Sea Jet
Suspicion breeds confidence
Apparently the Hawkeye 2000 is not yet out of the running for MASC. The problem with a helo based solutions is that it cannot accompany a strike, which makes it more defensive than offensive. It all depends on whethet Gordy Brown will cough up the wonga.
Everyone agrees that ISTAR assets are going to be even more important in the future. As such, carrier based ISTAR assets will key assets in an ampibious type operation - their organic nature means that there is not total reliance on small numbers of land based ISTAR (using the term in its wider sense) aircraft, which would probably have other roles.
Right now, the Sea King ASaCs7 operated by 849 NAS provides a level of capability that is a huge boost to our forces.
During the initial phases of Operation Telic it provided real time information on enemy ground forces. The assault on Al Faw was carried out primarily by British forces, with little heavy armour or artillery, and their was a counter attack involving tanks, APCs and self propelled guns. I heard a story that withdrawing was mentioned as the weather was causing problems with air support - the only real method of dealing with the situation. The SKW (incidentally why is it called that?) was able to identify a number of armoured vehicles, and enable attacks by TOW armed Lynxes from 847 NAS. Tragically seven lives and two aircraft were lost in an accident.
Recent NATO exercise have shown its value in other roles. Exercises Joint Winter and Blue Game both involved the SKW. As did the more recent major amphibious execise of the US coast.
The original reason that a radar was put on the side of a Sea King was to detect low flying aircraft and missiles (threats which still exist), and to extend the range of a task group' radar, and then direct Sea Harriers to deal with incoming aircraft.
The SDR planned that the Sea Harrier would not only remain in service until the advent of its succesor, but would get an upgrade which would have included JTIDS. The Sea Harrier with Blue Vixen and AMRAAM, linked to the SKW via JTIDS, and the number of frigates and destroyers the SDR intended (32 instead of 25 as the Govrnment says we can get by with now) would have provided an unprecendented level of anti air capability for future maritime task groups. and with things such as the Merlin an unprecedented level of defence against surface and submarine threats.
If only the SDR ha been implemented........and not watered down to give us smaller forces to deal with a more complex range of threats.....
On another note, whilst searching for the above links I came across this story from Navy News.
The later parts of that story illustrate the role of the carrier, and the Sea Harrier, in defence diplomacy. Being able to take part in exercises with friendly nations helps give us some influence on them, and build relationships. What sort of message is the MOD currently sending to our allies?
Right now, the Sea King ASaCs7 operated by 849 NAS provides a level of capability that is a huge boost to our forces.
During the initial phases of Operation Telic it provided real time information on enemy ground forces. The assault on Al Faw was carried out primarily by British forces, with little heavy armour or artillery, and their was a counter attack involving tanks, APCs and self propelled guns. I heard a story that withdrawing was mentioned as the weather was causing problems with air support - the only real method of dealing with the situation. The SKW (incidentally why is it called that?) was able to identify a number of armoured vehicles, and enable attacks by TOW armed Lynxes from 847 NAS. Tragically seven lives and two aircraft were lost in an accident.
Recent NATO exercise have shown its value in other roles. Exercises Joint Winter and Blue Game both involved the SKW. As did the more recent major amphibious execise of the US coast.
The original reason that a radar was put on the side of a Sea King was to detect low flying aircraft and missiles (threats which still exist), and to extend the range of a task group' radar, and then direct Sea Harriers to deal with incoming aircraft.
The SDR planned that the Sea Harrier would not only remain in service until the advent of its succesor, but would get an upgrade which would have included JTIDS. The Sea Harrier with Blue Vixen and AMRAAM, linked to the SKW via JTIDS, and the number of frigates and destroyers the SDR intended (32 instead of 25 as the Govrnment says we can get by with now) would have provided an unprecendented level of anti air capability for future maritime task groups. and with things such as the Merlin an unprecedented level of defence against surface and submarine threats.
If only the SDR ha been implemented........and not watered down to give us smaller forces to deal with a more complex range of threats.....
On another note, whilst searching for the above links I came across this story from Navy News.
The later parts of that story illustrate the role of the carrier, and the Sea Harrier, in defence diplomacy. Being able to take part in exercises with friendly nations helps give us some influence on them, and build relationships. What sort of message is the MOD currently sending to our allies?
Talking of exercises
Does anyone know how the Sea Harrier/801 NAS got on during Exercise Saif Sareea II back in 2001?
Was it a realistic scenario?
The only (relevent) references I can find are:
This from Janes
Brits and Omanis brandish their Swift Swords
This earlier thread
Was it a realistic scenario?
The only (relevent) references I can find are:
This from Janes
Brits and Omanis brandish their Swift Swords
This earlier thread
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 18th Sep 2004 at 18:19.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phew! It's taken me almost two hours (including dinner) to get through this thread - and interesting reading it is too - having been directed here from the Harrier.org.uk message boards.
It sems to me that what is needed is a <i>new</i> harrier although I agree that retiring the SHAR before it's replacement arrives is short-sighted in the extreme.
I don't like the JSF. I can't see the real advance that a fan has over lift jets except for it's 'fresh air' exhaust and I can't see why Vectored Thrust has been effectively abandoned since it's a well proven system.
Wouldn't it be great to see a new vectored engine from R.R. rather than a new version of the pegasus? Followed by a new aircraft? Yes, we all know THAT will never happen since britain doesn't seem to have an aircraft industry any more (I think I'll toddle off to Cosford this weekend and swear under my breath whilst staring at the TSR-2).
And, before I go, I'd like to say Wow! John Farley! Now if we can get Bill Gunston, Ian V. Hogg and Chris Foss to contribute I'll have seen all my favourite technical authors online!
It sems to me that what is needed is a <i>new</i> harrier although I agree that retiring the SHAR before it's replacement arrives is short-sighted in the extreme.
I don't like the JSF. I can't see the real advance that a fan has over lift jets except for it's 'fresh air' exhaust and I can't see why Vectored Thrust has been effectively abandoned since it's a well proven system.
Wouldn't it be great to see a new vectored engine from R.R. rather than a new version of the pegasus? Followed by a new aircraft? Yes, we all know THAT will never happen since britain doesn't seem to have an aircraft industry any more (I think I'll toddle off to Cosford this weekend and swear under my breath whilst staring at the TSR-2).
And, before I go, I'd like to say Wow! John Farley! Now if we can get Bill Gunston, Ian V. Hogg and Chris Foss to contribute I'll have seen all my favourite technical authors online!
Suspicion breeds confidence
I would add Roy Braybrook to your list of distinguished names... and welcome to one of the most interesting threads on PPRuNe, if I do say so myself.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pureteenlard
I’m sorry you don’t like the JSF. Many would probably agree with you.
But I am sad to say that if people want stealth and supersonics as well as a vertical landing then the Harrier concept cannot deliver the goods. It really is not much more complicated than that.
Forgive me if you appreciate the difference between subsonic and supersonic power plants (but even if you do some others may not)
A subsonic engine is designed to take in a lot of air and give it a modest velocity out the back. On the other hand a supersonic engine OF THE SAME THRUST takes in a small amount of air but gives it a huge velocity. The product of M x v (subsonic) and m x V (supersonic) being the same for both engines but the nature of their exhaust is naturally very different. Sadly you need to blow out the back very fast if you wish to fly forward very fast.
Imagine if you took the engine in any supersonic fighter as it was rolling along the runway on take off (ie reheat on) and pointed it vertically down at the ground from about 3 feet up. The blast and heat effects on the airframe would be intolerable to say nothing of what would happen to the tyres.
As you know the Harrier tyres are happy during VTO which should convince you that it is not that hot under a Pegasus. Indeed before the USMC took their first AV-8As to the ship the deck crews were in fear and trembling of getting blown overboard or set on fire. So I got them to tie down a Harrier with its nozzles aft and run it at full power while I walked through the jet exhaust just behind the tail. OK I had my helmet on with visor down and had to lean into the wind a tad but the point was made. Do not try that behind a supersonic donk.
As to the fan, it increases the weight you can hover (from a given engine) by some 25%. That is not a marginal improvement. Pure jet thrust is a very inefficient use of horsepower at low speed while a propeller (fan) is very good. When they coupled up the fan on the R-R LiftSystem (registered name for the kit in the JSF) on the smaller X-35 they lost 6,000lb of thrust from the rear jetpipe but got 16,000lb from the fan. ie a 10,000lb increase in hover capability seemingly ‘for free’. Its not free of course because you have to provide the fan etc but is a real efficiency improvement in hovering performance.
Me, I would have liked to do a Harrier III. I would not have bothered with supersonics and stealth for close air support, sorted out some better defensive measures, used FBW and no nozzle lever to eliminate specialist training and done the definitive hot country subsonic vertical lander that could do 0.9M on the deck when armed – but I am not the customer.
JF
I’m sorry you don’t like the JSF. Many would probably agree with you.
But I am sad to say that if people want stealth and supersonics as well as a vertical landing then the Harrier concept cannot deliver the goods. It really is not much more complicated than that.
Forgive me if you appreciate the difference between subsonic and supersonic power plants (but even if you do some others may not)
A subsonic engine is designed to take in a lot of air and give it a modest velocity out the back. On the other hand a supersonic engine OF THE SAME THRUST takes in a small amount of air but gives it a huge velocity. The product of M x v (subsonic) and m x V (supersonic) being the same for both engines but the nature of their exhaust is naturally very different. Sadly you need to blow out the back very fast if you wish to fly forward very fast.
Imagine if you took the engine in any supersonic fighter as it was rolling along the runway on take off (ie reheat on) and pointed it vertically down at the ground from about 3 feet up. The blast and heat effects on the airframe would be intolerable to say nothing of what would happen to the tyres.
As you know the Harrier tyres are happy during VTO which should convince you that it is not that hot under a Pegasus. Indeed before the USMC took their first AV-8As to the ship the deck crews were in fear and trembling of getting blown overboard or set on fire. So I got them to tie down a Harrier with its nozzles aft and run it at full power while I walked through the jet exhaust just behind the tail. OK I had my helmet on with visor down and had to lean into the wind a tad but the point was made. Do not try that behind a supersonic donk.
As to the fan, it increases the weight you can hover (from a given engine) by some 25%. That is not a marginal improvement. Pure jet thrust is a very inefficient use of horsepower at low speed while a propeller (fan) is very good. When they coupled up the fan on the R-R LiftSystem (registered name for the kit in the JSF) on the smaller X-35 they lost 6,000lb of thrust from the rear jetpipe but got 16,000lb from the fan. ie a 10,000lb increase in hover capability seemingly ‘for free’. Its not free of course because you have to provide the fan etc but is a real efficiency improvement in hovering performance.
Me, I would have liked to do a Harrier III. I would not have bothered with supersonics and stealth for close air support, sorted out some better defensive measures, used FBW and no nozzle lever to eliminate specialist training and done the definitive hot country subsonic vertical lander that could do 0.9M on the deck when armed – but I am not the customer.
JF
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Farley you hit the nail on the head, I don't think that supersonic flight is necessary but I do believe that stealth is desirable - not essential but desirable. I know that the fan signature of a Harrier must be not only large but also distinctive.
High subsonic speed, good acceleration, turn rate (instantaneous and sustained) and a useful range with a decent warload is absolutely essential plus a high spec avionics fit with an advanced IRST (I can imagine BVR air combat becoming similar to submarine combat i.e. try to be, figuratively speaking, as quiet as possible and listen very carefully for the enemy). Oh, and fit a gun or two. Of course that is only necessary in a fighter not a strike aircraft but since we're on a SHAR thread . . .
I'm afraid that all my knowledge of fast jets comes from one major source - "Faster than sound" by Bill Gunston and I know that he is extremely partisan on the subject of the Harrier. However, he does a good job of explaining the differences between turbojets and turbofans (and why the afterburner is so much more effective in the latter) and supersonic and subsonic installations of the same - inlets and nozzles have never been so interesting.
The main things I don't like about the JSF is the dead weight of the fan and the way that too much seems to have been sacrificed in the name of stealth - which according to Janes may be downgraded in aircraft that are sold to anyone other than US forces ( check here http://www.janes.com/aerospace/milit...0416_1_n.shtml ).
Finally, on the subject of having your jet exhaust and therefore your major IR source in the middle of your jet; is it such a handicap with modern imaging IR seekers? They seem a lot more sophisticated than simple chase the exhaust missiles.
High subsonic speed, good acceleration, turn rate (instantaneous and sustained) and a useful range with a decent warload is absolutely essential plus a high spec avionics fit with an advanced IRST (I can imagine BVR air combat becoming similar to submarine combat i.e. try to be, figuratively speaking, as quiet as possible and listen very carefully for the enemy). Oh, and fit a gun or two. Of course that is only necessary in a fighter not a strike aircraft but since we're on a SHAR thread . . .
I'm afraid that all my knowledge of fast jets comes from one major source - "Faster than sound" by Bill Gunston and I know that he is extremely partisan on the subject of the Harrier. However, he does a good job of explaining the differences between turbojets and turbofans (and why the afterburner is so much more effective in the latter) and supersonic and subsonic installations of the same - inlets and nozzles have never been so interesting.
The main things I don't like about the JSF is the dead weight of the fan and the way that too much seems to have been sacrificed in the name of stealth - which according to Janes may be downgraded in aircraft that are sold to anyone other than US forces ( check here http://www.janes.com/aerospace/milit...0416_1_n.shtml ).
Finally, on the subject of having your jet exhaust and therefore your major IR source in the middle of your jet; is it such a handicap with modern imaging IR seekers? They seem a lot more sophisticated than simple chase the exhaust missiles.
Pureteenlard
Two hours? I assume that included looking at all the links, yes? A close friend of mine read it in 15-20 minutes but she didn't look at the links and speed read it.Well done and thank you.
JF
Interesting comments on engines. But as regards stealth, surely any aircraft operating as a fighter with a powerful radar isn't stealthy? Or are we talking about reducing the radar cross section to make it less vulnerable to radar aimed/guided weapons?
Reading your other comments, I makes me wonder that perhaps as fewer types are being developed nowadays the ones that are have to try to be all things to all people?
Anyway, back to the main theme of the thread: Does anyone know how the Sea Harrier performed during Exercise Saif Sareea II? Surely someone must know........
Two hours? I assume that included looking at all the links, yes? A close friend of mine read it in 15-20 minutes but she didn't look at the links and speed read it.Well done and thank you.
JF
Interesting comments on engines. But as regards stealth, surely any aircraft operating as a fighter with a powerful radar isn't stealthy? Or are we talking about reducing the radar cross section to make it less vulnerable to radar aimed/guided weapons?
Reading your other comments, I makes me wonder that perhaps as fewer types are being developed nowadays the ones that are have to try to be all things to all people?
Anyway, back to the main theme of the thread: Does anyone know how the Sea Harrier performed during Exercise Saif Sareea II? Surely someone must know........
Suspicion breeds confidence
I re-read all 40 pages recently and it took me nearly 3 hours to do it properly. I take my hat off to JF, WEBF, Airborne aviator, Pr00ne, Jacko, Oggin Aviator, BEagle and the many many others that have contributed to this debate and have made this best forum to debate this subject. Its quality stuff gents. I for one think it is not yet over and will continue to contribute my 2p as and when I can. You don't get 40,000 hits on something that does not matter and this thread is by no means over.
Request to moderators:
Given the outstanding quality of the debate here, could I request that this thread is made sticky so newcomers can contribute without delving too hard. Its got 5 stars afterall.
Many thanks to all , Navaleye
Request to moderators:
Given the outstanding quality of the debate here, could I request that this thread is made sticky so newcomers can contribute without delving too hard. Its got 5 stars afterall.
Many thanks to all , Navaleye
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSII
I was there with a Bag flight and a Sea Jet squadron (801). We also had a Sqn of crab GR7s on board who took most of the limelight as usual. They also got very p*ssed off when we stole their precious 4 ft high tankard. Served them right for chaining it to a pillar in the Wardroom - they didnt realise there were such things as bolt croppers on a CVS. Pictures of the tankard all round the ship then appeared in their CO's inbox. He then demanded a sacrificial lamb to be Kangaroo Courted - we were forced to supply one. All they had to do was give us 2 bottles of champers for the tankards safe return. No sense of humour at all.
I don't think anyone will post any info on the FA2 in SSII. The exercise only lasted a few weeks and frankly I cant really remember much about it - they all fade into each other after a while. Events just before and during the exercise focussed the mind rather more sharply.
What I do remember was being booted off the ship (with the rest of the air group) in the wake of 9/11 and staying for 5 days in a hotel in S. Oman waiting for transport home. Which was nice. Thanks to N Lauda esq for flying me home in one of his 767s.
The ship (LUST) converted to the LPH role and went off on operations, the start of OEF - the normal air group got home a month and a half early.
Oggin
I don't think anyone will post any info on the FA2 in SSII. The exercise only lasted a few weeks and frankly I cant really remember much about it - they all fade into each other after a while. Events just before and during the exercise focussed the mind rather more sharply.
What I do remember was being booted off the ship (with the rest of the air group) in the wake of 9/11 and staying for 5 days in a hotel in S. Oman waiting for transport home. Which was nice. Thanks to N Lauda esq for flying me home in one of his 767s.
The ship (LUST) converted to the LPH role and went off on operations, the start of OEF - the normal air group got home a month and a half early.
Oggin
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread just isn't going to die is it?
The RAF lose all their Jags, some F3s and have to give up jets and a Sqn badge to accommodate the SHar boys. Where's the 40 page thread of dripping about that? You'd think this was the end of the world.
For what it's worth though - the RN do an awful lot of waxing lyrical about the devastating loss of air cover for their carriers. Yes it's a shame. Yes it's a loss of a capability. Yes the SHar radar's very good. But the USMC has operated LHAs/LHDs for a decade or so now with no amraam shooters for air cover. There are 3 Marine Expeditionary Units deployed around the world at all times - one in the Pacific, one in the Atlantic and one in Japan. A MEU generally consists of an Amphibious Ready Group of 3 ships - an LHA or LHD, and a couple of LPDs (or sometimes a frigate-type thing and one LPD). An LHA/LHD is the same size as a CVS (give or take a few feet here or there). The MEU operates autonomously and certainly does not hang on the coat tails of a CVN and its battlegroup, though of course there'll usually be one in the same theatre. The MEU usually has 6 AV8Bs assigned to it. Their primary mission is to support the grunts when they go ashore. One of their secondary roles is to provide defence of the amphibious task force. The US AV8Bs, despite having APG-65 radars, are not and will never be funded to carry amraam. (straight from the General's mouth)
My point then is that carriers can operate quite effectively in the littoral environment without amraam shooters. The MEUs have carried out operations just about everywhere - rescuing Scott O'Grady in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf in support of OSW & OIF, OEF, the Horn of Africa, East Timor etc etc. So why are the RN bleating so much about the huge risks of sailing around without the SHar. If you're that worried, pick up the phone and ask the USN and USMC how they do it. If the balloon really goes up somewhere then we, along with the MEUs, will have to ask the USN to provide some air-air protection.
I reiterate that I know the SHar has a good radar and its loss does represent a loss of capability. But why not put a sock in it and start bleating about getting the GR9 a Link 16 and Asraam. Dripping about the demise of the SHar won't get you anywhere. Getting more cash into the GR9 programme will be of use to you. Or am I on crack?
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
The RAF lose all their Jags, some F3s and have to give up jets and a Sqn badge to accommodate the SHar boys. Where's the 40 page thread of dripping about that? You'd think this was the end of the world.
For what it's worth though - the RN do an awful lot of waxing lyrical about the devastating loss of air cover for their carriers. Yes it's a shame. Yes it's a loss of a capability. Yes the SHar radar's very good. But the USMC has operated LHAs/LHDs for a decade or so now with no amraam shooters for air cover. There are 3 Marine Expeditionary Units deployed around the world at all times - one in the Pacific, one in the Atlantic and one in Japan. A MEU generally consists of an Amphibious Ready Group of 3 ships - an LHA or LHD, and a couple of LPDs (or sometimes a frigate-type thing and one LPD). An LHA/LHD is the same size as a CVS (give or take a few feet here or there). The MEU operates autonomously and certainly does not hang on the coat tails of a CVN and its battlegroup, though of course there'll usually be one in the same theatre. The MEU usually has 6 AV8Bs assigned to it. Their primary mission is to support the grunts when they go ashore. One of their secondary roles is to provide defence of the amphibious task force. The US AV8Bs, despite having APG-65 radars, are not and will never be funded to carry amraam. (straight from the General's mouth)
My point then is that carriers can operate quite effectively in the littoral environment without amraam shooters. The MEUs have carried out operations just about everywhere - rescuing Scott O'Grady in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf in support of OSW & OIF, OEF, the Horn of Africa, East Timor etc etc. So why are the RN bleating so much about the huge risks of sailing around without the SHar. If you're that worried, pick up the phone and ask the USN and USMC how they do it. If the balloon really goes up somewhere then we, along with the MEUs, will have to ask the USN to provide some air-air protection.
I reiterate that I know the SHar has a good radar and its loss does represent a loss of capability. But why not put a sock in it and start bleating about getting the GR9 a Link 16 and Asraam. Dripping about the demise of the SHar won't get you anywhere. Getting more cash into the GR9 programme will be of use to you. Or am I on crack?
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
The MEU usually has 6 AV8Bs assigned to it. Their primary mission is to support the grunts when they go ashore. One of their secondary roles is to provide defence of the amphibious task force. The US AV8Bs, despite having APG-65 radars, are not and will never be funded to carry amraam.
Yes perhaps, but it does have a radar. Harrier GR9 won't - and the possibility of putting one on it has been discussed on this thread. Sea Harrier does have a radar - a very tasty one. And AMRAAM. But surely the lack of suitable radar is more of an issue than whether or not it has AMRAAM?
Recent defence cuts mean that the loss of a single frigate or destroyer, or RFA or chartered merchant vessel, would be devastating in terms of damage to the UK's capablities. I suspect these are far more likely to be lost than a carrier.
Yes perhaps, but it does have a radar. Harrier GR9 won't - and the possibility of putting one on it has been discussed on this thread. Sea Harrier does have a radar - a very tasty one. And AMRAAM. But surely the lack of suitable radar is more of an issue than whether or not it has AMRAAM?
Recent defence cuts mean that the loss of a single frigate or destroyer, or RFA or chartered merchant vessel, would be devastating in terms of damage to the UK's capablities. I suspect these are far more likely to be lost than a carrier.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 25th Sep 2004 at 16:43.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
Not really. In my experience, if you don't have a medium range mx, then having a radar is of no great benefit unless you're up against a non-radar adversary. Presumeably the hypothetical ship-sinking aircraft that you're concerned about will also have a radar in order to find & shoot the ship, and an associated air-air mx (eg AA-7). If you've only got an Aim-9 then you're going to be defensive, ie notching, to the visual fight. As soon as you notch the radar becomes 1200lb of useless dead weight until you pick the bad guy up visually, survive his first shot or defeat it on the rail and pitch back into him going for a vertical acquisition lock - which is pretty much what you'll be doing without a radar. So putting a radar, be it APG-65 or Blue Vixen, onto the GR9 doesn't buy you very much at all unless either you stump up the cash to put Amraam on too, or you're particulary worried about a non-radar/heaters-only threat aircraft. Putting Amraam+radar on GR9 would be everyone's dream scenario, but it's just not going to happen, so let's be realistic.
If, instead of bemoaning the loss of the SHar, you successfully put your energy into campaigning to put Link 16 (and if you're flush for money Asraam and a helmet sight...) on the GR9 then you get definite benefits. Now you have the entire air picture which significantly increases your probability of intercept over the Mk1 eyeball-equipped GR9, and you have all manner of options to drag off or trash the adversary's first shot while maintaining full situational awareness. Add Asraam and a helmet sight and you could feasibly sit in the notch, dumping chaff+flares and shoot over-the-shoulder at the threat.
Link 16 also brings with it huge advantages when you're operating the jet in the air-surface role - the one that it's going to operate in for 99% of the time. Now you have full access to the whole Network Centric Warfare info world, including the air picture so you can find the tanker/see red air/deconflict with the friendlies transiting through your killbox, get updates on the ground picture (sams, friendlies etc)(?), get airborne re-tasking from CAOC and perhaps soon get your CAS 9-line. So you get all this, you have the much greater capability in the air-ground role that the GR7/9 has over the SHar (EPW, TIALD, Maverick, more pylons, more range, JRP, LST, more manoevrability, ZEUS etc etc), and you're going some way to filling the capability gap from losing the Blue Vixen/Amraam. Most importantly it's an AFFORDABLE option - maintaining the SHar fleet for 10 years or integrating a radar+Amraam onto the GR9 are not. As far as I know, Link 16 is on the cards for the Capability E upgrade to GR9 which is as yet unfunded. I don't know about Asraam and HMS being on the cards at all.
The SHar is being scrapped. The RN will have to make do with the GR9. Surely the sensible thing to do is to quit whining about the injustice of it all and do something positive. In losing the Jags and handing over half of the GR7/9s to the RN, the RAF is taking cockpits away from 3/4 of its single seat pilots, years before the Typhoon arrives in any numbers, while the RN keep all of theirs. That's pretty painful for the likes of me, but it seems that the guys are taking it on the chin and getting on with it. Perhaps there should be more noise about it, but that's a different argument altogether. If you're that worried about air defence of the CVS then help put Link 16 (and Asraam+HMS) on the GR9 ie make noise to fund it (maybe the RN could throw some of their budget into the pot...) and bring it forward in the GR9 upgrade programme.
I'm still more than happy to accept that I'm smoking crack though.
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
But surely the lack of suitable radar is more of an issue than whether or not it has AMRAAM?
If, instead of bemoaning the loss of the SHar, you successfully put your energy into campaigning to put Link 16 (and if you're flush for money Asraam and a helmet sight...) on the GR9 then you get definite benefits. Now you have the entire air picture which significantly increases your probability of intercept over the Mk1 eyeball-equipped GR9, and you have all manner of options to drag off or trash the adversary's first shot while maintaining full situational awareness. Add Asraam and a helmet sight and you could feasibly sit in the notch, dumping chaff+flares and shoot over-the-shoulder at the threat.
Link 16 also brings with it huge advantages when you're operating the jet in the air-surface role - the one that it's going to operate in for 99% of the time. Now you have full access to the whole Network Centric Warfare info world, including the air picture so you can find the tanker/see red air/deconflict with the friendlies transiting through your killbox, get updates on the ground picture (sams, friendlies etc)(?), get airborne re-tasking from CAOC and perhaps soon get your CAS 9-line. So you get all this, you have the much greater capability in the air-ground role that the GR7/9 has over the SHar (EPW, TIALD, Maverick, more pylons, more range, JRP, LST, more manoevrability, ZEUS etc etc), and you're going some way to filling the capability gap from losing the Blue Vixen/Amraam. Most importantly it's an AFFORDABLE option - maintaining the SHar fleet for 10 years or integrating a radar+Amraam onto the GR9 are not. As far as I know, Link 16 is on the cards for the Capability E upgrade to GR9 which is as yet unfunded. I don't know about Asraam and HMS being on the cards at all.
The SHar is being scrapped. The RN will have to make do with the GR9. Surely the sensible thing to do is to quit whining about the injustice of it all and do something positive. In losing the Jags and handing over half of the GR7/9s to the RN, the RAF is taking cockpits away from 3/4 of its single seat pilots, years before the Typhoon arrives in any numbers, while the RN keep all of theirs. That's pretty painful for the likes of me, but it seems that the guys are taking it on the chin and getting on with it. Perhaps there should be more noise about it, but that's a different argument altogether. If you're that worried about air defence of the CVS then help put Link 16 (and Asraam+HMS) on the GR9 ie make noise to fund it (maybe the RN could throw some of their budget into the pot...) and bring it forward in the GR9 upgrade programme.
I'm still more than happy to accept that I'm smoking crack though.
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Last edited by SSSETOWTF; 25th Sep 2004 at 02:35.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reiterate that I know the SHar has a good radar and its loss does represent a loss of capability. But why not put a sock in it and start bleating about getting the GR9 a Link 16 and Asraam. Dripping about the demise of the SHar won't get you anywhere. Getting more cash into the GR9 programme will be of use to you
It's a "what we'd do in a perfect world" discussion here about the SHar and the fact remains that the GR.9 can't do and will never be able to do what the SHar does now - not that the GR.7 / 9 is a bad aircraft it's just different. What it all boils down to in my mind is what would happen if Argentina re-invaded the Falklands? I know it's highly unlikely but if they did, the RN would be in less of a position to defend itself now than it was in '82. Sometimes british armed forces don't have a carrier battle group in tow and a radar equipped interceptor could then be seriously missed. There are a lot of MiG's, Mirages and even F-16s in the hands of small airforces around the world. One day the RN will come up against some of them and the USN won't be there.
BTW, is it just me or do other people out there despise the childish behaviour that the interservice rivalry of the RAF and RN seems to generate?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pureteen
Come on old chap. If perfect world is what you want.... scrap SHar, scrap GR9, scrap CVS. If you want to live in a perfect world, buy 12 CVN and several hundred F18E/F/G and in time upgrade them to F-35B/C. I don't really think that's the point is it?
I totally agree with you on the inter-service rivalry point. I'm sick of it too. But it happens. From Admiral level down to the enlisted guys & girls. Why is that strange? BA dig at Virgin and vice versa. BP dig at Shell etc etc. We're 2 groups, with differing cultures and histories and we're fighting for the same pot of money. It's the real world. The rivalry is annoying to those on the sidelines. But you are talking about my job and I (along with the SHar boys) don't like the idea of having my job axed. At this moment in time, 3/4 of the RAF single seat world are watching their cockpits get cut, and all you can see on Pprune is a 40 page thread about how distraught the RN are cause they've had to move from Yeovilton to fly the GR and learn to work for a living and move some mud.
British defence policy, as defined by our elected leader, states that we're not going to do another Falklands on our own without US assistance. If you want something different you need to persuade 30 odd million people in the UK to vote him out and invest some serious cash in the Armed Forces. If you want to maintain the CVS as a self-licking ice-cream, sailing around the world aggressively defending itself, then your money is absolutely well-spent on the SHar. If you want to project some level of force over the beach, or operate offensively in a region where there is limited or no host nation support, then the GR has a few things to offer. Current budgets say you can't have both.
You prescient statement that we're going to come up against a Mig/Mirage/F16 threat may well come to pass, but as I alluded to earlier, the chances are relatively (and I stress the word 'relatively') slim. Come down from dream world, take a look at the last 50 years of naval aviation and you may find that air-ground is essential in just about every scenario. Air-air is desirable in some, irrelevant in most, and essential in very few cases. So we're back to page 1 of the thread again.
Put Link 16, Asraam and HMS on the GR, live with the small decrease in air-air capability and revel in the enormous increase in air-ground capability. Or spend the next 10 years dripping about how great the SHar was, how the Black Buck raids were a total waste of time, how the Dambusters raid was of no material benefit to the war effort etc etc.
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Come on old chap. If perfect world is what you want.... scrap SHar, scrap GR9, scrap CVS. If you want to live in a perfect world, buy 12 CVN and several hundred F18E/F/G and in time upgrade them to F-35B/C. I don't really think that's the point is it?
I totally agree with you on the inter-service rivalry point. I'm sick of it too. But it happens. From Admiral level down to the enlisted guys & girls. Why is that strange? BA dig at Virgin and vice versa. BP dig at Shell etc etc. We're 2 groups, with differing cultures and histories and we're fighting for the same pot of money. It's the real world. The rivalry is annoying to those on the sidelines. But you are talking about my job and I (along with the SHar boys) don't like the idea of having my job axed. At this moment in time, 3/4 of the RAF single seat world are watching their cockpits get cut, and all you can see on Pprune is a 40 page thread about how distraught the RN are cause they've had to move from Yeovilton to fly the GR and learn to work for a living and move some mud.
British defence policy, as defined by our elected leader, states that we're not going to do another Falklands on our own without US assistance. If you want something different you need to persuade 30 odd million people in the UK to vote him out and invest some serious cash in the Armed Forces. If you want to maintain the CVS as a self-licking ice-cream, sailing around the world aggressively defending itself, then your money is absolutely well-spent on the SHar. If you want to project some level of force over the beach, or operate offensively in a region where there is limited or no host nation support, then the GR has a few things to offer. Current budgets say you can't have both.
You prescient statement that we're going to come up against a Mig/Mirage/F16 threat may well come to pass, but as I alluded to earlier, the chances are relatively (and I stress the word 'relatively') slim. Come down from dream world, take a look at the last 50 years of naval aviation and you may find that air-ground is essential in just about every scenario. Air-air is desirable in some, irrelevant in most, and essential in very few cases. So we're back to page 1 of the thread again.
Put Link 16, Asraam and HMS on the GR, live with the small decrease in air-air capability and revel in the enormous increase in air-ground capability. Or spend the next 10 years dripping about how great the SHar was, how the Black Buck raids were a total waste of time, how the Dambusters raid was of no material benefit to the war effort etc etc.
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Last edited by SSSETOWTF; 25th Sep 2004 at 20:26.
Red Sea Roulette
SSSETOWTF
Are you saying radar is pointless unless you have AMRAAM?
If it is desirable for USMC Harriers aboard a LPH (presumably a Wasp?) that can provide air defence for an amphibious group so that it is not 100% dependent on USN aircraft then surely the same argument applies to a UK task group?
On a slightly different theme, over the last couple of months there has been a little bit of huffing and puffing, and much hand wringing at the situation in Sudan where in the Darfur region Government backed militias, sometimes supported by MiGs and helicopter gunships, have been conducting a campaign of genocide against the local black African population. The UN has supposedly thought about sanctions.
One idea that has been suggested is that of an oil embargo. There is oil in Sudan, and its trade fuels the conflict. To enforce an embargo would probably require the deployment of forces to the Red Sea to monitor and possibly interdict suspect shipping. Given that Khartoum has said it will fight any Western forces that intervene, has aircraft and hasn't been subject to no fly zones or sanctions, there is a threat to ships enforcing this embargo.
The African and Arab nations that surround Sudan are unlikely to be willing to provide bases. Therefore carrierborne fighters are needed. Do we deploy the Sea Harrier, and accept the political problems that it may cause the Government, or not deploy it, and hope that none of our ships (or helicopters or MPA) get attacked, damaged or worse?
Are you saying radar is pointless unless you have AMRAAM?
If it is desirable for USMC Harriers aboard a LPH (presumably a Wasp?) that can provide air defence for an amphibious group so that it is not 100% dependent on USN aircraft then surely the same argument applies to a UK task group?
On a slightly different theme, over the last couple of months there has been a little bit of huffing and puffing, and much hand wringing at the situation in Sudan where in the Darfur region Government backed militias, sometimes supported by MiGs and helicopter gunships, have been conducting a campaign of genocide against the local black African population. The UN has supposedly thought about sanctions.
One idea that has been suggested is that of an oil embargo. There is oil in Sudan, and its trade fuels the conflict. To enforce an embargo would probably require the deployment of forces to the Red Sea to monitor and possibly interdict suspect shipping. Given that Khartoum has said it will fight any Western forces that intervene, has aircraft and hasn't been subject to no fly zones or sanctions, there is a threat to ships enforcing this embargo.
The African and Arab nations that surround Sudan are unlikely to be willing to provide bases. Therefore carrierborne fighters are needed. Do we deploy the Sea Harrier, and accept the political problems that it may cause the Government, or not deploy it, and hope that none of our ships (or helicopters or MPA) get attacked, damaged or worse?
WEBF
Or do we wait (this time!!) until the UN actually approves some form of action against Sudan, see what sort of force is cobbled together by the international community and decide what, if anything, we can contirbute - WHICH MIGHT BE NOTHING GIVEN THE NUMBER OF CONFLICTS/COMMITMENTS THAT THE UK ARMED FORCES ARE COMMITTED TO AT THE MOMENT.
In the meantime, if you want to do something useful with your 'carriers', and save the world, - why don't you take your precious SHARs off them, fill them full of helos, medics and aid, and trundle out to the carribbean - HAITI or GRENADA perhaps??
Or do we wait (this time!!) until the UN actually approves some form of action against Sudan, see what sort of force is cobbled together by the international community and decide what, if anything, we can contirbute - WHICH MIGHT BE NOTHING GIVEN THE NUMBER OF CONFLICTS/COMMITMENTS THAT THE UK ARMED FORCES ARE COMMITTED TO AT THE MOMENT.
In the meantime, if you want to do something useful with your 'carriers', and save the world, - why don't you take your precious SHARs off them, fill them full of helos, medics and aid, and trundle out to the carribbean - HAITI or GRENADA perhaps??
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My post for the month....
WEBF do you not think there are possibly US naval forces already in the area, counting and reporting to the UN the oil sea traffic, who could take care of the whole operation on their own anyway?
WEBF do you not think there are possibly US naval forces already in the area, counting and reporting to the UN the oil sea traffic, who could take care of the whole operation on their own anyway?