Sea Jet

[Nozzles]

Vectoredthrust's post hits the nail squarely on the head. People who don't know what they're talking about need to stop mentioning GR9/ASRAAM in the same sentence as the phrase 'Air Defence'.

[FEBA]

Thank you nozzles. When you say people I'm sure you mean person.

Jack
I trawled through the last 17 pages and I can confirm I have not mentioned the Falklands once. Someone else may have said it in a quote on one of my posts (Sir Tim Garden) but not me.

You did mention this, got any more ideas !

Were it possible to guarantee the availability of two carriers simultaneously, FEBA's two carrier solution would be interesting, since a two-carrier group could do both roles simultaneously, making it useful.

Now as for being delicate and insulting you said this

What, like your mix of outdated Cold War paranoia, your Little Englander
isolationism ('send a gunboat'), your single service obsessive selfishness,
your inability to recognise the realities of a restricted budget and a
changed world, your inability to answer what I'll admit are hard questions
about cost effectiveness, and your constant harping on about the Falklands
(which are already protected by land-based AD)..........

Quite rude I'd say.
FEBA


And now the opposition join in the debate

Jenkin Speech

FEBA

[Jackonicko]

GR9 + RAP (AEW/AWACS via JTIDS) + ASRAAM = a limited AD capability against certain types of threat.

More capable, in some circumstances, than a non JTIDS, 9L armed FRS.Mk 1....

[Magic Mushroom]

Back from a couple of weeks away, and I cannot believe that this thread is still going!!! Oh my mistake, yes I can!

FEBA

Ref AEW/AWACS: As far as the RAF and US (and to a lesser extent the NATO and French) AWACS fleets go, AD is now a very minor and frankly insignificant part of what we do today. We are far more closely involved in C2 of strike attack assets and their integration with land and maritime forces. These days we talk more to guys on the ground than we do to Tornado F3s and F-15Cs.

Likewise the USN E-2C and updated RN Sea King Air Surveillance and Control (ASaC) Mk 7 are becoming more involved in littoral ops and assets that they would not have dreamed of 10 years ago.

In short, today we are battle managers not just providers of Airborne Early Warning.

Jacko,

GR9 + RAP (AEW/AWACS via JTIDS) + ASRAAM = a limited AD capability against certain types of threat.

Just one minor snaggett: The GR9 currently has neither ASRAAM or JTIDS. I'm still led to believe that it'll get the missile, but JTIDS is another issue. Even assuming that it does get both, there is a BIG gap between the ASRAAM BVR capabilities and those of the AMRAAM. Again, AMRAAM is a major loss to the RN.

Regards,
M2

[Jackonicko]

Don't get me wrong, of course ASRAAM is no AIM-120. But it's much more than an AIM-9.

My understanding this week is that GR9 will get neither ASRAAM, nor JTIDS, nor HMS. And if it does get ASRAAM it will be some F3-style half-ar$ed non digital integration.

But none of those things are technically difficult....

[Vectoredthrust]

GR9 + no ASRAAM or JTIDS.

I think therefore that equals no credible fleet AD then!

[Jackonicko]

Yes, without spending a small amount of money, and as long as you're prepared to ignore (for example)

Harrier II Plus + APG-65 + AIM-120
F/A-18 + APG-73 + AIM-120
F-14 + AWG-9 + AIM-7 + AIM-54
F-15 + APG-63 + AIM-120
Tornado F3 + Foxhunter + SkyFlash (+AIM-120.....?)

During the six year gap there will be credible friendly assets capable of fulfilling the role.....

[we branch fantastic]

I think the F3 should be phased out, I hear that it is not very good. In fact, why have an Air Force when there are credible friendly assets capable of fulfilling the role. Probably don't need an army or Navy either as there are credible friendly assets capable of fulfilling the role.

Why aren't literary Jounalists phased out as TV is much faster, more interesting and more capable than that old fashioned writing stuff! It wouldn't matter if we didn't have any organic journalism in the UK as there will be credible friendly assets capable of fulfilling the role!

[Nozzles]

Nimrod + RAP + AIM-9L also=a limited AD capability against certain types of threat.

Square wheels=a limited mobility capability for a car on certain surfaces. Let's all wordplay with the word 'limited' shall we?

BTW, why are we comparing GR9 with an aircraft that no longer exists in the Brit inventory? You might as well have said that it has a greater AD capability, in certain circumstances, than the Spitfire.

Gotta go guys-I'm off to TLP. Probably spend my time being shot down by GR7s......Rrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiightttt.

[A Civilian]

we branch fantastic

And with that methink's this thread will come to an end



Dr Watson: Holmes, did you see this, someones impersonating WEBF.
Sherlock Holmes: Watson, didnt I tell you to stop smoking my opium pipe

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Continued.....

Jacko, you ask what nation "Nation X" would be. That is a very good question. Then again, in the seventies and seemingly right up until April 1982 nobody seemed to think the Argentine threat to the Falklands was real. In fact, we had been happy to sell them weapons - many of which they then use against us. Likewise, the possible threat to Kuwait from Saddam was downplayed until August 1990. In an increasingly unstable world, who can predict the threats in the future?

Coups, changes of Government by other means, civil unrest, civil wars and economic/political circumstances may cause a friendly nation to become hostile, or cause a potential ally to become unhelpful.

Nations which fall into this category (those that may well decide to harass, attack or stop shipping to gain politico-military leverage) may include: Nigeria, Argentina, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Yemen (note they have a Red Sea coast and part of the western end is in between Yemen and Somalia and well away from anywhere friendly forces could be based) and Indonesia. The status of the United Kingdom as a former colonial power and as a very close ally of the Americans may make us vulnerable to attacks on UK shipping or other assests. This is why we need to be able to operate anywhere.....

On another note, host nation support cannot be taken for granted or relied upon. This was one of the conculsions of the initial MOD report into recent operations in the Gulf. I can't remember the title but it can be found on the MOD website.

The gap left between the early demise of the Sea Harrier and JSF (and CVF) is likely to be longer than six years - some commentators have said TEN years. Unfortunately this period is when there is a capability gap between the phasing out of the Type 42 Destroyers (which have obsolecence issues with Sea Dart) and the introduction of the Type 45, and now the Type 45 (which Ministers claimed would help fill the gap) has been delayed by several years.

So it would be down to relying on either land based aircraft or carrier based fighters from an ally. If host nation support was there, and they were prepared to have British (or other) COMBAT (as opposed to support) aircraft based on their soil it would be possible. The reason I mention this is that Chile gave the UK various types of help in the Falklands, but would have been less than happy had we wanted to base Phantoms there to take the Argentine aircraft out as they took off!

The reductions in RAF aircraft numbers that have happened over the last decade or so, and other commitments (both in theatre and all over the world) may make it difficult to maintain a constant CAP ahead of a naval task group. Keeping them on land until they are needed (aircraft numbers were limited, say) would mean that it would take time to get to place that they are needed - what if the task force is 400 miles from where the fighters are based, but only 100 miles from the enemy air bases? Given the littoral nature of things these days it could happen.

If we are operating with allies with carrier based fighters then the situation would be different. The US Navy could provide defence, however a 24/7 CAP would be asking them for a major commitment to allow us to provide a minor contribution to offensive forces. With our French, Spanish or Italian allies there would be different problems. Leaving politics aside, the smaller numbers of aircraft raises the issue of whether they could defend OUR task group as well as THEIR own.

If only we had our own carrierborne fighters with BVR capability....

More and more nations are aquiring air launched anti ship missiles. These missiles are getting faster (many supersonic), have longer ranges, and are getting smarter (chaff discrimators etc). The only reliable method of defeating them is preventing the aircaft from getting in firing range. The only system the Royal Navy has for doing this is the Sea Harrier.

As Jacko points out it comes down to funding. The UK Armed Forces as a whole are underfunded, undermanned and overstretched.

I don't know if any of you have read my links (which should help put these issues in context) but here is another, written by a professional officer, as opposed to my posts which are written by an uneducated, untrained and semi literate [BLANK].

Stocker, Autumn 1998

[BlueWolf]

we branch fantastic, poor form. Go away and come back with a real name if you have anything of value to add to the debate.

[FEBA]

Nozzles
Remarkable post. I hope the GR7's didn't get you.
Square wheels most definately = reduced mobility, but you could probably slide this vehicle down the defence cut back slope as a pretence to some form of meaningful military operation.
Trouble is the MOD are removing the square wheels. Probably to pay for bigger square wheels for the Asylum seekers bus or the 23 billion that the railways need to pay for a better system that no one will ride on. Gggrrrrr !!!

Some more cost savings for you
Littoral Ops - P&O ferries
RN devolve -
Fisheries protection - Safeway
Submarines - Disney and Buena Vista productions
CVS - Cunard
Maritime protection - RNLI

RAF
AAR - Shell Aviation
Transport - Easy Jet (MOD would have to book in advance for the cheapest seats)
AD - Hunting Aviation
Maintenance - Airfix
Catering - Happy Eater
Finance for all of above - Barclays bank Matt Barrett

To book your first Royal Navy cruise contact Navaleye.

[Jackonicko]

FEBA,
Ah. First it was the harping on about 'Britain's place in the world' and our international importance and influence. Now it's the evils of funding asylum seekers and public transport. And you still can't answer the substantive case for early withdrawal of Shar.

WEBF,
At least you're trying to conduct a sensible debate.

Many analysts foresaw Argentina's interest in the Falklands, and the Endurance fiasco made invasion inevitable and obvious to all. Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait was hardly any more surprising to those paid to predict such things either.

I think you're stretching it a bit to see either Argentina or Nigeria as realistic threats within our timescale, and in any event, with MPA available we do have land based AD cover in the South Atlantic, these days. I'll leave you to pore over your Times Atlas to see the potential host nations for ops against any of your other candidates.

You make a good point in underlining the difference between basing combat and support aircraft in third party countries, but historically, most host nations have drawn a distinction between offensive and defensive aircraft, not between combat and non combat, thus Tornado F3s have been used from Saudi bases while GR4s have sometimes had to operate from elsewhere.

The ability to sustain a 24/7 CAP (several, ideally, in order to cover multiple threat axes and to cope with multiple raids) would be marvellous of course. But how many SHars do you think would be required to guarantee the availability required to do that for one 24 hour period, let alone longer? What else could a carrier with that number of Shars actually achieve? And do you send them off with two AIM-120s, or four? If it's hot, and you've sent them out with four, then every time they come back they'll probably have to jettison two to get back to landing weight. What's that? You can't jettison an AIM-120 from a SHar? Then you'll have to fire it, with all the attendant difficulties and dangers that implies...... And lest you think I'm over-egging this pudding, I'm assured that this has actually happened, or that it came very close to happening.

Nozzles,
Yes, limited, and no that's not 'wordplay'.

GR9 + ASRAAM + RAP would, for example, represent a credible AD solution to the threat posed by, for example Nigeria. Which might be able to get its AA-2 armed MiG-21s into the air. On a good day. Of the 'threat' countries listed by WEBF, only Ethiopia and Yemen have a robust BVR missile capability.

[FEBA]

Jackonicko you old prince of darkness, you.
Take your tongue and stick it firmly in your cheek. Lighten up, abstract yourself from this thread for a second or two and consider; is this about Jacko v the rest or is it about the concerns that a lot of other people have for the national interest.

Now when I see a substantive case for the withdrawal of the SHar I will consider it and, may even respond to it.

Have a nice day mate
Cheers
FEBA

[ComJam]

Jacko, I'm afraid your pudding is all eggs-Unless it happened in the last 2 weeks (I've been out of touch) your source is inaccurate. In the good old days, we would NEVER launch from the ship in such conditions that we would have to plan to jettison AAMs in order to land. And 4 rammers only weigh 1400lb. I've done it in v hot conditions in the Gulf....just didn't have a great deal of gas left. So it would only occur in an emergency situation. I can't imagine that policy changing. As for jettisoning A-G ordnance in order to land at high temperatures, do you know of any other navy that recovers FJs onto the deck with bombs on board, at any temperature?

FEBA....you sound like you have a contact inside the Procurement executive..............

[FEBA]

ComJam

FEBA

[Magic Mushroom]

Comjam,
Just because I like to create trouble and act as devils advocate...

As for jettisoning A-G ordnance in order to land at high temperatures, do you know of any other navy that recovers FJs onto the deck with bombs on board, at any temperature?

Err, yes! USN: FA-18E/F in Gulf during TELIC.

I'll get my coat!

Regards,
M2

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Jacko - I am a bit of a pedantic t!t so here are some comments in reply to your response my last post...

Firstly yes I was aware that the Argentine threat to the Falklands had been predicted prior to April 1982. The point is the inteligence and warning signs were ignored by the politicians. Likewise Kuwait prior to August 1990. What matters is what political leaders base their actions on, and what actions result.

As for a potential threat from Argentina, there is still a residual threat to the Falklands. As you say there are four Tornado F3s there, but are these intended to provided a realistic defence on their own or would it be expected to send reinforcements? The Argentines could try to blockade the islands, which would probably need a maritime task force with organic air defence to sort it out...

I mentioned Nigeria because of the Colonial past, the religous and ethnic conflicts and the oil resources. I seem to remember that during the deployment of UK forces to Sierra Leone the Nigerians were not too happy with the presence of British forces. What if they had tried to prevent our forces from using helicopters by using their MiGs? It is interesting that you made mention of Ethiopia having a BVR capability. Unlikely to be a threat to the West unless they decided to start attacking shipping using Eritrean ports OR attacking passing oil tankers (an easy target).

ConJam suggests that landing with four AMRAAMs in the Gulf is possible and I believe him! However if exceptionally hot conditions mean that only two can be carried then surely that is better than NONE. Also could a pair of Sidewinders be carried in place of the second pair of AMRAAM?

There has been a lot of discussion about the issue of the loss of AMRAAM capability, but nobody seems to have discussed the implications of losing the asset of a fighterborne radar. The Sea Harrier's Blue Vixen, in addition to allowing full fighter tactics and providing AMRAAM capability, extends the range of a task group's observation considerably (compared with ship based radars or limited AEW/ASACS assets). This would possibly be more of a capability had the planned upgrade gone ahead and JTIDS been fitted. The GR9 will have no radar, not Blue Vixen, not APG 65, nor anything else.

For a task force at war, the loss of the radar capability caused by the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier is probably as serious (perhaps more so) as the loss of AMRAAM capability.

[BEagle]

No radar, no BVR missile capability?

Sounds like we're back to the days of the Scimitar. But at least that flew off proper carriers, even if it wasn't much use for anything.