F3 terminated
Or alternatively, the Royal Navy's blinkered and selfish insistence on proceeding with the carriers and a sub-launched Trident replacement have (as was always predicted) distorted the defence budget and diverted funding away from more useful and core capabilities.
No-one would diminish the contribution made by JFH in current operations, but that's the aircraft, the pilots (RN and RAF) and the groundcrew. In land-locked Afghanistan, the utility of the carrier is, shall we say, rather less clear.
As has been pointed out again and again, you have to go back to 1982 to find an occasion when carriers were essential rather than merely nice to have.
And yet capabilities that we need every time that we go on operations have been slashed or eliminated to pay for the vainglorious pet projects of the Sea Lords.
And now we're trimming back the core role of defending the UK to help pay for these white elephants.
The F3 force does a useful job, and does it cheaply and cost-effectively, which differentiates it from carriers. Cutting the F3 early will save 'piddling' amounts of money.
In an ideal world, with sufficient SH and a 24 squadron FJ force, I'd be leading the campaign for carriers as being a useful niche capability. That's not the world we're in, and tough choices need to be made.
No-one would diminish the contribution made by JFH in current operations, but that's the aircraft, the pilots (RN and RAF) and the groundcrew. In land-locked Afghanistan, the utility of the carrier is, shall we say, rather less clear.
As has been pointed out again and again, you have to go back to 1982 to find an occasion when carriers were essential rather than merely nice to have.
And yet capabilities that we need every time that we go on operations have been slashed or eliminated to pay for the vainglorious pet projects of the Sea Lords.
And now we're trimming back the core role of defending the UK to help pay for these white elephants.
The F3 force does a useful job, and does it cheaply and cost-effectively, which differentiates it from carriers. Cutting the F3 early will save 'piddling' amounts of money.
In an ideal world, with sufficient SH and a 24 squadron FJ force, I'd be leading the campaign for carriers as being a useful niche capability. That's not the world we're in, and tough choices need to be made.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s fine to argue facts Jacko, and that’s been done time and again on this board, but you positively revel in flame war / troll type language. To accuse those who respond to it of bad form is clearly off the mark.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW I love you're fantasy of a 24 sqd FJ force, all hitting high scores on exercises while our soldiers lack decent, deployable, available CAS.
The RN doesn't demand Trident. Our government demands that we have it, and the RN is the most capable at deploying it.
The £20bn + phoon doesn't distort the budget??
If you want to play fantasy sky fleets, you keep your 24 squadrons of Typhoons, and I'll buy 2 CVF with 6 * full time squadrons of Dave B's. Over a 20 year service, I wonder which fantasy fleet would be more useful and see more action???
The RN doesn't demand Trident. Our government demands that we have it, and the RN is the most capable at deploying it.
The £20bn + phoon doesn't distort the budget??
If you want to play fantasy sky fleets, you keep your 24 squadrons of Typhoons, and I'll buy 2 CVF with 6 * full time squadrons of Dave B's. Over a 20 year service, I wonder which fantasy fleet would be more useful and see more action???
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pro F3 guys are always going to defend the a/c. Quite rightly so, we live in a democracy.
For me, the bottom line is that, short of QRA, we do not need the F3. It will not deploy in aid of Telic/Herrick and is being replaced by the F2. At risk, I would suggest that it is safe to shrink the force now, allowing a gap prior to 6 Sqn reforming at Leuchars.
The criminal element is the goverment's decision to divert Typhoons to RSAF in order to get BAe foot in the door over in the Middle East. BAe are certainly hoping for orders from neighbouring countries. The knock on effect has been rather startling, not least for the GR9 mates.
For me, the bottom line is that, short of QRA, we do not need the F3. It will not deploy in aid of Telic/Herrick and is being replaced by the F2. At risk, I would suggest that it is safe to shrink the force now, allowing a gap prior to 6 Sqn reforming at Leuchars.
The criminal element is the goverment's decision to divert Typhoons to RSAF in order to get BAe foot in the door over in the Middle East. BAe are certainly hoping for orders from neighbouring countries. The knock on effect has been rather startling, not least for the GR9 mates.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: England
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being in the RN I am happy for the basjing of the carriers to continue. However, I must point out that having just returned from the stan many on here are misinformed of the carriers ability to add to ops out there. During my time the Roosevelt carrier was essential to our Ops launching its wg 3 times a day to support our troops on the ground. Overall this massively increased capability above that provided by the land based alternative.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko.
To paraphrase.
No-one would diminish the contribution made by UK Air Defence in the second world war. In Afghanistan and modern Europe, the utility of Air Defence aircraft is, shall we say, rather less clear.
You say:
"As has been pointed out again and again, you have to go back to 1982 to find an occasion when carriers were essential rather than merely nice to have."
Just remind me when the last time landbased air defence was essential? A lot lot longer ago than 1982, yet still we buy vast hordes of Typhoon.
"The F3 force does a useful job"
Justify that statement.
It has never done a single task that others could not have done if it were unavailable. It has never shot down anything. Ever. By your reasoning, it has been the biggest white elephant in history.
Unlike you, however, I would not want it to have been binned. Some capabilities are neccessary to have, because when you need them, you really need them. I, cannot think of any realistic situation where this country needs air defence outside of QRA during the next 10yrs by which time the Typhoon will be happily up and running.
I agree the money saving will be piddling, but so will the risk.
To paraphrase.
No-one would diminish the contribution made by UK Air Defence in the second world war. In Afghanistan and modern Europe, the utility of Air Defence aircraft is, shall we say, rather less clear.
You say:
"As has been pointed out again and again, you have to go back to 1982 to find an occasion when carriers were essential rather than merely nice to have."
Just remind me when the last time landbased air defence was essential? A lot lot longer ago than 1982, yet still we buy vast hordes of Typhoon.
"The F3 force does a useful job"
Justify that statement.
It has never done a single task that others could not have done if it were unavailable. It has never shot down anything. Ever. By your reasoning, it has been the biggest white elephant in history.
Unlike you, however, I would not want it to have been binned. Some capabilities are neccessary to have, because when you need them, you really need them. I, cannot think of any realistic situation where this country needs air defence outside of QRA during the next 10yrs by which time the Typhoon will be happily up and running.
I agree the money saving will be piddling, but so will the risk.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK I will bite.
To suggest that Air Defence aircraft have not been required since the second world war merely shows your huge ignorance and blinkered view.
QRA has been going on forever and is a very high priority for national defence (can't remember the Military Task number). Ask the public which they think more important - occupying villages in the Middle East/Asia or preventing rogue aircraft crashing into central London and you may well get an answer that you don't like. Just because it doesn't do the in vogue kinetic stuff doesn't mean that it isn't important.
-A slightly ridiculous statement. We don't need UK AAR or Helos in Afghanistan then because there are plenty of other aircraft in the world that could do it. Also incorrect as no other aircraft could do the extra QRA commitment post 9/11. The SHar force were asked but did not have the capability, a fact that probably ultimately led to its demise. A fact that the SHar fans either don't know (it obviously wasn't widely publicised) or conveniently gloss over.
For a decade the Tornado Force (GR and F) flew on Southern watch when the Iraqis did have the capability to down a High Value target. Some may have flown when they sat behind an F15 screen, but we certainly never did in all my experience (not "I heard it from someone down the pub once"). The F3 was the only aircraft betwen the central Iraqi bases and the U2/E3/JSTARS/AAR.
Yes the F3 has never shot down an aircraft - but it has never failed in its job. No hijacked airliner has flown into a UK building, no HVAAs were lost on southern watch, no friendlies were shot down. How many others can claim that?
The one time when you could say that it failed was Gulf War 1 - it deployed very quickly and was ready but at that time the kit was pretty appalling, most importantly the lack of suitable IFF was ridiculous and was a show-stopper.
If you want to live in the "what if" world of a medium/large traditional war against a capable opponent - as still flown on some exercises, then the F3 does very well. I am glad someone noted my TLP AA stats, although last I saw it did better than the F15 but was bettered by the M2000! If all you focus on is the here and now then the F3 has done its job effectively. In my own opinion what would be better would be to have a multi-role aircraft that can do AD/AI/CAS as the situation requires. Give it plenty of thrust and performance so that you can always stick kit/payload on it at a later date and voila! Just don't go multi-national with the europeans (except the French).
What I find ironic are those that rant on that all we need now is SH and everything else can go. They are no better than those that a decade or 2 ago said that all we need is FJ and SH/AT could just hang on with minimal support. We need a balanced and flexible force that can react to unforeseen situations - because that is what always happens.
To suggest that Air Defence aircraft have not been required since the second world war merely shows your huge ignorance and blinkered view.
QRA has been going on forever and is a very high priority for national defence (can't remember the Military Task number). Ask the public which they think more important - occupying villages in the Middle East/Asia or preventing rogue aircraft crashing into central London and you may well get an answer that you don't like. Just because it doesn't do the in vogue kinetic stuff doesn't mean that it isn't important.
It has never done a single task that others could not have done if it were unavailable
For a decade the Tornado Force (GR and F) flew on Southern watch when the Iraqis did have the capability to down a High Value target. Some may have flown when they sat behind an F15 screen, but we certainly never did in all my experience (not "I heard it from someone down the pub once"). The F3 was the only aircraft betwen the central Iraqi bases and the U2/E3/JSTARS/AAR.
Yes the F3 has never shot down an aircraft - but it has never failed in its job. No hijacked airliner has flown into a UK building, no HVAAs were lost on southern watch, no friendlies were shot down. How many others can claim that?
The one time when you could say that it failed was Gulf War 1 - it deployed very quickly and was ready but at that time the kit was pretty appalling, most importantly the lack of suitable IFF was ridiculous and was a show-stopper.
If you want to live in the "what if" world of a medium/large traditional war against a capable opponent - as still flown on some exercises, then the F3 does very well. I am glad someone noted my TLP AA stats, although last I saw it did better than the F15 but was bettered by the M2000! If all you focus on is the here and now then the F3 has done its job effectively. In my own opinion what would be better would be to have a multi-role aircraft that can do AD/AI/CAS as the situation requires. Give it plenty of thrust and performance so that you can always stick kit/payload on it at a later date and voila! Just don't go multi-national with the europeans (except the French).
What I find ironic are those that rant on that all we need now is SH and everything else can go. They are no better than those that a decade or 2 ago said that all we need is FJ and SH/AT could just hang on with minimal support. We need a balanced and flexible force that can react to unforeseen situations - because that is what always happens.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Frozen South
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F3 has successfully provided deterrence, most notably in the Falkland Islands.
To me the jet is very much a success story, taking a below average airframe and in the best of British ways - strapping good kit to it and turning it into something world class - as recent exercises prove.
In my opinion the entire force deserves credit for doing the very best with what they were given.
BW
To me the jet is very much a success story, taking a below average airframe and in the best of British ways - strapping good kit to it and turning it into something world class - as recent exercises prove.
In my opinion the entire force deserves credit for doing the very best with what they were given.
BW
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just remind me when the last time landbased air defence was essential? A lot lot longer ago than 1982, yet still we buy vast hordes of Typhoon.
2. The enforcement of the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq 1991-2003.
3. Operations in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia 1993-1999. (Deny Flight, Deliberate Force, Allied Force)
4. The Gulf war of 2003.
In every case there was a credible air threat and none of these operations could have been carried out in the way that they were without the complete air dominance obtained by mainly land-based DCA and associated combat support aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What blinds everyone is the bitter fight for resources. Where is the real enemy?
In the last year the RN escort force has gone from 25 to 23.
Devonport is basically being run down to just the amphibs - I give it one more year before they go.
It looks like the RAF lost on on a F3 v GR9 fight.
The TA looks like it's going to be cut back hugely.
Who is to blame????
In the last year the RN escort force has gone from 25 to 23.
Devonport is basically being run down to just the amphibs - I give it one more year before they go.
It looks like the RAF lost on on a F3 v GR9 fight.
The TA looks like it's going to be cut back hugely.
Who is to blame????
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The number of you that have misunderstood my point suggests I made it badly.I will try again.Jacko was suggesting that the Carriers were useless because not since 1982 was there an instance where the operation would have fallen apart without them.My point was that if you use that outlook as a justification for chopping things, then the F3 was worse.I did however say that I did not believe we should bin air defence of the UK just because we don't currently need it.
However, some of the comments made are frankly ludicrous.
"Yes the F3 has never shot down an aircraft - but it has never failed in its job. No hijacked airliner has flown into a UK building, no HVAAs were lost on southern watch, no friendlies were shot down. How many others can claim that?"
What possible justification do you have to credit these facts to the F3?
1. Nobody has hijacked an aircraft an tried to fly it into a UK building.
2. Nobody has been stopped from shooting down an HVAA by an F3
3. Nobody has been stopped from shooting down a friendly by an F3
"How many others can claim that?"
I can.
Every night since 9/11 I have waved my magic wand, casting a spell to protect UK buildings, HVAAs and friendlys.
What do you know, since then none of the above have been hit so it must be me, right?
However, some of the comments made are frankly ludicrous.
"Yes the F3 has never shot down an aircraft - but it has never failed in its job. No hijacked airliner has flown into a UK building, no HVAAs were lost on southern watch, no friendlies were shot down. How many others can claim that?"
What possible justification do you have to credit these facts to the F3?
1. Nobody has hijacked an aircraft an tried to fly it into a UK building.
2. Nobody has been stopped from shooting down an HVAA by an F3
3. Nobody has been stopped from shooting down a friendly by an F3
"How many others can claim that?"
I can.
Every night since 9/11 I have waved my magic wand, casting a spell to protect UK buildings, HVAAs and friendlys.
What do you know, since then none of the above have been hit so it must be me, right?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
Of course I do not claim that the F3 is solely responsible for preventing many things from happening. In terms of hijacked aircraft the security/intelligence services and airport security undoubtedly contribute more. But you surely cannot say that deterrence does not work.
I cannot say that if we put up no DCA between the Iraqi airfields and our HVAAs then they would definitely have shot one down. All I can say is that when we did use F3 DCA we didn't lose anything.
Likewise I cannot say for certain that if an F3 had done the ID when there was a blue on blue then it would definitely not have happened, but I can say that when F3s have done IDs, they have not got it wrong and shot down a friendly. You say that the comment "an F3 has never failed in its job" are "frankly ludicrous". Could you elaborate, please?
Look at your own argument and apply it to the Strategic Deterrent or even carriers and you will perhaps see the point. (BTW I am not anti carrier - I see their utility, but I also see Jacko's point. On balance I think we should get them, but they certainly need to be looked at hard. A catapult would help then they could actually project force).
Of course if you prefer we could procure an AD aircraft the envy of the world - undoubtedly the best and also looks cool at airshows, but after the F22 buy we certainly wouldn't be able to afford carriers (or much else for that matter).
On the actual F3 cut - I understand that it has not been completely terminated, just reduced to a QRA only force with 12 aircraft. Pretty horrific if you are currently on it but you can see why the decision was made.
Of course I do not claim that the F3 is solely responsible for preventing many things from happening. In terms of hijacked aircraft the security/intelligence services and airport security undoubtedly contribute more. But you surely cannot say that deterrence does not work.
I cannot say that if we put up no DCA between the Iraqi airfields and our HVAAs then they would definitely have shot one down. All I can say is that when we did use F3 DCA we didn't lose anything.
Likewise I cannot say for certain that if an F3 had done the ID when there was a blue on blue then it would definitely not have happened, but I can say that when F3s have done IDs, they have not got it wrong and shot down a friendly. You say that the comment "an F3 has never failed in its job" are "frankly ludicrous". Could you elaborate, please?
Look at your own argument and apply it to the Strategic Deterrent or even carriers and you will perhaps see the point. (BTW I am not anti carrier - I see their utility, but I also see Jacko's point. On balance I think we should get them, but they certainly need to be looked at hard. A catapult would help then they could actually project force).
Of course if you prefer we could procure an AD aircraft the envy of the world - undoubtedly the best and also looks cool at airshows, but after the F22 buy we certainly wouldn't be able to afford carriers (or much else for that matter).
On the actual F3 cut - I understand that it has not been completely terminated, just reduced to a QRA only force with 12 aircraft. Pretty horrific if you are currently on it but you can see why the decision was made.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist:
No aircraft without a radar could do an IMC intercept for a start! Jag, Harrier, Hawk etc. That is why it has not been scrapped altogether until Typhoon is available in larger numbers.
What is clear is there are too many here who know nothing about the F3 or the role of AD. It is obvious it is of little use in AFG - it is NOT a multirole aircraft and those serving on the F3 recognise that. If choices have to be made, then perhaps the reduction is a logical step.
But please do not lower yourselves to berate those who fly in the aircraft or service it. Those people do not deserve it no more than any others who are trying to do the best job they can with the kit they are given.
No aircraft without a radar could do an IMC intercept for a start! Jag, Harrier, Hawk etc. That is why it has not been scrapped altogether until Typhoon is available in larger numbers.
What is clear is there are too many here who know nothing about the F3 or the role of AD. It is obvious it is of little use in AFG - it is NOT a multirole aircraft and those serving on the F3 recognise that. If choices have to be made, then perhaps the reduction is a logical step.
But please do not lower yourselves to berate those who fly in the aircraft or service it. Those people do not deserve it no more than any others who are trying to do the best job they can with the kit they are given.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
Quote "It [The F3] has never shot down anything.
I'm not an F3 but was in one when we shot down a Jindivik does that count? And it was evading too
I was also in one when we completely marmelised the strafe target at Donna Nook but that felt a bit unfair as it was rooted to the spot and couldn't shoot back
Quote "It [The F3] has never shot down anything.
I'm not an F3 but was in one when we shot down a Jindivik does that count? And it was evading too
I was also in one when we completely marmelised the strafe target at Donna Nook but that felt a bit unfair as it was rooted to the spot and couldn't shoot back
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that is cringeworthy is the obvious greed for carriers, any carriers, at any cost.
From what was initially shown as an multi aircraft type platform has been cut and cut back to little better that larger versions of the current crop!
No angled flight deck, no cats and very limited operational capability of it's designated aircraft type (go look at the carry backs for F35B vs F18G) for what??
Where is the intrinsic AEW that cost the RN so dear in '82?(oh yes sea kings, how old are they now??)
Do not attack other services whilst they are being bled dry to fund these ersatz capital ships.
From what was initially shown as an multi aircraft type platform has been cut and cut back to little better that larger versions of the current crop!
No angled flight deck, no cats and very limited operational capability of it's designated aircraft type (go look at the carry backs for F35B vs F18G) for what??
Where is the intrinsic AEW that cost the RN so dear in '82?(oh yes sea kings, how old are they now??)
Do not attack other services whilst they are being bled dry to fund these ersatz capital ships.
Tourist
Yes they have - I did this in Autumn 1999. Late Arm on, ID'd hostile and met ROE - he knobbed off as he approached within 5-10nm of the top of Launch Success Zone (LSZ) back outside of the No Fly Zone (NFZ). Could've been a very nice crate of champagne from BAeS at that time 
HVAA(D) job done - reckoned that he was after RJ or AWACS at the time.
And there are others like me...so wind your piggin' pencil neck in!
LJ
2. Nobody has been stopped from shooting down an HVAA by an F3
HVAA(D) job done - reckoned that he was after RJ or AWACS at the time.
And there are others like me...so wind your piggin' pencil neck in!
LJ