Grim901What i dont understand is, with a army of 109,000 and about 10,000 being deployed in Afghanistan why do you hear on the Beeb that the british army is over stretched?
Only a certain percentage of the 100,000 can be deployed at once. For every troop in theatre there are 3 to 4 more on R&R, training etc. Keep in mind the troops can only be deployed for 6 months every 2 years.
You also have other standing commitments that the army has to meet. And then you have the lack of numbers in certain specialities that make it hard to deploy certain troops in sufficient numbers.
At the very best, with plenty of notice, no other commitments and no likely threats elsewhere, I reckon maybe 30,000 could be deployed for a short scale operation as long as those numbers didn’t have to be sustained.
Grim901Does the UK require any longer range Air defence missiles in the future? Will there be a purchase of Aster land missile system? This is an area the UK doesn’t seem to bother with. After blood hound and Thunder bird were retired there hasn’t been a long range replacement. As Ballistic missiles become more of a threat what will the UK solution be. Either to rely on the americans or to purchase a system like Arrow or patriot. We all know how good patriot is at shooting down aircraft! it made mincemeat of a tornado. Maybe they will end up with the Aster system and develop it into a better system. I am of the opinion that he UK doesn’t like long range SAM’s as it can’t be used as a warning shot.
For the rapier and starstreak replacements this looks like it will be far off in the future. CAMM is 1 option but i guess we will just wait and see.
I’d like to see SAMP/T in UK service with air defence and ABM missiles. It’d make sense for deploying to the middle East as there are plenty of ballistic missiles about in the hands of potential enemies (not that I see us in another war over there right now).
The UK itself (the country) doesn’t really need them for now, and if it did it’d make more sense just to use/upgrade buy more T45’s and alter them for ABM tasks too.
Grim901My point is that CdeG is a proper carrier designed to operate that kind of aircraft i.e it has catapaults and arrester gear but no ski jump. Our new carriers are intended to operate V/STOL aircraft so they have ski jump fore-ends and no catapaults or arrester gear. Would you fancy trying to fly a Rafale, even without a combat load, off a 100000 ton carrier under its own power alone? If your answer is yes then you are crazier than I gave you credit for
The CVF is very adaptable and designed so that cats can be added fairly easily at a later date, I assume that is what would be done before trying to launch something off it except a STOVL aircraft, even if the MOD are idiots, carrier pilots aren’t.
Grim901And another…
Sometimes integration of new capabilities isn’t so easy. Can the UK afford to have its F-35 fleet grounded because some MoD bureaucrats botched the software?
You’re ignoring the fact that the reason the problem couldn’t be fixed was because the US refused to provide the source codes, which in turn cost British soldiers their lives.
Also, the Uk doesn’t want to rewrite the US source code, it just needs access to be able to modify it later on and to make sure they can do that properly and not end up with another Chinook fiasco.
Irrelevant. As long as they’re getting what they signed on for that’s all that matters. If what they signed on for didn’t include source code then too bad.
Can you not answer the question without making sure you’re answer fits everything else you’ve said? You and every other American has repeatedly avoided that question when it has been asked because you know that you’d never accept it, but you can;t admit it because it makes your arguments here seem stupid.
Well done, America does have a very big defence budget and a lot of political clout so that in reality they’d never be in the situation Britain currently faces, but deep down you know that what is happening is unfair.
But keep in mind the fact that Britain can’t currently afford to build an indigenous alternative wouldn;t be the main problem here, the problem now is time. The US has strung us out to dry at a very late stage in the game.
Grim901Well said, guys, I think that some of you are starting to get the point slowly. You’re being treated like that because you allow it. You can fall on Yank word this time again and buy the LM crap without codes, but if you do that, then your fault, don’t expect to negotiate any more than that with future deals.
Whatever they say, remember that US need to sell is greater than your need to buy. This puts you in a better position – you’ve got alternatives, they don’t. If you screw up and bow down, then blame only yourself.
I doubt they’d see it that way until we sent out an RFP to Dassault and Sukhoi.
I think they’d start to take more notice if 9,000 troops disappear from Helmand and they can take on the likes of Sangin alone.
Grim901There’s the tiny detail of what to make the thing out of. Pretty sure Lockheed and Northrop haven’t published THOSE details for all to read.
And that is impossible to figure out is it?
For one thing, the UK is about to receive 3 F35’s, so that should give us some idea. Not to mention all these stealthy UCAVs being designed and built, do you really think they’ll have done the shape then not bothered to think about what to make it out of?
And you always have the point that BAE is manufacturing several parts of the plane, so LM will have had to tell them what to make it out of, can’t just make some bits more stealthy, it kind of ruins the effect.
Grim901The only thing they made clear is what they CLAIM it covers. The way to show what it ACTUALLY covers is to display it. Either the US is wrong or the UK is. In either case all this bickering without DOING something makes the UK sound like a bunch of whining children. If the document says “source code” then make your case. If not then STFU already.
Again, the document is secret and releasing it would be a sure fire way for the US to get annoyed, say STFU and not give us the codes, even if it proves us right.
And we don’t know that the UK is doing nothing, not everything has to be plastered all over the news for it to be happening.
Grim901Obviously the USMC doesn’t agree. 😉 I’d guess the deck space is required for helicopter ops FAR more than it would be for the Harriers.
We could assume that, but the argument could be made that the Admirals don’t want the LHAs making their CVNs look obsolete (not my opinion, i’d much rather have a CVN than an LHA).
I guess we won’t know for sure unless there are stats somewhere breaking down deck usage.
Also important to note that the one helo deck spot given over only becomes a problems when the deck is very busy with launches/landings, which I assume isn;t that frequent compared to how often Harriers will have to fly off the decks.
Grim901Yep. Paranoia at it’s best, not to mention insulting. “We have a special relationship but those Yanks will screw us any chance they get, the SOBs. They can’t possibly want to limit the access to codes to reduce the likelihood of them leaking, it must be because they don’t trust us.” Yep, the US are the intollerant bad guys here. :rolleyes:
If you think that the codes will leak because the British have them, then that means you don’t trust the UK to keep them safe like the USA would.
I still can’t understand why they consider us untrustworthy with the codes, but will give us access to the weapon that makes up their nuclear 2nd strike option. I could understand if it were the other way around.
Grim901Whereas the Euros are more than happy to call the US liars. I have an idea, show the relevant paragraph. Oh, that’s right we can’t. Suspiciously convenient wouldn’t you say?
The relevant paragraph of the MOU? The document that was secret? Oh yes that’s convenient for us, but equally convenient for the US if the UK is actually telling the truth.
Obviously you are going to believe your own country has done nothing wrong, likewise we will think our country is right.
At the moment the only difference is that our government actually made clear what areas the MOU covered, i’m waiting for the US to say specifically that it didn’t cover the source codes. Then only the document will be able to clear it up. They haven’t done that, so the evidence is in Britain’s favour. Your side is currently based on opinion that the US would never go back on its word.
Grim901Sure, but the greater percentage leans towards the helicopter ops. That’s the reason for the LHA’s existence. STOVL ops are a bonus.
In my opinion, the one helicopter spot that the ramp takes up can be justified when the LHA is frequently used for STOVL ops, bonus or not.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that all the LHAs should have ramps, but a mix might be more useful, meaning only a couple of helicopter spots are lost across the entire fleet in return for significantly improved STOVL ops spread throughout the fleet.
Grim901You really believe that displaying the relevant paragraph is going to blow the security of the entire thing? Methinks Lord Drayson may be stretching the truth a bit and hiding behind a convenience. After all since he can display it he can tell you it says whatever he’d like it to.
Ah yes it is always the nasty foreigners, in this case the British, who are lying through their teeth to get what they want, any other option is unthinkable.
Grim901LHA’s are primarily used to support amphibious assaults and for that the extra deckspace available for operations is more valuable than a ramp.
If the emphasis is on helicopter ops yes, but there must be plenty of occasions where the focus is on Harrier ops, then the ramp makes a world of difference.
Grim901I think you made a great mistake, check again the characteristics of both the future CVN’s and all F-35’s variants. The F-35B will NOT be operated from Carriers but from LHA/LHD’s and from STOVL CV’s, and the main disadvantage of the F-35B is the lack payload capability that is not really compatible with use on a big CV/CVN.
F-35C will be fitted on those last ones.
But would it hurt for the USMC to be able to operate off the CVN’s well?
The ramp also addresses some of the payload problems (see the payloads that a Harrier can take when launching from RN ships compared to the USN).
On the question, I guess the admirals would make the same silly arguments they make for not putting ramps on the LHA’s.
Grim901Hi Grim901,
Quite the opposite, I was returning to the Falklands to revisit some of the battle sites from 1982 so I spent most of this trip up the mountains.
I served in 42 Commando RM during the conflict and wanted to return to pay respect to those lost; and to ‘lay a few ghosts’.
Whilst there I was given the privalege of visiting MPC (new title) and shown around the Typhoon flights lines plus a visit to SAR flight of 2 Seakings. There were also 2 S-61N helos in the same hangar.
As a modeller, it was fantastic to get up close to all these aircraft and I took a load of photos however, I don’t know that I can post any more of the Typhoons as they were carrying full weapon loads ready for any alert.
cheers
Bootneck
Oh right, must have been an interesting trip.
I had no idea there was an SAR flight stationed there too, although it makes sense.
Sign In
