Sea Jet
If it was true in 1993, why isn't it true now?
Both the Hunt and Sandown classes are at risk from air attacks, the only change from 1993 is that we have less of them, which increases the individual value of these vessels, and less escorts....
Both the Hunt and Sandown classes are at risk from air attacks, the only change from 1993 is that we have less of them, which increases the individual value of these vessels, and less escorts....
Join Date: May 2003
Location: anywhere except home
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at the Emperor! He's not wearing clothes!
Chink!!! The sound of pin and spoon detaching fm grenade
The george that is spouted on this thread is entertaining, but is george none the less.
FA2 was great, but times change, sorry s£!t happens.
Is the GR7/9 the new sea jet? No, it goes to sea, but is owned by the JFACC to do his bidding, so not really. The RN simply provide a DOB, quite a good DOB granted, but be under no illusions the Green Puff jet will leg it ashore the instant it is better placed there. Very expeditionary, very modern and it works great. But not a Sea Jet.
Will JCA be a Sea Jet? See above, no...
Herein, is the problem for the RN, they want an Aircraft Carrier, but it will be nothing more than Strategic Lift (with knobs on!). In the big scheme of things this is consistent with our UK doctrine (I think this means it's versatile!)
From the stovepiped dark blue perspective, its a disaster, since it does not, and will not command the strike assets embarked and thus has no power play at the higher inter-service level.
So this started when the RN wanted a Carrier but realised that without RAF buy in this was not going to happen.
The RAF wanted a Harrier replacement, but needed a supporting case.
Stick the two together and you have JFH, CVS MARSTRIKE and (most importantly for both) CVF and JCA. (A match made in heaven)
Now, the RN grasps the reality that JCA will only be available for half the year and not very many at that and decides that Conventional is the best configuration. The RAF are adamant that VSTOL is the only way, due to pilot currency, blah etc. Why? Because of SMART procurement? Because it's the best way to carry forward UK Defense?
My arse!
Because the RN sees that if the carrier is Conventional, the moving to DOB ashore option disappears and with it goes the argument for the RAF owning the Air Group.
The RAF sees the same and will therefore digs in its heels and refuses to budge.
End of CVF/JCA and end of a match made in heaven!
Sigh, that's why plans are now being prepared to extend the CVS and to bring FFs out of retirement.
Clear range!!!
The george that is spouted on this thread is entertaining, but is george none the less.
FA2 was great, but times change, sorry s£!t happens.
Is the GR7/9 the new sea jet? No, it goes to sea, but is owned by the JFACC to do his bidding, so not really. The RN simply provide a DOB, quite a good DOB granted, but be under no illusions the Green Puff jet will leg it ashore the instant it is better placed there. Very expeditionary, very modern and it works great. But not a Sea Jet.
Will JCA be a Sea Jet? See above, no...
Herein, is the problem for the RN, they want an Aircraft Carrier, but it will be nothing more than Strategic Lift (with knobs on!). In the big scheme of things this is consistent with our UK doctrine (I think this means it's versatile!)
From the stovepiped dark blue perspective, its a disaster, since it does not, and will not command the strike assets embarked and thus has no power play at the higher inter-service level.
So this started when the RN wanted a Carrier but realised that without RAF buy in this was not going to happen.
The RAF wanted a Harrier replacement, but needed a supporting case.
Stick the two together and you have JFH, CVS MARSTRIKE and (most importantly for both) CVF and JCA. (A match made in heaven)
Now, the RN grasps the reality that JCA will only be available for half the year and not very many at that and decides that Conventional is the best configuration. The RAF are adamant that VSTOL is the only way, due to pilot currency, blah etc. Why? Because of SMART procurement? Because it's the best way to carry forward UK Defense?
My arse!
Because the RN sees that if the carrier is Conventional, the moving to DOB ashore option disappears and with it goes the argument for the RAF owning the Air Group.
The RAF sees the same and will therefore digs in its heels and refuses to budge.
End of CVF/JCA and end of a match made in heaven!
Sigh, that's why plans are now being prepared to extend the CVS and to bring FFs out of retirement.
Clear range!!!
Suspicion breeds confidence
Sigh, that's why plans are now being prepared to extend the CVS and to bring FFs out of retirement.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,133
Received 28 Likes
on
17 Posts
Out of interest what country is the RN likely to knock heads with in the future that is out of range of land based air defence assets?
Just trying to work out where this fleet sinking enemy air force will come from. I believe 'The Reds' aren't playing anymore....
Just trying to work out where this fleet sinking enemy air force will come from. I believe 'The Reds' aren't playing anymore....
Suspicion breeds confidence
Just about every dodgy third world air country has an air force. Relying on ship based AD assets means that can get in close and cause damage. A T23 would be a hard nut for a strike aircraft to take out but what about an RFA or an assault ship?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,133
Received 28 Likes
on
17 Posts
Yeah, but which dodgy third world countries, which we are likely to butt heads with in the future, are out of range of land based air defence?
My starter for one, the Arabian Gulf isn't very wide...
My starter for one, the Arabian Gulf isn't very wide...
Suspicion breeds confidence
The Helpful Stacker, that's just the point, we don't know. Bushfire wars start quickly and with little warning. The next one is likley to be where we least expect it - with possible exception of Iran, where I accept the US will be there in abundance. History also tells us that the US does not like to get involved in the post colonial conflicts of even its closest ally. As for the europeans..... 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point about unpredictability is a good one... In the Summer of 1981 who'd have thought (apart from a few astute observers whose interpretation was blatantly ignored) that Argentina would invade the Falklands... few years before that, Belize got involved in a punch pretty-much unexpected border punch-up (with Guatamala)... Two of many conflicts, both probably filed under ancient history nowadays, that the UK got involved in that are proof that unexpected conflict happens.
We must guard against misinterpretation of intelligence (more recent examples... pre-9/11), which can easily be spun to suit a defence budget or politicians aspirations (WMD?)... and ensure that we have the tools for a flexible response to whatever boils over (and, before all the Sea Jet knockers pitch in, I think JCA is the only answer, it's much wider than that?). Things don't always go as we hoped (let alone planned).
We must guard against misinterpretation of intelligence (more recent examples... pre-9/11), which can easily be spun to suit a defence budget or politicians aspirations (WMD?)... and ensure that we have the tools for a flexible response to whatever boils over (and, before all the Sea Jet knockers pitch in, I think JCA is the only answer, it's much wider than that?). Things don't always go as we hoped (let alone planned).
Fuel for WEBF's ire
Air attack is the single most serious threat facing any navy....
Perhaps in our case, political and public apathy and misunderstanding is more dangerous? Incidentally, what is happening to the CIWS systems from ships tht have been decommisioned?
Perhaps in our case, political and public apathy and misunderstanding is more dangerous? Incidentally, what is happening to the CIWS systems from ships tht have been decommisioned?
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The george that is spouted on this thread is entertaining, but is george none the less.
From the stovepiped dark blue perspective, its a disaster, since it does not, and will not command the strike assets embarked and thus has no power play at the higher inter-service level.
Pull together chaps. It is not a pretty sight to see intelligent people trying to score points off each other outside of dining in nights.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Webf, I understand that the Phalanx removed from the T42s are being upgraded to the latest spec (Block 1b?) and will be refurbished for use on T45s. I also hear from a source that the Goalkeeper systems removed from the CVS will be fitted to CVF. If I had a couple of Sunburns coming towards me I know which one I would prefer to have.
OT here, but I have just returned from the Fatherland and I understand that cuts to Typhoon and A400M programmes are back on the political agenda over there.
OT here, but I have just returned from the Fatherland and I understand that cuts to Typhoon and A400M programmes are back on the political agenda over there.