Sea Jet
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Biggleswade
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said John. The real sad thing for me is that it took some 14 years to get the 11-61 into the GR Harrier, with constant lobbying from both operator and seller alike. R-R also did a dry fit of the 11-61 into the Sea Jet, and it worked fine.
With a bit of application, and some money (although cost of ownership would be reduced) we could have a much more effective fighting aircraft in an 11-61 powered Sea Jet while we wait for the JSF.
A
With a bit of application, and some money (although cost of ownership would be reduced) we could have a much more effective fighting aircraft in an 11-61 powered Sea Jet while we wait for the JSF.
A
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FEBA
Please do thank Harry. If anybody was Mr Nozzle Lever it was Harry. Of course some things (including the nozzle lever) were brilliant at the start, but 40 years on standards have moved ahead and we have to adjust the criteria we use to say things are OK today. I thought Ralph Hooper (who conceived the airframe in 1958) was God until 1979 when he started to argue against the use of fly-by-wire. Times had moved on in those 21 years (the F16 had been flying since 1971) and it was no longer right to say simplicity was everything. In 1979 it was smart to complicate and use FBW flaps to increase TO performance with the same thrust. Smart because the benefits outweighed the possible failure issues. In the early Harrier days bombs were dumb, pilots had skill limits and targets were missed. Today bombs are complicated, pilots need less (aiming) skill and targets are hit.
Airbedane
I understand your enthusiasm for putting the latest engine in the SHAR, but in reality the SHAR intake would have throttled this big donk something rotten. In the B and the 9 it has an intake designed for the extra mass flow. As it was, in 1982, it took 3 mods to the B intake (and several more to the compressor) during flight test before we got an intake/engine combination that could accept all the AOA that the big LERX airframe could offer without surge.
I hope nobody will ever doubt my appreciation of the Ralph Hooper’s and Gordon Lewis’s (Mr Pegasus) of this world. They had the simplicity/reliability/lean on the pilot compromise just right for the first 20 years. But that does not mean it is still the way to go today.
Regards
John
Please do thank Harry. If anybody was Mr Nozzle Lever it was Harry. Of course some things (including the nozzle lever) were brilliant at the start, but 40 years on standards have moved ahead and we have to adjust the criteria we use to say things are OK today. I thought Ralph Hooper (who conceived the airframe in 1958) was God until 1979 when he started to argue against the use of fly-by-wire. Times had moved on in those 21 years (the F16 had been flying since 1971) and it was no longer right to say simplicity was everything. In 1979 it was smart to complicate and use FBW flaps to increase TO performance with the same thrust. Smart because the benefits outweighed the possible failure issues. In the early Harrier days bombs were dumb, pilots had skill limits and targets were missed. Today bombs are complicated, pilots need less (aiming) skill and targets are hit.
Airbedane
I understand your enthusiasm for putting the latest engine in the SHAR, but in reality the SHAR intake would have throttled this big donk something rotten. In the B and the 9 it has an intake designed for the extra mass flow. As it was, in 1982, it took 3 mods to the B intake (and several more to the compressor) during flight test before we got an intake/engine combination that could accept all the AOA that the big LERX airframe could offer without surge.
I hope nobody will ever doubt my appreciation of the Ralph Hooper’s and Gordon Lewis’s (Mr Pegasus) of this world. They had the simplicity/reliability/lean on the pilot compromise just right for the first 20 years. But that does not mean it is still the way to go today.
Regards
John
I've watched too many SHAR pilots come back to mum at night with no googles, poor ergonomics and zip fuel for a go around; and have had nothing but total admiration for the guys that fly them and maintain them.
However, what would the shape of the Falklands War been if we had a true carrier, especially with AEW coverage for the fleet? we cannot turn back time, but without the political clanger that cancelled Ark's replacment, surely the '82 thing would never happened ?
The RN not having the legacy of a mud-moving aircraft for 'Royal', would there have ever been a Sea Jet ?
However, what would the shape of the Falklands War been if we had a true carrier, especially with AEW coverage for the fleet? we cannot turn back time, but without the political clanger that cancelled Ark's replacment, surely the '82 thing would never happened ?
The RN not having the legacy of a mud-moving aircraft for 'Royal', would there have ever been a Sea Jet ?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Biggleswade
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
I agree on the intake issue with the SHAR, but the mods are not that great. In any event, the SHAR fails at high temperature as the thrust of the (-106, I think) falls off markedly. The 11-61 is flat rated to a much higher temperature, so the engine could be limited to the existing mass flow to allow effective higher temperature ops.
Further, the surge margin of the 11-61 is way ahead of the -106, so that doesn't become an issue, either.
I accept that it's all wishfull thinking, and also that we must forge ahead, but while we wait and wait for these future projects to come to fruition, the boys on the front line need all the help they can get. The curent SHAR is heavy and ineffective in high temps. the 11-61 would have greatly increased the aircraft's effectiveness while we still wait for JSF.
A
I agree on the intake issue with the SHAR, but the mods are not that great. In any event, the SHAR fails at high temperature as the thrust of the (-106, I think) falls off markedly. The 11-61 is flat rated to a much higher temperature, so the engine could be limited to the existing mass flow to allow effective higher temperature ops.
Further, the surge margin of the 11-61 is way ahead of the -106, so that doesn't become an issue, either.
I accept that it's all wishfull thinking, and also that we must forge ahead, but while we wait and wait for these future projects to come to fruition, the boys on the front line need all the help they can get. The curent SHAR is heavy and ineffective in high temps. the 11-61 would have greatly increased the aircraft's effectiveness while we still wait for JSF.
A
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbedane
Agreed all that. But the time to have done the deed was 8-10 years ago. Hence my comment about under investment. It is a fact of life that certificating the aircraft with the 11-61 sitting behind a different shape of nose to the B as well as the intake issues would have been made a big job (as opposed to just dropping the thing in the engine bay and changing a few couplings etc) and people did not make a strong enough case then. If it had been done then would it have been sensible to ignore the cockpit internals? And so it goes on and on. Min change (however valid) is v difficult stuff to push through and manage. As it happens and with hindsight we have been lucky and the RN have not actually needed an air defender since the Falklands. Let us hope their luck holds. If it runs out then the sailors lives will depend on the RN of the day saying, sorry we cannot do that job, we do not have the kit.
Regards, John
Agreed all that. But the time to have done the deed was 8-10 years ago. Hence my comment about under investment. It is a fact of life that certificating the aircraft with the 11-61 sitting behind a different shape of nose to the B as well as the intake issues would have been made a big job (as opposed to just dropping the thing in the engine bay and changing a few couplings etc) and people did not make a strong enough case then. If it had been done then would it have been sensible to ignore the cockpit internals? And so it goes on and on. Min change (however valid) is v difficult stuff to push through and manage. As it happens and with hindsight we have been lucky and the RN have not actually needed an air defender since the Falklands. Let us hope their luck holds. If it runs out then the sailors lives will depend on the RN of the day saying, sorry we cannot do that job, we do not have the kit.
Regards, John
Shortly after the Malvinas war, I was told that there had even been some show interest in the old AEW Gannet lurking in a hangar at Leuchars.......what would it take to get it flying again and what sort of a deck would it need!!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Biggleswade
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
You're certainly right when you say the 11-61 should have been put in the Sea Jet some 8 - 10 years ago, albeit with the limitations discussed above. It's a sad fact that R-R were pushing as hard with the Navy to buy their engine as they were with the RAF. It's taken the latter 14 years to see the light and put it in the GR9!
Best Wishes,
A
You're certainly right when you say the 11-61 should have been put in the Sea Jet some 8 - 10 years ago, albeit with the limitations discussed above. It's a sad fact that R-R were pushing as hard with the Navy to buy their engine as they were with the RAF. It's taken the latter 14 years to see the light and put it in the GR9!
Best Wishes,
A
I think the upgrade to the FA2 (which was meant to include enhancements to the cockpit and avionics as well as the improved engine) had been in the pipeline for some time - at least that is what the following suggest:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/07/0041914.htm
http://production.investis.com/baesy...ngs/2002-02-05
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cac...n&ie=UTF-8</a>
http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/p...sus/detail.htm
The following exchange in the Commons is also of interest:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/20717-14.htm
If there is no need for dedicated naval air defence, then how come various Navies have been trying to obtain it? And we still train for defending a task force......
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/3857.html
As for the performance of the Sea Harrier in warm climes, we have operated it in the northern Persian Gulf/Iraq, and in the 2001 exercises in Oman, plus of course the Adriatic. India has operated it for many years in the Indian Ocean. Thailand and India (and possibly other Middle/Far Eastern nations which tend to be hot) are interested in buying it in its current state.
Why won't the Government come clean and admit that the SDR and the concept of expeditionary warfare have been consigned to the bin? Not just talking about the SHAR here.
What changes in 2006 to remove the need for air defence? Could it be that it is election time, and the Government don't want a military disaster or a crisis we can't respond to before they have secured a third term (God forbid) in office?
Perhaps the worst thing is that it will coincide with a gap in shipborne defences, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/514550.stm. You couldn't make it up!!
Would an Admiral who said "No, we cannot do it" be listened to? Or would No 10's inner circle over rule him? I'm not convinced that the safety and welfare of members of HM Forces is seen as important.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/07/0041914.htm
http://production.investis.com/baesy...ngs/2002-02-05
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cac...n&ie=UTF-8</a>
http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/p...sus/detail.htm
The following exchange in the Commons is also of interest:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/20717-14.htm
If there is no need for dedicated naval air defence, then how come various Navies have been trying to obtain it? And we still train for defending a task force......
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/3857.html
As for the performance of the Sea Harrier in warm climes, we have operated it in the northern Persian Gulf/Iraq, and in the 2001 exercises in Oman, plus of course the Adriatic. India has operated it for many years in the Indian Ocean. Thailand and India (and possibly other Middle/Far Eastern nations which tend to be hot) are interested in buying it in its current state.
Why won't the Government come clean and admit that the SDR and the concept of expeditionary warfare have been consigned to the bin? Not just talking about the SHAR here.
What changes in 2006 to remove the need for air defence? Could it be that it is election time, and the Government don't want a military disaster or a crisis we can't respond to before they have secured a third term (God forbid) in office?
Perhaps the worst thing is that it will coincide with a gap in shipborne defences, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/514550.stm. You couldn't make it up!!
Would an Admiral who said "No, we cannot do it" be listened to? Or would No 10's inner circle over rule him? I'm not convinced that the safety and welfare of members of HM Forces is seen as important.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 11th Aug 2003 at 16:04.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would an Admiral who said "No, we cannot do it" be listened to? Or would No 10's inner circle over rule him? I'm not convinced that the safety and welfare of members of HM Forces is seen as important.
Sadly, there is enough evidence around from over the years to make that a perfectly reasonable comment. I hope you are wrong, but would not put much money on it.
It is only too easy to loose sight of the simple fact that governments pay and design their armed forces. This means it is impossible to avoid a conflict of interest between any government and its MOD. It takes strong and good men on both sides if the system is to work even well, let alone perfectly.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
Get thee down to thy local branch of thy most right-wing political party with a reasonable chance of gaining representation, and become involved in it.
I am now many years removed from the politics of the UK so I cannot advise who this may be; are the Conservatives still a realistic prospect for future Governence of Britain?
The woes of the Defence Forces are political in nature, and so will be their salvation.
I commented once, a while ago now, and in connection with your untimely demise from Her Majesty's service, that those who are talented, genuine, and committed (or words to that effect) will always be able to make a contribution, even if the nature of this contribution differs from that which they had assumed would be the case.
If you can put the same energy into finding the political solution to the state of Britain's defences as you have put into the debate concerning the fate of the SHAR, you will probably achieve a result of tangible good, and in all probability, be remembered for it.
You have made this issue your own, my good fellow, and in metaphysical terms, you are now, at least partly, responsible for it. Your approach from here on in will be your making, or your downfall.
Go boldy forth, WEBF. You have great support, much of it unspoken; you are committed, informed, and most important of all, you are right. Take the wise counsel which has been offered here by many posters these past couple of years, and turn it into reality.
Preaching to the converted may have given you a blooding, but it is pointless, and ultimately, a waste of your talents and potential.
Have faith; and go do the real thing.
You know you want to - and we know you can.
Get thee down to thy local branch of thy most right-wing political party with a reasonable chance of gaining representation, and become involved in it.
I am now many years removed from the politics of the UK so I cannot advise who this may be; are the Conservatives still a realistic prospect for future Governence of Britain?
The woes of the Defence Forces are political in nature, and so will be their salvation.
I commented once, a while ago now, and in connection with your untimely demise from Her Majesty's service, that those who are talented, genuine, and committed (or words to that effect) will always be able to make a contribution, even if the nature of this contribution differs from that which they had assumed would be the case.
If you can put the same energy into finding the political solution to the state of Britain's defences as you have put into the debate concerning the fate of the SHAR, you will probably achieve a result of tangible good, and in all probability, be remembered for it.
You have made this issue your own, my good fellow, and in metaphysical terms, you are now, at least partly, responsible for it. Your approach from here on in will be your making, or your downfall.
Go boldy forth, WEBF. You have great support, much of it unspoken; you are committed, informed, and most important of all, you are right. Take the wise counsel which has been offered here by many posters these past couple of years, and turn it into reality.
Preaching to the converted may have given you a blooding, but it is pointless, and ultimately, a waste of your talents and potential.
Have faith; and go do the real thing.
You know you want to - and we know you can.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advice Balancing
WEBF
This is not good advice, although the rest of Blue Wolfs' post is.
Try the Tories they may be interested as the timing of a presentation of your (and the national interest) concerns will be very important. Suggest you start now so as to arouse oppostion interest at the end of the Hutton enquiry. The journos that regularly contribute to this forum should take note (Jacko !!) there's a promising story here of incompetance at the MOD.
Mr Hoon should be publicly confronted with this.
Good luck and fair seas to you.
FEBA
Get thee down to thy local branch of thy most right-wing political party with a reasonable chance of gaining representation, and become involved in it.
Try the Tories they may be interested as the timing of a presentation of your (and the national interest) concerns will be very important. Suggest you start now so as to arouse oppostion interest at the end of the Hutton enquiry. The journos that regularly contribute to this forum should take note (Jacko !!) there's a promising story here of incompetance at the MOD.
Mr Hoon should be publicly confronted with this.
Good luck and fair seas to you.
FEBA
Prior to clicking on this thread a few minutes ago, there had been 3105 views on this thread.
I do not believe for a second that threads such as this are looked at solely by signed up PPRuNers - anyone on the net can look at PPRuNe. I understand that amongst the audience are a number of journalists, academics, and I would imagine, politicians and/or their researchers. This is one of the things that makes PPRuNe such a potentially valuable asset. When I post on PPRuNe it is this audience that I usually have in mind, rather than the serving/ex serving military that are to be found on this forum.
I registered on PPRuNe and started posting away to contribute to the debate about the Sea Harrier. A search of my postings will reveal that this was my main topic of discussion back then. This is an issue that has interested me for years. Much of my knowledge of defence and naval things in particular has come from reading such books as One Hundred Days by Admiral Sandy Woodward, Task Force (now being printed under a different title) by Martyn Middlebrook, Sea Harrier Over The Falklands and many others. It also came from my family (in particular my father), careers booklets, media coverage (I've lost count of the number of documentries I have seen that were about the problem of naval air defence - including some very good ones in the last couple of years, including Exocet on BBC2 in July(?) 2001, Going Critical in late 2001 on Channel 4(see below) and The Falklands: Exocet! in January 2002, also on Channel 4, and of course older programmes from the 80s and 90s. Certain elements of my education were directly related too - particularly when I found myself being taught an overview of Electronic Warfare by a (ex RN) person who had been involved in the post conflict studies of dealing with the air/missile threat at sea. Equally illuminating was my contact with members of HM (and on occasion other) Forces. All of this information is freely available - my function is solely to point to it.
See Going critical || HMS Coventry
BlueWolf and FEBA, to return to your points, yes I did (last year and ongoing) attempt (with some sucess) to raise the issue with my own MP (who acted on the issue for me) and also with other Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs. Both opposition parties are opposed to the loss of organic air defence and have frequently clashed with the Government in parliament over this issue.
Unfortunately they do not have an adequate response to the Goverment's capacity for spin or distorting the truth. Talking of spin, did anyone ever find out who was responsible for that letter to the Times last year from two officers who do not exist?
Meanwhile, the Sea Harrier continues to perform well in exercises....
Navy News - News Desk - News - Sea Harriers join Flying Fish
PS See also the CVF thread(s) as this is relevent.
PPS Does anyone know why this page of the thread, and the first one, doesn't fit on the page neatly since I posted this? Anything I can do about it?
I do not believe for a second that threads such as this are looked at solely by signed up PPRuNers - anyone on the net can look at PPRuNe. I understand that amongst the audience are a number of journalists, academics, and I would imagine, politicians and/or their researchers. This is one of the things that makes PPRuNe such a potentially valuable asset. When I post on PPRuNe it is this audience that I usually have in mind, rather than the serving/ex serving military that are to be found on this forum.
I registered on PPRuNe and started posting away to contribute to the debate about the Sea Harrier. A search of my postings will reveal that this was my main topic of discussion back then. This is an issue that has interested me for years. Much of my knowledge of defence and naval things in particular has come from reading such books as One Hundred Days by Admiral Sandy Woodward, Task Force (now being printed under a different title) by Martyn Middlebrook, Sea Harrier Over The Falklands and many others. It also came from my family (in particular my father), careers booklets, media coverage (I've lost count of the number of documentries I have seen that were about the problem of naval air defence - including some very good ones in the last couple of years, including Exocet on BBC2 in July(?) 2001, Going Critical in late 2001 on Channel 4(see below) and The Falklands: Exocet! in January 2002, also on Channel 4, and of course older programmes from the 80s and 90s. Certain elements of my education were directly related too - particularly when I found myself being taught an overview of Electronic Warfare by a (ex RN) person who had been involved in the post conflict studies of dealing with the air/missile threat at sea. Equally illuminating was my contact with members of HM (and on occasion other) Forces. All of this information is freely available - my function is solely to point to it.
See Going critical || HMS Coventry
BlueWolf and FEBA, to return to your points, yes I did (last year and ongoing) attempt (with some sucess) to raise the issue with my own MP (who acted on the issue for me) and also with other Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs. Both opposition parties are opposed to the loss of organic air defence and have frequently clashed with the Government in parliament over this issue.
Unfortunately they do not have an adequate response to the Goverment's capacity for spin or distorting the truth. Talking of spin, did anyone ever find out who was responsible for that letter to the Times last year from two officers who do not exist?
Meanwhile, the Sea Harrier continues to perform well in exercises....
Navy News - News Desk - News - Sea Harriers join Flying Fish
PS See also the CVF thread(s) as this is relevent.
PPS Does anyone know why this page of the thread, and the first one, doesn't fit on the page neatly since I posted this? Anything I can do about it?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 7th Apr 2022 at 07:43.
"Tories all talk no spending"
AND; Bulwark 81, Invincible sale to Oz 81, Endurance, Fearless, Intrepid and Hermes 81 and slash surface escorts. With the exception of Bulwark the only thing that stopped them doing the rest was a certain expedition to the 'Malvinas' from a nearby mainland.
On top of this they prevaricated for YEARS over actually ordering the SHAR in the first place, it was eventually ordered by Roy Mason, the LABOUR minister of Defence........................
AND; Bulwark 81, Invincible sale to Oz 81, Endurance, Fearless, Intrepid and Hermes 81 and slash surface escorts. With the exception of Bulwark the only thing that stopped them doing the rest was a certain expedition to the 'Malvinas' from a nearby mainland.
On top of this they prevaricated for YEARS over actually ordering the SHAR in the first place, it was eventually ordered by Roy Mason, the LABOUR minister of Defence........................
FEBA,
"Since when has the politics of today have anything remotely to do with the past"
Because the Tories have been pulling this particular stunt for decades, nay generations!
"We must build up our defences" shouted the blonde handbag merchant in opposition. She was elected in 1979 and the first Defence cuts hit in 1980!
It is relevant today because under IDS there is a policy of massive reductions in Public spending (£16 BILLION!) AND tax cuts, so you can bet your bottom dollar that if we ever let that lot rule again the Defence budget would be slashed!
Remember 1957!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Since when has the politics of today have anything remotely to do with the past"
Because the Tories have been pulling this particular stunt for decades, nay generations!
"We must build up our defences" shouted the blonde handbag merchant in opposition. She was elected in 1979 and the first Defence cuts hit in 1980!
It is relevant today because under IDS there is a policy of massive reductions in Public spending (£16 BILLION!) AND tax cuts, so you can bet your bottom dollar that if we ever let that lot rule again the Defence budget would be slashed!
Remember 1957!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!