Sea Jet
"In late 2003 I saw a talk on the RNR Air Branch. Ex RN Aircrew, Air Engineers and others are attached to various units and establishments, operating every single aircraft type in RN service. These included former Sea Harrier drivers who flex airliners most of the time, then for a few weeks of the year back on the Sea Harrier. Similar story with the Engineers etc. Now if you can fly a Boeing 757 all year and then a Sea Harrier for a few weeks to keep your hand in, why not fly a GR9 all year and then the Sea Harrier briefly? And the same for the maintainers. And if (when?) a crisis does come along - take a few in the CVS along with the GR9s? Or instead of some GR9s (depending on the crisis)?"
Because manpower is only one element in the equation - and probably the easiest to solve.
To be operationally useful the SHar needs a major upgrade. (And the engine?).
To remain in service the SHar needs an ongoing spend on costly spares, maintenance infrastructure, ground support equipment, 'Major' tracks, etc. It is by eliminating all of the type specific logistics tail that you leverage the savings to be accrued from retiring the aircraft. Maintaining eight, four or even one SHar means that you don't get the required savings.
The CVS aren't big enough to deploy a useful mix of SHar AND GR, it's an either/or choice, and GR is more useful more often. CVS with sufficient SHar to mount a sustained CAP is the ultimate self licking lollipop.
Don't get me wrong, if it were up to me, I'd upgrade and keep SHar just in case, given unlimited funding. But when we're losing PR9 and Jaguar (two far more useful assets than SHar) arguing for retention of the Sea Jet is asinine.
Because manpower is only one element in the equation - and probably the easiest to solve.
To be operationally useful the SHar needs a major upgrade. (And the engine?).
To remain in service the SHar needs an ongoing spend on costly spares, maintenance infrastructure, ground support equipment, 'Major' tracks, etc. It is by eliminating all of the type specific logistics tail that you leverage the savings to be accrued from retiring the aircraft. Maintaining eight, four or even one SHar means that you don't get the required savings.
The CVS aren't big enough to deploy a useful mix of SHar AND GR, it's an either/or choice, and GR is more useful more often. CVS with sufficient SHar to mount a sustained CAP is the ultimate self licking lollipop.
Don't get me wrong, if it were up to me, I'd upgrade and keep SHar just in case, given unlimited funding. But when we're losing PR9 and Jaguar (two far more useful assets than SHar) arguing for retention of the Sea Jet is asinine.
I especially liked FlyNavy's piece:
"I can honestly say that as i worked on 800NAS for over 4 years and saw the end of the mighty SHAR, I have now moved on to the GR7 and yes it has its failings and some things are not quite as good as the mighty shar but we all move on and I think you should too.
Like previous people have said their are costs to be cut and guidelines to be met and paying for the shar and its limited capability is just a waste of money. And if we can make some savings and use that cash eleswhere then surely this is a good thing
The GR7 can do the same as the SHAR it just does it better and with more stores on board!
Blimey listen to me go on and I am Navy thru and thru!! But here i am singing the praises of the RAF!!"
"I can honestly say that as i worked on 800NAS for over 4 years and saw the end of the mighty SHAR, I have now moved on to the GR7 and yes it has its failings and some things are not quite as good as the mighty shar but we all move on and I think you should too.
Like previous people have said their are costs to be cut and guidelines to be met and paying for the shar and its limited capability is just a waste of money. And if we can make some savings and use that cash eleswhere then surely this is a good thing
The GR7 can do the same as the SHAR it just does it better and with more stores on board!
Blimey listen to me go on and I am Navy thru and thru!! But here i am singing the praises of the RAF!!"
Suspicion breeds confidence
I hear Illustrious is off to the Indian Ocean and will be exercising with Viraat and her Shars. Who gets the upper hand in air combat GR9 or FRS.51 ?
Wrt to Webf's point about maintaining some Shars in storage/reserve, I would look at the other two branches of the armed forces. When the number of armoured regiments was reduced, 150 Challengers were put in to storage. When the F3 fleet was cut to ribbons their flying Routemasters were put into storage. The same could be done for the Shar given the political will.
Wrt to Webf's point about maintaining some Shars in storage/reserve, I would look at the other two branches of the armed forces. When the number of armoured regiments was reduced, 150 Challengers were put in to storage. When the F3 fleet was cut to ribbons their flying Routemasters were put into storage. The same could be done for the Shar given the political will.
Last edited by Navaleye; 12th Feb 2006 at 12:00.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'I hear Illustrious is off to the Indian Ocean and will be exercising with Viraat and her Shars. Who gets the upper hand in air combat GR9 or FRS.51 ?'
GR7/9 with AIM-9L controlled by SKASaC v FRS51 with Magic controlled by Helix AEW?
Mmmm, my money would definitely be on the GR7 with big engine, big wing and better C2 winning! Blue Fox will make diddly squat difference.
Regards,
MM
GR7/9 with AIM-9L controlled by SKASaC v FRS51 with Magic controlled by Helix AEW?
Mmmm, my money would definitely be on the GR7 with big engine, big wing and better C2 winning! Blue Fox will make diddly squat difference.
Regards,
MM
Originally Posted by Magic Mushroom
'I hear Illustrious is off to the Indian Ocean and will be exercising with Viraat and her Shars. Who gets the upper hand in air combat GR9 or FRS.51 ?'
GR7/9 with AIM-9L controlled by SKASaC v FRS51 with Magic controlled by Helix AEW?
Mmmm, my money would definitely be on the GR7 with big engine, big wing and better C2 winning! Blue Fox will make diddly squat difference.
Regards,
MM
GR7/9 with AIM-9L controlled by SKASaC v FRS51 with Magic controlled by Helix AEW?
Mmmm, my money would definitely be on the GR7 with big engine, big wing and better C2 winning! Blue Fox will make diddly squat difference.
Regards,
MM
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TEEJ,
Yes I know that the IN FRS51s are being upgraded. But Navaleye was talking of the here and now.
Navaleye,
The analogy with F3 and CR2 being placed into storage is hardly fair. Both types are still in service so crew, expertise and spares isn't an issue. The reason ssuch assets are retained in reserve is to allow rotation and a cheap spares source for in service types.
SHAR is being retired in toto, so it wouldn't be cost effective.
Regards,
MM
Yes I know that the IN FRS51s are being upgraded. But Navaleye was talking of the here and now.
Navaleye,
The analogy with F3 and CR2 being placed into storage is hardly fair. Both types are still in service so crew, expertise and spares isn't an issue. The reason ssuch assets are retained in reserve is to allow rotation and a cheap spares source for in service types.
SHAR is being retired in toto, so it wouldn't be cost effective.
Regards,
MM
Blue Fox will make diddly squat difference.
What if they had Blue Vixen and AMRAAM? On that note, if the Sea Jet FA2 needs major upgrades to be useful in hot climates, why is India interested in purchasing them?
I've noticed the RN website has been redesigned. Unfortunately this means links in previous post will probably not work. Still lots of pictures of aircraft - including the Shar.
.........it wouldn't be cost effective
I understand your logic, but those words make me cringe. Imagine those words at an Inquest. Better to have and not need, than to need and not have? Clearly not from the Government point of view.
Looking to the future, does anyone know when the STOVL JSF (F35B?) will have its first flight?
What if they had Blue Vixen and AMRAAM? On that note, if the Sea Jet FA2 needs major upgrades to be useful in hot climates, why is India interested in purchasing them?
I've noticed the RN website has been redesigned. Unfortunately this means links in previous post will probably not work. Still lots of pictures of aircraft - including the Shar.
.........it wouldn't be cost effective
I understand your logic, but those words make me cringe. Imagine those words at an Inquest. Better to have and not need, than to need and not have? Clearly not from the Government point of view.
Looking to the future, does anyone know when the STOVL JSF (F35B?) will have its first flight?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But they don't have Blue Vixen and they don't have AMRAAM!
And WEBF, once again, why don't you consider what would be said at the inquest of British Army soldiers killed due to a lack of armour on his land rover, or an AT asset lost due to lack of DAS, or the crew of a 1960's FV430 APC being captured, isolated and murdered when their drive shaft breaks. These, are more realistic scenarios involving assets being used every day in the face of hostile forces. In comparison, the chances of us finding ourselves in a conflict on our own AND where there is a credible ASuW threat AND land based DCA is not available AND US/French/Italian/Spanish naval DCA is not available is considerably less.
Wake up WEBF and enter the real world. No one on this site I believe is arguing against keeping the SHAR in a perfect world. But we don't and we can't afford every capability.
Perhaps you would benefit from spending 4 months patroling Basrah with the Army in soft skinned land rovers followed by a few transits of the straights of Hormuz in your RFA being escorted by a DDG. Then have a think about where you felt more concerned, look the friends of recently deceased squaddies in the eye, and try arguing the case for SHAR to them.
Regards,
MM
And WEBF, once again, why don't you consider what would be said at the inquest of British Army soldiers killed due to a lack of armour on his land rover, or an AT asset lost due to lack of DAS, or the crew of a 1960's FV430 APC being captured, isolated and murdered when their drive shaft breaks. These, are more realistic scenarios involving assets being used every day in the face of hostile forces. In comparison, the chances of us finding ourselves in a conflict on our own AND where there is a credible ASuW threat AND land based DCA is not available AND US/French/Italian/Spanish naval DCA is not available is considerably less.
Wake up WEBF and enter the real world. No one on this site I believe is arguing against keeping the SHAR in a perfect world. But we don't and we can't afford every capability.
Perhaps you would benefit from spending 4 months patroling Basrah with the Army in soft skinned land rovers followed by a few transits of the straights of Hormuz in your RFA being escorted by a DDG. Then have a think about where you felt more concerned, look the friends of recently deceased squaddies in the eye, and try arguing the case for SHAR to them.
Regards,
MM
WEBF
MM beat me to it! And I agree entirely with all he said. Three servicemen died in Iraq this month, at least one of whom died in an unarmoured Land Rover as a result of an IED!! It will take about 14 months for the inquest, that is the backlog on military deaths, but what if the outcome is that he may have survived if the vehicle had been armoured? These deaths are happening here and now, not in some mythical distant fantasy scenario of yours!!
Oh yes, and by the way, if the Indians want to take on the RN, why don't they just use Flankers with AA-10, and AEW from Candids!!
MM beat me to it! And I agree entirely with all he said. Three servicemen died in Iraq this month, at least one of whom died in an unarmoured Land Rover as a result of an IED!! It will take about 14 months for the inquest, that is the backlog on military deaths, but what if the outcome is that he may have survived if the vehicle had been armoured? These deaths are happening here and now, not in some mythical distant fantasy scenario of yours!!
Oh yes, and by the way, if the Indians want to take on the RN, why don't they just use Flankers with AA-10, and AEW from Candids!!
Suspicion breeds confidence
I have total sympathy for those lost and their families of course. But all three services are cutting back on equipment and capabilities as a result of chronic under funding. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not the answer.
No, but prioritising, spending the limited funds we have on the equipment we do need, rather than on the equipment that we might need in some future mythical scenario, is the answer!!!
Therefore decisions, no matter how painful, need to be taken about what equipment is and is not procured, retained, etc.....
Therefore decisions, no matter how painful, need to be taken about what equipment is and is not procured, retained, etc.....
Suspicion breeds confidence
Unfortunately at the speed our procurement system works, our troops will be out of Iraq before the kit you describe arrives. The Americans who have all this stuff in abundance are still taking casualties.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once more into the breach.....
NavalEye, WEBF...
I've stayed out of this thread for ages, thinking that there was nothing more to be said. And yet like "Groundhog Day" the same arguments keep coming up-again and again and again.... but one more time:
WEBF --
MM and Biggus are absolutely right!
As we've all said before, losing SHar isn't ideal, but given the current and likely threat environment in a necessarily finite budget, it makes much more sense to scrap this than other things. And those who know more about this than me seem confident of four things:
(a) that 800 and 801 NAS will use GR7/9 very nicely thank-you;
(b) that CVS cannot embark a meaningful number of SHars and GR7/9s at the same time to have a meaningful independent organic strike force (c. 20+ jets on a CVS? Can't see it somehow....);
(c) that flying, fighting and maintaining the SHar is sufficiently different to GR7/9 that sticking some in a nice warm hangar for a rainy day is pointless;
(d) that this is deeply regrettable but within the current budgets, this is also best decision.
Which leads me to ask you who you are going to elect who would increase the defence budget to the extent that when unfunded exisiting requirements are ranked by priority, that we get far enough down to fund SHar...?
Two clues chaps:
- no-one is running on a "increase the defence budget" or "save the SHar" platform; and
- SHar is not at the top of the unfunded exisiting requirements list!!
I'll shed a tear at the end of March too... but then it's over, and that's that until JSF. If 800 and 801 NAS are moving on, shouldn't we as well?
S41
I've stayed out of this thread for ages, thinking that there was nothing more to be said. And yet like "Groundhog Day" the same arguments keep coming up-again and again and again.... but one more time:
WEBF --
MM and Biggus are absolutely right!
As we've all said before, losing SHar isn't ideal, but given the current and likely threat environment in a necessarily finite budget, it makes much more sense to scrap this than other things. And those who know more about this than me seem confident of four things:
(a) that 800 and 801 NAS will use GR7/9 very nicely thank-you;
(b) that CVS cannot embark a meaningful number of SHars and GR7/9s at the same time to have a meaningful independent organic strike force (c. 20+ jets on a CVS? Can't see it somehow....);
(c) that flying, fighting and maintaining the SHar is sufficiently different to GR7/9 that sticking some in a nice warm hangar for a rainy day is pointless;
(d) that this is deeply regrettable but within the current budgets, this is also best decision.
Which leads me to ask you who you are going to elect who would increase the defence budget to the extent that when unfunded exisiting requirements are ranked by priority, that we get far enough down to fund SHar...?
Two clues chaps:
- no-one is running on a "increase the defence budget" or "save the SHar" platform; and
- SHar is not at the top of the unfunded exisiting requirements list!!
I'll shed a tear at the end of March too... but then it's over, and that's that until JSF. If 800 and 801 NAS are moving on, shouldn't we as well?
S41
Suspicion breeds confidence
I'm very diappointed in the dull paint scheme for 800 NAS GR7s as shown in the one of the aviation mags last week. Maybe the paint budget has been cut and we can't afford to put a decent RN livery on them.
Navaleye,
Seeing as the RAF have never felt the need to paint "Royal Air Force" on the side of their fast jets why should the RN be allowed to paint "Royal Navy" on the ones in their squadrons, especially when they are a part of a joint force and have both persuasions of blue in their ranks?
Seeing as the RAF have never felt the need to paint "Royal Air Force" on the side of their fast jets why should the RN be allowed to paint "Royal Navy" on the ones in their squadrons, especially when they are a part of a joint force and have both persuasions of blue in their ranks?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Navaleye
I'm very diappointed in the dull paint scheme for 800 NAS GR7s as shown in the one of the aviation mags last week. Maybe the paint budget has been cut and we can't afford to put a decent RN livery on them.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne... Fast jets... No: but what about helicopters and transports?
It's tradition (you may need to look that concept up... stands by for incoming)... the RN have painted ROYAL NAVY on aircraft since they took control of the Fleet Air Arm back from the RAF in the 1930's
What the RAF could do though (whilst we're on the subject of markings) is stop claiming the UK National marking as being an "RAF Roundal"... the AAC, RM and RN all carry it with pride
(Thinks: maybe that's why the newspapers/TV keep on getting it wrong in their articles.... hmmmm?)
It's tradition (you may need to look that concept up... stands by for incoming)... the RN have painted ROYAL NAVY on aircraft since they took control of the Fleet Air Arm back from the RAF in the 1930's
What the RAF could do though (whilst we're on the subject of markings) is stop claiming the UK National marking as being an "RAF Roundal"... the AAC, RM and RN all carry it with pride
(Thinks: maybe that's why the newspapers/TV keep on getting it wrong in their articles.... hmmmm?)