Sea Jet
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you just love uninformed statements of apparent fact.
Tell us Jessthedog on what basis would JTIDS have allowed the SHAR to PID aircraft hostility???
I'll be intrigued to find out, as would any other JTIDS user who currently doesn't have the aforementioned capability.
PS I think you'll find it was a Mode IV interrogator it was lacking.....
Tell us Jessthedog on what basis would JTIDS have allowed the SHAR to PID aircraft hostility???
I'll be intrigued to find out, as would any other JTIDS user who currently doesn't have the aforementioned capability.
PS I think you'll find it was a Mode IV interrogator it was lacking.....
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell us Jessthedog on what basis would JTIDS have allowed the SHAR to PID aircraft hostility???
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Relying on JTIDs as a source for PID is laughable, if you can rely on that why not stick with GCI declaring targets. The point is that modern AD assets should be able to self PID BVR, not rely on other assets to do it for them.
NCTR + Mode 4 has to be the way forward rather than relying on the lack of friendly IFF or the labelling of JTIDs tracks from AWACS.
NCTR + Mode 4 has to be the way forward rather than relying on the lack of friendly IFF or the labelling of JTIDs tracks from AWACS.
This is an extremely valuable capability, however it is entirely correct to point out that it is no replacement for Mode 4, particularly because it is more likely to be fallible as the result of operator error. Nonetheless, if Mode 4 breaks and you are pushing out a JTIDS position and identification message/track, you would be far safer than if not. Everything that flies or floats at the least should have this capability.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you just love people who believe the hype.
So Jess, what you were actually saying was that the SHAR would have had positive ID capability assuming every airborne platform it operated with also had JTIDS operability. A fairly large assumption in itself.
But lets delve a little further, what about Net architecture, could the current system cope with that number of PPLI's (Know what one of those is Jess?)
Would the Net be robust enough not to drop any players?
Or what about the geographic accuracy of the Net, what if you had a Radar lock on a tgt that appeared to be 60 miles from the nearest PPLI and you had time to count all of them and new they were all tracking? Well it's guaranteed safe to fire isn't Jess?
Or is it? I, as can Deliverance and a fair number of the only UK FJ fleet to have used JTIDS in an operational theatre, can guarantee it wouldn't.
So before you rail on again about another capability the SHAR would have had. Don't.
Yours bored on the Auth desk.
So Jess, what you were actually saying was that the SHAR would have had positive ID capability assuming every airborne platform it operated with also had JTIDS operability. A fairly large assumption in itself.
But lets delve a little further, what about Net architecture, could the current system cope with that number of PPLI's (Know what one of those is Jess?)
Would the Net be robust enough not to drop any players?
Or what about the geographic accuracy of the Net, what if you had a Radar lock on a tgt that appeared to be 60 miles from the nearest PPLI and you had time to count all of them and new they were all tracking? Well it's guaranteed safe to fire isn't Jess?
Or is it? I, as can Deliverance and a fair number of the only UK FJ fleet to have used JTIDS in an operational theatre, can guarantee it wouldn't.
So before you rail on again about another capability the SHAR would have had. Don't.
Yours bored on the Auth desk.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.
Yes it would have, assuming all platforms had JTIDS operability. It is criminal that it appears that UK mudmovers will not get JTIDS but that is the MoD and DPA for you! As well as not emitting a PPLI, they will not receive any surveillance information from the E3 or similar platforms. You could also say the same about Mode 4...does it have positive ID capability if other platforms lack it or is that a "can you hear a tree falling in the woods" type of question?
2.
a. The net architecture can cope with a large number of PPLIs with intelligent use of update rates from 2-24 seconds and contention access, as you should well know. Unless you are operating in UK airspace, but that is another story involving the CAA and capacity limits....
b. The net would be robust enough to support all of UK plc. There are caveats to this - the kit has to be servicable, correct crypto needs to be used, the correct network has to be used, net synchronisation needs to take place correctly, it needs to be monitored etc... There are major interoperability and training issues that have caused problems in the recent past.
c. The network should be geographically accurate....assuming that procedures and training are up to scratch and that, for example, positional information is transmitted correctly. Otherwise the PPLIs will jump and they can jump for other reasons.
The capability works and has been proven on many occasions. Like most capabilities, it is subject to correct (or lack thereof) procurement, implementation and training, and it has unfortunately been carried out on the back of the proverbial fag packet with little investment or interest from "on high" until the back end of 2002....funny old thing.
I am not saying JTIDS is better than Mode 4 - only a fool would say that - merely that it provides a means of positive identification if implemented correctly. I regret conveying this impression by bemoaning the scrapping of JTIDS in the FA2 and the FA2 itself. What will be the replacement, or will BuffHoon be happy to say that, as there is no "capability" therefore there cannot be a "capability gap"?
So Jess, what you were actually saying was that the SHAR would have had positive ID capability assuming every airborne platform it operated with also had JTIDS operability. A fairly large assumption in itself.
2.
But lets delve a little further, what about Net architecture, could the current system cope with that number of PPLI's (Know what one of those is Jess?)
Would the Net be robust enough not to drop any players?
Would the Net be robust enough not to drop any players?
b. The net would be robust enough to support all of UK plc. There are caveats to this - the kit has to be servicable, correct crypto needs to be used, the correct network has to be used, net synchronisation needs to take place correctly, it needs to be monitored etc... There are major interoperability and training issues that have caused problems in the recent past.
c. The network should be geographically accurate....assuming that procedures and training are up to scratch and that, for example, positional information is transmitted correctly. Otherwise the PPLIs will jump and they can jump for other reasons.
The capability works and has been proven on many occasions. Like most capabilities, it is subject to correct (or lack thereof) procurement, implementation and training, and it has unfortunately been carried out on the back of the proverbial fag packet with little investment or interest from "on high" until the back end of 2002....funny old thing.
I am not saying JTIDS is better than Mode 4 - only a fool would say that - merely that it provides a means of positive identification if implemented correctly. I regret conveying this impression by bemoaning the scrapping of JTIDS in the FA2 and the FA2 itself. What will be the replacement, or will BuffHoon be happy to say that, as there is no "capability" therefore there cannot be a "capability gap"?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Very interesting article on the future of carrier strike ops from Navy News. Sorry to butt into an equally interesting JTIDS debate.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jess, for your JTIDs PID system to work everyone would need to be equipped with JTIDS. Then you would need ROE to allow you to launch BVR on someone who is not on the net. Now I for one find that prospect horrifying. So there you are in the badlands and for whatever reason you drop off the net. Next thing RHWR lights up and bang.
Your idea also assumes all of our allies will have JTIDs, it's fairly expensive btw.
Your idea also assumes all of our allies will have JTIDs, it's fairly expensive btw.
Most of our allies have a JTIDS capability, ranging from the extensive US inventory to France and Germany and other European NATO members.
Would the Sea Harrier upgrade have included SIFF? If so would this have helped? The GR9 has been denied SIFF too, and has not got JTIDS. Or a radar. So if it were to be used in an air defence role, it would be much more reliant on Fighter Controllers, surely?
Are you saying that as it doesn't have every possible black box inside it should be axed? Your commitment to avoid Blue on Blue engagements is commendable, but what about Red on Blue? In any case, surely the Sea Jet debate is about what happens when there are no (or few) friendly forces about? Even in multinational operations, the UK may be given autonomous tasks - perhaps some distance from allied forces. Would the PM really tell the US that we cannot do something? Or would he ignore the advice of the service chiefs, and press ahead, regardless of the likely losses? If he ignores the intelligence community when they say there wasn't a serious threat from Iraq, will he ignore them when they say there is a threat from aircraft, missiles, whatever?
Is the carrier strike force and/or amphibious task group a balanced force? Can it defend itself as well as conducting offensive operations? A few weeks ago I attended a talk by a staff officer from COMATG and our amphibious forces were discussed at length, but there seemed to be an assumption that there would be no major threat. Seems like a dangerous assumption to make. Our nice new LPD(R)s are world class, but are dependant on other forces to defend them, this is even more true from the LSD(A)s. I can imagine that at the time the specifications were being drawn up, the planners assumed that there would be organic air defence to protect them, therefore there was no need to fit missile systems. After all many of the decisions which leaded to our amphibious forces being enhanced were taken at the same time it was decided to upgrade the Sea Harrier to FA2 standard.
Meanwhile, this story from the Telegraph suggests there may be some hope for defence......perhaps.
Are you saying that as it doesn't have every possible black box inside it should be axed? Your commitment to avoid Blue on Blue engagements is commendable, but what about Red on Blue? In any case, surely the Sea Jet debate is about what happens when there are no (or few) friendly forces about? Even in multinational operations, the UK may be given autonomous tasks - perhaps some distance from allied forces. Would the PM really tell the US that we cannot do something? Or would he ignore the advice of the service chiefs, and press ahead, regardless of the likely losses? If he ignores the intelligence community when they say there wasn't a serious threat from Iraq, will he ignore them when they say there is a threat from aircraft, missiles, whatever?
Is the carrier strike force and/or amphibious task group a balanced force? Can it defend itself as well as conducting offensive operations? A few weeks ago I attended a talk by a staff officer from COMATG and our amphibious forces were discussed at length, but there seemed to be an assumption that there would be no major threat. Seems like a dangerous assumption to make. Our nice new LPD(R)s are world class, but are dependant on other forces to defend them, this is even more true from the LSD(A)s. I can imagine that at the time the specifications were being drawn up, the planners assumed that there would be organic air defence to protect them, therefore there was no need to fit missile systems. After all many of the decisions which leaded to our amphibious forces being enhanced were taken at the same time it was decided to upgrade the Sea Harrier to FA2 standard.
Meanwhile, this story from the Telegraph suggests there may be some hope for defence......perhaps.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Razor61,
The LHD I was on during OIF, the Bonnie Dick, operated 24 AV8s and 2 CH-46's were aboard to fly SAR cover for us. The Bataan had the same load out. And we carried over 2000 infantry across the Pacific each way, along with all their Hmmwvs, LARs (bit like a Warrior), trucks, etc. It's amazing what you can fit on a hull which is essentially the same size as Lusty if you keep the design relatively austere.
As far as my uneducated eye could figure out, the propulsion took up much less space, the hangar was very much smaller, and the accommodation was considerably more cramped - single man rooms for O-5s and above only, no quarterdeck for cocktail parties, no bar, no table service in the wardroom. But you did have a fantastic flight deck, with elevators on the sides (that actually add to the deck space and one of which can be used during flight ops), a TACAN, ship's INS cables for all the jets to speed up their INS align, some deck lights that actually help bring you aboard at night, lots of hot refuelling points, an island that's about a third of the size of Lusty's etc etc (but no ramp). The magazines (all three of them) on board the LHD each make Lusty's look like the joke that they are - we'd only scraped the surface of the ship's supplies after 3+ weeks of bombing Iraq. The medical facilities are second only to a dedicated hospital ship, with something like 100 odd beds if I remember rightly and 6 or so Emergency Rooms. And then you have up to 3 LCACs (hovercraft), 2 well decks of vehicles and 2000+ grunts on board.
My 2p, seeing as I haven't had a good rant for ages -
Lusty wins hands down for cocktail parties, but an LHD is a serious bit of power projection and political intent. Now I don't suppose they're even thinking about giving CVF an amphibious assault role are they? And seeing as we're on the thread dripping about the demise of the Shar - the LHDs routinely sail around the world without any air cover (other than an Aim-9M equipped Harrier with a pilot who trains 95% of his time in the air-ground role). They've done so for well over a decade and don't plan to do otherwise in the future. A Marine Expeditionary Unit doesn't usually even include an Arleigh Burke or a Ticonderoga - they're just not even remotely concerned about an air threat in the world today. And they plan to, and do, operate in the littoral all the time. After all they're designed to have a shallow draft so they can operate close in to the beach.
The RN has managed to survive for several decades since it retired its last torpedo bomber and hasn't had an air-ground capability to match the Bucaneers' for a couple of decades, but it's done ok. The end of RN F-4s represented a significant dent in the CAG's BVR capability. Losing a capability apparently isn't the end of the world then. I reckon Lusty & co will survive without an amraam shooter for a decade. IMHO, your energy expended on this thread would be much better spent campaigning to get a Litening III on GR9, and/or Link 16. But I suppose they're painted the wrong colour and are too strongly associated with the sideways-walking crabs for the RN to get enthusiastic about them. Besides, moving mud for a living means you can't spend hours in front of the mirror practising your 'Hi, I'm Brendan O'Brien and I'm a fighter pilot' line.
The LHD I was on during OIF, the Bonnie Dick, operated 24 AV8s and 2 CH-46's were aboard to fly SAR cover for us. The Bataan had the same load out. And we carried over 2000 infantry across the Pacific each way, along with all their Hmmwvs, LARs (bit like a Warrior), trucks, etc. It's amazing what you can fit on a hull which is essentially the same size as Lusty if you keep the design relatively austere.
As far as my uneducated eye could figure out, the propulsion took up much less space, the hangar was very much smaller, and the accommodation was considerably more cramped - single man rooms for O-5s and above only, no quarterdeck for cocktail parties, no bar, no table service in the wardroom. But you did have a fantastic flight deck, with elevators on the sides (that actually add to the deck space and one of which can be used during flight ops), a TACAN, ship's INS cables for all the jets to speed up their INS align, some deck lights that actually help bring you aboard at night, lots of hot refuelling points, an island that's about a third of the size of Lusty's etc etc (but no ramp). The magazines (all three of them) on board the LHD each make Lusty's look like the joke that they are - we'd only scraped the surface of the ship's supplies after 3+ weeks of bombing Iraq. The medical facilities are second only to a dedicated hospital ship, with something like 100 odd beds if I remember rightly and 6 or so Emergency Rooms. And then you have up to 3 LCACs (hovercraft), 2 well decks of vehicles and 2000+ grunts on board.
My 2p, seeing as I haven't had a good rant for ages -
Lusty wins hands down for cocktail parties, but an LHD is a serious bit of power projection and political intent. Now I don't suppose they're even thinking about giving CVF an amphibious assault role are they? And seeing as we're on the thread dripping about the demise of the Shar - the LHDs routinely sail around the world without any air cover (other than an Aim-9M equipped Harrier with a pilot who trains 95% of his time in the air-ground role). They've done so for well over a decade and don't plan to do otherwise in the future. A Marine Expeditionary Unit doesn't usually even include an Arleigh Burke or a Ticonderoga - they're just not even remotely concerned about an air threat in the world today. And they plan to, and do, operate in the littoral all the time. After all they're designed to have a shallow draft so they can operate close in to the beach.
The RN has managed to survive for several decades since it retired its last torpedo bomber and hasn't had an air-ground capability to match the Bucaneers' for a couple of decades, but it's done ok. The end of RN F-4s represented a significant dent in the CAG's BVR capability. Losing a capability apparently isn't the end of the world then. I reckon Lusty & co will survive without an amraam shooter for a decade. IMHO, your energy expended on this thread would be much better spent campaigning to get a Litening III on GR9, and/or Link 16. But I suppose they're painted the wrong colour and are too strongly associated with the sideways-walking crabs for the RN to get enthusiastic about them. Besides, moving mud for a living means you can't spend hours in front of the mirror practising your 'Hi, I'm Brendan O'Brien and I'm a fighter pilot' line.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you saying that as it doesn't have every possible black box inside it should be axed? Your commitment to avoid Blue on Blue engagements is commendable, but what about Red on Blue?
SSSETOWTF, much as it pains me to be agreeing with a Viff viff nozzle nozzle milk drinker I do. Well put and well reasoned points.
By the way nice vid from OIF.
Suspicion breeds confidence
SSSETOWTF, The US LHD's are quite a bit bigger than Lusty, longer wider and about twice the tonnage. The big problem with the CVS design is weapons stowage. They simply were not designed to carry sufficient bombs for 15+ GR7s each doing 3 sorties a day and with only one weapon lift.
Actually, the LHDs are too small for the role required by the RN. 24 Harriers is a good number (probably more than we can get in the air at the moment) but its a long way short of the 36 F-35 needed for first night ops.
Actually, the LHDs are too small for the role required by the RN. 24 Harriers is a good number (probably more than we can get in the air at the moment) but its a long way short of the 36 F-35 needed for first night ops.
Last edited by Navaleye; 1st Apr 2005 at 15:32.
Suspicion breeds confidence
and a solid professional job he does at it as well. 
(actually I'm still ahead by 6 posts!) WEBF I just sent you a PM re RM.
(actually I'm still ahead by 6 posts!) WEBF I just sent you a PM re RM.
Last edited by Navaleye; 8th Apr 2005 at 15:06.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naval,
You are right there.
Come rain or shine he is at his post.
He saves me a fortune in time and money.
I have no need to buy the Navy News or search the WWW for info on all matters RN.
He brings it right here.
Cheers
BHR
You are right there.
Come rain or shine he is at his post.
He saves me a fortune in time and money.
I have no need to buy the Navy News or search the WWW for info on all matters RN.
He brings it right here.
Cheers
BHR
Suspicion breeds confidence
I have been taking a look at precisely what the F-35 will give the RN in the air to air capability. Take a look at the attached chart. It shows that the F-35 will be restricted to internal carriage of AMRAAMs only. Does this mean just two missiles? Not much in the way of combat persistence and less than the Shar.