Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

What do the Navy team think about the demise of the Shar?

Re: What do the Navy team think about the demise of the Shar

sidon55 said:
I thought the Shar was de-throned years ago by the mullahs

Well, it was certainly dethroned today - we bods all stood around in the rain for an hour forming up to make the letters for an aerial photograph "FAIRWELL SEA HARRIER" (at tot time too!) It was quite fun watching what now passes for a Chief GI trying to get us in order and sort it out and even more fun to see the crabs holding a paper plate over their heads to pass as a sailor in his cap. Check out the Yeovilton web site soon - I'm sure that the Phot wrens will post the photographs in a bid to win the Bambara Trophy! :lol:

fido
 
Re: What do the Navy team think about the demise of the Shar

New to Rum Ration and congrats to all on getting it up and running.

Sad to see however the same old parochial willy waving going on as found in ARRSE and PPRUNE, and I say that with no particular criticism of any service, we're all as bad as one another.

FIDO,
In truth, we should all stop trying to score petty points, grow up and start embracing Jointery if we are to get the best for our respective services from that real enemy, the Treasury.

Both your service and my own (the RAF) have a world wide capability and are capable of projecting our influence considerably beyond our ships or air bases. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the proven capabilities of the UK armed forces. However, all 3 services complement one another and maritime and land based air power are a particularly good example of this.

You are not constrained by host nation support issues and can sometimes move out of bad weather (eg the Adriatic during the 90s) or reposition tactically. However, naval aviation can never go to war with the full range of combat support assets (eg AWACS, AR, SIGINT). Even the USN CVN CAGs rely upon the USAF or coalition allies for such support (eg Afghanistan, TELIC). In contrast, to land based air, we clearly need host nation support but air bases can generaly support higher sortie rates for longer and with the full variety of combat and combat support assets. I could mention numerous other pros and cons for both maritime and land-based air, but that misses the essential point that we are each complimentary.

Similarly, there seems little point in discussing early joint Harrier deployments, just as there is little point in me raising the poor awareness of the FAA in non-'Blue Water' ops of 10 or 20 years ago. That's ancient history and we've all moved on from there. JFH is a credible and proven capability which (IMHO) is benefitting both services.

Whilst few RAF Harrier personnel relish the chance of deploying to sea, there are few of their FAA colleagues who relish deploying to the Afghan desert on a regular basis. However, we are learning much about working in the littoral, and your crews are being exposed to ops in Afghanistan which they would not otherwise have been. As far as 'voting with their feet' comments, the RAF Harrier force remains the most sought after posting for RAF FJ pilots and from my experience their morale is excellent. What morale problems exist tend to be related to the current high op tempo rather than the requirement to conduct deployments to the CVS (which they're not doing much of currently due to Afghanistan).

May I suggest therefore, that petty back biting serves neither service. The RAF and RN comprehensively succeded in each shooting the others feet off in the 60s with the RAFs obstruction of CVA01 and Mountbatten's undermining of the TSR2 (to name but two examples). Let's avoid making similar mistakes in the next decade.

Jointery is the future whether you like it or not. I believe it's a positive move and even if it isn't, we have to make the most of it because that's what the UK can afford.

So let's work together. I sincerely hope you guys get 2 CVF with a credible CAG of F-35B and a decent C2/ASaC/ASuW capability. Likewise, that should be complemented nicely by our Typhoon, F-35B (CVF deployable when required), A330 tankers and updated AWACS, SIGINT, ASTOR fleets etc.

But if we fight one another with half truths and one-upmanship, we'll both loose.

Regards,
MM
 
Re: What do the Navy team think about the demise of the Shar

Magic Mushroom,

May I congratulate you on an excellent post. Very well balanced.
If you are the Magic Mushroom of Pprune Fame then please could you paste it on the Sea Jet Thread.

If only more Crabs thought like you…
 
Re: What do the Navy team think about the demise of the Shar

Just like to endorse katweezils sentiments re MM's post. And MM many thanks for reminding us just who the real enemy is!
 
Re: What do the Navy team think about the demise of the Shar

Katweezil & NaB,

Many thanks. I am indeed the Magic Mushroom of PPrune and ARRSE infamy. Sadly I've reiterated such sentiments several times through the PPrune Sea Jet saga but that thread sadly just revolves in circles.

Regards,
MM
 
Re: What do the Navy team think about the demise of the Shar

Magic_Mushroom said:
New to Rum Ration and congrats to all on getting it up and running.

Sad to see however the same old parochial willy waving going on as found in ARRSE and PPRUNE, and I say that with no particular criticism of any service, we're all as bad as one another.

FIDO,
In truth, we should all stop trying to score petty points, grow up and start embracing Jointery if we are to get the best for our respective services from that real enemy, the Treasury.

Both your service and my own (the RAF) have a world wide capability and are capable of projecting our influence considerably beyond our ships or air bases. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the proven capabilities of the UK armed forces. However, all 3 services complement one another and maritime and land based air power are a particularly good example of this.

You are not constrained by host nation support issues and can sometimes move out of bad weather (eg the Adriatic during the 90s) or reposition tactically. However, naval aviation can never go to war with the full range of combat support assets (eg AWACS, AR, SIGINT). Even the USN CVN CAGs rely upon the USAF or coalition allies for such support (eg Afghanistan, TELIC). In contrast, to land based air, we clearly need host nation support but air bases can generaly support higher sortie rates for longer and with the full variety of combat and combat support assets. I could mention numerous other pros and cons for both maritime and land-based air, but that misses the essential point that we are each complimentary.

Similarly, there seems little point in discussing early joint Harrier deployments, just as there is little point in me raising the poor awareness of the FAA in non-'Blue Water' ops of 10 or 20 years ago. That's ancient history and we've all moved on from there. JFH is a credible and proven capability which (IMHO) is benefitting both services.

Whilst few RAF Harrier personnel relish the chance of deploying to sea, there are few of their FAA colleagues who relish deploying to the Afghan desert on a regular basis. However, we are learning much about working in the littoral, and your crews are being exposed to ops in Afghanistan which they would not otherwise have been. As far as 'voting with their feet' comments, the RAF Harrier force remains the most sought after posting for RAF FJ pilots and from my experience their morale is excellent. What morale problems exist tend to be related to the current high op tempo rather than the requirement to conduct deployments to the CVS (which they're not doing much of currently due to Afghanistan).

May I suggest therefore, that petty back biting serves neither service. The RAF and RN comprehensively succeded in each shooting the others feet off in the 60s with the RAFs obstruction of CVA01 and Mountbatten's undermining of the TSR2 (to name but two examples). Let's avoid making similar mistakes in the next decade.

Jointery is the future whether you like it or not. I believe it's a positive move and even if it isn't, we have to make the most of it because that's what the UK can afford.

So let's work together. I sincerely hope you guys get 2 CVF with a credible CAG of F-35B and a decent C2/ASaC/ASuW capability. Likewise, that should be complemented nicely by our Typhoon, F-35B (CVF deployable when required), A330 tankers and updated AWACS, SIGINT, ASTOR fleets etc.

But if we fight one another with half truths and one-upmanship, we'll both loose.

Regards,
MM

Et tu Brute!

fido
 
Re: What do the Navy team think about the demise of the Shar

Guys, especially Magic_mushroom, before I start you should know that I agree with MM. Jointery is the way ahead, not because it's better but because the treasury has decided that GB plc is best served by it. Much of the back biting up here has been personality driven, and there are dic*heads wherever you go in this world. When an idiot SGT tried to tell me my job on day one and justified it by slowly explaining to me that:
"we are the primary operator of fighter aircraft in the UK, therefore you will have to do it our way now" I knew there would be snags.

It transpires that said idiot was recognised as such by all the crabs on the squadron too, however that lasting image took a long time to sweep away, my career nearly ended there and then, not because I was about to leave but because I came within a second of head butting the tw*t. Instead I slowly turned and pointed him in the direction of the desk where I told him he could sit and re -write his paperwork properly in accordance with the joint service publication he had never opened.

There are as many good crabs as matlows up here, there are huge differences however in attitude and culture, they cannot be swept away by a mere decision on high, they will take time.............. meantime long live good old fashioned banter.
 
Re: What do the Navy team think about the demise of the Shar

Chieftiff,
Hear hear! Every service has its good guys and knobbers and we could all give examples of good and bad practice from all 3.

My own personal view of Jointery is that in most cases it contributes positively towards op efficiency. However, it always amazes me how similar the fears regarding another services' motivation are on each side of the fence. I regularly hear AAC guys lamenting how JHC is a 'Crab takeover by stealth'. Likewise, there is considerable disillusionment amongst RAF SH units regarding Land ambitions.

Right now, as we each get used to reinventing the Joint wheel (JFH in 2006 v RAF Spits reinforcing Malta from HMS Eagle and USS Wasp in 1942 anyone!) each service sees snipers in every bush. Hopefully we'll get more used to one another, adopt the best working practices of all 3, but we MUST retain 3 proud and independent services with their own ethos and traditions (cue 'habit' banter!) if we are to avoid HMF being forced into the terminal decline experienced by Canada.

Regards,
MM
 
Re: What do the Navy team think about the demise of the Shar

It is a shame that 'the primary operators of fighter aircraft in the UK' have failed to shoot down anything else since WW2! That is unless you count the Phantom V's Jag debacle in RAFG.

Who's been splashing them since.....???????

We all know the answer!
 
Re: What do the Navy team think about the demise of the Shar

As a defence analyst and aero eng grad and 25 years knowledge of airpower here are my peeves and thoughts

1) Like all good a/c programs even JSF, things may not get finished or delivered on time. ANything could happen, glitches, bugs in the system, avionic/software isssues, propulsion and airframe, logistics glitches Gr
Gemlins so to speak or god forbid cancellation
Therefore retiring the SHAR prematurely 6 years before first date deliveruy is risky

2) Ok fair enough since the demise of the Cold War and WARPAC, no proper real engagements are going to be country versus country..air superiority etc is a thing of the past. However you still need CAP and some air supreriority to protect the fleet and RM or joint ops on the beachhead from potential enemey airpower. Then what if there's a remake of 9-11 and terrorists want to use ahijacked airliner or two against the fleet..what you going to use, Seawolf or sea Dart?

3) GR9 may look good but does it have a radar like the AV-8B Harrier II Plus and does it have AMRAAMS?

Please let me know your thoughts

Cheers
jayhawk
 
Re: What do the Navy team think about the demise of the Shar

3) GR9 may look good but does it have a radar like the AV-8B Harrier II Plus and does it have AMRAAMS?

The best it might get is ASRAAMS. I hear 849 feel totally exposed when they are airborne now.

Haven't been here for a while. Interesting that this still the most widely viewed thread on the FAA forum.
 
Re: What do the Navy team think about the demise of the Shar

ahhhhhhh, fast jets.......sam anyone? or even, dare I suggest it CIWS? await incoming
 
Re: What do the Navy team think about the demise of the Shar

jesse650 said:
ahhhhhhh, fast jets.......sam anyone? or even, dare I suggest it CIWS? await incoming

both useless on pussers war canoes as the exocet has been launched from over 25-30 miles away. The only thing SAM will be usefull for is kissing his arse goodbye 8O . CIWS nice piece of kit if only it could fire more 60 rounds without jamming. :D

But it's okay as the Royal ( 5 *civillian hotels only please) Air Force will protect us as long as you give 24 hours notice and is between 9 - 16.30. (closed 12.00 -13.00 for scran please leave message and we will get back to you).

the Shar was old and a pain in the arse to maintain but GR7's and 9's arent that great to fix either. I would prefer to have something to protect the mail flights than nothing at all. :p
 

Latest Threads

Top