WEBF,

My own opinion is that, in the short term the P1154(RN) supersonic VSTOL fighter would have resulted in the loss fairly sharpish of the RN F-4 and Bucc fleets. However, longer term, I think that the P1154 would have been a superb asset for the RN, and that the FAA would have been inconsiderably better shape today.

Regrettably however, the P1154 debacle is arguably the worst example of RAF/RN post war politics.

Regards,
M2

Not so. The worst inter-service squabble was the quite deliberate bias of Earl Mountbottom who used every effort to sabotage the entire TSR2 programme in favour of his naval interests. He even scuppered its export chances.......

But P1154 was quite some design. Whether it would have been successful is somewhat open to doubt as it was such a technology jump.

Navy loses 4 more AD escorts
 

So tell me, if you had the money for only one, which would you save first? The SHARs or the T-42s? I said it here over 3 years ago, and I'll say it again. The decision to purchase the new carriers is going to devastate the whole RN force structure as the have to cut other ships to fund them and to provide support to them.

Daily Telegraph:

The Royal Navy is to lose at least four destroyers in the next three months......and will no longer be able to mount major operations unless it is fighting alongside either the Americans or the French.

Four Type-42 destroyers are to be mothballed as part of a series of cuts over the coming months as the MoD struggles to keep within Treasury-imposed limits on its budget. They are only the first of a number of cuts foreshadowed by last month's defence White Paper.....

The four warships to be axed are Newcastle, Cardiff, Glasgow and Liverpool. They are the oldest of the surviving Type-42 destroyers but Glasgow and Liverpool were not due to be decommissioned until 2010. Cardiff was due to go in 2008 and Newcastle in 2007 when the first of the Navy's new destroyers, the Type-45, is expected to enter service. It cuts the number of destroyers to seven. The loss of their air defence capability compounds the difficulties caused by the decision to scrap the Fleet Air Arm's Sea Harriers, leaving the fleet with no air cover until the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighter in 2012.

But it also means that the Government will be forced to drop its commitment, made in the 1996 Strategic Defence Review, to keep 26 destroyers and frigates available for operations at all times. The maximum number of destroyers and frigates the Navy could now keep at sea, at a time when the war on terror is dramatically increasing its workload, would be 23.

The Type-42s' Sea Dart missiles play a vital role in escorting and protecting the carriers and amphibious fleet. But for the past six months they have also been assigned to support units from the Special Boat Service carrying out anti-terrorist duties around the British coast and the North Sea oil platforms.

Senior Navy sources said that more Type-42 destroyers, as well as at least two of the Navy's minehunters and even some Type-23 frigates, which date only from the early 1990s, could also be axed.

Ministers appeared to see the loss of the four destroyers, each of which has a complement of 266 men, as an easy way of virtually eradicating the Navy's manning shortfall of 1,200, the sources said......

The MoD said that it could not go further than it had in the White Paper which said air defence and escort vessels were "less likely to be at a premium" and reductions in the number of older ships "will be necessary".

How does any of this concur with the vision seen the RN Strategic plan?

"A world class Navy, ready to fight and win."

RN Strategic Plan

As I pointed out on the thread about defence and public ignorance, and the media, the real issue is that ALL areas of defence need:

a) greater public awareness
b) greater political awareness
c) increased funding

d) 10p on income tax

WEBF,

What the Forces actually need are:

a) A clearly stated and unambiguous statement of exactly what the Armed Forces are and are not expected to achieve, in terms of size, number and duration of simultaneous commitments.

b) Force levels sufficient to meet those commitments and required capabilities.

c) Genuinely smart procurement not hamstrung by political considerations (such as the need to sustain jobs in BAE, unless these are separately funded by DTI) nor by Treasury short-termism, and with a proper consideration given to the value and flexibility of service personnel and resources (eg: no more PFIs and PPPs except where these offer real value for money).

d) A willingness to extend the service lives of existing equipment where possible, and to open-mindedly re-examine high-tech, high-prestige new programmes.

e) 10 p on income tax......

BAe have studied the feasability of mating Blue Vixen onto the GR7/7a/9, whatever you want to call it, and the necessary integration with modelled outcomes not very favourable. Having not long returned from working alongside VX-9 the integration of APG-65 has not been as effective as portrayed in the journalistic magazines.

Infact the Malaysian Air Force has had severe integration problems of the APG-65 onto the Hawk 200 for the past few years. The BAe rep is certainly a busy chap at Kuantan!

10p on income tax? Come off it we'd have to increase flying pay to compensate our loss! Then again certain people deserve to pay more......

How many Shars in Hermes
 

Perhaps someone can set the record straight on this. I have always believed that Hermes sailed with 12 Shars and Invincible 8. Rear Adm Woodwards book says that Hermes had 14. !2 were used on the first raid on Port Stanley airport, two were held in reserve.

Which is the correct answer?

Hermes:

8 x FRS1 of 800 Sqn embarked on 2/4/82:
XZ459, XZ460, XZ492, XZ496, XZ500.
XZ457, XZ494, ZA191 (all 3 ex-899 Sqn)

three more arrived on 4/4/82: ZA192, ZA193 (ex-storage), XZ450 (ex-MOD(PE))

A final aircraft aircraft was flown aboard in the channel after departure of 5/4/82: XZ455 (ex-899 Sqn), making a total of 12 x FRS1 initially deployed.

All 12 participated on attacks 1/5/82. 9 attacked Stanley airport, 3 attacked Goose Green. There were no reserve aircraft.

4 additional aircraft from 899 Sqn (see below) were flown across from the Atlantic Conveyor on 18/5/82: XZ499, ZA176, ZA177, ZA194.

1 aircraft was lost prior to their arrival: XZ450 (4/5/82), so the total strength peaked at 15. Another aircraft was subsequently lost, ZA192 (23/5/82), reducing the final strength to 14.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Invincible departed with 8 x FRS1 of 801 Sqn:
XZ493, XZ495, XZ498, ZA175.
XZ451, XZ452, XZ453, XZ456 (all 4 ex-899 Sqn).

Of these, XZ452 and XZ453 were lost on 6/5/82, reducing their strength to 6 aircraft.

4 additional aircraft, from 809 Sqn (see below), were flown across from the Atlantic Conveyor as combat replacements. These were:
18/5/82: ZA190. 19/5/82: XZ458, XZ491, ZA174.

The Sqn therefore peaked at 10 aircraft. Two more aircraft were subsequently lost, reducing their number back to 8.
ZA174 (29/5/82), XZ456 (1/6/82).
------------------------------------------------------------------

809 Sqn were formed on 7/4/1982. Their role was to augment and provide replacement aircraft/pilots for the other Sqns. Aircraft were acquired from St Athan, 899 SHSU and BAe.

Total strength was 8 x FRS1: XZ458, XZ491, XZ499, ZA174, ZA176, ZA177, ZA190, ZA194.

These were flown to Ascension to join the Atlantic Conveyor in two waves between 30/4 and 2/5.

3 additional aircraft joined the Sqn, but did not deploy: XZ438, XZ439, XZ497.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

A total of 10 x GR3s were used in combat, 6 having been ferried on board the Atlantic Conveyor and 4 having been ferried direct from Ascension with AAR. The Atlantic Conveyor aircraft (XV789, XZ963, XZ972, XZ988, XZ989, XZ997) were transferred to the Hermes between 18/5/82 and 20/5/82.

The next 2 (XV778, XZ133) joined on 1/6/82. The final pair (XW919, XZ992) joined on 8/6/82.

3 aircraft were lost prior to the arrival of these replacement aircraft: XZ972 (21/5/82), XZ988 (27/5/82), XZ963 (30/5/82).

A final aircraft, XZ989, was lost on 8/6/82.

Thus the GR3 fleet commited suffered a 40% loss rate. But there's little glory in being a mud mover.

ORAC,

Were any SHARs/GR3s lost on the Conveyor when she was sunk or had they all disembarked by then? Were the Chinooks left on board because there was no space elsewhere and the Command were waiting for them to be used after the landings, or was it just an unlucky twist of fate? I know one was airborne at the time.

Oggin

The Conveyor wasn't lost till the 25th. The FRS1s and GR3s had been flown off well to the north of the combat zone.

Aircraft lost on board were all rotary; 6 Wessex, 3 Chinook and a Lynx.

Two of the 4 Chinooks, (ZA706 and ZA718) were being prepared to be flown off. Only the first aircraft, ZA718, had been completed and was airborne on a resupply flight to other nearby ships when the attack happened.

The other 2 aircraft were also on deck, but all three were destroyed in the subsequent fire. These were ZA716 and ZA719 on the forward deck and ZA706 on the rear deck.

Interesting that you mention Atlantic Conveyer.....

As a merchant vessel, she was unarmed. As a STUFT (Ship(s) Taken Up From Trade) she was put in harms way. Her loss is considered by some to be the worst military setback British forces suffered during Corporate.

Better air defence, particularly organic AEW and a better radar for the Sea Harrier, would have prevented her loss. It has been suggested (BBC documentry Exocet - broadcast first in 2001) than the Exocet had locked onto a frigate (Type 21 - no means of splashing a missile) which fired chaff which seduced it way. Unfortunately the missile then starting looking for another target.....

When the Sea Harrier issue is discussed, one of the things than gets mentioned is the intoroduction of new decoys - including this one.

The danger of a missile being seduced by a decoy and then hitting a STUFT vessel with neither decoys nor weapons still exists. Apart from the lack of defensive systems (except from the small arms carried by naval parties - comprised largely of RNR personnel these days) they a large and vulnerable, large to the naked eye and a large Radar Cross Section.

On an unrelated note, I recently heard a comment to the effect of "after Afgahnistan and Iraq, any other country we go to war against will have a larger coastline and maritime forces and operations will play a greater part".

Seems logical, doesn't it?

Thanks everyone
 

Adm Woodward's recollection was incorrect. I thought this to be the case. It does not detract from the results the FAA and the Shar achieved however.

i think we'll see the 10p on income tax all right but with more efficiency savings in the armed forces and we'll watch the money poured down the drain into the Health and social services bufget.

AviationNow reports that Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram today informed Parliament that the first FA.2 squadron will be withdrawn from service on March 31st.

Any sign of Aster 30 'on the Horizon'....???

:(

I/C

Illustrious ski-jump
 

Apparently it is being completely replaced because it had a bump in it causing landing gear to bottom out. Has anyone experienced this white knuckle ride? :yuk:

Haven't experienced it but saw it in use - the 1" (ish) lip where the ramp met the deck plating almost caused the jet to be airborne before the end of the ramp!:\

Sorry this is a bit late - but I've been away on a course for a couple of weeks.

According to journo/enthusiast friend on the night of 13/14 Jan the Sea Harriers did simulated combat against USAFE F15C Eagles over Devon.

Three F15s did not win even one dogfight with the SHARS tonight. After a hour and a half of air combat over Devon, the SHARS won every battle with sometimes double Fox-3s (AMRAAMS) against the USAFE F15s with two F15s being shot down simultaneously.

Four SHARS vs Three F15s, but the first battle and it took two minutes for the lead SHAR pilot to down the lead F15 pilot. He was not happy, very disappointed.

Within two minutes, the second SHAR scored a double Fox-3 on the other two F15s....their pilots wondering what the hell has happened.

Think about this, the SHAR pilots were up against experienced Allied Force and Gulf War experienced pilots of the F15. Most, if not all, of our potential adverseries lack both the experience and capability of the USAF.

Ian - no sign of Aster 30 until after 2007.

Just seen the bit about the need to sort out a lip at the start of the Illustrious ski-jump. First I have heard of it so I have no idea if it is true.

If it did (or does) exist the effects attributed to it seem to ignore the physics of such a thing. A one inch lip would be accommodated well within tyre deflection. Not suggesting it is a good thing for the tyre at all, but the contact area of such a lip multiplied by the tyre pressure would hardly do much towards bottoming an oleo. As for nearly getting the aeroplane airborne enjoy your smoke as it must be good stuff.

Again, if it does exist I would have thought a pretty minor fillet of weld could be laid down while they turned round the jets for the next launch.

You could feel a little thump from the lip as you went over it; it had no further effect. Anyway, you had other things on your mind at that stage of the launch........