Somehow I can see the Argenties been that frightened of a GR7 since it can only hurt them on the ground.

Wasn't it Gen Douhet who said something about eggs in the nest........

You can shoot down all the aircraft you want, but it's only when you take the war to the enemy in their country that they begin to get "scared".

Assuming the enemy doesn't strike you while wait to get within 350mn of them.

Does 800 NAS practice ACM now? Is the maximum air to air loadout still just 2 X AIM9s?If so that was deemed inadequate 25 years ago.
I see 800 NAS has finally turned up on the RN website. Any prizes for guess what the first pic in the photo gallery is of? Here.

Also does Cott or Wittering have a ski jump?

NEye, it may be worse than that. Are those IN roundels on the wings of that SHAR??

Indeed they are.
Well done to the guys who have setup the un-offical 800 NAS site. Very good to see. Is it my imagination, or is some extended square bashing in order. Who is out of step?:eek: :rolleyes: :D

http://www.800nas.org.uk/images/navy%20guard.jpg

Doh!

Taxi for MoD PAO..........

:}

I know we've outsourced our banking call centres, software, and doctors letter writing services to India but this is ridiculous . . .

"Please press hash key now if your fleet defence requirement is urgent and there are incoming vampires or hold to speak to an operator...."

Has anyone sent any feedback to the RN website about their error regarding the 800 NAS FRS51?:ugh:

Also in answer to NavalEyes query - Wittering has a ski jump.


[edited to remove thread repetition]

Either someone has, or it's been spotted, as the site is now GR7 only as of 19:00 Thursday.

On the other hand MoD spies are everywhere......

Alternatively Flash's post set off some indian entrepreneur....

"Hello, Royal Navy? Have you thought about a commcen in Calcutta?"
"Splutter.....how can we square this with Topmast? I feel another consultancy coming on...or maybe add this into JPA. Writer - take a signal!"

Still some FA2 Harriers on the site.

I hadn't looked far enough down, but they're still IN rather than FA2. They got rid of the one that led the gallery, which was the real shocker...

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server?...&imageIndex=29

Navaleye

What was deemed "inadequate" was a jet that had one role only, and couldn't even do that very well. Hence the retirement of the sea jet. Yes, 800 still carry out ACM, as do all of JFH. I believe 4 9Ls can be carried, but we would be wasting our time to do so.

What was deemed "inadequate" was a jet that had one role only.....

The Ground Attack and Reece stuff they did in the Balkans was fiction then?

I believe 4 9Ls can be carried, but we would be wasting our time to do so.

If you're in a situation that needs four Sidewinders, you're probably in a situation where radar and AMRAAM may be useful as well.

As I said before, the same old arguments are being repeated. Perhaps we should concentrate on the Future Carrier, and let this thread gracefully retire?

Here's an interesting site.
I'm particularly interested in the nuclear capable Wasp. The caption mentions that they had to take the doors off for it to stay anywhere near MTOW. Most of the time they were off when it was empty for the same reason. Its range must have been anything up to 800yds with that payload. Dropping one of those have been the nearest thing the RN had to a "Martydom mission" :eek: :ouch:

All chaps who have now seen the alleged photograph of "it" must now poke out their eyes with a marlin spike.
Egad sir in my day one didn't even talk about "it" let alone play with "it". In fact if you did play with "it" your fingers fell off!
It wasn't called the one way trip for nothing, in fact it's younger cousin Larry had similar troublewith "it" too.
"Ah, SMR ready to fit "it"?";)
"What sir?":confused:
"Exactly, don't wait up":E

I know I said it was time to concentrate on the Future Carrier thread and I did say that we should let this thread retire, but the following comments are better placed on this thread than any other.

The news that the Pentagon is considering delaying the introduction into service of the JSF (they still say F35B will be ready in 2012) is in my view less of an issue than the continuing uncertainty over when CVF will come into service. In a letter to my MP back in 2002, Adam Ingram was adamant that both CVF and JSF would enter service in 2012. He also stated the Type 45 Destroyers would start entering service in 2007, helping to fill the gap. In a letter earlier this year he refused to admit that there were any delays, he also refused to say when CVF was planned to enter service, likewise the aircraft. One wonders why...

The House of Commons Defence Select Committee stated in one of their reports that losing the Sea Harrier would reduce the number of carrier capable aircraft by one third, at the very time we need to ramp up the capabilities of flight deck crews, etc. Whilst this idea has been denied by some, evidence would suggest that the select committee was right.

Also in 2002, Mr Ingram stated that the Sea Harrier represents one layer of air defence for a task force, but there are others, medium range defence by Type 42 Destroyers with Sea Dart, then short range defence by frigates with Sea Wolf, and then CIWS on some ships. However, we had 31 frigates and destroyers back then, including eleven T42s with Sea Dart. The Hoon cuts cut this number to 25, including eight T42s. There are now rumours that ship numbers are about to be cut again, probably a couple of T42s. I expect the MOD will make much of their "poor state" whilst ignoring the fact the spending on upkeep has been severely cut. They would also use this to justify cancelling the seventh and eighth T45s.

So the outer layer of defence (Sea Harrier) is gone, now the second layer has been cut by a third, further cuts will make that more like 50%. So much for layered defence.

Is it not time that the GR9 gets both ASRAAM and L16? And wouldn't it be prudent to draw up contingency plans to cope with unexpected crises, possibly including regenerating and manning the aircraft at SFDO or in storage?

These are rhetorical questions really, I expect no reply (unless you are an MOD Minister).

Back to the Future Carrier thread......

I would not be surprised to see Exeter and Southampton pensioned off early. I'm hearing that Exeter in particular is proving very expesive to maintain. As Webf points out reducing T42 to just 6 makes ordering six replacements more justifiable.

Having driven the beast (a wonderful and genuine pilot's aircraft to fly), it had about 30 mins endurance (doors on!) with 'it' as I recall. The worry was more getting away from the surge rather than end. but again, flat out at 45deg to the wind with no flot cans allowed you to 'run away' at some speed and in good order!

More interesting was 2 torpedos which gave about 10 mins end. in peacetime fit (ie. flot gear and doors on). In war fit one got about 50 mins esp. if the '200lbs of wasted fuel' stayed in his rack! And to forestall the wails from the ACMN fraternity - that was a JOKE; they're great guys!

"Konkan 06 a complete success"
 

According to the MoD. Here is a response to an earlier letter concerning the use of Indian Navy Sea Harriers during this exercise:

"Dear Sir,

Thank you for your letter of 17 July 2006 to the Prime Minister regarding your concerns about the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier. I have been asked to reply.

As one of my colleagues has previously explained to you, in his letter dated 12 April 2005, we appreciate that the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier removes the outermost layer of a multilayered air defence structure, until the introduction of the JCA. This decision was taken on the grounds of capability and balance of investment. The risk will be significantly reduced with the introduction of the Type 45 destroyer, equipped with a new and much improved Principle Anti Air Missile System, capable of intercepting multiple targets simultaneously. Once again we envisage the main threat to the Fleet in the future to come from sea skimming missiles, which is a threat that ship-borne gun and missiles systems are better placed to deal with.

Moving on, the main aim of the KONKAN 06 exercise was to enhance interoperability and share procedures, tactics and manoeuvres between the Royal Navy and our Indian counterparts The Indian Naval Sea Harriers that took part in the KONKAN 06 successfully carried out air defence manoeuvres and also operated along side Royal Naval Harrier GR7s carrying out power projection exercises on simulated targets. Tha»embarkation of Indian Navy Sea Harriers on HMS Illustrious was a pre-planned part of the KONKAN 06 exercise and was intended to enhance mutual cooperation and experience. It was not a hastily-arranged work around to 'allow the exercise to continue' as you suggest. All of the various objectives of the exercise were met and overall KONKAN 06 was a complete success.

You may be aware that the final event of the exercise included a Visitors Day, in which 40 distinguished guests, both service and civilian, were hosted on board HMS Illustrious. During this event they were able to witness various exercises and were also able to enjoy a flying display by the RAF Red Arrows Team.

The Visitors Day, combined with HMS Illustrious' attendance at a Defence Industrial Day, provided an extremely good opportunity to showcase the effectiveness of the Royal Navy, its assets and UK defence products and services. I can assure you the exercise not only significantly enhanced our navy-to-navy relations but was also very valuable in helping to continue to build upon wider Indian UK bi-lateral relations.

I hope you find this information of interest"

:ugh: :(