Once again it is necessary to re-visit the concerns that are shared by the opposition Defence secretary and the admiralty regarding the inability of the RN to mount deep sea ops after the SHar is removed from service in 2006. The following is a quote from the Daily Telegraph:
Cuts 'rip heart out of defence strategy'
By David Graves
(Filed: 08/05/2002)
THE Royal Navy will be left unprotected and one of its three aircraft carriers will be mothballed as a direct result of a government decision that "rips the heart out" of Britain's defence strategy, the Tories will warn today.
Bernard Jenkin, the shadow defence secretary, will accuse the Treasury of putting "intolerable pressure" on the defence budget, leaving Britain without the capability to mount a war-time expedition to match the Falklands taskforce.
He will use a Commons debate to highlight the scrapping of the Navy's Sea Harrier fighter aircraft, which he will blame on a £1 billion cut in defence spending since Labour came to power in the 1997 election.
The loss of the Sea Harriers from 2006 will mean that for the next decade any Royal Navy expedition will have to enlist the help of an American aircraft carrier to provide the planes needed to protect the fleet, he will claim.
Mr Jenkin will point to the decision to withdraw Invincible, one of the Royal Navy's three aircraft carriers, from service in 2006 as evidence that the decommissioning of the Sea Harriers has a far-ranging impact on the Navy.
Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, announced in February that the Sea Harrier FA2 would be withdrawn from service by 2006, instead of 2012, when the new Joint Strike Aircraft being developed with the United States are due to be introduced. This will leave the fleet without air cover for six years.
"It is simply unbelievable that in the middle of the war against terror the Government continues to cut our frontline forces," Mr Jenkin will tell MPs. "Moreover, this shows how the Government's 1998 Strategic Defence Review is unravelling because of lack of money.
"This decision rips the heart out of the Joint Task Force capability, which was central to the Government's defence policy."
The MoD expects to save what Mr Jenkin described as a "mere" £109 million. But senior Royal Navy officers privately admit that because of the decision the Navy will be unable to send a taskforce to war for at least six years unless it is accompanied by an American aircraft carrier to mount air defence of the fleet.
They conceded that if Argentina reinvaded the Falkland Islands, as it did 20 years ago, between 2006 and 2012, Britain would be unable to recapture them without support from Washington.
The Government's defence policy states that its prime commitment is to provide forces to defend the UK and "overseas territories, our people and interests".
Underfunding of the defence budget - now £23.5 billion - at a time when all three armed services are undermanned, is causing acute concern to senior officers. Lord Guthrie, who stood down as Chief of the Defence Staff, accepted last December that the defence programme "was underfunded".
Admiral Sir Nigel Essenhigh, the First Sea Lord, is retiring three months early amid widespread speculation that he is unhappy about the funding issue after accepting the decision to axe the Sea Harriers.
Warships regularly put out to sea without their full crew complement; another frigate, HMS Sheffield, was effectively decommissioned last month; and the attack submarine fleet will shrink from 12 to 10 over the next couple of years, according to the Conservative Research Department.
Although ministers at the MoD declined to discuss the Sea Harrier issue, Mr Blair insisted during Prime Minister's Questions on April 10 that the decision would not affect Britain's defence capacity.
He maintained that Labour had delivered the first defence budget increase in real terms after many years of cuts under the Conservatives.
Unquote
The arguement is really very simple. There can be no good reason to deprive the RN of its operational capabities and obligations by getting rid of the SHar. Furthermore I have yet to see one creditable reason as to why they should go ie a better replacement for example. Objections to the SHar followed by assertions that the Jaguar is a better aircraft are simply ludicrous and not worthy of any plausible, considered arguement.
Here is some more. If you felt yourselves yawning after the last post Wake Up. This is serious
(I think many of you need reminding)
Quote from the Daily Telegraph:
Sea Harrier's demise puts Britain's fleet in peril for six years
(Filed: 08/05/2002)
BRITAIN loses taskforce capability, writes David Graves
AS with many Government announcements, it was not immediately clear that it contained a significant change in defence policy. On Feb 28, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, made a seemingly innocuous statement about the future of the Joint Force Harrier operated by the Royal Navy and RAF. His bombshell was carefully concealed.
Masked within the statement about upgrading all the Harriers in the force was the announcement that all the Navy's Sea Harrier FA2s would be withdrawn from service by 2006.
Not only had the Secretary of State announced the scrapping of Britain's best all-weather fighter, but he had also disclosed that for at least six years from 2006, until the planned Anglo-American Joint Strike Fighter was introduced, Britain could not unilaterally deploy a naval taskforce because it would have inadequate air defence.
If the Government wanted to go to war, a taskforce would have to be accompanied by an American aircraft carrier to provide fixed-wing air defence. If Washington vetoed the operation, there would be little, if anything, the Navy could do. (So the US get to dictate UK Foreign policy, my words)
The potential ramifications were so serious that several admirals, including Adml Sir Sandy Woodward, who commanded the Falklands taskforce, and Sea Harrier pilots mounted a campaign to change the Government's mind. They reasoned that ministers must have been kept in the dark by MoD officials before agreeing to such a radical "own goal".
At present, a combination of Sea Harriers and RAF GR7 and GR9 Harriers are deployed on the Navy's three aircraft carriers. The Sea Harriers provide air defence to the fleet, while the RAF Harriers are ground attack aircraft. When the Sea Harriers are withdrawn from service, the RAF Harriers will be unable to fill the void caused by the demise of the Sea Harriers.
The Sea Harrier FA2, introduced in 1993, is highly regarded by the United States Air Force as the "small aircraft with the big radar" and regularly beats the RAF's frontline fighter, the Tornado F3, in mock "dog fights".
It has sophisticated air-to-air radar able to track more than 20 targets simultaneously and a proven beyond visual range advanced medium range missile system, able to engage four targets simultaneously more than 30 miles away.
The RAF Harriers do not have the Sea Harriers' radar or missile system and have a very limited air defence capability using Sidewinder missiles, which can be used only at short range and in daylight. It has no ability to defend itself against enemy fighters armed with beyond visual range radar or medium range air-to-air missiles and needs to be escorted by friendly fighters.
At present, the Navy's outer layer of air defence is provided by Sea Harriers. They patrol about 100 nautical miles from the centre of the taskforce. Using their powerful radar, they can detect and intercept enemy aircraft over land and sea more than 70 nautical miles away.
The middle layer of air defence is provided by ageing Type 42 destroyers armed with the outdated Sea Dart missile system, which is no longer deemed capable of reliably engaging and destroying modern air-to-surface missile systems.
The Type 42's diameter of detection is limited to 40 nautical miles. Therefore, six destroyers would be needed fully to cover a 180° threat sector; or 12 if facing an all round threat.
The last layer of detection is provided by Sea King helicopter early warning aircraft, which normally operate not far from the centre of the fleet with a detection capability of about 40 nautical miles. Last ditch defence is provided by point defence missile and gun systems, such as Sea Wolf and Goalkeeper and decoy systems. However, it is more than likely that even if a sea skimming missile is hit, it will still strike the target ship.
Without the Sea Harriers from 2006, a taskforce would have no ability to deter, detect and intercept an enemy aircraft or missile. The Type 42 destroyers, designed in the Sixties, are also due to be withdrawn but, if still in service, Sea Dart would be largely dysfunctional. Their replacement, the Type 45 with its state-of-the-art PAAMS weapons system, has had problems of its own and will not be available in sufficient numbers until after 2010.
The effectiveness of the Type 45's weapons systems have yet to be definitively established during trials. Although the first Type 45 is due to enter service in 2007, there is scepticism that it will not be ready for full active service before the end of 2008. Only three Type 45s, which will still be restricted to a 20 nautical mile radar horizon, are expected to be in service by 2010.
The sombre reality is that, after the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier, the "last ditch" layer of air detection and defence, the early warning helicopter and weapons systems, would be easily saturated and overcome by enemy aircraft delivering air-to-surface missiles, Smart weapons and even iron bombs. That is the legacy the Government has left Britain's Armed Forces, whose achievements are often lauded by Tony Blair.
So to all of you at Blackpool DO NOT ALLOW THE SEA HARRIER TO BE REMOVED FROM SERVICE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A REPLACEMENT IS AVAILABLE
FEBA
Last edited by FEBA; 8th Oct 2003 at 00:51.