I am disgusted to see that our much revered government in a typical act of brilliance have decided to scrap the FAA Sea Harrier F/A2 fleet! Great! So the fleet will have no air defence fighter and in fact the UK's only effective air superiority fighter is to be scrapped as the RAF Tornado F3 can hardly be called an air superiority fighter. Since the F35 is at least 10 years away, the RN will have to rely on the RAF Harrier GR7 (to be upgraded to GR9), an aircraft with NO air to air capability, leaving the fleet with no air defence other than frigate and destroyer mounted weapons systems, systems which nothing like the power of even a small lightweight fighter like the Sea Harrier, so let's just hope the RN doesn't have to fight a war anytime soon..... Just as "New" Labour had managed to shed it's loony left image the facade is falling and we're seeing the usual dangerous incompetence they've always shown to defence procurement, like their brilliant decision to scrap the TSR2... I'm afraid I'm in rant mode, this decision REALLY ******** me off!!!

Justin

This is a colossal error on the part of the RN. We've already seen in the 1982 Falklands War what happens without proper fleet air defense. What's laughable is the RN's solution to the problem of air defense once the Sea Harrier F/A.2s get retired- they plan to use the non-radar equipped, non-BVR missile equipped Harrier GR.7/9 for fleet air defense and network them to the fleet vessels using the Link 16 JTIDS datalinks so the ships can act as the radars for the Harriers.

But they STILL lack BVR missile capability unlike the Sea Harrier which carried AMRAAMs.

And what happens to the GR.7/9s when they go beyond the range of the Link 16? This will impose unneccesary tactical operating constraints on the fleet.

In naval warfare it's all about dominating/controlling your battlespace. Having fleet air defense fighters in the air operating AUTONOMOUSLY extends the reach of the fleet into the battlespace and ensures threats are disposed of early and far away from the main fleet. One of the greatest threats to modern naval fleets now is the proliferation of anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles easily adopted to ship-killing roles. Especially with the current emphasis on littoral warfare, the RN's vessels will be exposed to shore-based missile batteries as well.

Quite right SC, in 1982 it was the FAA Sea Harrier FRS1's that allowed the UK to fight at all, and the RN's ship board air defence systems were found inadequate to say the least. As well as the gap between retiring the F/A2 and introducing the F35, there is a technology gap in the fleet. The RN's area defence capability will be provided by the type 45 destroyers, the first of which were ordered last year. These promise to be very capable with their new radar and principle anti aircraft missile system, but almost all major new warship designs have serious teething troubles and personally I'll be amazed if the type 45 enters service on time, and even more amazed if it enters service with full operational capability. The type 23 frigates are pretty good ships but took 10 years to get right and only carry point defence AA weapons, no use at all for protecting a task force, convoy or beach head. The type 42, a good enough ship in it's day is past it's sell by date. The big problem as you say is that the range of ship board radars is not that great, and the type 45's will be able to engage incoming threats with their own weapons once picked up on radar anyway. The AMRAAM and blue vixen gives the FAA real punch, much more capable than many people realise, to replace them with the GR7/9 is an act of sheer folly, in fact I often think our government is batting for the other side.... Take care,

Justin

Funny thing is that using Harrier GR.7/9s in fleet defense in conjunction with the Link 16 JTIDS is really nothing more the outmoded GCI-based air defense that was used by NATO/US in the 1950-60s and in the outmoded defense systems using weapons/tactices of the former Soviet Union. Nothing beats autonomous capability and even the Russians figured this out when they developed the MiG-31 Foxhound and the Su-27 Flanker for their air defense needs.

Autonomous operational capability is a must, it is almost criminal to expect a pure close air support and tactical recon/strike aircraft to take over fleet defence duties from a machine equipped with one of the best radars in service and armed with the most effective AAM yet made, GCI is a clever concept and is very effective in the right circumstances, but this is crazy. The MoD seem to have forgotten every lesson they've learned in the last 20 or 30 years, if they've learned any. Conventional wisdom is that for GCI to be effective it needs AWACS with extended range radars and BVRAAM capability, relying on radar picket ships and short range AIM9's or ASRAAM's is not what GCI was supposed to be about, GCI can be an effective tool, but only when used with effective equipment. If the RN go back to relying on radar pickets they can expect to lose a lot more ships in the way they lost HMS Sheffield in 1982, hit by Excocet whilst on picket duty. On a more profound level, I get the impression that UK and European defence policy is based on the assumption that we will never fight against a developed enemy with powerful armed forces, it's criminal and dangerous. Actually, I thought in the 90's the USA was making the same mistake, but America seems to have realised it's mistake and is starting to reverse some of the policy decisions of the 90's thank god. Take care,

Justin

When exactly will the Royal Navy begin scrapping the Sea Harrier?

Is this because the RN is about to place an order for the VTOL JSF?

Just curious.

Hi, as far as I know the Sea Harrier's will be retired in 2004, but I'm not certain about that. About the JSF, the UK has been onboard since a very early stage and it has been the UK intention to replace all our Harrier's with the JSF since the MoD joined the program. The Harrier's are now a joint force, so both FAA and RAF squadrons are in the same force structure, most helicopters in the UK are also now in a joint force, it seems to be the way forward for small armed forces as the added top weight of seperate command structures isn't worth it when the forces are small, and also most operations now rely so heavily of smooth integration of all arms it makes sense to have a common command. Strangely, the UK has yet to decide whether to buy the STOVL or CTOL version of the JSF, it's crazy when the UK was one of the program members that demanded the STOVL version, but since the next carriers will be full blown carriers for fixed wing aircraft the STOVL capability is no longer essential for the RN and the RAF doesn't need the STOVL facility so much as to justify higher cost and lower performance, especially once the AAC gets it's WAH64D's.

Justin

I think this is very poor decison, it should be revised. I think if they revise there decision, I think they will notice that this decision is one big mistake.