The shrinking Royal Navy

[rockershovel]

I always thought Hengist and Horsa were quite appropriate for our ancient naval tradition, but the ferries nicked them.

.... Hengist and his wife (?or horse), Horsa, as I recall?

[The White Rabbit]

Well I don't recall them myself, they were before my time, but I was told they were brothers... the original operators of booze cruises with the chance of a bit of a barney and some casual sexual encounters thrown in. 

[The White Rabbit]

Navantia are the same company who has built 5 new submarines with negative buoyancy (not something you want in a submarine)

 

baz

 

Er, Baz - I know what you mean but negative buoyancy wouldn't be good news for a surface ship either. 

[jjb1970]

Er, Baz - I know what you mean but negative buoyancy wouldn't be good news for a surface ship either. 

 

I can almost see "negative buoyancy event" replacing "sunk" so as to make it sound nicer and less distressing for people reading about such things........

[jjb1970]

The whole buoyancy thing in submarines is one reason I wouldn't want to do the power and propulsion system design on a single screw submarine, if it breaks then the consequences could be calamitous.

[Mike Storey]

.... Hengist and his wife (?or horse), Horsa, as I recall?

 

So not so different from the PoW then?? 

[TomE]

There’s a bucket of salt to be taken with any article about military equipment in the mainstream press:

https://news.sky.com/story/royal-navy-fury-as-raf-pushes-for-new-jets-that-cannot-fly-from-warships-11568074

However this bit made me chuckle this morning:
 

They said any switch to the land-variant would anger the US, which has helped the UK to rebuild its ability to launch warships from the sea after the armed forces were forced to take a pause on carrier-operations in 2010 to save money.

Now that, I would like to see!

Tom.

Edited December 1, 2018 by TomE

[Ohmisterporter]

I can almost see "negative buoyancy event" replacing "sunk" so as to make it sound nicer and less distressing for people reading about such things........

 

"Negative buoyancy event with all hands" still sounds bad.

[pete_mcfarlane]

There’s a bucket of salt to be taken with any article about military equipment in the mainstream press:

 

https://news.sky.com/story/royal-navy-fury-as-raf-pushes-for-new-jets-that-cannot-fly-from-warships-11568074

 

 

Hasn't this rumour been bubbling around for a while without any real substance?

 

And I think we talked about one of the probable 'sources' for the story a page or so back.....

Edited December 1, 2018 by pete_mcfarlane

[jamie92208]

Hasn't this rumour been bubbling around for a while without any real substance?

 

And I think we talked about one of the probable 'sources' for the story a page or so back.....

 

Nothing new in this, I believe that the rivalry between the two is at least a century old.   

 

Jamie

[Ohmisterporter]

Here is Save the Royal Navy's take on the F-35 story. Not much new information though.

 

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/raf-plan-for-f-35-split-buy-undermines-aircraft-carrier-programme/

Edited December 1, 2018 by Ohmisterporter

[jjb1970]

In a sense I do have sympathy for the RAF as from their perspective the F35A offers better performance and capability than the F35B given that they don't need STOVL capability. So they're to take an aircraft which is less capable than the alternative to support the carriers. From a UK overall perspective I'd argue that is a perfectly reasonable way forward, but I also see why the RAF is less than totally enthused. The only satisfactory answer would appear to be to increase the F35 fleet so that the RN has enough F35B's for the carriers and for the RAF to get the F35A. In a sense a bigger problem for the QEC is less about the F35 and more about the number of escort vessels and support ships IMO.

 

I think one reason this is so emotive is the previous history of the RAF screwing the RN. The incorporation of the old RNAS into the new RAF had a baleful effect on naval air capability which was felt well into WW2. In WW2 the FAA was pretty much dependent on US carrier aircraft. then of course there was the infamous lunacy of pretending that the fleet could be protected by land based aircraft in order to help with cancelling the new carriers in the 60's (personally I felt that was more a way to rationalise a political decision than anything else, but the RAF did do their bit).

[The Stationmaster]

In a sense I do have sympathy for the RAF as from their perspective the F35A offers better performance and capability than the F35B given that they don't need STOVL capability. So they're to take an aircraft which is less capable than the alternative to support the carriers. From a UK overall perspective I'd argue that is a perfectly reasonable way forward, but I also see why the RAF is less than totally enthused. The only satisfactory answer would appear to be to increase the F35 fleet so that the RN has enough F35B's for the carriers and for the RAF to get the F35A. In a sense a bigger problem for the QEC is less about the F35 and more about the number of escort vessels and support ships IMO.

 

I think one reason this is so emotive is the previous history of the RAF screwing the RN. The incorporation of the old RNAS into the new RAF had a baleful effect on naval air capability which was felt well into WW2. In WW2 the FAA was pretty much dependent on US carrier aircraft. then of course there was the infamous lunacy of pretending that the fleet could be protected by land based aircraft in order to help with cancelling the new carriers in the 60's (personally I felt that was more a way to rationalise a political decision than anything else, but the RAF did do their bit).

 

Agree with most of that and it is of course an old story which 'somebody' has revived (MoD budget discussions?).  Logically a common fleet of the B variant makes sense but so does the RAF having the A variant for its operations.  However whatever does come out of (hopefully a sufficiency of aircraft for carrier operations) there will always remain the unavoidable situation of deck landing qualification and that, as much as anything else, will always decide just how many B variant can be used operationally at any one time.  Work that figure into maintenance and overhaul plus ship capacity will decide the maximum number of B variant which can effectively be used (plus attrition spares).

 

And allow recreation of the FAA and get away from the interwar nonsense which has reared its head in these cash strapped times.

[Mike Storey]

Whatever the "squabble", what is being missed in reporting, whether pro the B, or not, is what is the purpose of either version (especially given that HMG appears to have reprieved 16 of the tranche 1 Eurofighters), and that the operational end date for the entire Typhoon flight has been increased 10 years, to 2040.

 

As ever, no-one can answer the question "what defence strategy are we trying to achieve"? Are we preparing to fight China in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean, or should we be concentrating or defending our own shores from Russia etc. Can we afford to do both anymore? Can we only actually afford to fight anyone less technologically sophisticated than us?

 

If it just about whether or not to "disappoint" the USA, then we are completely fuc..d, especially with the present administration.

[rockershovel]

Not an RFA but an Einsatzgruppenversorger (Combat Support Ship) of the German Navy and one of BERLIN/BONN/FRANKFURT AM MAIN.

Presumably over for some fun and games with FOST.

...., but do they REALLY still have military units called Einsatzgruppen?

[Mike Storey]

...., but do they REALLY still have military units called Einsatzgruppen?

 

Yes. It is the German language, and nothing to do with Nazi's, whatever those of us that grew up with the Valiant, the Hotspur, and now the Daily Getsmuchworse, would like to think.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Whatever the "squabble", what is being missed in reporting, whether pro the B, or not, is what is the purpose of either version (especially given that HMG appears to have reprieved 16 of the tranche 1 Eurofighters), and that the operational end date for the entire Typhoon flight has been increased 10 years, to 2040.

Part of the problem seems to be a lack of a real plan for replacing the Tornado as a long range bomber. So the F-35B (which was bought as a Harrier/Sea Harrier replacement) will now fill some of the gap, along with the later Tranche Typhoons (which in theory replaced the Jaguar).

 

Except that we haven't bought enough F-35s yet to fill in for the Tornado Squadrons about to be stood down at the end of this financial year. So there seems to be a frantic battle to keep fast jet numbers at the current level (i.e. about half what it was 15 years ago).

[jjb1970]

The F35 is extremely capable and certainly I see nothing else the RAF should be buying in its place but for certain roles the Tornado is still probably better than anything else the RAF could buy. The F35B gets a bad deal really as it is always compared against the F35A, people tend to lose sight of the fact it is still a very capable aircraft in its own right, still better in some respects than non-F35 alternatives and certainly a paradigm shift over the Harrier (of any version).

[Ohmisterporter]

Regardless of the merits of F-35B things could have been a lot worse. Check out this account from Popular mechanics about a proposed USN submarine aircraft carrier.

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a25241538/submarine-aircraft-carrier-us-navy/

[jjb1970]

A few navies built aircraft carrying submarines, the Imperial Japanese Navy built some really big ones in WW2.

[rockershovel]

Yes. It is the German language, and nothing to do with Nazi's, whatever those of us that grew up with the Valiant, the Hotspur, and now the Daily Getsmuchworse, would like to think.

That wasn’t quite my point. I don’t speak German, but I’ve had occasional dealings with them and I’m familiar with their use of polysyllabic agglutinative terms.

 

But... a while ago, the German Ambassador, a great-nephew of a sometime fighter ace, gave an interview to what he probably perceived as an influential British tabloid. The actual outcome was a headline along the lines of “the Hun in The Sun”. Don’t they have anyone whose role it is, to murmur quietly “really, sir? Do you think that’s wise?”

Edited December 1, 2018 by rockershovel

[jjb1970]

Say what you like about the Sun, they've had some classic (if not especially PC) headlines over the years!

[2750Papyrus]

A few navies built aircraft carrying submarines, the Imperial Japanese Navy built some really big ones in WW2.

The RN had one - M2 - which was converted from a submarine monitor. She carried a single seaplane in a hangar and was lost in 1932, possibly as a result of diving whilst the hangar door was still open.

[jamie92208]

The RN had one - M2 - which was converted from a submarine monitor. She carried a single seaplane in a hangar and was lost in 1932, possibly as a result of diving whilst the hangar door was still open.

 

I have a memory that the wreck was found relatively recently and a programme was made about it.  It was certainly one of the M class subs.

 

Jamie

[pete_mcfarlane]

The F35 is extremely capable and certainly I see nothing else the RAF should be buying in its place but for certain roles the Tornado is still probably better than anything else the RAF could buy. The F35B gets a bad deal really as it is always compared against the F35A, people tend to lose sight of the fact it is still a very capable aircraft in its own right, still better in some respects than non-F35 alternatives and certainly a paradigm shift over the Harrier (of any version).

 

I get the impression most of the anti-F35 rhetoric is down to US pork-barrel politics, and the shift from buying lots of aircraft types from multiple US aircraft suppliers (F-14/15/16/18) to buying one aircraft from a small number of suppliers. 

 

And, surprise surprise, here's a report comparing the F-35 unfavourably to previous generation aircraft, which just happen to still be in production, from companies not involved in the F-35 programme. Everything else is just keyboard warriors, and the odd Russian troll. 

 

As for submarine aircraft carriers, there really is only one worth talking about.....