Al.I remember seeing a pretty GR1 with huge PCB nozzles hovering in the old massive Salamander book on the Harrier.
I have subsequently heard from aero-engineers that the problem with PCB was the amount of water needed for operation.
Al
Al.Yes it is, the UK won by a country mile. If this.If that is all meaningless.
Dude this is a forum on the internet. Of course its pretty meaningless!
However on a slightly more serious note. No it isn’t. The UK may have won convincingly but it was not won with relative ease. I and others have pointed out where ‘there but for the grace of God‘ it could all have been very different. And the margins were slim. Regardless; this has degenerated into the kind of ‘yes it is‘ ‘no it isn’t‘ argument I purported to despise earlier so I shan’t post again on it until and unless there is a material change in what has been posted by others.
Also and this does pain me rather I am going to filter out your posts as reading them is neither enlightening me or bringing me joy. You may either despise me as weak for this, as is your right, or think more deeply on this.
Why do I mention this at all? Simply put; you may make a post which would seem to demand my response (unlikely I know!) and I shan’t make one. That will not be due to bad manners but coz I ain’t not seen it.
Laters
Al
Al.Everything else you mention is relatively insignificant at the strategic level.
Not it isn’t. It really isn’t
No Lima Sidewinder
= much less effective CAP
= likelihood of SHAR losses
and/or likelihood of more inbounds getting through = likelihood of more ship losses
More Exocet
= likelihood more ships sunk.
= likely loss of more big ships
Possibly = saturation attacks (which Argentinian’s could never have done
with their bare handful of missiles)
No rounds for SLR = much less effective infantry (trenching tools in h-t-h combat and sheer agression can only achieve so much)
No Intel on Argentinian movements = much harder to plan effectively = likely more losses
No Invincible and/or Hermes
= less or no organic airpower
= likelihood of loss of more ships
= likely loss of more troop ships
= likely loss of NGS
= loss of much CAS
Mines
= restricted ability to maneuvere on land and/or sea
Reduced dockyard capacity
= no heroic refit and repair of taskforce before setting south
= more likelihood of systems failures/breakdowns
(I assume – but do not know – that extra capabilities were embarked prior to Corporate so they would not have been added either)
There is another issue which I didn’t mention.
Our planned for big bad enemy co-operated by not being extra active during the conflict. Had it done so we could never have justified sending the mighty Conqueror down south. Without her the Argentinian Navy could actually have been a threat. Again there is absolutely no guarantee that A N Other strategic threat would behave so conveniently in any future scenario.
Al
Al.It is entirely true
No.
There is nothing to say that an AIM9L successor/analogue will be made available by a supplier who has cordial links with both UK and opponent
There is nothing to say that such a third party would be prepared to say ‘give UK whatever they want but do it quietly‘
There is nothing to say that UK’s opponent will be embargoed by another third party who actually has vested export links in continuing to supply them with their main effective AShM
There is nothing to say that our sneaky-beaky-secret-squirrel types will be just as effective in buying up all of the grey market / international market AShMs
There is nothing to say that our opponent’s neighbour(s) will allow intel to be shared in the future
There is nothing to say that our opponent would use small arms whose clips (and hence ammunition) would fit ours but not vice versa and hence disguise just how dire the logistical situation really was
There is nothing to say that opponent would so woefully mismanage their bayonets that enlisted men and officers got different ration packs (enlisted – barely enough calories per day for an active man, officer – includes cigars and cognac)
There is nothing to say that said opponent would have neglected to purchase mines before embarking on their madcap scheme
Or chosen to act just before we sold off half of our organic air capability rather than just after. Or just before we closed our dockyard capacity rather than just after.
There were operational mistakes (‘strategic level’ as you mention) made by Argentinians but that does not mean that a successor aggressor would make the same ones
The 3 Arms of the Argentinian military were soundly defeated. But not with ease. Not even close.
Al
Al.Gaining Intel by hanging around as close as possible to national borders (or even ‘accidentally’ crossing them) is a common tactic. It also handily allows the passive-aggressor to monitor the response time. And indeed the actual response.
Challenging intel gatherers in a robust manner is likewise a common tactic.
Crying foul of one’s (potential) opponent doing one or more of the above, likewise common. Regardless of how provocative one’s own tactics are.
Deliberatly ramming or engaging one’s counterpart is pretty rare (thank the gods).
ROTR is not quite as clear cut as ‘fishing vessels have right of way, end of discussion’ if it was then showing knowledge and competence of said tome would not be a pre-requisite for serving as an officer in civillian or military navies.
Al
Al.And the UK won the Falklands with relative ease.
That is simply not true. The Falkalnds conflict was a much closer run thing than some would have you believe
The threat posed by the Argentinian Navy and Air Arms was largely (although not entirely) neutralised by actions outside of the ‘this is what kit we should have had‘ argument.
To assume that these circumstances would be repeated in a future conflict is optimistic.
(Although I will at this point agree that I cannot see where a future threat to soverignty which would need to be opposed unilaterally might arise. However I am not privy to all of the facts here. Pre-911 I could not envision the UK being drawn into a conflict in Afghanistan or Iraq either. Pre-Balkans my GCSE in History did equip me to consider that ‘something’ might happen in central Europe. Hooray for me)
And who is going to be lobbing a barrage of AShM’s at the RN? When the 1998 SDR says that the UK faces no conventional military threat it is entirely correct .
The SDR is quite logical. And it is entirely understandable (perhaps even desirable) to want to spend the defence dividend on projects which will do more good to society in general.
It is unlikely that any of the discussions on this board are going to inform defence procurement spending or nautical tactics.
However, neither of those (in my monkey overlord’s opinion) preclude a discussion on what would be the best kit to equip the RN (or indeed any other Navy) with. Some of our discussions may be better grounded in economics than others. Clearly we need 4x Flat tops, 4x USS AMerica style LPHs, 24x T45s, combined force 100x C1, C2, C3, 20x Astutes, 30x SSKs (with AIP), 100x Nimrod replacement (Concorde airframe for preference to give it dash speed). Manning and expenditure arguments are just excuses.
We go back (IMMOO) to the issue that had UK government shown (partially through equipment levels and deployment) that it would defend the Falklands then I do not see the Malvina’s invasion being a tempting solution in internal Argentinian politics. Just because I cannot think of a similar contemporary scenario off of the top of head does not mean that one does not exist.
as is shown by the perpetual inability of people on this forum to find one no matter how hard they try.
I should hope that there is a self-evident difference between being the voice of reason and mayhap even being the devil’s advocate on the one hand and on the gripping hand squashing any potential debate which does not align with one’s own feelings, leanings or conclusions on a topic.
Al
Al.These things are complex.
Al
And I stick by it
Al
Al.its OK to trust the Americans? I mean, they use to fund the IRA to make our lives that little more difficult didn’t they? Of course they did, so, is that a “Friend” or an “Enemy”? But hey, whats wrong for another country is perfectly fine for another, isn’t it? :rolleyes:
Alliances can and do change.
If there was one nation/culture which had real grounds for not allying with UK twould be eire. So why do we have more Irish members of the UK armed forces than from any other nation?! These things are complex.
Al
Al.Tell that to the Canadians!! 😀
They got some very good boats. They may or may not* have got boats maintained as well as they should have been or were told they were.
In all honesty i dont see one single good reason for the RN to maintain SSK´s!
Sort of answered in the post above. Sort of.
Al
* there are certainly rumours about this but I do not know for sure
Al.Why did we drop the ball binning SSK’s?. What patrol requirement do we have now that we could possibly use an SSK for?.
Patrol requirement? Maybe none.
However boats and ships are not only used for patrol duties.
It is significantly quicker and cheaper to build SSKs than SSNs. Which means that they can be put in to situations in to which no one would place an SSN. Now this may seem to go against my belief that one shouldn’t expose service personnel to unecesary danger (especially if doing so is due to a gap between political ambition and expenditure) but I do not think so.
Littoral patrols (as defensive spoliers or as interdiction) are not suitable for SSNs (especially our beautiful, new but huge Astute class).
Insertion (and recovery!) of special forces, minelaying, operations in enclosed bodies of water (Baltic, Mediterranean, Irish Sea)
SSKs can inherently be quieter than SSNs (diesels can be turned off* pumps for nuclear reactors cannot)
Al
* it does help if you spec diesels which can reliably be rapidly switched off and on again though ……………..
Al.Perhaps a couple of ALARMs instead of AMRAAMs to partially compensate for its lack of stealth … maybe an ECM pod too (what’s its onboard ECM capability like?).
The ‘integrated self-defence system’ is supposed to be pretty whiz
3 fuel tanks? They really should hurry up with those conformal fuel tanks …
Hell yeah
I remember as a small child seeing my first piccy of F15E with FASTpacks and thinking ‘why isn’t everyone else doing that’
Then SU27 shows the way with LOTS of internal fuel storage
The DesertFalcon finally gets in on the act
And EFA is still carrying bit drag-enhancers (‘I know we need more fuel, great lets mount it in a way which adds lots of drag so that each mile travelled requires more fuel, perfect, where’s the downsize?’)
Al
Al.On other forums it is possible to tag another user as a ‘foe’ or ‘enemy’ so that (when logged on) there posts do not display. Does anybody know if this is possible on this board?
I ask because there have been more than a few ‘he said’ ‘she said’ spats going on on here recently and (as a bystander*) I find them dull. Judicious use of ‘foe’ tagging by one or both parties might make these go away with neithe rparty feeling the need to lose face or conceded a point just because they cannot be othered to carry on arguing in the face of an (two?) entrenched poistion(s). And likewise maybe stop the spats going on long after any factual or interesting content has dried up.
There are some genuine nuggets of interest of provocative ‘what if’ threads as well though and I’d rather not just stop coming here and missing out entirely.
Just a thought.
Al
*or maybe not mayhap I’m just as guilty
Al.I’ve long fancied the idea of mating the Hawk 200 nose/cockpit and weapon system with the T-45 fuselage to produce a lightweight low cost naval combat aircraft…;):diablo::D
I recently read a comparison of Alpha Jets to Hawks (by a pilot and instructor who had flown in and instrcuted in both). His overall thoughts were that AlphaJet was a better aircraft to fly (payload, power, range) but that Hawk was a better trainer (for precisely those reasons it enforced flying disciplines much more effectively) so marinised Hawk 200 might not be the effective COMBAT aircraft that it looks at first sight.
I do like the idea of a STOVL version though. Maybe we could name it after some form of native raptor which hovers (merlin, kestrel, harrier, something like that 🙂 anyway)
Al
Al.Love the Aussies, what a sense of humour!:D:p:diablo:
Didn’t the USN (who I believe have a larger budget than any of its allies…..) nix the idea of navalising F22 (at one point with VG wings) as too expensive and technically too risky?
No disrespect intended to RAN or RN or anyone else but if the USN think that its unworkable I’d be inclined to agree with them.
(Although I reserve the right to disagree with some of their procurement decisions I still think that they were wrong in going for the USS Insane Inflationary Pressures skimmers and in doing away with SSKs, and I certainly think that the RN dropped the ball in binning SSKs)
Al
Al.I know it’s a bit more complicated than this, but that’s roughly what the average Frenchman thinks.
Then I shall have to reevaluate my ingrained generations of prejudice against our gallic chums (sadly that’s said only partially in jest!)
Of course having an efficient intelligence and counter-terrorist apparatus also removes the perceived need for politicians to attack civil liberties in the guise of protecting us from the Bad Men.
Waging a war on a people under the guise (maybe even BELIEVED) of helping them does not seem to remove the sense animosity and hostility that some of that people have towards one.
As an influence and power-projection issue I am constantly amazed at how ham-fisted the western powers are with spending. The old cliche that the US defence spending for one year could pay for clean drinking water for the whole world’s population may be a false friend (don’t pay the defence budget for a year and you suddenly have a bigger drain on welfar payments and system, macinery which breaks down and so on) but if one wants to project power and influence then there MUST be better ways than waging a war.
A firefight ALWAYS has the potential to harm your own combatants and uninvolveds. Hit uninvolveds and there is a chance that you recruit them, their friends, their families and onlookers to your opponent’s side. It may be that in one given firefight onlookers are so anti one’s opponents that none are recruited. But more firefights = more opportunities.
The attacks on 911 were (self-evidently I should hope a Bad Thing) but a sustained intelligence-led police action could (in my view should) have allowed bringing to justice the perpetrators and prevention of future attacks. A ham fisted show of who has the biggest penis made the victims of the attack feel better briefly and then brought more loss, pain and suffering and has created more enemies and more conflicts.
That Said. Flat Tops are the current status symbol of power projection. So having two operational makes it look you mean business. That MIGHT be sufficient to make Nation States treat you seriously. Whether it changes the attitude of more loosely-aligned federations of smaller groups (a la Al Quaida) is maybe more open to debate.
Al
Sign In
