Harrier confusion

[Pielander]

I was just reading an article in Navy News that seems to suggest that RN fighter controllers will no longer be having anything to do with RN aircraft now that SHAR is retiring.

I thought it was being replaced by the GR7/9. I know the GR9 is not kitted out as well as the FA2, but presumably it has some air defence capability? I assumed it would at least be having a poor attempt at fulfilling the same role.

Am I to assume that RN Harrier pilots are going to be mud-movers until JSF enters service? :ooh:

[SVK]

Well, why not get rid of the RN fighter controllers? After all the GR 7/9 has got the best Radar / AMRAAM partnership in the country. We don't need controllers any more...

...oh, erm, hang on a minute...:ugh:

[Navaleye]

You can find answers to all your questions (and many more) here. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=98152&perpage=15&pagenumber=1)

The GR7/9 has at best a limited day WVR capability and no guns. IIRC it can only carry two AIM-9s. So, to summarise, our new fleet defender has no radar, no AMRAAM, No ASRAAM, no speed and no hope. Over and out...

[caspertheghost]

I certainly wouldn't call the GR a fleet defender! But then again it wasn't designed to be.
Pielander, the GR9 was never intended to replace the Shar, it is purely an avionics and weapons upgrade to the GR7. To say the GR9 is not kitted out as well as the Shar is incorrect: it doesn't have radar which obviously has the drawbacks mentioned above, but the rest of the kit is better and more up to date for the GRs intended role. Which isn't AD!

[BEagle]

Hmm - jolly useful then on carriers.

So presumably the plan will be to fly the little dears off to a forward area aerodrome whilst HMS Indescribable or Indecipherable, having fulfilled its role as a sort of slow, uncomfortable tanker, buggers off to some crucial cockers P elsewhere?

And when is it that the 2 little grey ships for JSF are due to enter service? Until then.....hmmm. Jolly old Network Centricity or somesuch gobbledegook to keep the RN 'ahead of the curve'? Hope whatever that is can carry a decent rocket or two?

[SVK]

....Still Caspar, it would be nice to ably protect all those pink bodies on the Bomb Magnet! (I meant Aircraft Carrier.)

Then again, capability costs money.

:rolleyes:

[reynoldsno1]

Bring back the Gannet, then....

[Razor61]

Am I to assume that RN Harrier pilots are going to be mud-movers until JSF enters service?

<snip from the BAE site>

Joint Force Harrier currently operates two aircraft types: the air defence Sea Harrier FA2 operated by the Royal Navy and the ground attack/ reconnaissance Harrier GR7 flown by the RAF. The UK MOD announced in February 2002 that Joint Force Harrier will move to an all-Harrier GR force by 2007 to maximise investment in one aircraft type, assist in streamlining support and prepare for deployment of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Harrier GR squadrons will be operated by both the RN & RAF under the control of AOC 3 group.

<unsnip>

[ORAC]

Or as they are more correctly called, targets. :E

[Barn Doors]

I for one am not confused about the role of the Harrier GR7! It was never designed as an AD platform, will never attempt or try to fulfil the role of an AD platform and the professionals who operate it, know it! That includes the very capable RN brethren who are doing just that, right now, in Afghanistan!

Unlike the USMC AV8 models, the UK Harrier can carry up to 4 Aim-9M missiles which are not, and never were intended to, cover a Naval Battle group's a$$e. The GR7/9 is probably the most flexible up-to-date asset in the UK air inventory and can carry the most diverse mixed load of weaponry that we have in stock! The 'boat' confers many advantages over having to operate from a land-base, and I'm sure WEBF and Navaleye would be able to aptly explain exactly why.....if they'd care to.

I'm quite fed up of reading thread after thread about no 'organic' AD capability on the HMS's, and that the GR7 'can't live up to expectation' in the role. This is bleedin' obvious.

In wartime, AD is simply an 'enabler' to allow a ground offensive to take place unhindered by enemy air assets. 'Mudders' are an extension of that ground offensive, and that is what wins battles!

Soon we'll all be flying swing-role fighter/bombers and UAVs and maybe this cynicism will end, once and for all.

Just breathe...................and smile........it's alright!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

In wartime, AD is simply an 'enabler' to allow a ground offensive to take place unhindered by enemy air assets.

And maritime operations? Amphibious operations are the future - but require air defence. And frigates/destroyers for additional anti air protection, and to deal with surface.submarine threats, and provide NGS. And Mines Countermeasures....

Yet all these things have been cut, at the same time the UK is building up its amphibious forces, with the LPD(R) to go with the LPH, new LSD(A), and Ro-Ro vessels. These all need protection, or is the Government reckoning on all future operations taking place an a benign enviroment against an opponent that has neither the will or capibility to fight?

We rely on vulnerable assets - yet lack the means to protect them. This scrapping shields to provide a little extra sword length is happening all over the Services. History would appear to warn us against it.

[SmilingKnifed]

What price the lessons learned in '82?

Effectively what we're saying is that without a US Carrier Battle Group in tow, we have a big grey bomb magnet (nicely put) with a poxy Sea Dart/Wolf and Goalkeeper combination.

Still, I'm sure the poor sods on board will feel great that they're enabling offensive ops. :ugh:

[Navaleye]

Barn Doors,

In wartime, AD is simply an 'enabler' to allow a ground offensive to take place unhindered by enemy air assets. 'Mudders' are an extension of that ground offensive, and that is what wins battles!

You are right, assuming you pre-empt on your enemy before he pre-empts on you.

[JessTheDog]

The GR7/9 has at best a limited day WVR capability and no guns. IIRC it can only carry two AIM-9s. So, to summarise, our new fleet defender has no radar, no AMRAAM, No ASRAAM, no speed and no hope. Over and out...

It will be a waste of fuel and training - why bomb things when you can cruise missile 'em, and if you don't need to bomb things then you only need fixed wing defensive counter-air. If you don't have a suitable aircraft (ie with a radar and BVR missile capability) then you don't need an aircraft carrier to carry them. Ooops, am I beginnning to think like a civil servant?!:confused:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

What about amphibious operations? Amphibious ships, landing craft and helicopters - all need protecting.

[Navaleye]

why bomb things when you can cruise missile 'em

Answer: Cost. IIRC a Tomahawk costs over a $1m each. Its a very expensive way of winning a war. Tomahawk is a surgical strike weapon.

[SirToppamHat]

WEBF makes a good point:

We rely on vulnerable assets - yet lack the means to protect them.

It is madness to send a CVS into anything but the most benign environment without air (and surface and sub-surface and asymetric threat) defence. Neither the GR7 nor 9 are any more capable than a Hawk - and at least the Hawks can put a second pair of eyes on board! SAMs? OK if they're any good AND you have the ROE to use them WITHOUT taking the first hit.

As things stand, we will have CVS(s) that will only be able to go to sea in the most benign environment, or under the protection of the USN or NATO.

Dragging this back to the start of the thread, What little A-A capability is offered by the GR9 will only begin to be effective with the help of Freddie (though granted these are 'Joint' rather than RN ac). And then there are the helos (oh no, they're joint too!).

[The Rocket]

WEBF

And maritime operations? Amphibious operations are the future

Erm...... Isn't Afghanistan, where the Harriers are currently operating, a landlocked country?

And Syria, where George W is shortly to be projecting his venom, has a total border area of 2253 kilometers, and a coastline of just 180 kilometers. That is merely 7.98% of the total border area. Do you really think that amphibious operations are all that relevant in the modern theatre?

Perhaps it's time to come ashore and realise there is a whole other world out there, and Great Britain is no longer at risk from an invading armada sailing over the horizon

[Pielander]

Sorry if I'm being a bit of a thicky here, but I'm still confused. What I was really trying to ascertain was the role of the two services rather than the capabilities of the respective aircraft. I'll re-phrase the question.

Is it the case that:

A) The role of the FA2 has been temporarily abolished. RN pilots will now perform exactly the same role as RAF pilots in the GR7/9, i.e. primarily that of ground attack.

or

B) The role of the FA2 (i.e. air defence) will continue to be performed (albeit not as effectively) by RN pilots flying the GR7/9. Their role will remain as separate and distinct from the role of the RAF GR pilots as it always has?

i.e. which is it? A or B, or am I missing something?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The answer is A.

However, I concur with Navaleye's suggestion that you read/scan (if you ignore the links it's much faster) the Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152) thread.

[trap one]

The Rocket are you not able to read the newspapers, etc

Erm...... Isn't Afghanistan, where the Harriers are currently operating, a landlocked country?

How did they get there in the first place, large amounts of grey painted floating barracks sat south of Pakistan and flew a large number of Helo sorties acompanied by AV8B's and CVN sorties to prep the LZ for them into a hostile country. Yes there was a large number of non naval soties flown form other locations but, having the ability to put large numbers of troops ashore needs a safe zone to opperate from. Be it another country or a Amphib marshalling area.

And Syria, where George W is shortly to be projecting his venom, has a total border area of 2253 kilometers, and a coastline of just 180 kilometers. That is merely 7.98% of the total border area. Do you really think that amphibious operations are all that relevant in the modern theatre?

As for Syria would it prior to the de-Dictatoring of Iraq have been politicially acceptable from Syria's neighbours to allow the "Good old USA" to launch an attack from there land onto a fellow Arab's country.

Remember the amount of feeling that having US Marines in Lebenon created. Again a safe area for the Troops to operate from would allow the operation to proceed. Rather than having to protect your 6 all the time.

Finally why do yo think we didn't finish GW1 with a run to Bagdad, Because the Arab coalition members, wouldn't allow it. Now if we'd have been operating from bases afloat they would have had no say cause we'd have gone through Kuwait and up the river valley.

And before you ask I'm a light blue job, but even I know how important it is not to pi55 away your assets in pece time.

Don't let the bar stewards grind you down

[santiago15]

And Syria, where George W is shortly to be projecting his venom, has a total border area of 2253 kilometers, and a coastline of just 180 kilometers.

Rocket, I think you're missing the point. Iraq also has a relatively small coastline, yet would you suggest maritime ops were insignificant in the last Gulf War?

As things stand, we will have CVS(s) that will only be able to go to sea in the most benign environment, or under the protection of the USN or NATO

Further confirmation i'm afraid that the UK is 'in the pocket' of the US. The saddest implication of this being that the life of every UK serviceman/women depends upon the president of the USA!