Read the forum code of contact
By: - 12th December 2000 at 14:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
I suppose it depends on when the RN wants to start implementing replacements. The sooner it is, the more restricted the choice of aircraft will be. I thought they had decided on the JSF anyway, haven’t they?
I can’t imagine the RN ever deciding to use the Rafale though...:-)
By: - 12th December 2000 at 14:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
I think they will choose the JSF, there will never be a navalized Eurofighter, the Super Hornet and Rafale aren't british enough and the Super Harrier would just be an upgradede Harrier (Harrier Mk.20?)
By: - 12th December 2000 at 15:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
They wouldn't buy hornets, rafels or eurofighters, cause than they must buy expensive carriers with expensive catapults. So they will buy the JSF............
By: - 13th December 2000 at 06:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
The most likely solution seems to be the STOVL version of the JSF.
The most capable solution would be the CTOL version of the JSF.
The most expensive and stupid solution would be a navalised Typhoon.
A better, but not pc solution would be the Rafale M.
Super Hornet is too american.
The most incapable solution would be an upgraded Harrier.
MY solution would be no carrier, just better strike bombers and air-superiority fighters. (Why spend the god-knows-how-many billions on carriers with a measly complement of aircraft
MinMiester
By: - 13th December 2000 at 06:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
The most likely solution seems to be the STOVL version of the JSF.
The most capable solution would be the CTOL version of the JSF.
The most expensive and stupid solution would be a navalised Typhoon.
A better, but not pc solution would be the Rafale M.
Super Hornet is too american.
The most incapable solution would be an upgraded Harrier.
MY solution would be no carrier, just better strike bombers and air-superiority fighters. (Why spend the god-knows-how-many billions on carriers with a measly complement of aircraft which would have less range and payload than their land-based cousins when the money could be better spent on upgrading airbases and long range bombers?).
MinMiester
By: - 13th December 2000 at 08:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
I agree that building carriers with convential catapults is more expensive, but CTOL a/c are more capable than STOVL a/c. CTOL JSF is better than STOVL JSF. When you incorporate STOVL technology you have to trade in other capabilities, mostly range, but also a little agility.
And who can tell if the STOVL version of JSF will ever work. STOVL technology is very difficult to master (there's only one succesful design so far, the Harrier). And history has shown that rebuilding CTOL a/c into STOVL ones has never worked. So if they build a STOVL carrier and STOVL JSF is cancelled to would have to start a new programme, which would be the Super Harrier. And we all agree that is the least capable contender.
I therefore would rather see a CTOL carrier built, although more expensive, with CTOL JSFs and Rafale M as a back up option. I would choose Rafale over Super Hornet any time, not because the design is too American as some of you said (but soo is JSF!!!), but because it is not a revolutionary a/c, but a rebuilt old design.
Ference.
By: - 13th December 2000 at 10:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
Spoken like a true Air-head Min. :-)
"The most incapable solution would be an upgraded Harrier.
MY solution would be no carrier, just better strike bombers and air-superiority fighters. (Why spend the god-knows-how-many billions on carriers with a measly complement of aircraft which would have less range and payload than their land-based cousins when the money could be better spent on upgrading airbases and long range bombers?). "
I say to you two words - Operation Corporate.
If you dont recognise that it was the operation to recapture the Falkland Islands. It was done, save for the excellent No.1 sqdn embarkation to HMS Hermes, with no RAF combat power whatsoever.
All theyre nice, shiny, expensive strike bombers and air superiority fighters were absolutely worthless because they couldnt be staged that far.
Apart from that:
The most likely solution seems to be the STOVL version of the JSF.
The most capable solution would be the CTOL version of the JSF.
The most expensive and stupid solution would be a navalised Typhoon.
A better, but not pc solution would be the Rafale M.
Super Hornet is too american.
The most incapable solution would be an upgraded Harrier.
....is so right on the money that I couldnt add anything more to it!
Regs,
Steve
By: - 13th December 2000 at 11:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
Ok, fine here goes:
Navies are useless in an era where a-a refueling has meant that most strike aircraft have immense operating ranges. How long would a naval battlegroup take to respond to a new falklands war? About 1 week at least. How long for strike aircraft? About 12 hours. If you want quick and effective as well as CHEAP solutions, bombers are definitely the way to go. Once the naval battlegroup runs out of ammo, they have to return, and they need to be constantly refueled/restocked/repaired etc. etc. etc. Aircraft can deliver munitions quickly, effectively and with quick turnaround times, as well as offering far more versatility than a slow-moving battlegroup.
MinMiester
By: - 13th December 2000 at 11:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: FCBA
You would like to retake the Falklands doing Operation Black Buck about 1200 times? The amount of tankers needed for that would buy you two CVNs as well. You badly underrate Naval replenishment, and overrate pilots and aircraft stamina even more. How much downtime do you think a pilot and aircraft need after an 35-hour 'Global Power' mission?
Or do you suggest the RAf takes back its bases in Singapore, Jordan, Cyprus, Belize, and wherever more? Carriers are cheaper.
Regards,
Arthur
By: - 13th December 2000 at 12:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you joking?
Min,
"How long would a naval battlegroup take to respond to a new falklands war? About 1 week at least."
- No, more like 1 month in the case of a new deployment to the South Atlantic.
"How long for strike aircraft? About 12 hours"
- Agreed, a Strike aircraft could probably put weapons on target within 12 hours of takeoff in the theatre were hypothesising about. Then what?
Here you've highlighted precisely the narrowness of view that has plagued at least the UK defence establishment since the 60's. Strategic range conventional airpower and naval aviation are complimentry not mutually exclusive.
True, like you say, an aircraft could respond faster than a naval task force and a be firing weapons before the naval fleet had got a days transit in. The problem though is once your deep strike aircraft have launched theyre weapons they have to fly back home 12 hours and get more. The attack isnt sustainable.
The only way to have sustainable air attacks is to base your aircraft close to the target or to have a massive fleet of deep strike aircraft and have waves attacking in a cyclical pattern (with a corresponding massive fleet of tankers, huge numbers of support personnel and a massive infratructure). This latter option, the sort of thing were talking about, negates your cheapness angle right from the start.
A naval task force, just off the coast, can generate sorties on a short notice basis and maintain sortie rates that keep hostile targets under fire almost as much as is required. Give the naval fleet Tomahawk TLAM, VL ATACMS or even a decent gun mount on the escorts and the carrier airwing doesnt even need to be placed in jeopardy attacking heavily defended targets.
"Once the naval battlegroup runs out of ammo, they have to return, and they need to be constantly refueled/restocked/repaired etc. etc. etc."
Not so at all, not many nations can do it but the principles of UNREP (UNderway REPlenishment) are very well known. Certain navies ships could be kept on station at any point, on any ocean or sea indefinitely - wouldnt be much luxury for the crews etc. but it could be done.
Lastly how does your air battle fleet propose to actually occupy anything? Paradrops? Wouldnt fancy being a Para on a transport aircraft if an enemy SAM, AAA or worse fighter got a lock on!
Or would you propose air-air refueling of some air superiority fighters to escort the transports and some of the strike aircraft for SEAD support too. Lets see, just one of the Black Buck Vulcan's required 11 refuelings to get from Ascension and back in 1982. So, would you care to estimate what level of support your air fleet would require?
An equivalent Marine could make the transit in a ship carrying a lot more of his mates, heavy armour support, transport vehicles and helicopters for tactical mobility on the battlefield. Medevac, C3I facilities etc, etc AND be defended from land, sea and air attack all at the same time.
You aircraft are more flexible are they? Think not!
Regs,
Steve
By: - 14th December 2000 at 00:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Are you joking?
A STOBAR carrier, which would be cheaper than a CTOL carrier, could operate a navalised Eurofighter, and probably Rafale-M as well as the Blooper Hornet. If the Russian's can get Su-33's off the deck of Kuznetsov, the Brits should be alright if they go that route. it would, however, limit the size/type of AEW and other "heavies" that could be operated.
By: - 14th December 2000 at 02:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Are you joking?
"The problem though is once your deep strike aircraft have launched theyre weapons they have to fly back home 12 hours and get more. The attack isnt sustainable."
And a naval taskforce after exhausting it's limited supplies is??? At a distance that great, naval battlegroups are not sustainable at all, however good replenishment plans are. Replenishment takes 1 month, so massive forethought and MONEY must be put in and hypothesising about the war's length is required. All this costs MONEY. An air attack can be refuelled and re-armed in 24 hours, and supplies do not have to be "loaded" 1 month in advance.
MinMiester
By: - 14th December 2000 at 03:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Are you joking?
What is a distance that great ? accross the alatanic ? Please. Across the Pacific ( probably ). I hate to burst your bubble dude but naval battle groups carry a huge amount of bombs and missles with them. The carrier themselves have large stores and each group also has at least 2 unrep ships with them , usually an olier and a ammo. Also when most battle groups set out , replenishment ships will tend to start loading up and pre stagging themselves. How long did the Naval battle groups of WW2 stay out ? They sure as ##### were using ammo up at an incredible rate. Look at the major naval forces today ( US and UK and I guess Frace ). The majority of them ( can't speak for France ) have large replenshiment fleet. It's a fact of life and yes they are more sustainable than long range strike fleets. Then of course there's always the question of Strike aircraft that get shot down.... You going to run a rescue mission from across the Alatanic ? Long range strike has it's place. But I feel it's more of a job for heavy bomber ( lots of ordance in one spot ) but for sustained mission it's impossible for both man and machine.
By: - 14th December 2000 at 04:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Are you joking?
My point is that air-strikes are sustainable as long as the factory keeps churning out the bombs, naval battlegroups are not. Eventually, replenishment is required, and this takes time and money. Aircraft can break down and require maintainence, and this may but one strike bomber out o 20 out of action for a week or something, but ships also break down. What would be the cost to a country's ability to strike if the carrier were to break down and require heavy maintainence???
MinMiester
By: - 14th December 2000 at 10:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Are you joking?
Your point is evidently false : just have a look to the only country that carried air attacks from carrier and from longrange bombers : the USA during Kosovo and Gulf war.
Now compare the sortie rate of carrier airwings to the number of attacks by UK based B52 flown during Gulf war or B2 raids in the Kosovo conflict.
By: - 14th December 2000 at 10:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Are you joking?
Min ,one thing I must add about No Navy strategy among other reasons...etc. With some decent SSKs a naval blockade/sanctions can be easily mounted(If you don't know sea transport is important ,If not why so many merchant ships around) .Yeah there is P3s things like that but with No Navy, surface combatants or subs their job is much harder.So it means AUS cannot protect its trade routes.(air transport alone is not up to it) which leads to lack of materials not available to AUS in other words Its going to be like a battle of the Atlantic that goes to the Kriegsmarine.(just an example)
By: - 14th December 2000 at 11:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Are you joking?
Ok, well here's another point:
Air transport IS gradually going to replace ship transport, and more and more trade WILL be carried by aircraft over the coming decades. Soon, navies will NOT be needed as there will be very few or NO merchant ships (well, not soon, maybe in about 30-40 years), but my point remains, that navies WILL eventually become obsolete.
MinMiester
By: - 14th December 2000 at 11:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are still joking, surely?
Have you any concept of the size and diversity of maritime trade that currently travels the worlds oceans?
There is absolutely no way whatsoever that this trade will dry up in 100 years, let alone 30 or 40!
What miracle would precipitate this 40 year limit on maritime trade anyway?
- The large capacity cargo airships that are in development? - They've nowhere near enough capacity to equal supertankers, car carriers etc, etc
- A3XX type, AN124, C5 type large aircraft? - Again no contest in carrying capacity and have much higher costs.
So what else is there? Are you suggesting that we'll have Star Trek beam transporters in 30-40 years???
By: - 14th December 2000 at 12:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: You are still joking, surely?
We could well have, although i seriously doubt it :)
Anyways, this discussion doesn't belong here, wanna start up a new post, and we can have a nice long discussion about the merits of strike aircraft over naval battlegroups (i seem to have gone a little overboard on this issue with the cargo ship sized airplane thing :))
MinMiester
By: - 14th December 2000 at 12:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: You are still joking, surely?
Fair Enough :-)
I tell you though, I'd take a nice Type 23 frigate over Scotty's bits and pieces anyday :-)
Regards.
Steve
Posts: 885
By: Ference - 12th December 2000 at 13:39
What plane should the RN buy for their new carriers? Contenders are: JSF in STOVL and CTOL versions, Super Hornet, Rafale, navalised Eurofighter, Super Harrier.