Sea Jet [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

John Farley

10th Aug 2003, 01:18

maxburner

Take a look around you - this is PPRuNe country. Accuracy is important in flight test so I suggest you sharpen up.

For everybody else, there is so much that could be said regarding some of the incorrect SHAR info that floats around (especially on WEB’s first link) that one could make a career out of correcting it all. But the hell with that, life is too short.

For me, the most significant thing is that the SHAR's most vociferous critics never mention its most diabolical feature. I suspect this says a bit about how much they actually know about the wriggly machine but let us not get into that. The nozzle lever (the said diabolical feature) means there are two things for the left hand to grab so it is only a matter of time before you move the wrong one. However, 40 plus years ago there was just no other way to do the desirable vectored thrust thing. Since then generations of pilots have been trained up to the task and compensated for the deficiencies in the basic design concept - most of the time.

In 1971 I went to the first RAE meeting where boffins outlined a way ahead to simplify the pilot’s task. I got very excited and thought 18 months should sort that. In fact it took until 1999 before I flew software in the VAAC where I felt you needed zero training beyond a PPL to fly any manoeuvre involving jet lift. Thank goodness the JSF pilots will be properly served. Quite seriously, until you have flown a fast jet where all you have to do is pull back on the pole to go up AT ANY AIRSPEED then you have not experienced low work load.

Of course BEagle is right to question whether a forty year old concept has much sensible service life remaining. Especially when the hottest bit of the machine is positioned at the CG. It must be nasty in any fast jet to have your IR defences penetrated and as a result loose a chunk off your back end, but surely this is as nothing compared to taking a direct hit right behind your own pink back.

As the original poster said the SHAR has a BVR system that is the one to beat even today, but thanks to years of under investment we must agree it is mounted in a knackered airframe that is shoved around by a worn out donk. Unlike the kit in the GR9.

FEBA

10th Aug 2003, 03:31

John
There's alot of words in your post that contradicts your words in books. I'm sorry to read your words such as "diabolical".
The Harrier (non Mc D), as far as I understand it, is a piece of engineering genius unique on this planet inspite of some misgivings (Shar cockpit is a fine example of ergonomics gone wrong). The Harrier is now past its sell by date however that should not detract from its conceptual brilliance. Well done to all those that were involved with the Harrier/Kestrel in its early days.
Harry says "Hi" by the way.
FEBA

Airbedane

10th Aug 2003, 03:38

Well said John. The real sad thing for me is that it took some 14 years to get the 11-61 into the GR Harrier, with constant lobbying from both operator and seller alike. R-R also did a dry fit of the 11-61 into the Sea Jet, and it worked fine.

With a bit of application, and some money (although cost of ownership would be reduced) we could have a much more effective fighting aircraft in an 11-61 powered Sea Jet while we wait for the JSF.

A

John Farley

10th Aug 2003, 04:22

FEBA

Please do thank Harry. If anybody was Mr Nozzle Lever it was Harry. Of course some things (including the nozzle lever) were brilliant at the start, but 40 years on standards have moved ahead and we have to adjust the criteria we use to say things are OK today. I thought Ralph Hooper (who conceived the airframe in 1958) was God until 1979 when he started to argue against the use of fly-by-wire. Times had moved on in those 21 years (the F16 had been flying since 1971) and it was no longer right to say simplicity was everything. In 1979 it was smart to complicate and use FBW flaps to increase TO performance with the same thrust. Smart because the benefits outweighed the possible failure issues. In the early Harrier days bombs were dumb, pilots had skill limits and targets were missed. Today bombs are complicated, pilots need less (aiming) skill and targets are hit.

Airbedane

I understand your enthusiasm for putting the latest engine in the SHAR, but in reality the SHAR intake would have throttled this big donk something rotten. In the B and the 9 it has an intake designed for the extra mass flow. As it was, in 1982, it took 3 mods to the B intake (and several more to the compressor) during flight test before we got an intake/engine combination that could accept all the AOA that the big LERX airframe could offer without surge.

I hope nobody will ever doubt my appreciation of the Ralph Hooper’s and Gordon Lewis’s (Mr Pegasus) of this world. They had the simplicity/reliability/lean on the pilot compromise just right for the first 20 years. But that does not mean it is still the way to go today.

Regards

John

peterperfect

10th Aug 2003, 05:16

I've watched too many SHAR pilots come back to mum at night with no googles, poor ergonomics and zip fuel for a go around; and have had nothing but total admiration for the guys that fly them and maintain them.

However, what would the shape of the Falklands War been if we had a true carrier, especially with AEW coverage for the fleet? we cannot turn back time, but without the political clanger that cancelled Ark's replacment, surely the '82 thing would never happened ?

The RN not having the legacy of a mud-moving aircraft for 'Royal', would there have ever been a Sea Jet ?

Airbedane

10th Aug 2003, 15:18

John,

I agree on the intake issue with the SHAR, but the mods are not that great. In any event, the SHAR fails at high temperature as the thrust of the (-106, I think) falls off markedly. The 11-61 is flat rated to a much higher temperature, so the engine could be limited to the existing mass flow to allow effective higher temperature ops.

Further, the surge margin of the 11-61 is way ahead of the -106, so that doesn't become an issue, either.

I accept that it's all wishfull thinking, and also that we must forge ahead, but while we wait and wait for these future projects to come to fruition, the boys on the front line need all the help they can get. The curent SHAR is heavy and ineffective in high temps. the 11-61 would have greatly increased the aircraft's effectiveness while we still wait for JSF.

A

John Farley

10th Aug 2003, 16:23

Airbedane

Agreed all that. But the time to have done the deed was 8-10 years ago. Hence my comment about under investment. It is a fact of life that certificating the aircraft with the 11-61 sitting behind a different shape of nose to the B as well as the intake issues would have been made a big job (as opposed to just dropping the thing in the engine bay and changing a few couplings etc) and people did not make a strong enough case then. If it had been done then would it have been sensible to ignore the cockpit internals? And so it goes on and on. Min change (however valid) is v difficult stuff to push through and manage. As it happens and with hindsight we have been lucky and the RN have not actually needed an air defender since the Falklands. Let us hope their luck holds. If it runs out then the sailors lives will depend on the RN of the day saying, sorry we cannot do that job, we do not have the kit.

Regards, John

FEBA

10th Aug 2003, 16:35

I hope the Argentinian politicos are not reading this thread!
When is the navy to get a decent AEW ?
FEBA

BEagle

10th Aug 2003, 22:32

Shortly after the Malvinas war, I was told that there had even been some show interest in the old AEW Gannet lurking in a hangar at Leuchars.......what would it take to get it flying again and what sort of a deck would it need!!

Airbedane

11th Aug 2003, 01:31

John,

You're certainly right when you say the 11-61 should have been put in the Sea Jet some 8 - 10 years ago, albeit with the limitations discussed above. It's a sad fact that R-R were pushing as hard with the Navy to buy their engine as they were with the RAF. It's taken the latter 14 years to see the light and put it in the GR9!

Best Wishes,
A

FEBA

11th Aug 2003, 05:29

It was the lack of AEW in the South Atlantic that forced the hasty conversion of the Sea King. In the interim they used Andy as a decoy!!!
Time for a change eh!

WE Branch Fanatic

11th Aug 2003, 07:12

I think the upgrade to the FA2 (which was meant to include enhancements to the cockpit and avionics as well as the improved engine) had been in the pipeline for some time - at least that is what the following suggest:

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/07/0041914.htm
http://production.investis.com/baesystems/bae_monthlybriefings/2002-02-05
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:Exq9iYY7zZYJ:www.era.co.uk/Solutions%40ERA.pdf+%22Sea+Harrier%22+upgrade+engine&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/products/tf/pegasus/detail.htm

The following exchange in the Commons is also of interest:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020717/debtext/20717-14.htm

If there is no need for dedicated naval air defence, then how come various Navies have been trying to obtain it? And we still train for defending a task force......

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/3857.html

As for the performance of the Sea Harrier in warm climes, we have operated it in the northern Persian Gulf/Iraq, and in the 2001 exercises in Oman, plus of course the Adriatic. India has operated it for many years in the Indian Ocean. Thailand and India (and possibly other Middle/Far Eastern nations which tend to be hot) are interested in buying it in its current state.

Why won't the Government come clean and admit that the SDR and the concept of expeditionary warfare have been consigned to the bin? Not just talking about the SHAR here.

What changes in 2006 to remove the need for air defence? Could it be that it is election time, and the Government don't want a military disaster or a crisis we can't respond to before they have secured a third term (God forbid) in office?

Perhaps the worst thing is that it will coincide with a gap in shipborne defences, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/514550.stm. You couldn't make it up!!

Would an Admiral who said "No, we cannot do it" be listened to? Or would No 10's inner circle over rule him? I'm not convinced that the safety and welfare of members of HM Forces is seen as important.

John Farley

11th Aug 2003, 16:08

Would an Admiral who said "No, we cannot do it" be listened to? Or would No 10's inner circle over rule him? I'm not convinced that the safety and welfare of members of HM Forces is seen as important.

WEBF

Sadly, there is enough evidence around from over the years to make that a perfectly reasonable comment. I hope you are wrong, but would not put much money on it.

It is only too easy to loose sight of the simple fact that governments pay and design their armed forces. This means it is impossible to avoid a conflict of interest between any government and its MOD. It takes strong and good men on both sides if the system is to work even well, let alone perfectly.

FEBA

11th Aug 2003, 22:22

WEBF
Please read your PM's
FEBA

steamchicken

12th Aug 2003, 19:57

So - anyone got any idea exactly what defence policy is now? Like almost everything else, this govt. has started with good ideas and lost direction, grip, will.

BlueWolf

13th Aug 2003, 16:44

WEBF

Get thee down to thy local branch of thy most right-wing political party with a reasonable chance of gaining representation, and become involved in it.

I am now many years removed from the politics of the UK so I cannot advise who this may be; are the Conservatives still a realistic prospect for future Governence of Britain?

The woes of the Defence Forces are political in nature, and so will be their salvation.

I commented once, a while ago now, and in connection with your untimely demise from Her Majesty's service, that those who are talented, genuine, and committed (or words to that effect) will always be able to make a contribution, even if the nature of this contribution differs from that which they had assumed would be the case.

If you can put the same energy into finding the political solution to the state of Britain's defences as you have put into the debate concerning the fate of the SHAR, you will probably achieve a result of tangible good, and in all probability, be remembered for it.

You have made this issue your own, my good fellow, and in metaphysical terms, you are now, at least partly, responsible for it. Your approach from here on in will be your making, or your downfall.

Go boldy forth, WEBF. You have great support, much of it unspoken; you are committed, informed, and most important of all, you are right. Take the wise counsel which has been offered here by many posters these past couple of years, and turn it into reality.

Preaching to the converted may have given you a blooding, but it is pointless, and ultimately, a waste of your talents and potential.

Have faith; and go do the real thing.

You know you want to - and we know you can.

:ok:

FEBA

13th Aug 2003, 21:13

WEBF
Get thee down to thy local branch of thy most right-wing political party with a reasonable chance of gaining representation, and become involved in it.

This is not good advice, although the rest of Blue Wolfs' post is.

Try the Tories they may be interested as the timing of a presentation of your (and the national interest) concerns will be very important. Suggest you start now so as to arouse oppostion interest at the end of the Hutton enquiry. The journos that regularly contribute to this forum should take note (Jacko !!) there's a promising story here of incompetance at the MOD.
Mr Hoon should be publicly confronted with this.
Good luck and fair seas to you.
FEBA

WE Branch Fanatic

15th Aug 2003, 07:58

Prior to clicking on this thread a few minutes ago, there had been 3105 views on this thread.

I do not believe for a second that threads such as this are looked at solely by signed up PPRuNers - anyone on the net can look at PPRuNe. I understand that amongst the audience are a number of journalists, academics, and I would imagine, politicians and/or their researchers. This is one of the things that makes PPRuNe such a potentially valuable asset. When I post on PPRuNe it is this audience that I usually have in mind, rather than the serving/ex serving military that are to be found on this forum.

I registered on PPRuNe and started posting away to contribute to the debate about the Sea Harrier. A search of my postings will reveal that this was my main topic of discussion back then. This is an issue that has interested me for years. Much of my knowledge of defence and naval things in particular has come from reading such books as One Hundred Days by Admiral Sandy Woodward, Task Force (now being printed under a different title) by Martyn Middlebrook, Sea Harrier Over The Falklands and many others. It also came from my family (in particular my father), careers booklets, media coverage (I've lost count of the number of documentries I have seen that were about the problem of naval air defence - including some very good ones in the last couple of years, including Exocet on BBC2 in July(?) 2001, Going Critical in late 2001 on Channel 4(see below) and The Falklands: Exocet! in January 2002, also on Channel 4, and of course older programmes from the 80s and 90s. Certain elements of my education were directly related too - particularly when I found myself being taught an overview of Electronic Warfare by a (ex RN) person who had been involved in the post conflict studies of dealing with the air/missile threat at sea. Equally illuminating was my contact with members of HM (and on occasion other) Forces. All of this information is freely available - my function is solely to point to it.

See Going critical || HMS Coventry (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/going_critical/hms_coventry/index.html)

BlueWolf and FEBA, to return to your points, yes I did (last year and ongoing) attempt (with some sucess) to raise the issue with my own MP (who acted on the issue for me) and also with other Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs. Both opposition parties are opposed to the loss of organic air defence and have frequently clashed with the Government in parliament over this issue.

Unfortunately they do not have an adequate response to the Goverment's capacity for spin or distorting the truth. Talking of spin, did anyone ever find out who was responsible for that letter to the Times last year from two officers who do not exist?

Meanwhile, the Sea Harrier continues to perform well in exercises....

Navy News - News Desk - News - Sea Harriers join Flying Fish (http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2003/0308/0003081301.asp)

PS See also the CVF thread(s) as this is relevent.

PPS Does anyone know why this page of the thread, and the first one, doesn't fit on the page neatly since I posted this? Anything I can do about it?

MarkD

15th Aug 2003, 20:26

Tories all talk no spending.

Hermes 82, Frontline First...

pr00ne

15th Aug 2003, 20:39

"Tories all talk no spending"

AND; Bulwark 81, Invincible sale to Oz 81, Endurance, Fearless, Intrepid and Hermes 81 and slash surface escorts. With the exception of Bulwark the only thing that stopped them doing the rest was a certain expedition to the 'Malvinas' from a nearby mainland.

On top of this they prevaricated for YEARS over actually ordering the SHAR in the first place, it was eventually ordered by Roy Mason, the LABOUR minister of Defence........................

FEBA

15th Aug 2003, 22:27

Proone
Since when has the politics of today have anything remotely to do with the past.
Remember A WEEK IS A LONG TIME IN POLITICS

pr00ne

16th Aug 2003, 02:21

FEBA,

"Since when has the politics of today have anything remotely to do with the past"

Because the Tories have been pulling this particular stunt for decades, nay generations!

"We must build up our defences" shouted the blonde handbag merchant in opposition. She was elected in 1979 and the first Defence cuts hit in 1980!

It is relevant today because under IDS there is a policy of massive reductions in Public spending (£16 BILLION!) AND tax cuts, so you can bet your bottom dollar that if we ever let that lot rule again the Defence budget would be slashed!

Remember 1957!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE Branch Fanatic

16th Aug 2003, 05:40

Pr00ne are you a member, supporter or employee of New Labour by any chance? Your remarks do seem to give that impression - they do to me anyway.

On the "Flying to the Falklands" thread you mention that JSF will arrive "in 2011". I thought the planned date for entry to service for JSF was 2012, likewise for CVF. However, CVF is already getting delayed so we may well be talking about a gap for more than six years. The capability of the Sea Harrier has been discussed here and on other threads so I won't talk about it any more, although the following may be of interest....

http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2003/0307/0003072802.asp

You say that naval air defence is not a prority. In that case, why are our European allies Italy and Spain busy equipping the Navies with AMRAAM capable aircraft? And don't forget France and the Aeronavale. Could it be because of the lessons of the Falklands in defending a naval/maritime task group from enemy aircraft and air launched missiles?

Wasn't they key lesson from 1982 that defending a task group from the air launched missile threat requires organic AEW AND organic air defence AND ship based defences?

The only reliable defence for surface units is a flexible combination of carrier base early warning aircraft and combat air patrols to engage any firing platform before it gets within missile launch range.

Most modern air launched anti ship missiles have ranges in excess of that of the next line of defence, Sea Dart. Once again we would be relying on Type 42 destroyers acting as anti air pickets as the first line of defence. There would be a high probability that they would not be able to engage the enemy before they fired their missiles. If you imagine that a number of aircraft (four say) fired a salvo of missiles (say eight, assuming two per aircraft) you can see the danger of this strategy. Multi layered defence in depth is the only answer. Relying too much on last ditch systems such as Phalanx or Goalkeeper is not good either, apart from the danger of being saturated missile fragments would still hit/damage the ship, and injure/kill exposed personnel.

In a previous posting I posted a link to a URL about the loss of HMS Coventry. In their books, both Sandy Woodward and Sharkey Ward mention that their had been a pair of Sea Harriers on their way to deal with the incoming Skyhawks but these had been called off. If they had engaged them they may have shot own all, or perhaps one of the pairs, or just one, or they may have caused them to abort the attack. Whatever, it would have broken the chain of events which led to the loss of Coventry and nineteen lives. Who can say that similar events (problems with radar due to operating close to land, computer malfunction, ships obstructing each other) will not occur again?

The fact that the organic air defence has not been been used in real combat since 1982 does not mean that this capabity is not a useful one, nor does it mean it won't be needed in the near future. I believe that the Sea Harrier, and the capacity of the UK to mount major expeditionary operations without third party support has acted as a real deterent to potential aggressors. When John Nott (spit) announced his 1981 Defence White Paper he effectively remove this deterent. The invasion of the Falkland Islands, and the resulting conflict which cost a thousand lives (on both sides) was a consequence. What will be the consequences of losing the Sea Harrier before the JSF enters service?

Jackonicko

16th Aug 2003, 06:22

WEBF,

If you asked the question at a Gymkhana, I daresay the big defence 'must have' would be the cavalry. In Devon, it's clear that the Royal Navy (and carriers) seem more valid, viable and relevant than they do to others, in less inbred areas of the country. ;) (Just so you know I'm half-joking).

With regard to PrOOne's assessment of the difference between Tory talk and Tory action on defence spending, it's a matter of historical fact that the Conservative Govts since the war have been responsible for some of the biggest and most damaging defence cuts since 1945. To admit that in no way makes one a New Labour stooge.

With regard to the supposedly catastrophic gap in our defences which will be left by the early retirement of the SHar, you should stop beating your chest for a moment and consider the following.

1) Britain cannot afford a full 'Golf Bag' and must concentrate its resources on those capabilities which are most relevant to today's situation. I'd suggest that that infers light, flexible, mobile forces which deliver capability affordably. I'd suggest to you that the relative lack of use of the RN's Sea Harriers in recent conflicts and campaigns indicates that they are perhaps a little bit more specialised and 'niche' than other air power assets.

2) Whether you or I like it or not (I know that you don't, and I don't much either) today's armed forces are tailored according to the defence assumptions drawn up by the Government and the Chiefs of Staff. It is no longer an assumption that we will conduct major operations autonomously. Since our allies (the US, France, Spain and Italy) can all offer carrier-based air defence (in those rare occasions that land based air defence cover is not available) the decision has been taken that a temporary loss of capability in this area is an acceptable risk. In my view, it's not radical enough. With ever-shrinking budgets I'd have got out of the carrier game altogether, and spent the money on cheaper, more useful land based assets. But they haven't done that. They've decided to retire an ageing, increasingly expensive, increasingly difficult to support asset about six or seven years before it can be replaced. The RN will remain in the fast jet carrier business through the Harrier GR7/9. Retiring the Shar will provide huge savings in logistics and support costs, at the expense of temporarily relinquishing a capability which hasn't been uniquely needed since 1982 (and then only in extraordinary circumstances which would not be repeated). They might even screw some money out of the Indians, Thais or Japs for these ancient airframes.

I'm not saying that the SHar hasn't proved itself capable. In the Adriatic its radar and AMRAAM capabilities drew praise and admiration. But only in the Falklands did the RN need the SHar because no-one else was there to provide an alternative source of fleet air defence.

pr00ne

16th Aug 2003, 19:53

WEBF,

Just because I am anti-Tory does NOT mean that I am pro Labour.

I am ex-RAF GD (FGR2 woo hoo!) and am now employed in the Aerospace industry, not by BAES.

I do not see what relevance the procurement antics of the Italian and Spanish naval air arms has here, have they EVER been employed operationally?

Your lessons from the Falklands were learnt, absorbed into our procurement plans and tactics amended accordingly, TWENTY ONE YEARS ago!

They are no longer relevant, the world has changed. Fully formed naval task forces and task groups no longer face a sophicticated over the horizon threat, there is no-one out there who has the technology, nor, more importantly, the desire or the motive, to pose such a threat.

A modern western naval task group sailing hundreds of miles off shore is simply not threatened by anyone these days, but more importantly, it would also be a useless irrelevant force in todays world. Naval warfare these days is a close in littoral affair, providing support to land forces, something the GR9A will be rather good at, and something the SHAR is c**p at.

The threat we face these days is from Suicide bombers, hijackers, car bombers, explosive laden high speed boats, e-threats and improvised Bio and chem bombs. All of which are a deadly foe, none of which could the SHAR defend against.

The world has changed, and it could change again, if it does and organic AD becomes a vital attribute once again, then the F-35 ( and no I am not Lochkeed Martin) will be an excellent solution. If we are still in the same strategic scenario then as we are now then the F-35 will still; have a very useful ability as a stealth strike attack assett, something the SHAR could never be.

We are no longer in the business of defending super sophisticated Naval Task groups or Convoys from hordes of sea skimming missiles.

FACT.

FEBA

17th Aug 2003, 23:44

The threat we face these days is from Suicide bombers, hijackers, car bombers, explosive laden high speed boats, e-threats and improvised Bio and chem bombs. All of which are a deadly foe, none of which could the SHAR defend against.

That's now, we're talking about the future. Your crystal ball doesn't seem to be able to see beyond the here and now. Sorry mate but your assessment of the future is about as reliable as Norman Greenspan's is of the future economic shape of the planet.
The major concern of this thread, which is shared by the admiralty, is the interim between Harrier and F35. In sales, track records are of vital importance. Why do you dismiss the track record of the Shar through hypothesis as to it's relevance to the future. I agree with you that the Shar is long in the tooth but it's still a deterrent. Quit the histrionics and give us a straight answer please.
FEBA

pr00ne

18th Aug 2003, 03:06

FEBA,

You say:

"The major concern of this thread, which is shared by the admiralty"

Rollocks, it was the "admiralty" that took the decision, the same people who removed Sea Eagle from the inventory and even now are reviewing the need for Sub-Harpoon in the SSN fleet.

The future? Well, all planning is done on forecasts, based on those forecasts you do budgeting, based on those budgets you decise what you need and what you want. The head sheds in the RN have decided that they don't NEED the SHAR between 2006 and 2012.

Jackonicko puts it rather well in his piece a a few posts down, it's a question of priorities.

We face no threat now that needs the SHAR, it'll be around till 2006, crystal ball gazing is all matter of priorities.

Jackonicko

18th Aug 2003, 06:46

I'd rather have decent SEAD, sufficient tanker hoses, sufficient recce, a Canberra replacement, a proper light PGM/L/MCDW etc (all assets we've needed every time we've had to do anything) than the Sea Harrier.

It's a relatively unimportant capability gap. It's a short term capability gap. It's a gap which can easily be filled by our allies.

WE Branch Fanatic

18th Aug 2003, 07:36

Pr00ne let me firstly apolegise. But since you seemed to advocate things such as the RAF having no air defence aircraft I suspected that you might have been acting on some less than honest politicians.....

Rollocks, it was the "admiralty" that took the decision, the same people who removed Sea Eagle from the inventory and even now are reviewing the need for Sub-Harpoon in the SSN fleet.

If I may be allowed to comment on that statment...

In early/mid 2001, the then CINCFLEET, Admiral Sir Nigel Essenhigh, wrote a report called the Fleet Risks Register. In it he made a number of worrying remarks, most notable of these was that ships of the Fleet were at a greater risk of being hit by sea skimming missiles than at any other time since the Falklands war, due to various problems with ship based defences. He was First Sea Lord when the Sea Harrier decision was made. He left the post early....

His replacement, Admiral Sir Alan West, who had been CINCFLEET at the time of the decision, had experience of being on the receiving end of an air attack when his ship, Ardent, was sunk during the Falklands campaign. On the first page of this thread I provided a link to a recent interview with him, in which he says that from 2006 until the time JSF enters the Royal Navy will be unable to conduct a major operation against an opponent with a significant air force without the support of the US, in other words the Navy doesn't need air defence as long as it isn't required to go to war without Uncle Sam. Remember that he too has to just go along the company line in public.

Also since the SDR the Sea Harrier units have come under the command of 3 Group (RAF), part of Strike Command. This may or may not be relevent, but it is worth remembering.

Jacko you may well wonder about the importance of naval/maritime forces - but you might want to think about the commitment of naval forces to UN and NATO operations off of Bosnia. For several years we permantly had a carrier commited to that theatre of operations, with Sea Harriers (initially FRS1 but later FA2) flying air defence, attack and reece sorties, sometimes all three roles in the same mission. Before you start harping on about escorts, the CVS was in general supported by one or two frigates. We also contributed to the NATO Operation Sharp Gaurd, over the time it ran the UK contribution had involved something like twenty frigates and destroyers and four or five SSNs. Then there were several stand offs with Iraq in the late '90s, then Kosovo, then Sierra Leone (whether or not land based aircraft could have got there faster naval forces would have been involved), Sierra Leone again in late 2000 (the Amphibious Ready Group sent to deter the rebels), then Operation Veritas, then Telic.... Plus routine operations at the same time.

The following two links may interest you....

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmdfence/138we/13828.htm

http://navyleag.customer.netspace.net.au/fc_07jop.htm

As pr00ne says, terrorism is a major threat. However, it is not the only one, indeed when the Sea Harrier was discussed on Newsnight last year Lewis Moonie himself said that sea skimming missiles are the most serious threat to naval forces. Also see....

http://www.navalofficer.com.au/missiles.htm
http://www.global-defence.com/2001/MSpart4.html
http://www.aeronautics.ru/moskit01.htm
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~steven/anti_ship.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/index.html

ORAC

18th Aug 2003, 14:08

WEBF,

With reference to Admiral West's point, he was being disingenuous. With the present SHAR force the Royal Navy would already be unable to conduct a major operation against an opponent with a significant air force. They would be overwhelmed in any significant attack by sheer numbers. They might inflict some losses, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory.

With regards to operations in the Adriatic and the Gulf, there were more than sufficient AD forces available both from land bases and the USN. And I hardly think Sierra Leone provided an AD threat.

I am afraid that, since the Falklands, there hasn't been an operation where the SHAR has been militarily required, rather than being deployed to justify it's own existence.

That doesn't mean that there aren't any scenarios in which it's unique capabilities would not be required. Just that they are far rarer than you claim, and not considered sufficiently likely to justify diverting funding from other programmes.

Jackonicko

18th Aug 2003, 17:08

Exactly! Orac has summed it up precisely.

If the Sea Harrier's AD capability (its OS/BAI/Recce capabilities will all be retained by the carrier wing through the GR9) is to be judged as vital as you would wish, in today's financial climate, with competing demands on resources it would have to have been used regularly (it hasn't) and in circumstances where no alternative was available or even possible. In the Adriatic, Sierra Leone, and Telic, this was not the case.

So, in summary:

1) It's a rarely needed capability which can be provided effectively using land based air power and/or allied assets
2) It's increasingly irrelevant to post Cold War and littoral operations
3) The capability gap you're whining about will be exceptionally brief

rivetjoint

18th Aug 2003, 18:13

But North Korea and Iran aren't remote islands that have a credible air threat that can't be countered by land based assets, that should remove the no AD problem until the JSF comes in :D

pr00ne

18th Aug 2003, 21:43

Rivetjoint,

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the UK would ever even remotely contemplate taking on North Korea or Iran WITHOUT the US between 2006 and 2012.

If you are then I think the lack of SHAR would be the very least of our worries!

Jackonicko

18th Aug 2003, 22:39

And even if formations of pigs flapped past, that we'd do it by sea power alone, without ensuring that we had basing in neighbouring countries?

And the real question is "what would you do without to pay for SHar?"

Magic Mushroom

19th Aug 2003, 06:20

WEBF,
Firstly,let me state that I believe that the passing of an organic maritime AMRAAM capability for the RN (as opposed to the SHAR per se), IS a dangerous capability gap.

I highlight the difference because if there had been more vision and less inter service rivalry, then perhaps the GR7/9 could have been procured with a radar 10 years ago. The Blue Vixen would have been the obvious choice, although I suggest that integration costs would have been prohibitative. Alternatively, we could have followed the lead of the Italians, Spaniards and USMC in adding the APG-65 to the airframe. Then the SHAR could have been retired gracefully.

Frankly however, the SHAR airframe is of little value. I have read your regular posts about how useful the FRS1 and FA2 was in the Balkans. Rubbish! As an AWACS operator who flew many long hours coordinating the full spectrum of air assets over Croatia, BH, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania and the Adriatic between 93 and 99, the SHAR brought very little to the table.

It had no PGM capability (unless a Jag or GR7 lased for it), it's recce capability was extremely limited, and it's endurance even more so. When Invincible pitched up for a couple of weeks during ALLIED FORCE in 99, they refused to disembark the SHARS to Italy, thereby reducing it's endurance considerably. The SHARS would then pop up once or twice a day to do a 20 min DCA CAP. This compared to the 2-4 hrs which most useful assets did. Such endurance over Afghanistan would have made it next to useless given the distances involved.

The RAF/FAA GR7/9 will soon get the excellent ASRAAM, which will close the gap between AIM-9 and AMRAAM. Moreover, the GR7/9, whilst not having an AI radar, will at least have Sea King ASaC7 support. While the AMRAAM capability is a loss, please stop harping about how useful the SHAR is. Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer in naval air power (although they always rely heavily on land based ISTAR and AAR support). But the SHAR is not a major loss. There are FAR more important things for the MoD to be spending dosh on.

Regards,
M2

WE Branch Fanatic

19th Aug 2003, 06:39

And may well contain errors.....any FAA guys (or girls) gong to join in?

The list I put in the above posting was a list of events which involved the deployment of naval/maritime forces, in response to Jacko's suggestion that the Navy is no longer important. Perhaps I should also have included Granby as well, or East Timor, or patrols in the Med and Indian Ocean as part of the "War Against Terror"? It was not meant to be a list of places where the Sea Harrier was deployed, although it was deployed in some of them.

Saying that the involvement of the Sea Harrier was for political reasons instead of military ones, and therefore it should go seems like a dangerous and illogical argument. What precentage of coalition aircraft did the RAF provide in the Gulf? 6% wasn't it? Perhaps the involvement was political? I'm not saying the RAF should be cutback, in fact I think the opposite, it needs boosting up, but if you apply the "scrap it as it seems insignificant compared to the Americans" argument then you would scrap the entire Armed Forces!

Yes, there were no hostile aircraft in Sierra Leone - but what if there had been? Imagine for a minute that a neighbouring African country had been involved in the civil war, and did not take too kindly to the presence of British forces. "You think you can come here and fly around in your big helicopters do you? We'll show you". If they had started using MiGs, armed helicopters or whatever to interfere with our helicopters then would you not agree the Sea Harrier would have been very useful in putting an end to those sort of antics?

pr00ne In a previous post you said that you consider that fact that France, Italy and Spain have organic air defence, and have taken the troble to acquire a shipborne BVR capability to be irelevant. Don't you think that the fact that they consider it a "must have" tells you something? An don't you think that this might be because they studied the lessons of the Falklands?

ORAC I think Admiral West made a fair point. If we find ourselves at war without the US it will probably be against a nation with a capable, but not huge, air force. (I'm using lower case as I'm also including naval and army air arms.) The Sea Harrier was vastly outnumbered in the Falklands, yet we won, despite the predictions of the doom and gloom merchants. Today the Sea Harrier is more capable, with Blue Vixen and AMRAAM, and has the adavantage of working with AEW, either from the Sea King Mk7s of 849 NAS or from land based RAF AWACS aircraft. The ships of the fleet are better armed too, with all RN frigates having Sea Wolf, shipborne radar being better, better decoys, Phlalanx/Goalkeeper systems and so on.

I think you are thinking that only five or six (or eight) Sea Harriers would be deployed. It could be many more than that (more than one CVS could be deployed) - at least until the cuts start next year. Extra pilots coul be found doing other duties elsewhere in the RN, and the RNR Air Branch would no doubt provide much needed back up.

Also we are not talkng about totally defeating the enemy air capability and completely dominating the air space over their territory, just providing a reasonable degree of air defence (to prevent ship base defences being saturated by sheer numbers of enemy aircraft or air launched missiles - ie multi layered defence) in the area around/over a naval task group or amphibious landing, or until an expeditionary air base can be secured from which land based aircraft can be operated.

Who can say where British forces will need to be deployed? There is trouble and strife all over the world, relying on Uncle Sam all the time is probably not a good idea.

Only the dead have seen the end of war Plato

If on the 10th September 2001 you had posted on PPRuNe saying that you were worried about terrorists hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings you would probably have been laughed at, and told that you had been writing too many Tom Clancy style novels. Yet that did happen the following day.

In 1980 a study was conducted at the Maritime Tactical School that consiered the defence of a task group. One of the recommendations was that organic Airborne Early Warning was neeed. John Nott (spit) ignored this, and drew up his 1981 Defence White Paper on the basis that we would not need to go to war without the Americans or outside the NATO theatre. We all know what happened next.....

As Jacko says it is a matter of paying for it. Is there any truth in the rumour that the cutbacks of early 2002 happened because the Trasury refused to underwrite the costs involved in the initial phases of Operation Veritas?

Will it once again take major loss of life to convince the Government that it has made a mistake?

M2 - I've only read your post quickly, can I suggest that you read some of Nozzles' (ex SHAR pilot) posts. Anyway I thought the idea of Joint Force Harrier was that the FA2 did air defence, and the GR7/9 did the ground attack? And wasn't the GR9 ASRAAM integration scrapped?

Jackonicko

19th Aug 2003, 07:08

Rather than lecturing our betters (they're my betters as well as yours) on whose posts they should read, young WEBF, and rather than larding your posts with endless links, perhaps you should read the posts made by M2, who has direct experience of the SHar's contribution and capabilities in recent real world ops, and those of Proone, who succinctly and lucidly explained to you how the world has changed. It's great that our contribution to these debates is tolerated, but let's not lose sight of the fact that they are professionals. You're posting on the basis of admirable sentiment and an enthusiasm based on your reading of history, and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't have your courage (and I don't have the military experience) to make my own mind up on issues like this, and I merely re-present what seems to be the consensus among those pros I've spoken to.

The air threat you outline ("what if it had happened in Sierra Leone") would not require a radar/BVRAAM capability. RoE nowadays often force a reliance on shorter range weapons, like AIM-9 and ASRAAM. Where a radar/BVRAAM capability is required it can be provided by land based assets or by allied aircraft.

It's all about priorities and spending limited resources wisely. It's a harsh world with no room for sentiment and historical gratitude. We must spend limited money on the core, 'must have' capabilities - which SHar may have been when the Cold War raged, and ASW groups needed to operate in Blue Water, threatened by 'Backfires' and missile launching 'Bears' and 'Badgers'. It's not in an age of littoral warfare and coalition ops, any more than Sea Eagle was, or WE177. Retaining these big ticket Cold War relics is not the way forward when budgets start being trimmed. Retaining the SHar does not NOW represent a wise use of resources.

As a POI, I believe that ASRAAM hasn't yet been reinstated on the GR9, though this would be relatively easy.

Magic Mushroom

19th Aug 2003, 07:43

WEBF,
I've read many of Nozzles posts. Clearly he has first hand experience of operating the SHAR. I do not. However, I do have experience of the wider C2 picture, and of working as a Liaison Officer in the Vicenzia CAOC during the Balkans conflicts various. I've tasked and been involved in the employment of virtually every NATO ac type in service, and seen how flexible and how useful different aircraft are.

It is only natural that nozzles defends his ac. Just as Navy News articles will always place a very one sided view.

But I stand by my comments: SHAR FRS1 or FA2 contributed very little.

Jacko,
WRT use of short range vice BVR AAMs during recent conflicts, modern ROE often palces the emphasis upon AMRAAM. Experience from OAF (where all kills were AMRAAM), and more recent ops in Afganistan and Iraq reinforce this. However, the SHAR cannot employ the missile in the same way as an F-15 or F-16. As I say, I believe that AMRAAM is a loss for the fleet, the SHAR is not.

Regards,
M2

Jackonicko

19th Aug 2003, 17:45

I stand corrected!

"However, the SHAR cannot employ the missile in the same way as an F-15 or F-16." Don't tell me (no, really, don't tell me) another half-arsed Tornado F3 '******'s muddle' half-arsed integration?

Then there's AMRAAM reliability in UK service....

Send Clowns

20th Aug 2003, 03:53

The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history. I don’t know who first said that, but many people here are trying to prove it.

“1) It's a rarely needed capability which can be provided effectively using land based air power and/or allied assets” from Jacko (not picking on you especially, just you gave a succinct post that illustrates my point above very easily).

Anyone heard this argument before? Remember how half-arsed it turned out to be then? You’d have to move Australia a little more than the 300 miles the RAF moved it for the F-111 proposal to persuade anyone that the F3 could cover the globe. Allied assets is another argument advanced then that held no water. War is the time when you realise how few real allies you have, and who does not want to get involved.

“2) It's increasingly irrelevant to post Cold War and littoral operations”

This is not even an argument, until there are no Styx/Silkworm missiles out there in the hands of unstable governments, no potential enemies with air attack capabilities. Remember Falklands. Remember Nott. We thought that then. Felt like idiots when not only did the impossible happen, it was our cutbacks and plans for more that precipitated it.

“3) The capability gap you're whining about will be exceptionally brief”

No need to insult if your arguments are coherent. The gap had not even developed in the Falklands and the capability was needed. There was very little warning. What is the relevance of the gap length, then?

All your arguments were those discussed in the Dartmouth History of Naval Aviation syllabus, they are almost identical to the arguments advanced 30 or so years ago for giving up carrier aviation. The history lecturers at Dartmouth may both have been tending towards being nerds, but they knew their naval history.

Oggin Aviator

20th Aug 2003, 04:45

Well said sir.

You never know what is around the corner and you can never rely on host nation support for your shiny light blue jets. Thats why Carrier Aviation is so critical. If it wasnt why would Uncle Sam spend billions of dollars maintaining and expanding their carrier aviation capability?

Oggin

ORAC

20th Aug 2003, 04:53

The case for eliminating the carrier force was far more complicated than you make out, but eventually came down to the fact we couldn't afford the three that would have been required.

The situation in today is similar. The situation is not that a case cannot be made made for the SHAR, it can. It is that better cases can be made for other capabilities.

If you wish to find the money to refurbish and retain the SHAR, the money must be found from eslewhere in the RN budget. Please explain where. Because, in the present climate, you will not get extra from the treasury.

And if I were you, I'd start worrying about where they plan to find the extra £3 billion for the new carriers as well. Now about those SSN boats and their reactors........

Oggin Aviator

20th Aug 2003, 05:20

If it is a capability (or capability gap) we need to fill, the budget it comes out of is unimportant and does not necessarily have to come solely from the Navy. The CVF will be a Joint asset therefore one could argue that it should be paid for "jointly".

Therefore maybe you should be worrying about how many Typhoon Squadrons or new tank regiments may be hit to pay for it!

(Of course we couldnt possibly touch the crab's shiny new jet could we? Even though it is very late, a generation behind the JSF and any ops would require host nation support and a plethora of Marriot hotels within commuting distance to the airbase!)

Something like 70% of the world's population live within 100 miles of the coast. Steaming a carrier with 40 plus jets with organic C2 support to just beyond the horizon sends a very serious message. I'm sure the sight of the Sea Jets low flying over Sierra Leone was enough to make the locals think twice about their actions. Its what power projection is all about, even if no shots are even fired.

Just my thoughts !! :D

Oggin

BEagle

20th Aug 2003, 05:23

Yup - must have had 'em quaking in their boots....

Hmmmmmmmm.........

Magic Mushroom

20th Aug 2003, 05:59

Oggin Aviator,

(Of course we couldnt possibly touch the crab's shiny new jet could we?

Err, no actually we couldn't because the UK is contractually required to meet the costs to the partner nations of cancellation. So we'd probably end up paying more for cancelling Typhoon orders.

I think that it's fair to say that most in the RAF would have preferred to have taken a load of F-15E's 10 plus years ago than the Typhoon. That would have given us a proven swing-role asset that approached the capability that Typhoon will give us in the next few years. However, take a reality pill Oggin. To have ordered F-15's would have effectively ended European military aviation. This is something that is clearly politically unacceptable.

Steaming a carrier with 40 plus jets with organic C2 support to just beyond the horizon sends a very serious message.

Yes it does, and as I've said before, I am a strong advocate of maintaining a credible fixed wing carrier capability. Similarly HN support is required for land based assets. However, remember that in EVERY major conflict involving carrier aviation since WWII, carriers have relied upon land based assets for a major part of their combat support assets. And this includes even the mighty USN CVNs. As an illustration:

Vietnam: EC-121 AEW/SIGINT.
Falklands: Nimrod MR1/2 Maritime Recce and R1 SIGINT, and Victor K2 radar recce.
GW1/Former Jugoslavia/Afghanistan/GW2: AAR, SIGINT, AWACS, JSTARS, ECM.

Carrier aviation must be seen in context. It is part of a much bigger force equation. Carriers have their capabilities just as land based assets do. Let's just recognise the fact and stop trying to score points against each other.

Regards,
M2

Oggin Aviator

20th Aug 2003, 06:00

.................... if you've never seen or heard a fast jet in your life it probably would Beagle.

It just happened that these jets were SHARs, they were there on the scene and utilised in this role. I know there were Jags in the area at the time and I dont know why they were not used but senior people get paid to make those decisions and thats that.

Power Projection issues and the threat of military action have seemed to work in Liberia recently.

I'm all for the good work and the professionalism the RAF brings to the party, the reason I am able to freely contribute to this forum is partly down to the heroism of the RAF in 1940. We should all, however, recognise the capabilities of the other services in their own right and get away from this inter service rivalry (myself included at times!!).

Oggin

ORAC

20th Aug 2003, 06:01

Oggin,

Ah! We could do our job, if only we had some of your budget... An old refrain.

Unlucky however, the rumour on the streets is that Tranche 3 of the Typhoon is already looking rocky and the funds are committed for Tranches 1 and 2. There's always the RAF JSF buy, that's supposed to support the CVs anyway. The papers only a week ago were talking about further army cuts. So I'm afraid there's no slack there.

Sorry, for this one, I think you're on your own......

FEBA

20th Aug 2003, 21:47

BEagle
Strange for you to be so flippant . Bit below decks me thinks!!
FEBA

pr00ne

21st Aug 2003, 04:21

We seem to be rerunning the "scrap the carrrier" policies of 1964 here, that's not what the crux of the argument is.

We will still have the ability to "hove over the horizon" with a Carrier, it's just that in the short term it will be with the GR9A and in the long term it will be the F-35.

Instead of SHAR's screaming over Sierra Leone it will be GR9A's or F-35's, surely a much better option.

The SHAR is the problem, not organic airpower and not Carriers. Though I have to say if, as suggested some time ago by Jackonicko, we spent the money allotted to the Carriers on something like JAS39 then I for one think we would maybe be getting more for our money, HOWEVER, that is not the argument, SHAR bad, GR9A/F-35 good is.

Send Clowns

21st Aug 2003, 04:44

But when will we have F-35? If you believe project timescales you'll believe anything.

Without an interception radar, and controlled by AEW from a Falklands stop-gap, OTH capability is severely limited in any Harrier GR. Defence against cruise missiles will be especially poor. There are a lot of Russian and Chinese built missiles out there, simple but the defence against them is a layered defence. If there is one thing that was learnt in the Falklands it is that we cannot afford to give up a layer. We may be safe on paper, but in reality something always goes wrong in the end.

Jackonicko

21st Aug 2003, 05:50

In an ideal world I'd want six big carriers, groaning with fixed wing air power, and I'd want all our ships to have as many 'layers' of AD as an onion. But in the real world it has to be hard choices about which capabilities one has to forego in order to fund other priorities. The short gap left by phasing out the Shar seems like a very sensible cost saving to me.

Does anyone seriously anticipate the UK undertaking major ops without coalition partners AND outside the range of land based air assets? During that period?

West Coast

21st Aug 2003, 12:26

The better question asked is if your land based assets will always have basing privledges in a host country and will there always be overflight rights of adjecent countries.

Jackonicko

21st Aug 2003, 17:57

Westy,

If the answer to either of your questions is "no" then (in the fluffy post Cold War world) it probably means that your proposed ops aren't doable, or are best left to Uncle Sam and his carriers.

It's not that it's bad to have carriers, it's just that they are so rarely ESSENTIAL that they cannot be a spending priority, and it follows that a temporary capability gap in this area is acceptable.

West Coast

22nd Aug 2003, 00:37

Jacko
I do understand you views, but I draw a different fiscal line in the sand. I rarely need car insurance until I rear end someone. Seems like money wasted up until that point.
You just can't beat flying off sovereign territory. If another Malvinas type of fracas appeared, do you think the US is going to provide a CVN or three considering current ops tempo and tasking?

steamchicken

22nd Aug 2003, 00:58

And do we really want to be even more dependent than we are now?

BTW, the reminder of the original decision is quite right. Back then it was a rather harebrained scheme concerning F111s and various tiny and obscure islands, generally requiring massive and costly engineering work to support serious air bases, which would supposedly always be exactly where we needed them as well as being so much cheaper (despite the fact that we couldn't afford the F111s either...) Not to mention the problems of command and control between naval forces and air forces separated by a Berlin wall. Now it is a structure of huge political assumptions - we won't fight anybody good, if we do we'll have host nation support, anyway the Yanks will always play fairy godmother - resting on a contradiction (we need to be able to act anywhere in the world as quickly as humanly possible, but only as long as the Americans want to help and/or we have time to arrange host nation support).

Nozzles

22nd Aug 2003, 04:09

OK, my therapist has said I've been making great progress, I've been clean for months now, but one little SHAR related post won't hurt, will it?

Firstly, I need to point out to M2 how hurt I am at being compared to Navy News! For the umpteenth time: IT'S NOT MY FECKIN' JET; I HAVEN'T FLOWN IT FOR YEARS! I'm simply in the fortunate position of having flown it a bit in unfriendly airspace. Therefore it's one of those rare subjects upon which I'm able to speak with a drop of authority. I personally feel that fibbing in your argument is very easily revealed by other experts on this forum and so I aim to post objectively. Every single Brit mil aircraft I've soloed in (except the Hawk) has since been scrapped so it's not an emotional attachment either. The problem is, we were (=they are) such a small and unique force, the aircraft is incredibly misunderstood by those we thought should know better. Some of my favourite examples:

Several American FJ (including Harrier) pilots: "Doo yoo guys have, like, a ray-dar?"
Conversation between me and a foreign COMAO lead who had fragged us just to drop bombs, and was a bit worried that his sweep assets were a bit thin: "Can yoo cerry a couple of Zidewinders as well as yoor boms, for zelf protection?" "Er, yeah, would you not prefer us to carry AMRAAM instead?" "IMRIIM? IMRIM! Do you have a reedar?" "Er, of course" "How meny IMRIM can yoo cerry?" "Er, two, with the two bombs, or four if you want us to take the bombs off" I was then faced with 30 seconds of the mouth-open, eyes flicking from side-to-side stare of a man who is not sure whether you are winding him up or not, or whether his whole plan is a crock. Of course, being a foreigner, his whole plan was a crock.
From a GR1 QWI student: "You guys don't have a computed bomb sight do you? I mean, you work off a fixed depression sight, right?"
And now to the ridiculous, simply for your amusement:
Overheard very senior Army officer impressing his guests at a CVS cocktail party: "...and of course, these guys will hover behind trees in the battlefield, pop up to strafe tanks, then disappear behind the trees again..." I kid you not. But it gets worse:
CVS captain, who has clearly been listening to helo banter, watching SHARS recovering on deck, enquiring of my colleague: "And how is your single-engine hover performance?" Quick as a flash, said colleague replies: "It's great, sir, in fact, WE DO IT ALL THE TIME!" (temperature permitting, of course).
And finally, another CVS captain watching SHARS using their nozzles in the Braking Stop to taxi backwards on deck questions my CO: "And what exactly is the motive force for this evolution?" Slightly back-footed, my CO, a career man and amateur diplomat: "Er....the engine, sir!....?"

Secondly, I'm here to save Jacko by death from an attack of apoplexy:
No, the AMRAAM/FA2 integration can in no way be compared to that of the F3. The major difference is that, from the drawing board stage the upgraded aircraft was designed to fully support AIM-120. After the F-war the Brits decided they wanted a mini F-14 that could track 10 low flying targets overland whilst simultaneously supporting AMRAAM to 4 of those targets. The original project included a bigger engine, a thinner wing so it would go faster etc. But the bean counters decided to nibble the upgrade to death, and now they're complaining that it doesn't have the hover thrust they took away from it back in the late '80s! I think that the differences in employment of AIM-120B from FA2 vs F-15/16 that M2 was referring to are the following (the only ones I know):
1. The Yank F-jets can fly somewhat higher and a lot faster than the Bumper Fun Jet, and so can achieve longer kinematic launch ranges than the FA2.
2. The Yank F-jets are equipped with IFF interrogators, and so can, in theory (i.e. ROE dependant) engage without 3rd party ID. As a footnote, without giving away anything about recent/current theatre ROE, having your own interrogator has not facilitated an engagement in the 3 war zones I've been in. Having flown an aircraft with an interrogator, its greatest strength is that it reduces comm-you don't have to continually ask Magic to declare what turn out to be friendlies in the AOR.

A couple of references to some arguments I've seen. Sorry for the lack of acretitations but my current gin/blood ratio does not allow me to go back and find out who said what without losing this draft post:
(Approximately): "The JSF is stealthy which is something the SHAR will never achieve" Absolutely correct. Based on your argument we should scrap all current British military equipment based on the fact that all their successors will be better. These two aircraft are NOT in competition, my friend.
I seem to remember M2 saying something about SHARs being on station for 20 minutes while the rest of the World was achieving 2-4 hour vul times. Christ man! what were these things? Global Hawks? I fly a super Yank F-jet now, and we need to air-refuel 4 times to cover a 2-hour vul period!

Next, somebody said that the problem was not organic carrier air power, it was the SHAR. Dude, the UKs organic defensive air power IS the SHAR. You have a problem with one, you have a problem with the other.

As for he who said that there was virtually no threat from sea-skimming missiles to a naval TG because we are currently fighting an assymetric war, guess what? That's the CURRENT situation. We had a current situation on Sep 10 2001. The World, warfare etc. changed beyond recognition 24 hours later. As any warfare college instructor repeatedly tells you, you fight the NEXT war, with the benefit of experience of the current and previous wars. I think the North Koreans (amongst others) will be deeply insulted by your insinuation that we can ignore their capability to attack our ships at long range without warning.

Not sure what Jacko is getting at with his reference to "AMRAAM seviceability in the UK" The UK are allowed no more than to polish the missile. ANY attempt at 'maintainance' in the UK results in loss of contract (yes, they have tamper-proof seals on the missile). So, apart from our wonderful weather, there is no difference between a UK Rammer and a US one (if you believe what the yanks tell you about the software state).

Okay, before I bore you all to tears and you skip to the next post, I have a question. And it is a question, not a statement or point in disguise:
The Govt. has said that all our maritime AD needs will be fulfilled by "our allies" So here's the question:
Has anybody actually seen any paperwork involving the UK formally requesting any of our allies to divert their carrier-borne AD resources to protect an RN task group?
Even if they have, I have two uncertainties with this plan. First the concept, then the practicality.
The concept: Even the mighty (?) RN fixed-wing defensive air force does not have redundant assets to protect an Italian or Spanish carrier deployed more than a few miles from our own CVS. Can their pitiful quantities of assets protect one of our TGs? Even if so, do you REALLY want Italian AV8B+s defending our TG? Even if the French were better placed with their single (i.e. non-redundant...think about when they broke a screw) carrier, would they take part? After all, they hate all things that are led by Americans. Which brings us to the Americans. On the conceptual side, these were the people who scuppered our Suez operation, would not allow Brit companies to compete to rebuild Iraq despite our unwavering support (that's THIS YEAR guys), levied illegal tariffs on Brit steel imports.... The list is endless.

On to the practicality: Those of us who don't scratch the surface see big Yank carriers with masses of planes on. Therefore........they must have loads to spare to protect allies who can't be bothered to pull their weight, right? And of course, the Yanks have no problems with European NATO members who collectively commit less than the US armed forces alone to NATO. The USN has recently been using their F-14 AD aircraft in the air-to ground role because in the CURRENT situation we need more attack assets 'cos we CURRENTLY achieve air supremacy with ease. If an RN TU integrates itself into a US TG such that the whole RN TU stays close to the US carrier, no problem. But what if you have an area of battlespace 2-300nm down the coast that needs covering by a non-US NATO unit? We can't do it. So the USN has to develop a whole new set of operating SOPs to accomodate the UK TG that can't leave their side. Please convince me they'll be happy about that......

Right. That's it. I'm going back to the clinic to explain my failings. You'll never hear from me again-honest.

Biggus

22nd Aug 2003, 05:41

Interesting thread, but time for a reality check boys! THE SHAR IS GOING!!! You can talk about it as much as you like, but it won't change anything!! If you don't like it, then quit!! Yes, it may create a capability gap, lives may be at risk. But lives are at risk everywhere in the military due to lack of funds. No or inadequate defensive aids on our large aircraft, no decent national SAM assets, insufficient body armour for the troops in the latest gulf war, no medical services to speak of... It goes on and on.

While the discussion reference SHAR is of interest, you might as well revive the "We should never have scrapped the TSR2, cancelled the CVA-01,....." type discussions. The SHAR is going, and no politician is going to embarass himself by doing a U-turn on this issue!!

Magic Mushroom

22nd Aug 2003, 05:54

Nozzles!
I knew that you'd not be able to stay out of this for long!!

Firstly, let me state once again very clearly: I AM A FAN OF MARITIME AVIATION, AND I WOULD PREFER US NOT TO BE GETTING RID OF THE SHAR!

The SHAR crews constantly do a fantastic job, and I know that the nature of the jet ensures that it's one of the most demanding jets to fly. However, I wished to provide a counter argument to WEBF constant wittering (excuse the pun) suggesting that the SHAR won the Balkans single handedly and is some sort of wonder jet!

I also stand by my statement that it is not the SHARs passing that we should be mourning, but that of an organic RN AMRAAM capability.

I hope that I have a fairly decent knowledge of what the SHARs capabilities are (although clearly not as good as Nozzles'). I know how many slammers it can carry. I know what an excellent little radar Blue Vixen is. I know you can drop dumb bombs accurately. And, as Nozzles says, the SHAR is still the only UK jet with a full up AMRAAM integration.

However, the SHAR does not have a precision weapons capability in the form of LGBs or EPW/JDAM. Ergo unlike other assets it cannot drop through weather (unless you take the GR7 option in Kosovo of dropping on GPS/INS predictions). This is increasingly a MAJOR restriction due to modern Air-ground ROE, even when the weather is good.

As Nozzles says, any supersonic jet with a Fox 3 capability has the advantage of higher kinematic kill ranges compared to the SHAR. Likewise, the lack of an IFF interrogator is a factor, although this can be partially mitigated with AWACS support, and most FA-18's also lack this capability. However, I was not alluding to those capabilities. If you fly a modern US jet now, with respect, I'm slightly surprised that you are not aware of the one other advantage offered by certain modern western (albeit primarily US) radars.

As far as the SHAR vul time for Kosovo, they were primarily fragged for a 20 min CAP, which they did once or twice a day. I didn't suggest that the other assets managed 2-4 hrs without AAR. Clearly, the SHAR can extend with AAR. However, in a conflict, AAR is always at an absolute premium. Therefore, the SHARs endurance is an issue when it is amongst the most limited around when compared to even the FA-18 and Mirage 2000.

Please do not take this the wrong way Nozzles old chap. The SHAR is a superbly versatile piece of kit for what it is. However, the writing should have been on the wall 10+ years ago when the GR7's started operating routinely from CVS. The RN and RAF grown ups should have taken a reality pill and suggested an AV-8B+ type upgrade for the GR7's using Blue Vixen, APG-65 or Captor (ECR-90) rather than continuing with the FA2 upgrades. Then we could have retired the SHAR gracefully. Accordingly, I mourn the passing of the FA2 ONLY because it will remove AMRAAM from the RN's carrier wing until JCA arrives.

Although the GR7 is still planned to get ASRAAM (so I'm told) which will reduce the gap between winder and AMRAAM engagement ranges/speeds, I can understand the decision that has been made. As Biggus says: the SHAR is going. We have to live with it.

Regards,
M2

Nozzles

22nd Aug 2003, 06:54

M2,

It is nothing short of a pleasure to cross swords with you. My only question is: What are you doing up at this time?

OK, you're slightly surprised. I know I'm drunk, but I'm flabbergasted...........what is this other advantage offered by other "certain modern Western...albeit primarily US radars" apart from greater detection ranges (especially the F-15). Like I said, I currently fly one of these jets, and I haven't noticed this amazing function... what are you referring to (unclassified?).

The SHAR is going. It went for me years ago. However, it doesn't mean that those of us who have had a minor education in the subject should sit quietly whilst yet another icon of the UKs previous power is spun into obscurity. Don't even start me on where the UK should be going at this point. Simply trawling through the TV channels reveals who we are. We used to explore the places others feared to venture into. Now we are only interested in changing our garden layout, redecorating our houses or participating in some moronic cookery competition. Hitler once referred to us as 'a nation of shopkeepers'. If only we had the foresight to deserve such an accolade.

Of course I would never resent your comments. I've been shot down by uglier guys than you!

Flippin' eck I'm drunk! Found out this arvo that I'd been wiped off tomorrow's flypro so I gave them the big finger!

Magic Mushroom

22nd Aug 2003, 07:23

Nozzles,
I'm up because youngest sprog is up and pi$$ed off and I daren't go upstairs until the missus has got her off to la la land again!!

It's abit diff to be specific as it's something possibly best left unsaid on a public forum. However, check your Private Messages for a clue!

Regards,
M2

Nozzles

22nd Aug 2003, 18:38

I don't think it's any secret that they've got that function but I'll keep shtum just in case. However, thinking back to the ROE for the most recent theatres I've been in, I'm not sure that just that + an interrogator will take you all the way through the ROE matrix to the end. Not without your chaps having an input, anyway.

Hope you get some kip!

Impiger

23rd Aug 2003, 01:30

It used to be bloody good
But the Navy let it rot
Now its bloody useless
Time to get rid of the lot:{

Magic Mushroom

23rd Aug 2003, 04:45

Nozzles,
I wasn't sure, so I played safe!
Regards,
M2

Navaleye

26th Aug 2003, 00:02

We know that AMRAAM can be fired in an unguided mode from F3s :O . Would it be possible for an AMRAAM to be fired from a GR9 but be targeted from a nearby AEW platform?

NoseGunner

26th Aug 2003, 00:52

Navaleye
Nice thinking but no.
and
for how much longer?????
in reverse order

I. M. Esperto

26th Aug 2003, 01:06

I found this:

"The Future

On the 28th February 2002, the Armed Forces Minster Adam Ingram announced that the Joint Harrier Force will become an all ground attack harrier force upgrading the Royal Air Force GR7s to GR9s and retiring the Royal Navy FA2s. This is to ‘ensure a credible expeditionary offensive capability is maintained until the aircraft leaves service. Supporting this decision the Ministry of Defence said:

"These days we don't fight the kind of wars where our ships need defending from enemy warplanes far out at sea. Aircraft Carriers are now mostly supporting shore operations by flying strike missions and it makes far better sense to spend our money on Harriers which can do that best. If necessary, we can rely on coalition forces to provide the outer air defence for surface ships."

An added level to the layered air defence will be provided by the new Type 45 Destroyer equipped with the sophisticated and lethal Principal Anti Air Missile System (PAAMS) which is capable of controlling several missiles in the air at any one time, each one of which could engage individual targets, preventing attackers from swamping the fleet's air defences. "

I think their service in the Malvinas campaign was worth their cost. One can never tell.

That is an excellent Destroyer, BTW. I'm an old Tin Can Sailor, and it beats the old DE's I served as a Midshipman on. Talk about crude and cramped. Oy.

Navaleye

26th Aug 2003, 01:13

Nosegunner, I've seen nothing to indicate that the govt is planning to drop carrier capable AEW. It will be needed for CVF. Have I missed something?

Impiger

26th Aug 2003, 02:19

I understand there will be a carrier borne AEW in the form of SK 7. However, as it is rotary wing based it will suffer in terms of time on station (non AAR), speed of response and coverage. The main intention is for all major operations the AEW and other ISTAR capabilities will be provided by shore based aircraft.

rivetjoint

26th Aug 2003, 03:33

If no one can see your carrier no one knows where to fire the missiles. Is it easy to hide a carrier out at sea?

I. M. Esperto

26th Aug 2003, 03:42

Rivet - "If no one can see your carrier no one knows where to fire the missiles. Is it easy to hide a carrier out at sea?"

At least a carrier is moving, while bases are stationary, and their positions are known by the targeters.

Mud Clubber

26th Aug 2003, 04:31

1. Sub Sonic.
2. Combat Radius of a pound coin.
3. Only front line jet not to get invited to Telic

NoseGunner

26th Aug 2003, 16:35

Sorry about confusing post - I was short on time.

The "for how much longer" referred to unguided from an F3 (which is a bit untrue anyway) not AEW.

Navaleye

28th Aug 2003, 16:02

OK. If the crabs considered it OK to fire AMRAAM in an unguided mode from an F3 why not do the same from a GR9 if the need arises. An SK7 could provide range and bearing and a GR9 could hang a lot missiles. Surely this is better than nothing? What am I missing?

NoseGunner

28th Aug 2003, 17:38

How accurately does the SKW know its posit, how accurately does the GR know its posit, how accurately does the SKW know the posit of the bandit, what sort of update rate does the SKW have, how long does all this info take to get to the AMRAAM, can the AMRAAM be given all the necessary info (its a lot more than just range and bearing)..........
Thats just a couple of points off the top of my (unclassified) head.
It would never work. Trust me!!!

Navaleye

28th Aug 2003, 19:43

The RAF website makes no mention of it. Last i heard it was canned. Has any public statement been made on it?

ORAC

28th Aug 2003, 19:55

Hansard (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo021024/text/21024w07.htm) 24th October 2002:

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the ASRAAM missile is not to be equipped to Harrier (a) GR7 and (b) GR9 variants. [76345]

Dr Lewis Moonie: We are currently upgrading our Harrier GR7 fleet to GR9. Shortly before such a major upgrade, it was not considered cost effective to carry out such substantial modifications.

Consideration was given to equipping the Harrier GR9 with ASRAAM as part of the upgrade programme. However, as the Harrier GR fleet is already equipped with the Sidewinder AIM9-L for defensive purposes, and the purpose of the GR9 upgrade is to improve offensive capability, it was concluded that fitting of ASRAAM would not represent the best use of Ministry of Defence resources.

Hansard (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020417/text/20417w05.htm):

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Harrier GR7 has a gun capability; and if it is planned that Harrier GR9/A will have a gun capability. [49752]

Mr. Ingram: The Harrier GR7 does not have a gun capability, and we have no plans to give a gun capability to the GR9/A......

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the integration work on Sea Harrier for ASRAAM has been completed; and at what cost. [49763]

Mr. Ingram: The work to integrate Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) on Sea Harrier has been terminated in the light of the recent decision to withdraw the aircraft from service by 2006 which is earlier than originally planned. Expenditure on the ASRAAM integration programme did not exceed £1.2 million.

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Harrier GR7 will be operational with (a) Brimstone and (b) Storm Shadow. [49754]

Mr. Ingram: Following the upgrade of Harrier GR7 to GR9 standard, it is intended that the Brimstone anti-armour weapon will enter operational service on it in 2006.

We do not currently intend to integrate Stormshadow on to Harrier GR9. The operation of Harrier GR9 from the CVS with Stormshadow will not be practical, due to the size and weight of the missile. In addition, it is not currently considered to be cost effective to integrate Stormshadow on to Harrier GR9 solely for land-based operations; this capability will be provided by Tornado GR4.

Navaleye

28th Aug 2003, 20:33

ASRAAM is supposed to have a range up to 15km which is substantially better than AIM-9. I also understood that ASRAAM is plug and play compatible with AIM-9 launchers. What sort of expensive integration is required?

ASRAAM would go some way towards filling the gap left by AMRAAM much more then AIM-9. I do not understand MoD thinking on this point.

ASRAAM is a high speed, high agility, next generation, heat-seeking, air-to-air missile. Designed as a fire-and-forget missile, it is able to counter intermittent target obscuration in cloud as well as sophisticated infrared (IR) countermeasures. Although ASRAAM is predominantly for use in the within-visual-range (WVR) arena, it also has a capability in the beyond-visible-range (BVR) arena. The missile uses an imaging IR seeker (manufactured by Raytheon in the USA) and will equip Tornado F3 and Typhoon aircraft.

ASRAAM is the world's first IR missile to enter service using a staring array detector, which detects the whole target 'scene'. The actual picture is very similar to a monochrome TV picture, and gives the missile excellent long-range target acquisition capability and enhanced performance against any employed countermeasures.

In a typical WVR engagement the missile is slaved to the target either visually or by aircraft sensors. The missile is then launched and following release it accelerates to speeds in excess of Mach 3 whilst being guided to the target using its IR seeker. The missile can be fired at very high off-boresight angles, in either lock-before or lock-after launch modes. Because the missile has a fire-and-forget capability it allows the pilot to engage multiple targets with multiple missiles at the same time.

Aircraft

* Tornado F3
* Typhoon

Specification

* Primary Function: Air-to-air Infrared missile
* Length: 2.9m
* Diameter: 16.6cm
* Launch Weight: 87kg
* Range: Over 10nm
* Speed: Mach 3.5+
* Guidance System: IR staring array with modern autopilot

KM-H

29th Aug 2003, 02:17

Navaleye,

Seems someone has been reading the ASRAAM glossy sales brochure. In open forum I can't list all technical points but:

"ASRAAM" is plug and play compatible with AIM-9M launchers". Yes, if all you want is a fast, leggy 9L then that's close - but not 100%. There is also the weapon system behind the launcher that supplies release/steering signals to the missile.

Then there's the aiming cues - the missile goes further, so you can shoot sooner - just a simple software change? Depends on how accurate you want that cue.

These are the kind of integration areas that soon increase costs.

9L is an analogue device dating back many years. ASRAAM was designed with a compatible (not plug and play) connector in front.

The glossy brochure features of ASRAAM require use of the digital interface this is further aft on the missile, on a LAU-7 this connector is covered by launcher structure.

This became obvious (doh!) when people expressed an interest in the additional "features" only to be told their "compatible" launcher did not support the digital (1760 like) interface.

E.g "The missile can be fired at very high off-boresight angles" - yes it can - but NOT using the Sidewinder legacy interface; this requires digital control.

The list goes on, but would reqire a more controlled (secure) forum for debate.

regards to all,

I. M. Esperto

29th Aug 2003, 02:39

Here is a link to some very interesting attempts at seaplanes.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avcmast.html

Vectoredthrust

29th Aug 2003, 23:48

Dear All contributers

You have made an old man very happy with the nice things you've said about the Sea Jet.
Its nice to know that the 15 years I spent helping to flight-test it in FRS1 and F/A 2 guise have not been wasted.

I think that UK should have bought AV-8Bs, but we always insist on taking something that works and modifying it with something that does not work e.g gun!!

Now perhaps we can say some nice things about Hawks.

BEagle

30th Aug 2003, 00:57

Hi Duncan!

I remember your HS1182 lecture all those years ago - a fascinating insight into the design of the beast! Quite liked the Hawk, but it had a truly dreadful compass system when it came into RAF service - and why, oh why no offset TACAN like the G-nat? The original twin-plate brakes weren't much fun - and the anti-skid was a bit too keen to operate on wet runways (especially Dunsfold in early 1981!)....

Now, all these years later, it has trained hundreds if not thousands of RAF pilots and has a loyal following. The 'magic turn' was and still is terrific - 420 KIAS, pull to 6 g and beyond and round she goes barely losing a knot!

A great design - but even better after all the years of testing and development over the past 20+ years!

Nozzles

30th Aug 2003, 01:22

Great link Esperto:=

I remember once landing at small airfield in Florida (think it was called Lakeland-the ol' memory could be letting me down though) that had its own little museum. Outside, on a plinth, was a Sea Dart. I thought it was a wind-up at first. It must have been quite a ride.

Saw a programme on Discovery recently that had a short feature on the Saunders-Roe jet flying boat. Had some great film of it taking off at sea with the canopy slid open and the barking mad pilot looking sideways, grinning at the camerman. Those were the days to be a test pilot.:E

Man-on-the-fence

30th Aug 2003, 04:26

Nozzles

If it was this
http://mysite.freeserve.com/Mil_Photos/Sea_dart.jpg

Then it was Lakeland. Its positioned outside the Florida Air Museum.

But I digress......

Jackonicko

30th Aug 2003, 06:44

Although a digital ASRAAM integration is clearly much too difficult and much too expensive for the F3 :rolleyes:, DERA (as then was) achieved it very cheaply on the Nightcat Jaguar :cool:, and then demonstrated it very convincingly. A full production integration on the in-service Jag very nearly happened, and was canned to save a paltry amount of money. :*

There seems to be no convincing reason why a similarly cost effective ASRAAM integration couldn't be added to the GR9, but only if the IPT have the balls to do it themselves, using service and Qinetiq resources, and not if they ask BAE "How Much?"

As a POI, I don't think the differences between what digi-ASRAAM and reversionary ASRAAM are sensitive or classified, unless and until you start getting into parametrics.

WE Branch Fanatic

31st Aug 2003, 07:45

A few weeks ago, at the annual "Sports (sic) and Barbeque Evening" at my RNR unit, I found myself having a discussion with one of my Officers (an ex Seaman Officer) about the state of the Navy. One of the topics mentioned was the Sea Harrier. He made a very good point, that the savings are next to nothing as a proportion of the MOD budget but for this we will lose an important, if not essential (given the emphasis on expeditionary operations) capability. Lets look at some numbers....

There are savings that will flow from the decision — £135 million directly and at least another £230 million from not upgrading its engine — but these are not significant sums in terms of the potential operational ramifications.

From a House of Commons Defence Select Commitee Report.

According to the MOD website, the defence budget for 2000/2001 was £23.6 billion ie £23 600 million.

This suggests the total savings from losing the Sea Harrier are about £360 million. Over a ten year period (2002 to 2012) this is £36 milion per year. Using the 2000/2001 figure as a model this works out as about 0.15% of the annual buget. This is only a
rough guess, but its probably not too far off the mark.

I am saying the savings are over ten years as they started when the upgrade was cancelled!

Considering the loss of capability to both the Royal Navy and HM Forces as a whole (not the mention the cost of losing ships and personnel, or not being about to act in a crisis) this is nothing short of a scandal.

Incidently, why doesn't this page of the thread fit on my screen?

Nozzles

31st Aug 2003, 23:15

Digress Schmigress!

Man-on-the-fence...you got it! I took an almost identical snap many years ago.

Change of subject......Jacko, IIRC the Service is not allowed to tinker with an airframe without the Design Authority approving the mod and conducting (and charging for) as many test flights as it deems necessary to ensure the mod 'does not affect the safe operation of the aircraft'. Guess who the DA is? The exception to this rule occurs when an aircraft passes a certain age, and is referred to as a 'mature airframe'. The only one of those I know of that is currently in service is the Jag. Now you know why the Jag gets so many goodies so cheaply so quickly. Perhaps it's an indication of how efficient the current system is. I remember BAE demanding extortionate sums to fly SIX test flights of the old Bumper Fun Jet after a minor software upgrade to the radar. Someone better educated than me may well correct me, but I believe that it doesn't matter how big the Service's cahones are, nobody gets to meddle with the DA's jet-it's the law, so to speak.:(

Jackonicko

31st Aug 2003, 23:34

Ah yes, but the service gets to declare when a platform is a Mature airframe, and the Jag was so-declared in about 1993 - after 20 years in service.....

On that basis, the Tornado should be 'Mature' too, and the Harrier II soon....

But you're right, it's all about the thorny issue of Design Authority and whether or not IPT's have the balls and a balanced attitude to risk.....

And WEBF, you might think it's a 'scandal' but your saying so doesn't make it one.

Archimedes

1st Sep 2003, 04:36

WEBF,

You need to recalculate - as currently planned, the last SHARs will leave service in 2006, so it's not a ten year period. It's actually a six-year period. And if reports of Uncle Gordon's miscalculations with the finances of the nation are to be believed, the MoD will soon be regarding even £36m p.a as a significant chunk of the defence budget.

Additionally, you might be interested to know that your complaint that the RN will lose skills in the air-air role is being addressed; the FAA (or so it's reported) will be looking to put pilots in F3s or Typhoons and increase the number of exchange slots with the USMC (presumably F/A-18 unless/until the AV-8B+ gets AMRAAM).

JN/Nozzles

Who lays down the ground rules for who is the DA and how long their A over the D lasts? I assume that it's buried somewhere in the original contract? If the customer can say when an airframe is mature and can then set about giving it a Jag 96/97 style update, I wonder why the GR7 and GR 4 weren't declared as mature ages ago (particularly the Tornado)?

Jackonicko

1st Sep 2003, 06:13

Perhaps because most RAF engineer officers are highly risk averse, and out of their depth when dealing with BAE. Moreover, a culture has grown up under which simply giving the job to the DA is regarded as being 'smart procurement' - it's a clear sign that the individual is embracing new thinking by taking the job away from service personnel (with their unacceptable overhead) which must be good, right? Civilian companies will always be more efficient than state monoliths, right? And he can do so and reduce risk. Two ticks in two boxes.

And while you and I can recognise that the Jag 97 upgrade was great, and represented a speedy and cost effective way of doing business, look what has happened to most of those responsible for it! Look at what happened to those who tried to apply similar lessons to the Tornado? It's not much of an encouragement for anyone else to do anything in a similar way, is it?

Listen to the poison and disinformation put out about the Jag upgrade. Loss of configuration control, etc. Some people actually believe that nonsense, you know.

And who can blame BAE for fighting any suggestion that there was anything to learn from the Jag upgrade? If the Jag approach was adopted, BAE Systems could lose what promises to be its major revenue stream for the next few decades. Do you think they want the Tornado and Harrier declared mature? Do you think they're not doing everything in their power to keep their IPT leaders 'on side'?

Nozzles

2nd Sep 2003, 03:29

Archimedes,

My guess is that it is set up at the initial contract stage. As to why the RAF declared the Jag mature when it did, and why it/the RN haven't done the same with equally aged cans is a bit of a mystery. I suppose that once they do it, they take on responsibility for all work required on the aircraft. Therefore, if the entire fleet needs a new wing spar or mods to accept an upgraded engine, the service would have to do it. Presumably the manpower (and expertise?) doesn't exist in the service. Secondly, I would guess that said wing spar would cost at least 10 times as much if you buy it from the DA and fit it DIY rather than let the DA fit it for you (you know, like you can't buy your spark plugs at trade prices from the garage!)

FEBA

2nd Sep 2003, 03:55

Nozzles
Are you on the beer again?
FEBA

Growbag

2nd Sep 2003, 04:24

If all that the Shar-bashers say is true, then why bother continuing for the next 3 years, training youngsters up on the beast and wasting money? Let's all give up the Dark Blue and sign out a set of nylon Janitor's overalls in dashing light blue and save the odd million here and there.

I think that i'd rather nail my privates to a passing car.

Flying the Jet still means something to a lot of people, and taking part in recent exercises makes you soon realise that reliance on Foreign assets is something that we want to avoid at all costs! Having seen the americans shoot each other down at the ACMI with all their Gucci interrogators and treat it like they do it all the time was one of the scariest things imaginable! It is a sad passing, I agree, and being part of the scramble that is the shocking organisation of a migration to a jet AD pilot's don't want to fly, makes you realise that there are people making decisions that generally rely on their political emphasis and have little grounding in reality.

Yes it's going. But we don't have to like it.

Archimedes

2nd Sep 2003, 04:37

JN & Nozzles,

Thank you - makes sense (although it is rather depressing).

Growbag,

Y'know, I'd not thought of it quite like that - why not save the costs of retaining the SHAR until 2006 (albeit in declining numbers) and transition to the 4-squadron GR7/9 force more swiftly? From a beancounting pov it would be sensible. I suppose the answer lies in the fact that common sense hasn't been allowed to play any part in retiring the SHAR...

Growbag

2nd Sep 2003, 04:41

Mr A,

I wish I could disagree, but anyone with any experience in these here Forces knows you ain't lyin'.

Sorry to double post but i've just seen Archimedes's comment here:

Additionally, you might be interested to know that your complaint that the RN will lose skills in the air-air role is being addressed; the FAA (or so it's reported) will be looking to put pilots in F3s or Typhoons and increase the number of exchange slots with the USMC (presumably F/A-18 unless/until the AV-8B+ gets AMRAAM).

That's not exactly true unfortunately. The US are in the process of cutting back 40% of foreign exchange posts and that includes the ones allocated to the FA2. The SHAR pilots are under no circumstances going to the F3 and mutterings of putting them in Eurofighter have been quickly stamped out due to the promises made to the rest of the RAF force. There will only be the one USMC exchange and the slight possiblilty that there will be 5 F18 exchanges as long as they are UK funded at £3m per year. Now that's saving money!!!

We'll see how skill retention is handled but you can guarantee it'll be a shambles.

Archimedes

2nd Sep 2003, 05:14

Oh Dear...

Can't believe what you see even in the more reliable organs of the press!

Although, to be fair, what I saw seems to be a mangled version of what you've said (without the 'nots' and 'noes' relating to F3 and Typhoon).

NoseGunner

2nd Sep 2003, 15:56

Growbag
Out of interest why are "The SHAR pilots are under no circumstances going to the F3 "??
Is it a location thing - I heard vast majority weren't happy about Wittering/Cottesmore so I suppose Leeming / Leuchars wouldn't exactly be convenient for their families in Cornwall!
Or is it a 2 seat thing????? Suspect the idea of flying with navs doesn't fill them with joy.
Can't imagine its the fact you can't land an F3 on a ship - most would see that as a positive benefit, I would have thought!
As for capability - by the time any of them got to the front line, the F3 will be far more capable than the SHar.

Also I'm surprised they haven't been promised a Typhoon slot - every pilot in the RAF has!!!

Growbag

2nd Sep 2003, 17:37

I don't think that it was the location thing, that was a misconception a long way back about the Cott/Witt move. It has to be mainly the 2 seat/airframe/job thing. Without disappearing down the rabbit hole of inter-service rivalry, most RN pilots want to work in the RN under the more flexible RN rules, not for the RAF who have their own rules. (Which are both changing of course)

When the F3 finally gets the slammer it will be a much more capable airframe, although the asraam is pretty tasty, with a faster forward throw it'll be useful. although they need to get into high block 3 to do any serious damage! But that's not enough to get the SHAR pilots asking for a F3 exchange!!!

And finally a few people have been offered the chance of a Eurofighter position, but all very hush hush.:hmm:

Nozzles

3rd Sep 2003, 03:35

FEBA,

Guilty as charged.

:8

timzsta

3rd Sep 2003, 04:49

My points - in no particular order.

F3's hosing off unguided AMRAAMs is a very dangerous thing, as anyone who knows anything about AMRAAM will tell you. They better be sure there are no friendlies forward of their 9-3 o'clock line when they do it.

I was a Freddie during the Sierra Leone operation. Whilst ths SHAR faced no air to air or serious SAM threat, it did prove its usefullness in that kind of limited warfare scenario (one in which UK goes alone without US / EU support). It was able to provide visible air presence that deterred rebel forces from coming out to play. The SHAR's admittedly limited recce capability was good enough however to provide photographs for land based forces to make maps from (if I remember rightly Sierra Leone had not be mapped since 1953) and provide the low level intelligence that was needed.

Now the SHAR cannot utilise PGM but it was not designed to, it is a maritime fighter, with a capability to drop dumb bombs. If we wanted to use PGMs we had a GR7 squadron on board, which is designed to do precisely that. The argument that the FA2 cannot drop PGM is irrevelant. Would you scrap the F3 today because it cant drop Paveway 3? I think not.

You can always count on the French / Italians / Spanish when they need us. The rest of the time forget it.

IMHO the FA2 deployment to the Adriatic was largely political. I remember Ark Royal sailed for the Adriatic for the first time just a few days after the first UK soldier was killed in the former Yugoslavia. The politicians wanted to show that something was being done as the first body bag came home. They wanted some air assets, however limited in capability, in theatre that the UK could use to attack people putting British troops under fire, without host nation support or permission. And that is probably the reason that the UK had a CVS in that theatre for so long (that is the true flexibility of an aircraft carrier - to roam the sea just of the enemies coast, behold to no one, able to strike at a time of its own willing and move to stay in good weather and evade the enemy).

With regard to remaining unlocated at sea, during Saif Sereaa 2 off Oman (or however we spelt it) I was still a Freddie with the CVS. The Illustrious CVS group remained undeteced for nearly two weeks (and we had a major RN ship with significant ESM fit looking for us). We went back to cold war style ops. Radars off or sector blanked, minimal radio useage, deceptive lighting, hiding amongst merchant shipping etc and it worked very well. If you want to keep your CVS hidden you can.

The SHAR has gone. Having been on the "inside" when 3 Group and Joint Force Harrier was conceived I can say it is no coincidence that the FA2 was scrapped shortly after the RAF got their hands on it. There was I remember, rumours around that time, strong ones, that the government had told the RAF that it must get rid of a fast jet aircraft type to save money. There was concern for the Jaguar, then the FA2 got axed. It still amazes me that the RAF can justify having 3 aircraft types for the same role (GR4, GR7, Jaguar) with two of them (GR7 and Jag) being so broadly similar in combat capability.

What we do not know is what brokering/political manouevring went on behind the scenes. I am sure that the Admirals did not give up the FA2 without a fight, but as Admiral West said in WEBF link, money is tight. If the RN wanted to keep FA2 it may well have had to axe something else in its place, so only 1 LPD instead of 2, or a reduction in Type 45 capability, or no AEW upgrade for the Sea King AEW 2.

The AEW capability for CVF is also something that has had little talked about. All the talk is off JSF. Let us remember that JSF will be able to take off from CVF with full weapon load, fly about 600nm to a target, bomb it, fight in and out, and return to CVS. That is a vast amount of airspace that you need an asset that can provide "picture" and C squared over. A helicopter simply cannot do it. When the MoD and RN have talked about "future proofing" the ship - ie conventional take off and landing capability, I feel they are hedging their bets that the only asset that will be able to do this in about 2010-2015 will be an upgraded E2 Hawkeye.

With regard to RoE and BVR - it is worth noting that despite RoE restrictions, the three Mig 29 kills in Kosovo were all BVR engagements. For those like myself who have been drilled time and time again during exercises in RoE it is suprising how quickly you can meet your engagement criteria when you go to war posture (roughly something like this brings back memories):
A) Not conforming to airway
B) No valid Mode 4
C) Flying attack profile
D) ESM correlation
E) Not responding to warnings on 243/121.5
F) Prior intelligence (ie SF in ditch at end of enemies runway giving you take off time - bit of maths and suprise suprise they turn up 80nm from you within 2 mins of your estimation of their ToT).

More worringly the CVF is still a very very long way off. A lot can change. We will have had, almost certainly, a change of government between now and 2012. If the Tories were to win the next election (IMHO no bad thing in grand scheme of things) it could well jepeordise CVF - history tells us the first thing tories do when re-elected is slash defence spending to fund other things.

But for the time being organic AD capability for the RN is gone, and it may never return. Perhaps a thread on how to bridge the capability gap in the period 2006-2012?

Oggin Aviator

3rd Sep 2003, 05:08

Nice post Tim.

Saif Sareea 2 Emcon - what fun that was.

Not.

Worked a treat though. Bear in mind this was during / just after 9/11 so the mindset on the ship had changed as well.

Oggin

Magic Mushroom

3rd Sep 2003, 06:18

Timzta,
A few points ref your post. Before I do however, let me AGAIN reiterate that I believe the loss of the SHAR's AMRAAM capability is a considerable capability gap!!!!

However, you missed my point ref the SHARs lack of PGM capability. You are correct in that this is offset by the presence of the GR7/9. Likewise the limited SHAR wet film recce capability is irrelevant given the GR7/9's excellent podded capability. My comment regarding the FA2's limited strike capability was merely a counter to WEBF's comments about the ac's use during Bosnia. He has pointed out many times how the SHAR was used in a swing role over Bosnia with AAMs and a 1000 lb bomb. And yes this option was used (eg when the SHAR got downed by the MANPAD). However, even then it was not the option of choice and dumb bombs are of extremely limited use in modern A-G ROE. Ergo, given the GR7/9, it was WEBF comments regarding the FA2's A-G capability which, with all due respect, are irrelevent.

With regard to remaining unlocated at sea, during Saif Sereaa 2 off Oman (or however we spelt it) I was still a Freddie with the CVS. The Illustrious CVS group remained undeteced for nearly two weeks (and we had a major RN ship with significant ESM fit looking for us).

I flew during SSII and believe me Tim, your position was well known! Remember that the E-3D has a maritime surveillance capability which does not require us to get very close! Essentially, finding carriers is fairly easy from an AWACS: you simply follow the radar/IFF dots back to mother and correlate with a maritime contact. However the E-3D was essentially playing Purple during SSII and the info was not used to maintain the focus of the ex on the amphib and land phase. The fact that a surface combatant couldn't find you on ESM is not surprising given the limited horizon of such a platform.

I will accept however that politics were possibly at play in the demise of the FA2, and I would agree that the loss of the Jag force would potentially have been worth retaining AMRAAM on the CVS. Remember however that even before the decision to axe the FA2 was made, the SHAR force had almost reached critical mass due to its acute shortage of pilots.

As far as the air to air kills during ALLIED FORCE, there were actually 6 (all MIG-29's). Whilst these kills (4 to USAF F-15C's and one each to a Dutch F-16AM and a USAF F-16CJ) were all AMRAAM kills, the final engagement (by the CJ) ended up very close indeed.

Regards,
M2

timzsta

3rd Sep 2003, 18:17

I would hope the E3 could find us. We were talking to it on Link 16 after all!!! Had we been in a real war situation remember the E3 is a HVAA. We would have been prepared to expend considerable effort to neautralise it and its base early. Well a couple of TLAMs from our SSN would have done it. That I am afraid is how vulnerable land based air power is from the Royal Navy these days. The SSN can get into theatre very quickly, well ahead of a CVS group and strike with no warning. From WEBF link Admiral West states HMS Triumph was off Iceland, 17 days later she was firing TLAMs into Afghanistan.

I do agree you can follow the blips back to the CVS but just how accurate targeting information can you get? The CVS can move at 30 knots, thats a mile every 2 mins. What are your own commands requirements for a targeting position for a strike with Exocet type missile equipped fighters? We were sitting in the middle of some very busy shipping lanes, out by a mile and you stick 4 Exocets into a someones VLCC. Is that acceptable to your command? Not having a go or trying to start an argument, just trying to draw your attention to the kind of problems those of us at sea have in trying to fight a surface ship engagement.

I am not going to divulge the ESM capabilities of the surface combatant that was trying to find us off Oman, they remain highly classified, but suffice to say it is a tad more then the standard ESM aerials stuck up the mast.

If i remember rightly - and please correct me if I am wrong - the GR7 did not yet have the recce pod during Op Palliser down in Sierra Leone. That is why the FA2 did the recce and why people were considering deploying Jaguars from the UK until someone remember we had a recce camera in the FA2. The inability of the GR7 to do tac recce was one of the reasons it got the pod shortly after. But please correct me if I am wrong - my head has since been filled with much drivel having been working for my fATPL!!!

The whole reason we are having this debate anyway is due to political short sightedness in the 1960s wrt to the decision scrap CVA-01. The then government of the time could see no further than the UK involvement within NATO in N Europe and the North Atlantic. The old Ark Royal/Eagle were potent carriers with their Phantom/Bucc/Gannet/SK air wing, but were costly to run. It was decided, as we all know, to allow the USN to provide this capability and the RN to become a "niche" player with ASW helo carrier (Invincible class) and Amphib ops.

About this time off course the Harrier and VSTOL were conceived and it was decided that FRS1 could be developed and added to Helo carrier at little cost to provide some protection against shadowing Soviet recce aircraft and bombers. But no sooner had the first Invincible class ship entered service what happened? Yes we had to go 8000 miles from home to conduct a large amphib op against a country who had considerable amounts of dangerous low flying fighter bombers, some of which could carry sea skimming missiles. What we really needed was a strike carrier with a fighter group (ie F4), long range strike aircraft to attack enemies air bases (Buccaneer) and some AEW (Gannet). What did we have - a handfull of FRS1 and some Sea King ASW helicopters. It was not ideal but skill, inovation, and a little bit of help from the US with AIM 9L helped win the day with a just acceptable amount of losses in terms of shipping.

Of course within 5 years of the last Invincible class entering service the Iron Curtain came down and the "new world disorder" followed. There was no longer an ASW threat and the RN has had to muddle through with the CVS. JFH was about trying to restore that fighter/strike aircraft capability I talked about above. But no sooner had it been conceived and the CVS modified (removal of Sea Dart and associated radars, Sea Dart magazine rebuilt for GR7 munitions) then it was decided to scrap the FA2. So as far as a CVS Captain is concerned he has now lost all his lines off defence against air attack. Dont talk about Goalkeeper please - CIWS stands for "comes inboard with shrapnel".

TLAM, as I talked about above, has a major role to play in bridging the capability gap between 2006-2012. That is why Admiral West talks about his desire to get Type 45 TLAM equipped. If we have to do a Falklands style op in say 2009, then we have to have the ability to launch a "first strike" against the enemies airbases before the RN gets into theatre - otherwise the fleet is a sitting duck. Thoughts on this "oggin" / "nozzles".

I was lucky enough to spend 2 weeks onboard the USS John F Kennedy out in the Gulf was my ship, HMS Exeter, was on Armilla, controlling F-14 and FA-18s. I have also crosspolled to the USS Enterprise during a JMC. Having worked on UK CVS during real world ops (not a war though I hasten to add, I do not consider myself to have been at war during Op Palliser) I can tell you my opinion is firmly that the only way for the RN and the UK to go in the world we now live in is "large carrier". The world is now to dangerous to be "bodging it" with innovation and second rate equipment. That is why we must have CVF, it must have catapult and arrestor wires and it must have fixed wing AEW and tanker aircraft.

So you guys that are still out there in the FA2 world - get pushing to for a large exchange programme with the USN, get yourselves flying the Super Hornet off the CVNs. Going to the GR9 to maintain VSTOL currency is irrevelant. The technology in the JSF will be such that a PPL holder like me could land it on a CVF. Dont except anything less then a large scale USN exchange.

Baggers - up your E2 exchange programme.

GR7 guys - I know it sounds harsh and you dont like it, but get to sea as often as possible before the FA2 goes. There will be no RN guys to help you refine your maritime skills once FA2 retires. And, for todays bit of controversy, I feel that once FA2 goes the RAF will say it will no longer send GR7/9 to sea.

Fly safe, happy landings.

ORAC

3rd Sep 2003, 18:47

TLAM has it's place, but it's a very expensive way of delivering a 1000lb bomb. You might be able to render a ship non-effective with 2, but to deny an airfield would require more than the entire RN stock.

It's a niche capability and a nice shiny trophy toy for the navy, but don't get carried away about it.

timzsta

3rd Sep 2003, 22:38

We dont have to take out every harden aircraft shelter and every hangar to deny use of the airfield. Lets say its an 8000ft runway - TLAMs spaced at 2000ft, 4000ft and 6000ft ought to put the place out of use for a while. I believe the weapon has the accuracy.

Navaleye

3rd Sep 2003, 23:05

Bomb craters are pretty easy to patch up. Sounds and expensive use of limited resources.

The Shar is well up to that particular job with dumb bombs.

Runaway Gun

4th Sep 2003, 00:03

Think about the logistical problems associated with knocking out an airfield with TWO runways (and don't forget the taxiways - or the autobahn out the front of base). Then they also have to hit the middle of the 150ft wide runway - not just alongside it....

Maybe they could drop mines all over the airfield, then that way it'll slow down repairs. Oh that's been done? Not PC? Damn these Western rules of nice play that only our side abides by. ;)

Magic Mushroom

4th Sep 2003, 06:30

Timzta,
The L16 connectivity in SSII was irrelevant. We could and did track you purely from watching where the aircraft faded. Maintaining that tag on a CVS was relatively easy despite the other maritime traffic in the area. Certainly it would have been sufficient to get an air strike in on you, and we were not operating with our usual other targeting assets during SSII. Don't get me wrong Tim, I'm not saying that finding a CV BG is a piece of cake when starting from a cold start. I just wished to place a counter argument to the 'we were invisible during SSII' posts.

As you say however, the E-3 is a HVAA and are well aware of our position on the enemy's 'Top Target for Today' lists. Accordingly we place much emphasis on HVAAD tactics. We are confident of this, and our procedures have been proven in both exercise and war.

Clearly on the ground however, that's a different matter. TLAM is an outstanding capability which I've personally seen used during Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. However, you're certainly not going to deny an airfield with 2 TLAM, and, as someone else has stated, they are very costly way of delivering a warhead. Any further comment regarding the capabilities, detectability and targetting practicalities of TLAM and CALCM is clearly innappropriate on this forum. Personally, I think that expanding the RN TLAM capability is highly desirable and you guys are quite correct to covet it's installation on the T45. Financially however, I understand that this is untenable and I envisage TLAM remaining unique to the silent service as far as the RN goes.

Additionally, TLAM are only useful for strikes. They are of no value when providing air presence for ground forces where TST must be applied within minutes, or in PSO or Northern/Southern Watch type ops. This is where we must now look to UCAVs in the future.

You are correct that the GR7 did not have a recce capability during Pallister; I did not suggest otherwise. My reference was to the type's current capabilities.

I totally agree however that the current unsatisfactory position of not just the UK's fixed wing carrier capability, but that of the entire RN can be traced back to the late 60's. As ever, inter service rivalry played a major part in this. If it had not been for the RAF/RN each ultimately undermining the other, we would have had a supersonic VSTOL capability (the P1154) in service on land and sea by 1970. However, I would suggest that the demise of CV01 was a direct result of the procurement of Polaris. The massive cost of this system (and subsequently Trident) ultimately crippled the RN. Perhaps in retrospect we would have been better off accepting that we could not afford to procure such systems, and have maintained our nuclear deterrent via other means. Clearly, the reaction and deterrence would not have been so great, and we have to consider the Cold War perspective of the time. But how much more money would have been available for the wider defence budget today, had we for instance purchased 2 sqns of B-1B with nuclear tipped CM, or a dozen SSN's with similar armament rather than Trident?

My concern is that history is about to repeat itself. I would dearly love to see the RN return to the conventional carrier business with 2 x CVF. The utility of such capabilities cannot be denied (although as I've said many times before, even the USN CVN's require considerable land based fixed wing support). However, I wonder what other capabilities will need to be sacrificed to fund such acquisition. Personally, I think that we'll be lucky to see a single CVF design procured. I think that you'll get your new carriers. But they may well be more similar to the current CVS rather than a Charles de Gaulle in terms of displacement.

Regards,
M2

NoseGunner

4th Sep 2003, 15:37

I'm dismayed by Magic Mushroom's post. It is clearly outrageous and totally unacceptable. I suggest that he doesn't post again on this forum. He insists on posting reasoned, sensible and articulate points of view, but how does that make the rest of us look? Not the PPRuNe I've come to know.
Besides, he's not a pilot so how can he possibly have anything useful to offer?
;)

timzsta

4th Sep 2003, 17:13

Another excellent post by Magic Mushroom - totally agree with Navaleye!

As you say, Polaris/Trident, have probably cost the RN dear in terms of losing out in other areas. If the RAF had won the case for it providing the Strat Nuc Deterrent it is unlikely they would have the wide range of aircraft types in service today. Given likely attrition rates or airborne nuclear weapon carriers in a strike, vunerability of their bases, and time to get to target, it was probably unfeasable for the UK to go down this route, and a small, however expensive, fleet of SSBNs was the correct choice IMHO.

Whilst I am aware of the limitations of TLAM in trying to knock out an airfield, closing it down completely is ideally what we want, but looking objectively, just to reduce the enemies sortie rate by say 30-40% would be a significant gain. The timing of the attack would be critical too - if we have to do an amphib assualt I would use the TLAM the night before. Perhaps we would not look to hit the runway, maybe just the fuel farm or the ammunition dump, that would certainly slow down the sortie rate.

Whilst the SHAR did a good job in 1982, we must remember that many critics, with good justification, said it never achieved air superiority. The enemy was still able to fly over the Falklands and attack largely at will. But the SHAR, combined with RN missile sytems, and once the landings began, Rapier, did just enough.

WE Branch Fanatic

14th Sep 2003, 08:29

In terms of number of views, this thread has already overtaken the two long Sea Harrier threads from 2002. Another good thing has been the fact that the majority of the posts come from people who have first hand experience of what they are talking about. Please permit me to make a few additional comments......

Some might say that the scarcity of Sea Harrier pilots is/was a problem at least partly of the Government's making. As has been stated, the idea of moving from Yeovilton to Cottesmore and Wittering was not popular. Whether the change of location or the change of service environment (as Growbag described) was the greater issue I don't know. However, it was widely discussed in the regional media and on local TV (BBC Southwest and Westcountry). It also caused the following stories in the Telegraph....

Sea Jet pilots threaten to PVR (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/10/12/nharr12.xml)

Lack of pilots (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/11/19/nhar19.xml)

A friend of mine who is a journalist (well sort of, he has written articles in aviation magazines etc) claims that even before the decision was taken to lose the Sea Harrier the MOD were starting to reconsider this move, due to retention issues. Remember too that there are lots of personnel other than pilots who are also affected. And in 2001 the then CINCFLEET warned that the RN would have trouble finding pilots for the JSF - and that was before.....

Since the scrapping of the Sea Harrier was announced things have gone from bad to worse with respect to pilot recruitment and retention. From 2006 until the JSF comes along (delays?) the RN fixed wing pilots will have the problem of maintaining air to air skills (unless they start again from scratch when the JSF comes along) AND keeping their V/STOL skills (assuming the UK still purchases the V/STOL version of the JSF/F35).

Pilots will not be the only ones who stand to lose their expertise, knowledge and skills. Fighter Controllers will be obviously affected (with retention issues involved). The AEW Observers from the Sea King Mk 7 will be similarly affected, with a capable system but no fighters to co-ordinate and direct - remember the upgrade that was scrapped was to include JTIDS integration. The skills of Anti Air Warfare Officers, particulary those based in a CVS, will also suffer. So will the expertise of future task group commanders (and their staffs). At the moment the air defence (including using Sea Harriers) of a force of ships is regularly (ie almost every week) practised under the Flag Officer Sea Training organisation. But not after 2006.....

How long will it take to get back up to speed?

Imagine, if you will, a situation in say 2014, where we find ourselves at war unilaterally, having to defend to fleet from enemy air power but the majority of former Sea Harrier pilots have either left the Service or lost the air/air skills, the newer pilots have not had time to get up to speed in air defence, many of the Fighter Controllers have left AND the task group commander does not have experience or knowledge of using and deploying fighter aircraft as a weapon system, nor do his staff.

In my own opinion, the loss of expertise that will accompany the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier will cause severe problems for the CVF (and JSF) project. I think that these issues are often overlooked when discussing this issue, but they show what a ill thought out and short sighted decision this was.

Navaleye

15th Sep 2003, 22:13

What is the average service time for an FAA pilot? Bear in mind the F35 won't be here for 10 years and fully operational some years after that, I suspect most of today's pilots won't be around to fly it.

Navaleye

18th Sep 2003, 21:50

What would the potential for holding some FA2s in storage until the F35 comes along. Plenty of room at St. Athan. Some of teh airframes are only 4 yrs old!

pr00ne

18th Sep 2003, 22:04

Navaleye

4 years old? Are you sure, new SHAR's delivered in 1999? I don't think so.

Why on earth keep them in storage, what for?

WEBF,

Get a girlfriend or something for God's sake!

We are canning the SHAR, the US are canning the F-14, the S-3 is on the way out, the USNR is being reduced to a logistic support force with all it's P-3 and F-18 units axed.

Why?

Because the world has moved on from the 80's. The threat has changed and so has the force mix needed to deal with it.

Most RN fixed wing guys in the pipeline will go onto GR9/9A Sqn's, the plan has always been to have 2 RAF heavy and 2 FAA heavy outfits at Cottesmore, though how the hell the dark blue are going to man their share when they can barely keep two Flight sized outfits up to establishment is beyond me.

Navaleye

18th Sep 2003, 23:04

Yes, the last FA2 new build rolled off the line in 1999 to much acclaim. Suddenly its workthless. Mnnn....

Does anyone know if BAE actually fitted a MK107 inh a Shar at any time?

ZH813 FA.2 NB18 Delivered 18 Jan 1999.

4 yrs 8 months ago.

Jackonicko

19th Sep 2003, 00:11

In an ideal world, with unlimited resources, you'd keep the SHar, just in case.

But you wouldn't get much use out of it. In the post Cold War world, littoral ops against low air threat enemies have been the norm. By their nature such ops allow greater use of land based AD anyway. By their nature we tend to be operating with coalition partners who can provide AD better than we can with a few tired SHars.

Our carriers are too small to carry a viable mix of AD and OS fixed wing aircraft. If you take GR7s along, you can't carry enough SHars to do the AD job properly (to be able to sustain sufficient aircraft on CAP, etc.), and you don't have sufficient GRs either. So the sensible way to employ the carrier is to tailor its air wing to the requirement each time it sets sail, deploying SHars when you want to use the ship as fleet AD (albeit with a limited, basic OS/Recce capability) or deploying GRs when you want to project power or support deployed forces.

In today's world, you'll be deploying GR7s every time.

To pay to keep SHars (which are no longer routinely useful, and are merely a useful option to have 'up the sleeve') you'll have to get rid of something else. Unless the Admirals are happy to bin Trident (say) then you'll have to get rid of something which provides a capability which is actually useful, and which is regularly used.

The world has moved on, and there is no place to retain assets which don't pull their weight, and which are not regularly and routinely essential. Too many of those who argue the case for the SHar do so out of sentiment, out of narrow single-service dark blue prejudice or because they can't or won't recognise that the world has changed.

From a strictly single-service RN point of view, the SHar seems worth keeping because it might one day be useful, and it doesn't matter that (say) the Jaguar would have to be removed to pay for it, even though the Jaguar is regularly useful.

A truly bold policy would be to recognise that Fleet AD as a role can now be ceded to allies or land based assets and to drop it altogether. That's not what's happening, there'll merely be a short capability gap before JSF comes in.

Personally I'd go the whole hog and bin carrier aviation altogether, spending the money on decent SEAD, a proper replacement for the Canberra, two squadrons of surplus B-1s and loads of JAS 39s for the boys to fly!

Navaleye

19th Sep 2003, 21:38

Jackonokio,

Your arguments against the Sea Harrier apply equally if not more to the F3 and the Typhoon! If anything its MORE likely that we will meet enemy fighters away from home than in Europe. Now how many "rogue states" are there in continental Europe. Lets see... none. How many outside, lets see... lots!

So why do we need so many of the expensive, redundant, white elephant Typhoons which have no obvious enemy or purpose.

The FA2 on the other hand is an enabling technology to power projection. Without local air superiority expeditionary forces are doomed to failure. The GR7/9 is exposed against any nation that put up a Mig 21 armed with Soviet era missiles or which there any many. How does the RAF propose to defend the fleet in the South China Se, or the Pacific or S. Atlantic?

Jackonicko

20th Sep 2003, 01:26

If you kept even half an eye on what was going on, you'd be aware that the F3 has recently become an extremely versatile and useful asset, and that it has further capabilities (some of which have been demonstrated) which are latent at the moment, but which could easily and cheaply be 'activated'. Or haven't you heard of SEAD?

You'd also be aware that the EF Typhoon is intended as a multi-role aircraft, so is likely to be more useful than the SHars which are effectively single role. Moreover, you'd also be aware that the Typhoon is designed to be capable of rapid deployment and to operate out-of-area with minimal support (like the Jaguar). Such aircraft can inevitably get to trouble spots more quickly than your precious grey funnel lines dinosaurs, and are not vulnerable to anyone with a Gemini and some Semtex, or to an old Russian surplus submarine. Don't say Sierra Leone, because the Jag Squadron on the Azores was held back from hopping on to Dakar to let the carrier appear useful. And before you bleat on about reliance on basing in neighbouring countries, give me an example (since 1990) when an op was politically tenable but when such basing wouldn't have been easily available.

And the SHar is a pointless asset in most scenarios. Put sufficient SHars on a carrier to guarantee its AD and that carrier cannot do anything else. If we have to maintain these seldom used, rarely needed carrier white elephants, let's at least give them an air wing which can do a viable job, and leave AD to land-based assets and/or to our allies. Or are you the kind of Admiral Blimp who can still seriously see us going off doing things autonomously? Even if you are, it's perhaps interesting to point out that even in the South Atlantis we can now provide land based AD cover.

The one threat a GR7/9 could deal with would be a MiG-21 (as long as ASRAAM goes back on the jet), but the realistic threat would be 'Fulcrum'/'Flanker', but I suspect that the USN, the Spanish, the Italians, the French or land based AD would be available to neutralise those.

Wee Weasley Welshman

20th Sep 2003, 11:05

Surely the weakest link is tanker support. Typhoon is going to happen. Invest in some seriously good long range tankers and the two combined are going to be able to defend likely British interests quite well.

Full on US style CBGs are the answer to all questions - but - we can't afford them. In many ways its a shame that Europe spends about half what the US does on its military only to achieve about 10% of the capability. Not that a combined EU military would ever ever work but a shame nonetheless.

That said, the RAF needs to make itself more relevant to the next 30 years. Tankers, heavy AT, recon and close air support seem critical. Its a shambles that Typhoon *still* isn't a reality given the initial timeframe.

WWW

ps feel free to lambast someone who knows very little about what he posts - it might well be illuminating! ;)

BlueWolf

20th Sep 2003, 14:50

Jacko (seriously because I don't know), is there really such a thing as two squadrons of surplus B-1s?

If so, has anyone told the Aussies? Seems to me that they'd be better off with some B-1Bs than with no F-111s.

I like the Gripen almost as much as you do, but if Britain were to go down that road, more tankers are going to be imperative. The JAS-39 can't fly very far without needing a drink.

Another genuine question; assuming a future with SHar gone and GR7/9 embarked on HM carriers, would it be technically feasible, and if so, advantageous, to fit said GR7/9s with Blue Vixen?

FEBA

20th Sep 2003, 16:45

Jacko
You're a seasoned and respectable contributor to this forum. Much of what you say is creditable, supported by an authoratitive opinion. However in this case, the Shar, I read your last post with much incredulity.
You appear to be suggesting that a deep sea naval task force needs no AD other than that provided by Type42's. If I follow your arguement to its conclusion, then we might as well disband the Royal Navy in its entirety.
The Shar is not an invaluable asset in a pure AD role, it has and does continue to punch more than its own weight against faster adversaries. It has a track record, how many western fighters, in service today can boast that?
Surely in the interim (Shar - JSF), and this is a suggestion based on pragmatism and not sentiment, you could put to sea with two carriers,one for AD and AEW and the other to make the boys from 3&4F ill. So the sensible thing to do would be to retain the aircraft and the Royal Navy's operational effectivity with it.
I am available for consultancy roles for the Admiralty (at great expense) should they require it.
Yours Aye
FEBA

Gnadenburg

20th Sep 2003, 18:07

Bluewolf

Parliament report indicates F111 to stay to 2015. Interim fighter undesirable(unavailable).

Spare money to be used to harden army with M1 Abrams tanks to replace Leopard. Good means of fighting alongside the Yanks.

Back to the thread.

Brit's always get caught with their pants down. Quality of their service personnel usually helps save higher embarrassment.

BEagle

21st Sep 2003, 03:01

Would that be 'more tankers' - or 'the most capable tankers available'? Tankers converted from rather elderly airliners capable of carrying 73 tonnes of fuel, or new aircraft which can carry 111 tonne of fuel?

Correct - we have moved on and capability is indeed the key asset!

Magic Mushroom

21st Sep 2003, 05:32

Jacko,
I don't think that a conventional CVF carrier could be described as a 'white elephant'!!! Fixed wing carrier aviation offers a highly flexible alternative to land based assets and they have been heavily employed in recent ops (Afghanistan and Iraq). Even allowing for the fact that even the USN CVNs rely heavily upon land based support, I sincerely hope that the RN plans for 2 CVF come to fruition.

Personally however, I just cannot see it happening at the 60 000 ton scale. A cynic would also suggest that the RN know that they have to get CVF or they'll be hard pushed to justify their future surface fleet. I just hope that we don't reduce the size of CVF down to the current Invincible's size just as the USMC are ordered by the USAF and USN to can the F-35 STOVL variant and take the CV model. Then the UK would really be up a creek.

Bluewolf,
The USAF commenced mothballing 33 B-1B's last Aug as a means of freeing money up to upgrade the remaining 60. However, even though the Bone carries more bombs than a B-52, and is more survivable, it would be too expensive for all but a few nations.

Gnadenthingy,
I cannot see the RAAF keeping their Pigs more than a few more years. Capable as they are, they're extremely expensive, and have had considerable serviceablity problems of late.

Regards,
M2

Oggin Aviator

21st Sep 2003, 05:46

Jacko said

"And before you bleat on about reliance on basing in neighbouring countries, give me an example (since 1990) when an op was politically tenable but when such basing wouldn't have been easily available."

How about Turkey this spring.

If you think we should rely on another nation to provide our AD at sea then you have lost the plot.

Oggin

Jackonicko

21st Sep 2003, 08:46

Disjointed thoughts:

Autonomous ops by the RN would still be possible within range of land-based AD, though if you can see Tony Blair or his successors undertaking such ops, you're either a visionary or a lunatic.

Outside the range of land-based AD the RN would require AD cover from coalition allies. But aren't we supposed to be moving away from Deep/Blue Water ops into an era of littoral warfare?

I don't hear any of the 'must keep the SHar - it's a national capability we must retain' complaining that the RAF requires allied SEAD support, and other capabilities, every time it is used.

Yes, Turkey proved difficult this Spring. Did that prevent the op? Did that necessitate the deployment of SHars? Or did we just use bases in Kuwait, Saudi, Oman and Jordan?

Were it possible to guarantee the availability of two carriers simultaneously, FEBA's two carrier solution would be interesting, since a two-carrier group could do both roles simultaneously, making it useful.

BlueW

Blue Vixen or APG-65 on GR7/9 would not be practical or cost effective.

FEBA

21st Sep 2003, 16:23

Autonomous ops by the RN would still be possible within range of land-based AD, though if you can see Tony Blair or his successors undertaking such ops, you're either a visionary or a lunatic.

Come on Jacko, you're going too far now. If you can see Tony Blair staying in politics beyond the forseeable future, your either a ...etc etc.

I see no reason why we could not guarantee the simultaneous availablity of two carriers, one for Shars and one for GR7 or 9. Perhaps our Navy friends can comment on this.
The two would make a potent force, not very cost effective mind you, but then I cant recall a conflict that showed a profit.
As for the last one, which in my opinion, we should not have been involved in, I see we have 5p on a gallon of petrol to pay for it and the continuing mess. Now isn't that a sweet irony. Well done Brown :mad:

Jackonicko

22nd Sep 2003, 07:04

Interesting that the First Sea Lord should state his belief that the RN's force of 32 frigates and destroyers is over-stretched in carrying out what he seems to view as its most vital current role - protecting shipping, oil rigs, etc. from terrorist attack. It was even more interesting that he laid the blame for this overstretch on the need to provide escorts for high value units and shipping.

Does Sir Alan himself view the Carriers as an unwelcome diversion of resources? Would he rather see the Navy buying more frigates than these two ships? Is he one of those rare senior officers who is more concerned with his service doing the actual job in the best and most cost-effective way than with obtaining the most exciting, technologically advanced and glamorous kit? Is he, perhaps, an officer who accepts that the Navy's post Cold War role should be more limited, and one who embraces the shift from blue-water to littoral ops?

He's certainly one of those who was willing to sacrifice the Shar and to accept the resulting capability gap. One wonders whether he'd lose the CVFs and JSF with equal equanimity?

We can all think of senior RAF officers who've been more concerned with pouring more and more money at Eurofighter, FOAS, etc. while being content to underfund current programmes, and to fail to spend money on necessary upgrades, so I'm not for one moment suggesting that the Admirals have been alone in being 'dazzled' by the glamorous big ticket issues and items.

FEBA

22nd Sep 2003, 15:43

Jacko
You've jumped the points, missed the main track and are heading off to the sidings.

To suggest that the RN's future role will be to tackle terrorists and anarchists and that they need more inflatables to do it, is preposterous, and if the chiefs of staff truely believe this, then they need their heads banging together.

When the Palestine problem is fixed and the right wing zealots (sic) in Israel learn to shut up, the political initiative will be removed from the extremists like AQ. Are all the rogue states, as Bush refers to them, suddenly going to become our best mates.
So whilst the ME is sorting itself out, Dubbya gets the push, Blair quits to the after dinner speaking circuit, what will the North Koreans and their revanchist aspirations, be doing?? How will we protect our interests with a few pea shooters?
Should we, according to your arguements, pay a levy to the US to formulate and police foreign policy on our behalf? I bloody well think not.

This isn't a debate about common sense, just a devils advocacy, shoot from the hip disagreement with one man. Some of the waffle coming from the likes of jargon man, Magic Mushroom , is gravid with inaccuracies about the capabilities of this aircraft, and yourself throwing in red herrings left right and centre. Nozzles is the only one with the facts here, and that after a beer or three.

Go for the subject matter here and ignor the personalities and their crusades for common sense. I think, then you will be able to take your first steps on to the ground of common consensus.

FEBA

Fancy a beer sometime Nozzles?

Jackonicko

23rd Sep 2003, 01:52

To buy more frigates/destroyers, not inflatables.

Reasons to get rid of SHar
1) Carrierborne AD is a luxury capability which is seldom needed, and which can usually be replaced by other assets. It's far less significant in today's environment than in the Cold War.
2) Our present carriers are incapable of simultaneously carrying out AD and OS roles simultaneously, making the SHar a redundant asset.
3) There are other, more important capabilities which should be funded as a higher priority (even within the RN budget).
4) Our political leadership have decided that we won't do autonomous ops. The ancient SHar duplicates capabilities better provided by our allies.
5) Getting rid of SHar will leave a short term capability gap only.

Reasons to scrap the CVF and JSF
6) Carriers are simply not affordable.
7) CVF with JSF will represent an expensive and inefficient way of delivering air power.
8) There will still be other, more important capabilities which should be funded as a higher priority (even within the RN budget). Perhaps returning to a 50 frigate Navy would be a start.
9) The same capabilities can be better provided by our allies, and autonomous national operations are not the basis of the Defence planning assumptions.
10) Carrierborne AD is a luxury capability which is seldom needed, and which can usually be replaced by other assets. It's far less significant in littoral ops than in blue water ops.

Nozzles

23rd Sep 2003, 02:08

You buyin' Feebs?

Actually, best give it a day or two, I'm still hung over from the free Dry Blackthorn at Yeovs Airday...a little trip down memory lane:{

Oggin Aviator

23rd Sep 2003, 04:21

Jacko,

Some comments on your comments:-

Reasons to get rid of SHar
1) Carrierborne AD is a luxury capability which is seldom needed, and which can usually be replaced by other assets. It's far less significant in today's environment than in the Cold War.

The sinking of a carrier is significant at any time.

2) Our present carriers are incapable of simultaneously carrying out AD and OS roles simultaneously, making the SHar a redundant asset.

Disagree. Have done it, albeit on a small scale.

3) There are other, more important capabilities which should be funded as a higher priority (even within the RN budget).

Examples?

4) Our political leadership have decided that we won't do autonomous ops. The ancient SHar duplicates capabilities better provided by our allies.

Allies have the capability of AMRAAM with Blue Vixen? Not even the light blue can match this combination at the moment.

5) Getting rid of SHar will leave a short term capability gap only.

6-8 years. After 4 years of no organic AEW the fleet suffered in the S Atlantic in 1982. We lost a lot of good ships, equipment and more importantly people who may have been saved had we had this capability. You never know what is round the corner.

Reasons to scrap the CVF and JSF
6) Carriers are simply not affordable.

Why not? The utility they bring offset the cost. Ask the Americans.

7) CVF with JSF will represent an expensive and inefficient way of delivering air power.

Yes expensive, potentially inefficient however having the ability to strike from the sea costs money - but if it is the only option you have it would be worth it. You cant rely on HNS all the time (most of the time yes maybe, but not all). An airbase that can move itself 3 - 400 miles overnight has tremendous utility when it comes to power projection.

8) There will still be other, more important capabilities which should be funded as a higher priority (even within the RN budget). Perhaps returning to a 50 frigate Navy would be a start.

And where would we get the people / manage to train these people in order to man these extra ships? The RN is as lean as it has ever been.

9) The same capabilities can be better provided by our allies, and autonomous national operations are not the basis of the Defence planning assumptions.

But you never know. You wouldnt have planned an autonomous op in Sierra Leone but it happened. Falklands - it happened. To rely on allies is a good thing but when it comes to the crunch ........

10) Carrierborne AD is a luxury capability which is seldom needed, and which can usually be replaced by other assets. It's far less significant in littoral ops than in blue water ops.

I would say it is far more significant in the littoral. Its about being able to project power ashore from a little bit of sovereign territory just over the horizon, not having to rely on anyone else who may decline their help at any time (Turkey ring a bell?). Therefore AD in the littoral is far more important as the ships become vulnerable to shore based strikers. AD of an amphib group is also important, they carry our chaps to the fight and must be protected.

I think "in the short term", the binning of the SHAR to make way for a few more GR7/9 on the CVS is short sighted. Our FJ aviators will lose the majority of their skills in Carrierborne AD, they may learn how to drop an LGB or PGM however when the CVF comes along we will have to retrain all those A-A skills, reinventing the wheel time and time again. Not just the aircrew, the FCs and Warfare Officers are not going to get enough continuation training over this gap period, hence there will be trough of inexperience (which is not their fault) as CVF comes into service. This will cost a lot of money to rectify, which potentially could have been spent now in order to upgrade the engines, fit the link etc etc.

Time will tell of course.

Oggin

Jackonicko

23rd Sep 2003, 05:30

Some comments on your comments on my comments.

1) So make sure it’s covered by land based AD or by the Spams. And if the only purpose of the carrier is to defend the carrier group, then why send it anyway?

2) OK, when has it been done? When has a carrier with GR7s embarked been able to provide sufficient round the clock AD cover for a significant period? When has a carrier with SHar and GR7 embarked been able to generate a meaningful A-G sortie rate?

3) SEAD. Canberra replacement. ASRAAM for GR7. ASRAAM for GR4. ASRAAM for Jag. IDM and RAIDS all round. More frigates. More destroyers. A rifle that works. Global Hawk. Tankers. More C-17s.

4) I think that F-14/AIM-54 and F/A-18/AIM-120 ‘trump’ SHar and AIM-120. Or how about AV-8B+/AIM-120? Or Rafale/Mica?

5) You SHar enthusiasts keep harping back to the Falklands. Just because Cavalry proved useful on a couple of occasions in 1939-45 doesn’t mean that thye Brits were wrong to replace horses with tanks in the Great War. In 1982, we were still prepared to pay to be able to do some limited things autonomously. Now we are not. With the defence assumptions as they are there is no funding for autonomous adventures.

And even in 1982 the Falklands were a unique case – nowhere else in the world is quite so remote from neighbouring bases, and they would have been defendable had we had the sense to build a runway there and station fighters on it.

6) I have spoken to several Flag rank USN officers who are less than convinced as to the utility of carriers, and to many who think that anything smaller than Nimitz, and especially anything not powered by the mighty atom is a complete waste of time.

7) We can’t do everything. Rarely needed, inefficient capabilities are the ones to cut.

8) I think the RN thinks that it could quickly man an expanded force.

9) Sierra Leone. Where the only weapon available was aircraft noise, and where a squadron of Jags at the Azores was held back from Dakar. Good example! Again. Don’t argue with me. The politicians have decided (and the Chiefs Of Staff presumably concur) that there is no longer a need to tool up for autonomous ops. Even if there were, I’d want decent SEAD and recce (which are needed each and every time) before I spent billions on some grey elephant.

10) Yes Turkey rings a bell. They said no and so we couldn’t go to war against Saddam, could we? Nothing happened, did it? They didn’t just use bases in other neighbouring states instead, did they? All those FJs in Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi, and Oman were a figment of my imagination.......

11) The loss of skills. Weren’t the SHar pilots leaving in droves anyway, and at such a rate that manning two of what the Navy jokingly call squadrons (they’re flights, aren’t they?) was becoming problematic. How many of the ******s would have been left for JSF anyway? In any event, there will be enough AD experienced blokes in light blue suits to pass on the skills to the next generation (if the new carriers aren’t cancelled), while the remaining FCs and Warfare Officers will presumably get some training with land based assets.

All of these pro-Sea Harrier arguments sound too much like a gang of desparate train spotters arguing for the retention of steam trains, in case Russia mounted a blockade which would cut us off from supplies of diesel. The Cold War is over, the Cavalry don’t still use horses.

Besides which, don't the RN already have Trident? (A Strategic nuclear deterrent whose raison d'etre was to guarantee being able to overcome Moscow's ABM defences? A Cold War relic, which is of questionable value today?)

Isn't one ridiculously expensive (but my how impressive) hangover from a bygone era enough for the Admirals?

Oggin Aviator

23rd Sep 2003, 06:30

As I said, time will tell. Somebody probably said that to John Nott as well.

I would love to live in your idealistic world where your allies will always spring to your aid and that all neighbouring states will always let you station your shiny SEAD and strike jets on their turf, at least my kids would be able to grow up safe in the knowledge that their defence is assured.

Unfortunately, the world is not like this. Maritime power projection is just as important as Air power projection in guaranteeing our safety, a fact naively ignored by most posters on this forum.

The reason GB is free and able exert its influence around the world is because of its power projection ability (both Maritime and Air) and its Nuclear Deterrent. Unless you are one of those unilateralists who would want to give that up, maybe Gibraltar as well, then maybe join the euro and give up what we spent 2 world wars defending.

If you had spent any time at sea you would realise the utility of the carrier, the utility of the sea jet in defending it and the role this type of force brings to the joint party. Yes we are not as big or glamourous as the Americans (but we never will be) but the ability to poise then strike is not to be understated, even if on a small scale. I think it was all covered in the SDR.

Oggin

Jackonicko

23rd Sep 2003, 06:39

I wouldn't unilaterally get rid of all UK nukes, but then I might have kept a sub-strategic deterrent, rather than Trident, or a mix of sub-strategic and less than four Trident boats.

Maritime Power Projection is no longer of any consequence. We are not a great power, and cannot afford great power pretensions. We will not go to war without allies again, and nor should we. If we do, then let's make sure we do so with the assets which we need for routine peace-keeping, peace enforcement, and coalition warfare. If that means that we couldn't do Suez again, or Corporate, then so be it. We must concentrate on core capabilities, and try to remember that the glorious past is history. Remember it, be proud of it, but don't imagine that we can or should repeat it.

It's a time for tough choices and careful prioritisation, and while we have inadequate SEAD, recce, tankers, strategic lift and only four AD squadrons, investing in two CVFs is lunacy.

Magic Mushroom

23rd Sep 2003, 07:55

FEBA Old Chap,

Some of the waffle coming from the likes of jargon man, Magic Mushroom , is gravid with inaccuracies about the capabilities of this aircraft

Why do you feel I am talking jargon? Exactly what piece of my 'waffle' regarding the SHARs capabilities is innaccurate?

I have stated many times that I am a strong supporter of maritime aviation. I have stated that Nozzles will clearly have more knowledge than myself regarding the specific capabilities of the SHAR. I have stated that I believe that the loss of the FA2's AMRAAM capability to be a major capability gap for the RN and UK forces. I would love to see the RN get 2 x 60 000 ton CVF with an air wing of JCA and a more capable AEW platform.

What I have also tried to do is offer a balanced view of the SHARs wider utility in modern ops and how it integrates with other assets, from my perspective as an AWACS guy. I've tried to do this honestly and impartially. If you feel any of my posts to have been innaccurate, please inform me in a more constructive manner rather than sniping.

Now chill out and have a G&T!

Regards,
Jargon Man:cool:

Oggin Aviator

23rd Sep 2003, 08:03

We will just have to agree to disagree then.

"Maritime Power Projection is no longer of any consequence" is a statement I do not agree with, but you do. With the world covered by so much water, I dont see how this can be the case.

Oggin

FEBA

23rd Sep 2003, 15:46

Magic or jargon man as you are now known
So you are a strong supporter of Maritime Aviation are you ? To qualify the term Maritime, as far as you are concerned, it is the shar and that's it.
Your support comes with these, pat on the back gems to forward the cause
Frankly however, the SHAR airframe is of little value. I have read your regular posts about how useful the FRS1 and FA2 was in the Balkans. Rubbish! As an AWACS operator who flew many long hours coordinating the full spectrum of air assets over Croatia, BH, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania and the Adriatic between 93 and 99, the SHAR brought very little to the table.

You then went on to complain about their (Shars) inability to match US equipment by saying that they were only able to do a 20 min DCA CAP

Nozzles replied to this as follows:
I seem to remember M2 saying something about SHARs being on station for 20 minutes while the rest of the World was achieving 2-4 hour vul times. Christ man! what were these things? Global Hawks? I fly a super Yank F-jet now, and we need to air-refuel 4 times to cover a 2-hour vul period!

I have to say, Magic old chap, that I haven't seen a better example of support, for what will be a most dangerous capability gap for the RN, since Judas's rousing acclaim of Jesus Christ!

Both you and Jacko are shrouded in the cotton wool academic view of war that influences those that know the square root of b@gg€r all about it, but whose decisions do more to further the cause of our potential adversaries than our man with the gun at the front. Remember, this thread is read by pilots and me, so keep it simple. It's about what happens, or what should happen, during the interim, between the Shar and JSF (and a French carrier, aagh!) not a philosophical contest to see who can throw in the most acronyms and jargon.
Come and join us at the bar.

"Barman 2 large gin and tonics please, Magic's paying"

FEBA

Bing

23rd Sep 2003, 16:45

...while we have inadequate SEAD, recce, tankers, strategic lift and only four AD squadrons, investing in two CVFs is lunacy.
But if we're always going to be working in a coalition they can do this for us can't they? Of course it depends who is in the coalition they might not have those capabilities either.

I'd take issue with the statement that Maritime Power Projection is of no longer of any consequence. As we now have an LPH, two LPDs and four things that look like LPDs but are called something else (Bay Class LSL to replace Sir Galahad et al) I'd say Maritime Power Projection is alive and well. Park that lot off someone's coast, full of Marines and you could certainly influence events, of course you'd want some form of organic air defence to protect these assets...

Jackonicko

23rd Sep 2003, 18:19

"Both you and Jacko are shrouded in the cotton wool academic view of war that influences those that know the square root of b@gg€r all about it, but whose decisions do more to further the cause of our potential adversaries than our man with the gun at the front."

Or perhaps we're looking at the big picture, rather than at the single-service, single community narrow view which would see Britain's overall military preparedness and capabilities being compromised by spending vast sums on what is a rarely needed and non-essential, non core capability.

Moreover, we're accepting that the World has moved on, and that, for better or worse, our elected leaders have abandoned the Great Power pretensions which would see us trying to conduct major operations autonomously, rather than trying desperately to cling to some kind of Empire-era 'send a gunboat' view of the world.

And sacrificing vital capabilities for CVF (which looks good to the politicians - who do indeed know "the square root of b@gg€r all") really will "further the cause of our potential adversaries."

FEBA

23rd Sep 2003, 20:25

Crickey Jacko!
Or perhaps we're looking at the big picture

You seem to know more about the future of NATO than Lord Robertson does. What if NATO disappears at the expense of a EURO force?

Who's going to provide a UK naval task force with AD when it's thousands of miles away from land and Euroland says Non??

Bigger picture or narrow mindedness? if you're friendly with Brown tell him to put my next 5p on a gallon of unleaded towards a Shar.

Thank you

FEBA ;)

Jackonicko

24th Sep 2003, 04:39

If the French, Italians, Spanish, and Americans all say no, and if it's something where neighbouring country basing is unavailable, and if there's a realistic air threat then the chances are we wouldn't/shouldn't do it anyway.

And we can't afford to keep every capability option. I'd rather have decent SEAD and recce, tankers and C3I, a rifle that works, ASRAAM on every FJ, etc.

In other words kit which we'll need and use every time we do anything than the Sea Harrier, and aircraft carriers, which we needed once in the last 25 years.

Where would you save the money that I'd save by scrapping the Sea Harrier and CVF?

ORAC

24th Sep 2003, 05:52

On the other hand FEBA, you seem to be claiming to know more about how they should spend their money than the Ministry and the CDS. Perhaps they're narrow minded.

Magic Mushroom

24th Sep 2003, 07:11

FEBA,
To qualify the term Maritime, as far as you are concerned, it is the shar and that's it.
Why on earth do you think that I believe the SHAR to be the only thing to qualify as maritime? This is a forum about the SHAR, therefore, strangely enough I have primarily focused upon that ac!!

Although I'm not about to get into a purile quote exchange with you, here are some additional 'gems' of my own!
let me state that I believe that the passing of an organic maritime AMRAAM capability for the RN (as opposed to the SHAR per se), IS a dangerous capability gap.
I would agree that the loss of the Jag force would potentially have been worth retaining AMRAAM on the CVS.
I think that expanding the RN TLAM capability is highly desirable and you guys are quite correct to covet it's installation on the T45.
I would dearly love to see the RN return to the conventional carrier business with 2 x CVF. The utility of such capabilities cannot be denied
I don't think that a conventional CVF carrier could be described as a 'white elephant'!!! Fixed wing carrier aviation offers a highly flexible alternative to land based assets and they have been heavily employed in recent ops (Afghanistan and Iraq).
The first quote above is my point of view in a nutshell as far as the original subject of this thread goes. Namely, that the loss of the Sea Harrier FA2 in itself is not a problem IF (and this is clearly a very big if!) it's AMRAAM capability could have been migrated to the GR7/9. As this is not financially viable, the loss to the RN of the SHAR will be a severe capability gap! Therefore, it's the AMRAAMs passing from the RN that we should be mourning, NOT necessarily that of the SHAR.

Although the SHAR is a classic British ac design, I stand by my other criticisms of the SHAR regarding it's endurance and Air-ground weapons and recce capability. The GR7/9 is superior today in all these areas. However, I made the comments as a counter to several posts that seemed to suggest that the SHAR was some sort of wonder jet and the most capable thing in the skies over Bosnia.

You say that I am:
shrouded in the cotton wool academic view of war that influences those that know the square root of b@gg€r all about it
Clearly, it is your perogative to hold this view of my own professional knowledge. However, having flown operationally over Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Afghanistan and latterly Iraq, I'd like to think that I have more than an academic knowledge of conflict.

As far as my wishing to engage in a:
philosophical contest to see who can throw in the most acronyms and jargon.
From your posts, I'm guessing that you do not have a service background (if that is not the case, I apologise). I consider the contribution of non service persons such as yourself and Jacko something which should be encouraged on this forum. However, at the end of the day, this is a Military Aircrew forum and the jargon I have used is (I hope) familiar to the majority of other posters.

Get yourself to Waddo and the G&T is waiting for you!
Regards,
M2

Jackonicko

24th Sep 2003, 07:40

M2,

I'm afraid you've been too long in the AD world if you seriously think "that the loss of the Jag force would potentially have been worth retaining AMRAAM on the CVS".

Let USN F/A-18s, other people's AV-8B+s and land based F-15s, Tornados et al provide AMRAAM cover for the fleet - on the very rare occasions that it's needed. This hugely expensive Sea Harrier fleet (running costs exceed that of the Jaguar or F3 by a huge margin) can generate only a tiny number of inflexible and rarely needed FJ platforms, whereas the Jags have given useful service over and over again.

What can the Jag do that the SHar can't?

Well Damien B is being a bit of an over-sensitive prong, so to see one crucial advantage - eg reliability and serviceability you'd have to go to:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103021

for a start.

Then there is recce (and not just with an F95), TIALD (a better TIALD integration than on any other platform), PW II, PW3, Strafe, etc. and could do ASRAAM and real time recce at a tiny cost.

FEBA

24th Sep 2003, 17:11

:} Thank you Jacko, the picture postcard has screwed up the browser making it difficult to read Magic's esoteric comments.

Magic (Psilocybin - (C12H17N2O4P))

Like the fungus from which you choose your name you bruise too easily, either that or being cooped up in the B707 with the revolving restaurant on the roof, has over sensitised you. Probably all those cuppa soups and crap coffee!

Anyway a couple of questions and then I shall take my leave of this thread in preference of a G&T or a pint with your good self.

1) Is the Shar the Royal Navy's only vehicle that can deliver AMRAAM?
2) Is the GR7 (or 9) AMRAAM capable?
3) I doubt you can answer this, but someone else can. Is the GR7/9 as manoueverable as the Shar and does it offer the same performance?

If you answer no to anyone of the above then the Shar should stay until the JSF enters service. The Indians and the Thai's will have to wait as will Jacko for his commission (dosh that is).

Now how about that pint? We are closer than you think, being separated by the A607 and a faceless town that is better suited to Belgium than Lincolnshire, Grantham.
Suggest you PM me for the details. Do I have a military background; yes. FEBA is an acronym, Forward Edge of the Battle Area, touted at many a YO's briefing. FEBA is where my office used to be, carried there , often, by sea

Cheers
FEBA

rivetjoint

24th Sep 2003, 17:31

What happened to the photo on Jacko's post?! Someone not like him?

Jackonicko

24th Sep 2003, 18:03

No-one likes him - he's journo filth!

rivetjoint

24th Sep 2003, 18:47

Your updated post explains! Just not cricket, just a photo :confused:

DamienB

25th Sep 2003, 04:09

As a journo you'd think he'd know about crediting a photographer when he makes use of their pictures... but clearly asking for such minimum courtesy makes me an 'over sensitive prong' :confused:

FEBA

25th Sep 2003, 05:34

Not wishing to digress from the importance of this thread, what is a prong. Sounds like one of the nastier utterances of the journo venacular.
FEBA

rivetjoint

25th Sep 2003, 05:54

Isn't it what you cook toast on over an open fire?

Jackonicko

25th Sep 2003, 06:19

Since you'd posted it on this very bulletin board I didn't think for a moment that you'd mind, Damien. So sincere apologies.

Objecting was fine, and has pricked what little conscience I have. Reminding me of my failings is fine, too. But the puerile message was just a tad too sensitive and 'prong-like' not to joke about.

But it was a joke and I luv you really. Big kiss! Come on, pucker up!

DamienB

25th Sep 2003, 06:30

Puerile message? Twas mere banter Jacko luv.

Your apology is, of course, accepted.

Magic Mushroom

25th Sep 2003, 06:57

FEBA,
I guess that you're a former Royal Marine then! I was actually aware of what FEBA stood for (honest!) but had avoided bantering you about jargon! As far as Cuppa Soups and crap coffee, we're far more civilised on the E-3D than that!

I'm sure that you're aware of the answer to your first 2 queries. As to the third, I believe that due to it's Leading Edge Wing Root Extensions, and bigger wing and flaps, the GR7/9 is more manoueverable than the FA2 (assuming that the GR7/9 has dumped his fuel tanks). However, I would request an input from Nozzles for the definative answer to this.

I'm definitely up for a beer at Waddo, despite what my Mom tells me about chatting to strangers on the internet. Stand by for a PM!! The first one's on me!!

Jacko,
Firstly DON'T describe an AWACS guy as an Air Defender!!!! Although everyone still thinks that's all we do, in reality we are far more involved in strike attack assets than with the boys on CAP.

I fully acknowledge that the dear old Jag is one of our most useful types. It's simple and cheap yet the GR3 has some of the best toys available. Likewise, the Jag has seen more direct use operationally in the last 13 years than the SHAR (Bosnia, Northern Watch). However, at the end of the day, it could be supplanted by GR7s or Tornado GR4s on ops. However, there is no such alternative AMRAAM carrier for the RN.

Regards,
M2

FEBA

25th Sep 2003, 15:41

Magic
I am humbled by your superior ability with acronyms. Standing by for your PM.
FEBA

Jackonicko

25th Sep 2003, 16:43

There is a shortfall in the numbert of attack/recce FJs. Jag adds three squadrons and does so economically and reliably. These land based attack/recce FJs have been needed again and again.

The SHar hasn't been needed since 1982 (it's been 'nice to have' now and again, but that's hardly the same thing).

BlueWolf

25th Sep 2003, 18:07

Jacko, one or three questions.

1. How many times has the SHar, since 1982, not been needed because it was known to be available as a capability? In other words, what is its deterrent effect?

2. Given that the future cannot be predicted with any accuracy, what happens the next time the SHar is needed, but isn't available?

3. If there is no "need" for carrier-based AD, why is the UK even considering JSF?

4. If there is a need for carrier-based AD, how can anyone be sure, given the considerations of (1) and (2) above, that the six-year capability gap between the SHar and the JSF will be a benign period?

5. If we accept that there is a shortfall in the number of attack/recce FJs across the board, shouldn't everyone's efforts be going into advocating for the forces receiving a larger slice of the pie?

Nozzles

26th Sep 2003, 01:51

Wolfie,

In response to point 5:

No No No laddie! We need to accept the fact that we are no longer a great power, and must continue to accept cutback after cutback until we dwindle into insignificance. Instead of fighting this self-defeating attitude (which has been reported in such far-away journals as Japanese national newspapers), we are on this thread arguing about what is the least painful bit of our body to cut out. Any leaders out there with insight, with a true vision that doesn't involve hanging on to the yanks' coat-tails?

Other stuff:

Last time I looked:
The GR7 turned better than the FA2
The GR7 was slower than the FA2
You couldn't put AMRAAM on GR7/9

Night night gentlemen

FEBA

26th Sep 2003, 03:34

Nozzles
What is all this capitulating crap, pull yourself together man and stop feeling sorry for the fact that you are British (are you?).
I suspect that you've been with the yanks too long and the GM foods and being in a minority have done for your common sense.

Fact 1. We are the greatest diplomatic power on this planet bar none.

Fact 2. The military calibre of British forces is the highest on this planet.

Don't forget fact 2. It counts at the highest echelons of global politics. Lets not deminish it at the hands of the bean counters or the PC's (fish feel pain when you catch them bollox) in this country.

FEBA

PS read Henry V Scene III

Navaleye

26th Sep 2003, 04:18

Let me ask a question on how to cover the gap between now and 2012+. The fleet loses is AMRAAM cover. What's next best thing with the resources we have available? Lets ignore the cost argument for the moment. How much more effective would a GR9 be if it had full ASRAAM integration compared with the AIM-9. What about the integration that the Jaguar force has received? Would this be sufficient to mitigate the loss of the FA2 until the F35 arrives?

NoseGunner

26th Sep 2003, 04:32

Whats the plan when its cloudy?????

WE Branch Fanatic

26th Sep 2003, 07:33

FEBA I think Nozzles was being ironic in the first lines of his last post. The liberal so called elite, the so called intellegentsia seem to be determined to try to spread the message of "can't do, won't do" everywhere.....

BlueWolf I suspect that your first question is impossible to answer. Who knows? However, we all know from 1982 when your remove major capabilities (and in doing so, sending "go ahead" signals to potential adverseries).

The rest on this post is in reply to Jacko's coments on the previous two pages. Might be a long one!

Regarding your comments about the First Sea Lord, it is very awkward (particularly with a media aware Government) for a senior officer to openly (ie in public) oppose Government policies. In the interview that I provided a link to on the first page of this thread, Admiral West candidly talks about the loss of capability caused by losing organic air defence. The First Sea Lord at the time of the February 2002 decision left his post early (over this and other issues), as did the Chief of the Defence Staff.

That organic air defence is needed for major expeditionary operations by ourselves is a fact, whether or not we want to have the capacity for such operations is really a political issue...

Your suggestion of building the frigates and destroyer numbers (back) upto 50 is good, but it would be politically difficult (see below), take time to design, build and get into service, and be difficult to man. All those extra frigates and destroyers would probably need more manpower than CVF will.

Additionally, ship based sensors and weapons have in general a much smaller range than those of carrierborne (or other) aircraft.

On previous threads you have stated the view that the RN only has a surface fleet to support the carriers, and this is the only reason for carriers. Now you are claiming that defending the carriers stops them from performing other tasks. Please make up your mind. As I see it, the over stretch is a result of the reduction in ship numbers under both Tories and Labour, the increased operational tempo, and the abandonment of the SDR commitment to 32 (after cutbacks) frigates and destroyers. The cuts here were made for the same reasons - saving money.

The level of escort that a carrier (or other high value unit) needs depends on the threat. In the Falklands there was a high threat, hence a high level of ship based defence was needed - hence lots of frigates/destroyers, but note that ships were often dispatched for other tasks (NGS, SF operations etc). In the Adriatic and the Gulf CVS deployments of the 1990s there was a low threat level, hence only a minimal level of escorting was needed. The same was true for Sierra Leone.

In 1990/1991, during Operation Granby, we sent a number (can't remember the exact number) of frigates and destroyers to the Gulf. No CVS there - yet they were still busy. We did, however, send Ark Royal with the Sea Harriers to the Eastern Mediterranean for operational tasks, securing the area for operations.

This may offer some insight into the points I am trying to make:

RUSI memorandum (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmdfence/138we/13828.htm)

Most of the issues have been discussed already, either here or on other SHAR and/or CVS threads. However I have two more comments to make.

Can the UK fire Tomahawk without the explicit permission of Washington? Do we have enough of them to count? Would the pre emptive use of Tomahawk by the UK against enemy airfields ever be politically acceptable?

Jacko you keep saying that an operation without the political support of our allies would be a non starter, which is probably correct. However, there is a world of difference between political support and actually being prepared to commit forces to the front line (cf the Falklands where lots of nations supported the UK one way or another, yet only New Zealand offered to send front line forces).

Stuff

26th Sep 2003, 08:05

How much more effective would a GR9 be if it had full ASRAAM integration compared with the AIM-9. What about the integration that the Jaguar force has received?

The jag force got everything that it did because it's a mature airframe. AFAIK the harrier hasn't been declared mature and isn't due to be for quite some time yet.

FEBA

26th Sep 2003, 16:30

Nozzles
were you being ironic. Sorry, I'd been marinading the grey matter in Teachers last night and didn't detect the subtly. Still the slap wont do you any harm any way. :ok:
FEBA

Navaleye

26th Sep 2003, 20:24

As I understand it, the Jag ASRAAM integration is only a partial one. Does any UK a/c have a full integration?

Nozzles

26th Sep 2003, 23:34

Thanks for the birching anyway FEEBs, it was most refreshing. You should all learn from my mistakes:

NEVER DRINK AND TYPE

By the way, was it the bit that goes: "We few, we happy few......blah etc?

Jackonicko

27th Sep 2003, 00:26

WEBF,

1982 wasn't the result of removing capabilities, it was the result of crass political ineptitude and sending stupid signals to Argentina, who responded to them. Different signals would have prevented the Falklands war far more cheaply than fighting it.

"Now you are claiming that defending the carriers stops the from performing other tasks."

Don't shoot the messenger. West is the man who drew attention to the 'cost' (overstretch wise) of high value assets like carriers, and the greater priority which should be accorded to frigates and destroyers, not me.

You rabbit on and on about how we need organic air defence for all these autonomous expeditionary warfare ops we're going to conduct (and keep saying that this, that or the other is 'fact' when it's usually nothing of the sort). I'll give you a fact. The Government and chiefs of staff have decided that we will no longer undertake major autonomous operations without coalition support. Fact!

"......particularly considering that Jordan was not on the side of the coalition and may have offered their air bases to Saddam." I'll have a tiny, tiny snifter of whatever it is that you've been drinking by the gallon, if it's capable of distorting reality quite so far.

Bluewolf,

1) I'll turn your question around. Who has been deterred by our having SHar?
2) Tough choices inevitably mean that one day you might need a capability you've jettisoned. The secret is to maintain those capabilities you use most often, that you're most likely to need, or that allies are unlikely to be able to provide.
3) You got me. I'd be spending the CVF and JSF money more wisely.
4) No guarantees, so you manage the risk.
5) Put 5 p on income tax and it's problem solved...... but in the real world, we need to concentrate resources where they give us the best return, and CVS and SHar definitely don't qualify. And, in my view, nor will CFV/JSF.

Navaleye,

A full digital ASRAAM integration has been demonstrated on the 'Nightcat' Jag.
The in service Jag GR3A has a fully integrated HMSS, and has compatible wiring for ASRAAM out to the pylons, but clearing the weapon for use on the Jag (and providing the right plug on the LAU) has not been funded. Estimated cost including MAR trials, less than £1m for all 54 jets.

"What if Jags run into an agile air threat...." seems more likely than "what if we need carrier based AD during the six year gap" and costs peanuts.

ASRAAM on GR9 (with AWACS support) would certainly ameliorate the loss of AIM-120 on SHar, but could never fully compensate.

FEBA

27th Sep 2003, 00:28

Sozzles,
Spot on, St Crispian. Good isn't it.
FEBA

Jacko

I've tried to lace previous responses to your posts with clear hints which you do not heed. So I'll spell it out in clear. GO FOR THE FACTS NOT THE MAN .
Now your nihilism is really getting to the bits of me that they really ought not too. The Government is this government, already discredited over the GW fiacsco.
They will not around beyond the next election. So what happens then !!!!
How many of your precious Jags are you going to fit on a carrier. What will become of our Foreign policy if you get your way.
FEBA

Jackonicko

27th Sep 2003, 01:27

We are no longer a great power. We withdrew from East of Suez. We've handed back the Empire (even Hong Kong). Rightly or wrongly, we've retreated from that role. Rightly or wrongly, the Defence Assumptions assume that we won't do autonomous ops any more. Those were the assumptions on which the SDR was founded, but also formed the bedrock of the previous Conservative Govt's defence reviews.

To go back to the days when we would 'send a gunboat' and conduct autonomous ops would not be supported by the bulk of the electorate - and even those who might support it would not be willing to pay for it. Pro defence people like you and I might think that too little is being spent on defence, but for any politician to say so would be electoral suicide. There will be no return to those days. That's why we have to make tough choices, and why some capabilities which would once have been viewed as essential have to be ceded.

To pay to retain the SHar and CVS until CVF and JSF will be ready would require enormous cuts elsewhere, and it's my judgement (clearly shared by those who've actually made the decision) that that would have resulted in an unacceptable degradation of more useful capabilities, in order to cover a short duration gap in a rarely needed (Cold War legacy) capability which can, in any case, be covered by land based air power or by our allies if required.

Your faith that this bunch of grinning crooks will be voted out at the next election is refreshing, but I don't share your optimism. But even if the charismatic and exciting IDS is elected with a huge majority in a landslide vote, whether or not we have SHar will not make much difference to our foreign policy. Can you see IDS (or any other British leader) going it alone, without NATO or the USA, in an op which required carrier-based AD, but not the SEAD, ISTAR, etc which we also lack?

In the real harsh world of existing and likely defence budgets I wouldn't retain carrier aviation at all, as I've made plain, because it isn't useful enough often enough to justify the cost, and bleeds money from where it is needed. (With bigger budgets I might retain it, however). But that's a minority view,and carrier aviation will remain, and (when JSF enters service) even the carrierborne AD role will be regained.

If we are going to retain carrier capability in the short term, it makes sense for those carriers to be able to fulfil a useful role. They are too small to simulataneously embark viable numbers of SHars and GR7s, which means that a choice must be made. The choice made by the Politicians and the Chiefs of Staff is that they should have a power projection role, and in that role, the GR7 is clearly the best aircraft to embark. They could have decided that the best role for the carriers would be as fleet air defence ships, in which case they would have been best employed embarking only SHars and Sea King AEWs, though there are doubts as to how useful they'd be even in that role, especially in hot temperatures. Moreover, the absence of a serious or credible air threat in all post Cold War ops cannot be ignored. If there is to be a short term capability gap, maybe a brief loss of AD capability is the easiest one to bear - especially since allies can and do cover that gap.

Afterthought: Pinning one's hopes on the next (Tory) Government may be futile for another reason. Historically the Conservatives in Government have presided over the most wide-ranging and damaging defence cuts we've experienced. They talk the talk but have seldom 'walked the walk'.

FEBA

27th Sep 2003, 01:55

Jacko
Flight International are looking for a defence editor. Please don't apply. I'm off to the Red Lion, if I'm capable of a reply to your last on my return you will get one.
FEBA

Jackonicko

27th Sep 2003, 02:16

1) They can't afford me, sadly.
2) Mrs Jacko would kill me if I made her move anywhere near Sutton.
3) The fact that: "While specialist knowledge or flying experience would be advantageous, they are by no means critical" leads me to think that anyone reading these boards is over-qualified........ Even me.

WE Branch Fanatic

3rd Oct 2003, 07:02

Jacko

Frigate and Destroyer numbers were cut by the Tories under Options for Change etc, then by the present Government under the SDR. Then they reneged on the SDR commitment to a minimum number of 32 last year, at about the same time as deciding to prematurely retire the Sea Harrier. Undoubtably this was for the same reasons - saving money.

Did you (or anyone else) look at the memorandum from RUSI that I provided a link to in my previous post? It gives a very good explaination of many of the points that I have trying to make.

Since I have now worked out how to post links in a better way that just "copy and paste" here are three more links that may help explain some things and put these issues (and CVF related ones - remember that thread?) in context.....

Roles of the Royal Navy (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/content/208.html)

Maritime Contribution to Joint Operations (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/163.html)

Fighting terrorism on the oceans (http://www.eastlant.nato.int/hq_info/HQ%20Mag%2002_2/fighting_terrorism_on_the_oceans.htm)

Navaleye

6th Oct 2003, 21:03

John,

Assuming the upgrade had happened to the FA2, how would speculate the extra thrust of the MK107 would have altered the flight characteristics of the airplane.

John Farley

7th Oct 2003, 00:03

Navaleye

All a bit of a guess really.

Certainly much would depend on whether the intake was changed (as with Harrier II) or not.

If the intake was kept as SHAR then the aeroplane would probably not have felt much different to the pilot, but it would have benefited from more thrust at all conditions. As I am sure you realise when at 40k and 0.8 and excess thrust over drag is small and so could easily double with a touch more donk. Thus the effect on high level manoeuvrability would be considerable. Nice to have more thrust for hot VL too.

How much more thrust would have been available without intake changes I can only guess. Perhaps 40% of the extra potential from the new donk could have been lost if it was sucking a bit hard behind the original intake. Not too sure about the surge margin either. Such matters are very difficult to predict without ever doing the installation and flying it. The Harrier II originally surged in the middle of the envelope on the climb (no alpha to talk of, or sideslip and at normal climb speed) before the redesigned intake and prod engines were tweaked over some 8 months in 1982.
(my most fun year ever – 2 hours gliding in 40 separate episodes…)

If the intake had also been changed then I am sure most of the AV-8B installation thrust would have been achieved, but I don’t see how it would have been at its best without lerx as well.

FEBA

8th Oct 2003, 00:32

Once again it is necessary to re-visit the concerns that are shared by the opposition Defence secretary and the admiralty regarding the inability of the RN to mount deep sea ops after the SHar is removed from service in 2006. The following is a quote from the Daily Telegraph:
Cuts 'rip heart out of defence strategy'
By David Graves
(Filed: 08/05/2002)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The arguement is really very simple. There can be no good reason to deprive the RN of its operational capabities and obligations by getting rid of the SHar. Furthermore I have yet to see one creditable reason as to why they should go ie a better replacement for example. Objections to the SHar followed by assertions that the Jaguar is a better aircraft are simply ludicrous and not worthy of any plausible, considered arguement.

Here is some more. If you felt yourselves yawning after the last post Wake Up. This is serious
(I think many of you need reminding)

Quote from the Daily Telegraph:
Sea Harrier's demise puts Britain's fleet in peril for six years
(Filed: 08/05/2002)

BRITAIN loses taskforce capability, writes David Graves

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

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

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

If the Government wanted to go to war, a taskforce would have to be accompanied by an American aircraft carrier to provide fixed-wing air defence. If Washington vetoed the operation, there would be little, if anything, the Navy could do. (So the US get to dictate UK Foreign policy, my words)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So to all of you at Blackpool DO NOT ALLOW THE SEA HARRIER TO BE REMOVED FROM SERVICE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A REPLACEMENT IS AVAILABLE
FEBA

Oggin Aviator

8th Oct 2003, 01:21

I well remember the second article, in fact we had it up on the wall in the office. It had some lovely graphics depicting the layers of defence. Although not arguing with basic concept behind the article, the piece on the AEW Sea King was wholly innacurate and misleading. Even our old Mk 2 aircraft was far more capable than that described.

The new Mk7 ASac Aircraft is a quantum leap in technology and capability and is state of the art.

A shameless plug for my community I know however more info can be found on the Navy website here (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/4622.html)

Oggin

FEBA

8th Oct 2003, 01:45

Sir Timothy Garden (http://www.sourceuk.net/columnists/timothygarden-text.html)

Sea Harriers Go Early
by Sir Timothy Garden

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon announces the new "Migration strategy for the Joint Force Harrier". This rather technical sounding programme involves the early phasing out of the Royal Navy Sea Harrier Force. There will be concerns in many quarters that the loss of this unique sea-based fighter capability is another indication of problems in funding the UK defence programme. Last month the RAF lost a Tornado F3 air defence fighter squadron, and now the Fleet Air Arm will lose all 24 of its Sea Harrier FA2s which are divided between 3 squadrons. The run down is expected to take place between 2004 and 2006. The MOD are taking a strong line that this is a sensible route to the new aircraft carrier capability which arrives in 2012. The arguments are complex and will need careful handling.

The Joint Harrier Force, conceived during the Strategic Defence Review, is up and running with a mixture of Navy and RAF Harrier aircraft. Unfortunately, the Sea Harrier and the RAF's Harrier GR7 share little in common apart from the name and an ability to hover. The Sea Harrier is an updated version of the original British designed Harrier aircraft. It has a good radar and air defence missile system, but suffers from insufficient power and an elderly airframe. As a result range and endurance are limited for carrier operations, and the problem becomes critical in warm climates. The RAF Harrier GR7 is a second generation and design of aircraft, and is a version of the American AV8B. It is to be upgraded over the next 3 years with a yet more powerful engine, and also the ability to operate the new range of precision weapons. It will then be known as the Harrier GR9.

The new plan sees the Joint Harrier Force changing from a mixture of Sea Harriers and Harrier GR7s to a single fleet of Harrier GR9s. There will be savings in logistics, maintenance and training costs that come from a common fleet. There will also be a considerable saving from the reduction of number of aircraft to be operated. The current Joint Harrier Force has a total of 113 aircraft; after the migration to the GR9 this is expected to reduce to 71 aircraft. Not only will the 3 Sea Harrier squadrons disappear, but the four GR7 squadrons of 12 aircraft each will reduce to 9 GR9 aircraft per squadron. This reduces the pilot requirement at a time when both the Fleet Air Arm and the RAF are suffering from shortages.

But the MOD claims that the savings in money and manpower are not the driving force for this change. Certainly there is no improvement in operational capability in the near term. The prime role of the Sea Harrier was to provide air defence for a Carrier force. Missiles aboard surface ships can provide point defence, but do not allow the area defence necessary to control air space. Without the Sea Harrier, the MOD will have to think very carefully where it places its carriers for operations. In practice they will need to be assured that the US Navy will be able to give continuous air defence cover if they are within range of possible hostile powers. This is not very different from what already happens, but, at a time when Allies are being pressed to do more, it may be seen by the USA as a move in the wrong direction. It would be possible to upgrade the GR9 further so that it had a suitable radar to operate in the fighter role, but this would cost more money than the MOD are prepared to pay when they are expecting the Joint Strike Fighter to provide all their needed capabilities from 2012 onwards.

So why is this drop in operational capability being accepted if budgets are not the key? The rationale is that these moves are necessary in order to make a coherent transition to the new force envisaged for the two new aircraft carriers which are due in 2012 and 2015. A single aircraft type, the Joint Strike Fighter, would have replaced all Naval and RAF Harriers in any case. To have updated the Sea Harrier as well as the GR7 would not have been sensible, particularly as the need is to promote offensive airpower. In addition, the merger of the aircrew and, even more importantly, the engineering support from RAF and RN will take time. By doing it this way, they will be ready as a truly joint force to take on the JSF when it arrives.

On balance, recognition of the limitations of the Sea Harrier is overdue. However, the loss of a key capability in any maritime operation is a concern. The final design of the Joint Strike Fighter has still to be agreed. It would be a brave prophet who forecast a delivery date. Even the upgrades to the GR7 carry technical risk of delay. The acute shortage of Royal Navy Harrier pilots will be less obvious in the merged squadrons of the Joint Harrier Force, and the RAF will be able to absorb its displaced aircrew to fill empty cockpits elsewhere. However, the effect on long term retention and recruitment will take some time to see. It is not clear whether it will be positive or negative for either service. Perhaps the greatest question will be why the new big aircraft carriers are so important in 2012 and 2015 if we feel we can limp along until then with our small capability reduced yet further.

Finally, it is surprising to see this important force change being agreed ahead of the work on the extra chapter to the SDR due in the Summer. There will however we a welcome for the early guidance to the FAA staff at Yeovilton as to the new timetable for their family moves north.

Need any more. I think thats enough for tonight , however the web is full of articles from highly respected people such as Sir Timothy.
FEBA

WE Branch Fanatic

8th Oct 2003, 06:43

I seem to remember posting those two stories on another Sea Harrier thread (SHAR Wars) last year, although with much less finesse.

I think this is the diagram you are refering to:

Picture from the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2002/05/08/ndef08big.jpeg)

This picture is something of a simplification of the situation - but I think you get the point.

Another thing, I seem to remember that in 1998 and 1999 there were a couple of crises in the Gulf (again over the issue of Saddam not allowing UN inspectors to work freely) which resulted in a CVS, complete with Sea Harriers, being sent to the Gulf. So it has been deployed out there.

FEBA

8th Oct 2003, 16:40

The following is an extract from Hansard 17JUL2002. The debate reveals the governments acceptance of horrible gaps in the RN's AD capabilities. Time to have another debate.

Mr. Kevan Jones: May I try to extract a commitment from the hon. Gentleman? The Conservative party's approach to defence expenditure seems to rely on an elastic cheque book. If we were in the nightmare situation that there was a Tory Government, would they take a gamble with money and technology and actually upgrade the Sea Harrier?

Mr. Howarth: There is no technical gamble in operating the Sea Harrier at present. As we speak, the Sea Harrier is on duty with Her Majesty's forces, performing the role for which it was designed—to defend the fleet and act as an interceptor. The aircraft is doing that at the moment, so there is no technical gamble to take.

The Government should acknowledge that the Select Committee, by consensus, was unhappy with their decision to scrap the Sea Harrier. Even Sir Jock conceded:

The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) also referred to that point. In effect, Sir Jock was saying—he made no secret of it—"If we had the money, we'd like to keep the Sea Harriers". I have heard that from even higher authorities.

Mr. Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he still shares my opinion that no sustainable argument was made by anyone who gave evidence to the Committee for the early phasing out of the Sea Harrier? The life of the aircraft could be extended until the gap could be fully covered by the Type 45 and the upgraded equipment on the Type 42.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right. If the joint strike fighter is to have its air defence capability, it is conceded that that would be valuable for a maritime expeditionary force, but that is what will be removed.

The Government are relying on the Type 45 destroyer with its improved phased-array radar and new principal anti-air missile system to make up some of the air defence capability lost with the demise of the Sea Harrier. However, the first Type 45 is not due in service until at least 2007—as the Minister acknowledged—but we do not know whether that target in-service date will be achieved. Even that is a full 18 months after the last Sea Harrier will have disappeared—assuming that the programme will be on time and that its weapons system meets the specification.

Will the Minister confirm the Defence Procurement Agency's statement that the ship will have a potential ballistic missile defence capability, using the Sampson radar? In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence denied that any Ministry of Defence studies had been made to assess the specific suitability of the Type 45 for a ballistic missile defence role. He also acknowledged:

"It is not . . . something that I would have chosen to do were it not for the fact that we have to make some hard choices in terms of balance of investment

"As the design of the type 45 progresses, opportunities to upgrade the ship's capability are being identified and acted upon".—[Official Report, 16 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 158W.]

17 Jul 2002 : Column 338

Will the Minister tell us what those opportunities are and whether studies will be carried out to assess the vessel's adaptability to a BMD role? However shy the Government may be on that point, we know that the capability exists, and Labour Members should reflect on the assurances—false or otherwise—that they may have been given.

Mr. Francois: Although the official in-service date for the Type 45 is late 2007, the vessel is a first of class. With such vessels there are often extra trials, so realistically the in-service date will be 2008 or even 2009. Can my hon. Friend therefore confirm that the gap between the Sea Harrier coming out and PAAMS—the principal anti-air missie systems—being available on the Type 45 could be two or even three years?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Type 45 is due at the end of 2007. Once it has been to sea, it will be withdrawn—as my hon. Friend rightly says—to—the principal anti-air missile systems—undergo further trials. It will thus not be available.

Military chief to retire early as Hoon denies rift
By Andrew Sparrow and Benedict Brogan
(Filed: 06/07/2002)

Admiral Sir Michael Boyce is understood to be preparing to retire as the most senior military officer next year amid rumours that he has a poor relationship with ministers.

The Chief of the Defence Staff will have served just two years in the job if, as expected, he leaves his post early next year at the age of 60.

Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence said yesterday it was usual for a CDS to be appointed for a two-year term, but Sir Michael's two immediate predecessors both served for more than three years. Extending the contract is little more than a formality.

Yesterday, Mr Hoon denied reports that Sir Michael was to step down early because of disagreements. "There is no truth in that story whatsoever," he said.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman was more circumspect, saying that no decision had been taken about his tenure. Reports of a rift between Sir Michael and Mr Hoon were "pretty speculative", the two men enjoying "an effective working relationship".

There have been reports in military circles that Sir Michael's relations with Mr Hoon are strained. The two are understood to have disagreed over funding and aspects of the war against terrorism.

Sir Michael, a distinguished submariner, is said to have been deeply unhappy about Mr Hoon's decision to scrap the Navy's Sea Harriers.

He was subject to criticism at the end of last year for warning against a "Wild West" approach to terrorism, which was interpreted as an attack on the Americans.

FEBA

Navaleye

8th Oct 2003, 23:35

An all GR9 airgroup on CVS will cause another problem, namely bomb room capacity. Its been speculated on another board that the bomb room on a CVS can only hold 30 X 1,000lb bombs. If true, we are looking at less than one strike by a 9 ship GR9 squadron before its stocks are empty. Some power... some projection.

FEBA

8th Oct 2003, 23:51

Time to escalate things, guys.
I want this debated again in the House of Commons and I want the government to back down. Common sense dictates here.
All of you that support this cause would you please write to your MP (mine's getting a letter, Alan Duncan). The ball needs to start rolling; NOW.
FEBA

Jackonicko

9th Oct 2003, 04:48

Navaleye,

If what you say is correct, then the CVS is clearly of no use for power projection. It's not a cost effective way of delivering that small a number of sorties.

It follows that a half and half air wing will be similarly non-effective.

The only remaining role for the CVS is thus Fleet Air Defence, with an all SHar air wing. There aren't enough SHars on a CVS to do that properly even without diluting the numbers by embarking GR9s, and what's the point of sending a carrier if all it can do is defend itself and its escorts?

And our coalition allies can do that anyway.

Scrap the SHar and scrap the CVSs now.

And scrap the 30% overweight JSF and the CVFs now, too and spend the money more wisely.

FEBA

9th Oct 2003, 05:52

Jacko

I would be obliged if you can submit a sound strategic and business case as to why the Sea Harrier should be withdrawn from service.

Thank you

FEBA

ORAC

9th Oct 2003, 06:04

If you get stuck Jacko, ask the MOD. They've got a signed one you can crib off...........

Jackonicko

9th Oct 2003, 07:25

A sound strategic case?

What, like your mix of outdated Cold War paranoia, your Little Englander
isolationism ('sendA sound strategic case?

What, like your mix of outdated Cold War paranoia, your Little Englander
isolationism ('send a gunboat'), your single service obsessive selfishness,
your inability to recognise the realities of a restricted budget and a
changed world, your inability to answer what I'll admit are hard questions
about cost effectiveness, and your constant harping on about the Falklands
(which are already protected by land-based AD)..........

Much better minds than mine have reached the conclusion that the SHar does
not offer a useful enough capability to justify its retention, and that
other assets are a higher priority for scarce resources.

They acknowledge that there will be a capability gap, but are happy that
that gap will be covered by our coalition partners, or by land-based AD.
They have taken on board the fact that we will no longer undertake
autonomous national operations, and cannot fund or structure our armed
forces on that basis.

They see the most useful role for the CVS in this post-Cold War world, with
its emphasis on littoral ops, peacekeeping and peace enforcement as being
power projection. They recognise that the CVS is too small to embark
sufficient aircraft to conduct OS and AD ops simultaneously.

This isn't rocket science, chaps.

Get defence spending back to Cold War levels and you can have all the
occasionally useful, 'nice to have' kit and capabilities that we had back
then, but otherwise, we must cut our coat according to the cloth, and must
concentrate resources on those core capabilities which are needed every
time, rather than on carriers, which might be useful one day......

BlueWolf

9th Oct 2003, 14:53

If the question doesn't appear too dim, can anybody tell me precisely what was wrong with Cold War defence spending levels?
They appeared to be affordable at the time, the sky didn't fall, the people were affluent, gainfully employed and reasonably happy....or have I missed something?
:confused:

Jackonicko

9th Oct 2003, 18:18

Cold War defence spending was sufficient to provide armed forces big enough to meet peacetime needs, and a small, cheap, nuclear deterrent which would have bought some negotiating time.

But unscrupulous politicians pretended that our Cold War armed forces were sufficient to fight a major war against the 'Bloc, and therefore encouraged the public to expect a 'Peace Dividend' once the Cold War ended. The opportunity was not taken to trim those capabilities which were no longer relevant, and instead, most of the cuts fell on units which could have had a useful post Cold War role (including many of the FJ units which participated in Granby).

That Genie is now 'out of the bottle' and persuading the general public of the need for higher spending (with a commensurate increase in income tax) looks to be an impossible task.

In fact, properly structured armed forces, capable of meeting all likely post Cold War contingencies (and including at least three full-scale carriers!), would cost much more than the Cold War armed forces did. I'd support such spending personally, but recognise that it ain't going to happen.

FEBA

10th Oct 2003, 04:34

Jacko

My two questions were carefully posed, since I knew you would be able to answer neither, and indeed you proved me correct.

Your eagerness to launch into rebuke reveals your true grasp of the subject matter. I cannot share your parochial vision of this country and its international political influence. Neither can I share your misguided opinions regarding foreign policy and handing it over wholesale to Washington by allowing them to provide AD for deep sea maritime operations at our behest.

The political ramifications that will be felt as a result of the withdrawal from service of the Sea Harrier could be catastrophic for the Royal Navy and extremely damaging to British interests as a whole.

I will do my upmost to see that this decision is reversed.

FEBA

Jackonicko

10th Oct 2003, 08:26

The defence assumptions upon which policy (and defence reviews) has been based since the late 1980s, accepted by both Conservative and Labour administrations, do not envisage autonomous national operations of the kind you hark back to.

I should add that they are not my assumptions, nor do they reflect my 'parochial' view of this country's international importance or influence. They are the defence assumptions produced by our democratically elected Government, and they do not differ in substance from those of the previous Conservative Government. It's not me who has decided that we will henceforth only operate in concert with the US or NATO, it's our government.

I would suggest to you that neither party would accept a fundamental move away from these assumptions, with all the implications it would have on the level of spending necessary. Rightly or wrongly, the days of plucky little Britain 'going it alone' without coalition support have gone forever. You and I both think that it is 'wrongly', and probably both think back to Suez and the Falklands as examples of why relying on allies may not always be wise. But I can accept that the change has happened, and that it is irreversible.

If you want your carriers and SHars you will have to justify them within the context of coalition operations, because you will not succeed in forcing any UK Government back to the expense of across the board, unilateral, autonomous capability. Some politicians may one day pay lip service to the idea, but none will ever fund it.

If your case for the SHar is based on a "what if we have to do an op autonomously, and the USA and our NATO allies won't play ball, and if it's out of range of land-based AD" scenario, then I'm afraid that the politicians and the Brass will simply respond that: "That is not what we would do, and that is not what our defence budget would allow us to do."

I think that we should still be able to 'do' a Corporate or a Granby sized operation, but that is not required under the present defence assumptions. Deploy more than 64 fast jets? That's not what we're required to be able to do. And if you don't like it, then you need to convince enough of the elctorate to vote and pay for it, and convince the politicians.

In answer to your original questions.

The sound case for the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier is that:

After exhaustive operational and risk analysis, it is felt that the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier will generate a worthwhile cost saving, without posing an unacceptable risk. The money saved will be better used supporting more useful, more economic and more versatile assets which are required more often and more regularly. Over the short term, the likelihood of encountering a robust air threat has been assessed as low. In any case the CVS vessels were too small to simultaneously carry out AD and OS roles simultaneously (when carrying GR9s, there are too few SHars to provide continuous AD cover), so that if the ships are to fulfil the power projection role outlined under the SDR, they will inevitably deploy with an all-GR9 air wing. It has been assessed that the temporary and short term loss of Fleet AD capability (pending the introduction of JSF) can be adequately covered by land-based assets and by coalition and allied partners.

Withdrawing SHar will also solve a growing manning and supportability problem.

FEBA

10th Oct 2003, 15:25

Jacko
If you want your carriers and SHars you will have to justify them within the context of coalition operations
Cast your mince pies across this then.

MoD failed to tell allies of plan to axe Sea Harriers
By David Graves
(Filed: 15/06/2002)

The Government did not consult Britain's closest military allies or Nato about its plans to axe the Fleet Air Arm's Sea Harriers, the Ministry of Defence has admitted.

Ministers have argued that from 2006, when the Harriers are due to be withdrawn in a cost-cutting measure, the Navy would be able to dispatch a task force with air defence provided by a "coalition" aircraft carrier.

But the MoD has now admitted, after questioning by Tory MPs, that no advance discussions were held with America, France, Spain, Italy and Germany before the decision was announced on Feb 28.

Neither were discussions held with Lord Robertson, the Nato secretary general, Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces minister, said in a Commons written reply.

The decision to withdraw what the Navy regards as Britain's best all-weather fighter is known to have caused alarm among senior officers of the US Navy and US Air Force

Without the Sea Harriers, the Navy could not unilaterally deploy a task force from 2006 until at least 2012 when the planned new Anglo-American Joint Strike Fighter is introduced.

Ministers have argued that they cannot envisage Britain participating in any military action between 2006 and 2012 when the Navy would not be acting in partnership with allies.

But Mr Ingram admitted the MoD had kept its close allies in the dark about the decision and they would be informed officially only in Britain's annual submission to the Nato defence planning questionnaire.
unquote

You may wish to reflect as to why you are in a minority (you and Geoff Hoon) with regard to the premature disposal of the SHar. Why is it that those that command our forces and coalition forces do not share your opinions.
The decision should be reversed and now is a good time to achieve it.
FEBA

Jackonicko

10th Oct 2003, 18:44

Only me and Geoff?

The decision to prematurely retire the Sea Harrier was considered and discussed as one of the regular 'Options'. The Brass recommended it to the Secretary of State as being one of the 'least painful'. It's been arrived at after due process, I'm afraid.

Any 'option', if exercised, would materially effect Britain's ability to conduct coalition ops, and would inevitably require someone else to cover the gap, whether it was withdrawing the Jaguar, cutting Typhoon Tranche 3, withdrawing a Trident boat, whatever. And such steps are always taken unilaterally, by our own Government, and not collaboratively with our allies. That may be wrong, and it may be 'unhelpful', but it's the way these things are done.

Since you like questions, here are a couple for you.

When, since 1990, would it have been more useful for the RN to despatch an all-SHar air wing than an all GR7/9 air wing?

When would coalition allies or land-based air have been unable to provide sufficient AD cover to meet the actual threat?

Make a sound business case for spending more to retain two eight-aircraft single-role, short range AD squadrons than for retaining three 13-aircraft multi-role squadrons or for retaining four 13 aircraft single-role long range AD squadrons.

Navaleye

10th Oct 2003, 19:35

Jacko said:

When, since 1990, would it have been more useful for the RN to despatch an all-SHar air wing than an all GR7/9 air wing?

Well lest take a look at the facts:

1) The GR7 is a flying target for any fighter. It simply cannot conduct its business if there is the slightest hint of enemy fighters. It cannot fight its way in or out. It cannot defend itself or its ship. It is naive in the extreme to assume that your enemy will just sit still and watch you attack him.

2) The FA2 can fight its way in and out and a mixed fighter/bomber mix of FA2s is much more capable in a high threat environment. Granted its weapons delivery systems are not as good, but at least it stands a chance of getting there to use them.

What the ill-informed tend to forget is that with an all-Shar force, you can sanistise the area of enemy fighters with one of the best radar AMRAAM combinations available and then switch to a mixed fighter/bomber force to acheive your objective AND get back in one piece.

This has been standard naval doctrine since WW2.

I note the USMC and the Italian and Spanish navies have decided that a plane without radar has had its day and are busy re-equipping them with radar, we on the other hand are willing sacrifice our pilots lives and take them off.

Surely a good compromise would be to by a dozen Harrier II+ airframes to give our pilots some protection.

WE Branch Fanatic

10th Oct 2003, 21:15

.........Or we could keep at least some Sea Harriers.

Jacko, Nozzles is going to have you for that. Remember Bosnia etc?

As for power projection - what about amphibious operations?

Navaleye

10th Oct 2003, 22:01

The CVS does have a limited weapons store, but it normally sails with an RFA which has lots of weapons on board, so this is a non-issue.

A CVS can operate 22 fixed wing types if the helo overhead is moved to an RFA as is normally the case.

This means you could have a full squadron of mud-movers and a AD strength of 10 FA2s. That is a perfectly adequate capability most most types of brush fire encounters. CVF will probably operate a standard airgroup of 24 aircraft, but these will have a far greater range/capability.

FEBA

10th Oct 2003, 22:47

Jacko
You're a gift, you really are:
The decision to prematurely retire the Sea Harrier was considered and discussed as one of the regular 'Options'. The Brass recommended it to the Secretary of State

Who says the brass recommended it. As far as they were concerned it was a fait accompli, same went for NATO. As is common practise for this government it was all done behind closed doors and those that were in charge were not consulted. If they were this thread wouldn't exist.

When, since 1990, would it have been more useful for the RN to despatch an all-SHar air wing than an all GR7/9 air wing?

This is a great one, so I'll answer it with a question: when was the last time we dropped an atomic bomb or launched an atomic missile in anger??

Face it Jacko, your defence policy has more to do with the hippy movement than with reality. "lets all get round the table and have a nice cup of tea and a chat" cuts no ice with errant countries. We're still a force to be reckoned with and I and a hell of a lot more want to keep it that way.

One last question for you (i love asking them) How much will Washington charge us for providing AD for our fleet or will it be gratis because they like us so much??

FEBA

ORAC

10th Oct 2003, 23:02

"when was the last time we dropped an atomic bomb or launched an atomic missile in anger?"

Good point, which explains why the RAF got rid of the V force in the 60s and the entire nuclear strike role in the 90s.

The changing threat also explained why the entire F-4 fleet vanished, then RAFG along with a portion of the GR1 force. It also explains the loss of the Maritime strike role and the reduced strength of the Nimrod force. It also helps explain the expected cuts in the Typhoon and/or JSF orders.

What's you justification for being immune from political and economic reality?

If there were any more funds available, I would have thought the present threat would justify a reinforced QRA posture before keeping an aircraft who's main justification seems to be protecting it's own carrier and the ships doing nothing but help support and defend it. :hmm:

Jackonicko

10th Oct 2003, 23:27

Navaleye,

Lovely. FA2s boldly sweeping their way into the target, hacking down the hordes of MiG-29s and Su-30s en route. Brings a quiver to the voice and a lump to the throat.

But when has that capability actually been required, since 1990? Remember that you're losing it from 2006 until 2012..... a six year gap. How often will it be needed then?

22 fixed wing with the SAR/ASW/AEW moved to another hugely expensive, vulnerable ship....? OK that doubles the cost of the deployment, but the calculations were that you needed a minimum of 16 AD aircraft to maintain AD cover (at an astonishingly tiny radius, and for an astonishingly short duration, though I suspect those figures are classified, or restricted) and 24 to sustain it for a longer period.

Which leaves room for a worthwhile number of GR7s, which (under present doctrine - mine and Geoff's not agreed with the Chiefs of Staff, of course) is the primary purpose of sending a carrier.

WEBF,

Bosnia? Just ask M2 how 'essential' the SHar was in Bosnia. To refresh your memory, no target in the Balkans required the use of carrier air power because all were within range of land based assets.

FEBA,

Decisions on defence spending cuts are made by the Secretary of State on the basis of advice received from the Chiefs of Staff, whose decisions are, in turn, based on the well-established practise of running and comparing various 'options' put forward by the DECs, etc. The decision as to which options to consider are also taken by the services themselves, so that the RN may not have wanted to look at losing a Trident boat, and may not have put it forward, while the RAF may not have put forward a reduction in Typhoon numbers. But the option of prematurely withdrawing the SHar came from the services, as did the details of the cost savings and operational benefits that would flow from it.

The decision to axe the SHar was no different to any other. To claim that: "As is common practise for this government it was all done behind closed doors and those that were in charge were not consulted." is just plain wrong. It was not presented as a 'fait accompli' to the Admiralty. You're forcing me to defend people I despise, here. But I'm afraid that to think that Geoff and Tone took the decision unilaterally shows a total lack of understanding of how such decisions are actually taken.

Finally (and though I'm tired with your silly insults) it's not 'My' defence policy that "has more to do with the hippy movement than with reality". It's the policy of the Government of the day and its predecessors. Moreover, while it may be amusing (if you're sufficiently infantile) to characterise that policy as "lets all get round the table and have a nice cup of tea and a chat" it is wrong to do so. Acting in concert with our Allies has resulted in:

Desert Storm
Allied Force
Enduring Freedom
Iraqi Freedom

Now forgive me if I've missed something, but those ops seemed to "cut some ice" with some errant countries - Baathist Iraq, Taliban Afghanistan and the Milosovic regime in Serbia. Whereas pretending that we can still strut the globe enforcing our will unilaterally just looks like empty and pathetic posturing.

FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "That's not the way we achieve foreign policy objectives any more, sir."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "The Gunboats we have aren't really fit for purpose any more, but we could send one configured to salvo rockets, which we think is a better way of employing these hulls."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "Neither the USA nor NATO would support sending a gunboat in these circumstances."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat"
Geoff: "We don't do that any more, we act in concert with our allies."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "We actually can't afford gunboats any more, and our defence budget is structured on the basis of undertaking coalition ops."
FEBA: "Send a Gunboat."
Geoff: "I'd love to, but I'd have to have a bigger budget and would have to raise taxes. Any sensible suggestions?
FEBA: "Ah, now you put it that way, I'll engage in sensible conversation with you. You see I do have a solution......... Send a Gunboat."

I asked a simple question:

"When, since 1990, would it have been more useful for the RN to despatch an all-SHar air wing than an all GR7/9 air wing?"

Your answer was that: "This is a great one, so I'll answer it with a question..."

No, don't answer it with some irrelvant comparison about nukes, that's an entirely separate debate. Just answer the £@ç&ing question.

You aksed: "One last question for you (i love asking really infantile and silly questions, it demonstrates my grasp of the subject so well.) How much will Washington charge us for providing AD for our fleet or will it be gratis because they like us so much??"

I suspect that Washington will charge us the same for providing AD as we do for providing them with tanker support, PR9s, Nimrods without the pointy tails, etc. etc. That's how coalition ops with your allies work, numb-nuts!

Navaleye

10th Oct 2003, 23:55

Jacko,

Do you have life assurance? if so, presumably this is in case of the unexpected. That's what military assets are also for. The unexpected. The Falklands was not expected, but our "assurance policy" saved the day. What the goverment has done is fundamentally dangerous. Now we have to go begging to the French, Spanish, Italians or Uncle Sam. To keep our soldiers, sailors and airmen safe from air attack.

List of country with Migs:

Most African one party states.
N. Korea.
Just about every non-western aligned middle eastern country.

Its a big dangerous world and without the Shar we are blind and helpless.

FEBA

11th Oct 2003, 00:12

ORAC

What's you justification for being immune from political and economic reality?

Good question, wish that I were. This isn't about me, as you well know. It's about a uni-lateral decision to degrade the ability of a fighting force and our political bargaining power. It's almost certainly to do with the demise of naval fixed wing air ops forever, and that isn't good for any of us.

FEBA

Jacko
Thank you. Your vitriol does our cause a great service. I will not dignify your petulance by commenting on it. Now why don't you sit down calm down and have a nice cup of tea.
FEBA

ORAC

11th Oct 2003, 00:27

"It's almost certainly to do with the demise of naval fixed wing air ops forever"

A bit of an overstatement over a measure made as a stopgap before the purchase of 2 x 50Kt+ carriers and an order for 150 carrier capable JSFs. :hmm:

Jackonicko

11th Oct 2003, 00:54

FEBA,

Sorry about the ‘vitriol’. But in view of your record of ignoring the facts and engaging in personal abuse, I thought I’d try and include some abuse and invective in my post, while still doing you the courtesy of treating you like a rational and intelligent person.

I had a lot to match up to, however.

“My two questions were carefully posed, since I knew you would be able to answer neither...”
“Your eagerness to launch into rebuke reveals your true grasp of the subject matter”
“I cannot share your parochial vision of this country..... Neither can I share your misguided opinions”
“You may wish to reflect as to why you are in a minority (you and Geoff Hoon)”
“Your defence policy has more to do with the hippy movement than with reality. "lets all get round the table and have a nice cup of tea and a chat" cuts no ice with errant countries.”
“You're a gift, you really are.”

You have made a lot of emotive points, many of which have been unsupported and unsupportable by evidence and you have shown a complete understanding of the realities of the budgetary pressures facing the services, and of the way in which they respond to those pressures.

I suspect that your lack of any sensible answer to the points I raise explains your failure to respond to them. Or perhaps it’s that I’ve hurt your feelings by being nearly as rude as you, you delicate little flower.

Navaleye,

I have life assurance. I have insurance. I probably don't have enough of either. At times I have had to make do with Third Party Fire and Theft, when Fully Comp has been unaffordable. I don't have earthquake insurance. In an ideal world, with less limited defence spending, I wouldn't bin the SHar. But in the real circumstances, it's a tough but justifiable cut.

Oggin Aviator

11th Oct 2003, 01:12

!!! Handbags !!!
:D

WE Branch Fanatic

11th Oct 2003, 07:28

Jacko did you read that RUSI memorandum that I posted a link to?

Helicopters being carried by RFA ships as a SECONDARY function is by no means new. Newer RFAs can carry even more helicopters as well as achieving their supply role. It does not necessarily mean deploying extra ships. When forces are deployed, logistics are involved. For UK naval forces that means the RFA. You may find their website (www.rfa.mod.uk) interesting - particularly the "History" section.

This is a quote from it.....

All the tankers and stores ships, with the exception of the LEAF-class, have large flight-decks, hangars and facilities to embark helicopters. These can be used to carry out re-supply by transferring underslung loads, but can also operate from the RFA's as anti-submarine or troop carriers, thus making the RFA ships "force multipliers", additional operational units to the task force. In the 1998 Gulf crisis both FORT GEORGE and FORT VICTORIA carried five helicopters with all their aircrews and support staff on a permanent basis.

In the last few years, the UK has made considerable investments in amphibous warfare. Firstly our LPH, Ocean, then the LPD(R)s, then the RFA Bay Class. But what good are these ships if we cannot achieve at least a measure of air superiority?

Or are they just expensive toys to impress Uncle Sam?

Everyone seems to assume that a task group would exist to support the CVS. But a CVS with Sea Harriers could be needed to provide air defence for frigates and destroyers etc to allow them to operate in an area where there is a air threat considered to have the potential to saturate or evade ship based defences. We should be capable of such operations according to the Future Navy Operational Concept Paper 2001.

Jackonicko

11th Oct 2003, 08:00

"What good are these ships if we cannot achieve at least a measure of air superiority?" Well they can do their job while someone else takes care of AD. Why do we have to achieve that air superiority when Allies can do it for us, perhaps with land based AD assets? We can't do everything, and the politicos have decided that we won't do autonomous ops, without allied support.

AD may well be required to allow ops "where there is an air threat considered to have the potential to saturate or evade ship based defences", but that's a) rare, and b) something which will often be within range of land based AD. And who is to say that it has to be provided by the UK, and not by an ally during this six year gap. We can't do everything, and the politicos have decided that we won't do autonomous ops, without allied support.

Smoketoomuch

13th Oct 2003, 05:20

Oh this is all nonsense! Pardon an OASC reject chipping in here but I can't hold back any longer, and besides the Rioja is flowing nicely :)

Jacko your arguments just don't hold water. How can you blithely state that UK PLC has decided autonomous ops have simply been abandoned and that's that? This is such a massive change in our role in the world! The money is there, its just that our govt has made a decision not to fund any necessary mods/upgrade. Which begs the question why? As I see it it's either;

Utter incompetence: Not impossible but I find it hard to believe even a Lab govt could not see this.

Yank arm-twisting: Never underestimate the depths to which the US will sink to maintain mil and political hegemony, they do it by spending lots of dosh on their own mil, and stopping by any means foreign competition - they didn't like BVRAAM did they? M52, TSR2, German stealth, UK stealth are all examples of 'projects cancelled'. Of course we are by no means 'rivals' to the US, but the more we are impotent the more influence they have with their power of veto - real politik at its most basic. Was it all part of some AMRAAM deal? We get them if we scrap SH shortly after? Labour have a disgraceful record of doing such things, tho usually it's for money to prop up a failing economy.
As an aside; I believe Turkey was offered 30bn USD just to let US troops invade Iraq from the north, I wonder what the UK got for participating, nothing I suspect.

Or... and I wish: BaeSystems have some super stealth long-range bomber/fighter that can provide cover, if it ever gets out the hangar of course.

As always there is something we're not being told about scrapping SH, [and giving so much notice to the world] cos the stated reasons are just rubbish! We are being reduced to a glorified 'home guard' and being expected to rely on countries like France for anything more. France!! Ferrchrissakes!!

Jackonicko

13th Oct 2003, 06:00

Smoke too much,

It's not how much you've been smoking that worries me, it's what you've been smoking.

"How can you blithely state that UK PLC has decided autonomous ops have simply been abandoned and that's that? This is such a massive change in our role in the world!"

I haven't blithely stated it, it's what the Defence Assumptions make clear. Those assumptions describe in detail the level of commitment which our armed forces have to be able to sustain. At one time it included the ability to sustain two simultaneous 32-aircraft FJ deployments, for example. Those are not in some way 'my assumptions' - they are the backbone of the policy mutually decided between the Ministry of Defence, the Government and the Forces chiefs. Moreover, there are many who would like to see us retreat further from 'delusions of imperial grandeur' and to be even more modest in the overseas operations which we attempt, because this is already a cause of considerable over-stretch. There has been a change in our role in the world, but it's one that has already taken place, and is not one being forced upon us by the premature retirement of the SHar.

"The money is there, its just that our govt has made a decision not to fund any necessary mods/upgrade." The money is plainly not there. The money is not sufficient to fund everything, which is why options are being run, and why cuts are being made. This isn't some fiendish plot against the RN, it's a sensible cost-saving measure.

MadsDad

13th Oct 2003, 15:26

Jackonicko. You don't even have to bother reading the Defence Assumptions. When the Minister of Defence appears on television stating that he can forsee no circumstances where we would go to war without the Americans that seems to make matters clear.

However as to whether or not binning the SHAR is a sensible cost cutting measure only time will tell. If we end up in a situation where they are essential and we haven't got them the cancellation will be pilloried. If that situation does not arise everything in the rose garden will be lovely (until the next round of cancellations).

As regards the money being there/not being there I suspect an equal, though related, problem is manning levels. Have the Navy got enough people to man the ships to carry the aircraft? Currently, on the published numbers, all the services are under their establishment figures and are having problems recruiting. It doesn't matter how many aircraft (or helicopters or ships or tanks) you've got if there is nobody to drive them or put fuel in or pump up the tyres. The problem with getting people to join is partly budget related (if a squaddie got paid 100k+ there would be a queue round the block) but as it is, other than the 'glamour' (e.g. pilot) end of the market people look at the pay and just say it isn't worth it.

(It will be interesting to see how many people say that they are currently overpaid. My bet is on none).

FEBA

13th Oct 2003, 18:07

Jacko
Back from a weekend with the kids I feel compelled to let you know just how delicate I am. Here's a little pic of me carrying the wife's shopping.
http://217.204.10.75/img_bg/strongman_we_ic_ehu_es_photos.gif
At a theme park with the kids I was dropped vertically down a 30M tower. I'm wondering if your right!:E

Are you able to handle people disagreeing with you?? Do all the handbag stuff on PM's please. No point in trivialising the really important stuff.

Cheers
FEBA
:cool:

Jackonicko

13th Oct 2003, 19:44

FEBA

1) I note with interest that you're still unable to actually answer the points raised.

2) You have posted whole responses consisting only of 'handbagging'. I at least include my gentle barbs while continuing the debate.

Madsdad

Of course it's a tough choice, and in an ideal world we'd all carry sufficient insurance. Make no mistake, in an ideal world I'd keep the SHar and the carriers. But in todays budgetary conditions, if something HAS to go, there is no better candidate for the chop.

J

WE Branch Fanatic

14th Oct 2003, 04:34

First of all - consider this:

Over 99% of trans-oceanic trade is carried by sea and the United Kingdom is reliant upon maritime trade for its economic security. Consequently, the UK places great importance on the freedom of the sea; it furnishes a safe working environment for British seafarers, cargoes and merchant vessels, is a contributor to national well-being and, in the wider arena, an important manifestation of international peace and security. The RN has a responsibility for the safety of British merchant shipping in crisis, conflict or war, regardless of whether this shipping is operating for commercial purpose or in support of military operations. In many situations, this interest will also extend to merchant shipping belonging to allies. Maritime threats will, in the future, be broad ranging, advanced and unpredictable. Except in facilities such as ports, harbours and smaller, more fixed focal areas and choke points, these threats will be dynamic. Protection must be enhanced by the combined effect of optimised force distribution and dispersal, signature control, co-operative deception, hardening and collective protection, coupled with the inherent mobility of maritime forces. Further, it will be assisted by the increasing co-operation with the Merchant Navy and the more emphasis on a variety of Maritime Trade Operation procedures. Retaining sufficient force protection capabilities against future threats will remain a core operational requirement. From the Future Navy Operational Concept Paper 2001.

It is possible, is it not, that a scenario could arise where a certain regime (lets refer to them as nation X) decides that it wants to attack UK interests (either to gain "street cred" with its supporters or other regimes, or for other reasons) by attacking or harassing UK merchant shipping. For the moment lets make a number of assumptions.....

1. Nation X is somewhere in Africa, Asia or the Middle East, geography means that they are no established friendly air bases that could be easily used.
2. Nation X has Nations Y and Z as its neighbours, but they do not want to get involved in X's argument with the UK.
3. Nation X does not wish to interfere with US flagged vessels so as not to provoke Washington.
4. Nation X has a small Navy, and a small to medium sized air force with MiGs (various types) and helicopters. Some of these aircraft can fire air launched anti ship missiles (a capability that many nations have with Russia and China exporting missiles).

X harasses UK registered shipping to prevent it going through a certain area, and harasses vessels with missile boats etc. To defend UK vessels, HM Government decides to deploy frigates and destroyers, together with supporting RFAs, to area. X then says British warships will be attacked. An assessment of X's air strength concludes that X has the ability to project air power over the area of interest, and could overwhelm or evade ship based defences. Can we still deploy? Imagine the disaster if things go wrong....

If on the other hand, a CVS can be dispatched along with Sea Harriers, the defence of the UK forces in hugely improved and we can deploy our warships to protect our (civillan) shipping. Better still, the existence of this capability may well act as a deterrent and prevent the scenario from ever occurring. By providing this sort of force protection the Sea Harrier acts as a force multiplier and greatly enhances the capability of our naval forces.

Without the Sea Harrier (or a worthy successor) we cannot undertake this type of deployment by ourselves. Nor do we have a deterrent against the sort of act described above. This is the crux of the matter.....

Prevention is better than cure. Deterrance is better than a situation getting to the stage of combat.

The most important lesson to learn in the Falklands conflict is this: If you hope to deter an aggressor from attack, you must have capable, well equipped forces readily available. But above all, you must demonstrate that you have the political will to use them.

Admiral Of The Fleet Lord Lewin.

You may be interested in this US study of fleet air defence and the lessons of 1982:

USN Study (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/HJA.htm)