The Future Of…

54 thoughts on “The Future Of…”

1. Marcase February 22, 2011 at 10:30 pm

   No rambling, excellent posts. Great research too, keep ‘em coming!
2. John Hartley February 22, 2011 at 10:46 pm

   What about industry, shipyards, technology?
   Or Homeland Security.
   Otherwise, Well Done!
3. Tony Williams February 23, 2011 at 8:08 am

   TD, I take it that when you get to “The Future of the MoD” the post will be fairly short?
4. RW February 23, 2011 at 9:23 am

   Re the Army…………. I hope you can make some reference to possible changes in use of energy through the distributed use of renewables, this is especially relevant when considering FOB’s since getting resources such as fuel to them are such a logistic burden.

   At one level we have the brilliant placing of Camp Bastion above a natural aquifer allowing production of water while placing no load on the supply line, other than bottle blanks (to be filled). At the other end we have possible hybrid electric vehicles and a move by the US Marines to deploy solar cells to their fob’s. We also have drinking water filters, wearable electronics, wind up devices ? I’ve not seen an example of a solar oven used in theatre but expect it will come.

   Also part of this could be the US Army (containerised)mobile parts hospital which has used additive manufacture (laser sintering) to replace and refurbish parts from metal powder using electronic templates, this greatly reduces the weight that is transported in support of tanks since only those parts actually needed get sent (as powder).

   In terms of the equipment mix, or characteristics of a future force I think this move to reduce dependence on “hungry” types of equipment will have a significant impact. Even to the extent of future forward basing strategy, (for those resources which must deploy), to allow sea travel to replace some stuff that is currently air borne.

   I think that BAe are looking to this type of future with their armoured vehicle strategy.
5. Think Defence February 23, 2011 at 9:26 am

   all suggestions welcome but yes, fuel and logistics will feature
6. Callum Lane February 23, 2011 at 9:28 am

   UK Defence Procurement?
   UK Strategic Thinking – the lack thereof… ?
   Defence Reform?

   Excellent blog.
7. a February 23, 2011 at 11:49 am

   Following on from the idea that MoD, DfID, SIS, GCHQ and FCO really belong in the enormous and yet-to-be-created Department of Doing Things To Foreigners, maybe it might be an idea to do some posts on those?
   SIS and its relations with the growing Army sneaky-peeky int capability (SRR and so on) might be an example.
8. ArmChairCivvy February 23, 2011 at 12:25 pm

   Hi,

   Adding this (by JH) “What about industry, shipyards, technology?” to Callum’s list in his post should give a lot of threads for addressing the work cut out for the Reform Unit (had to stop to laugh when I read Tony’s MoD comment)
9. x February 23, 2011 at 6:12 pm

   We need to talk about the TA, RNR, RAuxF too.

   And considering the number of UK subjects abroad there appears to be no “civil defence” for situations like that we are seeing now in the Middle East. Security Studies today encompasses a lot more than the military issues; this must be news to HMG. Every time there is a crisis abroad it appears to be a shock to F&CO.

   PS: Apparently the F&CO aeroplane still is on the tarmac here. Considering BA and BMI had flights ready to go today but canceled it must be assumed they had planes ready to go. Perhaps the RAF should start getting some jet jockeys approved for civilian aircraft if BA etc don’t want there people to go.

   PPS: This is another reason why we need strategic air and sea lift available. Amphibious landings and parachute drops are rare. The need to lift a few thousand ex-pats out of some Third World crap hole seems to come about every year.
10. Mark February 23, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    x

    The airlines insurance cover maybe an issue or use of Libyan airspace which is why most countries will send planes in with air force in big letters up its fuselage we could always divert a tristar from the afghan airbridge but maybe difficult politically. As for sea lift at least it was good of mr cameron to delay Cumberlands decommissioning to intervene. Or we could ask french for assistance.
11. Callum Lane February 24, 2011 at 8:55 am

    It is easier to fly civil aircraft in as the clearances are routine. As the Libyan government is probably not functioning to its normal level of efficiency I suspect getting clearances for anything other then routine traffic is more difficult then ever. The UK’s air lift capacity is heavily committed to AFG. C-130s and (less so) C-17s have more flexibility in terms of landing sites and so are of potentially more use if you want to land force elements or pick up people away from the main airports. C-130s do not have the range to fly direct (hence basing from Malta) while the MOD would be loathe to use the C-17s due to disruption to the Afghanistan air-bridge.

    Speaking of clearances I suspect that part of the reason that the UK’s response has been somewhat tardy is that the Defence Crisis Management Organisation (DCMO) and indeed the pan-government crisis management organisation has been emasculated over the past two decades. No-one will make any decision (very noticable in senior civil servants and generals) unless they know what the Minister wants. No Minister is willing to stick their head above the parapets unless they know what the PM wants; in this case the PM has been in the Middle East…
12. x February 24, 2011 at 9:05 am

    @ Mark

    Just quicky. Yes I appreciate the insurance situation. But if HMG can’t be a guarantor of last resort who can be?

    It is easy to blame the current lot for ineptitude. They have only been in charge for 6 months. The previous lot have been in for 13 years before. Government set policy. It is the civil servants of the F&CO who are to blame.
13. Gareth Jones February 24, 2011 at 11:11 am

    Posted this yesterday but copy and pasting here because it appears more relevant in this thread;

    Nice round up of the aircraft and ships being used by European powers for NEO in Libya. Note the Spanish gov is getting it in the neck as well as ours.

    http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/02/libya-western-european-response-assets.html
14. x February 24, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    Further thoughts on air evacuations. I wonder how much a couple or three of “well run in” 747s cost? Get BA do the maintenance and let them sit ready to go. Get some of the RAF pilots up to speed on the type as a second string to their bow so to speak. Perhaps even “pay” BA to allow RAF pilots to second seat on some long haul flights once a month. Perhaps even do the occasional trooping flight with the ‘planes just to see everything is working. Then when crap hits the fan the RAF is ready to go.

    PS: I only 747 for sake of picking an aeroplane. If any of you know better please say as I would like to know.

    PPS: Of course keep the 747s on the civilian register……
15. Gareth Jones February 24, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    @ X – are talking passenger, cargo or “swing” like the airbus’ we’re buying? Not a bad idea, civvie planes we can take up from trade if we need them or we own them and rent them out unless we need them;any reason the RAF can’t make a little money?

    Off on a slight tangent, the Yanks suggested a Cruise missile bomber version of the 747 many years ago. It could carry something like 72 ALCM, so a squadron of twelve could launch roughly 864…
16. x February 24, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    @ Gareth Jones

    No I am talking about just having them sitting there just to move “self loading cargo.” It is just a sketchy idea. Considering a jet pilot on flies his Typhoon 5 hours a week I suppose around trip to Oz with parcels once week could work!!! What I am driving at is what is the real threat to the UK and UK subjects? A Soviet-era bomber over the North Sea or a mob of a couple hundred armed with AK47s? Again the cost of running a Eurofighter squadron for a year would buy 3 747s that can be ready to go. As I said this sort of situation comes regularly.

    I don’t know about using 747s as bombers. The 747 was the product of Department of Defense interests in the 60s in rapid re-enforcement of Europe.
17. John Hartley February 24, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    BA will slowly retire the B 747-400 over the next decade. Half a dozen ex BA 747-400 would be handy for the RAF. Cheap enough to stand idle when not needed. Reservists could fly them when they are needed.
    Or has the crackpot PFI banned this?
18. Gareth Jones February 24, 2011 at 7:34 pm

    @ X – If they were stored in a climate controlled hangar… Would need regular “check ups”… A lot of 747 trained pilots out there; yeah, I think its do-able. 3-6 “retired” but still fly able commercial aircraft for NEO and disaster relief operations?
19. paul g February 24, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    As suggested on here by several people there are loads of BAe 146′s is sitting round doing nothing at the moment, yeah ok it doesn’t hold as many as the 747 however the 146-300 holds over 110+ it’s quiet and can land on a sixpence (has unprepared landing capability as well). No need for boarding steps, self contained and BAe are knocking in side or rear cargo doors for customers.
    Makes sense as when rescuing civvies from their tax free jobs in the sun (note the sarcasm there) you could have one at “them” ready for rapid deployment, big stuff to follow in A400M. Best of all i think BAe are doing them for £2million.

    oh yeah as we’ve used them before we have the training tools/books in place
20. ArmChairCivvy February 24, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    Ok,

    From the Defence Board Jan session we know they were planning the skip the Feb date (not saying so, as they
    se are “only pre-booked for the busy people etc”
    - but, the army stuff will only get moving then
    - not long to go…
    - vertical lift (all in a cloud, as created by the ambiguities in the SDSR and announcements since)
    + RAF training (more PFI venom we can spill; I hope the other NATO nation/ common facilities will be part of the discussion)
21. Mark February 24, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    Surely thats what we would use our a330s for in the future maybe even the 4-5 we don’t permanently have. The reason we couldn’t do this at the moment surely is because vc10 can no longer carry passengers and only 3 tri-stars are purely passenger planes and there all flat out on the afghan air bridge. I think the Libya situation is different to Egypt, tunisa as fighter jet ect are being used and if in such circumstances this is not a time to call in raf transport planes to help uk civilians then I dont know what is.
22. Gareth Jones February 24, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    @ Paul g – I recently flicked through an issue of Flight International. It reported that due to a lack of interest in the commercial cargo sector BAE were going to concentrate on the regional passenger sector.

    I don’t think this rules out your cargo idea but it might make it more expensive?
23. paul g February 24, 2011 at 9:56 pm

    i agree i suggested the 146 as it’s cheaper than a 747 plus it can land in a lot more places than either a 747 or 330, not controlled by a civvy in an airtanker office either. Plus any ammo to get rid of that shitty stick of a FTRS PFI, (some hope of that though)
24. jackstaff February 24, 2011 at 11:11 pm

    Like the bloke in Tolkien said, “well, I’m back.”*

    As an airships man all the way down, and a Rotodyne fan, I’m looking forward to vertical lift more than any other single RAF post. Not surprised the big comment sections were on the FAA-related line items ref:RAF though, it’s an absurd decision (yes, boss, it is, as much as putting Army helos in light blue, there’s airmanship and then there’s knowing how to integrate that airmanship with the operational setting) that will be set right grimly by circumstances. But that’s a different rant that doesn’t belong here.

    I think the two most pointed strategic comments (comments about strategy?) in what’s become the thread topic are x’s at 6-something on 23/2 and Callum’s just after (lack of “civil defence” for the millions of British snowbirds — nagging drizzle-birds? — and letting individual ministers short of the Big Five themselves make any decisions during a real-world crisis.) A big second to the direction x gave and the remedy Paul G’s suggested. Get at least a foursome of 146s, plus a pair of those big An-124 bastards, put them on a payroll arrangement like the US’s Civil Reserve Air Fleet, and call them up to handle jobs like this or delivering multi-agency disaster workers, troop shuttles for permissive peacekeeping environments (permissive? Nice work if you can get it etc. Of course you could run up a proper Royal Air Auxiliary with large rigid cargo airship designs too, although there are some genuine reasons that might belong with the RN (integration with RFA cargo schedules, historic associations of airships with naval aviation, your clearest and safest flight paths are over water esp. since many newer designs can fail-safe with water landing.)

    What we need — Gareth’s pointed out the detours lately, since we got bollocked by events (“Libya, collapse for the resembling of Yugoslavia in 1991 thereof, quantity 1″) — is an NEO thread. Didn’t take long for SDSR and Operation Useless Dirt (nice turn of phrase from an American over at ID) to get overtaken by events, did it?

    And, what Marcase said — good stuff, boss. Keep it up!

    * Busy time for some months now: crushing work, change of venue on said work, bought new house, welcomed “what do you mean we’re pregnant? We’re (insert middle-aged odometer here)” new arrival, etc. Been reading through the RN backlog lately though. Great to see the place thriving.
25. jackstaff February 24, 2011 at 11:14 pm

    Oh, and given that its the only thing in, y’know, ever, that Big And Expensive has done at sound commercial rates, follow up the 146 refits by getting them back on to that military cargo project. Belongs in the RAF cargo thread, but get about 20 of those ginned up to back up A400M in the tactical category and you’ve done two impossible things: gotten BAe to deliver at reasonable price and schedule, and expanded British defence jobs for a sensible purpose.
26. paul g February 25, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    jackstaff, hello again shippers, here to join mine and gareths “taffia”!! good article on the uk involvement in the US airship programme in the mail on sunday magazine last week, it’s also on their website.
    i had to chuckle when they showed the brit part involved a 70 year old handyman knocking a wood and cardboard mock up with printer pictures for the cockpit dials!!!

    here is the link save you searching

    http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1357747/Airships-Pioneering-Brits-heralding-dawn-new-Zeppelin-age.html
27. paul g February 25, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    damm forgot to add further to the 146 debate can it be considered for a full time role in the MERT capacity as using a C-17 is a big ol’ plane for the (human) cargo. I know they need to get the necessary med equipment in there, however if it was in permanantly or semi permanantly slightly better the STOL features of the 146 would help broaden the options for pick up drop off. No expert but wouldn’t a pressuried cabin help as well i remember the C4 programme and they were headsetted up and struggling to communicate. BAe had fitted one with extra fuel tanks and a probe so distance covered as well
28. Jed February 25, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    Seriously, as TD commented, a 146 does not have the range to even cover half of Libya from Malta ! Where else are we going to use these little planes ? Shuttling troops from Stanstead to Germany ? London to Edingburgh ?

    Now Paul G comes along and mentions extra fuel tanks and even an IFR probe – any links or pics anyone ???
29. paul g February 25, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    from wikki;
    BAe 146STA
    BAe 146 STA demonstratorThroughout the production life of the BAe 146, British Aerospace proposed a number of specialist military versions, including side and rear loading transports, a airborne tanker version,[8] and a carrier onboard delivery version.[9]

    Of these proposals, only one, the BAe 146STA (Sideloading Tactical Airlifter), based on the BAe 146QT cargo aircraft, and with the same cargo door on the left side of the rear fuselage was built. The military transport version has a refuelling probe protruding from the nose. A demonstrator, fitted with a dummy refuelling probe and an air-openable paratroop door was displayed at the 1989 Paris Air Show and carried out extensive demonstration tours, but no orders resulted
    and also this site states BAe about fuel tanks however i hold my hands up no actual figures given.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/09/09/332083/dsei-pictures-bae-pitches-146-for-military-airlift-role.html
30. Think Defence February 25, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    I think the RAF 146′s have extended fuel tanks but they are still pretty limited
31. paul g February 25, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    photo of actual demonstrator

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/09/09/332083/dsei-pictures-bae-pitches-146-for-military-airlift-role.html

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/British-Aerospace/British-Aerospace-BAe-146-100STA/1302586/L/&sid=166a6355648b9b12fb6b22c974f3102e
32. paul g February 25, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    by the way i don’t think it could replace aircraft going to and from the stan, but it is, and i hate to use a corporate buzz phrase “thinking outside the box” would be interesting to see how cheap firstly it would be to extend it’s range with on board fuel tanks, i have memories (note lack of the word fond there) of sitting in a puma next to a chuffing great fuel tank ratchet strapped in!!! plus with a refuel probe get our moneys worth from air tanker (i have a sense that pc world will be getting a lot enquires for keyboards, due to coffee damage)
33. jackstaff February 25, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    Just to buck up for Paul for a moment, it looks like the standard radius figured on the old 146 is safely about 650-700nm, which would suit Libya simply because any population worth mentioning is within short range of the coast. Same applies across the Maghreb, and down much of the coast of West Africa, all places that could see more of this sort of thing in future (and no one in Europe, at all, will mention the terror that must never be spoken, Cyprus and a major Greco-Turkish shooting war that could fracture the EU itself.) For longer haul, my own suggestion was put a pair of An-124s on the contract too, those big boys can carry about 400 pax with seats fitted in the cargo bay for long hauls.

    Of course if you really want to get out of the box in Libya, I’d love the irony value if an enterprising Libyan with a bus company started evac’ing foreigners down to the old terrorist training camps in the Sahara so the French could fly helos up from Chad to take them home ….
34. jackstaff February 25, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    NB: That radius assumes the locals are too put out, or too busy, to refuel.
35. Jed February 25, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    Paul G – thanks for the 146 links, interesting to see it was flying with a probe at the Farnborough show in 1990 – 21 frikkin years ago !
36. x February 25, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    I don’t see why the 146′s range is a problem. There is nice gentleman with a handle bar mustache here in a light blue suit who tells me we have no problem swith over flying rights or basing in friendly places. Apparently he was at Cranwell with Icarus………

    The 146 is exactly the sort of ‘plane we need. But note above I said they need to be kept on the civilian register……..
37. John Hartley February 25, 2011 at 8:24 pm

    A 2nd hand RJ100 would be a cheap government hack(5 abreast seating,33″ pitch). Fitted with the saddle tanks developed for the Met plane & re engined with AS977 from the RJX, range would be over 2000 miles.
    The dummy probe on the 146 STA was made of wood.
    If we convert a RJ100, then convert the 2 32Sqn 146 to AS977 & saddle tanks at the same time.
38. x February 25, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    Oh!!! The RJ1000 is a 146 variant I see.

    Really I shouldn’t comment too much as I have never ever flown in a aeroplane………..
39. John Hartley February 25, 2011 at 8:57 pm

    The Honeywell AS has been renamed the HTF7000. The version for the new Gulfstream G250 is rated at 7445 lb thrust.
    Ideal for a re engined 146/RJ.
40. jackstaff February 25, 2011 at 9:16 pm

    x @ 8:16

    My life on the internet is a poorer place when you’re not crab-baiting

    And you’re right about the civil register — part of a coherent approach (God forbid!) to civil defence at home and abroad.

    John Hartley just above,

    Very good to know about the HTF7000. That does sound right for a bit of extra punch.
41. ArmChairCivvy February 25, 2011 at 10:06 pm

    A quote from a quote (Telegraph, RE SDSR)

    ” said Adml Parry, was that it created [sealed, I would say] a strategic deficit, demoralised the Services, caused short-term uncertainties and was [will be] unsustainable in the long run”

    Read that in the context of maritime presence, ability to deter and intervene… yes, all true (and more widely, too)
    - and the “long run” has already caught up with us

    Why is the medium term so important?
    - in the long run we are all dead (Keynes)
42. x February 25, 2011 at 10:24 pm

    @ Jackstaff

    Ahh! Bless, thank you.

    But I am serious about the 146;it is the sort of plane we need. As said I only picked the 747 because it was the first type that came to mind.

    For all my RAF baiting we could do with some expert opinion on this stuff. To my simple mind a pilot who can fly Typhoon should be able to fly 146 with ease. But I could be missing something.
43. Tubby February 25, 2011 at 10:30 pm

    Given that Russia is planning to spend $660 billion on modernising their forces and North Africa has turned our geopolitical assumptions on their heads, is it time to consider what the armed forces of 2020 would look like if the Government decides to concentrate resources on defending the North Sea/Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean?
44. jackstaff February 25, 2011 at 10:51 pm

    @ Tubby,

    It is time to consider that we have urgent, clear, practical evidence that Op Carry On Up the Khyber is stonkingly insane. Not just because we say it is, but because the dear old scientific method is waving evidence written in five foot letters of fire, which isn’t good for health and safety. Again: Britain as a pan-Atlantic power, with projection into the Red Sea because while petrol has come and will eventually go, that big wet road has mattered to global commerce for two milennia (four if you count the pharaohs and Axum.) Anything farther out geographically is about being smart, an attractive (but also sustainable, not cash-in-build-a-bubble-and-fly-by-night) business partner, and “soft power”-y pal of other powers. Time to hang on to Chally 2 (hard to “leverage outstanding emergent technologies for situational awareness” when you have to wade into a madman’s collapsing capital city because he’s taken foreigners and his own population hostage, or when a great-power who can affect you and your core allies’ well-being decides the fact you’ve all gutted your armed forces means they can chance annexing some poorly populated but strategically crucial piece of turf — I’m talking about the Russians and Finnmark, not Argentina and Those Islands.) Or many other Cold War Relics — we’re getting the band back together!

    x,

    Yup, another vote for the 146. I don’t know about Typhoon but there are plenty of Herc, VC10, C-17, etc. pilots who could probably qualify in a trice,. Something more like the American system where you have USAF-trained cargo pilots who man the core of several airlines’ inventory but can be called up to fly Air National Guard or Civil Reserve transports, seems in order.

    John Hartley,

    Love the fact the dummy probe was wood. It says so much.
45. Jack February 28, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    @Think Defence

    Why, may I ask do you drivel on so often about the F35 being solely the preserve of the RAF and nothing to do with the FAA?

    You give no reason for this, apart from the unfounded and totally ridiculous argument that it costs more for both services to operate F35.

    This, I am sure you are aware, I b****x! In the eyes of the MOD, there are no RN/ARMY/RAF assets, just defence assets. The fact that one squadron may be operated by personnel in a dark blue uniform makes no difference to anything cost related AT ALL!

    What it does mean however is that it will allow the Royal Navy, who by the way will be operating the CVF, to have a cadre of officers both in Fleet and in the air department on board the CVF that understand fixed wing aviation. It will mean that the ratings that are moving the aircraft around the deck at night and in the rain will have experience with fixed wing aviation. It will mean that the ratings that are living in a 30 man mess deck down on 5 deck for the next 6 months aren’t saying to them selves “what the f**k is this s**t? I joined the RAF”! It will mean that when the ship goes to Action Stations and all the Matleos on board react instinctively that the safety of the ship and everybody on board isn’t reduced by the clueless crabs that don’t have a clue what a FFRP is let alone how to find one! It will mean that the CVF operations can benefit from the less stringent and therefore more efficient harmony guidelines of the RN when on deployment rather than having to rotate the crabs every 4 months so they can go home! It will mean that CVF operations are SAFER, more EFFICIENT and more EFFECTIVE as a fighting force!

    Unless, of course, the RAF wants to run the CVF from 2 deck upwards, meaning the Air Department is headed my a Wg Cdr and 2 Sqn Ldrs who live on board for 3yrs, that all the deck handlers are SACs and CPLs that live in a mess deck for 3 years, that all the Air Traffickers and Fighter Controllers are crabs that again….LIVE ON A SHIP FOR 3 YEARS…then crack on loftie! If, however, the RAF wants to stay ashore and ‘do’ carrier aviation as if it were a bolthole deployment to a ‘floating airfield’ then it most certainly needs the Fleet Air Arm of Her Majesties’ Senior Service to stop them buggering it all up and killing themselves!

    And that is without going in to who has OpCon and how the carrier based F35s fit in to the ATO during a joint force operation…

    Rant over….
46. Think Defence February 28, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    @Jack, welcome to Think Defence

    Nothing wrong with having a rant mate, crack on 

    On the wider point

    My argument is with duplication and a lack of coherence this causes, equipment purchased for one service that is limited to one environment so instead of a carrier capable Typhoon from day one, we end up with the ridiculous situation we are in now. In an era of shrinking defence budgets and increasing costs across the board we can no longer hold out for the most operationally optimal solution, praying for more money, moaning about overstretch and underfunding are fair enough, but it isn’t going to change the facts so fiddling whilst Rome burns, what the service chiefs are currently doing, is just continuing down the path of capability reductions and treasury imposed organisational change.

    I agree that the 100% operationally optimal solution is to have each of the services have their own fixed wing, rotary, light infantry, police, logistics, maintenance etc and no matter how we generate joint capabilities, that is the reality.

    But can we afford that 100% operationally optimal solution?

    I suggest we cannot and therefore this leads me to look at the forces and ask if there are saving to be made. In any organisational consolidation the very first thing to shine a light on is duplication because this is where cost savings can be found. Your argument that maintaining say 10 F35’s with the RAF and 10 with the FAA is the same as one service maintaining 20 may well be true, but unless the figures are open on the table, that looks like duplication to me, unable to benefit from scale and beneath the critical mass needed to take advantage of a larger pool of personnel etc.

    Your arguments about the operating environment are valid, I appreciate and understand them but am not sure they are strong enough to trump a saving, if they are to be found. The RAF have operated from carriers before and so have the Army Air Corps. As for the RAF not liking life aboard, I would say a couple of things to that, first, is that actually true and second, they would just have to suck it up. Levelling harmony guidelines across all three services is well overdue.

    Using the carrier as just another operating location for fast air might not actually be that bad an idea, given its relatively low level of usage in that environment.
47. Tubby February 28, 2011 at 8:24 pm

    I have seen well thought out and coherent arguments for a purple joined up approach back in the day when F-35B was the choice of the JCA and though I thought the F-35B high risk approach to a new version of the Harrier, the logic was inescapable, if you want treat a carrier as a floating airfield then STOL is the way to go.

    Now that we have either been bullied by the yank’s into going CATOBAR or the RN have finally managed to pull a fast one over the RAF after years of trying, then it seems bloody stupid to split the F-35C buy. While I am sure FAA is expecting to get the F-35C for the reasons outlined by Jack, I expect the CVF to be a hideously flawed LHD with a secondary ability to operate F-35′s, and the RAF to put the FAA out of the fast jet game for good.

    Personally I think that the cost of developing a Sea Gripen, Sea Typhoon or buying LCA (N) Mk II for a STOBAR version of the QE would work out cheaper over the life of the fighter’s than the F-35C, as you need less crew and their pensions are easily going to swamp the couple of billion needed for development costs, but there is no chance that they will change that particular decision.

    Just to mention I fully support the RUSI Maritime Raiding strategy, but I think that if the UK was going to specialise in Maritime Raiding it should have gone for four 30,000 tonne carriers not two 60,000 tonne carriers, and significantly more amphibious lift, bigger RFA and hell of lot more escorts (like 3 – 4 times the number we had before the SDSR). I am also aware that cost of four 30,000 tonne carriers would be much greater than two 60,000 tonne carriers.
48. Jack February 28, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    @ Think Defence

    “unable to benefit from scale and beneath the critical mass needed to take advantage of a larger pool of personnel etc.”

    Spot on! If the FE@R for the F35 is too small then the RN/RAF could both be very much below critical mass and therefore be unable to grow the senior officers necessary to administer and command the force. That is the problem, NOT cost.

    True the RAF have operated from Carriers, in fact for a number of years prior to WWII the FAA was the FAA of the RAF and due to not ‘fitting what the RAF does’ (Air Defence and Deep Strike) it was criminally under-funded and under-developed. Since 1939 the RAF have NEVER operated a solely RAF fast jet force from a Carrier. The NAO did a study in to the operational effectiveness of the Invincible class carriers in 2009 and found them to be at their lowest capability in 30 years. The common denominator here-you guessed it, RAF involvement.

    Now, your statement that I have quoted above, very much correct, the evidence provided by the NAO and the fact that history doesn’t lie PLUS the fact that you agreed my “arguments about the operating environment are valid” all point to one thing…

    Paint ROYAL NAVY down the side of all the F35s, put them under the command of the Admiralty and let’s do this Carrier business properly!
49. Jack February 28, 2011 at 9:00 pm

    “Since 1939 the RAF have NEVER operated a solely RAF fast jet force from a Carrier.”

    Stand fast Gr3s during the Falklands conflict (but alongside Royal Navy Sea Harriers and not before benefitting from some hurried training by the SHAR chaps at Yeovilton I believe)
50. Think Defence February 28, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    Hi Jack

    We did this to death a while ago so in many ways this is a repeat, i don’t think I managed to convince anyone then either

    You can see the need to reduce duplication surely, it is basic economic logic that is inescapable and how far you push it is a decision based on how much you want to save and how much into your ideal situation you want to nudge into. For sake of the argument, if consolidating to the RAF loses us 10% of capability but saves us 20% of the cost then the choice is not automatic, but its worth serious thinking about isn’t it.

    I also have very little time for the RAF/FAA arguments of 40 or 50 years ago, completely irrelevant, petty and largely not worth arguing about except from a historical interest point.

    I will also be open with you, I have very little time for the ‘it was them big boys in the RAF that done it’ arguments

    Tomorrow is important, yesterday was interesting

    The operational issues are definitely relevant, I am not blowing them off, but change is always difficult and sometimes you just have to say, lads, work it out. The AAC seem to manage operating on ships, yes its a problem, yes, its not ideal but I have to say to you, it’s the reality.

    Using CVF as an occasional floating airfield (sorry, I do dislike that term but it fits well enough) for the occasional operation that is dictated by whatever reason, to be the host platform of choice for FJ, is the reality of future operations.

    Mixed AH/SH deployments will be the norm with the intermittent need for embarked FJ and very very rarely, a full strike package of mostly FJ

    Look at the SDSR, in fact, look at the SDR98, it’s all there.

    I don’t disagree with the emotional or operational benefits of a dedicated naval fast jet aviation capability, I am just less sure it is worth the cost in the context of a reducing defence vote and increasing defence costs

    Good to see your comments though, its the diversity of opinion that I enjoy most about this place!