Sorry I did get off the subject a bit, but for consistence wanted to keep in the same thread as was responding to comment about common SAM systems
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
PeterCrisp
Member
Would it be possible to delay purchase of the F-35 for 4 or 5 years and in the meantime use the carriers as kick arse helicopter carriers? Shove a load of Wildcat's on it and a few Chinook's and it would at least be better that just having it sail around with bugger all aircraft. This would also give them an excuse to order more helicopters.
Troothsayer
New Member
As far as I know over half the F35 procurement isn't supposed to arrive until after 2025 anyway. I'm pretty sure what you're suggesting is what the Royal Navy will go for anyway. Their priorities must be to get these into service even if it's at the expense of its airwing initially.
I can't see why the RAF need the F35 they have lots of Typhoon. Still a lot at stake for them if the RN get an aircraft as good as they have. By accepting removal of the FA 2 early the RN has accepted a dangerous precedent. It is such a pity the RN didn't base the FA2 on the AV8B like the GR7. It would have made it much more difficult to justify early withdrawal.
I must say bulding 65,000t carriers to just operate c 30 F35 each or just helicopters makes little sense. We might aswell have gone for 40-50,000t ships with maybe less chance of cancellation/sale. Lest hope they do both see RN service.
I must say bulding 65,000t carriers to just operate c 30 F35 each or just helicopters makes little sense. We might aswell have gone for 40-50,000t ships with maybe less chance of cancellation/sale. Lest hope they do both see RN service.
well lots more than the RN will get F35s, and the RN will use their F35, before the exit of the old RN fixed wing carriers the RAF saw very little active service.
BAOR operated entirely under the German area ground based air defence umbrella, which was an integrated, layered system, co-ordinated with NATO (including RAF) fighters. BAOR needed - and therefore got - point defence. It didn't need another type of area air defence missile, to introduce into what was already one of the densest (& probably the highest quality) GBAD networks in the world. There was no deficit, once one views BAOR as what it was, i.e. a component of an allied army.
And that is all I will say on this topic. Back to the RN.
t68
Well-Known Member
Why is it that the RAF also require F35B aircraft when it also has just received a modern multi-role fighter in the Typhoon, RAF would better served with a mix of Typhoon/F35A yet better still if it were made for export F22 in the air-superiority role and leave the FAA to do what it does best .
If the order is cut to 70 aircraft priority should be to place the F35B with the FAA to have 2 operational carriers with extra aircraft procured at a later date, this way one carrier is always available for ops and the other in maintenance.
I found the article about problems with the F35C from another forum but do not give the source from where it came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NavAir Offers F-18 Ammo Amid JSF Woes
By Colin Clark
Tuesday, January 12th, 2010 2:17 pm
Congressional aides are beginning to wonder if the Navy should buy the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter, in light of the program’s rising price tag and its higher flight costs.
“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the F-35 might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further to the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-35C looks like a great candidate for cancellation,” said one congressional aide. “Gates has talked about choosing 75 percent solutions over expensive ‘exquisite’ systems and this is a perfect candidate.”
For its part, the Navy, already worried it won’t have enough planes for its carrier fleet, has briefed senior Pentagon leaders that the Joint Strike Fighter program “will have a significant impact on naval aviation affordability in the FYDP and beyond.”
A source who follows JSF closely quoted portions of the NavAir study, “Joint Programs TOC Affordability.” A congressional aide who has seen the report confirmed the information. The study was briefed to DoD leaders earlier this month;
The source said that the study finds “the cost to operate and support the F-35 (all variants) will be $442 billion or more depending on additional costs for integration on ships and currently unforeseen development costs. This estimate is in FY 2002 program baseline dollars; the current dollar cost will be significantly higher. The production and development costs are cited, by the JET II, to be $217 and $46 billion respectively (2002 $), thereby making total program ownership cost to be $704 billion, or more, in 2002 dollars,:” according to this source.
That would put operating costs of the F-35 B and C versions some 40 percent higher “than the cost to operate the existing (larger) fleet of F-18A-Ds and AV-8s. Cost per flight hour of the combined F-18A-D and AV-8 fleets is estimated to be about $19,000 per hour; F-35B/C cost per flight hour is estimated to be about $31,000,” the source said. “These higher and growing operating costs are certainly typical for a new generation aircraft, but the revelation of these estimates at this relatively early point in the program would seem to demonstrate some real and growing concern that the highly complex F-35 is anything but ‘affordable.’”
An industry source noted that the chief of Naval operations “has been very interested across the force in terms of total operating costs. It is significant that this study addresses this.” The industry source said that Super Hornet flying hour costs are about $5,000 an hour.
A second congressional aide raised some questions about the study’s methodology, saying that “the worker level people, when asked about the assumptions by an assistant secretary in the Navy, didn’t have real good answers to that question. So while some of the numbers are very specific, the assumptions are not.” But this aide, who follows both programs, agreed that the NavAir study was a good argument for the F-18. “But yes, if they are looking for tails versus presumed better capability for more money and given the budget crunch and need for more ships they have HUGE problems,” the aide said.
The source who provided the study results noted that it “shows nothing for F-18E/F flight hour costs, which makes me suspicious.”
While Congress may not be ready to cancel the carrier version of the F-35, the industry source noted that support for the F-18 “has been gaining momentum in the Congress really over the last three years,” largely to address what has been identified as a shortfall in the number of planes available. “Each year more and more language has been written noting Congress’ concern with the shortfall as well as questioning what the Navy and DoD are going to do about it.”
Most interestingly, this source said the Navy is looking over the long term for a sixth generation aircraft, one with “increased range, increased persistence, increased speed and increased payload.” The F-35 is, of course, a fifth generation fighter.
If the order is cut to 70 aircraft priority should be to place the F35B with the FAA to have 2 operational carriers with extra aircraft procured at a later date, this way one carrier is always available for ops and the other in maintenance.
I found the article about problems with the F35C from another forum but do not give the source from where it came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NavAir Offers F-18 Ammo Amid JSF Woes
By Colin Clark
Tuesday, January 12th, 2010 2:17 pm
Congressional aides are beginning to wonder if the Navy should buy the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter, in light of the program’s rising price tag and its higher flight costs.
“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the F-35 might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further to the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-35C looks like a great candidate for cancellation,” said one congressional aide. “Gates has talked about choosing 75 percent solutions over expensive ‘exquisite’ systems and this is a perfect candidate.”
For its part, the Navy, already worried it won’t have enough planes for its carrier fleet, has briefed senior Pentagon leaders that the Joint Strike Fighter program “will have a significant impact on naval aviation affordability in the FYDP and beyond.”
A source who follows JSF closely quoted portions of the NavAir study, “Joint Programs TOC Affordability.” A congressional aide who has seen the report confirmed the information. The study was briefed to DoD leaders earlier this month;
The source said that the study finds “the cost to operate and support the F-35 (all variants) will be $442 billion or more depending on additional costs for integration on ships and currently unforeseen development costs. This estimate is in FY 2002 program baseline dollars; the current dollar cost will be significantly higher. The production and development costs are cited, by the JET II, to be $217 and $46 billion respectively (2002 $), thereby making total program ownership cost to be $704 billion, or more, in 2002 dollars,:” according to this source.
That would put operating costs of the F-35 B and C versions some 40 percent higher “than the cost to operate the existing (larger) fleet of F-18A-Ds and AV-8s. Cost per flight hour of the combined F-18A-D and AV-8 fleets is estimated to be about $19,000 per hour; F-35B/C cost per flight hour is estimated to be about $31,000,” the source said. “These higher and growing operating costs are certainly typical for a new generation aircraft, but the revelation of these estimates at this relatively early point in the program would seem to demonstrate some real and growing concern that the highly complex F-35 is anything but ‘affordable.’”
An industry source noted that the chief of Naval operations “has been very interested across the force in terms of total operating costs. It is significant that this study addresses this.” The industry source said that Super Hornet flying hour costs are about $5,000 an hour.
A second congressional aide raised some questions about the study’s methodology, saying that “the worker level people, when asked about the assumptions by an assistant secretary in the Navy, didn’t have real good answers to that question. So while some of the numbers are very specific, the assumptions are not.” But this aide, who follows both programs, agreed that the NavAir study was a good argument for the F-18. “But yes, if they are looking for tails versus presumed better capability for more money and given the budget crunch and need for more ships they have HUGE problems,” the aide said.
The source who provided the study results noted that it “shows nothing for F-18E/F flight hour costs, which makes me suspicious.”
While Congress may not be ready to cancel the carrier version of the F-35, the industry source noted that support for the F-18 “has been gaining momentum in the Congress really over the last three years,” largely to address what has been identified as a shortfall in the number of planes available. “Each year more and more language has been written noting Congress’ concern with the shortfall as well as questioning what the Navy and DoD are going to do about it.”
Most interestingly, this source said the Navy is looking over the long term for a sixth generation aircraft, one with “increased range, increased persistence, increased speed and increased payload.” The F-35 is, of course, a fifth generation fighter.
Last edited:
PeterCrisp
Member
Considering the Fifth Generation aircraft are only just being made available I think it's bonkers to start even talking about a sixth generation. Whatever happened to gradual improvements for a decade or two with a single generation as I'm sure the airframe of the F35 will be massively improved over the next 15 to 20 years or so?
You just have to look at the aircraft in the current US fleet to see that airframes can be useful for decades with gradual improvement. The F16 is one of my personal favourite aircraft and that has seen many upgrades and is still a good aircraft today.
You just have to look at the aircraft in the current US fleet to see that airframes can be useful for decades with gradual improvement. The F16 is one of my personal favourite aircraft and that has seen many upgrades and is still a good aircraft today.
It does seem mad that we are going to have to buy a cripplingly expensive aircraft when we got ride of FA2 some of which where only 7 years old and could have serviced for 20-25 years. The fact there is effectively no effective fighter cover for the fleet and only 5 old type 42 in active service we are in a worse situation than during the Falklands
You have missed one very vital point in all this RAF bashing. The RNs Fleet Air Arm is desperately short of Fast Jet Pilots, hence why there is a Naval Strike Wing and not two seperate squadrons. It is a shortfall that will take years to regenerate-if it ever does.
The Fleet Air Arm and the Army Air Corps where both given their 'independence' * and placed back under their respective services, from the RAF because the RAF was negelecting the needs of the areas they cover. In particular with the FAA it was Carrier based aircraft. In a day and age however where you can buy aircraft that can be used on Carriers and land bases that are as good as each other, where Joint Ops are a must, money is short, and one service is lacking in the aircrew department, it may very well make sense to place all Fast Jets under RAF control.
I also note that the RAF will always, for the forseeable future, operate Fast jets. The FAA will only ever operate them providing the RN has Carriers...........
(NOTE: I'm not saying we should park them all under the RAF, or belittling the work of the FAA, but it is food for thought when considering who is going to 'operate' them)
*It is worth noting that it is 'independence' to an extent. Both the AAC and the FAA rely on the RAF to supply many support functions-expecially when it comes to specialist equipment support for aircrew, and it should be note that FAA Jet crews are trained by the RAF alongside RAF crews at Linton-on-Ouse and Valley.
This Guardian articles misses one point-how long the F-35 is in production for. Yeap so we are in tight squeeze now, doesn't stop us from ordering them later when we are possibly in a better situation financially.
matthew22081991
New Member
Nah it'll arrive before 2025. The Navy plans for it in 2012, but that's obviously extremely optimistic. They'll have a good few in service before 2020 though.
The RAF wouldn't mind scrapping the F35 for their bloody useless Eurofighters. And if they can't do that they'll continue their relentless crusade to have all the carrier air assets under their control. So the RAF is the main threat to the air wing (as usual). They've been known to shift locations on maps to show they can get to the enemy and that aircraft carriers aren't needed.
As far as I am concerned, these carriers wouldn't be threatened if the RAF was limited to a LOT less Eurofighters (it doesn't take 232 Eurofighters to secure British airspace). All the RAF really needs is 50-70 Eurofighters, a LOT more helicopters (for the Army/civil SAR) and more transport capability.
All of this would mean we could get our carriers in service, pay for a couple more escorts and get the FAA all the F35s it needs, as a bonus all those F35s could actually be controlled by the Navy!
But I suppose the geniuses that inhabit Whitehall will cuddle up to the cheaper RAF and Britain will be left with a reduced expeditionary capability.
However, be left in no doubt the aircraft carriers WILL get built. They have already started building them and they won't stop now, that would be political suicide. So I think this thread has really hit the nail on the head by moving onto the threat to the air arm rather than the carriers themselves.
Granted, but put those RAF pilots under Navy command, not vice versa. Like I said above, the RAF doesn't need that many jets to defend UK airspace. I even believe withdrawing the jets from the Falklands might be a good idea (all they are doing is providing an invader with an airfield, and four jets won't stop an invader).ASFC said:
The RAF is wonderful, but it should stick to what it is needed for, which is civil SAR, helicopters in Afghanistan and basic (BASIC) air defence. The very fact that RN jets were the only ones in Afghanistan until recently (which the RAF command claimed the credit for) shows the RAF doesn't send it's own jets to do the dirty work when it doesn't have to. Those RN jets could have been on carriers.
Sorry to sound so angry about the RAF, but they really are on their traditional rampage against the RN to glorify themselves, at the expense of British foreign policy. And they know it.
t68
Well-Known Member
Sorry, it was not my intension to come across as bashing the RAF.
I was not aware of the shortage of jet pilots in the FAA just assuming that with the RN having three light carriers in the past, plus two fleet carriers before this having been in the carrier ops for quite some time that the FAA was so under staffed.
With the budget be so tight in get the number of aircraft now, how about i throw some thing a little bit unorthodox into the mix and little bit stupid.
Royal Navy man and run the ship but have the US Navy/Marine’s deploying fast jet aircraft flying of them till the budget let’s you get the aircraft needed, kills two birds with one stone RN still has people getting experience with carrier ops US has a defacto carrier to use if another was required some place else or in long term maintenance. Yes it far fetched and it does pose a lot of problems with the idea.
Thoughts
Flame suit on
I couldn't be asked to respond to alot of that, however I think you will find they are RAF Harriers, manned by RAF personnel if on an RAF Sqn, or by FAA personnel if its the NSW. The whole of Joint Force Harrier rotated through Afghanistan for several years, made up from both services. If you are going to make claims at least make them factual!
And the idea that the RAF is the route of all evil, out to get the RN and the cause of all British Foreign policy problems is pure fantasy.
t68-I have always understood it to be Fast Jet Pilots the FAA are short of-never heard of problems in their rotary department.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
In my haste to come up with a stupid solution the problems regarding the FAA i failed, i can’t see the forest for the trees.
Is it possible to let construction of the second carrier to slip by 18/24 months without penalty, with the delay in construction which in turn could delay ordering the aircraft which in turn could ease budgetary pressure, you still end up with the two carrier’s just later than planned. But it could also backfire on you and cost more in the long run.
Is it possible to let construction of the second carrier to slip by 18/24 months without penalty, with the delay in construction which in turn could delay ordering the aircraft which in turn could ease budgetary pressure, you still end up with the two carrier’s just later than planned. But it could also backfire on you and cost more in the long run.
Whenever I get into a debate about the creation of the RAFand the impact on the Navy/Army, you really get rediculed as though you're mad. Its fair to say it probably cost us the first 3 years of the WW2. The RN didn't get aircraft as good as the USN until the US gave them to us. We couldn't even get a handful of 4 engines heavys from the RAF, to close the Mid Atlantic Gap. A huge overlooked issue was the loss of some of the brightest RN talent that was serving in the RNAS at merger.
Moving forward to 60s there is no doubt the RAF did pay some games, in fairness they lost heavily aswell. But as at that time, is the current RAF position driven by just fighting their corner for scare resource or fear of the impact of a RN reborn with proper carrier aviation, on them?
Yes I am all for efficiency and saving lets have a central flying school and common infastructure/more Joint units. But why say have the RAF looking after a Joint Lynx capability when it is only the RN/AAC who operate.
What is the role of the RAF? surely all helicopter (why are Chinnoks under RAF control) should be under either RN or AAC control, there is no need for the RAF to operate any (maybe a few SAR?)
Maritime Patrol aircraft, surely mainly about hunting submarines which should be done hand in glove with escorts/RN this should be under RN control?
There is no strategic bombing (done by he SSBN since 60s) All battlefield attack should be at Army direction, as should be the heavy movement of there kit (C17/C130 etc).
Which leaves only UK air defence which could be separate with the RAF or returned to the RN. This would create huge savings and ensure we don't have mistakes like commitments to two project with the same type of aircraft /role Tyhoon/F35.
Moving forward to 60s there is no doubt the RAF did pay some games, in fairness they lost heavily aswell. But as at that time, is the current RAF position driven by just fighting their corner for scare resource or fear of the impact of a RN reborn with proper carrier aviation, on them?
Yes I am all for efficiency and saving lets have a central flying school and common infastructure/more Joint units. But why say have the RAF looking after a Joint Lynx capability when it is only the RN/AAC who operate.
What is the role of the RAF? surely all helicopter (why are Chinnoks under RAF control) should be under either RN or AAC control, there is no need for the RAF to operate any (maybe a few SAR?)
Maritime Patrol aircraft, surely mainly about hunting submarines which should be done hand in glove with escorts/RN this should be under RN control?
There is no strategic bombing (done by he SSBN since 60s) All battlefield attack should be at Army direction, as should be the heavy movement of there kit (C17/C130 etc).
Which leaves only UK air defence which could be separate with the RAF or returned to the RN. This would create huge savings and ensure we don't have mistakes like commitments to two project with the same type of aircraft /role Tyhoon/F35.
Last edited:
Completely agree. As with everything: cancelation, reduced orders, changing specification significantly (up or down) and changing timescales (slowing and speeding up) are all ways to waste money.
So it is vital we plan realistically in the first place and build in head room. I do wonder what was in the mind of the planners with so much congestion in construction. Why did they want to build the CVs so close to each other they should have planned for building one after the other as the USN does with is CVNs. Once they are built what will the yards have to build?
It actually would be great if the 2nd CV could be sold to India (even at a knocked down price) and a replacement built in UK yard. It providing jobs and maintaining stategic capability. Some of MARS should also be looked at this way. One of the key advantages the CVs have is they do create far more employment than most defence project for their cost.
So it is vital we plan realistically in the first place and build in head room. I do wonder what was in the mind of the planners with so much congestion in construction. Why did they want to build the CVs so close to each other they should have planned for building one after the other as the USN does with is CVNs. Once they are built what will the yards have to build?
It actually would be great if the 2nd CV could be sold to India (even at a knocked down price) and a replacement built in UK yard. It providing jobs and maintaining stategic capability. Some of MARS should also be looked at this way. One of the key advantages the CVs have is they do create far more employment than most defence project for their cost.
I think it is too easy to lay the blame for the perceived woes of the RN solely at the foot of the RAF.
An interesting read is RM Crosleys Up in Harms Way. This is a somewhat technical account but the author gives a fascinating account of his wartime Fleet Air Arm carreer and subsequent decades of being a test pilot, pioneering much of the work surrounding the Buccaneer and flying pretty much every other UK and US aircraft
Basically Crosley gives a very candid summary of the lack of understanding of Admirals and the Navy Hierarchy to the possibility of aircraft. So in that sense the Navy itself pre war takes the blame. A fixation with old tactics and no faith in this "new technology" is what hindered the use of aircraft at sea. The use of cariers should have seen off the fixation with battleships early on but the RN sat back and let the RAF take the lead. Where the Japanese and US Admirals saw the future, it could be argued that ours saw battleships. Crosley then gives an account of his and the FAA role in Korea which has been very under reported where carriers played a huge part.
Once the RAF takes the offensive lead bombing the Germans for the bulk of the war and "wins" the battle of Britain its very difficult to argue against the need for the RAF, once the cold War sets in and we base the offensive bulk of the army and RAF in Germany, again its very hard to argue against the role. If our Politicians retreat from East of Suez, again its hard to argue that the RAF cant deal with threats, particularly the threat in questin was the threat of nuclear devastation.
Crosley makes the point in hindsight that it was in some way the Admirals fault we got out of the fixed wing carrier game through stubborn and short sighted attitudes, demanding that the RN would ony be viable if we had two new carriers in the 1960's when if they had swallowed pride and played it more political we could have at least commissioned one CV. Crosley suggests that even in the 1960's and 70;s financial balls ups, the RN could have got one, there was enough "Pro"voices, even Healey that might have kept it. The RN could have kept a small but potent Phantom and Bucc squadron running, just as the french have managed with one carrier. Looking at it in that way, the RN would be in a better position now, ok no Sea Harrier and periods of no aircover for the Fleet but better something than nothing. There is always the possbility of buiding another.
Thats why in the current climate, Im not bothered so much in numbers of F35 or whatever, just build the bloody things, and if it means RAF F35's and pilots flying of it, then so be it, in fact I would happily see a NATO wing of Spanish and Italian F35Bs flying exercises from POW in 2020 just to demonstrate to the politicians the utility of them. As long as we have the ships, we can "up" the capabily, just as we pretty much rebuilt the UK Amphibious forces post Cold war, anythings possible if the world political climate changes.
What the RN needs in a twisted sense if for the next Al Queda fight to be in somewhere like Somalia or other African states. The scenario needs a battlefield lacking infrastructure for fixed wing bases, no friendly bases nearby, it will need a huge coastal area to fight on where the focus is on amphibious forces backed by RN airpower take out terrorists strongholds, patrolling and searching maritime trade routes. In that type of battle the RN will take the spotlight.
The RN bosses should do more to win the argument, the British People need to be told that the supplies of Oil and Gas will run low and its the big stick of the RN Carriers that will mean we punch above our weight in securing supplies. The british public need to be told that the world is buying diesel electric submarines, that the world and his dog are buying SU30s and rearming, a fact tht 99% of the UK public is completely uninterested in or unaware of. The RN and RAF should perhaps combine in a propaganda campaign to demonstrate that they in fact need typhoon to keep current with the rest of the World Airforces and we need Carriers and ASuW vessels despite the Public perception that the only enemy of the UK carries a Kalasnikov and wears a turban. Maybe a few nations flying the PAK FA in a decade will prompt a further F35 batch? we dont know what is around the next corner.
In some ways bashing the Typhoon and the RAF and arguing that The RN or Army could do some functions is pretty counter productive. The simple fact is that if a future warzone has a friendly runway in range of RAF Fast Air, then it makes sense that the RAF use it to fly sorties in support of our aims, rather that send a carrier 6000 miles,taking 2 weeks if the RAF can do the job perfectly well. The flip side is that there will be conflicts where the are no bases and the RN takes the lead.
Its a pretty sad state of affairs that we are saying that UK PLC is incapable of supporting an Army, navy and airforce and typicsl of our cynical politicians that they have set them all fighting, with the sole aim of saving cash. Disgraceful really. Just like they have banned squaddies from writing about their special forces exploits, perhaps its time to ban rotund ex Generals, Admirals and Air Marshalls affiliating themselves to Political Parties?
An interesting read is RM Crosleys Up in Harms Way. This is a somewhat technical account but the author gives a fascinating account of his wartime Fleet Air Arm carreer and subsequent decades of being a test pilot, pioneering much of the work surrounding the Buccaneer and flying pretty much every other UK and US aircraft
Basically Crosley gives a very candid summary of the lack of understanding of Admirals and the Navy Hierarchy to the possibility of aircraft. So in that sense the Navy itself pre war takes the blame. A fixation with old tactics and no faith in this "new technology" is what hindered the use of aircraft at sea. The use of cariers should have seen off the fixation with battleships early on but the RN sat back and let the RAF take the lead. Where the Japanese and US Admirals saw the future, it could be argued that ours saw battleships. Crosley then gives an account of his and the FAA role in Korea which has been very under reported where carriers played a huge part.
Once the RAF takes the offensive lead bombing the Germans for the bulk of the war and "wins" the battle of Britain its very difficult to argue against the need for the RAF, once the cold War sets in and we base the offensive bulk of the army and RAF in Germany, again its very hard to argue against the role. If our Politicians retreat from East of Suez, again its hard to argue that the RAF cant deal with threats, particularly the threat in questin was the threat of nuclear devastation.
Crosley makes the point in hindsight that it was in some way the Admirals fault we got out of the fixed wing carrier game through stubborn and short sighted attitudes, demanding that the RN would ony be viable if we had two new carriers in the 1960's when if they had swallowed pride and played it more political we could have at least commissioned one CV. Crosley suggests that even in the 1960's and 70;s financial balls ups, the RN could have got one, there was enough "Pro"voices, even Healey that might have kept it. The RN could have kept a small but potent Phantom and Bucc squadron running, just as the french have managed with one carrier. Looking at it in that way, the RN would be in a better position now, ok no Sea Harrier and periods of no aircover for the Fleet but better something than nothing. There is always the possbility of buiding another.
Thats why in the current climate, Im not bothered so much in numbers of F35 or whatever, just build the bloody things, and if it means RAF F35's and pilots flying of it, then so be it, in fact I would happily see a NATO wing of Spanish and Italian F35Bs flying exercises from POW in 2020 just to demonstrate to the politicians the utility of them. As long as we have the ships, we can "up" the capabily, just as we pretty much rebuilt the UK Amphibious forces post Cold war, anythings possible if the world political climate changes.
What the RN needs in a twisted sense if for the next Al Queda fight to be in somewhere like Somalia or other African states. The scenario needs a battlefield lacking infrastructure for fixed wing bases, no friendly bases nearby, it will need a huge coastal area to fight on where the focus is on amphibious forces backed by RN airpower take out terrorists strongholds, patrolling and searching maritime trade routes. In that type of battle the RN will take the spotlight.
The RN bosses should do more to win the argument, the British People need to be told that the supplies of Oil and Gas will run low and its the big stick of the RN Carriers that will mean we punch above our weight in securing supplies. The british public need to be told that the world is buying diesel electric submarines, that the world and his dog are buying SU30s and rearming, a fact tht 99% of the UK public is completely uninterested in or unaware of. The RN and RAF should perhaps combine in a propaganda campaign to demonstrate that they in fact need typhoon to keep current with the rest of the World Airforces and we need Carriers and ASuW vessels despite the Public perception that the only enemy of the UK carries a Kalasnikov and wears a turban. Maybe a few nations flying the PAK FA in a decade will prompt a further F35 batch? we dont know what is around the next corner.
In some ways bashing the Typhoon and the RAF and arguing that The RN or Army could do some functions is pretty counter productive. The simple fact is that if a future warzone has a friendly runway in range of RAF Fast Air, then it makes sense that the RAF use it to fly sorties in support of our aims, rather that send a carrier 6000 miles,taking 2 weeks if the RAF can do the job perfectly well. The flip side is that there will be conflicts where the are no bases and the RN takes the lead.
Its a pretty sad state of affairs that we are saying that UK PLC is incapable of supporting an Army, navy and airforce and typicsl of our cynical politicians that they have set them all fighting, with the sole aim of saving cash. Disgraceful really. Just like they have banned squaddies from writing about their special forces exploits, perhaps its time to ban rotund ex Generals, Admirals and Air Marshalls affiliating themselves to Political Parties?
I think you are bonkers-I suppose you are now going to say we could have won the Battle of Britain without the RAF, despite the fact that the RAF was set up in 1918 because the RNAS and RFC (as was) were incapable of launching a credible defence of Britiah Air Space against German Bombers. You also fail to look at the fact that Governments of the day after WW1 slashed the Defence budget in Britain, and hence all three services spent the years before WW2 and during the early years of WW2 regenerating back to the size they were at in WW1, but obviously with modern equipment and newer tactics.
Bit in Bold We already do have common flying schools. As I said in a previous post the RAF trains all Fast Jet pilots. And all the services Helicopter pilots train under one roof at RAF Shawbury.
Where have you got this idea from that the RAF are interfering in the Wildcat purchase. Perhaps if you understood the dynamics of Joint Force Helicopter you would realise helicopters from all three services (with exceptions-like SAR and Ship based Helos) are nominally placed under the Army Chain of Command, with a flag officer from any of the three services in command of JFH. In fact the current commander is an Admiral.
The Army does everything on the land, the Navy does everything at sea, and the RAF does everything in the air. Simplees right??
In the past century the lines have blurred as to who does what and continue to do so (The Marines, the RAF Regiment, the FAA, AAC, and the RLCs landing craft are all examples of this). This idea that the RAF is playing 'games' constantly is also ridiculus-its the nations Air Force, here to defend the nation, be a force for good etc....it doesn't exist to play 'games' with the other three services. And at the end of the day, when the perverbial hits the air conditioning, all three services would be expected to work together to reach the aim set by the Govt.
I think a Nick Cook, of Janes sums up my view nicely, even if he was responding to Col Tim Collins anti-RAF rant:
Its a often quoted line I know, but he says it far better than I ever could.