Just How good is the SHAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just How good is the SHAR
Taken fron Navy News today
While sister squadron 800 prepared to disband for a couple of years, 801 Naval Air Squadron continued to flex its muscles against formidable ‘enemies’ in the skies over the Mediterranean.
The Sea Harrier FA2s, normally based at Yeovilton in Somerset, flew south to the Italian island of Sardinia for a ten-day training exercise, along with a contingent of US Air Force F-15 Eagles normally based at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk.
The Harriers were delayed in transit by bad weather, and had to spend two nights at Salon in France, but once in position they were straight into a session of Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) against the F-15Cs of the USAF 493rd Squadron.
It quickly became apparent that the Americans held a number of trump cards – two powerful engines with afterburners, and the lift provided by huge wings and large control surfaces making the F-15C a formidable opponent.
But the Sea Harrier’s ability to tumble out of sight, by rotating jet nozzles in flight, and to fly very, very slowly, caused more than a few awkward moments for the American pilots.
After the familiarisation period, sorties progressed to Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air intercepts, utilising the powerful radar equipment on both sets of aircraft and their respective air-to-air missiles.
The numbers of aircraft involved increased as the simulated missions became more complex, with up to 18 jets flying for the blue (friendly) or red (enemy) forces at any one time.
And by this stage F-15E strike aircraft of the USAF 494th squadron were also joining in.
Older personnel of 801 Squadron remembered the Sardinina base from the days when it had a strong RAF presence, but now it is shared between the Italian and German air forces, who did a fine job of hosting their British guests despite language barriers.
Social events throughout the stay included quiz and ‘Harrier racing’ nights, organised by the senior rates, and an Under-25s v Over-25s football match.
With the late winter weather in Somerset being indifferent at best, exercises such as this give the squadron a good work-out; no sorties were lost to poor weather – or to unserviceable aircraft, which was also a tribute to the engineers and squadron support staff.
801’s Sardinian training was due to be consolidated by a detachment to Poland, where the Sea Harriers could cross swords with the formidable Mig-29 Fulcrum.
I have a few questions regarding Sea Harrier. Judging by the 4th paragraph, The SHAR didn't do as well as expected against the F15. Therefore:-
1/ Is there an officially recorded kill ratio against these A/C? Sharkey Ward quoted (I think) 5:1 in the SHARS favour but that was over 20 years ago.
2/ does the F15 have a better Radar than SHAR? again, I thought Blue Vixen was Second to none and for that matter would the red or blue sides have used AWACS/ASiCs Platform's in any of the engagements. And if so, how would this have affected the kill ratio?
3/ How would you rate the standard of airmanship of the USAF? (Please no Flaming - just a Constructive criticism if any).
and finally...
If the SHAR is so good why are we getting rid of it????.
BTW - I an't a journalist or anything, i'm just thinking about writing yet another Sh1tty Ditty to the Minister in charge of disarmament Hoon.
Many Thanks
While sister squadron 800 prepared to disband for a couple of years, 801 Naval Air Squadron continued to flex its muscles against formidable ‘enemies’ in the skies over the Mediterranean.
The Sea Harrier FA2s, normally based at Yeovilton in Somerset, flew south to the Italian island of Sardinia for a ten-day training exercise, along with a contingent of US Air Force F-15 Eagles normally based at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk.
The Harriers were delayed in transit by bad weather, and had to spend two nights at Salon in France, but once in position they were straight into a session of Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) against the F-15Cs of the USAF 493rd Squadron.
It quickly became apparent that the Americans held a number of trump cards – two powerful engines with afterburners, and the lift provided by huge wings and large control surfaces making the F-15C a formidable opponent.
But the Sea Harrier’s ability to tumble out of sight, by rotating jet nozzles in flight, and to fly very, very slowly, caused more than a few awkward moments for the American pilots.
After the familiarisation period, sorties progressed to Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air intercepts, utilising the powerful radar equipment on both sets of aircraft and their respective air-to-air missiles.
The numbers of aircraft involved increased as the simulated missions became more complex, with up to 18 jets flying for the blue (friendly) or red (enemy) forces at any one time.
And by this stage F-15E strike aircraft of the USAF 494th squadron were also joining in.
Older personnel of 801 Squadron remembered the Sardinina base from the days when it had a strong RAF presence, but now it is shared between the Italian and German air forces, who did a fine job of hosting their British guests despite language barriers.
Social events throughout the stay included quiz and ‘Harrier racing’ nights, organised by the senior rates, and an Under-25s v Over-25s football match.
With the late winter weather in Somerset being indifferent at best, exercises such as this give the squadron a good work-out; no sorties were lost to poor weather – or to unserviceable aircraft, which was also a tribute to the engineers and squadron support staff.
801’s Sardinian training was due to be consolidated by a detachment to Poland, where the Sea Harriers could cross swords with the formidable Mig-29 Fulcrum.
I have a few questions regarding Sea Harrier. Judging by the 4th paragraph, The SHAR didn't do as well as expected against the F15. Therefore:-
1/ Is there an officially recorded kill ratio against these A/C? Sharkey Ward quoted (I think) 5:1 in the SHARS favour but that was over 20 years ago.
2/ does the F15 have a better Radar than SHAR? again, I thought Blue Vixen was Second to none and for that matter would the red or blue sides have used AWACS/ASiCs Platform's in any of the engagements. And if so, how would this have affected the kill ratio?
3/ How would you rate the standard of airmanship of the USAF? (Please no Flaming - just a Constructive criticism if any).
and finally...
If the SHAR is so good why are we getting rid of it????.
BTW - I an't a journalist or anything, i'm just thinking about writing yet another Sh1tty Ditty to the Minister in charge of disarmament Hoon.
Many Thanks
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
althenick
don't waste the ink, the SHAR is a toy, quite a good one, but still a toy.
It has neither the thrust, the speed, the endurance or the avionics to make it truly credible. The SHAR has no place in a modern conflict and as such should be removed from service.
don't waste the ink, the SHAR is a toy, quite a good one, but still a toy.
It has neither the thrust, the speed, the endurance or the avionics to make it truly credible. The SHAR has no place in a modern conflict and as such should be removed from service.
That's a tad harsh.
The SHar has a useful AD capability, and an excellent little radar, though it is restricted by:
1) Several factors which cannot be overcome
Modest payload
Very modest range/endurance
Lack of supersonic acceleration
2) Some factors which could be overcome with relatively modest spending
Lack of ASRAAM/HMS
No longer routinely carries a gun
The real problem is that the RN's carriers aren't big enough to carry a meaningful number of SHars if GR.Mk 7s are also embarked. They can function as AD ships with SHars and Sea Kings, or as power projection ships with GR.Mk 7s, but if a mixed complement of GR7s and SHars are carried there are insufficient of either type to do the job.
The decision has been taken that the Fleet AD role can be 'done without' for the nine or ten years until JSF arrives, leaving a capability gap which will have to be covered by land based AD assets or by our allies. It is recognised that in the unlikely event that we had to do a unilateral autonomous Falklands type op (a most unlikely circumstance) we would be f*cked, but that if we retain Shar we would have to do without more useful capabilities.
The reasoning behind the decision was the sensible but still contentious belief that the carriers would be more useful if they were to embark an all-GR7 air wing.
It could be argued that the Shar should have been retained in order to give us the flexibility to use the carriers in either role, or even with a mixed complement if we accept the gaps in AD cover that would result. On the other hand, retiring the SHar will provide significant savings (including the cost of some vital but expensive upgrades), and will solve the developing manning crisis which was starting to emerge.
If a fast jet type had to be withdrawn prematurely, then the Sea Harrier was the least painful cut to endure.
The SHar has a useful AD capability, and an excellent little radar, though it is restricted by:
1) Several factors which cannot be overcome
Modest payload
Very modest range/endurance
Lack of supersonic acceleration
2) Some factors which could be overcome with relatively modest spending
Lack of ASRAAM/HMS
No longer routinely carries a gun
The real problem is that the RN's carriers aren't big enough to carry a meaningful number of SHars if GR.Mk 7s are also embarked. They can function as AD ships with SHars and Sea Kings, or as power projection ships with GR.Mk 7s, but if a mixed complement of GR7s and SHars are carried there are insufficient of either type to do the job.
The decision has been taken that the Fleet AD role can be 'done without' for the nine or ten years until JSF arrives, leaving a capability gap which will have to be covered by land based AD assets or by our allies. It is recognised that in the unlikely event that we had to do a unilateral autonomous Falklands type op (a most unlikely circumstance) we would be f*cked, but that if we retain Shar we would have to do without more useful capabilities.
The reasoning behind the decision was the sensible but still contentious belief that the carriers would be more useful if they were to embark an all-GR7 air wing.
It could be argued that the Shar should have been retained in order to give us the flexibility to use the carriers in either role, or even with a mixed complement if we accept the gaps in AD cover that would result. On the other hand, retiring the SHar will provide significant savings (including the cost of some vital but expensive upgrades), and will solve the developing manning crisis which was starting to emerge.
If a fast jet type had to be withdrawn prematurely, then the Sea Harrier was the least painful cut to endure.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
maybe the way I expressed it was a tad harsh, but didn't you repeat what I said in a more errudite and considered form?
IMHO for the last 10 years the SHAR has been nothing better than a PR stunt for the Navy. At a time when British Mil have been at breaking point where has the SHAR really made a substantial contribution:
Gulf - No.
Bosnia/Kosovo - No (certainly not substantial).
Now that was a tad harsh!
maybe the way I expressed it was a tad harsh, but didn't you repeat what I said in a more errudite and considered form?
IMHO for the last 10 years the SHAR has been nothing better than a PR stunt for the Navy. At a time when British Mil have been at breaking point where has the SHAR really made a substantial contribution:
Gulf - No.
Bosnia/Kosovo - No (certainly not substantial).
Now that was a tad harsh!
Suspicion breeds confidence
Althenic,
The Sea Harriers record speaks for itself. Don't be misled by petty inter service jealosy. The FA2 is equivalent in most repects to the US F18c (expect speed - granted). The FA2 is still the best fighter in the UK inventory at this time. When the F3 gets digital AMRAAM integration then things may change.
Our govt has decided the we need strike a/c not fighters so its going. That does not detract from its capabilities. The USN speak highly of it and it easily holds its own against the best the US can offer.
I've not heard anyone from light blue spouting off about DACM kills with F3 against F15. I'm happy to listen though.
The are some excellent (and long) threads on the FA2 please have a look through and if you have any questions I am sure the folks phere will be happy to help you out.
The Sea Harriers record speaks for itself. Don't be misled by petty inter service jealosy. The FA2 is equivalent in most repects to the US F18c (expect speed - granted). The FA2 is still the best fighter in the UK inventory at this time. When the F3 gets digital AMRAAM integration then things may change.
Our govt has decided the we need strike a/c not fighters so its going. That does not detract from its capabilities. The USN speak highly of it and it easily holds its own against the best the US can offer.
I've not heard anyone from light blue spouting off about DACM kills with F3 against F15. I'm happy to listen though.
The are some excellent (and long) threads on the FA2 please have a look through and if you have any questions I am sure the folks phere will be happy to help you out.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the man who had to argue with the US General in charge of the air war to get the SHARs into the ATO, I can assure you that the SHAR role in ALLIED FORCE was completely inconsequential and nothing more than a political event. The US were dismayed by the fact that precious fuel from the Tristar had to be diverted to the SHAR instead of going to more precious assets like the EA6 and Tornado ECR. In the end I had to say - I would have trouble justifying to my MOD why our tankers weren't available to refuel our fighters and he risked losing the lot. Even then they only took a 2 hour window on the Macedonian air defence cap. Of course if the RN had been prepared to position the ship more up-threat then fuel wouldn't have been a problem.
There is some harsh banter about but the SHAR is obsolescent and as Jackonico reasonably points out it had to go to make headroom for other desires.
Oh and if I were off to war tomorrow I would rather be in an F3 than a SHAR.
There is some harsh banter about but the SHAR is obsolescent and as Jackonico reasonably points out it had to go to make headroom for other desires.
Oh and if I were off to war tomorrow I would rather be in an F3 than a SHAR.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Sea Harriers record speaks for itself. Don't be misled by petty inter service jealosy.
Aaah, the standard argument of a SHAR exponent. Why is it that you are incacpable of defending this ac without recourse to the inter service defence, true to type you even manage to get the F3 into the argument.
For the record I am in neither the RAF or the RN, given the choice though I would go to war in the F3. Why:
Speed
Endurance
Data link
Join Date: May 2002
Location: fife
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye
I think you need to look at the reply I gave to your last 2 posts on the Sea Jet, Until you can come up with some creditable evidence, well presented and correct,
"SHAR/F18 comparison.......are you having a laugh?"
rather than conjecture I will treat all of your posts with a suspicion
Another couple of points to ponder,
Defensive aid suite!
Carriage life of missiles!!!!
I think you need to look at the reply I gave to your last 2 posts on the Sea Jet, Until you can come up with some creditable evidence, well presented and correct,
"SHAR/F18 comparison.......are you having a laugh?"
rather than conjecture I will treat all of your posts with a suspicion
Another couple of points to ponder,
Defensive aid suite!
Carriage life of missiles!!!!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SHAR/F18 comparison?
He's clearly having a laugh - compare Sepific excess power at varying heights and g. Compare max instantaneous turn rate, sustained turn rate, max speed, max altitude number of weapons carried, radar performance - all very relevant to air to air combat and I'd wager my flying pay that the F18 kicks SHAR arse on every one.
He's clearly having a laugh - compare Sepific excess power at varying heights and g. Compare max instantaneous turn rate, sustained turn rate, max speed, max altitude number of weapons carried, radar performance - all very relevant to air to air combat and I'd wager my flying pay that the F18 kicks SHAR arse on every one.
So who defends the Fleet in the meantime? Do we just rely on the "Goodwill" of the USA.
Hope that the RAF can find a base where they can fly from to CAP the Fleet?
May be old but what else do we have?
Hope that the RAF can find a base where they can fly from to CAP the Fleet?
May be old but what else do we have?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was announced today that the MoD is to shelve plans for a new fighter that was to have provided organic defence for the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers, now due to enter service in 2016.
RN chiefs are said to be livid at the U-Turn, which they see as a broken promise following the early retirement of the Sea Harrier in 2004. However, a civilian source within the MoD indicated that, having done without fighters for the past 8 years, Defence Chiefs had been unable to argue the case strongly in the face of overwhelming requirements for further cuts in the Defence Budget.
An MoD spokesmen added that it was difficult to imagine a scenario where the RN would not be able to rely on the USA for its air defence.
The news will come as a bitter blow to the Armed Forces following last year's disbandment of the Parachute Regiment, and the decision to sell 6 of the RAF's remaining 12 Typhoon aircraft to the Democratic Republic of Iraq.
Source: The Times, 30 Apr 2012.
Well, it may be a bit far-fetched, but ...
RN chiefs are said to be livid at the U-Turn, which they see as a broken promise following the early retirement of the Sea Harrier in 2004. However, a civilian source within the MoD indicated that, having done without fighters for the past 8 years, Defence Chiefs had been unable to argue the case strongly in the face of overwhelming requirements for further cuts in the Defence Budget.
An MoD spokesmen added that it was difficult to imagine a scenario where the RN would not be able to rely on the USA for its air defence.
The news will come as a bitter blow to the Armed Forces following last year's disbandment of the Parachute Regiment, and the decision to sell 6 of the RAF's remaining 12 Typhoon aircraft to the Democratic Republic of Iraq.
Source: The Times, 30 Apr 2012.
Well, it may be a bit far-fetched, but ...
The FA2 is equivalent in most repects to the US F18c (expect speed - granted)
and range, and payload, and combat persistence, and ECM, and multi-role capability, and aerodynamic performance.....
and range, and payload, and combat persistence, and ECM, and multi-role capability, and aerodynamic performance.....
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're Learning the Wrong Lesson (again)
Less need for air defence is now enshrined in the White Paper and on the whole that is true if by air defence you mean defence of the UK (or ships at sea who can position out of harm's way). The point that is being missed is that to enable land forces to conduct manoeuvre warfare at much lower force balance ratios you need to ensure air dominance. This will eventually be the province of the Typhoon, but not for a while yet. Until then a bit of F3, which is now far more capable than most realise, and a lot of USAir will be the only way to achieve this.
But this thread is supposed to be about the SHAR. In my personal experience I have a 10:1 kill ratio advantage on SHAR. But then again we cheated by shooting them in the face BVR when they only had AIM 9L! This led to the expression Fox 1 Kill continue for training value!!
Time to move on guys.
Editted for a chronic inability to speeel properly first time round.
Less need for air defence is now enshrined in the White Paper and on the whole that is true if by air defence you mean defence of the UK (or ships at sea who can position out of harm's way). The point that is being missed is that to enable land forces to conduct manoeuvre warfare at much lower force balance ratios you need to ensure air dominance. This will eventually be the province of the Typhoon, but not for a while yet. Until then a bit of F3, which is now far more capable than most realise, and a lot of USAir will be the only way to achieve this.
But this thread is supposed to be about the SHAR. In my personal experience I have a 10:1 kill ratio advantage on SHAR. But then again we cheated by shooting them in the face BVR when they only had AIM 9L! This led to the expression Fox 1 Kill continue for training value!!
Time to move on guys.
Editted for a chronic inability to speeel properly first time round.
This will eventually be the province of the Typhoon, but not for a while yet. Until then a bit of F3, which is now far more capable than most realise, and a lot of USAir will be the only way to achieve this.
So the Typhoon and F3 are going to Sea then???
And now we will become a third rate Navy relying on someone else for Air Defence of the Fleet..........
So the Typhoon and F3 are going to Sea then???
And now we will become a third rate Navy relying on someone else for Air Defence of the Fleet..........
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do SHAR threads always digress into F3 threads? At the end of the day the SHAR is on its way out because its a toy fit for nothing better than a bit of fun on the ACMI, where its pitiful fuel load might just prove credible, war fighter it is not.
Of course, before the F3 boys laugh too much, that aircraft is about to hear the death knell because at the end of the day all the improvements were too little too late and their airships made their minds up on the platform years ago.
Good job they weren't so jaundiced about the GR5 which was also a crock of S**t when it was introduced.
Finally, we rely on the US for so many capabilities, why not ship protection..they're good at it, we're not.
Of course, before the F3 boys laugh too much, that aircraft is about to hear the death knell because at the end of the day all the improvements were too little too late and their airships made their minds up on the platform years ago.
Good job they weren't so jaundiced about the GR5 which was also a crock of S**t when it was introduced.
Finally, we rely on the US for so many capabilities, why not ship protection..they're good at it, we're not.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: fife
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree completely with the three previous posters. The thread has digressed significantly. its only because punters like Navaleye writes something so ill-informed and factually incorrect it has to be shredded in front of their eyes. Really pissed off with the lack of proper academic arguement at the moment. You can't even count half the posts as banter because the punters on PPrune lack fundamental knowledge.
From a personal perspective, I think the SHAR has peformed admirably when called upon by succesive governments who have underresourced the Navy for the last 30 years. Furthermore, those who have flown the aircraft have done their best to maximise its performance.
Comparing a SHAR to a F-18 is like comparing a GR7 to a F-16CJ. I personally will take the model with the radar, on & off board jammer, AMRAAM, SRAAM, HARM, JDAM, datalink, sustained 5g performance with warload, 0.9 range speed.
Think we need something like this on CCIS
From a personal perspective, I think the SHAR has peformed admirably when called upon by succesive governments who have underresourced the Navy for the last 30 years. Furthermore, those who have flown the aircraft have done their best to maximise its performance.
Comparing a SHAR to a F-18 is like comparing a GR7 to a F-16CJ. I personally will take the model with the radar, on & off board jammer, AMRAAM, SRAAM, HARM, JDAM, datalink, sustained 5g performance with warload, 0.9 range speed.
Think we need something like this on CCIS