Having read the books of both Sandy Woodward and Sharkey Ward, it occurs to me that some problems were caused by the run down of fixed wing naval aviation in the seventies, including....

- Many of the Sea Harrier pilots lacked experience in an air to air role.
- Some pilots lacked experience in using their radar.
-There was not as much expertise in using an air defence aircraft as a weapon system, as there might have been if large scale exercises involving organic air defence had occured.

Sadly we will probably be experiencing the same problems in a few years. Like so many other lessons of 1982, it seems to have been ignored.

Proone
I'm not going to insult your intelligence by explaining the obvious. I'm sure you're more than capable of working that out for your self.
As for ;
I don't believe this to be true. The public are far more astute than you give them credit for. Ask John Major, Oh and I'm not advocating any administration that will stop the money for the bullets either. We need a chancellor that recognises the need for military potency, Letwin isn't one of those.
FEBA

WEBF,
The FAA aircrew cadre was allowed to gradually erode as the Ark Royal's 1978 retirement approached, with a proportional increase in RAF aircrew on the carriers (sound familiar anyone?). I believe that many of the fixed wing FAA pilots then did sabaticals with the RAF in the intervening years between the retirement of the F-4s and Buccs and the arrival of the initial SHAR FRS1s in 1981.

Sensibly, I think that the majority spent the time with RAF F-4 and Bucc units. Photographs of the time show quite a few RN types with RAF sqns and many saw the light (blue?) and transferred to the RAF. In the case of the F-4, this was largely employed in long range overwater QRA AD ops, so I would suggest that skills were not entirely lost.

All this was way before my time however, so I stand ready to be corrected.

Similar things are happening today. RAF Harrier GR7 sqn's are heavily populated with FAA pilots as the retirement of the FA2 approaches. There is also a smattering on other RAF fleets, particularly the F3 and GR4. FAA guys have often been posted to these types due to not being considered ready for a single seat slot at the culmination of fg trg. With the benefit of a 2 seat FJ tour under their belt many would then go to the SHAR for extremely successful careers.

The lack of familiarity with the Sea Harrier systems was primarily down to the fact that the ac had only been in service for a very short period in 1982.

FEBA,
I have to agree with prOOne on this one: defence is just not an issue these days. As long as joe public thinks that we're relatively safe from a 9/11 type attack, most put us a LONG way down the priority list. That's why we don't get money: because there are no votes in it.

Naveleye,
I too chuckled at the hypocracy of Cdr Ward's comments about Adm Woodward's faith in the SHAR! Here's a Sharky quote from his book (P355 of the sb version): 'I felt that the Admiral (Woodward) and his staff neither appreciated nor trusted the value of the Sea Harrier...' Ironically, the one senior officer who Ward did seem to retain confidence in - the CO of HMS Invincible, Capt JJ Black - didn't get a mention in the programme.

Regards,
M2

On the net I found this article on Joint Force Harrier, written in 2000. See
How it was meant to be.

Which leads to this question: Is Joint Force Harrier is still feasable and credable without a robust air defence component?

Also I found this: More exercises putting SHAR vs F16: More simulated fleet air defence.

Apart from the air defence stuff they did other things - These missions generally took the form of Composite Air Operations (COMAO) packages, utilising the specialist roles of both Harrier types to provide formidable attack formations. See above question. Oh dear.

At the time of writing the RN is participating (or soon will be) in an amphibious exercise off of the coast of Norway. Surely if this happened for real it would be unthinkable to not have dedicated organic air defence?

Sea Harrier
 

Webf,

Good post. I think everyone knows that getting rid of the Shar (some of which are only 5 years old) is lunacy in th extreme. But we are facing a "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" mentality. The best we can hope for is for one squadron to be run-on post 2006, but don't hold your breath!

Incidentally, Invincible will be operating as an LPH during the Norway exercise, so there will be no UK naval fixed wing element.

Why do I get the feeling that the Navy is missing an opportunity to get some PR for the Sea Harrier?

See ARK ROYAL visits London

With respect to the exercise off of Norway I meant that doesn't it seem illogical that we lose organic air defence at the same time as we build up our amphibious capabilities.

She was carrying 800 Squadron, but I beleive they have disembarked to disband. You can't have PR getting in the way of a disbandment. Its far too important.

Three quick questions......

1. Does anyone know what the results of 800 NAS' final exercise was?

2. Several ex Sea Harrier pilots (presumably General list) have gone on to command frigates etc and do other (ie non aviation) things in the Navy. Does anyone know if any of them have reached Flag rank?

3. During the Falklands campaign a Sea Jet landed on an LPD (can't remember which one) and I think one once landed on the flight deck of a RFA tanker some time in the 80s. Have they ever landed on anything the size of a frigate/destroyer flight deck? This is more out of curiosity than anything to do with the thread.....

And don't forget that one landed on a Spanish freighter, much to the surprise and alarm of the crew.

Webf,

Two Shars landed on Intrepid and Fearless during the FW where they were refuelled. I believe it was "Soapy" Watson who landed on a Spanish freighter named "Alraigo" many moons ago. Saved the a valuable a/c, although I think the spanish impounded the plane until the Mod coughed up salvage money. I don't think they made him an Admiral though.

Landing one on an RFA is possible, although a frigate would be a non-starter I think. Anyone remember BWoS's "Sky Hook" project?

Indeed I knew about "Soapy"'s incident!! And of course Atlantic Conveyer was used in '82 to transport aircraft south.

I only asked about the frigate out of interest, surely the flight deck of a RFA tanker is about the same size as a frigate flightdeck?

Meanwhile, this article from 1999 may be of interest.

WEBF,
At least one Falklands SHAR pilot with a kill to his name (an A-4) reached at least Cdre rank as the Dep NATO AEW Force. I met him when he was the reviewing officer for a 23 Sqn Trg Flt graduation in 1999. Not sure if he went higher.
Regards,
M2

Webf,

It depends on the RFA concerned. The old LSLs have pretty small flight decks, probably smaller than a T23's flight deck. The bigger ones like the larger fleet oilers and Olwen and Olmeda have plenty of space and could certainly support a vertical landing. Actually looking at the size of a T23 flight deck, a Shar could probably fit, although I would imagine jet blast would be a bit of a problem for the deck handlers. The larger GR7 may be more of a problem because of its larger wingspan.

The problem is that taking off vertically with full fuel and weapons is a non-starter, so with reduced fuel you would be limited to about 90 miles range.

We did do demos from quite a few smaller decks as I recall. Green Rover was no sweat, nor was Engadene, Fearless was like LHR. I also seem to recall a Grey Rover but I am not sure. All of the above are much more limited by sea state than size. The idea of being on a small deck that is moving a lot with only friction between tryes and the greasy deck to keep you there until the matelots arrive mit chains is pretty daunting. But that is what Heinz Frick's Sky Hook was all about.

John/Webf

I was told that the Shar hits the deck with a lot more "thump" than the average chopper such as a Sea King. So one of the main considerations is flight deck strength. A deck stressed for Lynx sized helos would probably not cope well with a Shar.

Navaleye

You may well be right. I have vague memories of Fearless comenting about such before we went on. Clearly it does rather depend on how you fly the beast! Personally I have a gut feeling that unless you broke the gear I don't see the rubber inflated sledge hammer Harrier main leg and wheels being the ideal tool with which to knock a hole in the deck.

As it happens the Sea King and a Harrier able to hover weigh about the same. Wheels are different though.

John

Navaleye/John

Thanks for the answers. I only asked to question out of curiousity, also partly to keep the thread ticking over.

Back to the main subject of this thread....

I found this on the 800 NAS website:

800 busy as ever - despite being in their last few months

Our training on board was geared around qualifying 3 pilots for their Certificate of Competence, and be cleared all roles Sea Harrier by day when embarked. We flew recce missions in Northumberland, fought USAF F15C from RAF Lakenhealth over the North Sea, and gave our RAF colleagues plenty of training in their Tornado GR4 or F3. Some of the pilots also had a go at the unusual aft facing landings.

849A Flight was on board to provide the air picture for our fights, and gave excellent radar coverage over land. The Sea King Mark VII is a most capable platform for any air-to-air mission.

Arggggggggggh!!

:( :{

Hmnn... Looks interesting.

"We sailed with a crew from BBC2 who were filming for a documentary on a day in the life of the Captain HMS Ark Royal. The show will be transmitted within the next 9 weeks"

Navaleye
Is that the chap from the Derwent valley?
FEBA
Oh and the flight deck of an LSL is (or was) enormous, you could get an entire sqn of SHar's on there! :ok:

Have seen Photos of the SHar on one of the LPD's during the Falklands.
Was doing some work for a prenentation on ENGR field equipment and came a cross a subspecies of the medium girder bridge that was designed to make a ski jump for a container ships deck.