Now that is a
very interesting point Harley.
After reading the
Sun story back in April I couldn't resist having a little more correspondence with my MP/MinAF over the Harrier issue.
Basically I said that I was not surprised and realised that the RNR operated Harrier idea was a long shot, but noted that we could continue to embark USMC Harriers aboard
Illustrious/
Queen Elizabeth, which would not only help maintain the skills needed for the future (see above) but also strengthen our relationship with the US Marine Corps. I suggested that some or most of our redundant Harriers could be sent to the US (there was a rumour they were going Stateside anyway) for spares/training/attrition replacements in exchange a smaller number (twelve?) of AV8Bs - and an MOU in exchange for continued USMC embarkations. Apart from filling the gap in fixed wing carrier aviation, this would allow us to retain not only the skills aboard the carrier, it would enable to RN to retain a cadre of both Pilots and Air Engineers - instead of having to start almost from scratch on a few years time. See also this
earlier post.
I finished by noting the Telegraph story about the
Charles De Gaulle being moved closer to the Libyan shore, and noted the high sortie rates achieved not only by the
Charles De Gaulle but also by AV8Bs from the USS
Kearsarge. I noted that Charles De Gaulle will have to leave the theatre sometime, perhaps a post refit
Lusty (with Harriers) could relieve her?
Got a reply on Thursday, though it was dated the end of May. Basically the party line again. The letter said that we need to work with allies to regenerate the skills needed in the future, including working closely with allies, particularly the US and France. HMS
Illustrious is coming out of refit in an amphibious role, and that the Harrier pilots and other personnel needed to support carrier operations have been re-employed, including postings to the US or France. No comment was made about the stored Harriers - due to potential buyers(??), but Libya was mentioned, as basing and overflight tights were expected. It was stressed that it was down to money.
With respect to the ongoing Libyan operations, I see that the Minehunter HMS
Bangor has been
sent to the Mediterranean, at the request of NATO, to replace HMS
Brocklesby. Does this mean that NATO expects to be in it for the long haul? If so, it raises some questions:
1. The First Sea Lord said that the commitment of a frigate/destroyer and a MCMV would cause problems with other commitments if it became a long term thing.
2. Many of the arguments against a CVS with Harriers have focussed on the cost of the task group, yet we do seem to
have a task group in the Gulf of Sirte, and the RAF participation is not without cost - discussed
here and
here.
3.
Charles De Gaulle cannot stay on station forever. However, about a quarter of NATO sorties have been flown from her (noted
here) - how will she be relieved?
4. If operations continue so long that
Ocean is relieved by
Illustrious, could Harriers (US perhaps?) embark on her? If only we had our own..
5. I believe the number of Apaches that were marinised was low, so does that mean that the Apache can only be committed to ship based operations for limited periods?
One last thing. Very basic
Queueing theory shows what should be obvious - the a fast food restaurant can serve the same number of eating in customers as a conventional one. Likewise other situations where there is a time delay in achieving an objective and being able to achieve another. Applied to aircraft - the ones nearer the target have shorter transit time, and hence higher sortie rates. For Italy based jets to be able to respond as fast as carrier based ones would mean travelling at about Mach 5! This ignores the need for tanking and other support.
Of course, this sort of logical analysis is different to the last minute political interference that took place just before SDSR was announced.