Sea Jet
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
Your arguments are about as satisfying as a luke warm shower.
I suggest we get all the main protagonists together at a neutral venue (my local) and we thrash this out. Jacko the wealthy journo will pay.
Magic mushromm
Nozzles
WEBF
Jackonicko
Lord Hutton
Geoff Hoon
The Admiralty and the Captain of HMS Invincilble
are all invited.
Jacko, please arrange the date and the invites
FEBA
Your arguments are about as satisfying as a luke warm shower.
I suggest we get all the main protagonists together at a neutral venue (my local) and we thrash this out. Jacko the wealthy journo will pay.
Magic mushromm
Nozzles
WEBF
Jackonicko
Lord Hutton
Geoff Hoon
The Admiralty and the Captain of HMS Invincilble
are all invited.
Jacko, please arrange the date and the invites
FEBA
Jacko yes we do need all those things.
We also need our ships to not get sunk by enemy aircraft. The statistic I quoted above (95% of stuff used by UK forces in Iraq transported by sea - official MOD figures) surely underlines the importance of maritime force protection and strategic access by sea.
Can armoured vehicles and other heavy things be effectively transported by air? Can fuel be transported by air? If not then we're back to using RFAs and chartered shipping, both of which (particularly the latter) are very vulnerable to air attack, due to size, speed, lack of weapons etc. Why bother attacking warships when you can achieve a greater effect by attacking seaborne logistics?
Whether potential adverseries have a BVR capability is not the real question, whether they have maritime attack capabilities (especially with missiles) that could pose a threat to British forces and/or saturate the shipborne defences of our greatly overstretched fleet is?
Retaining the Sea Harrier would cost money, but less than losing ships or losing a war.
We also need our ships to not get sunk by enemy aircraft. The statistic I quoted above (95% of stuff used by UK forces in Iraq transported by sea - official MOD figures) surely underlines the importance of maritime force protection and strategic access by sea.
Can armoured vehicles and other heavy things be effectively transported by air? Can fuel be transported by air? If not then we're back to using RFAs and chartered shipping, both of which (particularly the latter) are very vulnerable to air attack, due to size, speed, lack of weapons etc. Why bother attacking warships when you can achieve a greater effect by attacking seaborne logistics?
Whether potential adverseries have a BVR capability is not the real question, whether they have maritime attack capabilities (especially with missiles) that could pose a threat to British forces and/or saturate the shipborne defences of our greatly overstretched fleet is?
Retaining the Sea Harrier would cost money, but less than losing ships or losing a war.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nouselles
I think Jacko must be busy as he hasn't booked a table or made the financial arrangements.
I have just the hat for you in my cupboard which has beer glass or can holders either side and a nifty little manifold arrangement and tube leading to the mouth. I note that you are based in the USA and may not be used to English ale; I can load the hat with a couple of shandy's for you.
FEBA
I think Jacko must be busy as he hasn't booked a table or made the financial arrangements.
I have just the hat for you in my cupboard which has beer glass or can holders either side and a nifty little manifold arrangement and tube leading to the mouth. I note that you are based in the USA and may not be used to English ale; I can load the hat with a couple of shandy's for you.
FEBA
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The edge
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pheobe darling,
Just wanted to point out that, contrary to your belief, I am not actually based in The Land That Style Forgot. Therefore I still maintain Boddingtons/Droi Blaarrkthorrn zoider currency. Fortunately for my prospects of longeivity I haven't had a CSB since I left the Andrew. Now what about my seating demands?
Just wanted to point out that, contrary to your belief, I am not actually based in The Land That Style Forgot. Therefore I still maintain Boddingtons/Droi Blaarrkthorrn zoider currency. Fortunately for my prospects of longeivity I haven't had a CSB since I left the Andrew. Now what about my seating demands?
Interesting.....
Found this article on the internet and thought it worth mentioning it here.....
ACMI for 899 NAS
There do seem to be a lot of exercises in which the Sea Harrier plays a major role, eg Exercise Northern Lights.
ACMI for 899 NAS
There do seem to be a lot of exercises in which the Sea Harrier plays a major role, eg Exercise Northern Lights.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 18th Nov 2003 at 07:07.
The route of the problem?
The following links may help explain why the RN and the Sea Harrier were/are vulnerable to this sort of cutback...
Public ignorant of the RN
Other findings reveal just over half of those questioned (54%) know the Royal Marines are part of the Navy, and less than four in ten (35%) recognised the Royal Navy had its own Air Arm.
For F
's sake! Bet they know all the ins and outs of the soaps etc. What did Nozzles say about dumbing down?
It's all about image - or lack therof
Lack of public awareness is a major problem.
Public ignorant of the RN
Other findings reveal just over half of those questioned (54%) know the Royal Marines are part of the Navy, and less than four in ten (35%) recognised the Royal Navy had its own Air Arm.
For F
's sake! Bet they know all the ins and outs of the soaps etc. What did Nozzles say about dumbing down?It's all about image - or lack therof
Lack of public awareness is a major problem.
Webf,
That would be true if the public had voted to scrap the SHar. Unfortunately for your argument, the decision was taken by people who were fully aware of the RN's existence, role, and traditions, and of the SHar's utility, operating costs, and capabilities - including 1SL!
It was a tough decision, but one which reflected the fact that these very senior officers felt that there were other more important priorities, and that the Shar was a cut worth making.
That would be true if the public had voted to scrap the SHar. Unfortunately for your argument, the decision was taken by people who were fully aware of the RN's existence, role, and traditions, and of the SHar's utility, operating costs, and capabilities - including 1SL!
It was a tough decision, but one which reflected the fact that these very senior officers felt that there were other more important priorities, and that the Shar was a cut worth making.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 50
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF does in fact have a point, in that if you cannot protect your forces en route to the front line, they are of no use (no-one here is seriously suggesting a war is likely to come to us). Therefore what is the point of buying something else at the expense of being able to get it and its support into theatre safely?
People say we could rely on an ally for protection (well, the US then). If that is the case then we can rely on them for: support helicopters (ours were not much use to us in the Falklands, were they, with inadequate shipping protection?), heavy lift (nice to have but we managed without until the C-17 came along), reconnaisance etc. to use some of the examples cited here. At least we have some of the capabilities now, even if we do not replace or extend them. We could fight a war of our own now. Without a carrier-borne fighter we could not.
How about keeping it going instead of sending gender equality councillors into Baghdad? This government is truly screwed up, has its priorities way out.
People say we could rely on an ally for protection (well, the US then). If that is the case then we can rely on them for: support helicopters (ours were not much use to us in the Falklands, were they, with inadequate shipping protection?), heavy lift (nice to have but we managed without until the C-17 came along), reconnaisance etc. to use some of the examples cited here. At least we have some of the capabilities now, even if we do not replace or extend them. We could fight a war of our own now. Without a carrier-borne fighter we could not.
How about keeping it going instead of sending gender equality councillors into Baghdad? This government is truly screwed up, has its priorities way out.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
My sources (V High up) indicate that your statement is incorrect. The early departure of Sir Nigel at the time of this decision is an extremely timely coincidence. Previous postings on this thread (and printed in the press) indicate that the decision to axe the aircraft was made unilaterally by the Defence secretary without consultation with our allies or NATO.
The potency of the Naval force, as now perceived by the public as a result of all this, has alarmed the Navy so much that it now feels the need to launch a charm offensive, similar to something that ASDA might do to encourage us to buy more mince pies for christmas. Pitiful.
FEBA
My sources (V High up) indicate that your statement is incorrect. The early departure of Sir Nigel at the time of this decision is an extremely timely coincidence. Previous postings on this thread (and printed in the press) indicate that the decision to axe the aircraft was made unilaterally by the Defence secretary without consultation with our allies or NATO.
The potency of the Naval force, as now perceived by the public as a result of all this, has alarmed the Navy so much that it now feels the need to launch a charm offensive, similar to something that ASDA might do to encourage us to buy more mince pies for christmas. Pitiful.
FEBA
FEBA,
Unilaterally by the Secretary of State?
And not as the result of the last round of options, drawn up and approved by the Chiefs of Staff? Withdrawal of Shar has been run as an option several times over the past few years, to my certain knowledge. This time it was selected as being a sensible step. Just ask your 'Very High Up' sources.
And without having determined the ability and willingness of key allies to provide air cover when our ships deployed without SHar (like in the Gulf)?
Do us a favour.
Send Clowns,
The Defence Assumptions do not envisage or require the kind of unilateral national operation you describe, rightly or wrongly. In any case, the presence or lack of SHar would not be as much of a show-stopper as our lack of other key capabilities.
Unilaterally by the Secretary of State?
And not as the result of the last round of options, drawn up and approved by the Chiefs of Staff? Withdrawal of Shar has been run as an option several times over the past few years, to my certain knowledge. This time it was selected as being a sensible step. Just ask your 'Very High Up' sources.
And without having determined the ability and willingness of key allies to provide air cover when our ships deployed without SHar (like in the Gulf)?
Do us a favour.
Send Clowns,
The Defence Assumptions do not envisage or require the kind of unilateral national operation you describe, rightly or wrongly. In any case, the presence or lack of SHar would not be as much of a show-stopper as our lack of other key capabilities.
Now there is talk of the surface fleet losing "older ships" - which may well be the Type 42 destroyers, or at least some of them. This can only increase the need for organic air defence. Would it really be a good idea to have a task group in harms way relying only on Sea Wolf, Decoys and CIWS for protection?
As to those who doubted the ability to carry a worthwhile number of both Sea Harriers and Harrier GR7/9s (or of either type) see this:
Harrier Launch Record
..... tactical missions simulating GR7 bomb and missile strikes against land targets, with air defence provided by escorting FA2s.
Hmmmmm. Are we planning in future only to have disagreements with people who don't have aircraft of their own?
As to those who doubted the ability to carry a worthwhile number of both Sea Harriers and Harrier GR7/9s (or of either type) see this:
Harrier Launch Record
..... tactical missions simulating GR7 bomb and missile strikes against land targets, with air defence provided by escorting FA2s.
Hmmmmm. Are we planning in future only to have disagreements with people who don't have aircraft of their own?
WEBF,
But the key point is that 17 isn't a worthwhile number. If it was, the argument for CV(F) - that a carrier capable of carrying more SHARs/GR 7s than CVS is required - wouldn't have had such force.
If 17 was worthwhile, the CV(F) could and would be a much smaller design, capable of embarking 17 JSF, and certainly no more than 30 JSF/Merlin/SKW (and we'd be buying three rather than two), and the erstwhile OR sponsor for CV(F) wouldn't have said that the number of aircraft embarked on a CVS was too limited. At a conference. And then in print. Twice (IIRC - but definitely once).
Furthermore, it's now quite clear from the weasel words preparing us for yet more cuts that we're moving ever closer to working with (aka relying upon) the Americans. The answer to your final question is 'not at all. But we'll have our friends the Americans doing the CV-based AD bit with their F/A-18s'. And when the follow up 'But what if the Americans refuse to play?' comes, the answer 'We'll call upon the French, Italians or Spanish' comes back, quick as a flash.
Very few people would dispute that these are not sensible answers, in that they fail to allow for the flexibility needed to meet the unexpected, but those few include:
a) the PM
b) Buff
c) the Treasury
Bit of a problem, and not one that anyone's likely to be able to do anything about - unless events get in the way, à la 1982.
But the key point is that 17 isn't a worthwhile number. If it was, the argument for CV(F) - that a carrier capable of carrying more SHARs/GR 7s than CVS is required - wouldn't have had such force.
If 17 was worthwhile, the CV(F) could and would be a much smaller design, capable of embarking 17 JSF, and certainly no more than 30 JSF/Merlin/SKW (and we'd be buying three rather than two), and the erstwhile OR sponsor for CV(F) wouldn't have said that the number of aircraft embarked on a CVS was too limited. At a conference. And then in print. Twice (IIRC - but definitely once).
Furthermore, it's now quite clear from the weasel words preparing us for yet more cuts that we're moving ever closer to working with (aka relying upon) the Americans. The answer to your final question is 'not at all. But we'll have our friends the Americans doing the CV-based AD bit with their F/A-18s'. And when the follow up 'But what if the Americans refuse to play?' comes, the answer 'We'll call upon the French, Italians or Spanish' comes back, quick as a flash.
Very few people would dispute that these are not sensible answers, in that they fail to allow for the flexibility needed to meet the unexpected, but those few include:
a) the PM
b) Buff
c) the Treasury
Bit of a problem, and not one that anyone's likely to be able to do anything about - unless events get in the way, à la 1982.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe the public would have known more about the fleet air arm if we still had conventional carriers?
but then the RAF saw to it that the Navy lost those and how well did the RAF cover the Falkland islands in 82?
INMHO we should take the GR9 programme and change it
add blue vixen, integrate amraam, navalise and disband 1,3,4 &20 sqn and have the Sea Harrier F/A3 in service with the fleet air arm.
but then the RAF saw to it that the Navy lost those and how well did the RAF cover the Falkland islands in 82?
INMHO we should take the GR9 programme and change it
add blue vixen, integrate amraam, navalise and disband 1,3,4 &20 sqn and have the Sea Harrier F/A3 in service with the fleet air arm.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes but your nice expensive euro fighters are vulnerable on the nice large fixed air strips thy need to operate from.
You need a large airstrip with in range to operate from to support troops.
the Enemey also know where thease strips actually are like have the coordinates and can launch missiles etc at them.
with a carrier you are working on a much more secure base ie the chances of information of you departure time is more difficult to work out. therefrore the enemy will be less able to work out a TOT.
You need a large airstrip with in range to operate from to support troops.
the Enemey also know where thease strips actually are like have the coordinates and can launch missiles etc at them.
with a carrier you are working on a much more secure base ie the chances of information of you departure time is more difficult to work out. therefrore the enemy will be less able to work out a TOT.
Suspicion breeds confidence
100 days
I have read the 2nd edition of 100 days published last year. Woodward condemns the demise of the Shar. Admits he was ignorant about capabilities and praises the pilots to the eyebrows. This decision should be reversed, but won't be sadly..
Worth a read, much more intertesting than the first edition and I've changed my opinion of him.
Worth a read, much more intertesting than the first edition and I've changed my opinion of him.
I haven't seen the second edition - I've got a copy of the first. It was that which first made me think the RN needed its own air defence, some years ago (I was still at school at the time).
In various comments in the papers etc Woodward has repeatedly condemned at criticised the move.
In various comments in the papers etc Woodward has repeatedly condemned at criticised the move.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 12th Dec 2003 at 03:21.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NURSE,
All of your comments have been raised previously on this thread.
To blame the RAF for the demise of the RN CV fleet is simplistic in the extreme.
With reference to the GR9 being fitted for Sea Vixen and AMRAAM, this decision should have been made in the late eighties, before the FA2 was procured. It should have been clear then that maintaining separate RAF and RN STOVL forces was never going to be realistic. What both services should have done then was kill the FA2 programme and combine funds to develop the Harrier to a common standard a la AV-8B+. To do so now however would be prohibitatively costly.
Your concept of transferring control of the Harriers to the RN is flawed by the basic concept that the RN cannot even man the FA2 sqns it has now, let alone a bigger force. We can argue that this manning problem is merely a result of past neglect of the FAA. However, the regrettable fact is that the RN cannot currently maintain a viable fixed wing aircrew cadre.
You again raise the vulnerability of large fixed bases in comparison to carriers. Clearly, pinpointing a CV is not as easy as locating an airfield. However, it's frankly not that difficult, particularly given the increasing availability of real time commercial satellite data, and once they've found you, I'd rather be on land than on a boat.
You also state that TOTs can be more effectively disguised by carrier aviation. All you need is a trawler to tattletail the CV and report back. If anything, carrier based aviation is more limited in it's options than land based due to the restrictions of payload and fuel often incumbent upon naval aviation in ops away from the coast. Moreover, carrier ops are ALWAYs extremely reliant upon land based combat support, no matter what their nature. Even the USN CVNs are almost totally reliant upon land based assets for AWACS, SIGINT, Ground surveillance and AAR.
Likewise, operations no more require airfields within range of troops than carriers! In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was common for fixed wing assets such as F-16Cs and F-15Es to come from bases many hundreds of miles distant.
The reality Nurse is that carriers are part of a total force. They are an exceptionally important and valuable asset. Sometimes they offer advantages over fixed wing assets, sometimes they don't. I sincerely hope that the RN gets the 2 QE class CVFs; the entire future justification of the RN surface fleet frankly rests upon them.
I am a huge advocate of naval aviation. But let's stop pretending that carriers are the answer to all evils. They're not. We need effective land based AND maritime air power projection. Now lets stop trying to score points against each other, and NOT go around the same issues on this thread!!!!
Regards,
M2
All of your comments have been raised previously on this thread.
To blame the RAF for the demise of the RN CV fleet is simplistic in the extreme.
With reference to the GR9 being fitted for Sea Vixen and AMRAAM, this decision should have been made in the late eighties, before the FA2 was procured. It should have been clear then that maintaining separate RAF and RN STOVL forces was never going to be realistic. What both services should have done then was kill the FA2 programme and combine funds to develop the Harrier to a common standard a la AV-8B+. To do so now however would be prohibitatively costly.
Your concept of transferring control of the Harriers to the RN is flawed by the basic concept that the RN cannot even man the FA2 sqns it has now, let alone a bigger force. We can argue that this manning problem is merely a result of past neglect of the FAA. However, the regrettable fact is that the RN cannot currently maintain a viable fixed wing aircrew cadre.
You again raise the vulnerability of large fixed bases in comparison to carriers. Clearly, pinpointing a CV is not as easy as locating an airfield. However, it's frankly not that difficult, particularly given the increasing availability of real time commercial satellite data, and once they've found you, I'd rather be on land than on a boat.
You also state that TOTs can be more effectively disguised by carrier aviation. All you need is a trawler to tattletail the CV and report back. If anything, carrier based aviation is more limited in it's options than land based due to the restrictions of payload and fuel often incumbent upon naval aviation in ops away from the coast. Moreover, carrier ops are ALWAYs extremely reliant upon land based combat support, no matter what their nature. Even the USN CVNs are almost totally reliant upon land based assets for AWACS, SIGINT, Ground surveillance and AAR.
Likewise, operations no more require airfields within range of troops than carriers! In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was common for fixed wing assets such as F-16Cs and F-15Es to come from bases many hundreds of miles distant.
The reality Nurse is that carriers are part of a total force. They are an exceptionally important and valuable asset. Sometimes they offer advantages over fixed wing assets, sometimes they don't. I sincerely hope that the RN gets the 2 QE class CVFs; the entire future justification of the RN surface fleet frankly rests upon them.
I am a huge advocate of naval aviation. But let's stop pretending that carriers are the answer to all evils. They're not. We need effective land based AND maritime air power projection. Now lets stop trying to score points against each other, and NOT go around the same issues on this thread!!!!
Regards,
M2
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that F-117s are being trialled for daylight operations does suggest that the enemies of the future won't have the level of fighters once expected over the target zone. Recent conflicts, Iraq, Afghanistan and Seirra Leone, have shown that the current enemy can't even put up realistic fighter cover over their homeland let alone attack our forward operation locations or carriers. Today it would seem best to have aircraft with you that can clear down the SAM sites, the surface-to-surface missile sites, the armoured brigades waiting in the flanks making it safer for your ground forces to advance. Thats not to say we don't need any defence against airborne threats though but in the next 10 years just how likely are we to face Su-27s/30s etc against us?