Sea Jet
WEBF,
I was actually replying to your other half, Navaleye. are you in fact two people, have you ever been seen together in the same room?
I was actually replying to your other half, Navaleye. are you in fact two people, have you ever been seen together in the same room?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Pr00ne,
Do you cancel your house insurance because there hasn't been a burglary in your street for three years?
As for your post above: Ha Ha Ha
Yes, but you have to get close and get shot down, that's why long range weapons were invented. Go ask an Argentine pilot.
Tomahawk has no anti ship capability.
Do you cancel your house insurance because there hasn't been a burglary in your street for three years?
As for your post above: Ha Ha Ha
Sea-Skua from Lynx, Maverick from GR7/9, PGM etc etc etc etc....
Tomahawk has no anti ship capability.
Last edited by Navaleye; 7th Dec 2004 at 15:57.
NavalwebeyeF,
I pay my house insurance because it's a legal requirement of my mortgage provider, there hasn't been a burgulary there for many more than three years, I have NEVER been broken into and if I was and didn't have to pay insurance then I could have saved a small fortune and paid for replacement items from surplus cash or the other myriad insurance policies I hold.
Russia has ICBM's, as do several other countries, we can't protect against them, should we retain 3 or 4 million men under arms to protect against the minute possibility that the red hordes may come a calling?
We spend a fortune on defence and that expenditure has to be justified, there is no threat to the UK right now from any formed military force.
We DO have an anti-shipping capability, what on earth other reason is there for having 8 SSN's?
You are trying to retain a capability in the SHAR and things like Sea Eagle and Sub Harpoon for which there is no justified rationale FOR retention, if the world changes and that threat is resurrected, then our defence posture changes accordingly, which is precisely why it is changing so radically today.
I pay my house insurance because it's a legal requirement of my mortgage provider, there hasn't been a burgulary there for many more than three years, I have NEVER been broken into and if I was and didn't have to pay insurance then I could have saved a small fortune and paid for replacement items from surplus cash or the other myriad insurance policies I hold.
Russia has ICBM's, as do several other countries, we can't protect against them, should we retain 3 or 4 million men under arms to protect against the minute possibility that the red hordes may come a calling?
We spend a fortune on defence and that expenditure has to be justified, there is no threat to the UK right now from any formed military force.
We DO have an anti-shipping capability, what on earth other reason is there for having 8 SSN's?
You are trying to retain a capability in the SHAR and things like Sea Eagle and Sub Harpoon for which there is no justified rationale FOR retention, if the world changes and that threat is resurrected, then our defence posture changes accordingly, which is precisely why it is changing so radically today.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
pr00ne and others
The last 22 years have seen UK armed forces operating in an expeditionary capacity with increasing frequency. While the immediate defence of the British Isles is clearly the first responsibility of the defence forces, it seems that successive HMGs wish to be able to project power across Eastern Europe, the ME and part of Africa. I guess they reckon to leave S and C America to the US, and the FE can go... unless they discover large amounts of ....
Only carrier-borne air-power can reliably project power for any length of time, and without support from neighboring govts and/or pre-positioning of resources (which was extensive, for UK air power, until about 1960).
I'm not into a p*ssing contest about specific weapons/electronics - so don't bother to go there - just explain how a purely land-supported air force can assure continous global reach.
The last 22 years have seen UK armed forces operating in an expeditionary capacity with increasing frequency. While the immediate defence of the British Isles is clearly the first responsibility of the defence forces, it seems that successive HMGs wish to be able to project power across Eastern Europe, the ME and part of Africa. I guess they reckon to leave S and C America to the US, and the FE can go... unless they discover large amounts of ....
Only carrier-borne air-power can reliably project power for any length of time, and without support from neighboring govts and/or pre-positioning of resources (which was extensive, for UK air power, until about 1960).
I'm not into a p*ssing contest about specific weapons/electronics - so don't bother to go there - just explain how a purely land-supported air force can assure continous global reach.
airborne thingy,
Who said anything about no carriers? I'm not Jackonicko! No SHAR and no over investment in anti-shipping capability that is about as relevant as a chocolate tea pot was my point.
I agree with your point re land based airpower, never have taken the opposite stance, which is what CVF times 2 and the F-35 is all about and the GR9/9A in the interim.
Who said anything about no carriers? I'm not Jackonicko! No SHAR and no over investment in anti-shipping capability that is about as relevant as a chocolate tea pot was my point.
I agree with your point re land based airpower, never have taken the opposite stance, which is what CVF times 2 and the F-35 is all about and the GR9/9A in the interim.
Suspicion breeds confidence
West's thoughts on CVF size and MASC
'The reason that we have arrived at what we have arrived at is because to do the initial strike package, that deep strike package, we have done really quite detailed calculations and we have come out with the figure of 36 joint strike fighters, and that is what has driven the size of it, and that is to be able to deliver the weight of effort that you need for these operations that we are planning in the future. That is the thing that has made us arrive at that size of deck and that size of ship, to enable that to happen.’
‘We operated off Illustrious six Chinooks across Pakistan into Afghanistan during the Afghanistan crisis, with 40 commandos; we could operate 20 Chinooks off the new platform.’
On MASC, ‘I imagine the costings that they are basing it on would be on an EH101 air frame with that same fit, I would think. That is what is being looked at the moment and there is lots of work going on there and no decisions have been made.’
My thoughts: We could see a situation where one CVF is operating a strike carrier the other as an LPH. A quantum leap in power projection capability for the UK armed forces.
‘We operated off Illustrious six Chinooks across Pakistan into Afghanistan during the Afghanistan crisis, with 40 commandos; we could operate 20 Chinooks off the new platform.’
On MASC, ‘I imagine the costings that they are basing it on would be on an EH101 air frame with that same fit, I would think. That is what is being looked at the moment and there is lots of work going on there and no decisions have been made.’
My thoughts: We could see a situation where one CVF is operating a strike carrier the other as an LPH. A quantum leap in power projection capability for the UK armed forces.
pr00ne - do you resort to childish abuse in the courtroom?
But to answer several of your points....
We DO have an anti-shipping capability, what on earth other reason is there for having 8 SSN's?
Err - anti submarine roles, TLAM strike, SF ops, ISTAR.
.................and things like Sea Eagle and Sub Harpoon
Sea Eagle went years ago. Possibly not the most useful weapon in the littoral. As for Sub Harpoon....... well as timstza said, it wasn't particularly liked by Submariners, there are obsolecence issues and Spearfish can do some of its roles. By the way, YOU were the first person to mention it on this thread.
Lots of nations in the regions airborne_artist mentioned have attack aircraft.
Haven't posted it before, but on the Flag Officer Sea Training site there is a video you can click on. Interesting that simulated air attacks are mentioned several times, don't you think?
But to answer several of your points....
We DO have an anti-shipping capability, what on earth other reason is there for having 8 SSN's?
Err - anti submarine roles, TLAM strike, SF ops, ISTAR.
.................and things like Sea Eagle and Sub Harpoon
Sea Eagle went years ago. Possibly not the most useful weapon in the littoral. As for Sub Harpoon....... well as timstza said, it wasn't particularly liked by Submariners, there are obsolecence issues and Spearfish can do some of its roles. By the way, YOU were the first person to mention it on this thread.
Lots of nations in the regions airborne_artist mentioned have attack aircraft.
Haven't posted it before, but on the Flag Officer Sea Training site there is a video you can click on. Interesting that simulated air attacks are mentioned several times, don't you think?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 8th Dec 2004 at 09:10.
WEBF (The one who is not NAVALEYE),
Of COURSE I resort to childish abuse in the Court room (though we don’t call it that), I’m a Barrister for **** sake!
.................and things like Sea Eagle and Sub Harpoon
The fact they are gone or going was my whole point! I know I brought up Sea Eagle, to illustrate that those that who decide these things see no valid need for such a capability any more.
SSN’s, you have a fair point there my man.
Like it or lump it the powers that be have decided that there is negligible threat to our maritime forces from multiple sophisticated hostile sea skimmers whether fired from land, sea or air, or surface forces that will need to be taken out by air assets.
Accept it and move on.
Of COURSE I resort to childish abuse in the Court room (though we don’t call it that), I’m a Barrister for **** sake!
.................and things like Sea Eagle and Sub Harpoon
The fact they are gone or going was my whole point! I know I brought up Sea Eagle, to illustrate that those that who decide these things see no valid need for such a capability any more.
SSN’s, you have a fair point there my man.
Like it or lump it the powers that be have decided that there is negligible threat to our maritime forces from multiple sophisticated hostile sea skimmers whether fired from land, sea or air, or surface forces that will need to be taken out by air assets.
Accept it and move on.
We'll I'll see him outside for a fight then!
....................Losing the will to live, Good Night!
....................Losing the will to live, Good Night!
Suspicion breeds confidence
You're a barrister?? Crikey I hope you don't end up defending me one day, I may as well plead guilty and be done, it would be less painfull to listen to. 
Last edited by Navaleye; 8th Dec 2004 at 11:06.
Did anyone look at the video?
Meanwhile, Illustrious has returned to Portsmouth. This link may interest you.
The Armed Forces view the strike carrier as a potent power that is sustainable around the world, providing an immediate and tangible statement of intent both to Britain’s allies and adversaries.
Assuming there isn't an air threat?
Meanwhile, HMS Bulwark, the second of our LPD(R) has entered service - see here.
Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Bach said: "I am extremely happy to see HMS Bulwark enter service with the Royal Navy - she and her sister ship HMS Albion form a key part of a £1 Billion modernisation programme which will mark a new era for the Royal Navy, completely renewing our amphibious shipping capability.
As we're about to lose organic air defence. And cutting back on escorting frigates and destroyers. It's not as if anyone would try to attack offensive platforms that lack defence, is it.....
Meanwhile, Illustrious has returned to Portsmouth. This link may interest you.
The Armed Forces view the strike carrier as a potent power that is sustainable around the world, providing an immediate and tangible statement of intent both to Britain’s allies and adversaries.
Assuming there isn't an air threat?
Meanwhile, HMS Bulwark, the second of our LPD(R) has entered service - see here.
Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Bach said: "I am extremely happy to see HMS Bulwark enter service with the Royal Navy - she and her sister ship HMS Albion form a key part of a £1 Billion modernisation programme which will mark a new era for the Royal Navy, completely renewing our amphibious shipping capability.
As we're about to lose organic air defence. And cutting back on escorting frigates and destroyers. It's not as if anyone would try to attack offensive platforms that lack defence, is it.....
It is about three years since I had the first of several correspondances with a Minister (via my MP) over issues relating to the Sea Harrier.
The main responses I got were:
The Sea Harrier represents the first line of air defence for a maritime task group, there are others. But none of them has the same range, or potential to deter. AND all of them have been cutback by this Gvernment
Shipbased defences consist of:
Sea Dart aboard Type 42 Destroyers. Discussed earlier on this thread - and we now have less of them.
Sea Wolf aboard frigates. Apart from the range issue - frigate numbers are being cut back (even though CINCFLEET states that we will not be able to meet all our commitments - which have increased in the last few years).
Decoys. Not as reliable as hard kill systems.
CIWS sytems. Last ditch. Still get hit by bits of missile/aircraft.
Land based defence by RAF fighters. Apart from the geography issue, they have been cut back.
Defence by allies. Errrrrrrrrrr........
From 2007 the Type 45............Now been delayed to 2009, and reduced to eight ships in accordance with the more jobs, less assets philosophy.
CVF will enter service in 2012 Errr - no delays?
The reduction in FF/DD numbers means we would be even less able to accept to loss of one or two ships to enemy action, without experiencing servere long term disruption to global operations. Likewise reductions in Submarine or Minehunter numbers.
Army and RAF reductions are relevent too. Armour and Artillery are key on a modern battlefield, yet their numbers are being reduced. What if the enemy sink a RFA/chartered vessel carrying a significant percentage of our armour. 40 Challenger 2s lost in one go? Or Warriors? Or a number of dwindling number of our support helicopters, as with the Atlantic Conveyer in 1982?
The main responses I got were:
The Sea Harrier represents the first line of air defence for a maritime task group, there are others. But none of them has the same range, or potential to deter. AND all of them have been cutback by this Gvernment
Shipbased defences consist of:
Sea Dart aboard Type 42 Destroyers. Discussed earlier on this thread - and we now have less of them.
Sea Wolf aboard frigates. Apart from the range issue - frigate numbers are being cut back (even though CINCFLEET states that we will not be able to meet all our commitments - which have increased in the last few years).
Decoys. Not as reliable as hard kill systems.
CIWS sytems. Last ditch. Still get hit by bits of missile/aircraft.
Land based defence by RAF fighters. Apart from the geography issue, they have been cut back.
Defence by allies. Errrrrrrrrrr........
From 2007 the Type 45............Now been delayed to 2009, and reduced to eight ships in accordance with the more jobs, less assets philosophy.
CVF will enter service in 2012 Errr - no delays?
The reduction in FF/DD numbers means we would be even less able to accept to loss of one or two ships to enemy action, without experiencing servere long term disruption to global operations. Likewise reductions in Submarine or Minehunter numbers.
Army and RAF reductions are relevent too. Armour and Artillery are key on a modern battlefield, yet their numbers are being reduced. What if the enemy sink a RFA/chartered vessel carrying a significant percentage of our armour. 40 Challenger 2s lost in one go? Or Warriors? Or a number of dwindling number of our support helicopters, as with the Atlantic Conveyer in 1982?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 16th Dec 2004 at 11:51.
Suspicion breeds confidence
50 pages and nearly 50k hits, some people still take this discussion very seriously. Some interesting changes are happening as we transition to CVF over the next 10 years. The CVS will operating as mini strike carriers. Off come the Merlins and its likely that we'll see two Harrier squadrons embarked more often to give the RN experience of routinely operating two fixed wing squadrons for the first time in years. A step forward for mud moving, lets hope they make it undefended.
I wonder what the retiring CO of 899 NAS thinks. See A Final Bow.
To mark his final flight, pilots past and present gathered to show their appreciation for all Cdr Eastaugh has done for the Sea Harrier Force
All undone by politicians......
To mark his final flight, pilots past and present gathered to show their appreciation for all Cdr Eastaugh has done for the Sea Harrier Force
All undone by politicians......
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh for god's sake......give it a rest WEBF! You might as well just post an automatically updating link to 'Navy News'....it's not much more than propaganda really, is it?
Find compelling arguments. Do some decent research. But stop filling up a decent thread with [email protected]!!
SBG
Find compelling arguments. Do some decent research. But stop filling up a decent thread with [email protected]!!
SBG
Suspicion breeds confidence
SBG you surprise me, I would not call it propaganda. This gentleman has served the FAA with distinction. I think its high time that more aircrew both RAF and Navy get such recognition especially when you deserve it as Cdr Easthaugh does. It can't do the old the old CV much harm either 
More crap links! 
Navy News (it's a great read, honest Guv) includes a Young Readers' section. This month's Young Readers' Club (see here includes this brief piece of the Fleet Air Arm. I Spy The Navy In The Sky
The paper version has pictures as well. OK it doesn't tell you much, but it does underline the importance of aviation to the Navy.
One of the secondary themes of this thread was frigate/destroyer reductions, particularly the mothballing (sic) of three Type 23 frigates. It is claimed that the T23s are not as useful as they should be, but this link and this one may help dispel this myth. One of the things that makes the T23 so capable is the ability to carry a Merlin, however this would apear to reqiure air superiority, unless the HM1 is going to get fitted for an air to air role. Using helicopters to counter enemy subs or fast attack craft in his littoral will not work if he can deny that airspace to our Merlins/Lynx/SKW etc.
Other threads note that the RN is increasing its recruitment of aircrew. Surely losing the Sea Jet cannot help things. Also the possibility mentioned of Yeovilton being a JSF/F35 base, how does his make the move of WAFUs away to Coss/Witt look logical? Long term thinking?
And Santa appears to have endorsed STOVL carriers.
Navy News (it's a great read, honest Guv) includes a Young Readers' section. This month's Young Readers' Club (see here includes this brief piece of the Fleet Air Arm. I Spy The Navy In The Sky
The paper version has pictures as well. OK it doesn't tell you much, but it does underline the importance of aviation to the Navy.
One of the secondary themes of this thread was frigate/destroyer reductions, particularly the mothballing (sic) of three Type 23 frigates. It is claimed that the T23s are not as useful as they should be, but this link and this one may help dispel this myth. One of the things that makes the T23 so capable is the ability to carry a Merlin, however this would apear to reqiure air superiority, unless the HM1 is going to get fitted for an air to air role. Using helicopters to counter enemy subs or fast attack craft in his littoral will not work if he can deny that airspace to our Merlins/Lynx/SKW etc.
Other threads note that the RN is increasing its recruitment of aircrew. Surely losing the Sea Jet cannot help things. Also the possibility mentioned of Yeovilton being a JSF/F35 base, how does his make the move of WAFUs away to Coss/Witt look logical? Long term thinking?
And Santa appears to have endorsed STOVL carriers.