Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers [Archive]

althenick

7th Dec 2008, 04:25

Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, chief of air staff, is attempting to push through proposals to scrap the 75 Harrier jump jets currently shared between the navy and the air force.

.... You know, I thought for a while there that Torpy was quite switched on when it came to jointery. Assuming that this is accurate journalism then its quite obvious he is a complete tosser. I thought the harrier was the newest of all the CAS Aircraft (save Typhoon)

Torpy believes that the lack of a carrier-borne attack aircraft until the first of the new aircraft carriers comes into service, now 2015 at the earliest, will not be a problem.

Right we got rid of the old ark when? end of '78 and what happened at the beginning of '82?

He argues that with the main focus of UK military operations for the next decade likely to be land-locked Afghanistan, there is no current need for carrier-borne aircraft.

...Again cut you capabilities and you open yourself to other problems of an international nature.

When the new carriers come into service the RAF can fly the Joint Strike Fighters that are currently due to fly off them.

HA HA HA HA HA HA - by that time the RN wont have any current F/W deck experience and the crabs wont have the 1st idea either - also with his utterly stupid slogan “one nation, one air force” he obviously intends to take the RN's R/W assets over. I wonder how he will convice his team (about 6000 at a rough estimate) to commit to going to sea? Iwonder how much that will cost in terms of Recruitment / Training / Retention Bonuses / and PVR rates.

See here
Jointery - Going to Sea - E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network forums (http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=15992)

Conclusion - 1966 all over again

MaroonMan4

7th Dec 2008, 04:53

Now I certainly do not love the Navy or the fast jet community, but what I do have is an interest in the defence of the country and also from the 'shop floor' level making sure that my tiny voice is heard when I see inter service politics and 'land grabs'/feathering of nests interfering with future defence policy - after all I am a tax payer and British citizen as well!

If I can see that this is all about inter service rivalry then I hope to God that CDS and the MoD do (but then again current CDS is a fast jet mate, so they are probably all in together!). Of course we are going to offer up Harrier as a cost savings measure to the beancounters - the sacrificial lamb that on the surface saves money in a time when normally the Services are 'bleating' to save and not cut - so a service that offers a cut is a PR coup with much chance of getting through the media/political spotlight.

However, take a step back and look at the motive. If we the RAF sacrifice our Harrier force and take the pain (limited 'pain' really as we now just backfill our other fast jet slots to full manning - smoke/mirrors and makes top brass look good with manning levels) then that is job done in removing the Fisheads from fixed wing aviation. Land have already done it with the Commando capability, Strike can now reign supreme in the fixed wing world if they manage to bluff this one through.

As I said, I have no love for the Navy whatsoever and they can keep the O Boat, but I do recognise that if we as a country think that we are just going to be able to drop an essential defence capability and pick it back up again in 10 years then MoD are certainly not looking at long term strategic capability, but short term money in the bank to pay off their huge debt.

As to my senior officers - shame on you for even believing that you could pull this one off without it going unnoticed by the masses. As to the chief fishead falling on his sword - good on him if that is what it takes to make people sit up and listen. How many times on this web site have we scoffed at senior officers that have left the service with a fat pension and a place in the Lords that then decide to have some moral fibre, a backbone with integrity.

I know that times are tight and the Govt is forcing increasing budget restraints/constraints in every area, but please can someone stop this inter service playground squabbling - Joint Force Harrier, Joint Helicopter Command-if we have to go Joint, then make it Joint, not a platform to increase any one Services area of influence or size. The powers that be have directed that we go Joint in key areas - so lets do it and not view the Joint aspect as a method of expanding empires or ensuring any one colour of uniforms survival. If decisions were made on capability and adding value to Defence rather than what colour uniform will fly or operate the capability, then I am sure that efficiencies and resources would be made.

How much effort is being spent in 'staffing' inter service political survival rather than supporting the boys/girls actually doing the business frontline today, and just as importantly for the conflicts that have yet to confront us in the decades ahead

Sorry for a Sunday emotion, but I see Jointery working on the coal face really well - and not just Afghanistan. What is really evident is the single service mentality in supposedly 'Joint' organisations that is making those at the bottom of the pile roll their eyes as 'mum and dad' argue in the safety of their offices not over key important decisions for future capabilies but more on how to dress up an argument/policy to ensure that it favours one service or the other.

Either do Jointery properly or go back to the Secretary of State for Defence and say it is not working (as per the Canadians) - please do not attempt petty little manoeuvres that make us all look very unprofessional.

:=

beerdrinker

7th Dec 2008, 05:28

How the hell does Torpy think we could have fullfilled our obligations in Afghanistan when the US Marines moved out of Kandahar 5 years ago. (Whether or not we should be there at all is a totally diffferent point). The runway was too short for anything other than the Harrier. Having it there we were able to supply the support the ground troops needed. Now the runway has been improved the Harrier is being replaced by the Tonka.

But just wait for the next world trouble spot which needs air support from marginal runways. Guess which aircraft will be used.

The more I read about Torpy, the more I think he was a lousy choice as CDS.

Firestreak

7th Dec 2008, 06:47

Beerdrinker, if you wish your comments to be taken with any credibility, you really should get your facts straight; Glen Torpy is not CDS, he's CAS.

Pontius Navigator

7th Dec 2008, 06:54

Simple really.

Torpy is all for jointery with new toys, so Dave after tranche 3 Tiffy. Rather have 21st century jets than jets from the middle of the last century.

orca

7th Dec 2008, 07:08

And now we see the real reason for rushing a LL AI platform into the battle in Helmand, in place of the ML CAS thoroughbred that's been doing the job excellently since 2004.

It will cost the taxpayer millions to get the TGRF to a state whereby it will be adequate at the role in Afghanistan. And all to protect the spine of the air force, and banish the FW FAA to the dust bin of history.

So let's now start talking straight. The GR9 CAS/ COIN platform par excellence is not being pulled out of KAF for re-generation, CVS qualifications or harmony reasons. It's being withdrawn from a war for which it is ideally suited, so that it is seen as not being at war, so that the favoured platform of the higher echelons is seen as the panacea (that it certainly isn't), and then the puffer jet can be sidelined and euthanised.

How long has this been the plan? Have we and parliament been lied to for some time?

beerdrinker

7th Dec 2008, 07:34

FS,

Sorry - finger trouble.

Tourist

7th Dec 2008, 08:05

As I posted on this thread not too long ago http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/351161-air-forces-monthly-tornado-up-2.html#post4548163

"Elmo you plonker,
The RN desperately does not want the Harriers out of Afghanistan.
Once they are out and not displaying their usefullness on a daily basis, they are a lot easier to quietly dispose of by the RAF under some "costly", "old" , "outdated", "short range" type bollocks arguments.
This is the opening gambit of a beautifully cynical plan to wipe out the RN's fixed wing fleet for good.
The RAF may have lost a very hard fought battle to scupper the carriers, but they have not given up the war..........."

Whilst I usually enjoy being correct, in this case I was hoping I was wrong:mad:

insty66

7th Dec 2008, 08:40

Because everything in the papers is true isn't it?

There aren't half some paranoid folk around.

I took the article as a "let's get our side across before anything happens" message.

When we do see a FJ type go I don;t think it'll be Harrier.

Pontius Navigator

7th Dec 2008, 08:47

There are two view points here.

The airman's short term pain for long term gain, ie retire an old tired workhorse and gain a shiney new toy in a few years time.

The politician's short term gain, ie retire an old tired workhorse now and a long term gain by defering or scraping the shiney new toy in the future.

A bird (harrier) in the had is worth two in the bush (george)

ORAC

7th Dec 2008, 08:48

maybe he ought to resign over having so mismanaged the future of the navy, particularly surrendering the flexibility of the frigate fleet in pursuit of the ever receding carrier mirage, that they can't even provide a Falklands Guard Ship any more? (http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/umedia/20081206/cp.fe944a8f13679f2fefe582083b0253ba.gif)

Don't throw stones when you live in a greenhouse...

Pontius Navigator

7th Dec 2008, 09:10

Orac, hammer, rivet, head, hit.

The same could, in the future, be said for light blue.

Dark blue, instead of keeping its 20th century warships has, as you said, been chasing a 21st century mirage.

Wrathmonk

7th Dec 2008, 09:48

Here we go again .... The only people who are going to win from such sensationalism are the Army (who must be pi55ing themselves laughing watching the other two Services tear each other apart) and the government (who are more than happy for Chiefs to resign because they know there's another yes man waiting his chance).

The following is all my personal opinion. The Tornado is up to the job in AFG. The Harrier is fast becoming a one trick pony and it needs time back home to regenerate and reconstitute its broader military skills i.e aviation from the carrier. If it was to stay out in AFG any longer there is a real chance that they would never regain deck currency period. And the beancounters would start to question the need for carriers in the present and in the future. So not only would the new carriers be delayed (another thread on that topic) but also rather than run on the current CVs, given we don't have enough assets to keep the decks warm (because they're busy on ops) lets bin them early as well. And then we don't need JCA so lets buy more Typohoon (and that keeps BAE happy, and jobs in UK etc etc). So, again a personal view, bringing the Harriers home, and perhaps reducing the fleet size (I wouldn't advocate a complete disbandment for the reasons I've already stated) would support the procurement of the future carriers (again, which I believe we need) and JCA.

I also don't give a fig who crew JFH or JCA. Best person for the job.

I reckon the SofS will call his bluff - if CNS resigns then he will be replaced with a yes man who will have no choice but to support whatever proposals are put on the table (including those affecting the wider Navy, not just the FAA). If he doesn't resign then he will just be seen as a spoilt brat - I'll scream and scream until I get my own way. If he really wanted to make a point he should have had the balls to walk around the 5th floor, resign with no prior notice and then "leaked" his reasons/concerns to the press. His pension is both vast and secure and there will be all sorts of companies looking to welcome a man of such principles on to their board.

Of course, if he had nothing to do with the leak and it was done by a "well meaning" staff officer or civil servant then I suspect CNSs bacon and eggs will not be going down to well this morning!

Jimlad1

7th Dec 2008, 09:54

I like the way the DT story ignores the fact that the RN has already got 4 warships in the FI! (tanker, large helo capable patrol vessel, Ice patrol ship and a Bay class).

Tiger_mate

7th Dec 2008, 11:07

I am sure I recall just a few months ago Ivan flexing his muscles with threats of Cold war II. How quickly we forget that there is more to world politics then Iraq & Afghanistan.

Like it or loathe it, Harrier is essential for any conventional warfare and therefore an equally essential part of the warfighting inventory of the UK. It would be wrong to reduce the force without a Combat Ready VSTOL replacement in place.

Chugalug2

7th Dec 2008, 11:18

Once again Torpy shows himself to be the government's lackey, prepared to compromise the defence of his nation in the interests of short term financial savings which will rebound disastrously on us in the future, probably sooner than later. The same short sighted thinking has resulted in the complete compromise of UK military airworthiness over the past twenty years. That he does this at the supposed cost to a sister service rather than his speaks volumes for his limited grasp of the realities and does the Royal Air Force that he supposedly leads no favours. Shame on him and good for the Navy's boss, prepared to put his service before his own self advancement. Like Speaker Martin the CAS has been too long in this place...

Wrathmonk

7th Dec 2008, 12:06

Chugalug

Torpy has already announced his intention to retire at the end of his tenure so can't see this as self advancement within the MOD. He certainly isn't making / won't make friends in UK Defence Companies by reducing fleet sizes either.

I'm also intrigued by your comment

limited grasp of the realities

Surely the reality is the MOD are broke and somehow, somewhere we have got to make painful savings in order to both support/fight/win the current conflicts and protect from the future conflict. As the books clearly don't balance what would you suggest? Just curious as to how you would do things differently.

As they say don't bring problems bring solutions. And these armchair solutions can't involve more money because there isn't any. And there won't be any under any future government either. At somestage we have to repay the VAT cut etc and, sadly, I suspect this will be through a cut in public spending rather than personal tax rises because guess which one costs more votes. Again, cuts in Health, Social Services and Education are not very voter friendly. As for Defence ....

Pontius Navigator

7th Dec 2008, 13:31

Wrath,

From my lowly position the choices are:

Fight today's war with today's kit and hope that there is time to prepare for tomorrow's war.

or

fight today's war with minimal kit and focus on getting th enew kit for tomorrow's war.

Torpy is quite clearly focussed on getting tranche 3 of the Typhoon come what may.

Now it might be argued that this is at the expense of dark blue naval air aspirations today and possibly even tomorrow if, as an airman, he believes that the best interests of the nation will be served by a flexible air force that can be deployed in a matter of hours anywhere in the world.

There are obviously many counter-arguments but those are my thoughts on where he might be coming from.

SirPercyWare-Armitag

7th Dec 2008, 13:42

The first paragraph of the article gives this away as yet another brilliant RN PR campaign not too dissimilar to the old "leave the docs on the towpath for the Mail to find" routine.
There isnt any money left and scrapping the Harrier sounds like a reasonable way of allowing ALL THREE SERVICES to keep other projects on track, including the carrier. Of course, there will be a small air gap between the GR7/9 leaving service in 2013 and JSF coming online but the issue of losing carrier operations currency is a bit disingenous. I wonder whether or not exchange posts with the US might give a cadre of knowledgeable pilots able to form the basis of an OCU?

"I thought the harrier was the newest of all the CAS Aircraft (save Typhoon)"

That might hold water if we had a dozen CAS platforms but we dont: we have three.

I dont think we should lose the Harrier but if cuts have to be made, where else? If it results in the end of the FAA, is that a major drama? The RAF lost its maritime branch a billion years ago because others could do the job for them and there hasnt been any catastrophic consequences.
This is RN paranoia which has resulted in them spinning a campaign to the detriment of the military as a whole.

Pontius Navigator

7th Dec 2008, 14:51

The RAF lost its maritime branch a billion years ago because others could do the job for them and there hasnt been any catastrophic consequences.

Actually I think they just went dark blue and every thing was handed over to a contractor. Quite a change for some: they left the RN when the RN disposed of its FTBs and changed to light blue. Then some were able to get their darl blue wooly pulleys out of store and put the light blue ones away.

Gullwings

7th Dec 2008, 15:05

Pontius Navigator

The problem is that Torpy does appear to be focussed on getting tranche 3 of the Typhoon come what may. This may be in the best interest of the RAF but not necessarily of the nation.

The Fleet Air Arm has repeatedly shown that it can be relied upon to be deployed in a matter of hours anywhere in the world. If the nation wants a flexible air force then the FAA should continue to help provide that and the RAF not be allowed to destroy it for its own self interests.

For example, if for any reason, the few Falkland based RAF fixed-wing aircraft are unable to fly in defense of the Falklands (particularly if their runway(s) get damaged) then what UK fixed-wing capability is actually going to be left to help defend and retake the Falklands? Sea Harriers (or other radar equipped Spanish/Italian Harriers) would have been perfect for that type of long distance task but that capability has been lost.

Now it appears that the Fleet Air Arm fixed-wing force and possibly all remaining ground attack Harriers could also be at risk! What will a Typhoon Tranche 3 be able to do to help in another Falklands War type long range situation where friendly airfields are not available?

Have the previous lessons of the Falklands War (and many other wars) been lost on our RAF? Our Fleet Air Arm urgently requires strengthening, not wiping out by some very short sighted people.

Will the new aircraft carriers and JSF arrive on time? I sadly doubt that very much, so we as an island nation, are likely to leave our RN ships and overseas interests very badly exposed by a lack of FAA air defence capability for a long time.

Wrathmonk

7th Dec 2008, 15:29

PN

Trouble is I don't think we have any choice with Typ Tr 3 - we pay regardless! Stitched up would be my view!

Gullwings

Agree we need carrier based aviation - but does it NEED to be FAA? Similarly, if we want to protect the FAA do all Typhoon/Tornado crews need to be RAF? Back to the best person for the job, regardless of cloth.

I really hope this is over enthusiastic journalism - the "me, me, me" (or in this case "RAF, RAF, RAF") is really quite sad :hmm:

pr00ne

7th Dec 2008, 15:31

Gullwing,

" Now it appears that the Fleet Air Arm fixed-wing force and possibly all remaining ground attack Harriers could also be at risk! What will a Typhoon Tranche 3 be able to do to help in another Falklands War type long range situation...."

Just how will the much vaunted 'Naval Strike Wing' be of any help in that (extremely unlikely) scenario?
What is it, 10 jets and 6 pilots? What is the point...................

There is no rational for spending a single penny on "another Falklands War type long range situation" because there isn't going to be one!

The world has changed, Afghanistan is where we are NOW.

If you still think we face conventional wars against conventional foes try reading "The Utility of Force" by General Sir Rupert Smith, it may just open your eyes.

Bismark

7th Dec 2008, 16:05

Torpy would not be doing this without Stirrup's tacit backing, thus CDS is as compromised as CAS (and it probably goes much deeper into MoD).

Without the FAA in FW aviation you can forget the carriers as there will be no generation of maritime FW air-minded officers and ratings - the RAF will not generate such people because they fundamentally do not want to go to sea.

Which other nation allows their air force to run maritime FW aviation? Even the Italians reverted when they learned the same lesson in the 90s that the RN learned in the 30s - ie the Air Force does not give a s**t about maritime FW.

Shame on Torpy, shame on the RAF - I thought they were better than this. I wonder whether the lower downs in the RAF support their Chiefs?? I wonder what good old Henry Allingham, the last surviving founder member of the RAF (but ex RNAS) thinks of this.

The Real Slim Shady

7th Dec 2008, 16:15

The Harrier.

Operates from woods, runways, roads, PSP, very short damaged bits of asphalt, aircraft carriers, frigates ( albeit with a short range), ramps.

It flies CAS missions, AD missions, Recce.

In short it is FLEXIBLE.

Wasn't the old NATO doctrine "Flexibility is the key to air power"

Which lecture did he sleep through at Staff College?

Pontius Navigator

7th Dec 2008, 16:15

Bismarck,

Rock and a hard place.

Torpy is an airman and would press for Tiffy. CDS is now purple and would, one hopes, consider the balancing act. For Torpy to back off on Tiffy and concede Harrier/CVF if he sincerely believes that Tiffy tranche 3 is correct would be a betrayal of the Air Force.

CDS, on the other hand, balancing the need for a balanced budget and the need to pay for tranche 3 has to make the best of what he has.

That CNS (or whoever) adopts an entrenched position opposite Torpy's is quite properly the correct blue approach for his service.

CDS thus has to opt for one or the other and just because he is light blue/purple does not disqualify him from opting for a light blue solution bitter as that may be for dark blue.

Rock and hard place.

Chugalug2

7th Dec 2008, 16:18

Wrathmonk:

Torpy has already announced his intention to retire at the end of his tenure so can't see this as self advancement within the MOD. He certainly isn't making / won't make friends in UK Defence Companies by reducing fleet sizes either.

I didn't mean advancement within the MOD, if ever there was proof of being promoted to the level of one's own incompetence...as for UK Defence Companies, just let us all wait and see shall we? As to:

The only people who are going to win from such sensationalism are the Army

Faced with a sound bite like "One nation, one Air Force" (now why does that sound familiar?), I'd be worried for the AAC, or are their Corporal pilots untouchables? This is all arrant nonsense, and no way to plan for UK Defence, no matter how out of balance the books are. The government is responsible for making proper provision for our defence. They are encouraged to slash and burn at that provision by apparatchiks like Torpy. If he sees his job as aiding and abetting in that conspiracy he is reneging on his duty to this nation. If someone has to fall on a sword I can't think of a better candidate. As to resources there are always resources, at the moment being poured into the Banks and as always of course Schools and Hospitals. It is for the government to make tough choices, if the choices they make are untenable then it is for the Service Chiefs to resign, en masse if need be, though some might need more persuading than others!
Proone:

There is no rational for spending a single penny on "another Falklands War type long range situation" because there isn't going to be one!

What can one say, other than the words hostage and fortune?

Lurking123

7th Dec 2008, 16:21

The RAF can't get rid of Harrier - how would it survive without Sky Gods?:}

Front Seater

7th Dec 2008, 16:23

Proone,

Be very careful in saying such things - Falklands or no Falklands lessons learned I would suggest that we have not been prepared for any of the recent conflicts (less Al Faw).

All the more reason to have the flexible option of carrier borne aircraft here and now and for ever more. Science and technology may make carrier borne aircraft obsolete but a (misguided IMHO) assumption that RUSI/CJO/JCDC/FCO et al believe that Afghanistan is 'the' war rather than 'a' war then I believe you may be wrong (however, I hope that you are not).

As to 'colour of cloth' - sorry, I do not buy into that one. As was seen by our attempt to get Apache to sea we relied on significant experience from the dark blue in all trades and all ranks - naval aviation, ships company and dark blue desk wollers. There has to be something of a capability enhancer with those flying, maintaining, operating, guiding, authorising, air worthiness etc etc that really know their work place and environment. Rather than rocking up and pretending to be the Subject Matter Expert in Naval Aviation and pretending to integrate with the Maritime Component.

By all means have a smattering of light blue along the way, and by all means maintain a Joint Force, but the core components should be RN dark blue. I seem to remember on an RAF Flight Safety course (because the Army doesn't have its own) the gun tape of the RAF Harrier CO landing in the drink alonside one of the carriers - about 8 years ago I think (?).

Just as we in the Apache fleet (and also Army Lynx) have opted for our comfort zone of steering well clear of going to sea I personally believe that from where I sit (with absolutely nothing to gain from this dark blue v light blue willy waving competition) I reckon that as soon as the RN handed over its fast jet fleet to the light blue then the RAF would find every possible conceivable excuse why they should not go to sea - and if they were forced to go to sea then it would be on their terms and conditions.

I say this because I know that the RN also gave up fighting for their integral Armed Helicopter capability (847) because they were 'promised' a double earmarked Apache Squadron and funny old thing we too have all of our excuses all lined as to why Apache cannot go to sea.

No wonder the RN appear seen off as we stiffed them with Apache, are probably about to lose out on any dedicated amphib BRH and now looks as though the RAF are trying to 'steal' RN fixed wing through a charade of 'best interests of thenations defence'.

I think I would be paranoid after being let down by the other 2 services and seeing genuine and operationally effective capabilities frittered away by inter service politics all disguised as 'jointery'.

SirPercyWare-Armitag

7th Dec 2008, 16:43

Shame on the RN for leaking this to the press. Again. :E

Stirrup, Torpey and especially Peach have done more than enough to prove their joint credentials. There are those in the RAF who think they have gone too far in their purple approach, at the risk of compromising the light blue service.

Something in the budget has to give. We may not agree with it but those are the harsh realities of life in this Brownite Socialist Utopia.

We need, first and foremost, to have the funds to support the troops in Afghanistan, at the expense of the RN and RAF if necessary. Something has to be chopped. Carriers or Harriers?

OKOC

7th Dec 2008, 16:48

Thought?!!! If we didn't have PPRuNe to vent our thoughts/concerns/angers and thus assuaging our frustrations, (and a great valve release) where else could we do do this-the bosses office? I doubt it-he/she is too busy. Newspapers-forget it. So win/win isn't it.

Not so quick, who else reads these columns? Loads of people in and not so in power, and of course they are thinking about Defences best interests aren't they? Careful chaps. Sometimes it is best to keep your powder dry and our using the openess of PPRuNe may not serve us in the best way--just a thought.

orca

7th Dec 2008, 19:36

Sir Percy,

Quite agree - we need to support the troops in Helmand first and foremost. So why in God's name are we talking about cutting our only (out and out) CAS platform?

How can anyone of sound mind, in an era famed only for it's surprises and the unexpected, consider getting rid of the one platform that we have that can operate from just about anywhere, in direct support of ground troops?

soddim

7th Dec 2008, 19:36

I am surprised that there is not more campaigning against the procurement of the new aircraft carriers, or is that a step too far in the inter-service contest to get the biggest willy?

We simply cannot afford the support vessels to defend a carrier that might be slowly taking our deployable air power somewhere close enough to the action to do what land based aircraft or RPVs could have done far more quickly and effectively.

If we want to think about another Falklands situation (pie in the sky because we simply do not have and will not get either the surface combat vessels or the merchant fleet to support it) we had better find a way to adequately protect the carriers. That option is far too expensive and manpower intensive.

So why are we simply delaying the carriers or is the planned early demise of the Harrier the way to show that we do not need a seaborne fixed wing aircraft?

MaroonMan4

7th Dec 2008, 20:27

Soddim,

How very tactfully put, but maybe a tad too subtle - of course this is a sad ruse to say in 5 to 10 years time:

' Sir, sir, sir please sir - we dont need aircraft carriers sir'

No but yes but no but sir, listen sir - we haven't needed it for the past 10 years sir since those old Harrier flying machines help pay off your Northern Rock debt sir'

Well sir, lets use that carrier money when you chop it sir for some hospitals or schools or something else that you may want sir'

What a brilliant idea sir, you are clever - absolutely, yes of course the carriers aren't required sir, and no sir, of course we will not let you down and we can truly go anywhere at anytime - short runways, long runways, short distances, long distances, of course sir.

Thank you sir, I knew that you would understand, a tough decision I know sir, but you have made the right one.....

Just sign here sir and I will make it all go away for you.

exscribbler

7th Dec 2008, 20:32

Here we go again! We're back to the old RAF argument that land-based air assets are more effective at power-projection than carrier-based ones. If that's the case, why are the USN and USMC happily building what appears to be an almost complete set of carriers - and the Russians and Chinese are joining in?

Do we know something they don't know? No, we know it pretty well in this country but we (Tory and New Labour alike) we haven't learned from history. We suffered from it after 1 April 1918 (a suitable date for the RNAS) more or less until 1942 when the RN started getting US carrier aircraft.

It continues to this day; Torpy is no more keen on jointery than was the CAS when the nuclear strike capability was transferred from the RAF to the RN all those years ago, so he'd like to gather everything that flies to the bosom of the RAF. That's what Goering did and look what happened to him...

We can afford the T45s (at £560 million each) to defend the carriers; what we can't afford are the serried ranks of Typhoons (at £30 million each) at Coningsby. I have yet to hear Bob Ainsworth say that Typhoon is so capable that we don't need all of them - but he said that about the T45 and a lot of people believed him!

When will we learn? If we want to have a greater say in the world, we need the assets and we need them at sea. If we don't want a greater say then let's have the RN become a coastal defence force, let the RAF have all the aircraft (Coningsby and Waddington should be quite adequate) and stop bloody worrying about what the others think... :ugh:

TwoStep

7th Dec 2008, 21:50

Jackonicko

7th Dec 2008, 21:52

There seem to be several questions here.

1) Do we need carriers in order to have balanced, capable forces which fully meet Britain's strategic/geopolitical/military needs?

2) If economies have to be made, should carriers be a higher priority than land-based air?

3) If we do need carriers, long term, would it be acceptable to have a longer 'capability holiday' than already looks likely? (Remember that Harrier can't go on past 2016/17 without major expenditure - new rear fuselages, etc. and JSF can't be in squadron service until 2018....)

Even if you believe that the answers to the first two questions are "yes" and "yes", it may still be that withdrawing CVS and Harrier now would be a sensible way of easing pressure on an overstretched and overstressed defence budget. Is Harrier likely to be needed to deliver effect again before it is scheduled to retire? When you're not involved in 'cat and trap' type carrier aviation, do you need to maintain a cadre of current operating experience, or is it possible, with STOVL aircraft, to work up a capability again fairly quickly - especially if you've been clever with exchange tours....?

Unless you're going to say that actually we can afford to do everything, and that we're no more than eye blink away from massive tax rises being electorally popular.....

For me, the answers are no, no and of course.

L1A2 discharged

7th Dec 2008, 22:15

Good questions being raised, perhaps there shoud be an end to end review of requirements against the available budget.

Result would be a rowing boat on the Serpentine, carrying a picture of an aircraft, being rowed by CGS. Directed from the bank by Sec State.

Or a review of committed task resource requirements, as was begun at a secret HQ near Gloucester (before it moved).

When they got to a number of personnel in light blue over 75,000 the instruction was to cease and desist, as the political limit had been set at 51,000 (allegedly).

I would venture that the operational needs are far in excess of the total available resources, and therein lies the rub. What can the country afford? or not afford given todays conflicts and tomorrows threats.

We are an Island Nation, therefore need a Navy of our own.
The enemy have aircraft, therefore we need aircaft of our own.
In any conflict we need boots on the ground to retain / maintain and progress a future for that area, therefore we need people of our own in uniform to fill that role.

pr00ne

7th Dec 2008, 22:32

L1A2 discharged,

"The enemy have aircraft, therefore we need aircaft of our own."

They do? What enemy? Haven't noticed any in Iraq or Afghanistan lately, have you?

We spend £36 Billion pounds a year on defence, plus all UOR's and operational in theatre costs funded out of the contingency reserve. Which other countries on this planet spend more?

What enemy??????????????

LowObservable

7th Dec 2008, 23:16

It's so confused around here, people are stabbing each other in the chest...

It makes for an interesting picture. If the carriers slide by two years, to the point where they can go to sea from day one with Dave B - or with something else, in the still possible eventuality that Dave B is a lemon - the notion that JFH is a bridge to JSF goes away,

Then, with budgets limited, do I (in Torpy's situation) want to pay money to stretch out an old capability that is going away anyway... or cement in place my Tranche 3 Typhoon?

Maybe someone's looking very hard at what Typhoon can/will be versus Dave B. And one can argue all day about F-35A's performance versus other aircraft, but you can't avoid the implications of the fact that Dave B is almost 8000 pounds bigger in OEW than Typhoon, with the same fuel fraction, a little more thrust, a smaller wing and (in stealth mode) a war-winning 2000 lb offensive load. And, if you read the charts, not that much better in non-stealth mode. In short, a complete, unmitigated pig.

And while the STOVL capability - which adds double-digit per cent to the price tag, costs me 25-30 per cent of my range and halves my internal weapon load - is crucial to a sea-based or joint RAF-Navy force, from the RAF's viewpoint it is marginal. No, this is not an aircraft to operate off roads or a soccer field - it's an F-4-sized jet and every sortie takes a Chinook-load of gas.

Add to this the fact that the UK is locked into Typhoon by the mechanism that the UK, Italy and Spain designed to lock the Germans in, and yes, I'd be guarding my Typhoons too.

Watch the same thing happening in the USAF: is the F-35 so good that we want to mortgage our entire future on it? So few F-22s that we can't afford to develop upgrades, and a new bomber God knows when?

Fasten your seat-belts...

Gullwings

8th Dec 2008, 00:14

Some very good points have been raised in this difficult subject.
Have some people though actually forgotten that we are an island nation that is extremely dependent on the sea for our imports to survive? (In fact, probably even more so today than we were during World War 2, as we now have much less available UK manufacturing, farming and fuel resources to draw on, etc!)

Can some people also actually imagine what it would be like to be on any merchant or RN ships that are well away from our UK shores with very little (if any) air support available from our RAF. The situation would not be so bad if the RN had some more capable ships and submarines to help defend itself with, but there are now even fewer of them available to carry out such important escort work and patrols in what seems an ever increasingly dangerous world.

Aircraft carriers are virtually self contained mobile airfield that could and should be capable of operating a wide range of aircraft wherever they are required around the UK or indeed the world. Such aircraft can actually take the battle to the enemy, rather than our current few RN and RFA ships having to try and defeat incoming missiles threats with mostly close range machine guns, and if they are lucky, perhaps with the aid of a relatively short range missile system.

This country does require proper aircraft carriers that have catapults and arrestor wires to enable a wide range of UK (and other friendly nation’s) aircraft to operate from them when required.

If the UK ever becomes the victim of any direct air attacks, then the current few RAF airfields would basically be immovable sitting targets. However, if the UK has very capable and flexible floating airfields (aircraft carriers) then these could be moved (as required) to counter any perceived threats. For example, if required to defend the UK, they could be positioned well out to sea off the UK coast to help provide a proper outer layer of defense for this country, including its RAF airfields. If however that floating airfield was required much further away from the UK, then those carriers can also provide the flexibility and capability wherever it is needed around the world. (This has previously been required and very well demonstrated by this country and many other countries during numerous wars/conflicts!)

Also do not forget that when required, our Naval aircraft can even be completely detached from their Carriers to operate from UK airfields (or anywhere else abroad), as perfectly demonstrated in Iraq, Afghanistan and even during the Battle of Britain, etc.

In summary, in my humble opinion, if this country truly wants real flexibility, capability, cost effectiveness and the ability to survive threats to our vital imports at sea, then we do need some real Aircraft Carriers and the expertise provided by the FAA to counter threats outside of the range of Typhoon/Nimrods, etc. Likewise, if many of our land runways get taken out in a war then it is aircraft such as the Harrier that could remain ideal to help defend our country and forces abroad by operating from roads, forests, small warships, etc.

Jackonicko

8th Dec 2008, 00:30

There's an awful lot of emotive guff talked about carriers.

1) The UK can now longer afford to carry out the full spectrum of military roles and operations, and has to concentrate on those core 'defence of the UK' capabilities that cannot be left to allies, and those that we need every time we go on ops. We cannot retain every niche capability - no matter how well we may have undertaken them in the past.

Britain won't be standing alone, re-fighting the Battle of the Atlantic as the RN bravely defends the convoys against the Hun, nor even against Ivan, since it's been decided that we won't conduct that scale of op alone and autonomously.

2) The UK's aircraft carriers have not been NEEDED since 1982 (they've been used, and they've been useful, but not needed in a "only carriers could do this" way). Even a repeat of the Falklands would not REQUIRE the use of carriers today.

3) In EVERY incident in which UK carriers have been used, land-based air power could have got there quicker, cheaper, and with greater capability once in theatre. (Nor am I overlooking Sierra Leone, when a Jaguar squadron was available on the Azores, with the necessary permissions to operate from Dakar, long before Grey Funnel lines got there.....)

4) While you can never GUARANTEE HNS, I would suggest that if such support is unavailable, the proposed op is probably unsustainable anyway. But if such an op is sustainable, and is stopped only by our lack of carriers, then we have plenty of allies who do have carriers.

5) Aircraft carriers are by no means 'self contained' - they require AD frigates, an SSN, tankers, RFAs, etc. - a small Armada. And they can sustain a relatively modest sortie rate for a relatively short period of time.

6) By canning the carriers now, and JSF, all of the other capability areas that are now being slowly strangled by funding constraints could be afforded - including tankers, SH, SEAD, etc.

x213a

8th Dec 2008, 00:32

We need an admiral with balls to speak up.

TJB??

Jackonicko

8th Dec 2008, 00:38

It was once widely reported that the Sea Lords had been given the difficult choice between replacing Trident with another seaborne deterrent system, or getting new carriers. Under this Government the 'or' briefly became an 'and', but perhaps it's time for the Admiral's choice to stand, and for the RN to lose its second choice 'flagship procurement programme'.....

And far from needing an Admiral or two with the "balls to speak out" for narrow RN interests, perhaps we need a few with a wider view of what our wider defence priorities should be, who can shut up and get with the programme?

DBTW

8th Dec 2008, 01:10

Jackonicko, you present one side of the long entrenched inter-service rivalry argument very clearly. So you don't like carriers. Your suggestion simply eliminates a broad spectrum of capability without replacing it, or even being able to fill the gap left with surplus capability in anothet area.

Why do you believe you are being un-emotive? The Fleet Air Arm suffers from both inter and intra service rivalry, so proponents do occassionally get emotive. Please give me the un-emotive reason why UK keeps legacy equipment like Tornado (GRs and Fs), and what particular use the independent nuclear deterrent serves in your host nation supported world. Indeed everybody else has fighters as well! There are so many UK allies with armed forces who have the similar capabilities and interests, why doesn't the UK simply use theirs and really save mega-billions?

Archimedes

8th Dec 2008, 01:51

DBTW - without getting drawn into the CVF debate at this time of night (in the UK, anyway), the rationale for the F3 being retained is that the UK needs an AD capability, even if it is only to wave at passing Bears sent by Mr Putin, or Mr Minimiedvev.

That covers the need for fighters,since I doubt that even the generally disineterested British public would accept a situation such as that in Iceland, where allies have to provide AD (even if that ally hasn't just used anti-terrorist legislation against the host nation's banks and has been invited to foxtrot oscar...).

As for the GRs, yes, they are legacy equipment, but they have been used rather frequently in recent years, and in general terms, the aircraft's capabilities are not exactly miles away from the Harrier (VSTOL being the obvious exception). For certain scale operations, we simply don't have enough Harriers to fit the bill and need to send other aircraft that can do air-ground.

The question about relying on allies and saving billionsis one best asked of the govt rather than Jacko, but I suspect that the government takes the view that doing so would mean that Britain would be unable to meet the aspirations the government has for Britain to play a key role in coalition operations. Turning up with a few Harriers wouldn't buy the sort of influence desired, I would suggest, whereas turning up with Harrier, GR4 and F3 for Telic, plus the array of supporting air assets gave a certain degree of influence that might not otherwise have been the case (I base that on three separate briefings I've attended, one from a US 3 Star, one from a UK 3 Star and the third from a politician - no names or specifics as all under Chatham House Rule - all of whom suggested pretty much the same thing).

DBTW

8th Dec 2008, 06:30

Archimedes,
Understood. Very good answer. It's all about capability, what the govt wants to do in terms of force projection, and what the nation can afford. CVF is a capability, just as much as fighters and nuclear bombers.

If we are to remain unemotive, let's not descend into interservice bickering. Every part of the British military plays a part. The CVS's have been in continuous service throughout the period stated by Jackonicko as a time when they have been not required! That's fairly emotive stuff...

Whilst your points about Fighters and Tornadoes are interesting, exactly the same observation Jackonicko makes about carriers can be made about any other element of the armed forces. Let's face it, they have not been defending the UK since WW2 and the fighters have not been needed for air defence of the realm since about 1943, but we still see them as being important. It seems to me that that is why the UK have Armed Forces whereas lesser countries have Defence Forces. The UK doesn't want to fight at home...very sensible!

All the British Armed Forces have been used in other ways since they finished WW2. CVF has been declared as needed up until one RAF flag rank puts the required aircraft forward as a savings measure. Its a political point often made at his level to demonstrate to politicians what their decisions will cost in terms of capability. I hope he is not serious, or that nobody takes him seriously.

My point is that you should fight the cuts because if you lose something, then another capability will be attacked. Armed Forces cost money and the UK is one of the few countries that does it well.

Bismark

8th Dec 2008, 06:47

Jacko only gives the anti-carrier mantra. he needs to apply his undoubted intelligence in an unbiased way to the rest of the RAF:

Why are we replacing a CAS aircraft, which is the capability the troops seem to want, with a non-CAS aircraft (which Mark Lankester has revealed as taking huge amounts of money to enable) that the troops don't want?

Why is F3 still in service when the RAF have declared Typhoon operational and on QRA?

What is the GR4 doing in Iraq, there is no role for it? Indeed why do we still have GR4 when Typhoon is declared operational (oh yes, it is not deployable!).

There is only one reason - CAS does not want the RN (or AAC for that matter) flying aircraft....but who keeps crashing aircraft and UAVs at the moment????

Wrathmonk

8th Dec 2008, 07:08

Bismark

1. We're not. The GR is a an equally capable CAS platform. Mark Lancaster is being fed only one side of the argument. Do you know how much was/has/is being spent on JFH during its time in AFG? I do.

2. You answered the question yourself - insufficient numbers to maintain a 24/7 capability in three locations (don't forget the FI).

3. What role do you think the GR4 is doing in Iraq? More to dropping bombs and firing bullets. Just because the Army are confined to a small AOR doesn't mean the GR4 is.

As for your last statement - pathetic and a slur on the dozens who have lost their lives in aircraft accidents and incidents both on ops and preparing for ops (and to sink to your level haven't two of the last three Harrier crashes been FAA? Of course the Navy have never ran a boat aground, been forced to surrender their iPods etc etc.)

Pontius Navigator

8th Dec 2008, 07:12

Fallacies:

The island-nation needs sea power mantra is a fallacy. It is a fallacy in that we, with Europe, are part of a global trading system. The only bit of the island philosophy that is true now is the Channel/North Sea/Irish Sea bit. For the rest, we are with Europe and it is Europe that needs to prottect its SLOC and not UK alone. Nor is it simply littoral states that should provide sea power. Some littoral states punch well below their weight, if they punch at all. Naval power should be on a European basis.

Keeping our hand in for CV ops using exchange postings is also a fallacy. Exchange postings are just that. If we have no FAA then there wiill be no relevant exchange postings. By their nature exchange postings are supposedly cost neutral. As we could not exchange we would need secondment instead at an order of cost of perhaps 4 or 5 times salary or more (guessing here).

Back to point one; if we do naval air best then that is what we should strive for and allow or persuade our European partners to provide the screen. For exchange, parlo italiano?

phil gollin

8th Dec 2008, 07:20

Well, if we don't need Harriers then I presume we don't need Daves - we can get along with Typhoons.

Excellent, more money saved.

.

anotherthing

8th Dec 2008, 09:25

Jackonicko

Everyone knows your pro RAF and anti RN stance, as well as your lack of Armed forces service, so I think your totally one sided opinions get taken with a pinch of salt.

Frontseater made a good post (#32) on page 2... which seemed to be taking a fairly neutral stance to look at the issue.

There are good points coming from all sides in this, but Jackonicko, your first few lines said 1) The UK can now longer afford to carry out the full spectrum of military roles and operations, and has to concentrate on those core 'defence of the UK' capabilities that cannot be left to allies,So just what, in your opinion does the 'core defence of the UK' entail if issues similar to the Falklands will not happen again?

If you want to be totally blinkered and not take lessons from the past, you would have to say terrorism was the biggest threat.

In which case, by your set of arguing principles, not only should we bin the carriers, we could also reduce the surface fleet further and cut huge swathes of personnel from the RAF and close most of the UK bases.

We could then spend some of the money saved on bolstering the numbers in the army, both with more foot soldiers and more army aircrew.

The rest of the money could be spent on increasing the number of security personnel in the UK security services.

Job done. (from a blinkered perspective)

Lyneham Lad

8th Dec 2008, 09:26

The UKNDA has just released a (somewhat emotive) statement re the threat to JFH:-

UKNDA - NEWS RELEASE/ STATEMENT
Sunday 7 December 2008: Release time immediate
Note the date (i.e. the 'infamous' 7th December') of today's Sunday Times' article by Michael Smith. On 7th Dec 1941 - Pearl Harbor - and the US Carriers were only saved because they were out of the Harbour at the time. What a coincidence. This time, if the RAF scrap all 75 of the Nation's Harrier Force, nothing will save the Navy's airpower. This too is a day that will "Live in infamy".
In response to the report in today's Sunday Times (Michael Smith) that, to save money and reduce the size of the two billion pound 'black hole' in the MOD's budget the RAF have offered to scrap the nation's Harrier Force - UKNDA's CEO - Cdr John Muxworthy commented:
The UKNDA has always disavowed inter-service rivalry and in-fighting as being
counter productive. Here is a supreme example that such squabbles are positively destructive of the nation's defences. Latest reports are that the RAF, in a desperate attempt to save money (and, they may hope, some of their threatened second or third tranche of Typhoons) are offering to scrap (!) all 75 of the Nation's Harrier Force - many of which 'belong' to the Royal Navy. All this because of the two billion pound 'black hole' in Defence Funding. The result of any such 'saving' will be that the fixed wing element of the Fleet Air Arm will atrophy and carrier based fixed wing expertise will be lost, perhaps never to be regained. So what price the (again delayed) new
carriers now; methinks there is a 'cunning plot' afoot and they could be the next 'savings measure'.
It is disingenuous to claim that the Royal Navy (or the RAF for that matter) can do without their Harriers because the Joint Strike Fighter is coming along in due time. The JSF is at least eight if not ten or more years hence. What do our two remaining (albeit small) aircraft carriers - HMS ARK ROYAL and HMS ILLUSTRIOUS do in the meantime - throw snowballs at the Argentinians when they next have a go at 'reclaiming' Las Malvinas?
The last time that a First Sea Lord threatened and then actually did resign was almost forty years ago when Denis Healey scuppered the Royal Navy's plans to build more arge carriers. That was a wasted gesture then because the furore was over and forgotten in a week. This time (if the rumour be true) the present Head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, threatens to reign over the issue. He should not be alone in threatening to resign - but so should the Chief of the Defence Staff, Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff as well - in a public display of true Tri-Service solidarity.... a word that a Labour Government should well recognise. If the Harriers go then Britannia will never again rule the waves and Britons, if they do not look to their Armed Forces (and the Royal Navy in
particular) will soon be slaves.
ENDS.

Will anyone actually take any notice?

Ronald Reagan

8th Dec 2008, 11:53

My god! We must be one of the few nations which even considers allowing its Air Force anwhere near the sea! Is not allowing the RAF on carriers a bit like letting retards run the mental hospital!?:}

While we are at it should the navy not have the Nimrods!

Navy rules, long live the navy:)

Jackonicko

8th Dec 2008, 12:04

DBTW

As well as being an aviation writer and enthusiastic amateur airman (PPL, etc), I’m a bit of an aviation enthusiast. You have to be to sustain an interest in all of this for as long as I have.

I doubt you could find an aircraft enthusiast alive who doesn’t like aircraft carriers. Who hasn’t watched ‘Top Gun’ for the carrier and flying scenes? I seize every opportunity to go on board a carrier.

And if we were still in a world where we could afford properly balanced forces, with 35 squadrons of frontline FJs, enough SH, etc. then I’d be fighting for CVF just as hard as anybody else. If we could afford niche capabilities that are ‘often useful’ but seldom actually necessary.

1) Eliminating carriers and carrier aviation does not eliminate a capability. Land-based air can project force – and can actually do so quicker/better/cheaper than a carrier.

2) Merely ‘Playing a part’ is not a ticket to survival. To survive, a military platform/system must play an essential part, and must do so cost-effectively, and paying for that part must not compromise other more useful capabilities. There are plenty of capabilities that have been shed that would be far more useful today than CVS has been – the Jags, Canberra PR9, some of the Hercs we parked, etc.

3) Even if the elimination of carriers marked an erosion of our ability to project power (and given that there are alternatives, it doesn’t) then that would be a better option than cutting the core role of air defence of the UK.

Bismarck

Why are we replacing a CAS aircraft, which is the capability the troops seem to want, with a non-CAS aircraft?
Tornado has a robust CAS capability, and the official line is that replacement of Harrier by Tornado represents only a change of platform, delivering the same capability. The Harrier force is crippled by overstretch and needed to come home. The deployment of Tornado represents a long-planned endex for Harrier. And Harrier is rapidly wearing out. Without replacement rear fuselages and other vastly expensive structural work, these tired airframes are nearing the end of their useful lives. Yes those lives could be extended, but only at a huge cost.

Why is F3 still in service when the RAF have declared Typhoon operational and on QRA?
Because we need a given number of AD Squadrons (in my view more than we now have, but certainly more than four dedicated units). We have just two Typhoon squadrons, and these are supposed to do more than AD. We don’t yet have enough aircraft to retire the F.Mk 3.

What is the GR4 doing in Iraq, there is no role for it? Indeed why do we still have GR4 when Typhoon is declared operational.

Tornado has robust ISTAR and A-G capabilities which are still occasionally needed in theatre. The Typhoon is not YET able to take on all of the A-G tasks of which Tornado is capable. Nor are there sufficient Typhoons in service to replace the old seven squadron F3 force, and the three squadron Jag force, let alone the seven squadron GR4 force.

There is only one reason - CAS does not want the RN (or AAC for that matter) flying aircraft....but who keeps crashing aircraft and UAVs at the moment????

What a load of utter Knob.

Phil Gollin,
“Well, if we don't need Harriers then I presume we don't need Daves - we can get along with Typhoons.

Excellent, more money saved.”

Excellent, more money for tankers, SH, FLynx, SEAD, and everything else we actually NEED.

Anotherthing
“Everyone knows your pro RAF and anti RN stance, as well as your lack of Armed forces service,”

You don’t need to have served as captain of a carrier, or Air Boss to appreciate the usefulness of a carrier, nor its limitations. Nor do you need to have served as an F3 or Typhoon pilot to have some valid opinions on UK AD. Armed forces service as (say) a stacker at Innsworth gives no more appreciation of platforms and procurement than you can get by spending more than 25 years talking to the practitioners of these military arts, many of whom you learned to fly with.

Nor do I have an ‘anti-RN stance’. Criticising one service (and I criticise all three, for different reasons) is not necessarily ‘anti’, so dry your eyes, Princess. It’s criticism, but its constructive and offered with some sympathy, empathy and fondness.

I would not structure UK forces to meet only the terrorist threat – I just would not be willing to distort them to meet one single scenario that is not going to happen again. Even if the Argies cut up rough down South, we now have a proper runway down there, with proper AD. And hopefully the RN won’t collude with the politicians and send the Argies mixed messages about our comittment by withdrawing Endurance, this time……

Lyneham Lad,

I doubt it. Even in the pro-defence community, the UKNDA has precious little credibility. And many of us believe that it’s fatally compromised by being too biased to RN interests.

barnstormer1968

8th Dec 2008, 12:43

I have heard several posters say that we would not need carriers to fight another Falklands scrap, but your above post is shocking!
Can you please tell me how the runway would be of any use for AD, or anything else in defending the Falklands?

Oh, and just in case it's not blindingly obvious, please allow for the fact that ANY sensible enemy would put it out of action prior to any invasion (on the basis it is our only means of FW aircraft launch).
I think that I have been very naive in believing that you were assuming we would use runways from within Chile etc.

Jetex Jim

8th Dec 2008, 12:45

While we are at it should the navy not have the Nimrods!
Good idea, but if the Navy had to pay for Nimrod it wouldn't be able to afford any ships.

Ronald Reagan

8th Dec 2008, 13:04

Well thats easy! Take current RAF Nimrod funding and give it to the Navy.

Or better still stop spending as much on welfare slime and schools and increase defence spending.

Truth is unless the military were to get a good increase this squabling over tiny ammounts of funding and small ammounts of new technology is just going to get worse!

soddim

8th Dec 2008, 14:25

It would appear that there are still supposedly informed opinions on this forum that indicate the possibility of fighting another Falklands war with the help of carriers and Harriers. Forget it. We simply do not have the surface fighting ships to project power over that distance (or even closer) and we no longer have the merchant fleet to cover the logistics.

Those who remember the Falklands war and were informed at the time will know how far from the action we had to keep the carriers in order to avoid their loss and what heroic individual efforts we had to make to ensure the timely arrival on CAP of Harriers with little time available for combat.

Fortunately, there was no combat as the Argies were too busy concentrating on ground and ship attack to bring air-to-air weapons along but what a different story it would have been if they had.

Whilst the present Harrier aircraft could do better and JSF should further enhance capability, one is still left with the need to use a huge slice of the budget just to defend the carriers.

Projection of ship based naval air power over long distances requires the same level of force and expenditure that we see in the US carrier task forces. We simply cannot afford to do the job properly and the cheap alternative risks heavy and unsustainable losses.

andrewn

8th Dec 2008, 14:29

Well, assuming that there is some truth in this story as published on Timesonline; then this is all very sad. I hold our armed services in tremendous regard and to see the levels to which all have been reduced is nothing short of criminal, and yes I would be willing pay an extra penny on income tax if I was assured it would make some difference.

The timing of the Harrier story here makes me think it is a pre-emptive strike on behalf of 1SL, to try and build up some support for Harrier and FAA fixed wing aviation before Herrick becomes the responsibility of Tornado GR4. Will it work? I very much doubt it. Much like the Jag, SHAR’s, most of the AD fleet and many capabilities in other armed services that were once viewed as essential I suspect that the writing is on the wall for Harrier. My hunch is that the decision to cut has already been taken and that it will be announced as soon as it is politically expedient to do so – next Summer with a Apr ’10 close out date anyone? Maybe that’s a bit aggressive but I fear that in these economically challenging times anything is possible.

Is it the right decision? Of course not. I note with interest the use of the term ‘legacy’ by some pruners when referring to Harrier; surely this term is equally appropriate for Tornado GR4 and Typhoon as well as practically every other offensive and defensive platform out there – except may be some UAVs and F/A-22, F-35. Particularly with complex military systems, where they can take so long to reach maturity, I feel that use of the term legacy can be extremely misleading and implies a capability that is either no longer needed or is not fit for purpose any more – neither of which apply to Harrier in my opinion.

The root of all these funding problems is, in my opinion, due firstly to the Government of the days complete lack of respect for our armed services (and I don’t believe any of our political parties is any better than the others); and secondly in the requirement for our Armed Services to support our Defence Infrastructure rather than it being the other way round, as it should be. There is the obvious ludicrousy of spending circa £3.5bn to re-engineer 9-12 40-odd year old Nimrod airframes, plus the many billions that were thrown at Eurofighter in the development/bickering stages and next in line, the carriers. On top of that there is the slow drip-drip supply of funding, most of which the general public don’t have visibility of, which is done purely to allow BAESystems and others to keep the coffers rolling in – anyone remember the Adour 106 re-engine program shortly before Jag was canned or how about the £100 million Capability Upgrade Program on F3 just prior to drawdown, Link-16 on SHAR, the list is pretty much endless and it does add up to a lot of serious cash. GR9, upgraded Pegasus and Harrier obviously being another good example.

Not sure what the answer is though. All I will say is that if 1SL, CAS, CDS, etc still believe that, by taking a capability cut or two today, it will lead to more jam tomorrow then I am sure that they will end up being disappointed.

Wader2

8th Dec 2008, 14:42

I think 'legacy' is probably a typical mis-used word and part of the modern business speak that is so infectious.

Typhoon - new, entering service, cutting edge etc etc.

MRA4 - new (really), entering service (mm), cutting edge?

When we look at the GR4 and GR9 these are both newly packaged, like the Nimrod, in old airframes.

The F15E is also termed legacy.

Maybe legacy refers to the old-way of doing business and the new all electronic kit it the future.:8

South Bound

8th Dec 2008, 15:09

Barking things happen in times such as these. I genuinely believe losing Harrier would be a mistake. It is in-service, versatile and proven: gambling that we would not need fast(ish) air to be able to operate from rough/short strips is fairly sporting when one looks at the trouble spots in the world.

If we must save money, I would rather risk depleting the AD fleet by grounding F3 now (and deploying Typhoon to FI) than watch a more relevant (at this moment in time) capability be given away like this. Where is the AD threat to the UK at the moment anyway? By the time one exists (and I still can't think of one) the RAF will have its squillionth Typhoon and we will all be safe as bugs in rugs. I wonder how much less safe the ground troops will feel watching Harrier disappear...

We continue to want to do more than we are resourced to do. We love to punch above our weight, but don't want to fund doing so. Perhaps the Forces should be taken out of the loop and some independent body should decide what capabilities we need based on realism, operational priorities and appropriate resourcing?? I fear the reality is more likely to be asking Barack which of our key 'niche' capabilites he would like us to provide to him while we watch others degrade slowly and painfully...

Madbob

8th Dec 2008, 15:18

Absolutely so IMHO. The really frustrating thing though is that even in the austere years immediately after the second world war when the country was even more broke than it is today the armed forces were (reasonably) well provided for. HM Navy had some ships (even some flat-topped ones) and more ac than the entire RAF today. The army had plenty of infantry, and tanks, artilliary and its regiments where made up of more than one batallion! The RAF had multiple commands, (Fighter, Bomber, Coastal, Transport and Training) and even had multiple air forces, Near East Air Force, RAFG etc.

All this at a time when the country was in an economic mess and when the two-car family was a rarity and rationing had only just ended. Today our polititians tell us that we have had 15 years of continuous economic growth (till mid 2008 at least) and that we have never had more of the population in work (25M ish) and that we remain the fourth largest economy in the world after USA, China, Germany and ahead of France etc. etc. If this is the case why can't we afford to properly equip our forces when they number less than 200,000 compared to over 400,000 30 years ago?

The real question is that without our armed forces being properly funded and therefore capable what business have our polititions (of whatever colour) got strutting the world stage at the UN, G7, or wherever? Our PM, foreign secretary et al might as well go home and leave the soapbox for someone else to stand on!

Defence spending ought to be at c. 5% of GDP in a demoracy at peace and obviously on an "as required" level in time of war.......That way the armed forces are kept trained and equiped to be effective when they are required (always at short notice) and at a size that can sustain its mission. Without the critical mass we might as well give up pretending that we have any right to infuence world events beyond our own borders.

IMHO the world would be a poorer place without the UK's influence to "guide" history and to work with other allied nations. Look at the support the UK gives to the UN and our involvement in Korea for example. If we don't look after ourselves can we really expect our allies (the US/Canada/Australia etc) to carry on alone??

If the government wants to spend it way out of recession it could at least start by spending cash on replacements for Tristar, Hercs, VC10's, Nimrods, CSAR assets, and some more support helos. Then ships for the navy......armoured cars for the army....hospitals for the injured......and all the things we used to have but somehow don't have anymore!

Talk about the "Emperor's New Clothes" - Gordon Brown needs to look at himself in the mirror!:ugh:

MB

soddim

8th Dec 2008, 15:43

Unfortunately, although we live in a relatively threat-free period at least in terms of military threats, intentions can and do change quicker than we can change capabilities. There are too many potentially hostile nations with force levels we could not contend with at present. Although in the past we have generated improved capabilities quickly in time of tension, modern technologies and the ability to use them preclude the rapid expansion that our small force would need.

So are we content to be a small part of a large coalition or do our politicians want us to be able to influence world events as UK PLC?

It appears that they want the latter with a budget more suited to the former. As usual, they live in cloud cuckoo land but are the military chiefs telling them that?

barnstormer1968

8th Dec 2008, 15:57

check your PM's

Lazer-Hound

8th Dec 2008, 16:27

"population in work (25M ish) and that we remain the fourth largest economy in the world after USA, China, Germany and ahead of France etc. etc."

Ahem. Japan? Economy 2-3 times bigger than UK. Also see:

Britain's economy overtaken by France, new figures show - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/3659197/Britains-economy-overtaken-by-France-new-figures-show.html)

We're basically a pissant little island off Europe with delusions of great power status and military adequacy waaaaay beyond our meagre capabilities. Don't forget that in PPP terms we're some way behind India and probably a few other countries too.

blandy1

8th Dec 2008, 16:30

It sounds as if this is being justified as saving on a major refurb/upgrade cost. Could JFH get 2nd hand USMC aircraft (assuming their tranfer to JSF goes quicker than ours) . If a UK commitment helps keep JSF out of the s**t in the States we should get a good deal on them.

Might even get some with radar, enabling Air to Air to be worked up prior to JSF

Phil_R

8th Dec 2008, 17:24

I'm a civvie. I'm not an overt patriot. I'm firmly against both the wars the UK is currently fighting. My level of knowledge as regards military fast jets would be absolutely laughable to most here.

But isn't this absolutely ******* bonkers? Surely, dump Tornados before you dump Harriers, but christ, more cuts? It would force me down the "what exactly are my taxes paying for" line of thought, but that's a bit too Daily Mail for me, so I'll just muse on the fact that Harrier seems to be a well tried piece of kit with unique abilities that's recently seen lots of use, and it would seem crazy to dump it before it's replaced.

Or is my laughable level of fast jet knowledge letting me down here? Is it a complete white elephant?

P

Not_a_boffin

8th Dec 2008, 18:46

Just as an aside, to the best of my knowledge, the case presented by what was DOR(Sea) and later DEC (PS) for the carriers never even considered the F******** as a realistic scenario.

The need was based on European and Asian scenarios, for which the capability was deemed complementary to land-based air.

The other nice thing about them - particularly considering what is currently happening in Peshawar and elsewhere along the LoC is that it brings several thousand tonnes of F44, C4ISTAR, messing, workshops, spares and several hundred tonnes of stuff that goes bang with it, in a controlled, defended environment. Granted, not a vast amount of use in Kandy, but less politically sensitive and vulnerable to cheap attack/denial than other bases out east........

soddim

8th Dec 2008, 19:21

Yes, Not a Boffin, you are quite right, the carriers in a benign air defence environment are a very good way of (slowly) deploying a respectable force and projecting power over long distance.

However, why are we spending such a large slice of our budget on a force incapable of defending itself in a hostile air environment? Do we intend in the future to continue to generate hate in the muslim world and home-grown terrorists by fighting conflicts such as the present day ones in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are we sure that the future is free from the same aggression we faced in the cold war days? Or are we relying on Uncle Sam to protect our carriers?

Personally, having spent years defending UK, I want to see a very capable air defence force in this country able to provide integrity of our own airspace before we start messing about around the world and pissing off the muslims even more. If we want to stop the drugs trade we could do worse than defend our own borders and if we want to exclude terrorists we could do worse than have tight border controls. Let's put our own home defences in order before wasting money projecting power.

onlywatching

8th Dec 2008, 19:38

As someone who works as Abbey Wood (Not on CVF before you ask) I know the amount of scrutiny that goes into approving these projects, especially one as big as CVF and their need is fully justified. The requirement for them stands, not based on todays operations but of those in 15-50 years. That's what the SAG scenario book is for.

soddim

8th Dec 2008, 19:43

What a shame, only watching, that these same people who know best could not see the need to adequately defend UK airspace in 15 years time or so.

onlywatching

8th Dec 2008, 19:47

As far as I am aware the Typhoon contact is virtually airtight, so there should be no shortage of UKAD in that timeframe.

Jackonicko

8th Dec 2008, 20:14

PhilR,

Or is my laughable level of fast jet knowledge letting me down here?

If you seriously think that Tornado should be dumped before Harrier, then yes.

It's not just capability - though Tornado has radar, Raptor, a second pair of eyes, is faster, flies further, carries more, and is fully compatible with PWIII. It's about how much life is left in the airframes. It's about seven versus four squadrons......

Harrier will be dumped before it's replaced, unless you're prepared to sell several million pounds on each airframe just to 'sticking plaster' an extended OSD, because Harrier OSD and JSF ISD don't tally. Harrier could get to 2017 before the recent nastiness upped the utilisation rate. Tornado GR's good to 2025.

Madbob,

You're not going to get a defence of Gordon B from me, but I would gently point out that it's the other lot who have done the most damage, and have presided over the biggest cuts in defence forces, programmes and structure.

I would also suggest that comparing the forces c.1952 with the forces today is unprofitable. Defence then was manpower intensive, and top-of-line fighters like the Venom and Hunter were relatively cheap. Even by 1964, when a Ford Cortina cost in the order of £800, a frontline fighter was equivalent to less than a thousand family cars - whereas today's Typhoon is equivalent to more than 3,000!

I like your list of spending priorities - "If the government wants to spend it way out of recession it could at least start by spending cash on replacements for Tristar, Hercs, VC10's, Nimrods, CSAR assets, and some more support helos. Then ships for the navy......armoured cars for the army....hospitals for the injured......and all the things we used to have but somehow don't have anymore!" though I'd head that list with Support Helicopters and tankers. But either way, carriers and JSF don't make the cut beside such 'defence essentials' - and by cancelling them you could afford most of the rest.

Tim McLelland

8th Dec 2008, 20:30

Nice to see that the age-old inter-service nonsense is still alive and well. It's also nice to see that Sir Glenn is still maintaining his reputation as a spineless waste of space.

I wonder how the various camps might change their views if JSF finally gets dumped in favour of Typhoons?

Still, it's nice to know that heroic short-termism is still a valued skill down in the corridors of Whitehall. Some things never change.

off centre

8th Dec 2008, 20:38

jackonicko, one can at least acknowledge your professionalism as a journo.

Double Zero

8th Dec 2008, 20:40

Here we go again...

I trust at least some of you have read the history of the FAA just before WWII ?!

No I am not a forces member, but have worked with all UK ones.

The JSF/B is still dubious, though I expect it will come right in the end, but by that time we might have warp drive...

The obvious thing to do to save money and make the Typhoon look good ( which seem to be the priorities ) - scrap the Tornado F3 completely for a start !

We've only just upgraded the Harrier to GR9 - and I hear from various people at the design & troops in sandy places that it's VERY good.

The Harrier's only enemy has not been the Argentinians or Taliban, it's the northern English ' not made here ' mafia.

Jackonicko

8th Dec 2008, 21:06

off centre,

1) Everyone knows.

2) It's irrelevant

WE Branch Fanatic

8th Dec 2008, 21:12

Apparently I haven't written anything on PPRuNe for over a month but this thread seems like a good place to have a little post.

Jacko

5) Aircraft carriers are by no means 'self contained' - they require AD frigates, an SSN, tankers, RFAs, etc. - a small Armada.

Do they? Are the frigates, submarines and RFA attached to the carrier? Do they have no roles except supporting a carrier? The level of escort a carrier has depends on the threat. Funnily enough ships get sent to trouble spots even if there is no carrier there. Even if they are attached to a carrier group, they can be detached and act independently. Even in the Falklands ships were detached from the main task force for other tasks. There are no dedicated ships to support carriers than can do nothing else. I believe that the escort to the CVS in the Adriatic in the 90s was a single frigate. There were others but they were enforcing an arms embargo.

When the threat is high enough to warrant lots of escorts then the situation would demand lots of escorts anyway. How many frigates/destroyers did we have in the Gulf in 1991? No CVS there.

Submarines can operate with a carrier, or they can act independently. Since you need naval forces you need RFAs.

Your argument, previously seen on the Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152) and Future Carrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152) threads, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The levels of frigates/destroyers, and submarines are set by Ministers. CVF will be part of the Fleet, some of you seem to think a new fleet of vessels will be needed to support them.

Soddim

Yes, Not a Boffin, you are quite right, the carriers in a benign air defence environment are a very good way of (slowly) deploying a respectable force and projecting power over long distance.

However, why are we spending such a large slice of our budget on a force incapable of defending itself in a hostile air environment?

Some Navies have carrier based fighters (ours used to) to defend the fleet, particularly high value assets (yes, there are high value assets other than carriers - like amphibious forces and certain merchant vessels) so they can. They also provide an outer layer of defence in addition to shipborne missiles.

Unfortunately, although we live in a relatively threat-free period at least in terms of military threats, intentions can and do change quicker than we can change capabilities. There are too many potentially hostile nations with force levels we could not contend with at present. Although in the past we have generated improved capabilities quickly in time of tension, modern technologies and the ability to use them preclude the rapid expansion that our small force would need.

Better get the carriers then!

Fortunately, there was no combat as the Argies were too busy concentrating on ground and ship attack to bring air-to-air weapons along but what a different story it would have been if they had.

There was me thinking the Argentines lost the war as they ran out of aircraft before we ran out of ships, and the carriers and landing forces were successfully defended, including by Sea Harriers. No combat? What about the 23 kills achieved by 800 and 801? Attacking ships was Argentina's best hope for winning the war and they were ordered to avoid confrontations with the Sea Harrier. And what makes you think the Sea Harrier would have lost if it had?

Your claiming if they had used air to air weapons instead of anti ship ones the carriers would have been a higher risk?

Lots of spin and half truths here.

Squirrel 41

8th Dec 2008, 21:18

Just my 0.02...

If binning the Harriers is a serious proposal, and sliding the CVF further to the right is planned, then it all seems extremely short-sighted if we intend to retain the capability. However, it seems to me that the UK faces one of three choices in defence spending at the moment:

(A) Decide what victory in Afghanistan is, accept that there is a 25 year commitment to deliver it, and structure our forces to delivering this within the £36bn a year we spend on it.

What this means: Army / Marines first, second and third, RAF focus on AT, SH and COIN and that the UK gives up strategic pretensions (Trident, Deep Strike) F3 goes immediately, with GR4 / CVF binned and sells on as many Tiffys as possible, with a minimal number for UKADGE.

(B) That UK wishes to spend £36bn and retain worldwide projection capability, and couldn't care less if NATO AS A WHOLE fails in Afghanistan. UK publicly blames other NATO states for not doing their bit.

What this means: UK forces out of Afghanland by 2012. CVF saved, Harriers roll on and Tiffy to replace F3 in UKADGE without deploying it. NATO slack taken up in Afghan by US if anyone does, probable Taliban-lite government.

(C) That the UK wants to do (A) and (B), and is prepared to significantly increase spending to do this - probably in the order of £10 - 15bn p.a. for 10 years.

What this could mean: FRES, CVF, KC-45 (vice A330 PFI x20ish), C-17 (x12ish), A400M (ideally to replace C-130J for a single tactical fleet), Puma / Lynx replacement, Dave, Astute (x 10), T45 (x14) and various other bits and pieces (eg FSC, MARS, Dabinett) funded in full. Along with significant increase in Light Role Amy Bns to win in Afghanland.

Which one you choose is personal political preference. What cannot be allowed is option (D):

(D) Option (C) within the existing budgets.

Time for some honesty and leadership - in the services and more importantly, politically.

S41

taxydual

8th Dec 2008, 21:25

Squirrel 41

8th Dec 2008, 21:35

Taxydual....

Yep, it's called Dave-C, complete with crochet hook thing on the back end. And on a CVF with cats and traps, UK Dave-C won't even need the extending nose gear of F-4K.....

S41

taxydual

8th Dec 2008, 21:44

F-35C

The F-35C carrier variant will have a larger, folding wing and larger control surfaces for improved low-speed control, and stronger landing gear for the stresses of carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier)F/A-18C Hornet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet), achieving much the same goal as the heavier F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet). landings. The larger wing area allows for decreased landing speed, increased range and payload, with twice the range on internal fuel compared with the

Cats and traps and these babies. Wouldn't that solve the back stabbing?

OK, I'm no expert, I'm only an ex-OpsO.
Or is that too simple?

Guzlin Adnams

8th Dec 2008, 22:10

Scrap Trident perhaps. Conventional forces will be used.
If you want nukes, deploy cruise on submarines.
Oh yes, scrap a few politicians, managers, administrators, much of the money given to the EEC as well. No more defence cuts period!!:ok:

Jackonicko

8th Dec 2008, 22:10

Taxydual,

No, it wouldn't.

Because of the training burden imposed by cat and trap, Super Hornet or F-35C would effectively become carrier-only assets. At least Harrier and F-35B are useful some of the time, and aren't tied to a carrier all the time.

Squirrel 41,

There is an option D.

(A) Make a proportionate contribution to delivering victory in Afghanistan, and structure our forces to delivering core, key UK defence capabilities autonomously, with an eye to making the most cost-effective contribution to coalition operations.

What this means: Bin CVF. cancel (or delay) JSF. Perhaps eventually buy a much smaller number of F-35A for FCAC (along with CFT equipped Tranche 3 Typhoon) as GR4 replacement. Continue with a full buy of Typhoon for UK AD and to replace Jaguar/Harrier. Address shortcomings in battlefield helicopters and especially amphibious helicopter lift with a big buy of folding Commando Merlins, and a proper Puma replacement. Ensure that a full three squadron Chinook force is maintained. Buy tankers (no PFI malarkey). Buy a proper, national Sigint aircraft (not RJ). A400M and C-17 as described above. Consider a cheaper deterrent than a full sub launched ballistic missile (perhaps cruise?). Boost frigate numbers. Boost Astute. Fully fund FRES.

soddim

8th Dec 2008, 22:28

I do not think, W E Branch Fanatic we speak a common language. Combat is joined when the enemy shoots back. The Argie aircraft did not because they did not come armed with AAM to the fray. If the Argies had been able to employ fighter sweep/escort the outcome might have been very different.

The Harriers did not defend the carriers - the Navy used geography instead - they kept them safely out of range. Neither did they adequately defend the ships - the Argies got bombs in 17 surface ships - fortunately, they did not all fuse successfully.

You are quite right - seaborne air power can provide fleet air defence, of course. In fact, at the start of the Falklands war that was the role of the SHARs. It was the RAF Harriers that were trained air-ground.

Whilst I am not opposed to the carrier capability, we cannot afford it and anybody who believes that we could adequately defend our own airspace at the moment has lost track of the disparity between the minimum number of fighters we said we needed only a few years ago and the number we have now.

Phil_R

8th Dec 2008, 22:31

> tornado dumped before harrier

Well no, dump some of the Tornados if it's a cash issue of one or the other - we seem to have a lot (comparatively) and they don't seem to get used very much, was my thought. Better not have all eggs in one basket etc. Once again I must disclaim any expert knowledge here and offer this up in the spirit of providing what may be a common civilian perspective.

And as to airframe hours... stop flying the bloody things on pointless unwinnable middle eastern willy waving contests.

Oops, did I say that. I must have been drinking.

P

wingingitnow

9th Dec 2008, 04:48

No, it wouldn't.

Because of the training burden imposed by cat and trap, Super Hornet or F-35C would effectively become carrier-only assets. At least Harrier and F-35B are useful some of the time, and aren't tied to a carrier all the time.

Did you ever hear of the USMC Jack? Marine fighter and attack squadrons have been flying off of carriers since WWII. In fact they sometimes deploy with the carriers. In wartime Marine F-18s are expected to fly from carriers and transfer shore side as soon as an airstrip becomes available.They are in no way carrier-only assets. Naval aircraft fly and operate from land bases while their carrier is in port as well.

Pretty piss poor argument you have there Jack. In fact most would tell you that if you can operate from a carrier you can certainly operate from an airstrip. I though a journalist like you would know that but in case you did not you can always research USMC aviation and how they employ fixed wing assets.

Fact is an F-35C would make all the sense in the world. They would enable the CVFs to embark a proper AEW platform and they would provide a very powerful and flexible shore and sea based asset.

SirPercyWare-Armitag

9th Dec 2008, 06:08

Not strictly relevant but:

Our armies are marching out of step | Allan Mallinson - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5309895.ece)

Pontius Navigator

9th Dec 2008, 06:53

Soddim, IIRC some of the early engagements were A-A with the Argies apparently firing IRM head-on. I believe only later was it discovered that they were matra 530 (radar if I got the design right).

After that of course you are correct more bombers against the fleet. However, I also believe a fair number of fighres were held back for air defence of the mainland.

Pontius Navigator

9th Dec 2008, 07:05

A bit selective there WEBF.

5) Aircraft carriers are by no means 'self contained'

Do they? Are the frigates, submarines and RFA attached to the carrier? Do they have no roles except supporting a carrier? The level of escort a carrier has depends on the threat. Funnily enough ships get sent to trouble spots even if there is no carrier there.

I think most of us have been argung indeed that enough ships can be sent to trouble spots rather than carriers.

I would be so bold as to say that no carrier can operate without escorts. A carrier operating aircraft has limited freedom of movement. It would need at least one escort to keep her company. It is true that a helo can do some of the jobs of an escort but a boarding party is best served by an escort - picking up several pirates for instance. Immediately you need to add an RFA to the mix. If the carrier is engaged in hot operations you probably need to add logisitics support. If you then take one escort out of the equation, you need a spare.

Submarines can operate with a carrier, or they can act independently. Since you need naval forces you need RFAs.

Yes.

In coastal or near coastal waters against an SSC the SSN DS is probably essential. Without a CVF however you would not need the SSN there.

orca

9th Dec 2008, 08:06

Just to add two musings to this debate:

1. Chopping the Harrier out of hand, whilst denying the short comings of the GR4 would be daft. A balance between the two would be wise.

2. If one actually goes to Afghanistan (seriously - try it) which appears to be forming a mainstay of this debate, one will find that (on the average day) approximately 1/3 of all combat air sorties come from a boat. A boat that cannot be mortared or RPG'd, that doesn't rely on petrol brought overland by trucks and that doesn't sit at the wrong end of the world's fraillest airbridge. It's expensive, the transits must be a little hard on 'the cheeks' - but it seems to be earning its keep. Just saying.

kaikohe76

9th Dec 2008, 08:30

What is so very sad, but not at all suprising over this particular situation, is that absolutely nobody in authority has put their hand up & said, the idea to scrap the harrier is total c*ap!

My solution folks, don't scrap the Harrier, scrap the Defence Chiefs, after all they are just a useless & very expensive waste of time. Replace said people by two Corporals & a couple of SACs, these chaps would at least have the advantage of a brain to work with, something lacking within the MOD.

airborne_artist

9th Dec 2008, 08:33

Orca said "A boat that cannot be mortared or RPG'd, that doesn't rely on petrol brought overland by trucks and that doesn't sit at the wrong end of the world's fraillest airbridge."

Taliban attack NATO supply convoy for second night running (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/3682067/Taliban-raids-Nato-convoys-for-second-night.html)

Carriers give you flexibility and freedom. Flexibility at a price, but it's worth the price to be able provide aircraft 24/7 without worrying that Terry will hit your MSRs.

CirrusF

9th Dec 2008, 09:08

Would it be beyond the realms of fantasy in this, the 21st Century, to design one type of Aircraft Carrier and one type of aircraft that could be a, used on that Carrier and b, also be land based? Could that aircraft be designed to have AD, GA, AS capabilities?
Wouldn't this multi-role aircraft suit both dark/light blues' wishes and save huge amounts of money

There is a very good, proven airframe that does all that already - Rafale. The French were right to withdraw from Eurofighter. Rafale might not be quite as good in AD role as Typhoon, but it is still plenty good enough to be an effective air-defence deterrent. But whilst it is important to have AD as a deterrent, it is highly improbably that our Typhoon's AD capability will ever actually be tested in combat. More importantly, Rafale is probably better in ground attack role, and is proven on carriers, and those are two roles that would be regularly tested.

Given the likely cuts in US defence spending over the next eight years, there is a good chance that Dave will be delayed or cancelled by the US DOD.

The Helpful Stacker

9th Dec 2008, 09:26

More importantly, Rafale is probably better in ground attack role,

Go on, flesh out that comment a little bit with some factual meat.

Jackonicko

9th Dec 2008, 09:29

Whingeing git now,

That 'piss poor argument' is an accurate precis of the official UK case for F-35B.

The problem is that with a cat and trap carrier RN squadrons would not be made available for lengthy land based rotational commitments in the way that RN Harrier squadrons have been.

Wrathmonk

9th Dec 2008, 10:14

Kaikohe76 What is so very sad, but not at all suprising over this particular situation, is that absolutely nobody in authority has put their hand up & said, the idea to scrap the harrier is total c*ap!

The assumption here is that "deleting" the Harrier is the only option. Is it? Or is this some very unprofessional whining by CNS (or his staff) who have been economical with the full truth in order to gain sympathy (or an attempt at gaining the emotional/moral high ground). I would be VERY surprised if there are not "reduce" options being proposed for either or both fleets. Or, as Jacko has alluded to, if neither of these are achieved there may be a need to bring forward out of service dates (again, for both fleets).

Orca

approximately 1/3 of all combat air sorties come from a boat

Which means, due to the transit time, they cannot maintain runway readiness (or whatever the buzz phrase is these days) but must maintain airborne patrols. Which eats into fatigue life and airframe hours. Which brings forward the Harrier OSD considerably (unless oodles of money are spent on them). Lose/lose sadly. Whichever platform we use to provide the capability in this particular theatre of ops must, IMHO, be land based.

Still think carrier aviation has its place in the broader defence requirements but I also believe that the only way we are going to be able to maintain that capability through to QEII/PoW with Dave B on board (personally prefer Dave C) is with a leaner, reduced JFH. And, broken record time, I still don't care what the colour of the pilots cloth is! After all he (or she) will soon tell me they are a Harrier pilot :E

CirrusF

9th Dec 2008, 11:17

Quote:
More importantly, Rafale is probably better in ground attack role,
Go on, flesh out that comment a little bit with some factual meat.

Just what I have read elsewhere in press etc - admittedly the advantage is probably not clearcut and likely to depend on the mission profile etc. But Rafale is already used in two-seat configuration by Armée de l'Air in GA role, which they have found superior. Not sure that Typhoon is going to have that option.

My point remains that Rafale has so far proven a more versatile aircraft than Typhoon, and probably stronger in the roles that are likely to be actively tested over the next twenty years - ie land or carrier-based GA. It is still strong enough in AD to be a worthy deterrent.

We seem to have spend a huge amount on a very capable AD aircraft which will almost certainly never actually be tested in that role, and which is possibly less capable in GA role (which is certain to be tested), and which has no carrier capability at all.

I'd put money on the RN ending up with a single carrier, identical to the proposed French carrier, both carrying Rafale.

The Helpful Stacker

9th Dec 2008, 11:38

...and which is possibly less capable in GA role...

Once again you fail to provide any proof other than "from what I've heard".

Its admirable that you show blind faith in the products of France but perhaps you should stick to products that are actually known to be superior such as err, ah, something else.

Wader2

9th Dec 2008, 11:40

I am not sure that Typhon can be written off as a poor, or poorer, GA platform than the Harrier or Tornado.

The old maxim was you could make a good fighter into a bomber, Hart, Mosquito, Hurricane and so on but not a bomber into a fighter.

A magazine crossed my desk yesterday of a Typhoon really loaded for bear. It had 4 x IR missiles, 2 x PW, 2 x Brimstone, 2 x Storm Shadow and 2 x u/i missiles. As an agile fighter can also bring a gun to the party.

Tim McLelland

9th Dec 2008, 12:15

I can't believe anyone would churn-out any argument in support of Rafale - that's the kind of rubbish I read on the plane-spotter sites! Dear God it would be obsolete before it entered service... mind you, that would be almost like standard practise for MoD procurement.

There are many options which could be chosen. The one which seems pretty obvious to me is to abandon the whole sorry JSF saga and use suitably converted Typhoons, given that we're supposedly going to end-up with more Typhoons than we need. We've discussed the subject on other threads and as we all know, the idea is perfectly practical.

The other very clear option (which the Government evidently accepts occasionally when they really have to) is to adjust our committments to suit our abilities. Clearly, getting out of Afghanistan would solve all the problems at a stroke. I'm absolutely astonished that both the Government and media seem to refer to Afghanistan as if our presence is an inevitability, whereas we are there purely by choice, and for no obvious reason. Patently, our presence has absolutely nothing to do with the defence of the United Kingdom and - call me old fashioned - I rather thought that was what our armed forces were for, not embarking on pointless overseas crusades. One would imagine that in a post-Bush era, our beloved Government might be able to think straight for a while, and accept that trying to save the world is a task which we can ill afford and one which the US should handle in isolation, if Obama is keen enough. Time we concerned ourselves with our country and our people, if we can't afford to do anything more.

If muppets like Sir Glenn had some backbone, they might manage to actually question the wisdom of the Government's actions, rather than engage in endless inter-service scraps to try and fight for the financial crumbs that the Treasury dishes-out.

Widger

9th Dec 2008, 12:18

edited to say well said Mr McLelland:D

My goodness, there is a whole lot of uninformed guff being spouted on here. First we have the ardent anti-navy Jackonory with his tiresome rant about scrapping the Carriers, well Jacko, to plagiarise (SP) one of your statements....It's coming, it's funded, get over it! The CVF will have much more than just an Air Defence capability, it will be a STRIKE carrier, as such it will project JOINT STRIKE power where required, yes it will get there slowly, but it can loiter, move, and support a JOINT ground force. It will also at last be able to fit CH47 on it's lifts without the need for folding and this will mean that RAF maintainers will be able to do their work in a heated workshop, properly supported by well stocked storerooms, rather than freezing/sweating their nuts off outside in a Fjord/Gulf. As previously mentioned, the CVF will bring with it much JOINT capability which will support a JOINT force ashore. Today's news of another 100 vehicles destroyed in Pakistan, shows you the fragility of land base supply.

But this whole issue is not about the CVF, it is about Harrier. I empathise with both camps. The Light Blue are faced with a huge black hole which needs to be filled. Only the removal of an entire capability will fill that gap. Salami slicing by getting rid of a few airframes here and there will not do. That is why CAS and his staff have reluctantly put up Harrier...as someone else mentioned, unlike Tornado or Typhoon, the Harrier upgrade is not yet paid for and is therefore one of the few ways of saving any money.

On the Dark Blue front, they are confronted with a proposal which could put over ten years of planning, re-focus and re-balancing of forces at threat. You only have to take a visit to Portsmouth or Plymouth to see the many, many, perfectly good, Support vessels, Carriers, Destroyers, Submarines and Minehunters that have been mothballed over recent years to see the "slicing" that has gone on in order for the RN to AFFORD CVF. Yes the RAF have gone through it too to a degree with Jaguar but the dark Blue is now extremely well placed to have a flexible, deployable force that can project power across the globe. There has been investment in heavy lift, the Marines are better provided for than in many years, the Naval Strike Wing are working well as part of the Stan roulement and CVF plus some form of Air Group (GR9, Dave B or C, Rafale or FA18) will provide the final piece of capability to project a balanced and effective force, which will be in service for over 40 years. Yes it sounds expensive but through life costs will soften the blow.

The problem is that the MOD as a whole has been operating for many years at a level above planning assumptions and it is now hurting. The only answer is to cut major UNFUNDED capabilities or reduce commitments or properly fund all the equipment projects of all three forces.

I commend the Admiral for his stance and having the balls to speak out, because if he does not, it could mean the end of his Service. I empathise with CAS as he is fighting to keep his force relevant and balanced against the political imposition of several procurements that have tied his hands and bankrupted his finances leading to an AIr Force with not enough helicopters, AT, Tankers etc. All of which is no fault of the RN.

May you live in interesting times!

Not_a_boffin

9th Dec 2008, 12:50

Yes, Not a Boffin, you are quite right, the carriers in a benign air defence environment are a very good way of (slowly) deploying a respectable force and projecting power over long distance.

However, why are we spending such a large slice of our budget on a force incapable of defending itself in a hostile air environment?

I doubt very much whether your assessment of being able to defend itself in a hostile environment tallies with what CVF + Dave + MASC would actually be capable of.

In a more mischievious mode if savings are bieng asked for - how about :

1. Bin GR4 and speed up the AG upgrades for Typhoon 3 - gets a new low-fatigue life MR jet AND reduces the number of aircrew slots (ducking for cover)

2. Buy brand-spanking new F18E/F (a good eight squadrons-worth to replace the F3 and bin the GR9. The F18 can do the UK AD role and the CVF role (providing we buy cat n'trap ships). With a large enough force structure, carqual need not be the burden it would be on the mcuh smaller JFH (the USMC regularly manage to deploy on CVN). Plus - again some aircrew reduction and we get an AD fighter capable of actually "fighting" (not a slur on the F3 lads, merely a recognition of their current problems). Proven airframe with a good if not stellar avionic fit capable of interoperating with a large number of allies, known ILS burden.

Hey presto a two fast-jet class fleet. What do you mean we need a first day strike capability? Can't we get someone else to do it?

hulahoop7

9th Dec 2008, 13:03

Running aircraft from carriers isn't just about the pilots. Once a body of knowledge and a cadre of people have been degraded it is very expensive and very time consuming to build it up again. Deck handling, arming at a high sea state, air controlling the aircraft.. the list is long. Those 1300 crews from Lusty and Ark aren't going to sit in limbo in for 10 years. Hutton said at the Def Com that the carriers will definitely be built. So he is committed to the idea. Cutting the Harriers now and starting from zero will be a costly mistake. Short term savings at a long term cost.... a British tradition.

.

Magic Mushroom

9th Dec 2008, 16:12

Right, I can’t ignore some of the dibble on this thread anymore!

Over the years, I tried to be fairly impartial in my comments about the 3 services and I think a glance through my posts will confirm that. In particular, I’ve been punctilious in defending the pros and cons of both maritime and land based air power, sometimes in the face of others from my own service. Indeed, I remain a very strong supporter of the RN and Army retaining their own organic air assets. Similarly I have supported the argument for CVF (although I have always worried that the wider capabilities of the RN were being prostituted for 2 x CVF and 3 x SSBN(F) and am beginning to doubt the wisdom of CVF). Equally however, although I like to consider myself extremely Joint minded, I am Light Blue to the core and will defend my Service from some of the utter rubbish spouted here and elsewhere. I make no apologies for repeating the following diatribe elsewhere.

Now we have that straight, let me begin!

The last few years have, to be honest, not been great for the RN. More so than the RAF, it suffers from Joe Public’s perception that the UK is only engaged in 2 Land centric campaigns. They only perceive the Army as contributing and anyone seen on TV in combats is obviously in that service. Both the RN and RAF are also engaged in similar essential activities which, either by dint of their sensitivities or the fact that they are not in Afghanistan or Iraq, remain low profile. Examples of these are the defence of the UK (AD/QRA, ASW/ASuW), counter drugs, counter terrorism, and the wider ISTAR piece associated with the 2 ‘live’ theatres such as SIGINT and FMV. In fact, even many serving members of the UK military are largely ignorant of many of those activities!

This erroneous perception in the publics eye has however been exacerbated for the Senior Service by a number of incidents which have embarrassed the RN in recent years. HMS Trafalgar driving into an inconveniently located sea bed; HMS Nottingham almost sinking after bumping into Australia; the recent debacle over members of HMS Cornwall’s crew being captured by Iran, their conduct, and subsequent release of stories to the press.

Please note incidentally that I am not casting aspersions regarding those incidents. Each service has their bad days, but I think it is fair to say that the RN has suffered worse of late, particularly regarding the HMS Cornwall incident which frankly caused embarrassment to the entire nation.

So the RN are understandably sensitive at a time when the UK military is quite clearly going to have to take yet more cuts in its capabilities. Like Wrathmonk, I have sensed therefore over recent months an increasing spin campaign by the RN to protect its corner as difficult decisions are made. That has been most evident in the recent flow of ‘leaked’ documents and studies relating to RN capabilities appearing in the media.

Delaying CVF, the Falklands guard ship, T45 cutbacks, T23 service life extensions, lack of Harriers for CVF deployments and numerous others have all appeared in the press of late. The Times has been particularly evident in this which frankly appears to me as a significant campaign by the Senior Service to manoeuvre for funding.

I understand this to an extent and every service regrettably engages in these kinds of shenanigans. However, I do see this latest ‘leak’ as another example of such tactics where a grain of truth has been distorted for single service reasons.

As part of ongoing funding ‘options’ EVERY capability in the UK has to be examined and justified. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Harrier fleet has been studied in this manner. However, to suggest that the RAF has a campaign (much less a named campaign!) to assume all manned fixed wing aircraft is I think ludicrous. Whatever you think of CAS, he has publicly stated his support for CVF on a number of occasions. Likewise, it becomes fairly tiresome in the RAF hearing almost constant paranoia from the RN that the RAF has got it in for CVF. I can honestly say that the vast majority of RAF officers I work with support this procurement.

And why wouldn’t we? F-35 is a key tenet of FAS for the RAF. If GR9 is binned in toto, this will result in a ‘capability holiday’ in terms of carrier deployable fast air. We all know how dangerous such holidays are as it immediately brings the entire capability into question. Yet one of the key reasons why the RAF is getting F-35B is to be able to augment FAA sqns aboard CVF. If the Harriers go, CVF may go and the F-35 may go. How exactly is this sensible for my Service when so much effort is being expounded on ensuring the RAF F-35s can operate from CVF?

The ‘Harrier mafia’ of very senior officers is notorious in the RAF for protecting their own and I find it difficult to believe the entire fleet would be chopped. By definition, many RAF Harrier personnel have significant sea time over the last 10 years and many quite enjoy CVS ops (although the scope of flying tends to be far more limited)! I have no doubt that some GR9 cuts are being considered (as they are with other fleets), but I feel that this is just one of many options (and by no means the most shocking that I have heard) that has been spun in an attempt to manoeuvre for funding.

If the RAF wished to crush the FAA fixed wing capability, I would suggest that it would be relatively easy. For decades, RN fast jet sqns have been heavily augmented by RAF personnel. Likewise, RN pilots who have failed to gain a single seat tick in trg have often been allowed to serve on Tornado GR4 or F3 sqns prior to crossing back over to FA2 or GR9. We could easily have stopped such initiatives over the years to reduce the numbers of FJ experienced aviators the RN can call on. In addition, when I have heard at least 2 RN Flag officers state publicly that ‘they don’t care who flies the aircraft off them, just as long as we get the carriers!’, it could be suggested that the wider RN at large are perfectly capable of undermining organic FAA air on their own!

In summary chaps, I have attempted to offer a balanced counter argument to the exceptionally inflammatory article in the Times. I personally do see this as another carefully managed leak by a Service that is (perhaps understandably) sensitive regarding its current public image and future at this moment in time.

I shall now scuttle sideways and wait for the incoming NGS (obviously it’ll be NGS as NSW are deployed ashore and unavailable:ok:)...

Regards,
MM

Widger

9th Dec 2008, 16:53

MM,

Check your PMs.

WE Branch Fanatic

9th Dec 2008, 20:57

MM

A well reasoned post. The arguments regarding who drives the jets off the deck has been covered elsewhere - however as you know if there are no dark blue ones there will be no senior RN Officers with a fixed wing background, including CVF Captains and Cdrs (Air) as well as task group commanders, Flag Officers and their staff.

Like you I wondered why the RAF would propose this. I am cynical enough to wonder if this Government spin so when it does not happen people be relieved and the others cuts will seem less severe.:suspect:

PN

A bit selective there WEBF.

Perhaps. However....

In coastal or near coastal waters against an SSC the SSN DS is probably essential. Without a CVF however you would not need the SSN there.

Don't know what SSC stands for. (Thick guess, you mean SSK - if not you've lost me.) However, in littoral waters (ie someone else's coastal waters) you may well find the odd submarine regardless of the proximity of a carrier group...in fact that's their main operating environment these days.

I would be so bold as to say that no carrier can operate without escorts. A carrier operating aircraft has limited freedom of movement. It would need at least one escort to keep her company. It is true that a helo can do some of the jobs of an escort but a boarding party is best served by an escort - picking up several pirates for instance. Immediately you need to add an RFA to the mix. If the carrier is engaged in hot operations you probably need to add logisitics support. If you then take one escort out of the equation, you need a spare.

True, although Maritime Interdiction Operations are unlikely to occur during a hot war. I would suggest a hot, shooting war takes priority over most other commitments.

Soddim

I do not think, W E Branch Fanatic we speak a common language. Combat is joined when the enemy shoots back. The Argie aircraft did not because they did not come armed with AAM to the fray. If the Argies had been able to employ fighter sweep/escort the outcome might have been very different.

Their commanders told them to avoid the Sea Harrier. So you consider aircraft engaging incoming attack aircraft as non combat as there was not fire going both ways?

The Harriers did not defend the carriers - the Navy used geography instead - they kept them safely out of range. Neither did they adequately defend the ships - the Argies got bombs in 17 surface ships - fortunately, they did not all fuse successfully.

The Sea Harriers provided the outer layer of defence for the task group. Apart from the incoming bombers that got splashed, the Shar was credited by a post war study (by either the USN or USAF) of preventing over 450 Argentine sorties as the Argentine pilots evaded the Shars instead of pressing their attacks home. As to the fusing issue, the Argentines were competent so why did they fly so low that they had fusing problems? Something to do with keeping out of the way of the Sea Harrier (not so good at looking down on targets, particularly over land) and shipborne radars/missiles.

Likewise the Sea Harrier was a major part of the defence against the Super Eterndards with Exocet. With only five aircraft and five missiles they were careful not to risk interception. If the RN had been equipped with organic AEW back then it would have reduced the success of the Argentine low level approaches.

Deliverance

FFS don't say "Crusade". :uhoh:

ATFQ

9th Dec 2008, 21:22

ZZZZZZZZZZ

LateArmLive

9th Dec 2008, 21:44

I say bring back the Jaguar and the Sea Harrier - then we could do retire the GR9 (replace with the Jag in Afg) and use the SeaJet for defence of the fleet.

Everybody wins.....

ATFQ

9th Dec 2008, 21:52

ZZZZZZZZZZ

soddim

9th Dec 2008, 22:15

WEBF - indeed , we do not speak a common language. Air combat requires at least two participants intent on shooting each other - the 'combat' you refer to is one-sided. Put simply - if the guy you are trying to shoot is not trying to shoot you then he is a target not a fighter.

The SHARS did not provide the outer layer of defence - the picket ships did.

The fusing issue was common to both sides and it was nothing to do with the air threat but entirely due to target defences.

The SHARS time on CAP precluded any realistic ability to defend against exocet attack.

Suggest you might have gained your knowledge from reading what other people wrote about the war. I did not and you can disbelieve what I write if you wish - that is your choice but I am now weary of uninformed opinion.

MaroonMan4

10th Dec 2008, 04:57

Magic Mushroom

Good post, and it is debates and discussions like these that always restore my faith in not only pprune, but in the UK Armed Forces as I have always viewed this web site as a pseudo crew room where both banter and serious topics are discussed regularly.

Whether right or wrong how very sad it is that H M Govt have put all of us into so much of a corner that we are now feeding on our own. As per a recent lecture that was given, it is like being in a goldfish bowl with 3 goldfish, with the Government removing the water scoop by scoop.

Sadly I believe that we are nearing the stage where there is not enough water to support the lives of all 3 goldfish.

Pontius Navigator

10th Dec 2008, 06:46

In coastal or near coastal waters against an SSC - Don't know what SSC stands for.

The clue was in the coastal :)

An SSK is more a blue water patrol vessel that can of course enter shallow seas. An SSC is more likely confinded to the littoral like the German 212 or Heroj class (PATROL SUBMARINE) (SSC) although the Patrol design does muddy the waters.

True, although Maritime Interdiction Operations are unlikely to occur during a hot war. I muddy the water there when I talked of logisitics for the carrier. What I really meant was that the minimum carrier escort was likely to be one or even two FF and that would reduce independent MIO. True fixed-wing could increase the surveillance area but so can an embarked flight.

Wrathmonk

10th Dec 2008, 07:06

ATFQ

Like I said my opinion. Based, like yours on information "heard" from others! Don't get me wrong - I do not wish to see the demise of the Harrier or the loss of the Carriers. But there are other assets more than capable of doing the AFG thing - rather than some of JFH being current on deck why not all (and there is a huge difference between "current iaw training schedule" and competent - not meant as a slight, just experience from NVG currency/"recency"/competence on another jet!). And if that means a smaller, leaner but better force then so be it.

A couple of years off and then back into the fray. Recharge batteries etc. Do them all the world of good.

&&&

10th Dec 2008, 07:38

One thing you can say about the Head of the Navy is that he has guts and is willing to stand up for himself.....unlike his sailors who thought it would be appropriate to allow themselves to be captured by the Iranian Revolutionary guards without a fight.....

Wrathmonk

10th Dec 2008, 08:55

&&&

Bit harsh! CNS has so far (I haven't checked the latest news) only made threats to resign. His bluff may well be called soon. Of course, one thing that may have been missed is the current CNS is due to be replaced on 21 Jul 09. The planning round rarely gets finalised much before Mar/Apr so at best he will leave post 10 weeks early. And right off his chances of being CDS where he would be able to influence the single service chiefs! Unless its the new CNS who is already threatening to resign :eek:

Jackonicko

10th Dec 2008, 10:23

LateArm Live,

Sly dig acknowledged.

Top banter appreciated.

Bismark

10th Dec 2008, 17:28

Soddim,

The SHARS did not provide the outer layer of defence - the picket ships did.

Prior to the landings what were the SHARs doing if they weren't providing the outer layer of defence??? From my position in a T42 down there the SHARs were doing just that.

Jacko,

Re the CVF/HAR/JSF debate I am unclear who provides a/d and or strike missions prior to a point where the GR4s/Typhoon find an airfield to operate from? And why can't the EU provide A/D for the UK, esp as they seem reliuctant to go anywhere else?

soddim

10th Dec 2008, 17:53

I think you'll find, Bismark, that a large number of the kills achieved by the SHARs were post attack and the AD provided was necessarily limited by the distance from deck to CAP. To provide a reasonable outer defence the SHARs would have needed to CAP to the West of West Falkland. Having said that, everyone acknowledges how much better the AD would have been a few years earlier whilst the old Ark with F4s was in service.

Although you aimed your AD comment at Jacko, you cannot be serious about relying on the EU for air defence of UK. If that situation ever comes about I am emigrating!

The Helpful Stacker

10th Dec 2008, 18:36

Damn these proposed carriers must be fast to deploy anywhere in the world and provide AD/CAS with their embarked aviation quicker than land-based aircraft can deploy.
Oh that HNS thing, what if the countries surrounding the target country also deny overflight permission? Suntans and cocktails all-round for the guys and girls on the slowboat?

Phil_R

10th Dec 2008, 19:10

Time we concerned ourselves with our country and our people, if we can't afford to do anything more.

On the face of it agree.

But. If the UK hadn't been so conspicuously committed over the past few years, what would be left of the armed forces by now, with no political ammunition to defend them?

My personal position for the record: I would love to see a future where we don't have to maintain hugely expensive strike capability, where weapons and war are relics of the past. Surely that, regardless of its achievability, has to be the goal of whatever world order we can create. While I don't live on that planet, however...

P

Magic Mushroom

10th Dec 2008, 21:32

Re the CVF/HAR/JSF debate I am unclear who provides a/d and or strike missions prior to a point where the GR4s/Typhoon find an airfield to operate from? And why can't the EU provide A/D for the UK, esp as they seem reliuctant to go anywhere else?

Probably Bismark, the same sort of airfields land based air power provided 'AD and strike' [sic] from on ops over Lebanon, Iraq (during GW1, the northern and southern NFZs, GW2), Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Land based and maritime based air power each have their benefits and disadvantages Bismark. But please do not try and distort history by suggesting that carrier air is an essential pre-cursor for most ops.:=

Regards,
MM

wingingitnow

10th Dec 2008, 22:08

The problem is that with a cat and trap carrier RN squadrons would not be made available for lengthy land based rotational commitments in the way that RN Harrier squadrons have been.

It's clear to me Jacko that you belong to the Bill Sweetman Lack of Logic journalist school. In fact are you really a journalist. I would expect one to be a bit more informed than you seem to be.

You have two carriers one is active while the other is in refit or maintenance. What do you think you do with the air wing of the carrier that is pulling shore duty?

The fact is carriers are used to project power and protect overseas possessions in a way that shore based land power cannot. If you need that capability then you need carriers. If you want to be relegated to performing air police missions and the occasional overseas deployment under Uncle Sam's security umbrella well then you do not need the carriers. Your obsolete (they certainly will be around 2015) Eurofighters should deter Russia as long as Uncle provides back up.

Mick Smith

11th Dec 2008, 06:43

Wingingit.

I see you put your location as being somewhere in cyberspace. To make the following statement you must be way out there in deep space.

If you want to be relegated to performing air police missions and the occasional overseas deployment under Uncle Sam's security umbrella well then you do not need the carriers. Your obsolete (they certainly will be around 2015) Eurofighters should deter Russia as long as Uncle provides back up.

Unlike Jacko, I agree we need the carriers but if you think that a) the light blue mob are only capable of air police missions or that b) Typhoon is going to be obsolete in seven years, you are well and truly out of it on something. I'll have some of whatever you're taking but I think I'd better take a month's leave first, it will be a long way back down!

Pontius Navigator

11th Dec 2008, 06:44

You have two carriers one is active while the other is in refit or maintenance. What do you think you do with the air wing of the carrier that is pulling shore duty?

Would we actually have two strike wings? 60*F35 for the RN, according to one source. An airgroup of 40 aircraft according to another. Attrition buy and training.

If we get 2 CVF why would we need 2 NSW if one CVF was always in refit?

Just a thought. Right or wrong?

Radar Command T/O

11th Dec 2008, 07:51

/\
Even Squadrons need recovery time after deployments, both for recovery of aircraft serviceabilityand recovery of personnel. If you have one NSW bouncing permanently from ship to ship without any "harmony time" you will wear out your aircraft and your people, resulting in less efficiency and a hefty retention problem.

spheroid

11th Dec 2008, 07:55

Even Squadrons need recovery time after deployments, both for recovery of aircraft serviceabilityand recovery of personnel. If you have one NSW bouncing permanently from ship to ship without any "harmony time" you will wear out your aircraft and your people, resulting in less efficiency and a hefty retention problem

Not if you use Project Fisher....

BEagle

11th Dec 2008, 07:59

From the BBC:

Decision due on aircraft carriers

Defence Secretary John Hutton is due to issue a written ministerial statement on the future of two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers.

Reports suggest he could delay their entry into service - scheduled for 2014 and 2016 - by two years as the Ministry of Defence tries to cut costs.

Work on the £4bn project had been due to begin next spring.

The announcement affects shipyards in Appledore, in north Devon, Portsmouth, Barrow-in-Furness, Glasgow and Rosyth.

Former defence secretary Des Browne had given the green light for the creation of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales in May.

Contracts worth about £3.2bn were signed in July and the work was expected to create or underpin a total of 10,000 jobs at the yards.

But Mr Hutton told MPs this week there would be a new announcement on defence spending.

He said: "We will be setting out some ways in which we intend to improve value for money in relation to defence procurement.

"But we have got to make sure that the armed forces have a balanced range of kit available to them."

'Financial chaos'

BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the government did not view cancelling major defence projects as an option. Instead, it was considering delays as a way of controlling the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) spiralling budget.

She said: "At least one of Britain's two new aircraft carriers could be put back by a year, or even two.

"There's already a delay to the joint strike fighter that will fly from the warships, so the MoD could argue it makes sense to put off the completion of the carriers."

But Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock, a member of the Commons Defence Committee, said the MoD was in financial "chaos".

"Without the carrier contracts, many of those yards are going to find it difficult to keep going," he said.

"MoD contracts have been fundamental in keeping the skills together, keeping the technology alive and moving it on... delays will undoubtedly mean a lot of that good work and a lot of money will have been wasted."

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

:ugh:

spheroid

11th Dec 2008, 08:13

The trouble with delaying projects is that it costs more. It would be cheaper to advance the project.

Not_a_boffin

11th Dec 2008, 09:54

For a lesson in what happens when you continually delay ships, see Charles de Gaulle cost escalation, or more recently, the impact when MoD deferred MG for CVF back in 2003/4.

Fact of the matter is, the only thing you can do (without wholesale redundancies and consequent impact on ability to build in the first place) is slow the build down, which means throw less bods at it. Run-on costs for CVS are likely to eat up any savings in CVF build (which I thought was the whole point of combining EP and STP!) as Lusty & Ark (particularly the latter judging by her material state) will need another trip to Babcocks North.....

ProM

11th Dec 2008, 10:19

Completely unnecessary decision by the MoD. If they had waited 6 months BAeSystems would have been sure to slip the programme by 2 years anyway

Not surprised though

VinRouge

11th Dec 2008, 10:55

In other words, delay it until the 'other' party take the reins and once again get a bad reputation for tough love...

Bastards.... Dont you just love politicians....

Jackonicko

11th Dec 2008, 11:19

Whingeing git now,

You'd be surprised. Not only a journo, but a busy one for the last 20+ years, and reasonably well informed, if not respected.

And I'm entirely happy to be compared with Bill Sweetman, thanks, who's better informed than you are or will ever be, with your kneejerk prejudice and facile and fatuous opinions.

1) "The fact is carriers are used to project power and protect overseas possessions in a way that shore based land power cannot." Much more slowly, at many times the cost, and all to deploy a small force incapable of sustaining a high sortie rate for an extended period, you mean?

2) "If you need that capability then you need carriers." Well no, you evidently don't. The UK has been successfully projecting power (in the Balkans, the Middle East, and other places) since 1982 - and in EVERY instance (even when the decision was taken to send a CVS) land-based air power COULD have done the job - and could always have done it quicker, better and cheaper.

Carriers are a useful niche capability, but a niche capability should not be so expensive (at a time of tight budgetary limits) as to distort the entire defence budget.

Scrapping Harrier early: Saves £1 Bn +
Scrapping CVS early: Saves ???
Scrapping CVF: Saves £4 Bn +
Scrapping JSF: Saves at least £5.4 Bn/$8.052 Bn (66 x $122 m) in flyaway costs ALONE.

By contrast, you could buy 48 Gripen NGs for £2.3 Bn, all-in.

or 58 Gripen NGs (including Fuel, Spares, and Upgrades for a 30 year service life, an MLU, and ”Uncertainties” ) for £5.29 Bn.

It's not that carriers aren't useful - it's that they are not cost effective, and are unaffordable.

And the RN didn't have a great record of making even the STOVL SHar available for non-carrier ops in the past, and a 66 aircraft force of JSF would certainly be tied to CVF.

Not_a_boffin

11th Dec 2008, 12:55

Well, now we know SoS's hit-list.

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | More helicopter capacity for Afghanistan in rebalanced equipment programme (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/MoreHelicopterCapacityForAfghanistanInRebalancedEquipmentPro gramme.htm)

Quite how re-engining 12 AH9 is going to dramatically change matters is beyond me. Nor is essentially starting FRES again or even more fruit-loop, the idea that we can push our Fleet tankers back three years - having already issues ITT and got responses.....

Fiddling while Rome burns.

Jackonicko

11th Dec 2008, 12:59

Fiddling indeed.

This was an opportunity for really bold change, and for dumping CVF in favour of more useful capabilities.

Piss poor.

Not_a_boffin

11th Dec 2008, 13:28

Ho ho. Keep going Jacko. Some one will even believe the "distorting the entire defence budget" claim sooner or later! £4bn over eight years is hardly a distortion (not compared to Tiffy at £70M a pop according to the NAO) at what, 20 airframes pa for 6 yrs?

Apparently the FA18E has a unit price of $55M at the minute (albeit according to the DoDs own figures!). 120 for $7bn or so, knock out the F3, true MR jet that's carrier capable. Bin the GR4 for Typhoo and Bob's yer uncle a two jet FJ fleet (and 350 or so of them at that if we get Tranche 3!)

soddim

11th Dec 2008, 14:22

I would love to know what the Govt of this country is taking to make them so self-delusional. We are a piddly little tin pot economy in today's world, increasingly dependent on the support of other nations to achieve anything in the wider world. Flash, of course, thinks he is the only decent economist amongst the pack but he now has no dosh to spend to keep up with them.

So how on earth do his military advisers think we are going to project power with our little piggy bank and still be able to afford to look after our own? They must be taking the same drugs - or are they simply trying to keep their pet projects alive.

The last thing we should be spending precious defence money on is carriers.

Time to act according to the needs of UK PLC - not to delay the CVFs but to cancel them.

Thelma Viaduct

11th Dec 2008, 14:58

Whether they do or don't is irrelevant.

The country is F****** either way, so they may as well crack on and piss up the wall what they have left.

They'll all be in different departments by the time it comes on top, pensions safe, new kitchens and goldfish bowls adorning their weekday residences.

I'm surprised anyone cares any more, there's nothing you can do about it apart from watch. The old fellas in the outsized crinkly grey suits covered in dandruff that umm and yar on the back rows can't even save us now.

Turn off the news, Job Jobbed. :ok::ok:

Jackonicko

11th Dec 2008, 16:28

Not a Boffin,

Not a mathematician, either, clearly.

The Tranche 2 Typhoon costs £37 m a pop, if you're talking flyaway/unit production price - in order to get a comparable figure to US prices.

We know that the Tranche Two global contract was was "worth €13 Bn" for al 236 Tranche 2 aircraft. That’s €55.08 m each. On 17 December 2004, when that contract was signed, the €/£ rate was 0.68545, so €55.08 = £37.76 m. For interest, that was then equivalent to $73 m (you can look up the exchange rates for that day at: FRB: H.10 Release--Foreign Exchange Rates--December 20, 2004 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/20041220/)).

The NAO changed the basis on which it calculates what it calls a UPC a few years back, so that it's no longer a true UPC (it includes fixed costs for all three tranches, but is divided by only on-contract aircraft in T1 and T2, it includes what would go into a US unit weapons system cost, etc.).

That's closer than you'd expect to the Super Hornet price (we wouldn't get them for $55m a pop!), and it's a sight less than $122 m for an F-35B.

If you want a second FJ, go Gripen. They've landed it on a carrier in their sim already......

So if we dumped CVF and bought a simulated carrier.....

Not_a_boffin

11th Dec 2008, 16:44

Jacko

We've done the costing argument before. NAO says this, Jacko says the other, DoD says something else, I say that. As you rightly identify, there are different components in each. My actual point was more along the lines of impact on the EP - which appears to be your bugbear.

On that basis, according to NAO which uses the EP lines (no matter how much you might like to quibble) 20 Tiffy's a year at NAO UPC is £1.4Bn pa for what, 6 years for the T1 and T2 buy? Compare that to £4bn over 8 years (contract cost, inclduing all the bits like dredging Pompey and Rosyths dock and crane). Even my elementary maths has that at £500M pa or one third TIffy (which we need to buy).

Now add T3 for which there is no agreed UPC yet and I agree is cast iron locked in and who's distorting what? Incidentally, have you ever wondered whether BVT negotiated a similar cancellation penalty to T3 during the merger? Restructure your entire business and leave it dependent on an easily cancellable contract?

Wait - I hear you cry, what about Dave?

Very true. But don't the RAF want Dave too for FOAS or whaever it's called this week? If you want it you've got to pay for it - it appears to be the £500M pa for ships you object to.

It's only simulated money anyway, lets be honest.

ATFQ

11th Dec 2008, 16:47

ZZZZZZZZZZ

Jackonicko

11th Dec 2008, 17:04

Not a Boffin,

You were comparing a US type UPC with a very different cost for Typhoon. I supplied a directly comparable figure.

Luckily, the UPC for Tranche 2 Typhoon doesn't need to be argued. The value of the T2 production contract was set in stone, and is known. Divide that by the number of aircraft and you have the UPC.

The NAO figure IS NOT A UPC.

We don't have a UPC for Tranche 3, but EF GmbH have always said that each successive Tranche would be cheaper in terms of UPC, and have succeeded in achieving that, so far.

With some UK-unique elements and weapons system costs included, RAF Tranche 1 jets cost £49 m or £45 m. Tranche 2 cost £42 m calculated in the same way. You might therefore expect Tranche 2 to come in at about £39 m on the same basis.

You won't save much by cancelling them.

F-35 is a different matter.

I want to save £1 Bn on Harrier, £5 Bn on ships (and we all know that they'll cost way more than that) and whatever JSF ends up costing, plus the high running costs.

The Helpful Stacker

11th Dec 2008, 17:26

£5 Bn on ships (and we all know that they'll cost way more than that)

Oh come on now Jacko, they've chosen to power them with engines that run on a commodity thats hardly likely to fluctuate in price. I'm sure their sums are spot on.

Not_a_boffin

11th Dec 2008, 18:59

THS

Err, that commodity is necessary for ALL ops (land, sea, air) and if you look at what they've bought it's all non-developmental. The alternative led to a lot of cost escalation with CdeG.

Jacko

Whether the NAO figure is a UPC or not, I can't see an argument that doesn't have a £1Bn-plus impact on the EP every year for Tiffy, which I believe was your point.

As for costing more than £5Bn, as one who has spent nearly 20 years in the shipbuilding industry, I can tell you that MoD was being seen off good and proper at £4Bn. The delay will certainly ensure that they do cost £4Bn though. However, there aren't enough systems in the ship to escalate by another billion - not to say BVT won't try obviously.

The Helpful Stacker

11th Dec 2008, 19:26

THS

Err, that commodity is necessary for ALL ops (land, sea, air) and if you look at what they've bought it's all non-developmental. The alternative led to a lot of cost escalation with CdeG.

Yes necessary for ALL ops but not all fuels are created equal, nor do they cost the same.

F-76 is the most expensive 'standard' fuel the British military use* by a fair margin and the price of diesel derivatives will rise considerably again in the future as nations such as China and India once again develop a thirst for them.

F-35 on the other, whilst also experiencing price rises, is still considered a comparatively cheap fuel and you can run diesel vehicles on it, though not marine craft unfortunately.

It seems a little strange that we as a nation can be planning a new generation of nuclear powered submarines yet somehow fitting a nuclear power plant to the carriers is a huge leap in costs. Couldn't the costs somehow, I don't know, be shared between the projects?

* My information was correct as of October 07.

orca

11th Dec 2008, 19:55

Does anyone know the cost per hour (or similar meaningful metric) over dear old 'ghanners' of a Super Hornet flying from 'somewhere off the coast' as compared to a GR4 flying from KAF? (Future proofed question - well hopefully anyway!)

What if we factor in the logistics train required to keep KAF going, the air bridge, the 14000 people at KAF that seem to 'add very little'? the FP required etc etc?

Whilst I am acutely aware that opinion is everything and facts are nothing - and that views on CVS/N/F are entrenched and non-negotiable I am genuinely interested. How much does a FARP/TFOL/ air base cost compared to a CV..various? Anyone know?

And just in case this benign question wasn't inflammatory enough, how many times has a CVN stopped flying due to hostile action? How many times has KAF or the COB ceased Ops due to IDF?

Here's where I am. CVS - absolute waste of rations. CVN/F great bits of kit if used properly and adequately funded. Typhoon - two wars, no show, what's the story?

regards, orca.

glad rag

11th Dec 2008, 19:56

It seems a little strange that we as a nation can be planning a new generation of nuclear powered submarines yet somehow fitting a nuclear power plant to the carriers is a huge leap in costs. Couldn't the costs somehow, I don't know, be shared between the projects?

Good point HS

Jackonicko

11th Dec 2008, 20:48

Orca,

"Typhoon - two wars, no show, what's the story?"

You need five fighter squadrons for UK AD, QRA and Falklands.

We now have two F3 Squadrons and two Squadrons of Typhoons.

There's just no 'slop' for long term dets and deployments yet, even if you believe that the Austere A-G capability is yet as mature as the July OED might make is assume.

Now if it had been me as CAS, I'd have sent a four-ship to Kandahar for a Rafale-style flag-waving PR exercise, to get that 'tick in the box' - operationally justifiable or otherwise.

With aircraft being diverted to Saudi, and with the production rate slowed to avoid costly gaps at the end of Tranche 1 (and again for the end of Tranche 2) it will be a very long time before there is a third Typhoon squadron, let alone the fourth and fifth, and the sixth and seventh, that would allow the Typhoon force to do what it was bought for - which was to replace five squadrons of F.Mk 3s AND three squadrons of Jags.

Not a Boffin,

Canning CVF would leverage a big enough saving to fund proper SH, but I'd agree that the big savings come from cancelling JSF. I'm not suggesting that we bin one, but not the other.

DBTW

12th Dec 2008, 01:03

Canning CVF would leverage a big enough saving to fund proper SH, but I'd agree that the big savings come from cancelling JSF. I'm not suggesting that we bin one, but not the other.

Jackonicko

You just don't get it do you?!:ugh: For one claiming to be knowledgeable and well informed (with all the apparently reasoned information you are putting out in this thread), you should know that within MOD cancelling a programme definitely does not release funds for another project.

Cancellation means the money is never spent and never existed. What has already been spent is wasted. The whole military shrinks! If you lose CVF and JSF, your SH will still have to make do with whatever they've got. They certainly will not get any more funding! And the Typhoon fleet won't get any bigger either. When you lose something, all that really happens is the cost cutting knives re-focus on another project and expose a whole new tranch of entrenched positions and back biting.

The idea that everyone is competing for limited funds is driven by folk who would prefer to spend nothing on Defence. These are the people you are working for. You and your ilk picking a pet project or two and attacking the funding of everyone else is by far the biggest threat to your national security. Your argument for cancellation does not just apply to the projects you are attacking. It applies to the whole British Military!

Whilst the UK Armed Forces are out their doing there damnedest to keep things running and to achieve their nationally appointed missions within the constraints placed upon them by your leaders, I suggest no-one over there really wants to "bin" anything other than your ranting. If you believe in the British Military and want to help, back off!

Wrathmonk

12th Dec 2008, 08:11

Orca

Good thinking - but to get a representative figure, in the AFG example, you would also need to include the differences between the running costs (fuel / fatigue life etc / manpower costs) of having to maintain 24/7 CAPs from the CVF (over AFG)on "a just in case basis because we're too far from the fight to be able to react quickly" (and it is the transit hours / fatigue that is really hurting certain OS fleets) against being able to maintain a ground alert posture by being in-country and only launching when required. Just to keep the argument balanced. And of course the FP issues remain to a certain extent for the sea-basing option (USS Cole?) so it's not just one CVF theres all the picket ships, resupply ships etc. Perhaps may be close to 14000 personnel!:p

Wader2

12th Dec 2008, 09:50

Wrathmonk, and you missed out the limited utility of a single deck. One out, all out.

Wiretensioner

12th Dec 2008, 11:38

I think we are all missing the point. We only have defence to

1. Keep Wastelands and BAe Systems in business

and

2. Have something for the spotters to take photos of.

Whats Defence of the realm and providing the forces with good kit on time at a good price got to do with it.

Wiretensioner

Jackonicko

12th Dec 2008, 12:16

DBTW,

Nice try, but wrong.

Money has to be saved.

I'd rather see it saved by cutting nice-to-have, big ticket, prestige programmes that deliver only a niche capability than see it saved by shaving money from day to day essential capabilities.

Those who most damage the defence of the UK are the people who push for disproportionate spending on pet programmes which do not deliver value for money or cost effective delivery of effect.

The RN needs to push for what is best for Britain, not to fight narrow, single-service interest turf wars.

Wrathmonk

12th Dec 2008, 12:53

Jacko

The RN needs to push for what is best for Britain, not to fight narrow, single-service interest turf wars.

And so does the RAF. Which I don't think it is fully doing at the moment. As posted elsewhere I think CAS could be far smarter about the way he is trying to take Air Power forward (and without pi55ing off the other Services who also frequent the air domain).

And I'm Air Force myself before I'm accussed of being a narrow minded WAFU, sun dodger, skimmer or any other relevant Jack-speak persona :p

Farfrompuken

12th Dec 2008, 13:13

WM agree with you on the above

orca

12th Dec 2008, 17:32

I note that whilst we seem to 'agree' on the copy cost of a Typhoon or F-18E, no-one actually knows how much carrier aviation costs as compared to land based aviation in a 'cost per hour of CAS' or similar. Interesting that this should be so in such an emotive argument. I 'know' that CVF is costing 3.8 Billion or there abouts, but no-one 'knows' how much KAF costs, or Bastion for that matter. I am sure we could fall out at great length about what was actually in the 'cost' and what wasn't.

First point, if we don't know the cost delta, how are we even starting X costs more than Y arguments. Bear in mind we don't even know which war we're talking about yet...

I would also like to ask what we do with KAF when it's all over, do we ship it home overland or by jingly to the coast and then by ship? Surely it's ours, we paid for it..didn't we? Where are we going to put it? Brawdy? Are the USN faced with the same problem or do their flat tops get used in subsequent fights, or are they perhaps biodegradeable/ recyclable? Just interested from a cost point of view.

If i may quickly revisit ther 'whole typhoon thing'. Why do we have lord-high-crab and OC this-that-or-the-other sqn banging on about it, combat ready this, fully capable that. If we don't have the sqn numbers to deploy it, it ain't combat ready. I am happy to believe its ace at everything, and the chaps must be itching to actually employ weapons - but until it drops a bomb, air-to-ground wise it's a zero not a one. And a genuine question to finish, has Typhoon done a Red Flag yet?

Sorry to bear questions and no answers.

Regards, Orca.

Jackonicko

12th Dec 2008, 17:47

There aren't the numbers to deploy in the A-G role, because (as a result of short-sighted cost saving cuts) we don't have enough F.Mk 3 squadrons to maintain the UK AD and Falklands burden......

Typhoon's ready, but there's nothing else to plug the gap. OC 11 and one of his JPs have each dropped a bomb. A live bomb, which went bang albeit on Garvie, not Ghanistan, and loads of them have dropped inert bombs. That's more than a zero.

And it's not the Typhoon Force's fault.

Wrathmonk

12th Dec 2008, 19:19

Orca

You could say that KAF / Bastion cost the MOD nothing, or very close to nothing, as it is paid for from the contingency pot. Salaries, a proprtion of the eqpt running costs etc would be paid whether the individual was on ops or on (for example) Red Flag. So an anti-CVF stance could argue that it is £4Bn+ cheaper to the MOD to run fixed wing aviation from a land base in AFG than from a spangly new carrier over the horizon (assuming of course you don't buy them...):E.

I suspect the whole "combat ready" thing was to keep the NAO and other beancounters off the MODs back by saying they have met a target date! I'm also lead to believe that the original press release by the force commander declaring the Typhoon ready for everything and anything was quickly pulled and edited when the grown ups saw it (sadly after it had hit t'internet). Hope he hasn't blown his CBE ....

DBTW

12th Dec 2008, 19:25

Good on you Wrathmonk! I am with you.

Jackonicko said
Nice try, but wrong.

Money has to be saved.

in response to DBTW who said

You and your ilk picking a pet project or two and attacking the funding of everyone else is by far the biggest threat to your national security.

Jackonicko,

I am absolutely certain Typhoon is a pretty good aircraft and it should be worth the wait. I also know (it will have been spoken about before) EAP was the development aircraft and it was emerging from the BAE facility in 1984. RAF had an initial in service date for Typhoon of Feb 1996 when it was re-named Eurofighter 2000 to make the delay sound planned.

And it's not the Typhoon Force's fault. doesn't cut it.

We are about to slip into 2009 and you are still trying to make excuses for Typhoon tardiness when there have clearly been a few hitches along the way. It's no good harping on about how good it is and how many billions it is really worth or how efficient it will be at close air support. The aeroplane is late and to a great extent the world has passed it by. The last thing the RAF needs to do now is depend on an aircraft which will be an overused phrase "legacy fighter" within a year or so as its primary/only weapon system.

When the protagonists have all had their palpitations over that comment, even if Typhoon is the best thing sinced canned beer, thankfully the RAF have never depended on one type in the past, and they are not about to start now just because some lay aircraft expert/journo on PPRUNE thinks he has the solution.

Please don't start advocating life extensions on Tornado or bringing back Jaguar. The F35 is coming and the RAF/RN will have it. RAF/RN will also have aircraft carriers. Best you just get used to it.

Jackonicko

12th Dec 2008, 19:49

Jaguar's gone, and isn't coming back. I remain of the opinion that it was retired too early, and had useful life left in it, but it's gone, irrevocably, and any whingeing about it now would be as unproductive as WEBF's 'bring back the SHar' campaign.

I would not advocate expanding the Tornado GR4 force, either, even if airframes were available, nor would I spend disproportionate amounts on extending its service life or delaying its OSD.

But I would not spend £1 Bn on extending Harrier's life from 2013 to 2018.

And I would not spend the amounts required to procure, deploy and sustain two CVF and an appropriate number of F-35Bs which will represent an undeniably impressive, but unjustifiably expensive, unaffordable and inefficient means of projecting air power, and one which will unbalance our forces by distorting spending.

It doesn't help that no-one can give a straight answer as to how much F-35 will cost (let alone a firm, guaranteed price), or as to exactly what capabilities it will have.

If we need more than 12-14 FJ squadrons (six or seven Typhoon, six or seven Tornado GR), then I'd be acquiring Gripen NG to augment Typhoon, or perhaps (in the 2023 timeframe) a small number of F-35As to replace the Tornado.

But even as an admittedly air-minded chap, I'd suggest that SH, tankers, recce and SEAD are higher priorities than further FJs, whether JSF, Rafale M, F/A-18 or Gripen NG.

RileyDove

12th Dec 2008, 21:11

It's not a matter of £1BN to extend the life of the airframe from 2013 to 2018 - the cost is the overall cost of operating the aircraft to 2018. The aircraft can post GR.9 modification happily go past 2018. It should be remembered that not all Harriers at at high hours. What I see as far more realistic is a rethink of JFH and the aircraft being dedicated to Naval operations perhaps in the form of two operating Squadrons with a large number of aircraft being kept at operational readiness but as war reserve.

Jackonicko

12th Dec 2008, 21:45

That's not how I understand it, Riley. £1 Bn is the cost of mods. Op and support costs are extra.

Barn Doors

13th Dec 2008, 16:10

Sorry....Jacko, did you actually write "a couple of F-35A's to replace the Tornado"????! Interesting statement from someone so vociferously anti-JSF.

Oh and you should perhaps watch what you say so glibly about the Texans (or any others) if I were you.....they all carry an armada of guns!:=:=

SirPercyWare-Armitag

13th Dec 2008, 17:46

Ah the old "Typhoon is obsolete" routine. Nice one. And totally false.

Nuff said.

So, the Typhoons are late, so will the carriers :E

The Helpful Stacker

13th Dec 2008, 19:31

Ah the old "Typhoon is obsolete" routine. Nice one. And totally false.

Indeed.

A small-minded person may as easily have said "with the advent of the SS-N-22 the surface navy is obsolete".

25 to 30 seconds to respond makes the 120-150 seconds of an Exocet seem pretty generous.

Of course the surface navy isn't obsolete, whether a slowly moving prize target like a carrier is might be a different matter though, considering the customer base of the SS-N-22.

All those eggs in one basket vs a few missiles moving three times faster than the Exocet with a warhead twice as heavy as that once highly feared missile. Although experiencing a rocket attack in Iraq wasn't much fun I at least had the comfort of the airbase being very large and highly unlikely to sink beneath me.

Good as the T45's may be we won't have too many of them and we are not the US so can't afford a huge group of picket ships to take the attention of any potential incoming away from those floating airfields.

Tim McLelland

13th Dec 2008, 19:36

The F35 is coming and the RAF/RN will have it.

Are you sure? But are you sure? :p

RileyDove

13th Dec 2008, 21:04

Jacko- the Harriers have mostly done something like 3500-4000 hours in twenty years. Some have done considerably less depending on the role they have been used for. The potential life of the aircraft depends on flying hours and the type of flying they do. The vast majority of aircraft that have been converted to GR.9 have had life extension mods carried out. The idea that they all need new back ends is rumour and only that. The RAF has spare rear fuselages for a very limited number of aircraft which require the change but that is nothing related to fatigue.
So in summary the RAF Harrier fleet doesn't need £1 Billion pounds worth of mods to add another five years to it's life - it's not serious to suggest that GR.9 upgraded aircraft that leave the Jump line next year will only have four years of life left in them.

Gullwings

14th Dec 2008, 16:51

The Helpful Stacker

You are correct when you say that aircraft carriers may be relatively slow to move away from some modern weapon threats but at least (unlike land based airfields) they are actually capable of being moved wherever they are needed, or when necessary, even out of harm’s way until the rapid flexible world-wide RAF support can arrive to help protect and support them! (If that is actually true?)

Land based airfields are also extremely vulnerable and modern weapons technology can easily prevent aircraft from operating from them too! If our relatively few UK (or overseas airfields) runways get quickly taken out by anyone, then what other UK resources could be used to help defend our nation? Long range land based anti-air missiles? (Do we have any now??) Radar equipped VSTOL aircraft such as the Sea Harrier or the Italian/Spanish Navy versions of the Harriers? (No, we do not have any of them either!)

You are also right when you say that we are not getting enough T45’s, to help provide very good long range radar and anti-aircraft missile defense for the UK and our other current/future maritime commitments. Unfortunately just six of them have been ordered to replace the few remaining (over 25 years old) Type 42 destroyers! We once had at least 11 Type 42s, plus 3 carriers capable of operating radar equipped Sea Harriers to help attack incoming aircraft 'before' they could launch their anti-ship missiles at us. Likewise we once had plenty of subs to help defend our ships from the extremely dangerous submarine threats, but now we have very few of them in service and few new ones on order! It is no wonder that the Head of the RN is threatening to resign!! (What a vulnerable and sad state our RN is in!)

Finally you mentioned that experiencing a rocket attack in Iraq wasn't much fun but at least you had the comfort of the airbase being very large and highly unlikely to sink beneath you. I only wish that some of the big decision makers in this country could imagine what it must be like for RN and Merchant Navy personnel to be exposed to such threats with so little meaningful long range air defense/anti-submarine capability.

glad rag

14th Dec 2008, 18:33

The idea that they all need new back ends is rumour and only that.

Having seen the cracks firsthand, then I guess you will be more than happy to put your Ass on the line over the winter North Atlantic then.......................

The Helpful Stacker

14th Dec 2008, 19:41

Gullwings - The reason the RN is going to have so few picket ships to protect the CVF's is not down to some RAF dark plan (as some of the more blinkered CVF supporters might want to suggest) but purely due to lack of funds, something the entire military is victim of (any idea when the Canberra 'capability holiday' ends?) But even so, knowing that they would have to rape the rest of the surface fleet (and diesel-electric sub fleet) for the funds for these big, slow and arguably pretty pointless outside out of very specific circumstances carriers the RN has pressed ahead to get their late 20th centurary battleships.
Unlike the equally expensive N-boats I see little point in carriers that the RN will struggle to defend against even a moderate anti-ship threat due to lack of picket ships and without the assistance of significant land-based attack aircraft to suppress that threat.
I'm not anti-RN by a long shot, I just believe the single-minded zeal of certain members of the RN to have these carriers is damaging to the strength of a RN that has far more responsibilities than just those of running a mobile airfield for the RAF.

ATFQ

14th Dec 2008, 19:54

ZZZZZZZZZZ

WolvoWill

14th Dec 2008, 20:13

A question I'd like to pose, from a guy who doesn't know too much about warships - how much money could be saved by going for a number of 'Type 45 Batch 2' destroyers in lieu of the carriers? Imagine a stretched version with a TLAM Block IV capability. The Type 45 already has a VLS, I appreciate space may be an issue, but not a problem that couldn't be overcome by stretching the ship slightly?

Surely the overall cost of such vessels would be considerably less than that of the carriers and JSF, and through life support costs would be lower too? This would give the navy some measure of power projection capability (albeit not as flexible as an aircraft, but remember this is block IV Tomahawk with some capability against time sensitive targets), and the destroyers would be more useful for more of the time performing the sort of roles the Royal Navy has found itself committed too daily - drugs interdiction, anti-piracy patrols, enforcing sanctions and so on. Being type 45 based these ships would retain all of the good air-defence capabilities of the original ships.

A halfway house solution I wonder, if its significantly cheaper - not quite as flexible at power projection as a carrier, but still providing a meaningful boost for fleet air defence and power projection for the navy, and leaving money to be spent elsewhere within the defence budget. I repeat myself, I don't know too much about warships - is it worth considering or not?

Gullwings

14th Dec 2008, 21:02

The Helpful Stacker

You seem to constantly think Navies only require proper anti-air capable ships such as Type 45s, subs and supply ships to defend CVFs. Other Navies who do not have CVFs still have such ships and subs to defend and support their military/civil maritime fleets and their overseas commitments, etc. As has previously been pointed out elsewhere in this website, carriers do not constantly need lots of your so called “pickets” with them in peace time. They carry out other tasks both around this country and world-wide.

As has also previously been mentioned by others in this website, why does this island nation really need so many land based air defense and strike aircraft and yet have so few quality RN assets that are able to defend themselves properly outside of any meaningful RAF protection and support range? Yes carriers are expensive, but why does the RAF still need so many very expensive strike and air defense aircraft?

Furthermore, if there was a major crisis it would be much easier for the RAF to obtain even more new/second hand aircraft in a hurry than it would be for the RN to obtain any carriers, further anti-air capable ships, be able to crew them and learn how to operate them, etc. Europe has plenty of air defense and strike aircraft and the US also has plenty of such aircraft readily deployable if required. The RN has learnt in the past that it cannot always depend on the RAF and other nations for its protection and support. That is why it needs its own very capable floating airfield, aircraft and warships and not a mobile airfield for the RAF as you call!

soddim

14th Dec 2008, 21:19

If I may, Gullwings, let me point out that it is not a question of what the Navy needs but what UK needs.

Carriers are but one way of projecting power worldwide - they are slow to get there and they need protection. Land based air can often get there quicker and operate from secure bases close enough. But not always and that is why the carriers might come in handy.

However, can our piddly little economy support the projection of power (power we don't have) worldwide.

No - we cannot and our politicians had better get used to the idea. They are subservient even to Brussels let alone the rest of the major nations.

Gullwings

14th Dec 2008, 22:35

Soddim

With regards to the economy I totally agree. It is how the financial slices of the cake are made up that worries me and no doubt the head of the RN.

With regards to what the UK and Brussels want, do they both want a well balanced, effective and flexible European military capability? (Without usually having to rely on America, or to a much lesser degree France, for any proper carrier support?). If they do, then perhaps they need to get more countries to help take on some of the very expensive current RAF fighter/strike provisions and allow the UK financial savings made to help maintain/strenthen one of the most experienced Naval forces in Europe before some of its expertise and capability is lost and very hard to ever get back again in the event of a serious crisis.

Modern Elmo

15th Dec 2008, 02:14

If they do, then perhaps they need to get more countries to help take on some of the very expensive current RAF fighter/strike provisions ...

Of course the RAF would agree with those sentiments.

In Tor Wot

15th Dec 2008, 07:15

Whilst we are all discussing the merits/otherwise of carriers perhaps the issue of self defence is still pertinent especially when the world's largest navy gets caught with its trousers down (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html).

On the lines of the original thread:

Despite the merits’ or otherwise of GR9 hours v Typhoon or F35A v F-35B discussed thus far, I feel that the incessant leaking by the senior Service is counter productive, both to their cause and that of the military as a whole.

It has a corrosive effect between the Services and leads to all sorts of allegations of Machiavellian plots against one Service by another. I doubt very much that there is a single head of Service that sits ruminating over his frosties in the morning about how he can 'screw over' the other services. Call it naive if you wish but I do feel that the level of paranoia displayed on here for the last 8 pages is the result of the constant drip of leaks and misinformation purveyed by those that should know better.

As for falling on his sword, if the Head of the RN has really threatened to resign then why has he made no public commentary on it in the same way that Dannett (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/british-soldiers-risk-death-for-less-than-the-minimum-wage-415545.html) did (Torpy not included as I'm referring to leaders with balls) rather than leaking it through unattributed sources?

Bismark

15th Dec 2008, 16:46

I feel that the incessant leaking by the senior Service is counter productive, both to their cause and that of the military as a whole.

ITW,

Of course you are assuming it was a Navy leak...?

Not_a_boffin

15th Dec 2008, 19:16

Just because one is paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you! If we're honest, there is form in this area, albeit abetted in previous instances by the dark blue exec branch......

Navaleye

18th Dec 2008, 12:34

It doesn't matter how you look at it, the argument is nonsensical. If you lose your old carriers 3 years before the new ones arrive, then you lose the skills to operate them. The press would have a field day if this actually happened. I hear that the RN has talked to the USMC about having guest squadrons on board more frequently. But ultimately, if the RAF doesn't want its Harriers then, give them to the RN.

Wrathmonk

18th Dec 2008, 13:39

Naveleye

If the Harriers were given back to the RN what do you suggest the RN gives up to pay for them (after all this is all about money isn't it ...?). Another T45 or two? Howabout the deterent? And how would you suggest the RN man the Harrier force as I understand it isn't meeting its 50/50 share at the moment. Unless of course you reduced its size .... which is what CAS may be looking to do.

I know this is a rumour site, and its how many keep in touch with current policy (!) but how about we wait for the ground truth. Just a thought.

Navaleye

18th Dec 2008, 14:12

How much would it really cost?

The a/c are paid for, the spares are paid for. Its the RAF want rid of its Sqns, so be it. I'm sure the NSW could maintain a 9 a/c sqn at Yeovilton without billions being spent. But as you say, it may all be hot air.

Yeoman_dai

18th Dec 2008, 17:00

Soddim, :=

Sea Harrier DID provide the outer pickets.

Argentine forces WERE instructed to turn back if confronted by the SeaJet and a USN report DID find that almost 472 bombs were dropped premeturely to allow the A-4's to escape the CAP.

The SeaJet presence DID prevent exocet attack, simply because they were there - the main reason I will admit for their lack of use against the task force was that the task force was stationed out of range of the Etendards.

Yes, 17 bombs got through, simply because they came through 800 squadrons CAP stations, who were flying at 10,000 feet, and the Blue Fox could not 'look down' over land - therefore they missed them, and often splashed the offending A-4's once they'd already made their run.

And once again, the bombs did not fuse because they were beneath the minimum release height when dropped, not giving them times to arm themselves - and that this WAS because they could not fly higher for fear of Blue Fox pickup from the 801 pilots flying on low CAP's and the ships radar/sea dart sea slug missile systems.

This was all backed up by Argentine Pilots AFTER the war. 21 aircraft were shot down by Sea Harriers - more than any other part of the force.

I freely admit i'm 21 and was not at the Falklands, and that I've taken my information from pilots who WERE there - but I very much doubt you were a combat pilot down there at the time, so don't try pull that one either. :mad:

Mick Smith

20th Dec 2008, 16:25

This rather looks like its part of the same campaign!

Ex-Defence chief in call to cut new aircraft carrier order down to one - The Scotsman (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk/ExDefence-chief-in-call-to.4806300.jp#3551362)

minigundiplomat

20th Dec 2008, 23:14

Bye then........

Gullwings

20th Dec 2008, 23:48

Well said Nostinian.
Not only has our once great RN and FAA lost proper fixed-wing aircraft carriers and fighters to help defend maritime forces, civilian ships, this country and also to support other forces world-wide. It has also lost a high percentage of extremely experienced and capable fixed-wing pilots who carried out ‘combined’ fighter, strike and reconnaissance roles! Did these pilots leave because they disliked the FAA? No, I suspect that most left because they could see the way the RAF has been progressively trying to get rid of them, their aircraft, ships and excellent FAA culture.

Not only that, but I suspect that many left because they were spending so much time away from their families, mainly due to their very much in demand flexibility and capability around the world in so many wars and conflicts, etc. (So much for FAA fixed-wing aircraft and aircraft carriers no longer being required by this country according to ‘some’ very biased RAF contributors on this website!)

Furthermore, what a master stroke it was to also remove the FAA Harrier pilots, maintainers and their aircraft out of their only FAA base at Yeovilton, to an RAF base a very long way from there! That must have no doubt been a further ‘final straw’ kick in the teeth for many of them and their families! Well done to the powers to be for that, the millions of pounds spent training and gaining such very experienced aircrew, maintainers and capability has no doubt been very much appreciated by many airlines around the world that are now employing them!! What a great loss to our nation for which the true cost is conveniently never captured and made public by the bean counters. (Or highlighted in newspaper articles, such as the one previously mentioned in this thread!)

Not only does the RN carry out much maritime work that the other forces cannot do, it also helps to carry out much of the other UK armed forces world-wide commitments. (Even when far away from the sea!) Such a flexible, capable and ‘can do’ force should be enhanced by this nation and not progressively destroyed and left very vulnerable to ever increasing air and submarine threats, etc.

It sadly currently seems that one of the RN/FAA worst threats today actually comes from within our own country. This from some rather biased and blinkered RAF supporters who are managing to do what many enemies have failed to do in the past. That is to destroy some of its best capabilities and reduce the morale of its crews. Our potential enemies are no doubt laughing at this crazy situation!

LFFC

21st Dec 2008, 07:00

RAF launches dogfight for control of navy’s aircraft - The Times 21 Dec 08 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5375713.ece)

Looks like the earlier reports didn't go far enough!

The RAF is trying to take over the Royal Navy’s historic Fleet Air Arm and assume control of all army helicopters in a plan to cut more than £1 billion from the defence budget.

The navy clashed with the air force at a meeting of senior officials last week. Its admirals are furious about a campaign, waged under the slogan “one nation, one air force” which would see the Fleet Air Arm scrapped in 2013, a few months before its centenary.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, chief of the air staff, is proposing to scrap all 75 Harrier jump jets shared between the navy and the air force. Helicopters operated by the Army Air Corps, formed in 1957, would also come under RAF control. Its aircraft include Apache gunships which support troops on the front line, although transports such as the Chinook are already flown by the RAF.

The changes would leave the navy with no planes for its carriers until the new Joint Strike Fighter is introduced, which is unlikely before 2017. RAF chiefs want their pilots to fly the new aircraft from the carriers.

Perhaps when faced with calls from within the Army and RN to disband the RAF, Sir Glenn decided to come out fighting!

Wrathmonk

21st Dec 2008, 09:26

Wasn't in MB at the time but wasn't the formation of JFH a deal brokered by the then CNS with a view to saving RN money and therefore protect other parts of the "core" Navy?

LowObservable

21st Dec 2008, 11:51

"Perhaps when faced with calls from within the Army and RN to disband the RAF, Sir Glenn decided to come out fighting!"

Quite possibly; it's a game that two or three can play. "One nation, one air force" might not even be a bad idea. If you look at the way that the Marine Air tail is wagging the USAF/USN fighter-force dog in the US, you have to wonder.

Lyneham Lad

21st Dec 2008, 15:08

This rather looks like its part of the same campaign!

Ex-Defence chief in call to cut new aircraft carrier order down to one - The Scotsman

Astonishlingly, the quote comes from Marshal of the Royal Air Force The Lord CRAIG GCB OBE MA DSc FRAeS - a major patron of the UKNDA :{

Unbelievable :ugh:

soddim

21st Dec 2008, 16:08

If one tries to be totally objective there is much logic in the provision of all air power from an independent air force. The Army and the Navy are utterly professional in their own roles and, similiarly, so is the Air Force in theirs. To assume that within any one of the three services one could muster and maintain the level of expertise and experience to perform satisfactorily the role of any of the other two services diminishes the credibility of separate armed services.

The RAF is not clamouring for tanks or ships so why do the other two services want their own air power. They should accept that if they want air support and don't get it there is a very good reason - someone else needs it more. In these austere times it is vital to apportion one's resources so that they can be shared according to the priorities of the moment - not held in reserve by a force that does not need it at the time or equipped solely for naval or land force support.

The only sensible alternative is a combined force structure. I spent some 36 years learning to do my single service job and was still learning when I left. OK, some are slower than others to grasp the knowledge and to cope with rapidly changing technology, but I could not envisage a combined service doing any one of the single service roles in the same professional way.

Tourist

21st Dec 2008, 16:35

Soddim

"but I could not envisage a combined service doing any one of the single service roles in the same professional way."

Bollocks.
The Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy. Very few would contend that they are anything other than the finest man for man regular soldiers in the world.

The FAA is part of the Navy. Find me an unbiased observer anywhere in the world who won't rank a Naval Aviator above a Airforce pumper in any countries military. I know that you crabs on here will never admit it, but if you ask the customer, either RM or army, who they would like to be supported by, and the answer will nine times out of ten be the RN.

"They should accept that if they want air support and don't get it there is a very good reason - someone else needs it more."

Or the RAF are, as usual, and not willing to go the extra mile to make others lives a bit easier as the RN (in)famously does. I have heard lots of abuse thrown at the RNs habit of being slightly more flexible with the rules in order to get the job done, but at the end of the day we are the service the customer prefers.

"In these austere times it is vital to apportion one's resources"

Very true, and both the FAA and AAC make every penny go so much further it isnt funny. The Army gets banter for treating their helicopters like landys, but their footprint is vanishingly small compared to the RAF, and even the FAA to be honest.

Lyneham Lad

21st Dec 2008, 16:48

By far the worst aspect of this inter-Service internecine fighting (becoming a fight to the death?) is that the Service Chiefs are doing the Government's dirty work for them. It is a classic example of the 'divide and conquer' tactic and there is no-one better than Nu Labour in applying it. If we are to preserve (or better, achieve) the Armed Forces that the UK needs and deserves, the Service Chiefs need (for once) to put down their back-stabbing daggers and turn their forward-facing armament onto the Treasury and Downing St.

Wrathmonk

21st Dec 2008, 16:49

Blimey, I've read some ill-informed, un-substantiated stove-piped bollox by cold war warriers on this forum over the years but Tourist has now reset the standard! Are you the "leak" in MB? Nothing personal but between you and WEBF you are putting the FAA back into the Dark Ages!

Jumping_Jack

21st Dec 2008, 17:43

Tourist you really are a chump.....:rolleyes:

Squirrel 41

21st Dec 2008, 18:37

Ladies, Gentlemen, PLEASE....

Internecine punch-ups are *really* unhelpful. And as a crab, I can see the arguments for passing SH to the AAC, in the same way that the RAAF did with the UH-60s and CH-47s in the 1980s. No disrespect to the SH mob, but given who the primary customer is, it may make sense for field Army to run this themselves. And for good measure, I'd probably pass the RAF Regiment across to the Army as well. (Kevlar hat on for incoming.)

Similarly, the FAA notwithstanding, it is quite true that if you've got to save a lot of money from aircraft - which is a political decision that I don't agree with, incidentally - then binning the GR9 before the long-term support contract is signed and before the major structural work is done, is probably the best way forward. Again, not saying that this is the right thing, but if these are the political parameters (other savings - e.g. CVF, Trident, being off the table), then it will (i) save the most cash and (ii) the GR4s could (at a pinch) do the majority of the GR9 job, whereas the reverse is not true.

So *IF* the decision is made to bin the GR9s in 2011/2013/whenever - again, a decision I would oppose - it should not be assumed that it is a nefarious anti-RN plot.

And on a point of pedantry, the FAA is not celebrating its' centenary in 2013: the RNAS became the RAF on 1 Apr 1918, with the FAA not reverting to RN control until 1939.

S41

(Edited for spollink)

althenick

21st Dec 2008, 21:20

And on a point of pedantry, the FAA is not celebrating its' centenary in 2013: the RNAS became the RAF on 1 Apr 1918, with the FAA not reverting to RN control until 1939.

Your right - it should be 2012

The crabs had pretty much washed their hands of carrier flying by 1921 (Squdrons by that time being on average 85% dark blue) so there is a 3 year gap.

Oh and BTW....

- The Danish tried this "1 country 1 Airforce" Shight not that long ago which guess what? failed dismally - They now have Naval Aircrew flying, and personell looking after, "Air Force" Lynx :ugh:

- The Brazillians got rid of their embarked F/W Air Force when they got the San Paulo - Seemingly their Air force didn't want to go to sea!
:ugh:
-Even the New Zealand Navy, despite having Air force involvement fly ALL THREE of their own Seasprites. :ok:

Is it me or does anyone else see a pattern emerging here that a F*ck-witted CAS can't? :*

The Helpful Stacker

21st Dec 2008, 22:26

Ah, so because other countries try and fail we shouldn't?
Damn, I thought we Brits had quite a good record for doing what others have failed to do. Still, with such mighty examples as the Danish, New Zealanders and Brazilians leading the way and failing perhaps we'd be best to give it a miss.
To be frank though I believe the current division of air power is probably correct (in my humble opinion). Of course if the Army and RN finally laid to rest the sour grapes they've been dragging around since 1918 over the fact they are not perhaps the best people to run the majority of airpower then perhaps those who run the RAF wouldn't feel the need to adopt a 'best form of defence is attack' plan.

soddim

21st Dec 2008, 23:05

What's the matter, Tourist, seems like you lost a tenner and found a penny. Cheer up old chap and allow me to tell you what I could envisage without waving your testicles. My ability to envisage has nothing whatsoever to do with your manhood.

Simple fact of life is that we no longer have the dosh to do defence properly because flash Gordon has allowed the borrowers and lenders to cock the whole economy up and he's giving what's left to the loungers and the scroungers. Nowt left for the good guys who still have to fight wars we should simply not be involved in.

Nothing wrong with the quality of the RM and they do soldiering brilliantly but air is just a different ball game entirely and the technological knowledge and training required bears no resemblance. If you think back to the dilemma the emergence of air caused in WW1 you will realise that their lordships made a very wise decision in forming the third service.

For years we have reaped the benefit of an independent air force despite the fact that it mainly exists to support the needs of the other two services Notable exceptions, of course, are strike, interdiction and air defence of UK although even these roles are associated with the needs of the other services.

As for the RAF not going the extra mile, the recent award to the Chinook guys in Afghanistan does little to give credibility to your argument.

So, in the true spirit of Christmas, bollocks to you too.

Gullwings

22nd Dec 2008, 01:46

With regards to the previous comment: "Of course if the Army and RN finally laid to rest the sour grapes they've been dragging around since 1918 over the fact they are not perhaps the best people to run the majority of airpower then perhaps those who run the RAF wouldn't feel the need to adopt a 'best form of defence is attack' plan."

I can assure you that it has nothing to do with sour grapes. It is simply based on real life personal experiences and perceptions that the other UK (and some other foreign) forces have sadly sometimes witnessed. You may not like hearing that or want to accept this but I am sorry to say that it is true and is purely down to 'some' RAF personnel’s own making. (They not only let themselves down by their actions, but also the RAF.)

The RAF are very good at doing many things (and long may that continue) but so too are the other forces who have a different culture and specialist way of working that suits their particular Forces requirements to get things done in often very difficult circumstances.

With regards to the RAF wanting to take over all things aviation, in the so called name of saving this country money and using their greater aviation knowledge, may I highlight the following points:-

1) The RN/RM/Army is already very lean, efficient and cost effective. For example, I suspect that most Army/RM aircraft are still flown by Corporals/Sergeants who are 'also' proper soldiers by trade. You cannot get much more cost effective and efficient than that for their roles. Is the RAF going to follow the Army lead and reduce their RAF pilot’s ranks, pay and accommodation costs, etc to help reduce defence costs? (I doubt that very much!)

2) Not only do RN aircrew/maintainers carry out their normal flying and land based airfield related duties, they also have to carry out many other important ‘warship only’ related roles. Particularly the crews who operate helicopters aboard smaller ships (such as frigates and destroyers) where they need to be virtually ‘jack of all trades' because they usually do not have any specialist workshop personnel or any other shift to take over from them each day. Therefore, whilst a bean counter (or anyone else who has not served on a small ships flight) may think it easy to put any land based Air Force helicopter crew on such ships, this is not true. UK Tax payers get a lot of very good value and expertise from such personnel in the FAA. Thankfully the RN knows that, and no doubt, so do the Brazilians, Danish, etc!

If only more of the biased RAF supporters could recognise the fact that they do not actually know 'everything' about all types of aviation and how best to use it in RN/Army applications. :ugh:

Tourist

22nd Dec 2008, 07:22

Soddim.

The person that started the cockwaving is you. The only difference between my post and yours is that I didn't couch mine in polititians weasel words:-

Soddim says "If one tries to be totally objective there is much logic in the provision of all air power from an independent air force. The Army and the Navy are utterly professional in their own roles and, similiarly, so is the Air Force in theirs. To assume that within any one of the three services one could muster and maintain the level of expertise and experience to perform satisfactorily the role of any of the other two services diminishes the credibility of separate armed services."

Translated:- "From my position as a patronising git it is obvious that whilst the RN and Army are good at their boat and trench things they are really amateurs in the air and should leave it to the grown-ups who are wonderful like me."

Soddim says "The RAF is not clamouring for tanks or ships so why do the other two services want their own air power. They should accept that if they want air support and don't get it there is a very good reason - someone else needs it more. In these austere times it is vital to apportion one's resources so that they can be shared according to the priorities of the moment - not held in reserve by a force that does not need it at the time or equipped solely for naval or land force support."

Translated:- "I won't interefere with your grubby toys, and my toys are far to complex for kids like you to understand. I am far more mature than you and the resource management issues are so tricky it's best if you don't worry your tiny heads about it, so just run along and be glad for what we dish out."

Bismark

22nd Dec 2008, 09:36

If what Michael Smith (Sunday times) says is true, then the RAF lower downs need to stand up against Torpy. He is doing you irreparable damage that will last many years (remember Harding, Wilson etc). All you have to consider is "What if he fails to disband the FAA and AAC, and the 'One Nation One Airforce' strategy fails?" where does this leave the RAF other than diminished, demeaned and humiliated in the eyes of the British public and their own Service. Those that served in the FAA and AAC will still be able to hold their heads high, whatever the outcome the RAF will not.

So long as the Government says it needs CVF then the RAF/FAA must retain the Harrier to ensure that the necessary deck/ship/aircrew skills are retained for its introduction into service. There are those above who are far more knowledgeable that i who know what it takes to operate FW at sea and it appears to be more that just landing on, bombing up and re-launching - in simple terms these people need to WANT to go to sea.

With regards to the centenary of the FAA, according to the RN blurbin 2009 they are celebrating "100 Years of Naval Aviation" known as Fly Navy 100 .

soddim

22nd Dec 2008, 12:15

Your 'translations', Tourist, do not further your argument neither are they accurate. However, to cut and paste my post to give it more visibility is something I thank you for.

I neither patronise nor did I 'cockwave' in the post you rudely offered your testicles to. If you really believe that an individual service could create the core of expertise essential to perform the roles of the other two you are a bigger fool than you sound in your posts.

Reducing the size of our forces is the current occupation of politicians of both major parties and that is not likely to change in the future. If you think that diminishing resources are still best utilised by parcelling them piecemeal to the service that shouts loudest for them, think again or you will be left with Soloman's solution and half a helicopter is no use at all.

As far as resource management is concerned, the allocation of resources is controlled by a joint headquarters and air is allocated where it is most needed.

I doubt anybody is considering that the RAF should operate the individual ship's helicopter - if the Navy budget can stand the cost of one helicopter per ship that's fine but the Army's helicopter force might be a different matter. The rank of the crew, incidentally, is hardly of financial significance compared with the other costs involved.

I would prefer, Tourist, if this exchange is to continue that you refrain from slagging me off. I can do the same thing but I am not prepared to contribute further in such a trivial way.

Lyneham Lad

22nd Dec 2008, 14:57

From Defence News: 22 December 2008

The RAF and the Fleet Air Arm
An article in the Sunday Times claims that the RAF is trying to take over the Royal Navy's Historic Fleet Air Arm and assume control of all Army helicopters in a cut of more than £1bn from the Defence Budget. This is nonsense.

The article further suggests that Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, is attempting to push through proposals to scrap the 75 Harrier jump jets currently shared between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and that First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band is threatening to resign as a result. As we have previously reported in this blog, the views of the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy and the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band were misrepresented and comments attributed to them were without foundation.

To clarify once again, there are no RAF plans to take over the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm, nor is there any RAF campaign under the slogan "one nation, one air force". As for the comments on helicopters, there is already a single Joint Helicopter Command, which involves all three Services. There are no plans to put all helicopters under a single Service.

So there you have it chaps. It is all a storm in a teacup without a vestige of truth, so you can now all rest easy and the inter-Service willy-waving can stop. :}

Tourist

22nd Dec 2008, 15:10

I notice there is no denial of an attempt to bin the Harrier which would have the spin off effect of..........yes you guessed it, killing off FAA fixed wing.

Soddim.
You seem to believe that size and money = improved professionalism and bang per buck.
By that theory the USAF are both more professional and better one for one than the RAF. Do you believe that to be the case?

The USMC are good troops, and to judge from the exchange guys they send over excellent aviators, better than their Navy guys. I think they have it just about right. Our military could do worse than copying the USMC.

althenick

22nd Dec 2008, 15:33

L_L

Do you have a link for this article? - I cant find it on the MOD Website

Thanks

Al:ok:

LowObservable

22nd Dec 2008, 15:41

Defence News (http://www.blogs.mod.uk/)

soddim

22nd Dec 2008, 15:42

Tourist, the US military have an enormous size advantage and both their naval and marine air arms leave the RAF in the shade. As for the one-to-one qualities, I have served in the USAF and there is no shortage of either skill or professionalism. However, a big air force will inevitably carry a lot of low average abilities as well as a lot of high average abilities but quantity has a quality all of its' own. They also have better equipment.

Could they benefit from one air force serving all three services - they thought so when they formed the USAF but they could probably place more assets in the air force and less in the marines and navy. Nevertheless, each of the latter two air arms are large enough to generate a core professional force capable of fully understanding the air part of their profession and producing the number of senior officers to manage the air assets professionally.

It is not size and money that produces bang for buck it is recruiting, training, skill, experience, equipment and utilisation of assets to name but a few of the attributes of the RAF.

Tourist

22nd Dec 2008, 18:23

There you go again soddim with your politician-speak.

"Nevertheless, each of the latter two air arms (USMC and USN) are large enough to generate a core professional force capable of fully understanding the air part of their profession and producing the number of senior officers to manage the air assets professionally.

It is not size and money that produces bang for buck it is recruiting, training, skill, experience, equipment and utilisation of assets to name but a few of the attributes of the RAF"

There are two possibilities as to what point you are trying to make.

Translation 1:-

"Despite their disadvantages re size and funding, the FAA and AAC manage through dint of spirit and high calibre personnel, to match the RAF in terms of bang per buck at all levels"

Translation 2:-

"The FAA and AAC are not large enough to generate a core professional force capable of fully understanding the air part of their profession and producing the number of senior officers to manage the air assets professionally. Recruiting, training, skill, experience, equipment and utilisation of assets are all attributes that the FAA and AAC Lack."

If 1) is correct, then thank you very much for your adulation.:ok:

If, however, 2) is closer to your true meaning then man up wet pants and just say it.
Don't, however, cry about cockwaving when someone else with less time for mealy-mouthed equivocation answers back disagreeing.:=

Bismark

22nd Dec 2008, 20:08

An article in the Sunday Times claims that the RAF is trying to take over the Royal Navy's Historic Fleet Air Arm and assume control of all Army helicopters in a cut of more than £1bn from the Defence Budget. This is nonsense.

The article further suggests that Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, is attempting to push through proposals to scrap the 75 Harrier jump jets currently shared between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and that First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band is threatening to resign as a result. As we have previously reported in this blog, the views of the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy and the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band were misrepresented and comments attributed to them were without foundation.

To clarify once again, there are no RAF plans to take over the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm, nor is there any RAF campaign under the slogan "one nation, one air force". As for the comments on helicopters, there is already a single Joint Helicopter Command, which involves all three Services. There are no plans to put all helicopters under a single Service.

Amazing the MOD is spinning itself out of control! Talk to any MoD officer on a train or anyone from Air Command on a Wednesday sports afternoon and you will soon find the above is total spin.

soddim

22nd Dec 2008, 22:22

Tourist - you really are a piece of work.

Translate that as you wish to make it read what you want to see.

Mick Smith

22nd Dec 2008, 23:35

Quote:
"An article in the Sunday Times claims that the RAF is trying to take over the Royal Navy's Historic Fleet Air Arm and assume control of all Army helicopters in a cut of more than £1bn from the Defence Budget. This is nonsense.

The article further suggests that Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, is attempting to push through proposals to scrap the 75 Harrier jump jets currently shared between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and that First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band is threatening to resign as a result. As we have previously reported in this blog, the views of the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy and the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band were misrepresented and comments attributed to them were without foundation.

To clarify once again, there are no RAF plans to take over the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm, nor is there any RAF campaign under the slogan "one nation, one air force". As for the comments on helicopters, there is already a single Joint Helicopter Command, which involves all three Services. There are no plans to put all helicopters under a single Service."

Amazing the MOD is spinning itself out of control! Talk to any MoD officer on a train or anyone from Air Command on a Wednesday sports afternoon and you will soon find the above is total spin.

Spot on Bismark. It is unbelievable what they will actually say without a touch of embarassment. When the original article went up on the internet they actually claimed I had given them no chance to refute this - as if they could. I had actually spoken to three separate press officers on it and been told: Look no-one's going to speak about this. The denial of the "one nation, one air force" slogan is absolutely astonishing given how well established it now is, and if JHC is all there is, why on earth are they creating Defence Helicopter Command? Although I suppose it could be because "joint" now seems to be just about the dirtiest word you can use in some quarters.

Radar Command T/O

23rd Dec 2008, 10:39

There's another interesting thread in PPRuNe about the merits of the RAF Regiment and a few are saying how the Army couldn't do the job because of their basic lack of aviation awareness.

Seems very similar to a point the Navy is making about how the RAF don't have the basic seamanship knowledge to make JCA single service.

This raises two points:

1. How come the same essential argument can be valid for the RAF but not the Navy?

and...

2. How hard do we think the RAF would fight if the Army tried to take over defence of Air Force equipment the way the Air Force is trying to take over Naval Aviation?

Fire 'n' Forget

23rd Dec 2008, 16:47

How hard do we think the RAF would fight if the Army tried to take over defence of Air Force equipment the way the Air Force is trying to take over Naval Aviation?

See what a blinkered approach, it is the navy that is mortgaging 'everything' on the 2 carriers for naval aviation.

How much surface fleet have you 'sold the silver' to get them.

Bismark

23rd Dec 2008, 17:47

See what a blinkered approach, it is the navy that is mortgaging 'everything' on the 2 carriers for naval aviation.

How much surface fleet have you 'sold the silver' to get them.

FnF,

Sadly, without the CVF there will not be much need for a frigate and destroyer force, as once the CVF goes the amphibs will soon follow (nothing to protect them, no need for T45 and just need a Dutch or FGerman size Navy (if that).

CVF is a political tool not just an RN one, the Government understand this. It is designed to send a message in a way that land based force (located in UK at the time the influence is needed) cannot. Why do you think the Italians, Spanish, Indians, Chinese, Russians etc are all aquiring them? I also note the Aussies are moving back towards flat-tops.

No doubt Jacko will retort that we simply cannot afford CVF etc, but sadly this Government (and probably the next one) has decided that it WANTs to afford it even to the detriment of other projects (like FRES, MRA4, Frigates etc). That is their choice despite what the higher ups in MOD may say.

How about a Defence Helicopter Command run by just the RN and Army - they are the main users after all? The RAF could run the trucks and have a Defence Fighter/Bomber Force run by RN/RAF. Any job above 1* across Defence would be rotational/BMFTJ. Another thread perhaps?

soddim

23rd Dec 2008, 18:09

I cannot believe that this government will still be in power when the two year delay on CVF expires. By that time the new government will be desperate to make whatever spending cuts they can get away with and CVF may well end up as the RN's TSR2.

One must hope that in the meantime our leader keeps off the world stage and does not commit our forces to any more theatres we are not funded to fight in.

Obi Wan Russell

23rd Dec 2008, 19:29

The two year delay isn't on the start of the CVF program, it's on the completion dates, and in fact is just an admission that after the order for the ships was delayed by two years to start with the completion date had to be put back to fall into line with reality. Also the Defence Minister John Hutton stated in an interview that the withdrawal dates for the existing carriers would also be put back to match the completion of their replacements.

minigundiplomat

24th Dec 2008, 00:13

How about a Defence Helicopter Command run by just the RN and Army - they are the main users after all?

Have they got a few hundred aircrew and engineers going spare then?

The RAF element is just about coping, and changing services would speed those planning to stay on their way, recession or no recession.

I fail to see how this helps soldiers/marines in Helmand, and quite frankly they deserve better. Argue as much as you like about the Harrier/Naval Aviation, but as long as troops on the ground are relying on SH, lets not f##k around with it.

Gullwings

24th Dec 2008, 09:58

At last one pro-RAF supporter now understands what it could be like if the RAF were to lose just one of their aircraft types (Chinook) to the Army and what impact that may have on those depending on such resources at the sharp end! This is despite the fact that it would probably have made good sense to give the Army these aircraft in the first place because they are basically mainly used to carry out Army/RM related work! However, if they were now given to the AAC, and RAF crews were then asked to become AAC personnel (rather than RAF) how do you think the RAF crews would feel?)

As previously mentioned, this nation lost a lot of excellent FAA pilots when the pro-RAF brigade and short sighted MoD effectively killed off the Sea Harrier too early and also moved the FAA fixed-wing pilots away from their FAA base to an RAF base many miles away!

Perhaps some of the blinkered pro-RAF ‘One Air Force’ proposers can now begin to understand the true potential serious side effects of their proposal. Just as RAF personnel would no doubt not want to be made to become part of the AAC, neither do the Army/RN personnel want to become part of an enlarged RAF.

Please put the right aircraft and personnel with the right armed forces that need to operate them in their own specialist environments.

For example, if the RAF does not want Harriers anymore, please transfer some of them to the FAA who would gladly continue to operate them in a USMC type of supporting role for our own RM/Army. However, the blinkered pro-RAF supporters would then no doubt say that the RN would therefore need to lose all of its destroyer fleet to help pay for them! (Their usual rather selfish type of trump card that is continually being used to reduce the size, capability and influence of our once great Navy!) If our 'Nations' needs were put first (before the RAF’s aim to try and dominate everything aviation related) then perhaps the current excessive size of its RAF fighter/strike fleet could be reduced to help cover the cost of something that would make great sense for our 'Nations' benefit. The FAA would then also be able to maintain its excellent fixed-wing flying capability and experience until it gets the proper carriers (at long last) that this country and Europe does need. Having just one French catapult equipped aircraft carrier for the whole of Europe is unbelieveable. The world-wide maritime threats and conflict risks are still going to continue and Europe should not have to continue relying on the US to always provide aircraft carrier support.

glad rag

24th Dec 2008, 10:10

How much surface fleet have you 'sold the silver' to get them.Think you'll be waiting a long time for an answer TBH :hmm:

minigundiplomat

24th Dec 2008, 10:27

neither do the Army/RN personnel want to become part of an enlarged RAF.

An element of bolleaux about that statement. We have large numbers of RN aircrew who have transferred, large numbers of AAC who have transferred, and more from both services applying to transfer.

Most of those who have, will tell you that life is no easier in the RAF than the AAC/RN.

I cannot think of a single member of the RAF aircrew fraternity who has left to join the RN.

However, I do take offence at your repeated assertion that the RN/AAC could do the job better.

We work our nads off to ensure Percy/Royal gets to go exactly where he wants to go, when he wants to go there. The fact that we don't love rum, bum and baccy makes no difference to the service the RM receives.

In fact, in 2002 when the O Boat was cruising around the N Arabian sea looking for a port (and none would take her) to deploy Royal to a landlocked country, an airbridge from the coast was seriously considered. I know this because myself and a few of my colleagues were dragged in after the Brigadier had asked how this would be completed, and his planning staff went very, very quiet.

In the end, the RAF deployed the Cdo's headshed in an epic tranist from the international limit across Pakistan and Afghanistan to Bagram. The remaining troops had to be floated to Oman and put onto C130.

You may wish to check with Royal before you tell him what he wants!

Merry Xmas to you.

Jackonicko

24th Dec 2008, 10:42

Gullwings,

Your arguments are tired and witless. MiniGun (an experienced SH practitioner) is being uncharacteristically tolerant and kind in referring to an "element of bolleaux" in your posts, as they're way worse than that.

Please stop for Christmas, this inane nonsense is getting on my tits.

Tourist

24th Dec 2008, 11:05

minigun

"I cannot think of a single member of the RAF aircrew fraternity who has left to join the RN."

Gosh what a surprise that the high command don't keep you informed:rolleyes:

For your info, we have taken a lot of RAF harrier boys recently including some A2 QFIs, and have closed the door to other FW boys wishing to transfer from tornado etc because we are full.

Jacko.

"MiniGun (an experienced SH practitioner) "

Don't make me laugh. He is a jumped up 19yr old door gunner.

minigundiplomat

24th Dec 2008, 11:33

He is a jumped up 19yr old door gunner

Ah, if only! Nice thought though Tourist.:ok:

Can't comment on Harrier mates, only Rotary. Perhaps I should of caveated my post.

As for the High Command consulting me, there is no need. Small fleet, news travels quickly. I would have thought you understood that?

Merry Xmas

Gullwings

24th Dec 2008, 12:05

Minigun

Of course the RAF should be able to take troops/equipment to places that are a ‘very’ long way from the sea!! Nobody is trying to take your large transport aircraft away from you! Please keep up such epic work! You are fantastic!

By the way, I have worked very closely with all of the forces so I do know what they like and dislike. (Including the Royals!)

Also if you and your RAF colleagues do not want to transfer to FAA roles then please tell your bosses ASAP to forget the ‘One Air Force’ super dream and stop progressively reducing the RN/FAA capability and morale. Let those who can (and who are willing) to carry out such specialist and difficult work get on with it without the RAF wanting to try and take them over.

Jackonico

Please do not use this website if you do not like to hear the other side of a discussion. You equally often drive people crazy but most of us try to politely tolerate the rubbish that you sometimes say.

Have a nice relaxing Christmas.

XR219

24th Dec 2008, 12:35

By that time the new government will be desperate to make whatever spending cuts they can get away with and CVF may well end up as the RN's TSR2.

Erm, wasn't CVA-01 the "RN's TSR2"? :hmm:

Jackonicko

24th Dec 2008, 13:34

The one-sided, blinkered, dark blue biased horse manure that you endlessly repeat is hardly 'discussion', Gullwings, old chap.

Gullwings

24th Dec 2008, 14:11

Jackonico,

Another nice convenient 'cop out' response that offers nothing at all to this thread and shows your true colours!:ugh:

Please do not waste everyones time by continuing to make such silly pointless comments.

Yeoman_dai

24th Dec 2008, 14:21

Jacko, please go away, i'm no aviaition expert but you're even annoying me, christ knows what the rest of the more aviation-savvy readers are thinking.

And abusing someone then saying 'merry christmas' doesn't work, its not big and its not clever and its ruining christmas for me! And as so many of you have pointed out (for some reason) i'm 'young' so it has a deep effect on me ;)

On that line... this is a great discussion, exceptionally amusing, but lets not let it degenerate into a slagging match? Keep the informed debate alive....granted, that means kicking jacko off the thread but oh well :ok:

Yeoman_dai

24th Dec 2008, 14:23

juging by tht im no spellin expart eithar

Navaleye

24th Dec 2008, 14:31

Actually it's Jacko's alternative, devils advocate views which makes the debate interesting. Keep it up.

minigundiplomat

24th Dec 2008, 14:33

Actually it's Jacko's alternative, devils advocate views which makes the debate interesting. Keep it up.

Seconded. If we just had a unified homogenous opinion then none of us would log on.

minigundiplomat

24th Dec 2008, 14:55

Thank you for pointing that out.I am forever indebted to you AIDU!:*

MarkD

24th Dec 2008, 16:30

not only that but combining unified and homogeneous is redundant.

Yeoman_dai

24th Dec 2008, 16:47

HA!

Ok fair point, it all adds to the debate. However, I maintain abuse is not relaly informed discussion is it? You &*^% &&£((" "^^^&($)$*!!!

As it is however.... I have to point out Gullwing, that the RAF doesn't want to get rid of their Harrriers, their just offering them up to try save themselves in the current 'we've lost £2billion and need to find it somewhere.

It's still a stupid place to find the money, when you have units like the RAF regiment (designed to defend airfields against Spetanaz deep-penetration raids in the Cold War) and an oversized F3 fleet, or even the ridiculously top-heavy officer corps of all three services (athough it has to be admitted, especially the RAF)

Hows that for devils advocate ;) Awaiting incoming from minigun and jacko :ok:

Jackonicko

24th Dec 2008, 17:44

I really had intended to avoid serious input on this thread at Christmas, since the more sensitive do get upset by what they see as 'Navy bashing'. And I wouldn't want to give any of those with whom I disagree on a friendly fashion indigestion at this time of year. Taking pot shots at weak minded newbies is just too tempting to avoid, however, which is why I've laughed at GullibleWings.

Yeoman,

Scrapping Harrier is not a "stupid place to find the money."

It nets huge savings (as long as you get rid of the whole lot, and all the support costs) just as binning SHar and Jaguar did. Nor was the sudden OSD extension from 2015 to 2018 ever credible - I had detailed discussions with the IPT years ago, and Harrier rear fuselages will be critical before then.

Jokes about Rocks apart (and I do like those!) the RAF Regiment continues to demonstrate its usefulness, and in an era of deployed operations and expeditionary warfare continue to justify what is a relatively modest price tag.

I'd be all in favour of dumping the "oversized F3 fleet". There are just two squadrons but I'd accept that is two squadrons too many. Unfortunately, though, you need five full-time AD squadrons to provide QRA and AD of the Falklands, so until we have more Typhoon squadrons (and since you want to use Typhoons for multi role and deployed ops, you want more than five squadrons) the poor old F3 is a necessary evil.

When the 'cannon fodder' in the Army are not commissioned, and are (in some areas) relatively unskilled, the pyramid is a full one, and the ratio of privates to Generals will be low. But the "ridiculously top-heavy officer corps" of the RAF exists because the 'cannon fodder' are aircrew - mainly officers, while the bulk of the NCOs in this technocratic service are highly skilled and educated. In such an organisation, you effectively just have the top part of the pyramid, so ratios are different.

Gullwings

There are a number of reasons why the 'One Nation, One Air Force' model makes sense.

The core business of the RAF is air power. Flying and delivering effect by air is the raison d'etre of the air force, and are the key skills/knowledge areas demanded in its leaders. In both the Army and the Navy, air power is peripheral, and aviation experience and expertise is viewed as being less important than cabbage-eating or ship-driving. There is little career progression for dedicated aviators, and though there are plenty of high calibre RN and AAC people who opt to stay aviating (many of them to be found here on PPRuNe), there is inevitably a dilution of experience and expertise as some of the highest calibre blokes leave to go and drive ships or do whatever the cabbage eaters do.

The chain of command understands and knows how to use air power. It does not mis-use assets, and does not allow aircraft to be diverted to act as the Colonel's taxi.

The RAF has the support and engineering infrastructure required to get the most out of the most complex platforms, and to train their aircrew.

You suggest that: "If our 'Nations' needs were put first (before the RAF’s aim to try and dominate everything aviation related) then perhaps the current excessive size of its RAF fighter/strike fleet could be reduced to help cover the cost of something that would make great sense for our 'Nations' benefit."

1) I'd suggest that our nation's needs should be put ahead of narrow RN interests, and that the RN should concentrate its efforts on its core activity of delivering effect by sea. The RN made its choice to retain the strategic deterrent. The country cannot afford for it to have carriers as well, and especially not since carriers represent an expensive, inefficient, niche capability - a nice to have rather than a must have.

2) With just 13 fast jet squadrons, I'd suggest to you that the RAF fleet is anything but excessive. It has been cut harder and further since the Cold War than any part of the RN's front line, despite being a more useful, more cost effective and more versatile means of projecting power.

You say: "It would probably have made good sense to give the Army these aircraft in the first place because they are basically mainly used to carry out Army/RM related work!" - and delivering fuel for Harriers in the field, and, and, and ..... Support helicopters are not, and should not be a pure Army asset, and in the UK's case, could not be. The AAC simply does not have the resources, infrastructure, or experience to operate larger support helicopters.

You say: "This nation lost a lot of excellent FAA pilots when the pro-RAF brigade and short sighted MoD effectively killed off the Sea Harrier too early." The RN struggled to man its two tiny frontline SHar squadrons, and, in the post Cold War world, the SHar was an expensive and rarely needed asset. In an ideal world I'd have kept it (and Jag too!) but this was a sensible cut.

You whine about having: "moved the FAA fixed-wing pilots away from their FAA base to an RAF base many miles away!" They joined a service, and presumably accepted that they would be posted wherever the exigencies of the service required. The tragedy of Joint Force Harrier was that the RN (who provided far less than 1/3 of the personnel) demanded and received half of the key posts, and two of the four squadrons, and then failed to deliver.

All this emotive bol.locks about "our once great Navy" tells me all I need to know about you, I'm afraid. Dry your eyes, Princess, and welcome to the 21st Century, where tough choices have to be made.

Yeoman_dai

24th Dec 2008, 18:03

*casts a line, waits for a second, and gets the most almightly BITE*

;) nah thier good points, but the best part of this discussion is that whichever side you're on, you'll be pretty firmly entrenched. And I don't think the Rocks really justify even their small price tag - having met them, I know just how much extra kit the RAF buys them just to use up their budget.

RileyDove

24th Dec 2008, 18:35

Jackonico- Again the GR.9 programe has not been run to provide the RAF and Navy with an aircraft that has a shelf life of only 3 1/2 years from the last one to leave the line. Similarily the extension of life directly reflects very much based on the fatigue life and hours on the airframe. With some aircraft at 4,000 hrs and others a considerably less it doesn't take a genius to deduce that they will not all be life ex at the same time.
A sensible choice would be to reduce the number in service by say 30% and turn the high hr machines into spares/war reserve. As for replacement rear fuselages -seven from memory have been made by BAe - the number made is in direct relation to how many are actually needed otherwise it would have just been a random number plucked out of fresh air.
So again whilst your IPT contact might have been pesimistic -don't for one minute think that 1 Billion of your hard earned taxes is needed to keep her in the air past 2013.

Gullwings

24th Dec 2008, 23:04

Jackonicko,

Thank you for giving me such a very good laugh this Christmas. I do hope that 'Tourist' can provide one of his excellent translations of some of the rubbish that you have stated.

How on earth did the RN/FAA/RM/RFA/Army possibly win a major sea, land and air campaign in the Falklands, 8000 miles away, with such relatively small resources, poorly trained and inexperienced non-RAF officers, techicians, etc? Obviously in your very blinkered eyes that must have just been down to some very good luck and due to the fact that a relatively few number of RAF personnel were also there to save the day! You really are a joke and an insult to this countries armed forces. (To put it politely!!)

By the way, I am not in anyway knocking those RAF guys who were actually there in the thick of it during that war and did a very good job. I am sure however that they would be honest enough to say that the other forces coped extremely well in some extremely difficult worse case scenarios, without the rapid and flexible world-wide support that the RAF had previously said it could provide!

With your kind of stuck up, arrogant and ‘the RAF are greater than everyone else’ attitude, is it no wonder that the other services do not want the RAF trying to run their air own assets!

You are also good at twisting around what people are 'supposed' to have stated. However, I only hope that our politicians, non-biased forces personnel and the general public read this thread carefully and sensibly to see both sides of the argument and make their own minds up as to what is actually best for this Nation.

May I also take this opportunity to wish everyone a Very Merry and Safe Christmas, wherever you are in the world.

Jackonicko

24th Dec 2008, 23:51

Gullwings,

What are you, a 12-year old spotter?

I'm please that you choose to harp on about the Falklands, which I'm old enough to remember, and which occurred when I was occasionally wearing RAF uniform, and occasionally flying HM's aeroplanes.

The Falklands war took place 26 years ago (halfway back to the Battle of Britain, and nearer in time to VE day than to today). Ancient history, in other words.

It was the last occasion when carriers were actually essential - and it was the last occasion when land based air power couldn't do it better, quicker and cheaper.

Carriers are an inflexible, slow, vulnerable and expensive way of delivering air power, a nice-to-have niche capability that we don't need and can't afford, and which threaten to distort the UK's forces and actually weaken the capability areas we actually need and use.

But which the Admirals won't give up without a fight.

So please don't lecture me on the 'good of the nation'.

timex

25th Dec 2008, 00:58

Carriers are an inflexible, slow, vulnerable and expensive way of delivering air power, a nice-to-have niche capability that we don't need and can't afford, and which threaten to distort the UK's forces and actually weaken the capability areas we actually need and use.

It was only 5 yrs ago that a Major part of Op Telic was launched from 2 carriers. The carriers then provided a "safe haven" for the crews and A/C to rotate through.

Sierra leone wasn't that long ago either.

Lets not forget the Humanitarian Op Tellar in Nicaragua.

You often mention that we are planning our Aircraft for tomorrow so why shouldn't we do the same for the Fleet?

As to the Officers remark, re-read the post and you will see it mentions the "Top Heavy" Officers of all 3 services. We do have far too many.

The chain of command understands and knows how to use air power. It does not mis-use assets, and does not allow aircraft to be diverted to act as the Colonel's taxi.

Taxi for one to the IOW, ring any bells.

Bismark

25th Dec 2008, 07:42

Jacko,

There are too many aspects in your piece above to put in quotes but a response is needed.

Throughout you arguments you seem to imply that the cost of deploying land based air power is minimal and certainly nowhere near as expensive as by sea - no one has yet shown this to be true. I seem to recall in the distant past that to deploy a "fighting squadron" of Jags to Denmark took more than the entire RAF AT fleet and that was just to get them there. Resupply continued to take up most of the AT. In a day one scenario it is likely to take up to 2-3 weeks to establish an RAF fighting Sqn in a tactical FOB with sufficient stores and weapons. The whole point of the carrier concept is that it is available, fully resourced, on day one - and in the previous period it has been stationed for coercive effect whilst diplomacy has its go. Precisely why the US have up to 5 CVNs stationed around the world on a permanent basis (and MEBs for that matter) - the USAF simply can't get there for the day one situation (well not every time).

As far as the Strategic Deterrent goes it is the Government that decides whether it wants one and how best to deploy it - just how would the RAF or Army do this......and does it want to anyway? Simple fact....all the nations with a Strategic Nuclear Deterrent deploy it by submarine, if there was a better way I am sure they would do it.

In our financially constrained times just what are our AD sqns defending against? What is the threat? And since when is Tornado a CAS aircraft?