And beat the cr^p outta them until they see sense?

No, you silly little dumplings, but if you focused less on the very real wonders of aviation technology and a little more on what these things were actually being designed to do, you’d hopefully realise there are simpler, cheaper and more effective ways of delivering ordnance to a particular place and time. And isn’t that what this branch of naval aviation is meant to be about?

And yes, my Yankee chum, it is all about the love. Though not quite in the way you meant it.

Americans and irony…when will they ever learn?

Dear me ro1. I'm often jumperd up and down on by member of this site because of my lack of knowledge about the workings of aircraft and their weapons - jus look at the beginning of this post. However, I am a 1st student on the subject of international relations and military history.

However, I doubt you'll believe me, or even care if you do. However, i'd ask you're background. I'm guessing, if you ARE military, then you are Army, and if you are Army, then you are infantry. Well hello, because whist at university i'm in the TA, before I go onto the regulars. Whichever way you look at it, i'm looking at it from an Army perspective at the moment.

Right, this insistance on the lack of need for carrier aircraft. Loath as I am to point to the Falklands, it a very good example of how aircraft carriers have made somethign that would have been exceptionally difficult, impossible. Just picking out a random book from the shelf above my head, I get this from Commodore Michael Clapp CB, Commander Amphibious Forces, Falklands - 'To me, from the start, our survival and overall success depended almost entirely on the Sea Harriers. We did what we could with point defence and close range weapons but that was terrifyingly little' Admiral Sir John Woodward said much the same thing. Brigadier Julien Thompson as well...'Without them we would have won' - thats from an infanteer.

You, cannot in any way shape or form sit behind your computer screen and say that we will not need the JSF - we, the British Armed Forces are finally getting a good Sea Harrier replacement - something at least with part air to air capability as well as strike capability (although I aknowledge as part of the winder argument on this forum, the jury is out on that haha) as well as being stealthy.

YES, it is a very expensive way to drop a 500ib bomb on a Toyota Hilux and a couple of Taliban, when you could have much the same effect with an A-1 Skyraider or whatever, but unlike the Skyraider it can up its performance for when we need a 5th Gen fighter capable of taking on and defeating a mediumly capable foe, sometime within the next 30 years, and that is a very very real possibility.

Yes, 'people, resources, information and some very well trained inidividual on the ground' are all useful, but none of those defend a carrier group from an airstrike, or have the capability to knock out armour, or mount a show of force, or anything as useful. Not only that, but they are very very vague - what do you mean by 'resources' - it suggests to me that you really are unsure yourself, but feel the need to defend your stance simply because somebody else has picked you up on it, which is, at best, childish, don't you think?

As i've found out, there are a lot of very knowledgable people on this forum, and most of what you say will be shot down in flames. learn to accept it, maybe?

At the end of the day, petty remarks aside, JSF will be an excellent, much needed capability for the armed forces. It fits in with the capability for medium intensity conflict we have been geared towards, and I think if you must poke holes, the British Army and Royal Airforce STRUCTURE could do with a lot more work and a good hard look, and damn the history - be it Regiments, ranks, money allocation - if its preventing the most efficient use of our resources.

I have no idea how this topic got onto this, from a question about the capability of two aircraft, compared to the other, but oh well, such is what makes these forums interesting, no?

Much love, i'll wait for a huge reply from several members dissecting that and arguing it individually, but its given me a break from dissertation writing, so I shan't complain too much ;)

Dai, my background is irrelevant, and even if it weren’t should my argument make no sense then my professional status counts for naught. In other words, if I’m talking nonsense, why would anyone care what my job title is?

I don’t mean to sound condescending, and I apologize if I have (or am about to) but, really, you simply don’t understand the issues here.

I’m not commenting on - for I’m not sufficiently well informed to comment upon - the merits of the F35 or the Eurofighter as a weapons system. I’m sure they’re both absolutely terrific and will entertain many a pilot, ground crew and assorted engineers for decades to come. What they will not do is provide c.9 billion pounds worth of security for your nation.

But, hey, we could argue about this for eons and you’d still mark me down as an idiot. And my ego - such as it is - is sufficiently robust for me not to stress over placing myself in peril of ‘being shot down in flames’ here or anywhere else.

I spoke earlier about irony, and it’s somewhat ironic that, as a student of ‘International relations and military history’ you hold the views you espouse. I hope that, as you advance through your course and become aware of the realities of modern warfare and the historical failures leading to many of the poor (for the west) outcomes in recent conflicts, you adopt a more open perspective on this matter, and are less entranced by the sinuous curves of a modern mud-mover and a little more focused on what your enemy is actually doing - or likely to do - and how best to beat him at his own game on the playing field of his choice.

And big hugs and kisses right back at ya’ :ok:

ro1

"In other words, if I’m talking nonsense, why would anyone care what my job title is?"

Or anything alse about you......

'advance through my course' gah, i'm almost completed. I refuse to get drawn into a slanging match, but I will limit myself to a few comments.

They will prove 9bn in security, because that is how much they are worth. It is impossible to protect a state with information and Special Forces. Which is what you seem to be saying.

'Security' is NOT in any way shape or form the same as investing to win one particular war, is is much much broader, so yes, they will provide security, along with EVERYTHING ELSE.

:ugh:

Pontius,

no offence but you neatly side-stepped my point about the Harrier 2+ & AMRAAM, listing only the mud movers !

Indian Sea Harriers updated to close FA2 standard with Israeli kit are another consideration ( wonder how that may work out as we're trying to flog them the Typhoon now ) ?

The British could do with a gun in a perfect world, ( I followed that sorry saga closely ) but having seen a 2+ with 6 Amraams on BOL launchers and the big engine - on trials, let's say I was impressed...

Of course the underfuselage UK gun positions are either just fitted with strakes or used for other things now, but I can't help feeling the Russian approach - a thousand very good aircraft are more use than a few dozen 'silver bullets' is correct.

I completely agree that having aircraft armed with just Sidewinders for fleet defence is nothing short of a national scandal.

I also worked on modern aiming systems at a range, quite often; it was remarkable to us that the best Test Pilot's in the world often missed dayglo targets, on preplanned routes with no opposition.

That is by no way a critiscm, just even very good humans have their limit.

Western society seems to have become obsessed with speed & "what's possible?" Rather than "what makes sense "? be it fighters, trains or cars - we need to slow down and have better 'targetting sytems' - mental or mechanical - whether it's the school run or Afghanistan !

When we were hosting a U.S.Admiral for what became the T-45 Goshawk contract, he commented " we can always get funding for sexy supersonic aircraft as they appeal to Congress -it's the important stuff which usually gets screwed !"

DZ

Fleet Defence
 

Double Zero,

I don't understand what you're on about. It would be a national scandal if we were using aircraft only armed with a couple of sidewinders for 'fleet defence' - but my impression was that the sidewinders were for the aircraft's self-defence. 'Fleet Defence' is not a role we're getting carriers for - if you think this then you need to get hold of a copy of 'Future Navy Vision' or the Future Maritime Operational Concept and look up carrier strike. The whole idea is that the carriers are offensive

Which then triggers the question, who and what is going to protect the carriers? The Americans surround theirs with shed loads of Ad and ASW vessels, plus of course all the resupply ships too. Does the RN have the capacity adequately to protect the two carriers? If not, then are they not just going to be part of a multi-national strike force, rather than some form of national assets which is how they are currently pitched at we civvies.

"Does the RN have the capacity adequately to protect the two carriers?"


Yes

The carrier strike element is supposed to include the ability to provide Fleet AD when required. Painting it as mud-moving to the exclusion of all else ignores the whole point of having multi-role ac at sea.......

"Does the RN have the capacity adequately to protect the two carriers tied up at Rosyth?


Yes

EFA.

NaB,

I concede your point in that a small proportion of the embarked aircraft are earmarked in the air defence role - but in the scenarios envisaged in the requirement documents, this is about defending the carrier, and more to the point establishing a suitable air situation to enable strike, not "Fleet Defence". So no, not mud-moving to the exclusion of all else, but in what the RN has published, the point of having aircraft at sea is for strike. "Fleet AD" doesn't make it in to any of the official documents - unless you can tell me different.

Now, if what you're saying is that the strike element has been overplayed in order to make sure the RN gets shiny new aircraft that they really want to use for defending the fleet without having to go over any tiresome "self-licking lollipop" arguments, that's something different - but take a look at the RN ORBAT. The point about the carrier is that it will go where we need to project air power - on its own if necessary - because with the scandalously small surface fleet that we have left, to put a carrier battle group out in any sustainable way will mean we have to stop doing everything else - and don't try to convince me that we need a carrier to defend some T45s and FSCs if they decide to start going round in big groups...

The next wars will be won by the people on the ground winning the hearts and minds of the other people on the ground. It really is that simple.

A white person -- I assume you are a specimen of such -- who thinks that white peepul can induce love for palefaces -- "win the hearts" --among persons of color is deluded.

"Winning their hearts and minds," etc., is a somewhat disguised form of neo-colonialism.

neo-colonialism?
 

I was under the impression that 'hearts and minds' was a philosophy and tactical option rather than exporting the Empire to the fuzzy-wuzzies.

It is the difference between not treating everyone who lives in the coutry where we are waging war as either scum, whore, target, expendable collateral or candidate for rendition.

That doesn't mean security shouldn't be at the forefront of minds on Ops - it is a healthy realisation that after 'we' have brought democracy and peace to the world we will pull back and leave it to the host nation...so you need a bit more that a puppet prime minister of a vassal state left behind.

In using this as an operating concept it might be a suprise to find out that a large chinck of people of probably 'about right' and just want to get on with their life without some geezer with a big gun (skin tone not an issue here) telling them how their life is to be led.

"but in the scenarios envisaged in the requirement documents, this is about defending the carrier, and more to the point establishing a suitable air situation to enable strike, not "Fleet Defence".

Personally, I'd call what you have just described as pretty much the definition of "Fleet AD". Nobody is suggesting that the RN bimble round with clouds of f/w embarked purely to defend itself. That is an SLL.

However, there is a little more to integrated AD than defending the carrier alone. Lose an amphib and/or a solid stores RFA and any power projection op will suffer - ergo there needs to be an element of layered defence (AEW, FW fighter cover, T45 and PDMS) where and when an appropriate threat exists. The nice thing about a properly capable airwing is that it can do both OCA/DCA and strike sometimes simultaneously, sometimes sequentially as required.

Not sure what your last point is about. We only need a surface navy if we're in the game of power projection and/or large scale ops out of area, otherwise, it's OPVs and EEZ enforcement all round chaps. (Same logic also applies to RAF & Army) - we're either doing home defence or working in a global theatre - anything else is falling twixt two stools.

NaB,

OK, that's fine - we seem just to be arguing over the definintion of 'Fleet Defence' - not a term that I'm aware of a strict defintion for (athough there may be one).

Now you put it like that, I think we're pretty much in agreement - although I stand by my original point, that AD is not the primary purpose of the air wing under the Carrier Strike concept.

Apologies if I appear stormy.

NaB - A very interesting encapsulation of what CVF + FJCA + MASC is all about. As you say, if there's an air threat, even from a couple of dozen not-very-well-operated MiGs or Sukhois, then you need enough FJ to protect the fleet, troops deployed ashore, and your own air assets while, at the same time, performing strike and CAS.

Anything less is the SLL, as you put it. Hence 65000 ton carriers with enough jets to do both at the same time.

If there isn't an air threat, though - it's an insurgency, civil problem, evacuation, counter-piracy, whatever - you don't need the FJ at all. You'd be better off with an updated version of the Wyvern or Skyshark, or a mini-A-10 with a hook. Indeed, that would be ideal for the Marines if they could ever get over their :mad::mad: Guadalcanal complex.

That said, I wonder what the Italians and Spanish think they are doing...

Not sure what your point is as you seem to be commenting on your post further up the page.

As it happens the real hearts and minds was exactly that with SF delivering medical care to villagers in return for food and shelter and friendship - it generally worked.