Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think he's intimating that "bombing for bosses" is a bit like one of those "gardening / computing / thinking for idiots" guide books
Last edited by jamesdevice; 19th Nov 2011 at 08:41.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh okay, now I understand, thanks for the pointer, Jamesdevice . The fact still remains that the bombing comp profiles and subsequent victory for the SHAR hold no weight in the context it is being quoted. Bombing for bosses or not, self des/GPS releases are the only profiles being used in theatre, apart from the gun I am led to believe. Is there really a place for dumb weapons in theatre?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe SHAR had 3kg terror weapon ballistics more accurately modelled than GR7/9, coupled with active radar ranging = a very tight system for dropping practice weapons on a bombing comp I think the argument is getting off the point with that being used as ammunition. We don't bomb for bosses, we bomb for the desired effect
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there really a place for dumb weapons in theatre?
Clearly not - but the chap you are rutting with was ex SHAR, GR7, GR9, QWI , and current CF18.... So perhaps, just perhaps, he has a bit of knowledge about what you are talking about.
And your Q is?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even those with a lot of qualifications still talk bollocks sometimes, perhaps clouded by the colour of his uniform? (Hope he is happy that you have outted him btw!)
I don't know who Fog/leg is but he is absolutely right that winning a "3kg terror weapon" competition is about as relevant to current ops and capabilities as who won the drinking competition in the bar afterwards (milk for harrier pilots, obviously
).
ps It is interesting that the UK aircraft that does by far the most CAS in Afg can't carry a 3kg bomb and you can't see out of it! It can hover in a really strong wind, though.
I don't know who Fog/leg is but he is absolutely right that winning a "3kg terror weapon" competition is about as relevant to current ops and capabilities as who won the drinking competition in the bar afterwards (milk for harrier pilots, obviously
).ps It is interesting that the UK aircraft that does by far the most CAS in Afg can't carry a 3kg bomb and you can't see out of it! It can hover in a really strong wind, though.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lj101, that is fairly amusing, as you seem to assume that my credentials may be of a lesser standard than his. So, perhaps, just perhaps, I have a bit of knowledge about what I am talking about. I could probably figure out who he is now so he probably isn't best chuffed that you have outed him! But then again, there are a lot of armchair experts and sciolists that reside here.
I was making a point, not a question. It is a fact that the SHAR did win a bomb comp but the circumstances are misleading. Oh, and I'm still waiting for Engines to return with clarification on his CAS assumptions.
One re-attack if I may. This is all irrelevant anyway as Harrier is dead and buried, it wasn't a bonkers decision and we (RAF and RN) will do just fine when F-35C comes into service and is integrated into carrier ops. We will do okay, we always do and the Team will pull together to make it happen.
I was making a point, not a question. It is a fact that the SHAR did win a bomb comp but the circumstances are misleading. Oh, and I'm still waiting for Engines to return with clarification on his CAS assumptions.
One re-attack if I may. This is all irrelevant anyway as Harrier is dead and buried, it wasn't a bonkers decision and we (RAF and RN) will do just fine when F-35C comes into service and is integrated into carrier ops. We will do okay, we always do and the Team will pull together to make it happen.
Last edited by Foghorn Leghorn; 19th Nov 2011 at 09:05.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same outcry when Bucc/Phantom Ops ceased but it didn't stop the Harrier/SHAR success from carriers in subsequent years. It will be the same again when the wheel spins back to the position the FAA were in in the 70s (when they relied on RAF crews to sustain their fixed wing capability).
The only thing that is bonkers is that this thread has sustained its life for so long!
Life goes on, nothing ever changes!
Foldie
The only thing that is bonkers is that this thread has sustained its life for so long!
Life goes on, nothing ever changes!
Foldie
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lj101, that is fairly amusing, as you seem to assume that my credentials may be of a lesser standard than his. So, perhaps, just perhaps, I have a bit of knowledge about what I am talking about.
As you say, the Harrier has gone and the discussion a mute point.
Justanopinions view on me 'outing' him, is not an issue.
Last edited by lj101; 19th Nov 2011 at 12:57.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errrrm. Just to clarify, at no stage was I indicating that we should have the SHAR back. The question was asked as to what capability the SHAR had in dropping weapons.
No "bollocks"was spoken, and if you read the actual words I said the GR was obviously better placed as a bomber. Foghorn, for around 2 to 3 years of the GR7s time in afghanistan there was a regular place for dumb bombs in theatre and were dropped all the time.
To recap; the SHAR bombing competition was an amusing incident that rubbed some egg in the faces of the RAF Harrier force, nothing more, a bit of fun. The fact was that the SHAR, despite lots of people's refusal to believe it, was a very accurate bomber. Yes, even with live 1000 /500 lbers.
No "bollocks"was spoken, and if you read the actual words I said the GR was obviously better placed as a bomber. Foghorn, for around 2 to 3 years of the GR7s time in afghanistan there was a regular place for dumb bombs in theatre and were dropped all the time.
To recap; the SHAR bombing competition was an amusing incident that rubbed some egg in the faces of the RAF Harrier force, nothing more, a bit of fun. The fact was that the SHAR, despite lots of people's refusal to believe it, was a very accurate bomber. Yes, even with live 1000 /500 lbers.
Last edited by Justanopinion; 19th Nov 2011 at 14:32.
While SHAR demonstrating it could do live bombings is very impressive, how many times since 1982 has the UK required an aircraft to deliver a weapon using this capability?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Not wanting to be accused of running away, although I have sent a couple of PMs out on this to some of the participants.
Yes, the Harrier's gone. I accept that, there's no going back. Yes, I think the decision was 'bonkers' because I happen to believe that a maritime fixed wing strike capability was extremely important for the UK's national security interests. That, of course, is entirely my opinion and I absolutely respect anyone's right to disagree.
The point I was illustrating (and I apologise unreservedly for not making it more clearly) was that the SHAR had an attack capability. What I don't like to see are less informed comments over the capability of an aircraft (and its aircrew) who served the country with some distinction for many years.
The SHAR had a quite excellent unguided bombing capability. Its weapon ballistics were, by the way, properly implemented for all free fall bombs including 540s and 1000lbs, not just 3kg and 28lb. (Unlike the GR5/7/9). CEPs were low and consistent.
It was cleared for PW2. With a very good 1553 databus to the pylons (not the GR5/7 'frig') getting PW4 on was not a big deal. Of course, it could not self designate. However, that was not considered a stopper - we could bomb on other designators.
The GPS/INS fit on the FA2 was very good and was about to be updated to a quite excellent JTIDS standard, which was actually more advanced in terms of performance and integration than the Typhoon's AND the F-35's (according to the man who designed both). That would have made it quite a platform in a number of roles.
This did not make the SHAR a better bomber than the GR7/9, (or the Tornado) by any stretch, and I apologise if I came over as saying that. It was AD focussed (and the best AD platform in the UK at the time) with a decent secondary attack capability.
Decision's made, yes, let's move on. Getting to an embarked F-35 capability will be huge challenge for the people now in harness, best of luck to them all.
And best regards as ever to all,
Engines
Not wanting to be accused of running away, although I have sent a couple of PMs out on this to some of the participants.
Yes, the Harrier's gone. I accept that, there's no going back. Yes, I think the decision was 'bonkers' because I happen to believe that a maritime fixed wing strike capability was extremely important for the UK's national security interests. That, of course, is entirely my opinion and I absolutely respect anyone's right to disagree.
The point I was illustrating (and I apologise unreservedly for not making it more clearly) was that the SHAR had an attack capability. What I don't like to see are less informed comments over the capability of an aircraft (and its aircrew) who served the country with some distinction for many years.
The SHAR had a quite excellent unguided bombing capability. Its weapon ballistics were, by the way, properly implemented for all free fall bombs including 540s and 1000lbs, not just 3kg and 28lb. (Unlike the GR5/7/9). CEPs were low and consistent.
It was cleared for PW2. With a very good 1553 databus to the pylons (not the GR5/7 'frig') getting PW4 on was not a big deal. Of course, it could not self designate. However, that was not considered a stopper - we could bomb on other designators.
The GPS/INS fit on the FA2 was very good and was about to be updated to a quite excellent JTIDS standard, which was actually more advanced in terms of performance and integration than the Typhoon's AND the F-35's (according to the man who designed both). That would have made it quite a platform in a number of roles.
This did not make the SHAR a better bomber than the GR7/9, (or the Tornado) by any stretch, and I apologise if I came over as saying that. It was AD focussed (and the best AD platform in the UK at the time) with a decent secondary attack capability.
Decision's made, yes, let's move on. Getting to an embarked F-35 capability will be huge challenge for the people now in harness, best of luck to them all.
And best regards as ever to all,
Engines
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While SHAR demonstrating it could do live bombings is very impressive, how many times since 1982 has the UK required an aircraft to deliver a weapon using this capability?
Wasn't Lt Nick Richardson dropping 1000lb ers from a SHAR in Bosnia when he was shot down?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimlad1 While SHAR demonstrating it could do live bombings is very impressive, how many times since 1982 has the UK required an aircraft to deliver a weapon using this capability?
Now with great targeting pods and weapons such as PW4, Brimstone there is clearly less of a requirement however it does not mean they could not be used.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What exactly is the dumb bomb question?
JFH employed KRET in anger in Herrick. Air Cmd stats will tell you when if you are still serving.
JFH employed a lot of free fall 540lb weapons in Herrick, using Check Point Altitude techniques, or was the question just about low level Pass Height stuff? (Pass Height bombing was used in the bombing competition that is being talked of as well as the KRET attacks in theatre.)
I am sure we have all been in situations where the JTAC cannot tell exactly where the fire is coming from and some low level caper is an appropriate way of finding out.
Anyway. None of what I've said discriminates against any platform. Anything can drop a KRET or KFF. You can push one off a milk float if you like...but I'm not sure the GSU could set the 960 for that one, so best to use a HES.
JFH employed KRET in anger in Herrick. Air Cmd stats will tell you when if you are still serving.
JFH employed a lot of free fall 540lb weapons in Herrick, using Check Point Altitude techniques, or was the question just about low level Pass Height stuff? (Pass Height bombing was used in the bombing competition that is being talked of as well as the KRET attacks in theatre.)
I am sure we have all been in situations where the JTAC cannot tell exactly where the fire is coming from and some low level caper is an appropriate way of finding out.
Anyway. None of what I've said discriminates against any platform. Anything can drop a KRET or KFF. You can push one off a milk float if you like...but I'm not sure the GSU could set the 960 for that one, so best to use a HES.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harrier Sale
This news item came in from one of the professional and usually reliable defence information sources a few minutes ago. Can anyone verify it? If true a heck of a sight better than scrapping them even if it's a "fire sale".
US military to buy Britain's scrapped fleet of Harrier jets
The US military has agreed to buy Britain’s entire fleet of Harrier jump jets after they were controversially scrapped following last year’s Strategic Defense Review.
The US Navy and Marine Corps is in the final stages of negotiations to purchase all 74 of the planes, which have been permanently grounded since at the RAF's base at Cottesmore where they are looked after at minimum fleet maintenance.
Rear Admiral Mark Heinrich, chief of the US navy's supply corps, said buying the Harriers made sense because many of the jets had recently undergone a refit, and the US already had pilots who could fly them.
"We're taking advantage of all the money the Brits have spent on them. These are very good platforms. And we've already got trained pilots."
The Ministry of Defence last night confirmed that it was negotiating the sale but declined to disclose the value. The US navy, which already has a fleet of Harriers, hopes that the deal will allow it to continue operating the aircraft into the middle of the next decade and provide extra planes to replace its ageing two-seat F-18D Hornet strike fighters.
US military to buy Britain's scrapped fleet of Harrier jets
The US military has agreed to buy Britain’s entire fleet of Harrier jump jets after they were controversially scrapped following last year’s Strategic Defense Review.
The US Navy and Marine Corps is in the final stages of negotiations to purchase all 74 of the planes, which have been permanently grounded since at the RAF's base at Cottesmore where they are looked after at minimum fleet maintenance.
Rear Admiral Mark Heinrich, chief of the US navy's supply corps, said buying the Harriers made sense because many of the jets had recently undergone a refit, and the US already had pilots who could fly them.
"We're taking advantage of all the money the Brits have spent on them. These are very good platforms. And we've already got trained pilots."
The Ministry of Defence last night confirmed that it was negotiating the sale but declined to disclose the value. The US navy, which already has a fleet of Harriers, hopes that the deal will allow it to continue operating the aircraft into the middle of the next decade and provide extra planes to replace its ageing two-seat F-18D Hornet strike fighters.
USMC Buy Of RAF Harriers & Spares
Most articles in the USA on the subject of a possible buy of the RAF Harriers by the USMC are dated around 13 November 2011.
This article, dated 19 November 2011, mentions a two-part deal which has not yet closed. The Chief of (US) Navy Supply Corps has negotiated buying spares for $50M. XO (US) Navy Tactical Aircraft Program is still negotiating for the aircraft and engines with price reported as the only hang-up.
Marines eyeing used Harriers | eyeing, harriers, marine - Local News, Weather and Breaking Stories in North Carolina - Sun Journal - newbernsj.com
This article, dated 19 November 2011, mentions a two-part deal which has not yet closed. The Chief of (US) Navy Supply Corps has negotiated buying spares for $50M. XO (US) Navy Tactical Aircraft Program is still negotiating for the aircraft and engines with price reported as the only hang-up.
Marines eyeing used Harriers | eyeing, harriers, marine - Local News, Weather and Breaking Stories in North Carolina - Sun Journal - newbernsj.com
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Blakeley
go back to post 1503 in this thread and read onwards
I rather think your "usually reliable defence information source" must be having a time lapse distortion porblem
go back to post 1503 in this thread and read onwards
I rather think your "usually reliable defence information source" must be having a time lapse distortion porblem
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
jamesdevice,
Thanks - I had not picked up on that post and the digital switch in North Norfolk has taken away Sky News! The article came out today saying that MOD was involved last night so I guess it may be coming together and the source remains reliable! Mind you if Sky have the correct numbers this really is a "fire sale" value given how much was spent on the last update.
Thanks - I had not picked up on that post and the digital switch in North Norfolk has taken away Sky News! The article came out today saying that MOD was involved last night so I guess it may be coming together and the source remains reliable! Mind you if Sky have the correct numbers this really is a "fire sale" value given how much was spent on the last update.