Sea Jet
Suspicion breeds confidence
I'm not sure you'll get an answer to that question. Meanwhile, Navy News has an interesting piece on the first 2 naval ratings to arrive at Cottesmore.
I think you are refering to this article here: Navy News story
However, the move has had (and presumably still has) its critics. In 2000 the Telegraph reported that all was not well. See below....
Harrier Pilots Threaten To Quit
This has been discussed both on this thread and others. I myself heard rumours that confirm the story. I also heard suggestions that the move was being reviewed........until the decision to do away with the Sea Harrier.
Meanwhile - I found this on the net.
It will provide a force able to deploy from land and sea, be capable of precision attack of sea, land and air targets and be able to undertake timely reconnaissance. In addition, it will be able to provide air escort of joint and allied assets.
Not now it won't.
Operating a total of 138 aircraft, fifty front-line aircraft will form five squadrons, (Nrs 800, 801, 1(F), 3(F) and IV(AC)), backed up by RN (899 NAS) and RAF (20(R) Sqn) training units.
What percentage of JFH aircraft numbers are lost by withdrawing the Sea Harrier? And surely the concept was to provide a self contained, stand alone striking force. Is this still viable without air defence?
Lastly, recent events in Iraq have highlighted the fact that many people are uneasy with British forces being used under direct US command without a great deal of autonomy (and seperate operating areas). Won't the lack of organic air defence make this more likely in future?
Remember: "Hoon's defence policy" is an anagram of "He's confidence loopy".
However, the move has had (and presumably still has) its critics. In 2000 the Telegraph reported that all was not well. See below....
Harrier Pilots Threaten To Quit
This has been discussed both on this thread and others. I myself heard rumours that confirm the story. I also heard suggestions that the move was being reviewed........until the decision to do away with the Sea Harrier.
Meanwhile - I found this on the net.
It will provide a force able to deploy from land and sea, be capable of precision attack of sea, land and air targets and be able to undertake timely reconnaissance. In addition, it will be able to provide air escort of joint and allied assets.
Not now it won't.
Operating a total of 138 aircraft, fifty front-line aircraft will form five squadrons, (Nrs 800, 801, 1(F), 3(F) and IV(AC)), backed up by RN (899 NAS) and RAF (20(R) Sqn) training units.
What percentage of JFH aircraft numbers are lost by withdrawing the Sea Harrier? And surely the concept was to provide a self contained, stand alone striking force. Is this still viable without air defence?
Lastly, recent events in Iraq have highlighted the fact that many people are uneasy with British forces being used under direct US command without a great deal of autonomy (and seperate operating areas). Won't the lack of organic air defence make this more likely in future?
Remember: "Hoon's defence policy" is an anagram of "He's confidence loopy".
Suspicion breeds confidence
In addition, it will be able to provide air escort of joint and allied assets
A question for those involved in Harrier aviation. If you had to fly a Harrier in its primary mud moving role, would you choose the Harrier II+ or the GR9A? ...and why of course. Then repeat the question when there's some hostile air around.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
That story by the Torygraph is over 4 years old! And this is the kind of Doom and Gloom that you can expect from them.
Quote
A/ Officers do not have to buy themselves out and B/ Do not PVR -that is what the ratings do. So I wonder where our intrepid Reporter got his facts? Not from an RN Officer anyway.
When the End of SHAR was announced, Air Forces Monthly ran a feature on it. They were told that the SHAR Community were more keen to go GR9 than the RAF were as it would mean big changes in working practices for them. So who do we believe???
That story by the Torygraph is over 4 years old! And this is the kind of Doom and Gloom that you can expect from them.
Quote
Some 13 pilots, equivalent to the strength of one of the Fleet Air Arm's two frontline Sea Harrier squadrons, plan to buy themselves out of the service before the expiry of their contracts. The resignations, known as Premature Voluntary Releases...
When the End of SHAR was announced, Air Forces Monthly ran a feature on it. They were told that the SHAR Community were more keen to go GR9 than the RAF were as it would mean big changes in working practices for them. So who do we believe???
I heard stuff to do with the controversy of the move from Yeovilton to Coss/Witt myself - from personal contacts. Whether the geographical change or the idea of being put in the RAF culture was the bigger issue I don't know. Different people etc.....
As for the migration from SHAR to Harrier GR7/7A/9, does "more keen" really mean "more keen"? If you had a bucket of acid, and a bucket of cold water, and you were threatening to throw one over me I would be more keen to get the water. Likewise are the RN "more keen", or the RAF "less keen"?
As for the migration from SHAR to Harrier GR7/7A/9, does "more keen" really mean "more keen"? If you had a bucket of acid, and a bucket of cold water, and you were threatening to throw one over me I would be more keen to get the water. Likewise are the RN "more keen", or the RAF "less keen"?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
I'd choose the GR9A every time for its Brimstone capability.
Ha ha ha ha.
We're talking CAS, so we have to weigh up the pros and cons of:
II+: radar ground mapping and designation.
GR9A: TV and laser spot tracking, IDM.
So it depends on what the grunts on the ground are prepared to lug around. LST works well and is very portable, IDM should speed things up considerably.
As soon as you throw hostiles into the equation, the 9A becomes reliant on other assets. The II+ doesn't.
I've only flown the -7. I'll try and get SSETOWTF to contribute, he's flown both.
I'd choose the GR9A every time for its Brimstone capability.
Ha ha ha ha.
We're talking CAS, so we have to weigh up the pros and cons of:
II+: radar ground mapping and designation.
GR9A: TV and laser spot tracking, IDM.
So it depends on what the grunts on the ground are prepared to lug around. LST works well and is very portable, IDM should speed things up considerably.
As soon as you throw hostiles into the equation, the 9A becomes reliant on other assets. The II+ doesn't.
I've only flown the -7. I'll try and get SSETOWTF to contribute, he's flown both.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR7/9 vs II+?
One word answer - GR7/9. But, as always, it depends.....
Do you mean a fully funded Capability E upgraded GR9A, the baseline Capability A, or somewhere in between? Are you comparing it to a USMC II+ as it is today, or with OSCAR (1760, JDAM etc upgrades) or H20 (better radar software + full, un-tested, amraam functionality), or H40 (Any VX-9/VX-31 chaps out there who can flesh out what's coming?) ? I'd pick the current GR7A over the current II+ in just about all scenarios. The benefits of Enhanced PaveWay, Joint Recce Pod, Paveway III, the UK Multi Function Bomb Fuse, outrigger pylons full of BOL or chaff, ZEUS, Missile Approach Warner, more up-to-date RWR, TV Mavericks (USMC only have Laser+IR), Laser Spot Tracker, TIALD on a gun strake not a wing pylon, better HOTAS and software (in my opinion), EGPWS that sometimes says something useful, an extra 1000lb of bring-back to the boat, 2000lb higher max AUW, and a vastly more capable planning system swing it for me.
On the flip side, the II+ has 180 flares and more flexible flare programs, can carry Litening AT (but on a wing pylon), can carry ITERs (but only with dumb bombs on), is cleared to drop napalm, has a dedicated CAS page on the MFD and an esoteric data burst capability (but which uses a very non-NATO-standard 9-line and coordinate system), has a pretty good 'Bitching Betty' and has an APG-65. I gave most of my thoughts on the II+ radar back on page 40/41. Basically its current ground mapping capability & SAR modes aren't good enough to give you a realistic blind bombing ability and in air-air its utility is limited because of the lack of anything other than an Aim-9 so you're likely to be defensive in the notch, without a whole lot of chaff, with no radar SA, long before most of the bad guys (and pumping/aborting isn't really an option when you're the slow guy). The main benefits of the radar are for its air-ground ranging (=very accurate visually-aimed bombs) and air-air admin tasks (ie finding your bereft wingman who's got lost again because the USMC training pipeline is so unselective and undemanding, or finding the tanker, sampling traffic around you &c)
Given the choice between a Cap E GR9A (ie one with Link 16) and an H20 II+, I'd still choose the GR9A. For a mud mover, Link 16 gives you all the air-air SA you'll ever need and gets your foot in the 'network centric warfare' door. But obviously if you want to go up against a Su-27 or similar air threat autonomously, then you need to get a II+ and get amraams on board sharpish. Even then you can't escape the fundamentals of the Harrier's speed/altitude performance and their effect on missile kinematics if you're up against AA-10C/D, Mica, AA-12 and co. Might be better to stay at home until the Typhoons have cleared things up a bit.
The final question is who's going to fly the jet? In a dream scenario of RN/RAF trained chaps flying a fleet of amraam-toting II+, then you're talking of some capability. If you're talking about Joe Average USMC, lots of chin-ups, but 120 flight hours/year and only about 5 hours/year in air-air (on a good year - and they will be ultra-safe, canned, briefed to death, 30 second engagements in a totally clean jet i.e. not quite the same as Brit evasion training at night, low light, low-level, poor weather, with comm jamming as part of a 28-ship such as you'd do at Night TLT), never flown in anything more demanding than an unbounced 4-ship on a totally scripted 'VR route', then you could put the guy in an F-22 and I still wouldn't sleep very easily knowing he was out there either sweeping for me or defending the ship or airfield I'm on........
Hard hat firmly on for incoming pro-USMC/anti-Brit riposte.
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Do you mean a fully funded Capability E upgraded GR9A, the baseline Capability A, or somewhere in between? Are you comparing it to a USMC II+ as it is today, or with OSCAR (1760, JDAM etc upgrades) or H20 (better radar software + full, un-tested, amraam functionality), or H40 (Any VX-9/VX-31 chaps out there who can flesh out what's coming?) ? I'd pick the current GR7A over the current II+ in just about all scenarios. The benefits of Enhanced PaveWay, Joint Recce Pod, Paveway III, the UK Multi Function Bomb Fuse, outrigger pylons full of BOL or chaff, ZEUS, Missile Approach Warner, more up-to-date RWR, TV Mavericks (USMC only have Laser+IR), Laser Spot Tracker, TIALD on a gun strake not a wing pylon, better HOTAS and software (in my opinion), EGPWS that sometimes says something useful, an extra 1000lb of bring-back to the boat, 2000lb higher max AUW, and a vastly more capable planning system swing it for me.
On the flip side, the II+ has 180 flares and more flexible flare programs, can carry Litening AT (but on a wing pylon), can carry ITERs (but only with dumb bombs on), is cleared to drop napalm, has a dedicated CAS page on the MFD and an esoteric data burst capability (but which uses a very non-NATO-standard 9-line and coordinate system), has a pretty good 'Bitching Betty' and has an APG-65. I gave most of my thoughts on the II+ radar back on page 40/41. Basically its current ground mapping capability & SAR modes aren't good enough to give you a realistic blind bombing ability and in air-air its utility is limited because of the lack of anything other than an Aim-9 so you're likely to be defensive in the notch, without a whole lot of chaff, with no radar SA, long before most of the bad guys (and pumping/aborting isn't really an option when you're the slow guy). The main benefits of the radar are for its air-ground ranging (=very accurate visually-aimed bombs) and air-air admin tasks (ie finding your bereft wingman who's got lost again because the USMC training pipeline is so unselective and undemanding, or finding the tanker, sampling traffic around you &c)
Given the choice between a Cap E GR9A (ie one with Link 16) and an H20 II+, I'd still choose the GR9A. For a mud mover, Link 16 gives you all the air-air SA you'll ever need and gets your foot in the 'network centric warfare' door. But obviously if you want to go up against a Su-27 or similar air threat autonomously, then you need to get a II+ and get amraams on board sharpish. Even then you can't escape the fundamentals of the Harrier's speed/altitude performance and their effect on missile kinematics if you're up against AA-10C/D, Mica, AA-12 and co. Might be better to stay at home until the Typhoons have cleared things up a bit.
The final question is who's going to fly the jet? In a dream scenario of RN/RAF trained chaps flying a fleet of amraam-toting II+, then you're talking of some capability. If you're talking about Joe Average USMC, lots of chin-ups, but 120 flight hours/year and only about 5 hours/year in air-air (on a good year - and they will be ultra-safe, canned, briefed to death, 30 second engagements in a totally clean jet i.e. not quite the same as Brit evasion training at night, low light, low-level, poor weather, with comm jamming as part of a 28-ship such as you'd do at Night TLT), never flown in anything more demanding than an unbounced 4-ship on a totally scripted 'VR route', then you could put the guy in an F-22 and I still wouldn't sleep very easily knowing he was out there either sweeping for me or defending the ship or airfield I'm on........
Hard hat firmly on for incoming pro-USMC/anti-Brit riposte.
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Last edited by SSSETOWTF; 21st Oct 2004 at 20:40.
What would Nelson think?
It is 199 years today since the Battle of Trafalgar, when in a space of a few hours, the combined French and Spanish fleet that posed an invasion threat to Britain, was defeated. The UK has been the strongest maritime power in Europe ever since, until the current Government came along...
One of the things Lord Nelson said was "Engage the enemy more closely". In other words take the fight to the enemy. I wonder what he would have thought of the current state of affairs with the Royal Navy, HM Forces as a whole and the nation?
After the Sea Harrier goes, there will be no more taking the fight to the enemy if he has aircraft in any numbers. The fleet will soon be too small (according to CINCFLEET - who of course the likes of Hoon don't listen to) to perform its peacetime tasks, despite the fact the number of these has increased under this Government, certain ships are leased and run under PFI schemes, causing major operational limitations. The Army and RAF have virtually the same type of problems.
To add to that, there seems to be a generation of budding senior officers whose motto seems to be "A change is as good as an improvement". Change for changes sake. For example, there is a current proposal to scrap the term "Artificer" and change it to "Technician". The justification is that it will make it easier for people leaving the Service to get civilian employment - this is utter crap as this has not been an issue - all those qualifications and experience. For the sake of modernity, and giving some Commodore in Victory Building something to say he did. Yet what will it achieve? For years now RN careers literature and websites have used terms such as "Engineering Technician: Artificer" (perhaps I have been misinformed and no change is taking place?) so its not as if it will help recruitment.
It won't do anything for morale either. Having what is perhaps a slightly old fashion job title is unlikely to be the reason for your low morale, the overstretch resulting from an increasing number of operational tasks and a declining number of assets. Things such as TOPMAST are unlikely to improve things. Perhaps doing something about overstretch would be more appropriate?
And there seem to be scores of yes men about. Defence is of course represented at ministerial level by Hoon - the ultimate yes man. Blair asks him "Can you do x, y and z?" He replies he can. Brown ask him if he can cut costs - again he says "yes".
Lastly the Government would appear to no longer see our Armed Forces as a tool of national policy - but simply as a means of expressing support for the decisions made by Washington (or worse, Brussels).
What would Nelson think?
One of the things Lord Nelson said was "Engage the enemy more closely". In other words take the fight to the enemy. I wonder what he would have thought of the current state of affairs with the Royal Navy, HM Forces as a whole and the nation?
After the Sea Harrier goes, there will be no more taking the fight to the enemy if he has aircraft in any numbers. The fleet will soon be too small (according to CINCFLEET - who of course the likes of Hoon don't listen to) to perform its peacetime tasks, despite the fact the number of these has increased under this Government, certain ships are leased and run under PFI schemes, causing major operational limitations. The Army and RAF have virtually the same type of problems.
To add to that, there seems to be a generation of budding senior officers whose motto seems to be "A change is as good as an improvement". Change for changes sake. For example, there is a current proposal to scrap the term "Artificer" and change it to "Technician". The justification is that it will make it easier for people leaving the Service to get civilian employment - this is utter crap as this has not been an issue - all those qualifications and experience. For the sake of modernity, and giving some Commodore in Victory Building something to say he did. Yet what will it achieve? For years now RN careers literature and websites have used terms such as "Engineering Technician: Artificer" (perhaps I have been misinformed and no change is taking place?) so its not as if it will help recruitment.
It won't do anything for morale either. Having what is perhaps a slightly old fashion job title is unlikely to be the reason for your low morale, the overstretch resulting from an increasing number of operational tasks and a declining number of assets. Things such as TOPMAST are unlikely to improve things. Perhaps doing something about overstretch would be more appropriate?
And there seem to be scores of yes men about. Defence is of course represented at ministerial level by Hoon - the ultimate yes man. Blair asks him "Can you do x, y and z?" He replies he can. Brown ask him if he can cut costs - again he says "yes".
Lastly the Government would appear to no longer see our Armed Forces as a tool of national policy - but simply as a means of expressing support for the decisions made by Washington (or worse, Brussels).
What would Nelson think?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 21st Oct 2004 at 21:46.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Agreed, especially when you consider that Nelson's squadron was bigger than the entire major surface fleet of the RN at this time. At least he did not have to worry about air attack unlike now, which is what this debate is all about. From April 2006 our navy is largely impotent to air attack aside from a bunch of 30yr old obsolete destroyers. designed to attack 1960's medium level threats and hopeless against that does not have a human pilot.
Lessons learned and forgotten:
Pow and Repulse in 1941
Crete 1941
Taranto 1940
Malta 1941 - 43
Suez 1955
Falklands 1982
We have seen what happens to our ground forces when they are given insufficient ammunition and personal protection in Iraq. Right now and for the next 9 years+ at least I would not want to serve in the RN. I read in Hansard that the MoD considers Sea Wolf a "limited area defence" weapon. B******t. You only have to place something between it and its target for it to fail. This is standard ASuW tactics for every airforce world wide as used by the Argentine air force 22 years ago.
20 years on the tactics and the weapons have improved, except our ability to respond to them, which has gone backwards. The RAF cannot defend the fleet at sea it never has and never will. Good intentions aside, stop living in a dream land. Do not mortgage the lives of our service people on political whims.
The RAF will soon have 36 a/c to defend the entire nation! Who are they kidding that they can defend the fleet except themselves? Right now they cannot defend themselves, let alone you or I sleeping in our beds or our sailors at sea.
Wake up. Why are our nations defenders still carting obsolete Sky Flash missiles around? Because the RN still owns the only batch of AMRAAMS purchased by HMG and needs them for fleet defence. The purchase for the F3 fleet was binned 4 years ago and only just re-instated.
Lessons learned and forgotten:
Pow and Repulse in 1941
Crete 1941
Taranto 1940
Malta 1941 - 43
Suez 1955
Falklands 1982
We have seen what happens to our ground forces when they are given insufficient ammunition and personal protection in Iraq. Right now and for the next 9 years+ at least I would not want to serve in the RN. I read in Hansard that the MoD considers Sea Wolf a "limited area defence" weapon. B******t. You only have to place something between it and its target for it to fail. This is standard ASuW tactics for every airforce world wide as used by the Argentine air force 22 years ago.
20 years on the tactics and the weapons have improved, except our ability to respond to them, which has gone backwards. The RAF cannot defend the fleet at sea it never has and never will. Good intentions aside, stop living in a dream land. Do not mortgage the lives of our service people on political whims.
The RAF will soon have 36 a/c to defend the entire nation! Who are they kidding that they can defend the fleet except themselves? Right now they cannot defend themselves, let alone you or I sleeping in our beds or our sailors at sea.
Wake up. Why are our nations defenders still carting obsolete Sky Flash missiles around? Because the RN still owns the only batch of AMRAAMS purchased by HMG and needs them for fleet defence. The purchase for the F3 fleet was binned 4 years ago and only just re-instated.
Last edited by Navaleye; 21st Oct 2004 at 23:13.
A reminder from history
Sixty years ago today, Japanese pilots took of for the first kamikaze attacks. The kamikaze was a difficult enemy to combat, very frightening if you were on the receiving end, and lethal to the ships they hit, mostly (but not exlusively) carriers. The British carriers, having steel flight decks, suffered less than US ones with wooden decks.
Normal AA gunnery was not effective in combating them. The first step was to detect them by putting destroyers out on picket duty - hence they became targets. The solution was to put a warning radar in an aircraft - hence Airborne Early Warning was borne. CAPs by carrierborne fighters, backed up with walls of flak from ships and effective damage control contained the threat until the bases could be destroyed.
Carrierborne fighter aircraft were vital in the Atlantic too - dealing with long range bombers and reece aircraft, and in the Med. Post 1945, there was an air threat off of Korea (I believe one RN ship was hit) and the threat of communist MiGs hitting their carriers was one of the motivating factors for setting up the "Top Gun" school.
Why are the lessons of sixty years ago being ignored, only to be learnt in a few years time at the cost of many lives?
Normal AA gunnery was not effective in combating them. The first step was to detect them by putting destroyers out on picket duty - hence they became targets. The solution was to put a warning radar in an aircraft - hence Airborne Early Warning was borne. CAPs by carrierborne fighters, backed up with walls of flak from ships and effective damage control contained the threat until the bases could be destroyed.
Carrierborne fighter aircraft were vital in the Atlantic too - dealing with long range bombers and reece aircraft, and in the Med. Post 1945, there was an air threat off of Korea (I believe one RN ship was hit) and the threat of communist MiGs hitting their carriers was one of the motivating factors for setting up the "Top Gun" school.
Why are the lessons of sixty years ago being ignored, only to be learnt in a few years time at the cost of many lives?
Suspicion breeds confidence
The absence of armour and risks assoctaed on US Fleet carriers was known at the time of design. The USN took the view that to armour the flight deck cut the aircraft carrying capacity in half. They argued that that extra aircraft carried would provide defence required for the carrier. Wrong.
The British carriers on the other hand were hit by MORE Kamikazes than the US Carriers and none were put out of action. This goes to show the relative qualities of RN anti-aircraft fire (HACS) compared to the far more capable USN system. A gulf that is just as wide today. I note we lost HMS Glasgow from the fleet yesterday, so that's another AD asset we are down.
The British carriers on the other hand were hit by MORE Kamikazes than the US Carriers and none were put out of action. This goes to show the relative qualities of RN anti-aircraft fire (HACS) compared to the far more capable USN system. A gulf that is just as wide today. I note we lost HMS Glasgow from the fleet yesterday, so that's another AD asset we are down.
Sounds like the Battlecruiser concept, where armour was sacrificed for speed - but the same weaponry was carried as a fully armoured Battleship. At Jutland a number of ships and thousands of lives were lost due to this. The loss of Hood in 1941 (my Grandfather had been serving aboard her shortly before the Bismarck action, but changed draft) was another result.
The current situation is not totally disimilar. The Government wants defence on the cheap, so the funding priorities go to offensive systems, and defence systems (land based fighters, carrier based fighters, frigates/destroyers, MBTs (provide protection and firepower for infantry battle groups), and on a lower level things like decoy systems and body armour) are cut.
On a less negative note, Destined Glory 04 would appear to have finnished. Sea Harriers from 801 NAS took part, based aboard Invincible. Closer to home, 899 have been doing a lot of air/air stuff recently. Yesterday four Shars took on four F15s over North Devon/the Bristol Channel. Two of each type were splashed.
Here is some info on what 801 have been up over the last few months:801 NAS Autumn Update
Also see the Introduction page.
The current situation is not totally disimilar. The Government wants defence on the cheap, so the funding priorities go to offensive systems, and defence systems (land based fighters, carrier based fighters, frigates/destroyers, MBTs (provide protection and firepower for infantry battle groups), and on a lower level things like decoy systems and body armour) are cut.
On a less negative note, Destined Glory 04 would appear to have finnished. Sea Harriers from 801 NAS took part, based aboard Invincible. Closer to home, 899 have been doing a lot of air/air stuff recently. Yesterday four Shars took on four F15s over North Devon/the Bristol Channel. Two of each type were splashed.
Here is some info on what 801 have been up over the last few months:801 NAS Autumn Update
Also see the Introduction page.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 28th Oct 2004 at 17:08.
Suspicion breeds confidence
The shape of things to come
Thales have shown a model of the CVF at Euronaval. I can't say its the best looking carrier designed but then again neither are the Invincibles. Its looking like an airgroup of 36 F35 + 4 MASC with some surge capacity. Likely peace time airgroup of 18-24 F35. Shame the Shar will never fly from it.
All the more reason to oppose the loss of the Sea Jet, so at least people can get used to working with a higher number of fixed wing aircraft on deck.
On a hypothetical note - if a crisis occurs in the nest few years that involves UK maritime forces facing a substantial air threat, perhaps from a nation with MiGs and Krypton (or similar missiles) and we.......
A. Can't respond to the crisis.
B. Respond, but suffer a defeat.
C. Win, but suffer needlessly heavy losses. Note loss of shipping may have serious consequences for events ashore.
Will this reinforce the case for CVF, possibly making the politicians think again, or will it just feed the nihlism of the penny pinchers..."This shows how vulnerable...............let's cancel..."
On a hypothetical note - if a crisis occurs in the nest few years that involves UK maritime forces facing a substantial air threat, perhaps from a nation with MiGs and Krypton (or similar missiles) and we.......
A. Can't respond to the crisis.
B. Respond, but suffer a defeat.
C. Win, but suffer needlessly heavy losses. Note loss of shipping may have serious consequences for events ashore.
Will this reinforce the case for CVF, possibly making the politicians think again, or will it just feed the nihlism of the penny pinchers..."This shows how vulnerable...............let's cancel..."
Update
This year 801 have been busy with a number of deployments, including not one but two NATO exercises where the Sea Harrier was playing an important role in a multinational scenario. Are our allies trying to tell us something?
Meanwhile, the cuts continue, as this story reports. The Type 42s which are being decommisioned are old, the T23s are nowhere near as old. Previously I suggested that there was a political reason why T23s were being lost instead of more T42s, however I now suspect it has something to do with Type 45 numbers. If were cut more T42s and get one on one replacements......
Perhaps the T23s will really be mothballed and can be brought back when needed?
Cutting the fleet in this way means less deployments and operations can be undertaken, probably less than the number demanded by the politicians. Because of the political fallout that would result in cutting our contribution to the war on terror, things such as the Atlantic Patrol Tasks may go. This will increase the chance of a crisis blowing up with needs carrierborne air defence, just as we lose it.
Interesting times? Or merely dangerous ones?
Meanwhile, the cuts continue, as this story reports. The Type 42s which are being decommisioned are old, the T23s are nowhere near as old. Previously I suggested that there was a political reason why T23s were being lost instead of more T42s, however I now suspect it has something to do with Type 45 numbers. If were cut more T42s and get one on one replacements......
Perhaps the T23s will really be mothballed and can be brought back when needed?
Cutting the fleet in this way means less deployments and operations can be undertaken, probably less than the number demanded by the politicians. Because of the political fallout that would result in cutting our contribution to the war on terror, things such as the Atlantic Patrol Tasks may go. This will increase the chance of a crisis blowing up with needs carrierborne air defence, just as we lose it.
Interesting times? Or merely dangerous ones?
fidae I don't know who was blue and who was red, but they had equal time in the area that day and the two F15s were "splashed" first, then one of the remaining F15s took out two Sea Harriers.
giblets I don't know. But surely more important is the issue of dealing with MiGs etc?
Meanwhile this link demonstrates the utility of a CVS. CVF will be better!
This was Invincible’s third major deployment this year. A particularly busy one which has seen her exercising of the coast of Norway as an Amphibious Carrier; re-roling as a Strike Carrier to deploy to the US coast and most recently acting as the Flagship for this trip to the Mediterranean. In this role she embarked her usual complement of Harrier aircraft from 801 Squadron based at Yeovilton and Sea King helicopters from 849 and 771 Squadrons based at Culdrose.
Exercises like JMC and FOST still include simulated attacks from aircraft and air launched missiles....
giblets I don't know. But surely more important is the issue of dealing with MiGs etc?
Meanwhile this link demonstrates the utility of a CVS. CVF will be better!
This was Invincible’s third major deployment this year. A particularly busy one which has seen her exercising of the coast of Norway as an Amphibious Carrier; re-roling as a Strike Carrier to deploy to the US coast and most recently acting as the Flagship for this trip to the Mediterranean. In this role she embarked her usual complement of Harrier aircraft from 801 Squadron based at Yeovilton and Sea King helicopters from 849 and 771 Squadrons based at Culdrose.
Exercises like JMC and FOST still include simulated attacks from aircraft and air launched missiles....
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 3rd Nov 2004 at 22:59.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly WEBF you don't know........
You don't know who was red or blue, you don't know what weapons system they were simulating, you don't know what tactics they were utilising, you don't know if they were using regens, you don't know if they had GCI in fact it 'could' be said that on the topic of air defence you know the square root of f@*! all.
If you really made me I could probably come up with a pretty good argument for retaining the Sopwith Camel in the AD role if I used the same attitude to researching my 'factually' based arguments as you seem to.
What I heard from the bloke in the pub is fairly shaky ground on which to base the reversal of a COST driven decision which has been made.
Now by all means continue to express your, clearly, strongly held views on the demise of the SHAR as it is your right to do so but please, please cease with the endless carping about how sodding useful, irreplaceable and vital the SHAR is.
Both sides can argue that case till they are blue in the face but it's going and you aren't going to change a thing by wittering on with some frankly pathetic arguements at times.
Ps Yes I have some AD experience, yes it was light blue, yes I've fought the SHAR,F4-15-16-18,M2000 and countless Fox 2 wielding mud pin cushions
In my opinion its a shame we can't afford it because it had the potential to be a useful asset but hey life sucks.
If you really made me I could probably come up with a pretty good argument for retaining the Sopwith Camel in the AD role if I used the same attitude to researching my 'factually' based arguments as you seem to.
What I heard from the bloke in the pub is fairly shaky ground on which to base the reversal of a COST driven decision which has been made.
Now by all means continue to express your, clearly, strongly held views on the demise of the SHAR as it is your right to do so but please, please cease with the endless carping about how sodding useful, irreplaceable and vital the SHAR is.
Both sides can argue that case till they are blue in the face but it's going and you aren't going to change a thing by wittering on with some frankly pathetic arguements at times.
Ps Yes I have some AD experience, yes it was light blue, yes I've fought the SHAR,F4-15-16-18,M2000 and countless Fox 2 wielding mud pin cushions
In my opinion its a shame we can't afford it because it had the potential to be a useful asset but hey life sucks.