Page 1 of 1
AIR POWER 2
Posted: 11 Jul 2014, 04:41
by Stanley
AIR POWER (2)
Further to my mention of the German 'Giant' bombers attacking London, I received information from a friend who knows about these things. He tells me that the Kew Bridge Pumping Station was bombed by a Giant bomber in 1918. It took out the Gatehouse and Workshop and some pipework and killed two employees. He added; “We know the machine, the route, the crew and the victims”. Quite amazing what you can discover if you raise a subject like this.
Just before the end of the war, on All Fool's Day 1918, the RAF was created. In January 1919 Winston Churchill was appointed Secretary of State for War and Air but with the understanding that the RAF could not retain its autonomous role. In February Churchill appointed Hugh Trenchard as Chief of the Air Staff and made it quite clear that they were going to fight for an independent RAF.
The old inter-service rivalries surfaced in the round of defence cuts after the Armistice but Churchill saw a way of turning the cuts to his advantage. He and Trenchard proved that it was cheaper to police the colonies by using air power than supporting large numbers of troops on the ground. Key to the success of this policy was the 'moral effect' of machine gunning and bombing from the air of insurgent forces and their villages. In early May 1919 the theory was put into practice in what we call 'The Third Afghan War', in Afghanistan 'The War of Independence'. A young RAF officer called Arthur Harris was involved in the campaign on the North West Frontier and by 1921 was serving in a similar role in Mesopotamia, present day Iraq. There he cut a hole in the floor of the Vernon aeroplane, fitted bomb racks and turned it into what he described as the best bombing plane in the world. This man of course eventually became 'Bomber Harris' in WW2 and it is said that he learned his trade in these colonial policing raids.
It's worth remembering that the 'policing' involved bombing tribal villages and machine-gunning the inhabitants as they ran away in order to force them to pay taxes. The flyers wanted to use gas bombs but this was vetoed by Churchill. (But the army used gas shells in Mesopotamia and it's worth remembering that when the modern 'crusade' against Saddam Hussein was launched there were still people alive in Iraq who could remember this.) This policy of terror from the air was said to be 'extremely effective'.
Similar tactics were used in Egypt, India and other parts of the Empire and in the end this was what saved the RAF as an independent force. In the run up to WW2 this was undoubtedly an advantage but one can't help regretting the roles it had to play in order to get there. The RAF saved us from invasion in 1940 but to this day there is still controversy about Bomber Harris and area bombing.
The Vickers Vernon bomber.
Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 11 Jul 2014, 11:20
by Tizer
Stanley wrote:This policy of terror from the air was said to be 'extremely effective'.
And was carefully noted by the military in other nations...less than 20 years later the Nazi Stukas were dive bombing Guernica in the Spanish Civil War and were, once again, judged to be 'extremely effective'.
Diverging a bit...I learnt several new things from Lord West's recent Radio 4 series about the history of the Royal Navy, `Britain at Sea'. One was that the Japanese air force got its idea for bombing Pearl Harbour from the British Fleet Air Arm's successful attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto. Until then they had thought that dropping torpedoes wouldn't be effective in the constricted area of a harbour.
Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 12 Jul 2014, 04:42
by Stanley
Tiz, Omissi, page 77. He says that in 1928 a series of gunnery trials were held at Portsmouth and Malta in which 9.2" guns firing at the target ship Centurion failed to get a single hit with 72 rounds. In trials using the same ship in 1929 RAF aircraft scored 56 hits with 308 bombs from 5,000ft. The navy had tried again in 1928 and got 10 hits with 193 rounds using a triple 9.2" battery. These results were published in Trenchard's November 1929 paper 'The Fuller use of Air Power in Imperial Defence'. I suspect that this might not have escaped other air commander's notice.
Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 12 Jul 2014, 10:34
by Tizer
Around 1921 General `Billy' Mitchell was engaged in similar navy v. air force trials in the USA and the story makes good reading, with the US Navy getting up to cunning wheezes to try and prove wrong Mitchell's claim that air power was much greater than sea power. Wikipedia has much of the story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell
I notice at one stage he used Handley Page 0/400 bombers.
Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 13 Jul 2014, 04:00
by Stanley
And of course history proved them both right. It was the end of the battleship. The only big naval ships that survive are the aircraft carriers....
Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 13 Jul 2014, 14:41
by Tizer
On the Britain at Sea radio programme Lord West said the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier just launched had a new type of engine, so I looked it up and found the following. I don't know if it really is new because I know nowt about ships' engines!
"The MoD has decided not to use nuclear propulsion because of its high cost, and has chosen a podded propulsion system based on Rolls-Royce's integrated electric propulsion (IEP) system. The contract for the propulsion system was placed in October 2008. The propulsion system will consist of two Rolls-Royce Marine 36MW MT30 gas turbine alternators, providing over 70MW and four diesel engines providing approximately 40MW, with the total installed power approaching 110MW. The gas turbines and diesels are the largest supplied to the Royal Navy, their combined power feeds the low-voltage system and supplies two tandem electric propulsion motors that drive a conventional twin shaft arrangement, fitted with fixed-pitch propellers."
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/
Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 13 Jul 2014, 19:27
by plaques
Tizer wrote:The MoD has decided not to use nuclear propulsion because of its high cost,
A bit of good advanced thinking. In a few years time when we can't afford to service it we should have a much larger market to offer it to. I all probability it will go for a few thousand barrels of oil to Iran. Meanwhile, we will declare that its been good value for money and kept the world a safer place.
Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 14 Jul 2014, 03:50
by Stanley
Nice thinking P. That may be the real reason why they changed their minds and gave it a ski ramp, that way you can use 'normal' war planes....
HMS White Elephant.....
Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 17 Nov 2021, 05:17
by Stanley
Bumped and image restored.
Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 23 Apr 2023, 04:14
by Stanley
I'd forgotten writing this and it has reminded me of the failure of the Prince of Wales said to be a bum propeller shaft which doesn't square with the reports about 'podded' propulsion systems.
We will hear more of this.
Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 08 Nov 2024, 04:39
by Stanley
Bumped again. The carriers are still white elephants.....
Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 08 Nov 2024, 11:24
by PanBiker
I watched a documentary last night about the Queen Elizabeth carrier during it's deployment in the China Sea. It was during Covid and showed the crew about their businesses both at work and play. China lays exclusive claim to large portion of the navigable bits of the China Sea which are actually international waters. Consequently when our carrier was making it's way through the bits that China lays claim to it was shadowed by 6 or 7 Chinese warships of various sizes. This does not phase our lads and lassies crew so they render themselves electronically invisible during the night by switching off the radar and other electronic scanning systems on the ship. This effectively makes them disappear from other radar systems. They navigate their way through the night by careful watch and communicate with their own support vessels by Morse Code via Aldis lamps, undetectable unless you are directly in front of the beam.
It also showed their refuelling support vessel supplying fuel to two ships simultaneously. Refueller in the centre with ships either side, they never slow down and stay in formation 35 yards apart which is the farthest the refuelling booms can reach. They have F35B mark II Lightning fighters and Apache and Chinook Helicopters. It can carry up to 72 aircraft.
Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 08 Nov 2024, 13:25
by Tripps
PanBiker wrote: ↑08 Nov 2024, 11:24
so they render themselves electronically invisible during the night by switching off the radar and other electronic scanning systems on the ship. This effectively makes them disappear from other radar systems. They navigate their way through the night by careful watch and communicate with their own support vessels by Morse Code via Aldis lamps, undetectable unless you are directly in front of the beam.
Yeah right. . . .

Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 08 Nov 2024, 16:14
by PanBiker
Which bit David the relative invisibility or the Morse via Aldis?
All I can say is that come the morning when they switched the radar back on the Chinese shadow vessels were all over the place searching for them. They had already slipped out of the contentious bit. Of course it could all be AI I suppose.
The A35's launch using the ramp but land using VTOL on return. They had a contingency from the Korean Republic Navy on board as they were demonstrating the various capabilities of the vessel and avionics which they don't currently have but are keen to purchase. Good to see a diverse crew both male, female and those that identify as LGBTQ. They had a ship wide celebration of Pride day complete with an additional rainbow ensign.
The crew were looking forward to 10 days onshore R&R in Japan but due to a surge in Covid on the Island they were not allowed further than the quayside where they were birthed. The ships surgeon was fairly sure that the crew were clear as they had not had any further cases on board for about a fortnight.
Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 08 Nov 2024, 16:37
by Tizer
I remember watching that documentary series when it first appeared. Interesting to see life onboard - shifting all the refuse about on the carrier was impressive!

In the eastern Med they were tracked by Russian warships and played a similar trick during the night by a sharp change of direction. I remember the refuelling with two auxiliaries simultaneously as you described - I don't know if it was the same one or another refuelling but they did one in a very rough sea!
By comparison with then, we now have to depend on Norway lending us an auxiliary ship whenever a carrier puts to sea.
Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 08 Nov 2024, 17:09
by Tripps
PanBiker wrote: ↑08 Nov 2024, 16:14
Which bit David the relative invisibility or the Morse via Aldis?
Both.
Tizer wrote: ↑08 Nov 2024, 16:37
they were not allowed further than the quayside where they were birthed. T
I think you mean 'berthed'.
PanBiker wrote: ↑08 Nov 2024, 16:14
Good to see a diverse crew both male, female and those that identify as LGBTQ.
What could possibly go wrong. . .
Royal Navy
Re: AIR POWER 2
Posted: 09 Nov 2024, 02:39
by Stanley
My only comment on the above exchange is that a propaganda film is not perhaps the most reliable source of information. You can be sure we are only being told what is 'good for us'.
