Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
An interesting point given that later that decade, the Hong Kong issue was solved by giving China what it wanted......
Hong Kong was being leased (99 year lease), with China being the leaseholders. They decided, as any leaseholder can do, not to renew the lease to the UK.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THF
It was only our 99 year lease on the New Territories that expired in 1997. Hong Kong Island was ceded to the UK in perpetuity under the Treaty of Nanking in 1842. However, HMG knew that one could not exist without the other and in any event what else could we do but seek the best deal we could for the population.
It was only our 99 year lease on the New Territories that expired in 1997. Hong Kong Island was ceded to the UK in perpetuity under the Treaty of Nanking in 1842. However, HMG knew that one could not exist without the other and in any event what else could we do but seek the best deal we could for the population.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finningley Boy,
Nothing really that subtle between WW2 and a NFZ over Libya but it did give you an opportunity to mention Spitfires (doing main operating base Homeland Defence.)
Would Ark or Illustrious have been sailed back to the Med? Who knows but those who have carriers have decided to do exactly that because their politicians and operational commanders had the choice that enabled them to be flexible.
I understand Air Marshal Loder had something to say about this recently on a late evening panel show? But of course, his views are clearly tainted by him being a Harrier man and not a respected airman and experienced commander.
(Thank goodness AM Loder had the cajones to expose the fragility and risk in the initial push to railroad Tornado into HERRICK by 1 April 2009.)
Politicians and operational commanders have the choice to bring their carriers into a fight whilst negotiating the Access Basing and Overflight issues associated with so-called NATO and/or proven coalition nations who had cold feet because they are on the doorstep of the country being attacked.
But the cost of running a carrier around when it would have already been running around? The fuel cost for 5-10 days steaming a little quicker?
And of course, no hotel bills. Or car hire. Or LOA/actuals or whatever we call it nowadays.
And I bet the Jack Daniels* and Coke would have been cheaper in the Wardroom.
*Insert imbibement of choice (IV squadron purists will never catch me using the 'd' word.)
Nothing really that subtle between WW2 and a NFZ over Libya but it did give you an opportunity to mention Spitfires (doing main operating base Homeland Defence.)
Would Ark or Illustrious have been sailed back to the Med? Who knows but those who have carriers have decided to do exactly that because their politicians and operational commanders had the choice that enabled them to be flexible.
I understand Air Marshal Loder had something to say about this recently on a late evening panel show? But of course, his views are clearly tainted by him being a Harrier man and not a respected airman and experienced commander.
(Thank goodness AM Loder had the cajones to expose the fragility and risk in the initial push to railroad Tornado into HERRICK by 1 April 2009.)
Politicians and operational commanders have the choice to bring their carriers into a fight whilst negotiating the Access Basing and Overflight issues associated with so-called NATO and/or proven coalition nations who had cold feet because they are on the doorstep of the country being attacked.
But the cost of running a carrier around when it would have already been running around? The fuel cost for 5-10 days steaming a little quicker?
And of course, no hotel bills. Or car hire. Or LOA/actuals or whatever we call it nowadays.
And I bet the Jack Daniels* and Coke would have been cheaper in the Wardroom.
*Insert imbibement of choice (IV squadron purists will never catch me using the 'd' word.)
FB11 - choice is a grest thing to have, but in the current economic climate, our choices have had to be restricted. Had some protaganists had their way, we would not have been able to respond in the manner we have (Stormshadow, RAPTOR) - and before anyone says it, TLAM is NOT the same as Stormshadow and could not have done what it did.
No-one argues that in a better world, we would have both land-based and maritime aviation (more of both and bigger boats), but the choices have been made and they appear to have been vindicated by the effects we have been able to project. It would have been a very different story, with much more limited effect available had different choices been made.
No-one argues that in a better world, we would have both land-based and maritime aviation (more of both and bigger boats), but the choices have been made and they appear to have been vindicated by the effects we have been able to project. It would have been a very different story, with much more limited effect available had different choices been made.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAJ
"in the current economic climate, our choices have had to be restricted"
But even in the current economic climate, our first choice was, unlike a much richer country like Germany, to become involved! Having decided to do so yes, we must then use what we have and also work in a coalition with others to provide what is required for military intervention.
Choice is less about Harriers and Carriers versus Tornado and Storm Shadow but trying to plan for where and when HMG might choose to become involved in the future.
"in the current economic climate, our choices have had to be restricted"
But even in the current economic climate, our first choice was, unlike a much richer country like Germany, to become involved! Having decided to do so yes, we must then use what we have and also work in a coalition with others to provide what is required for military intervention.
Choice is less about Harriers and Carriers versus Tornado and Storm Shadow but trying to plan for where and when HMG might choose to become involved in the future.
FB11
What did AM Loder actually say?
Anyway, there was something interesting in the Telegraph yesterday:
We need to reprieve axed ships and planes, say Tories
Ministers are under mounting pressure over the review, which scrapped HMS Ark Royal and her Harrier jump-jets, leaving Britain without a working aircraft carrier for a decade. It also scrapped nine new Nimrod surveillance aircraft, which cost taxpayers £3.6 billion. Mr Arbuthnot, whose committee is investigating the review, told William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, that the Libyan conflict raised questions about the decisions taken over Britain’s military capabilities.
In the Commons, Mr Arbuthnot asked: “Might we need to reconsider some of the decisions taken in that, for example, the scrapping of some reconnaissance aircraft and even some ships?”
Julian Lewis, a former Conservative front-bench spokesman on defence, told the Commons that the scrapping of the aircraft carrier and the Harriers was done “at the last minute and for financial reasons”.
He urged Mr Hague: “Have urgent discussions with the Defence Secretary on reactivating HMS Ark Royal and some of the Harriers because people who know about these matters know how versatile and valuable such a capacity would be.” The aircraft carrier was formally decommissioned earlier this month and work has already started on dismantled parts of the vessel.
Personally I'd just concentrate on the Harriers - on which note, you might find this ARRSE thread interesting.
What did AM Loder actually say?
Anyway, there was something interesting in the Telegraph yesterday:
We need to reprieve axed ships and planes, say Tories
Ministers are under mounting pressure over the review, which scrapped HMS Ark Royal and her Harrier jump-jets, leaving Britain without a working aircraft carrier for a decade. It also scrapped nine new Nimrod surveillance aircraft, which cost taxpayers £3.6 billion. Mr Arbuthnot, whose committee is investigating the review, told William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, that the Libyan conflict raised questions about the decisions taken over Britain’s military capabilities.
In the Commons, Mr Arbuthnot asked: “Might we need to reconsider some of the decisions taken in that, for example, the scrapping of some reconnaissance aircraft and even some ships?”
Julian Lewis, a former Conservative front-bench spokesman on defence, told the Commons that the scrapping of the aircraft carrier and the Harriers was done “at the last minute and for financial reasons”.
He urged Mr Hague: “Have urgent discussions with the Defence Secretary on reactivating HMS Ark Royal and some of the Harriers because people who know about these matters know how versatile and valuable such a capacity would be.” The aircraft carrier was formally decommissioned earlier this month and work has already started on dismantled parts of the vessel.
Personally I'd just concentrate on the Harriers - on which note, you might find this ARRSE thread interesting.
Personally I'd just concentrate on the Harriers
our first choice was, unlike a much richer country like Germany, to become involved!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street
Not pointless as HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first of the new carriers, will be finished by 2014. It was planned she would operate Harriers until the F-35B was available with support contracts to that effect already signed.
All the main parties agreed with the invasion of Iraq so a cross party consensus is not as rare as you suggest once HMG decides to intervene using the armed forces. Same also went for Afghanistan where like Libya but unlike Iraq, we had much clearer UN approval.
If imagery (not just BBC, ITV and Sky but increasingly user generated material from say You-Tube) becomes the main input playing on our moral compass and then on our Foreign and Defence Policy, the benign world imagined by SDSR especially pre 2020 used to justify capability cuts, is unlikely to exist.
Not pointless as HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first of the new carriers, will be finished by 2014. It was planned she would operate Harriers until the F-35B was available with support contracts to that effect already signed.
All the main parties agreed with the invasion of Iraq so a cross party consensus is not as rare as you suggest once HMG decides to intervene using the armed forces. Same also went for Afghanistan where like Libya but unlike Iraq, we had much clearer UN approval.
If imagery (not just BBC, ITV and Sky but increasingly user generated material from say You-Tube) becomes the main input playing on our moral compass and then on our Foreign and Defence Policy, the benign world imagined by SDSR especially pre 2020 used to justify capability cuts, is unlikely to exist.
With respect to the situation in Libya it seems to me there were two basic questions to be answered.
Do we take part in the military action?
At what level do we contribute?
It is the second question that causes the debate. Norway has sent some F-16s, I'm not sure how many, about 6 I would guess. They have contributed to what has become a reasonably broad mixture of nations involved, at a level they can sustain. We didn't NEED to contribute at a much higher level. It is our Government and MOD that have elected to go in at a much higher level, SSNs with cruise missiles, Frigates, Typhoons, GR4s, tankers, R1s (??), Sentinel, etc.....
The whole point of the SDSR, or rather what the point of the SDSR should have been about (as opposed to being just a cost cutting exercise), was deciding what as a nation we intended to try and achieve globally. If we want to remain a key player/big hitter then we need to fund it. To me the SDSR said we are no longer willing to fund being a major world military power.
All this talk of should we have kept a CVS and Harriers as they would have been useful in Libya, should we stop scrapping them, etc, is ignoring the fact that we could just have sent a handful of aircraft and be seen to be "doing our bit".....
This government, possibly quite rightly given the financial position we are in, isn't willing to fund anything more, but still expects the armed UK forces to achieve miracles, just like the government before it!
Do we take part in the military action?
At what level do we contribute?
It is the second question that causes the debate. Norway has sent some F-16s, I'm not sure how many, about 6 I would guess. They have contributed to what has become a reasonably broad mixture of nations involved, at a level they can sustain. We didn't NEED to contribute at a much higher level. It is our Government and MOD that have elected to go in at a much higher level, SSNs with cruise missiles, Frigates, Typhoons, GR4s, tankers, R1s (??), Sentinel, etc.....
The whole point of the SDSR, or rather what the point of the SDSR should have been about (as opposed to being just a cost cutting exercise), was deciding what as a nation we intended to try and achieve globally. If we want to remain a key player/big hitter then we need to fund it. To me the SDSR said we are no longer willing to fund being a major world military power.
All this talk of should we have kept a CVS and Harriers as they would have been useful in Libya, should we stop scrapping them, etc, is ignoring the fact that we could just have sent a handful of aircraft and be seen to be "doing our bit".....
This government, possibly quite rightly given the financial position we are in, isn't willing to fund anything more, but still expects the armed UK forces to achieve miracles, just like the government before it!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why? The ability to fly off a carrier was all that Harrier had over Tornado in SDSR
Come on now fella - the Harrier had a couple more advantages over the GR4 than just carrier ops.
Its VSTOL ability allowed it to fly from short rough-field strips near to the front-line, providing rapid close air support (CAS) - hence the ability to operate away from conventional paved runways and airfields which may be attacked, preventing conventional non V/STOL aircraft from operating. It also had no LOX requirement and was able to take ANY aviation fuel... and before the 'helpful stacker' pipes up i am talking RAPID response.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In the shadows
Age: 80
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They can't get rid of her quick enough - Ark Royal tender documents
From edisposals.Com - website
DESCRIPTION: Vessel ARK ROYAL R07
Light Aircraft Carrier
Completed: 1981
Current Displacement: 19,000 tonnes
Estimated Metal Weight: 10,000 tonnes, 95% steel
Length: 210m, Draught: 5.8m, Beam: 36m
Location: HM Naval Base Portsmouth
Date and time for viewings:
8am Tuesday 3rd May
8am Wednesday 4th May
Requests for viewing MUST be submitted in writing no later than Wednesday 27th April together with a brief outline of your intentions regarding the vessel to the following:
Noelle Gardner email: [email protected] (01869 256346)
Janet Kynman email: [email protected] (01869 256017)
Tender Closure: Monday 13th June 2011 at 10 am
NOTE:
All Tender Documents to be sent to:
Emma Harris MCIPS – Commercial Manager Special Projects,
Building H9 Room 7, H Site
DSA Bicester
DE&S Arncott
Bicester
OXON, OX25 1LP
Tel: 01869 256014
All Tender documentation will be found under Additional Specifications.
Manufacturer: N/A
DESCRIPTION: Vessel ARK ROYAL R07
Light Aircraft Carrier
Completed: 1981
Current Displacement: 19,000 tonnes
Estimated Metal Weight: 10,000 tonnes, 95% steel
Length: 210m, Draught: 5.8m, Beam: 36m
Location: HM Naval Base Portsmouth
Date and time for viewings:
8am Tuesday 3rd May
8am Wednesday 4th May
Requests for viewing MUST be submitted in writing no later than Wednesday 27th April together with a brief outline of your intentions regarding the vessel to the following:
Noelle Gardner email: [email protected] (01869 256346)
Janet Kynman email: [email protected] (01869 256017)
Tender Closure: Monday 13th June 2011 at 10 am
NOTE:
All Tender Documents to be sent to:
Emma Harris MCIPS – Commercial Manager Special Projects,
Building H9 Room 7, H Site
DSA Bicester
DE&S Arncott
Bicester
OXON, OX25 1LP
Tel: 01869 256014
All Tender documentation will be found under Additional Specifications.
Manufacturer: N/A
Originally Posted by justanopinion
Easy street
Come on now fella - the Harrier had a couple more advantages over the GR4 than just carrier ops.
Its VSTOL ability allowed it to fly from short rough-field strips near to the front-line, providing rapid close air support (CAS) - hence the ability to operate away from conventional paved runways and airfields which may be attacked, preventing conventional non V/STOL aircraft from operating. It also had no LOX requirement and was able to take ANY aviation fuel... and before the 'helpful stacker' pipes up i am talking RAPID response.
Come on now fella - the Harrier had a couple more advantages over the GR4 than just carrier ops.
Its VSTOL ability allowed it to fly from short rough-field strips near to the front-line, providing rapid close air support (CAS) - hence the ability to operate away from conventional paved runways and airfields which may be attacked, preventing conventional non V/STOL aircraft from operating. It also had no LOX requirement and was able to take ANY aviation fuel... and before the 'helpful stacker' pipes up i am talking RAPID response.
The Cold War is over m8, let it go.
FB11,
I'm sure you have deliberately failed to notice the deliberate understatement in my use of the word subtle. Please don't try to give me a history lesson on World War II. If it makes you feel any better, I wouldn't have axed the bluidy carriers and Harriers either if it was my responsibility. Furthermore, those on here making the light blue argument doubtless feel the same. But trying to suggest that faced with the strict confines of making a decision to lose either 45 Harriers or 130 Tornados (please don't point out in your reply that two sqns of GR4s are going anyway, it still leaves a much bigger force than the Harriers) is, to use the modern oft used expression, a no brainer! I'm sure if the 1st Sea Lord had his way, indeed it would be the other way round. Wouldn't it be great if the CAS could inluence which Destroyers, Frigates and Submarines were to be axed. The influence over ditching the carriers, was unfortunate, but as the Harriers are an R.A.F. asset.. well there you go. Bring 'em back by all means, but not at the expense of the bulk of the R.A.F's offensive capability. Perhaps the Harriers could be brought back as a purely Naval asset? Wouldn't that be a good idea!
FB
I'm sure you have deliberately failed to notice the deliberate understatement in my use of the word subtle. Please don't try to give me a history lesson on World War II. If it makes you feel any better, I wouldn't have axed the bluidy carriers and Harriers either if it was my responsibility. Furthermore, those on here making the light blue argument doubtless feel the same. But trying to suggest that faced with the strict confines of making a decision to lose either 45 Harriers or 130 Tornados (please don't point out in your reply that two sqns of GR4s are going anyway, it still leaves a much bigger force than the Harriers) is, to use the modern oft used expression, a no brainer! I'm sure if the 1st Sea Lord had his way, indeed it would be the other way round. Wouldn't it be great if the CAS could inluence which Destroyers, Frigates and Submarines were to be axed. The influence over ditching the carriers, was unfortunate, but as the Harriers are an R.A.F. asset.. well there you go. Bring 'em back by all means, but not at the expense of the bulk of the R.A.F's offensive capability. Perhaps the Harriers could be brought back as a purely Naval asset? Wouldn't that be a good idea!
FB
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finningley Boy,
Not a history lesson (plenty of good books out there) just pointing out your apples and oranges comparison.
Why would CAS be influencing frigates or destroyers? He doesn't operate any and never will. The RN/RM operates on the land, on the sea, under the sea and in the air so 1SL has an absolute requirement to ensure he influences what happens with aircraft that flew from his decks.
Given the binary SDSR requirement of either GR4 or Harrier you would not have found me arguing for the complete deletion of GR4. But that would have been an objective capability based position as opposed to those who might have other motives.
By SDSR the mass of Harrier had been whittled down well below that required of Defence so in order to achieve the most cost effective, most flexible, most deployable acceptable minimum mass of Offensive Support Defence should have gone for a GR4/GR9 mix until Typhoon (or JCA) provided what one or both could now.
Not a history lesson (plenty of good books out there) just pointing out your apples and oranges comparison.
Why would CAS be influencing frigates or destroyers? He doesn't operate any and never will. The RN/RM operates on the land, on the sea, under the sea and in the air so 1SL has an absolute requirement to ensure he influences what happens with aircraft that flew from his decks.
Given the binary SDSR requirement of either GR4 or Harrier you would not have found me arguing for the complete deletion of GR4. But that would have been an objective capability based position as opposed to those who might have other motives.
By SDSR the mass of Harrier had been whittled down well below that required of Defence so in order to achieve the most cost effective, most flexible, most deployable acceptable minimum mass of Offensive Support Defence should have gone for a GR4/GR9 mix until Typhoon (or JCA) provided what one or both could now.
Why would CAS be influencing frigates or destroyers? He doesn't operate any and never will. The RN/RM operates on the land, on the sea, under the sea and in the air so 1SL has an absolute requirement to ensure he influences what happens with aircraft that flew from his decks.
Given the binary SDSR requirement of either GR4 or Harrier you would not have found me arguing for the complete deletion of GR4. But that would have been an objective capability based position as opposed to those who might have other motives.
By SDSR the mass of Harrier had been whittled down well below that required of Defence so in order to achieve the most cost effective, most flexible, most deployable acceptable minimum mass of Offensive Support Defence should have gone for a GR4/GR9 mix until Typhoon (or JCA) provided what one or both could now.
Given the binary SDSR requirement of either GR4 or Harrier you would not have found me arguing for the complete deletion of GR4. But that would have been an objective capability based position as opposed to those who might have other motives.
By SDSR the mass of Harrier had been whittled down well below that required of Defence so in order to achieve the most cost effective, most flexible, most deployable acceptable minimum mass of Offensive Support Defence should have gone for a GR4/GR9 mix until Typhoon (or JCA) provided what one or both could now.
My point about the CAS influencing the number and use of Frigates and Destoyers was a purely hypothetical analogy, not a literal suggestion of what might be the case. As for the GR4/GR9 mix, I couldn't agree more, indeed I'd have thought retention of both airframes with the more abundant GR4s making a sacrifice of two or even three squadrons would have been a more realistic application of defence cuts while still accepting, albeit resentfully where the treasury is concerned, the need to allow military thinking influence the outcome of the SDSR. When the press were talking about the R.A.F. having to give up a Fast Jet type, it struck me they were talking out of their backsides again. If I may be indulged another WWII analogy, it was like saying you can have Lancasters or Spitfires, but not both. I can't help thinking that the loss of Ark Royal and Illustrious and of course, the Harriers in total, was a price the 1st SL had to pay in order to retain the future two carriers. Lose 'em in order to get bigger and better ones a decade down the line! If there is one thing about this SDSR which is for sure, it is devoid of any military rationale. And I would know, cause I'm very interested in this kind of thing!
FB
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB
"one thing about this SDSR which is for sure, it is devoid of any military rationale."
They can be worse when HMG does try to offer some rationale! The Sandys Review in 1957 stated amongst other things, that we would have no need for any more manned aircraft as missiles were the future.
The 1981 Nott Review, like almost all Defence Reviews bar SDR in 1997 took place at a time of austerity. We had to make cuts so at least save the key capabilities. During the Cold War and in a NATO environment, Nott saw RAFG and BAOR as key with SSN's, Nimrod, the Buccaneer and some frigates to tackle the Soviet maritime threat. He did not see the need for three carriers and a large surface Fleet. To save funds, he decided amongst other things, to sell one carrier, cut frigate numbers and reduce the Sea Harrier order.
Was he just unlucky that a short while later we were off to the Falklands? Perhaps not as a need to be able to operate "out of area" had already been identified when war broke out between Iran and Iraq in 1980.
Now within six months of SDSR a whole series of crisis have taken place ranging from earthquakes (natural) to political (Middle East). In the short term, I don't expect our leaders will want to be seen altering their recent Security and Defence Plan but I do now anticipate some tweeks much sooner than was otherwise going to be the case.
"one thing about this SDSR which is for sure, it is devoid of any military rationale."
They can be worse when HMG does try to offer some rationale! The Sandys Review in 1957 stated amongst other things, that we would have no need for any more manned aircraft as missiles were the future.
The 1981 Nott Review, like almost all Defence Reviews bar SDR in 1997 took place at a time of austerity. We had to make cuts so at least save the key capabilities. During the Cold War and in a NATO environment, Nott saw RAFG and BAOR as key with SSN's, Nimrod, the Buccaneer and some frigates to tackle the Soviet maritime threat. He did not see the need for three carriers and a large surface Fleet. To save funds, he decided amongst other things, to sell one carrier, cut frigate numbers and reduce the Sea Harrier order.
Was he just unlucky that a short while later we were off to the Falklands? Perhaps not as a need to be able to operate "out of area" had already been identified when war broke out between Iran and Iraq in 1980.
Now within six months of SDSR a whole series of crisis have taken place ranging from earthquakes (natural) to political (Middle East). In the short term, I don't expect our leaders will want to be seen altering their recent Security and Defence Plan but I do now anticipate some tweeks much sooner than was otherwise going to be the case.
I understand that RAF Cottesmore had a decommisioning parade today. Are the Harriers still there? What will happen to them?
cazatou
Good comment - hard to top. SDSR did imply that nothing would happen for ten years.
d55
What sort of tweaks do you forsee? Just with regard to Libya, shipborne USMC and Italian Harriers are busy there, as are French Rafales and Super Etendard from the Charles De Gaulle, Libyan MiGs and naval vessels have been active, a small naval engagement has taken place, and the MOD website boasts of the contribution of HMS Cumberland - soon for the SDSR axe. Just as we are paying off surface warships we are trying to find more of them to send to the Libyan coast.
Perhaps the real thing to note is the way in which the Libyan thing seems to have popped up overnight?
Meanwhile, the problems continue alsewhere, with possible civil war in Yemen, and other places in the Middle East, renewed predictions of wars over water, a potential war in the Ivory Coast (will Western involvement be desirable?), and the events in Japan will have energy security inplications.
Interesting times eh?
cazatou
Good comment - hard to top. SDSR did imply that nothing would happen for ten years.
d55
What sort of tweaks do you forsee? Just with regard to Libya, shipborne USMC and Italian Harriers are busy there, as are French Rafales and Super Etendard from the Charles De Gaulle, Libyan MiGs and naval vessels have been active, a small naval engagement has taken place, and the MOD website boasts of the contribution of HMS Cumberland - soon for the SDSR axe. Just as we are paying off surface warships we are trying to find more of them to send to the Libyan coast.
Perhaps the real thing to note is the way in which the Libyan thing seems to have popped up overnight?
Meanwhile, the problems continue alsewhere, with possible civil war in Yemen, and other places in the Middle East, renewed predictions of wars over water, a potential war in the Ivory Coast (will Western involvement be desirable?), and the events in Japan will have energy security inplications.
Interesting times eh?
What sort of tweaks do you forsee
Perhaps the real thing to note is the way in which the Libyan thing seems to have popped up overnight
Oh and you seemed to miss some aircraft off your ORBAT. Such as all the ones that are land based (GR4, Typhoon, Growler, F18, F16). Funny that.
Originally Posted by wrathmonk
Quote:
What sort of tweaks do you forsee
Well the most sensible one would be to reverse the decision to scrap the two GR4 squadrons. They haven't disbanded yet so it's not too late and the TGRF are committed to two different ops.
Quote:
Perhaps the real thing to note is the way in which the Libyan thing seems to have popped up overnight
Good job the RAF could conduct 3000nm StormShadow sorties without having to wait for their airfield to steam within range
Oh and you seemed to miss some aircraft off your ORBAT. Such as all the ones that are land based (GR4, Typhoon, Growler, F18, F16). Funny that.
What sort of tweaks do you forsee
Well the most sensible one would be to reverse the decision to scrap the two GR4 squadrons. They haven't disbanded yet so it's not too late and the TGRF are committed to two different ops.
Quote:
Perhaps the real thing to note is the way in which the Libyan thing seems to have popped up overnight
Good job the RAF could conduct 3000nm StormShadow sorties without having to wait for their airfield to steam within range
Oh and you seemed to miss some aircraft off your ORBAT. Such as all the ones that are land based (GR4, Typhoon, Growler, F18, F16). Funny that.