The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

I've seen some test videos of the missile back when it was being trialed. The one that impressed me the most had the missile tipped over and heading toward the target before clearing the mast of the launching Burke.

CAMM is similar - the damn thing snaps over so far, so fast, it's almost like a forced orbit for a fraction of a second, motor running, pointing almost straight up at the sky, nose of the missile barely twenty degrees off a vertical dive towards the ground, poised between the upward acceleration it's gained at launch, vs the downward thrust of the motor, then it plunges towards the target.

That rocket science stuff is pretty cool

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oRmGFVLJ08"]Vertical Launch Trials - YouTube[/nomedia]

Just on the 1:05 mark. Woosh..

Back on ESSM, I'm surprised there's not been a move to get an active seeker on the end of it, although I suppose that'd be getting into SM6 territory (although the SM6 has a pretty *big* seeker and the SM2 booster)

 

[1805]

There is an interesting article in May’s Warship IFR but Sharkey Ward; “How Britain has repeatedly fumbled the Strike Carrier ball”. Unfortunately I only have paper copy, but it’s the current issue. He goes through a selective history from CVA01 cancellation/1967 to Libya 2011, which is fairly hostile to the RAF and of course Politicians, but makes no direct criticism of the RN.

What is more interesting is he claims the RAF are now actively lobbying for a F35a buy, to replace Tornado and Typhoons (yes?). He believes the resulting split fleet will leave too few F35b (48) for the RN to operate both carriers in a strike role. He then goes on to says a CATOBAR/F18 & E2D buy would have been cheaper and better for the strike role. Personally I think he sees the CVF to much as strike carriers, and not as multi role aviation platforms. 48 F35b would be greater than I think the Sea Harrier fleet ever was, obviously less than the combined Harrier force, but much of the GR role has surely passed to Army Apaches.

 

[StobieWan]

Last time Ward and TPT got into cost comparisons, they were citing a figure of £230million a copy of F35 - it gets pretty easy to make anything else look cheaper that way.

 

[AegisFC]

I am under the impression that Mr. Ward is turning into another Spey and Wheeler?

 

[StobieWan]

Has been for some time I'm afraid - it's sad as I read his book "Sea Harrier" with considerable enjoyment but The Phoenix Think Tank tend to over load their arguments with very poor data.

They're still quoting the B as being capable of a combat radius of 380 miles, which is 100 less than anywhere else I've seen for instance.

Oddly, when comparing the SuperHornet vs C vs B, the C is credited with buddy buddy refuelling but the B is not (whereas of course, if you get the gear to run on one, and have the UAI driver prepared for one, then all you have to do is flight test on the other models to ensure all is well) So, either neither get the advantage (as is reasonable as I understand there are no immediate plans to clear C for the buddy buddy kit) or give it to both when making comparisons?

The list goes on.

 

[RobWilliams]

I've got the article right here.

It's crap, he spends most of the article explaining why the RAF can't protect the fleet, and even when he does go on to talk about the Navy it's about how the RAF is trying to screw them over.

IMO his gripe is purely because he's first and foremost navy, he hates that the carriers will be joint assets with the RAF and the Army. Whereas you couldn't deny that a CATOBAR carrier is first and foremost a Navy asset.

But one thing that still bloody annoys me is that people seem to have the delusion that had we had stayed for catapults that we would get a full airwing plus E2D and AAR assets as a fact.

• The F35 is still a joint asset, if they think the RAF can peel away F35B numbers for land service so easily then suddenly why is the F35C immune?
• We would by default buy Hawkeye, are they telling me that fitting a few Merlins with radars wouldn't still be considered as a cheaper option?
• Rotary assets would still be deployed taking up fixed wing slots, Chinooks, Apaches, the lot. The nature of the asset won't change.
• As if by magic this can all be afforded without cuts made elsewhere, despite that the carriers are evidence of this happening anyway

 

[swerve]

I am under the impression that Mr. Ward is turning into another Spey and Wheeler?

Worse. He wrote an article for the Phoenix lot which could have got him sued for libel of RAF aircrew who fought in the 1990-91 Iraq war, if anyone had been minded to sue. He accused RAF aircrew (including some KIA) of incompetence & cowardice - though he didn't use the latter word.

 

[StobieWan]

Never read that article - is the gist of it that at least one crew ejected because they weren't used to the feel of bombs coming off the racks and thought they'd been hit ?

 

[1805]

I've got the article right here.

It's crap, he spends most of the article explaining why the RAF can't protect the fleet, and even when he does go on to talk about the Navy it's about how the RAF is trying to screw them over.

IMO his gripe is purely because he's first and foremost navy, he hates that the carriers will be joint assets with the RAF and the Army. Whereas you couldn't deny that a CATOBAR carrier is first and foremost a Navy asset.

But one thing that still bloody annoys me is that people seem to have the delusion that had we had stayed for catapults that we would get a full airwing plus E2D and AAR assets as a fact.

• The F35 is still a joint asset, if they think the RAF can peel away F35B numbers for land service so easily then suddenly why is the F35C immune?
• We would by default buy Hawkeye, are they telling me that fitting a few Merlins with radars wouldn't still be considered as a cheaper option?
• Rotary assets would still be deployed taking up fixed wing slots, Chinooks, Apaches, the lot. The nature of the asset won't change.
• As if by magic this can all be afforded without cuts made elsewhere, despite that the carriers are evidence of this happening anyway

I think some of his views are very selective, but it's difficult to argue that the RAF has not been hostile to naval aviation (at times) almost from it inception.

However he does not acknowledge any failure in the RNs role, they (and politicians) must share responsibility for mishandling the P1154/1966 carrier crisis, selection of FRS1/FA2 on dated platforms & the F35b/Typhoon split shambles.

What I did find interesting if it is true, is the claim that the RAF are seeking a split ordered for replacements of Tornado/Typhoons with F35a.

 

[RobWilliams]

EDIT: Warning, tired logic inbound . .

I don't disagree at all, what I have an issue with is the article is about how the UK fumbled the carrier strike ball right? When I have to read through 2/3 of the articles worth of "and here's ANOTHER example of how the RAF screwed the Navy" to actually get to ANYTHING to do with the carrier, it puts me off. I mean I get it's to put navy aviation forward about it's flexibility but did it need all the anti-RAF nonsense to get across the flexibility of a carrier? No.

Then when he goes onto say that the ~100 Tornados and Typhoons have "no useful capability" or words to that effect, it kinda diminishes his standing IMO.

The RAF was always going to push for their model, if they do that means the Navy gets hold of a larger fleet of F35B's than they ever had with Sea Harriers. So what it doesn't fill up 2 carriers surged, considering the sort of operational requirement which would need us having 72 B's fuelled and ready that's a scenario where we're already in deep shit and would be with an international coalition that's for sure.

 

[1805]

EDIT: Warning, tired logic inbound . .

I don't disagree at all, what I have an issue with is the article is about how the UK fumbled the carrier strike ball right? When I have to read through 2/3 of the articles worth of "and here's ANOTHER example of how the RAF screwed the Navy" to actually get to ANYTHING to do with the carrier, it puts me off. I mean I get it's to put navy aviation forward about it's flexibility but did it need all the anti-RAF nonsense to get across the flexibility of a carrier? No.

Then when he goes onto say that the ~100 Tornados and Typhoons have "no useful capability" or words to that effect, it kinda diminishes his standing IMO.

The RAF was always going to push for their model, if they do that means the Navy gets hold of a larger fleet of F35B's than they ever had with Sea Harriers. So what it doesn't fill up 2 carriers surged, considering the sort of operational requirement which would need us having 72 B's fuelled and ready that's a scenario where we're already in deep shit and would be with an international coalition that's for sure.

I don't think it can all be disregarded as anti-RAF nonsense. I am fairly confident that if left solely to the RAF the CVFs would have gone the way of the CVAs.

I would still love to know where the whole F35c/F35b debate originated from in 2010, RN, RAF or Liam Fox, and what were the real drivers, capability/fear of F35b cancellation by Congress . For me it seemed to come out of the blue.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I would still love to know where the whole F35c/F35b debate originated from in 2010, RN, RAF or Liam Fox, and what were the real drivers, capability/fear of F35b cancellation by Congress . For me it seemed to come out of the blue.

Knowing how governments work from my perspective the primary push behind the infamous 2011 F-35C ‘decision’ was it gave a reason to disband the Joint Force Harrier and pay of the Invincible class as soon as possible. This saved a huge swag of money from the immediate budget of HMG even if it required additional spend in later years to convert the CVF to CATOBAR operations. Even better for HMG they were able to argue they were acquiring a ‘more capable’ and ‘joint’ carrier capability via the F-35C. This provided ample smoke and mirror effect for people not to notice the huge shortfall in UK Forces capability in the 2010s without a functional carrier capability.

It was a win win situation until of course Libya demonstrated the lack of clout the UK Forces now had and the actual bill came in for the CATOBAR conversion. But since the decision was about the immediate save in money it was quite simple to back flip on the F-35C vs F-35B and not have to spend the additional dollars. However this was safely made a few years after the carriers had been decommissioned (and scrapped) and the Harriers sold to the Marines. In the end the UK has a carrier holiday for 10 years so they could pay for the Olympics. Yay!

 

[RobWilliams]

Indeed, but does he have to spend most of the article explaining why the RAF is shite? It detracts from the whole thing when you're just reading "and here, again, the RAF shafted us" over and over.

Basically, I think he's a knob because he opposes the RAF for persuing it's own interests and yet thinks that it's OK to apply that same ideology to the Navy. Not to mention flip-flopping about how he wouldn't shut up about how brilliant STOVL was in his book and now it's shite all of a sudden.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Indeed, but does he have to spend most of the article explaining why the RAF is shite? It detracts from the whole thing when you're just reading "and here, again, the RAF shafted us" over and over.

I think you’ll find with Sharkey his hatred of the RAF is very personal and comes down to the very shabby way he and his squadron pilots were treated by them after the end of the Falklands War. Also the way the RAF went overdrive in its media campaign about what a role they played in the Falklands whereas the RN’s was played down.

Then of course there was the RAF being in at the death of the CTOL carrier force (CVA-01) and recently the VSTOL carrier force (JF Harrier). But the RAF seems like the carrier fleet’s second worst enemy. Number one enemy is the submariners. The worst thing the RN ever did to itself was acquire Polaris. If they just let the RAF have 50-100 bombers/airliners carting nuclear missiles around the sky they could have gotten on with the business of sea control and the RAF could have gotten on with the business of planning for Armageddon and everyone would have been happy.

Of course at the end of the day it’s the HMG that shafts anyone in the UK Forces. From Wilson to Thatcher and Cameron they’ve been doing a pretty good job. Of course they then turn around and get all upset that they don’t have a carrier to do their bidding when they want it. But they do have all those nuclear missile submarines and RAF strike aircraft which have of course been providing solutions to HMG for decades…

 

[StobieWan]

Knowing how governments work from my perspective the primary push behind the infamous 2011 F-35C ‘decision’ was it gave a reason to disband the Joint Force Harrier and pay of the Invincible class as soon as possible. This saved a huge swag of money from the immediate budget of HMG even if it required additional spend in later years to convert the CVF to CATOBAR operations. Even better for HMG they were able to argue they were acquiring a ‘more capable’ and ‘joint’ carrier capability via the F-35C. This provided ample smoke and mirror effect for people not to notice the huge shortfall in UK Forces capability in the 2010s without a functional carrier capability.

That was very much how I saw it at the time - I was enthusiastic about the opportunity to switch to CATOBAR but had a definite feeling it was driven by the idea that it moved a lot of expense outside the life of the fledgling coalition. In one hit, the cost of the aircraft, the bulk of commissioning and so forth would be landing after 2015, allowing the government to point at a suddenly "balanced" MOD budget.

I'm sure the RAF were perfectly happy with that aspect as C would fill FOAS/deep penetration strike or whatever it's being called far better than B for range and payload so I guess that got them on board straight away.

 

[StobieWan]

I would still love to know where the whole F35c/F35b debate originated from in 2010, RN, RAF or Liam Fox, and what were the real drivers, capability/fear of F35b cancellation by Congress . For me it seemed to come out of the blue.

From the NAO report on the reversion:

"The October 2010 decision was based on immature data and a number
of flawed assumptions, partly because the Department decided not to involve
commercial and industrial partners in the process."

In short, from that, someone pulled it out of their bottom.

For a decision to have been made that rapidly, the circle of decision makers must have been small. I doubt we can ascribe conspiracy to this as conspiracies are rarely so well orchestrated.

 

[swerve]

Never read that article - is the gist of it that at least one crew ejected because they weren't used to the feel of bombs coming off the racks and thought they'd been hit ?

Yes - but IIRC it was the JP233. From memory, he also got the number of losses wrong. The article seems to have been pulled from the site.

 

[StobieWan]

I'd imagine a JP233 delivery at night feels like the aircraft has exploded rather than just being hit

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'd imagine a JP233 delivery at night feels like the aircraft has exploded rather than just being hit

The pods eject after they are empty which considering how big they are and running down a runway at 100 feet and 600 knots must be quite a bang.

 

[StobieWan]

The pods eject after they are empty which considering how big they are and running down a runway at 100 feet and 600 knots must be quite a bang.

They must be timed to eject after pullup however ? Or you'd be facing a possible own goal from a rebounding part or two at the altitude they're being deployed at.

I've just read the article by Ward and he claims eight Tornadoes lost in 1991 "almost all while deploying JP233.." while the RAF official site shows six lost, only one of which was delivering 233.

Presumably if it'd been Bucc's flying at low level flown by FAA pilots, they'd have magically shrugged off the AAA fire and been fine.