|
If true, then the renaming proposal for PoW to ARK, would no doubt be welcomed by many....and I'm surprised that said "senior naval officer" could not recall that the outgoing Ark was a rename too. If my memory serves me right, she too was renamed after the public outcry post the demise of The Ark post "Sailor" in 1978....indeed I think she was originally to be called Indominatable..(sp?)
Cheers |
Tiger, Blake, and Lion had a few name changes too.
Bellerophon, Tiger and Defence for instance. Even Ark Royal was renames Pegasus. It seems as if the policy of name changes might be considered the norm rather than an aberation. |
Much as I admire the A-10, and after seeing them ( and more to the point, their pilots' skills ) at West Freugh I certainly do, I would reckon the chances of embarking on a Naval version development programme just for the UK about as likely as Elle McPherson ringing me out of the blue saying she's always wanted to run away to a tropical island with me...
If going for such a task as pirate knobbling, there are 65 airframes ( I have reason to believe that's accurate ) with even better STOL ( ! ) capability, seagoing proven, languishing at Cottesmore; OK, no guns which is a sad story, but rocket pods of various types should make something of an impression; they could even be used on a SCADS/ Atlantic Conveyor style ' Q-Ship ' ... |
Saw this post on another Thread, and as it is likely to get merged anyway, thought I would drag this back to the front page (WEBF - you must be getting slow in your old age not to have this linked already!;)).
Prolonged Libya effort unsustainable, warns Navy chief | UK news | guardian.co.uk There are some very revealing soundbites from the 1SL - and a few home truths (or STFU's). Following much discussion about the Harrier/Carrier AD capability I thought this was quite interesting (my bold): "If we had Ark Royal and Harriers in February, I feel relatively assured that we would have deployed that capability off Libya to conduct the ground (operations), not the air defence piece which the Harrier was not capable of achieving. Banter aside, the quote below is, IMHO, quite worrying and reveals how much of the family silver has been sold off to pay for the QE class But Stanhope made it clear that he did not have enough ships to continue what is a relatively small operation in Libya without something else having to give. "If we do it longer than six months we will have to reprioritise forces. That is being addressed now. It could be from around home waters. I will not prejudge what that decision will be." |
But nobody argued that Harrier GR9 could do the same jobs and provide the same capabilities as a fighter with radar and BVR weapons, merely that if things went badly and a task group need to defend itself against enemy aircraft, it could provide a degree of air defence, beyond the range of ship based weapons and with the key ability to visually identify suspicious aircraft...
You also forget that some of us (yes, that includes me) tried to prevent the Sea Harrier from being axed, and then after it was retired, speculated about the possibility of it being regenerated should it be needed in a crisis - see the Sea Jet thread. Moreover, 1SL (an ex CVS Captain) will be aware of the skills needed amongst the ships company of the carrier for carrier operations, something mentioned here: Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers" - and here in particular. Or in far more detail, my own comments here: If the Royal Navy has no capacity to operate fixed wing aircraft at sea for a decade, then all the skills that are needed will be lost. It is generally reckoned that building these skills up from being non existent to the level we currently have would take approximately ten years – maybe longer. Of course, the pilots can be sent to work with the US Navy or someone else, to build up experience of carrier operations. However, operating fixed wing aircraft (and helicopters to a certain extent) is a whole ship activity. It does not only involve the aircrew and flight deck personnel, but virtually everyone. There is no way we can send hundreds of sailors to work in American carriers, and most of these specialist skills need to be maintained by constant practice. Many are carrier specific. On the flight deck, aircraft handlers need to be able to speedily and safely move aircraft around the flight deck, both by giving visual cues to pilots and by using vehicles. They also need to be able to deal with any fires or other incidents that might occur. The RN School of Flight Deck Operations at RNAS Culdrose has a dummy deck, dubbed HMS Siskin, where aircraft handlers learn their trade. Real aircraft, including a number of retired Sea Harriers, are used and move under their own power to simulate a carrier deck. However, they cannot simulate the movement of a ship at sea in variable sea conditions, pitching and rolling. Nor can they simulate things such the carrier increasing speed to launch aircraft and the sudden wind over the deck. Getting experience of these things and building experience and confidence requires people to spend time at sea working with aircraft for real. This is a key skill area that will decline very rapidly if we have no flying from carriers. Other personnel may also need to work on the flight deck, amongst the aircraft. These include the people who maintain the aircraft, and those who fuel and arm them. They too need experience of doing it for real. Beyond the flight deck, lots of other personnel in different parts of the ship are involved. These include the Navigating Officer and the Officer of the Watch and his/her team on the bridge, who must ensure that the ship is on the right heading for flying operations. The Commander (Air) and his team are responsible for running aviation activities. The marine engineering watchkeepers in the Ship Control Centre are responsible for increasing the speed of the carrier’s engines when needed for launching aircraft, they also carry out adjustments to things such as the ship’s trim, so as to maintain a level deck for flying. There are various sensors, communications systems and landing aids that need to be maintained and operated. All of these are things that demand time spent practising at sea. Air Traffic Control is of critical importance, as are others who are involved in airspace management. A carrier is unlike any airfield in that she moves. Land based ATC cannot provide the same experience. Her command team must also consider the constraints put on her movements by the maritime environment, by her escorts, and by the need to be aware of the existence of things such as merchant shipping or fishing boats. The aircrew that fly from the deck also need to have an understanding of all these issues. They must also understand how they fit in with the rest of the ship and task group. Finally, no carrier operations mean that in ten years time, there will be no senior naval officers with experience or understanding of these complex issues. Most of these things cannot be taught on a dummy deck, or in a simulator, but need developing by real flying aboard real decks. The RN has been doing this for many decades, and the experience and expertise, much of it won at great cost, handed down. It seems unlikely that the body of experience would survive a ten year gap of non use. Interestingly, young officers entering the training pipeline to become pilots or observers have been told that to go from scratch to the level of expertise we currently have would take ten years – this is based on the experience of others Navies like those of Spain and Italy who have gained carriers more recently than us. Some of my comments here are based on what I was fortunate to witness aboard HMS Illustrious in late 2007. Although I had a pretty good idea of what to expect, the number of different parts of ship involved in maintaining safe and effective flying operations took me by surprise. The teamwork was impressive. If a mere [me - a Reservist junior rate] can see this, why does the review turn a blind eye? Whilst in the dinner queue one evening I looked in a magazine I found loafing, there was an article in which a senior aviator (ex Sea Harrier) commented on the danger of future Fleet Air Arm personnel becoming unfamiliar with the shipboard environment and deck operations. My path has crossed with aviation connected personnel at other times, and they have all expressed similar views. And....I would suggest that basics are basics, regardless of whether the future is V/STOL or involves "Cats and traps". Will there be exchanges for lots of chockheads - moving live jets on deck 24 hours a day in all weather in rough sea states, the people who fuel, arm and work on aircraft on deck - amongst jet blast (and FOD issues) the OOW and bridge team - who have to put the ship in the right place, direction and speed for aircraft to take off or land, Ops Room personnel - who have to operate sensors/weapons and talk to aircraft, maintainers of this equipment, landing aids maintainers, the ME watchkeepers keeping a nice level deck and increasing speed when needed, ATC types, Fighter Controllers, senior Officers in the carrier (Cdr(Air), Lt Cdr(Flying), Captain, XO) - they need to know how to run things, senior Officers elsewhere (MOD, Navy Command, task group commanders) who need to know how aircraft are used as task group weapons, etc? Have these issues been picked up by the media? Somehow I don't think so, mind you they don't seem to have picked up on the deployment of the Cougar task group to Libya. Are there any journalists looking at this thread? Air Forces Monthly have produced a special publication, UK Airpower 2011, which shows the Sea Harriers sent to the SFDO Dummy Deck at Culdrose as the only RN fast jets, it comments that they are still in service although no longer flying, and are the only way that aircraft handlers will have any experience of working with jet aircraft this decade, and provide the means to embark US, Italian, or Spanish Harriers this decade. What a shocking state of affairs![/I] |
"Now what about a few hooked Warthogs for specialist anti-pirate operations,"
Would be more cost-effective to convert a few Pucaras. Are any of those captured ones still flyable? Or - maybe build an armed version of the Tucano. Could that get off the deck of a moving carrier without catapults? |
Two CVF related updates:
1. The first steel has been cut for the second one - see Steel cut for the second Navy super-carrier 2. Work on Queen Elizabeth is progressing - see Two giant sections of future carrier joined |
Well all the bluster on this thread is fine, except the single fact that it was the Navy that binned their own [excellent] SHAR, keeps being conveniently overlooked.
By all means let the Navy operate and maintain the GR7/9 to retain the FAA's core skillsets, but they then must bear the complete scale of the costs.....:ouch: |
What's the plan for the Queenie?
Upon completion, is she still to be sold to some foreign suckers, if any can be found?? |
Dream on Elmo, Dream on:=
|
the french are getting her at half-price as a training platform
|
Glad Rag,
Sorry, but the SHAR was not 'binned' by the Navy. It was 'binned' by MoD Centre, having been offered up as a savings measure by the RAF. After formation of JFH, the Sea Harriers were transferred from the Navy section of the Military Aircraft register to the RAF section. The SHARs were fully owned by the RAF when they were canned. The operating funds for the Sea Harriers were also transferred to the RAF, who had made the commitment to maintain the SHAR force after formation of JFH. After SHAR was 'binned', a similar commitment was made by the RAF to maintain the GR7/9 fleet. So, let's get this straight. The RN transferred their funds for SHAR to the RAF. The RAF then offered SHAR up as a savings measure to fund the GR7/9 programme, which had run seriously over budget. The GR7/9 was then canned to fund - well, take your pick, but I'd suggest that Tornado and Typhoon were both strapped. It won't happen now, but if the MoD did decide to give GR7/9s back to the RN, the funds would follow - just like happened back on formation of JFH. Best Regards as ever Engines |
Dream on Elmo, Dream on
Why am I supposed to dream about this goofy large aircraft carrier with no catapults? I don't mean to sound too hostile. Hope things turn out OK for you gentlemen. I ask again, what is the current plan for the Queen. E.? |
Engines, despite your protestations above, the NAVY, by there actions, were responsible for the SHAR demise.
Period. Why give up a proven fleet defence asset for one the basically couldn't ? Well?? Heads should have rolled for that one. If, note IF, the FAA are to fly aircraft from flattops in the [near] future then they have to retain their OVERALL core skills. Whilst not representative of any future aircraft at least the Harrier could allow "the team" to maintain the majority of the deck handling/ops skills in the meantime. All the best GR. |
Glad Rag,
Sorry, not protestations - just statements of fact. I will, and gladly, agree that the Navy contributed by their inaction - they had a chance to get in the trench and play the resignations card. They passed it up. Bad error. The worst effect was that, at a stroke, it undermined the rationale of JOINT Force Harrier, which was to bring two complementary capabilities together in a Joint setting and encourage experimentation and convergence. There was much to be learnt on both sides, but once the SHAR was 'canned', the drive to do that was taken away. A great shame for both the RAF and the RN. Fully, and again gladly, agree that retention of core carrier skills is a 'must have'. If that's not done. and it now looks as if it won't, regeneration of the new skill set needed for operating the F-35C will be a massive challenge, and will have to be properly funded - it won't be cheap. A few aircrew exchanges with the US and France won't crack it either. Best Regards as ever Engines |
Engines,
Your logic may be correct on the SHAR to GR9, can't prove or disprove it. But, it must have been signed up to by 1SL, as was the decision to bin harrier in SDSR. It was a SH!t sandwich that nobody wanted, and the RAF suffered the cut aswell. How long must we debate this. It will not come back. Period. |
how much will the training wheels cost?
|
Just a reminder of one "inconvenient truth" for the PM and his SDSR... STOVL aircraft can take off and land in worse sea states than "cat&trap" aircraft.
Are you sure you want F-35C rather than F-35B? |
Yes.
Extra characters cos I have to. |
Originally Posted by Capt P U G Wash
(Post 6550768)
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:11. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.