F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[abc123]

would have done that ( and they know the best, the Freanch are stooopid ), because who needs that damn Harriers and carriers? RAF surely doesn't.

I'm not sure we should be taking any lessons from the French on carrier aviation....look at the situation over the last 40-50 years, or hell even over 100...Until CdG arrived and actually got Rafale in numbers aboard it would have had its clock cleaned by a CVS with Sea Harrier onboard, same with the Foch and Clemenceau. The arrival of Rafale is the first time ever that the French Navy have managed to deploy a carrier with modern capability. Unfortunately for them the arrival of F-35 puts them miles behind the state of the art within 10 years of delivering that capability, same with their purchase of E-2C...and that's not that smart, neither is the purchase of 1 x CdG, cancellation of PA.2, ASW ability from CV's or escorts etc.

Besides at present the decision to kill Harrier and the CVL is looking like a risk that we actually got away with...gaps are never a good thing unless you get away with them.

Oh yes, definitly the French had their fair share of mistakes and stupid decisions. And yes, I agree that it would be better if they had built another CDG/PA2 and some other things you mentioned.

But, the important thing is: I can't recall that they had ever gapped/cut entire capability, except maybe heavy helicopters after Frelon was retired.
I agree that sometimes their capabilities aren't top notch, but they are GOOD ENOUGH for their intended purpose. French Navy never had any serious intent to fight the Soviet Navy, so Clem and Foch ( with Crusaders and Etandards ) were good enough for: a) giving illusion of French grandeur and b) hitting colonials that can't fight back. Same thing with other stuff.

And meanwhile, with the exception of Crusader and Hawkeye, they were built in France, giving work to French workers, spending money mostly in France and having pretty sovereign capabilites. And that means a lot, at least to me.

First of all, thank you for defending the French Navy
I am not an expert like you, but we can not compare the two situations between France and the United Kingdom.
In first the main role of Sea Harrier is to provide air defense, although the air-to-air capabilities of the Super Etendard are quite limited, it has very high air-sea capabilities, and the Super Etendards are adapted to carry nuclear missiles, so to say that they were not capable of action against the USSR is a little exaggerated.
The Foch and the Clem were able to carry 15 Super-Etendard, 8 Crusader F-8P, 8 Breguet Alizé, 2 Super Frelon helicopters, they were old but between 1959 and 1997, they underwent many redesigns, ways to keep them performing.
Clem and Foch sailed all the oceans and totaled at the end of their career the sum of more than a million nautical miles each. They will have done 3000 days of sea, 80 000 hours of operation and will have made more than 70 000 catapultings each.
We only sell or destroy our ships as a last resort, when we have an alternative, and we upgrade our equipment as much as possible, that's our way of doing things.

You're welcome. Just discussion, not defending. I'm far from being an expert, just trying to apply common sense.

Agreed with just one thing:
I didn't said that Etendards couldn't be used against USSR, but that conflict against them was never very high on French Navy list of priorities, like conflict with Russia also isn't for current French Armed Forces.

[abc123]

A better analogy might be a builder buying a large van that he can’t afford to fill with tools yet.

A good investment. He has room to expand the amount of tools he can carry, which he wouldn't be able to do if he had purchased a small van.

Or, if he had bought smaller van, he could use the rest of money to buy big part of tools he needs. Even more important, his financial situation isn't great and most probably won't change for better in near future (while it might easy change for the worse ) so he will probably have no money to buy additional tools anyway.

[abc123]

But, the important thing is: I can't recall that they had ever gapped/cut entire capability, except maybe heavy helicopters after Frelon was retired.

And relying on us for fixed wing heavy lift to the Sahel, Caribbean etc. Any UK C17 into Western Africa is still lugging French kit about.

Yes, but that's not a gap/cut, because they never had that capabilities anyway.

But yes, I agree that's one of their mistakes, not buying Globemaster.

[mr.fred]

Or, if he had bought smaller van, he could use the rest of money to buy big part of tools he needs. Even more important, his financial situation isn't great and most probably won't change for better in near future (while it might easy change for the worse ) so he will probably have no money to buy additional tools anyway.

Although if you advocate buying numerous smaller vans to the value of the larger one, that probably fits the situation better. You’re still short on tools and now you can’t take on larger jobs if you get them, and you have to hire people to run the other vans.

[abc123]

Or, if he had bought smaller van, he could use the rest of money to buy big part of tools he needs. Even more important, his financial situation isn't great and most probably won't change for better in near future (while it might easy change for the worse ) so he will probably have no money to buy additional tools anyway.

Although if you advocate buying numerous smaller vans to the value of the larger one, that probably fits the situation better. You’re still short on tools and now you can’t take on larger jobs if you get them, and you have to hire people to run the other vans.

But since you have decided that you won't take big jobs alone (but only with help of big cousin) so that capability is not so important.

[indeid]

And relying on us for fixed wing heavy lift to the Sahel, Caribbean etc. Any UK C17 into Western Africa is still lugging French kit about.

Yes, but that's not a gap/cut, because they never had that capabilities anyway.

But yes, I agree that's one of their mistakes, not buying Globemaster.

So its a gap then?

I do get the point being discussed, but I can't think when we have deployed more than 12 jets anywhere in peacetime, let alone 36. Saif Sareera type exercises maybe, but not routine. Beyond the US I'm not sure where you could go that you could park off and exercise 36 jets, I know we have problems when a USN CVN pitches up to the UK in terms of using their Air Wing in congested airspace.

I suppose which part of the world they are going to will partly decide what will embark. Don't forget as well that it isn't just aircraft that decides capability, if you are carrying a load of LCR pilots your ability to go from an exercise posture to flying operations is limited, so even if you did have 36 jets on board, your actual combat power might not be anymore than if you had 18!

[abc123]

And relying on us for fixed wing heavy lift to the Sahel, Caribbean etc. Any UK C17 into Western Africa is still lugging French kit about.

Yes, but that's not a gap/cut, because they never had that capabilities anyway.

But yes, I agree that's one of their mistakes, not buying Globemaster.

I do get the point being discussed, but I can't think when we have deployed more than 12 jets anywhere in peacetime, !

That's one of reasons why even a small carrier is good enough.

[indeid]

I do get the point being discussed, but I can't think when we have deployed more than 12 jets anywhere in peacetime, !

That's one of reasons why even a small carrier is good enough.

You missed off 'in Peacetime'......

As with most military kit, it is bought for operations, 'good enough' is not constant. They may be on the portly side but I can't think when spare space has ever been wasted. It depends on the analysis done on the requirements, as hopefully that decided the size not just the want to have a big boat again.

In most cases Carrier Air will be part of the answer, flexing with land based assets as needed to cover issues with weather, maintenance or whatever else. Having the ability to surge jets between ship borne or land based could be useful.

[Frenchie]

But yes, I agree that's one of their mistakes, not buying Globemaster.

I agree. We rent Ukrainian Antonovs instead of buying C-17s or even C-5s, it's a big mistake, we're dependent of an unstable country and I'm not talking about Russia.

[mr.fred]

But since you have decided that you won't take big jobs alone (but only with help of big cousin) so that capability is not so important.

That’s a whole different argument.

Although will your rich cousin be so happy to help you out if he feels you aren’t pulling your weight?

[Lord Jim]

Or, if he had bought smaller van, he could use the rest of money to buy big part of tools he needs. Even more important, his financial situation isn't great and most probably won't change for better in near future (while it might easy change for the worse ) so he will probably have no money to buy additional tools anyway.

Although if you advocate buying numerous smaller vans to the value of the larger one, that probably fits the situation better. You’re still short on tools and now you can’t take on larger jobs if you get them, and you have to hire people to run the other vans.

But since you have decided that you won't take big jobs alone (but only with help of big cousin) so that capability is not so important.

Of course if you continue with this van comparison, we have bought a really nice large van but no the number of tools required so we cannot take on the many of the jobs on offer because we haven't got the necessary amount of tools. Yes we can turn up and do a few demonstrations for the locals and press, but compared to a proper firm we have too little capacity.

[mr.fred]

I like the van analogy. It holds up.
For the jobs we have at the moment, our lack of tools isn’t really hurting us, but we’re taking a risk that it won’t hurt us before we can get more. If we have a sudden job that needs more tools, then we still have the option to get more to put in our van. If we had a smaller van, then we would never have room for these extra tools.

[Lord Jim]

I like the van analogy. It holds up.
For the jobs we have at the moment, our lack of tools isn’t really hurting us, but we’re taking a risk that it won’t hurt us before we can get more. If we have a sudden job that needs more tools, then we still have the option to get more to put in our van. If we had a smaller van, then we would never have room for these extra tools.

Ok lets keep going with this:

We have bought a very good van and we actually bought a second because we had plans to expand the business. However money got tight and so we will only operate one van at a time and use the other when the first in having a service or breaks down. We therefore changes our plans for how many tools we needed and decided we will probably only need enough tools to fully kit out one van. But we couldn't afford to but them all at once, as money is tight so spread the deliveries over ten or so, crossing our fingers that we will have enough tools until then if something major happens. However as all this is going on the company we work for has also got a garage and they also need to use out tools because the company can only afford to buy one full set. We have more on order but these will probably be used to replace those we already have bought so we are stuck with only one full set having to equip our van and garages and no chance in putting any in the second van if it was needed in a dire emergency, but the company isn't worried as it has decided to use it for odd jobs in that situation, bring along the packed lunched for the staff as well as some extra staff if they are needed.

[mr.fred]

Ok lets keep going with this:

We have bought a very good van and we actually bought a second because we had plans to expand the business. However money got tight and so we will only operate one van at a time and use the other when the first in having a service or breaks down. We therefore changes our plans for how many tools we needed and decided we will probably only need enough tools to fully kit out one van. But we couldn't afford to but them all at once, as money is tight so spread the deliveries over ten or so, crossing our fingers that we will have enough tools until then if something major happens. However as all this is going on the company we work for has also got a garage and they also need to use out tools because the company can only afford to buy one full set. We have more on order but these will probably be used to replace those we already have bought so we are stuck with only one full set having to equip our van and garages and no chance in putting any in the second van if it was needed in a dire emergency, but the company isn't worried as it has decided to use it for odd jobs in that situation, bring along the packed lunched for the staff as well as some extra staff if they are needed.

At which point people start claiming that it would be better to scrap our two vans and replace them, at the expense of procuring the original two, with three smaller vans. Between these three vans and the garage we could still only afford one set of tools, if that, because it costs more to run three vans.

[Lord Jim]

In a brief summation, when the programme started there was enough money available to have both carriers completed, incorporated more capabilities and had a fully equipped air wing in service now. Why we haven't is due to poor decisions, planning and execution throughout the programme. We will make do, spend a fortune on PR to show the World what a great naval power we are and pray to God we never have to use them in a real war.

[Timmymagic]

Why we haven't is due to poor decisions, planning and execution throughout the programme.

I don't think any of those come from within the 'programme'. The whole CEPP programme is looking convincingly well run. The problems have come from outside of the programme, the cost escalations and delays were injected into the programme by political decisions. The JSF programme is separate to CEPP but delivers into it.

[bobp]

The worst decision made was when they decided halfway through the build to go down the cats n traps route, until the discovered that they couldn't do it in a cost effective manner due to an earlier poor decision. So yes lots of poor decisions have been made.

[serge750]

I agree with lots of poor decisions being made but don't think the CATOBAR flim flam was the worst one, getting rid of the sea harriers in the early 2000's was IMO, we hopefully would of kept a CVL running then if we had QE as originally planned in 2014 ? (if I remember correctly?) no fixed wing gap, then maybe had sea harriers flying of QE carrier...but once again it is all to do with short term budget decisions from the bean counters !!!

Now with the benefit of hindsight it may of been better for two carriers able to support 24 fixed wing + helicopters (around 45-50k tonne) but hindsight is a bitch

[RetroSicotte]

Now with the benefit of hindsight it may of been better for two carriers able to support 24 fixed wing + helicopters (around 45-50k tonne) but hindsight is a bitch

Wouldn't have saved much of anything really, and had a drastic loss in global influence and conventional deterrence.

[serge750]

I agree it would of not saved that much..maybe 5-10%, & little less status, don't get me wrong I am glad we have gone with them rather than three little ones, then the bean counters would of cut one straight away !!!

[benny14]

For the jobs we have at the moment, our lack of tools isn’t really hurting us, but we’re taking a risk that it won’t hurt us before we can get more. If we have a sudden job that needs more tools, then we still have the option to get more to put in our van. If we had a smaller van, then we would never have room for these extra tools.

This.

Or, if he had bought smaller van, he could use the rest of money to buy big part of tools he needs. Even more important, his financial situation isn't great and most probably won't change for better in near future (while it might easy change for the worse ) so he will probably have no money to buy additional tools anyway.

But we are already buying enough tools to use the van properly, there is just a longer delivery period than we would have liked. We have the van, and it is getting filled up.

Three years from been operational/completing trials to having a proper airwing. And in the meantime it will still have a decent airwing backed up by allies.

[Timmymagic]

The worst decision made was when they decided halfway through the build to go down the cats n traps route, until the discovered that they couldn't do it in a cost effective manner due to an earlier poor decision. So yes lots of poor decisions have been made.

Not even close. That 'decision' by the execrable Liam Fox cost c£150m. The decision by the Treasury to delay the build in 2008/9 to save £100m in year ended up costing between £1bn and £1.5bn. The 2 QE could have been delivered for c£5bn for the pair....which is just astonishing. Even at the inflated cost they're incredible value...

[RetroSicotte]

The worst decision made was when they decided halfway through the build to go down the cats n traps route, until the discovered that they couldn't do it in a cost effective manner due to an earlier poor decision. So yes lots of poor decisions have been made.

Not even close. That 'decision' by the execrable Liam Fox cost c£150m. The decision by the Treasury to delay the build in 2008/9 to save £100m in year ended up costing between £1bn and £1.5bn. The 2 QE could have been delivered for c£5bn for the pair....which is just astonishing. Even at the inflated cost they're incredible value...

Essentially put as "that decision cost the fleet a frigate".

[Timmymagic]

getting rid of the sea harriers in the early 2000's was IMO, we hopefully would of kept a CVL running then if we had QE as originally planned in 2014 ? (if I remember correctly?) no fixed wing gap, then maybe had sea harriers flying of QE carrier...but once again it is all to do with short term budget decisions from the bean counters !!!

But given that we managed without them in the intervening period, and the increasingly marginal capability offered by the Harrier/Sea Harrier what would we have gained? We've saved way more money with scrapping the CVS and Sea Harrier/Harrier than its cost us in re-building the capability. The running costs of CVS for the remaining years would have been huge, as would keeping SHAR going, we're talking billions as well. What has been the cost of re-building the capability? Most of the work undertaken would have had to be done with a new ship class and aircraft anyway.
Gaps are never good except when you get away with them...which we seem to have.

[Timmymagic]

Essentially put as "that decision cost the fleet a frigate".

Realistically it cost way more than that. How many of the T22 B3's could we have kept going with that money. How much personnel could we have retained?