Early end for the SHAR??

[Jimlad]

"There's no need to move the airbase. The RAF would simply use our faithful AAR force to relocate the Tornado's to a friendly host nation's facilities in considerably less time that it takes to move a CVS!!!! "

Thats always assuming that said friendly nation is willing to grant use of its bases and airspace. Also how long does it take to bring in supplies and crew and all the other stuff needed to run an airbase? About 4 weeks? Same time as a CVS takes to get to the gulf then at slowish speed. If the boys are in a hurry then they can do it faster

[John Farley]

Without wishing to teach any grannies out there to suck eggs the weight at which a SHAR can hover (and so do a VL) is NOT a simple number that depends only on ambient conditions and the particular performance characteristics of the specific engine in your jet. There is another issue and that is engine life useage. If you choose to turn off the normal temperature limiting devices (a cockpit switch in front of the throttle box) you can SAFELY run the engine to higher temps and so greater thrusts than with the limiters ON.

By safely I mean it will not surge and it will not fail mechanically. But it will cause the engine life recorder to run up a bunch of counts which will mean you to need to replace the engine earlier - how much earlier depends on how much hotter and for how long blah blah blah.

So to say that it simply can’t be used to ring back expensive unused AMRAAMS in high ambients is a bit of an oversimplification. To put it mildly.

Mulled wine anyone?

[Magic Mushroom]

Jimlad

Before I start, read my lips: 'I AM A STRONG SUPPORTER OF CVF AND FJCA!'

However, 4 weeks to get a Deployed Operating Base (DOB) up and running? Rubbish! The RE boys and our own TCW (please note that this is not a 'RAF one man band' post!) are very experienced in getting DOB's operational very quickly indeed. Examples:

a. E-3D involvement in OEF, we recieved the order to deploy and flew the first E-3D mission over Pakistan within 48 hrs. Whilst some infra was in place at that particular DOB for SSII, it wasn't for the OEF crews and personnel. Had it not been, it may have delayed going operational by maybe a week at most.

b. Tornado F3 deployment on OP GRANBY in Aug 90. I believe that 5 Sqn deployed to Saudi from Cyprus and flew its first DCA CAP within 72 hrs. Jags were also not far behind in their initial deployments to the Gulf from the UK in 90.

c. Likewise, the Tac Albert boys are well used to getting VERY austere bases up and running within days.

The short answer is that GENERALLY, carrier aviation can ignore diplomatic clearances but takes a fair time to get there and has more limited endurance/weapons carrying options than land based ops. However, clearly, land bases require the authority of host nations, although they can GENERALLY become operational more quickly than the carriers. The argument that carriers can be pre-deployed is no different than the fact that negotiations can pre empt use of foreign soil (as I'm sure is happening right now!).

Clearly, conflicts such as the Falklands where foreign DOB's are not suitable for many land based assets mean that carriers are essential. My point, Tourist, Jimlad etc is that we need a balanced force with both CVF/FJCA and conventional land based assets. Each have their advantages and disadvantages!!!

Now, could I have my fishing rod back please!!!!!

Regards, Merry Xmas, and a VERY safe and peaceful 2003(to everyone)
M2

[TimC]

WEBF

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Falklands War nearly happened in 1979.

Tim

[BlueWolf]

Without wanting to say too much....some weeks prior to certain scrap metal merchants raising the Argie flag on South Georgia, members of a particular branch of the NZ military, in company of members of the same UK branch with whom they often tag along, were were happily ensconsed in some remote bits of East and West Falkland, pretending to look after sheep, scanning the seas and skies, and "talking to London"....I think the predictions business is in as fine a shape as it always was, and, as was always the case, much of what is predicted doesn't have much said about it, for obvious reasons.

[Jimlad]

IIRC it was 1977, the argies were playing silly ******s and we sent two frigates, a tanker and HMS DREADNOUGHT - an SSN - sent a subtle but clear message that if they came over they'd be swimming back.
Who says gunboat diplomacy is dead

[Duncan McCockiner]

The carriers could be used as floating workshops for the SHARs ashore but politically unacceptable now that the decision has been made. By the way the GR7 has the same bring back problems until the new engine and that is just doing the flight test stuff at Warton.

The real reason the SHAR will not be allowed to fight is the underfunding of the last 5 years, No SIFF, no IFF Interrogator and no on-board jammer. The decision has been made not to fund her but the last time this happened to a jet, it was re-equipped with Phimat and mode 4 and updated jammers and sent to the Gulf the next day and that was the Buccaneer...caneer....a classic...sorry slipped into song there.

Best of luck to whoever goes.....

[timzsta]

Maxburner - I happened to be 801 Sqn's FC during exercise SS II. I can assure you the squadron was far from welded to the deck. We went up to 8 jets, and maintained a high sortie rate. We undertook CAP missions overland and defending the task force as well as fighter sweep. It was the most challenging and rewarding time I had as a Fighter Controller - seeing the smiles on the boys faces as they walked into the crew room to show us the tapes of them schwacking the oppostion made all the hard work in planning worth while. The SS II work was all in addition to planning for possible ops over Afghanistan, which we directed had to be prepared for right up until the time we disembarked to go back to the UK.

We also did a lot of stuff that hadnt been done since the cold war - ie silent recoveries to the CVS, FA2 radar off, CVS radars off - at night as well. You werent on Illustrious - and neither were the GR7 boys for more than a few days, so dont comment on what the FA2 can and cant do from a CVS.

As for gunboat diplomacy there is still a lot to be said for it. The record for a British warship getting from Portsmouth to the Straits of Hormuz is eleven days I believe (at 30 knots you can do 720 miles a day), so you can get warships around the world quicker than you think. I also remember being in an exercise of Northern Spain in May 2000, and four days later being off Sierra Leone. Certainly gave the Spanish boys in the Canaries a wake up as we went hurtling through there at 30 knots!

History has a strange way of repeating itself. Twenty years ago a whole load of ships and equipment from the Navy was to be scrapped and along came the Falklands. I predict the FA2's will deploy to the Gulf on Ark Royal, and get some kills and earn a deserved reprieve (whilst the F3's sit on CAP somewhere near Riyadh).

[Navaleye]

timzsta

My American friends tell me that all the talk about FA2s defeating F16s and F15s is just RN hype. You need two AMRAAMS to be 90% sure of a kill. This makes an FA2 a "one kill wonder" after which ist very vulnerable as its too slow to escape. How would you counter such remarks?

[Magic Mushroom]

Naveleye
I would counter that by pointing out that a typical warload for a SHAR is 4 x AIM-120!! I'm no mathematics genius, but by my rekoning, that makes more than a single kill!!!
Additionally, USAF pilots are often somewhat unimaginative in their tactics and this is particularly true of F-15C drivers. Given that I have to say that FAA SHAR mates are probably some of the most switched on fighter pilots in the world, they often surprise more capable opposition. I've certainly seen SHARS more than cope against F-15's. However, the point about lack of energy reducing the SHAR disengagement option is probably valid. However, given that I'm an AWACS mate I'll let the professional fighter pilots comment on that in a more qualified manner!
Regards
M2

[Duncan McCockiner]

It is very true of course that the stainy mach number from the SHAR is a bit of a millstone however the Radar in my opinion makes up for that in some large measure. Often US drivers will comment on the excellent picture the SHARs put out or when they see Radar tapes are astounded at the performance. It is a shame the FA2 has met an untimely end but power projection requires an asset that can get there with adequate self defence and do a job in the air to ground arena with some IMC and night attack capability, the GR7 can only provide one of those with real certainty at present. It is unfortunate but true that HM Queen and Son cannot afford the new toys and has to make as best a fist of things as they can until times are better. As for the pilots, they will just re-learn a new role and rise to the top of the new field.

[timzsta]

With regard to the comments on the FA2 lack of speed when running away - the pump/abort is not a manouevre familiar to the FA2 - it is only described in the F3 tacman.

[Max Burner]

maxburner,

Having flown the Lincolnshire landshark and the Shar I know which one does a better job, no competition really.

GR7's will be great when they change the nose, put the Blue Vixen in it and have the big engine. The USMc have already done it but Vixen wouild be better than the APG 65.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

GR7's will be great when they change the nose, put the Blue Vixen in it and have the big engine.

Sounds terribly expensive......more so than retaining the SHAR and paying for the SHAR upgrade.

[SixOfTheBest]

A lot of peeps on this thread must be smokin dope. A few simple facts. USMC II+ don't carry Aim-120. The APG-65 on that jet is REASONABLE (it's small, so there's power/range problems - simple maths). Blue Vixen is a better RADAR (TWS capabilities etc) but is still a small RADAR (maths again). The SHAR is a very capable ac, notwithstanding the range/payload/bringback limitations). The GR7 outperforms the SHAR in EVERY aspect of A-G ops (Considerably Outperforms). There is no way a Vixen could be retrofitted into a GR7 unless we had a blank cheque. If we had a blank cheque we'd buy better ac and bigger ships, both equipped with better weapons/capabilities. Oh, and Duncan M, strange that you say the SHAR pilots will learn a new role and 'rise to the top of the tree'. Very strange considering the RAF trained them (pre-Harrier). SHAR pilots are great. So are GR7 geezers. End of story. Max B, i'm sure some of your suggestions are valid on the planet that you reside, however, here on earth we have limitations on how much we can spend, and what we can spend it on. It's pretty simple really, the SHAR can't bomb, and the GR7 can't CAP (unless they are up against ac equipped with IR sharpened Guava Halves only). BUT, we can still project power (limited or not) and not have to rely on the hospitality of nations that think the pig is a dirty animal.

[Duncan McCockiner]

Six o the best,
If the SHAR cannot bomb how come 800 Sqns boss won the RAF bombing competition at wainfleet and the Squadron team came second overall?

Don't flash up, just saying!!!!!!!!

if you are right about the SHAR then it was just SHAR pilots rising to the top, can't have it both ways

[Jackonicko]

Oops

[BlueWolf]

You've got me, Jacko, what is it? Doesn't run on vodka by any chance?

[ORAC]

Well, this answers the original question. No SHars going to this war - and if there any GR7s they'll be shore based and not have any problems with bringing things back.

The big question is, where the h*ll did they find 45 serviceable helos?
-------------------------------------------------------------

BBC_ Friday, 10 January, 2003 - Ark Royal crew braced for war
By Duncan Walker, BBC News Online, on board the Ark Royal, Portsmouth.

The official line may still be that the Ark Royal is leaving Britain for long planned operations, but on board the message is very different. Crew members have been told they could soon be fighting a war and on the eve of their departure they say they are more than ready.

With 3,000 marines now set to join the six vessel taskforce being led by the Royal Navy flagship, its commander, Rear Admiral David Snelson said a "classic use of maritime power" has been prepared.

With 45 troop-carrying helicopters replacing the planes usually found on board the ship, he says deployment will ensure there is a "ground combat capability in the Gulf region"...............

[jockspice]

We got them from Santa!
I also got a lightsaber and my friend got a Nimbus 2000. Next year I'm asking for some magic beans.