Sea Jet
Widger I suspect that this thread will soon fade away and go into storage itself. Not quite yet though.....
Navaleye I suspect that when this thread is left to rest, a new thread dedicated to CVF would be apt.
Back on topic, from the MOD
Sea Harrier bows out in wave of emotion
Ignoring the issues of lost capabilities, as has much of the media.
There was a piece in the Western Morning News today.
BOND LOOKALIKE'S SAD FAREWELL TO 007
However, the Sea Harriers will still live on, as they will be used to train new naval recruits. Commanding officer of RNAS Culdrose, Captain Jerry Stanford, said: "We have a concrete flight deck that has the same lines painted on it as those found on a ship. These fantastic aircraft will be maintained so they can taxi on the simulated deck for training. We will continue to use them in Cornwall for the next ten years."
I suspect the Navy will want to look after them as best as they can......just in case.
Navaleye I suspect that when this thread is left to rest, a new thread dedicated to CVF would be apt.
Back on topic, from the MOD
Sea Harrier bows out in wave of emotion
Ignoring the issues of lost capabilities, as has much of the media.
There was a piece in the Western Morning News today.
BOND LOOKALIKE'S SAD FAREWELL TO 007
However, the Sea Harriers will still live on, as they will be used to train new naval recruits. Commanding officer of RNAS Culdrose, Captain Jerry Stanford, said: "We have a concrete flight deck that has the same lines painted on it as those found on a ship. These fantastic aircraft will be maintained so they can taxi on the simulated deck for training. We will continue to use them in Cornwall for the next ten years."
I suspect the Navy will want to look after them as best as they can......just in case.
Organic air defence - obviously. How can you argue having less aircraft and being able to to less things makes you more capable?
From Telegraph letters:
Sir - Readers should not be fooled by misleading official spin indicating that the disbanding of the last Sea Harrier squadron represents progress (News, March 29). The Sea Harriers are not being replaced by new GR7 and GR9 Harriers but by upgraded ex-RAF aircraft, which were built before many of the Sea Harriers. What?
The last Sea Harrier FA2, designed for an operational life of at least another 10 to 15 years, was handed over to the Royal Navy only in 1999. The re-formed Naval Air Squadrons, 800 and 801, will no doubt continue to uphold the proud traditions of the Fleet Air Arm, but their ground-attack Harriers will have no radar and no long-range air-to-air missiles. Let us hope that between now and 2017 (when the planned JSF replacements may or may not become available), there is no new air threat to our potentially oil-rich South Atlantic territories.
In the Falklands War the Royal Navy had no airborne early warning radar aircraft and lost many ships as a result. Now it has no radar-equipped fighters.
What a shambles!
Richard Gardner, Editor, Aerospace International, Farnborough, Hants
From Telegraph letters:
Sir - Readers should not be fooled by misleading official spin indicating that the disbanding of the last Sea Harrier squadron represents progress (News, March 29). The Sea Harriers are not being replaced by new GR7 and GR9 Harriers but by upgraded ex-RAF aircraft, which were built before many of the Sea Harriers. What?
The last Sea Harrier FA2, designed for an operational life of at least another 10 to 15 years, was handed over to the Royal Navy only in 1999. The re-formed Naval Air Squadrons, 800 and 801, will no doubt continue to uphold the proud traditions of the Fleet Air Arm, but their ground-attack Harriers will have no radar and no long-range air-to-air missiles. Let us hope that between now and 2017 (when the planned JSF replacements may or may not become available), there is no new air threat to our potentially oil-rich South Atlantic territories.
In the Falklands War the Royal Navy had no airborne early warning radar aircraft and lost many ships as a result. Now it has no radar-equipped fighters.
What a shambles!
Richard Gardner, Editor, Aerospace International, Farnborough, Hants
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,133
Received 28 Likes
on
17 Posts
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
Organic air defence - obviously. How can you argue having less aircraft and being able to to less things makes you more capable?
From Telegraph letters:
Sir - Readers should not be fooled by misleading official spin indicating that the disbanding of the last Sea Harrier squadron represents progress (News, March 29). The Sea Harriers are not being replaced by new GR7 and GR9 Harriers but by upgraded ex-RAF aircraft, which were built before many of the Sea Harriers. What?
The last Sea Harrier FA2, designed for an operational life of at least another 10 to 15 years, was handed over to the Royal Navy only in 1999. The re-formed Naval Air Squadrons, 800 and 801, will no doubt continue to uphold the proud traditions of the Fleet Air Arm, but their ground-attack Harriers will have no radar and no long-range air-to-air missiles. Let us hope that between now and 2017 (when the planned JSF replacements may or may not become available), there is no new air threat to our potentially oil-rich South Atlantic territories.
In the Falklands War the Royal Navy had no airborne early warning radar aircraft and lost many ships as a result. Now it has no radar-equipped fighters.
What a shambles!
Richard Gardner, Editor, Aerospace International, Farnborough, Hants
From Telegraph letters:
Sir - Readers should not be fooled by misleading official spin indicating that the disbanding of the last Sea Harrier squadron represents progress (News, March 29). The Sea Harriers are not being replaced by new GR7 and GR9 Harriers but by upgraded ex-RAF aircraft, which were built before many of the Sea Harriers. What?
The last Sea Harrier FA2, designed for an operational life of at least another 10 to 15 years, was handed over to the Royal Navy only in 1999. The re-formed Naval Air Squadrons, 800 and 801, will no doubt continue to uphold the proud traditions of the Fleet Air Arm, but their ground-attack Harriers will have no radar and no long-range air-to-air missiles. Let us hope that between now and 2017 (when the planned JSF replacements may or may not become available), there is no new air threat to our potentially oil-rich South Atlantic territories.
In the Falklands War the Royal Navy had no airborne early warning radar aircraft and lost many ships as a result. Now it has no radar-equipped fighters.
What a shambles!
Richard Gardner, Editor, Aerospace International, Farnborough, Hants
Hasn't this obviously partisan editor got it the wrong way round?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These days we don't fight the kind of wars where our ships need defending from enemy warplanes far out at sea. Aircraft Carriers are now mostly supporting shore operations by flying strike missions and it makes far better sense to spend our money on Harriers which can do that best. If necessary, we can rely on coalition forces to provide the outer air defence for surface ships.
Errr, wasn't the GR5 (later GR7, GR9) a complete new build aircraft (Harrier II) whereas the Sea Harrier FA2 was a rebuild of old FRS1 airframes?
Letter
On the 3 January 2006, I wrote the following letter to my MP, which he then sent to the Minister of State for Defence. Note that this was before I knew about the six aircraft being sent to SFDO at Culdrose.
Dear [MP]
Sea Harrier disposals/storage
In early 2002 the Government announced that it had decided to retire the Royal Navy’s Sea Harrier air defence aircraft from service early that had been planned. Two of the three squadrons that operated the Sea Harrier have been disbanded, and the last one, 801 Naval Air Squadron, is due to disband at the end of March.
You may recall that I wrote several letters to you about this issue, which resulted in replies from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces which made the following points:
- The new aircraft carriers (CVF) and the JSF aircraft they will carry will enter service in 2012, therefore the capability gap will be “only” six years.
- Layers of shipborne defence are provided by destroyers armed with the Sea Dart missile and frigates armed with Sea Wolf.
- Decoys and Close in Weapon Systems such as Phalanx and Goalkeeper provide additional defence, particularly against missiles and low flying aircraft.
- From 2007, the new Type 45 destroyer will start to enter service and provide a major advance in capability due to both state of the art radar and state of the art missiles.
- All foreseeable scenarios would usually involve UK forces operating alongside US or other allies – who would hopefully provide air defence for our forces.
I have to admit that I was not convinced by these arguments, and viewed the loss of organic air defence as very dangerous. It did, however, illustrate the assumptions that were taken at the time of the decision. Times have changed, new projects have been delayed, ships have been cut, and the defence budget continues to be bled dry by operations in Iraq and other places. It is fair to say that several of the assumptions above no longer apply. I would be interested to know whether the decision has been reviewed in the light of changing circumstances.
The new aircraft carriers and their aircraft will not enter service in 2012
This is perhaps the most significant change from the assumptions made in 2002. The CVF project, for the new carriers, has been delayed repeatedly. It is virtually inconceivable that the 2012 in service date is achievable, even if the construction started tomorrow – they have not been ordered yet. The JSF/F35 aircraft has also been delayed due to both technical problems and political arguments. Therefore it can be safely said that the assumption that the capability gap would last only six years is incorrect. Ten years may be a better guess. Every additional year without this capability increases the chance of disaster happening due to not having proper air defence.
The layers of shipborne defence have been depleted by cuts
At the time of the decision, the Royal Navy had 31 frigates and destroyers. After the cuts announced by Geoff Hoon, this number is being reduced to just 25. In evidence that the First Sea Lord gave to the Commons Defence Select Committee, he stated that the number of frigates/destroyers needed was “about thirty”, he also said that this reduced number gave him concerns about the ability of the fleet to sustain losses, in other words we cannot afford to lose a single ship.
The eight Type 42 destroyers that are left continue to have problems with their old radars and missile systems, which still suffers from the limitation of only having two missiles on the launcher at any one time. Additionally the amount of money spent on maintaining the ships of the fleet has been cut, many of our remaining frigates and destroyers are likely to have sensors and weapons that are not in a good state of serviceability. Already concerns are being voiced about the serviceability of the fleet.
Not all ships have decoys or Close in Weapons Systems
Hopefully all HM ships will have decoys, as will RFA vessels, although it is questionable whether they will all have the most sophisticated ones. Merchant shipping that is chartered or requisitioned to support military operations will not. Their size makes them very vulnerable to missiles looking for large radar targets.
As for CIWS systems, not all the ships in a task group would have them. Minehunters and the Hydrographic vessels that work with them would not. The majority of RFA vessels do not. Merchant ships of course have no armament. Of particular concern to me is the fact that the new Bay class landing ships being built for the RFA will be fitted to receive the Phalanx CIWS system but not actually fitted with it, despite the fact that they would carry hundred of troops and their equipment, and be tempting targets for an enemy.
The Type 45 destroyer has been delayed
The first Type 45 was intended to enter service in 2007. It has been delayed until 2009 and the rest of the class will also be delayed. Ministers stated that the Type 45 would help make up for lost capability, particularly with respect to dealing with attacks by multiple aircraft or missiles. We will have to wait several more years before this is so.
It is impossible to guarantee that UK only operations will not take place
The world is very unstable, and the only thing that we can predict about the future is that we cannot accurately predict it. Retaining the capacity for a UK naval task group to have organic air defence would mean that regimes considering a course of action which would bring them into conflict with the UK would have reason to think again. It is worth noting that the Argentine Junta would not have invaded the Falklands if they thought that Britain would respond. Saddam Hussein would not have invaded Kuwait in 1990 if he thought the West would react.
I would have liked 801 NAS to be kept going after March, certainly for a few years until the Type 45s start coming into service and ideally until the new carriers and their aircraft arrive. However, I believe that is impossible due to financial, logistical and administrative reasons.
However, when 801 does disband, instead of either scrapping the aircraft or selling them to museums or people who want to put them in car parks, why not put some aircraft into storage, complete with engines and avionics, so that they can be brought out of mothballs if needed. Keeping them in storage would create uncertainty for potential aggressors, and therefore have a deterrent effect. The pilots would be flying Harrier GR9s and exchanges with the RAF and with the US Navy and Marine Corps would help keep air-air skills alive.
I hope that this letter is of interest to you and that you are able to pass my comments to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
This morning, the following reply arrived:
Dear [MP]
Thank you for your letter of 13 February on behalf of your constituent, WEBF, raising concerns about maritime air defence and delays to shipbuilding programmes.
With regard to the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier, Fleet air defence will be provided by the measures I explained in my reply to your letter of 14 March 2002. I repeat that the Fleet will retain an effective air defence capability until the introduction into service of the Daring class destroyers and the new aircraft carriers.
Steady progress is being made on the new aircraft carriers. John Reid, the Secretary of State for Defence, announced on 14 December 2005 that the project had completed its assessment phase and would now move into its demonstration phase as part of a two stage tailored approach to the main investment decision. This reinforces our commitment to the carrier programme, which represents a quantum step up in military capability for the UK's Armed Forces. These carriers will be the biggest warships ever built in the UK and the most capable carrier force outside the USA.
For any major project a number of planning assumptions will be made and changed as it progresses through its concept, assessment and demonstration phases. In the case of the future carrier, we have not yet reached the main assessment decision. Public focus on planning assumptions or in service dates, which may be based on immature information, can lead to unnecessary pressure to conclude projects in unrealistic and high risk timescales. For this reason, the in service dates will be set when we make our main investment decision.
With 25 frigates and destroyers the Fleet retains the ability to respond to a wide range of contingencies from war fighting to peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. The Fleet is actively involved in protecting the UK's interests all over the globe. You may have seen recent media coverage of HMS Southampton's record breaking drugs seizure while on patrols in the Caribbean. Other examples are HMS Montrose, carrying out security operations in the Arabian Gulf, and HMS Nottingham, which is attached to a a NATO task group in the Mediterranean on counter terrorism operations. HMS Liverpool left UK waters in January and will carry out duties off Sierra Leone and Ghana, before carrying on to the Falklands to support British dependent territories in the South Atlantic. Other ships are busy in home waters preparing for deployments or engaged in important exercise with allied Navies.
WEBF is right to say we have temporarily reduced spending to logistic support to some elements of the Fleet. This is because we want to concentrate our resources on the highest priority commitments, to ensure the ships we are most likely to need for operations are available. This is simply good management and ensures that all the Navy's operational requirements are being met.
All RFA ships are currently fitted with close range weapons for self defence. Other ships with a task group that do not possess decoys or close in weapons systems come under the protective umbrella of the group as a whole. The development of Networked Enabled Capability is moving ahead. Networking all the radars in a force improves the link from sensor to shooter This means our ability to detect, track and engage air targets using all available sensors and shooters will be significantly enhanced.
We expect the first Type 45 destroyer, HMS Daring, to enter service in 2009. We recognise that this is later than hoped when we embarked on the project, but we continue to work with our industrial partners to deliver HMS Daring into service as early as possible. The programme to a major step forward on 1 February when the ship was launched on the Clyde.
I can assure you that the Fleet retains the capability to carry out operations independent of allies, as well as to participate in and lead coalition operations. Our forces are certainly capable of defending UK interests in the South Atlantic.
I hope this is helpful.
Yours Aye.........
Dear [MP]
Sea Harrier disposals/storage
In early 2002 the Government announced that it had decided to retire the Royal Navy’s Sea Harrier air defence aircraft from service early that had been planned. Two of the three squadrons that operated the Sea Harrier have been disbanded, and the last one, 801 Naval Air Squadron, is due to disband at the end of March.
You may recall that I wrote several letters to you about this issue, which resulted in replies from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces which made the following points:
- The new aircraft carriers (CVF) and the JSF aircraft they will carry will enter service in 2012, therefore the capability gap will be “only” six years.
- Layers of shipborne defence are provided by destroyers armed with the Sea Dart missile and frigates armed with Sea Wolf.
- Decoys and Close in Weapon Systems such as Phalanx and Goalkeeper provide additional defence, particularly against missiles and low flying aircraft.
- From 2007, the new Type 45 destroyer will start to enter service and provide a major advance in capability due to both state of the art radar and state of the art missiles.
- All foreseeable scenarios would usually involve UK forces operating alongside US or other allies – who would hopefully provide air defence for our forces.
I have to admit that I was not convinced by these arguments, and viewed the loss of organic air defence as very dangerous. It did, however, illustrate the assumptions that were taken at the time of the decision. Times have changed, new projects have been delayed, ships have been cut, and the defence budget continues to be bled dry by operations in Iraq and other places. It is fair to say that several of the assumptions above no longer apply. I would be interested to know whether the decision has been reviewed in the light of changing circumstances.
The new aircraft carriers and their aircraft will not enter service in 2012
This is perhaps the most significant change from the assumptions made in 2002. The CVF project, for the new carriers, has been delayed repeatedly. It is virtually inconceivable that the 2012 in service date is achievable, even if the construction started tomorrow – they have not been ordered yet. The JSF/F35 aircraft has also been delayed due to both technical problems and political arguments. Therefore it can be safely said that the assumption that the capability gap would last only six years is incorrect. Ten years may be a better guess. Every additional year without this capability increases the chance of disaster happening due to not having proper air defence.
The layers of shipborne defence have been depleted by cuts
At the time of the decision, the Royal Navy had 31 frigates and destroyers. After the cuts announced by Geoff Hoon, this number is being reduced to just 25. In evidence that the First Sea Lord gave to the Commons Defence Select Committee, he stated that the number of frigates/destroyers needed was “about thirty”, he also said that this reduced number gave him concerns about the ability of the fleet to sustain losses, in other words we cannot afford to lose a single ship.
The eight Type 42 destroyers that are left continue to have problems with their old radars and missile systems, which still suffers from the limitation of only having two missiles on the launcher at any one time. Additionally the amount of money spent on maintaining the ships of the fleet has been cut, many of our remaining frigates and destroyers are likely to have sensors and weapons that are not in a good state of serviceability. Already concerns are being voiced about the serviceability of the fleet.
Not all ships have decoys or Close in Weapons Systems
Hopefully all HM ships will have decoys, as will RFA vessels, although it is questionable whether they will all have the most sophisticated ones. Merchant shipping that is chartered or requisitioned to support military operations will not. Their size makes them very vulnerable to missiles looking for large radar targets.
As for CIWS systems, not all the ships in a task group would have them. Minehunters and the Hydrographic vessels that work with them would not. The majority of RFA vessels do not. Merchant ships of course have no armament. Of particular concern to me is the fact that the new Bay class landing ships being built for the RFA will be fitted to receive the Phalanx CIWS system but not actually fitted with it, despite the fact that they would carry hundred of troops and their equipment, and be tempting targets for an enemy.
The Type 45 destroyer has been delayed
The first Type 45 was intended to enter service in 2007. It has been delayed until 2009 and the rest of the class will also be delayed. Ministers stated that the Type 45 would help make up for lost capability, particularly with respect to dealing with attacks by multiple aircraft or missiles. We will have to wait several more years before this is so.
It is impossible to guarantee that UK only operations will not take place
The world is very unstable, and the only thing that we can predict about the future is that we cannot accurately predict it. Retaining the capacity for a UK naval task group to have organic air defence would mean that regimes considering a course of action which would bring them into conflict with the UK would have reason to think again. It is worth noting that the Argentine Junta would not have invaded the Falklands if they thought that Britain would respond. Saddam Hussein would not have invaded Kuwait in 1990 if he thought the West would react.
I would have liked 801 NAS to be kept going after March, certainly for a few years until the Type 45s start coming into service and ideally until the new carriers and their aircraft arrive. However, I believe that is impossible due to financial, logistical and administrative reasons.
However, when 801 does disband, instead of either scrapping the aircraft or selling them to museums or people who want to put them in car parks, why not put some aircraft into storage, complete with engines and avionics, so that they can be brought out of mothballs if needed. Keeping them in storage would create uncertainty for potential aggressors, and therefore have a deterrent effect. The pilots would be flying Harrier GR9s and exchanges with the RAF and with the US Navy and Marine Corps would help keep air-air skills alive.
I hope that this letter is of interest to you and that you are able to pass my comments to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
This morning, the following reply arrived:
Dear [MP]
Thank you for your letter of 13 February on behalf of your constituent, WEBF, raising concerns about maritime air defence and delays to shipbuilding programmes.
With regard to the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier, Fleet air defence will be provided by the measures I explained in my reply to your letter of 14 March 2002. I repeat that the Fleet will retain an effective air defence capability until the introduction into service of the Daring class destroyers and the new aircraft carriers.
Steady progress is being made on the new aircraft carriers. John Reid, the Secretary of State for Defence, announced on 14 December 2005 that the project had completed its assessment phase and would now move into its demonstration phase as part of a two stage tailored approach to the main investment decision. This reinforces our commitment to the carrier programme, which represents a quantum step up in military capability for the UK's Armed Forces. These carriers will be the biggest warships ever built in the UK and the most capable carrier force outside the USA.
For any major project a number of planning assumptions will be made and changed as it progresses through its concept, assessment and demonstration phases. In the case of the future carrier, we have not yet reached the main assessment decision. Public focus on planning assumptions or in service dates, which may be based on immature information, can lead to unnecessary pressure to conclude projects in unrealistic and high risk timescales. For this reason, the in service dates will be set when we make our main investment decision.
With 25 frigates and destroyers the Fleet retains the ability to respond to a wide range of contingencies from war fighting to peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. The Fleet is actively involved in protecting the UK's interests all over the globe. You may have seen recent media coverage of HMS Southampton's record breaking drugs seizure while on patrols in the Caribbean. Other examples are HMS Montrose, carrying out security operations in the Arabian Gulf, and HMS Nottingham, which is attached to a a NATO task group in the Mediterranean on counter terrorism operations. HMS Liverpool left UK waters in January and will carry out duties off Sierra Leone and Ghana, before carrying on to the Falklands to support British dependent territories in the South Atlantic. Other ships are busy in home waters preparing for deployments or engaged in important exercise with allied Navies.
WEBF is right to say we have temporarily reduced spending to logistic support to some elements of the Fleet. This is because we want to concentrate our resources on the highest priority commitments, to ensure the ships we are most likely to need for operations are available. This is simply good management and ensures that all the Navy's operational requirements are being met.
All RFA ships are currently fitted with close range weapons for self defence. Other ships with a task group that do not possess decoys or close in weapons systems come under the protective umbrella of the group as a whole. The development of Networked Enabled Capability is moving ahead. Networking all the radars in a force improves the link from sensor to shooter This means our ability to detect, track and engage air targets using all available sensors and shooters will be significantly enhanced.
We expect the first Type 45 destroyer, HMS Daring, to enter service in 2009. We recognise that this is later than hoped when we embarked on the project, but we continue to work with our industrial partners to deliver HMS Daring into service as early as possible. The programme to a major step forward on 1 February when the ship was launched on the Clyde.
I can assure you that the Fleet retains the capability to carry out operations independent of allies, as well as to participate in and lead coalition operations. Our forces are certainly capable of defending UK interests in the South Atlantic.
I hope this is helpful.
Yours Aye.........
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 2nd Nov 2010 at 22:08.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Wonderful Midlands
Age: 53
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helpful it may be WEBF, some excellent researching there admittedly,
But as the aircraft in question have now actutally left the inventory, is it not a little late to be still arguing against the decision to retire the SHar?
Is it time to begin a new thread with a positive outlook for the future?
But as the aircraft in question have now actutally left the inventory, is it not a little late to be still arguing against the decision to retire the SHar?
Is it time to begin a new thread with a positive outlook for the future?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and If the fleet can adaquatley defend itself with Layers of Missiles and CIWS the Treasury will argue that there is no need for a carrier and it will terminate the programme
"Instead of either scrapping the aircraft or selling them to museums or people who want to put them in car parks, why not put some aircraft into storage, complete with engines and avionics, so that they can be brought out of mothballs if needed."
Because you'd need to retain a great deal of infrastructure, spares, manpower etc. and wouldn't be able to leverage the savings which a complete retirement would achieve.
And because they NO LONGER FULFILL A MEANINGFUL ROLE.
1) You can't fit enough of them on a CVS to give adequate AD cover, and by trying to do so, you reduce the number of GR7/9 embarked and thus you inhibit the CVS' usefulness in the A-G role.
2) Didn't you read what Moe Syzlak said?
Let me remind you: "I did Deny Flight from a CVS and we were only playing at it. The FRS1 was not really capable in theatre (1 got shot down for his trouble) and the mission was, primarily, one of flag waving. The FRS2, latterly FA2 had a much better air to air capability-as has been hammered to death here- but the same air to ground capability and as such was a day,vmc,permissive platform-NOT useless, but limited. Over and over again a capability or readiness would be declared to wave the flag but,also, in the fervent hope that the HQ did not "press to test" and expose the reality. Ship based aviation is great when there is no other option-THAT is the raison d'etre. But to plug away for years 30 miles from Bari et al erodes the argument and morale (see PVR rate!!). There was always other ground based assets to cover any fogged in at Gioia-and even then they could launch in fog if the mission was important-then land elsewhere. That cannot be said for an FA2 on a ship in dock at Palma with half the CAG on the pi$$....."
And because they were knackered and fit for the scrap heap. Did you note the Flight report that reported a reduction in fan blade life from 500 to 90 hours, or the 43 engine changes in the last 18 months rather than the five planned? Were you aware that the SHar in its last year of service required more MMH/FH than any other type in UK military service? That the SHar's MMH/FH figure was higher than that for the USN's F-14s?
Because you'd need to retain a great deal of infrastructure, spares, manpower etc. and wouldn't be able to leverage the savings which a complete retirement would achieve.
And because they NO LONGER FULFILL A MEANINGFUL ROLE.
1) You can't fit enough of them on a CVS to give adequate AD cover, and by trying to do so, you reduce the number of GR7/9 embarked and thus you inhibit the CVS' usefulness in the A-G role.
2) Didn't you read what Moe Syzlak said?
Let me remind you: "I did Deny Flight from a CVS and we were only playing at it. The FRS1 was not really capable in theatre (1 got shot down for his trouble) and the mission was, primarily, one of flag waving. The FRS2, latterly FA2 had a much better air to air capability-as has been hammered to death here- but the same air to ground capability and as such was a day,vmc,permissive platform-NOT useless, but limited. Over and over again a capability or readiness would be declared to wave the flag but,also, in the fervent hope that the HQ did not "press to test" and expose the reality. Ship based aviation is great when there is no other option-THAT is the raison d'etre. But to plug away for years 30 miles from Bari et al erodes the argument and morale (see PVR rate!!). There was always other ground based assets to cover any fogged in at Gioia-and even then they could launch in fog if the mission was important-then land elsewhere. That cannot be said for an FA2 on a ship in dock at Palma with half the CAG on the pi$$....."
And because they were knackered and fit for the scrap heap. Did you note the Flight report that reported a reduction in fan blade life from 500 to 90 hours, or the 43 engine changes in the last 18 months rather than the five planned? Were you aware that the SHar in its last year of service required more MMH/FH than any other type in UK military service? That the SHar's MMH/FH figure was higher than that for the USN's F-14s?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or why not take the RADAR and Missile systems and fit them to GR9 and turn it into FGR 9. Disband the Remaining RAF Sqns on Harrier and have 3 Fleet Air Arm Sqns on Harrier FGR9.
Nurse,
Because it would cost many hundreds of millions of pounds to do, would take years to design and implement, and there is no need for such a platform, simple really!
The USMC do not operate their radar equipped AV8B+ with AMRAAM as they too do not see a current need.
Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as the Fleet Air Arm!
Because it would cost many hundreds of millions of pounds to do, would take years to design and implement, and there is no need for such a platform, simple really!
The USMC do not operate their radar equipped AV8B+ with AMRAAM as they too do not see a current need.
Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as the Fleet Air Arm!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proone,
I beg to disagree.
As does this link http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/
There is most certainly a Fleet Air Arm
Cheers
BHR
I beg to disagree.
As does this link http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/
There is most certainly a Fleet Air Arm
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pr00ne
Nurse,
Because it would cost many hundreds of millions of pounds to do, would take years to design and implement, and there is no need for such a platform, simple really!
The USMC do not operate their radar equipped AV8B+ with AMRAAM as they too do not see a current need.
Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as the Fleet Air Arm!
Because it would cost many hundreds of millions of pounds to do, would take years to design and implement, and there is no need for such a platform, simple really!
The USMC do not operate their radar equipped AV8B+ with AMRAAM as they too do not see a current need.
Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as the Fleet Air Arm!