Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like we're going round in circles a bit now. We keep getting to:
Fighter (defence of the fleet) = big radar, MRAAMs, SRAAMs, Datalink, ident, etc.
Bomber (projection of power, etc) = pods, datalink, 1760, specialist self-desg weapons.
Addition of ASRAAM and HMS offers a significant self defence capability to the bomber, but doesn't do defence of the fleet. But as WEBF said earlier, better than nothing. Thinks: why do I keep hearing that phrase? Almost like we keep getting second-best!
One of the main arguments for adding ASRAAM and HMS to Jaguar was to test and develop the capability for Typhoon. I was in the meeting that took it forward. Navaleye's point about limited self-escort when fighters not available is valid. But LOAL can be very dangerous.
So, I think this is the starting point from which to answer the exam question (Post #1). Harrier was very capable, very flexible. With no capital ship, its ship-borne role had gone and it was then competing with GR4/4A (and eventually Typhoon) for work. Yes, really good at CAS (not only CAS, obviously), but GR4 seemed to cope with that and can do a lot more. Choice between the two fleets, it was pretty much bound to happen. Sad, but true.
Body armour and helmet on, awaiting incoming...
Fighter (defence of the fleet) = big radar, MRAAMs, SRAAMs, Datalink, ident, etc.
Bomber (projection of power, etc) = pods, datalink, 1760, specialist self-desg weapons.
Addition of ASRAAM and HMS offers a significant self defence capability to the bomber, but doesn't do defence of the fleet. But as WEBF said earlier, better than nothing. Thinks: why do I keep hearing that phrase? Almost like we keep getting second-best!
One of the main arguments for adding ASRAAM and HMS to Jaguar was to test and develop the capability for Typhoon. I was in the meeting that took it forward. Navaleye's point about limited self-escort when fighters not available is valid. But LOAL can be very dangerous.
So, I think this is the starting point from which to answer the exam question (Post #1). Harrier was very capable, very flexible. With no capital ship, its ship-borne role had gone and it was then competing with GR4/4A (and eventually Typhoon) for work. Yes, really good at CAS (not only CAS, obviously), but GR4 seemed to cope with that and can do a lot more. Choice between the two fleets, it was pretty much bound to happen. Sad, but true.
Body armour and helmet on, awaiting incoming...
If a large power decided they needed a convenient small staging post with lots of fertile land on the way to mythical mineral reserves near Antarctica, then NZ would be looking very nervous.
There appears to be a bit of a misconception about "capital ships" and "self-licking lollipops".
Air defence, wherever it is based, is an enabler and RAF types tend to get a little dismissive of Air defence in the RN because before JFH the carriers were seen as very much a self licking lollipop (what is the carrier for - to carry harriers; what are the harriers for - to protect the carrier). Whilst this is a massive simplification there is a large element of truth to it - the RN really had no way of projecting power at range.
The statement above illustrates the problem. LPH/LPD/LSD, MCMV, all sorts of different vessels are part of a Naval force that may be mission essential units, either delivering troops ashore or providing other enabling effects. The FAA f/w force was about defending that whole and allowing it to do its mission, rather than just defending the CVS. Doing AD doesn't necessarily mean having X cabs tied to that mission for the duration either. Just as Typhoon did on Ellamy, you can go from AD to strike and back depending on the phase of the operations and the tempo. It's another reason why very good multi-role platforms (eg F14, F18 and yes, SHAR) tend to be preferred at sea.
Air defence, wherever it is based, is an enabler and RAF types tend to get a little dismissive of Air defence in the RN because before JFH the carriers were seen as very much a self licking lollipop (what is the carrier for - to carry harriers; what are the harriers for - to protect the carrier). Whilst this is a massive simplification there is a large element of truth to it - the RN really had no way of projecting power at range.
The statement above illustrates the problem. LPH/LPD/LSD, MCMV, all sorts of different vessels are part of a Naval force that may be mission essential units, either delivering troops ashore or providing other enabling effects. The FAA f/w force was about defending that whole and allowing it to do its mission, rather than just defending the CVS. Doing AD doesn't necessarily mean having X cabs tied to that mission for the duration either. Just as Typhoon did on Ellamy, you can go from AD to strike and back depending on the phase of the operations and the tempo. It's another reason why very good multi-role platforms (eg F14, F18 and yes, SHAR) tend to be preferred at sea.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point, well made, Not_a_Boffin, they are not self-linking lollipops. I think I refered to "Defence of the Fleet" and, yes, swing/multi-role is the way forward. I was talking about where we were (past tense) and the decission the axe Harrier - the thread. I'm pleased you put the record straight on the naval force and multiple missions.
Tourist and Courtney. Fair cop. What I should have said was no capital ship that can carry fixed wing. Why didn't I just say aircraft carrier? Good luck to Lusty as a helicopter and commando carrier.
Tourist and Courtney. Fair cop. What I should have said was no capital ship that can carry fixed wing. Why didn't I just say aircraft carrier? Good luck to Lusty as a helicopter and commando carrier.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Badly written story from the Daily Mail.
Aircraft carrier not expected to be operational until 2030 | Mail Online
Aircraft carrier not expected to be operational until 2030 | Mail Online
Yes, it was badly written, and shows great ignorance (particularly regarding technological issues) on the part of both journalists and politicians.
Given that SDSR was going to leave Harrier and Carrier Strike intact until changes were made at the last minute (sources here and here), I wonder what part these misunderstandings played in the decisions that were made. Was it argued that since Harrier GR9 is a ground attack aircraft then Tornado could do the same job, and that the secondary (limited) air defence role would no longer be needed as it was solely to protect the CVS - which would not be needed if we had no Harriers to deploy?
I remember very similar arguments in the discussion over the retirement of the Sea Harrier, but do they actually have any factual basis? Not from what I can see. Again, regarding the skills issue were people who had done Harrier GR7/9 embarkations listened to more than those (including both 1SL and CINCFLEET) who have commanded carriers?
Getting second best is better than getting nothing.
Lusty CAN still carry and operate Harriers.
Going back to one of my own points, what will we do if we find ourselves in a crisis where we do need carrier borne fixed wing aircraft? Perhaps if we need to hit targets ashore we can use Apache (with range and weaponry limitations compared to a jet), or Tomahawk (until SSN numbers decline later this decade).
But what about the need to provide air cover to something like a mine countermeasures force in the Arabian Sea? How do you deal with shadowing aircraft if you have no manned aircraft of your own? You cannot intercept with Lynx or Merlin from a frigate or destroyer. You cannot visually identify at long range from a ship. ROE are likely to restrict the use of Sea Viper or Sea Wolf at maximum range. Think of Sea Harriers intercepting Argentine reece aircraft in 1982 as the task force steamed South, the incident when the task force nearly engaged a Brazilian airliner (See One Hundred Days by Admiral Woodward), or the encounters between USN F14s and Iranian P3 and C130 aircraft during the tanker war.
The tacit assumption of no crises this decade has already proven to be wrong. Is there a fall back plan?
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
There appears to be a bit of a misconception about "capital ships" and "self-licking lollipops".
Air defence, wherever it is based, is an enabler and RAF types tend to get a little dismissive of Air defence in the RN because before JFH the carriers were seen as very much a self licking lollipop (what is the carrier for - to carry harriers; what are the harriers for - to protect the carrier). Whilst this is a massive simplification there is a large element of truth to it - the RN really had no way of projecting power at range.
The statement above illustrates the problem. LPH/LPD/LSD, MCMV, all sorts of different vessels are part of a Naval force that may be mission essential units, either delivering troops ashore or providing other enabling effects. The FAA f/w force was about defending that whole and allowing it to do its mission, rather than just defending the CVS. Doing AD doesn't necessarily mean having X cabs tied to that mission for the duration either. Just as Typhoon did on Ellamy, you can go from AD to strike and back depending on the phase of the operations and the tempo. It's another reason why very good multi-role platforms (eg F14, F18 and yes, SHAR) tend to be preferred at sea.
Air defence, wherever it is based, is an enabler and RAF types tend to get a little dismissive of Air defence in the RN because before JFH the carriers were seen as very much a self licking lollipop (what is the carrier for - to carry harriers; what are the harriers for - to protect the carrier). Whilst this is a massive simplification there is a large element of truth to it - the RN really had no way of projecting power at range.
The statement above illustrates the problem. LPH/LPD/LSD, MCMV, all sorts of different vessels are part of a Naval force that may be mission essential units, either delivering troops ashore or providing other enabling effects. The FAA f/w force was about defending that whole and allowing it to do its mission, rather than just defending the CVS. Doing AD doesn't necessarily mean having X cabs tied to that mission for the duration either. Just as Typhoon did on Ellamy, you can go from AD to strike and back depending on the phase of the operations and the tempo. It's another reason why very good multi-role platforms (eg F14, F18 and yes, SHAR) tend to be preferred at sea.
I remember very similar arguments in the discussion over the retirement of the Sea Harrier, but do they actually have any factual basis? Not from what I can see. Again, regarding the skills issue were people who had done Harrier GR7/9 embarkations listened to more than those (including both 1SL and CINCFLEET) who have commanded carriers?
Originally Posted by Nach Two
But as WEBF said earlier, better than nothing. Thinks: why do I keep hearing that phrase? Almost like we keep getting second-best!
Originally Posted by Mach Two
Tourist and Courtney. Fair cop. What I should have said was no capital ship that can carry fixed wing. Why didn't I just say aircraft carrier? Good luck to Lusty as a helicopter and commando carrier.
Going back to one of my own points, what will we do if we find ourselves in a crisis where we do need carrier borne fixed wing aircraft? Perhaps if we need to hit targets ashore we can use Apache (with range and weaponry limitations compared to a jet), or Tomahawk (until SSN numbers decline later this decade).
But what about the need to provide air cover to something like a mine countermeasures force in the Arabian Sea? How do you deal with shadowing aircraft if you have no manned aircraft of your own? You cannot intercept with Lynx or Merlin from a frigate or destroyer. You cannot visually identify at long range from a ship. ROE are likely to restrict the use of Sea Viper or Sea Wolf at maximum range. Think of Sea Harriers intercepting Argentine reece aircraft in 1982 as the task force steamed South, the incident when the task force nearly engaged a Brazilian airliner (See One Hundred Days by Admiral Woodward), or the encounters between USN F14s and Iranian P3 and C130 aircraft during the tanker war.
The tacit assumption of no crises this decade has already proven to be wrong. Is there a fall back plan?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lusty CAN still carry and operate Harriers.
Today this vessel is now anchored closer inshore and every other hour there has been two helicopters arrive, they land on the deck and then after a rest break they take off and head inland.
How sad though to see the crest of the Amphibious Warfare Squadron on her mainmast. Perhaps the 'R06 should be changed to L06!! (tongue in cheek)
My thoughts are whoever is responsible for this HUGE cluster mishap should hang their head in shame.
The Harriers have gone.
The F-35B has gone and what odds that we will not have an operational carrier until the very late 2020's.
This whole debacle is nothing short of humiliating. We have the Illustrious that has NO fixed wing aircraft. The carrier now being built will NEVER launch aircraft unless....... After rusting away for a few years, she MIGHT go into dry dock and then spend a number of years getting RIPPED apart to install the working parts of the cats and wires plus all the extra equipment required to land conventional fast fixed wing jets..
Will this ever happen or will that ship be forever known as HMS White Elephant!!
The ex aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious as seen from my window (via a HUGE telephoto lens)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF - you really do deserve an award for keeping this topic going far longer than would otherwise be the case and, like many others I suspect, I've had enough!
Some of your "arguments" are so fundamentally flawed and show a complete lack of knowledge not just of the art of the possible, but of the very subject matter that you profess to care so much about.
UK Harrier ops are history, therefore so is a carrier based strike capability. IMO it's gone for good, as our previous on resurrecting "lapsed" platforms/capabilities is not great is it? And, in case you've forgotten, we're broke and likely to remain so for about the next 10 years (at least).
Now let me think, in ~2015 what big ticket "lapsed", but due to be re-introduced, capability is a dead cert for being quietly dropped? Yep, you got it, the Carriers
And no, for the record, I don't agree with the decision to retire Harrier BUT NEITHER DO I AGREE with the decisions to scrap Nimrod, reduce GR4 FE&R, bin tranche 3b typhoon, prematurely retire C130J, cut the order for A400M, "privatise" AAR/AT, dispose of Leuchars, Lyneham, etc, etc.....
And this is the point you don't get WEBF, IF we'd kept JFH then something else would have had to go in it's place (it's all about immediate and near term cash savings remember), so what would you have sacrificed, more subs, frigates, GR4 in it's entirety? There's no easy answer and nothing you've said in the last XX pages has convinced me otherwise.
Sorry!
Some of your "arguments" are so fundamentally flawed and show a complete lack of knowledge not just of the art of the possible, but of the very subject matter that you profess to care so much about.
UK Harrier ops are history, therefore so is a carrier based strike capability. IMO it's gone for good, as our previous on resurrecting "lapsed" platforms/capabilities is not great is it? And, in case you've forgotten, we're broke and likely to remain so for about the next 10 years (at least).
Now let me think, in ~2015 what big ticket "lapsed", but due to be re-introduced, capability is a dead cert for being quietly dropped? Yep, you got it, the Carriers
And no, for the record, I don't agree with the decision to retire Harrier BUT NEITHER DO I AGREE with the decisions to scrap Nimrod, reduce GR4 FE&R, bin tranche 3b typhoon, prematurely retire C130J, cut the order for A400M, "privatise" AAR/AT, dispose of Leuchars, Lyneham, etc, etc.....
And this is the point you don't get WEBF, IF we'd kept JFH then something else would have had to go in it's place (it's all about immediate and near term cash savings remember), so what would you have sacrificed, more subs, frigates, GR4 in it's entirety? There's no easy answer and nothing you've said in the last XX pages has convinced me otherwise.
Sorry!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by andrewn
And, in case you've forgotten, we're broke and likely to remain so for about the next 10 years (at least).
Are we a nation that wants to take part in World Affairs. A nation that wants to PROJECT POWER!!
If the answer is yes then we MUST have aircraft carriers and yes I accept I will get criticised for saying it but the air support we offered over Libya left a lot to be desired.
Having a few aircraft operating out of a foreign airbase several hundred miles from the operational target with all the aircrew and support staff living in hotels and then have convoys travelling thousands of miles overland is not good enough..
Then seeing defective aircraft getting diverted to a neutral country is not the best of images. Sorry folks but it is not good enough, respect to the aircrews that flew the missions, respect to those that supported these missions but having a carrier maybe just 30 to 40 miles away from your target was surely the better option. I accept we had no carrier on scene but we did have the ability?
Yes a thousand times yes I have heard the argument about if the carrier is a thousand miles away or even two thousand. That may well happen but most conflicts do not instantly appear.. They are the subject of many months of UN debate and during that time our task group would proceed with full despatch to the relevant area. Plus I would like to assume the operational carrier would hopefully be operating in an area which would be quite close to any areas that may be considered 'unstable'
Scrapping the Harriers was bonkers but it is a done deal... They are gone, they have been sold and it is over but that decision was plain WRONG.
Was it a Third World Country that bought our Harriers? Selling them for just £1.6m each or was it the World's only Super Power? If they are good enough for that nation then maybe they might have been good enough for us?
What is the cost of the latest Royal Navy Merlin helicopter and would I be exaggerating if I put the cost at in excess of £15m each?
We had the Harriers but sell them off at a bargain basement price and then equip the aircraft carrier with helicopters which might cost several times the amount we received for those aircraft.
makes sense to me
I totally agree that we appear to lack the funds to put these carriers into commission but if we are to be a nation that wants to be a World player then we need the equipment.
We either put up or get off the stage and just concentrate on protecting the estuaries of our once proud nation which I will always call GREAT Britain
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glojo
We either put up or get off the stage and just concentrate on protecting the estuaries of our once proud nation which I will always call GREAT Britain
We either put up or get off the stage and just concentrate on protecting the estuaries of our once proud nation which I will always call GREAT Britain
Unless of course, we rediscover our manufacturing industry and design ingenuity, decimate the welfare state and make all who are capable of performing work actually work and contribute and start to generate real, rather than paper money.
I am not holding my breath.
The Harriers have gone.
The F-35B has gone and what odds that we will not have an operational carrier until the very late 2020's.
Do bear in mind that F35C is actually an improvement on F35B in capability and risk terms and that there was no possibility of F35B ever operating off a CVS. Much of what the PAC report (and the associated media pick-ups) contained was inaccurate / or based on various assumptions on what constitutes full capability.
The F-35B has gone and what odds that we will not have an operational carrier until the very late 2020's.
Do bear in mind that F35C is actually an improvement on F35B in capability and risk terms and that there was no possibility of F35B ever operating off a CVS. Much of what the PAC report (and the associated media pick-ups) contained was inaccurate / or based on various assumptions on what constitutes full capability.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Not A Boffin,
TOTALLY agree with every word you say and to me it was such a CRAZY decision to even think about the F-35B and STOVL carriers.
May I respectfully ask if you believe we will see an operational carrier before the commencement of the next decade?
And if I am on a role with these questions do you think we will we pay for all the research plus conversion work on the 'C' to make it tanker capable, or will we purchase some Hornets for that role? Would purchasing just a few Hornets be cost effective in so far as it is another aircraft type?
What about AWAC|AEW? I am still not convinced our rotor wing option is the best aircraft for the job.
Apologies to one and all for going off topic but can we all now please accept the Harrier is just another chapter in our excellent aviation history?
TOTALLY agree with every word you say and to me it was such a CRAZY decision to even think about the F-35B and STOVL carriers.
May I respectfully ask if you believe we will see an operational carrier before the commencement of the next decade?
And if I am on a role with these questions do you think we will we pay for all the research plus conversion work on the 'C' to make it tanker capable, or will we purchase some Hornets for that role? Would purchasing just a few Hornets be cost effective in so far as it is another aircraft type?
What about AWAC|AEW? I am still not convinced our rotor wing option is the best aircraft for the job.
Apologies to one and all for going off topic but can we all now please accept the Harrier is just another chapter in our excellent aviation history?
Having seen the way QEC is coming together at Rosyth (and elsewhere), I think the ship will be operational as a helo carrier at the back end of the decade. If PoW is to be EMALS fitted in build (and why wouldn't you do it that way?), then I think she will be an operational ship very early in the 20s.
The unfathomable is the CAG. The definition of "operational" for the CAG will actually depend on what specific number of FE@R trained for deck ops has been specified as Full Operational Capability and more importantly, what level of funding is provided to generate the spares and training - buying the actual aircraft is obviously important, but only a part of the picture. The Apache suffered appalling press as it was being introduced, largely because the training and logs provision had been underfunded early in the programme and it was too late to correct the capacity problem. Hence stories about being unable to use the cabs and the whole programme being a disaster - I doubt anyone would use those words now. However, you would hope the lessons had been learned.
As for tankers, I'd go nowhere near F18. My personal preference would be to regenerate the low-time S3B that are sitting in AMARC in Arizona - a reverse of the Harrier sale if you like. The aircraft was configured as a tanker (both dedicated and buddy variants), could do reasonable ASW/MPA (although not with the full capability of a Nimrod), had a fantastic ISAR pod for a role not dissimilar to ASaC7 (though not AEW). A fleet of 20-25 (there are currently 60-plus frames there of S3B alone) and with a little creativity, you could have a core force able to do some (not all) of the LRMPA role, nav/observer training, CV-based tanking, CV-COD and CV-ASuW as well as some elint/intel capability.
The down side is that they will require funding against all the DLOD and more than likely a complete avionics refresh (nineties electronics and the 21st century are unhappy bedfellows) and experience with that is mostly bad (Chinook Mk3, SH2G etc). That said, they are available, should be cheap and with no CV-based "support" aircraft in production anywhere are the only option. The trick is to make sure that the capability / funding balance works.
The unfathomable is the CAG. The definition of "operational" for the CAG will actually depend on what specific number of FE@R trained for deck ops has been specified as Full Operational Capability and more importantly, what level of funding is provided to generate the spares and training - buying the actual aircraft is obviously important, but only a part of the picture. The Apache suffered appalling press as it was being introduced, largely because the training and logs provision had been underfunded early in the programme and it was too late to correct the capacity problem. Hence stories about being unable to use the cabs and the whole programme being a disaster - I doubt anyone would use those words now. However, you would hope the lessons had been learned.
As for tankers, I'd go nowhere near F18. My personal preference would be to regenerate the low-time S3B that are sitting in AMARC in Arizona - a reverse of the Harrier sale if you like. The aircraft was configured as a tanker (both dedicated and buddy variants), could do reasonable ASW/MPA (although not with the full capability of a Nimrod), had a fantastic ISAR pod for a role not dissimilar to ASaC7 (though not AEW). A fleet of 20-25 (there are currently 60-plus frames there of S3B alone) and with a little creativity, you could have a core force able to do some (not all) of the LRMPA role, nav/observer training, CV-based tanking, CV-COD and CV-ASuW as well as some elint/intel capability.
The down side is that they will require funding against all the DLOD and more than likely a complete avionics refresh (nineties electronics and the 21st century are unhappy bedfellows) and experience with that is mostly bad (Chinook Mk3, SH2G etc). That said, they are available, should be cheap and with no CV-based "support" aircraft in production anywhere are the only option. The trick is to make sure that the capability / funding balance works.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you very much indeed for the excellent response and I had not thought of the S3B. It clearly ticks quite a few if not ALL the right boxes.
Has there been any official discussions regarding the type of support aircraft our carriers will have or is this something that will not be decided until the last minute!!
I have read the USA would not be modifying the 'C' for tanker work and if we need it, we pay all the development costs?
Has there been any official discussions regarding the type of support aircraft our carriers will have or is this something that will not be decided until the last minute!!
I have read the USA would not be modifying the 'C' for tanker work and if we need it, we pay all the development costs?
I have no idea what discussions (if any) have taken place regarding "support" aircraft. The MASC project as was appeared mired in apathy with a default assumption of using surplus Merlin HM1 to provide the ASaC capability. LM have recently shown a "modular" mission systems fit aimed at that requirement.
No idea re F35 buddy stores (or more precisley wet wing hardpoints). Daft way to use a $150M strikefighter if you ask me. The only reason the USN do it is because their O&M budget has been continually cut, forcing them to retire anything that wasn't a strikefighter, as of course there is NO submarine or surface threat to shipping.
No idea re F35 buddy stores (or more precisley wet wing hardpoints). Daft way to use a $150M strikefighter if you ask me. The only reason the USN do it is because their O&M budget has been continually cut, forcing them to retire anything that wasn't a strikefighter, as of course there is NO submarine or surface threat to shipping.
NaB - Right, the old Gray Wolf - with a Norden APG-76 Ku-band radar that even in those distant days could do SAR and GMTI at the same time, without any of that fancy AESA stuff.
Get rid of MASC, get rid of our E3s, which are in need of major upgrade, and buy new E2s. That way you have a new AWACS capability with none of the limitations that come with RW and interoperability with the US and French. All we need now is the money - easy really!!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read a suggestion in an online paper a few months back that suggested reactivating some S-2 Trackers would be a lower risk and cheaper option than using the S-3
And that despite the need to re-engine with turboprops
And that despite the need to re-engine with turboprops