Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales
giblets    2/9/2004 5:06:30 AM
The two Uk aircraft carriers are alreay named, and that is about the only thing that is definite at the moment. In terms of size, apparently the RN has decided that the ships are indeed going to be 280m, 65,000 toners, after previously looking at smaller 260m 55,000 toners. Apparently it was thought that to get a decent 55 tonne vessel, and keep the operational effectivness would require too much new technology and risk. The new vessels are likely to cost £5billion for the pair, which, whilst far higher than the original MOD price of £3billion, is still FAR cheaper the the USN at £6.6billion for one carrier (CVN21). It is still up in the air as to whether the French Navy will still seek to aquire a new ship based on the UK design, which could lower costs.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
Gray    RE:optimism   3/22/2004 11:02:45 AM
In all the topics that Rule and myself have posted on he's believe me to be overly pessimistic whereas I think he is rather optimistic. Take away from that what you will. On the issue of a third CVF I'll have to bow to his superior knowledge, although I would say that the MOD is certainly keeping it VERY close to their chests for absolutely no knowledge of this to have filtered down to 'jack' in the navy. I don't exactly operate at an exalted level in the RN, but still... Oops, hope you haven't let the cat out of the bag, Rule!
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:Exemplo   3/22/2004 11:03:32 AM
Good question on air wings. From next month 800 NAS is disbanded. from June 2004 899 NAS (the HQ/trg sqn) will merge with the RAF HQ/trg sqn, while the sole remaining RN sqn 801 NAS will convert from SHAR2 to GR7/9(A) in by April 2005. From 2005 through 2012 the Joint Harrier Force will be four squadrons: RAF HQ/trg, plus 2 RAF front line and 1 RN front line (801). You will note JFH has been reallocated to 1 Group from 3 Group RAF and the RN Rear Admiral commanding 3 Group has been deleted, but a RN Captian retained on the ! Group staff. It has been suggested that 800 and 899 will reform in 2012 along with 801 for the F-35. I agree with your comment that the RN doesn't care who flies the planes since your politics are different. In the US, the law requires that carrier captains must be naval aviators which demands a pool of naval aviators to fill these senior positions. In the UK, all your carriers are captained by surface officers, except Ocean which has an ex-helo pilot; obviously, for budget reasons, your submariners also side with the surface officers and RAF. It's a real shame that the Fleet Air Arm remains the Cinderella as it has so often been; just pray you don't have to provide your own air cover! But take heart, because from 2012 the RAF will find few officers willing to engage in 6 month sea duty and the need for naval aviators will return. Meanwhile, 801 hold the flame for seven years in a Light Blue sea.
 
Quote    Reply

Gray    RE:pilots   3/22/2004 11:03:59 AM
Oh, and with the British armed forces concentrating so much on joint ops at the moment it would appear a huge retrograde step were the airgroups on the new carriers not to be flown by dark and light blue pilots, in whatever combination...
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:pilots-Gray   3/22/2004 11:13:35 AM
Just like in the 1920's. How much do you think it is the problem of actually finding a role for the RAF in joint ops? It seems as though each service defends its share of the budget and then shuffles the deck of assets to meet the requirements. If you put most of the Joint Helo Force into the army (who pay for it!) and the Commando Helo Force back into the Navy (who pay for it!) and the Joint Harrier Force into the Fleet Air Arm (where it all belongs), the RAF are left with 11 front line jet squadrons, 6 AWACS aircraft, 4 C-17 aircraft, 40+ C-130's (many manned by reservists) and a tanker fleet about to be privatized. They are still grossly overmanned - even on the current structure aircrew are only 2.6% of personnel. At what point, rationally, do you think people start to question the whole RAF purpose, structure and budget?
 
Quote    Reply

Gray    RE:pilots-Gray   3/22/2004 11:17:21 AM
Speaking as a sailor (and my brother is a soldier) - rational people have always questioned the existence of the RAF. I completely agree with you, the problem is convincing the government when RAF chiefs are so good at being convincing themselves!
 
Quote    Reply

Gray    RE:historical note   3/22/2004 11:18:23 AM
NB, in the '20s the RAF actually had a slightly better case based on the creation of a strategic bombing force that would be the cheapest deterrent against European aggression.
 
Quote    Reply

Rule Britannia    RE:optimism   3/22/2004 11:38:28 AM
-I was personally told of this fact by Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces Minister during a recent visit to Clydeside. This is an intention, not a confirmation and I would say that the reason it has not been filtered etc... would be for potential morale reasons as it is 15/20 years down the line and lets face it, anything can happen when looking at that timescale. "Oops, hope you haven't let the cat out of the bag, Rule" -?
 
Quote    Reply

DKay    RE:pilots-Gray   4/12/2004 1:01:46 PM
If the Royal Navy is so interested in and dedicated to total ownership and control of all those (RAF) air forces who give them dedicated and effective support, how is that the RN has so meekly and carelessly allowed Civil Servants, Ministers and the Treasury to disband the Sea Harrier force? That would be the fate of a lot more (former RAF) air assets and personnel if the RN (and Army) were ever trusted to get their hands on them. Any financial savings not grabbed by the Treasury would be poured into surface ships (or another ed-up submarine programme). In modern warfare, ships are sitting ducks to air power if they come within range of any land based air force worth its salt (forgotten the Falklands already?). And surely you don't imagine all the necessary RAF aircrews and other personnel would be willing to join the RN or Army, do you, when it's obvious that neither of the other Services could offer them a worthwhile professional career, nor would air operations and the effective application of air power be their main interest, focus and expertise? Success comes only from people.
 
Quote    Reply

DKay    RE:pilots-Gray   4/12/2004 1:01:48 PM
If the Royal Navy is so interested in and dedicated to total ownership and control of all those (RAF) air forces who give them dedicated and effective support, how is that the RN has so meekly and carelessly allowed Civil Servants, Ministers and the Treasury to disband the Sea Harrier force? That would be the fate of a lot more (former RAF) air assets and personnel if the RN (and Army) were ever trusted to get their hands on them. Any financial savings not grabbed by the Treasury would be poured into surface ships (or another ed-up submarine programme). In modern warfare, ships are sitting ducks to air power if they come within range of any land based air force worth its salt (forgotten the Falklands already?). And surely you don't imagine all the necessary RAF aircrews and other personnel would be willing to join the RN or Army, do you, when it's obvious that neither of the other Services could offer them a worthwhile professional career, nor would air operations and the effective application of air power be their main interest, focus and expertise? Success comes only from people.
 
Quote    Reply

Gray    RE:pilots-DKay   4/12/2004 1:38:59 PM
Quite honestly, DKay, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from, probably my fault, so I'll try and answer your questions as you posed them. "If the Royal Navy is so interested in and dedicated to total ownership and control of all those (RAF) air forces who give them dedicated and effective support, how is that the RN has so meekly and carelessly allowed Civil Servants, Ministers and the Treasury to disband the Sea Harrier force?" I don't believe it was ever stated that the RN is 'interested in and dedicated to total ownership and control of air assets' because no-one here speaks for the RN. Opinions have been voiced that RAF assets would be better used split (as appropriate) between the Fleet Air Arm and the Army Air Corps. All air assets, as you seem to imply, but again I could be misreading this, are not and never have been RAF. Originally there was the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps (a part of the army). These merged into the independent RAF latter in the day, on April Fools Day 1918. Now, however the RN has it's own assets in the FAA as does the army, partly a result of the RAF's incompetent management and neglect of naval aviation in the period between the World Wars. Currently all three British armed forces are encouraged to share their assets as the situation requires. This joint capability has been manifested in Joint Force Harrier (both FAA and RAF harriers under one control) and the joint helicopter force (doing the same for helicopters across the services). You seem to be of the opinion that the RN wants to spend all of its money on destroyers and submarines and that the army wants to splash it all on tanks and mortars. This is not the case. Both the navy and the army recognise the value of air power, and would spend the appropriate amount of money on balanced naval / land forces incorporating air power. Your allegation that air assets would be lost through naval / army control doesn't stand up because they already have a lot of that control. Where assets are being lost, for instance, the FA2 Harrier air defence, it is through the RAF campaiging for the money to be spent on other assets, a selfish campaign as it ignored the needs of the RN. The RN was neither meek nor careless in 'allowing' the FA2s to be scrapped. It didn't want it to happen, but it was forced to be government, which is, after all, its master. The government decision was based on information provided by all services, the RAF just happened to get their way, here, largely through providing misleading information about the FA2 and their projected GR9. I am certain that, as you mention, the RAF does provide 'dedicated and effective support' for the RN in operational situations, however, it does not do so when it comes to fighting over where the MOD budget gets spent! Hm, sorry about the length of that rant!
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy