Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Just noticed this on the RN website: HMS Ark Royal Series to be Shown on Discovery Channel
I wonder if it will show all the different parts of ship involved in flying operations?
Wrathmonk
FB11 sums up my point about HNS. As regards your example of using bases in Kenya - it looks like a long way from Kenya to Yemen, perhaps not so much of an issue for a transport, tanker or ISTAR type, but a long way for Tornado or Typhoon, with issues of overflight, tanker support, and security and logistics issues.
Why do you suggest a carrier is worthless as we could only deploy six to eight jets, when a land based one would consist of the same number of aircraft?
Incidentally, our involvement with Libya may well have started, with HMS Cumberland being sent to the Libyan coast en route to the SDSR scrapyard.
I expect the meeting of the Defence Management Board will be..........interesting.
I wonder if it will show all the different parts of ship involved in flying operations?
Wrathmonk
FB11 sums up my point about HNS. As regards your example of using bases in Kenya - it looks like a long way from Kenya to Yemen, perhaps not so much of an issue for a transport, tanker or ISTAR type, but a long way for Tornado or Typhoon, with issues of overflight, tanker support, and security and logistics issues.
Why do you suggest a carrier is worthless as we could only deploy six to eight jets, when a land based one would consist of the same number of aircraft?
Incidentally, our involvement with Libya may well have started, with HMS Cumberland being sent to the Libyan coast en route to the SDSR scrapyard.
I expect the meeting of the Defence Management Board will be..........interesting.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all for show, it gives politicians like Cameron and Hague a soap box, makes them look important when the reality is that no one in this country takes them serious, let alone some dictator that drives around in a battered van.
Cameron is a wet lipped buffoon who looks like he should be playing a trombone in a Lurpak advert, Hague is little boy lost, you can't even hear him let alone make sense of what he is on about. No British politician has any authority, I doubt they are even real people.
Cameron is a wet lipped buffoon who looks like he should be playing a trombone in a Lurpak advert, Hague is little boy lost, you can't even hear him let alone make sense of what he is on about. No British politician has any authority, I doubt they are even real people.
Ah yes, so many ways to answer this bitter tirade, but why bother.
Hold the gas axes from the harriers, we might need them off Libyia. Oh shoot, we've nothing to fly them off. Once again the Blundering Buereau crackpots cannot see past their rose tinted glasses and accountants.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF, you may have left a few friendly countries off your list for Yemen, a simple check of the old school atlas shows that Saudi Arabia and Oman aren't very far away, and they would be very interetsted in containmennt of their neighbour I think.
As for sailing the fleet to save Libya I think we may have a slightly over inflated view of the power of the coctail party. Of course it may have helped if we hadn't been courting Gadaffi for all these years just to get some oil contracts secured.
The bottom line is that we can't substitute military might for failings in good old fashioned diplomacy. We have forgotten how to do that bit so much that may explain the desire to collapse the military. No dog, no fight.
As for sailing the fleet to save Libya I think we may have a slightly over inflated view of the power of the coctail party. Of course it may have helped if we hadn't been courting Gadaffi for all these years just to get some oil contracts secured.
The bottom line is that we can't substitute military might for failings in good old fashioned diplomacy. We have forgotten how to do that bit so much that may explain the desire to collapse the military. No dog, no fight.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF, you may have left a few friendly countries off your list for Yemen, a simple check of the old school atlas shows that Saudi Arabia and Oman aren't very far away, and they would be very interetsted in containmennt of their neighbour I think.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just, it was to Yemen not Libya in reply to a specific comment from WEBF. Problem is in the Middle East they are all going to rat s**t. For Libya as you say there is Cyprus, Malta; now that is more like an air war! Finally a desert with a beach!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt - my mistake sorry.
Wonder if Djibouti would be obliging in any way? - French military presence already in place and i know a Tristar and a few Italian GR4 have night stopped there a while back.... just a thought...
Wonder if Djibouti would be obliging in any way? - French military presence already in place and i know a Tristar and a few Italian GR4 have night stopped there a while back.... just a thought...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I wonder if some poor staff officer is now dusting off the Harrier RTS docs and wondering how quickly the "capability" could be re-instated?
And if not then why not? It'd be funny if it weren't so potentially serious
And if not then why not? It'd be funny if it weren't so potentially serious
andrewn
Why? With 6-8 jets, either land based or carrier based, we are only ever going to be part of a coalition. We could not achieve anything on our own. If a coalition of the "willing" is formed, and UK wish to participate, we will only be able to offer what we have right now. Which is not much. Why? Because we are broke after 10+ years of mismanagement, putting heads in the sand, procurement cock up after procurement cock up and, sadly, a military that makes do!
In some sad way there is probably a huge sigh of relief in some corridors in Whitehall that, because of the SDSR, we cannot get involved in any more open ended interventions.
Lets finish the current one (properly) before sticking our noses in more places we're not wanted.
Why? With 6-8 jets, either land based or carrier based, we are only ever going to be part of a coalition. We could not achieve anything on our own. If a coalition of the "willing" is formed, and UK wish to participate, we will only be able to offer what we have right now. Which is not much. Why? Because we are broke after 10+ years of mismanagement, putting heads in the sand, procurement cock up after procurement cock up and, sadly, a military that makes do!
In some sad way there is probably a huge sigh of relief in some corridors in Whitehall that, because of the SDSR, we cannot get involved in any more open ended interventions.
Lets finish the current one (properly) before sticking our noses in more places we're not wanted.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why? With 6-8 jets, either land based or carrier based, we are only ever going to be part of a coalition. We could not achieve anything on our own. If a coalition of the "willing" is formed, and UK wish to participate, we will only be able to offer what we have right now. Which is not much. Why? Because we are broke after 10+ years of mismanagement, putting heads in the sand, procurement cock up after procurement cock up and, sadly, a military that makes do!
In some sad way there is probably a huge sigh of relief in some corridors in Whitehall that, because of the SDSR, we cannot get involved in any more open ended interventions.
In some sad way there is probably a huge sigh of relief in some corridors in Whitehall that, because of the SDSR, we cannot get involved in any more open ended interventions.
I just find it difficult to comprehend how successive UK Governments can obliterate the Armed Forces in the way they have done in the last 20 years, yet still expect to be taken seriously as they strut their stuff with World leaders!
Maybe it's just me?
Not just you!
Spot on.
Hence my "why?". Dusting off the GR9s will make no difference - and to do so would send the wrong message to the government. We need much more than a sticking plaster to cover the cracks!
I just find it difficult to comprehend how successive UK Governments can obliterate the Armed Forces in the way they have done in the last 20 years, yet still expect to be taken seriously as they strut their stuff with World leaders!
Hence my "why?". Dusting off the GR9s will make no difference - and to do so would send the wrong message to the government. We need much more than a sticking plaster to cover the cracks!
From the Telegraph: Navy cuts will put lives at risk, warn Forces chiefs
The scrapping of the Royal Navy's Harrier fleet, in particular, has "profound consequences" that "strike at the heart of our Defence structure", they say.
The authors, who include Field Marshal Lord Bramall, the former head of the Armed Forces, as well as six retired admirals and three generals, say the move undermines the Navy's ability to protect the Army or Royal Marines on amphibious operations.
These can no longer be attempted against "even a lightly armed aggressor" without "considerable risk" to the safety of soldiers, they say.
The letter's authors include Lt Gen Sir Hew Pike, the decorated Parachute Regiment officer, Maj Gen Julian Thompson, the Falklands commander, Admiral Sir Jeremy Black, who commanded the aircraft carrier Invincible in the Falklands, and Prof Nicholas Rodger, an Oxford academic.
They recommend a "rapid re-evaluation" of last year's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), which they warn was "unduly trusting in an uncertain, fast-moving and dangerous world".
The scrapping of the Royal Navy's Harrier fleet, in particular, has "profound consequences" that "strike at the heart of our Defence structure", they say.
The authors, who include Field Marshal Lord Bramall, the former head of the Armed Forces, as well as six retired admirals and three generals, say the move undermines the Navy's ability to protect the Army or Royal Marines on amphibious operations.
These can no longer be attempted against "even a lightly armed aggressor" without "considerable risk" to the safety of soldiers, they say.
The letter's authors include Lt Gen Sir Hew Pike, the decorated Parachute Regiment officer, Maj Gen Julian Thompson, the Falklands commander, Admiral Sir Jeremy Black, who commanded the aircraft carrier Invincible in the Falklands, and Prof Nicholas Rodger, an Oxford academic.
They recommend a "rapid re-evaluation" of last year's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), which they warn was "unduly trusting in an uncertain, fast-moving and dangerous world".
Whilst I don't argue the overall thrust of their letter, yet again they use false arguments to try and persuade. 
What use is a carrier with GA jets but no AD? Bring back GR9 by all means, but without FA2 it will be too vulnerable and that would compromise tactical usage.
Harrier more advanced than GR4? Wrong! Could Harrier carry DMS Brimstone or RAPTOR (CAS is not the sole required role)? Could Harrier operate in ALL weather (ie low level too)? Did Harrier have the range/payload capability? 2 heads vs one in the cockpit. Could we afford to dump all those expensive weapons in the sea due to poor bringback capability?
Don't mean to turn this into GR9 vs GR4 again as it has been pretty much done to death, but if they got their arguments right in the first place, they wouldn't need to be corrected!
What use is a carrier with GA jets but no AD? Bring back GR9 by all means, but without FA2 it will be too vulnerable and that would compromise tactical usage.
Harrier more advanced than GR4? Wrong! Could Harrier carry DMS Brimstone or RAPTOR (CAS is not the sole required role)? Could Harrier operate in ALL weather (ie low level too)? Did Harrier have the range/payload capability? 2 heads vs one in the cockpit. Could we afford to dump all those expensive weapons in the sea due to poor bringback capability?
Don't mean to turn this into GR9 vs GR4 again as it has been pretty much done to death, but if they got their arguments right in the first place, they wouldn't need to be corrected!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Royal Navy lost AD when the SHAR was chopped. Nobody considered opposed landings a possibility without land based or US carrier AD cover hence the move to a common fleet of mud movers that has now been chopped for the reasons given in SDSR.
A flight deck close offshore might be useful if HMG thinks it essential to mount helo ops to rescue UK citizens. This will not happen unless HMG is confident the attempt will be unopposed. Albion/Bulwark could cope if needed but in the meantime we were lucky Cumberland was in the Med returning home from the Gulf prior to paying off
A flight deck close offshore might be useful if HMG thinks it essential to mount helo ops to rescue UK citizens. This will not happen unless HMG is confident the attempt will be unopposed. Albion/Bulwark could cope if needed but in the meantime we were lucky Cumberland was in the Med returning home from the Gulf prior to paying off
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil R
SDSR came up with the scenario within which to set out and justify spending for the period to 2020. As a consequence we have then chopped or reduced LRMPA, Harrier and carrier strike, frigate numbers and only retained enough Tornado and other assets needed for Afghanistan. No need to guess what could happen when they are not.
As Mrs T found out in 1982 real events tend to show up the dangers of cost driven scenarios. There is no doubt that something needed to be done to get the MOD under control but like in other Government bodies the front line rather than the tail seems to suffer
Meantime the FCO still acts like we are a major power on the Diplomatic front. Gaddafi off to Venezuela indeed
SDSR came up with the scenario within which to set out and justify spending for the period to 2020. As a consequence we have then chopped or reduced LRMPA, Harrier and carrier strike, frigate numbers and only retained enough Tornado and other assets needed for Afghanistan. No need to guess what could happen when they are not.
As Mrs T found out in 1982 real events tend to show up the dangers of cost driven scenarios. There is no doubt that something needed to be done to get the MOD under control but like in other Government bodies the front line rather than the tail seems to suffer
Meantime the FCO still acts like we are a major power on the Diplomatic front. Gaddafi off to Venezuela indeed
Whilst the lunacy of scrapping the superlative SHAR F/A2 left the Fleet with only an eyeball organic AD asset (for the first time since the Scimitar); GR9 on its own doesn't really carry the argument.
Whereas F-18E/F/G Sea Hornet air groups on the otherwise aircraftless carriers would make eminent sense.
Foxy needs to look at the history books for the year 1982.
Whereas F-18E/F/G Sea Hornet air groups on the otherwise aircraftless carriers would make eminent sense.
Foxy needs to look at the history books for the year 1982.
