Sea Jet
No Navaleye, I doubt that you do...................................
How can you "return" something you never had?
How can you "return" something you never had?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Ah-ha, more double speak. Its quite simple.
In the beginning there was the RNAS. The naval aviation functions of the RNAS were morphed into the RAF. In 1937, it was realised that the Navy was far more capable of running its own aviation branch than the RAF and hence control of the FAA was restored to the Navy.
In the beginning there was the RNAS. The naval aviation functions of the RNAS were morphed into the RAF. In 1937, it was realised that the Navy was far more capable of running its own aviation branch than the RAF and hence control of the FAA was restored to the Navy.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, the Navy presumed they were more capable perhaps?
PrOOne is quite right here, you Navy boys can't even keep your ships off the rocks never mind manage you own little Air Farce.
SHAR, goodbye and good riddance, complete waste of manpower. Too slow, legs too short, difficult to fly and therefore, difficult to fight with.
... Running for cover...
PrOOne is quite right here, you Navy boys can't even keep your ships off the rocks never mind manage you own little Air Farce.
SHAR, goodbye and good riddance, complete waste of manpower. Too slow, legs too short, difficult to fly and therefore, difficult to fight with.
... Running for cover...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Travelodge account holder
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prOOne Thought you stated the FAA didn't exist, yet here you acknowledge its existence. Which line would you like to take as I think numerous of your previous waffles/dull assertions seem to be diametrically opposed...
I am slightly annoyed with myself for even giving you the satisfaction of me replying and honestly thought the chaps with the historical, single-service myopia that you clearly possess were long gone. Am I at least safe to assume that during war we'd be on the same side
I am slightly annoyed with myself for even giving you the satisfaction of me replying and honestly thought the chaps with the historical, single-service myopia that you clearly possess were long gone. Am I at least safe to assume that during war we'd be on the same side
Suspicion breeds confidence
I seem to remember the then FONAC (that's Flag Officer Naval Air Command, Pr00ne) having a completely different view to Pr00ne as to the status of his command. He also had wings on his sleeve suggesting first hand experience. One of them has to be wrong, anyone care to run a book on this?
Also, take a look at this, page 1, half way down on the left.
I rest my case.
Also, take a look at this, page 1, half way down on the left.
I rest my case.
Last edited by Navaleye; 4th Apr 2006 at 15:02.
Er... you're debating the meaning of words with a lawyer chaps, so tread carefully...
Pr00ne's point about the FAA being 'returned' to RN control is actually quite correct. The RAF had never assumed control of a previously extant Fleet Air Arm - as there wasn't one - so the RN couldn't have control returned to it. What happened post Inskip was that the control of the 'FAA of the RAF' was given to the RN (for the first time). If the FAA of the RAF is taken to include shore-based aircraft (e.g. what became Coastal Command), then the RN didn't take control of the FAA, but of the ship-borne part of it.
I have a suspicion that Pr00ne's point may be something along the lines that the FAA has always officially been known as Naval Air Command when under RN control, and thus, from a - shall we say legalistic? - point of view hasn't actually existed as an offical Naval entity, since it was offically called something else. Reasonable supposition, m'learned pr00ne?
(NB - Even if my suspicion is correct, I have no idea [without heading to the PRO] whether or not it is the case that the term FAA is used as a piece of customary terminology rather than official terminology. I know a man who probably could tell me, but he's in Pakistan at the moment...)
Pr00ne's point about the FAA being 'returned' to RN control is actually quite correct. The RAF had never assumed control of a previously extant Fleet Air Arm - as there wasn't one - so the RN couldn't have control returned to it. What happened post Inskip was that the control of the 'FAA of the RAF' was given to the RN (for the first time). If the FAA of the RAF is taken to include shore-based aircraft (e.g. what became Coastal Command), then the RN didn't take control of the FAA, but of the ship-borne part of it.
I have a suspicion that Pr00ne's point may be something along the lines that the FAA has always officially been known as Naval Air Command when under RN control, and thus, from a - shall we say legalistic? - point of view hasn't actually existed as an offical Naval entity, since it was offically called something else. Reasonable supposition, m'learned pr00ne?
(NB - Even if my suspicion is correct, I have no idea [without heading to the PRO] whether or not it is the case that the term FAA is used as a piece of customary terminology rather than official terminology. I know a man who probably could tell me, but he's in Pakistan at the moment...)
If we are going to get pedantic then I think you will find that the RAF is not a Force but a Militia! ( I am sure there are some historians that could shed some light on this!......no not you Mr Mclelland)
(in the absence of a pedantic smiley)
It is regrettable that this thread has degenerated into this sort of pointless arguments. It seems to me that this thread should be allowed to gracefully retire - and a new thread dedicated to CVF, JCA and MASC started. Let's try to finish the thread on a slightly positive note.
The Sea Harrier has gone into retirement. Unless something unexpected happens (which the MOD refuse to plan for as they don't expect it) most of the aircraft will be either sold or disposed of in other ways. Six have gone down to Culdrose for use at the School of Flight Deck Operations, as I've mentioned in previous posts on previous pages.
According to the website for the Dummy Deck:
Although serviced to a flying condition the engines are gated at 50% power to prevent the Harrier taking off. The Unit undertakes all maintenance operations itself including engine changes.
I wonder that statement would stand up to the Trades Description Act?
Now I don't imagine that these aircraft will be flyable straight away, but in a genuine crisis (eg the Falklands - not that I'm not saying that's a future scenario, just an example of a surprise UK only operation) things that would not be considered in normal circumstances become possible.
The six aircraft could be brought up to flying and operational standards. Pilots could be found (assuming that every RN jet jockey hasn't been deployed, or ones recalled from other duties (as in 1982) or even RNR pilots) and AMRAAMs and other munitions obtained from the RAF.
I cannot say what sort of timescale this would involve (I would hope that there would be some period of warning from the intelligence community which would make this less of an issue), or what cost. I have privately discussed it with a number of people, they have offered differing opinions. Several people (they know who they are) have offered the opinion that it could be done - although cost, timescale etc are issues arising from this.
Thus (as I see it) a minimal element of detterence is kept. Whilst we would be unwise to rely too much on this, future aggressors would be unwise to rely on it not being there. As I say in a crisis all sorts of things that are normally considered non practical suddenly become possible.
The Sea Harrier has gone into retirement. Unless something unexpected happens (which the MOD refuse to plan for as they don't expect it) most of the aircraft will be either sold or disposed of in other ways. Six have gone down to Culdrose for use at the School of Flight Deck Operations, as I've mentioned in previous posts on previous pages.
According to the website for the Dummy Deck:
Although serviced to a flying condition the engines are gated at 50% power to prevent the Harrier taking off. The Unit undertakes all maintenance operations itself including engine changes.
I wonder that statement would stand up to the Trades Description Act?
Now I don't imagine that these aircraft will be flyable straight away, but in a genuine crisis (eg the Falklands - not that I'm not saying that's a future scenario, just an example of a surprise UK only operation) things that would not be considered in normal circumstances become possible.
The six aircraft could be brought up to flying and operational standards. Pilots could be found (assuming that every RN jet jockey hasn't been deployed, or ones recalled from other duties (as in 1982) or even RNR pilots) and AMRAAMs and other munitions obtained from the RAF.
I cannot say what sort of timescale this would involve (I would hope that there would be some period of warning from the intelligence community which would make this less of an issue), or what cost. I have privately discussed it with a number of people, they have offered differing opinions. Several people (they know who they are) have offered the opinion that it could be done - although cost, timescale etc are issues arising from this.
Thus (as I see it) a minimal element of detterence is kept. Whilst we would be unwise to rely too much on this, future aggressors would be unwise to rely on it not being there. As I say in a crisis all sorts of things that are normally considered non practical suddenly become possible.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 5th Apr 2006 at 14:06.
If this thread is to end (and it still entertains, occasionally) it should not end with your latest idiocy (that the School of Aircraft Handling's SHars could or should be restored to service at some unspecified time in the future) unchallenged.
Where exactly would these aircraft receive the necessary 'Majors'?
How do you solve the problem that these aircraft are among the highest houred survivors (the low time jets are set aside for India, I suspect)?
Where exactly do you find the required spares, ground support equipment, etc. once it has been disposed of?
What possible use would a total force of six jets (how many of those would be available at any one time) be?
Where exactly would these aircraft receive the necessary 'Majors'?
How do you solve the problem that these aircraft are among the highest houred survivors (the low time jets are set aside for India, I suspect)?
Where exactly do you find the required spares, ground support equipment, etc. once it has been disposed of?
What possible use would a total force of six jets (how many of those would be available at any one time) be?
Today is the anniversary of the sailing of the Falklands task force (well part of it including the carriers). Much of the equipment needed for that sort of operation was awaiting disposal, or had already been disposed off. But they adapted and coped.
I'm not saying it's be easy, but the possiblity exists. Which may deter...
I would hope that would be enough. If not then they might be a back up for the Harrier GR9s that would have to provide air defence.
Perhaps someone can offer a technical viewpoint?
As an aside, since they're going to Culdrose to be used live, surely they will have some spares and ground support equipment going with them?
I'm not saying it's be easy, but the possiblity exists. Which may deter...
I would hope that would be enough. If not then they might be a back up for the Harrier GR9s that would have to provide air defence.
Perhaps someone can offer a technical viewpoint?
As an aside, since they're going to Culdrose to be used live, surely they will have some spares and ground support equipment going with them?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 5th Apr 2006 at 17:16.
WEBF,
Oh for Chriss sake..........................
Deter WHAT exactly? Provide air defence against whom precisely?
I can just see the Taliban, al -Rashideen and all the other insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan laying down their arms and going home, why? because the RN has kept 6 Sea Harriers in a ground training school in Cornwall!
HOW are 6 SHARS going to deter anything? Have you not noticed what our armed forces tend to be up to these days?
They do not need to provide air defence for a small aircraft carrier, they need offensive support, you know, from things like the Harrier GR9.
Your argument would be valid if we still saw a need to fight a modern Battle of the Atlantic, but we don't, hence the concentration on assets that are actually useful.
Oh for Chriss sake..........................
Deter WHAT exactly? Provide air defence against whom precisely?
I can just see the Taliban, al -Rashideen and all the other insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan laying down their arms and going home, why? because the RN has kept 6 Sea Harriers in a ground training school in Cornwall!
HOW are 6 SHARS going to deter anything? Have you not noticed what our armed forces tend to be up to these days?
They do not need to provide air defence for a small aircraft carrier, they need offensive support, you know, from things like the Harrier GR9.
Your argument would be valid if we still saw a need to fight a modern Battle of the Atlantic, but we don't, hence the concentration on assets that are actually useful.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I would like to thinj that the SFDO boys will keep them in good-nick, but as Jungly points out, it won't have the backup or personnel of an operation squadron. My view is that the navy should have insisted that Link 16 and ASRAAM support be part of the GR9 upgrade ensuring that some of the Shar's role can still be filled.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Navaleye, I have followed this thread with little to contribute apart from your last. You may be quite right that the RN should have insisted that the GR9 had Link 16. However this comes in the same category as flight refuelling and ASM on the Nimrod. They are part of the military imperative and high on a wish list but . . .
All wish lists have a price and while their airships might agree and even want the Link 16 as it is the Navy that is asking then they would expect the Navy to pay. This simply returns the argument back several pages; what Naval assest would you like to give up so that the Air asset can have one more goody?
All wish lists have a price and while their airships might agree and even want the Link 16 as it is the Navy that is asking then they would expect the Navy to pay. This simply returns the argument back several pages; what Naval assest would you like to give up so that the Air asset can have one more goody?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pr00ne
WEBF,
Oh for Chriss sake..........................
Deter WHAT exactly? Provide air defence against whom precisely?
Oh for Chriss sake..........................
Deter WHAT exactly? Provide air defence against whom precisely?
Exactley pr00ne this is the nature of modern international relations. in 1982 did we predict that we would need seaborne air defence against the Argentinians who we had a strained relationship with. The same is true today a 'friendly country could become an unfriendly one overnight' and The United Kingdom could find itself having to protect its own interests/citizens in some corner of the world that the only feasible way of getting to is by ship. Without diplomatic clearences where would they typhoons operate from? ANd are we going to have to climb down because we can't send forces due to lack of airdefence or rely on ineffectual international bodies or hope our allies will defend our interests even if it conflicts with theirs. We need a Balance in our armed forces and I'm afraid with the decision to axe sea harrier with out an immediate replacement leaves our forces unbalanced. It is a poor decision. Pr00ne you follow classic UK military doctrine of always assume that you will have to fight the next war in the same way you fought the last in this example you assert we will always need more offensive air support than air defence assets. The next War we find ourselves in the whole situation could well be reversed and we will have to rely on offensive support assets to provide airdefence which they aren't well set up for. We need a balanced force of air defence and offensive support aircraft. And now we don't have it and it will be a long time(if ever) that we get it back. Illistrious and Ark Royal aand any UK task group they have to lead unsupported are now vulnerable. Let us hope that our allies will support any military adventures we need to suport before the introduction of JSF.
Suspicion breeds confidence
...and hopefully decent ASRAAM integration giving a usful lift in air-air capability. At the risk of raising Jacko's blood pressure too much, Our friend Carlo Kopp has published an interesting article on ASRAAM's capabilities here.
Comments welcome. Not an AMRAAM equipped Shar by any means, but an improvement nonetheless. Heck 90 pages and almost my 1000th reply. A very long way to go before I get to challenge BEagle's domination of PPRuNe me thinks
Comments welcome. Not an AMRAAM equipped Shar by any means, but an improvement nonetheless. Heck 90 pages and almost my 1000th reply. A very long way to go before I get to challenge BEagle's domination of PPRuNe me thinks
Last edited by Navaleye; 6th Apr 2006 at 16:59.