Sea Jet
BEagle/Navaleye,
The GR7/9 is not MEANT to be an AD asset. That capability will be absent from the CVS until the F-35 on the CVF replaces the Harriers, when it wil be back with a vengeance.
The whole rationale of the fixed wing carriers is STRIKE, not AD.
The GR7/9 is not MEANT to be an AD asset. That capability will be absent from the CVS until the F-35 on the CVF replaces the Harriers, when it wil be back with a vengeance.
The whole rationale of the fixed wing carriers is STRIKE, not AD.
But surely our offensive assets need defending? As for the rationale for the carriers, surely it is expeditionary warfare. Since our present carriers could never compete with a CVN in terms of offensive sortie generation, the main thrust should be towards supporting amphibious operations - something which the UK has invested a great deal in. Surely this requires at least some air defence - particularly if there isn't a USN carrier battle group close by.
...A calculated risk.....
When the decision was announced, it was portrayed as a calculated risk for six years, based on the assumption that the first CVF would enter service in 2012, as would the F35. We know this won't happen. Needless to say, the longer then delay - the greater the risk. The probabilities will add up and up.
See this from Hansard.
Mr. Hoon: Full operating capability will be determined by both air group and ship readiness. The target date for the full operating capability will not be set before the main investment decision is taken.
Therefore it follows that Ministers are not able to predict how large a risk it is. But that risk was mitigated, according to Ministers, by the layers of defence provided by Sea Dart and Sea Wolf carried by Frigates and Destroyers, and the introduction from 2007 of the Type 45.
However, at about the same time the number of frigates and destroyers set by the SDR (32) was quietly dropped. These numbers are now being cut from 31 to 25. This involves risks due to the fleet being less able (unable?) to absorb losses or damage, and less peacetime tasks that might help prevent anything really serious kicking off. Looking specifically at the weapons issue - the number of Sea Dart platforms (T42s) is being cut from 11 to 8, a cut of 27%, and Sea Wolf carrying frigates from 20 to 17, a 15% reduction.
As for the Type 45, the first have class has been delayed, as have all the following ships. Therefore the risks caused by the loss of the Sea Harrier and cuts to the surface fleet will not be mitigated by its capabilities until later than planned.
Have these additional risks been computed?
And cuts to the other services need to be considered. The SDR said the RAF needed at least five air defence squadrons, this will soon be down to three. Therefore the probability of land based air cover being provided for a task group by the RAF is a lot lower. Many other parts of the services are being cut - in future we will have less armour, less artillery, less helicopters etc. Since most of this will be transported by sea, the risk of a significant proportion of it being lost due to the transporting ship being attacked is higher.
So I conclude that what may have been seen as a calculated risk back in early 20002 is now snowballing into a larger, less predictable risk.
...A calculated risk.....
When the decision was announced, it was portrayed as a calculated risk for six years, based on the assumption that the first CVF would enter service in 2012, as would the F35. We know this won't happen. Needless to say, the longer then delay - the greater the risk. The probabilities will add up and up.
See this from Hansard.
Mr. Hoon: Full operating capability will be determined by both air group and ship readiness. The target date for the full operating capability will not be set before the main investment decision is taken.
Therefore it follows that Ministers are not able to predict how large a risk it is. But that risk was mitigated, according to Ministers, by the layers of defence provided by Sea Dart and Sea Wolf carried by Frigates and Destroyers, and the introduction from 2007 of the Type 45.
However, at about the same time the number of frigates and destroyers set by the SDR (32) was quietly dropped. These numbers are now being cut from 31 to 25. This involves risks due to the fleet being less able (unable?) to absorb losses or damage, and less peacetime tasks that might help prevent anything really serious kicking off. Looking specifically at the weapons issue - the number of Sea Dart platforms (T42s) is being cut from 11 to 8, a cut of 27%, and Sea Wolf carrying frigates from 20 to 17, a 15% reduction.
As for the Type 45, the first have class has been delayed, as have all the following ships. Therefore the risks caused by the loss of the Sea Harrier and cuts to the surface fleet will not be mitigated by its capabilities until later than planned.
Have these additional risks been computed?
And cuts to the other services need to be considered. The SDR said the RAF needed at least five air defence squadrons, this will soon be down to three. Therefore the probability of land based air cover being provided for a task group by the RAF is a lot lower. Many other parts of the services are being cut - in future we will have less armour, less artillery, less helicopters etc. Since most of this will be transported by sea, the risk of a significant proportion of it being lost due to the transporting ship being attacked is higher.
So I conclude that what may have been seen as a calculated risk back in early 20002 is now snowballing into a larger, less predictable risk.
Suspicion breeds confidence
It gets worse. As the T42s will decom before the T45s are deployed, there will be times when the RN will only have 5 or 6 knackered T42s in service and these will be at varying degrees of readiness. I'll try and dig out the exact numbers if I can.
That is is not the point at issue, the simple fact is that IS what is being asked of it. The Shar is better at being a bomber than the GR7/9 is at being a fighter.
The GR7/9 is not MEANT to be an AD asset.
Last edited by Navaleye; 24th Mar 2005 at 13:38.
Probably been mentioned before, but from today's FT:
India will next month join the elite club of countries capable of building aircraft carriers when it starts work on a 37,500-tonne warship at a state-owned shipyard in Kerala.
With space for 30 fighter aircraft and an operating endurance of 7,500 nautical miles over 45 days, the new carrier represents India's desire to provide a military as well as economic counter-balance to China in Asia and is the latest the sign of New Delhi's mounting self-confidence and determination to project power across south Asia.
Rahul Bedi, of Jane's Defence Weekly in New Delhi, said: “With the exception of Pakistan, other countries in Asia will be happy to see India, which has the only carrier navy in the Indian Ocean, playing this power projection role and quietly building up a very formidable counter-balance to China.”
India depends on imports for more than 70 per cent of its military requirements and is seen as a third-rate weapons-producing power at the mercy of US sanctions. Successive governments have attempted to reduce the country's reliance on the global arms bazaar.
India has an objective of achieving 70 per cent self-reliance in all its defence needs by 2005 but remains decades away from that goal, according to Jane's Defence Weekly. The ship will be indigenous in name only since its costliest components weapons systems, aircraft and electronics will be imported.
Bharat Karnad, at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, said: “South-east Asian countries are pushing India's traditionally hesitant and myopic strategic elite to realise that the breakdown of the cold war order has pitched them into the big league. Within 30 years, we shall definitely be looking at a three- to five-carrier fleet.”
India last year acquired a Russian aircraft carrier, the 44,000-tonne Admiral Gorshkov, which will replace the country's ageing carrier, the Veerat, in 2008. The Indian navy has long been pushing for a three-carrier fleet with one each side of the peninsula and one in reserve but has met with resistance from New Delhi.
Defence analysts say India could get more for the 2.4 per cent of gross domestic product allocated to the military if it discarded the idea that public ownership was the best safeguard for national strategic interests, a belief that gained ground with the victory of the Communist-backed Congress party last May.
Left-leaning parties, whose support is vital to the government's majority, remain opposed to the privatisation of the defence sector. Foreign direct investment has been allowed up to a ceiling of 26 per cent, but badly needed technology transfers have yet to take effect, Jane's Defence Weekly says.
Jasjit Singh, former director of operations in the Indian Air Force, questioned how India would protect its fleet. “This is a big symbol because it is a big ship, but times have changed since the Battle of Midway. “Symbols only have importance if we want them to, and if there is substance to back them up.”
Any ideas what they'll fly from it? Their SHAR's?
India will next month join the elite club of countries capable of building aircraft carriers when it starts work on a 37,500-tonne warship at a state-owned shipyard in Kerala.
With space for 30 fighter aircraft and an operating endurance of 7,500 nautical miles over 45 days, the new carrier represents India's desire to provide a military as well as economic counter-balance to China in Asia and is the latest the sign of New Delhi's mounting self-confidence and determination to project power across south Asia.
Rahul Bedi, of Jane's Defence Weekly in New Delhi, said: “With the exception of Pakistan, other countries in Asia will be happy to see India, which has the only carrier navy in the Indian Ocean, playing this power projection role and quietly building up a very formidable counter-balance to China.”
India depends on imports for more than 70 per cent of its military requirements and is seen as a third-rate weapons-producing power at the mercy of US sanctions. Successive governments have attempted to reduce the country's reliance on the global arms bazaar.
India has an objective of achieving 70 per cent self-reliance in all its defence needs by 2005 but remains decades away from that goal, according to Jane's Defence Weekly. The ship will be indigenous in name only since its costliest components weapons systems, aircraft and electronics will be imported.
Bharat Karnad, at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, said: “South-east Asian countries are pushing India's traditionally hesitant and myopic strategic elite to realise that the breakdown of the cold war order has pitched them into the big league. Within 30 years, we shall definitely be looking at a three- to five-carrier fleet.”
India last year acquired a Russian aircraft carrier, the 44,000-tonne Admiral Gorshkov, which will replace the country's ageing carrier, the Veerat, in 2008. The Indian navy has long been pushing for a three-carrier fleet with one each side of the peninsula and one in reserve but has met with resistance from New Delhi.
Defence analysts say India could get more for the 2.4 per cent of gross domestic product allocated to the military if it discarded the idea that public ownership was the best safeguard for national strategic interests, a belief that gained ground with the victory of the Communist-backed Congress party last May.
Left-leaning parties, whose support is vital to the government's majority, remain opposed to the privatisation of the defence sector. Foreign direct investment has been allowed up to a ceiling of 26 per cent, but badly needed technology transfers have yet to take effect, Jane's Defence Weekly says.
Jasjit Singh, former director of operations in the Indian Air Force, questioned how India would protect its fleet. “This is a big symbol because it is a big ship, but times have changed since the Battle of Midway. “Symbols only have importance if we want them to, and if there is substance to back them up.”
Any ideas what they'll fly from it? Their SHAR's?
Navaleye,
That is NOT what is being asked of it! Fully agree that SHAR is a better bomber than GR9 is a fighter but the GR9 is by a million miles a better bomber than the SHAR. CVS is going to be a strike asset until CVF and F-35 come along. F-35 and CVF will also be a strike asset but will also have a very decent AD capability should it ever be required.
Name me ONE single plausible scenario where we could concievably need an AD capability for the CVS that cannot be provided from elsewhere in todays world.
Before you trot out the inevitable Falklands scenario once again, the Falklands has a large runway now, if it had had that in 1982 and we had a similar capability there as we do now you would NOT have needed to send a task force all the way to get it back again.
That is NOT what is being asked of it! Fully agree that SHAR is a better bomber than GR9 is a fighter but the GR9 is by a million miles a better bomber than the SHAR. CVS is going to be a strike asset until CVF and F-35 come along. F-35 and CVF will also be a strike asset but will also have a very decent AD capability should it ever be required.
Name me ONE single plausible scenario where we could concievably need an AD capability for the CVS that cannot be provided from elsewhere in todays world.
Before you trot out the inevitable Falklands scenario once again, the Falklands has a large runway now, if it had had that in 1982 and we had a similar capability there as we do now you would NOT have needed to send a task force all the way to get it back again.
pr00ne
Can you tell us your exact whereabouts at 3.45 pm on the 16 October 2008? Oh, you can't. So why then are you saying unpredictable events will not happen, because we can't predict them?
Navy News has a story on the decommisioning of 899 NAS.
Can you tell us your exact whereabouts at 3.45 pm on the 16 October 2008? Oh, you can't. So why then are you saying unpredictable events will not happen, because we can't predict them?
Navy News has a story on the decommisioning of 899 NAS.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Sangiovese,
India will start receiving carrier-based MiG-29Ks in 2007. RSK will deliver 16 MiG-29K by 2009. The navy is to acquire 12 MiG-29K single seater combat aircraft and four two-seater MiG-29KUB operational trainers. India is the launch customer for the multi-role aircraft, which will be able to operate from ski-jump equipped carriers. The fighters will be fully operational by April 2008, when the the Gorshkov (Ex Soviet navy carrier) is scheduled to be delivered.
Under the contract, India has an open option of buying another 30 MiG-29K with deliveries up to 2015 to equip an air wing for the new 32,000 ton carrier.
RSK is moving the wing fold inboard to the wing root and folding the tail stabilators to reduce overall stowage space. This will allow the Gorshkov to accommodate up to 24 MiG-29Ks as well as six Kamov-28/KA-31 helicopters.
The modified aircraft will be equipped with thrust vectoring engine nozzles, will have a range of 2,200 km, and will have a fully retractable air-refuelling probe.
India will start receiving carrier-based MiG-29Ks in 2007. RSK will deliver 16 MiG-29K by 2009. The navy is to acquire 12 MiG-29K single seater combat aircraft and four two-seater MiG-29KUB operational trainers. India is the launch customer for the multi-role aircraft, which will be able to operate from ski-jump equipped carriers. The fighters will be fully operational by April 2008, when the the Gorshkov (Ex Soviet navy carrier) is scheduled to be delivered.
Under the contract, India has an open option of buying another 30 MiG-29K with deliveries up to 2015 to equip an air wing for the new 32,000 ton carrier.
RSK is moving the wing fold inboard to the wing root and folding the tail stabilators to reduce overall stowage space. This will allow the Gorshkov to accommodate up to 24 MiG-29Ks as well as six Kamov-28/KA-31 helicopters.
The modified aircraft will be equipped with thrust vectoring engine nozzles, will have a range of 2,200 km, and will have a fully retractable air-refuelling probe.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Before you trot out the inevitable Falklands scenario once again, the Falklands has a large runway now, if it had had that in 1982 and we had a similar capability there as we do now you would NOT have needed to send a task force all the way to get it back again."
And thank God there wasn't a large runway there in '82 or the Malvinas would still be in Argentinian hands! Imagine how much easier it wold have been for them to defend the islands if they'd had Mount Pleasant airbase to operate Super Etendard and Mirage from?
As for needing an AD capability I would point at africa. Should it, for instance, become necessary to intervene in Sudan, I can't imagine the egyptians being keen on western airforces operating from their soil, although Ethiopia might be amenable. However any country helping the west outwill expect something in return . . .
It is foolish to dump the SHar before it's replacement arrives (which almost I'm willing to bet never does . . .). Personally I'd scrap the RAF totally, hand the Hercs and choppers to the AAC and resurect the RNAS to opeate fast jets from carriers.
And thank God there wasn't a large runway there in '82 or the Malvinas would still be in Argentinian hands! Imagine how much easier it wold have been for them to defend the islands if they'd had Mount Pleasant airbase to operate Super Etendard and Mirage from?
As for needing an AD capability I would point at africa. Should it, for instance, become necessary to intervene in Sudan, I can't imagine the egyptians being keen on western airforces operating from their soil, although Ethiopia might be amenable. However any country helping the west outwill expect something in return . . .
It is foolish to dump the SHar before it's replacement arrives (which almost I'm willing to bet never does . . .). Personally I'd scrap the RAF totally, hand the Hercs and choppers to the AAC and resurect the RNAS to opeate fast jets from carriers.
Pureteenlard,
IF the runway had been there and IF the FCO had been doing its job properly a deployment of anything fast and pointy and a declared deployment of an SSN or 2 and you would have had no invasion.
Sudan? Have you never heard of the Bright Star series of exercises? Western air forces operating with the Egyptians, a largely western equipped Egyptian air force. If the UN authorised intervention in the Sudan you could base the whole of NATO in Egypt. Saudi Arabia is just across the Red Sea, it is bordered by Kenya and Chad, both of whom play host to Western forces, the UK in Kenya and the French in Chad.
I was taking you seriously until I saw your last sentence…………………………..
IF the runway had been there and IF the FCO had been doing its job properly a deployment of anything fast and pointy and a declared deployment of an SSN or 2 and you would have had no invasion.
Sudan? Have you never heard of the Bright Star series of exercises? Western air forces operating with the Egyptians, a largely western equipped Egyptian air force. If the UN authorised intervention in the Sudan you could base the whole of NATO in Egypt. Saudi Arabia is just across the Red Sea, it is bordered by Kenya and Chad, both of whom play host to Western forces, the UK in Kenya and the French in Chad.
I was taking you seriously until I saw your last sentence…………………………..
Suspicion breeds confidence
Pr00ne,
You've not been keeping up with current affairs again 
Go here click on "Tailored Airgroup" scroll down to the GR7 section and have a look at "Roles".
Interestingly enough the RAF website list the GR7 as having ASRAAM capability. I thought the idea had been binned.
That is NOT what is being asked of it!
Go here click on "Tailored Airgroup" scroll down to the GR7 section and have a look at "Roles".Interestingly enough the RAF website list the GR7 as having ASRAAM capability. I thought the idea had been binned.
Navaleye,
Read what was said at the time of the announcement, NOT what is on some web site! Read what CNS, 1SL and CDS have all said about the SHAR decision, they have ALL said that it is the right thing to do considering what our forces are being asked to do in todays world and can expect to do in the future.
AD against who? The Taliban AF, Al qeda air corps?
Read what was said at the time of the announcement, NOT what is on some web site! Read what CNS, 1SL and CDS have all said about the SHAR decision, they have ALL said that it is the right thing to do considering what our forces are being asked to do in todays world and can expect to do in the future.
AD against who? The Taliban AF, Al qeda air corps?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Pr00ne,
I wouldn't call the Navy's own website "some website" just because it doesn't support your assertions. CNS, 1SL and CDS are not going to contradict government policy and risk their peerages are they now?
The only one who had any balls was Adm Essenhigh who resigned (sorry retired early) over this matter.
I think if you read the material that came out in the commons, that air defence is a required task of the GR7/9 fleet. I think they use the term "limited" because that's the very best it can do.
I wouldn't call the Navy's own website "some website" just because it doesn't support your assertions. CNS, 1SL and CDS are not going to contradict government policy and risk their peerages are they now?
The only one who had any balls was Adm Essenhigh who resigned (sorry retired early) over this matter.
I think if you read the material that came out in the commons, that air defence is a required task of the GR7/9 fleet. I think they use the term "limited" because that's the very best it can do.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My apologies, pr00ne, I was only teasing and the Seajet forum is a good place to tease the RAF. . . :-)
The real point I was making is that carriers with a balanced air group allow independent operations with less tricky political ramifications. I understand the SHar is going. It's regrettable, foolish even, but there it is.
The real point I was making is that carriers with a balanced air group allow independent operations with less tricky political ramifications. I understand the SHar is going. It's regrettable, foolish even, but there it is.
pr00ne
Can you predict the future? Can you predict where where and when UK forces will be needed? Can you predict exactly when and where a carrier, amphibious or other task group will be needed? Can you say for certain that there will be no air threat? Can you predict where the CVS and GR9s will go where there will be no enemy airpower?
History teaches that such predictions are seldom accurate - therefore being able to defend our forces from all possible threats. If we had to procure a system for organic air defence (prior to the F35) there would be some merit in your arguments, but we don't. We already have one - and retiring it early will save little money (when seen in the context of Government spending as a whole) but is a considerable gamble, with dire consequences if we find we do need it but have just lost it.
Can you predict the future? Can you predict where where and when UK forces will be needed? Can you predict exactly when and where a carrier, amphibious or other task group will be needed? Can you say for certain that there will be no air threat? Can you predict where the CVS and GR9s will go where there will be no enemy airpower?
History teaches that such predictions are seldom accurate - therefore being able to defend our forces from all possible threats. If we had to procure a system for organic air defence (prior to the F35) there would be some merit in your arguments, but we don't. We already have one - and retiring it early will save little money (when seen in the context of Government spending as a whole) but is a considerable gamble, with dire consequences if we find we do need it but have just lost it.
WEBF,
Of course I can’t but I am not blind or deaf and I can see and hear what is happening out there in the big wide world.
There is not one single scenario out there where it is likely that the UK will need to defend its fleet from hostile air attack on its own beyond the reach of shore based air cover.
Sure that’s a gamble, but I’m not the one taking it, it’s been taken by some very senior service folk.
Of course I can’t but I am not blind or deaf and I can see and hear what is happening out there in the big wide world.
There is not one single scenario out there where it is likely that the UK will need to defend its fleet from hostile air attack on its own beyond the reach of shore based air cover.
Sure that’s a gamble, but I’m not the one taking it, it’s been taken by some very senior service folk.
Suspicion breeds confidence
...taking care of their own pensions, benefits and future careers at BWoS and similar. Pr00ne, you may be in danger of confusing information and facts again.
Or was it Ministers making decisions or certain senior officers making decisions that the service chiefs, as a whole, had to portray as the party line?
Meanwhile, I noticed this story in the Telegraph the other day.
Another thing to consider is that the Type 23s will have to carry on for longer than the design life, due to scrapping of the Future Surface Combatant, and the loss of three under last years cuts will increase the pressure on the remaining ones. Only seven (according to Hansard) will be fitted with CEC - so much for network enabled capablity.
More and more risks.....
Meanwhile, I noticed this story in the Telegraph the other day.
Another thing to consider is that the Type 23s will have to carry on for longer than the design life, due to scrapping of the Future Surface Combatant, and the loss of three under last years cuts will increase the pressure on the remaining ones. Only seven (according to Hansard) will be fitted with CEC - so much for network enabled capablity.
More and more risks.....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I apologise if I am going around the buoy here, but I have read the thread on the Sea Jet, and having flown it recently I have to come to the conclusion that the due to the lack of investment 5 years ago that might have made it reasonably comparable to a modern fighter in capability, it is swiftly becoming an out of date aircraft which is becoming a hindrance in a multi-national AD environment rather than a help. Yes it still has the AMRAAM, but the requirement for positive ID in our complex ROE environment makes the force incredibly dependant on FC's and other forces that can do the same job silently and self sufficiently get more and more frustrated with the clogging of the airwaves! This is just one example of how the jet is ageing fast, and in reality, where is the AD threat coming from in the next 5 years? Eurofighter is just as useless until it becomes a bomber, so in reality however painful it seems to get rid of a neat little package like the BV and the slammer, I think we should embrace the way forward and realise that there is a capability gap there, but like we always manage it, it'll be filled somehow!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FA2 could have had positive friendly ID capability with the JTIDS terminal upgrade that was planned and scrapped. Before someone else points this out, the display would not have been sited in the most convenient place in the cockpit!