LindermyerThe purpose of the exercize was obviously to sink the carrier, the ROE would have made sure the CAP would be defeated.
maybe not a certanty but probably heavilly stacked against them, there is also probably a set of results that went the other way as well
I can imagine a scenario simulating a surprise attack, with the CAP being required to visually confirm their targets while the attacking force has no such limitation…The reason for lack of communication on the exercize from the French part is probably due to being the ones playing red. Even if you’re supposed to lose, it’s never a good idea to say it in the open because you’ll end up being quoted out of context (as it’s already happening here).
Agreed, now if the usual suspects, will apply this to the rafale spanked tiffy/ tiffy spanked hornet/ spanked mirage et al threads (insert chosen type)it can be seen that dact exercises proves little, and trolling may well cease.
Lindermyerright you are. Googles not what it was.
LindermyerA search of the internet in a quiet moment reveals that FED ex reengined there 727-100s with RR Tays.
The 727-200 had JT8s installed -Im sure We were working -200s –
(mostly what i remember was the area either side of the rear stairs swimming in skydrol)
LindermyerThe video was a prank by a USAF KC-10 crew member and his colleagues on the Chemical Trail conspiracy people. The person named Tim posted the video on his You Tube Channel USAFFEKC10 in July 2010. The channel is now disabled although the chemtrail believers have set a channel up with this name. The chemtrail people fell for it hook line and sinker and it was reposted as evidence that USAF Pilots were spraying chemtrails.
Originally posted on the KC-10 crewman’s You Tube Channel.
“The truth is, the video is real and unedited but the title was created to poke fun at the chemtrail people. All this video shows is a couple of KC-10’s flying in formation. When I saw the contrails coming from the lead KC-10 I pulled out my video camera knowing I was going to pull this prank and the pilots played along. So there you have it. It’s just a prank on all the chemtrailers.sorry,
-Tim”
The Chemtrailers still won’t accept that it was a hoax. 🙂
http://tankerenemy.blogspot.com/search/label/USAFFEKC10
Tanker Enemy’s Channel. You really couldn’t make it up. Check out some of his aircraft videos and the comments?
http://www.youtube.com/user/tankerenemy#p/u/39/sJo6tWHt-2U
They still believe that the USAF Pilot was a Whistleblower!
TJ
I particuarly liked the ‘exSpurts’ opinion that any claim its dumping fuel is disproved by the simple fact that the KC10 has no fuel dump system.
Now I have no knowledge as to wethter they incorporated any fuel dump points as part of the mod – I do however know that the DC10 has dump valves and these will still be active.
selective facts at best
LindermyerI seem to recall it was JT somethings for bigger JT somethings, but it was many years ago and ive been to sleep since then.
Lindermyer10 / 15 years ago we replaced No1 and 3 on 727s I cant remember what we swapped them to though.
The idea was that with the larger 2 engines at max and no 2 at a low setting (1&3 having more thrust than the old 3) would be quieter.
To change out No 2 would have required to much structural work.
Cant think of any others off hand
(excluding the Buccaneer)
LindermyerI work for an automotive manufacturing company, the answer is no. What you would be asking for is a sub-varient which would require re-planning for those aircraft in terms of what parts to buy and when, and a huge amount of design work to check that the design actually worked both physically, and as other posters have mentioned software. If you take out the ability to fold the wings, every single part, then what keeps the ends of the wings in place? Instant cost implication. You also have to consider that the reason the UK is buying Dave-C is it means all its airframes would be carrier capable. Highly important if you ever need to surge beyond the number of usual deployable airframes. I know you’re thinking it’s less components to buy but those cost savings would be eaten a dozen times over by the design work that would have to be done, and paid for entirely by the UK taxpayer and you get a less flexible aircraft as a result when you’re 15 years down the line when international relations go tango uniform.
Perhaps I should have made myself clearer – I was not advocating a different build standard / varient of the aircraft. I was suggesting that it may be that some squadrons (assuming not all F35 Sqns are slated for carrier ops) could operate with carrier op specific gear removed ie launch and recovery kit (all those pits easily removed).
I was not proposing non folding wings or the like. – To use the car analogy not fitting the tow bar or CD player
LindermyerFor now, it is the F35C that we are looking at. No doubts on this. And it will be this way at least until SDR 2015… which hopefully won’t make me shiver like this one did. It won’t be happy, of course… Last happy SDR was 1998, and even that was massively betrayed…
But hopefully it won’t be a budget cutting excercise like it was this year, either.
However, my pessimist MOD analyzer side tends to agree that a real threat to the whole future of the carrier strike concept do exists, and in particular, with the words of Richard Beedal:I find it extremely hard to disagree with what he reports, admittedly, and it will be hard for the Royal Navy to sustain its point about carriers.
If the deal with the French can help in avoiding demented decisions are taken, i welcome it totally.
I don’t really trust anyone anymore when it comes to procurement for the armed forces and in particular for the navy.
My understanding of the A model is that it will only be configured for flying boom refueling – so wont be suitable for RAF usage (without modification) so the C will probably be a better choice –
i suppose there is the poasibility that some squadrons C models could have carrier stuff removed
LindermyerAnd what does continuous curvature have to do with right angles?
From below, EF is very likely stealthier than F35. 😉
On Topic
Whilst the tiffy has many fine attributes a VLO RCS isnt one of them.
Off topic am I alone in thinking that from the pictured aspect above the tiffy bears a striking resemblance to JAWS wearing a comedy tache
LindermyerI believe in 91 an RAF GR1 on a runway denial mission laid claim to an air to air kill,
The aircraft in question was alledgedly airborne (just) when it was struck by the GR1s ordanance.
LindermyerStrange claim, the French had never the intention to hand that to the Nazis.
Pretty sure there was no slight on France implied there.
The fear was not that the French would hand them over, but that Germany would take them. (which they attempted in 42)
France assured us that in the event of a German attempt they would scuttle them (which in fairness is what happened in 42)
Britain at the time felt they couldnt take the chance and that if the French ships wouldnt either sail to the USA, join the RN for the duration (or loan them the vessels) then they would put them beyond use.
Tragic and caused much bitterness , but right or wrong Britain was desperate and had there back against the wall, which at least goes some way to explaining there actions
regards
LindermyerAlthough most discussions of the Falklands conflict focus on the air battle, since it was the most visible, there was a major component of the war that doesn’t get much coverage because both sides don’t want it played up because it would talk too much about capabilities and also you can’t do “film at 11” of an empty ocean surface.
The Argentinian submarine San Luis was operational in the first part of the war. Essentially she operated at will and carried out multiple attacks on British ships. The attacks all failed for apparently for four reasons. During maintenance prior to the conflict, the periscope apparently was misaligned and so false bearings were generated for initial feed to the torpedoes. The fuses on some torpedoes failed to arm. One torpedo was apparently deflected by countermeasures. There was over-zealous maintenance done on the sub to a number of the torpedoes to the point that they no longer worked (gyros tumbled on launch, etc.), meaning that even with a perfect firing solution the torpedoes are going to miss. She left the area May 17, and did not return before the end of the conflict.
These were major strokes of luck for the British, especially the maintenance issue. In ASW, they were about as good as it got, and they never got close to hitting her. Had her torpedoes worked, the entire British fleet would have had to pull far back while SSNs “sanitized” the area. Who knows, if San Luis had sunk one of their carriers maybe the US would have had to help support her greatest ally.
There are lots of conflicting stories about this, many claim that she fired at the carriers but her patrol area was around the Falklands wheras the carriers were guarding durban – thats not to say she didnt see or have a crack at frigates 7 or possibly amphibs, but in light of the evidence its unlkely shs ever got sights on invincible or more crucially Hermes – the loss of her would have been crippling which is why she was kept well hidden..
Nor did the airforce despite one or 2 confused reports to the contrary by survivors of the final Exocet mission. And lest i start a flame war by accident I consider the Argentine pilots to be amongst the bravest of the brave, or all the stories about San carlos being bomb alley, and the RN casualties, the aircraft losses the argentines suffered were definatly making it look very much like a 1 way mission. (allegedly Death valley was the argentine nickname)
Lindermyer3000T is probably as small as the C2 wants to get really im hoping it will be closer in terms of displacement to the type 23 (future growth).
The Venerator may be the best compromise as a cheap Comercial off the shelf. I cant see a problem with installing the MK8 on that hull, its on apar with the type 21 (as an aside im sure somewhere theres a river class sized vessel with a Mk8).
Liger – i believe that we are in danger of ending up with to much heavy lift – utility helicpters are where we are woefully short – chinooks are sometimes just to damn big .
I agree that a 4th Cdo is required, however im not sure why you insist its Marine, potentially with personal changes and postings an army unit forming the 4th Cdo could see a wider pool of men available.
Lindermyer@Lindermyer
I share the obsession for amphibious power projection with the US, France, Italy, Spain, Australia, China, Russia (Mistrals buy goes in that direction) and even Chile and Brazil and others on a smaller scale, thank you. I’m in company of most of the world’s population, so i don’t feel like i’m alone. It looks like Japan might join soon, and already has some capability (in terms of Landing Craft, the LCAC US Style is ages away of Uk capability to say it all, even. Another example of british failure: have a smart idea, design a revolutionary concept, and then almost completely neclect it as the rest of the world gorges on it…)
I agree with the need to retain the Carriers and the Amphibs
I also have many, many strategicians of every age who have been very vocal in explaining the role played by the sea in war and in international policy, so i’m totally comfortable on my own positions, reinforced by the fact the RM did fight EVERYWHERE in EVERY single war the UK has faced from the IIWW onwards.As did pretty much every other infantry type – However how often have the RM been used in role –
Like the paras they are predominantly used as General infantry (the merits/ rights and wrongs of this are another story)A fourth Battalion for 3 Commando Brigade IS by any mean needed, so much so that 1 RIFLES was configured as Light Role infantry and attached to 3 Commando and put under operational command of the Royal Navy’s Marine commanders.
692 men are by any mean trainable to Commando standards if there’s the will to do it. There’s not such thing as “unfeasible”.It was origionally claimed that 1 rifles personal have the option of doing the cdo course – i suspect the intent may be to generate a 4th cdo in the long term.
What is unfeasable is a massive and or rapid expansion of the RM and retaining the CDO capability throughout. Elites are small sized forces for a reason cost and quality play a major part
Mn for Man the RM are probably better trained than the average US marine equivelant, if you expand them to the size of the USMC then they will probably be little difference.Another Commando unit releasing 1 RIFLES means having one more deployable unit for the whole spectrum of operations from COIN to High End warfare.
No it doesnt – you know and i know that either 1 rifle forms the core of the new CDo or is lost to the cuts
It is unfeasible until generals brag about Cold War relics while hiding under the carpet the fact the UK still has an Army of the Rhine structured with heavy battle tanks waiting for hordes of T72s to come from Russia swarming into West Germany.
The real Cold War relic, in other words.Just to clarify
1) the army is stationed in Germany mainly because there is no where for it in the UK (at this time – this is an ongoing project)
2) Britain fields a Massive 5 MBT regiments approx 300 Tanks – this is hardly a huge force and i would suggest only on a par with spain and italy.
– we do have 5 Recce regt for some strange reason – more now than when we fielded several divisions, 2 or 3 of them could go or reroleRetaining at least some armour makes sense – regardles of what some experts believe, many people feel safer (or on the other side are far more subdued) when heavy metal is around.
But even if the army escapes most of the cuts, many regiments will re-role to Light Role anyway, with armor being mothballed. Create a stable, true Royal Marine unit would fit perfectly into the same strategy.
The fact people is blind and won’t do it does not mean it couldn’t be done.Again expanding the Marines is doable, expanding tham as CDO is probaly not, but why bother a light role could be designated as Amphib infantry possibly with a single RM CDO providing expertese/ a raiding group.
there are only enough assets to support a brigade (eg shipping / landing craft etc) so rotate an army brigade (or 2)
(P.S Mad Rat) In 1982 the Paras went ashore as a1st wave in landing craft, with a few weeks intensive training any uit can re role as amphib landed infantry.As to every brigade being capable to do amphibious assaults, it is true to a certain degree. You need to train them for it. They are not Commando, but they need to say what to do.
Moreover, they need the SHIPS and the LANDING CRAFTS and the people who drives the LANDING CRAFTS.
see above only enough for a brigade and yes these will be marinesIf you lose these components, good luck in sending an Armoured Division doing an amphibious landing.
Why not sans armour its around 20 regiments of infantry
Alternativly good luck in stopping an armoured thrust becasuse you are configured as a light force and all the tanks are a cold war relics and sat in museum.
The navy really cant absorb much by way of cuts
The army could conceivably reduce to around 86000 retain its armoured division (these could rotate through light roles as they are currently doing).
but the army cannot be cut until its out of afghanistanWe really dont need 70 chinooks post afghanistan –
we seem to be in danger of sacrificing all our combat capabilities for heavy lift helicopters.
Challenger IIs Duplex-Drive…? 😀
regards
Lindermyer[QUOTE=nocutstoRAF;1645957]The real battle is between the two possible scenario’s (see RUSI for more detail):
Maritime Raiding where we need a larger navy, more marines, but reduced army -this leads to ops where we bust down the doors and let someone else hold the ground, good for a quick medium scale intervention but reduces our ability to really take ground and hold it in a larger scale operation.
Borrowed your post re Increasing Marines, but its an obseession with Liger.
Increasing the size of the RM whilst retaining the Cdo role is probably not feasable (cost, training recruit standards)
so either the Marines revert to Naval infantry & or have 2 regiment types or the RM Cdos are left as they are.
any infantry battalion can be used for an amphibeous role ie brigade strength landings (in fact any unit can).
If a 4th cdo is required then 1 rifles is the obvious choice (besides the comandos were origionally army).
## If you go check a history book you will also find that not every unit parachuted into action was a parachute regiment.
Sign In
