Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Fair points Engines, perhaps I was feeling a little grouchy this morning.
If the Navy could not fight the case to stop the FA2 being cut thus rendering the carrier operationally ineffective, or chose not to in order to save money for the 2 new carriers, then I guess that was up to them. Perhpas they have been blindsided by the RAF. A real shame as the FA2 was a pretty good weapon system.
I used "12" Harriers cos I believe that's all the boat could take. It doesn't really matter that the other 2 sqns worth are back in Blighty, they can't be used on the boat.
The Tornado is longer range (is that ok?), and far more capable (at last).
Typhoons A-G capability is severely limited right now AFAIK and it will be quite a while before some of the smarter weapons are cleared. This does only leave the GR4.
I wasn't necessarily referring to that one letter; there have been plenty in the press, particularly from Lord West and even on here from Mr Farley.
Again, fair enough re the "gin palace". It was a snipe and I apologise. Hope I've covered other points above.
If the Navy could not fight the case to stop the FA2 being cut thus rendering the carrier operationally ineffective, or chose not to in order to save money for the 2 new carriers, then I guess that was up to them. Perhpas they have been blindsided by the RAF. A real shame as the FA2 was a pretty good weapon system.
I used "12" Harriers cos I believe that's all the boat could take. It doesn't really matter that the other 2 sqns worth are back in Blighty, they can't be used on the boat.
The Tornado is longer range (is that ok?), and far more capable (at last).
Typhoons A-G capability is severely limited right now AFAIK and it will be quite a while before some of the smarter weapons are cleared. This does only leave the GR4.
I wasn't necessarily referring to that one letter; there have been plenty in the press, particularly from Lord West and even on here from Mr Farley.
Again, fair enough re the "gin palace". It was a snipe and I apologise. Hope I've covered other points above.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sweden
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Engines, I have been holding back to see if any Light Blue would set the record straight. I seem to remember some senior RAF type at the time saying that the SHAR could not shoot down sea skimming anti-ship missiles, which actually the SHAR2 was designed to do, and that was the final nail in the coffin as far as the MoD were concerned.
Now, lets not have any ranting, that was only what I heard, having left a long time before hand. With all these posts to the contrary I was beginning to think that maybe it wasn’t true. And maybe all this was already covered in the FA2 thread, but then when is a thread unto itself!
Whilst we are on a tangent;
One thing that does strike me is that there are many, too many RAF 'militant' supporters, and I say supporters because its not actually clear if they are members, that believe its only the RAF that is worth fighting for. The difference with the Navy supporters, on the whole, is that they look for what is right for the country or at least the Forces in general.
Hasn't it always been that way? Why is that exactly? Why do some RAF 'supporters' cheer when the Country looses a few frigates?
As a rather faded dark blue, I am appalled that we have lost the Jags, Nimrods, Harriers of both sexes and lots of other stuff AND we have these forums because we do not want to let it go AND if we want to say so, we bl**dy well can and will!
T
Now, lets not have any ranting, that was only what I heard, having left a long time before hand. With all these posts to the contrary I was beginning to think that maybe it wasn’t true. And maybe all this was already covered in the FA2 thread, but then when is a thread unto itself!
Whilst we are on a tangent;
One thing that does strike me is that there are many, too many RAF 'militant' supporters, and I say supporters because its not actually clear if they are members, that believe its only the RAF that is worth fighting for. The difference with the Navy supporters, on the whole, is that they look for what is right for the country or at least the Forces in general.
Hasn't it always been that way? Why is that exactly? Why do some RAF 'supporters' cheer when the Country looses a few frigates?
As a rather faded dark blue, I am appalled that we have lost the Jags, Nimrods, Harriers of both sexes and lots of other stuff AND we have these forums because we do not want to let it go AND if we want to say so, we bl**dy well can and will!
T
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAJ,
Apology accepted and thank you.
As I said, the FA2 decision was set up by the RAF in the MoD - JFH was given a choice of cutting FA2 or going cap in hand to the wider RAF to get the funds needed for the GR7 to 9 conversion, which had gone way over expected costs. Carrier costs weren't the issue (then).
Yes, 12 is about the max on the boat, although the USMC have put 25 on very similar sized decks. Driving factors would be weapons and fuel available on the CVS - although the RN has a pretty spiffy supply chain called the RFA. My point about numbers was that we had a pretty good number of aircraft that could sustain our tasks. The RN put three front line units in the air and on board for about the same overall strength. Oh, and by the way, until SDSR we had two carriers.
Yes, Tornado is 'longer range' - depending on weapons carried, and I am sure is more capable -although I believe the EOTS pod carried by Harrier beats anything the 'Fin' currently has. However, 'capability' comprises many attributes - and the key question this SDSR asked (wrongly) was 'what do we need for the Stan?'. Harrier's plenty good enough for that. It also had a way lower logs footprint, which in Afghan terms is a real plus. Harrier was designed from the wheels up to operate forward with reduced support - Tornado wasn't. Doesn't make Tornado a bad aircraft - just not as well suited for the Stan, in my view.
Current lack of a usable Typhoon A-G capability is an absolute national scandal and needs to be exposed. The RAF have been allowed to go on with what was always a dedicated AD programme for years too long, consuming a quite startling proportion of the defence budget. See the latest NAO report for the figures - first time they've been released. Again, I'm not anti-RAF, or anti Typhoon. I just think that the balance has been all wrong for a decade or more. AT, SH, MPA and now maritime aviation have all been sacrificed to sustain the '232 Typhoon' fleet that was allowed to go through the 98 SDR. Hasn't done the RAF any favours in the end.
Thanks for coming back and good to swap views and opinions.
Best Regards
Engines
Apology accepted and thank you.
As I said, the FA2 decision was set up by the RAF in the MoD - JFH was given a choice of cutting FA2 or going cap in hand to the wider RAF to get the funds needed for the GR7 to 9 conversion, which had gone way over expected costs. Carrier costs weren't the issue (then).
Yes, 12 is about the max on the boat, although the USMC have put 25 on very similar sized decks. Driving factors would be weapons and fuel available on the CVS - although the RN has a pretty spiffy supply chain called the RFA. My point about numbers was that we had a pretty good number of aircraft that could sustain our tasks. The RN put three front line units in the air and on board for about the same overall strength. Oh, and by the way, until SDSR we had two carriers.
Yes, Tornado is 'longer range' - depending on weapons carried, and I am sure is more capable -although I believe the EOTS pod carried by Harrier beats anything the 'Fin' currently has. However, 'capability' comprises many attributes - and the key question this SDSR asked (wrongly) was 'what do we need for the Stan?'. Harrier's plenty good enough for that. It also had a way lower logs footprint, which in Afghan terms is a real plus. Harrier was designed from the wheels up to operate forward with reduced support - Tornado wasn't. Doesn't make Tornado a bad aircraft - just not as well suited for the Stan, in my view.
Current lack of a usable Typhoon A-G capability is an absolute national scandal and needs to be exposed. The RAF have been allowed to go on with what was always a dedicated AD programme for years too long, consuming a quite startling proportion of the defence budget. See the latest NAO report for the figures - first time they've been released. Again, I'm not anti-RAF, or anti Typhoon. I just think that the balance has been all wrong for a decade or more. AT, SH, MPA and now maritime aviation have all been sacrificed to sustain the '232 Typhoon' fleet that was allowed to go through the 98 SDR. Hasn't done the RAF any favours in the end.
Thanks for coming back and good to swap views and opinions.
Best Regards
Engines
M8, no worries, it is all to easy to get into a slanging match ont' thinterweb. Reasoned discussion amongst those with informed opinion is far preferable.
I guess the Navy should never have signed over such a vital asset as the FA2. <shrug.gif> Lesson learned.
I've always wondered about the 2 carrier-thing (both older and new). I'm probably completely wrong but....we have 4 nuke subs to keep any one afloat at all times (1 on patrol, 1 just back from patrol, one preparing for next patrol and one in deep refit). If that's the case, how can we manage with only 2 carriers? I've just finished reading Phoenix Squadron by Rowland White and whilst AR managed to put 2 Buccs over Belize within 2 days of the call, surely they were just bloody lucky they were heading west across the Atlantic at the time. If she'd been in the Far East, they'd have had to wait for 3 weeks. Now surely this delay can be levelled against any small carrier force, and if we only have 2 and both are, for whatever reason, unavailable (see above), surely they become a very expensive luxury that is now toothless. I'm sure it's not that simple, but to my mind, it's logical.
The Stinger pod is marginally better than Litening pod the GR4 carries, but it is not significant. Both ac use(d) it in a tac recce role as well as monitoring and laser targetting. However, the GR4 also carries RAPTOR, and that is several orders of magnitude better than either of the 2 designator pods. The RAPTOR jet still carries 2 x PWIV and the gun, so still capable of doing the CAS role, and the #2 has a standard load which includes the superb DMS Brimstone. So in terms of effect and capability, the GR4 does exceed what the Harrier had. It can also night/IMC TFR (something I had to do whilst out there). I only add these points as so many still spout about the "useless Tornado" - see WEBF's quoted material, something clearly factually incorrect. I take your point about the longer logs train for the GR4 in 'stan, but it doesn't seem to be hampering things, and the jet is standing up really well to the conditions. Ally that to 2 heads in the cockpit (= 2 mouths/ears to talk with the different agencies), better capabilities as mentioned, and I really don't think GR4 is less suited to the theatre.
In terms of range/payload and planning, I can mention a couple of stories: I helped write one of the plans when I was in the HQ in Riyadh back in '97/'98. Suffice to say the GR9(7
) was limited to targets no further north than Tallil, yet the GR4s were all the way north to the Turkish border. Then in Apr '98, the boat sailed quietly out of theatre because the ac could no longer land back with any ordnance due to the temperature (it's only April remember!). This didn't affect the GRs as they weren't carrying weapons, but the FA2 were required to carry AAMs, and ended up getting airborne with only 1 x AMRAAM and once the temp rose again, they would have had to jettison it before they landed back on. My Boss at the time, an ex-Harrier Air Commodore (later became AOC 1 Gp) asked PJHQ if the GRs could be left behind with us based in Kuwait alongside the Tornados but he was told, in no uncertain terms, to wind his neck in. Curiously enough, a few weeks after she left theatre, the deal for 2 new carriers was announced. 
The time it is taking Typhoon to qualify A-G munitions is ludicrous, I agree. How long since it started A-G qualification?
I guess the Navy should never have signed over such a vital asset as the FA2. <shrug.gif> Lesson learned.
I've always wondered about the 2 carrier-thing (both older and new). I'm probably completely wrong but....we have 4 nuke subs to keep any one afloat at all times (1 on patrol, 1 just back from patrol, one preparing for next patrol and one in deep refit). If that's the case, how can we manage with only 2 carriers? I've just finished reading Phoenix Squadron by Rowland White and whilst AR managed to put 2 Buccs over Belize within 2 days of the call, surely they were just bloody lucky they were heading west across the Atlantic at the time. If she'd been in the Far East, they'd have had to wait for 3 weeks. Now surely this delay can be levelled against any small carrier force, and if we only have 2 and both are, for whatever reason, unavailable (see above), surely they become a very expensive luxury that is now toothless. I'm sure it's not that simple, but to my mind, it's logical.
The Stinger pod is marginally better than Litening pod the GR4 carries, but it is not significant. Both ac use(d) it in a tac recce role as well as monitoring and laser targetting. However, the GR4 also carries RAPTOR, and that is several orders of magnitude better than either of the 2 designator pods. The RAPTOR jet still carries 2 x PWIV and the gun, so still capable of doing the CAS role, and the #2 has a standard load which includes the superb DMS Brimstone. So in terms of effect and capability, the GR4 does exceed what the Harrier had. It can also night/IMC TFR (something I had to do whilst out there). I only add these points as so many still spout about the "useless Tornado" - see WEBF's quoted material, something clearly factually incorrect. I take your point about the longer logs train for the GR4 in 'stan, but it doesn't seem to be hampering things, and the jet is standing up really well to the conditions. Ally that to 2 heads in the cockpit (= 2 mouths/ears to talk with the different agencies), better capabilities as mentioned, and I really don't think GR4 is less suited to the theatre.
In terms of range/payload and planning, I can mention a couple of stories: I helped write one of the plans when I was in the HQ in Riyadh back in '97/'98. Suffice to say the GR9(7
) was limited to targets no further north than Tallil, yet the GR4s were all the way north to the Turkish border. Then in Apr '98, the boat sailed quietly out of theatre because the ac could no longer land back with any ordnance due to the temperature (it's only April remember!). This didn't affect the GRs as they weren't carrying weapons, but the FA2 were required to carry AAMs, and ended up getting airborne with only 1 x AMRAAM and once the temp rose again, they would have had to jettison it before they landed back on. My Boss at the time, an ex-Harrier Air Commodore (later became AOC 1 Gp) asked PJHQ if the GRs could be left behind with us based in Kuwait alongside the Tornados but he was told, in no uncertain terms, to wind his neck in. Curiously enough, a few weeks after she left theatre, the deal for 2 new carriers was announced. The time it is taking Typhoon to qualify A-G munitions is ludicrous, I agree. How long since it started A-G qualification?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paveway IV testing on Typhoon
The first ever release of a Paveway IV precision guided bomb from a Typhoon aircraft, using the avionics system to safely release the weapon, has been achieved in an hour long test flight over the Aberporth Range in Wales. The integration of Paveway IV demonstrates a commitment to enhance and upgrade Typhoon’s capabilities in its ground attack role and forms part of the Typhoon Future Capability Upgrade.
Typhoon Test Pilot Nat Makepeace, who was at the controls of development aircraft IPA6, said: “This was a successful test flight demonstrating the avionics system is able to use global positioning system (GPS) data and target information sourced from the aircraft to prepare for the release. All communication with the aircraft and safe release of the bomb went to plan.”
Paveway IV is a highly accurate, precision guided bomb capable of significantly minimising collateral damage. It is low cost and will provide Typhoonpilots with the very best technology for operations with its all-weather, day and night precision capability.
The test is part of an ongoing programme to integrate Paveway IV onto the aircraft and builds on the environmental and jettison trials which have already been performed.
Paveway IV is expected to be provided to the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) early in 2012 when the RAF will start operational evaluation.
This work further demonstrates the systems integration capabilities of the BAE Systems Typhoon team. These skills are essential for the continued development of the Typhoon aircraft. The team is working closely with the MOD, the Eurofighter partner nations and Raytheon on this development programme.
The first ever release of a Paveway IV precision guided bomb from a Typhoon aircraft, using the avionics system to safely release the weapon, has been achieved in an hour long test flight over the Aberporth Range in Wales. The integration of Paveway IV demonstrates a commitment to enhance and upgrade Typhoon’s capabilities in its ground attack role and forms part of the Typhoon Future Capability Upgrade.Typhoon Test Pilot Nat Makepeace, who was at the controls of development aircraft IPA6, said: “This was a successful test flight demonstrating the avionics system is able to use global positioning system (GPS) data and target information sourced from the aircraft to prepare for the release. All communication with the aircraft and safe release of the bomb went to plan.”
Paveway IV is a highly accurate, precision guided bomb capable of significantly minimising collateral damage. It is low cost and will provide Typhoonpilots with the very best technology for operations with its all-weather, day and night precision capability.
The test is part of an ongoing programme to integrate Paveway IV onto the aircraft and builds on the environmental and jettison trials which have already been performed.
Paveway IV is expected to be provided to the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) early in 2012 when the RAF will start operational evaluation.
This work further demonstrates the systems integration capabilities of the BAE Systems Typhoon team. These skills are essential for the continued development of the Typhoon aircraft. The team is working closely with the MOD, the Eurofighter partner nations and Raytheon on this development programme.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAJ,
Good points and I can see the advantages offered by the Fin in the Stan. However, central point for the country is that it can't go to sea. We've taken a course that means we have to regenerate maritime aviation from scratch in 10 years. Poor call, in my view.
Yep, no doubt Tornado has more legs than the Harrier, and the recovery problems were acute with both SHAR and GR7. GR9 would have remedied a lot of that. The reason we were looking so hard at RVLs for JSF was to give better insurance against the same happening with that jet. now all academic, sadly. Your points are well made.
Two carriers is less than anyone would like, but that's the real world. The key to the issue was to get the RAF to include carriers in their basing assumptions IN PLACE OF a DOB or two. That would have got the staffs thinking carefully about where to put them. The real world is that carriers can be put just about anywhere on the globe in two weeks or so. They are often the first things that start moving if a situation starts to arise, with their full time embarked air groups - this is the USN pattern. However, if the air guys (RAF) only see them as 'a potentially useful basing option' (quoting CAS) and see aircraft at sea as 'detachments' rather than 'embarked units' then the need to move carriers around goes. All a matter of doctrine and policy.
GazEd - A Typhoon successfully used GPS and aircraft data to drop a PWIV? So? BAE should have been driven to do this a long while back We had publicity shots of LGBs o the aircraft two years ago. This is ops normal, and late to boot. Sorry, and probably too hard on the guys working hard, but this is no longer rocket science.
best regards
Engines
Good points and I can see the advantages offered by the Fin in the Stan. However, central point for the country is that it can't go to sea. We've taken a course that means we have to regenerate maritime aviation from scratch in 10 years. Poor call, in my view.
Yep, no doubt Tornado has more legs than the Harrier, and the recovery problems were acute with both SHAR and GR7. GR9 would have remedied a lot of that. The reason we were looking so hard at RVLs for JSF was to give better insurance against the same happening with that jet. now all academic, sadly. Your points are well made.
Two carriers is less than anyone would like, but that's the real world. The key to the issue was to get the RAF to include carriers in their basing assumptions IN PLACE OF a DOB or two. That would have got the staffs thinking carefully about where to put them. The real world is that carriers can be put just about anywhere on the globe in two weeks or so. They are often the first things that start moving if a situation starts to arise, with their full time embarked air groups - this is the USN pattern. However, if the air guys (RAF) only see them as 'a potentially useful basing option' (quoting CAS) and see aircraft at sea as 'detachments' rather than 'embarked units' then the need to move carriers around goes. All a matter of doctrine and policy.
GazEd - A Typhoon successfully used GPS and aircraft data to drop a PWIV? So? BAE should have been driven to do this a long while back We had publicity shots of LGBs o the aircraft two years ago. This is ops normal, and late to boot. Sorry, and probably too hard on the guys working hard, but this is no longer rocket science.
best regards
Engines
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: flatlands
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paweway IV
Gaz D great news. However, I think you will find GR9 the first to drop the weapon operationally(RN Harrier Sqn)and is in service with GR 4 today.
Evaluation has already take place and its been operationally tested with much success much before 2012!!
Evaluation has already take place and its been operationally tested with much success much before 2012!!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Manchester
Age: 46
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines...can you see any of the 3 services giving up 2 MOBs so one of the other services can have 2 carriers? That was never going to happen without a fight.
I agree that once F35 is embarked, our 2 carriers (please note, this is all IF) will provide some potent and flexible capability, but in the meantime, the Navy and others were advocating ditching the "completely useless" GR4 altogether. If this had occurred, we would still have another 10 years of 2 carriers incapable of being posted where they may be needed for fear of an attack they could not defend against (even the threat of an attack would be enough to keep them held back, a Govt would surely fall if one was sunk) and with no lange range all-weather day/night LL strike/interdiction platform. So at huge cost, both financial and militarily, keeping the carriers and Harrier would have been the wrong decision IMO (15 years of being unable to use them as designed....reminds me of Typhoon 
). Yes, it is going to be very tough to regenerate embarked aviation, but we did it once, at the start and those lessons must surely have been recorded.
Again, I'd like to reiterate, I am not anti-Harrier. It was a superb platform, flexible and well-proven, but the debate has been Harrier vs Tornado and in that one, there can be only one outcome IMO. In an ideal world, both please.
I agree that once F35 is embarked, our 2 carriers (please note, this is all IF
) will provide some potent and flexible capability, but in the meantime, the Navy and others were advocating ditching the "completely useless" GR4 altogether. If this had occurred, we would still have another 10 years of 2 carriers incapable of being posted where they may be needed for fear of an attack they could not defend against (even the threat of an attack would be enough to keep them held back, a Govt would surely fall if one was sunk) and with no lange range all-weather day/night LL strike/interdiction platform. So at huge cost, both financial and militarily, keeping the carriers and Harrier would have been the wrong decision IMO (15 years of being unable to use them as designed....reminds me of Typhoon ). Yes, it is going to be very tough to regenerate embarked aviation, but we did it once, at the start and those lessons must surely have been recorded.Again, I'd like to reiterate, I am not anti-Harrier. It was a superb platform, flexible and well-proven, but the debate has been Harrier vs Tornado and in that one, there can be only one outcome IMO. In an ideal world, both please.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAJ,
Thanks for coming back - good discussion.
I wasn't advocating 'giving up two MOBs' - I know how hard the RAF fights for its bases. What should have happened (in my view) was that the RAF needed to remove two Deployed Operating Bases (DOBs) from its planning assumptions and replaced them with two CVFs.
That would have saved literally hundreds of personnel and consequent costs, and made the RAF commit to being able to 'embark' on board a ship and stay there, so allowing the carriers to be able to deliver capability at the 'short nod'. It would also have made the RN commit to ensuring that the carriers stayed focussed on martime strtke. Sadly, that battle was lost, and the case for carriers weakened.
The Navy did not (and I know this to be true) advocate ditching the 'completely useless GR4'. They have aviation professionals just like the RAF does, and they don't indulge in stuff like that. The choice of 'GR4 versus Harrier' was convenient for the Treasury, but the Services didn't have to go along with it. Reductions in Tornado, keep some Harriers, or other alternatives weren't properly looked at, in my view. However, we can amicably differ on that.
You go a bit off the end next though. It's plain wrong that the carriers were incapable of being posted where they might be needed for fear of an air attack. 15 years of being unable to use them as they were designed? What staff course did you hear that one at?
Regenerating 'cat and trap' air is going to be fiendishly hard, the last time we did it was....ermmm.... oh, the early 1950s when we did it for the first time. Completely different technology, doctrine, platforms, etc. personally, I can see a very plausible scenario where we get to realizing just how hard it's going to be and how much it will cost, and someone will say 'Oh, we've done Ok for ten years now, why bother?' .
I wish it weren't so, but there it is. meanwhile, I wish all the very best to all our aircrews of all colors doing their level best in a tough war.
Best Regards
Engines
Thanks for coming back - good discussion.
I wasn't advocating 'giving up two MOBs' - I know how hard the RAF fights for its bases. What should have happened (in my view) was that the RAF needed to remove two Deployed Operating Bases (DOBs) from its planning assumptions and replaced them with two CVFs.
That would have saved literally hundreds of personnel and consequent costs, and made the RAF commit to being able to 'embark' on board a ship and stay there, so allowing the carriers to be able to deliver capability at the 'short nod'. It would also have made the RN commit to ensuring that the carriers stayed focussed on martime strtke. Sadly, that battle was lost, and the case for carriers weakened.
The Navy did not (and I know this to be true) advocate ditching the 'completely useless GR4'. They have aviation professionals just like the RAF does, and they don't indulge in stuff like that. The choice of 'GR4 versus Harrier' was convenient for the Treasury, but the Services didn't have to go along with it. Reductions in Tornado, keep some Harriers, or other alternatives weren't properly looked at, in my view. However, we can amicably differ on that.
You go a bit off the end next though. It's plain wrong that the carriers were incapable of being posted where they might be needed for fear of an air attack. 15 years of being unable to use them as they were designed? What staff course did you hear that one at?
Regenerating 'cat and trap' air is going to be fiendishly hard, the last time we did it was....ermmm.... oh, the early 1950s when we did it for the first time. Completely different technology, doctrine, platforms, etc. personally, I can see a very plausible scenario where we get to realizing just how hard it's going to be and how much it will cost, and someone will say 'Oh, we've done Ok for ten years now, why bother?' .
I wish it weren't so, but there it is. meanwhile, I wish all the very best to all our aircrews of all colors doing their level best in a tough war.
Best Regards
Engines
Originally Posted by Engines
The Navy did not (and I know this to be true) advocate ditching the 'completely useless GR4'. They have aviation professionals just like the RAF does, and they don't indulge in stuff like that. The choice of 'GR4 versus Harrier' was convenient for the Treasury, but the Services didn't have to go along with it. Reductions in Tornado, keep some Harriers, or other alternatives weren't properly looked at, in my view. However, we can amicably differ on that.
You go a bit off the end next though. It's plain wrong that the carriers were incapable of being posted where they might be needed for fear of an air attack. 15 years of being unable to use them as they were designed? What staff course did you hear that one at?
You go a bit off the end next though. It's plain wrong that the carriers were incapable of being posted where they might be needed for fear of an air attack. 15 years of being unable to use them as they were designed? What staff course did you hear that one at?
End game is we have lost GR4s and GR9, so I don't see how we could have given up more GR4s for GR9s without reducing below a critical mass, at least for current ops. And now that the time between op deployments is reduced, regaining contingency currencies is going to be even harder.
15 years was my stab in the dark. How long ago was the FA2 taken out of service? How long before the carrier has an airborne AD capability? 15 years was a rough guess. Reasoning....well if the carrier cannot defend itself out to the launch range of most anti-ship missiles, they will be heavily restricted as to where they can be deployed....effectively outside the range of any capable platform. I haven't looked at what ac or anti-ship missiles the Libyans have in their inventory, but I find it difficult to believe they don't have something which would have to be taken into account when planning the location of the carrier. This must massively reduce their capability to deploy the GR9 (how many can they carry when they also have FA2 embarked?) without land-based AR support. Does that make sense?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Just for the record, a CVS can comfortably operate 16+ fixed wing aircraft. More if the rotary overhead is removed. I wouldn't expect light blue to know because they only fly in sixes for two weeks at a time.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Engines...
A little curious at that comment? What would GR9, with the same engine, wing and airframe as the 7, "have remedied"? I might be missing some deeper meaning with required/available stores capability...
NoD
and the recovery problems were acute with both SHAR and GR7. GR9 would have remedied a lot of that.
NoD
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't expect light blue to know because they only fly in sixes for two weeks at a time.
navaleye,
"Just for the record, a CVS can comfortably operate 16+ fixed wing aircraft."
That may indeed be true, just a shame that the RN could never quite find the CREWS for 16 fast jets...
"Just for the record, a CVS can comfortably operate 16+ fixed wing aircraft."
That may indeed be true, just a shame that the RN could never quite find the CREWS for 16 fast jets...
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nod
In the latter days of GR7 (2004/5) and onwards the jet had the 105 and 107 engine. The 107 engine was the "big" engine and allowed much greater performance/bring-back ie hovering alongside with stores or landing at KAF around 70/80 kts on a very poor surface.
In the latter days of GR7 (2004/5) and onwards the jet had the 105 and 107 engine. The 107 engine was the "big" engine and allowed much greater performance/bring-back ie hovering alongside with stores or landing at KAF around 70/80 kts on a very poor surface.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Yes, good spot, the GR7 had the bigger engine towards the end, so had better recovery performance.
Bootflap, as a 'crab', (your words) you have NOT taken more jets to sea and for longer, unless you mean in the last 4 or 5 years. I did 6 months at sea on a CVS with 8 to 10 jets, doing around 23 to 25 sorties a day. So did lots of others, mostly RN and also RAF. In FA2 days, a normal pattern was 4 months embarked at sea with 8 jets, tday and night flying 6/7 days a week. Plus 10 to 12 ASW helos.
There's a key difference here. The RAF never committed to more than 'detachments' of aircraft to the ship. Carefully prepped beforehand (in some cases for two weeks), with tailored support to meet the forecast task, rotating aircraft back to UK MOBs when any major servicing came up. Normal length of detachment measured in weeks. Not equipped for operations at all times. The RN squadrons embarked as complete squadrons, taking all their support and kit to handle all required tasks. All support was carried out on board. Normal length of embarkation measured in months.
Now, that is not a 'good and bad' comparison - just a statement of the facts. I quite understood why the RAF worked that way, and it had some advantages. However, it struck at the heart of the RN concept where the aircraft were an integral part of the strike capability delivered BY the ship and the rest of the fleet. The RAF view is that the ship is no more than a floating runway for RAF aircraft to do their RAF task from. And again, I can see their point of view.
Problem is that the RAF approach will not be able to deliver cat and trap aviation. To do that task, the air group and ship need to work up together to in a far more integrated way.
Best regards
Engines.
Yes, good spot, the GR7 had the bigger engine towards the end, so had better recovery performance.
Bootflap, as a 'crab', (your words) you have NOT taken more jets to sea and for longer, unless you mean in the last 4 or 5 years. I did 6 months at sea on a CVS with 8 to 10 jets, doing around 23 to 25 sorties a day. So did lots of others, mostly RN and also RAF. In FA2 days, a normal pattern was 4 months embarked at sea with 8 jets, tday and night flying 6/7 days a week. Plus 10 to 12 ASW helos.
There's a key difference here. The RAF never committed to more than 'detachments' of aircraft to the ship. Carefully prepped beforehand (in some cases for two weeks), with tailored support to meet the forecast task, rotating aircraft back to UK MOBs when any major servicing came up. Normal length of detachment measured in weeks. Not equipped for operations at all times. The RN squadrons embarked as complete squadrons, taking all their support and kit to handle all required tasks. All support was carried out on board. Normal length of embarkation measured in months.
Now, that is not a 'good and bad' comparison - just a statement of the facts. I quite understood why the RAF worked that way, and it had some advantages. However, it struck at the heart of the RN concept where the aircraft were an integral part of the strike capability delivered BY the ship and the rest of the fleet. The RAF view is that the ship is no more than a floating runway for RAF aircraft to do their RAF task from. And again, I can see their point of view.
Problem is that the RAF approach will not be able to deliver cat and trap aviation. To do that task, the air group and ship need to work up together to in a far more integrated way.
Best regards
Engines.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
It think it was summer '10 when 1 Sqn was on for 2 months? Refer you to a previous comment that the reason it was 'only' 6 jets for a few weeks at a time was probably because of other commitment (not just Herrick but also regeneration). Cougar this year was meant to feature embarked support for the same period, although a mix of FAA and RAF as far as I understood.
The RAF never committed to more than 'detachments' of aircraft to the ship. Carefully prepped beforehand (in some cases for two weeks), with tailored support to meet the forecast task, rotating aircraft back to UK MOBs when any major servicing came up. Normal length of detachment measured in weeks. Not equipped for operations at all times. The RN squadrons embarked as complete squadrons, taking all their support and kit to handle all required tasks. All support was carried out on board. Normal length of embarkation measured in months.
Originally Posted by Engines
There's a key difference here. The RAF never committed to more than 'detachments' of aircraft to the ship. Carefully prepped beforehand (in some cases for two weeks), with tailored support to meet the forecast task, rotating aircraft back to UK MOBs when any major servicing came up. Normal length of detachment measured in weeks. Not equipped for operations at all times. The RN squadrons embarked as complete squadrons, taking all their support and kit to handle all required tasks. All support was carried out on board. Normal length of embarkation measured in months.
Just a thought.