Sea Jet
Although a digital ASRAAM integration is clearly much too difficult and much too expensive for the F3 
, DERA (as then was) achieved it very cheaply on the Nightcat Jaguar 
, and then demonstrated it very convincingly. A full production integration on the in-service Jag very nearly happened, and was canned to save a paltry amount of money. 
There seems to be no convincing reason why a similarly cost effective ASRAAM integration couldn't be added to the GR9, but only if the IPT have the balls to do it themselves, using service and Qinetiq resources, and not if they ask BAE "How Much?"
As a POI, I don't think the differences between what digi-ASRAAM and reversionary ASRAAM are sensitive or classified, unless and until you start getting into parametrics.
, DERA (as then was) achieved it very cheaply on the Nightcat Jaguar , and then demonstrated it very convincingly. A full production integration on the in-service Jag very nearly happened, and was canned to save a paltry amount of money. There seems to be no convincing reason why a similarly cost effective ASRAAM integration couldn't be added to the GR9, but only if the IPT have the balls to do it themselves, using service and Qinetiq resources, and not if they ask BAE "How Much?"
As a POI, I don't think the differences between what digi-ASRAAM and reversionary ASRAAM are sensitive or classified, unless and until you start getting into parametrics.
Back to the SHAR - lets talk figures
A few weeks ago, at the annual "Sports (sic) and Barbeque Evening" at my RNR unit, I found myself having a discussion with one of my Officers (an ex Seaman Officer) about the state of the Navy. One of the topics mentioned was the Sea Harrier. He made a very good point, that the savings are next to nothing as a proportion of the MOD budget but for this we will lose an important, if not essential (given the emphasis on expeditionary operations) capability. Lets look at some numbers....
There are savings that will flow from the decision — £135 million directly and at least another £230 million from not upgrading its engine — but these are not significant sums in terms of the potential operational ramifications.
From a House of Commons Defence Select Commitee Report.
According to the MOD website, the defence budget for 2000/2001 was £23.6 billion ie £23 600 million.
This suggests the total savings from losing the Sea Harrier are about £360 million. Over a ten year period (2002 to 2012) this is £36 milion per year. Using the 2000/2001 figure as a model this works out as about 0.15% of the annual buget. This is only a
rough guess, but its probably not too far off the mark.
I am saying the savings are over ten years as they started when the upgrade was cancelled!
Considering the loss of capability to both the Royal Navy and HM Forces as a whole (not the mention the cost of losing ships and personnel, or not being about to act in a crisis) this is nothing short of a scandal.
Incidently, why doesn't this page of the thread fit on my screen?
There are savings that will flow from the decision — £135 million directly and at least another £230 million from not upgrading its engine — but these are not significant sums in terms of the potential operational ramifications.
From a House of Commons Defence Select Commitee Report.
According to the MOD website, the defence budget for 2000/2001 was £23.6 billion ie £23 600 million.
This suggests the total savings from losing the Sea Harrier are about £360 million. Over a ten year period (2002 to 2012) this is £36 milion per year. Using the 2000/2001 figure as a model this works out as about 0.15% of the annual buget. This is only a
rough guess, but its probably not too far off the mark.
I am saying the savings are over ten years as they started when the upgrade was cancelled!
Considering the loss of capability to both the Royal Navy and HM Forces as a whole (not the mention the cost of losing ships and personnel, or not being about to act in a crisis) this is nothing short of a scandal.
Incidently, why doesn't this page of the thread fit on my screen?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 1st Sep 2003 at 06:16.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The edge
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Digress Schmigress!
Man-on-the-fence...you got it! I took an almost identical snap many years ago.
Change of subject......Jacko, IIRC the Service is not allowed to tinker with an airframe without the Design Authority approving the mod and conducting (and charging for) as many test flights as it deems necessary to ensure the mod 'does not affect the safe operation of the aircraft'. Guess who the DA is? The exception to this rule occurs when an aircraft passes a certain age, and is referred to as a 'mature airframe'. The only one of those I know of that is currently in service is the Jag. Now you know why the Jag gets so many goodies so cheaply so quickly. Perhaps it's an indication of how efficient the current system is. I remember BAE demanding extortionate sums to fly SIX test flights of the old Bumper Fun Jet after a minor software upgrade to the radar. Someone better educated than me may well correct me, but I believe that it doesn't matter how big the Service's cahones are, nobody gets to meddle with the DA's jet-it's the law, so to speak.
Man-on-the-fence...you got it! I took an almost identical snap many years ago.
Change of subject......Jacko, IIRC the Service is not allowed to tinker with an airframe without the Design Authority approving the mod and conducting (and charging for) as many test flights as it deems necessary to ensure the mod 'does not affect the safe operation of the aircraft'. Guess who the DA is? The exception to this rule occurs when an aircraft passes a certain age, and is referred to as a 'mature airframe'. The only one of those I know of that is currently in service is the Jag. Now you know why the Jag gets so many goodies so cheaply so quickly. Perhaps it's an indication of how efficient the current system is. I remember BAE demanding extortionate sums to fly SIX test flights of the old Bumper Fun Jet after a minor software upgrade to the radar. Someone better educated than me may well correct me, but I believe that it doesn't matter how big the Service's cahones are, nobody gets to meddle with the DA's jet-it's the law, so to speak.
Ah yes, but the service gets to declare when a platform is a Mature airframe, and the Jag was so-declared in about 1993 - after 20 years in service.....
On that basis, the Tornado should be 'Mature' too, and the Harrier II soon....
But you're right, it's all about the thorny issue of Design Authority and whether or not IPT's have the balls and a balanced attitude to risk.....
And WEBF, you might think it's a 'scandal' but your saying so doesn't make it one.
On that basis, the Tornado should be 'Mature' too, and the Harrier II soon....
But you're right, it's all about the thorny issue of Design Authority and whether or not IPT's have the balls and a balanced attitude to risk.....
And WEBF, you might think it's a 'scandal' but your saying so doesn't make it one.
WEBF,
You need to recalculate - as currently planned, the last SHARs will leave service in 2006, so it's not a ten year period. It's actually a six-year period. And if reports of Uncle Gordon's miscalculations with the finances of the nation are to be believed, the MoD will soon be regarding even £36m p.a as a significant chunk of the defence budget.
Additionally, you might be interested to know that your complaint that the RN will lose skills in the air-air role is being addressed; the FAA (or so it's reported) will be looking to put pilots in F3s or Typhoons and increase the number of exchange slots with the USMC (presumably F/A-18 unless/until the AV-8B+ gets AMRAAM).
JN/Nozzles
Who lays down the ground rules for who is the DA and how long their A over the D lasts? I assume that it's buried somewhere in the original contract? If the customer can say when an airframe is mature and can then set about giving it a Jag 96/97 style update, I wonder why the GR7 and GR 4 weren't declared as mature ages ago (particularly the Tornado)?
You need to recalculate - as currently planned, the last SHARs will leave service in 2006, so it's not a ten year period. It's actually a six-year period. And if reports of Uncle Gordon's miscalculations with the finances of the nation are to be believed, the MoD will soon be regarding even £36m p.a as a significant chunk of the defence budget.
Additionally, you might be interested to know that your complaint that the RN will lose skills in the air-air role is being addressed; the FAA (or so it's reported) will be looking to put pilots in F3s or Typhoons and increase the number of exchange slots with the USMC (presumably F/A-18 unless/until the AV-8B+ gets AMRAAM).
JN/Nozzles
Who lays down the ground rules for who is the DA and how long their A over the D lasts? I assume that it's buried somewhere in the original contract? If the customer can say when an airframe is mature and can then set about giving it a Jag 96/97 style update, I wonder why the GR7 and GR 4 weren't declared as mature ages ago (particularly the Tornado)?
Perhaps because most RAF engineer officers are highly risk averse, and out of their depth when dealing with BAE. Moreover, a culture has grown up under which simply giving the job to the DA is regarded as being 'smart procurement' - it's a clear sign that the individual is embracing new thinking by taking the job away from service personnel (with their unacceptable overhead) which must be good, right? Civilian companies will always be more efficient than state monoliths, right? And he can do so and reduce risk. Two ticks in two boxes.
And while you and I can recognise that the Jag 97 upgrade was great, and represented a speedy and cost effective way of doing business, look what has happened to most of those responsible for it! Look at what happened to those who tried to apply similar lessons to the Tornado? It's not much of an encouragement for anyone else to do anything in a similar way, is it?
Listen to the poison and disinformation put out about the Jag upgrade. Loss of configuration control, etc. Some people actually believe that nonsense, you know.
And who can blame BAE for fighting any suggestion that there was anything to learn from the Jag upgrade? If the Jag approach was adopted, BAE Systems could lose what promises to be its major revenue stream for the next few decades. Do you think they want the Tornado and Harrier declared mature? Do you think they're not doing everything in their power to keep their IPT leaders 'on side'?
And while you and I can recognise that the Jag 97 upgrade was great, and represented a speedy and cost effective way of doing business, look what has happened to most of those responsible for it! Look at what happened to those who tried to apply similar lessons to the Tornado? It's not much of an encouragement for anyone else to do anything in a similar way, is it?
Listen to the poison and disinformation put out about the Jag upgrade. Loss of configuration control, etc. Some people actually believe that nonsense, you know.
And who can blame BAE for fighting any suggestion that there was anything to learn from the Jag upgrade? If the Jag approach was adopted, BAE Systems could lose what promises to be its major revenue stream for the next few decades. Do you think they want the Tornado and Harrier declared mature? Do you think they're not doing everything in their power to keep their IPT leaders 'on side'?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The edge
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archimedes,
My guess is that it is set up at the initial contract stage. As to why the RAF declared the Jag mature when it did, and why it/the RN haven't done the same with equally aged cans is a bit of a mystery. I suppose that once they do it, they take on responsibility for all work required on the aircraft. Therefore, if the entire fleet needs a new wing spar or mods to accept an upgraded engine, the service would have to do it. Presumably the manpower (and expertise?) doesn't exist in the service. Secondly, I would guess that said wing spar would cost at least 10 times as much if you buy it from the DA and fit it DIY rather than let the DA fit it for you (you know, like you can't buy your spark plugs at trade prices from the garage!)
My guess is that it is set up at the initial contract stage. As to why the RAF declared the Jag mature when it did, and why it/the RN haven't done the same with equally aged cans is a bit of a mystery. I suppose that once they do it, they take on responsibility for all work required on the aircraft. Therefore, if the entire fleet needs a new wing spar or mods to accept an upgraded engine, the service would have to do it. Presumably the manpower (and expertise?) doesn't exist in the service. Secondly, I would guess that said wing spar would cost at least 10 times as much if you buy it from the DA and fit it DIY rather than let the DA fit it for you (you know, like you can't buy your spark plugs at trade prices from the garage!)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If all that the Shar-bashers say is true, then why bother continuing for the next 3 years, training youngsters up on the beast and wasting money? Let's all give up the Dark Blue and sign out a set of nylon Janitor's overalls in dashing light blue and save the odd million here and there.
I think that i'd rather nail my privates to a passing car.
Flying the Jet still means something to a lot of people, and taking part in recent exercises makes you soon realise that reliance on Foreign assets is something that we want to avoid at all costs! Having seen the americans shoot each other down at the ACMI with all their Gucci interrogators and treat it like they do it all the time was one of the scariest things imaginable! It is a sad passing, I agree, and being part of the scramble that is the shocking organisation of a migration to a jet AD pilot's don't want to fly, makes you realise that there are people making decisions that generally rely on their political emphasis and have little grounding in reality.
Yes it's going. But we don't have to like it.
I think that i'd rather nail my privates to a passing car.
Flying the Jet still means something to a lot of people, and taking part in recent exercises makes you soon realise that reliance on Foreign assets is something that we want to avoid at all costs! Having seen the americans shoot each other down at the ACMI with all their Gucci interrogators and treat it like they do it all the time was one of the scariest things imaginable! It is a sad passing, I agree, and being part of the scramble that is the shocking organisation of a migration to a jet AD pilot's don't want to fly, makes you realise that there are people making decisions that generally rely on their political emphasis and have little grounding in reality.
Yes it's going. But we don't have to like it.
JN & Nozzles,
Thank you - makes sense (although it is rather depressing).
Growbag,
Y'know, I'd not thought of it quite like that - why not save the costs of retaining the SHAR until 2006 (albeit in declining numbers) and transition to the 4-squadron GR7/9 force more swiftly? From a beancounting pov it would be sensible. I suppose the answer lies in the fact that common sense hasn't been allowed to play any part in retiring the SHAR...
Thank you - makes sense (although it is rather depressing).
Growbag,
Y'know, I'd not thought of it quite like that - why not save the costs of retaining the SHAR until 2006 (albeit in declining numbers) and transition to the 4-squadron GR7/9 force more swiftly? From a beancounting pov it would be sensible. I suppose the answer lies in the fact that common sense hasn't been allowed to play any part in retiring the SHAR...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr A,
I wish I could disagree, but anyone with any experience in these here Forces knows you ain't lyin'.
Sorry to double post but i've just seen Archimedes's comment here:
Additionally, you might be interested to know that your complaint that the RN will lose skills in the air-air role is being addressed; the FAA (or so it's reported) will be looking to put pilots in F3s or Typhoons and increase the number of exchange slots with the USMC (presumably F/A-18 unless/until the AV-8B+ gets AMRAAM).
That's not exactly true unfortunately. The US are in the process of cutting back 40% of foreign exchange posts and that includes the ones allocated to the FA2. The SHAR pilots are under no circumstances going to the F3 and mutterings of putting them in Eurofighter have been quickly stamped out due to the promises made to the rest of the RAF force. There will only be the one USMC exchange and the slight possiblilty that there will be 5 F18 exchanges as long as they are UK funded at £3m per year. Now that's saving money!!!
We'll see how skill retention is handled but you can guarantee it'll be a shambles.
I wish I could disagree, but anyone with any experience in these here Forces knows you ain't lyin'.
Sorry to double post but i've just seen Archimedes's comment here:
Additionally, you might be interested to know that your complaint that the RN will lose skills in the air-air role is being addressed; the FAA (or so it's reported) will be looking to put pilots in F3s or Typhoons and increase the number of exchange slots with the USMC (presumably F/A-18 unless/until the AV-8B+ gets AMRAAM).
That's not exactly true unfortunately. The US are in the process of cutting back 40% of foreign exchange posts and that includes the ones allocated to the FA2. The SHAR pilots are under no circumstances going to the F3 and mutterings of putting them in Eurofighter have been quickly stamped out due to the promises made to the rest of the RAF force. There will only be the one USMC exchange and the slight possiblilty that there will be 5 F18 exchanges as long as they are UK funded at £3m per year. Now that's saving money!!!
We'll see how skill retention is handled but you can guarantee it'll be a shambles.
Oh Dear...
Can't believe what you see even in the more reliable organs of the press!
Although, to be fair, what I saw seems to be a mangled version of what you've said (without the 'nots' and 'noes' relating to F3 and Typhoon).
Can't believe what you see even in the more reliable organs of the press!
Although, to be fair, what I saw seems to be a mangled version of what you've said (without the 'nots' and 'noes' relating to F3 and Typhoon).
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Growbag
Out of interest why are "The SHAR pilots are under no circumstances going to the F3 "??
Is it a location thing - I heard vast majority weren't happy about Wittering/Cottesmore so I suppose Leeming / Leuchars wouldn't exactly be convenient for their families in Cornwall!
Or is it a 2 seat thing????? Suspect the idea of flying with navs doesn't fill them with joy.
Can't imagine its the fact you can't land an F3 on a ship - most would see that as a positive benefit, I would have thought!
As for capability - by the time any of them got to the front line, the F3 will be far more capable than the SHar.
Also I'm surprised they haven't been promised a Typhoon slot - every pilot in the RAF has!!!
Out of interest why are "The SHAR pilots are under no circumstances going to the F3 "??
Is it a location thing - I heard vast majority weren't happy about Wittering/Cottesmore so I suppose Leeming / Leuchars wouldn't exactly be convenient for their families in Cornwall!
Or is it a 2 seat thing????? Suspect the idea of flying with navs doesn't fill them with joy.
Can't imagine its the fact you can't land an F3 on a ship - most would see that as a positive benefit, I would have thought!
As for capability - by the time any of them got to the front line, the F3 will be far more capable than the SHar.
Also I'm surprised they haven't been promised a Typhoon slot - every pilot in the RAF has!!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that it was the location thing, that was a misconception a long way back about the Cott/Witt move. It has to be mainly the 2 seat/airframe/job thing. Without disappearing down the rabbit hole of inter-service rivalry, most RN pilots want to work in the RN under the more flexible RN rules, not for the RAF who have their own rules. (Which are both changing of course)
When the F3 finally gets the slammer it will be a much more capable airframe, although the asraam is pretty tasty, with a faster forward throw it'll be useful. although they need to get into high block 3 to do any serious damage! But that's not enough to get the SHAR pilots asking for a F3 exchange!!!
And finally a few people have been offered the chance of a Eurofighter position, but all very hush hush.
When the F3 finally gets the slammer it will be a much more capable airframe, although the asraam is pretty tasty, with a faster forward throw it'll be useful. although they need to get into high block 3 to do any serious damage! But that's not enough to get the SHAR pilots asking for a F3 exchange!!!
And finally a few people have been offered the chance of a Eurofighter position, but all very hush hush.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My points - in no particular order.
F3's hosing off unguided AMRAAMs is a very dangerous thing, as anyone who knows anything about AMRAAM will tell you. They better be sure there are no friendlies forward of their 9-3 o'clock line when they do it.
I was a Freddie during the Sierra Leone operation. Whilst ths SHAR faced no air to air or serious SAM threat, it did prove its usefullness in that kind of limited warfare scenario (one in which UK goes alone without US / EU support). It was able to provide visible air presence that deterred rebel forces from coming out to play. The SHAR's admittedly limited recce capability was good enough however to provide photographs for land based forces to make maps from (if I remember rightly Sierra Leone had not be mapped since 1953) and provide the low level intelligence that was needed.
Now the SHAR cannot utilise PGM but it was not designed to, it is a maritime fighter, with a capability to drop dumb bombs. If we wanted to use PGMs we had a GR7 squadron on board, which is designed to do precisely that. The argument that the FA2 cannot drop PGM is irrevelant. Would you scrap the F3 today because it cant drop Paveway 3? I think not.
You can always count on the French / Italians / Spanish when they need us. The rest of the time forget it.
IMHO the FA2 deployment to the Adriatic was largely political. I remember Ark Royal sailed for the Adriatic for the first time just a few days after the first UK soldier was killed in the former Yugoslavia. The politicians wanted to show that something was being done as the first body bag came home. They wanted some air assets, however limited in capability, in theatre that the UK could use to attack people putting British troops under fire, without host nation support or permission. And that is probably the reason that the UK had a CVS in that theatre for so long (that is the true flexibility of an aircraft carrier - to roam the sea just of the enemies coast, behold to no one, able to strike at a time of its own willing and move to stay in good weather and evade the enemy).
With regard to remaining unlocated at sea, during Saif Sereaa 2 off Oman (or however we spelt it) I was still a Freddie with the CVS. The Illustrious CVS group remained undeteced for nearly two weeks (and we had a major RN ship with significant ESM fit looking for us). We went back to cold war style ops. Radars off or sector blanked, minimal radio useage, deceptive lighting, hiding amongst merchant shipping etc and it worked very well. If you want to keep your CVS hidden you can.
The SHAR has gone. Having been on the "inside" when 3 Group and Joint Force Harrier was conceived I can say it is no coincidence that the FA2 was scrapped shortly after the RAF got their hands on it. There was I remember, rumours around that time, strong ones, that the government had told the RAF that it must get rid of a fast jet aircraft type to save money. There was concern for the Jaguar, then the FA2 got axed. It still amazes me that the RAF can justify having 3 aircraft types for the same role (GR4, GR7, Jaguar) with two of them (GR7 and Jag) being so broadly similar in combat capability.
What we do not know is what brokering/political manouevring went on behind the scenes. I am sure that the Admirals did not give up the FA2 without a fight, but as Admiral West said in WEBF link, money is tight. If the RN wanted to keep FA2 it may well have had to axe something else in its place, so only 1 LPD instead of 2, or a reduction in Type 45 capability, or no AEW upgrade for the Sea King AEW 2.
The AEW capability for CVF is also something that has had little talked about. All the talk is off JSF. Let us remember that JSF will be able to take off from CVF with full weapon load, fly about 600nm to a target, bomb it, fight in and out, and return to CVS. That is a vast amount of airspace that you need an asset that can provide "picture" and C squared over. A helicopter simply cannot do it. When the MoD and RN have talked about "future proofing" the ship - ie conventional take off and landing capability, I feel they are hedging their bets that the only asset that will be able to do this in about 2010-2015 will be an upgraded E2 Hawkeye.
With regard to RoE and BVR - it is worth noting that despite RoE restrictions, the three Mig 29 kills in Kosovo were all BVR engagements. For those like myself who have been drilled time and time again during exercises in RoE it is suprising how quickly you can meet your engagement criteria when you go to war posture (roughly something like this brings back memories):
A) Not conforming to airway
B) No valid Mode 4
C) Flying attack profile
D) ESM correlation
E) Not responding to warnings on 243/121.5
F) Prior intelligence (ie SF in ditch at end of enemies runway giving you take off time - bit of maths and suprise suprise they turn up 80nm from you within 2 mins of your estimation of their ToT).
More worringly the CVF is still a very very long way off. A lot can change. We will have had, almost certainly, a change of government between now and 2012. If the Tories were to win the next election (IMHO no bad thing in grand scheme of things) it could well jepeordise CVF - history tells us the first thing tories do when re-elected is slash defence spending to fund other things.
But for the time being organic AD capability for the RN is gone, and it may never return. Perhaps a thread on how to bridge the capability gap in the period 2006-2012?
F3's hosing off unguided AMRAAMs is a very dangerous thing, as anyone who knows anything about AMRAAM will tell you. They better be sure there are no friendlies forward of their 9-3 o'clock line when they do it.
I was a Freddie during the Sierra Leone operation. Whilst ths SHAR faced no air to air or serious SAM threat, it did prove its usefullness in that kind of limited warfare scenario (one in which UK goes alone without US / EU support). It was able to provide visible air presence that deterred rebel forces from coming out to play. The SHAR's admittedly limited recce capability was good enough however to provide photographs for land based forces to make maps from (if I remember rightly Sierra Leone had not be mapped since 1953) and provide the low level intelligence that was needed.
Now the SHAR cannot utilise PGM but it was not designed to, it is a maritime fighter, with a capability to drop dumb bombs. If we wanted to use PGMs we had a GR7 squadron on board, which is designed to do precisely that. The argument that the FA2 cannot drop PGM is irrevelant. Would you scrap the F3 today because it cant drop Paveway 3? I think not.
You can always count on the French / Italians / Spanish when they need us. The rest of the time forget it.
IMHO the FA2 deployment to the Adriatic was largely political. I remember Ark Royal sailed for the Adriatic for the first time just a few days after the first UK soldier was killed in the former Yugoslavia. The politicians wanted to show that something was being done as the first body bag came home. They wanted some air assets, however limited in capability, in theatre that the UK could use to attack people putting British troops under fire, without host nation support or permission. And that is probably the reason that the UK had a CVS in that theatre for so long (that is the true flexibility of an aircraft carrier - to roam the sea just of the enemies coast, behold to no one, able to strike at a time of its own willing and move to stay in good weather and evade the enemy).
With regard to remaining unlocated at sea, during Saif Sereaa 2 off Oman (or however we spelt it) I was still a Freddie with the CVS. The Illustrious CVS group remained undeteced for nearly two weeks (and we had a major RN ship with significant ESM fit looking for us). We went back to cold war style ops. Radars off or sector blanked, minimal radio useage, deceptive lighting, hiding amongst merchant shipping etc and it worked very well. If you want to keep your CVS hidden you can.
The SHAR has gone. Having been on the "inside" when 3 Group and Joint Force Harrier was conceived I can say it is no coincidence that the FA2 was scrapped shortly after the RAF got their hands on it. There was I remember, rumours around that time, strong ones, that the government had told the RAF that it must get rid of a fast jet aircraft type to save money. There was concern for the Jaguar, then the FA2 got axed. It still amazes me that the RAF can justify having 3 aircraft types for the same role (GR4, GR7, Jaguar) with two of them (GR7 and Jag) being so broadly similar in combat capability.
What we do not know is what brokering/political manouevring went on behind the scenes. I am sure that the Admirals did not give up the FA2 without a fight, but as Admiral West said in WEBF link, money is tight. If the RN wanted to keep FA2 it may well have had to axe something else in its place, so only 1 LPD instead of 2, or a reduction in Type 45 capability, or no AEW upgrade for the Sea King AEW 2.
The AEW capability for CVF is also something that has had little talked about. All the talk is off JSF. Let us remember that JSF will be able to take off from CVF with full weapon load, fly about 600nm to a target, bomb it, fight in and out, and return to CVS. That is a vast amount of airspace that you need an asset that can provide "picture" and C squared over. A helicopter simply cannot do it. When the MoD and RN have talked about "future proofing" the ship - ie conventional take off and landing capability, I feel they are hedging their bets that the only asset that will be able to do this in about 2010-2015 will be an upgraded E2 Hawkeye.
With regard to RoE and BVR - it is worth noting that despite RoE restrictions, the three Mig 29 kills in Kosovo were all BVR engagements. For those like myself who have been drilled time and time again during exercises in RoE it is suprising how quickly you can meet your engagement criteria when you go to war posture (roughly something like this brings back memories):
A) Not conforming to airway
B) No valid Mode 4
C) Flying attack profile
D) ESM correlation
E) Not responding to warnings on 243/121.5
F) Prior intelligence (ie SF in ditch at end of enemies runway giving you take off time - bit of maths and suprise suprise they turn up 80nm from you within 2 mins of your estimation of their ToT).
More worringly the CVF is still a very very long way off. A lot can change. We will have had, almost certainly, a change of government between now and 2012. If the Tories were to win the next election (IMHO no bad thing in grand scheme of things) it could well jepeordise CVF - history tells us the first thing tories do when re-elected is slash defence spending to fund other things.
But for the time being organic AD capability for the RN is gone, and it may never return. Perhaps a thread on how to bridge the capability gap in the period 2006-2012?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice post Tim.
Saif Sareea 2 Emcon - what fun that was.
Not.
Worked a treat though. Bear in mind this was during / just after 9/11 so the mindset on the ship had changed as well.
Oggin
Saif Sareea 2 Emcon - what fun that was.
Not.
Worked a treat though. Bear in mind this was during / just after 9/11 so the mindset on the ship had changed as well.
Oggin
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timzta,
A few points ref your post. Before I do however, let me AGAIN reiterate that I believe the loss of the SHAR's AMRAAM capability is a considerable capability gap!!!!
However, you missed my point ref the SHARs lack of PGM capability. You are correct in that this is offset by the presence of the GR7/9. Likewise the limited SHAR wet film recce capability is irrelevant given the GR7/9's excellent podded capability. My comment regarding the FA2's limited strike capability was merely a counter to WEBF's comments about the ac's use during Bosnia. He has pointed out many times how the SHAR was used in a swing role over Bosnia with AAMs and a 1000 lb bomb. And yes this option was used (eg when the SHAR got downed by the MANPAD). However, even then it was not the option of choice and dumb bombs are of extremely limited use in modern A-G ROE. Ergo, given the GR7/9, it was WEBF comments regarding the FA2's A-G capability which, with all due respect, are irrelevent.
I flew during SSII and believe me Tim, your position was well known! Remember that the E-3D has a maritime surveillance capability which does not require us to get very close! Essentially, finding carriers is fairly easy from an AWACS: you simply follow the radar/IFF dots back to mother and correlate with a maritime contact. However the E-3D was essentially playing Purple during SSII and the info was not used to maintain the focus of the ex on the amphib and land phase. The fact that a surface combatant couldn't find you on ESM is not surprising given the limited horizon of such a platform.
I will accept however that politics were possibly at play in the demise of the FA2, and I would agree that the loss of the Jag force would potentially have been worth retaining AMRAAM on the CVS. Remember however that even before the decision to axe the FA2 was made, the SHAR force had almost reached critical mass due to its acute shortage of pilots.
As far as the air to air kills during ALLIED FORCE, there were actually 6 (all MIG-29's). Whilst these kills (4 to USAF F-15C's and one each to a Dutch F-16AM and a USAF F-16CJ) were all AMRAAM kills, the final engagement (by the CJ) ended up very close indeed.
Regards,
M2
A few points ref your post. Before I do however, let me AGAIN reiterate that I believe the loss of the SHAR's AMRAAM capability is a considerable capability gap!!!!
However, you missed my point ref the SHARs lack of PGM capability. You are correct in that this is offset by the presence of the GR7/9. Likewise the limited SHAR wet film recce capability is irrelevant given the GR7/9's excellent podded capability. My comment regarding the FA2's limited strike capability was merely a counter to WEBF's comments about the ac's use during Bosnia. He has pointed out many times how the SHAR was used in a swing role over Bosnia with AAMs and a 1000 lb bomb. And yes this option was used (eg when the SHAR got downed by the MANPAD). However, even then it was not the option of choice and dumb bombs are of extremely limited use in modern A-G ROE. Ergo, given the GR7/9, it was WEBF comments regarding the FA2's A-G capability which, with all due respect, are irrelevent.
With regard to remaining unlocated at sea, during Saif Sereaa 2 off Oman (or however we spelt it) I was still a Freddie with the CVS. The Illustrious CVS group remained undeteced for nearly two weeks (and we had a major RN ship with significant ESM fit looking for us).
I will accept however that politics were possibly at play in the demise of the FA2, and I would agree that the loss of the Jag force would potentially have been worth retaining AMRAAM on the CVS. Remember however that even before the decision to axe the FA2 was made, the SHAR force had almost reached critical mass due to its acute shortage of pilots.
As far as the air to air kills during ALLIED FORCE, there were actually 6 (all MIG-29's). Whilst these kills (4 to USAF F-15C's and one each to a Dutch F-16AM and a USAF F-16CJ) were all AMRAAM kills, the final engagement (by the CJ) ended up very close indeed.
Regards,
M2
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would hope the E3 could find us. We were talking to it on Link 16 after all!!! Had we been in a real war situation remember the E3 is a HVAA. We would have been prepared to expend considerable effort to neautralise it and its base early. Well a couple of TLAMs from our SSN would have done it. That I am afraid is how vulnerable land based air power is from the Royal Navy these days. The SSN can get into theatre very quickly, well ahead of a CVS group and strike with no warning. From WEBF link Admiral West states HMS Triumph was off Iceland, 17 days later she was firing TLAMs into Afghanistan.
I do agree you can follow the blips back to the CVS but just how accurate targeting information can you get? The CVS can move at 30 knots, thats a mile every 2 mins. What are your own commands requirements for a targeting position for a strike with Exocet type missile equipped fighters? We were sitting in the middle of some very busy shipping lanes, out by a mile and you stick 4 Exocets into a someones VLCC. Is that acceptable to your command? Not having a go or trying to start an argument, just trying to draw your attention to the kind of problems those of us at sea have in trying to fight a surface ship engagement.
I am not going to divulge the ESM capabilities of the surface combatant that was trying to find us off Oman, they remain highly classified, but suffice to say it is a tad more then the standard ESM aerials stuck up the mast.
If i remember rightly - and please correct me if I am wrong - the GR7 did not yet have the recce pod during Op Palliser down in Sierra Leone. That is why the FA2 did the recce and why people were considering deploying Jaguars from the UK until someone remember we had a recce camera in the FA2. The inability of the GR7 to do tac recce was one of the reasons it got the pod shortly after. But please correct me if I am wrong - my head has since been filled with much drivel having been working for my fATPL!!!
The whole reason we are having this debate anyway is due to political short sightedness in the 1960s wrt to the decision scrap CVA-01. The then government of the time could see no further than the UK involvement within NATO in N Europe and the North Atlantic. The old Ark Royal/Eagle were potent carriers with their Phantom/Bucc/Gannet/SK air wing, but were costly to run. It was decided, as we all know, to allow the USN to provide this capability and the RN to become a "niche" player with ASW helo carrier (Invincible class) and Amphib ops.
About this time off course the Harrier and VSTOL were conceived and it was decided that FRS1 could be developed and added to Helo carrier at little cost to provide some protection against shadowing Soviet recce aircraft and bombers. But no sooner had the first Invincible class ship entered service what happened? Yes we had to go 8000 miles from home to conduct a large amphib op against a country who had considerable amounts of dangerous low flying fighter bombers, some of which could carry sea skimming missiles. What we really needed was a strike carrier with a fighter group (ie F4), long range strike aircraft to attack enemies air bases (Buccaneer) and some AEW (Gannet). What did we have - a handfull of FRS1 and some Sea King ASW helicopters. It was not ideal but skill, inovation, and a little bit of help from the US with AIM 9L helped win the day with a just acceptable amount of losses in terms of shipping.
Of course within 5 years of the last Invincible class entering service the Iron Curtain came down and the "new world disorder" followed. There was no longer an ASW threat and the RN has had to muddle through with the CVS. JFH was about trying to restore that fighter/strike aircraft capability I talked about above. But no sooner had it been conceived and the CVS modified (removal of Sea Dart and associated radars, Sea Dart magazine rebuilt for GR7 munitions) then it was decided to scrap the FA2. So as far as a CVS Captain is concerned he has now lost all his lines off defence against air attack. Dont talk about Goalkeeper please - CIWS stands for "comes inboard with shrapnel".
TLAM, as I talked about above, has a major role to play in bridging the capability gap between 2006-2012. That is why Admiral West talks about his desire to get Type 45 TLAM equipped. If we have to do a Falklands style op in say 2009, then we have to have the ability to launch a "first strike" against the enemies airbases before the RN gets into theatre - otherwise the fleet is a sitting duck. Thoughts on this "oggin" / "nozzles".
I was lucky enough to spend 2 weeks onboard the USS John F Kennedy out in the Gulf was my ship, HMS Exeter, was on Armilla, controlling F-14 and FA-18s. I have also crosspolled to the USS Enterprise during a JMC. Having worked on UK CVS during real world ops (not a war though I hasten to add, I do not consider myself to have been at war during Op Palliser) I can tell you my opinion is firmly that the only way for the RN and the UK to go in the world we now live in is "large carrier". The world is now to dangerous to be "bodging it" with innovation and second rate equipment. That is why we must have CVF, it must have catapult and arrestor wires and it must have fixed wing AEW and tanker aircraft.
So you guys that are still out there in the FA2 world - get pushing to for a large exchange programme with the USN, get yourselves flying the Super Hornet off the CVNs. Going to the GR9 to maintain VSTOL currency is irrevelant. The technology in the JSF will be such that a PPL holder like me could land it on a CVF. Dont except anything less then a large scale USN exchange.
Baggers - up your E2 exchange programme.
GR7 guys - I know it sounds harsh and you dont like it, but get to sea as often as possible before the FA2 goes. There will be no RN guys to help you refine your maritime skills once FA2 retires. And, for todays bit of controversy, I feel that once FA2 goes the RAF will say it will no longer send GR7/9 to sea.
Fly safe, happy landings.
I do agree you can follow the blips back to the CVS but just how accurate targeting information can you get? The CVS can move at 30 knots, thats a mile every 2 mins. What are your own commands requirements for a targeting position for a strike with Exocet type missile equipped fighters? We were sitting in the middle of some very busy shipping lanes, out by a mile and you stick 4 Exocets into a someones VLCC. Is that acceptable to your command? Not having a go or trying to start an argument, just trying to draw your attention to the kind of problems those of us at sea have in trying to fight a surface ship engagement.
I am not going to divulge the ESM capabilities of the surface combatant that was trying to find us off Oman, they remain highly classified, but suffice to say it is a tad more then the standard ESM aerials stuck up the mast.
If i remember rightly - and please correct me if I am wrong - the GR7 did not yet have the recce pod during Op Palliser down in Sierra Leone. That is why the FA2 did the recce and why people were considering deploying Jaguars from the UK until someone remember we had a recce camera in the FA2. The inability of the GR7 to do tac recce was one of the reasons it got the pod shortly after. But please correct me if I am wrong - my head has since been filled with much drivel having been working for my fATPL!!!
The whole reason we are having this debate anyway is due to political short sightedness in the 1960s wrt to the decision scrap CVA-01. The then government of the time could see no further than the UK involvement within NATO in N Europe and the North Atlantic. The old Ark Royal/Eagle were potent carriers with their Phantom/Bucc/Gannet/SK air wing, but were costly to run. It was decided, as we all know, to allow the USN to provide this capability and the RN to become a "niche" player with ASW helo carrier (Invincible class) and Amphib ops.
About this time off course the Harrier and VSTOL were conceived and it was decided that FRS1 could be developed and added to Helo carrier at little cost to provide some protection against shadowing Soviet recce aircraft and bombers. But no sooner had the first Invincible class ship entered service what happened? Yes we had to go 8000 miles from home to conduct a large amphib op against a country who had considerable amounts of dangerous low flying fighter bombers, some of which could carry sea skimming missiles. What we really needed was a strike carrier with a fighter group (ie F4), long range strike aircraft to attack enemies air bases (Buccaneer) and some AEW (Gannet). What did we have - a handfull of FRS1 and some Sea King ASW helicopters. It was not ideal but skill, inovation, and a little bit of help from the US with AIM 9L helped win the day with a just acceptable amount of losses in terms of shipping.
Of course within 5 years of the last Invincible class entering service the Iron Curtain came down and the "new world disorder" followed. There was no longer an ASW threat and the RN has had to muddle through with the CVS. JFH was about trying to restore that fighter/strike aircraft capability I talked about above. But no sooner had it been conceived and the CVS modified (removal of Sea Dart and associated radars, Sea Dart magazine rebuilt for GR7 munitions) then it was decided to scrap the FA2. So as far as a CVS Captain is concerned he has now lost all his lines off defence against air attack. Dont talk about Goalkeeper please - CIWS stands for "comes inboard with shrapnel".
TLAM, as I talked about above, has a major role to play in bridging the capability gap between 2006-2012. That is why Admiral West talks about his desire to get Type 45 TLAM equipped. If we have to do a Falklands style op in say 2009, then we have to have the ability to launch a "first strike" against the enemies airbases before the RN gets into theatre - otherwise the fleet is a sitting duck. Thoughts on this "oggin" / "nozzles".
I was lucky enough to spend 2 weeks onboard the USS John F Kennedy out in the Gulf was my ship, HMS Exeter, was on Armilla, controlling F-14 and FA-18s. I have also crosspolled to the USS Enterprise during a JMC. Having worked on UK CVS during real world ops (not a war though I hasten to add, I do not consider myself to have been at war during Op Palliser) I can tell you my opinion is firmly that the only way for the RN and the UK to go in the world we now live in is "large carrier". The world is now to dangerous to be "bodging it" with innovation and second rate equipment. That is why we must have CVF, it must have catapult and arrestor wires and it must have fixed wing AEW and tanker aircraft.
So you guys that are still out there in the FA2 world - get pushing to for a large exchange programme with the USN, get yourselves flying the Super Hornet off the CVNs. Going to the GR9 to maintain VSTOL currency is irrevelant. The technology in the JSF will be such that a PPL holder like me could land it on a CVF. Dont except anything less then a large scale USN exchange.
Baggers - up your E2 exchange programme.
GR7 guys - I know it sounds harsh and you dont like it, but get to sea as often as possible before the FA2 goes. There will be no RN guys to help you refine your maritime skills once FA2 retires. And, for todays bit of controversy, I feel that once FA2 goes the RAF will say it will no longer send GR7/9 to sea.
Fly safe, happy landings.
Last edited by timzsta; 3rd Sep 2003 at 18:37.