Early end for the SHAR??

[ORAC]

The decision to deploy them or not will have to be made in the next week or so. If not deployed, the operational case to retain them till 2006 will, effectively, be destroyed. Heavy politics at 2 Group and the MOD.

The Times - December 18, 2002

Heat may spell the end for Sea Harrier
By Michael Evans

Navy chiefs face a quandary over whether to send Sea Harrier jump-jets to the Gulf because hot weather could render the ageing planes inoperable.

The Sea Harrier FA2 is needed to protect British warships, but it has only a single underpowered engine and struggles to land on an aircraft carrier in intense heat. The problem has been compounded by the replacement of the aircrafts’ Sidewinder missiles with much heavier Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraam). Navy sources said that the biggest challenge was landing the Sea Harrier if it was returning to the carrier with its Amraam weapons still attached. Sometimes the missiles, costing £260,000 each, have to be ditched in the sea.

Leaving the Sea Harriers behind would effectively sign the operational death warrant of a fighter jet that came into service in 1980 and performed valiantly in the 1982 Falklands War. It is scheduled to be phased out prematurely by 2006. Sources said the alternative was to rely on American carrier-based F14 Tomcats to protect British warships.

[Jimlad]

As a dark blue squid this may sound like high treason, but that report illustrates why we need to get rid of SHAR and invest in planes that can do the bombing missions we undertake now. If we're in the strike business, then lets have a decent strike wing. Having a token 6 SHAR's will make a minute difference to an area overflowing with carrier based airpower. Better to send 16 GR7/9's and do something useful...

[sycamore]

Can`t you do a rolling landing? Just get up a good head of steam,and use a couple of tennis nets on the ramp as "catchers".Might need a couple of table-tennis bats for the batman, but it`ll be good pre-training for the CV`s!!;) ;)

[rivetjoint]

I await WEBF's reply and exhibit A to be used for comparison "some sliced bread".

Won't comment on the rest 'cos not a good idea to talk about the fleet defence of a war-going carrier group!

[DuckDogers]

Sure you do not mean 3Gp ORAC? RAF Harriers of any use in the Gulf TOR, doubtful but at least its a token effort and as for 16, do not think so! Infact, do we really need any maritime involvement greater than what is in the GUlf at present, erm No!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The way I see it is that even with 16 Harrier GR7/9, the contribution that a UK carrier would make towards total seaborne striking power will be fairly small, compared to the USN carriers with their squadrons of F14s and F/A18s.

Relying on the Americans to defend the UK task group (not just the CVS) might seem all very well in principle, but what if the UK group is operating some distance away from the Americans? Could they offer the same level of defence as the organic capibility offered by the Sea Harrier? Would they be able to provide a constant CAP for the UK task group?

Basically we would be providing what would still be a relatively minor contribution to offensive power but expecting the US to commit aircraft to defending our task group so we can make a slightly larger contribution of offensive firepower. Does the US Fleet commander then see the "limeys" as an asset, or a liability?

Iis this logical? I would say no.

As for current events and what may happen in the near future -

NO COMMENT.

[Jackonicko]

WEBF,

I admire your enthusiasm, but....

In view of Arab hostility to ops against Iraq, land basing may be a problem for very large numbers of aircraft. The UK carrier might therefore be a useful asset. But if it deploys with only five or six SHars, they would be inadequate to provide sufficient AD for the carrier and its group, so we would still rely on our allies, and they would seriously reduce the usefulness of the carrier's offensive 'punch'. In a multinional operation, it strikes me that a single deployed UK carrier should either be sent as an AD ship (with only SHars embarked) or as a platform for OS aircraft (GR7s). Either would be potentially more useful to the force commander than a carrier with penny packets of both types. With the amount of AD assets already in theatre, I would suspect that a full complement of GR7s would be more useful in these circumstances.

[rivetjoint]

I agree with Jacko, better to have a decent number of something than to have a smaller number of two things, as once things start breaking you'll be leave with err none.

WEBF, its not the number of aircraft thats so important its the fact they took part that counts, its all about politics. There could be 250 US aircraft and 4 from the UK, but the headline would still be "US and UK warplanes strike Iraq".

[maxburner]

During Saif Sareea II I recall the SHARs being effectively welded to the deck because of the temperatures. They made a couple of apperances, but that was all. Why burden the task force with deck cargo it cant use?

Good ridance to the SHAR, bring on something with a real capability.

[Jimlad]

I find myself in the frightening position of agreeing with Jacko - hopefully its just a passing phase.
Despite WEBF getting all emotionally turned on by the SHAR, the point is that its not designed to operate where we envisage playing currently. Of course if we were in the North Atlantic again, then it would be a useful tool to have around. But we're not and we hopefully won't be. Lets invest in a decent strike aircraft and get the power projection capability we need.
Interesting aside - Hansard this week had figures for the budgets of the main RAF bases. It costs as much to run Invincible class carriers in full commission (£20 million each) as it does to run RAF Marham or other large airbase (£60 million each per year) - perhaps this adds focus to the cost and value of carriers debate.

[Magic Mushroom]

Jimlad old bean...

Don't get me wrong, I'm a great believer in maintaining a fixed wing maritime capability albeit in the form of something more useful than our current CVS. Certainly, as a light blue, I support CVF although I'm doubtful if it will ever see the light of day.

However, interesting figures for the costs of CVS v MOB such as Marham. I'd be even more interested however to see how much those costs came out if you averaged them against numbers/capability of aircraft offered by each facility!!!

The RN's only really useful offensive contribution these days is TLAM.

A carrier aviation capability is highly important. But even USN CVN's are extremely reliant upon land based fixed wing enablers such as AAR, SIGINT and AWACS.

Regards
M2
:D

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Surely one of the great things about a carrier is that it is flexible, the complement of aircraft can be adjusted to suit operational needs - be it (fleet) air defence, ground attack, recce, ASW, ASuW or whatever, bearing in mind you will often need several of these things at the same time.

To quote from CP1 Ships, Aircraft And Missiles Of The Royal Navy -

....to provide the facilities....... aircraft day and night all weather for -

- Attack and recconaissance in support of joint operations
- Air defence of friendly forces
- Anti Surface Warfare
- Anti Submarine Warfare
- Airborne Early Warning

Since the Navy's role (to my knowlege) is still about seapower, it coul be said that the ability to provide local air superiority, over the sea-space that is occupied by a task group, is an important part of this.

[Jackonicko]

WEBF,

Your grasp of the theory (at least insofar as it is served up by the PR folks) is commendable, and you're quite welcome to challenge any and all of my assumptions. I'm just a journo and any expertise I have is entirely second hand. But others with whom you are arguing are air power practitioners, and you may be viewed as being just a little callow and wet behind the ears to be rejecting their opinions with such certainty.

Were the latest spat likely to be an autonomous UK job, or even if we were undertaking it only in concert with our European allies, and if the op was being conducted in a different climate, then the SHar would have some role to play.

But even if one accepts the desirability of sending a UK carrier for this op, it is pretty clear that the SHar (in this context specifically) is not a terribly useful club to put in the golf bag. A full wing of GR7s might be, however.

And while I appreciate that you would like to see the UK Navy providing its own AD, this is impractical with anything less than a full complement of SHars. And if we send a carrier with only SHars, what use is it except in defending itself and its support vessels?

In any modern operation, the UK armed forces will rely on its allies for some vital capabilities (eg SEAD, some C3I and some recce). With the Arabian and Red Seas likely to be chock full of US CVNs, and with adjacent land bases likely to be full to over-flowing with F-15s and F-16s, the lack of six SHars is unlikely to be critical.

[MarkD]

Let's face it, the Invincible class and their aircraft were designed for fleet defence in a nice cool North Atlantic conflict. Very little of the RAF and RN's in-service inventory was designed [back in the 70s so] with the Gulf in mind, rather the G-I-UK Gap and the Fulda Gap. If the requirement to go hot/high was hardwired into the spec, as presumably it is these days for Typhoon etc., FA2 would either be a different beast or none at all.

If President Tone wants go-anywhere capability, CVF with cats is the only option which allows for serious ordnance/range capabilities in the deployed aircraft, plus useful AEW type assets like an E-2. If he doesn't want to spend the money he should stop trying to tag along with the Spams deploying an all-type fleet and just send the ships and aircraft that can do a job. [Frigates and destroyers, Lynx antiship, Tornado GR, Canberra, Harrier GR7]

However, just because Tornado may not be suitable for deployment in Desert Storm II because of lack of politically available airfields, for example, wouldn't be seen as an excuse to scrap the type. So why just junk a type that may yet do a job in a conflict we do not yet foresee?

[Jimlad]

"However, just because Tornado may not be suitable for deployment in Desert Storm II because of lack of politically available airfields, for example, wouldn't be seen as an excuse to scrap the type. So why just junk a type that may yet do a job in a conflict we do not yet foresee?"

Which is a good reason to have a carrier around as it can act as the airfield till we can find another. :)

The RN's problem, speaking as a dark blue is that we are Crap at PR - we have a lot of jobs and a lot of valuable roles that the other services cant do and do we sell ourselves - no. We roll over and give in. I am in awe of the RAF internal PR machine - you guys know how to get what you want, I wish we would do the same.

[Woff1965]

I don't think it is any great secret that the army wanted to use GR5 for CAS during DS1 rather than rely on the Spams, what with their deonstrated ability to destroy friendly tanks. Indeed if the GR3's had still been operational they would likely have been deployed.

This time round, they will no doubt welcome RAF CAS from whatever source either from a CVS or a airbase.

[ORAC]

"So why just junk a type that may yet do a job in a conflict we do not yet foresee?"

it's supposed to go in 2006 anyway. if it's not suitable for the Gulf in 2003 what anticipated conflict zone is going to require the SHar between now and then? Better, perhaps, to advance the retirement date and re-equip/re-role the FAA squadrons on the GR7 as soon as possible.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Jacko

You might be right. In this situation then 16 or so Harrier GR7s might be more useful than a mixture of GR7 and SHAR FA2. But please let the decision be made on military (and technical?) grounds and not political ones. The decision should be made by the gentlemen who wear gold braid on their hats, and not by smug political types.

There has been a lot of speculation in the press about what options might be possible. Some of these options may involve a larger element of defending the fleet other than the carrier group (this was in one of the papers, otherwise I wouldn't mention it here). Certain papers have suggested the CVS will have a mix of 8 x FA2 and 8 x GR7. But does this sort of speculation do anyone any good?

ORAC

It wasn't meant to go until the JSF/FCJA/F35 comes along. It is going early mainly for money saving reasons. What type of situation would make it a key asset? We don't know. Thats been my point on my postings, we can't predict the future with great accuracy. Who in the late 1970s could have predicted the Falklands War?

My postings on PPRuNe have, in the main, been my personal opinion. Having said that, I have tried to base them on facts, and have been encouraged and supported by several people who can offer an expect opinion on Sea Harrier issues. Some of them are on PPRuNe, some are not. My primary concern has been for the safety of our personnel, which does provoke my emotions. I cannot pretend to have the answers, or even the questions, but there have been points that I felt needed to be made (not just on this thread, on my postings generally).

[Tourist]

Magic Mushroom, a thought.
I wonder if Hansard quotes figures as to the cost of floating Marham on barges and relocating it to the gulf?
No? Pity.:rolleyes:

[Magic Mushroom]

Dear Mr Tourist,
I wonder if Hansard quotes figures as to the cost of floating Marham on barges and relocating it to the gulf?
I doubt if Hansard would have bothered to work out such figures for the following reasons:

a. Any plans to float Marham to the Gulf would be unlikely to receive planning permission from the local parish council.

b. Even if planning permission was granted, moving such a large portion of Norfolk to the other side of the world would be hotly contested by the environmental lobby, and...

c. There's no need to move the airbase. The RAF would simply use our faithful AAR force to relocate the Tornado's to a friendly host nation's facilities in considerably less time that it takes to move a CVS!!!!:p :p :p

Seriously Mr T, if you read my post again you will note that I'm a strong supporter of CVF (and for that matter the FJCA). However, the limitations of the current generation of CVS mean that even a wholly GR7 force is often able to achieve little. By all means use the carriers to send a political message of intent, and to get the GR7's and SHAR's to the area. But once there, get the jets off the deck ASAP so that they can operate with meaningful warloads and, if necessary, bring weapons back.

I suspect that if the current crisis in Iraq comes to a head (and I sincerely hope that it doesn't), basing rights will have been sorted out with many nations in the area.

Now chill out Tourist...it's Christmas!!!!!:D :D :D

Regards
M2

[Jimlad]

"There's no need to move the airbase. The RAF would simply use our faithful AAR force to relocate the Tornado's to a friendly host nation's facilities in considerably less time that it takes to move a CVS!!!! "

Thats always assuming that said friendly nation is willing to grant use of its bases and airspace. Also how long does it take to bring in supplies and crew and all the other stuff needed to run an airbase? About 4 weeks? Same time as a CVS takes to get to the gulf then at slowish speed. If the boys are in a hurry then they can do it faster

[John Farley]

Without wishing to teach any grannies out there to suck eggs the weight at which a SHAR can hover (and so do a VL) is NOT a simple number that depends only on ambient conditions and the particular performance characteristics of the specific engine in your jet. There is another issue and that is engine life useage. If you choose to turn off the normal temperature limiting devices (a cockpit switch in front of the throttle box) you can SAFELY run the engine to higher temps and so greater thrusts than with the limiters ON.

By safely I mean it will not surge and it will not fail mechanically. But it will cause the engine life recorder to run up a bunch of counts which will mean you to need to replace the engine earlier - how much earlier depends on how much hotter and for how long blah blah blah.

So to say that it simply can’t be used to ring back expensive unused AMRAAMS in high ambients is a bit of an oversimplification. To put it mildly.

Mulled wine anyone?

[Magic Mushroom]

Jimlad

Before I start, read my lips: 'I AM A STRONG SUPPORTER OF CVF AND FJCA!'

However, 4 weeks to get a Deployed Operating Base (DOB) up and running? Rubbish! The RE boys and our own TCW (please note that this is not a 'RAF one man band' post!) are very experienced in getting DOB's operational very quickly indeed. Examples:

a. E-3D involvement in OEF, we recieved the order to deploy and flew the first E-3D mission over Pakistan within 48 hrs. Whilst some infra was in place at that particular DOB for SSII, it wasn't for the OEF crews and personnel. Had it not been, it may have delayed going operational by maybe a week at most.

b. Tornado F3 deployment on OP GRANBY in Aug 90. I believe that 5 Sqn deployed to Saudi from Cyprus and flew its first DCA CAP within 72 hrs. Jags were also not far behind in their initial deployments to the Gulf from the UK in 90.

c. Likewise, the Tac Albert boys are well used to getting VERY austere bases up and running within days.

The short answer is that GENERALLY, carrier aviation can ignore diplomatic clearances but takes a fair time to get there and has more limited endurance/weapons carrying options than land based ops. However, clearly, land bases require the authority of host nations, although they can GENERALLY become operational more quickly than the carriers. The argument that carriers can be pre-deployed is no different than the fact that negotiations can pre empt use of foreign soil (as I'm sure is happening right now!).

Clearly, conflicts such as the Falklands where foreign DOB's are not suitable for many land based assets mean that carriers are essential. My point, Tourist, Jimlad etc is that we need a balanced force with both CVF/FJCA and conventional land based assets. Each have their advantages and disadvantages!!!

Now, could I have my fishing rod back please!!!!!:D :D :D

Regards, Merry Xmas, and a VERY safe and peaceful 2003(to everyone)
M2

[TimC]

WEBF

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Falklands War nearly happened in 1979.

Tim

[BlueWolf]

Without wanting to say too much....some weeks prior to certain scrap metal merchants raising the Argie flag on South Georgia, members of a particular branch of the NZ military, in company of members of the same UK branch with whom they often tag along, were were happily ensconsed in some remote bits of East and West Falkland, pretending to look after sheep, scanning the seas and skies, and "talking to London"....I think the predictions business is in as fine a shape as it always was, and, as was always the case, much of what is predicted doesn't have much said about it, for obvious reasons.

[Jimlad]

IIRC it was 1977, the argies were playing silly ******s and we sent two frigates, a tanker and HMS DREADNOUGHT - an SSN - sent a subtle but clear message that if they came over they'd be swimming back.
Who says gunboat diplomacy is dead :)

[Duncan McCockiner]

The carriers could be used as floating workshops for the SHARs ashore but politically unacceptable now that the decision has been made. By the way the GR7 has the same bring back problems until the new engine and that is just doing the flight test stuff at Warton.

The real reason the SHAR will not be allowed to fight is the underfunding of the last 5 years, No SIFF, no IFF Interrogator and no on-board jammer. The decision has been made not to fund her but the last time this happened to a jet, it was re-equipped with Phimat and mode 4 and updated jammers and sent to the Gulf the next day and that was the Buccaneer...caneer....a classic...sorry slipped into song there.

Best of luck to whoever goes.....

[timzsta]

Maxburner - I happened to be 801 Sqn's FC during exercise SS II. I can assure you the squadron was far from welded to the deck. We went up to 8 jets, and maintained a high sortie rate. We undertook CAP missions overland and defending the task force as well as fighter sweep. It was the most challenging and rewarding time I had as a Fighter Controller - seeing the smiles on the boys faces as they walked into the crew room to show us the tapes of them schwacking the oppostion made all the hard work in planning worth while. The SS II work was all in addition to planning for possible ops over Afghanistan, which we directed had to be prepared for right up until the time we disembarked to go back to the UK.

We also did a lot of stuff that hadnt been done since the cold war - ie silent recoveries to the CVS, FA2 radar off, CVS radars off - at night as well. You werent on Illustrious - and neither were the GR7 boys for more than a few days, so dont comment on what the FA2 can and cant do from a CVS.

As for gunboat diplomacy there is still a lot to be said for it. The record for a British warship getting from Portsmouth to the Straits of Hormuz is eleven days I believe (at 30 knots you can do 720 miles a day), so you can get warships around the world quicker than you think. I also remember being in an exercise of Northern Spain in May 2000, and four days later being off Sierra Leone. Certainly gave the Spanish boys in the Canaries a wake up as we went hurtling through there at 30 knots!

History has a strange way of repeating itself. Twenty years ago a whole load of ships and equipment from the Navy was to be scrapped and along came the Falklands. I predict the FA2's will deploy to the Gulf on Ark Royal, and get some kills and earn a deserved reprieve (whilst the F3's sit on CAP somewhere near Riyadh).

[Navaleye]

My American friends tell me that all the talk about FA2s defeating F16s and F15s is just RN hype. You need two AMRAAMS to be 90% sure of a kill. This makes an FA2 a "one kill wonder" after which ist very vulnerable as its too slow to escape. How would you counter such remarks?

[Magic Mushroom]

Naveleye
I would counter that by pointing out that a typical warload for a SHAR is 4 x AIM-120!! I'm no mathematics genius, but by my rekoning, that makes more than a single kill!!! :rolleyes:
Additionally, USAF pilots are often somewhat unimaginative in their tactics and this is particularly true of F-15C drivers. Given that I have to say that FAA SHAR mates are probably some of the most switched on fighter pilots in the world, they often surprise more capable opposition. I've certainly seen SHARS more than cope against F-15's. However, the point about lack of energy reducing the SHAR disengagement option is probably valid. However, given that I'm an AWACS mate I'll let the professional fighter pilots comment on that in a more qualified manner!
Regards
M2

[Duncan McCockiner]

It is very true of course that the stainy mach number from the SHAR is a bit of a millstone however the Radar in my opinion makes up for that in some large measure. Often US drivers will comment on the excellent picture the SHARs put out or when they see Radar tapes are astounded at the performance. It is a shame the FA2 has met an untimely end but power projection requires an asset that can get there with adequate self defence and do a job in the air to ground arena with some IMC and night attack capability, the GR7 can only provide one of those with real certainty at present. It is unfortunate but true that HM Queen and Son cannot afford the new toys and has to make as best a fist of things as they can until times are better. As for the pilots, they will just re-learn a new role and rise to the top of the new field.

[timzsta]

With regard to the comments on the FA2 lack of speed when running away - the pump/abort is not a manouevre familiar to the FA2 - it is only described in the F3 tacman.

[Max Burner]

maxburner,

Having flown the Lincolnshire landshark and the Shar I know which one does a better job, no competition really.

GR7's will be great when they change the nose, put the Blue Vixen in it and have the big engine. The USMc have already done it but Vixen wouild be better than the APG 65.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

GR7's will be great when they change the nose, put the Blue Vixen in it and have the big engine.

Sounds terribly expensive......more so than retaining the SHAR and paying for the SHAR upgrade.

[SixOfTheBest]

A lot of peeps on this thread must be smokin dope. A few simple facts. USMC II+ don't carry Aim-120. The APG-65 on that jet is REASONABLE (it's small, so there's power/range problems - simple maths). Blue Vixen is a better RADAR (TWS capabilities etc) but is still a small RADAR (maths again). The SHAR is a very capable ac, notwithstanding the range/payload/bringback limitations). The GR7 outperforms the SHAR in EVERY aspect of A-G ops (Considerably Outperforms). There is no way a Vixen could be retrofitted into a GR7 unless we had a blank cheque. If we had a blank cheque we'd buy better ac and bigger ships, both equipped with better weapons/capabilities. Oh, and Duncan M, strange that you say the SHAR pilots will learn a new role and 'rise to the top of the tree'. Very strange considering the RAF trained them (pre-Harrier). SHAR pilots are great. So are GR7 geezers. End of story. Max B, i'm sure some of your suggestions are valid on the planet that you reside, however, here on earth we have limitations on how much we can spend, and what we can spend it on. It's pretty simple really, the SHAR can't bomb, and the GR7 can't CAP (unless they are up against ac equipped with IR sharpened Guava Halves only). BUT, we can still project power (limited or not) and not have to rely on the hospitality of nations that think the pig is a dirty animal.

[Duncan McCockiner]

Six o the best,
If the SHAR cannot bomb how come 800 Sqns boss won the RAF bombing competition at wainfleet and the Squadron team came second overall?

Don't flash up, just saying!!!!!!!!

if you are right about the SHAR then it was just SHAR pilots rising to the top, can't have it both ways:D

[Jackonicko]

Oops

[BlueWolf]

You've got me, Jacko, what is it? Doesn't run on vodka by any chance?

[ORAC]

Well, this answers the original question. No SHars going to this war - and if there any GR7s they'll be shore based and not have any problems with bringing things back.

The big question is, where the h*ll did they find 45 serviceable helos?
-------------------------------------------------------------

BBC_ Friday, 10 January, 2003 - Ark Royal crew braced for war
By Duncan Walker, BBC News Online, on board the Ark Royal, Portsmouth.

The official line may still be that the Ark Royal is leaving Britain for long planned operations, but on board the message is very different. Crew members have been told they could soon be fighting a war and on the eve of their departure they say they are more than ready.

With 3,000 marines now set to join the six vessel taskforce being led by the Royal Navy flagship, its commander, Rear Admiral David Snelson said a "classic use of maritime power" has been prepared.

With 45 troop-carrying helicopters replacing the planes usually found on board the ship, he says deployment will ensure there is a "ground combat capability in the Gulf region"...............

[jockspice]

We got them from Santa!:D ;)
I also got a lightsaber and my friend got a Nimbus 2000. Next year I'm asking for some magic beans.

[ORAC]

Nimbus 2000, that'll be the one modded for maritime ops then? :D

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I'm a cynic but.....

February 2002 - Decision made to lose the SHAR prematurely.

March 2002 - Decision made to scrap our only LPD, Fearless, about a year earlier than planned, leaving a capability gap until Albion, the first of the LPD(R)'s come into service later this year.

January 2003 - Decision made to sen amphibious group to unpleasant hot place. Problem: Only one amphibious warfare ship, Ocean. Solution: take Ark Royal and use her as an LPH. Gamble that we won't need organic air defence.

The added bonus is that it avoids you (the Government) having to admit that you were wrong about the SHAR.

Okay, I'll put it another way, do you think that Ark Royal would still be used to carry helicopters and Marines if Fearless was still in service or the LPD(R) had arrived in front line service by now?

Who was it who said "NEVER trust a politician"...?

[artyhug]

Will you please grow up.l

[steamchicken]

he's right you know....Commodore Clapp spent a certain amount of time in planning for Op. Sutton trying to get the use of Hermes as a LPH, and they took a look at Invincible as well. Probably fortunate that they didn't get a carrier taken off AD, but it's a precedent. Mind you, on this one we'll not be short of Americans.

[John Farley]

artyhug

Your last post did not mention anyone by name.

Which is perhaps as well because if you meant it to apply to WEBF this time your words would have said more about you than him.

From time to time it helps to read a post not just give in to a red mist because of the authors name.

[Archimedes]

WEBF,

Think you're partly right. The answer to your question overall = 'depends'.

If shiny new LPD's were about answer = possibly not

If Fearless still around answer = probably.

I'd suggest that the helo capability of Ark may be more helpful than that aboard Fearless. One of the points made by a couple of former Captains of CVS vessels has been to employ the 'Golf Bag' line about using carriers to convey large numbers of booties and helo lift instead of SHAR/GR 7. Another thread notes that one assessment of the major threat to the Ark is from speedboat drivers with a penchant for mis-interpreting the Koran not Iraqi air. Now, if the Ark ends up in the Gulf without US CVNs accompanying it, then the decision looks very dubious. If Uncle Sam sends some of his toy boats along, then it looks more sensible. Assuming the SHAR/GR 7 mix, Ark would carry, what, eight, AMRAAM shooters? That represents around (I can't do the maths at the moment) 25% of AMRAAM shooters on a US CV, and that excludes the 10 F-14s.

This strikes me as one of those instances where the RN can best demonstrate that the carrier is a versatile and useful thing by not carrying its aircraft. Having 20 aircraft sitting on a small carrier next to two? Three? CVNs each toting forty-five odd strike aircraft looks like tokenism and always gets someone in the media sounding off about how this is embarrasing and how, since we can't afford carriers like Uncle Sam's we should spend the money on something else.

Sending a TF with 3,000 RM chappies in tow is more difficult to dismiss as mere tokenism, looks more useful in terms of numbers and is a useful means of showing just how handy aircraft carriers can be. So I don't think that it was a piece of cunning just to justify dumping the SHAR, although I'd agree that this could be used as convenient 'proof' that organic air defence isn't needed (which, of course, we know it isn't).

[Woff1965]

It may well be that the RAF's preferred option would probably be for the GR7's to be deployed at land bases.

The RM will need the helicopters out there ASAP so rather than hire a ship to transport them out they send them to the Gulf on a CVS(H?) with the people who will be using them.

If they want the GR7's they can ferry them out.