FedaykinActually I WOULD put a bet down that the British Army won’t be fighting another counter insurgency war outside of Afghanistan in five years time!
The British public and politicians have no desire to get into another mess like Afghanistan!
FedaykinWhat is clear to me is the whole situation has descended into a battle of the leaks!
So last weak we have navy leaning sources stating that whilst the navy will get both of the QE class with some cuts like not replacing HMS Ocean, the RAF will probably have to drop Tornado early as well and the army would have to take a share in cuts.
This week we get an all out PR offensive from Army sources to every paper and journo who will listen that the QE class is an utter disaster for UK defence should be cancelled/cut back/mothballed and the army isn’t going to be hit be major cuts and also wouldn’t it be a good idea to get rid of the RAF.
Its all drivel as far as I am concerned!
The Army top brass know full well that cutting the QE class would seriously hinder UK expeditionary capability, cost billions in penalty fees and destroy whats left of British ship building:mad: and they don’t care! Also they know that RAF personel are not just going to merrily change to the Army or navy if the Airforce is wound up! As far as they are concerned the RAF and RN are a rival for funding and any way they can put the boot in and cut their wings is a good idea.
The armies argument is totally based on fighting in Afghanistan and all future conflicts being the same…basically foolish and narrow minded.
FedaykinBecause steel is cheap Seahawk, the major cost is in the systems and equipment fitted. A smaller carrier wouldn’t of cost much less but would of been significantly inferior in primary role which is to operate aircraft.
In the end the Invincible class is not really very efficient in the strike carrier role it was pressed into, remember they were intended as ASW carriers for helicopters. The Sea Harriers were snuck on!
The army has all the MBT it needs and they can be easily mothballed for future use. As long as they are stored properly and the engines turned over every once in a while it would be easy to recrew and reactivate them.
FedaykinFrankly whilst I feel all three services can be highly partisan the armys behaviour the last few months via unnamed sources etc is all about crippling the Air Force and Navy.
They base their entire argument around fighting in Afghanistan despite the fact that the UK is pulling out and I highly doubt that the public or politicians have the stomach for another war of that kind for a long time. Lots of talk from the army fan club about flexible counter insurgency capability yet they don’t want any cut in their artillery, armour and heavy equipment. They don’t want to pull out of Canada or Germany! They are happy talking about RAF and Navy cold war relics yet don’t want to pull out of bases set up in Canada and Germany because of the cold war. Why do we have 23,000 troops plus their dependants sitting on the Rhein waiting for a war that won’t happen?!
They would happily leave the UK with an army that could only deploy out of theatre with US airlift and sealift capabilities and rely on American fast air and ships for cover. And what if the UK has to go up against a peer or near peer rival and the US or France doesn’t want to join the fun?!
They would happily destroy British ship building with the cancellation of the carriers despite the fact that with penalties they will still cost billions or mothball a perfectly workable ship cancel another still costing billions!
FedaykinI think they should just accept the US Aerospace bid to shut up the company.
In the end everybody knows that they haven’t got a snowballs chance in hell of getting the contract so why bother having them mess up the process any further.
Assign a few junior types to look over the proposal and write up a rather smug report about why they are rejecting the aircraft for when the real winner is announced. Not actually having a real aircraft or any experience in tanking including boom operations is a rather big negative for US Aerospace… let them embarrass themselves rather then parade around making a pain of themselves.
In the end the US airforce wants a tanker based on a civilian wide body preferably already in service in the civilian world, the only companys that make civilian widbodies at the moment are Boeing and EADS unless you include the il96 made at the Voronezh aircraft production association but they are not bidding and frankly haven’t the capacity or knowledge for this contract.
FedaykinWell Illustrious and Ark Royal with Harrier that are not equipped with Radar or BVR capability is our current situation. The UK has in effect taken a capability holiday pending induction of F35, so no real differences.
The argument is Type 45 and remaining Type 42 will offer anti air capability until that time.
So running Harrier on QE for several years, which was always the plan doesn’t change the situation we are in now.
FedaykinI would think any project to restart Harrier poduction would require Boeing support. A significant proportion of Harrier II structure came from MACAIR (now Boeing).
Whilst there has been significant new structure work for the US AV8B remanufacturing program new build is another kettle of fish. I would think Boeing is in the Business of trying to sell new Super Hornet so it isn’t going to help make new Harriers financially attractive.
As for Bae Systems they would see any Harrier II construction as eating into potential F35 work…
FedaykinNavy Matters editorial update!
Well after two years Beedall has done an editorial update on his excellent website.
Strangely whilst he goes into details of how cuts might have to work his suggestions do make up to a reasonable solution (except for his suggestion about the RFA – well unless the useful types are transfered to RN service).
Certainly his conclusions about the carriers make sense, finish QE as a Ski Jump Harrier carrier whilst PoW is fitted with Catapult. This all dovetails the Harrier and Oceans retirement dates together. With QE taking over from Ocean until funds permit outfitting the same as PoW and the Harriers being replaced with F35C (or Super Hornet). Also allows time for the PoW build strategy to be adapted and risk reduced for catapults. The fact is QE construction is too far gone to change to catapults now and running Harrier off her to the intended OSD of that type makes sense. It also gives some flexibility if they do decide that a reduced purchase of F35B is desirable allowing a mixed F35 fleet. Finally by going for F35C with service introduction when PoW comes into service pushes their procurement to the right as well putting off the cost if we had wanted F35B for QE.
FedaykinMind you, he is very ‘Anti-RAF’, I got the impression that he was fighting two wars in 1982 when I read his book, seemed he disliked the RAF more than he did the Argies. If I remember correctly he was even against the RAF getting the Typhoon & I believe he said something along the lines of, the Harrier would be a better choice…Now the Harrier is a great little airplane that punches above its weight…But c’mon.
But I agree and stand by what I said & quoted about the Harrier during the Falklands, it was, probably-IMO, a valuble asset that played the biggest part in winning the war. Its alright saying, ‘oh if we had Phantoms & Buccs on the Island in the first place this wouldn’t have happened blah blah blah’, but the simple fact of the matter is, they weren’t on the islands’. I believe Dave Morgan thought the same too, whom of which at the time was on loan-if you like-from the RAF…And I kind of like him more than I do Sharky, at least he showed a abit of respect. *Sorry I’m on a rant on the last bit* 😮
Sharky is a curious character, in one respect he had an amazing career and very much a hero but also known as an arch B*sh1tt3r even by his colleagues in the navy. Many a story can be found on Pprune of his antics and statements about his own ability and the Sea Harrier…
Myself my opinion of him was dimmed when he had his temper tantrum at Brize after not being given seniority disembarking the VC-10 first. He told the commander at the station that the RAF personel on the VC-10 and the base were using calculated insults and were jealous of a real Navy warfighter like himself who had gone to the Falklands whilst they were doing unimportant stuff UK side. Personally the RAF base commander should of been commended for keeping calm in that situation…I would of pointed out that the VC-10 crew and base personel were all probably too exhausted keeping the airbridge open to Ascension to note who he was.
FedaykinA deal that large with Brazil would probably involve technology transfer and the building of a proportion of the hulls in Brazilian shipyards. Still would be a significant shot in the arm for British shipbuilding.
FedaykinCommander ‘Sharky’ Ward pointed out that the Falklands would not have been won without Carriers and Harriers. He more or less said that if conventional Carriers with aircraft such as the Phantoms and Buccaneers had been sent, they would’ve have been much use due to having to take off and land during rough seas. Only the Harrier was/is capable of taking off in such conditions.
He mentioned that more than twice in his book where one of such occasions was training with the US Navy.
Curiously Sharky “I love the Harrier” Ward came out in favour of the F35C and the Royal Navy going back to CATOBAR in an article he wrote in the August edition of ‘Warships International fleet review’. (Page’s six and seven if your curious – yes I read this magazine even if I do have to grit my teeth when I read Odin’s rabidly anti RAF editorials).
Considering Sharky’s enthusiastic support for the Harrier and the concept of STOVL operations over the years it was rather a surprise to see this. His conclusion was the F35C was lower risk safer to operate choice.
FedaykinI’m glad I’m not the only one!
Myself and my best friend regularly go to airshows and we have called them the “Red Borings” for the last fifteen years!
I find the displays lacking in passion and I find their whole “we are the best attitude” borish!
I’m sorry hampden98 but they could certainly update and refresh their display routine without compromising safety.
For me the Frecce Tricolori or Patrouille de France are better at the moment.
FedaykinWell, they are complaining that the USN failed to give them something that the USN never had!
NO USN Sea King has those radars!
USN Sea Kings came in 2 variants… a pure ASW (with secondary rescue) variant that did not have radar*… and a utility/cargo variant, also without radar.
US Coast Guard Sea Kings had such radar, but purely for their long-range rescue duties… and they have been retired for about 20 years.
If India wanted that outfit, they should have bought aircraft that had them!
The Royal Navy, the Italian Navy, and possibly the Japanese Navy had Sea Kings with surface-search radar, but not the USN.
* It was operated together with S-2 Tracker and later S-3 Viking fixed-wing ASW aircraft that did have surface-search/weather radars, and which would direct the Sea Kings to near a radar contact, so they could use their dipping sonar to get a detailed “fix” and gather detailed information about the contact.
Indeed much of this is very much a case of India expecting the SH-3 they were getting with the Trenton to be the same as the Westland Seaking they purchased many years before which is mildly naive. I would say the Americans expected the airframes would only be used for transport so why need the radars.
It is a fair point that these airframes had an unreasonable amount of time expired components when they were taken from AMARG but India and America can share the blame for that. America should of been more careful about what airframes they sold and India should of had a better predelivery inspection process.
It looks like Sikorsky is quickly jumping into the situation to help out and ensure that the huge Indian market doesn’t get cold feet over their products.
FedaykinFor me the logical replacement choice for the Bae.146 in RAF use is the Bombardier Global Express. It has range and capability and most importantly commonality with the Sentinel R1.
FedaykinNeed to refine your question…
Single engine (ie: the airframe has one engine?)
Technically the TU-95 ran a “single engine with twin props, four times!” 😀
Avro Shackleton….Apart from the Seafire.. I honestly cant think of anything which made it “in-service”.
A few ran two engines and contra props…. Gannet, French Belize (however its spelt?)
Well if you want to really split-hairs the Tu-95 has:
32 Propeller Blades
Eight Propellers
Eight Engines consisting of four NK-12 engines that is in effect two TV-2 coupled with reduction gears.
Also the Tu-95 has the same fuselage fuselage diameter as the B-29 – it being a direct lineal descendant via the Tu-85, Tu-80 and Tu-4.
Finally whilst it is regarded by many as older then the B52 in design and concept its worth noting that the Tu-95ms in service are far newer then the with the first built in the early 80s and the last in 1992.
Fantastic aircraft!
Sign In
