Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bootflap, as a 'crab', (your words) you have NOT taken more jets to sea and for longer,
I wouldn't expect light blue to know because they only fly in sixes for two weeks at a time.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
something to do with the genocide practised by those running the FW pipeline, culling many promising RN pilots, sad but true reflection on the state of the rediculous petty rivalry engendered by just this sort of political nonsense
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents,
Having been involved with PW4 for a long while, it does depend on the platform as to how easy it is to integrate MIL-STD-1760 weapons. Harriers' integration did not use the full interface and was done fast and dirty. GR4 did use the recommended interface, and indeed got the weapon on in quick time, albeit not with a full release capability - I'm talking in terms of release sequencing and targeting..
The eternal problem has always been the tweaking of display software, allied with sytem platform computers to eke the most out of the weapon(s) deployed. The longterm stuff will get done in the background while UOR capability can be done quicker.
Large chunks of time/effort are spent examining weapon configurations that are suitable to be carried/released/jettisoned/operated with each other. Harrier stores management is/was a fairly groovy system in that it retained a mixed load capability second to none. Basically you can hang anything off it and the armament control computer wouldn't care. GR4 SMS is a bit more finicky and would have to be tested a lot more to generate a workable clearance.
Not being privy to Typhoons' workings (info was a news release - not tub-thumping), I can only imagine the super-computers involve in release and jettison of ordnance from a plane that is highly agile/unstable would involve a lot more work than throwing it on. For instance GR4 never needed the Flight Control System updated - even with 4 Storm Shadow slung under it. I would hazard that Typhoon does or the FCS is going to go potty with a new weapon/weight/drag on whatever pylon.
Having been involved with PW4 for a long while, it does depend on the platform as to how easy it is to integrate MIL-STD-1760 weapons. Harriers' integration did not use the full interface and was done fast and dirty. GR4 did use the recommended interface, and indeed got the weapon on in quick time, albeit not with a full release capability - I'm talking in terms of release sequencing and targeting..
The eternal problem has always been the tweaking of display software, allied with sytem platform computers to eke the most out of the weapon(s) deployed. The longterm stuff will get done in the background while UOR capability can be done quicker.
Large chunks of time/effort are spent examining weapon configurations that are suitable to be carried/released/jettisoned/operated with each other. Harrier stores management is/was a fairly groovy system in that it retained a mixed load capability second to none. Basically you can hang anything off it and the armament control computer wouldn't care. GR4 SMS is a bit more finicky and would have to be tested a lot more to generate a workable clearance.
Not being privy to Typhoons' workings (info was a news release - not tub-thumping), I can only imagine the super-computers involve in release and jettison of ordnance from a plane that is highly agile/unstable would involve a lot more work than throwing it on. For instance GR4 never needed the Flight Control System updated - even with 4 Storm Shadow slung under it. I would hazard that Typhoon does or the FCS is going to go potty with a new weapon/weight/drag on whatever pylon.
Gaz ED - you'd have thought the designers of Typhoon would have considered the type of weapons it was likely to carry and made the weapon system (that's its job, after all) an 'easy fit'. It does appear to be taking an inordinate length of time to get clearances for A-G weapons. 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAJ,
In the bizarre world of Defence Industry/MoD/Treasury, nothing will surprise me. Back in the day, I can envisage EAP then EFA, now Typhoon designers casting a best guess at what future weapons would be used. Did we anticipate the trend towards larger weapons for use in GW1 and the Balkan unpleasantnesses(sp?).
Currently the trend is to smaller (weight) munitions such as PW4 (with largely the same explosive/kinetic effect as a 1000lb'er), but with more options of employment.
At the time EFA was around didn't the RAF look at the use of Lockheeds' SDB? It would be nigh on impossible to predict, short of trusty 1000lb LGB and pod, what the vogue for weapons would be. I am loath to subscribe to the current zeitgeist for CAS-orientated munitions, as one must look to future conflict, not current. An old maxim, and worth heeding.
Example is Brimstone - derided for being a lock after launch weapon, and therefore no good for the more urban conflicts being fought. MBDA think f that and stick a different seeker in it. Suddenly - accurate, low collateral weapon is now popular in theatre.
Even with Brimstone DMS implementation on GR4, live firings had to be carried out to determine the usual characteristics. GR4 is a lot more robust in terms of weapon C of G's than I can imagine Typhoon would be.
That being said , I've seen Typhoon hoofing round with 6x 1000 LGB's on, and it is uber-impressive it can maintain its' agility with that load plus tanks. It will make a great (expensive!) CAS platform, but these things take time. Not a bad thing - when it does have its' full quiver of arrows, I fear the GR4 is on it's way to the scrappy.
In the bizarre world of Defence Industry/MoD/Treasury, nothing will surprise me. Back in the day, I can envisage EAP then EFA, now Typhoon designers casting a best guess at what future weapons would be used. Did we anticipate the trend towards larger weapons for use in GW1 and the Balkan unpleasantnesses(sp?).
Currently the trend is to smaller (weight) munitions such as PW4 (with largely the same explosive/kinetic effect as a 1000lb'er), but with more options of employment.
At the time EFA was around didn't the RAF look at the use of Lockheeds' SDB? It would be nigh on impossible to predict, short of trusty 1000lb LGB and pod, what the vogue for weapons would be. I am loath to subscribe to the current zeitgeist for CAS-orientated munitions, as one must look to future conflict, not current. An old maxim, and worth heeding.
Example is Brimstone - derided for being a lock after launch weapon, and therefore no good for the more urban conflicts being fought. MBDA think f that and stick a different seeker in it. Suddenly - accurate, low collateral weapon is now popular in theatre.
Even with Brimstone DMS implementation on GR4, live firings had to be carried out to determine the usual characteristics. GR4 is a lot more robust in terms of weapon C of G's than I can imagine Typhoon would be.
That being said , I've seen Typhoon hoofing round with 6x 1000 LGB's on, and it is uber-impressive it can maintain its' agility with that load plus tanks. It will make a great (expensive!) CAS platform, but these things take time. Not a bad thing - when it does have its' full quiver of arrows, I fear the GR4 is on it's way to the scrappy.
Originally Posted by Gaz ED
It will make a great (expensive!) CAS platform, but these things take time. Not a bad thing - when it does have its' full quiver of arrows, I fear the GR4 is on it's way to the scrappy.
Oddly perhaps, there has been too much emotion over the scrapping of Ark Royal and not enough rational discussion of the problems and risked caused by a ten year period with no fixed wing carrier operations. Nonetheless, Friday was a sad day.
Navy News: Ark Royal passes into history
According to this, her axing (three years earlier than planned?) will save £105 million. I would have thought it would have been more. However, we will still have a functioning CVS until 2014, then should have the first CVF..... so embarking jets should still be possible.
Back to the Harrier: AFM claims that they are still being kept in an airworthy state, pending a decision over what to do with them.
Also see the post by Commodore Scmidlapp (?) on this page on ARRSE.
Navy News: Ark Royal passes into history
According to this, her axing (three years earlier than planned?) will save £105 million. I would have thought it would have been more. However, we will still have a functioning CVS until 2014, then should have the first CVF..... so embarking jets should still be possible.
Back to the Harrier: AFM claims that they are still being kept in an airworthy state, pending a decision over what to do with them.
Also see the post by Commodore Scmidlapp (?) on this page on ARRSE.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
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.
Hence my
What would GR9, with the same engine, wing and airframe as the 7, "have remedied"?
Yes, good spot, the GR7 had the bigger engine towards the end, so had better recovery performance
only a % of "GR7" had the big engine, it was not a fleet upgrade... and fitting it made it a GR7A. Ditto GR9 v 9A.... but then what do I know 
Who knows, maybe a T12 with a big engine was a T12A ( or maybe not
)NoD
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boot flap and JAJ,
Accepted - I know that the RAF did more than 6 aircraft for two weeks. That's a crude slur. However, my central point remains that they did not 'embark' in the way that the RN had done for years.
JAJ, the ship was able to support and accommodate full strength FA2 squadrons plus ASW units. There was spare space on the ship to accept the unit. So, there was space for GR7 support, as long as it was of the same scale. I don't want to open up the whole 'how many people; argument - wearing and not very productive, but there were issues with differing RN and RAF assumptions for manning and not least harmony rules.
You also illustrate a key point (possibly not on purpose). The RN were apparently expected to 'sail off for months at a time' - the RAF 'wouldn't have the same expectation'. That's interesting, as should have been what the RAF signed up to for Joint Force in 1999. Or, as I sadly conclude, there was never any real intention of delivering a sustainable and persistent maritime strike capability.
Thanks for keeping the exchange of information going - good forum.
Best Regards
Engines
Accepted - I know that the RAF did more than 6 aircraft for two weeks. That's a crude slur. However, my central point remains that they did not 'embark' in the way that the RN had done for years.
JAJ, the ship was able to support and accommodate full strength FA2 squadrons plus ASW units. There was spare space on the ship to accept the unit. So, there was space for GR7 support, as long as it was of the same scale. I don't want to open up the whole 'how many people; argument - wearing and not very productive, but there were issues with differing RN and RAF assumptions for manning and not least harmony rules.
You also illustrate a key point (possibly not on purpose). The RN were apparently expected to 'sail off for months at a time' - the RAF 'wouldn't have the same expectation'. That's interesting, as should have been what the RAF signed up to for Joint Force in 1999. Or, as I sadly conclude, there was never any real intention of delivering a sustainable and persistent maritime strike capability.
Thanks for keeping the exchange of information going - good forum.
Best Regards
Engines
the RAF 'wouldn't have the same expectation'
Just out of curiosity how much more sea time did the Naval Strike Wing (which was meant to be the same size and strength as the two RAF squadrons) do than 1(F) and IV(AC) Squadrons post the formation of JFH?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrathmonk,
From personal experience, it was clear that right from the start, there was no appetite anywhere in the RAF to adopt an 'embarkation' approach. This was backed up to the hilt at senior levels. That didn't change through the years. The issue of delivering 'sustainable capability' was, in my view just reframed by the RAF to allow people to claim that GR7/9 detachments could deliver the same effect as embarkations. I am afraid I didn't agree then and don't agree now.
Don't know on the relative times at sea, but by then the FA2 had been canned.
How was the reframing done? Let's be clear - before FA2 was canned you had:
3 RN squadrons, two of 8, one of around 10 aircraft, plus:
4 RAF squadrons, three of 8, one of around 10.
RN did the vast majority of the sea time, RAF did the land stuff.
Once FA2s went, you had three squadrons instead of five - something then had to give and (correctly, given Afghan ops) sea time was it. Once that die was cast, the idea of traditional embarkations could (quite logically) be ruled out on the simple grounds of not having enough aircraft. This was an obvious consequence of getting rid of the FA2, but to my shame, we were not able to convince senior RN types that it was worth 'dying in the proverbial ditch' for. C'est la vie.
Good exchanges of views here, keep it going, best regards as ever
Engines
From personal experience, it was clear that right from the start, there was no appetite anywhere in the RAF to adopt an 'embarkation' approach. This was backed up to the hilt at senior levels. That didn't change through the years. The issue of delivering 'sustainable capability' was, in my view just reframed by the RAF to allow people to claim that GR7/9 detachments could deliver the same effect as embarkations. I am afraid I didn't agree then and don't agree now.
Don't know on the relative times at sea, but by then the FA2 had been canned.
How was the reframing done? Let's be clear - before FA2 was canned you had:
3 RN squadrons, two of 8, one of around 10 aircraft, plus:
4 RAF squadrons, three of 8, one of around 10.
RN did the vast majority of the sea time, RAF did the land stuff.
Once FA2s went, you had three squadrons instead of five - something then had to give and (correctly, given Afghan ops) sea time was it. Once that die was cast, the idea of traditional embarkations could (quite logically) be ruled out on the simple grounds of not having enough aircraft. This was an obvious consequence of getting rid of the FA2, but to my shame, we were not able to convince senior RN types that it was worth 'dying in the proverbial ditch' for. C'est la vie.
Good exchanges of views here, keep it going, best regards as ever
Engines
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A2QFI...
See above, I beg to differ. The GR9 has the same engine (105) as the GR5, GR7, T10, T12 (well, some of the latter ).
GR7A, GR9A and the (other) T12s (someone didn't want to call it a T12A since it would be a new type
) had the big motor (107).
NoD
GR9 had an upgraded engine SFAIK
).GR7A, GR9A and the (other) T12s (someone didn't want to call it a T12A since it would be a new type
) had the big motor (107).NoD
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF, they are being kept in an "airworthy" state so that they can be sold potentially for more money... nothing more. AFM are being played by those with an interest in keeping the dream alive. They are gone and we will be lucky not to lose more of their ilk. Industry have laid off their staff, contracts are severed, industrial capacity has gone and kit is being gathered for the big sell off - it cannot be recovered now - let it go.
That said, very sad day indeed for the Ark - when does the campaign kick off to rename one of the new ones?
That said, very sad day indeed for the Ark - when does the campaign kick off to rename one of the new ones?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel - I read what you say re GR9/GR9A and you are correct but, at the time they were rolled into the hangars in December were they not all GR9As and as such the aircraft that could/would have been used off the Ark Royal if it hadn't been binned too?
Last edited by A2QFI; 15th Mar 2011 at 21:02.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi A2QFI...
2 questions.
I'll limit to what I post, probably being over-cautious, but it is a public forum - I am sure the details could be found on the WWW however.
Qu 1: 99% sure not. They were only a limited number of 107 engines bought - not enough to go round, and some were lost, although as the force decreased in size, the % of 107s probably got higher?
Qu 2: More likely correct i.e. embarkation would probably involve the 107 subset of the fleet. That said, nothing to stop the 105s doing so
NoD
at the time they were rolled into the hangars in December were they not all GR9As and as such the aircraft that could/would have been used off the Ark Royal if it hadn't been binned too?
I'll limit to what I post, probably being over-cautious, but it is a public forum - I am sure the details could be found on the WWW however.
Qu 1: 99% sure not. They were only a limited number of 107 engines bought - not enough to go round, and some were lost, although as the force decreased in size, the % of 107s probably got higher?
Qu 2: More likely correct i.e. embarkation would probably involve the 107 subset of the fleet. That said, nothing to stop the 105s doing so
NoD
This BBC News story caught my eye: Libya: Tory MP David Davis urges UK defence rethink
He added: "I think we should act, the trouble is we really don't have the hardware to do the job."
He told the BBC many Conservatives were concerned about defence cuts announced last October - which included decommissioning the aircraft carrier Ark Royal and the UK's fleet of Harrier jets and it was "time to go back and look at it again".
"If we had Ark Royal, if we had the Harriers, we could almost certainly have prevented any flight by Gaddafi's people over the rebels... and where he's got his air defences. We could have done that, probably straight away."
"There's a terrible deja vu about this. The same thing happened with John Nott's defence review in the 80s, when Galtieri invaded the Falklands we had already sold one of our aircraft carriers to the Australians. "
Ignoring the hyperbole, he DOES have a point. Speak softly and carry a big stick, not shout loudly and throw away your stick.
Would the Harrier GR9 have been able to contribute to these operations without a radar? The comments of Magic Mushroom that I quoted some pages back suggest a possible role augmenting other aircraft, with Sea King ASaCS or AWACS support. Also they could hit ground (or maritime - allegedly rocket launchers are being mounted on oil tankers and used by Gaddafi's forces for bombarding rebel positions) targets and do reece. The CVS would also play a role in the interdiction operations that would be concurrent.
Lots of rumours flying around at the moment....
News just in - the UN Security Council has authorised the use of force. Of course, Tripoli isn't too happy:
The Libyan military has warned that any foreign operations against Libya will expose all maritime and air navigation in the Mediterranean Sea to danger, state TV reports.
"All civilian and military activities will be the target of a Libyan counter-attack. The Mediterranean Sea will be in serious danger not only in the short term but also in the long term," a screen caption said.
We do live in interesting times. What a pity David Davis was not picked as Tory leader instead of Tony Blair Mk2...
He added: "I think we should act, the trouble is we really don't have the hardware to do the job."
He told the BBC many Conservatives were concerned about defence cuts announced last October - which included decommissioning the aircraft carrier Ark Royal and the UK's fleet of Harrier jets and it was "time to go back and look at it again".
"If we had Ark Royal, if we had the Harriers, we could almost certainly have prevented any flight by Gaddafi's people over the rebels... and where he's got his air defences. We could have done that, probably straight away."
"There's a terrible deja vu about this. The same thing happened with John Nott's defence review in the 80s, when Galtieri invaded the Falklands we had already sold one of our aircraft carriers to the Australians. "
Ignoring the hyperbole, he DOES have a point. Speak softly and carry a big stick, not shout loudly and throw away your stick.
Would the Harrier GR9 have been able to contribute to these operations without a radar? The comments of Magic Mushroom that I quoted some pages back suggest a possible role augmenting other aircraft, with Sea King ASaCS or AWACS support. Also they could hit ground (or maritime - allegedly rocket launchers are being mounted on oil tankers and used by Gaddafi's forces for bombarding rebel positions) targets and do reece. The CVS would also play a role in the interdiction operations that would be concurrent.
Lots of rumours flying around at the moment....
News just in - the UN Security Council has authorised the use of force. Of course, Tripoli isn't too happy:
The Libyan military has warned that any foreign operations against Libya will expose all maritime and air navigation in the Mediterranean Sea to danger, state TV reports.
"All civilian and military activities will be the target of a Libyan counter-attack. The Mediterranean Sea will be in serious danger not only in the short term but also in the long term," a screen caption said.
We do live in interesting times. What a pity David Davis was not picked as Tory leader instead of Tony Blair Mk2...
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 18th Mar 2011 at 12:08.
The things the NFZ are likely to demonstrate are :
1. Need a SEAD capability, which UK is ill-equipped to provide and if the boxheads aren't playing leaves us waiting for the nearest sqn of Prowler/Growler.
2. Depending on what FOB is used, the number of cabs required (even with tanking) to maintain a mere two-ship CAP is going to be eye-watering - my bet is 8 cabs per two-ship station for any length of time. Ark plus GR9 unlikely to be able to do much to support this. Even with FA2, would have struggled to do much more than a couple of CAP stations for any sustained period. BUT
3. That's why you buy bigger carriers with the ability to run multiple CAP stations and do SEAD/strike from the same airwing. Can get closer therefore getting away from the two hours lost transit to station & return. Would still need AAR & probably AWAC, but much less demanding than filling CAP stns.
1. Need a SEAD capability, which UK is ill-equipped to provide and if the boxheads aren't playing leaves us waiting for the nearest sqn of Prowler/Growler.
2. Depending on what FOB is used, the number of cabs required (even with tanking) to maintain a mere two-ship CAP is going to be eye-watering - my bet is 8 cabs per two-ship station for any length of time. Ark plus GR9 unlikely to be able to do much to support this. Even with FA2, would have struggled to do much more than a couple of CAP stations for any sustained period. BUT
3. That's why you buy bigger carriers with the ability to run multiple CAP stations and do SEAD/strike from the same airwing. Can get closer therefore getting away from the two hours lost transit to station & return. Would still need AAR & probably AWAC, but much less demanding than filling CAP stns.
Also:
4. To achieve the aim of running carriers in the future, we need to continue conducting fixed wing flying opertions in the immediate future?
5. Land basing isn't an easy option?
6. Unexpected things happen. Unexpectedly?
7. We may have to face opponents with air and naval forces?
Apparently there has been a lot of Harrier ground running at Wittering this week, although this is a coincidence.
4. To achieve the aim of running carriers in the future, we need to continue conducting fixed wing flying opertions in the immediate future?
5. Land basing isn't an easy option?
6. Unexpected things happen. Unexpectedly?
7. We may have to face opponents with air and naval forces?
Apparently there has been a lot of Harrier ground running at Wittering this week, although this is a coincidence.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 20th Mar 2011 at 19:58.