Sea Jet
Not the MiG-21 replacement, but the Eurofighter (if it does compete) will be vying for the Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) competition for an order of 125 (and possibly up to 200) aircraft to replace the older Jaguars, Floggers (all 23BNs have been retired and some 27s) and work alongside the Mirage 2000s which should have around 12-15 years left in them.
The other aircraft in contention are:
F/A-18E
Rafale
F-16I (think Block 60+)
Gripen-D
MiG-35 (MiG-29 with souped up radar and stuff).
The two single-engined ones may not make it to the final list. IMO they should not be there in the first place. The two twin-engined Europeans may be too expensive. Which leaves the Super Hornet (ack!) and the MiG-35 (which has some commonality with our existing batch of Fulcrums).
Navaleye - I don't understand it either. We could really do with a few extra Harriers. Maybe even the Invincible
The other aircraft in contention are:
F/A-18E
Rafale
F-16I (think Block 60+)
Gripen-D
MiG-35 (MiG-29 with souped up radar and stuff).
The two single-engined ones may not make it to the final list. IMO they should not be there in the first place. The two twin-engined Europeans may be too expensive. Which leaves the Super Hornet (ack!) and the MiG-35 (which has some commonality with our existing batch of Fulcrums).
Navaleye - I don't understand it either. We could really do with a few extra Harriers. Maybe even the Invincible
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seajet
Hello Bombay, good to see you and your service back.
I tend to agree that it would be better if you had the Invincible and some FA2's, rather than let them collectively corrode ( leave our museum piece alone though please, and maybe bung us some static display stuff ) - I know, after T4I, it's more likely the other way round !
I wonder, if you did get hold of some FA2 airframes, and if Blue Vixen - or the Israeli equivalent - were available, would you update your whole FRS51 fleet, or downgrade the FA2's ?!
I would have thought that by now Blue Vixen is not so secret, then again probably not anyone left who knows one end from the other, so the Israeli BVR radar & missile fit seems likely if anything; it will be interesting to see what is offered to you with Typhoon...
I know there was talk of using the FA2's just for training or similar, which seems a waste.
I tend to agree that it would be better if you had the Invincible and some FA2's, rather than let them collectively corrode ( leave our museum piece alone though please, and maybe bung us some static display stuff ) - I know, after T4I, it's more likely the other way round !
I wonder, if you did get hold of some FA2 airframes, and if Blue Vixen - or the Israeli equivalent - were available, would you update your whole FRS51 fleet, or downgrade the FA2's ?!
I would have thought that by now Blue Vixen is not so secret, then again probably not anyone left who knows one end from the other, so the Israeli BVR radar & missile fit seems likely if anything; it will be interesting to see what is offered to you with Typhoon...
I know there was talk of using the FA2's just for training or similar, which seems a waste.
It appears that the (UK) Government wishes to retain a number of Sea Harriers.
Just in case? Or simply because they need airframes to move around the dummy deck at Culdrose?
Just in case? Or simply because they need airframes to move around the dummy deck at Culdrose?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 25th Apr 2009 at 22:08.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bombay,
The answer to ""no Dave-B" should be straightforward - CVF is a "convertible" design and therefore can be reconfigured for cats'n'traps through its life - and obviously through build. If so, the logical answer would be Dave-C off the CVF.
My 0.02 on Dave-B: I don't doubt that it is technically feasible, but if it doesn't happen, it'll be down to how much cash the US is prepared to throw at it. If I were in the Obama Administration, I'd probably conclude the Dave-B is an unaffordable luxury for the USMC - they could fly Dave-C off the USN CVNs, as they currently fly F-18s - and that we could cut a deal with the Brits to dump Dave-B in return for proceeding with the F-136 engine, in which RR has a (50%?) stake.
For me, the thing killing Dave-B financially is the comparatively small numbers - I think I'm right in saying that only the USMC and the UK have plumped for STOVL - and the payload / range limitations inherent in it. Even if the Israelis are in principle interested, and one assumes that if the Australians ever get around to building an LPD style ship, they may be interested in STOVL, the production numbers don't go up that much. Similarly if Spain, Italy and Thailand go for to replace their Harrier Carriers with Dave-B off the existing ships, it won't make a massive difference to the production numbers, and therefore of the price.
Grateful for other views!
S41
The answer to ""no Dave-B" should be straightforward - CVF is a "convertible" design and therefore can be reconfigured for cats'n'traps through its life - and obviously through build. If so, the logical answer would be Dave-C off the CVF.
My 0.02 on Dave-B: I don't doubt that it is technically feasible, but if it doesn't happen, it'll be down to how much cash the US is prepared to throw at it. If I were in the Obama Administration, I'd probably conclude the Dave-B is an unaffordable luxury for the USMC - they could fly Dave-C off the USN CVNs, as they currently fly F-18s - and that we could cut a deal with the Brits to dump Dave-B in return for proceeding with the F-136 engine, in which RR has a (50%?) stake.
For me, the thing killing Dave-B financially is the comparatively small numbers - I think I'm right in saying that only the USMC and the UK have plumped for STOVL - and the payload / range limitations inherent in it. Even if the Israelis are in principle interested, and one assumes that if the Australians ever get around to building an LPD style ship, they may be interested in STOVL, the production numbers don't go up that much. Similarly if Spain, Italy and Thailand go for to replace their Harrier Carriers with Dave-B off the existing ships, it won't make a massive difference to the production numbers, and therefore of the price.
Grateful for other views!
S41
Last edited by Squirrel 41; 31st Jan 2009 at 12:52. Reason: Missed something out....
Suspicion breeds confidence
I can't see why the remaining FA2s can't be sold on to India. The only use we'd have for them is at the SFDO.
Incidentally, some news on GR7/9
Here
Incidentally, some news on GR7/9
Here
Suspicion breeds confidence
I've just read Jerry Pook's "RAF Harrier Ground" attack, recounting his time on Hermes in 1982. Its a very interesting read and gives a useful insight into the life of an RAF Harrier Sqn when suddenly deposited in a RN controlled game. The book gives some interesting facts about some of the engagement, particularly the strafing of Argentine helos and later LGB ops against Argentine artillery positions. The photographic section also has some very interesting HUD shots of runway strike missions.
On the downside, the author's endless sideswipes at the navy become very tiresome and detract from the very good historical content. The RN and the RAF do things differently. He
can't expect to land on a carrier and expect it to function like and RAF station at sea. Also some good stories about life on Atlantic Conveyor.
On the downside, the author's endless sideswipes at the navy become very tiresome and detract from the very good historical content. The RN and the RAF do things differently. He
can't expect to land on a carrier and expect it to function like and RAF station at sea. Also some good stories about life on Atlantic Conveyor.
Suspicion breeds confidence
You are absolutely correct. Sharks had a go at the following in this order:
800 NAS
RAF
Fisheads
Jerry Pook's book is similar but in this order.
CO HMS Hermes, Cdr (Air), HMS Hermes
Anyone subordinate to the above
CTG (Flag) and his staff
COMAW
FACs
Seaman Officer Branch of the Navy in general.
Non-participant RAF.
Flag in Illustrious post war for asking him to participate in a high-level sweep of the Argentine coast.
Plus a veiled dig at the Shar world for having an easy life and having to cope with boredom as their biggest enemy.
800 NAS
RAF
Fisheads
Jerry Pook's book is similar but in this order.
CO HMS Hermes, Cdr (Air), HMS Hermes
Anyone subordinate to the above
CTG (Flag) and his staff
COMAW
FACs
Seaman Officer Branch of the Navy in general.
Non-participant RAF.
Flag in Illustrious post war for asking him to participate in a high-level sweep of the Argentine coast.
Plus a veiled dig at the Shar world for having an easy life and having to cope with boredom as their biggest enemy.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Burgess Hill
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jerry Pooks Book
I haven't read it - but I'll buy it to set beside Bob Woodwards, Sharkey's , Dave M (good read) in my bookcase. How could he be so critical of HMS Hermes - a great big built like a brick s** *house ship - Cdr (X) ( John Smith ??) reckoned we could absorb up to 3 Exocets and continue to fight - we looked after No 1 (F) squadron pretty well as we would any visiting squadron to a carrier at sea ( ask USN squadrons visiting the old ARK 10 years earlier ) - we even repaired the GR3 with the hole in the RCD in the rear fuselage ( lots of melted bits on the starboard side ) . When the RAF announced that post the end of hostilites that Port Stanley would be henceforth known as RAF Port Stanley we concealed our regrets that it wouldn't be RNAS Port Stanley and said -OK I guess you'd better get ashore and get embedded and we'll have to go home to UK
PS: But San Carlos will always be HMS Sheathbill
PS: But San Carlos will always be HMS Sheathbill
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I most certainly wasn't 'there' during the Falklands War but at Dunsfold doing my tiny part to get aircraft ready to go, or support training aircraft at Yeovilton.
From what I've learned since, I actually believe both Sharkey Ward & Jerry Pook -apologies for earlier genuine typo - ( I've never had the honour of meeting either - HINT Tangmere open day 15th March & we have the first FRS / FA2 conversion sitting outside ) - from my dealings with the military, especially the Navy, I believe them both !
Other good books to read are 'Forgotten Voices of The Falklands' and 'The Secret War For The Falklands'.
Knowing what I know now, I wish I'd never mentioned Sandy Woodward's book on the Harrier website & I'd like to correct a couple of other things,written in good faith at the time, but the editor is out of touch.
DZ
From what I've learned since, I actually believe both Sharkey Ward & Jerry Pook -apologies for earlier genuine typo - ( I've never had the honour of meeting either - HINT Tangmere open day 15th March & we have the first FRS / FA2 conversion sitting outside ) - from my dealings with the military, especially the Navy, I believe them both !
Other good books to read are 'Forgotten Voices of The Falklands' and 'The Secret War For The Falklands'.
Knowing what I know now, I wish I'd never mentioned Sandy Woodward's book on the Harrier website & I'd like to correct a couple of other things,written in good faith at the time, but the editor is out of touch.
DZ
Last edited by Double Zero; 1st Mar 2009 at 20:54.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I've reading Cdr Adrian Orchard's excellent book regarding its deployment. It's a very good read.. He starts by making some comments about the Shar and mentions the plan to use it backup the F3 force when its was under stretch. The offer was declined by the RAF on the grounds it was "Not supersonic". Cdr Orchard makes the following points:
1. The Shar may not have been supersonic, but it could get in the air very quickly while the F3 was still on the ground.
2. By the time the F3 would be airborne the Shar would be 60 miles out over the North Sea at M0.85, probably a third of the way to the interception.
3. The F3 would be overhauling it but not by that much as it would not be supersonic all the way for fuel conservancy reasons.
4. The Shar had a better radar than the F3 of the time and could operate over 35,000ft comfortably. The F3 would be 10,000ft below.
5. Both could make use of the same refueling assets.
Before anyone pipes up, these are his words as a sqn CO, not mine.
Thoughts?
1. The Shar may not have been supersonic, but it could get in the air very quickly while the F3 was still on the ground.
2. By the time the F3 would be airborne the Shar would be 60 miles out over the North Sea at M0.85, probably a third of the way to the interception.
3. The F3 would be overhauling it but not by that much as it would not be supersonic all the way for fuel conservancy reasons.
4. The Shar had a better radar than the F3 of the time and could operate over 35,000ft comfortably. The F3 would be 10,000ft below.
5. Both could make use of the same refueling assets.
Before anyone pipes up, these are his words as a sqn CO, not mine.
Thoughts?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shar Vs F3 for QRA
The only negative point that the Shar had was the limited missile load compared to the F3. Given the "small" wing of the Shar there was little that could be done about that. But in all other respects I had no problem using the Shar for Q.
Ade's book is indeed a good read, but was edited/dumbed-down a little for the masses.
The Fag Chariots on QRA can be airborne very quickly indeed when they are scrambled. It did carry a vastly superior Mx fit compared to the SHar, and could operate in block 3 fairly comfortably (although it took some effort to get there
).
There were also several limits on the use of AMRAAM by the Sea Jet, but they are probably not for discussion here. One fairly obvious one is the lack of a >M1.0 launch.
Never thought I would give credit to the F3 force, but I don't think Cdr Orchard is best placed to comment on it's (lack of!) capabilities.
The Fag Chariots on QRA can be airborne very quickly indeed when they are scrambled. It did carry a vastly superior Mx fit compared to the SHar, and could operate in block 3 fairly comfortably (although it took some effort to get there
). There were also several limits on the use of AMRAAM by the Sea Jet, but they are probably not for discussion here. One fairly obvious one is the lack of a >M1.0 launch.
Never thought I would give credit to the F3 force, but I don't think Cdr Orchard is best placed to comment on it's (lack of!) capabilities.
Suspicion breeds confidence
In fairness to the author he didn't dumb down the F3 force. He just said that the offer was made but declined. With the odd Bear coming over from Norway, I'm sure a single Shar with a couple of Slammers and AIM9s would have done the job very well. He didn't make any inference beyond that. We are not at war, over here anyway 
The RAF did take over the AIM120B stocks procured for the FA2.
I'm curious how a 10kft operational ceiling advantage over the F3 detracts from its capabilities in this scenario given the capabilities of Blue Vixen over the 20yr old Foxhunter? I'm not sure that the F3 force was fully cleared with AMRAAM at that time.if at all.
The RAF did take over the AIM120B stocks procured for the FA2.I'm curious how a 10kft operational ceiling advantage over the F3 detracts from its capabilities in this scenario given the capabilities of Blue Vixen over the 20yr old Foxhunter? I'm not sure that the F3 force was fully cleared with AMRAAM at that time.if at all.
Last edited by Navaleye; 8th Mar 2009 at 23:09.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
I don't think 2 AMRAAM would take down a bear even if they both hit, though I'm no AD mate so please correct me if you know better. Believe Sharkey found out about the initial resilience of large aircraft in the Falklands so had to .... improvise, and very effectively too!
I don't think 2 AMRAAM would take down a bear even if they both hit, though I'm no AD mate so please correct me if you know better. Believe Sharkey found out about the initial resilience of large aircraft in the Falklands
so had to .... improvise, and very effectively too!
Suspicion breeds confidence
Believe Sharkey found out about the initial resilience of large aircraft in the Falklands so had to .... improvise, and very effectively too!
ICBM is offline Report Post Reply
ICBM is offline Report Post Reply
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think Cdr Orchard is best placed to comment on it's (lack of!) capabilities.
PS: I'm not Ade but knew the fella-me-lad when he was allowed the privilege of joining 801. Dudley has disappointed us all by going off and not only joining but commanding the Ballet Dancers
