SHAR Wars; The PPruners Strike Back...
Defence in the post Cold War world is all about providing effective military capability economically (even at minimum cost). Carriers do not achieve this central aim.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen
Human nature, and by association the behaviour of nations, has not altered dramatically since the Stone Age.
Technology has of couse advanced beyond all recognition, and our way of life is markedly different, but under it, the beast has not changed its spots - nor is it ever likely to. Scratch the veneer of civilisation and you will find primal instinct lurking underneath.
As a species humankind is selfish in its desires, fickle in its loyalties, and brutal in its applications. So are the world's nations.
Countries who are your friends today may well be your enemies tomorrow.
So Spain, France and Italy have aircraft carriers and can provide air cover for your fleet....in her long history Britain has spent more time at war against these nations than with them. These trends will be repeated. Such is the way of humanity, in spite of the fervent insistence of every generation that it lives in a special time bubble, where "things are different now."
When the Euro collapses, as it will, and the European Union fractionates, as it will, whose side will these "coalition assets" be on?
The major nations of the West have been in a state of relative peace for a mere two generations out of the past twelve thousand years of recorded or discernable history. This is a scarcely measurable blip, not an indication that the world has changed.
You Gentlemen are for the most part, so far as I can deduce, intelligent, articulate, well informed and firmly opined. It does not do you any credit to ignore the bigger picture, or to disregard the lessons of history. As the famous quote suggests, to do so means you will be doomed to repeat them.
The only dependable defence of your own independence is to have your own independent defence. This means possessing all of the capabilities you may need, whatever the cost. This cost is relatively small. The argument that defence is too costly to be affordable is weapons-grade b u l l s h i t. Our own PM, who incidently belongs to the same school of thought as your Tony Blair, did away with our entire Air Combat Force, on the grounds that we apparently don't need it at all, and because it was supposedly too expensive to maintain.
The subsequent cost saving to the nation amounts to a little less than ten cents per taxpayer, per day. The same taxpayer daily funds Social Welfare to the tune of twelve dollars and seventy cents. Unaffordable? Your own comparison on government spending and priorities is likely to be equally eye-opening.
Our PMs insistence that we do not need air defence comes from her belief that we live in a "Benign Strategic Environment." Quite how this fits in with our residence in a "Global Village" escapes me, but I think it more than coincidence that Benign Strategic Environment and Mad Cow Disease have the same initials.
Jacko, you could well be a policy advisor for our government. The thrust of your arguments is virtually identical to the naive fantasy which passes for defence policy here.
Unworkable dogma backed up by lies is no substitute for a realistic acceptance of the facts, one of which is this: if you get through the four years between the SHar and the JSF unscathed, it will be by luck alone. Weigh that risk against the miserably pitiful cost of upgrading the SHar (if you do regard the sum in question as a large one, do some comparisons with the other things your government spends money on) and see if you still want to believe the fiction and propaganda spouted by politicians and spread by their lackeys.
Keep up the good work, WEBF. If you can keep the beacon burning till the world goes to war next year, you may well achieve your aims.
Human nature, and by association the behaviour of nations, has not altered dramatically since the Stone Age.
Technology has of couse advanced beyond all recognition, and our way of life is markedly different, but under it, the beast has not changed its spots - nor is it ever likely to. Scratch the veneer of civilisation and you will find primal instinct lurking underneath.
As a species humankind is selfish in its desires, fickle in its loyalties, and brutal in its applications. So are the world's nations.
Countries who are your friends today may well be your enemies tomorrow.
So Spain, France and Italy have aircraft carriers and can provide air cover for your fleet....in her long history Britain has spent more time at war against these nations than with them. These trends will be repeated. Such is the way of humanity, in spite of the fervent insistence of every generation that it lives in a special time bubble, where "things are different now."
When the Euro collapses, as it will, and the European Union fractionates, as it will, whose side will these "coalition assets" be on?
The major nations of the West have been in a state of relative peace for a mere two generations out of the past twelve thousand years of recorded or discernable history. This is a scarcely measurable blip, not an indication that the world has changed.
You Gentlemen are for the most part, so far as I can deduce, intelligent, articulate, well informed and firmly opined. It does not do you any credit to ignore the bigger picture, or to disregard the lessons of history. As the famous quote suggests, to do so means you will be doomed to repeat them.
The only dependable defence of your own independence is to have your own independent defence. This means possessing all of the capabilities you may need, whatever the cost. This cost is relatively small. The argument that defence is too costly to be affordable is weapons-grade b u l l s h i t. Our own PM, who incidently belongs to the same school of thought as your Tony Blair, did away with our entire Air Combat Force, on the grounds that we apparently don't need it at all, and because it was supposedly too expensive to maintain.
The subsequent cost saving to the nation amounts to a little less than ten cents per taxpayer, per day. The same taxpayer daily funds Social Welfare to the tune of twelve dollars and seventy cents. Unaffordable? Your own comparison on government spending and priorities is likely to be equally eye-opening.
Our PMs insistence that we do not need air defence comes from her belief that we live in a "Benign Strategic Environment." Quite how this fits in with our residence in a "Global Village" escapes me, but I think it more than coincidence that Benign Strategic Environment and Mad Cow Disease have the same initials.
Jacko, you could well be a policy advisor for our government. The thrust of your arguments is virtually identical to the naive fantasy which passes for defence policy here.
Unworkable dogma backed up by lies is no substitute for a realistic acceptance of the facts, one of which is this: if you get through the four years between the SHar and the JSF unscathed, it will be by luck alone. Weigh that risk against the miserably pitiful cost of upgrading the SHar (if you do regard the sum in question as a large one, do some comparisons with the other things your government spends money on) and see if you still want to believe the fiction and propaganda spouted by politicians and spread by their lackeys.
Keep up the good work, WEBF. If you can keep the beacon burning till the world goes to war next year, you may well achieve your aims.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Wolf...
You get my vote fella. When are you running for office? You would probably be suprised how many of your fellow countrymen would vote for you.
Down with politicians....Lets resurrect the idea of statesmen.
You get my vote fella. When are you running for office? You would probably be suprised how many of your fellow countrymen would vote for you.
Down with politicians....Lets resurrect the idea of statesmen.
Thread Starter
Independent Action...
Well, as promised..
Dear Sir,
You are no doubt aware that the Government has recently decided to retire the FA-2 Sea Harrier from service by the year 2006. Although I greet the decision to build the two new aircraft carriers and to procure the Joint Strike Fighter with enthusiasm, these aircraft will at the earliest be in service by 2010. During the intervening years, the Royal Navy will possess no air defence fighters of any type. The use of Royal Air Force Harriers on board ship in no way solves this problem, as the GR7 and GR9 Harrier is a pure attack aircraft with a minimal capacity for air combat. Is this genuinely wise?
The FA-2 is currently the most advanced Air Defence type in HM Forces. It, alone among British aircraft, is capable of monitoring 20 targets by radar simultaneously and using the AIM120 medium range missile, the latest Western air-to-air weapon. The combination of the Blue Vixen radar and the AIM120 enables these aircraft to actually fire at four separate enemy aeroplanes simultaneously, beyond visual range and in all weathers. Further, the Sea Harrier's dogfighting capability was amply proven in the Falklands War, where it was the chief (indeed nearly the) air defence weapon available. The FRS 1 Harriers used at the time had no medium-range armament, and had to rely on closing with the enemy. However they achieved a notable success.
In contrast, the Royal Air Force's Harrier fleet is made up of aircraft which are designed exclusively for the tactical support of the military. The payload and variety of bombs, air-to-ground missiles and the like is considerably greater, but this is achieved at the expense of any serious air-to-air capability. Even the latest GR9 version has no radar, and therefore a very limited ability to intercept enemy aircraft. Even were it to do so, its air-to-air armament is designed only as a minimum self-defence for bombing missions.
One of the justifications given in the House for this move was that by carrying FA-2s, the carriers had "no space for RAF aircraft" and that therefore the Sea Harrier served only to defend its own base. This is a risible nonsense. If the carriers were to lose all fighters and carry only RAF Harriers, they would be at enormous risk of being sunk before the GR9s could damage the enemy in the least. The crew of a carrier is a very large number of lives to lose through one act of incompetence. There is certainly a trade-off between the two aeroplanes, but the FA-2 is not incapable of taking part in attack, and the trade-off is by no means as severe as this argument would suggest. During Operation Deliberate Force in 1995, the operation to force Serbian acceptance of the Dayton Accord and lift the siege of Sarajevo, FA2s were called on by NATO to attack targets in Bosnia. Bomb Damage Assessment photographs showed that 100% of the bombs dropped by the SHARs hit their targets. The photographs were taken by the very same aircraft. In Operation Deny Flight, the related mission to maintain the UN air exclusion zone over Bosnia, the same Sea Harrier unit's reliability was such that they launched their Combat Air Patrols on time and at full strength 100% of the time in the air-to-air. And if you cannot survive in the war-zone, you can do nothing.
Further, the fighters based on a carrier protect the ships about them, not only the carrier escorts, but - for example - the transports and Amphibious Group supporting a landing force (especially important given the emphasis on "littoral warfare" in the SDR) or the ships forming an antisubmarine group. Or a mines countermeasures force - perhaps one in the northern Persian Gulf, given that the Royal Navy had this task in the last Gulf War?
The other chief argument used to defend this decision is that "allies" would be able to provide air cover. Which allies? The Western carrier navies are currently as follows; United States, UK, France, Spain, Italy. These last three have one carrier each. Spain and Italy both operate the US-built AV-8B variant of the Harrier, with similar capabilities to the GR7 in attack and the FA2 in air combat. Should this policy be pursued further, it may be the first time since the 18th century - indeed since Sir Francis Drake - that the Spanish navy has been better equipped than the RN. Can we really confine our entire defence and foreign policy to not only the acceptance, but the active military involvement, of the United States? Will the US Navy always be involved, and will they always have a full carrier group on hand? And can we expect anything at all from the French and their one, unreliable carrier? For the Charles de Gaulle has so far been riddled with technical problems, including the loss of her screw on trials. This fine vessel finally arrived in the Arabian Sea some time after the fall of Kabul. Further, the political assumption that France would always be in agreement is even less tenable than the assumption that the US would be. An examination of French votes and statements on the UN Security Council will lend force to this. Further, we should at least bear in mind the success of the extreme Right in both Italy and France, and remember the historically close relations between European fascism/extreme nationalism and various unsavoury leaders in the Middle East. Jean-Marie Le Pen has close connections to the French-Iraqi Association and various other pro-Iraqi groups. (Jörg Haider and others in Austria entertain close relations with Saddam Hussein as well.)
Such an assumption is a brutal contradiction to the conclusions of the Strategic Defence Review, which pointed towards a renewal of our capability for worldwide action and emphasised that the entirety of HM Forces must be "expeditionary" in nature? And can we really, from the perspective of today, predict the politics of the future so accurately? It sounds terribly like the 10 Year Rule of the 1920s and 30s, which stated that all plans should assume no war for ten years. It was finally ended in 1934.
No navy in the world which operates outside its immediate coastal waters considers ship-based weapons as reliable air defence. All navies, in fact, seek to operate with the help of fighters, be they based on ships or on the shore. But relying on shorebased fighters restricts operations to their radius of actions. Without air cover, the Royal Navy will rely for defence against the main threat on two missile systems and anti-aircraft guns - purely defensive weapons, forming only one effective line of defence. And what will poor Jack do then to keep out the Exocets? We can ask for courage, but to ask sailors to expose themselves to air attack without genuine means of defence and counter-attack is both disgusting and foolish. During the Falklands War, the Sea Harriers destroyed more enemy aircraft than any other single weapon. A United States Air Force study suggested that as well as these as many as 450 Argentinian sorties were deterred by the fighters.
So what are the options? The Sea Harriers could be kept in operation until the arrival of the JSF. This will require that they receive a major engine overhaul due shortly, which is said to be the reason for their retirement. Alternatively, the GR9 programme could be altered to include the Blue Vixen radar, thus making an aeroplane similar to the US Marines' AV-8 version of the very same Harrier and solving the problem. This would likely cost more. But no defence is not the answer!
Yours sincerely,
....yournamehere....
(edit to take account of Nozzles' comments)
(and again..not very final really)
Dear Sir,
You are no doubt aware that the Government has recently decided to retire the FA-2 Sea Harrier from service by the year 2006. Although I greet the decision to build the two new aircraft carriers and to procure the Joint Strike Fighter with enthusiasm, these aircraft will at the earliest be in service by 2010. During the intervening years, the Royal Navy will possess no air defence fighters of any type. The use of Royal Air Force Harriers on board ship in no way solves this problem, as the GR7 and GR9 Harrier is a pure attack aircraft with a minimal capacity for air combat. Is this genuinely wise?
The FA-2 is currently the most advanced Air Defence type in HM Forces. It, alone among British aircraft, is capable of monitoring 20 targets by radar simultaneously and using the AIM120 medium range missile, the latest Western air-to-air weapon. The combination of the Blue Vixen radar and the AIM120 enables these aircraft to actually fire at four separate enemy aeroplanes simultaneously, beyond visual range and in all weathers. Further, the Sea Harrier's dogfighting capability was amply proven in the Falklands War, where it was the chief (indeed nearly the) air defence weapon available. The FRS 1 Harriers used at the time had no medium-range armament, and had to rely on closing with the enemy. However they achieved a notable success.
In contrast, the Royal Air Force's Harrier fleet is made up of aircraft which are designed exclusively for the tactical support of the military. The payload and variety of bombs, air-to-ground missiles and the like is considerably greater, but this is achieved at the expense of any serious air-to-air capability. Even the latest GR9 version has no radar, and therefore a very limited ability to intercept enemy aircraft. Even were it to do so, its air-to-air armament is designed only as a minimum self-defence for bombing missions.
One of the justifications given in the House for this move was that by carrying FA-2s, the carriers had "no space for RAF aircraft" and that therefore the Sea Harrier served only to defend its own base. This is a risible nonsense. If the carriers were to lose all fighters and carry only RAF Harriers, they would be at enormous risk of being sunk before the GR9s could damage the enemy in the least. The crew of a carrier is a very large number of lives to lose through one act of incompetence. There is certainly a trade-off between the two aeroplanes, but the FA-2 is not incapable of taking part in attack, and the trade-off is by no means as severe as this argument would suggest. During Operation Deliberate Force in 1995, the operation to force Serbian acceptance of the Dayton Accord and lift the siege of Sarajevo, FA2s were called on by NATO to attack targets in Bosnia. Bomb Damage Assessment photographs showed that 100% of the bombs dropped by the SHARs hit their targets. The photographs were taken by the very same aircraft. In Operation Deny Flight, the related mission to maintain the UN air exclusion zone over Bosnia, the same Sea Harrier unit's reliability was such that they launched their Combat Air Patrols on time and at full strength 100% of the time in the air-to-air. And if you cannot survive in the war-zone, you can do nothing.
Further, the fighters based on a carrier protect the ships about them, not only the carrier escorts, but - for example - the transports and Amphibious Group supporting a landing force (especially important given the emphasis on "littoral warfare" in the SDR) or the ships forming an antisubmarine group. Or a mines countermeasures force - perhaps one in the northern Persian Gulf, given that the Royal Navy had this task in the last Gulf War?
The other chief argument used to defend this decision is that "allies" would be able to provide air cover. Which allies? The Western carrier navies are currently as follows; United States, UK, France, Spain, Italy. These last three have one carrier each. Spain and Italy both operate the US-built AV-8B variant of the Harrier, with similar capabilities to the GR7 in attack and the FA2 in air combat. Should this policy be pursued further, it may be the first time since the 18th century - indeed since Sir Francis Drake - that the Spanish navy has been better equipped than the RN. Can we really confine our entire defence and foreign policy to not only the acceptance, but the active military involvement, of the United States? Will the US Navy always be involved, and will they always have a full carrier group on hand? And can we expect anything at all from the French and their one, unreliable carrier? For the Charles de Gaulle has so far been riddled with technical problems, including the loss of her screw on trials. This fine vessel finally arrived in the Arabian Sea some time after the fall of Kabul. Further, the political assumption that France would always be in agreement is even less tenable than the assumption that the US would be. An examination of French votes and statements on the UN Security Council will lend force to this. Further, we should at least bear in mind the success of the extreme Right in both Italy and France, and remember the historically close relations between European fascism/extreme nationalism and various unsavoury leaders in the Middle East. Jean-Marie Le Pen has close connections to the French-Iraqi Association and various other pro-Iraqi groups. (Jörg Haider and others in Austria entertain close relations with Saddam Hussein as well.)
Such an assumption is a brutal contradiction to the conclusions of the Strategic Defence Review, which pointed towards a renewal of our capability for worldwide action and emphasised that the entirety of HM Forces must be "expeditionary" in nature? And can we really, from the perspective of today, predict the politics of the future so accurately? It sounds terribly like the 10 Year Rule of the 1920s and 30s, which stated that all plans should assume no war for ten years. It was finally ended in 1934.
No navy in the world which operates outside its immediate coastal waters considers ship-based weapons as reliable air defence. All navies, in fact, seek to operate with the help of fighters, be they based on ships or on the shore. But relying on shorebased fighters restricts operations to their radius of actions. Without air cover, the Royal Navy will rely for defence against the main threat on two missile systems and anti-aircraft guns - purely defensive weapons, forming only one effective line of defence. And what will poor Jack do then to keep out the Exocets? We can ask for courage, but to ask sailors to expose themselves to air attack without genuine means of defence and counter-attack is both disgusting and foolish. During the Falklands War, the Sea Harriers destroyed more enemy aircraft than any other single weapon. A United States Air Force study suggested that as well as these as many as 450 Argentinian sorties were deterred by the fighters.
So what are the options? The Sea Harriers could be kept in operation until the arrival of the JSF. This will require that they receive a major engine overhaul due shortly, which is said to be the reason for their retirement. Alternatively, the GR9 programme could be altered to include the Blue Vixen radar, thus making an aeroplane similar to the US Marines' AV-8 version of the very same Harrier and solving the problem. This would likely cost more. But no defence is not the answer!
Yours sincerely,
....yournamehere....
(edit to take account of Nozzles' comments)
(and again..not very final really)
Last edited by steamchicken; 4th May 2002 at 20:53.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The edge
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko my dear fellow,
You've been up to mischief again!
Before I get accused of being a dark blue teddy thrower I'd just like to point out that I no longer serve HM, and follow this debate purely out of interest.
"The Sea Harrier's lack of multirole flexibility......" Everything is relative, my friend. Please enlighten us as to which other aircraft in the UK inventory could sweep themselves to a target, carrying 2 x AIM 120 each, drop 2 x 1000lb bombs each, and take some BDA photos just for laughs?
Nobody is trying to claim that the FA2 is a world contender in its secondary roles, just that they exist and are available when sufficient specialist aircraft are not. We all wish we had an aircraft that could do A-G like an F-117, recce like a U2 and A-A like an F-15C. Unfortunately, the boffins are yet to come up with it.
The F95 camera was good enough for the IA cell in the NATO CAOC to repeatedly request the FA2 to be tasked in the recce role in Op Deliberate Force. Where did the EO camera go? To the same place that acceptable pay rates for nurses, reduced working hours for doctors, more books for schools and more bobbies on the beat went-down the pan. This is because politicians are obsessed with the idea that the only way to remain popular is to cut income tax (the first tiny signs of enlightenment came with the increase in NI in this year's budget).
I'm not sure where you're going with your claim that the ability to carry 1000lb dumb bombs is "hardly earth shattering". What is it you want? Carpet bombing? Call a B-52. But call some fighters to protect it too. Dumb bombs play an enormous role in any offensive operation. With the recent advent of GPS smoothed RLG INS platforms in small tactical aircraft, dumb bomb CEPs have shrunk markedly. Nice try by failing to mention the FA2's capability to carry up to 4 1000lb LGBs-you should have known I would be watching! Before you get on at me for carrying LGBs without an LST, there is no shortage of NATO jets that take LGBs into operational theatres without a LST.
The new INS platform in the FA2, coupled with the fact that the SHAR's weapons aiming computer actually contains the correct ballistics for British bombs means that the published CEPs for unguided weapons are slightly better than those for some of our dedicated attack platforms-scientific, black-and-white, undeniable and somewhat ironic. LOL.
In 1995, the NATO CAOC tasked FA2s to attack a number of targets in the FRY with dumb bombs. Subsequent BDA photos taken at medium level showed that 100% of the tasked DMPIs were destroyed.
Guess who took the BDA photos................
You either didn't read my response to your posting on the previous SHAR thread, or you chose to ignore the statements by myself and other seasoned experts in the field of this aircraft's caps and lims. This is clear because you continue to try to mislead people about:
a). The maximum number of Harriers you can fit on a CVS
b). The reliability of the aircraft
Your assertion as to what resulted in the SHAR's early demise is entirely at odds with the reasoning employed at Whitehall. Basically, since its inception, the Sea Harrier was never properly funded-the bill just kept getting shoved into the following year's budget. Spares are expensive due to lack of commonality with most other Harrier airframes. Thus, production lines for spare parts would have to remain open until 2010-2012 in order to serve the 30 or so airframes in operation. The projected cost of this, plus that of upgrades to keep the aircraft competitive until 2012, plus the debt the aircraft already carries, was deemed too large to manage under the current budget forecasts. So, a calculated risk was taken that effective and willing allied AD would be available until the arrival of JSF. As I mentioned in my reply to your earlier post, the men who made that decision will be judged as heroes if we get away with it, or villains if a CVS goes to the bottom, irrespective of the merits of their reasoning.
The 4-6 year capability gap should be regarded as an absolute minimum, based on the ludicrous assumption that CVF/JSF will be the first two military procurement projects ever to come into service anywhere near their assigned in-service dates.
You lament the puny number of front line sqns, but are prepared to bin a more capable AD aircraft, which, of course, can be land-based. (I hope you're not going to try to argue that the F3 is better).
On a separate note, has anybody actually asked our steadfast allies in which of all the possible scenarios they would be prepared to divert their own thinly stretched AD resources to defend the British fleet?
I'm done, Jacko, you're cleared to fire...........
N
You've been up to mischief again!
Before I get accused of being a dark blue teddy thrower I'd just like to point out that I no longer serve HM, and follow this debate purely out of interest.
"The Sea Harrier's lack of multirole flexibility......" Everything is relative, my friend. Please enlighten us as to which other aircraft in the UK inventory could sweep themselves to a target, carrying 2 x AIM 120 each, drop 2 x 1000lb bombs each, and take some BDA photos just for laughs?
Nobody is trying to claim that the FA2 is a world contender in its secondary roles, just that they exist and are available when sufficient specialist aircraft are not. We all wish we had an aircraft that could do A-G like an F-117, recce like a U2 and A-A like an F-15C. Unfortunately, the boffins are yet to come up with it.
The F95 camera was good enough for the IA cell in the NATO CAOC to repeatedly request the FA2 to be tasked in the recce role in Op Deliberate Force. Where did the EO camera go? To the same place that acceptable pay rates for nurses, reduced working hours for doctors, more books for schools and more bobbies on the beat went-down the pan. This is because politicians are obsessed with the idea that the only way to remain popular is to cut income tax (the first tiny signs of enlightenment came with the increase in NI in this year's budget).
I'm not sure where you're going with your claim that the ability to carry 1000lb dumb bombs is "hardly earth shattering". What is it you want? Carpet bombing? Call a B-52. But call some fighters to protect it too. Dumb bombs play an enormous role in any offensive operation. With the recent advent of GPS smoothed RLG INS platforms in small tactical aircraft, dumb bomb CEPs have shrunk markedly. Nice try by failing to mention the FA2's capability to carry up to 4 1000lb LGBs-you should have known I would be watching! Before you get on at me for carrying LGBs without an LST, there is no shortage of NATO jets that take LGBs into operational theatres without a LST.
The new INS platform in the FA2, coupled with the fact that the SHAR's weapons aiming computer actually contains the correct ballistics for British bombs means that the published CEPs for unguided weapons are slightly better than those for some of our dedicated attack platforms-scientific, black-and-white, undeniable and somewhat ironic. LOL.
In 1995, the NATO CAOC tasked FA2s to attack a number of targets in the FRY with dumb bombs. Subsequent BDA photos taken at medium level showed that 100% of the tasked DMPIs were destroyed.
Guess who took the BDA photos................
You either didn't read my response to your posting on the previous SHAR thread, or you chose to ignore the statements by myself and other seasoned experts in the field of this aircraft's caps and lims. This is clear because you continue to try to mislead people about:
a). The maximum number of Harriers you can fit on a CVS
b). The reliability of the aircraft
Your assertion as to what resulted in the SHAR's early demise is entirely at odds with the reasoning employed at Whitehall. Basically, since its inception, the Sea Harrier was never properly funded-the bill just kept getting shoved into the following year's budget. Spares are expensive due to lack of commonality with most other Harrier airframes. Thus, production lines for spare parts would have to remain open until 2010-2012 in order to serve the 30 or so airframes in operation. The projected cost of this, plus that of upgrades to keep the aircraft competitive until 2012, plus the debt the aircraft already carries, was deemed too large to manage under the current budget forecasts. So, a calculated risk was taken that effective and willing allied AD would be available until the arrival of JSF. As I mentioned in my reply to your earlier post, the men who made that decision will be judged as heroes if we get away with it, or villains if a CVS goes to the bottom, irrespective of the merits of their reasoning.
The 4-6 year capability gap should be regarded as an absolute minimum, based on the ludicrous assumption that CVF/JSF will be the first two military procurement projects ever to come into service anywhere near their assigned in-service dates.
You lament the puny number of front line sqns, but are prepared to bin a more capable AD aircraft, which, of course, can be land-based. (I hope you're not going to try to argue that the F3 is better).
On a separate note, has anybody actually asked our steadfast allies in which of all the possible scenarios they would be prepared to divert their own thinly stretched AD resources to defend the British fleet?
I'm done, Jacko, you're cleared to fire...........
N
Last edited by Nozzles; 4th May 2002 at 16:05.
Exactly my point Nozzles
The Sea Harrier was intended to stay on until 2015 with Ark Royal.
I have written out a letter to my MP, which you won't be suprised covers the points I raised in response to the latter I got from Adam Ingram, and covers many of the same points as you and Steamchicken have mentioned. Meant to post it today.....but didn't have an envelope big enough of put it (seven pages) in.
I think what is needed is co-ordinated action by both opposition parties and Labour backbenchers.
I think this was your posting you were referring to Nozzles, I copied and pasted it to e-mail it to a friend. I've copied and pasted it back.....sorry for problems this pasting malarky causes...
As someone who flew the FA2 for many years I'm afraid I'm going to have to target you somewhat as you have stated some of your opinions as if they were facts. I don't know who your source is; if he's a SHAR mate his views certainly don't reflect those of the vast majority.
You claim that 4 Lightnings could have prevented the Falklands War. In the same post you say that FA2s as part of a JF on a CVS are not a viable AD solution. Considering a 50/50 GR7/FA2 mix, that's about a dozen SHARS on deck. You appear to be saying that three times as many FA2s, which are vastly more capable than the Lightning could not do what 4 Lightnings could do!
You mention in previous posts that the SHAR's unreliability precludes them from mounting round-the-clock AD. I have taken part in 24/7 2-ship DCA with 7 jets and 8 pilots. The limiting factor was always pilot fatique and not airframe availability. In a crisis situation, the force could muster more pilots than jets on deck, allowing extended 24/7 DCA with more a/c. In all the years of the SHAR contribution to op Deny Flight over Bosnia we achieved 100% frag. (I heard an unsubstantiated rumour that we were the only type in theatre to achieve this). With just 7 jets on board, we would start 5 and hold the fifth at Alert Zero on deck until the 4-ship had successfully tanked. (Being No. 5 sucked-all those hours of prep and you hardly ever got to launch). Contrast this with other types who had to start EIGHT jets to produce a 4-ship in the box (and didn't always succeed).
You talk about the FA2 with 2 x AIM 120 as if something stops us carrying 4. Whilst bringback is an issue at high OATs, the AD fit is not as badly affected as the heavier AG fit. I regularly came back to the Boat with a gross weight equivalent to a 4 x 120 fit in the Adriatic in the height of summer.
While I'm remeniscing, that particular fit involved 2 AAMs, a 1000lb bomb and a loaded recce camera. Our missions were fragged as 'Swing' whereby we cruised around waiting to be called to either intercept a/c, drop bombs or take recce photos. I believe some wise fellow once said that flexibility was the key to airpower. Needless to say, we didn't sweat when there was talk of the CAOC throwing single-role a/c out of theatre due to limited dispersal space. (We were triple-swing role and brought our own dipersal to the party!)
You say that the FA2's "....genuine BVR capability is seriously constrained except in a short range/low endurance reactive role unless tanker support is available..." To have an unconstrained BVR capability you need to be airborne with the following three things:
1. BVR sensors
2. BVR weapons
3. BVR ROE
Ther is nothing in the first two that constrains the FA2's BVR capability. What I think you mean is that the FA2 can't project as far in OCA as some other a/c. Show me the aircraft that does it all and it'll surely exist only on paper.
Let's talk about a "genuine BVR capability" I'm trying to think of another a/c type in Europe that can track 10 aircraft at once (plus hold detection files on a further classified number) whilst simultaneously supporting 4 AIM 120s in flight at separate targets and...........I'm failing miserably.
The FA2 is rightly feared in exercises for its ability to conduct a 'Beirut Unload' (AKA "Fox Twelve!") whereby a single SHAR can splash a 4-ship mud element in one engagement, at long range, without being detected by the attackers.
The FA2 is limited in both top speed and RoA. RoA is not such a big issue in Fleet Defence as the MiG drivers come to you. I'm not aware of any threat ASM that can be launched outside the FA2's RoA. I've seen SHARs squeeze 2 hours unrefuelled station time, land, refuel and be back off the front of the jump 30 mins later for another 2 hour CAP.
RoA becomes an issue if you wish to project an OCA/AI mission a long way over the beach . As for speed, I've lost count of the number of faster aircraft I've shot down in training engagements over the years. The ability to launch missiles tens of miles from the bandit and turn for home before they impact has seriously counterbalanced the speed deficit.
A politically untenable mission without land bases/allied AD assets? I think the politics would be irrelevant as the mission would be militarily untenable without Fleet AD.
An affordable capability gap? Seems to me more like high stakes gambling. The people who made this decision will be judged one way if we get away with it and another if a CVS goes to the bottom.
With a Govt that is more interested in avoiding tax increases than paying for public services, this should have come as no surprise. After all, our armed forces have done nothing but shrink since the Berlin Wall came down.
They took the 'Rule' away from Britannia and replaced it with 'Cool'
**************************************************
Incidently......twenty years ago today HMS Sheffield was destroyed by an Exocet, largely due to inadequate numbers of Sea Harriers, no AEW, lack of waepons for use against sea skimmers etc etc. The worst thing was politicians who refused to accept that unforseen circumstances occur.
Twenty good men died.
They shall not grow old
As we that are left grow old
Age shall not weary them
Nor the years condemn
At the going down of the Sun
And in the morning
We will remember them.
Remember......it could happen again. Very easily.
The Sea Harrier was intended to stay on until 2015 with Ark Royal.
I have written out a letter to my MP, which you won't be suprised covers the points I raised in response to the latter I got from Adam Ingram, and covers many of the same points as you and Steamchicken have mentioned. Meant to post it today.....but didn't have an envelope big enough of put it (seven pages) in.
I think what is needed is co-ordinated action by both opposition parties and Labour backbenchers.
I think this was your posting you were referring to Nozzles, I copied and pasted it to e-mail it to a friend. I've copied and pasted it back.....sorry for problems this pasting malarky causes...
As someone who flew the FA2 for many years I'm afraid I'm going to have to target you somewhat as you have stated some of your opinions as if they were facts. I don't know who your source is; if he's a SHAR mate his views certainly don't reflect those of the vast majority.
You claim that 4 Lightnings could have prevented the Falklands War. In the same post you say that FA2s as part of a JF on a CVS are not a viable AD solution. Considering a 50/50 GR7/FA2 mix, that's about a dozen SHARS on deck. You appear to be saying that three times as many FA2s, which are vastly more capable than the Lightning could not do what 4 Lightnings could do!
You mention in previous posts that the SHAR's unreliability precludes them from mounting round-the-clock AD. I have taken part in 24/7 2-ship DCA with 7 jets and 8 pilots. The limiting factor was always pilot fatique and not airframe availability. In a crisis situation, the force could muster more pilots than jets on deck, allowing extended 24/7 DCA with more a/c. In all the years of the SHAR contribution to op Deny Flight over Bosnia we achieved 100% frag. (I heard an unsubstantiated rumour that we were the only type in theatre to achieve this). With just 7 jets on board, we would start 5 and hold the fifth at Alert Zero on deck until the 4-ship had successfully tanked. (Being No. 5 sucked-all those hours of prep and you hardly ever got to launch). Contrast this with other types who had to start EIGHT jets to produce a 4-ship in the box (and didn't always succeed).
You talk about the FA2 with 2 x AIM 120 as if something stops us carrying 4. Whilst bringback is an issue at high OATs, the AD fit is not as badly affected as the heavier AG fit. I regularly came back to the Boat with a gross weight equivalent to a 4 x 120 fit in the Adriatic in the height of summer.
While I'm remeniscing, that particular fit involved 2 AAMs, a 1000lb bomb and a loaded recce camera. Our missions were fragged as 'Swing' whereby we cruised around waiting to be called to either intercept a/c, drop bombs or take recce photos. I believe some wise fellow once said that flexibility was the key to airpower. Needless to say, we didn't sweat when there was talk of the CAOC throwing single-role a/c out of theatre due to limited dispersal space. (We were triple-swing role and brought our own dipersal to the party!)
You say that the FA2's "....genuine BVR capability is seriously constrained except in a short range/low endurance reactive role unless tanker support is available..." To have an unconstrained BVR capability you need to be airborne with the following three things:
1. BVR sensors
2. BVR weapons
3. BVR ROE
Ther is nothing in the first two that constrains the FA2's BVR capability. What I think you mean is that the FA2 can't project as far in OCA as some other a/c. Show me the aircraft that does it all and it'll surely exist only on paper.
Let's talk about a "genuine BVR capability" I'm trying to think of another a/c type in Europe that can track 10 aircraft at once (plus hold detection files on a further classified number) whilst simultaneously supporting 4 AIM 120s in flight at separate targets and...........I'm failing miserably.
The FA2 is rightly feared in exercises for its ability to conduct a 'Beirut Unload' (AKA "Fox Twelve!") whereby a single SHAR can splash a 4-ship mud element in one engagement, at long range, without being detected by the attackers.
The FA2 is limited in both top speed and RoA. RoA is not such a big issue in Fleet Defence as the MiG drivers come to you. I'm not aware of any threat ASM that can be launched outside the FA2's RoA. I've seen SHARs squeeze 2 hours unrefuelled station time, land, refuel and be back off the front of the jump 30 mins later for another 2 hour CAP.
RoA becomes an issue if you wish to project an OCA/AI mission a long way over the beach . As for speed, I've lost count of the number of faster aircraft I've shot down in training engagements over the years. The ability to launch missiles tens of miles from the bandit and turn for home before they impact has seriously counterbalanced the speed deficit.
A politically untenable mission without land bases/allied AD assets? I think the politics would be irrelevant as the mission would be militarily untenable without Fleet AD.
An affordable capability gap? Seems to me more like high stakes gambling. The people who made this decision will be judged one way if we get away with it and another if a CVS goes to the bottom.
With a Govt that is more interested in avoiding tax increases than paying for public services, this should have come as no surprise. After all, our armed forces have done nothing but shrink since the Berlin Wall came down.
They took the 'Rule' away from Britannia and replaced it with 'Cool'
**************************************************
Incidently......twenty years ago today HMS Sheffield was destroyed by an Exocet, largely due to inadequate numbers of Sea Harriers, no AEW, lack of waepons for use against sea skimmers etc etc. The worst thing was politicians who refused to accept that unforseen circumstances occur.
Twenty good men died.
They shall not grow old
As we that are left grow old
Age shall not weary them
Nor the years condemn
At the going down of the Sun
And in the morning
We will remember them.
Remember......it could happen again. Very easily.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 4th May 2002 at 23:31.
I say again: "Defence in the post Cold War world is all about providing effective military capability economically (even at minimum cost). Carriers do not achieve this central aim."
and I'll add that jingoistic, anti-French, anti-Spanish and anti-US prejudice aside, we often rely on allies for providing some capabilities. Why not this one, which is required so infrequently?
The SHar has sometimes done a great job (though bringback sucks, and it's of limited usefulness in the Gulf for this reason) but we simply can't afford it.
Interesting points by your contact, fanatic, but his emphasis is all on Fleet Air Defence, which makes the carrier a bit of a self-licking lollipop. If the Shar can't do long range OCA and escort, then it's less useful than the GR9 in today's environment.
I admire your opposition to cuts in force size - having to pay for over-expensive, inappropriate carriers is part of the problem however, not part of the solution.
Nozzles, No, I don't want carpet bombing, but for an aircraft to be counted as multi-role nowadays I do expect a robust PGM/ASM capability, and for recce I expect multi-sensor EO, preferably with near real time data link even if done 'on the cheap' with IDM and a PRISM card. And four thousand pounders? Theoretically perhaps, but when's it actually been done in anything approaching realistic operational conditions?
Blue Wolf, the trauma of your recent loss out there has clearly unbalanced you, dear chap. "When the Euro collapses, as it will, and the European Union fractionates, as it will, whose side will these "coalition assets" be on?" doesn't deserve any response except laughter. The whole point is that the expense of carriers threatens equally severe and stupid cuts here, in order to pay for the damned things!
and I'll add that jingoistic, anti-French, anti-Spanish and anti-US prejudice aside, we often rely on allies for providing some capabilities. Why not this one, which is required so infrequently?
The SHar has sometimes done a great job (though bringback sucks, and it's of limited usefulness in the Gulf for this reason) but we simply can't afford it.
Interesting points by your contact, fanatic, but his emphasis is all on Fleet Air Defence, which makes the carrier a bit of a self-licking lollipop. If the Shar can't do long range OCA and escort, then it's less useful than the GR9 in today's environment.
I admire your opposition to cuts in force size - having to pay for over-expensive, inappropriate carriers is part of the problem however, not part of the solution.
Nozzles, No, I don't want carpet bombing, but for an aircraft to be counted as multi-role nowadays I do expect a robust PGM/ASM capability, and for recce I expect multi-sensor EO, preferably with near real time data link even if done 'on the cheap' with IDM and a PRISM card. And four thousand pounders? Theoretically perhaps, but when's it actually been done in anything approaching realistic operational conditions?
Blue Wolf, the trauma of your recent loss out there has clearly unbalanced you, dear chap. "When the Euro collapses, as it will, and the European Union fractionates, as it will, whose side will these "coalition assets" be on?" doesn't deserve any response except laughter. The whole point is that the expense of carriers threatens equally severe and stupid cuts here, in order to pay for the damned things!
I repeat....
The Sea Harrier is for FLEET air defence, often thats the reason to deploy a CVS. It is frigates and destroyers that will pay the price for having no organic air defence.
Incidently......when we were involved in Kosovo we deployed a CVS (complete with Sea Harriers, curiosly enough the RAF prefered Italian bases), a Type 42 destroyer, two Type 23 frigates (one was part of STANFORMED) and a SSN. Backed up by some RFAs.
Which ships were operating with the CVS? The Type 42 and one Type 23, at most (excluding RFAs). The STANFORMED frigate was doing other things, and the SSN was there to provide TLAM capability.
We nearly sent a CVS to the Gulf in '91, but the MOD penny pinchers wouldn't have it. Probably the CVS that would have been depoyed would have been Ark Royal. She would have acted mainly as a flagship, but her Sea Harriers (FRS1 back then) would have provided welcome dedicated air defence for the RN ships there, including the Minehunters. As it turned out much of Saddam's air force fled to Iran, but what if it hadn't? Coalition warships and support vessels would have been in grave danger.
The Sea Harrier can recieve AAR anyway, so OCA ops are possible. Remember US carrier aircraft have recently been supported in the Arabian sea region by RAF tankers....
The Sea Harrier is for FLEET air defence, often thats the reason to deploy a CVS. It is frigates and destroyers that will pay the price for having no organic air defence.
Incidently......when we were involved in Kosovo we deployed a CVS (complete with Sea Harriers, curiosly enough the RAF prefered Italian bases), a Type 42 destroyer, two Type 23 frigates (one was part of STANFORMED) and a SSN. Backed up by some RFAs.
Which ships were operating with the CVS? The Type 42 and one Type 23, at most (excluding RFAs). The STANFORMED frigate was doing other things, and the SSN was there to provide TLAM capability.
We nearly sent a CVS to the Gulf in '91, but the MOD penny pinchers wouldn't have it. Probably the CVS that would have been depoyed would have been Ark Royal. She would have acted mainly as a flagship, but her Sea Harriers (FRS1 back then) would have provided welcome dedicated air defence for the RN ships there, including the Minehunters. As it turned out much of Saddam's air force fled to Iran, but what if it hadn't? Coalition warships and support vessels would have been in grave danger.
The Sea Harrier can recieve AAR anyway, so OCA ops are possible. Remember US carrier aircraft have recently been supported in the Arabian sea region by RAF tankers....
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 5th May 2002 at 00:40.
I was never anti French/Spanish/Italian, I was merely stating that they do not have enough carrier based fighters to defend somebody else's task force as well as their own. Certainly CAPs are out....
Simple question WEBF:
How many men are required to support the deployment of one GR7 Squadron to Gioia? How many aircraft? (And How many men for a Jag squadron?)
How many men were required to support the deployment of one FA2 Squadron, including the crews of the CV, the Frigate, the Destroyer, the SSN, the RFAs, etc.? How many aircraft? How much did the ships cost to deploy in terms of fuel, etc?
Now tell me that carrier air power is cost effective......
I'd sooner have our own SEAD (which is needed for every op) than our own Fleet AD, which is an expensive luxury. I'd permanently lose Fleet AD and carriers. But that's not the issue. The withdrawal of FA 2 leaves only a TEMPORARY capability gap, which will be partly compensated for by land-based air power, allied fleet AD, etc.
To fill this gap is prohibitively expensive.
How many men are required to support the deployment of one GR7 Squadron to Gioia? How many aircraft? (And How many men for a Jag squadron?)
How many men were required to support the deployment of one FA2 Squadron, including the crews of the CV, the Frigate, the Destroyer, the SSN, the RFAs, etc.? How many aircraft? How much did the ships cost to deploy in terms of fuel, etc?
Now tell me that carrier air power is cost effective......
I'd sooner have our own SEAD (which is needed for every op) than our own Fleet AD, which is an expensive luxury. I'd permanently lose Fleet AD and carriers. But that's not the issue. The withdrawal of FA 2 leaves only a TEMPORARY capability gap, which will be partly compensated for by land-based air power, allied fleet AD, etc.
To fill this gap is prohibitively expensive.
Jacko
Many naval assests would have been deployed to the Adriatic anyway. The SSN had nothing to do with the CVS group. I'm not totally sure about this, but the Type 42, Nottingham, was not involved exlusively with defending the CVS. Also you might consider that the carrier acts as Flagship.
Your pro RAF and anti Navy bias can be seen miles away.
On a similar note, why does it take the RAF 200+ personnel to deploy just three Chinooks to Afgahnistan.
The CVS/Sea Harrier are often deployed to support and protect the fleet, not the other way round.
You say we can't afford to retain the Sea Harrier. Does this also explain the Navy's missile shortage? Can we afford to lose just a single frigate or destroyer (or RFA)? Because that's what is likely to happen.
Many naval assests would have been deployed to the Adriatic anyway. The SSN had nothing to do with the CVS group. I'm not totally sure about this, but the Type 42, Nottingham, was not involved exlusively with defending the CVS. Also you might consider that the carrier acts as Flagship.
Your pro RAF and anti Navy bias can be seen miles away.
On a similar note, why does it take the RAF 200+ personnel to deploy just three Chinooks to Afgahnistan.
The CVS/Sea Harrier are often deployed to support and protect the fleet, not the other way round.
You say we can't afford to retain the Sea Harrier. Does this also explain the Navy's missile shortage? Can we afford to lose just a single frigate or destroyer (or RFA)? Because that's what is likely to happen.
Jacko
You seem to be betting the farm on a coalition effort for future endevours. No disrespect meant but it reminds me of the decision not to put a cannon on the F4 as that type of warfare was a bygone era.
Whats your take on force projection,you know, the bluff before the storm?. Its hard to quantify how many conflicts were avoided by the implied threat that accompnies a carrier battle group setting up residence offshore. A go at it with a few ships threatens the littorals, a go at it with organic air assets provides OTH capability that threatens the whole country.
The point that its expensive to maintain a capability seldom used is well taken, and its problematic to argue otherwise, but heck the concept of insurance for my car bothers me every time I write the check..thats until I need it.
You seem to be betting the farm on a coalition effort for future endevours. No disrespect meant but it reminds me of the decision not to put a cannon on the F4 as that type of warfare was a bygone era.
Whats your take on force projection,you know, the bluff before the storm?. Its hard to quantify how many conflicts were avoided by the implied threat that accompnies a carrier battle group setting up residence offshore. A go at it with a few ships threatens the littorals, a go at it with organic air assets provides OTH capability that threatens the whole country.
The point that its expensive to maintain a capability seldom used is well taken, and its problematic to argue otherwise, but heck the concept of insurance for my car bothers me every time I write the check..thats until I need it.
Thankyou West Coast
I agree with you 100%. Its nice to see someone looking at this from a logical point of view. Your analogy with car insurance is a good one.
"We didn't need it yesterday, therefore we won't need it tommorow". Know what psychologists call that type of thinking?
Gambler's folly.
I agree with you 100%. Its nice to see someone looking at this from a logical point of view. Your analogy with car insurance is a good one.
"We didn't need it yesterday, therefore we won't need it tommorow". Know what psychologists call that type of thinking?
Gambler's folly.
Tough choices required. Third party insurance plus brakes, seatbelts, etc. or fully comprehensive without. The case for fully comp is unarguable, except when it's unaffordable. The SHar represents fully comp.
No anti Navy bias, except that it consumes a disproportionate and inappropriate proportion of Defence expenditure (thanks mainly to Trident) and is the one part of our forces which still sometimes appears to be tailored to our Colonial days, when the sun never set.....
No pro RAF bias either, except that the specialists are good at providing cost-effective air power.
200 men for three Chinooks. And how many if you base them on Ocean, say? 1,200?
No anti Navy bias, except that it consumes a disproportionate and inappropriate proportion of Defence expenditure (thanks mainly to Trident) and is the one part of our forces which still sometimes appears to be tailored to our Colonial days, when the sun never set.....
No pro RAF bias either, except that the specialists are good at providing cost-effective air power.
200 men for three Chinooks. And how many if you base them on Ocean, say? 1,200?
The Navy consumes less of the defence buget than either the Army or RAF.
As for Trident, it is a nation defence system, not a naval weapon.
You think the RN is still catering for colonial days? Why?
As for Trident, it is a nation defence system, not a naval weapon.
You think the RN is still catering for colonial days? Why?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 5th May 2002 at 11:01.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SHAR continued
Hi guys I'm new here - I'm an RNR (not URNU!) officer and finishing off my masters at the RMCS. (anyone else here hail from that god awful place?)
Carriers - it seems to me that there is a lot of problems over SHAR + carriers in general, so I thought I'd add my 2p worth to the thread.
Firstly HMS Ocean has a crew of 250 designed to run the ship and it is important to note that she does do other things than just fly choppers - she carries booties and their landing craft as well.
Yes the invincibles have a higher crew of 1200 - but thats including the full load airwing - the actually ships company is around 700. This is due to their age - they were designed in the 60's and 70's when technology was different and more manpower intensive. The next generation CVF will have hopefully a lower crew requirement.
Secondly the point about manpower for a harrier detachment is misleading - yes you may only need 200 guys to run the detachment - but how many other locals run the airfield and all that goes with it? How many resupply flights have to go into support the detachment? I'd suggest its a similar number to a carrier crew - and remember that carriers are self supporting beasts - send em off and forget about them. No worries about basing rights or negotiations etc - just park it off the 12 mile limit and you have an airfield.
I think the problem here is that both the navy and raf types are thinking from their own services interests. We should look at it from a joint position - I see the Carrier as a floating airbase which the army, rn and raf can put on any aircraft or helos that they want. Its a joint force tool, not a naval toy.
Sure we can scrap the carriers - but that makes things more difficult for all services not just the RN - the RAF as has been pointed out has 4 AD squadrons - where will the planes come from the cover the area of conflict, protect the UK and protect the carriers? How can the RAF gurantee that they can have constant cover? The advantage of having locally based a/defence is that you can (hopefully) have an immediate response.
One final question for the moment - why was Jaguar retained and not SHAR? Given that the RAF has three bomber types - wouldn't it be easier to lose a bomber that hasn't done much recently rather than scrap an entire capability? (awaiting the reply from enraged jaguar crews here)
Finally for anyone who wants to see an RN perspective on this, may I recommend a visit to www.warships1.com - they have some interesting debates over there on this issue.
Carriers - it seems to me that there is a lot of problems over SHAR + carriers in general, so I thought I'd add my 2p worth to the thread.
Firstly HMS Ocean has a crew of 250 designed to run the ship and it is important to note that she does do other things than just fly choppers - she carries booties and their landing craft as well.
Yes the invincibles have a higher crew of 1200 - but thats including the full load airwing - the actually ships company is around 700. This is due to their age - they were designed in the 60's and 70's when technology was different and more manpower intensive. The next generation CVF will have hopefully a lower crew requirement.
Secondly the point about manpower for a harrier detachment is misleading - yes you may only need 200 guys to run the detachment - but how many other locals run the airfield and all that goes with it? How many resupply flights have to go into support the detachment? I'd suggest its a similar number to a carrier crew - and remember that carriers are self supporting beasts - send em off and forget about them. No worries about basing rights or negotiations etc - just park it off the 12 mile limit and you have an airfield.
I think the problem here is that both the navy and raf types are thinking from their own services interests. We should look at it from a joint position - I see the Carrier as a floating airbase which the army, rn and raf can put on any aircraft or helos that they want. Its a joint force tool, not a naval toy.
Sure we can scrap the carriers - but that makes things more difficult for all services not just the RN - the RAF as has been pointed out has 4 AD squadrons - where will the planes come from the cover the area of conflict, protect the UK and protect the carriers? How can the RAF gurantee that they can have constant cover? The advantage of having locally based a/defence is that you can (hopefully) have an immediate response.
One final question for the moment - why was Jaguar retained and not SHAR? Given that the RAF has three bomber types - wouldn't it be easier to lose a bomber that hasn't done much recently rather than scrap an entire capability? (awaiting the reply from enraged jaguar crews here)
Finally for anyone who wants to see an RN perspective on this, may I recommend a visit to www.warships1.com - they have some interesting debates over there on this issue.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Detached (again!)
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a couple of points:
Jimlad
Could it be that the Jags weren't retired because they continue to provide a valuable (and extremely cost-effective) contribution to an ongoing operation?
WEBF
Sorry to be slow to pick up on a point, but to refer to your earlier remarks re the CVS/SHAR contribution to ALLIED FORCE - as I recall the ship pitched up (late) mainly at the behest of CINCFLEET UK, not at any NATO request and largely got in the way until it was 'suggested' that she would be better employed elsewhere.
Oh, and the RAF prefer land based ops because we can take off with a full load and bring it all back again if we have to (referring to the GR7/F-16 vs civilian convoy thread - we would have had to throw those weapons in the briny).
Obviously I'm biased to the light blue, but give me strat lift and an FOB any day....
CV
Jimlad
Could it be that the Jags weren't retired because they continue to provide a valuable (and extremely cost-effective) contribution to an ongoing operation?
WEBF
Sorry to be slow to pick up on a point, but to refer to your earlier remarks re the CVS/SHAR contribution to ALLIED FORCE - as I recall the ship pitched up (late) mainly at the behest of CINCFLEET UK, not at any NATO request and largely got in the way until it was 'suggested' that she would be better employed elsewhere.
Oh, and the RAF prefer land based ops because we can take off with a full load and bring it all back again if we have to (referring to the GR7/F-16 vs civilian convoy thread - we would have had to throw those weapons in the briny).
Obviously I'm biased to the light blue, but give me strat lift and an FOB any day....
CV
Point of Order
I'd like to make a point of order, Jim lad. There are no crews at Coltishall, only pilots! 
