Sea Jet
If the GR9 gets a data link that will be good news. If it gets ASRAAM that will also be good. Now why can't it take the cannon pods from the Shar?
junglyAEO
So, WEBF, is it possible? From an engineering point of view - yes. But that's a qualified yes, depending on lots of factors and it will decrease with time. How long is probably a question for someone in the IPT.
I sort of knew that - but wanted it confirmed by an expert. Better than the scrapyard. The SFDO website says they have civvy (ex mob?) Engineers to look after the aircraft.
Navy News will run a story on the end of the Sea Harrier, which someone will no doubt post in due course. However, until then, it seems logical to let this thread retire. Here are some pictures.
Issues relating to the future carriers, and the aircraft they will carry still need discussing but I feel this can be best done on a new thread dedicated to CVF,JCA and MASC.
junglyAEO
So, WEBF, is it possible? From an engineering point of view - yes. But that's a qualified yes, depending on lots of factors and it will decrease with time. How long is probably a question for someone in the IPT.
I sort of knew that - but wanted it confirmed by an expert. Better than the scrapyard. The SFDO website says they have civvy (ex mob?) Engineers to look after the aircraft.
Navy News will run a story on the end of the Sea Harrier, which someone will no doubt post in due course. However, until then, it seems logical to let this thread retire. Here are some pictures.
Issues relating to the future carriers, and the aircraft they will carry still need discussing but I feel this can be best done on a new thread dedicated to CVF,JCA and MASC.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 8th Apr 2006 at 21:02.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF- The cannon pods on the SHAR will not fit on any Harrier II fuselage.
The 25mm twin Aden set up trialled on the GR.5 had a nasty habit of discharging links onto the carbon tailplane and with other problems it was swiftly forgotten about. Buying the American GAU single gun would have been far easier. However with operating 'hot and high' and shipborne the weight of gun pods is not something you want to be a carting around .
As for your comments NURSE - we I guess are alone in retiring our shipborne dedicated air defence aircraft - we are either very savvy or prepared to gamble!
The 25mm twin Aden set up trialled on the GR.5 had a nasty habit of discharging links onto the carbon tailplane and with other problems it was swiftly forgotten about. Buying the American GAU single gun would have been far easier. However with operating 'hot and high' and shipborne the weight of gun pods is not something you want to be a carting around .
As for your comments NURSE - we I guess are alone in retiring our shipborne dedicated air defence aircraft - we are either very savvy or prepared to gamble!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The GAU 12 is exactly what we want to be 'carting around.' The kind of air policing/show of force/presence missions we are engaging in makes the GAU a perfect weapon.
Very accurate, very effective, ammo that's as cheap as chips.
And hugely good fun to fire compared to the 30mm ADEN howitzer.
Total weight of gun + kit with 300 rounds = 1200lbs, expended = 900lbs.
Six good 50 round bursts in every pod is good value for money and weight.
Everyone should have one.
Very accurate, very effective, ammo that's as cheap as chips.
And hugely good fun to fire compared to the 30mm ADEN howitzer.
Total weight of gun + kit with 300 rounds = 1200lbs, expended = 900lbs.
Six good 50 round bursts in every pod is good value for money and weight.
Everyone should have one.
Untitled
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barely relevant to this thread (only in the vaguest sense of the RAF/RN dynamic) but probably not worth a new one of it's own, some of you may find it interesting.
There was a cracking programme on Radio 4 today presented by Michael Portillo, I missed half of it at the time, so am listening again off the website at the mo.
Covers the unsung role of the Royal Navy during The Battle of Britain, amonst other things. Lots of good input from veterans, RN and RAF.
Listen again link: here
There was a cracking programme on Radio 4 today presented by Michael Portillo, I missed half of it at the time, so am listening again off the website at the mo.
Covers the unsung role of the Royal Navy during The Battle of Britain, amonst other things. Lots of good input from veterans, RN and RAF.
Listen again link: here
Michael Portillo presents a series which revisits the great moments of history to discover that they often conceal other events of equal, but forgotten, importance.
When we think of the defence of Britain from Nazi invasion in 1940, we picture duelling Spitfires in the skies of southern England. But, as Michael Portillo discovers, the true history of that summer is more complicated.
Churchill's rhetoric and its powerful images made the Battle of Britain unforgettable - but should our understanding of this country's salvation pay more attention to less palatable events thousands of miles away in an Algerian port, where the British Navy killed 1500 of its former ally's seamen in just one day?
When we think of the defence of Britain from Nazi invasion in 1940, we picture duelling Spitfires in the skies of southern England. But, as Michael Portillo discovers, the true history of that summer is more complicated.
Churchill's rhetoric and its powerful images made the Battle of Britain unforgettable - but should our understanding of this country's salvation pay more attention to less palatable events thousands of miles away in an Algerian port, where the British Navy killed 1500 of its former ally's seamen in just one day?
I listened to Portillo's programme with interest.
I laughed at Pete Brother's remark about the Navy having had its moment at Trafalgar, and I did feel that there was a bit of petty-minded envy going on in the way in which the RN was trying to muscle in on the credit for preventing invasion.
There's no doubt that taking the French Navy out of the equation was of crucial importance in winning the war, but surely the loss of the Prince of Wales, and the Repulse, demonstrated pretty conclusively what would have happened to the RN, had we relied on it to stop a cross-channel invasion, without air superiority. The Stuka and Ju 88 boys would have had a field day.
And that's why the RN remained at Scapa Flow, and that's why they didn't deploy cruisers and destroyers into the channel and the Solent to beef up the AA defences.
No-one would dispute that sea power played a pivotal role in WWII, but the recent efforts to diminish the importance of air power in preventing invasion and in defeating the U-boat menace are pretty silly.
I laughed at Pete Brother's remark about the Navy having had its moment at Trafalgar, and I did feel that there was a bit of petty-minded envy going on in the way in which the RN was trying to muscle in on the credit for preventing invasion.
There's no doubt that taking the French Navy out of the equation was of crucial importance in winning the war, but surely the loss of the Prince of Wales, and the Repulse, demonstrated pretty conclusively what would have happened to the RN, had we relied on it to stop a cross-channel invasion, without air superiority. The Stuka and Ju 88 boys would have had a field day.
And that's why the RN remained at Scapa Flow, and that's why they didn't deploy cruisers and destroyers into the channel and the Solent to beef up the AA defences.
No-one would dispute that sea power played a pivotal role in WWII, but the recent efforts to diminish the importance of air power in preventing invasion and in defeating the U-boat menace are pretty silly.
Suspicion breeds confidence
The Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine in 1940 were under no illusions that the RN had the ability to inderdict the invasion supply lines. 8 battleships, 60 destroyers, 20 cruisers, plus Fighter and Bomber Commands - what do you think he outcome would have been? A bloodbath yes, but an invasion? No.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
I am currently in the process of writing (what I think) is a believable Alternative History which sees a successful invasion of the UK in 1941.
It never seems to amaze me how lucky we on these islands were. The number of errors made by the Nazis were really the only thing that saved us.
This is not an attempt to repudiate the bravery, skill and dedication of those involved in the Battle of Britain. Having two relatives who fought and survived the BoB I have the highest respect for all who were involved.
If you, or anyone else is interested in talking about this further just let me know. We could perhaps start another thread on the matter.
Cheers
BHR
I am currently in the process of writing (what I think) is a believable Alternative History which sees a successful invasion of the UK in 1941.
It never seems to amaze me how lucky we on these islands were. The number of errors made by the Nazis were really the only thing that saved us.
This is not an attempt to repudiate the bravery, skill and dedication of those involved in the Battle of Britain. Having two relatives who fought and survived the BoB I have the highest respect for all who were involved.
If you, or anyone else is interested in talking about this further just let me know. We could perhaps start another thread on the matter.
Cheers
BHR
Untitled
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for the thread creep, WEBF!
BHR: I trust you saw the excellent "Real Dad's Army" series on Channel 4 last month? Was a decent investigation into the real state of readiness of the UK to deal with an invasion (an awful lot of forgotten history in there, preparations were advanced and sizable). It concluded such an invasion would almost certainly have failed not far from the beachheads, before reaching the "Winston Line", with the havoc caused by the RN in the channel one of the main factors behind the impossibility of maintaining supply lines.
It included some very interesting footage of wargames played by senior UK staff and surviving representatives of German forces at the time (Galland, etc.) several years later (nineteen fifties?), from which some of the conclusions were drawn.
Also, SS GB by Deighton provides an interesting "what if" vaguely along the lines you're suggesting, if you've not already read it.
BHR: I trust you saw the excellent "Real Dad's Army" series on Channel 4 last month? Was a decent investigation into the real state of readiness of the UK to deal with an invasion (an awful lot of forgotten history in there, preparations were advanced and sizable). It concluded such an invasion would almost certainly have failed not far from the beachheads, before reaching the "Winston Line", with the havoc caused by the RN in the channel one of the main factors behind the impossibility of maintaining supply lines.
It included some very interesting footage of wargames played by senior UK staff and surviving representatives of German forces at the time (Galland, etc.) several years later (nineteen fifties?), from which some of the conclusions were drawn.
Also, SS GB by Deighton provides an interesting "what if" vaguely along the lines you're suggesting, if you've not already read it.
Last edited by Polikarpov; 10th Apr 2006 at 10:05.
BHR didn't you once have a thread in Jet Blast on alternative histories?
Jacko the loss of Force Z did indeed demonstrate what happens when naval forces face a major air threat without a carrier and fighters. Ho hum....
Time to let the thread go, perhaps?
Jacko the loss of Force Z did indeed demonstrate what happens when naval forces face a major air threat without a carrier and fighters. Ho hum....
Time to let the thread go, perhaps?
To my surprise, Navy News have not (yet?) done an online story on the final retirement of the Sea Harrier and the disbandment of 801 NAS, despite the huge significant for the entire Navy.
However, the April 2006 copy of Navy News has a section dedicated to it. It mentions that the RN has around fifty Harrier pilots (presumably this includes ones on other duties) which is a figure I read in the same publication over ten years ago. It includes a diagram of the aircraft, covers the Sea Harrier's role in the Falklands, and talks about 801 and their recent activities. It also mentions the fact that less people have flow it than have flown in space.
The defence/aviation press have covered it widely. The April 2006 edition of Air International dedicates eight pages to it. The author (Jamie Hunter) suggests that the limitations of the Blue Fox were what caused problems when trying to engage low flying Argentine aircraft (I've heard first hand accounts from people who found themselves on the receiving end of air attacks - not pleasant), something that Blue Vixen was intended to overcome, as well as providing AMRAAM capability. He also mentions that the batch of new build aircraft in the 1990s was to enable the aircraft to last until 2012 (of course the replacement won't be delayed......) and mentions that the long deployment caused problems for both machines and men.
He discusses the participation in the Bosnian theatre by both the FRS1 and FA2 (I personally remember a lot of the media coverage from the time) and their swing missions (as mentioned much earlier in this and other threads by Nozzles), and the good serviceability they achieved. He goes on to mention the participation of 800 NAS in operation over Kosovo, and quotes the then CO as expressing frustration with the widespread ignorance of the Sea Harrier's capabilities. He mentions the five hour sorties that they did at night. He goes on to mention the early 2000 deployment to the Gulf of Illustrious to take part in enforcing the no fly zone, and how on their return they were tasked to go to Sierra Leone - to provide noise, reconnaissance and potentially cannon fire. In addition the presence of several grey ships off of the coast probably had a psychological effect as well as other capabilities like helicopters, medical support, naval gunfire support from frigates/destroyers etc.
Towards the end of the article, he says "Many believed the aircraft was simply too important to be retired from the Fleet defence role."
However, it is now time to look to the future, and in particular Future Carrier.
However, the April 2006 copy of Navy News has a section dedicated to it. It mentions that the RN has around fifty Harrier pilots (presumably this includes ones on other duties) which is a figure I read in the same publication over ten years ago. It includes a diagram of the aircraft, covers the Sea Harrier's role in the Falklands, and talks about 801 and their recent activities. It also mentions the fact that less people have flow it than have flown in space.
The defence/aviation press have covered it widely. The April 2006 edition of Air International dedicates eight pages to it. The author (Jamie Hunter) suggests that the limitations of the Blue Fox were what caused problems when trying to engage low flying Argentine aircraft (I've heard first hand accounts from people who found themselves on the receiving end of air attacks - not pleasant), something that Blue Vixen was intended to overcome, as well as providing AMRAAM capability. He also mentions that the batch of new build aircraft in the 1990s was to enable the aircraft to last until 2012 (of course the replacement won't be delayed......) and mentions that the long deployment caused problems for both machines and men.
He discusses the participation in the Bosnian theatre by both the FRS1 and FA2 (I personally remember a lot of the media coverage from the time) and their swing missions (as mentioned much earlier in this and other threads by Nozzles), and the good serviceability they achieved. He goes on to mention the participation of 800 NAS in operation over Kosovo, and quotes the then CO as expressing frustration with the widespread ignorance of the Sea Harrier's capabilities. He mentions the five hour sorties that they did at night. He goes on to mention the early 2000 deployment to the Gulf of Illustrious to take part in enforcing the no fly zone, and how on their return they were tasked to go to Sierra Leone - to provide noise, reconnaissance and potentially cannon fire. In addition the presence of several grey ships off of the coast probably had a psychological effect as well as other capabilities like helicopters, medical support, naval gunfire support from frigates/destroyers etc.
Towards the end of the article, he says "Many believed the aircraft was simply too important to be retired from the Fleet defence role."
However, it is now time to look to the future, and in particular Future Carrier.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 18th Apr 2006 at 19:34.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Webf, Blue Fox's main limitation was that it was a monopulse radar with no ability to look down over land. Not a problem over water of course. The pulse doppler Blue Vizen put that right.
A question for all: How would a Link 16 eqipeed GR9 with full HMS ASRAAM integration cope in an Op Corporate style air to air environment?
A question for all: How would a Link 16 eqipeed GR9 with full HMS ASRAAM integration cope in an Op Corporate style air to air environment?
Far from reflecting any lack of understanding, SHar's withdrawal perhaps indicates that people understood only too well the 90 hour blade life (it used to be 500 hours) and the 43 engine changes required in the last 18 months (even the five planned for was a bit high for such a small fleet), to say nothing of the higher MMH/FH figure than is required for the F-14.
This was a platform that was becoming economically unsustainable, effectively unsupportable, and that offered a capability that was rarely relevant.
And every time you put them on the boat, you prevented the carrier from carrying a meaningful force of GR.Mk 7/9s.
This was a platform that was becoming economically unsustainable, effectively unsupportable, and that offered a capability that was rarely relevant.
And every time you put them on the boat, you prevented the carrier from carrying a meaningful force of GR.Mk 7/9s.
Navaleye,
It wouldn't need to cope, because
1) There's now a proper airfield on the Falklands, with based F.Mk 3s, and able to accept reinforcements.
2) Our Lords and masters work on the assumption that we will do coalition ops, so if we need fleet AD, the Yanks can provide it.
And more to the point of your question, to maximise the potential of ASRAAM you need the HMSS and a full digital integration. They can always go and look at Nightcat.....
It wouldn't need to cope, because
1) There's now a proper airfield on the Falklands, with based F.Mk 3s, and able to accept reinforcements.
2) Our Lords and masters work on the assumption that we will do coalition ops, so if we need fleet AD, the Yanks can provide it.
And more to the point of your question, to maximise the potential of ASRAAM you need the HMSS and a full digital integration. They can always go and look at Nightcat.....
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK just a quick reality check about ASRAAM. It is a fantastic missile and a huge jump from AIM9L/M, I'm a big fan.
BUT if the other guy has a radar and radar missile you are not well placed. At all.
ASRAAM is an excellent supplement to a radar missile such as AMRAAM and is also excellent for self defence (especially with a HMCS), but on its own it does not give a credible offensive air-to-air capability.
Oh and it aint great if its cloudy.
Shhhh dont tell the bad guys.
BUT if the other guy has a radar and radar missile you are not well placed. At all.
ASRAAM is an excellent supplement to a radar missile such as AMRAAM and is also excellent for self defence (especially with a HMCS), but on its own it does not give a credible offensive air-to-air capability.
Oh and it aint great if its cloudy.
Shhhh dont tell the bad guys.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
Navaleye,
It wouldn't need to cope, because
1) There's now a proper airfield on the Falklands, with based F.Mk 3s, and able to accept reinforcements.
2) Our Lords and masters work on the assumption that we will do coalition ops, so if we need fleet AD, the Yanks can provide it.
It wouldn't need to cope, because
1) There's now a proper airfield on the Falklands, with based F.Mk 3s, and able to accept reinforcements.
2) Our Lords and masters work on the assumption that we will do coalition ops, so if we need fleet AD, the Yanks can provide it.
For a journo sometimes you really surprise me.
1) do you honestly think that 4 F3's are going to fend off contious air attacks from Mainland Argentina if they were determined enough and how long would it take to reinforce those meagre assets. Also what if Stanley got taken intact? That fine long runway would be a curse rather than cure.
2) Do you honestly believe that Tripe that our elected idiots put about? Did the Yanks provide AD for the last south atlantic adventure? - No!
As for the Falklands. I dont believe that Argentina would be stupid enough to try another invasion. But it seems to me to be a very good Yard stick to measure our forces by. If we could retake the falklands today with the Assets we have WITHOUT the same loss of life 24 years ago then all well and good. If not then we need to think again.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
althenick
I'll just answer no 1:
a. Yes - in partnership with the other assets and
b. Not very long
c. Stanley doesnt have a fine long runway
d. How could they take it? A reasonable number of Her Majestys Pongos might have something to say about any invasion troops that materialise on the Falklands.
e. Ever been there?
I'll just answer no 1:
a. Yes - in partnership with the other assets and
b. Not very long
c. Stanley doesnt have a fine long runway
d. How could they take it? A reasonable number of Her Majestys Pongos might have something to say about any invasion troops that materialise on the Falklands.
e. Ever been there?
Reinforcing the Falklands by air would certainly be far quicker than waiting to assemble and despatch a task force.
And very, very much cheaper.
You might believe that our defence assumptions should be predicated on being able to do Corporate again, while I might think we should be able to repeat a Granby type air campaign.
But they're not. We don't pay enough tax to be able to do big autonomous ops, and we're meant to do some things well enough to be a good coalition partner.
You might not like the idea of relying on allies for Fleet Air Defence (which we haven't needed since 1982, and that would only be a 'might need' for future autonomous ops), while I don't like relying on the USA for SEAD, recce, etc, - capabilities that we have needed again and again, and would absolutely always need for any autonomous operation.
If we have to cut our coat according to our cloth, I'd spend money on the main body of the coat, and not on a fur-lining for the hood.
And very, very much cheaper.
You might believe that our defence assumptions should be predicated on being able to do Corporate again, while I might think we should be able to repeat a Granby type air campaign.
But they're not. We don't pay enough tax to be able to do big autonomous ops, and we're meant to do some things well enough to be a good coalition partner.
You might not like the idea of relying on allies for Fleet Air Defence (which we haven't needed since 1982, and that would only be a 'might need' for future autonomous ops), while I don't like relying on the USA for SEAD, recce, etc, - capabilities that we have needed again and again, and would absolutely always need for any autonomous operation.
If we have to cut our coat according to our cloth, I'd spend money on the main body of the coat, and not on a fur-lining for the hood.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I see Illustrious has sailed on it first exercise with the newly formed 800NAS with a grand total of 6 fixed wing aircraft on board. Some power projection capability! The "enemy" must be shaking in their boots. Welcome to the new world of JFH. Blind and defenceless.
Here
Here
A month after the retirement of the Sea Harrier, Navy News has an online story about it:
‘Last of a dying breed’ – Farewell to the Sea Harrier
I miss hearing them in the skies above Devon.
Meanwhile, a chance to remember another time when politicians said there was no need to be able to conduct independent operations.
25th Anniversary Of Falklands Conflict To Be Commemorated In 2007
‘Last of a dying breed’ – Farewell to the Sea Harrier
I miss hearing them in the skies above Devon.
Meanwhile, a chance to remember another time when politicians said there was no need to be able to conduct independent operations.
25th Anniversary Of Falklands Conflict To Be Commemorated In 2007