Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
DITYIWAHP
Would you prefer me to copy and paste my comments? I still see those comments (from others as well as myself - particularly regarding the carrier skills needed for the future) as pertinent - as is SammySu's post that counters many Harrier related myths. Links to news stories are also worthy of note.
A recent Telegraph letter from Major General Julian Thompson is of note:
SIR – Group Captain Alan Ferguson does not think the presence of HMS Ark Royal off the coast of Libya would have helped Britain’s mission there (Letters, July 28). But a carrier would have made our contribution to the campaign against Colonel Gaddafi more efficient.
The current effort from Italy involves huge sums spent on tanker aircraft flying from Cyprus, fuel for strike aircraft flying the 1,200-mile trip to the target and back, accommodating air crews and support staff in hotels, and flying supplies from Britain.
For a country short of cash, this is a crazy way to prosecute a campaign. Group Captain Ferguson is right to say that without boots on the ground an aerial campaign had little chance of bringing Colonel Gaddafi down. I wonder if senior airmen warned David Cameron of this.
Mr Cameron should heed Con Coughlin’s advice (Comment, July 27). He should press his “receive” button and listen to senior military officers. Messages such as “you do the fighting, I’ll do the talking” are offensive to those who know what fighting, and dying, involves.
Con Coughlin' comments are here.
In a few months time Illustrious will be taking over from Ocean, if things continue that long. A carrier (with Harriers) would not only help relieve the Charles De Gaulle, but also reduce the strain on the RAF. After all, we have already deployed Ocean with Apache as a substitute carrier, but Apache has neither the range or payload of Harrier. We have shiips deployed on Libyan operations, and the CVS would not need a higher level of escort than Ocean. Additionally Harrier would be a contribution to the defence of a task group, in addition to possible use against seaborne or shore based threats, it could be used to intercept and visually identify unknown and potentially hostile aircraft.
I wonder if resources are being taken away from the Afghan effort in order to support the Tornado, Typhoon, and tanker commitment (and that of ISTAR assets)? Yes, this is an acknowledgement that the RAF is under pressure.
Would you prefer me to copy and paste my comments? I still see those comments (from others as well as myself - particularly regarding the carrier skills needed for the future) as pertinent - as is SammySu's post that counters many Harrier related myths. Links to news stories are also worthy of note.
A recent Telegraph letter from Major General Julian Thompson is of note:
SIR – Group Captain Alan Ferguson does not think the presence of HMS Ark Royal off the coast of Libya would have helped Britain’s mission there (Letters, July 28). But a carrier would have made our contribution to the campaign against Colonel Gaddafi more efficient.
The current effort from Italy involves huge sums spent on tanker aircraft flying from Cyprus, fuel for strike aircraft flying the 1,200-mile trip to the target and back, accommodating air crews and support staff in hotels, and flying supplies from Britain.
For a country short of cash, this is a crazy way to prosecute a campaign. Group Captain Ferguson is right to say that without boots on the ground an aerial campaign had little chance of bringing Colonel Gaddafi down. I wonder if senior airmen warned David Cameron of this.
Mr Cameron should heed Con Coughlin’s advice (Comment, July 27). He should press his “receive” button and listen to senior military officers. Messages such as “you do the fighting, I’ll do the talking” are offensive to those who know what fighting, and dying, involves.
Con Coughlin' comments are here.
In a few months time Illustrious will be taking over from Ocean, if things continue that long. A carrier (with Harriers) would not only help relieve the Charles De Gaulle, but also reduce the strain on the RAF. After all, we have already deployed Ocean with Apache as a substitute carrier, but Apache has neither the range or payload of Harrier. We have shiips deployed on Libyan operations, and the CVS would not need a higher level of escort than Ocean. Additionally Harrier would be a contribution to the defence of a task group, in addition to possible use against seaborne or shore based threats, it could be used to intercept and visually identify unknown and potentially hostile aircraft.
I wonder if resources are being taken away from the Afghan effort in order to support the Tornado, Typhoon, and tanker commitment (and that of ISTAR assets)? Yes, this is an acknowledgement that the RAF is under pressure.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 30th Jul 2011 at 23:19.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF, good to see you are still peddling your biased views. Funny how you never comment on how much it would cost to deploy a carrier and it's associated protection and resupply ships. Allied to that, the associated strain it would place on the RN.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Here,there,everywhere
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone has worked WEBF out, copy and paste, quote himself numerous times all for what?
Just to keep this claptrap thread on the first page, oops I have just bumped it up.........saves WEBF copy and pasting I suppose
Just to keep this claptrap thread on the first page, oops I have just bumped it up.........saves WEBF copy and pasting I suppose
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: On the flip side
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harrier 'Jump Jet'
I think that the Harrier is an amazing and beatiful aircraft from a design point of view. I always enjoyed watching them when featured on television news etc. - seeing them fly off carriers and hover - awesome! They must be fantastic to fly! I will miss the 'Jump Jet' and hope there are still a few flyin' about somewhere......
FL
As the amended post now says, in a few months time Illustrious will probably relieve Ocean. Try a FOI request to find out about costs. She will not need any higher level of escorting than Ocean currently has. Having Harriers would make her much more effective, and significantly add to the UK's capabilities in theatre. She could even embark foreign (USMC perhaps?) Harriers.
FnF
Are you saying that the issues relating both to current and future operations, and to training personnel in time for CVF, should not be discussed? All the quotes and links relate to these.
In fact comments on the CHF/Merlin Mk4 thread hint at some of the issues involved in Apache being used in a long term maritime role, and of the the role of the ship in flying operations.
B_PLT - OCEAN found it quite hard work to embark, train and integrate the Apache. Ship's Air and AE Dept are working hand in hand with the REME LAD to keep it going, but it is not an ideal situation, and some fairly hefty changes would have to take place if it were to become an enduring task (i.e. continual re-embarkations).
AAC (all of them from CO downwards) are carrying out Sea Survival training to make them safe to go to sea, adding to the training burden of the Squadrons.
So what of all of this? Like any squadron embarking, there is faff and hard work required by all concerned to make it happen, but crucially the Air and AE Department (all WAFUs) have been the key enablers.
HMM
Yes, try the US Marine Corps, and the navies of Italy, Spain, India, and Thailand.
LJ
Thanks for that. Lots of people (including the First Sea Lord, CINCFLEET, the heads of the US and French Navies, the Defence Commitee in the House Of Commons, and the National Audit Office) disagree.
As the amended post now says, in a few months time Illustrious will probably relieve Ocean. Try a FOI request to find out about costs. She will not need any higher level of escorting than Ocean currently has. Having Harriers would make her much more effective, and significantly add to the UK's capabilities in theatre. She could even embark foreign (USMC perhaps?) Harriers.
FnF
Are you saying that the issues relating both to current and future operations, and to training personnel in time for CVF, should not be discussed? All the quotes and links relate to these.
In fact comments on the CHF/Merlin Mk4 thread hint at some of the issues involved in Apache being used in a long term maritime role, and of the the role of the ship in flying operations.
B_PLT - OCEAN found it quite hard work to embark, train and integrate the Apache. Ship's Air and AE Dept are working hand in hand with the REME LAD to keep it going, but it is not an ideal situation, and some fairly hefty changes would have to take place if it were to become an enduring task (i.e. continual re-embarkations).
AAC (all of them from CO downwards) are carrying out Sea Survival training to make them safe to go to sea, adding to the training burden of the Squadrons.
So what of all of this? Like any squadron embarking, there is faff and hard work required by all concerned to make it happen, but crucially the Air and AE Department (all WAFUs) have been the key enablers.
HMM
Yes, try the US Marine Corps, and the navies of Italy, Spain, India, and Thailand.
LJ
Thanks for that. Lots of people (including the First Sea Lord, CINCFLEET, the heads of the US and French Navies, the Defence Commitee in the House Of Commons, and the National Audit Office) disagree.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 1st Aug 2011 at 16:47.
Not my baby, but I am keen that the issues involved (both with respect to ongoing operations and events that may occur during this decade, and in terms of preparing for the future) are publicised and discussed as much as possible.
On which note, here is a link with a difference - it is a video from NATO:
Mine clearance in and around the port of Misrata
The video mentions not only clearing mines, but also the role of frigates and destroyers to protect the Minehunters, and towards the end of the video (4:35) you may notice the Italian carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi, complete with AV8B+ aircraft on deck. I am not sure if these have taken part in Libyan airstrikes, but it does show the value of ship based aircraft.
What about a Chinese view?
Zhang Wei, researcher of China Aviation Museum, said, "The Charles De Gaulle has played a great role during the Libyan Operation. Its presence has sent a message to the Libyan military that the French military has put all its effort in the fight. The fighter aircraft, the Super Etendard and the Rafale have together given the French the ability to strike fast and continuously. The E-2C Hawkeye aircraft can take off the Charles De Gaulle carrier and provide information for other British and French airplanes. "
In addition to its dense strikes capabilities, the carrier's advanced equipment include radars and communication systems. The technology has made the carrier the center of operations, allowing it to set military strategies for other fighter aircraft from different countries including Britain, Canada and Norway.
Will our Government take note?
On which note, here is a link with a difference - it is a video from NATO:
Mine clearance in and around the port of Misrata
The video mentions not only clearing mines, but also the role of frigates and destroyers to protect the Minehunters, and towards the end of the video (4:35) you may notice the Italian carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi, complete with AV8B+ aircraft on deck. I am not sure if these have taken part in Libyan airstrikes, but it does show the value of ship based aircraft.
What about a Chinese view?
Zhang Wei, researcher of China Aviation Museum, said, "The Charles De Gaulle has played a great role during the Libyan Operation. Its presence has sent a message to the Libyan military that the French military has put all its effort in the fight. The fighter aircraft, the Super Etendard and the Rafale have together given the French the ability to strike fast and continuously. The E-2C Hawkeye aircraft can take off the Charles De Gaulle carrier and provide information for other British and French airplanes. "
In addition to its dense strikes capabilities, the carrier's advanced equipment include radars and communication systems. The technology has made the carrier the center of operations, allowing it to set military strategies for other fighter aircraft from different countries including Britain, Canada and Norway.
Will our Government take note?
Getting Very Bored With This Thread
I spent 3 years on exchange with the USN.
I was on (OK, in) HERMES in 82. I loved the Harrier. It was - is - a great aeroplane.
One of my last military flights was in an F-14 off/onto NIMITZ in the Gulf.
I am a great fan of naval aviation - when it is done properly.
The persistent rantings of WEBF & SW are not helping the cause of good/proper naval aviation.
We, as a nation, can't afford to do it properly any more.
So, unless the defence budget increases to afford 4 carriers, adequately equipped with effective aircraft both for self-defence and power projection ashore, I suggest we:
Spend naval money on subs/frigates/destroyers/RM requirements.
Let the RAF do the aviation stuff.
Let the Army do the important boots stuff - with the help of the Royals.
Can we please let this go.
I was on (OK, in) HERMES in 82. I loved the Harrier. It was - is - a great aeroplane.
One of my last military flights was in an F-14 off/onto NIMITZ in the Gulf.
I am a great fan of naval aviation - when it is done properly.
The persistent rantings of WEBF & SW are not helping the cause of good/proper naval aviation.
We, as a nation, can't afford to do it properly any more.
So, unless the defence budget increases to afford 4 carriers, adequately equipped with effective aircraft both for self-defence and power projection ashore, I suggest we:
Spend naval money on subs/frigates/destroyers/RM requirements.
Let the RAF do the aviation stuff.
Let the Army do the important boots stuff - with the help of the Royals.
Can we please let this go.
Last edited by ex-fast-jets; 2nd Aug 2011 at 20:54.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF - Do you really think that DC, LF or the 3 chiefs listen to your rants? At best you might get Lord W or SW having a quick peek. Hang on are you Lord West or SW or both?? Could 40 harriers really have covered Afghan, Libya, ab initio and PDT training and go through depth maintenance. I doubt even with your misguided optimism you could make that work for any extended period. I suppose we will never know especially as I hear the wings are coming off.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
The current effort from Italy involves huge sums spent on tanker aircraft flying from Cyprus, fuel for strike aircraft flying the 1,200-mile trip to the target and back, accommodating air crews and support staff in hotels, and flying supplies from Britain.
This kind of nonsense, from a distinguished officer who's out of touch, makes me cross!
Rant off.
Originally Posted by Ken Scott
Major General Julian Thompson would have more credibility if he got his facts straight - tanker's are in Sicily which is a tad close than Cyprus (but sounds less wasteful), and as for hotac costing money I guess that Carriers are free, cost nothing to buy or run & don't need any re-supply.
We finished paying for CVS and Harriers long ago and, according to Hansard, Ark Royal would have cost £10m to run on through 2011/12. This is a fraction of the cost to date in Italian-based RAF infrastructure, extra aviation fuel, tanker hours, flying hours wasted in 1,200 mile transits to the Libyan coast and back (£70k per hour for Typhoons so at least £140k per sortie), hotel accommodation, restaurant meals, local and international transport for pax, ad hoc overland/air logistics train instead of door to door RFA which we already possess, etc.
Normally, I view carrier aviation as complementary to land-based air but this kind of nonsense from a poster who's out of touch makes me so cross!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
£70k per hour is the total cost of operating a Typhoon, including R&D etc, not the marginal cost of running the thing (fuel, servicing etc).
Are you seriously saying that it's cheaper to keep an aircraft carrier steaming up & down the Med, with 1000 people supporting 6 Harriers, and the ship escorted by other ships & at least one RFA, than it is to keep several hundred RAF people in some fairly mediocre hotels? The carrier may already have been paid for (although you include a portion of the purchase cost of the Typhoon in its cost) but it's still an expensive piece of kit to operate.
Are you seriously saying that it's cheaper to keep an aircraft carrier steaming up & down the Med, with 1000 people supporting 6 Harriers, and the ship escorted by other ships & at least one RFA, than it is to keep several hundred RAF people in some fairly mediocre hotels? The carrier may already have been paid for (although you include a portion of the purchase cost of the Typhoon in its cost) but it's still an expensive piece of kit to operate.
Originally Posted by Ken Scott
£70k per hour is the total cost of operating a Typhoon, including R&D etc, not the marginal cost of running the thing (fuel, servicing etc).
Are you seriously saying that it's cheaper to keep an aircraft carrier steaming up & down the Med, with 1000 people supporting 6 Harriers, and the ship escorted by other ships & at least one RFA, than it is to keep several hundred RAF people in some fairly mediocre hotels? The carrier may already have been paid for (although you include a portion of the purchase cost of the Typhoon in its cost) but it's still an expensive piece of kit to operate.
Are you seriously saying that it's cheaper to keep an aircraft carrier steaming up & down the Med, with 1000 people supporting 6 Harriers, and the ship escorted by other ships & at least one RFA, than it is to keep several hundred RAF people in some fairly mediocre hotels? The carrier may already have been paid for (although you include a portion of the purchase cost of the Typhoon in its cost) but it's still an expensive piece of kit to operate.
Why only six Harriers? A CVS can operate up to 18.
According to Hansard, there are c.950 RAF personnel specifically deployed for Libya ops to sustain around 20 strike a/c (AD is covered by other nations) and their supporting assets from static airfields run by other people, mainly in Italy. 1,000 RN personnel to support and operate a similar number of strike a/c (for which the R&D has already been paid) AND a mobile airfield with comprehensive C3I facilities just off the Libyan coast sounds like a bargain to me. We already have DD/FF and RFAs in place for other reasons so little extra cost there.
I don't understand what you mean by "The carrier may already have been paid for (although you include a portion of the purchase cost of the Typhoon in its cost)" so I can't address it.
"Why only six Harriers? A CVS can operate up to 18."
Unfortunately by late last year the forces had taken measures which meant that the Harrier fleet would have been unable to generate that many aircraft. I also strongly doubt that the UK had sufficient carrier qualified pilots to support an 18 strong det, given that in the preceding 10 years or so, the biggest deployment I think was done comprised about 10-12 harriers, and that was before SHAR left service.
Talk of saying 'but we could be using 18 harriers' is like saying 'but we could regenerate vulcan and do another black buck' - it simply couldnt have been done with the resources available.
Thats one of the reasons why Harrier was such an easy target in SDSR - a tired fleet, being run purely to maintain carrier seedcorn capability and with a very low FE@R from 2009 onwards - it was a no brainer of epic proportions.
Yes it was a great aircraft, and yes its sad that we're not using it anymore, but we have no money and unfortunately it was a nice to have, not a need to have.
Unfortunately by late last year the forces had taken measures which meant that the Harrier fleet would have been unable to generate that many aircraft. I also strongly doubt that the UK had sufficient carrier qualified pilots to support an 18 strong det, given that in the preceding 10 years or so, the biggest deployment I think was done comprised about 10-12 harriers, and that was before SHAR left service.
Talk of saying 'but we could be using 18 harriers' is like saying 'but we could regenerate vulcan and do another black buck' - it simply couldnt have been done with the resources available.
Thats one of the reasons why Harrier was such an easy target in SDSR - a tired fleet, being run purely to maintain carrier seedcorn capability and with a very low FE@R from 2009 onwards - it was a no brainer of epic proportions.
Yes it was a great aircraft, and yes its sad that we're not using it anymore, but we have no money and unfortunately it was a nice to have, not a need to have.
Jim - Thank you for your considerate reply. I have heard so many varying opinions about the state of the GR9s (many of them recently refitted) that I'm unsure whether they had years of useful life left in them or were flying pension traps while operating over Afghanistan! In general, I don't believe their airframes were any older or less airworthy than the Tornados.
I guess we'll just have to make do with HMS Ocean (larger than a CVS) off Libya with her embarked AAC Apaches and FAA Sea King Mk7 ASaC 'Baggers' although Ark Royal could easily have accommodated these plus half a dozen or more Harriers.
I guess we'll just have to make do with HMS Ocean (larger than a CVS) off Libya with her embarked AAC Apaches and FAA Sea King Mk7 ASaC 'Baggers' although Ark Royal could easily have accommodated these plus half a dozen or more Harriers.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Harriers had 10 years of fatigue/useful life left in them, most of the jets had been upgraded to GR9 Cap EA with only a handful left in the upgrade pipeline and we enjoyed execllent servicability - undoubtedly better than any current FJ. Sadly our FE@R was reduced to 10 from 18 when we lost IV(AC) on 31 Mar 10, but that didn't mean we started scrapping jets. There are currently 79 airframes awaiting disposal at Cottesmore and unless you all missed it, there was a 16-Ship flown on 15 Dec 11 as the last ever UK Harrier sortie that had 14 spare ac available, none of which needed to be used. Additionally, 23 jets were deployed to CQWI in Jul 10, so an 18 ac deployment iso Ellamy would not have been much of a problem. We also had 2 Sqns of pilots who were CVS qual'ed with only the most junior pilots unqual'ed (a CVS det in Nov 11 would have sorted this but it was cancelled after the SDSR announcement). However, sustaining more than 10 ac on the CVS for 6 months due to the funding of only 10 FE@R would have been more problematic.
Sadly, due to the incompetance of the current Government, the Harrier is gone (and Ark and MRA4!) after serving with distinction in the Falklands, Belize, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan and it was flown and maintained by a dedicated force of talented pilots and engineers. People should remember that. Now move on.
Sadly, due to the incompetance of the current Government, the Harrier is gone (and Ark and MRA4!) after serving with distinction in the Falklands, Belize, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan and it was flown and maintained by a dedicated force of talented pilots and engineers. People should remember that. Now move on.