citizen578
New Member
QE is 100% getting cats/traps. Nothing confirmed on PoW, but they can't meet the objectives of the SDSR unless she's also kitted out to the full spec.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Surely for the money involved, it'd make more sense to retain the GR9's? They're paid for, they're cleared for release for all of the major weapons required, we have the pilots, maintenance and supply chain? I'm suggesting that if we're standing that force down, bringing in a new platform with a limited single purpose makes little sense.
If you want to do CAS with a slow platform, then buying Reaper makes more sense - it's got the legs and the eyes for CAS, plus intel gathering and has 7 hard points - hang DAGR or one of the other laser guided 70mm rockets off of some, Brimstone or Hellfire off yet others and that'll do the job. It can fly high enough to stay out of ground fire and MANPADS range and if you lose it, there's no pilot to parade on TV afterwards.
Mainly, we have no money - the fact that we have the gap at all means it's not going to be plugged.
Ian
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Basically, its cutting CV ops capabilities for a decade UAV ops are very different from fast jet ops and buying more reapers could end up more costly than just keeping the Harriers in service.
The RAF would probably have to make do with the current MQ-9s which are already hellfire capable.
Its a lot more than that. Each time a CV sails, the fuel and operational cost is significant so its not just the harrier but the CV and its escorts. Besides the maintenance and spares, operational costs eg deployment are also significant contributors to cost which will disappear with the Harrier retirement.
Basically, its cutting CV ops capabilities for a decade UAV ops are very different from fast jet ops and buying more reapers could end up more costly than just keeping the Harriers in service.
The RAF would probably have to make do with the current MQ-9s which are already hellfire capable.
Understood - I was referring to the suggestion that just at a time when we can't fly what we own, we should go out and buy a strike enabled T-45/Hawk 200, which struck me as being a bit expensive perhaps wishful thinking.
Ian
I was actually thinking about a future complement of a CVF to mitigate the total aircraft complement cost, with a low cost option for tactical support of troops on the ground (low or medium/high threat enviroments). My preference would be to retail the Harriers, although I didn't know numbers had reduced to only 32.
Agree with the point about the operation cost of a CVF, but feel the money should be found from elsewhere in the RN budget to fund this (MCM, RFA, sale of a couple if T45, greater us of RNR in home waters etc).
Last Harrier has now been launched from Ark Royal - both joint force harrier and Ark Royal to be decommissioned in December:
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Last Harrier jet launch from HMS Ark Royal
No messing around!
Regarding Hawk/Goshawk etc:
Surely the low cost option for tactical support of troops on the ground already exists - helicopters like the Apache?
I accept that Apaches have a very different performance envelope, but they also have a big advantage: to get up-close and personal.
UK Apaches are now increasing their RN carrier experience:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/TrainingAndAdventure/ArmyHelicoptersEmbarkOnRoyalNavyFlagshipForExercise.htm
Thus (from the carriers) F35, Apaches and Lynx able to be deployed with no big enough need for something in between to justify the large expense of introducing another manned platform until perhaps a new UCAV comes into being - the UCAV introducing much extended range and loiter time to the mix, which would be a significant new capability worth the investment.
I think a Hawk 200/T45 would have a superior weapons load/range and survivability over an Apache, however I agree it would probably be a duplication of capability to a future UCAV.
Very sad to see the last Harrier go, it would be good to have a couple of FA2 included into the RN historic flight. They have always pulled the crowds.
I understood PW was only to be in extended readiness until sold? I wouldn't take it as read that QE/F35 will enter RN service. On balance I think one will but a lot can happen in 9-10 years. This is why the RN must be very careful with the management of projects/costs going forward.
Last edited:
Well, as far as Apache goes, it's a no-brainer - we have something like sixty odd and we're flying less than half those due to costs - so we have spare cabs etc. The Hawk would be quicker to cover ground but would usually be based further away (forward/rough basing for the Apache is routine and simple)
Once the two get there, there's no comparison - the WAH-64 is an astonishing piece of kit, it has armour in places capable of deflecting 23mm cannon fire, it can fly on one engine and a dry gear box for a reasonable amount of time - and it's got a very sophisticated built in self defence jamming and decoy suite. Add to that the Longbow Fire Control Radar and frankly, it's a beast.
It's not a fast jet and these things are always horses for courses but for low intensity CAS, I think it's the mutts nutts.
Stick all that in a Hawk and you're talking cost growth squared.
Ian
Well I'm talking about carrier basing so longer range would be useful. I am not against the Apache and was unaware we were only flying half the current fleet. That said we are talking in the future and suppliementing reduced F35/fixed wing numbers. Incidently 12 Apache were shot down in Iraq. The follow paragraph from Wiki does not convince me that ground force support can be left to attack helicopters alone:
The AH-64 took part in invasion of Iraq in 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In one engagement on 24 March 2003, 31 Apaches were damaged, and one Apache was shot down and captured by Iraqi troops near Karbala. The intended attack against an armored brigade of the Iraqi Republican Guard's Medina Division was unsuccessful; US officials claimed this was due to the tank crews having set up a "flak trap" amongst terrain and employing their guns to good effect.
Last edited:
British and American Apaches are very different beasts. The British Apache is designed to fly high and has the extra engine power and EWSP to do it whereas the American Apaches fly low in the weeds. Brits also fly no more than a squadron in the air which is six aircraft for close air support whereas the Americans play with whole battalions of 20+ aircraft in deep operations strikes.
So the British are far less vulnerable to a flak trap like in OIF. Which BTW was a hugely overplayed event. So one Apache was shot down by AAA? Considering their sortie rate, destroy rate and the non linear nature of the battlefield this is more than acceptable event which did not blunt their effort.
Last edited:
citizen578
New Member
HMS Invincible up for sale on the e-disposals website.
Disposal Services Authority
Portsmouth News saying she has a scrap value of just £2M.
Times like this I really wish I were rich, and could simply do her up as a museum, and gift her to the nation.
Hopefully there is someone who fits that description, and thinks likewise (though I'm not too hopeful).
Disposal Services Authority
Portsmouth News saying she has a scrap value of just £2M.
Times like this I really wish I were rich, and could simply do her up as a museum, and gift her to the nation.
Hopefully there is someone who fits that description, and thinks likewise (though I'm not too hopeful).
Then you understand more than anyone in the MoD or RN.
The SDSR presents options, one of which is that one carrier (unspecified) may be sold. IIRC it's third on a list of three, & is dependent on allies being willing & able to cover gaps in service of the main operational carrier. Another (higher-ranked) option is for both carriers to alternate in service. The only thing definitely stated is that only one will be operational at once.
That really is a wonderful idea, count me in. With her Falklands heritage she would make an excellent Falklands/FAA/RM museum. They could round up key non flying FAA types and display them in the hanger. If they were on static display in the hanger I would have thought she could accommodate even a Buccaneer/Phantom?
The great thing about a carrier is you have a huge built in exhibition hall; they must be able to get c15 aircraft in a row?
I don’t know if all these are in existence but my 15 would be:
Pup, Skua, Swordfish, Sea Fury, Firefly, Sea Hawk, Sea Venom, Sea Vixen, Buccaneer, Phantom, Gannet, Sea Harrier FRS1, Wasp, Sea King, Lynx.
I bet there would still be space for a fair bit of RM/captured Argentine kit and post WW2 missiles. Surely if she was moored alongside Victory/Warrior she would pay for herself if a few years.
RNAS Yeovilton might be upset
Naval aviation exhibitions of airships, seaplanes, bi planes, Sea Harriers and helicopters- Fleet Air Arm Museum
Very worth a visit by the way - they have a mocked up carrier deck with an F4-K, a Bucc and a Gannet, plus a tour of the carrier island plus all the rest of the shopping list barring the missiles.
Ian