Raf reductions- structure announced tomorrow

If we are only talking helis, in this particular scenario a merchantman with the ISOs off deck or used as wind shields would suffice. Maybe the QE2 alongside to take on the rescued and spirit them to safety.

Obviously we haven't got HMY Britannia any more for such undertakings.

If we want to start hurtling around in fast air, with realistic payloads and fuel then we need a carrier. A real carrier. For exactly the reasons just mentioned. All well and good saying Malta or Cyprus. Wht about countries who flip us the bird when we enquire if we can launch a strike from their land?

A carrier is a movable base, that we can stage aircraft from, from which we can deliver a strike. If we bolt on Commando boats, stores ships and various combattants (ober-wasser und unter) then all of a sudden we have a Carrier Group. Much akin to what the spams already routinely use. And they have far more clout for gettng their way in some countries than we do.
Think we did send 3 Chinook as well via The Boatshed.
 
Definitely need a link to this thread from the 'What's the point of the RAF?' one.

Just one small point - if this wasn't totally unexpected shouldn't someone have told the civvies to leave a.s.a.p. rather than waiting until it's too late and then requiring a rescue or is that part of the plan to retain our forces?
You're new to this game, I can tell. Allow me to assist.

The purpose of these types of thread is not to demonstrate how effective the RAF is at projecting power globally without drama, it's to argue that the RAF are an expensive waste of time and they should be scrapped, and all the money spent to buy us a fleet of supercarriers, (some posters argue for 6), so we can cruise the seven seas putting the world to rights and the foreign types in their place.
 
You're new to this game, I can tell. Allow me to assist.

The purpose of these types of thread is not to demonstrate how effective the RAF is at projecting power globally without drama, it's to argue that the RAF are an expensive waste of time and they should be scrapped, and all the money spent to buy us a fleet of supercarriers, (some posters argue for 6), so we can cruise the seven seas putting the world to rights and the foreign types in their place.
You forgot to mention Port Calls and Cocktail Parties!!
 
What is unexpected about current events?

Especially in the case of Libya, 'we've' been hoping for just such an event for a good many years.
Tunisia and Egypt? Iran? And the speed of, and lack of CI prempting, the Libya thing.
 
Aircraft carriers have a use in slapping uppity wogs. Once you start slapping, then you have to question what the repercussions are going to look like. And the picture is almost always UGLY!

Are you prepared to gamble in that way?

Or do you pair personally guarantee that the uppity wog will behave himself the moment a GR9 does a fly-past?
Heres a radical idea, why not take your tedious wog slapping argument back to the "Why we need a Navy" thread where you spent months putting forward that exact same argument without success?
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
Heres a radical idea, why not take your tedious wog slapping argument back to the "Why we need a Navy" thread where you spent months putting forward that argument without success?
All good fun but the point is that the job was done and done well. Is anyone on here really of the belief that there was no top cover from Cyprus? The med and most of mid east can be dominated from Cyprus with those refueling tanker thingies. Long time ago in another mid east trouble spot also beginning with L, we had HMS Glamorgan, HMS Fearless and the US Sixth Fleet including USS New Jersey as our naval support, in the end they could not do anything to realistically prevent the charnage. However, the Buccaneers from Cyprus, wing over down the high street certainly slowed things down for a bit. We have an Aircraft Carrier in the med and it is called Cyprus.
 
Heres a radical idea, why not take your tedious wog slapping argument back to the "Why we need a Navy" thread where you spent months putting forward that exact same argument without success?
Oh I don't know.

So far, in just the first 2 pages, we've had one poster suggesting we do a bit of SEAD, another counter-air to enforce our 'right' to fly over somebody else's territory and even hints at regime change.

Not one sole has managed to put together a credible argument as to how strike aircraft (be they from land or sea) will actually HELP the NEO effort in Libya.

Now if that isn't uppity wog slapping, then I'm a Dutchman.
 
All good fun but the point is that the job was done and done well. Is anyone on here really of the belief that there was no top cover from Cyprus? The med and most of mid east can be dominated from Cyprus with those refueling tanker thingies. Long time ago in another mid east trouble spot also beginning with L, we had HMS Glamorgan, HMS Fearless and the US Sixth Fleet including USS New Jersey as our naval support, in the end they could not do anything to realistically prevent the charnage. However, the Buccaneers from Cyprus, wing over down the high street certainly slowed things down for a bit. We have an Aircraft Carrier in the med and it is called Cyprus.
To be entirely honest I have no idea what has been/is operating out of Cyprus and was working on the premise it will be in the newspapers in a week or so. I would like to think that the UK is still capable of providing some assets from the various bits of territory we still own around the world, not just Cyprus.

However, given the projected fast jet cuts the RAF faces in combination with the already decreed cuts the RN is being subjected to it is likley that before the end of the year the UK will not be capable of operations we have seen this week in the Med.
Both the RN ships off Libya are destined for the scrap heap in the next year or so, Tornado is likely to go early and we won't be getting as many Typhoon's as are needed to fill the hole.
Once the full effects of the SDSR cut in the UK will have little realistic chance of similar operations in a year or two. Next time around it is likely that there will not be ships or aircraft within useful range.
 

Drifter21

Old-Salt
They where discussing this on R4 yesterday, same sort of arguements.

One interesting aside was that the Sovs, sorry Russians have increased their military spending from 0.5% GDP to 1.5%, with plans for lots of new surface ships, fighter aircraft and MBT's.

NATO was described as a 'busted flush' by one slightly East of Germany country and there is unease in some of the newer NATO states over Russia's plans to increase defence spending.

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, i just found it interesting, as most NATO countries seem to be reducing or are drawing down etc
 
Oh I don't know.

So far, in just the first 2 pages, we've had one poster suggesting we do a bit of SEAD, another counter-air to enforce our 'right' to fly over somebody else's territory and even hints at regime change.

Not one sole has managed to put together a credible argument as to how strike aircraft (be they from land or sea) will actually HELP the NEO effort in Libya.

Now if that isn't uppity wog slapping, then I'm a Dutchman.
If you really cannot figure that out for yourself there isn't much point in arguing with you, is there?
At least one C130 suffered small arms damage in the last few days, not exactly a permissive environment is it?
 
If you really cannot figure that out for yourself there isn't much point in arguing with you, is there?
At least one C130 suffered small arms damage in the last few days, not exactly a permissive environment is it?
Right, so one C-130 taking some small arms fire is now the argument for using helicopters, (far more vulnerable to small arms fire BTW), from a carrier off the coast?
 
If you really cannot figure that out for yourself there isn't much point in arguing with you, is there?
At least one C130 suffered small arms damage in the last few days, not exactly a permissive environment is it?
I have made it clear I consider it to be a very counter-productive move. One likely to lead grabbing utter bloody failure from the jaws of common sense and success.

If we launch strike aircraft, we are giving Gadaffi and his cronies the opportunity to shoot at us in an attempt to regain domestic support by making us out as the bad guys. And you can hardly blame him when posters here are hinting that we should have a go at regime change.

If we decide, for whatever to actually slap, then we are highly likely to turn the whole of Libya against us and any white face left in situ.

Is that what you want? Or haven't you thought it through very well?

If strike aircraft poncing around the air was the right move, the RAF and others would have been flying said missions from the very outset. Don't you understand that they are not being conducted because it's the wrong thing to do NOT because we can't do it?
 
To be entirely honest I have no idea what has been/is operating out of Cyprus and was working on the premise it will be in the newspapers in a week or so. I would like to think that the UK is still capable of providing some assets from the various bits of territory we still own around the world, not just Cyprus.

However, given the projected fast jet cuts the RAF faces in combination with the already decreed cuts the RN is being subjected to it is likley that before the end of the year the UK will not be capable of operations we have seen this week in the Med.
Both the RN ships off Libya are destined for the scrap heap in the next year or so, Tornado is likely to go early and we won't be getting as many Typhoon's as are needed to fill the hole.
Once the full effects of the SDSR cut in the UK will have little realistic chance of similar operations in a year or two. Next time around it is likely that there will not be ships or aircraft within useful range.
Oh the drama!


Post SDSR we will have 4 less FFG's but will still have our T23's and T45's.

Ditto C-130's, we will still have our C-130's until such time as they are replaced by bigger, faster and longer ranged A400M's.

So the argument now goes like this, as HMS Cumberland is being ditched, the RN will now have no FFG in the Med to sail into Benghazi, (we'll just ignore HMS Montrose that's off Malta at the mo), and the RAF who will still have all their C-130's won't be able to send their C-130's into the desert.

OK! got that.
 

Yakari

Old-Salt
If you really cannot figure that out for yourself there isn't much point in arguing with you, is there?
At least one C130 suffered small arms damage in the last few days, not exactly a permissive environment is it?
A case of mistaken identity according to the news. An apology has been issued.
 
IIRC in the falklands we lost A gazelle to small arms fire and a seaking to blue on blue.Argie helicopters proved to be a hard target in the air as well. Sharkie downed a c130 flying a lot lower than 33k As if those in the extraction got anywhere near that. Dont forget the c130 that was downed in Iraq as well. If one of those c130's had been downed with a full load of evacuees the consequences would have been larger than the dowing of a seaking or merlin. We could also have extracted smaller packets from more diverse sites with "copters". A carrier off the coast would have been able to handle the coms better in a modern enviroment. Regarding the gr9's yep 5 bomb busses would have been crap top cover cheers RAF. 7 Shars would have been better with AMRAM but thats in the past. people on this thread have already alluded to the fact that some people can smell trouble brewing. Unfortunatly we will never have a government capable of that or trusting any of the services to tell them where the bogy man will pop up next. On a personal note..Bring back the RFC and RNAS just to piss off sonoficarus....
 
Who's prepared to gamble that the operational environment will be sufficiently benign as to allow C.130s unhindered entry and exit next time?
Gamble? I believe Whitecity and Sunoficarus are prepared to personally gaurantee it.....
Aircraft carriers are useless forever-more don't you know?
You've noticed that too?

WC has also poured scorn on the notion that the littoral has any significance for our choice of capabilities or that the option of swift joint-force access from the sea at the time and place of our choosing merits special consideration in our Defence planning. Apart from him, who else hasn't spotted a particular geographic trait shared by the current hotspots of Somalia, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain and Iran?* If anything, this trend looks set to continue.

(*Hint: Contiguity to wet, blue, crinkly stuff ideal for accommodating a floating mobile airfield with HQ, C3I, power generation, water production, logistics, maintenance, medical, humanitarian aid and disaster relief facilities.)
 
WC has also poured scorn on the notion that the littoral has any significance for our choice of capabilities or that the option of swift joint-force access from the sea at the time and place of our choosing merits special consideration in our Defence planning.
So, you've not bothered to read what I've written.

You know, just because I don't put my 100% support behind Project-CVF doesn't imply any of what you've written here. How do you make that leap in understanding?
 

Latest Threads

Top