C-130 has flown from carriers – and landed, without any catapult or arrester assistance.:cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84

All you’d need is a clear deck and clones of a young Admiral Flatley.

The findings where that at full load, a Herc could stop in less than 500ft and take off in less than 800. Here’s the problem: There was no room for error side to side. The Herc’s 132ft wingspan left ~15 feet of clearance from the island to say nothing of parked aircraft. It was possible, but very very risky.

As for JTFL, depending on how this pans out it could become a lot more joint. It could end up replacing Navy/Marine corps Hercs and Super Stallions as well.

does this mean UK may consider E-2 Hawkeyes now that they can launch it? good news for RAN really! Watch out Argentine Pak-fas! :diablo:

Not unless a more reasonable government comes to power. From what I’ve seen of british politics, fat chance.

I personally think they are foolish to scrap the airframes. They should store them and spend a smaller amount to use them for their first aircraft carrier or any significant event that would rear its head in the foreseeable future.

That’s the idea. No Harriers means no FAA which means its harder to restart carrier aviation in ten years. Make no mistake the RAF wants those jets as a Tornado replacement, not flying off of carriers.

When it comes to design, CdeG is 30m shorter than she should be, has at the very minimum 1 (probably 2) reactor less than she should and was built with very poor construction. In the end you get a ship build more for show than capability.

I’ve always thought that the Harrier, as brilliant as it was, was basically a vehicle to keep Hawker Siddley airborne. It had its day in the Falklands but now that day is over, time to let it go.

As I’ve said before the RAF will not go to war without the USAF and the USAF will not fly without ginormously long runways. The RAF can therefore use these runways and save the taxpayer lots of money.

It’s a shame that the Coalition has decided to keep the aircraft carriers, we could have done without them, but whether we can do without the frigates and destroyers that the RN is going to lose is another matter.

Personally I’d dump the F-35 and buy the 232 Typhoons the RAF originally said it wanted. The Tornado is obsolete, both as a fighter and bomber (but not as a recce machine). The fighter can’t dogfight and the bomber is specifically designed for the low-level role which is now obsolete. All air-to-ground fighting is done from 25Kft not 0ft.

This SDR has all the hallmarks of another White Hall cockup; we will rue the day.

Regards

How quick people forget that the Tornado, Strike Eagle, and F-16 pilots were sipping tea and Buds while naval aviations were pounding the taliban. Unless it has basing and/or overflight rights, the tactical arm of the RAF can find itself utterly useless.

And for those destroyers and frigates, what exactly are they doing? The only land attack capability they have is the rough equivalent to a single howitzer battery and the grand soviet sub fleet is long since dead. They could escort the amphibs, but without air support the ships and the RMs they carry would get ripped to shreds by any kind of credible military threat.

In short no carriers= no business for the UK forces leaving the island.

Who has a 65k ton Fleet Carrier Ben?. QE isnt a Fleet Carrier!. She is a Strike Carrier which is a very important distinction in how the ship is deployed.

Typical. Facts don’t work out, try play semantics.

BTW Ben just who do you think there is, who we would fight alone and in the first 3 or so years of QE’s life (i.e the GR9 lifespan), who could take advantage of the lack of BVR and radar?.

Venezuela comes to mind, so does Iran, Libya well you pacify them by letting a couple more mass murders go home to a hero’s welcome.

Well after two years Beedall has done an editorial update on his excellent website.

Strangely whilst he goes into details of how cuts might have to work his suggestions do make up to a reasonable solution (except for his suggestion about the RFA – well unless the useful types are transfered to RN service).

Certainly his conclusions about the carriers make sense, finish QE as a Ski Jump Harrier carrier whilst PoW is fitted with Catapult. This all dovetails the Harrier and Oceans retirement dates together. With QE taking over from Ocean until funds permit outfitting the same as PoW and the Harriers being replaced with F35C (or Super Hornet). Also allows time for the PoW build strategy to be adapted and risk reduced for catapults. The fact is QE construction is too far gone to change to catapults now and running Harrier off her to the intended OSD of that type makes sense. It also gives some flexibility if they do decide that a reduced purchase of F35B is desirable allowing a mixed F35 fleet. Finally by going for F35C with service introduction when PoW comes into service pushes their procurement to the right as well putting off the cost if we had wanted F35B for QE.

That makes sense only if she’s used for training in friendly waters only until refit. QE with Harriers equipped with no radar or BVR capability makes a very tempting target.