Sea Jet
Maybe the Chileans can protect the Falklands for us, as the reduction in frigate and destroyer numbers announced recently will mean at least two standing commitments will have to be abandoned - according to the CINCFLEET.
Last weekend Navy Days was held at Devonport. I wasn't there - but the Sea Harrier was. Anyone see the display?
Navy Days
The unprecedented highlight will be the staging of an assault on Devonport Dockyard by Royal Navy aircraft, ships and Royal Marine Commandos. Involving Sea Harriers, Hawks, Sea King HC4, Sea King ASAC7, Gazelle AH1, Lynx HAS3 and AH7, landing craft, hovercraft, the Type 23 frigate HMS Montrose, mine countermeasures vessel HMS Bangor and HMS Albion, some two hundred Royal Marines, arriving by air and sea will take the Dockyard in a simulated amphibious attack.
So we need the Sea Harrier for a peacetime demonstration of an assault, but not an actual wartime assault against an enemy firing more than blanks?
Time to read between the lines?
Hmmmmm!!
Last weekend Navy Days was held at Devonport. I wasn't there - but the Sea Harrier was. Anyone see the display?
Navy Days
The unprecedented highlight will be the staging of an assault on Devonport Dockyard by Royal Navy aircraft, ships and Royal Marine Commandos. Involving Sea Harriers, Hawks, Sea King HC4, Sea King ASAC7, Gazelle AH1, Lynx HAS3 and AH7, landing craft, hovercraft, the Type 23 frigate HMS Montrose, mine countermeasures vessel HMS Bangor and HMS Albion, some two hundred Royal Marines, arriving by air and sea will take the Dockyard in a simulated amphibious attack.
So we need the Sea Harrier for a peacetime demonstration of an assault, but not an actual wartime assault against an enemy firing more than blanks?
Time to read between the lines?
Hmmmmm!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the FAA will use every opportunity to demonstrate/display the SHAR as part of a combined assault/AD package! Just because the politicians have decided to retire it early doesn't mean the frames get sold off the following day.
Also, continued demonstration of the capability and the threat posed to the Surface Group by missiles/enemy fighters etc at least keeps the issue in the public eye (to a degree). Otherwise more questions will be asked about the need for CVF....
But don't read more into the display than exists - it was just that; a display. Not knocking the SHAR or the pilots, but there has to come a point when you recognise that the battle is lost and focus on other pressing issues.
SBG
Also, continued demonstration of the capability and the threat posed to the Surface Group by missiles/enemy fighters etc at least keeps the issue in the public eye (to a degree). Otherwise more questions will be asked about the need for CVF....
But don't read more into the display than exists - it was just that; a display. Not knocking the SHAR or the pilots, but there has to come a point when you recognise that the battle is lost and focus on other pressing issues.
SBG
During this operation against Devonland did the SHars operate from a carrier or did they get basing permission from neighbouring Dorsetland? Had Yeovilton been unavailable, would Cornwall-land have let them use St Mawgan or Culdrose? Or could they have flown from Wightland, or Avonland?
And what was to stop better CAS pltaforms (Jag, GR7, GR4) from operating from any of these bases?
And could they have guaranteed the safety of a carrier from air attack in the restricted waters of the channel, or would it have to stand off in the Western Approaches?
I think the RN demonstrated more than it intended.
And what was to stop better CAS pltaforms (Jag, GR7, GR4) from operating from any of these bases?
And could they have guaranteed the safety of a carrier from air attack in the restricted waters of the channel, or would it have to stand off in the Western Approaches?
I think the RN demonstrated more than it intended.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Jacko, the purpose of the aircraft carrier is to project power from the sea, therefore it is reasonable to assume that FAA will be flying from one. This is what it trains for. The Shar is still a capable bomber as I believe was demonstrated by 800NAS just before it disbanded.
Flatus: Was any of the Argentine kit still serviceable and usable by us? I know they had some good Westinghouse radars. They also had a 35mm Skyguard system. I vaguely recall the latter ending up at Waddington. Anyone know if its still in use?
I'm curious what you meant by Shar not achieving a"favourable air situation"?
Flatus: Was any of the Argentine kit still serviceable and usable by us? I know they had some good Westinghouse radars. They also had a 35mm Skyguard system. I vaguely recall the latter ending up at Waddington. Anyone know if its still in use?
I'm curious what you meant by Shar not achieving a"favourable air situation"?
Last edited by Navaleye; 2nd Sep 2004 at 09:56.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Skyguard and AA guns were used until the ammo ran out of life, (A reserve Regiment Sqn at Waddington I seem to recall). The guns were then retired but the Skyguard used by the MOD plods to catch those low flying below limits. Not sure if it is still in service.
The TPS-43 was eventually repaired, courtesy of the USAF*, and provided many years of sterling service for No 1 ACC. It was eventually retired when, I believe, it was replaced by the T-101. Not sure what happened to it.
(*Supposedly, the Argentines had not paid for the TPS-43 who suggested, when asked for payment, that Westinghouse should ask the RAF to pay for it, since they had it. The RAF said k**b off, spoils of war, ask the Argies, they bought it, not us.
Westinghouse got very shirty and refused to sell us any spares. We went through the back door and bought spares off of the USAF, who then bought replacements for their own radars through the front door, so to speak)
Happy to be contradicted. Twas a while ago now.
The TPS-43 was eventually repaired, courtesy of the USAF*, and provided many years of sterling service for No 1 ACC. It was eventually retired when, I believe, it was replaced by the T-101. Not sure what happened to it.
(*Supposedly, the Argentines had not paid for the TPS-43 who suggested, when asked for payment, that Westinghouse should ask the RAF to pay for it, since they had it. The RAF said k**b off, spoils of war, ask the Argies, they bought it, not us.
Westinghouse got very shirty and refused to sell us any spares. We went through the back door and bought spares off of the USAF, who then bought replacements for their own radars through the front door, so to speak)
Happy to be contradicted. Twas a while ago now.
Last edited by ORAC; 2nd Sep 2004 at 13:10.
Navaleye,
But DID they operate from the carrier on this occasion? Or did they fly from Yeovilton, for reasons of cost and effectiveness?
And if they did go to the expense of sending a carrier to sea, why? And did they send the SSN and all the rest?
But DID they operate from the carrier on this occasion? Or did they fly from Yeovilton, for reasons of cost and effectiveness?
And if they did go to the expense of sending a carrier to sea, why? And did they send the SSN and all the rest?
Oh dear me Jacko!
Like I said, I wasn't there and didn't see the display. However, such things are unlikely to be realistic as things done at a distance will not please the crowd. Some simulated bombing or strafing, with bangs and balls of fire, tend to satisfy the punters. As for the other types, are they operated by the Navy? No.
A recent realistic scenario was Exercise Aurora/Rapid Alliance/Blinding Storm of of the US East coast, which I have made reference to and put links to pages about it, on this thread.
A number of task groups operation some distance from each other, and therefore with a reasonable degree of autonomy, were tasked with achieving air and maritime superiority against air, surface and submarine threats, conduct mine clearence, and finally put forces ashore in an amphibious operation. Naturally the Sea Harrier played a part.
Future operations are likely to be of this nature. Virtually every other nation has a coastline greater than Iraq, and hasn't had years of sanctions and no fly zones.
This other link may also be of interest.
As for the issue of the country next to the enemy providing bases, Chile was a close ally of the UK in 1982, yet they didn't let us base Phantoms (and maybe some Buccaneers?) at their bases.
Just because most nations say yes to the Americans, doesn't mean they will agree to us using their bases.
Spotting Bad Guys
There is much truth in what you say, yet a change of Government, reduction of the Government's majority, changes in world politics, a sudden crisis...............could all change things.
Until a few years ago, it was policy to retain the ability to perform major UK only operations if needed. The SDR included this. Apart the importance of the issue itself, the Sea Harrier issue represents the abandonment of the policy of keeping the capability to act independently, or without the US.
Apart from losing many of the means to conduct high intensity operations, reductions* in frigate/destroyer, infantry and support helicopter numbers reduce our ability to do lower intensity stuff. As such we can't keep things at a low intensity, so they escalate to higher intensity.
A disaster waiting to happen?
*Among other things
Like I said, I wasn't there and didn't see the display. However, such things are unlikely to be realistic as things done at a distance will not please the crowd. Some simulated bombing or strafing, with bangs and balls of fire, tend to satisfy the punters. As for the other types, are they operated by the Navy? No.
A recent realistic scenario was Exercise Aurora/Rapid Alliance/Blinding Storm of of the US East coast, which I have made reference to and put links to pages about it, on this thread.
A number of task groups operation some distance from each other, and therefore with a reasonable degree of autonomy, were tasked with achieving air and maritime superiority against air, surface and submarine threats, conduct mine clearence, and finally put forces ashore in an amphibious operation. Naturally the Sea Harrier played a part.
Future operations are likely to be of this nature. Virtually every other nation has a coastline greater than Iraq, and hasn't had years of sanctions and no fly zones.
This other link may also be of interest.
As for the issue of the country next to the enemy providing bases, Chile was a close ally of the UK in 1982, yet they didn't let us base Phantoms (and maybe some Buccaneers?) at their bases.
Just because most nations say yes to the Americans, doesn't mean they will agree to us using their bases.
Spotting Bad Guys
There is much truth in what you say, yet a change of Government, reduction of the Government's majority, changes in world politics, a sudden crisis...............could all change things.
Until a few years ago, it was policy to retain the ability to perform major UK only operations if needed. The SDR included this. Apart the importance of the issue itself, the Sea Harrier issue represents the abandonment of the policy of keeping the capability to act independently, or without the US.
Apart from losing many of the means to conduct high intensity operations, reductions* in frigate/destroyer, infantry and support helicopter numbers reduce our ability to do lower intensity stuff. As such we can't keep things at a low intensity, so they escalate to higher intensity.
A disaster waiting to happen?
*Among other things
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 2nd Sep 2004 at 23:21.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye
My remark about a "favourable air situation" was based on a hypothesis that if all the bombs that the AAF planted in our ships had detonated the task force would probably have been forced to withdraw. I doubt whether public opinion would have supported such an expenditure of blood and treasure for little gain. I believe that about ten bombs hit without detonating because the AAF had got the fuzing wrong (standard British 1,000 lb HE?). You can hardly credit the SHARs with a situation created by the Argie armourers - and by the Vulcans which at least persuaded the AAF fighters to stay at home and take care of Mum.
I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on all this. Carriers are essential in some circumstances. The question is whether such circumstances will arise so often and be so critical that the enormous outlay in men and material is worthwhile. I think not.
My remark about a "favourable air situation" was based on a hypothesis that if all the bombs that the AAF planted in our ships had detonated the task force would probably have been forced to withdraw. I doubt whether public opinion would have supported such an expenditure of blood and treasure for little gain. I believe that about ten bombs hit without detonating because the AAF had got the fuzing wrong (standard British 1,000 lb HE?). You can hardly credit the SHARs with a situation created by the Argie armourers - and by the Vulcans which at least persuaded the AAF fighters to stay at home and take care of Mum.
I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on all this. Carriers are essential in some circumstances. The question is whether such circumstances will arise so often and be so critical that the enormous outlay in men and material is worthwhile. I think not.
Argie bomb fusing probs
It wasn't just the Argentine Air Force that conducted air attacks, but also the air arm of the Argentine Navy. Because the bombs were delivered from low level the free fall bombs the Air Force were using did not have to arm. Thus when they hit they failed to explode. Eventually (perhaps helped when the BBC World Service told them their bombs weren't exploding) they sorted the problem out by using retarding parachutes, with deadly results.
The Navy Skyhawks had been using retarded bombs to begin with, and I personally know people who found themselves on the receiving end.
They were low flying to reduce the risks to themselves, by staying undetected for as long as possible, to avoid the Sea Harrier (the Blue Fox radar fitted to the FRS1 had no look down shoot down capability) and to try to aviod shipborne weapons, particularly Sea Dart and Sea Wolf. Most of our systems had been designed with medium/high altitude threats in mind.
There was a USAF study in which they concluded that 450 attack sorties had been prevented by the deterent effect that the Sea Harier had. The Argentine pilots were told to avoid the Sea Harrier by their high command. Those extra 450 sorties may well have inflicted a defeat on the task force.
The Navy Skyhawks had been using retarded bombs to begin with, and I personally know people who found themselves on the receiving end.
They were low flying to reduce the risks to themselves, by staying undetected for as long as possible, to avoid the Sea Harrier (the Blue Fox radar fitted to the FRS1 had no look down shoot down capability) and to try to aviod shipborne weapons, particularly Sea Dart and Sea Wolf. Most of our systems had been designed with medium/high altitude threats in mind.
There was a USAF study in which they concluded that 450 attack sorties had been prevented by the deterent effect that the Sea Harier had. The Argentine pilots were told to avoid the Sea Harrier by their high command. Those extra 450 sorties may well have inflicted a defeat on the task force.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 3rd Sep 2004 at 14:24.
Suspicion breeds confidence
The Argentine AF would have preferred to bomb at medium altitude.
In open waters, this would have been suicidal as Sea Dart in theory was up to the task of dealing with them. A T42 can deal with a 4 ship formation at 15miles + - when it works.
In San Carlos, Sea Dart and Seawolf were largely in effective due to ground clutter. It was the terrain and the ever presence oif Sea Harriers with radar transmitting which forced Args down low. True we had far too few, but by the end of the campaign the AAF had been heavily depleted and were in no position to prosecute the air war to any great extent. Largely down to the Shar.
In open waters, this would have been suicidal as Sea Dart in theory was up to the task of dealing with them. A T42 can deal with a 4 ship formation at 15miles + - when it works.
In San Carlos, Sea Dart and Seawolf were largely in effective due to ground clutter. It was the terrain and the ever presence oif Sea Harriers with radar transmitting which forced Args down low. True we had far too few, but by the end of the campaign the AAF had been heavily depleted and were in no position to prosecute the air war to any great extent. Largely down to the Shar.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Jacko, I really fail to see the relevance of whether or not the Shars flew off a carrier for the purposes of an air show - who cares? I would rather it was off doing something more useful. Yeovilton was only a short hop away.
I recall the Farnborough air show in 66 when Hermes launched an "attack" on the airfileld with her entire airgroup from the Channel. It was most impressive actually. Got it on a short mpeg if anyone wants to see it.
I recall the Farnborough air show in 66 when Hermes launched an "attack" on the airfileld with her entire airgroup from the Channel. It was most impressive actually. Got it on a short mpeg if anyone wants to see it.
Well, as a 15 year old CCF cadet, I was lucky enough to be in the coal-hole of the No.2 Vixen in 892's element in the 1966 Farnborough event. We took off from Yeovilton, RV'd with the Buccs and then wazzed Farnborough! I recall seeing 500 KIAS at one stage as we did our 'rocket attack'! Then flew back and did something similar over Hermes!
Great days - the CO of 892 was a friend of my father and was able to pull a few strings. Whereas the RAF couldn't even get me 20 minutes in a Chipmunk fom Chivenor!
I was, of course, as sick as a pig!
Great days - the CO of 892 was a friend of my father and was able to pull a few strings. Whereas the RAF couldn't even get me 20 minutes in a Chipmunk fom Chivenor!
I was, of course, as sick as a pig!
By gad Navaleye, I thinnk you've got it.
Launching them from the carrier when there were suitable land bases would have been a pointless, unnecessary waste of money.
Geddit?
Launching them from the carrier when there were suitable land bases would have been a pointless, unnecessary waste of money.
Geddit?
Suspicion breeds confidence
BEagle, I have you on film. Its 8mm family cine converted to video but its very watchable. Its 8Mb MPEG4 format, so if anyone wants it make some room in your mailbox. I'm quite happy if someone wants to host it also.
The opening sequence shows a formation overflight by 10 Sea Vixens and 6 Buccs over the crowds and static park. Later we see three Gannets and five Wessex and not a Crab in sight.
(although I did spot what looked like a Shack - 8sqn?)
Hopefully, this is last edit due to red wine and fading eyesight... I have also found some footage from the 65 Biggin Hill air display. White Vulcan, Valiant, Victor Lighting, Javelins, Hunters and others. It shows a huge Hunter aerobatic formation (Black Arrows??) Great flying.
The opening sequence shows a formation overflight by 10 Sea Vixens and 6 Buccs over the crowds and static park. Later we see three Gannets and five Wessex and not a Crab in sight.
(although I did spot what looked like a Shack - 8sqn?)Hopefully, this is last edit due to red wine and fading eyesight... I have also found some footage from the 65 Biggin Hill air display. White Vulcan, Valiant, Victor Lighting, Javelins, Hunters and others. It shows a huge Hunter aerobatic formation (Black Arrows??) Great flying.
Last edited by Navaleye; 4th Sep 2004 at 01:21.
Which brings us to the raison d'etre of the thread - in a way
But what if there wasn't? And how do you provide air defence for naval/maritime forces off a hostile coast that is a long way from friendly air bases? Perhaps this is why so many up and coming Navies are so keen to get carriers and organic air defence?
Incidently, the last airshow I went to was at Yeovilton in 2000, during the show a flight of Sea Harriers arrived from a CVS (can't remember which one) in the channel. Doing some routine training at sea, and they arrived back as part of the show.
If you went to an airshow and saw some aircraft that were based there, but had been moved to new display positions by towing would you conclude that towing was a more cost effective method of moving aircaft than flying?
Are we onto ANOTHER page already? Crikey!!
Incidently, the last airshow I went to was at Yeovilton in 2000, during the show a flight of Sea Harriers arrived from a CVS (can't remember which one) in the channel. Doing some routine training at sea, and they arrived back as part of the show.
If you went to an airshow and saw some aircraft that were based there, but had been moved to new display positions by towing would you conclude that towing was a more cost effective method of moving aircaft than flying?
Are we onto ANOTHER page already? Crikey!!
It's seldom necessary to use a carrier. Land bases are inevitably available. And if they aren't it's likely that carrier ops will be just as constrained by overflight restrictions and lack of HNS. And carriers represent a prohibitively expensive and inefficient way of generating only modest numbers of sorties.
And if carrier ops are necessary and possible, why not leave them to allies? This is a capability we don't need and can't afford, and that is bleeding the future defence budget white. Let's spend the money on the less glamorous and more relevant capabilities that we will need, each and every time we do anything.
The RN's decision to operate SHars from VL for this firepower demonstration was natural, and to do anything else would have been a scandalous, obscene and profligate waste of scarce money. In doing so, however, they highlighted the huge disadvantages of the carrier.
The Cold War is over, and with it so are Cold War defence budgets. The Falklands War was 23 years ago. Time to move on.
And if carrier ops are necessary and possible, why not leave them to allies? This is a capability we don't need and can't afford, and that is bleeding the future defence budget white. Let's spend the money on the less glamorous and more relevant capabilities that we will need, each and every time we do anything.
The RN's decision to operate SHars from VL for this firepower demonstration was natural, and to do anything else would have been a scandalous, obscene and profligate waste of scarce money. In doing so, however, they highlighted the huge disadvantages of the carrier.
The Cold War is over, and with it so are Cold War defence budgets. The Falklands War was 23 years ago. Time to move on.
Indeed the Cold War is over, instead to we have what might be termed Violent Peace.
Jacko you forget about the deterent effect that the carrier has, in our case not so much because of strike aircraft that it carries, but because of the fact it enables the UK to carry out expeditionary operations (eg amphibious) on our own. What if our national interests are threatened but no other nation is directly involved?
The invasion of the Falklands happened because the Argentines thought they could get away with it. Had they known that were both could and would launch a recovery operation do you think they still would have invaded?
Since people usually only pick fights they can win, the loss of organic air defence means a number of tin pot dictators with a few MiGs may be tempted to have a go. Remember the UK has global interests and commitments and, as a close ally of the United States and an ex colonial power, is a potential target for regimes looking for "street cred" either with their own populations or with felloe governments.
We really can't expect the US to hold our hand every time.
Jacko you forget about the deterent effect that the carrier has, in our case not so much because of strike aircraft that it carries, but because of the fact it enables the UK to carry out expeditionary operations (eg amphibious) on our own. What if our national interests are threatened but no other nation is directly involved?
The invasion of the Falklands happened because the Argentines thought they could get away with it. Had they known that were both could and would launch a recovery operation do you think they still would have invaded?
Since people usually only pick fights they can win, the loss of organic air defence means a number of tin pot dictators with a few MiGs may be tempted to have a go. Remember the UK has global interests and commitments and, as a close ally of the United States and an ex colonial power, is a potential target for regimes looking for "street cred" either with their own populations or with felloe governments.
We really can't expect the US to hold our hand every time.