FA2 for FAA Historic Flight

[Navaleye]

I don't see the Government's decision on the withdrawal of the FA2 being reversed. I would therefore like to propose that at least one of these aircraft kept in the air as part of the Historic Flight. for the following reason.

1. Last truly Britsh Jet Fighter.

2. The most capable air to air combat aircraft ever in RN service and still not bettered.

2. The best combat record of any Britsh aircraft postwar and the saviour of the Falklands Task Force.

3. The forerunner of the new generation of naval STOVL FAA aviation.

4. Scrapped by the Crabs for no good reason at all.

Anyone think or any more good reasons?

What say you PPRuNers?

[Unwell_Raptor]

Very expensive to support though. This is a sophisticated and relatively modern aircraft that will need a large spares holding, and is sufficiently dissimilar to other (RAF) marks to need lots of unique bits.

It's unlikely, I am afraid.

[Jackonicko]

I'd far rather the Historic Flight spent its money giving its pilots a bit more flying time, especially on new types, and especially before they are asked to fly displays. There are also useful things that could be done to ensure the better availability of the Sea Fury and Sea Hawk. Or they could buy the airworthy Sea Vixen, perhaps?

The price of one second-hand Sea Harrier sold to India or Thailand would go a long way.

[Ex Douglas Driver]

... and wasn't it the FRS1 that "made history", not the F/A2?

[Gainesy]

...and some 1(F)Sqn GR.3s.
Plus all the other land/sea/air assets.

[Impiger]

While I couldn't object to the Historic Flt owning an FA2 I do think your reasoning is dubious.

The FA2 is quite rightly the best AD aircraft the FAA has had - but then as the last in the line you would expect it to be! For my money the best carrier fighter, when put up against both the opposition of the day and the competition from other air forces, was the Phantom FG1. At the time it embarked with Ark Royal only the USN and RAF had similar look down shoot down all weather fighters. Even the USAF couldn't hold a candle to it.

"Scrapped by the crabs" - just plain wrong. A Navy led decision taken by the full Defence Management Board.

[Pontius]

5. Because it was flown by the best of the best ;)

[Navaleye]

I am more tha happy to delete the words "by the crabs" from point 4 if people find it contentious. My choice of the FA2 for preservation is simply because there are no airworthy FRS1s left. Unless of course the Indians want to play swapsies for an FRS51 which is pretty close.

[Jackonicko]

Not contentious. Just wrong.

Sell India the FA2s, and I'll wager that they'd give you an FRS51.

[FEBA]

Are you on commission Jacko ?

Is there a political motive for your negativity ??

There has to be some reason for your total oppostion to a valuable maritime air asset :*

FEBA

[Jackonicko]

If something's got to go (and something has), then I'd rather it was an over-expensive, under-utilised, inflexible asset like SHar than something we actually really need. When budgets are this tight there's no room for sentiment.

[Navaleye]

I certainly don't call the FA2 under utilised. They have been all over the world (see navy news) notched up simulated wins pretty much everywhere they've been. They have been very busy. Some even stood in for F3 in exercises when they were in the middle east and did as well as if not better then the F3s.

I'm trying to remember the last time I read about a Jaguar in the press. Ah yes, GW1.

Why does the RAF need three types of mud moving equipment anyway?

[FEBA]

I'm trying to remember the last time I read about a Jaguar in the press. Ah yes, GW1

You mean WW1, surely !

[Jackonicko]

What has the Jag done?

Well:

Gulf War I.
Bombed Udbina airfield and did the pre- and post-strike recce.
Killed a tank in Bosnia (and without getting shot down....)
TIALD in Bosnia when there was nothing else available at all
Years and years of Deny Flight, Northern Watch, etc. etc.
Ready for action for Sierra Leone but held back to let the carrier get there.
On standby for Telic (Jags already at Incirlik unable to participate because of Turks, and because participation would have brought them to public attention when there are those just as short sighted as you two who'd like to see them chopped at the next round of options).
It's also UKSF's BAI/CAS tool of choice.

and let's not count exercises, boys, or we'll be here all day.

It's also a more flexible, adaptable, useful and cost effective asset than the SHar, and a cheaper force to run fields three full-strength squadrons which don't have a major retention problem.

[BEagle]

All it really needs is twice the thrust and half as much wing again....;)

[Jackonicko]

Not perfect, BEags. Not even higher performance. Just more useful.

[SixOfTheBest]

Jacko,

You need to get your facts straight. The Jag is NOT the UKSF's first choice for either BAI or CAS. The GR7 rules the roost as far as CAS goes, and the GR4 as far as AI/BAI. The mighty Jaguar, although having a very useful recce capability, falls by the wayside in most other areas. I assume by UKSF, you mean Special Forces, in which case a) The chances of us working with them in a CAS role to a great extent in any current/future op is pretty remote and b) What the hell has BAI got to do with them?. The Jag, I would like to add, is an even more highly polished turd than the FA2. Operators, highly professional and capable to a man; no doubt about that. As always though, the brits make the best of a bad job. If the Shar has to go, then so be it (though I do have enormous reservations). Same with the Jag. Given a choice (and I acknowledge that I am not an accountant and hence unaware of the differences), I would scrap the Jag (and reduce commitments) and keep the Shar (VITAL to RN fleet defense - If the Spams aren't playing).

SOTB

[Jackonicko]

Six

I do have my facts straight, and have interviewed people on both sides of the SF/CAS equation which is how I have come to that conclusion. The fact that Jag has IDM seemed to be MUCH appreciated by Hereford, while we can't talk about that religious festival on a public board (I've seen it referred to by name in the open press, but see no need for a repetition). But if you know what I mean, you know and you'll know I'm right, and if you don't then you won't.

Moreover it has to be an accountant's game, and your opinion on whether the Jag is or isn't a 'highly polished turd' is entirely irrelevant. What counts are costs and capabilities. If one UK FJ type had to go, and it couldn't be SHar, there'd be some sense in making it the GR7. The GR9 upgrade is hugely expensive, and yet the cost of the work required on those rear fuselages to get the aircraft to its OSD will make it seem cheap.

[SixOfTheBest]

Jacko,

Obviously, If you have interviewed the pertinent people, then quite obviously, you are correct. I mean, obviously, a knowledge that stems from actually reading articles, books etc. qualifies you as an expert on all things aviation related. You missed the point. First, CAS is not specific to SF. In fact, SF integration with CAS assets (normally) is in a minority. BAI? Really nothing WHATSOEVER to do with FACs. As for spouting about being chummy with the boyz, then, why, you must be an expert! IDM does not increase the payload/range/night capabilities of a platform that, for example, does not have a FLIR, nor a cockpit remotely designed with night and/or CAS operations in mind. And, by the way, my comment said, 'Given a choice', and was meant as a, 'If I were god....' sort of comment, and not a, 'I know better than you, 'cos I've read a lot and talked to some chaps the other day' sort of comment. The SHAR is going, shame, but there we go. The Jag is going too, albeit a couple of years later. Again, shame. However, saying that my opinion is irrelevant, is a touch too much based on the fact that a) This is a forum for AVIATORS - no you are not one of those....... and b) It is a forum for rumour and opinions. So, there we have it. Both are going. Don't, however, preach to me about the capabilities of Brit ac types. I assure you I know a little, maybe even a tad, more than you, and not just my own ac type(s)

[Jackonicko]

I'm not a military aviator, nor even a professional pilot, nor have I ever claimed to be either. But I am a private pilot, and I talk to professional pilots, many of whom have the generosity of spirit to treat me as a fellow aviator. Friends who I went through UAS with are still friends (though I hope they wouldn't admit to it in public). And what little knowledge I have stems as much from that it does as it does "from actually reading articles, books etc." I'm not claiming to be 'chummy' with the boys, but I have had some excellent briefings. How else does one learn? Do we ignore anyone who hasn't done everything first hand. Should I disregard everything you say about any aircraft type you haven't been paid to fly (cos you haven't done that first hand), or should I listen because you've learned about it second hand, from people who do know what they're talking about, and will have a better baseline of knowledge and understanding with which to grasp what you are told, because of your experience flying something similar? Call me an old tart, but I'll listen to you, even though you may never have flown a MiG-29 (say).

Your opinion, when it's informed, and especially when it's offered on the basis of personal experience will therefore always be of more interest and importance than mine, because you are a professional pilot, and I'll only ever be an interested amatuer. But when what you say is some half-baked FTS crew room level banter about whether the Jag is or isn't a 'highly polished turd', then it is entirely irrelevant. What counts are costs and capabilities. I do know about relative costs - because I've had some very good briefings, and I do know a very little about capabilities. And talking to the pertinent people may be a poor second (a very, very poor second) to first hand experience, if I listen to those people, get explanations and ask sensible questions, then I may sometimes be able to regurgitate something that will occasionally be better than banter or uninformed prejudice.

While IDM doesn't do anything for payload/range/night capabilities, I'm told that it does have a great deal to do with how easily and quickly information and pictures can be sent to and from the cockpit. And in this specific context, the 'end users' of the CAS service seem to place some importance in the way in which the 'nine line' is received by the provider.

And while the Jag's inadequate payload may make it less useful than the GR7 in the CAS role, those UKSF people I've spoken to have stated their preference, loud and clear. It's a tiny and arguably unimportant facet of the wider CAS role, but it's a Jag advantage, and that's why I listed it.

And while I can of course see that the GR4 and GR7 enjoy some advantages over the poor old Jag (payload/range, hot and high performance, EW, radar, FLIR, etc.) I do think that the importance of the GR7's antediluvian 1010 FLIR can sometimes be over-stated, while that type's slow speed, absence of a forward-firing sensor, lack of datalink, inability to penetrate weather, and lack of a gun could be seen, by the uncharitable, as disadvantages.

And by the same token, the Jag's paper-tidy cockpit, mission planner, helmet sight, TIALD integration, EO GP-1, and proven ability to deploy with far lower manpower requirements could sometimes, and in some circumstances, be seen as useful. Moreover, if we were not bleeding away good money elsewhere, a very modest investment would have ensured that the Jag would have had its ASRAAM integration finished, could have had a modern 'staring' FLIR and the type's EW limitations could have been addressed.

Moreover, the argument isn't about whether the Jag is less useful than the GR4 and GR7. It's deployability, low cost and remaining airframe hours are useful, but otherwise it's quite probably third best of three. It's about whether or not it's a more useful, versatile and cost effective asset than the SHar.

And people 'above your pay grade' (and way above mine!) have already made that decision.

[FEBA]

SOTB (you weren't friends with Billy Bunter were you?)
Would you add your comment re the SHar to the Sea Jet thread please.
Jacko seems to be plagued with problems regarding the SHar
Problem 1 - Italian Gearbox Syndrome, as many forward gears as reverse
Problem 2 - Gen 'Boy' Browning disease, dropping your men right in it
Problem 3 - Gen Haig military wisdom syndrome - horses and men are more expendable than bullets.

Comments from people who are actually at the coal face have far more pertinence as far as I'm concerned.
Have you been watching the BBC program where Ray Mears tries to re-enact the Heavy Water raids in Norway (a place I know well). They put one of the team through a broken ice drill. Note it wasn't the great survival expert that went into the freezing water, nor did he sleep outdoors with the rest of the team, but did pass on the benefits of his wisdom to them :mad: . Same thing here.
(I'd love to hear what the bootknecks had to say about him).
FEBA

[STAN DEASY]

Jacko.

your coment

'But if you know what I mean, you know and you'll know I'm right, and if you don't then you won't.'

Has an alarming resonance to the justification by Tony Bliar for GW 2. Sadly, he has done you an injustice because now whenever I hear a comment such as this, I treat it as highly dubious and whatever point that is being made is instantly devalued and lacks credibility.

Nuff said?

[Jackonicko]

Yes, good point.

I was just signposting a hint (which should be meaningless to most people) that there are other reasons why Jag may have particular suitability for SF support. The comment was aimed at Six otB, who I think will have known exactly what I was on about.

But it did look a bit Blairite!

[BEagle]

6otB/Jacko,

One simply does NOT, EVER mention ANYTHING about SF on PPRuNe. Call the AOC a poof (he isn't), refer to SecDef as a tart (he might be, I don't know) if one will, but the code concerning SF is that we KEEP SCHTUM.

Because lives might depend on it.

[SixOfTheBest]

Beags,

You are quite right, which is why I go no further than mentioning the fact that they exist! (I would never call the AOC a poof or anything remotely rude!!).

Jacko,
Your riposte is taken, however, please don't come out with carte blanche statements like the one earlier in order to justify what we all know is an old, weary jet (admittedly with some tip-top avionics - spread around the cockpit mind). Same goes for the SHAR, HOWEVER, it does form a VITAL part of fleet defence (practically the ONLY part) and therefore, imho, it IS more crucial than le Jag (budgets and actual running cost differences aside). We all know that the UK operates with plop most of the time, and makes the best of it. Typhoon is not the panacea that glossy brochures might indicate, despite looking quite nice and having big donks. By the way, Your earlier mention of Raptor having problems is irrelevant in a comparison with the big T. The raptor is (when they sort out the problems - and they will) light years ahead of Typhoon in ALL respects. I digress. Sorry for the earlier attack. Certain people out there though DO know exactly what they are talking about. Be nice if you acknowledged this fact once in a while instead of riposting with an enormous list of what is installed on an ac type. One ac i've flown has a bitchin betty which is really cool, but it doesn't improve the CAPABILITY of the jet, does it?

SOTB

[Jackonicko]

SOTB:

Someone asked: "I'm trying to remember the last time I read about a Jaguar in the press. Ah yes, GW1. Why does the RAF need three types of mud moving equipment anyway?"

On these threads this is usually shorthand for 'what has that tired old antique the Jag ever done, and why should it be retained instead of the SHar which is so uniquely useful'.

It's an old and weary jet, right enough, but it's given more useful service in recent years than SHar, and promises to do so for the future. And what is installed in it is what makes it useful (as well as its rugged dependability, deployability and low operating costs) - it's certainly little to do with the under-powered, tiny winged airframe.

Which is why they've decided to can the SHar. That's not to say that SHar isn't a formidable aircraft, nor that it doesn't have useful capabilities, but the small size of the CVS does make things difficult. Deploy enough SHars to do their job and you can't do anything else. Deploy too few and there's no point.

Personally, (and don't let WEBF hear this) I'd retain them for land based AD, at least until F3/AMRAAM is sorted sufficiently to send it on ops...... and then if you did need to send an AD carrier anywhere then you'd have that option. But then I'd fund the forces rather more generously than is ever likely to happen.

[Navaleye]

An interesting suggestion that I've toy'd with before. It has some uses.

1. Point defence of London. Base some at Northolt for quick cover over London S/E. How long would it take for F3's to get over central London - probably too long.

2. Take over Falklands Islands defence from F3s.

3. Dispersed air defence for sensitive installations.

4. It can still move some mud if need. On this last point, if you haven't read Sharkey Ward's book on the Shar, he points out that even the FRS1 of 20 years ago had an excellent avionics package that allowed accurate bombing even at night.

[Jackonicko]

In Sharkey Ward's day, the SHar's A-G capability may have been adequate, but in today's world of PGMs, self designation etc. it is equivalent to no more than a reversionary/secondary capability.

Nor is its unrefuelled range terribly impressive, so while your 'Northolt Station Flight' idea is interesting, sticking them on the Falklands in place of F3s is more dubious.

[Navaleye]

Jacko,

When Shars were able to operate from a steel strip on the Falklands rather than from the CVS 250 miles away, its time on station was considerably improved. Now we have even bigger drop tanks than the FRS1s had during the FW. They don't need to fly to Argentina but just far enough to get their 4 AMRAAMS on target. I think it would be ideal for the job.

[FEBA]

Beagle
One simply does NOT, EVER mention ANYTHING about SF

Of course this excludes ex members who cash in on their special status by appearing on the BBC and C4 giving away all their field craft, equipement used, interrogation techniques, favoured tattoes etc etc.
Presumably that's Ok then?
FEBA

[BEagle]

"One simply does NOT, EVER mention ANYTHING about SF on PPRuNe" is what I actually wrote.

[FEBA]

Beags
And ..........

[BluntM8]

100% behind you BEagle. And my nomination for the "Deliberate Mis-interpretation" medal this year goes to....

Blunty

[FEBA]

Beagle
Be careful not to stand too close to the cliff edge when people are 100% behind you.

The main crux of my arguement seems to have been over looked
:confused:
FEBA