|
Wageslave
That's brilliant. By far the funniest post on here today!! Either that or you are Sharkey and I claim my £5. |
Originally Posted by Peter G-W
(Post 9194675)
I don't recall the Tornado mutiny in Kuwait that he mentions. Did the Iraqi AF have Tornados?
Unfortunately for his argument, the report (which wasn't exactly accurate, IIRC), referred to the F3. The word has been used in relation to a dispute between CTTO and squadron execs and/or QWIs over tactics after the move from low-level (CTTO were invited to do something anatomically awkward, AIUI) by a now-retired 2* who was a flight commander at the time, but the word was employed with a degree of hyperbole obvious to his audience; I don't think that this is the source Cdr Ward refers to, though. That said, I'm never quite sure of the sources he refers to, since they appear to be hard-to-find ones which don't agree with any of the other sources out there... |
"Anyone who proposes big carriers equipped with anything but cats and traps is simply delusional..."
Warming to this stuff! "...and anyone who thinks we can't project our influence as we wish to without those big decks ditto." :confused: In need of a proof-reader, perhaps? :ugh: |
Sorry CS. Am I missing something?
|
@ Genstabler I think it should've read...
"...and anyone who thinks we can project our influence as we wish to without those big decks ditto." Otherwise, it contradicts the previous quote. Agree ? |
Yep! Granted! 👍
|
Its fortunate for the AAC that they currently operate the UK's only offensive carrier born airpower. The Apache! goes to show how out of touch both the the RAF and FAA are. Carry on with your willy waving. If were need to deploy from a carrier give us a shout!
|
I think Sharkey is shooting at the wrong target when he compares the (possible) responses of the RAF vs. the RN.
The elephant in the room these days is the ultra-restrictive ROE that our forces work under; far more restrictive than the Geneva convention. The present ROE, cooked up by being led by the nose by the UN and the general malaise of several generations having being brought up on wars-of-choice, now mean that whatever our combat power, actually applying it is getting harder and harder. This may be a choice we are making, to go above and beyond not to kill or injure civilans, but it also means the opportunities to use the full capabilities of our weapons are now vanishingly small. And IS are taking full advantage of that especially in urban areas. I believe that is why we are concentrating on drone strikes - purely for their ability to persist on the battlefield and wait for the near perfect combination of factors that will allow a 'legal' weapons-release. It seems or present ROE would have make war criminals of virtually all Allied bomber pilots during the Second World War - so fast-forward to today and despite our undoubted advantages, we have self-imposed a very limited ability to actually use them. Flug |
Flugplatz,
An old Post of mine [Military Aviation - Gaining a R.A.F. Pilot's Brevet in WWII] My eye was caught by this link: (Extract D.Tel. 9.1.15). "The pair have said that one of their proudest moments to date involved helping to foil a rocket (RPG ?) attack on their base at Kandahar airfield in 2010". "There was a high threat and the base was expecting an imminent attack after some men were spotted in a nearby ditch, setting up to fire a rocket (RPG ?) at their accommodation block". "They took the aircraft out to 15 miles from their position in the ditch and came down to low level, approaching at more than 500mph and as close to the Operational Low Flying minimum of 100 feet as possible, passing directly over them before heading into a steep climb". "The rocket crew immediately scarpered in a truck and the pair felt they had made a tangible difference to protect their colleagues". “The intention is to always use the minimum force required to provide the effect needed by the guys on the ground". Am I missing something here ? This was in 2010, and there was a war going on in Afghanistan (as we have 453 good reasons to remember). This is the enemy, and he is making ready to kill you (or some of your comrades) if he can. You are airborne in one of the RAF's most powerful weapons. You have a 27mm cannon. You buzz him off (as I used to shift a flock of goats off my strip before landing). So that he can come back later and try again ? I am a simple soul. Can someone please explain this to me (after all, my war was 70 years ago, and things change). Danny. Afterthought 1: I have my grandfather's India General Service Medal (with a clasp for Kandahar !) Nothing changes ! Afterthought 2: Radio a day or two ago reports that the Afghan Premier has appointed a Taliban General as Governer of the Helmand Province (If true, you couldn't invent it). D. Danny42C, |
....although for all,the Sharkey idiocy and bitterness, the headline statement is undeniably true. For the simple reason that no amount of airpower on its own could deliver the magic punch politicos want with such divided motives amongst the "allies". Perhaps when the next Brimstone upgrade rolls out, able to home onto fundamentalist hatred to kill jihadis in the cellar without harming the schoolchildren studying above...
|
Originally Posted by ShotOne
(Post 9194825)
"...far far better placed"?? With respect wageslave, I fundamentally disagree. Attempting to maintain all but the briefest air campaign from a carrier is likely to be very much less effective than from an airbase;
Why did the French do it that way in Libya? Why are the Chinese building Carriers? I often hear how quickly the RAF can deploy to an airfield, however the logistical chain takes a long time to follow to provide a decent amount of munitions/fuel. You still need ships or vast numbers of overland trucks which are vulnerable to political whims of the countries through which they must travel. Yes a carrier can only do 30kts, but 24hrs a day and when it turns up it is ready for high intensity war. All the things that make war possible are included as standard, and whilst it may be vulnerable, it is far less vulnerable than a stationary airfield. It also has the ability to pre-emptively deploy to an area without any negotiations. No political deals with other countries required. No expensive hotels. No security risks to personnel. The ability to launch and recover without the ever present risk of dickers passing that info on. The press never find out if the sqn boss makes an @rse of himself in a downtown bar. You just sail it quietly into the region. Everybody knows what it means, but it doesn't cause any ructions because it can always be justified as just sailing past. Gunboat diplomacy is very effective.
Originally Posted by ShotOne
(Post 9194825)
" if we don't have one, or an ally prepared to let us use one within a reasonable distance, what the f*** are we doing there at all?
You don't get to chose when you are needed. The Falklands are a perfect example of that. |
Oh, dear. The nurse must have woken the silly old sod up early this morning and forgot to put enough sugar in his cocoa.
Hey, Sharkey! Tell what the FAA can do at the moment. |
Originally Posted by Tourist
The press never find out if the sqn boss makes an @rse of himself in a downtown bar.
The press never find out that the carrier (through-deck cruiser really) had to spend a couple of weeks in port because the radome nearly fell off its mountings. The press never find out that the carrier (through-deck cruiser really) sailed out of theatre because its aircraft could no longer get airborne with any significant weapons load due to the ambient temperature (not a problem on a long, fixed runway of course). Now, has that moved the debate on a bit? :rolleyes: |
Wageslave,
Regardless of the nobilities of having [allegedly] better-equipped carriers, this thread started because of Sharkey's article and it has provoked thought. His written article is woefully inaccurate and out of date. His assumptions are wrong and therefore his analyses are muddled and flawed to a point where all they really do is serve to back up the last two paragraphs - which are his personal gripes. Assuming the reader is given the facts - which this article fails to logically present - you wouldn't have to be a professional military person at all to reason with his conclusions; they would be self-evident. Unfortunately the facts presented are half-truths, lies and inflammatory statements. As I've said, the arguments are fundamentally flawed and tainted by an anti-RAF narrative which Sharkey has helped peddle for nearly 3 decades. I'm also older than Tornado but unlike you I don't necessarily link capability with age. Your brief on the jet's capability is clearly as old as the author's drivel. |
Tourist
You make some good points but Some of your obvious bias still shines through.
Expensive hotels? How many nights in a hotel would be needed to exceed the comparative cost of an aircraft carrier? A stationary airfield is more vulnerable than an aircraft carrier? That's an interesting statement. That could be argued either way. You can't sink an airfield. Anyway I'm just indulging in some Devils advocacy. I do find it funny how people can argue a point based on their own preconceived ideas and sound very credible. As long as you want to agree with them. BV |
Tornado obsolescence?
Firstly, I believe the comments re ROE to be most pertinent, however it would be wrong to think that weapon delivery is the only string to it's bow, the ability of the weapon system to hunt, find, communicate, and with permission prosecute is singular.
Further the earlier comments on uav deployment does seem to make a lot of sense... |
Tourist,
I agree with some of your points - the advantages of a full CAG at sea are very alluring and I've always believed as an island nation that we (UK) missed the boat (excuse pun) by taking a capability holiday in that area. What the FAA have done to maintain expertise in the carrier environment will hopefully pay dividends as our first carrier arrives at Portsmouth in a few years time. QEC, with up to 24 F-35B aboard, will undoubtedly give the UK a larger remit of choice. The government must ensure both ships are comprehensively protected when they sail; something that has been alluded to earlier. In the shorter-term I can only see a QEC sailing as part of a larger USN-led task group if going deliberately into harm's way. We can do the plain cruising around part ourselves, but Th entry etc is another matter. Shame there's no cocktail deck on her for when she isn't on ops but I'd also point out to those reading that aren't familiar with maritime ops that even a carrier needs replenishment at sea so logistics touch everything. |
Yes 24 will be a start, though the lunacy of having a full size carrier with only the capabilities of a small carrier is maddening.
We could have had real capability in the manner of a US carrier if the crazy "B" decision had not been made.:ugh: Yes, carriers still need to RAS, but the Stores ship is already loaded and following you around... |
"It [the carrier] also has the ability to pre-emptively deploy to an area without any negotiations. No political deals with other countries required. No expensive hotels. No security risks to personnel. The ability to launch and recover without the ever present risk of dickers passing that info on."
As a lifetime civilian I hesitate to express a view in such experienced (though mainly polarised) company. But in this totally unpredictable world we need both capabilities, IMO, and we need them now. The (2010 SDSR?) decision to revert to a unique, STOVL mode came strangely from a coalition government and PM advocating increased military cooperation with the EU, and fully committed to NATO. Now Dave promises us jam in a mere 8 years from now (don't hold your breath), by which time the world is likely to be a different place. The F-35B relies on an outdated and flawed concept over half a century after Hawkers rejected it in favour of the inspired P1127. It may well be a lemon. Sharkey's utterances may be ill-advised, partial and OTT but - if you guys are honest - much of his frustration is shared by all of us. As someone suggested yesterday, the costs of hitting Daesh should be paid for out of our ring-fenced budget for foreign-aid - because that's precisely what it represents. |
The B decision is well documented. We know that there was a glimmer of a C variant once.....but we didn't have the money to make it stick. The B will be the only variant UK will put to sea so we just have to get on with it.
The point of mentioning the RAS thing is the logistics trail isn't small for that either. It has to follow the CAG as you mentioned, therefore it must be protected which all comes at a cost. Losing the stores ship to an enemy torpedo would have serious knock on effects. A combination of land and air delivery to a land base spreads your risk somewhat. It's swings and roundabouts and we have invested a lot in DOB infra since 2005. As I said, I think Carrier Strike will be a potent enabler for political choice and is worth the price tag. |
Chris,
All views are obviously welcome. Many seek to bait but most seek to educate in their own way. You're right about polarisation - group think etc. The 2010 SDSR sought to procure F-35C not B, which had been the choice, on balance, since the late 1990s. It is right that JSF's design has been heavily influenced by the STOVL requirement but remember that the USMC also lobbyed strongly for this trait. Perhaps their view is as stymied as others who never took to the concept or believe it to be outdated. I personally have found no end of situations where STOVL has come into its own on the tactical battlefield. As for F-35 being a lemon, just check out the well-trodden thread on these pages. Suffice it to say that those involved know and rave about its capabilities even before it has hit the Block 3F standard. Most appreciate such capabilities cannot be revealed. Those that don't, or wish they did, continue to doubt it. I've seen not an ounce of hard evidence but a lot of propaganda in the press. Back to the thread - Sharkey's utterances are actually factually incorrect and polarised. End of. |
Good, balanced post Tourist. :D
|
"What little the poor old RAF is currently capable of doesn't really merit much positive comment..." Thank you for that reasoned opinion, wageslave.
Tourist if our defence policy hinges on refighting the Falklands campaign then I agree with you. But it's pretty unlikely we'll have to -because of land based air power. For all the undoubted benefits of carriers, you don't seem prepared to acknowledge the difficulty and cost of maintaining a group on station..every drop of fuel, every bullet, every weetabix has to be got out to it. As to your hotel cost/nights on town argument -surely you're scraping the barrel? Even there, "Lusty" managed to earn some legendary tabloid column inches! |
Quote from MSOCS:
"The 2010 SDSR sought to procure F-35C not B, which had been the choice, on balance, since the late 1990s." Thanks for the reminder. "It is right that JSF's design has been heavily influenced by the STOVL requirement but remember that the USMC also lobbyed strongly for this trait." Okay, I'll have to inform myself on whether the US are building any carriers without "cats and traps", that will be unusable by conventional fixed-wing a/c in a contingency. "I personally have found no end of situations where STOVL has come into its own on the tactical battlefield. " Not trying to dispute that, but the concept of lugging an engine around for most of the mission in-lieu of the equivalent payload. |
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
(Post 9195101)
The F-35B relies on an outdated and flawed concept over half a century after Hawkers rejected it in favour of the inspired P1127. It may well be a lemon.
It is, however, a compromise that is necessary for some of the uses it is designed for. A full size carrier is not one of those uses it was designed for. We should have decks full of "C" models or even F18 or Rafale plus E2/V22 Bagger plus Growler (if only for the name!) plus COD |
Chris, let me help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...s_assault_ship Your last point was exactly my point about STOVL design compromising what 'could have been' however the remit of the F-35 program was always commonality - economies of scale to make 5th Gen affordable and, ultimately, globally supportable. Did LM promise a lot and deliver not quite what it promised? Yup, but not in terms of where things matter. I'd love more range on F-35B but the lift fan (not an extra engine) removes that space where fuel could be. A module fuel tank to put there in place of a lift fan when you don't need STOVL was probably mooted and dismissed. Still a reasonable idea as most F-35B arguments still centre around range...especially where Carrier Strike is concerned. STOVL does give access to nearly double the land based options that conventional types required though...Peter and Paul etc... |
Originally Posted by Clockwork Mouse
(Post 9195115)
Good, balanced post Tourist. :D
I must have forgotten my meds.....:uhoh: |
Originally Posted by just another jocky
(Post 9195043)
Ok, if this is going to descend into silliness....
The press never find out that the carrier (through-deck cruiser really) had to spend a couple of weeks in port because the radome nearly fell off its mountings. The press never find out that the carrier (through-deck cruiser really) sailed out of theatre because its aircraft could no longer get airborne with any significant weapons load due to the ambient temperature (not a problem on a long, fixed runway of course). Now, has that moved the debate on a bit? :rolleyes: A radome problem is an unserviceability like any other, and whilst the Harrier certainly was weight limited for bring-back in the heat, I don't think that is embarrassing so much as part of the compromise inherent in the design. The trade-off is of course that you can put it really close to the enemy and move it around. A little research on your part could have found far more relevant port visits.....:E |
Originally Posted by ShotOne
(Post 9195120)
Tourist if our defence policy hinges on refighting the Falklands campaign then I agree with you. But it's pretty unlikely we'll have to -because of land based air power. That is almost word for word what the RAF said that killed off our carriers. At the time, of course the RAF had really long range bombers and a vast transport wing etc etc. I don't think even politicians will fall for that one twice, even they have google earth nowadays, and Australia is easy to find on it.. ....actually, maybe politicians would:uhoh: |
Like many others I have a lot of respect and admiration for Cdr. Ward's work in 1982, but what he writes these days is pretty much libellous and one day somebody will call his bluff on it.
In the meantime, he reminds me of one of those slightly elderly relatives who attends family events, drinks a bit too much and at some point in the evening gets unsteadily to his feet and taps a fork against his glass. He then insists on saying a few words about the happy couple/recently deceased etc while everyone else is looking on, thinking as one: "Oh, Christ, what's the stupid bu66er going to say now?" Sad really, as I enjoyed his book thoroughly. |
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
(Post 9195039)
Hey, Sharkey! Tell what the FAA can do at the moment. check sarcasm level |
We know that there was a glimmer of a C variant once.....but we didn't have the money to make it stick. Would we be terrifically surprised to see carriers gain this ability at some point in the middle-distant future? |
Well, it's going to be interesting times for the FAA.
If we can survive the obvious problem of operating at a nearly unsustainably small size for a little bit longer, the world is pretty rosy. Every aircraft is brand(ish) new, 2 new proper(ish) carriers coming..... ASW Merlin is the best ASW helicopter in the world. Wildcat is the best small ships helicopter in the world. Bagger Merlin is unlikely to be worse than the Bagger Seaking and that is currently a fantastic asset in various spheres. Commando Merlin is rather over expensive for a troop truck, but that aside it is a great piece of kit. F35, well, time will tell. At the very least it will be better than harrier which served us well over the years. |
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
(Post 9195139)
Not trying to dispute that, but the concept of lugging an engine around for most of the mission in-lieu of the equivalent payload. Unless you can convince the USMC of the need to redesign and manufacture the appropriate section of the aircraft [to regain the original internal weapons spec] that will be an expensive, single nation, endeavour indeed. |
In the current situation with precision weapons and restrictive ROE weapons resupply is of a lower order than fuel and hotac.
BYOW and AAR reduce the logistics burden on an FOL in the early phases of an operation. In other words the RAF can still get to the party first. You can then compare the need for FP at FOL with the requirements for SSN and DDG protection for CVS and AOR etc. |
Would we be terrifically surprised to see carriers gain this ability at some point in the middle-distant future? We are where we are. We need to stop crying over what could have been, accept we won't ever be a conventional carrier force and make F-35B and QEC work to our strengths: amazing people; amazing ethos's and total commitment. Get those right, stop the petty squabbles, roll your eyes at the Grenadian dinosaur and crack on. |
the astronomical cost of converting QEC that was supposedly fitted, "for, but not with" cat and trap capability was much harder in the post-2010 SDSR reality when they realised it wasn't exactly as Aircraft Carrier Alliance had said. Who is being hilti-gunned to the underside of a Challenger tank for their part in this? Why is it OK for businesses to screw over the MoD, and thus J. Taxpayer, in this way? Aaargh! P |
MSOCS, the MOST telling thing is the limitation that we will NEVER have the capability to "go it alone".
Some may say, in the future, what a short sighted, expensive and ultimately flawed chain of decisions this whole program has been.. ...some may not. |
GR: Unless you can convince the USMC of the need to redesign and manufacture the appropriate section of the aircraft [to regain the original internal weapons spec] that will be an expensive, single nation, endeavour indeed. |
Tourist,
Perhaps I view the world a little less rosily...... ASW Merlin, yep - agree with you there though it's a big/expensive airframe to haul that mission kit around. Wildcat? Pretty good, and you stitched the AAC in some of the config. The S Korean one is probably better - at least they've gone for DAFCS.... Bagger Merlin; agreed, to a point. The mission kit out of the SK7 seemed excellent, but it's a very expensive asset to fly 24/7 and will massively limit the radar horizon compared to E2, V-22 or a lift-compounded Merlin. CHF Merlin - can't lift all of Royal's combat configured loads, and marinisation will give it even less payload. V good in the extreme cold, and will be OK as long as you stay at msl. F-35B. Could (should) be hoofing. Yes, we should have the C, but the BAES part of the Carrier Alliance were never going to make it easy for Boeing to pitch SH as an 'interim' fighter. IIRC the 2010 F35C was cadged in risk terms, as the B was in a bad place then. The fact that we could have got a proper AEW, COD and EW capability is a serious issue going forward. We could have been looking at an SDSR providing a 'silver bullet' force of 24 F35C and a larger buy of SH/Growler to replace Tornado/T1 Typhoons - all of which could embark to bolster the CAG if required. As for Mr Ward, he is entitled to his opinion. He is, unfortunately, rapidly becoming the Jeremy Corbyn of naval airpower; out of touch, surrounded by acolytes and utterly incapable of accepting alternative opinions. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:40. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.