Neartheend
SDSR came close to saying we don't need a Navy.
shawshank
Thanks for the extra large font. Yes, I am aware that the Harrier GR9 is gone - but that is why some of us have
suggested other options.
I also understand that fixed wing carrier aviation is not currently an option - although it would be useful if it was.
FnF
Do you never use links or quotes?
FB11
Interesting article. Why are no more RN/RAF pilots going on exchange with USMC Harrier units? After all, RN and RAF exchange guys have flown all sorts of aircraft that were unlikely to be operated by the UK. A certain RN ex Buccaneer driver (and he flew the Wasp and Sea King before that) flew the A7 Corsair with the USN before returning to convert to the Sea Jet - he later was a squadron CO, and CO of several ships and made Flag Rank. Others have flown all sorts of USN and USMC aircraft.
hoodie ae al
Well, the SDSR decision didn't help image wise, did it?
Capt P U G Wash
But why should anyone here be surprised that after over 4 months of constant retired dark blue sniping, their commander stood up for his light blue boys and girls on ops. FoDplods last comment being a classic example of the sort of sniping they have to endure.
Surely that was just banter? Anyway it is not just the RAF that has been on ops - what about
Ocean being used in a strike role she was not designed for, with Apache being embarked for longer than ever planned for, and doing strike roles it was not intended for. Her ASaCs Sea Kings seem to have been frequently used to support RAF/NATO strikes - I think it ironic that a shipborne ISTAR asset is used like this, in the light of the "we don't need a carrier" attitudes that prevail. Likewise illuminations rounds fired from HMS
Liverpool or other warships. See
Libya: Operations Updates.
Liverpool (and
Iron Duke and
Sutherland when they stood in for her) have fired
many HE 4.5" rounds too, as well as conducting boarding operations and controlling allied aircraft.
If a carrier (of sorts) is needed to support ISTAR assets, and surface warships are need to fire illumination rounds, then why not fly the missions from the carrier?
Capt P U G Wash
And it wasn't just retired officers - 1SL made the comment twice, once to the media briefing that caused the PM to get so upset, and also in front of the HCDC. If your location is an indication of where you work then go and ask just how many FOI requests and PQs have been asked by prominent retired dark blue on this issue over the last five months and you will better understand just how one sided and vicious this has been (although not always in the open press).
Are you saying that the First Sea Lord should not tell the truth to the Defence Committee? 1SL pointed out that
losing the carrier strike capability causes huge problems for the Royal Navy, and indeed the UK as a whole.
Pointing out that carrier aircraft aboard a carrier just of the coast can hit targets faster than land based ones (and without needing tanker support) is pointing out the obvious. The cost argument makes more sense if we remember that we are deploying a LPH or CVS anyway to support helicopters, and have other warships committed - it means that those assets are there anyway.
If NATO now has to hunt for Scud launchers, then this capability (carrier strike) gap can only cause more problems.