Ark Royal Scrapped
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
aeropilot said:
Eric Mc said:
aeropilot said:
Eric Mc said:
aeropilot said:
thatone1967 said:
Surely this begs the question of "retaking" the Falklands should the need arise.
I realise the Islands are much better defended now, but would be able to retake it should be we loose it with out a seabourne airforce?
Not a chance we could do what we did back in 1982 at all now, from both a sea and air point of view.I realise the Islands are much better defended now, but would be able to retake it should be we loose it with out a seabourne airforce?
If not Typhoons, what about Tornadooes - F3s or GR4s?
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the specific anti-ship role has quietly slipped away...especially as we now also have a capability holiday as far as martime patrol goes too, and the two go hand in hand.
As far as I know, there's no anti-ship weapons fit for the Typhoon...as yet.... and it's barely role ready in the air-ground configuration as of today, and the ones out in the Falklands certainley arn't.
Eric Mc said:
Would normal LGBs not work against ships, or powered ground attack weapons like Storm Shadow?
Stormshadow could function as a antiship missile, but it would need new software. This costs money so probably won't happen(unless we go to war and need it). GBUs are fine for attacking ships provided they are not equipped with any kind of SAM system(to kill the launch aircraft) or Phalanx-u-like(to kill the bomb).As I suspected, when the Tornado GR4 upgrade was done, the anti-ship role disappeared with it 
A quick trawl of the web revealed thus....
When the Tornado GR1 strike aircraft of the Royal Air Force were updated to the GR4 standard in the late 1990s there was no corresponding GR4B version of the GR4. It was judged that a specialised anti-shipping variant of the aircraft was no longer needed as the threat from surface warships the GR1B was designed to operate against had decreased, and also because the Sea Eagle missile was coming towards the end of its shelf-life and there were no plans to replace it due to the cost of doing so.
A quick trawl of the web revealed thus....
When the Tornado GR1 strike aircraft of the Royal Air Force were updated to the GR4 standard in the late 1990s there was no corresponding GR4B version of the GR4. It was judged that a specialised anti-shipping variant of the aircraft was no longer needed as the threat from surface warships the GR1B was designed to operate against had decreased, and also because the Sea Eagle missile was coming towards the end of its shelf-life and there were no plans to replace it due to the cost of doing so.
Eric Mc said:
It's great that politicians have such a clear view of the future.
A maritime nation with no capability to see off naval threats.
To be fair upgrading Stormshadow would not take long(although doing the appropriate trials would). Maverick is available as a dedicated antiship missile, and Brimstone has similar capabilitys.A maritime nation with no capability to see off naval threats.
Eric Mc said:
It's great that politicians have such a clear view of the future.
A maritime nation with no capability to see off naval threats.
It sounds to me a lot like the 'ten year rule' the politicians dreamt up in 1919 as an excuse to cut defence spending:A maritime nation with no capability to see off naval threats.
"In 1919, flush with victory in World War I but bled white from the fighting, Britain's government announced a "ten-year rule" in its defense planning, premised on the expectation that the country would face neither a major conflict nor the need for a large overseas deployment for at least a decade. [1] That decision freed Britain to slice defense expenditures and maintain only a skeletal defense force, an adequate navy, and some capability for colonial policing. The rule remained in effect until late 1932, shortly before Hitler's appointment as German chancellor. Seven years later, Britain was at war, and within eight was fighting for its life against the German Luftwaffe"
The problem being that these days it will take a lot longer to rebuild military capability than it did in the run up to WW2
I can't see the issue here. Our current carriers were very limited and don't even have an air 2 air power, they're only good for air to ground operations. I don't think they were ever supposed to give full spectrum defense and built to combat the Russian sub fleet in the north sea. The new QE class ones will give a staggering jump in performance especially with catapult launch. Roll on the proper carriers and proper planes.
disco1 said:
I can't see the issue here. Our current carriers were very limited and don't even have an air 2 air power, they're only good for air to ground operations. I don't think they were ever supposed to give full spectrum defense and built to combat the Russian sub fleet in the north sea. The new QE class ones will give a staggering jump in performance especially with catapult launch. Roll on the proper carriers and proper planes.
Just need to wait till 2018 or 2020 when the planes are ready...
thatone1967 said:
disco1 said:
I can't see the issue here. Our current carriers were very limited and don't even have an air 2 air power, they're only good for air to ground operations. I don't think they were ever supposed to give full spectrum defense and built to combat the Russian sub fleet in the north sea. The new QE class ones will give a staggering jump in performance especially with catapult launch. Roll on the proper carriers and proper planes.
Just need to wait till 2018 or 2020 when the planes are ready...dr_gn said:
thatone1967 said:
disco1 said:
I can't see the issue here. Our current carriers were very limited and don't even have an air 2 air power, they're only good for air to ground operations. I don't think they were ever supposed to give full spectrum defense and built to combat the Russian sub fleet in the north sea. The new QE class ones will give a staggering jump in performance especially with catapult launch. Roll on the proper carriers and proper planes.
Just need to wait till 2018 or 2020 when the planes are ready...But...... we don't want to do that, do we.....
aeropilot said:
dr_gn said:
thatone1967 said:
disco1 said:
I can't see the issue here. Our current carriers were very limited and don't even have an air 2 air power, they're only good for air to ground operations. I don't think they were ever supposed to give full spectrum defense and built to combat the Russian sub fleet in the north sea. The new QE class ones will give a staggering jump in performance especially with catapult launch. Roll on the proper carriers and proper planes.
Just need to wait till 2018 or 2020 when the planes are ready...But...... we don't want to do that, do we.....
rhinochopig said:
Sorry to hijack your thread Doc, but does anyone know what's going to happen to 137 and 138 SAR Seakings if Lossie is closing? That's really bad news given how busy they were.
depends if this rumour of army troops being based at kinloss happens or not, i guess they could relocate the SAR there. also isnt the rescue co-ordination centre at Kinloss.failing that they would probably move operations to Inverness or Aberdeen airports i guess, wasnt the plan to go to privately operated SAR anyway??
chrisj_abz said:
rhinochopig said:
Sorry to hijack your thread Doc, but does anyone know what's going to happen to 137 and 138 SAR Seakings if Lossie is closing? That's really bad news given how busy they were.
depends if this rumour of army troops being based at kinloss happens or not, i guess they could relocate the SAR there. also isnt the rescue co-ordination centre at Kinloss.failing that they would probably move operations to Inverness or Aberdeen airports i guess, wasnt the plan to go to privately operated SAR anyway??
IIRC you are correct, SAR coordination is done at kinloss - RAF SAR/MR team is based there. It does make sense to rationalise the two bases given how close to each other they are. As long as they just get moved and not scrapped.
rhinochopig said:
aeropilot said:
Agreed....... it's a no brainer IMHO, and at the cost you could order them now.... we could actually afford to equip both carriers.
But...... we don't want to do that, do we.....
Gamble, gamble....take what's behind door number three. Aww man, I hope it's the speedboat.But...... we don't want to do that, do we.....
What's today's Bully star prize? Let's see what you could have won. Super; smashing; great. Tesco value defence policy.shouldbworking said:
Don't forget the nimrod could and still can fire Harpoon missiles, even if its not the most obvious choice of interdiction platforms theoretically it could still handle the standoff mission with appropriate fighter support.
I think old Nimrod was grounded and new Nimrod is cancelled.Yertis said:
shouldbworking said:
Don't forget the nimrod could and still can fire Harpoon missiles, even if its not the most obvious choice of interdiction platforms theoretically it could still handle the standoff mission with appropriate fighter support.
I think old Nimrod was grounded and new Nimrod is cancelled.dr_gn said:
thatone1967 said:
disco1 said:
I can't see the issue here. Our current carriers were very limited and don't even have an air 2 air power, they're only good for air to ground operations. I don't think they were ever supposed to give full spectrum defense and built to combat the Russian sub fleet in the north sea. The new QE class ones will give a staggering jump in performance especially with catapult launch. Roll on the proper carriers and proper planes.
Just need to wait till 2018 or 2020 when the planes are ready...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff