Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Post Sea Harrier the argument was that GR9 (with Sidewinder) would offer a limited air defence capability if supported either by shipborne Fighter Controllers or ISTAR assets such as Sea King ASaCs or AWACS, and that in exercises such as Red Flag it had proved itself to be agile. At least it was better than nothing. It could intercept and visually identify unknown aircraft which no shipborne system can - which in future conflicts may be important as the littoral environment, and tight ROE due to not being "at war" as such, will prevent ships from using their weapons at maximum range.
Carrier borne fighters do much more than defend the carrier. Not only do they provide the outer layer of air defence for a task group, but certain activities, like Naval Gunfire Support or Mine Clearance, or amphibious operations, involve a higher degree of exposure to enemy air power. No point in projecting power if you have been denied use of the sea.
Who was it who saw carrier based air defence as a self licking lollipop?
I thought Harrier GR7/9 was for projecting power at long range (longer than that of other current shipborne assets)? Likewise Tomahawk. In any case sustainability and force protection are rather important too.
Carrier borne fighters do much more than defend the carrier. Not only do they provide the outer layer of air defence for a task group, but certain activities, like Naval Gunfire Support or Mine Clearance, or amphibious operations, involve a higher degree of exposure to enemy air power. No point in projecting power if you have been denied use of the sea.
Who was it who saw carrier based air defence as a self licking lollipop?
I thought Harrier GR7/9 was for projecting power at long range (longer than that of other current shipborne assets)? Likewise Tomahawk. In any case sustainability and force protection are rather important too.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 26th Nov 2011 at 17:10.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not about capability, its affordability
If you re-read my post I don’t think you will see that I was questioning the need to defend the Task Group. I was merely asking how much of our resource (T45, dedicated AD aircraft) would be spent on defending it rather than projecting from it. My thesis is that by the time we find out what we can afford we will have very little left to project.
I am not anti Carrier, when you have the resources of the USN you clearly have a potent capability – again my argument is can we the UK afford it? The Harrier decision clearly implied that we couldn’t for at least 10 years – what chances a boost from the treasury in the next few years to make our books balance?
At the moment, based on projected plans, we will only be able to be operational for 6 months in 24 – that’s a lot of money for not very much. We would all agree that you would need at least 3 carriers to provide 365 days a year coverage (and we know we can’t afford that, or even 2). Hopefully our enemies won’t be watching our dockyards…
I am not anti Carrier, when you have the resources of the USN you clearly have a potent capability – again my argument is can we the UK afford it? The Harrier decision clearly implied that we couldn’t for at least 10 years – what chances a boost from the treasury in the next few years to make our books balance?
At the moment, based on projected plans, we will only be able to be operational for 6 months in 24 – that’s a lot of money for not very much. We would all agree that you would need at least 3 carriers to provide 365 days a year coverage (and we know we can’t afford that, or even 2). Hopefully our enemies won’t be watching our dockyards…
Suspicion breeds confidence
Perhaps Backwards (appropriate title IMHO) could explain the rationale behind fitting the Jaguar with ASRAAM?
It seemed to work very well. The Harrier would have benefitted equally and been a much more effective platform on both land and sea. Not as good as the Spanish and Italian birds, but you are where you are.
It seemed to work very well. The Harrier would have benefitted equally and been a much more effective platform on both land and sea. Not as good as the Spanish and Italian birds, but you are where you are.
Well said, B PLT. And to BBTW, I am of an "Air Force bent", but I fully support maritime-based air power, defence of the fleet and projection. I suspect a lot of people here do. Remember that most posts are short (thankfully) because posters address a particular point, not a complete discourse of everything they think.
I spent the first 5 years of my AD career doing defence of the fleet, but that required a land base. The new capital ship (which is what it will be) requires a fully layered AD system. T45, etc will be a part of that, but not all.
I spent the first 5 years of my AD career doing defence of the fleet, but that required a land base. The new capital ship (which is what it will be) requires a fully layered AD system. T45, etc will be a part of that, but not all.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney and WEBF have it right. It's all about global projection of military power and layered defence. Ships at sea are vulnerable to attack and 'proper' fighters are the key to long range air defence. This isn't a pissing contest, it's just the way it is. Maybe that's why F-18 was so successful. We need both roles from our organic air, sadly Harrier couldn't quite do it. But it was bloody good at what it did. Sad to see it go.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye, you are right. I know I'm restating what has already been said (it's long thread) but AD (as it used to be called) still need fighters. Radar, link, secure comms, passive sensors, etc. And ALL the assests that that need AD, need real AD.
Last edited by Mach Two; 28th Nov 2011 at 08:04. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I'm just confused. Mach 2 you say you agree with Navaleye that you could do AD with an ASRAMM on a GR7/9 but then say you need radar etc etc and real fighters?? 
And when was the jaguar used in the AD role? The rationale behind fitting more advanced IR missiles to bombers is that it makes them way better at self defence. Not because you want to use them for AD.
If you have an ultra HVU (like our one and only carrier) you need proper, layered AD that includes an aircraft that is AD capable not a sub sonic bomber with an ASRAAM strapped on. F-35C can't come soon enough.
And when was the jaguar used in the AD role?
The rationale behind fitting more advanced IR missiles to bombers is that it makes them way better at self defence. Not because you want to use them for AD.If you have an ultra HVU (like our one and only carrier) you need proper, layered AD that includes an aircraft that is AD capable not a sub sonic bomber with an ASRAAM strapped on. F-35C can't come soon enough.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B PLT. Sorry, Dude, that wasn't my intention. My position is absolutely that we (defence of Uk, the fleet, packages, etc) need real fighters. If I gave you any other impression, I apologise without reserve. I'm on side.
Last edited by Mach Two; 27th Nov 2011 at 09:32. Reason: Typo
Suspicion breeds confidence
Part of the reasoning behind ASRAAM integration on the Jaguar was that it (partially) enabled a self escorting strike capability, given that proper fighter escorts might not be available. It worked for the Jag. In (simulated) exercises it performed well and as I recall even got Typhoon kills. My argument is very simple; a radar less aircraft with Sidewinder is likely to generate a Martin Baker tie. The same aircraft with ASRAAM with a LOAL capability is going to be much more effective. That means it would have worked better from any platform, land or sea.
Putting a sqn of carrier based GR9s with ASRAAM would have generated a very useful capability in a Falklands or Gulf scenario. In the Falklands most kills were visually acquired. Having a long ranged, very fast IR weapon is highly desirable and much more effective. Does this make it a fighter? No of course not, but I believe it would have transformed the very limited capability that the GR brought to naval operations.
I wonder if any ex-Jaguar operators would care to comment on the difference it made.
Putting a sqn of carrier based GR9s with ASRAAM would have generated a very useful capability in a Falklands or Gulf scenario. In the Falklands most kills were visually acquired. Having a long ranged, very fast IR weapon is highly desirable and much more effective. Does this make it a fighter? No of course not, but I believe it would have transformed the very limited capability that the GR brought to naval operations.
I wonder if any ex-Jaguar operators would care to comment on the difference it made.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye, I think that once again you have shown your naivity and that you don't have much to do with current ops. To mention GR & ASRAAM and self escort in the same sentence is just absurd.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bouncing around the Holding pattern
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mix that with the HMCS those boys were toting toward the end, and you think twice about getting into the visual. So what if the Cat couldn't turn, provide wings inside had a functioning neck the front hemisphere would be a risky place.
Same would apply to the GR9.
HOWEVER, without a proper AD radar, proper datalink, a big fox 3 stick and supersonic block 4 capability, you do not have a modern fighter. FACT.
So, silly arguments that the GR9 could have been viable are really straw-clutching. TBH, the SHAR had 3 out of 4 so was monumentally surprised that it died out of JFH those many years ago.
IMHO, it's a shade easier to turn a fighter into a reasonable bomber/CAS platform by strapping on a pod and a 1760 databus, than it is to put in a radar, and better donks.
Oh well, roll on JCA, whoever operates it.
Same would apply to the GR9.
HOWEVER, without a proper AD radar, proper datalink, a big fox 3 stick and supersonic block 4 capability, you do not have a modern fighter. FACT.
So, silly arguments that the GR9 could have been viable are really straw-clutching. TBH, the SHAR had 3 out of 4 so was monumentally surprised that it died out of JFH those many years ago.
IMHO, it's a shade easier to turn a fighter into a reasonable bomber/CAS platform by strapping on a pod and a 1760 databus, than it is to put in a radar, and better donks.
Oh well, roll on JCA, whoever operates it.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Either Side
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The increase in A-A capability that the GR fleet got as a result of equipping with ASRAAM was a secondary benefit, most definitely not the driver behind the change. The reason, surely, for the change was to rationalize 1 IR missile for all RAF FJs. Thereby saving money in support costs. ASRAAM and no AI radar doesn't really increase self defense capability a whole lot as far as I am concerned. Especially if you have any sort of ROE/ID criteria above 'weapons free' and that assumes you can work out who is friendly.
But surely any air defence capability (for a deployed task group) is/was better than none*? By the Way, wasn't the Harrier GR7/9 meant to get Link 16 as well as ASRAAM (which would have helped make up for the lack of radar)? All a bit academic now. Some of us would have liked the Sea Harrier to have been kept in service, and have read suggestions that it may have had a better chance of being saved (in that the RN could have made a stronger case) from the axe than the GR9.
We have to get through this decade before F35 is flying from CVF, ideally without suffering any defeats or major losses. According to the Prime Minister we do need carriers, although he will not say why we do not this decade.
Whilst keeping an eye on CVF/F35, we should not forget the very real possibility of a strategic shock - including one or two international issues that have been getting more and more heated for years. The things that we cannot predict are the ones that we ought to worry about...
*If nothing else, it could investigate unknown aircraft and identify them. Can you imagine a situation where a UK task group is doing maritime interdiction operations, and/or perhaps clearing some mines, and a potentially hostile (also potentially innocent) aircraft keeps approaching. In a situation less than all out war, Rules of Engagement are unlikely to permit ships from using their weapons until at relatively close range. If the aircraft was carrying anti ship missiles, it would probably have fired them and gone away. Likewise a recce mission is unlikely to get inside missile range - remember that during the 80s tanker war, Iranian C130s were used to co-ordinate mining and speedboat attacks against international shipping.
We have to get through this decade before F35 is flying from CVF, ideally without suffering any defeats or major losses. According to the Prime Minister we do need carriers, although he will not say why we do not this decade.
Whilst keeping an eye on CVF/F35, we should not forget the very real possibility of a strategic shock - including one or two international issues that have been getting more and more heated for years. The things that we cannot predict are the ones that we ought to worry about...
*If nothing else, it could investigate unknown aircraft and identify them. Can you imagine a situation where a UK task group is doing maritime interdiction operations, and/or perhaps clearing some mines, and a potentially hostile (also potentially innocent) aircraft keeps approaching. In a situation less than all out war, Rules of Engagement are unlikely to permit ships from using their weapons until at relatively close range. If the aircraft was carrying anti ship missiles, it would probably have fired them and gone away. Likewise a recce mission is unlikely to get inside missile range - remember that during the 80s tanker war, Iranian C130s were used to co-ordinate mining and speedboat attacks against international shipping.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 30th Nov 2011 at 20:34.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Either Side
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of encouraging thread creep I'm not sure that the aforementioned ASRAAM fit, even with FDL/JTIDS/Link16, qualified as an AD capability. At the most, I suspect, it was an increased and more robust self-defense capability.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was a long read to get to here.
I wonder what the forums would have looked like when the RNZAF decided to get rid of any fast jets at all, had the internet existed in its current form then! At least the UK still has air defence and ground attack fast jets. If a large power decided they needed a convenient small staging post with lots of fertile land on the way to mythical mineral reserves near Antarctica, then NZ would be looking very nervous.
As many have said, in an ideal world none of this year's cuts would have been made. The reality is that the UK has overspent and if we have any hope of surviving as a relatively wealthy, secure nation in the Asian century, then the budget has to be tackled now. With any luck, the middle-eastern campaigns of the last ten years will be our last major overseas efforts.
I only hope we are left with a military at the end which can defend the UK as required, on land, sea and in the air and which is known as one of the finest in the world. The empire has gone and with it the need for large, expeditionary forces. I believe the future plans of the military should relate only to the defence of Britain, its shores and the immediate sea lanes, i.e. the Atlantic in partnership with the USA.
I wonder what the forums would have looked like when the RNZAF decided to get rid of any fast jets at all, had the internet existed in its current form then! At least the UK still has air defence and ground attack fast jets. If a large power decided they needed a convenient small staging post with lots of fertile land on the way to mythical mineral reserves near Antarctica, then NZ would be looking very nervous.
As many have said, in an ideal world none of this year's cuts would have been made. The reality is that the UK has overspent and if we have any hope of surviving as a relatively wealthy, secure nation in the Asian century, then the budget has to be tackled now. With any luck, the middle-eastern campaigns of the last ten years will be our last major overseas efforts.
I only hope we are left with a military at the end which can defend the UK as required, on land, sea and in the air and which is known as one of the finest in the world. The empire has gone and with it the need for large, expeditionary forces. I believe the future plans of the military should relate only to the defence of Britain, its shores and the immediate sea lanes, i.e. the Atlantic in partnership with the USA.