Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".

[WE Branch Fanatic]

downsizer/The B Word/Neartheend

No need to gloat. Are they all being broken up? I thought the Americans were buying them as a spares source?

Neartheend

If the rumours are true, then Dr Fox and possibly other MOD Ministers are at least sympathetic. The First Sea Lord told the Commons' Defence Committee that the aspect of the SDSR that he would want to change more than anything else was the Harrier decision, both in terms of ongoing operations, other crises which may happen this decade, and in terms of losing a capability and having to plan how to rebuild it later this decade. CINCFLEET has publicly spoken of Ocean being used in a strike role with Apache, in place of CVS with Harrier. The role of hitting shore targets from a ship based aircraft still exists.

BomberH

Are you saying we should have four carriers or none? And no stepping stones to build that capability are allowed?

Ken

If this Libyan operation continues for a few more months, we will most likely be sending Illustrious to relieve Ocean. Will she need any greater level of escorting? Would carrying Harriers as well/instead of Apache increase the need for escorts? No, of course not. As for RFAs, my understanding is that tankers and other support ships on this mission are pooled by NATO, and refuel/resupply ships of whatever nationality as and when needed. Occasionally large warships can refuel smaller ones - Ocean recently refuelled the Minehunter Bangor off Libya.

Jimlad

You do explain the logic well. If the only deployments in the future would be carrier ones, then we would be supporting seventy odd aircraft and all the associated infrastructure just to deploy a small number at sea (particularly if we only have one carrier). I would be lying if I said I did not understand the logic.

BrakingStop

Thanks for again addressing some of the mythology that seems to have grown around Harrier post SDSR.

FODPlod

I don't think SDSR could foresee current events.

Neartheend (again)

So, the commitee agreed that the Harrier axe was a bad thing, but that reintroducing it under the previous arrangements would be too expensive (lots of aircraft and infrstucture), supporting personnel in industry moving on to other things, and pilots being redeployed (this is debatable, whilst the RAF pilots have moved to other types, RN jet jocks are another issue - with USN exchanges being difficult to set up).

A few pages ago someone suggested that the Prime Minister himself had enquired about restoring some Harriers and the carrier capability, only to be given a negative reply. Therefore I would raise my suggestion again.

It occurs to me that if we could supply a number (most/all of them) of our now stored Harrier GR9s to the US, and continue to offer the USMC a chance to carry out embarkations of a dozen or so Harriers, we may be able to purchase or lease a number of AV8B (AV8B+ if we're lucky) aircraft in a quid pro quo type arrangement. Hopefully any such deal would include some sort of Memorandum Of Understanding (like the agreements used to support Italian and Spanish Harriers) in order to prevent the UK to incur major support costs, but would offer the following advantages:

1. The UK would still be able to respond to crises in which carrier aviation is useful.
2. The RN would maintain the skills needed to run a carrier with jets on deck, and would maintain a cadre of both Pilots and Engineers to work with these aircraft, avoiding the need to start from scratch later on this decade.
3. If we could get AV8B+s then it would give the Navy a capability that it lost when the Sea Harrier was retired in 2006. We would therefore be in a far better position to provide air defence for a maritime task group, or to participate in policing a no fly zone.
4. We would no longer have to pay for storing retired aircraft, and the Government would be justified in portraying this as a step forward.
5. Our potential adversaries would have something to think about - prevention (deterrence) being better than cure.
6. The defence relationship with the US would be strengthened, as would the defence relationship with France as Illustrious would be able to relieve Charles De Gaulle in x months time.