Since we've said that we are no longer discussing the dangers of losing the Sea Harrier prior to the arrival of the JSF (and bear in mind it was meant to keep going until 2015 with
Ark Royal) I will not post any of the ponts I made on the now deceased thread.
Unless I have cause to....later.
It is worth remembering there has been some coverage of this issue in the media lately. The dangers have been highlighted in some papers recently, including commentry by Admiral Sandy Woodward, the Falklands task group commander. And Commander Sharky Ward, CO of 801 NAS in 1982. It is worth noting that the US military did an assesment of the lessons of Operation
Corporate and concluded that over 450, yes FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY, Argentine sorties had been prevented by the deterent effect of the Sea Harrier.
If any one wants to reiterate the discussions we had on the previous thread, I'm sure we'll oblige. I'm certainly ready......
This is (most of) the letter that I sent to my MP on 3 March (I'm not going to tell you his name for reasons of confidentiality - mine!)
On Wednesday (27 February) I heard on local TV that a letter had been sent to Sea Harrier personnel and their families had been told the move to RAF bases was off. Initially I was puzzled, but then thought (wishfully) that someone had seen sense about moving the Sea Harriers to RAF bases. The following day I heard really shocking news - the retirement of the Sea Harrier before its replacement enters service.
The Government proposes that from 2004 to 2006 the Sea Harriers will be scrapped. I suspect the exact timetable for its removal from service will be dictated by world events, political factors in the UK (ie what the Government thinks it can get away with) and whether or not India (the only other Sea Harrier user) is interested in buying them. However much the government, MOD and others try to make this out to be a success for the ystem, this move is nothing more than a cutback. A very dangerous cutback as well.
The idea is to replace the Sea Harrier with the Harrier GR9, a slightly updated version of the GR7. Excellent for Ground Attack, but virtually useless as a fighter. The Sea Harrier has a very powerful air to air radar, Blue Vixen, which is used to facilitate the use of the AMRAAM, an American "medium range" missile which can destroy enemy aircraft at ranges of up to thirty miles. This provides a more effective air defence capability than ANY ship based missile system (although in reality the different layers of air
defence complement each other). The Harrier GR7 has NO air to air radar and no AMRAAM, relying solely on short range missiles
and it would rely on ships or other aircraft to tell it where the enemy aircraft was.
It is proposed to upgrade the GR7 to GR9 standard. However this has been planned for some time and it is very unlikely that any proper air to air radar will be fitted. In the Daily Mail an unnamed MOD spokesman made the following statement:
"These days we don't fight the kind of wars where our ships need defending from enemy warplanes far out at sea. Aircraft Carriers are now mostly supporting shore operations by flying strike missions and it makes far better sense to spend our money on Harriers which can do that best. If necessary, we can rely on coalition forces to provide the other air defence for surface ships."
This statement is both illogical and untrue. For a start, whoever was behind this clearly had never heard of the Falkland's war, where ships and lives were loss due to insufficient organic
(ie carrierborne) air defence. In more recent years ships have needed defending from aircraft. In the 1991 Gulf War there was a half hearted attempt to launch an attack against a US Carrier. In Bosnia and Kosovo there were instances where NATO warships were endangered by Yugoslav aircraft. The terrorist attacks in the United States raises the terrible possibility of civilian aircraft being flown into targets, this type of attack is no less lethal to a ship than it is to a building.
Most of our potential adversaries (including Iraq) have capable aircraft, many of which will carry anti ship missiles. The effectiveness of the Sea Harrier is a deterrent to potential aggressors who may want to attack our naval forces. Without the Sea Harrier the fleet first line of air defence (or Anti Air Warfare as the Navy calls it if it's ship based) is the Sea Dart missile carried by the Type 42 Destroyer. It should be noted, however, that the Sea Dart missile is of 1970's vintage, and this is reflected in its electronics. Even assuming that the missile (and its associated equipment) functions perfectly, a Type 42 only has two of these
missiles ready on the launcher at any one time, meaning that a Type 42 can by easily swamped by targets if there are more than two incoming aircraft/missiles. If the enemy is prepared to
take losses, a Type 42 will not stop his attack.
After Sea Dart, the next layer of defence is Sea Wolf carried by frigates. This is a short range system that works well but has a range of only a few miles. Next, most major warships (but
not the Type 23 frigate) have Close in Weapons, either Phalanx or Goalkeeper, which should destroy any aircraft or missiles that get through. Again, there is nothing to suggest that these
will be anywhere near 100% reliable and these systems could be swamped by multiple targets. I haven't mentioned the possibility of technical failure but this is an ever present hazard if you rely too much on any one system.
The Commons' Defence Select Committee warned a few years ago that the Royal Navy would face a serious gap in its air defence due to the phasing out of the Type 42 destroyers,
and the delay in replacing them (the Type 45 will start entering service in 2007). Last year the Commander In Chief Fleet, CINCFLEET, now First Sea Lord, warned that due to budgetary cutbacks ships were going to sea without full stocks of missiles and that the Navy was now more at risk from sea skimming missiles than it had been during the Falkland's war. This was
before the Sea Harrier decision. He also warned that the Navy would have problems in manning the FJCA when it comes along due to Pilots resigning.
Thus the loss of the Navy's own air defence aircraft seriously endangers the entire fleet. It was planned that the Sea Harrier would receive something of an upgrade over then next eighteen months, this would have made an already very effective fighter even more so. Logic dictates that if the MOD scraps the aircraft then this upgrade makes little sense and will be cancelled. The loss of the Sea Harrier may make worse the Navy's recruitment and retention problems. The prospect of getting sunk is not an appealing one. Withdrawing the Sea Harrier may appear to save money, but will it? If just a single ship gets sunk or seriously damaged by an attack by enemy aircraft/missiles that got through the layers of ship based weapons (as I and others fear) then the Government will lose money. Not to mention many lives.
That made my point.....and got action taken for me. Apologies for the problems caused by cutting and pasting!
I am sure the Chief of Defence Staff, the First Sea Lord and the CINCFLEET, not to mention Flag Officer Maritime Aviation, are trying to make the politicians change their minds. Holding a exercise where a force of warships (possibly including a CVS carrying only strike aircraft) is up against land based aircraft would prove the pont. But the Admirals need OUR help. As does the entire Navy!
So write to your MP. Please. His/her address will be
Name
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Alternatively send them an e-mail. The address is
[email protected] eg blokea@parliament .uk
Also write (maybe) to the defence select commitee. Maybe get your friends and familly invloved. Get them writing, or at least make them aware of the issue(s). Print out postings from PPRUNE or from the media (if you want me put on here the ones I had on the last thread on here, just say so) on notice boards at work, at College/Uni, at the Football/Cricket/Nudist Hangliding(?) club.
Consider contacting (by post or by e-mail) newspapers and magazines. You could write to certain columnists or to the editor. Don't feel the need to restrict yourself to the defence/aviation media and the daily papers, consider the ones you read. Yes I mean ANY.
Lets get going.........Good Luck!