@Ledswinger Re: Hmm@A J Stiles

" If France and the UK hadn't stuck their necks out over Libya, it would have been another Syria, there would be continued fighting even now, and probably 100,000 civilians dead..."

How do you know there isn't continued fighting and killing in Libya? (Hint: there is).

Our gloriously impartial media wouldn't report any if there were, because we intervened on behalf of the new Libyan regime so they must be Goodies. Therefore they cannot do anything Bad, therefore there is no need even to investigate.

Re: @Ledswinger Hmm@A J Stiles

You may be right that it isn't mentioned in polite company, but it comes up all the time in conversation here in the United States.

Re: Lewis misses the point

Isn't the issue that the MoD doesn't really believe there is going to be a war, so it's OK to be as corrupt as is comfortable?

I've just read George Bonney's book about the events around the battle of Jutland (Skagerrack), and it seems that nothing in the MoD has changed since it was the War Office. Then, it was shells that didn't go bang properly, and the War Office refusing to admit it.

Nobody really questions the need for carriers - they are still seemingly expecting to fight a Pacific war without satellites and tactical missiles, having finally fixed some of the materiel problems of 1944-5.

Re: Lewis misses the point

I thought the problem at Jutland was shells that DID go bang, all of them, at once, along with the battlecruisers containing them...?

Re: Lewis misses the point

"I thought the problem at Jutland was shells that DID go bang, all of them, at once, along with the battlecruisers containing them...?"

Well two linked problems of defence procurement - inferior armour on Britsh ships of the line, meaning that German shells could set off the magazines with a well placed hit, plus the refusal of the Admiralty to give Beatty proper armour piercing shells, so that when the Royal Navy hit German ships the shells just bounced off (well, in gross approximation at any rate).

Re: Lewis misses the point

It was more complicated than that - the British ships had inadequate precautions against flash from a turret hit making its way down to the cordite store. That should have been foreseen and was cheaply fixable. Then there was the problem that although the battlecruisers were supposed to engage at extreme range, their rangefinders weren't good enough at long ranges. And then there was the refusal of the War Department to adopt a fire control calculator because it had been developed by a civilian. But, finally, there was the scandal of the crappy supposedly armour piercing shells that bounced off. Even after Jutland, the War Department failed to fix the issue for far too long.

I worked with a Jutland survivor in the early 70s (that is correct, he was a middy at Jutland and didn't want to retire in the 70s) and he still could be raised to white heat on the subject of government incompetence. His view was that the entire naval branch of the War Office should have been immersed in a sea covered with patches of burning oil for a few hours, so that the survivors would have their minds concentrated.

Re: Lewis misses the point

If the Jutland book is blaming German shells penetrating the magazine armour then it's both out of date and inaccurate. Lots of proof now that many of the ships in Beatties BC squadron had all the doors/traps open between the magazines, powder stores and the guns so they could fire as fast as possbile (Beattie was obsessed with rate if fire and not accuracy as he believed if you fired often enough some shells would hit ...). Net result was that a non-penetrating shell exploding could, and in multiple instances, did result in ships exploding. The RN knew about Beattie's effects (he also penalised crews of slow firing ships) before thae start of the war, plus it came out in the internal enquiry, but was then put under Official Secrets so it would not show that Beattie (who soon after replaced Jelicoe as admiral in a politial manouever) was an incompetant donkey. The British press by that stage, while jingoistic, was also intrisive, hence the blame going on the lack of armour on the battle cruisers.

Think we've some what segued here.

Re: Lewis misses the point

"I thought the problem at Jutland was shells that DID go bang, all of them, at once, along with the battlecruisers containing them...?"

Well two problems :

Defensive

Insufficient flash protection which allowed the bagged propellant to be ignited by an incoming shell explosion

Offensive

The point of a Semi-Armour-Piercing Shell is that it detonates an explosive load inside armoured object. At Jutland most of ours exploded on contact, spectacular but ineffective

Re: Lewis misses the point

"The question of what happens if there really is a big war and we only have a bunch of flying Austin Allegros to defend the nation isn't answered by anyone".

Nicely and accurately put - especially as it's exactly the same scenario we faced in 1938-9. The Spitfires and Hurricanes arrived just in time, but there weren't nearly enough of them to start with and they had all sorts of teething problems. Not to mention, of course, that it took ages to convert some of the more modern planes to fly off carriers. What we have now is the equivalent of the Stringbags, Fireflies, Walri, etc. of 1939. I hope the people who command our new carriers will be more clued up than the captain of HMS Glorious...

Re: Lewis misses the point

"Stringbags"

Sure, the Swordfish was past its sell-by-date before the war began, much less in 1945, but it was surprisingly effective anyway. Ask the poor lads in Bismarck, or the Italians at Taranto, to name but two groups, what they thought. (But seriously, an open-cockpit biplane with fixed undercarriage? in 1945?)

Re: Lewis misses the point

"Nicely and accurately put - especially as it's exactly the same scenario we faced in 1938-9"

But that's not where we are now. Current and likely future uses for our carriers are simply as mobile bases for participating in "hobby wars" beyond convenient flying distance from the UK. There's not going to be a conventional war with anybody armed with serious amounts of modern kit. And that's why buying the latest, most expensive fighter on the planet makes no sense - as others have already remarked, Ark Royal circa 1970 would be entirely suitable for most of the things that we might want a carrier for.

Re: Lewis misses the point

One of the more interesting problems of the time was that if you used the wrong explosive, the shock of impact could detonate it, outside the armour. The Germans apparently fixed the problems. The Royal Navy was still using Lyddite at the start of the war: I'm not sure what they had at Jutland.

And, please, the Navy was never controlled by the War Office. It was the Admiralty.

Re: Lewis misses the point

Dave Bell, you are right. The British were still using Lyddite (picric acid) at Jutland. It was too sensitive and the shells exploded on impact, not after penetration. The Germans were using TNT.

Re: Lewis misses the point

Why not scrap the entire idea of launching 12 - 40 fighter aircraft and instead devote the ship to a fleet of 100 or more armed UAVs?

Re: I didn't realise there was a difference

Presumably UKIP supporters see an opportunity to get Thales out of the game.

Re: I didn't realise there was a difference

"Presumably UKIP supporters see an opportunity to get Thales out of the game"

Why? Can Thales be any worse than BAES?

Re: I didn't realise there was a difference

French...UKIP wants to trade with johnny foreigner so long as he stays at home and knows his place.

Re: The question is, what can we do about it?

None. The private companies now have your money, the MPs will have their kick-back and the top brass will have their nice directorships; so everyone who matters is happy.

Re: Why the love for all the US aircraft?

At a guess: cheap, understood, parts are plentiful, range and you can fire 'em off a carrier.

Re: Why the love for all the US aircraft?

The model of aircraft isn't the point - it's whether it's S/VTOL or not. In in 50 years the F-35B will be a relic - probably not even flying at airshows as the parts will be too expensive. However these carriers will still be there, and still unable to launch 95% of the worlds combat aircraft.

Re: Why the love for all the US aircraft?

In 50years it will be solar-powered AI drones getting dropped for lighter-than air floating battle stations.

Or something.

Re: Why the love for all the US aircraft?

You get a green card with every one.

Re: The Big Yin

Cheap, understood,, and usable with a carrier.

That sounds just like what we had until recently.

RIP Sea Harriers

Re: Why the love for all the US aircraft?

Flyaway cost of an F-35B is $250m. So we won't actually be able to buy enough to field a full unit on the carriers.

Flyway cost of an F-18E/F Super Hornet (a far cry from the original F-18 Hornet) is $25m.

So for 50% the total outlay, we can have 5 times as many aircraft, which gives us full complements onboard, and oodles of airframes at home for training, so pilots are not squabbling over airframes for flying hours.

That leaves us several £bn of change to spend on Hawkeye/AWACs, light transport aircraft (with longer range and greater capacity) than whirlybirds, etc, etc, none of which will be usable on a non-Cats and Traps carrier. Which means we needn't have built big ones in the first place, and could just have had some new short carriers like our old ones.

At the end of the day, all likely future deployments involve humanitarian work, or beating up nations that won't shoot back (much). F18 is more than up to the task for the latter, and helicopters and STOL light-cargo aircraft (i.e. carrier aircraft!) are ideal for the former. Unless our masters are predicting a Pacific War against China, having the latest greatest jump-jet stealth plane that costs 10x as much and sacrifices payload, range and patrol time in return for stealth is pointless.

Re: Why the love for all the US aircraft?

...more likely gas-powered drones being launched form the deck of the otherwise entirely unemployed CVF.

Re: Why the love for all the US aircraft?

"So for 50% the total outlay, we can have 5 times as many aircraft, which gives us full complements onboard, and oodles of airframes at home for training, so pilots are not squabbling over airframes for flying hours."

And there's more: The casualty rate of SVTOL aircraft appears to be far higher than normal aircraft, which means that a fleet of 40 F35B will very soon be a fleet of 30, pushing the cost/capability further the wrong way.

Re: Why the love for all the US aircraft?

Oh also, spares are cheap and readily available and our pilots already know how to fly F-18s as the RNAS are flying the American's to keep their fixed-wing skill set in order until whichever year in the 2020s is deemed by the almighty at BAE an appropriate moment to actually deliver the F-35 (for a small delivery fee of course).

Re: Why the love for all the US aircraft?

Lewis has always had something against the Eurofighter, perhaps he has good reasons too. But looking at the Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

You find that "The Typhoon is a multi-role fighter with maturing air-to-ground capabilities" and

"In 2004, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper said after flying the Eurofighter, "I have flown all the air force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter."

Re: Why the love for all the US aircraft?

Say what you will about American militarism (and I often do) it has some benefits from a strictly technical point of view. Economies of scale for a start: when you operate a dozen immense carriers, each of them with dozens of jet fighters and bombers, you order a very large number of planes and they get thoroughly tested and enhanced until they work slickly, efficiently, and relatively safely. (Although in an absolute sense there is never anything safe about carrier operations).

So US jet fighters are very reliable choices. You know they will keep being made, spares will be available, there are plenty of people who can fly and maintain them, etc. And, given a big enough carrier, you know they will fly off it and land again efficiently.

Re: Why the love for all the US aircraft?

"You find that "The Typhoon is a multi-role fighter with maturing air-to-ground capabilities" "

Don't make me laugh. Sellotaping a few bombs on to a fighter certainly fits the words, but it doesn't make it a good idea.

"In 2004, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper said after flying the Eurofighter, "I have flown all the air force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter."

In 2004 Jumper was 56 or 57. I doubt he was in much position to take a Eurofighter to the edge of its envelope. Maybe there was somewhere for him to rest his stick?

Re: Why the love for all the US aircraft?

Just asking about Lewis "dislike". Where you found the sellotaping, beats me. The wing is indeed needed but the rest is really about the "bombs". As for the numbers I suppose the "Euro" is there to get the numbers.

NationaI Geographic made a program about the Eurofighter in the Ultimate Factories. You find it on You Tube.

Nothing much negative about its performance and quality as a fighter.

Re: Why the love for all the US aircraft?

"NationaI Geographic made a program about the Eurofighter in the Ultimate Factories. You find it on You Tube. Nothing much negative about its performance and quality as a fighter."

You watch and believe NG? Bloody hell.

And then, because NG do a feature on "Ultimate Factories", you think that makes the Eurofighter good as a fighter? And by extension, you reason that military aircraft are much of a muchness, so it must be a good bomber?

You must work for the MoD. Nobody real could be that clueless.

Re: Why the love for all the US aircraft?

The fact is the ski-jumps allows most combat aircraft to launch near their maximum take off weight. You name it F-18, F-16 (couldn't land safely on a carrier however) Rafale etc could all operate off the ski-jump in a STOBAR carrier mode which would be cheap to convert to. Even a E-2 Hawkeye has been successfully tested with ski-jump, the cost precludes the uk buying it at $250million each.

The advantage the vertical landing gives is the ability to operate aircraft landing and taking off at the same time plus the ability to operate in weather conditions far worse that is possible with CATOBAR. All weather operations are a major advantage.

Re: Why the love for all the US aircraft?

> I doubt he was in much position to take a Eurofighter to the edge of its envelope

Even if he did, he'd likely have been impressed. Talking to those who have actually flown the Typhoon, it's apaprently a very nice aircraft to fly.

And if you're examining it's capability as an air-superiority fighter, it tends to score highly there, too - that being its intended role.

But none of that makes it the right aircraft for other types of mission...

Vic.