SHAR Wars; The PPruners Strike Back...
With reference to the letter in the Times that was quoted by TL Thou.....
I smelt a rat. Why would an RN pilot and an RAF pilot be writing from the same address? And why would they give their address?
So I looked at the Navy List. No record of Lt James Hamblin at all. Next the Air Force List. No record of a RAF pilot called Flt Lt Dan Holland.
Now who was responsible for that?
I smelt a rat. Why would an RN pilot and an RAF pilot be writing from the same address? And why would they give their address?
So I looked at the Navy List. No record of Lt James Hamblin at all. Next the Air Force List. No record of a RAF pilot called Flt Lt Dan Holland.
Now who was responsible for that?
In my (admittedly old) Air Force List there is no RAF pilot readily identifiable as Flt Lt Dan Holland; however, in their letter they did not claim to be pilots or even aircrew. In fact, their assertion that the F15E is used in an air superiority role would suggest that they're not as familiar with the AD world than their letter would like to imply. Perhaps, you're being ever so slightly paranoid.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref:
Times May 13, 2002
In defence of Harrier decommissions
From Flight Lieutenant Dan Holland, RAF and Lieutenant James Hamblin, RN
FACT: Lt Hamblin RN does not exist, a question was asked in parliament as to whether he had his commanding officer’s permission to write to a newspaper. The reply was that he does not exist.
In disgust of Sea Harrier decommissions,
The decommissioning of the Sea Harrier FA2 from service will be a terminal blow to the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy.
A few years ago a report said that out of the five frontline fast jet types one would need to be retired early to make necessary cost savings. The obvious aircraft is the Jaguar, as it is old and less capable than the Tornado or Harrier GR7, either of which could carry out its role.
So the RAF came up with a plan. Form ‘Joint Force Harrier’ under the Command of a Royal Navy Rear Admiral, who will also be in charge or ‘3 Group’ which consists of the RAF’s Nimrod Aircraft Squadrons. His previous title ‘Flag Officer Naval Aviation’ FONA is replaced by ‘Flag Officer Maritime Aviation’ or FOMA. The Navy take the bait.
Said plan is actioned, now the Rear Admiral, FOMA no longer reports to the Navy but to Strike Command, part of the RAF.
As the RAF now controls the Sea Harrier force it is now a fait-a –complete to announce its disbandment in a few years time.
The final step to be announced is that there will be a reorganization of Strike Command, and that ‘1 Group’ will take over/merge with ‘3 Group’ and that FOMA will lose his post at Strike Command HQ.
I wonder why the current First Sea Lord has retired very early.
FACT
ue to its construction the GR7/9 is not capable of firing any guns. Those pods underneath its fuselage are carried as ballast for the Centre of Gravity, unlike the Sea Harrier FA2 with its twin 30mm Aden Cannon.
FACT: The GR7/9 is considerably slower, less manoeuvrable and cannot fly as high as the Sea Harrier FA2.
FACT:The GR7/9 has no radar and thus cannot be used for Air Superiority. The Sea Harrier has Blue Vixen, the best Air-to-Air Fighter Radar in NATO, superior to the APG-65 fitted to the American, F-16 and F-18 fighters.
FACT:The GR7/9 is equipped with Sidewinder missies in the Air-to-Air Role, which are heat seeking with an effective range of a few miles. The Sea Harrier is equipped with the AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile), which is a highly intelligent fire and forget Radar Homing missile with a range in excess of thirty miles, see: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/arm/arm10a.htm
FACT:Three Navy Pilots have PVR’d in the last few months.
FICTION:‘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.’
Unlike the Harrier AV-8B II and F-15, the GR7/9 has no Radar and cannot therefore be used for Air Defence or Air Superiority and is hence not multi-role.
Times May 13, 2002
In defence of Harrier decommissions
From Flight Lieutenant Dan Holland, RAF and Lieutenant James Hamblin, RN
FACT: Lt Hamblin RN does not exist, a question was asked in parliament as to whether he had his commanding officer’s permission to write to a newspaper. The reply was that he does not exist.
In disgust of Sea Harrier decommissions,
The decommissioning of the Sea Harrier FA2 from service will be a terminal blow to the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy.
A few years ago a report said that out of the five frontline fast jet types one would need to be retired early to make necessary cost savings. The obvious aircraft is the Jaguar, as it is old and less capable than the Tornado or Harrier GR7, either of which could carry out its role.
So the RAF came up with a plan. Form ‘Joint Force Harrier’ under the Command of a Royal Navy Rear Admiral, who will also be in charge or ‘3 Group’ which consists of the RAF’s Nimrod Aircraft Squadrons. His previous title ‘Flag Officer Naval Aviation’ FONA is replaced by ‘Flag Officer Maritime Aviation’ or FOMA. The Navy take the bait.
Said plan is actioned, now the Rear Admiral, FOMA no longer reports to the Navy but to Strike Command, part of the RAF.
As the RAF now controls the Sea Harrier force it is now a fait-a –complete to announce its disbandment in a few years time.
The final step to be announced is that there will be a reorganization of Strike Command, and that ‘1 Group’ will take over/merge with ‘3 Group’ and that FOMA will lose his post at Strike Command HQ.
I wonder why the current First Sea Lord has retired very early.
FACT
ue to its construction the GR7/9 is not capable of firing any guns. Those pods underneath its fuselage are carried as ballast for the Centre of Gravity, unlike the Sea Harrier FA2 with its twin 30mm Aden Cannon.FACT: The GR7/9 is considerably slower, less manoeuvrable and cannot fly as high as the Sea Harrier FA2.
FACT:The GR7/9 has no radar and thus cannot be used for Air Superiority. The Sea Harrier has Blue Vixen, the best Air-to-Air Fighter Radar in NATO, superior to the APG-65 fitted to the American, F-16 and F-18 fighters.
FACT:The GR7/9 is equipped with Sidewinder missies in the Air-to-Air Role, which are heat seeking with an effective range of a few miles. The Sea Harrier is equipped with the AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile), which is a highly intelligent fire and forget Radar Homing missile with a range in excess of thirty miles, see: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/arm/arm10a.htm
FACT:Three Navy Pilots have PVR’d in the last few months.
FICTION:‘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.’
Unlike the Harrier AV-8B II and F-15, the GR7/9 has no Radar and cannot therefore be used for Air Defence or Air Superiority and is hence not multi-role.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: England
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fantastic! This is what the government is aiming for. Superb!
I assume that, having used the appropriate comparison with the US, that a few AV-8B IIs and F15-E's are ordered. No? Oh. Disappointed? Yes. Surprised? No.
I assume that, having used the appropriate comparison with the US, that a few AV-8B IIs and F15-E's are ordered. No? Oh. Disappointed? Yes. Surprised? No.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: oxford
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just read the letter to The Times it seems quite obvious that the words are straight out of Labour HQ.
Just out of interest I remember from my dispatch riding days that 96 Harefield Road, Uxbridge would be but a stones throw from the Clare House nursing home. Out patients on their way to Millbank ivory tower Perhaps?
Note to El Presidente Blair;
No matter how tough the rubber band may be if you keep stretching it and cut niks out aswell it will break. Here's to hoping you take up bungy jumping Tone!
Just out of interest I remember from my dispatch riding days that 96 Harefield Road, Uxbridge would be but a stones throw from the Clare House nursing home. Out patients on their way to Millbank ivory tower Perhaps?
Note to El Presidente Blair;
No matter how tough the rubber band may be if you keep stretching it and cut niks out aswell it will break. Here's to hoping you take up bungy jumping Tone!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Detached (again!)
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nozzles
No problem matey.
Alibi
I hate to be picky but the F-16 is fitted with either the AN/APG-66 (in the earlier production Blocks) or the AN/APG-68 for the later F-16 C/D versions (also available as an upgrade to the A/B models)
AN/APG-65 is an admittedly an aging radar by today's rapidly advancing standards, but the USN/USMC F-18s are in the process of being replaced by newer E/F models which carry the improved AN/APG-73 manufactured by Raytheon.
I would contend that whilst the Blue Vixen is an excellent radar, that some of its more recent US counterparts are at least equal, if not better. However, the Blue Vixen/AIM-120 combination is indisputably very good.
As someone who has spent a fair amount of time in JFH, a parting shot on your comments re FONA/AOC 3 Gp and the RAF shafting the RN - in my view the RN saw JFH as a way of regaining some 'proper' power projection and the shafting occurred very much in the other direction....
CV
No problem matey.
Alibi
I hate to be picky but the F-16 is fitted with either the AN/APG-66 (in the earlier production Blocks) or the AN/APG-68 for the later F-16 C/D versions (also available as an upgrade to the A/B models)
AN/APG-65 is an admittedly an aging radar by today's rapidly advancing standards, but the USN/USMC F-18s are in the process of being replaced by newer E/F models which carry the improved AN/APG-73 manufactured by Raytheon.
I would contend that whilst the Blue Vixen is an excellent radar, that some of its more recent US counterparts are at least equal, if not better. However, the Blue Vixen/AIM-120 combination is indisputably very good.
As someone who has spent a fair amount of time in JFH, a parting shot on your comments re FONA/AOC 3 Gp and the RAF shafting the RN - in my view the RN saw JFH as a way of regaining some 'proper' power projection and the shafting occurred very much in the other direction....
CV
That letter from those two "officers" was obvious crap. As if serving personnel give their addresses away in Newspapers! But remember, the Government is run by someone (Alistair Campbell) who used to write stories for an "adult" magazine, and not even one of the classier ones!!
Misinformation. Nothing more, nothing less.
Misinformation. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thread Starter
Right! There's another letter for the stroppier Labour backbenchers - "do you know what your spin doctors are doing without your knowledge?" Will post the text here as previously. Fcuking ridiculous.
Alibi
Fact: Though it is old, there are many aspects of the Jaguar's role which cannot be carried out with equal facility by either the GR7/9 or the GR4. Real time Recce, for one, while in other areas, (eg TIALD) the Jaguar has superior capabilities. It's also more deployable and more economic.
And re the guns on GR7 - there's no structural reason, it's that RO £ucked up in spades and failed to deliver operationally viable kit.
Both the F-15E and the AV-8B II Plus have a limited multi-role tasking.
Nozzles
Thanks for the clarification re ASRAAM
Fact: Though it is old, there are many aspects of the Jaguar's role which cannot be carried out with equal facility by either the GR7/9 or the GR4. Real time Recce, for one, while in other areas, (eg TIALD) the Jaguar has superior capabilities. It's also more deployable and more economic.
And re the guns on GR7 - there's no structural reason, it's that RO £ucked up in spades and failed to deliver operationally viable kit.
Both the F-15E and the AV-8B II Plus have a limited multi-role tasking.
Nozzles
Thanks for the clarification re ASRAAM
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That letter is rubbish
written answers in hansard today confirm that the MOD has no record of either officer exisiting and they have informed the times accordingly.
Someone somewhere is using the good name of the armed forces to play their own political game - the sooner the media types pick up on the sort of thing that New Labour are doing the better - this is a new low, even for those lowlife sleaze ridden liars.
Someone somewhere is using the good name of the armed forces to play their own political game - the sooner the media types pick up on the sort of thing that New Labour are doing the better - this is a new low, even for those lowlife sleaze ridden liars.
Nozzles
I could see it for what it was straight away, but to be certain I checked both the Navy and Air Force Lists. Personally I don't care for that sort of behaviour. I think you know my views on this topic.
The guilty party should be named and shamed, or better still, SHOT BY FIRING SQUAD. Isn't impersonating a member of HM Forces a criminal offence?
Incidently, on local TV tonight there was an item about the arrival of the Sea King AEW7 at 849 NAS. After mentioning the abilities of the new radar and the JTIDS fit they talked about 849 being the "eyes of the fleet". But, surely, it doesn't matter how good the aircraft/radar/JTIDS is, without the Sea Harrier there is little point to organic AEW. Wasn't the whole idea of the AEW Sea King to detect aircraft and direct Sea Harriers to deal with them at a range greater than that of shipborne radars?
I could see it for what it was straight away, but to be certain I checked both the Navy and Air Force Lists. Personally I don't care for that sort of behaviour.
I think you know my views on this topic.The guilty party should be named and shamed, or better still, SHOT BY FIRING SQUAD. Isn't impersonating a member of HM Forces a criminal offence?
Incidently, on local TV tonight there was an item about the arrival of the Sea King AEW7 at 849 NAS. After mentioning the abilities of the new radar and the JTIDS fit they talked about 849 being the "eyes of the fleet". But, surely, it doesn't matter how good the aircraft/radar/JTIDS is, without the Sea Harrier there is little point to organic AEW. Wasn't the whole idea of the AEW Sea King to detect aircraft and direct Sea Harriers to deal with them at a range greater than that of shipborne radars?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 17th May 2002 at 22:56.
Guest
Posts: n/a
SHAR Wars
No surprise in this spin-obsessed world. It is a huge shame that those manning desks in the MOD, 3 Group and other naval aviation areas are required to play up the 'huge success' of the FA2's demise. It is odd that prior to the announcement official sources were regularly stating the case for the FA2 and its outstanding weapon/sensor combination (notwithstanding worries over BVR updates and funding, etc.)..... now it seems that we can easily manage without it!
Of more strategic interest is the demographics of growing a capable/competent and numerically satisfactory pilot force for JSF in the future carrier. To quote a well used expression, "it will probably be self-correcting" - and end in tears.
Of more strategic interest is the demographics of growing a capable/competent and numerically satisfactory pilot force for JSF in the future carrier. To quote a well used expression, "it will probably be self-correcting" - and end in tears.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See article in Daily Mail Saturday in which Adam Ingram embarassingly admitted in Parliament that the two British Officers did not exist. Alstair Campbell, you and yours are disgusting low life tossers! As an RAF pilot deployable on HMS, I think the scrapping of Fleet Air Defence is disgusting. If I ever go into the oggin as a result of your govts appalling mistake, I'll be back to haunt you.
The provenance of a letter which reflects the feelings of some (but by no means the majority?) in the JHF (whether genuine or not) seems to have taken over from the actual issue. This diminishes the importance of the debate.
Ah, the power of spin.............
Ah, the power of spin.............
WEBF says....part one
I sent this to my MP a couple of weeks ago. For convenience ships' names are in capitals. Bit of a long letter....
Dear Mr ****
Thank-you for your letter dated 19th April. The letter from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces did little to reassure me. This letter is in response to the Minister's points.
Firstly, my concerns related to the air defence of the ENTIRE fleet, not just the aircraft carriers. The job of the Sea Harriers carried aboard the INVINCIBLE class (also known as the CVS) are their primarily to defend the ships of a naval task group. The CVS would, in any war situation, by surrounded by other ships. It is these ships that are most endangered by the proposal to abandon proper air defence of the fleet.
The Minister (and others) seems to make the assumption that when naval forces are deployed it will be for carrierborne aircraft to participate in attack missions against land targets. There are a number of scenarios in which naval forces would be deployed in order to achieve a naval objective rather than for power projection. An amphibious operation would be an obvious example of this. But there are other, less obvious, situations in which the CVS and Sea Harriers may be needed in support of other elements of the fleet. If a hostile nation decided to show its hostility towards the UK by harassing or attacking British registered merchant shipping then we would have to act. If the aggressor was using aircraft to harass or attack shipping then the best answer would probably be to deploy a carrier with Sea Harriers. In fact, the fact that the Sea Harrier exists, and we are able to deploy this aircraft with its awesome capabilities might well deter a would be adversary from such a course of action. Alternatively, the aggressor might use missile boats (or similar) in which case frigates and destroyers would be the main assets needed. If the enemy had an air force, then the Sea Harrier would be needed to protect these ships. The same would be true if submarines were being used to attack shipping (our own submarines would probably concentrate on offensive Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) operations). The ASW helicopters would need to be protected from enemy aircraft too. If it was necessary for our Minehunters to clear mines from a "choke point" off international shipping or from the coast of an ally then these ships could need protecting from air attack too.
The air threat encountered by the RN around the world consists not only of fast jet fighter bomber type aircraft (many of which carry anti ship missiles like Exocet), but also Maritime Patrol Aircraft (which may carry anti ship missiles) and Helicopters, which may also carry missiles. There have been suggestions that some nations (namely Iraq and North Korea) have resorted to using aircraft, usually obsolete ones, in a kamikaze style whereby the pilot would fly into the target. Additionally there is the problem of terrorist attacks, using business type jets or light aircraft.
Against this threat the Royal Navy currently has a truly remarkable aircraft, the Sea Harrier. The Sea Harrier was in many ways the decisive weapon of the Falklands War. It is certain that Operation CORPORATE, the operation to recover the islands, would have been impossible without the Sea Harrier. In that conflict, it shot down a large number of Argentine aircraft, and achieved enough air superiority for the landings to take place and the war to be won. In a study of the conflict, the US Air Force concluded that 450 Argentine sorties had been prevented by the deterrent effect of the Sea Harrier. These extra sorties may have changed the outcome of the conflict.
The shortcomings of the Sea Harrier (FRS1) were demonstrated in the Falklands. These included problems with the limited Blue Fox radar, and only being able to carry two Sidewinder missiles. The second problem was dealt with by the development of a double Sidewinder launcher after the conflict. The main shortcoming, however, was the lack of Airborne Early Warning (AEW). The lack of AEW was a factor in all the ship losses the task force suffered, particularly the loss of HMS SHEFFIELD and MV ATLANTIC CONVEYER to Exocet attacks. An AEW capability was given back to the Navy be modifying some Sea King helicopters to carry a big and powerful radar.
In the mid to late 1990s the RN Sea Harrier squadrons were re-equipped with the Sea Harrier FA2, the last aircraft being delivered in 1998. The FA2 aircraft were either newly built or were completely rebuilt FRS1 ones. The Sea Harrier FA2 was designed to remain in front line service until 2015 (with the ARK ROYAL). The FRS1 to FA2 upgrade involved improvements and enhancements to the entire aircraft, particularly the cockpit instrumentation, and the fitting of a new state of the art radar, Blue Vixen, which would allow the Sea Harrier to operate with the US made AMRAAM missile, the West's latest air to air weapon, with a range in excess of thirty miles, in addition to Sidewinder missiles and 30mm guns.
Unlike Blue Fox, which was developed from the Seaspray radar carried by Naval Lynx helicopters, the Blue Vixen radar (and associated equipment) was designed from scratch for the Sea Harrier FA2. The design was to produce a capable air to air radar with a "look down-shoot down" capability and a good secondary air to surface capability. They certainly achieved it, and the Engineers who designed and developed the Blue Vixen are a credit to the UK. It is arguably the best air to air radar in the world. For many years it was considered that the best air to air radar in existence was the APG-65 fitted to the US F/A18 Hornet. This supposedly gave a one man aircraft the capability of a two man aircraft. Nowadays, the Blue Vixen is considered superior. It is so powerful that in the Kosovo campaign NATO commanders saw it as almost a "mini AWACS". Blue Vixen gives the Sea Harrier FA2 the capability to track up to ten aircraft, hold detection files on a further classified number and support up to four AMRAAM launches simultaneously. This is a capability that very few (if any) other aircraft have.
The Sea Harrier can carry a formidable array of weapons. For the air defence role it can carry the following loads, depending on the tactical situation:
4 x AMRAAM.
2 x AMRAAM plus 2 or 4 Sidewinders.
2 x 30mm guns plus 2 x AMRAAM.
2 x 30mm guns plus 2 or 4 Sidewinders.
For ground (or maritime) attack it can carry 1000lb bombs, which could be freefall, parachute retarded or laser guided, cluster bombs and rockets. Additionally a reconnaissance camera is carried. This makes the Sea Harrier FA2 the most versatile aircraft in Britain's inventory. In both Bosnia and Kosovo the Sea Harrier flew missions which involved carrying ait to air missiles, bombs and a camera. These missions could swing three ways, for air defence, ground attack or reconnaissance, as needed.
The combination of Blue Vixen, AMRAAM, the ability to receive in flight refuelling and the agility that it gets from being a V/STOL aircraft make the Sea Harrier one of the best fighters in the world. Sea Harriers from Yeovilton regularly fly in exercise against US Air Force F15s and Dutch F16s. The Sea Harrier can take them on and win. It also frequently wins when it exercises against US Navy F14 Tomcat and F/A18 fighters. Both versions of the Sea Harrier did well against these types, but the FA2 often wins hands down.
The Sea Harriers are not old in the sense that some would have you believe, due to their rebuild and upgrade. As for limitations due to weather conditions, the Sea Harrier coped admirably with the Adriatic summer and the climate of Sierra Leone. One issue that often gets raised here is "bringback", in other words the ability to return with the same amount of weapons as you took off with. This is less of an issue for air defence than it is for ground attack (which ought to be left to the Harrier GR7/9 under the Joint Force concept), and the Sea Harrier often returned to the carrier in the height of an Adriatic summer carrying the sort of weapon loads I described above. The planned upgrade would have included a new, more powerful engine of the Pegasus range. This would have solved, or at least reduced, the problem of bringback.
It is also sometimes said that the Sea Harrier suffers from limited range and endurance. According to Royal Navy publicity information the Sea Harrier is capable of maintaining a Combat Air Patrol at 100 nautical miles (about 185 km) from the carrier for up to an hour and a half. Experience shows that two hours CAPs are achievable. Air to Air refuelling allows mission of greater endurance and/or range to be flown. Sea Harriers from Yeovilton, supported by RAF tanker aircraft, often fly five hour training sorties over the Bristol Channel. I think it is worth mentioning that the serviceability of the Sea Harrier is very good.
Until a few months ago, the Ministry of Defence correctly considered the Sea Harrier to be a vital part of Britain's defences, particularly with respect to defending a naval task group from air attack. What could have changed their minds, apart from pressure from the Treasury?
Dear Mr ****
Thank-you for your letter dated 19th April. The letter from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces did little to reassure me. This letter is in response to the Minister's points.
Firstly, my concerns related to the air defence of the ENTIRE fleet, not just the aircraft carriers. The job of the Sea Harriers carried aboard the INVINCIBLE class (also known as the CVS) are their primarily to defend the ships of a naval task group. The CVS would, in any war situation, by surrounded by other ships. It is these ships that are most endangered by the proposal to abandon proper air defence of the fleet.
The Minister (and others) seems to make the assumption that when naval forces are deployed it will be for carrierborne aircraft to participate in attack missions against land targets. There are a number of scenarios in which naval forces would be deployed in order to achieve a naval objective rather than for power projection. An amphibious operation would be an obvious example of this. But there are other, less obvious, situations in which the CVS and Sea Harriers may be needed in support of other elements of the fleet. If a hostile nation decided to show its hostility towards the UK by harassing or attacking British registered merchant shipping then we would have to act. If the aggressor was using aircraft to harass or attack shipping then the best answer would probably be to deploy a carrier with Sea Harriers. In fact, the fact that the Sea Harrier exists, and we are able to deploy this aircraft with its awesome capabilities might well deter a would be adversary from such a course of action. Alternatively, the aggressor might use missile boats (or similar) in which case frigates and destroyers would be the main assets needed. If the enemy had an air force, then the Sea Harrier would be needed to protect these ships. The same would be true if submarines were being used to attack shipping (our own submarines would probably concentrate on offensive Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) operations). The ASW helicopters would need to be protected from enemy aircraft too. If it was necessary for our Minehunters to clear mines from a "choke point" off international shipping or from the coast of an ally then these ships could need protecting from air attack too.
The air threat encountered by the RN around the world consists not only of fast jet fighter bomber type aircraft (many of which carry anti ship missiles like Exocet), but also Maritime Patrol Aircraft (which may carry anti ship missiles) and Helicopters, which may also carry missiles. There have been suggestions that some nations (namely Iraq and North Korea) have resorted to using aircraft, usually obsolete ones, in a kamikaze style whereby the pilot would fly into the target. Additionally there is the problem of terrorist attacks, using business type jets or light aircraft.
Against this threat the Royal Navy currently has a truly remarkable aircraft, the Sea Harrier. The Sea Harrier was in many ways the decisive weapon of the Falklands War. It is certain that Operation CORPORATE, the operation to recover the islands, would have been impossible without the Sea Harrier. In that conflict, it shot down a large number of Argentine aircraft, and achieved enough air superiority for the landings to take place and the war to be won. In a study of the conflict, the US Air Force concluded that 450 Argentine sorties had been prevented by the deterrent effect of the Sea Harrier. These extra sorties may have changed the outcome of the conflict.
The shortcomings of the Sea Harrier (FRS1) were demonstrated in the Falklands. These included problems with the limited Blue Fox radar, and only being able to carry two Sidewinder missiles. The second problem was dealt with by the development of a double Sidewinder launcher after the conflict. The main shortcoming, however, was the lack of Airborne Early Warning (AEW). The lack of AEW was a factor in all the ship losses the task force suffered, particularly the loss of HMS SHEFFIELD and MV ATLANTIC CONVEYER to Exocet attacks. An AEW capability was given back to the Navy be modifying some Sea King helicopters to carry a big and powerful radar.
In the mid to late 1990s the RN Sea Harrier squadrons were re-equipped with the Sea Harrier FA2, the last aircraft being delivered in 1998. The FA2 aircraft were either newly built or were completely rebuilt FRS1 ones. The Sea Harrier FA2 was designed to remain in front line service until 2015 (with the ARK ROYAL). The FRS1 to FA2 upgrade involved improvements and enhancements to the entire aircraft, particularly the cockpit instrumentation, and the fitting of a new state of the art radar, Blue Vixen, which would allow the Sea Harrier to operate with the US made AMRAAM missile, the West's latest air to air weapon, with a range in excess of thirty miles, in addition to Sidewinder missiles and 30mm guns.
Unlike Blue Fox, which was developed from the Seaspray radar carried by Naval Lynx helicopters, the Blue Vixen radar (and associated equipment) was designed from scratch for the Sea Harrier FA2. The design was to produce a capable air to air radar with a "look down-shoot down" capability and a good secondary air to surface capability. They certainly achieved it, and the Engineers who designed and developed the Blue Vixen are a credit to the UK. It is arguably the best air to air radar in the world. For many years it was considered that the best air to air radar in existence was the APG-65 fitted to the US F/A18 Hornet. This supposedly gave a one man aircraft the capability of a two man aircraft. Nowadays, the Blue Vixen is considered superior. It is so powerful that in the Kosovo campaign NATO commanders saw it as almost a "mini AWACS". Blue Vixen gives the Sea Harrier FA2 the capability to track up to ten aircraft, hold detection files on a further classified number and support up to four AMRAAM launches simultaneously. This is a capability that very few (if any) other aircraft have.
The Sea Harrier can carry a formidable array of weapons. For the air defence role it can carry the following loads, depending on the tactical situation:
4 x AMRAAM.
2 x AMRAAM plus 2 or 4 Sidewinders.
2 x 30mm guns plus 2 x AMRAAM.
2 x 30mm guns plus 2 or 4 Sidewinders.
For ground (or maritime) attack it can carry 1000lb bombs, which could be freefall, parachute retarded or laser guided, cluster bombs and rockets. Additionally a reconnaissance camera is carried. This makes the Sea Harrier FA2 the most versatile aircraft in Britain's inventory. In both Bosnia and Kosovo the Sea Harrier flew missions which involved carrying ait to air missiles, bombs and a camera. These missions could swing three ways, for air defence, ground attack or reconnaissance, as needed.
The combination of Blue Vixen, AMRAAM, the ability to receive in flight refuelling and the agility that it gets from being a V/STOL aircraft make the Sea Harrier one of the best fighters in the world. Sea Harriers from Yeovilton regularly fly in exercise against US Air Force F15s and Dutch F16s. The Sea Harrier can take them on and win. It also frequently wins when it exercises against US Navy F14 Tomcat and F/A18 fighters. Both versions of the Sea Harrier did well against these types, but the FA2 often wins hands down.
The Sea Harriers are not old in the sense that some would have you believe, due to their rebuild and upgrade. As for limitations due to weather conditions, the Sea Harrier coped admirably with the Adriatic summer and the climate of Sierra Leone. One issue that often gets raised here is "bringback", in other words the ability to return with the same amount of weapons as you took off with. This is less of an issue for air defence than it is for ground attack (which ought to be left to the Harrier GR7/9 under the Joint Force concept), and the Sea Harrier often returned to the carrier in the height of an Adriatic summer carrying the sort of weapon loads I described above. The planned upgrade would have included a new, more powerful engine of the Pegasus range. This would have solved, or at least reduced, the problem of bringback.
It is also sometimes said that the Sea Harrier suffers from limited range and endurance. According to Royal Navy publicity information the Sea Harrier is capable of maintaining a Combat Air Patrol at 100 nautical miles (about 185 km) from the carrier for up to an hour and a half. Experience shows that two hours CAPs are achievable. Air to Air refuelling allows mission of greater endurance and/or range to be flown. Sea Harriers from Yeovilton, supported by RAF tanker aircraft, often fly five hour training sorties over the Bristol Channel. I think it is worth mentioning that the serviceability of the Sea Harrier is very good.
Until a few months ago, the Ministry of Defence correctly considered the Sea Harrier to be a vital part of Britain's defences, particularly with respect to defending a naval task group from air attack. What could have changed their minds, apart from pressure from the Treasury?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 6th Oct 2002 at 16:28.
WEBF says....part two
Losing the Sea Harrier makes no military sense, and the savings from cancelling the planned upgrade (which would have started this year and lasted up to eighteen months) are fairly limited. I have heard the figure of £100 million mentioned as the cost of the upgrade. Over the 13 years it would stay in service, this works out as just under £7.7 million per year. Considering the £200 million price of replacing a frigate (not to mention lives lost) this sounds like good value to me.
Mr Ingram made mention of the new Type 45 Destroyers. He correctly pointed out that they will provide the Royal Navy with a new level of Anti Air Warfare capability. They were, however, never intended as a substitute for air defence aircraft. The Type 45 is meant to be the replacement for the Type 42, and therefore twelve will be needed to replace the Type 42s ship for ship. So far only six have been ordered. The first will enter service in 2007, the second and third in 2009. The whole class will not be in service until well into the next decade.
The Type 45 is the British version of the CGNF (Common New Generation Frigate), the product of Project HORIZON, a project jointly undertaken by the UK, France and Italy. It is worth remebering that both France and Italy consider carrierborne air defence aircraft to be vital for the protection of the naval forces, even with the CGNF.
The main role of the Type 45/CGNF will be Anti Air Warfare, and for this role it will be armed with the Principal Anti Air warfare Missile System (PAAMS). The teeth of the PAAMS system will be provided by the Aster missile. Aster is intended to be capable of use against aircraft and missiles at both high and low altitudes. It will also have a number of missiles ready in/on the launcher. However, the maximum range of Aster will be in the order of 70km. Contrast this with 185 km (from the carrier) range at which the Sea Harrier can maintain a CAP. This is why France and Italy still intend to keep aircraft as the first layer of defence. As for Aster itself, I am highly sceptical about its ability to engage a sea skimming missile at anything other than a fairly short range. This is because engaging a target at a distance requires the missile to detect it with its own radar. Detecting a small target such as a missile is hard and needs a powerful radar. The amount of electrical power available in a missile is obviously limited, and this will make it difficult for Aster to detect and lock onto a sea skimmer (or, to a lesser extent, any other missile), particularly in
adverse weather conditions.
The ship herself has to be aware of the incoming aircraft or missiles. If the AEW Sea King is scrapped (and this seems likely since its job is to work with the Sea Harrier) then the ships will be dependant on shipborne radar. This means that the enemy could evade detection by flying low, in order to use the curvature of the Earth to get under the radar beams. Adverse weather conditions would also reduce the effectiveness of radar systems. If the theatre of operations is near to a hilly coastline that will make detecting the enemy very difficult indeed.
In the meantime, the first layer of ship based defence is provided by the Type 42 Destroyers with Sea Dart missiles. Whilst the Sea Dart has undergone improvements, and is being upgraded at the moment, it is still limited in range, and in having only two missiles on the launcher, ready to fire, at any one time. The INVINCIBLE class carriers used to have a Sea Dart launcher each, but, ironically, this was removed to increase the flight deck area by a few percent and to build a new magazine for storing ground attack weapons. At the time it was considered that the loss of the Sea Dart system did not matter much since capable Sea Harrier fighters were carried.
Mr Ingram also talked about Point Defence Missile Systems carried by Type 22 and Type 23 Frigates. He is referring to the Sea Wolf missile system. The conventional launch version, GWS 25, is fitted to the remaining Type 22 Frigates (as it was fitted to all the Type 22s) and has a range of approximately 3nm. The vertical launch version, GWS 26, is fitted to the Type 23 Frigate and has a range of about 4nm. Sea Wolf is an incredible system that is capable of engaging targets the size of sparrows travelling at wave top height at twice the speed of sound. However, the limited range means that it can only defend ships within three or four nautical miles. Last year the then CINCFLEET, now the First Sea Lord, warned that ships were being put to sea without adequate stocks of missiles. I am led to believe that he was particularly referring to a shortage of Vertical Launch Sea Wolf missiles.
Mr Ingram also mentioned Close In Weapons Systems, or CIWS. Almost all major surface warships (although not the Type 23 Frigate) have a CIWS, either Phalanx or Goalkeeper. Basically these are just a battery of automatic guns that track incoming targets and spray them with shells. CIWS are intended as a last line of defence, to deal with the odd missile (or aircraft) that manages to get through earlier layers of defence. They are unlikely to be able to deal with a mass attack. CIWS have never been tested in combat, and whilst they may destroy targets, their range is limited and therefore the ship under attack would get hit by debris, which would cause damage and potentially kill or injure personnel.
As for decoys, I acknowledge the fact that they play an important role in defeating anti ship missiles (whether launched from an aircraft, a surface warship, a submarine or from land). However, it has to be pointed out that there is a danger that an incoming missile might be decoyed away from a ship capable of shooting it down and then hit a ship (possibly an unarmed merchant ship taken up from trade) without weapons or decoys. It has been suggested that this is what happened when the ATLANTIC CONVEYER was hit by an Exocet in the Falklands war. It has been
suggested that the nearest ship to the Argentine aircraft, the frigate AMBUSCADE, fired her decoys (she had not means of shooting down an Exocet) and the missile was decoyed away from its original direction, but when it failed to hit anything it started to look for a target, and saw ATLANTIC CONVEYER. This was in military terms, the most serious British loss of the war, with a number of troop carrying helicopters being lost. This, in turn, contributed to the disaster when RFA SIR GALAHAD was bombed with a company of Welsh Gaurds aboard. Now there is another problem. Many modern missiles have a degree of immunity from decoys as they have the ability to discriminate between a real ship and a decoy by examining the reflected radar signal.
Can we say for certain that we will not be required to without the active participation of our allies? It seems like a major assumption to make, in an unpredictable and highly dangerous world. If we are operating alongside allies then there will at least be some air defence. But will they be able to provide dedicate Combat Air Patrols for a UK task group? If a US Navy carrier is available then the answer is probably yes, although this may lead to the US considering British forces as more of a liability than an asset (this would reduce the influence that HM Government has on the United States). If we are operating with our French, Spanish or Italian allies (all of whom have carrier based fighters) then the answer is probably no, due to the simple fact that they have insufficient aircraft to provide a CAP for somebody else's task group as well as their own. Such support would have to be requested, and the request might be turned down for the same reason.
Lastly, when I mentioned recruitment and retention problems I was talking about the Navy as a whole, although I accept that I did not make this clear. It is psychologically better for the RN to have its own air defence aircraft than to rely on anyone else. The loss of the Sea Harrier is a blow to the prestige and morale of the Royal Navy, and in the eyes of many, a disaster waiting to happen. This can only worsen the Navy's manpower shortage. As for Pilots, I can tell you from personal knowledge that many Pilots will resign rather than become ground attack pilots based at an RAF base. Sea Harrier pilots are principally fighter pilots, if they have to fly ground attack aircraft for several years they will start to lose their air defence skills.
Mr Ingram made mention of the new Type 45 Destroyers. He correctly pointed out that they will provide the Royal Navy with a new level of Anti Air Warfare capability. They were, however, never intended as a substitute for air defence aircraft. The Type 45 is meant to be the replacement for the Type 42, and therefore twelve will be needed to replace the Type 42s ship for ship. So far only six have been ordered. The first will enter service in 2007, the second and third in 2009. The whole class will not be in service until well into the next decade.
The Type 45 is the British version of the CGNF (Common New Generation Frigate), the product of Project HORIZON, a project jointly undertaken by the UK, France and Italy. It is worth remebering that both France and Italy consider carrierborne air defence aircraft to be vital for the protection of the naval forces, even with the CGNF.
The main role of the Type 45/CGNF will be Anti Air Warfare, and for this role it will be armed with the Principal Anti Air warfare Missile System (PAAMS). The teeth of the PAAMS system will be provided by the Aster missile. Aster is intended to be capable of use against aircraft and missiles at both high and low altitudes. It will also have a number of missiles ready in/on the launcher. However, the maximum range of Aster will be in the order of 70km. Contrast this with 185 km (from the carrier) range at which the Sea Harrier can maintain a CAP. This is why France and Italy still intend to keep aircraft as the first layer of defence. As for Aster itself, I am highly sceptical about its ability to engage a sea skimming missile at anything other than a fairly short range. This is because engaging a target at a distance requires the missile to detect it with its own radar. Detecting a small target such as a missile is hard and needs a powerful radar. The amount of electrical power available in a missile is obviously limited, and this will make it difficult for Aster to detect and lock onto a sea skimmer (or, to a lesser extent, any other missile), particularly in
adverse weather conditions.
The ship herself has to be aware of the incoming aircraft or missiles. If the AEW Sea King is scrapped (and this seems likely since its job is to work with the Sea Harrier) then the ships will be dependant on shipborne radar. This means that the enemy could evade detection by flying low, in order to use the curvature of the Earth to get under the radar beams. Adverse weather conditions would also reduce the effectiveness of radar systems. If the theatre of operations is near to a hilly coastline that will make detecting the enemy very difficult indeed.
In the meantime, the first layer of ship based defence is provided by the Type 42 Destroyers with Sea Dart missiles. Whilst the Sea Dart has undergone improvements, and is being upgraded at the moment, it is still limited in range, and in having only two missiles on the launcher, ready to fire, at any one time. The INVINCIBLE class carriers used to have a Sea Dart launcher each, but, ironically, this was removed to increase the flight deck area by a few percent and to build a new magazine for storing ground attack weapons. At the time it was considered that the loss of the Sea Dart system did not matter much since capable Sea Harrier fighters were carried.
Mr Ingram also talked about Point Defence Missile Systems carried by Type 22 and Type 23 Frigates. He is referring to the Sea Wolf missile system. The conventional launch version, GWS 25, is fitted to the remaining Type 22 Frigates (as it was fitted to all the Type 22s) and has a range of approximately 3nm. The vertical launch version, GWS 26, is fitted to the Type 23 Frigate and has a range of about 4nm. Sea Wolf is an incredible system that is capable of engaging targets the size of sparrows travelling at wave top height at twice the speed of sound. However, the limited range means that it can only defend ships within three or four nautical miles. Last year the then CINCFLEET, now the First Sea Lord, warned that ships were being put to sea without adequate stocks of missiles. I am led to believe that he was particularly referring to a shortage of Vertical Launch Sea Wolf missiles.
Mr Ingram also mentioned Close In Weapons Systems, or CIWS. Almost all major surface warships (although not the Type 23 Frigate) have a CIWS, either Phalanx or Goalkeeper. Basically these are just a battery of automatic guns that track incoming targets and spray them with shells. CIWS are intended as a last line of defence, to deal with the odd missile (or aircraft) that manages to get through earlier layers of defence. They are unlikely to be able to deal with a mass attack. CIWS have never been tested in combat, and whilst they may destroy targets, their range is limited and therefore the ship under attack would get hit by debris, which would cause damage and potentially kill or injure personnel.
As for decoys, I acknowledge the fact that they play an important role in defeating anti ship missiles (whether launched from an aircraft, a surface warship, a submarine or from land). However, it has to be pointed out that there is a danger that an incoming missile might be decoyed away from a ship capable of shooting it down and then hit a ship (possibly an unarmed merchant ship taken up from trade) without weapons or decoys. It has been suggested that this is what happened when the ATLANTIC CONVEYER was hit by an Exocet in the Falklands war. It has been
suggested that the nearest ship to the Argentine aircraft, the frigate AMBUSCADE, fired her decoys (she had not means of shooting down an Exocet) and the missile was decoyed away from its original direction, but when it failed to hit anything it started to look for a target, and saw ATLANTIC CONVEYER. This was in military terms, the most serious British loss of the war, with a number of troop carrying helicopters being lost. This, in turn, contributed to the disaster when RFA SIR GALAHAD was bombed with a company of Welsh Gaurds aboard. Now there is another problem. Many modern missiles have a degree of immunity from decoys as they have the ability to discriminate between a real ship and a decoy by examining the reflected radar signal.
Can we say for certain that we will not be required to without the active participation of our allies? It seems like a major assumption to make, in an unpredictable and highly dangerous world. If we are operating alongside allies then there will at least be some air defence. But will they be able to provide dedicate Combat Air Patrols for a UK task group? If a US Navy carrier is available then the answer is probably yes, although this may lead to the US considering British forces as more of a liability than an asset (this would reduce the influence that HM Government has on the United States). If we are operating with our French, Spanish or Italian allies (all of whom have carrier based fighters) then the answer is probably no, due to the simple fact that they have insufficient aircraft to provide a CAP for somebody else's task group as well as their own. Such support would have to be requested, and the request might be turned down for the same reason.
Lastly, when I mentioned recruitment and retention problems I was talking about the Navy as a whole, although I accept that I did not make this clear. It is psychologically better for the RN to have its own air defence aircraft than to rely on anyone else. The loss of the Sea Harrier is a blow to the prestige and morale of the Royal Navy, and in the eyes of many, a disaster waiting to happen. This can only worsen the Navy's manpower shortage. As for Pilots, I can tell you from personal knowledge that many Pilots will resign rather than become ground attack pilots based at an RAF base. Sea Harrier pilots are principally fighter pilots, if they have to fly ground attack aircraft for several years they will start to lose their air defence skills.
WEBF says....part three
The Sea Harrier force consists of two front line, sea going squadrons, 800 and 801 Naval Air Squadrons, and a training and evaluation squadron, 899 NAS. All three are based at Yeovilton. It is intended that one front line squadron will be disbanded in 2004, 899 NAS will follow in 2005 and the other front line squadron will go in 2006. Therefore from 2004 the Royal Navy's air defence and ability to operate in hostile waters will be seriously compromised. Already the Navy is being damaged, BAE Systems have just mothballed the last development Sea Harrier.
Twenty years ago, during the Falklands War, ships and lives were lost due to inadequate air defence. One of the major lessons was that the best way to protect ships at sea was to have organic air defence supported by organic Airborne Early Warning. I would be surprised if the twentieth anniversary, particularly the anniversary today (4th May) of the loss of HMS SHEFFIELD does not result in the Governments proposals being criticised in the media. On the 2nd April, twenty years after the Argentine invasion, the premature scrapping of the Sea Harrier condemned by Admiral Sir John "Sandy" Woodward, who commanded the Falklands task group, in the Daily Telegraph.
More recently, the Strategic Defence Review emphasised the importance of the Sea Harrier. The SDR also stated Britain's armed forces should be expeditionary in nature. Having no air defence for your fleet, and depending on other nations to protect it, is completely contrary to the idea of being expeditionary. The Prime Minister wants Britain to continue to be a key player in international affairs, and has signalled his willingness to commit forces in many situations, both real and hypothetical. This, combined with the unwillingness to pay for certain key assets (including the Sea Harrier) is likely to lead to a debacle and tragedy.
I hope that this letter (I apologise for the length) helps clarify the issues involved, and underlines the dangers facing the Royal Navy.
Yours sincerely
WEBF
I got a reply from my MP on Saturday, saying that he thinks I have made very cogent points, and that he consider writing to the Minister(s) to be of little use, as do I. He will forward it to his party's defence spokesman, and draw attention to these issues.
Twenty years ago, during the Falklands War, ships and lives were lost due to inadequate air defence. One of the major lessons was that the best way to protect ships at sea was to have organic air defence supported by organic Airborne Early Warning. I would be surprised if the twentieth anniversary, particularly the anniversary today (4th May) of the loss of HMS SHEFFIELD does not result in the Governments proposals being criticised in the media. On the 2nd April, twenty years after the Argentine invasion, the premature scrapping of the Sea Harrier condemned by Admiral Sir John "Sandy" Woodward, who commanded the Falklands task group, in the Daily Telegraph.
More recently, the Strategic Defence Review emphasised the importance of the Sea Harrier. The SDR also stated Britain's armed forces should be expeditionary in nature. Having no air defence for your fleet, and depending on other nations to protect it, is completely contrary to the idea of being expeditionary. The Prime Minister wants Britain to continue to be a key player in international affairs, and has signalled his willingness to commit forces in many situations, both real and hypothetical. This, combined with the unwillingness to pay for certain key assets (including the Sea Harrier) is likely to lead to a debacle and tragedy.
I hope that this letter (I apologise for the length) helps clarify the issues involved, and underlines the dangers facing the Royal Navy.
Yours sincerely
WEBF
I got a reply from my MP on Saturday, saying that he thinks I have made very cogent points, and that he consider writing to the Minister(s) to be of little use, as do I. He will forward it to his party's defence spokesman, and draw attention to these issues.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Caribbean
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF, you make some excellent points here - well done! You also have a pretty strong memory for data.
I believe that we now have to show the Government and the public that there really is a viable financial alternative to the decision taken. See my new topic, (Sea Harrier Decision - "Their Lordships") - it touches on this matter.
Any data you have on projected F3 update costs, numbers and ISD and/or Euro-fighter costs, numbers and ISD would be useful for fighting the cause behind the scenes.
I believe that we now have to show the Government and the public that there really is a viable financial alternative to the decision taken. See my new topic, (Sea Harrier Decision - "Their Lordships") - it touches on this matter.
Any data you have on projected F3 update costs, numbers and ISD and/or Euro-fighter costs, numbers and ISD would be useful for fighting the cause behind the scenes.
