Sea Jet
Jacko did you read that RUSI memorandum that I posted a link to?
Helicopters being carried by RFA ships as a SECONDARY function is by no means new. Newer RFAs can carry even more helicopters as well as achieving their supply role. It does not necessarily mean deploying extra ships. When forces are deployed, logistics are involved. For UK naval forces that means the RFA. You may find their website (www.rfa.mod.uk) interesting - particularly the "History" section.
This is a quote from it.....
All the tankers and stores ships, with the exception of the LEAF-class, have large flight-decks, hangars and facilities to embark helicopters. These can be used to carry out re-supply by transferring underslung loads, but can also operate from the RFA's as anti-submarine or troop carriers, thus making the RFA ships "force multipliers", additional operational units to the task force. In the 1998 Gulf crisis both FORT GEORGE and FORT VICTORIA carried five helicopters with all their aircrews and support staff on a permanent basis.
In the last few years, the UK has made considerable investments in amphibous warfare. Firstly our LPH, Ocean, then the LPD(R)s, then the RFA Bay Class. But what good are these ships if we cannot achieve at least a measure of air superiority?
Or are they just expensive toys to impress Uncle Sam?
Everyone seems to assume that a task group would exist to support the CVS. But a CVS with Sea Harriers could be needed to provide air defence for frigates and destroyers etc to allow them to operate in an area where there is a air threat considered to have the potential to saturate or evade ship based defences. We should be capable of such operations according to the Future Navy Operational Concept Paper 2001.
Helicopters being carried by RFA ships as a SECONDARY function is by no means new. Newer RFAs can carry even more helicopters as well as achieving their supply role. It does not necessarily mean deploying extra ships. When forces are deployed, logistics are involved. For UK naval forces that means the RFA. You may find their website (www.rfa.mod.uk) interesting - particularly the "History" section.
This is a quote from it.....
All the tankers and stores ships, with the exception of the LEAF-class, have large flight-decks, hangars and facilities to embark helicopters. These can be used to carry out re-supply by transferring underslung loads, but can also operate from the RFA's as anti-submarine or troop carriers, thus making the RFA ships "force multipliers", additional operational units to the task force. In the 1998 Gulf crisis both FORT GEORGE and FORT VICTORIA carried five helicopters with all their aircrews and support staff on a permanent basis.
In the last few years, the UK has made considerable investments in amphibous warfare. Firstly our LPH, Ocean, then the LPD(R)s, then the RFA Bay Class. But what good are these ships if we cannot achieve at least a measure of air superiority?
Or are they just expensive toys to impress Uncle Sam?
Everyone seems to assume that a task group would exist to support the CVS. But a CVS with Sea Harriers could be needed to provide air defence for frigates and destroyers etc to allow them to operate in an area where there is a air threat considered to have the potential to saturate or evade ship based defences. We should be capable of such operations according to the Future Navy Operational Concept Paper 2001.
"What good are these ships if we cannot achieve at least a measure of air superiority?" Well they can do their job while someone else takes care of AD. Why do we have to achieve that air superiority when Allies can do it for us, perhaps with land based AD assets? We can't do everything, and the politicos have decided that we won't do autonomous ops, without allied support.
AD may well be required to allow ops "where there is an air threat considered to have the potential to saturate or evade ship based defences", but that's a) rare, and b) something which will often be within range of land based AD. And who is to say that it has to be provided by the UK, and not by an ally during this six year gap. We can't do everything, and the politicos have decided that we won't do autonomous ops, without allied support.
AD may well be required to allow ops "where there is an air threat considered to have the potential to saturate or evade ship based defences", but that's a) rare, and b) something which will often be within range of land based AD. And who is to say that it has to be provided by the UK, and not by an ally during this six year gap. We can't do everything, and the politicos have decided that we won't do autonomous ops, without allied support.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh this is all nonsense! Pardon an OASC reject chipping in here but I can't hold back any longer, and besides the Rioja is flowing nicely 
Jacko your arguments just don't hold water. How can you blithely state that UK PLC has decided autonomous ops have simply been abandoned and that's that? This is such a massive change in our role in the world! The money is there, its just that our govt has made a decision not to fund any necessary mods/upgrade. Which begs the question why? As I see it it's either;
Utter incompetence: Not impossible but I find it hard to believe even a Lab govt could not see this.
Yank arm-twisting: Never underestimate the depths to which the US will sink to maintain mil and political hegemony, they do it by spending lots of dosh on their own mil, and stopping by any means foreign competition - they didn't like BVRAAM did they? M52, TSR2, German stealth, UK stealth are all examples of 'projects cancelled'. Of course we are by no means 'rivals' to the US, but the more we are impotent the more influence they have with their power of veto - real politik at its most basic. Was it all part of some AMRAAM deal? We get them if we scrap SH shortly after? Labour have a disgraceful record of doing such things, tho usually it's for money to prop up a failing economy.
As an aside; I believe Turkey was offered 30bn USD just to let US troops invade Iraq from the north, I wonder what the UK got for participating, nothing I suspect.
Or... and I wish: BaeSystems have some super stealth long-range bomber/fighter that can provide cover, if it ever gets out the hangar of course.
As always there is something we're not being told about scrapping SH, [and giving so much notice to the world] cos the stated reasons are just rubbish! We are being reduced to a glorified 'home guard' and being expected to rely on countries like France for anything more. France!! Ferrchrissakes!!
Jacko your arguments just don't hold water. How can you blithely state that UK PLC has decided autonomous ops have simply been abandoned and that's that? This is such a massive change in our role in the world! The money is there, its just that our govt has made a decision not to fund any necessary mods/upgrade. Which begs the question why? As I see it it's either;
Utter incompetence: Not impossible but I find it hard to believe even a Lab govt could not see this.
Yank arm-twisting: Never underestimate the depths to which the US will sink to maintain mil and political hegemony, they do it by spending lots of dosh on their own mil, and stopping by any means foreign competition - they didn't like BVRAAM did they? M52, TSR2, German stealth, UK stealth are all examples of 'projects cancelled'. Of course we are by no means 'rivals' to the US, but the more we are impotent the more influence they have with their power of veto - real politik at its most basic. Was it all part of some AMRAAM deal? We get them if we scrap SH shortly after? Labour have a disgraceful record of doing such things, tho usually it's for money to prop up a failing economy.
As an aside; I believe Turkey was offered 30bn USD just to let US troops invade Iraq from the north, I wonder what the UK got for participating, nothing I suspect.
Or... and I wish: BaeSystems have some super stealth long-range bomber/fighter that can provide cover, if it ever gets out the hangar of course.
As always there is something we're not being told about scrapping SH, [and giving so much notice to the world] cos the stated reasons are just rubbish! We are being reduced to a glorified 'home guard' and being expected to rely on countries like France for anything more. France!! Ferrchrissakes!!
Last edited by Smoketoomuch; 13th Oct 2003 at 05:45.
Smoke too much,
It's not how much you've been smoking that worries me, it's what you've been smoking.
"How can you blithely state that UK PLC has decided autonomous ops have simply been abandoned and that's that? This is such a massive change in our role in the world!"
I haven't blithely stated it, it's what the Defence Assumptions make clear. Those assumptions describe in detail the level of commitment which our armed forces have to be able to sustain. At one time it included the ability to sustain two simultaneous 32-aircraft FJ deployments, for example. Those are not in some way 'my assumptions' - they are the backbone of the policy mutually decided between the Ministry of Defence, the Government and the Forces chiefs. Moreover, there are many who would like to see us retreat further from 'delusions of imperial grandeur' and to be even more modest in the overseas operations which we attempt, because this is already a cause of considerable over-stretch. There has been a change in our role in the world, but it's one that has already taken place, and is not one being forced upon us by the premature retirement of the SHar.
"The money is there, its just that our govt has made a decision not to fund any necessary mods/upgrade." The money is plainly not there. The money is not sufficient to fund everything, which is why options are being run, and why cuts are being made. This isn't some fiendish plot against the RN, it's a sensible cost-saving measure.
It's not how much you've been smoking that worries me, it's what you've been smoking.
"How can you blithely state that UK PLC has decided autonomous ops have simply been abandoned and that's that? This is such a massive change in our role in the world!"
I haven't blithely stated it, it's what the Defence Assumptions make clear. Those assumptions describe in detail the level of commitment which our armed forces have to be able to sustain. At one time it included the ability to sustain two simultaneous 32-aircraft FJ deployments, for example. Those are not in some way 'my assumptions' - they are the backbone of the policy mutually decided between the Ministry of Defence, the Government and the Forces chiefs. Moreover, there are many who would like to see us retreat further from 'delusions of imperial grandeur' and to be even more modest in the overseas operations which we attempt, because this is already a cause of considerable over-stretch. There has been a change in our role in the world, but it's one that has already taken place, and is not one being forced upon us by the premature retirement of the SHar.
"The money is there, its just that our govt has made a decision not to fund any necessary mods/upgrade." The money is plainly not there. The money is not sufficient to fund everything, which is why options are being run, and why cuts are being made. This isn't some fiendish plot against the RN, it's a sensible cost-saving measure.
(a bear of little brain)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 51 10 03.70N 2 58 37.15W
Age: 75
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko. You don't even have to bother reading the Defence Assumptions. When the Minister of Defence appears on television stating that he can forsee no circumstances where we would go to war without the Americans that seems to make matters clear.
However as to whether or not binning the SHAR is a sensible cost cutting measure only time will tell. If we end up in a situation where they are essential and we haven't got them the cancellation will be pilloried. If that situation does not arise everything in the rose garden will be lovely (until the next round of cancellations).
As regards the money being there/not being there I suspect an equal, though related, problem is manning levels. Have the Navy got enough people to man the ships to carry the aircraft? Currently, on the published numbers, all the services are under their establishment figures and are having problems recruiting. It doesn't matter how many aircraft (or helicopters or ships or tanks) you've got if there is nobody to drive them or put fuel in or pump up the tyres. The problem with getting people to join is partly budget related (if a squaddie got paid 100k+ there would be a queue round the block) but as it is, other than the 'glamour' (e.g. pilot) end of the market people look at the pay and just say it isn't worth it.
(It will be interesting to see how many people say that they are currently overpaid. My bet is on none).
However as to whether or not binning the SHAR is a sensible cost cutting measure only time will tell. If we end up in a situation where they are essential and we haven't got them the cancellation will be pilloried. If that situation does not arise everything in the rose garden will be lovely (until the next round of cancellations).
As regards the money being there/not being there I suspect an equal, though related, problem is manning levels. Have the Navy got enough people to man the ships to carry the aircraft? Currently, on the published numbers, all the services are under their establishment figures and are having problems recruiting. It doesn't matter how many aircraft (or helicopters or ships or tanks) you've got if there is nobody to drive them or put fuel in or pump up the tyres. The problem with getting people to join is partly budget related (if a squaddie got paid 100k+ there would be a queue round the block) but as it is, other than the 'glamour' (e.g. pilot) end of the market people look at the pay and just say it isn't worth it.
(It will be interesting to see how many people say that they are currently overpaid. My bet is on none).
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Delicate Flower My Asre
Jacko
Back from a weekend with the kids I feel compelled to let you know just how delicate I am. Here's a little pic of me carrying the wife's shopping.
At a theme park with the kids I was dropped vertically down a 30M tower. I'm wondering if your right!
Are you able to handle people disagreeing with you?? Do all the handbag stuff on PM's please. No point in trivialising the really important stuff.
Cheers
FEBA
Back from a weekend with the kids I feel compelled to let you know just how delicate I am. Here's a little pic of me carrying the wife's shopping.
At a theme park with the kids I was dropped vertically down a 30M tower. I'm wondering if your right!
Are you able to handle people disagreeing with you?? Do all the handbag stuff on PM's please. No point in trivialising the really important stuff.
Cheers
FEBA
FEBA
1) I note with interest that you're still unable to actually answer the points raised.
2) You have posted whole responses consisting only of 'handbagging'. I at least include my gentle barbs while continuing the debate.
Madsdad
Of course it's a tough choice, and in an ideal world we'd all carry sufficient insurance. Make no mistake, in an ideal world I'd keep the SHar and the carriers. But in todays budgetary conditions, if something HAS to go, there is no better candidate for the chop.
J
1) I note with interest that you're still unable to actually answer the points raised.
2) You have posted whole responses consisting only of 'handbagging'. I at least include my gentle barbs while continuing the debate.
Madsdad
Of course it's a tough choice, and in an ideal world we'd all carry sufficient insurance. Make no mistake, in an ideal world I'd keep the SHar and the carriers. But in todays budgetary conditions, if something HAS to go, there is no better candidate for the chop.
J
Force Protection Scenario
First of all - consider this:
Over 99% of trans-oceanic trade is carried by sea and the United Kingdom is reliant upon maritime trade for its economic security. Consequently, the UK places great importance on the freedom of the sea; it furnishes a safe working environment for British seafarers, cargoes and merchant vessels, is a contributor to national well-being and, in the wider arena, an important manifestation of international peace and security. The RN has a responsibility for the safety of British merchant shipping in crisis, conflict or war, regardless of whether this shipping is operating for commercial purpose or in support of military operations. In many situations, this interest will also extend to merchant shipping belonging to allies. Maritime threats will, in the future, be broad ranging, advanced and unpredictable. Except in facilities such as ports, harbours and smaller, more fixed focal areas and choke points, these threats will be dynamic. Protection must be enhanced by the combined effect of optimised force distribution and dispersal, signature control, co-operative deception, hardening and collective protection, coupled with the inherent mobility of maritime forces. Further, it will be assisted by the increasing co-operation with the Merchant Navy and the more emphasis on a variety of Maritime Trade Operation procedures. Retaining sufficient force protection capabilities against future threats will remain a core operational requirement. From the Future Navy Operational Concept Paper 2001.
It is possible, is it not, that a scenario could arise where a certain regime (lets refer to them as nation X) decides that it wants to attack UK interests (either to gain "street cred" with its supporters or other regimes, or for other reasons) by attacking or harassing UK merchant shipping. For the moment lets make a number of assumptions.....
1. Nation X is somewhere in Africa, Asia or the Middle East, geography means that they are no established friendly air bases that could be easily used.
2. Nation X has Nations Y and Z as its neighbours, but they do not want to get involved in X's argument with the UK.
3. Nation X does not wish to interfere with US flagged vessels so as not to provoke Washington.
4. Nation X has a small Navy, and a small to medium sized air force with MiGs (various types) and helicopters. Some of these aircraft can fire air launched anti ship missiles (a capability that many nations have with Russia and China exporting missiles).
X harasses UK registered shipping to prevent it going through a certain area, and harasses vessels with missile boats etc. To defend UK vessels, HM Government decides to deploy frigates and destroyers, together with supporting RFAs, to area. X then says British warships will be attacked. An assessment of X's air strength concludes that X has the ability to project air power over the area of interest, and could overwhelm or evade ship based defences. Can we still deploy? Imagine the disaster if things go wrong....
If on the other hand, a CVS can be dispatched along with Sea Harriers, the defence of the UK forces in hugely improved and we can deploy our warships to protect our (civillan) shipping. Better still, the existence of this capability may well act as a deterrent and prevent the scenario from ever occurring. By providing this sort of force protection the Sea Harrier acts as a force multiplier and greatly enhances the capability of our naval forces.
Without the Sea Harrier (or a worthy successor) we cannot undertake this type of deployment by ourselves. Nor do we have a deterrent against the sort of act described above. This is the crux of the matter.....
Prevention is better than cure. Deterrance is better than a situation getting to the stage of combat.
The most important lesson to learn in the Falklands conflict is this: If you hope to deter an aggressor from attack, you must have capable, well equipped forces readily available. But above all, you must demonstrate that you have the political will to use them.
Admiral Of The Fleet Lord Lewin.
You may be interested in this US study of fleet air defence and the lessons of 1982:
USN Study
Over 99% of trans-oceanic trade is carried by sea and the United Kingdom is reliant upon maritime trade for its economic security. Consequently, the UK places great importance on the freedom of the sea; it furnishes a safe working environment for British seafarers, cargoes and merchant vessels, is a contributor to national well-being and, in the wider arena, an important manifestation of international peace and security. The RN has a responsibility for the safety of British merchant shipping in crisis, conflict or war, regardless of whether this shipping is operating for commercial purpose or in support of military operations. In many situations, this interest will also extend to merchant shipping belonging to allies. Maritime threats will, in the future, be broad ranging, advanced and unpredictable. Except in facilities such as ports, harbours and smaller, more fixed focal areas and choke points, these threats will be dynamic. Protection must be enhanced by the combined effect of optimised force distribution and dispersal, signature control, co-operative deception, hardening and collective protection, coupled with the inherent mobility of maritime forces. Further, it will be assisted by the increasing co-operation with the Merchant Navy and the more emphasis on a variety of Maritime Trade Operation procedures. Retaining sufficient force protection capabilities against future threats will remain a core operational requirement. From the Future Navy Operational Concept Paper 2001.
It is possible, is it not, that a scenario could arise where a certain regime (lets refer to them as nation X) decides that it wants to attack UK interests (either to gain "street cred" with its supporters or other regimes, or for other reasons) by attacking or harassing UK merchant shipping. For the moment lets make a number of assumptions.....
1. Nation X is somewhere in Africa, Asia or the Middle East, geography means that they are no established friendly air bases that could be easily used.
2. Nation X has Nations Y and Z as its neighbours, but they do not want to get involved in X's argument with the UK.
3. Nation X does not wish to interfere with US flagged vessels so as not to provoke Washington.
4. Nation X has a small Navy, and a small to medium sized air force with MiGs (various types) and helicopters. Some of these aircraft can fire air launched anti ship missiles (a capability that many nations have with Russia and China exporting missiles).
X harasses UK registered shipping to prevent it going through a certain area, and harasses vessels with missile boats etc. To defend UK vessels, HM Government decides to deploy frigates and destroyers, together with supporting RFAs, to area. X then says British warships will be attacked. An assessment of X's air strength concludes that X has the ability to project air power over the area of interest, and could overwhelm or evade ship based defences. Can we still deploy? Imagine the disaster if things go wrong....
If on the other hand, a CVS can be dispatched along with Sea Harriers, the defence of the UK forces in hugely improved and we can deploy our warships to protect our (civillan) shipping. Better still, the existence of this capability may well act as a deterrent and prevent the scenario from ever occurring. By providing this sort of force protection the Sea Harrier acts as a force multiplier and greatly enhances the capability of our naval forces.
Without the Sea Harrier (or a worthy successor) we cannot undertake this type of deployment by ourselves. Nor do we have a deterrent against the sort of act described above. This is the crux of the matter.....
Prevention is better than cure. Deterrance is better than a situation getting to the stage of combat.
The most important lesson to learn in the Falklands conflict is this: If you hope to deter an aggressor from attack, you must have capable, well equipped forces readily available. But above all, you must demonstrate that you have the political will to use them.
Admiral Of The Fleet Lord Lewin.
You may be interested in this US study of fleet air defence and the lessons of 1982:
USN Study
Webf,
Your scenario sounds compelling, until you put the names of real countries in place of X. Try and find one which actually justifies the retention of Shar.....
Your scenario sounds compelling, until you put the names of real countries in place of X. Try and find one which actually justifies the retention of Shar.....
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
I hope you mind my saying this, coblers .
I found this quote of yours:
These are good words, don't forget them.
Back to the SHar, I'm really not convinced by your various and divergent arguements to dispose of the SHar and a large amount of the Royal Navy's capability with it.
My two areas of greatest concern are:
1) Basic tenet of management dictates that if you give up (or in this case forced) something, it's gone forever. Once the SHar goes it is feasible that fixed wing maritime operations will never return. The arguement will go "well we are unable to fully fund the JSF and French carriers, so seeing as you have coped this last six years without AD we see no future requirement for it. That goes for AEW as well" So hence my previous, when the SHar goes the potential for maritime fixed wing ops to go forever is great.
2) With the degradation of our defence capabilities , will we be a creditable member of the security council ??
FEBA
I hope you mind my saying this, coblers .
I found this quote of yours:
Your failure to see mild criticism as being intended as well-meant advice from concerned friends is beyond my comprehension.
Back to the SHar, I'm really not convinced by your various and divergent arguements to dispose of the SHar and a large amount of the Royal Navy's capability with it.
My two areas of greatest concern are:
1) Basic tenet of management dictates that if you give up (or in this case forced) something, it's gone forever. Once the SHar goes it is feasible that fixed wing maritime operations will never return. The arguement will go "well we are unable to fully fund the JSF and French carriers, so seeing as you have coped this last six years without AD we see no future requirement for it. That goes for AEW as well" So hence my previous, when the SHar goes the potential for maritime fixed wing ops to go forever is great.
2) With the degradation of our defence capabilities , will we be a creditable member of the security council ??
FEBA
Last edited by FEBA; 15th Oct 2003 at 19:39.
Whether or not we have an autonomous organic manned Fleet Air Defence will make b*gg*r all difference to our credibility on the UNSC. Russia (hardly a minor power) did without it for decades, China has never had it. Italy and Spain, however, do have it.... so does India, and so does Brazil.
I would jettison the capability long term, if it was necessary to bolster more important capabilites, but that is not what is being proposed here.
Losing the SHar for the last six years of its career is just that. There is no proposal to jettison the CVS, or to take the GR9 off the boats. There is no proposal to cancel CVF or JSF, and there is no reason to propose that cancellation of SHar will make that more likely. Indeed, if you are correct, the brief absence of this capability will prove so limiting that there will be huge pressure to restore it.
In any event, it's about priorities. We cannot afford to do everything and the SHar is the 'least worst' FJ platform to withdraw.
Weighed up against arguments based on sentiment, tradition, and ill-defined "What if"s there are a host of compelling reasons why the early withdrawal of SHar represents the best option for UK plc.
It will provide the greatest savings.
It offers the least versatility and operational utility.
The capability it offers is least likely to be required in the timescale involved.
The capability it offers can be provided by land based assets or by allies.
Exercising the SHar's capability is problematic at the moment, because the carriers we have aren't big enough to embark a sufficient number to carry out their role.
The Cold War is over. The world has changed.
Like it or not our political masters and the chiefs of staff have decided that autonomous ops are not what we are structured or funded to undertake.
I would jettison the capability long term, if it was necessary to bolster more important capabilites, but that is not what is being proposed here.
Losing the SHar for the last six years of its career is just that. There is no proposal to jettison the CVS, or to take the GR9 off the boats. There is no proposal to cancel CVF or JSF, and there is no reason to propose that cancellation of SHar will make that more likely. Indeed, if you are correct, the brief absence of this capability will prove so limiting that there will be huge pressure to restore it.
In any event, it's about priorities. We cannot afford to do everything and the SHar is the 'least worst' FJ platform to withdraw.
Weighed up against arguments based on sentiment, tradition, and ill-defined "What if"s there are a host of compelling reasons why the early withdrawal of SHar represents the best option for UK plc.
It will provide the greatest savings.
It offers the least versatility and operational utility.
The capability it offers is least likely to be required in the timescale involved.
The capability it offers can be provided by land based assets or by allies.
Exercising the SHar's capability is problematic at the moment, because the carriers we have aren't big enough to embark a sufficient number to carry out their role.
The Cold War is over. The world has changed.
Like it or not our political masters and the chiefs of staff have decided that autonomous ops are not what we are structured or funded to undertake.
FEBA,
See your point - but the FAA will have two GR7 squadrons operating off the CVS - so it's not as though carrier fixed-wing ops will end.
Assuming that the govt's assumptions about CVS without SHAR work out, the FAA will continue to operate from CVS - if this were not the case, 800 and 801 NAS would be disbandingThe 3 RAF GR7 units would carry on as before, rather than losing one squadron entirely and reducing UE.
Also, since the SKW is now the ASaC.7 rather than the AEW 7, and given what it got up to during TELIC, I'd suggest that retaining that capability is not solely predicated upon having an AD aircraft.
As for credible membership of the UNSC P5, having two small carriers with a very (very, very....) limited AD capability post 2006 is neither here nor there. Having four Trident boats, on t'other hand...
See your point - but the FAA will have two GR7 squadrons operating off the CVS - so it's not as though carrier fixed-wing ops will end.
Assuming that the govt's assumptions about CVS without SHAR work out, the FAA will continue to operate from CVS - if this were not the case, 800 and 801 NAS would be disbandingThe 3 RAF GR7 units would carry on as before, rather than losing one squadron entirely and reducing UE.
Also, since the SKW is now the ASaC.7 rather than the AEW 7, and given what it got up to during TELIC, I'd suggest that retaining that capability is not solely predicated upon having an AD aircraft.
As for credible membership of the UNSC P5, having two small carriers with a very (very, very....) limited AD capability post 2006 is neither here nor there. Having four Trident boats, on t'other hand...
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archimedes
having been removed from the military acronym decode distribution list, I'd be grateful if you can elaborate for me
I'm sure I've misread this but it would appear that AEW is no longer a primary controller of AD. That's not a flippant comment, I'm just out of touch. If I'm correct then there must be a cheaper ground based alternative or is the function of AEW now a meiosis which allows it to engaged in roles that it wasn't primarily designed for? Conjecture, please discuss.
As for UNSC can we really continue to lay claim to our right to occupy a seat when we continue to degrade our military capability? Four tridents boats still means we have to go cap in hand to Dubbya
.
I have a feeling deep in my gut that this is not right, and I know, from what I have read, that the gold scrambled egg merchants of the Air and Sea, on both sides of the Atlantic, agree with me.
I'm not privy to imformation that would enable me to stop the critics on this thread, in their tracks. Mores the pity. But I will endeavor to keep the debate active with a view to encouraging questions in the House of C.
Regards
FEBA
having been removed from the military acronym decode distribution list, I'd be grateful if you can elaborate for me
Also, since the SKW is now the ASaC.7 rather than the AEW 7, and given what it got up to during TELIC, I'd suggest that retaining that capability is not solely predicated upon having an AD aircraft.
As for UNSC can we really continue to lay claim to our right to occupy a seat when we continue to degrade our military capability? Four tridents boats still means we have to go cap in hand to Dubbya
.I have a feeling deep in my gut that this is not right, and I know, from what I have read, that the gold scrambled egg merchants of the Air and Sea, on both sides of the Atlantic, agree with me.
I'm not privy to imformation that would enable me to stop the critics on this thread, in their tracks. Mores the pity. But I will endeavor to keep the debate active with a view to encouraging questions in the House of C.
Regards
FEBA
Last edited by FEBA; 15th Oct 2003 at 22:56.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Naval aviation cuts they are a coming
I keep hearing rumours from various usuably credible sources that HMS Invincible will be decommed next year.
http://pub165.ezboard.com/fwarships1...cID=2958.topic
When Mr Hoon referred to older ships, he didn't just mean Frigates and Destroyers. This would leave just Illustrious and Ark to run on with the two FAA GR9 squadrons.
Question to Nozzles (and others):
With the present AEW cover provided the Sea King, how effectively could a GR9 be used by the fleet for limited air defence? I guess as long as they have AEW we are back to FRS1 days with visual range engagements?
http://pub165.ezboard.com/fwarships1...cID=2958.topic
When Mr Hoon referred to older ships, he didn't just mean Frigates and Destroyers. This would leave just Illustrious and Ark to run on with the two FAA GR9 squadrons.
Question to Nozzles (and others):
With the present AEW cover provided the Sea King, how effectively could a GR9 be used by the fleet for limited air defence? I guess as long as they have AEW we are back to FRS1 days with visual range engagements?
Last edited by Navaleye; 15th Oct 2003 at 23:11.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a wise test pilot once said the 'GR9 is to Air Defence as the Austin Allegro is to Formula 1 motor racing'. At least the FRS1 had a radar to help formulate an intercept and steer the missile heads - and it had guns too!!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackon'
You need to qualify your claims in order to put them in proper perspective
You omit That I know of
As others have questioned, Just how good an AD aircraft is the GR9?
FEBA
You need to qualify your claims in order to put them in proper perspective
There is no proposal to jettison the CVS, or to take the GR9 off the boats. There is no proposal to cancel CVF or JSF, and there is no reason to propose that cancellation of SHar will make that more likely.
As others have questioned, Just how good an AD aircraft is the GR9?
FEBA
FEBA,
You continue to fail to answer any of the points made in support of decommissioning the SHar. I'm sure you must have some sensible arguments beyond the "Remember the Falklands" and "Losing SHar would mean we couldn't autonomously project power globally" stuff you've outlined. Or perhaps you haven't?
And with ASRAAM the GR9 would be a credible defence in certain scenarios, but it doesn't matter, because a) the AD 'gap' left by SHar is only for six years and b) the capability can be provided by allies or land based assets and c) there isn't much of a credible near term threat. Apart from that, of course......
As far as I know......
If there were any meaningful threat to UK JSF you'd hear the bleating from Boeing from here. Equally, any threat to JSF would soon be apparent from BAE, as would threats to the carrier.
We'd know. Just as we knew long before the proposal first emerged to cut an F3 squadron, just as we knew when the early withdrawal of SHar and Jag were first run as options. This stuff doesn't stay secret long....
You continue to fail to answer any of the points made in support of decommissioning the SHar. I'm sure you must have some sensible arguments beyond the "Remember the Falklands" and "Losing SHar would mean we couldn't autonomously project power globally" stuff you've outlined. Or perhaps you haven't?
And with ASRAAM the GR9 would be a credible defence in certain scenarios, but it doesn't matter, because a) the AD 'gap' left by SHar is only for six years and b) the capability can be provided by allies or land based assets and c) there isn't much of a credible near term threat. Apart from that, of course......
As far as I know......
If there were any meaningful threat to UK JSF you'd hear the bleating from Boeing from here. Equally, any threat to JSF would soon be apparent from BAE, as would threats to the carrier.
We'd know. Just as we knew long before the proposal first emerged to cut an F3 squadron, just as we knew when the early withdrawal of SHar and Jag were first run as options. This stuff doesn't stay secret long....
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack
Just out of interest how long did WW2 last for?
Please see Vectoredthrusts comments on the AD capability of the GR9. Is he incorrect?
The bleating from Boeing has stopped, Lockheed were the JSF winners.
FEBA
Send a gun boat
And with ASRAAM the GR9 would be a credible defence in certain scenarios, but it doesn't matter, because a) the AD 'gap' left by SHar is only for six years
Please see Vectoredthrusts comments on the AD capability of the GR9. Is he incorrect?
If there were any meaningful threat to UK JSF you'd hear the bleating from Boeing from here. Equally, any threat to JSF would soon be apparent from BAE, as would threats to the carrier.
FEBA
Send a gun boat