Illustrious is in Lyme Bay heading South West, so i assume she is back on her way!

Are you sure that wasn't Ark Royal? As mentioned here.

WEBF
Unless the Captain is a little confused on what ship he was on, then no. It was Illustrious according to the AIS which was clearly stating Illustrious!!

Dilligence which was supposed to be with the Lusty i thought? is currently playing about off Plymouth also...

Didn't get too far before she had to turn around again....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7236326.stm

Oh dear. More problems.

However, in a real war/crisis I guess that oily water seperators being unservicable would not be a major consideration. But in peacetime things are different and environmental concerns have to be considered.

Perhaps the fact that most of the money intended for ship upkeep is being spent elsewhere in the MOD budget is starting to bite.....

WEBF,
Maybe you're right. Who in the MoD could possibly want to reassign money to fighting two almost totally landlocked wars (and the Treasury) from a (currently) irrelevant ship deployment programme?

When we win them both the money can be reassigned to less critical areas......

Sorry chap, but if this is the price for trying to keep the boys at the front safe with the kit they need then so be it.

Like the Typhoon

I hear she is returning to port with some plumbing problems!

A mind as narrow as a gnats todger me thinks!

Yes let's scrap the Navy, sod em, they do nothing. That Typhoon thingy will save the day. Long range, strategic, power projector that it is.

:mad:b Jockey

NGB,
I'm going to need a bigger boat...no pun intended!

Please look back through my posts, you will see that while, yes I'm a crab, I am fully supportive of F35/CVF and am ambivalent towards Tranche 3 of Typhoon in the current climate. At no time have, nor will, I jump on the "bin the Navy" bandwagon. Power projection is quite possibly best provided, in a theoretical future war by theoretical future Carriers. It just as easily might be done by an LPH full of Helos, or, if time critical by Typhoon (provided HNS was available).At the moment, it is being provided by the AT and SH forces, CHF and JFH. Please secure (with two clips) your reversionary banter.

The point I make is that if we are robbing Peter (ship husbandry) to pay Paul (two concurrent Medium scale enduring conflicts) then some thing has to give. IMHO launching a task group to the other side of the world is a very noble, retention positive piece of PR for the UK. The fact that it seems we can't do it properly is testement to the parlous state of Defence. I say again, in the current climate are exercises like this justified? Before you get all dark blue defensive again, yes I would put Red Flag et al in the same pot, and the ability of the Army to moan about Harmony yet continue to find time/resources to go to Belize etc.

The bottom line is that we're all suffering for environmental training and large overseas exercises. I'm afraid, until we fight an enemy with a credible submarine force (and, oh yes, some coastline....) in many people's opinion these kind of exercises and such need to run on a shoestring if they are to be run at all.

How about the locks on the Treasury's purse being what gives? :rolleyes:

Wouldn't that be better? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

I've just been to a bar in Malta with 'we welcome the USS Cole' over the door. Where is Lusty? :confused:

Sitting in UK waters with at least one other member of the Orion 08 deployment that is having material problems.......

NGB

Having "had a go" at Evalu8ter are you going to have the courtesy to respond to his well reasoned response!!

All of us in the Army/Navy/RAF can lobby the government/MOD for more money, rather than indulging in interservice bun fights, but at the end of the day we have to do the best with the budget we are ultimately given, which means prioritising.

Some people see an RN deployment to the far east as a pretty low priority given the current state of play in Iraq/Afghanistan. Is this part of a bash the RN push, no, it just happens to be said on a thread on an RN deployment.

If you read pprune regularly you will see how often a crab lead "srap the Red Arrows thread" crops up, and how often the crabs debate on pprune the wisdom of buying all the Typhoons when we are short of SH and AT. (By the way, neither of those are necessarily my personal opinions!). Many people believe that when money is tight you spend it on things that matter. Your job is to convince the readers that an RN "peacetime" deployment is more important than more helos, machine guns, ammunition, Royal Marines on the ground, etc. (I know the money won't be transferred, but people aren't always logical!!).

Farcical!
 

This has gone from the mildly amusing to bordering on the farcical...

If the Navy cannot manage to put a "my little pony" class ship to sea how do they expect to manage with a half decent sized thing?

As an ex-Engineer in the Merchant Navy I'm amazed that a not particularly old ship, which has spent much of it's life tied up alongside, and recently had a £120 million refit cannot go to sea. Any heads to roll? In the Merchant Navy it'd be a case of "bye-bye Chiefy" at the very least.

Anyway why doesn't someone simply fix the O.W.S? Not exactly a complicated piece of kit is it? Can't image spares would be that hard to source, as in this case it's not an original fit but relatively new. Worst case scenario, as we are only talking a 20,000 tonne ship it's going to be a dinky toy anyway, buy a new one!

I can understand budget requirements etc, but this ship has recently had a £120,000,000 refit so kind of think that lack of funds can't really be sited as a valid arguement.

francophile69

You have no idea of how the MOD operates. JIT, RAB, LEAN etc etc.

Can't image spares would be that hard to source, as in this case it's not an original fit but relatively new. Worst case scenario, as we are only talking a 20,000 tonne ship it's going to be a dinky toy anyway, buy a new one!


The MOD doesn't keep vast stocks of spares. See the above sentence.

I can understand budget requirements etc, but this ship has recently had a £120,000,000 refit so kind of think that lack of funds can't really be sited as a valid arguement.

Is it the same budget?

Evalu8tor

I nearly bit too! I hear what you say, and largely agree, but I expect you will agree that this a rather risky approach to defence.

Who knows where the next crisis will be? After Afghanistan and Iraq it seems probable that they will have more than a few miles of coastline, and pose a real threat in the air and/or at sea? If we didn't have control of the maritime and air environments, neither Telic or Herrick could be supported.

Incidentally there is significant naval involvement in the war on terror.

WEBF,
Agree. And it is a shame that the RNs role at the moment (with the exception of CHF / Naval Strike Wing) is largely unnoticed.

I agree that a balance must be struck between the needs of today and not getting caught with our pants down tomorrow. My gut feeling is that the balance is not quite right at the moment; happy to hear an opposing view!

PS-If I'd REALLY wanted you to bite I would have mentioned the SHAR!!!:}

WEBF

Granted, being used as I am to an unlimited maintenance budget I clearly am not familiar with "JIT, RAB, LEAN" et al

I also understand I have no place posting on this forum, and I stand suitably chastised. However having grown up with a RAF upbringing I find some of the threads extremely interesting, although I wouldn't dream of contributing to them.

Personally though in this case, I just wonder if your ability to recite and therefore almost condoning (albeit perhaps unwittingly) the aforementioned Acronyms is perhaps indicative of the malaise in the MOD.

Spend all that money and then blame it on the "system" when it doesn't work.

The point I was trying to make was that it is ridiculous to spend that sort of money and end of with a vessel incapable of going to sea. I'm not sure how familiar you are with ship's systems but fridge plants and Oily Water Seperators are not exactly on a par with major main engine breakdowns, (regardless of whose budget it should come under!) and if it is suffering these breakdowns I am amazed it is having such serious repercussions.

I'd imagine P&O would be more than happy to be able to withdraw their ships for months at a time, every 20 years and spend over £100 million on them. Can you imagine them then having to cancel cruises because the O.W.S. or the fridge plant doesn't work, sorry it's inconceivable.

To merely quote JIT (whatever that means) etc is missing the point, this ship is not at sea for trivial reasons (granted in different circumstances she would sail regardless).

In fairness, the amount spent on the refit was best part of four years ago, since when she's been worked very hard (although I grant you, nowhere near as hard as your average containership, offshore supply vessel, Ro-Ro etc).

During that four years, the maintenance budget for the ship has been continually eroded, so that although she may be alongside (as she has been since December) the ability to actually do anything is much reduced. The ships staff don't own the budget and believe it or not have to get the OK from the IPT (MESH) before they get into the kit.

You are correct, fridge plants and OWS are not particularly complicated, but if you can't get the spare (either because it's not in the stores system or because you have to order it and get the budget OK) then you're stuffed.

This sort of incident is going to happen more frequently as the last four years of reduced support coupled with ships being run well beyond their design lives kicks in.

This so-called Naval Strike "Wing". How many aircraft/pilots?

Nowhere near enough. And judging by the "pinch point" shortages given in the Commons the other week, (50% QFI, 50% Lt pilots) unlikely to get better soon.

You can have the best ship's company on the planet but if the supporting IPT has been cornered into a financial and contractual minefield, the ship is buggered. What a MESH!

News regarding Lusty from the RN website.

Changing tack, what is this all about? Is it a post SHAR thing or has it happened before?

Some of the Hawk jets of FRADU will be detached to Cyprus in late February for operations with the Orion 08 Task Group. FRADU (Fleet Requirements Air Direction Unit) provide realistic simulated ship attack profiles, training for Fighter Controllers, Warfare Officers, and other tasking as required.

Interestingly, the Culdrose website gives details of aircraft deployed. The deployment of 854 NAS aircraft aboard RFA Argus is noteworthy, as the deployment of Sea King ASaCs aboard RFA vessels for surface search is one of the Navy's contributions to the war on terror.

The culdrose website hardl;y gives details of aircraft deployments.... Just scant numbers. The most disappointing aspect of which is the numbers. I think we procured IRO 42 Merlins..and there are 13 at sea. Where are the other 29 ?

1.Servicing the training, currency and tacdev requirements.2.Grounded through lack of spares support (IMOS only does so much)3.Attrition / airframe life management reserve.

Film Crew On Lusty

So far, they’ve filmed the hard work while the ship went through FOST, the preparation and tension of the transit through the straits of Gibraltar, lots of continuation training and the first port visit, which was Malta. Then followed Force Integration with the other ships of the group, more tension with the Suez transit and then the Red Sea. Throughout, the film crew have been focussing on the concept of the ship being a small town; they are trying to tell the story of the deployment by following a number of characters.

Sounds interesting......

Sounds like we need a competition for a soundtrack to rival that one by acertain scots gentleman from way back when....:O

If you're thinking of Mr Stewart, isn't he a pretend Porridge Wog? Thought he was a mockernee......

Harriers embarked again at the moment. According to this from the RN website.

Commodore Tom Cunningham Royal Navy, who commands the Orion group said “The ability to operate Harriers from an aircraft carrier is a key skill which has to be practised whenever possible. The presence of the Naval Strike Wing on HMS Illustrious demonstrates their flexibility and the UK’s commitment to maintaining its carrier strike capability.”

Of course, it was much easier finding jets to embark before the mighty Sea Jet was axed. Of course, when these decisions were made the Afghan commitment could not be foreseen. A few years ago a CVS might have sixteen or seventeen jets embarked at busy periods. Now it is six, from time to time.

Isn't it a little ironic that the original purpose was to perform an ASW role carrying helicopters for ASW and later AEW and some Sea Harriers for air defence, maritime attack etc, then post cold war it was to act in a strike role, carry Sea Harriers, Harrier GR7/9s and just a few helicopters. Now the strike role is still there with only a few GR7/9s from time to time and some helos....?

Progress....? It can only make the transition to larger carriers with larger air groups that much harder.

Going off on a slight tangent, why doesn't the RN make a bigger thing of the contribution of shipborne helicopters to current operations? For example, the use of Lynx AH7 from HMS Ocean to deal with an armoured counter attack, aided by ASaCs Sea Kings from Ark Royal during the initial phase of Operation Telic. Or the destruction of an Iraqi patrol boat (FIAC?) by a Sea King HC4. If these had been done by carrier based jets I suspect the papers would be full of their deeds, but surely aircraft are aircraft. Their success during the Al Faw assault reinforces the case for shipborne aviation, and related things such as frigates for naval gunfire support.

Likewise, was the public ever aware of the contribution made by Lynx flights aboard frigates and destroyers during Granby. Destroying the Exocet armed missile boats that Saddam had was key to enabling Minehunting operations to take place, which in turn was key to allowing amphibious assault to be a possibility, tying down thousands of Iraqi troops defending beaches. The Sea Skua armed Lynx was one of our key weapons, yet received very little publicity. Why?

I feel the RN is missing the opportunity to promote aviation as a core naval capability.

WEBF

To answer your question about FRADU, they have been doing these things in support of the RN for many years. Not a just post SHAR thing.

"Their success during the Al Faw assault reinforces the case for shipborne aviation, and related things such as frigates for naval gunfire support"

WEBF, can't agree with you there chap!

Almost five years to the day from that night, I remember it well; couldn't project the power from ships because they were too far out in the NAG and worried about Seersuckers (and according to one rating, Scuds!!!). The first three waves of the "amphib assault" (1 wave of USAF MH53s and 2 waves of RAF CH47s) were launched from a land base in Northern Kuwait and deployed the vast majority of the combat power (240+ troops, heavy weapons, WIMICs and a BV, well nearly.....). The CHF used their smaller platforms, again from the land, to secure the pumping stations. IIRC the Queenies stayed plugged in to have enough gas for one trip and 8 troops - 40+ miles off shore would not have been a player.

And as for the NGS and the Cdo Arty, they caused mayhem to the heli routes around the objective as they desperately pounded the area (which had already been rendered a moonscape during the Iran/Iraq war) achieving little more than churning even more sand into the sky to make flying even harder.

So, we could have done the assault without the ships at all......

Despite this, I remain an adherent of Amphib assault and of the flexible use of CVF in the future; IMHO Op Houghton doesn't prove the case.

How many Harriers on Lusty? Is this as well the 6 Merlins? Any Sea Kings?

I believe it was only four Harriers. :(

But it isn't just about Harriers. The 814 NAS Merlins (embarked for the whole deployment) have been showing their capabilities.

Flying Tigers Roar

Cornwall’s very own ‘Flying Tigers’, 814 Naval Air Squadron embarked in HMS Illustrious, have just completed the anti-submarine exercise, code named Phoenix, in the Indian Ocean. Combining new equipment for the first time, the Squadron re-affirmed the RN’s reputation as a leader in anti-submarine warfare (ASW).

The Task Group, led by Cdre Tom Cunningham RN, had a very successful week operating against HMS Trafalgar. Exercise Phoenix was the first time that the RN has been able to use the UK’s most advanced ASW equipment; the Merlins of 814 Naval Air Squadron with HMS Westminster’s 2087 sonar. This combination allowed Illustrious and her Task Group to develop new tactics and procedures during a series of set pieces and free-play warfare.

Thought ASW was now called USW?

Any Sea Kings?

If you mean ASaCs Sea Kings, I think that they are rather busy, even without being embarked aboard a CVS, doing surface search from RFAs as part of current operations.

I've said it before, but in the interests of commonality with the JFH GR7/9's, and the delays we all expect with JSF, for Christ's sake let's buy some Harrier 2+'s ! Possibly to keep at Yeovilton when not at sea ? I'm not a of a Navy persuasion, except when it seems common sense.

Yes it's galling to buy an originally British product from America but thanks to BAe we're stuck with it, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than the JSF, whenever that might become available.

The 2+ doesn't have as good a radar as the FA2 ( it's a cut down F-16 job but works fine with the weapon of choice) - I photographed a trial fit on one with 6 AMRAAMS on BOL rails, it has a working gun too and with the big engine is able to keep up with a Bear at altitude - what more do you want ?!

00

They probably wouldn't even have to buy, just lease them, I beleive the USMC have just retired a load of them and most have reasonable Airframe hours for their age. Problem is the political will isn't there. Same as they could have stored SHAR and left JFH with a couple of airframes for training. I would have cost peanuts. but you know what happens when common sense prevails in the MoD - hell freezes over!

Why thanks to BAE? I didn't know they decided to retire the Sea Harrier. :mad:
Or are you seriously blaming BAE for exporting the aircraft to a vastly larger market? :rolleyes: British industry can't please anyone it seems, if they don't export they're loosers, if they do they're selling out an originally British product. :=

Seajet

Yes the Navy gave them up too early, who despite history seem to ignore lessons and avoid learning what useful things these aeroplane thinghies are - they didn't try the Pacific War, did they ? - caved in much too easily on the retirement of the Sea Harrier - I wonder what the influence from BAe was, who were VERY keen to promote the Harrier 2 GR5 ( at the time ? ) I was even told that any mention of Sea Harrier to customers by our sales people was verboten, in the later stages.

The FA2 was not only faster with a supreme radar & weapons fit, I have seen first-hand that carbon fibre as on the Harrier AV-8B etc is not a really war-useful material - look at the Russian relatively 'rough & ready' approach but with large numbers of very effective aircraft !

Deepest Regards,

DZ

The 2+ doesn't have as good a radar as the FA2

Why is the FA2 item better? Please give specific reasons.

it's a cut down F-16 job

Nope, F-18C/D: The AN/APG-65 radar is a highly reliable, flexible system used for both air-to-air and air-to-surface missions.


The key to the APG-65's flexibility is its programmable digital computers. The built-in test system provides total end-to-end radar preflight checkout and continuous monitoring.

During air-to-air operations, the APG-65 radar incorporates clean scope, look-down/shoot-down capabilities. It also features complete search track and automatic acquisition modes such as high pulse repetition frequency (PRF) velocity search, high/medium PRF range-while-search, single target track, and a track-while-scan mode that tracks 10 targets simultaneously and displays eight targets.

For air-to-surface operations, the radar provides Doppler beam sharpened sector and patch mapping, medium-range synthetic aperture radar, "real beam" ground mapping modes, as well as fixed and moving ground target track, air-to-surface ranging, terrain avoidance, precision velocity update, and a sea surface search mode with clutter suppression.

The APG-65 is operational in the F/A-18 Hornet F/A-18 A/B/C/D strike fighters of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, and the air forces of Kuwait, and Spain. It has been adapted to upgrade the German and Greek F-4 Phantom aircraft and AV-8B Harrier II Plus for the U.S. Marine Corps and the Spanish and Italian navies.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/apg65/

but works fine with the weapon of choice) - I photographed a trial fit on one with 6 AMRAAMS on BOL rails

Did you also get the tail numbers of all the airplanes?

it has a working gun too and with the big engine is able to keep up with a Bear at altitude - what more do you want ?!

A tactical aircraft with more range, endurance, payload, wartime survivability, and a better peacetime safety record.

I've never understood the emphasis on BVR performance that people put on the SHAR. Leaving aside the somewhat dubious claim to being the best BVR fighter (really? better than F-15?), the justification for having jets for fleet defence (especially when you have something like PAAMS) seems to be the ability to VID, and therefore something that's better at the close fight ought to be more appropriate, surely?

Always kill the archer, don't waste your effort killing his arrows unless you have no alternative.............

Unless you are an operational analyst where only an engagement is typically assessed, one bomber splashed is one less to come back tomorrow. That's why.