Jackonicko
I must say that you enjoy being provocative! No harm done!
The issue here is not a competition between FA2 and the GR7/9. Nor is anyone trying to do down Jaguar pilots or their steed.
What appears clear to me from your remarks is that you do not have the embarked/maritime experience to understand how very important it is to be able to defend yourself at sea – especially when you get caught with your pants down (i.e. no shore-based air assets nearby and the enemy approaching fast). The ability to “cope” in a situation like that depends on organic Fleet resources that are under the direct control of the Naval Task Force Commander.
Your comment, “whether it's worth retaining in the face of other, more versatile and more useful priorities.
And we do have allies who can provide this level of air cover .............. if we need carrier aviation at all.” – this represents a sad reflection of a somewhat frivolous attitude during a serious debate. (I don’t mind being corrected on facts, at all – different numbers for Eurofighter do get spread around – so I accede to your privileged information.)
Do read DP 2001, you may be surprised by its content. For example:
“Force and Capability Development
27. The validity of the Strategic Defence Review’s conclusions about the broad shape of our future capability requirements is confirmed by this reassessment both of the future strategic context and of our immediate operational priorities. The key characteristics are to be able to:
· respond to crises using forces at graduated states of readiness, rather than relying on prepositioning;
· deploy early to reduce the risk of a crisis escalating;
· successfully conduct large, high intensity combat operations against demanding opponents with advanced capabilities;
· prepare, deploy, operate, sustain and recover our forces within a NATO, EU, UN or ad hoc multinational framework;
· maintain a qualitative edge in key military capabilities.”
What could be more “versatile or useful” in the context of this than carrier-borne fixed wing air defence?
Please don’t continue to quote the F3 and the Jaguar as being versatile or useful in this context. Both aircraft types require “prepositioning”.
As for the F3 in particular, your stated knowledge of that aircraft’s weapon system is less than convincing. Look at what our Allies say about this “fighter” aircraft:-
Dear Friends,
I received further independent confirmation of our perceptions regarding the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Tornado F3 Radar in comparison to the Sea Harrier Blue Vixen and AMRAAM system. This completely independent evaluation is from a senior Air Force Fighter Weapons School graduate and a recently retired full Colonel from our Air Force who has flown in and evaluated the combat capabilities of these systems. He is brutally specific that the poor "mechanization" of the F3 Radar is less capable than our late model Phantom F-4E Radars from the late 70's and early 80's. He described the design as "tragically inadequate," and that the ergonomics and human factors in the system are quite poor. Most radar functions must be done manually by the backseater in the Tornado F3--he gave very specific examples. The radar is powerful and can see airborne targets at altitude at long range but has no auto gain control found in modern US systems. The F3 has a very incomplete pulse doppler capability and minimal over land look down capability (comparable to the early Blue Fox in the Sea Harrier FRS1). His conversations with their crews led him to believe that a good early F-16 radar (mid 80's capability) would be a real improvement for them. Their AMRAAM capability is specious, very likely not real AMRAAM missile compatibility (perhaps as little as 1/5 the functionality available in the US systems). This would not make it on to a fighter I designed and integrated, and I would have eaten the radar supplier for lunch in the simulator tests and again after his first delivery to the systems integration lab with the fixes in the system.
Note that an individual with operational experience only on the Tornado F3 system would be "stuck" in his cognitive understanding of the air intercept environment in the late 70's or very early 80's. I believe that matches Air Marshall Peter Squire's resume exactly. It explains to me why such a bad decision was possible.
The Sea Harrier Blue Vixen radar is a good "F-16 type system” and was very well thought out in the "mechanization" area" with many important functions, including auto gain, done by software, eliminating the need for the additional person required for the same human functionality in the Tornado F3. The Sea Harrier Blue Vixen "mechanization," human factors design, and ergonomics are thoughtfully done and has true AMRAAM capability equivalent to our own F-16C's or 18's.
Perhaps you should stop all Tornado F3 upgrades and spend the money on Sea Harriers and new jets. An interim capability could be retrofitted from the Sea Harrier pipeline to the Tornado F3, but would not solve its aircraft performance issues.
Very Respectfully Yours,
Charlie Weinert
USAF Academy Class of 1969
Vice President
Thresholds Unlimited, Inc.
Remember, my friend, we are all in this business to defend our nation and our interests abroad. Providing inaccurate and misleading comment in a debate such as this is against the national interest – and if your comments re the F3 are seen to be blatantly inaccurate, what can we believe about your comments on the Jaguar (especially if it doesn’t have a 10,000 ft runway to operate from).