Magic Mushroom - For what it's worth, Ray Lygo gives a clear account of his discovery that Australia had been moved 200 miles to the west in his autobiography. Not saying it's right or wrong, only that he makes the claim ...

I have evidence that the Wilson Government in 1964/65 actually wanted to retain east of Suez bases at the expense of NATO. When Patrick Gordon Walker and Denis Healey met Dean Rusk on 7 Dec 64 Rusk was at pains to say that the US needed UK in Asia as we could do things in places where they could not.

I believe the SEATO UK/US AOR boundary was 105 deg E.

It was certainly the UK Government's plan to "intention to run down the size of the UK’s armed forces over 10 years as defence spending would be maintained at its present levels"

Where do I start Gullwings? To avoid repetition, if you wish, I'll PM a few examples.

Yes there were equally blinkered comments from some of the pro RAF/anti CVF corner. But I believe that bias being used against bias serves nobody.

TVM NYF. I think I may have read that bio many years ago but will re-check.

Regards,
MM

No problem. It was brought to his attention while he was Deputy Director of Naval Air Warfare in the MoD. You'll find it on pages 285 and 286. Save you the trouble of wading through the whole thing ...

Well has this fella resigned yet?

(If enough of us ask then perhaps we can get an answer):ugh:

MWD

Read the title of the post.
If indeed he did threaten to resign, it would surely make sense for him to resign if they do scrap the harriers, not before they scrap the carriers, or if they don't scrap the carriers?
Just a thought......

Very senior RAF officers do not resign - they serve through whatever the politicians do to their service and personnel and invariably draw their full pension on normal retirement.

Resignations on a point of honour are reserved for the other two services it seems.

Was it not the head of the RN who was threatening to up sticks and go?

So, has he gone yet, or is it all hot air?

Slug Balancers Strike Again
 

A well written article here:

RAF in plot against Fleet Air Arm again ? The Register

Interesting fact about how many aircraft have been shot down by fighters since WWII.

Well written????????????????

Chump.

RAF and it's continuing love of strategic deep bombers? Please!!!!!!!

Bit harsh, Proone - Lewis Page writes reasonably well.

It's just that his reasonably crafted prose can't hide the fact that the substance of everything he produces is badly researched, ill-thought out and hopelessly prejudiced.

As with all of Page's stuff, the style's pretty readable, but the content is utter $hite.

RAF in plot against Fleet Air Arm again
...

1930s, 1970s ... disaster every time they do it

By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Government, 8th December 2008 15:03 GMT

...

But there is actually a solution, and it doesn't need any more money than is there already.

Simply upgrade the carriers to include catapults and wires. Buy the cheaper US Navy arrester-hook version of the F-35, not the expensive and probably troublesome jumpjet. Buy nice cheap carrier radar planes, as lots of people do worldwide. All this will actually cost less over time than the current jumpjet ships and custom rotary-wing radarcraft plans.

RAF in plot against Fleet Air Arm again ? The Register

Very expert opinion, yes indeed.

... Yeah Typical Bl00dy jouro, Their all the same :ok:

Modern Elmo

"But there is actually a solution, and it doesn't need any more money than is there already.

Simply upgrade the carriers to include catapults and wires. Buy the cheaper US Navy arrester-hook version of the F-35, not the expensive and probably troublesome jumpjet. Buy nice cheap carrier radar planes, as lots of people do worldwide. All this will actually cost less over time than the current jumpjet ships and custom rotary-wing radarcraft plans"

Interesting that you picked that paragraph to mock.
I don't agree with Lewis on everything, and as always his attention to detail is not as good as his overview in my opinion, but you would find few to argue with the paragraph above. Political considerations aside, Cat and Trap, Carrier variant F35 and E2 would be our dream result.

On the face of it I'd agree, particularly the AEW options would be far more attractive. However, if we consider the possibility that if (big if) Ocean and Ark eventually get replaced, we may find that going STOVL offers the option of building two commando carriers with ski jumps, similar to the Navantia designs being built by Australia. If that ever becomes the case having four STOVL capable carriers would offer advantages over two dedicated CTOL carriers only.

But as the USMC is finding out, Dave B is a big aircraft and hard to support on a mid-sized ship - particularly along with transport helos, grunts, grunt food &c. For a "commando ship" role you'd be better off with a smaller, CAS-optimized "Harrier III".

Quote
"but you would find few to argue with the paragraph above. Political considerations aside, Cat and Trap, Carrier variant F35 and E2 would be our dream result."

Which is what most have being saying from day1 along with reactors to power the bloody things.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Before we get carried away with a nuclear powered option, remember that would limit the ships to X/Z Berths. Such berths don't grow on trees, particularly when considered against deployments. CVF is supposed to increase our flexibility.

Not on it's current planned form, that's for sure.

Then again define "flexibility":hmm:

What makes you say that?

Everything that has been removed from the original design concept along with the fixed wing aircraft variant destined to fly off them for starters.

Gladrag - have to disagree with that (though not the logic behind it). The original design concepts done in 1996-ish IIRC all looked like a CVS that had been fed steroids and the f/w assumption of choice back then was what was known as SSF (STOVL strikefighter) - essentially the MDD a/c. Imagine the surprise when that didn't make it to demonstrator stage!

As for having a tea-kettle, that idea was binned around the same time, without much detailed study as I recall, largely on the basis that the USN were having an absolute nightmare disposing of their CGN and SSN/SSBN. One of the driving factors was the perceived difficulty and expense in disposal - remember we now have upwards of 15 decommissioned boats sat in Rosyth or Guzz, some of which have been there since 1980 or so.

In terms of capability no-one would dispute that a CVN would be somwhat better than an F76-powered ship, but as GBZ points out, there would be major hits elsewhere. The thing that would really kill it would be the need for more than two ships (given reactor overhaul and refuelling timescales - yes it would need refuelling for a 50yr life) to guarantee availability which was one of the planks of the ST(S) dossier - two big ships for the price of three smaller ones based on much improved (?) / reduced maintenance demands.

More to the point, due to the endless dithering over letting the contract, we're now in a position where there is no plan B and no time / money to generate one. UK Maritime aviation has essentially bet the farm on CVF and to a lesser extent Dave B. The ship is at least big enough to adapt to most things and that's it's big plus point - I'm sure there will be a number of emb8ggerances due to the h'apporth of tar savings that will be applied, but they can be rectified over time.

And that should be the ONE and ONLY concern.

Disposal of life ex assets, whilst obviously important, should not lead to the emasculation of the end product.

Have the MOD (RN) planners been taken over by treehuggers??

Its a good thing the price of F76 isn't going to rise over the planned 50 years the CVF's will be operational for.

But as the USMC is finding out, Dave B is a big aircraft and hard to support on a mid-sized ship - particularly along with transport helos, grunts, grunt food &c.

False, no, not true at all. You just made that up


For a "commando ship" role you'd be better off with a smaller, CAS-optimized "Harrier III".

No.

The USA’s New LHA-R Ships: Carrier Air + Amphibious Assault (updated)

21-Oct-2008 11:21 EDT
Related Stories: Americas - USA, Contracts - Awards, Contracts - Modifications, Eng. Control Systems, Expeditionary Warfare, FOCUS Articles, Forces - Marines, GE, New Systems Tech, Northrop-Grumman, Policy - Doctrine, Policy - Procurement, Power Projection, R&D - Contracted, Raytheon, Surface Ships - Combat
http://ads.watershed-publishing.com/...&cb=fc762fafbe
Advertisement

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...SHIP_LHA-R.jpgLHA-R Concept
(click to view full)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...E_DII_Mark.gif
Modern U.S. Navy Amphibious Assault Ships project power and maintain presence by serving as the cornerstone of the Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG) / Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). A key element of the Seapower 21 doctrine pillars of Sea Strike and Sea Basing, these LHA/LHD ships transport, launch, and land elements of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) via a combination of LCAC hovercraft, amphibious transports and vehicles, helicopters, and aircraft.
Designed to project power and maintain presence, LHA-Replacement (LHA-R, aka. LH-X and now the America Class) large deck amphibious assault ships will replace the LHA-1 Tarawa Class. They’re based on the more modern LHD Wasp Class design, but remove the LHD’s landing craft and well deck. The end product is essentially a revival of the World War 2 escort carrier concept, with integrated berthing, cargo, and light vehicle spaces for Marines. LHA-R ships will be almost 80 feet longer than USS Wasp and 10 feet wider, since they don’t have to fit through the Panama Canal. As a result, these ships will weigh in at 50,000 tons/ 45,700t fully loaded rather than 42,400t full load for LHD 8. Though DID uses the term “escort carriers” due to the size of their aerial complement, note that their overall displacement will be larger than France’s 43,000t FNS Charles De Gaulle nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
DID’s FOCUS articles offer in-depth, updated looks at significant military programs of record, and this is DID’s FOCUS Article concerning the America Class LHA/CVLs. The latest development is the formal selection of its propulsion system, which is not exactly a surprise…

...
Displaying 284 of 2,808 words (about 8 pages)

The USA’s New LHA-R Ships: Carrier Air + Amphibious Assault (updated)

The part about hovercraft is wrong -- Elmo.

Sheesh, Elmo. Your comments are terse, if a little free from backup data.

Actually, as your next post makes clear, the new LHA-6 (America-class) gives up the well deck to add aviation space. It's not just Dave B - it's the CH-53K and V-22 as well.

Consequently, if you really wanted a full-spectrum ship including fixed-wing CAS jets - or to add CAS-type jets to an LHD - you might really look at the need for stealth and supersonic speed, which are vital requirements for CAS in the same way as playing the banjo is a key qualification for a garbageman. That's what I mean by "Harrier III".

Actually, as your next post makes clear, the new LHA-6 (America-class) gives up the well deck to add aviation space. It's not just Dave B - it's the CH-53K and V-22 as well.

(1) No room for both well deck and full length hangar deck on same boat, even with 50K tons displacement;

(2) Sea surface amphib. assault operations conflict with rotary wing ops from same ship -- prefer to launch V-22's or helos from much further offshore;

(3) Who says lift fan F-35 only for close air support? Not Navy Dept.

Right, the Marines are acquiring deep strike and air dominance missions. Vaguely credible back in the day of the STOVL Strike Fighter, in the Cold War, but today? If there's a real air threat you send a CV.

V/STOL
 

Show me an F-35 A or C model which can work from a Forward Operating Base, with the carrier safely out of the way.

Remember, a bright guy in the Argentinian forces converted a ship-launched Exocet .38 to fire from a truck ( although on the wrong side, I've always felt he deserved a medal for that, though the victims on HMS Glamorgan might disagree ).

Even the Khat-happy Somalis might get something similar one day, and be a danger after the first few tries with the thing pointing the opposite direction towards their chums.

Harrier is saved?!
 

Well, according to the article on the MOD website, the Harrier is going to be supported for the next 10 years. I guess this thread is now null and void. Nothing to worry about chaps - the jump jet will see out the remainder of its time until F-35 arrives. :D

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...ewContract.htm

The correct link refers only to

The link's down, now. Perhaps they changed their minds!

Why does the RN receive the Royal Navy treatment but the Royal Air Force receives the RAF treatment in those MOD News briefs????

Jacko - perhaps our posts crossed in the ether, but as of this moment, the correct link I put in my post a few moments ago certainly works...

Good news indeed - anyone out there able to confirm (guess!) how many engines (and therefore aircraft) this support contract will support ...

Well the idea was to save 1bn by scrapping harrier soooo 198m is around 1/5 of the saving therefore 1/5 of the harrier fleet? (not sure of the overall cost of running harrier to 2019 but in 2002 Sea harrier was quoted as 109m to 2012)

Probably missing something here

Al