ARmy Rumour SErvice

Is this thread a tekirdag free zone?

Quoting myself regarding practical issues:

Can we leave odd fantasies, which involve changes to the laws of Physics, out?

Can we leave fantasies about secret new aircraft using old designs with new materials out?

Can we leave non carrier/non naval topics out? Thanks.

Until last week I avoided this thread - and felt better for it. Now that the announcement has been made, and the decision to switch to F35B, things are different. This may be a decision for the best because:

1. Both carriers will go into service.
2. The capability will be generated earlier.
3. The problems of going from having no embarked fixed wing aviation for a decade and then picking up the baton and going for gold no longer are as significant a worry.

However, there is the issue of where do we go now? What should we do now? I would suggest that the RN jocks currently Stateside flying the F/A18 could be more usefully employed flying the AV8B or perhaps the intact GR9s that some speculated would be used as they are, whilst others have highlighted the differences between GR9 and AV8B? Maybe we should offer the US a refund?

Flying AV8B/GR9 from Lusty/QE offers the following:

1. The UK would still be able to respond to crises in which carrier aviation is useful, during this decade.

2. The RN would maintain the skills needed to run a carrier with jets on deck, and would maintain a cadre of both Pilots and Engineers to work with these aircraft, avoiding the need to start from scratch later on this decade.

3. Continuing to operate our own jets will make it a lot easier to recruit, train, and retain RN fixed wing Pilots for the future.

4. If we could get AV8B+s then it would give the Navy a capability that it lost when the Sea Harrier was retired in 2006. We would therefore be in a far better position to provide air defence for a maritime task group, or to participate in policing a no fly zone.

5. Our potential adversaries would have something to think about - prevention (deterrence) being better than cure.

6. The defence relationship with the US would be strengthened, as would the defence relationship with France as Illustrious or Queen Elizabeth would be able to relieve Charles De Gaulle (and vice versa) if needed in a future operation this decade. Likewise Italy and Spain, and their AV8B equipped carriers.

7. This would not be a U turn, but would be the Government amending policy in the light of developments, and could be portrayed as such.

Yes, I suggested this idea (and others) over here (on the Harrier thread on PPRuNe - see particularly points 2 and 9, and possibly 10 and 11), although that was before the switch back to F35B.Now that the switch has been made, I expect that the practical issues will dictate a number of changes.

Note for tekirdag: I do not suggest any form of Harrier taking the place of F35B, merely that it could provide both a means of getting into a position where F35B can be brought into service with relative ease, AND provide a carrier strike capability this decade.

BTW I have found an old briefing paper on CVF:

FLEET HEADQUARTERS CARRIER STRIKE BRIEFING

Now we need go get back on track....

From: CVF and Carrier Strike thread

Yes, things have significantly changed in the last week or so. If the Government had any sense, it would adjust policy in the light of changing circumstances, and spin the hell out of this to promote "two carriers not one" and "the future capability this decade" as key messages.

Originally Posted by Dunservin

CDS explains reasons for changes to Joint Strike Fighter capability

RAF land-based tankers? That worked out well for RN carrier aircraft last time.

What, Yugoslavia & Iraq?

Originally Posted by Andy71

Originally Posted by Dunservin

CDS explains reasons for changes to Joint Strike Fighter capability

RAF land-based tankers? That worked out well for RN carrier aircraft last time.

What, Yugoslavia & Iraq?

Actually, I think you'll find both aircraft are British.

(My talents are wasted here.)

There is only one real pairing for AAR at sea.

I think they actually mean -

'Being as we sighned a contract to airtanker that they'd be our only source of national AAR on pain of huge penalty charges, we can't invest in AAR gear on the A400s or buddy tanking of any kind'

But that sounds realy bad on a press release so, Nothing to see here -

Originally Posted by Dunservin

Actually, I think you'll find both aircraft are British.

(My talents are wasted here.)

Ah, now I've got a decent data connection and can see the photo's that makes far more sense. I thought you were entering a Falklands rant

Originally Posted by SUU23

There is only one real pairing for AAR at sea.

Hmmm bump starting a jet.

In less time than it has taken Lockheed Martin to advance Joint Strike Fighter from a prototype design to
the early stages of an (at best) intermittent flight test schedule, the Fleet Air Arm progressed from this …



... to this ...



It is surprising to hear supporters for the service which pioneered jet powered naval aviation, angled flight
decks, flight deck landing systems, launch and recovery techniques - concede that commitment to through
life recruitment, training, and retention of skills required to operate a conventional flight deck - renders the
concept of operating conventional aircraft carriers impractical. Which is rather unfortunate because HMG
happens to be in the process of building two 65,000 tonnes, conventional size aircraft carriers.

The switch to STOVL may offer an easier transition for RAF aircrew assigned to fly off the boat, but over
the long term, it is a solution which will not deliver full potential from a strike aircraft that definitely has
range/payload limitations compared to the carrier variant.

If regeneration of the Fleet Air Arm favours a supply of fast jet aircrew from the Royal Air Force, rather
than developing skills/manpower for the Royal Navy to operate a conventional flight deck, the logical
conclusion must be that Carrier Strike in the future RN, will be formed as a marine branch of the RAF