.
Really?? The decision making process that went into the reversal was seen as logical, was it? Christ almighty.
That gives some perspective beyond the raw figures.
I'm glad to learn that the 'B' can hold its own at least against a Hornet. (Clean ?)
Even though the Hornet might not be considered the gold standard of aerial combat that really gives some hope that even the 'B' won't befairing too bad in that area.
To get some more perspective: Did you also have a chance of directly comparing it to a relatively clean F-16?
Last edited by henra; 18th Jun 2012 at 11:13.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People seem to be missing the JSF's new primary role for the RAF i.e. deep strike; I have to say, based on raw figures, it's the worst possible option available to us.
IMHO we've chosen not to finance a proper carrier capability, and seeing as a carrier's primary role is airpower projection, I personally see selling both ships (1 to the French and 1 to Brazil/India/Just taking the embarrassing financial hit of not completing the second) and buying an all A force for the RAF as the most effective way of getting as much airpower projection capability as possible...but that's just me. Plus it would free up resources for many urgently needed capabilities and upgrades.
IMHO we've chosen not to finance a proper carrier capability, and seeing as a carrier's primary role is airpower projection, I personally see selling both ships (1 to the French and 1 to Brazil/India/Just taking the embarrassing financial hit of not completing the second) and buying an all A force for the RAF as the most effective way of getting as much airpower projection capability as possible...but that's just me. Plus it would free up resources for many urgently needed capabilities and upgrades.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AEW?
Good point about AEW folks.
I take it that there is no way (with UK assets alone) we could have permanent E3 topcover supported by ASAC SK (if required) should a/the carrier(s) be deployed on Ops?
I take it that there is no way (with UK assets alone) we could have permanent E3 topcover supported by ASAC SK (if required) should a/the carrier(s) be deployed on Ops?