800 and 1 Sqn
 

Nicked from elsewhere, but BMAL states that 1 Sqn now have 14 GR9s and 800 12 GR9s + 1 T.12.

They've surely grown?

JF

Did the original upgrade planned post Falklands include include a larger wing?

Anyway, going back to an earlier comment of mine, about how the Sea Harrier had suffered from a lack of public recognition, I recently noticed a couple of things on the net. This Channel Four page, from during the time of the ash cloud from the volcano in Iceland, talks of HMS Ocean, and quotes a very old website when it says:

The 22,5000 tonne HMS Ocean is capable of carrying a maximum force of 1275 Royal Marines or aircrew, 12 Sea King helicopters, 6 Lynx AH7s and 15 Sea Harriers.

This story, from journalists that you might reasonably expect to be more au fait with naval matters, proves that more work is needed on the basics.

A ROYAL Navy Sea Harrier roared its way up the River Dart to salute scores of young naval officers passing out from Dartmouth's naval college.

If only! :ugh::{

I see that the Sea Harrier took part in the recent airday at Culdrose, although obviously only on the ground. It was mentioned in a number of places - such as Flightline UK:

The show can boast a few items you will see no where else, certainly in the numbers seen at Culdrose. Many of the Royal Navy's Sea Harrier FA2s and Harrier T8s were "retired" to Culdrose to provide aircraft for the Royal Navy's School of Flight Deck Operations. The aircraft are taxied and position around a mock up of a flight deck at Culdrose. Several of the FA2 were parked together on the cross runway while a single T8 appeared alongside other aircraft in the main static area.

And this photo blog (what?) here - a few nice pictures too:

There are around 20 retired Sea Harriers at Culdrose now and they are used by the SAH as dummy deck aircraft allowing handlers to practice moving aircraft around the deck of a ship without losing too many over the side!

Sad to see so many de commissioned aircraft but at least they still have an active role within the service.

I'm guessing that all the ones at Shawbury were moved to Culdrose (see previous posts about the MOD refusing to sell them etc). Just out of interest, how did they move them? I assume that they didn't fly them.

With respect to the YouTube video of the first part of Navy Pilots that I posted a link to, I would like to apologise to the person I quoted, in case they read the post and thought I was calling them a retard. I was not. Assuming that it was genuine, then the comment implies that the people who work with the SFDO (and other) Sea Harriers consider that they could be regenerated. No idea where the 24 hours comes from, though!

Did the Sea Harrier deter? As part of a something larger - a task group, yes. Does it still deter? Perhaps, in a limited way, although mostly in situations where the opponent needs a lot of time to build up their forces, thereby giving plenty of warning.

In terms of a Falklands scenario, the Argentines are in no position to invade, as their navy and air force have both been in decline. Building up a significant amphibious force would take time, and produce intelligence warnings - which the politicians might pay attention to. It would take them to generate an invasion task force than it would for us to generate a task group including regenerated Sea Harriers. In the meantime, the forces maintained down South should be able to stop any surprise attack. As I noted, since the Sea Jet left service there does seem to be more emphasis put into maintaining the Atlantic Patrol Task (South) role, despite many other operational commitments and dwindling frigate/destroyer numbers. There seems to be an effort to make sure that the APT(S) ship is never far from the Falklands area.

Cutbacks to the Fleet became a secondary theme of this thread, you will recall that in late 2004 the then First Sea Lord told the Commons Defence Select Committee that the UK needs "about thirty" escorts, not only to provide sensors and weapons for a task group, but also for the single ship type roles that provide deterrence, reassurance, intelligence, and defence diplomacy. Less ships means less deterrence in peacetime, and less defence in wartime. It also raises the stakes, as our ability to withstand attrition is reduced. Will the forthcoming SDSR consider this? Will the increased vulnerability of a task group without organic air defence be borne in mind? Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats opposed the axing of the Sea Harrier at the time.

Closer to home, Russian aircraft are probing Western and UK airspace. Russian submarine activity is also high - witness the recent alleged attempt to track a Trident boat. Is the Bear still being used to monitor NATO naval forces? Wasn't the original reason for developing the Sea Harrier to intercept and shadow Bears? So what now for the Bear shadowing role? What about other nations who might decide to use transports and maritime patrol aircraft in maritime ISTAR roles? Are we relying on allies to shadow Bears and the like?

WEBF

'Fraid not. As you will see from the first line below the pic above both SHARS (FRS1 and FA2) had the 201 sq ft metal wing.

JF

I was wondering where this thread went - I just wanted to post this picture here:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...353-760274.jpg

Indian Navy White Tigers at Dunsfold in 1983, a photo courtesy Shiv Aroor of the Indian Express via his blog named "Live Fist". The link is at a blog whose name PPRuNe converts to **** so I cannot post the picture or link directly.

According to an anonymous person in the comments, the bearded man sitting second from left is Cdr. Arun Prakash, who later went on to becone Chief of Naval Staff of the IN.

JF

I was thinking back to Nozzles' comments here, early on this thread:

After the F-war the Brits decided they wanted a mini F-14 that could track 10 low flying targets overland whilst simultaneously supporting AMRAAM to 4 of those targets. The original project included a bigger engine, a thinner wing so it would go faster etc. But the bean counters decided to nibble the upgrade to death, and now they're complaining that it doesn't have the hover thrust they took away from it back in the late '80s!

In the 80s various wish list ideas were mooted but none survived serious investigation/costs.

The big donk would not have worked behind the original intakes and making the intakes bigger was a step too far if starting with a SHAR.

JF

I think it is reasonable to say that nobody expected the SDSR axe to end all RN fixed wing flying for a decade. This is discussed at great length in various places, including the following PPRuNe thread:

Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers"

Air Forces Monthly have produced a special publication, UK Airpower 2011, which shows the Sea Harriers sent to the SFDO Dummy Deck at Culdrose as the only RN fast jets, it comments that they are still in service although no longer flying, and are the only way that aircraft handlers will have any experience of working with jet aircraft this decade, and provide the means to embark US, Italian, or Spanish Harriers this decade. What a shocking state of affairs!

Since the Culdrose Sea Jets are "still in service" (sic), this is not a history and nostalgia topic.

Of course, the idea of regenerating Sea Harrier in response to a crisis is probably a non starter if we are not operating Harriers at all. :{:ugh::mad:

Shouldn't this thread be in nostalga or somewhere more relevant now?

No. This is exactly what Joint Force Harrier was setup to do. Clear the sky of the enemy and prosecute them on the ground using two types of aircraft best suited to the job. At a fraction of the cost of the current operation.

But this thread is nostalgia as the GR9 and SHAR are never going to fly again....

Forgive me if this has been asked before:


What was the maximum number of Sea Harriers / Gr's operated on the Hermes or Invincible class ?


On a slightly different subject, was there ever an evaluation of a fixed wing AEW platform that could have operated from the 'ski jump' ?

Stilton wrote:

"Forgive me if this has been asked before:


What was the maximum number of Sea Harriers / Gr's operated on the Hermes or Invincible class ?"

The Invincibles can operate up to a maximum of 22 aircraft each, the exact mixture depending on operational requirements. The optimum number of Harriers/SHARs was found to about 14, more could be carried but the ship became somewhat crowded. The remainder of the air group would be made up of helos, three ASaC 7 Sea Kings and four to six Merlins. Latterly a couple of Lynx have been added to the air groups for various duties. Hermes could carry more, being a larger ship and in the Falklands operated around twenty FRS1s/GR3s as well as an ASW Sea King sqn and other detachments from time to time (the GR3s took up space vacated by a sqn of HC4 Sea Kings after the landings at San Carlos). Current estimates (in Indian Service) are that Hermes/Viraat can carry around 30 Harriers plus some helos.:ok:

This Navy News story from 2003 suggests that 17 was the record.

Harrier launch record claimed by HMS Invincible

Also on board were nine FA2 Sea Harriers of both 800 and 801 Naval Air Squadrons, adding to the organisational challenge – not least in how to arrange 17 Harriers on the flight deck and in the hangar.

Post SDSR, we facing starting this from scratch later this decade! Hence the link in my above post.

Regarding your seond question, I don't think a V/STOL AEW type was ever considered feasible.

AEW for the Invincible Class was very much an add on as a direct consequence of the Falklands War. The ships had been designed as Helicopter platforms to operate a viable number of ASW Sea Kings, primarily in the North Atlantic, the Iceland/Faroes gap or off Norway. Of course an even earlier add on had been the Sea Harrier/Ski jump with the SHAR mission being to "hack the shad" in the form of Soviet LRMPA that could provide over the horizon targetting data and/or fire off ASM's at NATO warships.

In the 1970's nobody thought we would go to war in the South Atlantic, well away from land based fighter or AEW cover and in a non NATO context. When we did the SHAR was really all we had to defend the Fleet in conjunction with SAM's, few of which were suitable for use against low flying fast air. The Sea King AEW was rushed into service but only in time to go aboard HMS Illustrious when she sailed south after the wars end to relieve HMS Invincible in Summer 1982. That was pending the construction of a runway long enough to handle RAF Phantoms, allowing them to take over Air Defence of the Falklands later in the year.

The danger of cutting your cloth by making bold assumptions about what you will need in future is always that of being wrong and then having going off to war with the wrong kit. Plus ca change!

Are you for real? Great though they were, they were most definitely not the best suited to the job, merely good compromises, like most others. Your comment is highly subjective and does not stand up to much scrutiny.

Stop over-selling the SHAR/GR's, you end up doing them a great disservice.

JAJ,

I have to respond here. Without 'over selling' either aircraft, the facts are that at the time JFH was stood up, these two aircraft could be summarised thus:

GR7 - An extremely effective CAS and strike aircraft with some unique combat attributes, e.g. Maverick and night ops. Also well suited to expeditionary ops from short/high runways. Completely suitable for a wide range of planned missions. A very good compromise, with quite outstanding crew and support.

FA2 - The UK's most lethal air superiority platform due to its Blue Vixen/AIM-120 integration. (Also very good AIM-9 integration, by the way, and guns if required, plus a good, if old, camera). Was about to get a JTIDS upgrade that would have given it the sort of boost later enjoyed by the F3. A very, very good ballistic bomber and capable of delivering LGBs to remote designation. Hampered by bring back issues only in the most demanding environments. A decent compromise, but at its limits. Again, outstanding crew and support.

But their key attribute was the ability, as required by the SDR of 1998, to deliver these capabilities from the sea, so avoiding reliance on unavailable or distant HNS facilities. They were the ONLY aircraft capable of doing that. In that respect, they were the ONLY aircraft 'suited to the job'.

It all depends, as ever, on what people think 'the job' is. JFH was stood up, declared and capable of doing 'the job' required of it by the Government, PJHQ and Strike. Best not to forget that. As ever, happy for others to disagree.

Best regards as ever

Engines

Someone may have answered this already. Why, after the demise of the Sea Harrier were the RN not able to fully man their part of JFH the NSW? As I understand it there were insufficient ground and aircrew to fill the holes left in 800 and 801 Sqns which were the original JFH naval contribution, yet surely there must have been guys left over from the FA2 Sqns?

Regarding the AEW / ski jump question, I can remember a lot of fuss being made locally during the Falklands war about the apprentices at Yeovilton getting an AEW Gannet from the museum back into working order in a hurry. They got it flying not long after the ceasefire and (I believe) it eventually ended up with Dowty Rotol for prop research
The question is - how was it intended to be used? I can see three options, none of which make sense
1) JATO bottles off a ski jump with a barrier capture
2) get Bulwark's catapults working again ( I understand there were plans to get Bulwark back into service if the war prolonged - but could the catapults be reinstated?) Or would Triumph have been capable of being reinstated at that time? I understand she was still waiting for the breakers torch then.
3) a ferry flight to the Falklands followed by flights from a make-shift strip.
None really make sense. How were they intending to use it?

So you write your own job spec and then fill it. :zzz:

Your original post did not try to limit it to the "best carrier-borne aircraft suited to the job" you said best aircraft suited to the job. It clearly wasn't.

Please don't label me as a Harrier basher, I've always thought it an outstanding jet, but this constant over-selling that the carrier/Harrier is the panacea for all (despite what you may think, that is exactly what you all do on this and other threads) is not only tiresome but factually incorrect. It had a niche capability, and in that niche, was truly excellent. Outside the niche, it was just another jet.

I'm also not sure how many F-18 guys would agree with all your assertions regarding carrier-borne air power.

JAJ,

I'm very sorry if you think I'm trying to claim any one jet as a 'panacea' for any one role. Apologies if you thought I was.

BUT... JFH didn't write their job spec, that was developed in the Government and at Strike. The 'job' was to be able to deploy a balanced maritime strike and AD force from sea and land if required. They were set up to do that, and declared as such by RAF Strike Command (as was). These are the facts.

Like you, I get really tired of people over-selling one platform. JFH never tried to claim it was 'better' than Tornadoes at certain jobs, and always knew that Typhoon, once it came along, would be a quite outstanding AD aircraft - after all, it is designed specifically for that role (less of a compromise). SHAR, as I freely admitted, was carrying a number of limitations - like almost all aircraft - but was still effective. Very effective.

My put - carrier borne aviation is an essential PART (note PART) of the Uk's overall military capability. The politicians (our bosses) said so in SDR, and again in SDSR. The problem is that we've run out of money to do it, like other essential capabilities.

Best Regards as ever

Engines.