Early end for the SHAR??
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Early end for the SHAR??
The decision to deploy them or not will have to be made in the next week or so. If not deployed, the operational case to retain them till 2006 will, effectively, be destroyed. Heavy politics at 2 Group and the MOD.
The Times - December 18, 2002
Heat may spell the end for Sea Harrier
By Michael Evans
Navy chiefs face a quandary over whether to send Sea Harrier jump-jets to the Gulf because hot weather could render the ageing planes inoperable.
The Sea Harrier FA2 is needed to protect British warships, but it has only a single underpowered engine and struggles to land on an aircraft carrier in intense heat. The problem has been compounded by the replacement of the aircrafts’ Sidewinder missiles with much heavier Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraam). Navy sources said that the biggest challenge was landing the Sea Harrier if it was returning to the carrier with its Amraam weapons still attached. Sometimes the missiles, costing £260,000 each, have to be ditched in the sea.
Leaving the Sea Harriers behind would effectively sign the operational death warrant of a fighter jet that came into service in 1980 and performed valiantly in the 1982 Falklands War. It is scheduled to be phased out prematurely by 2006. Sources said the alternative was to rely on American carrier-based F14 Tomcats to protect British warships.
The Times - December 18, 2002
Heat may spell the end for Sea Harrier
By Michael Evans
Navy chiefs face a quandary over whether to send Sea Harrier jump-jets to the Gulf because hot weather could render the ageing planes inoperable.
The Sea Harrier FA2 is needed to protect British warships, but it has only a single underpowered engine and struggles to land on an aircraft carrier in intense heat. The problem has been compounded by the replacement of the aircrafts’ Sidewinder missiles with much heavier Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraam). Navy sources said that the biggest challenge was landing the Sea Harrier if it was returning to the carrier with its Amraam weapons still attached. Sometimes the missiles, costing £260,000 each, have to be ditched in the sea.
Leaving the Sea Harriers behind would effectively sign the operational death warrant of a fighter jet that came into service in 1980 and performed valiantly in the 1982 Falklands War. It is scheduled to be phased out prematurely by 2006. Sources said the alternative was to rely on American carrier-based F14 Tomcats to protect British warships.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a dark blue squid this may sound like high treason, but that report illustrates why we need to get rid of SHAR and invest in planes that can do the bombing missions we undertake now. If we're in the strike business, then lets have a decent strike wing. Having a token 6 SHAR's will make a minute difference to an area overflowing with carrier based airpower. Better to send 16 GR7/9's and do something useful...
shar
Can`t you do a rolling landing? Just get up a good head of steam,and use a couple of tennis nets on the ramp as "catchers".Might need a couple of table-tennis bats for the batman, but it`ll be good pre-training for the CV`s!!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I await WEBF's reply and exhibit A to be used for comparison "some sliced bread".
Won't comment on the rest 'cos not a good idea to talk about the fleet defence of a war-going carrier group!
Won't comment on the rest 'cos not a good idea to talk about the fleet defence of a war-going carrier group!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sure you do not mean 3Gp ORAC? RAF Harriers of any use in the Gulf TOR, doubtful but at least its a token effort and as for 16, do not think so! Infact, do we really need any maritime involvement greater than what is in the GUlf at present, erm No!
The way I see it is that even with 16 Harrier GR7/9, the contribution that a UK carrier would make towards total seaborne striking power will be fairly small, compared to the USN carriers with their squadrons of F14s and F/A18s.
Relying on the Americans to defend the UK task group (not just the CVS) might seem all very well in principle, but what if the UK group is operating some distance away from the Americans? Could they offer the same level of defence as the organic capibility offered by the Sea Harrier? Would they be able to provide a constant CAP for the UK task group?
Basically we would be providing what would still be a relatively minor contribution to offensive power but expecting the US to commit aircraft to defending our task group so we can make a slightly larger contribution of offensive firepower. Does the US Fleet commander then see the "limeys" as an asset, or a liability?
Iis this logical? I would say no.
As for current events and what may happen in the near future -
NO COMMENT.
Relying on the Americans to defend the UK task group (not just the CVS) might seem all very well in principle, but what if the UK group is operating some distance away from the Americans? Could they offer the same level of defence as the organic capibility offered by the Sea Harrier? Would they be able to provide a constant CAP for the UK task group?
Basically we would be providing what would still be a relatively minor contribution to offensive power but expecting the US to commit aircraft to defending our task group so we can make a slightly larger contribution of offensive firepower. Does the US Fleet commander then see the "limeys" as an asset, or a liability?
Iis this logical? I would say no.
As for current events and what may happen in the near future -
NO COMMENT.
WEBF,
I admire your enthusiasm, but....
In view of Arab hostility to ops against Iraq, land basing may be a problem for very large numbers of aircraft. The UK carrier might therefore be a useful asset. But if it deploys with only five or six SHars, they would be inadequate to provide sufficient AD for the carrier and its group, so we would still rely on our allies, and they would seriously reduce the usefulness of the carrier's offensive 'punch'. In a multinional operation, it strikes me that a single deployed UK carrier should either be sent as an AD ship (with only SHars embarked) or as a platform for OS aircraft (GR7s). Either would be potentially more useful to the force commander than a carrier with penny packets of both types. With the amount of AD assets already in theatre, I would suspect that a full complement of GR7s would be more useful in these circumstances.
I admire your enthusiasm, but....
In view of Arab hostility to ops against Iraq, land basing may be a problem for very large numbers of aircraft. The UK carrier might therefore be a useful asset. But if it deploys with only five or six SHars, they would be inadequate to provide sufficient AD for the carrier and its group, so we would still rely on our allies, and they would seriously reduce the usefulness of the carrier's offensive 'punch'. In a multinional operation, it strikes me that a single deployed UK carrier should either be sent as an AD ship (with only SHars embarked) or as a platform for OS aircraft (GR7s). Either would be potentially more useful to the force commander than a carrier with penny packets of both types. With the amount of AD assets already in theatre, I would suspect that a full complement of GR7s would be more useful in these circumstances.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Jacko, better to have a decent number of something than to have a smaller number of two things, as once things start breaking you'll be leave with err none.
WEBF, its not the number of aircraft thats so important its the fact they took part that counts, its all about politics. There could be 250 US aircraft and 4 from the UK, but the headline would still be "US and UK warplanes strike Iraq".
WEBF, its not the number of aircraft thats so important its the fact they took part that counts, its all about politics. There could be 250 US aircraft and 4 from the UK, but the headline would still be "US and UK warplanes strike Iraq".
During Saif Sareea II I recall the SHARs being effectively welded to the deck because of the temperatures. They made a couple of apperances, but that was all. Why burden the task force with deck cargo it cant use?
Good ridance to the SHAR, bring on something with a real capability.
Good ridance to the SHAR, bring on something with a real capability.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find myself in the frightening position of agreeing with Jacko - hopefully its just a passing phase.
Despite WEBF getting all emotionally turned on by the SHAR, the point is that its not designed to operate where we envisage playing currently. Of course if we were in the North Atlantic again, then it would be a useful tool to have around. But we're not and we hopefully won't be. Lets invest in a decent strike aircraft and get the power projection capability we need.
Interesting aside - Hansard this week had figures for the budgets of the main RAF bases. It costs as much to run Invincible class carriers in full commission (£20 million each) as it does to run RAF Marham or other large airbase (£60 million each per year) - perhaps this adds focus to the cost and value of carriers debate.
Despite WEBF getting all emotionally turned on by the SHAR, the point is that its not designed to operate where we envisage playing currently. Of course if we were in the North Atlantic again, then it would be a useful tool to have around. But we're not and we hopefully won't be. Lets invest in a decent strike aircraft and get the power projection capability we need.
Interesting aside - Hansard this week had figures for the budgets of the main RAF bases. It costs as much to run Invincible class carriers in full commission (£20 million each) as it does to run RAF Marham or other large airbase (£60 million each per year) - perhaps this adds focus to the cost and value of carriers debate.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimlad old bean...
Don't get me wrong, I'm a great believer in maintaining a fixed wing maritime capability albeit in the form of something more useful than our current CVS. Certainly, as a light blue, I support CVF although I'm doubtful if it will ever see the light of day.
However, interesting figures for the costs of CVS v MOB such as Marham. I'd be even more interested however to see how much those costs came out if you averaged them against numbers/capability of aircraft offered by each facility!!!
The RN's only really useful offensive contribution these days is TLAM.
A carrier aviation capability is highly important. But even USN CVN's are extremely reliant upon land based fixed wing enablers such as AAR, SIGINT and AWACS.
Regards
M2
Don't get me wrong, I'm a great believer in maintaining a fixed wing maritime capability albeit in the form of something more useful than our current CVS. Certainly, as a light blue, I support CVF although I'm doubtful if it will ever see the light of day.
However, interesting figures for the costs of CVS v MOB such as Marham. I'd be even more interested however to see how much those costs came out if you averaged them against numbers/capability of aircraft offered by each facility!!!
The RN's only really useful offensive contribution these days is TLAM.
A carrier aviation capability is highly important. But even USN CVN's are extremely reliant upon land based fixed wing enablers such as AAR, SIGINT and AWACS.
Regards
M2
Surely one of the great things about a carrier is that it is flexible, the complement of aircraft can be adjusted to suit operational needs - be it (fleet) air defence, ground attack, recce, ASW, ASuW or whatever, bearing in mind you will often need several of these things at the same time.
To quote from CP1 Ships, Aircraft And Missiles Of The Royal Navy -
....to provide the facilities....... aircraft day and night all weather for -
- Attack and recconaissance in support of joint operations
- Air defence of friendly forces
- Anti Surface Warfare
- Anti Submarine Warfare
- Airborne Early Warning
Since the Navy's role (to my knowlege) is still about seapower, it coul be said that the ability to provide local air superiority, over the sea-space that is occupied by a task group, is an important part of this.
To quote from CP1 Ships, Aircraft And Missiles Of The Royal Navy -
....to provide the facilities....... aircraft day and night all weather for -
- Attack and recconaissance in support of joint operations
- Air defence of friendly forces
- Anti Surface Warfare
- Anti Submarine Warfare
- Airborne Early Warning
Since the Navy's role (to my knowlege) is still about seapower, it coul be said that the ability to provide local air superiority, over the sea-space that is occupied by a task group, is an important part of this.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 24th Dec 2002 at 00:08.
WEBF,
Your grasp of the theory (at least insofar as it is served up by the PR folks) is commendable, and you're quite welcome to challenge any and all of my assumptions. I'm just a journo and any expertise I have is entirely second hand. But others with whom you are arguing are air power practitioners, and you may be viewed as being just a little callow and wet behind the ears to be rejecting their opinions with such certainty.
Were the latest spat likely to be an autonomous UK job, or even if we were undertaking it only in concert with our European allies, and if the op was being conducted in a different climate, then the SHar would have some role to play.
But even if one accepts the desirability of sending a UK carrier for this op, it is pretty clear that the SHar (in this context specifically) is not a terribly useful club to put in the golf bag. A full wing of GR7s might be, however.
And while I appreciate that you would like to see the UK Navy providing its own AD, this is impractical with anything less than a full complement of SHars. And if we send a carrier with only SHars, what use is it except in defending itself and its support vessels?
In any modern operation, the UK armed forces will rely on its allies for some vital capabilities (eg SEAD, some C3I and some recce). With the Arabian and Red Seas likely to be chock full of US CVNs, and with adjacent land bases likely to be full to over-flowing with F-15s and F-16s, the lack of six SHars is unlikely to be critical.
Your grasp of the theory (at least insofar as it is served up by the PR folks) is commendable, and you're quite welcome to challenge any and all of my assumptions. I'm just a journo and any expertise I have is entirely second hand. But others with whom you are arguing are air power practitioners, and you may be viewed as being just a little callow and wet behind the ears to be rejecting their opinions with such certainty.
Were the latest spat likely to be an autonomous UK job, or even if we were undertaking it only in concert with our European allies, and if the op was being conducted in a different climate, then the SHar would have some role to play.
But even if one accepts the desirability of sending a UK carrier for this op, it is pretty clear that the SHar (in this context specifically) is not a terribly useful club to put in the golf bag. A full wing of GR7s might be, however.
And while I appreciate that you would like to see the UK Navy providing its own AD, this is impractical with anything less than a full complement of SHars. And if we send a carrier with only SHars, what use is it except in defending itself and its support vessels?
In any modern operation, the UK armed forces will rely on its allies for some vital capabilities (eg SEAD, some C3I and some recce). With the Arabian and Red Seas likely to be chock full of US CVNs, and with adjacent land bases likely to be full to over-flowing with F-15s and F-16s, the lack of six SHars is unlikely to be critical.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's face it, the Invincible class and their aircraft were designed for fleet defence in a nice cool North Atlantic conflict. Very little of the RAF and RN's in-service inventory was designed [back in the 70s so] with the Gulf in mind, rather the G-I-UK Gap and the Fulda Gap. If the requirement to go hot/high was hardwired into the spec, as presumably it is these days for Typhoon etc., FA2 would either be a different beast or none at all.
If President Tone wants go-anywhere capability, CVF with cats is the only option which allows for serious ordnance/range capabilities in the deployed aircraft, plus useful AEW type assets like an E-2. If he doesn't want to spend the money he should stop trying to tag along with the Spams deploying an all-type fleet and just send the ships and aircraft that can do a job. [Frigates and destroyers, Lynx antiship, Tornado GR, Canberra, Harrier GR7]
However, just because Tornado may not be suitable for deployment in Desert Storm II because of lack of politically available airfields, for example, wouldn't be seen as an excuse to scrap the type. So why just junk a type that may yet do a job in a conflict we do not yet foresee?
If President Tone wants go-anywhere capability, CVF with cats is the only option which allows for serious ordnance/range capabilities in the deployed aircraft, plus useful AEW type assets like an E-2. If he doesn't want to spend the money he should stop trying to tag along with the Spams deploying an all-type fleet and just send the ships and aircraft that can do a job. [Frigates and destroyers, Lynx antiship, Tornado GR, Canberra, Harrier GR7]
However, just because Tornado may not be suitable for deployment in Desert Storm II because of lack of politically available airfields, for example, wouldn't be seen as an excuse to scrap the type. So why just junk a type that may yet do a job in a conflict we do not yet foresee?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"However, just because Tornado may not be suitable for deployment in Desert Storm II because of lack of politically available airfields, for example, wouldn't be seen as an excuse to scrap the type. So why just junk a type that may yet do a job in a conflict we do not yet foresee?"
Which is a good reason to have a carrier around as it can act as the airfield till we can find another.
The RN's problem, speaking as a dark blue is that we are Crap at PR - we have a lot of jobs and a lot of valuable roles that the other services cant do and do we sell ourselves - no. We roll over and give in. I am in awe of the RAF internal PR machine - you guys know how to get what you want, I wish we would do the same.
Which is a good reason to have a carrier around as it can act as the airfield till we can find another.
The RN's problem, speaking as a dark blue is that we are Crap at PR - we have a lot of jobs and a lot of valuable roles that the other services cant do and do we sell ourselves - no. We roll over and give in. I am in awe of the RAF internal PR machine - you guys know how to get what you want, I wish we would do the same.
GR7/9
I don't think it is any great secret that the army wanted to use GR5 for CAS during DS1 rather than rely on the Spams, what with their deonstrated ability to destroy friendly tanks. Indeed if the GR3's had still been operational they would likely have been deployed.
This time round, they will no doubt welcome RAF CAS from whatever source either from a CVS or a airbase.
This time round, they will no doubt welcome RAF CAS from whatever source either from a CVS or a airbase.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
"So why just junk a type that may yet do a job in a conflict we do not yet foresee?"
it's supposed to go in 2006 anyway. if it's not suitable for the Gulf in 2003 what anticipated conflict zone is going to require the SHar between now and then? Better, perhaps, to advance the retirement date and re-equip/re-role the FAA squadrons on the GR7 as soon as possible.
it's supposed to go in 2006 anyway. if it's not suitable for the Gulf in 2003 what anticipated conflict zone is going to require the SHar between now and then? Better, perhaps, to advance the retirement date and re-equip/re-role the FAA squadrons on the GR7 as soon as possible.
Jacko
You might be right. In this situation then 16 or so Harrier GR7s might be more useful than a mixture of GR7 and SHAR FA2. But please let the decision be made on military (and technical?) grounds and not political ones. The decision should be made by the gentlemen who wear gold braid on their hats, and not by smug political types.
There has been a lot of speculation in the press about what options might be possible. Some of these options may involve a larger element of defending the fleet other than the carrier group (this was in one of the papers, otherwise I wouldn't mention it here). Certain papers have suggested the CVS will have a mix of 8 x FA2 and 8 x GR7. But does this sort of speculation do anyone any good?
ORAC
It wasn't meant to go until the JSF/FCJA/F35 comes along. It is going early mainly for money saving reasons. What type of situation would make it a key asset? We don't know. Thats been my point on my postings, we can't predict the future with great accuracy. Who in the late 1970s could have predicted the Falklands War?
My postings on PPRuNe have, in the main, been my personal opinion. Having said that, I have tried to base them on facts, and have been encouraged and supported by several people who can offer an expect opinion on Sea Harrier issues. Some of them are on PPRuNe, some are not. My primary concern has been for the safety of our personnel, which does provoke my emotions. I cannot pretend to have the answers, or even the questions, but there have been points that I felt needed to be made (not just on this thread, on my postings generally).
You might be right. In this situation then 16 or so Harrier GR7s might be more useful than a mixture of GR7 and SHAR FA2. But please let the decision be made on military (and technical?) grounds and not political ones. The decision should be made by the gentlemen who wear gold braid on their hats, and not by smug political types.
There has been a lot of speculation in the press about what options might be possible. Some of these options may involve a larger element of defending the fleet other than the carrier group (this was in one of the papers, otherwise I wouldn't mention it here). Certain papers have suggested the CVS will have a mix of 8 x FA2 and 8 x GR7. But does this sort of speculation do anyone any good?
ORAC
It wasn't meant to go until the JSF/FCJA/F35 comes along. It is going early mainly for money saving reasons. What type of situation would make it a key asset? We don't know. Thats been my point on my postings, we can't predict the future with great accuracy. Who in the late 1970s could have predicted the Falklands War?
My postings on PPRuNe have, in the main, been my personal opinion. Having said that, I have tried to base them on facts, and have been encouraged and supported by several people who can offer an expect opinion on Sea Harrier issues. Some of them are on PPRuNe, some are not. My primary concern has been for the safety of our personnel, which does provoke my emotions. I cannot pretend to have the answers, or even the questions, but there have been points that I felt needed to be made (not just on this thread, on my postings generally).
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Mr Tourist,
I doubt if Hansard would have bothered to work out such figures for the following reasons:
a. Any plans to float Marham to the Gulf would be unlikely to receive planning permission from the local parish council.
b. Even if planning permission was granted, moving such a large portion of Norfolk to the other side of the world would be hotly contested by the environmental lobby, and...
c. 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!!!!
Seriously Mr T, if you read my post again you will note that I'm a strong supporter of CVF (and for that matter the FJCA). However, the limitations of the current generation of CVS mean that even a wholly GR7 force is often able to achieve little. By all means use the carriers to send a political message of intent, and to get the GR7's and SHAR's to the area. But once there, get the jets off the deck ASAP so that they can operate with meaningful warloads and, if necessary, bring weapons back.
I suspect that if the current crisis in Iraq comes to a head (and I sincerely hope that it doesn't), basing rights will have been sorted out with many nations in the area.
Now chill out Tourist...it's Christmas!!!!!
Regards
M2
I wonder if Hansard quotes figures as to the cost of floating Marham on barges and relocating it to the gulf?
a. Any plans to float Marham to the Gulf would be unlikely to receive planning permission from the local parish council.
b. Even if planning permission was granted, moving such a large portion of Norfolk to the other side of the world would be hotly contested by the environmental lobby, and...
c. 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!!!!
Seriously Mr T, if you read my post again you will note that I'm a strong supporter of CVF (and for that matter the FJCA). However, the limitations of the current generation of CVS mean that even a wholly GR7 force is often able to achieve little. By all means use the carriers to send a political message of intent, and to get the GR7's and SHAR's to the area. But once there, get the jets off the deck ASAP so that they can operate with meaningful warloads and, if necessary, bring weapons back.
I suspect that if the current crisis in Iraq comes to a head (and I sincerely hope that it doesn't), basing rights will have been sorted out with many nations in the area.
Now chill out Tourist...it's Christmas!!!!!
Regards
M2