Fire 'n' Forget

Yep, sounds like a Brahmos would be ideal, get some of those inbound for a multi axis attack and you're in business. Is your point that the existence of this weapon makes sinking carriers a piece of p*ss? Is the logical extrapolation that we shouldn't get CVF because actually one could take a hit one day?

I'll agree if the whole find, fix, track, target bit of the evolution is easy, that you can find the target at the ranges you quote, relay that position to the firing unit and the weapon gets to the target, never gets seduced and achieves a kill; while the goodies don't manage to interrupt the kill chain at any point.

No-one is recommending chopping Typhoon because some plonker invented the SA-20, or getting rid of the infantry because recent research suggests that 7.62 rounds can actually kill one person each, and the baddies have loads.

I would hate to be on a warship if someone with a force capable of the whole targeting cycle had the Brahmos, but who actually does have all the elements and can actually put it all together?

Sorry if i've mis-interpreted your post.

I'm very sad about all of this. As a (very) young jelly-tot I assisted in the very first see-in of a Harrier GR5 delivered from Dunsfold to Wittering. Subsequently , in between swingy-wingy tours, I served on 233 OCU, 1(F) Sqn, IV(AC) Sqn and 20(R) Sqn (well, HaMS, actually).

I now work on something considerably faster and pointier but a part of me will always be Harriers. They can take away the aeroplanes, they can disband the squadrons, but they can't take away the (glorious) memories*.







*That, as one of my learned colleagues pointed out the other day, is what Alzheimer's is for!

Bit of a bad day all round, what with the Ark de-commissioning parade today.....

G R the old ARK..memories http://usera.imagecave.com/scouse/ARKRGH(1).jpg

Sea Harrier
 

http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/...Britain004.jpgDavid,

What a superb photo montage.

I wonder how the F-35C will stand up to life on the ocean wave. With it's stealth and electronic qualities, it may not take kindly to the odd dunking. Could need some gaffer tape around the canopy as did the SHAR in 1982.

I have no doubt we will still be able to buy it of course:ok:

SHAR still needed gaffer tape around the canopy in 2006. So did the starter module on port side. Worked a treat though. Simple solutions the best :)

Defence And The Strategic Deficit

Annonymous Author: Defence And The Strategic Deficit By…. The Phoenix Think Tank

Cling film over the DNC was used in 1982 as sliding the canopy open on FRS1 'dumped' a cupful of water over the fibre optic numerics.

Man who invents gaffer tape that will stick to wet surfaces will make a fortune.

Getting back to Harriers, one of the many discussions continues over on the Daly History Blog.

If you look at the comments, you will see the thoughts of an ex SHAR driver and CO.

Likewise, if you look at the petition and see who has signed, you will see many people who do have experience of carrier operations, which I very strongly suspect the SDSR authors do not. To think that you could have no carrier flying for ten years, and then suddenly pick up the baton.

About three years ago I was aboard Illustrious whilst she was doing fixed wing flying work ups. Whilst in the dinner queue one evening I found a magazine loafing. There was an article by a senior aviator (no names - but I guess he should be quite well known amongst FAA types) commenting that there was a danger of future FAA personnel being able to operate from land but becoming unfamiliar with the shipboard environment and deck operations. I guess his views were not asked for!

crazy
 

totally agree it is bonkers, the thing that most annoys me is the fact they are keeping the naval ships that harriers can land on :ugh: just doesnt make economic sense to scrap the harrier and keep the ship that it can land on :*

Letter from ex-navy bigwigs in the Times complaining about the Harrier getting the chop and saying the Tornado should have gone instead, quoting risk to falklands. Blunt rebuttal from MOD minister stating current war is Afghanistan and there aren't enough Harriers to cover the requirement.

1st Sea Lord also complains about the Nimord being chopped.

Times is a pay to see site, also covered in the Torygraph: Scrapping flagship carrier 'makes no sense'

ORAC:

"Defending the intervention this morning, Lord West said he feared the letter would make him "persona non grata" in defence circles but "there comes a time when something is so crucial to your country that you have to say it." "

Funny how it always seems to happen once the pension is safe. I cant take West seriously, truly I cant. In contrast though, Stanhope says:

“I am very uncomfortable at losing Nimrod. I am happy to say that publicly”

Regardless of the wrongs and rights which have been extensively debated on pprune, at least he's prepared to say publicly what he thinks on equipment/capability matters outside of his service. I could speculate that he was either over-ruled from on high at a political level or his voice was just not loud enough. But that is all it would be, speculation.

However, I dont disagree with the broad thrust of the rest of the letter, certainly regarding FI and said as much months ago and was intrigued to see Sandy Woodward saying a similar thing, along similar lines a couple of weeks ago. "Practically inviting" is maybe a bit melodramatic, but considering this was an open letter for dumbed-down mass consumption, maybe these were the types of terms that needed to be used.

Part of the reply, carefully crafted as it was, was true - the lack of Harrier in itself, in isolation does not necessarily mean that the islands are any more at risk. That would only be the case if there was ever necessity for a CORPORATE II.

Reinforcement in tension/TTW would probably - almost certainly - alleviate the threat, but its whether that capability is going to be available, almost instantly deployable and the big if, if Argentina does go for it, just how much warning you're going to get of any potential attack.

Woodward's scenario is plausible I think, although his "without a shot being fired" is maybe stretching it a tad. There are only (x) Tiffys at the moment and the SSN cant be everywhere, particularly if its being hunted itself.

And, given the geography and geology of the islands, without giving anything away, I think most of us who have been there often enough know exactly where the blind spot is.

Lose MPA and you lose the Islands. :(

The entire argument is illogical and fallacious.

It would be nonsensical to use a carrier to defend the Falklands, that is better done using MPA - which is why it was built. You can't maintain a carrier force down there for any length of time and sending one takes to long, it is much easier to reinforce MPA at short notice if an emergency arises.

The second scenario is what action can be taken if the Falklands are invaded again and held by the Argentine armed forces. In this situation they will hold MPA and can, unlike in the last war, reinforce with both AD and attack aircraft. They will therefore be operating from a home base rather than at the limits of their range.

Against this, assuming we were capable of assembling a fleet, we would be able to provide a carrier borne force of around 12 GR7/9 non-radar equipped ground attack aircraft, with the fleet having to operate at range from the islands for their own protection - and hence outside any friendly radar cover. Frankly, they'd be blown out of the sky.

This isn't the 1980s, there are no SHARs, and the enemy would be in a far better position.

The Falklands isn't the only possible scenario where the UK could need carrier aviation.

And again, sadly, the RN have been shot in the foot by their own kind .... I fear all this will do is get Joe Public asking questions again how it can be cheaper to build a carrier you are never going to use than to scrap it (and I've heard all the reasons at length....).

Whilst West may not have made the decision to scrap SHAR he became 1SL very soon after and, as far as I can tell, did nothing to try to overturn the decision .... he (IMHO), like many other very senior Naval officers, were prepared to sell their souls in order to get their new carriers (and, with AFG nowhere on the horizon, probably thought they would also get the bells and whistles to go with them).

Edited, having just seen WEBFs subsequent post, to add :

It may not be the only scenario but it's the only one that could possibly be "sold" to the public in order to whip up support - there is no appetite (or money!) whatsoever for any more "world policing" or "power projection" or "intervention". Once AFG is over I think you will find a lot of ships, boats, planes and troops at home doing not a lot! I'm not even sure there would be a great rush for humanitarian ops either (just a few hints that perhaps the 'non-swimmers' sort them out!;))

And what about unexpected crises? Things like the dispute of Iran nuclear programme hotting up, with Iran attacking shipping in response to an Israeli attack or the use of sanctions against Iran, or Al Qaeda's presence in places like Yemen or Somalia?

And of course, there's going to be the issue of maintaining the skills to run a carrier. Over a decade with no carrier flying and then you pick up the baton? Really?

If "they" can close MPA and successfully invade so could we. No-one is suggesting (I hope) that a carrier presence is how to defend FI. However, the deterrent effect of a carrier to such an adventure is that eventually we could come south, do as we did last time and close MPA (initially TLAMed, but subsequently cratered). With a decent carrier we'd be in a much better position than last time and CVS still offers ASaC (in the immediate future).

Without that option, it's game over boys. You can't get UNSC to back sanctions against I'm A Dinnerjacket and his bucket of sunshine band, so getting them to tell Johnny Gaucho to play nice is probably a non-starter too.

And yes, the FI is far from the only use of carrier air. The skill fade / loss argument is a far more compelling case, as is the answer to the question "Right X,Y,Z squadron RAF, please prepare for a two month deployment aboard HMS QE in support of JTFEX 15-01 please...."

The number of aircraft/effort over target to close an airfield like MPA, and keep it closed, far exceeds that available from a carrier like Ark Royal, and assumes either air superiority and/or stand-off weapons to prevent a catastrophic loss rate. The handful of TLAMS available would not suffice.

ASaC is rotary with a very limited ceiling/radar horizon and speed. Even assuming that any ship was risked to carry one within radar range of the island, as soon as it went active it would be a sitting duck unable to run.

Effect on MPA depends entirely on timing and targetting.

Vulnerability of ASAC depends entirely on threat by which I assume you mean f/w - don't have LR SAM last time I looked. ASaC is still a huge improvement over coverage last time round. Spotted NGS is also pretty good for shutting a runway - don't recall too many successful instances of operating FW under barrage...