I agree 95% with Fedaykin; My only quibble is I’m not a fan of the 57mm Bofors. If you already have a pair of 30mm cannons you have covered the light AA/ ‘Junk bashing’ anti piracy role. For a ‘main gun’ I’d want something that packs a bit more punch for ‘shock and awe’ if nothing else, but one that would be useful for anti ship duties and NGFS: the OTO 76mm compact fits the bill for me.

I think the main problem with all these corvette proposals in the last few years is they approach from the wrong direction; ie trying to pack all the bells and whistles of a full blown frigate into a hull less than half the size. It’s not ship steel that drives the cost up after all. Try starting with an existing OPV design like the current RN River class and upgrading it to meet the mission. The fourth ship of the River class had a heli pad added; stretch the hull enough for a hangar, upon which you can as Fedaykin suggested mount a Phalanx/Sea Ram if needed. Stretch the hull forward a little and the main gun can sit on the foc’s’le comfortably and more internal space arrives for the better radar fit too. It’s all about cost. Keep it simple, keep it cheap, and they can be afforded in sufficient numbers to be useful.

Yes. They’re old, or Ex, FAA FRS-1s. Some of those might have seen action in The Falklands and Bosnia actually. The FRS-1s were based on the RAF’s GR1s which had the same configuration regarding stations. It boggles one’s mind why the Royal Navy didn’t go with the Harrier II (GR5) rather than upgrading the FRS-1 to FA2. More stations, four per wing, and there would have been room for the very capable Blue Vixen radar… Shame. But like everything, comes down to costs and a stingy Government.

Not true. Whilst the IN’s FRS51s were based on the RN’s FRS1s, they were all new build for the Indian Navy. All surviving RN FRS1s (ie those not crashed or otherwise lost) were upgraded to FA2 standard in the 90s along with a batch of new builds. The only Harriers sold second hand to the IN were a pair of ex RN T4Ns in the early 2000s. The only real difference between the FRS1 and the FRS51 was that the latter were fitted to fire the Magic AAM instead of the Sidewinder. The only survivng FRS1 (at the FAA Museum) is in fact a hybrid, using the nose of a Shar shot down over the Adriatic and the fuselage/wings etc of a GR3.

Although possible, I don’t see it as likely. 17sqn will be a jointly RN/RAF manned unit covering all the Trials and training duties. With only 48 aircraft in Tranche 1 there simply won’t be enough airframes to form a separate RN training unit too, much as we’d all like to see one. Out of the initial 48 aircraft, I expect there to only 17, 617 and 800NAS formed. the latter two units will take up 12 aircraft each at least, as will 17sqn, so that’s 36 aircraft allocated and 12 spares in mainteance/storage. Tranche 2 becomes an inevitability in the early 2020s if any other units are to stand up at all, unless standing sqn sizes are to be drastically downsized.

Any news on which squadrons will be assigned F-35s?

Are they going to be current Tornado squadrons or re-established units?

Under current plans, the Lightning OCU will 17 sqn, currently the Typhoon OCU and it will reform in the US with the available airframes sometime in the next couple of years. After that the first operational frontline F-35B sqn will be 617 sqn, to be based at RAF Marham. After that, the next sqn to form will most likely be 800NAS. No official word yet though. There are a sqns worth of FAA pilots (around 14) in the US training on Hornets and soon to transition to the Lightning…

The RAF’s 1960s ‘Island Hopping’ strategy was a failure, they even had to ‘move’ Australia on the charts to make it work. The Government of the day were stupid but not that stupid, then as now standard procedure of the UK government is to first make crass and damaging cuts to defence, then follow up with bogus justification. The F-111K allowed them to cancel TSR-2 and say there wouldn’t be a big hole in our defences, but when the true costs of the F-111K became apparent the existence of 84 virtually new Fleet Air Arm Buccaneers allowed them to cancel the ‘111 with impunity.

Many talk about the 60s defence reviews being about making savings, but I have found no evidence any money was saved. Yes we didn’t build three CVAs as planned, but instead we had to reconfigure the whole of the RN to another role (and post 1989, change it back again!). Instead of the three CVAs, we built three CVS, one third the size and 80% of the cost each. We cancelled three of the four Type 82s, and instead built 14(!) type 42s, which cost two thirds of what a T82 cost to build). We cancelled 50 F-111Ks, but instead ordered 43 new build Buccaneers for the RAF and transferred the other 84 Buccs to the light blue.

Historically, the Bucs remained in frontline service until 1994, but had it not been for the end of the cold war the plan was to retain them and most of the Phantoms into the early 21st century alongside the Tornados (both types), so that gives an indication of how long the F-111Ks may have served for theoretically.

It is an interesting debate, WVR at medium to low altitude and the Sea Harrier wins the day. BVR at high altitude and I would switch outcomes, for that matter WVR as well.

The thing which is not mentioned about the Sea Harriers success in 1982 is that it was operating to its advantages. Argentine Mirage derivatives had to fly subsonic and come down to the fleet to attack with no spare fuel to mess around. Sea Harriers had plenty of fuel comparatively and medium to low altitude subsonic intercepts is almost perfect for the type. Apparently the types high altitude turn ability with such a small wing is nothing to write home about and it was G limited.

Interesting to note that Australian Mirage III a year after the Falklands had a superior kill ratio over the Sea Harrier in DACT when they stayed high and fast.

A new build Bucc would of been amazing but the line was closed and there was the attraction of a pan European project. We are where we are but back to the original point a Sea Tornado gives me shivers it is such a bad idea! Anyhow no market for it thankfully!

We are in agreement then! I think we should also remember regarding the Shar vs Mirage situation in 82 that the role of the Shars was to defend the fleet, which is obviously at sea level, and they provide their screen from medium level. Therefore they had no need to venture to the higher levels preferred by the Mirages, they could provide all the defensive value required where they were. The Argentine Air Force would have to pass through the medium to lower levels (the Shar’s ‘territory’) in order to attack the fleet, and by extension later on the land forces. They did this later on by coming in at sea level to make their attack runs, at great cost to both sides, but in circumstances which rendered the Mirage unable to fight on it’s own terms or anything approaching them. If we had had AEW in 82 it would of course have been a whole different story…

Personally, I think the late 1980s would have seen either development of a navalized Tornado based on the F3 (possibly in a true multi-role version to replace both Phantom and Bucc) or an agreement to purchase F/A-18Cs & F/A-18Ds.

Either way, 1995 would have seen retirement of the RN’s last Phantoms and Buccs.

I would hope to god not! The Tornado as a strike aircraft was inferior to the Bucc even in the land based role, indeed the pilots who flew a trials bucc fitted with the Tornado’s avionics said it would have been better to just build more Buccs with that fit! The F3 Tornado was probably the worst fighter the RAF ever flew since the Blenhiem of early WW2. In DACT, no Tornado ever won against a Sea Harrier (FRS1 or FA2). Honestly we’d have been better off fitting new avionics to the older aircraft and giving them a SLEP overhaul to extend them into the early 21st century than going anywhere near a ‘Sea Tonka’. Just my opinion mind…;)

Alternately going down the Hornet route would have OK, though I suspect there would have been political pressure to overhaul the existing fleet of aircraft (spending the money in the UK) rather than buying foreign (US). I would hope in such case the overhauled F-4s and Buccs would then be replaced in the early 2000s with Super Hornets.