Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
Think how much effort was needed to get the Gannet back into service for the Falklands. They had to use the apprentices at Yeovilton, supervised by the museum staff. They only got it flying AFTER the ceasefire and were still trying to get the radar working (as in raiding museums for parts)
As it was they were lucky in finding a privately owned cache of unused crated Mambas (they had been intended for conversion to emergency power stations during the miners strike - but never got used) otherwise the Gannet would never have got it in the air. There were NO spares for the Mambas otherwise
A similar situation will apply to the Sea Harrier - you are not going to find an unused cache of Pegasus anywhere
Think how much effort was needed to get the Gannet back into service for the Falklands. They had to use the apprentices at Yeovilton, supervised by the museum staff. They only got it flying AFTER the ceasefire and were still trying to get the radar working (as in raiding museums for parts)
As it was they were lucky in finding a privately owned cache of unused crated Mambas (they had been intended for conversion to emergency power stations during the miners strike - but never got used) otherwise the Gannet would never have got it in the air. There were NO spares for the Mambas otherwise
A similar situation will apply to the Sea Harrier - you are not going to find an unused cache of Pegasus anywhere
Suspicion breeds confidence
I see the USMC is now operating Harriers with the AIM120D off one of their amphibs. This is a direct consequence of Libya. it seems our two governments arrived at different conclusions.
Some good points Jimlad1/Mach Two, however:
1. A Merlin flight (for example) operating from a Type 23 has considerably less people than a flown blown Merlin Squadron. Although some of this is down them having a parent squadron (829 NAS) there is a certain amount of having x people per aircraft. I do not follow the argument that says that operating a single aircraft needs almost as many as a whole squadron does.
2. Civilian operators safely operate military aircraft with relatively small numbers of maintainers. Some of them (such as Hawker Hunter Aviation, or Serco who operate the FRADU Hawks) even operate aircraft that are on the military register. Some of them safely operate aircraft that have been out of production and out of service for the best part of two decades or longer. Why can't we do the same, with a small number of very experienced and highly skilled Engineers and Pilots to maintain a full time core of expertise?
3. With pretty much any type of operation, be it maintaining aircraft or anything else (a manufacturing operation perhaps?), as the number of assets increases there is an increased need for management and supervision - maintaining eight aircraft (or running eight manufacturing operations) requires more than four times the number of personnel than just two does. The relationship is non linear. Perhaps civilian operators operating a handful of jets, and the Merlin/Lynx flight operating from a frigate, deal with a limited number of assets and people, and this reduces the need for management and supervision. In the case of the former, employing (only) very experienced people must help.
4. A small number of full time people would be required for the RNR/Shar idea to work - but so what? Attaching them to NFSF(FW) would help with infrastructure and organisation. See point 2. Nobody has ever pretended that Reservists could run a squadron at high readiness, the point would be to maintain something which could be expanded if needed.
5. Reservists can and do train other reservists (and regular personnel too) - presumably other ex RN folks will be joining the air branch this decade, including ex Shar/Harrier bods. I would suggest that they could be used intelligently, in the same way other Reservists are heavily involved in supporting certain exercises.
6. The Indian Navy continues to operate the Sea Harrier, additionally Thailand operates a small number of AV-8As. Spares continue to be produced for the Harrier 1 airframe, both by BAE Systems and under licence, and exported. Additionally gate guardian and museum aircraft could be robbed.
7. On the Sea Vixen link I posted in my previous post, you may have noticed the following quote:
XP924 remains fully serviceable here at her home in Bournemouth and is maintained to CAA requirements, including the necessary 'ground run' and 'taxi' activities carried out on a regular basis.
Can anyone think of Sea Harriers that are powered up and taxied? How about the ones at the Dummy Deck at Culdrose?
8. The Sea Harrier was binned by the previous Government, the GR9 by this one. The political embarrassment of a limited Sea Harrier regeneration will be less, in fact it could be an opportunity to appear to be doing something other than inflicting cuts. I remember that during the early stages of the NATO intervention in Libya, when it was still officially enforcing a no fly zone, the Chief of the Air Staff was being interviewed by a news presenter, and was asked about the Harrier question. He replied that since we did not have Sea Harrier a carrier would only have limited value.
He said a similar thing to the Defence Commitee:
Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton: The other thing to bear in mind on that point is, what was the requirement? The requirement was to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. With all the wishing in the world, the Harrier could not have done that. It doesn’t have a radar. We haven’t operated a Sea Harrier for many years.
9. In a crisis all sorts of things become possible - particularly if the Government sense that their neck is on the line. Even more things might be possible if you planned them first. The MOD is meant to be about dealing with crises surely?
10. As an organisation, how agile is the Ministry of Defence and the UK defence establishment? Is the refusal to study the lessons from Libya until the next defence review a good one? Could lessons be learnt from the private sector? Does the current system make use of things such as the OODA decision making loop or the continuous improvement cycle? What would the late Sir John Harvey Jones say?
11. A year ago the Arab spring and the intervention in Libya were unforeseen. What surprises does 2012 and the rest of the decade have in store?
12. Is it true that DE&S has had an underspend for the last few years?
Phosgene
Errr... urban myth?
Navaleye
HMG does not learn lessons. Ever!
1. A Merlin flight (for example) operating from a Type 23 has considerably less people than a flown blown Merlin Squadron. Although some of this is down them having a parent squadron (829 NAS) there is a certain amount of having x people per aircraft. I do not follow the argument that says that operating a single aircraft needs almost as many as a whole squadron does.
2. Civilian operators safely operate military aircraft with relatively small numbers of maintainers. Some of them (such as Hawker Hunter Aviation, or Serco who operate the FRADU Hawks) even operate aircraft that are on the military register. Some of them safely operate aircraft that have been out of production and out of service for the best part of two decades or longer. Why can't we do the same, with a small number of very experienced and highly skilled Engineers and Pilots to maintain a full time core of expertise?
3. With pretty much any type of operation, be it maintaining aircraft or anything else (a manufacturing operation perhaps?), as the number of assets increases there is an increased need for management and supervision - maintaining eight aircraft (or running eight manufacturing operations) requires more than four times the number of personnel than just two does. The relationship is non linear. Perhaps civilian operators operating a handful of jets, and the Merlin/Lynx flight operating from a frigate, deal with a limited number of assets and people, and this reduces the need for management and supervision. In the case of the former, employing (only) very experienced people must help.
4. A small number of full time people would be required for the RNR/Shar idea to work - but so what? Attaching them to NFSF(FW) would help with infrastructure and organisation. See point 2. Nobody has ever pretended that Reservists could run a squadron at high readiness, the point would be to maintain something which could be expanded if needed.
5. Reservists can and do train other reservists (and regular personnel too) - presumably other ex RN folks will be joining the air branch this decade, including ex Shar/Harrier bods. I would suggest that they could be used intelligently, in the same way other Reservists are heavily involved in supporting certain exercises.
6. The Indian Navy continues to operate the Sea Harrier, additionally Thailand operates a small number of AV-8As. Spares continue to be produced for the Harrier 1 airframe, both by BAE Systems and under licence, and exported. Additionally gate guardian and museum aircraft could be robbed.
7. On the Sea Vixen link I posted in my previous post, you may have noticed the following quote:
XP924 remains fully serviceable here at her home in Bournemouth and is maintained to CAA requirements, including the necessary 'ground run' and 'taxi' activities carried out on a regular basis.
Can anyone think of Sea Harriers that are powered up and taxied? How about the ones at the Dummy Deck at Culdrose?
8. The Sea Harrier was binned by the previous Government, the GR9 by this one. The political embarrassment of a limited Sea Harrier regeneration will be less, in fact it could be an opportunity to appear to be doing something other than inflicting cuts. I remember that during the early stages of the NATO intervention in Libya, when it was still officially enforcing a no fly zone, the Chief of the Air Staff was being interviewed by a news presenter, and was asked about the Harrier question. He replied that since we did not have Sea Harrier a carrier would only have limited value.
He said a similar thing to the Defence Commitee:
Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton: The other thing to bear in mind on that point is, what was the requirement? The requirement was to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. With all the wishing in the world, the Harrier could not have done that. It doesn’t have a radar. We haven’t operated a Sea Harrier for many years.
9. In a crisis all sorts of things become possible - particularly if the Government sense that their neck is on the line. Even more things might be possible if you planned them first. The MOD is meant to be about dealing with crises surely?
10. As an organisation, how agile is the Ministry of Defence and the UK defence establishment? Is the refusal to study the lessons from Libya until the next defence review a good one? Could lessons be learnt from the private sector? Does the current system make use of things such as the OODA decision making loop or the continuous improvement cycle? What would the late Sir John Harvey Jones say?
11. A year ago the Arab spring and the intervention in Libya were unforeseen. What surprises does 2012 and the rest of the decade have in store?
12. Is it true that DE&S has had an underspend for the last few years?
Phosgene
Errr... urban myth?
Navaleye
HMG does not learn lessons. Ever!
I would respond, but as WEBF seems unable to grasp the very basic concept that the RNR cannot gurantee the manpower required to make this happen, and will never be able to do so, it would be pointless in the extreme. 
I thought the moderators were having a good clear-out of Walts and other types around to stir up trouble. How is it that this one is being allowed to carry on and on and on with his utterly ridiculous and fanciful ideas?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I thought the moderators were having a good clear-out of Walts and other types around to stir up trouble. How is it that this one is being allowed to carry on and on and on with his utterly ridiculous and fanciful ideas?"
I thought so too. Jimlad, you're time is up!
I believe the idea has merit, retaining core skills at the lowest possible cost is worth exploring, unless actual government policy is to try and regenrate from scratch at a later date at monumental and wholly unnecessary cost, oh right. Silly me I forgot that's what governments do
I thought so too. Jimlad, you're time is up!
I believe the idea has merit, retaining core skills at the lowest possible cost is worth exploring, unless actual government policy is to try and regenrate from scratch at a later date at monumental and wholly unnecessary cost, oh right. Silly me I forgot that's what governments do
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A serious question. Like, love or otherwise the whole 'keep a few Harriers for skill preservation' idea, why is it always a RNR plan?
One of the major arguments against the plan disappears if it were to be RN. The counter I guess being that the post SDSR RN complement didn't cater for a modest uplift in personnel at Yeovilton.
(I personally think the idea's a non starter due to unit size being sub-critical mass, the embarked footprint achievable being too small, the training burden on individuals to requalify on Harrier 1 and the RTS support etc all being just a little too difficult and the product having very little commonality with a cat and trap deck)
One of the major arguments against the plan disappears if it were to be RN. The counter I guess being that the post SDSR RN complement didn't cater for a modest uplift in personnel at Yeovilton.
(I personally think the idea's a non starter due to unit size being sub-critical mass, the embarked footprint achievable being too small, the training burden on individuals to requalify on Harrier 1 and the RTS support etc all being just a little too difficult and the product having very little commonality with a cat and trap deck)
And a world of difference between keeping an aircraft in airworthy condition for airshows and in combat condition...
Plus:
1. The cost in manpower in restarting SHar ops is not insignificant - not only WAFUs and maintainers, but in support staff (PT/RTSA).
2. SHar retired before the MAA stood up. It will not be cheap to produce the MAA documentation and supporting evidence.
3. Industry will bleed you dry on start-up costs; these are fixed regardless of the number of ac you reactivate or the hours you fly. Add 1,2 and 3 up and the costs per flight hour become astronomic.
4. V/STOL deck handling is almost irrelevant now F35C is inbound. The deck cycle will be radically different.
5. SHar will not have recieved any form of DAS/Wpns/Avionics upgrades - now I accept it was advanced when OSD but how advanced is it now? What about legal requirements (Mode 5, TCAS, 8.33, FM immunity)? The cost of designing any/all of these into a small legacy fleet would be steep.
In sum, it's not as simple (or cheap) as dusting off the deck-handling SHars and going flying.....It's gone, we can't afford it. Best solution would be to buy/lease a Sqn of Bugs and ask the USN very nicely if we could embark pilots/deck handlers with them and operate the ac as part of the USN virtual fleet - cutting out the RTSA/QQ/MAA/PT costs and delays whilst gaining relevant experience.
Plus:
1. The cost in manpower in restarting SHar ops is not insignificant - not only WAFUs and maintainers, but in support staff (PT/RTSA).
2. SHar retired before the MAA stood up. It will not be cheap to produce the MAA documentation and supporting evidence.
3. Industry will bleed you dry on start-up costs; these are fixed regardless of the number of ac you reactivate or the hours you fly. Add 1,2 and 3 up and the costs per flight hour become astronomic.
4. V/STOL deck handling is almost irrelevant now F35C is inbound. The deck cycle will be radically different.
5. SHar will not have recieved any form of DAS/Wpns/Avionics upgrades - now I accept it was advanced when OSD but how advanced is it now? What about legal requirements (Mode 5, TCAS, 8.33, FM immunity)? The cost of designing any/all of these into a small legacy fleet would be steep.
In sum, it's not as simple (or cheap) as dusting off the deck-handling SHars and going flying.....It's gone, we can't afford it. Best solution would be to buy/lease a Sqn of Bugs and ask the USN very nicely if we could embark pilots/deck handlers with them and operate the ac as part of the USN virtual fleet - cutting out the RTSA/QQ/MAA/PT costs and delays whilst gaining relevant experience.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fully agree with evalu8ter.
The SHAR, JFH, Ark and fixed wing FAA are now gone for 10 years or more - yes, it's bonkers but the decision is made and the three services will now salute smartly and get on with it.
In 2012, the SHAR would, sadly, be nowhere near combat ready. It was 10 years ago, but...that was 10 years ago.
The RN is now getting as many people as it can over to the USN and building cat and trap experience - and they are getting plenty of help, much appreciated. (A recent video on EMALS testing had a an interview with a PO Aircraft Handler who'd been invited over to watch the first F-35C test).
It the budget could afford it, a squadron of 'Bugs', based in the US, RN manned and embarked, would be a great idea. I have a suspicion that the USN would be on side.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
The SHAR, JFH, Ark and fixed wing FAA are now gone for 10 years or more - yes, it's bonkers but the decision is made and the three services will now salute smartly and get on with it.
In 2012, the SHAR would, sadly, be nowhere near combat ready. It was 10 years ago, but...that was 10 years ago.
The RN is now getting as many people as it can over to the USN and building cat and trap experience - and they are getting plenty of help, much appreciated. (A recent video on EMALS testing had a an interview with a PO Aircraft Handler who'd been invited over to watch the first F-35C test).
It the budget could afford it, a squadron of 'Bugs', based in the US, RN manned and embarked, would be a great idea. I have a suspicion that the USN would be on side.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Originally Posted by orca
A serious question. Like, love or otherwise the whole 'keep a few Harriers for skill preservation' idea, why is it always a RNR plan?
One of the major arguments against the plan disappears if it were to be RN. The counter I guess being that the post SDSR RN complement didn't cater for a modest uplift in personnel at Yeovilton.
One of the major arguments against the plan disappears if it were to be RN. The counter I guess being that the post SDSR RN complement didn't cater for a modest uplift in personnel at Yeovilton.
The idea (mine) was to maintain something that could be grown over x months in response to a crisis to provide a squadron of aircraft. If nothing else, it would allow the UK to deploy Lusty/QE in rotation with Charles De Gaulle - which we could not do during the Libyan operation, a source of some consternation. Similarly, it would tell interested parties that the UK could mount and deploy a credible task group to the South Atlantic faster than Argentina could put together an invasion fleet. In the interim personnel would retain familiarly with Sea Harrier, and those aircraft could embark aboard Lusty/QE to allow the chockheads, OOW, et al to get experience of working with jets on deck at sea.
I am very tempted to point out that Art Nalls had never flown a Sea Harrier, but found that the USMC AV-8B simulator could be programmed to simulate his Sea Jet. Likewise his volunteer maintainers from AV-8B units had never worked on Shar before, and doubt many were left from the AV-8A days.
Originally Posted by downsizer
World of difference betweem keeping a Hunter in the air and complex aircraft like a Harrier....
Evalu8tor
So have we defeated ourselves with paperwork? Like you say it would not been too easy, but nor would it be impossible. Out of interest, how do people like RNHF get on? The RNHF Sea Hawk is surely a military aircraft, on the military register, and flown by a military pilot. How do they get on with respect to dealing with the MAA?
With respect to point 4 (V/STOL deck handling being irrelevant) I would suggest that the basics of moving about a live jet on a moving deck is similar regardless of whether the aircraft is flung into the sky with a catapult and arrested with wires on landing, or if it flings itself into the sky and lands from a hover. After all we retain Sea Harriers at Culdrose from training aircraft handlers on the dummy deck at Culdrose.
I sent a PM to a WAFU and asked him why people thought that going from a decade with no fixed wing aircraft at sea to cat/trap operations would be a non issue, or even less of an issue than moving from STOVL operations. He replied that people were not thinking at all, and that without basic skills then moving onto to far more demanding stuff would be much more difficult and involve greater risk.
There is also the issue of crises in between now and the time then CVF and F35C are in service......
When the RMS Titanic slipped her moorings in April 1912 there we no icebergs in Southampton harbour. Nor were there any in New York harbour. She was unsinkable and had no need to worry about icebergs anyway, so they got rid of most of the planned lifeboats. History records that she never made it to New York, having struck an iceberg and most of her passengers and crew perishing due to a lack of lifeboats.
Just because we do not expect a crisis this decade does not mean we will not face one. It seems horribly inevitable that the stand off between Iran and the everyone else over Tehran's nuclear programme will result in something happening - either UN sanctions being stepped up, or a US/Israeli strike. Iran has threatened international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and the Arabian Gulf. It would be dangerous to ignore this threat - including that from aircraft and air launched missiles, or even airborne ISTAR assets. In the South Atlantic, Argentina continues to make belligerent noises. It might be dangerous to dismiss this as simple political hot air, as we did in 1981/1982. In the strange post SDSR world, any news regarding the Falklands is dismissed due to political sensitivities, as it was before the 1982 invasion. We have blinded ourselves.
The fight against Al Qaeda and its affiliates is moving too, to both sides of the Gulf of Aden. In Somalia, Al Shabaab has links with Al Qaeda, and suspected links with some pirate groups. The pirates have shown the vulnerability of commercial shipping to attack. In Yemen, AQAP has not only threatened to destabilise the region, but is also a source of terrorist plots against Western targets, and were responsible for maritime attacks. Whilst a few UK personnel have operated there, I cannot see that any Western power will want to put large numbers of troops ashore on either side of the Gulf of Aden. Finding a nearby friendly airbase may be tricky.
Then there are the unknown unknowns...
Engines
You forgot to add that the three services have to cross fingers and hope that nothing really bad happens.
Maybe we should pay more attention to the comments of Rear Admiral Chris Parry:
Therefore, for practical, presentational and tactical reasons, the RN urgently needs to develop a vision and two operational concepts – one for the period covered by the carrier and naval air 'holiday' and another for when the carrier(s) enter(s) service, with a recognisable migration path linking the two. They particularly need to address the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the carrier programme, as well as outlining a more sophisticated, innovative and agile approach to force generation, procurement and skills development. It would typically need to include operationalised modular and adaptive solutions, the retention of long-lead, but surplus, platforms, smart regeneration programmes and more intelligent use of reserves, especially those who have already acquired advanced skills and experience during previous regular service.
WEBF,
Quite a post. The Titanic parallel is interesting. But the number of lifeboats was nothing to with her being unsinkable - actually not a boast that her builders ever made - urban myth. The number of lifeboats she carried was in line with the regulations of the day. That doesn't detract from your point.
Courtney
P.S. To keep or regain the capability, we need a cat and trap jet. So my counter proposal is to regenerate a squadron of F4s. Grateful for your thoughts on that. We didn't decommission some of those too far away from the SHAR, did we?
Quite a post. The Titanic parallel is interesting. But the number of lifeboats was nothing to with her being unsinkable - actually not a boast that her builders ever made - urban myth. The number of lifeboats she carried was in line with the regulations of the day. That doesn't detract from your point.
Courtney
P.S. To keep or regain the capability, we need a cat and trap jet. So my counter proposal is to regenerate a squadron of F4s. Grateful for your thoughts on that. We didn't decommission some of those too far away from the SHAR, did we?
WEBF,
".....But is there not a privately operated Buccaneer too?....."
Quite possibly, but how many of its systems are working, its Radar, RWR, attack system? As someone else pointed out, having an aircraft fit to fly the display circuit and go to war in a modern environment are two very different things. A Tiger Moth can work the display circuit.....
Although I'm not expert on SHAR, there are no doubt numerous avionics systems that would need to be operational that a Hunter, and even a Buccaneer, don't have. Including Secure Comms, ECM, Link 16, Radar integrated into a weapons system, IN/GPS system, etc, etc. How many of these has Art got working on his SHAR?
".....But is there not a privately operated Buccaneer too?....."
Quite possibly, but how many of its systems are working, its Radar, RWR, attack system? As someone else pointed out, having an aircraft fit to fly the display circuit and go to war in a modern environment are two very different things. A Tiger Moth can work the display circuit.....
Although I'm not expert on SHAR, there are no doubt numerous avionics systems that would need to be operational that a Hunter, and even a Buccaneer, don't have. Including Secure Comms, ECM, Link 16, Radar integrated into a weapons system, IN/GPS system, etc, etc. How many of these has Art got working on his SHAR?
WEBF,
The RNHF aircraft are supported by a PT, are the historic aircraft of other display teams. They all have safety cases and are subject to mods (such as Mode 5 / 8.33). They are inherently simpler designs. Much of the support costs are met by charitable trusts. They only have to display,not fight....
Wrt "paperwork" stopping us flying, would you rather we went back to the pre-Nimrod days? There's a big difference between a 2/3/4* being scurrilous to score points and putting his signature to a safety case where the buck stops with him. If the UK were being threatened then perhaps people would take that risk, but just to keep deck crews "current" in a "what if" capacity it is extremely unlikely.
Your arguement re the Titanic is emotive but irrelevant as you could make the same point about almost any capability that's been lost over the past few years - and I'd argue that the replacement MPA is far more important - and I could invent a scenario to support it.
Finally, what else is the RN prepared to scrap to exhume the SHar? A T45, an Astute or the T26 frigate? Give up CHF? That's the bottom line here. SHar was a great jet in its' day, and one of the hardest opponents I ever "fought" - but that was 10 years ago and the game has moved on. Please do the same....
The RNHF aircraft are supported by a PT, are the historic aircraft of other display teams. They all have safety cases and are subject to mods (such as Mode 5 / 8.33). They are inherently simpler designs. Much of the support costs are met by charitable trusts. They only have to display,not fight....
Wrt "paperwork" stopping us flying, would you rather we went back to the pre-Nimrod days? There's a big difference between a 2/3/4* being scurrilous to score points and putting his signature to a safety case where the buck stops with him. If the UK were being threatened then perhaps people would take that risk, but just to keep deck crews "current" in a "what if" capacity it is extremely unlikely.
Your arguement re the Titanic is emotive but irrelevant as you could make the same point about almost any capability that's been lost over the past few years - and I'd argue that the replacement MPA is far more important - and I could invent a scenario to support it.
Finally, what else is the RN prepared to scrap to exhume the SHar? A T45, an Astute or the T26 frigate? Give up CHF? That's the bottom line here. SHar was a great jet in its' day, and one of the hardest opponents I ever "fought" - but that was 10 years ago and the game has moved on. Please do the same....
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evalu8ter,
Well said. But I don't think your inteded audience has a receive mode. I think this single-issue thread (I know they all SHOULD be) is losing its way now. It's been said before, SHAR and GR9 have gone, as have many others. They are not coming back. Small numbers are not practical and why are some here even talking about STOL anymore anyway. F35C will need us to build C&T capability and that is very different.
Run out of reasioning for this one now. I'll leave it to you. Good luck.
Well said. But I don't think your inteded audience has a receive mode. I think this single-issue thread (I know they all SHOULD be) is losing its way now. It's been said before, SHAR and GR9 have gone, as have many others. They are not coming back. Small numbers are not practical and why are some here even talking about STOL anymore anyway. F35C will need us to build C&T capability and that is very different.
Run out of reasioning for this one now. I'll leave it to you. Good luck.
On New Years Day, the story from the Mail On Sunday about Art Nalls and his SHAR made me think.
Thought 1: The US is not a regulation free zone, he has had to satisfy Federal Aviation Administration regulations, but has done this without breaking the bank.
Thought 2: The manual (sic) ran to 400 000 pages - that's some paper.
Thought 3: Even with all the work he had to do, removing things, local modifications such as a new ejection seat, the level of expenditure quoted by the article is around £1 million, including operating costs. Does that suggest that it need not be as expensive as some suggest?
Thought 4: Art Nalls had no support from a Government, nor from BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, Martin Baker, or others. How much more could be achieved with their support?
How would Phantom operate from Illustrious/Queen Elizabeth?
Good point. However, replacing comms and EW kit should not be impossible. SHAR never received Link 16 so no need to worry about that. As for the radar, regenerating Blue Vixen as it was and performing the work needed to integrate AMRAAM would be hard, time consuming, and expensive. However, if we forget about AMRAAM and accept that an aircraft with Sidewinder can still engage aircraft at a greater range than shipborne missiles can, then things look different. Instead of regenerating the entire Blue Vixen functionality, COTS/made to order components (microwave devices from TMD perhaps, or waveguides (including filters, couplers, etc) from TWS, or perhaps antenna work from Q-par Angus?) could be used to provide at least a basic radar with air to air (and hopefully air to surface) modes.
In 1982 the AEW Sea King went from existing only on paper to flying sorties in approximately ten weeks. Things can happen fast, and all sorts of things achieved, if the will is there.
Interesting point about display aircraft. The new regulations exist to ensure safety. However, from reading the posts of certain PPRuNe posters, I imagine that if the original rules had been obeyed, and non technical managers not allowed to overrule technical people, then many tragic accidents would have been prevented and the issue would never have arisen. However, I see that Art Nalls achieved US civil certification.
It would not be solely to keep deck crews current - there are also many other parts of ship involved in supporting flying operations. It would also be to provide that capability that could be expanded in a crisis. Regarding your last point, I do not know exactly how much it would cost. Nor, I suspect, does anyone else.
Surely basics like moving the jets around a moving deck are the same? Or the OOW and bridge team making sure the ship is on the correct heading, at the right speed and so on? What about things like awareness of issues like FOD and jet blast? Not so long ago there was a news story about concerns being expressed regarding the issue of deck crews (and others) losing skills.
Going back to some earlier points, I have already noted (see the previous page) that for the idea to be feasible some full time people would be needed, they might be regular RN, RNR on FTRS, or civilians working for contractors. I also cannot see why Reservists cannot be managed and employed intelligently - the law has just been changed to allow personnel to be mobilised for shorter periods for "urgent work of national importance".
Regarding spares, a quick Google search finds several sources, including Aviation Spares International and Aerospace Logistics - the latter also offers MRO services. Nobody would sell aerospace components without meeting normal quality and traceability standards.
The recent comments of the Secretary of State for Defence should give us food for thought. Some of my Iran related comments can be found here, as can links to various papers.
Apart from thinking that it is odd that we will rely entirely on Host Nation Support for air cover should anything happen (which might be denied due to politics or Iranian threats), but that we need to put Ocean in the middle of London to support security operations for the Olympics, I cannot help thinking that:
Full war is unlikely - what is more likely is that there would be attacks on or harassment of shipping throughout the Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, Gulf of Oman, and Arabian Sea. If Iran decides to get nasty it will not want to concentrate its forces in any one area. Similarly, it will want to disperse and make like difficult for its opponents. Therefore a UK task group might be operating nearer to Iran bases than friendly air bases or the nearest allied carrier.
Shipborne missiles are vastly improved compared to those employed in 1982. However, they cannot visually identify aircraft, or intercept them and warn them off. Since that part of the world if full of civil air traffic, and Iran has MPA and reece aircraft that might be used to provided command and control to other forces, this may be an issue of huge significance. They can only provide defence at a shorter range than a fighter, hence the comments of the then First Sea Lord in early 2003:
"You need a lot of Type 45s to give the same coverage as a naval air-defence fighter."
Since Iran has submarines (and not just the Kilos) and more small craft than you can count, an airborne ISTAR asset would be needed. Alas, SDSR axed the Nimrod, so the requirement may fall onto the Navy's Merlins. Illustrious would probably be the best platform to operate them from.
We live in interesting times....
Thought 1: The US is not a regulation free zone, he has had to satisfy Federal Aviation Administration regulations, but has done this without breaking the bank.
Thought 2: The manual (sic) ran to 400 000 pages - that's some paper.
Thought 3: Even with all the work he had to do, removing things, local modifications such as a new ejection seat, the level of expenditure quoted by the article is around £1 million, including operating costs. Does that suggest that it need not be as expensive as some suggest?
Thought 4: Art Nalls had no support from a Government, nor from BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, Martin Baker, or others. How much more could be achieved with their support?
Originally Posted by Courtney
P.S. To keep or regain the capability, we need a cat and trap jet. So my counter proposal is to regenerate a squadron of F4s. Grateful for your thoughts on that. We didn't decommission some of those too far away from the SHAR, did we?
Originally Posted by Biggus
Quite possibly, but how many of its systems are working, its Radar, RWR, attack system? As someone else pointed out, having an aircraft fit to fly the display circuit and go to war in a modern environment are two very different things. A Tiger Moth can work the display circuit.....
Although I'm not expert on SHAR, there are no doubt numerous avionics systems that would need to be operational that a Hunter, and even a Buccaneer, don't have. Including Secure Comms, ECM, Link 16, Radar integrated into a weapons system, IN/GPS system, etc, etc. How many of these has Art got working on his SHAR?
Although I'm not expert on SHAR, there are no doubt numerous avionics systems that would need to be operational that a Hunter, and even a Buccaneer, don't have. Including Secure Comms, ECM, Link 16, Radar integrated into a weapons system, IN/GPS system, etc, etc. How many of these has Art got working on his SHAR?
In 1982 the AEW Sea King went from existing only on paper to flying sorties in approximately ten weeks. Things can happen fast, and all sorts of things achieved, if the will is there.
Originally Posted by Evalu8tor
The RNHF aircraft are supported by a PT, are the historic aircraft of other display teams. They all have safety cases and are subject to mods (such as Mode 5 / 8.33). They are inherently simpler designs. Much of the support costs are met by charitable trusts. They only have to display,not fight....
Wrt "paperwork" stopping us flying, would you rather we went back to the pre-Nimrod days? There's a big difference between a 2/3/4* being scurrilous to score points and putting his signature to a safety case where the buck stops with him. If the UK were being threatened then perhaps people would take that risk, but just to keep deck crews "current" in a "what if" capacity it is extremely unlikely.
Your arguement re the Titanic is emotive but irrelevant as you could make the same point about almost any capability that's been lost over the past few years - and I'd argue that the replacement MPA is far more important - and I could invent a scenario to support it.
Finally, what else is the RN prepared to scrap to exhume the SHar? A T45, an Astute or the T26 frigate? Give up CHF? That's the bottom line here. SHar was a great jet in its' day, and one of the hardest opponents I ever "fought" - but that was 10 years ago and the game has moved on. Please do the same....
Wrt "paperwork" stopping us flying, would you rather we went back to the pre-Nimrod days? There's a big difference between a 2/3/4* being scurrilous to score points and putting his signature to a safety case where the buck stops with him. If the UK were being threatened then perhaps people would take that risk, but just to keep deck crews "current" in a "what if" capacity it is extremely unlikely.
Your arguement re the Titanic is emotive but irrelevant as you could make the same point about almost any capability that's been lost over the past few years - and I'd argue that the replacement MPA is far more important - and I could invent a scenario to support it.
Finally, what else is the RN prepared to scrap to exhume the SHar? A T45, an Astute or the T26 frigate? Give up CHF? That's the bottom line here. SHar was a great jet in its' day, and one of the hardest opponents I ever "fought" - but that was 10 years ago and the game has moved on. Please do the same....
It would not be solely to keep deck crews current - there are also many other parts of ship involved in supporting flying operations. It would also be to provide that capability that could be expanded in a crisis. Regarding your last point, I do not know exactly how much it would cost. Nor, I suspect, does anyone else.
Originally Posted by APG63
Small numbers are not practical and why are some here even talking about STOL anymore anyway. F35C will need us to build C&T capability and that is very different.
Going back to some earlier points, I have already noted (see the previous page) that for the idea to be feasible some full time people would be needed, they might be regular RN, RNR on FTRS, or civilians working for contractors. I also cannot see why Reservists cannot be managed and employed intelligently - the law has just been changed to allow personnel to be mobilised for shorter periods for "urgent work of national importance".
Regarding spares, a quick Google search finds several sources, including Aviation Spares International and Aerospace Logistics - the latter also offers MRO services. Nobody would sell aerospace components without meeting normal quality and traceability standards.
The recent comments of the Secretary of State for Defence should give us food for thought. Some of my Iran related comments can be found here, as can links to various papers.
Apart from thinking that it is odd that we will rely entirely on Host Nation Support for air cover should anything happen (which might be denied due to politics or Iranian threats), but that we need to put Ocean in the middle of London to support security operations for the Olympics, I cannot help thinking that:
Full war is unlikely - what is more likely is that there would be attacks on or harassment of shipping throughout the Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, Gulf of Oman, and Arabian Sea. If Iran decides to get nasty it will not want to concentrate its forces in any one area. Similarly, it will want to disperse and make like difficult for its opponents. Therefore a UK task group might be operating nearer to Iran bases than friendly air bases or the nearest allied carrier.
Shipborne missiles are vastly improved compared to those employed in 1982. However, they cannot visually identify aircraft, or intercept them and warn them off. Since that part of the world if full of civil air traffic, and Iran has MPA and reece aircraft that might be used to provided command and control to other forces, this may be an issue of huge significance. They can only provide defence at a shorter range than a fighter, hence the comments of the then First Sea Lord in early 2003:
"You need a lot of Type 45s to give the same coverage as a naval air-defence fighter."
Since Iran has submarines (and not just the Kilos) and more small craft than you can count, an airborne ISTAR asset would be needed. Alas, SDSR axed the Nimrod, so the requirement may fall onto the Navy's Merlins. Illustrious would probably be the best platform to operate them from.
We live in interesting times....
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 26th Jan 2012 at 19:26.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
As you obviously recognise that the Nimrod would be a far more useful asset to bring back from the dead with regards potential operations in the Persian Gulf maybe you should beat your drum about that instead of a much longer retired and arguably far less useful alternative cause?
People might take you seriously if you actually championed a more relevant capability, free from the taint that you are merely beating your drum with regards Harriers for your own selfish, single service mentality, ends.
Of course the bottom line is that neither will be returning but your repeated cut and paste posts became tedious a fair while ago so a simple change of tune would be welcome.
People might take you seriously if you actually championed a more relevant capability, free from the taint that you are merely beating your drum with regards Harriers for your own selfish, single service mentality, ends.
Of course the bottom line is that neither will be returning but your repeated cut and paste posts became tedious a fair while ago so a simple change of tune would be welcome.
Mummy please make this thread go away.
The leaping heap has leapt. Its not coming back. It would be on no sensible persons top ten aircraft I want to bring back. Useless in its day, useless now. Move on.
The leaping heap has leapt. Its not coming back. It would be on no sensible persons top ten aircraft I want to bring back. Useless in its day, useless now. Move on.