SHAR Wars; The PPruners Strike Back...

[steamchicken]

Right! As promised, I'm posting the draft version of the letter to my MP over the retirement of the FA2 on here so as to get your valuable opinions, comments, suggestions and psychotic flames before pushing the button.

When we have a final version, that will go up here as well so that everyone else can paste it, print it, and get on their MPs "Green Ink List". (Please don't really use green ink, I mean it.) I'm also going to post a list of MPs I want to target; we need to hit ones who a) have some cojones and will be willing to to act, b) that have some weight and credibility, c) despite a), aren't frothing nutters. Apart from the obvious, i.e. your own, Hoon, and Ingram. Labour Party members like me might like to go for the chair of the National Executive Committee as well.

Dear Sir,

You are no doubt aware that the Government has recently decided to retire the FA-2 Sea Harrier from service by the year 2006. Although I greet the decision to build the two new aircraft carriers and to procure the Joint Strike Fighter with enthusiasm, these aircraft will at the earliest be in service by 2010. During the intervening years, the Royal Navy will possess no air defence fighters of any type. The use of Royal Air Force Harriers on board ship in no way solves this problem, as the GR7 and GR9 Harrier is a pure attack aircraft with a minimal capacity for air combat. Is this genuinely wise?

The FA-2 is currently the most advanced Air Defence type in HM Forces. It, alone among British aircraft, is capable of monitoring 20 targets by radar simultaneously and using the AIM120 medium range missile, the latest Western air-to-air weapon. The combination of the Blue Vixen radar and the AIM120 enables these aircraft to actually fire at four separate enemy aeroplanes simultaneously, beyond visual range and in all weathers. Further, the Sea Harrier's dogfighting capability was amply proven in the Falklands War, where it was the chief (indeed nearly the ) air defence weapon available. The FRS 1 Harriers used at the time had no medium-range armament, and had to rely on closing with the enemy. However they achieved a notable success.

In contrast, the Royal Air Force's Harrier fleet is made up of aircraft which are designed exclusively for the tactical support of the military. The payload and variety of bombs, air-to-ground missiles and the like is considerably greater, but this is achieved at the expense of any serious air-to-air capability. Even the latest GR9 version has no radar, and therefore a very limited ability to intercept enemy aircraft. Even were it to do so, its air-to-air armament is designed only as a minimum self-defence for bombing missions.

One of the justifications given in the House for this move was that by carrying FA-2s, the carriers had "no space for RAF aircraft" and that therefore the Sea Harrier served only to defend its own base. This is a risible nonsense. If the carriers were to lose all fighters and carry only RAF Harriers, they would be at enormous risk of being sunk before the GR9s could damage the enemy in tthe least. There is certainly a trade-off between the two aeroplanes, but the FA-2 is not incapable of taking part in attack, and the trade-off is by no means as severe as this argument would suggest. If you cannot survive in the war-zone, you can do nothing. Further, the fighters based on a carrier protect the ships about them, not only the carrier escorts, but - for example - the transports and Amphibious Group supporting a landing force.

The other chief argument used to defend this decision is that "allies" would be able to provide air cover. Which allies? The Western carrier navies are currently as follows; United States, UK, France. Can we really confine our entire defence and foreign policy to not only the acceptance, but the active military involvement, of the United States? Will the US Navy always be involved, and will they always have a full carrier group on hand? And can we expect anything at all from the French and their one, unreliable carrier? Such an assumption is a brutal contradiction to the conclusions of the Strategic Defence Review, which pointed towards a renewal of our capability for worldwide action and emphasised that the entirety of HM Forces must be "expeditionary" in nature? And can we really, from the perspective of today, predict the politics of the future so accurately? It sounds terribly like the 10 Year Rule of the 1920s and 30s, which stated that all plans should assume no war for ten years. It was finally ended in 1934.

No navy in the world which operates outside its immediate coastal waters considers ship-based weapons as reliable air defence. All navies, in fact, seek to operate with the help of fighters, be they based on ships or on the shore. But relying on shorebased fighters restricts operations to their radius of actions. Without air cover, the Royal Navy will rely for defence against the main threat on two missile systems and anti-aircraft guns - purely defensive weapons, forming only one effective line of defence. And what will poor Jack do then to keep out the Exocets? We can ask for courage, but to ask sailors to expose themselves to air attack without genuine means of defence and counter-attack is both disgusting and foolish.

So what are the options? The Sea Harriers could be kept in operation until the arrival of the JSF. This will require that they receive a major engine overhaul due shortly, which is said to be the reason for their retirement. Alternatively, the GR9 programme could be altered to include the Blue Vixen radar, thus making an aeroplane similar to the US Marines' AV-8 version of the very same Harrier and solving the problem. This would likely cost more. But no defence is not the answer!

Yours sincerely,

....yournamehere....

So ....what do y'all think? I'll put up the target MPs later...

[steamchicken]

And here they are. The more the merrier of course, but I've tried to pick people with some pull but who are not bound by Govt discipline; i.e. prominent backbenchers, party officials, ex-ministers, committee chairmen.

Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP - Sec of State for Defence
Adam Ingram MP - AFM, of course
YOUR MP - of course
Peter Kilfoyle MP
Rt Hon Robin Cook MP, Leader of the House of Commons
Dr David Clark MP
Dr Jack Cunningham MP
Frank Dobson MP
Gwyneth Dunwoody MP
Glenda Jackson MP
Major Eric Joyce MP
Bob Marshall-Andrews MP
Chris Mullin MP
Gordon Prentice MP
Tony Wright MP
David Winnick MP
Ann Widdecombe MP
David Willetts MP
Michael Portillo MP (Former S of S for MOD)
Malcolm Bruce MP
Menzies Campbell MP
Simon Hughes MP
Charles Kennedy MP
Matthew Taylor MP
all at the House of Commons
and for my Labour Party comrades..

David Triesman
The General Secretary
The Labour Party, Millbank Tower
Millbank, London SW1P 4GT

[chapman1]

Menzies Campbell MP, as listed, is an excellent public servant and speaker. Despite being of the yellow persuasion, he has argued some debates, usually on the subject of national defence, very realistically amd professionally, and not always politically correctly. A productive letter to him could go a long way. Top man. :)

[Talking Radalt]

...you missed Ali G off da list. Only seen the trailer for the film but the:

"It's easy...we is gonna hire da A-team"

....line is brilliant.:p

[WE Branch Fanatic]

You could also try writing to peers.

[DANGLEBERRY]

SC,
totally agree with the fact we need air to air cover for our ships,but is keeping the FA2 the way to do it.I don't know what the ratio for maintenance per flying hour is but having talked to quite a few 'ZOOMIES' it's not that good,and bloody expensive.
Would an other option not be to lease ac to do the job,that could work off our carriers until we get the JSF.I admit i'm not too ofay with what ac could do the job,so I haven't got any idea's to offer.However, im sure there are plenty of people in the know who can.
Maybe giving some different options in the letter may help your, nay our cause.

[ORAC]

I think you might p*ss of the Spanish by omitting them from your list. - And it might be a good point to make we will have a period during which the Spanish Navy will possess a much higher capability than the RN, since they actually are equipped with a dual role AV8B+ wing.

Spaind: Principe De Asturias VSTOL Aircraft Carrier
Air Wing: 6-12 AV-8B+, 6-10 SH-3, 2-4 AB212EW, 2 SH-60B

Displacement: 16,700 tons full load
Dimensions: 642 x 79.5 x 31 feet/195.7 x 24.3 x 9.5 meters
Propulsion: 2 LM2500 gas turbines, 1 shaft, 46,400 shp, 26 knots
Crew: 763
Armor: none
Armament: 4 20 mm CIWS
Aircraft: 17 VSTOL

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/europe/r11.jpg

[steamchicken]

Well - the point of this thread isn't really to debate the principle any further, we did that quite a lot on the old one! This one is for proposals for ACTION.

A.) Leasing aircraft. Which a/c, from whom, and would it really cost less? The Yak-141 is hardly a solution!

B.) Sorry. The Spanish have a CVS. ******. Still, it's not really a solution. IT'S A DAMN GOOD SUGGESTION FOR THE LETTER THOUGH; THANKS!

C.) WE - Peers probably won't help too much, as there are too many old ranters there, and they have next to no influence over the Executive (this decision is an executive matter, doesn't need legislation.)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

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!

[Archimedes]

As well as Spain, the Italians have a carrier capability - they operate AV 8B+ from the Garibaldi. Interestingly, the Italians, who have less obvious operational need for a carrier and BVR radar on the aircraft that defend it still have one that can do this (although I'm not certain that AIM-120 has been funded for them, this doesn't undermine the point that the Italian Navy has the capability) . Perhaps that's the idea - the Italians provide the air cover, and we do the attack role :confused:

In any event, it means that the RN, which is deployed rather more often will have a dramatically lower AD capability than some nations that probably aren't going to require it....

[steamchicken]

Thanks all for moral support and factual corrections. Insert perhaps - "the Western carrier navies are the US, UK, France, Spain and Italy. These last both possess a single small carrier comparable to ours, but they operate the US-built AV-8 Harrier, a version with FA2-equivalent air-to-air armament. This may be the first time since Drake that the Spanish navy will be better armed than the RN!"

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I'm not sure that the Italians and Spanish have AMRAAM capability. To refit the Harrier GR9 to take Blue Vixen (or similar) radar and AMRAAM would cost MORE than it would to upgrade the Sea Harrier.

Hopefully more people will visit this thread, and follow our example. One point to note is that people who are going to join the services are still free to participate in democratic debate etc until they actually join. Once they do join, things become slightly difficult.

As I have said, If I am asked I will give the relevant pages from the press etc. Admiral Sandy Woodward, the Falklands task group commander, has commented on the dangers. If the RN and supporters do not use the 20th anniversery of the South Atlantic campaign to gain the public's support (which is VITAL if the politicians are to be defeated) then something is seriously wrong.

As I said before, write or e-mail anyone you can thing of who might have some influence on either politics OR public opinion. These might include journalists and media types, public figures ..... in fact ANYONE who might be able to influence public opinion. Please consider my suggestions in my previous postings.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I don't know how it would be funded, but we could do with a co-ordinated campaign. Perhaps some life size models of the Sea Harrier (sorry if I seem like a pretentious git, but I refuse to call it anything else!!) could be built, proably from GRP, Plastics, Wood. The "Save the Sea Harrier" campaign could take them to airshows (not on MOD property though), sporting events, events like the Devon County Show and so forth and have a stand, complete with leaflets and pamphlets to give out, and (maybe) an ex Sea Harrier driver (or any other ex RN person come to that) to discuss the issues.

Making these models would be a worthwhile project for STUDENTS. Seriously, it would. Practical engineering skills would be developed, not to mention all the design involved in producing a decent, solid model that can be moved about without falling apart.

One of these model Sea Harriers could be placed upon the deck of a specially modified boat or barge, cruising up and down the Thames, right in front of the Houses of Parliament.

[Big Green Arrow]

What's happening to the WAFU's that are driving the FA2' then?

[Archimedes]

SC, Re:

"the Western carrier navies are the US, UK, France, Spain and Italy. These last both possess a single small carrier comparable to ours, but they operate the US-built AV-8 Harrier, a version with FA2-equivalent air-to-air armament"

Following on from WEBF - As far as AIM-120 goes: according to a recently published journal (one of the successors to World Air Power Journal), the Italians get AMRAAM this year; there are pics aboutof Spanish AV-8B+'s with AIM-120 on wing pylons, but these may be trial fits only: I know from speaking with a Spanish naval officer a couple of years back that they certainly want the weapon.

Also - look at the French approach. The French using an American-built aircraft with origins in the UK? Mais non, mon ami! Vivé la/le [?] Rafale! They have the Super Etendard Modernise (now almost as good as the Jag M was thirty years ago...) and Rafales. Note that the Rafale can carry in the region of eight BVR weapons. Again, a sign that the notion that AD for the fleet isn't some bizarre outdated concept that doesn't need consideration.

[Edited to make sense]

[steamchicken]

"These last both.." implies that the last 2 countries use AV-8s. Three things can't both do anything. PS the Rafale and SE are fine aeroplanes, it's just a pity the screws keep falling off the Charles de Gaulle! And the French firm Thales is bidding to build the new UK carriers - they want to build 'em in 5 sections, distributed about various UK yards, then assemble them. Does anyone know if they built the CDG?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

What aircraft Fance, Itlay and Spain heve is neither here nor there...

With our own organic carrierborne air defence we will be at risk....severely.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Now here's a man who isn't frightened of fighting the politicians. And he had his ship, Ardent, sunk in 1982 by Argentine jets. He knows all about the perils of inadequate air defence when operating in littoral waters.

If ANY one man can save the Sea Harrier, Admiral West can.

A ROYAL Navy officer who was court-martialed for leaving plans for large-scale defence cuts on a towpath is to become the new First Sea Lord.

Adml Sir Alan West, Commander-in-Chief Fleet, is to take over from Adml Sir Nigel Essenhigh in September.

Adml West was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross after his ship Ardent was sunk off East Falkland by Argentine aircraft.

He was then posted to the naval plans department of the Ministry of Defence, where he was promoted to captain and made an assistant director of naval staff.

But his career appeared to have been blighted in 1986 when he lost a paper proposing radical cuts in the Navy's surface and submarine fleet.

The proposals appeared in the Mail on Sunday and the then Capt West was court-martialed.

It emerged at the court martial that he removed the documents from the MoD without permission, carried them in his coat pocket when they should have been in a security briefcase and failed to tell the MoD immediately of their loss.

Pleading guilty to negligence and charges of breaching security, he told the court martial that he had taken the documents home to Portsmouth to work on them. He lost them while walking with a friend in Sonning, near Reading.

Adml Sir Jeremy Black, then deputy chief of defence staff, told the hearing that Capt West was "an outstanding officer of his generation".

He was severely reprimanded, the second lightest sentence possible.

It appears to have done his career little harm. He headed a study into the integration of women on board ships and was subsequently appointed head of marine intelligence and then to a further high-flying post within the MoD.

[Nozzles]

Big Green Arrow,

The current SHAR drivers, if they choose to remain in the Service, will fly the GR7/9. Allegedly.

The bigger you are, the harder you fall..............

[steamchicken]

He should know, but the story about the lost plans hardly fills me with confidence!

[Archimedes]

SC - please see edit to my earlier post. I got the 'both' bit, but failed to make clear that my 'mais non, mon ami' was directed at a generic 'ami', if you see what I mean. Apologies for any confusion...

WEBF - I agree with the point about being at risk - but I disagree that it doesn't matter what aircraft France, Italy and Spain have: the point is that three NATO navies have taken the view that they need organic AD. Are three of the UK's allies so out of touch that they've failed to recognise that AD isn't needed, or is it t'other way round? I think I know which it is. Smile for the camera, Mr Brown...

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Good point Archemedes

Steamchicken....I think "lost" meant he leaked them on purpose.

I hope in time other RN/ex RN types will visit this new thread, and give us support/advice/info.

Remember we need public support on this one....so thats why I mentioned involving friends etc, and writing to or e-mailing anyone with any influence on public opinion.

Lets try NOT to get sunk due to the Treasury.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Whilst in town today, I went to the library, where my attention was caught by a number of books relating to the Falklands conflict. One that caught my eye was Beyond Endurance by the late Captain Nick Barker, Captain of HMS Endurance in 1982.

There was a depressingly familiar tone to his story. He says that in the late 70's he was one of a group who looked into the needs of a task group. They concluded that organic AEW was needed, and the Type 42 Destroyer needed major improvements, particularly the Sea Dart/909 system, and the long range radar. At the time the T42s had 965 radar which had an excessive beamwidth, which led to problems with clutter, particulary when close to shore, and allowed the Argentines to "lobe peck" and evade detection.

He asks the question why was it necessary to have a war and lose lives before the Navy got the basic tools to do the job?

This is why I say (if you are in a position to do it) contacting not just MPs, but also media and journalist types to try to educate them of the dangers. Try to get as many people (friends etc) informed as possible. The anniversery of the 1982 conflict should help here.

But sadly much of the population will be obsessed with Football. Look at the media coverage of Beckham's foot injury last week. Pathetic, isn't it? The tabloid media considered that a national disaster. Many people will not have heard off the Sea Harrier, or understand the issues. People are very cut off from the Armed Forces today. And thats part of the problem. The Government can get away with its decision as most people are either unaware or simply do not care. Many do not understand that lives are at stake. Recent events have overshadowed the attempts of people like Admiral Sir John "Sandy" Woodward to highlight (in public) the dangers of not having organic air defence.

But there is one thing that interests the tabloids et al even more than football. SEX. So here might be an answer to the problem. Maybe its regrettable, but it would grab headlines. Get a nice looking girl and equip her with a T shirt with a picture of a Sea Harrier and an appropriate slogan on it, ideally both front and back. send her to a major sorting event, Wimbledon (can't remember the spelling) or another major event with lots of live TV camara around. Get her to streak slowly. If the picture and slogan is on both sides of her T shirt then when the incident is reported on TV and in the papers it the picture/slogan will be present in the pics. Whilst nobody would put a frontal pic in the papers, a pic from behind (hence the need to cover both sides of the T shirt) would no doubt find its way into the papers, along with an interview to say why she did it and outlining and highlighting the issues. This would bring the issue to a LOT of people who had been ignorant before. And who would object to a pic of a nice girl with a bare bum?

Just an idea.......;)

[BlueWolf]

Hey, I really like that idea, WE. We might have to see if we can adapt it for use here.
In fact, we could get a whole bunch of girls together, and have a Wet T-SHart competition.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The response of Adam Ingram to my letter....

These are the main points of his letter......

An explaination of the Government's future plans for Joint Force Harrier (JFH) was given in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons published on the 28 February.

We have not concealed the fact that the early withdrwal of the Sea Harrier will lead to a temporary degradation in the outer layer of air defence of the Future Joint Combat Aircraft is operational.

But, this will be adequately compensated for by the introduction of the Type 45 Destroyer and other elements of our layered maritime air defence system. It is also my opinion and that of the 1st Sea Lord, that this tempoarary loss of an element of Air Defence is outweighed by the significantly enhanced offensive strike capability offered by the GR9s operating from our Aircraft Carriers.

The operation advantage of the GR9 over the current GR7, in essence, is the capability to employ the latest generation of smart weapons such as the Brimestone anti armour weapon. ....... will also understand that the Sea Harrier has limitations of its own, with perormance limited by the meteorological conditions in some parts of the world. It is an old aircraft which will start to become obsolescent as this decade progresses, so much so that the aircraft's systems would require significant investment for it to remain credible in the air defence role beyond 2006. Overall, the cost of keeping the Sea Harrier in service from this date until the entry to service of the Type 45 is judged to represent poor value for the taxpayer.

........made mention of the Falklands War, it is sufficent to say that the circumstances in Argentina today and the nature of the Falklands garrison are entirely different from 1982. Let me also assure you that our maritime air defence systems remain capable of dealing with the possibility of an attack by terrorists using civillan aircraft in a manner similar to the attacks in the United States which led to the terrible events of 11 September.

In terms of the possible air defence threat more generally, with increasing empahsis on operations in the littoral and the much reduced requirement to conduct blue water operations there are few, if any scenarios which would require the Sea Harrier to ensure operational success. When I refered to "our carriers our carriers normally operating as part of a Maritime Task Group with a range of air defence capabilities". You may find it useful if I were to explain furthur how these capabilities are put into operation.

UK Maritime Task Groups protect themselves against air attack through a series of 'layered' defences. Sea Harriers provide the outer layer for these groups: there are furthur layers. task Groups typically include Type 42 Anti-Air Warfare Destroyers armed with Sea Dart anti-aircraft missiles, (which, because of various enhancements, are significantly more capable than when they first entered srvice in the 1970s) and Type 22 and 23 Frigates armed with Point Defence Missile Systems and Close In Weapons Systems. Furthurmore all warships and some support shipping are equipped with decoy systems against air and surface launched anti-ship missiles. Commonly, maritime task groups operate under the protection of coalition air defence assets. Under these circumstances the carrier's own air defence layer is of reduced importance.

Finally, in response to the suggestion that "the loss of the Sea Harrier may make worse the Navy's recruitment and retention problems", I should say that there is no evidence to suggest the revised investment strategy for JFH will have any sustained impact on pilot recruiting and retention.



COMMENTS:

1. My concerns were about the air defence of the whole fleet, not just the carriers.
2. The type 45 Destroyers will not be as capable against enemy aircraft as the Sea Harrier.
3. The Sea Harrier has limitations does it? What aircraft or weapon doesn't? Blue Vixen and AMRAAM adds up to one of the most capable air defence systems in the world. As for climate, the Sea Harrier has coped well with a full weapon load (equivalent to four AMRAAMs) in the Adriatic summer and the climate of Sierra Leone. In any case, the planned upgrade would have cost roughly £100 million. Over a 13 year period (since it was due to stay in service with the Ark Royal until 2015) this is £7.69 million per year. Sounds like good value to me.
4. I never suspected that there was a threat to the Falklands. I was simply pointing out that similar circumstances could occur again.
5. Maritime air defence systems can counter terrorists in civillan aircraft can they? How exactly?
6. Littoral means shallow water which means nearer to the enemy air bases. So that increases the need for air defence.
7. Type 42 Destroyers have only TWO Sea Darts ready to fire at any one time. The range of the Sea Dart is less than that of most air launced anti ship missiles, including Exocet.
8. The RN has insufficent stocks of Sea Wolf missiles (particularly the vertical launch ones for the Type 23) to fully arm its ships. The then CINCFLEET pointed this out last year.
9. The Type 23 has no CIWS.
10. Decoys are of dubious value. Many modern missiles have chaff discriminators.
11. Can we say for certain that we will not have to operate unilaterally? Also if we depend on other coalition aircraft, these are unlikely to provide the same level of defence as the Sea Harrier, due to the problems of not having Combat Air Patrols dedicated to the UK task group.
12. Why do the US, France, Italy and Spain consider carrier based air defence to be vital if it is not?
13. France and Italy are also building Type 45 (or equivalent therof) Destroyers, with the same missile systems. But they still think they need carrier based fighters.
14. The Type 45 Destroyer is a replacement for the Type 42. The first will enter service in 2007. To get the whole class into service will take many years. Sadly the penny pinchers are already adversely effecting the design and weapons of the Type 45.
15. Recruitment and rentention of pilots certainly is affected. Actually I was referring to personnel problems for the entire Navy, not just pilots.

[edited for typos]

[TL Thou]

Thanks for posting that up WEBF. Amazing the depth of ignornace diplayed by the Minister. I wonder if the taxpayer would consider it poor value for money when our ships start getting sunk by third world air forces, and two bit missile boats.

Apparently the belief at the top (right at the top in fact) is that if we need air cover on expeditionary operations we can rely on the Americans to provide a carrier to do the business for us.

About time some one got their backsides tanned.:mad:

[BEagle]

Excellent documentary on C5 last night about the Harrier. Shame that nothing was mentioned about this utterly ridiculous idea to phase out the SHAR 2.......

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Please read/study the letter above from Adam Ingram, and my comments.....

I have a degree in Electronic & Communication Engineering, which he obtained for his intended career in "the mob". As part of this he did a module called "Navigation and Radar". We covered EW as part of this module. One of the striking things that was covered was the advent of the chaff discriminator that allows an air to ship missile to tell the difference between a decoy and a real ship. This (and all the other stuff I learnt) convinced me that the only real way of defending the fleet from air attack is with organic air defence, ie the Sea Harrier.

I suggest we stage an exercise of the Western Isles, using carrier borne aircraft to "attack" the installation of the Western Isles (to represent enemy missile thingys). Also Special Forces operations supported by NGS.

Two variations. 1. With Sea Harriers. 2. Without.

Scenario supposes target out of range of land based aircraft for political/diplomatic reasons. CVS and supporting group are "attacked" by land based RAF aircraft.

MPs and journalists to be dispersed throughout the different ships. No effort spared to make damage simulation realistic, big bangs, lots of smoke. Simulated casualties, either dead, or lots of fake blood, screaming etc to represent injuries. At ENDEX, visitors handed predicted casualty figures.

That will make them think.

I may write back to my MP if I can find time. If enough MPs got involved they could have an Early Day Motion or similar. At least both the Tories and Liberal Democrats oppose this change.

[steamchicken]

Thanks for keeping it boiling WE; your correspondence could well be of use.

Points to these; well not many. I think we should keep off Falklands and Sept. 11 as examples. After all, Ingram is right in that there is a significant garrison on the F-lands (and Arg. is so ****ed they can't do a thing). If there is anything a Seadart will nail, it's a 767 in a shallow dive!

The centre of our critique should be the possiblity that our new strategic situation requires a capability for worldwide action - as defined in SDR - and that all other defence decisions since then have been based on UK Forces operating far from home in unpredictably arising crises. As the Sun readership doesn't care, and more importantly doesn't vote, and we are a long way from the next election, we must rely on campaigning amongst the intelligentsia - i.e. the educated and politically involved. Chances are much better for backbench fury than for voter rebellion.

[BlueWolf]

Steamchicken, I think you are generally right in your approach - softly softly etc, and with thought and targetting.
A couple of things occur to me however; yes, the Falklands does have a garrison - now. It wouldn't have one had it not been attacked, fought for, and won back already. The same can not necessarily be said for every other British possession or point of interest worldwide.
As for Argentina being f**ked, the crusty old grey heads among us remember that very situation being its prime motivation for "retaking the Malvinas" in the first place. The generals were in dire need of some great nationalist cause to prop up their desperately ailing economy and political fortunes. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Also, as was not generally well reported either during or after the Falklands conflict, the British victory was more down to luck, poor planning on the part of the Argies, and, as we know, the Sea Harrier.
Had some hapless *** within the Argentinian military thought to change the bomb fuse settings on the 500 pounders carried by Argie A-4s from peacetime to wartime, a further 11 British ships which were hit would have been sunk. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what the outcome of the war would then have been.
As WEBF has pointed out, the presence of the SHar caused some 450 Argentine attack sorties to be aborted. Those ships which were hit, then, were hit by aircraft which got through the SHar cordon. Their only defence was their own missile systems, which demonstrably didn't work.
There is little if anything that even the most advanced surface ships can do to protect themselves against attack from even the most obsolete of jet aircraft. Missile systems are developed and lauded by people whose lives will never depend on them. These things look good in the brochures and on exercise, but when the s h i t starts flying, they just aren't up to it. Sorry, but that's the fact.
So, if the SHar was the only effective defence for the fleet, you probably need more of them, not fewer. This being the case, maybe pushing the Falklands argument would be a good idea.
Neither the Atlantic Conveyer or HMS Sheffield were under SHar protection when they were hit by Excocets. In the case of the Sheffield, the warhead of this marvelous missile didn't even bloody well go off; it was the burning propellent from the damn thing stuck in the hull which first ignited the insulation on the ships' wiring, and then the magnesium/aluminium alloy of the hull itself.
With a greater number of SHar available, the Super Entendards would never have got through in the first place.
Operation Corporate put to sea unprepared and under equipped, and won the day through a combination of God's help, a bungling enemy, and the Sea Harrier. Next time you may not be so lucky. As to relying on "coalition" assets, remember that in the Falklands Britain was on it's own. The Yanks wouldn't get involved for fear of upsetting the OAS. Who's to say that won't happen again?
On another note, WE, be aware that cruising this forum, possibly even in the guise of someone appearing to be on your side, will be a government agent. Giving clues to your identity such as first initial, educational background, and career intentions, may be dangerous. Just a thought.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Thanks BlueWolf, but I'm careful not to say too much that might give my ID away to any hostile people out their. As for the Government, I think they know how I am.

Now to other matters. I think you have been unkind to shipborne anti aircraft and (anti missile) missile sytems and the people who design, develop, build, install, maintain and operate them. Such systems can never rival air defence aircraft for providing in depth defence, but the idea is to have layered air defence where the different layers complement each other.

In the Falklands the Type 42 Destroyers had problem due to a badly designed bow (leading to water being sprayed over the foc'sle, which on occasions caused the Sea Dart launcher doors to become stuck) and the limited 965 radar with its excessive bandwidth. Additionally there were only two Sea Wolf armed frigates present. Additionally problems with computers occured, as did obstruction by different ships.......all of which indicate the importance of multi layer defence. See....

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/going_critical/hms_coventry/index.html

In spite of these problems all three systems (Sea Dart, Sea Wolf and Sea Cat) were responsible for splashing a LARGE number of Argentine aircraft.

So the argument is not should we have ship based missiles or air defence aircraft, it is why we need both. The main job of the Sea Harrier is to reduce the number of incoming aircraft to prevent them totally overwhelming ship based defences by force of numbers. Also to try to keep them out of missile firing range.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Can anyone confirm that the Sea Harrier can carry...

2xAMRAAM + 4xSidewinder (External fuel)

or

4xAMRAAM + 4xSidewinder (No external fuel, use of AAR)

I didn't realise it could carry all those missiles.

[Nozzles]

:cool: WEBF,

The following (unclassified) AD loadouts can be carried by the FA2:
In order: Fuselage / inboard wing / outboard wing:

2 x AIM-120B, 0 x gun / 2 x ext tanks / 2 x AIM-120B, 0 x AIM-9M

2 x AIM-120B, 0 x gun / 2 x ext tanks / 2 or 4 x AIM-9M, 0 x AIM120B

0 x AIM-120B, 2 x gun / 2 x ext tanks / 2 x AIM-120B, 0 x AIM-9M

0 x AIM-120B, 2 x gun / 2 x ext tanks / 2 or 4 x AIM-9M, 0 x AIM-120B

Basically, you can either load guns or Rammers on the fuselage, either Rammers or Heaters on the outboard wing pylons. A double Heater launcher can be mounted on the outboard stations, hence the 2 or 4 Heater option. As you can see, AAMs cannot be loaded on the inboard stations (only bombs and Sea Eagles-remember them?) so you'll never lose a fuel tank to an AD weapon.

Good luck shipmate, keep pushin'.................

N

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Thanks Nozzles

Another letter will be written. I put the reply I got in here as I thought it might be useful for other people to see the line being taken, so you can deal directly with the Minister's points, as I did in the COMMENTS section.

Incidently, the Government thinks that the carrier's will only be used for operations involving air strikes on land targets. Notwithstanding the fact that we are likely to be attacked in that sort of situation, what does Government think about situations where the CVS would be deployed to support other elements of the fleet?

What if nation X (possibly where there had been a recent coup) decided that to show its disapproval of the UK by attacking British (or allied) shipping or harrassing it? Nation x might see the UK as their main adversery, in which case we would have to act on our own. If shipping was being attacked by aircraft, then deploying a CVS and Sea Harriers would be the answer, in addition to frigates and destroyers.

If on the other hand, they were using missile boats (say) then the main assets to deal with them would be frigates and destroyers. If they enemy had a air force, then the CVS and Sea Harriers would be needed to protect our ships. If they had submarines, then frigates (and destroyers to a lesser extent) would provide most of the ASW defence (our own submarines would concentrate on OFFENSIVE ASW missions). Again the Sea Harrier would be needed to protect both our ships and the ASW helicopters. Lastly, what if mines were laid either off the coast of an ally or at a choke point for shipping? Sea Harriers providing air defence would be appreciated by the Minehunter crews.

I say this to prove that the CVS and Sea Harriers support and protect the entire fleet, not completely the other way round. The ships and aircraft of the Royal Navy are mutually supportive. Likewise its sailors, Pilot or Weapon Engineer.

:)

[FOMere2eternity]

Can't we fit Hawks with hooks and sidewinders for a while ?

They're pretty dinky, dead manoeverable and I'd put a couple of quid on one getting off the ski-jump with a nice headwind ! :p

...and why are secrets always found on canal towpaths ?

[steamchicken]

Well, it's all been interesting, hope to finalise in the next few days. Don't want to let it drag too much.

BTW - would the Hawk get back on? if it did get off?

[FOMere2eternity]

With a big enough hook and cable you could stop most things :D

[TL Thou]

Lot of talk about Malvinas here - thought this scorecard might be of interest....amazingly Sea Dart did work (a bit) just like I am sure PAAMS will <cough>.

Destroyed Argentine Aircraft

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Argentine aircraft were destroyed by British forces in 1982 by (a) Sea Dart, (b) Sea Wolf, (c) Sea Cat, (d) Sea Slug, (e) Bofors, (f) Oerlikon, (h) small arms fire, (i) Blowpipe, (j) Rapier, (k) Harrier, (l) bombing and ground operations, (m) naval gunfire and (n) Stinger. [49757]

Mr. Ingram: The causes of loss in the categories requested are shown in the following table.
Falklands 1982—Argentine aircraft losses
Category Number
Sea Dart 7
Sea Wolf 3
Sea Cat 0
Sea Slug 0
Bofors 1
Oerlikon 0
Small Arms Fire 2
Blowpipe 1
Rapier 1.5
Harrier 26
Bombing and Ground Operations 14
Naval Gunfire 4
Stinger 1 ;)
Other 39.5

[DamienB]

Sounds like we should buy more of this 'Other'!

While I'm not in the forces myself, I have an interest in this particular issue as my father's ship was sunk in the Falklands after SHARs were called off because 'we can deal with these guys on our own'. Unfortunately a Type 42 and a 23 couldn't...

I notice www.savetheseaharrier.com and www.savetheshar.com are available to be registered. Just an idea.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I think he meant SEA Harrier.

On another note, shipborne missile systems splashed more aircraft then the ten listed. As any decent book on the South Atlantic campaign will tell you.....

1. Sea Wolf brought done more than just three aircraft.
2. Sea Cat achieved sucesses, particularly in San Carlos, where the first Argentine plane to be downed was destroyed by a Sea Cat from Plymouth.

I think these cases, where the system that downed the bandits wasn't clearly identified, has been classed as "other".

Still, it does underline the importance of organic air defence. If an Electronics Engineer is faced with connecting a system with a certain power level to the input of another (sub)system with a maximum input power level that is lower, he or she would use an attenuator to avoid saturating the second system. This is particularly the true with instrumentation type circuitry. The job of the Sea Harrier is similar, it is to reduce incoming aircraft numbers to a level at which they will NOT saturate shipborne defences.

BTW Damien, we had Type 22 frigates in 1982, not Type 23...........sorry for being pedantic.

[DamienB]

Bleurgh - right you are. I knew what I meant :D

[Mister B]

If my memory serves me well, at one time we had dedicated squadrons whose primary task was to neutralise capital ships with fairly unsophisticated weapons (MARTEL) - and now have sqns with slightly more complex systems (Sea Eagle). The counter to this attack option is to surround the high-value asset with a defensive ring of anti-air pickets, augmented by organic AD aircraft. That, however, is not the whole picture, for there is also a need to provide anti-surface and anti submarine protection.

It does seem a bit ripe to have AD fighters protecting the big ship from which they are operating when the only reason that the big ship is there is to carry the AD...not to mention commiting the other aforementioned ships and boats. I suspect we would be hard pressed to conduct sustained ops with the full complement of defensive assests needed.

Just to complicate matters further, the type of operations to which our forces are increasingly being committed involve manoeuvring in relatively confined areas (Gulf/Adriatic) or close to littoral fringes; the great vulnerability in this scenario is to suicide attack by small, fast craft packed with HE - a sort of seaborne Kamikaze - it's been done before (Yemen). And all this supposes that we are only involved in one area of conflict at a time.

My point is, possession of an AD asset such as SHAR is only one element of a much larger picture; that picture should be made up of the naval defensive units which I have mentioned, along with offensive units, both surface and air, fixed wing and helo. The US have a modus operandum that goes a long way to addressing many of these issues in the form of a Marine Action Group (OK, they're big enough to let a single service run it, more or less, in the form of the USMC).

I will add as a note of caution, though, that the US approach is designed for the "projection of power" and the philosophy behind this is contained in a USN document titled "From the Sea". However,that philosophy can be modified and adapted to suit changing scenarios.
:confused:

Probably more questions than answers there...:(

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Mister B

Read my postings......paticularly where I mention protection from air attack of ASW (etc) forces.

Sea Harriers are for air defence of the FLEET, not just the carrier.

[mr ripley]

WEBF,
3 points:

1) I admire your tenacity.

2) I hope you are not suggesting that an answer to a parliamentary question is factually wrong, cos it is base on official info, and a book you read is correct.

3) So the FA2s defend the fleet not the carrier. What does the fleet do, if it is in the littoral, sit around and occupy the blue bit of the map?

mr ripley

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Mr Ripley

1. I am suggesting that in many cases from the Falklands it was never proved beyond doubt which system caused the destruction of Argentine aircraft.

2. In the littoral, the fleet can.....

a. Conduct ASW operations (lots of nations have submarines that are ideal in these conditions).
b. Conduct and support Amphibious operations.
c. Support and protect seaborne supply routes, including protecting them from air attack.
d. Assist ground forces with NGS.
e. Insert, extract and support special forces.
f. Clear (sea) mines, although you might include this as part of b or c.

And that is off the top of my head......

[Nozzles]

Mr. B,

Call me picky, but...........

Last time I looked, Sea Eagle had been cancelled.

The FA2 is a MULTIROLE asset, whose effectiveness is prioritised towards AD (when the FRS1 became the FRS2, the 'S' changed to 'A' as the 'special weapon' role was removed. It was decided to remove the 'R' because their Lordships wanted to emphasise the conventional attack capability at the expense of the recce capability).

FA2s conducted AD, offensive ops and recce in both Bosnia and Kosovo, and have the capability to swing through all three roles in one sortie.

N

[Jackonicko]

Multi-role? Come off it. One nose-mounted wet-film F95 is hardly recce (and what did happen to the EO camera fit?) while the ability to tote 1,000-lb dumb bombs is hardly earth-shattering for air-to-mud.

The Sea Harrier's lack of multi-role flexibility, together with its poor serviceability and the inability of our present carriers to carry a worthwhile mix are what have done for the SHar.

And it's still only a four year capability gap, and not the final loss of a capability.

Moreover, that capability is one which is rarely required and which could be provided by Allies (Italy, Spain, France or the US). We don't have every club in the capability golf bag, and can't afford to have. We no longer do autonomous national ops. We have plenty of more serious capability gaps. This is a ridiculously expensive capability - unaffordably so.

Never mind 'saving the SHar' - the sensible course of action would be to bin the future carrier and FCBA as well, and spend the money more wisely.

[Flap62]

Good post Jacko,

It's sad to say but the Shar has definitely become a luxury. I've done that mud and recce thing and the Shar is in no way operationally capable of being called truly multi-role (can't think of any brit kit that is!). The recce and attack roles have long been used to blind the treasury and keep the old girl going for a bit longer. The long and the short of it is that we could sit and dream up scenarios where disgruntled portugese fishermen attacked our merchant fleet with space-hopers filled with TNT but on the balance of probabilities it's not a credible threat. Yes the Shar can provide a measure of defence for the fleet, but how likely is that threat and how likely are we to meet any such threat in the next ten years or so. People will howl about the Falklands but lets face it, we could never mount an operation anything like that again. Webf mentions air cover for mine clearing operations - that's about the limit of UK sea power at the moment (subs excepted) and it's very difficult to see us operating, even in that type of scenario, where AD cover could not be provided from elsewhere.

Defence spending and procurement has long been a game of balancing probabilities and making judgements accordingly. With our current world-wide commitments and overstretch (and perhaps Desert Storm II just around the corner) we need to look long and hard at what is essential, not desirable. I would not like to be the commander telling my guys that "Sorry we haven't got chaff/flares/EW fit for tonights push into Afghanistn/Iraq, but at least the Shars providing CAP for the Admirals coctail cabinet".

[Vectoredthrust]

BAE think its all over now as the last development FA2 aircraft has just been mothballed at St Athans.
What a good jet.
The end of an evocative era.

[sprucemoose]

So, Jacko, "We don't have every club in the capability golf bag", eh?

So that's why you gave up hacking round the Links!

Sprucey,

'SandWedge short of a picnic.'

[Mister B]

Jacko

I couldn't better have put it myself.
If I could work out how to attach a piccy I could attach a SHAR condducting wet weather trials in the River Yeo.:D

[Jackonicko]

Flap,

Many thanks. I would agree that it's sad to lose the SHar, and in an ideal world, with unlimited resources..............

But when we don't have enough dedicated SEAD, when UK forces rely on our Allies for basics like air defence, when digi-ASRAAM is judged unaffordable for the Jag, GR 7 and F3, when we're down to four frontline AD squadrons, when we're looking at privatising flying training and AAR, then spending money on the SHar (and on the carriers full stop, IMHO) looks incredibly wasteful.

I still think that deploying a carrier, its protective screen of SSN, AD destroyers, frigates, oilers and other replenishment ships seems to be a very wasteful way of deploying an under-strength FJ squadron. How many Gripens, Nimrod MRA5s (with Storm Shadow), C-17s, and new Hawk 100s could we buy for the cost of the two new carriers and the planned buy of JSFs?

It strikes me that all this emoting over the end of the SHar is no more than dark blue teddy throwing, and I'd expect a similar ruckus if someone suggested binning all the Army's 'Cavawlwy Wedgiments', which seem similarly unnecessary and expensive in the post Cold War world.

And Sprucey, how often do you use that Sand wedge? And if you were really strapped when it came to replacing your clubs, wouldn't it be one which you might forego? After all, a nine iron does nearly as well, and you could always borrow your partners', if you did get in the bunker.....

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Jacko et al

What about where the CVS is deployed to support the rest of the fleet?

Fleet Air Defence.......understand? Why do we not need it when France, Spain and Italy all think they do?

Jacko you are blowing hot and cold. In a recent thread about the deployment of 45 Commando (etc) to Afgahnistan you expressed concerns about the fact no UK aircraft were being depolyed so there was/is no dedicated Close Air Support for British forces. But you seem to consider it acceptable (and desirable) for the fleet to have no dedicated air defence.....

Sorry, but why do you take different views? Or do you simply see sailors' lives as less important?

[Archimedes]

WEBF, think you're a little unfair on Jacko [et al?] with the last comment, there.

I read Jacko's point to be that the RN is unlikely to be operating on a single-nation basis during the time without a SHAR-like capability, and that our allies could 'plug the gap' with Rafale or AV-8B Plus, or, of course, F-14 (albeit for a very short time after SHAR leaves service) and F/A-18.

I don't think he's advocating that sailors should be regarded as less important.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I wasn't criticising Jacko, just making a point.
Anyway, we normally deploy a CVS with a single destroyer and a couple (at most) of frigates....and some RFAs. If more ships are involved it indicates that the mission goes beyond just supporting the CVS.

Will our allies be able to give us dedicated CAPs? The US might (though they might start to see us as a liability), but I'm not so sure about our European allies. They simply do not have enough aircraft. So the air defence provided (if any) would be less than that afforded by the Sea Harrier.

PS Et al = And all (Latin)

[Jackonicko]

Fanatic,

Just a carrier alone represents a bigger manpower/infrastructure deployment than is required by an RAF FJ squadron, and all to deploy only 12 Harriers. And they do always take a couple of warships, FRAs, and an SSN when a carrier goes anywhere for real. It's just not good value, bang-for-buck wise.

We have to rely on our Allies for many important (and more frequently required) capabilities, so why not for Fleet Air Defence, especially since RN ships will inevitably be operating in conjunction with ships from other nations.

The RN fought hard to maintain an OTT full strategic nuclear deterrent (when it was arguably inappropriate and over-costly for the Post Cold War world) and must cut its coat according to its cloth. It shouldn't expect to have both four Trident subs and two Super carriers. There are other defence priorities, and there are better cheaper ways of providing some of these capabilities.

With regard to OS versus fleet AD, I will only say that there has been a credible threat to British land forces every time they have been deployed in recent years, and dedicated CAS has been (or would have been) useful. Not since the Falklands has there been a credible air threat to British ships which was beyond the capacity of our allies to deal with.

[Flatus Veteranus]

All this sounds a bit academic. With a large hole in the UK budget coming up in a few years, and the NHS and transport still in chaos, defence is not going to dominate government thinking - let alone expensive projects like carriers and JSF. In fact the minimum capability that will play in DC is the likely bottom line. And that will be lightly armed infantry able to move quickly. The current operation in Afghanistan will provide pattern. Special Forces, RM and the Paras. The Yanks will supply the air power, and that will be the shape of the Pax Americana. :(

[Jackonicko]

FV, very sensible post. Presumably we'll also be encouraged (or at least allowed) to keep tankers, Sigint, and cheap, flexible, easily deployable FJs as have been used so effectively in the Middle East and Balkans, too. But perhaps not if the Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals are seen to be unrealistically greedy, and are clinging on to 'prestige' programmes born in the days of Cold War plenty.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

1. Carriers are not a "hang on" from the Cold War. Our big carriers were scrapped during the cold war. The proposal to build strike carriers is a post Cold War idea, enshrined in the SDR.

2. How are you going to provide air defence for naval forces, merchant shipping or amphibious operations that are more than a few minutes flying time from the nearest friendly air base without organic air defence?

3. Wouldn't you agree the RN should retain some air defence, even if its just a few aircraft from smaller carriers?

4. Do we really want to be nothing more than a poodle for the US?

[steamchicken]

Evenin' WE .... I'll post the final versions tomorrow, then send 'em out. I think we're getting to the end of our *new* arguments, beginning to go round in circles!

[Jackonicko]

Defence in the post Cold War world is all about providing effective military capability economically (even at minimum cost). Carriers do not achieve this central aim.

[BlueWolf]

Gentlemen

Human nature, and by association the behaviour of nations, has not altered dramatically since the Stone Age.
Technology has of couse advanced beyond all recognition, and our way of life is markedly different, but under it, the beast has not changed its spots - nor is it ever likely to. Scratch the veneer of civilisation and you will find primal instinct lurking underneath.
As a species humankind is selfish in its desires, fickle in its loyalties, and brutal in its applications. So are the world's nations.
Countries who are your friends today may well be your enemies tomorrow.
So Spain, France and Italy have aircraft carriers and can provide air cover for your fleet....in her long history Britain has spent more time at war against these nations than with them. These trends will be repeated. Such is the way of humanity, in spite of the fervent insistence of every generation that it lives in a special time bubble, where "things are different now."
When the Euro collapses, as it will, and the European Union fractionates, as it will, whose side will these "coalition assets" be on?
The major nations of the West have been in a state of relative peace for a mere two generations out of the past twelve thousand years of recorded or discernable history. This is a scarcely measurable blip, not an indication that the world has changed.
You Gentlemen are for the most part, so far as I can deduce, intelligent, articulate, well informed and firmly opined. It does not do you any credit to ignore the bigger picture, or to disregard the lessons of history. As the famous quote suggests, to do so means you will be doomed to repeat them.
The only dependable defence of your own independence is to have your own independent defence. This means possessing all of the capabilities you may need, whatever the cost. This cost is relatively small. The argument that defence is too costly to be affordable is weapons-grade b u l l s h i t. Our own PM, who incidently belongs to the same school of thought as your Tony Blair, did away with our entire Air Combat Force, on the grounds that we apparently don't need it at all, and because it was supposedly too expensive to maintain.
The subsequent cost saving to the nation amounts to a little less than ten cents per taxpayer, per day. The same taxpayer daily funds Social Welfare to the tune of twelve dollars and seventy cents. Unaffordable? Your own comparison on government spending and priorities is likely to be equally eye-opening.
Our PMs insistence that we do not need air defence comes from her belief that we live in a "Benign Strategic Environment." Quite how this fits in with our residence in a "Global Village" escapes me, but I think it more than coincidence that Benign Strategic Environment and Mad Cow Disease have the same initials.
Jacko, you could well be a policy advisor for our government. The thrust of your arguments is virtually identical to the naive fantasy which passes for defence policy here.
Unworkable dogma backed up by lies is no substitute for a realistic acceptance of the facts, one of which is this: if you get through the four years between the SHar and the JSF unscathed, it will be by luck alone. Weigh that risk against the miserably pitiful cost of upgrading the SHar (if you do regard the sum in question as a large one, do some comparisons with the other things your government spends money on) and see if you still want to believe the fiction and propaganda spouted by politicians and spread by their lackeys.
Keep up the good work, WEBF. If you can keep the beacon burning till the world goes to war next year, you may well achieve your aims.

[The English Passenger]

Blue Wolf...

You get my vote fella. When are you running for office? You would probably be suprised how many of your fellow countrymen would vote for you.

Down with politicians....Lets resurrect the idea of statesmen.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Hear Hear

[steamchicken]

Well, as promised..
Dear Sir,

You are no doubt aware that the Government has recently decided to retire the FA-2 Sea Harrier from service by the year 2006. Although I greet the decision to build the two new aircraft carriers and to procure the Joint Strike Fighter with enthusiasm, these aircraft will at the earliest be in service by 2010. During the intervening years, the Royal Navy will possess no air defence fighters of any type. The use of Royal Air Force Harriers on board ship in no way solves this problem, as the GR7 and GR9 Harrier is a pure attack aircraft with a minimal capacity for air combat. Is this genuinely wise?

The FA-2 is currently the most advanced Air Defence type in HM Forces. It, alone among British aircraft, is capable of monitoring 20 targets by radar simultaneously and using the AIM120 medium range missile, the latest Western air-to-air weapon. The combination of the Blue Vixen radar and the AIM120 enables these aircraft to actually fire at four separate enemy aeroplanes simultaneously, beyond visual range and in all weathers. Further, the Sea Harrier's dogfighting capability was amply proven in the Falklands War, where it was the chief (indeed nearly the) air defence weapon available. The FRS 1 Harriers used at the time had no medium-range armament, and had to rely on closing with the enemy. However they achieved a notable success.

In contrast, the Royal Air Force's Harrier fleet is made up of aircraft which are designed exclusively for the tactical support of the military. The payload and variety of bombs, air-to-ground missiles and the like is considerably greater, but this is achieved at the expense of any serious air-to-air capability. Even the latest GR9 version has no radar, and therefore a very limited ability to intercept enemy aircraft. Even were it to do so, its air-to-air armament is designed only as a minimum self-defence for bombing missions.

One of the justifications given in the House for this move was that by carrying FA-2s, the carriers had "no space for RAF aircraft" and that therefore the Sea Harrier served only to defend its own base. This is a risible nonsense. If the carriers were to lose all fighters and carry only RAF Harriers, they would be at enormous risk of being sunk before the GR9s could damage the enemy in the least. The crew of a carrier is a very large number of lives to lose through one act of incompetence. There is certainly a trade-off between the two aeroplanes, but the FA-2 is not incapable of taking part in attack, and the trade-off is by no means as severe as this argument would suggest. During Operation Deliberate Force in 1995, the operation to force Serbian acceptance of the Dayton Accord and lift the siege of Sarajevo, FA2s were called on by NATO to attack targets in Bosnia. Bomb Damage Assessment photographs showed that 100% of the bombs dropped by the SHARs hit their targets. The photographs were taken by the very same aircraft. In Operation Deny Flight, the related mission to maintain the UN air exclusion zone over Bosnia, the same Sea Harrier unit's reliability was such that they launched their Combat Air Patrols on time and at full strength 100% of the time in the air-to-air. And if you cannot survive in the war-zone, you can do nothing.

Further, the fighters based on a carrier protect the ships about them, not only the carrier escorts, but - for example - the transports and Amphibious Group supporting a landing force (especially important given the emphasis on "littoral warfare" in the SDR) or the ships forming an antisubmarine group. Or a mines countermeasures force - perhaps one in the northern Persian Gulf, given that the Royal Navy had this task in the last Gulf War?

The other chief argument used to defend this decision is that "allies" would be able to provide air cover. Which allies? The Western carrier navies are currently as follows; United States, UK, France, Spain, Italy. These last three have one carrier each. Spain and Italy both operate the US-built AV-8B variant of the Harrier, with similar capabilities to the GR7 in attack and the FA2 in air combat. Should this policy be pursued further, it may be the first time since the 18th century - indeed since Sir Francis Drake - that the Spanish navy has been better equipped than the RN. Can we really confine our entire defence and foreign policy to not only the acceptance, but the active military involvement, of the United States? Will the US Navy always be involved, and will they always have a full carrier group on hand? And can we expect anything at all from the French and their one, unreliable carrier? For the Charles de Gaulle has so far been riddled with technical problems, including the loss of her screw on trials. This fine vessel finally arrived in the Arabian Sea some time after the fall of Kabul. Further, the political assumption that France would always be in agreement is even less tenable than the assumption that the US would be. An examination of French votes and statements on the UN Security Council will lend force to this. Further, we should at least bear in mind the success of the extreme Right in both Italy and France, and remember the historically close relations between European fascism/extreme nationalism and various unsavoury leaders in the Middle East. Jean-Marie Le Pen has close connections to the French-Iraqi Association and various other pro-Iraqi groups. (Jörg Haider and others in Austria entertain close relations with Saddam Hussein as well.)

Such an assumption is a brutal contradiction to the conclusions of the Strategic Defence Review, which pointed towards a renewal of our capability for worldwide action and emphasised that the entirety of HM Forces must be "expeditionary" in nature? And can we really, from the perspective of today, predict the politics of the future so accurately? It sounds terribly like the 10 Year Rule of the 1920s and 30s, which stated that all plans should assume no war for ten years. It was finally ended in 1934.

No navy in the world which operates outside its immediate coastal waters considers ship-based weapons as reliable air defence. All navies, in fact, seek to operate with the help of fighters, be they based on ships or on the shore. But relying on shorebased fighters restricts operations to their radius of actions. Without air cover, the Royal Navy will rely for defence against the main threat on two missile systems and anti-aircraft guns - purely defensive weapons, forming only one effective line of defence. And what will poor Jack do then to keep out the Exocets? We can ask for courage, but to ask sailors to expose themselves to air attack without genuine means of defence and counter-attack is both disgusting and foolish. During the Falklands War, the Sea Harriers destroyed more enemy aircraft than any other single weapon. A United States Air Force study suggested that as well as these as many as 450 Argentinian sorties were deterred by the fighters.

So what are the options? The Sea Harriers could be kept in operation until the arrival of the JSF. This will require that they receive a major engine overhaul due shortly, which is said to be the reason for their retirement. Alternatively, the GR9 programme could be altered to include the Blue Vixen radar, thus making an aeroplane similar to the US Marines' AV-8 version of the very same Harrier and solving the problem. This would likely cost more. But no defence is not the answer!

Yours sincerely,

....yournamehere....

(edit to take account of Nozzles' comments)
(and again..not very final really)

[Nozzles]

Jacko my dear fellow,

You've been up to mischief again!

Before I get accused of being a dark blue teddy thrower I'd just like to point out that I no longer serve HM, and follow this debate purely out of interest.

"The Sea Harrier's lack of multirole flexibility......" Everything is relative, my friend. Please enlighten us as to which other aircraft in the UK inventory could sweep themselves to a target, carrying 2 x AIM 120 each, drop 2 x 1000lb bombs each, and take some BDA photos just for laughs?

Nobody is trying to claim that the FA2 is a world contender in its secondary roles, just that they exist and are available when sufficient specialist aircraft are not. We all wish we had an aircraft that could do A-G like an F-117, recce like a U2 and A-A like an F-15C. Unfortunately, the boffins are yet to come up with it.

The F95 camera was good enough for the IA cell in the NATO CAOC to repeatedly request the FA2 to be tasked in the recce role in Op Deliberate Force. Where did the EO camera go? To the same place that acceptable pay rates for nurses, reduced working hours for doctors, more books for schools and more bobbies on the beat went-down the pan. This is because politicians are obsessed with the idea that the only way to remain popular is to cut income tax (the first tiny signs of enlightenment came with the increase in NI in this year's budget).

I'm not sure where you're going with your claim that the ability to carry 1000lb dumb bombs is "hardly earth shattering". What is it you want? Carpet bombing? Call a B-52. But call some fighters to protect it too. Dumb bombs play an enormous role in any offensive operation. With the recent advent of GPS smoothed RLG INS platforms in small tactical aircraft, dumb bomb CEPs have shrunk markedly. Nice try by failing to mention the FA2's capability to carry up to 4 1000lb LGBs-you should have known I would be watching! Before you get on at me for carrying LGBs without an LST, there is no shortage of NATO jets that take LGBs into operational theatres without a LST.

The new INS platform in the FA2, coupled with the fact that the SHAR's weapons aiming computer actually contains the correct ballistics for British bombs means that the published CEPs for unguided weapons are slightly better than those for some of our dedicated attack platforms-scientific, black-and-white, undeniable and somewhat ironic. LOL.

In 1995, the NATO CAOC tasked FA2s to attack a number of targets in the FRY with dumb bombs. Subsequent BDA photos taken at medium level showed that 100% of the tasked DMPIs were destroyed.

Guess who took the BDA photos................

You either didn't read my response to your posting on the previous SHAR thread, or you chose to ignore the statements by myself and other seasoned experts in the field of this aircraft's caps and lims. This is clear because you continue to try to mislead people about:

a). The maximum number of Harriers you can fit on a CVS
b). The reliability of the aircraft

Your assertion as to what resulted in the SHAR's early demise is entirely at odds with the reasoning employed at Whitehall. Basically, since its inception, the Sea Harrier was never properly funded-the bill just kept getting shoved into the following year's budget. Spares are expensive due to lack of commonality with most other Harrier airframes. Thus, production lines for spare parts would have to remain open until 2010-2012 in order to serve the 30 or so airframes in operation. The projected cost of this, plus that of upgrades to keep the aircraft competitive until 2012, plus the debt the aircraft already carries, was deemed too large to manage under the current budget forecasts. So, a calculated risk was taken that effective and willing allied AD would be available until the arrival of JSF. As I mentioned in my reply to your earlier post, the men who made that decision will be judged as heroes if we get away with it, or villains if a CVS goes to the bottom, irrespective of the merits of their reasoning.

The 4-6 year capability gap should be regarded as an absolute minimum, based on the ludicrous assumption that CVF/JSF will be the first two military procurement projects ever to come into service anywhere near their assigned in-service dates.

You lament the puny number of front line sqns, but are prepared to bin a more capable AD aircraft, which, of course, can be land-based. (I hope you're not going to try to argue that the F3 is better).

On a separate note, has anybody actually asked our steadfast allies in which of all the possible scenarios they would be prepared to divert their own thinly stretched AD resources to defend the British fleet?

I'm done, Jacko, you're cleared to fire...........

N

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Exactly my point Nozzles

The Sea Harrier was intended to stay on until 2015 with Ark Royal.

I have written out a letter to my MP, which you won't be suprised covers the points I raised in response to the latter I got from Adam Ingram, and covers many of the same points as you and Steamchicken have mentioned. Meant to post it today.....but didn't have an envelope big enough of put it (seven pages) in.

I think what is needed is co-ordinated action by both opposition parties and Labour backbenchers.

I think this was your posting you were referring to Nozzles, I copied and pasted it to e-mail it to a friend. I've copied and pasted it back.....sorry for problems this pasting malarky causes...

As someone who flew the FA2 for many years I'm afraid I'm going to have to target you somewhat as you have stated some of your opinions as if they were facts. I don't know who your source is; if he's a SHAR mate his views certainly don't reflect those of the vast majority.

You claim that 4 Lightnings could have prevented the Falklands War. In the same post you say that FA2s as part of a JF on a CVS are not a viable AD solution. Considering a 50/50 GR7/FA2 mix, that's about a dozen SHARS on deck. You appear to be saying that three times as many FA2s, which are vastly more capable than the Lightning could not do what 4 Lightnings could do!

You mention in previous posts that the SHAR's unreliability precludes them from mounting round-the-clock AD. I have taken part in 24/7 2-ship DCA with 7 jets and 8 pilots. The limiting factor was always pilot fatique and not airframe availability. In a crisis situation, the force could muster more pilots than jets on deck, allowing extended 24/7 DCA with more a/c. In all the years of the SHAR contribution to op Deny Flight over Bosnia we achieved 100% frag. (I heard an unsubstantiated rumour that we were the only type in theatre to achieve this). With just 7 jets on board, we would start 5 and hold the fifth at Alert Zero on deck until the 4-ship had successfully tanked. (Being No. 5 sucked-all those hours of prep and you hardly ever got to launch). Contrast this with other types who had to start EIGHT jets to produce a 4-ship in the box (and didn't always succeed).

You talk about the FA2 with 2 x AIM 120 as if something stops us carrying 4. Whilst bringback is an issue at high OATs, the AD fit is not as badly affected as the heavier AG fit. I regularly came back to the Boat with a gross weight equivalent to a 4 x 120 fit in the Adriatic in the height of summer.

While I'm remeniscing, that particular fit involved 2 AAMs, a 1000lb bomb and a loaded recce camera. Our missions were fragged as 'Swing' whereby we cruised around waiting to be called to either intercept a/c, drop bombs or take recce photos. I believe some wise fellow once said that flexibility was the key to airpower. Needless to say, we didn't sweat when there was talk of the CAOC throwing single-role a/c out of theatre due to limited dispersal space. (We were triple-swing role and brought our own dipersal to the party!)

You say that the FA2's "....genuine BVR capability is seriously constrained except in a short range/low endurance reactive role unless tanker support is available..." To have an unconstrained BVR capability you need to be airborne with the following three things:

1. BVR sensors
2. BVR weapons
3. BVR ROE

Ther is nothing in the first two that constrains the FA2's BVR capability. What I think you mean is that the FA2 can't project as far in OCA as some other a/c. Show me the aircraft that does it all and it'll surely exist only on paper.

Let's talk about a "genuine BVR capability" I'm trying to think of another a/c type in Europe that can track 10 aircraft at once (plus hold detection files on a further classified number) whilst simultaneously supporting 4 AIM 120s in flight at separate targets and...........I'm failing miserably.

The FA2 is rightly feared in exercises for its ability to conduct a 'Beirut Unload' (AKA "Fox Twelve!") whereby a single SHAR can splash a 4-ship mud element in one engagement, at long range, without being detected by the attackers.

The FA2 is limited in both top speed and RoA. RoA is not such a big issue in Fleet Defence as the MiG drivers come to you. I'm not aware of any threat ASM that can be launched outside the FA2's RoA. I've seen SHARs squeeze 2 hours unrefuelled station time, land, refuel and be back off the front of the jump 30 mins later for another 2 hour CAP.

RoA becomes an issue if you wish to project an OCA/AI mission a long way over the beach . As for speed, I've lost count of the number of faster aircraft I've shot down in training engagements over the years. The ability to launch missiles tens of miles from the bandit and turn for home before they impact has seriously counterbalanced the speed deficit.

A politically untenable mission without land bases/allied AD assets? I think the politics would be irrelevant as the mission would be militarily untenable without Fleet AD.

An affordable capability gap? Seems to me more like high stakes gambling. The people who made this decision will be judged one way if we get away with it and another if a CVS goes to the bottom.

With a Govt that is more interested in avoiding tax increases than paying for public services, this should have come as no surprise. After all, our armed forces have done nothing but shrink since the Berlin Wall came down.

They took the 'Rule' away from Britannia and replaced it with 'Cool'

**************************************************
Incidently......twenty years ago today HMS Sheffield was destroyed by an Exocet, largely due to inadequate numbers of Sea Harriers, no AEW, lack of waepons for use against sea skimmers etc etc. The worst thing was politicians who refused to accept that unforseen circumstances occur.

Twenty good men died.

They shall not grow old
As we that are left grow old
Age shall not weary them
Nor the years condemn
At the going down of the Sun
And in the morning
We will remember them.


Remember......it could happen again. Very easily.

[steamchicken]

For clarity - see edits on last post to take account of new comments.

[Jackonicko]

I say again: "Defence in the post Cold War world is all about providing effective military capability economically (even at minimum cost). Carriers do not achieve this central aim."

and I'll add that jingoistic, anti-French, anti-Spanish and anti-US prejudice aside, we often rely on allies for providing some capabilities. Why not this one, which is required so infrequently?

The SHar has sometimes done a great job (though bringback sucks, and it's of limited usefulness in the Gulf for this reason) but we simply can't afford it.

Interesting points by your contact, fanatic, but his emphasis is all on Fleet Air Defence, which makes the carrier a bit of a self-licking lollipop. If the Shar can't do long range OCA and escort, then it's less useful than the GR9 in today's environment.

I admire your opposition to cuts in force size - having to pay for over-expensive, inappropriate carriers is part of the problem however, not part of the solution.

Nozzles, No, I don't want carpet bombing, but for an aircraft to be counted as multi-role nowadays I do expect a robust PGM/ASM capability, and for recce I expect multi-sensor EO, preferably with near real time data link even if done 'on the cheap' with IDM and a PRISM card. And four thousand pounders? Theoretically perhaps, but when's it actually been done in anything approaching realistic operational conditions?

Blue Wolf, the trauma of your recent loss out there has clearly unbalanced you, dear chap. "When the Euro collapses, as it will, and the European Union fractionates, as it will, whose side will these "coalition assets" be on?" doesn't deserve any response except laughter. The whole point is that the expense of carriers threatens equally severe and stupid cuts here, in order to pay for the damned things!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I repeat....

The Sea Harrier is for FLEET air defence, often thats the reason to deploy a CVS. It is frigates and destroyers that will pay the price for having no organic air defence.

Incidently......when we were involved in Kosovo we deployed a CVS (complete with Sea Harriers, curiosly enough the RAF prefered Italian bases), a Type 42 destroyer, two Type 23 frigates (one was part of STANFORMED) and a SSN. Backed up by some RFAs.

Which ships were operating with the CVS? The Type 42 and one Type 23, at most (excluding RFAs). The STANFORMED frigate was doing other things, and the SSN was there to provide TLAM capability.

We nearly sent a CVS to the Gulf in '91, but the MOD penny pinchers wouldn't have it. Probably the CVS that would have been depoyed would have been Ark Royal. She would have acted mainly as a flagship, but her Sea Harriers (FRS1 back then) would have provided welcome dedicated air defence for the RN ships there, including the Minehunters. As it turned out much of Saddam's air force fled to Iran, but what if it hadn't? Coalition warships and support vessels would have been in grave danger.

The Sea Harrier can recieve AAR anyway, so OCA ops are possible. Remember US carrier aircraft have recently been supported in the Arabian sea region by RAF tankers....

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I was never anti French/Spanish/Italian, I was merely stating that they do not have enough carrier based fighters to defend somebody else's task force as well as their own. Certainly CAPs are out....

[Jackonicko]

Simple question WEBF:

How many men are required to support the deployment of one GR7 Squadron to Gioia? How many aircraft? (And How many men for a Jag squadron?)

How many men were required to support the deployment of one FA2 Squadron, including the crews of the CV, the Frigate, the Destroyer, the SSN, the RFAs, etc.? How many aircraft? How much did the ships cost to deploy in terms of fuel, etc?

Now tell me that carrier air power is cost effective......

I'd sooner have our own SEAD (which is needed for every op) than our own Fleet AD, which is an expensive luxury. I'd permanently lose Fleet AD and carriers. But that's not the issue. The withdrawal of FA 2 leaves only a TEMPORARY capability gap, which will be partly compensated for by land-based air power, allied fleet AD, etc.

To fill this gap is prohibitively expensive.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Jacko

Many naval assests would have been deployed to the Adriatic anyway. The SSN had nothing to do with the CVS group. I'm not totally sure about this, but the Type 42, Nottingham, was not involved exlusively with defending the CVS. Also you might consider that the carrier acts as Flagship.

Your pro RAF and anti Navy bias can be seen miles away.

On a similar note, why does it take the RAF 200+ personnel to deploy just three Chinooks to Afgahnistan.

The CVS/Sea Harrier are often deployed to support and protect the fleet, not the other way round.

You say we can't afford to retain the Sea Harrier. Does this also explain the Navy's missile shortage? Can we afford to lose just a single frigate or destroyer (or RFA)? Because that's what is likely to happen.

[West Coast]

Jacko
You seem to be betting the farm on a coalition effort for future endevours. No disrespect meant but it reminds me of the decision not to put a cannon on the F4 as that type of warfare was a bygone era.
Whats your take on force projection,you know, the bluff before the storm?. Its hard to quantify how many conflicts were avoided by the implied threat that accompnies a carrier battle group setting up residence offshore. A go at it with a few ships threatens the littorals, a go at it with organic air assets provides OTH capability that threatens the whole country.
The point that its expensive to maintain a capability seldom used is well taken, and its problematic to argue otherwise, but heck the concept of insurance for my car bothers me every time I write the check..thats until I need it.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Thankyou West Coast

I agree with you 100%. Its nice to see someone looking at this from a logical point of view. Your analogy with car insurance is a good one.

"We didn't need it yesterday, therefore we won't need it tommorow". Know what psychologists call that type of thinking?

Gambler's folly.

[Jackonicko]

Tough choices required. Third party insurance plus brakes, seatbelts, etc. or fully comprehensive without. The case for fully comp is unarguable, except when it's unaffordable. The SHar represents fully comp.

No anti Navy bias, except that it consumes a disproportionate and inappropriate proportion of Defence expenditure (thanks mainly to Trident) and is the one part of our forces which still sometimes appears to be tailored to our Colonial days, when the sun never set.....

No pro RAF bias either, except that the specialists are good at providing cost-effective air power.

200 men for three Chinooks. And how many if you base them on Ocean, say? 1,200?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The Navy consumes less of the defence buget than either the Army or RAF.

As for Trident, it is a nation defence system, not a naval weapon.

You think the RN is still catering for colonial days? Why?

[Jimlad]

Hi guys I'm new here - I'm an RNR (not URNU!) officer and finishing off my masters at the RMCS. (anyone else here hail from that god awful place?)

Carriers - it seems to me that there is a lot of problems over SHAR + carriers in general, so I thought I'd add my 2p worth to the thread.

Firstly HMS Ocean has a crew of 250 designed to run the ship and it is important to note that she does do other things than just fly choppers - she carries booties and their landing craft as well.
Yes the invincibles have a higher crew of 1200 - but thats including the full load airwing - the actually ships company is around 700. This is due to their age - they were designed in the 60's and 70's when technology was different and more manpower intensive. The next generation CVF will have hopefully a lower crew requirement.

Secondly the point about manpower for a harrier detachment is misleading - yes you may only need 200 guys to run the detachment - but how many other locals run the airfield and all that goes with it? How many resupply flights have to go into support the detachment? I'd suggest its a similar number to a carrier crew - and remember that carriers are self supporting beasts - send em off and forget about them. No worries about basing rights or negotiations etc - just park it off the 12 mile limit and you have an airfield.

I think the problem here is that both the navy and raf types are thinking from their own services interests. We should look at it from a joint position - I see the Carrier as a floating airbase which the army, rn and raf can put on any aircraft or helos that they want. Its a joint force tool, not a naval toy.


Sure we can scrap the carriers - but that makes things more difficult for all services not just the RN - the RAF as has been pointed out has 4 AD squadrons - where will the planes come from the cover the area of conflict, protect the UK and protect the carriers? How can the RAF gurantee that they can have constant cover? The advantage of having locally based a/defence is that you can (hopefully) have an immediate response.
One final question for the moment - why was Jaguar retained and not SHAR? Given that the RAF has three bomber types - wouldn't it be easier to lose a bomber that hasn't done much recently rather than scrap an entire capability? (awaiting the reply from enraged jaguar crews here)

Finally for anyone who wants to see an RN perspective on this, may I recommend a visit to www.warships1.com - they have some interesting debates over there on this issue.

[Chinese Vic]

Just a couple of points:

Jimlad

Could it be that the Jags weren't retired because they continue to provide a valuable (and extremely cost-effective) contribution to an ongoing operation?

WEBF

Sorry to be slow to pick up on a point, but to refer to your earlier remarks re the CVS/SHAR contribution to ALLIED FORCE - as I recall the ship pitched up (late) mainly at the behest of CINCFLEET UK, not at any NATO request and largely got in the way until it was 'suggested' that she would be better employed elsewhere.
Oh, and the RAF prefer land based ops because we can take off with a full load and bring it all back again if we have to (referring to the GR7/F-16 vs civilian convoy thread - we would have had to throw those weapons in the briny).

Obviously I'm biased to the light blue, but give me strat lift and an FOB any day....

CV

[Megaton]

I'd like to make a point of order, Jim lad. There are no crews at Coltishall, only pilots! :D :p

[Jimlad]

there was an article in AFM some time ago looking at the pros and cons of withdrawing F3, FA2 and Jaguar fleets from service.
I would like to know (as I am but an ignorant part time fishhead:) ) what role that jaguar fills that makes it unique in the RAF's OOB. It seems to me we have GR7/9 doing CAS and bombing, Jaguar does bombing and GR4 does bombing / recce and to some extent long range cruise missile firings once Stormshadow enters service. Given that you already have two plane types capable of bombing - why the need for a third for a fleet that is older than the FA2, is due to go out of service soon anyway - why not take it out NOW and save money?
I'm not trying to troll - but I can't see the justification for the Jag - we have recce Gr4's, FA2 can do recce so no need there for Jag. We have bombers and FA2 can bomb as well - so no need for Jag there - what on earth does the Jag do that no one else can?
FA2 provides fleet air defence and limited multi role capability - something that no other RAF plane can do. I cannot say the same about the Jaguar.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Are the Jags based in a Labour constituency? That might give you a clue.

Losing the Jag would cost the UK some capability.
Losing the Sea Harrier will lose the UK ships and people.

So Vic, the Jaguar provides an ongoing and effective contribution to ongoing operations. Good. But so does the Sea Harrier....... without it there is no air defence of the fleet.

The role of the Sea Harrier in Kosovo is debatable, however, it was at the sharp end of things in Bosnia for three years constantly.

[West Coast]

Jacko
Nothing is ever as expensive as when you need it and don't have it.

The RAF may be able to project well in a host country assuming the logistical tail can keep up, but what if there is no host country, or the infrastructure of the host country is not up to speed, or is overburdened?

Do you think it might be an invitation for another Falklands type conflict by someone with an axe to grind if the harrier goes away?
Honestly looking for your opinion.

[Chinese Vic]

WEBF, I'd be genuinely interested to know where you think the air threat to the Fleet currently emanates from.
I'm not suggesting that the removal of a capability like this is a good thing, but if there is no more money to be had, you have to ask yourself what asset can we afford to be without? I would contend that loss of the SHAR will not automatically lead to loss of ships and lives. Potentially, yes - definitely, no.

Yes, other RAF platforms can perform the same or similar functions to the Jag (you missed recce Jimlad, something the Jaguar excels at) but assuming you remove the Jags from the frame who picks up the Northern Iraq task?
Do we go back to the days of Harriers operating over Northern Iraq, denying the JRRF and JHF access to their CAS assets, or does the GR4 fleet get to double its current commitment to ops, or do we just close up shop and admit we can't cope without less tasking/more money?

Please don't try to tell me that the SHAR equipped with an F95 is even remotely as capable in the recce role as the Jag/JRRP or Tornado GR4a/Vicon/RAPTOR (eventually, I'd admit) combinations.

[Jimlad]

I agree that to remove the Jags from Iraq would overstretch other services - but surely to remove the SHAR from service will overstretch the JFH as there will be less airframes available for shipboard operations and power projection? (IIRC we're going from 47 FA2's + 72 GR7's to 63? GR9's)

My solution - why not let our glorious "allies" do the work in Northern Iraq - after all other posters seem to think they would be willing to provide us with a carrier if we need it so why not get them to provide a contribution now? If people disagree with that then maybe they could explain why joint naval ops are ok but not joint air force ops?

My point is simple - we should keep SHAR and all the other types in service and fund them properly. The RN should see JFH as an opportunity to get some decent bomb trucks on its carriers - which it hasn't had for a while and would make them more useful. The RAF should see the JFH as a good way of getting more bases (albeit floating ones) and the chance to get access to another source of AD assets. At the end of the day we all work for the same people and play on the same team - we should see CVF not as a threat, but as a great opportunity.

[ORAC]

Just to be provocative.

The case for the Jag is Eurofighter. This replaces both the Jag annd the F3 and, at the moment, we are commited to buying 232 of them.

Bin the Jag and all that is left to replace is the F3, so why the big fuss to make the other consortium members make it dual role? Good point, someone says! So all funding for GA is cut and so is all the work being done throughout the consortium on the Mk2/3 and inproved GA capability.

(as a side issue, ironically, the other services will introduce it in a swing role, the RAF will not - go figure)

But if the only role is AD, and there is no AD threat to the UK (at least a da*n sight less than for an OOA TF), why buy it at all? Couldn't we make do with a few GR9s for UK AD? After all, we have that expensive ADGE to provide the control, who needs radar?

So why not bin the Eurofighter? And put BAe and half the UK aviation companies out of business to save the SHar for 6 years. I'm sure they'll love you for that one!! Now that has zero chance of success.

On the other hand, we have to find a use for 232 Eurofighters.

4 AD squadrons (60 jets) plus an OCU (15 jets) is 75. 20% attrition is another 15. Total 90. That leaves 142. Replace the Harrier force (same rough numbers) brings it up to 180.

Change tranche 3 to an extended range 2 seater and add about another 20 jets and you can replace the GR4 in the 20s.

What, you say, but they can't operate from a carrier? So what, cancel them.

And, while your at it, cancel the whole JSF order as well.

Now I'm not backing any of the above. But I will make the point that the present Eurofighter/JSF order is unsustainable in light of out present force structure. And the CVAs make it even more unsustainable. And trying to pick each services budget/ethos apart does not answer the problem.

if you can find a solution for the whole RN budget within it's own costs. Well and good. But I foresee far sharper cuts ahead over the next 2 to 3 years as things start to come home to roost.

Pissed rant over. Sorry.

[steamchicken]

Right well - In my last edit I deliberately pointed at the position of RN mines countermeasures craft in the northern Gulf. It's good to get some backup when you're trying to get people's backs up!

200 men for 3 Chinooks. Well, maybe so, but may I ask if Ocean cannot carry more aircraft than that? as well as a Marine battlegroup? and can RAF logistics' 200 men pick up their airbase, and walk off with it - to places in the world where they can't put it down and people will shoot at them? Also, I'll point out that the 200 probably don't include RAFRegt SAM/AAA defence, wot the Navy chucks in with the package. It's also interesting that one poster's estimate of Ocean's ship's company is exactly 950 men more than the reality! And what about perimeter security - no-one will sneak aboard a carrier going 25kts. It's interesting how much folk on this forum rant about how hopeless RAF Blunties are, but on this theme they are apparently absolutely reliable:eek:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

My point is......

Keeping the Sea Harrier going will be cheaper than losing just ONE ship.

Full stop.

For the reasons various people have outlined....

1. Land based air defence is a non starter if your ships are any distance away from friendly bases.
2. Our European allies do not have enough aircraft to defend our fleet was well as their own. Certainly no CAPs.
3. This applies, to a much less extent, to the US.
4. Our ships have a missile shortage.
5. Most of the places we will depoly to will involve an air threat.
6. If we don't retain the Sea Harrier, ships and lives will proabably be lost.
7. The politicians disagree with 1 to 6.

"Good Evening chaps. As your President.....whoops I meant Prime Minister, I never fail to be impressed by your commitment and dedication. As you know, eighteen years of Conservative mismagement left the Armed Forces in a soorry state. We have taken action to correct this with the Strategic Defence Review, Pay 2000 and Defence Training Review. In 2002 we took action to improve the air defence of the fleet, withdrawing the Sea Harrier and making sure no aircraft near our ships are endangered by fighters. This was on top of other action that we took including reducing the danger of shipborne missiles being involved in a fire by reducing the stocks and cutting down the numbers carried"

"Two minutes ago four Exocet missiles were fire by two aircraft that approached the task group. Or simulations show that as Type 42, such as yorself may be able to shoot one, two possibly, down. The others will, I'm afraid, hit you."

"Can I say what a privilage it was to have men like you in MY armed forces. Thankyou and Goodbye. Must dash.....I'm off to see Alistair Campbell about how to tell the public this was the Tories' fault....."

[Chinese Vic]

Jimlad,
It's a small point, I know - but the last time I was at Cottesmore the majority of the anti-JFH rumblings were down to the fact that most of us in the light blue did not join up to spend our lives bobbing around the world's oceans in a tin can (no matter what size/tonnage/capability). If we'd wanted to do that we'd have joined the RN!
So viewing the future super carrier as 'an opportunity' might be slightly difficult to swallow....

CV (but not CVS!)

[BlueWolf]

Jacko, you may well be right. It is quite possible that I am unbalanced. Without prejudice, I guess the same could be said for any of us. However, I have held certain opinions for a long time prior to my "loss"....and for the moment at least, I think I'm probably as rational as the next man - who is, incidently, your good self.
Laugh about the predicted demise of the Euro and the EU if you find it helps.
Were you old enough to remember when certain other things were considered fantastic pipe dreams, you would quite possibly have laughed at them too.....the Berlin Wall coming down perhaps? Vaclav Havel becoming President of Czechoslovakia? Lech Walensa becoming President of Poland? Nelson Mandela becoming President of South Africa, for goodness sake? It is only madness, or misguided flights of fancy from liberal socialist dreamers which could possibly countenance such events.....Yugoslavia breaking up after the demise of Tito? The entire Soviet Union disintegrating??! Ridiculous!!
Eastern Bloc countries gaining membership of NATO? Ha! Hong Kong was never, really, ever, going to be handed back to the Chinese. And here's a good one for you: "Argentina will never attempt to retake the Falklands by military means. We're their single most important trading partner. They'd never risk it."
By comparison, the breakup of an amorphous grouping of nations, sold as an "Economic Community" (remember that one?), and evolved as a wannabe United States of Europe, coddling together a multitude of races, languages and religions with a couple of millenia of mutual animosity behind them, is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Why on earth do you think Britain didn't join the Euro? Absolutely nothing to do with Tony Blair or 'public opinion', I can promise you that; everything to do with the Anglo-American Financial Establishment, who ultimately hold the reigns, and good for them.
If you are old enough to remember these things and still insist on pushing the party line, I hope for your own sake you have an alternative excuse which is equally compelling as youthful ignorance.
Endless promotion of the tired old cost/affordability line only illustrates that you haven't bothered to research the entrenched social vote-buying profligacy of left wing governments the world over.
Do a cost comparison between the price of a fully fitted aircraft carrier, and the bill for keeping half of Bradford in beer coupons; then count the votes which come back from either one; then see if you can still swallow the "sincerity" of politicians who claim that the defence of the Realm is just too costly to be affordable.
Mate, the people contributing to this forum are not stupid. They are, as I have said before, intelligent, well informed, and passionate about their cause. The necessity of a system such as the SHar is not in question. The integrity, or at least the capacity for social awareness, of someone who shamelessly upholds a fictitious and unjustifiable doctrine, may not be as easy to confirm.
Nail your colours to the mast honestly, old chap. People will respect you for it.

[Nozzles]

Jacko,

Sorry for delay in reply-I've been out skinnin' red air for a couple of days. Sometimes life just sucks:D

I think you expect the same from a multirole a/c as I do-the trouble is we haven't got anything that can do all those roles so well, so we make do with what we've got. Specialist a/c are almost always better in their role than multirole a/c in the same role.

As an aside, the ol' Bumper Fun Jet used to have a robust ASM capability, as did the Tornado (Sea Eagle) but guess what? Nobody wanted to pay for it anymore. The UK's anti-shipping standoff instantly went from many tens of miles down to visual range, in the shape of Paveway III.

Stop shaving me bombload! It's 5 thousand pounders, not 4! Can't remember a ripple of 5 being dropped, but the Deliberate Force loadouts were 4-ships carrying 3 each. That way they retained the gas tanks. You know the dates for that operation, I'm sure you could get the temperature data (it was hot). Either side of that op, the jets fragged for Swing were recovering to the ship with
2 x AIM9M and a single centreline 1000lb'er still attached.

Anyhoo, must fly.............

N

[Jackonicko]

Blue,

what you call "the entrenched social vote-buying profligacy" of left wing governments is what we call democracy, and while I may personally place a higher priority on defence than on social welfare or health, the public's priorities are what count, and in this environment, defence must cut its coat according to its cloth. Moreover, in a time of financial hardship, it's immoral not to insist that defence should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and accountability and that 'bang for buck' should be a vital consideration. Talk about 'Beer tokens in Bradford' is just gutter right wing nonsense.

Why is the Jag vital in the RAFs orbat?

In the Post Cold War world the Jaguar is the perfect air power tool. Rugged, robust, dependable and maintainable. It's a low-cost, easily deployable, rapidly deployable and versatile aircraft lacking only payload (but in the post Cold War world small weapons accurately delivered are what counts, not truckloads of dumb 1,000-lbers) and thrust (Take off performance hot and high is only just tolerable), ok, and perhaps with inadequate EW, too.

Moreover, it's also a high quality platform, with well integrated systems, an in service Helmet sight, a superb mission planning system, and IDM with good TIALD/PWII and PWIII capability, the ability to fire CRV7 rockets and packing two internal 30-mm cannon. For self defence it has two overwing 'Winder stations and is wired for ASRAAM (with a digital ASRAAM integration tested on a Boscombe jet). The same jet has demonstrated RAIDS and the PRISM card for IDM, which gives a realtime recce capability with the EO Vicon (JRRP) pod, which my sources tell me works better than Raptor.

IDM makes it SF's OS jet of choice, too, I understand......

Moreover, the Jag's fatigue problems were minor (frame 25) and have been solved, and the aircraft could serve on without a major life extension programme, and there are dozens of spare jets sitting at Cosford with 1-2K Flying Hours on them, each one of which could become a GR3A for the cost of a major and about £550K per jet.

Compare that to the cost of the Harrier GR 9 upgrade and the required 'back end fix' or with the cost of a life ex for the Tornado GR 4. The sensible course might be to run on two Jag squadrons and reduce the Harrier and Tornado forces by a squadron each, using the pool of surplus airframes to 'hours spread' on those types, and thereby save money on relifes and structural programmes.

The Jag force is also 'retention positive' which is no bad thing and no mean feat, and has demonstrated its worth over Bosnia and over Iraq. Interesting that a Jag squadron could have been operating over Sierra Leone (with guns, rockets and bombs, from Dakar in Senegal which was cleared) quicker than the carrierborne GR 7s were. And in those hot and high conditions its been said that the GR7's sole cleared weapon was 'noise'!

It's not my intention to 'diss' the SHar, it's been a great aircraft and has done a sterling job, but in an era of difficult decisions and hard choices, it's an easier cut to make than most others!

[Nozzles]

Jacko,

Before you start giving me a hard time about ASM capability, I just realised this morning that you were talking about Air-to-Surface Misiles (generic), and not Anti-Shipping Missiles. Don't you just find TLAs so confusing?:confused:

Re: GR7 Vs hot 'n' high.........they launch from an altitude of 45 ft above sea level :D (depending on how heavy the boat is/how many wrens on board):eek: Their launch payload is actually quite awesome-don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could launch from the boat with more 'morale suppression devices' than a jag could from a runway at the same temperature. Whilst you're correct in saying that a lot of attack is 'surgical', big targets need a lot of ordnance-that's why the manky old B52 is still in service for the biggest challenges. Now the GR7 would struggle to bring back any ordnance at those temps, but it's a bit of a rule of thumb that if you take off armed like Tackleberry, it's because you intend to use it. In Peace Support Operations where folks are 'policing' with little probability of weapon release, they don't tend to carry as much. I do believe, although am open to correction from any tailhookers who might be reading, that aircraft do not recover to conventional carriers with bombs on board-the violent landing makes it too risky.

N

[NEZ]

Well if I was any of you guys flying jets in the Navy. I would make the most of the last few years of the Seajet...

.... then f*** off and leave the RAF to do all the sea time. LMFAO. Well that is what I would do. It's the last years of the FAA so make em the best!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From my favourite paper....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$WLMXXVYAAAOQDQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2002/05/08/ndef08.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/05/08/ixnewstop.html

THE Royal Navy will be left unprotected and one of its three aircraft carriers will be mothballed as a direct result of a government decision that "rips the heart out" of Britain's defence strategy, the Tories will warn today.

Bernard Jenkin, the shadow defence secretary, will accuse the Treasury of putting "intolerable pressure" on the defence budget, leaving Britain without the capability to mount a war-time expedition to match the Falklands taskforce.

He will use a Commons debate to highlight the scrapping of the Navy's Sea Harrier fighter aircraft, which he will blame on a £1 billion cut in defence spending since Labour came to power in the 1997 election.

The loss of the Sea Harriers from 2006 will mean that for the next decade any Royal Navy expedition will have to enlist the help of an American aircraft carrier to provide the planes needed to protect the fleet, he will claim.

Mr Jenkin will point to the decision to withdraw Invincible, one of the Royal Navy's three aircraft carriers, from service in 2006 as evidence that the decommissioning of the Sea Harriers has a far-ranging impact on the Navy.

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, announced in February that the Sea Harrier FA2 would be withdrawn from service by 2006, instead of 2012, when the new Joint Strike Aircraft being developed with the United States are due to be introduced. This will leave the fleet without air cover for six years.

"It is simply unbelievable that in the middle of the war against terror the Government continues to cut our frontline forces," Mr Jenkin will tell MPs. "Moreover, this shows how the Government's 1998 Strategic Defence Review is unravelling because of lack of money.

"This decision rips the heart out of the Joint Task Force capability, which was central to the Government's defence policy."

The MoD expects to save what Mr Jenkin described as a "mere" £109 million. But senior Royal Navy officers privately admit that because of the decision the Navy will be unable to send a taskforce to war for at least six years unless it is accompanied by an American aircraft carrier to mount air defence of the fleet.

They conceded that if Argentina reinvaded the Falkland Islands, as it did 20 years ago, between 2006 and 2012, Britain would be unable to recapture them without support from Washington.

The Government's defence policy states that its prime commitment is to provide forces to defend the UK and "overseas territories, our people and interests".

Underfunding of the defence budget - now £23.5 billion - at a time when all three armed services are undermanned, is causing acute concern to senior officers. Lord Guthrie, who stood down as Chief of the Defence Staff, accepted last December that the defence programme "was underfunded".

Admiral Sir Nigel Essenhigh, the First Sea Lord, is retiring three months early amid widespread speculation that he is unhappy about the funding issue after accepting the decision to axe the Sea Harriers.

Warships regularly put out to sea without their full crew complement; another frigate, HMS Sheffield, was effectively decommissioned last month; and the attack submarine fleet will shrink from 12 to 10 over the next couple of years, according to the Conservative Research Department.

Although ministers at the MoD declined to discuss the Sea Harrier issue, Mr Blair insisted during Prime Minister's Questions on April 10 that the decision would not affect Britain's defence capacity.

He maintained that Labour had delivered the first defence budget increase in real terms after many years of cuts under the Conservatives.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

BRITAIN loses taskforce capability, writes David Graves


AS with many Government announcements, it was not immediately clear that it contained a significant change in defence policy. On Feb 28, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, made a seemingly innocuous statement about the future of the Joint Force Harrier operated by the Royal Navy and RAF. His bombshell was carefully concealed.

Masked within the statement about upgrading all the Harriers in the force was the announcement that all the Navy's Sea Harrier FA2s would be withdrawn from service by 2006.

Not only had the Secretary of State announced the scrapping of Britain's best all-weather fighter, but he had also disclosed that for at least six years from 2006, until the planned Anglo-American Joint Strike Fighter was introduced, Britain could not unilaterally deploy a naval taskforce because it would have inadequate air defence.

If the Government wanted to go to war, a taskforce would have to be accompanied by an American aircraft carrier to provide fixed-wing air defence. If Washington vetoed the operation, there would be little, if anything, the Navy could do.

The potential ramifications were so serious that several admirals, including Adml Sir Sandy Woodward, who commanded the Falklands taskforce, and Sea Harrier pilots mounted a campaign to change the Government's mind. They reasoned that ministers must have been kept in the dark by MoD officials before agreeing to such a radical "own goal".

At present, a combination of Sea Harriers and RAF GR7 and GR9 Harriers are deployed on the Navy's three aircraft carriers. The Sea Harriers provide air defence to the fleet, while the RAF Harriers are ground attack aircraft. When the Sea Harriers are withdrawn from service, the RAF Harriers will be unable to fill the void caused by the demise of the Sea Harriers.

The Sea Harrier FA2, introduced in 1993, is highly regarded by the United States Air Force as the "small aircraft with the big radar" and regularly beats the RAF's frontline fighter, the Tornado F3, in mock "dog fights".

It has sophisticated air-to-air radar able to track more than 20 targets simultaneously and a proven beyond visual range advanced medium range missile system, able to engage four targets simultaneously more than 30 miles away.

The RAF Harriers do not have the Sea Harriers' radar or missile system and have a very limited air defence capability using Sidewinder missiles, which can be used only at short range and in daylight. It has no ability to defend itself against enemy fighters armed with beyond visual range radar or medium range air-to-air missiles and needs to be escorted by friendly fighters.

At present, the Navy's outer layer of air defence is provided by Sea Harriers. They patrol about 100 nautical miles from the centre of the taskforce. Using their powerful radar, they can detect and intercept enemy aircraft over land and sea more than 70 nautical miles away.

The middle layer of air defence is provided by ageing Type 42 destroyers armed with the outdated Sea Dart missile system, which is no longer deemed capable of reliably engaging and destroying modern air-to-surface missile systems.

The Type 42's diameter of detection is limited to 40 nautical miles. Therefore, six destroyers would be needed fully to cover a 180° threat sector; or 12 if facing an all round threat.

The last layer of detection is provided by Sea King helicopter early warning aircraft, which normally operate not far from the centre of the fleet with a detection capability of about 40 nautical miles. Last ditch defence is provided by point defence missile and gun systems, such as Sea Wolf and Goalkeeper and decoy systems. However, it is more than likely that even if a sea skimming missile is hit, it will still strike the target ship.

Without the Sea Harriers from 2006, a taskforce would have no ability to deter, detect and intercept an enemy aircraft or missile. The Type 42 destroyers, designed in the Sixties, are also due to be withdrawn but, if still in service, Sea Dart would be largely dysfunctional. Their replacement, the Type 45 with its state-of-the-art PAAMS weapons system, has had problems of its own and will not be available in sufficient numbers until after 2010.

The effectiveness of the Type 45's weapons systems have yet to be definitively established during trials. Although the first Type 45 is due to enter service in 2007, there is scepticism that it will not be ready for full active service before the end of 2008. Only three Type 45s, which will still be restricted to a 20 nautical mile radar horizon, are expected to be in service by 2010.

The sombre reality is that, after the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier, the "last ditch" layer of air detection and defence, the early warning helicopter and weapons systems, would be easily saturated and overcome by enemy aircraft delivering air-to-surface missiles, Smart weapons and even iron bombs. That is the legacy the Government has left Britain's Armed Forces, whose achievements are often lauded by Tony Blair.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

On TV tonight, Lewis Moonie MP (from the MOD) claimed that half a billion pounds would be needed to keep the Sea Harrier until the JSF comes along.

Rubbish. What a lying b******!!! £100 million was the approximate cost but the again, this Government does seem to have a problem with statistics.

Also he claimed aircraft carriers are for force projection and not for fleet air defence any more. Fleet air defence is still a major role.

Lying git. I think that Bernerd Jenkins, the Tory Defence spokesman made some good points though. Wish that I had put some of them in my letter......nevermind.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Sea Harrier axe will 'put sailors at risk'

THE Conservatives warned the Government yesterday that the lives of sailors would be at risk over its plans to scrap the Royal Navy Sea Harrier.

In addition, the country's defence strategy would be undermined before a replacement is in place.

Bernard Jenkin, the Tory defence spokesman, accused the Government of being "militarily illiterate" and said the Sea Harriers had been a symbol of Britain's military prowess and expertise.

Sea Harriers, operating off Invincible and Hermes, played a pivotal role in the Falklands conflict, destroying 22 Argentine aircraft.

They will be phased out of service by 2006, instead of 2012 when the new Joint Strike Aircraft being developed with the United States was due to be introduced.

With the Labour benches empty, several Tories took the floor during a debate in Westminster Hall, the Commons parallel chamber, to criticise the Government's decision. Mr Jenkin insisted that the decision to scrap the Harriers ". . . not only puts potentially the lives of our servicemen at risk, it not only imperils the operational capability of the British Navy, it is actually a militarily illiterate decision."

He continued: "Our services are absolutely brilliant at making do and if they've been told they have to make do with less than they really need they're not going to appear on the television screens and say it can't be done."

Lewis Moonie, the junior defence minister, said scrapping the Sea Harriers would lead to an altered risk but insisted that it was an acceptable one.

"We are not saying that there is no change in the balance of risk here. What we are saying is that the advice which we have had . . . is that the balance of risk is acceptable."

In the real world decisions had to be made with a "finite budget".

Richard Ottaway (C, Croydon S) said: "The world is an uncertain place. What we are doing is putting at risk many men and women serving in the interest of this country."

Patrick Mercer (C, Newark) said the Sea Harriers were the "eyes and ears" of the Royal Navy. "I do feel that . . . this aircraft . . . is battle proven and still has the faith and trust of its pilots, most importantly."

Mark Prisk (C, Hertford and Stortford) said: "The pivotal role of the Royal Navy in future defence strategies is being undermined. It is going to undermine the Navy's expeditionary role. Any expeditionary sea force needs air defence."

Crispin Blunt (C, Reigate) said the decision violated the principles of the whole direction of British defence policy as set up in 1998.

It was "plainly a scratching round within each of the areas of the MoD's budget for savings in order to reach the budget line".

David Laws (Lib Dem, Yeovil) said the Government was taking not just a risk but a "serious gamble" with its security policy. Scrapping the Sea Harrier would reduce the flexibility of the forces.

After the debate, Mr Jenkin said he was "very disappointed" that the Government had completely failed to explain the basis of its decision. "The minister was insulting and did little more than read out a prepared statement. It shows how threadbare the Government's arguments really are."

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Well, this thread seems to have gone a bit quiet of late so I thought I'd make another contribution. :)

Recently the Sea Harrier issue has started to become more high profile. In the last few days, there have been articles in the Daily Mail and the Western Morning News criticising the cutbacks. Admiral Woodward supports our case. Maybe he can give leadership and force to our cause.

Keep pushing......

Incidently..... Nozzles, did you get that letter I sent you?

[blended winglet]

scandalous...no air cover for the fleet, toatally stupid !!

bad enough when we lost the F4's, now the FA2's,
(showing my age a bit there.)
bring back the ark.

[Nozzles]

WEBF,

Letter? Was it a pprune e-mail 'coz I haven't signed up yet.

Noz

[TL Thou]

Times May 13, 2002

In defence of Harrier decommissions
From Flight Lieutenant Dan Holland, RAF and Lieutenant James Hamblin, RN


Sir, We believe that the decommissioning of the Sea Harrier FA2 from service will not, in fact, be as big a blow as many people seem to believe (letter, May 8 and report, May 9).
The upgraded Harrier GR9 will not be simply ground-attack aircraft but, in fact, will be multi-role. They will, effectively, be doing the job of the Sea Harriers and the Harrier GR7. Instead of our carriers having an air wing of eight Sea Harriers and eight Harriers, we will just have Harrier GR9s, with RAF and RN pilots being trained on it as part of the Joint Harrier Force announced by the Government in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review.

While Labour’s defence spending policy is far from ideal, it certainly is not making the same level of cuts as we saw in the early Eighties with John Nott’s infamous 1981 Defence Review, or in the early Nineties with the further cuts implemented by the Options for Change Defence Review of the Major Government. If anything, the Tories have done more to hurt our national defence over 18 years than anything Labour could do in five.

We have seen in other countries that a policy of a single, multi-role aircraft can work, as indeed, the US Air Force and the US Marine Corps have demonstrated. The former uses the F15E for air superiority and ground attack, and the latter uses the Harrier AV-8B II for ground attack and air defence in amphibious assaults. This is what the Government is aiming for.

We are, sir, your obedient servants,
DAN HOLLAND,
JAMES HAMBLIN,
96 Harefield Road,
Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 1PN.
May 9.

[Jackonicko]

I don't need to reiterate that I don't mind whether or not the carriers lose their AD capability during a brief window pending the arrival of JSF, nor to restate my belief that however occasionally useful, carriers are a luxury we cannot afford, in the light of more vital spending priorities.

BUT

If there is to be any pretence that the GR7/9 will have an air defence tasking then it must get a proper HMS integration and DIGITAL Asraam, together with JTIDS. ASRAAM has a formidable reach (beyond visual, though not in an AMRAAM sense) and can (with HMS and digital integration) be fired at very high off boresight angles, giving it unparallelled capability in a turning fight, and perhaps even allowing the carrier aircraft to fire a missile even when exploiting an opposing fighter's 'Doppler notch'. "With good AWACS cover, ASRAAM has a degree of reach not previously seen in an IR homing missile" someone told me, though I'm uncertain as to whether to believe him!

Those currently crying into their milk about the loss of SHar might care to direct some of their energies to ensuring that the remaining carrier-based aircraft are properly equipped for whatever their role is thought to be. I wouldn't bother, personally, and would just wait for JSF, relying on our allies in the intervening period.

But without HMSS, and without a full digital integration of ASRAAM, calling the GR7 or GR9 multi-role is a cynical piece of politicking.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Are those two Officers for real? Are they real people, or just made up by Alistair Campbell and co? And why are they both from the same address? Seems a bit dodgy to me:rolleyes:

As for the idea that the present government understands defence, who the hell said that? Labour Party HQ?

Nozzles I sent you an email by clicking on "profile" and then "click here to e-mail"......didn't it work??

[PA-28]

Last night, in Brighton, I attended a presentation given to the general public by the Royal Navy Presentation Team, link:-

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1934.html

During the subsequent Q&A one questioner raised the letter in the Times and the situation re the FA.2 as a query direct to Commander Steve Bramley RN.

His commands include Illustrious.

He was generally in favour of losing the FA.2, the reasons given were ( From memory )

Only 20% airframe commonallity, thus overly expensive to operate the two in tandem.

Difficulties operating in hot climates, and as a side point the easy ( i.e value for money ) by which the GR 9 upgrade would be achieved verses the 'dificult' engine upgrade of the FA.2

Aircrew happy about the change, as evidenced by the letter in the Times.

Regarding the Air Defence Role:- The GR.9 will be a very potent platform, 'of course it will not have the radar'

I later spoke to a couple of other Officers particularly about AIM120, it was suggested that it would still be used by the GR9, but in an 'unguided' role, where it would still be a potent asset. I have to admit that in the absence of Blue Vixen this seems a bit 'fire and not give a f**k, rather than fire and forget' Even if possible, RoE would preclude such a scattergun approach, surely?

I should say that the briefing was directed at various local business worthies, God knows how I got an invite :) and quite heavilly stressed the economics, financial accountabillity side of the overall operation of the Armed Forces, and one would hardly expect anything other than the official line at such an event. However the overall presentation was to show the RN as an independant, world class military asset, which is to lose a significant abillity, due to cost.

PA-28

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I doubt very much whether he, or anyone else, would actually be in favour of losing the Sea Harrier. Remember, it was a public presentation, for members of the public, therefore he has to tow the party (ie Government) line.

I have spoken privately to RN personnel (both Officers and Ratings) who see the Sea Harrier's premature demise as an absolute disaster.

And the Government reckons we don't need air defence - they have said so. The current First Sea Lord wrote a report called the "Fleet Risks Register" last year when he was CINCFLEET. In it he awrned that we are now more vulnerable to air attack (particulary with air launched sea skimmers) due to penny pinching.

Having no organic air defence will really improve things, won't it? :(

[Chinese Vic]

PA-28

Did the officers in question comment on what the GR9 would use to point the AIM-120's seeker head at the correct target? HMS? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the idea of an active BVR AAM was to keep the target at arm's length...

[EJ Thribb]

Fanatic

You have fallen into the obvious, but understandable, trap of trying to apply arguments of common sense and military effectiveness to this equation. While it may seem that the government are gambling with military lives by scrapping the SHARs, they are gambling with lives all of the time anyway, so it is surely only a matter of degree?

Britain has one of the strongest economies in the world yet we have a third world health service, failing transport infrastructure and a poor public education system. It is a clear choice that our govt has made not to invest more money in the armed forces. If you look at the MOD website there are tables comparing our defence expenditure with that of other European nations. If the govt decided to up defence spending, they could. It would, however, be at the expense of some other area of spending and probably not a vote winner. While we as a nation have global interests it must be admitted that there are very few immediate threats to the UK mainland. The population will probably not be too concerned about the military unless there was more immediate danger to our way of life.

The reality is surely that most people in this country would rather live a life of comfort with all modcons and a high disposable income than pay what they consider to be unnecessarily high taxes to pay for a military capability when there is no apparent threat.

For the record, I think we should keep the SHAR fleet. It is just a pity that we haven't got enough pilots to man them.

[Nozzles]

Well, I've just read some interesting comments.

Apparently the GR9 is going to be a very potent Air Defence platform. Somebody please name another AD platform without a radar. No self respecting fighter pilot would claim he 'did AD' if he didn't have a radar. Hell, the Americans even put A-A radars in some of their bombers.

Apparently, ASRAAM cued by a helmet mounted sight is a BVR weapon. The point of the HMS is that you LOOK AT the target and shoot at it. If the target is BVR, by definition you can't see it; ergo you can't shoot it BVR. I really hope the inference is not that ASRAAM could be cued to a JTIDS track. If it is, any American fighter pilot reading this has just stopped laughing at my first paragraph and is now breaking out in a cold sweat.

As for firing AIM-120 from a platform with no radar-I think that must be a cruel joke to wind up those who don't understand how the AMRAAM works.

WEBF, I really must sign on for that maily thingy. If only I could think of a password...............:p

Hmmmmmm. Just went to register for it and it was asking all sorts of difficult questions like who I am, where am I etc. So I kissed it off. Sorry mate

[orca]

What amuses me about the whole FA2 debate is that all i hear is 'power projection, more akin to JSF, Limited air defence capability, defence of the fleet etc.' No-one seems to consider the fact that without a fighter sweep you don't get to the target, your bombs don't project a thing, what is the point in having the punch if the enemy can keep it at bay. No one has ever enjoyed being bombed but we seem to be in the mindset that we can waltz aross the beach head without the FA2 and bomb with impuntiy. Cr#p. If we don't have an FA2 sweep/ CAP then the GR7/9 s die enroute to their targets, simple as that. And those that don't go home to a very soggy bed.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Alas EJ, you are right.

Many people have forgotten that the Sea Harrier is the the defence of the whole fleet, not just the Sea Harrier. Leaving aside the arguments about power projection by airpower, how are naval forces expected to operate in hostile waters with no air defence. This was a subject I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread.

The enemy could win by picking off destroyers and frigates, or minehunters, or RFAs, or STUFT.

[AllTrimDoubt]

WEBF

Get some time in....

[Jackonicko]

Orca, as I recall, British warships in Desert Storm had adequate air cover from our allies, while UK OS and attack assets have seldom needed the kind of protection which you describe, in the post Cold War world. The cahances of needing it within the four year gap left by withdrawal of the SHar? Remote. The chances of an air threat beyond the capability of digi-ASRAAM equipped GR7/9? Even less probable.

We cannot afford to guard against every possible danger - it must be a balance of risks.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I will......VERY soon.

[Jackonicko]

Commander David Hobbs, MBE, RN seems similarly upbeat about the withdrawal of the SHar in his article in the May Air International, and so too is Commander Tim Eastaugh (CO of 899, the SHar OCU) according to the article. While any young 'wannabe' Shar pilot must naturally be disappointed, it seems as though more of those at the coal face are prepared to go on the record supporting the decision than are willing to condemn it.

[PA-28]

Chinese Vic

No he didn't elaborate on quite how this was going to work, and I didn't really want to push the point, he probably wandered off thinking something like, 'bamboozeled another one there'.

Oh well

PA-28

[Chinese Vic]

PA-28

Thanks anyway...

Nozzles

I was being sarcastic (if you hadn't noticed) and understand very well how a BVR missile works!

[Jackonicko]

Nozzles,

Not firing on a JTIDS track, but beginning the engagement that way. My understanding is that ASRAAM is 'BVR' (not BVR) in that it can detect a target at beyond the range of the human eye, and has a range in excess of that, though not as far as what we have all come to think of as true BVR weapons.

[Nozzles]

Chinese Vic,

Sorry bud, wasn't taking a pop at you. Just getting a bit frustrated with some of the 'solutions' being offered by inadequately educated 'MoD spokesmen' to an even less educated public.

Jacko,

People like Tim Eastaugh are putting on a public show of being 'upbeat'. I know that Tim devoted his career to improving the FA2s air-to air and air-to-ground capabilities with great success and would be anything but upbeat about his life's work being towed to the scrapyard. The only thing that Sea Harrier people are upbeat about is the fact that sacrificing the jet means that funding can continue for carrier air power. That way, at least they will get to fly something. Important lesson about being an officer in the UK armed forces: Publicly criticise such a decision and watch your career disappear before the aircraft does.
As for the ASRAAM/HMS debate, my understanding is that the BV range capability of the ASRAAM was designed to be used when the missile is cued with an accurate target position and vector from the host fighter's radar. Having a seeker more sensitive than the human eye means that you can lock the seeker head to a target BVR if you have a good radar track. However, without mid-course updates, any lock-AFTER-launch firing risks either missing the target due to target post-launch/pre acquisition manouevre, or hitting another aircraft in the vicinity. If you have no means of cueing the seeker because you have no radar and the target is BVR, the HMS won't help you.
It's clear that you're a great fan of the system; I'm convinced that it will be very good within it's own limitations/envelope. However, as a professional fighter pilot I have to tell you that if I was told to fight a duel, and the two available platforms were a manky old MiG-29 with short-burn Alamos and a GR9 with HMS/ASRAAM, in less than a second my name would become Nozzleski. I can't imagine any fighter pilot choosing the GR9 as an AD platform.

WEBF,

Just looked at my User Control Panel; I have no private messages waiting and there is a caption saying that private messages have been disabled by the administrator. I tried to mail another ex-SHAR mate a while ago (think it was Pontius), to no avail:confused:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Nozzles

I did get an e-mail from you (via PPRUNE), however the reply address did not work.

Send me an e-mail and I'll send you what I have been trying to:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

With reference to the letter in the Times that was quoted by TL Thou.....

I smelt a rat. Why would an RN pilot and an RAF pilot be writing from the same address? And why would they give their address?

So I looked at the Navy List. No record of Lt James Hamblin at all. Next the Air Force List. No record of a RAF pilot called Flt Lt Dan Holland.

Now who was responsible for that?:rolleyes:

[Megaton]

In my (admittedly old) Air Force List there is no RAF pilot readily identifiable as Flt Lt Dan Holland; however, in their letter they did not claim to be pilots or even aircrew. In fact, their assertion that the F15E is used in an air superiority role would suggest that they're not as familiar with the AD world than their letter would like to imply. Perhaps, you're being ever so slightly paranoid.

[Alibi]

Ref:
Times May 13, 2002
In defence of Harrier decommissions
From Flight Lieutenant Dan Holland, RAF and Lieutenant James Hamblin, RN

FACT: Lt Hamblin RN does not exist, a question was asked in parliament as to whether he had his commanding officer’s permission to write to a newspaper. The reply was that he does not exist.



In disgust of Sea Harrier decommissions,

The decommissioning of the Sea Harrier FA2 from service will be a terminal blow to the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy.

A few years ago a report said that out of the five frontline fast jet types one would need to be retired early to make necessary cost savings. The obvious aircraft is the Jaguar, as it is old and less capable than the Tornado or Harrier GR7, either of which could carry out its role.

So the RAF came up with a plan. Form ‘Joint Force Harrier’ under the Command of a Royal Navy Rear Admiral, who will also be in charge or ‘3 Group’ which consists of the RAF’s Nimrod Aircraft Squadrons. His previous title ‘Flag Officer Naval Aviation’ FONA is replaced by ‘Flag Officer Maritime Aviation’ or FOMA. The Navy take the bait.

Said plan is actioned, now the Rear Admiral, FOMA no longer reports to the Navy but to Strike Command, part of the RAF.
As the RAF now controls the Sea Harrier force it is now a fait-a –complete to announce its disbandment in a few years time.

The final step to be announced is that there will be a reorganization of Strike Command, and that ‘1 Group’ will take over/merge with ‘3 Group’ and that FOMA will lose his post at Strike Command HQ.

I wonder why the current First Sea Lord has retired very early.

FACT:Due to its construction the GR7/9 is not capable of firing any guns. Those pods underneath its fuselage are carried as ballast for the Centre of Gravity, unlike the Sea Harrier FA2 with its twin 30mm Aden Cannon.

FACT: The GR7/9 is considerably slower, less manoeuvrable and cannot fly as high as the Sea Harrier FA2.

FACT:The GR7/9 has no radar and thus cannot be used for Air Superiority. The Sea Harrier has Blue Vixen, the best Air-to-Air Fighter Radar in NATO, superior to the APG-65 fitted to the American, F-16 and F-18 fighters.

FACT:The GR7/9 is equipped with Sidewinder missies in the Air-to-Air Role, which are heat seeking with an effective range of a few miles. The Sea Harrier is equipped with the AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile), which is a highly intelligent fire and forget Radar Homing missile with a range in excess of thirty miles, see: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/arm/arm10a.htm

FACT:Three Navy Pilots have PVR’d in the last few months.

FICTION:‘We have seen in other countries that a policy of a single, multi-role aircraft can work, as indeed, the US Air Force and the US Marine Corps have demonstrated. The former uses the F15E for air superiority and ground attack, and the latter uses the Harrier AV-8B II for ground attack and air defence in amphibious assaults. This is what the Government is aiming for.’

Unlike the Harrier AV-8B II and F-15, the GR7/9 has no Radar and cannot therefore be used for Air Defence or Air Superiority and is hence not multi-role.

[chapman1]

Fantastic! This is what the government is aiming for. Superb!

I assume that, having used the appropriate comparison with the US, that a few AV-8B IIs and F15-E's are ordered. No? Oh. Disappointed? Yes. Surprised? No.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

An RAF spokesman today was quoted as saying :-

" It's nice to see a plan coming together..............for a change"

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[SP30]

Having just read the letter to The Times it seems quite obvious that the words are straight out of Labour HQ.

Just out of interest I remember from my dispatch riding days that 96 Harefield Road, Uxbridge would be but a stones throw from the Clare House nursing home. Out patients on their way to Millbank ivory tower Perhaps?

Note to El Presidente Blair;

No matter how tough the rubber band may be if you keep stretching it and cut niks out aswell it will break. Here's to hoping you take up bungy jumping Tone!

[Chinese Vic]

Nozzles

No problem matey.

Alibi

I hate to be picky but the F-16 is fitted with either the AN/APG-66 (in the earlier production Blocks) or the AN/APG-68 for the later F-16 C/D versions (also available as an upgrade to the A/B models)

AN/APG-65 is an admittedly an aging radar by today's rapidly advancing standards, but the USN/USMC F-18s are in the process of being replaced by newer E/F models which carry the improved AN/APG-73 manufactured by Raytheon.

I would contend that whilst the Blue Vixen is an excellent radar, that some of its more recent US counterparts are at least equal, if not better. However, the Blue Vixen/AIM-120 combination is indisputably very good.

As someone who has spent a fair amount of time in JFH, a parting shot on your comments re FONA/AOC 3 Gp and the RAF shafting the RN - in my view the RN saw JFH as a way of regaining some 'proper' power projection and the shafting occurred very much in the other direction....


CV

[WE Branch Fanatic]

That letter from those two "officers" was obvious crap. As if serving personnel give their addresses away in Newspapers! But remember, the Government is run by someone (Alistair Campbell) who used to write stories for an "adult" magazine, and not even one of the classier ones!!

Misinformation. Nothing more, nothing less.

[steamchicken]

Right! There's another letter for the stroppier Labour backbenchers - "do you know what your spin doctors are doing without your knowledge?" Will post the text here as previously. Fcuking ridiculous.

[Jackonicko]

Alibi

Fact: Though it is old, there are many aspects of the Jaguar's role which cannot be carried out with equal facility by either the GR7/9 or the GR4. Real time Recce, for one, while in other areas, (eg TIALD) the Jaguar has superior capabilities. It's also more deployable and more economic.

And re the guns on GR7 - there's no structural reason, it's that RO £ucked up in spades and failed to deliver operationally viable kit.

Both the F-15E and the AV-8B II Plus have a limited multi-role tasking.


Nozzles

Thanks for the clarification re ASRAAM

[Jimlad]

written answers in hansard today confirm that the MOD has no record of either officer exisiting and they have informed the times accordingly.
Someone somewhere is using the good name of the armed forces to play their own political game - the sooner the media types pick up on the sort of thing that New Labour are doing the better - this is a new low, even for those lowlife sleaze ridden liars.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Nozzles

I could see it for what it was straight away, but to be certain I checked both the Navy and Air Force Lists. Personally I don't care for that sort of behaviour. :rolleyes: I think you know my views on this topic.

The guilty party should be named and shamed, or better still, SHOT BY FIRING SQUAD. Isn't impersonating a member of HM Forces a criminal offence?

Incidently, on local TV tonight there was an item about the arrival of the Sea King AEW7 at 849 NAS. After mentioning the abilities of the new radar and the JTIDS fit they talked about 849 being the "eyes of the fleet". But, surely, it doesn't matter how good the aircraft/radar/JTIDS is, without the Sea Harrier there is little point to organic AEW. Wasn't the whole idea of the AEW Sea King to detect aircraft and direct Sea Harriers to deal with them at a range greater than that of shipborne radars?

[fuel2noise]

No surprise in this spin-obsessed world. It is a huge shame that those manning desks in the MOD, 3 Group and other naval aviation areas are required to play up the 'huge success' of the FA2's demise. It is odd that prior to the announcement official sources were regularly stating the case for the FA2 and its outstanding weapon/sensor combination (notwithstanding worries over BVR updates and funding, etc.)..... now it seems that we can easily manage without it!

Of more strategic interest is the demographics of growing a capable/competent and numerically satisfactory pilot force for JSF in the future carrier. To quote a well used expression, "it will probably be self-correcting" - and end in tears.

[high spirits]

See article in Daily Mail Saturday in which Adam Ingram embarassingly admitted in Parliament that the two British Officers did not exist. Alstair Campbell, you and yours are disgusting low life tossers! As an RAF pilot deployable on HMS, I think the scrapping of Fleet Air Defence is disgusting. If I ever go into the oggin as a result of your govts appalling mistake, I'll be back to haunt you.

[Jackonicko]

The provenance of a letter which reflects the feelings of some (but by no means the majority?) in the JHF (whether genuine or not) seems to have taken over from the actual issue. This diminishes the importance of the debate.

Ah, the power of spin.............:D

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I sent this to my MP a couple of weeks ago. For convenience ships' names are in capitals. Bit of a long letter....

Dear Mr ****

Thank-you for your letter dated 19th April. The letter from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces did little to reassure me. This letter is in response to the Minister's points.

Firstly, my concerns related to the air defence of the ENTIRE fleet, not just the aircraft carriers. The job of the Sea Harriers carried aboard the INVINCIBLE class (also known as the CVS) are their primarily to defend the ships of a naval task group. The CVS would, in any war situation, by surrounded by other ships. It is these ships that are most endangered by the proposal to abandon proper air defence of the fleet.

The Minister (and others) seems to make the assumption that when naval forces are deployed it will be for carrierborne aircraft to participate in attack missions against land targets. There are a number of scenarios in which naval forces would be deployed in order to achieve a naval objective rather than for power projection. An amphibious operation would be an obvious example of this. But there are other, less obvious, situations in which the CVS and Sea Harriers may be needed in support of other elements of the fleet. If a hostile nation decided to show its hostility towards the UK by harassing or attacking British registered merchant shipping then we would have to act. If the aggressor was using aircraft to harass or attack shipping then the best answer would probably be to deploy a carrier with Sea Harriers. In fact, the fact that the Sea Harrier exists, and we are able to deploy this aircraft with its awesome capabilities might well deter a would be adversary from such a course of action. Alternatively, the aggressor might use missile boats (or similar) in which case frigates and destroyers would be the main assets needed. If the enemy had an air force, then the Sea Harrier would be needed to protect these ships. The same would be true if submarines were being used to attack shipping (our own submarines would probably concentrate on offensive Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) operations). The ASW helicopters would need to be protected from enemy aircraft too. If it was necessary for our Minehunters to clear mines from a "choke point" off international shipping or from the coast of an ally then these ships could need protecting from air attack too.

The air threat encountered by the RN around the world consists not only of fast jet fighter bomber type aircraft (many of which carry anti ship missiles like Exocet), but also Maritime Patrol Aircraft (which may carry anti ship missiles) and Helicopters, which may also carry missiles. There have been suggestions that some nations (namely Iraq and North Korea) have resorted to using aircraft, usually obsolete ones, in a kamikaze style whereby the pilot would fly into the target. Additionally there is the problem of terrorist attacks, using business type jets or light aircraft.

Against this threat the Royal Navy currently has a truly remarkable aircraft, the Sea Harrier. The Sea Harrier was in many ways the decisive weapon of the Falklands War. It is certain that Operation CORPORATE, the operation to recover the islands, would have been impossible without the Sea Harrier. In that conflict, it shot down a large number of Argentine aircraft, and achieved enough air superiority for the landings to take place and the war to be won. In a study of the conflict, the US Air Force concluded that 450 Argentine sorties had been prevented by the deterrent effect of the Sea Harrier. These extra sorties may have changed the outcome of the conflict.

The shortcomings of the Sea Harrier (FRS1) were demonstrated in the Falklands. These included problems with the limited Blue Fox radar, and only being able to carry two Sidewinder missiles. The second problem was dealt with by the development of a double Sidewinder launcher after the conflict. The main shortcoming, however, was the lack of Airborne Early Warning (AEW). The lack of AEW was a factor in all the ship losses the task force suffered, particularly the loss of HMS SHEFFIELD and MV ATLANTIC CONVEYER to Exocet attacks. An AEW capability was given back to the Navy be modifying some Sea King helicopters to carry a big and powerful radar.

In the mid to late 1990s the RN Sea Harrier squadrons were re-equipped with the Sea Harrier FA2, the last aircraft being delivered in 1998. The FA2 aircraft were either newly built or were completely rebuilt FRS1 ones. The Sea Harrier FA2 was designed to remain in front line service until 2015 (with the ARK ROYAL). The FRS1 to FA2 upgrade involved improvements and enhancements to the entire aircraft, particularly the cockpit instrumentation, and the fitting of a new state of the art radar, Blue Vixen, which would allow the Sea Harrier to operate with the US made AMRAAM missile, the West's latest air to air weapon, with a range in excess of thirty miles, in addition to Sidewinder missiles and 30mm guns.

Unlike Blue Fox, which was developed from the Seaspray radar carried by Naval Lynx helicopters, the Blue Vixen radar (and associated equipment) was designed from scratch for the Sea Harrier FA2. The design was to produce a capable air to air radar with a "look down-shoot down" capability and a good secondary air to surface capability. They certainly achieved it, and the Engineers who designed and developed the Blue Vixen are a credit to the UK. It is arguably the best air to air radar in the world. For many years it was considered that the best air to air radar in existence was the APG-65 fitted to the US F/A18 Hornet. This supposedly gave a one man aircraft the capability of a two man aircraft. Nowadays, the Blue Vixen is considered superior. It is so powerful that in the Kosovo campaign NATO commanders saw it as almost a "mini AWACS". Blue Vixen gives the Sea Harrier FA2 the capability to track up to ten aircraft, hold detection files on a further classified number and support up to four AMRAAM launches simultaneously. This is a capability that very few (if any) other aircraft have.

The Sea Harrier can carry a formidable array of weapons. For the air defence role it can carry the following loads, depending on the tactical situation:

4 x AMRAAM.
2 x AMRAAM plus 2 or 4 Sidewinders.
2 x 30mm guns plus 2 x AMRAAM.
2 x 30mm guns plus 2 or 4 Sidewinders.

For ground (or maritime) attack it can carry 1000lb bombs, which could be freefall, parachute retarded or laser guided, cluster bombs and rockets. Additionally a reconnaissance camera is carried. This makes the Sea Harrier FA2 the most versatile aircraft in Britain's inventory. In both Bosnia and Kosovo the Sea Harrier flew missions which involved carrying ait to air missiles, bombs and a camera. These missions could swing three ways, for air defence, ground attack or reconnaissance, as needed.

The combination of Blue Vixen, AMRAAM, the ability to receive in flight refuelling and the agility that it gets from being a V/STOL aircraft make the Sea Harrier one of the best fighters in the world. Sea Harriers from Yeovilton regularly fly in exercise against US Air Force F15s and Dutch F16s. The Sea Harrier can take them on and win. It also frequently wins when it exercises against US Navy F14 Tomcat and F/A18 fighters. Both versions of the Sea Harrier did well against these types, but the FA2 often wins hands down.

The Sea Harriers are not old in the sense that some would have you believe, due to their rebuild and upgrade. As for limitations due to weather conditions, the Sea Harrier coped admirably with the Adriatic summer and the climate of Sierra Leone. One issue that often gets raised here is "bringback", in other words the ability to return with the same amount of weapons as you took off with. This is less of an issue for air defence than it is for ground attack (which ought to be left to the Harrier GR7/9 under the Joint Force concept), and the Sea Harrier often returned to the carrier in the height of an Adriatic summer carrying the sort of weapon loads I described above. The planned upgrade would have included a new, more powerful engine of the Pegasus range. This would have solved, or at least reduced, the problem of bringback.

It is also sometimes said that the Sea Harrier suffers from limited range and endurance. According to Royal Navy publicity information the Sea Harrier is capable of maintaining a Combat Air Patrol at 100 nautical miles (about 185 km) from the carrier for up to an hour and a half. Experience shows that two hours CAPs are achievable. Air to Air refuelling allows mission of greater endurance and/or range to be flown. Sea Harriers from Yeovilton, supported by RAF tanker aircraft, often fly five hour training sorties over the Bristol Channel. I think it is worth mentioning that the serviceability of the Sea Harrier is very good.

Until a few months ago, the Ministry of Defence correctly considered the Sea Harrier to be a vital part of Britain's defences, particularly with respect to defending a naval task group from air attack. What could have changed their minds, apart from pressure from the Treasury?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Losing the Sea Harrier makes no military sense, and the savings from cancelling the planned upgrade (which would have started this year and lasted up to eighteen months) are fairly limited. I have heard the figure of £100 million mentioned as the cost of the upgrade. Over the 13 years it would stay in service, this works out as just under £7.7 million per year. Considering the £200 million price of replacing a frigate (not to mention lives lost) this sounds like good value to me.

Mr Ingram made mention of the new Type 45 Destroyers. He correctly pointed out that they will provide the Royal Navy with a new level of Anti Air Warfare capability. They were, however, never intended as a substitute for air defence aircraft. The Type 45 is meant to be the replacement for the Type 42, and therefore twelve will be needed to replace the Type 42s ship for ship. So far only six have been ordered. The first will enter service in 2007, the second and third in 2009. The whole class will not be in service until well into the next decade.

The Type 45 is the British version of the CGNF (Common New Generation Frigate), the product of Project HORIZON, a project jointly undertaken by the UK, France and Italy. It is worth remebering that both France and Italy consider carrierborne air defence aircraft to be vital for the protection of the naval forces, even with the CGNF.

The main role of the Type 45/CGNF will be Anti Air Warfare, and for this role it will be armed with the Principal Anti Air warfare Missile System (PAAMS). The teeth of the PAAMS system will be provided by the Aster missile. Aster is intended to be capable of use against aircraft and missiles at both high and low altitudes. It will also have a number of missiles ready in/on the launcher. However, the maximum range of Aster will be in the order of 70km. Contrast this with 185 km (from the carrier) range at which the Sea Harrier can maintain a CAP. This is why France and Italy still intend to keep aircraft as the first layer of defence. As for Aster itself, I am highly sceptical about its ability to engage a sea skimming missile at anything other than a fairly short range. This is because engaging a target at a distance requires the missile to detect it with its own radar. Detecting a small target such as a missile is hard and needs a powerful radar. The amount of electrical power available in a missile is obviously limited, and this will make it difficult for Aster to detect and lock onto a sea skimmer (or, to a lesser extent, any other missile), particularly in
adverse weather conditions.

The ship herself has to be aware of the incoming aircraft or missiles. If the AEW Sea King is scrapped (and this seems likely since its job is to work with the Sea Harrier) then the ships will be dependant on shipborne radar. This means that the enemy could evade detection by flying low, in order to use the curvature of the Earth to get under the radar beams. Adverse weather conditions would also reduce the effectiveness of radar systems. If the theatre of operations is near to a hilly coastline that will make detecting the enemy very difficult indeed.

In the meantime, the first layer of ship based defence is provided by the Type 42 Destroyers with Sea Dart missiles. Whilst the Sea Dart has undergone improvements, and is being upgraded at the moment, it is still limited in range, and in having only two missiles on the launcher, ready to fire, at any one time. The INVINCIBLE class carriers used to have a Sea Dart launcher each, but, ironically, this was removed to increase the flight deck area by a few percent and to build a new magazine for storing ground attack weapons. At the time it was considered that the loss of the Sea Dart system did not matter much since capable Sea Harrier fighters were carried.

Mr Ingram also talked about Point Defence Missile Systems carried by Type 22 and Type 23 Frigates. He is referring to the Sea Wolf missile system. The conventional launch version, GWS 25, is fitted to the remaining Type 22 Frigates (as it was fitted to all the Type 22s) and has a range of approximately 3nm. The vertical launch version, GWS 26, is fitted to the Type 23 Frigate and has a range of about 4nm. Sea Wolf is an incredible system that is capable of engaging targets the size of sparrows travelling at wave top height at twice the speed of sound. However, the limited range means that it can only defend ships within three or four nautical miles. Last year the then CINCFLEET, now the First Sea Lord, warned that ships were being put to sea without adequate stocks of missiles. I am led to believe that he was particularly referring to a shortage of Vertical Launch Sea Wolf missiles.

Mr Ingram also mentioned Close In Weapons Systems, or CIWS. Almost all major surface warships (although not the Type 23 Frigate) have a CIWS, either Phalanx or Goalkeeper. Basically these are just a battery of automatic guns that track incoming targets and spray them with shells. CIWS are intended as a last line of defence, to deal with the odd missile (or aircraft) that manages to get through earlier layers of defence. They are unlikely to be able to deal with a mass attack. CIWS have never been tested in combat, and whilst they may destroy targets, their range is limited and therefore the ship under attack would get hit by debris, which would cause damage and potentially kill or injure personnel.

As for decoys, I acknowledge the fact that they play an important role in defeating anti ship missiles (whether launched from an aircraft, a surface warship, a submarine or from land). However, it has to be pointed out that there is a danger that an incoming missile might be decoyed away from a ship capable of shooting it down and then hit a ship (possibly an unarmed merchant ship taken up from trade) without weapons or decoys. It has been suggested that this is what happened when the ATLANTIC CONVEYER was hit by an Exocet in the Falklands war. It has been
suggested that the nearest ship to the Argentine aircraft, the frigate AMBUSCADE, fired her decoys (she had not means of shooting down an Exocet) and the missile was decoyed away from its original direction, but when it failed to hit anything it started to look for a target, and saw ATLANTIC CONVEYER. This was in military terms, the most serious British loss of the war, with a number of troop carrying helicopters being lost. This, in turn, contributed to the disaster when RFA SIR GALAHAD was bombed with a company of Welsh Gaurds aboard. Now there is another problem. Many modern missiles have a degree of immunity from decoys as they have the ability to discriminate between a real ship and a decoy by examining the reflected radar signal.

Can we say for certain that we will not be required to without the active participation of our allies? It seems like a major assumption to make, in an unpredictable and highly dangerous world. If we are operating alongside allies then there will at least be some air defence. But will they be able to provide dedicate Combat Air Patrols for a UK task group? If a US Navy carrier is available then the answer is probably yes, although this may lead to the US considering British forces as more of a liability than an asset (this would reduce the influence that HM Government has on the United States). If we are operating with our French, Spanish or Italian allies (all of whom have carrier based fighters) then the answer is probably no, due to the simple fact that they have insufficient aircraft to provide a CAP for somebody else's task group as well as their own. Such support would have to be requested, and the request might be turned down for the same reason.

Lastly, when I mentioned recruitment and retention problems I was talking about the Navy as a whole, although I accept that I did not make this clear. It is psychologically better for the RN to have its own air defence aircraft than to rely on anyone else. The loss of the Sea Harrier is a blow to the prestige and morale of the Royal Navy, and in the eyes of many, a disaster waiting to happen. This can only worsen the Navy's manpower shortage. As for Pilots, I can tell you from personal knowledge that many Pilots will resign rather than become ground attack pilots based at an RAF base. Sea Harrier pilots are principally fighter pilots, if they have to fly ground attack aircraft for several years they will start to lose their air defence skills.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The Sea Harrier force consists of two front line, sea going squadrons, 800 and 801 Naval Air Squadrons, and a training and evaluation squadron, 899 NAS. All three are based at Yeovilton. It is intended that one front line squadron will be disbanded in 2004, 899 NAS will follow in 2005 and the other front line squadron will go in 2006. Therefore from 2004 the Royal Navy's air defence and ability to operate in hostile waters will be seriously compromised. Already the Navy is being damaged, BAE Systems have just mothballed the last development Sea Harrier.

Twenty years ago, during the Falklands War, ships and lives were lost due to inadequate air defence. One of the major lessons was that the best way to protect ships at sea was to have organic air defence supported by organic Airborne Early Warning. I would be surprised if the twentieth anniversary, particularly the anniversary today (4th May) of the loss of HMS SHEFFIELD does not result in the Governments proposals being criticised in the media. On the 2nd April, twenty years after the Argentine invasion, the premature scrapping of the Sea Harrier condemned by Admiral Sir John "Sandy" Woodward, who commanded the Falklands task group, in the Daily Telegraph.

More recently, the Strategic Defence Review emphasised the importance of the Sea Harrier. The SDR also stated Britain's armed forces should be expeditionary in nature. Having no air defence for your fleet, and depending on other nations to protect it, is completely contrary to the idea of being expeditionary. The Prime Minister wants Britain to continue to be a key player in international affairs, and has signalled his willingness to commit forces in many situations, both real and hypothetical. This, combined with the unwillingness to pay for certain key assets (including the Sea Harrier) is likely to lead to a debacle and tragedy.

I hope that this letter (I apologise for the length) helps clarify the issues involved, and underlines the dangers facing the Royal Navy.

Yours sincerely

WEBF

I got a reply from my MP on Saturday, saying that he thinks I have made very cogent points, and that he consider writing to the Minister(s) to be of little use, as do I. He will forward it to his party's defence spokesman, and draw attention to these issues.

[alphaleaderuk]

WEBF, you make some excellent points here - well done! You also have a pretty strong memory for data.
I believe that we now have to show the Government and the public that there really is a viable financial alternative to the decision taken. See my new topic, (Sea Harrier Decision - "Their Lordships") - it touches on this matter.
Any data you have on projected F3 update costs, numbers and ISD and/or Euro-fighter costs, numbers and ISD would be useful for fighting the cause behind the scenes.