Sea Jet
Where indeed?
And the "Bin these preposterous, extravagant new carriers now and spend the money on some new jets to replace the TriStars and VC10s - assets we need every time we do anything" thread.
Or the "Bin the carriers and spend the money getting back to an 18 squadron FJ force that won't be over-stretched by the commitments we have now" thread.
And the "Bin these preposterous, extravagant new carriers now and spend the money on some new jets to replace the TriStars and VC10s - assets we need every time we do anything" thread.
Or the "Bin the carriers and spend the money getting back to an 18 squadron FJ force that won't be over-stretched by the commitments we have now" thread.
And the "Bin these preposterous, extravagant new carriers now and spend the money on some new jets to replace the TriStars and VC10s - assets we need every time we do anything" thread.
Don't think he's hungry....!!!!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
Of course, it's getting nearer to CVF main gate time. Insecurity time for the light blue.
A variation on your theme:
"Bin these preposterous, extravagant old Typhoons now and spend the money on some new jets to replace the TriStars and VC10s - assets we need every time we do anything."
Or
"Bin the Typhoon and spend the money fully supporting the four 12 aircraft (cutting edge technology) JCA squadrons that can have the flexibility to operate from land or sea (the latter on the new carriers which can be used for a multitude of other tasks/effects.)"
They sound better now don't they?
But we can all dream, I know that my wistful comments are a flight of fantasy, ain't no way the UK is going to cut it's losses with Typhoon when it looks so impressive at air displays.
When was the last time the UK created such a cool looking machine to impress the public with? Lightning in the 60's? Harrier in the 70's? And then nothing until....
Of course, it's getting nearer to CVF main gate time. Insecurity time for the light blue.
A variation on your theme:
"Bin these preposterous, extravagant old Typhoons now and spend the money on some new jets to replace the TriStars and VC10s - assets we need every time we do anything."
Or
"Bin the Typhoon and spend the money fully supporting the four 12 aircraft (cutting edge technology) JCA squadrons that can have the flexibility to operate from land or sea (the latter on the new carriers which can be used for a multitude of other tasks/effects.)"
They sound better now don't they?
But we can all dream, I know that my wistful comments are a flight of fantasy, ain't no way the UK is going to cut it's losses with Typhoon when it looks so impressive at air displays.
When was the last time the UK created such a cool looking machine to impress the public with? Lightning in the 60's? Harrier in the 70's? And then nothing until....
Yes, yes. A multi-role, swing role FJ asset that can do everything that an F-15 or an F-16 can do, and can do it survivably and with contractually guaranteed low costs of ownership out beyond the next 30 years. That will deploy as quickly and with as small a logistics tail and footprint as a Jag squadron. That's not relevant, is it?
That doesn't represent exactly the type of asset that has formed the backbone of our contributions in Granby, in various spats in the Balkans, etc.
And even if you were right (and you're not) and even if Typhoon was irrelevant, unfortunately, most of the money is spent (we're getting T1 and T2 regardless) including most of that for T3, and if we cancel then we face paying such extravagant penalties that it would be cheaper to buy the jets and then scrap them on the flight line.
Whereas we can scrap the carriers and save money that hasn't yet been spent, freeing up real money for other priorities.
The days of the Sea Fury, winging its way aloft from HMS Theseus, brave 'Hoagy' Carmichael and 'Smoo' Ellis about to (modestly and without fuss) despatch a few MiG-15s before returning for a large pink gin in the Wardroom, were undeniably glamorous and moving. But they're gone.
That doesn't represent exactly the type of asset that has formed the backbone of our contributions in Granby, in various spats in the Balkans, etc.
And even if you were right (and you're not) and even if Typhoon was irrelevant, unfortunately, most of the money is spent (we're getting T1 and T2 regardless) including most of that for T3, and if we cancel then we face paying such extravagant penalties that it would be cheaper to buy the jets and then scrap them on the flight line.
Whereas we can scrap the carriers and save money that hasn't yet been spent, freeing up real money for other priorities.
The days of the Sea Fury, winging its way aloft from HMS Theseus, brave 'Hoagy' Carmichael and 'Smoo' Ellis about to (modestly and without fuss) despatch a few MiG-15s before returning for a large pink gin in the Wardroom, were undeniably glamorous and moving. But they're gone.
Jackonico
I can with some authority, inform you that the FAA contribution in the balkans was much more than insignificant. Notwithstanding the regular RECCE tasks that 800 and 801 were involved in, the embarked squadrons were regularly the ONLY asset able to support operations in Bosnia, as certainly during the Spring, all the Italian airfields were fogged out.
Indeed when requested; on more than one occaision; the ships concerned put together a flypro at short notice, steamed into a bit of clear air and provided both CAS and CAP support when the mighty F3s and Jags were grounded. Often the only other units able to supply these assets were those from the French Carrier.
We also received regular requests to fill gaps caused by unserviceability in shore based assets. The ships and their squadrons did this with little fanfare (perhaps that was the problem) and didn't have to send half the squadron to Northern Italy every few days just to get better rates.
I am sure there are others on here that could give equally good account of other (non-FI) scenarios. And no, I was not on the ship, I was in the CAOC alongside all the other NATO reps!
I can with some authority, inform you that the FAA contribution in the balkans was much more than insignificant. Notwithstanding the regular RECCE tasks that 800 and 801 were involved in, the embarked squadrons were regularly the ONLY asset able to support operations in Bosnia, as certainly during the Spring, all the Italian airfields were fogged out.
Indeed when requested; on more than one occaision; the ships concerned put together a flypro at short notice, steamed into a bit of clear air and provided both CAS and CAP support when the mighty F3s and Jags were grounded. Often the only other units able to supply these assets were those from the French Carrier.
We also received regular requests to fill gaps caused by unserviceability in shore based assets. The ships and their squadrons did this with little fanfare (perhaps that was the problem) and didn't have to send half the squadron to Northern Italy every few days just to get better rates.
I am sure there are others on here that could give equally good account of other (non-FI) scenarios. And no, I was not on the ship, I was in the CAOC alongside all the other NATO reps!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
Just help me out with this line:
"Yes, yes. A multi-role, swing role FJ asset that can do everything that an F-15 or an F-16 can do, and can do it survivably and with contractually guaranteed low costs of ownership out beyond the next 30 years. That will deploy as quickly and with as small a logistics tail and footprint as a Jag squadron. That's not relevant, is it?"
Does that mean you agree about JCA? Always a little difficult assessing text inflection.
To add a little to Widger's comments. Sierra Leone? A good example of current use of a range of seaborne effects unachievable with land based tactical aircraft. Unless you demonstrate an amphibious assault by crashing a Typhoon onto the foreshore.
I endorse the comments made about the Adriatic. As a complimentary asset to the land based aircraft, we were able to fill gaps when Italy was fogged out or jets, some on 1 hour transits prior to getting to the AOR (unlike our 15 minutes), scrubbed on the deck.
"The days of the Sea Fury, winging its way aloft from HMS Theseus, brave 'Hoagy' Carmichael and 'Smoo' Ellis about to (modestly and without fuss) despatch a few MiG-15s before returning for a large pink gin in the Wardroom, were undeniably glamorous and moving. But they're gone."
Gone? Really? Would you like to tell the US that? And the USMC?
"That doesn't represent exactly the type of asset that has formed the backbone of our contributions in Granby, in various spats in the Balkans, etc."
Don't you think that's because we (the UK) didn't have a deck able to produce the required sortie generation and and aircraft that has the ROA to get the job done? Well, as the centrepiece of the 1998 SDR, the CVF and JCA capability (accross the 3 services) still holds water (pun intended.) You don't see a carrier getting thrown out of an Arab nation because they have lost the will to remain engaged; or being denied combat aircraft overflight aircraft; or have 2 jets damaged by a 10 quid mortar shell on an airbase that is currently quite quiet but will only get busier etc etc. Now, I have no doubt that counters may be put up along the lines of "all eggs in one basket." And that's great and valid and adds weight to the point that CVF and any aviation associated with it is part of the overall answer. But to suggest that the answer to not having enough enablers (tankers/AT) or enough FJ on the front line is simply to cancel a program that hasn't yet made it into production is a little blinkered.
"Bin the carriers and spend the money getting back to an 18 squadron FJ force that won't be over-stretched by the commitments we have now"
Did you suggest this so that a GR4 squadron of 18 jets can guarantee a pair over the Balkans on a round trip of 7(ish) hours with several hits on a tanker? Very efficient.
"And even if you were right (and you're not)..." Easy tiger, can be a burden having all the answers.
Loved the Sea Fury paragraph.
Just help me out with this line:
"Yes, yes. A multi-role, swing role FJ asset that can do everything that an F-15 or an F-16 can do, and can do it survivably and with contractually guaranteed low costs of ownership out beyond the next 30 years. That will deploy as quickly and with as small a logistics tail and footprint as a Jag squadron. That's not relevant, is it?"
Does that mean you agree about JCA? Always a little difficult assessing text inflection.
To add a little to Widger's comments. Sierra Leone? A good example of current use of a range of seaborne effects unachievable with land based tactical aircraft. Unless you demonstrate an amphibious assault by crashing a Typhoon onto the foreshore.
I endorse the comments made about the Adriatic. As a complimentary asset to the land based aircraft, we were able to fill gaps when Italy was fogged out or jets, some on 1 hour transits prior to getting to the AOR (unlike our 15 minutes), scrubbed on the deck.
"The days of the Sea Fury, winging its way aloft from HMS Theseus, brave 'Hoagy' Carmichael and 'Smoo' Ellis about to (modestly and without fuss) despatch a few MiG-15s before returning for a large pink gin in the Wardroom, were undeniably glamorous and moving. But they're gone."
Gone? Really? Would you like to tell the US that? And the USMC?
"That doesn't represent exactly the type of asset that has formed the backbone of our contributions in Granby, in various spats in the Balkans, etc."
Don't you think that's because we (the UK) didn't have a deck able to produce the required sortie generation and and aircraft that has the ROA to get the job done? Well, as the centrepiece of the 1998 SDR, the CVF and JCA capability (accross the 3 services) still holds water (pun intended.) You don't see a carrier getting thrown out of an Arab nation because they have lost the will to remain engaged; or being denied combat aircraft overflight aircraft; or have 2 jets damaged by a 10 quid mortar shell on an airbase that is currently quite quiet but will only get busier etc etc. Now, I have no doubt that counters may be put up along the lines of "all eggs in one basket." And that's great and valid and adds weight to the point that CVF and any aviation associated with it is part of the overall answer. But to suggest that the answer to not having enough enablers (tankers/AT) or enough FJ on the front line is simply to cancel a program that hasn't yet made it into production is a little blinkered.
"Bin the carriers and spend the money getting back to an 18 squadron FJ force that won't be over-stretched by the commitments we have now"
Did you suggest this so that a GR4 squadron of 18 jets can guarantee a pair over the Balkans on a round trip of 7(ish) hours with several hits on a tanker? Very efficient.
"And even if you were right (and you're not)..." Easy tiger, can be a burden having all the answers.
Loved the Sea Fury paragraph.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if it would be better (and this is gong to REALLY annoy just about everyone . . .) to amalgamate the entire british armed forces into one, organic service somewhat similar to the USMC. I don't have the figures handy but I suspect that the USMC is bigger than the entire RAF, RN and british army put together. Just imagine a world where there was no inter-service bitching (hah! some hope), where a general could, for example, order transport aircraft to do a job rather than requesting them from another service.
Should anyone feel inclined to answer this post, I should appreciate a reasoned argument rather than variations of "what a w****r" but I suspect I'm pissing into the wind there. . .
BTW, are the Wasp class and other Marine base ships crewed by naval personnel or are they all marine crew?
Should anyone feel inclined to answer this post, I should appreciate a reasoned argument rather than variations of "what a w****r" but I suspect I'm pissing into the wind there. . .
BTW, are the Wasp class and other Marine base ships crewed by naval personnel or are they all marine crew?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oops!
Something close to viable discussion on the "Sea Jet" thread.... whatever next! 
Jacko
The issues you raise about the lack of depth to the FJ force, the shocking state of the AAR/AT fleet, and the need to match operational tempo to avaliable, deployable resources, are all valid. And ones that Lord Tim et al will doubtless raise! The question of financing this IMHO requires a good hard look at the RAF force structure, basing, "non-core activities"
(eg, and sorry Rocks, RAF Regiment), and central headquarters, Groups, (isn't the IDFAF run by 1 2*?) and the massive overhead of the MOD civil-military structure.
That having been said, I've no doubt that there will be times and places - other than FI - when a CBG is a v. useful tool in the way FB11 described. If it weren't, why would the USN waste so much cost and manpower in keeping their 12+ CV/CVNs? (And no, it's not because they're stupid Americans, before anybody starts.)
Equally, an airgroup of 40-odd F-35s (Is this right for surge?) would have a signficant operational and deterent effect. (Given the size of the ships, why not buy the CV version with cats and traps - the difference in performance / payback for the STOVL variant has never made any sense to me, so perhaps others could help? And with cats and traps, et voila, E-2C.... and be nice to French, the CdG SNAFU was all very difficult! I hope this is not the result of some light-blue "Harrier is VSTOL and VIFFs, we need F-35 STOVL blah blah" position.
)
Hence, I believe that a way will be found to get CVFs built; the question - again, like the SHar question - is whether the other RN / UK military capabilities prematurely retired to fund them will be offset by the CVF's capability? (Why are T23s being retired after 10 years? Is there nothing useful for them to do?
) And is the cost of the CVF programme actually going to unbalance the entire RN surface fleet? Indeed, will CVFs have the necessary escorts and auxiliaries to function as a CBG?
So, not fishing, just some genuine questions.
S41
Jacko
The issues you raise about the lack of depth to the FJ force, the shocking state of the AAR/AT fleet, and the need to match operational tempo to avaliable, deployable resources, are all valid. And ones that Lord Tim et al will doubtless raise! The question of financing this IMHO requires a good hard look at the RAF force structure, basing, "non-core activities"
(eg, and sorry Rocks, RAF Regiment), and central headquarters, Groups, (isn't the IDFAF run by 1 2*?) and the massive overhead of the MOD civil-military structure. That having been said, I've no doubt that there will be times and places - other than FI - when a CBG is a v. useful tool in the way FB11 described. If it weren't, why would the USN waste so much cost and manpower in keeping their 12+ CV/CVNs? (And no, it's not because they're stupid Americans, before anybody starts.)
Equally, an airgroup of 40-odd F-35s (Is this right for surge?) would have a signficant operational and deterent effect. (Given the size of the ships, why not buy the CV version with cats and traps - the difference in performance / payback for the STOVL variant has never made any sense to me, so perhaps others could help? And with cats and traps, et voila, E-2C.... and be nice to French, the CdG SNAFU was all very difficult! I hope this is not the result of some light-blue "Harrier is VSTOL and VIFFs, we need F-35 STOVL blah blah" position.
)Hence, I believe that a way will be found to get CVFs built; the question - again, like the SHar question - is whether the other RN / UK military capabilities prematurely retired to fund them will be offset by the CVF's capability? (Why are T23s being retired after 10 years? Is there nothing useful for them to do?
) And is the cost of the CVF programme actually going to unbalance the entire RN surface fleet? Indeed, will CVFs have the necessary escorts and auxiliaries to function as a CBG? So, not fishing, just some genuine questions.
S41
FB11,
When I was talking about a viable, effective, deployable FJ with guaranteed costs of ownership, I was talking about Typhoon.
I'm not against JCA, per se, though I think that the jury's out on F-35 for the UK. Will we get a full standard aircraft? Will that aircraft be a poor man's F-22 or less? Is Riccione right about the F/A-22 (Stealth, supercruise, etc.)? Will we get what we need to be able to maintain, modify and upgrade it? What will it cost? (It's cost us £2.57 Bn already (that's £17 m on top of the unit price, per jet, if we buy 150), and we've yet to pay for a single jet. Yes we'll share in the profits, but with the Netherlands, Norway, and Turkey already retreating from the programme and with US numbers likely to be cut.....
And we only need it if we spend a minimum of £6 Bn procuring two new carriers.
Carriers may be occasionally useful, but for more than £8 Bn CVF and JCA need to be much, much more than merely useful. And I'm not sure that they are essential.
Balkans: Allies could and did take the strain. The number of sorties flown from our CVS was insignificant.
Sierra Leone: Jags were sitting on the Azores with basing sorted in Senegal, and were held back to let the carrier get there first. And the carrier did get there with no appropriate weapons on its jets. A poor example of a carrier being 'vital'.
If I was deciding the Defence Budget it would be big enough to afford three carriers (not just two), but all of the other priorities I've mentioned would have a higher claim on funding, and if I were thwarted in my spending plans it would be 'nice to have' items like carriers that would go before 'must haves' like tankers, SEAD, recce, and adequate numbers of FJs, and I'd have a surface fleet with at least 35 destroyers and frigates before I bought CVs.
We are not the USA. They can afford Carriers. They can afford wings of C-17s. They can afford F/A-22s. We can't. It's not that they're stupid, it's that they're rich.
When I was talking about a viable, effective, deployable FJ with guaranteed costs of ownership, I was talking about Typhoon.
I'm not against JCA, per se, though I think that the jury's out on F-35 for the UK. Will we get a full standard aircraft? Will that aircraft be a poor man's F-22 or less? Is Riccione right about the F/A-22 (Stealth, supercruise, etc.)? Will we get what we need to be able to maintain, modify and upgrade it? What will it cost? (It's cost us £2.57 Bn already (that's £17 m on top of the unit price, per jet, if we buy 150), and we've yet to pay for a single jet. Yes we'll share in the profits, but with the Netherlands, Norway, and Turkey already retreating from the programme and with US numbers likely to be cut.....
And we only need it if we spend a minimum of £6 Bn procuring two new carriers.
Carriers may be occasionally useful, but for more than £8 Bn CVF and JCA need to be much, much more than merely useful. And I'm not sure that they are essential.
Balkans: Allies could and did take the strain. The number of sorties flown from our CVS was insignificant.
Sierra Leone: Jags were sitting on the Azores with basing sorted in Senegal, and were held back to let the carrier get there first. And the carrier did get there with no appropriate weapons on its jets. A poor example of a carrier being 'vital'.
If I was deciding the Defence Budget it would be big enough to afford three carriers (not just two), but all of the other priorities I've mentioned would have a higher claim on funding, and if I were thwarted in my spending plans it would be 'nice to have' items like carriers that would go before 'must haves' like tankers, SEAD, recce, and adequate numbers of FJs, and I'd have a surface fleet with at least 35 destroyers and frigates before I bought CVs.
We are not the USA. They can afford Carriers. They can afford wings of C-17s. They can afford F/A-22s. We can't. It's not that they're stupid, it's that they're rich.
Jacko,
"It's not that they're stupid, it's that they're rich"
Beg to differ, they are not rich, they are just prepared to spend money on defence (or should I say defense?) and increase the deficit.
Tarnished
"It's not that they're stupid, it's that they're rich"
Beg to differ, they are not rich, they are just prepared to spend money on defence (or should I say defense?) and increase the deficit.
Tarnished
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S41
The light blue does have a little fat yet to trim off the manpower currently fielded. We'll see (as other threads have hinted at) what the final structure looks like. Probably fair to say it will be similar to if not a little less than the RN at 36,500.
36 is a good number of JCA to plan on during a big push. 12 for normal running (12 being the planned squadron size, 4 squadrons in total.)
As for the VSTOL issue. Imagine a scenario where the son of FOAS, Future Combat Air Capability (FCAC, around 2020 timeframe) has a generic requirement for an aircraft that by some coincidence the F-35C matches (the CV variant of JCA.) If a "smart" person wanted to ensure that in the short term you got a new aircraft and also a new shiny one in the future, you'd make sure that the Harrier replacement was inferior to the requirement of the FCAC. F-35B doesn't fit the FCAC requirement. Imagine that.
Maybe it's for that reason that STOVL JCA isn't a dead cert.
The T23 cutback shouldn't be looked at as age of platform alone. Much of the cost goes into planned refit and upgrade. Even though one of the hulls was only 7 years old (I think) it was at a relatively low state of mod. Cheaper to get rid of compared to an older, more highly modified T23.
With only two carriers out there, we'll have just the right amount of escorts and support ships. "Just enough, just in time." The loggy mantra.
Jacko,
Wow, two CVF up from £3.6Bn to £6Bn in a weekend. That\'s inflation for you.
Viable. Effective. Deployable. Used in the same sentence as Typhoon. An aircraft that has no useful current role. (because we don\'t do the fighter thing at the moment but it\'s nice to know we could.) When does it earn those accolades? Maybe towards the end of the decade. But as you\'ve already mentioned, we\'re stuck with the cold war beast so dragging forward the air to ground integration ASAP is a smart move.
As for the Balkans. I know there were minimal sorties flown from CVS. The CVS wasn\'t designed to generate vast amounts with so few embarked.
Interesting take on the Sierra Leone deal. I\'m sure the guys flying the FA2 and GR7 might disagree with the choice of weapons and availability. And Jags? Really? Does Senegal have runways long enough?
As for deployability. I deployed with an Air Force unit in 2003. 500 people for 10 jets. Within a base already secured by the US. Only half of those were maintainers so I wonder if Typhoon could pair that back much? But again, almost a moot point because the complimentary nature of maritime ops is such that when a couple of Typhoon operating out of a base north of Pakistan gets a mortar shell in between them, (impossible to force protect when a highway runs adjacent to the base and the attackers don\'t mind if they die?) jets from a carrier could fill the gap while the home base organises a trail to come out a week later with a couple of replacements. And in that unique scenario, they have nothing to sink a carrier with (RPG?)
But the reality is that until metal is cut on CVF and other platforms (white elephants) are in production, those fighting for program survival will always take pot shots. Ho hum.
The light blue does have a little fat yet to trim off the manpower currently fielded. We'll see (as other threads have hinted at) what the final structure looks like. Probably fair to say it will be similar to if not a little less than the RN at 36,500.
36 is a good number of JCA to plan on during a big push. 12 for normal running (12 being the planned squadron size, 4 squadrons in total.)
As for the VSTOL issue. Imagine a scenario where the son of FOAS, Future Combat Air Capability (FCAC, around 2020 timeframe) has a generic requirement for an aircraft that by some coincidence the F-35C matches (the CV variant of JCA.) If a "smart" person wanted to ensure that in the short term you got a new aircraft and also a new shiny one in the future, you'd make sure that the Harrier replacement was inferior to the requirement of the FCAC. F-35B doesn't fit the FCAC requirement. Imagine that.
Maybe it's for that reason that STOVL JCA isn't a dead cert.
The T23 cutback shouldn't be looked at as age of platform alone. Much of the cost goes into planned refit and upgrade. Even though one of the hulls was only 7 years old (I think) it was at a relatively low state of mod. Cheaper to get rid of compared to an older, more highly modified T23.
With only two carriers out there, we'll have just the right amount of escorts and support ships. "Just enough, just in time." The loggy mantra.
Jacko,
Wow, two CVF up from £3.6Bn to £6Bn in a weekend. That\'s inflation for you.
Viable. Effective. Deployable. Used in the same sentence as Typhoon. An aircraft that has no useful current role. (because we don\'t do the fighter thing at the moment but it\'s nice to know we could.) When does it earn those accolades? Maybe towards the end of the decade. But as you\'ve already mentioned, we\'re stuck with the cold war beast so dragging forward the air to ground integration ASAP is a smart move.
As for the Balkans. I know there were minimal sorties flown from CVS. The CVS wasn\'t designed to generate vast amounts with so few embarked.
Interesting take on the Sierra Leone deal. I\'m sure the guys flying the FA2 and GR7 might disagree with the choice of weapons and availability. And Jags? Really? Does Senegal have runways long enough?
As for deployability. I deployed with an Air Force unit in 2003. 500 people for 10 jets. Within a base already secured by the US. Only half of those were maintainers so I wonder if Typhoon could pair that back much? But again, almost a moot point because the complimentary nature of maritime ops is such that when a couple of Typhoon operating out of a base north of Pakistan gets a mortar shell in between them, (impossible to force protect when a highway runs adjacent to the base and the attackers don\'t mind if they die?) jets from a carrier could fill the gap while the home base organises a trail to come out a week later with a couple of replacements. And in that unique scenario, they have nothing to sink a carrier with (RPG?)
But the reality is that until metal is cut on CVF and other platforms (white elephants) are in production, those fighting for program survival will always take pot shots. Ho hum.
Balkans: Allies could and did take the strain. The number of sorties flown from our CVS was insignificant.
In the days of Deny Flight, JFH did not exist; although there had been embarkations of GR before; the RN was still firmly in the role of CAG. Over the last few years, the RN has made a significant change and moved towards the strike role.
The CVS usually had about 8 or so SHAR embarked during Deny Flight. If JFH had been around then, we would have had an embarked FW force of at least 16 aircraft providing CAS, CAP and RECCE. This is the current capability, with a much higher FJ sortie generation capability. Yes the CVS is too small and that is why they need to be replaced.
While we are at it, we must not forget the very significant role played by 849 Sqn in GWII. The capability they brought to the table, especially during the assault on the Al Fawr peninsula should not be under estimated. With CVF, that capability could be magnified many fold, enabling SW2000 (or it's replacement) to be put on a more capable platform.
The RN has indeed mortgaged it's future on CVF. It is very dis-heartening reading Navy News every month which is now full of decommisioning ships on most pages. There are however, people much cleverer and higher paid than I, who have embarked upon this course.
I am sure that Admiral West is probably a little nervous himself but, the heartache that we are going through now, will reap benefits in 6-10 years and then we will, once again, have a Navy that will be the envy of Europe and have a capability that will far outweigh anything else in the UK inventory. That is indeed something to look forward to and is also why morale is high within the RN because the Service has a vision and we can see where we are going.
It seems to be only the light blue that have issue with the CVF, the Army are very happy with current and future capability, we have several ships now, which can transport and support all manner of guns, tanks and stores. The lack of transport and tanker assets within the RAF is not the fault of the Dark Blue. The fault lies fairly and squarely in your own laps, with an organisation that has taken far too long to extricate itself from the cold war mentality. Far too many projects have been a complete waste of money. Nimwacs and IUKADGE to name just two, which both together make the cost of a CVF look like loose change. Where is the Nimwac now, where are those bunkers? The RAF have mortgaged their future on Typhoon, which is indeed a fantastic aircraft but missing the most useful piece of kit it could have ever had (beefed up undercarriage and a hook). CVF and embarked typhoon, now that would have been something to crow about!
I had better go and do some proper work now.
FB11, good to see you again last Friday.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ball gazing
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and have a capability that will far outweigh anything else in the UK inventory
we have several ships now, which can transport and support all manner of guns, tanks and stores
Could you explain how a CVF (or a CVS for that matter) would be able to deploy a Chinook from the UK to Asia in less than 24 hours?
Mystic Meg, What is the point you are trying to make....?
A similar statement might be, how can an army APC refuel a Typhoon? If you hadn't noticed already, a CVS cannot fly. max speed is in the region of 30 kts.
Your comment is purely posted to create argument and is devoid of any semblance of logic or reason and smacks of a lack of awareness of wider military issues.
I take it that your comments are posted to rile the Dark Blue....if not, then I suggest that you need to spend some time at Shrivenham to improve your blinkered outlook!
And before anyone makes some smartar&e comment about the staff work in this post.....any errors are brought on by Fullers Finest London Pride!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The best part of Somerset
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did Deny Flight from a CVS and we were only playing at it. The FRS1 was not really capable in theatre (1 got shot down for his trouble) and the mission was, primarily, one of flag waving. The FRS2, latterly FA2 had a much better air to air capability-as has been hammered to death here- but the same air to ground capability and as such was a day,vmc,permissive platform-NOT useless, but limited. Over and over again a capability or readiness would be declared to wave the flag but,also, in the fervent hope that the HQ did not "press to test" and expose the reality. Ship based aviation is great when there is no other option-THAT is the raison d'etre. But to plug away for years 30 miles from Bari et al erodes the argument and morale (see PVR rate!!). There was always other ground based assets to cover any fogged in at Gioia-and even then they could launch in fog if the mission was important-then land elsewhere. That cannot be said for an FA2 on a ship in dock at Palma with half the CAG on the pi$$
Oh and Widger, If you thinks that morale is sky high these days you can't have been to 801 recently-and these are the guys who will man you new ships after all.
Oh and Widger, If you thinks that morale is sky high these days you can't have been to 801 recently-and these are the guys who will man you new ships after all.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ball gazing
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you hadn't noticed already, a CVS cannot fly. max speed is in the region of 30 kts.
then you need to quantify it.
Your comment is purely posted to create argument and is devoid of any semblance of logic or reason and smacks of a lack of awareness of wider military issues
Moe,
There are many reasons for low morale in a unit. I put it to you that within 801, the fact that the squadron is soon to be disbanded and the move to Cott/Witt probably has a lot to do with it.
When 800 stands up next year, I would imagine that morale will be pretty good, flying the shiny GR7A/9 and all.
With regard to deny flight, I can tell you that sitting 6 feet away from General "Bear", that flag waving and limited contribution was gratefully accepted. You also touched on the limited capability that the CVS had at that stage, well, that is the whole point. The RN recognises this, the CVS are being re-rolled as "Strike platforms" which, with the GR7A/9, will have enormous capability only limited by the size of the deck. The RN also recognises this, which is why we have risked everything for the CVF. That is the only way we will have the global reach and ability to project air power in the furture. If you do not believe in this vision then you might as well go and work for Serco (other service providers are available). CVF and JCA will raise the morale of the whole Service, give excellent opportunities for FAA wanabees.
That is the future. That is the direction that Admiral West and others are taking us. It is refreshing that Air Power has taken a front seat in the RN after years of ASW stagnation (Not that ASW is no longer important).
The CVF is essential if this country is to continue to weild the influence we presently enjoy in the world. Without it, we might as well, turn the lights out, go home, emigrate to NZ and farm sheep!
P.S. I am very aware that this (good) debate is keeping WEBFs Sea Jet thread alive. Maybe we need to move to a new thread! Lets say something like...Will the CVF and JCA be another white elephant?
There are many reasons for low morale in a unit. I put it to you that within 801, the fact that the squadron is soon to be disbanded and the move to Cott/Witt probably has a lot to do with it.
When 800 stands up next year, I would imagine that morale will be pretty good, flying the shiny GR7A/9 and all.
With regard to deny flight, I can tell you that sitting 6 feet away from General "Bear", that flag waving and limited contribution was gratefully accepted. You also touched on the limited capability that the CVS had at that stage, well, that is the whole point. The RN recognises this, the CVS are being re-rolled as "Strike platforms" which, with the GR7A/9, will have enormous capability only limited by the size of the deck. The RN also recognises this, which is why we have risked everything for the CVF. That is the only way we will have the global reach and ability to project air power in the furture. If you do not believe in this vision then you might as well go and work for Serco (other service providers are available). CVF and JCA will raise the morale of the whole Service, give excellent opportunities for FAA wanabees.
That is the future. That is the direction that Admiral West and others are taking us. It is refreshing that Air Power has taken a front seat in the RN after years of ASW stagnation (Not that ASW is no longer important).
The CVF is essential if this country is to continue to weild the influence we presently enjoy in the world. Without it, we might as well, turn the lights out, go home, emigrate to NZ and farm sheep!
P.S. I am very aware that this (good) debate is keeping WEBFs Sea Jet thread alive. Maybe we need to move to a new thread! Lets say something like...Will the CVF and JCA be another white elephant?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The best part of Somerset
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stirring stuff. My new "provider" provides a comfy seat, 4 engines and free hotel rooms around the world. Best of luck with the brave new world but, and I say this as a lifetime military man, I'd rather we sorted out the UK before we interfere with the rest of the world's problems. With no military threat to the UK, maybe the Ministry of Defence should be re-named the Ministry of Attack!
Moe,
I am sure that come the next crisis and BA/Virgin/EASY (delete as appropriate) start laying you all off...yet again, we will welcome you into the FAA flying the GR7A/9/JCA as an RNR pilot.....you'll be back.....yes you will.......you know you will.....you'll get fed up of being a bus driver at some stage....yes you will!
I am sure that come the next crisis and BA/Virgin/EASY (delete as appropriate) start laying you all off...yet again, we will welcome you into the FAA flying the GR7A/9/JCA as an RNR pilot.....you'll be back.....yes you will.......you know you will.....you'll get fed up of being a bus driver at some stage....yes you will!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The best part of Somerset
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the Hawk would do me-it can't land on one of the floating prisons. Oh you might find there's little need for a widger once we're all networked together. I've an ATPL study guide if you need one!