Plus there's the four Bay class landing ships that can each carry a further, slightly smaller unit, but I think that they can carry more vehicles.

Air control would be the two through-deck cruisers with whatever Harriers they could scrape together.

Sea control would be the SSN.

State of readiness would be harder to gauge - HMS Ocean is in refit at the moment and the Harrier force needed to cover the fleet is in heavy use in existing theatres

The Harriers currently deployed are ground attack aircraft though.  Without air defence (FA2) aircraft, how would we even get the troops there?  Could they be converted back to a2a?  How many do we have anyway?

 

Escort ships are few and far between as well.  Air defence is a real worry.

 

SSN's could definitely handle any surface / sub surface though.

I don't know if it's just while Ocean is in refit, however I believe HMS Ark Royal is currently tasked in the role of LPH (no harriers).

So basically we could drop off two brigades tops?

The Harriers can not be turned back to the air-air role.  I read on another forum (could be rubbish) that BAE were asked to run a cost analyses and decided it would cost in excess of a billion pounds.  The American Harrier II+ aircraft with their radars also have issues, such as the removal of the bomb aimer and limited vision of the IR sensor.

The whole joint force harrier thing to me is now pointless that the FA2 has been removed from service.  At first it provided the FAA with mixed air wings of air defence aircraft and strike aircraft - however now with the unit only operating the strike aircraft - this advantage is gone.  What is more, the airframes are being tasked on what I would consider RAF missions such as in Afghanistan, leaving us unable to equip our carrier with fast jets.  Some may argue the fast jets are wasted floating around the oceans on a carrier - however the operational carrier offers significant deterrence and rapid reaction capabilities.

The Harrier GR.7/9's can be used in the air-air role of course.  They can be directed to the enemy threat the old fashioned way, through ground control, and also through the Sea King air-search radar.  Once in visual range they employ sidewinder  - just as they did so successfully during the Falklands conflict of 1982.  The air-air radars of the FA1 was hardly spectacular.  Of course, if the enemy has super-sonic fast-jets with large air-air radars and beyond visual range air-air missiles such as the old Su 27 Flanker equipped with AA-10 Alamo (hardly a new pairing being around since I believe the early 80's) - the Harrier is in trouble.

The whole joint force harrier thing to me is now pointless that the FA2 has been removed from service.  At first it provided the FAA with mixed air wings of air defence aircraft and strike aircraft - however now with the unit only operating the strike aircraft - this advantage is gone.  What is more, the airframes are being tasked on what I would consider RAF missions such as in Afghanistan, leaving us unable to equip our carrier with fast jets.  Some may argue the fast jets are wasted floating around the oceans on a carrier - however the operational carrier offers significant deterrence and rapid reaction capabilities.

Another big issue with JFH is the deterioration of the Fleet Air Arm since it has been set up. I think it's one of the big mistakes of recent years - FAA pilots simply didn't want to join JFH and left even after they were offered £50k retention bonuses. The name Naval Strike Wing hides the fact that 801 Sqn does not exist, and I'd be suprised if we could muster more than 8 - 10 fully trained FAA pilots.

 

I'm sure we could do it, but it sounds a bit "sticky tape and string" built even for us Brits! There seems to be no desire to replace our naval A2A capability in the short / medium term (JSF is currently scheduled to arrive in 2018), so let's hope that we don't need a fleet action against another country in the interim.

 

Seaking ASAC7 is a pretty good AEW&C platform btw but its range is limited to approx 150 miles radius. In a fantasy world I'd prefer the forthcoming Hawkeye 2000 with its 300 mile plus range. 

Herald, I believe the Harrier GR.7/9 already has a data-link as part of its standard equipment, and can even provide ground forces with images of what the aircraft is seeing.  However I expect fitting them with AMRAAM capability would be hugely costly on its own - and of debatable merit when the platform has to rely on a separate asset to guide its weapons.  I know it has been successful for ground attack aircraft to designate targets for laser guided bombs from separate aircraft - however I have my doubts it would be affective in the air-air dynamic.

The data links for telemetered A2A exists between some current AWACS and some current aircraft for hand-off-to engagement.  Its not unusual in air tactics for one aircraft to light off and the others in a flight to use its returns to guide their weapons while they remain unlit. Its not even unusual to use such a telemetry approach in a hammer and anvil attack where the lit off aircraft plays anvil.  The rocket doesn't care what points it as long as the radar predict lead generated thta its tiny brain receives drops it in close enough so that it can either guide in using its own seeker or use the reflected radar signal for which it looks to guide in. Either way, the rocket does not need the Harrier that carried it to ben the radar emitter. The Harrier just has to carry it to the fight.

How else do you think the A2A UCAS slave to manned AWACs master works? In that air combat scheme telemetry is everything

Best we can really aim to do now is get the new carriers in service as soon as possible - and with aircraft ready to operate from them the day they are commissioned.  We won't get the F35 in time, so to be honest I would sooner we fitted the carriers for conventional aircraft and bought Rafale or Super Hornets - it doesn't really matter which, but I expect the Rafale would be more politically suitable what with the French buying a 3rd of our carriers.

CTOL it matters.  Super Hornets are cheaper with many more weapon options  and BETTER than Squalls.

What is an important aspect which seems to be overlooked however, is the ability for the FAA to break away from this joint venture from the RAF and drastically expand.  The FAA now only has 800 squadron I believe in the fast jet role, and while each of the two new carriers will operate I assume at least 24 fast jets each at a minimum - when both are operational that means at least four FAA fast jet squadrons.  I forget at which date we are due to have HMS Queen Elizabeth enter service, however the FAA squadrons should be operational, having finished work-up training with their new aircraft, before this date.

So when does the RNFAA rotate through USNAS Oceana, Virginia for training?

Two questions. Who is opposing this landing and where? U.K. acting alone would have a very tough time against almost any opponent outside of land based fighter range of Europe if the opponent is a conventional enemy with relatively modern weapons. This isn't really UK specific either. Opposed landings are very dangerous operations for just about anybody and the potential for catastrophic losses would probably even make the USA look for an alternative. Oh, and if the landing is against a nuclear power just forget about it.

 

 

-DA

Using a surface-based radar to designate targets seems a little daft, as they are limited by the horizon. Aircraft can see over the horizon (or be over the horizon) and see down to low-level. Apart from anything else, if you can see a target with Sampson, you ought to be able to engage with ASTER.

The RsOE are important. If visual identification is necessary (which it sometimes is) then Harriers with ASRAAM and HMS ought to do quite well if there is an AWACS to vector them in. If BVR combat is permitted, then target cuing with AWACS and AMRAAM (I think that Skyflash is out of service) would be more sensible than using a Type 45 destroyer

Mr. Picky would like to point out that it's just the Fleet Air Arm, and adding RN to the front is superfluous, in much the same way that defining whose Royal Navy is superfluous.

Sea King ASAC are reckoned (by Beedall) to have a service ceiling of 10,000 ft plus (he cites 4500m) and a duration in the region of 3 hours.

Definitely the RN needs an AEW.