Search found 5632 matches
- 24 Mar 2024, 08:45
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874148
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I don’t want to turn this into another discussion about aircraft carriers… Fair, and don’t want to kick off the same circular discussions either. What I would add though is that I see a CVF as “4 acres of floating sovereign territory” - it should be seen in the same way as any forward operating air...
- 23 Mar 2024, 12:52
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6102
- Views: 1774212
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
How would having more sqn with fewer aircraft mean more pilots? Problem with creating more Sqns is it requires more people, where do all these people come from? You seem to be a bod in the know how low does it take to turn a jet around for line maintenance Line maintenance? I take that to mean betw...
- 23 Mar 2024, 10:14
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6102
- Views: 1774212
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
How would having more sqn with fewer aircraft mean more pilots? Problem with creating more Sqns is it requires more people, where do all these people come from? You seem to be a bod in the know how low does it take to turn a jet around for line maintenance Line maintenance? I take that to mean betw...
- 23 Mar 2024, 09:44
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6102
- Views: 1774212
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
There is another way 3 x 16 = 1 OCU & 2 FL Sqn's = 48 plus 4 for the TEU leaves 22 in Deep maintenance this could allow a standard peace time carrier deployment of 16 jets or a war time deployment of upto 32 It is already decided that there will be (at least) 3 frontline squadrons and 3rd Squad...
- 22 Mar 2024, 17:30
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6102
- Views: 1774212
- 22 Mar 2024, 17:09
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6102
- Views: 1774212
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Perms of 48, take your pick: 1x18 + 3x10 1x18 + 2x12 + 1x6 1x16 + 2x12 + 1x8 1x14 + 2x12 + 1x10 You are missing TEU which currently has 4 planes. If I am not wrong, original plan was to have 3 previously deployed to US to be upgraded to TR-3 and sent to UK while 17 Squadron would get 3 new planes. ...
- 22 Mar 2024, 16:48
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6102
- Views: 1774212
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Have you noticed that when a fastjet squadron deploys as a squadron they go with 8 jets be they tornado, typhoon, or f35 even though there peace time compliment is 12. For intense operations they may add 1 or 2 additional jets for fwd deployed maintenance spares. The problem with comparing what the...
- 22 Mar 2024, 16:28
- Forum: Defence Elsewhere
- Topic: Swedish Armed Forces
- Replies: 238
- Views: 25009
Re: Swedish Armed Forces
Sweden purchases 321 6x6 Patria vehicles https://www.patriagroup.com/newsroom/news/2024/sweden-purchases-over-300-armoured-vehicles-from-patria Somebody should tell MOD\DE&S about this value for money purchase. Said this sometime back but as we have funding for 1000 Boxers maybe we should stop ...
- 22 Mar 2024, 11:23
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6102
- Views: 1774212
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Well I would say we need to get away from the Norm that the RAF operate as these jets are and should be for the Carriers firstly given a front line number of 59 the aim should be to deploy 20 jets to the duty carrier meaning that when jets/ Sqn's are not deployed to a carrier they should be in main...
- 22 Mar 2024, 09:04
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6102
- Views: 1774212
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
I recall seeing a defence committee hearing where then ACM Wigston stated that ~ 20% of the entire fleet should be expected to be in deep maintenance i.e. of planned 74 ~ 59-60 would be front line strength I also think that Marham only has the infrastructure for 4 sqns i.e. 1 OCU + 3 frontline. All...
- 21 Mar 2024, 08:47
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874148
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I would say the LHA mode would be a natural default configuration for a CVF. This for me is something in the region of a sqd of 8-12 F35s, 6 AEW/ASW Merlins, 8 Commando Merlins, 3 Chinooks and 4 Wildcats, plus two companies of RMs. The problem you have with this default position is other than the c...
- 21 Mar 2024, 07:38
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6102
- Views: 1774212
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
4 squadrons would probably required some 80 to 90 planes, even with 10 planes per squadron. 74 would mean 3 squadrons. Considering which one will be raised, I expect to be from RAF. Still choosing some currently inactive squadron between 201 to 217, 209 for example, it could still keep strong conne...
- 20 Mar 2024, 18:32
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6102
- Views: 1774212
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
For me, it should be 892 NAS without a doubt. It should be four squadrons of 9 a/c like the harriers had IMO. I agree however I would go with 4 x Sqn's with 10 jets plus a OCU with 16 making 56 jets leaving 18 jets in the pool This could mean under a full effort we could have 30 jets on one carrier...
- 20 Mar 2024, 18:15
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874148
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
No the Hyūga-class are LPH's in real terms as were the Izumo-class before they were converted into full light carriers Hmmm ... not sure about that. Yes it is helicopter carrier, but Hyuga class is primary ASW platform, and not intended as an amphibious ships, which L in LPH is suggesting. But it c...
- 20 Mar 2024, 17:00
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874148
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Just to confirm we are talking about the same things - the RN has never operated a LHD. HMS Ocean was a LPH, the old Albion and Bulwark were light carriers that were converted to be Commando carriers (LPHs before that was a term). Yes I was talking about old Commando carriers. And yes you are right...
- 20 Mar 2024, 16:37
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874148
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
... class of ships that are 200 to 210 meters by 32 to 36 meters they need to be flat tops to allow helicopters and Male drone like TB3 ... UK is not getting TB3, and I do not understand why would any new RM ship would need to operate such drones. Again would be nice to have but to choose a ship ba...
- 20 Mar 2024, 10:47
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874148
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
So in real terms we are down to replacing the 3 Bay's and Argus so we really need to thinking in these terms and so as said for me we need to be looking at a class of ships that are 200 to 210 meters by 32 to 36 meters they need to be flat tops to allow helicopters and Male drone like TB3 to operate...
- 19 Mar 2024, 12:31
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874148
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
They should bought the Russian mistrals off the French and replaced the LPDs. In fact if they want to go that way license build 2 mistrals now. But to resource 3 commando properly requires considerable investment Royal Navy leadership aren’t interested in doing that and I doubt any of the other com...
- 19 Mar 2024, 09:18
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874148
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
They should bought the Russian mistrals off the French and replaced the LPDs. In fact if they want to go that way license build 2 mistrals now. But to resource 3 commando properly requires considerable investment Royal Navy leadership aren’t interested in doing that and I doubt any of the other com...
- 18 Mar 2024, 15:58
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874148
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
It also has been said somewhere that the RM could go with 4 x LSU's of 500 instead of 8 x 250 can you point me to that, please? *curious* As I said can't remember where I saw this but this talks about LRG-N using 2 companies plus support making LRG-N's LSU 400 strong https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/ne...
- 18 Mar 2024, 15:40
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874148
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
... 3 could be ready at any time .. Having 3 out of 4 at any time will be really challenging. Maybe at some point could happen but on consistent rate highly unlikely. It also has been said somewhere that the RM could go with 4 x LSU's of 500 instead of 8 x 250 Total number of personal could easily ...
- 18 Mar 2024, 12:40
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874148
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Yes the 23 Merlins are more than the current 6 ships can carry but if we were to get 4 x 200 by 36 meter flat tops MRSS then we could in full load out carry 3 x that I disagree that RN needs 4 LHP/LHD (of would even consider that) but nevertheless lets assume that 4 of them are ordered. It would be...
- 18 Mar 2024, 09:48
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874148
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
1) So if in a combined group why would it matter if each individual platform is does not accel in any particular area if the total is the same? 2) We don't have enough carriers to do continuous CSG ops so your solution is to use those vessels as a back up for your fragile amphibious strategy? 3) So...
- 18 Mar 2024, 09:27
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874148
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
This is why we need 60 NMH with folding rotors That is never going to happen, where is the budget for that. Not just more helicopters but also for naval version. And I don't think there is a need for that. 2 FAA squadrons of Merlin Mk.4 already have more helicopters than all those 6 ships that will...
- 17 Mar 2024, 16:33
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874148
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
This is why we need 60 NMH with folding rotors