ARmy Rumour SErvice

Given the proposed lead in time, naval air doesn't seem to figure much in current defence planning. Begs the question, why two big carriers much later? What do we think is going to change?
Secondly, concerning the circular guidance from government does anyone care what sort of capability we actually end up with? Assuming that two different concepts are likely to have somewhat different capabilities.
Just asking, still confused.

B

Originally Posted by bakerlite

Given the proposed lead in time, naval air doesn't seem to figure much in current defence planning. Begs the question, why two big carriers much later? What do we think is going to change?
Secondly, concerning the circular guidance from government does anyone care what sort of capability we actually end up with? Assuming that two different concepts are likely to have somewhat different capabilities.
Just asking, still confused.

B

Whats going to change is the Yanks are upping sticks in the Med and near East with their grown up CBG's and heading off East to face down the Chinese, and expect the two more grown up kids on the block, Britain and France, to return to the status pre 67 of looking after our own backyard.

Originally Posted by sunnoficarus

Whats going to change is the Yanks are upping sticks in the Med and near East with their grown up CBG's and heading off East to face down the Chinese, and expect the two more grown up kids on the block, Britain and France, to return to the status pre 67 of looking after our own backyard.

Gibraltar, Cyprus and two Queen Elizabeths

Should be able to give the French a bloody nose when the time comes.

Originally Posted by sunnoficarus

Whats going to change is the Yanks are upping sticks in the Med and near East with their grown up CBG's and heading off East to face down the Chinese, and expect the two more grown up kids on the block, Britain and France, to return to the status pre 67 of looking after our own backyard.

Er, "Winds of Change" changeable. Back to Suez back to Aden, all is forgiven. As the Prime Minister said to Miss Brooks "LOL".

B

Originally Posted by bakerlite

Er, "Winds of Change" changeable. Back to Suez back to Aden, all is forgiven. As the Prime Minister said to Miss Brooks "LOL".

B

Pretty much, yes, the Yanks expect us to go back to Suez as a primary area of operations.

Originally Posted by Fox-and-horses

how on earth can it cost more than one billion pounds to fit cats and traps?

Ark Royal of 1939 vintage cost less than two million pounds.

Is there a rat infestation ?
As a former coastguard and a boat skipper yourself I'd have thought you'd have put these MoD johnnies on the right track.

(Oh, that's unlikely to be the one from Pompey to Twickers.)

So where do we go now - in the next few years? In many ways, the question is similar to one I posed months ago before the F35B vs F35C was revisited:

.....argument has been and gone, the issues now are how do we prepare for CVF and retain a vast range of whole ship expertise needed to support fixed wing flying, and what will we do if this decade involves a crisis in which fixed wing carrier aviation would be either useful or essential to UK forces - perhaps visually identifying unknown aircraft (see this scenario)?

From: What the First Sea Lord said....

I have always though that having no embarked fixed wing aviation for a decade and then picking up the baton would be very risky, and switching to F35C added considerably to that risk. Additionally, the Navy would have a real problem recruiting and retaining fixed wing jocks with only a pair of Hawks (NFSF(FW) and some trainers) to its name.

Potentially the switch back to F35B offers a solution to some of these issues. Quoting myself again:

2. Go to the US and (seeing as they got a good deal with respect to the Harrier GR9 sale) see if we can lease a number (eight perhaps?) of AV8Bs this decade, along with support.

3. Using Reservists to maintain the capability - albeit at a lower level of capability and readiness. See here and here. Bit difficult now since the GR9s have gone.

4. Thinking even more outside the box, regenerating (in a slightly limited way) some Sea Harriers (since many are still intact and in UK/MOD hands), and maintaining a capability (at a lower state of readiness) by attaching a couple of them to NFSF(FW), and expending that capability in a crisis - as discussed from here onwards.

They could also provide continuation training for the deck crews and other parts of ship involved in supporting flying operations.

5. Embark US/Italian/Spanish Harriers aboard Lusty/QE as much as possible. Maybe we could borrow some jets for short periods - see point 3?

Originally Posted by singha61

Just been on 5 Live Sos for Defence has announced change in aircraft type for the 2 new carriers

BBC News - U-turn over fighter plane choice

Telegraph
Critics attack Government U-turn on fighter jets
A major retreat over aircraft for the Royal Navy’s new carriers will be announced today, abandoning plans to buy the conventional take-off version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Critics attack Government U-turn on fighter jets - Telegraph

Any Harriers still around?

There are loads of Sea Harriers in working order (but grounded by the Gov and not sold to the USMC) in hangars at HMS Seahawk (RNAS Culdrose) officially still used to train ground crews to land and park VTOL A/c on carriers, including a couple of two-seaters, aprox 15-20 working aircraft. Theres definately enough to equip a carrier with a strike capability and just enough to probably get us out of the brown stuff in an emergency like if that Argy bitch starts hostilities again!