Defence Cuts
Guest
Posts: n/a
Suit,
Interesting. The official report on the Falklands stressed repeatedly that the lack of AEW was serious limitation. This lesson was emphasised repeatedly in "The Falklands Campaign - The Lessons" sent to parliament in Dec 82. The availability of an AEW such as an E-2C (or even a Gannet) might have proved invaluable and saved the Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor and others. A single fixed wing AEW such as the E-2C has a radius of action of about 250nm and a horizon of over 200nm. A Sea King W has a vastly lower performance. Pending the development of a AEW variant of the V-22 a new VSTOL carrier would have the same limitations and vulnerabilities.
I also query the OS capabilities of the SHAR vs the Bucc in range, payload or operational capability.
Or perhaps he is quoted out of context and was only referring to AD/OAS roles?
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 05 June 2001).]
Interesting. The official report on the Falklands stressed repeatedly that the lack of AEW was serious limitation. This lesson was emphasised repeatedly in "The Falklands Campaign - The Lessons" sent to parliament in Dec 82. The availability of an AEW such as an E-2C (or even a Gannet) might have proved invaluable and saved the Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor and others. A single fixed wing AEW such as the E-2C has a radius of action of about 250nm and a horizon of over 200nm. A Sea King W has a vastly lower performance. Pending the development of a AEW variant of the V-22 a new VSTOL carrier would have the same limitations and vulnerabilities.
I also query the OS capabilities of the SHAR vs the Bucc in range, payload or operational capability.
Or perhaps he is quoted out of context and was only referring to AD/OAS roles?
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 05 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
ORAC,
Forget the capabilities of the F-4/Buc/Gannet versus SHAR, the main limitation would have been weather and Sea State. Look at where some of the SHAR's were recovering and refeulling, Assault ships etc. A Buc would have had to drop it in the drink assuming that it could have got off the deck in the first place.
No one would pretend that a SHAR has the range payload of a Buc or an F-4 but even the USN admitted that it would have had grave difficulty in operating in such wx.
I concede the point entirely on AEW, but a conventional carrier is not needed to get AEW into the air. An E-2 or Gannet would have been very handy IF it had been able to get off.
------------------
If the suit fits.........
Forget the capabilities of the F-4/Buc/Gannet versus SHAR, the main limitation would have been weather and Sea State. Look at where some of the SHAR's were recovering and refeulling, Assault ships etc. A Buc would have had to drop it in the drink assuming that it could have got off the deck in the first place.
No one would pretend that a SHAR has the range payload of a Buc or an F-4 but even the USN admitted that it would have had grave difficulty in operating in such wx.
I concede the point entirely on AEW, but a conventional carrier is not needed to get AEW into the air. An E-2 or Gannet would have been very handy IF it had been able to get off.
------------------
If the suit fits.........
Guest
Posts: n/a
Suit,
Are you claiming the weather was such a factor in the Falklands war? If only it had been so bad the carriers would not have had to retreat so far east during the days and we would not have lost so many ships to enemy bombs. The enemy restricted his only radar equipped aircraft to the mainland to defend against possible Vulcan strikes; his offensive aircraft had only day visual capability except for the Super Etendards with exocet - and few of those. If we could not fly fly off a carrier - they could not attack. The ability to slow, follow flares in the water and land in just about zero vis strikes me as handy - but basically a party trick valauble in very rare situations and certainly not in any way off-setting the capabilities that would have been provided by F4/Bucc.
I might add that also seemed to be the mood on the carriers. If I might quote from the Falklands Air War. "The weather on June 2 and 3 consisted of low cloud and poor visibility and prevented fixed-wing flying from the carriers..........bad weather continued on 4 Jun...but it was not considered prudent to dispatch any Sea Harriers due to dense fog". Conducting SHAR Ops in such weather was also extremely hazardous, on 29 May the pilot had to eject from a SHAR (ZA174) when it fell over the side whilst taxying out for take-off in a high sea state and strong winds. The two SHARS lost on the 6th of May are thought to have either flown into the sea or collidied whilst trying to operate in low cloud/fog.
(If we had still had a CVA with a sqn of FG1s with a D44+8/AWG 11 capability would they even have considered an invasion?)
The only AEW presently available for the CVS is the SK-W. I do not wish to discuss performance, but to seek to compare it it any way with that of an E-2C is a joke and I regard it as a token gesture. I do not hold any great faith either in the idea of an AEW Merlin - with or without stub wings!!
Not, you understand, that I am in favour od a CVA. I am not, but for entirely different reasons set out on previous threads.
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 05 June 2001).]
Are you claiming the weather was such a factor in the Falklands war? If only it had been so bad the carriers would not have had to retreat so far east during the days and we would not have lost so many ships to enemy bombs. The enemy restricted his only radar equipped aircraft to the mainland to defend against possible Vulcan strikes; his offensive aircraft had only day visual capability except for the Super Etendards with exocet - and few of those. If we could not fly fly off a carrier - they could not attack. The ability to slow, follow flares in the water and land in just about zero vis strikes me as handy - but basically a party trick valauble in very rare situations and certainly not in any way off-setting the capabilities that would have been provided by F4/Bucc.
I might add that also seemed to be the mood on the carriers. If I might quote from the Falklands Air War. "The weather on June 2 and 3 consisted of low cloud and poor visibility and prevented fixed-wing flying from the carriers..........bad weather continued on 4 Jun...but it was not considered prudent to dispatch any Sea Harriers due to dense fog". Conducting SHAR Ops in such weather was also extremely hazardous, on 29 May the pilot had to eject from a SHAR (ZA174) when it fell over the side whilst taxying out for take-off in a high sea state and strong winds. The two SHARS lost on the 6th of May are thought to have either flown into the sea or collidied whilst trying to operate in low cloud/fog.
(If we had still had a CVA with a sqn of FG1s with a D44+8/AWG 11 capability would they even have considered an invasion?)
The only AEW presently available for the CVS is the SK-W. I do not wish to discuss performance, but to seek to compare it it any way with that of an E-2C is a joke and I regard it as a token gesture. I do not hold any great faith either in the idea of an AEW Merlin - with or without stub wings!!
Not, you understand, that I am in favour od a CVA. I am not, but for entirely different reasons set out on previous threads.
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 05 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Suit/ORAC - looks as though my throwaway comment started a facinating debate!
You guys know a million times more than me about the technical pros and cons of fixed wing operations in the South Atlantic, but fascinated to learn of Sharkey Ward's view. I am minded however to agree with ORAC's comments about the benefits of better AEW...and who knows, with Buccaneer and Phantom perhaps Maggie may have thought of bombing the Argies' mainland bases? Just playing devil's advocate
!
And, erm, to return to the cuts thread, 'only friends when in Opposition'? 'ang on what happened to the defence budget in the 80s? But then again don't mention the 90s!
You guys know a million times more than me about the technical pros and cons of fixed wing operations in the South Atlantic, but fascinated to learn of Sharkey Ward's view. I am minded however to agree with ORAC's comments about the benefits of better AEW...and who knows, with Buccaneer and Phantom perhaps Maggie may have thought of bombing the Argies' mainland bases? Just playing devil's advocate
!And, erm, to return to the cuts thread, 'only friends when in Opposition'? 'ang on what happened to the defence budget in the 80s? But then again don't mention the 90s!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Too right TL
I remember in the 70s we had officers on supplementary benefit. When the Tories came in we junior aircrew got a 27% pay rise the first year and about 29% the next. We went from pauper 3rd class to skint but content in 13 months.
To return to the point - this is about cuts and what we should do to prevent them. That is, present a case.
Also, vote. There is no doubt in my mind that a vote for Bliar will severely damage defence. Not because he does not believe in it but because he believes in nothing and can competently manage even less.
I remember in the 70s we had officers on supplementary benefit. When the Tories came in we junior aircrew got a 27% pay rise the first year and about 29% the next. We went from pauper 3rd class to skint but content in 13 months.
To return to the point - this is about cuts and what we should do to prevent them. That is, present a case.
Also, vote. There is no doubt in my mind that a vote for Bliar will severely damage defence. Not because he does not believe in it but because he believes in nothing and can competently manage even less.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Too much stuff here to deal with and remain concise, but here goes.
To all:-
1. Subs can and do co-ordinate and control ASW ops, when MRA or shore based ASHW are available. Done from periscope depth, (Yes I know about the thrermocline!) it works well against distant or range opening contacts. It's not as good as having subs and a CVH, but it does work.
2. A "Square deck" 35,000-ton vessel seems realistic. I agree that 70,000 ton is pointless and pretty silly, and we probably can't dry dock it.
3. CVF is the corner stone of SDR. Carriers are relatively CHEAP to build compared to other warships of a comparable tonnage. They are highly cost effective and flexible compared to other vessels. Steel costs little and air is free. A 35,000-ton vessel does not cost twice that of a 15,000-ton example.
4. There is a huge operational capability that the CVF provides that Land based aircraft just cannot achieve. A commando Brigade needs CAS available in 20 mins. Not 7 hours from aircraft that need 4 tankers to get 8 FJs on station. GR-9 good. SHAR, very limited and forget AH being able to deliver all the goods in the CAS role. 25mm chain gun and 2.75 HVR are OK, and a good start, but the fact that the RAF lacks a 500lb Iron bomb is major deficiency.
5. Stop plotting the politics into the argument. French and US capability is not an issue in this argument.
6. Nimrod 2000/STORM SHADOW and FTA will be key RAF contributions to the SDR. This is where the Land Based Aircraft argument comes from. My money is on Nimrod and Stormy for FOAS. GR-4 maybe an element in this as could Buffoon, but we would need international support for operating bases and this dimension is not a reliable one.
7. FCBA will be a JSF derivative. Range payload, and other technologies make anything else a huge backward step. E-2(X) will be the (digitised) AEW platform.
All this is just an opinion, but I'm happy to go into greater detail if anyone feels it might help. I'm also happy to admit I'm wrong, if someone can present supportable argument.
BTW. There was a full MOD Ops Analysis done on CVH versus CV(F) for the Falklands. As I remember the CV(F) won hands down. Maybe someone who has seen this document can confirm that.
To all:-
1. Subs can and do co-ordinate and control ASW ops, when MRA or shore based ASHW are available. Done from periscope depth, (Yes I know about the thrermocline!) it works well against distant or range opening contacts. It's not as good as having subs and a CVH, but it does work.
2. A "Square deck" 35,000-ton vessel seems realistic. I agree that 70,000 ton is pointless and pretty silly, and we probably can't dry dock it.
3. CVF is the corner stone of SDR. Carriers are relatively CHEAP to build compared to other warships of a comparable tonnage. They are highly cost effective and flexible compared to other vessels. Steel costs little and air is free. A 35,000-ton vessel does not cost twice that of a 15,000-ton example.
4. There is a huge operational capability that the CVF provides that Land based aircraft just cannot achieve. A commando Brigade needs CAS available in 20 mins. Not 7 hours from aircraft that need 4 tankers to get 8 FJs on station. GR-9 good. SHAR, very limited and forget AH being able to deliver all the goods in the CAS role. 25mm chain gun and 2.75 HVR are OK, and a good start, but the fact that the RAF lacks a 500lb Iron bomb is major deficiency.
5. Stop plotting the politics into the argument. French and US capability is not an issue in this argument.
6. Nimrod 2000/STORM SHADOW and FTA will be key RAF contributions to the SDR. This is where the Land Based Aircraft argument comes from. My money is on Nimrod and Stormy for FOAS. GR-4 maybe an element in this as could Buffoon, but we would need international support for operating bases and this dimension is not a reliable one.
7. FCBA will be a JSF derivative. Range payload, and other technologies make anything else a huge backward step. E-2(X) will be the (digitised) AEW platform.
All this is just an opinion, but I'm happy to go into greater detail if anyone feels it might help. I'm also happy to admit I'm wrong, if someone can present supportable argument.
BTW. There was a full MOD Ops Analysis done on CVH versus CV(F) for the Falklands. As I remember the CV(F) won hands down. Maybe someone who has seen this document can confirm that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Carriers are expensive, vulnerable and inefficient. Land based air power can deploy quicker, cheaper, and usually with less support. OK, you may need basing (seldom difficult) and tankers, but you don't need air defence frigates, a protective SSN, oilers, RFAs, and all the other gubbins.
The one time it was claimed that land-based couldn't have done it was Sierra Leone, where a Sqn of Jags were held on the Azores instead of sending 'em on to Dakar, in order to let the carrier get there and appear to be the only solution. And the Falklands, where we gave Argentina a green light to invade by withdrawing Endurance.
There are times when only a carrier will do - just as there are times when Britain might need other unaffordable military capabilities. We can't have everything and paying for carriers might so distort the contents of the air power golf bag that we won't be able to do the routine ops.
The one time it was claimed that land-based couldn't have done it was Sierra Leone, where a Sqn of Jags were held on the Azores instead of sending 'em on to Dakar, in order to let the carrier get there and appear to be the only solution. And the Falklands, where we gave Argentina a green light to invade by withdrawing Endurance.
There are times when only a carrier will do - just as there are times when Britain might need other unaffordable military capabilities. We can't have everything and paying for carriers might so distort the contents of the air power golf bag that we won't be able to do the routine ops.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jackonicko,
Can't really let that one go. Held the Jags back to let the carrier look good off Sierra Leone? I can guess where that item of pure toss came from. There were reasons many to send the carrier, and they were weighed up via the normal MOD/Govt crisis management routine. Allegations that this was some sort of Navy plot to look good fail to acknowledge that we are, slowly but successfully, moving towards a JOINT approach to fighting our corner. J, get with the game.
The thread: I agree that 70,000 tonne carriers are not on, but I feel that around 45,000 would give us a very decent STOVL ship. The French have just proved that a 38,000 tonne CV is not a good bargain. The prospect of 50 odd JSFs on a very capable platform, able to project REAL offensive air power without host nation support must be attractive.
Can't really let that one go. Held the Jags back to let the carrier look good off Sierra Leone? I can guess where that item of pure toss came from. There were reasons many to send the carrier, and they were weighed up via the normal MOD/Govt crisis management routine. Allegations that this was some sort of Navy plot to look good fail to acknowledge that we are, slowly but successfully, moving towards a JOINT approach to fighting our corner. J, get with the game.
The thread: I agree that 70,000 tonne carriers are not on, but I feel that around 45,000 would give us a very decent STOVL ship. The French have just proved that a 38,000 tonne CV is not a good bargain. The prospect of 50 odd JSFs on a very capable platform, able to project REAL offensive air power without host nation support must be attractive.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK Jacko, all good points but:-
Carriers are expensive? - Who says so and where does this idea come from? How is the conventional CV(F) ,as proposed, at 35,000 tons so expensive compared to, let us say TYPE 45. Please tell me where and what the expensive items are? Big does NOT means expensive when it comes to building ships.
Vulnerable? Since when and what post 1945 operational experience supports this. How is a CV more vulnerable than other Warships?
Inefficient? How. It’s the most versatile of all platforms and CV(F) will be more flexible than all it's predecessors.
Who will supply CAS for a Commando Brigade? No CV(F)? Disband the Marines?
Carriers are expensive? - Who says so and where does this idea come from? How is the conventional CV(F) ,as proposed, at 35,000 tons so expensive compared to, let us say TYPE 45. Please tell me where and what the expensive items are? Big does NOT means expensive when it comes to building ships.
Vulnerable? Since when and what post 1945 operational experience supports this. How is a CV more vulnerable than other Warships?
Inefficient? How. It’s the most versatile of all platforms and CV(F) will be more flexible than all it's predecessors.
Who will supply CAS for a Commando Brigade? No CV(F)? Disband the Marines?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Low and Slow - Nimrod Y3K for FOAS?? Can you really see it surviving after the General Erection? Nope - I reckon it'll go, the Bungling Baron WasteofSpace will rightly take the government of whatever political persuasion to task about " 't jobs of 't lads in 't works", the A330K FSTA consortium will find it very hard to beat the Public Sector Comaparator - and those nice BA 767-300ERs will be converted by the ecky-thump aerospace folk as part of the BWoS/Boeing/SSM deal which will emphasise initial affordability plus down-the-road upgradeability....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whenever we get into this dark/light blue punch-up about the cost/effectiveness of carriers, we start trying to dredge up scenarios in which only carrier-based aircraft could do the business. In the mid-'60s we got into arguments about "vital interests" in the Indian Ocean (for Chr**t's sake!) and allegations that the "crabs" moved Australia 500 miles West to make the case for F111 stick. Let's face it, the only time since WWII when a strike carrier would have come in handy was Corporate. But Lord Shackleton (son of the explorer and Labour peer) had written a report in the '70s on the future of the Falklands in which he concluded that, if the islands were to have a future at all, an airport should be provided with a runway suitable for long-haul aircraft. If his report had been implemented the islands could have been reinforced quickly; there would have been a detachment of F4s and Buccs and some AD radars. This would have cost a fraction of a carrier task force and the Argentines would not have contemplated an invasion.
We need a political decision. Do we envisage needing to intervene somewhere beyond the radius of land-based aircraft? If so, some carriers are unavoidable together with their concomitant evisceration of any other capabilities that are far more likely to be useful. Sierra Leone? Do we need to be there? Or is it just a bit of posturing by our oh-so-ethical politicians?
------------------
presto digitate
We need a political decision. Do we envisage needing to intervene somewhere beyond the radius of land-based aircraft? If so, some carriers are unavoidable together with their concomitant evisceration of any other capabilities that are far more likely to be useful. Sierra Leone? Do we need to be there? Or is it just a bit of posturing by our oh-so-ethical politicians?
------------------
presto digitate
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yep, agree there BEagle. How about these ideas to add to Nimrod being lost?
1. BVRAAM to ‘run into difficulties’, replace with further buy of AMRAAM (or, for Euro credentials, pointless buy of MICA).
2. Carrier programme to continue (too many dockyard jobs to cancel), but reduced year on year funding. Cancellation of JSF by Bush to lead to shrugging of shoulders and ‘as there’s nothing else to do the job, we’ll cancel and build more submarines/Type 45s with TLAM’. No cancellation of JSF – note that FCBA is now FJCA (future joint combat aircraft) – all mention of carriers has gone – see previous re: purchase of more TLAM. Instant long-term saving since no FAA units required to replace SHAR; in which case, Secretary of State, do we need JSF to replace Harrier, or should we buy more Eurofighters, since this will be more cost-effective?
3. Accelerated withdrawal of F3 and/or Jag on grounds ‘they are shortly to be replaced by the Eurofighter’. F3 particularly vulnerable since Joe Public largely believes that the type isn’t any use at all (if he/she knows anything about it at all) thanks to press ‘coverage’. Jag vulnerable, since if it goes, Colt can be shut now rather than later. Move 43 and 111 to Coningsby or split them between Leeming and Coningsby - on the grounds of ‘general rationalisation of defence estate in Scotland' - and then close Leuchars.
4. FOAS to be chopped – ‘programme will be replaced by a follow-on buy of Eurofighter/JSF’. Which never, in fact, happens.
5. Wholesale cutting of training units – almost all flying training to be put in hands of civilian contractors. Only omission from this to be training on Hawk and op conversion. Objections to lack of military-type training brushed aside with ‘most of the instructors are ex-RAF’. Even when proved that this isn't quite true or the point, everyone will be more interested in Big Brother 3, or David Beckham's latest hair style or won't understand, or both.
6. All Hawk based flying trg to be conducted abroad – retirement of most of Hawk fleet (‘the aircraft is suffering from fatigue and it is more economically viable to...’ ), plus base closure. Only Hawks left in UK with 100 and the Reds.
7. Introduction of special ‘Military Ethos and Concomitant Warm Cuddly Feeling Counsellors’ (salary circa. £90,000 p.a) to provide seminars, plenaries and symposia on the issue to overcome objections that new recruits will forget that they're joining a military service and not a civilian concern.
OK, so (7) isn’t a cut, but…
Although these were done straight off the top of my head, thus lacking any coherent thought, it's so easy to do. And if there's a need to plough £Lots into the NHS and the Police (where it will actually be wasted on 'initiatives')...
[This message has been edited by Archimedes (edited 07 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Archimedes (edited 07 June 2001).]
1. BVRAAM to ‘run into difficulties’, replace with further buy of AMRAAM (or, for Euro credentials, pointless buy of MICA).
2. Carrier programme to continue (too many dockyard jobs to cancel), but reduced year on year funding. Cancellation of JSF by Bush to lead to shrugging of shoulders and ‘as there’s nothing else to do the job, we’ll cancel and build more submarines/Type 45s with TLAM’. No cancellation of JSF – note that FCBA is now FJCA (future joint combat aircraft) – all mention of carriers has gone – see previous re: purchase of more TLAM. Instant long-term saving since no FAA units required to replace SHAR; in which case, Secretary of State, do we need JSF to replace Harrier, or should we buy more Eurofighters, since this will be more cost-effective?
3. Accelerated withdrawal of F3 and/or Jag on grounds ‘they are shortly to be replaced by the Eurofighter’. F3 particularly vulnerable since Joe Public largely believes that the type isn’t any use at all (if he/she knows anything about it at all) thanks to press ‘coverage’. Jag vulnerable, since if it goes, Colt can be shut now rather than later. Move 43 and 111 to Coningsby or split them between Leeming and Coningsby - on the grounds of ‘general rationalisation of defence estate in Scotland' - and then close Leuchars.
4. FOAS to be chopped – ‘programme will be replaced by a follow-on buy of Eurofighter/JSF’. Which never, in fact, happens.
5. Wholesale cutting of training units – almost all flying training to be put in hands of civilian contractors. Only omission from this to be training on Hawk and op conversion. Objections to lack of military-type training brushed aside with ‘most of the instructors are ex-RAF’. Even when proved that this isn't quite true or the point, everyone will be more interested in Big Brother 3, or David Beckham's latest hair style or won't understand, or both.
6. All Hawk based flying trg to be conducted abroad – retirement of most of Hawk fleet (‘the aircraft is suffering from fatigue and it is more economically viable to...’ ), plus base closure. Only Hawks left in UK with 100 and the Reds.
7. Introduction of special ‘Military Ethos and Concomitant Warm Cuddly Feeling Counsellors’ (salary circa. £90,000 p.a) to provide seminars, plenaries and symposia on the issue to overcome objections that new recruits will forget that they're joining a military service and not a civilian concern.
OK, so (7) isn’t a cut, but…
Although these were done straight off the top of my head, thus lacking any coherent thought, it's so easy to do. And if there's a need to plough £Lots into the NHS and the Police (where it will actually be wasted on 'initiatives')...
[This message has been edited by Archimedes (edited 07 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Archimedes (edited 07 June 2001).]
