pjhydro1. why do you say hotels in heathrow are ****? i want to spent day in spoting, i know eather way i have half day waisted when they go 27L but ive herd when they go 27R i can catch nice landing, besides to shot in the evening, is that that owful?
The hotels themselves are lovely i’m sure but when you are bored of being inside there is nothing nearby other than Heathrow. If you want to go out in the evening or during the day you are 14 miles from the centre of London and your nearest big town centre is either, Hounslow, which I would avoid or Feltham, which is famous for a youth Prison and being a dump.
2. yes i aware, but couldnt find beter way!! the problem the train goes late on sunday(i’ve ordered for sunday) and be there after 9 probebly if not later(the first expansive traine lives cross station at 6:45), dapends on the swindon local bas from the train.. what do you say? not to go to Air Tattoo? i must stop in swindon, else how to get to fairford base???
I just wondered if you realised. Going through Swindon is fine, just not a nice place to stay. If you want to stay nearby I would get a Bed and breakfast or hotel in Oxford. otherwise getting the train from Paddington and bus from Swindon is a good route.
pjhydroI am quite intrigued buy the idea of basing the UK Armed Forces on those of the USMC forming a single service. However currently the UK does not have the equipment to do this and it would require substantial investment to achieve. For example just one of the USMCs Expeditionalry Froces of which thare are three comprises of;
12 Armoured Infantry Battalions
1 Tank Battalion
3 Artillery (Gun) Battalion
1 Artillery (MLRS) Battalion
2 Medium Armoured/Recce Battalions
1 Air Defence Battalion
6 Medium Helicopter Squadrons
4 Heavy Helicopter Squadrons
4 Fighter/Ground Attack/Recce Squadrons
4 Ground Attack/Recce Squadrons
2 UAV Squadrons
4 LHDs
4 LSDs
4 LPDs
4 CG
4 DDG
4 FFG
4 SSN
Plus additional Naval Escorts and support units. It is not too hard to see the holes we would have to fill to feild eveon one equivilent formation!
The idea is not to recreate a USMC in its entirety, but the “concept” of a USMC i.e. a unfied air/land/sea force. There would be no new equipment, no one is suggesting that we make the UKAF as big as the USMC!
pjhydroDuxford? Fabulous place, you will need to get a train from Kings cross to Cambridge and get the link bus. Will take you about two-three hours from London, depending if you get the faster train and if you connect with the bus or have to wait.
Windsor is best by train from either waterloo or paddington. Hampton court Palace it will be best to go by train from waterloo. Do not let any ****** sell you the river boat trip which can take up to four hours. Lovely views but you will lose the will to live.
Can’t help you with hotels specifically other than to say the marriot as all hotels around heathrow are not in a nice location, the area around heathrow is a dump, mainly industrial with nothing to do in the evening so you will spend a lot of time travelling into london to go enjoy yourself.
By the way you said you wanted to go to RIAT? You are aware it is a long way from London? You will need to get a train to Swindon (don’t stop its a sh*t hole) or Oxford (do stop its lovely) from Paddington and then use the link coaches.
pjhydroWell I have certainly seen people argue that the UK should abandon its own defence procurement, re-structure along US lines, train with the US armed forces for maximum interoperability and just buy US equipment – that is an idea that personally I am against all the time that UK and US interests can conflict (such as Falkland Islands).
Its also a view that american stuff is some how always better, certainly not the case at all and European equipment is often much better, not always but tying ourselves to one procurement route would be bad.
As for training with the US and adopting their structures and doctrine…NO! The US Armed forces are a fine body of chaps and chappesess, but they are a bulk continental army based on a totally different doctrine. UK armed forces are a small expeditionary force trained overall to higher average standard but unable to launch mass continental army style ops. The UK and US compliment each other in our alliance just fine as we are.
pjhydroTaking the idea to the next step, the Joint Helicopter Command should transition to being part of the Army as well. I am not so sure about the Marines becoming Army, simply because I have not had a chance to research it as an idea, but I am fully supportive of either a separate but unified “Royal Helicopter Force” or with the Joint Helicopter Command becoming part of the Army.
If you are going to save money from an air point of view the three main options for consolidation are-
1) scrapping the RAF and splitting it between the FAA and AAC (RFC and RNAS?!) and giving the marines to the army. Two services with all the troops in one team and floaty things in the other. This view sees aircraft as just a vehicle, an adjunct to the main means of armed force which in this view are ships and troops.
2) scrapping the FAA and and AAC and making all air matters an RAF matter. which is the position between the Wars in the 1920s and 30s. This view sees aircraft as a force and weapon in their own right and not just a supporting vehicle to the other services.
3) scrapping all three services and having one armed force that sees all vehicles and troops types as a means to an end, ala the USMC.
There are pros and cons to all three views, i’m not a fan of the first one as I think its similar to the pro-horse/cavalry arguments of old, and the Army and Navy would go off and do air in seperate and not necesarily complementary ways. Given the size of the services I’m much more in favour of 2 and 3 and with my sense of tradition and history (though not too much) i think i would rather 2. Though 2 is much easier to justify if the RAF had a strategic level weapon (ie bombers) which it doesn’t.
pjhydroI was being flippant with the Tejas N by suggesting the cheapest fighter – I think Rafale or F-18E are realistic options dependent upon certain political realities – I guess both will require development work to integrate all the weapon systems the RAF want to use.
They are only realistic if you are going to get rid of a major chunk of the UK aviation industry that is building F35 sections. Neither aircraft is more than a remote possibility. Its F35 all the way.
I will need to look more carefully at the Royal Navy – I had seen a couple of “reports” written by various academics who have ex-Navy backgrounds (so quite biased) – one author strongly suggested that the Royal Marines need to be expanded and the amount of sea life increased (along with the air lift of the army) to give the UK the ability to deploy troops anywhere rapidly.
I kinda meant replacements of the existing replenishment ships – honest
There is lots of sealift and you use civvie stuff anyway for big ops. The RAF deffinately could do with a few more trash haulers though.
Personally I think the RM is big enough and frankly should be given over to the Pongos as an “Army Commando Brigade”, too much duplication of effort, training facilities, command structures etc. Would also give senior NCOs and officers better career opportunities.
Now I shall duck behind the parapet and put my fingers in my ears.
pjhydroIf you have good binos and some good lenses then I can recommend sitting in Hyde Park as a leisurley way of watching Heathrow(of course wind dependent!) You also avoid the hassle of getting to Heathrow. It is also the best place to view flypasts over london, the tourists all rush to the Mall, locals sit in speakers corner. (nearest tube Marble Arch Central Line)
Northala Hills in Northolt can give you some long range views of both Heathrow and RAF Northolt and the chopper approach to Northolt goes right over you. (Northolt -central Line)
Go for a day out in Windsor and you get double the visit for your money – nice historic town and heathrow traffic.
Being a west londoner can I recommend that the only sane way to get to Heathrow is the Heathrow Connect service from Paddington. It stops at most of the stations on the way but is a lot cheaper than the Heathrow Express for not being much slower. Its a hell of a lot quicker than the Piccadilly Line (unless you have a thing for minature trains built in the early 1970s) and the bus routes are for those who enjoy self-harm.
Enjoy your stay and if its raining do pop into RAF Museum Hendon (Colindale -Northern Line) and or the Science Museum Kensington (South Kensington District Line)
pjhydroAs for a fighter…one from a long ago fantasy of mine…. UK Licence built Viggen fitted with UK radar and EW, with retractable IFR probe and carrying Active Sky Flash/ASRAAM for the Fighter role (purchased instead of Tonka F3) and laser pod/LGBs and full range of UK attack ordance for use as Jag replacement. Purchased in the 80s they would have been a perfect RAF Germany airframe replacing Jags (love the recce nose) and Phantom. Regular autobahn deployments, would have bee right at the front of the airfight in GW1 rather than playing goalie like the F3s did….
pjhydroI always thought it was a shame that back in the 70s a “tanker nimrod” wasn’t offered. Would have carried a lot more fuel than all those old v-bombers if the cabin and bomb-bay area had been full of aeroplane juice.
If the airframe line had been kept going and sensible decisions made, then airframes for AEW (based on APS 139) and CASTOR (as developed in the early 80s) could also have been built giving the UK a single type for most of its large aircraft.
pjhydro– Just goes show you can never trust a politician to tell you a straight story 🙂
Well indeed, especially when they have arms to sell and enemies to convince of USN invincibility. They really stood still when they took on the Shornet.
– I rather have the F-35 over the Super Hornet, but I also rather have enough aircraft to do the job.
True enough, though numbers aren’t everything, the application of effect is very important, its not just an economic arguement about doing more with less.
– I thought the RAF was all hot an heavy for the F-35 as they see it replacing the Jaguar, GR 4, and the Harrier. Though in theory they do not need to replace the GR 4 until 2025 as that is the proposed out of service date. Hence the original proposal by RAF for 150 (I think this was the number proposed) which just keeps getting smaller and smaller. Do you really think 50 F-35’s is enough to cover all the roles envisaged for the F-35?
The RAF would be hot and heavy if you offered them three sqns of Sopworth Camels. There is still no firm decisions about the numbers of F35s to be finally purchased, i’ll be suprised if its as low as 50. But do remember that BAE is developing some rather nifty UAVs and UCAVs and that the days of predominately manned aircraft for combat are probably drawing to a close so investing in too many manned FJs will leave no money for the really cool toys.
– Understood (from various articles on the internet) the standard complement on the QE would be a full air wing of F-35 and 4 helicopters, is this incorrect?
Thats the max possible strike load. Generally they will operate with an air group little bigger than a Invincible, which is fine. The beauty of QE will be its ability to take a bigger air wing when its required.
– The main draw back of STOL carriers is that you can only operate your STOL fighters, the Osprey and Helo’s and there are a range of other aircraft you can be operating if you have CATOBAR carrier (like the Hawkeye). As I am a civvie I have no idea if the advantages of CATOBAR out weighs the advantage of STOL or not.
Yes and no, I hear your arguement but for a the sake of possibly being able to buy some different aircraft CATOBAR is expensive to set up and run by an order of magnitude over STOVL. As it is F35b will be better than F18 and Rafale and ASAC 7 Seaking/merlin is currently considered only inferior to Hawkeye in terms of endurance/op height, the Radar is worshipped across NATO. Its a far more adaptable platform, the RN can operate it off of LPHs, auxillaries etc which means you can send that level of surval capability anywhere you like, otherwise you would have to send a QE to have a Hawkeye overhead.
pjhydroNot much of an advantage. A real CV would have had “buddy-pod” refueling. Also…..if Britain had had its real CVs…Argentina probably wouldnt have invaded in the first place.
Not sure they wouldn’t have invaded, thats often quoted but has no evidence to actually back it up, its always been an assumption. People seem to imagine that Ark Royal would have been some magic deterrent from any military disaster befalling the nation.
There were many advantages of SHAR/VSTOL ops.
It operated in weathers that the old Ark could not have launched or recovered in.
In the event of emergency aircraft could land essentially anywhere and an airstrip was set up on land at the earliest convinence. In the event of a major accident on the flight deck (much higher risk with CATOBAR ops) nobody has to face ditching.
Reinforcement was easy as aircraft were transported and flown off a civvie cargo ship or were flown direct to the carriers where some RAF pilots made their first carrier landing.
Small size of aircraft saw a larger airgroup given the size of available vessels.
The RAF could send its Harriers to join the party.
safety was improved, the accident rate for the sortie rate was much lower than for a CV in wartime conditions. As Sharkey Ward says its so much safer to stop an aircraft and land on a ship than do it the other way round.
The Harrier was actually a really good fighter plane, often overlooked in discussions about this.
pjhydroBuilding Britains ultimate warship? You mean the ones with the screwed up wiring looms on its main armament? The ones with grandads Mk8 peashooter strapped to the front, the ones with no CIWIS or SSMs fitted? The same ones yeah?
pjhydro2) Politics is why we would need to westernise the plane, as otherwise we would be in a tricky situation – needing to buy spares and the like from Russia who could withhold on a whim, plus they are noted for being slow to release spares. Plus on top this Su-33 is not up to the same spec as later Flankers, and Russia would never agree to produce Su-33 variant incorporating all their latest goodies, so we would have to westernise to bring it up to spec against later model flankers the Russians have been selling successfully all over the place.
You would have to build every inch of it to ensure parts supply, so full licence production in the UK for a short run of a unique model that has had a major redesign to be “westernised”- essentially you would be building a new aircraft and one with cr*p RCS. Just buy F35, its going to be a great piece of kit, honest it is….
pjhydroUnless things change the RAF will operate the carrier fighters on behalf of the RN, so they will be RAF assets and purchased out of the RAF budget.
Why do you say that? There have been no ultimate decisions on who gets what with regards to F35. I would imagine that a FAA 7** number plate will appear soon as the Op and development unit for the type and while a large number of light blue pilots will be involved thats no different to almost anytime in the FAAs history.
I thought that the argument (by Gates when he was cancelling more F-22) was that there were unlikely that the F/A-18E would be facing a peer rival until 2024 and is the basis of why the USN is not procuring a direct replacement for the F/A-18E until ~ 2025 (possibly the Boeing F/A-XX fighter).
F/A18E has tons of peer rivals, always has done. The USN had to pursue the cheap option with the Shornet, they got nothing like the aircraft they would have actually liked.
I have no idea the average service life of a CATOBAR fighter is but I think it is less than the 20 year projected life of F-35B in RAF service.
I think the RAF is hoping for more than 20 years out of the F35, more like 30+. as for the life of Catobar fighters, Various Tomcat airframes operated for more than two decades with the USN.
I would rather see the carriers switched to CATOBAR and operate F-35C, or if they are out of the price range the F/A-18E or Rafales. If they are going with F-35B then I think they need at least 100 to fill the carrier decks and fulfil the land based operations. As I have said earlier while it will never happen I would be happy seeing the RAF buying 80 F/A-18E for the CVF’s and another 40 F-35B’s for land based operations.
The reality is manifold.
-The UK cannot afford to add two new types and probably doesn’t actually need to as F35 and F18E would do broadly the same thing in different ways -IMHO the F35 will be superior by far.
-Only one carrier is likely to be at sea in a strike role and will probably only need to carry a sqn of F35 for day to day peacetime training with an ability to reinforce in a crisis, so 100 is both unlikely and actually an expensive luxury, the RN does not need to “fill its decks” everyday.
-This divide between “land ops and naval ops” is a false one. With a proper strike carrier on station a “land op” can be given air support – the navy’s main role will be supporting such ops NOT blue water sea superiority ops. It also ignores the other weapons in the RAF armoury like Typhoon, Reaper and future UCAVs which will all be used in “land ops” as well as the AACs apache which are now the CAS platform of choice.
-QEs are not just platforms for F35 et al so filling them with fast jets is not actually healthy. While FJs are flash and exciting the primary air platform of the Navy is Merlin. The F35s will be there to protect them, in the same way that Swordfish was the main platform of the FAA in WW2 and the various exciting (and not so exciting -fulmar) fighters were there to let them do their job properly.
-Remember the advantages STOVL brought the UK in the Falklands. For instance Phantoms could not have landed on the back of HMS Fearless in an emergency to refuel like the SHAR did. The RN is married to STOVL for a very good set of reasons.
pjhydroSorry to put a downer on it but I wouldn’t bother to even attempt such a conversion for all sorts of reasons. It would be politically unpalatable on both sides, lets face it relations between the UK and Russia have never been great and are not exactly at one of thier high points now.
The Su33 would not be right for the intended role either, its not particularly stealthy or netcentric so would not make a great first day of war strike platform – a role the QEs and F35s are intended for.
It is also a little “patronising” (and I mean this in the nicest possible way) to suggest a russian aircraft needs to be westernized, as if all western kit is automatically brilliant and superior and russian kit inversely so.
Save your development money and continue to purchase the F35 which we have already spent millions on and helped design so it is tailored to our needs and requirements. Its going to be a great aircraft and one the FAA will be able to really do the business of building a proper strike force with.
Sign In
