No Aircraft Carrier with Aircraft for 9 years

1984ReturnsForReal_2

chris_m wrote: »

I don't think the Nimrods are looking out for Bears, or, indeed, any aircraft. Their role is/was maritime patrol - looking out for ships & subs, things which can "hide" under land-based radar.
The Bears usually get spotted by land-based radar and are given a Tornado escort until they go home.

I don't think its really what he was saying.

He is saying there are breaches of airspace so its hardly a time to get rid of early warning systems.

IE sub attacks, missile launches & naval maneuvers

dori2o

It really is a shame that the Tornado and Harrier are being scrapped. Having worked on both aircraft in my former occupation there is a part of me that is gutted, although the serviceable aircraft we do have will likely be sold to the Saudis.

Both aircraft, even now are advanced ahead of their time. Not until the Eurofighter, an aircraft 30 years in the making, could either of these aircraft even have been thought about being pulled from service.

The Harrier, especially will be a sore loss.

However, there will likely be some situation in the future where we will wish we still had the ability to call on these aircraft, just as we had to call on the Vulcan on 1982.

Rochdale_Pioneers

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I don't think its really what he was saying.

He is saying there are breaches of airspace so its hardly a time to get rid of early warning systems.

IE sub attacks, missile launches & naval maneuvers

They're a critical part of our surveillance infrastructure. If we detect inbound russians on Radar, we dispatch faster aircraft than a Nimrod! But without them we stretch our remaining resources still further - there is a reason they're based in the far north of Scotland. The Greenland - Iceland - UK gap is where the Russians send their surface and submarine navies as well as various aircraft which we don't want anywhere near the UK or having easy access to the Atlantic. Why remove part of the infrastructure at a time when the Russians are starting to play up again?

Look, until this afternoon they were considered a high tech critical piece of kit. Suddenly we don't need them. Has the change happened because (a) there is no risk overnight and for evermore or (b) because we are desperately trying to cut the economy into a depression?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

dori2o wrote: »

It really is a shame that the Tornado and Harrier are being scrapped. Having worked on both aircraft in my former occupation there is a part of me that is gutted, although the serviceable aircraft we do have will likely be sold to the Saudis.

Both aircraft, even now are advanced ahead of their time. Not until the Eurofighter, an aircraft 30 years in the making, could either of these aircraft even have been thought about being pulled from service.

The Harrier, especially will be a sore loss.

However, there will likely be some situation in the future where we will wish we still had the ability to call on these aircraft, just as we had to call on the Vulcan on 1982.

The Harrier is a top piece of kit.

If I was flying one I would be asking to take it home.


If they said no I think I might take it away.


After all, I would be redundant....

Andy_L

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

We're binning both them and Ark Royal purely to cut costs. The fact that these are both very flexible and well used assets doesn't seem to matter. They get replaced in the short term with nothing. And in the medium term with what?

Short term: Land based Tornado/Typhoon, US carrier based aircraft, Sub launched tommahawk

Medium term: ermmm...new carriers with some version of F35 or F/A-18E/F...or quite possibly just sticking with the above

Wookster

Who's idea was it to build an aircraft carrier without a catapult?

I can't hear you?

Say it again...


Labour

Who entered into a contract with BAE such that cancelling one carrier would be more expensive than building both?

I can't hear you?

Say it again...


Labour


Apparently we won't be able to go into a war such as Afghanistan or Iraq, which in my view is no bad thing.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Wookster wrote: »

Who entered into a contract with BAE such that cancelling one carrier would be more expensive than building both?

I can't hear you?

Say it again...


Labour


Apparently we won't be able to go into a war such as Afghanistan or Iraq, which in my view is no bad thing.

They wanted to ensure the carriers were built in the UK.

They wanted to ensure the money was spent in the UK.

They wanted to ensure the money was taxed in the UK.


Quiet clever if you ask me & no bad thing.

Think of all the people that don't have to sign on & all that tax & money back into the economy.

Cheap as ships..........

Rochdale_Pioneers

Wookster wrote: »

Who's idea was it to build an aircraft carrier without a catapult?

The Admirals? Who planned on replacing the existing Invinicble Class carrier plus Harrier with Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier plus F-35B?

Yes, what utter idiots designing a platform for an aircraft they were planning on buying.

Have you ever heard of a thing called the Harrier? Successful thing - British designed and built fighter aircraft that we were able to flog to other nations due to its rather unique design. For some reason the Navy wanted to replace both the carrier and the plane with updated versions. Perhaps they only planned to do so because Bob Ainsworth told them to?

Sir_Humphrey

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

If they said no I think I might take it away.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Well, I doubt they could stop you really could they?