This morning, I saw the following article from
Navy News:
Life is breathed back in Lusty
The same
story is on the RN site. She still has her ski jump - I had a slight fear that our politicians would demand its removal. She can still embark Harriers, now what was it the First Sea Lord said (source -
Defense News)?
Giving evidence alongside the heads of the Army and Air Force on the impact of last year's defense review, Stanhope said that retaining HMS Ark Royal and its fleet of Harrier strike aircraft would have been his top priority if the government's strategic defense review and associated four-year defense spending plan could be revisited.
Later....
Withdrawing Ark Royal and the Harriers earlier this year was by far the most controversial element of the defense spending cuts. Stanhope later indicated he would not oppose resurrecting the Harrier force if possible and if money was made available to support the aircraft. Stanhope and Air Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, the chief of the Air Staff, were asked by a defense committee member whether returning the Harrier force to service had gone beyond the point of no return.
Dalton said it had. But Stanhope responded that while Dalton's statement was correct, he would "like to think that should a decision [be made to reassess the Harrier force, we could], look again. It all comes down to money."
Stanhope said the Royal Navy is faced with the task of regenerating the carrier force in the latter half of the decade as a new aircraft carrier and the F-35C fighter become available. Rebuilding an aircraft carrier force around 2019 could only be done with the assistance of allied carrier operators France and the U.S., he said. Such a program is now being developed, Stanhope said.
I also think we need to consider the basics that we risk losing. To quote myself:
I would suggest that basics are basics, regardless of whether the future is V/STOL or involves "Cats and traps". Will there be exchanges for lots of chockheads - moving live jets on deck 24 hours a day in all weather in rough sea states, the people who fuel, arm and work on aircraft on deck - amongst jet blast (and FOD issues) the OOW and bridge team - who have to put the ship in the right place, direction and speed for aircraft to take off or land, Ops Room personnel - who have to operate sensors/weapons and talk to aircraft, maintainers of this equipment, landing aids maintainers, the ME watchkeepers keeping a nice level deck and increasing speed when needed, ATC types, Fighter Controllers, senior Officers in the carrier (Cdr(Air), Lt Cdr(Flying), Captain, XO) - they need to know how to run things, senior Officers elsewhere (MOD, Navy Command, task group commanders) who need to know how aircraft are used as task group weapons, etc?
Out of interest, how many AV8Bs have the US got wrapped up in Arizona? Swap a greater number of GR9s for a smaller number of AV8Bs (I guess they might be more willing to lease/lend ones that didn't get the + conversion, ie without radar but that would still be better than the alternative) - as I suggsted somwhere on this thread)?
This evening, two news stories caught my eye. Firstly another volcano erupting in Iceland, with possible disruption to UK aviation. Are RAF sorties still being flown all the way from the UK to Libya? If so, this may be something of a problem.
More significantly, the UK is now opting to deploy
Ocean based Apaches to Libya, as
mentioned here by the
Telegraph, and on
this PPRuNe thread.
So
is this an admission that the Tornado GR4, for all its strengths, isn't quite as good for Close Air Support as Harrier would have been? Or is it an admission that in this case, even with friendly air bases being used, land based jets based 600 miles away are unable to respond quickly enough to deal with urgent (and fleeting) targets?
I have already mentioned the potential use of Hellfire or Maverick against maritime targets and Gaddafi's increasing willingness to attempt attacking NATO forces.