"I counted them all out…and I counted them all back again"

Hi Jonathan,

It could also do with what BAe is asking for to do the required upgrades/downgrades.

The IN is on the verge of getting MiG29Ks for use in a few years. They dont see the SHARS operating beyond a certain point. maybe they felt it was too expensive to do the mods and put them on a combat role?

OTOH it could also be a backdoor way of getting aircraft into the force.. bring em as ‘training’ aircraft and then deploy them for combat roles. didnt Indonesia do that with the hawks – and that created a furore in the UK parliament?

Well certainly not free. There is a proposal to buy them.

The talk here is that the Indian Navy will try and buy eight of the FRS 2s for ‘training’ role only. Aparently the Navy feels that trying to upgrade the FRS2s for hot and high performance is not going to work out economically. So the FRS2s wont go for combat but for training only. and that too, only eight of them.

How many SHARs are currently operable in the RN today?

Some interesting stuff from John Farley on the dreaded “Sea Jet” PPRUNE thread about the “heat” issue:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=98152&perpage=15&pagenumber=77

I’m not convinced that it can be a primary motivation for the relegation of relatively new airframes to the training role. Couldn’t they reprofile the noses and remove the fuselage plugs? Or is it a cost issue in terms of transplanting existing equipment into the newer airframes?

[edit] – a reminder of how “young” the eight airframes in question actually are (plus criticism of the decision to retire):

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmdfence/779/77908.htm

Here is the BBC news video of the last Sea Harrier carrier ops 🙁 – Sea Harrier jet soars into history http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_wm_fs.stm?&news=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nol_storyid=4761130

I recall that Thatcher made it clear to Galltieri that she would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons.

Which is why they kept the Sheffield afloat long enough to remove em….

Theres been a couple of interesting incidents in local bars over the Falklands….

Lockheed upgrade A4’s for the Argie air force here in Palmdale.

Argie pilots are to be found in the immediate area on occassion..

Lockheed employ 10 test pilots on the JSF program…

9 of them British former RN/RAF Harrier pilots, including Ward…. :dev2: :dev2: :dev2: :dev2:

Engine upgrade costs money and when large sums are being channelled into the GR.9 it’s hard to justify spreading it on two types. The F/A.2 certainly could have been upgraded but it’s deemed that a low air threat exists to the Fleet. The F/A.2 whilst in many cases relatively new airframes still suffers from being based on a 1970’s
airframe and that limits its development potential. All we can hope is that no significant air threat to our forces rears it’s head in the years to come.

Jonathon – The F/A.2 is quite a bit heavier than the FRS.1 . This dramatically affects its hover performance when ‘hot and high’. If you look at the fuselage stretch for the extra black boxes and the increase in nose size you will find the weight. Certainly the Indian’s could use them carrier based but I feel unless they could fit an aftermarket radar system which is lighter there would be no performance gain over a FRS.1 and very likely it would be inferior.

Interesting – thanks. Do you think we should have gone for another engine uprate and eeked out the FA.2s? Or is there any rhyme/reason in ditching them a (likely) decade before their replacement enters service?

Jonathon – The F/A.2 is quite a bit heavier than the FRS.1 . This dramatically affects its hover performance when ‘hot and high’. If you look at the fuselage stretch for the extra black boxes and the increase in nose size you will find the weight. Certainly the Indian’s could use them carrier based but I feel unless they could fit an aftermarket radar system which is lighter there would be no performance gain over a FRS.1 and very likely it would be inferior.

Good post, and I’d agree on most of it. As for the Firefly, I might have been being a bit harsh. Great aircraft, and as you say, did do well.

As to the Harrier / Sea Harrier, one of the greatest aircraft of all time.

JDK, great to have got our posting back on a more harmonious note! Not that constructive argument isn’t fun… it’s just difficult to defend the Blackburn Firebrand when you’ve got an F4U sitting in the background, taunting.

True as regards the SHAR and, as Sharkey Ward tells it, this was one of the few examples of modern warfare where the service actually learned how to fight before having to do so.

They will be sadly missed, and not just by dewy eyed aviation enthusiasts.

The one thing I must take issue with is your opinion of the Firefly, which could out turn and out punch a Seafire, did shoot down Japanese fighters and had the capability to be turned to night/all-weather fighter duties as well as being a platform for other uses. I would contend, if you look at the specification, that it did everything it was intended to. Moreover, it was prescient of the future fleet fighter/interceptor model.

Good post, and I’d agree on most of it. As for the Firefly, I might have been being a bit harsh. Great aircraft, and as you say, did do well.

As to the Harrier / Sea Harrier, one of the greatest aircraft of all time.

So, another great chapter in the history of the greatest navy in the world passes into the history books. Farewell, you excellent defenders of the nation. To the Sea Harrier, its crews and to the engineering staff, you have served with distinction and can proudly rest, knowing you have never been found wanting in times of need.
I salute you all.

On a slightly different tack, I remember many years ago on a very in depth programme about the Falklands War, Al Haig, who was very pro British, stated that Reagan had offered the use of a large American carrier to the British government but that Thatcher had turned the offer down. Had it been accepted, it would have been interesting to see how, under the stresses of a war, it would have taken pilots to have retrained to land Phantoms and Buccaneers on a carrier deck, most of them presumably without previous experience, and would these longer range aircraft been used to attack the Argentine mainland. I recall that Thatcher made it clear to Galltieri that she would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons.
There was another large traditional British carrier, the Bulwark I believe, in the reserve fleet at Portsmouth at the time, however I gather that the time taken to restore it to operational status was prohibitive.
Don’t forget that we still have HMS Ocean, the largest ship in the Royal Navy, which I’m sure is planned to take Harriers, even GR-9’s, in times of emergency, ie, a situation like Sierra Leone.
Incidentally if Argentina is sabre rattling, what have they increased their airforce with and what is the point, they may be able to accomplish some bombing, but I reckon that there is always a nuclear sub lurking around there, they haven’t much else to do these days, not worth sending the fleet out is it.

It happens. I’ve got into the habit of a quick ‘Control A’ + ‘Control C’ before posting, so if it dumps the lot I can repost from the memory.

It’s a pity, because I like your posts as a rule. In this case, we disagree, which is much more fun. 😉
Regards

Agreed… As you said before, ‘it’s a thesis’ – in your case, not yours, and in my case, half-formed, probably half-baked and overridden by emotional factors… I got away from my original point and into tit-for-tat.

Before I get too far in, my initial point that war improves capability was mainly based on first world war fleet thinking, with elements of Falklands 1982 for comparison. Basically although (in the first instance) Britain went to war supremely well equipped in terms of equipment (not perfect, but then neither was the German High Seas Fleet – Beatty’s assertion that ‘there is something wrong with our bloody ships’ was over simplistic and betrayed a lack of understanding in the battlecruiser concept) but very badly equipped in terms of procedures and ‘action principles’, effectively the ability to operate in a ‘war’ situation – the effect of too many long years of Pax Brittanica.

These lessons were learnt, but only put into effect after the war. 1982 and all that taught us how poorly equipped we were in terms of physical capability but that some of our officers knew how to fight, despite forty odd years of more-or-less peace.

The lessons of the second world war were learnt as well, and would have been learned (or put into practice) faster had it not been for the FAA obviously being second priority. We started the war with Skuas and shortly after it we had Sea Furies. Lesson learned, if not quite in time. The US Navy was lucky in having priority in equipment, and a sensible procurement policy. For evidence that making a balls of procurement was not limited to the FAA, look at the USAAF’s handling of the Vultee Vengeance, screwed because the Army did not want a dive bomber despite the Navy showing them how effective they could be. I don’t doubt that the US Navy had some superlative aircraft, and the FAA benefited no end, there were also some stinkers.

The one thing I must take issue with is your opinion of the Firefly, which could out turn and out punch a Seafire, did shoot down Japanese fighters and had the capability to be turned to night/all-weather fighter duties as well as being a platform for other uses. I would contend, if you look at the specification, that it did everything it was intended to. Moreover, it was prescient of the future fleet fighter/interceptor model.

The Skua was a potentially good aircraft, used badly. It was arguably as good a dive bomber as the Dauntless but suffered from needing to be used as a fighter as well. This was a lesson that wasn’t learned too well (in fact it was turned backwards for the Firebrand) but you can’t have everything.

I spent ages crafting a carefully considered response to all your points. Then the forum timed out 😡

It happens. I’ve got into the habit of a quick ‘Control A’ + ‘Control C’ before posting, so if it dumps the lot I can repost from the memory.

It’s a pity, because I like your posts as a rule. In this case, we disagree, which is much more fun. 😉

Still, the upshot was basically 1) British aircraft weren’t as bad as all that though the FAA would still have been screwed without Grumman, Vought et al 2) OK, so a blind ‘buy British’ policy got us the Fulmar but a blind ‘by American’ policy might get us JSFs that have to go back to America every time they need a service and can’t go to war without the Oxymoron’s say so. 3) Vindicator or Skua? Both of these were dive bombers. One of them could not dive at more than 65deg. You choose which you would have preferred to fly in mate

1) Not as bad as all that? Hmmm. They weren’t as good as equivalent US aircraft. How bad they were is up for debate, but, tellingly, none of them were ever really good.

2) Nothing wrong with a Buy British policy in W.W.II in theory. The problem was that even in 1945 the RN FAA was still struggling to get second generation failures from Faireys et al serviceable, while the USN had second generation in service and the likelihood of more and better to come – something that the history of the post-war FAA piston aircraft shows was not going to happen for the RN. Only the Sea Fury was a good all round fighter and attack aircraft, and not a fat cow like the Firebrand, Barra and Firefly. As in the other thread about ‘Junk’ buying any nationality blindly or any other non-capability driven purchasing decisions is stupid.

3) I didn’t say the Vindicator was a good aircraft. I just pointed out that the Skua was no better. The RN bought Vindicators (Chesapeakes) and decided, rightly, not to use them. I don’t think the USN would have fallen on the Skua with delight, do you? A fly-off between the two might be interesting, but hardly critical to the thesis. Let’s turn to the makers. Vought came up with at least one war winning aircraft, while Blackburn blundered from bad to worse.

The point was that in 1939/40 the USN fielded a better carrier force (rounded, capable, with a future) than the RN. Have a look at the types and equipment in both cases; neither were in any case perfect – far from it. However, even leaving aside sheer numbers, the USN learned and developed from adequate (barely) in 1941 to best in the world (technologically) in 1945 – a case of learning – your original post “On the other hand, there’s nothing like a war for improving capability quick smart.” where I agree. Sadly the RN FAA in W.W.II shows that this is far from a rule. Had a US-type-free 1945 FAA had to face a peak strength enemy, it would have been stuffed right at the start because it had no fighters that could meet the enemy and win. The Seafire’s landing gear renders it an unequivocal failure as a carrier aircraft. (What’s a JSF? Some current a/c? 😉 )

To recap; my point one:
A carrier force is for projection of power, not self defence, that’s a requirement to be able to project power. You said: “Considering the raison d’etre of the aircraft carrier has always been fleet defence first and then fleet reconaissance (and only after that some kind of offensive strike role)” which is simply not correct. Convoy defence for escort carriers, yes, but not fleet carriers.

Secondly, you said: “On the other hand, there’s nothing like a war for improving capability quick smart.” which is normally true. However, I think it interesting that the FAA failed to improve capability significantly throughout W.W.II, while the US managed to start the war, two years later than the FAA, and be able to produce aircraft throughout the war that were good enough and got better. There wasn’t a single type that the USN would have wanted from the British stable. Telling.

Thirdly, I simply stated that it is appalling that the FAA did not have a single British designed type that was able to fulfil it’s design requirement throughout 6 years of war. We agree that without American types the FAA would have been a complete disaster, inexcusable for a serious two ocean navy.

Finally, I’m impressed with your doublethink on the British types:

1) British aircraft weren’t as bad as all that though the FAA would still have been screwed without Grumman, Vought et al.

It’s a myth that the Firebrand thinking was as flawed as people make out – sure, the aircraft was terrible…

In summary, I just think it’s interesting that it took the RN FAA 6 years to get from ‘obsolete’ to ‘almost adequate’ while the USN took 4 years to get from ‘adequate’ to ‘war winning’. And it wasn’t just numbers.

I’ve not tracked down the quote on the 1939 strengths, but a couple of interesting related documents for those who like looking at things with open minds:
Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile?
W.W.II Carrier ops

Regards

i will have to look that one up.. the news report was fairly recent…. will post it. dont think it will be modern av.. after all these are all future warbirds in about half a decade

It sounds dubious to me Jagan; both FRS.51 and FA.2 develop the same thrust; the only difference being a mod to the water injection system that allows it to run twice as long (though only at half flow).

If my timeline is correct, the Mk.51 received a 21,500lb thrust engine before the FRS.1 was upgraded to FA.2 standard with an engine of a different mark, but identical output.

And frankly, if it’s good enough for training (which presumably involves a good amount of VTO and VL activity (from carriers) plus other maneouvres in the hover/in transition, then its surely good enough for combat use?

Doesn’t add up in my mind. Do you have a source for the “training” comment? I’m aware this is straying into “modern military”, so by all means PM instead – I’d like to think that the FA.2 was living on in some capacity. Silly really!

I think the modding has to do with the engine – able to churn out enough power under certain temperature conditions. the FRS 2s are probably heavier than the FRS51s and if the engines turn out lesser power under the higher temp conditions, the damn thing is not going to take off under certain conditions.. the news report i read talked about removing certain boxes from the FRS2 so as to make it lighter – but this would reuce its combat effectiveness – result being its fit for ‘training’ only.. or atleast that was the gist fo the report.

Well certainly not free. There is a proposal to buy them.

The talk here is that the Indian Navy will try and buy eight of the FRS 2s for ‘training’ role only. Aparently the Navy feels that trying to upgrade the FRS2s for hot and high performance is not going to work out economically. So the FRS2s wont go for combat but for training only. and that too, only eight of them.

How many SHARs are currently operable in the RN today?

Oh I don’t know…say…eight? 😀

Do the FA.2s really need much modding to work well in the Indian climate? They’re certainly more capable otherwise than the Mk.51s India already has.

Really? That’s something at least. But presumably those are the same ones being offered (free last I heard!) to India? If they find a home there, perhaps the Indians can bail us out of “Falklands II”…

Well certainly not free. There is a proposal to buy them.

The talk here is that the Indian Navy will try and buy eight of the FRS 2s for ‘training’ role only. Aparently the Navy feels that trying to upgrade the FRS2s for hot and high performance is not going to work out economically. So the FRS2s wont go for combat but for training only. and that too, only eight of them.

How many SHARs are currently operable in the RN today?

Just a few thoughts. 😉

I spent ages crafting a carefully considered response to all your points. Then the forum timed out 😡

Still, the upshot was basically 1) British aircraft weren’t as bad as all that though the FAA would still have been screwed without Grumman, Vought et al 2) OK, so a blind ‘buy British’ policy got us the Fulmar but a blind ‘by American’ policy might get us JSFs that have to go back to America every time they need a service and can’t go to war without the Oxymoron’s say so. 3) Vindicator or Skua? Both of these were dive bombers. One of them could not dive at more than 65deg. You choose which you would have preferred to fly in mate

Colin – I don’t think our carrier position was much of an influence on the reasons for Argentina invading the Falklands. The proposed withdrawl of HMS Endurance was a far more telling indication to the Argentina that we were not particularilarily commited to the region. The lack of foresight in not providing AEW aircraft to the new carriers was particularily telling. However the Sea Harrier and Harrier GR.3 exceeded our expectations in combat – certainly there are a number in the FAA who would dearly have liked the Phantom still within the Fleet but it could also be argued that the strike capability of the Buccaneer S.2 would have negated the need for the ‘Black Buck’ Vulcan sorties.