Harrier dispute between Navy and RAF chiefs sees Army 'marriage counsellor' called in

[Inspector Dreyfuss]

Daily Telegraph 4 Feb 09:

"The Defence Secretary John Hutton has been forced to call in an Army general to act as a “marriage counsellor” to resolve a bitter dispute between the heads of the Royal Navy and RAF over the future of the Harrier jump jet.

Harrier jump jet, Air Marshal Torpy suggested that the Ministry of Defence could save £1 billion if the Harrier was phased out of service. Photo: PA
The relationship between the First Sea Lord, Sir Jonathon Band, and the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Glenn Torpy has become “poisonous” due to a disagreement over the aircraft that is jointly run by both services.

Frustrated at the lack of compromise between the two military leaders, Major General Paul Newton, an Army officer with no flying background, has been appointed to resolve the dispute.

Air Marshal Torpy suggested that the Ministry of Defence could save £1 billion if the Harrier was phased out of service within the next five years with the closure of Joint Force Harrier with its 50 Navy and RAF pilots.

This would have signalled the end of the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm, regarded as the most professional of all air forces, despite the two new aircraft carriers entering service by the end of the next decade.

Admiral Band was incensed by the proposal, which would have meant there would be no Navy pilots to fly off the carriers, and threatened to resign.

But Air Marshal Torpy is thought to have the backing of the Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Jock Stirrup, who was also an RAF pilot.

“Relations between Torpy and Band have become very bitter and very poisonous,” claims a defence source. “General Newton is being used as a marriage counsellor to ensure that the rowing does not become public.”

Major Gen Newton, Director of Development, Concepts and Doctrine in the MOD, is expected to agree with the Navy that a small force of sea-going pilots is vital to Britain’s interests if it wants to project power abroad when he presents his report to a meeting of MoD chiefs today (weds).

There is a suggestion now that Air Marshal Torpy will resign if the Navy wins the bitter turf war, according to Whitehall sources.

The Naval Strike Force will probably become the main Harrier force preparing pilots to fly the ‘fifth generation’ Joint Strike Fighter made in America.

The sticking point for the RAF is that only half of the 150 British JSF are likely now to be ordered with the Navy getting the majority. This would mean the RAF would struggle to get a full replacement for fourth generation Eurofighter Typhoon leaving them without a cutting edge aircraft

A senior Army officer described the dispute as “a bunch of overgrown school boys arguing over who gets to play on a new toy”.

The internecine battles being fought between the Services over a limited defence budget are said to be at the most bitter since the “east of Suez” defence cuts of the Sixties.

The RAF argues that with Afghanistan land-locked and the new carriers not coming into service until at least 2016 there is no current need to have carrier-borne fighters. Once the ships become operational, the RAF would be able to fly off them.

The savings would come through the maintenance contract that has yet to be signed with BAE Systems and by closing RAF Cottesmore when the Harrier force is based.

An MoD spokesman said: “The First Sea Lord and Chief of the Air Staff are committed to working together for the benefit of the Armed Forces and will continue to do so in the future.”“During any planning round a number of options are considered to ensure our spending plans are matching our priorities and delivering value for money. But we do not provide a running commentary on this process. At this stage no decisions have been made.” "


Comments from the floor?

[Cornerstone958]

So what happens when the Government cancels the JSF then:confused::uhoh:

[newt]

Sell all the Harriers to the Navy and make them pay the bill!! Why should the RAF budget support naval assets? If they insist on keeping a fastjet capability then maybe they should purchase an interim aircraft ie RAF Harriers!

Go on Glen.......give em some stick!!

[Sand4Gold]

Ah, bless....CDS not up for the challenge?

[rogerk]

These are the most senior officers of both services and they are acting like petulant 5 year olds.

About time the whole of the MOD was sorted out.

[onevan]

If you get rid of the Harrier GR9, what has the same capability to assist our troops on the ground in Afgan? :=
Get rid of the GR4, that will save even more money as it will need alot of investment to bring it up to the same capability as the Harrier.
Oh, thats right, offering the GR4 as a cost saving means losing 8 times the number of personnel (RAF) so its easier to remove capability := and sc**w the RN and Troops on the ground := than diminish your own empire.:(:(

[Yeoman_dai]

Not this thread again!

I don't have any experience with aviation beyond 14 hours in cessna's at a local aerodrome, but I follow MIlitary history, and defense news, and even I can see that the Fleet Air Arm needs to retain a fast jet capability. We do not and cannot predict what will happen, even next year - so you simply cannot say that we won't need the capability of carrier ops because we'llbe in Afghan. We're a P5 nation, we could get called anywhere, and since 80% of the world population live near water, or something like that, it's more likely that we'll need harrier than not. Its just the RAF trying to defend itself from a threat that doesn't exist, ie getting disbanded - and thats from a Wing Cmmdr I was chatting to at a recent defence forum i attended who said he doesn't see his force making 100 years old!. Look, until the Battle of Britain has been forgotten, that won't happen, and this nations psyche is stuck in WWII, so that'll never happen either.

I think the RAF should stop trying to protect itself at the expense of other important capabilities, the Navy should stop acting like the RAF is trying to completely kill it off, and both the top men should act like the proffessional they must be.

THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE WINNING HERE ARE THE MOD!!! Jeez, if they all just provided a combined front, maybe the Treasury would take that 2bn OUT of social services where its being wasted, and make up the differece.

bah, can you tell i'm frustrated sitting in here writing a dissertation when I could be out in the snow :ugh:

[skippedonce]

"This would have signalled the end of the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm, regarded as the most professional of all air forces,

Good to see the journo isn't biased then!

[exscribbler]

It strikes me that the RAF hasn't yet got over losing "control" of the nuclear deterrent. The FAA aren't allowed to write ROYAL NAVY on their GR9s as they're said to be RAF assets but anyway, what use are GR9s in the air defence of the fleet?

No matter how much you move Australia and other potential RAF landing spots, air defence of the Fleet can only be provided by organic Naval Air. If the RAF can't get their tiny pointed heads around that one, then they're more pathetic than I thought. If such a concept is outmoded, then let's forget force projection, scrap the new carriers, JSF and everything else and sit at home comfortable in the knowledge that we've plenty of spare cash and fcuk-all defence.

Let's hope a sensible soldier can bang some heads together - after all, it's not a competition with a winner - we can all lose at this one.

[NutLoose]

Surely the current Carriers the Navy operate can only carry sufficent Harriers to realistically maintain a Cap over the said Carrier, So the carriers only real purpose in a real war situation against a force with credible air assests is to carry enough Harriers to protect itself and is therefore is a pointless exercise in flag waving...

Seems a bit of a Chicken and Egg Situation..

[Yeoman_dai]

well, i'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong, but the current carriers could carry enough to CAP the fleet, including the LPD and LPH's allowing them to offload booties.

Of course, they'd be ridiculously inefficient, as the only Harriers we have left don't have radar, and can't carry anything more than Sidewinder, so would be pretty damn limited.

Then again, its exceptioanlly unlikely we'd be going up against anyone with a credible airforce, current international poliics being what it is, and the ground attack role would be more useful and Gr9's are pretty good at that ;)

[airborne_artist]

Then again, its exceptioanlly unlikely we'd be going up against anyone with a credible airforce

Unless you believe in learning from history that is. Many on this forum can remember the South Atlantic conflict better than where they put their glasses five minutes ago. My father caused considerable FO disbelief/displeasure when warning them about the sabres being rattled when he commanded Endurance from 78-80.

Making assumptions about future foes' military capabilities is a surefire way of getting caught sans trousers.

[anotherthing]

Considering a lot of RAF personnel (quite rightly) state they did not join to serve from ships, where is the 'expertise' going to come from?

It's all very well having a group of pilots rotating on stints at sea, but you need a permanent cadre to provide support and background knowledge to those who rotate onboard.

Unless we bin the carriers, the RN must retain FJ capability.

Of course we could bin the carriers, but then, why would we need as many air assets? Why not bin the carriers and amalgamate all the forces into one pared down UK Defence Force?

We could withdraw all support for campaigns in foreign lands, retreat onto our little isalnd and save lots of money.

I'm not advocating that course of action, but getting rid of FAA FJ capability is the first step down that road.

[soddim]

I see this thread has once again drawn the drivel that the last one on this subject provoked. The article is about the behaviour of the two Service chiefs towards each other - the proposal to shorten the Harrier's life is merely the current focus of this alleged misbehaviour.

But is this really misbehaviour? Why should the CAS not say what he means and why should his counterpart throw his toys out of the cot? The MOD budget is in tatters and savings have to come from somewhere. Strikes me that the argument should never have become public because there is absolutely nothing to be gained from this discussion or any others that concentrate on the personal relationship issues of the two Service chiefs.

In my opinion it is in any case only a matter of time before this country recognises that it is no longer a World power and cannot afford either carrier.

[anotherthing]

In my opinion it is in any case only a matter of time before this country recognises that it is no longer a World power and cannot afford either carrier
And where do we stop after that. Obviously, we should bin the nuclear capability if we no longer wish to be a world power.

Taking your argument to a logical conclusion, then you could say that we do not need the current level of armed forces to mount operations outside of the UK (why should we fight in Afgahistan etc if we do not want to be a World Power/Player)? Why not just curl up into a ball and let the USA etc get on with it?

We could really cut down on the numbers required if we just decided on border protection. Give the Army and Navy all the rotary wing assets and give the RAF a couple of squadrons of fighters. Of course, we wouldn't need all 3 services, they could be rolled up into one purple force.

The MOD budget is in tatters...That issue would be sorted in one fell swoop, and money freed up for other areas.

Sorted.:ugh:

[soddim]

I'm not so sure about the nuclear capability because that does have a self-protection issue in deterrence but the affordability of out of area capability is quite clear-cut - we don't have it.

Although many people think that forward defence and fighting one's battles on other peoples' territory is the preferred option, there is a better way. Why not avoid the creation of more terrorists and secure our borders against those who already exist.

[Wrathmonk]

Look on the bright side - the squabbling can't go on for much longer as the current CNS leaves the Service soon (as does the current CAS). Maybe the two new grown ups will get along a bit better.:E

Yeoman

I have to take issue with your comment:

even I can see that the Fleet Air Arm needs to retain a fast jet capability

What we need to retain is a carrier borne aviation capability. It does not need to be Fleet Air Arm. It does not need to be Royal Air Force. It is the capability we need not the colour of the uniform. The quicker people get their heads around that and look forwards, not backwards, then the quicker we can all focus on the real problems at hand!:ugh:

History and hindsight are great for armchair generals/admirals and air marshals but not necessarily the best for a cash strapped Defence!

[Yeoman_dai]

I completely agree Wrathmonk. I just believe the FAA would be the best o provide the service soley based upon the fact that the pilots and observers would joint o fly from decks, not land.

[Finnpog]

Is naval FJ a capability that we would want as a nation (Both Air Defence and Ground Attack / CAS)?

If YES - then this is in all likelihood best provided by the Navy as one of the weapons systems of the carrier platform.

I have read and posted elsewhere that there could be an effective split of capabilities across all three branches.

RN - Carrier borne FW - AD and GR/CAS - AEW if the carriers went CATOBAR
RW to support the Fleet - Lynx, Merlin, SK & SK AEW
RW to support 3 Cdo Brigade - Consider Merlin, Chinook and 'gunships'
in lieu of AH

Army - Tactical RW - Lynx, Puma, Merlin, Chinook, AH
Some Tactical FW - e.g Islander

RAF - Land based Air defence (for UK and projected forces) and ground
attack / strike / CAS (Wish I could say 'Bomber' and get a squadron or
two of BUFFs)
Strategic Recce / AWACS / ISTAR
All big ME assets

There is also a need to defend what you've got - so keep the Rocks for the RAF (and give them back Rapier?) - and there has never been a outpouring of complaints over the Nimrod MR - so leave that with the RAF too, rather than transferring them to the RN.

Naturally the RN FW will always be amphibious - so that allows a capability for forward deployment on short / rough fields when there is a restricted supply chain - Wasn't that the key reason that the Harrier went into KAF way before the Tonka.

The RAF could also keep Space Command and the Predator UAV for me.

Just my 2p's worth.

[Green Flash]

..... and whilst we bicker amongst ourselves the cash gets less and less ...... :(

[kokpit]

..... and whilst we bicker amongst ourselves the cash gets less and less ......

That was pretty much my thoughts on the matter, surely the root cause of all this is an ever diminishing pot, and one that seems to indicate that we are a 'spent' force. :(

[mtp_rich]

Finnpog for next CDS!

Sounds like a sensible plan and everyone gets their own toys to put back in their pram.

[Biggus]

First of all nothing anybody says on this thread will make any difference to the eventual outcome......





However, having said that.....

I presume we all agree that all 3 armed services are having to face cuts. The RAF wants to get rid of the Harrier, to save money, the Navy doesn't. Simple solution, transfer as many Harrier Sqns to the Navy as they want, but JFH (or whatever you call it) becomes paid for out of the RN budget. If they want it that badly they can pay for it...!!

[TEEEJ]

Onevan wrote

If you get rid of the Harrier GR9, what has the same capability to assist our troops on the ground in Afgan? Get rid of the GR4, that will save even more money as it will need alot of investment to bring it up to the same capability as the Harrier.

I take it that you are aware that in a few months the GR.4 will replace the GR.9 in Afghanistan? Would you care to elaborate why the Tornado GR.4 can't provide CAS up to the standard of the Harrier? Please explain why the GR.4 requires an upgrade?

[Bunker Mentality]

Surprised the distressed couple weren't referred to you Inspector D - I thought you were a CR Marriage Guidance Counsellor :)

BM

[Daysleeper]

I take it that you are aware that in a few months the GR.4 will replace the GR.9 in Afghanistan? Would you care to elaborate why the Tornado GR.4 can't provide CAS up to the standard of the Harrier? Please explain why the GR.4 requires an upgrade?

Well from open sources the GR-4 cannot carry a particular guided weapon of which we have/are purchasing many and which are forward deployed to Afghanistan. If it goes there now it will cost a fortune in logistics to bring back the one out there and send out the older generation system the GR 4 needs to operate. BTW the deployment has been delayed due to "ramp" space issues...:hmm:

flight (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/02/321868/uk-could-extend-harriers-afghan-tour-of-duty.html)

[Occasional Aviator]

There really is some utter drivel in the newspapers, and on this thread! Why would loss of the harrier mean 'The end of the Fleet Air Arm', when its fixed-wing element is only some 15% of its strength?

And, thinking joint, we all know we probably have a bit too much fast-jet capability in the UK forces. If we need to scrap a fleet, the Harrier's a no-brainer. It's the smallest fleet, is due out of service first, doesn't have the capability of Tornado, and probably most importantly is the only one that will save any money, as we've (foolishly IMHO) signed great long 30-year support contracts for the others that we'd still have to pay for. BTW, these were the arguments for scrapping the jaguar early and nobody got nearly so upset about that.

It doesn't necessarily mean the end of RN fast-jet aviation - after all, the pilots are trained, equipped and sustained by the RAF and they could be employed by the RAF on other types, as many have been - and meanwhile we have a fair bit of deck experience in the RAF from our exchanges with the USN/USMC. Yes, it might be quite difficult keeping the flame alive, but there are plenty of other capabilities we could say that about - just ask the Army about regenerating the ability to fight a divisional battle.

In any case, if anyone starts talking about having carrier air to 'defend the fleet', they haven't grasped the concept of Carrier Strike that the RN are pursuing - I recommend a thorough reading of the Future Maritime Operational Concept paper, or the Future Navy Vision - it's about providing strike effect. The fleet is already better defended against air attack than any other element of the UK forces, what with T45 - and yes, we'd all like to have layered defences with the ability to VID, but to be frank the amount of risk we're taking against air threats in the land and air environments, it would be a pretty thin case to say that RN AD aircraft should take priority over, say FRES.

And anyway, it wasn't Australia that was 'moved'. It was a much smaller island, in an area where current UK defence policy says we don't have much of an interest.....

[Guzlin Adnams]

The main enemy is Broon and his bl00dy treasury. Divide and conquer and all that. As a miserable little civvy all I can see at times are different services at war with each other. Cut through that for heavens sake. Billions of tax payers pounds have been given to banks who've totally f.....d things up. Millions are given to Brussels every day, similar ammounts to immigrants who've never contributed a ruddy penny to this country.
My dear old dad died on Jan 14th. He had been ill with heart failure for a while. Amongst the statements that he made before his death was that "this bl00dy country's finished boy". Pretty profound from a naturally quiet man. He meant it too. Put the inter service bickering aside, don't get divided and conquered. Stand up to Broon and is bean counters. They're on borrowed time in any case.

So do we need Harriers, yes we do. The only reason for considering their demise is to save money. Save, save , save. :ugh:. Get rid of that blasted scotsman asap!!

[althenick]

It is the capability we need not the colour of the uniform.

FFS it always amazes me the obtusenesss of some folk wrt the RAF serving at sea. It also worries me that these same people are by in large commissioned that comment on it on this forum. Take a look at the link below and start talking to your own people.


Jointery - Going to Sea (http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=15992)



Sell all the Harriers to the Navy and make them pay the bill!! Why should the RAF budget support naval assets? If they insist on keeping a fastjet capability then maybe they should purchase an interim aircraft ie RAF Harriers!


Your right - the RAf shouldn't have to pay for the support of these a/c if the RN want them.

BUT
If the RN hadn't got into bed with the RAF wrt JFH then Shar would be costing them £109Million to 2012. Also why should the RN "Purchase" RAF Harriers? - I dont recall the RAF "Purchasing" RN Buccaneers. And anyway they dont belong to the RAF, They belong to HMG and paid for by the UK tax burden.

[Pontius Navigator]

Strikes me that the argument should never have become public because there is absolutely nothing to be gained from this discussion or any others that concentrate on the personal relationship issues of the two Service chiefs.

There is nothing like keeping the arguemtent in-house. And this is nothing like keeping it in-house. Whowever sanctioned the release of the story needs his . . .

[anotherthing]

Occasional Aviator

Do you honestly believe that we can keep a credible maritime FJ force if we get rid of the FAA capability?

You need to praxctise the art continually - it's all very well having crews rotate onboard for a stint every now and again, but you need a backbone of continual maritime service to maintain the required standards, skills and practices - if for no more reason than to make sure that RAF crews who rotate onboard have a good support and training infrastructure.


...and meanwhile we have a fair bit of deck experience in the RAF from our exchanges with the USN/USMC
Do you honestly think a few exchange jobs are enough to maintain standards?

Do you envisage a group of pilots within the RAF who will mainly fly from carriers in the future? Will they be happy with that idea of being RAF (Seagoing), with maybe the occasional 'exchange' with a lad based RAF squadron?

How long do you think it would take crews to start complaining (quite rightly) about lack of adequate training and experience etc??

If we get the carriers, there is no point in doing things half cocked and having crews whose skills diminish year on year because there is no deep experience and continuity.

I does not matter what uniform that experience comes from, but it needs to be gained through continual exposure... it can't be maintained by handing over the reins every 3 or 4 months!

You talk about layered defence - do we need it if we bin the carriers? There is no real point in keeping carriers if we do not maintain the skills to the highest degree...

[hulahoop7]

If the FAA goes so will the remaining Vinis. With them will go the 2000 or so sailors and all their skills. We'll also have a pilot exodus.

Some would suggest that from this zero base (which will require us to re-recruit and train 2000 sailors maintenance engineers etc) we'll be able to run a super carrier with 36 F35s in 10 years time. What tosh. Once its gone its gone forever.

With that, we might as well get rid of the expensively purchased amphib fleet and associated escorts. Bring the army home and train it for home guard. Retain a few OPVs for fisheries and smuggling work.

We'll all be safe because no doubt we'll have the tranche 5 Typhoons protecting us by then. :ugh:

[Doctor Cruces]

Alternatively, now the top RAF bod is in charge of the whole lot, could he just be getting his own back for Mountbatten killing TSR2 so he could have more Buccanneers?

Just wondered.

Doc C

[Frostchamber]

Is there a compromise around shrinking the Harrier fleet and consolidating round a core force of GR9As? Would provide sufficient airframes to deploy on a CVS, provide some inital deck handling practice on CVF if necessary and generally keep the STOVL flame alive pending JSF introduction. Wouldn't save nearly as much as scrapping the whole fleet and infrastructure but would save some. I'm also conscious that once spending has ratcheted down it's not easy to ratchet it up again, eg when JSF is introduced. First post, but happy to accept any incoming I may be due...

[LateArmLive]

Would you care to elaborate why the Tornado GR.4 can't provide CAS up to the standard of the Harrier?

Where to begin?

Lack of payload, performance, reaction time, serviceability, ability ;)

[TEEEJ]

LOL! Looks like I've unintentionally opened up that old can of worms!

Daysleeper,
Thanks for the reply. I'm fully aware of the integration of Paveway IV that is covered under the Urgent Operational Requirement. Having re-read the following link I can see the justification of Paveway IV use in Afghanstan. It would appear that the flexibility of the weapon is ideally suited to ops in Afghanistan.

RAF - Paveway IV (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/paveway4.cfm)

[Beermonkey]

I'm in the light blue FJ camp so am accutely aware of the lack of everything!

In my mind, the UK faces some tough choices. Do we maintain a capability for the unexpected, or simply concentrate on the here and now? Personally, I think the latter is extremely short-sighted. Afghanistan is obviously the focus right now. But what about in 5, 10 or 20 yrs time? Capabilities like seaborne FJ aviation cannot be hibernated; they require experience and training for any sort of credibility.

Cost is obviously the driving factor. We've already taken a 'repayment holiday' with AD (both RAF and FAA); now it would appear that we're going to take a break form any sort of independent power projection. It's a political decision, but one that requires our Military Lords and Masters to show some backbone and foresight. People in the highest ranks have a duty to speak out for the rest of us; to make the point that UK defence can no longer aspire to what our politicians want without the money to make it happen.

Oh, as to the nonsence I've read here about the UK having a carrier-borne AD capability.........

[Double Zero]

Has anyone read history ?

It may be a case of avoiding the 'fighting the last war' syndrome, but a huge lesson in my little opinion ( and I suspect others ) is that the RAF tried hard to emasculate the Fleet Air Arm between the wars, and managed it - right up to the early stages of WWII when they suddenly found they required it badly, in a hurry.

Joint Force Harrier is an RAF driven farce, and we need RN pilots not only motivated but recruited !

The FAA is historically used to being s~~t upon then doing the business - this won't happen with some politician's magic waving a flag when something nasty hits the fan, we need trained sea-going pilots NOW, not on an occasional basis.

I and the public appreciate the effort in Afghanistan ( I've been told by someone who should know, a very large percentage of FAA air & groundcrew are there ) but we need a carrier force.

I've said it time & again ( from my armchair aged 47 but ask and I'd happily be there, like a lot of more experienced others ) - get a few Harrier 2+ and a true FAA, to perform fleet defence along with - gosh, all six - of the Type 45 destroyers, then the GR9 mud movers can do their bit without being embarassingly taken out.

Tornados & Typhoons have no part to play unless we're fighting off the Isle of Wight or a REALLY friendly country - we're relying on that, are we ? Despite in-flight refuelling.

When I see in flight re-arming and changing fatigued pilots, I'll be impressed.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

I am a former member of HM Forces who flew in the first Gulf War in the same unit as the then Wg Cdr Torpy (a top bloke much loved by his guys I should say). I was a junior officer while Messrs Torpy and Stirrup where advancing up the system! The slight snag is they are both old recce mates who have done a lot of mutual back scratching along the way. The problem with that is yer man Jock will back his mate Glenn to the hilt in any dispute with the Navy - or indeed anyone else. All very touching as that is, it does not mean the best interests of the UK are met.

Having long retired, I have become acutely aware of the alarmingly parochial and 'small picture' view of the world taken by nearly all senior officers in our Armed Forces. Loathe as I am to admit it, there is an infinitely greater chance of a politician taking the right decision than high ranking officers who will invariably make bad decisions based on local interests. How did decisions ever get made, for example, to leave a cannon out of the Typhoon (since recinded I believe), guns off a ground-attack Harrier or ECM off a Tornado F3? These were all decisions taken by senior RAF Officers which anyone with a brain in their head could see were incredibly foolish. It is equally foolish to remove carrier-based fast jets off our inventory. No one knows where the next conflict will be, but we can say with absolute certainty that we will have the wrong equipment to fight it. It would be good to see that trend reversed if at all possible. Let Torps resign but keep the carrier-based capability.

[Finnpog]

Top post there Fletch (from HMP Slade no doubt?).

It's a shame when a CDS is not totally 'purple' but is tinted (tainted perhaps?) with their former hue of blue or green. The shame of publicly having 'Perce' act as referee actually undermines both Service Chiefs and the CDS.

Crikey - the politicoes and madarins need fighting with a united front...and surely this is where the CDS should have brought things together, and it seems has been found lacking in impartiality.

If the Secretary of State for Defence has been presented with a number of Billions to save, then there may be no way to 'magic' more pounds into the budget - therefore it is a battle that can never be won. This is happening right now with the Police through the Home Office.

This leaves no choice but to make some tough choices about what we can no longer afford to do courtesy of HMG.

Fine! The proposal to axe the Harrier might save some cash - but the decision making behind it was so clearly blatant with looking after 'their' own thinking and the 'One Nation - One Air Force' blah was an arrogant turn of phrase at best.

If we as a nation can no longer afford 'n' billions - then we will need to cut something, but if I remember correctly, the reason that the Harrier went into KAF was because nothing else was able to. To then propose axing the only platform that offers that expeditionary ability seems farcical when the nature of threat is as it is now.

Even suggesting chopping the Harrier after the capability that the GR1s & 3s were able to provide the RAF from Forward Operating Locations in the face of the Red Army coming over the hill seems arse - particularly if Russia is talked up as being the next threat.

(Shall we re-start the "Why the JSF instead of the Hornet / Rafale?" thread now.):eek::E

[Double Zero]

Norman S.F & Finnpog,

Cannot agree more.

I personally saw the reasons why the Harrier 2 / now GR9 doesn't have a gun; a semi- political move to fit a trendier 25mm 'improved' Aden cannon.

Just by coincidence, BAe had recently taken over Royal Ordnance, who were big on talk, but results proved different - I photographed the thing blowing itself to bits long before any shell might meet an enemy - mind you, the hail of shrapnel from the disintegrating gun may well have put one attacker off !

I'm personally sure an original 30mm Aden could have been fitted, or the USMC GAU-12 gatling with gun the one side, ammo' the other - but that would have meant - gasp - admitting to a mistake !

The gunpod positions are used for medium altitude targetting systems now, which are reportedly very good; however I can't help thinking ( I've not been there ) that a powerful strafing a la A-10 with modern avionics & guidance systems would cheer up the troops no end !

[Bismark]

Let Torps resign but keep the carrier-based capability.

So did he? Has CAS resigned? All seems to have gone quiet. Is something fishing going on or has the FAA caught a crab?

[The Helpful Stacker]

The FAA aren't allowed to write ROYAL NAVY on their GR9s as they're said to be RAF assets.....

Incorrect.

The RAF aren't allowed to paint ROYAL AIR FORCE on the side of 'theirs' either.

The GR9s are pooled, often being moved between different squadrons as they come out of servicing. A few are painted up as specific squadron aircraft but many have easily removable or no sqn markings at all.


Hows the tinfoil hat though? Comfy?

[Wrathmonk]

Bismark

Not withstanding you have quoted another post but I thought it was CNS who "threatened" to resign if he didn't get his way. Or is he just screaming and screaming till he's (dark) blue in the face?

[Madbob]

I am long out of the air force now; my involvement was in the Falkland Islands when I must say I was very impressed by the co-operation of not just the RN and Army but also numerous civvies, merchant navy, Royal Fleet Auxilliary etc. etc.

All that mattered then was getting on with the job! All this changed when the rule books arrived and the suppliers became storemen and started to hoard their supplies and stop supplying them; low flying rules tightened up, bean counters arrived and "Admin" reverted to normal!

What needs to happen now is for the CNS, CAS and CGS (Chief of the General Staff or whoever heads the army) COLLECTIVELY to stand together on this. The country needs ALL elements of the services and that includes the FAA and RM, (and the RAF Regt) and none are "optional extras".....Divided loyalties have no part here and will lead to even fiercer in-fighting in the future and only play into the polititians hands.

After the end of the Cold War, the then necessary review "Option for Change" promised a leaner and better equipped armed forces. We are certainly much leaner now but we must not allow the equipment promises to be broken anymore than they have been already.

Stand together is the message, and to remember that attack is sometimes better than defence....we ought to expect senior military officers to know this and speak out against political decisions which they know are ill thought, and which prejudice our defence posture.....both now and in the future.

Why do we never learn from the past?

MB

[exscribbler]

Right on, Madbob!

While we're at it, will someone please explain why it appears as if the CAS and the CDS (who should know more than most about individual aircraft types' capabilities) want to discard the best CAS aircraft we have? Are they mad?

[ATFQ]

ZZZZZZZZZZ

[nice castle]

Chap, real readiness is measured in hours, not weeks, I would say.

As for the GR4, it can't be that after months they claim they are not ready; heads would roll - how long have they been about? There must be other extraneous issues surrounding the situation you refer to.

[insty66]

Depends which way you look at it I suppose. Tornado was not told
"Get to Afg asap" it was given a set period of time, that period has not elapsed yet.

Or is the delay (3 months? 6 months? A year?) really because there isn't anywhere to park them (and all the contractors who lay the concrete have run off)?

Sometimes the truth spoils what would otherwise be a good beating stick.

Can you remember how quick Tornado was ready for Bosnia or Telic once tasked?

[phil gollin]

In something like 8 years (plus or minus) there will be a load of F-35s which will need pilots (and maintenance crew) to take them to sea.

I don't care if they are RAF, FAA, or "purple" (or pink) - but the senior pilots and maintenace crew for those planes should be getting some experience under their belts the best way they can NOW.

IF we are going to have "purple" solutions then it is up to all involved parties to start behaving like serious, professional people.

.

[Roger Sofarover]

I agree with Madbob.

A few years ago a study was conducted amongst very senior Officers across the services as to what qualities and skills they deemed were necessary for a young Officer Cadet to possess to ensure they would 'cut it' and be of great value to the military. Time and time again, one particular quality kept being mentioned, and that was 'Moral Courage', ie backbone, spine. It is about time there was a unified stance by our guys at the top, to stand up in front of the Treasury and the MOD and say 'NO!', enough is enough. The couple of billion that the military is asked to save is nothing in comparison to the Northern Rock, LloydsTSB debarcle.

It still astonishes me that at a time of well publicized overstretch somebody in the Treasury even has the gall to ask for savings to be made. Torpy has made his full pay pension now, it is about time he stuck up for the service that has been so good to him. I see the First Sea Lord at least had the balls to put his job on the line, something I have seen many Admirals and Generals do, but have never heard of any of our chaps in the RAF do.

But nothing will change:( Rant Over:(

[Pheasant]

I am new to pprune and was looking through the many threads and this one struck a chord with some letters I have seen in the Daily Telegraph over the past few days. What is happening with the Harrier Force and did a Chief resign? I would have thought something would be in the press by now if they had.

When Chiefs threaten to resign there is usually someone behind them stiffening their resolve (they won't do it unless they are being told "its all or nothing boss") - presumably it is their Assistant Chiefs, or is Stirrup the quiet stirrer?

[RNGrommits]

Did I hear right? Is JFH continuing to support Herric until the New Year? Does that mean that GR4s won't be ready to take on the mantle? Looks like a good arguement for keeping the most useful fleet in the RAFs inventory for as long as possible, kinda like what the RN were saying. (Not sure NSW will be happy though as no doubt they will be getting the Xmas deployment again!).
Please feel free to correct me if the jungle drums I heard are wrong!

[Bismark]

Looks like the C**bs have really c****d up now!

Torpy "ACAS, Let's get rid of the Harrier Force so we can get the Navy out of FW"

ACAS "Great idea Sir I'll get right on to it!"

2 weeks later

Torpy "I think we might have done it old bean."

ACAS "Slight problem sir, we actually need the Harriers to plug a slight gap that has emerged in our planning. What is more we need the FAA to help us."

Torpy "But you told me it would be easy, ACAS"

ACAS "Shall I get my sword now, Sir?"

Can someone assure me someone is in charge of the RAF?

[ATFQ]

ZZZZZZZZZZ

[WolvoWill]

Surely with Litening III and 4 Paveway IVs (or a mixed load of Paveway IV and laser brimstome) and the TIEC upgrade the Tornado will be a pretty capable CAS aircraft?

If they clear dual-store carriers (like days of old, carrying 1000lb GP bombs 8 at a time) you could conceivably carry even more Paveway IVs (up to 6 and a targetting pod), though there may be wiring issues for putting a GPS guided weapon on them (like the US found, having to modify VERs to carry JDAM). Possibly end up being a bit heavy for Afghanistan though...

By the time it goes to the stan I'd expect all the above weapons will have been fully cleared and at least enough airframes for Herrick will have received TIEC....

[XR219]

The FAA aren't allowed to write ROYAL NAVY on their GR9s as they're said to be RAF assets.....
Incorrect.

The RAF aren't allowed to paint ROYAL AIR FORCE on the side of 'theirs' either.


To be pedantic, I believe the historical convention regarding aircraft markings is that only RAF aircraft carry fin flashes; FAA and AAC aircraft carry "ROYAL NAVY" or "ARMY" titles instead. AFAIK, all JFH aircraft have fin flashes.

[LateArmLive]

Surely with Litening III and 4 Paveway IVs (or a mixed load of Paveway IV and laser brimstome) and the TIEC upgrade the Tornado will be a pretty capable CAS aircraft?

I think the issue with the GR4 in Herrick (if it ever happens) is the lack of performance in the ML environment. It will be unable to fly above the envelope of even early gen MANPADS with a warload (currently x bomb, gun and x rockets) anywhere other than in Helmand.

Not that I don't want the GR4 to succeed out here, but I just don't believe the Tornado will be able to provide the same service to the guys on the ground as the GR9 currently does. I hope to be proved wrong!

[phil gollin]

This is getting a bit off-topic, but for MOST operations in Afghanistan surely using up old aircraft remaining airframe hours is the best policy.

Armed Patrols at medium level with precision bombs is a simple task which does NOT need the very latest generation aircraft.

Now, low down CAS and future procurement is another matter - but using up the best aircraft for something as well done by older aircraft makes no sense.

.

[Finnpog]

Having just watched the interview, it seemed like it went well for 1 SL.

Started anti-piracy ops off East Africa, moved to Herrick (30% of troops in theatre are RN), then touched on CVF before Marr dropped in the line

"I bet you love the RAF".

1SL answered well - talks of robust discussions but no threat to retire early...and if he was considering ending his career, he wouldn't talk about it in public.

As a people watcher - I would say that the robust discussions have been a bit heated.

[mick2088]

Did I hear him say that the carriers are delayed due to budgetary pressures and nothing to do with a need to get them in service in line with the "fighters" as was the MoD's line? Maybe it was too early in the morning, but I could of sworn he called the "fighters" Convairs. So budgetary pressures are that bad, that a squadron of 1940s/50s-era jets will be bought now. :eek:

[Navaleye]

Full interview here. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hq1hd/b00hq17x/The_Andrew_Marr_Show_15_02_2009/)

Halfway through, followed by Rory Bremner which was even better.

[Pheasant]

I thought Band did very well to shrug off the RAF question with "....we have got on very well for the 90 years of their existence..." meaning "....do not get too big for your boots Stirrup/Torpy/Anderson you are only a youngster in the defence game and don't forget your roots....."

Mick,

but I could of sworn he called the "fighters" Convairs.


I think he said "Combo" i.e. the CVF/JCA combo.

[NURSE]

Yes considering the History of the RAF and Naval Avation 1918-1939.
And maybe he is being truthful about it being budgetry pressures not inservice date of JSF.

[mick2088]

Listened to it again. Yes it was combo. I was getting worried there.

[endplay]

What was the deal with the white hanky below his medal ribbons? I don't recall ever seeing that before on a uniform. I suppose it could have been the tip of a white ensign or the first of a series of signal flags but is that a correct form of dress for an Admiral?

[Tourist]

He's 1SL

He can wear nothing but flip-flops, AGR and a fearnought thong soaked in lighter fluid if he wants.

















......and he would still look smarter than Torpy in his crab suit

[On_Loan]

Full transcript here:

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Andrew Marr Show | Navy chief 'pretty confident' of deterring pirates (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/7891176.stm)

[circle kay]

Endplay,

In my experience, Naval Officers model themselves on one of two characters; Noel Coward in ‘In Which We Serve’ or Jack Hawkins in ‘The Cruel Sea’.

I expect that 1SL is in the first group hence the hankie in the top pocket; I bet Tourist sees himself as the Captain of ‘Compass Rose’. :)

[Tourist]

No, No, more a Captain Jack Sparrow man myself.

[cornish-stormrider]

Savvy??

In regards to the bunfight I think that some smartass little twerp in HMG has been given a big bonus over the latest divide an conquer......

They are only doing this to distract us all from uniting and pulling a very British coup. Note that I didn't say a "Cornish" coup, we lost. It was sad.

All those who want to march on westminster and evict the current crop of spineless self centred muppets form an orderly queue behind the navy.....( I would stand in front of them, rum - GONE, lash - GONE, that leaves.......oooh er missus)

Kick em out, they don't like it up em. Oh and I put a fiver on 1SL over that twit Torpy. bare knuckles no rules, last man standing wins.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

CS,

Having just watched an extremely scruffy looking and not very imposing 1SL explaining the latest navel cock up I'll take that fiver as I very much doubt there would be much in it :ok:

[pr00ne]

devonish-windtraveller,

Yet more open incitement to treason, naughty boy.

[Pheasant]

Having just watched an extremely scruffy looking and not very imposing 1SL explaining the latest navel cock up I'll take that fiver as I very much doubt there would be much in it

Who said he had to look like Dan Dare (CDS)? It is the quality of his mind and leadership that people want to follow and there are few better than the current 1SL in these areas. He should be CDS and now - at least you still serving would have someone who will stand up to the politicos, unlike the current incumbent who is a mere puppet of Gordon interested only in his diction and square-jawed image. For those in doubt compare performances recently on the Andrew Marr Show.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Pheasant,

Watching the breakfast news they are showing a picture from one of todays appers with your hero holding his head in his hands in response to the current submarine crash, not that inspirational from my viewpoint :=

[Not_a_boffin]

Probably despairing at another inane question from the cream of UK media on why the "sophisticated sonar suite" didn't pick up the other boat or why it's all vastly more dangerous all of a sudden.........

[cornish-stormrider]

pr00ne - I stand by my comments, I am all for ANYONE (within reason) ousting the incumbent useless one eyed money stealing f$$kknuckle and his cabal of incompetent fraudsters.

You have to admire the Balls of the "Senior Service" or should that be senile service?? only they would play a game of chicken with the strategic detterant:E

And the next person that calls, implies or otherwise makes out I am a Devonian will have to come down to plymmuurth and I shall show them my passport (not the red biometric one neither)

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Probably despairing at another inane question from the cream of UK media on why the "sophisticated sonar suite" didn't pick up the other boat or why it's all vastly more dangerous all of a sudden.........

Thank the lord he he has nothing more complicated than the inane media to deal with in his day to day duties then :eek:

[foldingwings]

Oh and I put a fiver on 1SL over that twit Torpy. bare knuckles no rules, last man standing wins.

It is the quality of his mind and leadership that people want to follow and there are few better than the current 1SL in these areas.

That'll be the 1SL who was so confident in his subject regarding the 'sub knock' that he had to read his public response almost verbatim in front of the TV camera - yep, very impressive indeed!

Get a grip, Navy!

Foldie

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Anyone remember that rather quaint old football chant along the lines of

It's all gone quiet over there............................:p

[Pheasant]

Foldie,

I suspect he was reading what he was directed to by the politicos and media types.

[Tourist]

Seldom

I assume, since you are so keen to criticise, you have a solution to the problem of avoiding such a possiblity of collision between Boats?

I would not normally defend fisheads, but the submariners are probably the most professional of all the military arms. I very much doubt an error was made.
I cannot think of any solution to the problem of avoiding the risk of collisions between our incredibly quiet stealth bomber boats which must never have their positions known to anyone outside the Captain and Navigator because that would negate the entire purpose of a sub launched deterrent, and the french incredibly quiet stealth bomber boats which must never have their positions known to anyone outside the Captain and Navigator because that would negate the entire purpose of a sub launched deterrent.

One could argue that they were both doing their job to perfection, but eventually after 40 or so years, probability caught up with them.
Eventually two of the 20 or so bombers eternally bimbling around under the oceans were bound to meet, in the same way that if there were 20 B2s from a variety of nations flying around the world permanently, they would eventually have a collision.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Tourist,

Not sure where I am criticising the submariners unless it was in my harmless jibe about "the latest navel cockup" and I can assure you that was not my intention.

No Sir,

I was merely disputing yours and that chap from Devon's assertion that the 1SL was smarter than a smart thing, which bearing in mind his appearance and performance over the last 24 hours does rather question your judgement :p

[exscribbler]

I have to say I was amazed that certain RAF personnel did not recognise a clean white hanky when they saw one. Whatever did their mothers send them out with every day? :E

I was always taught that the only place for a handkerchief was inside the sleeve of one's jacket. :ugh:

[The Helpful Stacker]

One would love to join the free-for-all of kicking a man whilst he is down but it is rather unsporting.

Come on now chaps, leave the fish in the barrel alone.

[foldingwings]

I suspect he was reading what he was directed to by the politicos and media types.

Whether or not? The piece was quite short and a good staff officer (one assumes he has been to staff college) would have rehearsed an ability to speak without referring to notes for a much longer period than the good 1SL did on this occasion:eek:.

Let's just say that his performance on this occasion goes against the 2 quotes that I referred to earlier. Especially:

It is the quality of his mind and leadership that people want to follow ...............

Foldie

PS. Anyway, why are we discussing boats on an Aircrew (yep, and all those others who support them, like looking at them and wanna be a pilot etc etc) Forum?

[Pheasant]

An interesting March Edition of Air Forces Monthly....

UNDER PRESSURE?
Based on the huge amount of well-spun publicity last year, the RAF might appear to be in good health, but is that really the case? Jon Lake looks at the problems faced by the service as it approaches its 91st birthday.

Air Forces Monthly - The Worlds Leading Military Aviation Magazine (http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/)

Very critical editorial on current supposed MOD savings (why Harrier and why not Tornado) and a not nice piece inside on the senior leadership of the RAF. Effectively saying "we (AFM and our senior sources) can't wait for Dalton/Moran to arrive".

[endplay]

Pheasant,

It's been said before but cast your mind back to the euphoria surrounding the Torphy appointment (and to a degree that of his predecessor, the current CDS). Not only does the Peter principle apply (promotion in a heirarchy to a point of incompetence) but the older truth of "whoever you vote for the government always gets in" is also valid. Senior officers, and particularly 4 stars don't get where they are without a solid foundation of self serving ambition and political savvy so why the surprise that those at the top look to themselves first second and third? And before any mention of General Dannett does anyone seriously believe that if the post of CDS had been a realistic proposition he would have popped his head above the parapet? His "forthrightness" will sell more than a few extra copies of his memoires to be sure.

God, I hate cynics

[Pheasant]

Endplay,

I am as much of a cynic as you but I do not hear/see any similar comment about the Navy or Army heirarchy as I do about Stirrup/Torpy/Anderson etc where there is open in-Service and ex-Service dismay at the way they are behaving at the moment. I suspect it is the arrogance of their attitude to their own people that really grates.....you don't seem to see this with the other 2 services (look at Rum Ration and ARRSE - the issues just do not get raised). or am I missing something?

Bunch of feathers.

[Archimedes]

Go onto arrse and ask them what they think about Mike Jackson....

He was receiving unfavourable comments (usually blunter and much less flattering than those made about CAS or CDS ) before Telic kicked off, and his reputation went further south on those means subsequently. The difference appears to have been that the press bought into the whole 'Prince of Darkness' legend and didn't print the unfavourable observations about him that were rampant, particularly at the time of FAS and the publication of his book.

[Tourist]

http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp121/Tourist_photos/BuytheCarriers.jpg

Made me chuckle, and I apologise in advance for the expletive. (I know some people find the term "RAF" offensive)

[exscribbler]

Tea all over my keyboard! :ok:

http://s298.photobucket.com/albums/mm250/exscribbler/th_FlyNavy1.jpg

[The Helpful Stacker]

Tea all over my keyboard!

Simple things and all that.:rolleyes:

[Occasional Aviator]

I have to admit, I really liked that.

But I would, as an agnostic I can see the parallel with the RN thinking that somewhere out there there's an all-powerful being that is going to stop the carriers, when the truth is that there ain't really.

We're not out to get you -

SO STOP WORRYING AND BUILD THE FCU%ING CARRIERS!

[exscribbler]

You'd know all about that, Stacker, old chap.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Not sure it it's just me but there does seem to be a bit of dark blue insecurity in this thread :E

Now with regards to the 1SL and his public performances this last week, I thought he looked like a scruffy urchin who had obviously not prepared himself well, but perhaps Tourist et al could afford us their opinion :p

[insty66]

I think the Tornado GR4 was very good in its day, but is now probably a bit behind the drag curve/past its sell by date with regard to the utility/scale of its combined weapons and sensor pod fits for close air support.

What do you think?

Apologies for the delay.

What I think is.....

I'm not convinced the GR4 has had it's day just yet, there is life in the "Fin" yet.

I accept it is not proven as a CAS asset yet but it is too early to write it off.

As for fit, look again at what the GR4 has, just because it's not the same is no reason to write it off. It's different that's all.

Finally sorry for not partaking in the Navy/RAF banter, I just hope to god both sides of the repartee are not representative of the Officer Corps in either service.

Gentlemen, we are on the same side, the enemy resides in and around the Palace of Westminter.

[Pheasant]

I'm not convinced the GR4 has had it's day just yet, there is life in the "Fin" yet.

I accept it is not proven as a CAS asset yet but it is too early to write it off.

I think the point people are arguing, Insty, is why does it need to be converted for CAS when the GR9 is a far better CAS asset already doing the job in the stan and is the weapon of choice for the ground troops. If it were not for Torpy's desire to get the navy out of FW the Harrier would remain on task.

Finally sorry for not partaking in the Navy/RAF banter, I just hope to god both sides of the repartee are not representative of the Officer Corps in either service.

The Navy did not pick the fight. This seems to be a personal vendetta by Stirrup/Torpy and Anderson - interestingly all single seat jocks who do not understand CRM (ie take the team with you). What the RAF needs to do is follow the USAF and put a multiseat man in at the top (pref Truckie or Helo man, which is where the real effort is being expended in the RAF today - and for many years to come).

[Pontius Navigator]

I think the point people are arguing, Insty, is why does it need to be converted for CAS when the GR9 is a far better CAS asset already doing the job in the stan and is the weapon of choice for the ground troops. If it were not for Torpy's desire to get the navy out of FW the Harrier would remain on task.

Why does [the GR4] need to be converted for CAS?

One answer might be found from the USAF in the Vietnam War. Earlier on the USAF was fighting 2 wars. TAC was fighting in Vietnam and SAC was waiting to fight the cold war. In those days you were either in TAC or SAC with no cross-over. The TAC guys were getting fatigued and the answer was to rotate SAC pilots through TAC. There are 2 wings of GR4 and one wing of Harrier. Logic says you must spread the pain.

When the GR9 is a far better CAS asset already doing the job in the stan .

Far better than . . . ? As they have not been in the CAS role it is too early to say the GR9 is better.

and is the weapon of choice for the ground troops

Choice of what? The aircraft you know from the aircraft you don't? How can the GR4 be declared 'not the weapon of choice' when it is not yet on offer?

If it were not for Torpy's desire to get the navy out of FW the Harrier would remain on task

Ah, now that is a different story and Air seems confident that CVF will never happen. Cut Dii/f, a glorified email system, and you could afford CVF, JSF etc. The more I learn of Dii/f the more I believe it sucks.

It is cheaper to buy a new suite of stand-alone computers - 30 to 40 off hand - to run a new software bought from the US than pay the 6-figure sums demanded to get in on Dii/. Who was behind Dii? Air.

[Pheasant]

There are 2 wings of GR4 and one wing of Harrier. Logic says you must spread the pain.

But only if pain is being felt and the cost of converting a non-CAS a/c to a pseudo CAS role is actually affordable (and not at the cost of the current, designed-for-role CAS aircraft).


How can the GR4 be declared 'not the weapon of choice' when it is not yet on offer?

The GR4 is a long range interdiction/strike aircraft and designed from the outset to be so; the GR9 is designed from the outset as a CAS aircraft. The fact that £M hundreds are being spent to give GR4 even some CAS capability says it all.....surely this could be spent in more worthwhile areas?

How did Dii get into the discussion???

[Archimedes]

Stirrup/Torpy and Anderson - interestingly all single seat jocks

Stirrup and Torpy have both flown two-seat FJ (Stirrup on Phantoms and Torpy the Tornado), while Anderson's flying career was entirely on on Tornado apart from his exchange tour with the RAAF on F-111s.

I am presuming that none of them flew with a sandbag in the rear Martin Baker...

I know that facts are a pain, but...

[BobHead]

Being both a ex Submariner and non aircrew unless you count cattle class on RyanAir may I input my tuppence worth.

1. Even if Carriers(CV's) are built and commissioned is the current or projected surface fleet able to protect the CV and its task force of Fleet Auxiliaries and Landing Ships. The Type 45 Daring is not fit for task in its current form and to date no suitable anti submarine surface units have been proposed. It is debatable if six Astute class SSN's are sufficient to give both Task Force protection and offensive patrols against both hostile SS and SSN's

2. Is the RAF capable of protecting maritime units world wide. Well history from WW11, Korea, Suez, and South Atlantic says no its not and still isn't.

3. Does UK PLC still need a independent nuclear deterrent other then to, as claimed by Pollies to keep us at the top table. Well, do we need to be at the top table? Is our nuclear deterrent really independent or are we the only ones in the club, France, USA, China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, Iran, North Korea?, Brazil?, Terrorists? who would not be able to launch with out the nod from the Septics.

4. I am all for tactical nuclear weapons but see no point in Trident or any other similar weapon system for UK PLC. If we intend to have a World Wide influence that must also be capable to perform in a winter storm in the North Atlantic as well as sunny places with warm seas and blue sky. Just in AS capability we do not have that relying on helicopter assets alone.


Now you fly boys can continue to argue who should have the toys that are not fit for purpose as declared.

BobH

[Pontius Navigator]

But only if pain is being felt and the cost of converting a non-CAS a/c to a pseudo CAS role is actually affordable (and not at the cost of the current, designed-for-role CAS aircraft).

Is the pain not being felt?

The GR4 is a long range interdiction/strike aircraft and designed from the outset to be so;

True, and its previous role as AI is useful how exactly?

The fact that £M hundreds are being spent to give GR4 even some CAS capability says it all.

No it doesn't. It says that it is better to upgrade two wings of GR4 as there is no quick end in sight for the CAS role.

How did Dii get into the discussion???

Easy. Its cost far outstrips anything else for what is essentially email and a wordprocessor.

[TEEEJ]

Pheasant wrote

The GR4 is a long range interdiction/strike aircraft and designed from the outset to be so; the GR9 is designed from the outset as a CAS aircraft. The fact that £M hundreds are being spent to give GR4 even some CAS capability says it all.....surely this could be spent in more worthwhile areas?

What do you think the GR4s flying over Iraq since 2003 have been doing? The Urgent Operational Requirement for Afghanistan is to provide the GR4 with the capability to deploy the latest Paveways as per the GR.9s.

PICTURE: BAE Systems flies Paveway IV bombs on Tornado GR4 (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/23/321542/picture-bae-systems-flies-paveway-iv-bombs-on-tornado.html)

Operational Close Air Support Over Iraq

RAF - News by Date (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive.cfm?storyid=1CDE16D3-1143-EC82-2E7D6CF26823945C)

RAF Marham - IX (B) Squadron Op TELIC Update - January 2009 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafmarham/aboutus/9sqntelicjan09update.cfm)

RAF Operational Update - Op Update 08 June 2008 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafoperationalupdate/opsupdate/opupdate8june2008.cfm)

Multi-National Force - Iraq - Coalition airpower supports ground troops (http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13966&Itemid=128)

RAF Tornado crews train for Afghanistan

RAF - News by Date (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive.cfm?storyid=4AD20F27-1143-EC82-2ED6286DA4CE4AED)

TJ

[foldingwings]

Can someone explain to me what the problem really is for the Royal Navy.

IMMIC, recent history would tell them that this phenomenon is not new and that similar (nay, exact) circumstances existed under a Labour government in the 60s when the decision was taken to withdraw all bar one of the fixed wing carriers from service thereby leaving Ark Royal to plough the oceans with a diminished force (for the FAA) of FW aircrew on board. Similar prophets of doom then declared that this was the end of fixed-wing flying in the FAA and that it was scandalous that this was being allowed to happen. In their view, probably accurate at the time, power projection was reliant on having a force of FW assets afloat both for defence of the fleet and for strike/attack operations. Nonetheless, the decision was taken and, once Ark had been scrapped, land-based RAF squadrons provided significant AD and ASuW support to the fleet in the following years.

During the run-down of the carrier force, the RAF was tasked with providing manpower to support the FAA and many RAF Buccaneer and Phantom crews ground their teeth on board Ark Royal and thoroughly enjoyed the experience too.

There was then a significant gap before the Invincible Class through-deck cruisers were commissioned but this did not see the demise of FAA FW expertise as, in preparation for them and SHAR, FAA Bucc and Phantom pilots were seconded to RAF Harrier squadrons to retain a cadre of FW expertise and gain VTOL experience. Some of these guys, like Tony Ogilvy, eventually became SHAR sqn cdrs.

So what's different today? Well, OK, the RAF's proposal seems to be that we ditch Harrier but that doesn't mean that the RAF cannot assist the FAA with maintaining FW expertise on Tornado or Typhoon. Does it? Be honest, given the realistic timescales, it's not the guys flying Harrier now who are going to form the bulk of the future FAA FW corps. Is it?

The problem for the Labour government in the 60s was affordability and that, to my mind, is the problem today. Having worked in procurement (OR as was) in MOD, I know only too well the pressures that the Treasury can and do bring to bear on projects (often specific projects of their choice rather than leaving MOD to decide which sacrificial lamb to offer up).

So, unless I have got this completely wrong, it's time for us all to stop whining and get on with it. We've been here before and we will be here again. It's all about money (or lack of it). The Navy did not lose its FW capability because of decisions made in the 60s and it won't lose it again as long as we all work together and support each other until Dave and its support vessel come along. Pragmatic solutions, albeit unpalatable to some, have to be taken and something has to give - we cannot afford everything! Better to take some pain today and protect the carrier project and thus the FAA FW future. If that has to be Harrier, which has a costly logistic support tail, and have FAA Harrier jocks trained on Tornado and Typhoon then so what!

I don't hold with the argument that Tornado can't do CAS - it can, we proved it when I flew them in Germany in the 80s and we learned the skills having also prepared for it with 3 different pre-planned options on the IGB whilst I was on Buccs in the 70s. It doesn't have to be a mini-jet to do CAS and again, based on my OR experience in weapons procurement, in these frugal days each of our air assets has to be capable of all roles - Harrier cannot carry/deliver the full weapon inventory so it would seem logical for it to be the sacrificial lamb.

The government will be quite content to 'divide and conquer' so get realistic folks, there is a place for all of us in the defence of this land - it's just a shame that some of us don't realise it and display our views publically so that those who don't understand (Journos, Joe Public and Government Ministers) can easily identify our weakness:=.

Now I'm off to make a curry!

Foldie

[Obi Wan Russell]

The RAF cannot provide air cover for ships at sea from land bases, unless the fleet stays in coastal waters. During the 70s it was proved that RAF Phantoms scrambled from the UK to intercept Russian Bombers heading for the Fleet in the middle of the Atlantic could do no more than photograph the aftermath two hours after the Russians had gone home. The RN was without FW air cover for about 18 months after Ark Royal decommissioned (last lauch of air group November 78 to Invincible becoming operational with her SHARs in spring 1980) and during this period the RN relied on the USN carriers for air cover in the North Atlantic. At least they would be in the same time zone.

'Doing without' the Harriers for a few years is dangerous ground, because it puts ideas in politicians heads. Putting Naval Aviation in the hands of the RAF is also a bad idea because they have NEVER been interested in Naval Aviation, just in transferring the budget for NA to fund their own pet projects. Flying from carriers is not a part time pastime for land based pilots, it is a specialist job and the skills base (not just the pilots, ground/deck crew, Flyco, fighter controllers etc) needs to be maintained. Just think if in the early 90s it had been seriously proposed to disband all the RAF's F3 sqns as there would be no credible threat to UK airspace until the Typhoon came online? What an uproar that would generate.

[Madbob]

Spot on Obi!

Basically, all of the armed forces need "more butter, or less bread to spread". As the polititians decide how big the loaf is, they must be made to also least give us enough butter to do the jobs they give us!

The CAS/CNS/CGS all stand to gain the serious respect of their airmen/sailors/troops by standing up when sustained ops are being demainded of their services and when "overstretch" is becoming accepted as the norm.

As Neville Shute said in his autobiography, Slide Rule, recalling his experience of wartime service in the RN, the best commanders were those with wealthy backgrounds, landed estates, family businesses etc. as they were willing to shoulder personal responsibility and could afford to do thair duty to the Navy in the highest sense......

When standards of administration decline, and expert opinions are ignored which lead to forced compromises being accepted in is perhaps no surprise when contracts go over-budget, fail to meet performance specs, or arrive late (or not at all). Look at MR4, A400M, Type 45, Astute, CVF, FLynx.

What we need are "top brass" who are not afraid to speak up when matters on which they are the professional experts are in the news or under a "political spotlight". It's all pretty simple really, we need more "butter", period. (And the need is compounded cumulatively by inadequate funding for the last 20 years, which in spite of past promises and by "savings" the armed forces have made by cuts in manpower and base closures......has left us with absolutely NO fat!)

MB

MB

[Barn Doors]

Stirrup and Torpy have both flown two-seat FJ (Stirrup on Phantoms and Torpy the Tornado), while Anderson's flying career was entirely on on Tornado apart from his exchange tour with the RAAF on F-111s.

I am presuming that none of them flew with a sandbag in the rear Martin Baker...

I know that facts are a pain, but...

Archimedes, Torpy was originally a Jaguar pilot.

I know that fact are a pain, but.....

[Archimedes]

Barn Doors, yes, he, indeed he was. And if you wanted to be uber pedantic, Stirrup started life flying single seat in Strikemasters in Oman and did his squadron command on Jags.

However, if you read the accusation made against the three officers in full:

Stirrup/Torpy and Anderson - interestingly all single seat jocks who do not understand CRM (ie take the team with you).

What I thought should be obvious was that contrary to Pheasant's assertion, all of them (esp. Anderson, who's never done anything else) have a deal of experience of flying two seat FJ and thus cannot be described exclusively as single-seat FJ drivers in the way in which, say, Sir Peter Squire could be.

However, as it clearly isn't obvious, let me phrase it differently:

Contrary to Pheasant's assertions about the three officers, Anderson has never flown front line on anything other than two seaters, Stirrup spent a reasonably significant proportion of his career on two seaters (including an exchange on F-4s with the USMC, IIRC) and Torpy did his squadron command on Tornados, and was Staish at Bruggen when it had Tornados.

Therefore, none of them can be accused of having no idea at all about CRM, since all of them have flown two-seat FJ and did not have flying careers exclusively on single-seat aircraft as Pheasant wishes us to infer from his posting.


Happy now? :hmm:

[andyy]

I alway thought that the MRCA (aka Tornado) was supposed to be a CAS platform as well as everything else?

[WhiteOvies]

Depends on what you call CAS. Dropping precision weapons very close to your own troops from on high (through cloud, at night, as required) is CAS. Strafing the enemy very close to your own troops (CRV7 rockets or gun) is CAS. Flying very low over the enemy to scare them off is CAS.
Throw in a bit of photo recce/NTISR from Raptor, DJRP, Litening 3, Sniper to see what is ahead of your own troops, can be counted as CAS.

Tornado and Harrier can both do the above. The question is: is it worth the expense to make sure that Tornado can do everything in the future that Harrier is doing at the moment? Will the handover lead to a capability gap in the sky over Helmand? (I sincerely hope not - hence the delay whilst more Tornado are made PW4 capable).

Discuss ad nauseum.

[andyy]

WO, It was meant to be a "tongue in cheek" comment.

[foldingwings]

Anderson - interestingly all single seat jocks

Sheeit! Then who was that in my front seat throughout my tour on 17? Is it permissible to claim solo hours from the back?

Foldie

[WhiteOvies]

Andyy,
Apologies, I bit rather harder than intended! :O

The RAF has a history of scrapping aircraft just as they get decent capabilities - check out Jag (and possibly SHAR). Maybe the Helmet Mounted Sight is the kiss of death to ground attack platforms? :hmm:

[Alpha Whiskey]

Obi is spot on - it is not just about the jets and the aircrew. Operating jets from sea, whatever their mission, is an activity that involves the whole ship. Kidding ourselves that 3 jets onboard every now and again to maintain currency is a fig leaf that will ultimately risk lives. Flying at sea is something that requires a whole ship focus and awareness to keep it safe, hence the fact all other carrier operating navies own their own assets and pound the deck constantly when the ships are at sea. If we pursue the pre-postioned airfield or a/c ferry logic, we stand to look very foolish at best when, god forbid, the inevitable happens.

[Nicholas Howard]

Slightly off topic I know, but apropos of carrier aviation...

Just been reading Andrew Marr's "History of Modern Britain" and in the section on the Thatcher Years he states that:

had the British Harrier jets not been equipped with the latest US missiles and helped by the secret provision of American AWACS radar cover...

Now I know all about the AIM-9L, but this is the first I've heard of the American AWACS. I know the Nimrod ventured down South (and was not appreciated by Ward or Woodward according to their books), but I don't recall seeing any other comments over US AWACS.

Anyone out there got any light they can shed on this?

Of course, the hurried introduction of the SKAEW ought to tell us something about the whole CVF/JSF/masc balance of investment, but that's another debate.

Nick

[foldingwings]

it is a specialist job and the skills base (not just the pilots, ground/deck crew, Flyco, fighter controllers etc) needs to be maintained.

it is not just about the jets and the aircrew. Operating jets from sea, whatever their mission, is an activity that involves the whole ship. Kidding ourselves that 3 jets onboard every now and again to maintain currency is a fig leaf that will ultimately risk lives. Flying at sea is something that requires a whole ship focus and awareness to keep it safe

Didn't seem to matter during the gap between Ark out & Invincible in and just like the mini-jet pilots the 'experience' will have moved on by the time the new carriers come along anyway.

Anyway, why are you Navy types here on PPRuNe whilst the RAF guys are obviously already in the bar for Happy Hour?

My excuse? I'm retired and the pub ain't open yet.

Foldie

[The Helpful Stacker]

..... (and possibly SHAR).

WO - Are you suggesting the RAF scrapped the Sea Harrier? Now that really is tin foil hat wearing territory.

[foldingwings]

Who is removing comments from this thread and why?

Jindabyne's comment of Friday night has somehow vanished!

[Navaleye]

There was no american direct involvement, Full stop. None. I spoke to Casper Weinberger personally (on the QE2) about this years later. He told me what the US was willing to offer over and above AIM9s and intel. It was not taken up.Yes they did help, and it did make a huge difference, but had no difference to the outcome. BTW an American carrier stored for war and was due to be sent down on June 1. I believe it was the Kitty Hawk but it was not needed.

[phil gollin]

Navaleye - where did you get ;

".......... BTW an American carrier stored for war and was due to be sent down on June 1. I believe it was the Kitty Hawk but it was not needed."

All reputable sources, including the official history, say all these rumours about offers of carriers, etc..... are absolute rubbish. And who was going to man this carrier on the 1st June ?

[andyy]

"BTW an American carrier stored for war and was due to be sent down on June 1. I believe it was the Kitty Hawk but it was not needed"

Must admit that i thought it was an LPH not a CVA, a completely different kettle of fish(heads).

[Navaleye]

In answer to your questions. Casper Weinberger offered an LPH, which was politely declined. In 1985 I met a USN exchange officer who volunteered the the information that his CVA was brought to 48hrs notice to sail south and hurriedly stored, no destination specified, but pretty obvious. This was later rescinded. That's all I know.

[Wader2]

During the 70s it was proved that RAF Phantoms scrambled from the UK to intercept Russian Bombers heading for the Fleet in the middle of the Atlantic could do no more than photograph the aftermath two hours after the Russians had gone home.

And do you know why?

One time we were scrambled to provide AEW against a pair of Bear D en route to the fleet. Simple - just get airborne and sit across the Bear track and wait for them to turn up.

The catch, we didn't know the Bear track which was from North Cape direct to the fleet. Why? Because Northwood would not tell 11Gp as it was need to know. Even when we pointed out that the Bear Shad knew where the fleet was they still would not tell us.

Familiar?

[BobHead]

Back up from going deep.

If any of you have watched the Buccaneer 50 year DVD watch how the flight deck crew operate like a ballet on a very restricted space with a 30 knot gale blowing along it.

Pilots are still two a penny, a few can even still do flight deck landings but you are are fresh out of FAA Ground crew with any experience in SNCO rank downward. In 20 years time when the first CV is out of the builders hands anybody with any experience will be dead. Even if Pusser get the planes who is going to throw them into the air and drag them back down RAF Pilots and Ground-crew who only crawled out of their mothers wombs a year or two ago, I don't think so.

If the Light and Dark blue fraternity want world wide capability they need to start doing it tomorrow.

BobH :ugh:

[Tourist]

Bob
"In 20 years time when the first CV is out of the builders hands anybody with any experience will be dead. Even if Pusser get the planes who is going to throw them into the air and drag them back down RAF Pilots and Ground-crew who only crawled out of their mothers wombs a year or two ago, I don't think so."

Gosh, you're right. I wish we had thought of that. Maybe then we would have sent lots of people out on exchanges to the Foreign Navies with carriers to build a backbone of experience for when ours come in.

Hey, wait a minute..........

[Archimedes]

Going back to the offer of an LPH/Carrier in 82 for a moment, if I may -

The US offered a carrier - to be manned by the RN - if required. This, at least, is the recollection of Admiral Leach, Admiral Woodward and John Nott (and other senior defence bods of the time) from a seminar held at the Staff College in 2002.

I suspect that while the destination for Kitty Hawk might have seemed obvious, the FI weren't actually the intended destination - or that this was a bit of maskirovska (sp?) being employed against the Argentines and/or the Soviets. :confused:

Admiral Leach and John Nott were very clear that the US offer was for equipment only, and not US manpower (this was not a criticism of the US stance - one of them called the offer 'incredibly generous', IIRC).

[Biggus]

Going back to the original point of the thread, see questions 14 and 16....

Order of Business for Monday 23 February 2009 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmagenda/ob90223.htm)

[Archimedes]

Looking at 'Today in the Chamber' it would seem that those questions were not put.

This 'topical question' was, however:

T6. [257908] Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): What is the future of the Joint Force Harrier?

Mr. Hutton: There is a piece of work being done in the Department about the Joint Force Harrier. All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is right that we should look at every option as we prepare for the future, but all the options that we are considering include recognising the principle that it should be a jointly operated force.

Hansard - Commons | Houses of Parliament (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/02.htm)

Being a fan of Yes, Prime Minister, I applaud Mr Hutton's careful choice of words to leave readers wondering whether this means 'RN pilots flying in RAF squadrons' as opposed to 'a joint force made up of RAF and RN squadrons...

[phil gollin]

In answer to your questions. Casper Weinberger offered an LPH, which was politely declined. In 1985 I met a USN exchange officer who volunteered the the information that his CVA was brought to 48hrs notice to sail south and hurriedly stored, no destination specified, but pretty obvious. This was later rescinded. That's all I know.


So, that's a no then.

.

[Archimedes]

All reputable sources, including the official history, say all these rumours about offers of carriers, etc..... are absolute rubbish. And who was going to man this carrier on the 1st June

I refer the hon gentleman to post #127 - the offer of a carrier was not 'absolute rubbish', and the OH only says that the offer was 'perhaps less definite' than people thought. This had been written before the Staff College seminar at which the nature of the offer was revealed and at which the author of the OH was sitting, as I recall, two places to the right of Admiral Leach. The OH also mentions an American offer to sail a CVBG down South as a show of support.

Back on topic, Hansard suggests that the two questions Biggus referred to were not put; nor was question 12 about meeting NATO leaders regarding AD capability for carriers.

[Biggus]

Archimedes,

Are you sure.....

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 23 Feb 2009 (pt 0004) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090223/text/90223w0004.htm)

Column 15W, question 12 answered (well, not really) as well....

[Archimedes]

They were meant to be oral questions, and weren't put - they were consequently answered as written Qs, and that page of Hansard refused to load when I tried to get on it before I last posted.

To be honest, if the MPs thought that they'd get an answer other than 'meeting regularly, discuss matters of mutual interest [stamp collecting? Coastal Command's role in the Battle of the Atlantic?]' they must be fairly naive...

[Demosthenes]

I believe it is traditional for a man in CASs position to be given a "second", to make sure he does not disgrace himself during the falling on his sword.
I hereby volunteer for the position.:E
I'm free any time next week.

[Tourist]

Is that a good rumour?

[LateArmLive]

Best one I've heard in a while. Besides, the more we repeat it - the more true it becomes :ok:

[fallmonk]

When the carriers are a year off completion would it not be a good idea to have some RN go work on a US carrier? see how a modern carrier works in real life ? not just pilots but deck hands etc
As already mentioned by the time they hit the seas in a offical way no one in the navy will prob have any real life experinace????

[Archimedes]

[Cynicism]Current CAS retires in July. Current govt will not want either the Chief of the Air Staff or the FSL & Chief of the Naval staff resigning over this issue, so will - surely - just put off the decision until the new CAS arrives in post.

Torpy cannot resign when he's retired, ergo any decision to continue with FAA GR9s will be delayed until he's gone; if no announcement is made within a few days of his departure, it means Torpy has won the argument and it'll be announced that NSW will disband and its assets be handed to the RAF shortly after the new FSL/CNS is appointed. No resignations at all that way, and no embarassment to the govt. [\Cynicism]

Of course, since Hutton appears to have a degree of intestinal fortitude not present in his two immediate predecessors, he might not play that sort of Yes, Prime Minister-ish game...

[Bismark]

When the carriers are a year off completion would it not be a good idea to have some RN go work on a US carrier? see how a modern carrier works in real life ? not just pilots but deck hands etc
As already mentioned by the time they hit the seas in a offical way no one in the navy will prob have any real life experinace????

I think you will find the RN have been doing just this for quite a while. Whilst the Air Farce think they can embark for 10 mins and remain operational at sea the RN/FAA realise that it take years of experience to do it properly, effectively and safely.

[LateArmLive]

Come off it, it's not that difficult. If the fish-heads can do it, surely anyone can? ;)

[Tourist]

The rumour is true!
Come on CAS, do the decent thing..........

[ICBM]

The rumour is true!

Come on 2-wrist, substantiate your rumour my dear boy! That's what this website is for is it not? :D

Or, are these 'death rattles' from the Dark Blue convincing the World you're not actually dying....."tis but a flesh-wound"? ;)

[Tourist]

Not my rumour my dear chap, but suffice to say, the RN will not be departing from fixed wing aviation, JHC will not go light blue and the Harrier has a long future ahead of it.
Which is more than can be said for CAS.
The Army chap has come out on the side of sanity apparently. Just like the last three times CAS demanded a recount.

[Finnpog]

Is this an official rumour - soon to be announced through a story in the Thunderer in which "sources within the MOD indicated that dah dee dah..." - or is it just an honest to goodness rumour based upon whisperings in the corridors of power?

[Wrathmonk]

Harrier has a long future ahead of it

Is that in its current size or reduced to a single station?

Which is more than can be said for CAS

His retirement (happening in July) was announced long before the "leak" of the Harrier review - can't see him going earlier than then regardless of the PR outcome.

So, if Tourist is to be believed, where will the savings come from. And we're back to the same old stories ....

[Pheasant]

The Tornado Force where it should have come from in the first place.

[glad rag]

Interesting how the "Services" have been turned against each other so effectively. :mad:



Tourist, your back on the Ignore List.




Again :ugh:

[ICBM]

Tourist,

Knowing what you know, and knowing that you're an RN type, would you kindly care to share exactly what it is that you do know? It's rather frustrating pandering to individuals on this forum who pertain to be 'knowledgable' whilst frankly displaying little of it. Likewise, and in your case here, there are those who proffer rumour and conjecture that seems to lack credibility or substance.

If you know something, stop beating around the bush and blurt it out - you're anonymous after all. I'm not asking you to name your source, tell everyone your coming out of the closet or such-like, am I!

I believe you have a story to tell here chap but no balls to tell it, quite frankly.

[Tourist]

ICBM
Don't have the details, or I would post them. Wait a week or so and I am sure it will come out.

Glad Rag.
I hope in time to be able to overcome my disapointment.:rolleyes:

[Pontius Navigator]

Is that in its current size or reduced to a single station?

www.defence-estates.mod.uk/publications/dedp/DEDP_08_Main_Paper.pdf

<<RAF Cottesmore. Cottesmore will remain the Harrier GR9 hub until
at least 2018 and will be supported by the Operational Conversion Unit at
RAF Wittering until at least 2015. Thereafter, and depending upon the
decision for a second base for JCA and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, the site
could become surplus (possible Army interest as part of an East Midlands
Super Garrison).>>

2015 is not that far off although 'at least' does suggest 2016 or later but as they say, that is a long time in politics and possibly 2 elections before that.

If Cottesmore has the capacity then it would make sense to move earlier. If Wittering has essential infrastructure, not available at Cottesmore, then it would make no sense. [blanket stackers' centre for instance]:}

[Wrathmonk]

PN

I was fishing a bit! I think that paper may have been given a stiff ignore in some corridors in MOD since its publication ....(first contact with the enemy etc);)

Pheasant

I'm assuming you're either RN or a bona-mate!

Just out of curiosity, say you do reduce the Tornado Force, who then fills the gap when the GR9 goes out of service in 2018 (bearing in mind JCA (Dave B) is to replace GR9 - the Tornado replacement I don't believe has been decided as yet and isn't due until the mid 2020's). Or do we accept a "capability loss" for longer than we would if we reduced GR9 now? GR9 is planned to reduce in 2015 (I think!) to allow it to collapse down to one MOB (wasn't their a legal ruling about flying/noise at Wittering - strangely a bit online suggested Wittering would cease flying in 2012 (http://hacan.org.uk/news/press_releases.php?id=47)but that source is/was a few years old!).

Personally I don't think the GR9 will be fully taken out of service any earlier than planned. But I do think it will reduce in numbers earlier than expected. A win-win situation. CAS wins because he's made some cash savings. CNS wins because he's saved JFH and therefore RN fixed wing (probably!).

But of course somepeploe won't see that and the petty 'playground' squabbling will continue ....:E

[Pontius Navigator]

WM, as I am sitting on the fence, and DE owns the fence, I suspect that it was politics. DE is laying ownship to all the real estate, led by a 2* admiral I am led to believe, with the idea that they can then run or sell whatever and treat the other 3 TLB as lodger units.

[Pheasant]

WM,

The problem is the GR4 can't go to sea, neither can the Typhoon, but the Typhoon can do medium level stuff. Given the ridiculous numbers of Typhoon, reducing GR4 seems logical to some. When the CVF comes into Service the GR9 will certainly embark in large numbers, if only to prove the deck etc. Defence may even see a mix of GR9 and JCA for many years and/or a JCA CVF and a GR9 CVF.

Unlike the current state of play whereby we see minimal embarkations of GR9 and for the minimum period, when CVF comes in there will be major embarkations for significant periods of time - firstly to keep the aircrew up to speed but much more importantly to exercise all the systems and people on board. The politicians will not want to see these ships tied up, particularly as France is re-entering the military structure of NATO and will parade CdeG all over the place.

[Wrathmonk]

Pheasant

I can sort of understand the logic behind keeping lots of GR9s for longer than planned, particularly with the embarked time required (as that is something which is sorely missing due to the current op tempo, and which will ease when (or if just to calm the Bona mates down;)) the Tonka deploys on HERRICK) but you've got to be having a laugh with the statement:

Defence may even see a mix of GR9 and JCA for many years and/or a JCA CVF and a GR9 CVF

Of course you're assuming both CVFs will survive the current bun fight! Is CNS stamping his foot really just a smoke screen because he knows one of the CVFs is about to be chopped (or delayed considerably)..... retires (almost) and takes cover in the Bar ....

... and whilst the GR9 is back home to embark to keep the decks warm and the maintainers current who looks after HERRICK (and any follow on of TELIC) ..... cut back the GR4 and you'll find the cupboard bare. And the Typhoon is, rumour has it, a bit off being ready.

[Pheasant]

WM,

We need a GR9 chap to comment but my understanding is that the GR9s are coming out of Afgh purely to service CAS's whim to get GR4 (or Typhoon) in. The comment in the various bits of media (and the excellent book by Cdr Orchard) is that the GR9 could happily carry on in theatre and, with a bit of juggling, do quite a lot of the sea bit as well......but I am definitely no expert here. Indeed it would save Defence the (about) £500M it is costing to get GR4 in (including wet concrete) - whose hair-brained idea was that.....oh yes Leeson/Andersons.:ugh:

[insty66]

Pheasant.
It has been said so many times, the Harrier is being pulled out of Afg because it is "tired."
The fatigue life that they have been using up would see a premature end to the Harrier unless it is at least given a break.

You might be right about Tornado but think what BAE Systems would say if the GR fleet was prematurley cut!:suspect: I have believed for a long time the position of the F3 fleet is the most precarious, especially if Typhoon can fulfil all it should this year.

As for the inter-service aspect, how about this: CAS mutters about having to make cuts, suggests Harrier, Navy (naturally) bleat a lot, tons of press about RAF trying to finish FAA fast jet. CAS then "decides" to give up something else. The CAS has then made a saving, given up an asset and in the next round of cuts the RAF can argue "not our turn" we just gave up xxxxxx.

(The above is not entirely my own idea)

[Pontius Navigator]

I would have thought the Harrier force is also tired both physically and emotionally and not just the servicemen but their families too.

I would imagine there is also an emotional stress on the Tornado force too in the extent that theri role in the Gulf is less stressful than in Afg and thus they have it 'cushy.'

[Backwards PLT]

It isn't just the aircraft getting tired in the Harrier fleet - its the crews as well. They have been on the verge of breaking for some time and indeed by some criteria are already broken. A large portion of the Harrier force have very little experience of anything except CAS in a benign environment ie Afghanistan. Obviously I mean benign from a medium level FJ point of view not a squadie on patrol point of view. Some (most of the army) don't have a problem with this - they believe that the RAF should only be doing CAS and ISTAR (and AT, AAR etc) for evermore, but the RAF standpoint is to maintain a flexible capability on top of the current operational tasks. A debate for another thread, really.

Typhoon is, of course the crux of it all. At the moment it has a horrible reputation in the RAF - CR(airshows and N America dets only). In terms of CAS capabilities it needs more weapons clearances - having the option of a 1000lb bomb or a different 1000lb bomb isn't very flexible.

For air to air it might have some issues but for the current UK ADR policing and FI roles it would be fine. So cut F3 and Typhoon takes over seems an obvious choice. Unfortunately the current commitment of the FIs, northern q and southern q is a big demand on aircraft numbers and crews. If Typhoon were to take on all 3 commitments tomorrow it could cope BUT the ability to gain other capabilities (such as robust CAS) and the spare crews for a sustainable deployment would not be there - and surely that should be the focus, both militarily and politically. Of course the Saudi buy and training does not help from a military point of view - although it has saved our ass from pretty much every other point of view!

I think the above is pretty much fact. My personal view is that the Harrier force are in 2 minds - they love being on ops and "important" (don't we all) and are a bit worried that once they have no operational commitments they will be sidelined and possibly cut. On the other hand they are a bit fatigued/pissed off with the constant Afghan deployments.

[Pheasant]

The CAS has then made a saving, given up an asset and in the next round of cuts the RAF can argue "not our turn" we just gave up xxxxxx.

Insty,

Been tried before - doesn't work.

[insty66]

Been tried before - doesn't work.Never said it would.

PN,

Not sure what you're saying.

Is it that the Tonka guys are worried their desert isn't "hard" enough? Or that some one else thinks what the Tonka is currently doing not "hard" enough?

So do we agree that:

Harrier needs a break?

The only British Military air platform that can be deployed instead of it is the GR4?

It is entirely right for each service Chief to defend his Service?

[phil gollin]

Can someone suggest a sensible reason why the Harriers have to use up their fatigue life when there are plenty of GR.4s around ?

.

[Tourist]

In it's current state, the GR4 is not a suitable for the task?

[Beancountercymru]

"Commander R. C. Payne, Royal Navy, to be promoted acting captain and to be Captain Harrier/Jaguar within Headquarters 1 Group in succession to Captain H. S. Brown, MBE, Royal Navy, with effect from June 2009"

Service appointments: Navy - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/article5890479.ece)

And Jags too ( if we had any) according to the appointment

[Tourist]

Nice to see Donald Gosling promoted. Single-handedly done the most for RN morale of anyone I have met. And all from his own pocket.

A little off topic, I know.

[phil gollin]

In it's current state, the GR4 is not a suitable for the task?

I thought the whole point was that the GR.4 now was thought quite capable of cruising at medium level in Afghanistan and losing off precision guided weapons.

.

[Pontius Navigator]

PN,

Not sure what you're saying.

Is it that the Tonka guys are worried their desert isn't "hard" enough? Or that some one else thinks what the Tonka is currently doing not "hard" enough?

So do we agree that:

Harrier needs a break?

The only British Military air platform that can be deployed instead of it is the GR4?

Insty, yes. IMHO, those not in a fight are often ashamed that they are not there helping. Just a thought, but the GR4 pain is spread much less widely than the Harrier pain and I am guessing that the GR4 guys would feel sidelined, especially if the Telic deployment winds down.

As for the second bit, that someone else thinks the Tonka is not doing enough, I could not possibly comment except that the use-it or lose-it argument might apply.

[Pontius Navigator]

Can someone suggest a sensible reason why the Harriers have to use up their fatigue life when there are plenty of GR.4s around ?

.

Outstanding post. It took only 6 minutes for a catch.

[Madbob]

I thought that one of the reasons for the GR5/7/9 having a carbon fibre airframe (apart from weight-saving) was that it was not supposed to suffer "fatigue" in the same way as a tin wing.:sad:

MB

[ATFQ]

ZZZZZZZZZZ

[Wrathmonk]

There is more to calculating the out of service date than aircraft fatigue. Availability of "obsolete" spares for an aircraft no longer in production (for instance) [and why, when they extended the PR9 they were forced to either rob museum displays or individually craft spare bits].

[Pontius Navigator]

There is more to calculating the out of service date than aircraft fatigue. Availability of "obsolete" spares for an aircraft no longer in production (for instance) [and why, when they extended the PR9 they were forced to either rob museum displays or individually craft spare bits].

Indeed it is often the inocuous bits that 'last for ever' that break. Floor panels suddenly wear out. Catches fatigue. Fasteners don't. Etc etc. All fixable but all add to the technical burden.

A silly one on the Nimrod force was light bulbs. For much of the year the aircraft flew in daylight. Come the winter and all was gloom in the cabin until litterally dozens of pea bulbs etc were changed.

[Pheasant]

Strong buzzes up in town that either Anderson or Torpy will resign next week.

[Finnpog]

"Retire honourably after more than 30 years service to the crown" sounds so much nicer though.

It is a shame that this became a "resigning" issue in the first place.

[SL Hardly-Worthitt]

Afternoon all, seething H-W here :mad: - have never posted before but felt moved to today!! One of the chaps at the HQ reports strong 'rumour' of a written statement from CAS provided during Army bloke's recent review into Harrier manning that says something like ...."the only RAF officers that have the intellectual capacity to make it to 3* and above are FJ pilots...". If this statement is true I, along with many others (non-FJ pilot gods) who grind along supporting our service, deserve to be "highly disappointed"!!! Anyone else heard 'bout this?? H-W

[Gnd]

Whoa - nice fish - should go down well when they finally get round to disbanding the RAF!!!!

[Tourist]

Yes, I have heard it.
It was CAS's reason for requiring all military fixed wing to be RAF to give them a big enough pool to choose the CASs of the future from.:hmm:

[SL Hardly-Worthitt]

If there is any truth to this it beggars belief!!

[Finnpog]

This arrogance does more than beggars belief!

I'll state now that I am on no way anti RAF. I grew up as an air force brat and wore blue uniforms as a child and an adult.

Unfortunately, the RAF has no higher purpose than to field aircraft into the sky. This is the raison d'etre of the whole organisation, with every trade solely geared to support or enable that function. Hence, the GD Pilot could be seen as the pinnacle of all career roles.

The selection process sees the FJ types as the top of the tree with everyone else as "almost rans".

If true, this CAS arrogance is only one step away from God-ship in making their successors in their own image.

Only FJ types good enough to be 3 star plus? What horlicks!

There is no need to have the FJ skill set as a pre-requisite to be a highly effective Air officer. There are many officers who (if the system allowed) could rise effectively to the top - admittedly they wouldn't have the badge on the chest but I am sure that they would have the mental wherewithal to refute the CAS's opinion.

As there are on line references to at least two Royal Marines officers who after qualifying as Commandos and leaders of ground combat troops have since qualified as Harrier pilots, then it could be said that the CAS might lack the wraparound 'warfighter' experience of these mates who have clearly demonstrated their intellectual prowess to exceed their Corps ceiling for promotion and take over as potential CAS's in the future.

If true, then he should be birched for denigrating the rest of the service IMO.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

But if you consider what we do does he not have a point?

[NP20]

I find it hard to believe that CAS made these ill-judged comments about only FJ Pilots having the capacity for 3* & above, as this hardly squares with AM Peach (is he CJO yet) & the next DCINC Pers both being Navs (albeit FJ), appointments with which he surely had some influence. Also, weren't 2 of the last 3 CINC STC/Air non FJ?

Is this just a case of the RN winning the PR battle? And don't they pick their 4* on the ability to drive ships, when those currently gaining frontline experience are either aircrew, or RM? There was a RM 3* at MoD (& PJHQ immediately before that) who was well respected & I'm told hugely talented, but could never (allegedly) go any higher, to hold either 1SL or VCDS posts, due to his green uniform.

[SL Hardly-Worthitt]

OK - still v grumpy! Will try and see the 'evidence' with my own eyes next week and will report back.
FINNPOG, like your suggestion ... "If true, then he should be birched for denigrating the rest of the service IMO." but may just be too lenient IMHO if proven!! Standby - out! H-W

[Wwyvern]

When I left the RAF after having been medically downgraded (could only fly "as or with a co-pilot") the Air Sec bod told me that I had to be capable of flying single pilot if I had any chance of becoming CAS.

[Pheasant]

HQ reports strong 'rumour' of a written statement from CAS provided during Army bloke's recent review into Harrier manning that says something like ...."the only RAF officers that have the intellectual capacity to make it to 3* and above are FJ pilots...". If this statement is true I

This sounds absolutely true ...and if it wasn't CAS then it was more than likely ACAS that said it or put CAS up to it. What other idiots would have started the battle with the RN in the first place...oh yes, the same fools who said flying at sea was easy!

Perhaps someone should do an FOI on the whole shambles.

[Alpha Whiskey]

"Retire honourably after more than 30 years service to the crown" sounds so much nicer though.

It is a shame that this became a "resigning" issue in the first place.


Is this really a resigning issue?

Having started an unnecessary fight, the outcome of which seems to be an enshrinement of the status quo more or less, I'm not clear as to why CAS/ACAS would now compound the failure of their strategy by throwing themselves on their swords. Surely the mature thing to do is put a positive spin on the outcome as it affects one's service and exercise some leadership. :hmm:

[Bismark]

Surely the mature thing to do is put a positive spin on the outcome as it affects one's service and exercise some leadership.

Do you honestly believe that anyone further down the food chain in the RAF has any faith whatsoever in their leaders at the top, those very same leaders who start such a fight with a fellow Service (and one that participates in a JOINT Force at war) to the extent that the two Heads of Service fall out. And to the extent that one Service chief puts his name to such statements as.."the only RAF officers that have the intellectual capacity to make it to 3* and above are FJ pilots...".. Come on!!!

If the head of Service that I used to serve in did such a thing I would be demanding his head (and that of those that put him up to it - in this case it appears to be ACAS).

Come on RAF stand up for yourselves.

[ECMO1]

If he really said that, CAS will have a hard time getting along with the USAF Chief of Staff, Gen Norton A. Schwartz (http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=7077). Spec Ops and trash hauling background in C-130, Not exactly FJ, but still a pretty smart man to make it up there to 4*

[SL Hardly-Worthitt]

OK - reporting back and pretty disgusted....:mad:. CAS statement during recent Harrier review (which incidentally has gone really quiet...anyone know of any outcomes in the dispute??) is the following:

".......the majority of key appointments are held by FJ pilots (indeed exclusively at 3* and above at the moment). This is not by accident.....the very intellectual and mental capacity attributes that help distinguish a FJ pilot.....drive these statistics."

Not sure really what more to say to this blatant arrogance! What does it really say about the rest of us who, for whatever reason, support our Service honourably in another way? I'm pretty sure there are many others that possess at least equal (or indeed infinitely greater if this is an example to go by!) intellectual and mental capacity.

Angry and ashamed. H-W :*

[Finnpog]

"What does it really say about the rest of us who, for whatever reason, support our Service honourably in another way?"

My take on his quote is that he thinks you are pond-life.:eek:

Happy to help:=:ugh:

[SL Hardly-Worthitt]

:ouch: Cheers FINNPOG, kick a chap when he's down why don't you!

:hmm: S'pose ur right 'though - should've worked harder at school (along with better eyesight etc etc) to up my 'intellect' to Torpy's obvious stratospheric level...still like the idea of a 'birching' - public?

[Engines]

I've hesitated to enter this thread, but the recent post confirming the remarks by CAS makes me sad - and a little angry.

I served in another Service for a good long stint, as a professional engineer. I was always treated as a member of the team, and was honoured and grateful to be commanded by engineers and aircrew who almost without exception showed the best qualities of leadership and consideration you could ask for. That included aircrew of many specialisations, FJ, rotary wing, navigators, etc. You worked on stripes, not badges. Officer first, specialization a distant second.

Here's the point. My last 9 years or so were spent with the RAF. Basically, no difference. Still great people, great leaders and team players. And as professional as you could wish for.

These remarks sadden me because they saddle a great Service with a burden of stupidity and narrow mindedness it does not, for one moment, deserve. Yes, FJ pilots are special - like all other pilots. Like lots of other people in the Services. If CAS can't work out that 'intellectual and mental capacity' are required to operate his other platform types, then what hope does he have of working with the other Services? Is driving a hunter killer submarine not a bit hard? How about leading an infantry section into close combat?

Should we be surprised that there have been issues up in Town?

The Royal Air Force deserves better leadership. Much better. I sincerely hope they get it soon.

Engines

[Inspector Dreyfuss]

IMHO Burridge and Day were two of the better 3 stars of recent years. One multi and the other rotary, I believe. Have some people only just noticed that there is a tad of prejudice knocking around the air force? Not a surprise surely? Maybe that's why we come across as complete c***s at time to the other Services.

[Finnpog]

HW

Whatever CAS thinks (and I couldn't see a tongue in cheek smiley) ...

I love you:uhoh::O

[skippedonce]

IMHO Burridge and Day were two of the better 3 stars of recent years.:mad:

Inspector, you are obviously not the perceptive man I thought you were!:(

SO

[althenick]

"..the only RAF officers that have the intellectual capacity to make it to 3* and above are FJ pilots..."

No disrespect intended but having met a few Pilots from both FAA and RAF. I have to say I dont really rate them with any intellectual capacity at all. It's a known fact that in the officer corps of all 3 services the intelectual cream is usually in the medical and Engineering branches (Except for RAFSEE or whatever they call themselves now - They are all morons to a man) As for the RN by far the cleverest people are WE Tiffs - but then again I could be biased!

[ICBM]

Why do some people have to lower themselves to depths where one branch is debated over another? It beggars belief that the same people criticising one man's (CAS's) alleged statement, then demonstrate utter hypocrisy in their own muses. And anyway, if CAS really said this then who's to say that his opinion matches everyone else's in the RAF? It doesn't!

I for one believe that everyone's a specialist, everyone's capable in their own way (like unknown idiots becoming pop stars overnight) and if the Services can't work together then none will survive the next 50 years IMHO. I think the very fact that this RAF/RN tiff is in the public domain is a sad state of affairs, I really do. :ugh:

[Pheasant]

ICBM,

You are absolutely right re sadness, but this was a battle started solely by CDS/CAS/ACAS. The RN were quite contentedly getting on with the mandate given in SDR and re-affirmed by the decision to proceed with the CVFs.

CAS has dug the hole and should now jump into it.

[phil gollin]

Latest news - Oxbridge professors to be chosen by eyesight and co-ordination tests.

Seriously, even if his attempt at attacking another service doesn't get him sacked - surely this wonderful example of his intellectual power applied to man management should ?
.

[Occasional Aviator]

Pheasant,

It takes two to tango. I think your assertion that this was a battle started solely by CDS/CAS/ACAS. The RN were quite contentedly getting on with the mandate given in SDR and re-affirmed by the decision to proceed with the CVFs
Is a little disingenuous. Nobody in the RAF is trying to stop CVF; the discussion was about the proportion of JSF pilots who should be RN or RAF. The SDR (and indeed the decision to proceed with CVF) is entirely silent on this matter. The officer Band did not make the situation any better by trying to insist that half of all JSF pilots should be RN, considering that this would be a much larger number than the RN has been historically uanble to sustain on the harrier force. Furthermore, has it occurred to anyone that since we all seem to be agreed that we have too many fast jets, cutting the Harrier is something we ought to consider in the best interests of Defence, and might not simply be trying to have a go at the FAA?

PS CAS is wrong if he said that RAF 3* and above are exculsively FJ pilots - what about CJO?

[Tourist]

Occasional Aviator

Just checked my online dictionary for "disingenuous". They have a big photo you smiling at the camera.:ok:

:-disingenuous [dis-in-jen-yoo-uhs] –adjective lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: For example:

"Nobody in the RAF is trying to stop CVF" (yea right)

or

"much larger number than the RN has been historically uanble to sustain on the harrier force" (ok, so you picked the one fixed wing type in the 100 yr history of the FAA which has had small numbers of pilots through choice. Coincidentally this is the aircraft flown during the soon to be forgotten small carrier phase of the FAA. The big ships will be able to carry more aircraft, thus more pilots will be required. The only hurdle to our pilot numbers is the RAF training system. The USN is already doing some of our pilot training, and have offered to do all of it.)

or my personal favourite:

"Furthermore, has it occurred to anyone that since we all seem to be agreed that we have too many fast jets, cutting the Harrier is something we ought to consider in the best interests of Defence, and might not simply be trying to have a go at the FAA?"

You're a polititian, right?:rolleyes:

[Occasional Aviator]

OK, perhaps I was a little hasty.

Point One: "Nobody in the RAF is trying to stop CVF" - well, I'm not, and I don't know anybody who is - although I can't say I know what everyone's agenda is. However, I was trying to point out that the pilot numbers were never set by SDR or the decision to buy CVF.

Point Two: So, you agree that the RN has been unable to sustain the Harrier force? Actually I don't care either way, but I'd like to see you substantiate your suggestion that The only hurdle to our pilot numbers is the RAF training system... Are you suggesting that the RAF system (which is the only one we (note we, as in defence, let's be joint) have, is unable to train enough fast-jet pilots? Or are you just trying to blame the RAF for all of the FAA's problems, again?

Point Three: Are you seriously suggesting that if Defence has too many fast jets, and we need to reduce some numbers, that we should exclude a type from consideration just because it's flown by the RN? I'm not saying Harrier is the one to cut, just that we should be considering it along with the other types. Let's make the decision by balancing the money we would save against the operational capability we would give up. That's what we did with the Jaguar (NB CAS is a Jaguar pilot, so I don't think personal agendas cut much ice here). The sad fact is that we wouldn't really save any money cutting Tornado or Typhoon, and the aircraft with the nearest out-of service date, the smallest fleet, the shortest range, smallest payload and smallest selection of weapons is the Harrier. I wouldn't want to see our carrier-borne FJ capabilities take a holiday, but then we're not using them at the moment anyway, are we? There's no painless answer here and petty, parochial, dying in a ditch over whether the RAF or the RN fly particular jets help no-one - and I'm not particularly proud of those in my Service who approach it that way either. Now if someone in the RN could explain why it's best value for defence to keep it dark blue, rather than just going off on one about how the crabs have always had it in for us and don't understand maritime stuff, then I'd be all ears.

[elderlypart-timer]

Not sure I understand this debate in its entirety. However if we believe that we may have to fight major regional powers (i.e. Russia and/or China) then we have to have carriers complete with fast jets. Whether they are RN or RAF is a matter for the experts but we will need them. What I worry about is that we spend too much time arguing about how big our slice of the pie is, rather than arguing about whether the pie is big enough to meet our needs.

[Pheasant]

OA,

Sadly I think you have missed the point on all counts. The simple fact is that this Government has decided that Carriers are the way forward for expeditionary Ops, as are the Amphibious Forces - this is why they were the central pillars of SDR. if this is the case then it is beholden on the Chiefs of Staff to ensure that the capability is delivered. In the case of CVF/JSF it is in ensuring there is a credible embarked aviation component capable of operating from the sea. If that means tough choices in other arms (in this case the GR4 force or Typhoon) then so be it. Your CAS/ACAS appears to have said "I don't care what SDR (ie the Government) says I am going to remove a pillar of Defence Policy because I want to". Well I am sorry CAS, but you can't.

There was mention above of the RN going to the US to train its FJ aircrew. Ifthis is the case then I feel sorry for the RAF as it is a direct indication that the flying training system they are in control of has failed. Under current policy there is a requirement to train RN aircrew.....so do it. If they are all trained in the US then the chances are that the RN pilots will be flying JSF first - for US units. they will also be operating JSF from the sea first. Where does this leave the RAF? I would suggest with a flying training system that may not be required as the RN will have proved that it can be done just as effectively by a third party country (as, interestingly lots of other nations have discovered).

Is this what we want? I say no. Let those serving in the RAF wake up and put things right and stop being so parochial about protecting "The Few" - there were plenty of other "Fews" in WW2, not least the brave Swordfish pilots at Taranto and in the Atlantic" - unfortunately Winston didn't make up such good words about them!

[pr00ne]

elderlypart-timer,

If you think that we are ever going to be fighting Russia and or China, and that that constitutes anything regional, then there's an awful lot more than this debate that you don't understand!

[ComoLario]

It would be an extraordinary outcome if SofS takes "the Harrier measure" this week in light of the advice he must have received from the marriage counsellor and 2 of the 3 service chiefs. Where does PUS sit in this debate? As long as he hasn't been coerced, surely common sense must prevail?

[Occasional Aviator]

Pheasant,

OK, perhaps I have missed the point, because I don't seem to understand your post - it's almost as if you haven't read mine.

Yes, carriers and amphib forces are required as part of an expeditionary capability - I never said they weren't, and I'm not advocating getting rid of them - but this debate isn't about that. If you want to talk about the carriers, then perhaps you should be posting on the Future Carrier thread. I'm also not saying that we HAVE to cut Harrier - merely that there are tough choices and we can't exclude Harrier for the consideration - clearly we have a lot more Tornado and Typhoon, but as you will appreciate if you understand what has been going on in MoD and DE&S these past few years, cutting them wouldn't actually save us any money compared to Harrier. If we could come p with a practical way of making savings by reducing Tornado/Typhoon and still keep an embarked aviation capability, clearly that would be the best way to go - but carrier aviation is no more sacrosanct than than any other aspect of expeditionary capability (which, btw, isn't ALL from the sea). You can't just say "we must have this, and so if someone else has to take some pain, then so be it" - there's more to it than that. It is simplistic in the extreme to suggest that CAS is trying to remove a capability from defence just because he wants to - you are absolutely right when you say he can't.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by Under current policy there is a requirement to train RN aircrew.....so do it. My understanding of current policy is that there is a requirement to train sufficient aircrew to fly the jets we as a nation need to operate. It doesn't actually say which service they have to come from, and while what is soon to be the contractorised, joint training system has its faults, it is again parochial and paranoid to blame "the RAF" for not training "enough" RN aircrew.

While I would be the first to admit that the RAF has an unhealthy emphasis on fast jets, I also think some in the RN need to grow up and start thinking about what's best for defence, rather than how they can keep as much capability organic 'dark blue' as possible regardless of whether it's best value or not. The RAF is not whiter than white in this regard either; but let's all concentrate on getting the job done. If we are to have carrier air power, then the important thing is that it is delivered most effectively and efficiently - and whether it has 'RAF' or 'RN' painted on the fin makes not a jot of difference to that. If it turns out that the best value for defence is to get the USN to train RN pilots then fine, but by the same token it might be best value for the RAF to run it all. I can contemplate both possibilities; if you feel your blood rising at the suggestion then you may be allowing emotion to cloud your judgement.

[SL Hardly-Worthitt]

OA - trying not too let my "blood rise" (pressure's too high already...), technical points well made, but are we denying that: this was a battle started solely by CDS/CAS/ACAS.

or,as the good Inspector puts it:
Have some people only just noticed that there is a tad of prejudice knocking around the air force? Not a surprise surely? Maybe that's why we come across as complete c***s at time to the other Services.

I, like many others I suspect (and know), are pretty upset by this perception and particularly by CAS's formal remarks about a very large (and equally important) percentage of the RAF's intellectual capacity. Engines speaks for many:
the remarks by CAS makes me sad - and a little angry.


So what - will he apologise or withdraw the remarks - or are we all to be treated as the "pond life" so eloquently suggested by FINNPOG (cheers FP for the love;))....or maybe he should just go (and take ACAS with him) now!! We all deserve better:* H-W

[Occasional Aviator]

Thanks for the chance to clarify.

I don't think it was a battle started solely by CAS/ACAS. If the reported comments are true, then I'm pretty ashamed of them; I don't think it should be anybody's aim to take over bits of defence 'just because'.

However, there is clearly a debate to be had here - and why shouldn't we discuss whether it makes sense to cut Harrier, or who should fly JSF? These are issues that need to be debated - and from the point of view of what's best for Defence, rather than "We want all that" versus "You've always been out to get us" - some fault on both sides I feel. Yes, predjudice on the part of the RAF, but also a measure of paranoia by the RN.

My own feeling is that, sadly, the biggest threat to the carrier capability is not the RAF, but the legacy of being over-committed to two campaigns and chronic underfunding and over-ambitious programmes across the board. The recent decision to take UOR funding from the core programme exacerbates this - it means that any capabilities we aren't using right now are at risk. I would dearly love to see a credible carrier air capability (OK, so I have an opinion/predudice that it might be more efficient if the RAF flew the jets - but that's not important at the moment), but I can see the Harrier going simply as it's next down the list of belt-tightening measures now we've decimated FRES, not bought enough T45s or ASTUTE, retired Jaguar early, not been able to afford the SH uplifts we really need, taken too much risk in the medium-weight capability etc etc. There might be more to it than just trying to emasculate the 10% of the FAA that flies fixed-wing. It would make regenerating carrier capability that bit harder, but there are things we can do about it, such as the afore-mentioned sending more pilots (of whatever cloth) to work with the USN (out of interest, the RAF has more conventional deck experience than the RN at the moment due to our routine exchanges). However, it's by no means the only area in which we have taken a 'capability holiday' and need not signal the killing off of the carriers which I do think we need.

[Occasional Aviator]

That is, I think we need the carriers, not the killing off!

[Pheasant]

I don't think it was a battle started solely by CAS/ACAS. If the reported comments are true, then I'm pretty ashamed of them; I don't think it should be anybody's aim to take over bits of defence 'just because'.

I think you will find it was (but probably led by CDS when he was CAS).

However, there is clearly a debate to be had here - and why shouldn't we discuss whether it makes sense to cut Harrier, or who should fly JSF? These are issues that need to be debated - and from the point of view of what's best for Defence, rather than "We want all that" versus "You've always been out to get us" - some fault on both sides I feel. Yes, predjudice on the part of the RAF, but also a measure of paranoia by the RN.


Why should there be a debate?

out of interest, the RAF has more conventional deck experience than the RN at the moment due to our routine exchanges

Flying from the sea is not just about a few pilots doing deck landings, it is about an ethos and culture that wants to fly from the sea (aircrew, engineers, ATCOs, navigators (navy), chockheads, support structures, standards, SOPs etc etc).

[ICBM]

Flying from the sea is not just about a few pilots doing deck landings, it is about an ethos and culture that wants to fly from the sea (aircrew, engineers, ATCOs, navigators (navy), chockheads, support structures, standards, SOPs etc etc).

Agree Pheasant and although the RAF may lack a "want" to be at sea, vice the RN's "A day not at sea is a day wasted" mentality, I would suggest that what is important, over and above the more spiritual aspects you mention (ethos and want), is knowledge, experience and [relative] currency in all aspects of flying from a carrier. Furthermore I argue that proficiency in these 3 areas is pretty evenly spread across JFH right now, with absolutely no uniform colour involved in the equation whatsoever - the parity is directly attributable to the RN's decision to scrap the SHar and a subsequent loss of people (culture/ethos/knowledge et al)unwilling to move to Rutland.

Simply put, the RN hemorrhaged people after the SHar's demise, it now doesn't have the numbers to man two GR9 squadrons' worth of FE and things aren't on the up. Assuming the RN stand-up their JCA Sqn after 2015 do you think that bolt-holing Valley graduates into F/A-18 jobs to maintain FJ stats is fostering the ethos and culture of being at sea that your refer to? I think not....

[Widger]

Blah blah, economic crisis, blah oil, blah, minerals, blah deposits, blah extension of territorial claims, blah, Tristan da Cunha blah, South Georgia, blah, British Antarctic Territory, blah, competing claims, blah Madrid protocol, resource conflict, blah emergent Russia, blah, hungry China already expanding influence in Africa, blah, deepwater ports, blah Ascension, blah MPA, blah blue water navy, blah force projection, blah protection of Britain's territorial, economic and resource interests at the same time as combatting the emergence of a failed state in the Sub continent!

Skeleton argument for SDR 2010


Oh and by the way, if you have a look at the early pages of "Why house price wont go down" on Jet Blast you will see that I was right then as well.

No I am not an economist but I find it incredulous to claim that just because the Financial sector is in health, that things are OK. Today's Torygraph..Millions hit by record gas prices. Editorial...Britons feel poorer because they are poorer. The financial sector will not be in as good health when the great unwashed stop paying their debts. £1200 Billion pounds of personal debt, Spending down in the high street...this will lead to more job losses, Taxed to high heaven! The Nationwide has already seen the light and stop authorising 100% mortgages. The great scourge of self-certification will come back to haunt those who have taken out mortgages, 6 -7 times their salaries. The average wage in Portsmouth is about £25 000 so how can the average house be almost £200 000? Anatole Kaletsky is living in cloud cookoo land and is probably one of the few who are making money at the moment. He is obviously talking things up to stop his shares crashing through the floor. This is going to be an interesting winter!
28 July 2006

Trouble is, that although we now have the requirement to protect our interests, security and resources, we cannot afford to do so. If we do not protect them, someone else will and the oil etc, that has made this country so wealthy over the last 30 years will fill someone else's coffers. There is immense resource in the antarctic and South Atlantic and indeed around many of the UKs remote territories. We can only protect these interests with airfields (with the airframes), deep water ports or mobile deep water forces or a combination of all. With all the will in the world, neither the RAF , Navy or Army is big enough to do it all on their own.

[elderlypart-timer]

prOOne

We fought the allies of the Chinese Govt in Malaysia and won. We spent the entire Cold War preparing to fight the Russians. Do you think that was a mistake or that we should leave it to the US to take them on? Do you think the recent Russian naval exercises in the Norwegian Sea which forced the Norwegians to ground their offshore oil rig resupply helicopters was something we don't have to worry about?

[Pheasant]

Assuming the RN stand-up their JCA Sqn after 2015 do you think that bolt-holing Valley graduates into F/A-18 jobs to maintain FJ stats is fostering the ethos and culture of being at sea that your refer to? I think not....

You'll have to ask those still in the mob but I'm guessing that these guys and girls will spend more time at sea, on big carriers and will migrate straight into JSF.

it now doesn't have the numbers to man two GR9 squadrons' worth of FE and things aren't on the up

Are you sure? Or is the term Naval Strike Wing deemed more powerful in today's climate than Sqn numbers?

No matter what you say about current equality of experience in the Harrier force, and I agree with you, the RAF don't want to do it - it is in their culture not to want to go to sea, they want to operate from a DOB. The RN culture is very different, they join to go to sea and t operate from ships (albeit then to step ashore at the right time).

[cosmiccomet]

It would be great to face out the Harrier GR9.
It would be even greater if you did not have any more aircraft carrier.:}:}:}


We can take care of your colonies posetions in the South Atlantic any time so your government can save even more money.;););)

[spheroid]

Sunday Express | City & Business :: Navy ready for battle over RAF bid to drop carriers (http://www.sundayexpress.co.uk/posts/view/94656/Navy-ready-for-battle-over-RAF-bid-to-drop-carriers)




OMG

[Squirrel 41]

Spheroid...

Interesting, but the "Sunday Express"? Really? I'm surprised that the "Sunday Express" knows what an aircraft carrier is, given that they have a picture of Endurance being sealifted back to the UK.... what this has to do with a story on CVF is completely beyond me. :bored:

I can't see it myself - there's precious little to be saved from buying only one CVF, and given that the stated reason for their procurement is world-wide power projection, you need to have two to make sure you can deploy one - ask the French how things are going with a single carrier.....

S41

[Ronald Reagan]

I have a question for someone in the know. Will 66 JSF be enough to equip 2 carrier air wings plus extra jets for the RAF? I heard that each carrier would carry between 30 and 40 jets each. I know only one carrier would be at sea normally but even so it won't leave us many spare jets!

[Double Zero]

Pheasant,

A small but important point; ' The Few ' of the Battle of Britain included Fleet Air Arm pilots, among other non-RAF types.

I am pro' both forces, but I agree about the 'ethos' point of the Fleet Air Arm, and was disgusted to see history repeating itself and the FAA being shafted by the RAF for all the wrong reasons.

As for the loss of the Sea Harriers, well it's happened, mainly I suspect because Admirals don't fly, then again if we lose any more hulls they won't sail either !

Still say a few Harrier 2+ with AMRAAM would be extremely worthwhile, and very compatible.

I agree with a relatively small fleet of aircraft & crew all ought to be trained to hopefully the same level in all skills; however if the FAA is given a chance, you might be surprised at the improved recruiting...

[spheroid]

A small but important point; ' The Few ' of the Battle of Britain included Fleet Air Arm pilots, among other non-RAF types.

We all know that the battle of Britain was won at sea..... any scholar would tell you that

[recce_FAC]

Well I have just returned from Herrick after a tasty 6 month tour as a JTAC/FAC. Without getting into the politics crap,at grassroots level in Afghanistan a GR-9 is king. No disrespect to GR-4 I am sure GR-4 crews are very good,however when your in a TIC and you here on TACSAT that you are about to be supported by a pair of GR-9's you know you are going to get the best CAS available. Us FAC's train train train with GR-4 all the time when in UK,however its not until you get a GR-9 that you realise how good a Harrier is. Surely its about supporting our guys on the ground now that matters.If the powers that be are going to play with ''joe squaddie's '' lives with all of this political crap,something is massively wrong. I know I have an un-complicated outlook on all of this.My point is a GR-9 is a much more capable CAS aircraft than a GR-4,it's not just about 27mm guns etc its about a whole host of reasons that this forum is really the place to discuss.When GR-9 eventually leaves KAF(if GR-4 ever deploys) the RAF's ability to support British soldiers in contact on the ground will diminish FACT!!!!!

[Easy Street]

recce FAC,

Give the GR4 a chance... when we "train train train" with them in the UK, they generally don't have a targeting pod fitted, and almost certainly don't have a ROVER capability. Therefore being far less capable and easy to work with.

That may also be true of GR9 in the UK. Without targeting pods, I would agree - GR9 is the better CAS platform. However, with a pod fitted, I think it is much more of a close call and the GR4 could surprise a lot of people in a couple of months' time... FACT!?

Easy

[Pure Pursuit]

Recce FAC,

welcome home.


I completely agree with your comments about the GR9. As a 'Crowbar' controller last year, it was always a bonus to have a few GR9s check in when it was busy. No offence to the other operators intended however, the Harrier mates were first class.

On my end of tour flight home, I sat with a few guys from 2 Para who spoke very highly JHF. Let's hope that the early retirement of the F3 will alleviate the need to scrap the Harrier. If not, let's bin a few E3s; 7 is far too many for a force that does not have anything like the manpower to justify them.

[recce_FAC]

We have to give GR-4 a chance. I am certain the GR-4 aircrew will dig out for the guys on the ground,my concern is that its not as suited to Helmand as a GR-9, we all know of the ''other factors'' that we cannot really discuss on here that will make it a pretty tough job for GR-4 to be effective.It's just a case of wait and see.

[Double Zero]

Spheroid,

I've just noticed your amusing p' take of my mentioning that Fleet Air arm pilots took part in the Battle of Britain.

Either you are as clueless as you make a good attempt at appearing, or maybe you think I meant ' from ships ' ?

Either way demonstrates pretty poor knowledge.

The FAA does deserve a more separate identity, and as our ships deserve fighter cover, they are rather obviously the people for the job.

I have flown with a lot of RAF pilots, who were mostly great, but the FAA pilots I have flown with stand out.

Hence my expressed wish that in a slightly better world they might be supplied with Harrier 2+ & AMRAAM ( if you don't know what they are, ask a grown up ) - and show you what ' ethos ' means.

Spheroid might be more appropriate if expressed in plural form...

[WhiteOvies]

DZ - think there was an article in a paper a while back about the RN's contribution to BofB. It wasn't talking about carrier borne aircraft but AA ships (I think, memory hazy don't mind being corrected). I think this was the ref Spheroid was implying!

Back on thread -

Believe that RN training in US on AV 8B was organised due to requirement to grow more FAA fixed wing pilots (lead in to numbers required for JSF). Not enough spaces on 20(R) long course so alternative option set up.

Agree that a lot of the SHar force didn't fancy the move to Rutland which has held things back a bit, however everyone on JFH is on the same side and dedicated to providing the best CAS to the guys on the ground. When the GR4 takes over they can then go back to concentrating on putting munitions on target from a rolling pitching deck. Would the Royals on the Al Faw have appreciated some dedicated sea-based CAS in 2003? 847 NAS did an awesome job but I'm sure they wouldn't have minded some help. (yes I know the Harriers were busy elsewhere in Telic at the time!)

How do you think the RAF lads and lasses at Cott/Witt feel about their own service chief trying to get shot of them after about 6 yrs on continuous ops? No wonder BAES have no trouble recruiting in South Lincs!:rolleyes:

Hopefully this whole sorry business can be put behind us and inter-service politics can be cooled off.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Double Zero

Don't be so sensitive. I think you will find that Spheroid was referring to this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527068/Battle-of-Britain-was-won-at-sea.-Discuss.html) article by some maritime professor of history.

[Pontius Navigator]

The Fleet Air Arm played an active part in the fight against the Axis forces during the Battle of Britain, not more so than the two FAA squadrons and 50 or so men who served under RAF Fighter Command. This page is dedicated to their dedication and bravery.

The learned article suggesting that the Royal Navy, with its massive warship strength of highly manoevrable destroyers, could have won the Battle for Britain was no doubt well reasoned by eminent academics.

They presumable drew on the success of the RN ships in the face of enemy air attacks both before the BoB and subsequently in the Far East.

[Archimedes]

It should be pointed out that none of the three academics quoted actually said quite what was attributed to them - the original article in Hysteria Today was written by a chap who.... errrrr.... let's be charitable about this.... edited the quotes he was actually given in a rather unfortunate manner, which created a nicely controversial article and three extremely irate staff college academics. They produced a detailed rebuttal of his article (and his interview technique...) in the next RUSI Journal to appear after the History Today/Torygraph coverage.

However, a chap called Anthony Cumming said the same sorts of things in a PhD thesis, which was covered in a History and Nostalgia board thread (http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/298317-bob-pilots-couldnt-shoot-straight.html) a while back.

[Occasional Aviator]

WhiteOvies,

your question Would the Royals on the Al Faw have appreciated some dedicated sea-based CAS in 2003?, if I read it correctly, displays a staggering lack of knowledge about how air power is employed.

You do say yes I know the Harriers were busy elsewhere in Telic at the time!, and I wonder whether you think that putting them on a ship would have changed this?

Of course, it would be lovely if everyone could have their own dedicated jet - but not even the US has enough assets to afford to do that - why do you think the air (including Marine air) that flies off the US ships is tasked and commanded by the JFACC?

OK, if there was a single-nation, small-scale intervention in which we only used carrier air [which is the scenario for which we are buying CVF], it would feel like dedicated support - but if you look at our (joint) doctrine carefully you'll appreciate that isn't exactly what happens - and for good reason.

[alfred_the_great]

USMC Air isn't controlled by the JFACC, it is a organic and integral part of the MAGTF, controlled on behalf of the General by the USMC for the USMC.

[Source MCDP3 Expeditionary Operations pg 72 Services Publications - U.S Marine Corps Pubs (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/service_publications_marinecorps_pubs.htm) ]

[Occasional Aviator]

Alfred,

that's correct, when the MAGTF is deployed [consider my point about small-scale, single-nation ops] - for large-scale ops and everything done on a joint basis, the marine air will usually come under the JFACC - as is and was the case with marine air contributing to Iraq and Afghanistan.

[alfred_the_great]

That doesn't stop elements of the RM comparing and contrasting the USMC and it's seemingly endless fast air on tap, and the 'paucity' of UK fast air available. It's not right, or correct, but it is a perception....

[FOG]

OA,

Partially true. We release a percentage of sorties to the JFACC but definitely not all and very few if any rotary wing sorties. The "boat squadrons" aboard the CVNs are under USN control and they are usually fragged via the ATO. Gators usually are tasked and commanded outside the JFACC as well.

Please do not confuse reporting sorties to the JFACC so they can be coordinated with being tasked and commanded.

Allied Farce is a simple analogy. The USMC units flying out of Aviano were tasked via the ATO. The units flying off the CVNs had some of their sorties fragged via the ATO under apportionment, while the MEU (to include the ashore KC-130s) kept all their sorties and coordinated via the ATO.

There are very real disagreements on the JFACC/ATO process and employment. One philosophy is that air is to support someone or something and the other is that air is its own separate and distinct entity. The first will have CAS stacks, HVAA positions, and UAV sorties designed and oriented on the ground forces with the operational concept of what are those being supported trying to accomplish and how can we best support. The latter ends up putting CAS stacks, HVAA, and UAV sorties in places that people asking why as it provides far less than optimal support to friendlies and far less threat to the bad guys.

S/F, FOG

[SL Hardly-Worthitt]

Hi there,

Looks like a decision has eventually been made which will be very welcome news for JFH and Cottesmore. Understand this means no cuts to the current force structure as proposed.

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | New contract provides support to Harriers (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/NewContractProvidesSupportToHarriers.htm)


New contract provides support to Harriers

An Equipment and Logistics (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/) news article

23 Apr 09

A new contract worth £574m has been awarded to supply the repair and maintenance work for RAF and Royal Navy Harriers during the remainder of their service lives.


http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/GenerateThumbnail.aspx?imageURL=/NR/rdonlyres/ED7AD1EC-4F28-468B-A649-411AFF34AA18/0/PN_081_2009HARRIERPIC.JPG&maxSize=210 (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/LargeImageTemplate.aspx?img=/NR/rdonlyres/ED7AD1EC-4F28-468B-A649-411AFF34AA18/0/PN_081_2009HARRIERPIC.JPG&alt=Harrier) A Royal Air Force Harrier in flight
[Picture: RAF]

The contract covers repair, maintenance, spares provision, upgrade work and technical support, which will be undertaken at the Harrier fleet's main operating base at RAF Cottesmore in Rutland.
The current role of the Harrier aircraft in Afghanistan is to undertake close air support to troops on the ground, as well as non-traditional intelligence surveillance reconnaissance to determine enemy activity and provide information to troops on Op HERRICK.




The Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Quentin Davies, said:"The Harrier force continues to play a vital role on operations in Afghanistan. This is a significant contract that builds on our existing excellent partnering arrangements with industry."Such contracts have already resulted in considerable financial savings, as well as ensuring that the Harrier force is fully prepared to meet front line requirements."

MOD Defence Equipment and Support Harrier team leader, Group Captain Andy Ebdon, said:"Today's announcement is great news for the future support of Harrier. It is a testament to the tremendous sustained effort by MOD and industry to build on the successes already achieved. Joint Force Harrier is now assured of cost-effective support throughout its remaining service."Joint Force Harrier (JFH) is also responsible for providing aircraft for the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers and seeks to undertake all strike and reconnaissance roles from sea as well as land.
Along with the Op HERRICK commitment in Afghanistan, JFH is amongst the RAF's most frequently deployed assets.
RAF Cottesmore in Rutland has been home to the Harrier maintenance line since 2005, where work has been carried out under JUMP (Joint Upgrade and Maintenance Programme), which has produced savings of around £50m.
The new contract has been awarded to BAE and will secure the future of approximately 300 civilian jobs. The previous support contract and its proven efficiency and financial benefits will now transfer to the new HPAC (Harrier Platform Availability Contract) helping to secure existing jobs on site and at BAES Systems' sites at Warton, Samlesbury and Farnborough.


Alongside the SoS' decision (as recommended by the independent review) that the future JCA force will be a truly Joint (RAF and RN) force, and now that the Harrier force will remain untouched, one wonders if those that started this original (embarrassing and distasteful) dispute will have the moral courage to admit their errors and retire (gracefully or otherwise) from the stage....

You know, and we know, and you know that we know .....!

:* H-W

[Double Zero]

I still remain ( in my armchair ) convinced we need a fighter or rather interceptor - Duncan Sandys is finally near his time - on carriers.

However I see what aroused people in that article !

The Navy might well have held off the barges, and although the Nazi's did some daft things - like taking on Russia - I doubt all those barges were put together on a whim, though we'll never know.

I happened to work on a similar barge in the 1990's - built 1946 ish, as a reparation; good for about 5-6 knots, low revving but tons of torque, so load wouldn't be much of an issue.

However seaworthiness certainly was, it rolled like a pig; I met a crew who'd taken another similar craft across the Channel, and thought their time was up even in moderate conditions.

They kept the 45 degree each way roll marks from the light as a souvenir ( truly a case of lantern swinging ).

This might not sound a lot to an airman, but believe me it's a huge amount on such a thing !

Maybe the Navy, mines and King Neptune would have seen off the Nazi's, but air power seems to have worked well and I have nothing but total respect for all concerned.

When mentioning that FAA pilots took part in the Battle of Britain, of course I meant those who fought from land airbases, alongside the R.A.F.

[Pheasant]

H-W,

Alongside the SoS' decision (as recommended by the independent review) that the future JCA force will be a truly Joint (RAF and RN) force, and now that the Harrier force will remain untouched,

Has he? Where is this posted??? Or are you on the inside track and have let slip something?


BEADWINDOW perhaps?

[SL Hardly-Worthitt]

Pheasant,

Apologies for tardy reply...been offline for a bit. In response....I don't think so (and this was certainly not intended to be a scoop from the "inside track"), rather it was more an expression of relief that this sorry episode appears (hopefully) to have drawn to a close, while acknowledging that SoS had already indicated the intention for the force to remain joint (PQ back in Feb)

T6. All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is right that we should look at every option as we prepare for the future, but all the options that we are considering include recognising the principle that it should be a jointly operated force.

Hansard - Commons | Houses of Parliament (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/02.htm)

...and now, with this open and widely published announcement of the new contract for Harrier support (which I contend the SoS would have been required to approve), it would seem a reasonable assumption (dangerous I know) that the current threat to JFH has passed....for now!

Cheers. H-W.