Sea Jet
Quite apart from the fact that 'Organic Air Defence' has seldom been required since 1982, and quite apart from the fact that our Allies and partners have ALWAYS been able to provide air defence cover from land or their own carriers on the rare occasions when there was even the slightest chance of a robust air threat, the limited capacity of CVS and the limited capability of SHar meant that with sufficient SHars embarked to do that job, the ships couldn't usefully do anything else, making them the ultimate self-licking lollipop.
If there was sufficient room to deploy sufficient SHars to do the AD job together with enough GR9s to fly meaningful numbers of OS/BAI sorties, then retaining SHar as an insurance policy would make some sense, though it would always make more sense to deploy a larger number of more useful GR7/9s, and SHar would still be a prime target for cost savings. There might also be an argument for retaining a squadron of SHars to keep FI off the GR7s and GR9s and to give them a slightly better chance of making it to their planned OSD, or even to allow a carrier to deploy as an AD asset if required. However, the logistic support savings to be gained from retiring the force are massive, while the costs of the upgrades necessary to keep the SHar viable would be substantial even if you followed the Indian approach and went to the Israelis to upgrade the jets.
While it's true that "a few GR.9s won't make any significant contribution to any operation that includes a US CBG", they do still offer a useful capability and one that is at least likely to be used. I would agree, however, that a UK carrier (with or without organic AD) represents an extremely expensive and inefficient way of projecting air power.
If there was sufficient room to deploy sufficient SHars to do the AD job together with enough GR9s to fly meaningful numbers of OS/BAI sorties, then retaining SHar as an insurance policy would make some sense, though it would always make more sense to deploy a larger number of more useful GR7/9s, and SHar would still be a prime target for cost savings. There might also be an argument for retaining a squadron of SHars to keep FI off the GR7s and GR9s and to give them a slightly better chance of making it to their planned OSD, or even to allow a carrier to deploy as an AD asset if required. However, the logistic support savings to be gained from retiring the force are massive, while the costs of the upgrades necessary to keep the SHar viable would be substantial even if you followed the Indian approach and went to the Israelis to upgrade the jets.
While it's true that "a few GR.9s won't make any significant contribution to any operation that includes a US CBG", they do still offer a useful capability and one that is at least likely to be used. I would agree, however, that a UK carrier (with or without organic AD) represents an extremely expensive and inefficient way of projecting air power.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
I would agree, however, that a UK carrier (with or without organic AD) represents an extremely expensive and inefficient way of projecting air power.
What colour are the skies on your planet?? I bet you believe that the RAF can protect the fleet at sea too!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It occurs to me... having "promised" (bloomin' ages ago, but still a fact?) that they would be able to supply air defence for the fleet wherever it might operate... a policy which ultimately led to the end of conventional naval aviation... (yeah that one!!!) seems the RAF are happy to delegate it to Unckie Sam?
Still, at least the JCA hasn't been renamed the GR35... yet?
Strange that at a time when more light blue than ever are going to sea, many unwillingly allegedly, that we seem intent on making the carrier vulnerable again(?)... a position that once almost led to the total demise of these ships until their Lordships stood up... naaaahhh?
(and I promised I wasn't going to add anything more to this thread?)
Still, at least the JCA hasn't been renamed the GR35... yet?
Strange that at a time when more light blue than ever are going to sea, many unwillingly allegedly, that we seem intent on making the carrier vulnerable again(?)... a position that once almost led to the total demise of these ships until their Lordships stood up... naaaahhh?
(and I promised I wasn't going to add anything more to this thread?)
Pureteen lard.
Land based air power is quicker, easier and cheaper to deploy. The only time a carrier got there first in recent years was Sierra Leone, and it only did so because the Jags were held on the Azores, and didn't complete the trip to Dakar in order to allow the carrier to get to the scene first.
The Coltishall wing have demonstrated an ability to deploy aircraft to the Balkans or the Middle East within 24 hours of the shout. Eight Jags require no more than 110 personnel, and will sustain a higher sortie rate than eight jets on a carrier.
Land based air power is quicker, easier and cheaper to deploy. The only time a carrier got there first in recent years was Sierra Leone, and it only did so because the Jags were held on the Azores, and didn't complete the trip to Dakar in order to allow the carrier to get to the scene first.
The Coltishall wing have demonstrated an ability to deploy aircraft to the Balkans or the Middle East within 24 hours of the shout. Eight Jags require no more than 110 personnel, and will sustain a higher sortie rate than eight jets on a carrier.
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
Land based air power is quicker, easier and cheaper to deploy
Very true (providing both the airforce and navy are at home asleep when the shout comes).
Very true (providing both the airforce and navy are at home asleep when the shout comes).
Hermes?
How far back do we have to go to find a decent sortie rate from a boat?
Mind you, that Nelson knew how to run a Navy....... "England expects that Hermes' jets shall launch not thrice, nay, but four times on this day......"
Carriers may be many things, but cost effective and agile they ain't.
How far back do we have to go to find a decent sortie rate from a boat?
Mind you, that Nelson knew how to run a Navy....... "England expects that Hermes' jets shall launch not thrice, nay, but four times on this day......"
Carriers may be many things, but cost effective and agile they ain't.
I felt compelled to reply, but then I thought I would only be nibbling atthe hook from a line cast by someone who needs to go back to school (Shrivenham) and be educated about wider issues, also I did not want to keep this tired old thread going any longer.........oh bu%%er I've gone and done it.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
The Coltishall wing have demonstrated an ability to deploy aircraft to the Balkans or the Middle East within 24 hours of the shout. Eight Jags require no more than 110 personnel, and will sustain a higher sortie rate than eight jets on a carrier.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Farley
Land based air power is quicker, easier and cheaper to deploy
Very true (providing both the airforce and navy are at home asleep when the shout comes).
Very true (providing both the airforce and navy are at home asleep when the shout comes).
Boys....Girls....you will never win this pi&&ing contest. Those educated people in the know don't even bother rising to the bait. All you are doing is keeping WEBF's thread alive....oh bugga...done it again!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
180byzip
I'm sorry to enter the thread so late, been on a white water rafting exped in Africa. Surely the question should not be whether or not the RN get the CVF, or whether the RAF man all f/w a/c or whether the front line should get body armour (I take it that BIGGUS is a pongo). The Treasury just sit and laugh at the Military, they (ministers) provide a ridiculous budget figure for the MoD and then sit back and watch the 3 services fight it out, trying to expose everyone else's weaknesses, then cut all 3 services. Now where did the chaps hide my Bobsleigh?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 180byzip
... provide a ridiculous budget figure for the MoD and then sit back and watch the 3 services fight it out, trying to expose everyone else's weaknesses, then cut all 3 services. Now where did the chaps hide my Bobsleigh?
LateArmLive said...
"Keeping a few Sea Harriers in reserve" is pretty much what we've been doing for about a year now. I'm not sure if you're talking about 3 or 4 jets? You would need to keep on the pilots, engineers and all the other support staff that go with it. If you're talking about 3 or 4 serviceable jets, you're looking at keeping on a whole Squadron. It won't happen.
Hmmm, now thinking outside the box...
In late 2003 I saw a talk on the RNR Air Branch. Ex RN Aircrew, Air Engineers and others are attached to various units and establishments, operating every single aircraft type in RN service. These included former Sea Harrier drivers who flex airliners most of the time, then for a few weeks of the year back on the Sea Harrier. Similar story with the Engineers etc.
Now if you can fly a Boeing 757 all year and then a Sea Harrier for a few weeks to keep your hand in, why not fly a GR9 all year and then the Sea Harrier briefly? And the same for the maintainers. And if (when?) a crisis does come along - take a few in the CVS along with the GR9s? Or instead of some GR9s (depending on the crisis)?
Jacko you said (somewhere) that "we can't do everything." It is possible in a crisis it may be "we can't do anything". What if the a group of ships is deployed for reasons other than conducting offensive air operations, but is there are other reasons, but there is an air threat? In the Gulf War in 1991 mines needed to be cleared from the Kuwaiti coastline, but not until the threat posed by Iraqi missile armed craft had been removed (many of them by Sea Skuas from RN Lynx helos) could the vulnerable Minehunters approach the coastline. What if the threat was from aircraft, and politics prevented strikes on the bases? What if enemy aircraft prevented out helicopters from operating? What if Host Nation Support ws denied, perhaps as a result of a diplomatic row caused by the media?
Widger it isn't my thread, I didn't start it!
"Keeping a few Sea Harriers in reserve" is pretty much what we've been doing for about a year now. I'm not sure if you're talking about 3 or 4 jets? You would need to keep on the pilots, engineers and all the other support staff that go with it. If you're talking about 3 or 4 serviceable jets, you're looking at keeping on a whole Squadron. It won't happen.
Hmmm, now thinking outside the box...
In late 2003 I saw a talk on the RNR Air Branch. Ex RN Aircrew, Air Engineers and others are attached to various units and establishments, operating every single aircraft type in RN service. These included former Sea Harrier drivers who flex airliners most of the time, then for a few weeks of the year back on the Sea Harrier. Similar story with the Engineers etc.
Now if you can fly a Boeing 757 all year and then a Sea Harrier for a few weeks to keep your hand in, why not fly a GR9 all year and then the Sea Harrier briefly? And the same for the maintainers. And if (when?) a crisis does come along - take a few in the CVS along with the GR9s? Or instead of some GR9s (depending on the crisis)?
Jacko you said (somewhere) that "we can't do everything." It is possible in a crisis it may be "we can't do anything". What if the a group of ships is deployed for reasons other than conducting offensive air operations, but is there are other reasons, but there is an air threat? In the Gulf War in 1991 mines needed to be cleared from the Kuwaiti coastline, but not until the threat posed by Iraqi missile armed craft had been removed (many of them by Sea Skuas from RN Lynx helos) could the vulnerable Minehunters approach the coastline. What if the threat was from aircraft, and politics prevented strikes on the bases? What if enemy aircraft prevented out helicopters from operating? What if Host Nation Support ws denied, perhaps as a result of a diplomatic row caused by the media?
Widger it isn't my thread, I didn't start it!
There may be 'what ifs' to which the only answer is the SHar.
But we CANNOT afford to have every club in the golf bag, and need to concentrate resources on the tools we need most often (SEAD, recce, tankers, - even carrierborne A-G aircraft), and to 'borrow' the other clubs from our partners on the rare occasions they are needed.
"What if the a group of ships is deployed for reasons other than conducting offensive air operations, but is there are other reasons, but there is an air threat?" Rely on either: a) coalition partners - USN, French, Spanish, Italian Navy or land based AD.
"In the Gulf War in 1991 mines needed to be cleared from the Kuwaiti coastline, but not until the threat posed by Iraqi missile armed craft had been removed (many of them by Sea Skuas from RN Lynx helos) could the vulnerable Minehunters approach the coastline. What if the threat was from aircraft, and politics prevented strikes on the bases?" Rely on either: a) coalition partners - USN, French, Spanish, Italian Navy or land based AD.
"What if enemy aircraft prevented our helicopters from operating?" Rely on either: a) coalition partners - USN, French, Spanish, Italian Navy or land based AD.
"What if Host Nation Support ws denied, perhaps as a result of a diplomatic row caused by the media?" Guess what? Rely on either: a) coalition partners - USN, French, Spanish, Italian Navy or land based AD.
But we CANNOT afford to have every club in the golf bag, and need to concentrate resources on the tools we need most often (SEAD, recce, tankers, - even carrierborne A-G aircraft), and to 'borrow' the other clubs from our partners on the rare occasions they are needed.
"What if the a group of ships is deployed for reasons other than conducting offensive air operations, but is there are other reasons, but there is an air threat?" Rely on either: a) coalition partners - USN, French, Spanish, Italian Navy or land based AD.
"In the Gulf War in 1991 mines needed to be cleared from the Kuwaiti coastline, but not until the threat posed by Iraqi missile armed craft had been removed (many of them by Sea Skuas from RN Lynx helos) could the vulnerable Minehunters approach the coastline. What if the threat was from aircraft, and politics prevented strikes on the bases?" Rely on either: a) coalition partners - USN, French, Spanish, Italian Navy or land based AD.
"What if enemy aircraft prevented our helicopters from operating?" Rely on either: a) coalition partners - USN, French, Spanish, Italian Navy or land based AD.
"What if Host Nation Support ws denied, perhaps as a result of a diplomatic row caused by the media?" Guess what? Rely on either: a) coalition partners - USN, French, Spanish, Italian Navy or land based AD.