Royal Navy RIP?

Message
Author
Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#21 Post by Cacophonix » Sat May 05, 2018 6:14 am

Maybe they should just have built a second generation Harrier with modern avionics and two crew! It seems the authorities are always in thrall to the suggestion they have to have a new ship or aircraft instead of rebuilding something tried and tested to modern standards. The Harrier didn't have 'stealth' though...but is it needed?
I suspect that the whole stealth thing is a dead end and a boondoggle as sophisticated adversaries like China and Russia have longer wave radars and digital signal processors that will allow so called stealth aircraft to be tracked by using a combination of frequencies to obtain a trackable target.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... alth-16936

The F-117 became obsolete overnight when an astute Yugoslav commander made some operational and technical changes that made the aircraft vulnerable.
One F-117 (AF ser. no. 82-0806) was lost to enemy action. It was downed during a mission against the Army of Yugoslavia on 27 March 1999, during Operation Allied Force. At approximately 8:15 pm local time, the aircraft was acquired by a fire control radar at a distance of 13 km and an altitude of 8 km: SA-3s were then launched by a Yugoslav version of the Soviet Isayev S-125 "Neva" (NATO name SA-3 "Goa") anti-aircraft missile system. The launcher was run by the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Air Defence Missile Brigade under the command of Colonel Zoltán Dani.According to Dani in a 2007 interview, his troops spotted the aircraft on radar when its bomb-bay doors opened, raising its radar signature. One source states one of the missiles detonated by its proximity fuze near the F-117. Dani said he kept most of his missile sites intact by frequently moving them, and had spotters looking for F-117s and other NATO aircraft. He also stated that he oversaw the modification of his targeting radar to improve its detection capability.

After the explosion, the aircraft became uncontrollable, forcing the pilot to eject. The pilot was recovered six hours later by a United States Air Force Pararescue team.Photos show that the aircraft struck the ground at low speed in an inverted position, and that the airframe remained relatively intact. The Serbs invited Russian personnel to inspect the aircraft's remains, compromising the then 25-year-old U.S. stealth technology.The F-117's pilot was initially misidentified. Though the name "Capt Ken 'Wiz' Dwelle" was painted on the canopy, it was revealed in 2007 that the pilot was Lt. Col. Dale Zelko.The stealth technology from the downed F-117 may have been acquired by Russia and China.

Some American sources state that a second F-117A was damaged during the same campaign, allegedly on 30 April 1999; the aircraft returned to base, but it supposedly never flew again.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee ... _Nighthawk

http://www.whale.to/b/stealth_countermeasures.html

Caco

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#22 Post by Cacophonix » Sat May 05, 2018 7:26 am

A very good synopsis of the stealth situation.

http://m.aviationweek.com/technology/ne ... ion-claims

The USN have stuck with the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet allied to radar jamming and other electronic countermeasures and methinks they have been wise to do so to date. Any wholesale replacement of these aircraft and associated operational tactics by the F-35B/C Lightning II aircraft would seem to be very unwise. That the Royal Navy is effectively doing the latter looks to be iconsciably foolish, to me anyway!

Caco

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#23 Post by Cacophonix » Sat May 05, 2018 8:06 am

The question about what role the Royal Navy intends to play is prescient given the following news...
Amid rising tensions with Russia, the Pentagon has announced the official launch of a new naval command and the reactivation of the US Second Fleet to bolster the US and Nato presence in the Atlantic Ocean.

“The return to great power competition and a resurgent Russia demands that Nato refocus on the Atlantic to ensure dedicated reinforcement of the continent and demonstrate a capable and credible deterrence effect,” said Johnny Michael, a Pentagon spokesman. He said the new Nato command “will be the linchpin of trans-Atlantic security”.

The decision reflects escalating worries across Europe and within Nato over Russia’s increased military presence and patrols in the Atlantic region. Under the new plan, the US will set up Nato’s new Atlantic Command headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia.

Outlines of the plan were approved at the February meeting of Nato defence ministers as part of a broader effort to ensure the security of the sea lanes and lines of communication between Europe and North America. Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg told reporters at the time: “We have seen a much more assertive Russia, we have seen a Russia which has over many years invested heavily in their military capabilities, modernized their military capabilities, which are exercising not only conventional forces but also nuclear forces.”

He said the new Atlantic Command would be vital for the alliance to be able to respond. Nato also created a new logistics command, which is expected to be located in Germany.

At the same time, the US navy is re-establishing its Second Fleet command, which was was merged with the navy’s Fleet Forces command in 2011 to cut costs. The command will oversee ships, aircraft and landing forces on the east coast and northern Atlantic Ocean, and will be responsible for training forces and conducting maritime operations in the region.

Restarting the command was recommended in the navy study done following the two deadly ship collisions in 2017 that killed a total of 17 sailors. Admiral John Richardson, the chief of naval operations, said the move comes as the security environment “continues to grow more challenging and complex”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... ter-russia

Caco

User avatar
FD2
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5110
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:11 pm
Location: New Zealand
Gender:
Age: 76

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#24 Post by FD2 » Sat May 05, 2018 10:57 am

Trouble is that the senior military people don't have the final say in these matters. The decisions are made by the politicians - sometimes they will listen to the service chiefs and sometimes they will just go for cheaper options which they in their wisdom think will suffice. There have been many stupid procurement choices over the years but we have to have politicians and they have to feel they are making the important decisions. It takes a brave service chief to stand against them and resign as a last resort - too few of them have been willing to do so when they are asked to do too much with too little or useless kit. It's not just the U.K that has this problem.

Invincible and possibly Hermes were being sold to Australia just before the Falklands blew up. It took a man of Admiral Sir Henry Leach's calibre to brush aside Defence Minister Nott's doubts and persuade Margaret Thatcher that the UK could still put together sufficient forces to re-take the Falklands. Her government seemed unaware of just what the capabilities of the U.K. military were back then. Don't know what the U.K. would do about that sort of situation nowadays...

I agree with your stealth comments Caco.

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#25 Post by Cacophonix » Sat May 05, 2018 11:15 am

No slur on, or questions, on my part, about the capabilities of senior Royal Naval staff, who for the most part have been proved through history to be top notch. As for the current crop of politicians we really seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel and senior naval officers today really are dealing with the D political team and the calibre of both government and opposition is woeful.

Caco

User avatar
FD2
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5110
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:11 pm
Location: New Zealand
Gender:
Age: 76

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#26 Post by FD2 » Sat May 05, 2018 7:13 pm

Agree.

User avatar
CharlieOneSix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5005
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:58 pm
Location: NE Scotland
Gender:
Age: 79

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#27 Post by CharlieOneSix » Thu May 10, 2018 3:46 pm

I can see a real cock up on the horizon! With the UK saying that the Iran nuclear deal is not dead as far as they are concerned I wonder how long it will be before the Trumpet comes down hard on us and cancels the deal to supply us with the F-35 aircraft. Then we have a real problem with our two new carriers being nothing but helicopter carriers.

At least if we had cats and traps we maybe would have had European alternative options to the F-35 but without them we could be snookered! That's what comes of sacrificing your own defence industries and relying on the US.
The helicopter pilots' mantra: If it hasn't gone wrong then it's just about to...
https://www.glenbervie-weather.org

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#28 Post by Cacophonix » Thu May 10, 2018 6:21 pm

CharlieOneSix wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 3:46 pm
I can see a real cock up on the horizon! With the UK saying that the Iran nuclear deal is not dead as far as they are concerned I wonder how long it will be before the Trumpet comes down hard on us and cancels the deal to supply us with the F-35 aircraft. Then we have a real problem with our two new carriers being nothing but helicopter carriers.

At least if we had cats and traps we maybe would have had European alternative options to the F-35 but without them we could be snookered! That's what comes of sacrificing your own defence industries and relying on the US.
If that happened it might save the UK any further embarrassment and money and save us from what are patently problematic and potentially carrier useless aircraft anyway. One of the carriers is likely to be mothballed anyway. Shove helicopters on the active one and if necessary look at putting a fecking catapult on the carrier and buy French Rafales.

Tell the Americans to shove the F-35 up their flabby poop shutes!

Caco

User avatar
FD2
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5110
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:11 pm
Location: New Zealand
Gender:
Age: 76

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#29 Post by FD2 » Thu May 10, 2018 7:56 pm

Caco,

In that case they had better start work on Prince of Wales immediately! It will take a major rebuild (in terms of time and money) to remove the ski jump, fit an angled deck, mirror landing aid (or something newer), steam generators for the catapults (or a newer magnetic system), fit arrestor wires etc. It could be done of course but will they make that bold decision? Also, Rafale looks like a handy piece of kit but what's it like in the ground attack role? The Strike Eagle and US AEW, and EW machines are the best available at the moment I think, but much as you think it would be good to commit to the Rafale, I wouldn't be too quick to be at the mercy of the French either. I'm sure those bad old days of supplying kit to Argentina during the Falklands War are long gone.. ;)))

About the best thing the UK has produced over the last few years is helicopters, which we don't need to buy elsewhere. Maybe they could fit AEW and EW in the Merlins to save buying abroad.

User avatar
FD2
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5110
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:11 pm
Location: New Zealand
Gender:
Age: 76

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#30 Post by FD2 » Thu May 10, 2018 9:37 pm

Cutting back to basics, if you want to be a major player on the world stage then you have to have the armed forces to back it up. If you don't spent the dosh then you end up with ineffective fudges. The UK government is hell bent, quite rightly, on reducing the deficit, so is unwilling to spend the money and also unwilling to accept a lesser ranking on the world stage. Quite a difficult balancing act! Britain used to produce its own aircraft, some good, some bad, but they are unlikely to be able to afford to do it on their own in the future.



82139071-2.jpg
82139071-2.jpg (36.85 KiB) Viewed 1346 times

User avatar
CharlieOneSix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5005
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:58 pm
Location: NE Scotland
Gender:
Age: 79

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#31 Post by CharlieOneSix » Thu May 10, 2018 9:45 pm

Re AEW, the Crowsnest project will see 10 Merlin Mk2's being fitted with an evolution of the Cerberus system which amongst other things will give AEW capability - now called Airborne Surveillance and Control (ASaC) - to the Merlin when 849's Sea King Mk7's go out of service in September. £269m worth of kit.

The MoD has spent around £40m and 17 years in the "assessment phase" of Crowsnest before an order was placed. Compare that with the shoestring cost and 11 week development of an AEW system for the Sea King when the Falklands War broke out in 1982.

I was in a hangar at Yeovilton 18 months ago and was appalled to find out that due to budget restraints there were only 6 sets of flotation gear for the 10 Merlins in that hangar. The sets were swapped around to whichever Merlins were serviceable. It makes you want to weep. :((
The helicopter pilots' mantra: If it hasn't gone wrong then it's just about to...
https://www.glenbervie-weather.org

User avatar
FD2
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5110
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:11 pm
Location: New Zealand
Gender:
Age: 76

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#32 Post by FD2 » Thu May 10, 2018 10:01 pm

Good to hear about Cerberus - it took a while didn't it?! Flotation gear swapped around between serviceable cabs - bloody awful. X(

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#33 Post by Cacophonix » Fri May 11, 2018 2:23 am

The notion of buying Rafale aircraft is not as far fetched as one might imagine given the basic idea of sharing aircraft carriers with the French which was mooted which has also been bungled, botched, fluffed and generally screwed up by the detritus, of both political stripes, that run this country over the last 10 years!

As was noted by C16 in a previous post, if you want to play hard ball, alone, in this tough world then you have to have the smarts, industrial base and an economy to afford it or combine with others for strength. Britain can't afford it, has lost its industrial base and yet tries to posture and preen upon the world stage and is going to be seen for the paper tiger it is sooner or later.

For example, the French have had to send their sub hunting aircraft to help the UK out over the last two years after the British government ignominiously let the Nimrod go before building (which we can't even more anyway) or buying an alternative. This particular gap is going to be closed what with the purchase of the P-8a Poseidon aircraft from Boeing but the inability to effectively deploy operational, aircraft carrying, aircraft carriers continues to makes us look like idiotic poseurs on the world stage. The issues were plain to see years ago (not least by people like Sharkey Ward). Vide this FT article from 2012.

The UK will not reconfigure its aircraft carriers so that French fighter jets can land on them, senior government officials have told their French counterparts.The move, confirmed by parliamentary officials, makes it increasingly unlikely David Cameron, the prime minister, will avoid an awkward U-turn in announcing the UK will buy the Stovl B variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, the version of the aircraft that can land on British carriers without the catapult and trap needed by French planes. In the 2010 strategic defence and security review, Mr Cameron announced the Ministry of Defence would convert the carriers and buy the longer-range F-35 C variant of the strike fighter. At the time he roundly criticised the previous Labour government for choosing the Stovl B variant. Allowing France and the UK to share the expensive task of maintaining uninterrupted carrier capability was an important reason for the switch, the SDSR noted at the time.But Mr Cameron is widely believed to have changed tack because his government underestimated the cost of converting the carriers, analysts said. Instead of the expected £400m, it is believed the conversion would cost about £1.8bn. Meanwhile, to make the carriers interoperable with French fighters, further expensive technological adjustments beyond the catapult and trap would have to be made. Despite weeks of speculation, Mr Cameron has yet to announce the switch back to the B variant – which can land vertically and only needs a short runway to take off – to parliament. The delay is growing increasingly awkward given that the first UK Joint Strike Fighter took to the Texas skies on Friday on its inaugural flight, Lockheed Martin, the lead defence contractor on the project, said on Monday. Jim Murphy, Labour’s shadow defence secretary, said serious issues around cost, capability and timescale needed to be resolved. “The government acted without strategy and in haste. The aircraft carrier programme goes to the heart of our ability to act in the world but is now confused and incoherent,” he said on Monday. Elizabeth Quintana, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, the UK-based think tank, says the B variant may be the UK’s best option, noting squeezed finances, the maturing development of the aircraft and uncertainties over the technology needed for a C variant to land on a carrier. “This is a programme in development and there is a long way to go with each variant before the problems are ironed out and the final price tag negotiated, particularly since the in-service costs will dwarf the costs of buying the aircraft,” she wrote in a recent analysis.
https://www.ft.com/content/f276fbaa-87e ... 144feab49a

It is enough to make one weep.

PS - That photo of aircraft line astern is bloody marvelous (Hurricane, Spitfire, Gloster Meteor, Hawker Hunter, Gloster Javelin, English Electric Lightning)! The Best of British and part of a golden age.

Caco

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#34 Post by Cacophonix » Fri May 11, 2018 4:04 am

Cacophonix wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 2:23 am

As was noted by C16 in a previous post, if you want to play hard ball, alone, in this tough world then you have to have the smarts, industrial base and an economy to afford it or combine with others for strength. Britain can't afford it, has lost its industrial base and yet tries to posture and preen upon the world stage and is going to be seen for the paper tiger it is sooner or later.

For example, the French have had to send their sub hunting aircraft to help the UK out over the last two years after the British government ignominiously let the Nimrod go before building (which we can't even more anyway) or buying an alternative. This particular gap is going to be closed what with the purchase of the P-8a Poseidon aircraft from Boeing but the inability to effectively deploy operational, aircraft carrying, aircraft carriers continues to makes us look like idiotic poseurs on the world stage. The issues were plain to see years ago (not least by people like Sharkey Ward). Vide this FT article from 2012.

PS - That photo of aircraft line astern is bloody marvelous (Hurricane, Spitfire, Gloster Meteor, Hawker Hunter, Gloster Javelin, English Electric Lightning)! The Best of British and part of a golden age.



Caco
Correction - as noted by FD2.

Correction - which we can't even do anymore <<in the same way that Caco can't speak or write English sometimes>>

Correction - The best and worst of British! Let's be honest, the Gloster Javelin wasn't a good aircraft!

Caco

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#35 Post by Cacophonix » Fri May 11, 2018 10:18 am

More grist for the mill!

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/u ... spartandhp
Britain’s armed forces could be almost £21bn short of the money it needs to buy equipment to combat mounting threats over the next decade, MPs have warned.

The Public Accounts Committee said it was “highly sceptical” that the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) ongoing modernisation programme would solve affordability issues and ensure Britain’s capabilities against cyber, chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and electromagnetic attacks.

A report concluded that the department “simply does not have enough money to buy all the equipment it says it needs” and accused it of losing control over costs.

The committee calculated a deficit of at least £4.9bn and potentially as much as £20.8bn over the 10-year £179.7bn equipment budget, although the MoD said the “worst-case scenario” was unlikely.

The equipment plan accounts for more than 40 per cent of the entire defence budget in that period and a 2017 review by the Public Accounts Committee warned of a budget shortfall of £7bn.
Its latest report condemned the plan as unrealistic and found weaknesses in cost control.

The construction of the next generation of nuclear missile submarines and the troubled F-35 fighter jet programme, which has left new aircraft carriers without aircraft, were among those singled out for criticism.
​MPs said the biggest concern was the need to bring forward some of the cost of building the next generation of nuclear missile submarines, the £31bn Dreadnought class, plus its nuclear warheads.

The committee heard evidence that while the cost of the four planned submarines may not increase, some of the money may need to be spent sooner than previously thought, putting extra strain on the budget.

There was additional criticism of a lack of transparency over the costs of F-35 planes, which are due to enter service with the RAF this year.
Caco

User avatar
FD2
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5110
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:11 pm
Location: New Zealand
Gender:
Age: 76

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#36 Post by FD2 » Fri May 11, 2018 11:17 am

Caco:

Yes - a slight shortage of money alright! As I said before, the UK needs to commit itself to spend more. So it breaks the budget - what is more important for the future? It probably will all be down to the Conservatives as Corbyn's burst of euphoria in the polls seems to be over - though I don't think either party can be trusted with defence matters. If Corbyn is elected I think the armed forces will effectively cease to exist, so problem solved! Cameron refused to change direction on the type of carrier that Brown had set in motion - handy that a major slice of the construction work was to be done in Brown's constituency. The budget won't stretch to providing the carriers, even in their present form and then enough escorts to protect them. What a mess. I hope Sharkey is wrong about the dangers inherent in the proposed way of operating the F35s when hot and heavy.

I could see a two way collaboration with the French working, but not with some EU 'conglomeration'. It's difficult enough trying to get the members of NATO to pay their fair share without trying to cobble together an entirely new military structure from a group of European countries that seem find great difficulty in agreeing how to go about anything in the first place. The elephant in the room will probably be Germany, as usual, which refuses to fund its armed forces properly in case it might be accused of reverting to its old 20th century ways - perhaps a double bluff. Meanwhile its huge surplus grows apace at the expense of the poorer EU countries. The EU has not actually sorted any serious problems properly in Europe, which is given as a reason for its very existence. It took NATO to sort out the barbarities in the former Yugoslavia and the EU deal with Turkey, to do its work of repatriating refugees, seems to cost a lot of money and may fail if Erdogan decides to take offence at something. Even with the new carriers, and even if the F35s are somehow effective, the country could never undertake another Falklands type scenario against a credible opposition. I think the present shambles will continue though, as the scrapping them would mean lots of egg on many faces.

Seenenough

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#37 Post by Seenenough » Tue May 22, 2018 7:07 pm

Don't worry when the shyte hits the fan many of NATO members will will expect the USA to do the heavy work for them regardless of whether or not their NATO contributions are up to date.

User avatar
FD2
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5110
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:11 pm
Location: New Zealand
Gender:
Age: 76

Re: Royal Navy RIP?

#38 Post by FD2 » Thu May 24, 2018 11:17 am

Seenenough:

Spot on.

Post Reply