Illustrious heads to sea - with an airgroup

[Navaleye]

Posted by the RN yesterday. Illustrious departs Monday.

During the deployment, the ship will carry Ground Attack Harriers flown by Royal Navy and RAF pilots from the Naval Strike Wing and No 1 (Fighter) Squadron Royal Air Force, both part of the UK’s Joint Force Harrier. Also on board will be Merlin Anti-Submarine Warfare Helicopters from 814 Naval Air Squadron.

full article (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.11291/changeNav/6568)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Interesting that DILIGENCE is in the Group. The modern solution to lack of overseas Bases? Also interesting that 75% of the air defence screen is not RN.

[Navaleye]

With an F100 and an Arleigh Burke, who needs a T42? The French may as well go home as well.

[Razor61]

DILIGENCE will be supporting HMS Trafalgar.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

See the earlier threads:

Orion 08 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=306906)

RN aircraft carrier to head for the Gulf (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=298703)

With an F100 and an Arleigh Burke, who needs a T42? The French may as well go home as well.

Would our allies be so helpful in a real crisis? Or would we sorely feel not having the Sea Harrier any more (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152)?

[Razor61]

The Sea Harrier in this country is long gone and is not coming back WEBF. They have even dismantled (or were suppose to have done) the Ski-Ramp at Yeovilton last week. Think it's best to forget about the SHar now and look ahead.

We regularly escort US ships in theatre and they will do the same for our Navy in crisis... if you are working in a combined patrol then yes, you could rely on them otherwise there won't be any point of them being there.

Like that already said, with the F100 and Arleigh in the group, the T42 chaps must feel a little out dated.

[LateArmLive]

You might as well say:

With the USN who needs the RN............

[hulahoop7]

I think a Type 42 is currently working with a US CVBG, so it is just the usual allies working together line.

[BillHicksRules]

My my the xenophobia in this thread is just a tad overwhelming.

[Navaleye]

After the Missouri Silkworm incident, The USN would not trust the RN to wave a hanky around. Command was told in no uncertain terms that to allow a Bruiser inside the group was inexcusable. Much spin was put on this, but in truth it was a buggers muddle.

[Lazer-Hound]

I never heard that before Navaleye. Care to elaborate.

I did here that the USN CG47 that was supposed to be on duty had been deliberately misreporting its position following the Princeton hitting a mine, not sure how true that is. Supposedly it was proceeding more slowly up the Gulf than it was supposed to be to avoid the mine threat.

[StbdD]

I did here that the USN CG47 that was supposed to be on duty had been deliberately misreporting its position following the Princeton hitting a mine, not sure how true that is. Supposedly it was proceeding more slowly up the Gulf than it was supposed to be to avoid the mine threat.

What an absolutely amazing statement. Mispellings aside, how exactly did the Ticonderoga, CG47 to those who don't bother to think before they post bull****, manage to deliberately misreport her position in this age of electronic C2?

[Lazer-Hound]

Wasn't the Ticonderoga herself, but another CG47. Priceton was supposed to be on station but hit a mine, the replacement proceeded more slowly than ordered up the Gulf to avoid further mines and hence wasn't in the position it was supposed to be when the Silkworm incident occurred. Just a story I heard.

[buoy15]

At last!
Got the awning for the quarterdeck finished in time for the cocktails tour!
"Number One - cast off - set course for sunnier climes on max rates of allowances and make sure nobody shoots at us"
"Roger Sir, setting course for Westminister, Brussels, and Saudi Arabia"

What a f*cking joke!:O

[GPMG]

NAVAL EYE After the Missouri Silkworm incident, The USN would not trust the RN to wave a hanky around. Command was told in no uncertain terms that to allow a Bruiser inside the group was inexcusable. Much spin was put on this, but in truth it was a buggers muddle.

Just googled that, can you enlighten us as to how the RN messed up? All I can find is how HMS Gloucester saved the Missouri after the US Escort fired on the Missouri's chaff and even managed to strafe the battleship that it was escorting. Did the RN allow the silkworm to get to close in the first place?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Do we really need these expensive, overated, unemployable white elephants to track the blade and shaft fit of Iranian outboard engines

Good to see your total grasp of Exercise ORION 08's objectives. Keep up the banter; it's funny. :ok:

[Sunk at Narvik]

Why is it that any thread discussing the RN attracts posters desperate to write off the navy as irrelevent?

These "Group deployments" are an interesting exercise in naval diplomacy that have been running every two or three years since the withdrawal EoS in the early 70's.

They have a number of functions (in no particular order)

Exercising independent command of a TF away from home waters
Exercising the ships and men in scenarios away from the NATO area (quanitly called "out of area" in the old days) and away from the RN's big brother the USN.
Exercising with friendly foriegn navies in the FPDA and elsewhere
A visible display of the UK's continuing interest and commitment outside the NATO area.. esp now in Asia- the planets fastest growing economies.
Opportunities for diplomacy and port visits (yes, even a few cocktail parties) gaining (hopefully) favourable publicity for the RN and by extension, the UK. Navies are afterall one of the most visible and enduring ways of impressing friends, allies and potential enemies.
Opportunities for trade fairs (like it or not arms exports are a major factor)The army tends to be rather more permenent in its presence, not always welcome and air forces by their nature, rather more transient. Its a task any navy is well suited to- just look at the coverage generated by the Kuznetsovs current trip.

"Group deployments" are the RN's response to the need to be seen by the UK as a global power. They are an interesting contrast to the French approach which is to maintain small squadrons of ships permenently on station. The RN decided thirty years ago that periodic deployments at TF strength offered far greater opportunities for training and command experience.

Seen it its historical context "Orion 08" is well overdue. Yes, there have been various shorter deployments into the Indian Ocean in recent years, but this one will be the first to goto the Far East in a decade- the last being Lusty's last trip out east for the handover of HK in 97.

The RAF conduct similar exercises with foriegn air forces- Red Flag and Magic Carpet, which don't attract the same (if any) comment. The RAF also often participate in the annual FPDA exercise "Bersama Lima". I presume all involved both work hard and play hard as appropriate?

[ORAC]

Gosh, the RN have a Strike Wing, whilst all the RAF have is squadron... :ooh:

[squashed moth]

Guided Weapons: "Do we really need these expensive, overated, unemployable white elephants to track the blade and shaft fit of Iranian outboard engines!!!
"

The Merlin is actually a very capable ASuW and ASW platform, and the Iranians in particular have a better submarine capability than you would think. Besides, you can fit a lot of mail bags in the back of one of those beasts!!

[Sunk at Narvik]

Wish I had your crystal ball Guided- would save the country a fortune on buying weapons that are not going to be needed in the next crisis or war.

[500N]

Naval Eye

"After the Missouri Silkworm incident, The USN would not trust the RN to wave a hanky around. Command was told in no uncertain terms that to allow a Bruiser inside the group was inexcusable. Much spin was put on this, but in truth it was a buggers muddle."


Well at least the RN managed to shoot down the Silkworn
and not shoot the Missouri like the USS Ship did !

Maybe the RN should leave the defence to the US Navy to
ensure the enemy gets a hit next time !

[tonyosborne]

Lusty returning to Portsmouth because of 'broken fridge' allegedly...

[buoy15]

tonyosborne - Cheers!
Gave me a bit of a fright there - thought you were going to say the cocktail awning on the Qtr-deck had collapsed - Phew!:hmm:

[whiz]

It seems a refrigeration problem has caused Illustrious to head back to Pompey

http://http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2008/01/23/faulty-fridge-causes-aircraft-carrier-to-turn-back-86908-20295569/

[Wensleydale]

How cool is that?......

[Gainesy]

What, you mean its not like in the RN recruiting ad where "Ginge" nips downstairs and twists a couple of wires together to fix it? Have they run out of Bodge Tape then?

The horror, G&Ts with no ice.:uhoh:

[Bannock]

Surely the first thing you do when the ships freezer goes tits up is to

Brown your meat!!!

[Union Jack]

# 14 "Got the awning for the quarterdeck finished in time for the cocktails tour!"

#26 "Gave me a bit of a fright there - thought you were going to say the cocktail awning on the Qtr-deck had collapsed"

plus "I doubt if the RN were deployed in the desert they could hit a camels arse with a shovel" (#30 in the associated thread on the
need for a Navy)

Oh dear! Perhaps these posts should be transferred to the Medical & Health forum - Buoy15 has obviously got serious issues regarding our dark blue colleagues in general and quarterdeck awnings in particular!

Jack

PS The more socially aware will know, but I suspect that ILLUSTRIOUS doesn't actually have a proper quarterdeck awning!

[buoy15]

Sorry Jack
Have touched either a soft or sore spot
Must have been that "hot bunking" or perhaps "double bunking" over the years
No wonder you feel sore, or are you getting soft dear?:ouch:

[Union Jack]

No wonder you feel sore, or are you getting soft?

None of the above Bigbuoy - just perceptive and observant, like Guidedweapons.:rolleyes:

Jack

[GreenKnight121]

GPMG wrote Just googled that, can you enlighten us as to how the RN messed up? All I can find is how HMS Gloucester saved the Missouri after the US Escort fired on the Missouri's chaff and even managed to strafe the battleship that it was escorting. Did the RN allow the silkworm to get to close in the first place?


Well, it is a little exaggeration to say that intercepting the silkworm after it had already passed by Missouri [having missed] is "saving them".

More like "closing the barn door after the cow is gone".

[Widger]

Greenknight,

You have your facts wrong. All I will say is, the boys on Gloucester did good. :ok:

[timzsta]

One wished one was not bound by the Official Secrets Act. HMS Gloucester is the only warship ever to have shot down a missile with a missile in anger.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

It would appear that the so called broken fridge is the ship's main refrigerated storage, fully stocked for a lengthy deployment. Had they carried on regardless there would be headlines about food getting thrown away, or contractors being flown out to fix it? Don't you just love the media?

Would you rather she deployed with a known fault that would need fixing later, or deal with it before getting to far from the UK, and deploy fully operational?

Widger/timzsta

According to a book published in 1992, the Silkworm was heading for the survey vessel come MCM command platform HMS Herald. I believe the book was written by Ben Brown and Jeremy Bowen, and called All Necessary Means. They also speculated that the launch may have been detected by the two O Class SSKs acting in and intelligence gathering role.

Just how much damage would a Silkworm do to a WW2 Battleship anyway?

[In Tor Wot]

WEBF OS details for Silkworm:

Length: 6.60 metre
Diameter: 0.76 metre
Wingspan: 2.4 metre
Weight: 2,300 kg
Warhead: 513 kg shape charged high-explosive
Propulsion: One liquid rocket engine and one solid rocket booster
Speed: Mach 0.8
Range: 70 km
Cruising altitude: 100~300m (early models); <20m (later models)
Guidance: Inertial + active conical scanning terminal guidance radar (early models); or inertial + monopulse active radar (later models)
Single-shot kill probability: 70%


Even if it failed to go off, a 2.3 tonne mass arriving at M .8 would seriously spoil your day! However, with a PK of .7 you've actually got a reasonable chance of a miss with a relative minor level of countermeasures.

[Gainesy]

the so called broken fridge

Like a fridge over troubled water then?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

All fixed now, and she's off again. (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/latest/Lusty-heads-off-after-repairs.3711576.jp)

[francophile69]

Doesn't the Navy carry Engineers then?

The world is full of cruise ships, most of them a lot bigger and with far bigger fridge plants that don't have to leg it to the nearest port because something so trivial as the fridge plant is rooted.

All this talk of fridges the size of bungalows is disingenious, regardless of how big the cold room is the actual fridge plant consists of relatively small components. Even if the complete compressor needed replacing, so what? In the real world the faulty component would be sent to next port of call, easier in this case though, must be terribly convenient having a big flat bit to land helicoptors on.

Personally reckon the Chief Thief's department dropped a major b*****k and simply didn't load the stuff in the first place....

[Not_a_boffin]

You haven't seen the new engineering syllabuses (syllabi?) or been exposed to CLS guarantee clauses then....

[buoy15]

Glad about the fridge
Is the cocktail awning ok? With the recent winds we are getting a bit worried!:p

[Razor61]

Illustrious is in Lyme Bay heading South West, so i assume she is back on her way!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Are you sure that wasn't Ark Royal? As mentioned here (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.11420/changeNav/6568).

[Razor61]

WEBF
Unless the Captain is a little confused on what ship he was on, then no. It was Illustrious according to the AIS which was clearly stating Illustrious!!

Dilligence which was supposed to be with the Lusty i thought? is currently playing about off Plymouth also...

[desk wizard]

Didn't get too far before she had to turn around again....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7236326.stm

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Oh dear. More problems (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7236326.stm).

However, in a real war/crisis I guess that oily water seperators being unservicable would not be a major consideration. But in peacetime things are different and environmental concerns have to be considered.

Perhaps the fact that most of the money intended for ship upkeep is being spent elsewhere in the MOD budget is starting to bite.....

[Evalu8ter]

WEBF,
Maybe you're right. Who in the MoD could possibly want to reassign money to fighting two almost totally landlocked wars (and the Treasury) from a (currently) irrelevant ship deployment programme?

When we win them both the money can be reassigned to less critical areas......

Sorry chap, but if this is the price for trying to keep the boys at the front safe with the kit they need then so be it.

[serf]

Like the Typhoon

[Navaleye]

I hear she is returning to port with some plumbing problems!

[NickGooseBrady]

Maybe you're right. Who in the MoD could possibly want to reassign money to fighting two almost totally landlocked wars (and the Treasury) from a (currently) irrelevant ship deployment programme?

A mind as narrow as a gnats todger me thinks!

Yes let's scrap the Navy, sod em, they do nothing. That Typhoon thingy will save the day. Long range, strategic, power projector that it is.

:mad:b Jockey

[Evalu8ter]

NGB,
I'm going to need a bigger boat...no pun intended!

Please look back through my posts, you will see that while, yes I'm a crab, I am fully supportive of F35/CVF and am ambivalent towards Tranche 3 of Typhoon in the current climate. At no time have, nor will, I jump on the "bin the Navy" bandwagon. Power projection is quite possibly best provided, in a theoretical future war by theoretical future Carriers. It just as easily might be done by an LPH full of Helos, or, if time critical by Typhoon (provided HNS was available).At the moment, it is being provided by the AT and SH forces, CHF and JFH. Please secure (with two clips) your reversionary banter.

The point I make is that if we are robbing Peter (ship husbandry) to pay Paul (two concurrent Medium scale enduring conflicts) then some thing has to give. IMHO launching a task group to the other side of the world is a very noble, retention positive piece of PR for the UK. The fact that it seems we can't do it properly is testement to the parlous state of Defence. I say again, in the current climate are exercises like this justified? Before you get all dark blue defensive again, yes I would put Red Flag et al in the same pot, and the ability of the Army to moan about Harmony yet continue to find time/resources to go to Belize etc.

The bottom line is that we're all suffering for environmental training and large overseas exercises. I'm afraid, until we fight an enemy with a credible submarine force (and, oh yes, some coastline....) in many people's opinion these kind of exercises and such need to run on a shoestring if they are to be run at all.

[GreenKnight121]

The point I make is that if we are robbing Peter (ship husbandry) to pay Paul (two concurrent Medium scale enduring conflicts) then some thing has to give.


How about the locks on the Treasury's purse being what gives? :rolleyes:

Wouldn't that be better? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[parapauk]

I've just been to a bar in Malta with 'we welcome the USS Cole' over the door. Where is Lusty? :confused:

[Not_a_boffin]

Sitting in UK waters with at least one other member of the Orion 08 deployment that is having material problems.......

[Biggus]

NGB

Having "had a go" at Evalu8ter are you going to have the courtesy to respond to his well reasoned response!!

All of us in the Army/Navy/RAF can lobby the government/MOD for more money, rather than indulging in interservice bun fights, but at the end of the day we have to do the best with the budget we are ultimately given, which means prioritising.

Some people see an RN deployment to the far east as a pretty low priority given the current state of play in Iraq/Afghanistan. Is this part of a bash the RN push, no, it just happens to be said on a thread on an RN deployment.

If you read pprune regularly you will see how often a crab lead "srap the Red Arrows thread" crops up, and how often the crabs debate on pprune the wisdom of buying all the Typhoons when we are short of SH and AT. (By the way, neither of those are necessarily my personal opinions!). Many people believe that when money is tight you spend it on things that matter. Your job is to convince the readers that an RN "peacetime" deployment is more important than more helos, machine guns, ammunition, Royal Marines on the ground, etc. (I know the money won't be transferred, but people aren't always logical!!).

[francophile69]

This has gone from the mildly amusing to bordering on the farcical...

If the Navy cannot manage to put a "my little pony" class ship to sea how do they expect to manage with a half decent sized thing?

As an ex-Engineer in the Merchant Navy I'm amazed that a not particularly old ship, which has spent much of it's life tied up alongside, and recently had a £120 million refit cannot go to sea. Any heads to roll? In the Merchant Navy it'd be a case of "bye-bye Chiefy" at the very least.

Anyway why doesn't someone simply fix the O.W.S? Not exactly a complicated piece of kit is it? Can't image spares would be that hard to source, as in this case it's not an original fit but relatively new. Worst case scenario, as we are only talking a 20,000 tonne ship it's going to be a dinky toy anyway, buy a new one!

I can understand budget requirements etc, but this ship has recently had a £120,000,000 refit so kind of think that lack of funds can't really be sited as a valid arguement.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

francophile69

You have no idea of how the MOD operates. JIT, RAB, LEAN etc etc.

Can't image spares would be that hard to source, as in this case it's not an original fit but relatively new. Worst case scenario, as we are only talking a 20,000 tonne ship it's going to be a dinky toy anyway, buy a new one!


The MOD doesn't keep vast stocks of spares. See the above sentence.

I can understand budget requirements etc, but this ship has recently had a £120,000,000 refit so kind of think that lack of funds can't really be sited as a valid arguement.

Is it the same budget?

Evalu8tor

I nearly bit too! I hear what you say, and largely agree, but I expect you will agree that this a rather risky approach to defence.

Who knows where the next crisis will be? After Afghanistan and Iraq it seems probable that they will have more than a few miles of coastline, and pose a real threat in the air and/or at sea? If we didn't have control of the maritime and air environments, neither Telic or Herrick could be supported.

Incidentally there is significant naval involvement in the war on terror.

[Evalu8ter]

WEBF,
Agree. And it is a shame that the RNs role at the moment (with the exception of CHF / Naval Strike Wing) is largely unnoticed.

I agree that a balance must be struck between the needs of today and not getting caught with our pants down tomorrow. My gut feeling is that the balance is not quite right at the moment; happy to hear an opposing view!

PS-If I'd REALLY wanted you to bite I would have mentioned the SHAR!!!:}

[francophile69]

WEBF

Granted, being used as I am to an unlimited maintenance budget I clearly am not familiar with "JIT, RAB, LEAN" et al

I also understand I have no place posting on this forum, and I stand suitably chastised. However having grown up with a RAF upbringing I find some of the threads extremely interesting, although I wouldn't dream of contributing to them.

Personally though in this case, I just wonder if your ability to recite and therefore almost condoning (albeit perhaps unwittingly) the aforementioned Acronyms is perhaps indicative of the malaise in the MOD.

Spend all that money and then blame it on the "system" when it doesn't work.

The point I was trying to make was that it is ridiculous to spend that sort of money and end of with a vessel incapable of going to sea. I'm not sure how familiar you are with ship's systems but fridge plants and Oily Water Seperators are not exactly on a par with major main engine breakdowns, (regardless of whose budget it should come under!) and if it is suffering these breakdowns I am amazed it is having such serious repercussions.

I'd imagine P&O would be more than happy to be able to withdraw their ships for months at a time, every 20 years and spend over £100 million on them. Can you imagine them then having to cancel cruises because the O.W.S. or the fridge plant doesn't work, sorry it's inconceivable.

To merely quote JIT (whatever that means) etc is missing the point, this ship is not at sea for trivial reasons (granted in different circumstances she would sail regardless).

[Not_a_boffin]

In fairness, the amount spent on the refit was best part of four years ago, since when she's been worked very hard (although I grant you, nowhere near as hard as your average containership, offshore supply vessel, Ro-Ro etc).

During that four years, the maintenance budget for the ship has been continually eroded, so that although she may be alongside (as she has been since December) the ability to actually do anything is much reduced. The ships staff don't own the budget and believe it or not have to get the OK from the IPT (MESH) before they get into the kit.

You are correct, fridge plants and OWS are not particularly complicated, but if you can't get the spare (either because it's not in the stores system or because you have to order it and get the budget OK) then you're stuffed.

This sort of incident is going to happen more frequently as the last four years of reduced support coupled with ships being run well beyond their design lives kicks in.

[Gainesy]

This so-called Naval Strike "Wing". How many aircraft/pilots?

[Not_a_boffin]

Nowhere near enough. And judging by the "pinch point" shortages given in the Commons the other week, (50% QFI, 50% Lt pilots) unlikely to get better soon.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

You can have the best ship's company on the planet but if the supporting IPT has been cornered into a financial and contractual minefield, the ship is buggered. What a MESH!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

News (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.11723/changeNav/6568) regarding Lusty from the RN website.

Changing tack, what is this (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.11570) all about? Is it a post SHAR thing or has it happened before?

Some of the Hawk jets of FRADU will be detached to Cyprus in late February for operations with the Orion 08 Task Group. FRADU (Fleet Requirements Air Direction Unit) provide realistic simulated ship attack profiles, training for Fighter Controllers, Warfare Officers, and other tasking as required.

Interestingly, the Culdrose website gives details (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConMediaFile.36468) of aircraft deployed. The deployment of 854 NAS aircraft aboard RFA Argus is noteworthy, as the deployment of Sea King ASaCs aboard RFA vessels for surface search is one of the Navy's contributions to the war on terror.

[spheroid]

The culdrose website hardl;y gives details of aircraft deployments.... Just scant numbers. The most disappointing aspect of which is the numbers. I think we procured IRO 42 Merlins..and there are 13 at sea. Where are the other 29 ?

[Not_a_boffin]

1.Servicing the training, currency and tacdev requirements.2.Grounded through lack of spares support (IMOS only does so much)3.Attrition / airframe life management reserve.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Film Crew On Lusty (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.11906/changeNav/6568)

So far, they’ve filmed the hard work while the ship went through FOST, the preparation and tension of the transit through the straits of Gibraltar, lots of continuation training and the first port visit, which was Malta. Then followed Force Integration with the other ships of the group, more tension with the Suez transit and then the Red Sea. Throughout, the film crew have been focussing on the concept of the ship being a small town; they are trying to tell the story of the deployment by following a number of characters.

Sounds interesting......

[Sunk at Narvik]

Sounds like we need a competition for a soundtrack to rival that one by acertain scots gentleman from way back when....:O

[Not_a_boffin]

If you're thinking of Mr Stewart, isn't he a pretend Porridge Wog? Thought he was a mockernee......

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Harriers embarked again at the moment. According to this (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.11999/changeNav/6568) from the RN website.

Commodore Tom Cunningham Royal Navy, who commands the Orion group said “The ability to operate Harriers from an aircraft carrier is a key skill which has to be practised whenever possible. The presence of the Naval Strike Wing on HMS Illustrious demonstrates their flexibility and the UK’s commitment to maintaining its carrier strike capability.”

Of course, it was much easier finding jets to embark before the mighty Sea Jet was axed (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152). Of course, when these decisions were made the Afghan commitment could not be foreseen. A few years ago a CVS might have sixteen or seventeen jets embarked at busy periods. Now it is six, from time to time.

Isn't it a little ironic that the original purpose was to perform an ASW role carrying helicopters for ASW and later AEW and some Sea Harriers for air defence, maritime attack etc, then post cold war it was to act in a strike role, carry Sea Harriers, Harrier GR7/9s and just a few helicopters. Now the strike role is still there with only a few GR7/9s from time to time and some helos....?

Progress....? It can only make the transition to larger carriers with larger air groups that much harder.

Going off on a slight tangent, why doesn't the RN make a bigger thing of the contribution of shipborne helicopters to current operations? For example, the use of Lynx AH7 from HMS Ocean to deal with an armoured counter attack, aided by ASaCs Sea Kings from Ark Royal during the initial phase of Operation Telic. Or the destruction of an Iraqi patrol boat (FIAC?) by a Sea King HC4. If these had been done by carrier based jets I suspect the papers would be full of their deeds, but surely aircraft are aircraft. Their success during the Al Faw assault reinforces the case for shipborne aviation, and related things such as frigates for naval gunfire support.

Likewise, was the public ever aware of the contribution made by Lynx flights aboard frigates and destroyers during Granby. Destroying the Exocet armed missile boats that Saddam had was key to enabling Minehunting operations to take place, which in turn was key to allowing amphibious assault to be a possibility, tying down thousands of Iraqi troops defending beaches. The Sea Skua armed Lynx was one of our key weapons, yet received very little publicity. Why?

I feel the RN is missing the opportunity to promote aviation as a core naval capability.

[Greenleader]

WEBF

To answer your question about FRADU, they have been doing these things in support of the RN for many years. Not a just post SHAR thing.

[Evalu8ter]

"Their success during the Al Faw assault reinforces the case for shipborne aviation, and related things such as frigates for naval gunfire support"

WEBF, can't agree with you there chap!

Almost five years to the day from that night, I remember it well; couldn't project the power from ships because they were too far out in the NAG and worried about Seersuckers (and according to one rating, Scuds!!!). The first three waves of the "amphib assault" (1 wave of USAF MH53s and 2 waves of RAF CH47s) were launched from a land base in Northern Kuwait and deployed the vast majority of the combat power (240+ troops, heavy weapons, WIMICs and a BV, well nearly.....). The CHF used their smaller platforms, again from the land, to secure the pumping stations. IIRC the Queenies stayed plugged in to have enough gas for one trip and 8 troops - 40+ miles off shore would not have been a player.

And as for the NGS and the Cdo Arty, they caused mayhem to the heli routes around the objective as they desperately pounded the area (which had already been rendered a moonscape during the Iran/Iraq war) achieving little more than churning even more sand into the sky to make flying even harder.

So, we could have done the assault without the ships at all......

Despite this, I remain an adherent of Amphib assault and of the flexible use of CVF in the future; IMHO Op Houghton doesn't prove the case.

[parapauk]

How many Harriers on Lusty? Is this as well the 6 Merlins? Any Sea Kings?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I believe it was only four Harriers. :(

But it isn't just about Harriers. The 814 NAS Merlins (embarked for the whole deployment) have been showing their capabilities.

Flying Tigers Roar (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.12588/changeNav/6568)

Cornwall’s very own ‘Flying Tigers’, 814 Naval Air Squadron embarked in HMS Illustrious, have just completed the anti-submarine exercise, code named Phoenix, in the Indian Ocean. Combining new equipment for the first time, the Squadron re-affirmed the RN’s reputation as a leader in anti-submarine warfare (ASW).

The Task Group, led by Cdre Tom Cunningham RN, had a very successful week operating against HMS Trafalgar. Exercise Phoenix was the first time that the RN has been able to use the UK’s most advanced ASW equipment; the Merlins of 814 Naval Air Squadron with HMS Westminster’s 2087 sonar. This combination allowed Illustrious and her Task Group to develop new tactics and procedures during a series of set pieces and free-play warfare.

Thought ASW was now called USW?

Any Sea Kings?

If you mean ASaCs Sea Kings, I think that they are rather busy, even without being embarked aboard a CVS, doing surface search from RFAs as part of current operations.

[Double Zero]

I've said it before, but in the interests of commonality with the JFH GR7/9's, and the delays we all expect with JSF, for Christ's sake let's buy some Harrier 2+'s ! Possibly to keep at Yeovilton when not at sea ? I'm not a of a Navy persuasion, except when it seems common sense.

Yes it's galling to buy an originally British product from America but thanks to BAe we're stuck with it, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than the JSF, whenever that might become available.

The 2+ doesn't have as good a radar as the FA2 ( it's a cut down F-16 job but works fine with the weapon of choice) - I photographed a trial fit on one with 6 AMRAAMS on BOL rails, it has a working gun too and with the big engine is able to keep up with a Bear at altitude - what more do you want ?!

[althenick]

00

They probably wouldn't even have to buy, just lease them, I beleive the USMC have just retired a load of them and most have reasonable Airframe hours for their age. Problem is the political will isn't there. Same as they could have stored SHAR and left JFH with a couple of airframes for training. I would have cost peanuts. but you know what happens when common sense prevails in the MoD - hell freezes over!

[Rob_1707]

Yes it's galling to buy an originally British product from America but thanks to BAe we're stuck with it, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than the JSF, whenever that might become available.

Why thanks to BAE? I didn't know they decided to retire the Sea Harrier. :mad:
Or are you seriously blaming BAE for exporting the aircraft to a vastly larger market? :rolleyes: British industry can't please anyone it seems, if they don't export they're loosers, if they do they're selling out an originally British product. :=

[Double Zero]

Seajet

Yes the Navy gave them up too early, who despite history seem to ignore lessons and avoid learning what useful things these aeroplane thinghies are - they didn't try the Pacific War, did they ? - caved in much too easily on the retirement of the Sea Harrier - I wonder what the influence from BAe was, who were VERY keen to promote the Harrier 2 GR5 ( at the time ? ) I was even told that any mention of Sea Harrier to customers by our sales people was verboten, in the later stages.

The FA2 was not only faster with a supreme radar & weapons fit, I have seen first-hand that carbon fibre as on the Harrier AV-8B etc is not a really war-useful material - look at the Russian relatively 'rough & ready' approach but with large numbers of very effective aircraft !

Deepest Regards,

DZ

[Modern Elmo]

The 2+ doesn't have as good a radar as the FA2

Why is the FA2 item better? Please give specific reasons.

it's a cut down F-16 job

Nope, F-18C/D: The AN/APG-65 radar is a highly reliable, flexible system used for both air-to-air and air-to-surface missions.


The key to the APG-65's flexibility is its programmable digital computers. The built-in test system provides total end-to-end radar preflight checkout and continuous monitoring.

During air-to-air operations, the APG-65 radar incorporates clean scope, look-down/shoot-down capabilities. It also features complete search track and automatic acquisition modes such as high pulse repetition frequency (PRF) velocity search, high/medium PRF range-while-search, single target track, and a track-while-scan mode that tracks 10 targets simultaneously and displays eight targets.

For air-to-surface operations, the radar provides Doppler beam sharpened sector and patch mapping, medium-range synthetic aperture radar, "real beam" ground mapping modes, as well as fixed and moving ground target track, air-to-surface ranging, terrain avoidance, precision velocity update, and a sea surface search mode with clutter suppression.

The APG-65 is operational in the F/A-18 Hornet F/A-18 A/B/C/D strike fighters of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, and the air forces of Kuwait, and Spain. It has been adapted to upgrade the German and Greek F-4 Phantom aircraft and AV-8B Harrier II Plus for the U.S. Marine Corps and the Spanish and Italian navies.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/apg65/

but works fine with the weapon of choice) - I photographed a trial fit on one with 6 AMRAAMS on BOL rails

Did you also get the tail numbers of all the airplanes?

it has a working gun too and with the big engine is able to keep up with a Bear at altitude - what more do you want ?!

A tactical aircraft with more range, endurance, payload, wartime survivability, and a better peacetime safety record.

[Occasional Aviator]

I've never understood the emphasis on BVR performance that people put on the SHAR. Leaving aside the somewhat dubious claim to being the best BVR fighter (really? better than F-15?), the justification for having jets for fleet defence (especially when you have something like PAAMS) seems to be the ability to VID, and therefore something that's better at the close fight ought to be more appropriate, surely?

[Not_a_boffin]

Always kill the archer, don't waste your effort killing his arrows unless you have no alternative.............

Unless you are an operational analyst where only an engagement is typically assessed, one bomber splashed is one less to come back tomorrow. That's why.

[Double Zero]

Modern Elmo,

You're right I'm not a radar expert, but I believe the high regard the Blue Vixen is / was held in is common knowledge.

APG 65 'Cut down' as it has a smaller dish to fit the airframe, which obviously won't improve it, and even the full size job did not match Blue Vixen as far as I was told.

Love the quip about "taking tail numbers !" I was a technical photographer on the development team of Sea Harrier FRS1 & FRS-later FA2, plus the GR5/7 and various Hawks.

The only reason I'd take tail numbers is if it was a bad day and I wanted to make sure I was on the right aircraft !

As for the Harrier 2 with 6 AMRAAM's, it was a trial fit in a hangar, partly for sales demo' purposes, and didn't fly then though such a configuration may well have since.

I suspect that 'bring-back' to a carrier may have been an issue.

[tucumseh]

Given Blue Vixen is a product of the 80s (early 80s at that) surely direct comparison with AN/APG65 is futile? The point is, as it was regarded as cutting edge right up to its out of service date, Blue Vixen was way ahead of its time; but that time is now gone (although, of course, key elements of the design remain in Typhoon – which itself is only late 80s).




Remember, it a common feature of MoD aircraft procurement that the specified avionics are developed, built and sit on the shelf for years awaiting the air vehicle. That is why Merlin, for example, was in need of a mid-life upgrade before the ISD, the avionics having been mostly available in the mid-80s, and in some cases late 70s!!

[Backwards PLT]

An aircraft that is subsonic, has limited range and can only carry 4 missiles is never going to be a great fighter. Add a massively over-hyped radar, no/limited L16 and an abysmal turn performance and really the SHar was very average. Personally I would use that sort of airframe for something like CAS!

[Double Zero]

I thought the GR7/9's are up to that right now, though a gun would be nice !

Not heard of many people out-turning an AMRAAM, which was the point I thought...

[greenfreddie]

In the absence of anything left to play Air Defence with, the concept has been left to quietly wither on the vine; AAWOs (Anti Air Warfare Officers) have dropped the first A (on account of the lack of any form of stick to wield); Fighter Controllers have largely been relegated to the equivalent of Flight Ops personnel (who may get thrown the occasional 2v2 (close control) bone every once in a while to keep the logbook looking pretty. The GR7s don't particularly like coming to play at sea anyway due to the hugely restricted sortie times required by the fixed deck cycles and the necessity to hold a load of gas for marshalling / diversion.

As people with any operational experience of "proper" air defence slowly but surely leave / get promoted out of harms way, the levels of core experience will continue to decline. It will be fascinaing to view (from afar) the reinvention of the wheel that takes place when the next generation of Air Defence assets eventually emerge.

[Engines]

Greenfreddie,

As I have heard it, the main reasons the GR7s 'don't like coming to play at sea' is that they just don't like 'coming to sea' full stop. Add in their Afghan tasking, plus clear pressure from the top of the RAF not to support maritime air, and they have plenty of excuses (some good) for not 'coming to play'.

Deck cycles aren't fixed - they are built around the flying requirements, or were on the three carriers I served in. GR7s could get as much flying as they liked, if they came out to play.

The most depressing part of the previous post was that they are 'holding gas for marshalling/diversion'. That indicates firstly, the GR7s aren't flying 'blue water' (i.e. non-diversion) and secondly that essential skills in planning and executing fuel efficient joins and landing patterns are being lost. To be maintained, these skills require both aircrew and ship teams to practice building and executing flying programmes. It's not something you can get from the books.

Backwards PLT - Blue Vixen was not over-hyped. If anything it was under sold. As for L16, SHAR FA2 with JTIDS was one day away from flying at Dunsfold when the order came to 'stop work'. Guys I know and respect who built it tell me that it was more a more advanced fit than Typhoon and possibly better than JSF's.

I'm not blind to the SHAR's many deficiencies - but the FA2 was the first UK fighter ever to enter service with a fully working radar, and it's radar/missile integration was, to use a hackneyed phrase, 'world class'. Let's give a little credit where credit might be due.

[spheroid]

the main reasons the GR7s 'don't like coming to play at sea' is that they just don't like 'coming to sea' full stop

And the little girly RAF pilots won't fly without a diversion....... bless:O:O:O

[abbotyobs]

Joint Force Harrier is a mixture of RAF and RN personnel including pilots.

[Magic Mushroom]

...clear pressure from the top of the RAF not to support maritime air...

And what 'clear' pressure would that be Engines?:rolleyes:

[hulahoop7]

I thought running with a diversion was a temporary thing and I thought that this had just recently been fixed with some electronic gadgets. i.e. the GRs don't have a radar to find the ship.

[Occasional Aviator]

Always kill the archer, don't waste your effort killing his arrows unless you have no alternative.............

Unless you are an operational analyst where only an engagement is typically assessed, one bomber splashed is one less to come back tomorrow. That's why.

Eh? So PAAMS will only shoot down arrows?

[Sunk at Narvik]

Will an archer ever bother to get close enough knowing our navy has no fighters?

[hulahoop7]

I think the Darings can kill the archer.. even over the horizon. But you wouldn't want to risk it unless the environment was completely clean of Boeings and Airbuses. So for most real life situations you need a CAP / AEW to get out there and spot and plot the bad guys before they get close.

So in the old Falklands scenario ... yes a 45 could take a shot at the first pop up and hopefully get the archer too.

[Occasional Aviator]

I agree - I happen to think that a proper AEW solution (MARRS?) is actually the most pressing issue. Fighters are nice to look at and really exciting, but when you have the best surface-to-air cover in UK forces already in T45, better ISTAR might just bring more to the battle than another shooter with limited endurance.

[Modern Elmo]

I think the Darings can kill the archer.. even over the horizon.

With the help of an airborne platform to provide OTH target detection and tracking, IFF interrogation, and datalinking of same.

[Biggus]

What is the range of the main missile system of the Type 45 (I'm sure there are unclassified figures out there)?

If it is in the order of 40-50 miles, which I thought it was, then you won't kill the archer....

[Not_a_boffin]

OA

The acronym you are looking for is MASC, which is more than just AEW. The fundamentals of maritime air defence haven't changed - the further away you kill the bomber, the better it is for all concerned. I suspect the old FOTIs and ATP/EXTAC have now been rewritten to support the "modern" theories. Regardless, for an attacker, good long range targetting + good stand-off missile range will always cause a defender to expend missiles to no good purpose. Do a silo count on a T45, then read how many raids a "primitive" air force like the FAA managed twenty-five years ago............

[hulahoop7]

My understanding is that the 45 can send its missile off after it spots the 1st pop up... that is the attacking aircraft coming above the horizon to look for targets. The missile is sent on a computer predicted route, but over the horizon uses its own tracker to locate, track and destroy the aircraft.

Obviously, as it passes over the horizon threshold the missile is on its own, and you don't want it locking on to a Airbus which happened to be passing with a full load of holiday makers - therefore you need AEW and fighter eyes on in anything but the most sterile combat environment.

[Sunk at Narvik]

Surely theres a couple of elephants in the room here? One- any MASC aircraft itself needs protecting from the enemy. Topically, with Konkan going on, wasn't this demonstrated painfully last time the RN played with the Indians? There was a rumour elsewhere that the RN's AEW helos were being repeatedly "shot down" by the Indians and that a couple of Indian SHAR's had to be embarked to prevent further embarrasment and to enable the exercise to continue?

Secondly, an "archer" delivering a wingload of supersonic sea skimmers doesn't need to "pop up" into a T45's radar- it can stay under the horizon, fire off its missiles and depart without the T45 ever knowing it was there- untill the moskits approach at Mach 4.

Can't help thinking that we are deluding ourselves if we think the T45 is the answer to all scenarios.

[parapauk]

It isn't the answer to all, but it is sufficent to meet any threat we are likely to face alone until CVF comes online.

And you shouldn't be counting the number of sorties Argentina launched in relation to the number of silos on the T45, you should be estimating how many sorties they would have launched had the first 48 aircraft sent against the taskforce not come back :hmm:

[hulahoop7]

Hi Sunk.

Well perhaps the attacking plane doesn't need to pop up, but then he will need to have the position of the ships located - satelite, or a powerful long range recon aircraft sniffing for radars - because firing blind will be a very wild roll of the dice. If he doesn't pop up he also risks actually running into the T45 and being hopelessly exposed.

The T45 forces the attacker to make expensive choices.

1. Invest in expensive recon assets
2. Invest in lots of lots of missiles to fire off blindly in the hope of success.
3. To gamble on popping up, and escaping the mach 4.5 Aster heading for you.

[Not_a_boffin]

Parapauk

Valid point but only if the a/c enter the MEZ. There are an awful lot of ways to get around that - not least the (cheapish) products of US, Russian and Chinese missile desisgn bureaux that are out there. And within an open forum there are of course a number of tactical ways to avoid entering MEZ while still giving the AAWC a major problem.

Hulahoop - also valid points, particularly the bit about making the oppo work much harder. But - if you don't have an outer air capability, there is very little to stop an LRMP from sitting at FL300 and either radioing (or linking if they're capable) your track details. In many cases, no need to pop up - particularly for the longer range stuff.

[hulahoop7]

Absolutely agree. I think its about getting into the attackers decision loop. While the T45 makes life more difficult and expensive, it still allows the baddy to pick when, where and how to attack.

Get a decent CAP and AEW up, and suddenly you can take back the initiative and apply your better training and technology to break up the attackers ability to respond.

Hopefully, they are then the ones sitting nervously in bunkers while you bowl a few nasties their way.

[Occasional Aviator]

I totally agree with and accept all these points - and in an ideal world we'd be able to afford it all. However, my understanding is that the Carrier Strike project is about delivering precision attack, mainly against land targets, from a carrier OR a land-based FOB. Moreover, at the moment MOD policy is to take risk against air defence across ALL of defence, so it would just be surprising to me that "the fleet" would be likely to get a sophisticated, layered air defence system when we are so deficient in AD in all other areas.... surely as the only decent SAM systems we have in our inventory are afloat (please don't anyone try to sell rapier/starstreak as a realistic capability against a half-decent threat) then we ought to be more concerned about the risk to forward log bases, HQs, FOBs etc?

[hulahoop7]

That's an interesting argument, but I would like to make one point. Ask any RM what is the first thing he wants to do when he arrives on an amphib ship in a war zone. I suspect he'll say, get off the boat and on to land as quickly as possible.

That sentiment has been shaped by hard experience - ask the Welsh Guards. A ship (particularly amphibs, as they are required to place themselves at greater risk) are a very dangerous place to be. You can't start digging with your spoon, and hide in a fox hole when the bombs fall.

If a T45, and a CVF with CAP isn't there to protect an ARG, and it gets attacked there is a very real chance that you might loose hundreds and hundreds of men and all of their equipment. Lets not forget, that the huge majority of our logistics still gets delivered by ship. You might well loose the war in an afternoon. While I'll not deny the risks on land are very real, the consequences are perhaps more limited.

[Occasional Aviator]

That's all fair - although whether we have enough surface combatants to effectively defend our SLOCs etc is another story...

Oh, and it's 'lose', not 'loose'!

However, don't forget that the primary purpose of CVF is to support Carrier Strike, not defend the fleet.

[Biggus]

If the CVF air assets spend all their time defending the group then it just becomes another self licking lollipop.......

[Not_a_boffin]

True - if thats for all the TAG. I think the concern is that if the aircraft are incapable of any sort of AD then much of the flexibility of the TAG is lost. Plus as stated elsewhere on this or similar threads - maritime AD is not all about defending the carrier, there are large number of other HVU that require defence against air attack.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The key is being able to carry aircraft that are multirole.

Organic air defence is not a self licking lollipop if it allows your amphibious forces to get ashore, your seaborne logistics to survive (cf MV Atlantic Conveyor), your MCM forces to clear mines, and your helicopters to operate freely. If it stops the enemy from defeating you then it was rather important.

Should be more concerned about the air threat ashore? Yes! Not just in terms of bases and airdields getting bombed, but also the threat even a few elderly MiGs would pose to helicopters and transport aircraft.

Back to Lusty's recent deployment, the following ASW related links may interest you.

This (http://www.navynews.co.uk/view-story.aspx?articleID=196) from Navy News

This (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/idr/idr080605_1_n.shtml) from Janes

.....However, it was recognised that the submarine challenge of the future was more likely to emerge from regional navies acquiring modern diesel-electric submarines which, in the hands of proficient operators, might be used to close strategic choke points and/or threaten theatre entry.

So ASW in the RN did not die but it certainly withered. And at a time when UK forces are engaged in two enduring land-centric campaigns, it remains unfashionable and an area hard hit in resource terms.

It is a warfare area where the RN acknowledges it has taken a measure of risk in the short term. Furthermore, there is no doubting that the effective conduct of ASW depends on precious, but also highly perishable, skill sets that have been practised less and less in recent years.

For some the pendulum has swung perhaps too far. Which is why Exercise 'Phoenix', conducted by units of the RN's 'Orion 08' task group in April 2008 as they sailed east from the Arabian Sea towards India's western seaboard, was regarded as a welcome opportunity to test the pairing of its two latest ASW equipment assets: the Sonar 2087 low frequency active/passive sonar; and the Merlin HM.1 shipborne helicopter.

Conducted in the Indian Ocean from 16 to 20 April, Exercise 'Phoenix' looked to evaluate and test how the extended detection ranges expected of Sonar 2087 - a powerful area search sonar developed by Thales Underwater Systems - could be exploited by Merlin's own acoustics suite in order that potential submarine threats could be staved off at arm's length. What is more, it sought to do this in a particularly challenging sonar environment; the negative sound/speed profile encountered in the Indian Ocean means that sound propagates virtually straight down to the sea bed.