Sea Harrier: Still Alive!!
Thread Starter
Sea Harrier: Still Alive!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Detached (again!)
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, man.....let it go!!!
If the SHAR was truly viable as a AMRAAM shooting escort/sweep WITH the legs to get to the target with the bombers, loiter until they egress and sweep out again - don't you think that they might have played in TELIC? I.e. the one conflict where every RAF/RN aircraft type in the inventory took part (bar Jaguar - Turkish politics...oh, and I suppose AH-64...does that count yet?)
To quote the 2* at a recent brief (out here somewhere sandy) "the one thing we have learned from this conflict that we can no longer afford to have single-role fighters, you must instead have a good swing-role capability."
Before you start about the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM combination - I agree, it's good. It's the airframe that's pants.....
CV
If the SHAR was truly viable as a AMRAAM shooting escort/sweep WITH the legs to get to the target with the bombers, loiter until they egress and sweep out again - don't you think that they might have played in TELIC? I.e. the one conflict where every RAF/RN aircraft type in the inventory took part (bar Jaguar - Turkish politics...oh, and I suppose AH-64...does that count yet?)
To quote the 2* at a recent brief (out here somewhere sandy) "the one thing we have learned from this conflict that we can no longer afford to have single-role fighters, you must instead have a good swing-role capability."
Before you start about the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM combination - I agree, it's good. It's the airframe that's pants.....
CV
Thread Starter
Contary to my earlier nail biting, it turns out Saddam's aircraft made not one sortie. In any case, there was plenty of other air defence assets, both land based and (US) carrierborne. Ark Royal was deployed to act as a helicopter carrier. But what would happen in a UK only operation?
As for the swing role - I think our friend Nozzles might have something to say about that, and so might other PPRuNers who have been involved with the mighty SHAR.
To quote Nozzles (sorry Noz).....
While I'm remeniscing, that particular fit involved 2 AAMs, a 1000lb bomb and a loaded recce camera. Our missions were fragged as 'Swing' whereby we cruised around waiting to be called to either intercept a/c, drop bombs or take recce photos. I believe some wise fellow once said that flexibility was the key to airpower. Needless to say, we didn't sweat when there was talk of the CAOC throwing single-role a/c out of theatre due to limited dispersal space. (We were triple-swing role and brought our own dipersal to the party!)
As for the swing role - I think our friend Nozzles might have something to say about that, and so might other PPRuNers who have been involved with the mighty SHAR.
To quote Nozzles (sorry Noz).....
While I'm remeniscing, that particular fit involved 2 AAMs, a 1000lb bomb and a loaded recce camera. Our missions were fragged as 'Swing' whereby we cruised around waiting to be called to either intercept a/c, drop bombs or take recce photos. I believe some wise fellow once said that flexibility was the key to airpower. Needless to say, we didn't sweat when there was talk of the CAOC throwing single-role a/c out of theatre due to limited dispersal space. (We were triple-swing role and brought our own dipersal to the party!)
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
Keep it up, lad. You'll make Admiral yet.
The world is an ever changing place, but many things stay the same. And you know, the surest thing we can say about the future is that we just never know.
Do you read much Kipling?
If you can keep the beacon burning while all about are proclaiming the dark days over......
Who knows.
Keep it up, lad. You'll make Admiral yet.
The world is an ever changing place, but many things stay the same. And you know, the surest thing we can say about the future is that we just never know.
Do you read much Kipling?
If you can keep the beacon burning while all about are proclaiming the dark days over......
Who knows.
Thread Starter
Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato
Succesful defence planning requires two things - a crystal ball and a magic wand. Not sure who I am paraphrasing, but I think its a good quote.
Jimlad - The obvious answer to your question is - the Falklands. After 2006 the Argentines may say an opportunity to do something that Argentine governments have been promising to do since 1833. Whilst the forces (including Tornado F3s) provide capable defence, they would not stop a determined attack. Such a crisis would demand maritime reinforcement of the defences - and involve similar threats as those encountered in 1982. According to the press, the Argentine armed forces (including the naval air arm AND air force) are re-equipping. Argentina is still potentially unstable.
And Sierra Leone was a UK only operation. There was no need to deploy aircraft in roles other than recce and frightening the rebels - but what if there had been? What if the rebels had been backed by another state which took exception to the presence of UK forces and started using their MiGs/Sukhois/whatever against our helicopters - the Sea Harrier would have been needed then. What if the same nation took exception to the presence of British warships and Marines? What if they had blockaded Freetown?
The above is obviously hypothetical - but similar things might happen in the following decade. Both the above are examples where the existance/deployment of the SHAR would have an important deterrent effect. The same could be said of protecting UK maritime trade from third world dictators trying to make a name trying to make a name for themselves by harrasing/attacking merchant shipping (as Gadaffi did). It might be said that the Britain is more likely to be targeted in this we stand out as a major Western power but without the USA's capabilities.
Is it not possible that the Sea Harrier acts as a deterrent to potential aggresors and that this is as important as its actual deployments?
As BlueWolf points out, the only thing we can predict about the future with certainty is that we can't predict it. With a unstable dangerous world and a Government that is not adverse to using the Armed Forces (doesn't like funding then though) the chances of crises involving the UK seem high.
Succesful defence planning requires two things - a crystal ball and a magic wand. Not sure who I am paraphrasing, but I think its a good quote.
Jimlad - The obvious answer to your question is - the Falklands. After 2006 the Argentines may say an opportunity to do something that Argentine governments have been promising to do since 1833. Whilst the forces (including Tornado F3s) provide capable defence, they would not stop a determined attack. Such a crisis would demand maritime reinforcement of the defences - and involve similar threats as those encountered in 1982. According to the press, the Argentine armed forces (including the naval air arm AND air force) are re-equipping. Argentina is still potentially unstable.
And Sierra Leone was a UK only operation. There was no need to deploy aircraft in roles other than recce and frightening the rebels - but what if there had been? What if the rebels had been backed by another state which took exception to the presence of UK forces and started using their MiGs/Sukhois/whatever against our helicopters - the Sea Harrier would have been needed then. What if the same nation took exception to the presence of British warships and Marines? What if they had blockaded Freetown?
The above is obviously hypothetical - but similar things might happen in the following decade. Both the above are examples where the existance/deployment of the SHAR would have an important deterrent effect. The same could be said of protecting UK maritime trade from third world dictators trying to make a name trying to make a name for themselves by harrasing/attacking merchant shipping (as Gadaffi did). It might be said that the Britain is more likely to be targeted in this we stand out as a major Western power but without the USA's capabilities.
Is it not possible that the Sea Harrier acts as a deterrent to potential aggresors and that this is as important as its actual deployments?
As BlueWolf points out, the only thing we can predict about the future with certainty is that we can't predict it. With a unstable dangerous world and a Government that is not adverse to using the Armed Forces (doesn't like funding then though) the chances of crises involving the UK seem high.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon WEBF even I know the Agries havent got a chance against us. A4 fighting hawks aside 
they have the exact same problem as in 1982 not enough tankers to overwhelm us by using superior numbers alone.
they have the exact same problem as in 1982 not enough tankers to overwhelm us by using superior numbers alone.
Thread Starter
Media rumours are that Thailand is considering purchasing some of the Sea Harriers when we have retired them. Funny, thought Thailand and the surrounding area was hot. If the SHAR cannot operate in hot climates for us then why will it for the Thais?
Same goes for the Indians - it does tend to be a bit warm in the Indian Ocean. Then we have deployed it ourselves to hot places, including the Adriatic, the 2001 war games in Oman, and the Gulf..
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/3102.html
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/5025.html
Are the MOD being "economical with the truth"?
They say its an old airframe. Again this seems like a bit of a distortion of the truth, some of them were built in the mid/late '80s, some of the FA2s were new builds in the mid/late 1990s. See http://www.targetlock.org.uk/seaharrier/index.html and click on "Production".
They say its not needed, yet the training for air defence of the fleet goes on. All the time there are exercise involving (as part of Flag Officer Sea Training organisation) the conduct of an air war to defend against aircraft carrying anti ship missiles. Not to mention the Rat Trap exercises to practice defence against a mass air attack.
If the Government thinks that we do not need air defence then we does this still happen? And what magically changes in 2006?
Am I being cynical in saying that they know it is a huge risk, and they are keen to retain that capablity until after the next general election, so a sudden disaster (ships lost, crises UK cannot respond to) will not effect the election results?
The Commons Defence Select Commitee warned warned back in 1999 that there would be a capability gap in the Royal Navy's anti air warfare capability in the latter half of this decade, between the phasing out of the Type 42 destroyer and the introduction of the Type 45 (at the same time assuming it works and isn't delayed). See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/514550.stm
Does this not increase the need for organic air defence? What about the proliferation of air launched anti ship missiles (including supersonic ones)?
This might also be of interest:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...38we/13828.htm
The present Government is nothing if not completely inconsistant. What on earth is going on?
Same goes for the Indians - it does tend to be a bit warm in the Indian Ocean. Then we have deployed it ourselves to hot places, including the Adriatic, the 2001 war games in Oman, and the Gulf..
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/3102.html
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/5025.html
Are the MOD being "economical with the truth"?
They say its an old airframe. Again this seems like a bit of a distortion of the truth, some of them were built in the mid/late '80s, some of the FA2s were new builds in the mid/late 1990s. See http://www.targetlock.org.uk/seaharrier/index.html and click on "Production".
They say its not needed, yet the training for air defence of the fleet goes on. All the time there are exercise involving (as part of Flag Officer Sea Training organisation) the conduct of an air war to defend against aircraft carrying anti ship missiles. Not to mention the Rat Trap exercises to practice defence against a mass air attack.
If the Government thinks that we do not need air defence then we does this still happen? And what magically changes in 2006?
Am I being cynical in saying that they know it is a huge risk, and they are keen to retain that capablity until after the next general election, so a sudden disaster (ships lost, crises UK cannot respond to) will not effect the election results?
The Commons Defence Select Commitee warned warned back in 1999 that there would be a capability gap in the Royal Navy's anti air warfare capability in the latter half of this decade, between the phasing out of the Type 42 destroyer and the introduction of the Type 45 (at the same time assuming it works and isn't delayed). See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/514550.stm
Does this not increase the need for organic air defence? What about the proliferation of air launched anti ship missiles (including supersonic ones)?
This might also be of interest:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...38we/13828.htm
The present Government is nothing if not completely inconsistant. What on earth is going on?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Others will buy them cos we will sell them cheap as we always do. Now you young man have had more advice from well intentioned people than most of us could shake a stick at so>>>>>>>>>>>>>LEAVE IT ALONE and get on with your life.
all spelling mistakes are "df alcohol" induced
as we always do. Now you young man have had more advice from well intentioned people than most of us could shake a stick at so>>>>>>>>>>>>>LEAVE IT ALONE and get on with your life.all spelling mistakes are "df alcohol" induced
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't lose any sleep over the detractions of knockers or belittlers, WEBF. History will see you vindicated.
Remind them of it then.
Too many people, who should know far better, have far too weak a grasp of the nature of man and his nations, and their story so far, to be passing what is a poor substitute for informed comment.
Remind them of it then.
Too many people, who should know far better, have far too weak a grasp of the nature of man and his nations, and their story so far, to be passing what is a poor substitute for informed comment.
