Sea Jet
Join Date: May 2002
Location: fife
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arty
Good to hear you. Would like to reinforce the well explained and argued view that the SHAR is an excellent ac to defend our carriers and attempt to project air power with our limits assets, shame we can't afford it. The pilots that fly the aircraft are professional, well trained and good at their job. They do well as blue air and provide good red air simulation
but WEBF......Please do not place it in the same league as F-15C-E/16/18/M2000-V. The above aircraft all commit in Block 4 supersonic, spend longer on CAP, carry more weapons, swing better if they're F15-E, F-16CJ,F-18C/E/F, possess better ECM.All outperform the SHAR in all visual flight regimes. Admittedly not all of them can land on a small ship. Then there are issues of PID + IFF interrogation. Sorry to break this news to you.
Also please stop all the navy propaganda.....has same level of credibilty as Donald Rumsfield stating there's a positive link between Al-Queda and the old Iraqi regime.
Good to hear you. Would like to reinforce the well explained and argued view that the SHAR is an excellent ac to defend our carriers and attempt to project air power with our limits assets, shame we can't afford it. The pilots that fly the aircraft are professional, well trained and good at their job. They do well as blue air and provide good red air simulation
but WEBF......Please do not place it in the same league as F-15C-E/16/18/M2000-V. The above aircraft all commit in Block 4 supersonic, spend longer on CAP, carry more weapons, swing better if they're F15-E, F-16CJ,F-18C/E/F, possess better ECM.All outperform the SHAR in all visual flight regimes. Admittedly not all of them can land on a small ship. Then there are issues of PID + IFF interrogation. Sorry to break this news to you.
Also please stop all the navy propaganda.....has same level of credibilty as Donald Rumsfield stating there's a positive link between Al-Queda and the old Iraqi regime.
I never said it was the best fighter in the world - but infinitely better than Mr Hoon's ideas on fleet air defence.
Sorry I didn't pick this up earlier - but this link suggests that the premature loss of the Sea Harrier will still make our forces less effective right up to 2015 - then the Ark Royal will still be in service.
News - 06 Sep 04
Sorry I didn't pick this up earlier - but this link suggests that the premature loss of the Sea Harrier will still make our forces less effective right up to 2015 - then the Ark Royal will still be in service.
News - 06 Sep 04
Suspicion breeds confidence
Fidae,
All the points you make are accurate and valid and yet the Shar still acquits itself creditably against most types and better than many. Even though its old (6 years for the newest one), slow, underarmed and short legged its a package that seems to work - especially against the opposition it is likely to find itself against . Ask the French in the Ivory Coast. Training means more than kit sometimes.
All the points you make are accurate and valid and yet the Shar still acquits itself creditably against most types and better than many. Even though its old (6 years for the newest one), slow, underarmed and short legged its a package that seems to work - especially against the opposition it is likely to find itself against . Ask the French in the Ivory Coast. Training means more than kit sometimes.
Just to clear up a point that has been argued over on this thread, this link confirms that some FA2s were new build aircraft in the nineties.
And talking of carriers, Lusty is coming back into front line service - see here.
One issue that hasn't been mentioned here is that of aircraft laying mines. If anti submarine and anti surface capabilities (including shipborne aircraft) are important means of preventing submarines or surface vessels laying mines then surely (organic) air defence would be an effective method of reducing the threat from air delivered mines?
I know both 801 and 899 were meant to (and did) go to ACMI this month. Does anyone know how they got on?
And this article suggests that operations in Africa without US involvement are still thought possible.
Whilst surfing I found this report from the air show at Yeovilton.
More Sea Harriers participated in the tac-demo at the end of the show, launching from the ski-jump and carrying a representative payload of weaponry. Airfield attacks were made in company with a pair of Harrier GR7s from Cottesmore, illustrating the Joint Force Harrier concept that is now to be cut short when the Shars are retired in 2006. While 'jointery' will still continue in spirit at Cottesmore on the Harrier GR7A and GR9, many Sea Harrier pilots joined the Navy to be a fighter pilot and are unhappy at converting to be a 'mud-mover' - consequently there may not be as many Navy pilots moving to Rutland as was first thought. Hmmmmmmm.
And talking of carriers, Lusty is coming back into front line service - see here.
One issue that hasn't been mentioned here is that of aircraft laying mines. If anti submarine and anti surface capabilities (including shipborne aircraft) are important means of preventing submarines or surface vessels laying mines then surely (organic) air defence would be an effective method of reducing the threat from air delivered mines?
I know both 801 and 899 were meant to (and did) go to ACMI this month. Does anyone know how they got on?
And this article suggests that operations in Africa without US involvement are still thought possible.
Whilst surfing I found this report from the air show at Yeovilton.
More Sea Harriers participated in the tac-demo at the end of the show, launching from the ski-jump and carrying a representative payload of weaponry. Airfield attacks were made in company with a pair of Harrier GR7s from Cottesmore, illustrating the Joint Force Harrier concept that is now to be cut short when the Shars are retired in 2006. While 'jointery' will still continue in spirit at Cottesmore on the Harrier GR7A and GR9, many Sea Harrier pilots joined the Navy to be a fighter pilot and are unhappy at converting to be a 'mud-mover' - consequently there may not be as many Navy pilots moving to Rutland as was first thought. Hmmmmmmm.
Suspicion breeds confidence
After Somalia, the US has shown little interest in African affairs. They prefer to leave any firefighting up to the old colonial masters namely Britain and France. Does this make it more likely that our armed forces will fight without the US? Probably. Up to April 06, we have a small but well balanced force capable of doing the job. After 06 we haven't.
Yes, we'll still have GR9s, but without air defence...........and lots of third world nations have MiGs/Sukhois etc. Some of these can carry anti ship missiles. The US Navy is reportedly so concerned about the spead of these that they want to get some Russian missiles and turn them into targets, in order to evolve suitable tactics for defence.
Meanwhile........our defence may well be putting another ship in the way to shield the carrier.
Meanwhile........our defence may well be putting another ship in the way to shield the carrier.
Suspicion breeds confidence
The Spams bought a bunch of Shipwreck missiles 3 or 4 years ago and have already been using them for target practise. By all accounts they are significantly more lethal than Harpoon and much more difficult to knock down. The RN places much trust in soft kill these days which is a dangerous move. The latest evolution of Sea Wolf is quite capable of taking out Shipwreck.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Absolutely! Better to take out the Backfire before he disgorges his cargo. Somehow I just can't see a Backfire hanging around long enough for a GR9 to get anywhere near it
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, that was cool! Did I miss a trick or in the space of half a dozen posts did we jump from the 'fact' that the US haven't been interested in Africa since Somalia to another side-swipe at the GR9 cause it can't defend a carrier against a Backfire threat???
Do a google search and you'll find that just about every Marine Expeditionary Force that's left San Diego over the last decade has done some on-station time around the Horn of Africa, including regular forays and exercises ashore. Even the East Coast MEU got involved in NEO type ops in Liberia and Central African Republic only last year (which they did in 96 and 91 too). Seems to me that the US are very much aware of Africa and that we might not have to fight this hypothetical war all on our lonesome, unless, as in the case of Sierra Leone, we choose to because of colonial/Commonwealth sensibilities.
I've been out of the loop for a while, so humour me, but where's this Backfire threat coming from? And if a squadron of Backfires do come over the hill and start hoofing off Kitchens/Shipwrecks/whatever at xx miles, are the 2 Shars on cap going to be able to save the day either?
Do a google search and you'll find that just about every Marine Expeditionary Force that's left San Diego over the last decade has done some on-station time around the Horn of Africa, including regular forays and exercises ashore. Even the East Coast MEU got involved in NEO type ops in Liberia and Central African Republic only last year (which they did in 96 and 91 too). Seems to me that the US are very much aware of Africa and that we might not have to fight this hypothetical war all on our lonesome, unless, as in the case of Sierra Leone, we choose to because of colonial/Commonwealth sensibilities.
I've been out of the loop for a while, so humour me, but where's this Backfire threat coming from? And if a squadron of Backfires do come over the hill and start hoofing off Kitchens/Shipwrecks/whatever at xx miles, are the 2 Shars on cap going to be able to save the day either?
Suspicion breeds confidence
SSSETOWTF,
Yeah that one did jump around a bit! I didn't say that Uncle Sam had no interest in Africa, just that his attention is directed elsewhere, resulting in the absence of much overt activity in Africa since Magadishu. It has and will be an area where we are likely to operate independantly. WEBF rightly pointed out that there are lots of quite nasty soviet era weapons and a/c lurking around in central and southern Africa that are very dangerous in the wrong hands. I've seen Bears myself flying out of Luanda and that was a very long way from shore and no-one to "hack the Shad" if things got nasty.
Yeah that one did jump around a bit! I didn't say that Uncle Sam had no interest in Africa, just that his attention is directed elsewhere, resulting in the absence of much overt activity in Africa since Magadishu. It has and will be an area where we are likely to operate independantly. WEBF rightly pointed out that there are lots of quite nasty soviet era weapons and a/c lurking around in central and southern Africa that are very dangerous in the wrong hands. I've seen Bears myself flying out of Luanda and that was a very long way from shore and no-one to "hack the Shad" if things got nasty.
Last edited by Navaleye; 30th Nov 2004 at 11:29.
Not to mention the fact that the Russians are actively selling very dangerous weapons, many of them developed just for export.
Meanwhile - found this topic that was discussed on another thread on the net..........
Meanwhile - found this topic that was discussed on another thread on the net..........
Suspicion breeds confidence
Good arguments on that thread, good points from Giblets. The answer is no clear winner, it depends on the circumstances and training of the pilots. The FA2 is not as disadvantaged as many here have claimed.
On a slightly different note I was interested to read the comments by Commodore Steve Jermy (asst Chief of Staff (Aviation) and Commodore Fleet Air Arm) regarding sortie rates in the Falklands War.
This would lead one to conclude that in terms of value for money and flexibility carriers represent the way ahead in comparison to land based air power. Granted a carrier offers little for air defence of the UK, but with no perceived aerial theat to the UK mainland surely the govt is right to stress of the importance of maritime aviation in its thinking.
On a slightly different note I was interested to read the comments by Commodore Steve Jermy (asst Chief of Staff (Aviation) and Commodore Fleet Air Arm) regarding sortie rates in the Falklands War.
30 or so Harriers faced between 130 and 160 Argentine fast jets, but because of the high serviceability rates, a real focus in the aircraft carriers on sortie generation and the ability to operate close to the action, the advantage in terms of sorties over the area of action was 3:2 in favour of the British. The carriers were generating sorties at six times the rate of the land based Argentine air force.
Last edited by Navaleye; 1st Dec 2004 at 14:38.
How many Super Etendard Exocet missions were stopped by the carriers?
What would sortie generation have been like if the Argies had had more than five Exocet rounds?
How did sortie generation from the carriers compare to sortie generation from Gioia during the Balkans war?
How long did it take for a carrier to get to Sierra Leone?
We'll admit that if you stuffed up big time, withdrew all AD from Stanley and had to retake the Falklands, yes you'd need a carrier. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that we're talking about the UK making a contribution to multinational ops, (the most common and most likely post Cold War scenario).
What is the total manpower requirement and capital cost required to sustain a SHar det in the Persian Gulf, including the SSN, the oilers, escorts, etc.? Compare this to the cost of adding a Squadron of Jags to an existing US deployment to an existing airfield in an allied nation.
How long ago was the Falklands War, again?
What would sortie generation have been like if the Argies had had more than five Exocet rounds?
How did sortie generation from the carriers compare to sortie generation from Gioia during the Balkans war?
How long did it take for a carrier to get to Sierra Leone?
We'll admit that if you stuffed up big time, withdrew all AD from Stanley and had to retake the Falklands, yes you'd need a carrier. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that we're talking about the UK making a contribution to multinational ops, (the most common and most likely post Cold War scenario).
What is the total manpower requirement and capital cost required to sustain a SHar det in the Persian Gulf, including the SSN, the oilers, escorts, etc.? Compare this to the cost of adding a Squadron of Jags to an existing US deployment to an existing airfield in an allied nation.
How long ago was the Falklands War, again?
"withdrew all AD from Stanley"
Far be it from me to query your sources, but I think you'll find that happened around 20 years ago when RAF Mount Pleasant opened?
Information which is indeed in the public domain.
Far be it from me to query your sources, but I think you'll find that happened around 20 years ago when RAF Mount Pleasant opened?
Information which is indeed in the public domain.
Last edited by BEagle; 1st Dec 2004 at 16:28.
Sorry. Source could not be more suspect. (Addled Jacko Brain). Meant MPA, of course.
Personally I'd buy carriers and adequate land based air power, but then I wouldn't be funding Trident, and perhaps not AWE, and I'd allocate double the share of GDP to defence that this Government does. But if we're stuck with present levels of spending then carriers (which are nice to have, and indispensible for certain scenarios) wouldn't make the cut.
Personally I'd buy carriers and adequate land based air power, but then I wouldn't be funding Trident, and perhaps not AWE, and I'd allocate double the share of GDP to defence that this Government does. But if we're stuck with present levels of spending then carriers (which are nice to have, and indispensible for certain scenarios) wouldn't make the cut.