SHAR Wars; The PPruners Strike Back...
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Times May 13, 2002
In defence of Harrier decommissions
From Flight Lieutenant Dan Holland, RAF and Lieutenant James Hamblin, RN
Sir, We believe that the decommissioning of the Sea Harrier FA2 from service will not, in fact, be as big a blow as many people seem to believe (letter, May 8 and report, May 9).
The upgraded Harrier GR9 will not be simply ground-attack aircraft but, in fact, will be multi-role. They will, effectively, be doing the job of the Sea Harriers and the Harrier GR7. Instead of our carriers having an air wing of eight Sea Harriers and eight Harriers, we will just have Harrier GR9s, with RAF and RN pilots being trained on it as part of the Joint Harrier Force announced by the Government in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review.
While Labour’s defence spending policy is far from ideal, it certainly is not making the same level of cuts as we saw in the early Eighties with John Nott’s infamous 1981 Defence Review, or in the early Nineties with the further cuts implemented by the Options for Change Defence Review of the Major Government. If anything, the Tories have done more to hurt our national defence over 18 years than anything Labour could do in five.
We have seen in other countries that a policy of a single, multi-role aircraft can work, as indeed, the US Air Force and the US Marine Corps have demonstrated. The former uses the F15E for air superiority and ground attack, and the latter uses the Harrier AV-8B II for ground attack and air defence in amphibious assaults. This is what the Government is aiming for.
We are, sir, your obedient servants,
DAN HOLLAND,
JAMES HAMBLIN,
96 Harefield Road,
Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 1PN.
May 9.
In defence of Harrier decommissions
From Flight Lieutenant Dan Holland, RAF and Lieutenant James Hamblin, RN
Sir, We believe that the decommissioning of the Sea Harrier FA2 from service will not, in fact, be as big a blow as many people seem to believe (letter, May 8 and report, May 9).
The upgraded Harrier GR9 will not be simply ground-attack aircraft but, in fact, will be multi-role. They will, effectively, be doing the job of the Sea Harriers and the Harrier GR7. Instead of our carriers having an air wing of eight Sea Harriers and eight Harriers, we will just have Harrier GR9s, with RAF and RN pilots being trained on it as part of the Joint Harrier Force announced by the Government in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review.
While Labour’s defence spending policy is far from ideal, it certainly is not making the same level of cuts as we saw in the early Eighties with John Nott’s infamous 1981 Defence Review, or in the early Nineties with the further cuts implemented by the Options for Change Defence Review of the Major Government. If anything, the Tories have done more to hurt our national defence over 18 years than anything Labour could do in five.
We have seen in other countries that a policy of a single, multi-role aircraft can work, as indeed, the US Air Force and the US Marine Corps have demonstrated. The former uses the F15E for air superiority and ground attack, and the latter uses the Harrier AV-8B II for ground attack and air defence in amphibious assaults. This is what the Government is aiming for.
We are, sir, your obedient servants,
DAN HOLLAND,
JAMES HAMBLIN,
96 Harefield Road,
Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 1PN.
May 9.
I don't need to reiterate that I don't mind whether or not the carriers lose their AD capability during a brief window pending the arrival of JSF, nor to restate my belief that however occasionally useful, carriers are a luxury we cannot afford, in the light of more vital spending priorities.
BUT
If there is to be any pretence that the GR7/9 will have an air defence tasking then it must get a proper HMS integration and DIGITAL Asraam, together with JTIDS. ASRAAM has a formidable reach (beyond visual, though not in an AMRAAM sense) and can (with HMS and digital integration) be fired at very high off boresight angles, giving it unparallelled capability in a turning fight, and perhaps even allowing the carrier aircraft to fire a missile even when exploiting an opposing fighter's 'Doppler notch'. "With good AWACS cover, ASRAAM has a degree of reach not previously seen in an IR homing missile" someone told me, though I'm uncertain as to whether to believe him!
Those currently crying into their milk about the loss of SHar might care to direct some of their energies to ensuring that the remaining carrier-based aircraft are properly equipped for whatever their role is thought to be. I wouldn't bother, personally, and would just wait for JSF, relying on our allies in the intervening period.
But without HMSS, and without a full digital integration of ASRAAM, calling the GR7 or GR9 multi-role is a cynical piece of politicking.
BUT
If there is to be any pretence that the GR7/9 will have an air defence tasking then it must get a proper HMS integration and DIGITAL Asraam, together with JTIDS. ASRAAM has a formidable reach (beyond visual, though not in an AMRAAM sense) and can (with HMS and digital integration) be fired at very high off boresight angles, giving it unparallelled capability in a turning fight, and perhaps even allowing the carrier aircraft to fire a missile even when exploiting an opposing fighter's 'Doppler notch'. "With good AWACS cover, ASRAAM has a degree of reach not previously seen in an IR homing missile" someone told me, though I'm uncertain as to whether to believe him!
Those currently crying into their milk about the loss of SHar might care to direct some of their energies to ensuring that the remaining carrier-based aircraft are properly equipped for whatever their role is thought to be. I wouldn't bother, personally, and would just wait for JSF, relying on our allies in the intervening period.
But without HMSS, and without a full digital integration of ASRAAM, calling the GR7 or GR9 multi-role is a cynical piece of politicking.
Are those two Officers for real? Are they real people, or just made up by Alistair Campbell and co? And why are they both from the same address? Seems a bit dodgy to me
As for the idea that the present government understands defence, who the hell said that? Labour Party HQ?
Nozzles I sent you an email by clicking on "profile" and then "click here to e-mail"......didn't it work??
As for the idea that the present government understands defence, who the hell said that? Labour Party HQ?
Nozzles I sent you an email by clicking on "profile" and then "click here to e-mail"......didn't it work??
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 14th May 2002 at 10:43.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last night, in Brighton, I attended a presentation given to the general public by the Royal Navy Presentation Team, link:-
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1934.html
During the subsequent Q&A one questioner raised the letter in the Times and the situation re the FA.2 as a query direct to Commander Steve Bramley RN.
His commands include Illustrious.
He was generally in favour of losing the FA.2, the reasons given were ( From memory )
Only 20% airframe commonallity, thus overly expensive to operate the two in tandem.
Difficulties operating in hot climates, and as a side point the easy ( i.e value for money ) by which the GR 9 upgrade would be achieved verses the 'dificult' engine upgrade of the FA.2
Aircrew happy about the change, as evidenced by the letter in the Times.
Regarding the Air Defence Role:- The GR.9 will be a very potent platform, 'of course it will not have the radar'
I later spoke to a couple of other Officers particularly about AIM120, it was suggested that it would still be used by the GR9, but in an 'unguided' role, where it would still be a potent asset. I have to admit that in the absence of Blue Vixen this seems a bit 'fire and not give a f**k, rather than fire and forget' Even if possible, RoE would preclude such a scattergun approach, surely?
I should say that the briefing was directed at various local business worthies, God knows how I got an invite
and quite heavilly stressed the economics, financial accountabillity side of the overall operation of the Armed Forces, and one would hardly expect anything other than the official line at such an event. However the overall presentation was to show the RN as an independant, world class military asset, which is to lose a significant abillity, due to cost.
PA-28
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1934.html
During the subsequent Q&A one questioner raised the letter in the Times and the situation re the FA.2 as a query direct to Commander Steve Bramley RN.
His commands include Illustrious.
He was generally in favour of losing the FA.2, the reasons given were ( From memory )
Only 20% airframe commonallity, thus overly expensive to operate the two in tandem.
Difficulties operating in hot climates, and as a side point the easy ( i.e value for money ) by which the GR 9 upgrade would be achieved verses the 'dificult' engine upgrade of the FA.2
Aircrew happy about the change, as evidenced by the letter in the Times.
Regarding the Air Defence Role:- The GR.9 will be a very potent platform, 'of course it will not have the radar'
I later spoke to a couple of other Officers particularly about AIM120, it was suggested that it would still be used by the GR9, but in an 'unguided' role, where it would still be a potent asset. I have to admit that in the absence of Blue Vixen this seems a bit 'fire and not give a f**k, rather than fire and forget' Even if possible, RoE would preclude such a scattergun approach, surely?
I should say that the briefing was directed at various local business worthies, God knows how I got an invite
and quite heavilly stressed the economics, financial accountabillity side of the overall operation of the Armed Forces, and one would hardly expect anything other than the official line at such an event. However the overall presentation was to show the RN as an independant, world class military asset, which is to lose a significant abillity, due to cost.PA-28
I doubt very much whether he, or anyone else, would actually be in favour of losing the Sea Harrier. Remember, it was a public presentation, for members of the public, therefore he has to tow the party (ie Government) line.
I have spoken privately to RN personnel (both Officers and Ratings) who see the Sea Harrier's premature demise as an absolute disaster.
And the Government reckons we don't need air defence - they have said so. The current First Sea Lord wrote a report called the "Fleet Risks Register" last year when he was CINCFLEET. In it he awrned that we are now more vulnerable to air attack (particulary with air launched sea skimmers) due to penny pinching.
Having no organic air defence will really improve things, won't it?
I have spoken privately to RN personnel (both Officers and Ratings) who see the Sea Harrier's premature demise as an absolute disaster.
And the Government reckons we don't need air defence - they have said so. The current First Sea Lord wrote a report called the "Fleet Risks Register" last year when he was CINCFLEET. In it he awrned that we are now more vulnerable to air attack (particulary with air launched sea skimmers) due to penny pinching.
Having no organic air defence will really improve things, won't it?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Detached (again!)
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA-28
Did the officers in question comment on what the GR9 would use to point the AIM-120's seeker head at the correct target? HMS? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the idea of an active BVR AAM was to keep the target at arm's length...
Did the officers in question comment on what the GR9 would use to point the AIM-120's seeker head at the correct target? HMS? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the idea of an active BVR AAM was to keep the target at arm's length...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fanatic
You have fallen into the obvious, but understandable, trap of trying to apply arguments of common sense and military effectiveness to this equation. While it may seem that the government are gambling with military lives by scrapping the SHARs, they are gambling with lives all of the time anyway, so it is surely only a matter of degree?
Britain has one of the strongest economies in the world yet we have a third world health service, failing transport infrastructure and a poor public education system. It is a clear choice that our govt has made not to invest more money in the armed forces. If you look at the MOD website there are tables comparing our defence expenditure with that of other European nations. If the govt decided to up defence spending, they could. It would, however, be at the expense of some other area of spending and probably not a vote winner. While we as a nation have global interests it must be admitted that there are very few immediate threats to the UK mainland. The population will probably not be too concerned about the military unless there was more immediate danger to our way of life.
The reality is surely that most people in this country would rather live a life of comfort with all modcons and a high disposable income than pay what they consider to be unnecessarily high taxes to pay for a military capability when there is no apparent threat.
For the record, I think we should keep the SHAR fleet. It is just a pity that we haven't got enough pilots to man them.
You have fallen into the obvious, but understandable, trap of trying to apply arguments of common sense and military effectiveness to this equation. While it may seem that the government are gambling with military lives by scrapping the SHARs, they are gambling with lives all of the time anyway, so it is surely only a matter of degree?
Britain has one of the strongest economies in the world yet we have a third world health service, failing transport infrastructure and a poor public education system. It is a clear choice that our govt has made not to invest more money in the armed forces. If you look at the MOD website there are tables comparing our defence expenditure with that of other European nations. If the govt decided to up defence spending, they could. It would, however, be at the expense of some other area of spending and probably not a vote winner. While we as a nation have global interests it must be admitted that there are very few immediate threats to the UK mainland. The population will probably not be too concerned about the military unless there was more immediate danger to our way of life.
The reality is surely that most people in this country would rather live a life of comfort with all modcons and a high disposable income than pay what they consider to be unnecessarily high taxes to pay for a military capability when there is no apparent threat.
For the record, I think we should keep the SHAR fleet. It is just a pity that we haven't got enough pilots to man them.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The edge
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I've just read some interesting comments.
Apparently the GR9 is going to be a very potent Air Defence platform. Somebody please name another AD platform without a radar. No self respecting fighter pilot would claim he 'did AD' if he didn't have a radar. Hell, the Americans even put A-A radars in some of their bombers.
Apparently, ASRAAM cued by a helmet mounted sight is a BVR weapon. The point of the HMS is that you LOOK AT the target and shoot at it. If the target is BVR, by definition you can't see it; ergo you can't shoot it BVR. I really hope the inference is not that ASRAAM could be cued to a JTIDS track. If it is, any American fighter pilot reading this has just stopped laughing at my first paragraph and is now breaking out in a cold sweat.
As for firing AIM-120 from a platform with no radar-I think that must be a cruel joke to wind up those who don't understand how the AMRAAM works.
WEBF, I really must sign on for that maily thingy. If only I could think of a password...............
Hmmmmmm. Just went to register for it and it was asking all sorts of difficult questions like who I am, where am I etc. So I kissed it off. Sorry mate
Apparently the GR9 is going to be a very potent Air Defence platform. Somebody please name another AD platform without a radar. No self respecting fighter pilot would claim he 'did AD' if he didn't have a radar. Hell, the Americans even put A-A radars in some of their bombers.
Apparently, ASRAAM cued by a helmet mounted sight is a BVR weapon. The point of the HMS is that you LOOK AT the target and shoot at it. If the target is BVR, by definition you can't see it; ergo you can't shoot it BVR. I really hope the inference is not that ASRAAM could be cued to a JTIDS track. If it is, any American fighter pilot reading this has just stopped laughing at my first paragraph and is now breaking out in a cold sweat.
As for firing AIM-120 from a platform with no radar-I think that must be a cruel joke to wind up those who don't understand how the AMRAAM works.
WEBF, I really must sign on for that maily thingy. If only I could think of a password...............
Hmmmmmm. Just went to register for it and it was asking all sorts of difficult questions like who I am, where am I etc. So I kissed it off. Sorry mate
Last edited by Nozzles; 14th May 2002 at 19:57.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What amuses me about the whole FA2 debate is that all i hear is 'power projection, more akin to JSF, Limited air defence capability, defence of the fleet etc.' No-one seems to consider the fact that without a fighter sweep you don't get to the target, your bombs don't project a thing, what is the point in having the punch if the enemy can keep it at bay. No one has ever enjoyed being bombed but we seem to be in the mindset that we can waltz aross the beach head without the FA2 and bomb with impuntiy. Cr#p. If we don't have an FA2 sweep/ CAP then the GR7/9 s die enroute to their targets, simple as that. And those that don't go home to a very soggy bed.
Alas EJ, you are right.
Many people have forgotten that the Sea Harrier is the the defence of the whole fleet, not just the Sea Harrier. Leaving aside the arguments about power projection by airpower, how are naval forces expected to operate in hostile waters with no air defence. This was a subject I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread.
The enemy could win by picking off destroyers and frigates, or minehunters, or RFAs, or STUFT.
Many people have forgotten that the Sea Harrier is the the defence of the whole fleet, not just the Sea Harrier. Leaving aside the arguments about power projection by airpower, how are naval forces expected to operate in hostile waters with no air defence. This was a subject I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread.
The enemy could win by picking off destroyers and frigates, or minehunters, or RFAs, or STUFT.
Orca, as I recall, British warships in Desert Storm had adequate air cover from our allies, while UK OS and attack assets have seldom needed the kind of protection which you describe, in the post Cold War world. The cahances of needing it within the four year gap left by withdrawal of the SHar? Remote. The chances of an air threat beyond the capability of digi-ASRAAM equipped GR7/9? Even less probable.
We cannot afford to guard against every possible danger - it must be a balance of risks.
We cannot afford to guard against every possible danger - it must be a balance of risks.
Commander David Hobbs, MBE, RN seems similarly upbeat about the withdrawal of the SHar in his article in the May Air International, and so too is Commander Tim Eastaugh (CO of 899, the SHar OCU) according to the article. While any young 'wannabe' Shar pilot must naturally be disappointed, it seems as though more of those at the coal face are prepared to go on the record supporting the decision than are willing to condemn it.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinese Vic
No he didn't elaborate on quite how this was going to work, and I didn't really want to push the point, he probably wandered off thinking something like, 'bamboozeled another one there'.
Oh well
PA-28
No he didn't elaborate on quite how this was going to work, and I didn't really want to push the point, he probably wandered off thinking something like, 'bamboozeled another one there'.
Oh well
PA-28
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Detached (again!)
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA-28
Thanks anyway...
Nozzles
I was being sarcastic (if you hadn't noticed) and understand very well how a BVR missile works!
Thanks anyway...
Nozzles
I was being sarcastic (if you hadn't noticed) and understand very well how a BVR missile works!
Last edited by Chinese Vic; 15th May 2002 at 21:01.
Nozzles,
Not firing on a JTIDS track, but beginning the engagement that way. My understanding is that ASRAAM is 'BVR' (not BVR) in that it can detect a target at beyond the range of the human eye, and has a range in excess of that, though not as far as what we have all come to think of as true BVR weapons.
Not firing on a JTIDS track, but beginning the engagement that way. My understanding is that ASRAAM is 'BVR' (not BVR) in that it can detect a target at beyond the range of the human eye, and has a range in excess of that, though not as far as what we have all come to think of as true BVR weapons.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The edge
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinese Vic,
Sorry bud, wasn't taking a pop at you. Just getting a bit frustrated with some of the 'solutions' being offered by inadequately educated 'MoD spokesmen' to an even less educated public.
Jacko,
People like Tim Eastaugh are putting on a public show of being 'upbeat'. I know that Tim devoted his career to improving the FA2s air-to air and air-to-ground capabilities with great success and would be anything but upbeat about his life's work being towed to the scrapyard. The only thing that Sea Harrier people are upbeat about is the fact that sacrificing the jet means that funding can continue for carrier air power. That way, at least they will get to fly something. Important lesson about being an officer in the UK armed forces: Publicly criticise such a decision and watch your career disappear before the aircraft does.
As for the ASRAAM/HMS debate, my understanding is that the BV range capability of the ASRAAM was designed to be used when the missile is cued with an accurate target position and vector from the host fighter's radar. Having a seeker more sensitive than the human eye means that you can lock the seeker head to a target BVR if you have a good radar track. However, without mid-course updates, any lock-AFTER-launch firing risks either missing the target due to target post-launch/pre acquisition manouevre, or hitting another aircraft in the vicinity. If you have no means of cueing the seeker because you have no radar and the target is BVR, the HMS won't help you.
It's clear that you're a great fan of the system; I'm convinced that it will be very good within it's own limitations/envelope. However, as a professional fighter pilot I have to tell you that if I was told to fight a duel, and the two available platforms were a manky old MiG-29 with short-burn Alamos and a GR9 with HMS/ASRAAM, in less than a second my name would become Nozzleski. I can't imagine any fighter pilot choosing the GR9 as an AD platform.
WEBF,
Just looked at my User Control Panel; I have no private messages waiting and there is a caption saying that private messages have been disabled by the administrator. I tried to mail another ex-SHAR mate a while ago (think it was Pontius), to no avail
Sorry bud, wasn't taking a pop at you. Just getting a bit frustrated with some of the 'solutions' being offered by inadequately educated 'MoD spokesmen' to an even less educated public.
Jacko,
People like Tim Eastaugh are putting on a public show of being 'upbeat'. I know that Tim devoted his career to improving the FA2s air-to air and air-to-ground capabilities with great success and would be anything but upbeat about his life's work being towed to the scrapyard. The only thing that Sea Harrier people are upbeat about is the fact that sacrificing the jet means that funding can continue for carrier air power. That way, at least they will get to fly something. Important lesson about being an officer in the UK armed forces: Publicly criticise such a decision and watch your career disappear before the aircraft does.
As for the ASRAAM/HMS debate, my understanding is that the BV range capability of the ASRAAM was designed to be used when the missile is cued with an accurate target position and vector from the host fighter's radar. Having a seeker more sensitive than the human eye means that you can lock the seeker head to a target BVR if you have a good radar track. However, without mid-course updates, any lock-AFTER-launch firing risks either missing the target due to target post-launch/pre acquisition manouevre, or hitting another aircraft in the vicinity. If you have no means of cueing the seeker because you have no radar and the target is BVR, the HMS won't help you.
It's clear that you're a great fan of the system; I'm convinced that it will be very good within it's own limitations/envelope. However, as a professional fighter pilot I have to tell you that if I was told to fight a duel, and the two available platforms were a manky old MiG-29 with short-burn Alamos and a GR9 with HMS/ASRAAM, in less than a second my name would become Nozzleski. I can't imagine any fighter pilot choosing the GR9 as an AD platform.
WEBF,
Just looked at my User Control Panel; I have no private messages waiting and there is a caption saying that private messages have been disabled by the administrator. I tried to mail another ex-SHAR mate a while ago (think it was Pontius), to no avail
Nozzles
I did get an e-mail from you (via PPRUNE), however the reply address did not work.
Send me an e-mail and I'll send you what I have been trying to:
I did get an e-mail from you (via PPRUNE), however the reply address did not work.
Send me an e-mail and I'll send you what I have been trying to:
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 16th May 2002 at 22:46.