Sea Jet
Suspicion breeds confidence
I do believe that we are better placed (in some respects) to mount an operation at the present time than 20 years ago for the following reasons:
* We are practised in the art of purple operations.
* Its not the quantity of ships you have in theatre, but the overall capabilities of those vessels. Contrast the surface and AAW capabilities of a T12 vs T23.
* We have excellent organic AEW
* We have the FA2 to exploit AEW
* We have excellent operational systems such as CSS.
* Nice new LPDs and an dedicated LPH.
* We have the GR7/9 with excellent mud moving capabilities and precision ordnance and Crabs who realise they can fly over water without getting their feet wet.
Looking good isn't it? Looks like we really have thought this through and got our ducks lined up in a row.
Well here's where it all falls flat on its t*ts.
* We are reliant on 8 old and creaky T42 which proved they could not cope with the air threat 25 years ago. They are falling apart and can barely manage 100 days at sea per year each.
* From April next year these old vets will be the primary air defence weapons of the Royal Navy when the fighter role is taken over by a bomber. Frightening isn't it? Ignore the PC nonsense spouted by some on this thread, this is what 1SL means when he says that soldiers and sailors will die unless we start placing orders for new assets now.
By the way, what did Uncle Sam offer us in 1939?
Answer: Their best wishes.
* We are practised in the art of purple operations.
* Its not the quantity of ships you have in theatre, but the overall capabilities of those vessels. Contrast the surface and AAW capabilities of a T12 vs T23.
* We have excellent organic AEW
* We have the FA2 to exploit AEW
* We have excellent operational systems such as CSS.
* Nice new LPDs and an dedicated LPH.
* We have the GR7/9 with excellent mud moving capabilities and precision ordnance and Crabs who realise they can fly over water without getting their feet wet.
Looking good isn't it? Looks like we really have thought this through and got our ducks lined up in a row.
Well here's where it all falls flat on its t*ts.
* We are reliant on 8 old and creaky T42 which proved they could not cope with the air threat 25 years ago. They are falling apart and can barely manage 100 days at sea per year each.
* From April next year these old vets will be the primary air defence weapons of the Royal Navy when the fighter role is taken over by a bomber. Frightening isn't it? Ignore the PC nonsense spouted by some on this thread, this is what 1SL means when he says that soldiers and sailors will die unless we start placing orders for new assets now.
By the way, what did Uncle Sam offer us in 1939?
Answer: Their best wishes.
Last edited by Navaleye; 15th Feb 2005 at 14:40.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne said:
That is simply untrue and the First Sea Lord's evidence is below:
He did not say that the UK could mount a Corporate-style operation; he said that the Armed Forces would, if required by HMG. There is a difference and, as usual, MoD mendacity has to be covered for by the dedication of the men and women in uniform, left exposed to greater risk by cutbacks.
Sir Alan West was very specific, we could mount another OP Corporate on our own and are in a far better position to do it now than we were in 82.
(CNS) I would not be too happy being in a very high air threat, but let us take something like the Falklands operation, that gap period. Unless there was someone there to help you, we would still do it because we do what we are told to do by the Government and we would still make a mess of the guys having a go at us, but we would much rather have them around.
Q41 Richard Ottoway: Are you still standing by the statement you made that unless you actually had, in certain operations, some short cover, you would actually tell the Government you could not do something?
Admiral Sir Alan West: We do not like saying we cannot do it. The Navy never says it cannot do it; nor do our Armed Forces. What we would say is, "These are the risks there and these risks are extremely high."
Q41 Richard Ottoway: Are you still standing by the statement you made that unless you actually had, in certain operations, some short cover, you would actually tell the Government you could not do something?
Admiral Sir Alan West: We do not like saying we cannot do it. The Navy never says it cannot do it; nor do our Armed Forces. What we would say is, "These are the risks there and these risks are extremely high."
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne said:
That is simply untrue and the First Sea Lord's evidence is below:
He did not say that the UK could mount a Corporate-style operation; he said that the Armed Forces would, if required by HMG. There is a difference and, as usual, MoD mendacity has to be covered for by the dedication of the men and women in uniform, left exposed to greater risk by cutbacks.
Sir Alan West was very specific, we could mount another OP Corporate on our own and are in a far better position to do it now than we were in 82.
(CNS) I would not be too happy being in a very high air threat, but let us take something like the Falklands operation, that gap period. Unless there was someone there to help you, we would still do it because we do what we are told to do by the Government and we would still make a mess of the guys having a go at us, but we would much rather have them around.
Q41 Richard Ottoway: Are you still standing by the statement you made that unless you actually had, in certain operations, some short cover, you would actually tell the Government you could not do something?
Admiral Sir Alan West: We do not like saying we cannot do it. The Navy never says it cannot do it; nor do our Armed Forces. What we would say is, "These are the risks there and these risks are extremely high."
Q41 Richard Ottoway: Are you still standing by the statement you made that unless you actually had, in certain operations, some short cover, you would actually tell the Government you could not do something?
Admiral Sir Alan West: We do not like saying we cannot do it. The Navy never says it cannot do it; nor do our Armed Forces. What we would say is, "These are the risks there and these risks are extremely high."
Jessthedog,
Thankyou for backing up my point;
"we would still do it "
"we would still make a mess of the guys having a go at us"
As to the rest of your post, all you have done is state that the current CNS would give exactly the same advice to the PM as the CNS in 1982 gave to Margaret Thatcher
"These are the risks there and these risks are extremely high."
If the CNS thinks he needs 30 escorts to be able to carry out all his commitments then if push came to shove the lack of 5 would not stop it being done, HOWEVER, in a state as wealthy as ours is then if the CNS thinks his fleet of escorts should be 30 then I believe he should have 30.
Thankyou for backing up my point;
"we would still do it "
"we would still make a mess of the guys having a go at us"
As to the rest of your post, all you have done is state that the current CNS would give exactly the same advice to the PM as the CNS in 1982 gave to Margaret Thatcher
"These are the risks there and these risks are extremely high."
If the CNS thinks he needs 30 escorts to be able to carry out all his commitments then if push came to shove the lack of 5 would not stop it being done, HOWEVER, in a state as wealthy as ours is then if the CNS thinks his fleet of escorts should be 30 then I believe he should have 30.
He also believes we ought to have organic air defence (as stated in the interview I put a link to the the first page of this thread), do you believe we ought to have that too?
Back to frigate/destroyer numbers - the reduction in numbers means the loss or severe damaging of one would be that much more of a blow. On a more general note (off topic I guess), the technology vs numbers debate always seems to include the assumption that all operations will be of high intensity and short duration. Not much good for peacekeeping, MIOPS or enforcing a no fly zone. All the computer systems will count for nothing if you lack enough troops/ships/aircraft.
Back to frigate/destroyer numbers - the reduction in numbers means the loss or severe damaging of one would be that much more of a blow. On a more general note (off topic I guess), the technology vs numbers debate always seems to include the assumption that all operations will be of high intensity and short duration. Not much good for peacekeeping, MIOPS or enforcing a no fly zone. All the computer systems will count for nothing if you lack enough troops/ships/aircraft.
WEBF,
I certainly dont think we SHOULDN'T have it, just, like Admiral West, that there is a reasoned argument to make that if we can't afford it then we can do without it until F-35 comes along.
CNS has stated many times that he is happy with the size and shape of the Fleet given the amount of money he has to spend. Shove another £12 to £15 Billion on the defence budget and I am sure we would still have 32 escorts and SHAR, fact is we don't, and in todays political environment I think that is a fair compromise.
Who on earth are we going to face in the next 6 or 7 years that has a sophisticated aerial threat whom we might have to take on alone out of reach of shore based airpower?
I certainly dont think we SHOULDN'T have it, just, like Admiral West, that there is a reasoned argument to make that if we can't afford it then we can do without it until F-35 comes along.
CNS has stated many times that he is happy with the size and shape of the Fleet given the amount of money he has to spend. Shove another £12 to £15 Billion on the defence budget and I am sure we would still have 32 escorts and SHAR, fact is we don't, and in todays political environment I think that is a fair compromise.
Who on earth are we going to face in the next 6 or 7 years that has a sophisticated aerial threat whom we might have to take on alone out of reach of shore based airpower?
Deliverance,
The grown ups at 2 Star level and above get paid to make decisions and evaluate risks, look at the world out there, WHERE is that risk coming from in the next 6 years? That is an evaluated and fully scoped risk based on an intelligence led view of the REAL world.
There is simply no-one that presents even a potential credible air threat even on the event horizon.
Future enemies? long term strategic and financial planning has to be made on a certain set of assumptions, I think the risk of ditching the capablity of the SHAR has been made on some pretty solid planning.
The grown ups at 2 Star level and above get paid to make decisions and evaluate risks, look at the world out there, WHERE is that risk coming from in the next 6 years? That is an evaluated and fully scoped risk based on an intelligence led view of the REAL world.
There is simply no-one that presents even a potential credible air threat even on the event horizon.
Future enemies? long term strategic and financial planning has to be made on a certain set of assumptions, I think the risk of ditching the capablity of the SHAR has been made on some pretty solid planning.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jessthedog,
Thankyou for backing up my point;
Thankyou for backing up my point;
If the CNS thinks he needs 30 escorts to be able to carry out all his commitments then if push came to shove the lack of 5 would not stop it being done
A lack of 5 escorts will not stop a task force sailing, but it will increase the risk of unnecessary loss of life.
Also, do you have a reference for the 1982 quote you make?
"These are the risks there and these risks are extremely high."
* Hoon spends most of his appearances in front of the Commons Defence Committee uttering statements along the lines of "there are no inconsistencies between the views of (insert name of very senior officer) and my own" rather than answering questions.
Suspicion breeds confidence
That is an evaluated and fully scoped risk based on an intelligence led view of the REAL world.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Comments from Eric Grove on F35
When he can keep his arms still for more than 2 seconds, Eric G can make some interesting comments:
This policy can be clearly seen in the current British aircraft carrier (CVF) programme, the principal embodiment of the MFP emphasis. Only a large carrier able to operate up to 36 F-35 aircraft at a sortie generation rate of about 100 a day can give sufficient leverage in a coalition air plan. Nimitz class US carriers carry around fifty tactical aircraft and can sustain a rate of 140 sorties a day, mostly by F/A -18s. Given the limited numbers of F-35Cs to be carried in future US carrier groups (about 25 per cent of total complement) the CVF will bring to the table a remarkably large proportion of the stealthy air strike assets available to a joint force air controller from his most secure and available bases.
It is currently uncertain as to the precise configuration of the UK CVF. At the end of 2002 it was a vessel of around 54,000 tons configured to operate the short take off/vertical landing F-35B with some form of rotary winged maritime airborne surveillance and control aircraft (MASC). Latest news, however, is that the impact of the Blair government’s planned reductions in platforms as part of its coalition effects based strategy is making the RAF worry that an excessive proportion of its deployable fast jet offensive support aircraft front line, now only 64 aircraft, will be STOV/L. This has created interest in acquiring the ‘CV’ variant, F-35C, with its longer range. A ship of about 62,000 tons would be most suitable for such an aircraft and this impressive ship would also be able to operate Hawkeye as MASC. It would also have useful interoperability advantages with the USA and France.
It is currently uncertain as to the precise configuration of the UK CVF. At the end of 2002 it was a vessel of around 54,000 tons configured to operate the short take off/vertical landing F-35B with some form of rotary winged maritime airborne surveillance and control aircraft (MASC). Latest news, however, is that the impact of the Blair government’s planned reductions in platforms as part of its coalition effects based strategy is making the RAF worry that an excessive proportion of its deployable fast jet offensive support aircraft front line, now only 64 aircraft, will be STOV/L. This has created interest in acquiring the ‘CV’ variant, F-35C, with its longer range. A ship of about 62,000 tons would be most suitable for such an aircraft and this impressive ship would also be able to operate Hawkeye as MASC. It would also have useful interoperability advantages with the USA and France.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
MASC:
"Admiral Sir Alan West: .....MASC,....at the moment the money and funding that is in there is really looking at something rather like the Sea King 7's capability, which is extremely good radar and a control type fit, and we are looking at a series of options.
Should it still be a Sea King? I think they will be quite old by then. EH101? They are looking at a number of options. What will the options be? Should it be UAB? Should it be an EH101? I do not know, but 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.
The Sea King 7s, we have been very, very pleased with. Not only are they superb for airborne early warning, they also have this ability over land which we were quite unaware of until about a year before Telic, and, of course, in Telic they were controlling, they were able to spot tanks and APCs coming out of Basra and they were able to guide 847 Naval Air Squadron Lynxs onto these targets and destroy them, and 847 destroyed, I think, 50 tanks, APCs and various other vehicles coming out guided by the Sea Kings; so extremely good radar and very good airborne early warning.
Q44 Richard Ottoway: So the least you will have is the Sea Kings?
Admiral Sir Alan West: That would be the absolute least, and in terms of timing, again I do not think one can get too excited over a year here or a year there or a year later, because Sea Kings are adequate to do the AEW initiative. A year here or there does not really matter. There seems to be a place for it at some stage."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CVF:
"Q33 Mr Roy: Do you not think that one of the options would be three or more smaller, more agile carriers?
Admiral Sir Alan West: 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. I think it is something like 75 sorties per day over the five-day period or something like that as well."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAR:
"Admiral Sir Alan West: When the decision was made we had to look at the amount of money we thought it was going to cost to re‑engine and remove obsolescence from the FA2, and I believe the decision was the correct decision because it would have cost a lot of money, and I am not even convinced that we could have actually got a bigger engine into that FA2 air frame. I am sure some people say, yes, you can, but we are pretty scarred with people attempting things like that.
So I think, because of obsolescence, because we could not get the bigger engine in it, which meant we would have real problems in operating in some of the areas of the world where we seem to operate more and more, I believe that was the right decision, especially because the real focus we wanted from this air carrier now was deep strike and close air support for when we make theatre entry. Therefore, the shift from FA2 to the GR7, or GR9 hopefully, I think was the right thing."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GR7/9:
Q75 Mike Gapes: A couple of questions related to the question of pilots and air crew. Once the Sea Harrier has been withdrawn, I understand that there are not going to be any more fixed wing naval pilots?
Admiral Sir Alan West: Not at all. Absolutely not true, no. Basically, our people will go and man two of the squadrons of, as I say, GR7s, or, hopefully, they will be GR9s, two of the stable squadrons. There will be two which will be light blue heavy, and two which will be dark blue heavy. So 800 squadron I paid off earlier this year - and I went to their paying off day - in 2006, when 801 squadron pays off, they will form, as part of the Joint Force Harrier, with the new aircraft, the GR9s. These are primarily focused on land attack with a bigger engine, bigger wing and all those capabilities, and we will have, in fact, more fixed wing pilots than we used to have.
Q76 Mike Gapes: Will these pilots not then be converting to fly RAF Harriers?
Admiral Sir Alan West: There is complete cross‑training between the two. We have RAF chaps flying from our carriers and we have our chaps‑‑‑ One of the first guys going into the western desert in Iraq was a Lieutenant Commander flying the GR7s with the RAF in the fighting during Telic. There is complete interchange between the two, and, I have to say I think the Joint Force Harrier has been a huge success story, it has worked really well, and the joy of this is that these aircraft will deploy on the carrier and it means that the Airforce and the Navy pilots will be able to get to where the action is, and that has to be good news.
Q77 Mike Gapes: Do you foresee a time when you will actually have RAF officers in charge of flight deck operations on the new carriers?
Admiral Sir Alan West: I would not rule out anything. I think it depends on skill sets and this sort of thing. I could envisage that the flight deck officer or the chap running the sights and landing aids and everything might well be. I think we are completely flexible on this. What I will say, however, is that we do need maritime aviation skills, and that is why we need dark blue officers involved in flying. We must not make the mistake that was made before the Second World War where we lost those aviation skills, which is why we were up a very steep climb throughout the Second World War with lots of losses involved to try and catch up with it, and I think everyone is aware of that, and I know the GBS staff agrees with that; so we need that maritime capability. There is no reason at all why an RAF officer cannot come on the squadron and do this - these guys are interchangeable - and the youngsters are very excited about it. When I have gone up there they have been very excited.
Q78 Mike Gapes: The Royal Navy will continue in recruiting fast track officers?
Admiral Sir Alan West: Absolutely right.
Q79 Mike Gapes: Can I ask about ground crews who service the Harriers? What is going to happen to them? Are they going to be absorbed into the RAF?
Admiral Sir Alan West: No, exactly the same, exactly the same routine. They will be split. So two squadrons will be dark blue heavy and two will be light blue heavy and there will be a mix in the sort of OCU and that area. Indeed, at the moment, I have to say, we have been helped dramatically by the Air Force because they had an overbearing number of maintenance staff and we had an under bearing, and what is the great joy with this Joint Force Harrier is that we are able to move people across and do this. We are actually in the process of rationalising our air engineer training, cutting what used to be a rather large number of skills down into a smaller number. That is going on at the moment as well and about to be fully introduced.
"Admiral Sir Alan West: .....MASC,....at the moment the money and funding that is in there is really looking at something rather like the Sea King 7's capability, which is extremely good radar and a control type fit, and we are looking at a series of options.
Should it still be a Sea King? I think they will be quite old by then. EH101? They are looking at a number of options. What will the options be? Should it be UAB? Should it be an EH101? I do not know, but 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.
The Sea King 7s, we have been very, very pleased with. Not only are they superb for airborne early warning, they also have this ability over land which we were quite unaware of until about a year before Telic, and, of course, in Telic they were controlling, they were able to spot tanks and APCs coming out of Basra and they were able to guide 847 Naval Air Squadron Lynxs onto these targets and destroy them, and 847 destroyed, I think, 50 tanks, APCs and various other vehicles coming out guided by the Sea Kings; so extremely good radar and very good airborne early warning.
Q44 Richard Ottoway: So the least you will have is the Sea Kings?
Admiral Sir Alan West: That would be the absolute least, and in terms of timing, again I do not think one can get too excited over a year here or a year there or a year later, because Sea Kings are adequate to do the AEW initiative. A year here or there does not really matter. There seems to be a place for it at some stage."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CVF:
"Q33 Mr Roy: Do you not think that one of the options would be three or more smaller, more agile carriers?
Admiral Sir Alan West: 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. I think it is something like 75 sorties per day over the five-day period or something like that as well."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAR:
"Admiral Sir Alan West: When the decision was made we had to look at the amount of money we thought it was going to cost to re‑engine and remove obsolescence from the FA2, and I believe the decision was the correct decision because it would have cost a lot of money, and I am not even convinced that we could have actually got a bigger engine into that FA2 air frame. I am sure some people say, yes, you can, but we are pretty scarred with people attempting things like that.
So I think, because of obsolescence, because we could not get the bigger engine in it, which meant we would have real problems in operating in some of the areas of the world where we seem to operate more and more, I believe that was the right decision, especially because the real focus we wanted from this air carrier now was deep strike and close air support for when we make theatre entry. Therefore, the shift from FA2 to the GR7, or GR9 hopefully, I think was the right thing."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GR7/9:
Q75 Mike Gapes: A couple of questions related to the question of pilots and air crew. Once the Sea Harrier has been withdrawn, I understand that there are not going to be any more fixed wing naval pilots?
Admiral Sir Alan West: Not at all. Absolutely not true, no. Basically, our people will go and man two of the squadrons of, as I say, GR7s, or, hopefully, they will be GR9s, two of the stable squadrons. There will be two which will be light blue heavy, and two which will be dark blue heavy. So 800 squadron I paid off earlier this year - and I went to their paying off day - in 2006, when 801 squadron pays off, they will form, as part of the Joint Force Harrier, with the new aircraft, the GR9s. These are primarily focused on land attack with a bigger engine, bigger wing and all those capabilities, and we will have, in fact, more fixed wing pilots than we used to have.
Q76 Mike Gapes: Will these pilots not then be converting to fly RAF Harriers?
Admiral Sir Alan West: There is complete cross‑training between the two. We have RAF chaps flying from our carriers and we have our chaps‑‑‑ One of the first guys going into the western desert in Iraq was a Lieutenant Commander flying the GR7s with the RAF in the fighting during Telic. There is complete interchange between the two, and, I have to say I think the Joint Force Harrier has been a huge success story, it has worked really well, and the joy of this is that these aircraft will deploy on the carrier and it means that the Airforce and the Navy pilots will be able to get to where the action is, and that has to be good news.
Q77 Mike Gapes: Do you foresee a time when you will actually have RAF officers in charge of flight deck operations on the new carriers?
Admiral Sir Alan West: I would not rule out anything. I think it depends on skill sets and this sort of thing. I could envisage that the flight deck officer or the chap running the sights and landing aids and everything might well be. I think we are completely flexible on this. What I will say, however, is that we do need maritime aviation skills, and that is why we need dark blue officers involved in flying. We must not make the mistake that was made before the Second World War where we lost those aviation skills, which is why we were up a very steep climb throughout the Second World War with lots of losses involved to try and catch up with it, and I think everyone is aware of that, and I know the GBS staff agrees with that; so we need that maritime capability. There is no reason at all why an RAF officer cannot come on the squadron and do this - these guys are interchangeable - and the youngsters are very excited about it. When I have gone up there they have been very excited.
Q78 Mike Gapes: The Royal Navy will continue in recruiting fast track officers?
Admiral Sir Alan West: Absolutely right.
Q79 Mike Gapes: Can I ask about ground crews who service the Harriers? What is going to happen to them? Are they going to be absorbed into the RAF?
Admiral Sir Alan West: No, exactly the same, exactly the same routine. They will be split. So two squadrons will be dark blue heavy and two will be light blue heavy and there will be a mix in the sort of OCU and that area. Indeed, at the moment, I have to say, we have been helped dramatically by the Air Force because they had an overbearing number of maintenance staff and we had an under bearing, and what is the great joy with this Joint Force Harrier is that we are able to move people across and do this. We are actually in the process of rationalising our air engineer training, cutting what used to be a rather large number of skills down into a smaller number. That is going on at the moment as well and about to be fully introduced.
to quote Admiral Sir Alan West;
"I believe that was the right decision, especially because the real focus we wanted from this air carrier now was deep strike and close air support."
"Therefore, the shift from FA2 to the GR7, or GR9 hopefully, I think was the right thing."
Game set and match!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"I believe that was the right decision, especially because the real focus we wanted from this air carrier now was deep strike and close air support."
"Therefore, the shift from FA2 to the GR7, or GR9 hopefully, I think was the right thing."
Game set and match!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Suspicion breeds confidence
Deliverance you beat me to it. Pr00one, sorry old chap it doesn't add-up. He's hardly going to say "It's the wrong decision made for politcal and budgetary reasons" is he? Admirals Boyce and Essenhigh left the service early for fighting this lunacy. As much as I like Adm West, he's not going to make waves 6 months from retirement.
Deliverance,
Best you tell him then! Not much point telling me is there?
Navaleye,
I still think this is a compromise, BUT, in the circumstances an acceptable one when you consider what the UK armed forces are likely to be doing in the next 6 years.
If CNS thinks there is no threat on the horizon for that time scale then it's good enough for me.
Best you tell him then! Not much point telling me is there?
Navaleye,
I still think this is a compromise, BUT, in the circumstances an acceptable one when you consider what the UK armed forces are likely to be doing in the next 6 years.
If CNS thinks there is no threat on the horizon for that time scale then it's good enough for me.
None of the Service chiefs can say anything in public that is that different from the party line. The cuts of the last few years have been accepted to keep CVF etc on the horizon. Worryingly the orders haven't been placed yet. His real views can be guessed at from public statements made elsewhere - and as said before he can't openly oppose the Government - particularly this one that is so expert at presentation and spin. Shame about the policy. The Telegraph article (Too few ships) said it all, as does this.
More information about Marstrike 05 can be found on Invincible's website - see here.
Meanwhile more videos have been put on the video gallery on the RN website - which is here - Video Gallery. Look at the Aircraft Carriers one.
They can command a complex expeditionary warfare task group, protect it from air attack, launch air strikes and are capable of deploying Royal Marines. Hmm, without the Sea Harrier they will only be doing the last two - providing someone else provides air defence.
More information about Marstrike 05 can be found on Invincible's website - see here.
Meanwhile more videos have been put on the video gallery on the RN website - which is here - Video Gallery. Look at the Aircraft Carriers one.
They can command a complex expeditionary warfare task group, protect it from air attack, launch air strikes and are capable of deploying Royal Marines. Hmm, without the Sea Harrier they will only be doing the last two - providing someone else provides air defence.
Deliverance,
Best ask CNS as he is the guy making the public statement. Just who do YOU think the UK will be taking on alone in the next 6 years who has a sophisticated air threat then if you're so clever.
Certainly NOT star rank. Sqn shag who never got to put up my scraper.
Best ask CNS as he is the guy making the public statement. Just who do YOU think the UK will be taking on alone in the next 6 years who has a sophisticated air threat then if you're so clever.
Certainly NOT star rank. Sqn shag who never got to put up my scraper.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to quote Admiral Sir Alan West;
"I believe that was the right decision, especially because the real focus we wanted from this air carrier now was deep strike and close air support."
"Therefore, the shift from FA2 to the GR7, or GR9 hopefully, I think was the right thing."
Game set and match!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"I believe that was the right decision, especially because the real focus we wanted from this air carrier now was deep strike and close air support."
"Therefore, the shift from FA2 to the GR7, or GR9 hopefully, I think was the right thing."
Game set and match!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The quote that has been provided omits much of his previous commentary, in which the "M" word (money) features often. The FA2 capability was scrapped for financial reasons. The MoD is effectively bankrupt, as I was told in public by a senior officer just before leaving.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just who do YOU think the UK will be taking on alone in the next 6 years who has a sophisticated air threat then if you're so clever.
Suspicion breeds confidence
It's quite conceivable that a third world air force with 1st or 2nd generation fast jets and iron bombs could make life very uncomfortable for shipping operating close inshore under these circumstances.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without host nation support for the F3s...you'll be relying on combination of Sea King ASACS (or E3s if they've got the legs) and GR7s with AIM9.
Compare this to the FA2 with Blue Vixen and BVR missile capability, as well as an automatic data exchange capability that was never implemented.
One can only pray that the GR9 AD solution never has to be used in anger. If it does, lives will be needlessly lost and the idiots within the MoD will have blood on their hands...not that that bothers them much in any case.