Sea Jet
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FEBA,
Why on earth do you think that I believe the SHAR to be the only thing to qualify as maritime? This is a forum about the SHAR, therefore, strangely enough I have primarily focused upon that ac!!
Although I'm not about to get into a purile quote exchange with you, here are some additional 'gems' of my own!
The first quote above is my point of view in a nutshell as far as the original subject of this thread goes. Namely, that the loss of the Sea Harrier FA2 in itself is not a problem IF (and this is clearly a very big if!) it's AMRAAM capability could have been migrated to the GR7/9. As this is not financially viable, the loss to the RN of the SHAR will be a severe capability gap! Therefore, it's the AMRAAMs passing from the RN that we should be mourning, NOT necessarily that of the SHAR.
Although the SHAR is a classic British ac design, I stand by my other criticisms of the SHAR regarding it's endurance and Air-ground weapons and recce capability. The GR7/9 is superior today in all these areas. However, I made the comments as a counter to several posts that seemed to suggest that the SHAR was some sort of wonder jet and the most capable thing in the skies over Bosnia.
You say that I am:
Clearly, it is your perogative to hold this view of my own professional knowledge. However, having flown operationally over Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Afghanistan and latterly Iraq, I'd like to think that I have more than an academic knowledge of conflict.
As far as my wishing to engage in a:
From your posts, I'm guessing that you do not have a service background (if that is not the case, I apologise). I consider the contribution of non service persons such as yourself and Jacko something which should be encouraged on this forum. However, at the end of the day, this is a Military Aircrew forum and the jargon I have used is (I hope) familiar to the majority of other posters.
Get yourself to Waddo and the G&T is waiting for you!
Regards,
M2
To qualify the term Maritime, as far as you are concerned, it is the shar and that's it.
Although I'm not about to get into a purile quote exchange with you, here are some additional 'gems' of my own!
let me state that I believe that the passing of an organic maritime AMRAAM capability for the RN (as opposed to the SHAR per se), IS a dangerous capability gap.
I would agree that the loss of the Jag force would potentially have been worth retaining AMRAAM on the CVS.
I think that expanding the RN TLAM capability is highly desirable and you guys are quite correct to covet it's installation on the T45.
I would dearly love to see the RN return to the conventional carrier business with 2 x CVF. The utility of such capabilities cannot be denied
I don't think that a conventional CVF carrier could be described as a 'white elephant'!!! Fixed wing carrier aviation offers a highly flexible alternative to land based assets and they have been heavily employed in recent ops (Afghanistan and Iraq).
Although the SHAR is a classic British ac design, I stand by my other criticisms of the SHAR regarding it's endurance and Air-ground weapons and recce capability. The GR7/9 is superior today in all these areas. However, I made the comments as a counter to several posts that seemed to suggest that the SHAR was some sort of wonder jet and the most capable thing in the skies over Bosnia.
You say that I am:
shrouded in the cotton wool academic view of war that influences those that know the square root of b@gg€r all about it
As far as my wishing to engage in a:
philosophical contest to see who can throw in the most acronyms and jargon.
Get yourself to Waddo and the G&T is waiting for you!
Regards,
M2
Last edited by Magic Mushroom; 24th Sep 2003 at 07:22.
M2,
I'm afraid you've been too long in the AD world if you seriously think "that the loss of the Jag force would potentially have been worth retaining AMRAAM on the CVS".
Let USN F/A-18s, other people's AV-8B+s and land based F-15s, Tornados et al provide AMRAAM cover for the fleet - on the very rare occasions that it's needed. This hugely expensive Sea Harrier fleet (running costs exceed that of the Jaguar or F3 by a huge margin) can generate only a tiny number of inflexible and rarely needed FJ platforms, whereas the Jags have given useful service over and over again.
What can the Jag do that the SHar can't?
Well Damien B is being a bit of an over-sensitive prong, so to see one crucial advantage - eg reliability and serviceability you'd have to go to:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=103021
for a start.
Then there is recce (and not just with an F95), TIALD (a better TIALD integration than on any other platform), PW II, PW3, Strafe, etc. and could do ASRAAM and real time recce at a tiny cost.
I'm afraid you've been too long in the AD world if you seriously think "that the loss of the Jag force would potentially have been worth retaining AMRAAM on the CVS".
Let USN F/A-18s, other people's AV-8B+s and land based F-15s, Tornados et al provide AMRAAM cover for the fleet - on the very rare occasions that it's needed. This hugely expensive Sea Harrier fleet (running costs exceed that of the Jaguar or F3 by a huge margin) can generate only a tiny number of inflexible and rarely needed FJ platforms, whereas the Jags have given useful service over and over again.
What can the Jag do that the SHar can't?
Well Damien B is being a bit of an over-sensitive prong, so to see one crucial advantage - eg reliability and serviceability you'd have to go to:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=103021
for a start.
Then there is recce (and not just with an F95), TIALD (a better TIALD integration than on any other platform), PW II, PW3, Strafe, etc. and could do ASRAAM and real time recce at a tiny cost.
Last edited by Jackonicko; 24th Sep 2003 at 18:01.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Jacko, the picture postcard has screwed up the browser making it difficult to read Magic's esoteric comments.Magic (Psilocybin - (C12H17N2O4P))
Like the fungus from which you choose your name you bruise too easily, either that or being cooped up in the B707 with the revolving restaurant on the roof, has over sensitised you. Probably all those cuppa soups and crap coffee!
Anyway a couple of questions and then I shall take my leave of this thread in preference of a G&T or a pint with your good self.
1) Is the Shar the Royal Navy's only vehicle that can deliver AMRAAM?
2) Is the GR7 (or 9) AMRAAM capable?
3) I doubt you can answer this, but someone else can. Is the GR7/9 as manoueverable as the Shar and does it offer the same performance?
If you answer no to anyone of the above then the Shar should stay until the JSF enters service. The Indians and the Thai's will have to wait as will Jacko for his commission (dosh that is).
Now how about that pint? We are closer than you think, being separated by the A607 and a faceless town that is better suited to Belgium than Lincolnshire, Grantham.
Suggest you PM me for the details. Do I have a military background; yes. FEBA is an acronym, Forward Edge of the Battle Area, touted at many a YO's briefing. FEBA is where my office used to be, carried there , often, by sea
Cheers
FEBA
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northants, UK
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a journo you'd think he'd know about crediting a photographer when he makes use of their pictures... but clearly asking for such minimum courtesy makes me an 'over sensitive prong' 
Since you'd posted it on this very bulletin board I didn't think for a moment that you'd mind, Damien. So sincere apologies.
Objecting was fine, and has pricked what little conscience I have. Reminding me of my failings is fine, too. But the puerile message was just a tad too sensitive and 'prong-like' not to joke about.
But it was a joke and I luv you really. Big kiss! Come on, pucker up!
Objecting was fine, and has pricked what little conscience I have. Reminding me of my failings is fine, too. But the puerile message was just a tad too sensitive and 'prong-like' not to joke about.
But it was a joke and I luv you really. Big kiss! Come on, pucker up!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FEBA,
I guess that you're a former Royal Marine then! I was actually aware of what FEBA stood for (honest!) but had avoided bantering you about jargon! As far as Cuppa Soups and crap coffee, we're far more civilised on the E-3D than that!
I'm sure that you're aware of the answer to your first 2 queries. As to the third, I believe that due to it's Leading Edge Wing Root Extensions, and bigger wing and flaps, the GR7/9 is more manoueverable than the FA2 (assuming that the GR7/9 has dumped his fuel tanks). However, I would request an input from Nozzles for the definative answer to this.
I'm definitely up for a beer at Waddo, despite what my Mom tells me about chatting to strangers on the internet. Stand by for a PM!! The first one's on me!!
Jacko,
Firstly DON'T describe an AWACS guy as an Air Defender!!!! Although everyone still thinks that's all we do, in reality we are far more involved in strike attack assets than with the boys on CAP.
I fully acknowledge that the dear old Jag is one of our most useful types. It's simple and cheap yet the GR3 has some of the best toys available. Likewise, the Jag has seen more direct use operationally in the last 13 years than the SHAR (Bosnia, Northern Watch). However, at the end of the day, it could be supplanted by GR7s or Tornado GR4s on ops. However, there is no such alternative AMRAAM carrier for the RN.
Regards,
M2
I guess that you're a former Royal Marine then! I was actually aware of what FEBA stood for (honest!) but had avoided bantering you about jargon! As far as Cuppa Soups and crap coffee, we're far more civilised on the E-3D than that!
I'm sure that you're aware of the answer to your first 2 queries. As to the third, I believe that due to it's Leading Edge Wing Root Extensions, and bigger wing and flaps, the GR7/9 is more manoueverable than the FA2 (assuming that the GR7/9 has dumped his fuel tanks). However, I would request an input from Nozzles for the definative answer to this.
I'm definitely up for a beer at Waddo, despite what my Mom tells me about chatting to strangers on the internet. Stand by for a PM!! The first one's on me!!
Jacko,
Firstly DON'T describe an AWACS guy as an Air Defender!!!! Although everyone still thinks that's all we do, in reality we are far more involved in strike attack assets than with the boys on CAP.
I fully acknowledge that the dear old Jag is one of our most useful types. It's simple and cheap yet the GR3 has some of the best toys available. Likewise, the Jag has seen more direct use operationally in the last 13 years than the SHAR (Bosnia, Northern Watch). However, at the end of the day, it could be supplanted by GR7s or Tornado GR4s on ops. However, there is no such alternative AMRAAM carrier for the RN.
Regards,
M2
There is a shortfall in the numbert of attack/recce FJs. Jag adds three squadrons and does so economically and reliably. These land based attack/recce FJs have been needed again and again.
The SHar hasn't been needed since 1982 (it's been 'nice to have' now and again, but that's hardly the same thing).
The SHar hasn't been needed since 1982 (it's been 'nice to have' now and again, but that's hardly the same thing).
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko, one or three questions.
1. How many times has the SHar, since 1982, not been needed because it was known to be available as a capability? In other words, what is its deterrent effect?
2. Given that the future cannot be predicted with any accuracy, what happens the next time the SHar is needed, but isn't available?
3. If there is no "need" for carrier-based AD, why is the UK even considering JSF?
4. If there is a need for carrier-based AD, how can anyone be sure, given the considerations of (1) and (2) above, that the six-year capability gap between the SHar and the JSF will be a benign period?
5. If we accept that there is a shortfall in the number of attack/recce FJs across the board, shouldn't everyone's efforts be going into advocating for the forces receiving a larger slice of the pie?
1. How many times has the SHar, since 1982, not been needed because it was known to be available as a capability? In other words, what is its deterrent effect?
2. Given that the future cannot be predicted with any accuracy, what happens the next time the SHar is needed, but isn't available?
3. If there is no "need" for carrier-based AD, why is the UK even considering JSF?
4. If there is a need for carrier-based AD, how can anyone be sure, given the considerations of (1) and (2) above, that the six-year capability gap between the SHar and the JSF will be a benign period?
5. If we accept that there is a shortfall in the number of attack/recce FJs across the board, shouldn't everyone's efforts be going into advocating for the forces receiving a larger slice of the pie?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The edge
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wolfie,
In response to point 5:
No No No laddie! We need to accept the fact that we are no longer a great power, and must continue to accept cutback after cutback until we dwindle into insignificance. Instead of fighting this self-defeating attitude (which has been reported in such far-away journals as Japanese national newspapers), we are on this thread arguing about what is the least painful bit of our body to cut out. Any leaders out there with insight, with a true vision that doesn't involve hanging on to the yanks' coat-tails?
Other stuff:
Last time I looked:
The GR7 turned better than the FA2
The GR7 was slower than the FA2
You couldn't put AMRAAM on GR7/9
Night night gentlemen
In response to point 5:
No No No laddie! We need to accept the fact that we are no longer a great power, and must continue to accept cutback after cutback until we dwindle into insignificance. Instead of fighting this self-defeating attitude (which has been reported in such far-away journals as Japanese national newspapers), we are on this thread arguing about what is the least painful bit of our body to cut out. Any leaders out there with insight, with a true vision that doesn't involve hanging on to the yanks' coat-tails?
Other stuff:
Last time I looked:
The GR7 turned better than the FA2
The GR7 was slower than the FA2
You couldn't put AMRAAM on GR7/9
Night night gentlemen
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nozzles
What is all this capitulating crap, pull yourself together man and stop feeling sorry for the fact that you are British (are you?).
I suspect that you've been with the yanks too long and the GM foods and being in a minority have done for your common sense.
Fact 1. We are the greatest diplomatic power on this planet bar none.
Fact 2. The military calibre of British forces is the highest on this planet.
Don't forget fact 2. It counts at the highest echelons of global politics. Lets not deminish it at the hands of the bean counters or the PC's (fish feel pain when you catch them bollox) in this country.
FEBA
PS read Henry V Scene III
What is all this capitulating crap, pull yourself together man and stop feeling sorry for the fact that you are British (are you?).
I suspect that you've been with the yanks too long and the GM foods and being in a minority have done for your common sense.
Fact 1. We are the greatest diplomatic power on this planet bar none.
Fact 2. The military calibre of British forces is the highest on this planet.
Don't forget fact 2. It counts at the highest echelons of global politics. Lets not deminish it at the hands of the bean counters or the PC's (fish feel pain when you catch them bollox) in this country.
FEBA
PS read Henry V Scene III
Suspicion breeds confidence
Bridging the gap
Let me ask a question on how to cover the gap between now and 2012+. The fleet loses is AMRAAM cover. What's next best thing with the resources we have available? Lets ignore the cost argument for the moment. How much more effective would a GR9 be if it had full ASRAAM integration compared with the AIM-9. What about the integration that the Jaguar force has received? Would this be sufficient to mitigate the loss of the FA2 until the F35 arrives?
FEBA I think Nozzles was being ironic in the first lines of his last post. The liberal so called elite, the so called intellegentsia seem to be determined to try to spread the message of "can't do, won't do" everywhere.....
BlueWolf I suspect that your first question is impossible to answer. Who knows? However, we all know from 1982 when your remove major capabilities (and in doing so, sending "go ahead" signals to potential adverseries).
The rest on this post is in reply to Jacko's coments on the previous two pages. Might be a long one!
Regarding your comments about the First Sea Lord, it is very awkward (particularly with a media aware Government) for a senior officer to openly (ie in public) oppose Government policies. In the interview that I provided a link to on the first page of this thread, Admiral West candidly talks about the loss of capability caused by losing organic air defence. The First Sea Lord at the time of the February 2002 decision left his post early (over this and other issues), as did the Chief of the Defence Staff.
That organic air defence is needed for major expeditionary operations by ourselves is a fact, whether or not we want to have the capacity for such operations is really a political issue...
Your suggestion of building the frigates and destroyer numbers (back) upto 50 is good, but it would be politically difficult (see below), take time to design, build and get into service, and be difficult to man. All those extra frigates and destroyers would probably need more manpower than CVF will.
Additionally, ship based sensors and weapons have in general a much smaller range than those of carrierborne (or other) aircraft.
On previous threads you have stated the view that the RN only has a surface fleet to support the carriers, and this is the only reason for carriers. Now you are claiming that defending the carriers stops them from performing other tasks. Please make up your mind. As I see it, the over stretch is a result of the reduction in ship numbers under both Tories and Labour, the increased operational tempo, and the abandonment of the SDR commitment to 32 (after cutbacks) frigates and destroyers. The cuts here were made for the same reasons - saving money.
The level of escort that a carrier (or other high value unit) needs depends on the threat. In the Falklands there was a high threat, hence a high level of ship based defence was needed - hence lots of frigates/destroyers, but note that ships were often dispatched for other tasks (NGS, SF operations etc). In the Adriatic and the Gulf CVS deployments of the 1990s there was a low threat level, hence only a minimal level of escorting was needed. The same was true for Sierra Leone.
In 1990/1991, during Operation Granby, we sent a number (can't remember the exact number) of frigates and destroyers to the Gulf. No CVS there - yet they were still busy. We did, however, send Ark Royal with the Sea Harriers to the Eastern Mediterranean for operational tasks, securing the area for operations.
This may offer some insight into the points I am trying to make:
RUSI memorandum
Most of the issues have been discussed already, either here or on other SHAR and/or CVS threads. However I have two more comments to make.
Can the UK fire Tomahawk without the explicit permission of Washington? Do we have enough of them to count? Would the pre emptive use of Tomahawk by the UK against enemy airfields ever be politically acceptable?
Jacko you keep saying that an operation without the political support of our allies would be a non starter, which is probably correct. However, there is a world of difference between political support and actually being prepared to commit forces to the front line (cf the Falklands where lots of nations supported the UK one way or another, yet only New Zealand offered to send front line forces).
BlueWolf I suspect that your first question is impossible to answer. Who knows? However, we all know from 1982 when your remove major capabilities (and in doing so, sending "go ahead" signals to potential adverseries).
The rest on this post is in reply to Jacko's coments on the previous two pages. Might be a long one!
Regarding your comments about the First Sea Lord, it is very awkward (particularly with a media aware Government) for a senior officer to openly (ie in public) oppose Government policies. In the interview that I provided a link to on the first page of this thread, Admiral West candidly talks about the loss of capability caused by losing organic air defence. The First Sea Lord at the time of the February 2002 decision left his post early (over this and other issues), as did the Chief of the Defence Staff.
That organic air defence is needed for major expeditionary operations by ourselves is a fact, whether or not we want to have the capacity for such operations is really a political issue...
Your suggestion of building the frigates and destroyer numbers (back) upto 50 is good, but it would be politically difficult (see below), take time to design, build and get into service, and be difficult to man. All those extra frigates and destroyers would probably need more manpower than CVF will.
Additionally, ship based sensors and weapons have in general a much smaller range than those of carrierborne (or other) aircraft.
On previous threads you have stated the view that the RN only has a surface fleet to support the carriers, and this is the only reason for carriers. Now you are claiming that defending the carriers stops them from performing other tasks. Please make up your mind. As I see it, the over stretch is a result of the reduction in ship numbers under both Tories and Labour, the increased operational tempo, and the abandonment of the SDR commitment to 32 (after cutbacks) frigates and destroyers. The cuts here were made for the same reasons - saving money.
The level of escort that a carrier (or other high value unit) needs depends on the threat. In the Falklands there was a high threat, hence a high level of ship based defence was needed - hence lots of frigates/destroyers, but note that ships were often dispatched for other tasks (NGS, SF operations etc). In the Adriatic and the Gulf CVS deployments of the 1990s there was a low threat level, hence only a minimal level of escorting was needed. The same was true for Sierra Leone.
In 1990/1991, during Operation Granby, we sent a number (can't remember the exact number) of frigates and destroyers to the Gulf. No CVS there - yet they were still busy. We did, however, send Ark Royal with the Sea Harriers to the Eastern Mediterranean for operational tasks, securing the area for operations.
This may offer some insight into the points I am trying to make:
RUSI memorandum
Most of the issues have been discussed already, either here or on other SHAR and/or CVS threads. However I have two more comments to make.
Can the UK fire Tomahawk without the explicit permission of Washington? Do we have enough of them to count? Would the pre emptive use of Tomahawk by the UK against enemy airfields ever be politically acceptable?
Jacko you keep saying that an operation without the political support of our allies would be a non starter, which is probably correct. However, there is a world of difference between political support and actually being prepared to commit forces to the front line (cf the Falklands where lots of nations supported the UK one way or another, yet only New Zealand offered to send front line forces).
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 1st Oct 2003 at 06:44.