Sea Jet
Suspicion breeds confidence
I'm not sure, what John F feels about "Sky Hook", but having looked closely at it at the time, I don't think the idea would fly (pun intended). The "destroyer" sized launching platform had a short ski jump extending over its bridge with a length of about 250 ft. I don't think this is really long enough to get a useful weapon/range load. Secondly, the process of capturing the a/c looks extremely difficult. The US tried it with bi-planes launched from an airship (Akron?) in the 1930s and found it very difficult to do. Grabbing a 15ton jet, trying to hover next to a small warship in turbulent air just doesn't seem practical in UK waters.
Given the Harriers alleged poor hover performance in warm weather, it could perhaps be used to fish them out of the sea.
Given the Harriers alleged poor hover performance in warm weather, it could perhaps be used to fish them out of the sea.
Navaleye
They could always use a system similar to the harpoon (?) we use for grabbing hold of Lynxes.......
To continue my practise of posting links for those who have nothing better to do (particularly ill informed lurkers or journos), here are some more. Not too sure this is the right thread but....hey!
The role of a CVS
Several of these will be impossible or difficult without the Sea Harrier or similar.
Capabilities - RN
Note that the five areas listed, Amphibious, Carrier Air Power, the Surface Flotilla, Submarines and Joint Operations are all related. With the possible exception of submarines, all these are adversely affected by the premature scrapping of the Sea Jet.
They could always use a system similar to the harpoon (?) we use for grabbing hold of Lynxes.......
To continue my practise of posting links for those who have nothing better to do (particularly ill informed lurkers or journos), here are some more. Not too sure this is the right thread but....hey!
The role of a CVS
Several of these will be impossible or difficult without the Sea Harrier or similar.
Capabilities - RN
Note that the five areas listed, Amphibious, Carrier Air Power, the Surface Flotilla, Submarines and Joint Operations are all related. With the possible exception of submarines, all these are adversely affected by the premature scrapping of the Sea Jet.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 14th Mar 2004 at 20:10.
Found this on the RNAS Yeovilton website:
Fighter Controllers Step Forward
Hmmmmmmm.
Meanwhile, I recently did some NBCD training. A major part of it was how much of what are now considered normal damage control and firefighting techniques and equipment are a result of the lessons of 1982. It seems very odd, and potentially tragic, that the need for organic air defence (without which we obviously would have lost) seems to have been forgotten.
As for the NBC side of things, as mentioned earlier on this thread, surely this is more reason to engage the enemy at the greatest possible range?
Fighter Controllers Step Forward
Hmmmmmmm.
Meanwhile, I recently did some NBCD training. A major part of it was how much of what are now considered normal damage control and firefighting techniques and equipment are a result of the lessons of 1982. It seems very odd, and potentially tragic, that the need for organic air defence (without which we obviously would have lost) seems to have been forgotten.
As for the NBC side of things, as mentioned earlier on this thread, surely this is more reason to engage the enemy at the greatest possible range?
Suspicion breeds confidence
What will happen to 800's aircraft when they disband.? No word from the MoD about a potential buyer. Will they stay at yeovilton as attrition replacement for 899 and 801?
Still no word from the MoD about a buyer for the FA2 force. I'm becoming increasinly sceptical there one will appear. The cost of training and tooling-up for the a/c is quite high. Why not send them down to Falklands to releive the flying fin down down there. Whitehall would like it, only one air-crew per plane and not two. Uses the same missiles and its just as good in the defensive role over the islands.
Still no word from the MoD about a buyer for the FA2 force. I'm becoming increasinly sceptical there one will appear. The cost of training and tooling-up for the a/c is quite high. Why not send them down to Falklands to releive the flying fin down down there. Whitehall would like it, only one air-crew per plane and not two. Uses the same missiles and its just as good in the defensive role over the islands.
Last edited by Navaleye; 23rd Mar 2004 at 15:56.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great idea, unfortunately its incapable of holding QRA in any useful form as far as the Falklands is concerned.
Don't believe me, then ask anyone who was at Leuchars during the build up to TELIC.
Don't believe me, then ask anyone who was at Leuchars during the build up to TELIC.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Artyhug, I was not at Leuchars and I've no reason to disbelieve you although I am a little surprised. The FA2 fleet in use is quite a bit younger the than the F3 so reliability should OK. It comes out well on exercises. I can see its short dash speed and endurance being an issue though.
Last edited by Navaleye; 23rd Mar 2004 at 20:00.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Blighty
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teary good-bye to the SHAR
Nice to see the shiny grey fanny magnet has provoked so many responses. Twill be a sad day next Wednesday (31/03/04) when the first (800 NAS) Squadron disbands. Ironic that the next morning the light blue bretheren will celebrate their anniversary! I hear that many beer scooters are being polished up as we speak for the Sea Harrier Dinner at Yeovilton - hopefully the event will pass minus upset ADC's and dented senior officer's Jags!
Any one heard any news about the F35? Is it still going to be STOVL or are we getting the proper one with a hook?
Any one heard any news about the F35? Is it still going to be STOVL or are we getting the proper one with a hook?
At the moment, still STOVL.
The STOVL has weight problems, but the general consensus is that these can be sorted out, particularly now the USAF intends to throw money at this variant as well.
The STOVL has weight problems, but the general consensus is that these can be sorted out, particularly now the USAF intends to throw money at this variant as well.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Apparently at this stage in its development process the F35B is about 2,000lbs overweight. That said initial engine tests have shown the F119 is about 2,500lb up on its predicted thrust, so things may even out. LH-M have said with some confidence that they will make the weight.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: fife
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye
The QRA issue at Leuchars was a bit political as well, but the long and short of it was, they turned up for two weeks and didn't do QRA.
Wouldn't fancy the lioter time of a sea harrier 500 miles away from homeplate at low-level. It carries far fewer missiles than the standard QRA fit F3, a more domestic issue than FI and has vibration issues if loaded 400+4.
Having said that would love them to pick up the FI.
The QRA issue at Leuchars was a bit political as well, but the long and short of it was, they turned up for two weeks and didn't do QRA.
Wouldn't fancy the lioter time of a sea harrier 500 miles away from homeplate at low-level. It carries far fewer missiles than the standard QRA fit F3, a more domestic issue than FI and has vibration issues if loaded 400+4.
Having said that would love them to pick up the FI.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Fidae, thanks for that. I wouldn't fancy on being on CAP 500 miles from the FI because I would have to fly over Argentine and Chilean airspace to get there 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The edge
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fidae,
Forgive me on my ignorance on two counts: I have never been to the FI, and I have been out of touch with UK mil aviation for a few years. My questions are: Why would you want to loiter at low level, where your fuel consumption, radar performance, missile kinematic performance and ability to close-intercept high, fast flyers for VID are at their absolute worst?
Can the F3 carry more than 4 Rammers now?
Jacko,
You're technically correct in what you say. However, the reality of the situation is that the only people who outstick an FA2 shooting Rammers subsonically are people shooting Rammers supersonically. When both you and the target are flying high and fast, radar detection often occurs after you get a valid Weapons Engagement Zone - that's a common phenomenon with fighters with smaller radars (i.e. non- F-14/15 drivers). This problem will get worse as LO technology develops, and will continue to do so until we get a quantum improvement in sensor technology. In many cases now, the first to detect gets the kill, not the man with the longest stick.
It's a funny ol' game……..
Forgive me on my ignorance on two counts: I have never been to the FI, and I have been out of touch with UK mil aviation for a few years. My questions are: Why would you want to loiter at low level, where your fuel consumption, radar performance, missile kinematic performance and ability to close-intercept high, fast flyers for VID are at their absolute worst?
Can the F3 carry more than 4 Rammers now?
Jacko,
You're technically correct in what you say. However, the reality of the situation is that the only people who outstick an FA2 shooting Rammers subsonically are people shooting Rammers supersonically. When both you and the target are flying high and fast, radar detection often occurs after you get a valid Weapons Engagement Zone - that's a common phenomenon with fighters with smaller radars (i.e. non- F-14/15 drivers). This problem will get worse as LO technology develops, and will continue to do so until we get a quantum improvement in sensor technology. In many cases now, the first to detect gets the kill, not the man with the longest stick.
It's a funny ol' game……..
Last edited by Nozzles; 28th Mar 2004 at 10:13.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ships in danger say Navy chiefs, as Sea Harriers are scrapped
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 28/03/2004)
The Ministry of Defence is placing Britain's sailors in danger by scrapping the Royal Navy's fleet of Sea Harrier jump jets, senior officers are warning.
The first of the Navy's three squadrons of Sea Harriers, which protect Britain's warships from air attack, will be decommissioned on Wednesday, taking seven aircraft out of service.
Navy Sea Harriers hovering over HMS Invincible
The Navy's remaining 20 Sea Harriers will be scrapped during the next two years, but their replacement, the Joint Strike Fighter, is not due to come into service until 2012 and is only at the prototype stage.
Until then, the Sea Harriers will be replaced by the RAF's slower ground attack versions of the jump jet, the GR7 and GR9, which will be fitted with a Sidewinder air-to-air missile, designed primarily for self defence.
The Government insists that the risk will be "acceptable", but naval officers and the Conservatives have accused ministers of placing service personnel in unnecessary danger.
A senior Navy officer told the Telegraph: "This is potentially one of the most disastrous military decisions ever undertaken. A perfectly capable air interceptor whose function is to seek out and destroy enemy aircraft in order to protect a fleet of ships is being replaced with an aircraft that can't do this."
Nicholas Soames, the shadow defence secretary, said: "The Government has chosen to take a calculated risk with the air defence of the fleet in the coming years. Recent history, and the current threat environment, show that this is a cut that they may well come to regret.
"If we need to put a task force to sea again, the lack of this aircraft will seriously compromise options available to the commander."
The Fleet Air Arm has three Sea Harrier squadrons, two operational - 800 and 801 - and 899 Naval Air Squadron, which is used for training. The 800 Squadron, which has seven aircraft, will be decommissioned on Wednesday at Yeovilton Royal Naval Air Station, Somerset; 899 Squadron, which comprises 13 Sea Harriers, will be disbanded next year, followed by the seven aircraft of 801 Squadron in 2006.
The role of the Sea Harrier has been to protect surface ships and ground troops from air attack. Equipped with a highly sophisticated radar and armed with the advanced medium range air-to-air missile, Amraam, it has the capability to attack enemy aircraft at ranges of more than 30 miles.
Two years ago, however, the Government decided to withdraw them from service, rather than spend £1 billion on an upgrade that would have extended their life until 2012, when the Joint Strike Fighter arrives. The ground-attack version that will be replacing it has neither the Sea Harrier's forward looking air defence radar nor its Amraam medium range air defence missile, undermining its capacity to defend Britain's warships.
Cdr "Sharkey" Ward, the former commanding officer of 801 Squadron said the decision was a "disgrace".
He said: "If a task force has to put to sea any time in the next 10 years, which in the present circumstances is highly likely, the lives of British troops will be put at risk. To send a task force to sea would be suicide without proper air cover."
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "With the demise of the Sea Harrier, the Royal Navy will be left with a capability gap. But we believe that that is an acceptable risk."
Endex today for 800 NAS
I'm not normally one for posting on PPRuNe during the day, however, today is different.
This has been a bit of an odd couple of days for those of us who feel strongly about the utility of shipborne aviation. Yesterday there was the Merlin crash, which, thank God, was not as bad as it could have been. Also mentioned on local TV yesterday were the shipborne Apache trials, for basing it aboard LPH or LPD platforms. I know from contacts that these trials have been going on for a while....
The Navy has in recent years sought to increase its organic capability. The Sea King Mk7, has extremely advanced systems, orginally intended to work with JTIDS equpped Sea Harriers. The Merlin (according to 824 NAS) is a huge step up in capability from the Sea King HAS6 which it replaces. So much so that some consider it to be equivelent to half a Nimrod (not my words), increasing the Navy's organic long range ASW capability (also AsuW).
The premature retirement of the Sea Harrier, prior to the introduction of its replacement, goes totally against this phillosophy. The vulnerability gap is likely to be more than six years - the vulnerability of the fleet has increased today. Delays to the CVF threaten to make the gap longer. Any delays or problems with JSF/F35 will have the same effect. Delays to the Type 45 destroyers, and possible additional reductions in the size of the surface fleet, will only make the vulnerabilty worse.
Today 800 NAS is being decommisioned. This sort of move goes against to logic of engaging the enemy at the furthest distance. It does not sit will with idea of being able to fight and win. It goes against the idea of being able to act independently, something which has been part of British naval and military doctrine since Henry VI, or even King Alfred the Great.
As the late Sir Frederick Handley Page said - Nobody has ever won a war by doing it on the cheap. Nothing is more expensive than losing a war by saving money.
This is the crux of the matter. Unfortunately politicians never seem to learn.
Meanwhile, the other frontline Sea Harrier squadron, 801, have been busy, exercising their Air to Air and other skills, see the following page from the website:
Deci Revisited
This has been a bit of an odd couple of days for those of us who feel strongly about the utility of shipborne aviation. Yesterday there was the Merlin crash, which, thank God, was not as bad as it could have been. Also mentioned on local TV yesterday were the shipborne Apache trials, for basing it aboard LPH or LPD platforms. I know from contacts that these trials have been going on for a while....
The Navy has in recent years sought to increase its organic capability. The Sea King Mk7, has extremely advanced systems, orginally intended to work with JTIDS equpped Sea Harriers. The Merlin (according to 824 NAS) is a huge step up in capability from the Sea King HAS6 which it replaces. So much so that some consider it to be equivelent to half a Nimrod (not my words), increasing the Navy's organic long range ASW capability (also AsuW).
The premature retirement of the Sea Harrier, prior to the introduction of its replacement, goes totally against this phillosophy. The vulnerability gap is likely to be more than six years - the vulnerability of the fleet has increased today. Delays to the CVF threaten to make the gap longer. Any delays or problems with JSF/F35 will have the same effect. Delays to the Type 45 destroyers, and possible additional reductions in the size of the surface fleet, will only make the vulnerabilty worse.
Today 800 NAS is being decommisioned. This sort of move goes against to logic of engaging the enemy at the furthest distance. It does not sit will with idea of being able to fight and win. It goes against the idea of being able to act independently, something which has been part of British naval and military doctrine since Henry VI, or even King Alfred the Great.
As the late Sir Frederick Handley Page said - Nobody has ever won a war by doing it on the cheap. Nothing is more expensive than losing a war by saving money.
This is the crux of the matter. Unfortunately politicians never seem to learn.
Meanwhile, the other frontline Sea Harrier squadron, 801, have been busy, exercising their Air to Air and other skills, see the following page from the website:
Deci Revisited
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northants, UK
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was at the 800 NAS disbandment ceremony yesterday - sad occasion but some good flying and glad to hear the 'old bastard' rubbing it in about the bomb comp results last week.
Was told the 800 a/c are now going to be held for spares stripping to keep the rest of the fleet going as no more parts will be forthcoming from BAE. No chance of flogging the FA2s to anybody else because radar & avionics far too spiffy to let Johnny Foreigner get a look at them, and so the stripped airframes will eventually be disposed of to the highest bidder - museums/individuals/scrap merchants and so on. But not before the whole force is retired.
Was told the 800 a/c are now going to be held for spares stripping to keep the rest of the fleet going as no more parts will be forthcoming from BAE. No chance of flogging the FA2s to anybody else because radar & avionics far too spiffy to let Johnny Foreigner get a look at them, and so the stripped airframes will eventually be disposed of to the highest bidder - museums/individuals/scrap merchants and so on. But not before the whole force is retired.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Daily Telegraph: Navy to 'lose two carriers' in cutbacks.
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
The Royal Navy is to lose two aircraft carriers after Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, lost his argument with the Treasury, defence sources said last night. The ships will be "withdrawn from operational service" amid attempts to cut the defence budget. They will be moored at Portsmouth before being sold, the sources said.........
The two vessels to be withdrawn are Illustrious and Invincible. Ark Royal, the newest of the carriers, is to undergo routine maintenance.
Mr Hoon told the Commons Defence Committee yesterday that "difficult choices have to be made between existing equipment and equipment we will need in the future."
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
The Royal Navy is to lose two aircraft carriers after Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, lost his argument with the Treasury, defence sources said last night. The ships will be "withdrawn from operational service" amid attempts to cut the defence budget. They will be moored at Portsmouth before being sold, the sources said.........
The two vessels to be withdrawn are Illustrious and Invincible. Ark Royal, the newest of the carriers, is to undergo routine maintenance.
Mr Hoon told the Commons Defence Committee yesterday that "difficult choices have to be made between existing equipment and equipment we will need in the future."
Mmm.
A little cynical voice tells me that if this is true (we are talking about the Torygraph, after all), this could be the thin end of the wedge.
One operational CVS would mean, I suggest, another rethink on JFH. After all, if you're only going to put one carrier to sea (IIRC the article said the other two would be in a position to put to sea - in theory - after a couple of months' preparation...), why start messing around with the Harrier force structure so much?
Why not simply renumber 3 Sqn as 800 NAS (making it dark-blue heavy at the same time) and put it, complete with 12 GR7s aboard the Ark? Then, if the need arises, 1 or 4 could go aboard the other CVS with a similar number of aircraft.
Not that I'm advocating this as a sensible idea, you understand - just thinking of this as the mechanism by which Buff and chums can squeeze the loss of one (or two) CVS plus a Harrier sqn from the lists and claim its all a result of the change to NEC...
A little cynical voice tells me that if this is true (we are talking about the Torygraph, after all), this could be the thin end of the wedge.
One operational CVS would mean, I suggest, another rethink on JFH. After all, if you're only going to put one carrier to sea (IIRC the article said the other two would be in a position to put to sea - in theory - after a couple of months' preparation...), why start messing around with the Harrier force structure so much?
Why not simply renumber 3 Sqn as 800 NAS (making it dark-blue heavy at the same time) and put it, complete with 12 GR7s aboard the Ark? Then, if the need arises, 1 or 4 could go aboard the other CVS with a similar number of aircraft.
Not that I'm advocating this as a sensible idea, you understand - just thinking of this as the mechanism by which Buff and chums can squeeze the loss of one (or two) CVS plus a Harrier sqn from the lists and claim its all a result of the change to NEC...
Suspicion breeds confidence
No change
As I was reminded the other week, that the situation where we only have one active CVS has been the case for some years. Personally, I think a tailored airgroup of two GR9 squadrons (18 a/c) would give valuable experience of high(ish) tempo opps as we run up to CVF. CVF will also have a bigger bar which maybe a useful retention aid.
Navaleye,
Agreed - but what Buff seems to be suggesting is that we'll be in a position where there'll be occasions where we'll have 0 CVS available...
In which case, Treasury logic (or what passes for it) would be that the need for aircraft for this occasionally available asset would be reduced, therefore...
It'd be totally and utterly barking, but when has common sense ever played much part in 'achieving cost-based efficiency savings'?
Agreed - but what Buff seems to be suggesting is that we'll be in a position where there'll be occasions where we'll have 0 CVS available...
In which case, Treasury logic (or what passes for it) would be that the need for aircraft for this occasionally available asset would be reduced, therefore...
It'd be totally and utterly barking, but when has common sense ever played much part in 'achieving cost-based efficiency savings'?