Sea Jet
And the band played on...
This story is scare mongering, surely? If not f***!!
I did notice a similar item this morning on the Conservative party website......
Black day for the Royal Navy Posting this does not imply that I am a member or supporter of the Conservative party.
Isn't Ark Royal due to go into refit, and Illustrious finnish her refit soon?
Is it not true that speculation just makes it harder to determine exactly what is happening? The tried and tested tactic of leaking over negative rumours to the press so that when the truth comes out it doesn't seem so bad.
It would appear that nobody has replied to the posting I made yesterday - I thought it was quite a good one. Oh well.
This story is scare mongering, surely? If not f***!!
I did notice a similar item this morning on the Conservative party website......
Black day for the Royal Navy Posting this does not imply that I am a member or supporter of the Conservative party.
Isn't Ark Royal due to go into refit, and Illustrious finnish her refit soon?
Is it not true that speculation just makes it harder to determine exactly what is happening? The tried and tested tactic of leaking over negative rumours to the press so that when the truth comes out it doesn't seem so bad.
It would appear that nobody has replied to the posting I made yesterday - I thought it was quite a good one. Oh well.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 1st Apr 2004 at 20:13.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Archimedes, I guess we'll have to wait and see. There were planned CVS decom dates published in hardsard recently. The only change was that AR's disposal date was brought forward 2 years. Does the scrapping of the Shar fleet make them more saleable as LPH to other navies?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Navy News reports that 2 ex 800 sdqn FA2s are to be scrapped (presumably for spares) and ther other 7 going to the other 2 squadrons.
http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2...004040201.asp#
http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2...004040201.asp#
Inter Service Politics
Going back to an earlier point, certain Army units are put of 3 Cammando Brigade. As such they come under the command of CINCFLEET. Nobody seems to object.
However, when the Strategic Defence Review was announced all naval aircraft were put under the command of RAF Strike Command, along with their Harriers, Nimrods and SAR helocopters. Nowadays the Navy has regained direct control of most of its helicopters (with the exception of the green Jungly ones which answer to JHC). However the Sea Harriers remained in Joint Force Harrier. Why did it seem like a good idea that shipborne units should come under RAF Strike Command?
This may have caused problems as the Sea Harrier force was no longer considered and treated as FLEET units, but not RAF ones either, so low down on the Strike Command priorities.
Possible? Not possible?
Incidentally, isn't/wasn't Fighter Control one of the tasks that the Type 42 Destroyer was designed for?
However, when the Strategic Defence Review was announced all naval aircraft were put under the command of RAF Strike Command, along with their Harriers, Nimrods and SAR helocopters. Nowadays the Navy has regained direct control of most of its helicopters (with the exception of the green Jungly ones which answer to JHC). However the Sea Harriers remained in Joint Force Harrier. Why did it seem like a good idea that shipborne units should come under RAF Strike Command?
This may have caused problems as the Sea Harrier force was no longer considered and treated as FLEET units, but not RAF ones either, so low down on the Strike Command priorities.
Possible? Not possible?
Incidentally, isn't/wasn't Fighter Control one of the tasks that the Type 42 Destroyer was designed for?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF - your support for the FA2, FAA and the RN is commendable and in the best interests of the service and the country. BUT THAT BATTLE HAS BEEN LOST. Save your time and effort and go down the pub of an evening or something.
The Government, aided and abeited by the RAF have made up their mind and the decision is final. No more SHAR and no more CVF. Over the next couple of years the RAF will withdraw the GR7/9 from sea going ops. They will sight the recent war in Iraq and operations against terrorists in Afghanistan as the role for the aircraft. In this uncertain and changing world the RAF "has not got the time or the money to be messing about in the North Sea playing at being sailors". I heard words to this effect spoken by Senior RAF Officers as long as four years ago at the inception of JFH during my time in the RN.
If the RN is asked in the future to go into action against any enemy with any kind of air force only two outcomes are possible:
1) The RN does not go and the Government of the time should resign, even if it is a Conservative one, as should they get in at the next election (unlikely) they still have time to reverse this crass decision (but wont - because the money is needed elsewhere for schools and hospitals).
2) The RN goes and hundreds of British servismen and women are killed as the RN is blown out of the water.
Anyone who thinks the US will come to our aid is a fool. US serviceman coming home in bodybags from a US led war is one thing, but from a war supporting another country is different - even if it is the UK. It will not happen.
JSF and CVF will not happen. JSF is already behind time and overweight. From an engineering point of view it is too complex an aircraft and will suffer from appaling serviceability rates. It will be scrapped. And so half way through build the CVF's will have to be scrapped as they are not conventional carriers. The talk of "future proofing" will turn out to be just that, "talk". In reality they are just bigger Invincible class ships and not capable of conventional carrier ops.
Although I am reasonably sure that the Senior Officers in the RN did their best to save the FA2, I believe the First Sea Lord should have resigned over this. The decision was ultimately out of his hands, but that it was he should have done. But alas once someone gets three or more stripes on their shoulder they are concerned with only one thing and that is the furthering of their career.
The RN is finished as a global force. It cannot operate globally without air cover and that has gone now. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. The RN has served our country with great distinction over the last few hundred years. It has proven time and time again to be the finest fighting force in the world. But it lost its last battle, a battle it could never win, a battle against politicians.
The Government, aided and abeited by the RAF have made up their mind and the decision is final. No more SHAR and no more CVF. Over the next couple of years the RAF will withdraw the GR7/9 from sea going ops. They will sight the recent war in Iraq and operations against terrorists in Afghanistan as the role for the aircraft. In this uncertain and changing world the RAF "has not got the time or the money to be messing about in the North Sea playing at being sailors". I heard words to this effect spoken by Senior RAF Officers as long as four years ago at the inception of JFH during my time in the RN.
If the RN is asked in the future to go into action against any enemy with any kind of air force only two outcomes are possible:
1) The RN does not go and the Government of the time should resign, even if it is a Conservative one, as should they get in at the next election (unlikely) they still have time to reverse this crass decision (but wont - because the money is needed elsewhere for schools and hospitals).
2) The RN goes and hundreds of British servismen and women are killed as the RN is blown out of the water.
Anyone who thinks the US will come to our aid is a fool. US serviceman coming home in bodybags from a US led war is one thing, but from a war supporting another country is different - even if it is the UK. It will not happen.
JSF and CVF will not happen. JSF is already behind time and overweight. From an engineering point of view it is too complex an aircraft and will suffer from appaling serviceability rates. It will be scrapped. And so half way through build the CVF's will have to be scrapped as they are not conventional carriers. The talk of "future proofing" will turn out to be just that, "talk". In reality they are just bigger Invincible class ships and not capable of conventional carrier ops.
Although I am reasonably sure that the Senior Officers in the RN did their best to save the FA2, I believe the First Sea Lord should have resigned over this. The decision was ultimately out of his hands, but that it was he should have done. But alas once someone gets three or more stripes on their shoulder they are concerned with only one thing and that is the furthering of their career.
The RN is finished as a global force. It cannot operate globally without air cover and that has gone now. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. The RN has served our country with great distinction over the last few hundred years. It has proven time and time again to be the finest fighting force in the world. But it lost its last battle, a battle it could never win, a battle against politicians.
Can a RN equipped with a dozen SSN with TLAM and the SSBNs can be written off as a global force?
The Soviet Navy (while far bigger than the RN, of course) managed to be rather important without having any worthwhile fixed-wing air capability.
The Soviet Navy (while far bigger than the RN, of course) managed to be rather important without having any worthwhile fixed-wing air capability.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The number of SSN's is less then 12 now. At least two S class boats have been decommisioned.
I fail to see how an SSBN could be used to protect the fleet from air attack.
I fail to see how an SSBN could be used to protect the fleet from air attack.
Suspicion breeds confidence
timzta
timzta, I think you must have taken an overdose of "downers". I agree that the battle for the FA2 has been largely lost. But it only takes one unforseen crisis to reverse such decisions. Your post suggest that the RN is turning into a coastal defence force. I do not see how you arrive at that decision. There is too much at stake for the JSF and CVF to be canned. With CVF, and the F35 and T45 the RN will be able to mount a CVBG that is second only to the USN.
The number of SSN's is less then 12 now. At least two S class boats have been decommisioned.
I fail to see how an SSBN could be used to protect the fleet from air attack.
I fail to see how an SSBN could be used to protect the fleet from air attack.
Dealing with them in reverse order.
Thanks for that. I, of course, had always thought that an SSBN was useful for dealing with air attack. How foolish of me.
You were arguing that the RN was nothing more than a coastal defence force - how many coastal defence forces have Trident, exactly, Hmmm? Quite.
Yes, SSN numbers have been cut back to dangerous/silly levels by our last couple of govts. (there are 11). However, I refer you to the 'how mnay coastal defence forces....' question, substituting TLAM for Trident.
The RN is, IMHO, too small (ditto the RAF and Army for that matter), but as Navaleye says, you're too pessimistic. You may be proved spot on after Buff has his latest fun with the forces exercise, but to try to claim that the RN has been reduced to complete impotency when it is one of the few navies to have a global nuclear strike capability and the ability to lob TLAM in the direction of the opposition is pushing it just a bit.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“BUT THAT BATTLE HAS BEEN LOST.”
“The Government, aided and abetted by the RAF have made up their mind and the decision is final. No more SHAR, and no more CVF. Over the next couple of years the RAF will withdraw the GR7/9 from sea going ops. They will sight the recent war in Iraq and operations against terrorists in Afghanistan as the role for the aircraft. In this uncertain and changing world the RAF "has not got the time or the money to be messing about in the North Sea playing at being sailors". I heard words to this effect spoken by Senior RAF Officers as long as four years ago at the inception of JFH during my time in the RN.”
“4.10 Our emphasis in the maritime environment is increasingly on delivering effect from the sea onto the land, which includes a land attack capability, supporting forces ashore and on securing access to the theatre of operations and protecting the crucial sea lines of communications from the home base. The new amphibious ships coming into service over the next two years, together with the existing small aircraft carriers and Tomahawk land attack missiles, offer a versatile capability for projecting land and air power ashore. We are developing the increased use of secure joint sea-based logistics, particularly for operations where Host Nation Support is limited or where, for force protection or political reasons, we would wish to reduce our ashore footprint. The introduction of the two new aircraft carriers with the Joint Combat Aircraft early in the next decade will offer a step increase in our ability to project air power from the sea. The Type 45 destroyer will enhance protection of joint and maritime forces and assist force projection. Some of our older vessels contribute less well to the pattern of operations that we envisage, and reductions in their numbers will be necessary.”
“JSF and CVF will not happen. JSF is already behind time and overweight. From an engineering point of view it is too complex an aircraft and will suffer from appalling serviceability rates. It will be scrapped. And so halfway through build the CVF's will have to be scrapped as they are not conventional carriers. The talk of "future proofing" will turn out to be just that, "talk". In reality they are just bigger Invincible class ships and not capable of conventional carrier ops.”
As for the RAF Colluding with HMG to get rid of Carriers. I’m not saying they didn’t try pre SDR, but they must have known they would fail. The Falklands would have still fresh in most MP’s minds and neither Party would have wanted to take the decision to get rid of Carriers. This would have left the RAF with options – (1) Lose their Maritime and AC assets to the other two services as was suggested as part of the SDR study. Or (2) Show willing to integrate themselves with the other air assets. As it’s turned out they inherited the budget for Sea Harrier – which is (Surprise-Surprise) now being retired and also FONA became FOMA with the responsibility of the then RAF Strike Command Group 3. And guess what – They Reorganised the post out!
But I put it to you that this is all a desperate attempt by the Brass – Hats to keep the RAF independent. One thing that has not been mentioned is the ‘People Factor’ Young men and women join the Armed Services as to the lifestyle that appeals to them. The RAF harrier squadrons have been going to sea now for almost 10 years and (from what I hear) there is still a problem with retention in these squadrons.
In conclusion I think in a way the RAF will try and have another crack at getting the carriers cancelled. They can cite money all they want but I don’t think a government from either side of the house would even consider this without a fundimental change in foreign policy, and striking some sort of deal with Argentina over the Falklands. I don’t think that a Labour government would wish to be seen to be anti-carrier after 1966 and the problems it caused in 1982. And well… the Tories had to deal with the Falklands so they would look stupid too.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
JSF STOVL has a better than 50% chance of not happening.
The USAF have recently announced that they will be converting a portion, possibly up to 50%, of their F-35 CTOL order to STOVL. This is a outcome of CAS operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and has also lead to the intention to re-engine and upgrade the two remaining A-10 wings.
The USAF have recently announced that they will be converting a portion, possibly up to 50%, of their F-35 CTOL order to STOVL. This is a outcome of CAS operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and has also lead to the intention to re-engine and upgrade the two remaining A-10 wings.
Guest
Posts: n/a
All very interesting....
I'm certain that SHar is dead.... and long live the GR9/9A. WEBF, I appreciate your passion, but as has been pointed out several times before by Jackonico, ORAC and others, the real question facing the services and their Political Lords and Masters (PLAMs?), is how to apportion the pie.
Given that the current lot are talking about roughly 42% of national income being spent by the public sector and the opposition talking about a goal of c. 40% (currently a £20bn+ discrepency) the pie is roughly fixed -- and similarish for both sides of the aisle.
So, how would you divvy up the dosh? More for the services? Good, what are you going to cut? Target waste and civil service bureaucracy? Good, the Gershon review is going to save £20bn and sack 80k civil servants -- and the Chancellor has spent it all in this year's budget on health and education (oh, and committing defence to a real terms increase in the summer). Tackle asylmn and immigration? Fine, but remember that immigration is good for Britain -- in fiscal terms! And so on..... there are lots of choices, none of them easy.
Or you could raise taxes.... always a sure fire vote winner!
So, let's assume that the forces are going to have a roughly fixed share of the pie, meaning that they'll need to make hard(er) choices.
That should mean looking at overall capability rather than "this is my service's toy so go and chop something else!" It may mean consolidating bases. It must be better procurement. It should mean a long hard look at anything not contributing to the front line task - lots o' brass hats, massive admin overhead, DLO......
; with a recognition that the *EVERY* pound that goes into non-front line bits has to come from the front line -- and therefore has to be an acceptable trade off -- and (hopefully) by accountable people. 
Happy Easter, everyone. (Especially you lot in the sandpit -- be safe, people!)
Forgot
I'm certain that SHar is dead.... and long live the GR9/9A. WEBF, I appreciate your passion, but as has been pointed out several times before by Jackonico, ORAC and others, the real question facing the services and their Political Lords and Masters (PLAMs?), is how to apportion the pie.
Given that the current lot are talking about roughly 42% of national income being spent by the public sector and the opposition talking about a goal of c. 40% (currently a £20bn+ discrepency) the pie is roughly fixed -- and similarish for both sides of the aisle.
So, how would you divvy up the dosh? More for the services? Good, what are you going to cut? Target waste and civil service bureaucracy? Good, the Gershon review is going to save £20bn and sack 80k civil servants -- and the Chancellor has spent it all in this year's budget on health and education (oh, and committing defence to a real terms increase in the summer). Tackle asylmn and immigration? Fine, but remember that immigration is good for Britain -- in fiscal terms! And so on..... there are lots of choices, none of them easy.
Or you could raise taxes.... always a sure fire vote winner!
So, let's assume that the forces are going to have a roughly fixed share of the pie, meaning that they'll need to make hard(er) choices.
That should mean looking at overall capability rather than "this is my service's toy so go and chop something else!" It may mean consolidating bases. It must be better procurement. It should mean a long hard look at anything not contributing to the front line task - lots o' brass hats, massive admin overhead, DLO......
; with a recognition that the *EVERY* pound that goes into non-front line bits has to come from the front line -- and therefore has to be an acceptable trade off -- and (hopefully) by accountable people. Happy Easter, everyone. (Especially you lot in the sandpit -- be safe, people!)
Forgot
I think the following article sums it up quite well....
Mad World
Some of the other issues that have been raised here have been discussed previously. So I think it is apprpriate to put in a few more links to other relevent threads....
SHAR Wars
The Shar decision - questioning their lordships
F35 decision made
CVF delayed already
Mad World
Some of the other issues that have been raised here have been discussed previously. So I think it is apprpriate to put in a few more links to other relevent threads....
SHAR Wars
The Shar decision - questioning their lordships
F35 decision made
CVF delayed already
Suspicion breeds confidence
There was an excellent article and photo shoot on the disbandment of 800NAS in Air International. Talking about recent events, they mentioned the ACM that took place off the North East. Apparently 800 clocked up a 5-1 kill ratio over the F3 in the beyond visual range engagements. Not bad for something that 's not worth keeping.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On and on drones the RN's PR machine.... The SHar guys were hardly likely to tell the reporter that they came second to the F3s. Frankly I'd be amazed if an F3 pilot ever fessed up in a debrief to getting shot. Any time you mention a shot on them, they have a cunning knack of arbitrarily making up shots they took, which if you challenge, you receive the reply - "parameters too secret to tell you about, but you're dead." (are they still calling amraam shots in OTA C at arb ranges, or do they now just claim kills at 50+ miles with asraam?)
Does anyone know what the difference in price would have been to buy II+ instead of the FRS2 upgrade? Just interested. If you'd done that, then I guess none of this would be happening. Always seemed like a strange idea to me at the time, but I expect there were good financial reasons.
Does anyone know what the difference in price would have been to buy II+ instead of the FRS2 upgrade? Just interested. If you'd done that, then I guess none of this would be happening. Always seemed like a strange idea to me at the time, but I expect there were good financial reasons.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SHAR
The fundamental fact is, that the only thing we have with proven arse kicking potential is the Sea Harrier, -and now were going to get rid of it?
When I was a boy I wanted to be a fighter pilot, when I became a man I wanted to be a Sea Harrier pilot.
I have a superb series of Gun camera shots with one F-15C worming for all its worth underneath the pipper. Thats the pipper of an FRS1. -I doubt there was much hope for the next F3 that came along.
Personnally I would like to say thankyou to each and every Sea Harrier and its pilots for keeping us safe for the last few decades.
Those GR9s had better have Royal Navy on the side and gold braid in the cockpit or I shall abstain from paying any tax!
When I was a boy I wanted to be a fighter pilot, when I became a man I wanted to be a Sea Harrier pilot.
I have a superb series of Gun camera shots with one F-15C worming for all its worth underneath the pipper. Thats the pipper of an FRS1. -I doubt there was much hope for the next F3 that came along.
Personnally I would like to say thankyou to each and every Sea Harrier and its pilots for keeping us safe for the last few decades.
Those GR9s had better have Royal Navy on the side and gold braid in the cockpit or I shall abstain from paying any tax!
Suspicion breeds confidence
SSSETOWTF, In 1988 when the upgrade for the FA2 was announced, there was no II+ and in effect nothing to buy from St.Louis. Again, in 1993/4 when the first FA2s arrived at Yeovilton the II+ was still some years away.
I would be intertested to know if the F3s I mentioned in an earlier post were simulating AMRAAM against 800NAS. I can't believe they are still hauling Skyflash.
I would be intertested to know if the F3s I mentioned in an earlier post were simulating AMRAAM against 800NAS. I can't believe they are still hauling Skyflash.
Last edited by Navaleye; 22nd Apr 2004 at 14:47.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: fife
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NavalEye
The 5 to 1 killing ratio is an interesting point. Every time I've flown as Red Air on the ACMI I have strived to give the best possible Red Air replication to give Blue Air the best possible training. this does not involve scurrying about employing my best 4-ship Sa defeating manoueuvre, employing all my sensors and avionics and the best of my NATO training to f### over the opposition. It means providing a realistic threat. I would hope that the F3s in the 5-1 incident were providing this service. Not from a mis-guided 'we're not crap in the air perspective' but from the true professional basis of providing relevant training.
The F3 will undoubtedly have been hauling round a semi-active missle because that will have been the threat
On the flip-side. I have received an excellent Red Air training service from a SHAR/F18 composite flight. As it happens I was the lucky bastard who got all four killing shots in a 4v4 so we grand-slammed 4-0. I didn't come away with the conclusion that I or my 4-ship were demi-gods. We just performed to capabilty against a realistic threat presentation.
The performance of the F3 with a 404+8 loadout, Stage 3 radar and JTIDS is being put to the test v...soon on a flag exercise so I think comment on the relative merits of each weapons system isn't valid until then.
Ta for now
The 5 to 1 killing ratio is an interesting point. Every time I've flown as Red Air on the ACMI I have strived to give the best possible Red Air replication to give Blue Air the best possible training. this does not involve scurrying about employing my best 4-ship Sa defeating manoueuvre, employing all my sensors and avionics and the best of my NATO training to f### over the opposition. It means providing a realistic threat. I would hope that the F3s in the 5-1 incident were providing this service. Not from a mis-guided 'we're not crap in the air perspective' but from the true professional basis of providing relevant training.
The F3 will undoubtedly have been hauling round a semi-active missle because that will have been the threat
On the flip-side. I have received an excellent Red Air training service from a SHAR/F18 composite flight. As it happens I was the lucky bastard who got all four killing shots in a 4v4 so we grand-slammed 4-0. I didn't come away with the conclusion that I or my 4-ship were demi-gods. We just performed to capabilty against a realistic threat presentation.
The performance of the F3 with a 404+8 loadout, Stage 3 radar and JTIDS is being put to the test v...soon on a flag exercise so I think comment on the relative merits of each weapons system isn't valid until then.
Ta for now