“By the Grace of God you arrive safely. Charges for baggage handling …” etc

Sort of sums up the approach. So it was obviously God’s will for this person to land on the big fluffy pillow. He just didn’t know it.

Interesting information Brian. We can say the MOD has guaranteed access but what do we mean? We are basically talking fines if the aircraft are unavoidable for some reason.

No doubt the A330 is a very reliable aircraft. I was referring to military aircraft in general in terms of safety and let’s just hope the enemy never gets a vote of weather or not they are war planes. my point in terms of losses was more to do with the fact we have 14 large planes instead of say 24 smaller ones. It does not leave for much attrition.

it will be interesting to see how things work out with allied refuelling in the contract.

I’ve always had the impression that Chinook wouldn’t really operate from CVF for anything other than the opening wave of a vertical assault: 6 from CVF, 6 from Albion and Bays (a whole battalion albeit a bit cramped). I then see CVF being used as a floating hangar to maintain these copters operating from the spots on Albion and Bay.

I’d love to see a sequence with a mixed TAG of something like the 12-18 F35, 12-18 Merlin, etc, etc, etc…

I know what he was driving at but all those bases currently have rn/rfa ships either operating out of them or making regular port visits to them so I fail to see the problem and most have a rather large airstrip attached.

Does anybody know what the port facilities are like in the SBA?

Quote from the MoD:

” The RAF will still be able to refuel from allies and vice versa; beyond certain parameters AirTanker will be entitled to compensation where the RAF takes on more fuel than it gives away.”

Martin (on the MoD chartering an AirTanker flight):
” Sorry lads wars off because we have no tanker’s…”

Quotes from AirTanker:

” The flights are flown on the civilian register by an AirTanker crew and operate in a similar way to a charter aircraft but the MOD has guaranteed access and therefore greater flexibility in their usage.”

” Voyager 01, began flight operations with the RAF on 8 April 2012. From its operational start date to the end of last year it has:
Flown 385 times covering more than 1,096,500 kms
Carried more than 21,800 troops and directly supported the Afghan air-bridge
Carried in excess of 1,441,000 kgs of cargo
Clocked more the 1,300 hours
Achieved a 98 per cent plus, on time service delivery – a level of service comparable with a commercial airline.”

These are not warplanes, they are indeed civilian airliners; A330-200 with a grey paint job. And some of the Airtanker aircraft will actually be civilian licenced rather than military registered planes.

Owning these aircraft outright would not help us at all if we did take several losses in quick succession, whether through accident or combat. I think your concern about aircraft loss is misplaced anyway; the A330 is not an unsafe aircraft. A quick Google reveals that of around a thousand A330 to roll off the production line, only three hull-loss air accidents have occurred. Of those three incidents, one was a test-flight simulating engine failure during a climb, which resulted in wing stall – a hazardous but deliberate test manoeuvre. Another is attributed to the flight crew. The other was the French flight that crashed in the Atlantic; the problem originating from faulty pitot tubes (no longer fitted), leading to incorrect airspeed indication, but with the response of the flight crew being a significant contributing factor.

There is no indication that these aircraft have any unique tendency to crash.

“I can’t help thinking the replacement for Springer is ATMP”. Would agree absolutely but I think I’ve read that Supacat have closed down their production line. Would not be a phenomenal problem to open one again, I suppose. The troops seemed to like ATMP.

‘Come the 7th Astute, and then the Successor, and we will be asking the same question the other way round’

Exactly my point, as long as we have have 2 different classes of nuclear boat we are stuck in a cycle of having to completely reinvent the wheel in submarine terms every 10-15 years at an ever increasing level of cost and complexity.

A ‘refresh’ of the 1 standard design for each new batch of 4 boats must surely keep the price down per unit and alleviate a hefty industrial and organisational headache, ensuring that barrow gets a stable and continuous pattern of construction and after 2 or 3 ‘refreshes’ of the design it essentially evolves into a new class of boat at comparatively less time and effort than the way we are doing things now.

Keep continuous patrols with Trident if that’s what’s politically called for, just do it with a larger and standardised group of flexible boats instead of a very small class of specialised ones. Personally I think it comes down to either continuous patrols with a chunk of the fleet using something like the Virginia module and Trident or it’s the ability to do deterrent patrols when necessary and being armed with (admittedly less capable) nuke tipped cruise missiles.

@X

‘I know you meant “deterrent” when you said CASD’

Ha-ha, yeah you got me there, I did indeed mean ‘deterrent’ and not CASD.

I think you’re absolutely right when you talk of the RN’s ASW capabilities being far easier to reinforce and scale up than it’s submarine force. 8-12 SSKs would be lovely, and I can see how some kind of limited case for them could be made, but I naturally still think politically and financially it’s all pie in the sky talk! (although very nice pie in the sky talk if that helps!).

@Dunservin

‘Only SSNs can match that sort of capability if deployed straight from the UK.’

It’s a good point you make. SSKs are only capable of SSN levels of sustained global reach with the kinds of bases and other provisions we gradually let go of through the 1960′s and 1970′s. Shame we relinquished all of them and didn’t future proof ourselves by holding onto some small facilities in Singapore (beyond the fuel depot the MOD still owns), Malta and maybe Simonstown for the odd stop over or bit of training.

@X – Iroquois was berthed stern to stern next to a Russian Udaloy. Looked positively spartan by comparison. The Russians clearly loathe a flat surface – they cover every one with a gun, radar or antennae. The Russian crew was out and about in the city in their big hats.

The RAF were also much in evidence. There was a full scale mock up of a Typhoon – but only a cut off front section of a Sea Harrier. Sign of the times. The Royal Marines were hidden away in a small space bordered by the IoM pier and an RAF Chinook. However, they cleverly included a heavy machine gun atop an armoured vehicle (sorry, don’t know what it was) which children were encouraged to climb upon and operate. Drew a big crowd, as did the RN and German minehunters at Albert Dock, despite the rugby scrum over the bridge to get to them. I’m hoping to return on Tuesday for the ships’ departure.

LouisB.

I know you meant “deterrent” when you said CASD but I hoped you haven’t invoked the spirit of Fat Bloke on Tour. I can see him measuring up a Maersk Triple-E for Trident now……..

(Only joking Fat Bloke!!!! Come back and comment!)

@ Dunservin

Well said. As I keep saying about our reach with aircraft we don’t have the bases world wide like we used to. If in the coming decades we need to operate without the Cousins that is something we need to remember.

@ All

There is owning a class or number of submarines and operating them. Our submarine service stands on three legs; our well trained crews, world class boats (in a class of submarine only a handful of states can field) , and hydrography. How many nations have all three?

The trouble is we aren’t competing against Grand-Fenwick-sur-la-Mer and their 2 forty year old SSKs that go to see once a year for a tour of their coast. We are competing against the Russians and Chinese. And in an ever constant changing world who knows else in the coming 50 years? The US-China balance may not be tipping as far in the latter’s favour as some first thought but China isn’t going to disappear. Not saying we will see a re-run of the Battle of Atlantic, but even in a less than war crisis the presence of an enemy submarine is something that will give “our side” something to think about.

We don’t need ASW capability in great depth but we need to maintain what we have and put in place foundations that will allow a “rapid” build up if need be. Swapping T26 13 for funds so all seagoing have 2087 (or equivalent). Building T26 with enough hangar space to accommodate and operate two Merlin-sized ASW helicopters, The latter could be ours or an ally’s. But we would have the capacity to rapidly enhance a “our side’s” ASW capability.

As for the RN acquiring SSK’s of our own, I don’t see any official requirement ever appearing. We may be able to rely on say the Dutch to provide that capability, but as you all know I don’t always think that is sound a policy as some make out. I think a case could be made for the RN to have a class of say 8 to 12 SSK. Not just for what they bring in terms in of capability. But also in terms of building on, consolidating upon, and deriving value from what we already have invested in the nuclear force (and the industrial base). Consider us as being the alternative to the US in the submarine arena. Having our own SSK’s we could give a training route for submarine command and give us our own Thursday War resource for wider fleet training. Fantasy fleet time, imagine; 4 CASD Vanguard-replacements, 8 Astutes (Atlantic and India Ocean), and 12 SSK (1 North Atlantic, North Sea, FOST; 1 Mediterranean (Gibraltar to Cyrpus?; 1 Gulf, Diego Garcia, and Australia). 16 would be better as it would give a more symmetrical structure. Of course we would need a submarine rescue vessel or two, engineering support, and perhaps something like the German Oste’s (in a way to make up for our greatly reduce surface foot print.)

@ Fluffy Thoughts. The main issue with speeding up QE is that the ships will already be available long before the planes.

Would be lovely to see them start T26 construction earlier at Portsmouth with the idea of getting Frigate numbers back above 13 before the T23′s start to go out of service but its a pipe dream. Italy and France both commissioned warship’s as part of their stimulus.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=vq_jugoSV60
(If you’ve got the time to watch it all,it’s a pretty good talk.)

He also runs Aviation Wales out of RAF St. Athan,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17906058

I should also mention he is also involved in the Heavy Lift Hybrid Air Vehicle Airship, that was tested by the US Army, not so long ago!

By the way TD, were are the Open Thread pages gone?

With the IMF suggesting we spend £9-billion on :cough: infrastructure :cough:* projects, should not the coalition speed-up the construction and prep work on our two behemoths? Maybe tug HMS QE down to Portsmouth (or Tyneside if they still have the facilities) and build PoW before – say – April 2016?

Given how long the Darings and Astutes have taken – and all other “decisions” ignored – to commission, could a small ship-building investment open a multiplier-effect to meet theoretical growth-targets, whilst still meeting the Dave-B IOC? I’m sure Portsmouth could consume a few million extra by ramping-up the port facilities sooner….

* Based upon the alleged Gormless McBruin accountancy ‘practices’ that the MoD have to manage? [May be intra-web foo-bar....]

“Are we saying the RN submarine service prior to the mid 60′s didn’t have global reach?”

- Not so much from the UK prior to the mid-1960s but consider that the RN had permanent bases at Gibraltar, Malta, Simonstown, Ceylon, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc., and Oberon class conventionals with longer endurance than the ‘A’ boats were based in Australia right up to 1975. Also, dedicated submarine depot ships such as HM Ships MAIDSTONE, FORTH and ADAMANT were capable of forward deployment to provide accommodation, workshops, fuel, stores and ammunition. Only SSNs can match that sort of capability if deployed straight from the UK.

http://irishseashipping.com/whatsnew/whatsnew.htm

I would very much like to see and tread the deck of the HMCS IROQUOIS but alas it is not to be. The Canadian “Tribals” (aka Iroquois Class) are a very interesting class. The Canadians shopped for systems that best suited their needs and budgets then blended them into a good hull; the whole has been outstanding value for our Canadian brothers. Note the “twin hangers” as back in the day they operated not one but two Sea Kings.

@ GNB

Yes. Sort of. Without saying much in case it fans the flames of heresy but “RN” ships for a long time were sort of manned, in a way, by a good number of civilians in government pay more than “sailors” as we know them today in formal uniformed service like soldiers. That is to the say the crew not the officer corps or indeed the marines (small m today). As the 19th century progressed the RN became more like the Army and the number of “civilians” rapidly diminished and the latter became rather like RFA officers; that is uniformed civilians. ** They performed certain legacy roles ashore, a separate issue from being on different Lists, and were all replaced by “conventional” RN officers often as much because they retired as by government policy. I think the last one went during WW1. But for the life of me I can’t remember what role he filled.

** On today’s RFA’s you will come across individuals who wear a “blue suit” but are neither RN or RFA but belong to one of the various government agencies.

@ All

As we don’t have an Anything Else thread any longer. And seeing as Liverpool is one of the ports that services the Isle of Man I would like to wish everybody a “Happy TT Fortnight”. Full coverage on Manx Radio and http://www.iomtt.com.

Aviva Premiership Final and the TT starting all on the same day. It is just too much excitement. Too much I say….

Goodness, they must be on track.

To be both fair and accurate, Afghanistan and various UORs awarded to Thales provide some excuse for delay. The failure of the entire FRES programme, not just SV, is largely down to a particular FRES IPT Leader who was a complete fruit loop, some total nutters in the Doctrine branch at Shrivenham who just kept on loading on spastic requirements, and a couple of 2 stars who did not have the brains to say “sack the IPT Leader, and you lot in Shrivenham, shut the f*** up”.

Watchkeeper has been “almost ready” for as long as I have been reading UK defence announcements in greater detail.
- interesting to see now, when the “trialled” UAV fleet is going to be operated fro a home base and weaponised with a home-grown missile, will it be better to go with all the UAV eggs in one basket, to fend off budget pressures, rather than have the artillery owned and a brigade’s sphere of influence -type of UAV developed, flown and supported separately?

Might even leave some change over, to continue to develop an offensive type UCAS?