FedaykinThe future Mount Pleasant detachment certainly is an interesting discussion point. Obviously for current needs the F3’s are the natural fit….long legs, a decent weapons fit and two-up so the at least one crew member can be relied on to know the way home.
Heading forward though the question presents itself as to whether Typhoon is the natural successor for the long term and whether this should always stay an RAF det?
The rumours are floating about even now that the UK JSF buy really is going to be split with a land-based mod of the F-35C going to the RAF while the RN will take on the STOVL variant for the carriers. The RAF version taking on a deep-interdiction role and offloading/supplanting the GR4’s until the FOAS-esque UCAV’s start coming onstream.
Completely ass-backwards for what most expected the split buy to achieve (long-range strike from a forward deployed CTOL strike carrier backed by rapid deployment RAF STOVL assets as necessary) – trust the RAF to really stir the pot though!!!.
Given that the prime target for any Argentine move to recapture the Falklands would have to be the neutralisation of the drag at Mount Pleasant and that our two front line -35B sqdns and the OCU will probably leave in excess of 20 STOVL airframes sat at attrition/reserve switching the det from RAF to Fleet Air Arm would seem logical. Seeing that we already have a supply chain out there for the Guardship scrapping the RAF det and streamlining the aviation support in with the naval requirement seems eminently sensible.
The supply chain for a Guardship is utterly different to the supply chain for a large NATO standard airbase. The RAF has always operated the base and frankly it doesn’t make much sense for it to change hands. I wouldn’t be surprised if the RAF does experiment with rotating the F35 onto Mount Pleasant but the Fleet Air Arm just won’t have the airframes available for a permament detachment. As for Typhoon it will be the primary RAF air superiority platform and it is already entering service, its cheaper to focus resources on supporting one type then many types down there. As for range -yes Tornado is long legged but the Typhoon is no slouch in that department.
There is no way the RAF will give up the air base and prestige of maintining the detachment to the RN. There is just too much distrust between the services over thieving of budget!
FedaykinJust remember that it is only one person’s view!
True!
But Beedall always seems to have the inside line and access to images that make his website an important guide to UK naval power.
I wonder what he really does?
The only other independant site of similar quality is the UK based Sinodefence website – I would love to know where they get some of their info from.
FedaykinThe only ASHM the UK operates these days is the Harpoon off the Nimrods and the Sea Skua on the Lynx’s. Not bad really both have proven to be effective wapon systems and for that matter I’m sure Brimstone is going to be cleared for Typhoon. I think Brimstone would make an interesting dent in most light frigates!
FedaykinSea Eagle was retired from British service some years ago. I think India may still operate it.
Yeah India still operates Sea Eagle on their SHARS and the IL-38’s (ironic really) but its years are numbered the BRAHMOS will the primary anti ship missile in the future.
As for the Tornado vs Typhoon issue in the end its academic really as the F.3 is going to be retired soon. Whilst the GR.4 will still be the RAF’s primary strike platform the Typhoons will be the aircraft primarily based there and they bring extra capability over the F.3.
FedaykinYou are only telling half the story………….while it may take only half the time to refuel a single F-15 from a Flying Boom. The same Tanker equipped with the Probe & Drogue System could refuel three aircraft all at once! So, which system is more efficient? Remember, Smaller and Tactical Aircraft make up the vast majority of the worlds Air Forces……………I don’t know the ratio. Yet, I don’t think 10 to 1 would be out of line?:rolleyes:
Indeed the USAF has even expressed enthusiasm for converting their fighter fleet to Probe/Drogue operations the main barrier being the cost of KC135 fleet conversion.
Have a look at this study:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32910.pdf
FedaykinTa Dah!:D
FedaykinOh I forgot to mention…
until recently Phantoms and then Tornados were cycled around from the UK via Spain and Africa if I remember correctly, with the support of Tankers, Nimrods and Transport aircraft. Lots of air to air refueling and a real logistics nightmare.
Since the C17 have entered service the Tornado are flown down in the cargo hold with a stop off at Ascension.
FedaykinGripen N/DK is your answer robban:
http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2006/060523_gripenn_dk.htm
Enlarged airframe and uprated engine based on the F414.
FedaykinComing back to the origin of this thread: I don’t think the Typhoon would add substantial capability as the F.3 is exactly the right aircraft for the job. The next Argentinian base is 530km from most western point of the Falklands and about 700km from the airbase itself.
If the Argentinians decide to do a surprise attack the do not have the capability to knock the airbase out at first attempt. The Brits still have Stanley for limited operations (the Tornado is after all capable of using secondary airports).No dogfight would happen over the Falklands. It didn’t happen in 1982, and even with a bunch of Su-30 it is very difficult to establish air supremacy over the Falklands. The F.3 is perfectly able to defend the airspace and does not have to fight against agile fighters. The Su-30 is sure agile, but it still has to return to its base, reducing the available fuel for engagements. The Su-30 has no speed advantage, under the perfect BVR-conditions it would not have any advantage.
If UK adds some SAM sites the issue gets even more difficult. The Tornados could fly under ground control guidance, use favorable conditions and attack any intruders at will. The Argis neither have the equipment to isolate the Falklands from British sea support.A group of GR.4 would practically deny the waters around the Falklands for the Argis.
For a re-capture: Giving the level of “alliance” between USA and UK, the US Navy maybe sends an carrier battle group. That would practically settle the issue. (it is amazing that one US CVBG can project more power than the entire Royal Navy or any other European navy).
But after all: Argetinia has strong economical problems and is keen to solve them. They have strong trade connections to USA and Europe and no sane leader would risk that. Even a dictator knows that an attack against the Falklands is a bold gamble likely to fail. And the last dictatorship in Argentinia ended after such a military disaster.
One question remains: how do the Brits transfer aircraft to the Falklands? From Ascension with air refuelling or from South Africa?
One of those yes and no things really, whilst the Typhoon/AMRAAM/ASRAAM combination won’t offer much over the F.3 Tornado/AMRAAM/ASRAAM comination but we must remember that the F.3 is due to go out of service soon. In time the Typhoon will offer significant advantages over the F.3, it has better sensors a swing role capability and eventually METEOR.
Of course the RAF has a further advantage in that it operates a tanker down there allowing a vast radius of operation.
I know its a source of contention between the navy types and air force types but at the moment the F.3’s (and later the Typhoon) are the major deterrent at the moment in combination with the SSN that operates in that neck of the woods. The Argentines don’t operate aircraft with either the range or ordanance/weapons to take on the fighters based on the Falklands and their fleet can do zip about the SSN.
FedaykinThe problem is the lack of a market for outsize airlift – until the end of the cold war, most nations with sufficient budget were focussed on a static war scenario. The UK and France both had a semi-expeditionary requirement, but that wouldn’t have resulted in more than a few dozen airframes. For the US, it was worthwhile, since they needed to be able to fly troops and equipment around the globe, and needed a few hundred aircraft, but they would only ever have bought an American type. If memory serves, the RAF actually wanted to get C-5 Galaxies back in the ’70s, but for budgetary reasons, this was vetoed.
The principle problem at the moment is the defence budget meltdown in the UK – the budget hasn’t increased in real terms since the ’90s, despite the wartime operational tempo. Gordon Brown has basically decided that he wants the military to be run into the ground, hence every operation has to be ‘zero cost’. Look at ops in Afghanistan, where they were going to have to withdraw even the tiny detachment of 6 Harriers to save money, just as the current ops started! It was only when the press got wind of this that they agreed to allow them to stay – but again, this meant cutting money from elsewhere in the budget. More C-130s and C-17s are needed, more armoured vehicles are needed, more troops, etc etc… Sadly, until the military actually get funded, then nothing will happen. 🙁
Sadly I think its going to take a large scale humiliating millitary disaster with lots of British troop casualties to turn things around!
The problem is amongst the wider public people don’t realise how bad things have got with UK defence budgeting and the government will get away with it until something really bad happens. Of course cuts are always spun as capability improvements or streamlining these days. Then add in the usual political manoeuvring to save jobs in various parts of the country things have only got worse. Has anyone else noticed the Labour agenda to scale back or close any shipyard or naval facility outside Scotland these days. I can’t comprehend why they are talking about closing Portsmouth or Davenport both of which are vital facilities when Rosyth which was earmarked for closure is now sacrosanct (handy being the chancellor’s old seat!).
Rant over for the moment!
FedaykinI don’t think the picture is a PS job you can see air ducts among other things all over her also the Chinese do like to use a very light grey for their vessels which does look white under certain light conditions.
FedaykinContrary to earlier reports, the SHARs haven’t been sold. Seems the Indians changed their minds when they realised how much work they’d have to do to refit the Harriers after they’d had the radars & some other stuff ripped out, which was the state we proposed to sell them in. The radars aren’t compatible with any of their missiles, anyway, so it’d have cost them a fortune to use the radars if they had got them, & if we’d been willing to help them integrate Russian or Israeli or whatever missiles.
Dunno what’s been done with the radars, but it seems a terrible waste not to use them.
As I said before, total & utter ****-up.
Anyway of the used SHAR FA2 airframes only the small number of later new build airframes would of been worth it. The upgraded FRS1 airframes were getting a little worn out…
FedaykinMy point in buying American C-17’s and C-130J’s is that they exist whereas the A400M hasn’t even flown in prototype form. It has had a very protracted development period and will most likely be late into service. Meanwhile the RAF still has over 20 ancient C-130K’s that will need replacing, especially as service in Afghanistan and Iraq take their toll on airframe life.
Basically I was promoting the safe option as opposed to an aircraft whose in service entry date is a guess at best.
As for European versus American, the current British deployment strategy (operational integration with US forces in alliance type operations) actually favours US aircraft because of the commonality between types.
I think some surplus airframes should be purchased from AMARC then stripped down and refitted to C130K standard possibly with the Boeing centre wing box life extension and one of the various cockpit upgrades on the market.
The RAF only operates two types with Boom recepticles: the C17 and the E3D Sentry. Of those two types only the Sentry actually uses it in RAF service, actually the Boom is more popular then the probe when it comes to refueling because its easier to tank up using it and the larger fuel off load rate.
FedaykinActually I think I might as well just emigrate to India, they seem to be proud of their navy and actually invest in it.
Just think by the end of the next decade they will have three new carriers (well two new and one nearly new) and fairly respectable airgroups.
FedaykinDumb question and I am sure it has been touched on before. But, why couldn’t the Blue Vixen Radar from the SHAR Sea Harriers be mounted in the GR-7a/9 Harriers of the RAF? Clearly, a larger Radome is available (and cheap) and the newer Harrier II has more room. So, space shouldn’t be a issue………..really the best of both worlds and a relatively cheap solution! Personally, I am lost why the UK didn’t go down that road……………or am I missing something?:rolleyes:
FLY NAVY:cool:
More than possible! Actually it’s what should of been done in the first place rather then update the SHAR FRS1.
It might be a relatively cheap option but the UK defence budget is in a state of collapse.
Beedalls website has been updated but I suggest if you want to have a happy Christmas don’t read it until the new year.
Sign In
