If w had to make an opposed landing......

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: If w had to make an opposed landing......
Monksta 4/12/2008 2:52:44 AM

Much has been commented upon regarding the degredation of the Royal navy in recent years and this led me to wondering what we are actually currently capable of. If the UK was presented with a senario similar to the Falklands, where an opposed landing of the better part of our land forces had to be made against a well prepared and reasonably rersourced foe, what could we throw at it? Accounting for the safe transportation of troops and controling the imeadiate sea/air around the landing zone. What sort of carrier and troop convoy could we muster? Let's assume we had 4 weeks to prepare prior to fleet launch and we could hand our Iraq / A'stan duties over to other NATO nations. This mission would be UK only however. Thoughts?

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4

Herald12345 6/9/2008 7:18:14 AM

The problem is not the specific platform. The issue is the program within the MOD. The program right now shows an in service date of 2022 mostly as a guess given there is no active program now and won't be until some money is authorized.

Not envisioned I bet as they think the Sea King is good enough until then.

Any number of radar systems could be placed on any number of airframes. The issue is that you have to choose something and develop it. In today's world that's going to take around ten years.

In the end its going to be Hawkeye or its replacement. The QEs are just big enough to ski-jump a Hawkeye off.

In any case putting the AEW radar alone on a platform doesn't get you airborne air controllers with the radar and processed information but rather that function is done aboard ship. For a variety of reasons you're better off with the capability in the air with some air control done aboard ship.

Hence the Hawkeye.

One would imagine if the RN's carriers are limited to V/STOL operations that the V-22 or some other helo would do fine. The real issue is the MOD not actually having an AEW replacement program actually running and being funded. Makes perfect sense of course given they got rid of the Sea Harriers in the first place. That one still shocks me to the core. Not keeping them in air worthy reserve status was and is criminal negligence. Nobody saw Operation Corporate coming and nobody will likely see the next one coming either.

This is why I think the British civilian government looks upon these hulls as a jobs program instead of as fighting ships . To US planners they look like very good LHAs that can in a crisis function as additional Marine lift in an allied fleet. The fact that Marines can operate Harriers off of that flight-deck is a bonus.. We might just buy them off of the British; if Gordon Brown builds them and then his successors doesn't fund their manning and full equippage.

THAT would be a hoot!

But seriously, as I remarked in the other thread, I think the RN is squeezing every last farthing's worth out of a badly bungled design to maximize the use to which they can put the hulls. They may originally have wanted CATOBARs, but when the MoD opted for the STOBAR route and then brought aboard the bumbling French naval architects to finally screw up the final design, the British desired LHA features had to work their way in, to justify the horrendous build expense. That was about the only thing the British did right in this exercise. As I said in the other thread, a properly designed STOBAR aircraft carrier with such LHA design features, is a very good idea as it gives great user flexibility.

Herald

Herald

Quote Reply

Nichevo 6/9/2008 12:10:23 PM

Why not just stuff up a Global Hawk or BAMS with AWACS radar sets and long-life engines? Refuel every week from the carrier - my STOL JSA could haul enough fuel to make the trip worthwhile. Then again my JSA could play AWACS.

Wingspan and takeoff runs. that solution would be landbased. STOVL has to take into account that it needs to be able to be struck below so you can work on the radar.

Of course it would be landbased! That's what happens when you buy dinky little carriers!

Only problem is persistence, how do you refuel them. My suggestion was my JSA, or something you can take off these little decks but big enough to refuel RQ-4. No point in flying out a tanker from England. Maybe nuclear engines, RTGs etc?

What is needed is a STOL utility transport, of course. Hopefully the Brits could somehow find room for ONE aboard.

Its called a Chinook or an SH-90, and yes they plan room.

Herald

Actually are they navalizing CH-47? We would do a lot better with CH-47 shipboard than CH-46, ISTM, and it compares right well with V-22. But I wonder if a helo would suffice as a tanker for anything other than another tanker.

Quote Reply

Nichevo 6/9/2008 12:11:49 PM

tanker.
helo.

Fixed.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/9/2008 2:10:46 PM

What is needed is a STOL utility transport, of course. Hopefully the Brits could somehow find room for ONE aboard.

Its called a Chinook or an SH-90, and yes they plan room.

Herald

COD-probably the NH/SH-90. The F-35B Sparkie will buddy tank.

The Chinook is, as is. There are no plans to give it a folding rotor hub, speed brake, or droop stops, AFAIK .Ala HMS Ocean it would operate.

Herald

Quote Reply

Nichevo 6/9/2008 4:40:21 PM

This is why I think the British civilian government looks upon these hulls as a jobs program instead of as fighting ships . To US planners they look like very good LHAs that can in a crisis function as additional Marine lift in an allied fleet. The fact that Marines can operate Harriers off of that flight-deck is a bonus.. We might just buy them off of the British; if Gordon Brown builds them and then his successors doesn't fund their manning and full equippage.

THAT would be a hoot!

Let's trade for the Kitty Hawk, then everybody's happy.

Quote Reply

LB RN E-2 6/9/2008 4:49:14 PM

It would be great for the RN to go with the E-2 and a STOBAR carrier. Now what are the chances that they end up deciding to save money and drop the arresting gear? They could still operate the F-35's and only lose the ability to operate E-2's and perhaps the odd C-2. It's my understanding they are not going STOBAR. Obviously if they did then the E-2 is almost a no brainer.

If not the E-2 then it would seem the RN will go with an AEW version of either the V-22 or Merlin. The V-22 would obviously be better in terms of mission endurance, among other things, and would allow the use of the V-22 as a COD. The V-22 actually has a lower empty but higher max take off weight than the E-2 so one might assume that the V-22 could carry all the mission equipment of the E-2 other considerations aside.

Another reason one might suspect STOBAR being dropped are the published configurations all showing a painted flight deck going roughly down the middle. With arresting gear you'd rather operate an angled flight deck so when you bolter you can easily go around- unless they want to give up on the entire forward end being a deck park during recovery. Frankly nobody has ever operated that way from what I recall. Non angled deck operations all seemed to use a forward deck park, arresting gear, and a crash barrier. The normal operation of the crash barrier given today's much higher landing speeds and weights is not of course as viable as it once was.

All this aside the main issue for the RN is simply getting the program funded. Having to depend on the AsaC7 in 2022+ is simply dangerous. Whether the platform is the E-2, V-22, Merlin or something else is almost besides the point as anything would be a vast improvement over the Sea King.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4