sealordlawrenceThe general consensus was that the mission had changed, that they may have been mislead by Nato as to what was really happening on the ground, and that as a consequence they had taken a knife to Gunfight.
I spoke to some people at NATO head-quaters before christmas and they were very clear that the move in to the south would involove heavy offensive ground based COIN operations. People there seemed quite proud, as its sort of a first for NATO. If the MoD was mislead in this way it was the only organisation that was, and frankly the brits should have done there own intel anyway. No other country appears to be having these issues, the canadians went fully equiped and some of the other European countrys are simply avoiding the area.
sealordlawrenceThe fire was basically used as an excuse to decommision her by the government. She underwent a massive reconstruction between 1950 and 1955 from which she came out as the most modern aircraft carrier in the world fitted with the Type-984 3-D radar. The reconstruction was huge one of the most comprehensive ever undertaken on any ship, everything from the Hangar deck upwards was rebuilt- hence why it took 5 years.
I can imagine that she would have been pretty expensive to operate, bearing in mind she was the only one of her kind by this time in comparison to the vast number of the light fleet carriers which were floating around, not to mention her being significantly bigger and heavier with alot of expensive kit. Below is a link with some great Victorious pictures (post reconstruction). In my opinion she is one of the best looking warships ever built after her refit.
http://www.navyphotos.co.uk/victorious.htm
In one of the pics you will see that she has 27 aircraft on deck, 7 Westland Wessex, 4 fairy Gannet, 10 DeHavilland Sea Vixens and six supermarine Scimitars. So I dont think that it is inconcievable that she could have operated an airwing of upto 30 A-4’s and S-2’s.
sealordlawrenceNot my intrest at all. But it is still a surprise, when the best “independent” European airforce shows a lack of deployable air-assets. If I remember well it was not about a huge number, but just a dozen choppers at best. Surplus fighters in Europe are of little help, when in need of more choppers. When it comes to armed forces the number of armed fighters are just one part of a mix only. So the question is still allowed, do the British Forces have the right mix to fullfill all commitments. Apaches in the UK are of little help in Afghanistan and a waste of taxpayers-money there. Those were bought to fullfill a military task at first and not to keep British soldiers in the UK busy at first. One third of every force can be committed everywhere without setbacks in training personal.
In your haste to attack the quality of the British armed forces you have failed to follow the story, it is not a case of a lack of deployable assets in this case but rather a lack of deployed assets. So your question does not stand.
sealordlawrenceMig-29 OVT Technology Demonstrator with Wingtip missiles
Thats not a technology demonstrator its a mock-up, it never flew anywhere, this is the mig-29OVT
sealordlawrencesealord,
I agree with MKIs, Mirage-2000s, Jaguars and other aircraft we are in good shape specially with the 125 MRCAs but I believe its too early to talk about JF-17 and J-10s. So far Jf-17s specs looks impressive, specially now PAF is working with French, Turkey and South Africa I think that aircraft will evolve and in IAF’s strategic planning that variable should be a part of the equation.
Given J-17s will be the backbone of the defense and will replace their point defence fighters but it would not remain in such a role. Their goal is to make that aircraft in a few different role specific configurations such as certain squadron will be for point defence and others in interdiction, precision attack role such as our Jaguars to some extent.
I think in all we should be realistic and hiding from the reality wouldn’t make it go away.
I agreeentirely but the small size of the JF-17 will significantly limit its strike capabilitys, and I think the procurement of the F-16’s is in many ways a demonstration of this.
sealordlawrenceI think we need to look at this deal with a more realistic approach and see how it would effect india’s military capabilities rather than chest thumping. As far as tech transfer is concerned, same can be said about possible F-18 sale specially with AESA radar to go in Russian hands.
From the indian side, the silence on this form suggests we were caught with our pants down, did we know that such a deal will be made at some point whether it be US or europe. Honestly guys, how long did you expect that PAF will sit without a 5th generation fighter and BVR capability. Rumor has it that they have even loaded the mirages with south african BVR missile.
One thing that I am amazed is the choice of weapons they have gone for. It seems like PAF is going after more precision guide weapons specially in the areana of stand-off munitions. They seem to be learning a lot from the excercises in Turkey learning NATO rules or engagement.
I hope we can take this acquisition seriously, face and discuss the implication of it in a more professional manner.
Very well said, but ultimately with India soon to be operating 180 Su-30MKI’s, the upgraded Mig-21s/29’s and a possible Mirage-2000 upgrade not to mention the MRCA programme the Indian Military advantage will likely be virtually untouched. The bias towards the precision strike capability in this procurement suggests shows the limitations of what other aircraft the PAF are procuring in this area. The FC-1 and the J-10 are both primarily A2A platforms and the FC-1 is realy to small to be a viable strike platform anyway. Had it have not been for this deal I would not have been surprised to see the JH-7A in PAF colours.
sealordlawrenceSomething off-the-shelf maybe?
Im surprised you dont understand this yet Arthur, in order for the next US regional bomber to be truly effective it needs to be in development for at least 20 years, the cost has to escalate expidentially, certain features therefore have to be ommitted and procurement cut back. Then when it finally eneters service it has to be widly criticised for not being needed anymore, then and only then will it be a successful project- I dont know where you got this ‘of the shelf’ idea from. 😀
sealordlawrencethe Aus proposal doesnt show a 3D radar on rear mast and a smaller mast for comms and EW gear. I doubt the picture shown would be how it finally turned out. every new-gen ship has a 3D search radar for backup.
Although this is something that is being challenged, BAe claim that Sampson alone would be sufficient for the T-45’s. And the Meko-X design which would use the CEA AESA radar dosnt have one either.
sealordlawrencevery nice
sealordlawrenceWhy don’t all Mig-29’s have them?
No Mig-29’s have them. As to why I simply dont know, Im not an expert on aerodynamics or the internal structure of Mig-29 wings. But it should be pointed out that the latest Mig-29 variants are not realy short of hardpoints with 4 under each wing.
sealordlawrence” Brits short of airpower in Afghanistan”
was the correct question. It seems correct to me, in a modern net-centric warfare it is obsolete to differ between AF, Naval fliers and Army fliers any longer, when it comes to the best support of own groundforces.
The question was best airforce in Europe in 2010, not best European airforce in Afghanistan 2007. The Brits have the Apaches and the other aircraft they need for this deployment they just havnt been sent to Afghanistan so you can take your unfounded attempt at downplaying the British armed forces elsewhere.
sealordlawrenceThat would have been the MOCK-UP of the Mig-29OVT, it had wingtip mounted AAM’s but when the real thing flew recently they were nowhere to be seen so it is likely that the idea has been dropped.
sealordlawrenceWhat do they cost compared to the T45 ?
No don’t tell me, no doubt about half the price…………..
Well seeing as Arabel is considered inferior to Sampson, it is quite possible. The gun arrangement is ridiculous, it dosnt allow for the future fitting of a large calibre gun, unlike the T-45 which could take one of the new 5 inchs or a 39 calibre 155mm.
sealordlawrenceAgree with everything you said Sealord. I have my doubts about the Supacat thing. I have’t seen the spec, but I suspect that unless the gun can be demounted and moved separately, it would be too heavy for any of the UK Helicopters to lift.
The Canadians went out and bought some M777’s for this deployment and excalibur rounds as they though it was going to be tricky. I don’t doubt we have enough Apaches (somewhere) but as to whether we have enough pilots is another matter.
Indeed it would be too heavy for any UK helicopters but it would still be lighter than the Giat option.
Dont even get me started on the Apache pilot training fiasco, words do not exist to describe MoD incompetancy.
sealordlawrenceAmen to that!
The XM777 is utterly perfect for the UK armed forces, considering the MOD is doing a comparative study of this weapon against the French truck mounted 155mm weapon is crazy.
BAe have even managed to mount the XM777 on the Supacat thus making it self propelled if thats what the MoD want.
Sign In
