Sea Jet
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,236
Likes: 80
From: Just behind the back of beyond....
"Surely some defence is better than none?"
Not if it compromises your ability to do the roles that you need to do.
In SHar's case by leeching funds from other priorities, and by taking up deck space and preventing an adequate GR7/9 force from being embarked.
Not if it compromises your ability to do the roles that you need to do.
In SHar's case by leeching funds from other priorities, and by taking up deck space and preventing an adequate GR7/9 force from being embarked.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
From: Englandshire, mostly.
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
If you seriously think that the USN would not be on station with a large number of AD assets during a hot period with Iran then you are, with respect, not being realistic.
Will they be able to provide continuous CAP? If not, will the USN fighters be able to reach our task group faster than the hostile ones? I am assuming that UK forces operate as a discrete group, possibly responsible for a separate area within the theatre.
What if the solution to a crisis isn't just dropping bombs, but things like mine clearance? Just a few hostile aircraft could cause mayhem.
Will they be able to provide continuous CAP? If not, will the USN fighters be able to reach our task group faster than the hostile ones? I am assuming that UK forces operate as a discrete group, possibly responsible for a separate area within the theatre.
What if the solution to a crisis isn't just dropping bombs, but things like mine clearance? Just a few hostile aircraft could cause mayhem.
Whilst we have no airborne AD umbrella, I would suggest that it's safe to say that the RN would not operate seperate from a larger task group if Int suggested a possible air attack. Typhoon is the way to go WEBF, 2 engines, great radar and a whole lot easier to fly and therefore fight with than the SHAR. Let it happen matey, the FAA has legs in it yet and they'll be stretching them soon enough.
Jackonicko,
you will NEVER convince a Navy mate that AD a/c are not essential 24/7. The fact that we are on page 85 proves that, surely!!
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
From: brizzle
Raphale versus F35
[quote=BillHicksRules]Naval,
You of all people should know that it is advisable to check your facts before posting.
Two seperate sources have the Rafale's range at 1,800km (1,000nm) and the F-35's at 1,000km (600nm).
Bill
Don't know where you got your info from but I just got this off the Raphale's spec - combat radius 1,095 KM 680 MI / 590 NMI
The F35 Spec quotes a 600 NMI combat radius for the CV version
bj
You of all people should know that it is advisable to check your facts before posting.
Two seperate sources have the Rafale's range at 1,800km (1,000nm) and the F-35's at 1,000km (600nm).
Bill
Don't know where you got your info from but I just got this off the Raphale's spec - combat radius 1,095 KM 680 MI / 590 NMI
The F35 Spec quotes a 600 NMI combat radius for the CV version
bj
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
Sharmine,
My sources were the Federation of American Scientists, Global Security and Wikipedia along with the manufacturers details
Check the link below,
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/def...rformances.cfm
Cheers
BHR
My sources were the Federation of American Scientists, Global Security and Wikipedia along with the manufacturers details
Check the link below,
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/def...rformances.cfm
Cheers
BHR
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,968
Likes: 104
From: Devon
From Air Scene UK: SHAR swansong
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 214
Likes: 1
From: Washington, DC
Sharmine and BillHicksRules,
Can I join this game of Top Trumps too?
That was a lovely glossy Dassault site, and I thought the range quote of "Radius of action (penetration mission) more than 1.000 NM" was wonderfully vague. I wonder if that mission description includes an AAR top up straight off the boat or prior to the push?
And being from the Dassault site it's bound to really accurate, not at all liberal with figures rounded up in an attempt to secure a first Rafale export order.
And the 1000nm (Rafale) vs 600nm (F-35 CV) is a bit apples and oranges. Rafale will have external fuel tanks (3? 4?) to do that kind of range; if F-35 were on the same mission (one that demanded no more stealth than the radar reflecting flat-plate Rafale with those external bags of gas) I'm sure the external fuel tanks fitted to her would push the range out to a similar, albeit less glossy number.
My next Top Trump is a Navalised Typhoon with a combat radius of 3000nm and the ability to carry as much ordnance as 20 Lancasters to countries that have mysteriously moved closer to the UK bringing all potential targets within easy reach of the MOB and a 8 hour crew duty day (reduced due to the 9g stress on aircrew.) Taken from an super secret Air Staff paper circulating the towers of power but carelessly left on the desk of the editor of the Sun.
Can I join this game of Top Trumps too?
That was a lovely glossy Dassault site, and I thought the range quote of "Radius of action (penetration mission) more than 1.000 NM" was wonderfully vague. I wonder if that mission description includes an AAR top up straight off the boat or prior to the push?
And being from the Dassault site it's bound to really accurate, not at all liberal with figures rounded up in an attempt to secure a first Rafale export order.
And the 1000nm (Rafale) vs 600nm (F-35 CV) is a bit apples and oranges. Rafale will have external fuel tanks (3? 4?) to do that kind of range; if F-35 were on the same mission (one that demanded no more stealth than the radar reflecting flat-plate Rafale with those external bags of gas) I'm sure the external fuel tanks fitted to her would push the range out to a similar, albeit less glossy number.
My next Top Trump is a Navalised Typhoon with a combat radius of 3000nm and the ability to carry as much ordnance as 20 Lancasters to countries that have mysteriously moved closer to the UK bringing all potential targets within easy reach of the MOB and a 8 hour crew duty day (reduced due to the 9g stress on aircrew.) Taken from an super secret Air Staff paper circulating the towers of power but carelessly left on the desk of the editor of the Sun.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 144
From: MARS
Whilst the demise of SHAR is sad, I think what is equally disappointing is that Fightertown Somerset, will no longer reverberate to the sounds of the Pegasus among others.The station has been home to Sea Venoms, Phantoms, Hunters, Canberras and Hawks. Yes the Hawk will still be there at the end of march and the station will still be busy with Lynx and JHC assets but, with the basing of JCA in Scotland, a proud history of Air Defence will come to an end, probably forever.A memory forever imprinted in my mind was in 1994 when Yeovilton played host to over 90 jets including Tornado, F14, F18, Mig23 and 29. A fitting tribute to a fine "fast jet" station.http://www.airshots.com/dday/dday50.htm
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
FB11,
I had not planned to use the Dassault website as I agree with you that it is going to show their product in the best light possible, however, Sharmine had said that he had got his figure from the Rafale's spec and I assumed by that he meant from Dassault.
Personally I would place more stock in the FAS website since it is American and is likely to actually be biased against the Rafale if it has any bias at all.
Cheers
BHR
I had not planned to use the Dassault website as I agree with you that it is going to show their product in the best light possible, however, Sharmine had said that he had got his figure from the Rafale's spec and I assumed by that he meant from Dassault.
Personally I would place more stock in the FAS website since it is American and is likely to actually be biased against the Rafale if it has any bias at all.
Cheers
BHR
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
From: Lincolnshire
What I find interesting in this debate is the statement that by not having F/A.2's onboard anymore you can free up more space for Gr.7/9's . However whilst you can certainly carry more to the chosen destination -is there any point? I am sure that faced with sitting offshore in a big steel radar target or deployed to the nearest friendly nation's air base the second option will win!
In this day and age money would be far better spent in providing new tanker aircraft that can support the Typhoon fleet on it's worldwide adventures rather than techinically fascinating JSF's which whilst having the advantage of stealth features are no more equipped to survive crude AAA ground fire than a Hawker Hunter was in the 1960's.
In this day and age money would be far better spent in providing new tanker aircraft that can support the Typhoon fleet on it's worldwide adventures rather than techinically fascinating JSF's which whilst having the advantage of stealth features are no more equipped to survive crude AAA ground fire than a Hawker Hunter was in the 1960's.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 214
Likes: 1
From: Washington, DC
RileyDove,
Your kindergarten simplification of air power delivered from a maritime platform is almost as blinkered as your belief that a Typhoon and tanker isn't in any way vulnerable to the same £20 garden shed assembled rockets that CAT 3'd two GR7A on the ground at a "friendly" airbase.
In order for you to find something interesting in a debate, it's quite nice to have something to add to it.
Land and sea based air power has merits and demerits, suggesting that one would be better than the other in the light of the last 25 years of both being utilised to best effect is somewhat naive. Inflamatory even.
Your kindergarten simplification of air power delivered from a maritime platform is almost as blinkered as your belief that a Typhoon and tanker isn't in any way vulnerable to the same £20 garden shed assembled rockets that CAT 3'd two GR7A on the ground at a "friendly" airbase.
In order for you to find something interesting in a debate, it's quite nice to have something to add to it.
Land and sea based air power has merits and demerits, suggesting that one would be better than the other in the light of the last 25 years of both being utilised to best effect is somewhat naive. Inflamatory even.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
From: West Sussex
I read with interest the various comments about the GR9 being a wonderful attack / CIS asset; so they're going to put a gun on it after all are they ?!
I'm no expert, but can't see a Maverick or Brimstone much use against a gang of baddies with RPG's or even Manpads...
J.F, I had the pleasure of working for you both when as CTP and Manager ( would love to tell of the times after that, suspect might bring a wry smile ! ) , I know you were referring to the JSF, but meanwhile the GR9 has the dreaded nozzle lever too ? Rather better presented, I admit, there might even have been some design involved in the cockpit.
Fortunately for everyone, all I had to do was photograph it !
I'm no expert, but can't see a Maverick or Brimstone much use against a gang of baddies with RPG's or even Manpads...
J.F, I had the pleasure of working for you both when as CTP and Manager ( would love to tell of the times after that, suspect might bring a wry smile ! ) , I know you were referring to the JSF, but meanwhile the GR9 has the dreaded nozzle lever too ? Rather better presented, I admit, there might even have been some design involved in the cockpit.
Fortunately for everyone, all I had to do was photograph it !
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
From: Lincolnshire
FB-11 - The simplification is there for a reason. We can debate the relative merits of various types but in reality in the last twenty five years have we really used the seaborne capability of the Sea Harrier to its fullest bar the Falklands War? Various actions have been fought in the Balkans in which land based aircraft have been more than capable of carrying out the role.
Aircraft are far easier to defend at land bases - your note about the GR.7's is interesting - compare that however to the number of Harrier/Sea Harrier's that have been lost directly because of operating at sea . Add to that the requirement and cost of ASW cover and AEW types purely to protect the carriers and the sums don't add up. The theory that wherever we go now in the world we shall have Allied air cover for our carriers is a ridiculous. It's now a liability for them and I am sure that any force we are a member of will want our carriers to act in a similar role to the Atlantic Conveyer by unloading the Harriers as soon as possible to a land base and clearing off out of the way.
Aircraft are far easier to defend at land bases - your note about the GR.7's is interesting - compare that however to the number of Harrier/Sea Harrier's that have been lost directly because of operating at sea . Add to that the requirement and cost of ASW cover and AEW types purely to protect the carriers and the sums don't add up. The theory that wherever we go now in the world we shall have Allied air cover for our carriers is a ridiculous. It's now a liability for them and I am sure that any force we are a member of will want our carriers to act in a similar role to the Atlantic Conveyer by unloading the Harriers as soon as possible to a land base and clearing off out of the way.
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
Without taking sides, there are possible roles for seaborne airpower. The author Robert Gandt has written several books based on USN Carrier Ops. Some are far fetched but some have a grain of truth, a light political footprint being one.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 536
Likes: 71
From: Overseas
Double Zero
You are quite correct about the Mav/Brimstone not being the ideal choice for use against bad guys in the open, that's why we use different weapons against them.
There are times when you need more than a gun to be a wonderful CAS asset, we're doing fine without one thanks. Still, if someone were to strap one on to the bottom of my jet I wouldn't say no
You are quite correct about the Mav/Brimstone not being the ideal choice for use against bad guys in the open, that's why we use different weapons against them.
There are times when you need more than a gun to be a wonderful CAS asset, we're doing fine without one thanks. Still, if someone were to strap one on to the bottom of my jet I wouldn't say no
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 214
Likes: 1
From: Washington, DC
RileyDove,
"...but in reality in the last twenty five years have we really used the seaborne capability of the Sea Harrier to its fullest bar the Falklands War..."
You mean like we've used the full capability of the F3 since the Falklands War? Who's talking Sea Harrier anyway, your comment was about not putting more GR9 on board.
"...Aircraft are far easier to defend at land bases..." Quite simply, rubbish. For every way you drag up that a maritime asset is more vulnerable than sea I'll show a way that land is equally so. Which is why a military commander needs to have both to choose from.
"...Add to that the requirement and cost of ASW cover and AEW types purely to protect the carriers and the sums don't add up..." Have you seen how many people it takes to run an average DOB? In TELIC we had 500 for 10 jets. And the only thing a tactical aircraft can do is bomb stuff, a task group can do everything from bomb stuff to disaster relief and everything in between.
"...It's now a liability for them and I am sure that any force we are a member of will want our carriers to act in a similar role to the Atlantic Conveyer by unloading the Harriers as soon as possible to a land base and clearing off out of the way..." You and WEBF should go and get a room.
"...but in reality in the last twenty five years have we really used the seaborne capability of the Sea Harrier to its fullest bar the Falklands War..."
You mean like we've used the full capability of the F3 since the Falklands War? Who's talking Sea Harrier anyway, your comment was about not putting more GR9 on board.
"...Aircraft are far easier to defend at land bases..." Quite simply, rubbish. For every way you drag up that a maritime asset is more vulnerable than sea I'll show a way that land is equally so. Which is why a military commander needs to have both to choose from.
"...Add to that the requirement and cost of ASW cover and AEW types purely to protect the carriers and the sums don't add up..." Have you seen how many people it takes to run an average DOB? In TELIC we had 500 for 10 jets. And the only thing a tactical aircraft can do is bomb stuff, a task group can do everything from bomb stuff to disaster relief and everything in between.
"...It's now a liability for them and I am sure that any force we are a member of will want our carriers to act in a similar role to the Atlantic Conveyer by unloading the Harriers as soon as possible to a land base and clearing off out of the way..." You and WEBF should go and get a room.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
From: Lincolnshire
FB-11 - You know as well as I do that the F.3 doesn't actually have to do anything to prove it's worth. It's primary purpose was always air defence of the U.K in much the same way that the Lightning and Phantom did before hand. There has never been a requirement to shot something down to show it's worth . Use over Iraq during various operations has somewhat vindicated that decision as a relatively low cost development of the GR.1.
As for defending ships Vs land bases - a couple of GR.7's damaged on the ground in Afghanistan isn't a great deal . Can you recall many instances where offensive flying operations have actually been stopped due to ground threats to Coalition forces in the last twenty years. As for the number of people required to do this - I am sure you can provide the crew numbers to man a carrier and it's air group for comparison.
Regards a carrier group being able to a number of things - indeed they can . However that's very much dependent on being in the right place at the time. From memory when the RAF deployed Chinook's to Pakistan - the chosen method of delivery was Globemaster II not ship. Similarily at numerous times in the past the C-130 has dropped many tonnes of relief supplies in various parts of Africa. Something that a carrier group clearly cannot do.
Much as I applaud you hanging on to the carriers - I feel that maybe the loss of the Sea Harrier is the thin end of the wedge ! When the number crunchers add up the figures for 'x' number of shiny new JSF's to fill our carriers and compare that to the cost of using Typhoon to do a similar job from land you might be disappointed .
As for defending ships Vs land bases - a couple of GR.7's damaged on the ground in Afghanistan isn't a great deal . Can you recall many instances where offensive flying operations have actually been stopped due to ground threats to Coalition forces in the last twenty years. As for the number of people required to do this - I am sure you can provide the crew numbers to man a carrier and it's air group for comparison.
Regards a carrier group being able to a number of things - indeed they can . However that's very much dependent on being in the right place at the time. From memory when the RAF deployed Chinook's to Pakistan - the chosen method of delivery was Globemaster II not ship. Similarily at numerous times in the past the C-130 has dropped many tonnes of relief supplies in various parts of Africa. Something that a carrier group clearly cannot do.
Much as I applaud you hanging on to the carriers - I feel that maybe the loss of the Sea Harrier is the thin end of the wedge ! When the number crunchers add up the figures for 'x' number of shiny new JSF's to fill our carriers and compare that to the cost of using Typhoon to do a similar job from land you might be disappointed .
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 214
Likes: 1
From: Washington, DC
RileyDove,
So we agree then. There are instances when the UK needs a short term low footprint response such as Pakistan and others that needs the ability to shift large amounts of equipment over a slower time the way 90% of the world's trade is shifted.
But it's too much to accept that the same goes for tactical aircraft?
And on the Adriatic days in the mid 90's when the Italian bases were fogged out in the north and the carriers were asked to pick up the slack, the commander was able to say "how jolly lucky I was to have assets that are only 70 nm from the gate in clear weather as opposed to tanking assets from 400nm away to fill the holes in my air cover." (CAS/RECCE/AD)
Thank goodness your not going to be running a future air campaign, you'll be suggesting next that aircraft win wars and the army isn't required.
So we agree then. There are instances when the UK needs a short term low footprint response such as Pakistan and others that needs the ability to shift large amounts of equipment over a slower time the way 90% of the world's trade is shifted.
But it's too much to accept that the same goes for tactical aircraft?
And on the Adriatic days in the mid 90's when the Italian bases were fogged out in the north and the carriers were asked to pick up the slack, the commander was able to say "how jolly lucky I was to have assets that are only 70 nm from the gate in clear weather as opposed to tanking assets from 400nm away to fill the holes in my air cover." (CAS/RECCE/AD)
Thank goodness your not going to be running a future air campaign, you'll be suggesting next that aircraft win wars and the army isn't required.