Sea Jet
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
WEBF,
Where did you get the idea the Argentinians have either the ships or surveillance capability to blockade the Falklands, and why would we need to a fleet to break one when we have a perfectly good airfield from which to fly MRR and strike?
Where did you get the idea the Argentinians have either the ships or surveillance capability to blockade the Falklands, and why would we need to a fleet to break one when we have a perfectly good airfield from which to fly MRR and strike?
Last edited by ORAC; 18th Oct 2003 at 17:29.
WEBF,
If the Argentinians took one step toward the Falklands, if they even hinted at it, the IMF would be down on them like a ton of bricks! If the IMF pull their loan to Argentina then that nation is finished. The terms of the current deal restrict their defence and other non essential spending so tightly that their capability is virtually nil. Ask them how many of their current "Fighting Hawks", their Lockheed modded A-4's, they have serviceable and flying, ask their pilots how many hours a year they get.
Please do not use the "Malvinas" as a realistic scenario for showing the gap the SHAR will leave, it is an argument lacking any credibility.
As you are constantly being told, the threat is changing, 1982 was eons ago. Why do you think that the USN is ditching the F-14 with it's Phoenix capability, their is no replacement for that lined up as it has no credible threat to deter any more, Why do you think the USN is scrapping the S-3? Same argument. Why do you think the USN has just announced the canning of it's Reserve F-18 and P-3 fleet?
SHAR is a luxury we cannot afford and do not need.
If the Argentinians took one step toward the Falklands, if they even hinted at it, the IMF would be down on them like a ton of bricks! If the IMF pull their loan to Argentina then that nation is finished. The terms of the current deal restrict their defence and other non essential spending so tightly that their capability is virtually nil. Ask them how many of their current "Fighting Hawks", their Lockheed modded A-4's, they have serviceable and flying, ask their pilots how many hours a year they get.
Please do not use the "Malvinas" as a realistic scenario for showing the gap the SHAR will leave, it is an argument lacking any credibility.
As you are constantly being told, the threat is changing, 1982 was eons ago. Why do you think that the USN is ditching the F-14 with it's Phoenix capability, their is no replacement for that lined up as it has no credible threat to deter any more, Why do you think the USN is scrapping the S-3? Same argument. Why do you think the USN has just announced the canning of it's Reserve F-18 and P-3 fleet?
SHAR is a luxury we cannot afford and do not need.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
Scimitar not much use?
Cannon, rockets, missiles, bombs of all flavours including buckets of sunshine. The cabability to hold 6g till it ran out of fuel.
Probably the finest pilot enjoyment tool ever created!
Who cares if it was operationally useless?
Scimitar not much use?
Cannon, rockets, missiles, bombs of all flavours including buckets of sunshine. The cabability to hold 6g till it ran out of fuel.
Probably the finest pilot enjoyment tool ever created!
Who cares if it was operationally useless?
Not much use as an interceptor then! OK?
But I guess that it did have some operational use as a tanker to enable the Buccaneer S1 to get more than a few miles from the carrier after launch!
But I guess that it did have some operational use as a tanker to enable the Buccaneer S1 to get more than a few miles from the carrier after launch!
Just a couple of points:
Reference WEBF's scenario on page 16 about a nation threatening UK registered shipping. This I believe to be a totally unrealistic. Why you ask? Simply because there is almost no UK registered shipping any more, it is all registered in Panama, Liberia, etc... Attacks against multi national shipping would be likely to create a multi national response.
As to the general trend of this thread, I would refer all interested parties to my previous comment (bottom of page 5 to make it easier for you!)
Edited for P.S
P.S If a blockade of the Falklands were somehow to happen the easiest way to break it would be using an SSN, rather than a multi billion pound CV centred task force!!!
Reference WEBF's scenario on page 16 about a nation threatening UK registered shipping. This I believe to be a totally unrealistic. Why you ask? Simply because there is almost no UK registered shipping any more, it is all registered in Panama, Liberia, etc... Attacks against multi national shipping would be likely to create a multi national response.
As to the general trend of this thread, I would refer all interested parties to my previous comment (bottom of page 5 to make it easier for you!)
Edited for P.S
P.S If a blockade of the Falklands were somehow to happen the easiest way to break it would be using an SSN, rather than a multi billion pound CV centred task force!!!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prrone
Are you suggesting that the USN is ditching AD (excuse the pun) for its fleet ????
Forget the Falklands. It bears no relevance but only allows some to relish the amazing fighting history of this 'air vehicle' as some research types like to call it. Which is un-equalled by anything else knocking around the skies today.
FEBA
Are you suggesting that the USN is ditching AD (excuse the pun) for its fleet ????
Forget the Falklands. It bears no relevance but only allows some to relish the amazing fighting history of this 'air vehicle' as some research types like to call it. Which is un-equalled by anything else knocking around the skies today.
FEBA
FEBA,
No! Only that they are ditching a dedicated AD asset.
I was merely making the point that the USN, like the RN, is establishing strike orientated Carrier Air Groups because, again like the RN, they know that's what their Carriers are going to be used for in the next few decades.
They see no reason to retain or replace the AIM-54 Phoenix capability because it no longer has a threat to defend against.
BTW,
Are you on the edge or just over it?
No! Only that they are ditching a dedicated AD asset.
I was merely making the point that the USN, like the RN, is establishing strike orientated Carrier Air Groups because, again like the RN, they know that's what their Carriers are going to be used for in the next few decades.
They see no reason to retain or replace the AIM-54 Phoenix capability because it no longer has a threat to defend against.
BTW,
Are you on the edge or just over it?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FEBA, some of the points you make are valid some are misty eyed rhetoric, but please.
I think there might be a good percentage of 15 Charlie drivers that may wish to disagree with that statement about your alledged unsurpassed AD asset.
It bears no relevance but only allows some to relish the amazing fighting history of this 'air vehicle' as some research types like to call it. Which is un-equalled by anything else knocking around the skies today.
Found this interesting page on the MOD website:
What do you know about? The RN?
Interesting that it mentions the Sea Harrier...
Also see this snippet from Navy News:
Fleet Flagship
Both the above links mention the ability to deploy ANYWHERE in the world, even if there are hostile aircraft present.
What do you know about? The RN?
Interesting that it mentions the Sea Harrier...
Also see this snippet from Navy News:
Fleet Flagship
Both the above links mention the ability to deploy ANYWHERE in the world, even if there are hostile aircraft present.
I'd say that's pushing it a bit.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all those who doubt the performance of the SHar in high ambient temepratures.......Read this
Harriers battle over deserts of Nevada 10.11.03 12:45
Hundreds of miles from the sea in the United States, Royal Navy Sea Harriers battled with opponents in one of the most exacting tests of air power.
A short hop from the bright lights of Las Vegas, over the deserts of Nevada, pilots and crew of 800 Naval Air Squadron made their debut against the pride of military fliers from four nations.
For 12 days in August some 100 jet aircraft tangled in the skies over Nellis Air Base, Nevada.
Red Flag is the largest air exercise, but this year’s ‘battle’ was the first time the Sea Harriers have taken part, joining colleagues from the Israeli and German air forces and American F-16s from the ‘Aggressor Squadron’.
Six of the British single-seat fighters headed off to the western USA accompanied by their ground crew and staff.
The passage to the States was an adventure in itself. It took stopovers in the Azores and Maine in New England, as well as regular refuelling from RAF VC10s, to get the Harriers to Nevada, while supporting crew and equipment were shipped out in another VC10 and C-130 Hercules aircraft.
The Royal Naval team soon found the odds were stacked against the Harriers – 800 NAS was picked to play the role of former Eastern Bloc attackers during Red Flag.
The attackers were outnumbered four to one throughout the exercise – and the Sea Harrier was denied full use of its radar and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles.
Pilots were even told to mimic tactics of their former foes, rather than make use of the Sea Harrier’s legendary manoeuvrability.
Despite these handicaps – and debilitating temperatures which touched 40C at times – 800 NAS has returned from the States with its reputation held high and important lessons learned.
Pilot Lt Craig Compain said the squadron had managed to adjust to new tactics and doctrine thousands of miles from its Yeovilton home remarkably quickly.
The ground crew’s unstinting efforts ensured a punishing flight rate, with two sorties each day by four Harriers on each occasion, was maintained throughout the exercise.
Lt Compain added: “It’s a true testament to the maintenance crews that over the entire exercise, not one sortie was lost to an aircraft not being serviceable.”
Being just outside the gambling capital of the United States, the aircrew couldn’t resist the odd sortie from the Nellis air base into Las Vegas.
For staff officer Lt Ian Peattie, a visit to Las Vegas was a must – to tie the knot to fiancée Anita.
And being Las Vegas, Elvis – or rather a Cliff Richard lookalike dressed as the King – had to be there for the nuptials, as well as the core of 800 NAS.
Friends unable to attend in person could tune in to the ceremony over the Internet, as the ceremony was broadcast live on the web.
“It was a truly unique wedding, witnessed by the squadron officers in mess dress, senior rates dressed as Elvis and the staff officers dressed as cowboys,” said Lt Compain.
“We were all entertained by an Elvis impersonator, who brought the house down with his rendition of Viva Las Vegas.”
It has been a busy year for 800 NAS, with Exercise Red Flag following hot on the heels of Exercise Flying Fish in the Far East.
Five out of six members of the 120-strong squadron shipped out to Las Vegas within days of arriving back in the UK from the ten-day Far Eastern exercise.
And for 45 of the squadron, the tempo has not dropped off, as three Sea Harriers remained behind in the United States to take part in another series of exercises.
After a brief break back in the UK, crew returned to the USA to join their aircraft for High Rider, at China Lake Air Base, to test their bombing and weaponry skills.
Harriers battle over deserts of Nevada 10.11.03 12:45
Hundreds of miles from the sea in the United States, Royal Navy Sea Harriers battled with opponents in one of the most exacting tests of air power.
A short hop from the bright lights of Las Vegas, over the deserts of Nevada, pilots and crew of 800 Naval Air Squadron made their debut against the pride of military fliers from four nations.
For 12 days in August some 100 jet aircraft tangled in the skies over Nellis Air Base, Nevada.
Red Flag is the largest air exercise, but this year’s ‘battle’ was the first time the Sea Harriers have taken part, joining colleagues from the Israeli and German air forces and American F-16s from the ‘Aggressor Squadron’.
Six of the British single-seat fighters headed off to the western USA accompanied by their ground crew and staff.
The passage to the States was an adventure in itself. It took stopovers in the Azores and Maine in New England, as well as regular refuelling from RAF VC10s, to get the Harriers to Nevada, while supporting crew and equipment were shipped out in another VC10 and C-130 Hercules aircraft.
The Royal Naval team soon found the odds were stacked against the Harriers – 800 NAS was picked to play the role of former Eastern Bloc attackers during Red Flag.
The attackers were outnumbered four to one throughout the exercise – and the Sea Harrier was denied full use of its radar and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles.
Pilots were even told to mimic tactics of their former foes, rather than make use of the Sea Harrier’s legendary manoeuvrability.
Despite these handicaps – and debilitating temperatures which touched 40C at times – 800 NAS has returned from the States with its reputation held high and important lessons learned.
Pilot Lt Craig Compain said the squadron had managed to adjust to new tactics and doctrine thousands of miles from its Yeovilton home remarkably quickly.
The ground crew’s unstinting efforts ensured a punishing flight rate, with two sorties each day by four Harriers on each occasion, was maintained throughout the exercise.
Lt Compain added: “It’s a true testament to the maintenance crews that over the entire exercise, not one sortie was lost to an aircraft not being serviceable.”
Being just outside the gambling capital of the United States, the aircrew couldn’t resist the odd sortie from the Nellis air base into Las Vegas.
For staff officer Lt Ian Peattie, a visit to Las Vegas was a must – to tie the knot to fiancée Anita.
And being Las Vegas, Elvis – or rather a Cliff Richard lookalike dressed as the King – had to be there for the nuptials, as well as the core of 800 NAS.
Friends unable to attend in person could tune in to the ceremony over the Internet, as the ceremony was broadcast live on the web.
“It was a truly unique wedding, witnessed by the squadron officers in mess dress, senior rates dressed as Elvis and the staff officers dressed as cowboys,” said Lt Compain.
“We were all entertained by an Elvis impersonator, who brought the house down with his rendition of Viva Las Vegas.”
It has been a busy year for 800 NAS, with Exercise Red Flag following hot on the heels of Exercise Flying Fish in the Far East.
Five out of six members of the 120-strong squadron shipped out to Las Vegas within days of arriving back in the UK from the ten-day Far Eastern exercise.
And for 45 of the squadron, the tempo has not dropped off, as three Sea Harriers remained behind in the United States to take part in another series of exercises.
After a brief break back in the UK, crew returned to the USA to join their aircraft for High Rider, at China Lake Air Base, to test their bombing and weaponry skills.
as well as regular refuelling from RAF VC10s, to get the Harriers to Nevada, while supporting crew and equipment were shipped out in another VC10 and C-130 Hercules aircraft.
Mischief making here:
What fit were they in?
Serious observation:
Flying from a major air base, with full support, and with a higher number of support personnel per aircraft than they'd enjoy on board ship, six aircraft managed eight sorties per day.
What fit were they in?
Serious observation:
Flying from a major air base, with full support, and with a higher number of support personnel per aircraft than they'd enjoy on board ship, six aircraft managed eight sorties per day.
The above qoute by FEBA (which came from Navy News just in case any copyright lawyers are reading this thread) does not seem to give enough information to make the sort Jacko has just made, in my opinion.
Jacko, did you ever look at my earlier comments/qoutes/links about the role of maritime forces, the RFA etc?
What makes you think the aircraft had more support personnel in Nevada than when at sea?
Flaps62 the types of situations that the SHAR would be deployed in are ones where naval forces are deployed anyway. In any case, the intended future is to deploy the CVS with Harrier GR9s so I don't understand what point you are trying to make. If they are carrier based then the need for support from transport aircraft is removed or at least greatly reduced.
How is a CVS with Sea Harriers more vulnerable than one without? In any case, a carrier (in a high threat environment) is surrounded by other ships, these ships are the ones most at risk following the loss of organic air defence. Not to mention RFAs and chartered shipping.
Talking of shipping, I am currently reading a leaflet on Operation Telic which contains some interesting statistics...
Approximately 25% of maritime forces in the coalition were supplied by the UK. This may have implications for future operations.
The RFA and 60 chartered merchant ships transported 95% of the total equipment used by all three services in theatre including 30,000 man months of provisions along a route of 5000 miles.
Surely these two statistics, particularly the second one, underline the need for good force protection. Not all future threats will be asymetric.....
Jacko, did you ever look at my earlier comments/qoutes/links about the role of maritime forces, the RFA etc?
What makes you think the aircraft had more support personnel in Nevada than when at sea?
Flaps62 the types of situations that the SHAR would be deployed in are ones where naval forces are deployed anyway. In any case, the intended future is to deploy the CVS with Harrier GR9s so I don't understand what point you are trying to make. If they are carrier based then the need for support from transport aircraft is removed or at least greatly reduced.
How is a CVS with Sea Harriers more vulnerable than one without? In any case, a carrier (in a high threat environment) is surrounded by other ships, these ships are the ones most at risk following the loss of organic air defence. Not to mention RFAs and chartered shipping.
Talking of shipping, I am currently reading a leaflet on Operation Telic which contains some interesting statistics...
Approximately 25% of maritime forces in the coalition were supplied by the UK. This may have implications for future operations.
The RFA and 60 chartered merchant ships transported 95% of the total equipment used by all three services in theatre including 30,000 man months of provisions along a route of 5000 miles.
Surely these two statistics, particularly the second one, underline the need for good force protection. Not all future threats will be asymetric.....
How is a CVS with Sea Harriers more vulnerable than one without?
The case is not that the CVS will be more vulnerable with SHAR. It is that the defence interests of the UK as a whole will be more vulnerable because the money spent keeping SHAR in service could be better spent elsewhere.
As has been written many times, by people much more able to comment, it is not a case of bin SHAR and spend the money on fags and pile ointment. It is a case of bin SHAR and spend money on new CVS/new tanker/F35/PW4/proper radios for the Army and so on. Which from the above list do you suggest we lose if we keep SHAR?
WEBF,
The internet (and PPRuNe) is not my sole source of information WEBF.
The SHar is a relatively inflexible, maintenance and logistics intensive piece of kit, whose usefulness is proven, but not sufficient to justify the resources required to keep it in service.
It's about priorities, which you continue to fail to grasp.
The internet (and PPRuNe) is not my sole source of information WEBF.
The SHar is a relatively inflexible, maintenance and logistics intensive piece of kit, whose usefulness is proven, but not sufficient to justify the resources required to keep it in service.
It's about priorities, which you continue to fail to grasp.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps and Jockonicko
You will agree with me that there are senior people out there that are far more able to assess the future capability of RN operations than any of us (this of course does not include politicians).
Having spoken to these people, the men that ran the show, you will not be surprised that they do not agree with either of you.
For the umpteenth time the arguement is about the capability gap between SHar and JSF, not the retention of SHar until the planet ceases to rotate (that's a metaphor).
FEBA
You will agree with me that there are senior people out there that are far more able to assess the future capability of RN operations than any of us (this of course does not include politicians).
As has been written many times, by people much more able to comment, it is not a case of bin SHAR and spend the money on fags and pile ointment. It is a case of bin SHAR and spend money on new CVS/new tanker/F35/PW4/proper radios for the Army and so on. Which from the above list do you suggest we lose if we keep SHAR?
For the umpteenth time the arguement is about the capability gap between SHar and JSF, not the retention of SHar until the planet ceases to rotate (that's a metaphor).
FEBA
No one would argue that retirement of SHAR before JSF leaves a capability gap but we do not have a bottomless pit of money. If we spend a relatively large amount to keep SHar in service for another 10yrs or so, we don't get a lot of "bang for our buck" - given the age of SHar and the relative unlikelyhood of it being required in the fleet (and I use that word in its loosest possible sense) defence role.
I wouldn't like to tell the comrades of the MPs who gave their life in Iraq, partially because they couldn't summon help due to cr*p comms, that they might be in the same situation because some of the defence budget that was going to give them better radios has gone to give the navy a deterent against "the Ethiopian BVR threat".
When we retired Bloodhound we gave up a capability, when we retired Vulcan we gave up a capability, when we retired proper carriers we gave up a capability. Yes SHar may have more capability in real terms than these examples but sacrifices have to be made in the real world.
I wouldn't like to tell the comrades of the MPs who gave their life in Iraq, partially because they couldn't summon help due to cr*p comms, that they might be in the same situation because some of the defence budget that was going to give them better radios has gone to give the navy a deterent against "the Ethiopian BVR threat".
When we retired Bloodhound we gave up a capability, when we retired Vulcan we gave up a capability, when we retired proper carriers we gave up a capability. Yes SHar may have more capability in real terms than these examples but sacrifices have to be made in the real world.
Every other RAF FJ asset has been needed, and used, several times since the last time SHar did anything for which it was uniquely capable.
We need more recce.
We need a Canberra replacement.
We need more and better SEAD every time we do anything.
We need more SH.
We need more heavy lift.
We need a new tanker.
A gap filler between now and JSF is merely nice to have.
We need more recce.
We need a Canberra replacement.
We need more and better SEAD every time we do anything.
We need more SH.
We need more heavy lift.
We need a new tanker.
A gap filler between now and JSF is merely nice to have.