The carrier force of the Royal Navy

[macelena 1,070]

Here´s some issue that seems important to me: the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, is absolutely out of fighters

as years go by, and JSF/JCA is taking longer, the carriers embark units of AV-8B+ from spanish and italian navies.

 

Also, AEGIS ships from USN and spanish are detached to complete their AAW escort while waiting for the Type-45 DDGs to enter service

 

How should the Royal solve this?Personally i think that they should lease some AV-8B+ from USMC or something, provided that allied navies

such as italian and spanish have to fill their carriers. Should RN keep their vast deployments or resize their missions to their temporarily weakened force?

Edited July 10, 2008 by macelena

[+Jimbib 747]

There is in the UK what is known as the Joint Harrier Force, a conglomeration of RAF Harriers and the RN SeaHarriers. Since RN SeaHarriers have since been removed from service, some of the RAF Harrier GR.7/9's have been operated by the Naval Strike Wing, most recently in Afghanistan. It is not the most ideal situation but it is the current solution. There is a good article about it here...

 

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/harrier-gr9.htm

 

However, I feel that Skippybing would probably be able to give a very good analysis of the current situation.

Edited July 10, 2008 by JimmyBib

[eraser_tr 29]

IMHO, build the P.1154 that the harrier was originally intended to be while everyone waits for the JSF.

[macelena 1,070]

IMHO, build the P.1154 that the harrier was originally intended to be while everyone waits for the JSF.

 

 

It´s a good idea, craigbrierly, the almightty creator of the EF2000 is working in the TRS, another british experimental aircraft. Perhaps he makes some, althought perhaps a new skin for the gr.1 based in the P.1154 is the most we could really get

[JediMaster 451]

Or wouldn't it have been far easier to just build newer Harriers if the old ones were worn out? Certainly cheapest idea.

Resurrecting an old 60s design that was long ago abandoned and trying to "update" it to 21st century specs sounds so...NASA.

[+SkippyBing 8]

Jimmybib is correct in that the Naval Strike Wing operates GR.9s alongside the RAF. At the moment the UK's Harrier force is basically watch on stop on in Afghanistan, with the Strike Wing occasionally operating from one of the CVS around that (see the Warship TV series from Channel 5, it might be on you tube, it is highly embarrassing though, we're not all that amateurish). I suspect once the Tornadoes swap with the Harriers we'll see more embarkations.

Would AV8B+ be a good thing, yes, can we afford it, no, and at the moment the money would be more usefully spent on support helicopters which is what's really crippling the front line.

The use of US and Spanish squadrons is a way of keeping the ship current in fixed wing flying ops while the Strike Wing is otherwise engaged and has other benefits in aiding mutual understanding of operations etc.

Having a Spanish Aegis in the Illustrious task group isn't particularly a sign of overstretch, at the same time HMS MANCHESTER was escorting one of the US carriers in the Gulf and another one escorted the Charles de Gaulle for a bit, again it helps develop an understanding of how we can operate together most effectively.

As an aside on the forthcoming Tornado deployment I was speaking to a Typhoon mate at RIAT over the weekend and they're itching to go over and show what they can do but no one is willing to let them yet. And by all accounts their weapon carrying ability hot and high is far superior to the GR.4

[macelena 1,070]

Truely the most important effort by he british armed forces seems to be the afghan front (yes, i said front). But how long can the UK wait for embarked fighters is something that, given that the real JCA is takin more than our "two weeks", is concerning provided that there are battle groups around these carriers. If it was a navy such as spanish or italian, whose carriers are not usually far from home, it wouldnt be a trouble. But deployments so far, without fighters for battlegroup as large as a USN uses to be, aren´t such nice.

 

About the escort ships, what is good to see is how well do they integrate. HMS Manchester made a good job with the Truman, so did the USS Cole and the spanish did with the Illustrious, but AEGIS aren´t enough as seems to protect a force against a major attack as even Harrier Fighters would do. Its a low probability attack, but what im concerned about is the lack of attention, about accepting such gap by the governments of command.

Even the only way that hispano-italian harriers could make it was because their own carriers were out of service for a while due to update and these things seamen do-to their ships-both navies are to reicieve new carriers for operate at least one everytime

[JediMaster 451]

Well, if it's an attack by planes, helos, or cruise missiles, Harriers can NOT compete with an AEGIS cruiser. I think they carry close to 100 missiles and can launch them at dozens of inbounds in mere seconds.

Against surface vessels, subs, ground forces on land, an AEGIS is worthless!

[macelena 1,070]

Well, if it's an attack by planes, helos, or cruise missiles, Harriers can NOT compete with an AEGIS cruiser. I think they carry close to 100 missiles and can launch them at dozens of inbounds in mere seconds.

Against surface vessels, subs, ground forces on land, an AEGIS is worthless!

 

Truely the Harriers are worse than AEGIS in AAW, and for the other threats GRs could fit, but the multirole capability of a AV-8B+ or the s´har is worth the cost.

 

About AEGIS, these ships are good in AAW (the spanish frigate with Lusty killed 11 incoming aircraft out of 39, rafale B included, before sunk in a tigermeet) but a complete air defense requieres these fighters, in spite of their low performance in speed, climb and payload. Should we rely in the AEGIS only, bad guys would find the way to go trought em

 

As a proof, in early 80s, AV-8A, with some tuning for better comms, were vectored to an AEGIS cruiser by a poor navy, and strafed it succesfully before "killed"

Edited July 15, 2008 by macelena