AOC 1 Gp breaks ranks [Archive]

BEagle

19th Dec 2010, 08:39

And yet, when he took over from Torpy, Dalton is on record as having said:

"I am very conscious of the enormous privilege and responsibility that I have been given as the Chief of the Air Staff to lead the Royal Air Force over the next few years. I recognise that I take on this honour at a time when the RAF is continuing to make the vital and highly effective contribution to the UK Armed Forces' enduring military operations in Afghanistan.

"Combining these with the RAF's other operational commitments - 24/7 protection of United Kingdom airspace, the continuing obligation for the protection of the Falkland Islands, maritime air operations around the UK and search and rescue missions across the UK - means that the Royal Air Force is exceptionally busy."

Kudos to AOC 1 Gp, but how is it, Dalton, that some of the RAF's 'operational commitments' (which I've highlighted in bold above) suddenly aren't needed anymore?

Out of interest, how much of her annual budget does Belgium fritter away on overseas aid to wealthier countries, or on state handouts to economic migrants?

The Old Fat One

19th Dec 2010, 10:05

Am I happy to be down at that number [eight squadrons] next April? No, it worries the hell out of me,” he said. “I can just about do Operation Herrick [Afghanistan], and the QRAs [air defence operations]. Can I do other things? Yes, but it is at risk

Who teaches these people to talk like this? "I can...", "Can I..."

It's "we" as in lots of us, not "I" as in me alone.

I once witnessed the sailor bloke West flash up a power point of a Carrier referring to it as "this is me in the Med" like some sort of holiday snap (about as interesting). Pompous A**e.

BBadanov

19th Dec 2010, 10:18

OFO, there is more:

""Should we get the buybacks out of Saudi Arabia and Oman as planned, we will be back to the number of Typhoons I need," he said. "At the moment, if I don't get the [Omani] buyback and this is under discussion ... it could take me down to 95 aircraft."

Poor guy, it must be tough having his own air force! :bored:

Melchett01

19th Dec 2010, 10:28

The next Cameron stands up and starts droning on about defence of the nation being the first priority of any government, may be someone should ask him how exactly we are supposed to do that:

The Air Force has scrapped its maritime capabilities, is binning the majority of its ISTAR platforms (despite ISTAR being the buzzword of the day), has an ancient AT fleet that is falling apart with replacements coming under the heading of 'jam tomorrow' and an attack capability now being compared to Belgium's by the very person charged with leading it.

The Navy has taken out a sub-prime mortgage for 2 carriers that won't have any aircraft, at the expense of a surface fleet that is frankly outnumbered by the number of toy boats in my bath.

Whilst the Army, who appear to be doing very well at the moment, are clinging on by virtue of the fact that the politicians have gone for the 'The War' argument, an argument which is null and void post-2015 and which will leave the Army with a lot of specialist kit for light infantry dominated, 1920/30s style policing conflicts and little else. But lets not forget that post-2015 is when the Army will be sliced and diced.

So where does that leave defence of the UK the Prime Minister? And before you start trying to tell us about the high tech capabilities we have, remember one thing: Typhoon, JSF, T-45s etc may well be a the cutting edge of technology, but they can't be in 2 places at once.

This is going to make Churchill's wilderness years look like a feast for defence spending.

Dengue_Dude

19th Dec 2010, 10:37

Got to agree.

Obviously a new drill has been added to the checklist.

BOTTLE switch . . . . . . . . . Select OUT

Shame that, it was going so well. They've probably levelled a few threats they've got left over from the Assange debacle . . .

teeteringhead

19th Dec 2010, 10:44

Can't quite understand his banter about "only six squadrons left in the RAF". Even if you leave out 22, 202 (and 84*) we've still got 7, 18, 27, 28, 33, 78 and 230 .......:confused:

Duh! NOW I get it ....... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Perhaps Air Sec, AMP and/or ACAS should tell him .......

*Edited to add: and 60(R)

Winco

19th Dec 2010, 11:03

Just when I felt I was going to have to eat my words and retract all those comments I've made about out VSOs not having any ba££s, it would appear that I was correct all along.

And, just when I thought 'at last, someone close to the top is making a statement' I find it was all in the wrong context. And of course we then get good old CAS steaming in telling us all he doesn't agree with his AOC. What a bunch of clowns we have running what's left of this Air Farce!

Dalton, I had quite high hopes when you took over from Torpy, and your speach about protecting our maritime and SAR assets gave comfort to me and many others. What a shame that you have now forgotten what you said, like so many other VSOs before you.

How embarrassing it must be for those left in to being compared with Belgium. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. But it isn't funny at all, it's pathetic, sad and deeply worrying.

kiwibrit

19th Dec 2010, 11:15

An RAF comprising six fast-jet squadrons would be smaller than at any point since its foundation in 1918. It would take British combat air power back to the pre-RAF days of the Royal Flying Corps.

Bearing in mind the far greater bombing accuracy and weapon effectiveness of our modern aircraft in comparison to those of the RFC, that seems a surprising statement.

PPRuNeUser0139

19th Dec 2010, 11:50

I read once of a similar spat in the RN - a commodore disagreed publicly with his admiral and was fearful of his future.
The admiral told him, "I value your views and I respect your right to differ with me. If we agreed with each other all the time, one of us would be redundant.."
sv
PS. edited to add: AVM Bagwell asserted that the RAF would “absolutely meet the current task and operational priorities”.
These can't be too demanding then..

Roadster280

19th Dec 2010, 15:07

Bearing in mind the far greater bombing accuracy and weapons effectiveness of any potential adversary in comparison to those fielded at the time of the RLC my surprise was somewhat short-lived.

...Snigger :E

muttywhitedog

19th Dec 2010, 15:33

AOC 1 Gp has been a regular visitor to Cottesmore since last year, when the first wave of cuts to the Harrier was announced. He is the first AOC who actually appears "real", and has been very open and honest in all his briefings. I actually believe what he says, and I believe he believes what he says to us, rather than his predecessors who would say anything to make their masters proud of them.

Dengue_Dude

19th Dec 2010, 15:40

AOC 1 Gp has been a regular visitor to Cottesmore since last year

Not got too many choices now has he?

He could spend 2 months a year with each squadron - hands-on management! That is, of course, if he doesn't follow the Harrier out of service . . . early.

Yozzer

19th Dec 2010, 15:51

If wonder if Casework are working on the QR1027 for him yet. He could stare at himself in the mirror and give himself a little chat. Then conclude by posting himself to the worst job in the Royal Air Force with no hope of ever flying again in the hope that he might PVR. For that is what he personally did to a peer for a lessor though not entirely disimilar offence, and 'good faith' and 'misconstrued by others' was: 'no excuse'.

His comments may have been embellished by the media, but that is their job; it is called 'spin' when used in political circles, and being a senior officer is very political nowadays. ...unless your Burmese.

Biggus

19th Dec 2010, 17:19

Surely this entire thread is just a re-hash of news we were already aware of:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/436459-raf-dropping-6-fast-jet-units.html

The latest article in the Telegraph even says...."Air Vice-Marshal Bagwell’s remarks, in a briefing last week to Defense News, a trade journal, are....".

Note the "trade journal" reference.....

iRaven

19th Dec 2010, 17:30

Maybe this also had something to do with this released about 4 days ago:

AIR RANK & COMMAND APPOINTMENTS LIST 10-10

Air Vice-Marshal G J Bagwell CBE to be Chief of Staff (Joint Warfare Development) in the Permanent Joint Headquarters, in August 2011, in succession to Maj Gen R J M Porter MBE.

Anyway, good on you Baggers (Sir), I wish that we had a few more like you at 2* and above.

iRaven

Old-Duffer

19th Dec 2010, 17:36

Yozzer,

You have tickled my interest with your last post.

Would you care to expand on your comments within the limits of the law of libel and the watchful (and infallable - of course) eye of the mods?

If the gentleman speaks with - put politely - forked tongue, then it might temper our view. However, we should not forget that some years ago a well known (even better known now) officer of the dark blue suited persuasion, left some papers lying around, which just happened to be found by a reporter. There was a strong body of opinion that wondered just how regretable this lapse was. Perhaps then, this is the air force actually stirring itself into action and the interview is Round One of the fightback.

To Horse, To Horse!!!

Old Duffer

alisoncc

19th Dec 2010, 18:33

When I read this a few years ago it was amusing. Less so now.

I’m the last one left in the Air Force.
I’ve an office in MOD
And a copy of Queen’s Regulations
Which only apply to me.
I can post myself to Leuchars
And detach me from there to Kinloss
Or send me on courses to Cranwell
Then cancel the lot – I’m the boss.

I’m the last one left in the Air Force,
But the great Parliamentary brains
Omitted, when cancelling people,
To sell off the stations and planes.
The result is my Inventory bulges
With KD and campstools and Quarters.
Plus a signed book of verses by Trenchard
Which I keep for impressing reporters.

I’m the last one left in the Air Force
I suppose you imagine it’s great
To be master of all you survey
But I tell you – it’s difficult, mate.
I inspected three Units last Thursday
As C-in-C (Acting) Strike.
Then I swept half the runway at Leeming
And I repaired Boulmer’s best station bike.

I’m the last one left in the Air Force
And it’s not doing a lot for my health.
Station Sports Days are frankly exhausting
When the Victor Ludorum’s oneself.
On Guest Nights the Mess is so lonely
There are times that I wish I were able
To pass the port to the one on my left
Without watching it fall off the table.

I’m the last one left in the Air Force
And it’s quiet – but that apart –
There are plenty worse off, for example,
The only Sea Lord, for a start.
She was called out last Wednesday evening
(Joint Ops with the Army my oath)
But their rowing boat sank in the Channel
Which obliged me to rescue them both.

I’m the last one left in the Air Force
And my kids say I’m never around.
When I’m not flying Hercs or a Typhoon
I’m the lone QRA on the ground.
Or I’m doing sea-survival at Plymouth,
Shooting flares at the crowds on the Hoe,
Or I’m Orderly Corporal at Linton –
It’s an interesting life but all go!

I’m the last one left in the Air Force
I’m ADC to The Queen
I’m Duty Clerk at Brize Norton
I’m the RAF rugby team.
Tomorrow I’m the Queen’s Colour Squadron
Then air-testing several planes
And the day after that I’m in London
To preach at St Clement Danes.

I’m the last one left in the Air Force
And I’m due to go before long
But there’s been no hint of replacement
And I won’t even let me sign on.
I hope to enjoy my retirement
As I’ve put up a fairly good show
And I won’t cut myself off entirely
As there’s always reunions – you know!

Copyright unknown - found on the Net.

Finningley Boy

19th Dec 2010, 18:42

Can't quite understand his banter about "only six squadrons left in the RAF". Even if you leave out 22, 202 (and 84*) we've still got 7, 18, 27, 28, 33, 78 and 230 .......http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

Duh! NOW I get it ....... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Perhaps Air Sec, AMP and/or ACAS should tell him .......

Yes TTH, he's referring to the cool noisy fun squadrons!:ok:

FB:)

Beermonkey

19th Dec 2010, 20:57

What strikes me about Baggers is that he's is the only Air Ranking Officer in the current mainstream that speaks to his people in plain english, without the usual on-message management speak and this comment is typical of that style.

I don't think that anyone should bemoan him for the last paragraph; I've been impressed on the 2 or 3 occasions that I've met him that we still have someone on high that connect with people of all ranks. If he's been reigned in by the management, then so be it; perhaps that speaks more of their weakness, rather than of this man and his principles.

orca

20th Dec 2010, 02:21

When you say that it would be nice to have a few more 2 star officers like this, are we missing the point that with 6 squadrons of fast air you probably need two 'OF-5 fast jet', and AOC 1 Gp should be a 1 star appointment? (At the very outside).

Time to re-awaken the Admirals versus boats debate as well.

Cue the 'they're ships actually blah, blah bah....', all 19 of them...

Finningley Boy

20th Dec 2010, 03:04

Does anyone ever imagine there could be cause for expansion by any degree at anytime in the future? Or is the mindset on the issue of Defence, as demonstrated by too many forums like this, rather similar to the one which believed Britain would never see snow again?:uhoh:

FB:)

Old-Duffer

20th Dec 2010, 05:51

There are no circumstances I believe in which the armed forces will 'expand'.

The only times the RAF has 'expanded' since 1945 was briefly for Korea and then when the Thor & Bloodhound sqns were formed. The whole emphasis is to downsize, save money and unless the homeland is affected directly, that's how it's likely to continue.

The complexity is that size does not equate with capability but what seems to be overlooked is that you actually need a capability to project your capability.

The timescale for any future conflict is unlikely to allow for any expansion of capability. I also recall being on the margins of a conversation which went something like: 'we have to keep so many of aircraft X because if we don't, the Treasurer will never let us buy more of aircraft Y when we replace X'. This argument then became a numbers game not a capability game.

OH, my head hurts, it's too early to think about this ......... off to walk the dogs; it's perishing outside.

O-D

Diablo Rouge

20th Dec 2010, 06:59

A 'factor' in future worldwide conflict concerns our responsibilities to former 'empire' countries regardless of whether they remain Commonwealth countries. For example, a by-product of Jamaican independance is/was that we would 'protect' them for +50 years post independence. Hence the WIGS ship and an anual military exchange program (Ex Red Stripe) in which SME for a multitude of trades and an Infantry Regt would be deployed in a tree hugging exercise. That responsibility ends in 2012 and I am sure that other such former colonies pretty much got independence at the same time, therefore a 'burden' is removed within 2 years.

Of course the Falklands falls within this same bracket and is setting a precident by continued 'occupation' by HM Forces. Mixed signals on the global playing service results. For sure, if the will for the Malvinas raises its head again, the islanders had better start learning Spanish.

Probably not in my lifetime: But I forsee a UK Defence Force as a realistic proposition with a Joint HQ forced upon all military personel. The key word there is 'defence' not 'world stage', and all it requires is a change of mindset from 'empire' to 'small insignificant country' driven by the economy; traditions having been set aside.

teeteringhead

20th Dec 2010, 08:28

Boulmer’s best station bike. ... a blonde scopie corporal IIRC .....:E

Wrathmonk

20th Dec 2010, 09:18

he's is the only Air Ranking Officer in the current mainstream that speaks to his people in plain english

You've obviously not had the (genuine) pleasure of meeting AOC 2 Gp then! Tourettes rules - &%^$ yeah!

F3sRBest

20th Dec 2010, 09:43

You've obviously not had the (genuine) pleasure of meeting AOC 2 Gp then! Tourettes rules - &%^$ yeah!

absolutely :ok::ok:

Melchett01

20th Dec 2010, 11:30

There are no circumstances I believe in which the armed forces will 'expand'. ...The whole emphasis is to downsize, save money and unless the homeland is affected directly, that's how it's likely to continue.

O-D,

I am unfortunately forced to agree with you that the emphasis is on down-sizing to save money. However, this is where the bean counters, and by implication the politicians who are driving them, have it wrong and quite frankly demonstrate their monumental ignorance of anything that doesn't look like a bottom line on a balance sheet.

For a start, we are in the process of 'allegedly re-equipping' with the latest high-tech capabilities. It doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to work out that the unit cost of these capabilities will increase as the numbers we order go down.

To take a hypothetical example, we buy 232 Typhoons at £ X million per ac; politicians and Joe Public are outraged that we should be spending X million per ac, so we reduce the numbers to cut costs. Unfortunately, industry has already spent £ Y million in developing said platform and their shareholders are keen to recoup costs and make a profit. The end result of all this is that whilst over all costs might appear to come down with a reduced order, the relative costs of each ac then becomes £ X+5 million per ac and relative value for money per ac goes down, with Joe Public becoming even more incensed that they have less to spend on benefits and the lefties even more outraged that they have less to spend on propping up various 3rd world defence budgets.

However, the real issue with what is going on in Defence in general and with the Air Force specifically is that re-structuring and re-positioning for 21st century threats, space, cyber warfare and UCAVs is without a doubt going to be eye-wateringly expensive. If that is the direction the govt assess we need to be moving in, then fine. But if you try doing that on the cheap, you will undoubtedly find yourself on the end of a whipping from some 18 yr old cyber guru sitting in China or Russia armed with little more than a decent computer, an encyclopedic knowledge of geekery and licence from a foreign intelligence service to cause chaos amongst western infidels.

There is absolutely no way, that as we push into the next generation of military capabilities that we are going to be able to skimp or save money by cutting platforms if you want a credible capability. And arguably, with much of our strategic national and financial infrastructure dependent on 1s and 0s, the internet and comms systems, we really can't afford to skimp here. Failure to spend here will result in a whole lot more pain than having grounding aircraft fleets for lack of maintenance over the years. And this is before you even take into account that you still need to maintain a half decent traditional military capability to act as a deterrent and deliver hard power where necessary. They may well have thought it through and come up with some sort of new 'strategy', but frankly, I'm not convinced that their logic is entirely in step with the reality of the situation.

Oh and by the way O-D, I suggest you pop down to Argos and get a treadmill - stick the hounds on it first thing in the morning and go back to bed. It's far too cold to be out that early.

Old-Duffer

20th Dec 2010, 14:30

Teeteringhead,

Re Post 34 - I didn't realise you knew (possibly in the biblical sense) my sister!

O-D

Easy Street

20th Dec 2010, 16:07

AOC 1 Gp is the only Air Ranking Officer in the current mainstream that speaks to his people in plain english

You've obviously not had the (genuine) pleasure of meeting AOC 2 Gp then! Tourettes rules - &%^$ yeah!

They were consecutive Stn Cdrs at Marham and I can add to the general consensus that both are outstanding leaders. If they are the 'GR4 Mafia' currently being derided by the Navy, well all I can say is that we're lucky to have them (CAS only did one Tornado tour, he's more of a Jag mate :ooh:, and CinC finished as a Charioteer...)

Old-Duffer

20th Dec 2010, 16:39

Whilst we still have Trident, we can pretend to be at the top (defence) table but there comes a point when our conventional forces reach a 'tipping point' where we are unable to field the necessary military pressure and can only go along with somebody else. That 'somebody else' will never be the Euro Army if we want to win but it could continue to be a NATO - and hence explicitly US - 'somebody else' as we do at present. Many will feel we passed that point awhile ago

I believe our armed forces are now enfeebled to a degree where we have both major gaps in capability and serious deficiencies in volume. I am also concerned that the recent defence cuts - don't justify it as a 'review' - needs to be rebalanced now we know what the whole picture is. For example, should we press on with the Puma upgrade or should we apply that money somewhere else. What is the true cost of pressing ahead with Nimrod.

If the two carriers are being bought in part because of the costs of cancelling them, what is it going to cost to make them capable of operating the conventional version of JSF. Perhaps Government should say something like; 'we'll pay you for the work done and the money you've committed thusfar, but we did warn you not to sign those contracts and we won't pay you compensation but we will give you contract work to the equivalent value to produce the ships we actually want/need. If you want to sue, go ahead but then no more work from us'.

At present we see the odd retired chappie writing in 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' mode to the newspapers but there is no concerted campaign to get the Government to retain what is really required for our security and the service chiefs - Bagwell excepted perhaps - seem to be supine; yet we know they aren't happy so why won't they fight for what's needed?

Rant over - I'm going outside now and I may be some little time!

Old Duffer --- in Captain Oates mood

davejb

20th Dec 2010, 17:18

I think part (at least) of the problem is that it's very hard, now, to see how the hardware we have can be equated to any sort of coherent defensive force - as used to be said of the Sovs, 'quantity has a quality all of its own', and Melchett has hit the nail fairly squarely regarding that point... we can't really afford the kit we need, and it doesn't save money to cut orders. So we end up with bits of what we need, bits that don't hang together all that well, and a sort of odd job list that we are now capable of - unfortunately the politicians never seem to refer to that list before committing our forces to the latest 'it looks good in the papers' conflict.

If we're only prepared to pay self defence force rates for the kit, then that is what we should reorganise our forces to provide. At the moment we seem to be gearing ourselves for interfering with folk a long way from home, and relying on the SAS to assassinate every enemy FJ driver before he gets airborne, whilst binning anything needed to defend the UK itself. We are assuming that for some time to come the threat will be from terrorists... not exactly unlikely, but there is no backup plan for when a more conventional force type is needed.

I was wondering, in an odd moment yesterday, whether we wouldn't be better off with something like the F16, with maybe a new build batch of Vulcans to provide the noisy stuff. Bags I a go in the air defence Chipmunk when we decide to field a squadron of anti UAV fighters! (Second thoughts let's build some Spits for that job).

Dave

ShortFatOne

20th Dec 2010, 19:48

The true cost of pressing ahead with Nimrod is now so astronomical it isn't even a non-runner. The team has been all but disbanded, the simulators are in bits awaiting disposal and I suspect the aircraft are not far behind (haven't been to Warton/Woodford recently, too painful after 10 years of effort to watch your life's work being cut up and thrown in the bin).

The sad fact is that we put a politician in a position where he had to make a military decision. Unsurprisingly, the SDSR now looks unbalanced, incoherent, unfocused and exposed for what it was, a cuts exercise. Our SMT put the politicians in that position by being unable to agree amongst themselves (and I am just talking Light Blue here) what our focus and priority were.

I would be intrigued to know (not that I hold much hope of ever finding out) how much it would have cost/saved over the next 4 years to bin GR4 instead of Harrier.

Keeping Harrier would have retained the current CAS capability requirement whilst allowing future JSF transition more easily.

Binning GR4 would have allowed the RAF release 90 odd crews, cease FJ WSO training (there are no future 2-man FJ aircraft in the pipeline AFAIK) and re-role/dispose of 2 large bases.

I suspect the savings would have even been sufficient to prevent MRA4 being dragged onto the chopping block.

Anyway, not sure why I posted? I am seriously running out of enthusiasm for the organisation I had wanted to join since the age of about 6. I was lucky, I got in and I got to fly HM's hardware around the world and I was damned proud to do it.

When people ask these days what I do, I usually tell them I'm a biscuit designer for Cadbury's, or a Stained Glass Window Fitter. :{

Wrathmonk

20th Dec 2010, 20:29

I would be intrigued to know (not that I hold much hope of ever finding out) how much it would have cost/saved over the next 4 years to bin GR4 instead of Harrier.

The cost differences have been 'quoted' many times and I'm sure binning GR4 in toto would have saved more money. However, the differences in "force availability" would have been huge. The GR4 can sustain the AFG commitment pretty much indefinately (as has been proved with its support to WARDEN/JURAL etc from 92 onwards) whereas JFH would really struggle (and, IMHO, would become a one trick pony - all resources would be focussed on HERRICK alone (including the OCU) so you would lose support to the carriers etc).

Keeping Harrier would have retained the current CAS capability requirement

Are you saying the GR4 is not providing any CAS in theatre at the moment? The open source reporting here (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafoperationalupdate/opsupdate/opsupdate19dec2010.cfm)would suggest otherwise :ugh:

Justanopinion

20th Dec 2010, 23:02

Wrathmonk

Lets just pretend the Harrier Force hadn't strangely lost a Squadron in the year preceding the defence review.

I think it would have managed to continue to support Herrick just as it had for 5 years despite constantly being told the Harrier force was broken.

I enjoyed being briefed by AOC 1 Grp that we had lost our core skills, including flying from the boat, due to Afghanistan despite becoming Night Boat Qualified ,conducting a Magic Carpet from the Boat as well as a 6 week multiple UK/NATO exercise boat det.

Easy Street

21st Dec 2010, 03:29

Justanopinion,

Blame your former leadership for the "Harrier force broken" message; it was the Harrier force that wanted a break from HERRICK due to the decay of core skills. They changed their tune about a year before the eventual swap when they realised what the likely consequence would be, but things had progressed too far by then. Bear in mind that in 2007, when the staff work behind the GR9-GR4 swap was taking shape, the Tornado force had 17 years' continuous operational service behind it, so had nothing to prove by muscling in on HERRICK. The 2009 TELIC pullout occurred with only a matter of weeks' notice, so the HERRICK swap was hardly in response to that either.

SFO,

Binning GR4 would have allowed the RAF release 90 odd crews, cease FJ WSO training (there are no future 2-man FJ aircraft in the pipeline AFAIK) and re-role/dispose of 2 large bases.

If you've been following the Dominie thread you'll already know that FJ WSO trg has effectively been terminated - the last few are on their way through the system now. Incidentally a WSO is much better than a pilot at staring at a screen for hours on end looking for suspicious activity - he doesn't have anything else to worry himself about. Despite all the C2 technology on offer, ops over Afghanistan involves a lot of 'see and avoid'; a single pilot going 'heads in' is effectively rolling the dice, as things stand. Hopefully the next-gen aircraft will have a collision-warning system to abate this risk. However I wouldn't hold my breath, given the pace at which we seem to get kit onto Typhoon...

Everyone bangs on about RAPTOR being the difference between GR4 and GR9 in HERRICK - there's more to it though. With the benefit of the dedicated sensor operator, and the mixed-load of 2xPW4, 3xBrimstone and the gun, the GR4 is as flexible and capable a CAS platform as any in theatre. HERRICK does not demand turn-on-a-sixpence performance so the GR4's traditional weakness does not apply - and its straight-line speed is a benefit when legging it to the scene of the action! There was plenty of pre-swap scaremongering about the GR4's lack of CAS capability, inability to AAR at safe heights, blah blah... all of which has turned out to be bolleaux. Now it's just carried on out of ignorance / prejudice / bitterness.

Prawn2king4

21st Dec 2010, 05:42

The RAF have approximately 630 serving personnel for each airframe on their slop chit.

Why?

London Eye

21st Dec 2010, 07:51

Prawn2King. So using the pre SDSR figures you appear to suggest that we have 65 aircraft in service :ooh:....Probably about right one day soon.

Wikipedia: The RAF operates 1,114 aircraft (2010) and, as of late 2009, had a total manpower strength of 44,300 regular,1] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-dasa.mod.uk-0) and 2,500 volunteers.

Which would be 42 personnel (inc reserves) per aircraft, a year ago.
'There are lies, damn lies - and statistics.’

Blacksheep

21st Dec 2010, 08:22

We (Europe in general) are slowly but surely headed in a direction that ends where a newly beligerent Russia could simply walk in and take over. We must remember that Hitler walked all over Europe simply because he knew he could and there was nothing anyone could do to stop him. Why must we always forget the lessons of history?

As one learns in the schoolyard, showing the slightest sign of weakness inevitably results in a beating.

Prawn2king4

21st Dec 2010, 08:43

London Eye:

So true.

Operational:

320 FW, 115 helicopters (inc Wessex!) and around 150 trainers!!!

Around 50,000 personnel.

Sincere apologies for my arithmetic.

cazatou

21st Dec 2010, 08:55

Blacksheep

"Hitler walked all over Europe" because there was no Collective Defence Treaty between other European Nations at that time.

Warsaw Pact Nations presented a formidable threat during the "Cold War" - but many of those Nations are now members of Nato and the EU.

F3sRBest

21st Dec 2010, 09:05

Easystreet,

Good to see some sense spoken here at last.... Given that the GR4 was intended to be running TWIN Ops at one point, those who bleat should remember that the GR4 Force was not actually looking forward to Op HERRICK, but got on and did it.. and achieved some significant Capability upgrades in the timescale too.

just another jocky

21st Dec 2010, 09:10

Justanopinion,

Blame your former leadership for the "Harrier force broken" message; it was the Harrier force that wanted a break from HERRICK due to the decay of core skills. They changed their tune about a year before the eventual swap when they realised what the likely consequence would be, but things had progressed too far by then. Bear in mind that in 2007, when the staff work behind the GR9-GR4 swap was taking shape, the Tornado force had 17 years' continuous operational service behind it, so had nothing to prove by muscling in on HERRICK. The 2009 TELIC pullout occurred with only a matter of weeks' notice, so the HERRICK swap was hardly in response to that either.

SFO,

Quote:
Binning GR4 would have allowed the RAF release 90 odd crews, cease FJ WSO training (there are no future 2-man FJ aircraft in the pipeline AFAIK) and re-role/dispose of 2 large bases.
If you've been following the Dominie thread you'll already know that FJ WSO trg has effectively been terminated - the last few are on their way through the system now. Incidentally a WSO is much better than a pilot at staring at a screen for hours on end looking for suspicious activity - he doesn't have anything else to worry himself about. Despite all the C2 technology on offer, ops over Afghanistan involves a lot of 'see and avoid'; a single pilot going 'heads in' is effectively rolling the dice, as things stand. Hopefully the next-gen aircraft will have a collision-warning system to abate this risk. However I wouldn't hold my breath, given the pace at which we seem to get kit onto Typhoon...

Everyone bangs on about RAPTOR being the difference between GR4 and GR9 in HERRICK - there's more to it though. With the benefit of the dedicated sensor operator, and the mixed-load of 2xPW4, 3xBrimstone and the gun, the GR4 is as flexible and capable a CAS platform as any in theatre. HERRICK does not demand turn-on-a-sixpence performance so the GR4's traditional weakness does not apply - and its straight-line speed is a benefit when legging it to the scene of the action! There was plenty of pre-swap scaremongering about the GR4's lack of CAS capability, inability to AAR at safe heights, blah blah... all of which has turned out to be bolleaux. Now it's just carried on out of ignorance / prejudice / bitterness.
Easy Street - good post m8. :ok:

The shocking ignorance/prejudice of some posters of the GR4 and its capabilities is becoming almost childish in its persistence. There was little/no chance of the GR4 being cut rather than the Harrier, not only because of the greater numbers to sustain current ops (unbroken for 18+ years for GR1/4) but because of contingent capabilities (the unknown future war) where the GR4 far outmatched the Harrier. Those requirements overcame any debate on costs. Harrier has been oustanding don't get me wrong, but please stop the endless GR9 vs GR4 debate. It's over. Done. Dusted.

ShortFatOne

21st Dec 2010, 09:39

Guys, I wasn't suggesting GR4 isn't a very capable CAS platform, I know enough GR4 mates to understand it is a fine platform in that role. I was just pointing out that, as everything is AFG focussed at the moment, using GR4's wider utility as an argument does not hold water, particularly as everyone else has been told they can't use that argument to fight their own corner.

I was postulating that there may have been a case to support wider future defence capabilities and requirements by retaining Harrier, that's all.

If FJ WSO training has effectively been binned, how does the RAF intend to supply GR4 WSOs for the next 10 years (according to CAS, Future Farce 2020has GR4 at the top of the pile)?

Justanopinion

21st Dec 2010, 10:26

The shocking ignorance/prejudice of some posters of the GR4 and its capabilities is becoming almost childish in its persistence. There was little/no chance of the GR4 being cut rather than the Harrier, not only because of the greater numbers to sustain current ops

Its a fact that there are more GR4's than the Harrier - but how servicable were they in comparison?

Old-Duffer

21st Dec 2010, 10:59

Question One:

During the SDSR debate (if one was held - that is!!) was any thought given to retaining a mix of Harriers and GR4s or was it seen as a straight 'one or t'other'?

Let's postulate, therefore.

Retain the two sqns of the Naval Strike Wing Harriers and Ark Royal and bin the Puma upgrade and reduce (but not dispose of) a certain number of GR4s. What is the break even point as far as Tornado reduction is concerned before this becomes a viable financial option? Is there another sensible way of doing the GR4 recce role, for example, which might allow the attack role to continue without too much degradation in that capability?

Question Two:

For what purpose is the Puma upgrade being pursued? Is it to provide a 'training facility' for the army, using a smaller and cheaper (?) helicopter or is there some operational role for which it is to be used (please don't say it's going to Afghanistan to supplement the other pair).

Old Duffer

Diablo Rouge

21st Dec 2010, 11:20

I asked this very question recently to someone at the coal face as on face value it does appear to be a bizarre decision. Answer: There are customers with autonomous budgets that want it retained for a few years. Read between the lines. When the Army take a manpower kicking post Afghanistan I suspect that Puma will go also, although there will be a gap based upon size alone between Lynx & Merlin/Chinook that may in the future require filling.

Anybody want to buy a secondhand Blackhawk never raced or rallied?

just another jocky

21st Dec 2010, 12:27

Its a fact that there are more GR4's than the Harrier - but how servicable were they in comparison?

I understand that GR9 was generally more servcieable, but in AFG, that rarely makes a difference. There have been several GR4 dets there that have >100% sortie rates, so what does it matter if there's a few %age points difference. :confused:

I was just pointing out that, as everything is AFG focussed at the moment, using GR4's wider utility as an argument does not hold water, particularly as everyone else has been told they can't use that argument to fight their own corner.

Not everything is AFG focussed. A contingency strike capability is pretty damned near the top of the priority list and GR4 is the only platform capable of fulfiling that function, and will remain so for many years to come.

Easy Street

23rd Dec 2010, 00:10

Its a fact that there are more GR4's than the Harrier - but how servicable were they in comparison?

The late-90s reputation of the GR1/GR4 for unserviceability is no longer deserved. The fact that it's still viewed as "fact" by many is just another example of the prejudice I mentioned in my last post. A few years ago there was a significant "fix" to the stores management system that, at a stroke, removed the reason for over 50% of crew-outs. Obviously there is still the odd crew-out, as with any fast jet type,but JaJ is correct to highlight the repeated achievement of 100+% ATO sortie achievement rates by Tornado HERRICK dets.

If FJ WSO training has effectively been binned, how does the RAF intend to supply GR4 WSOs for the next 10 years (according to CAS, Future Farce 2020has GR4 at the top of the pile)?

The ones currently in the pipeline will reach the front line sometime in 2012-13; the remaining 7 years will probably be achievable by re-touring existing WSOs. After all they have nowhere else to go and unless McDonalds are on a massive recruitment drive I can't see too many being keen to jump! I think there will always be the "nuclear" option of streaming pilots to the back seat for a tour as well (or even qualifying them in both seats)...

Old-Duffer

23rd Dec 2010, 05:43

......... Easy Street, you've found the solution that a committee of 25 manners (and femaleers), financiers, HR specialists etc etc would have taken 5 months to resolve.

There will be enough pilots ready, willing and able to take on the WSO role.

The problem will come when they are flying in the two stick version and the one in the back thinks he knows best! "I have control, I have control, I said I have control and I'm senior to you in the Air Force List - well I would be if it was still published".

O-D

Finningley Boy

23rd Dec 2010, 06:24

Is it me, or is it the case that far to many people on these forums rack their brains to find new suggestions for how we could all the more severely down-size, down-grade the Air Force? Often suggestions which the powers that be may well not have thought of!?:(

FB:)

Justanopinion

23rd Dec 2010, 07:00

Easy street

The late-90s reputation of the GR1/GR4 for unserviceability is no longer deserved. The fact that it's still viewed as "fact" by many is just another example of the prejudice I mentioned in my last post.

Really? Are you aware of how many of the so called 'diamond fleet' are scattered between here and AFG at the moment? Do you really have any idea of how many hundreds and thousands of pounds are wasted by collecting various GR4's that are left behind in Canada/ USA on a regular basis?

Thought not - speak to their engineers mate. You may be in for a huge surprise.

The GR4's increased their numbers by 25% to keep on top of their game for a few months. The Harrier force achieved > 100% of their sorties the whole period they were out there, with a higher sotie rate - and no need to increase numbers. Fact

just another jocky

23rd Dec 2010, 07:44

There are a few engineering issues atm, yr correct, but this appears to be more of a statistical blip than an identifiable trend.

Anyway, there's no choice.

Squirrel 41

23rd Dec 2010, 08:14

I'm now just a casual observer on the sidelines, but from where I stand:

1. The GR4 vs GR9 debate, already sterile, is missing the point. SDSR had a series of explicit financial totals to work to, and this was translated into losing an FJ platform. Once this was accepted, the question was GR4 vs GR9; and as has been aired on here before, in terms of the balance of high-end quasi-strategic capabilities offered by the GR4 (range, PW III, Storm Shadow, Brimstone) that weren't on GR9 (don't recall PW III or SS on GR9 - happy to be corrected), the decision was reasonably easy (if unpalatable).

2. If GR9 had been retained vice GR4, JFH would have been heavily committed to AFG to at least 2015; even if JFH had regenerated to 4 Sqns + OCU (timing?) then the amount of deck time would've remained small. As long as CAS in AFG was on the plot, then that would (rightly) have been the priority, so keeping the decks of a CVS warm was not likely.

3. Given the loss of other capabilities - notably MPA and Sentinel - I would have wanted clarity on the minimum size GR4 force required for AFG + strategic attack. If by going down to one base (Marham, presumably) and 4 or 5 Sqns of GR4s, I could've accomplished this minimum mission set and saved MRA4 and Sentinel, I would've done. (And it would be MRA4 first, Sentinel a very close second).

4. Given that there was a way of funding them through a different, less FJ centric force structure, binning MRA4 was crass stupidity. Binning Sentinel from 2015 will be crass stupidity. In both cases, I expect that it will cost lives, both civilian and military. It should've been a resigning issue.

5. Things, already bad, will get worse before they get any better. It is all well and good to look forward to a 2025 force of Dave-C and Tiffies with Rivet Joint, E-3D and FSTA support - but if it happens, it will be tiny. Maybe 5 Sqns of Tiffies and 4 of Dave-C? At what point does a force this size actually cease to be relevant other than as a diplomatic fig leaf for the USAF?

6. I would've transferred SH and JHC to the AAC. It sounds trivial, but over the next decade the differential in ranks and pay would've produced small but measurable savings. We're in the market for whatever savings we can find.

7. Exam question: The role and added value of Groups and Air Command. Discuss.

8. Bin the Reds as a public demonstration of how tight things are. BBMF to be funded by public subscription, like RNHF.

None of which makes me remotely happy. But opportunities were missed in this "Strategic" review that will have implications for years to come.

S41

PS, Farewell, Puffer Jets - it was a pleasure working with you.

Pheasant

23rd Dec 2010, 10:16

Squirrel,

I would've transferred SH and JHC to the AAC.

Surely this is out of kilter with Project Trenchard (or whatever it is called today) - i.e. get all that flies into the RAF by 2018 (100th anniv). If it means marginalising the other Services aviation to achieve it then so be it. Ever the cynic I can even see moves to retain the SAR Force.

For a maritime nation to take risk on maritime air power (Carriers/Harriers, MPA, other ISTAR, etc) appears amazing to me and reflects the bizarre advice given to the PM in the last few hours of SDSR. I also find it interesting to note that even now the current CDS is trying to find ways of justifying a 94,000 strong Army post-2014 - "We must retain our soldiers because they are brave and battle-hardened." What about retaining sailors and airmen because they offer defence to the UK (which the Army doesn't). Who is this guy?

muttywhitedog

23rd Dec 2010, 10:51

The GR4's increased their numbers by 25% to keep on top of their game for a few months. The Harrier force achieved > 100% of their sorties the whole period they were out there, with a higher sotie rate - and no need to increase numbers. Fact

But with a full shift of Engineers working day and night, its manageable to achieve the operational sortie rate required with the number of aircraft in theatre - its just that the tornado groundcrew have to work a little bit harder to maintain their serviceability.

Justanopinion

23rd Dec 2010, 11:10

Squirrel 41

A very sensible and reasoned reply.

The GR4 GR9 debate is over, GR9 has gone.

The GR9 could carry PW3, couldn't carry Stormshadow and was in the process of being fitted with Brimstone. GR9 does have a smaller range than the Tornado however that makes little difference in Afghanistan where it would appear sortie lengths without refuelling are similar.

GR9 was the lead platform for PW4 and GR4 was the lead platform for Brimstone in terms of introduction to service.

Despite what has been said in the media and by Dr Fox, the Harrier did have a moving target capability in the form of Maverick. Rockets have proved somewhat useful as well.

The harrier force in my time only ever had 3 squadrons and an OCU (until the shutting of 20) and as i have mentioned before was more than able to maintain an good period of deck time in the Afghanistan period. We didn't just do Afghanistan which seems to be a common misunderstanding.

It is a crying shame that the Harrier has gone as it was the most flexible and incredibly capable aircraft we had. However it is now pointless dwelling on it as the decision has been made and we are all worse off for it.

GR4 will continue to be a capable platform and very good luck to them.

Finningley Boy

23rd Dec 2010, 12:32

The GR9 could carry PW3, couldn't carry Stormshadow and was in the process of being fitted with Brimstone. GR9 does have a smaller range than the Tornado however that makes little difference in Afghanistan where it would appear sortie lengths without refuelling are similar.

Isn't this kind of thinking the problem with the SDSR. Talking of Afghanistan as the only conflict which we'll ever encounter ever again. If the Harrier is the best aircraft for Afghanistan then one wonders just why its been ditched?? This country clearly cannot afford to defend itself as far afield as Afghanistan. Another thing if we'd gotten rid of the Tornado GR4 instead of the Harrier, surely we'd have virtually no air force left. 1 sqn of Harriers and 3 of Typhjoons? Never mind comparisons with Belgium, we'd compare unfavourably with just about any western air arm. Personally, I think a lot of what is said about the Harrier is simply the British soft spot for the "jump jet" Perhaps this is why a criminal amount of money was wasted on the utterly useless F35B version. Perhaps if we had someone who knew what they were about for a change in defence procurement... well we've heard it so many times before eh!:mad:

FB:)

FB

Pontius Navigator

23rd Dec 2010, 15:50

what is said about the Harrier is simply the British soft spot for the "jump jet"

or the western world's only effective VSTOL aircraft?

Finningley Boy

23rd Dec 2010, 16:47

Come to think of it, when was the last time a Harrier lifted off the ground vertically, with a full warload?:}

FB:)

Justanopinion

23rd Dec 2010, 16:56

FB

More pertinent is when was the last time VSTOL was used in anger? Oh thats right, yes, Afghanistan again. When the Harrier force first went out in 2004 and for a good year and a half after it was the only british, and possibly worldwide (apart from A10 possibly) fast jet that could use the runway at KAF due to its ripped up state. Short take off and landing with yes, a full war load and fuel in 50 deg C temperatures 3500' high.

Finningley Boy

23rd Dec 2010, 17:06

Its all very well sining the praises of the Harrier as a U.K. aviation success story, but it was never built in great numbers, the logical development of the Harrier with Plenum Chamber Burning, was never developed, and even when deployed in Afghanistan, the then CAS Sir Glenn Torpy, I understand offered the entire fleet up for destruction. His successor has done just that. Don't get me wrong, as I've said before, I never grasped the logic of "the R.A.F. has to lose a fast jet type" just what kind of a Strategic Defence and Security Review makes that kind of stipulation. Some arue we desparately needed to retain the Nimrod as well. Interesting though how with such inadvisable cuts to service assets, the coalition government can still find an extra £4,000,000,000 for overseas aid.:ok:

FB:)

AutoBit

23rd Dec 2010, 17:23

Sadly I suspect that the decision to offer Harrier up by Torpy and the current CAS was significently influenced by Navy/Air Force politics, rather then by any real operational priorities, particualry after the GR9 was so conveniently down-sized after Op Herrick prior to the SDR!!! This decision effectivly ruled out the GR9s return to Herrick.

The GR4 was always going to win the argument if you had to lose one FJ type. Still dont quite understand the 'have to lose 1 entire type' argument. And before people start talking about 'engineering and supply chains' Harrier was already paid for. Just a thought

Not anti-GR4....just anti getting rid of GR9

Pontius Navigator

23rd Dec 2010, 18:06

Still dont quite understand the 'have to lose 1 entire type' argument. And before people start talking about 'engineering and supply chains' Harrier was already paid for.

The Harrier may have been bought and paid for but the 'supply chain' would have been an ongoing expense. Then there is the cost a a second OCU, second role office etc etc.

Biggus

23rd Dec 2010, 18:15

I believe I read in some BAE or DES glossy magazine, possibly both, that the BAE and RR contracts for support of the GR9 for the next 7 (? really stretching the memory now?) years had already been signed/agreed.

I don't know if the money had already changed hands before the SDR, but this may be part of what Autobit is referring to!

AutoBit

24th Dec 2010, 00:21

Quite right Biggus,
The contract was sigined and paid for. We are now in the crazy position of having to pay money to break these contracts.

As for the cost of a 2nd OCU? The OCU was fully functioning up to the day the jet was retired!!

The point I'm making is that the actual savings made from getting rid of the jet are not, in the long term, what they've been made out to be.

Again not anti GR4...just anti scrapping GR9

Finningley Boy

24th Dec 2010, 06:43

It increasingly seems to me that the SDSR has looked at one thing and one thing only (not at all surprisingly) and that is the straight forward operating costs of the assets. By getting rid of the Harrier, they've axed a valuable asset and discounted the money spent on preparing it for continued service. If they had axed the entire Tornado fleet, they would have lost two thirds of the remaing Tactical air combat capability.

I understand there were stll technical wrinkles to be ironed out of the Nimrod MRA4 programme. Even so, what this all seems to add up to is that the government had embarked upon the SDSR believing they had a still quite expansive military capability to trim some fat off. How often do we get some Joe or Jo Soap holding forth on programmes like Question Time and elsewhere upbrading us about how we should no longer be maintaining such a huge military establishment in order to be the world's cop. Well we don't, and doubtless when the SDSR was gone into with every expectation of finding plenty of junk to clear out, they found all they had left after 20 years of hacking and slicing were bleeding stumps. So like the prudent, logical and clear headed politicians they are, they told the chiefs well we need an 8% cut from somewhere! You decide. Meanwhile, we'll put the an extra £4,000,000,000 on foreign aid and ring fence one of the most bloated and inefficient departments left nationalised, the NHS. I'm not for one second suggesting that foreign aid doesn't deserve £4,000,000,000 extra cash, nor that it wouldn't be prudent to ring fence the NHS, but would it not have been even more prudent, under the circumstances, to simply ring fence the overseas aid budget as well, perhaps allowing for a much more minimal cut to the defence budget, and leaving it at that.:ugh:

FB:)

just another jocky

24th Dec 2010, 07:43

Short take off and landing with yes, a full war load and fuel in 50 deg C temperatures 3500' high.

I'd be very interested in finding out the MOS for those conditions....seriously, and I assume it was all done under risk if the engine did fail as there would be no way to stop safely, or was the runway surface available, just not fit (fod, holes etc)?

Of course, under risk, you can do just about anything. GR4 may not have been able to get airborne without defuelling if the strip had been short enough, but for landing, 2000ft - 2500ft should have been sufficient. I bet taxying was fun. :uhoh:

Not anti GR4...just anti scrapping GR9

I think that pretty much sums us all up. :ok:

Justanopinion

24th Dec 2010, 08:06

If the engine had failed in a harrier everything was a big risk!

Easy Street

26th Dec 2010, 03:16

and I assume it was all done under risk if the engine did fail as there would be no way to stop safely

As justanopinion points out the Harrier always operated 'unbalanced field'. The Jag did as well for most of the time. However at some point in the Tornado's history someone decided that because it could operate balanced-field, it should unless combat considerations dictated otherwise, and hence that's become ingrained in the thought process. A very early example of "ALARP" thinking if you like....

Some really old Tornado hands might be able to correct me here... but my understanding is that the 'balanced field' requirement was not a feature of the early life of the Tonker - was it introduced by a QFI on a career push sometime in the early nineties?

just another jocky

26th Dec 2010, 07:16

ES - it certainly wasn't there when I started, though I can't remember who it was that brought it in (nor why).

My point above was only that I wondered what the operating strip length was at KAF at the start and if the GR9 had to abort at rotate (or wherever decision was), was that taken at risk as there was insufficient stopping distance available? I also wondered whether GR4 could have operated under similar conditions in extremis. Can't recall the take-off ground roll, but recall the stopping distance trials many years ago...<2500ft IIRC.

NigelOnDraft

26th Dec 2010, 08:23

"Abort Takeoff" and Harrier are fairly unassociated planning terms ;)

When I flew the GR5/7 there wasn't even any RTO performance data := It came in later, but am pretty sure it was rarely used / required.

NB the differences in types:

2 engines, you need decision making points if 1 stops.
1 engine - if it stops there is no "decision" to make - only consideration largely revolved about if/when to bang out.
Harrier - stopping? PNB is main aid, but doesn't work too well without an engine :ugh: Brakes on a single point main leg, and with fair weight on the O/Rs, were next to useless.
GR4 stopping... all sorts of factors from hooks, brakes, cables, barriers.
I went from the GR7 to the A340. I think a rough guide was that on the GR7, an Accel-Stop used 10% distance for accel, 90% for stop. The A340 reversed the % values... :}

NoD

Spot 4

26th Dec 2010, 08:59

At the risk of a little thread drift, could one of the Harrier mates explain why if a Harriers donk stopped they could not exchange speed for height whilst making with gear and flaps for a subsequent landing on the nearest available strip of tarmac? Assuming that the latest models retained the RAT that the earlier GR3 had.

NigelOnDraft

26th Dec 2010, 09:22

Assuming that the latest models retained the RAT that the earlier GR3 hadWell, becomes fairly academic since the RAT was not fitted... ;)

if a Harriers donk stopped they could not exchange speed for height whilst making with gear and flaps for a subsequent landing on the nearest available strip of tarmac?Leaving aside the lack of RAT issue, what real purpose would there be in this technique? From 420K @ LL you might get 3000-4000' (?) zoom climb to a suitable glide speed (250K?). Since High Key would be ~12,000', and Low Key maybe 6000', you'd be pretty lucky to have an airfield you could make.

In the unlikely event there was such an airfield, and you managed to get the aircraft in 1 piece on the tarmac, and it was 10,000' long+, you would still almost certainly be looking at pulling the handle at 1000' to go :ok: Even if it had a barrier (IIRC you did not stay in for a barrier entry).

NoD

just another jocky

26th Dec 2010, 11:17

"Abort Takeoff" and Harrier are fairly unassociated planning terms http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Of course I realise that losing the donk in a Harrier is fairly terminal...:rolleyes:, any other reasons to abort?

So what length strip was available in KAF at the start then?

NigelOnDraft

26th Dec 2010, 11:59

any other reasons to abort?Not really :confused:

Clearly any major systems failure, or general Capt's discretion. But without a "V1" type speed, a decision to abort will always likely be risky. IIRC the ACM advice if aircraft failed to get airborne was wait 10K more and try again... "Go minded" sums it up :ok:

NoD

Justanopinion

26th Dec 2010, 12:21

siteresources.worldbank.org/.../Resources/579597.../5Annex.pdf

2003 KANDAHAR RW 05/23 LENGTH 3200' WIDTH 45 TAXYWAY 23M WIDE

Although roughly 2/3 was available (sometimes 1/2) due WIP. Quick google search will reveal all the info requested.

ICBM

26th Dec 2010, 12:23

any other reasons to abort?

Usual 'top-line red' type stuff such as Gen Fail with low cloud, Hyd, Fire etc, with the caveat that you assessed speed/rwy dist available to stop. On strips (c.800-1200') with little to no overrun it was very much a 'go mentality' after full power was confirmed. Much was scenario dependent.

So what length strip was available in KAF at the start then?

In many instances there was 3000' available and width was down to 45' at times. In all events the jet was able to take off and land with a full loadout to carry out tasking, day and night. Sounds cliche I know, but it really was the only platform airborne out of KAF when heavies (IL-76) trashed the tarmac runway on hot days. Once an A-10 was stuck there for a week and a half waiting for enough take off distance to get repaired.

Justanopinion

26th Dec 2010, 13:19

And of that 3000 ' available the duty pilot still had to go out before each take off and landing to pick up the largest chunks of concrete that were scattered around along with an instant tarmac machine which would fill in the biggest holes!! Even on the hottest days the harrier could still get back to around 80-90 kts to land.

Admin_Guru

30th Dec 2010, 08:24

Besides being the best example of thread drift yet witnessed on PPRuNe by the Tonka toy v Puffa jet chaps, there is a fair degree of importance if the chaps at the top of the food chain are not enjoying the festive season collectively. Perhaps Baggers is portraying himself as 'Bader' in this particular pantomime. Prince Charming (aka Dalton) struck me as a 'people person' when I met him a year or two ago, but such a person is out of his depth when mandated by Govt to police brutal cuts in manpower, and the 'distancing from Baggers' suggests political correctness equal to walking down Downing Street with his tail firmly tucked under.

Now not seen on Sky News nor indeed any western media coverage is the civil unrest in Russia that is perceived by some as potential for an uprising or indeed civil war. The people v the mafia (or at least organised crime that is seen to have govt backing) & corrupt govt appears to be the main ingrediants. I mention this because UK Mil Plc appear to have become so Afghan centric that the back door is left wide open and an unstable country such as Russia could rock the world stage to such a degree as to make 9/11 appear insignificant. With this in mind, I would suggest a leader devoid of 'blinkers' could be exactly what the country (Nevermind the individual service) needs at this time.

Is a posting to the PJHQ perceived as a side-step or a career step? Who is being groomed to replace AOC 1 Grp; a Rotweiler or a Poodle? I would like to say "Happy New Year" but I fear it will be same sh17 differant day, and with less money in my pocket for the bar.