Originally Posted by cazatou
WEBF
This thread is NOT about the Harrier - it is about certain Peoples disagreement with the outcome of the SDSR and the allocation of resources to fulfil the Policy of HMG in respect of the Defence of the Realm and the United Kingdoms Foreign Policy.
Yes, you are right. Some people think that going for a decade without carrier strike is risky, and that the SDSR idea of picking up the fixed wing carrier baton after a gap of a decade involves serious risks - including risks to the lives of personnel. Those people tend to include those with experience of carrier operations (by which I mean those who have been Captain of a CVS, or Cdr(Air), or the various other specialist roles in a carrier, including the flight deck crew - or indeed those who have operated aircraft from the deck) who can offer an expert view. Do you similarly ignore the opinions of Doctors on medical issues?
And did any alternatives to just answer A or answer B get considered?
Originally Posted by Wrathmonk
As always surveys can be created to support whatever line you wish to promote. A shame they didn't also publish the background (RAF/RN/Army/Civil Service/Dockyard worker etc) of those members of the so-called defence community that responded....
Yeah, I thought that too. However, if it was just a cross section of anyone connected with defence then some would say that they are not informed enough to express an opinion, yet however if it was more specific (perhaps with a large number of people with experience of carrier operations) then the normal suspects would simply say "well they would say that..... ".
Originally Posted by Flap62
This thread IS about axeing the Harrier- just look at the thread title! The fact that some people have broadened it to the wider review is hardly the thread starter's fault.
WEBF has taken over a large part of the thread because he cannot de-couple Harrier and Carrier. The Harrier did so much more than simply provide carrier air-power but he cannot write one without then banging on for pages about how Admirals and retired Admirals are shocked at the loss of the carriers.
The harriers could have existed quite happily without the carriers, the reverse is quite obviously not true.
Again true. The Harrier did do more than carrier operations, but it was the decision to gap the carrier strike capability that led to its retirement. Why deride Admirals (including serving ones who have commanded a CVS) who try to offer views based on experience? I know that the views they offer do not fit into the "if it was important I would have learnt it at Eton/Oxbridge/the RAF" view that some take. Oddly this seems quite common - if people do not know about something they assume that it is simple.
Here is a quote from a naval general training booklet (for new recruits) from several years ago - emphasising the unique dangers of shipborne aviation, and the whole ship aspects.
Flight Safety relies on everyone in the Royal Navy, from the First Sea Lord downwards, working as a team. As an important member of this team it is vital that you understand the role you play in maintaining the highest possible standards. Your attitude towards Flight Safety can make the difference between whether people live or die!
Naval aviation is an inherently dangerous business, but the whole ship's company working together can minimise the degree of danger.....
Of course, embarking Harrier does not involve "cats 'n traps", which makes some of the following comments rather pointless with respect to the current situation. Unless the current decade has been bypassed, and we are suddenly in the 2020s.... No, didn't think so!