Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".

[Wrathmonk]

Admiral Sir Jock Slater was First Sea Lord during the earlier 1998 Strategic Defence Review

And quoting direct from the 1998 SDSR :

In an historic agreement between the Chief of the Naval Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff, a joint RN/RAF fixed wing force, "Joint Force 2000", will operate from both land and our aircraft carriers. This will initially bring together the Sea Harrier FA2 and RAF Harrier GR7 into joint operating packages, but in future the RN and RAF both plan to operate a single, common aircraft from land and sea - the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft. No decision has been taken on the aircraft type, but the US Joint Strike Fighter will be a strong contender.

Which is, I'm sure most sensible types would agree, was the first nail in the coffin of the FA2 and the perceived loss of control of the FW FAA to the RAF. So with all respect to Slater he should perhaps look at what he started, on his watch, before chucking accusations about.

[FODPlod]

Originally Posted by Wrathmonk

In an historic agreement between the Chief of the Naval Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff, a joint RN/RAF fixed wing force, "Joint Force 2000", will operate from both land and our aircraft carriers. This will initially bring together the Sea Harrier FA2 and RAF Harrier GR7 into joint operating packages, but in future the RN and RAF both plan to operate a single, common aircraft from land and sea - the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft. No decision has been taken on the aircraft type, but the US Joint Strike Fighter will be a strong contender.

Which is, I'm sure most sensible types would agree, was the first nail in the coffin of the FA2 and the perceived loss of control of the FW FAA to the RAF. So with all respect to Slater he should perhaps look at what he started, on his watch, before chucking accusations about.

Your logic is flawed. If his eminently sensible plan had been respected by all parties, he wouldn't have had cause for complaint. How, for example, do the RAF's choice of aircraft and decision to ditch all the GR9s fit into it?

[andrewn]

Economically astute; well done HMG/MOD! Now that the monstrously expensive harrier is gone, at least we have succeeded in selling these unique and previously useful assets to recoup some of their cost. With such a good return on our investment and after years of developmental hard work by many people, we can now buy or cover off the following (approx):

• - 1.5 x Hawk T2s (almost)
• - 5 x PC-21s
• - 1 month of Libya ops
• - 4% the cost of procuring Brimstone (since 1996)
• - 30 x Litening pods (good!)
• - 0.4% of the foreign aid budget for 2011

OK I’m bored of doing more maths for this but you get the idea. After such a long term investment in the harrier by the UK I cannot find the words to do this justice. However, I was intrigued to learn that the UK also subsidises the EU to the tune of about 100 bn Euro per year (and receives about 40 bn Euros in return) – so there’s no money available for UK defence? Suffice to say that the money managing lunatics are in control of the asylum and defence is not as high on the agenda as ensuring one’s nest is feathered. An old squadron boss of mine said a few years ago that the wheels were coming off the bus – he was right, big time.

I think it's called politics; doesn't matter whether the decision to withdraw was right or wrong, fact is its been taken and DC et al aren't going to back-track on this one no matter how much logic and common-sense dictates otherwise. The decision to drawdown the entire force within 6 wks of SDSR announcement was as clear a signal as any that this was never going to go any other way.

Like others have said I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when Stanhope got read the riot act!

Fundamentally I guess we're somewhat fortunate in that our own inadequacies are nothing compared to that of most of our NATO partners. I never thought I'd say this but I see some kind of pan-European airforce/army/navy as being the only way in which we Europeans can remain credible....

[jamesdevice]

the Russian have an interesting - and arguably correct take on it
NATO military machine stuck in Libya sand: Voice of Russia
What everyone KNOWS, but no-one is prepared to actually SAY

"NATO military machine stuck in Libya sandBoris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies:

The statement made by top naval officer of Great Britain, Admiral Stanhope, should be looked at in a wider context, because we can see that the United States is really reluctant to go on with the whole operation, with several congressmen filing a lawsuit against President Obama and demanding for total withdrawal from Libya.

What is most striking in the whole situation, and that statement by Admiral Stanhope shows it very obviously, is that the whole military machine of NATO has proved to be unable to topple rather relatively weak regime of a small country like Libya.

I am not speaking about the rebels who make more noise than do anything, but you see that the whole military machine has been launched against Libya for almost three months by now and with little or even no effect except for casualties among the civilians, and no military results, no success is looming.

This shows that NATO without United States or even with limited participation of the United States is capable of doing nothing at all. And whether it will result in total withdrawal of Great Britain from the operation is a big question. As we see political leadership of the country thinks to be determined to go on with the operation, but the military force may be no better."
"

[Easy Street]

jamesdevice,

The statement "the whole of the NATO military machine" is clearly absolute rubbish!! A significant proportion of the NATO military machine is in Afghanistan, for one thing. The Libya deployment amounts to slack handfuls of tanker, recce, fighter and bomber squadrons. NATO still has more of those assets in reserve - and also has further land forces (completely un-involved in Libya) and naval forces to boot. A better conclusion to draw from progress in Libya is that a relatively small deployment of forces - with no politically-risky ground force presence - is having effect.

[jamesdevice]

"NATO still has more of those assets in reserve"
Maybe enough to rotate the existing assets for servicing when it becomes due, but NOT enough to build the attack to a critical mass

"has further land forces (completely un-involved in Libya) and naval forces to boot"
But we're not involved in a ground war there - and anyway those land forces are needed for rotation for Afghanistan. As for your comment about "naval forces" - not according to recent press quotes. The only naval assets that would matter are carriers (er WHICH carriers) and Tomahawks (of which we are in danger of running out...) And anyway - just how useful is a submarine launch platform which carries only 20 Tomahawks and then has to go home to get a reload? Cruise missiles only make sense it the launch platform has several hundred available for launch before replenishment

"A better conclusion to draw from progress in Libya is that a relatively small deployment of forces - with no politically-risky ground force presence - is having effect"
Exactly WHAT effect other than making NATO - and especially the UK as one of the proponents of this attack on Libya - appear to be totally impotent? We have gone into this half-hearted, under-resourced, with no serious sustained attack capability. Sending a few sorties a day from long range each with one or two warheads isn't going to achieve much.
Seriously, all this is going to achieve is to make us look like easy targets without the political will or military might to actually achieve

[just another jocky]

Originally Posted by jamesdevice

Sending a few sorties a day from long range each with one or two warheads isn't going to achieve much.

If yr going to have a snipe, at least make it an accurate one.

[Wrathmonk]

FODPlod

I disagree (but you'd expect that!). If you want to guarantee 100% control of something then you do not go into an alliance/partnership or whatever. This is the same for political coalitions, marriages etc. Especially when those who made the agreement, in good faith, are replaced within 12-18 months. I am struggling to think (but will no doubt soon be reminded) of one 'joint' outfit in which all parties have got, or retained, everything they wanted / wished.

[Willard Whyte]

The sooner they crate these bloody things up and ship them off to the US the better as it will finally stop the continual drip drip that this thread has become

Somehow I doubt that will be the case.

[Mothballed]

Surely it's the 'continual drip drip' that serves to highlight the contempt with which the decision is held.

[ICBM]

Wrath, hear hear!

I am struggling to think (but will no doubt soon be reminded) of one 'joint' outfit in which all parties have got, or retained, everything they wanted / wished.

This joint idealism isn't even working within the coalition government so Tory/Lib ministers know exactly why SDSR has now driven the biggest wedge between brown, dark blue and light blue in history - well done, perfect legacy Mr Cameron et al. By severely limiting our resources, attacking our future wealth (pensions, Service benefits) and, now, seemingly forcing our most senior heads of Service (1SL) to change their honestly-held opinions as professionals, they undermine and erode the very fabric and morale of our fighting forces. It's bad enough that we have to kill and be killed at the Government's whim overseas for a cause that changes with the winds; it seems we now must also fight just as fiercely with each other when at home via pathetic letter writing campaigns which seemed to be aimed at the other services rather than the ministers themselves.

Time will tell if the Government really got SDSR wrong or not. What doesn't help is the sheer amount of unfocussed, wasted drivel going on between our armed forces on forums such as these. Sniping and jibing to justify past decisions by saying 'this platform is better because of x' and the subsequent tirade of excrement that normally follows does NOTHING for anyone. We need to pull together, stop smacking each other around and put coherent arguments forward to the people that can change these things; the politicians. If the Government still refuses to listen then at least the British public will have one message on what the entire military think, instead of thinking we're all a bunch of idiots incapable of getting on with each other.

[jamesdevice]

and now the argies are making noises....
Argentinian president ridicules Cameron over Falklands | World news | guardian.co.uk

"The Argentinian president has criticised David Cameron for insisting the Falkland Islands should remain a British territory.
Cristina Kirchner described the prime minister as "arrogant" and said his comments were an "expression of mediocrity and almost of stupidity"......
"In her criticism of his comments, Kirchner said Britain "continues to be a crude colonial power in decline"........
"On Wednesday the commander of the naval task force that recaptured the Falklands warned they had since become "perilously close to being indefensible" against an Argentinian attack.
Writing in the Daily Mail, Admiral Sandy Woodward cited the lack of an aircraft carrier and weakening US support for British sovereignty. "The simple truth is without aircraft carriers and without the Americans we would not have any hope of doing the same again today." Last year, five retired commanders warned that the scrapping of the Harrier jets and HMS Ark Royal as part of defence cuts amounted to an invitation to invade the Falklands."

And its worth looking at that article by Sandy Woodward
Falkland Islands: Britain couldn't defend anything further than other side of English Channel | Mail Online
"Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope’s warning yesterday that Britain does not even have enough ships to continue even the small operation in Libya, highlights the weakened state in which defence cuts have left our navy; a position from which we are incapable of defending our territory in the south Atlantic.
The received political wisdom runs counter to this, of course. Westminster-based politicians will say that whoever controls the islands’ Mount Pleasant Airbase controls the Falklands and that with up to 1,000 RAF personnel stationed there and a further 500-1,000 Army troops garrisoned nearby, Mount Pleasant is firmly in British hands and staying that way.
Well, I wish I shared their confidence. Because what the politicians won’t tell you is that Mount Pleasant was, until recently, equipped with only four ageing and ineffective Tornados – the same attack aircraft that have made such heavy weather recently of providing air support in Libya. When they were needed at short notice, only three of the RAF’s 135 aircraft were ready for action.
Apparently these Tornadoes have now been replaced by four Typhoons, about which there have been many rumours of too few trained pilots, inadequate spares and poor ability in aerial combat. Neither type of aircraft has any anti-ship weapons systems, which would be vital against any invasion by sea.
Central to long-term plans for the defence of the Falklands is the idea that if attacked, Mount Pleasant could be rapidly reinforced by air. Unfortunately, any swift operation could take out the runways by lunchtime and air reinforcement would have nowhere to land. I’d like to know what our Government is planning to do about that.
Without aircraft carriers (today HMS Illustrious is our only remaining carrier, and she has no fixed-wing aircraft, which are much faster than other planes) it was always going to be pretty difficult, but without the Americans it would be nigh on impossible.
Despite much talk of sharing resources, I can’t see the French handing over the keys to one of their carriers so we can fight another war in the South Atlantic."

[jamesdevice]

"If yr going to have a snipe, at least make it an accurate one"
Seems pretty accurate to me

[BEagle]

Well, I wish I shared their confidence. Because what the politicians won’t tell you is that Mount Pleasant was, until recently, equipped with only four ageing and ineffective Tornados – the same attack aircraft that have made such heavy weather recently of providing air support in Libya. When they were needed at short notice, only three of the RAF’s 135 aircraft were ready for action.

What utter idiot came up with that drivel?

No doubt there'll be some letters in The Times from the Bearded Bull$hitter again ere long....

[jamesdevice]

"What utter idiot came up with that drivel?"

Admiral Sandy Woodward
You suggesting he doesn't know what he's talking about?
I seem to remember he was pretty clued-up a few years ago...

[BEagle]

He might have said that, but who on earth fed him such a load of cr@p? Surely even a fishead would know that the Tornados based at RAF Mount Pleasant were of a totally different type to those in active service over Libya?

He's just made himself sound stupid. What a shame.

I deplore the axing of the Harrier Force and the Navy's carriers - but biased naval nonsense is doing no-one any favours.

[engineer(retard)]

His lack of knowledge provides a good justification of why boat drivers should not have operational control of aircraft.

[4mastacker]

Mount Pleasant was, until recently, equipped with only four ageing and ineffective Tornados – the same attack aircraft that have made such heavy weather recently of providing air support in Libya.

Aircraft identification seems not to be a naval strongpoint. Or perhaps it's Admiral Woodward's script writer that needs to hone up those skills. Even I, as a lowly ground-hugger, knew the difference between the two.. A good job perhaps as I looked after the bits (those that were available). An F3 radome on a GR4 would not have been a good fit.


Edited to add: buggah! BEagle beat me to it

[jamesdevice]

OK, so he got confused over the model variant, but thats really only a trivial error. His basic argument (best if you read the whole article -not just the extract) is that the UK forces are now too reduced to be able to withstand an Argentine attack. Essentially, the current resources are not enough
Anyone disagree with that?

[engineer(retard)]

Read the "New Falklands War Brewing" thread, then ask yourself the same question.