There aren't the numbers to deploy in the A-G role, because (as a result of short-sighted cost saving cuts) we don't have enough F.Mk 3 squadrons to maintain the UK AD and Falklands burden......

Typhoon's ready, but there's nothing else to plug the gap. OC 11 and one of his JPs have each dropped a bomb. A live bomb, which went bang albeit on Garvie, not Ghanistan, and loads of them have dropped inert bombs. That's more than a zero.

And it's not the Typhoon Force's fault.

Orca

You could say that KAF / Bastion cost the MOD nothing, or very close to nothing, as it is paid for from the contingency pot. Salaries, a proprtion of the eqpt running costs etc would be paid whether the individual was on ops or on (for example) Red Flag. So an anti-CVF stance could argue that it is £4Bn+ cheaper to the MOD to run fixed wing aviation from a land base in AFG than from a spangly new carrier over the horizon (assuming of course you don't buy them...):E.

I suspect the whole "combat ready" thing was to keep the NAO and other beancounters off the MODs back by saying they have met a target date! I'm also lead to believe that the original press release by the force commander declaring the Typhoon ready for everything and anything was quickly pulled and edited when the grown ups saw it (sadly after it had hit t'internet). Hope he hasn't blown his CBE ....

Good on you Wrathmonk! I am with you.

Jackonicko said
in response to DBTW who said

Jackonicko,

I am absolutely certain Typhoon is a pretty good aircraft and it should be worth the wait. I also know (it will have been spoken about before) EAP was the development aircraft and it was emerging from the BAE facility in 1984. RAF had an initial in service date for Typhoon of Feb 1996 when it was re-named Eurofighter 2000 to make the delay sound planned.

doesn't cut it.

We are about to slip into 2009 and you are still trying to make excuses for Typhoon tardiness when there have clearly been a few hitches along the way. It's no good harping on about how good it is and how many billions it is really worth or how efficient it will be at close air support. The aeroplane is late and to a great extent the world has passed it by. The last thing the RAF needs to do now is depend on an aircraft which will be an overused phrase "legacy fighter" within a year or so as its primary/only weapon system.

When the protagonists have all had their palpitations over that comment, even if Typhoon is the best thing sinced canned beer, thankfully the RAF have never depended on one type in the past, and they are not about to start now just because some lay aircraft expert/journo on PPRUNE thinks he has the solution.

Please don't start advocating life extensions on Tornado or bringing back Jaguar. The F35 is coming and the RAF/RN will have it. RAF/RN will also have aircraft carriers. Best you just get used to it.

Jaguar's gone, and isn't coming back. I remain of the opinion that it was retired too early, and had useful life left in it, but it's gone, irrevocably, and any whingeing about it now would be as unproductive as WEBF's 'bring back the SHar' campaign.

I would not advocate expanding the Tornado GR4 force, either, even if airframes were available, nor would I spend disproportionate amounts on extending its service life or delaying its OSD.

But I would not spend £1 Bn on extending Harrier's life from 2013 to 2018.

And I would not spend the amounts required to procure, deploy and sustain two CVF and an appropriate number of F-35Bs which will represent an undeniably impressive, but unjustifiably expensive, unaffordable and inefficient means of projecting air power, and one which will unbalance our forces by distorting spending.

It doesn't help that no-one can give a straight answer as to how much F-35 will cost (let alone a firm, guaranteed price), or as to exactly what capabilities it will have.

If we need more than 12-14 FJ squadrons (six or seven Typhoon, six or seven Tornado GR), then I'd be acquiring Gripen NG to augment Typhoon, or perhaps (in the 2023 timeframe) a small number of F-35As to replace the Tornado.

But even as an admittedly air-minded chap, I'd suggest that SH, tankers, recce and SEAD are higher priorities than further FJs, whether JSF, Rafale M, F/A-18 or Gripen NG.

It's not a matter of £1BN to extend the life of the airframe from 2013 to 2018 - the cost is the overall cost of operating the aircraft to 2018. The aircraft can post GR.9 modification happily go past 2018. It should be remembered that not all Harriers at at high hours. What I see as far more realistic is a rethink of JFH and the aircraft being dedicated to Naval operations perhaps in the form of two operating Squadrons with a large number of aircraft being kept at operational readiness but as war reserve.

That's not how I understand it, Riley. £1 Bn is the cost of mods. Op and support costs are extra.

Sorry....Jacko, did you actually write "a couple of F-35A's to replace the Tornado"????! Interesting statement from someone so vociferously anti-JSF.

Oh and you should perhaps watch what you say so glibly about the Texans (or any others) if I were you.....they all carry an armada of guns!:=:=

Ah the old "Typhoon is obsolete" routine. Nice one. And totally false.

Nuff said.

So, the Typhoons are late, so will the carriers :E

Indeed.

A small-minded person may as easily have said "with the advent of the SS-N-22 the surface navy is obsolete".

25 to 30 seconds to respond makes the 120-150 seconds of an Exocet seem pretty generous.

Of course the surface navy isn't obsolete, whether a slowly moving prize target like a carrier is might be a different matter though, considering the customer base of the SS-N-22.

All those eggs in one basket vs a few missiles moving three times faster than the Exocet with a warhead twice as heavy as that once highly feared missile. Although experiencing a rocket attack in Iraq wasn't much fun I at least had the comfort of the airbase being very large and highly unlikely to sink beneath me.

Good as the T45's may be we won't have too many of them and we are not the US so can't afford a huge group of picket ships to take the attention of any potential incoming away from those floating airfields.

The F35 is coming and the RAF/RN will have it.

Are you sure? But are you sure? :p

Jacko- the Harriers have mostly done something like 3500-4000 hours in twenty years. Some have done considerably less depending on the role they have been used for. The potential life of the aircraft depends on flying hours and the type of flying they do. The vast majority of aircraft that have been converted to GR.9 have had life extension mods carried out. The idea that they all need new back ends is rumour and only that. The RAF has spare rear fuselages for a very limited number of aircraft which require the change but that is nothing related to fatigue.
So in summary the RAF Harrier fleet doesn't need £1 Billion pounds worth of mods to add another five years to it's life - it's not serious to suggest that GR.9 upgraded aircraft that leave the Jump line next year will only have four years of life left in them.

The Helpful Stacker

You are correct when you say that aircraft carriers may be relatively slow to move away from some modern weapon threats but at least (unlike land based airfields) they are actually capable of being moved wherever they are needed, or when necessary, even out of harm’s way until the rapid flexible world-wide RAF support can arrive to help protect and support them! (If that is actually true?)

Land based airfields are also extremely vulnerable and modern weapons technology can easily prevent aircraft from operating from them too! If our relatively few UK (or overseas airfields) runways get quickly taken out by anyone, then what other UK resources could be used to help defend our nation? Long range land based anti-air missiles? (Do we have any now??) Radar equipped VSTOL aircraft such as the Sea Harrier or the Italian/Spanish Navy versions of the Harriers? (No, we do not have any of them either!)

You are also right when you say that we are not getting enough T45’s, to help provide very good long range radar and anti-aircraft missile defense for the UK and our other current/future maritime commitments. Unfortunately just six of them have been ordered to replace the few remaining (over 25 years old) Type 42 destroyers! We once had at least 11 Type 42s, plus 3 carriers capable of operating radar equipped Sea Harriers to help attack incoming aircraft 'before' they could launch their anti-ship missiles at us. Likewise we once had plenty of subs to help defend our ships from the extremely dangerous submarine threats, but now we have very few of them in service and few new ones on order! It is no wonder that the Head of the RN is threatening to resign!! (What a vulnerable and sad state our RN is in!)

Finally you mentioned that experiencing a rocket attack in Iraq wasn't much fun but at least you had the comfort of the airbase being very large and highly unlikely to sink beneath you. I only wish that some of the big decision makers in this country could imagine what it must be like for RN and Merchant Navy personnel to be exposed to such threats with so little meaningful long range air defense/anti-submarine capability.

Riley Dove
 

The idea that they all need new back ends is rumour and only that.

Having seen the cracks firsthand, then I guess you will be more than happy to put your Ass on the line over the winter North Atlantic then.......................

Gullwings - The reason the RN is going to have so few picket ships to protect the CVF's is not down to some RAF dark plan (as some of the more blinkered CVF supporters might want to suggest) but purely due to lack of funds, something the entire military is victim of (any idea when the Canberra 'capability holiday' ends?) But even so, knowing that they would have to rape the rest of the surface fleet (and diesel-electric sub fleet) for the funds for these big, slow and arguably pretty pointless outside out of very specific circumstances carriers the RN has pressed ahead to get their late 20th centurary battleships.
Unlike the equally expensive N-boats I see little point in carriers that the RN will struggle to defend against even a moderate anti-ship threat due to lack of picket ships and without the assistance of significant land-based attack aircraft to suppress that threat.
I'm not anti-RN by a long shot, I just believe the single-minded zeal of certain members of the RN to have these carriers is damaging to the strength of a RN that has far more responsibilities than just those of running a mobile airfield for the RAF.

ZZZZZZZZZZ

A question I'd like to pose, from a guy who doesn't know too much about warships - how much money could be saved by going for a number of 'Type 45 Batch 2' destroyers in lieu of the carriers? Imagine a stretched version with a TLAM Block IV capability. The Type 45 already has a VLS, I appreciate space may be an issue, but not a problem that couldn't be overcome by stretching the ship slightly?

Surely the overall cost of such vessels would be considerably less than that of the carriers and JSF, and through life support costs would be lower too? This would give the navy some measure of power projection capability (albeit not as flexible as an aircraft, but remember this is block IV Tomahawk with some capability against time sensitive targets), and the destroyers would be more useful for more of the time performing the sort of roles the Royal Navy has found itself committed too daily - drugs interdiction, anti-piracy patrols, enforcing sanctions and so on. Being type 45 based these ships would retain all of the good air-defence capabilities of the original ships.

A halfway house solution I wonder, if its significantly cheaper - not quite as flexible at power projection as a carrier, but still providing a meaningful boost for fleet air defence and power projection for the navy, and leaving money to be spent elsewhere within the defence budget. I repeat myself, I don't know too much about warships - is it worth considering or not?

The Helpful Stacker

You seem to constantly think Navies only require proper anti-air capable ships such as Type 45s, subs and supply ships to defend CVFs. Other Navies who do not have CVFs still have such ships and subs to defend and support their military/civil maritime fleets and their overseas commitments, etc. As has previously been pointed out elsewhere in this website, carriers do not constantly need lots of your so called “pickets” with them in peace time. They carry out other tasks both around this country and world-wide.

As has also previously been mentioned by others in this website, why does this island nation really need so many land based air defense and strike aircraft and yet have so few quality RN assets that are able to defend themselves properly outside of any meaningful RAF protection and support range? Yes carriers are expensive, but why does the RAF still need so many very expensive strike and air defense aircraft?

Furthermore, if there was a major crisis it would be much easier for the RAF to obtain even more new/second hand aircraft in a hurry than it would be for the RN to obtain any carriers, further anti-air capable ships, be able to crew them and learn how to operate them, etc. Europe has plenty of air defense and strike aircraft and the US also has plenty of such aircraft readily deployable if required. The RN has learnt in the past that it cannot always depend on the RAF and other nations for its protection and support. That is why it needs its own very capable floating airfield, aircraft and warships and not a mobile airfield for the RAF as you call!

If I may, Gullwings, let me point out that it is not a question of what the Navy needs but what UK needs.

Carriers are but one way of projecting power worldwide - they are slow to get there and they need protection. Land based air can often get there quicker and operate from secure bases close enough. But not always and that is why the carriers might come in handy.

However, can our piddly little economy support the projection of power (power we don't have) worldwide.

No - we cannot and our politicians had better get used to the idea. They are subservient even to Brussels let alone the rest of the major nations.

Soddim

With regards to the economy I totally agree. It is how the financial slices of the cake are made up that worries me and no doubt the head of the RN.

With regards to what the UK and Brussels want, do they both want a well balanced, effective and flexible European military capability? (Without usually having to rely on America, or to a much lesser degree France, for any proper carrier support?). If they do, then perhaps they need to get more countries to help take on some of the very expensive current RAF fighter/strike provisions and allow the UK financial savings made to help maintain/strenthen one of the most experienced Naval forces in Europe before some of its expertise and capability is lost and very hard to ever get back again in the event of a serious crisis.

If they do, then perhaps they need to get more countries to help take on some of the very expensive current RAF fighter/strike provisions ...

Of course the RAF would agree with those sentiments.

Whilst we are all discussing the merits/otherwise of carriers perhaps the issue of self defence is still pertinent especially when the world's largest navy gets caught with its trousers down.

On the lines of the original thread:

Despite the merits’ or otherwise of GR9 hours v Typhoon or F35A v F-35B discussed thus far, I feel that the incessant leaking by the senior Service is counter productive, both to their cause and that of the military as a whole.

It has a corrosive effect between the Services and leads to all sorts of allegations of Machiavellian plots against one Service by another. I doubt very much that there is a single head of Service that sits ruminating over his frosties in the morning about how he can 'screw over' the other services. Call it naive if you wish but I do feel that the level of paranoia displayed on here for the last 8 pages is the result of the constant drip of leaks and misinformation purveyed by those that should know better.

As for falling on his sword, if the Head of the RN has really threatened to resign then why has he made no public commentary on it in the same way that Dannett did (Torpy not included as I'm referring to leaders with balls) rather than leaking it through unattributed sources?

ITW,

Of course you are assuming it was a Navy leak...?

Just because one is paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you! If we're honest, there is form in this area, albeit abetted in previous instances by the dark blue exec branch......

It doesn't matter how you look at it, the argument is nonsensical. If you lose your old carriers 3 years before the new ones arrive, then you lose the skills to operate them. The press would have a field day if this actually happened. I hear that the RN has talked to the USMC about having guest squadrons on board more frequently. But ultimately, if the RAF doesn't want its Harriers then, give them to the RN.

Naveleye

If the Harriers were given back to the RN what do you suggest the RN gives up to pay for them (after all this is all about money isn't it ...?). Another T45 or two? Howabout the deterent? And how would you suggest the RN man the Harrier force as I understand it isn't meeting its 50/50 share at the moment. Unless of course you reduced its size .... which is what CAS may be looking to do.

I know this is a rumour site, and its how many keep in touch with current policy (!) but how about we wait for the ground truth. Just a thought.

How much would it really cost?

The a/c are paid for, the spares are paid for. Its the RAF want rid of its Sqns, so be it. I'm sure the NSW could maintain a 9 a/c sqn at Yeovilton without billions being spent. But as you say, it may all be hot air.

Incorrect
 

Soddim, :=

Sea Harrier DID provide the outer pickets.

Argentine forces WERE instructed to turn back if confronted by the SeaJet and a USN report DID find that almost 472 bombs were dropped premeturely to allow the A-4's to escape the CAP.

The SeaJet presence DID prevent exocet attack, simply because they were there - the main reason I will admit for their lack of use against the task force was that the task force was stationed out of range of the Etendards.

Yes, 17 bombs got through, simply because they came through 800 squadrons CAP stations, who were flying at 10,000 feet, and the Blue Fox could not 'look down' over land - therefore they missed them, and often splashed the offending A-4's once they'd already made their run.

And once again, the bombs did not fuse because they were beneath the minimum release height when dropped, not giving them times to arm themselves - and that this WAS because they could not fly higher for fear of Blue Fox pickup from the 801 pilots flying on low CAP's and the ships radar/sea dart sea slug missile systems.

This was all backed up by Argentine Pilots AFTER the war. 21 aircraft were shot down by Sea Harriers - more than any other part of the force.

I freely admit i'm 21 and was not at the Falklands, and that I've taken my information from pilots who WERE there - but I very much doubt you were a combat pilot down there at the time, so don't try pull that one either. :mad:

This rather looks like its part of the same campaign!

Ex-Defence chief in call to cut new aircraft carrier order down to one - The Scotsman

Bye then........

Well said Nostinian.
Not only has our once great RN and FAA lost proper fixed-wing aircraft carriers and fighters to help defend maritime forces, civilian ships, this country and also to support other forces world-wide. It has also lost a high percentage of extremely experienced and capable fixed-wing pilots who carried out ‘combined’ fighter, strike and reconnaissance roles! Did these pilots leave because they disliked the FAA? No, I suspect that most left because they could see the way the RAF has been progressively trying to get rid of them, their aircraft, ships and excellent FAA culture.

Not only that, but I suspect that many left because they were spending so much time away from their families, mainly due to their very much in demand flexibility and capability around the world in so many wars and conflicts, etc. (So much for FAA fixed-wing aircraft and aircraft carriers no longer being required by this country according to ‘some’ very biased RAF contributors on this website!)

Furthermore, what a master stroke it was to also remove the FAA Harrier pilots, maintainers and their aircraft out of their only FAA base at Yeovilton, to an RAF base a very long way from there! That must have no doubt been a further ‘final straw’ kick in the teeth for many of them and their families! Well done to the powers to be for that, the millions of pounds spent training and gaining such very experienced aircrew, maintainers and capability has no doubt been very much appreciated by many airlines around the world that are now employing them!! What a great loss to our nation for which the true cost is conveniently never captured and made public by the bean counters. (Or highlighted in newspaper articles, such as the one previously mentioned in this thread!)

Not only does the RN carry out much maritime work that the other forces cannot do, it also helps to carry out much of the other UK armed forces world-wide commitments. (Even when far away from the sea!) Such a flexible, capable and ‘can do’ force should be enhanced by this nation and not progressively destroyed and left very vulnerable to ever increasing air and submarine threats, etc.

It sadly currently seems that one of the RN/FAA worst threats today actually comes from within our own country. This from some rather biased and blinkered RAF supporters who are managing to do what many enemies have failed to do in the past. That is to destroy some of its best capabilities and reduce the morale of its crews. Our potential enemies are no doubt laughing at this crazy situation!

RAF launches dogfight for control of navy’s aircraft - The Times 21 Dec 08

Looks like the earlier reports didn't go far enough!


Perhaps when faced with calls from within the Army and RN to disband the RAF, Sir Glenn decided to come out fighting!

Wasn't in MB at the time but wasn't the formation of JFH a deal brokered by the then CNS with a view to saving RN money and therefore protect other parts of the "core" Navy?

"Perhaps when faced with calls from within the Army and RN to disband the RAF, Sir Glenn decided to come out fighting!"

Quite possibly; it's a game that two or three can play. "One nation, one air force" might not even be a bad idea. If you look at the way that the Marine Air tail is wagging the USAF/USN fighter-force dog in the US, you have to wonder.

Astonishlingly, the quote comes from Marshal of the Royal Air Force The Lord CRAIG GCB OBE MA DSc FRAeS - a major patron of the UKNDA :{

Unbelievable :ugh:

If one tries to be totally objective there is much logic in the provision of all air power from an independent air force. The Army and the Navy are utterly professional in their own roles and, similiarly, so is the Air Force in theirs. To assume that within any one of the three services one could muster and maintain the level of expertise and experience to perform satisfactorily the role of any of the other two services diminishes the credibility of separate armed services.

The RAF is not clamouring for tanks or ships so why do the other two services want their own air power. They should accept that if they want air support and don't get it there is a very good reason - someone else needs it more. In these austere times it is vital to apportion one's resources so that they can be shared according to the priorities of the moment - not held in reserve by a force that does not need it at the time or equipped solely for naval or land force support.

The only sensible alternative is a combined force structure. I spent some 36 years learning to do my single service job and was still learning when I left. OK, some are slower than others to grasp the knowledge and to cope with rapidly changing technology, but I could not envisage a combined service doing any one of the single service roles in the same professional way.

Soddim

"but I could not envisage a combined service doing any one of the single service roles in the same professional way."

Bollocks.
The Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy. Very few would contend that they are anything other than the finest man for man regular soldiers in the world.

The FAA is part of the Navy. Find me an unbiased observer anywhere in the world who won't rank a Naval Aviator above a Airforce pumper in any countries military. I know that you crabs on here will never admit it, but if you ask the customer, either RM or army, who they would like to be supported by, and the answer will nine times out of ten be the RN.

"They should accept that if they want air support and don't get it there is a very good reason - someone else needs it more."

Or the RAF are, as usual, and not willing to go the extra mile to make others lives a bit easier as the RN (in)famously does. I have heard lots of abuse thrown at the RNs habit of being slightly more flexible with the rules in order to get the job done, but at the end of the day we are the service the customer prefers.

"In these austere times it is vital to apportion one's resources"

Very true, and both the FAA and AAC make every penny go so much further it isnt funny. The Army gets banter for treating their helicopters like landys, but their footprint is vanishingly small compared to the RAF, and even the FAA to be honest.

By far the worst aspect of this inter-Service internecine fighting (becoming a fight to the death?) is that the Service Chiefs are doing the Government's dirty work for them. It is a classic example of the 'divide and conquer' tactic and there is no-one better than Nu Labour in applying it. If we are to preserve (or better, achieve) the Armed Forces that the UK needs and deserves, the Service Chiefs need (for once) to put down their back-stabbing daggers and turn their forward-facing armament onto the Treasury and Downing St.

Blimey, I've read some ill-informed, un-substantiated stove-piped bollox by cold war warriers on this forum over the years but Tourist has now reset the standard! Are you the "leak" in MB? Nothing personal but between you and WEBF you are putting the FAA back into the Dark Ages!

Tourist you really are a chump.....:rolleyes:

Ladies, Gentlemen, PLEASE....

Internecine punch-ups are *really* unhelpful. And as a crab, I can see the arguments for passing SH to the AAC, in the same way that the RAAF did with the UH-60s and CH-47s in the 1980s. No disrespect to the SH mob, but given who the primary customer is, it may make sense for field Army to run this themselves. And for good measure, I'd probably pass the RAF Regiment across to the Army as well. (Kevlar hat on for incoming.)

Similarly, the FAA notwithstanding, it is quite true that if you've got to save a lot of money from aircraft - which is a political decision that I don't agree with, incidentally - then binning the GR9 before the long-term support contract is signed and before the major structural work is done, is probably the best way forward. Again, not saying that this is the right thing, but if these are the political parameters (other savings - e.g. CVF, Trident, being off the table), then it will (i) save the most cash and (ii) the GR4s could (at a pinch) do the majority of the GR9 job, whereas the reverse is not true.

So *IF* the decision is made to bin the GR9s in 2011/2013/whenever - again, a decision I would oppose - it should not be assumed that it is a nefarious anti-RN plot.

And on a point of pedantry, the FAA is not celebrating its' centenary in 2013: the RNAS became the RAF on 1 Apr 1918, with the FAA not reverting to RN control until 1939.

S41

(Edited for spollink)