Sea Jet
But better than the Harrier GR9.....
On another note, a quick look at the Naval Technology website demonstrates that our new LPD(R)s seem to be less well armed than other nations' amphibious vessels. Is this because the planners expected that there would be the Sea Harrier, and enough frigates and destroyers, to protect them?
Just out of interest, how much would it have cost to give Albion and Bulwark (perhaps Ocean too?) vertical launch Sea Wolf, perhaps the 16 cell version to save space?
We do seem to be developing a nasty habit of building high value, expensive ships, cutting costs by not providing them with weapons for self defence, justifying this on the grounds that escorting ships and aircraft are better placed to provide this defence.........then scrapping the aircraft and cutting the numbers of escorting ships.
On another note, a quick look at the Naval Technology website demonstrates that our new LPD(R)s seem to be less well armed than other nations' amphibious vessels. Is this because the planners expected that there would be the Sea Harrier, and enough frigates and destroyers, to protect them?
Just out of interest, how much would it have cost to give Albion and Bulwark (perhaps Ocean too?) vertical launch Sea Wolf, perhaps the 16 cell version to save space?
We do seem to be developing a nasty habit of building high value, expensive ships, cutting costs by not providing them with weapons for self defence, justifying this on the grounds that escorting ships and aircraft are better placed to provide this defence.........then scrapping the aircraft and cutting the numbers of escorting ships.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Fitting Sea Wolf to the LPD's would largely duplicate the capability afforded by the two Goalkeeper systems. Sea Wolf would add longer range defence, but it would cost deck space, tracker space (which probably means losing the Goalkeepers) and the command system would have to be expensively updated to support it. Goalkeeper is a good system, I have seen a Chukar literally cut in half by one.
The point I was trying to make was that when the planning for both LPD(R) and LPH was being conducted, the assumption was probably made that there would always be organic air defence, therefore it was better to rely on the Sea Harrier, and escorts, for protection.
Also, it was about this time the decision was made to upgrade the Sea Harrier to FA2 standard, and early thoughts of CVF started. Therefore the planners must have concluded that (organic) air defence was need for amphibious operations.
What changed?
Whilst looking on the net for some other stuff, for my own (career) reasons, I found this from
Hansard.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Sea Harrier FA2 in providing air supremacy protection for the Harrier GR7/9 when conducting ground attack missions against land targets. [86439]
Mr. Ingram: Air supremacy involves the complete denial of airspace to an opposing force, allowing operations to continue unhindered, which involves immense effort beyond the scope of any single aircraft type. The Sea Harrier can effectively contribute to the achievement of air supremacy as part of a larger coalition effort.
Air superiority is the suppression of effective enemy use of the air environment, usually within time and space limitations, and can be achieved by a variety of Air Defence aircraft, depending on the strength of the opposing forces. The ability of the FA2 to offer air superiority and protection for the Harrier GR7/9 while conducting ground attack missions is assessed as effective, either in isolation or with other Air Defence aircraft types.
Discuss.
Also, it was about this time the decision was made to upgrade the Sea Harrier to FA2 standard, and early thoughts of CVF started. Therefore the planners must have concluded that (organic) air defence was need for amphibious operations.
What changed?
Whilst looking on the net for some other stuff, for my own (career) reasons, I found this from
Hansard.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Sea Harrier FA2 in providing air supremacy protection for the Harrier GR7/9 when conducting ground attack missions against land targets. [86439]
Mr. Ingram: Air supremacy involves the complete denial of airspace to an opposing force, allowing operations to continue unhindered, which involves immense effort beyond the scope of any single aircraft type. The Sea Harrier can effectively contribute to the achievement of air supremacy as part of a larger coalition effort.
Air superiority is the suppression of effective enemy use of the air environment, usually within time and space limitations, and can be achieved by a variety of Air Defence aircraft, depending on the strength of the opposing forces. The ability of the FA2 to offer air superiority and protection for the Harrier GR7/9 while conducting ground attack missions is assessed as effective, either in isolation or with other Air Defence aircraft types.
Discuss.
What's going on here? Look at this article. Seems like the T8s from 899 NAS are being retained - as part of the RN Flying Standards Flight. Why? Is to carry on some of 899s functions? Is someone senior hoping that 801 might be kept, at least a few more years?
Meanwhile, this story from INVINCIBLE mentions the RN playing a part in the NATO Response Force. Surely this role will be compromised by having no air defence?
Meanwhile, this story from INVINCIBLE mentions the RN playing a part in the NATO Response Force. Surely this role will be compromised by having no air defence?
Suspicion breeds confidence
I believe teh RAF still use the T8 for GR7/9 training so it may be re-used there. I just can't see 801 being run-on as much as I would like it. Could anyone from light blue confirm if the GR team still use the T8?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The best part of Somerset
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God help us, you guys love a conspiracy theory! Two T8s are being retained for the next year as 801 still need IRTs and QFI checks etc. The T8s have no relevance to GR7/9. Honestly let it lie!!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Wonderful Midlands
Age: 53
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bl00dy hell.
What a shame that all those nasty politicians can't get on PPRuNe and see just what a HEEEEUGE mistake they are making by getting rid of the SHAR.
Capability gap.....No air defence.....Poor old Navy
....Capability gap.....We need more CVS's....Poor old Navy....What about air defence....Capability gap.
It's like Groundhog thread! Surely there must be more than just the same old phrases to peddle out every other post. Perhaps the mods could rename the thread,
Sea Jet/Tedious Politics (Merged)
What a shame that all those nasty politicians can't get on PPRuNe and see just what a HEEEEUGE mistake they are making by getting rid of the SHAR.
Capability gap.....No air defence.....Poor old Navy
....Capability gap.....We need more CVS's....Poor old Navy....What about air defence....Capability gap.It's like Groundhog thread! Surely there must be more than just the same old phrases to peddle out every other post. Perhaps the mods could rename the thread,
Sea Jet/Tedious Politics (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe teh RAF still use the T8 for GR7/9 training so it may be re-used there. I just can't see 801 being run-on as much as I would like it. Could anyone from light blue confirm if the GR team still use the T8?
801 still need IRTs and QFI checks etc
Heard some aircraft this morning, over Devon. Think they might have included some Sea Harriers.
I notice that Navy News seems to have stopped reporting things that may be considered controversial. However, this story indicates that the Fleet faced an air threat during WWI, and I think it was this that lead to experiments in operating fighter aircraft from the decks of ships, and it was this that led to the invention of the carrier.
Elsewhere, these sort of issues (Shar/CVF/etc) are also discussed here: A letter to Tony Blair and here.
This story from INVINCIBLE demonstrates just how flexible carriers (and naval forces in general) are.
I notice that Navy News seems to have stopped reporting things that may be considered controversial. However, this story indicates that the Fleet faced an air threat during WWI, and I think it was this that lead to experiments in operating fighter aircraft from the decks of ships, and it was this that led to the invention of the carrier.
Elsewhere, these sort of issues (Shar/CVF/etc) are also discussed here: A letter to Tony Blair and here.
This story from INVINCIBLE demonstrates just how flexible carriers (and naval forces in general) are.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 15th Apr 2005 at 14:24.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
Thanks for your usual editorial summation of the articles worthy of reading in this most recent edition of the Navy News.
It is a valuable service you offer to this board and I for one appreciate it.
Cheers
BHR
Thanks for your usual editorial summation of the articles worthy of reading in this most recent edition of the Navy News.
It is a valuable service you offer to this board and I for one appreciate it.
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe teh (sic) RAF still use the T8 for GR7/9 training so it may be re-used there. I just can't see 801 being run-on as much as I would like it. Could anyone from light blue confirm if the GR team still use the T8?
rivetjoint - if the price is right....
It would appear that a Lib Dem peer has dropped a clanger - according to this story from the Scotsman. I wonder what he actually meant by "along the lines of HMS Ocean" ? Did he mean smaller carriers? I do not believe the Lib Dems would favour axing fixed wing carrier aviation. They are keen on the idea of European defence, and a report that I found via their website said that one of the things European nations lack is carrier aviation.
The Lib Dems opposed the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier, as did the Conservatives. It does indeed seem ironic that a Labour Government, with Tony Blair at the helm, is happy for UK forces to be nothing more than a means of expressing support for US policies, when back in the 80s, when he was joining the Labour party, he was keen to emphasise his credentials as a CND campaigner, campaigning for an end to NATO and the expulsion of US forces from the UK.
And CVF has still not been ordered - despite Labour claims about "the biggest shipbuilding programme since 1945". If it is so big, than why have ship orders in the last four years amounted to just a single patrol vessel?
But at least there's some good news regarding the F35B. Let's just hope there are carriers to operate it from, pilots to fly it, and we don't suffer a major defeat in the interim.
It would appear that a Lib Dem peer has dropped a clanger - according to this story from the Scotsman. I wonder what he actually meant by "along the lines of HMS Ocean" ? Did he mean smaller carriers? I do not believe the Lib Dems would favour axing fixed wing carrier aviation. They are keen on the idea of European defence, and a report that I found via their website said that one of the things European nations lack is carrier aviation.
The Lib Dems opposed the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier, as did the Conservatives. It does indeed seem ironic that a Labour Government, with Tony Blair at the helm, is happy for UK forces to be nothing more than a means of expressing support for US policies, when back in the 80s, when he was joining the Labour party, he was keen to emphasise his credentials as a CND campaigner, campaigning for an end to NATO and the expulsion of US forces from the UK.
And CVF has still not been ordered - despite Labour claims about "the biggest shipbuilding programme since 1945". If it is so big, than why have ship orders in the last four years amounted to just a single patrol vessel?
But at least there's some good news regarding the F35B. Let's just hope there are carriers to operate it from, pilots to fly it, and we don't suffer a major defeat in the interim.
Metric vs Imperial
Off topic but its funny seeing metric measurements quoted in the F-35B article when the jet is built in good old feet and inches!
Samelsbury work force had to have special training to go back to imperial.
T
Samelsbury work force had to have special training to go back to imperial.
T
More stuff from the web
From the Telegraph: An article by John Keegan.
Governments usually seek to strengthen the Armed Forces during armed conflict. The New Labour Government is the only one in British history which has sought to weaken our Armed Forces while they were engaged in action against the enemy.
Question. Assuming Labour win the election - will the current practice of doing anything the US asks continue? If Washington wants UK forces to conduct an autonomous operation, perhaps and amphibious assault, and the enemy has some aircraft, what will Blair say?
This article by David Hobbs is also worth reading.
So is this Argentine account of the Falklands Exocet attacks.
The lesson extracted from the war was that a small group of professional pilots and technicians can ruin the day of the most powerful fleet in the world. The Argentine pilots of Super Etendards taught that lesson to the proud Royal Navy in May 1982.
A lesson the Government is happy to ignore....
Governments usually seek to strengthen the Armed Forces during armed conflict. The New Labour Government is the only one in British history which has sought to weaken our Armed Forces while they were engaged in action against the enemy.
Question. Assuming Labour win the election - will the current practice of doing anything the US asks continue? If Washington wants UK forces to conduct an autonomous operation, perhaps and amphibious assault, and the enemy has some aircraft, what will Blair say?
This article by David Hobbs is also worth reading.
So is this Argentine account of the Falklands Exocet attacks.
The lesson extracted from the war was that a small group of professional pilots and technicians can ruin the day of the most powerful fleet in the world. The Argentine pilots of Super Etendards taught that lesson to the proud Royal Navy in May 1982.
A lesson the Government is happy to ignore....
From global-defence.com
Lethal Sting
Dozens of warships and nearly 200 civilian vessels have been sunk or damaged by anti-ship missiles during the past 30 years, the largest percentage of successful ship strikes coming from aircraft
So the threat is not unproven.......
Dozens of warships and nearly 200 civilian vessels have been sunk or damaged by anti-ship missiles during the past 30 years, the largest percentage of successful ship strikes coming from aircraft
So the threat is not unproven.......
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was lucky enough to be involved in conversation with a senior Crab last week. Two interesting nuggets of information:
1. With the demise of another F3 squadron, the maximum out of area deployment that the AD force could sustain would be a much smaller number of jets that I would have guessed. Certainly, for those of you in the dark blue, far fewer than you will see in the simulators at Dryad, for example.
2. The reason this run down is acceptable is that it has been deemed that the UK will not conduct operations, without allies, against a fighter equipped air force within the next ten years. I suppose that this is a valid assumption, because if we ever wished to do such a thing, it would turn out to be impossible!
Thankfully, for the moment, the US seem to have enough carriers to go round.
1. With the demise of another F3 squadron, the maximum out of area deployment that the AD force could sustain would be a much smaller number of jets that I would have guessed. Certainly, for those of you in the dark blue, far fewer than you will see in the simulators at Dryad, for example.
2. The reason this run down is acceptable is that it has been deemed that the UK will not conduct operations, without allies, against a fighter equipped air force within the next ten years. I suppose that this is a valid assumption, because if we ever wished to do such a thing, it would turn out to be impossible!
Thankfully, for the moment, the US seem to have enough carriers to go round.