Sea Jet
Re: Sea Jet
Yes, and while us narrow minded types are looking forward to the F35, maybe we should have got the FA3 instead. Or maybe world peace? An end to poverty? A Sqn of flying pigs? A jet that can fire death rays and remain invisible to the naked eye? An unlimited defence budget? An end to terrorism? All our troops home for Xmas?
Pray tell, in this world of massive cutbacks that is cutting us to the bone - where is the money for this new FA3 coming from?
Pray tell, in this world of massive cutbacks that is cutting us to the bone - where is the money for this new FA3 coming from?
Re: Sea Jet
So are you saying we should cancel the F35 (a project the UK has already heavily invested in), scrap the GR9 (our most flexible FJ asset) and develop a new Harrier or update the SHAR?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Re: Sea Jet
I thought that the "FA3" does exist in the form of the Harrier II Plus as used by the USMC and Spanish and Italian navies. Surely the solution to this problem is to lease a batch of Harrier II plus for the Dark Blue Sqns ?GR7/9 Airframe commonality, no loss of capability.
Last edited by Navaleye; 3rd Jan 2006 at 12:49.
Re: Sea Jet
History has shown us (c17s) that leasing aircraft is a bad idea, it's far better to buy them outright. The Harrier II+ is not the wonder jet that you may think, and although it would be nice to have some it would be far too expensive. It would also be a huge leap in capability from the FA2 with regards to the jet being able to carry more than 2 rockets and do the whole ground attack thing. As for airframe commonality, the II+ has more in common with the GR7/9, which, as you are aware, is what the RN fly today.
As this entire thread keeps repeating over and over: New jets, or an uprated SHAR would be nice, but we do not have the money for them and have other priorities.
As this entire thread keeps repeating over and over: New jets, or an uprated SHAR would be nice, but we do not have the money for them and have other priorities.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Sea Jet
As this entire thread keeps repeating over and over
Jointery seemed like the way ahead; but the further we move forward I am more convinced that the RAF (with justification) sees VTOL as means of delivering ground attack into otherwise unaccessible theatres (normally under USAF established air superiority)... whereas the RN really requires a multi-role machine that can strike (as it has done so effectively for several years) but also provide a layer of air defence? In otherwords there's an evident mis-match? I've asked before, Harriers have capably provided CAS to the British Army (and others) for decades, wouldn't it be nice to give the Pongos the option of calling up a Fighter to knock-down attacking enemy aircraft should/when the need arise in the same situation?FB11 has talked about the impracticality of mounting 24/7 CAPs from ships... and I wouldn't wish to doubt his maths/authority... but without any air defence they are left vulnerable and IMHO we shouldn't be relying on allies to bridge gaps in our defences?
We must not forget that, largely thanks to Uncle Sam, the UK hasn't faced a real air conflict (i.e. without superiority) for over 20yrs... that has allowed us to concentrate on the task of dropping bombs. Try asking Tony Blair for a guarantee that this will be the case for the next 20 and see what his reply is... The snag is, the decision has been made (fact) and as you say we don't have the money to retrace our steps... so have to live with the consequences, but surely we don't have to forge on ahead without question.
Re: Sea Jet
I agree with much of what you've said, Pierre, but some would argue that giving the FAA 2 Sqns of GR7/9s to replace a dead jet was not a "crap choice".
As you say, we are fortunate enough to be able to concentrate on AI/CAS/Recce missions due to having air superiority, and that is what takes priority as it is what we are likely to have to do for the foreseeable future. We are not big enough players (at the moment) to be able to do everything on our own as we don't receive the funding or have the resources.
As for the RN needing a multi role aircraft - I would suggest that only now are they getting one!
As you say, we are fortunate enough to be able to concentrate on AI/CAS/Recce missions due to having air superiority, and that is what takes priority as it is what we are likely to have to do for the foreseeable future. We are not big enough players (at the moment) to be able to do everything on our own as we don't receive the funding or have the resources.
As for the RN needing a multi role aircraft - I would suggest that only now are they getting one!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Sea Jet
OK - I've been trying to stop myself for weeks but now I've given in.
Firstly, and I know this is contoversial but both variants of the harrier are severely limited in capability. It can do a neat (and sometimes useful - especially if you only have small boats) trick of V/STOL but this has meant compromises in virtually every other area.
I nearly fell off my seat laughing at the "Sea Harrier best in the world" quote. I would put it in the top half in Europe (just been thinking about this and maybe not quite top half but certainly near the middle). If you want to discuss this further, then no problem but I'll keep it short here!
The Harrier GR7/9 is good at its job but "its job" is very limited - in many large scale packages it can be the weakest link (depending on the task of course). The Harriers biggest asset are its pilots who always stand up and say "We can do this and were the best at doing it". They're not always right but they are always very aggressive about it (in a good way).
What "we" clearly need is a multi/swing-role aircraft (and dropping bombs+recce does not equal multi-role) that can operate from a boat (and do lots of other stuff). And I believe that that is what we are getting. The gap is not ideal - but I think it is the best decision in the circumstances.
I'll stop there.
For now.
ps Doing a bit of doggers is not Air Defence. This is not 1940 - or even 1990.
Firstly, and I know this is contoversial but both variants of the harrier are severely limited in capability. It can do a neat (and sometimes useful - especially if you only have small boats) trick of V/STOL but this has meant compromises in virtually every other area.
I nearly fell off my seat laughing at the "Sea Harrier best in the world" quote. I would put it in the top half in Europe (just been thinking about this and maybe not quite top half but certainly near the middle). If you want to discuss this further, then no problem but I'll keep it short here!
The Harrier GR7/9 is good at its job but "its job" is very limited - in many large scale packages it can be the weakest link (depending on the task of course). The Harriers biggest asset are its pilots who always stand up and say "We can do this and were the best at doing it". They're not always right but they are always very aggressive about it (in a good way).
What "we" clearly need is a multi/swing-role aircraft (and dropping bombs+recce does not equal multi-role) that can operate from a boat (and do lots of other stuff). And I believe that that is what we are getting. The gap is not ideal - but I think it is the best decision in the circumstances.
I'll stop there.
For now.
ps Doing a bit of doggers is not Air Defence. This is not 1940 - or even 1990.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Sea Jet
Pierre,
Nice use of exclamation marks, always adds weight to the post.
Why do you think that people have forgotten something that happened 23 years ago? It is a lesson that was firmly in the minds of a group of people who took a bold decision, based upon the balance of risk, to opt for continued investment in today (GR9) and the future (F-35) at the risk of losing organic AD. You make it sound as though you are the only one that remembers the Falklands. Calm down.
As narrow minded as someone who uses a single conflict 23 years ago to try to justify a capability gap that, in the period since 1982, has seen not a single coalition aircraft shot down by hostile aircraft but several brought down by hostile surface fire?
Do you think it's possible that you just may be the one with tunnel vision?
Scrapping the money invested in GR9 and/or F-35 is unrealistic and would be a backward step.
The FA3 concept is not the Harrier II+, it was a level of development beyond that but your basic point is valid. The Harrier II+ was considered and rejected. One of the problems was the radar; APG 65 with US code, release of info etc etc blah blah. Talks of putting Vixen in the nose increased costs further. Borrowing some Harrier II+? There are no surplus aircraft around and even if there were, the differences in mission computer software make the aircraft dissimilar to GR7/9 with all the associated support costs.
And you do still have top come back to the pragmatic question of risk versus capability. Do we throw away the little money we have for improving current platforms for the conflict of today and tomorrow to invest in plugging the 7ish year capability gap that hasn't been called upon for 23 years?
Realism versus idealism. Nothing to do with ranting about history as though nobody remembers.
I don't know who you think is saying that the GR9 is any more essential than any other aircraft; it just happens to be the one that the RN and RAF in the run up to F-35. It also has some unique capabilities that have been highlighted that other aircraft in the UK inventory do not have (such as short/austere field or CVS ops.) The only people banging on about anything are the historians who keep their ears firmly covered when logic resounds.
And just what do you expect us to do about decisions made over a decade ago that you think were wrong? Sorry, "crap."
Idealism versus realism. We work in coalition all the time; we have the UK/NL TG; NATO; the UN; EUFOR etc etc. The realist doesn't give a hoot where his air support comes from, just that it does.
You go on as though 31 Mar will be the end of all organic maritime AD for ever. Has the F-35 been cancelled in the last 25 minutes? Or is your point that you don't like the gap between FA2 and F-35? Join the club, I don't know anyone who has an ounce of common sense that thinks the idea is perfect but the realist accepts the risk and moves forward, the idealist stays entrenched in the past.
But you're right, question we should. And when the answer is given, like it or not, you move on. At least the realists do.
Nosegunner,
It's a little bit of a shame that you picked so many disparate quotes and pasted them together to look so extreme but you did finish on a high note:
back in 1982 I think it was? Remember, Sheffield, Coventry, Sir Gallahad, Ardent et al... It's not ancient history, it's a lesson!!!
Why do you think that people have forgotten something that happened 23 years ago? It is a lesson that was firmly in the minds of a group of people who took a bold decision, based upon the balance of risk, to opt for continued investment in today (GR9) and the future (F-35) at the risk of losing organic AD. You make it sound as though you are the only one that remembers the Falklands. Calm down.
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.
Do you think it's possible that you just may be the one with tunnel vision?
Same bucket as the GR9, F35 etc... but instead of! I'm trying not to be idealistic, just realistic?
I thought that the "FA3" does exist in the form of the Harrier II Plus as used by the USMC and Spanish and Italian navies. Surely the solution to this problem is to lease a batch of Harrier II plus for the Dark Blue Sqns ?GR7/9 Airframe commonality, no loss of capability.
And you do still have top come back to the pragmatic question of risk versus capability. Do we throw away the little money we have for improving current platforms for the conflict of today and tomorrow to invest in plugging the 7ish year capability gap that hasn't been called upon for 23 years?
Realism versus idealism. Nothing to do with ranting about history as though nobody remembers.
indeed Latearmlive the whole thread is full of repeated quotes... like those banging on about how essential the GR9 is? Actually, I'm not suggesting a new solution but, and some might well ask why, that a crap choice was made around way back before the F35 purchase/GR9 upgrade decision
And just what do you expect us to do about decisions made over a decade ago that you think were wrong? Sorry, "crap."
FB11 has talked about the impracticality of mounting 24/7 CAPs from ships... and I wouldn't wish to doubt his maths/authority... but without any air defence they are left vulnerable and IMHO we shouldn't be relying on allies to bridge gaps in our defences?
The snag is, the decision has been made (fact) and as you say we don't have the money to retrace our steps... so have to live with the consequences, but surely we don't have to forge on ahead without question.
But you're right, question we should. And when the answer is given, like it or not, you move on. At least the realists do.
Nosegunner,
It's a little bit of a shame that you picked so many disparate quotes and pasted them together to look so extreme but you did finish on a high note:
The gap is not ideal - but I think it is the best decision in the circumstances.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Re: Sea Jet
One of the problems was the radar; APG 65 with US code, release of info etc etc blah blah
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Sea Jet
[QUOTE=As this entire thread keeps repeating over and over: New jets, or an uprated SHAR would be nice, but we do not have the money for them and have other priorities.[/QUOTE]
Amen to that-can we please stop this nonsense- 'ere I die
Amen to that-can we please stop this nonsense- 'ere I die
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Sea Jet
FB11 thank you for your lengthy reply to my (probably) emotive postal exchange with LateArmLive (although you seem to have also picked up a few other quotes along the way, that I don't agree with personally?)... you conclude by saying
which, it may surprise you to learn, means I think we're on common ground?
What surprises me (maybe it shouldn't) is that if so many people nowadays can see that the decision made, what five years ago, isn't perfect... why those wise people were talked into going down that route in the first place? Does that take us into RAF vs RN politics?
PS: Sorry about the exclamation marks!!!
PPS: Considering this is, undoubtedly, one of the longest and widest read threads on this site... one cannot underestimate the strength of opinion on both sides?
I don't know anyone who has an ounce of common sense that thinks the idea is perfect
What surprises me (maybe it shouldn't) is that if so many people nowadays can see that the decision made, what five years ago, isn't perfect... why those wise people were talked into going down that route in the first place? Does that take us into RAF vs RN politics?
PS: Sorry about the exclamation marks!!!
PPS: Considering this is, undoubtedly, one of the longest and widest read threads on this site... one cannot underestimate the strength of opinion on both sides?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Sea Jet
Navaleye,
It does present a problem to the other 2 nations, Spain and Italy.
They waited an extra 5 years for the AIM120 software becuase of US software delay. The US do not have AIM120 on their jets and so you can imagine the priority AAM software had. They don't carry the same PGMs as us. They can not choose to put weapons of their choice on the aircraft because they have to pay a significant amount of money to the US to integrate it. The reason we the UK is forcing the issue on source code for F-35 is to have the ability to do as we desire and not be at the behest of the US.
Pierre,
Most people in this thread are in violent agreement about the core subject. Lots of posts does not justify it's existence, it just shows the stark differences between those who accept the reality of a situation and move forward and those who don't.
As for RN/RAF politics, there is no conspiracy theory. Just the cold hard reality of finance.
It does present a problem to the other 2 nations, Spain and Italy.
They waited an extra 5 years for the AIM120 software becuase of US software delay. The US do not have AIM120 on their jets and so you can imagine the priority AAM software had. They don't carry the same PGMs as us. They can not choose to put weapons of their choice on the aircraft because they have to pay a significant amount of money to the US to integrate it. The reason we the UK is forcing the issue on source code for F-35 is to have the ability to do as we desire and not be at the behest of the US.
Pierre,
Most people in this thread are in violent agreement about the core subject. Lots of posts does not justify it's existence, it just shows the stark differences between those who accept the reality of a situation and move forward and those who don't.
As for RN/RAF politics, there is no conspiracy theory. Just the cold hard reality of finance.
Re: Sea Jet
"What surprises me (maybe it shouldn't) is that if so many people nowadays can see that the decision made, what five years ago, isn't perfect..... why those wise people were talked into going down that route in the first place?"
Because withdrawing the SHar was still the BEST option (not perfect, just best), given funding constraints, the anticipated role of the CVS until replacement, allied capabilities, and the SHar's inadequacies.
Because withdrawing the SHar was still the BEST option (not perfect, just best), given funding constraints, the anticipated role of the CVS until replacement, allied capabilities, and the SHar's inadequacies.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Sea Jet
Agree with much in the above recent posts... withdrawal of the SHAR might have been the best option at the time, but I believe the gripe of many standing up here against the SHARs withdrawal (apart from a few romantics who are mistakenly lamenting the demise of a 25+yr old aircraft) is the lack of development of the aircraft and that capability.
I clearly remember (and have in mind) that from the outset the FRS1 was a compromise to fill a gap... a gap which incidentally is not unlike the one the RN faces today... To justify withdrawal of AD capability today because SHARs never shot at another aircraft in anger Post-FI is a weak arguement that might equally be used to cancel the whole Typhoon programme (how many war-shots can the F3s claim?)
Sad, but true, budget has become the major strategy decider because all this leads to is crisis management i.e. we don't need AD today, so we'll worry about it tomorrow. I repeat my earlier poser... ask Tony Blair for an assurance that he won't be asking UK Forces to go into a situation where they are standing alone and I doubt you'll get one. FB11 asks us to be realistic and move forward... presumably with our fingers crossed?
I clearly remember (and have in mind) that from the outset the FRS1 was a compromise to fill a gap... a gap which incidentally is not unlike the one the RN faces today... To justify withdrawal of AD capability today because SHARs never shot at another aircraft in anger Post-FI is a weak arguement that might equally be used to cancel the whole Typhoon programme (how many war-shots can the F3s claim?)
Sad, but true, budget has become the major strategy decider because all this leads to is crisis management i.e. we don't need AD today, so we'll worry about it tomorrow. I repeat my earlier poser... ask Tony Blair for an assurance that he won't be asking UK Forces to go into a situation where they are standing alone and I doubt you'll get one. FB11 asks us to be realistic and move forward... presumably with our fingers crossed?
Re: Sea Jet
Pierre Argh,
SHAR FRS1 was NOT a compromise. In 1965 a major policy decision was taken that there was no further UK need for ship based fixed wing airpower and that all future maritime airpower would be either embarked rotary or shore based fixed wing provided by the RAF. This was at a time when the UK was withdrawing from the Far East, beginning the withdrawal from the Middle East and publicly announced that it would no longer play the role of the worlds policeman.
This situation was NOTHING like the “gap” you state exists today!
This parlous state of affairs continued up until the mid seventies when gentle and persistent RN pressure, plus some very astute financial squirreling by their Lordships, meant that an order for 25 FRS1 to embark on the CVS fleet was announced. This was not a compromise to see the RN through until some future far more capable platform could be devised, these were assets to be deployed in quantities of 5 at a time on the CVS in very much a secondary role of seeing off Soviet maritime Bears and Badgers. The RN was then very much focussed on ASW groups centred around the CVS in the North eastern Atlantic and the main point of the CVS was as a command and control asset and as a platform for 9 Sea King ASW helicopters.
Nobody is justifying the withdrawal of SHAR because it never shot at an aircraft post Falklands, the decision was made, as admirably put by folk above on this board, because we have a limited defence budget in an age where there is NO organised military threat to the UK and the UK military is focussed on expeditionary warfare based on coalition operations against a largely terrorist based threat.
Why else do you think the decisions such as withdrawing the Sea Eagle anti-shipping missile from the RAF and RN was taken, or the withdrawal of Sub-Harpoon from RN SSNs? Because we have no major fleet adversaries out there and we canot justify retention of these systems “just in case.”
In the same vein the RAF Bloodhound medium range SAM was not replaced, the UK Rapier SAM capability is being drastically reduced and all underground hardened CRC’s are going, because there is simply not an adversary out there who provides a threat against which these systems are optimised!
Name me ONE scenario where Tony Blair, or in the future David Tony Blair Cameron, would ask UK forces to do what you propose before the F-35 is safely in service, go on, just ONE!
SHAR FRS1 was NOT a compromise. In 1965 a major policy decision was taken that there was no further UK need for ship based fixed wing airpower and that all future maritime airpower would be either embarked rotary or shore based fixed wing provided by the RAF. This was at a time when the UK was withdrawing from the Far East, beginning the withdrawal from the Middle East and publicly announced that it would no longer play the role of the worlds policeman.
This situation was NOTHING like the “gap” you state exists today!
This parlous state of affairs continued up until the mid seventies when gentle and persistent RN pressure, plus some very astute financial squirreling by their Lordships, meant that an order for 25 FRS1 to embark on the CVS fleet was announced. This was not a compromise to see the RN through until some future far more capable platform could be devised, these were assets to be deployed in quantities of 5 at a time on the CVS in very much a secondary role of seeing off Soviet maritime Bears and Badgers. The RN was then very much focussed on ASW groups centred around the CVS in the North eastern Atlantic and the main point of the CVS was as a command and control asset and as a platform for 9 Sea King ASW helicopters.
Nobody is justifying the withdrawal of SHAR because it never shot at an aircraft post Falklands, the decision was made, as admirably put by folk above on this board, because we have a limited defence budget in an age where there is NO organised military threat to the UK and the UK military is focussed on expeditionary warfare based on coalition operations against a largely terrorist based threat.
Why else do you think the decisions such as withdrawing the Sea Eagle anti-shipping missile from the RAF and RN was taken, or the withdrawal of Sub-Harpoon from RN SSNs? Because we have no major fleet adversaries out there and we canot justify retention of these systems “just in case.”
In the same vein the RAF Bloodhound medium range SAM was not replaced, the UK Rapier SAM capability is being drastically reduced and all underground hardened CRC’s are going, because there is simply not an adversary out there who provides a threat against which these systems are optimised!
Name me ONE scenario where Tony Blair, or in the future David Tony Blair Cameron, would ask UK forces to do what you propose before the F-35 is safely in service, go on, just ONE!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Sea Jet
Pierre Argh
When (apart from - possibly - wars of national survival) hasn't it been.
Marlborough suffered from it, as did Wellington. Income Tax was invented by Pitt to fund a war. The whole of UK Strategy post 1945 has revolved around it (withdrawl from East of Suez etc).
The UK's historic position of maintaining a small professional army (compared to Continental nations) was driven by costs. And the fact that
something that neither of the other 2 Services have yet done
Sad, but true, budget has become the major strategy decider
Marlborough suffered from it, as did Wellington. Income Tax was invented by Pitt to fund a war. The whole of UK Strategy post 1945 has revolved around it (withdrawl from East of Suez etc).
The UK's historic position of maintaining a small professional army (compared to Continental nations) was driven by costs. And the fact that
... the British Army could not even be truly tested until after the Royal Navy (and, laterly the Royal Air Force) had already failed
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Sea Jet
pr00ne is, I believe splitting hairs when he says the gap in air defence in the 80's was nothing like the gap in AD the RN is experiencing today... a gap is a gap is a gap
Climebear you may well be right when you reply to my comment on budget constraint adversely affecting strategy
but as a final thought before I bow out from this thread (after all differences of opinion bashed out on an Internet Forum won't change a thing)... I recall days not so long ago when we talked of "flexible response". But I sincerely doubt our armed forces have that ability anymore because they are too focused and talk only of present perceived need and are not considering the "what-if"
PS: there have been a total of 116,709 posts on the Military Aircrew forum... of which 1375 are on this topic... I wonder why the other 6000'ish threads are so unattractive. So long, it's been fun.
Climebear you may well be right when you reply to my comment on budget constraint adversely affecting strategy
When (apart from - possibly - wars of national survival) hasn't it been
PS: there have been a total of 116,709 posts on the Military Aircrew forum... of which 1375 are on this topic... I wonder why the other 6000'ish threads are so unattractive. So long, it's been fun.
Last edited by Pierre Argh; 5th Jan 2006 at 13:05.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Re: Sea Jet
I hope you stick around Pierre Argh, balanced, constructive debate is important on a subject that impacts directly on the lives of our service men and women. I would like to see a naval aviation future between now and 2018? that looks something like This. UK armed forces should not be in the 2nd division.
Re: Sea Jet
I was talking about the current state of affairs with a friend the other day, and she made the comment:
The senior service is having its wings well and truly clipped.
I don't like the risk of risk approach taken regarding not only the loss of the Sea Jet, but CVF/F35 delays, T45 delays, FF/DD cuts, less money for the upkeep of ships etc etc. I conclude the risks today are higher than they were in early 2002. Leaving budgetry issues to one side for a moment, would the same decision be made if the above issues had been predicted?
Sadly, 801 have had their last deployment at sea. See here: 801 Sawnsong.
The senior service is having its wings well and truly clipped.
I don't like the risk of risk approach taken regarding not only the loss of the Sea Jet, but CVF/F35 delays, T45 delays, FF/DD cuts, less money for the upkeep of ships etc etc. I conclude the risks today are higher than they were in early 2002. Leaving budgetry issues to one side for a moment, would the same decision be made if the above issues had been predicted?
Sadly, 801 have had their last deployment at sea. See here: 801 Sawnsong.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 6th Jan 2006 at 22:04.