Sea Jet
Spare a thought for those of us who are liable to find ourselves in ships without CIWS, without SAM systems, without escorts (damn cuts) and no CAP......
A frigate or destroyer SHOULD be capable of defending herself, a CVS, LPH or LPD will have CIWS and escorts. However, Mines Counter Measures Vessels, supporting survey vessels, (most) RFAs, and (chartered) merchant vessels will not be able to defend themselves, and escorts will be in short supply. Therefore one might argue that the loss of the Sea Harrier effects them more than HM Ships of frigate size and above, yet there seems to be no provision made for defending these vessels against anything other than the asymetric threat.
A frigate or destroyer SHOULD be capable of defending herself, a CVS, LPH or LPD will have CIWS and escorts. However, Mines Counter Measures Vessels, supporting survey vessels, (most) RFAs, and (chartered) merchant vessels will not be able to defend themselves, and escorts will be in short supply. Therefore one might argue that the loss of the Sea Harrier effects them more than HM Ships of frigate size and above, yet there seems to be no provision made for defending these vessels against anything other than the asymetric threat.
WEBF,
Sparing a thought.................................................
Just HOW likely is that now old chap, really eh?
Navaleye,
Typhoon is going to be the ONLY fast jet Germany has after their "restructuring" and if they reduce the A400M OR Typhoon buy they will lose production workshare, that does not exactly tie in with the new Chancellors promise to boost the economy now does it?
Sparing a thought.................................................
Just HOW likely is that now old chap, really eh?
Navaleye,
Typhoon is going to be the ONLY fast jet Germany has after their "restructuring" and if they reduce the A400M OR Typhoon buy they will lose production workshare, that does not exactly tie in with the new Chancellors promise to boost the economy now does it?
Suspicion breeds confidence
but it does tie in with their desire to cut expenditure if they can get agreement from the other participants. I have a good idea what Gordy will say.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just HOW likely is that now old chap, really eh?
I would also like to say that in the future it won't just Jack on the recieving end of a missile but also Jenny Doris Crab and Perce. Mercifully, I have only ever been on the Fire Fighting and damage control plaforms in Raliegh and that was scary enough. I dread to think what it is like in the real thing. And I sincearly hope no one on this board ever finds out.
Here's a thought...
Say the RN were compelled to insure the whole fleet with loyds of london. The risk people assess the ships indiviually and set the premiuns according to the individual ships defensive capapbility. T23? no probs nice low premium there, T42? Well getting long in the tooth ain't so good at Aird defence any more so a bit higher. MCMV/SRMH? minimal A/D nil Submarine defence but only carries 30-odd of ships company - relatively low replacement value - good. Overall defence of the fleet is good as they have sea harrier / Seabag to provide Air defence and T23 to take care of the Sub/Surface threat. Now what happens after 31/03/06? The premiums get loaded because the risk to the fleet becomes greater. What do you think they'd load those premiums by? I suspect it would be more than £109 Million.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the RAF is so convinced that the UK is never going to get into a shooting match without US Top cover... Why are they buying Typhoon?
The decision to scrap SHAR was, and is, flawed?
The decision to scrap SHAR was, and is, flawed?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
If the RAF is so convinced that the UK is never going to get into a shooting match without US Top cover... Why are they buying Typhoon?
a. Because we signed the multi-national contract years ago and the other countries would make us pay even if we cancelled. Same deal as the Germans found over the A400M. We can always try and flog some of the product slots to the RSAF as part of an update to the Al Yamamah contract.
b. Keeps lots of lovely jobs in factories in MPs constituencies building aircraft. Not many jobs involved in just keeping an old aircraft flying.
c. Hopes of overseas orders (triumph of hope over experience).
d. Retention of aircraft design and construction expertise (same reason they built the EAP before the Eurofighter came along).
a. Because we signed the multi-national contract years ago and the other countries would make us pay even if we cancelled. Same deal as the Germans found over the A400M. We can always try and flog some of the product slots to the RSAF as part of an update to the Al Yamamah contract.
b. Keeps lots of lovely jobs in factories in MPs constituencies building aircraft. Not many jobs involved in just keeping an old aircraft flying.
c. Hopes of overseas orders (triumph of hope over experience).
d. Retention of aircraft design and construction expertise (same reason they built the EAP before the Eurofighter came along).
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SW England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never thought I would post on Sea Jet but here goes.
T23 has no decent CIWS. Just Vert SeaWolf 30mm and minguns.
Type 42s had the hastily fitted 20mm Phalanx post the Falklands, where if they had been fitted before we wouldn't have lost Coventry or Sheffield. Would the Malvinas invasion force have tried to bomb ships with the 20mm buzz saw coming at them? I think not.
Type 22's are probably the best defended ship in the fleet with 30mm Goalkeeper, 30mm cannon and min guns.
However I would rather have a couple of fighters above me running a CAP.
WEBF if I were you, I would join the submarine service, you can't kill what you can't see.
T23 has no decent CIWS. Just Vert SeaWolf 30mm and minguns.
Type 42s had the hastily fitted 20mm Phalanx post the Falklands, where if they had been fitted before we wouldn't have lost Coventry or Sheffield. Would the Malvinas invasion force have tried to bomb ships with the 20mm buzz saw coming at them? I think not.
Type 22's are probably the best defended ship in the fleet with 30mm Goalkeeper, 30mm cannon and min guns.
However I would rather have a couple of fighters above me running a CAP.
WEBF if I were you, I would join the submarine service, you can't kill what you can't see.
Suspicion breeds confidence
The Phalanx on the T42 are far from ideally sited and don't provide any coverage across the stern. So in the case of the attack profile used by the the Argentines against Ardent, they would have been no use at all.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Last time I looked they were. They are on platforms in the space vacated by the ship's boats. It was the only place they would fit. I believe one of the B3s had one placed behind the Sea Dart launcher at one time but it has reverted to the earlier arrangement.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SW England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The deterrent value of Phalanx would have kept the Skyhawks and Mirages that got past the SHAR screen out of bomb alley.
The important thing is layering the defence, AEW A/C and CAP, Radar pickets, medium range SAMs, MANPADS and CIWS then lads and lasses on deck with anything they have from miniguns to SA80s.
Without Naval Aviation the SK Asac will just watch the bad guys zap all our fleet.
The important thing is layering the defence, AEW A/C and CAP, Radar pickets, medium range SAMs, MANPADS and CIWS then lads and lasses on deck with anything they have from miniguns to SA80s.
Without Naval Aviation the SK Asac will just watch the bad guys zap all our fleet.
Navaleye,
Ships can move you know, manoeuvre under air attack?
Funky Munky,
What bad guys want to zap our fleet? With what? Have you noticed who we tend to be fighting these days and where
Ships can move you know, manoeuvre under air attack?
Funky Munky,
What bad guys want to zap our fleet? With what? Have you noticed who we tend to be fighting these days and where
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne... that's an interesting concept, that a defence force established to protect the Uk and it's interests can pick who it want's to fight... "Sorry we can't defend today in case you sink our ships."
Suspicion breeds confidence
Pr00ne, the T21s were the fastest, most manoeuvreable ships in the fleet. Ardent was hit by 4 attacks coming in from astern whilst under full power and hit by a total of 17 bombs. Your point is??
Last edited by Navaleye; 25th Nov 2005 at 08:49.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groundhog day in the Sea Jet thread.
I think you guys are on to something, layered defence. Brilliant.
We can have the mini-guns, then 20mm, then Phalanx, then Sea Wolf, then Sea Dart, then PAAMS, then ramjet missiles......and then we can have short range organic air defence with ASACS and we could then get some long range AD to layer that. Fantastic, no-one would ever get near us.
And if we don't get everything, all of the time, we just down tools and say we aren't going to play. Grumbling quietly to ourselves about the Falklands and how 8 organic aircraft with 50mins on task at a sensible range, (for about 2 days until they are all lead nose or U/S on deck,) will be able to solve an organic capability crisis so serious that airforces around the world are lining up to exploit it in the 8 or so years that we only rely on the 3000+ coalition land based AD aircraft to give the Fleet a layered defence.
But that's just silly isn't it?
Thank goodness you guys don't have any power or influence in the procurement field. The up side is that at least we'd be well equipped to fight another Falklands campaign. Assuming the enemy was stuck in a time warp and did it exactly the same as in 1982.
Roll on the 31st of March so that this thread can be transferred to 'Aviation History and Nostalgia.'
I think you guys are on to something, layered defence. Brilliant.
We can have the mini-guns, then 20mm, then Phalanx, then Sea Wolf, then Sea Dart, then PAAMS, then ramjet missiles......and then we can have short range organic air defence with ASACS and we could then get some long range AD to layer that. Fantastic, no-one would ever get near us.
And if we don't get everything, all of the time, we just down tools and say we aren't going to play. Grumbling quietly to ourselves about the Falklands and how 8 organic aircraft with 50mins on task at a sensible range, (for about 2 days until they are all lead nose or U/S on deck,) will be able to solve an organic capability crisis so serious that airforces around the world are lining up to exploit it in the 8 or so years that we only rely on the 3000+ coalition land based AD aircraft to give the Fleet a layered defence.
But that's just silly isn't it?
Thank goodness you guys don't have any power or influence in the procurement field. The up side is that at least we'd be well equipped to fight another Falklands campaign. Assuming the enemy was stuck in a time warp and did it exactly the same as in 1982.
Roll on the 31st of March so that this thread can be transferred to 'Aviation History and Nostalgia.'
the funky money
I'm (only?) a Reservist. My war role is aboard either RFAs or chartered/STUFT ships. Without organic air defence and with fewer frigates and destroyers for escorts, we may find myself in the situation of having to try to fend off air attack with rifles and GPMGs (if we're lucky).
FB11 Why are so many nations busy buying air launched anti ship weapons if not to threaten both merchant shipping and naval forces?
I'm (only?) a Reservist. My war role is aboard either RFAs or chartered/STUFT ships. Without organic air defence and with fewer frigates and destroyers for escorts, we may find myself in the situation of having to try to fend off air attack with rifles and GPMGs (if we're lucky).
FB11 Why are so many nations busy buying air launched anti ship weapons if not to threaten both merchant shipping and naval forces?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
You are right. No one with a hint of sense has ever disputed the concept of organic air defence. We all agree with you. I am not suggesting that organic air defence is not required, we will have it again in the not too distant future.
Your point, made over and over again, is just as valid as it was when you first made it. Retirement of the Sea Harrier before a replacement capability was in place is a risk. Again, we all violently agree with you but there are ways to mitigate the capability gap. Not ideal but that's the way it is.
Your unwavering belief that the lack of organic labour and manpower intensive CAP, whether on alert or airborne, is somehow the straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to survivability is passionate but staggeringly narrow minded.
Do some simple maths. Work out how many sorties would need to be flown to maintain 24 hour CAP IVO of a 6 ship task group. I'll do it for you. You'd need a minimum of 4 jets airborne at any one time, (to cope with the apocalyptic ASMs you seem to always find in the depths of Jane's Defence Weekly.) Do you allow the organic aircraft to use land based AAR or is that just too joint? I hope you do because if not, we need 64 sorties per day to man a 4 ship CAP. If you (dare) to allow the light blue to help out, drop that to 24 sorties per day. What do you think, a 180 day deployment? 11520 sorties with no port visits and no AAR. 7680 sorties if you assume 60 days off task. 2880 with AAR. Not a very strong arguement is it?
The self licking lollipop is alive and well with more than half of projected CVF sortie generation purely for defence of the TF in the pure organic case. (All figures above generated from open source info.) How about we focus defensive investment in a 24 hour per day, 365 day per year long range SAM capability allied to the already in service systems? Maybe we could then allow the expensive and capable multi mission JCA to break away from a 50nm radius of the TF and actually contribute to the joint fight. That would be a novelty.
Is it your intention to string this crusade out until the first JCA squadron is operational?
You are right. No one with a hint of sense has ever disputed the concept of organic air defence. We all agree with you. I am not suggesting that organic air defence is not required, we will have it again in the not too distant future.
Your point, made over and over again, is just as valid as it was when you first made it. Retirement of the Sea Harrier before a replacement capability was in place is a risk. Again, we all violently agree with you but there are ways to mitigate the capability gap. Not ideal but that's the way it is.
Your unwavering belief that the lack of organic labour and manpower intensive CAP, whether on alert or airborne, is somehow the straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to survivability is passionate but staggeringly narrow minded.
Do some simple maths. Work out how many sorties would need to be flown to maintain 24 hour CAP IVO of a 6 ship task group. I'll do it for you. You'd need a minimum of 4 jets airborne at any one time, (to cope with the apocalyptic ASMs you seem to always find in the depths of Jane's Defence Weekly.) Do you allow the organic aircraft to use land based AAR or is that just too joint? I hope you do because if not, we need 64 sorties per day to man a 4 ship CAP. If you (dare) to allow the light blue to help out, drop that to 24 sorties per day. What do you think, a 180 day deployment? 11520 sorties with no port visits and no AAR. 7680 sorties if you assume 60 days off task. 2880 with AAR. Not a very strong arguement is it?
The self licking lollipop is alive and well with more than half of projected CVF sortie generation purely for defence of the TF in the pure organic case. (All figures above generated from open source info.) How about we focus defensive investment in a 24 hour per day, 365 day per year long range SAM capability allied to the already in service systems? Maybe we could then allow the expensive and capable multi mission JCA to break away from a 50nm radius of the TF and actually contribute to the joint fight. That would be a novelty.
Is it your intention to string this crusade out until the first JCA squadron is operational?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB11
Now what have we said about throwing in logical well informed arguments to this thread, let alone mentioning the 'thing that shall be known as purple'
How's life treating you, have you been allowed back in the seat of something that originates in the latter half of Twentieth Century yet. Have fun, its one of the few threads that's worth reading!
Now what have we said about throwing in logical well informed arguments to this thread, let alone mentioning the 'thing that shall be known as purple'
How's life treating you, have you been allowed back in the seat of something that originates in the latter half of Twentieth Century yet. Have fun, its one of the few threads that's worth reading!
Suspicion breeds confidence
Not that long ago I suggested that it would be 2018 before we had a credible F-35 fleet. Recent stories of protracted delays to both CVF and JCA make that date more likely not less when you take into account IFTU and work up of ship and squadrons. The first T45 wont be operational until 2009 either. As I recall the announcement regarding the withdrawal of the Shar, it was a short term measure. I don't call 12 years short. The policy needs to be reviewed now while we still have something to review.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
You're absolutely right, just like WEBF.
Let's meet up and go and canvass for the hundreds of millions we'd need to extend the life of an aircraft that, even with a big motor and improved avionics, is still a short range/short endurance aircraft.
I do find it slightly tedious that when I present a perfectly logical reason why FA2 is not viable, WEBF goes offline for a few days, waits for my answer to get buried under some trite responses, completely ignores it and starts again with the same well trodden lines.
And no mention of my last post from you either.
How many FA2 do you think we'd need to keep 24 hour cover over a reasonable sized task group for 6 months? Have a stab. Maybe you'd like to let me know how many FA2 we'd need to own to do that for just one TF? Now lay down a logical case for FA2.
You sentiment for the loss of organic fixed wing is lovely and indeed valid, but linking Sea Harrier with that same sentiment as a potential answer is painful, regressive and damaging to those of us dealing with the future of FAA aviation.
Help us celebrate the inevitable last months of the Sea Harrier rather than soil it.
(4 months until the transfer to 'Aviation History and Nostalgia')
You're absolutely right, just like WEBF.
Let's meet up and go and canvass for the hundreds of millions we'd need to extend the life of an aircraft that, even with a big motor and improved avionics, is still a short range/short endurance aircraft.
I do find it slightly tedious that when I present a perfectly logical reason why FA2 is not viable, WEBF goes offline for a few days, waits for my answer to get buried under some trite responses, completely ignores it and starts again with the same well trodden lines.
And no mention of my last post from you either.
How many FA2 do you think we'd need to keep 24 hour cover over a reasonable sized task group for 6 months? Have a stab. Maybe you'd like to let me know how many FA2 we'd need to own to do that for just one TF? Now lay down a logical case for FA2.
You sentiment for the loss of organic fixed wing is lovely and indeed valid, but linking Sea Harrier with that same sentiment as a potential answer is painful, regressive and damaging to those of us dealing with the future of FAA aviation.
Help us celebrate the inevitable last months of the Sea Harrier rather than soil it.
(4 months until the transfer to 'Aviation History and Nostalgia')