Sea Jet
I've heard/read that a new ski ramp has been built at either Cottesmore or Wittering, and will be used instead of the one at Yeovilton. Presumably other facilities will also be moved or built new to replace the ones at Yeovilton. Is this a sensible use of the taxpayers money? And why is it such a good idea that fixed wing carrierborne aircraft come under Strike Command, but rotary wing ones come under CINCFLEET?
Meanwhile, from the Telegraph - We can't afford to forget Trafalgar
In 1805, the British depended on nobody but themselves. We cannot return to those days. The Americans, however, are unlikely to go on providing us with a naval umbrella if we make no effort to join the effort of common defence.
Vecvechookattack - you haven't answered Junglie's question...
Meanwhile, from the Telegraph - We can't afford to forget Trafalgar
In 1805, the British depended on nobody but themselves. We cannot return to those days. The Americans, however, are unlikely to go on providing us with a naval umbrella if we make no effort to join the effort of common defence.
Vecvechookattack - you haven't answered Junglie's question...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new ramp was built at Wittering to stop GR7 pilots from having to go down to Yeovs before going on board the boat. There are no other facilities being built to replace anything at Yeovilton as the ramp was the only thing that was needed at Cot/Wit that we didn't already have.
The jets come under STC because they are primarily land based ground attack aircraft. Flying off the boat is only a small portion of what they do.
The jets come under STC because they are primarily land based ground attack aircraft. Flying off the boat is only a small portion of what they do.
Only thing needed apart from radar, BVR capability etc?
801 play key role in Maritime Strike workup. So why not during operations?
Embarking for the second and third phases of her Operational Sea Training (OST) package, together with 849 Squadron A Flight Sea King Mk 7s and a Sea King Mk 6 of 771 Squadron, 801’s Sea Harrier FA2s tailored their flying to provide progressive training for all of Illustrious’ newly-formed crew. The May North Sea weather and the positive attitude of all personnel involved allowed some excellent flying to be achieved, with the FA2s operating in both the Air-to-Ground and Air-to-Air roles.
Then
Neptune Warrior pitted two large Naval Task Groups against each other in a complex Political scenario, and enabled the TAG to operate in a Maritime Strike role, focussing on the GR7s Strike capability. 801’s FA2s operated in a variety of roles throughout the two-week exercise, including Maritime reconnaissance and Close Air Support, working with Ground Troops in Loch Ewe.
801 play key role in Maritime Strike workup. So why not during operations?
Embarking for the second and third phases of her Operational Sea Training (OST) package, together with 849 Squadron A Flight Sea King Mk 7s and a Sea King Mk 6 of 771 Squadron, 801’s Sea Harrier FA2s tailored their flying to provide progressive training for all of Illustrious’ newly-formed crew. The May North Sea weather and the positive attitude of all personnel involved allowed some excellent flying to be achieved, with the FA2s operating in both the Air-to-Ground and Air-to-Air roles.
Then
Neptune Warrior pitted two large Naval Task Groups against each other in a complex Political scenario, and enabled the TAG to operate in a Maritime Strike role, focussing on the GR7s Strike capability. 801’s FA2s operated in a variety of roles throughout the two-week exercise, including Maritime reconnaissance and Close Air Support, working with Ground Troops in Loch Ewe.
Suspicion breeds confidence
According to Janes:
That's 13 years and counting - maybe there is time to equip a bunch of them with Blue Vixen afterall
UK Harriers to fly until 2018 Retirement of the UK's Joint Force Harrier (JFH) force has been delayed by at least three years to 2018 as a hedge against actual and projected delays in the availability of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter
"The capability gap will only be six years" yeah right.
And from 849 NAS A Flight - some news.
This summer A Flight are providing 24 hour air surveillance coverage of the Solent to cover the whole of the Trafalgar 200 celebrations. The aircraft are tasked with providing Early Warning of airborne threats to the Fleet at anchor and will be communicating with various units using their data link.
So there was an air threat to the Trafalgar 200 Fleet, but not to a task force deployed off a hostile coastline? Really?
And from 849 NAS A Flight - some news.
This summer A Flight are providing 24 hour air surveillance coverage of the Solent to cover the whole of the Trafalgar 200 celebrations. The aircraft are tasked with providing Early Warning of airborne threats to the Fleet at anchor and will be communicating with various units using their data link.
So there was an air threat to the Trafalgar 200 Fleet, but not to a task force deployed off a hostile coastline? Really?
Suspicion breeds confidence
The SK7s are very useful. I have seen them operating over London many times such as state opening of parliament, VE day 2005 etc. I had to ask myself "What happens if someone took a pop" Could the RAF get here in time? Answer: probably not. QRA to central London = 25 minutes. How about having a Shar QRA at Northolt. 5 minutes.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think they like having single engine jets that close to London, the last time I tried it the amount of paperwork and authority required was more than enough to put me off.
Suspicion breeds confidence
What about the Red Arrows? Lots of single engined jets all at the same time. They seem to make it. Understand what you are saying, but is it really a problem?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WE Branch Fanatic
I think it may be time to lay it on the line as the time fast approaches when we need to be starting a new chapter in embarked aviation.
The Sea Harrier will not be involved in operations for the following reasons:
1. She can not operate with a realsitic war load in the real world where temperatures are above cool UK spring days. The engine is not strong enough and would require a significant cash inject and serious aircraft modification program to install the Mk107.
2. She does not carry enough fuel. Her endurance and useful time on station between AAR is small compared to almost any other credible tactical aircraft. No amount of money will fix this issue.
3. She only has 3 pylons available for carrying stores other than air-to-air missiles. (The belly stations can only carry AIM120, a harsh place for such dainty missiles to endure routine vertical landings.) This severely limits flexibility for the kind of operations UK aircraft get involved in. No amount of money will fix this issue.
4. Her hard and software needs to be upgraded in order to give her a true BVR capability. Lots of money required to fix this issue.
In spite of all I have written above, the Sea Harrier deserved to have been all of the things I say she isn't. We should have bought the Harrier II+ when the chance was there and installed the Blue Vixen and all the hard and software we don't have now.
But we didn't and all the limitations I talk of do exist. As we surged through the early and mid 90's the newly renamed FA2 truly was the BVR king of Europe. We swept all who tried to compete to one side and for 6 or maybe 7 years were the ones to beat. But that period has gone and we are within 9 months of paying her off for the final time.
801 has a great deal to do in that time and they'll do so with great professionalism and a realistic outlook, an outlook that operations for Sea Harrier are not likely for all of the reasons I state.
But. Should the call be made, they'll have 'em as it says on the badge. "On Les Aura".
801 play key role in Maritime Strike workup. So why not during operations?
The Sea Harrier will not be involved in operations for the following reasons:
1. She can not operate with a realsitic war load in the real world where temperatures are above cool UK spring days. The engine is not strong enough and would require a significant cash inject and serious aircraft modification program to install the Mk107.
2. She does not carry enough fuel. Her endurance and useful time on station between AAR is small compared to almost any other credible tactical aircraft. No amount of money will fix this issue.
3. She only has 3 pylons available for carrying stores other than air-to-air missiles. (The belly stations can only carry AIM120, a harsh place for such dainty missiles to endure routine vertical landings.) This severely limits flexibility for the kind of operations UK aircraft get involved in. No amount of money will fix this issue.
4. Her hard and software needs to be upgraded in order to give her a true BVR capability. Lots of money required to fix this issue.
In spite of all I have written above, the Sea Harrier deserved to have been all of the things I say she isn't. We should have bought the Harrier II+ when the chance was there and installed the Blue Vixen and all the hard and software we don't have now.
But we didn't and all the limitations I talk of do exist. As we surged through the early and mid 90's the newly renamed FA2 truly was the BVR king of Europe. We swept all who tried to compete to one side and for 6 or maybe 7 years were the ones to beat. But that period has gone and we are within 9 months of paying her off for the final time.
801 has a great deal to do in that time and they'll do so with great professionalism and a realistic outlook, an outlook that operations for Sea Harrier are not likely for all of the reasons I state.
But. Should the call be made, they'll have 'em as it says on the badge. "On Les Aura".
Suspicion breeds confidence
FB11, I don't doubt for one minute that everything you say is true, but the old girl still more than manages to hold her own against newer, faster and allegedly more capable opponents.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye. If you can't carry more than one AIM120, you can't be more of a match for anyone.
Widger. Pilots don't kill adversaries, missiles do. If you can't carry any (because you can't bring them back to the boat) being brilliant on the ACMI means nothing.
I know full well how well we used to do with the FRS1 and how well we did with the FA2. But this is all in the simulated world, not in the world where you actually have to fly with a weight of missiles and an AAR probe that affords the Sea Harrier the aerodynamic flying characteristics of a bunch of keys.
Widger. Pilots don't kill adversaries, missiles do. If you can't carry any (because you can't bring them back to the boat) being brilliant on the ACMI means nothing.
I know full well how well we used to do with the FRS1 and how well we did with the FA2. But this is all in the simulated world, not in the world where you actually have to fly with a weight of missiles and an AAR probe that affords the Sea Harrier the aerodynamic flying characteristics of a bunch of keys.
FB11,
Whilst I get the impression that you may have greater knowledge of the airframe than I, I do not think that 1982 was simulated or Op Deny Flight, or Sierra Leone for that matter. You do not do justice to those who flew the FRS1 so well, despite the limitations of the airframe. I am not aircrew as you may have gathered, but it is no good having a missile if you cannot get the platform into a position where the target is "in the envelope" That takes skill!
Whilst I get the impression that you may have greater knowledge of the airframe than I, I do not think that 1982 was simulated or Op Deny Flight, or Sierra Leone for that matter. You do not do justice to those who flew the FRS1 so well, despite the limitations of the airframe. I am not aircrew as you may have gathered, but it is no good having a missile if you cannot get the platform into a position where the target is "in the envelope" That takes skill!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger
I believe if you read my replies again you'll find that I more than do justice to the pilots of the Sea Harrier. I believe I had you crying at my original post?
None of the points I raise are about whether the aircrew can do the job, or even the airframe in limited low intensity operations such as Deny Flight (normally 8-10 sorties per day), where the adversary rarely flew and was sub standard when he did. The primary effect any jet had in Deny Flight for 99% of the time was noise on the ground, no-one who even considered manning up an aircraft in the FRY thought "I won't go flying now because of the superior capability of the Sea Harrier."
Sierra Leone? where there was no air threat and the objective area was entirely permissive to maritime ops resulting in a short transit, thus mitigating the lack of fuel relative to GR7. (Let's not mention the lack of gun on GR7 though.) Is that a reason to keep an aircraft around when the BVR capability you talk of was of no benefit?
As for the Falklands, well that's always the easy rock to fall back on and on that I could never defend the decision to remove the maritime BVR fighter capability. But it was 27 years ago and there is a danger that we sound like a stuck record, not just fighting the last battle but 10 battles ago. Could we end up in a situation where the UK in isolation fights a medium scale war at extended range from the UK? Yes. Probability. Low.
That is the calculated risk taken in order that maritime fixed wing aviation has a future, one in an aircraft that is funded and capable of taking a full and flexible part in the current and projected conflicts.
Could it be that too much emphasis on the past, and by that I mean Sea Harrier is going out of service and none of us can stop it, is doing a disservice to those current FA2 and current and future GR7 pilots?
I believe if you read my replies again you'll find that I more than do justice to the pilots of the Sea Harrier. I believe I had you crying at my original post?
None of the points I raise are about whether the aircrew can do the job, or even the airframe in limited low intensity operations such as Deny Flight (normally 8-10 sorties per day), where the adversary rarely flew and was sub standard when he did. The primary effect any jet had in Deny Flight for 99% of the time was noise on the ground, no-one who even considered manning up an aircraft in the FRY thought "I won't go flying now because of the superior capability of the Sea Harrier."
Sierra Leone? where there was no air threat and the objective area was entirely permissive to maritime ops resulting in a short transit, thus mitigating the lack of fuel relative to GR7. (Let's not mention the lack of gun on GR7 though.) Is that a reason to keep an aircraft around when the BVR capability you talk of was of no benefit?
As for the Falklands, well that's always the easy rock to fall back on and on that I could never defend the decision to remove the maritime BVR fighter capability. But it was 27 years ago and there is a danger that we sound like a stuck record, not just fighting the last battle but 10 battles ago. Could we end up in a situation where the UK in isolation fights a medium scale war at extended range from the UK? Yes. Probability. Low.
That is the calculated risk taken in order that maritime fixed wing aviation has a future, one in an aircraft that is funded and capable of taking a full and flexible part in the current and projected conflicts.
Could it be that too much emphasis on the past, and by that I mean Sea Harrier is going out of service and none of us can stop it, is doing a disservice to those current FA2 and current and future GR7 pilots?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Sierra Leone? where there was no air threat and the objective area was entirely permissive to maritime ops resulting in a short transit, thus mitigating the lack of fuel relative to GR7. (Let's not mention the lack of gun on GR7 though.) Is that a reason to keep an aircraft around when the BVR capability you talk of was of no benefit?
Errrr.......Falklands' was 23 years ago - not 27. Just to be pedantic.
If you can't carry more than one AIM120, you can't be more of a match for anyone.
One missile, or one pair?
As for the calculated risk, additional risks have appeared since the decision was taken:
1. In Service Date of JSF slipped.
2. CVF still not ordered.
3. Extra High Value Assests (LPD etc) in service.
4. Frigate/Destroyer numbers cut to a level below what 1SL and CINCFLEET say we need, and losing a single ship would be a disaster.
5. Type 45 Delayed.
6. Readiness of the UK Armed Forces reduced. Defects going uncorrected.
7. Continued willingness of the Government to use military force.
8. Continued proliferation of air launched anti ship missiles and other such nasties. Many nations that are hostile to the UK have them.
If you found yourself in a ship without lifejackets or liferafts you might feel less than comfortable, even though you probably won't need them. So would you feel happy in a ship that was part of a task group with no fighter cover?
Meanwhile, some bad news from the BBC. Whilst probably only really a continuation of the CVS active/refit/reserve cycle I still find it worrying, particularly in the light of CVF still not having been ordered.
If you can't carry more than one AIM120, you can't be more of a match for anyone.
One missile, or one pair?
As for the calculated risk, additional risks have appeared since the decision was taken:
1. In Service Date of JSF slipped.
2. CVF still not ordered.
3. Extra High Value Assests (LPD etc) in service.
4. Frigate/Destroyer numbers cut to a level below what 1SL and CINCFLEET say we need, and losing a single ship would be a disaster.
5. Type 45 Delayed.
6. Readiness of the UK Armed Forces reduced. Defects going uncorrected.
7. Continued willingness of the Government to use military force.
8. Continued proliferation of air launched anti ship missiles and other such nasties. Many nations that are hostile to the UK have them.
If you found yourself in a ship without lifejackets or liferafts you might feel less than comfortable, even though you probably won't need them. So would you feel happy in a ship that was part of a task group with no fighter cover?
Meanwhile, some bad news from the BBC. Whilst probably only really a continuation of the CVS active/refit/reserve cycle I still find it worrying, particularly in the light of CVF still not having been ordered.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 6th Jul 2005 at 22:36.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Here,there,everywhere
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard that in Sierra Leone that light blue didn't even leave the deck.
You are corrected Navaleye maybe not GR7, but the light blue were in the thick of it i would say.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WE Branch Fanatic
Thank you for the (self acknowledged) pedantic correcton. 23 or 27 years, it's still a distant memory for most people and a low probability irrelevance for planning for the future of embarked aviation.
I am not suggesting that the efforts made by all involved in the campaign were irrelevant, just the continued use of the Falklands as a reason for trying to keep single service capabilities alive for the sake of it.
Your question about 1 AIM120 or a pair? One missile. Single. Unitary. Solo. If you get to a total of two you've gone too far. No credible BVR fighter in the world would get airborne with one missile.
To comment on your numbered points:
1-8. All well made but to no avail if the aircraft going out of service can not in reality deal with or mitigate the points you make. Please read again the posts on every limitation of the much loved Sea Harrier.
Would I be right in thinking you were also sad to see the Sea Dart taken from the CVS?
How about we move on and stop yearning for days gone by, we can do that at reunions.
Thank you for the (self acknowledged) pedantic correcton. 23 or 27 years, it's still a distant memory for most people and a low probability irrelevance for planning for the future of embarked aviation.
I am not suggesting that the efforts made by all involved in the campaign were irrelevant, just the continued use of the Falklands as a reason for trying to keep single service capabilities alive for the sake of it.
Your question about 1 AIM120 or a pair? One missile. Single. Unitary. Solo. If you get to a total of two you've gone too far. No credible BVR fighter in the world would get airborne with one missile.
To comment on your numbered points:
1-8. All well made but to no avail if the aircraft going out of service can not in reality deal with or mitigate the points you make. Please read again the posts on every limitation of the much loved Sea Harrier.
Would I be right in thinking you were also sad to see the Sea Dart taken from the CVS?
How about we move on and stop yearning for days gone by, we can do that at reunions.