SHAR Wars; The PPruners Strike Back...
Thread Starter
SHAR Wars; The PPruners Strike Back...
Right! As promised, I'm posting the draft version of the letter to my MP over the retirement of the FA2 on here so as to get your valuable opinions, comments, suggestions and psychotic flames before pushing the button.
When we have a final version, that will go up here as well so that everyone else can paste it, print it, and get on their MPs "Green Ink List". (Please don't really use green ink, I mean it.) I'm also going to post a list of MPs I want to target; we need to hit ones who a) have some cojones and will be willing to to act, b) that have some weight and credibility, c) despite a), aren't frothing nutters. Apart from the obvious, i.e. your own, Hoon, and Ingram. Labour Party members like me might like to go for the chair of the National Executive Committee as well.
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 tthe least. 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. 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.
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. 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? 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.
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....
So ....what do y'all think? I'll put up the target MPs later...
When we have a final version, that will go up here as well so that everyone else can paste it, print it, and get on their MPs "Green Ink List". (Please don't really use green ink, I mean it.) I'm also going to post a list of MPs I want to target; we need to hit ones who a) have some cojones and will be willing to to act, b) that have some weight and credibility, c) despite a), aren't frothing nutters. Apart from the obvious, i.e. your own, Hoon, and Ingram. Labour Party members like me might like to go for the chair of the National Executive Committee as well.
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 tthe least. 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. 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.
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. 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? 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.
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....
So ....what do y'all think? I'll put up the target MPs later...
Thread Starter
Independent Action....
And here they are. The more the merrier of course, but I've tried to pick people with some pull but who are not bound by Govt discipline; i.e. prominent backbenchers, party officials, ex-ministers, committee chairmen.
Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP - Sec of State for Defence
Adam Ingram MP - AFM, of course
YOUR MP - of course
Peter Kilfoyle MP
Rt Hon Robin Cook MP, Leader of the House of Commons
Dr David Clark MP
Dr Jack Cunningham MP
Frank Dobson MP
Gwyneth Dunwoody MP
Glenda Jackson MP
Major Eric Joyce MP
Bob Marshall-Andrews MP
Chris Mullin MP
Gordon Prentice MP
Tony Wright MP
David Winnick MP
Ann Widdecombe MP
David Willetts MP
Michael Portillo MP (Former S of S for MOD)
Malcolm Bruce MP
Menzies Campbell MP
Simon Hughes MP
Charles Kennedy MP
Matthew Taylor MP
all at the House of Commons
and for my Labour Party comrades..
David Triesman
The General Secretary
The Labour Party, Millbank Tower
Millbank, London SW1P 4GT
Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP - Sec of State for Defence
Adam Ingram MP - AFM, of course
YOUR MP - of course
Peter Kilfoyle MP
Rt Hon Robin Cook MP, Leader of the House of Commons
Dr David Clark MP
Dr Jack Cunningham MP
Frank Dobson MP
Gwyneth Dunwoody MP
Glenda Jackson MP
Major Eric Joyce MP
Bob Marshall-Andrews MP
Chris Mullin MP
Gordon Prentice MP
Tony Wright MP
David Winnick MP
Ann Widdecombe MP
David Willetts MP
Michael Portillo MP (Former S of S for MOD)
Malcolm Bruce MP
Menzies Campbell MP
Simon Hughes MP
Charles Kennedy MP
Matthew Taylor MP
all at the House of Commons
and for my Labour Party comrades..
David Triesman
The General Secretary
The Labour Party, Millbank Tower
Millbank, London SW1P 4GT
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: England
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Menzies Campbell MP, as listed, is an excellent public servant and speaker. Despite being of the yellow persuasion, he has argued some debates, usually on the subject of national defence, very realistically amd professionally, and not always politically correctly. A productive letter to him could go a long way. Top man. 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: southwest
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SC,
totally agree with the fact we need air to air cover for our ships,but is keeping the FA2 the way to do it.I don't know what the ratio for maintenance per flying hour is but having talked to quite a few 'ZOOMIES' it's not that good,and bloody expensive.
Would an other option not be to lease ac to do the job,that could work off our carriers until we get the JSF.I admit i'm not too ofay with what ac could do the job,so I haven't got any idea's to offer.However, im sure there are plenty of people in the know who can.
Maybe giving some different options in the letter may help your, nay our cause.
totally agree with the fact we need air to air cover for our ships,but is keeping the FA2 the way to do it.I don't know what the ratio for maintenance per flying hour is but having talked to quite a few 'ZOOMIES' it's not that good,and bloody expensive.
Would an other option not be to lease ac to do the job,that could work off our carriers until we get the JSF.I admit i'm not too ofay with what ac could do the job,so I haven't got any idea's to offer.However, im sure there are plenty of people in the know who can.
Maybe giving some different options in the letter may help your, nay our cause.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I think you might p*ss of the Spanish by omitting them from your list. - And it might be a good point to make we will have a period during which the Spanish Navy will possess a much higher capability than the RN, since they actually are equipped with a dual role AV8B+ wing.
Spaind: Principe De Asturias VSTOL Aircraft Carrier
Air Wing: 6-12 AV-8B+, 6-10 SH-3, 2-4 AB212EW, 2 SH-60B
Displacement: 16,700 tons full load
Dimensions: 642 x 79.5 x 31 feet/195.7 x 24.3 x 9.5 meters
Propulsion: 2 LM2500 gas turbines, 1 shaft, 46,400 shp, 26 knots
Crew: 763
Armor: none
Armament: 4 20 mm CIWS
Aircraft: 17 VSTOL
Spaind: Principe De Asturias VSTOL Aircraft Carrier
Air Wing: 6-12 AV-8B+, 6-10 SH-3, 2-4 AB212EW, 2 SH-60B
Displacement: 16,700 tons full load
Dimensions: 642 x 79.5 x 31 feet/195.7 x 24.3 x 9.5 meters
Propulsion: 2 LM2500 gas turbines, 1 shaft, 46,400 shp, 26 knots
Crew: 763
Armor: none
Armament: 4 20 mm CIWS
Aircraft: 17 VSTOL
Thread Starter
Well - the point of this thread isn't really to debate the principle any further, we did that quite a lot on the old one! This one is for proposals for ACTION.
A.) Leasing aircraft. Which a/c, from whom, and would it really cost less? The Yak-141 is hardly a solution!
B.) Sorry. The Spanish have a CVS. ******. Still, it's not really a solution. IT'S A DAMN GOOD SUGGESTION FOR THE LETTER THOUGH; THANKS!
C.) WE - Peers probably won't help too much, as there are too many old ranters there, and they have next to no influence over the Executive (this decision is an executive matter, doesn't need legislation.)
A.) Leasing aircraft. Which a/c, from whom, and would it really cost less? The Yak-141 is hardly a solution!
B.) Sorry. The Spanish have a CVS. ******. Still, it's not really a solution. IT'S A DAMN GOOD SUGGESTION FOR THE LETTER THOUGH; THANKS!
C.) WE - Peers probably won't help too much, as there are too many old ranters there, and they have next to no influence over the Executive (this decision is an executive matter, doesn't need legislation.)
Since we've said that we are no longer discussing the dangers of losing the Sea Harrier prior to the arrival of the JSF (and bear in mind it was meant to keep going until 2015 with Ark Royal) I will not post any of the ponts I made on the now deceased thread.
Unless I have cause to....later.
It is worth remembering there has been some coverage of this issue in the media lately. The dangers have been highlighted in some papers recently, including commentry by Admiral Sandy Woodward, the Falklands task group commander. And Commander Sharky Ward, CO of 801 NAS in 1982. It is worth noting that the US military did an assesment of the lessons of Operation Corporate and concluded that over 450, yes FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY, Argentine sorties had been prevented by the deterent effect of the Sea Harrier.
If any one wants to reiterate the discussions we had on the previous thread, I'm sure we'll oblige. I'm certainly ready......
This is (most of) the letter that I sent to my MP on 3 March (I'm not going to tell you his name for reasons of confidentiality - mine!)
On Wednesday (27 February) I heard on local TV that a letter had been sent to Sea Harrier personnel and their families had been told the move to RAF bases was off. Initially I was puzzled, but then thought (wishfully) that someone had seen sense about moving the Sea Harriers to RAF bases. The following day I heard really shocking news - the retirement of the Sea Harrier before its replacement enters service.
The Government proposes that from 2004 to 2006 the Sea Harriers will be scrapped. I suspect the exact timetable for its removal from service will be dictated by world events, political factors in the UK (ie what the Government thinks it can get away with) and whether or not India (the only other Sea Harrier user) is interested in buying them. However much the government, MOD and others try to make this out to be a success for the ystem, this move is nothing more than a cutback. A very dangerous cutback as well.
The idea is to replace the Sea Harrier with the Harrier GR9, a slightly updated version of the GR7. Excellent for Ground Attack, but virtually useless as a fighter. The Sea Harrier has a very powerful air to air radar, Blue Vixen, which is used to facilitate the use of the AMRAAM, an American "medium range" missile which can destroy enemy aircraft at ranges of up to thirty miles. This provides a more effective air defence capability than ANY ship based missile system (although in reality the different layers of air
defence complement each other). The Harrier GR7 has NO air to air radar and no AMRAAM, relying solely on short range missiles
and it would rely on ships or other aircraft to tell it where the enemy aircraft was.
It is proposed to upgrade the GR7 to GR9 standard. However this has been planned for some time and it is very unlikely that any proper air to air radar will be fitted. In the Daily Mail an unnamed MOD spokesman made the following statement:
"These days we don't fight the kind of wars where our ships need defending from enemy warplanes far out at sea. Aircraft Carriers are now mostly supporting shore operations by flying strike missions and it makes far better sense to spend our money on Harriers which can do that best. If necessary, we can rely on coalition forces to provide the other air defence for surface ships."
This statement is both illogical and untrue. For a start, whoever was behind this clearly had never heard of the Falkland's war, where ships and lives were loss due to insufficient organic
(ie carrierborne) air defence. In more recent years ships have needed defending from aircraft. In the 1991 Gulf War there was a half hearted attempt to launch an attack against a US Carrier. In Bosnia and Kosovo there were instances where NATO warships were endangered by Yugoslav aircraft. The terrorist attacks in the United States raises the terrible possibility of civilian aircraft being flown into targets, this type of attack is no less lethal to a ship than it is to a building.
Most of our potential adversaries (including Iraq) have capable aircraft, many of which will carry anti ship missiles. The effectiveness of the Sea Harrier is a deterrent to potential aggressors who may want to attack our naval forces. Without the Sea Harrier the fleet first line of air defence (or Anti Air Warfare as the Navy calls it if it's ship based) is the Sea Dart missile carried by the Type 42 Destroyer. It should be noted, however, that the Sea Dart missile is of 1970's vintage, and this is reflected in its electronics. Even assuming that the missile (and its associated equipment) functions perfectly, a Type 42 only has two of these
missiles ready on the launcher at any one time, meaning that a Type 42 can by easily swamped by targets if there are more than two incoming aircraft/missiles. If the enemy is prepared to
take losses, a Type 42 will not stop his attack.
After Sea Dart, the next layer of defence is Sea Wolf carried by frigates. This is a short range system that works well but has a range of only a few miles. Next, most major warships (but
not the Type 23 frigate) have Close in Weapons, either Phalanx or Goalkeeper, which should destroy any aircraft or missiles that get through. Again, there is nothing to suggest that these
will be anywhere near 100% reliable and these systems could be swamped by multiple targets. I haven't mentioned the possibility of technical failure but this is an ever present hazard if you rely too much on any one system.
The Commons' Defence Select Committee warned a few years ago that the Royal Navy would face a serious gap in its air defence due to the phasing out of the Type 42 destroyers,
and the delay in replacing them (the Type 45 will start entering service in 2007). Last year the Commander In Chief Fleet, CINCFLEET, now First Sea Lord, warned that due to budgetary cutbacks ships were going to sea without full stocks of missiles and that the Navy was now more at risk from sea skimming missiles than it had been during the Falkland's war. This was
before the Sea Harrier decision. He also warned that the Navy would have problems in manning the FJCA when it comes along due to Pilots resigning.
Thus the loss of the Navy's own air defence aircraft seriously endangers the entire fleet. It was planned that the Sea Harrier would receive something of an upgrade over then next eighteen months, this would have made an already very effective fighter even more so. Logic dictates that if the MOD scraps the aircraft then this upgrade makes little sense and will be cancelled. The loss of the Sea Harrier may make worse the Navy's recruitment and retention problems. The prospect of getting sunk is not an appealing one. Withdrawing the Sea Harrier may appear to save money, but will it? If just a single ship gets sunk or seriously damaged by an attack by enemy aircraft/missiles that got through the layers of ship based weapons (as I and others fear) then the Government will lose money. Not to mention many lives.
That made my point.....and got action taken for me. Apologies for the problems caused by cutting and pasting!
I am sure the Chief of Defence Staff, the First Sea Lord and the CINCFLEET, not to mention Flag Officer Maritime Aviation, are trying to make the politicians change their minds. Holding a exercise where a force of warships (possibly including a CVS carrying only strike aircraft) is up against land based aircraft would prove the pont. But the Admirals need OUR help. As does the entire Navy!
So write to your MP. Please. His/her address will be
Name
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Alternatively send them an e-mail. The address is
[email protected] eg blokea@parliament .uk
Also write (maybe) to the defence select commitee. Maybe get your friends and familly invloved. Get them writing, or at least make them aware of the issue(s). Print out postings from PPRUNE or from the media (if you want me put on here the ones I had on the last thread on here, just say so) on notice boards at work, at College/Uni, at the Football/Cricket/Nudist Hangliding(?) club.
Consider contacting (by post or by e-mail) newspapers and magazines. You could write to certain columnists or to the editor. Don't feel the need to restrict yourself to the defence/aviation media and the daily papers, consider the ones you read. Yes I mean ANY.
Lets get going.........Good Luck!
Unless I have cause to....later.
It is worth remembering there has been some coverage of this issue in the media lately. The dangers have been highlighted in some papers recently, including commentry by Admiral Sandy Woodward, the Falklands task group commander. And Commander Sharky Ward, CO of 801 NAS in 1982. It is worth noting that the US military did an assesment of the lessons of Operation Corporate and concluded that over 450, yes FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY, Argentine sorties had been prevented by the deterent effect of the Sea Harrier.
If any one wants to reiterate the discussions we had on the previous thread, I'm sure we'll oblige. I'm certainly ready......
This is (most of) the letter that I sent to my MP on 3 March (I'm not going to tell you his name for reasons of confidentiality - mine!)
On Wednesday (27 February) I heard on local TV that a letter had been sent to Sea Harrier personnel and their families had been told the move to RAF bases was off. Initially I was puzzled, but then thought (wishfully) that someone had seen sense about moving the Sea Harriers to RAF bases. The following day I heard really shocking news - the retirement of the Sea Harrier before its replacement enters service.
The Government proposes that from 2004 to 2006 the Sea Harriers will be scrapped. I suspect the exact timetable for its removal from service will be dictated by world events, political factors in the UK (ie what the Government thinks it can get away with) and whether or not India (the only other Sea Harrier user) is interested in buying them. However much the government, MOD and others try to make this out to be a success for the ystem, this move is nothing more than a cutback. A very dangerous cutback as well.
The idea is to replace the Sea Harrier with the Harrier GR9, a slightly updated version of the GR7. Excellent for Ground Attack, but virtually useless as a fighter. The Sea Harrier has a very powerful air to air radar, Blue Vixen, which is used to facilitate the use of the AMRAAM, an American "medium range" missile which can destroy enemy aircraft at ranges of up to thirty miles. This provides a more effective air defence capability than ANY ship based missile system (although in reality the different layers of air
defence complement each other). The Harrier GR7 has NO air to air radar and no AMRAAM, relying solely on short range missiles
and it would rely on ships or other aircraft to tell it where the enemy aircraft was.
It is proposed to upgrade the GR7 to GR9 standard. However this has been planned for some time and it is very unlikely that any proper air to air radar will be fitted. In the Daily Mail an unnamed MOD spokesman made the following statement:
"These days we don't fight the kind of wars where our ships need defending from enemy warplanes far out at sea. Aircraft Carriers are now mostly supporting shore operations by flying strike missions and it makes far better sense to spend our money on Harriers which can do that best. If necessary, we can rely on coalition forces to provide the other air defence for surface ships."
This statement is both illogical and untrue. For a start, whoever was behind this clearly had never heard of the Falkland's war, where ships and lives were loss due to insufficient organic
(ie carrierborne) air defence. In more recent years ships have needed defending from aircraft. In the 1991 Gulf War there was a half hearted attempt to launch an attack against a US Carrier. In Bosnia and Kosovo there were instances where NATO warships were endangered by Yugoslav aircraft. The terrorist attacks in the United States raises the terrible possibility of civilian aircraft being flown into targets, this type of attack is no less lethal to a ship than it is to a building.
Most of our potential adversaries (including Iraq) have capable aircraft, many of which will carry anti ship missiles. The effectiveness of the Sea Harrier is a deterrent to potential aggressors who may want to attack our naval forces. Without the Sea Harrier the fleet first line of air defence (or Anti Air Warfare as the Navy calls it if it's ship based) is the Sea Dart missile carried by the Type 42 Destroyer. It should be noted, however, that the Sea Dart missile is of 1970's vintage, and this is reflected in its electronics. Even assuming that the missile (and its associated equipment) functions perfectly, a Type 42 only has two of these
missiles ready on the launcher at any one time, meaning that a Type 42 can by easily swamped by targets if there are more than two incoming aircraft/missiles. If the enemy is prepared to
take losses, a Type 42 will not stop his attack.
After Sea Dart, the next layer of defence is Sea Wolf carried by frigates. This is a short range system that works well but has a range of only a few miles. Next, most major warships (but
not the Type 23 frigate) have Close in Weapons, either Phalanx or Goalkeeper, which should destroy any aircraft or missiles that get through. Again, there is nothing to suggest that these
will be anywhere near 100% reliable and these systems could be swamped by multiple targets. I haven't mentioned the possibility of technical failure but this is an ever present hazard if you rely too much on any one system.
The Commons' Defence Select Committee warned a few years ago that the Royal Navy would face a serious gap in its air defence due to the phasing out of the Type 42 destroyers,
and the delay in replacing them (the Type 45 will start entering service in 2007). Last year the Commander In Chief Fleet, CINCFLEET, now First Sea Lord, warned that due to budgetary cutbacks ships were going to sea without full stocks of missiles and that the Navy was now more at risk from sea skimming missiles than it had been during the Falkland's war. This was
before the Sea Harrier decision. He also warned that the Navy would have problems in manning the FJCA when it comes along due to Pilots resigning.
Thus the loss of the Navy's own air defence aircraft seriously endangers the entire fleet. It was planned that the Sea Harrier would receive something of an upgrade over then next eighteen months, this would have made an already very effective fighter even more so. Logic dictates that if the MOD scraps the aircraft then this upgrade makes little sense and will be cancelled. The loss of the Sea Harrier may make worse the Navy's recruitment and retention problems. The prospect of getting sunk is not an appealing one. Withdrawing the Sea Harrier may appear to save money, but will it? If just a single ship gets sunk or seriously damaged by an attack by enemy aircraft/missiles that got through the layers of ship based weapons (as I and others fear) then the Government will lose money. Not to mention many lives.
That made my point.....and got action taken for me. Apologies for the problems caused by cutting and pasting!
I am sure the Chief of Defence Staff, the First Sea Lord and the CINCFLEET, not to mention Flag Officer Maritime Aviation, are trying to make the politicians change their minds. Holding a exercise where a force of warships (possibly including a CVS carrying only strike aircraft) is up against land based aircraft would prove the pont. But the Admirals need OUR help. As does the entire Navy!
So write to your MP. Please. His/her address will be
Name
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Alternatively send them an e-mail. The address is
[email protected] eg blokea@parliament .uk
Also write (maybe) to the defence select commitee. Maybe get your friends and familly invloved. Get them writing, or at least make them aware of the issue(s). Print out postings from PPRUNE or from the media (if you want me put on here the ones I had on the last thread on here, just say so) on notice boards at work, at College/Uni, at the Football/Cricket/Nudist Hangliding(?) club.
Consider contacting (by post or by e-mail) newspapers and magazines. You could write to certain columnists or to the editor. Don't feel the need to restrict yourself to the defence/aviation media and the daily papers, consider the ones you read. Yes I mean ANY.
Lets get going.........Good Luck!
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 16th Apr 2002 at 23:19.
As well as Spain, the Italians have a carrier capability - they operate AV 8B+ from the Garibaldi. Interestingly, the Italians, who have less obvious operational need for a carrier and BVR radar on the aircraft that defend it still have one that can do this (although I'm not certain that AIM-120 has been funded for them, this doesn't undermine the point that the Italian Navy has the capability) . Perhaps that's the idea - the Italians provide the air cover, and we do the attack role 
In any event, it means that the RN, which is deployed rather more often will have a dramatically lower AD capability than some nations that probably aren't going to require it....
In any event, it means that the RN, which is deployed rather more often will have a dramatically lower AD capability than some nations that probably aren't going to require it....
Last edited by Archimedes; 16th Apr 2002 at 23:16.
Thread Starter
Thanks all for moral support and factual corrections. Insert perhaps - "the Western carrier navies are the US, UK, France, Spain and Italy. These last both possess a single small carrier comparable to ours, but they operate the US-built AV-8 Harrier, a version with FA2-equivalent air-to-air armament. This may be the first time since Drake that the Spanish navy will be better armed than the RN!"
I'm not sure that the Italians and Spanish have AMRAAM capability. To refit the Harrier GR9 to take Blue Vixen (or similar) radar and AMRAAM would cost MORE than it would to upgrade the Sea Harrier.
Hopefully more people will visit this thread, and follow our example. One point to note is that people who are going to join the services are still free to participate in democratic debate etc until they actually join. Once they do join, things become slightly difficult.
As I have said, If I am asked I will give the relevant pages from the press etc. Admiral Sandy Woodward, the Falklands task group commander, has commented on the dangers. If the RN and supporters do not use the 20th anniversery of the South Atlantic campaign to gain the public's support (which is VITAL if the politicians are to be defeated) then something is seriously wrong.
As I said before, write or e-mail anyone you can thing of who might have some influence on either politics OR public opinion. These might include journalists and media types, public figures ..... in fact ANYONE who might be able to influence public opinion. Please consider my suggestions in my previous postings.
Hopefully more people will visit this thread, and follow our example. One point to note is that people who are going to join the services are still free to participate in democratic debate etc until they actually join. Once they do join, things become slightly difficult.
As I have said, If I am asked I will give the relevant pages from the press etc. Admiral Sandy Woodward, the Falklands task group commander, has commented on the dangers. If the RN and supporters do not use the 20th anniversery of the South Atlantic campaign to gain the public's support (which is VITAL if the politicians are to be defeated) then something is seriously wrong.
As I said before, write or e-mail anyone you can thing of who might have some influence on either politics OR public opinion. These might include journalists and media types, public figures ..... in fact ANYONE who might be able to influence public opinion. Please consider my suggestions in my previous postings.
I don't know how it would be funded, but we could do with a co-ordinated campaign. Perhaps some life size models of the Sea Harrier (sorry if I seem like a pretentious git, but I refuse to call it anything else!!) could be built, proably from GRP, Plastics, Wood. The "Save the Sea Harrier" campaign could take them to airshows (not on MOD property though), sporting events, events like the Devon County Show and so forth and have a stand, complete with leaflets and pamphlets to give out, and (maybe) an ex Sea Harrier driver (or any other ex RN person come to that) to discuss the issues.
Making these models would be a worthwhile project for STUDENTS. Seriously, it would. Practical engineering skills would be developed, not to mention all the design involved in producing a decent, solid model that can be moved about without falling apart.
One of these model Sea Harriers could be placed upon the deck of a specially modified boat or barge, cruising up and down the Thames, right in front of the Houses of Parliament.
Making these models would be a worthwhile project for STUDENTS. Seriously, it would. Practical engineering skills would be developed, not to mention all the design involved in producing a decent, solid model that can be moved about without falling apart.
One of these model Sea Harriers could be placed upon the deck of a specially modified boat or barge, cruising up and down the Thames, right in front of the Houses of Parliament.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 17th Apr 2002 at 23:35.
SC, Re:
"the Western carrier navies are the US, UK, France, Spain and Italy. These last both possess a single small carrier comparable to ours, but they operate the US-built AV-8 Harrier, a version with FA2-equivalent air-to-air armament"
Following on from WEBF - As far as AIM-120 goes: according to a recently published journal (one of the successors to World Air Power Journal), the Italians get AMRAAM this year; there are pics aboutof Spanish AV-8B+'s with AIM-120 on wing pylons, but these may be trial fits only: I know from speaking with a Spanish naval officer a couple of years back that they certainly want the weapon.
Also - look at the French approach. The French using an American-built aircraft with origins in the UK? Mais non, mon ami! Vivé la/le [?] Rafale! They have the Super Etendard Modernise (now almost as good as the Jag M was thirty years ago...) and Rafales. Note that the Rafale can carry in the region of eight BVR weapons. Again, a sign that the notion that AD for the fleet isn't some bizarre outdated concept that doesn't need consideration.
[Edited to make sense]
"the Western carrier navies are the US, UK, France, Spain and Italy. These last both possess a single small carrier comparable to ours, but they operate the US-built AV-8 Harrier, a version with FA2-equivalent air-to-air armament"
Following on from WEBF - As far as AIM-120 goes: according to a recently published journal (one of the successors to World Air Power Journal), the Italians get AMRAAM this year; there are pics aboutof Spanish AV-8B+'s with AIM-120 on wing pylons, but these may be trial fits only: I know from speaking with a Spanish naval officer a couple of years back that they certainly want the weapon.
Also - look at the French approach. The French using an American-built aircraft with origins in the UK? Mais non, mon ami! Vivé la/le [?] Rafale! They have the Super Etendard Modernise (now almost as good as the Jag M was thirty years ago...) and Rafales. Note that the Rafale can carry in the region of eight BVR weapons. Again, a sign that the notion that AD for the fleet isn't some bizarre outdated concept that doesn't need consideration.
[Edited to make sense]
Last edited by Archimedes; 18th Apr 2002 at 20:06.
Thread Starter
"These last both.." implies that the last 2 countries use AV-8s. Three things can't both do anything. PS the Rafale and SE are fine aeroplanes, it's just a pity the screws keep falling off the Charles de Gaulle! And the French firm Thales is bidding to build the new UK carriers - they want to build 'em in 5 sections, distributed about various UK yards, then assemble them. Does anyone know if they built the CDG?
Now here's a man who isn't frightened of fighting the politicians. And he had his ship, Ardent, sunk in 1982 by Argentine jets. He knows all about the perils of inadequate air defence when operating in littoral waters.
If ANY one man can save the Sea Harrier, Admiral West can.
A ROYAL Navy officer who was court-martialed for leaving plans for large-scale defence cuts on a towpath is to become the new First Sea Lord.
Adml Sir Alan West, Commander-in-Chief Fleet, is to take over from Adml Sir Nigel Essenhigh in September.
Adml West was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross after his ship Ardent was sunk off East Falkland by Argentine aircraft.
He was then posted to the naval plans department of the Ministry of Defence, where he was promoted to captain and made an assistant director of naval staff.
But his career appeared to have been blighted in 1986 when he lost a paper proposing radical cuts in the Navy's surface and submarine fleet.
The proposals appeared in the Mail on Sunday and the then Capt West was court-martialed.
It emerged at the court martial that he removed the documents from the MoD without permission, carried them in his coat pocket when they should have been in a security briefcase and failed to tell the MoD immediately of their loss.
Pleading guilty to negligence and charges of breaching security, he told the court martial that he had taken the documents home to Portsmouth to work on them. He lost them while walking with a friend in Sonning, near Reading.
Adml Sir Jeremy Black, then deputy chief of defence staff, told the hearing that Capt West was "an outstanding officer of his generation".
He was severely reprimanded, the second lightest sentence possible.
It appears to have done his career little harm. He headed a study into the integration of women on board ships and was subsequently appointed head of marine intelligence and then to a further high-flying post within the MoD.
If ANY one man can save the Sea Harrier, Admiral West can.
A ROYAL Navy officer who was court-martialed for leaving plans for large-scale defence cuts on a towpath is to become the new First Sea Lord.
Adml Sir Alan West, Commander-in-Chief Fleet, is to take over from Adml Sir Nigel Essenhigh in September.
Adml West was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross after his ship Ardent was sunk off East Falkland by Argentine aircraft.
He was then posted to the naval plans department of the Ministry of Defence, where he was promoted to captain and made an assistant director of naval staff.
But his career appeared to have been blighted in 1986 when he lost a paper proposing radical cuts in the Navy's surface and submarine fleet.
The proposals appeared in the Mail on Sunday and the then Capt West was court-martialed.
It emerged at the court martial that he removed the documents from the MoD without permission, carried them in his coat pocket when they should have been in a security briefcase and failed to tell the MoD immediately of their loss.
Pleading guilty to negligence and charges of breaching security, he told the court martial that he had taken the documents home to Portsmouth to work on them. He lost them while walking with a friend in Sonning, near Reading.
Adml Sir Jeremy Black, then deputy chief of defence staff, told the hearing that Capt West was "an outstanding officer of his generation".
He was severely reprimanded, the second lightest sentence possible.
It appears to have done his career little harm. He headed a study into the integration of women on board ships and was subsequently appointed head of marine intelligence and then to a further high-flying post within the MoD.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 18th Apr 2002 at 19:20.
