Sea Jet
Thread life extended.....
Page 10 'In Brief' column of today's Daily Telegraph has an article headlined "MoD to miss 2012 target for new carriers".
Unfortunately the article is not available on their web site, so putting my copy-typing skills to the test:-
"The Royal Navy faces further delay over the delivery of two aircraft carriers after the MoD dropped a target date of 2012 for the first to go into service. Lord Drayson, the defence procurement minister, told MPs yesterday that no date for the final decision to go ahead with the two carriers while 'critical' negotiations were under way with private contractors........."
Unfortunately the article is not available on their web site, so putting my copy-typing skills to the test:-
"The Royal Navy faces further delay over the delivery of two aircraft carriers after the MoD dropped a target date of 2012 for the first to go into service. Lord Drayson, the defence procurement minister, told MPs yesterday that no date for the final decision to go ahead with the two carriers while 'critical' negotiations were under way with private contractors........."
Mea culpa 
The extract should have read:-
"The Royal Navy faces further delay over the delivery of two aircraft carriers after the MoD dropped a target date of 2012 for the first to go into service. Lord Drayson, the defence procurement minister, told MPs yesterday that no date for the final decision to go ahead with the two carriers could be set while 'critical' negotiations were under way with private contractors........."
The extract should have read:-
"The Royal Navy faces further delay over the delivery of two aircraft carriers after the MoD dropped a target date of 2012 for the first to go into service. Lord Drayson, the defence procurement minister, told MPs yesterday that no date for the final decision to go ahead with the two carriers could be set while 'critical' negotiations were under way with private contractors........."
There are many reasons for low morale in a unit. I put it to you that within 801, the fact that the squadron is soon to be disbanded and the move to Cott/Witt probably has a lot to do with it.
Hmm. Interesting. When the SDR was announced in '98, and the Sea Harrier force came under RAF control, I feared that the Navy's needs (such as air defence and anti ship strike) would be forgotten.
When the decision to move the Sea Jet force to Cott/Witt was announced, I suspected that the WAFUs wouldn't like it and PVR etc. My suspicions were confirmed both in the media and by personal contacts. I took the extreme step of writing to my MP over it. Adam Ingram MP, however, was adament that there was no such issue. This letter arrived less than a week before the decision to retire the Sea Harrier was taken, yet it gave no clues.
Can't help thinking I was right on both counts!
Hmm. Interesting. When the SDR was announced in '98, and the Sea Harrier force came under RAF control, I feared that the Navy's needs (such as air defence and anti ship strike) would be forgotten.
When the decision to move the Sea Jet force to Cott/Witt was announced, I suspected that the WAFUs wouldn't like it and PVR etc. My suspicions were confirmed both in the media and by personal contacts. I took the extreme step of writing to my MP over it. Adam Ingram MP, however, was adament that there was no such issue. This letter arrived less than a week before the decision to retire the Sea Harrier was taken, yet it gave no clues.
Can't help thinking I was right on both counts!
Talking of vulnerable RFAs, the Bay class landing ships are to be fitted to recieve Phalanx, but not get it. Since they will carry as many troops etc as the new LPDs do, surely they need a CIWS? What has happened to the Phalanx systems from the three T42s that have been decommisioned, and Fearless?
Also see letters from the Telegraph for the comments of Commander David Burns and Dr Julian Lewis.
Also see letters from the Telegraph for the comments of Commander David Burns and Dr Julian Lewis.
Suspicion breeds confidence
For those that missed it on the CVF thread here's the letter from Sandy Woodward in the Telegraph
------------------
Sir - Your article about the Jervis Bay (Arts, October 28) was not simply about the bravery of a single ship and a single man. It was about what I have called for many years the "Jervis Bay syndrome", which drove us all in the Royal Navy.
It is the force that made us put our main armament in the front of the ships, not the rear. It is the force that made us go forward when all our instincts were yelling to go back.
It is the force that makes our ships generally worth any two similar of our enemy's. And it is the force that gave rise to the British sailor's saying: "You shouldn't have joined if you can't take a joke."
This week's "joke" is the announcement of an indefinite delay in the ordering of the new aircraft carriers (and presumably their aircraft). When combined with the removal from service early in 2006 of this country's only operational all-weather interceptor, the Sea Harrier, deployment of a naval expeditionary force against any but the most basic opposition, with no aircraft of its own, becomes the worst kind of joke yet dreamed up by an incompetent government.
I personally could not ask the modern sailor to "go forward" in these circumstances, but no doubt the politicians of the day will do so - from plain ignorance or refusal to face the facts.
Admiral Sir John Woodward, Bosham, West Sussex
------------------
Sir - Your article about the Jervis Bay (Arts, October 28) was not simply about the bravery of a single ship and a single man. It was about what I have called for many years the "Jervis Bay syndrome", which drove us all in the Royal Navy.
It is the force that made us put our main armament in the front of the ships, not the rear. It is the force that made us go forward when all our instincts were yelling to go back.
It is the force that makes our ships generally worth any two similar of our enemy's. And it is the force that gave rise to the British sailor's saying: "You shouldn't have joined if you can't take a joke."
This week's "joke" is the announcement of an indefinite delay in the ordering of the new aircraft carriers (and presumably their aircraft). When combined with the removal from service early in 2006 of this country's only operational all-weather interceptor, the Sea Harrier, deployment of a naval expeditionary force against any but the most basic opposition, with no aircraft of its own, becomes the worst kind of joke yet dreamed up by an incompetent government.
I personally could not ask the modern sailor to "go forward" in these circumstances, but no doubt the politicians of the day will do so - from plain ignorance or refusal to face the facts.
Admiral Sir John Woodward, Bosham, West Sussex
It is indeed regrettable that the Government chooses to ignore Admiral Woodward and others like him. They see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear. They neither care nor understand the consequences of their actions. It seems so obvious that almost every nation that is a potential adversary has an air force that could threaten out forces and interests, but the Government. Sometimes you don't know whether to laugh or cry.....
WEBF,
Yep, it's that dastardly Govt again, they will insist on listening to folk like the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Defence staff and all their professional advisors.
You know we don't need strike capabilities do we? No! We need loads and loads of Frigates and Sea Harriers so we can escort those convoys and defend them from the hordes of marauding Backfires and submarines and surface action groups................
Except that we don't, we haven't for some time now, we have an entirely different kind of enemy in an entirely different world, shame some just don't get that.
Yep, it's that dastardly Govt again, they will insist on listening to folk like the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the Defence staff and all their professional advisors.
You know we don't need strike capabilities do we? No! We need loads and loads of Frigates and Sea Harriers so we can escort those convoys and defend them from the hordes of marauding Backfires and submarines and surface action groups................
Except that we don't, we haven't for some time now, we have an entirely different kind of enemy in an entirely different world, shame some just don't get that.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF - lets go over this just one more time.......
Now listen. I love the mighty Sea Jet as much as the next bloke. What they did (do) with a very old airframe (1970s rivets and tin-cans unlike the GR7s composite loveliness) and a great radar/missile combination is/was great. But when the RN decided to go down the road of Joint Force Harrier it did so in the fullest knowledge that:
1. The RAF, rightly, could not and would not afford both VSTOL variants. GR7 is much cheaper and easier to maintain than FA2. Ask the Navy gingers at Cottesmore.
2. The Sea Harrier is limited by the size of its wing (bent man-hole cover without enough pylons) and it's inability to put the bigger (109* - I think) engine in which negates some of the effects of high OAT affecting bring back and giving marginal vertical landing windows - water or otherwise. The GR7 has a wing the size of Devon and develops lift in a small breeze. It also has a gazzillion (thats more than 5) weapon hard-points giving it the ability to carry lots of green bombs over places covered in sand where we might want to drop said precision or accurate weapons on stubborn people who don't want to be mates with Dubya.
3. Eurofighter (being a legacy programme) would not fulfill the likely future role of a stealthy multi-role fighter capable of recovering to either the deck of a carrier or a rough strip - or anywhere more than an air-conditioned ride from a 5* hotel. Therefore, we would be (hopefully - and it is a fecking big gamble) procuring FJCA - ie F35 B or C. Which is going to be a massive, read enormous capability enhanvement over anything in the UK orbat.
So its no use in blathering on about how hard done by we all are and how some bunch of geezers armed to the teeth with sharp slices of kiwi are going to sink the fleet - the FCO (bless them) tell us that there is no threat. Now if you'd like to find the e-mail address for Mr Straw crack on. But stop bugging Prooners.
Any more rubbish and we'll have to arrange for 801 sqn to come and hover over your house. At 3am. As long as its not too small a house. And well lit. In a big field. With nothing else around it.
1. The RAF, rightly, could not and would not afford both VSTOL variants. GR7 is much cheaper and easier to maintain than FA2. Ask the Navy gingers at Cottesmore.
2. The Sea Harrier is limited by the size of its wing (bent man-hole cover without enough pylons) and it's inability to put the bigger (109* - I think) engine in which negates some of the effects of high OAT affecting bring back and giving marginal vertical landing windows - water or otherwise. The GR7 has a wing the size of Devon and develops lift in a small breeze. It also has a gazzillion (thats more than 5) weapon hard-points giving it the ability to carry lots of green bombs over places covered in sand where we might want to drop said precision or accurate weapons on stubborn people who don't want to be mates with Dubya.
3. Eurofighter (being a legacy programme) would not fulfill the likely future role of a stealthy multi-role fighter capable of recovering to either the deck of a carrier or a rough strip - or anywhere more than an air-conditioned ride from a 5* hotel. Therefore, we would be (hopefully - and it is a fecking big gamble) procuring FJCA - ie F35 B or C. Which is going to be a massive, read enormous capability enhanvement over anything in the UK orbat.
So its no use in blathering on about how hard done by we all are and how some bunch of geezers armed to the teeth with sharp slices of kiwi are going to sink the fleet - the FCO (bless them) tell us that there is no threat. Now if you'd like to find the e-mail address for Mr Straw crack on. But stop bugging Prooners.
Any more rubbish and we'll have to arrange for 801 sqn to come and hover over your house. At 3am. As long as its not too small a house. And well lit. In a big field. With nothing else around it.
Any more rubbish and we'll have to arrange for 801 sqn to come and hover over your house. At 3am. As long as its not too small a house. And well lit. In a big field. With nothing else around it.
Can I pick the date?
Saw this from Navy News - part of Staff College Sea Days.
Four distinct scenarios were played out for the Shrivenham students – joined by senior officers and MOD staff, plus movers and shakers from industry........ including:
staving off a sustained air attack from Hawks, Falcons and Sea Harriers (whose appearance overhead added to the headaches of HMS Kent’s command team who were trying to cope with a separate air attack!)
pr00ne - the reduction in FF/DD numbers went against the advice of the First Sea Lord and CINCFLEET!
Back to the topic in hand - and a worrying what if. What the current disagreement with Iran continues, and Iran decides to close the Strait of Hormuz - perhaps in response to possible UN sanctions. Iran has land based anti ship missiles, aircraft of various types - including ones armed with anti ship missiles, surface vessels, submarines and mines. It has not been subject to UN sanctions, and has a long coastline. Given the strategic importance of the area, and the cuts made to the RN and other Services lately, how do we cope if we have to:
1. Provide sufficient force protection and escorting for UK Entitled (and allied) shipping, including that connected with Op Telic?
2. Provide mine counter measures in hostile waters?
3. Provide air defence for the forces involved in 1 and 2 and for merchant shipping?
What sort of message are we sending potential troublemakers when we abandon capabilities?
Can I pick the date?
Saw this from Navy News - part of Staff College Sea Days.
Four distinct scenarios were played out for the Shrivenham students – joined by senior officers and MOD staff, plus movers and shakers from industry........ including:
staving off a sustained air attack from Hawks, Falcons and Sea Harriers (whose appearance overhead added to the headaches of HMS Kent’s command team who were trying to cope with a separate air attack!)
pr00ne - the reduction in FF/DD numbers went against the advice of the First Sea Lord and CINCFLEET!
Back to the topic in hand - and a worrying what if. What the current disagreement with Iran continues, and Iran decides to close the Strait of Hormuz - perhaps in response to possible UN sanctions. Iran has land based anti ship missiles, aircraft of various types - including ones armed with anti ship missiles, surface vessels, submarines and mines. It has not been subject to UN sanctions, and has a long coastline. Given the strategic importance of the area, and the cuts made to the RN and other Services lately, how do we cope if we have to:
1. Provide sufficient force protection and escorting for UK Entitled (and allied) shipping, including that connected with Op Telic?
2. Provide mine counter measures in hostile waters?
3. Provide air defence for the forces involved in 1 and 2 and for merchant shipping?
What sort of message are we sending potential troublemakers when we abandon capabilities?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What good would the SHAR be against those land based anti ship missiles? Or submarines?
None.
I don't think we'd risk our carriers (carrier!) out in your hypothetical scenario in anything other than a favourable air situation, so the risk of air attack would be less than the risk from shall we say less conventional ways of attacking a big grey floating barge on the oggin.
If it does kick off as you described above there will be more F jets in the sky than you could shake a stick at, the Sea Jet (God bless 'er) wouldn't get a look in. It is obsolete, expensive to maintain, and only has a single credible role. That is why it's being retired. If we had bottomless coffers we would retain it and keep our limited fleet defence capability that we have today, but we don't and there are more pressing needs for the money in todays armed forces.
But that's another story!
None.
I don't think we'd risk our carriers (carrier!) out in your hypothetical scenario in anything other than a favourable air situation, so the risk of air attack would be less than the risk from shall we say less conventional ways of attacking a big grey floating barge on the oggin.
If it does kick off as you described above there will be more F jets in the sky than you could shake a stick at, the Sea Jet (God bless 'er) wouldn't get a look in. It is obsolete, expensive to maintain, and only has a single credible role. That is why it's being retired. If we had bottomless coffers we would retain it and keep our limited fleet defence capability that we have today, but we don't and there are more pressing needs for the money in todays armed forces.
But that's another story!
WEBF..................
For goodness sake! IF, and that is a huge IF, Iran were to attempt to close the straits of Hormuz the Iranians would be facing more fast jets and cruise missiles than you could shake a stick at, I doubt if 7 SHARS would A) make any difference, or B) Even be called upon or needed.
You are still living in the past man.
For goodness sake! IF, and that is a huge IF, Iran were to attempt to close the straits of Hormuz the Iranians would be facing more fast jets and cruise missiles than you could shake a stick at, I doubt if 7 SHARS would A) make any difference, or B) Even be called upon or needed.
You are still living in the past man.
FB11 If you can convince the powers that be to keep 801 and their Sea Jets going, maybe.... 
Casper/pr00ne Closing the Strait of Hormuz would be very provocative, and unlikely. But harassing shipping would be less risky. If you were on the bridge of a supertanker in that part and saw a couple of MiGs buzzing you - well you would have cause for concern. Needless to say this would drive both shipping insurance and hence oil prices up, and effect everyone including the apathetic Mr Public. Being able to deploy our own fighters would help calm fears and reduce shipping insurance premiums, and help defuse the situation before it escalates.
A possible new conflict in the horn of Africa could result in the West being involved here, where the warring parties both have aircraft and might seek to harrass/attack shipping in the Red Sea. I seem to remember mentioning this possibility earlier on this thread.
Meanwhile, two interesting things from the net:
1. A picture of a Sea Harrier in the Gulf. Does anyone know what the temperature was and what weapon load they had?
2. A story of how the Italian Naval Air Arm is doing well.
Casper/pr00ne Closing the Strait of Hormuz would be very provocative, and unlikely. But harassing shipping would be less risky. If you were on the bridge of a supertanker in that part and saw a couple of MiGs buzzing you - well you would have cause for concern. Needless to say this would drive both shipping insurance and hence oil prices up, and effect everyone including the apathetic Mr Public. Being able to deploy our own fighters would help calm fears and reduce shipping insurance premiums, and help defuse the situation before it escalates.
A possible new conflict in the horn of Africa could result in the West being involved here, where the warring parties both have aircraft and might seek to harrass/attack shipping in the Red Sea. I seem to remember mentioning this possibility earlier on this thread.
Meanwhile, two interesting things from the net:
1. A picture of a Sea Harrier in the Gulf. Does anyone know what the temperature was and what weapon load they had?
2. A story of how the Italian Naval Air Arm is doing well.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 6th Nov 2005 at 21:02.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF, do you research anything that doesn't have SHAR in the title? Considering the amount of F-jets buzzing around the Gulf, are you really suggesting the Iranians are going to start conducting SAPs against shipping in international waters? And they would gain what, exactly?
Oh, and on the subject of HOA, we didn't get involved the last time Ethiopia and Eritrea started throwing bombs at each other - why would it change this time around?
Here's a more useful Harrier pic where if you look very closely you can just see the weapons load. I imagine it was pretty hot that day. (By the way this was taken in a more recent conflict than OSW 1999):
Give it a rest!
SBG
Oh, and on the subject of HOA, we didn't get involved the last time Ethiopia and Eritrea started throwing bombs at each other - why would it change this time around?
Here's a more useful Harrier pic where if you look very closely you can just see the weapons load. I imagine it was pretty hot that day. (By the way this was taken in a more recent conflict than OSW 1999):
Give it a rest!
SBG
Your picture is rather large! As to Iran and trouble in the Horn of Africa - I simply said the potential is there.
Edit: Just seen this regarding the Strait of Hormuz.
Edit: Just seen this regarding the Strait of Hormuz.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 6th Nov 2005 at 22:16.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military exercises are a useful form of defence diplomacy (in co-ordination with a wider political plan), particularly when trying to influence thinking in another nation whose first instinct may not be to play ball with you.
To address the point you make with the article regarding minelaying - well, I wear light blue but would hazard a guess that it's something most navies practice from time to time. I'd say this is more likely to be true of nation such as Iran or a number of similarly-equipped states.
Also, you have to remember that it is not unknown for our US cousins (and indeed, our own leaders) to over-inflate the potential threat to national interests in order to create the domestic or international will, funding, support and agreement to allow unhindered pursuance of their policies. This is a simple political tool which has been used time and again, and there is no reason for it to be any different now.
WEBF, I admire your tenacity - I really do. But there has be a time where reality has to kick in and no matter what you do, say or write on these hallowed pages - the SHAR's time is just about over.
SBG
P.S. The pic was intended to be large so you would have no trouble identifying the combat load.
To address the point you make with the article regarding minelaying - well, I wear light blue but would hazard a guess that it's something most navies practice from time to time. I'd say this is more likely to be true of nation such as Iran or a number of similarly-equipped states.
Also, you have to remember that it is not unknown for our US cousins (and indeed, our own leaders) to over-inflate the potential threat to national interests in order to create the domestic or international will, funding, support and agreement to allow unhindered pursuance of their policies. This is a simple political tool which has been used time and again, and there is no reason for it to be any different now.
WEBF, I admire your tenacity - I really do. But there has be a time where reality has to kick in and no matter what you do, say or write on these hallowed pages - the SHAR's time is just about over.
SBG
P.S. The pic was intended to be large so you would have no trouble identifying the combat load.
Defence diplomacy? Surely organic air defence would be useful for that.
All this talk of mines, minelaying, minehunting etc reminds me of a conversation I had with an Officer aboard a MCMV during Navy Days, think it was in 1993. He said that the lack of defence against air attack wasn't really an issue as they would expect to have a Type 42 bodygaurding them, or if the threat level was higher, the Sea Harrier. Unlikely to have either now.....
All this talk of mines, minelaying, minehunting etc reminds me of a conversation I had with an Officer aboard a MCMV during Navy Days, think it was in 1993. He said that the lack of defence against air attack wasn't really an issue as they would expect to have a Type 42 bodygaurding them, or if the threat level was higher, the Sea Harrier. Unlikely to have either now.....