*casts a line, waits for a second, and gets the most almightly BITE*


;) nah thier good points, but the best part of this discussion is that whichever side you're on, you'll be pretty firmly entrenched. And I don't think the Rocks really justify even their small price tag - having met them, I know just how much extra kit the RAF buys them just to use up their budget.

Jackonico- Again the GR.9 programe has not been run to provide the RAF and Navy with an aircraft that has a shelf life of only 3 1/2 years from the last one to leave the line. Similarily the extension of life directly reflects very much based on the fatigue life and hours on the airframe. With some aircraft at 4,000 hrs and others a considerably less it doesn't take a genius to deduce that they will not all be life ex at the same time.
A sensible choice would be to reduce the number in service by say 30% and turn the high hr machines into spares/war reserve. As for replacement rear fuselages -seven from memory have been made by BAe - the number made is in direct relation to how many are actually needed otherwise it would have just been a random number plucked out of fresh air.
So again whilst your IPT contact might have been pesimistic -don't for one minute think that 1 Billion of your hard earned taxes is needed to keep her in the air past 2013.

Jackonicko,

Thank you for giving me such a very good laugh this Christmas. I do hope that 'Tourist' can provide one of his excellent translations of some of the rubbish that you have stated.

How on earth did the RN/FAA/RM/RFA/Army possibly win a major sea, land and air campaign in the Falklands, 8000 miles away, with such relatively small resources, poorly trained and inexperienced non-RAF officers, techicians, etc? Obviously in your very blinkered eyes that must have just been down to some very good luck and due to the fact that a relatively few number of RAF personnel were also there to save the day! You really are a joke and an insult to this countries armed forces. (To put it politely!!)

By the way, I am not in anyway knocking those RAF guys who were actually there in the thick of it during that war and did a very good job. I am sure however that they would be honest enough to say that the other forces coped extremely well in some extremely difficult worse case scenarios, without the rapid and flexible world-wide support that the RAF had previously said it could provide!

With your kind of stuck up, arrogant and ‘the RAF are greater than everyone else’ attitude, is it no wonder that the other services do not want the RAF trying to run their air own assets!

You are also good at twisting around what people are 'supposed' to have stated. However, I only hope that our politicians, non-biased forces personnel and the general public read this thread carefully and sensibly to see both sides of the argument and make their own minds up as to what is actually best for this Nation.

May I also take this opportunity to wish everyone a Very Merry and Safe Christmas, wherever you are in the world.

Gullwings,

What are you, a 12-year old spotter?

I'm please that you choose to harp on about the Falklands, which I'm old enough to remember, and which occurred when I was occasionally wearing RAF uniform, and occasionally flying HM's aeroplanes.

The Falklands war took place 26 years ago (halfway back to the Battle of Britain, and nearer in time to VE day than to today). Ancient history, in other words.

It was the last occasion when carriers were actually essential - and it was the last occasion when land based air power couldn't do it better, quicker and cheaper.

Carriers are an inflexible, slow, vulnerable and expensive way of delivering air power, a nice-to-have niche capability that we don't need and can't afford, and which threaten to distort the UK's forces and actually weaken the capability areas we actually need and use.

But which the Admirals won't give up without a fight.

So please don't lecture me on the 'good of the nation'.

It was only 5 yrs ago that a Major part of Op Telic was launched from 2 carriers. The carriers then provided a "safe haven" for the crews and A/C to rotate through.

Sierra leone wasn't that long ago either.

Lets not forget the Humanitarian Op Tellar in Nicaragua.


You often mention that we are planning our Aircraft for tomorrow so why shouldn't we do the same for the Fleet?

As to the Officers remark, re-read the post and you will see it mentions the "Top Heavy" Officers of all 3 services. We do have far too many.


Taxi for one to the IOW, ring any bells.

Jacko,

There are too many aspects in your piece above to put in quotes but a response is needed.

Throughout you arguments you seem to imply that the cost of deploying land based air power is minimal and certainly nowhere near as expensive as by sea - no one has yet shown this to be true. I seem to recall in the distant past that to deploy a "fighting squadron" of Jags to Denmark took more than the entire RAF AT fleet and that was just to get them there. Resupply continued to take up most of the AT. In a day one scenario it is likely to take up to 2-3 weeks to establish an RAF fighting Sqn in a tactical FOB with sufficient stores and weapons. The whole point of the carrier concept is that it is available, fully resourced, on day one - and in the previous period it has been stationed for coercive effect whilst diplomacy has its go. Precisely why the US have up to 5 CVNs stationed around the world on a permanent basis (and MEBs for that matter) - the USAF simply can't get there for the day one situation (well not every time).

As far as the Strategic Deterrent goes it is the Government that decides whether it wants one and how best to deploy it - just how would the RAF or Army do this......and does it want to anyway? Simple fact....all the nations with a Strategic Nuclear Deterrent deploy it by submarine, if there was a better way I am sure they would do it.

In our financially constrained times just what are our AD sqns defending against? What is the threat? And since when is Tornado a CAS aircraft?

If you couldnt do basic arithmetic how did you pass a flying test?

Quoted post just goes to show the idiotic...
 

.........posting on this forum

Putin's Arctic invasion: Russia lays claim to the North Pole - and all its gas, oil, and diamonds | Mail Online

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger...ailyNews-1.jpg

Amongst other things. How easily we forget.

ORAC.....Do you really believe that the present day RAF could defend against a hijacked aircraft turning off the ILS at LHR and flying into the Houses of Parliament or Canary Wharf? They would have about 1 min to react I reckon. And god forbid, if ever we have to scare off the Russians. Best defence we have against them is to keep buying their gas.

.....and who would make the decision in time? Horrific though 9/11 was I am not sure anything could have stopped it given the circumstances...politicians will always hesitate.

Re the Artic....what has that got to do with air defence of the UK? I suspect the US and Canadians have a greater interest in this bit of real estate.

Did the 9-11 hijacked aircraft do anything like that? There are many anti-hijack precautions apart from the RAF and one hopes it is no longer easy to get a civilian aircaft so close to the target without warning.

One thing is for sure, without the RAF and the boys and girls sitting on QRA and maintaining the aircraft right now, there would be no last line of defence.

Thankyou to QRA today for helping to keep us safe so that we can all enjoy Christmas in peace.

I think that you'll find that it is also "tortological"

Happy Christmas one and all.

Some interesting comments,

Maybe the reason that somebody has suggested that the RAF take on the armys helicopters is that they have realised that the AAC's servicability rate for it's helicopters is appalling.
How many Apache's are in storage due to lack of pilots/trainning/management/engineers/spares etc etc.

How many of the 100's of lynx are declared operational on a daily basis?

There is a fundamental difference in the way the two services opperate both with merits, but in this day and age, can we really afford to have aircraft sat about U/S while feildcraft, weapons trainning and drill take priority.
In an ideal world yes.... but that world has long since gone.

Jacko,

while trying not to seem dim ( Happy Christmas to all by the way ! ) if 'we' can afford £400 billion to help out selfish, useless bankers ( please regard that as rhyming slang ) then apparently we can certainly afford the 2 carriers, but probably not the 80 plus admirals....

What have tortoises got to do with it? :confused::confused:

It is, however, tautology.

Mick,

Easy - I took such exams before I was senile, and usually when sober.

Never post when drunk, especially when you're not used to it.

I meant Suez, of course, and then got mentally sidetracked.

With my arithmetic and your knowledge of defence we're a powerful combination. :p


Timex,

Don't make me go over Sierra Leone again, per-lease. (Carrier got there first because they held back the Jag squadron on the Azores, with basing permission for Dakar. And tell me again what weapons the Harrier brought to that fight? What was that again? Sudden aircraft noise?). As for Telic, it was quite possible without carriers, as Granby showed.


Bismarck,

You quote one example, I could quote plenty of others - the speed with which the Jags got on Granby, out to Italy for the Balkans stuff, and the lack of support required. Sierra Leone, if you like. And Typhoon could do it with an even leaner tail.

Whereas your CVS/CVF, SSN, AD destroyer, RFAs, oilers and the like take much longer, and cost far more.

Re the deterrent, in the post Cold War world, I'd have been happy seeing it as a secondary capability, split between some sub-launched Tomahawks and a nuclear-tipped Storm Shadow. Enough to deter, cheap enough to afford.

If the Navy want to provide the gold plated (and arguably less than nationally autonomous solution) than that's a Navy priority, and gold plated carriers as well seems a bit much.

All this homegeneous tortoise talk is making my head spin. Merry Christmas anyway.

Jacko, how many troops can a Jag carry?

Also Jacko, they may have been able to get there, but did they have the support required to actually do anything, ie bombs, bullets, planning facilities, accomodation.
ie, all the stuff that va carrier turns up with day one ready to go for extended ops

Has a Harrier ever had to ditch serviceable weapons into the ocean because it was too heavy to land back on a carrier or is this all an urban myth? And can they guarantee that they can get airborne with a useful weapon load (i.e more than one bomb and a rocket pod)? And will Dave B be any better?:E

Not sure about the GR9 with the new bigger engine but the old SHAR definitely had to during the Kosovo campaign (or they were telling porkies to us at the CAOC) their standard load was AIM 120 plus a 1000lb bomb which wasn't really needed as the task was air defence but a number were jettisoned inert. To be fair, as I always am, the USN faired no better and often had to dump unexpended weapons as to bring them back to the ship was too risky. Will Dave be better - I'd darn well hope so or we won't have moved forward very far in 20 odd years!

Jackoniko

Sorry to disappoint you. Just because I am relatively new to this website it does not mean that I am a 12 year old spotter, or that I do not have a wide range of armed forces experience or knowledge.

Not only can you not do maths, you obviously have trouble reading too. (As I have previously mentioned I have worked closely with all of the services.) This has been both pre and post the Falklands. It has also included working at an RAF base where we shared the same hangar and operated virtually the same type of aircraft as the RAF. (A great opportunity to experience for myself the different ways that the RAF and FAA maintained and operated basically the same type of aircraft for exactly the same types of Army/Marines support tasks. It certainly was quite an eye opening experience and it was particularly interesting to discover that the RAF needed two different tradesmen to carry out the same types of work as just one of our FAA combined tradesmen.

During that time our four aircraft were sometimes carrying out not only their own operational tasks, but also those of the RAF aircraft. Particularly during one period when in fact 7 of their 8 aircraft were unserviceable! (So for those who recently commented about Army poor aircraft serviceability rates I can assure you that the same can even happen to the Royal Air Force!)

With regards to your following previous stupid comment about the other UK forces lower levels of training and experience: -

“The RAF has the support and engineering infrastructure required to get the most out of the most complex platforms, and to train their aircrew.”

It is not only the RAF that can get the most out of complex platforms and train their crews. You do not get a much more complex helicopter platform than the FAA version of the EH101, which uses a lot more different avionics and weapon systems. These are even operated and maintained on smaller ships for very long periods of time away from any land based support. They also somehow manage to do that without any need for RAF personnel to be present.

The same can equally be said for the Harrier, including the Sea Harrier which also had very state of the art avionics and weapon systems!

Furthermore, when ‘any’ of the UK armed forces require in-service repairs for very seriously damaged helicopters anywhere in the world (including for serious battle damage), I suspect that the FAA still provides the highly trained and experienced structural repair teams to carry out that work. (Even for the RAF!) If I remember correctly, some AAC technicians also sometimes joined those teams as well! Therefore, the FAA and AAC are not as useless as you often state.

With regards to another one your previous stupid digs at the other UK Forces: -

“The chain of command understands and knows how to use air power. It does not mis-use assets, and does not allow aircraft to be diverted to act as the Colonel's taxi”

You must have been seriously drunk when you also made that very blinkered statement. I, like many other people, (including honest RAF personnel) could quote many equally bad (if not worse) examples of the RAF mis-using assets, but I will spare the RAF’s blushes on that subject!

Gullwings
Exactly.


Jacko
An RAF squadron has to have a base to operate from, within a useful combat range of a conflict. What if, in a future scenario, we can't get that? But with a Carrier....

Carriers can also carry troops, in a pinch, carry refugees, disaster victims, and do something that the RAF can never-ever do, which if 'fly the flag', sail into ports and show just how impressive and important Britain really is - and why they should continue to trade with us. World politics is just one big willy waving exercise, and we need to show we have a big willy if we ever want to secure lucrative trade deals.

So yes, its expensive, but long term having two big carriers are essential.

Plus, you make it seem that the entire Royal Navy is there simply to supply a carrier. We need all those ships for other things, Jacko, and so what if they'd be deployed with the carrier, they'd just be somewhere else on the oceans using money - so the need for a defensive fleet is really no argument at all.



Also, I've had another thought about you're post about the RAF being so top heavy because the officers fly.... the problem the RAF has, is blatant rank creep, in that you have squadron leaders flying single aircraft and not commanding squadrons. Yes, ok it because training takes so long, but if you have such a situation, it needs changing - so don't give pilots a commission until they finish training! The Army and to a lesser extent the Navy manage it, so why can't you? Is it the need of the RAF to validate itself and give itself a compatitivly high number of senior officers so that they can compete with the Army - despite being much much smaller?

To be honest, tradition in this case trumps the need for it imo - but everyhing these days is money driven and there is no current need for carrier-borne aircraft.

Harriers are being replaced by the jca anyway - and the typhoon is being scraped soon cos the spanish are useless And the aircraft doesn't live up to what it says on the tin.

Boo,
Does your mummy normally let you stay up this late, or is this a special Xmas treat?

Tourist: Just give him time; he'll learn all about the need for carriers if he listens to thee!

Boo: I've one thing to say to you...

http://www.terrane.co.uk/ProdImg/EB6514_1_Large.jpg

Jacko

As for Telic, it was quite possible without carriers, as Granby showed.

But Granby didn't involve an amphibious assault by UK Forces. Telic did, and Ark Royal and Ocean were key to British operations, particularly the assault on the Al Faw peninsula. You may find this link to be of interest.

The performance of Royal Navy (RN) forces in successfully accomplishing their objectives confirmed the development of the RN’s joint and expeditionary capabilities since the SDR.

The operation underlined the strategic value of the sea for the application of combat power, early theatre entry and power projection. This took the form of amphibious forces, sea-based helicopters, cruise missiles, and the use of naval fire support and logistics during the Al Faw operation.

Projecting Power
 

My career within the Fleet Air Arm involved Wessex Vs, which was great fun, and I wouldn't have missed it. The reason I never even got the opportunity to try and fly jets was thanks to a combination of Healey and the Air Farce. Healey was trying to cut the Defence budget, (and largely succeeding), the Air Farce moved Australia on the world map to show that a squadron of F111s could cover all of the globe at any time, from anywhere.
Not much changed except that at least Healey wasn't Scottish!

There's not much that can project power like a carrier.....(unless it's an SSBN!)....of course the V force proved itself at Stanley, didn't it...

WEBF,
Technically Al Faw was not an amphib assault. The assault waves were all flown from a TAA in the Kuwaiti desert. Why? Because the carriers were kept outside seersucker range and that prevented the Sk4s from completing a round trip with a viable load. Therefore, only once the possible launch areas had been over-run did the carriers approach and make the logs ripple work. About 90% of the men/materiel on the first 3 waves were flown by RAF Chinooks, carried (and occasionally dropped...) over Kuwait. The Junglies worked their butts off (as ever) but were struggling to carry an effective payload. The RM hovercraft/landing craft had real problems with mined beaches, and this delayed the build up of combat pwr (esp in anti-tank weapons) which caused panic on day 2 when Int reported T-72s leaving Basrah! Curiously, these issues receive scant attention in RN histories...

NGS was successful in confusing all of the helo pilots as the traces were constantly changing; even worse, the bombardment served to churn more sand into the sky and further reduce in-flight visibility (down to 1000m in places) which was really nice at night.

There is a risk of "Black Bucking" Al Faw. The RN were in danger of a peripheral part in OIF as it was going to be a Land & Air focussed campaign. Al Faw gave them a piece of the action - but people must be careful not to overplay the card as, arguably, the RAF did with the Vulcan in the Falklands.

Al Faw could have been done totally from the land; Carriers were NOT necessary. However, as mentioned in other posts, it was nice to go back to an air-conditioned bed and not a tent...

A long time reader of Pprune threads, this debate is the first to prompt my twopence worth.

I have to say that apart from DBTW and Wrathmonk, I don't agree with much here.

The Fleet Air Arm will only lose fixed wing if Navy wants it to.

Others, bigger and badder than anyone in current lofty political, bureaucratic and defence circles, have tried that caper before, and the net result was Sea Harriers ruling the air over Port Stanley.

As for the RAF, the lobbies and bars of Wesminister are now home to a creeping discussion by MPs of both parties as to why the Navy, Marines and Army are always ready to go and unleash grief on the bad guys, but the RAF has a Peking telephone directory of excuses as to why its aircraft are so rarely available.

Lastly, someone here claims to work as journalist. I have considerable experience of the media, and have yet to so much as hear an unsubstantiated rumour of a hack writing anything when off-duty, let alone when there's no pay cheque involved

What a complete load of tosh.

Evalu8ter - Don't forget the Puma also took part in Al Faw and did it's fair share.

Gullwings - the AAC doesn't have any technicians, the REME has plenty.
:ok:

Stitchbitch,
Indeed, esp after the -46 crash when the AAS Puma/CH47s picked up the slack at a moments notice.

All the more evidence that Al Faw did not NEED carriers. The expense of sailing a 10-ship flotilla all the way to the NAG to invade a country with 20-odd miles of coastline could be seen as a bit excessive. The Helos and troops could have been sea or air freighted to Kuwait and moved to TAA Viking a lot easier!!

Stitchbird
You are correct. That is a fair cop! I hope however that most people understood the point that I was trying to highlight.

Evaluator
Perhaps on that particular occasion in Al Faw the RAF may have been able to manage themselves, but as in most conflicts/wars since WW2 I am sure that our other UK forces (and perhaps even some RAF personnel) will have appreciated the very experienced, capable and willing support that the FAA provided. (As always, the FAA tries to do its best with whatever equipment it has available to use.)

With regards to your previous Statement: -

"NGS was successful in confusing all of the helo pilots as the traces were constantly changing; even worse, the bombardment served to churn more sand into the sky and further reduce in-flight visibility (down to 1000m in places) which was really nice at night.”

I am surprised to learn that our ships may have just been randomly firing their guns all over the place for no good reason. I doubt whether it was just to annoy the RAF and perhaps their own FAA pilots? Are you sure that the troops on the ground were not requiring and directing such gun fire support where they needed it to carry out their attacks and minimise their own casualties, etc? When directed by skilled spotters on the land those guns are usually known to be extremely accurate and very valued by our troops. Apologies for any inconvenience caused if this was not the case.

Stepping carefully into this thread:

Military campaigns, especially the more recent US led ones, have been characterized by a (very understandable) desire for overwhelming force to reduce casualties. That seems to translate to throwing all available assets at the problem. Looking at Al-Faw and other engagements, perhaps we shouldn't have been surprised that 10 ships were sent, NGS was used, and a mix of RAF, FAA and AAC assets were used. Perhaps we ought to be mighty proud that the UK has the skill and professional aviators, soldiers and sailors to execute an true 'all-arms' assault like this one.

This thread, like many others, has at times dropped into the 'black/white' type of argument where opposing views are presented as sole choices - 'RAF or FAA' is a prime example. That's unfortunate, in my view. I've spent my professional life working with all three Services and it's my view that we have, through accident or design, developed a military skill set that is nearly unmatched anywhere else. We have an outstandingly professional Air Force, a capable and flexible FAA and an extremely effective AAC - and you could swap those adjectives around in any combination. Are they big enough? No. Are they starved of funds? Yes. Are they all good? Hell, yes.

And that's the crux of this thread. One Service (the RAF) has, via CAS, decided to openly attack ownership of air capability by the RN and the Army. This is being denied by the MoD, but it's happened, and happened at the highest levels. It's a crying shame, because a) he is going to lose, b) he is damaging the reputation of his service in the process and c) our lords and masters probably have better things to do than chew over these old bones. 'One nation, one air force' is possibly one of the most inane sound bites masquerading as a policy that I've ever heard.

Engines solution? Not sure I have one,, but a good start would be to look at using all three Services' skill and equipment sets to try to build a UK equivalent of a US Marine Corps (MEU) type capability, with a fully engaged air component, and exploiting CVF to the full. Flexible, deployable, and with plenty of punch. It would be a real shame if inter-service rivalries got in the way, but I fear that they already have.

Best Regards to all as ever,

Engines

Gullwings,
I was not trying to "big up" the RAF with my last post. Despite being a crab, a quick check through my posts should convince you that I am a proponent of maritime based aviation (in all forms). As I said, the Junglies worked their socks off (as they always do) but it is utter tripe to claim that Al Faw could not have been done without carriers. From a planning point of view it would have been much, much simpler to run the whole show from the northern Kuwaiti desert. My point is that with a plethora of HNS, carriers were not essential. Who is to say that the next time we won't need them, badly? Just don't try and dress OIF up as a "carrier essential" campaign -it wasn't. NGS was important to start with, but got increasingly unnecessary and inconvenient as all viable targets were removed - don't forget we had a pet AC-130 plus A10s and F18s over the top for the important initial phases. My impression was that a lot of the shells that the DD/FFs fired were in order to make the post-war statistics more compelling in support of NGS, rather than the efficient prosecution of targets.

Engines,
Erudite as ever my friend. As you well know, the thought of a UK MEU based around CVF to be a favourite of mine. We just need to stop the zoomies thinking only of Carrier Strike and to start thinking of "Carrier Flexibility".

Oh, and not all crabs think like our glorious "the answer is typhoon, now what's the question" leader and desire anschluss with the AAC/FAA. Most of us are RW pilots and we have a good idea what would happen if he got away with it....

PS-Seasons greetings Engines. Best wishes for the new year to you, Mrs E and the APUs.....

It's funny,

the man who wants to take on the air assets of all 3 services (CAS) visited HERRICK last year. He visited all the RAF detachments with the exception of one....1310 Flt.

It shows how far up his list of priorities RW is. I'm not in favour of a single air entity, the AAC adds a great deal to the party and I would hate to see them disbanded, absorbed or watered down.

The FAA also adds a great deal, but their survival instinct (possibly well tuned) has lead them down a path of endless PR and Spin which culminates in the kind of claims made about Al Faw, which Evalu8tor and Stitch Bitch have addressed well.

If you want a fight, keep your powder dry. The 'typhoon in a teacup' caused by CAS will quickly blow itself out. The 'dark forces' in government who have caused this backbiting through starvation of funds will still be there.

They, it seems, are the supreme justification of NGS.

Evalu8ter,

And best wishes to you and the brood, mate. I fully agree that trying to make too much out of any 'all arms' campaign is fraught with danger. I can't agree that shells will have been fired by DD/FF to make the post war stats look good. Given the economics of firing NGS (those barrels ain't cheap), and the dire consequences of a ship running out of rounds or barrel life while on the gun line, every round will have been called for.

MGD,

The FAA has not, and never has, gone down a path of 'endless spin and PR'. In the past, the traditions of the 'Silent Service' kept such facts as 'all enemy aircraft shot down in air to air combat since the end of WW2 were shot down by the FAA' well below the radar. It's not always been reciprocated. I once sat at a major RAeS event in London and heard a previous CAS inform the audience that 'the RAF had supplied all the helicopters that were based in Split' - no mention of the FAA's SK4s whatsoever. A straight lie.

These days, where their people have done a good job, (e.g. the good job done by the SK7s in the Gulf) the RN has made sure the public know about it. That's because a lamentable lack of knowledge about the armed forces leads many UK citizens to assume that all aircraft are owned by the RAF.

The point here is that the FAA (and the Army) do not want a fight. CAS does, and has started a highly damaging one. It's not 'blowing itself out', either - I agree that it will subside, but at some cost in loss of mutual trust and tons of extra work for hard pressed MoD staffs (and unnecessary expenditure of dry powder). The 'dark force' behind this round of backbiting is one person, and one alone.

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

And that, I'm afraid to say, is complete cods.

How many times were pictures of RAF SHF (as well as FAA SK a/c) operating in Ulster labelled as 'Army Helicopters' by even some of the more respected media organisations?