Cancel the carriers, and base the RAF F-35s on terra firma.

No. We need the carriers and the jets to go on them, whatsoever they may be, and MPA. It's our maritime bit that's so sadly lacking. There are at least pojects underway for most other roles.

WEBF - Point 1 = wrong I'm afraid.

I'd have thought they'd either go to the UK operational test squadron at Edwards to get experience with the aircraft or be embedded with the USMC, as in theory they hit IOC in 2015 with the F35B. Mean while regenerating manuals and procedures about deck handling and the like.

We do not 'need' the carriers and the 'jets' that go on them, Courtney. There is no strategic imperative to support the notion. The past thirty years helps to explain, and the projected future doesn't seem to warrant a change of direction. Carriers are a cash drain with little return. In our days of territorial influence, the reverse was true: not so today.

And our maritime 'bit' is not sadly lacking, it's fairly healthy in comparative terms; albeit yes, we do need MPA.

And as for 'most other roles', I'd suggest that we are no longer able to commit to all roles as in our global past, let alone being able to fund such other 'projects' across your board.

Large numbers of boots on the ground is fundamental, along with adequate AT suppport. Maritime and Air is equally necessary, but must be balanced in terms of affordability and projection. That said, we are sadly well over the rim in both areas, in terms of quantity.

As for nuclear, we must spend as much as it takes to remain as strong as we are. Otherwise we are nothing.

These gentlemen - none of whom might be tagged as service-centric may beg to differ....

House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - HC 1090-i

Reading through that reminded me of an excerpt of 'Yes Prime Minister'

The point was being made but you really had to trawl through a lot of waffle to get to the detail. :ok:

Will the committee take note and actually make any constructive recommendations?

I did like the quote:

In matters of military contingency, the expected, precisely because it is expected, is not to be expected.

:ok:

Next UOR inbound....

http://people.csail.mit.edu/paulfitz/spanish/tt12.jpg

I hope I am! Apologies for editing my post after your reply.

I was talking about aircraft handlers and others who are attached to the ship, not an aircraft squadron. My question is threefold:

1. How do you give experience of working with fixed wing aircraft (at sea) to more than a handful of personnel, and how do you allow them to practise that after returning from exchange?

2. What about other personnel involved in running the carrier during flying operations - OOW/Bridge personnel, the Navigator, and various other people throughout the ship - Operations Room, Ship Control Centre, MCO, etc.

Is there any realistic alternative to embarking (fixed wing) aircraft for real?

3. Back to Pilots - naturally some RN fixed wing pilots will not be Stateside, some will stay in the UK for various tasks, others will return to the UK after an exchange. They are trying to grow the fixed wing cadre. What will these people fly? I understand that Tornado and Typhoon flying with the RAF is not an option. NFSF(FW) at Yeovilton has only two Hawks (and are busy anyway), and FRADU at Culdrose are run by Serco and the aircraft flown by civilian Pilots. Not so long ago (last month?) they were recruiting for Pilots, and they asked for applicants with at least 1800 hours and QWI status.

If only NFSF(FW) had a STOVL jet - perhaps a couple of borrowed/leased AV8Bs? It would help with all three points, and if ETPS can safely and economically operate small numbers of foreign aircraft such the Grippen or Alpha Jet, why not NFSF(FW)? Also keep HMS Illustrious going post 2014, as she still has plenty of life in her.

Innovation has been at the heart of out historical successes, so why to try to use innovative ideas to prepare for CVF and a STOVL future?

What if the next conflict is fundamentally different to fighting the Taliban, Saddam's Iraq after a decade of sanctions and no fly zones, or Iraqi insurgents? What about the possibility of fighting a nation with a reasonably well equipped air force and navy?

As for the 'next conflict'. Why not avoid starting it-unlike the last two!

I mean, apart from Adolf (and to a very much lesser extent Galtieri) who'se started on us recently?

These wars that we start to 'keep ourselves safe' seem;

1. Spectacularly unsucessful and a bit pricey too.
2. A bit unpopular strategically.
3. Do nothing to prevent attacks, may even encourage some.
4. Quite hard to win, but jolly easy to lose.:uhoh:

MPA should really be attended to, but the Carriers are more offensive in nature.
Who are we going to start on next T wonder....:rolleyes:

Agree with Atom
 

Broadly agree with the previous post but would admit to the following:

Being surprised when it happened.
Then annoyed when my nephew sent to sea in an Apache for Libya.

But with time have come to accept that by not having the Harrier Fleet the politicians and some ambitious senior officers have had to accept we are out of the offensive game so to speak.

Given the personal, political and financial impact of military adventures since 2003 I am glad we are now militarily a bit of a second division side with a few parts of the joint organisation capable of premiership performances.

Not so much Great Britain as Little Britain..

"...Not so much Great Britain as Little Britain.." Sadly - not as funny as - but....