seahawkAgreed!
As far as I see it, the choices for the Nimrods are scrapping or storing. I can’t think of any potential customers. Scrapping would be such a waste!
I can think of some potential customers for the Sentinels, or perhaps they could be offered up as a UK contribution to the NATO AGS requirement, thus sharing the cost but keeping the capability, even if shared. Not optimal, but infinitely better than scrapping.
The Sentinels could find many customers. It was the topic when it comes to the SDR in some circles here in Germany. The NATO idea seems to be one that other have as well.
With regard to the number of F-35 on the carrier. The airframes might not be the limiting factor, but the pilots. In a joint RAF/RN unit I would be surprised if the RAF pilots go through carrier training (in the US?) due to the costs.
seahawkPerhaps to retain an SH capability should we required it at some point outside of the desert without pressurising the Chinook and Merlin fleets? Only a guess, but possible.
Could be. But you probably could get some basic new helicopters for the same money. Fewer airframes, but at least some with a service life ahead of them.
seahawkAs an outsider I find a few decisions quite strange.
1. Drop the MR4.A
The development has been paid for, the planes have mostly been built and could serve for at least 25 years, yet they are sent to the boneyard. The UK will be left without a MPA. Even if you do not need them as subhunters, protection when the nuclear subs leave the harbour or for anti-shipping duties, there is still need for a plane to do fishery protection, SAR, ISTAR.
2. Drop the Sentinel R.1
A highly rated ISTAR asset with a unique capability in Europe. The airframes are new and have just about become fully effective. I hope they find a new home with NATO, as NATO was looking for such a “Joint-Stars” aircraft. The Sentinel could be the manned element.
3. New carriers
It sounds strange to have the first carrier built as a oversized LPH, but maybe it will become a real carrier in the future. No word about the number of CATOBAR planes so far. And I am scared by the idea of using it in a combined RAF/RN unit, when one has to consider how much training carrier ops need.
4. Puma up-date
What is the point? Afghanistan has to end in next years, one way or the other. Spending money to get de decade more live out of those aging airframes seems pointless.
5. Frigates
Apart from the carriers, the RN will only be able to do peace time patrols.
I think it is a really bad cut and took away some unique capabilites from the UK´s armed forces. Compared to the other bigger European armies, the Uk now seems seriously unbalanced.
seahawkThere is nothing wrong with the Typhoon. The cuts to the armed forces just come more quickly, than the service introduction planed for. Remember todays Typhoon were meant to replace Tornado F.3. Batch 2 (currently getting ready) replaces the Jaguars and maybe Batch 3 (whole batch 3) could have replaced some Tornados.
So the development route was:
1. air to air
2. limited CAS and air to ground
3. air to ground and strike
seahawk@Swerve
VTOL jets are STOVL in practice. Short Take Off and (eventually) Vertical Landing. So it is true to a certain degree.
Harriers normally DO NOT take off vertically. That’s the reason because we have sky jumps too.
But the basic things like working on a flight deck, towing done the “aircraft”, working on a carrier, etc. are still the same. The basic operational procedures between a STOVL jet and a helicopter are imho less different than a STOVL to a CATOBAR jet.
In the end the decision to give up the Harrier can only be judged, when we know which F-35 will be used on the carriers. If it turns out to be F-35B, retiring the Harriers early is pure idiocy, if it is F-35C, I would say that capability gap for Naval aviation is less severe than the loss of the whole Tornado force would be for the RAF right now. Especially as there are more Tornados than Harriers in the RAF. I doubt the Harriers could do their basic mission on the carriers and take the place of the Tornados in Afghanistan.
Typhoon simply is not ready yet. Neither in numbers nor in technical capability to take-over the role of the Tornado GR.4. Tornado F.3 and Jaguar yet.
I just hope the the UK sees the light in the future and buys 70+ F-35C and tranche 3B Tiffies. And I hope both carriers will be able to use the F-35 (in which form) ever and that you will have enough airframes to fill the decks of both carriers in an emergency.
seahawkAnd again i point out that Typhoon was planned to go in Afghanistan next year in place of Tornado, instead. RAF official plan it was. Now, of course, they can’t do it or they make it evident that their cry about Tornado is far less serious than it seems.
Yes and they dropped the plan because they had not enough trained crews nor airframes for training and the air defence mission. So it tells me that a PR mission (like the Rafales in Afghanistan) was cancelled.
Operating helos or operating jets, i think i can say, is even more different than VTOL or CTOL, so i have to disagree on this point too, personally. And that’s CATOBAR, actually. CTOL is Conventional Take Off and Landing, while CATOBAR is Catapult Assisted Take Off, Barrier Assisted Recovery, if i recall correctly.
F35A is CTOL
F35C is CATOBAR
VTOL jets and helicopters are both VTOL when it comes to carriers. I fail to see the big difference for the ground crew.
seahawkWrong 1: Tornado has nothing to share with carrierborne operations. Even if VTOL changes to CATOBAR F35C, it makes more sense to keep operating Harriers at sea because:
1) Operations on carriers is not only pilots, but crew on the ship directing the operations and supporting the planes. So a 7 years gap in aircraft operations at sea would be a MASSIVE damage.
2) Tornado can’t do the work that Harrier does. The Harrier can do the Afghan mission just as well as the Tornado, and it did until 2009 with high degree of satisfaction and success.Wrong 2: it is not 1 year but 7 at best: if Harrier goes next year (and almost certainly the two remaining Invincibles will be decommissioned immediately after, once their reason d’etrè is killed, this being the “hidden part” of the cut), the [B]UK will be TOTALLY AND DEFINITIVELY INCAPABLE TO MOUNT ANY AIRCRAFT OPERATION AT SEA AT THE VERY BEST UNTIL 2018. 7 YEARS OF EVIDENT VULNERABILITY, ONE OF THE GREATEST GAMBLES EVER.
According to the USMC the difference between VTOL and CTOL ops is quite huge. So for the flying personal the continued VTOL use would mean nothing. Deckhandlers and mechanics can also train on the current VTOL with helicopters, which would still leave them decent assault carriers, especially if the AH-64 goes to sea.
Typhoon is not able to take over the Tornado mission till 2018. Apart from the technical problems of not integrated weapons, there are simply to few airframes, to train the new Sqns, keep the air defence mission of the UK and the Falklands going and also replace the Tornados. Typhoon was not sent on a PR mission to Afghanistan for that reasons.
So while the UK would give-up a very limited carrier strike group (Harriers without a radar) for a limited period, it keeps the better strike aircraft, recon plane and SEAD plane.
And if you want to concentrate on the needs for COIN campaigns like Afghanistan, then I am gonna say that you do need the carriers for that either, nor F-35.
seahawkSome thoughts.
If the RN really gets F-35C for the carriers, then withdrawing the Harrier and keeping the Tornado for now makes sense. The Tornado is the more capable aircraft and for operating CTOL jets from the carriers the pilots will have to retrain anyway, so continued VTOL ops won´t do much good.
If the F-35C arrives on time, having a carrier without an airgroup for a year is not that bad.
seahawkThe problem is that all fighters operating from the carriers to operate in Afghanistan needed tankers to get there. Can the RAF support such a operation with 12 KC-30?
seahawkWhy do you believe that the SRVL is any way connected to the UK? the USMC is planning to field a all F-35B force in future and USMC squadrons will fly from US carriers just like they are doing today with their F-18s. The SRVL would allow the Bs to integrate much easier into a landing cycle of the carrier and bring home more ammo.
seahawkThe problem rather is what is the point of faster helicopters. The MV-22 made sense for the US Marines and the Special Forces,but in general I wonder if there is much sense to a faster helicopter.
The faster they go the higher they have to fly and while 450 km/h is fast for a helicopter it is slow for any target flying at medium level over serious air defences.
For civil helicopters it is a similar problem. The costs of the more complex machine is hardly off-set by the faster flying time in most applications, especially if it comes with a drawback in the hover or in the access to the cabin.
seahawkSorry to keep banging on about this, but your sea blindness is showing again. Most of the uses of naval forces aren’t for naval conflicts, but in support of land forces, including COIN & peacekeeping.
I do not say one option is preferable over the other, I say that these seem to be the 2 general options considered.
But on the other hand the UK needs to examine it defence situation. It is not 1935. The likelihood of armed conflict in central and western Europe has never been lower. There is not direct threat to the UK. On the other hand the debt of the country and the interests you have to pay each year is big. Cutting the aremd forces seems to be a prudent move to save money and reduce the deficit and the debt.
And this is not only the UK, this is true for most European nations. The Spanish and Italians should do the same and all others well. Germany should reduce it forces even more.
seahawkIf you are facing some of the best air defence system in the world, a plane that can be had as a dedicated Jamming and SEAD platform might look very attractive.
seahawkNot using your forces is never a failure. Yet one could argue that the need to intervene in a COIN pr peace keeping mission, might be higher than the expected need for a naval conflict.
seahawkPhasing out ships or reducing the number of soldiers works equally we..
Sign In
