Sea Jet
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVF
If it is a capability (or capability gap) we need to fill, the budget it comes out of is unimportant and does not necessarily have to come solely from the Navy. The CVF will be a Joint asset therefore one could argue that it should be paid for "jointly".
Therefore maybe you should be worrying about how many Typhoon Squadrons or new tank regiments may be hit to pay for it!
(Of course we couldnt possibly touch the crab's shiny new jet could we? Even though it is very late, a generation behind the JSF and any ops would require host nation support and a plethora of Marriot hotels within commuting distance to the airbase!)
Something like 70% of the world's population live within 100 miles of the coast. Steaming a carrier with 40 plus jets with organic C2 support to just beyond the horizon sends a very serious message. I'm sure the sight of the Sea Jets low flying over Sierra Leone was enough to make the locals think twice about their actions. Its what power projection is all about, even if no shots are even fired.
Just my thoughts !!
Oggin
Therefore maybe you should be worrying about how many Typhoon Squadrons or new tank regiments may be hit to pay for it!
(Of course we couldnt possibly touch the crab's shiny new jet could we? Even though it is very late, a generation behind the JSF and any ops would require host nation support and a plethora of Marriot hotels within commuting distance to the airbase!)
Something like 70% of the world's population live within 100 miles of the coast. Steaming a carrier with 40 plus jets with organic C2 support to just beyond the horizon sends a very serious message. I'm sure the sight of the Sea Jets low flying over Sierra Leone was enough to make the locals think twice about their actions. Its what power projection is all about, even if no shots are even fired.
Just my thoughts !!
Oggin
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oggin Aviator,
Err, no actually we couldn't because the UK is contractually required to meet the costs to the partner nations of cancellation. So we'd probably end up paying more for cancelling Typhoon orders.
I think that it's fair to say that most in the RAF would have preferred to have taken a load of F-15E's 10 plus years ago than the Typhoon. That would have given us a proven swing-role asset that approached the capability that Typhoon will give us in the next few years. However, take a reality pill Oggin. To have ordered F-15's would have effectively ended European military aviation. This is something that is clearly politically unacceptable.
Yes it does, and as I've said before, I am a strong advocate of maintaining a credible fixed wing carrier capability. Similarly HN support is required for land based assets. However, remember that in EVERY major conflict involving carrier aviation since WWII, carriers have relied upon land based assets for a major part of their combat support assets. And this includes even the mighty USN CVNs. As an illustration:
Vietnam: EC-121 AEW/SIGINT.
Falklands: Nimrod MR1/2 Maritime Recce and R1 SIGINT, and Victor K2 radar recce.
GW1/Former Jugoslavia/Afghanistan/GW2: AAR, SIGINT, AWACS, JSTARS, ECM.
Carrier aviation must be seen in context. It is part of a much bigger force equation. Carriers have their capabilities just as land based assets do. Let's just recognise the fact and stop trying to score points against each other.
Regards,
M2
(Of course we couldnt possibly touch the crab's shiny new jet could we?
I think that it's fair to say that most in the RAF would have preferred to have taken a load of F-15E's 10 plus years ago than the Typhoon. That would have given us a proven swing-role asset that approached the capability that Typhoon will give us in the next few years. However, take a reality pill Oggin. To have ordered F-15's would have effectively ended European military aviation. This is something that is clearly politically unacceptable.
Steaming a carrier with 40 plus jets with organic C2 support to just beyond the horizon sends a very serious message.
Vietnam: EC-121 AEW/SIGINT.
Falklands: Nimrod MR1/2 Maritime Recce and R1 SIGINT, and Victor K2 radar recce.
GW1/Former Jugoslavia/Afghanistan/GW2: AAR, SIGINT, AWACS, JSTARS, ECM.
Carrier aviation must be seen in context. It is part of a much bigger force equation. Carriers have their capabilities just as land based assets do. Let's just recognise the fact and stop trying to score points against each other.
Regards,
M2
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.................... if you've never seen or heard a fast jet in your life it probably would Beagle.
It just happened that these jets were SHARs, they were there on the scene and utilised in this role. I know there were Jags in the area at the time and I dont know why they were not used but senior people get paid to make those decisions and thats that.
Power Projection issues and the threat of military action have seemed to work in Liberia recently.
I'm all for the good work and the professionalism the RAF brings to the party, the reason I am able to freely contribute to this forum is partly down to the heroism of the RAF in 1940. We should all, however, recognise the capabilities of the other services in their own right and get away from this inter service rivalry (myself included at times!!).
Oggin
It just happened that these jets were SHARs, they were there on the scene and utilised in this role. I know there were Jags in the area at the time and I dont know why they were not used but senior people get paid to make those decisions and thats that.
Power Projection issues and the threat of military action have seemed to work in Liberia recently.
I'm all for the good work and the professionalism the RAF brings to the party, the reason I am able to freely contribute to this forum is partly down to the heroism of the RAF in 1940. We should all, however, recognise the capabilities of the other services in their own right and get away from this inter service rivalry (myself included at times!!).
Oggin
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Oggin,
Ah! We could do our job, if only we had some of your budget... An old refrain.
Unlucky however, the rumour on the streets is that Tranche 3 of the Typhoon is already looking rocky and the funds are committed for Tranches 1 and 2. There's always the RAF JSF buy, that's supposed to support the CVs anyway. The papers only a week ago were talking about further army cuts. So I'm afraid there's no slack there.
Sorry, for this one, I think you're on your own......
Ah! We could do our job, if only we had some of your budget... An old refrain.
Unlucky however, the rumour on the streets is that Tranche 3 of the Typhoon is already looking rocky and the funds are committed for Tranches 1 and 2. There's always the RAF JSF buy, that's supposed to support the CVs anyway. The papers only a week ago were talking about further army cuts. So I'm afraid there's no slack there.
Sorry, for this one, I think you're on your own......
We seem to be rerunning the "scrap the carrrier" policies of 1964 here, that's not what the crux of the argument is.
We will still have the ability to "hove over the horizon" with a Carrier, it's just that in the short term it will be with the GR9A and in the long term it will be the F-35.
Instead of SHAR's screaming over Sierra Leone it will be GR9A's or F-35's, surely a much better option.
The SHAR is the problem, not organic airpower and not Carriers. Though I have to say if, as suggested some time ago by Jackonicko, we spent the money allotted to the Carriers on something like JAS39 then I for one think we would maybe be getting more for our money, HOWEVER, that is not the argument, SHAR bad, GR9A/F-35 good is.
We will still have the ability to "hove over the horizon" with a Carrier, it's just that in the short term it will be with the GR9A and in the long term it will be the F-35.
Instead of SHAR's screaming over Sierra Leone it will be GR9A's or F-35's, surely a much better option.
The SHAR is the problem, not organic airpower and not Carriers. Though I have to say if, as suggested some time ago by Jackonicko, we spent the money allotted to the Carriers on something like JAS39 then I for one think we would maybe be getting more for our money, HOWEVER, that is not the argument, SHAR bad, GR9A/F-35 good is.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But when will we have F-35? If you believe project timescales you'll believe anything.
Without an interception radar, and controlled by AEW from a Falklands stop-gap, OTH capability is severely limited in any Harrier GR. Defence against cruise missiles will be especially poor. There are a lot of Russian and Chinese built missiles out there, simple but the defence against them is a layered defence. If there is one thing that was learnt in the Falklands it is that we cannot afford to give up a layer. We may be safe on paper, but in reality something always goes wrong in the end.
Without an interception radar, and controlled by AEW from a Falklands stop-gap, OTH capability is severely limited in any Harrier GR. Defence against cruise missiles will be especially poor. There are a lot of Russian and Chinese built missiles out there, simple but the defence against them is a layered defence. If there is one thing that was learnt in the Falklands it is that we cannot afford to give up a layer. We may be safe on paper, but in reality something always goes wrong in the end.
In an ideal world I'd want six big carriers, groaning with fixed wing air power, and I'd want all our ships to have as many 'layers' of AD as an onion. But in the real world it has to be hard choices about which capabilities one has to forego in order to fund other priorities. The short gap left by phasing out the Shar seems like a very sensible cost saving to me.
Does anyone seriously anticipate the UK undertaking major ops without coalition partners AND outside the range of land based air assets? During that period?
Does anyone seriously anticipate the UK undertaking major ops without coalition partners AND outside the range of land based air assets? During that period?
The better question asked is if your land based assets will always have basing privledges in a host country and will there always be overflight rights of adjecent countries.
Westy,
If the answer to either of your questions is "no" then (in the fluffy post Cold War world) it probably means that your proposed ops aren't doable, or are best left to Uncle Sam and his carriers.
It's not that it's bad to have carriers, it's just that they are so rarely ESSENTIAL that they cannot be a spending priority, and it follows that a temporary capability gap in this area is acceptable.
If the answer to either of your questions is "no" then (in the fluffy post Cold War world) it probably means that your proposed ops aren't doable, or are best left to Uncle Sam and his carriers.
It's not that it's bad to have carriers, it's just that they are so rarely ESSENTIAL that they cannot be a spending priority, and it follows that a temporary capability gap in this area is acceptable.
Jacko
I do understand you views, but I draw a different fiscal line in the sand. I rarely need car insurance until I rear end someone. Seems like money wasted up until that point.
You just can't beat flying off sovereign territory. If another Malvinas type of fracas appeared, do you think the US is going to provide a CVN or three considering current ops tempo and tasking?
I do understand you views, but I draw a different fiscal line in the sand. I rarely need car insurance until I rear end someone. Seems like money wasted up until that point.
You just can't beat flying off sovereign territory. If another Malvinas type of fracas appeared, do you think the US is going to provide a CVN or three considering current ops tempo and tasking?
And do we really want to be even more dependent than we are now?
BTW, the reminder of the original decision is quite right. Back then it was a rather harebrained scheme concerning F111s and various tiny and obscure islands, generally requiring massive and costly engineering work to support serious air bases, which would supposedly always be exactly where we needed them as well as being so much cheaper (despite the fact that we couldn't afford the F111s either...) Not to mention the problems of command and control between naval forces and air forces separated by a Berlin wall. Now it is a structure of huge political assumptions - we won't fight anybody good, if we do we'll have host nation support, anyway the Yanks will always play fairy godmother - resting on a contradiction (we need to be able to act anywhere in the world as quickly as humanly possible, but only as long as the Americans want to help and/or we have time to arrange host nation support).
BTW, the reminder of the original decision is quite right. Back then it was a rather harebrained scheme concerning F111s and various tiny and obscure islands, generally requiring massive and costly engineering work to support serious air bases, which would supposedly always be exactly where we needed them as well as being so much cheaper (despite the fact that we couldn't afford the F111s either...) Not to mention the problems of command and control between naval forces and air forces separated by a Berlin wall. Now it is a structure of huge political assumptions - we won't fight anybody good, if we do we'll have host nation support, anyway the Yanks will always play fairy godmother - resting on a contradiction (we need to be able to act anywhere in the world as quickly as humanly possible, but only as long as the Americans want to help and/or we have time to arrange host nation support).
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The edge
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, my therapist has said I've been making great progress, I've been clean for months now, but one little SHAR related post won't hurt, will it?
Firstly, I need to point out to M2 how hurt I am at being compared to Navy News! For the umpteenth time: IT'S NOT MY FECKIN' JET; I HAVEN'T FLOWN IT FOR YEARS! I'm simply in the fortunate position of having flown it a bit in unfriendly airspace. Therefore it's one of those rare subjects upon which I'm able to speak with a drop of authority. I personally feel that fibbing in your argument is very easily revealed by other experts on this forum and so I aim to post objectively. Every single Brit mil aircraft I've soloed in (except the Hawk) has since been scrapped so it's not an emotional attachment either. The problem is, we were (=they are) such a small and unique force, the aircraft is incredibly misunderstood by those we thought should know better. Some of my favourite examples:
Several American FJ (including Harrier) pilots: "Doo yoo guys have, like, a ray-dar?"
Conversation between me and a foreign COMAO lead who had fragged us just to drop bombs, and was a bit worried that his sweep assets were a bit thin: "Can yoo cerry a couple of Zidewinders as well as yoor boms, for zelf protection?" "Er, yeah, would you not prefer us to carry AMRAAM instead?" "IMRIIM? IMRIM! Do you have a reedar?" "Er, of course" "How meny IMRIM can yoo cerry?" "Er, two, with the two bombs, or four if you want us to take the bombs off" I was then faced with 30 seconds of the mouth-open, eyes flicking from side-to-side stare of a man who is not sure whether you are winding him up or not, or whether his whole plan is a crock. Of course, being a foreigner, his whole plan was a crock.
From a GR1 QWI student: "You guys don't have a computed bomb sight do you? I mean, you work off a fixed depression sight, right?"
And now to the ridiculous, simply for your amusement:
Overheard very senior Army officer impressing his guests at a CVS cocktail party: "...and of course, these guys will hover behind trees in the battlefield, pop up to strafe tanks, then disappear behind the trees again..." I kid you not. But it gets worse:
CVS captain, who has clearly been listening to helo banter, watching SHARS recovering on deck, enquiring of my colleague: "And how is your single-engine hover performance?" Quick as a flash, said colleague replies: "It's great, sir, in fact, WE DO IT ALL THE TIME!" (temperature permitting, of course).
And finally, another CVS captain watching SHARS using their nozzles in the Braking Stop to taxi backwards on deck questions my CO: "And what exactly is the motive force for this evolution?" Slightly back-footed, my CO, a career man and amateur diplomat: "Er....the engine, sir!....?"
Secondly, I'm here to save Jacko by death from an attack of apoplexy:
No, the AMRAAM/FA2 integration can in no way be compared to that of the F3. The major difference is that, from the drawing board stage the upgraded aircraft was designed to fully support AIM-120. After the F-war the Brits decided they wanted a mini F-14 that could track 10 low flying targets overland whilst simultaneously supporting AMRAAM to 4 of those targets. The original project included a bigger engine, a thinner wing so it would go faster etc. But the bean counters decided to nibble the upgrade to death, and now they're complaining that it doesn't have the hover thrust they took away from it back in the late '80s! I think that the differences in employment of AIM-120B from FA2 vs F-15/16 that M2 was referring to are the following (the only ones I know):
1. The Yank F-jets can fly somewhat higher and a lot faster than the Bumper Fun Jet, and so can achieve longer kinematic launch ranges than the FA2.
2. The Yank F-jets are equipped with IFF interrogators, and so can, in theory (i.e. ROE dependant) engage without 3rd party ID. As a footnote, without giving away anything about recent/current theatre ROE, having your own interrogator has not facilitated an engagement in the 3 war zones I've been in. Having flown an aircraft with an interrogator, its greatest strength is that it reduces comm-you don't have to continually ask Magic to declare what turn out to be friendlies in the AOR.
A couple of references to some arguments I've seen. Sorry for the lack of acretitations but my current gin/blood ratio does not allow me to go back and find out who said what without losing this draft post:
(Approximately): "The JSF is stealthy which is something the SHAR will never achieve" Absolutely correct. Based on your argument we should scrap all current British military equipment based on the fact that all their successors will be better. These two aircraft are NOT in competition, my friend.
I seem to remember M2 saying something about SHARs being on station for 20 minutes while the rest of the World was achieving 2-4 hour vul times. Christ man! what were these things? Global Hawks? I fly a super Yank F-jet now, and we need to air-refuel 4 times to cover a 2-hour vul period!
Next, somebody said that the problem was not organic carrier air power, it was the SHAR. Dude, the UKs organic defensive air power IS the SHAR. You have a problem with one, you have a problem with the other.
As for he who said that there was virtually no threat from sea-skimming missiles to a naval TG because we are currently fighting an assymetric war, guess what? That's the CURRENT situation. We had a current situation on Sep 10 2001. The World, warfare etc. changed beyond recognition 24 hours later. As any warfare college instructor repeatedly tells you, you fight the NEXT war, with the benefit of experience of the current and previous wars. I think the North Koreans (amongst others) will be deeply insulted by your insinuation that we can ignore their capability to attack our ships at long range without warning.
Not sure what Jacko is getting at with his reference to "AMRAAM seviceability in the UK" The UK are allowed no more than to polish the missile. ANY attempt at 'maintainance' in the UK results in loss of contract (yes, they have tamper-proof seals on the missile). So, apart from our wonderful weather, there is no difference between a UK Rammer and a US one (if you believe what the yanks tell you about the software state).
Okay, before I bore you all to tears and you skip to the next post, I have a question. And it is a question, not a statement or point in disguise:
The Govt. has said that all our maritime AD needs will be fulfilled by "our allies" So here's the question:
Has anybody actually seen any paperwork involving the UK formally requesting any of our allies to divert their carrier-borne AD resources to protect an RN task group?
Even if they have, I have two uncertainties with this plan. First the concept, then the practicality.
The concept: Even the mighty (?) RN fixed-wing defensive air force does not have redundant assets to protect an Italian or Spanish carrier deployed more than a few miles from our own CVS. Can their pitiful quantities of assets protect one of our TGs? Even if so, do you REALLY want Italian AV8B+s defending our TG? Even if the French were better placed with their single (i.e. non-redundant...think about when they broke a screw) carrier, would they take part? After all, they hate all things that are led by Americans. Which brings us to the Americans. On the conceptual side, these were the people who scuppered our Suez operation, would not allow Brit companies to compete to rebuild Iraq despite our unwavering support (that's THIS YEAR guys), levied illegal tariffs on Brit steel imports.... The list is endless.
On to the practicality: Those of us who don't scratch the surface see big Yank carriers with masses of planes on. Therefore........they must have loads to spare to protect allies who can't be bothered to pull their weight, right? And of course, the Yanks have no problems with European NATO members who collectively commit less than the US armed forces alone to NATO. The USN has recently been using their F-14 AD aircraft in the air-to ground role because in the CURRENT situation we need more attack assets 'cos we CURRENTLY achieve air supremacy with ease. If an RN TU integrates itself into a US TG such that the whole RN TU stays close to the US carrier, no problem. But what if you have an area of battlespace 2-300nm down the coast that needs covering by a non-US NATO unit? We can't do it. So the USN has to develop a whole new set of operating SOPs to accomodate the UK TG that can't leave their side. Please convince me they'll be happy about that......
Right. That's it. I'm going back to the clinic to explain my failings. You'll never hear from me again-honest.
Firstly, I need to point out to M2 how hurt I am at being compared to Navy News! For the umpteenth time: IT'S NOT MY FECKIN' JET; I HAVEN'T FLOWN IT FOR YEARS! I'm simply in the fortunate position of having flown it a bit in unfriendly airspace. Therefore it's one of those rare subjects upon which I'm able to speak with a drop of authority. I personally feel that fibbing in your argument is very easily revealed by other experts on this forum and so I aim to post objectively. Every single Brit mil aircraft I've soloed in (except the Hawk) has since been scrapped so it's not an emotional attachment either. The problem is, we were (=they are) such a small and unique force, the aircraft is incredibly misunderstood by those we thought should know better. Some of my favourite examples:
Several American FJ (including Harrier) pilots: "Doo yoo guys have, like, a ray-dar?"
Conversation between me and a foreign COMAO lead who had fragged us just to drop bombs, and was a bit worried that his sweep assets were a bit thin: "Can yoo cerry a couple of Zidewinders as well as yoor boms, for zelf protection?" "Er, yeah, would you not prefer us to carry AMRAAM instead?" "IMRIIM? IMRIM! Do you have a reedar?" "Er, of course" "How meny IMRIM can yoo cerry?" "Er, two, with the two bombs, or four if you want us to take the bombs off" I was then faced with 30 seconds of the mouth-open, eyes flicking from side-to-side stare of a man who is not sure whether you are winding him up or not, or whether his whole plan is a crock. Of course, being a foreigner, his whole plan was a crock.
From a GR1 QWI student: "You guys don't have a computed bomb sight do you? I mean, you work off a fixed depression sight, right?"
And now to the ridiculous, simply for your amusement:
Overheard very senior Army officer impressing his guests at a CVS cocktail party: "...and of course, these guys will hover behind trees in the battlefield, pop up to strafe tanks, then disappear behind the trees again..." I kid you not. But it gets worse:
CVS captain, who has clearly been listening to helo banter, watching SHARS recovering on deck, enquiring of my colleague: "And how is your single-engine hover performance?" Quick as a flash, said colleague replies: "It's great, sir, in fact, WE DO IT ALL THE TIME!" (temperature permitting, of course).
And finally, another CVS captain watching SHARS using their nozzles in the Braking Stop to taxi backwards on deck questions my CO: "And what exactly is the motive force for this evolution?" Slightly back-footed, my CO, a career man and amateur diplomat: "Er....the engine, sir!....?"
Secondly, I'm here to save Jacko by death from an attack of apoplexy:
No, the AMRAAM/FA2 integration can in no way be compared to that of the F3. The major difference is that, from the drawing board stage the upgraded aircraft was designed to fully support AIM-120. After the F-war the Brits decided they wanted a mini F-14 that could track 10 low flying targets overland whilst simultaneously supporting AMRAAM to 4 of those targets. The original project included a bigger engine, a thinner wing so it would go faster etc. But the bean counters decided to nibble the upgrade to death, and now they're complaining that it doesn't have the hover thrust they took away from it back in the late '80s! I think that the differences in employment of AIM-120B from FA2 vs F-15/16 that M2 was referring to are the following (the only ones I know):
1. The Yank F-jets can fly somewhat higher and a lot faster than the Bumper Fun Jet, and so can achieve longer kinematic launch ranges than the FA2.
2. The Yank F-jets are equipped with IFF interrogators, and so can, in theory (i.e. ROE dependant) engage without 3rd party ID. As a footnote, without giving away anything about recent/current theatre ROE, having your own interrogator has not facilitated an engagement in the 3 war zones I've been in. Having flown an aircraft with an interrogator, its greatest strength is that it reduces comm-you don't have to continually ask Magic to declare what turn out to be friendlies in the AOR.
A couple of references to some arguments I've seen. Sorry for the lack of acretitations but my current gin/blood ratio does not allow me to go back and find out who said what without losing this draft post:
(Approximately): "The JSF is stealthy which is something the SHAR will never achieve" Absolutely correct. Based on your argument we should scrap all current British military equipment based on the fact that all their successors will be better. These two aircraft are NOT in competition, my friend.
I seem to remember M2 saying something about SHARs being on station for 20 minutes while the rest of the World was achieving 2-4 hour vul times. Christ man! what were these things? Global Hawks? I fly a super Yank F-jet now, and we need to air-refuel 4 times to cover a 2-hour vul period!
Next, somebody said that the problem was not organic carrier air power, it was the SHAR. Dude, the UKs organic defensive air power IS the SHAR. You have a problem with one, you have a problem with the other.
As for he who said that there was virtually no threat from sea-skimming missiles to a naval TG because we are currently fighting an assymetric war, guess what? That's the CURRENT situation. We had a current situation on Sep 10 2001. The World, warfare etc. changed beyond recognition 24 hours later. As any warfare college instructor repeatedly tells you, you fight the NEXT war, with the benefit of experience of the current and previous wars. I think the North Koreans (amongst others) will be deeply insulted by your insinuation that we can ignore their capability to attack our ships at long range without warning.
Not sure what Jacko is getting at with his reference to "AMRAAM seviceability in the UK" The UK are allowed no more than to polish the missile. ANY attempt at 'maintainance' in the UK results in loss of contract (yes, they have tamper-proof seals on the missile). So, apart from our wonderful weather, there is no difference between a UK Rammer and a US one (if you believe what the yanks tell you about the software state).
Okay, before I bore you all to tears and you skip to the next post, I have a question. And it is a question, not a statement or point in disguise:
The Govt. has said that all our maritime AD needs will be fulfilled by "our allies" So here's the question:
Has anybody actually seen any paperwork involving the UK formally requesting any of our allies to divert their carrier-borne AD resources to protect an RN task group?
Even if they have, I have two uncertainties with this plan. First the concept, then the practicality.
The concept: Even the mighty (?) RN fixed-wing defensive air force does not have redundant assets to protect an Italian or Spanish carrier deployed more than a few miles from our own CVS. Can their pitiful quantities of assets protect one of our TGs? Even if so, do you REALLY want Italian AV8B+s defending our TG? Even if the French were better placed with their single (i.e. non-redundant...think about when they broke a screw) carrier, would they take part? After all, they hate all things that are led by Americans. Which brings us to the Americans. On the conceptual side, these were the people who scuppered our Suez operation, would not allow Brit companies to compete to rebuild Iraq despite our unwavering support (that's THIS YEAR guys), levied illegal tariffs on Brit steel imports.... The list is endless.
On to the practicality: Those of us who don't scratch the surface see big Yank carriers with masses of planes on. Therefore........they must have loads to spare to protect allies who can't be bothered to pull their weight, right? And of course, the Yanks have no problems with European NATO members who collectively commit less than the US armed forces alone to NATO. The USN has recently been using their F-14 AD aircraft in the air-to ground role because in the CURRENT situation we need more attack assets 'cos we CURRENTLY achieve air supremacy with ease. If an RN TU integrates itself into a US TG such that the whole RN TU stays close to the US carrier, no problem. But what if you have an area of battlespace 2-300nm down the coast that needs covering by a non-US NATO unit? We can't do it. So the USN has to develop a whole new set of operating SOPs to accomodate the UK TG that can't leave their side. Please convince me they'll be happy about that......
Right. That's it. I'm going back to the clinic to explain my failings. You'll never hear from me again-honest.
Last edited by Nozzles; 22nd Aug 2003 at 04:25.
Interesting thread, but time for a reality check boys! THE SHAR IS GOING!!! You can talk about it as much as you like, but it won't change anything!! If you don't like it, then quit!! Yes, it may create a capability gap, lives may be at risk. But lives are at risk everywhere in the military due to lack of funds. No or inadequate defensive aids on our large aircraft, no decent national SAM assets, insufficient body armour for the troops in the latest gulf war, no medical services to speak of... It goes on and on.
While the discussion reference SHAR is of interest, you might as well revive the "We should never have scrapped the TSR2, cancelled the CVA-01,....." type discussions. The SHAR is going, and no politician is going to embarass himself by doing a U-turn on this issue!!
While the discussion reference SHAR is of interest, you might as well revive the "We should never have scrapped the TSR2, cancelled the CVA-01,....." type discussions. The SHAR is going, and no politician is going to embarass himself by doing a U-turn on this issue!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nozzles!
I knew that you'd not be able to stay out of this for long!!
Firstly, let me state once again very clearly: I AM A FAN OF MARITIME AVIATION, AND I WOULD PREFER US NOT TO BE GETTING RID OF THE SHAR!
The SHAR crews constantly do a fantastic job, and I know that the nature of the jet ensures that it's one of the most demanding jets to fly. However, I wished to provide a counter argument to WEBF constant wittering (excuse the pun) suggesting that the SHAR won the Balkans single handedly and is some sort of wonder jet!
I also stand by my statement that it is not the SHARs passing that we should be mourning, but that of an organic RN AMRAAM capability.
I hope that I have a fairly decent knowledge of what the SHARs capabilities are (although clearly not as good as Nozzles'). I know how many slammers it can carry. I know what an excellent little radar Blue Vixen is. I know you can drop dumb bombs accurately. And, as Nozzles says, the SHAR is still the only UK jet with a full up AMRAAM integration.
However, the SHAR does not have a precision weapons capability in the form of LGBs or EPW/JDAM. Ergo unlike other assets it cannot drop through weather (unless you take the GR7 option in Kosovo of dropping on GPS/INS predictions). This is increasingly a MAJOR restriction due to modern Air-ground ROE, even when the weather is good.
As Nozzles says, any supersonic jet with a Fox 3 capability has the advantage of higher kinematic kill ranges compared to the SHAR. Likewise, the lack of an IFF interrogator is a factor, although this can be partially mitigated with AWACS support, and most FA-18's also lack this capability. However, I was not alluding to those capabilities. If you fly a modern US jet now, with respect, I'm slightly surprised that you are not aware of the one other advantage offered by certain modern western (albeit primarily US) radars.
As far as the SHAR vul time for Kosovo, they were primarily fragged for a 20 min CAP, which they did once or twice a day. I didn't suggest that the other assets managed 2-4 hrs without AAR. Clearly, the SHAR can extend with AAR. However, in a conflict, AAR is always at an absolute premium. Therefore, the SHARs endurance is an issue when it is amongst the most limited around when compared to even the FA-18 and Mirage 2000.
Please do not take this the wrong way Nozzles old chap. The SHAR is a superbly versatile piece of kit for what it is. However, the writing should have been on the wall 10+ years ago when the GR7's started operating routinely from CVS. The RN and RAF grown ups should have taken a reality pill and suggested an AV-8B+ type upgrade for the GR7's using Blue Vixen, APG-65 or Captor (ECR-90) rather than continuing with the FA2 upgrades. Then we could have retired the SHAR gracefully. Accordingly, I mourn the passing of the FA2 ONLY because it will remove AMRAAM from the RN's carrier wing until JCA arrives.
Although the GR7 is still planned to get ASRAAM (so I'm told) which will reduce the gap between winder and AMRAAM engagement ranges/speeds, I can understand the decision that has been made. As Biggus says: the SHAR is going. We have to live with it.
Regards,
M2
I knew that you'd not be able to stay out of this for long!!
Firstly, let me state once again very clearly: I AM A FAN OF MARITIME AVIATION, AND I WOULD PREFER US NOT TO BE GETTING RID OF THE SHAR!
The SHAR crews constantly do a fantastic job, and I know that the nature of the jet ensures that it's one of the most demanding jets to fly. However, I wished to provide a counter argument to WEBF constant wittering (excuse the pun) suggesting that the SHAR won the Balkans single handedly and is some sort of wonder jet!
I also stand by my statement that it is not the SHARs passing that we should be mourning, but that of an organic RN AMRAAM capability.
I hope that I have a fairly decent knowledge of what the SHARs capabilities are (although clearly not as good as Nozzles'). I know how many slammers it can carry. I know what an excellent little radar Blue Vixen is. I know you can drop dumb bombs accurately. And, as Nozzles says, the SHAR is still the only UK jet with a full up AMRAAM integration.
However, the SHAR does not have a precision weapons capability in the form of LGBs or EPW/JDAM. Ergo unlike other assets it cannot drop through weather (unless you take the GR7 option in Kosovo of dropping on GPS/INS predictions). This is increasingly a MAJOR restriction due to modern Air-ground ROE, even when the weather is good.
As Nozzles says, any supersonic jet with a Fox 3 capability has the advantage of higher kinematic kill ranges compared to the SHAR. Likewise, the lack of an IFF interrogator is a factor, although this can be partially mitigated with AWACS support, and most FA-18's also lack this capability. However, I was not alluding to those capabilities. If you fly a modern US jet now, with respect, I'm slightly surprised that you are not aware of the one other advantage offered by certain modern western (albeit primarily US) radars.
As far as the SHAR vul time for Kosovo, they were primarily fragged for a 20 min CAP, which they did once or twice a day. I didn't suggest that the other assets managed 2-4 hrs without AAR. Clearly, the SHAR can extend with AAR. However, in a conflict, AAR is always at an absolute premium. Therefore, the SHARs endurance is an issue when it is amongst the most limited around when compared to even the FA-18 and Mirage 2000.
Please do not take this the wrong way Nozzles old chap. The SHAR is a superbly versatile piece of kit for what it is. However, the writing should have been on the wall 10+ years ago when the GR7's started operating routinely from CVS. The RN and RAF grown ups should have taken a reality pill and suggested an AV-8B+ type upgrade for the GR7's using Blue Vixen, APG-65 or Captor (ECR-90) rather than continuing with the FA2 upgrades. Then we could have retired the SHAR gracefully. Accordingly, I mourn the passing of the FA2 ONLY because it will remove AMRAAM from the RN's carrier wing until JCA arrives.
Although the GR7 is still planned to get ASRAAM (so I'm told) which will reduce the gap between winder and AMRAAM engagement ranges/speeds, I can understand the decision that has been made. As Biggus says: the SHAR is going. We have to live with it.
Regards,
M2
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The edge
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M2,
It is nothing short of a pleasure to cross swords with you. My only question is: What are you doing up at this time?
OK, you're slightly surprised. I know I'm drunk, but I'm flabbergasted...........what is this other advantage offered by other "certain modern Western...albeit primarily US radars" apart from greater detection ranges (especially the F-15). Like I said, I currently fly one of these jets, and I haven't noticed this amazing function... what are you referring to (unclassified?).
The SHAR is going. It went for me years ago. However, it doesn't mean that those of us who have had a minor education in the subject should sit quietly whilst yet another icon of the UKs previous power is spun into obscurity. Don't even start me on where the UK should be going at this point. Simply trawling through the TV channels reveals who we are. We used to explore the places others feared to venture into. Now we are only interested in changing our garden layout, redecorating our houses or participating in some moronic cookery competition. Hitler once referred to us as 'a nation of shopkeepers'. If only we had the foresight to deserve such an accolade.
Of course I would never resent your comments. I've been shot down by uglier guys than you!
Flippin' eck I'm drunk! Found out this arvo that I'd been wiped off tomorrow's flypro so I gave them the big finger!
It is nothing short of a pleasure to cross swords with you. My only question is: What are you doing up at this time?
OK, you're slightly surprised. I know I'm drunk, but I'm flabbergasted...........what is this other advantage offered by other "certain modern Western...albeit primarily US radars" apart from greater detection ranges (especially the F-15). Like I said, I currently fly one of these jets, and I haven't noticed this amazing function... what are you referring to (unclassified?).
The SHAR is going. It went for me years ago. However, it doesn't mean that those of us who have had a minor education in the subject should sit quietly whilst yet another icon of the UKs previous power is spun into obscurity. Don't even start me on where the UK should be going at this point. Simply trawling through the TV channels reveals who we are. We used to explore the places others feared to venture into. Now we are only interested in changing our garden layout, redecorating our houses or participating in some moronic cookery competition. Hitler once referred to us as 'a nation of shopkeepers'. If only we had the foresight to deserve such an accolade.
Of course I would never resent your comments. I've been shot down by uglier guys than you!
Flippin' eck I'm drunk! Found out this arvo that I'd been wiped off tomorrow's flypro so I gave them the big finger!
Last edited by Nozzles; 22nd Aug 2003 at 18:25.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nozzles,
I'm up because youngest sprog is up and pi$$ed off and I daren't go upstairs until the missus has got her off to la la land again!!
It's abit diff to be specific as it's something possibly best left unsaid on a public forum. However, check your Private Messages for a clue!
Regards,
M2
I'm up because youngest sprog is up and pi$$ed off and I daren't go upstairs until the missus has got her off to la la land again!!
It's abit diff to be specific as it's something possibly best left unsaid on a public forum. However, check your Private Messages for a clue!
Regards,
M2
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The edge
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's any secret that they've got that function but I'll keep shtum just in case. However, thinking back to the ROE for the most recent theatres I've been in, I'm not sure that just that + an interrogator will take you all the way through the ROE matrix to the end. Not without your chaps having an input, anyway.
Hope you get some kip!
Hope you get some kip!
