Sea Jet
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst idly trawling the net I came across this;
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRSHarr2.htm
Nothing really new here BUT just read through to the end and you reach a portion entitled "Konkurrenz". Read it. then wonder why the FA2 is being retired prematurely.
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRSHarr2.htm
Nothing really new here BUT just read through to the end and you reach a portion entitled "Konkurrenz". Read it. then wonder why the FA2 is being retired prematurely.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL! Well I suppose it is one of the very few retired STOVL combat aircraft in the world!
I still think that there is life left in the Harrier concept if not the current Harrier airframe and engine. Pity that Bae lacks the resources and will to create a next generation aircraft.
I still think that there is life left in the Harrier concept if not the current Harrier airframe and engine. Pity that Bae lacks the resources and will to create a next generation aircraft.
801 NAS News
Magic Carpet challenges 801 at sea
In Defensive Counter Air missions, the Sea Harriers were using their excellent Blue Vixen Radar and AMRAAM missiles to defend the Ground Attack GR7s and Invincible from incoming simulated land-based Air attacks. In Offensive Counter Air Missions, the Sea Harriers would fly in Escort with the GR7s as they attacked their Ground bombing targets, again using their Radar and Missiles to detect and simulate destroying any land-based defending aircraft.
So why do these sort of missions cease to be important next year?
In Defensive Counter Air missions, the Sea Harriers were using their excellent Blue Vixen Radar and AMRAAM missiles to defend the Ground Attack GR7s and Invincible from incoming simulated land-based Air attacks. In Offensive Counter Air Missions, the Sea Harriers would fly in Escort with the GR7s as they attacked their Ground bombing targets, again using their Radar and Missiles to detect and simulate destroying any land-based defending aircraft.
So why do these sort of missions cease to be important next year?
Alright I admit it, but I was waiting for the thread to fall off of the first page - then decided I was too lazy to wait, particulary after finding the 801 NAS link.
But the question remains, why do defensive and offensive counter air missions cease to be relevent in 2006?
Also.....
Operating in temperatures up to 28ºC, Exercise Magic Carpet challenged 801’s pilots and maintainers alike to support the flying effort.
How does this temperature compare with other places in the Middle East?
But the question remains, why do defensive and offensive counter air missions cease to be relevent in 2006?
Also.....
Operating in temperatures up to 28ºC, Exercise Magic Carpet challenged 801’s pilots and maintainers alike to support the flying effort.
How does this temperature compare with other places in the Middle East?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 30th Apr 2005 at 21:35.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF.
No, D/OCA missions do not cease to exist next year, but bleating about it here won't do any good. Yes, it is a shame to see the back of the SHAR and we will have a capability gap but like most things these days it's all down to money.
I'm sure you'll keep posting random clippings from pro SHAR propaganda sites, and I admire your dedication, but surely we should stop whingeing and get back to some good old stories from the pilots who were lucky enough to fly the jet.
As for the temp of 28deg, I'd suggest that it's rather mild compared to some of the places that JFH have been operating in over the last few months!
No, D/OCA missions do not cease to exist next year, but bleating about it here won't do any good. Yes, it is a shame to see the back of the SHAR and we will have a capability gap but like most things these days it's all down to money.
I'm sure you'll keep posting random clippings from pro SHAR propaganda sites, and I admire your dedication, but surely we should stop whingeing and get back to some good old stories from the pilots who were lucky enough to fly the jet.
As for the temp of 28deg, I'd suggest that it's rather mild compared to some of the places that JFH have been operating in over the last few months!
OK, I'm probably being a bit "FIK" here, but I thought the whole problem was that there was not the money to re-engine the FA2 to enable operations in the Gulf during Summer. OK, I understand that, but why scrap it? If we could not re-engine the aircraft, why not just keep the current one and live with the reduced capability. Surely a limited capability is better than none.
I can't afford to upgrade my car therefore I will get rid of it and walk to work????????????
I can't afford to upgrade my car therefore I will get rid of it and walk to work????????????
Or, in the case of FSTA, "I need to replace my knackered old car. I can't afford to buy a new one, so I'll rent one for 25 years. That will save me lots of money"
If you see me surfin' put the SAR helicopter and lifeboat on standby!
If the current Government win the election, will they follow Dubya into more adventures? Neither Syria or Iran are subject to embargoes or no fly zones. If we do follow Dubya into action will they want UK forces to undertake autonomous operations? If so, and we agree, and lack air defence.....
As you know, our amphibious forces are very capable, and we have put a lot of time, effort and money into them. In my view they are a bigger bargining chip than the limited number of GR7/9s a CVS can carry. If we can deploy such a force, and defend it ourselves, we have a considerable bargaining chip, not least with Washington. And with the increasing number of Hawks in the US Administration, they need to exert a restraining influence is greater than before. But if we rely on US aircraft for ALL of our air defence, the potential influence is reduced.
This isn't anti Americnism, simply trying to show how Blair makes out he's Dubya's partner, yet refuses to fund the tools necessary for such a role.
If the current Government win the election, will they follow Dubya into more adventures? Neither Syria or Iran are subject to embargoes or no fly zones. If we do follow Dubya into action will they want UK forces to undertake autonomous operations? If so, and we agree, and lack air defence.....
As you know, our amphibious forces are very capable, and we have put a lot of time, effort and money into them. In my view they are a bigger bargining chip than the limited number of GR7/9s a CVS can carry. If we can deploy such a force, and defend it ourselves, we have a considerable bargaining chip, not least with Washington. And with the increasing number of Hawks in the US Administration, they need to exert a restraining influence is greater than before. But if we rely on US aircraft for ALL of our air defence, the potential influence is reduced.
This isn't anti Americnism, simply trying to show how Blair makes out he's Dubya's partner, yet refuses to fund the tools necessary for such a role.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I got to see to see some Spanish Harriers last week carting freshly purchased AMRAAMs around. But we don't need AD anymore according to our government so why would the Spanish do a silly thing like that?
Suspicion breeds confidence
I'm sure a Spanish crab is not much different one of ours when it comes to flying out of sight of land. These were Navy birds though. I couldn't help noticing that the Spanish Navy will have a more balanced and capable naval air arm that the RN come April 06. Why oh why does the Govt not lease some spare Harrier II Plus from the US. Ditch another T42 to pay for it (they are falling apart anyway) and give the navy the capability it needs.
Doing anything to acquire air defence would mean admitting that the decision to retire the Sea Harrier prematurely was wrong, and admitting you're wrong is just not done in politics.
Would I be right in thinking that air attack (using whatever type of weapon) was possibly the most common cause of both warships and merchant ships being attacked, damaged or sunk since World War Two - including friendly fire (sic), allied air attacks against enemy vessels, and conflicts not involving the west?
Would I be right in thinking that air attack (using whatever type of weapon) was possibly the most common cause of both warships and merchant ships being attacked, damaged or sunk since World War Two - including friendly fire (sic), allied air attacks against enemy vessels, and conflicts not involving the west?
Suspicion breeds confidence
If by air attack you include missiles, then absolutely. HMS Sheffield, Coventry, Ardent, Antelope, Atlantic Conveyor, USS Stark. various Argentine gun boats, the entire Iraqi navy (well done Sea Squa team). The only submarine action was Conqueror. So yes, I would say that is a fair comment.
When ships fight aircraft the result is usually the same.
When ships fight aircraft the result is usually the same.
I think that other submarine versus surface ship engagements have occured, but I'm not too sure of the details. The threat was certainly there.
I posted this before, but nobody seemed to take note: 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.
Mostly tankers attacked by Iraqi aircraft during the Iran/Iraq war? Also, I seem to remember reading that Iranian aircraft fired missiles at tankers, and at US forces too. See here.
Apart from the Gulf, there was at least one air attack on naval forces in Korea, during the Suez affair an RN frigate was accidentally attacked by an Israeli jet (ID problems), several US and Australian were attacked by USAF aircraft in Vietnam, some anti ship attacks during the fighting over Cyprus in the 70s, amongst other. I do not know what sort of aircraft/ship engagements took place in the Arab/Isreali or India/Pakistan conflicts.
So the threat has been proven.
I posted this before, but nobody seemed to take note: 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.
Mostly tankers attacked by Iraqi aircraft during the Iran/Iraq war? Also, I seem to remember reading that Iranian aircraft fired missiles at tankers, and at US forces too. See here.
Apart from the Gulf, there was at least one air attack on naval forces in Korea, during the Suez affair an RN frigate was accidentally attacked by an Israeli jet (ID problems), several US and Australian were attacked by USAF aircraft in Vietnam, some anti ship attacks during the fighting over Cyprus in the 70s, amongst other. I do not know what sort of aircraft/ship engagements took place in the Arab/Isreali or India/Pakistan conflicts.
So the threat has been proven.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
P-800 Bolid
Work out how many aircraft you need to maintain an outer CAP to stop someone air launching a wave of these at you from 200-300km. Worse, how do you stop a submarine launched wave? And the PLAN has them in service.
The worry is that the next generation of super/hypersonic ASMs and subsurface SSMs will make the current USN carrier force undefendable and, in the context of a threat to Taiwan, the USN will not be able to operate them within range of the Chinese coast.
The only effective defence against such a threat is SAM, not aircraft.
Work out how many aircraft you need to maintain an outer CAP to stop someone air launching a wave of these at you from 200-300km. Worse, how do you stop a submarine launched wave? And the PLAN has them in service.
The worry is that the next generation of super/hypersonic ASMs and subsurface SSMs will make the current USN carrier force undefendable and, in the context of a threat to Taiwan, the USN will not be able to operate them within range of the Chinese coast.
The only effective defence against such a threat is SAM, not aircraft.
Last edited by ORAC; 4th May 2005 at 08:04.
Suspicion breeds confidence
SSGN threats are very real, fortunately the Russians only have 14, which probably means five or less in service. The Chinese versions are much older and make a lot of noise. The Sunburn family of weapons are potent, but maybe over hyped somewhat. The biggest threat still remains manned aircraft. Remember, the objective is to deter the attack. Shooting the enemy down is a bonus.
But AMRAAM might be able to engage cruise missiles? Submarine launched threats are surely best dealt with by anti submarine capabilities?
On this day in 1982, HMS Sheffield was hit by an air launched Exocet.
If the approaching aircraft had been detected by AEW (which we didn't have) and had Sea Harriers vectored on to them, they probably would have abandoned the attack. If nothing else there would have been more warning, allowing a better response from the task force.
But someone had decided that unexpected events would not happen....
On this day in 1982, HMS Sheffield was hit by an air launched Exocet.
If the approaching aircraft had been detected by AEW (which we didn't have) and had Sea Harriers vectored on to them, they probably would have abandoned the attack. If nothing else there would have been more warning, allowing a better response from the task force.
But someone had decided that unexpected events would not happen....