Sea Jet
Another one
From StrategyPage.com - Naval Air Discussion Board
The Shar vs F18 discussion was mntioned earlier, but more apt is the Shar vs Su30. See here.
Not all of the comments are particularly sensible, however.... And who mentioned the Chinese?
The Shar vs F18 discussion was mntioned earlier, but more apt is the Shar vs Su30. See here.
Not all of the comments are particularly sensible, however.... And who mentioned the Chinese?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Well, its probably the same argument/result as for the Mig-29 and the F-18. It depends on lots of variables. I would imagine the a Shar pilot would would use his training and equipment to seek whatever advantage possible.
I would be more interested to hear our distinguished membership discuss today's F3 vs SU30.
Have a happy new year everyone.
I would be more interested to hear our distinguished membership discuss today's F3 vs SU30.
Have a happy new year everyone.
Navy News has a story about 801 NAS. I'm not too sure it actually contains anything new, however, here it is.
The much-loved Sea Harrier may be in the twilight of its Royal Navy career, but that doesn’t mean the jet fighter is going out quietly, as a busy autumn has proved.
Meanwhile, the following link from Richard Beedall comments of many current woes:
RN Year in Review - 2004
The much-loved Sea Harrier may be in the twilight of its Royal Navy career, but that doesn’t mean the jet fighter is going out quietly, as a busy autumn has proved.
Meanwhile, the following link from Richard Beedall comments of many current woes:
RN Year in Review - 2004
Suspicion breeds confidence
I have great respect for Richard's work and its accuracy, but he does tend to write from the perspective of a man with a half empty glass rather than a half full one. Good to see 801 keeping busy too.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Navaleye for not responding sooner...been a tad busy since I last posted. You may have misunderstood my intent; it was the continual posting of links to 'Navy News' that was getting tiresome, rather than the particular article in question. I worked with JHF for a couple of years, have mates both light and dark blue, and have probably worked with the Cdr himself (although I can't quite remember it). I have a great deal of respect for those who willingly launch from the CVS in the knowledge it won't be quite where they said it would be when you get back.....
I just found the continual 'look at what 801/Lusty/Chatham is up to this week' a little tedious and detracting from an excellent thread. And of course, I knew he'd do it again before long(see above).
Cheers
SBG
I just found the continual 'look at what 801/Lusty/Chatham is up to this week' a little tedious and detracting from an excellent thread. And of course, I knew he'd do it again before long(see above).
Cheers
SBG
Has anyone else noticed that some recent RN recruitment adverts appear to feature a ship (looks like a T42) being fired on by several missiles, which are then promptly splashed by Phalanx? Apart from the range issue with Phalanx, and the generation of debris etc, and issues of why Sea Dart couldn't splash them (just an advert, after all), this raises two issues...
1. The ability to deploy forces may allow us to contribute to preventing a regional conflict from escalating, this might involve carrier based fighters for, say, helping enforce a no fly zone. Or putting lots of bootnecks etc of their coast.
2. In that sort of situation, our forces (land, sea, or air) need to be able to defend themselves from conventional as well as assymetric threats, which may come from land, sea (surface or sub-surface), or air (including missiles).
3. Due to cuts, we are increasingly unable to do 1 or 2.
1. The ability to deploy forces may allow us to contribute to preventing a regional conflict from escalating, this might involve carrier based fighters for, say, helping enforce a no fly zone. Or putting lots of bootnecks etc of their coast.
2. In that sort of situation, our forces (land, sea, or air) need to be able to defend themselves from conventional as well as assymetric threats, which may come from land, sea (surface or sub-surface), or air (including missiles).
3. Due to cuts, we are increasingly unable to do 1 or 2.
Suspicion breeds confidence
In answer to your question its obviously (3).
Regarding the advert, it inadvertantly reflects the reality of the situation, T42s have no medium or long range capability against sea skimmers (as admitted in Hansard) and sans Shar neither does the fleet as a whole. We are down to relying on CIWS. I think a Phalanx can engage 5 targets before reloading - what happens to the 6th? With ASaC we can detect them, but without the Shar, nothing to prevent the attack.
Regarding the advert, it inadvertantly reflects the reality of the situation, T42s have no medium or long range capability against sea skimmers (as admitted in Hansard) and sans Shar neither does the fleet as a whole. We are down to relying on CIWS. I think a Phalanx can engage 5 targets before reloading - what happens to the 6th? With ASaC we can detect them, but without the Shar, nothing to prevent the attack.
Don't remember asking a question! More a comment on the current state of affairs - a bit more offensive power at the price of huge loss of defensive capabilities.
Noticed this story from the Telegraph which suggests that our relationship with the United States may soon experience some problems. Therefore one might say relying on American protection for our high value units is a questionable policy. Also other problems with sharing technologies.
Finally, I have found a link which discusses things to do with F35.... More stuff that goes over my head - F35/JSF stuff
By the way, what is happening to the Phalanx systems from the three T42s being scrapped? Binned, or removed where they might find other uses........installation on RFAs perhaps?
Noticed this story from the Telegraph which suggests that our relationship with the United States may soon experience some problems. Therefore one might say relying on American protection for our high value units is a questionable policy. Also other problems with sharing technologies.
Finally, I have found a link which discusses things to do with F35.... More stuff that goes over my head - F35/JSF stuff
By the way, what is happening to the Phalanx systems from the three T42s being scrapped? Binned, or removed where they might find other uses........installation on RFAs perhaps?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 17th Jan 2005 at 15:46.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I can't help but notice that the F35 will only be able to carry 2 X AMRAAMs internally. I thought we had learned in the Falklands that is not enough and a larger loadout is needed.
Two AMRAAMs is better than none - which of course is what the GR9 will have.
Yesterday, Invincible put to sea for a long planned deployment, called MARSTRIKE 05.
MARSTRIKE 05 - RN page
The long-planned series of exercises, entitled MARSTRIKE 05, is designed to demonstrate Britain’s ability to deploy, operate and sustain a maritime strike force and to reinforce the Government’s commitment to the stability and security of the Mediterranean and Gulf regions.
A self contained task group, with no US air defence? Might need Sea Harriers then.........
Invincible’s aircraft will, at various times include Sea Harrier FA2s from 801 Naval Air Squadron (NAS), Harrier GR7 strike aircraft from No. 4 (AC) Squadron RAF, and three Sea King airborne early warning helicopters of B Flight, 849 NAS. The aircraft will join the ship at sea.
Is this an admission that the Sea Harrier really is needed for some of the types of operation a CVS may be used for in the next few years?
Also see here.
Invincible will eventually carry up to 28 aircraft – a mix of Royal Navy and RAF Harriers and helicopters...
Comments please......
Yesterday, Invincible put to sea for a long planned deployment, called MARSTRIKE 05.
MARSTRIKE 05 - RN page
The long-planned series of exercises, entitled MARSTRIKE 05, is designed to demonstrate Britain’s ability to deploy, operate and sustain a maritime strike force and to reinforce the Government’s commitment to the stability and security of the Mediterranean and Gulf regions.
A self contained task group, with no US air defence? Might need Sea Harriers then.........
Invincible’s aircraft will, at various times include Sea Harrier FA2s from 801 Naval Air Squadron (NAS), Harrier GR7 strike aircraft from No. 4 (AC) Squadron RAF, and three Sea King airborne early warning helicopters of B Flight, 849 NAS. The aircraft will join the ship at sea.
Is this an admission that the Sea Harrier really is needed for some of the types of operation a CVS may be used for in the next few years?
Also see here.
Invincible will eventually carry up to 28 aircraft – a mix of Royal Navy and RAF Harriers and helicopters...
Comments please......
Suspicion breeds confidence
Invincible will eventually carry up to 28 aircraft – a mix of Royal Navy and RAF Harriers and helicopters...
So they get an RFA to go with them, and since the RFA is there, why not carry some helicopters. The AOR is carrying four Merlins.
As an aside - how many aircraft did Ark Royal carry when we first sent her to the Adriatic in early 1993? As far as I remember she carried Sea Harriers (more than usual), ASW Sea Kings, AEW Sea Kings, and some Jungly Sea Kings. Does anyone know what the actual number was?
As an aside - how many aircraft did Ark Royal carry when we first sent her to the Adriatic in early 1993? As far as I remember she carried Sea Harriers (more than usual), ASW Sea Kings, AEW Sea Kings, and some Jungly Sea Kings. Does anyone know what the actual number was?
Suspicion breeds confidence
I can't remember when a CVS embarked more than one Shar squadron (ready to be corrected). Illustrious operated 15 light and dark Harriers in the gulf in the early 90s. A very tight squeeze by all accounts.
I think it was one squadron - reinforced with a couple of extra aircraft.....
On another note, rumours persist in some quarters about the 909 radar (needed for Sea Dart) aboard the T42s. Old technology, thermal problems (our ships deploy to very hot and very cold places).... I think I heard rumours like that years go - from people who had been 909 maintainers.
Whilst doing a quick Google search for "909 radar problems" I came across the following...
Uncorrected Evidence 45
A very long read, but interesting. It would appear that the First Sea Lord is concerned about the danger of taking losses when the fleet has so few ships. He also thinks we need about thirty frigates and destroyers. If we had not lost three T23s we would have nearly that. I am shocked at the approx £8.8 million per year running costs for a Type 23 Frigate - given how much defence and foreign policy will be affected how can the Government justify these cuts which will save so little, the savings swallowed up elsewhere?
The Sea Harrier gets mentioned to, as does CVF.
To sum up, this is what I see
1.Not having the Sea Harrier makes defence diplomacy and deterrence more important - so as to avoid the really severe situation where carriers/organic air defence are vital.
2.Less frigates/destroyers means less diplomacy and deterence, therefore real brown trousers situations are more likely.
3.Through their incompetence and arrogance, our politicians are almost inviting attacks on UK national interests.
On another note, rumours persist in some quarters about the 909 radar (needed for Sea Dart) aboard the T42s. Old technology, thermal problems (our ships deploy to very hot and very cold places).... I think I heard rumours like that years go - from people who had been 909 maintainers.
Whilst doing a quick Google search for "909 radar problems" I came across the following...
Uncorrected Evidence 45
A very long read, but interesting. It would appear that the First Sea Lord is concerned about the danger of taking losses when the fleet has so few ships. He also thinks we need about thirty frigates and destroyers. If we had not lost three T23s we would have nearly that. I am shocked at the approx £8.8 million per year running costs for a Type 23 Frigate - given how much defence and foreign policy will be affected how can the Government justify these cuts which will save so little, the savings swallowed up elsewhere?
The Sea Harrier gets mentioned to, as does CVF.
To sum up, this is what I see
1.Not having the Sea Harrier makes defence diplomacy and deterrence more important - so as to avoid the really severe situation where carriers/organic air defence are vital.
2.Less frigates/destroyers means less diplomacy and deterence, therefore real brown trousers situations are more likely.
3.Through their incompetence and arrogance, our politicians are almost inviting attacks on UK national interests.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Webf,
Imagine going to your grannies house, getting her 1970s TV and putting it on the roof. Then subject it to very hot and cold temperatures and throwing in some salt water for added measure. 909s are heat sensitive and are maintenance intensive in hot climates. When you only have two, the loss of one is a huge loss in capability in what is an already compromised design.
With the exception of CVF, Adm West's comments make depressing reading. I'm pleased that the MoD has settled on a 36 cab/85 sorties per day capability for CVF.
Imagine going to your grannies house, getting her 1970s TV and putting it on the roof. Then subject it to very hot and cold temperatures and throwing in some salt water for added measure. 909s are heat sensitive and are maintenance intensive in hot climates. When you only have two, the loss of one is a huge loss in capability in what is an already compromised design.
With the exception of CVF, Adm West's comments make depressing reading. I'm pleased that the MoD has settled on a 36 cab/85 sorties per day capability for CVF.
Found this today.....801 at ACMI.
For the Brits, the two-week ‘battle’ proved invaluable, both for giving 801 the ‘cutting edge’ needed for what promises to be a busy 2005, and for picking up – and passing on – tips from Allied pilots.
Why will 2005 be busy, and then suddenly whatever caused the need for this activity to magically go away in 2006?
And this from Culdrose.
.........are designed to demonstrate Britain’s ability to deploy, operate and sustain a maritime strike force and to reinforce the Government’s commitment to the stability and security of the Mediterranean and Gulf regions..
But everything will be secure and peaceful after 2006? No?
Lastly, the latest Merlin thread caused me look at this page: The Role Of An Aircraft Carrier
In order to succeed in either the MarStrike or LitM role, the CVS will need to operate effectively within the littoral environment (defined as coastal sea areas and that portion of the land, which is susceptible to influence or support from the sea). To achieve this, sea lines of communication between support vessels and the battle area/theatre of operation need to be protected at all times. Integrated with other task group units, aircraft, such as the Merlin HM Mk1 and Sea King ASaC Mk7, will be used to achieve the sea control (or freedom of action to use the sea for our own purpose) necessary to assure littoral access.
Surely "Optimised Access" should include air defence?
For the Brits, the two-week ‘battle’ proved invaluable, both for giving 801 the ‘cutting edge’ needed for what promises to be a busy 2005, and for picking up – and passing on – tips from Allied pilots.
Why will 2005 be busy, and then suddenly whatever caused the need for this activity to magically go away in 2006?
And this from Culdrose.
.........are designed to demonstrate Britain’s ability to deploy, operate and sustain a maritime strike force and to reinforce the Government’s commitment to the stability and security of the Mediterranean and Gulf regions..
But everything will be secure and peaceful after 2006? No?
Lastly, the latest Merlin thread caused me look at this page: The Role Of An Aircraft Carrier
In order to succeed in either the MarStrike or LitM role, the CVS will need to operate effectively within the littoral environment (defined as coastal sea areas and that portion of the land, which is susceptible to influence or support from the sea). To achieve this, sea lines of communication between support vessels and the battle area/theatre of operation need to be protected at all times. Integrated with other task group units, aircraft, such as the Merlin HM Mk1 and Sea King ASaC Mk7, will be used to achieve the sea control (or freedom of action to use the sea for our own purpose) necessary to assure littoral access.
Surely "Optimised Access" should include air defence?
Suspicion breeds confidence
I'm more concerned about this. Low cost Backfires becoming available to the world's less friendly nations is an uncomfortable prospect - and a difficult prospect for our new fleet defender to deal with. 
Ironic really since one of the main roles for the orginal Sea Harrier was to shadow/intercept Soviet MPA.......for which it was given a (limited) radar. Now that many of these things can fire missiles from well outside the range of shipborne defences, carrier based fighters are more important than ever.