Here's a laugh, he talks about how a QEC + F35B + MASC will not give us a full strike capability, but calls Ark Royal (the 'through deck cruiser' Ark Royal) a strike carrier.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
kev 99
Member
You're sure he's not talking about the previous one, because that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
That's how I interpreted it, he talks about how they (+ Harriers) weren't there for Libya. Plus it's in the column headed SDSR 2010.
Generally I would support the view of incompetence over conspiracy, however having met a few politicians even with a defence interest, the level of knowledge around the F35, at the time was very low. Even when explained a few times, they didn't get the difference between the: a, b & c.
Maybe I am being hard on them, but they must have been fed the concept from some source. I don't think industry as they had nothing to gain and BAE certainly didn't like the idea, so was it RAF or RN. The c actually suits the RAF much more than the b and a (they have a fighter). The RN doesn't need the range as they are not tired to airbases, they seems to have reacted like most of us and thought it's to good to be true.
Last edited:
Range helps the RN as well - that extra reach keeps the carrier in a bigger area of ocean and makes it that harder to prosecute as a target so I'm sure taking C would have suited the RN as well.
F35C was better for the *country* if it could have been afforded - longer range, bigger payload, larger weapons bays, all services would have benefited from the choice of aircraft. The overall package however was markedly worse, with one carrier being on tap, much later in the day.
If this was a conspiracy to shaft the RN, then the decision would never have been reversed.
I'm arguing there was no conspiracy - a small group of people made a decision based on poor quality information and some out of date assumptions, then reversed themselves a bit later once the figures landed.
F35C was better for the *country* if it could have been afforded - longer range, bigger payload, larger weapons bays, all services would have benefited from the choice of aircraft. The overall package however was markedly worse, with one carrier being on tap, much later in the day.
If this was a conspiracy to shaft the RN, then the decision would never have been reversed.
I'm arguing there was no conspiracy - a small group of people made a decision based on poor quality information and some out of date assumptions, then reversed themselves a bit later once the figures landed.
^^^^^^ This, this a thousand times. It would have been a capability offered 70% of the year with no guarantees of appropriate levels of funding.
Hell, even if the RAF push for a purchase of A's is that neccesarily a bad thing for the Navy? To have a pool of airframes which the carriers can make use of 3 squadrons maximum?
I mean sure, it won't fill up two carriers, but what sort of conflict will we be involved in which would ONLY involve us needing an incredibly powerful air wing but no rotary capability at all?
Exactly - from the conspiracy theory angle, purfick, the RAF get their evil way, and their shiny DPOC compliant aircraft, the plucky but down trodden FAA get a carrier for 2/3 of the year, I can hear the waxed moustaches being stroked agitatedly from here...
And yeah, a mix of A and B from my mind is actually a *good* thing - chuck the RAF some FOAS/DPOC compliant A models (70 ish) and that's your Tornado replacement done and dusted, the carriers see a nice pile of B models, we've got a fairly consistent fleet of aircraft and maintainers, job's a good 'un.
And with the savings you get from buying the cheaper A model, you can fund CEC. And that's a *good* thing.
And yeah, a mix of A and B from my mind is actually a *good* thing - chuck the RAF some FOAS/DPOC compliant A models (70 ish) and that's your Tornado replacement done and dusted, the carriers see a nice pile of B models, we've got a fairly consistent fleet of aircraft and maintainers, job's a good 'un.
And with the savings you get from buying the cheaper A model, you can fund CEC. And that's a *good* thing.
The additional range in the F-35C is there to enable it to have enough endurance to recover safely. Further STOVL carriers can operate closer to enemy shores because of their freedom of movement compared to a conventional carrier. All of which indicates that the difference in range does not provide an increase in strike radius for the F-35C. For example if the sea based USN and USMC were flying F-35s in ODS the USMC F-35Bs would have had more radius into Iraq than the USN F-35Cs.
Maybe for land basing but not for seabasing which is the primary role of the F-35B or F-35C. Considering the various enablers available by FMS from the USN then a fully funded CATOBAR carrier would be better. But that decision was to have been made 10-15 years ago – if not in 1982-83 – and the HMG is not funding the UK Forces for this kind of full golf bag carrier capability.
The ‘conspiracy’ was to provide a ‘reason’ to cut the carriers and Harrier from the force now and until the CVF and F-35 are ready. If there was no change from F-35B to F-35C one couldn’t make the argument that there was no continuity between the current force and the new one. So therefore you couldn’t make a ‘logical’ argument that the current carrier and Harrier force could be disbanded.
Sadly not unique to Sharkey, this interesting quote about the top RNAS WW1 ace Raymond Collishaw and his "Black Flight" (I think only 5 pilots, all Canadian).
"During their first two months (1917) they claimed a record 87 German aircraft destroyed or driven down - which, strangely enough, brought Collishaw and the unit no wide publicity, though garnered a great deal of renown among their German opponents in the area. Collishaw later claimed that this was because officials in the regular Royal Flying Corps were loath to give credit to naval pilots".
Keeping out to sea a bit and being restricted to flying from land bases, is a completely different ball game, as Libya demonstrated. I think the recognition that the politicians would have swapped all the Tornados for a few Harriers, has pretty much guaranteed both CVFs future.
The politicians maybe, ignorant of defence matters and unreasonably demanding masters, but it does not pay to let them down, a painful lesson for the RAF. If only they had retained the Harriers to do the work, the Tornados could have focused on a PR role...maybe called Black Buck 2, using their entire leaky tanker fleet? I guess they did, they just subcontracted the work to the French....actually come to think about it, its a really good model!
Maybe the decision to change back to the F35b, post Libya & Mr Fox, was when the politicians (and maybe the RN as well) realised they had been sold a pup and they used some highly questionable costings as a fig leaf.
Much hype was made about interoperability with allies, but was this really with the RAF and not the quoted allies...only the French really why would the USN need to? Maintaining the focus of the JHF, which had proved to be anything but joint.
Last edited:
Well, the interoperability had it's own issues - I suspect beyond the odd cross decking experience, it'd be irrelevant - and there were apparently security issues with parking F35 on a French carrier anyway, as referenced in the NAO report.
Either way, while I'd love to have had the full fat carrier experience, F35B is going to be a major step up from ..well..*nothing* and I'm looking forward to seeing the QE at sea with some aircraft on deck.
I'm hoping we'll see some clear direction on both carriers being retained in service (which seems likely) That plus sorting out the dry stores ships ASAFP...
Either way, while I'd love to have had the full fat carrier experience, F35B is going to be a major step up from ..well..*nothing* and I'm looking forward to seeing the QE at sea with some aircraft on deck.
I'm hoping we'll see some clear direction on both carriers being retained in service (which seems likely) That plus sorting out the dry stores ships ASAFP...
Interesting that the USMC are now looking to retain their AV-8Bs until 2030 as the F/A-18C/D are in more urgent need of replacement. According to Flight Global:
US Marine Corps studying Harrier enhancements
they are looking at a raft of upgrades to keep the aircraft viable into the future including new weapons (including AMRAAM) and possibly a new radar. Reading this I couldn't help but think of the RAF/RAN harrier fleet and how its capability and service life could have been improved to a similar degree.
I suppose part of the reason the USMC can look at life extending their Harriers is the fact they have the ex UK machines to cannibalize, so it could be argued that they may not be able to do the life extension had the UK not sold them theirs but just the same some form of extension should be possible.
Its too bad the RAF never developed the F3 based Tornado 2000 as this would have permitted the retention of the Harrier and retirement of the GR Tornados.
US Marine Corps studying Harrier enhancements
they are looking at a raft of upgrades to keep the aircraft viable into the future including new weapons (including AMRAAM) and possibly a new radar. Reading this I couldn't help but think of the RAF/RAN harrier fleet and how its capability and service life could have been improved to a similar degree.
I suppose part of the reason the USMC can look at life extending their Harriers is the fact they have the ex UK machines to cannibalize, so it could be argued that they may not be able to do the life extension had the UK not sold them theirs but just the same some form of extension should be possible.
Its too bad the RAF never developed the F3 based Tornado 2000 as this would have permitted the retention of the Harrier and retirement of the GR Tornados.
The AV-8B+ variants should already be AMRAAM-capable, although the mention of radars is interesting. Wonder if they could be candidates for some of the new relatively small AESA technologies like SABR... but then I don't know how much money they're looking to spend on the things with the F-35 coming on line.
On the RAF vs RN discussion, a lecturer of mine (ex RN nuc engineer) described it in this manner:
The RAF were very aware that both the army and navy wanted to strangle them at birth so concentrated a significant amount of effort skilling their officers in staff work to better equip them as a service to sell their story to government. This was initially to ensure their survival but later was put to good effect in enabling them to secure funding for what they saw as necessary to carry out the duties and functions dictated by government. The trouble is there was not enough funding and as the RAF was better at getting what they needed the other services missed out.
IMO, between the wars, the army and navy didn't really help themselves by expending so much effort trying to justify the retention of horse cavalry and battleships to the detriment of new technology.
The RAF were very aware that both the army and navy wanted to strangle them at birth so concentrated a significant amount of effort skilling their officers in staff work to better equip them as a service to sell their story to government. This was initially to ensure their survival but later was put to good effect in enabling them to secure funding for what they saw as necessary to carry out the duties and functions dictated by government. The trouble is there was not enough funding and as the RAF was better at getting what they needed the other services missed out.
IMO, between the wars, the army and navy didn't really help themselves by expending so much effort trying to justify the retention of horse cavalry and battleships to the detriment of new technology.
I would be surprised if it actually came through this upgrade both fleets are very tired. Im not sure the money will be their especially with the Navy being quite keen to downsides Marines(with the good old fashioned talk of removing Marines completely)
Reading elsewhere it seems that the Harrier life extension is aimed at filling the gap left by the USMC Hornet fleet coming to the end of it's tether. The Harrier airframes are all in good order in terms of fatigue, whereas the Hornets have been on and off a carrier too many times by now.
I'm guessing they've done the sums between a re-barrel on the Hornets and keeping the Harriers going and come down on the side of the Harriers.
I'm guessing they've done the sums between a re-barrel on the Hornets and keeping the Harriers going and come down on the side of the Harriers.
The loss of the RNAS, along with some of the RN's more forward thinking and certainly aviation focused officers was huge. They were left with the battleship officers, who became the battleship admirals. By 1939 we had fallen so far behind the USN & IJN....when we had been so far ahead in 1918. Yes some of this was the RAF getting more money, much of it was a lack of pull/aviation doctrine from the RN. People often go on about how good RN armoured decks were as against USN carriers...was it our Maginot line...?
In a similar way the organisational impact of the CVA01 cancellation, must have hit every level/careers etc. the whole doctrine of the RN was removed, almost overnight. The future must have seemed nuclear subs almost to the exclusion of all else.....and then Falklands/end of the Cold War change the game again.
I do think the RN has an inferiority/victim complex regarding the RAF and just accepts they will always get the best...but the RN certainly reserve the right to sulk about it.
However the boot is certainly on the other foot now, Libya has destroyed the RAFs credibility on coverage and they have to many Typhoon and Tornados (I bet the regret saving them now) to justify a split buy of F35A in the current climate. Once the carriers are at sea and doing all the work......it will become harder to build a case, particularly as the Army also has its Apaches.
Last edited:
In a way it is too bad the RAF didn't get their 50 F-111Ks in the late 60s (well mid 70s once debugged). This likely would have short circuited UK involvement in the Tornado and drastically changed RAF and RN FAA force structures going forward. No Tornados likely would mean more Harriers and Jaguars, which would both likely be individually more capable, i.e. radars and more powerful engines to supplement the F-111 force.
A more powerful, radar equipped, pre AV-8B, Harrier could have been used with minimum change instead of the Seaharrier or rather the two requirements could have been merged into one and the RAF could have operated a multi-role strike fighter variant of an improved Seaharrier. Either option would have future proofed the FAA against losing its fixed wing capability and carriers.
No GR1 also means no ADV and while the F-111 in conjunction with the Harrier and Jaguar could have covered off the strike role what would have replaced the Lightnings? Viggen comes to mind, then again if an interceptor was what was really desired the F-14D looks good.
I wouldn't say it's destroyed it, it's had an impact with the publicised articles about how expensive it was tanking Tornados for strike missions from RAF Marham just to chuck some Storm Shadows and then head back, but then when basing rights had been sorted out (or somesuch) and they with Typhoons were based in Italy then that counted for something.
But don't get me wrong, they did feel the lack of carriers, and as much as a squadron of Apaches on Ocean could do that sort of limited strikes i'm sure they were looking at Charles de Gaulle with Rafales/SEs and what they were doing