Farewell to the Sea Harrier

[mark22w]

I note the BBC has announced the final Sea Harrier sortie has taken place from HMS Illustrious, with its formal retirement next month.

Video clip at http://news.bbc.co.uk – sorry, couldn’t paste direct link.

With the future carrier and JSF six years away (?) and the first Type 45 destroyer three, it leaves a significant gap in RN capability.

Although I do not see another ‘Falklands’ scenerio on the horizon I’m sure someone would have said something similar if asked 1 March 1982...

Any thoughts on the likelihood this aircraft will see service again for another fleet?

 

[Gaenth]

Sea Harriers?

Kind of sad isn't it?

Isn't India the only other country that operates Sea Harriers besides the UK? I don't think there are many airframes available, and the Indian Navy would want ex Royal Navy's ones as soon as they're for sale, I've read many articles on Jane's about this.

I think while UK waits for JSF the gap is filled with GR.7s and GR.9s, they may not be on deck on a constant basis but they can be quickly deployed if a situation arises. After all I think that's the whole idea behind Joint Harrier Force.

You can read about it on Royal Navy's site: http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2369

 

[rossfrb_1]

Kind of sad isn't it?

Isn't India the only other country that operates Sea Harriers besides the UK? I don't think there are many airframes available, and the Indian Navy would want ex Royal Navy's ones as soon as they're for sale, I've read many articles on Jane's about this.
{snip}

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/attack/harrier/

"....[FONT=arial,helvetica] KNOWN OPERATORS: [/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica] India, Bharatiya Vayu Sena (Indian Air Force)
Spain, Arma Aérea de la Armada Española (Spanish Naval Aviation)
Thailand, Kong Tha Han Lur Thai (Royal Thai Navy Air Arm)
United Kingdom (Royal Air Force)
United Kingdom (Royal Navy)
United States (US Marine Corps) ..."


http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avav82.html

"...[/FONT] * The Indian Navy has considered updating their 22 surviving Mark 51s but so far has lacked the funding to have them brought up to FRS.2 specification or something like it. Rumor has it that India has considered an alternate upgrade program proposed the Israelis, with the Mark 51s fitted with a derivative of the Elta ELM-2032 and carrying a new Rafael BVR air-to-air missile. They may be very interested in buying up Britain's surplus F/A.2s."

don't know how current any of that is.

rb

 

[Whiskyjack]

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/attack/harrier/

"....[FONT=arial,helvetica] KNOWN OPERATORS: [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]India, Bharatiya Vayu Sena (Indian Air Force)
Spain, Arma Aérea de la Armada Española (Spanish Naval Aviation)
Thailand, Kong Tha Han Lur Thai (Royal Thai Navy Air Arm)
United Kingdom (Royal Air Force)
United Kingdom (Royal Navy)
United States (US Marine Corps) ..."


http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avav82.html

"...[/FONT] * The Indian Navy has considered updating their 22 surviving Mark 51s but so far has lacked the funding to have them brought up to FRS.2 specification or something like it. Rumor has it that India has considered an alternate upgrade program proposed the Israelis, with the Mark 51s fitted with a derivative of the Elta ELM-2032 and carrying a new Rafael BVR air-to-air missile. They may be very interested in buying up Britain's surplus F/A.2s."

don't know how current any of that is.

rb

Yeah, but the Sea Harrier, is only operated by the Indian Navy and the Royal Navy (for a few weeks anyway!)

The other operators used the Harrier II.

 

[mark22w]

Yeah, but the Sea Harrier, is only operated by the Indian Navy and the Royal Navy (for a few weeks anyway!)

The other operators used the Harrier II.

Yeah, that’s the problem. It’s a great shame the money wasn’t found during the FA2 upgrade programme to base it on the Harrier II airframe rather than reengineer and build new Sea Harriers. I seem to recall reading the last one was only delivered in 2001 (?); if so quite a good buy…

Which ever way you look at the GR7/9 isn’t going to provide the same level of air defence regardless of its other credentials. Operating both types seems the logical answer.

I think India could be an interested party but not sure how realistic this is. For my money I’d rather see some parked in a desert stateside with ‘property of RN’ window stickers. Just in case.

 

[aaaditya]

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/attack/harrier/

"....[FONT=arial,helvetica] KNOWN OPERATORS: [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]India, Bharatiya Vayu Sena (Indian Air Force)
Spain, Arma Aérea de la Armada Española (Spanish Naval Aviation)
Thailand, Kong Tha Han Lur Thai (Royal Thai Navy Air Arm)
United Kingdom (Royal Air Force)
United Kingdom (Royal Navy)
United States (US Marine Corps) ..."


http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avav82.html

"...[/FONT] * The Indian Navy has considered updating their 22 surviving Mark 51s but so far has lacked the funding to have them brought up to FRS.2 specification or something like it. Rumor has it that India has considered an alternate upgrade program proposed the Israelis, with the Mark 51s fitted with a derivative of the Elta ELM-2032 and carrying a new Rafael BVR air-to-air missile. They may be very interested in buying up Britain's surplus F/A.2s."

don't know how current any of that is.

rb

indian airforce does not operate the sea harriers,but the navy does.

the news that you posted is pretty old,the indian navy has already upgraded it's sea harriers with the israeli elta el/m-2032 radar ,and has selected the israeli derby and the python-5 missiles.

indian navy was offered the sale of uk sea harrier fa2 with the capability to fire amraam removed ,so that india can upgrade it to their desire,india is seriously studying the proposal,check www.bharat-rakshak.com for more info.

 

[mark22w]

Interesting website - thanks for posting the link.

Reviewing the expenditure on upgrading the Sea Harriers in Indian service I can only wish the UK Gov had similar foresight in bridging the gap to next generation naval aircraft.

 

[Sea Dog]

Bye!! Next on deck!

So until the new RN DDG's come on line, who is going to provide at least a decent MR AAW defense?

The USN?

'Cause it ain't going to be those slow, no radar (unlike the other operators), Harrier II's that the RAF flies

 

[Whiskyjack]

Bye!! Next on deck!

So until the new RN DDG's come on line, who is going to provide at least a decent MR AAW defense?

The USN?

'Cause it ain't going to be those slow, no radar (unlike the other operators), Harrier II's that the RAF flies

Apparently there is some talk of upgrading the GR9s with radar, as an urgent project, this has been brought on by the fact that the in service date of the F-35 is still not concrete and the number of the Type 45s may be capped at 6.

 

[Sea Dog]

and the number of the Type 45s may be capped at 6.

Still does not resolve the fact that for the next 2+years, until the Type45 is ready to enter service the RN will have no credible AAW defense (not even that Sea Dart joke can be seriousely viewed as a marginally credible defense).

 

[Whiskyjack]

Still does not resolve the fact that for the next 2+years, until the Type45 is ready to enter service the RN will have no credible AAW defense (not even that Sea Dart joke can be seriousely viewed as a marginally credible defense).

No arguments from me there.

Not that I am suggesting anything similar is going to happen now, but does anyone find it ironic that this is basically the same situation the RN found itself in ’82?

 

[Sea Dog]

No arguments from me there.

Not that I am suggesting anything similar is going to happen now, but does anyone find it ironic that this is basically the same situation the RN found itself in ’82?

The situation today is actually worse.

In 1982 the RN had 2 operational Sea Harrier Squadrons (800 NAS & 801 NAS), one training unit (899 NAS), and one ad-hoc squadron created to augment the deployed force (809 NAS).

Today the RN finds itself in the exact similar status that existed in the period just before the Sea Harrier entered service in 1980--the period just after when it had prematurely scrapped Ark Royal and was sailing around with no credible AAW defense.

With the retirement of the still capable Sea Harrier, the RN is left with no fixed wing capability (let's not kid ourselves about the capabilities of the GR's in air defense, and its availability vis-a-vis RAF requirements), and it still has not corrected the grave lack of credible AAW defense.

Who's minding the store???:mad2

 

[mark22w]

No arguments from me there.

Not that I am suggesting anything similar is going to happen now, but does anyone find it ironic that this is basically the same situation the RN found itself in ’82?

Yup, with almost a third of the escorts! Upgrades to Sea Dart aside it seems the RN has been forced into gambling little or no anti air threat probability for three to six years. I think I’d like one of those crystal balls.

With an impressive build up of amphibious platforms (1 x LPH, 2 x LPD, 4 x LSD & 6 Ro-Ro ships) It is alarming to think without US assistance UK force projection is good for Western Europe

Keeping the Sea Harrier until at least the first T45s are deployed say 2010 or better still until 2012 (2013?) and JSF seemed value for money. interesting to note how much a GR9 radar upgrade costs in comparison, any ideas?

 

[Whiskyjack]

With the retirement of the still capable Sea Harrier, the RN is left with no fixed wing capability (let's not kid ourselves about the capabilities of the GR's in air defense, and its availability vis-a-vis RAF requirements), and it still has not corrected the grave lack of credible AAW defense.

Who's minding the store???:mad2

I disagree, slightly, regarding the GR9, yes it has no BVR capability, but remember the Sea Harrier had none in '82 and only 2 Lima AIM9s, the GR9s have ASRAAM, which is far more capable and also has a the Sea King AEW to vector it, which the RN did not have in '82. So if the 'enemy' has AWACs and BVR, then the RN is in trouble, but if the 'enemy' has roughly the same capability as the Argentineans then they are actually still better off.

Please don’t think I am kidding myself here, there are a lot of BVR capable aircraft out there and the RN really needs this capability!

 

[Whiskyjack]

Yup, with almost a third of the escorts! Upgrades to Sea Dart aside it seems the RN has been forced into gambling little or no anti air threat probability for three to six years. I think I’d like one of those crystal balls.

With an impressive build up of amphibious platforms (1 x LPH, 2 x LPD, 4 x LSD & 6 Ro-Ro ships) It is alarming to think without US assistance UK force projection is good for Western Europe

Keeping the Sea Harrier until at least the first T45s are deployed say 2010 or better still until 2012 (2013?) and JSF seemed value for money. interesting to note how much a GR9 radar upgrade costs in comparison, any ideas?

Depends, I would assume they would use the Blue Vixen, but then they have to integrate all the new weapon systems.

So I am thinking for 60 odd GR9s, a cost of US$300-500 Million (all going well!). But it would not be operational until 2011 at the earliest. 1 Year to get under way, 2 years development, 1 year to do the work, 1 year of testing, maybe even later than 2011. So unless F-35 is going top be very late (I see operational capability as 2014).

As with all projects the time to do it was when they announced the Sea Harrier retirement 4 years ago.

 

[mark22w]

Depends, I would assume they would use the Blue Vixen, but then they have to integrate all the new weapon systems.

So I am thinking for 60 odd GR9s, a cost of US$300-500 Million (all going well!). But it would not be operational until 2011 at the earliest. 1 Year to get under way, 2 years development, 1 year to do the work, 1 year of testing, maybe even later than 2011. So unless F-35 is going top be very late (I see operational capability as 2014).

As with all projects the time to do it was when they announced the Sea Harrier retirement 4 years ago.

Interesting. I agree 4 years ago may have made 'some' sense re the GR9 but if projected savings are to benefit future RN structure, I'd rather see US $300-$500m put towards the additional two T45's. Also agree the F-35 is going to be late, but then so might the CVF.

I think the future for the RN is considerably brighter than it has been for many years, just hope the risk analysts have got it right.

 

[Gaenth]

Yup, the desert parking option doesn't sound bad at all, in case Air defence is required.

True, Gr.7/9s don't have a serious air to air capability, and it's also true that the Royal Navy has now a gap in air defence, but it doesn't look as crucial in the type of operations they do these days. Enter Joint Harrier Force. The interesting thing is how can MoD planners be so sure they won't need it in such a long time... ...again, and how they don't do what is required on time.

 

[Gaenth]

The extract from Jane's today, maybe you've already seen it:

Ski-jump to history

By Richard Scott Jane's Naval Consultant
London

There is no doubt that the decision to withdraw the Sea Harrier has been one of the most contentious defence issues in recent years - and one which throws the resource constraints and hard choices confronting UK defence planners into sharp relief.

The events leading to the early demise of the Sea Harrier can be traced as far back as the early 1990s, when the UK Royal Navy (RN) realised the need to re-role its carriers as power-projection assets, but it was the outcome of the 1998 Strategic Defence Review (SDR) that ultimately cast the die. In articulating a new joint expeditionary strategy for the UK's armed forces, the SDR included a commitment to bring together the RN's Sea Harrier and Royal Air Force Harrier squadrons under a single joint command to form "a flexible and deployable force optimised for the demands of the new strategic environment".

Two issues - one technical, the other essentially doctrinal - were central to the decision-making process that prompted the early retirement of the FA.2.

The first was the issue of an uprated engine. The sharp fall-off in the hover performance of the Pegasus Mk 106 engine in high ambient temperatures, narrowing vertical recovery margins to a critical degree, was a shortcoming the Sea Harrier community had been acutely aware of for some time. Indeed, operational and safety issues effectively precluded the Sea Harrier from undertaking carrier operations in hot climates, such as those encountered in the Gulf, for about six months in the year. Put simply, the aircraft had run out of puff.

The second issue pivotal to the Sea Harrier's early demise was the growing emphasis on delivering offensive air power from the sea: something highlighted by SDR supporting papers. The Ministry of Defence described this as "a central pillar to future force-projection operations".

As a consequence, the study group determined that, in a cost-constrained environment, the priority should be to strengthen carrier strike - and hence reaffirm the critical path to Future Carrier/Joint Combat Aircraft through investment in offensive air capability offered by the single-role Harrier GR.9.

The Naval Staff ultimately accepted the outcome, albeit with understandable reservations. And so the Sea Harrier has become a high-profile victim of the intense competition for scarce cash resources brought about by changed defence priorities.


http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jdw/jdw060302_1_n.shtml

On the engine issue, I just wonder why an FA.3 based on Harrier II wasn't developed when the rest of the variants did. The high ambient temp is not that big an issue for AV-8Bs because of their more powerful Pegasus. Can anyone provide some background and opinions about this?

 

[mark22w]

On the engine issue, I just wonder why an FA.3 based on Harrier II wasn't developed when the rest of the variants did. The high ambient temp is not that big an issue for AV-8Bs because of their more powerful Pegasus. Can anyone provide some background and opinions about this?

Thanks for this - hadn't seen it...

I understood the decision not to upgrade to FA2 standard based on Harrier II aircraft was financial. If so, it just goes to show where penny pinching leaves you. If anyone can shed more light on this I also am interested.

 

[Sea Dog]

Thanks for this - hadn't seen it...

I understood the decision not to upgrade to FA2 standard based on Harrier II aircraft was financial. If so, it just goes to show where penny pinching leaves you. If anyone can shed more light on this I also am interested.

I don't think they spoke of upgrading to a Harrier II (which is a completely different aircraft). The article spoke of upgrading only the PEGASUS powerplant to the same that the Harrier II has.