off centre,

1) Everyone knows.

2) It's irrelevant

Apparently I haven't written anything on PPRuNe for over a month but this thread seems like a good place to have a little post.

Jacko

5) Aircraft carriers are by no means 'self contained' - they require AD frigates, an SSN, tankers, RFAs, etc. - a small Armada.

Do they? Are the frigates, submarines and RFA attached to the carrier? Do they have no roles except supporting a carrier? The level of escort a carrier has depends on the threat. Funnily enough ships get sent to trouble spots even if there is no carrier there. Even if they are attached to a carrier group, they can be detached and act independently. Even in the Falklands ships were detached from the main task force for other tasks. There are no dedicated ships to support carriers than can do nothing else. I believe that the escort to the CVS in the Adriatic in the 90s was a single frigate. There were others but they were enforcing an arms embargo.

When the threat is high enough to warrant lots of escorts then the situation would demand lots of escorts anyway. How many frigates/destroyers did we have in the Gulf in 1991? No CVS there.

Submarines can operate with a carrier, or they can act independently. Since you need naval forces you need RFAs.

Your argument, previously seen on the Sea Jet and Future Carrier threads, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The levels of frigates/destroyers, and submarines are set by Ministers. CVF will be part of the Fleet, some of you seem to think a new fleet of vessels will be needed to support them.

Soddim

Yes, Not a Boffin, you are quite right, the carriers in a benign air defence environment are a very good way of (slowly) deploying a respectable force and projecting power over long distance.

However, why are we spending such a large slice of our budget on a force incapable of defending itself in a hostile air environment?

Some Navies have carrier based fighters (ours used to) to defend the fleet, particularly high value assets (yes, there are high value assets other than carriers - like amphibious forces and certain merchant vessels) so they can. They also provide an outer layer of defence in addition to shipborne missiles.

Unfortunately, although we live in a relatively threat-free period at least in terms of military threats, intentions can and do change quicker than we can change capabilities. There are too many potentially hostile nations with force levels we could not contend with at present. Although in the past we have generated improved capabilities quickly in time of tension, modern technologies and the ability to use them preclude the rapid expansion that our small force would need.

Better get the carriers then!

Fortunately, there was no combat as the Argies were too busy concentrating on ground and ship attack to bring air-to-air weapons along but what a different story it would have been if they had.

There was me thinking the Argentines lost the war as they ran out of aircraft before we ran out of ships, and the carriers and landing forces were successfully defended, including by Sea Harriers. No combat? What about the 23 kills achieved by 800 and 801? Attacking ships was Argentina's best hope for winning the war and they were ordered to avoid confrontations with the Sea Harrier. And what makes you think the Sea Harrier would have lost if it had?

Your claiming if they had used air to air weapons instead of anti ship ones the carriers would have been a higher risk?

Lots of spin and half truths here.

Just my 0.02...

If binning the Harriers is a serious proposal, and sliding the CVF further to the right is planned, then it all seems extremely short-sighted if we intend to retain the capability. However, it seems to me that the UK faces one of three choices in defence spending at the moment:


(A) Decide what victory in Afghanistan is, accept that there is a 25 year commitment to deliver it, and structure our forces to delivering this within the £36bn a year we spend on it.

What this means: Army / Marines first, second and third, RAF focus on AT, SH and COIN and that the UK gives up strategic pretensions (Trident, Deep Strike) F3 goes immediately, with GR4 / CVF binned and sells on as many Tiffys as possible, with a minimal number for UKADGE.

(B) That UK wishes to spend £36bn and retain worldwide projection capability, and couldn't care less if NATO AS A WHOLE fails in Afghanistan. UK publicly blames other NATO states for not doing their bit.

What this means: UK forces out of Afghanland by 2012. CVF saved, Harriers roll on and Tiffy to replace F3 in UKADGE without deploying it. NATO slack taken up in Afghan by US if anyone does, probable Taliban-lite government.

(C) That the UK wants to do (A) and (B), and is prepared to significantly increase spending to do this - probably in the order of £10 - 15bn p.a. for 10 years.

What this could mean: FRES, CVF, KC-45 (vice A330 PFI x20ish), C-17 (x12ish), A400M (ideally to replace C-130J for a single tactical fleet), Puma / Lynx replacement, Dave, Astute (x 10), T45 (x14) and various other bits and pieces (eg FSC, MARS, Dabinett) funded in full. Along with significant increase in Light Role Amy Bns to win in Afghanland.

Which one you choose is personal political preference. What cannot be allowed is option (D):

(D) Option (C) within the existing budgets.

Time for some honesty and leadership - in the services and more importantly, politically.

S41

Would it be beyond the realms of fantasy in this, the 21st Century, to design one type of Aircraft Carrier and one type of aircraft that could be a, used on that Carrier and b, also be land based? Could that aircraft be designed to have AD, GA, AS capabilities?
Wouldn't this multi-role aircraft suit both dark/light blues' wishes and save huge amounts of money?

Could I be fantasising a 21st Century version of the F4?

Taxydual....

Yep, it's called Dave-C, complete with crochet hook thing on the back end. And on a CVF with cats and traps, UK Dave-C won't even need the extending nose gear of F-4K.....

S41

F-35C

The F-35C carrier variant will have a larger, folding wing and larger control surfaces for improved low-speed control, and stronger landing gear for the stresses of carrierF/A-18C Hornet, achieving much the same goal as the heavier F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. landings. The larger wing area allows for decreased landing speed, increased range and payload, with twice the range on internal fuel compared with the



Cats and traps and these babies. Wouldn't that solve the back stabbing?

OK, I'm no expert, I'm only an ex-OpsO.
Or is that too simple?

Time to bite the bullet!
 

Scrap Trident perhaps. Conventional forces will be used.
If you want nukes, deploy cruise on submarines.
Oh yes, scrap a few politicians, managers, administrators, much of the money given to the EEC as well. No more defence cuts period!!:ok:

Taxydual,

No, it wouldn't.

Because of the training burden imposed by cat and trap, Super Hornet or F-35C would effectively become carrier-only assets. At least Harrier and F-35B are useful some of the time, and aren't tied to a carrier all the time.

Squirrel 41,

There is an option D.

(A) Make a proportionate contribution to delivering victory in Afghanistan, and structure our forces to delivering core, key UK defence capabilities autonomously, with an eye to making the most cost-effective contribution to coalition operations.

What this means: Bin CVF. cancel (or delay) JSF. Perhaps eventually buy a much smaller number of F-35A for FCAC (along with CFT equipped Tranche 3 Typhoon) as GR4 replacement. Continue with a full buy of Typhoon for UK AD and to replace Jaguar/Harrier. Address shortcomings in battlefield helicopters and especially amphibious helicopter lift with a big buy of folding Commando Merlins, and a proper Puma replacement. Ensure that a full three squadron Chinook force is maintained. Buy tankers (no PFI malarkey). Buy a proper, national Sigint aircraft (not RJ). A400M and C-17 as described above. Consider a cheaper deterrent than a full sub launched ballistic missile (perhaps cruise?). Boost frigate numbers. Boost Astute. Fully fund FRES.

I do not think, W E Branch Fanatic we speak a common language. Combat is joined when the enemy shoots back. The Argie aircraft did not because they did not come armed with AAM to the fray. If the Argies had been able to employ fighter sweep/escort the outcome might have been very different.

The Harriers did not defend the carriers - the Navy used geography instead - they kept them safely out of range. Neither did they adequately defend the ships - the Argies got bombs in 17 surface ships - fortunately, they did not all fuse successfully.

You are quite right - seaborne air power can provide fleet air defence, of course. In fact, at the start of the Falklands war that was the role of the SHARs. It was the RAF Harriers that were trained air-ground.

Whilst I am not opposed to the carrier capability, we cannot afford it and anybody who believes that we could adequately defend our own airspace at the moment has lost track of the disparity between the minimum number of fighters we said we needed only a few years ago and the number we have now.

> tornado dumped before harrier

Well no, dump some of the Tornados if it's a cash issue of one or the other - we seem to have a lot (comparatively) and they don't seem to get used very much, was my thought. Better not have all eggs in one basket etc. Once again I must disclaim any expert knowledge here and offer this up in the spirit of providing what may be a common civilian perspective.

And as to airframe hours... stop flying the bloody things on pointless unwinnable middle eastern willy waving contests.

Oops, did I say that. I must have been drinking.

P

Did you ever hear of the USMC Jack? Marine fighter and attack squadrons have been flying off of carriers since WWII. In fact they sometimes deploy with the carriers. In wartime Marine F-18s are expected to fly from carriers and transfer shore side as soon as an airstrip becomes available.They are in no way carrier-only assets. Naval aircraft fly and operate from land bases while their carrier is in port as well.

Pretty piss poor argument you have there Jack. In fact most would tell you that if you can operate from a carrier you can certainly operate from an airstrip. I though a journalist like you would know that but in case you did not you can always research USMC aviation and how they employ fixed wing assets.

Fact is an F-35C would make all the sense in the world. They would enable the CVFs to embark a proper AEW platform and they would provide a very powerful and flexible shore and sea based asset.

Not strictly relevant but:

Our armies are marching out of step | Allan Mallinson - Times Online

Soddim, IIRC some of the early engagements were A-A with the Argies apparently firing IRM head-on. I believe only later was it discovered that they were matra 530 (radar if I got the design right).

After that of course you are correct more bombers against the fleet. However, I also believe a fair number of fighres were held back for air defence of the mainland.

A bit selective there WEBF.

I think most of us have been argung indeed that enough ships can be sent to trouble spots rather than carriers.

I would be so bold as to say that no carrier can operate without escorts. A carrier operating aircraft has limited freedom of movement. It would need at least one escort to keep her company. It is true that a helo can do some of the jobs of an escort but a boarding party is best served by an escort - picking up several pirates for instance. Immediately you need to add an RFA to the mix. If the carrier is engaged in hot operations you probably need to add logisitics support. If you then take one escort out of the equation, you need a spare.

Yes.

In coastal or near coastal waters against an SSC the SSN DS is probably essential. Without a CVF however you would not need the SSN there.

Just to add two musings to this debate:

1. Chopping the Harrier out of hand, whilst denying the short comings of the GR4 would be daft. A balance between the two would be wise.

2. If one actually goes to Afghanistan (seriously - try it) which appears to be forming a mainstay of this debate, one will find that (on the average day) approximately 1/3 of all combat air sorties come from a boat. A boat that cannot be mortared or RPG'd, that doesn't rely on petrol brought overland by trucks and that doesn't sit at the wrong end of the world's fraillest airbridge. It's expensive, the transits must be a little hard on 'the cheeks' - but it seems to be earning its keep. Just saying.

What is so very sad, but not at all suprising over this particular situation, is that absolutely nobody in authority has put their hand up & said, the idea to scrap the harrier is total c*ap!

My solution folks, don't scrap the Harrier, scrap the Defence Chiefs, after all they are just a useless & very expensive waste of time. Replace said people by two Corporals & a couple of SACs, these chaps would at least have the advantage of a brain to work with, something lacking within the MOD.

Orca said "A boat that cannot be mortared or RPG'd, that doesn't rely on petrol brought overland by trucks and that doesn't sit at the wrong end of the world's fraillest airbridge."

Taliban attack NATO supply convoy for second night running

Carriers give you flexibility and freedom. Flexibility at a price, but it's worth the price to be able provide aircraft 24/7 without worrying that Terry will hit your MSRs.

There is a very good, proven airframe that does all that already - Rafale. The French were right to withdraw from Eurofighter. Rafale might not be quite as good in AD role as Typhoon, but it is still plenty good enough to be an effective air-defence deterrent. But whilst it is important to have AD as a deterrent, it is highly improbably that our Typhoon's AD capability will ever actually be tested in combat. More importantly, Rafale is probably better in ground attack role, and is proven on carriers, and those are two roles that would be regularly tested.

Given the likely cuts in US defence spending over the next eight years, there is a good chance that Dave will be delayed or cancelled by the US DOD.

Go on, flesh out that comment a little bit with some factual meat.

Whingeing git now,

That 'piss poor argument' is an accurate precis of the official UK case for F-35B.

The problem is that with a cat and trap carrier RN squadrons would not be made available for lengthy land based rotational commitments in the way that RN Harrier squadrons have been.

Kaikohe76 The assumption here is that "deleting" the Harrier is the only option. Is it? Or is this some very unprofessional whining by CNS (or his staff) who have been economical with the full truth in order to gain sympathy (or an attempt at gaining the emotional/moral high ground). I would be VERY surprised if there are not "reduce" options being proposed for either or both fleets. Or, as Jacko has alluded to, if neither of these are achieved there may be a need to bring forward out of service dates (again, for both fleets).

Orca

Which means, due to the transit time, they cannot maintain runway readiness (or whatever the buzz phrase is these days) but must maintain airborne patrols. Which eats into fatigue life and airframe hours. Which brings forward the Harrier OSD considerably (unless oodles of money are spent on them). Lose/lose sadly. Whichever platform we use to provide the capability in this particular theatre of ops must, IMHO, be land based.

Still think carrier aviation has its place in the broader defence requirements but I also believe that the only way we are going to be able to maintain that capability through to QEII/PoW with Dave B on board (personally prefer Dave C) is with a leaner, reduced JFH. And, broken record time, I still don't care what the colour of the pilots cloth is! After all he (or she) will soon tell me they are a Harrier pilot :E

Just what I have read elsewhere in press etc - admittedly the advantage is probably not clearcut and likely to depend on the mission profile etc. But Rafale is already used in two-seat configuration by Armée de l'Air in GA role, which they have found superior. Not sure that Typhoon is going to have that option.

My point remains that Rafale has so far proven a more versatile aircraft than Typhoon, and probably stronger in the roles that are likely to be actively tested over the next twenty years - ie land or carrier-based GA. It is still strong enough in AD to be a worthy deterrent.

We seem to have spend a huge amount on a very capable AD aircraft which will almost certainly never actually be tested in that role, and which is possibly less capable in GA role (which is certain to be tested), and which has no carrier capability at all.

I'd put money on the RN ending up with a single carrier, identical to the proposed French carrier, both carrying Rafale.

Once again you fail to provide any proof other than "from what I've heard".

Its admirable that you show blind faith in the products of France but perhaps you should stick to products that are actually known to be superior such as err, ah, something else.

I am not sure that Typhon can be written off as a poor, or poorer, GA platform than the Harrier or Tornado.

The old maxim was you could make a good fighter into a bomber, Hart, Mosquito, Hurricane and so on but not a bomber into a fighter.

A magazine crossed my desk yesterday of a Typhoon really loaded for bear. It had 4 x IR missiles, 2 x PW, 2 x Brimstone, 2 x Storm Shadow and 2 x u/i missiles. As an agile fighter can also bring a gun to the party.

I can't believe anyone would churn-out any argument in support of Rafale - that's the kind of rubbish I read on the plane-spotter sites! Dear God it would be obsolete before it entered service... mind you, that would be almost like standard practise for MoD procurement.


There are many options which could be chosen. The one which seems pretty obvious to me is to abandon the whole sorry JSF saga and use suitably converted Typhoons, given that we're supposedly going to end-up with more Typhoons than we need. We've discussed the subject on other threads and as we all know, the idea is perfectly practical.

The other very clear option (which the Government evidently accepts occasionally when they really have to) is to adjust our committments to suit our abilities. Clearly, getting out of Afghanistan would solve all the problems at a stroke. I'm absolutely astonished that both the Government and media seem to refer to Afghanistan as if our presence is an inevitability, whereas we are there purely by choice, and for no obvious reason. Patently, our presence has absolutely nothing to do with the defence of the United Kingdom and - call me old fashioned - I rather thought that was what our armed forces were for, not embarking on pointless overseas crusades. One would imagine that in a post-Bush era, our beloved Government might be able to think straight for a while, and accept that trying to save the world is a task which we can ill afford and one which the US should handle in isolation, if Obama is keen enough. Time we concerned ourselves with our country and our people, if we can't afford to do anything more.

If muppets like Sir Glenn had some backbone, they might manage to actually question the wisdom of the Government's actions, rather than engage in endless inter-service scraps to try and fight for the financial crumbs that the Treasury dishes-out.

edited to say well said Mr McLelland:D





My goodness, there is a whole lot of uninformed guff being spouted on here. First we have the ardent anti-navy Jackonory with his tiresome rant about scrapping the Carriers, well Jacko, to plagiarise (SP) one of your statements....It's coming, it's funded, get over it! The CVF will have much more than just an Air Defence capability, it will be a STRIKE carrier, as such it will project JOINT STRIKE power where required, yes it will get there slowly, but it can loiter, move, and support a JOINT ground force. It will also at last be able to fit CH47 on it's lifts without the need for folding and this will mean that RAF maintainers will be able to do their work in a heated workshop, properly supported by well stocked storerooms, rather than freezing/sweating their nuts off outside in a Fjord/Gulf. As previously mentioned, the CVF will bring with it much JOINT capability which will support a JOINT force ashore. Today's news of another 100 vehicles destroyed in Pakistan, shows you the fragility of land base supply.

But this whole issue is not about the CVF, it is about Harrier. I empathise with both camps. The Light Blue are faced with a huge black hole which needs to be filled. Only the removal of an entire capability will fill that gap. Salami slicing by getting rid of a few airframes here and there will not do. That is why CAS and his staff have reluctantly put up Harrier...as someone else mentioned, unlike Tornado or Typhoon, the Harrier upgrade is not yet paid for and is therefore one of the few ways of saving any money.

On the Dark Blue front, they are confronted with a proposal which could put over ten years of planning, re-focus and re-balancing of forces at threat. You only have to take a visit to Portsmouth or Plymouth to see the many, many, perfectly good, Support vessels, Carriers, Destroyers, Submarines and Minehunters that have been mothballed over recent years to see the "slicing" that has gone on in order for the RN to AFFORD CVF. Yes the RAF have gone through it too to a degree with Jaguar but the dark Blue is now extremely well placed to have a flexible, deployable force that can project power across the globe. There has been investment in heavy lift, the Marines are better provided for than in many years, the Naval Strike Wing are working well as part of the Stan roulement and CVF plus some form of Air Group (GR9, Dave B or C, Rafale or FA18) will provide the final piece of capability to project a balanced and effective force, which will be in service for over 40 years. Yes it sounds expensive but through life costs will soften the blow.

The problem is that the MOD as a whole has been operating for many years at a level above planning assumptions and it is now hurting. The only answer is to cut major UNFUNDED capabilities or reduce commitments or properly fund all the equipment projects of all three forces.

I commend the Admiral for his stance and having the balls to speak out, because if he does not, it could mean the end of his Service. I empathise with CAS as he is fighting to keep his force relevant and balanced against the political imposition of several procurements that have tied his hands and bankrupted his finances leading to an AIr Force with not enough helicopters, AT, Tankers etc. All of which is no fault of the RN.

May you live in interesting times!

Yes, Not a Boffin, you are quite right, the carriers in a benign air defence environment are a very good way of (slowly) deploying a respectable force and projecting power over long distance.

However, why are we spending such a large slice of our budget on a force incapable of defending itself in a hostile air environment?

I doubt very much whether your assessment of being able to defend itself in a hostile environment tallies with what CVF + Dave + MASC would actually be capable of.

In a more mischievious mode if savings are bieng asked for - how about :

1. Bin GR4 and speed up the AG upgrades for Typhoon 3 - gets a new low-fatigue life MR jet AND reduces the number of aircrew slots (ducking for cover)

2. Buy brand-spanking new F18E/F (a good eight squadrons-worth to replace the F3 and bin the GR9. The F18 can do the UK AD role and the CVF role (providing we buy cat n'trap ships). With a large enough force structure, carqual need not be the burden it would be on the mcuh smaller JFH (the USMC regularly manage to deploy on CVN). Plus - again some aircrew reduction and we get an AD fighter capable of actually "fighting" (not a slur on the F3 lads, merely a recognition of their current problems). Proven airframe with a good if not stellar avionic fit capable of interoperating with a large number of allies, known ILS burden.

Hey presto a two fast-jet class fleet. What do you mean we need a first day strike capability? Can't we get someone else to do it?

Cutting Harrier Early
 

Running aircraft from carriers isn't just about the pilots. Once a body of knowledge and a cadre of people have been degraded it is very expensive and very time consuming to build it up again. Deck handling, arming at a high sea state, air controlling the aircraft.. the list is long. Those 1300 crews from Lusty and Ark aren't going to sit in limbo in for 10 years. Hutton said at the Def Com that the carriers will definitely be built. So he is committed to the idea. Cutting the Harriers now and starting from zero will be a costly mistake. Short term savings at a long term cost.... a British tradition.

.

Right, I can’t ignore some of the dibble on this thread anymore!

Over the years, I tried to be fairly impartial in my comments about the 3 services and I think a glance through my posts will confirm that. In particular, I’ve been punctilious in defending the pros and cons of both maritime and land based air power, sometimes in the face of others from my own service. Indeed, I remain a very strong supporter of the RN and Army retaining their own organic air assets. Similarly I have supported the argument for CVF (although I have always worried that the wider capabilities of the RN were being prostituted for 2 x CVF and 3 x SSBN(F) and am beginning to doubt the wisdom of CVF). Equally however, although I like to consider myself extremely Joint minded, I am Light Blue to the core and will defend my Service from some of the utter rubbish spouted here and elsewhere. I make no apologies for repeating the following diatribe elsewhere.

Now we have that straight, let me begin!

The last few years have, to be honest, not been great for the RN. More so than the RAF, it suffers from Joe Public’s perception that the UK is only engaged in 2 Land centric campaigns. They only perceive the Army as contributing and anyone seen on TV in combats is obviously in that service. Both the RN and RAF are also engaged in similar essential activities which, either by dint of their sensitivities or the fact that they are not in Afghanistan or Iraq, remain low profile. Examples of these are the defence of the UK (AD/QRA, ASW/ASuW), counter drugs, counter terrorism, and the wider ISTAR piece associated with the 2 ‘live’ theatres such as SIGINT and FMV. In fact, even many serving members of the UK military are largely ignorant of many of those activities!

This erroneous perception in the publics eye has however been exacerbated for the Senior Service by a number of incidents which have embarrassed the RN in recent years. HMS Trafalgar driving into an inconveniently located sea bed; HMS Nottingham almost sinking after bumping into Australia; the recent debacle over members of HMS Cornwall’s crew being captured by Iran, their conduct, and subsequent release of stories to the press.

Please note incidentally that I am not casting aspersions regarding those incidents. Each service has their bad days, but I think it is fair to say that the RN has suffered worse of late, particularly regarding the HMS Cornwall incident which frankly caused embarrassment to the entire nation.

So the RN are understandably sensitive at a time when the UK military is quite clearly going to have to take yet more cuts in its capabilities. Like Wrathmonk, I have sensed therefore over recent months an increasing spin campaign by the RN to protect its corner as difficult decisions are made. That has been most evident in the recent flow of ‘leaked’ documents and studies relating to RN capabilities appearing in the media.

Delaying CVF, the Falklands guard ship, T45 cutbacks, T23 service life extensions, lack of Harriers for CVF deployments and numerous others have all appeared in the press of late. The Times has been particularly evident in this which frankly appears to me as a significant campaign by the Senior Service to manoeuvre for funding.

I understand this to an extent and every service regrettably engages in these kinds of shenanigans. However, I do see this latest ‘leak’ as another example of such tactics where a grain of truth has been distorted for single service reasons.

As part of ongoing funding ‘options’ EVERY capability in the UK has to be examined and justified. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Harrier fleet has been studied in this manner. However, to suggest that the RAF has a campaign (much less a named campaign!) to assume all manned fixed wing aircraft is I think ludicrous. Whatever you think of CAS, he has publicly stated his support for CVF on a number of occasions. Likewise, it becomes fairly tiresome in the RAF hearing almost constant paranoia from the RN that the RAF has got it in for CVF. I can honestly say that the vast majority of RAF officers I work with support this procurement.

And why wouldn’t we? F-35 is a key tenet of FAS for the RAF. If GR9 is binned in toto, this will result in a ‘capability holiday’ in terms of carrier deployable fast air. We all know how dangerous such holidays are as it immediately brings the entire capability into question. Yet one of the key reasons why the RAF is getting F-35B is to be able to augment FAA sqns aboard CVF. If the Harriers go, CVF may go and the F-35 may go. How exactly is this sensible for my Service when so much effort is being expounded on ensuring the RAF F-35s can operate from CVF?

The ‘Harrier mafia’ of very senior officers is notorious in the RAF for protecting their own and I find it difficult to believe the entire fleet would be chopped. By definition, many RAF Harrier personnel have significant sea time over the last 10 years and many quite enjoy CVS ops (although the scope of flying tends to be far more limited)! I have no doubt that some GR9 cuts are being considered (as they are with other fleets), but I feel that this is just one of many options (and by no means the most shocking that I have heard) that has been spun in an attempt to manoeuvre for funding.

If the RAF wished to crush the FAA fixed wing capability, I would suggest that it would be relatively easy. For decades, RN fast jet sqns have been heavily augmented by RAF personnel. Likewise, RN pilots who have failed to gain a single seat tick in trg have often been allowed to serve on Tornado GR4 or F3 sqns prior to crossing back over to FA2 or GR9. We could easily have stopped such initiatives over the years to reduce the numbers of FJ experienced aviators the RN can call on. In addition, when I have heard at least 2 RN Flag officers state publicly that ‘they don’t care who flies the aircraft off them, just as long as we get the carriers!’, it could be suggested that the wider RN at large are perfectly capable of undermining organic FAA air on their own!

In summary chaps, I have attempted to offer a balanced counter argument to the exceptionally inflammatory article in the Times. I personally do see this as another carefully managed leak by a Service that is (perhaps understandably) sensitive regarding its current public image and future at this moment in time.

I shall now scuttle sideways and wait for the incoming NGS (obviously it’ll be NGS as NSW are deployed ashore and unavailable:ok:)...

Regards,
MM

MM,

Check your PMs.

MM

A well reasoned post. The arguments regarding who drives the jets off the deck has been covered elsewhere - however as you know if there are no dark blue ones there will be no senior RN Officers with a fixed wing background, including CVF Captains and Cdrs (Air) as well as task group commanders, Flag Officers and their staff.

Like you I wondered why the RAF would propose this. I am cynical enough to wonder if this Government spin so when it does not happen people be relieved and the others cuts will seem less severe.:suspect:

PN

A bit selective there WEBF.

Perhaps. However....

In coastal or near coastal waters against an SSC the SSN DS is probably essential. Without a CVF however you would not need the SSN there.

Don't know what SSC stands for. (Thick guess, you mean SSK - if not you've lost me.) However, in littoral waters (ie someone else's coastal waters) you may well find the odd submarine regardless of the proximity of a carrier group...in fact that's their main operating environment these days.

I would be so bold as to say that no carrier can operate without escorts. A carrier operating aircraft has limited freedom of movement. It would need at least one escort to keep her company. It is true that a helo can do some of the jobs of an escort but a boarding party is best served by an escort - picking up several pirates for instance. Immediately you need to add an RFA to the mix. If the carrier is engaged in hot operations you probably need to add logisitics support. If you then take one escort out of the equation, you need a spare.

True, although Maritime Interdiction Operations are unlikely to occur during a hot war. I would suggest a hot, shooting war takes priority over most other commitments.

Soddim

I do not think, W E Branch Fanatic we speak a common language. Combat is joined when the enemy shoots back. The Argie aircraft did not because they did not come armed with AAM to the fray. If the Argies had been able to employ fighter sweep/escort the outcome might have been very different.

Their commanders told them to avoid the Sea Harrier. So you consider aircraft engaging incoming attack aircraft as non combat as there was not fire going both ways?

The Harriers did not defend the carriers - the Navy used geography instead - they kept them safely out of range. Neither did they adequately defend the ships - the Argies got bombs in 17 surface ships - fortunately, they did not all fuse successfully.

The Sea Harriers provided the outer layer of defence for the task group. Apart from the incoming bombers that got splashed, the Shar was credited by a post war study (by either the USN or USAF) of preventing over 450 Argentine sorties as the Argentine pilots evaded the Shars instead of pressing their attacks home. As to the fusing issue, the Argentines were competent so why did they fly so low that they had fusing problems? Something to do with keeping out of the way of the Sea Harrier (not so good at looking down on targets, particularly over land) and shipborne radars/missiles.

Likewise the Sea Harrier was a major part of the defence against the Super Eterndards with Exocet. With only five aircraft and five missiles they were careful not to risk interception. If the RN had been equipped with organic AEW back then it would have reduced the success of the Argentine low level approaches.

Deliverance

FFS don't say "Crusade". :uhoh:

ZZZZZZZZZZ

I say bring back the Jaguar and the Sea Harrier - then we could do retire the GR9 (replace with the Jag in Afg) and use the SeaJet for defence of the fleet.

Everybody wins.....

ZZZZZZZZZZ

WEBF - indeed , we do not speak a common language. Air combat requires at least two participants intent on shooting each other - the 'combat' you refer to is one-sided. Put simply - if the guy you are trying to shoot is not trying to shoot you then he is a target not a fighter.

The SHARS did not provide the outer layer of defence - the picket ships did.

The fusing issue was common to both sides and it was nothing to do with the air threat but entirely due to target defences.

The SHARS time on CAP precluded any realistic ability to defend against exocet attack.

Suggest you might have gained your knowledge from reading what other people wrote about the war. I did not and you can disbelieve what I write if you wish - that is your choice but I am now weary of uninformed opinion.

Magic Mushroom

Good post, and it is debates and discussions like these that always restore my faith in not only pprune, but in the UK Armed Forces as I have always viewed this web site as a pseudo crew room where both banter and serious topics are discussed regularly.

Whether right or wrong how very sad it is that H M Govt have put all of us into so much of a corner that we are now feeding on our own. As per a recent lecture that was given, it is like being in a goldfish bowl with 3 goldfish, with the Government removing the water scoop by scoop.

Sadly I believe that we are nearing the stage where there is not enough water to support the lives of all 3 goldfish.

The clue was in the coastal :)

An SSK is more a blue water patrol vessel that can of course enter shallow seas. An SSC is more likely confinded to the littoral like the German 212 or Heroj class (PATROL SUBMARINE) (SSC) although the Patrol design does muddy the waters.

I muddy the water there when I talked of logisitics for the carrier. What I really meant was that the minimum carrier escort was likely to be one or even two FF and that would reduce independent MIO. True fixed-wing could increase the surveillance area but so can an embarked flight.

ATFQ

Like I said my opinion. Based, like yours on information "heard" from others! Don't get me wrong - I do not wish to see the demise of the Harrier or the loss of the Carriers. But there are other assets more than capable of doing the AFG thing - rather than some of JFH being current on deck why not all (and there is a huge difference between "current iaw training schedule" and competent - not meant as a slight, just experience from NVG currency/"recency"/competence on another jet!). And if that means a smaller, leaner but better force then so be it.

A couple of years off and then back into the fray. Recharge batteries etc. Do them all the world of good.

One thing you can say about the Head of the Navy is that he has guts and is willing to stand up for himself.....unlike his sailors who thought it would be appropriate to allow themselves to be captured by the Iranian Revolutionary guards without a fight.....

&&&

Bit harsh! CNS has so far (I haven't checked the latest news) only made threats to resign. His bluff may well be called soon. Of course, one thing that may have been missed is the current CNS is due to be replaced on 21 Jul 09. The planning round rarely gets finalised much before Mar/Apr so at best he will leave post 10 weeks early. And right off his chances of being CDS where he would be able to influence the single service chiefs! Unless its the new CNS who is already threatening to resign :eek: