Sea Jet
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
magic mushroom
yes the arguments have been put before. But its a little more difficult for CNN to report the take off of strike packages from a carrier than from a fixed base eg Avaino during the Kosovo air campaign. And RM FPG with Lynx supprort could deal with a trawler
to find a fixed air base you don't even need to go to a comercial satelite imagry there are numerous reference works that pinpoint every airfield on the planet
didn't the RAF inform the labour govt in the 1960's it could provide air support anywhere on the planet using a map that moved australia 800 miles east? which influenced the decision to run down the RN carrier force
CVN's carry AEW asseets and ELINT assets in the form of Hawkeye, Prowler and Viking(yes the ES-3 has been retired bad move USN)
And to facilitate thease long range missions the USAF routinely give pilots Drugs that have been implicated in mistakes.
I agree carriers are not the be all and end all of avation but neither is eurofighter. The UK should never have given up coventional carriers.
And I agree instead of FA2 we should have gone down the road of a Harrier II/ Blue Vixen combination and I would sugest the FAA would have more pilots if they had deceided to invest in the FAA. But again it comes down to rivalry and RAF empire building.
The way things are going to work out is maybe and its a big maybe the RN will get their carrier & maybe JSF stvol will survive(if it doesn't then the RN is screwed) but there won't be enough surface escorts to deploy it.
yes the arguments have been put before. But its a little more difficult for CNN to report the take off of strike packages from a carrier than from a fixed base eg Avaino during the Kosovo air campaign. And RM FPG with Lynx supprort could deal with a trawler
to find a fixed air base you don't even need to go to a comercial satelite imagry there are numerous reference works that pinpoint every airfield on the planet
didn't the RAF inform the labour govt in the 1960's it could provide air support anywhere on the planet using a map that moved australia 800 miles east? which influenced the decision to run down the RN carrier force
CVN's carry AEW asseets and ELINT assets in the form of Hawkeye, Prowler and Viking(yes the ES-3 has been retired bad move USN)
And to facilitate thease long range missions the USAF routinely give pilots Drugs that have been implicated in mistakes.
I agree carriers are not the be all and end all of avation but neither is eurofighter. The UK should never have given up coventional carriers.
And I agree instead of FA2 we should have gone down the road of a Harrier II/ Blue Vixen combination and I would sugest the FAA would have more pilots if they had deceided to invest in the FAA. But again it comes down to rivalry and RAF empire building.
The way things are going to work out is maybe and its a big maybe the RN will get their carrier & maybe JSF stvol will survive(if it doesn't then the RN is screwed) but there won't be enough surface escorts to deploy it.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NURSE,
During many recent air campaigns, CNN et al hired helos and light aircraft to find and film carrier ops in international waters. This is why the USN now allow such agencies to film ops live from the deck (as was done in Afghanistan and Iraq). And unfortunately whilst a RM/Lynx can harrass a trawler, if it's in international waters, they can do absolutely diddly squat about it.
With reference to RAF/RN politics in the sixties, I am led to believe that this did indeed occur. However, the RN's manoeuvering to secure the nuclear deterrent was probably more of a factor in the RN conventional fleet being slashed. Certainly it is wrong to suggest that the RAF is alone in empirical protection or construction. The navy has been just as guilty regarding this. Regrettably, over the last 40 years, I dread to think how much such wrangling between the light and dark blue has cost UK defence as a whole. All we have done is hurt each other. If it had not been such inter service stupidity, both the RAF and RN would have had a supersonic STOVL capability in the late sixties (the P1154) rather than in 2015.
Turning now to the capabilities of the USN carrier based ac. The E-2C is virtually useless overland or anything more than a few hundred miles from the carrier. They do not have have endurance, sensors, comms/data link fit or mission crew to do what is required in modern ops. In all recent ops over Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, the E-2C was either not used or was alocated bit parts such as check in freqs. And even then it was often forward deployed to land bases.
Likewise, the EA-6B and S-3B can in no way be described as a SIGINT assets. I would agree that the ES-3 variant (of which I was lucky enough to fly in one in 94) was a huge loss to the USN given that it had a capable SIGINT suite whilst retaining the S-3B's APS-137 radar, EO fit and AAR capability. And incidentally, USN/USMC aircrew use the same go/no-go drugs as USAF aircrew given that fatigue levels involved in extended carrier flying are considerably greater than land based ops.
I agree that Typhoon is not a panacea, nor have I ever suggested otherwise. As I've stated before, most RAF types would have rather purchased F-15E 15 years ago. That would have given us a capability that in many cases equals and in some respects surpasses Typhoon over 10 years ago. But the military do not control procurement. The politicians do. Buying anything other than Eurofighter would have killed both the UK and European aerospace industries. And that is never going to be allowed to happen.
Likewise, UK PLC didn't want to lose it's shipbuilding capability. But we simply didn't have the money to maintain both Polaris/Trident and a conventional carrier force.
Regards,
M2
During many recent air campaigns, CNN et al hired helos and light aircraft to find and film carrier ops in international waters. This is why the USN now allow such agencies to film ops live from the deck (as was done in Afghanistan and Iraq). And unfortunately whilst a RM/Lynx can harrass a trawler, if it's in international waters, they can do absolutely diddly squat about it.
With reference to RAF/RN politics in the sixties, I am led to believe that this did indeed occur. However, the RN's manoeuvering to secure the nuclear deterrent was probably more of a factor in the RN conventional fleet being slashed. Certainly it is wrong to suggest that the RAF is alone in empirical protection or construction. The navy has been just as guilty regarding this. Regrettably, over the last 40 years, I dread to think how much such wrangling between the light and dark blue has cost UK defence as a whole. All we have done is hurt each other. If it had not been such inter service stupidity, both the RAF and RN would have had a supersonic STOVL capability in the late sixties (the P1154) rather than in 2015.
Turning now to the capabilities of the USN carrier based ac. The E-2C is virtually useless overland or anything more than a few hundred miles from the carrier. They do not have have endurance, sensors, comms/data link fit or mission crew to do what is required in modern ops. In all recent ops over Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, the E-2C was either not used or was alocated bit parts such as check in freqs. And even then it was often forward deployed to land bases.
Likewise, the EA-6B and S-3B can in no way be described as a SIGINT assets. I would agree that the ES-3 variant (of which I was lucky enough to fly in one in 94) was a huge loss to the USN given that it had a capable SIGINT suite whilst retaining the S-3B's APS-137 radar, EO fit and AAR capability. And incidentally, USN/USMC aircrew use the same go/no-go drugs as USAF aircrew given that fatigue levels involved in extended carrier flying are considerably greater than land based ops.
I agree that Typhoon is not a panacea, nor have I ever suggested otherwise. As I've stated before, most RAF types would have rather purchased F-15E 15 years ago. That would have given us a capability that in many cases equals and in some respects surpasses Typhoon over 10 years ago. But the military do not control procurement. The politicians do. Buying anything other than Eurofighter would have killed both the UK and European aerospace industries. And that is never going to be allowed to happen.
Likewise, UK PLC didn't want to lose it's shipbuilding capability. But we simply didn't have the money to maintain both Polaris/Trident and a conventional carrier force.
Regards,
M2
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M2
"The E-2C is virtually useless overland or anything more than a few hundred miles from the carrier. They do not have have endurance, sensors, comms/data link fit or mission crew to do what is required in modern ops. In all recent ops over Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, the E-2C was either not used or was alocated bit parts such as check in freqs. And even then it was often forward deployed to land bases."
This statement is not correct and in an open forum like this one will lead unenlightened people to the wrong conclusions. The E2 does have its limitations certainly however it is far more capable than your post makes out and has proved these capabilities on numerous occasions, especially recently in OIF.
Being allocated bit parts such as check in is just untrue, especially recently.
I assume you are an E3 guy therefore you should have some familiarity with the Hawkeye; if so and you believe your post to be correct you cant have been working together much.
Oggin
"The E-2C is virtually useless overland or anything more than a few hundred miles from the carrier. They do not have have endurance, sensors, comms/data link fit or mission crew to do what is required in modern ops. In all recent ops over Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, the E-2C was either not used or was alocated bit parts such as check in freqs. And even then it was often forward deployed to land bases."
This statement is not correct and in an open forum like this one will lead unenlightened people to the wrong conclusions. The E2 does have its limitations certainly however it is far more capable than your post makes out and has proved these capabilities on numerous occasions, especially recently in OIF.
Being allocated bit parts such as check in is just untrue, especially recently.
I assume you are an E3 guy therefore you should have some familiarity with the Hawkeye; if so and you believe your post to be correct you cant have been working together much.
Oggin
Last edited by Oggin Aviator; 12th Dec 2003 at 12:34.
So useful, in fact, that there was pressure to leave them off certain Air Wings altogether for OIF and for the Afghan bunfight...... as they are beginning to do with S-3s.
My source? The CO of one of the active VAWs, a current serving CAG, and a current serving CVN commander.
My source? The CO of one of the active VAWs, a current serving CAG, and a current serving CVN commander.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
platforms like EA6 do have a sigint capability as well as an attack capability.
The S3 and carrier fixed wing antisubmarine community are being run down in the process of getting to a single type support aircraft or relying on land based assets which then undermines the whole point of a carrier group ie its independant an fairley self sufficient. Look at the British experience in the Falklands yes sentry could operate there now but can it operate with out c.a.p?
the threat from subs has diminished but not gone away and it probably will take a USN warship to be torpedoed for the pentagon to remember how dangerous subs are and how useful the viking is along with all its other capabilities. Viking can also be used as a sigint platform. Not on the scale of aeriesII , Rivet joint or nimrod but it does have some limited capability as do most aircraft.
And E2 is better than nothing and certainly alot better than sea King AEW6.
The USN operating over Afganistan have had to rely on land based tankers from a alot of Nations and the USAF has realised it need to put drogue refueling on its tankers. but again its taking capability of the ships and relying on land based aircraft to provide support. If the USN continues to run down its supprot aircraft then what is the point of having carriers?
The S3 and carrier fixed wing antisubmarine community are being run down in the process of getting to a single type support aircraft or relying on land based assets which then undermines the whole point of a carrier group ie its independant an fairley self sufficient. Look at the British experience in the Falklands yes sentry could operate there now but can it operate with out c.a.p?
the threat from subs has diminished but not gone away and it probably will take a USN warship to be torpedoed for the pentagon to remember how dangerous subs are and how useful the viking is along with all its other capabilities. Viking can also be used as a sigint platform. Not on the scale of aeriesII , Rivet joint or nimrod but it does have some limited capability as do most aircraft.
And E2 is better than nothing and certainly alot better than sea King AEW6.
The USN operating over Afganistan have had to rely on land based tankers from a alot of Nations and the USAF has realised it need to put drogue refueling on its tankers. but again its taking capability of the ships and relying on land based aircraft to provide support. If the USN continues to run down its supprot aircraft then what is the point of having carriers?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
Pressure from whom? Not the CO's of the CVN I'm sure.
The S-3's demise has been planned with the Hornet taking its refuelling duties and presumably the Seahawk its anti surface role. Its a shame because it is a very capable platform, just old.
OEF is not a good example of the utility of these platforms as geographically it suits land based assets and even I would agree it is probably not the best place to use Carrier assets, but they did.
Nurse
Sea King AEW Mk 6?
Pressure from whom? Not the CO's of the CVN I'm sure.
The S-3's demise has been planned with the Hornet taking its refuelling duties and presumably the Seahawk its anti surface role. Its a shame because it is a very capable platform, just old.
OEF is not a good example of the utility of these platforms as geographically it suits land based assets and even I would agree it is probably not the best place to use Carrier assets, but they did.
Nurse
Sea King AEW Mk 6?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oggin,
Sorry, but I do not agree.
I am indeed an E-3 type. However, I have flown several times in E-2Cs and have worked operationally with USN and French E-2Cs during Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, and with Singaporean E-2Cs on exercise. I am also good friends with several RAF officers who have done the E-2C exchange at Norfolk, Va.
I'm not sure if you're one of the RN exchange types on the E-2C, however, please do not get me wrong. The E-2C is still the most capable naval AEW platform in the world. It is an excellent platform for blue water and (to a lessor extent) littoral AEW ops. Its operators do a fantastic job and know how to work USN air assets very well. However the inevitable constraints of only having 3 operators and such a limited comms fit alone mean that it is marginalised in most modern ops, and cannot do a true C2 role.
In Bosnia and Kosovo it rarely ventured beyond Force Marshall duties. When it did do short periods of 'ABCCC' for the USN packages in Kosovo, it very quickly became task saturated. During OEF, its endurance, inability to climb above weather and terrain factors again counted against it.
I would agree that in OIF it was more heavily involved in the Northern Arabia Gulf/S Iraq and Northern ops. Here, it could operate closer to mother and the terrain was far less of a factor (in the south anyway). However, these ops were minute in their scope when compared to those of each of the E-3s in the 3 permanent southern orbits. When E-2C cover was unavailable, their task was quickly absorbed by an E-3.
Perhaps that I should have qualified my original comments by saying that the E-2C is severely limited 'in comparison' to AWACS. However, having spoken with former E-2C operators today, they agree with the overall tone of my post.
In fairness, things will improve. The proposed Advanced Hawkeye 2000 will get a fourth operator in a 'missionised' cockpit, AAR, and its sensors will be a huge improvement in overland capability. But assets such as the E-3 and Aussie Wedgetail will remain the C2 asset of choice in future ops.
Nevertheless, I hope that equal investment is placed in a suitable AEW&C capability for CVF. I doubt that the reduced size of the QE class will be able to cope with the E-2C. However, hopefully 849 can replace its Sea King ASaC7s with an Osprey based system.
Nurse,
See my PM ref EA-6Bs and S-3Bs.
Yourself and Oggin are correct to regret the demise of USN support assets such as the S-3B. Whilst the Super Hornet boys have reluctantly picked up the AAR role from the S-3, this will place even more reliance on land based combat support. It's a huge shame that the proposed USN Common Support Aircraft (CSA) replacement for the S-3, E-2 and C-2 came to nothing. Bring back the KA-3 Whale and KA-6D! However, carrier aviation is VERY expensive, and something has to give...even for the USN.
Finally Nursey, I would actually suggest that in some ways the new RN Sea King ASaC7 is more capable than the current E-2C. At least that has a decent Pulse Doppler capability over land, and what 849 did in TELIC was excellent, ground breaking stuff.
And I'd be perfectly happy operating in an E-3D without CAP over the Falklands...
Regards,
M2
Sorry, but I do not agree.
I am indeed an E-3 type. However, I have flown several times in E-2Cs and have worked operationally with USN and French E-2Cs during Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, and with Singaporean E-2Cs on exercise. I am also good friends with several RAF officers who have done the E-2C exchange at Norfolk, Va.
I'm not sure if you're one of the RN exchange types on the E-2C, however, please do not get me wrong. The E-2C is still the most capable naval AEW platform in the world. It is an excellent platform for blue water and (to a lessor extent) littoral AEW ops. Its operators do a fantastic job and know how to work USN air assets very well. However the inevitable constraints of only having 3 operators and such a limited comms fit alone mean that it is marginalised in most modern ops, and cannot do a true C2 role.
In Bosnia and Kosovo it rarely ventured beyond Force Marshall duties. When it did do short periods of 'ABCCC' for the USN packages in Kosovo, it very quickly became task saturated. During OEF, its endurance, inability to climb above weather and terrain factors again counted against it.
I would agree that in OIF it was more heavily involved in the Northern Arabia Gulf/S Iraq and Northern ops. Here, it could operate closer to mother and the terrain was far less of a factor (in the south anyway). However, these ops were minute in their scope when compared to those of each of the E-3s in the 3 permanent southern orbits. When E-2C cover was unavailable, their task was quickly absorbed by an E-3.
Perhaps that I should have qualified my original comments by saying that the E-2C is severely limited 'in comparison' to AWACS. However, having spoken with former E-2C operators today, they agree with the overall tone of my post.
In fairness, things will improve. The proposed Advanced Hawkeye 2000 will get a fourth operator in a 'missionised' cockpit, AAR, and its sensors will be a huge improvement in overland capability. But assets such as the E-3 and Aussie Wedgetail will remain the C2 asset of choice in future ops.
Nevertheless, I hope that equal investment is placed in a suitable AEW&C capability for CVF. I doubt that the reduced size of the QE class will be able to cope with the E-2C. However, hopefully 849 can replace its Sea King ASaC7s with an Osprey based system.
Nurse,
See my PM ref EA-6Bs and S-3Bs.
Yourself and Oggin are correct to regret the demise of USN support assets such as the S-3B. Whilst the Super Hornet boys have reluctantly picked up the AAR role from the S-3, this will place even more reliance on land based combat support. It's a huge shame that the proposed USN Common Support Aircraft (CSA) replacement for the S-3, E-2 and C-2 came to nothing. Bring back the KA-3 Whale and KA-6D! However, carrier aviation is VERY expensive, and something has to give...even for the USN.
Finally Nursey, I would actually suggest that in some ways the new RN Sea King ASaC7 is more capable than the current E-2C. At least that has a decent Pulse Doppler capability over land, and what 849 did in TELIC was excellent, ground breaking stuff.
And I'd be perfectly happy operating in an E-3D without CAP over the Falklands...
Regards,
M2
Last edited by Magic Mushroom; 13th Dec 2003 at 06:20.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Osprey now there would be a very bad move. Have they actually sorted out 1 the tech problems and 2 how much maintence it actually needs.
Discussed it with some RAF and RN types impression i got is the Royal Navy isn't rushing to buy osprey. The next big buy will be commando helecopters and the impression i was getting is osprey has been ruled out completley probable type will be merlin.
Discussed it with some RAF and RN types impression i got is the Royal Navy isn't rushing to buy osprey. The next big buy will be commando helecopters and the impression i was getting is osprey has been ruled out completley probable type will be merlin.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nursey,
You are correct that Tilt Rotor AEW would certainly be a bad move today as the technology if far from mature. However, the timescale for MASC is about 2015-20. I would hope that by then Osprey etc would be over its many problems.
Assuming that the revised size QE class is too small for the E-2C (and I stand ready to be corrected on that assumption), a Tilt-Rotor C2 platform would be the next best option. The altitude and dash of a fixed wing turbo prop, but without the deck requirements for launch and recovery.
Alternatively, stick the sensor on a UAV. But then you need to pay big bucks for data bandwidth!
Regards,
M2
You are correct that Tilt Rotor AEW would certainly be a bad move today as the technology if far from mature. However, the timescale for MASC is about 2015-20. I would hope that by then Osprey etc would be over its many problems.
Assuming that the revised size QE class is too small for the E-2C (and I stand ready to be corrected on that assumption), a Tilt-Rotor C2 platform would be the next best option. The altitude and dash of a fixed wing turbo prop, but without the deck requirements for launch and recovery.
Alternatively, stick the sensor on a UAV. But then you need to pay big bucks for data bandwidth!
Regards,
M2
Nurse/ Magic Mushroom - The threat of intelligence being gleaned by so called trawlers is nothing new. Depending on the situation I would have thought that it could be countered by COMSEC, EMCON (aircraft as well as ships), exclusion zones, warning off and ultimately boarding.
I have looked at the DPA website, but have been unable to find anything about MASC. I did however find the following....
849 NAS: Into
AEW in the RN
Now as you know, prior to the short sighted and shameful decision to retire the Sea Harrier early it was due to get an upgrade. As well as the new engine, various other things would have been fitted or improved. Full installation and integration of JTIDS would have been included. I remember looking at the websites of several companies that were due to be involved.
JTIDS would have allowed the Sea Harrier to operate very effectively with the JTIDS equipped Sea King ASaC7.
Someone (a PPRuNer, no less) stated that JTIDS was the most significant development for decades. Now it is being claimed that it is such an enhancement that it makes your aircraft much more effective (then the bean counters argue you need less of them - missing the oportunity to have the planned number of aircraft with the additional capabilities).
Anyway, one of the arguments has been that there are insufficent numbers of aircraft in the Sea Harrier units to be significant. Surely this would be less of an argument if JTIDS had been fitted as it would make it that much more effective?
Also wouldn't it be useful for the Navy to have a radar equipped fast jet for certain air/suface roles in an emergency (eg surface contacts just outside the radar horizon of the SKW)?
I have looked at the DPA website, but have been unable to find anything about MASC. I did however find the following....
849 NAS: Into
AEW in the RN
Now as you know, prior to the short sighted and shameful decision to retire the Sea Harrier early it was due to get an upgrade. As well as the new engine, various other things would have been fitted or improved. Full installation and integration of JTIDS would have been included. I remember looking at the websites of several companies that were due to be involved.
JTIDS would have allowed the Sea Harrier to operate very effectively with the JTIDS equipped Sea King ASaC7.
Someone (a PPRuNer, no less) stated that JTIDS was the most significant development for decades. Now it is being claimed that it is such an enhancement that it makes your aircraft much more effective (then the bean counters argue you need less of them - missing the oportunity to have the planned number of aircraft with the additional capabilities).
Anyway, one of the arguments has been that there are insufficent numbers of aircraft in the Sea Harrier units to be significant. Surely this would be less of an argument if JTIDS had been fitted as it would make it that much more effective?
Also wouldn't it be useful for the Navy to have a radar equipped fast jet for certain air/suface roles in an emergency (eg surface contacts just outside the radar horizon of the SKW)?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
Effective COMSEC/EMCON is a simple but nevertheless highly effective way of defeating many forms of passive detection. However, if a trawler is trailing a carrier no amount of such measures are going to stop the guy from seeing the aircraft launching. If the boat is in international waters and flying a flag of convenience, you cannot simply set up an exclusion zone, warn him off or board him.
With regards to JTIDS, this is indeed a massive increase in available SA. One of my most memorable dets in the RAF was watching 5 Sqn Tornado F3s (recieving a JTIDS picture from ourselves) demolish a much larger force of F-15Cs in Alaska during Ex Cope Thunder in 98 on a daily basis. The F-15Cs couldn't believe the difference that the Link 16 picture made to the F3s which were traditionally considered easy meat for the Eagles.
Even without E-3/SKW support JTIDS would have enabled far more complex SHAR tactics. As an example, elements do not have to remain visual, and can thereby sanitise a far larger portion of airspace. With a surveillance picture from a C2 asset, the aircrews SA is massively improved (as long as its an accurate picture!). Jets can also sit on deck alert watching the air battle develop on the link, before launching with far better SA.
Therefore, although there were big concerns about the effect of 'information overload' in the SHAR had it got JTIDS, it would have been a big leap in capability for the FAA.
And yes, SHARS could potentially do a surface search at long range. This tactic was described by Sharkey Ward in his book, even with the old FRS1. However, I would also say that the chances of there not being an available MPA or AWACS to do likewise in most modern scenarios (particularly littoral) is extremely doubtful.
Regards,
M2
Effective COMSEC/EMCON is a simple but nevertheless highly effective way of defeating many forms of passive detection. However, if a trawler is trailing a carrier no amount of such measures are going to stop the guy from seeing the aircraft launching. If the boat is in international waters and flying a flag of convenience, you cannot simply set up an exclusion zone, warn him off or board him.
With regards to JTIDS, this is indeed a massive increase in available SA. One of my most memorable dets in the RAF was watching 5 Sqn Tornado F3s (recieving a JTIDS picture from ourselves) demolish a much larger force of F-15Cs in Alaska during Ex Cope Thunder in 98 on a daily basis. The F-15Cs couldn't believe the difference that the Link 16 picture made to the F3s which were traditionally considered easy meat for the Eagles.
Even without E-3/SKW support JTIDS would have enabled far more complex SHAR tactics. As an example, elements do not have to remain visual, and can thereby sanitise a far larger portion of airspace. With a surveillance picture from a C2 asset, the aircrews SA is massively improved (as long as its an accurate picture!). Jets can also sit on deck alert watching the air battle develop on the link, before launching with far better SA.
Therefore, although there were big concerns about the effect of 'information overload' in the SHAR had it got JTIDS, it would have been a big leap in capability for the FAA.
And yes, SHARS could potentially do a surface search at long range. This tactic was described by Sharkey Ward in his book, even with the old FRS1. However, I would also say that the chances of there not being an available MPA or AWACS to do likewise in most modern scenarios (particularly littoral) is extremely doubtful.
Regards,
M2
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Infornmation overload in the SHARs with JTIDS on a 4" monochrome display was a worry. Fortunately the design work I helped with was carefully scripted to avoid the temptation to put in too many bells and whistles.
A simulator trial with FAA pilots proved the JTIDS displays concept a few years ago.
There were other benefits that the SHAR would also have received within the JTIDS upgrade (better than F3) which would have been an extremely useful package for the little grey BVR fighter.
Yes JTIDS is very impressive, almost a force multiplier!
A simulator trial with FAA pilots proved the JTIDS displays concept a few years ago.
There were other benefits that the SHAR would also have received within the JTIDS upgrade (better than F3) which would have been an extremely useful package for the little grey BVR fighter.
Yes JTIDS is very impressive, almost a force multiplier!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is just a pity that descisions to upgrade or replace wern't made in earlier. But unfortunatley the FAA/RAF harriers will not have airborne radar.
Could JTIDS be fitted to GR7/9 as a force multiplier?
Could JTIDS be fitted to GR7/9 as a force multiplier?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nursey,
I have no doubt that the GR9 will get JTIDS.
Within a few years, I would predict that Link 16 capability in a US led coalition will be the same that Mode 4 IFF was in GW1: Mandatory.
Regards,
M2
I have no doubt that the GR9 will get JTIDS.
Within a few years, I would predict that Link 16 capability in a US led coalition will be the same that Mode 4 IFF was in GW1: Mandatory.
Regards,
M2
Last edited by Magic Mushroom; 19th Dec 2003 at 06:16.
Supposedly now there is a Rear Admiral in charge of the Fleet Air Arm, but sadly Sea Jets and the aircraft that superseed them are not part of his brief:
Rear Admiral, Fleet Air Arm
The post of Flag Officer Maritime Aviation (FOMA) – most recently held by Rear Admiral Scott Lidbetter – was abolished on October 1, so he handed over his duties to the new Rear Admiral, Fleet Air Arm, Admiral Johns.
FOMA had the joint responsibility of commanding 3 Group at RAF Strike Command in High Wycombe, which included the Navy’s FA2 Sea Harrier force.
But a reshuffle of the command and jet units in the Forces – front-line control of the Sea Harriers now falls under the Royal Air Force, headed by an RAF officer – means that the post has gone and required the Navy to shake up its senior post in the air wing.
Also
Senior officers hope by using ‘Fleet Air Arm’ in the new title it will give fresh identity to a branch which makes up one fifth of the entire Royal Navy.
Capt Chris Palmer, senior staff officer at Fleet Air Arm headquarters in Portsmouth, said it was vital that the Naval air wing retained its sense of identity and tradition.
“There’s a perception that everything military which flies belongs to the RAF, and that Culdrose and Yeovilton are Royal Air Force bases,” he said.
Now what was it I said about public perceptions and the risk of less visible things being chopped quietly?
Rear Admiral, Fleet Air Arm
The post of Flag Officer Maritime Aviation (FOMA) – most recently held by Rear Admiral Scott Lidbetter – was abolished on October 1, so he handed over his duties to the new Rear Admiral, Fleet Air Arm, Admiral Johns.
FOMA had the joint responsibility of commanding 3 Group at RAF Strike Command in High Wycombe, which included the Navy’s FA2 Sea Harrier force.
But a reshuffle of the command and jet units in the Forces – front-line control of the Sea Harriers now falls under the Royal Air Force, headed by an RAF officer – means that the post has gone and required the Navy to shake up its senior post in the air wing.
Also
Senior officers hope by using ‘Fleet Air Arm’ in the new title it will give fresh identity to a branch which makes up one fifth of the entire Royal Navy.
Capt Chris Palmer, senior staff officer at Fleet Air Arm headquarters in Portsmouth, said it was vital that the Naval air wing retained its sense of identity and tradition.
“There’s a perception that everything military which flies belongs to the RAF, and that Culdrose and Yeovilton are Royal Air Force bases,” he said.
Now what was it I said about public perceptions and the risk of less visible things being chopped quietly?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
8 Posts
Just to clarify an earlier issue raised by our 'friendly' journo....discuss:
During RED FLAG 800 NAS were initially tasked to play both BLUE and RED air. However, the USAF percieved this as too difficult so the role of RED air was adopted working alongside the F-16C/Ds of the Aggressors for the two week exercise.
Throughout, all SHAR FA2s were in Heavy Weight fighter fit; aden cannons, 2 x 190 Gal tanks and 2 x AMRAAM. No problems were experienced with the temperature, approaching +40 Deg C, and the aircraft performed better than the Aggressors in the second week when AA-10C was simulated along with Canadian KC-130 tanker support.
And as for:
"Serious observation: Flying from a major air base, with full support, and with a higher number of support personnel per aircraft than they'd enjoy on board ship, six aircraft managed eight sorties per day."
There were infact less support personel than we would get on CVS, the support from the UK was limited at best and support from Nellis AFB had to be shared with the other 90 participants!! As for only managing 8 sorties, well Jacko if you'd ever been to FLAG that is what is tasked and usually involves people working 14-16 hour days given the briefing and de-briefing cycles!!!!
The biggest problem was not SHAR generated but that the scenario is still Cold War based with GCI controlling RED AIR with no autonomy. Mind you we still managed to take out most HVAA and the escorts, shows where the real talent is wouldn't you say?
During RED FLAG 800 NAS were initially tasked to play both BLUE and RED air. However, the USAF percieved this as too difficult so the role of RED air was adopted working alongside the F-16C/Ds of the Aggressors for the two week exercise.
Throughout, all SHAR FA2s were in Heavy Weight fighter fit; aden cannons, 2 x 190 Gal tanks and 2 x AMRAAM. No problems were experienced with the temperature, approaching +40 Deg C, and the aircraft performed better than the Aggressors in the second week when AA-10C was simulated along with Canadian KC-130 tanker support.
And as for:
"Serious observation: Flying from a major air base, with full support, and with a higher number of support personnel per aircraft than they'd enjoy on board ship, six aircraft managed eight sorties per day."
There were infact less support personel than we would get on CVS, the support from the UK was limited at best and support from Nellis AFB had to be shared with the other 90 participants!! As for only managing 8 sorties, well Jacko if you'd ever been to FLAG that is what is tasked and usually involves people working 14-16 hour days given the briefing and de-briefing cycles!!!!
The biggest problem was not SHAR generated but that the scenario is still Cold War based with GCI controlling RED AIR with no autonomy. Mind you we still managed to take out most HVAA and the escorts, shows where the real talent is wouldn't you say?
Last edited by DuckDodgers; 19th Dec 2003 at 20:36.
So the RN SHAR force is really good at what they do. Well I for one have never disputed it. It still won't stop you being axed though, along with much of the rest of the military if Gordon Brown has his way!
Gordon Brown hates the armed forces, he considers them a waste of money in peacetime, and doesn't understand why they suddenly need more money if they actually end up doing what he considers they are paid for in the first place.
Gordon Brown hates the armed forces, he considers them a waste of money in peacetime, and doesn't understand why they suddenly need more money if they actually end up doing what he considers they are paid for in the first place.
Suspicion breeds confidence
AIM9G vs AIM9L in the Falklands
I have been reading Rear Admiral Sandy Woodward’s second edition of his book “100 Days”. The version is significantly expanded over the first and is worth buying even if you have the earlier edition. He makes an interesting comment on the capability of the Shar and the AIM 9L along the lines of “The Sea Harrier would not have been effective without the AIM 9L”
Well, I’m not sure this is true. All the Shar kills were from the rear. On the (maybe one occasion) they were used head on they refused to work. This leads me to think that the older AIM 9G would probably have been just as effective in the role. Did the 9L make any real difference or was this just spin? Comments invited.
Well, I’m not sure this is true. All the Shar kills were from the rear. On the (maybe one occasion) they were used head on they refused to work. This leads me to think that the older AIM 9G would probably have been just as effective in the role. Did the 9L make any real difference or was this just spin? Comments invited.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well all of the contrary journos and the port swigging buffers at the MOD have all got it wrong. Did the IRA force an SDR re think in the way that islamic extremists have ?
Well when the political incentive for AQT and their oppos has gone how will we meet a UN request for military support when Kim Il Sun has nucked all of S Korea and it's airbases ??? Global
Stock market crash to follow - Armageddon out of here. Thanks Hoon and co. Nice one.
FEBA
Well when the political incentive for AQT and their oppos has gone how will we meet a UN request for military support when Kim Il Sun has nucked all of S Korea and it's airbases ??? Global
Stock market crash to follow - Armageddon out of here. Thanks Hoon and co. Nice one.
FEBA
Last edited by FEBA; 29th Dec 2003 at 17:42.
I remember reading recently (or did I hear it) a statement from a historian stating that the Royal Navy has not lost a war for several centuries.
It has always been able to deploy and fight. Being able to go anywhere where it is needed, possibly with little help or support from third parties, has always been a major part of the Navy's ethos.
Will the two above paragraphs still be true in a few years time?
It has always been able to deploy and fight. Being able to go anywhere where it is needed, possibly with little help or support from third parties, has always been a major part of the Navy's ethos.
Will the two above paragraphs still be true in a few years time?