Why the raf can’t deliver the punch cameron wants in syria
Unfortunately for his argument, the report (which wasn't exactly accurate, IIRC), referred to the F3.
The word has been used in relation to a dispute between CTTO and squadron execs and/or QWIs over tactics after the move from low-level (CTTO were invited to do something anatomically awkward, AIUI) by a now-retired 2* who was a flight commander at the time, but the word was employed with a degree of hyperbole obvious to his audience; I don't think that this is the source Cdr Ward refers to, though.
That said, I'm never quite sure of the sources he refers to, since they appear to be hard-to-find ones which don't agree with any of the other sources out there...
Last edited by Archimedes; 29th Nov 2015 at 22:15.
"Anyone who proposes big carriers equipped with anything but cats and traps is simply delusional..."
Warming to this stuff!
"...and anyone who thinks we can't project our influence as we wish to without those big decks ditto."
In need of a proof-reader, perhaps?
Warming to this stuff!
"...and anyone who thinks we can't project our influence as we wish to without those big decks ditto."
In need of a proof-reader, perhaps?
@ Genstabler I think it should've read...
"...and anyone who thinks we can project our influence as we wish to without those big decks ditto."
Otherwise, it contradicts the previous quote. Agree ?
"...and anyone who thinks we can project our influence as we wish to without those big decks ditto."
Otherwise, it contradicts the previous quote. Agree ?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: At home
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its fortunate for the AAC that they currently operate the UK's only offensive carrier born airpower. The Apache! goes to show how out of touch both the the RAF and FAA are. Carry on with your willy waving. If were need to deploy from a carrier give us a shout!
I think Sharkey is shooting at the wrong target when he compares the (possible) responses of the RAF vs. the RN.
The elephant in the room these days is the ultra-restrictive ROE that our forces work under; far more restrictive than the Geneva convention.
The present ROE, cooked up by being led by the nose by the UN
and the general malaise of several generations having being brought up on wars-of-choice, now mean that whatever our combat power, actually applying it is getting harder and harder.
This may be a choice we are making, to go above and beyond not to kill or injure civilans, but it also means the opportunities to use the full capabilities of our weapons are now vanishingly small. And IS are taking full advantage of that especially in urban areas.
I believe that is why we are concentrating on drone strikes - purely for their ability to persist on the battlefield and wait for the near perfect combination of factors that will allow a 'legal' weapons-release.
It seems or present ROE would have make war criminals of virtually all Allied bomber pilots during the Second World War - so fast-forward to today and despite our undoubted advantages, we have self-imposed a very limited ability to actually use them.
Flug
The elephant in the room these days is the ultra-restrictive ROE that our forces work under; far more restrictive than the Geneva convention.
The present ROE, cooked up by being led by the nose by the UN
and the general malaise of several generations having being brought up on wars-of-choice, now mean that whatever our combat power, actually applying it is getting harder and harder.
This may be a choice we are making, to go above and beyond not to kill or injure civilans, but it also means the opportunities to use the full capabilities of our weapons are now vanishingly small. And IS are taking full advantage of that especially in urban areas.
I believe that is why we are concentrating on drone strikes - purely for their ability to persist on the battlefield and wait for the near perfect combination of factors that will allow a 'legal' weapons-release.
It seems or present ROE would have make war criminals of virtually all Allied bomber pilots during the Second World War - so fast-forward to today and despite our undoubted advantages, we have self-imposed a very limited ability to actually use them.
Flug
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flugplatz,
An old Post of mine [Military Aviation - Gaining a R.A.F. Pilot's Brevet in WWII]
My eye was caught by this link:
(Extract D.Tel. 9.1.15).
It is not the size of the dog in the fight that counts - but the size of fight in the dog.
Danny42C,
An old Post of mine [Military Aviation - Gaining a R.A.F. Pilot's Brevet in WWII]
My eye was caught by this link:
(Extract D.Tel. 9.1.15).
"The pair have said that one of their proudest moments to date involved helping to foil a rocket (RPG ?) attack on their base at Kandahar airfield in 2010".
"There was a high threat and the base was expecting an imminent attack after some men were spotted in a nearby ditch, setting up to fire a rocket (RPG ?) at their accommodation block".
"They took the aircraft out to 15 miles from their position in the ditch and came down to low level, approaching at more than 500mph and as close to the Operational Low Flying minimum of 100 feet as possible, passing directly over them before heading into a steep climb".
"The rocket crew immediately scarpered in a truck and the pair felt they had made a tangible difference to protect their colleagues".
“The intention is to always use the minimum force required to provide the effect needed by the guys on the ground".
Am I missing something here ? This was in 2010, and there was a war going on in Afghanistan (as we have 453 good reasons to remember). This is the enemy, and he is making ready to kill you (or some of your comrades) if he can. You are airborne in one of the RAF's most powerful weapons. You have a 27mm cannon.
You buzz him off (as I used to shift a flock of goats off my strip before landing).
So that he can come back later and try again ?
I am a simple soul. Can someone please explain this to me (after all, my war was 70 years ago, and things change).
Danny.
Afterthought 1: I have my grandfather's India General Service Medal (with a clasp for Kandahar !) Nothing changes !
Afterthought 2: Radio a day or two ago reports that the Afghan Premier has appointed a Taliban General as Governer of the Helmand Province (If true, you couldn't invent it). D.
"There was a high threat and the base was expecting an imminent attack after some men were spotted in a nearby ditch, setting up to fire a rocket (RPG ?) at their accommodation block".
"They took the aircraft out to 15 miles from their position in the ditch and came down to low level, approaching at more than 500mph and as close to the Operational Low Flying minimum of 100 feet as possible, passing directly over them before heading into a steep climb".
"The rocket crew immediately scarpered in a truck and the pair felt they had made a tangible difference to protect their colleagues".
“The intention is to always use the minimum force required to provide the effect needed by the guys on the ground".
Am I missing something here ? This was in 2010, and there was a war going on in Afghanistan (as we have 453 good reasons to remember). This is the enemy, and he is making ready to kill you (or some of your comrades) if he can. You are airborne in one of the RAF's most powerful weapons. You have a 27mm cannon.
You buzz him off (as I used to shift a flock of goats off my strip before landing).
So that he can come back later and try again ?
I am a simple soul. Can someone please explain this to me (after all, my war was 70 years ago, and things change).
Danny.
Afterthought 1: I have my grandfather's India General Service Medal (with a clasp for Kandahar !) Nothing changes !
Afterthought 2: Radio a day or two ago reports that the Afghan Premier has appointed a Taliban General as Governer of the Helmand Province (If true, you couldn't invent it). D.
Danny42C,
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....although for all,the Sharkey idiocy and bitterness, the headline statement is undeniably true. For the simple reason that no amount of airpower on its own could deliver the magic punch politicos want with such divided motives amongst the "allies". Perhaps when the next Brimstone upgrade rolls out, able to home onto fundamentalist hatred to kill jihadis in the cellar without harming the schoolchildren studying above...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did the French do it that way in Libya?
Why are the Chinese building Carriers?
I often hear how quickly the RAF can deploy to an airfield, however the logistical chain takes a long time to follow to provide a decent amount of munitions/fuel. You still need ships or vast numbers of overland trucks which are vulnerable to political whims of the countries through which they must travel.
Yes a carrier can only do 30kts, but 24hrs a day and when it turns up it is ready for high intensity war.
All the things that make war possible are included as standard, and whilst it may be vulnerable, it is far less vulnerable than a stationary airfield.
It also has the ability to pre-emptively deploy to an area without any negotiations. No political deals with other countries required. No expensive hotels. No security risks to personnel. The ability to launch and recover without the ever present risk of dickers passing that info on.
The press never find out if the sqn boss makes an @rse of himself in a downtown bar.
You just sail it quietly into the region. Everybody knows what it means, but it doesn't cause any ructions because it can always be justified as just sailing past.
Gunboat diplomacy is very effective.
You don't get to chose when you are needed. The Falklands are a perfect example of that.
Oh, dear. The nurse must have woken the silly old sod up early this morning and forgot to put enough sugar in his cocoa.
Hey, Sharkey! Tell what the FAA can do at the moment.
Hey, Sharkey! Tell what the FAA can do at the moment.
Originally Posted by Tourist
The press never find out if the sqn boss makes an @rse of himself in a downtown bar.
The press never find out that the carrier (through-deck cruiser really) had to spend a couple of weeks in port because the radome nearly fell off its mountings.
The press never find out that the carrier (through-deck cruiser really) sailed out of theatre because its aircraft could no longer get airborne with any significant weapons load due to the ambient temperature (not a problem on a long, fixed runway of course).
Now, has that moved the debate on a bit?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wageslave,
Regardless of the nobilities of having [allegedly] better-equipped carriers, this thread started because of Sharkey's article and it has provoked thought.
His written article is woefully inaccurate and out of date. His assumptions are wrong and therefore his analyses are muddled and flawed to a point where all they really do is serve to back up the last two paragraphs - which are his personal gripes. Assuming the reader is given the facts - which this article fails to logically present - you wouldn't have to be a professional military person at all to reason with his conclusions; they would be self-evident. Unfortunately the facts presented are half-truths, lies and inflammatory statements.
As I've said, the arguments are fundamentally flawed and tainted by an anti-RAF narrative which Sharkey has helped peddle for nearly 3 decades.
I'm also older than Tornado but unlike you I don't necessarily link capability with age. Your brief on the jet's capability is clearly as old as the author's drivel.
Regardless of the nobilities of having [allegedly] better-equipped carriers, this thread started because of Sharkey's article and it has provoked thought.
His written article is woefully inaccurate and out of date. His assumptions are wrong and therefore his analyses are muddled and flawed to a point where all they really do is serve to back up the last two paragraphs - which are his personal gripes. Assuming the reader is given the facts - which this article fails to logically present - you wouldn't have to be a professional military person at all to reason with his conclusions; they would be self-evident. Unfortunately the facts presented are half-truths, lies and inflammatory statements.
As I've said, the arguments are fundamentally flawed and tainted by an anti-RAF narrative which Sharkey has helped peddle for nearly 3 decades.
I'm also older than Tornado but unlike you I don't necessarily link capability with age. Your brief on the jet's capability is clearly as old as the author's drivel.
Tourist
You make some good points but Some of your obvious bias still shines through.
Expensive hotels? How many nights in a hotel would be needed to exceed the comparative cost of an aircraft carrier?
A stationary airfield is more vulnerable than an aircraft carrier? That's an interesting statement. That could be argued either way. You can't sink an airfield.
Anyway I'm just indulging in some Devils advocacy. I do find it funny how people can argue a point based on their own preconceived ideas and sound very credible. As long as you want to agree with them.
BV
Expensive hotels? How many nights in a hotel would be needed to exceed the comparative cost of an aircraft carrier?
A stationary airfield is more vulnerable than an aircraft carrier? That's an interesting statement. That could be argued either way. You can't sink an airfield.
Anyway I'm just indulging in some Devils advocacy. I do find it funny how people can argue a point based on their own preconceived ideas and sound very credible. As long as you want to agree with them.
BV
Last edited by Bob Viking; 29th Nov 2015 at 09:10.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado obsolescence?
Firstly, I believe the comments re ROE to be most pertinent, however it would be wrong to think that weapon delivery is the only string to it's bow, the ability of the weapon system to hunt, find, communicate, and with permission prosecute is singular.
Further the earlier comments on uav deployment does seem to make a lot of sense...
Further the earlier comments on uav deployment does seem to make a lot of sense...
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
I agree with some of your points - the advantages of a full CAG at sea are very alluring and I've always believed as an island nation that we (UK) missed the boat (excuse pun) by taking a capability holiday in that area. What the FAA have done to maintain expertise in the carrier environment will hopefully pay dividends as our first carrier arrives at Portsmouth in a few years time.
QEC, with up to 24 F-35B aboard, will undoubtedly give the UK a larger remit of choice. The government must ensure both ships are comprehensively protected when they sail; something that has been alluded to earlier. In the shorter-term I can only see a QEC sailing as part of a larger USN-led task group if going deliberately into harm's way. We can do the plain cruising around part ourselves, but Th entry etc is another matter.
Shame there's no cocktail deck on her for when she isn't on ops but I'd also point out to those reading that aren't familiar with maritime ops that even a carrier needs replenishment at sea so logistics touch everything.
I agree with some of your points - the advantages of a full CAG at sea are very alluring and I've always believed as an island nation that we (UK) missed the boat (excuse pun) by taking a capability holiday in that area. What the FAA have done to maintain expertise in the carrier environment will hopefully pay dividends as our first carrier arrives at Portsmouth in a few years time.
QEC, with up to 24 F-35B aboard, will undoubtedly give the UK a larger remit of choice. The government must ensure both ships are comprehensively protected when they sail; something that has been alluded to earlier. In the shorter-term I can only see a QEC sailing as part of a larger USN-led task group if going deliberately into harm's way. We can do the plain cruising around part ourselves, but Th entry etc is another matter.
Shame there's no cocktail deck on her for when she isn't on ops but I'd also point out to those reading that aren't familiar with maritime ops that even a carrier needs replenishment at sea so logistics touch everything.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes 24 will be a start, though the lunacy of having a full size carrier with only the capabilities of a small carrier is maddening.
We could have had real capability in the manner of a US carrier if the crazy "B" decision had not been made.
Yes, carriers still need to RAS, but the Stores ship is already loaded and following you around...
We could have had real capability in the manner of a US carrier if the crazy "B" decision had not been made.
Yes, carriers still need to RAS, but the Stores ship is already loaded and following you around...
"It [the carrier] also has the ability to pre-emptively deploy to an area without any negotiations. No political deals with other countries required. No expensive hotels. No security risks to personnel. The ability to launch and recover without the ever present risk of dickers passing that info on."
As a lifetime civilian I hesitate to express a view in such experienced (though mainly polarised) company. But in this totally unpredictable world we need both capabilities, IMO, and we need them now.
The (2010 SDSR?) decision to revert to a unique, STOVL mode came strangely from a coalition government and PM advocating increased military cooperation with the EU, and fully committed to NATO. Now Dave promises us jam in a mere 8 years from now (don't hold your breath), by which time the world is likely to be a different place. The F-35B relies on an outdated and flawed concept over half a century after Hawkers rejected it in favour of the inspired P1127. It may well be a lemon. Sharkey's utterances may be ill-advised, partial and OTT but - if you guys are honest - much of his frustration is shared by all of us.
As someone suggested yesterday, the costs of hitting Daesh should be paid for out of our ring-fenced budget for foreign-aid - because that's precisely what it represents.
As a lifetime civilian I hesitate to express a view in such experienced (though mainly polarised) company. But in this totally unpredictable world we need both capabilities, IMO, and we need them now.
The (2010 SDSR?) decision to revert to a unique, STOVL mode came strangely from a coalition government and PM advocating increased military cooperation with the EU, and fully committed to NATO. Now Dave promises us jam in a mere 8 years from now (don't hold your breath), by which time the world is likely to be a different place. The F-35B relies on an outdated and flawed concept over half a century after Hawkers rejected it in favour of the inspired P1127. It may well be a lemon. Sharkey's utterances may be ill-advised, partial and OTT but - if you guys are honest - much of his frustration is shared by all of us.
As someone suggested yesterday, the costs of hitting Daesh should be paid for out of our ring-fenced budget for foreign-aid - because that's precisely what it represents.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The B decision is well documented. We know that there was a glimmer of a C variant once.....but we didn't have the money to make it stick. The B will be the only variant UK will put to sea so we just have to get on with it.
The point of mentioning the RAS thing is the logistics trail isn't small for that either. It has to follow the CAG as you mentioned, therefore it must be protected which all comes at a cost. Losing the stores ship to an enemy torpedo would have serious knock on effects. A combination of land and air delivery to a land base spreads your risk somewhat. It's swings and roundabouts and we have invested a lot in DOB infra since 2005.
As I said, I think Carrier Strike will be a potent enabler for political choice and is worth the price tag.
The point of mentioning the RAS thing is the logistics trail isn't small for that either. It has to follow the CAG as you mentioned, therefore it must be protected which all comes at a cost. Losing the stores ship to an enemy torpedo would have serious knock on effects. A combination of land and air delivery to a land base spreads your risk somewhat. It's swings and roundabouts and we have invested a lot in DOB infra since 2005.
As I said, I think Carrier Strike will be a potent enabler for political choice and is worth the price tag.