RN/RAN capabilities + RAN procurement

[1805]

Agreed the Black Buck raids were RAF PR and not without good reason. Looking to hopefully a rosie future, even with only 12-36 F35 flying from a QE what role for the RAF/Typhoon in the minds of the British public?

The F35 might be flown by many RAF pilots (as I think many Harriers were in the Falklands) but no one least of all the press will notice that, for once the PR will be in the RN favour.

 

[t68]

With an unspecified amount of F35C aircraft to be acquired from the original order of 138 F35B realistically how many aircraft do you expect the MOD will acquire for the RAF/RN. Who will receive the first batch RN or RAF?

 

[1805]

With an unspecified amount of F35C aircraft to be acquired from the original order of 138 F35B realistically how many aircraft do you expect the MOD will acquire for the RAF/RN. Who will receive the first batch RN or RAF?

Well we can only guess, but the smaller the number, the more likely they will be focused on the QEs. Their arrival is a long way off, funding will mostly have eased maybe 50-80. Be interesting to see if the RN/RAF acquires Goshawks.

 

[swerve]

With an unspecified amount of F35C aircraft to be acquired from the original order of 138 F35B realistically how many aircraft do you expect the MOD will acquire for the RAF/RN. Who will receive the first batch RN or RAF?

Joint force. AFAIK there won't be any aircraft allocated solely to the RN, or the RAF.

F-35C should be in production for a long time, so we could keep buying more until the the 2030s if we want, & if the budget allows. Current economic conditions won't necessarily last for the next 20 years.

 

[StobieWan]

Be interesting to see if the RN/RAF acquires Goshawks.

No point - they're out of production and for a pool of 12 or so F35, we'd barely need 2-4 pilots going through conversion in a year.

I believe France puts their pilots through the US system for pretty much this reason. It'd be a fairly expensive capability to obtain, put it that way,

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

Dont really understand this statement? Could have hit the runway - doubt it - if so why didnt they?

Same reason the Vulcan strikes never hit the runway again - it's a really hard target to hit and the first strike was very lucky to put one on the runway at all. I'm assuming the RAF knew that fairly well. which was why they switched to Shrikes in the hope of taking out the SAM batteries.

The option with higher probability would have been using SHAR's locally - as has been said, about half the Harrier force had radars that either didn't work or they didn't trust, largely down to a very different approach to maintaining the sets. Best option would have been a night attack combined with a Vulcan overhead with Shrike ready to take the SAM radars out. I'm not sure if this was tried however.

Fundamentally, neither Vulcan or Harrier had a *great* chance of cutting the runway but a decent combined strike using the ARBS system on the SHAR probably had a better chance of doing so.

Being cynical, one might take the view that losing a SHAR would have been a set back that would have been hard to handle, while losing a couple of Vulcan's would have been neither here nor there from the point of view of the campaign and in that respect, it's possible that the risky attack on Stanley was handed to the RAF on that basis.

I know Mr Ward has somewhat blotted his copybook with the last twenty years of ravings but he did have a chance to run the numbers at the time and I think his frustrations at not being allowed to put the attack in were genuine.

Ian

 

[south]

Look at the majority of work places, who gets the bonus/pay rise/promotion? Is it the guy who gets the job done without a fuss, overcomes adversity and puts in what ever is needed to get across the line? Or is it the well presented, well spoken guy who socialises with the boss and pisses in his pocket while hinting at how the other guy is cruising and probably doesn't need the level of resources they have been assigned?

Very simplistic but it fits.

So eight RAF fixed wing pilots received decorations compared to five Navy despite the later bearing the brunt of operations. Go figure.

I would probably say incredibly simplistic... The numbers are actually different however...British medals awarded - 1982 Falklands War The question that is probably more apt is why did the RN not recognize more of their aircrew who made significant, important contributions...

The SHARs had proven the capability to hit a runway sized target with low level bombing. With only three bombs rather than 21. Same type of bomb. The RAF attacks were at right angle to th e runway so they were never going to get more than one bomb onto it.

The RAF Vulcan attacks were at 35 degree angles which is the optimum angle to hit a linear target with a stick of bombs.

Same reason the Vulcan strikes never hit the runway again - it's a really hard target to hit and the first strike was very lucky to put one on the runway at all. I'm assuming the RAF knew that fairly well. which was why they switched to Shrikes in the hope of taking out the SAM batteries.

Thats what I am implying - if it was so easy they could have cut it with the SHARs to at least prevent the night transport flights and pucaras from getting in and out.

The SHARs had proven the capability to hit a runway sized target with low level bombing.

The probability of cutting the runway from a low level attack as they first prosecuted the attack is incredibly low. Flying down the runway dropping CBU's is fine, however doing same with 1000lb bombs you arent going to get the impact angle or velocity required for penetration and in fact run a significant risk of bomb ricochet or broaching...

As to whether the runway was never tasked.. I'll agree that there were significant organisational failings of the RN in their tasking and knowledge of the capabilities of the shars...

 

[donuteater]

It would be a better investment if we purchased 2 light carriers. I just can't get over how we didnt try to obtain a different carrier after the royal navy decided not to sell us the ark royal

 

[SASWanabe]

It would be a better investment if we purchased 2 light carriers. I just can't get over how we didnt try to obtain a different carrier after the royal navy decided not to sell us the ark royal

in the long run, not replacing Melbourne was probably the best outcome in that situation. it allowed us to spend the money elsewhere I.e new helicopters for the Major surface combatants and "large" numbers of ANZACs even tho they were more expensive than expected

 

[alexsa]

Much as it pains me to say this the loss of the carrier capabiltiy at that time would have made sense if money had indeed been plunged into additional capabiltiy................

From my memory that was certainly not the case. ANZACs came later and were very much fitted for but not with. There was a cartoon running around at the time showing the Parramatta post refit - new bridge shape, M22, HF sonar (oh joy) and not much else............

The caption was something along the lines of "she is a palace of Gems [this was sarcatic given the lack of offensive capability] but whe have had to cut back on maintenance in other areas"

In the background was a river class on the bottom with the mast above water. This pretty much summed up the feeling in the fleet at the time.

This was followed up by wearing a rut in the ocaen off Fiji (quite a soul destroying experiance in futility) resulted in two rusted out Newports............. oh joy again.

 

[Sea Toby]

It would be a better investment if we purchased 2 light carriers. I just can't get over how we didnt try to obtain a different carrier after the royal navy decided not to sell us the ark royal

The old flat top Australia has missed the most since they were struck is the Sydney. Sydney would have been very useful during the East Timor crisis. Australia was pushed beyond their sea lift limits for East Timor. Tobruk was not a sufficient replacement for Sydney.


It doesn't appear you appreciate sea lift enough. The Canberra class LHDs will address and solve Australia's lack of sufficient sea lift.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKVapTPCn0I&feature=related"]The Vung Tau Ferry - YouTube[/nomedia]

This video needs many more likes on You Tube. It is a bit disappointing there are only 4 likes.

 

[StevoJH]

The old flat top Australia has missed the most since they were struck is the Sydney. Sydney would have been very useful during the East Timor crisis. Australia was pushed beyond their sea lift limits for East Timor. Tobruk was not a sufficient replacement for Sydney.

Can I blame the USN for selling the RAN a pair of Lemon's for the lack of sufficient sea lift in East Timor?

Because the pair of Newports required 5-6 years or refits and reconstruction just to get them in good enough shape for service, and then they only lasted 10 years.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

in the long run, not replacing Melbourne was probably the best outcome in that situation. it allowed us to spend the money elsewhere I.e new helicopters for the Major surface combatants and "large" numbers of ANZACs even tho they were more expensive than expected

I couldn’t disagree more. The money which would have been spent on HMS Invincible and an air wing of 16 Sea Harriers and additional Sea Kings was spent on two FFGs made in Australia and 16 Seahawks. Which were not in service until 1990-1996. Comparing the two and you have superior AAW and far superior strike vs roughly equal ASW and the carrier option being in service 10 years earlier.

The funding for the Anzac class wasn’t in play back in 82-83 when these decisions were made. Further a Navy with a sustained carrier capability would unlikely be folded into the Defence of Australia nonsense which saw the New Surface Combatant (NSC) project scoped to be eight Tier II fitted for not with patrol frigates. Rather it would have been six proper frigates of which the German baseline (for comparison to the MEKO 200) would be the Type 123 Brandenburg class.

The Navy would be far more capable for the same spend.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The old flat top Australia has missed the most since they were struck is the Sydney. Sydney would have been very useful during the East Timor crisis. Australia was pushed beyond their sea lift limits for East Timor. Tobruk was not a sufficient replacement for Sydney.

Another nonsense contribution. Tobruk was not to replace Sydney but rather to replace John Monash. Sydney would have been over 50 years old in 1999 and would have sunk if hit by a wave so of little use to anyone.

Of course being an expert in Australian defence policy you would have known all about Jervis Bay (ex Australian Trader) and how it was to be replaced by the THSS which in turn was reduced from a purpose build LPD to two second hand USN LSTs that were too broken down for service in East Timor.

It doesn't appear you appreciate sea lift enough. The Canberra class LHDs will address and solve Australia's lack of sufficient sea lift.

Nice try at trolling.

 

[t68]

Can I blame the USN for selling the RAN a pair of Lemon's for the lack of sufficient sea lift in East Timor?

Because the pair of Newports required 5-6 years or refits and reconstruction just to get them in good enough shape for service, and then they only lasted 10 years.

Caveat emptor (let the buyer beware)

From memory it was under Kim Beasley watch looking for cheap alternative, years ago I was talking to one of the people who did the inspection and the report was very damning at the time of the condition of the ships. They advised government not go with them.

With hindsight $ wise it may have looked good on paper at the time but with AusGov spending $400 million AUD for refit and conversion, the last of the new build Whidbey Island class would have cost about the same USS Ashland was $149 million USD each and commissioned 1992.A follow on of the Whidbey Island is the Harper Ferry class (LSD-49) which cost the USN $157 million USD but for some strange reason the last of build cost US taxpayers $258 million USD with 8 ships of the class cancelled, we could have ordered LSD-53/LSD-54 back in 93 and would have been ready about the time HMAS Manoora entered service and still had another 20 years of service up their sleeve.

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/amphibious/lsd49.html

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/amphibious/lsd41.html


Edit
Minister for Defence in 93 was Robert Ray, apologies to Mr Kim Beazley.

 

[Volkodav]

Another nonsense contribution. Tobruk was not to replace Sydney but rather to replace John Monash. Sydney would have been over 50 years old in 1999 and would have sunk if hit by a wave so of little use to anyone.

Of course being an expert in Australian defence policy you would have known all about Jervis Bay (ex Australian Trader) and how it was to be replaced by the THSS which in turn was reduced from a purpose build LPD to two second hand USN LSTs that were too broken down for service in East Timor.



Nice try at trolling.

An Ocean class LPH to replace Sydney would have been a nice fit had we gone ahead with the Invincible buy.

I have mentioned it previously, a naval arch from Cockatoo told me some time ago that post Falklands the UK was interested in getting us to build a repeat pair of Tobruks (to their specs) for the RN in exchange for them building an Invinsible to our spec for the RAN. The idea being to utilise hot (in production) yards to build the required ships at the greatest efficiency. Haven't actually read anything on this just this guys recollections but it sounds like ti would have been a sweet deal.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Caveat emptor (let the buyer beware)

From memory it was under Kim Beasley watch looking for cheap alternative, years ago I was talking to one of the people who did the inspection and the report was very damning at the time of the condition of the ships. They advised government not go with them.

What happened is the RAN went to cabinet in 92 or 93 with a proposal to replace Jervis Bay and Tobruk with a new build THSS the spec of which was about the same as the Dutch/Spanish LPDs. Since it would cost around $500m cabinet said no go find something second hand or cheaper. Which of course lead to the LPA debacle. Ironically costing the same, taking longer and delivering less capability.

To keep the idioms rolling: spend now, save later

But back to HMAS Sydney as a fast transport she was replaced by HMAS Jervis Bay (GT 203, ex MV Australian Trader).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Jervis_Bay_(GT_203)