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.
Last edited by Nozzles; 22nd August 2003 at 04:25.