SintraAre you talking about the need to replace Tornado?. If so I agree…the requirement to bomb Eastern Europe from the UK has diminished to a large extent. Replacing Jaguar and GR7/9 though I’d say is a different story. Typhoon looks to have rather a large price tag when it comes to operational costs. I’d say a STOL precision light striker with fair air-air performance with far lower operational costs and ‘easy’ deployability is something that the RAF does need…though, not being glitzy and flash, I’d imagine you’d be hard pushed to find an RAF officer to agree.
“Requirement to bomb Eastern Europe”?!!!!
I´ll be damned if the western Airforces havent been launching long range strikes since the end of the cold war…
Iraq 1991
Operation Provide Confort, Northern Watch, Southern Watch, etc (a full decade of it)
Operation Deny Flight
Operation Deliberate Force (Bosnia) 1995
Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) 1999
Afghanistan 2001
Iraqi Freedom 2003
From the entire RAF inventory the aircraft who was more widely used, launched more munitions, had more flights, etc, etc, etc, was the Tonka.
For all the love that the Harrier gathers around here, that particular aircraft had to tail a refueler over a great big chunk of Iraq and Jugoslavia because it has the range of an AMX or Hawk 200…
If there´s one aircraft in the RAF inventory that proved that its mission is vital, thats the Tornado, and the RAF entirely agrees.
SintraSerious Question? What part of the Typhoon isn’t ‘Modern Military Aircraft’?
This part?
:diablo:
I´l get me coat 😀
SintraAccording to Dassault (fox 3 on libya) and the french air force (Air & Cosmos and others) it was indeed SPECTRA who allowed the rafale to operate the first day of war with enough confidence.
Eagle1
On the first day of operations over libya there were Mirage 2000 D´s and dash-5 roaming around.
SintraWhich actually strengthens the argument about Britain militarizing the dispute.
Nope, the British Military presence didnt increase one iota in two and a half decades.
Besides, I think Mildave was referring to the scenario mooted earlier i.e. Britain confronting a united South American front.
Ok.
SintraIn the context PPP put it, been the “good guy” would be the hero who can rescue the Falklands. That would be pretty hard to do right now. The UK would have to be able to fund a war logistically very far away from home that would last months, with very little friendly bases or support.
The recent scrapping by the actual government were done by assuming that the UK would not in the future have to go to war alone, but only as part of a coalition that could fill the gap they’re currently experiencing.Defending the Falkland would require the deployment of a naval task force with very little air support (close to none if the Falkland airfield is closed), with assets that would need to be replaced regularly (which would be hard given the current situation).
Mildave
With the current situation of the Argentina´s Armed Forces, the British Military presence in the Falklands is an absolute overkill.
SintraI’m saying that the RAF would have to manage the feat of keeping its shore-tasked pilots CATOBAR deck qualified whilst they are on whatever detchment happens to be a requirement at the time….otherwise it will not be able to generate pilots and airframes to get out to the carrier if needed. Even if the light blue were absolutely wild with enthusiasm at the idea of carrier basing that would be difficult to achieve in a short space of time. Needless to say they will be less than enthusiastic about the prospect.
…and how many of these were flown from a CATOBAR deck by pilots retasked from shore duties straight out to the ship at zero notice?. That is what Carrier Strike requires.
I would assume that as there is only one active Rafale-M squadron and it is permanently assigned to naval ops it would be little different than the way that the UK NSW would be permanently assigned to the CVF. Difference is that the Aeronavale augments its Rafale-M squadron with two further DEDICATED naval strike squadrons on Etendards.
Will you understand that we WILL NOT have three dedicated naval squadrons under Carrier Strike. The issue isnt keeping a dozen or so fastjets available on a carrier deck. Its where the augmentation comes from in case we need to put the extra striking squadrons on the deck that is the whole issue here. We cannot generate the hundred sorties per day required for surge ops with just the dozen aircraft of the NSW so we HAVE to have squadrons to add to the embarked airgroup. Those squadrons will need deck qualified pilots if they are to deploy to the carrier…keeping those pilots current and available….while keeping some form of training programme under way and meeting the RAF’s shore-based taskings is almost impossible without a ridiculous ratio of pilots to aircraft.
Likely as they spent several weeks flying CATOBAR approaches etc in the US before hand. Type conversion can be done on a simulator as its principally a task of learning the controls, where all the buttons are and getting used to visibility out of the ‘cockpit’. You dont deck qualify in a sim.
Likely as there were ‘only’ 8 aircraft from a dedicated naval squadron running Rafale-M operations. Something which could scarcely be more different to what were talking about with Carrier Strike. Terrifying figure of 6 day traps and 4 night traps PER PILOT!!!. If we suddenly need to requalify 10 RAF pilots to get them up to operational status thats 100 traps altogether then figure in another, say, 100 missed approaches, bolters etc. This has to be worked into the operational flying programme with jets who’s deck fatigue life is measured in launch/trap cycles.
No the French do the real work in the US and fly practice approaches on shore facilities. Just as SRL is suddenly a different proposition in adverse sea states and weather conditions so is CATOBAR. The same factors apply.
Which Aeronavale squadron is joint roled with the AdlA?. I’ve not heard of 12F or 17F spending months on shore detachment before joining back up with the ship?.
Absolutely right.
Just my 2 cents, there´s a bloody big Elephant in the room that no one mentioned till now; how in the hell is the RAF suposed to maintain the equivalent of a pair of sqn´s proeficient in CATOBAR operations, when they are losing fast jet sqn´s left and right?
If the present MOD plans for the RAF dont get a 180º turn we are going to see the Typhoon T1 demise from 2019 onwards, the entire Tornado GR4 fleet will left the scene by 2025, the acquisition of the Typhoon T3B is dead and the JCA buy will get slashed.
We are looking at something like a fleet composed of 120 Typhoons and 40/80 JCA´s, six to eight sqn´s (including the OCU´s), thats the QRA mission over GB plc and the Falklands more one, maybe (with luck) two (small) sqn´s available for everything else but QRA…
CATOBAR training with that kind of numbers?! Hilarious.
For comparison purposes, the French “Livre Blanc de la defense” advocates a 13,5 sqn Adla/MN fleet backed up by 300 airframes.
SintraThe assumption being the only reason the South Americans would stand with the Argentinians is oil. That’s actually an attitude I’ve found many British commentators take – they don’t really know what to make of the uniform support Argentina has garnered across Latin America including Mexico and far off countries like China & Russia, and prefer to ignore it altogether and focus on Argentina. The US has taken a neutral position while the EU is gradually moving towards a neutral position as well. Even stalwart allies of the UK like Canada have refrained from publicly backing its position. And if the Royal Navy’s SSNs were to start sinking civilian shipping in regional or international waters, the internal pressure in the UK itself would force the British govt to the negotiating table.
As for purposes, perhaps the South Americans are in for the same reason the UK insists on an obdurate course of action today – to deny Britain a strategic footprint in the South Atlantic.
Vnomad
You are confusing diplomatic stances with the possibility of a military coalition.
If by some unbelivable fate (actualy nothing short of a miracle), Argentina in a decade would find himself in a position to military defy the UK, the rest of South America would not involve themselves in any “Falklands round II” (nevermind what Chavez says).
There´s not any chance of something like a South American military expedition for the “Reconquista das Malvinas”, nada, zero.
SintraCanada need range above all else, for almost exclusively A2A/CAP work,
Oh blasted…
The RAF chaps were in a bloody hurry to scrap them…
😀
SintraATD-X also removes any objections within the US Government for allowing Japan to build licensed F-35s and allowing Japan to modify them for JSDF-specific requirements.
You mean that the translation of “ATD-X” to English is “Replica”?
Might be.
SintraOn a personal note I have seen a few threads accross mutiple forums ruined by a handful of rabid argentine posters, on this thread the argentine poster has been extremely civil (in the face of some quite aggressive provocation). Can we all please post with civility and a measure of respect.
Indeed.
SintraI’m not comparing them to the EU or even the ASEAN but they’re united at least as far as this issue is concerned.
OH, i see. On this particular issue most of them are indeed behind Argentina (i wouldnt vouch for Chile).
SintraToday they are united and are led by a future world power. Circumstances change.
South America united?
Led by Brasil?
They are far from United and chaps like Hugo Chavez or Cristina Kirchner are far, far from being led by Dilma.
Its a vast improvement over the situation two decades ago, but even so.
SintraConsidering the cut backs we have now seen in the RN and the fact that in the future we are likely to only have one carrier in operation at any one time. Having 6 Type 45 destroyers is probably enough.
This is a classic example of mission creep we have enough area defence destroyers and extremely good ones at that. Our frigates will go from having a point defence system to having a local area defence system. So why oh why do we need to waste money gold plating extra equipment on the Type 26’s that we have no need for.
The Italians are in a different situation as they only have two Horizon class destroyers and yet have two carriers. The French are in a similar situation.
The original 12 Daring plan was based on having just “one carrier in operation at any one time”, then the orders were slashed to eight and then six. If those six are “enough”, god knows, the main cuts to the fleet were on escorts, ships who do have a AAW self defence capability and dont need a Daring around most of the time, on the other hand most of the expeditionary and suply ships are still there and those do need escorts.
SintraNo. Sea Wolf is point defence and FLAADS expressly is concerned with local area defence. SAAM ESD I thought was a local air defence capability predominantly as there is no VSR embarked?.
“Local” in this case means eight ASTER 30 in the air at the same time with a detection range of 180 km´s versus a RCS of a fighter.
Think of the French FREDA´s but with the anti submarine hardware still on the ship.
Different concepts, but, intended to deliver the same capability. Instead of a few AAW-optimised FFG’s you have local air defence on all FFGs. Far better solution in my view.
No, the capability is not the same, and the Italian ships are not “AAW-optimised”, they are GP frigates with a realistic ASTER 30 capability. The only way that we can say the capabilty is the “same” is we dont look at specifications.
And no one was asking to delete the CAAM´s capability in every Type 26, quite the contrary, do an “Italian” on three or four ships, and you get a very decent AAW area capability that can suplement the “Darings”. If three or four sets of SAMPSON and C2 kit are too expensive, ask Selex how much they want for the KRONOS, its a less capable, smaller piece of hardware, should be cheaper.
SintraIt is doing so on all of them. The FLAADS concept is for the provision of local area defence based on the Sea Ceptor missile. That is slated for initial deployment on the Dukes passing to T26 as they replace the older units.
Completely diferent ball game here, the FLAADS is a direct replacement for the Type´s 23 Sea Wolf´s, the SAAM ESD is an extended area defense with a realistic ASTER 30 capability.
Sign In
