Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bouncing around the Holding pattern
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith.
I've held my tongue long enough over this, and I think my learned colleague tOrnadO was very restrained in suggesting that you check your facts.
I've never heard such utter s**T dressed up as informed opinion. Where the f
k do you get your "facts" from eh?
50%, really. The GR4 services 50% of the ATO and GCAS tasks? Are you sure. Was this so when you were there? Were you there?
Two jets lost on the runway cos they couldn't get airborne cos they're unfit? Got that from the BOI findings did you? Or the same pit of inadequacy that you took your serviceability claims.
And as for costing lives, I won't even dignify that.
I realise this is a rumour forum, but there's a difference between rumour and lies. That's right, lies. Bottom line.
I've held my tongue long enough over this, and I think my learned colleague tOrnadO was very restrained in suggesting that you check your facts.
I've never heard such utter s**T dressed up as informed opinion. Where the f
k do you get your "facts" from eh?50%, really. The GR4 services 50% of the ATO and GCAS tasks? Are you sure. Was this so when you were there? Were you there?
Two jets lost on the runway cos they couldn't get airborne cos they're unfit? Got that from the BOI findings did you? Or the same pit of inadequacy that you took your serviceability claims.
And as for costing lives, I won't even dignify that.
I realise this is a rumour forum, but there's a difference between rumour and lies. That's right, lies. Bottom line.
TTH
He's a journo (or hack as he describes himself in his profile).
I refer you to the "warning" at the bottom of each page (although I gather Mick Smith is his real name ....) :
It could be that Mr Smith is throwing such outrageous figures about in the hope that someone will be outraged enough to (accidentally) give him the real figures that would not be available through official channels! And thereby another hack has an "exclusive"!
WEBF
I'm not suggesting that at all. But they do contribute towards the problems caused by the free spending, high borrowing former government. Something has got to give to save money and, like it or not, the Harrier (along with many other things across all the Whitehall departments) fell the wrong side of the cut. And I still believe that had the contracts for the carrier not been written the way they were at least one of them would have been axed as well.
He's a journo (or hack as he describes himself in his profile).
I refer you to the "warning" at the bottom of each page (although I gather Mick Smith is his real name ....) :
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions
WEBF
I'm not suggesting that at all. But they do contribute towards the problems caused by the free spending, high borrowing former government. Something has got to give to save money and, like it or not, the Harrier (along with many other things across all the Whitehall departments) fell the wrong side of the cut. And I still believe that had the contracts for the carrier not been written the way they were at least one of them would have been axed as well.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hansard
This has been the subject of much interest in Parliament. These 2 links provide a bit more balance to the comments of Mr Smith:
Lords Hansard text for 18 Nov 201018 Nov 2010 (pt 0001)
Lords Hansard text for 4 Nov 201004 Nov 2010 (pt 0001)
Lords Hansard text for 18 Nov 201018 Nov 2010 (pt 0001)
Lords Hansard text for 4 Nov 201004 Nov 2010 (pt 0001)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from MickSmith with regards to GR4:
Then Cameron gets up and says that it is the best aircraft for Afghanistan
Actually on the day in question DC stood up and said what a wonderful job TYPHOON was doing in AFG - which kind of says it all really!!
Then Cameron gets up and says that it is the best aircraft for Afghanistan
Actually on the day in question DC stood up and said what a wonderful job TYPHOON was doing in AFG - which kind of says it all really!!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually on the day in question DC stood up and said what a wonderful job TYPHOON was doing in AFG - which kind of says it all really!!
The Royal Air Force will also need to take some tough measures in the coming years to ensure a strong future. We have decided to retire the Harrier, which has served this country so well for 40 years. It is a remarkably flexible aircraft, but the military advice is clear: we should sustain the Tornado fleet as that aircraft is more capable and better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bouncing around the Holding pattern
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pugwash,
What balance is that fella? The one that says (Quoting Lord Astor so neatly batting off Lord West):
"The most operationally relevant measure is flying hours delivered per aircraft per month. On that basis, Tornado GR4s in Afghanistan are providing approximately 12 per cent more flying hours per aircraft per month than were provided by Harrier."
Smith. Wonderland looking like a reasonable place to operate after all then.
The relentless questioning from Lord West seemed a little late also.
I'm not surprised that you got info from a Senior Navy Officer, and I'm willing to bet your Senior RAF Officer would have hailed from the Harrier fraternity. No?
Please, don't be persuaded that the GR4 isn't up to it, less capable or costs lives by folks with an agenda which has passed its "use by" date.
I'm sorry to see the Harrier go. I really am. But pointless attempts to bring it back by trying to reduce confidence in a very capable aircraft through untruths and twisted "facts" are not the way. Can we draw this to a close.
What balance is that fella? The one that says (Quoting Lord Astor so neatly batting off Lord West):
"The most operationally relevant measure is flying hours delivered per aircraft per month. On that basis, Tornado GR4s in Afghanistan are providing approximately 12 per cent more flying hours per aircraft per month than were provided by Harrier."
Smith. Wonderland looking like a reasonable place to operate after all then.
The relentless questioning from Lord West seemed a little late also.
I'm not surprised that you got info from a Senior Navy Officer, and I'm willing to bet your Senior RAF Officer would have hailed from the Harrier fraternity. No?
Please, don't be persuaded that the GR4 isn't up to it, less capable or costs lives by folks with an agenda which has passed its "use by" date.
I'm sorry to see the Harrier go. I really am. But pointless attempts to bring it back by trying to reduce confidence in a very capable aircraft through untruths and twisted "facts" are not the way. Can we draw this to a close.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Mr Smith
During my time in the RAF and in aviation marketing I encountered many writers: a few were outstandingly good, some were mediocre, and a small minority so appalling that they were denied access and interview. I have to say that your recent posts appear to place you in the latter category.
During my time in the RAF and in aviation marketing I encountered many writers: a few were outstandingly good, some were mediocre, and a small minority so appalling that they were denied access and interview. I have to say that your recent posts appear to place you in the latter category.
Mr Smith, actually DC did say "Typhoons" in Afghanistan, I even recall my reaction upon hearing it (spilled coffee everywhere).
Could you please explain your comments below:
What was the source of your information, did you substantiate those claims before posting them here bearing in mind the Hansard quotes above or are you really, along with being a journalist, a sciolist too and hence a likely troll and worthy of being banned from this place?
Could you please explain your comments below:
Surely the bottom line on this stupidity is that the Harrier mission availability in Afghanistan was 95 per cent while the Tornado mission availability is 50 per cent.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Mr Smith would, from his own mouth, appear to be either misrepresenting the PMs words, or illiterate.
He quotes the PM as saying: "...we should sustain the Tornado fleet as that aircraft is more capable and better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan."
He then states: "the aircraft is, to use the prime minister's words, "more capable" of operating in Afghanistan than Harrier."
Which, of course, is not what he said at all.
The PM makes two statements, both of which can be argued as being justified.
1. The Tornado is more capable.
2. The Tornado is better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan.
The first is justifiable on the grounds the overall performance of the Tornado and its available systems and weapons availability. That extends beyond those required for Afghanistan.
The second is justifiable on the basis on the numbers of available squadrons, aircraft and crews. The Tornado force has sufficient to enable operations in Afghaistan to be supported indefinitely while continuing to support other training and exercises and the potential to support other crises. The Harrier force does not. Quantity, as they say, has a quality all of its own.
Now you can argue each of those claims till the cows come home. But that's not the same as misrepresenting the position as stated by the PM.
He quotes the PM as saying: "...we should sustain the Tornado fleet as that aircraft is more capable and better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan."
He then states: "the aircraft is, to use the prime minister's words, "more capable" of operating in Afghanistan than Harrier."
Which, of course, is not what he said at all.
The PM makes two statements, both of which can be argued as being justified.
1. The Tornado is more capable.
2. The Tornado is better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan.
The first is justifiable on the grounds the overall performance of the Tornado and its available systems and weapons availability. That extends beyond those required for Afghanistan.
The second is justifiable on the basis on the numbers of available squadrons, aircraft and crews. The Tornado force has sufficient to enable operations in Afghaistan to be supported indefinitely while continuing to support other training and exercises and the potential to support other crises. The Harrier force does not. Quantity, as they say, has a quality all of its own.
Now you can argue each of those claims till the cows come home. But that's not the same as misrepresenting the position as stated by the PM.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't we just reminisce about the Harrier instead?
In the current financial climate, we stand more chance of bringing back hanging than we do the Harrier. Its premature retirement is a great shame and like many servicemen, I hope that it will not prove to be an unwise cut, but like everything else, I have had to accept it and move on. Surely we could actually move on and read the happy stories of the Harrier -all marks - from the posters here, rather than the tabloid-esque gloom and doom - I get enough of that at work.
This perhaps highlights something else too. The RAF at the moment is turning itself inside out as some seek to support THE war, others seek to demonstrate their relevance in a cash-strapped organisation and most worry whether they will have a job to look forward to. It is up to our leaders to reassure us that there is a way forward, but I'm not sure they know what that is since they are at the beck and call of accountants who know how much everything costs, but put little value on capability and who come almost daily to ask for more reductions when they realise they have failed to balance the books. So we sit in the dark a little bit longer, listening to more and more rumour about cuts and how we will all be worse-off. Future Force 2020 might sound sexy, but does anyone feel reassured by that? However, are we in this mess because we are no good at writing contracts, or because the accountants are no good at understanding what we do?
This perhaps highlights something else too. The RAF at the moment is turning itself inside out as some seek to support THE war, others seek to demonstrate their relevance in a cash-strapped organisation and most worry whether they will have a job to look forward to. It is up to our leaders to reassure us that there is a way forward, but I'm not sure they know what that is since they are at the beck and call of accountants who know how much everything costs, but put little value on capability and who come almost daily to ask for more reductions when they realise they have failed to balance the books. So we sit in the dark a little bit longer, listening to more and more rumour about cuts and how we will all be worse-off. Future Force 2020 might sound sexy, but does anyone feel reassured by that? However, are we in this mess because we are no good at writing contracts, or because the accountants are no good at understanding what we do?
S41
The cost of maintaining a fleet has two elements:
- Variable cost based on the number of aircraft, aircrews, amount of flying, number of bases (including CVS)
- Fixed cost based on the cost of support (design, commercial, training, tactics, certification and engineering), and at least one base, at least one simulator
The cost per flight hour is the (Variable cost + Fixed Cost) / (Total Number of hours per year).
You can drive down the variable costs by reducing numbers and flying hours, but the Fixed costs remain, um, fixed. So if you were to cut Harriers one airframe at a time, the most expensive one would be the last one, because Fixed costs are an increasingly large percentage of the overall cost.
I don't mean to be a clever dick, but since the support contracts that were signed contained cancellation clauses the fixed cost will never be zero, so dividing this non zero figure by zero gives an infinite cost. Is cost per flying hour the most useful measure?
Also, I wonder if the fixed costs are as fixed as they might appear...
Engineering Support: Apart from the fact less aircraft need less maintenance, would BAES and RR charge the same to support a smaller number of aircraft? Ignoring the cancellation fees, I would imagine that the costs of say an avionics upgrade consists of the non recurrent engineering costs (design, development etc) and the cost per aircraft. Given a reduced role, would as much support be needed anyway? Therefore - money is saved.
Bases: The proposal to use Reservists to support Harrier (remember this was suggested elsewhere) included the idea of moving to Yeovilton, therefore the base closures are unaffected (and Yeovilton already exists). Therefore - money is saved.
Simulator: Assuming that it isn't possible to move the simulator, can it be retained in its current location, kept as a MOD owned enclave? This has been done on other MOD sites? Could Spanish or Italian simulators be used? What proportion of simulator costs are down to people? Ex WAFU Reservists are used as simulator instructors at Yeovilton and Culdrose, could they be employed for this? If so then - money is saved.
I have no knowledge of what proposals or representations have been, or will be, made to the defence board. However, the retention of Illustrious until 2014 suggests that some lobbying has taken place, and this is a time for thinking outside of the box if we want to reduce the risk of a strategic shock this decade and to retain basic competence in fixed wing flying at sea.
The cost of maintaining a fleet has two elements:
- Variable cost based on the number of aircraft, aircrews, amount of flying, number of bases (including CVS)
- Fixed cost based on the cost of support (design, commercial, training, tactics, certification and engineering), and at least one base, at least one simulator
The cost per flight hour is the (Variable cost + Fixed Cost) / (Total Number of hours per year).
You can drive down the variable costs by reducing numbers and flying hours, but the Fixed costs remain, um, fixed. So if you were to cut Harriers one airframe at a time, the most expensive one would be the last one, because Fixed costs are an increasingly large percentage of the overall cost.
I don't mean to be a clever dick, but since the support contracts that were signed contained cancellation clauses the fixed cost will never be zero, so dividing this non zero figure by zero gives an infinite cost. Is cost per flying hour the most useful measure?
Also, I wonder if the fixed costs are as fixed as they might appear...
Engineering Support: Apart from the fact less aircraft need less maintenance, would BAES and RR charge the same to support a smaller number of aircraft? Ignoring the cancellation fees, I would imagine that the costs of say an avionics upgrade consists of the non recurrent engineering costs (design, development etc) and the cost per aircraft. Given a reduced role, would as much support be needed anyway? Therefore - money is saved.
Bases: The proposal to use Reservists to support Harrier (remember this was suggested elsewhere) included the idea of moving to Yeovilton, therefore the base closures are unaffected (and Yeovilton already exists). Therefore - money is saved.
Simulator: Assuming that it isn't possible to move the simulator, can it be retained in its current location, kept as a MOD owned enclave? This has been done on other MOD sites? Could Spanish or Italian simulators be used? What proportion of simulator costs are down to people? Ex WAFU Reservists are used as simulator instructors at Yeovilton and Culdrose, could they be employed for this? If so then - money is saved.
I have no knowledge of what proposals or representations have been, or will be, made to the defence board. However, the retention of Illustrious until 2014 suggests that some lobbying has taken place, and this is a time for thinking outside of the box if we want to reduce the risk of a strategic shock this decade and to retain basic competence in fixed wing flying at sea.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 18th Jan 2011 at 16:45.
Just a thought - what is happening to Cottesmore/Wittering (where the simulator is)? If it is being retained by the MOD (home to an Army unit returning from Germany perhaps) then keeping it in situ will be much easier.
The defence council were meant to meet this month. Supposedly this proposal was going to be on the table. Given the fact that the Government has had numerous U turns over a wide range of issues, would modifying certain aspects of policy regarding future carrier aviation (like trying not to lose skills) really be a major embarassment - given that they appear to have bodged the sums and need to have another defence review?
The defence council were meant to meet this month. Supposedly this proposal was going to be on the table. Given the fact that the Government has had numerous U turns over a wide range of issues, would modifying certain aspects of policy regarding future carrier aviation (like trying not to lose skills) really be a major embarassment - given that they appear to have bodged the sums and need to have another defence review?
WEBF - I don't think the MoD will ever get rid of Wittering. I believe the agreement from the original owner was that it would have to be converted back to farmland before they would take it back. It is not ours to sell.
There are rumours of the flying at Wyton (57(R) Sqn Elementary Flying Training, Cambridge & London UAS's and 5 AEF) moving up to Wittering.
There are rumours of the flying at Wyton (57(R) Sqn Elementary Flying Training, Cambridge & London UAS's and 5 AEF) moving up to Wittering.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Devon
Age: 71
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've said this before on other threads , that if we , as a country , can afford over £13bn. on 2 weeks of sports (?) in next years Olympics , then why can't we afford to defend this country & its surrounding islands & seas properly ? £13bn. would have kept Nimrod flying + the Harrier force with loads left for other projects !
Seeing the near criminal slaughter of the Nimrod airframes on TV & the pictures of our Harrier force hangared with years of service left in the airframes made my blood boil !
(Hang on , I'll go & sit in a darkened room to cool down , if I can
)
Seeing the near criminal slaughter of the Nimrod airframes on TV & the pictures of our Harrier force hangared with years of service left in the airframes made my blood boil !
(Hang on , I'll go & sit in a darkened room to cool down , if I can
)
I wonder how much current decision making is based on experience and knowledge, and how much is based on ignorance and a certain defence advisor who seems to disregard things outside his field of expertise?
What if the SO1 level experts at Navy Command HQ, MOD, and the Cdrs(Air) of the carriers (and previous Cdrs(Air) and CVS Captains) had actually been listened to, would things be different?
What if the SO1 level experts at Navy Command HQ, MOD, and the Cdrs(Air) of the carriers (and previous Cdrs(Air) and CVS Captains) had actually been listened to, would things be different?
If the FAA are so important for the Navy, perhaps they should stump up the costs required to keep the Harrier flying? They seem happy to decimate their surface fleet for 2 carriers, so who'd miss another frigate or sub?
JA Jocky,
The deal with Wittering is that there is a portion of the airfield that has to be offered back to the original owners at a price that is well below current market. However, this condition expires in 2022. No further conditions exist about state of land, returning to agriculture etc.
The deal with Wittering is that there is a portion of the airfield that has to be offered back to the original owners at a price that is well below current market. However, this condition expires in 2022. No further conditions exist about state of land, returning to agriculture etc.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mystic Orient
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I received this pic thru email -- looks like Photoshop-ped effort.
Can anyone confirm if this fly past actually took place?
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Can anyone confirm if this fly past actually took place?
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Just Another Jocky,
To expand on Red Line Entry's post
The question of RAF Wittering and Burghley Estates was answered during 2009 in a Freedom of Information request.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E0B3C...reqdec09_2.pdf
Answer: (Taken from FB cache of person that filed the Freedom of Information request - See bold in reference to land issue)
I have just received an official MoD response to a Freedom of Information request:
Your correspondence dated 17 December 2009 has been considered to be a request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Environmental Regulations 2004.
The Secretary of State for Defence announced in the House of Commons on 15 December 2009, that key adjustments will be made to the current Defence programme to enhance the support to our personnel on operations in Afghanistan, and announced that Joint Force Harrier will be reduced by one Squadron. It was therefore necessary to look at the continuing requirement to maintain two Harrier bases in the UK, which in the final analysis could no longer be justified. This resulted in the closure of RAF Cottesmore and the consolidation of the Harrier force at RAF Wittering.
The decision to close RAF Cottesmore rather than RAF Wittering was made for a number of reasons. Firstly, RAF Wittering is the better suited from an operational perspective. The infrastructure such as runway configuration and Harrier operating surfaces at RAF Wittering was considered to meet the longer term needs of the RAF more effectively than that of RAF Cottesmore. The financial case also supported the closure of RAF Cottesmore rather than Wittering for a number of reasons; for example there are two Harrier simulators based at RAF Wittering which would be expensive to relocate and in addition to its function as a flying station, in recent years, RAF Wittering has become a major logistical hub, and relocating this element would be costly.
The land comprising RAF Wittering - which is identified as a "core site" in the Defence Estate Development Plan 2009 - is owned freehold by MOD. The Core Estate consists of locations that are either large bases or groups of sites that have an indefinite operational future; or individual core sites, which are expected to support defence outputs for at least 15 years. The majority of the land was purchased from the Burghley estate between 1924 and 1966, with a right for the estate to repurchase several parcels of land should the site become surplus to defence requirements and be sold (other than as an airfield or for other Government use) prior to 31 July 2022. There are no plans to dispose of RAF Wittering.
TJ
To expand on Red Line Entry's post
The question of RAF Wittering and Burghley Estates was answered during 2009 in a Freedom of Information request.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E0B3C...reqdec09_2.pdf
Answer: (Taken from FB cache of person that filed the Freedom of Information request - See bold in reference to land issue)
I have just received an official MoD response to a Freedom of Information request:
Your correspondence dated 17 December 2009 has been considered to be a request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Environmental Regulations 2004.
The Secretary of State for Defence announced in the House of Commons on 15 December 2009, that key adjustments will be made to the current Defence programme to enhance the support to our personnel on operations in Afghanistan, and announced that Joint Force Harrier will be reduced by one Squadron. It was therefore necessary to look at the continuing requirement to maintain two Harrier bases in the UK, which in the final analysis could no longer be justified. This resulted in the closure of RAF Cottesmore and the consolidation of the Harrier force at RAF Wittering.
The decision to close RAF Cottesmore rather than RAF Wittering was made for a number of reasons. Firstly, RAF Wittering is the better suited from an operational perspective. The infrastructure such as runway configuration and Harrier operating surfaces at RAF Wittering was considered to meet the longer term needs of the RAF more effectively than that of RAF Cottesmore. The financial case also supported the closure of RAF Cottesmore rather than Wittering for a number of reasons; for example there are two Harrier simulators based at RAF Wittering which would be expensive to relocate and in addition to its function as a flying station, in recent years, RAF Wittering has become a major logistical hub, and relocating this element would be costly.
The land comprising RAF Wittering - which is identified as a "core site" in the Defence Estate Development Plan 2009 - is owned freehold by MOD. The Core Estate consists of locations that are either large bases or groups of sites that have an indefinite operational future; or individual core sites, which are expected to support defence outputs for at least 15 years. The majority of the land was purchased from the Burghley estate between 1924 and 1966, with a right for the estate to repurchase several parcels of land should the site become surplus to defence requirements and be sold (other than as an airfield or for other Government use) prior to 31 July 2022. There are no plans to dispose of RAF Wittering.
TJ