Oh come on, it doesn't suggest anything of the sort!!! That is just a blatant case of clutching at straws.

Why? If the ship is designed to be operate aircraft in sea states 5 or 6 (rough or very rough) and has trouble operating aircraft in less difficult sea conditions, then something has gone wrong.

Is CDG undertaking the same tasking as the land based NATO aircraft, or is her tasking more local to the Misrata area - being close to shore? If so, and the stalemate on the ground continues then the issue of her relief becomes a very high stake one.

By the way, Illustrious is now back at sea after her refit, and at flying stations.

LA James Batley guided the first aircraft – a Merlin of 814 Naval Air Squadron – to set down on the deck of 'Lusty' in more than 18 months, and thus the carrier to another small step in her long road back to front-line duties.

The Flying Tigers of 814 were joined aboard Illustrious by 815 NAS of Yeovilton who sent a Lynx to help the carrier’s Flyco – flying control – and deck team practise the landing and take-off procedures after such a long gap.

Does this not hint at the problem we will have in the future after a period with no fixed wing aircraft?

In the coming weeks more helicopters will be helping to breathe life back into Illustrious – more Lynx and Merlin, plus Jungly Sea King Mk4 of the Commando Helicopter Force and Army Air Corps’ Apaches which are currently demonstrating the potency of a carrier-helicopter gunship combination off Libya from HMS Ocean.

But not as potent as a Harrier carrier eh? Is that why the USMC operates AV8Bs from amphibious assault ships?

Today I noticed this story (from MSN news UK): Warning over aircraft carrier risks

Ministers have failed to properly understand the risks entailed in their decision to leave Britain without an aircraft carrier for almost a decade, the Whitehall spending watchdog has warned.

The National Audit Office said changes to the carrier programme in the Government's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) had created "significant levels of operational, technical, cost and schedule uncertainty".

In a highly critical report, the NAO warned there were "major risks" surrounding its plans to reconstitute a carrier strike force from 2020 onwards.

Maybe this relates to skills being lost and then needed again? As to military chiefs wanting to axe CVF, I think we can say that the First Sea Lord did not, but the outgoing CDS was hostile, as was the then CGS who is now CDS (who got the Prime Minister to to change the SDSR at the last minute), and CAS. Does anyone think any money saved would be spent on frigates and destroyers? To what end? Can they do what a carrier can?

The Telegraph has a similar story: The damaging effects of the Strategic Defence Review

The decision over the carriers was taken at a time when the MoD was already struggling to plug an estimated £35 billion hole in its budget, and in the face of strong opposition from the military (with the exception of the Royal Navy). It was also accompanied by the bizarre step of scrapping HMS Ark Royal and its fleet of Harrier jets – which means Britain will have to cope without an aircraft carrier until the Queen Elizabeth-class vessels are ready in a decade's time.

If maintaining our carrier capability was deemed to be so important for the future, why did the MoD feel it could take a "holiday" from having one available until 2020? To judge by France's successful deployment of its Charles de Gaulle carrier throughout the current Libya conflict, it would have been useful if British commanders had been in a position to deploy one too. It is just another example of the muddled thinking that has rendered the entire SDSR process a farce.

Since carrier related skills as such a key issue the Government needs to think about how to maintain those skills. Lease a dozen or so AV8Bs in exchange for our old Harriers - as suggested here and here, continue to embark US, Italian, or Spanish Harriers, or even consider the RNR proposal again - possibly combined with one of the other options. The Future Reserves 2020 paper is due soon and there was talk of the Reserve forces maintaining capabilities not presently being used? If the First Sea Lord backed the idea then it shows how concerned Their Lordships are.

The following quote from Widger on the thread dedicated to Sharkey Ward is worth reading:

Way off the mark there. I served at the CAOC in Italy during Deny Flight and can assure you that maritime platforms including the French were an integral part of the effort, with Sea Harriers not only flying CAP, but contributing to a significant amount of CAS and RECCE effort. As PART of the overall package, they were valuable especially during those times of the year when bases such as Aviano were fogged in and the only assets available were those in the Adriatic. Mostly conducted without the requirement for tanking as well.

I in no way devalue the contribution of land based air (who in the Balkans provided the overwhelming majority of assets) but as would be the case now off Libya, the provision of maritime air power would significantly enhance the overall effort and improve reaction times to specific events.

I note that at the forthcoming air day at Yeovilton there will be a couple of static Sea Harriers and pair of T8 trainers, but the only flying naval fixed wing aircraft will be French ones....:{

Not so. There will be a Swordfish and a Sea Fury flying which should suit your "...in the good old days...." attitude and constant dripping desire to see out-dated aircraft flying perfectly.

Defence IQ thinks that NATO faces stalemate in Libya. This increases the chance of the issue of Charles De Gaulle's relief becoming critical, if NATO still needs a quick reaction response to events in and around the Misrata area. A carrier nearby will be very useful.

Ministers have now admitted that the Fleet is stretched: Minister admits war in Libya has stretched the navy’s reduced fleet

THE Royal Navy’s depleted fleet has become stretched because of the war in Libya, a government defence minister has admitted.

Armed Forces minister Nick Harvey acknowledged the navy is under strain as it tries to do more with less following last year’s cuts.

His comments come two weeks after First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope was slapped down by the government for warning ‘challenging decisions’ would need to be made about priorities if the Libyan effort continues beyond September.

Responding to a question in the House of Commons from former Labour defence minister Kevan Jones on the impact Libya is having on the Royal Navy, Mr Harvey said: ‘There is no denying that the pace and longevity of operations in Libya put a stress on the fleet. However, the Libyan operation is a high priority, and we will ensure that it has the necessary resources.’

The government has repeatedly said Britain will stay in Libya for ‘as long as it takes’. But there are fears the conflict will leave gaps in the navy’s major commitments elsewhere in the world.

As for Ocean:

And the navy’s role recently escalated with the deployment of Apache attack helicopters from the amphibious helicopter carrier HMS Ocean.

The navy’s Commander-in-Chief-Fleet, Admiral Sir Trevor Soar, told The News that the helicopters – which are performing a carrier strike role in the absence of HMS Ark Royal and Harrier jump jets – are having a ‘significant impact’ in the warzone.

He said: ‘The Apaches are giving us a different capability and of course they have that ability to make better decisions on targeting.

‘They bring a strike capability from sea in a high-readiness role in support of the effort to safeguard the people of Libya and oppose Colonel Gaddafi’s real acts of war.’

Ergo, Ocean and the Apache are being used a substitute for CVS/Harrier.

Looking at the Libya Operations Update from the MOD site, it would appear that Ocean and her aicraft have been busy. In the last week or so:

7 July 2011

British forces have taken further military action against Colonel Gaddafi’s troops who were posing a threat to civilians in Libya, enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

On Tuesday night, Army Air Corps Apache helicopters, flying from HMS Ocean, struck check points and vehicle patrols which were restricting civilian freedom of movement along the main coastal road around Al Khums. Missile, rocket and cannon fire were used to severely damage or destroy a fixed check point, two military vehicles, and a regime strongpoint. Fleet Air Arm Sea Kings provided surveillance radar support to the attack helicopters. The destroyer HMS Liverpool, operating in the same area, fired a barrage of illumination rounds to facilitate other NATO surveillance operations during the night...

5 July 2011

Sunday saw NATO aircraft from several nations mount a coordinated strike on two large warehouse complexes being used to store military supplies in Brega; an RAF Tornado struck three of the target buildings...

During the night, HMS Ocean launched her detachment of British Army Apache helicopters in a strike against regime positions at Zuwarah airfield. Four armed vehicles and a command post were successfully attacked using Hellfire missiles and cannon fire. Fleet Air Arm Sea King helicopters provided radar surveillance for the Apache strike...

HMS Bangor maintained counter-mine patrols off Misurata, while RFA Fort Rosalie continued to provide afloat logistic support.

2 July 2011

In support of NATO's Operation Unified Protector, British forces have taken further coordinated action against pro-Gaddafi forces, enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 1973..

Last night, Army Apache Helicopters targeted the Al Mayah Military camp near Az Zawiyah to the west of Tripoli. The camp has been used by pro-Gaddafi forces as a base from which to terrorise the local population. In a single mission before midnight, UK Apaches used Hellfire missiles and cannons to destroy or disable a command and control vehicle, a bunker firing position and three Main Battle Tanks.

It does appear that Ocean, her embarked Apache, Sea King, and Lynx aircraft, and other naval units have been rather busy in recent weeks. If a CVS was there with Harriers, a greater effect could be achieved. The fact that Apaches are being used to conduct operations from a ship shows that land based aircraft are not responsive enough.

WEBF,

So, apart from quoting various articles at length, what exactly is your point? That the RN isn't big enough?


On the one hand you quote at length the admirable work being done by the RN, but on the other you point to the fact that the end result is stalemate - in which case one could argue whether the RN* contribution is actually worth the time and effort involved......




* Or should that be AAC assets operating from an RN base, no doubt receiving targeting information from RAF and other nations aircraft.

CINC Fleet gives up on Harrier/Carrier Option
 

Quote:

---

The navy’s Commander-in-Chief-Fleet, Admiral Sir Trevor Soar, told The News that the helicopters – which are performing a carrier strike role in the absence of HMS Ark Royal and Harrier jump jets – are having a ‘significant impact’ in the warzone.

He said: ‘The Apaches are giving us a different capability and of course they have that ability to make better decisions on targeting.

---

So from this I deduce:

Since Apache and Ocean are performing a Carrier Strike role and having a significant impact, we don’t need anything bigger, better or more expensive.

The Apache makes better targeting decisions than Harrier, lucky we kept Tornado then.

The RN’s ambition for a strike capability is limited to that of a pair of Apaches, is this a man we should trust with handling our future major strike capability?

Sherlock - As sea-based Apaches and Harriers and land-based Tornados all have distinct but complementary merits which are not mutually exclusive, the Admiral makes perfect sense so the answer to your question is "Yes".

Fod, do you really think CINC Fleet was supporting the complimentary nature of land based air - I didn't!
It's one thing to have a retired officer take pot shots, but a serving one, and this hot on the heels of 1SL a few weeks ago.
They have obviously both given up on a long career in the military!

'The Apache makes better targeting decisions than Harrier, lucky we kept Tornado then'

How does a helicopter make targeting decisions? I thought that we kept 'people in the loop' just to enable better targeting decisions - hence Pred/Reapers still have folk (albeit a fair distance off) making decisions about what to do, they don't just launch off a make decisions based on computer programming (haven't we all seen Terminator or Wargames?). If Admirals think that ac (RW or FW) make decisions, then we may decide that we don't need Admirals anymore!:E

Interesting point. This is yet another reflection of the difference in service cultures. The Admiral meant the aircraft in terms of their commanders (whether pilot or observer/navigator).

In the RN, the Commanding Officer of a ship or aircraft is the ship or aircraft. A signal addressed to HMS Nonesuch or a particular naval unit is intended for the CO. It is his/her prerogative whether to allow anyone else to read it. When the CO of HMS Nonesuch is away in a seaboat hailed by another ship (i.e. "Boat ahoy!"), the coxswain of the boat replies "Nonesuch", i.e. he responds with the name of the CO's ship, not the name of the CO he is ferrying.

I don't know what FODPlod background, but as a matelot, I fully concur with his assessment. In fact, it didn't even occur to me that it could taken in any other way! Just goes to show how ingrained assumptions (and prejudices!) can be.

Same background as you but can you imagine Rector16 manning the LAAWC net? :)

LAAWC? Wash your mouth out young man; now if you were talking about a COPDRILL and me asking the LAC to thank the Pelican, then you'd be talking!

:ok:

R+ :p

(plus a few more letters)

Can you two not at least do your seamen loving by PM or bug off too RumRation?

You ain't got no Pelicans anymore and both of your 'octopus' are bent.

it's ok, my gadget is sweet.

Plus you need reminding of the maritime role, we're waiting for you to come back.....

Shall we try to return to the topic?

Liam Fox has admitted that the Libyan campaign may go on for some time - here in the Telegraph. This increases the chance of needing to relieve FNS Charles De Gaulle....

I understand the Apaches from Ocean, with support from her Sea Kings and Lynx, have been busy again this week. I think that only a few Apaches were marinised - so how will they be relieved?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Do I have to salute US Army CW4s?

What I don't understand is had we retained the Harrier it would have been at the expense of the Tornado force (I believe it was an either / or decision - reducing the TGRF would not have made the required savings the removal of an entire fleet did). Therefore the Harrier would have been re-deployed in AFG leaving very little capability to deploy on a carrier. Even if it managed to undertake a second deployment to support Libya (for which it was not resourced) then it too would be heading home very soon.

Unlike the TGRF which is maintaining two concurrent operations and, as posted here, is increasing its numbers in Libya. Whilst still continuing with training back home.

Maybe the decision was not quite so bonkers.

And yes WEBF I am fully aware of the problems associated with regenerating a future capability but we need to win our current conflicts first!