Sea Jet
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF/Navaleye,
OK, I'm clearly talking out of my backside. My 2400 hours as an Air Warfare Instructor on all types of Harrier apart from the GR3 (FRS1; FRS2; FA2; AV-8B Day Attack; AV-8B Night Attack and AV-8B Harrier II+ and GR7/7A) are clearly no match for your grand total of 0 (zero) hours on anything other than Flight Sim.
WEBF. I and many other very patient people on this thread have answered ALL of the questions you repeat time and time again.
I will humour you though and answer your questions for the umpteenth time:
a) Is the payload in the hotter parts of the world really reduced to a single AMRAAM and no other stores, or just one AMRAAM plus other stores.
Yes, one AMRAAM. Nothing else. Is there any other way you want me to say that? It doesn't happen everywhere, I flew the first operational sortie with two AIM120 on Christmas day 1995 and had a very limited margin on recovery. That was around 20 degrees on a normal pressure day. We used to have to do a "firepower demo" to the ships company with the single 1000lb bomb we carried in the swing role because we couldn't get back on board with it and the two (2) AIM-120 we were carrying. No other stores. WDZ 5 near area Lurcher is littered with 1000lb HEMC fragments from Sea Harriers that couldn't recover with 2 AIM and a single 1000lb bomb. And the Adriatic was a full 10-15 degrees cooler on a day to day basis than other areas further east.
b) Surely a pair of Sea Harriers, with one AMRAAM each, would still deter a third world MiG driver?
I can not believe that you are seriously suggesting that it is credible to keep an aircraft type in service and lose capability elsewhere to fly with a single AIM-120. Why don't we just fly with no weapons and hope that the MiG drivers have got a serviceable RWR (or any RWR, which most don't) so that they flee at the very sound of the Blue Vixen? That is cold war thinking at it's most extreme and ridiculous.
c) What about just using Sidewinder? The radar must make it more capable than the GR7/9 surely?
Why would having a radar make it more capable? Maybe against a target that wants to fight back but you're on about an aircraft that is carrying a 5000lb rocket. I don't need a radar to point an AIM-9 at that. If you're talking about acquisition then sure, a radar is clearly superior to a non-radar jet but why do you singularly fail to acknowledge the fact that continuous air cover against the threats you are quoting with an FA2 is not going to happen for more than a week unless you have an inexhaustable supply of jets and pilots. This is not a ground hog cue for you to again compare apples and oranges with the Falklands.
d) If air to air refuelling is possible, then that must allow longer CAP sorties, reducing the number of aircraft need to achieve the same level of defence.
At least give me credit by reading my previous posts, I answered that exact question directly. It does rather blow a hole in your organic maritime fighter argument if you are happy to allow land based AAR.
"As for surface and submarine launched missiles, how is the GR7/9 any better placed to deal with the threat. Frigates/Destroyers (and their helicopters), Submarines, Nimrods..........but GR9?"
Well, we can drop a laser guided bomb on them; fire a Maverick at them; drop a GPS guided weapon on them; fire a CRV-7 at them. None of these options being available to the FA2. Read my post again to see the irony in my ASW comment.
I look forward to seeing your reply in a week or so. By that time, this post will be buried a few pages back and you can pretend it never existed.
OK, I'm clearly talking out of my backside. My 2400 hours as an Air Warfare Instructor on all types of Harrier apart from the GR3 (FRS1; FRS2; FA2; AV-8B Day Attack; AV-8B Night Attack and AV-8B Harrier II+ and GR7/7A) are clearly no match for your grand total of 0 (zero) hours on anything other than Flight Sim.
WEBF. I and many other very patient people on this thread have answered ALL of the questions you repeat time and time again.
I will humour you though and answer your questions for the umpteenth time:
a) Is the payload in the hotter parts of the world really reduced to a single AMRAAM and no other stores, or just one AMRAAM plus other stores.
Yes, one AMRAAM. Nothing else. Is there any other way you want me to say that? It doesn't happen everywhere, I flew the first operational sortie with two AIM120 on Christmas day 1995 and had a very limited margin on recovery. That was around 20 degrees on a normal pressure day. We used to have to do a "firepower demo" to the ships company with the single 1000lb bomb we carried in the swing role because we couldn't get back on board with it and the two (2) AIM-120 we were carrying. No other stores. WDZ 5 near area Lurcher is littered with 1000lb HEMC fragments from Sea Harriers that couldn't recover with 2 AIM and a single 1000lb bomb. And the Adriatic was a full 10-15 degrees cooler on a day to day basis than other areas further east.
b) Surely a pair of Sea Harriers, with one AMRAAM each, would still deter a third world MiG driver?
I can not believe that you are seriously suggesting that it is credible to keep an aircraft type in service and lose capability elsewhere to fly with a single AIM-120. Why don't we just fly with no weapons and hope that the MiG drivers have got a serviceable RWR (or any RWR, which most don't) so that they flee at the very sound of the Blue Vixen? That is cold war thinking at it's most extreme and ridiculous.
c) What about just using Sidewinder? The radar must make it more capable than the GR7/9 surely?
Why would having a radar make it more capable? Maybe against a target that wants to fight back but you're on about an aircraft that is carrying a 5000lb rocket. I don't need a radar to point an AIM-9 at that. If you're talking about acquisition then sure, a radar is clearly superior to a non-radar jet but why do you singularly fail to acknowledge the fact that continuous air cover against the threats you are quoting with an FA2 is not going to happen for more than a week unless you have an inexhaustable supply of jets and pilots. This is not a ground hog cue for you to again compare apples and oranges with the Falklands.
d) If air to air refuelling is possible, then that must allow longer CAP sorties, reducing the number of aircraft need to achieve the same level of defence.
At least give me credit by reading my previous posts, I answered that exact question directly. It does rather blow a hole in your organic maritime fighter argument if you are happy to allow land based AAR.
"As for surface and submarine launched missiles, how is the GR7/9 any better placed to deal with the threat. Frigates/Destroyers (and their helicopters), Submarines, Nimrods..........but GR9?"
Well, we can drop a laser guided bomb on them; fire a Maverick at them; drop a GPS guided weapon on them; fire a CRV-7 at them. None of these options being available to the FA2. Read my post again to see the irony in my ASW comment.
I look forward to seeing your reply in a week or so. By that time, this post will be buried a few pages back and you can pretend it never existed.
Suspicion breeds confidence
FB11, Actually, I would make that zero hours on a flight sim as well! I was only discussing broad capabilities, I certainly would not try and compete on your level of detail. As an aside how far do you think full ASRAAM integration on the GR9 would have gone between bridging the cap between where we are today with the FA2 and the current GR7's capabilities?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
Not very far. The true capability exploitation of ASRAAM comes with a BVR identification and cueing capability and high off boresight targeting.
GR9 has neither.
Not very far. The true capability exploitation of ASRAAM comes with a BVR identification and cueing capability and high off boresight targeting.
GR9 has neither.
Sorry FB11 - your previous irony went over my head.
Without a radar, would a pilot in a GR9 without radar be able to find a pair of inbound MiGs and get Sidewinders on the way as fast as he would with an aircraft with radar, assuming they both were assisted by SKW or AWACS? Genuine question, not a point.
I understand that Illustrious has recently been on a NATO exercise in the Med, complete with 801. Does anyone have any more details?
Without a radar, would a pilot in a GR9 without radar be able to find a pair of inbound MiGs and get Sidewinders on the way as fast as he would with an aircraft with radar, assuming they both were assisted by SKW or AWACS? Genuine question, not a point.
I understand that Illustrious has recently been on a NATO exercise in the Med, complete with 801. Does anyone have any more details?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Webf, Sidewinder cannot be queued by an external source. The seeker head itself has to acquire the target. Although Sidewinder has an alleged head on capability this has not been proven in combat. A GR7/9 would have a slim chance of getting a rear aspect shoton a supersonic Mig unless it was very lucky.
Expecting to be contradicted at any time!
Expecting to be contradicted at any time!
Navaleye
Let me rephrase my question. Imagine a pair of enemy aircraft approaching the task group. They are detected by SKW who direct a pair of our own aircraft.
With no radar of his own, won't the GR9 pilot have considerable trouble finding the bogey? A bit like trying to find something in a darkened room without a torch?
Let me rephrase my question. Imagine a pair of enemy aircraft approaching the task group. They are detected by SKW who direct a pair of our own aircraft.
With no radar of his own, won't the GR9 pilot have considerable trouble finding the bogey? A bit like trying to find something in a darkened room without a torch?
WEBF,
Do you seriously think the scenario that you paint is likley to happen in the next 6 or 7 years, to a UK force entirely alone?
No! Now move on..........................................
GR9s from the CVS will be carrying out strike missions in the next decade if they are ever needed at sea at all.
Do you seriously think the scenario that you paint is likley to happen in the next 6 or 7 years, to a UK force entirely alone?
No! Now move on..........................................
GR9s from the CVS will be carrying out strike missions in the next decade if they are ever needed at sea at all.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
Yes, in comparison to a Sea Harrier. Which would be worse than an F-18E (greater payload/detection range/endurance/speed) which would be worse than an F-35. What's your point?
Do you think that asking an obscure question that you obviously know the answer to somehow bolsters your case?
Have you been drinking?
Let me rephrase my question. Imagine a pair of enemy aircraft approaching the task group. They are detected by SKW who direct a pair of our own aircraft. With no radar of his own, won't the GR9 pilot have considerable trouble finding the bogey?
Do you think that asking an obscure question that you obviously know the answer to somehow bolsters your case?
Have you been drinking?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Looking at the radar the Indians are fitting to their Shar's it seems very light weight and compact. Maybe their Shars won't experience the 1,500lb weight penalty that FA2 does compared to the FRS1.
Additional. Interesting post from another forum which some of you may not have seen.
EL/M-2032 air-to-air mode has a detection and tracking range of up to 150 km, the air-to-ground mode generates high resolution radar imagery of locations at up to 150 km, and air-to-sea mode can detect and classify naval targets at ranges of up to 300 km. The radar system weighs between 72 and 100 kg. To date, Elta Systems has integrated this radar system into F-4, F-5, F-16, Mirage and Mig-21.
Up until last year, I had the extreme privilege to serve as an engineer on Sea Harriers.
During my time on this aircraft, I was witness to an event I would count (personally) as note-worthy.
During an exercise in the mediterranean, a rolling Combat Air Patrol of two (count them) Sea Harrier FA2s shot down (for exercise) THIRTY-FIVE (count them) US Naval Aircraft (namely EA6Bs, and FA18s.) Later that day, the same strike package had to be ALLOWED to attack our ship, as the ship's radar and close up weapons operators complained that they had nothing to practice against.
The high kill ratio was due to the extreme accuracy of the Blue Vixen RADAR. The RADAR was able to differentiate between the 'enemy' carrier, aircraft, and surface returns, at over forty miles distance, enabling the SHAR to score AMRAAM kills on the enemy a/c.
Now I personally have never seen an FA2 going toe-to-toe with an F15 on exercise, however, when the Sea Harrier had, and I quote, "...the best missile/RADAR combination IN THE WORLD, in the AMRAAM, and Blue Vixen.", I wouldn't really have wanted to argue with it.
Just a shame no-one would upgrade the engine.
MOORKEY,
800 Naval Air Squadron RN/4(AC) Squadron RAF."
During my time on this aircraft, I was witness to an event I would count (personally) as note-worthy.
During an exercise in the mediterranean, a rolling Combat Air Patrol of two (count them) Sea Harrier FA2s shot down (for exercise) THIRTY-FIVE (count them) US Naval Aircraft (namely EA6Bs, and FA18s.) Later that day, the same strike package had to be ALLOWED to attack our ship, as the ship's radar and close up weapons operators complained that they had nothing to practice against.
The high kill ratio was due to the extreme accuracy of the Blue Vixen RADAR. The RADAR was able to differentiate between the 'enemy' carrier, aircraft, and surface returns, at over forty miles distance, enabling the SHAR to score AMRAAM kills on the enemy a/c.
Now I personally have never seen an FA2 going toe-to-toe with an F15 on exercise, however, when the Sea Harrier had, and I quote, "...the best missile/RADAR combination IN THE WORLD, in the AMRAAM, and Blue Vixen.", I wouldn't really have wanted to argue with it.
Just a shame no-one would upgrade the engine.
MOORKEY,
800 Naval Air Squadron RN/4(AC) Squadron RAF."
Last edited by Navaleye; 21st Dec 2005 at 14:19.
Navaleye what forum would that be?
FB11 the point I was trying to make was that an aircraft without radar.........and no I hadn't been drinking. Unfortunately.
Going back to an earlier point, I have talked about the value of aircraft on CAP. You have pointed out that this demand a very high sortie rate. In 1982 the task force needed constant CAPs as we had no AEW. However, AEW provided by the SKW would make keeping aircraft on alert on deck a possible alternative. That also came from another forum.
Tonight BBC1 showed what was originally meant to be the fourth episode of Shipmates. It featured Ocean during FOST exercises, including a Thursday war. There was a simulated attack by Hawks, and the pilot commented that this was to represent an unsophisticated attack - no long range missiles. But how sophisticated does enemy air power have to be? If they enemy targets vulnerable ships like RFAs, or supporting merchant vessels........he could still cause heavy losses without getting his aircraft near ships that could fight back.
On a historical note, this day in 1941 saw the loss of HMS Audacity, the first escort carrier, to U Boat attack. Although her career was short, she had proved the concept of carrier aircraft defending a convoy from both aircraft and U Boats.
FB11 the point I was trying to make was that an aircraft without radar.........and no I hadn't been drinking. Unfortunately.
Going back to an earlier point, I have talked about the value of aircraft on CAP. You have pointed out that this demand a very high sortie rate. In 1982 the task force needed constant CAPs as we had no AEW. However, AEW provided by the SKW would make keeping aircraft on alert on deck a possible alternative. That also came from another forum.
Tonight BBC1 showed what was originally meant to be the fourth episode of Shipmates. It featured Ocean during FOST exercises, including a Thursday war. There was a simulated attack by Hawks, and the pilot commented that this was to represent an unsophisticated attack - no long range missiles. But how sophisticated does enemy air power have to be? If they enemy targets vulnerable ships like RFAs, or supporting merchant vessels........he could still cause heavy losses without getting his aircraft near ships that could fight back.
On a historical note, this day in 1941 saw the loss of HMS Audacity, the first escort carrier, to U Boat attack. Although her career was short, she had proved the concept of carrier aircraft defending a convoy from both aircraft and U Boats.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can stand it no more!!!!!! I've read the utter rubbish spouted on this thread by WEBF and Navaleye for several weeks now and resisted the temptation to rejoin the fray. However, claiming that the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM is the most capable radar/missile combination in the world is absolutely unbelievable!!!!!! You said the comment was made by an engineer and it shows. Much as the Blue Vixen is good (it has after all formed the basis of the Typhoon's Captor) there are several radars which totally outclass it interms of range, performance and toys to aid EID. Try the following for the most capable radar/missile combinations in the world:
F-15C/APG-63(V3) AESA (I think that's the designation anyway) with AMRAAM.
F-15C/D/E/APG-70 with AMRAAM.
Rafale/RBE2 with Mica.
The SHAR/Blue Vixen/AMRAAM combination is good, but let's be realistic.
Secondly, as has been said numerous other times on this forum (in fact, like everything else about 6 times over), it is diddly squat use quoting exercise stats about how well SHARs did against F-15s, FA-18s, Jedi X-Wing Fighters or whatever UNLESS THE SCENARIO RULES, SIMULATIONS AND LIMITATIONS ARE KNOWN!!!!!!! What restrictions were being placed on the US aircraft? Were they required to gain a VID before shooting? Were they simulating a Soviet type with poor radar and a SARH or even IR weapon? Did they have access to AEW? Could they kill regen? Could they reload in the air?
Meanwhile WEBF, you may wish to remember occasionally as you rant about how your RFAs are dicing with death without SHAR and CIWS just how often you are realistically going to be in a position where you'll not have land based air cover AND AWACS/AEW AND SIGINT AND coalition SAM/CIWS cover AND an enemy that can even fly at night competently let alone fly a credible anti ship profile and successfully launch a missile at you. Yet, in the face of comments by experienced FA2 pilots, you argue about maintaining an expensive, increasingly limited and frankly little needed capability, at a time when the defence budget is under UNPRECEDENTED strain. But maybe ONE DAY, you MAY be proved right.
Meanwhile, EVERY DAY soldiers ARE serving in operational areas with inadequate or insufficient equipment. EVER DAY RAF, RN and Army helos ARE operating with far from ideal self protection, crew armour and ECM. EVERY DAY the British Army IS using 1960's vehicles in hostile environments.
Everyone would love to keep the SHAR in a perfect world. But we don't live in that world.
Wise up. Look at the big picture, and take a reality pill, because right now, you should be ashamed of your priorities.
Seasons greetings,
MM
F-15C/APG-63(V3) AESA (I think that's the designation anyway) with AMRAAM.
F-15C/D/E/APG-70 with AMRAAM.
Rafale/RBE2 with Mica.
The SHAR/Blue Vixen/AMRAAM combination is good, but let's be realistic.
Secondly, as has been said numerous other times on this forum (in fact, like everything else about 6 times over), it is diddly squat use quoting exercise stats about how well SHARs did against F-15s, FA-18s, Jedi X-Wing Fighters or whatever UNLESS THE SCENARIO RULES, SIMULATIONS AND LIMITATIONS ARE KNOWN!!!!!!! What restrictions were being placed on the US aircraft? Were they required to gain a VID before shooting? Were they simulating a Soviet type with poor radar and a SARH or even IR weapon? Did they have access to AEW? Could they kill regen? Could they reload in the air?
Meanwhile WEBF, you may wish to remember occasionally as you rant about how your RFAs are dicing with death without SHAR and CIWS just how often you are realistically going to be in a position where you'll not have land based air cover AND AWACS/AEW AND SIGINT AND coalition SAM/CIWS cover AND an enemy that can even fly at night competently let alone fly a credible anti ship profile and successfully launch a missile at you. Yet, in the face of comments by experienced FA2 pilots, you argue about maintaining an expensive, increasingly limited and frankly little needed capability, at a time when the defence budget is under UNPRECEDENTED strain. But maybe ONE DAY, you MAY be proved right.
Meanwhile, EVERY DAY soldiers ARE serving in operational areas with inadequate or insufficient equipment. EVER DAY RAF, RN and Army helos ARE operating with far from ideal self protection, crew armour and ECM. EVERY DAY the British Army IS using 1960's vehicles in hostile environments.
Everyone would love to keep the SHAR in a perfect world. But we don't live in that world.
Wise up. Look at the big picture, and take a reality pill, because right now, you should be ashamed of your priorities.
Seasons greetings,
MM
Last edited by Magic Mushroom; 28th Dec 2005 at 17:33.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
You are feeling chirpy aren't you?
You don't think it's quiet because most (normal) people are sleeping when you surface from your Cold War slumber to post your replies? Or that some of us have lives outside of the Pprune fantasy world you and WEBF live in?
Well, I know this individual very well. He's an Air Engineering Mechanic (which for the light blue who don't know and want to be rolling around with laughter like the rest of us) is the equivalent of an SAC.
Watch out everyone, the secret weapon has been played.
Now he's a great chap, very good with computers (designed the new 800 NAS markings for the aircraft post recommissioning) but he isn't the first person I'd turn to for tactical comment. (but he'd still make my list in front of WEBF and Navaleye.)
WEBF,
I'd like you to do something for me that you have hitherto not done. Answer a direct question after some scene setting preamble.
In the many posts you and your lapdog Navaleye have posted you put up very lucid and, to a greater or lesser extent, valid points. For example, the comment in you last post about low-tech aircraft having a greater chance of success against our ships because we no longer have Sea Harrier is valid assuming that no replacement AD cover exists. If, in the interim where we have no organic fighters, land based air (for example) fills the void then the your points are invalid. Your complete intransigence is what irritates people, but I guess that this is actually one of your aims. (I'm almost at the question.) You're a 'pot half empty' man where those of us charged with commanding the sailors and airmen of the Fleet Air Arm of today need to be 'pot half full.' Not blind optimists, just realists.
So, the question:
What is it that you want? Lay it out quite clearly so that we can all see why you keep posting in the face of continued logic.
I know it may take some time for you to reply, your ready use locker of AEM experts must be running dry.
You are feeling chirpy aren't you?
The silence is deafening isn't it? I rest my case.
Now I personally have never seen an FA2 going toe-to-toe with an F15 on exercise, however, when the Sea Harrier had, and I quote, "...the best missile/RADAR combination IN THE WORLD, in the AMRAAM, and Blue Vixen.", I wouldn't really have wanted to argue with it. MOORKEY, 800 Naval Air Squadron RN/4(A/C) Squadron RAF.
Watch out everyone, the secret weapon has been played.
Now he's a great chap, very good with computers (designed the new 800 NAS markings for the aircraft post recommissioning) but he isn't the first person I'd turn to for tactical comment. (but he'd still make my list in front of WEBF and Navaleye.)
WEBF,
I'd like you to do something for me that you have hitherto not done. Answer a direct question after some scene setting preamble.
In the many posts you and your lapdog Navaleye have posted you put up very lucid and, to a greater or lesser extent, valid points. For example, the comment in you last post about low-tech aircraft having a greater chance of success against our ships because we no longer have Sea Harrier is valid assuming that no replacement AD cover exists. If, in the interim where we have no organic fighters, land based air (for example) fills the void then the your points are invalid. Your complete intransigence is what irritates people, but I guess that this is actually one of your aims. (I'm almost at the question.) You're a 'pot half empty' man where those of us charged with commanding the sailors and airmen of the Fleet Air Arm of today need to be 'pot half full.' Not blind optimists, just realists.
So, the question:
What is it that you want? Lay it out quite clearly so that we can all see why you keep posting in the face of continued logic.
I know it may take some time for you to reply, your ready use locker of AEM experts must be running dry.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Good morning Gentlemen. Good to see the season of "Good will to all men" is amongst us! 
I'm off to sunnier climes tomorrow so I'd like to wish everyone the very best for '06 and thanks for the quality of your debate and argument.
I'm off to sunnier climes tomorrow so I'd like to wish everyone the very best for '06 and thanks for the quality of your debate and argument.
MM/FB11
I did not post that link. I have to say that I would find that very hard to believe, and as you say, would want to consider the circumstances of the engagement. Nor did I say the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM system is the best in the world.
I am well aware of the pressures faced by the defence budget. The Armed Forces have been repeatedly used and abused by the Government. I won't go on as there is no point. Robbing Peter to pay Paul may help in the short term but can only create more problems in the long run. I cannot help wondering how we are going to rely on luck before the wheels of UK Defence fall off?
You are correct in that to me the glass is half empty not half full. This is a psychological trait, as is the fact that I tend to worry about things.
You asked what do I want? I admit I may have not made myself clear.
I want any third world regimes that might consider a course of action that would being them into conflict with the UK to have the added worry that any CVS based task group might have organic air defence (as opposed to the MOD stating we will definitely not have). I would like our Prime Minister to not reduce any influence over Washington on relying on US forces for ALL our air defence. I would prefer that the air defence skills of RN pilots (and other personnel) are kept alive.
I want/would like 801 NAS to be kept going post March, with the Sea Harrier. Considering the factors discussed elsewhere (cutbacks, cutbacks, less ship based defence) and the ever increasing delays to CVF, I think this would be a reasonable precaution. Failing that, keep a number of Sea Harriers (the '90s new builds perhaps?) in storage complete with engines, avionics etc. Just in case......
In case of what you may ask? Unpredictable events than we cannot see. The role of the Armed Forces is surely to react to crises, or to at least be able to. and these are difficult to predict with any accuracy.
I did not post that link. I have to say that I would find that very hard to believe, and as you say, would want to consider the circumstances of the engagement. Nor did I say the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM system is the best in the world.
I am well aware of the pressures faced by the defence budget. The Armed Forces have been repeatedly used and abused by the Government. I won't go on as there is no point. Robbing Peter to pay Paul may help in the short term but can only create more problems in the long run. I cannot help wondering how we are going to rely on luck before the wheels of UK Defence fall off?
You are correct in that to me the glass is half empty not half full. This is a psychological trait, as is the fact that I tend to worry about things.
You asked what do I want? I admit I may have not made myself clear.
I want any third world regimes that might consider a course of action that would being them into conflict with the UK to have the added worry that any CVS based task group might have organic air defence (as opposed to the MOD stating we will definitely not have). I would like our Prime Minister to not reduce any influence over Washington on relying on US forces for ALL our air defence. I would prefer that the air defence skills of RN pilots (and other personnel) are kept alive.
I want/would like 801 NAS to be kept going post March, with the Sea Harrier. Considering the factors discussed elsewhere (cutbacks, cutbacks, less ship based defence) and the ever increasing delays to CVF, I think this would be a reasonable precaution. Failing that, keep a number of Sea Harriers (the '90s new builds perhaps?) in storage complete with engines, avionics etc. Just in case......
In case of what you may ask? Unpredictable events than we cannot see. The role of the Armed Forces is surely to react to crises, or to at least be able to. and these are difficult to predict with any accuracy.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 29th Dec 2005 at 20:41.
WEBF.
Your reasons for keeping the SHAR are noble and I admire your determination and pride you have for the jet and it's operators. However, as has been stated on numerous times over the months that this thread has been running - It's not going to happen. I am not going to go into the reasons why not as many people have said it more eloquently than I can.
In answer to your last post, the RN pilots will (and do) keep their AD skills current in the GR. It doesn't have a radar I know, but the skills required to prosecute a successful BVR kill are not that difficult to re-aquire. I would suggest that keeping one's hand in at ACT is better done in the multi aircraft visual fight, and I can assure you that we practice that in the Harrier world frequently. I wouldn't worry too much about your friends losing the knack!
Have you ever flown the Sea Harrier? What is your background with the jet? I'm sitting here now with a mate who's crossed over to the GR7 and wouldn't go back to the SHAR as it is a dead jet. Yes, it has a great history, but without investing millions it is a lame duck. Again, other people have already described why in previous posts so I will not go into it here.
I don't want you to think I'm slagging off the sea jet, but it's had its day and is retiring with dignity. Please let it rest.
Have a good new year.
Your reasons for keeping the SHAR are noble and I admire your determination and pride you have for the jet and it's operators. However, as has been stated on numerous times over the months that this thread has been running - It's not going to happen. I am not going to go into the reasons why not as many people have said it more eloquently than I can.
In answer to your last post, the RN pilots will (and do) keep their AD skills current in the GR. It doesn't have a radar I know, but the skills required to prosecute a successful BVR kill are not that difficult to re-aquire. I would suggest that keeping one's hand in at ACT is better done in the multi aircraft visual fight, and I can assure you that we practice that in the Harrier world frequently. I wouldn't worry too much about your friends losing the knack!
Have you ever flown the Sea Harrier? What is your background with the jet? I'm sitting here now with a mate who's crossed over to the GR7 and wouldn't go back to the SHAR as it is a dead jet. Yes, it has a great history, but without investing millions it is a lame duck. Again, other people have already described why in previous posts so I will not go into it here.
I don't want you to think I'm slagging off the sea jet, but it's had its day and is retiring with dignity. Please let it rest.
Have a good new year.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Sea Jet
Sadly, The Sea Harrier is going very soon. For pretty much all its time, the British Armed Forces have made do with equipment not designed for the job it is doing. The Sea Harrier was a fantastic jet, with the FRS1 still the last British aircraft to have made an air to air kill in fighter to fighter combat, and the FA2 with it's awesome radar and AMRAAM capability was a very capable fighter, if limited in role due being subsonic. However we live in the real world, the Labour government is in power and cutbacks are and always will be the name of the game! When Yeovs got a Sea Harrier FA2 as a gate guardian, the writing was on the wall (yes I know it's not e real one!
), and once our political masters made the decision (with some considerable help from their light blue advisors 
) to cut the Sea Jet from the inventory, the decision was based on the bottom line. Yes, the fleet will be a little exposed, but is that where modern conflict will take place? - I don't thinks so. In this modern arena of assymetric warfare, the ability to strike targets ashore is important, and the GR7/9 will do that adequately (again the same subsonic limitation ), but I bring you back to the point about British Forces using kit not specifically designed for the job. We always will be jacks of all trades, masters of none, and vive la difference! 
), and once our political masters made the decision (with some considerable help from their light blue advisors ) to cut the Sea Jet from the inventory, the decision was based on the bottom line. Yes, the fleet will be a little exposed, but is that where modern conflict will take place? - I don't thinks so. In this modern arena of assymetric warfare, the ability to strike targets ashore is important, and the GR7/9 will do that adequately (again the same subsonic limitation ), but I bring you back to the point about British Forces using kit not specifically designed for the job. We always will be jacks of all trades, masters of none, and vive la difference!
Re: Sea Jet
It is indeed sad to see such a superb example of engineering go, but it served its purpose in other ways. In one sense the whole aeroplane was a technology demonstrator programme and successors will reap the benefit. Much is said of the radar. The original (Blue Fox) was years ahead of the opposition in its day (late 70s/early 80s) and remained so through various upgrades culminating in I/A, which was itself essentially a TDP for Blue Vixen, ECR90 (Euroradar for Eurofighter/Typhoon) and, to a lesser extent, Blue Kestrel (Merlin). Vixen’s performance is simply stunning and ECR90 was pretty good when I last saw it working in 1992. Another example is MADGE whose potential was never allowed to be fully realised.
The whole platform may go, but it leaves a legacy which UK industry should be proud of and which, if nurtured well, should serve well in the future.
The whole platform may go, but it leaves a legacy which UK industry should be proud of and which, if nurtured well, should serve well in the future.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Sea Jet
The arguement here is whether aviation assets are soley about force projection... GR9's are bloody good at mud-moving (fact), SHAR's may have had limited AD capability... but at least they had some?
Magic Mushroom says "just how often you are realistically going to be in a position where you'll not have land based air cover AND AWACS/AEW AND SIGINT AND coalition SAM/CIWS cover AND an enemy that can even fly at night competently let alone fly a credible anti ship profile and successfully launch a missile at you".
I think I've heard this once before... back in 1982 I think it was? Remember, Sheffield, Coventry, Sir Gallahad, Ardent et al... It's not ancient history, it's a lesson!!!
What the RN (and possibly the RAF too) needed was not the GR9 but a "Harrier FA3"... a capable, multi-role aircraft that could operate from rough strips as well as from carriers... that could mud-move, provide CAS support AND air defence for our troops on the ground and sailors afloat. Meanwhile FB11 et al are enjoying flying the GR9 and looking forward to the F35, and defending to the hilt, a concept that is IMHO effective but oh so narrow minded.
Magic Mushroom says "just how often you are realistically going to be in a position where you'll not have land based air cover AND AWACS/AEW AND SIGINT AND coalition SAM/CIWS cover AND an enemy that can even fly at night competently let alone fly a credible anti ship profile and successfully launch a missile at you".
I think I've heard this once before... back in 1982 I think it was? Remember, Sheffield, Coventry, Sir Gallahad, Ardent et al... It's not ancient history, it's a lesson!!!
What the RN (and possibly the RAF too) needed was not the GR9 but a "Harrier FA3"... a capable, multi-role aircraft that could operate from rough strips as well as from carriers... that could mud-move, provide CAS support AND air defence for our troops on the ground and sailors afloat. Meanwhile FB11 et al are enjoying flying the GR9 and looking forward to the F35, and defending to the hilt, a concept that is IMHO effective but oh so narrow minded.