SEA HARRIERS, is it really all over? [Archive]

Talk Wrench

29th Mar 2006, 17:50

The end of the SHAR. Unfortuanately it is.

Despite the p!$$ taking that us RAF Harrier lads took out of the Sea Harrier,
I personally feel that we are losing yet another fantastic aircraft from our inventory.

Southside. If you are the greatest Naval whatever it is you think you are, you obviously don't know your aircraft history well at all.

TW

modtinbasher

29th Mar 2006, 18:31

Widger, thanks for the radar correction. The loch NESS monster I was referring to was AVM of the same handle, has he retired?

modtinbasher

29th Mar 2006, 18:36

And, whatever happened to Whizzer of wilson fame, he of the 'I'll try to get it on the piano keys at Yeovilton if it takes me 3 attempts'?

southside

29th Mar 2006, 19:09

Southside. If you are the greatest Naval whatever it is you think you are, you obviously don't know your aircraft history well at all.and in English...that means...?

You have to remember fella that I was flying before the SHAR joined up and I was there on the Mighty I when the 1st of Class Flying trials were conducted.... the SHAR in 1980 was a formidable beast...very good at intercepting and shooting down Bears and Badgers....

threepointonefour

29th Mar 2006, 19:16

:ok: Harrier - the UK's first and only self parking gate guardian. :ok:

Mike Oxbigg

29th Mar 2006, 19:19

I wasn't aware the SHAR shot down any Bears or Badgers! Quite a few Skyhawks and Pucaras though! :ok:

Navaleye

29th Mar 2006, 22:02

...and Mirage IIIs and Vs.

UnderPowered

29th Mar 2006, 22:25

Damn shame about the SHAR. Good bunch of boys. Good jet. I don't care where Southside was, or when. He's wrong. And he knows less than me about it. And he probably has fewer mates. And less professional respect. And I am right. It was a good jet. Show some respect, Southside.

clicker

29th Mar 2006, 23:39

... the SHAR in 1980 was a formidable beast...very good at intercepting and shooting down Bears and Badgers....

Oh, didnt know we had shot down a Bear or Badger. Or are you dreaming again?

Gainesy

30th Mar 2006, 06:37

Clip on TV last night of bare-decked Illustrious[?] putting to sea yesterday, heading to Gulf. Captain waffling about "Our fixed-wing and rotary assets...".:confused:

Bloody daft decision, as is binning the Jags.

PS Has Webfoot slashed his wrists yet?:)

whowhenwhy

30th Mar 2006, 06:51

And there was me thinking that WASALOADIE meant 5 of our 232 wonderjets:E

teeteringhead

30th Mar 2006, 07:13

Thoughts and mathematics......

"SHAR did a great job in the Falklands (1982)"

"SHAR shouldn't be scrapped (2006)"

2006 - 1982 = 24 years

1940 + 24 years = 1964

Don't recall much talk of Spitfires, Hurricanes, Big Wings etc etc in 1964.

Of course I know that SHAR 2006 is not the same beast as SHAR 1982 .... but life and defence all move on...... apart from shortage of cash, UK Defence has for ages suffered from "fighting the last war" syndrome ...

... and saying "We couldn't do the Falklands in 2006" is about as helpful as saying "We couldn't have done the B of B in 1964", notwithstanding the truth of both statements.

SHAR was a very good jet - it's gone - it ain't coming back - get over it and look to the future.

[Health warning for the ironically challenged: much of the above is tongue-in-cheek ;) ]

Navaleye

30th Mar 2006, 07:37

teeteringhead

But in 1964, the Spit and the Hurricane had been replaced by other types. Such as the Javelin, the Venom and Meteor. Hence the overall capability was maintained. In the case of the Shar, well you can see where I'm leading to...

The last time we operated a carrier in wartime without any fighters embarked was in 1942. HMS Hermes and it was sunk by Japanese air power.

Climebear

30th Mar 2006, 08:12

Navaleye

The last time we operated a carrier in wartime without any fighters embarked was in 1942. HMS Hermes and it was sunk by Japanese air power.

So that would mean that any other (UK or allied) carries sunk by enemy air power had fighters embarked - why didn't they work?

pulse1

30th Mar 2006, 08:30

Is it just me or did 801 go out with a bit of a wimper? I saw them return from the Portsmouth flypast to a very sedate run and break. I did enjoy the almost unison shut down for that last time. Never to hear again that unique Pegasus wind down again:{ . I didn't see them leave the next day but I'm told that their arrival at Shawbury didn't live up to expectations.

Perhaps I'm living back in the past when these things seemed a bit more exciting.

Navaleye

30th Mar 2006, 08:59

Climebear,

Very simple,

Fighters do not guarantee your survival, but your chances of keeping your feet dry are much better with them than without. Every other navy in the world accepts that doctrine. Except the MoD.

BillHicksRules

30th Mar 2006, 09:22

Naval,

As a matter of interest what fighters did the Argies have on their flattop in 1982?

Cheers

BHR

Navaleye

30th Mar 2006, 09:45

25th May operated 9 X A4Q Skyhawks. These could operate in an air defence role with 2 X 20mm and 2 X AIM9s. In a bomber role, they typically carried 4 X Mk82 Snakeyes plus cannon. The Navy pilots trained in both roles, unlike their airforce counterparts. It was their intention to replace the Skyhawks with Super Etendards which are far more effective in both roles, however, it was found that the old carrier was unable to operate them with any safety margin.

Strictly Jungly

30th Mar 2006, 10:53

And, whatever happened to Whizzer of wilson fame, he of the 'I'll try to get it on the piano keys at Yeovilton if it takes me 3 attempts'?

Last saw him "in the flesh" in Lusty in 2000 when we had 3 Sqn embarked, I believe he is now in the civvy circuit.

Magic Mushroom

30th Mar 2006, 11:45

Some interesting posts from Navaleye...
The last time we operated a carrier in wartime without any fighters embarked was in 1942. HMS Hermes and it was sunk by Japanese air power.
Err...that'll be apart from Op TELIC in 2003!!! Likewise the Yanks have used CVNs without AD during both Haiti and Afghanistan.
Fighters do not guarantee your survival, but your chances of keeping your feet dry are much better with them than without. Every other navy in the world accepts that doctrine.
Err...apart from the Dutch, Australian, Canadian, German and the many others who have no carrier capability at all. Likewise, the Brazilian flat top, Sao Paulo (formerly the Foch iirc, I believe that Minas Geriais (sp?) is now decommissioned) has no AD. Likewise the French operated Clem/Foch without AD for a while after the retirement of the F-8. Likewise the Thai carrier (Chakri something?).
25th May operated 9 X A4Q Skyhawks. These could operate in an air defence role with 2 X 20mm and 2 X AIM9s. In a bomber role, they typically carried 4 X Mk82 Snakeyes plus cannon. The Navy pilots trained in both roles, unlike their airforce counterparts.
So, if these A-4s were suitable as a basic AD asset for the Argies, are you suggesting then that GR9 with AIM-9 and ASaC support (and I strongly suspect that the GR9 fleet will be upgraded with ASRAAM and JTIDS partly through the costsavings of the FA2) are sufficient? RAF GR9 guys do a fair bit of ACT and I assume that JFH will ensure that their FAA colleagues will do likewise.
Navaleye, I concede that many of the above nations have a different world profile than HMF. However, I contend that the realities of far higher funding priorities, and the capabilities of GR9 and ASaC is a realistic compromise.
Regards,
MM

Tourist

30th Mar 2006, 12:01

Very much out with a whimper.
As ordered by the commodore.
Personally I would have like to see a 5ship 500kt inverted pass, but all entertainment was banned.

Navaleye

30th Mar 2006, 15:09

MM,

In Telic our CVS were acting as LPH.

25th May's A4Qs were controlled by her Tracker aircraft. A capability which we lacked 25 years ago.

Clemenceau and Foch both operated SuE's after the F8 was retired in both the air to air and air to ground roles.

Minas Gerais latterly operated ex USM A4s in a dual role configuration, those aircraft now operate from Sao Paulo

I don't think the Chakri Neurabet has ever left port so I won't be draw on that one.

southside

30th Mar 2006, 15:15

Very much out with a whimper.
As ordered by the commodore.
Personally I would have like to see a 5ship 500kt inverted pass, but all entertainment was banned.

why was it banned? why did the CDRE veto the bang and opt for the whimoer?

NURSE

30th Mar 2006, 15:23

Modtinbasher,The Blue Fox was the radar in the FRS1. FA2 had the much much better Blue Vixen. No it was not money wasted as the technology has found it's way into a jet currently flying near Lincolshire!

Just a pity it didn't find its way into Harrier II+(UK) FGR9/9A

So ends a great aircraft and a piece of avation history.(in UK service)

sharmine

30th Mar 2006, 16:56

Interesting banter. During the many years I spent in HMS Grey Funnels I sort of found it comforting to knew there was a few SHARs up top. Quick to launch in virtually any weather and (arguably) piloted by some of the best fighter pilots in the world bar none. Also we had some of the best fighter controllers in the world to assist them, either in the ops room or through the observers in the "Bags" (AEW S/kings to the uninitiated). Having removed the ships own Medium range defence system the ship needs to rely on air defence frigates and with our ever depleting stocks of ships (can you believe they are selling type 23s already) its a wonder that there will be enough to go around especially if any conflict involves the efforts of all our big ships at once. I only hope that nothing kicks off until we have sufficient Type 45s or the JSF comes on line. Because we now have a Mud Mover embarked will there be a risk of loosing the previously mentioned skills of the fighter controllers (air & ship borne) so that when JSF finally arrives we don't have the skills to direct them.

With the SHAR gone I am just glad I don't have to serve at sea anymore. The early messages who quoted the list of planes shot down by the mighty SHAR during the 1982 debackle failed to note the biggest - Sharky's C130.

Gone but not forgotten. Nil illigitimum carborundum

bj:{

tucumseh

30th Mar 2006, 17:32

Modtinbasher

Blue Fox was the dogs bolix in terms of up to date, state of the art, radar design. Like other RN radars, development had to be stopped when the Falklands war broke out, so what entered service did not quite meet the spec. If memory serves, B Models (pre-production models) were fitted to the first squadron. They were so good, and reliability so far in excess of requirement, that it took over 10 years for them to find their way back to the factory for mid life update. That is unheard of.

That update and a previous modification programme (sorry, both secret) were in effect technology demonstrators for Blue Vixen, ECR90/Euroradar for Typhoon and Merlin's Blue Kestrel.

True story. RAF were looking for a replacement for the Bucc/radar, to be fitted to another FJ. Handed over best spec they could think of. "How much and how long to deliver a radar to this spec?" Chief Designer - Ask RN if you can have Blue Fox, they're ditching it". RAF - "OK". (Pause). "But if Blue Fox meets the best spec we can think of, and RN are ditching it, what the **** are RN getting?". CD - "Blue Vixen". (To a higher spec than RN requested).

Magic Mushroom

30th Mar 2006, 19:49

Navaleye,
I don't quite follow your train of thought here old chap.

You discussed operating a carrier in wartime, ie the type of ship, not its role. Ergo, CVS was employed in TELIC as an LPH without fighters!

Likewise, what point are you trying to make ref the Argie capability in 82. We're talking about now, today. If Sue (albeit with Agave/Anemone radar)/Magic and Minas Gerais' A-4 (I don't think they're ex USMC A-4M incidentally. I believe that they're ex Kuwaiti A-4KU. You may be thinking of the Argentine AF A-4AR Fightinghawks are the upgraded ex USMC jets) with AIM-9L(?) are adequate AD assets, why do are you so quick to dismiss the GR9/AIM-9L, especially with ASaC support? Whether the Argies had S-2 control 24 years ago is irrelevant to todays argument.

Regards,
MM

buoy15

30th Mar 2006, 23:16

Southside
Simple
He personally resisted his lads' temptations to do something spectacular on their 'final fling', which may have jeapoardised his next promotion
Supervision, Authorisation, and don't crash during my tour spring to mind!

clicker

31st Mar 2006, 01:59

why was it banned? why did the CDRE veto the bang and opt for the whimoer?

Wanted to save the money for his leaving do?

BombayDuck

31st Mar 2006, 03:38

Well, if you folks don't want your Sea Harriers, can we have them please?

(Oh, and pass me the AMRAAMs too, old chap....)

Navaleye

31st Mar 2006, 06:20

BombayDuck,

Surely everyone knows that they can't fly when the sun is shining in your part of the world - why would you want them?

Magic Mushroom

31st Mar 2006, 07:38

Bombay,
I understand that if you have them they'll be arriving with some of our toys stripped out and that you'll be using them as a source of spares for your own (soon to be upgraded) FRS51s.

Sorry, you won't be getting AMRAAM so you'll have to make do with the Israeli Derby. However, if you loan us one of your AFs SU-37MKIs, maybe we can do a deal...:ok:
Regards,
MM

mystic_meg

31st Mar 2006, 08:07

I say again.........

mlc

31st Mar 2006, 08:08

Wow, three in a row :eek: Repeat please.......

Magic Mushroom

31st Mar 2006, 08:31

Doh!...I thought I'd overcome my st...st...stammer!!!!
Finger trouble messages deleted!
Regards,
MM:O

NURSE

31st Mar 2006, 08:31

Just a pity the toys being removed can't be added to the GR9 upgrade

Just a pity the toys being removed can't be added to the GR9 upgrade

Just a pity the toys being removed can't be added to the GR9 Upgrade

First forum I've posted on with an echo feature ;)

still at least this way saves posts space

SierraQubec

8th Apr 2006, 21:55

why was it banned? why did the CDRE veto the bang and opt for the whimoer?

They had all thier fun the 2 days b4. CDRE said it was better of them to leave and not drag it out.

And yes I will be at his leaving party:)

BombayDuck

10th Apr 2006, 04:40

Bombay,
I understand that if you have them they'll be arriving with some of our toys stripped out and that you'll be using them as a source of spares for your own (soon to be upgraded) FRS51s.
Sorry, you won't be getting AMRAAM so you'll have to make do with the Israeli Derby. However, if you loan us one of your AFs SU-37MKIs, maybe we can do a deal...:ok:
Regards,
MM

Most likely you're right, it was wishful thinking on my part :)

But then again I don't know much about the Derby, I hope it is a half-decent missile...

Navaleye

10th Apr 2006, 14:11

BombayDuck,

the Derby is derived from the Python 4 missile and is very capable, but not in the same league as the AMRAAM. Its biggest drawback is range, often quoted as about 20km. This puts it in the same class as ASRAAM, but with the advantage of an active seeker of course.

Alistair Kayim

10th Apr 2006, 20:05

Nurse,

I think you'll find that the GR9 will be a capable enough platform with it's hugely flexible payload (PGB, Maverick, CRV7, TIALD, JRP, etc) not to mention potential future upgrades, ASRAAM/JTIDS - the only question now is can the Navy man JFH, and can those pilots keep up with the pace on the Front-Line, as opposed to floating around the world on a cocktail ship ;)

seand

10th Apr 2006, 20:42

For those interested ZA195 is now at Farnborough (FAST) Museum, turned up 4 weeks ago, hard to believe that 20 years ago I saw it being cut in half for the plug to be fitted and everyone getting excited around the Kingston site that the FA2 was take shape and then 4 weeks ago the aircraft is being offload from a lowloader and dumped on blocks of wood while the guy's refit the wing, outriggers tailplane etc.

Question: will the Fleet air arm be adding a SHAR to the histoic flight, it'll be good to see it at shows in place of the plastic beast.

BombayDuck

11th Apr 2006, 08:10

Twenty kms?! That is depressing. Does that even classify it as a BVR missile?

Also, What would the endurance of a SHAR carrying 2xDerby and 2xMagics be?

cornwallis

15th Apr 2006, 16:55

Those of you who are missing the shar may want to take a look at this:http://thunder-works.com/

dante_jt

22nd Apr 2006, 06:27

Those of you who are missing the shar may want to take a look at this:http://thunder-works.com/

Hello to all. 1st post here. I'm one of the developers of the simulation mentioned above. I'm looking for more documentation on the Shar(FRS.1 only), specially the Flight Reference Cards, complementary to the Aircrew Manual-Flight Systems.

The aircraft's navigation & armament systems already got good coverage by the simulation as I've collected the required docs; I'm just interessed in flight charts and flight performance data - currently I'm using in the simulation some tuned-down (or up) Harrier II flight data because (the AV8B/GR5-7) was the only Harrier flight manual I was able to get hold. But we all know that the FRS.1 and 1st generation Harriers handles very different from second generation Harriers, so it's just a "placeholder" guesswork until I got better, Shar related flight data (which I hope will become more available since the RN just retired it).