That is true of course, but also remember that not all RN ships operate in a CVS task group and the fact remains that most have to rely on their own weapons or sensors.

As they all will after April next year, regardless of the operational environment or threat level.

Widger: Absolute tripe I'm afraid. Nozzle Nudge is handy for gross fore and aft corrections in the hover and the MADGE will give you range and a nozzle setting cue from the ship and is a great ILS type aid at night/IMC. But these are aids to the approach to the ship and for corrections in the hover. The GR7/T10 is MUCH more stable in the hover than the FA2-ask anybody recently moved from Yeovilton to Wittering. The new aircraft have a modern stability augmentation system that makes it so. I know, I've flown both.

When the GR7/9 replaces the Shar, not having radar must make joining up and night ops in general almost impossible. I certainly wouldn't put any money on one being being able to incept anything at night. Hoping someone will prove me wrong...

They cope okay in night ops already, just ask ATC or over water, the ASaC7 or AWACS.

Spocla, more than happy to stand corrected as I admit I have never flown the beast and I bow humbly to your superior knowledge. However Casper did ask the question about both responsiveness and stability, why did you not reply to him before I got in there? Anyway, why is it that the crabs moan about not having Nozzle Nudge? Why do they moan about not having an electronic cue to go to braking stop but have to rely on the Freddie or the estimate of Flyco/paddles. Valid points I think to answer Caspers general inquiry.




Movin on.

As Navaleye has alluded, I think the lack of a radar over sea is a serious deficiency. The ability of a pilot to confirm that the ship is, where he is being told it is, is a valuable confirmation on a platform that still uses 1950s technology, dressed up in 1990s clothing. The RN is probably lucky not to have had more incidents in the past probably due to the Training and competence of both Aircrew and Controllers (Most of the time) but the Service has trod a very fine line. TACAN alone will not solve the problem, although it will help to give the pilots a more comfortable feeling. Lets just hope it has better serviceability and more spares than most of the other kit.:ok:


P.S. WEBF two house points please for sending this back to the top.

Widger,

I think I'll have to claim those two house points in this instance. I find it interesting that the USMC considered the (non radar equipped) AV8B to be a "day only" capable warplane. The addition of a radar in the Harrier II Plus was considered essential for night ops hence the upgrade. Air to air capability was a bonus and only exploited by the Spanish and Italians.

I'm curious that the RAF does not consider radar to a requirement for carrier borne aircraft when every naval aircraft for last 50 years has carried it. Opinion seems to be divided. The RAF says that radar is not necessary all the other operators say it is. Which is right?

Navaleye,

Just to clear a point of confusion up - the USMC refer to 'Day Attack' AV8Bs when they're talking about a model very similar to the GR5 ie no FLIR, non-NVG compatible cockpit lights, one MPCD etc. VMAT-203, their OCU may still fly a couple, but none of the front-line sqns do. Front-line sqns fly a mix of 'Night Attacks', which is almost identical in capability to a GR7A (ie FLIR + big motor), and II+. I haven't flown the SHar, but I really don't believe that the USMC use the radar in anything like the same way as you boys do. Besides, their ship's TACANs seem to be pretty reliable.

And as for non-radar carrier aircraft - how about the A-4?

Widger,

Nozzle nudge is in the 'nice-to-have' category as it just stops your left hand from having to do the braking-stop nozzle dance when you've over-cooked your approach. But it's not much more than that. As for not getting a cue when to go to hover stop - you've probably heard some complaints from the guys when they're on their initial work-ups and it's all very new. After a little experience, you get your eye in and it becomes a no-brainer. My gouge was to stick the HUD horizon bar on the back of the ship and go to hover stop when the back of the boat was 2/3 the width of the bar. As a side note, the USMC LSOs don't tell the pilot when to select hover stop, they acknowledge the pilot's call.

Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

SSSETOWTF,

It is finally nice to have someone on this thread who actually knows of where he speaks.

Thanks for you input and I hope to see you around here on a regular basis.

Cheers

BHR

Just read in Janes weekly that "the sources that know" state that Main Gate for CVF might not be until 2006 now. Coupled with the problems at Swan Hunters (no orders between 2006-2008) things are not looking too rosy.

No-one has yet answered my question as to why we cannot keep the FA2 flying in its current guise (i.e. no engine upgrade) until we have something else. There must be plenty of spares around now after 800 and 899 disbanded.

Widger,

There is no reason at all why the FA2 can't be run-on until because that was the original plan until that retard Hoon stuck his oar in. Unfortunately as Webf pointed out earlier, to reverse such a decision would require someone to admit it was wrong which politicians do not like doing. I hope John Reid takes the opportunity to review the decision based on reality of the situation. I still haven't come across anyone in the navy that agrees with it. I don't hold out much hope I must say but you never know.

A number of things have changed since the decision was made in 2002, including:

-CVF delayed, planned In Service Date of 2012 (with F35 etc) now unlikely.
-T45 delayed, and reduced in number.
-Frigate/destroyer force (and entire fleet) cut by about a fifth.
-CEC delayed.
-RAF fighter numbers cut - again.
-The number of high value assets which need protecting has increased.
-Air launched anti ship weaponry continues to spread.

When the decision was made, it was claimed that the introduction of the T45 would reduce the risk, that surface fleet strength would be kept near to the SDR level, that there would be four RAF air defence squadrons, and the capability gap would only be six years. None of these four things are true any more.

"Mr Speaker, in the light of changing circumstances, and particularly delays to the CVF and Type 45 Destroyer projects ........... it has been decided to retain the Sea Harrier FA2 with 801 NAS until........"

It could be done with little political embarrassment, no need to actually say the decision was wrong, and much less than getting lots of people killed when they are overwhelmed by air/missile attack. Incidentally, wasn't John Reid one of the SDR team who said we did need organic air defence?

WEBF,

Why not write to SecDef and ask him for a definitive answer on the matter?

I have done this on several occasions for other items and have found the answers to be quite illuminating and not at all what I had expected to recieve from a government department.

Cheers

BHR

The last time I had any sort of letter from a Minister (via my MP) it was exactly what I expected (the party line) and not terribly illuminating.

Meanwhile, the June 2005 edition of Air Forces Monthly has a feature on Future UK Maritime Airpower. This discusses CVF, JSF, MASC, and the various helicopters that might be carried.

The article starts with a computer image of two F35Bs (does the F35 have a name) overflying a beach where a landing is taking place, although it seems to featue US not British landing craft. Of the Sea Harrier:

The Sea Harrier has been a sucess story for the Royal Navy, having earned its battle spurs during the Falklands conflict in 1982. Its replacement, the F35B JSF, will provide the RN with far greater combat effectiveness than the Sea Harrier, WHICH IS STILL A HIGH PERFORMANCE FIGHTER AIRCRAFT. (My capitals).

The article criticises the decision not to armour CVF in the light of increased threats from anti ship missiles. It also states:

Furthermore, the potential for a major state based threat to British interests still exists, which could require the Royal Navy to engage in a high intensity conflict against a competent foe.

Something the MOD planners say is impossible?

There is also an article on Indian Navy aviation. India's Sea Harriers are being upgraded, with new radar, avionics and missiles. No mention of a new engine, despite the warm climes it must experience. There is an article of the retirement of the F14 Tomcat. However, the USN is not losing the air defence role, simply passing it the Hornet/Super Hornet.

USN Future Vision ...
 

Its all about Sea Power 21 - Adm Vern Clark's (CNO) vision of the future USN - Sea Strike, Sea Shield, and Sea Basing. Details here.

Oggin

p.s. Still one CVW with Tomcats however most have Super Hornets now.

Interesting stuff - how does it fit in with the RN Strategic Plan?

Today is the anniversary of HMS Coventry being sunk and bombed in 1982, and MV Atlantic Conveyor being hit by an air launched Exocet, her loss causing the loss of many helicopters and much else. AEW and more CAPs (and a better understanding of how to use fighter aircraft as part of a task force) would have prevented both losses.

Coventry's loss was preventable as it was already known that the monopulse 909 was virtually un-usable if it was pointed anywhere near land. This combined with a foolish over confidence in largely untried weapons and engagement parameters that allowed the enemy to escape with ease did not bode well for the RN.

And have the lessons been learnt, or forgotten?

The lessons have been understood. To use the word learned implies that every remedial action possible was taken. One such action was to improve the capabilities of the Shar to the FA2 we have today. If scrapping that capability is a step forward I'm a Dutchman.

With well over a 1000 posts now, I think this forum deserves a sticky. Then WEBF won't have to keep getting it sent back to the top by talking about 1982.