Sea Jet [Archive] - Page 8

NURSE

5th Apr 2006, 22:44

WEBF,
Oh for Chriss sake..........................
Deter WHAT exactly? Provide air defence against whom precisely?

Exactley pr00ne this is the nature of modern international relations. in 1982 did we predict that we would need seaborne air defence against the Argentinians who we had a strained relationship with. The same is true today a 'friendly country could become an unfriendly one overnight' and The United Kingdom could find itself having to protect its own interests/citizens in some corner of the world that the only feasible way of getting to is by ship. Without diplomatic clearences where would they typhoons operate from? ANd are we going to have to climb down because we can't send forces due to lack of airdefence or rely on ineffectual international bodies or hope our allies will defend our interests even if it conflicts with theirs. We need a Balance in our armed forces and I'm afraid with the decision to axe sea harrier with out an immediate replacement leaves our forces unbalanced. It is a poor decision. Pr00ne you follow classic UK military doctrine of always assume that you will have to fight the next war in the same way you fought the last in this example you assert we will always need more offensive air support than air defence assets. The next War we find ourselves in the whole situation could well be reversed and we will have to rely on offensive support assets to provide airdefence which they aren't well set up for. We need a balanced force of air defence and offensive support aircraft. And now we don't have it and it will be a long time(if ever) that we get it back. Illistrious and Ark Royal aand any UK task group they have to lead unsupported are now vulnerable. Let us hope that our allies will support any military adventures we need to suport before the introduction of JSF.

LateArmLive

6th Apr 2006, 16:13

Navaleye
GR9 will be getting datalink in due course. :)

Navaleye

6th Apr 2006, 16:44

...and hopefully decent ASRAAM integration giving a usful lift in air-air capability. At the risk of raising Jacko's blood pressure too much, Our friend Carlo Kopp has published an interesting article on ASRAAM's capabilities here. (http://www.ausairpower.net/API-ASRAAM-Analysis.html)
Comments welcome. Not an AMRAAM equipped Shar by any means, but an improvement nonetheless. Heck 90 pages and almost my 1000th reply. A very long way to go before I get to challenge BEagle's domination of PPRuNe me thinks:p :} :*

WE Branch Fanatic

7th Apr 2006, 11:17

If the GR9 gets a data link that will be good news. If it gets ASRAAM that will also be good. Now why can't it take the cannon pods from the Shar?

junglyAEO

So, WEBF, is it possible? From an engineering point of view - yes. But that's a qualified yes, depending on lots of factors and it will decrease with time. How long is probably a question for someone in the IPT.

I sort of knew that - but wanted it confirmed by an expert. Better than the scrapyard. The SFDO website says they have civvy (ex mob?) Engineers to look after the aircraft.

Navy News will run a story on the end of the Sea Harrier, which someone will no doubt post in due course. However, until then, it seems logical to let this thread retire. Here are some pictures (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=219627).

Issues relating to the future carriers, and the aircraft they will carry still need discussing but I feel this can be best done on a new thread dedicated to CVF,JCA and MASC.

RileyDove

8th Apr 2006, 20:53

WEBF- The cannon pods on the SHAR will not fit on any Harrier II fuselage.
The 25mm twin Aden set up trialled on the GR.5 had a nasty habit of discharging links onto the carbon tailplane and with other problems it was swiftly forgotten about. Buying the American GAU single gun would have been far easier. However with operating 'hot and high' and shipborne the weight of gun pods is not something you want to be a carting around .
As for your comments NURSE - we I guess are alone in retiring our shipborne dedicated air defence aircraft - we are either very savvy or prepared to gamble!

Navaleye

8th Apr 2006, 23:31

But with new 107 engine, these weight concerns should be much mess of an issue.

FB11

9th Apr 2006, 16:31

The GAU 12 is exactly what we want to be 'carting around.' The kind of air policing/show of force/presence missions we are engaging in makes the GAU a perfect weapon.

Very accurate, very effective, ammo that's as cheap as chips.

And hugely good fun to fire compared to the 30mm ADEN howitzer.

Total weight of gun + kit with 300 rounds = 1200lbs, expended = 900lbs.

Six good 50 round bursts in every pod is good value for money and weight.

Everyone should have one.

Polikarpov

9th Apr 2006, 18:33

Barely relevant to this thread (only in the vaguest sense of the RAF/RN dynamic) but probably not worth a new one of it's own, some of you may find it interesting.

There was a cracking programme on Radio 4 today presented by Michael Portillo, I missed half of it at the time, so am listening again off the website at the mo.

Covers the unsung role of the Royal Navy during The Battle of Britain, amonst other things. Lots of good input from veterans, RN and RAF.

Listen again link: here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/sundaybest/pip/igxgd/)

Michael Portillo presents a series which revisits the great moments of history to discover that they often conceal other events of equal, but forgotten, importance.

When we think of the defence of Britain from Nazi invasion in 1940, we picture duelling Spitfires in the skies of southern England. But, as Michael Portillo discovers, the true history of that summer is more complicated.

Churchill's rhetoric and its powerful images made the Battle of Britain unforgettable - but should our understanding of this country's salvation pay more attention to less palatable events thousands of miles away in an Algerian port, where the British Navy killed 1500 of its former ally's seamen in just one day?

Jackonicko

9th Apr 2006, 19:12

I listened to Portillo's programme with interest.

I laughed at Pete Brother's remark about the Navy having had its moment at Trafalgar, and I did feel that there was a bit of petty-minded envy going on in the way in which the RN was trying to muscle in on the credit for preventing invasion.

There's no doubt that taking the French Navy out of the equation was of crucial importance in winning the war, but surely the loss of the Prince of Wales, and the Repulse, demonstrated pretty conclusively what would have happened to the RN, had we relied on it to stop a cross-channel invasion, without air superiority. The Stuka and Ju 88 boys would have had a field day.

And that's why the RN remained at Scapa Flow, and that's why they didn't deploy cruisers and destroyers into the channel and the Solent to beef up the AA defences.

No-one would dispute that sea power played a pivotal role in WWII, but the recent efforts to diminish the importance of air power in preventing invasion and in defeating the U-boat menace are pretty silly.

Navaleye

9th Apr 2006, 21:33

The Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine in 1940 were under no illusions that the RN had the ability to inderdict the invasion supply lines. 8 battleships, 60 destroyers, 20 cruisers, plus Fighter and Bomber Commands - what do you think he outcome would have been? A bloodbath yes, but an invasion? No.

BillHicksRules

10th Apr 2006, 07:08

Navaleye,

I am currently in the process of writing (what I think) is a believable Alternative History which sees a successful invasion of the UK in 1941.

It never seems to amaze me how lucky we on these islands were. The number of errors made by the Nazis were really the only thing that saved us.

This is not an attempt to repudiate the bravery, skill and dedication of those involved in the Battle of Britain. Having two relatives who fought and survived the BoB I have the highest respect for all who were involved.

If you, or anyone else is interested in talking about this further just let me know. We could perhaps start another thread on the matter.

Cheers

BHR

Polikarpov

10th Apr 2006, 09:54

Apologies for the thread creep, WEBF!

BHR: I trust you saw the excellent "Real Dad's Army" series on Channel 4 last month? Was a decent investigation into the real state of readiness of the UK to deal with an invasion (an awful lot of forgotten history in there, preparations were advanced and sizable). It concluded such an invasion would almost certainly have failed not far from the beachheads, before reaching the "Winston Line", with the havoc caused by the RN in the channel one of the main factors behind the impossibility of maintaining supply lines.

It included some very interesting footage of wargames played by senior UK staff and surviving representatives of German forces at the time (Galland, etc.) several years later (nineteen fifties?), from which some of the conclusions were drawn.

Also, SS GB by Deighton provides an interesting "what if" vaguely along the lines you're suggesting, if you've not already read it.

WE Branch Fanatic

10th Apr 2006, 10:03

BHR didn't you once have a thread in Jet Blast on alternative histories?

Jacko the loss of Force Z did indeed demonstrate what happens when naval forces face a major air threat without a carrier and fighters. Ho hum....

Time to let the thread go, perhaps?

WE Branch Fanatic

18th Apr 2006, 17:14

To my surprise, Navy News have not (yet?) done an online story on the final retirement of the Sea Harrier and the disbandment of 801 NAS, despite the huge significant for the entire Navy.

However, the April 2006 copy of Navy News has a section dedicated to it. It mentions that the RN has around fifty Harrier pilots (presumably this includes ones on other duties) which is a figure I read in the same publication over ten years ago. It includes a diagram of the aircraft, covers the Sea Harrier's role in the Falklands, and talks about 801 and their recent activities. It also mentions the fact that less people have flow it than have flown in space.

The defence/aviation press have covered it widely. The April 2006 edition of Air International dedicates eight pages to it. The author (Jamie Hunter) suggests that the limitations of the Blue Fox were what caused problems when trying to engage low flying Argentine aircraft (I've heard first hand accounts from people who found themselves on the receiving end of air attacks - not pleasant), something that Blue Vixen was intended to overcome, as well as providing AMRAAM capability. He also mentions that the batch of new build aircraft in the 1990s was to enable the aircraft to last until 2012 (of course the replacement won't be delayed......) and mentions that the long deployment caused problems for both machines and men.

He discusses the participation in the Bosnian theatre by both the FRS1 and FA2 (I personally remember a lot of the media coverage from the time) and their swing missions (as mentioned much earlier in this and other threads by Nozzles), and the good serviceability they achieved. He goes on to mention the participation of 800 NAS in operation over Kosovo, and quotes the then CO as expressing frustration with the widespread ignorance of the Sea Harrier's capabilities. He mentions the five hour sorties that they did at night. He goes on to mention the early 2000 deployment to the Gulf of Illustrious to take part in enforcing the no fly zone, and how on their return they were tasked to go to Sierra Leone - to provide noise, reconnaissance and potentially cannon fire. In addition the presence of several grey ships off of the coast probably had a psychological effect as well as other capabilities like helicopters, medical support, naval gunfire support from frigates/destroyers etc.

Towards the end of the article, he says "Many believed the aircraft was simply too important to be retired from the Fleet defence role."

However, it is now time to look to the future, and in particular Future Carrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221116).

Navaleye

18th Apr 2006, 18:40

Webf, Blue Fox's main limitation was that it was a monopulse radar with no ability to look down over land. Not a problem over water of course. The pulse doppler Blue Vizen put that right.

A question for all: How would a Link 16 eqipeed GR9 with full HMS ASRAAM integration cope in an Op Corporate style air to air environment?

Jackonicko

18th Apr 2006, 18:45

Far from reflecting any lack of understanding, SHar's withdrawal perhaps indicates that people understood only too well the 90 hour blade life (it used to be 500 hours) and the 43 engine changes required in the last 18 months (even the five planned for was a bit high for such a small fleet), to say nothing of the higher MMH/FH figure than is required for the F-14.

This was a platform that was becoming economically unsustainable, effectively unsupportable, and that offered a capability that was rarely relevant.

And every time you put them on the boat, you prevented the carrier from carrying a meaningful force of GR.Mk 7/9s.

Jackonicko

18th Apr 2006, 18:48

NoseGunner

19th Apr 2006, 12:25

OK just a quick reality check about ASRAAM. It is a fantastic missile and a huge jump from AIM9L/M, I'm a big fan.

BUT if the other guy has a radar and radar missile you are not well placed. At all.

ASRAAM is an excellent supplement to a radar missile such as AMRAAM and is also excellent for self defence (especially with a HMCS), but on its own it does not give a credible offensive air-to-air capability.

Oh and it aint great if its cloudy.:confused:
Shhhh dont tell the bad guys.

althenick

19th Apr 2006, 16:36

Navaleye,
It wouldn't need to cope, because
1) There's now a proper airfield on the Falklands, with based F.Mk 3s, and able to accept reinforcements.
2) Our Lords and masters work on the assumption that we will do coalition ops, so if we need fleet AD, the Yanks can provide it.
Jacko
For a journo sometimes you really surprise me.
1) do you honestly think that 4 F3's are going to fend off contious air attacks from Mainland Argentina if they were determined enough and how long would it take to reinforce those meagre assets. Also what if Stanley got taken intact? That fine long runway would be a curse rather than cure.
2) Do you honestly believe that Tripe that our elected idiots put about? Did the Yanks provide AD for the last south atlantic adventure? - No!
As for the Falklands. I dont believe that Argentina would be stupid enough to try another invasion. But it seems to me to be a very good Yard stick to measure our forces by. If we could retake the falklands today with the Assets we have WITHOUT the same loss of life 24 years ago then all well and good. If not then we need to think again.

NoseGunner

19th Apr 2006, 18:50

althenick

I'll just answer no 1:
a. Yes - in partnership with the other assets and
b. Not very long
c. Stanley doesnt have a fine long runway
d. How could they take it? A reasonable number of Her Majestys Pongos might have something to say about any invasion troops that materialise on the Falklands.
e. Ever been there?
:rolleyes:

Jackonicko

19th Apr 2006, 20:04

Reinforcing the Falklands by air would certainly be far quicker than waiting to assemble and despatch a task force.

And very, very much cheaper.

You might believe that our defence assumptions should be predicated on being able to do Corporate again, while I might think we should be able to repeat a Granby type air campaign.

But they're not. We don't pay enough tax to be able to do big autonomous ops, and we're meant to do some things well enough to be a good coalition partner.

You might not like the idea of relying on allies for Fleet Air Defence (which we haven't needed since 1982, and that would only be a 'might need' for future autonomous ops), while I don't like relying on the USA for SEAD, recce, etc, - capabilities that we have needed again and again, and would absolutely always need for any autonomous operation.

If we have to cut our coat according to our cloth, I'd spend money on the main body of the coat, and not on a fur-lining for the hood.

Navaleye

21st Apr 2006, 19:33

I see Illustrious has sailed on it first exercise with the newly formed 800NAS with a grand total of 6 fixed wing aircraft on board. Some power projection capability! The "enemy" must be shaking in their boots. Welcome to the new world of JFH. Blind and defenceless.

Here (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5329)

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/company.jpg

WE Branch Fanatic

28th Apr 2006, 11:38

A month after the retirement of the Sea Harrier, Navy News has an online story about it:

‘Last of a dying breed’ – Farewell to the Sea Harrier (http://navynews.co.uk/articles/2006/0604/0006042801.asp)

I miss hearing them in the skies above Devon.

Meanwhile, a chance to remember another time when politicians said there was no need to be able to conduct independent operations.

25th Anniversary Of Falklands Conflict To Be Commemorated In 2007 (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5394)

rafloo

28th Apr 2006, 14:42

On Sunday 17 June there will be a Veterans’ Parade, including a drum-head service and march past, on Horse Guards in London

Sounds good. How many of those veterans will be still serving in the Armed Forces????
I will be for one....anyone else?

Mind you....can you trust the RN web site..? This link will take you to the page about the Lynx Mk8.... any guesses how many pics of a Lynx Mk8 there are...?http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2371

SSSETOWTF

28th Apr 2006, 18:55

Navaleye,

"grand total of 6 fixed wing aircraft on board" - well how many more would be on board if a whole SHar Sqn from the good old days were on board - and how many pilots would a 'fully' manned SHar Sqn have had over the last few years? Not that many more really...

And, at risk of sounding like a stuck record, a standard Marine Expeditionary Unit on an LHA/LHD generally only floats with 6 AV8Bs. (but of course the USMC boat also carries a shed load of helicopters + grunts to really take the fight to the bad guys..... if only the RN had been as interested in amphibious assault/expeditionary warfare 20 years ago, they may have bought a better boat eh? - who knows they may have even gone down the II+ road and then we wouldn't all be in this pickle would we?)

Regards,

Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

Navaleye

28th Apr 2006, 19:37

SSSETOWTF,

Spot on. We need a bigger boat.

WE Branch Fanatic

27th May 2006, 14:04

Oh look - a Sea Harrier (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConMediaFile.20154) aboard Lusty.

From: Illustrious Kicks Off Konkan 06 (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5661)

The Sea Harrier FA2 and 801 NAS pages are still on the RN website.

orca

28th May 2006, 13:23

Bigger boat appears to be a small issue.

We now only have three squadrons of embarkable aircraft. (Soon to gust to four, but with no extra planes.) For a fair portion of the year they have better things to do with their time than embark. (Small but very important on going Op etc). Now i know they take the Queen's shilling but if you spend 1/4 of your entire life on Ops in an austere environment, then there's only so much boat time that you can stomach. Oh and then there's Flag etc.

If we can't find aircraft to fill up a CVS, then we've got issues. Purely talking personnel - school leaver to frontline = five years, so there won't be a short term fix. And just to draw in another argument it's not going to be won or lost by a blue badge on everyone's left arm.

Two 'RN Heavy' squadrons out of four able to embark is simply below critical mass for a nation that wants a Maritime Strike capability.

RonO

28th May 2006, 18:50

Just read RN chappie saying each CVF will be at sea 300 days out of the year. Was in the context of demands that makes on shore training. Bit silly with no aircraft.

Navaleye

31st May 2006, 08:41

A quick question for anyone at Culdrose, have the SFDO Shars arrived yet? What's happened to the existing inventory. Me thinks they'll need more thna 6 a/c when they start practising for CVF.

LXGB

31st May 2006, 16:10

Have a butchers at this :)

Source:
http://www.everettaero.com/

SEA HARRIER FA2 ZH806

http://www.everettaero.com/fa2.01.jpg

Year of Construction: 1998
Total Time Airframe: 1291 Hours.
Total Time Engine: None Fitted / Choice Available

http://www.everettaero.com/ZH806panel01.jpg

ASKING PRICE: £P.O.A.

Cheers,
LXGB

Not_a_boffin

31st May 2006, 18:58

Navaleye - it'll be a much bigger slab of concrete and the end of those Nissen hangars they'll be wanting.........

orca

1st Jun 2006, 07:26

Don't buy it - the Fuel Flow Gauge is missing. Other than that it would be a great investment. No, wait....

WE Branch Fanatic

1st Jun 2006, 23:13

I Hope the SFDO civillian maintenance people do their best to keep them in a relatively good condition (ie one from which they can be regenerated), just in case.....

orca

2nd Jun 2006, 11:26

Errrr, dude.....who cares what state they are kept in? The notion of anyone being able to once more strap the dear old Sea Jet to their backsides is fanciful in the extreme.

Navaleye

2nd Jun 2006, 11:35

I'm sure the SFDO birds will be well looked after. Nothing like having a real fighter to move about your concrete deck. As orca points out, with the infrastructure required to operate them now thrown to the winds, the chances of them ever being used again are very slim.

ORAC

2nd Jun 2006, 11:37

The notion of anyone being able to once more strap the dear old Sea Jet There´s is a certain ex-USMC AV-8 test pilot, Art Nals, who has bought one and is intending to fly it on the air show circuit in the States....

Navaleye

2nd Jun 2006, 19:29

Great! When the $hit hits fan we can buy it back! :ugh:

WE Branch Fanatic

3rd Jun 2006, 22:53

Or regenerate the SFDO ones. Or use the ones currently stored if they haven't been flogged by then.

As for pilots, maybe I'm just thick but if ex Sea Harrier pilots who flew airliners could go back and fly the Sea Jet as RNR pilots, then surely GR7 to Shar would be less of a challenge? I've got a booklet here from a couple of years ago about the RNR Air Branch, there were pilots attached to 899 NAS.

Also a few years ago, I read in Navy News that the RN had about 50 or so jet jocks, including (I assume) those in instructional posts, desk jobs, doing PWO jobs or driving minehunters/patrol vessels/frigates. Has this number declined recently?

BillHicksRules

4th Jun 2006, 16:12

WEBF,

I think you will find that those "doing PWO jobs or driving minehunters/patrol vessels/frigates" are far more gainfully employed and far more useful where they are.

6 or even 12 Puff Jets in any ongoing UK deployment of the moment is not going to change the balance of power. It would simply be a political and short-sighted gesture.

Cheers

BHR

LateArmLive

4th Jun 2006, 17:55

BHR
I would say that's a rather disrespectful comment, considering what "6 puff jets" have been achieving in the desert for the past couple of years.

BillHicksRules

4th Jun 2006, 18:04

LAL,

It is no less respectful than WEBFs comment about PWOs and tin-canners.

However, I stand by my comment. I am not having a go at those driving the Puff Jets but in military terms their contribution does not change the balance of power in the sandy place.

Were they not to be there things would not be significantly altered either way.

Cheers

BHR

LateArmLive

4th Jun 2006, 22:52

But it's not always about changing the balance of power, sometimes it's just about saving the poor squaddies bacon when it all gets nasty down there.
But I feel we are drifting off on a tangent....
Cheers :)

orca

5th Jun 2006, 08:46

We're talking about a jet which made you fell rusty after a weekend off. The RNR guys did come back and fly the SHAR, but in all probability their war time role would have been LSO/ Duty pilot to take the weight off the regulars. Anyone who did a PWO tour or similar had a hefty refresher and was then absorbed into an up and running squadron. Sending a bunch of refreshees, none of whom had flown the thing for a period of time, off on their own would be utter carnage.

It would also make for a great dit....

Pierre Argh

5th Jun 2006, 10:36

For various reason's I haven't logged onto PPRuNe for a couple of months, glad to see "seajet" thread is still near the top :-)

WE Branch Fanatic

10th Jun 2006, 09:24

orca I'm not stupid or arrogant enough to argue with you, but at least (to my mind anyway) the possibility is there (even if it is slim) - that may be enough to deter potential aggressors.

I note that the Sea Harrier page has been removed from the RN website.

BHR We're not talking about ongoing operations, but unexpected crises in which the United States in unwilling or unable to get involved.

Never say never.

BEagle

10th Jun 2006, 12:24

"I note that the Sea Harrier page has been removed from the RN website."

If only other websites would follow suit.....:ugh:

NoseGunner

10th Jun 2006, 18:54

OMG

I agree with BEagle

Double :ugh:

WE Branch Fanatic

14th Jul 2006, 20:24

Some of you might be interested in this discussion (http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm3.showMessage?topicID=5165.topi c) of Exercise Konkan. The Government should consider this a warning.

Roll on CVF, T45 and please be gentle with the SFDO Shars.

Assuming there is time to regenerate them - perhaps 100 days like INVINCIBLE? In a crisis, all sorts of things become possible or acceptable. I hope the the possibility is enough to prevent this sort of crisis.

Spotting Bad Guys

14th Jul 2006, 20:34

[QUOTE=WE Branch Fanatic]Some of you might be interested in this discussion (http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm3.showMessage?topicID=5165.topi c) of Exercise Konkan.[QUOTE]

No, not really. I thought this thread had died! WEBF, I admire your tenacity and ability to stick your fingers in your ears singing "lah lah lah" ....but for god's sake man give it up! Do you REALLY think the SFDO SHARs will be in any fit state to resurrect? I wouldn't want to have flown in the Cosford or Scampton taxi-jets.......and I used to fix them!

(Don't believe I've been drawn into this thread AGAIN)

SBG

Navaleye

14th Jul 2006, 23:04

Not so long I ago I heard that the low airframe life Cosford taxi-jets were considered for refurb to plug the Typhoon delays!
Plenty of room of course for the IN Shars since our "strike carrier" only had six GR7a on board.

LateArmLive

15th Jul 2006, 09:43

And the pilots will come from where exactly? And the spares? Maintainers? Let's stop living in a dream world people. The Navy has already proved it can achieve a more relevant task in todays theatres with 6 GR7As on board than it could with all the Sea Harriers it ever had. Let's embrace the future and stop crying about the past.

Sunk at Narvik

17th Jul 2006, 20:40

"The Navy has already proved it can achieve a more relevant task in todays theatres with 6 GR7As on board .."

We'll have to learn to be chosey about our enemies then and not offend anyone with an airforce. :ugh:

Navaleye

17th Jul 2006, 22:49

Sunk, I'm struggling to think of any that don't. Unless we are planning to take on the Kiwis or Eire. Welcome to PPRuNe by the way.

Climebear

17th Jul 2006, 23:58

Sunk, I'm struggling to think of any that don't. Unless we are planning to take on the Kiwis or Eire. Welcome to PPRuNe by the way.

Have you been to Africa much lately? Most nations (excluding a select few) are not renown for their DCA/OCA, or indeed any other kind of A capability. Ivory Coast tried to get one in 2004 but the French decided that they weren't grown up enough for their little Frogfoots after they dropped their ordnance on some unfortunate French troops.

To paraphrase the little Britain - the FAF computer said no and all of the sudden the Ivorian Frogfoots were all broken!!

Navaleye

18th Jul 2006, 11:03

Hmnn. The french send in a ferry and pick up 1000. The UK send in a destroyer which can pick up a fraction of that. At the same it invites attack upon itself in a location where it is least capable of defending itself. i.e. alongside.

Illustrious can no longer provide top cover in the event of trouble and the can't even strafe ground based threats not worth a missile.

LateArmLive

18th Jul 2006, 15:09

Navaleye
The top cover that Illustrious provides now is a lot more relevant than what it could with the SHAR. Providing cover for the good guys on the ground is what we do now. When was the last time we shot down an enemy aircraft? Quarter of a century ago?
As for your "not worth a missile" rubbish - how many missiles do you use against ground targets? What do you think CRV7 is for?
Not that bringing a strike wing on board Lusty has any relevance in the Lebanon scenario......

Navaleye

18th Jul 2006, 16:43

Late,

Maybe munitions are cheaper now than I remember them. Missile use in a crowded harbour area is not recommended as they have a habit of going rogue as the israelis have found out many times. If we are talking about taking out potential Hez "boghammers" then there's nothing better then rapid fire guns either ship borne or on attack a/c.

I agree the air threat is limited and the Syrians are unlikely to do anything. This is handy, because we won't be able to stop them.

fidae

18th Jul 2006, 18:03

Navaleye

I'm as confused as others about your arguements. In this scenario, I would have thought a carrier ramped with helicopters and a few CAS aircraft might be an ideal solution. DCA could easily be provided by land bases if it was required, why waste the space on the carrier.

vecvechookattack

18th Jul 2006, 18:07

Now that Glocester is safely alongside and embarking its passengers Im sure that they will be safe.

Not_a_boffin

18th Jul 2006, 18:17

LAL - which bit of capabilities and intent didn't they teach you? Last time I looked, (the Syrians who may choose to get involved) had Fulcrums & more importantly Fencers. Although I'm sure we'd love to rely on the Red Sea Pedestrian AF for top cover, it may not be the wisest choice.

I'm sure a US CVBG is hurtling up the Red sea or inbound from 2nd Fleet (as the scenarios which must be obeyed assume), but at the minute, DCA capability is looking a little thin wouldn't you agree?

Hezbollah may be making merry with all sorts of Iranian missile toys (which I grant you can only be countered by ASMD or striking the launch sites), but should this get any more serious there are upwards of 2500 matelots in a constrained position, with close to SFA in way of stand-off defence and a reasonably capable AF (if only on paper) too bloody close.

The whole point about the disquiet in losing organic DCA is that there are a lot of capable AF out there and we may well end up in their AoA with no idea of their intent. I seem to recall 800/801 doing some fairly serious DACM with Fulcrums in mind, not a million miles away from where we are operating now......

Navaleye

18th Jul 2006, 18:26

Vec, I agree. I wonder if Hezbollah will be as cooperative when uncle same turns up. I would not be surprised if Illustrious landed her GR7s at Gib which seems to be the norm.

Luckily Iwo Jima carries AV8Bs so that problem is covered, although it would not look very good in the eyes of the muslim world if the US and Israel were bombing Beirut at the same time, even if it was for different reasons.

Off on a slightly different tangent, has anyone noticed the dearth of publicity about the exploits of 800NAS of late. We were used to regular news stories pre April and then virtually nothing. Also our only fixed wing NAS does even appear on the official RN website. What gives?

LateArmLive

18th Jul 2006, 20:17

Gents

We've gone on in this thread about the lack of organic AD forever and are still in the same situation i.e. without any. No-one thinks this is an ideal situation and it is a calculated risk. But still a risk.
The main thing is that there will not be any offensive ac on board Lusty. This is not why we are going there. We go to rescue/pick up our people from harms way, not to strike anyone/shoot down their jets. It would make things much worse in an already volatile situation if we were to turn up off the coast with a strike package on board. Then we might need to get worried about stray rockets etc. :uhoh:
Cheers
LAL

WE Branch Fanatic

19th Jul 2006, 11:25

But what if the guys on the ground are being attacked by enemy aircraft? What if enemy fighters stop you supporting the guys on the ground? What if the threat of a few MiGs with anti ship missiles keeps out of the threatre? What if a missile comes in and takes out a merchant ship carrying a significant percentage of armour or helicopters?

As for my comments on the SFDO (and stored?) Shars the possibility of regenerating them (and finding jocks etc) may be remote, but is still a possibility, and therefore hopefully may deter some potential aggressors.

One thing the current Ops in Lebanon prove is that we cannot predict the future with any accuracy.

vecvechookattack

19th Jul 2006, 11:38

I thought 800 had gone.... Decommissioned...Or was that some other squadrons decomm party I went too...drunken haze...

Have a peek at the RN web site. There are 4 FW squadrons on there

Sunk at Narvik

19th Jul 2006, 12:31

It seems that fleet defences are affecting the deployment, according to the Daily Telegraph today:

"When the Illustrious and the Bulwark were ordered to sail east, officials talked merely of contingency planning, and the Foreign Office advised British nationals, of which there are about 22,000 in Lebanon, not to leave. The Ministry of Defence expressed concern about the vulnerability of its ships to attack, and the risk that the proximity of an aircraft carrier to the Lebanese coast could be seen as an aggressive posture."

http://tinyurl.com/meooh

Tombstone

19th Jul 2006, 12:42

Gents

It would make things much worse in an already volatile situation if we were to turn up off the coast with a strike package on board. Then we might need to get worried about stray rockets etc. :uhoh:
Cheers
LAL

I entirely agree with that LAL however, it would be just as effective and perhaps more subtle, to have some GR4s sitting in Cyprus or indeed floating around just over the horizon should the need arise.

Although not politically correct, I believe that we are obliged to have some sort of ground attack capability within reach in order to offer protection to our civilians and RAF/RN personnel. The fact that nobody knows how this situation is going to pan out in the short term screams out for our guys to have the umbrella of protection they expect and deserve.

Navaleye

20th Jul 2006, 14:47

Vec,

800NAS is the only RN fixed wing squadron, but it doesn't appear on the RN site. It re-formed on 1 April at Cottesmore. 801 does the same in October.

althenick

20th Jul 2006, 15:44

Vec,
800NAS is the only RN fixed wing squadron, but it doesn't appear on the RN site. It re-formed on 1 April at Cottesmore. 801 does the same in October.

You'll find the only info about 800 sqdn on the RAF Cottesmore Website. It's almost The RN seem to want to distance themselves from the Squadron for some reason.

Navaleye

20th Jul 2006, 16:39

I drew the same conclusion. Perhaps they consider 800 NAS just an extension of Crabair now and not part of what they consider the true FAA.

Tombstone

20th Jul 2006, 16:42

I drew the same conclusion. Perhaps they consider 800 NAS just an extension of Crabair now and not part of what they consider the true FAA.

The true Fleet Air Arm originally being an arm of the Royal Air Force of course after the merger of the RFC & RNAS...;)

Navaleye

20th Jul 2006, 17:26

Interesting page on 800 NAS

Here (http://www.targeta.co.uk/squadronaction_800.htm)

I was slightly surprised that they operate 13 a/c, I heard that squadron strength was set a 9 a/c. Even then only 6 were deployed on Illustrious.

Flatus Veteranus

20th Jul 2006, 17:58

Of course:rolleyes: Just what we need now is a futile gesture - like putting up any sort of Harrier against the Israeli F15s! That should have been a job for Typhoons out of Akrotiri, if only they could do half of what is "written on the tin".

Why on earth we did not charter a few ferries or cruise liners I cannot imagine. The job would have been done and dusted by now with far less risk of provocation.

Navaleye

20th Jul 2006, 22:52

Not suggesting we fight Israel! But Syria has Mig29s. I agree about using ferries and not warships to solve this problem and have said so in "another place"

pr00ne

20th Jul 2006, 23:33

WEBF said:

But what if the guys on the ground are being attacked by enemy aircraft?

For goodness sake man! How many aircraft have Hezbollah got? How many aircraft have the Taleban got? How many aircraft have al-Qaeda got? How many aircraft have the Iraqi insurgents got? How many aircraft have home grown disaffefcted Muslim youth got?

Face the facts, you are bleating on about a lost cause that is about as relevant to the struggle faced by todays armed forces as is a Sopwith Camel.

The threat faced by the RN evacuation force is Israeli, just who is sheling the port? Who is bombing the port? Who is blockading the port? It certainly aint Hezbollah!

Get a grip of the facts man and stop trying to refight the battle of the bloody Atlantic!

Navaleye

20th Jul 2006, 23:57

Pr00ne. If you talk of Hezbollah and Syria in the same breath (as many do) then yes they do have an air force. A good one too.

pr00ne

21st Jul 2006, 00:10

Navaleye,

You should talk of Lebanon and Hezbollah in the same breath, NOT Syria.

Under what possible circumstances would the UK EVER be faced with a threat from Syria? The Israelis maybe, but the UK? When, where and why?

Have you noticed Syria springing to the defence of Hezbollah? Even when the Israelis have bombed border posts the Syrians have gone out of their way to state that no actual damage was caused.

Your still clutching at far fetched straws to justify a capability we have not needed since 1982.

Navaleye

21st Jul 2006, 00:12

Hezbollah = Syria and Iran by proxy. Get real.

pr00ne

21st Jul 2006, 00:21

Navaleye,

Have you been there? Do you know what the Lebanese people REALLY think of Hezbollah? I have and the Israeils are making them as popular as they have NEVER been since 1992! I can see all too well that the greatest crime being committed in Lebanon is the destruction of the infrastructure of one of the few demoratic states in the Middle East in a deliberate attempt to push the place back at least a decade, if not two, it's a crying shame.

Still see no reason for constructing any ridiculous scenario where we would need any form of AD in the area against Syria.

Navaleye

21st Jul 2006, 00:34

Actually I have. Hezbollah operates as a state within a state. It has its own infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc. The govt of Lebanon is powerless to do anything about it. It is funded and controlled by Syria and Iran. Do you disagree with any of this?

eagle 86

21st Jul 2006, 01:00

As we are anonymous, pr00ne, coming from London, could well be an Arab!!
GAGS
E86

WE Branch Fanatic

21st Jul 2006, 22:17

As LAL says, the topics discussed on this thread have been done to death. I certainly have nothing new to say, and I suspect this is true for contributors from both sides of the debate.

I started the Future Carrier thread to discuss where we go from now on.

One more comment from me whilst we're here: the fact Hezbollah used some sort of anti ship missile to damage an Israeli warship and sink an Egyptian merchant vessels demonstrates that even terrorists can give us a nasty surprise with weapons nobody knows they have. Light aircraft or drones could be used by terrorists for delivering high explosives. I seem to remember a story from 2002 of a war game in the United States, where US and other forces were facing Iraq. The US lost with heavy casualties. One of the main things was the use by the opposition of swarms of drones/light aircraft to saturate shipborne defences. This threat still exists. I'm not saying the Sea Harrier or another fighter is necessarily the best way to deal with this, but it is something to be aware of. The enemy will not play by our rules

SILVERCAR

22nd Jul 2006, 09:32

The spitfire is a great plane too. But if we come up against the argies again me thinks i would prefer F35 to FA or GR7!

Navaleye

22nd Jul 2006, 14:34

Somehow I can see the Argenties been that frightened of a GR7 since it can only hurt them on the ground.

LateArmLive

22nd Jul 2006, 20:36

Wasn't it Gen Douhet who said something about eggs in the nest........

You can shoot down all the aircraft you want, but it's only when you take the war to the enemy in their country that they begin to get "scared".

Navaleye

22nd Jul 2006, 23:20

Assuming the enemy doesn't strike you while wait to get within 350mn of them.

Navaleye

2nd Aug 2006, 16:22

Does 800 NAS practice ACM now? Is the maximum air to air loadout still just 2 X AIM9s?If so that was deemed inadequate 25 years ago.
I see 800 NAS has finally turned up on the RN website. Any prizes for guess what the first pic in the photo gallery is of? Here. (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5621)

Also does Cott or Wittering have a ski jump?

Not_a_boffin

2nd Aug 2006, 18:47

NEye, it may be worse than that. Are those IN roundels on the wings of that SHAR??

Navaleye

2nd Aug 2006, 18:57

Indeed they are.
Well done to the guys who have setup the un-offical 800 NAS site. Very good to see. Is it my imagination, or is some extended square bashing in order. Who is out of step?:eek: :rolleyes: :D

http://www.800nas.org.uk/images/navy%20guard.jpg

Not_a_boffin

3rd Aug 2006, 09:27

Doh!

Taxi for MoD PAO..........

Lord_Flashheart

3rd Aug 2006, 09:45

I see 800 NAS has finally turned up on the RN website. Any prizes for guess what the first pic in the photo gallery is of? Here. (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5621)

:}

I know we've outsourced our banking call centres, software, and doctors letter writing services to India but this is ridiculous . . .

"Please press hash key now if your fleet defence requirement is urgent and there are incoming vampires or hold to speak to an operator...."

WhiteOvies

3rd Aug 2006, 09:50

Has anyone sent any feedback to the RN website about their error regarding the 800 NAS FRS51?:ugh:

Also in answer to NavalEyes query - Wittering has a ski jump.

[edited to remove thread repetition]

Not_a_boffin

3rd Aug 2006, 19:10

Either someone has, or it's been spotted, as the site is now GR7 only as of 19:00 Thursday.

On the other hand MoD spies are everywhere......

Alternatively Flash's post set off some indian entrepreneur....

"Hello, Royal Navy? Have you thought about a commcen in Calcutta?"
"Splutter.....how can we square this with Topmast? I feel another consultancy coming on...or maybe add this into JPA. Writer - take a signal!"

FAAjon

3rd Aug 2006, 22:07

Either someone has, or it's been spotted, as the site is now GR7 only as of 19:00 Thursday.

Still some FA2 Harriers on the site.

Not_a_boffin

4th Aug 2006, 13:58

I hadn't looked far enough down, but they're still IN rather than FA2. They got rid of the one that led the gallery, which was the real shocker...

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server?show=nav.5621&imageIndex=29

LateArmLive

4th Aug 2006, 14:46

Navaleye

What was deemed "inadequate" was a jet that had one role only, and couldn't even do that very well. Hence the retirement of the sea jet. Yes, 800 still carry out ACM, as do all of JFH. I believe 4 9Ls can be carried, but we would be wasting our time to do so.

WE Branch Fanatic

4th Aug 2006, 18:21

What was deemed "inadequate" was a jet that had one role only.....

The Ground Attack and Reece stuff they did in the Balkans was fiction then?

I believe 4 9Ls can be carried, but we would be wasting our time to do so.

If you're in a situation that needs four Sidewinders, you're probably in a situation where radar and AMRAAM may be useful as well.

As I said before, the same old arguments are being repeated. Perhaps we should concentrate on the Future Carrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221116), and let this thread gracefully retire?

Navaleye

6th Aug 2006, 18:23

the funky munky

6th Aug 2006, 20:30

All chaps who have now seen the alleged photograph of "it" must now poke out their eyes with a marlin spike.
Egad sir in my day one didn't even talk about "it" let alone play with "it". In fact if you did play with "it" your fingers fell off!
It wasn't called the one way trip for nothing, in fact it's younger cousin Larry had similar troublewith "it" too.
"Ah, SMR ready to fit "it"?";)
"What sir?":confused:
"Exactly, don't wait up":E

WE Branch Fanatic

22nd Aug 2006, 23:39

I know I said it was time to concentrate on the Future Carrier thread and I did say that we should let this thread retire, but the following comments are better placed on this thread than any other.

The news that the Pentagon is considering delaying the introduction into service of the JSF (they still say F35B will be ready in 2012) is in my view less of an issue than the continuing uncertainty over when CVF will come into service. In a letter to my MP back in 2002, Adam Ingram was adamant that both CVF and JSF would enter service in 2012. He also stated the Type 45 Destroyers would start entering service in 2007, helping to fill the gap. In a letter earlier this year he refused to admit that there were any delays, he also refused to say when CVF was planned to enter service, likewise the aircraft. One wonders why...

The House of Commons Defence Select Committee stated in one of their reports that losing the Sea Harrier would reduce the number of carrier capable aircraft by one third, at the very time we need to ramp up the capabilities of flight deck crews, etc. Whilst this idea has been denied by some, evidence would suggest that the select committee was right.

Also in 2002, Mr Ingram stated that the Sea Harrier represents one layer of air defence for a task force, but there are others, medium range defence by Type 42 Destroyers with Sea Dart, then short range defence by frigates with Sea Wolf, and then CIWS on some ships. However, we had 31 frigates and destroyers back then, including eleven T42s with Sea Dart. The Hoon cuts cut this number to 25, including eight T42s. There are now rumours that ship numbers are about to be cut again, probably a couple of T42s. I expect the MOD will make much of their "poor state" whilst ignoring the fact the spending on upkeep has been severely cut. They would also use this to justify cancelling the seventh and eighth T45s.

So the outer layer of defence (Sea Harrier) is gone, now the second layer has been cut by a third, further cuts will make that more like 50%. So much for layered defence.

Is it not time that the GR9 gets both ASRAAM and L16? And wouldn't it be prudent to draw up contingency plans to cope with unexpected crises, possibly including regenerating and manning the aircraft at SFDO or in storage?

These are rhetorical questions really, I expect no reply (unless you are an MOD Minister).

Back to the Future Carrier thread......

Navaleye

23rd Aug 2006, 00:01

I would not be surprised to see Exeter and Southampton pensioned off early. I'm hearing that Exeter in particular is proving very expesive to maintain. As Webf points out reducing T42 to just 6 makes ordering six replacements more justifiable.

hardy jack

1st Sep 2006, 17:56

Here's an interesting site. (http://www.middle-watch.co.uk/Nuclear.htm)
I'm particularly interested in the nuclear capable Wasp. The caption mentions that they had to take the doors off for it to stay anywhere near MTOW. Most of the time they were off when it was empty for the same reason. Its range must have been anything up to 800yds with that payload. Dropping one of those have been the nearest thing the RN had to a "Martydom mission" :eek: :ouch:

Having driven the beast (a wonderful and genuine pilot's aircraft to fly), it had about 30 mins endurance (doors on!) with 'it' as I recall. The worry was more getting away from the surge rather than end. but again, flat out at 45deg to the wind with no flot cans allowed you to 'run away' at some speed and in good order!

More interesting was 2 torpedos which gave about 10 mins end. in peacetime fit (ie. flot gear and doors on). In war fit one got about 50 mins esp. if the '200lbs of wasted fuel' stayed in his rack! And to forestall the wails from the ACMN fraternity - that was a JOKE; they're great guys!

Sunk at Narvik

1st Sep 2006, 20:35

According to the MoD. Here is a response to an earlier letter concerning the use of Indian Navy Sea Harriers during this exercise:

"Dear Sir,

Thank you for your letter of 17 July 2006 to the Prime Minister regarding your concerns about the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier. I have been asked to reply.

As one of my colleagues has previously explained to you, in his letter dated 12 April 2005, we appreciate that the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier removes the outermost layer of a multilayered air defence structure, until the introduction of the JCA. This decision was taken on the grounds of capability and balance of investment. The risk will be significantly reduced with the introduction of the Type 45 destroyer, equipped with a new and much improved Principle Anti Air Missile System, capable of intercepting multiple targets simultaneously. Once again we envisage the main threat to the Fleet in the future to come from sea skimming missiles, which is a threat that ship-borne gun and missiles systems are better placed to deal with.

Moving on, the main aim of the KONKAN 06 exercise was to enhance interoperability and share procedures, tactics and manoeuvres between the Royal Navy and our Indian counterparts The Indian Naval Sea Harriers that took part in the KONKAN 06 successfully carried out air defence manoeuvres and also operated along side Royal Naval Harrier GR7s carrying out power projection exercises on simulated targets. Tha»embarkation of Indian Navy Sea Harriers on HMS Illustrious was a pre-planned part of the KONKAN 06 exercise and was intended to enhance mutual cooperation and experience. It was not a hastily-arranged work around to 'allow the exercise to continue' as you suggest. All of the various objectives of the exercise were met and overall KONKAN 06 was a complete success.

You may be aware that the final event of the exercise included a Visitors Day, in which 40 distinguished guests, both service and civilian, were hosted on board HMS Illustrious. During this event they were able to witness various exercises and were also able to enjoy a flying display by the RAF Red Arrows Team.

The Visitors Day, combined with HMS Illustrious' attendance at a Defence Industrial Day, provided an extremely good opportunity to showcase the effectiveness of the Royal Navy, its assets and UK defence products and services. I can assure you the exercise not only significantly enhanced our navy-to-navy relations but was also very valuable in helping to continue to build upon wider Indian UK bi-lateral relations.

I hope you find this information of interest"

:ugh: :(

WE Branch Fanatic

1st Sep 2006, 23:30

Well, that was informative..........well done MOD. Who was it from by the way?

By pure chance, I was going to post the following story from Navy News, as it seems to fit here better than elsewhere.

Remember the Falklands (http://navynews.co.uk/articles/2006/0609/0006090101.asp)

But public perception of the conflict is often that the RAF dominated the skies (when it was the Sea Harrier which was the aircraft of the war), the Army won the land campaign (when the Royal Marines had an equal role) and the Navy “just lost a lot of ships” (forgetting that without the RN there wouldn’t have been an invasion).

I can't help thinking that the Sea Harrier's lack of recognition, and that of the RN in general, helped make it an easy target when they were looking for cuts. People don't understand the significance of the loss of organic air defence and what it means.

Bing

2nd Sep 2006, 00:09

Once again we envisage the main threat to the Fleet in the future to come from sea skimming missiles, which is a threat that ship-borne gun and missiles systems are better placed to deal with.

hahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha

Navaleye

2nd Sep 2006, 10:48

Pontius Navigator

2nd Sep 2006, 12:04

Remember the pre-war phrase, the bomber will always get through.

So it proved. So it proved with the Cole. So it will prove again.

There is absolutely no use having layered defence with layers missing. The Type 42 was a classic where it needed a second vessel to give it close-in protection.

You provide 'high-level' interceptors (Foxbats) the enemy attack low. You provide 'low level' interceptors (Harriers) the enemy attack fast. You provide medium range SAM (Sea Dart) the enemy uses medium range + missiles etc etc etc.

Remove one of these defensive elements and the enemy gains.

WE Branch Fanatic

2nd Sep 2006, 13:51

You are right about the idea of layered defence which makes it very worrying that in this case we have lost the outer layer (Sea Harrier) and cut the second (T42s with Sea Dart) by a third - with rumours of more cuts.

Surely the best way to deal with sea skimming missiles is to engage (or keep out of firing range) the firing platform be it aircraft, submarine, missile boat or whatever. I see the MOD is using the "write the conclusions before the report" approach.

It has been said that the Cole was hit largely as there was a lack of imagination in the Pentagon. They thought it couldn't and wouldn't happen. It did! We must beware of this sort of "well it hasn't happened recently so don't worry" mentality, currently much favoured by Whitehall.

But perhaps we will get away with it. But we may be less lucky with our people. In the long term, the current problems with FAA aircrew recruitment, training and retention are largely a consequence of a) coming under RAF control b) leaving RNAS Yeovilton and c) losing the air to air role. Whilst this is discussed on the Future Carrier thread, I think it apt to mention it here. I cannot help thinking both "What went wrong?" and "I told you so".

I know personally know of an ex RN Shar driver who flew for another European nation, and was offered a way back into the RN but decided that no, living as the poor relation to the RAF and flying a GR7/9 wasn't for him.

Pontius Navigator

2nd Sep 2006, 14:31

I guess I can say this now as the BB is out of commission, but around the time that Matius Rust (?) landed in Red Square I saw the 6th Fleet Optask AAW.

It detailed the warnings and actions as an air intruder approached the fleet. I can't remember the outer range that was part of their air control area but I loved the minimum range.

At 15 miles the TF would open fire. The BB planned to engage a Cessna size target with her main armament.

No question that every layer of the onion skin was in place and would be used.

Navaleye will confirm that even the Cruise ships have a layered defence. One was a police helicopter all day with a police launch in addition and a security watch on the vessel. The next day it was a police launch and a customs launch with security oversight.

Only in UK waters was there no layered defence!

BillHicksRules

2nd Sep 2006, 16:15

WEBF,

You have kept this topic going for some time now and fair play to you for that.

As I have said on many occasions they resolution to the problems facing the RN in Fleet protection is not to increase spending but to reduce exposure.

The RN is not and should not be considered an offensive force. No matter what is said by the MOD the RN is predominantly a coastal defence force with an attachment of specialist ships (SSNs, SSBNs, CVs etc).

What the future should hold is a reduction in overseas deployments, a cancellation of the CVFs and the associated F-35s; and no replacement for Trident.

The associated saving in the MOD budget would ensure that more of the basics could be properly provided for those serving in uniform.

Cheers

BHR

Sunk at Narvik

3rd Sep 2006, 12:18

Thats a lot of specialist shipping for a coastal defence force. Have you been keeping up with events since around 1588?:\

BillHicksRules

3rd Sep 2006, 14:45

SAN,

I could be flippant and ask you if you have been keeping up with events since 1945 but that would just be childish of me. So instead i will simply say that you should have a look at the TOE for the RN today and compare it with nations of a similar size and status as the UK ( I suggest Germany and Japan ).

Cheers

BHR

WE Branch Fanatic

3rd Sep 2006, 16:15

Both Germany and Japan have recent history (1939-1945 might give you a clue) which makes defence a politically sensitive issue. But neither the Bundesmarine nor the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force can be rightly described as a coastal force, indeed the JMSDF is a substantial force, and some of the ships it has in the pipeline look rather like (small) carriers. Not so sure about the Bundesmarine. Of course this is inconvenient for your argument.

But why pick Germany and Japan? Why not France? Similar status in the world, similar history and geography. Why not Spain? Or Italy? Could it be that comparisons with these three European allies don't fit your argument?

Nice selection of facts. :hmm:

Now then:

As I have said on many occasions they resolution to the problems facing the RN in Fleet protection is not to increase spending but to reduce exposure.

Well done. Perhaps the solution on assaults against the police is to disband all police forces? Likewise getting rid of the ambulance service would be ideal for stopping attacks on paramedics...........

I assume you read the link I sent you: From ARRSE (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=44318.html). Those operations would be mighty tricky with a coastal force.

Navaleye

3rd Sep 2006, 16:57

Pontius,

Navaleye will confirm that even the Cruise ships have a layered defence. One was a police helicopter all day with a police launch in addition and a security watch on the vessel. The next day it was a police launch and a customs launch with security oversight.

That's very true and you are right at Soptn their was nothing and their never normally is. She also carries her own CIWS in the form of a sonic gun. Layered defence cruise ships. where have we come to?

BillHicksRules

3rd Sep 2006, 18:06

WEBF,

It is a shame you cannot look beyond the obvious.

I was very careful when I picked Germany and Japan beyond them simply fitting the model I suggest for the RN, but we will come to that in a minute.

Lets first deal with the countries you would like us to model the UK on.

What is your opinion of the respective naval forces of the three countries you mentioned?

How do you feel they compare with the RN as it is now and will be in the next 20 years?

Now answer the same questions for Germany and Japan?

Cheers

BHR

Navaleye

3rd Sep 2006, 18:21

BHR,

Germany and Japan do not pretend to be global military powers. Their focus is mainly local (with exceptions of course). The UK on the other hand maintains global ops and intends to carry on doing do. Its requirements are therefore different.

BillHicksRules

3rd Sep 2006, 18:25

Naval,

Thanks for not bothering to read what I posted.

Cheers

BHR

Navaleye

3rd Sep 2006, 18:31

BHR, I did, but I can't see your Geographic Implosion Theory catching on with the powers that be.

BillHicksRules

3rd Sep 2006, 18:33

Naval,

Let me be the first to say, "whit"?

Cheers

BHR

Bing

3rd Sep 2006, 18:49

What is your opinion of the respective naval forces of the three countries you mentioned?

How do you feel they compare with the RN as it is now and will be in the next 20 years?

Now answer the same questions for Germany and Japan?

Err they'll all be bigger than ours?

Navaleye

3rd Sep 2006, 19:07

Correct me if I am wrong but I understand that the German Navy has been going through a similar process to our own, losing hulls and replacing them with fewer more capable vessles. With the exception of the Kongos, the Japanese Navy has an aging fleet and will go through a similar process.

Not_a_boffin

3rd Sep 2006, 19:51

Come on lads, don't bite. Leave the knob alone. He probably has a picture of Billy Mitchell in the bog. If only he was suitable for a bit of French taunting.

Sunk at Narvik

3rd Sep 2006, 20:04

Indeed. The "Little England" routine gets very tedious after a while :yuk:

(PS- I do lurve using these smileys :8 )

BillHicksRules

3rd Sep 2006, 23:17

Dear all,

It is disappointing to see so many people not bothering to read what is posted BEFORE jumping to the keyboard in defence of the personal hobby horse.

Although I may disagree on many things with WEBF at least he bothers to have a well-considered and researched response.

Cheers

BHR

ORAC

4th Sep 2006, 06:23

Geographic Implosion Theory How much smaller can the UK get? :ooh: :ooh:

Sunk at Narvik

4th Sep 2006, 08:14

Lazer-Hound

4th Sep 2006, 10:19

Bill,

Its because the UK has global interests that are so obvious. Just look at the pattern of trade and investments- the UK invests more abroad than other European powers and its interests rival that of the USA. Return on foreign investments are a major contributor to the UK economy.

That would explain the Japanese carrier groups int eh North Sea and Med, protecting their investments in Europe.

Britain also has (reletively) extensive patches of real estate still dotted about.

Many of which host large US bases and are only kept for this purpose.

Approx 10 million UK citizens work abroad.

The UK is a member of the UN P5.

Historical holdover which discredits the UNSC today.

Its a member of NATO.

As is Iceland

Its a signatory to the FPDA

Thats why the UK has a navy with a global reach.

Really? When did we get that?

Now, if the UK's economy predominantly faced inwards, didn't have extensive economic, cultural or historic ties across the world, didn't play a major role in international affairs then yes, we could be like Ireland or Poland and just have a few patrol vessels.

Your argument cuts all ways- in those circs we wouldn't need much of the RAF either- just a few squadrons of cheap Gripens- just like the Hungarians or Greeks.[/quote]

True

Has it occurred to anyone that we might actually be better offstaying at home and minding out own business rather than desperately trying to act as global deputy sherriff?

pr00ne

4th Sep 2006, 10:23

Lazer-Hound,

"Has it occurred to anyone that we might actually be better offstaying at home and minding out own business rather than desperately trying to act as global deputy sherriff?"

Has it ocurred to you that if we did this in todays strategic environment then we would need armed forces only slightly larger than the Republic of Ireland?

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

4th Sep 2006, 11:01

Lazer-Hound

You could have a great career ahead of you in HM's Treasury. The Brown(e)s can count on your vote then?

Lazer-Hound

4th Sep 2006, 11:30

Lazer-Hound

You could have a great career ahead of you in HM's Treasury. The Brown(e)s can count on your vote then?

How do you know I don't already work there?:E

Seriously, it does seem to be taken for granted that we ought to be getting involved in various places around the world as Uncle Sam's deputy, but there should at least be a debate as to whether this is really in the UK's interests.

BillHicksRules

4th Sep 2006, 11:40

Proone,

Lazer-Hound,
"Has it occurred to anyone that we might actually be better offstaying at home and minding out own business rather than desperately trying to act as global deputy sherriff?"
Has it ocurred to you that if we did this in todays strategic environment then we would need armed forces only slightly larger than the Republic of Ireland?

And this would be a bad thing why?

Cheers

BHR

Not_a_boffin

4th Sep 2006, 12:02

BHR

Care to elaborate on "more of the basics could be properly provided for those serving in uniform". What exactly would you include as basics?

WE Branch Fanatic

4th Sep 2006, 13:38

I really don't know why are discussing this here on this thread, which ought to be left to retire. Perhaps the Future Carrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221116) thread would be a better place?

I assume that you are aware of the maritime part of the war on terror, yes? Perhaps you should see this (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=111156) thread?

BHR I will try to answer your questions. But first consider that for my simple analysis:

a) Submarines are considered submarines regardless of propulsion. SSBNs, being nuclear deterrent platforms, are ignored.
b) Corvettes may be capable of the same missions as frigates and destroyers, but smaller, with shorter range and endurance, etc. As with submarines its the effects achieved that count.
c) Naval forces can be used in innovative ways - consider the recent deployment of HMS Bulwark: See this from Defence News (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/HmsBulwarkWelcomedHomeAfterLebanonOperations.htm#).

Japan. A few years ago the JMSDF ranked third (to the US and Russian Navies) in frigates/destroyer numbers. Given Japan's dependence of seaborne imports and exports this is understandable, as is the JMSDF having submarines and mines counter measures. Currently JMSDF ships are involved in the war on terror. Their power projection abilities are currently low, due largely due to post WW2 political considerations. However, the threat from North Korea and the expansion of China may cause this to be reconsidered. Some of the ships they are planning do indeed look like small carriers - I wouldn't be surprised to see the F35B operating from a Japanese deck sometime in the next decade.

Germany. Like Japan, political sensitivities, the legacy of NATO roles and the costs of reunification make offensive forces taboo. The German Navy is not that large, but is capable and contributes to the war on terror. I know nothing of their future plans.

France. Like the UK, France is a P5 nation, ex colonial power with ties and interests around the world and has many other similarities with the UK. The French Navy is now larger than the RN. It is led by the carrier Charles De Gaulle, the only non US nuclear powered carrier with a fully capable air group. It has the full range of capabilities you expect from a modern Navy, including amphibious warfare. Future plans include getting a second carrier (possibly a sister ship to CVF) and modernising the fleet (including Aster armed vessels).

Italy. An important EU nation, Italy is the same sort of size as the UK is terms of both land area and population. The Italian Navy is smaller than that of the UK or France but is well equipped, with a carrier (with AV8B+ for both fighter and attack roles, and AEW and ASW helicopters). Amphibious capabilities have not been neglected either, and surface and submarine forces are respectable. Apart from modernisation, Italy is building a new carrier - I don't know whether this is intended to replace Garibaldi or be a second carrier.

Spain. Like Italy, Spain has a fleet that is smaller than that of the UK/France but is capable across the spectrum, including a carrier with AV8B+ and AEW aircraft and amphibious vessels. I know very little of their future plans.

The fact that the France, Italy and Spain all have carrier based air defence makes this topic relevant to this thread. Perhaps they were paying attention in 1982, and concluded that fighters are better than shipborne missiles or guns.

So you must draw your own conclusions. Of the above nations, the three that were not subject to their military forces being restricted by constitutions imposed on them by the allies after WW2 have the full spectrum of capabilities. Shame on you BHR, ignoring political considerations. Not what I would expect from a PhD calibre person. :hmm:

You may find the Industry Projects (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/) page from Naval Technology (http://www.naval-technology.com/) to be of interest. Note this is not exhaustive, it doesn't mention the proposal for Australia to operate the F35B from a LPH/small carrier.

So I guess the UK isn't the only nation to consider naval forces to be useful.

Edited to add: Italy and Spain are JSF partner nations, and are looking to purchase the F35B. I think Australia is also a partner nation, not so sure about Japan. I think the Projects page from Naval Technology is very interesting - all those ships etc being ordered by coastal defence forces (sic). The first section (carriers/amphibious vessels) is particularly interesting. A capable Navy is certainly useful always, essential often. The world's Navies are heavily commited to dealing with the terrorist threat - something which coastal defence forces cannot do in the same way.

Why did you think Germany and Japan were good for comparisons?

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

4th Sep 2006, 13:58

Lazer-Hound

I can't help but agree with you on the dogged support of US foreign policy. There was a time when I believed that we, at least, provided some guidance and, where needed, experience honed restraint on events. Our current lot seem neither inclined nor capable of that, though.

This far down the line, the Lords' Hansard, 25 MAR 02 makes interesting reading; http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200102/ldhansrd/vo020325/text/20325-15.htm. CDS's comment before the preceding Christmas also look prophetic now; "Whatever the choices we make, and for whatever reason, we must ensure that those decisions maintain our freedom of strategic choice; but we will have to decide soon whether we make a commitment to a broader campaign (widening the war), or make a longer term commitment to Afghanistan. Recent military success must be capitalised upon, so it is not a question of whether we will trap our hand in the mangle, but of which mangle we trap it in".

It will be recalled that it was Adml Boyce who explained at length to the PM that commitments could not be fulfilled within the existing resources. The PM's simple solution was that the Admiral should convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer that funds should be increased. What a leader we have in the PM.

Bing

4th Sep 2006, 18:34

BHR's point makes a kind of sense, if UK politicians could resist the temptation to send UK forces all over the globe, for historical reasons or otherwise. When they do we can probably downsize to a couple of Hawk 128s, a row boat and some ceremonial swords. In the meantime we appear to need everything we can get our hands on for global power projection. And as Brown seems to want to solve Africa's problems I can see this dragging on for a while.

BillHicksRules

8th Sep 2006, 19:44

WEBF,

Did you get a post deleted from this thread?

I am sorry that I have not got back to you yet. I am not able to access a PC at the moment and am responding via my mobile.

I will hopefully be able to give a full response in the next few days.

Thanks all for your patience.

Cheers

BHR

WE Branch Fanatic

9th Sep 2006, 12:40

I did indeed have a post deleted. I deleted it myself as it didn't really say anything.

I look forward to your reply, but I think we will probably have to agree to disagree.

Navaleye

14th Sep 2006, 11:34

Does anyone have a pic of the Shars in their SFDO paint scheme?

Sunk at Narvik

16th Sep 2006, 10:25

Here it is. Must say I;m quite impressed with the quick response and the comprehensive details:

"1. Can you advise how many former Sea Harrier pilots remain within 'Joint Force Harrier'?
Currently there are 13 former Sea Harrier pilots qualified on GR7/9 and serving within JFH plus 3 on current RN Migration Course (FA2 to GR7/9 conversion course) due to join Front Line Squadrons by Nov 06. There are 4 more ex SHAR pilots scheduled for RN Migration Courses between now and Jul 07. *
2. Can you advise how many Sea Harriers remain in MOD ownership and their current condition?
The breakdown of Sea Harrier disposition and current material state, confirmed through Defence Sales Agency, the Harrier IPT and 801 Sqn SHAR drawdown officers, is as shown

COTTESMORE (COTO:
2FA2
Both are gate guardians with one currently at Greenwich (parented by COTT) and due to return to COTT very soon. A/c are inhibited (to prevent deterioration due to adverse environmental conditions), have engines fitted, generally free from all fuels, lubes and explosives.
WITTERING:
1 T8
A/c is a gate guardian - aircraft is inhibited, has engine fitted, generally free from all fuels, lubes and explosives.
YEOVILTON:
1 FA2
A/c is a gate guardian - aircraft is inhibited, has engine fitted, generally free from all fuels, lubes and explosives. There is one FRS1 in the Fleet Air Arm Museum however, this is not owned by MOD.

CULDROSE:
6 FA2
2T8
Transferred to RNAS Culdrose RN School of Flight Deck Ops (RNSFDO) - complete and capable of taxing. Of these, 2 FA2s appear unfit for purpose at the RNSFDO, these a/c have been bid for as ground instructional aircraft for DCAE Sultan; these a/c may be backfilled from 2 FA2s from Shawbury.
QINETIQ Boscombe Down:
1 T8
Soon to be sold to QinetiQ as a source of spares for the VAAC research a/c and then removed from MOD inventory.
SHAWBURY:
8 FA2 *
Stored awaiting disposal (4 earmarked for Indian Navy as piece part spares (PPS) for FRS51s) - aircraft are largely complete, but have had classified equipment removed - 5 a/c have engine fitted.
A/C TOTALS:
FA2 = 17 (reducing to 13 once 4 sold to India for PPS)
T8 = 4 (reducing to 3 once 1 sold to QinetiQ for PPS)
3. What training in air to air combat do Joint Force Harrier pilots receive?
All fast jet pilots are first introduced to air combat through a common Air Combat Manoeuvring (ACM) syllabus during advanced flying training, currently conducted at RAF Valley.
Whilst offensive ACM is taught on the Harrier Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) and beyond, JFH ACM training centres around training GR7/9 pilots to fight and survive if their fighter cover fails to protect them, or they are attacked en route to a target.

Currently there are 3 stages of ACM training the Pilots receive. The initial training at the OCU consists of 1 x T10 handling trip followed by 7 x 1 v 1 similar type sorties.
The second stage is then conducted on the Frontline to achieve Day Combat Ready and consists of 4 sorties (1v1, 2v1 as subordinate (Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT)), 2v1 as lead (DACT) & 2v2 (DACT)). The final stage is the Air Combat Leader phase which is given to senior pairs leaders and consists of a further 4 sorties
(1v1, 1v1v1, 2v2 (DACT) & Multi a/c (DACT)), There is one further qualification, namely Air Combat Instructor, but is very rarely achieved due to other pressing commitments.
The OCU ACM syllabus has just been re-written, but is yet to be implemented. The new syllabus includes 3 sorties of 1v1, Harrier vs Harrier to refresh ACM techniques, highlight Harrier / Hawk differences and introduce Vectoring in Forward Flight ('Viffing'). Subsequently, the syllabus concentrates on 2 v 1 ACM initially like vs like. but ultimately introducing 2 v1 versus a radar equipped threat (such as Typhoon) Ground Controlled Intercepts.
4. What provision has been made to upgrade GR7/9 aircraft for the air to air combat role?
The primary role of the GR9 will be one of day/night ground-attack and reconnaissance. As such, it will possess a limited self-defence capability akin to that of GR7.
5. What provision has been made to equip GR7/9 aircraft with BVR radar and missiles should they be required at short notice?
There is currently no plan to integrate BVR missiles onto GR9."

Navaleye

16th Sep 2006, 14:23

Good post Sunk. I do find it a little strange that two Shars that were capable of flying into Culdrose in April are now apparently unfit to taxi. The majority of 801s Shars were less than 10 years old. Barely "run in" when they were withdrawn.

Not_a_boffin

16th Sep 2006, 15:25

That confirms the aircrew situation then. Only three (presumably ex 801) converting this year, plus only 4 next year. Sh1t the bed - we're really going to manage to ramp up to a CVF size CAG aren't we!

SaN - BZ on the Foi front mate.

Navaleye

16th Sep 2006, 15:33

Boffin,

That makes a total of 20 pilots by July next year to man two squadrons with a nominal total of 9 a/c each. A pathetic state of affairs.

Not_a_boffin

16th Sep 2006, 17:38

I know and as posted on the carrier thread, WTF is anyone in authority (RAFAA this means you) doing about it? FFS standard manning (let alone emergency) requires 1.5 per a/c. I know the RAF pilots will be filling out the squadrons and you can see why they're getting p1ssed off -come back off a Herrick detachment and oh dear, you'll be back out there again soon. OK, 800 is off on Herrick soon, but that leaves Lusty without an available CAG. This is just plain madness and christ alone knows what the retention rate is going to be (FAA & RAF).

LateArmLive

16th Sep 2006, 18:16

Just because 800 go off to Herrick doesnt mean we can't deploy on Lusty as a Force. There is absolutely no difference between a Navy and RAF Sqn when it comes to the role they carry out.
Unfortunately there are bigger issues at Cottesmore at present than the manning of the Sqns. We coped absolutely fine before with 3 sqns, and we will do now until 801 stand up properly. Whether a sqn is RN or RAF "owned" makes not a jot of difference, it is purely political.
We still have the same number of airframes and pilots as we did a few years back. Just because there are 2 RAF sqns and one RN sqn at the moment doesn't mean the FAA are in any way the poor relations at Cottesmore.
As for the future carriers? If and when we get them there will be no problem with converting to the new aircraft. If we can operate the current jets off CVS without a problem then F35 off a bigger boat will be a piece of cake.
It's not all doom and gloom people. :ok:

WE Branch Fanatic

16th Sep 2006, 22:43

Sunk I have to say it is good to see the FOI act being used for something sensible.

Navaleye you should read between the lines. The two SFDO aircraft being unfit for purpose does seem a little strange (as you say they flew there), to me it sounds like swapping a pair of older airframes for newer ones. Age is less important (I imagine) for the aircraft being sent to HMS Sultan. Just out of interest, how will they get to Gosport?

So thirteen aircraft are being retained in various places, in various physical states. Better than the scrapyard!! Perhaps the campaigning here and elsewhere did do some good?

But we do seem to have less RN jet jocks than ten or so years ago. This must be rectified.

I think that this thread has mostly run its course. Perhaps now we should concentrate on the Future Carrier thread for discussing pilot numbers, CVF air groups and migration to the F35?

Navaleye

17th Sep 2006, 00:22

COTTESMORE(COTO:
2FA2
Both are gate guardians with one currently at Greenwich (parented by COTT) and due to return to COTT very soon. A/c are inhibited (to prevent deterioration due to adverse environmental conditions), have engines fitted, generally free from all fuels, lubes and explosives.
WITTERING:
1 T8
A/c is a gate guardian - aircraft is inhibited, has engine fitted, generally free from all fuels, lubes and explosives.
YEOVILTON:
1 FA2
A/c is a gate guardian - aircraft is inhibited, has engine fitted, generally free from all fuels, lubes and explosives. There is one FRS1 in the Fleet Air Arm Museum however, this is not owned by MOD.

Indeed. Why leave an engine in a gate guardian? Lots of valuable material in an FJ engine that can be re-used. I know that Shar and GR7/9 engines are not compatible, but why leave them in place, surely SFDO could use them unless they have plenty of their own? I have no reason to doubts the results of Sunk's enquiries but it is odd.

Not_a_boffin

17th Sep 2006, 08:07

LAL - it's the ramping up to large CAGs, not the conversion to Dave that is likely to be the problem. If JFH is struggling for aircrew (and space from the sounds of your post), then it's not really conducive to having a fully capable 3-4 sqn CAG by 2013......Then again, I've seen the dates for FOC, so I realise there's a bit of slack. Even so, current situation is UNSAT surely?

LateArmLive

18th Sep 2006, 10:41

I wouldn't say that JFH was struggling for aircrew, it's just that the RN can't man 801 in time. There are enough pilots, just not as many RN as they said there would be. The problem we may be facing in the future is due to the op tempo we are currently experiencing, and if it can be maintained.
The future CAG is still very far off (in more ways than one). Remember when the RAF bought 232 Typhoons? There is a big difference between what we ask for/need and what we actually get.
When it comes to converting to Dave, it's the current pilots that will find it the hardest, as all the controls do the opposite from the Harrier. Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! ;)

Backwards PLT

18th Sep 2006, 13:13

Having flown the Dave "sim" all I can say is I never realised how easy it is to land on a boat!;)

Not_a_boffin

20th Oct 2006, 11:37

Expect to see a lot more FA2 appearing at auctions / scrap merchants near you. The Indians have just rejected the opportunity to take some of the early retirees - not too surprising as the Vixen would not have been supported......

Jackonicko

20th Oct 2006, 13:06

"That makes a total of 20 pilots by July next year to man two squadrons with a nominal total of 9 a/c each. A pathetic state of affairs."

I was always astonished that the JFH migrated to a 50:50 RAF:RN force, when the RAF Harrier force had had three big (12-16 aircraft) squadrons while the RN had consisted of two eight aircraft units. With the number of RAF Harrier pilots also including a fairly significant number of blokes on exchange, or in instructor posts, or with the Reds, and with an apparent retention problem among dark blues required to transfer to Cottesmore (who can blame them?) it always seemed that a combined force would sensibly have been 2/3 (or even 3/4) light blue, and that to try to make it 50:50 would be a mistake, and might require much larger numbers of RN students to be converted to the Harrier.

But all of that is based on impressions, and I'm interested how accurate those impressions were.

When the RN last had two frontline squadrons of SHARS, how many combat ready dark blue pilots did they bring to the table (eg excluding RAF exchange blokes, but including RN instructors on 899 who had previously been combat ready on the SHar)?

And how many pilots did the RAF Harrier force have (including any light blues on exchange with 800/801/899, and including 20R's instructors)?

Since then, how many RN and how many RAF pilots have been outputted from 20 (Reserve)?

Navaleye

21st Oct 2006, 13:48

Remember when we could so this? It almost looks like a balanced airgroup. Not any more.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/Navaleye/Lusty.jpg

Jackonicko

21st Oct 2006, 14:37

Balanced, perhaps, but useful?

Too few SHARs to sustain any sort of CAP, and too few GR7s to be worthwhile.

And crucially, including an asset that could not be economically sustained in the longer term.

And in an era where the air threat is negligible, and where we can rely on land based and allied assets for air cover.....

At least giving the dark blues GR7s gives them a job that needs doing.

Nice pic for nostalgia, though.

brickhistory

21st Oct 2006, 14:54

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/Navaleye/Lusty.jpg

"We're gonna need a bigger boat."

(Sorry, wandered in here from the Caption Competition thread. I'll show myself out.....)

BEagle

21st Oct 2006, 15:20

Or remember, some years earlier, when we could even do this:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/eagle.jpg

hardy jack

21st Oct 2006, 16:10

And in an era where the air threat is negligible, and where we can rely on land based and allied assets for air cover.....

To disect above - first comment probably true for the time being as long as we stay pretty much where we are at the moment in op terms and take on no-one else (but not sure the appetite for intervention has fully gone away yet from parts of SW1A). As to the second bit, allied help 'yes' but 'land based' is a lot more problematic when people are concerned about what provision of bases does in terms of attracting the 'small but highly organised and definitely ill intentioned' into their back yard - the General's recent remarks about 'presence inciting the problem' doesn't just refer to the 'brown jobs'. Everyone conveniently forgets 2002 when the pointy end of the aviation world played no part in our ops as no-one would give us a base to play from, albeit the blunt types did a cracking job. The US did all their 'small and fast' from sea for the same reason - aided, lest we forget, by the French who did the same (funny how best mates one year turned into detestation the next - fickle lot!). Hence the utility of a mobile DOB that means we can do what we like. where we like if our chums are 'unwilling' to assist at the outset.

Navaleye

21st Oct 2006, 22:43

I count 11 aircraft on deck.Are we capable of doing that today? That was my only point.

Always_broken_in_wilts

21st Oct 2006, 22:45

Why would we want to :bored:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Navaleye

21st Oct 2006, 22:47

hang on is it Groundhog Day?

movadinkampa747

21st Oct 2006, 22:51

hang on is it Groundhog Day?
hang on is it Groundhog Day?

hang on is it Groundhog Day?

Jackonicko

22nd Oct 2006, 01:03

All the grey funnellers avoiding answering an awkward question. Must be groundhog day......

LateArmLive

22nd Oct 2006, 10:30

Yes, we would be capable of deploying 11 jets today if we had to. But, as said before, why would we want to when we have more pressing matters to attend to?

Navaleye

22nd Oct 2006, 13:08

My point is this: Since in the 6 or so years since JFH was formed the RN has now reached the point where it is about to have 2 CVS available, but not a single fixed wing asset between them. Why? Because we no longer have any Naval Air Sqns. We have 800 which is now a NAS in name only, tasked by Strike Command which has let naval aviation wither on the wine. There are 150,000+ warning signs on this thread alone going back 3 years.

If the government is serious about establishing 6 Dave Sqns, then the NAS must be placed exclusively under naval control.

ICBM

22nd Oct 2006, 13:54

Navaleye,

Try whinging to 2SL - surely he has your ear as a Naval chap?!

Why does it always seem to be the RAF's fault, stinking 'Crabs' etc? I seem to remember it was the admiralty that envisioned JFH and got rid of the SHAR in the first place.

Now, can we all get on?
:ugh:

ICBM

LateArmLive

22nd Oct 2006, 14:10

Spot on ICBM.
When the RN stood up and announced rather sheepishly that it had bitten off more than it could chew, and was unable to man it's share of JFH, it was pathetic to see the amount of people that tried to blame the "f-ing crabs." It's a terrible thing to not be able to admit to your own failings and shortcomings and always feel the need to try and pin the blame on someone else.
This paranoia is a terrible thing, but thankfully there is far more of it here on this thread than there is at Cottesmore.

Navaleye: We have a more capable and relevant Naval Air Squadron today than we have had in the past twenty years. Please take off those rose tinted glasses and try embracing the future rather than dripping constantly about the good old days. :{ If, as you say, the NAS is put under exclusive naval control, would things be any different? I very much doubt it. But what would I know, I'm just an f-ing crab who is out to ruin the RN completely....:ugh:

Navaleye

22nd Oct 2006, 18:51

We have a more capable and relevant Naval Air Squadron today than we have had in the past twenty years.

Certainly not at sea or anywhere near it, nor likely to be for quite some while. Not my idea of capable.

Jackonicko

22nd Oct 2006, 19:35

But doing a more useful job today than at any time since 1982, and still entirely capable of going to sea should the circumstances require it.

Which is as unlikely now as it has been since '82.....

ICBM

22nd Oct 2006, 22:20

Ok, I believe the situation is fairly clear:

1 - The FAA no longer fly the Sea Harrier.

2 - FAA pilots now fly the GR7/9, become QFIs at Valley/Linton or go and work for Sir Richard.

3 - The RN occupy many Flt Cdr / Senior Officer positions on the Front Line - This has reduced the opportunity for RAF pilots to occupy positions that were always traditionally available to them.

4 - The RN will get the F-35 Lightning II, one day, and then go back to living at sea, defending the CAG (WEBF may then stop pontificating about a lack of "Organic Air Defence")

I don't see where the FAA loses out in all the above!? However, I do see the disadvantaged senior Flt Lts looking for a career in what used to be an RAF Harrier Force. Does it help to publicly cry and make out that the FAA are nearly extinct? No! Does it help to keep quiet, carry on doing a good job and await the future? Yes! Why? - Because you then don't completely pi$$ off your RAF work colleagues by harbouring feelings of deep-rooted resentment at an idea that was, at the time, considered and approved by the Royal Navy!

Again, can we please all get on?! :ugh: :ugh:

ICBM

orca

23rd Oct 2006, 11:36

If i may....

JF2000 might have been useful, when operating from the CVS, as despite some obvious short comings you could launch strikers with OCA. You didn't have any EW or SEAD/DEAD which meant there were always going to be issues with most modern day IADS.

JFH off the CVS now has neither OCA or SEAD, giving you snags against every IADS in the world. You still have all the problems of bring back etc, you also compound the training side of the problem by having (about) half the amount of aircraft available.

Now, if you're relying upon another country or another base to provide your SEAD and OCA, you may as well disembark your A-G chaps so that they don't have any of the inherent problems of operating from CVS.

So I think we would all agree that the CVS really does represent a very poor return on investment, whilst accepting that there are a few scenarios in which it would be valuable. (How poor/How valuable up to you)

Now let's look at what the chaps at Cottesmore are doing. They are doing a very good job in theatre. They wear all sorts of uniforms. The fact that manning doesn't fit the original bill shouldn't really surprise anyone. Neither should there be any real surprise that the RN started with two small squadrons and an HQ with alot of gaps - they've ended up with the same. But none of this is anything to do with the maintainers on the ground or the guys in the cockpit. They don't make policy, in fact most of the policy was done years ago. I think people need to identify who they are talking about when they say Navy this, or RAF that...

I think it would be fair to summarise that we have lost a capability, of what magnitude is up to you. Everyone's felt a bit of pain here and there, and the boys and girls are delivering the goods where it matters.

Navaleye

23rd Oct 2006, 17:31

JFH has been a disaster for the RN and not much less for the RAF. No one wants to see that, but someone in authority should have the balls and stand up and say so.

WE Branch Fanatic

26th Oct 2006, 12:19

Why are we still discussing this? I've said everything I have to say (including my hopes and fears, limited optimism etc). I don't want to bump it again. Opps I already have.

I agree that JFH appears to have been a disaster for the RN.

ICBM Organic air defence is there for defence in depth, defending an entire task group/force (including forces ashore or in the air). Defence in depth/layered defence seems to be a concept that is overlooked.

Jacko you twist everything anyone says to you and turn it to fit your own prejudices, so why bother with you? If you spilt a cup of tea on yourself it would be because you looked up to watch a passing helicopter, and it was a RN/Army one and not RAF. On another thread you made a point that a number of carriers were sunk in WWII but no airfields on land, but somehow forgot about the airfields that were overun or put out of action by bombing or ground fire.

But guys since a) the beloved Sea Jet has now retired and b) these topics have been done to death, surely it is time to let this thread gracefully retire?

Jackonicko

26th Oct 2006, 13:14

Webf,

I made no such claim.

The necessity for the UK to have its own autonomous carrierborne AD will always be disputed.

Even if accepted, there is then the question as to whether a CVS can ever provide it 24/7 and usefully do anything else, or whether the best use of a CVS is not to project offensive air.

And in any case, SHar is gone, and no amount of hysterical nostalgic rambling will bring it back.

The point about current JFH manning (as alluded to by ICBM above) is that a combined GR7/SHar force that was much more than 50% light blue has migrated to a 50:50 JFH, for largely political reasons.

The RAF has had to shed experienced Harrier operators while the Navy has proved unable to man its 'half share' and is having to ramp up the training of ab initios. This isn't a matter of anti-Navy prejudice, it's simple fact, and it was only to be expected, when combining three large (fully manned) RAF squadrons and two tiny (allegedly under strength) RN units.

It has never been rationally explained why JFH needs to be split 50:50 RAF/RN. Apart from the necessity of offering a sop to hurt feelings on the dark blue side, it seems clear that a more sensible, more rational, more cost effective and more operationally effective solution would have been to retain as much of the best manpower as possible on both sides and accept whatever the resulting ratio might be. This, I believe, would have allowed one 'all dark blue' Harrier unit, with three primarily light blue units, each of which could have incorporated a small but significant number of dark blue aviators (who would have been invaluable when the light blue units deployed on ship, and as a source of information and hard won knowledge). Training of ab initios could then have been structured to retain this balance.

I'm fascinated that none of the usual SHar mafia have answered the simple questions posed about manning, and that you (of all people), now the argument is lost, propose dropping the subject.

Though I wouldn't want to put worms in his mouth, ICBM seems to infer that the RN now occupy a disproportionate proportion of Flt Cdr/Senior Officer positions on the Front Line, and that this is reducing the opportunity for RAF pilots to occupy positions that "were always traditionally available to them", and he reports that he sees "the disadvantaged senior Flt Lts looking for a career in what used to be an RAF Harrier Force."

I have no reason to believe that ICBM is not entirely correct, and if he is, and if the colour of one's uniform is of more value in getting a 'Flight Commander slot; than one's competence and experience, it's clear that military effectiveness (and natural justice) has been sacrificed because of the RN's need to be seen to be 'equal'.

Navaleye

26th Oct 2006, 13:33

Jacko, The MoD is looking at creating 6 Dave squadrons. Three RN (to take the bulk of the maritime work) and 3 RAF for land based ops. To achieve that it is necessary to have squadrons in place even if they are under equipped, under manned and (in the RN case) using the wrong aircraft, but you've got to start somewhere.

ORAC

26th Oct 2006, 14:14

That´ll be including the 2 planned to replace the GR4 force then.... :suspect:

Jackonicko

26th Oct 2006, 15:12

Indeed.

My information is that there will be FOUR JCA squadrons, two RN/two RAF and possibly (additionally, and they may not be equipped with Dave Bs, nor even Daves at all) two more RAF FCAC squadrons.

You do have to start somewhere, of course, but starting with three RAF heavy and one wholly RN squadron would have made better uses of the existing resources. Moreover, I can see no good reason why the end point (with Dave) needs to be a 50:50 force either.

There's much to be said for phasing out the RN air branch altogether, letting the Navy supply the boats and letting the RAF provide and fly the aircraft.....:E :ok:

Not_a_boffin

26th Oct 2006, 15:37

"The necessity for the RN to have it's own autonomous carrier-borne AD assets will always be disputed"

Only by those incapable of doing simple time / distance / a/c on station calculations Jacko (and yes that includes the effects of AAR). A carrier can also use deck alert (vice CAP) to provide AD response where required / when required, - entirely preferable to relying on the ability of an air station far removed from the threat / AoA to generate a/c and put them on station.

Navaleye

21st Dec 2006, 14:45

Harrier with ASRAAM plus JTIDS would go someway to plugging the air defence gap we now have. External targetting input and longer legs of the ASRAAM and lock on after launch mode is a big step forward from Aim9L and the eye ball. I think someone upgraded the wrong aircraft when full ASRAAM integration went into the Jaguar.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fa2/images/seaharrier10.jpg

WE Branch Fanatic

22nd Dec 2006, 19:12

I know I said I had written everything I could say, and it was time to concentrate on the Future Carriers (and JCA/JSF/F35), as discussed here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221116), but one little post won't do any harm surely. Note this is purely a comment on how I see it, and not a question.

One legacy of the retirement of the Sea Jet, and the way the FAA has been messed generally, is the severe decline in RN fixed wing pilot numbers. Regardless of whether you view the decision to phase out the Sea Harrier and migrate to the Harrier GR7/9 as a disaster or as good policy, 800 and 801 will need pilots. This is a shortage that must be addressed in the next few years.

Pontius Navigator

23rd Dec 2006, 08:45

I think we can say goodbye to FW RN pilots

and the first CAG will wear light blue:}

Green Flash

23rd Dec 2006, 09:11

Ah, Pontius, as usual I think you might be close to the mark! Maybe all this Senior Service gnashing of teeth has less to do with any percieved increase in efficiency in having a naval Dave and more to do with a dark blue boat with light blue wings!:E
However, by the time all this comes about the British Defence Force will be purple :yuk: so it won't matter what colour it/we is/are.:{

Pontius Navigator

23rd Dec 2006, 09:22

But as some wag asked an Admiral, who said the Navy ruled the seas which covered two thirds of a planet, how much of the planet was covered by air. :}

Anyway, the FAA needs a Fleet to be to Air Arm of.

Growbag

23rd Dec 2006, 11:55

In reply to comments about RN being unable to man their part of the JFH bargain, I think you'll find that had anyone been privvy to the real manning plot, they would find that the RN easily had enough people to do so, unfortunately due to a hasty re-think by the hierarchy in 1 Gp, the numbers were shuffled and the goal-posts moved and with a sudden requirement change for RN qfi's, it meant that the system had to be changed into a Wing Concept. It also showed that if the RN actually stood up both Sqns, the RAF ones remaining would have lost most of their mid-seniority supervisors which the RN had grown years prior when they knew that the SHAR was on it's way out. The early volunteers for the GR had been working in the RAF sqns and gained all their quals and at the time of RN Sqn conception would have meant a nearly 50% dilution in the RAF sqns. It was then realised that the RN sqns would be TOO qualified and would be over-heavy with senior supervisors and qualifications. Its amazing how people who have no visibility of what actually goes on in the force can talk such crap.:*

Navaleye

23rd Dec 2006, 12:00

That's interesting, but that doesn't explain why it will take another 2 years before 801 NAS is operational - or does it?

Pontius Navigator

23rd Dec 2006, 13:05

With apologies to MJ:

Definately bite time....... the fish in my pond are rising still despite the cold.

Bismark

23rd Dec 2006, 14:10

How many RAF JFH have PVR'd? And how many of the RAF in JFH would really like to transfer to the RN if they were allowed to? When does current AOC 1 Gp leave (and OC Cott?)?

LowObservable

23rd Dec 2006, 15:00

"But as some wag asked an Admiral, who said the Navy ruled the seas which covered two thirds of a planet, how much of the planet was covered by air."

Most of it, except maybe for downtown LA on a bad day.

FB11

23rd Dec 2006, 17:41

Isn't it traditional to have a truce, enacted through a football match in no man's land, on Christmas day?

Maybe Jacko and WEBF can throw their jumpers down for goal posts and pick a couple of Prune 11's to have a friendly game. All in the spirit of Christmas.

Jacko, you must promise not to quote your mysterious but 100% credible 'man on the inside' or mention the criminal waste that is the loss of the Jaguar, the only truly viable OS aircraft.

WE, you must promise not to mention the Falklands or mention the criminal waste that is the loss of the Sea Harrier whose AIM120 utility in theatre would be second only to the limited amount of time on task.

While you are playing, the on-watch HERRICK squadron, (predominantly RN but very happy to have our RAF, RM and Army colleagues as integral members,) will quietly get on with the job several hoped we would fail at and most simply knew we wouldn't.

It may gaul some but for the immediate future the UK is jointly delivering one of the most effective uses of airpower in recent times. We have the VIP and senior officer visit programme to prove it. Luckily the aircrew, engineers and ops support personnel don't get distracted or influenced (too much) by those that are fighting yesterday's battles or simply can't accept the future without tainting it with their own prejudice.

Spare a brief thought for us (pick your service if your are blinded by the colour of your cloth, we have them all here) while we try and work out what the protein based meat product is that they are planning to serve us on Christmas Day. You don't see many dogs in Afghanistan, I'm not sure if there's a link.

Ho, ho, ho.

WE Branch Fanatic

23rd Dec 2006, 19:49

FB11 I've already stated my opinion that this thread should be allowed to gracefully retire, several times in fact. I also stated my belief that the Future Carrier thread is a better place to discuss things to do with the future of RN carrier aviation.

Good luck to you and everyone else out there, and stay safe.

Happy Christmas.

Oggin Aviator

24th Dec 2006, 10:21

and the first CAG will wear light blue
err, all the CAGs that have resided in the CVS under the new emerging doctrine have been light blue. Actually works quite well, the last CAG (no names) was awesome, did a great job and wrote a very objective post deployment report, citing both the advantages and drawbacks to embarking Strike aviation assets (both FW and RW). Hopefully more of his ilk will come through the 'joint' system in the future.
Merry Christmas to all.
Oggin

Bismark

24th Dec 2006, 14:59

..the last CAG (no names) was awesome, did a great job and wrote a very objective post deployment report....

..and he is now a 1* ...well done!

Oggin Aviator

24th Dec 2006, 15:38

Agree, well deserved.

WE Branch Fanatic

4th Jan 2007, 23:35

A suggestion

Without wishing to restart the argument again, I note that on several occasions in recent years a CVS has embarked a Sea Harrier squadron AND a Harrier GR7 one, giving fifteen or sixteen jets to deal with as well as some helicopters. Now it seems unlikely that two GR7/9 units could embark at the same time, so the maximum number of jets on board would be six to eight.

Yet CVF will mean that flight deck personnel will have to deal with up to 42 jets.

If the aircraft sent down to SFDO at Culdrose are well looked after, then they could be used on occasion to give experience of having a crowded hangar and flight deck, in the years prior to CVF entering service.

Sorry for bumping the thread again, just me thinking out loud.

FB11

5th Jan 2007, 21:29

Now WEBF, you may just have something here.

But let's not stop at the busy deck; if they're in such good shape we could possibly taxi them around to really stimulate the deck process..... hang on, how about we get a few guys who used to fly these things and maybe they could launch and recover to the deck, that'd exercise it..... WAIT! I am really being dull. If we got them flying again, strapped some AIM120 on we could even defend the CVF instead of the reduced readiness/cancelled escorts. Doh, suckered into it, fell for it again. I can't believe I got reeled in so quickly.

Maybe, instead of the CU deck trainers, we could project holographic aircraft for the Naval Airmen to avoid? It would be a lot less costly than banging GR9 or JCA into a real, manly-made-of-metal-not-composite Sea Harrier.

Or we could rope off whole sections of the CVF flight deck to make it the same size as, say, a CVS?

Or we could have paper aircraft like we did on Illustrious earlier in 2006.

Or we could rejoice on the fact that we have a flight deck that's big enough not to have to crowd it with every front line Harrier and all the ones in the sustainment fleet just to prove we can do it.

Didn't you say on 23 December? "FB11 I've already stated my opinion that this thread should be allowed to gracefully retire, several times in fact. I also stated my belief that the Future Carrier thread is a better place to discuss things to do with the future of RN carrier aviation."

8 GR9 on a deck that's got 3 times as much surface area? Luxury.

Navaleye

6th Jan 2007, 16:46

It defies logic that a deployment of 7 airframes to 'Stan stretches JFH to the point where it is incapable of mounting maritime ops. As others have rightly pointed out, under the old arrangements deployments of 15 plus aircraft were not un-common, now they are just a pipe dream.

FB11

6th Jan 2007, 17:16

It really doesn't defy any logic, let alone all logic.

We can't do everything asked of our little collection of aircraft in any given 12-month period. Something has to give.

Please don't be so 'conspiracy theorist' as to think it's just the CVS programme that we aren't fully commiting to.

An inability to touch type and a stunning lack of desire to go over and over and over old ground limits this response.

WE Branch Fanatic

6th Jan 2007, 19:03

My suggestion was for the years before CVF comes along. If they are other ways of training chockheads etc, then OK. Just thinking out loud.........

As you say, time to let the thread rest. Discussions on the future belong elsewhere - the Future Carrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221116) thread perhaps?

Navaleye

26th Feb 2007, 12:02

I see Navy's choice as a Sea Harrier replacement has been getting off to a flying start... wait for 2m 30s

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m29eTQTm0Ho)

WE Branch Fanatic

25th Apr 2007, 23:52

I note that the page on the RN website dedicated to the School of Flight Deck Operations and the Dummy Deck has not yet been updated to include details of the Sea Harriers sent there.

One Sea Harrier found its way to sunny California, where former USMC aviator (and qualified Engineer which probably helps) has been restoring it to flying condition - as discussed here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=261369) on the Aviation History and Nostalgia forum. Note this was/is a small team, without the support of BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, Martin Baker etc. Very encouraging!

The possibility of participation in Falklands 25 events has also been discussed on PPRuNe, here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=269394) and here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=268818).

Art Nalls now has a website dedicated to his Sea Harrier.

Nalls Aviation - Home of the Sea Harrier F/A2 (http://www.nallsaviation.com)

I found the photo album particularly interesting.......

WE Branch Fanatic

18th May 2007, 23:29

Following on from my previous post, the SFDO page has still not been updated, but I have found (by luck, to be honest) some pictures from HMS Siskin, the Dummy Deck at Culdrose.

Picture Gallery (http://www.brianamarshall.fotopic.net/c1084353.html)

It would appear that there are indeed Sea Harriers down there, that they are kept in a hangar and they appear to be in a reasonably good condition.

WE Branch Fanatic

2nd Jun 2007, 19:25

The SFDO (or RNSFDO as I should be calling it) Dummy Deck page has now been updated to mention the Sea Harriers sent there, and has pictures of them too.

Dummy Deck (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3284)

I posted the above link for the sake of completeness, but it is worth remembering that a number of the ships and aircraft sent South in 1982 (eg Intrepid) had been destined for disposal or storage, only to be regenerated in incredibly fast timescales. Likewise people, who had to adapt to new roles very fast, including some of the pilots who were sent to reinforce 800 and 801 in the later stages of the conflict. In a genuine crisis all sorts of things become possible. The ability to adapt, improvise, and overcome, as summed up by the phrase "can do", is part of our ethos.

Spotting Bad Guys

2nd Jun 2007, 20:15

So what?

There's still a runway at Carver Barracks (formerly RAF Debden - enough worthy history?) but us RAF types don't go on and on about it's loss to current capabilities, how good it was in its time etc etc.....:ugh:

Change the record please

SBG

Double Zero

3rd Jun 2007, 17:08

Certainly, as soon as you can actually do what the Seajet / AMRAAM could - how about speaking up for Harrier 2+, which would actually be useful & share commonalitly;

rather than following the RAF tradition ( Tornado, Jaguar... ) of useless items in wartime, but great for wazzing your girlfriends' house...

As well as the FRS1 & 2 I was on the trials team for the GR5 / 7 & still in touch with the 9 team - even test pilots with a known briefed dayglo range target found things difficult;

targetting pods if they happen may help.

Oh and how about having a gun ? I saw the debacle that the Aden 25mm was first-hand - so why not admit a **** up & use the gatling the USMC do ?

I realise that's political & out of your hands, but don't be surprised that people who've dealt with Harrier 1 & 2 will mention deficiencies - another I might add is that carbon fibre is not a robust warlike material, and again I'm speaking from first hand experience.

A large part of the Seajet's premature retirement was due to BAe Wart On's " everything from down south we don't understand must be bad " attitude - they managed to steal the Hawk, just about able to cope with that, but anything labelled 'Harrier' got tossed into the Ribble.

I presume you think the Tornado F3 ( mustn't mention the F2 ) is a masterpiece ?

Wrathmonk

3rd Jun 2007, 18:02

Double Zero

Tadge harsh on the Tornado and Jaguar banter. The Tornado has been on Ops almost continually since 1990 and the Jaguar must have spent a good period since 1990 doing the same. Both have guns, as I understand will Typhoon. And both have a bring back capability in hotter climates...:E

If you're still in touch with the GR9 team then you should now the answer on the pods issue.

The SHAR is gone. It isn't coming back. Look forwards not backwards. Please ....:ok:

Razor61

3rd Jun 2007, 19:32

An extract from a news item on another group relating the SHAR:-

"By Peter Day

When inexperienced Royal Navy pilot Ian "Soapy" Watson got lost flying a Sea Harrier jump jet and landed the £7 million aircraft on the deck of a
container ship senior officers reprimanded him for incompetence.
Now it has emerged that behind the scenes they were laying the blame
elsewhere to try to get out of a £570,000 compensation bill.
A file released yesterday at the National Archives describes how Sub-Lt
Watson, 25, ''incurred the Commander in Chief of the Fleet's Displeasure''
for displaying an unsatisfactory standard of fundamental airmanship.
But the Ministry of Defence file shows that he had completed only 75 per
cent of the recommended flying hours in training before being pressed into
service and was allowed to take an aircraft with a known radio defect.
An unnamed senior officer commented: ''I am speechless, as was Watson.''
Sub-Lt Watson had taken off from the carrier Illustrious off the Spanish
coast on June 6, 1983 to conduct a Nato search exercise.
The crew of the 2,300-ton Spanish container ship Alraigo won a salvage claim and shared £340,000, with the remaining £230,000 going to the owners of the
vessel."

Grindlay

4th Jun 2007, 12:10

Hi, I am trying to find out how fast was the acceleration of the sea harrier on the take off roll. Going from a standing start what speed would it be at leaving the top of the ramp?

Sorry if this info is available elsewhere. My search of the web and this thread has not delivered.

Thanks for any help

Grindlay

Navaleye

5th Jul 2007, 05:40

Webf,

When I got to you RN link regarding "the future" I got an error 404, page not found, so perhaps their is no future?

orca

5th Jul 2007, 09:30

From a rapidly receding memory. Fully laden FA2 (guns, ASWs, 190s with 8000lb of gas) from a 500-550ft run up would get off the ramp doing somewhere around 89-96 knots.

WE Branch Fanatic

2nd Aug 2007, 23:50

This week, the BBC South West news programme Spotlight has been doing a series of articles to mark the 60th anniversary of RNAS Culdrose. This Thursday's article was on the fire fighting and deck operations training done at the RN School of Flight Deck Operations - including the use of the Sea Harriers sent there.

BBC News Player (http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6920000/newsid_6928000/6928046.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1)

Just thought I'd add this for completeness.

Navaleye

The future is CVF, but not until 2014. An eight year capability gap, and the shortages of aircraft that can be embarked now and the shortage of RN pilots (where did they all go?) can only make the Future Carrier project harder than it needs to be.

Double Zero

3rd Aug 2007, 00:52

To get to the cut -

We've all heard stories from our grandfathers & fathers of fields full of Spitfires etc after WW2, going for a song - but apart from the purchase price ( maybe ) with running costs completely beyond the average person.

Those aircraft are now in great demand, both for historical & purely selfish enjoyment reasons - who's to argue that if done correctly, such things will no doubt bring income to charities etc as a by-product.

It doesn't take Dr Who ( for Christ's sake the modern one not the dodgy types ) to realise the same " my god the things were going for a song " re. the FA2 will be the case in the not so distant future - snag is official vandalism...

Restorers even brought 'Glacier Girl' up to flying again for Christ's sake - who would have thought that of the people who originally flew let alone built her...

So, Navy Historic Flight boss of the time - whoever has the excuses, probably a fish head admiral, it won't be the people who do the work or indeed flying - hang your head in shame.

Plan 2, help Art Nalls.

I am not financially involved in any way with the XZ439 project, but have put any info' & contacts I can to help towards them.

As sad as it seems this highly qualified but hardly over-funded or crewed team can do what the RN couldn't...

Pierre Argh

4th Aug 2007, 07:08

The SHAR is gone. It isn't coming back. TSR2 never ever came into service, but that hasn't stopped certain crabs banging on for almost 50yrs about what a travesty it never flew operationally! The opinions of various Fish'eads/WAFUs as expressed here, may do nothing to reverse the decision but they are entitled to voice their disatisfaction at that decision surely... if you disagree; its simple, stick a post-it on your monitor reminding you NOT to click on the sea-jet link ever again.

tyne

4th Aug 2007, 09:39

Not mil so excuse the intrusion please.

The BBC clip showed SHARS running. Is that recent? Are there still ground running examples about like that? Are the guys driving them round that pan pilots or deck crew trained in ground movement?

Dan

Sunk at Narvik

4th Aug 2007, 10:25

Dan,

Here is a FOI response I received dated Sept 2006 which may answer your question:

"1.Can you advise how many former Sea Harrier pilots remain within 'Joint Force Harrier'?
Currently there are 13 former Sea Harrier pilots qualified on GR7/9 and serving within JFH plus 3 on current RN Migration Course (FA2 to GR7/9 conversion course) due to join Front Line Squadrons by Nov 06. There are 4 more ex SHAR pilots scheduled for RN Migration Courses between now and Jul 07. *
2. Can you advise how many Sea Harriers remain in MOD ownership and their current condition?

The breakdown of Sea Harrier disposition and current material state, confirmed through Defence Sales Agency, the Harrier IPT and 801 Sqn SHAR drawdown officers, is as shown

COTTESMORE(COTO:
2FA2
Both are gate guardians with one currently at Greenwich (parented by COTT) and due to return to COTT very soon. A/c are inhibited (to prevent deterioration due to adverse environmental conditions), have engines fitted, generally free from all fuels, lubes and explosives.
WITTERING:
1 T8
A/c is a gate guardian - aircraft is inhibited, has engine fitted, generally free from all fuels, lubes and explosives.
YEOVILTON:
1 FA2
A/c is a gate guardian - aircraft is inhibited, has engine fitted, generally free from all fuels, lubes and explosives. There is one FRS1 in the Fleet Air Arm Museum however, this is not owned by MOD.

CULDROSE:
6 FA2
2T8
Transferred to RNAS Culdrose RN School of Flight Deck Ops (RNSFDO) - complete and capable of taxing. Of these, 2 FA2s appear unfit for purpose at the RNSFDO, these a/c have been bid for as ground instructional aircraft for DCAE Sultan; these a/c may be backfilled from 2 FA2s from Shawbury.
QINETIQBoscombe Down:
1 T8
Soon to be sold to QinetiQ as a source of spares for the VAAC research a/c and then removed from MOD inventory.
SHAWBURY:
8 FA2 *
Stored awaiting disposal (4 earmarked for Indian Navy as piece part spares (PPS) for FRS51s) - aircraft are largely complete, but have had classified equipment removed - 5 a/c have engine fitted.
A/C TOTALS:
FA2 = 17 (reducing to 13 once 4 sold to India for PPS)
T8 = 4 (reducing to 3 once 1 sold to QinetiQ for PPS)
3. What training in air to air combat do Joint Force Harrier pilots receive?
All fast jet pilots are first introduced to air combat through a common Air Combat Manoeuvring (ACM) syllabus during advanced flying training, currently conducted at RAF Valley.
Whilst offensive ACM is taught on the Harrier Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) and beyond, JFH ACM training centres around training GR7/9 pilots to fight and survive if their fighter cover fails to protect them, or they are attacked en route to a target.

Currently there are 3 stages of ACM training the Pilots receive. The initial training at the OCU consists of 1 x T10 handling trip followed by 7 x 1 v 1 similar type sorties.

The second stage is then conducted on the Frontline to achieve Day Combat Ready and consists of 4 sorties (1v1, 2v1 as subordinate (Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT)), 2v1 as lead (DACT) & 2v2 (DACT)). The final stage is the Air Combat Leader phase which is given to senior pairs leaders and consists of a further 4 sorties
(1v1, 1v1v1, 2v2 (DACT) & Multi a/c (DACT)), There is one further qualification, namely Air Combat Instructor, but is very rarely achieved due to other pressing commitments.

The OCU ACM syllabus has just been re-written, but is yet to be implemented. The new syllabus includes 3 sorties of 1v1, Harrier vs Harrier to refresh ACM techniques, highlight Harrier / Hawk differences and introduce Vectoring in Forward Flight ('Viffing'). Subsequently, the syllabus concentrates on 2 v 1 ACM initially like vs like. but ultimately introducing 2 v1 versus a radar equipped threat (such as Typhoon) Ground Controlled Intercepts.
4. What provision has been made to upgrade GR7/9 aircraft for the air to air combat role?
The primary role of the GR9 will be one of day/night ground-attack and reconnaissance. As such, it will possess a limited self-defence capability akin to that of GR7.
5. What provision has been made to equip GR7/9 aircraft with BVR radar and missiles should they be required at short notice?
There is currently no plan to integrate BVR missiles onto GR9."

cheers

Sunk

tyne

4th Aug 2007, 12:52

Thanks Sunk

Dan

John Farley

4th Aug 2007, 12:56

Grindlay

There is no simple precise answer to your question of how fast would it be going at the top of the ramp because that depends on where it started on the deck and which ramp angle it was using as well as its weight and the ambient conditions which natutally determine the thrust of the engine.

Typically you will not be far out on the weight/thrust issues likely to apply on such a normal service takeoff if you assume a T/W ratio in the range 0.85 to 0.93.

You can do your own flat deck sums by use of the equations of motion which I am sure you know. If not then the ones you need are v=ft and s=1/2f(t squared). V being speed, f being acceleration (which is T/W x g) and t being time. Use whichever system of units you like but keep them all the same.

As for the reduction in endspeed due to going up the ramp (when compared to the flat deck case) it is likely to be less than 3-4 kts and lost in the noise of windspeed over the deck.

John Farley

4th Aug 2007, 13:34

Grindlay

My apologies but I forgot to say that I ignored aerodynamic drag. Given the very low speeds involved I doubt the reduction in end speed due to drag would be more than a very small number of knots - again I would guess less than 5.

flightmaker

5th Aug 2007, 13:07

Sunk and Tyne,

FA2 XZ439 (N94422) is at St Mary's county Airport California MARYLAND (2W6). We were doing engine runs and final prep for first civilian flight when the GTS turbine failed, (in a most spectacular fashion). We have three "extras" and are going to the factory in Monroe NC to have them evaluated and repaired/overhauled. As we have been told "A GTS failure is likened to a light bulb failure, it will work 150 times and on the 151st boom.
any way just to let you know and to complete your list.
Double zero thanks for your support and Mr. Farley thanks.

WE Branch Fanatic

7th Aug 2007, 22:56

I had a peek at the 2007-2008 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships today. It says that the Indian Navy is looking to upgrade the Sea Harrier FRS51 (new avionics etc) to last until 2020. It also notes that the proposed purchase of up to eight ex RN FA2s is off the cards.

No mention is made of the RNSFDO Sea Harriers. It wasn't last year either, although the mighty Bristol still gets a passing mention in the Destroyers section, despite being decommissioned since 1991/92(?), being moored permanently at Whale Island and being not very seaworthy. She is described as an "immobile tender".

Also, Invincible is still listed under the Carriers section, along with her sister CVSs, despite having been decommissioned. Janes reckon it would take up to 18 months to return her to the front line, although things can be done faster during a crisis. From her web page (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1278):

After 3 commissions Invincible was decommissioned from her third in August 2005, as her period of operational tasking ended. This is part of a long-standing plan that will see the oldest CVS held at a low level of readiness. This process is often mistaken for being withdrawn from service but we are still very much "part of the fleet". In fact Invincible will remain available to the Navy until 2010.

Not in service but still owned by the MOD? Not totally dissimilar to the situation with the RNSFDO aircraft!! If nothing else it is better than a scrap yard.

tyne - that video clip was from local news last Thursday (2nd August 07).

Sunk at Narvik

8th Aug 2007, 09:30

Well, I reckon thats 12 SHAR's left- 4 at Culdrose and 8 at Shawbury. :hmm:

althenick

8th Aug 2007, 16:44

This process is often mistaken for being withdrawn from service but we are still very much "part of the fleet". In fact Invincible will remain available to the Navy until 2010.
Yes definitely "part of the fleet" - Part in Ark Royal, part in Lusty and I dare say a few parts spread elswhere. :E

WE Branch Fanatic

8th Aug 2007, 23:05

Well, I reckon thats 12 SHAR's left- 4 at Culdrose and 8 at Shawbury.

There are six in this picture of the RNSFDO Dummy Deck (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConMediaFile.29755).

According to this page (http://www.targetlock.org.uk/seaharrier/production_uk.html) SFDO has seven Sea Harrier FA2s (including aircraft delivered in the late 80s and 90s, and the bright blue one) and two T8s.

Navaleye

12th Aug 2007, 23:10

From what I hear the SFDO harriers are well maintained. Most of the GR3s are no longer capable of moving under their own power however. Presumably the RN is going to have to invest in some new concrete in the run up to CVF.

Double Zero

14th Aug 2007, 21:52

Sunk At Narvik

I know it's been mentioned before, but I'm 99% sure the 'FRS1' at Yeovilton is a very static bodge with large parts of GR3, the Navy wanted to convert all the 'fleet' to FA2's & did so.

TEEEJ

25th Aug 2007, 19:59

XZ459 up for sale

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/WOW-Sea-Harrier-Jump-Jet-Aircraft-Falklands-War-Vetran_W0QQitemZ130146650679QQihZ003QQcategoryZ32635QQtcZpho toQQcmdZViewItem

WE Branch Fanatic

19th Sep 2007, 23:07

The SFDO Shars recently took part in the air show at Culdrose, as reported here. (http://airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow07/445culdrose/culdrose.htm)

The RAF representation felt thin on the ground, but the RN turned out a significant number of base airframes, which was particularly pleasing, perhaps the highlight being the clutch of Sea Harriers from the School of Flight Deck Operations, which actually taxied over on the Tuesday preview day.

Note the picture above this paragraph, and the ones on the right of the page.

On a slightly different note, has anyone else noticed that since the end of the Sea Harrier as a frontline aircraft, the frigate or destroyer on Atlantic Patrol Task (South) (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5183) spends more time at and around the Falklands themselves than a few years ago, as if to make up the shortfall in deterrence.

One last thing, can anyone lend me a few £££ for XZ459? :E

glad rag

20th Sep 2007, 10:25

Post 1983 sums the the demise of the once superb FAA up perfectly. Once the big carriers were gone the rest was (glorious) history. IMO of course.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

20th Sep 2007, 12:55

WE Branch Fanatic. Perhaps the time on FI task just reflects that things in W Africa are relatively calm at the moment. Interesting that, following your link on to
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConMediaFile.17267 ; Dumbo's berth looks more like S Georgia than FI.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/[(1244)-16-12-2005]dc.jpg

Countering incipient thread drift, now.

Edmund Spencer

26th Sep 2007, 09:32

Are there any subscibers out there who would care to contribute their actual combat experiences in the Sea Jet.
Very little written other than the very obvious high profile "I did it on my own" authors.

flightmaker

3rd Oct 2007, 23:53

SHAR XZ439 is back in the UP status! :ok::ok:We purchased two GTSs and ran them both installed (the best looking) one and ran the engine. Taxied twice and did a couple of medium power engine run. A/C generator problem was fixed also. Keeping looking to nallsaviation.com for updates.

SHE WILL FLY, AGAIN SOON!!!!! :D

Navaleye

4th Oct 2007, 00:26

Great news, thanks for the update.

tucumseh

10th Oct 2007, 12:59

Came across a couple of old pictures while clearing out. Must be from around the time of FRS2 trials.

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/exploringtheblue/shar002.jpg?t=1192021013

tucumseh

10th Oct 2007, 13:01

and....

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/exploringtheblue/shar001.jpg?t=1192021227

Doing something wrong. Why does the link appear and not the jpeg?!

gareth herts

10th Oct 2007, 13:31

It's the IMG url which you need to include in your post - not the direct link I think.

Gareth

VuctoredThrest

10th Oct 2007, 14:20

Thats ZA195 - the first FRS2 (F/A 2) to fly. I remember it well, the aircraft was sitiing at the end of the runway late one sunny afternoon (Heinz Frick), having done all its engine checks and we were STILL awaiting for Airworthiness clearance from Kingston to work its way down by carrier pigeon. Ah happy days at the 'fold.

tucumseh

10th Oct 2007, 15:41

Thanks Gareth.

Lower Hangar

11th Oct 2007, 08:26

Yes -I remember that sunny day in September 1988 and all those people standing anxiously around the control tower and along the grass at Dunsfold. When Heinz eventually did get airborne all I could think off were all these cooling and bleed air ducts winding back and forward along the rear equipment bay groaning under pressure for the 1st time. I was the Programme Manager for the update of ZA 195 ( Handling aircraft) and XZ 439 (1st systems aircraft) - I must have carried most of their bits in the back of my car down the A3 from Kingston to Dunsfold during 1988 through to 1989 when XZ 439 flew for the first time. (March 1989 I think).

LOMCEVAK

10th Nov 2007, 21:50

Art Nalls successfully flew XZ439 this afternoon from St Mary's County airport in Maryland. I guess that there will be more on his website soon.

WE Branch Fanatic

1st Dec 2007, 11:16

The Nalls Aviation (http://www.nallsaviation.com) website certainly does have more information. A couple of videos as well as photo albums, and all the updates. I expect that in time there will be more to follow.

Art Nalls and his dedicated team took an aircraft, dismantled it, shipped it over to the States, reassembled it, tested it, modified bits when they had problems, fitted a new ejection seat, overcame a number of technical problems (see the updates), fitted new communications equipment (a requirement of civil registration?), striped out and replaced most of the cockpit instrumentation, ground run it, taxied it, and after gaining the correct licences etc, flew it. A major achievement by any standards, particularly when you consider that the work was done mostly done at weekends by people giving up their time. Their enthusiasm and dedication is admirable.

What makes this even more significant is the fact that this was achieved without the involvement of the likes of BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, Martin Baker, etc. Similarly the fact that they had no trainer or simulator, although Art does state that he benefited from using the AV8B simulator and was able to reproduce the performance of the Sea Harrier.

This is hugely encouraging and helps support the case that the Sea Harriers sent to RNSFDO might be available for regeneration in a genuine national crisis. If nothing else they are in a better shape than if they had been left to rot in a field, as they are in MOD(N) hands, kept in a hangar, regularly powered up and moved around, and maintained. Mothballing them in a controlled environment was unlikely to have ever have been an option for cost reasons.

In this scenario the big boys (BAE Systems, Rolls Royce etc — and of course the Harrier IPT) would be involved, funding would be available and personnel found. With respect to training, it is significant that there are Harrier T8 trainers that have been kept at Culdrose, as well as the FRADU and RNFSF(FW) Hawks flying at Culdrose and Yeovilton. And the RAF Typhoon force could help teach air/air skills, ironically it has a radar derived from Blue Vixen. Additionally I believe the Harrier GR7/9 guys do air to air training still.

As I see it, the weak links would be obtaining the necessary funds and permission from Ministers, and getting an appropriate heads up from the intelligence community — and the politicians not ignoring it. Not to mention an appetite for innovation and lateral thinking, two qualities I associate with naval aviation.

Changing the topic, I note that the Sea Harrier has been recently discussed (here (http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/4655/t/Sea-Harrier-Unlamented.html)) on the RN forum on the Warships1 message board. Although I am not a member of that forum, I do visit from time to time. That discussion brings a couple of "what if?" type question to mind. How good would the Sea Harrier have been had the FRS1 to FA2 modernisation gone further than it did and included (as Nozzles referred to early on in this thread) the RN's desire for extensive changes to the airframe, in particular a revised (presumably larger) wing, post 1982? What if the planned upgrade to the FA2 (upgraded engine, Link 16, improved nav/attack system, better cockpit controls etc) by late 2001? Would the decisions have been any different, or would the beancounters have still be determined to wield the axe?

A Sea Harrier came close to a kill over Bosnia. Had the engagement taken place would it have made a difference to the argument, and that of the RAF's fighters (cut from five squadrons (the SDR level) to four, then to three)?

I think it is reasonable to say that the Sea Harrier punched above her weight, particularly when you consider how few were built. Leaving aside the Falklands, the Shar made a significant contribution to the Navy's capabilities. Apart from fleet air defence these included reece, ground attack, long range maritime attack with Sea Eagle and a tactical nuclear capability. In all these roles the reach of the fleet was extended considerably, contributing both to national and NATO capabilities. Sea Harrier also contributed to the UK technological base, for example, the development of Blue Vixen, as discussed here (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/business.cfm?id=840772004), and from which the Captor radar used by Typhoon was developed.

Likewise the Sea Harrier achieved a a high level of media interest. I remember seeing a series on BBC2 in late 1996 called Decisive Weapons, with an episode covering the Harrier, and in particular the Sea Harrier. As you would expect the events of 1982 were covered in detail, and Sharkey Ward and Dave Morgan were both interviewed. I remember the programme starting with archive film of experimental P1127/Kestrel flying and bumpy landings to the sound of Chi Mai by Ennio Morricone. Stirring stuff indeed! I also it appearing a lot in RN careers literature that was printed in the 80s and 90s, and adverts. I remember that when Top Gun was shown on UK television for the first time, the first advert was a RN careers one, which concluded with a shot of a Sea Jet lauching from a CVS and the slogan "Give Your Ambitions A Chance".

I really do miss seeing and hearing them in the South West skies. I have, however, found that there is still a video (in a variety of formats) (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/img/navy/ConMediaFile/videoSelect.php?id=14248) of the Sea Harrier on the RN website. There is also a screensaver (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/img/navy/ConMediaFile/screenSelect.php?id=15644).