Illustrious heads to sea - with an airgroup
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can have the best ship's company on the planet but if the supporting IPT has been cornered into a financial and contractual minefield, the ship is buggered. What a MESH!
News regarding Lusty from the RN website.
Changing tack, what is this all about? Is it a post SHAR thing or has it happened before?
Some of the Hawk jets of FRADU will be detached to Cyprus in late February for operations with the Orion 08 Task Group. FRADU (Fleet Requirements Air Direction Unit) provide realistic simulated ship attack profiles, training for Fighter Controllers, Warfare Officers, and other tasking as required.
Interestingly, the Culdrose website gives details of aircraft deployed. The deployment of 854 NAS aircraft aboard RFA Argus is noteworthy, as the deployment of Sea King ASaCs aboard RFA vessels for surface search is one of the Navy's contributions to the war on terror.
Changing tack, what is this all about? Is it a post SHAR thing or has it happened before?
Some of the Hawk jets of FRADU will be detached to Cyprus in late February for operations with the Orion 08 Task Group. FRADU (Fleet Requirements Air Direction Unit) provide realistic simulated ship attack profiles, training for Fighter Controllers, Warfare Officers, and other tasking as required.
Interestingly, the Culdrose website gives details of aircraft deployed. The deployment of 854 NAS aircraft aboard RFA Argus is noteworthy, as the deployment of Sea King ASaCs aboard RFA vessels for surface search is one of the Navy's contributions to the war on terror.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The culdrose website hardl;y gives details of aircraft deployments.... Just scant numbers. The most disappointing aspect of which is the numbers. I think we procured IRO 42 Merlins..and there are 13 at sea. Where are the other 29 ?
1.Servicing the training, currency and tacdev requirements.2.Grounded through lack of spares support (IMOS only does so much)3.Attrition / airframe life management reserve.
Film Crew On Lusty
So far, they’ve filmed the hard work while the ship went through FOST, the preparation and tension of the transit through the straits of Gibraltar, lots of continuation training and the first port visit, which was Malta. Then followed Force Integration with the other ships of the group, more tension with the Suez transit and then the Red Sea. Throughout, the film crew have been focussing on the concept of the ship being a small town; they are trying to tell the story of the deployment by following a number of characters.
Sounds interesting......
So far, they’ve filmed the hard work while the ship went through FOST, the preparation and tension of the transit through the straits of Gibraltar, lots of continuation training and the first port visit, which was Malta. Then followed Force Integration with the other ships of the group, more tension with the Suez transit and then the Red Sea. Throughout, the film crew have been focussing on the concept of the ship being a small town; they are trying to tell the story of the deployment by following a number of characters.
Sounds interesting......
Harriers embarked again at the moment. According to this from the RN website.
Commodore Tom Cunningham Royal Navy, who commands the Orion group said “The ability to operate Harriers from an aircraft carrier is a key skill which has to be practised whenever possible. The presence of the Naval Strike Wing on HMS Illustrious demonstrates their flexibility and the UK’s commitment to maintaining its carrier strike capability.”
Of course, it was much easier finding jets to embark before the mighty Sea Jet was axed. Of course, when these decisions were made the Afghan commitment could not be foreseen. A few years ago a CVS might have sixteen or seventeen jets embarked at busy periods. Now it is six, from time to time.
Isn't it a little ironic that the original purpose was to perform an ASW role carrying helicopters for ASW and later AEW and some Sea Harriers for air defence, maritime attack etc, then post cold war it was to act in a strike role, carry Sea Harriers, Harrier GR7/9s and just a few helicopters. Now the strike role is still there with only a few GR7/9s from time to time and some helos....?
Progress....? It can only make the transition to larger carriers with larger air groups that much harder.
Going off on a slight tangent, why doesn't the RN make a bigger thing of the contribution of shipborne helicopters to current operations? For example, the use of Lynx AH7 from HMS Ocean to deal with an armoured counter attack, aided by ASaCs Sea Kings from Ark Royal during the initial phase of Operation Telic. Or the destruction of an Iraqi patrol boat (FIAC?) by a Sea King HC4. If these had been done by carrier based jets I suspect the papers would be full of their deeds, but surely aircraft are aircraft. Their success during the Al Faw assault reinforces the case for shipborne aviation, and related things such as frigates for naval gunfire support.
Likewise, was the public ever aware of the contribution made by Lynx flights aboard frigates and destroyers during Granby. Destroying the Exocet armed missile boats that Saddam had was key to enabling Minehunting operations to take place, which in turn was key to allowing amphibious assault to be a possibility, tying down thousands of Iraqi troops defending beaches. The Sea Skua armed Lynx was one of our key weapons, yet received very little publicity. Why?
I feel the RN is missing the opportunity to promote aviation as a core naval capability.
Commodore Tom Cunningham Royal Navy, who commands the Orion group said “The ability to operate Harriers from an aircraft carrier is a key skill which has to be practised whenever possible. The presence of the Naval Strike Wing on HMS Illustrious demonstrates their flexibility and the UK’s commitment to maintaining its carrier strike capability.”
Of course, it was much easier finding jets to embark before the mighty Sea Jet was axed. Of course, when these decisions were made the Afghan commitment could not be foreseen. A few years ago a CVS might have sixteen or seventeen jets embarked at busy periods. Now it is six, from time to time.
Isn't it a little ironic that the original purpose was to perform an ASW role carrying helicopters for ASW and later AEW and some Sea Harriers for air defence, maritime attack etc, then post cold war it was to act in a strike role, carry Sea Harriers, Harrier GR7/9s and just a few helicopters. Now the strike role is still there with only a few GR7/9s from time to time and some helos....?
Progress....? It can only make the transition to larger carriers with larger air groups that much harder.
Going off on a slight tangent, why doesn't the RN make a bigger thing of the contribution of shipborne helicopters to current operations? For example, the use of Lynx AH7 from HMS Ocean to deal with an armoured counter attack, aided by ASaCs Sea Kings from Ark Royal during the initial phase of Operation Telic. Or the destruction of an Iraqi patrol boat (FIAC?) by a Sea King HC4. If these had been done by carrier based jets I suspect the papers would be full of their deeds, but surely aircraft are aircraft. Their success during the Al Faw assault reinforces the case for shipborne aviation, and related things such as frigates for naval gunfire support.
Likewise, was the public ever aware of the contribution made by Lynx flights aboard frigates and destroyers during Granby. Destroying the Exocet armed missile boats that Saddam had was key to enabling Minehunting operations to take place, which in turn was key to allowing amphibious assault to be a possibility, tying down thousands of Iraqi troops defending beaches. The Sea Skua armed Lynx was one of our key weapons, yet received very little publicity. Why?
I feel the RN is missing the opportunity to promote aviation as a core naval capability.
"Their success during the Al Faw assault reinforces the case for shipborne aviation, and related things such as frigates for naval gunfire support"
WEBF, can't agree with you there chap!
Almost five years to the day from that night, I remember it well; couldn't project the power from ships because they were too far out in the NAG and worried about Seersuckers (and according to one rating, Scuds!!!). The first three waves of the "amphib assault" (1 wave of USAF MH53s and 2 waves of RAF CH47s) were launched from a land base in Northern Kuwait and deployed the vast majority of the combat power (240+ troops, heavy weapons, WIMICs and a BV, well nearly.....). The CHF used their smaller platforms, again from the land, to secure the pumping stations. IIRC the Queenies stayed plugged in to have enough gas for one trip and 8 troops - 40+ miles off shore would not have been a player.
And as for the NGS and the Cdo Arty, they caused mayhem to the heli routes around the objective as they desperately pounded the area (which had already been rendered a moonscape during the Iran/Iraq war) achieving little more than churning even more sand into the sky to make flying even harder.
So, we could have done the assault without the ships at all......
Despite this, I remain an adherent of Amphib assault and of the flexible use of CVF in the future; IMHO Op Houghton doesn't prove the case.
WEBF, can't agree with you there chap!
Almost five years to the day from that night, I remember it well; couldn't project the power from ships because they were too far out in the NAG and worried about Seersuckers (and according to one rating, Scuds!!!). The first three waves of the "amphib assault" (1 wave of USAF MH53s and 2 waves of RAF CH47s) were launched from a land base in Northern Kuwait and deployed the vast majority of the combat power (240+ troops, heavy weapons, WIMICs and a BV, well nearly.....). The CHF used their smaller platforms, again from the land, to secure the pumping stations. IIRC the Queenies stayed plugged in to have enough gas for one trip and 8 troops - 40+ miles off shore would not have been a player.
And as for the NGS and the Cdo Arty, they caused mayhem to the heli routes around the objective as they desperately pounded the area (which had already been rendered a moonscape during the Iran/Iraq war) achieving little more than churning even more sand into the sky to make flying even harder.
So, we could have done the assault without the ships at all......
Despite this, I remain an adherent of Amphib assault and of the flexible use of CVF in the future; IMHO Op Houghton doesn't prove the case.
I believe it was only four Harriers. 
But it isn't just about Harriers. The 814 NAS Merlins (embarked for the whole deployment) have been showing their capabilities.
Flying Tigers Roar
Cornwall’s very own ‘Flying Tigers’, 814 Naval Air Squadron embarked in HMS Illustrious, have just completed the anti-submarine exercise, code named Phoenix, in the Indian Ocean. Combining new equipment for the first time, the Squadron re-affirmed the RN’s reputation as a leader in anti-submarine warfare (ASW).
The Task Group, led by Cdre Tom Cunningham RN, had a very successful week operating against HMS Trafalgar. Exercise Phoenix was the first time that the RN has been able to use the UK’s most advanced ASW equipment; the Merlins of 814 Naval Air Squadron with HMS Westminster’s 2087 sonar. This combination allowed Illustrious and her Task Group to develop new tactics and procedures during a series of set pieces and free-play warfare.
Thought ASW was now called USW?
Any Sea Kings?
If you mean ASaCs Sea Kings, I think that they are rather busy, even without being embarked aboard a CVS, doing surface search from RFAs as part of current operations.
But it isn't just about Harriers. The 814 NAS Merlins (embarked for the whole deployment) have been showing their capabilities.
Flying Tigers Roar
Cornwall’s very own ‘Flying Tigers’, 814 Naval Air Squadron embarked in HMS Illustrious, have just completed the anti-submarine exercise, code named Phoenix, in the Indian Ocean. Combining new equipment for the first time, the Squadron re-affirmed the RN’s reputation as a leader in anti-submarine warfare (ASW).
The Task Group, led by Cdre Tom Cunningham RN, had a very successful week operating against HMS Trafalgar. Exercise Phoenix was the first time that the RN has been able to use the UK’s most advanced ASW equipment; the Merlins of 814 Naval Air Squadron with HMS Westminster’s 2087 sonar. This combination allowed Illustrious and her Task Group to develop new tactics and procedures during a series of set pieces and free-play warfare.
Thought ASW was now called USW?
Any Sea Kings?
If you mean ASaCs Sea Kings, I think that they are rather busy, even without being embarked aboard a CVS, doing surface search from RFAs as part of current operations.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've said it before, but in the interests of commonality with the JFH GR7/9's, and the delays we all expect with JSF, for Christ's sake let's buy some Harrier 2+'s ! Possibly to keep at Yeovilton when not at sea ? I'm not a of a Navy persuasion, except when it seems common sense.
Yes it's galling to buy an originally British product from America but thanks to BAe we're stuck with it, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than the JSF, whenever that might become available.
The 2+ doesn't have as good a radar as the FA2 ( it's a cut down F-16 job but works fine with the weapon of choice) - I photographed a trial fit on one with 6 AMRAAMS on BOL rails, it has a working gun too and with the big engine is able to keep up with a Bear at altitude - what more do you want ?!
Yes it's galling to buy an originally British product from America but thanks to BAe we're stuck with it, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than the JSF, whenever that might become available.
The 2+ doesn't have as good a radar as the FA2 ( it's a cut down F-16 job but works fine with the weapon of choice) - I photographed a trial fit on one with 6 AMRAAMS on BOL rails, it has a working gun too and with the big engine is able to keep up with a Bear at altitude - what more do you want ?!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
00
They probably wouldn't even have to buy, just lease them, I beleive the USMC have just retired a load of them and most have reasonable Airframe hours for their age. Problem is the political will isn't there. Same as they could have stored SHAR and left JFH with a couple of airframes for training. I would have cost peanuts. but you know what happens when common sense prevails in the MoD - hell freezes over!
They probably wouldn't even have to buy, just lease them, I beleive the USMC have just retired a load of them and most have reasonable Airframe hours for their age. Problem is the political will isn't there. Same as they could have stored SHAR and left JFH with a couple of airframes for training. I would have cost peanuts. but you know what happens when common sense prevails in the MoD - hell freezes over!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 37
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it's galling to buy an originally British product from America but thanks to BAe we're stuck with it, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper than the JSF, whenever that might become available.
Or are you seriously blaming BAE for exporting the aircraft to a vastly larger market?
British industry can't please anyone it seems, if they don't export they're loosers, if they do they're selling out an originally British product. 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seajet
Yes the Navy gave them up too early, who despite history seem to ignore lessons and avoid learning what useful things these aeroplane thinghies are - they didn't try the Pacific War, did they ? - caved in much too easily on the retirement of the Sea Harrier - I wonder what the influence from BAe was, who were VERY keen to promote the Harrier 2 GR5 ( at the time ? ) I was even told that any mention of Sea Harrier to customers by our sales people was verboten, in the later stages.
The FA2 was not only faster with a supreme radar & weapons fit, I have seen first-hand that carbon fibre as on the Harrier AV-8B etc is not a really war-useful material - look at the Russian relatively 'rough & ready' approach but with large numbers of very effective aircraft !
Deepest Regards,
DZ
Yes the Navy gave them up too early, who despite history seem to ignore lessons and avoid learning what useful things these aeroplane thinghies are - they didn't try the Pacific War, did they ? - caved in much too easily on the retirement of the Sea Harrier - I wonder what the influence from BAe was, who were VERY keen to promote the Harrier 2 GR5 ( at the time ? ) I was even told that any mention of Sea Harrier to customers by our sales people was verboten, in the later stages.
The FA2 was not only faster with a supreme radar & weapons fit, I have seen first-hand that carbon fibre as on the Harrier AV-8B etc is not a really war-useful material - look at the Russian relatively 'rough & ready' approach but with large numbers of very effective aircraft !
Deepest Regards,
DZ
Last edited by Double Zero; 3rd May 2008 at 16:00.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2+ doesn't have as good a radar as the FA2
Why is the FA2 item better? Please give specific reasons.
it's a cut down F-16 job
Nope, F-18C/D: The AN/APG-65 radar is a highly reliable, flexible system used for both air-to-air and air-to-surface missions.
The key to the APG-65's flexibility is its programmable digital computers. The built-in test system provides total end-to-end radar preflight checkout and continuous monitoring.
During air-to-air operations, the APG-65 radar incorporates clean scope, look-down/shoot-down capabilities. It also features complete search track and automatic acquisition modes such as high pulse repetition frequency (PRF) velocity search, high/medium PRF range-while-search, single target track, and a track-while-scan mode that tracks 10 targets simultaneously and displays eight targets.
For air-to-surface operations, the radar provides Doppler beam sharpened sector and patch mapping, medium-range synthetic aperture radar, "real beam" ground mapping modes, as well as fixed and moving ground target track, air-to-surface ranging, terrain avoidance, precision velocity update, and a sea surface search mode with clutter suppression.
The APG-65 is operational in the F/A-18 Hornet F/A-18 A/B/C/D strike fighters of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, and the air forces of Kuwait, and Spain. It has been adapted to upgrade the German and Greek F-4 Phantom aircraft and AV-8B Harrier II Plus for the U.S. Marine Corps and the Spanish and Italian navies.
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/apg65/
but works fine with the weapon of choice) - I photographed a trial fit on one with 6 AMRAAMS on BOL rails
Did you also get the tail numbers of all the airplanes?
it has a working gun too and with the big engine is able to keep up with a Bear at altitude - what more do you want ?!
A tactical aircraft with more range, endurance, payload, wartime survivability, and a better peacetime safety record.
Why is the FA2 item better? Please give specific reasons.
it's a cut down F-16 job
Nope, F-18C/D: The AN/APG-65 radar is a highly reliable, flexible system used for both air-to-air and air-to-surface missions.
The key to the APG-65's flexibility is its programmable digital computers. The built-in test system provides total end-to-end radar preflight checkout and continuous monitoring.
During air-to-air operations, the APG-65 radar incorporates clean scope, look-down/shoot-down capabilities. It also features complete search track and automatic acquisition modes such as high pulse repetition frequency (PRF) velocity search, high/medium PRF range-while-search, single target track, and a track-while-scan mode that tracks 10 targets simultaneously and displays eight targets.
For air-to-surface operations, the radar provides Doppler beam sharpened sector and patch mapping, medium-range synthetic aperture radar, "real beam" ground mapping modes, as well as fixed and moving ground target track, air-to-surface ranging, terrain avoidance, precision velocity update, and a sea surface search mode with clutter suppression.
The APG-65 is operational in the F/A-18 Hornet F/A-18 A/B/C/D strike fighters of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, and the air forces of Kuwait, and Spain. It has been adapted to upgrade the German and Greek F-4 Phantom aircraft and AV-8B Harrier II Plus for the U.S. Marine Corps and the Spanish and Italian navies.
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/apg65/
but works fine with the weapon of choice) - I photographed a trial fit on one with 6 AMRAAMS on BOL rails
Did you also get the tail numbers of all the airplanes?
it has a working gun too and with the big engine is able to keep up with a Bear at altitude - what more do you want ?!
A tactical aircraft with more range, endurance, payload, wartime survivability, and a better peacetime safety record.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never understood the emphasis on BVR performance that people put on the SHAR. Leaving aside the somewhat dubious claim to being the best BVR fighter (really? better than F-15?), the justification for having jets for fleet defence (especially when you have something like PAAMS) seems to be the ability to VID, and therefore something that's better at the close fight ought to be more appropriate, surely?
Always kill the archer, don't waste your effort killing his arrows unless you have no alternative.............
Unless you are an operational analyst where only an engagement is typically assessed, one bomber splashed is one less to come back tomorrow. That's why.
Unless you are an operational analyst where only an engagement is typically assessed, one bomber splashed is one less to come back tomorrow. That's why.