Navy gets big boats to play with...

[ QUOTE ]
I think I am right when I say there are no Sea Harriers in service and so RAF Harriers would have to be borrowed to provide air cover.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry you are wrong - a popular misconception, there are 4 squadrons of Harrier GR 9s now. Two are RAF and two RN (800 and 801) who swapped their FA2 Sea Harriers last year. This 'Joint Force Harrier, operates out of Wittering. The GR9 is an attack aircraft with limited fighter capability but although the FA2 was a bloody good fighter it needed a new engine to operate in hot weather and this was deemed too expensive.

The concept should be taken forward with the new JSF for the carriers ie 4 squadrons 2 for each service.

How about that for an anorak reply!!
 
Well, I stand corrected. If I understand the situation correctly the Sea Harriers were designed for seagoing use and had an all round capability. The RAF harriers were designed as forward operating attack aircraft and had problems in the Falklands as they were less resistant to the corresive environment found onboard ships. Am I right in thinking that the use of the RAF Harrier is really a stop-gap solution. I think the US Marines changed their Harriers and put bigger engines in them but this means they have a shorter range.
 
My jaundiced view on the politics of this is that the RAF Harrier force lost its role when the cold war came to an end. To continue to justify its existence it was used on a few ship board ops alongside the Sea Harrier - and boy did the RAF love going to sea - not!!
In the Strategic Defence Review, the RN and Navy cut a deal along the lines of 'we won't challenge the carriers if you let us control all fixed wing aircraft'. You have to remember that in the 60s, the RAF succesfully killed off the RNs then planned CVA01, an 86,000 nuclear carrier by claiming all UK territorycould be defended from airbases ashore (and allegedly moved Australia 500 miles on the maps to do so!)
Anyway once the Joint harrier force was formed, the FA2 engine problem killed them off. The FA2 was designed as a fleet fighter with only limited attack capability the GR9 is the other way around, although it is perfectly good at sea - so were the harrier GR3s in falklands by the way.
In fact its probably not a bad compromise but light years away from the capability of the new ships equipped with JSF/F35s. So you could probably say its a stop gap but reasonably effective for all that.
Oh by the way the US Marines engine and the one in the GR9 are effectively the same but it would have been very expensive to shoe horn it into an FA2 as the fuselage, wiring etc was quite different
 
[ QUOTE ]
I know I'm going to get flamed but here goes;

We only need these floating airbases for offensive operations. Defensively we would use our own land based planes.

Do we really intend attacking anyone or is it about time that we admitted that Britains days of empire are well gone, the Commonwealth want nowt to do with us and we should stop trying to punch above our weight, looking after our home problems instead of 'liberating' other countries (providing they have no navy or air force)?

Rant over.

Let the flaming commence.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't often agree. This time we do. Well said!
 
"The RN has shown over and over again how it can help other countries for example after the last Tsunami and is a great ambassador for us, and respected worldwide. It would be crazy to let it dwindle to an ineffective coastal force. Unfortunately history shows us that when the services are not supported and allowed to wither it always costs us dear. "

While I agree with this, using the money to build more smaller surface ships would be a better 'defensive stratergy' I would have thought. It would also save money on dredging the entrance to Portsmouth Harbour.
 
Perhaps it is best to leave it to the RN to decide what ships it feels are best to perform its role. The RN knows the sort of tasks it will be called upon to carry out and in my opinion are in the best position to match up what kit they buy to meet these commitments. The RN will have had to fight hard for whatever budget it is given, so we can assume that it has chosen to forgo several smaller ships to have the carriers.
If we forgo a seabourne air defence capability we are effectively restricting the RN to operating within range of land based air defense. The days when we had bases all around the world are long gone and I think we need to be realistic in what we ask the RN to do. I think we are lucky enough to still have a good navy so lets make their job easier by letting them decide how they spend their budget to meet their tasks.
 
This one had trouble getting 'out' of Pompey

HMS Vanguard was the last of the great Royal navy battleships, built at Clydebank, she was launched on the 30th November 1944, and did not see service during world War Two, She was the biggest British battleship with a displacement of 42.500 tons. she carried 8 15-inch guns and a secondary armament of 16 x 5.25 inch guns and 71 AA Guns, her compliment was 1600. On the 4th August 1960, while beginning to be towed from Portsmouth to Faslane for scrapping, the great battleship ran aground at the entrance to the harbour.

Displacement: 52,245t Speed: 29.5kt Complement: 1,900

Armament: Eight 15 inch guns, sixteen 5.25 inch guns. Seventy-three 40mm anti-aircraft guns.
 
The RN always have a 'guard ship' stationed in the Caribbean, usually along with an attendant RFA supply ship, and they have been of enormous help to islands that were flattened by hurricanes - like Grenada and the Caymans who were well hammered by Ivan two years ago - I think that the vessel who came to their assistance was the Iron Duke. They were the first on the scene in Grenada, and provided sterling help with supplies, tents and medicine - however they could only stay for a day or so, and then they had to zoom off to catch up with Ivan as he clobbered the Caymans with 150 knots sustained (I think the winds were gusting to 200 by then).
 
There is a good reason why the RN has asked for large carriers instead of continuing to use the Invincible class of carriers. A good carrier needs to carry a whole range of aircraft to carry out its job safely. There are the fighters whose role is fairly obvious, they also often have helicopters who fill 2 roles, picking up crashed crews and anti-submarine defence using suspended sonars. Also you need high flying aircraft fitted with sophisticated radar and monitering equipment to detect incomming aircraft and missiles. You can imagine how much space this lot takes up!!!!
We scraped by with the Invincible class by using harriers inbuilt radar systems while they flew patrols in the sector nearest the threat. Also we used the radars of surface ships to feed us information. It's not just a question of getting some new harriers ( good aircraft that they are).
If we also look at their peace time abilities they are handy bits of kit. There large hanger spaces below decks can be used for massive civilian relief work, after natural disasters and make a genuine difference , rather than a modest token effort.
 
I would have thought that the Navy would have thought through about where they were going to keep their new carriers. If they're too big to get in to Portsmouth then I don't think it'll come as a suprise to them.
 
Asking the navy what sort of ship it would like is akin to asking you and me what sort of yacht we'd like. Ooh, a big one please mister. Boyztoyz. And all the time its the army doing the fighting, with inadequate kit and resources, courtesy of the McBroons while billions are about to be squandered on building two damn great targets, in Scotland. Vote for me, och aye.
 
lets not get confused - this money isnt going to be spent soon, these ships are for 2015 onwards not now........ its all political posturing ....... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

the pongoes went into afgannystan in the full knowledge of what to expect. that git general rose stuffed his brothers - thats what you get when political appointees get manipulated instead of representing the armed forces.
the army knew what they had in stock, they knew what they needed, they knew their numbers had been cut to the bone, they knew the crabs also suffered from a lack of resources, they knew the harder they pushed the taliban the harder they would push back, they knew a safe haven in pakistan was next door, they knew that scurrilous git of a politician saying 'hopefully, not a shot will be fired' was a load of bollix.

gen Rose sold the army down the river and ran ....... I hope he appreciates his lasting effect on the british army.

what brown is doing is just deception and seduction

deceiving the voter into pretending to spend money on defense whilst the cash wont be needed for years (and even then the politicians have meddled in the design of these carriers as to make them very much less potent than was originally envisaged) and seduction into boosting jobs in labour heartlands .... ooooh, and fife (wow - the p.m.'s homeland)

when will ppl wake up FFS

on the positive side, these carriers will allow options for a military response in the future which the uk doesnt have now - why do you think we have to hang onto the yankie apron strings via the 'special relationship' ...... simply cos without airpower you cant do anything nowadays. something this current gov ignored when they culled the carriers and sea harriers.

smoke and mirrors /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

its enough to make me sick of these scum in westminster
 
What the navy knows, and what the politicos haven't acknowledged, is that a carrier is FA use unless it has an escort group for over the horizon and close-in protection, replenishment and supply vessels and a shed load of expensive fixed and rotary wing aircraft, missiles, etc. So rather than getting two new toys, the admirals (the most useless part of Britain's military establishment) are getting a whole box full. Which will screw defence spending for the other services for decades to come.
 
I find your point of view inconsistant. You are very critical of the way the army is trying to do a task in Afganistan with poor levels of equipment . Yet you seem to be saying the RN should not have the kit it needs to do its job. I think there are several points that cut to the heart of the matter.
1) The army was probably asked if it could do the role as a short term task. There has to be an exit stratergy, which I think most people would agree, has either been poorly planed or just ignored. This exit stratergy would be politically decided and the military would follow that. If that is not sorted ASAP this will just keep going.
2) The armed forces have a massive ( in my view very inefficent ) government civil service section that " supports" them. Much too much or the defence money is spent on these support, paper work people. THis needs a serious streamlining so more cash goes where it is really needed.
You can't blame the armed forces if the politians don't get there exit stratergy right.
 
[ QUOTE ]
lets not get confused - this money isnt going to be spent soon, these ships are for 2015 onwards not now........ its all political posturing ....... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn’t Brown's decision a long overdue clarification? Ministry HQ talking heads like nothing more than strategic indecision because it keeps them employed in an endless round of budget reworks and revised structure charts. The new defense money is tied to admin cuts, let's face it has the size of ministry of defense HQ staff reduced in proportion with other frontline unit cuts over the past 40 years?
 
not being over familiar with the un-uniformed, or 'desk warriors' behind the scenes today, I can only guess that they have remained staunch in their own mutual support, working entirely to their own satisfaction. so no, I doubt they have been salami sliced as well.
saying that I used to rub shoulders with someone on the new carrier design team ......... he became exasperated with the political tinkering. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

cyberkryten
We finally bought a boat - Merry Fisher 895s2
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
Cathy*
C
boatmike
Merry Fisher 695
Replies
3
Views
259
Bouba
Bouba

Share this page

Top