Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".

[ORAC]

Notice the navy had a few problems with enemy bombers last time, in spite of their SAW defences. This time they wouldn't be operating at the limits of their range, would presumably have their fuzing sorted out, and would have a supply of newer generation Anti-ship missiles.

Want to risk any of the few remaining ships close enough inshore for artillery practice?

[Aim between the eyes]

ORAC,

Absolutely! As servants of HM, we will go and do whatever she asks of us via the idiots in Whitehall. Of course we have an opportunity to object (through our chain of command), but when the chips are all down we do as we are told.

I've always found your posts very informative but seriously mate, try not to be such a glass half empty person ALL the time.

Regards,

ABTE

[just another jocky]

As it's the Navy that needs to keep Harrier flying, shouldn't they take financial responsibility for it?

[draken55]

Doubt they could. In a jointy world, it's not for the Navy to tell the RAF what to do with it's aircraft.

Also, had the RAF wanted Nimrod, I doubt the Government would have agreed even if something else were offered in lieu. The programme was just to big a stick with which to hit the the previous Government the MOD and BAe! Even the leak of what Liam Fox thought about the loss of Nimrod could not persuade Osborne and Cameron to act otherwise.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Defence cuts are an enormous gamble, says Lord Boyce

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy has accused Lib Dem defence minister Nick Harvey of getting his facts wrong when he said the government would save more by scrapping Harriers than Tornados.

Mr Murphy called on the government to publish all the advice it received on the issue to end "confusion".

He said: "Serious people have raised serious concerns about the government's decision to scrap Harriers and all ministers have succeeded in doing is add to the confusion.

"It's now time to publish the MoD advice and full costs of terminating the Harrier fleet and suspend the decision until we have had a proper debate."

But in an interview earlier this week, Lib Dem minister Nick Harvey appeared to suggest that the government would save more by scrapping Tornados.

Jim Murphy has written to Mr Harvey, asking the minister: "Given the importance of this issue, will you publish all of the costings that led to this decision being taken?"

My thoughts:

1. The Service chiefs have to toe the party line. End of story.
2. Focussing on the Falklands is a huge error.
3. Who advised the Government that it would be possible to have a decade with no carrier flying, and then suddenly pick up the baton and carry on? Anyone fancy doing a FOI request to see if the views of experienced naval aviation experts were sought?

Here is a video of the debate.

I think one of the problems wih our system of Government is that new politicians take charge, who haven't been in office for over a decade, and then they start cutting straight away - not just in defence. Also I wonder why the document outlining future threats made no mention energy security (think Gulf of Aden, West Africa, and Arabian Gulf/Sea - and yes, Al Qaeda seeks to disrupt energy supplies, and Iran has threatened to do so)?

Oh - Just seen this from the Telegraph: Head of Navy made last minute plea to save Harriers from scrap-heap

In a tense meeting, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, told Mr Cameron that he "could not endorse as his military advice" the decision to axe the Harriers and considered it a "political, not military decision."

[ORAC]

I think the response from edmundbear in the comments to that Telegraph article covers it's errors and inadequacies.

The article is obviously a briefing from dark blue sources who are doing themselves no favours. The government cannot be seen to change their mind or they risk the entire SDSR outcome being questioned, all this and like briefings will do is infuriate the ministers and make the navy staff ever more mistrusted.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Chaps, Johnny G doesn't need to make all that significant effort to retake FI; with or without help from other South Americans. He simply needs to make a sufficiently robust argument that minerals extracted from the "disputed" Falklands sea area are Contraband. He can then legally harass as much of the support shipping and facilities as he wants.

I think we are becoming dangerously fixated on a CORPORATE re-run rather than a "cod war" one.

[glad rag]

I think the response from edmundbear in the comments to that Telegraph article covers it's errors and inadequacies.

Indeed, a very poorly written article.
However despite the above gentleman's balanced corrections and reply, with the finger being pointed squarely at the last PM, the partisan (telegraph inspired) sniping continues at the WRONG targets, AS USUAL.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I am still convinced that no thought has been given to maintaining the skills needed to run a carrier. The First Sea Lord has experience of commanding a CVS and therefore would have been concerned about skills loss. If nothing else, morale may be helped by hearing that our corner was fought.

[Wrathmonk]

The First Sea Lord has experience of commanding a CVS

That speaks volumes .... prepared to sell out the rest of the RN / FAA in order to save the carrier ... in much the same way that it could also be seen that the RAF hierachy seems hell bent on selling out some of its key capabilities to protect its FJ fleet

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Why does it speak volumes? The fact that he did command a CVS does suggest that he knows something about carrier operations (unlike the SDSR authors), but it wasn't his only command - he was originally a submariner, and has commanded two submarines (an SSK then a SSN) and a frigate.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Are you still bleating about your extensive naval experience having been booted out yourself? Give it a rest will you.

Edited to change preaching to bleating, which is more appropriate.

[Wrathmonk]

It speaks volumes, WEBF, because the RN are in the position they are in (pretty much carriers and Trident and seemingly not enough of everything else) because the RN grown ups have sacrificed all sorts of capability (starting with SHAR....) in order to have the 'prestige' of two big carriers. They have let personal sentimentality, and their vanity to maintain their legacy, cloud their judgement - all IMHO opinion of course. Not on my watch and all that.

Sadly they then try to blame everyone but themselves and fools believe them.

[Sunk at Narvik]

Given the lengthy gestation period of the QE's, the constant challenges, redesigns, changes in Minister etc etc I find it hard to believe that some folks still regard the ships as vanity projects.

Its taken twelve years to get from the SDR 98 decision to here. Either case for sensibly sized carriers is sound, or it isn't. If it wasn't they would have been cancelled years ago. I don't buy the blather put up by the Govt about them being to expensive to cancel..thats just a smokescreen..if there was no case for carriers in the UK's future Orbat, Cameron would have dinged them...yet only last night at the Guildhall he was emphasising that by 2020 we'd have a strike carrier in the armoury.

The real risk he's running is that nothing much will happen before 2020 that requires unilateral action by the UK.

[D O Guerrero]

Snagged - I couldn't disagree more with your last sentiment. What exactly is being watered down? What's actually happening is that the RN is having the legs cut from under it. What is left is a grossly asymmetric force which doesn't really know what its there for. SSBNs and CVF are left as huge vanity projects while the necessary assets to defend them at sea (and make the viable) are being pared to the bone. Utter madness - glad I'm out of it, but not glad to be relying on it for our security.
Edit- where's your post gone?!

[just another jocky]

I don't buy the blather put up by the Govt about them being to expensive to cancel

Whether you "buy it" or not is pretty irrelevant, fact is the contract cancellation fees would be more than the completion costs. The desire would appear to have been there to cancel them, but they wont because of the cost.

The Navy shot itself in the foot; they wanted too much and had not enough to pay for it. In an ideal world, we would have carriers and Harriers, but it isn't. We have to cut our cloth etc etc.

[Jig Peter]

Keeping Harriers

Keeping the Harriers going until the first carriers arrive might be a bit of a stretch, despite the good old British tradition of not retiring an aircraft type till it's done at least 50 years' service ...

[WE Branch Fanatic]

JP

Harrier OSD was meant to be 2018 - discussed here. Support contracts also went to BAE Systems and Rolls Royce. I wonder if these contracts have cancellation clauses or anything?

I don't know why these clauses are seen in such a negative light. If you buy an insurance policy and then cancel it, you have to pay a fee.

Vortex

Most of my comments are based on what I've learnt from others, including when I was briefly aboard a CVS about three years ago whilst she was doing fixed wing flying work ups. It was revealing how many parts of ship were involved in directly supporting flying operations. I remember that some senior FAA types were expressing concerns over skill fade/loss back then.

Anyway: New leak exposes MoD fury at defence cutbacks

Exclusive: David Cameron's defence review has demoralised the Armed Forces, strained relations with allies and ignored significant military advice, a leaked Ministry of Defence document has disclosed.

[glad rag]

Who cares what frenzy the telegraph is beating itself into

What is done is done.

All you can do is serve ( or get a f*****g life ) and catch the s****y end of the stick if it's your turn.

[just another jocky]

Far too many folk around here seem to believe what they read/hear in the press.