Thank you I think I understand now.Hello, you would probably need one of the defence professionals on here to give a definative answer, but my amateur crack at it would be as follows.
During the cold war , the Nato forces in europe, had the Warsaw pac attacked would have faced a massive onslaught and the land forces would have fought a retreat to various choke points and bottle necks. The RAF germany and all the other NATO airforces would have supported the ground forces and faced a numerically superior force, and loses would have been phenomenal, with the spectre of a nuclear exchange and escalation being the unthinkable consequence. The airforces had to find a way to ground or destroy as much soviet airpower as possible, blow up bridges, supply lines, tank formations etc. Destroying runways was obviously of critical importance.
Soviet anti aircraft technology, if lacking the technical edge over western systems made up for it in sheer numbers, multi layered systems in huge numbers, much of it mobile enough to advance with the armies, the SAM umbrella being a particularly tough nut. Now in Vietnam , the north used soviet systems and inflicted heavy casualties on US forces, the US forces in turn spending a massive amount of resources to counter it, jamming, hard kill (anti radar missiles) and a combination of flying through it with countermeasures or under it at low level, where aircraft are at risk from old fashioned triple-A.
The USA has far more resources that anyone else and so the approach of the US may not be one for other mere mortals. The UK can not, or could not afford enough electronic warfare aircraft or offensive assets to base its strategy on nullifying an air defence network and operating at altitudes other than low level. Low level obviously means you avoid detection until the last minute. There would be two ways to take out an airfield. Gain air superiority over the fighters, jam the radars or kill the radars with missiles, then fly safely over the AAA and put a precision weapon on the runway to ground all air ops, now that takes a lot of aircraft, far more than the RAF could achieve in germany, where they faced literally hundreds of warpac airfields and dispersal sites. So the RAF solution was a weapon the JP233, which required the tornado to fly down the length of the runway , the cannisters spewing out sub munitions to break up the tarmac and delayed fused mines to stop repairs, the aim to ground as many warpac aircraft for as long as possible so NATO ground and air forces could operate unhindered. I believe the germans developed a similar system for their tornados and the french a rocket called durandell that fired downwards into the tarmac.
So the gulf war was fought with 1970 and 1980s technlogy on the whole, meaning technology aimed at defeating soviet cold war tactics and technology. The Iraqi air defence network was probably less dense than the soviet one, but based on its philosophy.
The context of the gulf war was one where saddam had used chemical weapons, had means to deliver them, had threatened to use them and it was believed he would use them. He also had many many airfields. The target list was vast and the real fear of what Saddam might do, meant that a lot of targets needed hitting and quickly.
The hindsight argument is that the RAF didn't really need to practice low level runway denial, that somehow it was a futile effort of flawed tactics. But in 1991, The RAF had a suitable weapon, it had a key role in the planning phase of war and had practiced for decades against soviet built weaponry. Maybe the US could have taken out all the airfields without UK help? But at the time the RAF stepped up and took on a particularly tough job and lost men.
Penny pinching politicians and vested interests have reduced much of the debate around defence in the UK to petty arguments between services, Unfortunately some with an axe to grind against the RAF such as Sharkey Ward have seen fit to apply hindsight to a 20 year old war and decry the efforts of a lot of courageous men. If the bile was aimed at the politicians all three services might get a better deal.
Any way thats my potted history, feel free to correct any errors
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Thank you I think I understand now.
Understood, my point though was to reinforce that its not always just a matter of building onto the existing superstructure to enhance capability. Alexas or someone in his filed might be in a position to point out how many containers ships have been lost due to the containers acting like a sail and compromising vessel handling. a lot of people just don't realise how much those slab sides can impact on vessel handling.
as you say, if its within the initial design intent, then the load and balance tolerances plus other important handling issues may already be factored in
Some of this is with hindsight yes, but you don't seem to even accept this. Putting runways out is very difficult; if you look at Suez 1956 & Israeli in 1967, the aircraft were destroyed on the ground.
Your point about the RAF being focus on Cold War scenarios is irrelevant as that threat would have been far more hostile (probably superior to NATOs AD certainly we didn’t have the likes of the ZSU 23 – 4 Shilka for low level coverage till much later). In fact when you compare the high Tornado losses in the comparatively one sided environment of GW1, you can see if the Tornados had been deployed in a similar manner against Soviet force, they would have fared about as well as the Fairy Battle in 1940. I think it’s very unlikely JP233 would have put out many Soviet airfields....unless the AAA/SAMs were asleep!
I think it’s a bit unfair to criticise the RN for the FRS1 losses to Roland/35mm AA as this really wasn’t a core role they were designed for, whereas the Tornado was.
On the subject of hindsight, which I don’t think this is. I would say for example with hindsight we should not have built the KGV class we would have been better building carriers (I hope we can agree on this), but I think it would be hard to say that at the time (but a visionary might have), as no one else took that approach and the RN did build very fine carriers, even if they didn’t have anything worth flying off them. I have always wonder if the RAF had not been created things might have been very different, as RN was far ahead in 1918, and was way behind in 1939. So someone had to be first and had the RN had first class all metal monoplanes it might have been the one to drop the battleship. It was such speed and vision that put the RN ahead with HMS Dreadnought in 1906, there were plenty who argued against.
The A10 was a direct result of the heavy AAA encountered in Vietnam, tank busters have to be down in the weeds.
Last edited:
As if by magic....
Here's a couple of pics that I took a few years ago, while on one of the 'press days', aboard RFA Mounts Bay, shortly after she was commissioned.
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/british-warships/p43731-100-6593.html
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/british-warships/p43729-mounts-bayflooded-up21.html
...Here's the 'Dutch Enforcer' A.K.A. the Rotterdam class LPD's...
HrMs Rotterdam L 800 dimensions
...& here's the Galicia from Spain...
The vessel's vehicle area is over 1,000m² and can accommodate up to 130 armoured personnel carriers or 33 main battle tanks. - Image - Galicia Class Landing Platform Docks (LPD)
They all appear to be derrived from the Rotterdam's / Royal Schelde design, which would explain the similarity...
The issues with the UK's LSD(A)'s is obvious from the pictures, there's a lift & x2 cranes on the aft 2/3rds of the flight deck, & while it would be nice to fit a hangar to them, the issue of windage, or 'sail' properties is the key factor. I'm sure that because of the cross sectional area of the bridge front, in any reasonable wind (above 25kts) that it will probably slow the ship considerably (possibly even by as much as 5 - 10 kts). Not the best design feature on a ship that can only achieve 18kts !
Then again, i'm not a Naval Arc, so I could be wrong...........
SA
Hi
I do note that Bay Class vessels have sailed in the past with large (Inflatable?) temporary hangers installed and if a permanent structure was needed and fitted it would not be the first ship with a lift in the hanger. Incidentally wasn’t the lift inside the temporary hanger? The frontage of the superstructure remains the same carrying containers or a temporary/permanent hanger?
I also note from the photo’s you have kindly posted that the after most crane could still be utilised as per Rotterdam. I also note that your photo shows a small container on deck and would again point out that this area is designed to take twelve 40 foot containers, have you ever seen one with a large number of containers onboard? Would it be beyond the realms of possibility that they could be stacked port and starboard similarly to the Atlantic conveyor configuration and have a roof platted over the top? That would be a cheap and cheerful conversion with the containers providing workshops offices storage accommodation etc.
As a Submarine Weapons guy naval architecture is not my specialised field either but I do think I have a decent eye for what can and cannot be done having looked at the specs.
Are these hangers inflated or some semi rigid structure, I can't find anything on them other than that photo I posted. I wonder if it is just one hanger which can be fitted to any of them as required or if it was a mock up fabricated for a one of assignment. You could almost develop the concept into a standard fully equiped hanger container that could be mounted on an merchant ship. I think I recall the RN looking at something like that in 80s?Hi
I do note that Bay Class vessels have sailed in the past with large (Inflatable?) temporary hangers installed and if a permanent structure was needed and fitted it would not be the first ship with a lift in the hanger. Incidentally wasn’t the lift inside the temporary hanger? The frontage of the superstructure remains the same carrying containers or a temporary/permanent hanger?
I also note from the photo’s you have kindly posted that the after most crane could still be utilised as per Rotterdam. I also note that your photo shows a small container on deck and would again point out that this area is designed to take twelve 40 foot containers, have you ever seen one with a large number of containers onboard? Would it be beyond the realms of possibility that they could be stacked port and starboard similarly to the Atlantic conveyor configuration and have a roof platted over the top? That would be a cheap and cheerful conversion with the containers providing workshops offices storage accommodation etc.
As a Submarine Weapons guy naval architecture is not my specialised field either but I do think I have a decent eye for what can and cannot be done having looked at the specs.
a second RAN team has inspected the Largs Bay, I'd say that you're about to be relieved of a vessel very soon...
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Well with the speculation of another round of cuts and what has been announced today by the Australian Def Min on the purchase of two additional vessels.
May we have two please?
:How cheap could we get QE?
It would make a very nice home for the Block II F/A-18F Super Hornets once we finally get our F-35As. Considering the rumoured further delays to the Lightnings we may end up with a Sqn or two of F/A-18Es and the fact half our Fs are wired as Gs we have the makings of an extremely competent air group. Add E-2Ds, increase the buy of ASW helos and we are cruising.
When is QE due to complete and when could we take delivery? How long would it take to convert her with cats and traps? :lol
I'd love to see a flatty phatty back in the RAN
If the govt kills off a few more projects (that they signed off on) we might be able to get the carrier and enough others to provide the support group without compromising FBE and FBW...
Hell, if you've got the cash, I'm sure we can convert her right off the slips, can't think of a nicer bunch of folk for it to go to. It'd be lovely to see the pair cruising side by side, under Aussie and UK colours.
But I'd sooner keep 'em both
Ian
Up spec three or four of the ANZAC replacements as follow on AWDs and half a dozen of the OCVs as ASW / MCM frigates. Upsize Success's replacement to ensure its suitable to support a carrier and buy a second to replace Sirius down the track.I'd love to see a flatty phatty back in the RAN
If the govt kills off a few more projects (that they signed off on) we might be able to get the carrier and enough others to provide the support group without compromising FBE and FBW...
How to pay for it, well if we have a carrier do we need aerial tankers, if we keep the SHs will we still need 100 F-35As. What else comes to mind?
Maybe should move this to the RAN hypothetical carrier thread but then again QE is still currently RN.
She's being built with cats and traps, that's already been decided.
Could the RAN man her? Permanent crew of 780 odd plus air wing - a lot less than the equivalent size US carrier but still plenty of young bods to find out of a personnel roster - would the RAN have to let go of other vessels to find the man power?
In a fantasy world we'd flog one off the stocks and start construction of another on the basis that it balances the books when we're broke and kicks off some construction but realistically, we're breaking our carrier capability in a big way if we step down to one ship.
The Cameron government did seem very unsympathetic to the whole carrier routine mind you, pre SDR and it was only the rather tightly drawn contracts that kept them in play.
I still think the most logical deal is to talk to France about sharing one as a hot swap but then I wake up realise nothing sensible is acceptable...
Ian
with the way the RN is being cut there are gonna be alot of sailors looking for jobs not to mention recruitment for the ADF is rising. with the prospect of serving on a flagship aircraft carrier the RAN would probably hit establishment
IF (and a big one at that) the RAN were to get her you would make it a Purple asset with the RAAF supplying the Pilots/ATC & Maint crews, you would leave the FAA to do what they currently do plus additional ASW capability and base the aircraft out of Williamtown.
There are many ways around it and the end result would already be sorted before any real consideration would be given
Troothsayer
New Member
And bringing this thread back to reality....
So the UK have seemingly given up on cosying up to Brazil?
Is Global Combat Ship a new term, a change of direction C1-3 into one ship? Maybe even the RN is waking up and smelling the coffee?