Ha ha, nice one. Well done, Genstabler!

Bloggs:cool:

So, to summarise the last page or so:

The RAF can conduct Maritime Strike (if it is their list of priorities, which it isn't) from land bases so long as any conflict is within range. If not, they'll pop along after it's over and give the defeated enemy a stern demonstration of what they could have done (if they'd had a carrier).

Typhoon is truly a multi role aircraft as its dropped a few EPW2 and PW2.

Tornado/Buccaneer are/were multi role aircraft because they carry sidewinder.

Tornado and Typhoon are "not much different" to the Super Hornet.

Thank goodness we are lucky enough to have the air power experts on our side......

That seems to sum it up nicely. :D

And thank goodness we also have Tweedledum and Tweedledumbe......:}

Or the Army and the Navy trying to find their thinking caps!!!

Bloggs:cool:

Yep. Remind me again how many SR 71's were destroyed by the myriad of SAM's launched against it?

Seeing the name of this thread I keep expecting Kate Humble to appear!

Well there's certainly a "Bill Oddie" or two, that's for sure!:ok:;)

Happy now chaps :ok:

http://cdn.seethedifference.org/imag...es/kate-humble

It was quite deliberate on my part :}

Justanopinion - From what I've heard, Lightning II will most definitely not be spending the majority of its time at sea. Deck capability will be just one string of many strings to its bow. I have not V/STOL experience, but I have it on very good authority from a number of sources, that while V/STOL onto a deck is certainly harder than to a land base, it's not sufficiently hard enough to merit all the downsides of the squadron being embarked most of the time. JFH proved the ability of RAF Harrier squadrons to maintain deck capabilities through short deployments, while using their land-based time to concentrate on other skill sets. JFH also proved the ability of RAF squadrons to maintain a credible air power capability from the deck of RN carriers. In an ideal world, with limitless armed forces, then I can certainly see the argument for a fixed-wing FAA as a branch of the RN. However, in this era of austerity, I really don't think it can be justified. A separate fixed-wing FAA, with all the extra overheads that generates, just to man 42% of a single squadron? I would not suggest that the captains of the QE carriers should be RAF Officers, just because they operate aircraft. To argue that pilots of aircraft that happen to take off from such carriers should wear dark blue uniforms is similarly ridiculous. There has been an awful lot of bad blood between the RAF and the RN in the past; this thread is testament to that. But can we not try to put the past behind us and move forward together? A very effective 21st century partnership, showing all the best bits of all things 'joint', could result from a carrier capability with the maritime power experts operating the carriers themselves, and the air power experts operating the aircraft. Incidentally, the RN pilots currently flying Hornets in the states are not really on 'exchange' per se, are they? Instead they are filling slots that the MoD pays the USN extremely handsomely for. While it made an awful lot of sense to build up a seedcorn of cat and trap experience when the UK was lined up to buy the C model, is this massive expense another one that can be culled (maybe not completely) to deliver further savings to the cash-strapped MoD? As for anti-ship missiles: it would indeed be great to have them in our arsenal (stand fast Sea Skua), but once again the coffers are not limitless. Defence procurement is centred around likely threats and the capabilities necessary to counter them. I don't believe a modern blue water navy features particularly highly up the MoD's list of likely threats. Again, please don't get me wrong, it would be great to have such a capability, just as it would be great to still have Harrier in service. Unfortunately, when cuts have to made, it makes more sense to sacrifice anti-ship missiles in order to keep other weapons, that we are much more likely to require in the kinds of conflict the UK envisions itself getting involved in in the future. Edit - sorry all for the mono-paragraph, for some reason it's not letting me insert line breaks.

^^^^^That'll get the usual responses and round and round we will go.....

Fair point. I suspect we've all already expressed everything we have to say on the issue, much more will just be re-hashing the same arguments. A shame, because I genuinely think there's an opportunity for a tremendous defence partnership, with each shade of blue contributing their own particular area of expertise. Ho-hum.

Perhaps this briefing needs updating then;

http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/B...?bp-id=SN06278

I think the example of CHF surviving is apposite here; the strongest reason, in capability terms, for retaining CHF is not the pilots on the Sqns (landing a SH on a 20K+ boat in the littoral is not hard - only slightly more difficult in AR5 on NVGs - as proven by several CH47, Lynx and AH crews) but generating seasoned maritime operators to serve on the embarked staffs. The pure skill set of flying from the deck, once trained, is not difficult to maintain. The hard bit is planning the ops and being fully conversant with minutiae of the several unique challenges of working at sea (SHOLs, deck cycles, RAS etc etc). This requires people who go to sea often - ie the RN - to get it right and allows us Crabs to drop in when required to boost the TAG when it needs it. I enjoyed my time embarked, but I wouldn't want to do it all the time.....

Sharkey, bless him, is starting to sound like some AAC aviators from the 1980s with a myopic and increasingly irrelevant take on contemporary Ops....

You were doing fine, and then you had to blow it.

Perhaps it does!

JFH proved the ability of RAF Harrier squadrons to maintain deck capabilities through short deployments, while using their land-based time to concentrate on other skill sets. JFH also proved the ability of RAF squadrons to maintain a credible air power capability from the deck of RN carriers

I'm sorry but this is simply not correct. There is a big difference between getting a jet on and off a carrier without crashing set against maintaining a credible air power capability. How many Harrier Sqns had a night CVS capability for example? None.

Unfortunately far too often it would seem the RAF mistake popping on and off a carrier every so often to actually having a credible maritime capability, which takes time and practice. And before the inter-service arguing starts the Naval GR9 Squadron was no different, but at least we recognised it.

Autobit - unfortunately we were just getting back to that in 2010 when SDSR pulled the rug out from under JFH. Remember that the priority for JFH had been Afghanistan so Maritime ops took a back seat. That was being put right once Tornado took over at KAF (shame they were late ;-))

Joint ops between RN and RAF crews have always seemed fine at a working level, the issues come higher up the food chain.

Another fact to add to the mix is that there are a number of both aircrew and engineers from the RN, currently involved in both F-18 and F-35 who have experience of FA2 and GR7/9. All that experience adds up, especially when mixed with RAF experience of Typhoon and USAF/USN exchanges.

Sharkey has always had his opinions, maybe he should visit Eglin or Pax River to get an updated view from yhe chaps making F-35 a reality?

KP - you'll be interested to know there are currently RAF Pilots, on hold, doing their Bridge watchkeeping certificates. Moreover, the budget sending people to the USN is the RN's (under Levene), and thus it is up to 1SL to spend. In much the same way it is up to CAS to spend his budget by sending RAF pilots to go and complete seedcorn for MPA (another capability we're unlikely to see soon).

Be careful of throwing stones when you're not quite sure if you live in a house with big windows.

How many Harrier Sqns had a night CVS capability for example? None.???

I seem to recall that our pilots on 3(F) Sqns were day and night CR? I would be surprised if those of 1(F) were not similarly qualified. We all certainly spent enough time on board, both squadrons completing multiple 3+ month deployments at sea!

For what it's worth, as a 'floating crab' I quite enjoyed my time at sea. My time as Flight Deck supervisor was one of the best I have ever had and would happily return if the chance was available. I would certainly fight for a go on a CVF with some Lightning IIs!