OldNotBold
A player maybe, but not a major political influence in world affairs.
There was no independent action in the Falklands. Removing the Argentine armed forces was strictly impossible without military aid and technical support from the United States. The base facilities on IslaAscension nd were run by American forces, and Margaret Thatcher later said that without the Sidewinder “supplied to us by US Defence Minister Caspar Weinberger, we could never have got back the Falklands.”
Sir Robin Renwick (then a senior diplomat of the British embassy in Washington) told the BBC: “My role was to go along to the Pentagon and ask them for 105 Sidewinder missiles. These were the very latest version, which were far more accurate than the earlier versions and we wanted them delivered within 48 hours. That meant stripping part of the frontline US air force of those missiles and sending them to the South Atlantic.”
In addition to key weapon systems, aviation fuel, and communications gear, Weinberger also promised to provide Britain with an aircraft carrier if one of the British carriers committed to the war was lost. Renwick’s boss (Sir Nicholas Henderson) mused that it would have been better if Thatcher and the MOD would have officially admitted all this while she was still the Prime Minister. During her reign the British government refused to publish anything that hinted of vital outside assistance.
Sharkey Ward is not always rational or objective in his views. And it looks like the apple did not fall far from the tree.
The Base on Ascension Island is leased by the USA, the Island itself is British. The US lease allows for British use.
The Sidewinder missiles used in the Falklands were British War stocks, those the US provided -and they were not free- were to replace the UK war stocks sent south and used around the Falklands.
Yes the US helped with Aviation fuel, allies do that.
OldNotBoldPeople should read Commander Ward’s several responses on the discussion on the end of this piece…
OldNotBoldSome interesting articles:
http://thephoenixthinktank.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/commanding-carrier-aviation/
http://thephoenixthinktank.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/a-better-option-for-britain%E2%80%99s-security/
From Phoenix Think Tank: People writing there include: Admiral Sir John Woodward, Admiral Sir Michael Layard, Rear Admiral Jeremy Larken, Major General Julian Thompson, Commodore Steven Jermy, Commodore Neill Thomas, Captain Mike Clapp, Captain Bob McQueen, Commander ‘Sharkey’ Ward, Commander Tim Gedge, Commander Graham Edmonds, etc.
OldNotBoldInteresting article on using aircraft from Aircraft Carriers at sea.
Flying from our new Carriers – The RN or the RAF Ethos.
OldNotBoldNor did Britain NEED to join in WW1… they were fulfilling their treaty obligation to defend Belgium when they declared war on Germany when Germany had not declared war on them!
Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany carefully avoided attacking any British assets or forces until after Britain declared war on Germany, and would have not attacked any British holdings or ships if Britain had remained neutral.
Well at least not until after Germany had beaten France anyway…
OldNotBoldSo STOVL F35 B a dead duck for UK then. Good. If it was really about saving money and value for money Super Hornet would probably be the aircraft for UK Carriers, but it is much more about politics and industry (actual Defence value is way down the list of priorities) so probably not Super Hornet, but fewer and later, F35 C, which is still an improvement on STOVL F35 B.
OldNotBoldRAF Offers up ‘Joint’ Harrier Force to SDSR
“The intensity of negotiations were also thrown into relief when the RAF suggested axing the Harrier squadrons now shared with the navy. This would leave a huge question over the future of the first of the two aircraft carriers which ministers this week finally agreed should be built.
Some officials said that a decision to dump the Harriers had already been taken in principle. “It is a ridiculous situation,” said a defence source. “The navy will have a carrier with no aircraft.”
If the Harriers fall victim to the Tornados, there may be no suitable aircraft available to fly from the first carrier, the Queen Elizabeth, which is due to enter service in 2016. The alternative – expensive, US F35 Joint Strike Fighters – will not be ready in time, leaving the navy with the prospect of a large new carrier equipped only with helicopters.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk…ght-save-tornado-bombers
The FT is reporting that the Harriers are axed, and PoW is to be built as a CATOBAR carrier with QE entering service as a Helicopter carrier and then retro-fitted CATOBAR at first refit.
This would seem to finally give the lie to how vital RAF really regard STOVL and forward ‘austere’ basing.
OldNotBoldLiam Fox (UK Minister of Defence) in The Times today:
“……..Compounding this problem was the decision to order aircraft carriers that are not fully interoperable with our two closest allies – The United States and France. Neither the French Rafale nor the US Navy’s planned version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) could take off or land from our carriers.
The design of the carriers also meant the variant of the JSF as planned is the most expensive. Now we find ourselves in an impossible position. Cancelling the carriers would cost almost as much as building them and would mean the end of the British shipbuilding industry. But getting the carriers right would take longer and is likely to cost more…….”
UK order now likely to be as few as 40 F35 C.
OldNotBold“At a meeting of the National Security Council yesterday, the Navy won its battle for two new aircraft carriers. With the Army facing only modest cuts, the RAF is now in line to bear the brunt.
The full extent of the cuts still hangs in the balance as Liam Fox battles George Osborne. The Chancellor is pressing for a 10 per cent cut in defence, while the Defence Secretary is arguing for around 4 per cent.
But as the defence review nears conclusion, substantial allowances have been made to the Navy, with much of the Fleet surviving significant cuts and the future of the two new aircraft carriers secured.
It is understood that the Navy will not suffer severe cuts to its surface fleet despite offering up to half of its warships to secure the carriers.’
OldNotBoldThe FT also says Cameron has backed both carriers and quote “His preferred option is to redesign the second vessel, delay production, and buy the conventional Joint Strike Fighter, rather than the planned jump-jet variant”.
The Guardian is also backing the FT story and says both Carriers are safe.
As I said before, for UK STOVL F35 B looks like a rather dead duck.
OldNotBoldFrom Janes Defence Review
Converteam readies EMCAT for new UK Royal Navy aircraft carrier launch trials
“Converteam UK is working to complete a scaled-up design of its electromagnetic catapult (EMCAT) system that will be capable of launching the F-35C variant of the Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter from the UK Royal Navy’s new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. The company specialises in power conversion systems and has been contracted by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) to develop a 100 m-long EMCAT design that could fit into a 1.5 m-deep well under the flight deck of a 65,000-ton carrier”
http://idr.janes.com/public/idr/index.shtml
Scroll down.
OldNotBoldEMALS type catapults will need much smaller crews for operation than conventional steam catapults. They will also be kinder to airframes while being able to launch heavier aircraft.
In contrast the lift fan on the STOVL F35 B will require more maintenance than a conventional engine and could even turn into a maintenance nightmare.
STOVL F35 B, if and when LM finally get it to work, will be the most expensive version of F35, only by how much is in dispute. STOVL F35 B will have much less range than F35 C, will carry much less payload -half in stealth mode- and has a reduced internal fire fighting system that Senior US Officers have said will make it more vulnerable to 30mm AAA rounds.
Range, payload and survivability are all very important in an warplane, the more so, the fewer you have. Given that STOVL F35 B’s ability to be forward ‘austere’ based is likely to be more notional than real, and that the UK F35 order is likely to be roughly halved, why would UK buy the more expensive, yet less capable, STOVL F35 B over the less expensive, but more capable CATOBAR F35 C? Especially given that you are going to need a catapult to launch UAV’s, and, eventually, CATOBAR on the Queen Elizabeth class Aircraft Carriers will give the UK the option of Hawkeye AEW?
OldNotBoldThe UK’s most important Ally, by a very long way, is the USA. Likewise the most important Ally of the Royal Navy is the United States Navy.
The ability to cross deck your aircraft and their aircraft adds, very considerably, to both our, and their operational flexibility, in all sorts of situations. In fact, in general terms a Queen Elizabeth class Aircraft Carriers would be more likely to see a USN Air Group than an RAF Air group (if you do not believe that you obviously know nothing about RAF-FAA).
What the French Navy may, or, much more likely, may have not have done, is totally irrelevent to the Royal Navy. In simple terms the RN does lots the French Navy does little.
OldNotBoldIf you cannot see the obvious advantages of being able to cross deck with UK’s major Ally, I doubt I could explain them to you.
The problems with current, Helicopter bourne RN AEW is getting up threat fast enough, getting high enough and loiter time when you get there.
Hawkeye not only gets over all those problems, it has lots of other stuff that gives you information on the enemy, both passive and active. UK would be insane not to buy it, if they have CATOBAR Carriers, as soon as they can afford it.
Hawkeye is streets and streets ahead of anything RN has now or planned.
OldNotBoldThe ability to, eventually, operate Hawkeye AEW, alone, would justify CATOBAR for the new RN Carriers. Not to mention the ability to cross deck with the USN and, even, the French.
Sign In
