16x Paveway IV?
A single T26 could have taken care of that with TLAM and retain VLS space for 8x ASROC and 48x CAMM if one was available.
Ditto for a SSN.
No need for a CSG….yet.
16x Paveway IV?
A quick look at a map shows that Egypt would be the only Country that would willingly give permission unless you put on a very big detour westward.
Looking at a map I would suggest Israel (they have a Mediterranean and Red Sea coast) would give permission to transit I’d even say so might Saudi.Bongodog wrote: ↑15 Jan 2024, 23:48A quick look at a map shows that Egypt would be the only Country that would willingly give permission unless you put on a very big detour westward.
Obviously costs aren't in the Black Buck league, but still very high to drop a few 500lb bombs due to the flight time and fuel usage.
I suppose it depends on what you think is very high.Bongodog wrote: ↑15 Jan 2024, 23:48A quick look at a map shows that Egypt would be the only Country that would willingly give permission unless you put on a very big detour westward.
Obviously costs aren't in the Black Buck league, but still very high to drop a few 500lb bombs due to the flight time and fuel usage.
Saudi have raised concerns over the escalation as have Egypt - we need permission from one of these and if going that way Isreal. It’s a lot of if and buts, and quite likely not allowed to happen a second time.
There’s no ifs and buts about it at all!Repulse wrote: ↑16 Jan 2024, 07:42Saudi have raised concerns over the escalation as have Egypt - we need permission from one of these and if going that way Isreal. It’s a lot of if and buts, and quite likely not allowed to happen a second time.
There’s a reason why we need a range of assets including carriers, but I personally cannot get excited about the carrier not being there if the conflict is limited. I’m more concerned about the lack of TLAM on the T45 as this would have removed the need for a/c flying long distances from Cyprus to drop a couple of bombs.
Please explain your reasoning to be certain, as I can’t see it.SW1 wrote: ↑16 Jan 2024, 07:56There’s no ifs and buts about it at all!Repulse wrote: ↑16 Jan 2024, 07:42Saudi have raised concerns over the escalation as have Egypt - we need permission from one of these and if going that way Isreal. It’s a lot of if and buts, and quite likely not allowed to happen a second time.
There’s a reason why we need a range of assets including carriers, but I personally cannot get excited about the carrier not being there if the conflict is limited. I’m more concerned about the lack of TLAM on the T45 as this would have removed the need for a/c flying long distances from Cyprus to drop a couple of bombs.
It happened would happen again if needed.
16 paveway 4 cost a lot less then TLAM and the turn around of typhoons is a hell lot quicker.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑15 Jan 2024, 23:4416x Paveway IV?
A single T26 could have taken care of that with TLAM and retain VLS space for 8x ASROC and 48x CAMM if one was available.
Ditto for a SSN.
No need for a CSG….yet.
This amounts to a correction in todays Telegraph.Jensy wrote: ↑15 Jan 2024, 19:19 Generous of her to share her ability to spew rambling nonsense with the Defence community.
What none of the Hastings/Hitchens crowd ever seem to question is: why are most of the top ten economies in the world, and some below, operating/building/planning fixed wing aviation at sea?
Why disrupt CSG24 (Knock on effects), F-35 training, e.c.t, pay the support costs of sending the carrier across the world for a short mission, which is perfectly familiar to the typhoons at akrotiri?
Apparently the navy has wanted to send it, yet there isn't the politics to back it. Not surprising since PM has been under fire for not consoling parliament and promised it to be a one time strike. So really, this "exact mission" doesn't exist anymore.shark bait wrote: ↑19 Jan 2024, 13:20 Because the Navy has spend the last 2 decades upselling this exact mission, and has almost dismantled itself to achieve it.
The Royal Navy has spent so much political capitol to get here, it needs to demonstrate a return on investment, otherwise its just an expensive film set.
Good job PWLS is serviceable, They will have to transfer stores etc I guess.SW1 wrote: ↑03 Feb 2024, 21:07 Ooops
https://www.navylookout.com/mechanical- ... -exercise/
The Fleet Commander said: “Routine pre-sailing checks yesterday identified an issue with a coupling on HMS Queen Elizabeth’s starboard propeller shaft. As such, the ship will not sail on Sunday. HMS Prince of Wales will take the place of HMS Queen Elizabeth on NATO duties and will set sail for Exercise Steadfast Defender as soon as possible.“
I can really feel the collective amounts of "Fuck" said in the MoD and RN PR departments tonight , this will not help the nearly continuous spate of articles attacking the Carriers that have been released recently.SW1 wrote: ↑03 Feb 2024, 21:07 Ooops
https://www.navylookout.com/mechanical- ... -exercise/
The Fleet Commander said: “Routine pre-sailing checks yesterday identified an issue with a coupling on HMS Queen Elizabeth’s starboard propeller shaft. As such, the ship will not sail on Sunday. HMS Prince of Wales will take the place of HMS Queen Elizabeth on NATO duties and will set sail for Exercise Steadfast Defender as soon as possible.“
This is different to what happened to PoW. It is a corrosion issue and not shaft misalignment (although it was probably noticed due to higher checks since PoW).Jensy wrote: ↑03 Feb 2024, 23:17 The Gerald Ford Class has not exactly been without its in service hiccups. See also India's first home built carrier.
In truth, for a country that hasn't laid down fleet carriers in the best part of century, we could be doing a lot worse.
We're clearly becoming very accustomed to fixing the prop shaft anyway...
Now, on the other hand:
There were specific, on the record, assurances that PoW's issues wouldn't afflict QE. Either someone lied, was woefully ill-informed or was talking s**t.
Every single negative story about British build quality hurts our export prospects, our balance of payments and as such our economy.
I suspect our carriers are spending far too much time alongside for the good of their mechanical components. Machines that are regularly used tend to last longer.
This highlights the weakness in only having 2 carriers.
This is poor decisions made 20 years and a lot more since ago coming back to haunt us, the time for a 3rd flattop was when we were making the QE but here we are.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑04 Feb 2024, 10:59
Whilst a 3rd CVF may be unobtainable, another F35 capable flattop is essential IMO.
As soon as QE has a major refit the lack of a 3rd flattop will become obvious to all. It’s strategically unsustainable but no one in the MoD appears to have the courage to admit that at the moment.