Sea Jet
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As well as nozzle nudge, MADGE & Radar/NAV PIAs, don't forget the FA2 has 2 generators.
Best I start the new jet's APU on the cake-stand in the future, for the night/IMC recovery, just in case!
Best I start the new jet's APU on the cake-stand in the future, for the night/IMC recovery, just in case!
Navaleye/althenick
And what is that in English, please?
Just noticed that if you go to this page from the Rolls Royce website you can download both fact sheets and posters on both Pegasus and Liftsystem. Impressive stuff.
Also, will this help the CVF sortie rate?
Back to the present, this Select Commitee Report discusses some related issues.
Blimey - another page!!
And what is that in English, please?
Just noticed that if you go to this page from the Rolls Royce website you can download both fact sheets and posters on both Pegasus and Liftsystem. Impressive stuff.
Also, will this help the CVF sortie rate?
Back to the present, this Select Commitee Report discusses some related issues.
Blimey - another page!!
Just noticed this....
From the page on Invincible's Warfare Department:
As the designated high readiness Carrier and Fleet Flagship, Invincible may at short notice be required to undertake the role of an air defence platform, strike carrier, or amphibious assault ship.
It would be difficult to act as an air defence platform without air defence aircraft.
And from Albion: An exercise
".....The strides made by the UK’s amphibious community over the last 3, and in the next 2 years, with the new LPDs and forthcoming LSD(A) support ships truly place the UK in the Premiership Division in this capability area.”
At exactly the same time we lose organic air defence, and cut the number of surface (and submarine) platforms that would protect and support amphibious forces.
From the page on Invincible's Warfare Department:
As the designated high readiness Carrier and Fleet Flagship, Invincible may at short notice be required to undertake the role of an air defence platform, strike carrier, or amphibious assault ship.
It would be difficult to act as an air defence platform without air defence aircraft.
And from Albion: An exercise
".....The strides made by the UK’s amphibious community over the last 3, and in the next 2 years, with the new LPDs and forthcoming LSD(A) support ships truly place the UK in the Premiership Division in this capability area.”
At exactly the same time we lose organic air defence, and cut the number of surface (and submarine) platforms that would protect and support amphibious forces.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Read this.
Apparently from 2006 for about 6/8 years this capability is no longer needed. Then all of a sudden it is again if we want to sell weapons to to the outside world. As far as I know the last time a UK carrier operated as a "strike carrier" without fighter aircraft she was sunk by the Japanese in 1942. That was HMS Hermes. History has a habit of repeating itself.
Apparently from 2006 for about 6/8 years this capability is no longer needed. Then all of a sudden it is again if we want to sell weapons to to the outside world. As far as I know the last time a UK carrier operated as a "strike carrier" without fighter aircraft she was sunk by the Japanese in 1942. That was HMS Hermes. History has a habit of repeating itself.
Navaleye/WEBF,
Yawn.................................
I think you'll find that MBDA want Meteor on the F-35 because that way they will sell far more of them, not exactly rocket science is it? "(well, acutally it iS, but you know what I mean....)
Also the F-35 is going to do far more than just fly off 2 UK carriers.
Yawn.................................
I think you'll find that MBDA want Meteor on the F-35 because that way they will sell far more of them, not exactly rocket science is it? "(well, acutally it iS, but you know what I mean....)
Also the F-35 is going to do far more than just fly off 2 UK carriers.
Of course MBDA want to sell more missiles.
Talking of the F35, there are rumours that the UK buy will be cut. The reduction in Joint Force Harrier aircraft numbers that is represented by the axing of the Sea Harrier (30%?) cannot help anyone arguing to order the original number. Neither can speculation about the size of the future carriers, which still haven't been ordered - the capability gap gets longer and longer.
This link discusses these issues.
Another way in which losing the Sea Harrier is a major blow to UK defence capabilities.
Talking of the F35, there are rumours that the UK buy will be cut. The reduction in Joint Force Harrier aircraft numbers that is represented by the axing of the Sea Harrier (30%?) cannot help anyone arguing to order the original number. Neither can speculation about the size of the future carriers, which still haven't been ordered - the capability gap gets longer and longer.
This link discusses these issues.
Another way in which losing the Sea Harrier is a major blow to UK defence capabilities.
WE BF,
How can you reduce an order that has yet to be placed? The reference to “up to 150” has never been officially explained or made more specific. The cut to JFH is ACTUALLY No.3 Squadron Royal Air Force as it is going to disband and reform as a Typhoon squadron and the two operational SHAR squadrons are going to reform on the GR9 with larger squadron establishments than in the pure FAA days, so withdrawing SHAR has had NO effect on overall force numbers.
On another board elsewhere there is speculation that the 150 quoted, not sure if it was by Lockheed Martin or the DPA, was arrived at by the very crude method of adding the RN stated requirement for 60 SHAR replacements to the RAF stated requirement for 90 GR7 replacements? This may well be the case but I cannot understand why the RN ever thought it needed 60 jets for 2 small squadrons of 7 each and a training unit? Also since the RAF number was for 3 squadrons, and now there are going to be 2, has this “up to 150” ever made sense?
As it stands we are looking at 4 operational F-35 squadrons and an OCU, why on earth would 150 be needed for that? 200 Jaguars were enough for 8 squadrons and a large OCU. Unless F-35 is going to replace some Tornado capability as a part of FOAS I don’t think 150 has ever been realistic.
How can you reduce an order that has yet to be placed? The reference to “up to 150” has never been officially explained or made more specific. The cut to JFH is ACTUALLY No.3 Squadron Royal Air Force as it is going to disband and reform as a Typhoon squadron and the two operational SHAR squadrons are going to reform on the GR9 with larger squadron establishments than in the pure FAA days, so withdrawing SHAR has had NO effect on overall force numbers.
On another board elsewhere there is speculation that the 150 quoted, not sure if it was by Lockheed Martin or the DPA, was arrived at by the very crude method of adding the RN stated requirement for 60 SHAR replacements to the RAF stated requirement for 90 GR7 replacements? This may well be the case but I cannot understand why the RN ever thought it needed 60 jets for 2 small squadrons of 7 each and a training unit? Also since the RAF number was for 3 squadrons, and now there are going to be 2, has this “up to 150” ever made sense?
As it stands we are looking at 4 operational F-35 squadrons and an OCU, why on earth would 150 be needed for that? 200 Jaguars were enough for 8 squadrons and a large OCU. Unless F-35 is going to replace some Tornado capability as a part of FOAS I don’t think 150 has ever been realistic.
Blame My Parrot
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Somerdorset, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne - I believe the size of the UK buy was related to the minimum necessary for UK to be a Level 1 partner in the project and thereby (theoretically!!) have more influence and access to information than would otherwise be possible.
One can play any number of tunes on squadron numbers and sizes, trials a/c and allowances for attrition etc., but you can bet your bottom dollar/pound/euro that what we envisage now will not be mirrored by reality!!
I, for one, have always been an advocate of proper carriers (cats and traps) and buying lots of conventional JSFs that can fulfill most of the combined requirements of FOAS and embarked aviation.
One can play any number of tunes on squadron numbers and sizes, trials a/c and allowances for attrition etc., but you can bet your bottom dollar/pound/euro that what we envisage now will not be mirrored by reality!!
I, for one, have always been an advocate of proper carriers (cats and traps) and buying lots of conventional JSFs that can fulfill most of the combined requirements of FOAS and embarked aviation.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shiny Grey Fanny Magnet
Some interesting dits wandering the corridors of DPA.
This new "adaptable" carrier has a top speed of 30 knots out of build with an expected reduction of 1 kt per year. Do we expect a fully laden F-35 C to get off the deck, in the gulf, in summer, with no wind with some kinda catapult? Err - well we could put less fuel in it, or maybe just not have any weapons on. This all sounds remarkably familiar.
I say if we are not going to do it properly (F35C, E2 2k, Proper engines/cat) then scrap the whole idea and lets buy some really nice yachts and get the Navy back to where we used to be.
This new "adaptable" carrier has a top speed of 30 knots out of build with an expected reduction of 1 kt per year. Do we expect a fully laden F-35 C to get off the deck, in the gulf, in summer, with no wind with some kinda catapult? Err - well we could put less fuel in it, or maybe just not have any weapons on. This all sounds remarkably familiar.
I say if we are not going to do it properly (F35C, E2 2k, Proper engines/cat) then scrap the whole idea and lets buy some really nice yachts and get the Navy back to where we used to be.
I cannot understand why the RN ever thought it needed 60 jets for 2 small squadrons of 7 each and a training unit?
Perhaps because the Admirals thought larger carriers = more aircraft?
On the Naval Technology site, the pages for both the INVINCIBLE class and CVF have been updated.
Meanwhile, there is an exercise going on off of Scotland called NEPTUNE WARRIOR. Illustrious is taking part, and I believe she has 801 NAS embarked.
The Course has evolved to provide training against the wide range of traditional and new threats faced by forces today.
Is that why they tend to include things like air defence?
Perhaps because the Admirals thought larger carriers = more aircraft?
On the Naval Technology site, the pages for both the INVINCIBLE class and CVF have been updated.
Meanwhile, there is an exercise going on off of Scotland called NEPTUNE WARRIOR. Illustrious is taking part, and I believe she has 801 NAS embarked.
The Course has evolved to provide training against the wide range of traditional and new threats faced by forces today.
Is that why they tend to include things like air defence?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Thank you BombayDuck. At least the Indian FRS51s have Blue Fox which gives them a distinct edge over anything the UK will have as from April next year. Good article.
uhm.... what happened to the Blue Vixen? (pardon me but i am not up-to-date with British Military news...)
And we're doing away with the Blue Fox this year-end, replacing it with Israeli kit that allows the SHAR to fire the Derby (something I learnt in the bowels of this very thread before it was confirmed
); so they will finally get some teeth in a long range fight... And an even nicer news is the usage of dual-missile rails (developed at home) that allows IN SHARs to carry a few more missiles than they normally would've....
And we're doing away with the Blue Fox this year-end, replacing it with Israeli kit that allows the SHAR to fire the Derby (something I learnt in the bowels of this very thread before it was confirmed
); so they will finally get some teeth in a long range fight... And an even nicer news is the usage of dual-missile rails (developed at home) that allows IN SHARs to carry a few more missiles than they normally would've....
Suspicion breeds confidence
In summary the UK Military has set the clock back 50 years by equipping its carriers with aircraft without radar once the Sea Harrier has been replaced by the GR7/9. This was taken on the basis that there is no "significant air threat" in the short term and it was a gamble worth taking. No one in the navy agrees.
Navaleye,
"no one in the Navy agrees"
No one that is apart from the 1st Sea Lord and the other senior RN folk who TOOK THE DECISION!!!
"no one in the Navy agrees"
No one that is apart from the 1st Sea Lord and the other senior RN folk who TOOK THE DECISION!!!
Blame My Parrot
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Somerdorset, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if the RN should take all the blame. By the time this decision was made, all marks of Harrier were under the command of the RAF (HQ 3 Gp).
VitaminGee,
Not a decision that would have been taken at Group OR Command level.
This was a call by Top Level Budget holders. CinC Fleet and CinC STC.
Not a decision that would have been taken at Group OR Command level.
This was a call by Top Level Budget holders. CinC Fleet and CinC STC.
Blame My Parrot
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Somerdorset, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne,
Absolutely. I do wonder, however, how differently things might have panned out had Harriers remained under their single service commands.
VG
Absolutely. I do wonder, however, how differently things might have panned out had Harriers remained under their single service commands.
VG