What you originally said was -
You may have been going round in circles, but I was keeping straight on, replying to that, & your responses which related to it, e.g. the crystal ball comment.
Last edited:
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
I stand corrected on the point of detail. My intention was the AV 8B/Harrier II airframe. I did on a number of later emails I supported the UK developing the Blue Vixen, which is the major change to the AV 8B+.
There is a big difference to replacing carrier based Skyhawks with carrier based Super Etendards and tripling the number of medium range Canberra bombers and fitting them with an anti ship radar and missile system that no one had every done before.
This I’m afraid is total fiction. The Sea Harriers smashed a Canberra formation early on in the war, no reason why they wouldn’t do the same to Canberras carrying Exocets. As to the cover by Mirages this is easier said than done. Two aircraft with very different flight profiles can’t efficiently fly a single formation certainly not a long range one. The Mirages lacked the range to go all the way to an Exocet launch point into the task force anyway. Plus the Mirages basically failed to deter the SHARs without having to worry about escorting Canberras so I don’t see how they would make much of a difference.
As to not intercepting any Super Etendards this was because of incompetent intervention by the STAVO into the Air Defence Commander’s operations. A SHAR CAP was positioned right above the second Super Etendard sortie flight path (first sortie to attempt an attack and the one that sunk HMS Sheffield) and ESM warning provided for the Agave radar (from the first Super Etendard pop up about level with the longitude of the Falklands). Despite all this and a second SHAR CAP to the north being redied for a slashing support attack (as was the strategy) the STAVO intervened and ordered the CAP SHARs to descend to sea level and fly away on visual ocean surveillance (he didn’t think the radar worked) missions (to make sure no Argentine battleships were sneaking up on the carriers). Without this intervention the Super Etendards would have been shot down.
The third Super Etendard sortie (that sunk Atlantic Conveyor) was plotted way to the north to dog leg around the task force’s CAP. The third was a strange mixed event with FAA Skyhawks that just bounced a frigate group south of the Falklands. Super Etendard missions were flown at very low altitude to avoid radar detection. The Canberras would have needed to fly higher to make it all the way to the task force without IFR. There is little chance they could have got through the CAP. With a massive 18-24 plane package being assembled and launched the task force would have had an intel warning and could have launched the warning fighters to double the CAP. Other SHARs would have come running from everywhere to get in on the trade.
As I see it there were a number of options open to the RN had it been decided to take on the lessons learned in the Falklands concerning carrier airpower.
The real loss with the retirement of Ark Royal was AEW, the Gannets were probably missed more than the twelve Phantoms and fourteen Buccaneers she carried. The primary advantage of a return to fixed wing aviation would have been the ability to operate Tracers or Hawkeyes.
Options for a quick return to cats and traps for the RN could have included one or more of the US reserve Essex class carriers that Reagan had considered reactivating as part of the 600 ship navy. Yes they were old but they could have provide breathing space to build something new. I don’t know if F-4Ks could have flown from them but according to some info Abe dug out from the Australian National Achieves a while back the USN were of the opinion that the F-4J could be flown from an Essex. Other options, dust off the plans for the Jaguar M and give it a make over with all the sexy stuff planned for the Seaharrier F/A2. Another option could have been to stick with the Seaharriers as strike fighters and only use the cats and traps for the AEWs, ASWs (if acquired) and tankers.
A more interesting and realistic option would have been to determine that while the Harriers had performed well the Invincibles were too small and Hermes was perhaps the minimum size carrier required. As such the transfer of Invincible to the RAN would have continued while Hermes was retained as an interim until a new larger type could be designed and built to replace her. This ship likely would have been similar in size to Victorious (35000 ton), armed with Seawolf, rather than Seadart, and fitted with Phalanx or Goalkeeper, and able to operate 30+ harriers as well as a dozen or so Seakings. A class of at least two but preferably three would have been required and due to the deletion of the Seadart system they likely would have not cost much different to repeat Invincibles.
As these ships entered service the RAN could have been offered a second Invincible at mates rates and India offered Hermes. Ark cold have been retained instead of building Ocean.
Larger ships need more aircraft and the RAN and IN FAAs would have needed aircraft too. This could have provided the critical mass to develop the F/A 3 Seaharrier with Abes composite wing and a modified fuselage permitting the use of the same engine as the AV-8B+.
The real loss with the retirement of Ark Royal was AEW, the Gannets were probably missed more than the twelve Phantoms and fourteen Buccaneers she carried. The primary advantage of a return to fixed wing aviation would have been the ability to operate Tracers or Hawkeyes.
Options for a quick return to cats and traps for the RN could have included one or more of the US reserve Essex class carriers that Reagan had considered reactivating as part of the 600 ship navy. Yes they were old but they could have provide breathing space to build something new. I don’t know if F-4Ks could have flown from them but according to some info Abe dug out from the Australian National Achieves a while back the USN were of the opinion that the F-4J could be flown from an Essex. Other options, dust off the plans for the Jaguar M and give it a make over with all the sexy stuff planned for the Seaharrier F/A2. Another option could have been to stick with the Seaharriers as strike fighters and only use the cats and traps for the AEWs, ASWs (if acquired) and tankers.
A more interesting and realistic option would have been to determine that while the Harriers had performed well the Invincibles were too small and Hermes was perhaps the minimum size carrier required. As such the transfer of Invincible to the RAN would have continued while Hermes was retained as an interim until a new larger type could be designed and built to replace her. This ship likely would have been similar in size to Victorious (35000 ton), armed with Seawolf, rather than Seadart, and fitted with Phalanx or Goalkeeper, and able to operate 30+ harriers as well as a dozen or so Seakings. A class of at least two but preferably three would have been required and due to the deletion of the Seadart system they likely would have not cost much different to repeat Invincibles.
As these ships entered service the RAN could have been offered a second Invincible at mates rates and India offered Hermes. Ark cold have been retained instead of building Ocean.
Larger ships need more aircraft and the RAN and IN FAAs would have needed aircraft too. This could have provided the critical mass to develop the F/A 3 Seaharrier with Abes composite wing and a modified fuselage permitting the use of the same engine as the AV-8B+.
Didn't they have 11 Camberras originally so 7 to 13 more, who pays to much attention to old aircraft sales? What would the RN have done they had no money to respond to Soviet ASM, and the route they went down Sea Wolf requiring complete replacement and massive refits guaranteed few ships would ever be protected.
I really I'm not qualified to comment on you view on an air battle, but the number of misses you quote indicate to me war is no so cut and dried. To me more stand off Exocets would have led to a lot more losses and I think the losses were already pretty much at the limit.
Where would Argentina get all those AM39s from? IIRC the ARA only had a handful, because when the war broke out France stopped delivery of the rest of the order. We successfully blocked attempts to buy more from other operators, & the French delayed deliveries to Peru, in case they were passed on.
Your plan requires Argentina to have started planning much earlier than in reality, & expected to have to fight a British fleet, contrary to its actual expectations.
The importance of AEW in the air battle was massively overstated after the Falklands to cover up for RN incompetence. With both SHAR squadrons and the Fleet Command competent in the aircraft the result would have been very different, especially the air battle. Apart from knocking the first completed Super Étendard sortie out of the air (would their have been another one?) the results over the Falkland Sound and San Carlos would have been very different. The leadership on HMS Hermes didn’t believe the SHAR radar nav system worked because 800 NAS couldn’t maintain the system. This reached a point where the Staff Officer Aviation (STAVO) ORDERED all SHAR pilots not to use the radar at all during the war. Many 800 NAS pilots disobeyed this order as did all of 801 NAS pilots.
Apart from incompetent taskings from STAVO and slack SHAR management from 800 NAS including frequently cutting CAPs short to return to the carriers with ample fuel margins the most crucial difference (apart from the Super Étendard CAP) came in the covering of the San Carlos landings. 800 NAS CAPs were positioned too high to effect intercepts after detection of incoming low level Argentine aircraft. This directly resulted in the loss of HMS Coventry. Also by being too high they couldn’t use their radar to look sideways to pick up incoming trade (not that most of their CAPs had the radar turned on). Finally and most significantly a RWR detection of the SHAR radar was enough for almost all Argentine flight commanders to abort the sortie and return to base. Without the emissions of most of the 800 NAS SHARs many sorties continued to target that would otherwise have been aborted. A mission kill will save a frigate from being bombed just as well as a shot down kill.
Finally the Gannet AEW would have been marginal use in the Falklands without Phantoms. Argentine sorites were flown at low level and the Gannet’s old radar would not have detected them. It could have provided an advance warning capability of sorties by flying west of the Falklands and detecting the IFR activity. But they would have been vulnerable as this was beyond the range that the SHARs could provide CAPs. With Phantoms then the air battle would be west of the Falklands and all the Argentine effort would be to dog leg north or south of this CAP area to even make it to the islands or the task force. Which would be a massive advantage to the RN as it would significantly reduce their sortie effort.
These two ships were judged uneconomical to upgrade by the USN for ongoing operations. They could have provided an urgent and short term carrier capability if the British had baulked from launching the task force without significant reinforcement. All of the old HMS Ark Royal aircraft were still in British service at this time. With 6-9 months of solid training and refit they could send an integrated RN/RAF carrier task group of HM Ships Victorious (ex Oriskany), Glorious (ex Shangri-La), Hermes, Invincible and Illustrious with 48 Phantoms, 48 Buccaneers and 24 Sea Harriers.
No I wasn't suggesting Argentina actually go down this route, I was point out the merits of retaining Vulcans/Buccaneers over spending money TSR2 & Tornado which could then have been invested in the P1154.
News today that Apache have been live firing 30mm & Hellfire against maritime targets operating off Ocean. According to reports more attention is also being spent on training and planning for munitions movement and storage aboard ship. All this new activity driven by the need to at least have a credible CAS capability in place now GR9 is gone.
I wonder what level of damage a Hellfire could do to a Naval surface combatant? I can only assume it will strike the centre of mass of what ever target it has locked on to, so depending on the ships configuration this could prove pretty fatal. Modern AsW vessels will make mincemeat of an approaching Apache, but against smaller gunboats typically used by the likes of Iran the result should be pretty conclusive.
There will have to be a flight of Apache deployed full-time aboard a deployed QE until F35's arrive. I wonder what the cost implications would be to select a core group of airframes and build-in additional marinization if it becomes the norm rather than the exception to have Apache at sea when ever Ocean or a QE is deployed?Post 2015 Apache may be drawn-down in A-Stan taking the strain off crews/airframes providing more opportunity for ships deployment. Also does longbow lose any of it's capabilities when used at sea? Tracking and killing swarms of fast attack boats can't be that different from tracking and killing armoured vehicles advancing to target.
I wonder what level of damage a Hellfire could do to a Naval surface combatant? I can only assume it will strike the centre of mass of what ever target it has locked on to, so depending on the ships configuration this could prove pretty fatal. Modern AsW vessels will make mincemeat of an approaching Apache, but against smaller gunboats typically used by the likes of Iran the result should be pretty conclusive.
There will have to be a flight of Apache deployed full-time aboard a deployed QE until F35's arrive. I wonder what the cost implications would be to select a core group of airframes and build-in additional marinization if it becomes the norm rather than the exception to have Apache at sea when ever Ocean or a QE is deployed?Post 2015 Apache may be drawn-down in A-Stan taking the strain off crews/airframes providing more opportunity for ships deployment. Also does longbow lose any of it's capabilities when used at sea? Tracking and killing swarms of fast attack boats can't be that different from tracking and killing armoured vehicles advancing to target.
Guess what... the RN want their carriers back...
Defense News Mobile
The fact that the head of the navy is publicly saying it is interesting... I feel that a fudge of some kind is coming...
Defense News Mobile
The fact that the head of the navy is publicly saying it is interesting... I feel that a fudge of some kind is coming...
Troothsayer
New Member
Having watched the select committee debate where all these stories are coming from, I see nothing of the sort.
Admiral Stanhope said that without additional funding for inservice lifetime costs as well as running costs then the idea was a non starter but IF and only if the politicians made the decision to give defence more money then his first choice would be to reactivate carrier strike.
I don't think the fact the navy would like Invincible back as a carrier is newsworthy.
Admiral Stanhope said that without additional funding for inservice lifetime costs as well as running costs then the idea was a non starter but IF and only if the politicians made the decision to give defence more money then his first choice would be to reactivate carrier strike.
I don't think the fact the navy would like Invincible back as a carrier is newsworthy.
It is really very annoying seeing the pathetic words of the 1st Sea Lord saying it would be top of his wish list. Is he trying to rewrite history painting himself in a better light. This is the same old rubbish the RN trots out to defend its mismanagement and inability to make hard choice, so they can deny involvement when they are imposed by someone else.
The point at which carrier aviation was lost was when the FA2 were withdraw. If it was top of the RN’s wish list then they could have given something else up…..or even more radical become efficient!
Nice to see that we still have a Navy that can do a bit.....
HMS Liverpool’s captain speaks of gun battle with Gaddafi forces - East Hampshire - The News
Going into harm's way, so you don't have to......
SA
HMS Liverpool’s captain speaks of gun battle with Gaddafi forces - East Hampshire - The News
Going into harm's way, so you don't have to......
SA
Yep - just quietly getting the job done, neat piece of work and professionally done. Kind of gives the lie to the arguments about the gun having had it's day - and I think it underlines the need for a forthcoming Type 26 to have a decent precision effects munition available.
Ian
Quite impressive the service the Type 42s have given. HMS Liverpool the last Batch 2 with 29 years in; most have done nearly 30 years and one 33!
Yes, but its time to say goodbye to the 4.5". Very sad that funding could not be found for the 155mm, I can't believe it was going to be expensive, and I really think it would have cleaned up. But now it makes sense to go 127mm.
I've a nagging suspicion it was down to Babcock wanting to offer the 127/64 for export - it may still come to pass the 26's will end up with second hand 4.5's mind - which would be cheapest but irritating as hell.
Ian
That would be disappointing. I would rather fund the 155mm, the 39 cal version seemed to be able to use the existing mount. Being the only 155mm in the market (well excluding the AGS) I think it would have real export potential.
One issue, half the rate of fire - the loading cycle spent one cycle putting the shell in, then the next loading the charge - so, 15-20 rpm vs 35 rpm for the 127mm.
I guess the other is ammo carried.
Ian
Just because the 155 was going to be based on 4.5, doesn't mean it would be cheaper. Whatever way the UK looks at upgunning their ships it's going to be expensive...
Here's another point of view on the Gun situation / HMS Liverpools actions...
CDR Salamander: "Ding Dong"? OK, call it what you wish .....
Why does the 127 make sense?
Because Babcock have already signed an agreement with Oto-Melara, who make the 127 ??
Media Centre | Babcock International Group PLC
All this does is muddy the waters. My belief is that under the ToBA that BAE has with UK PLC, THEY are the sole providers of ALL warship designs for the next 15yrs, so I don't understand how Babcock could influence that design.
Assitionally, GCS (Global Combat Ship) / Type 26, AFAIK has NOT had it's main gun selected yet. After all the project hasn't got passed the initial agreed design stage, so there are no hard & fast agreements on equipment fit, & there won't be until the design phase is complete & they produce a baseline to work from.
From MY understanding of things(that have been posted elsewhere on the internet), It looks as though the UK RN may prefer to wait till another foreign nation get onboard the GCS programme, then opt to take the design on, so that more ships of the same design are being built, thus helping to lower initial material procurement costs & those of spares.
Apart from that, getting back to bigger guns, If the UK were to opt for say, the US MK45 - 5" Gun, then there would still be issues over things like buying a new ammunition type, all the spares, not to mention things like reduce Rate Of Fire (compared to the 4.5") & the 'double load', that's needed for the MK45, due to the seperate warhead & explosive.
...& finally, there are other issues to be considered, such as new legislation that will affect any NEW design / build RN warship, sincluding HSE rules about how heavy a weight an individual can carry (which I believe to be 25Kg, according to EU Directives), not to mention trade controls & rules about things like ITAR....
Not things that can just be swept under the carpet !!
SA