Sea Jet
When was the last time an RAF a/c shot anything down?
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
From: Lincs
PTL, Navaleye,
Well done chaps, intelligent argument. I am disappointed.
Navaleye, yourself, WEBF and others have consistently argued the case for SHAR over the last few years. This is despite the majority of people, including serving SHAR pilots, putting intelligent reasons as to why the Sea Harrier is financially unviable. I like many people have suggested that in a perfect world, keeping the SHAR makes sense. I like many people have argued in favour of carrier aviation.
But the fact remains that our defence budget is under unprecedented strains. Whether you like it or not, we cannot have everything. However, as far as I'm aware, navaleye, you nor any of the other pro-FA2 guys have ever offered a reasonable suggestion as to what capability should be cut or reduced to enable the SHAR to be kept.
I'm now asking you to offer your suggestions in reasoned, sensible manner. If the best you can manage is trite comments, I'd suggest that the credibility of your case is weakened still further.
I therefore ask again, when the Army are driving around Iraq and Afghanistan in unarmoured land rovers, when your SKASaCs still lack key capabilities required for war fighting ops, when key RAF High value assets still lack DAS, what do you suggest we dispense with to allow the SHAR to be retained?
Regards,
MM
Well done chaps, intelligent argument. I am disappointed.
Navaleye, yourself, WEBF and others have consistently argued the case for SHAR over the last few years. This is despite the majority of people, including serving SHAR pilots, putting intelligent reasons as to why the Sea Harrier is financially unviable. I like many people have suggested that in a perfect world, keeping the SHAR makes sense. I like many people have argued in favour of carrier aviation.
But the fact remains that our defence budget is under unprecedented strains. Whether you like it or not, we cannot have everything. However, as far as I'm aware, navaleye, you nor any of the other pro-FA2 guys have ever offered a reasonable suggestion as to what capability should be cut or reduced to enable the SHAR to be kept.
I'm now asking you to offer your suggestions in reasoned, sensible manner. If the best you can manage is trite comments, I'd suggest that the credibility of your case is weakened still further.
I therefore ask again, when the Army are driving around Iraq and Afghanistan in unarmoured land rovers, when your SKASaCs still lack key capabilities required for war fighting ops, when key RAF High value assets still lack DAS, what do you suggest we dispense with to allow the SHAR to be retained?
Regards,
MM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
From: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Navaleye
Of course you could argue that if you can mount an effective Offensive Counter Air campaign (you will note I don't comment on anybody's ability or otherwise to do this) you don't need to be able to have to hang around waiting for the enemy to come to you before you shoot them down.
Of course you could argue that if you can mount an effective Offensive Counter Air campaign (you will note I don't comment on anybody's ability or otherwise to do this) you don't need to be able to have to hang around waiting for the enemy to come to you before you shoot them down.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,406
Likes: 15
From: Gibraltar
you will note I don't comment on anybody's ability or otherwise to do this
Who covers the mud movers when they go about their business?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 16,700
Likes: 54
From: Lincolnshire
When did the RAF shoot anything down?
Well there was the Jaguar in the 70s.
Then you could count the Coot claimed by the Buccaneer in GW1
And of course if you are REALLY effective you don't have to shoot anything down.
Well there was the Jaguar in the 70s.
Then you could count the Coot claimed by the Buccaneer in GW1
And of course if you are REALLY effective you don't have to shoot anything down.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,406
Likes: 15
From: Gibraltar
you don't need to be able to have to hang around waiting for the enemy to come to you before you shoot them down
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,236
Likes: 80
From: Just behind the back of beyond....
"I would have thought that the loss of 3 anti-aircraft destroyers, three general purpose frigates, 20% of our mine clearing capacity was probably enough?"
No, it's not. That doesn't dent the cost of CVF, the ongoing cost of supporting four SSBNs or an irrelevant strategic deterrent.
We no longer need (nor can we affford) a balanced ocean going navy capable of handling any level of operation autonomously. We merely need to be able to make a useful contribution to very large scale coalition operations and to be able to undertake more modest ops on our own. The same is true for the Army and the RAF.
The Falklands campaign was mounted 24 years ago. That's ancient history. Ten years before the Cold War ended.
24 years before the Falklands we were recovering from Suez, when we could still mount a major amphibious op, and simultaneously drop paras in brigade strength, while mounting an air campaign that made Granby look pathetic.
It would be nice if we still had those capabilities. We don't.
No-one is pretending that losing SHar is ideal, nor that if budgets were unlimited we would not retain it. But budgets aren't unlimited, and I'm not hearing any great clamour for a return to the levels of taxation that would be required to fund Cold War levels of force structure.
We're being forced to make hard choices, and we are losing capabilities and force levels are being cut.
But losing the SHar is less painful than losing the Jag or the PR9, or than losing the F3's SEAD capabilities, or than suffering an even longer wait for tankers.
No, it's not. That doesn't dent the cost of CVF, the ongoing cost of supporting four SSBNs or an irrelevant strategic deterrent.
We no longer need (nor can we affford) a balanced ocean going navy capable of handling any level of operation autonomously. We merely need to be able to make a useful contribution to very large scale coalition operations and to be able to undertake more modest ops on our own. The same is true for the Army and the RAF.
The Falklands campaign was mounted 24 years ago. That's ancient history. Ten years before the Cold War ended.
24 years before the Falklands we were recovering from Suez, when we could still mount a major amphibious op, and simultaneously drop paras in brigade strength, while mounting an air campaign that made Granby look pathetic.
It would be nice if we still had those capabilities. We don't.
No-one is pretending that losing SHar is ideal, nor that if budgets were unlimited we would not retain it. But budgets aren't unlimited, and I'm not hearing any great clamour for a return to the levels of taxation that would be required to fund Cold War levels of force structure.
We're being forced to make hard choices, and we are losing capabilities and force levels are being cut.
But losing the SHar is less painful than losing the Jag or the PR9, or than losing the F3's SEAD capabilities, or than suffering an even longer wait for tankers.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 391
Likes: 1
From: In the dark
I won't claim to know exactly current ROE, nor would I quote them here. However, in the modern climate, CCN factor, Blue and Blue, Collateral damage etc etc I would imagethe times when you are allowed to fire BVR are very limited. Lets face it, it is a Cold War Concept ideal when you new all aircraft to the NE where going to be enemy. Therefore, the UK now needs an aircraft capable of visually identifying and destroying enemy aircraft quickly.
Does the SHAR or F3 excell in this sitituation? Or even the Typhoon?
Does the SHAR or F3 excell in this sitituation? Or even the Typhoon?
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
From: Lincs
I would have thought that the loss of 3 anti-aircraft destroyers, three general purpose frigates, 20% of our mine clearing capacity was probably enough?
You miss the point. I am not suggesting that the cuts come necessarily from the RN. Liewise, high profile projects such as Typhoon, Asute and CVF are largely protected from cuts for political or contractual reasons.
So again, what would you cut from defence to fund SHAR? There's no need to be defensive, I'm just genuinely interested to discover how you propose to find the money required to retain SHAR for around 8 years.
Regards,
MM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 144
From: MARS
JackonickoYou are beginning to sound like a bit of a dinosaur. I have no wish to prolong this thread and I fully understand the impetus behind the demise of the SHAR. You argue that we have no amphibious capability, I contend that you are wrong and very blinkered in your light blue centric view. The first non SF troops on the ground in Iraq (this time round, not Granby) were launched from amphibious platforms onto the Al Fawr peninsula, supported by airborne assets, such as the Mk7 SeaKing ASACs and JHC assets such as the Chinook and Sea King. Only a year before the invasion of Iraq, Ex Saif Sarea was the largest amphibious exercise of it's kind since 1982. Since then, we have seen the introduction of Bulwark and Albion, which are dedicated amphibious assets, 4 Bay class heavy lift vessels and not to forget the existing ships, Ark Royal, Illustrious, Ocean, and Argus, all of which can be used in the LPH role. This force is very capable and has greater lift and support capacity than 4 C17s, although I do concede, not as quick. It is unlikely that we are going to engage in any conflict where we need to get a significant amount of heavy armour to a theatre in hours. An amphibious force can be formed and poise offshore for weeks. I am sure that the Army (without whom we would all be redundant. Wars are not won by Air Power alone) are grateful for the availability of these joint assets. One thing that is missing in the inventory, is the ability to offer close air support. Yes, that could be launched from land bases but only if you have HNS. The CVF and JCA, together with the existing amphibious assets, will offer the UK a significant strike package, able to go almost anywhere on the globe, without the need for friendly nation support. All your maintainance and support needs are contained within one neat package, that is not at daily risk from mortar attack. I suggest that the reason there is so much dissent from ranks such as yourselves, is because you can see the writing on the wall. The RAF is still stuck in the cold war and has procured a very capable but very expensive jet that does not quite fit today's role. What you really want, is more tankers, more heavy lift, more transport and ISTAR assets, but you are stuck with an aircraft that will be unable to strafe troops on the ground. You know that CVF and JCA will make Typhoon redundant and it will become an albatross around the RAF's neck. The RN has over the years chosen to sacrifice a lot, in order to gain much more in the long term. The Naval Staff have done well to smell the coffee and understand what the the UK Military (note the purple nature of my term) needs. It has rapidly moved away from the cold war and all those ASW assets and realised that strike and support of the Army is the only way to go.Now if we have any more comment, can we please not post it in this thread so we can let it die! Please!P.S. Although I do not agree with some of Southside's rhetoric, this is why morale in the FAA is high because, unlike a certain service, the RN has a clear vision, and everyone knows what we are trying to achieve.
Last edited by Widger; 24th February 2006 at 12:25.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
From: Lincs
Widger,
Firstly I'll reiterate that I'm a strong supporter of carrier aviation and I particularly support your initiative to LET THIS THREAD DIE!!!!!!!!!
However, I felt I must respond to some of your comments. Actually, the first Brit troops on the ground in Iraq didn't go ashore at Al Faw. Other things were happening. However, I'd certainly acknowledge how important the amphib assault was although it was not the main effort of the ground offensive. As far as C-17 v sea lift, we clearly need both as they each compliment one another. And if you don't think the RAF are procuring more AAR, heavy lift and ISTAR you need to check your facts. As far as SH goes, Land is now Customer 2 for this and it is interesting that SH momentum has reduced since they took the lead.
As far as CAS goes however I would argue that we (and I include FAA in this equation) currently have quite a robust capability and a lot of experience in the role. Now, I'm not Typhoon's greatest fan, but you are also incorrect to suggest that intimate that Typhoon is unable to conduct CAS or strike. Once the Tranche 2/3 standard is matured over the next few years, it will actually be capable of carrying a wider range of A-G weaponry than JCA. And for the last time, TYPHOON HAS A GUN AND IS ABLE TO STRAFE!!!!!!!!! Yes the jet was procured in the Cold War, but so was T45 (which some (Note not I!) would argue is also a single role AD asset like Typhoon). The guys that fly Typhoon are exceptionally confident that it will rapidly mature into a highly capable swing/dual role asset. Like F-35, Typhoon's capabilities also have considerable application in a ISR role. CVF and F-35 will certainly not make it redundant for a variety of reasons. And let's not forget that F-35 will lack many capabilities when it initially enters service in 201?.
F-35 and Typhoon will complement one another and the sooner we stop willy waving and trying to undermine one another and instead concentrate on building doctrine combining the best attributes of each, the better. In my experience, I firmly believe that both the RN and the RAF have good vision and work together well. If anything, it is most certainly the Army who lag in this respect by constantly arguing that 'Purple should be Khaki', and I can give many, many examples of that.
Now, let's let this thread die!!!!!
Regards,
MM
Firstly I'll reiterate that I'm a strong supporter of carrier aviation and I particularly support your initiative to LET THIS THREAD DIE!!!!!!!!!
However, I felt I must respond to some of your comments. Actually, the first Brit troops on the ground in Iraq didn't go ashore at Al Faw. Other things were happening. However, I'd certainly acknowledge how important the amphib assault was although it was not the main effort of the ground offensive. As far as C-17 v sea lift, we clearly need both as they each compliment one another. And if you don't think the RAF are procuring more AAR, heavy lift and ISTAR you need to check your facts. As far as SH goes, Land is now Customer 2 for this and it is interesting that SH momentum has reduced since they took the lead.
As far as CAS goes however I would argue that we (and I include FAA in this equation) currently have quite a robust capability and a lot of experience in the role. Now, I'm not Typhoon's greatest fan, but you are also incorrect to suggest that intimate that Typhoon is unable to conduct CAS or strike. Once the Tranche 2/3 standard is matured over the next few years, it will actually be capable of carrying a wider range of A-G weaponry than JCA. And for the last time, TYPHOON HAS A GUN AND IS ABLE TO STRAFE!!!!!!!!! Yes the jet was procured in the Cold War, but so was T45 (which some (Note not I!) would argue is also a single role AD asset like Typhoon). The guys that fly Typhoon are exceptionally confident that it will rapidly mature into a highly capable swing/dual role asset. Like F-35, Typhoon's capabilities also have considerable application in a ISR role. CVF and F-35 will certainly not make it redundant for a variety of reasons. And let's not forget that F-35 will lack many capabilities when it initially enters service in 201?.
F-35 and Typhoon will complement one another and the sooner we stop willy waving and trying to undermine one another and instead concentrate on building doctrine combining the best attributes of each, the better. In my experience, I firmly believe that both the RN and the RAF have good vision and work together well. If anything, it is most certainly the Army who lag in this respect by constantly arguing that 'Purple should be Khaki', and I can give many, many examples of that.
Now, let's let this thread die!!!!!
Regards,
MM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 144
From: MARS
MM,I do not necessarily dis-agree with anything you say. I could not however, allow Jackonicko's blatent trolling to go without a bite! One word on the T45. It is not single role although it is predominantly Air Defence.Anyway, Pierre, I think you had better post that very nice picture again.No replys please, we are all in agreement!
Suspicion breeds confidence
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,406
Likes: 15
From: Gibraltar
I'm always happy to see a Sea Harrier in the dawn sun 
Sorry guys the second most popular thread on PPRuNe has plenty of legs left. Also as Widger points out the T45 has a good ASW capability, it even has an ASuW capability if its helo has any weapons.
Sorry guys the second most popular thread on PPRuNe has plenty of legs left. Also as Widger points out the T45 has a good ASW capability, it even has an ASuW capability if its helo has any weapons.
Joined: Jul 2005
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
From: northside
Why won't its helo's have any weapons?
Nice comment from my comrade widger....I keep banging on to these fellas in Light grey who are moaning and manking and what they don't seem to understand is that its their own fault...
Nice comment from my comrade widger....I keep banging on to these fellas in Light grey who are moaning and manking and what they don't seem to understand is that its their own fault...
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,236
Likes: 80
From: Just behind the back of beyond....
"You argue that we have no amphibious capability..."
I argued nothing of the sort, only that (rightly) we don't have the level of amphibious or air assault capability that we had in 1956.
Nor were Al Faw nor even Corporate amphibious ops on the scale of Musketeer. It would be nice if we had the forces required to autonomously do another Musketeer sized op, or another Corporate, but we don't.
I argued that the RN must get used to the new reality of being a partner in large scale coalition ops, and will inevitably lack some of the capabilities that might sometimes be needed, in some circumstances, for autonomous ops - just as the RAF has had to.
"One thing that is missing in the inventory, is the ability to offer close air support. Yes, that could be launched from land bases but only if you have HNS.
Apart from Harrier GR and Typhoon (which will have EPW and Litening very soon). HNS is more likely to be there than not. It always has been (even for Sierra Leone) and if it isn't it probably means that the proposed op is politically unsustainable anyway. It's far more likely that we'll be tasked to go against targets that are too far from the coast for CVF-based tac aircraft to be relevant.
"The CVF and JCA, together with the existing amphibious assets, will offer the UK a significant strike package,"
Strike? I think not.
"...able to go almost anywhere on the globe, without the need for friendly nation support. All your maintainance and support needs are contained within one neat package, that is not at daily risk from mortar attack."
But unable to sustain the same sortie rate as a land based force, unable to deploy as quickly, and requiring massive resources - SSNs, frigates, destroyers, RFAs etc.
"The RAF is still stuck in the cold war and has procured a very capable but very expensive jet that does not quite fit today's role."
Yes indeed. A swing role, multi-role tactical jet optimised for rapid deployment with minimal support is certainly irrelevant in today's world.
"What you really want, is more tankers, more heavy lift, more transport and ISTAR assets..."
Absolutely right, and some of the money flowing from SHar's early withdrawal will go to these areas. Now if only we could !!!!-can CVF and JSF we could really get the tankers, lift, ISTAR, recce and SEAD assets we need.
"You know that CVF and JCA will make Typhoon redundant and it will become an albatross around the RAF's neck."
Hmmm. Typhoon will have ASRAAM and Meteor in the A-A role, AND when flying in most A-G configurations. JSF won't. (No Meteor, no external ASRAAM).
Typhoon will have EPW IV and Litening. EPW IV won't fit in JSF's internal bays.
Typhoon will have Brimstone. Brimstone integration has been !!!!-canned off JSF.
The first frontline JSF squadron won't achieve IOC until 2017, assuming no more delays.
I argued nothing of the sort, only that (rightly) we don't have the level of amphibious or air assault capability that we had in 1956.
Nor were Al Faw nor even Corporate amphibious ops on the scale of Musketeer. It would be nice if we had the forces required to autonomously do another Musketeer sized op, or another Corporate, but we don't.
I argued that the RN must get used to the new reality of being a partner in large scale coalition ops, and will inevitably lack some of the capabilities that might sometimes be needed, in some circumstances, for autonomous ops - just as the RAF has had to.
"One thing that is missing in the inventory, is the ability to offer close air support. Yes, that could be launched from land bases but only if you have HNS.
Apart from Harrier GR and Typhoon (which will have EPW and Litening very soon). HNS is more likely to be there than not. It always has been (even for Sierra Leone) and if it isn't it probably means that the proposed op is politically unsustainable anyway. It's far more likely that we'll be tasked to go against targets that are too far from the coast for CVF-based tac aircraft to be relevant.
"The CVF and JCA, together with the existing amphibious assets, will offer the UK a significant strike package,"
Strike? I think not.
"...able to go almost anywhere on the globe, without the need for friendly nation support. All your maintainance and support needs are contained within one neat package, that is not at daily risk from mortar attack."
But unable to sustain the same sortie rate as a land based force, unable to deploy as quickly, and requiring massive resources - SSNs, frigates, destroyers, RFAs etc.
"The RAF is still stuck in the cold war and has procured a very capable but very expensive jet that does not quite fit today's role."
Yes indeed. A swing role, multi-role tactical jet optimised for rapid deployment with minimal support is certainly irrelevant in today's world.
"What you really want, is more tankers, more heavy lift, more transport and ISTAR assets..."
Absolutely right, and some of the money flowing from SHar's early withdrawal will go to these areas. Now if only we could !!!!-can CVF and JSF we could really get the tankers, lift, ISTAR, recce and SEAD assets we need.
"You know that CVF and JCA will make Typhoon redundant and it will become an albatross around the RAF's neck."
Hmmm. Typhoon will have ASRAAM and Meteor in the A-A role, AND when flying in most A-G configurations. JSF won't. (No Meteor, no external ASRAAM).
Typhoon will have EPW IV and Litening. EPW IV won't fit in JSF's internal bays.
Typhoon will have Brimstone. Brimstone integration has been !!!!-canned off JSF.
The first frontline JSF squadron won't achieve IOC until 2017, assuming no more delays.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
From: Stoke
Originally Posted by Magic Mushroom
PTL, Navaleye,
Well done chaps, intelligent argument. I am disappointed.
. . .
I'm now asking you to offer your suggestions in reasoned, sensible manner. If the best you can manage is trite comments . . .
MM
Well done chaps, intelligent argument. I am disappointed.
. . .
I'm now asking you to offer your suggestions in reasoned, sensible manner. If the best you can manage is trite comments . . .
MM
Suspicion breeds confidence
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,406
Likes: 15
From: Gibraltar
But unable to sustain the same sortie rate as a land based force, unable to deploy as quickly, and requiring massive resources - SSNs, frigates, destroyers, RFAs etc.
"
"
Why get rid of the Jag? Because its knackered. I was at an airshow a year or two ago and the plane concerned flew a great routine only to be destined for scrap because its airframe life was up. Can you say the same for a 6yr old Shar? No of course not.