FedaykinVery painful indeed, because Ocean is the only amphibious ship we have which can hangar its helicopters. She complements the hangar-less LPDs & LSDs.
We managed without an LPH before, but when we did, we always had more than two carriers, so were able to use one as a helicopter carrier.
Indeed very painful and a significant capability loss but as Ocean is meant to OSD 2018 given the choice between that, Albion, Bulwark and the Bays its the best of a bad situation.
I think the RN’s opinion is get the carriers, retain what it can of the amphib capability and out last this current situation. What really worries me is the damage to what is left of British ship building, the promissed steady drumbeat of orders surface types and submarines is going out of the window. In the end owners of the various yards are not charities, if there are no orders then they have to shut down. The most critical is Barrow, one of the reasons that there have been delays and cost overruns with the Astute program is the loss of skills with the gap from the Trafalgar class.
Other countries have trashed their millitary capabilities and then clawed it back, Australia comes to mind in that respect.
FedaykinThe amphibious capability of the RN is complexively the best in the whole Europe, second only to US marines.
The 6 Point class Ro-Ro, the 4 Bay (5 were planned, one got chopped even before getting to the shipyard), the 2 Albion and Ocean make up for the badly needed expeditionary capability envisioned in the 1998 review.
Now it makes no sense at all to ruin that! Ocean was already envisioned to go without replacement in 2018 (and that already was a shame) but this…I have yet one more proposal to make: since the Bay class proved invaluable in bringing aid to Haiti, the frigging Aid ministry can’t pay to ensure the anphibious ships stay in place, so they are there when they’ll be needed next time? Also, can’t it dig out money to build a 5th Bay class in a modified Auxiliary Air Ship/hospital ship that can replace Argus and also be the first choice of asset for the UK when disaster relief is the day’s main task…?
The Bay has quite a big deck. Adding a lift for planes, making a hangar and a large hospital out of part of the soldier quarters under the deck would make for an awesome ship. And conserving the well deck for landing craft and the vehicle decks, it could work awesomely to either support anphibious ops or bring aid anywhere it was needed.
Ok, this last is a dream of mine, but the point is clear:CUT THE FRIGGIN’ AID IF YOU HAVE TO CUT, NOT DEFENCE!
In respect of amphibs I think you could loose Ocean early, it would be painful but the RN has gone without an LPH before. Also in the sense of decks to fly helicopters off Albion, Bulwark and the Bays are a qualitative improvement over Fearless and Intrepid. It would be painful but manageable.
FedaykinReally depends on what type of AIP system, it isn’t a universal technology.
I would think the fuel cell based solutions are probably the quietest with MEMSA being the noisest and Sterling cycle in the middle.
Then again they are probably no noiser then Nuclear and the latest SSN are quieter then the background noise of the sea.
FedaykinYeh that sounds about right, but I’m sure the PAF aircraft won’t need any maintenance at the moment, I think they’ve had them for less than a year? So just wondering why they’re in China?
Indeed they are refit fresh from the Ukraine so I’m thinking good will visit.
FedaykinAppears to be in China?
Not entirely surprising, considering China is an IL-76 operator they are a logical support partner for the PAF.
Wouldn’t be surprised if initial engine overhaul etc will be passed through Chinese facilaties.
FedaykinIn the end its one airframe, whats more interesting is the cancelled F16 order (300+ airframes) some of which finally ended up with Israel.
Not sure who pulled the plug on that Iran or the US (not that the US would of delivered anyway).
Interesting what would of happened with the Iranian airforce if the revolution had happened two or three years later, they would of been an F16 operator.
Fedaykinmaybe but I bet the Americans will find wiggle room
FedaykinSilly season posturing by the Iranians for domestic consumption. They know that America could never do what they are asking but its an easy way to whip up the public.
FedaykinIn the early 80’s the F-15 AIM-7 combination was pretty much the only thing Israel had that could engage a high fast flying Mig-25.
The engagement profile is very similar to the ASM-135 ASAT:
Radar picks up the Mig-25 approaching Israeli airspace and F-15 with Sparrow is scrambled. The F-15 gets off the runway and goes into a climb on a path dictated by GCI. The F-15 then pulls into a zoom climb and locks up the Mig-25, finally the AIM-7 is launched and the F-15 pulls out of the climb whilst maintaining radar lock. The F-15 acts in the same way that a first stage booster would for a rocket.
Very clever stuff really.
For the curious: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-135.html
FedaykinOn that line of thinking there is no reason why you couldn’t get Aster to fire on a ship, probably would require a software fix. Considering the Americans test fire Standard against surface targets and Aster is an active missile you could probably program it to fire at a target on the horizon or even over the horizon with off platform targeting.
FedaykinRead about the USAF attack on Saddam’s Osirak nuclear complex during Desert Storm. Not a single F-16 got close enough to deploy weapons and two F-16s were shot down. And that raid was supported by EF-111A jammers, which proved to be ineffective.
As far as I can find one F16 was shot down attacking Osirak, but your statement that none got close isn’t true. The F16 and F111 conducted repeated missions against Osirak and eventually pulverised the place.The F16 conducted over 13000 missions during desert storm for three losses to enemy action, that is not only amazing but a significant affirmation of western tactics in a threat environment.
Allied force the allies as a whole conducted over 38000 missions the majority with non stealthy types against a more sophisticated IAD-S for the loss of two aircraft one of those being a stealth fighter. Compare that to the attrition rate of earlier wars its frankly amazing.
As for the Su-35 and S-400 well thats speculation but late block F16 with late block AMRAAM, AIM-9X, HMS and latest ECM is fairly handy in air to air combat. The S-400 isn’t in full service yet and we don’t know how it will fare against the latest western SEAD/DEAD and jamming technology.
So I think you can take F16 or any other late model non stealth types on a day one campaign with confidence.
FedaykinBut an F-16 cannot get close enough to an IADS-defended target to use the GBU-10s like an F-35 can.
This is a constant statement which just isn’t true, non stealth types can penetrate IADS defended targets operation Allied force is an example.
With appropriate support like SEAD/DEAD the F16 and other non stealthy types have repeatedly proven themselves as day one platforms. I feel all this day one stuff is Lock Mart marketing as far as I am concerned.
FedaykinFair point, does this read better:
Italy: built their own in the form of Cavour, would probably build more of the same if they had the money…
FedaykinWhy would a country having a carrier refit and more built want to buy an expensive European carrier? It wouldn’t. As you say it’s all rubbish.
Indeed utter rubbish, doing a bit of research the rumour first appeared Autumn last year in the Guardian. It was stomped down at the time by India when it was pointed out that they already have INS Vikramaditya in final fit out, the new IAS-1/INS Vikrant starting build at Cochin and a fifty to sixty thousand ton CTOL carrier IAC-2 planned. To sell PoW to India would require us undercutting Cochin which means selling at a massive loss and I doubt India would bite as it would be detrimental to their own shipbuilding industry.
As for other countries that operate carriers or would like to:
Brazil already has Sao Paulo that can soldier on for another fifteen years, PoW even reduced would be outside their potential budget to buy and operate. Finally I think they want something new, smaller (forty thousand tons I recon) and benefits local industry.
China: Locally building new carriers and politically unacceptable.
Argentina: no chance.
Italy: built their own in the form of Cavour, will probably build more of the same
Spain: Building their own for F35 in the form of Juan Carlos class.
Thailand: can’t afford to operate what they have.
America: what would be the point?!
South Korea: Might want external help designing but local production.
Japan: Could afford it with their gold plated millitary budget but its far too big and aggressive for their liking. Also like South Korea would prefer local production.
Australia: The Juan Carlos class they are buying with Ski Jumps would allow them to operate F35 if they want.
As for other countries I haven’t seen any major desire to join the carrier club.
FedaykinThe statistics that make that argument are valid if you accept safety standards from the 80’s. If they upped the ante like every other industry then they’d argue against twins. IMHO it would be prudent even today for a third engine under the fin and an auxillary power grid within the jet, independent of the main, for transoceanic travel. We still see catastrophic failure of electrical systems on jets in this day and age.
How many twins crash on a regular basis these days?
Sign In
