kev 99
Member
Yes but then they had to deal with the negative press of their hotel costs..................
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
My point being is that the RAFs plan has always been to forward base to support operations and they did so, while there were negative press about things like that, they did what they said they were going to do.
I can't help but feel that the press about hotel costs was worth the backlash of refuelling aircraft from the UK to hit Libya (sometimes not even releasing weapons) and the operational advantages of the basing. Am I annoyed about the reports? Yeah, I am, but do I particularly think that the RAFs plan of providing coverage was *destroyed* in this instance? Absolutely not. There are ample oppertunities to criticise that philosophy elsewhere but in the case of Op. Ellamy I think they fulfilled their commitments adequately.
I can't help but feel that the press about hotel costs was worth the backlash of refuelling aircraft from the UK to hit Libya (sometimes not even releasing weapons) and the operational advantages of the basing. Am I annoyed about the reports? Yeah, I am, but do I particularly think that the RAFs plan of providing coverage was *destroyed* in this instance? Absolutely not. There are ample oppertunities to criticise that philosophy elsewhere but in the case of Op. Ellamy I think they fulfilled their commitments adequately.
I find it difficult not to link the change in Government attitude to the CVFs directly to the RAFs performance in Ellamy, however no one has officially said it is the case so there is no proof. I am surprised at your line on this one, I don't recall the exact percentage of allied sorties (12-15%?) but it was fairly low compared to the other player with carriers. The distance must have been and time must have been a limitation. I'm sure the professionalism of the crews helped to overcome some of these challenges, even so I'm not sure Italy is forward basing, but it is nearer than the UK.
If there had been a CVF with F35b available, would the RAF have need to deploy Tornado/Typhoon, probably not. Equally the RN could take on more of the burden with Type 26/45 launched cruise missile. This must impact the need to replace Tornados as they retire, its more logical to focus on a carrier capable design, rather than maintain 2 modest fleets, which would probably need to be collectively larger than a single uniform fleet.
Well they could have just carried on with the TSR2 or brought more Buccaneers, mixed with the P1154.
I actually know somebody who was involved in the development of the Buccaneer. I asked the same question it seems during the constant changing around of the old nationalised aircraft industries things always seemed to get " lost" everything from jigs to tooling. When they looked into the possibility of these things hundreds of millions had been spent in government grants getting the new rationalised industry ready for the next big thing. I.e tornado it was modern with its swing wing, and multi national consortium it was a fly in the ointment that could de rail the whole thing.
Ok, I do accept that Italy is to Libya isn't the same as something like - say - Kandahar is to Afghanistan for example, but it's a darn site better than ferrying them from the UK. Basically all i'm saying is that IMO Op Ellamy didn't *destroy* the RAFs credibility on coverage, was it ideal? No, but it did the job. Sure maybe not efficiently as our neighbours with fast air at sea, but we didn't have any of that.
Depends, if it was a regular RFTG deployment like when they brought in Ocean she'd probably have 12 F35Bs aboard. Seems plausible, routine amount for exercises and suddenly all this flairs up. Would 12 F35B's have been enough? Potentially, and would probably have been more useful.
Don't get me wrong, I think the RN will only get more important as we become a post-Afghanistan UK and I think the future seems to be looking pretty good for the navy, we're going to be in a far better position than we are now when we transition into the 2020s.
- 2 65,000 aircraft carriers
- Type 26s coming into play
- Superior SSN capability in both numbers and capability
- Superior tanker capability
But the RAF has it's role to play too, like it or not land based air assets will always be important in our expeditionary capability.
That's the cost of doing business - taking the decision to base personnel in a foreign country with the attendant security issues I'm assuming that the accommodation was aligned with security requirements, against the savings of farming out everyone involved to a B&B.
Pointless blaming the RAF for any of that - the *GOVERNMENT* killed the carrier that would have been on task otherwise....
kev 99
Member
Yeah I'm not blaming the RAF for anything really, just pointing out the criticism was there, as usual it's the Government's fault
Oh, don't worry, I was there screaming at the telly the day the newly minted government decided to commit us to a war of choice vs a country composed almost entirely of coastline, right after deciding we could tool along nicely without a carrier
I'm just *really* fed up with the RAF conspiracy stories.
I'm just *really* fed up with the RAF conspiracy stories.
Buccaneer had been out of production for decades by the time someone flipped the switch for Tornado - and the RAF (the prime customer for Tornado) had rejected Buccaneer at every offering. The *aircrew* on the other hand...took one look at the kit being proposed for Tornado and seemed to quite fancy just sticking all that into the Bucc, job done.
The story of how we wended our way from a decent performer to confused disaster area of an industrial disaster is tragic...
F-111K wouldn’t have killed the Tornado as it was a going project at the time called AFVG (Anglo French Variable Geometry) the French pulled out at the behest of Dassault and it became UKVG. This was actually a pretty good plane very similar to what became Tornado but because it was a RAF-RN joint project (still had a carrier future then) it had better slow speed flight characteristics for landing on carriers. The RAF was only buying Harriers and Jaguars as interim strike aircraft until UKVG was ready. F-111K like the TSR2 it replaced was very much for NATO theatre nuclear strike and the UKVG for tactical strike (CAS and BAI).
The really strange thing about the history of the Tornado was how the UK was able to get Germany and Italy to buy into the two seat strike aircraft. Both wanted a F-104 replacement with only a single seat and back when the Tornado was called the Panther progressed single seat versions of it. They only signed up to two seat attack aircraft at a later date.
For the RN UKVG would have become the Buccaneer replacement if the CVA-01 (and 02/03) were built. The biggest design difference between UKVG and Tornado was the former didn’t have wing gloves. So there was a leading edge flap (slat) across the full width of the wing and when swept forward made for a very high lift wing.
The really strange thing about the history of the Tornado was how the UK was able to get Germany and Italy to buy into the two seat strike aircraft. Both wanted a F-104 replacement with only a single seat and back when the Tornado was called the Panther progressed single seat versions of it. They only signed up to two seat attack aircraft at a later date.
For the RN UKVG would have become the Buccaneer replacement if the CVA-01 (and 02/03) were built. The biggest design difference between UKVG and Tornado was the former didn’t have wing gloves. So there was a leading edge flap (slat) across the full width of the wing and when swept forward made for a very high lift wing.
kev 99
Member
Yes and right after they said we wouldn't have one of those wars for a while in the SDSR a few months earlier.Oh, don't worry, I was there screaming at the telly the day the newly minted government decided to commit us to a war of choice vs a country composed almost entirely of coastline, right after deciding we could tool along nicely without a carrier
I'm just *really* fed up with the RAF conspiracy stories.
Oh ok.
Did some further reading that suggested that forward based TSR2 and then F-111K were seen as carrier replacements. Once the carriers were dead and buried there was no driving need to replace the capability with anything.
Buccaneer was in production into the 1970s. The last batch was for the RAF.
The TSR.2 avionics, including ground following radar, were tested on Buccaneer. Instead of going for F-111, we could have continued development of the avionics for Buccaneer after cancelling TSR.2, & developed all the little tweaks (multiple ejection racks, etc) that would have made Buccaneer even better, & had an excellent strike aircraft until the end of the millennium.
Cor..yes please...
It's still one of the crying shames in all the mess that our aviation industry became that the Bucc never got the love it deserved.
Never realised it was still in production so late however - I live and learn.
Love the Bucc, I wonder if the RAN was planning to retain them if they bought Hermes in 1968 when first offered. Would have made for an interesting alternative as a Canberra replacement for the RAAF instead of the F-111.
Does anyone have any info on the RN carrier offers to the RAN over the years? I have heard Implacable, Indefatigable and Eagle were all on the cards at various times.
The Buccaneer actually was one of the aircraft originally looked at for the requirement subsequently filled by the F-111, if I recall correctly. I think the others were the A-6 Intruder, A-5 Vigilante and TSR-2? Abe will correct me here if I've gotten it wrong (he was the one who gave me the rundown in the first place). Off-topic, but I thought you might find it interesting, assuming you didn't already know.
Knew the Vig and TSR 2 were in the mix.
I am a real fan of the RN FAA in the 40s 50s and 60s, the stuff the had was good, the stuff they developed was great and the stuff they designed but couldn't get over the line was awesome. Actually expand that to the whole RN not just the FAA.
Look at the design studies for carriers, cruisers, cruiser/destroyers and destroyers, not to mention the aircraft, guided weapons and guns. If only they had half the funding the USN had ...wow.
Don't forget the Type 12/Leander/MATCH!
Goes without saying, the UK has always been brilliant at the platform side but often has fallen over when it comes to getting the systems side right. Ironically some of their developmental systems have been outstanding but all to often either don't make it into service, or the service entry is delayed to such a degree that they are already out-dated. The other factor that comes into play is the system gets into service in an initial variant but doesn't get the bugs sorted and the refined / definitive version gets canned.
The common thread is pretty much always money, cant afford to complete development, cant afford to depl0y in a timely manner, cant afford to deploy the improved version. Great platforms let down by not quite enough investment to make it all work.