Sea Jet
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
I don't think that a conventional CVF carrier could be described as a 'white elephant'!!! Fixed wing carrier aviation offers a highly flexible alternative to land based assets and they have been heavily employed in recent ops (Afghanistan and Iraq). Even allowing for the fact that even the USN CVNs rely heavily upon land based support, I sincerely hope that the RN plans for 2 CVF come to fruition.
Personally however, I just cannot see it happening at the 60 000 ton scale. A cynic would also suggest that the RN know that they have to get CVF or they'll be hard pushed to justify their future surface fleet. I just hope that we don't reduce the size of CVF down to the current Invincible's size just as the USMC are ordered by the USAF and USN to can the F-35 STOVL variant and take the CV model. Then the UK would really be up a creek.
Bluewolf,
The USAF commenced mothballing 33 B-1B's last Aug as a means of freeing money up to upgrade the remaining 60. However, even though the Bone carries more bombs than a B-52, and is more survivable, it would be too expensive for all but a few nations.
Gnadenthingy,
I cannot see the RAAF keeping their Pigs more than a few more years. Capable as they are, they're extremely expensive, and have had considerable serviceablity problems of late.
Regards,
M2
I don't think that a conventional CVF carrier could be described as a 'white elephant'!!! Fixed wing carrier aviation offers a highly flexible alternative to land based assets and they have been heavily employed in recent ops (Afghanistan and Iraq). Even allowing for the fact that even the USN CVNs rely heavily upon land based support, I sincerely hope that the RN plans for 2 CVF come to fruition.
Personally however, I just cannot see it happening at the 60 000 ton scale. A cynic would also suggest that the RN know that they have to get CVF or they'll be hard pushed to justify their future surface fleet. I just hope that we don't reduce the size of CVF down to the current Invincible's size just as the USMC are ordered by the USAF and USN to can the F-35 STOVL variant and take the CV model. Then the UK would really be up a creek.
Bluewolf,
The USAF commenced mothballing 33 B-1B's last Aug as a means of freeing money up to upgrade the remaining 60. However, even though the Bone carries more bombs than a B-52, and is more survivable, it would be too expensive for all but a few nations.
Gnadenthingy,
I cannot see the RAAF keeping their Pigs more than a few more years. Capable as they are, they're extremely expensive, and have had considerable serviceablity problems of late.
Regards,
M2
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko said
"And before you bleat on about reliance on basing in neighbouring countries, give me an example (since 1990) when an op was politically tenable but when such basing wouldn't have been easily available."
How about Turkey this spring.
If you think we should rely on another nation to provide our AD at sea then you have lost the plot.
Oggin
"And before you bleat on about reliance on basing in neighbouring countries, give me an example (since 1990) when an op was politically tenable but when such basing wouldn't have been easily available."
How about Turkey this spring.
If you think we should rely on another nation to provide our AD at sea then you have lost the plot.
Oggin
Disjointed thoughts:
Autonomous ops by the RN would still be possible within range of land-based AD, though if you can see Tony Blair or his successors undertaking such ops, you're either a visionary or a lunatic.
Outside the range of land-based AD the RN would require AD cover from coalition allies. But aren't we supposed to be moving away from Deep/Blue Water ops into an era of littoral warfare?
I don't hear any of the 'must keep the SHar - it's a national capability we must retain' complaining that the RAF requires allied SEAD support, and other capabilities, every time it is used.
Yes, Turkey proved difficult this Spring. Did that prevent the op? Did that necessitate the deployment of SHars? Or did we just use bases in Kuwait, Saudi, Oman and Jordan?
Were it possible to guarantee the availability of two carriers simultaneously, FEBA's two carrier solution would be interesting, since a two-carrier group could do both roles simultaneously, making it useful.
BlueW
Blue Vixen or APG-65 on GR7/9 would not be practical or cost effective.
Autonomous ops by the RN would still be possible within range of land-based AD, though if you can see Tony Blair or his successors undertaking such ops, you're either a visionary or a lunatic.
Outside the range of land-based AD the RN would require AD cover from coalition allies. But aren't we supposed to be moving away from Deep/Blue Water ops into an era of littoral warfare?
I don't hear any of the 'must keep the SHar - it's a national capability we must retain' complaining that the RAF requires allied SEAD support, and other capabilities, every time it is used.
Yes, Turkey proved difficult this Spring. Did that prevent the op? Did that necessitate the deployment of SHars? Or did we just use bases in Kuwait, Saudi, Oman and Jordan?
Were it possible to guarantee the availability of two carriers simultaneously, FEBA's two carrier solution would be interesting, since a two-carrier group could do both roles simultaneously, making it useful.
BlueW
Blue Vixen or APG-65 on GR7/9 would not be practical or cost effective.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autonomous ops by the RN would still be possible within range of land-based AD, though if you can see Tony Blair or his successors undertaking such ops, you're either a visionary or a lunatic.
I see no reason why we could not guarantee the simultaneous availablity of two carriers, one for Shars and one for GR7 or 9. Perhaps our Navy friends can comment on this.
The two would make a potent force, not very cost effective mind you, but then I cant recall a conflict that showed a profit.
As for the last one, which in my opinion, we should not have been involved in, I see we have 5p on a gallon of petrol to pay for it and the continuing mess. Now isn't that a sweet irony. Well done Brown
Interesting that the First Sea Lord should state his belief that the RN's force of 32 frigates and destroyers is over-stretched in carrying out what he seems to view as its most vital current role - protecting shipping, oil rigs, etc. from terrorist attack. It was even more interesting that he laid the blame for this overstretch on the need to provide escorts for high value units and shipping.
Does Sir Alan himself view the Carriers as an unwelcome diversion of resources? Would he rather see the Navy buying more frigates than these two ships? Is he one of those rare senior officers who is more concerned with his service doing the actual job in the best and most cost-effective way than with obtaining the most exciting, technologically advanced and glamorous kit? Is he, perhaps, an officer who accepts that the Navy's post Cold War role should be more limited, and one who embraces the shift from blue-water to littoral ops?
He's certainly one of those who was willing to sacrifice the Shar and to accept the resulting capability gap. One wonders whether he'd lose the CVFs and JSF with equal equanimity?
We can all think of senior RAF officers who've been more concerned with pouring more and more money at Eurofighter, FOAS, etc. while being content to underfund current programmes, and to fail to spend money on necessary upgrades, so I'm not for one moment suggesting that the Admirals have been alone in being 'dazzled' by the glamorous big ticket issues and items.
Does Sir Alan himself view the Carriers as an unwelcome diversion of resources? Would he rather see the Navy buying more frigates than these two ships? Is he one of those rare senior officers who is more concerned with his service doing the actual job in the best and most cost-effective way than with obtaining the most exciting, technologically advanced and glamorous kit? Is he, perhaps, an officer who accepts that the Navy's post Cold War role should be more limited, and one who embraces the shift from blue-water to littoral ops?
He's certainly one of those who was willing to sacrifice the Shar and to accept the resulting capability gap. One wonders whether he'd lose the CVFs and JSF with equal equanimity?
We can all think of senior RAF officers who've been more concerned with pouring more and more money at Eurofighter, FOAS, etc. while being content to underfund current programmes, and to fail to spend money on necessary upgrades, so I'm not for one moment suggesting that the Admirals have been alone in being 'dazzled' by the glamorous big ticket issues and items.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
You've jumped the points, missed the main track and are heading off to the sidings.
To suggest that the RN's future role will be to tackle terrorists and anarchists and that they need more inflatables to do it, is preposterous, and if the chiefs of staff truely believe this, then they need their heads banging together.
When the Palestine problem is fixed and the right wing zealots (sic) in Israel learn to shut up, the political initiative will be removed from the extremists like AQ. Are all the rogue states, as Bush refers to them, suddenly going to become our best mates.
So whilst the ME is sorting itself out, Dubbya gets the push, Blair quits to the after dinner speaking circuit, what will the North Koreans and their revanchist aspirations, be doing?? How will we protect our interests with a few pea shooters?
Should we, according to your arguements, pay a levy to the US to formulate and police foreign policy on our behalf? I bloody well think not.
This isn't a debate about common sense, just a devils advocacy, shoot from the hip disagreement with one man. Some of the waffle coming from the likes of jargon man, Magic Mushroom , is gravid with inaccuracies about the capabilities of this aircraft, and yourself throwing in red herrings left right and centre. Nozzles is the only one with the facts here, and that after a beer or three.
Go for the subject matter here and ignor the personalities and their crusades for common sense. I think, then you will be able to take your first steps on to the ground of common consensus.
FEBA
Fancy a beer sometime Nozzles?
You've jumped the points, missed the main track and are heading off to the sidings.
To suggest that the RN's future role will be to tackle terrorists and anarchists and that they need more inflatables to do it, is preposterous, and if the chiefs of staff truely believe this, then they need their heads banging together.
When the Palestine problem is fixed and the right wing zealots (sic) in Israel learn to shut up, the political initiative will be removed from the extremists like AQ. Are all the rogue states, as Bush refers to them, suddenly going to become our best mates.
So whilst the ME is sorting itself out, Dubbya gets the push, Blair quits to the after dinner speaking circuit, what will the North Koreans and their revanchist aspirations, be doing?? How will we protect our interests with a few pea shooters?
Should we, according to your arguements, pay a levy to the US to formulate and police foreign policy on our behalf? I bloody well think not.
This isn't a debate about common sense, just a devils advocacy, shoot from the hip disagreement with one man. Some of the waffle coming from the likes of jargon man, Magic Mushroom , is gravid with inaccuracies about the capabilities of this aircraft, and yourself throwing in red herrings left right and centre. Nozzles is the only one with the facts here, and that after a beer or three.
Go for the subject matter here and ignor the personalities and their crusades for common sense. I think, then you will be able to take your first steps on to the ground of common consensus.
FEBA
Fancy a beer sometime Nozzles?
To buy more frigates/destroyers, not inflatables.
Reasons to get rid of SHar
1) Carrierborne AD is a luxury capability which is seldom needed, and which can usually be replaced by other assets. It's far less significant in today's environment than in the Cold War.
2) Our present carriers are incapable of simultaneously carrying out AD and OS roles simultaneously, making the SHar a redundant asset.
3) There are other, more important capabilities which should be funded as a higher priority (even within the RN budget).
4) Our political leadership have decided that we won't do autonomous ops. The ancient SHar duplicates capabilities better provided by our allies.
5) Getting rid of SHar will leave a short term capability gap only.
Reasons to scrap the CVF and JSF
6) Carriers are simply not affordable.
7) CVF with JSF will represent an expensive and inefficient way of delivering air power.
8) There will still be other, more important capabilities which should be funded as a higher priority (even within the RN budget). Perhaps returning to a 50 frigate Navy would be a start.
9) The same capabilities can be better provided by our allies, and autonomous national operations are not the basis of the Defence planning assumptions.
10) Carrierborne AD is a luxury capability which is seldom needed, and which can usually be replaced by other assets. It's far less significant in littoral ops than in blue water ops.
Reasons to get rid of SHar
1) Carrierborne AD is a luxury capability which is seldom needed, and which can usually be replaced by other assets. It's far less significant in today's environment than in the Cold War.
2) Our present carriers are incapable of simultaneously carrying out AD and OS roles simultaneously, making the SHar a redundant asset.
3) There are other, more important capabilities which should be funded as a higher priority (even within the RN budget).
4) Our political leadership have decided that we won't do autonomous ops. The ancient SHar duplicates capabilities better provided by our allies.
5) Getting rid of SHar will leave a short term capability gap only.
Reasons to scrap the CVF and JSF
6) Carriers are simply not affordable.
7) CVF with JSF will represent an expensive and inefficient way of delivering air power.
8) There will still be other, more important capabilities which should be funded as a higher priority (even within the RN budget). Perhaps returning to a 50 frigate Navy would be a start.
9) The same capabilities can be better provided by our allies, and autonomous national operations are not the basis of the Defence planning assumptions.
10) Carrierborne AD is a luxury capability which is seldom needed, and which can usually be replaced by other assets. It's far less significant in littoral ops than in blue water ops.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
Some comments on your comments:-
Reasons to get rid of SHar
1) Carrierborne AD is a luxury capability which is seldom needed, and which can usually be replaced by other assets. It's far less significant in today's environment than in the Cold War.
The sinking of a carrier is significant at any time.
2) Our present carriers are incapable of simultaneously carrying out AD and OS roles simultaneously, making the SHar a redundant asset.
Disagree. Have done it, albeit on a small scale.
3) There are other, more important capabilities which should be funded as a higher priority (even within the RN budget).
Examples?
4) Our political leadership have decided that we won't do autonomous ops. The ancient SHar duplicates capabilities better provided by our allies.
Allies have the capability of AMRAAM with Blue Vixen? Not even the light blue can match this combination at the moment.
5) Getting rid of SHar will leave a short term capability gap only.
6-8 years. After 4 years of no organic AEW the fleet suffered in the S Atlantic in 1982. We lost a lot of good ships, equipment and more importantly people who may have been saved had we had this capability. You never know what is round the corner.
Reasons to scrap the CVF and JSF
6) Carriers are simply not affordable.
Why not? The utility they bring offset the cost. Ask the Americans.
7) CVF with JSF will represent an expensive and inefficient way of delivering air power.
Yes expensive, potentially inefficient however having the ability to strike from the sea costs money - but if it is the only option you have it would be worth it. You cant rely on HNS all the time (most of the time yes maybe, but not all). An airbase that can move itself 3 - 400 miles overnight has tremendous utility when it comes to power projection.
8) There will still be other, more important capabilities which should be funded as a higher priority (even within the RN budget). Perhaps returning to a 50 frigate Navy would be a start.
And where would we get the people / manage to train these people in order to man these extra ships? The RN is as lean as it has ever been.
9) The same capabilities can be better provided by our allies, and autonomous national operations are not the basis of the Defence planning assumptions.
But you never know. You wouldnt have planned an autonomous op in Sierra Leone but it happened. Falklands - it happened. To rely on allies is a good thing but when it comes to the crunch ........
10) Carrierborne AD is a luxury capability which is seldom needed, and which can usually be replaced by other assets. It's far less significant in littoral ops than in blue water ops.
I would say it is far more significant in the littoral. Its about being able to project power ashore from a little bit of sovereign territory just over the horizon, not having to rely on anyone else who may decline their help at any time (Turkey ring a bell?). Therefore AD in the littoral is far more important as the ships become vulnerable to shore based strikers. AD of an amphib group is also important, they carry our chaps to the fight and must be protected.
I think "in the short term", the binning of the SHAR to make way for a few more GR7/9 on the CVS is short sighted. Our FJ aviators will lose the majority of their skills in Carrierborne AD, they may learn how to drop an LGB or PGM however when the CVF comes along we will have to retrain all those A-A skills, reinventing the wheel time and time again. Not just the aircrew, the FCs and Warfare Officers are not going to get enough continuation training over this gap period, hence there will be trough of inexperience (which is not their fault) as CVF comes into service. This will cost a lot of money to rectify, which potentially could have been spent now in order to upgrade the engines, fit the link etc etc.
Time will tell of course.
Oggin
Some comments on your comments:-
Reasons to get rid of SHar
1) Carrierborne AD is a luxury capability which is seldom needed, and which can usually be replaced by other assets. It's far less significant in today's environment than in the Cold War.
The sinking of a carrier is significant at any time.
2) Our present carriers are incapable of simultaneously carrying out AD and OS roles simultaneously, making the SHar a redundant asset.
Disagree. Have done it, albeit on a small scale.
3) There are other, more important capabilities which should be funded as a higher priority (even within the RN budget).
Examples?
4) Our political leadership have decided that we won't do autonomous ops. The ancient SHar duplicates capabilities better provided by our allies.
Allies have the capability of AMRAAM with Blue Vixen? Not even the light blue can match this combination at the moment.
5) Getting rid of SHar will leave a short term capability gap only.
6-8 years. After 4 years of no organic AEW the fleet suffered in the S Atlantic in 1982. We lost a lot of good ships, equipment and more importantly people who may have been saved had we had this capability. You never know what is round the corner.
Reasons to scrap the CVF and JSF
6) Carriers are simply not affordable.
Why not? The utility they bring offset the cost. Ask the Americans.
7) CVF with JSF will represent an expensive and inefficient way of delivering air power.
Yes expensive, potentially inefficient however having the ability to strike from the sea costs money - but if it is the only option you have it would be worth it. You cant rely on HNS all the time (most of the time yes maybe, but not all). An airbase that can move itself 3 - 400 miles overnight has tremendous utility when it comes to power projection.
8) There will still be other, more important capabilities which should be funded as a higher priority (even within the RN budget). Perhaps returning to a 50 frigate Navy would be a start.
And where would we get the people / manage to train these people in order to man these extra ships? The RN is as lean as it has ever been.
9) The same capabilities can be better provided by our allies, and autonomous national operations are not the basis of the Defence planning assumptions.
But you never know. You wouldnt have planned an autonomous op in Sierra Leone but it happened. Falklands - it happened. To rely on allies is a good thing but when it comes to the crunch ........
10) Carrierborne AD is a luxury capability which is seldom needed, and which can usually be replaced by other assets. It's far less significant in littoral ops than in blue water ops.
I would say it is far more significant in the littoral. Its about being able to project power ashore from a little bit of sovereign territory just over the horizon, not having to rely on anyone else who may decline their help at any time (Turkey ring a bell?). Therefore AD in the littoral is far more important as the ships become vulnerable to shore based strikers. AD of an amphib group is also important, they carry our chaps to the fight and must be protected.
I think "in the short term", the binning of the SHAR to make way for a few more GR7/9 on the CVS is short sighted. Our FJ aviators will lose the majority of their skills in Carrierborne AD, they may learn how to drop an LGB or PGM however when the CVF comes along we will have to retrain all those A-A skills, reinventing the wheel time and time again. Not just the aircrew, the FCs and Warfare Officers are not going to get enough continuation training over this gap period, hence there will be trough of inexperience (which is not their fault) as CVF comes into service. This will cost a lot of money to rectify, which potentially could have been spent now in order to upgrade the engines, fit the link etc etc.
Time will tell of course.
Oggin
Some comments on your comments on my comments.
1) So make sure it’s covered by land based AD or by the Spams. And if the only purpose of the carrier is to defend the carrier group, then why send it anyway?
2) OK, when has it been done? When has a carrier with GR7s embarked been able to provide sufficient round the clock AD cover for a significant period? When has a carrier with SHar and GR7 embarked been able to generate a meaningful A-G sortie rate?
3) SEAD. Canberra replacement. ASRAAM for GR7. ASRAAM for GR4. ASRAAM for Jag. IDM and RAIDS all round. More frigates. More destroyers. A rifle that works. Global Hawk. Tankers. More C-17s.
4) I think that F-14/AIM-54 and F/A-18/AIM-120 ‘trump’ SHar and AIM-120. Or how about AV-8B+/AIM-120? Or Rafale/Mica?
5) You SHar enthusiasts keep harping back to the Falklands. Just because Cavalry proved useful on a couple of occasions in 1939-45 doesn’t mean that thye Brits were wrong to replace horses with tanks in the Great War. In 1982, we were still prepared to pay to be able to do some limited things autonomously. Now we are not. With the defence assumptions as they are there is no funding for autonomous adventures.
And even in 1982 the Falklands were a unique case – nowhere else in the world is quite so remote from neighbouring bases, and they would have been defendable had we had the sense to build a runway there and station fighters on it.
6) I have spoken to several Flag rank USN officers who are less than convinced as to the utility of carriers, and to many who think that anything smaller than Nimitz, and especially anything not powered by the mighty atom is a complete waste of time.
7) We can’t do everything. Rarely needed, inefficient capabilities are the ones to cut.
8) I think the RN thinks that it could quickly man an expanded force.
9) Sierra Leone. Where the only weapon available was aircraft noise, and where a squadron of Jags at the Azores was held back from Dakar. Good example! Again. Don’t argue with me. The politicians have decided (and the Chiefs Of Staff presumably concur) that there is no longer a need to tool up for autonomous ops. Even if there were, I’d want decent SEAD and recce (which are needed each and every time) before I spent billions on some grey elephant.
10) Yes Turkey rings a bell. They said no and so we couldn’t go to war against Saddam, could we? Nothing happened, did it? They didn’t just use bases in other neighbouring states instead, did they? All those FJs in Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi, and Oman were a figment of my imagination.......
11) The loss of skills. Weren’t the SHar pilots leaving in droves anyway, and at such a rate that manning two of what the Navy jokingly call squadrons (they’re flights, aren’t they?) was becoming problematic. How many of the ******s would have been left for JSF anyway? In any event, there will be enough AD experienced blokes in light blue suits to pass on the skills to the next generation (if the new carriers aren’t cancelled), while the remaining FCs and Warfare Officers will presumably get some training with land based assets.
All of these pro-Sea Harrier arguments sound too much like a gang of desparate train spotters arguing for the retention of steam trains, in case Russia mounted a blockade which would cut us off from supplies of diesel. The Cold War is over, the Cavalry don’t still use horses.
Besides which, don't the RN already have Trident? (A Strategic nuclear deterrent whose raison d'etre was to guarantee being able to overcome Moscow's ABM defences? A Cold War relic, which is of questionable value today?)
Isn't one ridiculously expensive (but my how impressive) hangover from a bygone era enough for the Admirals?
1) So make sure it’s covered by land based AD or by the Spams. And if the only purpose of the carrier is to defend the carrier group, then why send it anyway?
2) OK, when has it been done? When has a carrier with GR7s embarked been able to provide sufficient round the clock AD cover for a significant period? When has a carrier with SHar and GR7 embarked been able to generate a meaningful A-G sortie rate?
3) SEAD. Canberra replacement. ASRAAM for GR7. ASRAAM for GR4. ASRAAM for Jag. IDM and RAIDS all round. More frigates. More destroyers. A rifle that works. Global Hawk. Tankers. More C-17s.
4) I think that F-14/AIM-54 and F/A-18/AIM-120 ‘trump’ SHar and AIM-120. Or how about AV-8B+/AIM-120? Or Rafale/Mica?
5) You SHar enthusiasts keep harping back to the Falklands. Just because Cavalry proved useful on a couple of occasions in 1939-45 doesn’t mean that thye Brits were wrong to replace horses with tanks in the Great War. In 1982, we were still prepared to pay to be able to do some limited things autonomously. Now we are not. With the defence assumptions as they are there is no funding for autonomous adventures.
And even in 1982 the Falklands were a unique case – nowhere else in the world is quite so remote from neighbouring bases, and they would have been defendable had we had the sense to build a runway there and station fighters on it.
6) I have spoken to several Flag rank USN officers who are less than convinced as to the utility of carriers, and to many who think that anything smaller than Nimitz, and especially anything not powered by the mighty atom is a complete waste of time.
7) We can’t do everything. Rarely needed, inefficient capabilities are the ones to cut.
8) I think the RN thinks that it could quickly man an expanded force.
9) Sierra Leone. Where the only weapon available was aircraft noise, and where a squadron of Jags at the Azores was held back from Dakar. Good example! Again. Don’t argue with me. The politicians have decided (and the Chiefs Of Staff presumably concur) that there is no longer a need to tool up for autonomous ops. Even if there were, I’d want decent SEAD and recce (which are needed each and every time) before I spent billions on some grey elephant.
10) Yes Turkey rings a bell. They said no and so we couldn’t go to war against Saddam, could we? Nothing happened, did it? They didn’t just use bases in other neighbouring states instead, did they? All those FJs in Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi, and Oman were a figment of my imagination.......
11) The loss of skills. Weren’t the SHar pilots leaving in droves anyway, and at such a rate that manning two of what the Navy jokingly call squadrons (they’re flights, aren’t they?) was becoming problematic. How many of the ******s would have been left for JSF anyway? In any event, there will be enough AD experienced blokes in light blue suits to pass on the skills to the next generation (if the new carriers aren’t cancelled), while the remaining FCs and Warfare Officers will presumably get some training with land based assets.
All of these pro-Sea Harrier arguments sound too much like a gang of desparate train spotters arguing for the retention of steam trains, in case Russia mounted a blockade which would cut us off from supplies of diesel. The Cold War is over, the Cavalry don’t still use horses.
Besides which, don't the RN already have Trident? (A Strategic nuclear deterrent whose raison d'etre was to guarantee being able to overcome Moscow's ABM defences? A Cold War relic, which is of questionable value today?)
Isn't one ridiculously expensive (but my how impressive) hangover from a bygone era enough for the Admirals?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said, time will tell. Somebody probably said that to John Nott as well.
I would love to live in your idealistic world where your allies will always spring to your aid and that all neighbouring states will always let you station your shiny SEAD and strike jets on their turf, at least my kids would be able to grow up safe in the knowledge that their defence is assured.
Unfortunately, the world is not like this. Maritime power projection is just as important as Air power projection in guaranteeing our safety, a fact naively ignored by most posters on this forum.
The reason GB is free and able exert its influence around the world is because of its power projection ability (both Maritime and Air) and its Nuclear Deterrent. Unless you are one of those unilateralists who would want to give that up, maybe Gibraltar as well, then maybe join the euro and give up what we spent 2 world wars defending.
If you had spent any time at sea you would realise the utility of the carrier, the utility of the sea jet in defending it and the role this type of force brings to the joint party. Yes we are not as big or glamourous as the Americans (but we never will be) but the ability to poise then strike is not to be understated, even if on a small scale. I think it was all covered in the SDR.
Oggin
I would love to live in your idealistic world where your allies will always spring to your aid and that all neighbouring states will always let you station your shiny SEAD and strike jets on their turf, at least my kids would be able to grow up safe in the knowledge that their defence is assured.
Unfortunately, the world is not like this. Maritime power projection is just as important as Air power projection in guaranteeing our safety, a fact naively ignored by most posters on this forum.
The reason GB is free and able exert its influence around the world is because of its power projection ability (both Maritime and Air) and its Nuclear Deterrent. Unless you are one of those unilateralists who would want to give that up, maybe Gibraltar as well, then maybe join the euro and give up what we spent 2 world wars defending.
If you had spent any time at sea you would realise the utility of the carrier, the utility of the sea jet in defending it and the role this type of force brings to the joint party. Yes we are not as big or glamourous as the Americans (but we never will be) but the ability to poise then strike is not to be understated, even if on a small scale. I think it was all covered in the SDR.
Oggin
I wouldn't unilaterally get rid of all UK nukes, but then I might have kept a sub-strategic deterrent, rather than Trident, or a mix of sub-strategic and less than four Trident boats.
Maritime Power Projection is no longer of any consequence. We are not a great power, and cannot afford great power pretensions. We will not go to war without allies again, and nor should we. If we do, then let's make sure we do so with the assets which we need for routine peace-keeping, peace enforcement, and coalition warfare. If that means that we couldn't do Suez again, or Corporate, then so be it. We must concentrate on core capabilities, and try to remember that the glorious past is history. Remember it, be proud of it, but don't imagine that we can or should repeat it.
It's a time for tough choices and careful prioritisation, and while we have inadequate SEAD, recce, tankers, strategic lift and only four AD squadrons, investing in two CVFs is lunacy.
Maritime Power Projection is no longer of any consequence. We are not a great power, and cannot afford great power pretensions. We will not go to war without allies again, and nor should we. If we do, then let's make sure we do so with the assets which we need for routine peace-keeping, peace enforcement, and coalition warfare. If that means that we couldn't do Suez again, or Corporate, then so be it. We must concentrate on core capabilities, and try to remember that the glorious past is history. Remember it, be proud of it, but don't imagine that we can or should repeat it.
It's a time for tough choices and careful prioritisation, and while we have inadequate SEAD, recce, tankers, strategic lift and only four AD squadrons, investing in two CVFs is lunacy.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FEBA Old Chap,
Why do you feel I am talking jargon? Exactly what piece of my 'waffle' regarding the SHARs capabilities is innaccurate?
I have stated many times that I am a strong supporter of maritime aviation. I have stated that Nozzles will clearly have more knowledge than myself regarding the specific capabilities of the SHAR. I have stated that I believe that the loss of the FA2's AMRAAM capability to be a major capability gap for the RN and UK forces. I would love to see the RN get 2 x 60 000 ton CVF with an air wing of JCA and a more capable AEW platform.
What I have also tried to do is offer a balanced view of the SHARs wider utility in modern ops and how it integrates with other assets, from my perspective as an AWACS guy. I've tried to do this honestly and impartially. If you feel any of my posts to have been innaccurate, please inform me in a more constructive manner rather than sniping.
Now chill out and have a G&T!
Regards,
Jargon Man
Some of the waffle coming from the likes of jargon man, Magic Mushroom , is gravid with inaccuracies about the capabilities of this aircraft
I have stated many times that I am a strong supporter of maritime aviation. I have stated that Nozzles will clearly have more knowledge than myself regarding the specific capabilities of the SHAR. I have stated that I believe that the loss of the FA2's AMRAAM capability to be a major capability gap for the RN and UK forces. I would love to see the RN get 2 x 60 000 ton CVF with an air wing of JCA and a more capable AEW platform.
What I have also tried to do is offer a balanced view of the SHARs wider utility in modern ops and how it integrates with other assets, from my perspective as an AWACS guy. I've tried to do this honestly and impartially. If you feel any of my posts to have been innaccurate, please inform me in a more constructive manner rather than sniping.
Now chill out and have a G&T!
Regards,
Jargon Man
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Difference of Opinion
We will just have to agree to disagree then.
"Maritime Power Projection is no longer of any consequence" is a statement I do not agree with, but you do. With the world covered by so much water, I dont see how this can be the case.
Oggin
"Maritime Power Projection is no longer of any consequence" is a statement I do not agree with, but you do. With the world covered by so much water, I dont see how this can be the case.
Oggin
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magic or jargon man as you are now known
So you are a strong supporter of Maritime Aviation are you ? To qualify the term Maritime, as far as you are concerned, it is the shar and that's it.
Your support comes with these, pat on the back gems to forward the cause
You then went on to complain about their (Shars) inability to match US equipment by saying that they were only able to do a 20 min DCA CAP
Nozzles replied to this as follows:
I have to say, Magic old chap, that I haven't seen a better example of support, for what will be a most dangerous capability gap for the RN, since Judas's rousing acclaim of Jesus Christ!
Both you and Jacko are shrouded in the cotton wool academic view of war that influences those that know the square root of b@gg€r all about it, but whose decisions do more to further the cause of our potential adversaries than our man with the gun at the front. Remember, this thread is read by pilots and me, so keep it simple. It's about what happens, or what should happen, during the interim, between the Shar and JSF (and a French carrier, aagh!) not a philosophical contest to see who can throw in the most acronyms and jargon.
Come and join us at the bar.
"Barman 2 large gin and tonics please, Magic's paying"
FEBA
So you are a strong supporter of Maritime Aviation are you ? To qualify the term Maritime, as far as you are concerned, it is the shar and that's it.
Your support comes with these, pat on the back gems to forward the cause
Frankly however, the SHAR airframe is of little value. I have read your regular posts about how useful the FRS1 and FA2 was in the Balkans. Rubbish! As an AWACS operator who flew many long hours coordinating the full spectrum of air assets over Croatia, BH, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania and the Adriatic between 93 and 99, the SHAR brought very little to the table.
Nozzles replied to this as follows:
I seem to remember M2 saying something about SHARs being on station for 20 minutes while the rest of the World was achieving 2-4 hour vul times. Christ man! what were these things? Global Hawks? I fly a super Yank F-jet now, and we need to air-refuel 4 times to cover a 2-hour vul period!
Both you and Jacko are shrouded in the cotton wool academic view of war that influences those that know the square root of b@gg€r all about it, but whose decisions do more to further the cause of our potential adversaries than our man with the gun at the front. Remember, this thread is read by pilots and me, so keep it simple. It's about what happens, or what should happen, during the interim, between the Shar and JSF (and a French carrier, aagh!) not a philosophical contest to see who can throw in the most acronyms and jargon.
Come and join us at the bar.
"Barman 2 large gin and tonics please, Magic's paying"
FEBA
Last edited by FEBA; 23rd Sep 2003 at 16:00.
...while we have inadequate SEAD, recce, tankers, strategic lift and only four AD squadrons, investing in two CVFs is lunacy.
I'd take issue with the statement that Maritime Power Projection is of no longer of any consequence. As we now have an LPH, two LPDs and four things that look like LPDs but are called something else (Bay Class LSL to replace Sir Galahad et al) I'd say Maritime Power Projection is alive and well. Park that lot off someone's coast, full of Marines and you could certainly influence events, of course you'd want some form of organic air defence to protect these assets...
"Both you and Jacko are shrouded in the cotton wool academic view of war that influences those that know the square root of b@gg€r all about it, but whose decisions do more to further the cause of our potential adversaries than our man with the gun at the front."
Or perhaps we're looking at the big picture, rather than at the single-service, single community narrow view which would see Britain's overall military preparedness and capabilities being compromised by spending vast sums on what is a rarely needed and non-essential, non core capability.
Moreover, we're accepting that the World has moved on, and that, for better or worse, our elected leaders have abandoned the Great Power pretensions which would see us trying to conduct major operations autonomously, rather than trying desperately to cling to some kind of Empire-era 'send a gunboat' view of the world.
And sacrificing vital capabilities for CVF (which looks good to the politicians - who do indeed know "the square root of b@gg€r all") really will "further the cause of our potential adversaries."
Or perhaps we're looking at the big picture, rather than at the single-service, single community narrow view which would see Britain's overall military preparedness and capabilities being compromised by spending vast sums on what is a rarely needed and non-essential, non core capability.
Moreover, we're accepting that the World has moved on, and that, for better or worse, our elected leaders have abandoned the Great Power pretensions which would see us trying to conduct major operations autonomously, rather than trying desperately to cling to some kind of Empire-era 'send a gunboat' view of the world.
And sacrificing vital capabilities for CVF (which looks good to the politicians - who do indeed know "the square root of b@gg€r all") really will "further the cause of our potential adversaries."
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crickey Jacko!
You seem to know more about the future of NATO than Lord Robertson does. What if NATO disappears at the expense of a EURO force?
Who's going to provide a UK naval task force with AD when it's thousands of miles away from land and Euroland says Non??
Bigger picture or narrow mindedness? if you're friendly with Brown tell him to put my next 5p on a gallon of unleaded towards a Shar.
Thank you
FEBA
Or perhaps we're looking at the big picture
Who's going to provide a UK naval task force with AD when it's thousands of miles away from land and Euroland says Non??
Bigger picture or narrow mindedness? if you're friendly with Brown tell him to put my next 5p on a gallon of unleaded towards a Shar.
Thank you
FEBA
If the French, Italians, Spanish, and Americans all say no, and if it's something where neighbouring country basing is unavailable, and if there's a realistic air threat then the chances are we wouldn't/shouldn't do it anyway.
And we can't afford to keep every capability option. I'd rather have decent SEAD and recce, tankers and C3I, a rifle that works, ASRAAM on every FJ, etc.
In other words kit which we'll need and use every time we do anything than the Sea Harrier, and aircraft carriers, which we needed once in the last 25 years.
Where would you save the money that I'd save by scrapping the Sea Harrier and CVF?
And we can't afford to keep every capability option. I'd rather have decent SEAD and recce, tankers and C3I, a rifle that works, ASRAAM on every FJ, etc.
In other words kit which we'll need and use every time we do anything than the Sea Harrier, and aircraft carriers, which we needed once in the last 25 years.
Where would you save the money that I'd save by scrapping the Sea Harrier and CVF?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
On the other hand FEBA, you seem to be claiming to know more about how they should spend their money than the Ministry and the CDS. Perhaps they're narrow minded.
