Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers". [Archive]

WE Branch Fanatic

28th Oct 2010, 15:37

Edit - 18 August 2012. Also edited in 2014 (see points 15 and 16).

Since the decision in May 2012 that we would purchase F35B as originally planned, and that future CVF operations would be STOVL ones, the issues of retaining STOVL skillsets amongst both aircrew and ships' personnel are more relevant than ever. The issue of whether of not the UK needs a fixed wing carrier capability in the next few years is brought into focus by talk of possible conflicts which may involve UK forces, for example possible hostilities in the Gulf or international action over Syria.

Potentially all of these things could be sorted out. We have STOVL capable ships, STOVL trained pilots and carrier crews, have a STOVL future to prepare for, and STOVL aircraft do exist. The politicians could make this into a success.

The comments and suggestions below apply even more now.

A few points:

1. At the time of the retirement of the Sea Harrier, we were assured (and I doubt the Admirals would have accepted it otherwise) that the Harrier GR9 would keep carrier flying going. The GR9 can perform a limited (fleet) air defence role - it is supposedly more agile than SHAR, has Sidewinders, and would hopefully be supported by Sea King ASACS. The support of an AEW/ISTAR asset would mitigate against the lack of radar. See later posts - including those on page 15 (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-15.html).

It was also argued that we were more likely to need strike aircraft - ie the GR9. Now we rely totally on Host Nation Support and hoping that range, logistics, and security issues are not too tricky. What was that about Canada being denied use of a UAE airfield recently?

2. How will we maintain the skills of flight deck crews, planners, met types, FC and ATC types, and so on? What about the teamwork needed throughout the ship, from the bridge to the Operations Room to the Ship Control Centre? Before you ask, I have been aboard a carrier doing flying work ups. I also witnessed the GR9s doing an air defence exercise.

See this later post that talks about the skills needed by the carrier crew - here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-36.html#post6483954).

I think this review was rushed, and bodged. Would anyone with experience of these things really think that you can have a TEN year gap then pick up the baton and carry on? Were any people with carrier experience consulted?

Before the review, everyones' favourite General, Sir Richard Dannatt, was on the TV saying that certain capabilities can be put in extended readiness and then brought out of the cupboard when needed? Is this what he meant?

3. Will the next decade be like the last one (largely asymmetric enemies without navies. air forces, or anything like that) or the previous one - with nation state or pseudo nation (eg the Bosnian Serbs) enemies with air forces, navies, etc? Fortunately, the Prime Minister can see into the future, as he said in his statement when he said everything will be counter insurgency.

4. Supposedly HM Treasury has claimed that as there may be a post Harrier gap (assuming a 2018 OSD), then a ten year gap doesn't increase the risk. You can't argue with that sort of reasoning.

5. Why is Lord West not allowed to speak up? Because he is ex RN? Or because he (unwisely in my opinion) took up a post as a minister under the last Government?

6. Despite everything supposedly being COIN in the future, we are keeping the bulk of heavy armour and artillery? Are we expecting the third shock army to break through the West German boarder? Yes, scrapping it would be short sighted, but surely if we're just looking as Afghanistan.... You don't mean the report wasn't totally balanced?

7. There is a petition: Saving the Harrier (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/primeminister/). You could also think about writing to your MP, or even contacting the Prime Minister (https://email.number10.gov.uk/Contact.aspx). Of particular interest are points 1, 2, and 9. Following the sale of the GR9 fleet to the United States, point 11 (below) should be of interest.

8. The RN has paid a price of ships, aircraft, personnel, and capabilities under this review. If the predication of no wars for ten years is wong, then the consequences will involve blood and fire.

9. For a practical suggestion of how this issue might be resolved, carrier related skills retained for the future, a carrier strike capability retained for use in Libya and other places this decade, and the issue of the retired GR9s dealt with, see this post from later on (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-50.html#post6592988):

It occurs to me that if we could supply a number (most 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 MOU 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. Or indeed, Illustrious or Queen Elizabeth could rotate with CDG in other operations this decade.

The use of Ocean as a platform for Apaches operating in a strike role seems to show that a maritime strike capability is needed for what the Government wants the Armed Forces to be capable of doing. Now there is talk of Illustrious relieving Ocean - for which her post refit work up will need to be rushed, with Apaches embarking and learning to operate from her deck. Note the use of the word STRIKE.

10. Alternatively, there was the "out of the box" RNR/Harrier proposal discussed here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-9.html#post6126432) and here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-69.html#post6758107).

11. Here is another "out of the box" proposal (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-82.html#post6893208) that I made after the decision was made to sell the entire GR9 fleet to the United States. This one would make use of existing (Sea Harrier) assets that are still mostly in MOD (or at least UK) hands. Regenerate a pair of Sea Harriers (and maybe a T8N trainer) and attach them NFSF(FW), for operation by UK based RN fixed wing jocks and/or RNR WAFUs, and regenerate a larger number if needed for an operational deployment. UK based RN fixed wing types would have something to fly, and we would have something to embark at sea.

12. On a similar (and more straightforward) note, why can we not attach just a few (a couple?) borrowed AV8Bs (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-90.html#post7585186) to Naval Flying Standards Flight (Fixed Wing), or a similar small organisation, to give something for UK based RN fixed wing pilots to fly, and to provide a jet to embark aboard the carrier pre F35B?

After all, ETPS safely and economically operate small numbers of aircraft (including the Grippen and the Alpha Jet) not in normal UK service. Why can the RN not do the same with leased/borrowed jets?

13. HMS Illustrious is in a good condition, and could easily remain in service post 2014, to 2016/7 when HMS Queen Elizabeth will be ready to put to sea. Or beyond.

14. There is still the issue of building up the cadre of RN fixed wing pilots for the future, but there seems to be a problem (discussed here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-92.html#post7831885)) in that there is no suitable jet for them to fly in the UK (when not on exchange Stateside). Edit - 30 August 2014: It appears that this issue has been largely resolved with the reformation of 736 NAS as somewhere RN jocks can go.

15. Preparing future deck crews and air engineers remains a challenge, as mentioned here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/517553-sharky-watch-live-6.html#post7909736). Measures beyond the exchanges with the US Navy and the Marine Nationale (France) may not be needed. Can enough personnel be sent? How will they practice skills upon return? How do they practice working as a team - a whole flight deck party or ship's company?

16. HMS Ocean was designed and built with a secondary role of transporting Sea Harriers/Harriers in an emergency, but would be unable to support them for any length of time due to limited fuel and weapon stowages. However, she would be able to embark a small number of Harriers for a limited period, if it was felt desirable to give UK based RN Pilots experience of landing a V/STOL aircraft (borrowed/leased Harriers) aboard a ship and doing short take offs at sea. This would also provide continuation training for chockheads/air engineers not on exchange or returned from exchange, and training for future Queen Elizabeth/Prince Of Wales Officers Of the Watch et al, as would embarking US/Italian/Spanish Harriers. It would also address whole ship aspects.

snagged1

28th Oct 2010, 16:07

@ WE

"The GR9 can perform a limited (fleet) air defence role " - limited being the operative word. SHAR had a radar and a rocket with legs, GR7/9 with heaters only and mk 1 eyeball... I know who I would put my money on out of those two in a scrap!

Lord West can speak up all he likes; if he were doing so as 'exRN' it would be interesting and worthwhile hearing his viewpoint.
But in this case it appears far more like political point scoring (he is a politician now, not an admiral and thus tarnished with the political brush) - ironic considering the only reason the harriers have been binned is because 'his' party overspent for 10 yrs, and under the same govt binned the RN Shar (which at the time had the same backlash from members of the RN).

UK Plc is watering down our global role in line with what we can afford - which is not much... sad, but true.

Lone Kestrel

28th Oct 2010, 16:40

Looking at the decision from a completely agnostic viewpoint – I am retired now and have no axe to grind on future employment etc, I have the following points:

Cost was a clear driver, salami slicing would not achieve the aim so one Force had to go.
Harrier is the smaller and, arguably, less capable of the 2 when looking at all of the air-to-Ground roles required and ability to sustain force elements – Carrier Ops aside. Therefore, if one had to go the decision was almost made for them if they wanted to retain the maximum capability across the board until the arrival of JSF.

As to maintaining carrier capability. The wider ship’s company will always be difficult to maintain, I guess even now the RN believe they are losing the capability so perhaps we have to admit that it will take time to regain it in the future.
As to the aircrew, I have no first hand GR7/9 carrier Ops experience so admit my expertise is a bit thin on their flight deck operations, but I have flown a modern FW aircraft (well it was in service until about 5 years ago) from conventional carriers on exchange with the USN. From my viewpoint, apart from flying over water and hence having few divert opportunities, the Harrier operating procedures on and around the carrier were very different to that required for conventional aircraft ops. Therefore Harrier pilots would offer little expertise to the future JSF Force – indeed I saw some US Marine pilots having considerable difficulty transitioning to the conventional approach patterns and ‘ball’ landing techniques so perhaps the Harrier Force are the last people we should rely on.

On the other hand, the RN currently has ab-initio pilots training with USN F-18’s and this would seem the best place to grow our future capability, be it RAF or RN. Given the timeframe of JSF, we do not need to do it now, but perhaps aim to take slots in preparation for the first squadron.

Just a thought.

Lone Kestrel.

glad rag

28th Oct 2010, 17:08

Doesn't (sorry didn't) GR9 carry/or be capable of operating ASRAAM?

foldingwings

28th Oct 2010, 17:12

I have every sympathy with the Harrier Force and I would have felt an equal wrench if, in 1994, the Bucc had been taken from Service as a cost-saving measure rather than at the end of its outstanding 25-year career in the RAF, which it was.

My take on it is, however, that the writing has been on the wall for the Harrier ever since the SHAR was taken out of service early - a decision, I believe, that was supported by the Navy to secure the future of JSF and the new carriers! In addition, the decision to withdraw Ark and insist on LUST being a helo platform until her withdrawal is a further indicator of a Navy that is hell bent it would seem (and damn the consequences) in pouring good money after bad on these 2 aircraft carriers that will now not enter useful service until 2020 (or thereabouts). No Ark, No LUST, No QE2 or PoW then what value a Harrier, for example, over a Tornado? Yes, it can turn tighter corners when doing CAS. Yes, it can carry a multitude of weapons at the same time. But it no longer operates off short strips and is not cleared for the strategically valuable Storm Shadow (a decision taken by a very senior Harrier pilot to remove it from that programme in the late 90s before contract sign). The Harrier doesn't have the legs a Tornado has and, consequently, it is a 'one-trick pony' which has proved great value in FI and Afghan but is probably less useful in a future (I accept different type) conflict in which we might be engaged and definitely so, if it has no sea-launch capability.

Of course, whilst I blame the Navy to some extent for putting themselves in the position of trying to recreate the 'Spirit of the 60s' with Global Power Projection - a game we can no longer afford to play, in my opinion - I firmly lay the blame at the door of the Blair/Brown combo who got us into this sticky mess (and here I mean in terms of: war; the financial cost of war (which was supposed to come from Brown's Contingency Fund but came mainly from the MOD Budget); and the signing of a contract for 2 aircraft carriers to secure votes in a constituency - a crazy contract that will cost us more to withdraw from than continue with whether we want, need or can use the carriers in the end!) in the first place.

It's also important to note that with another defence review in 2015 (a sensible Cameron decision to hold them every 5 years in future) there can be no guarantees that fleet carriers will survive that round as the govt's take could easily be - we haven't needed them for 5 years why should we need them 5 years in the future! I hate to say it but I can see the end of FAA Fixed Wing flying before 2020!

So it's sad that the Harrier had to go but something had to give and, I believe, the correct aircraft will be taken out of service next year. Those GR4s that remain bring more to the party than the Harrier would during our 10-year capability gap.

If I offend anybody here, I do not mean to. If I have got any facts wrong please correct me (politely).

Foldie

TEEEJ

28th Oct 2010, 18:59

GR wrote

Doesn't (sorry didn't) GR9 carry/or be capable of operating ASRAAM?

House of Commons - Defence - Fourth Report (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmdfence/779/77910.htm)

'With the MoD's recent announcement that it will withdraw Sea Harrier by 2006, however, it will not now be fitting it with ASRAAM. Work to date, which will now be nugatory, had cost £1.2 million.[274] And ASRAAM will also no longer be fitted to the Harrier GR7/9.[275]'

TJ

Not_a_boffin

28th Oct 2010, 19:04

I don't think you can blame the navy for the Global Power Projection concept that resulted from SDR98 (and in actual fact is still supported in the new SDSR). All three services signed up to it and in fact the concept behind it originated back in the early 90's as the Cold War ended.

The idea that "good money is being poured after bad" on the carriers is also a fallacy. If you subscribe to the idea that power projection is required, then naval air is also required, which means carriers. Ark & Lusty cannot be extended much beyond their present OSD, partly because the ships are totally sh@gged but mainly because their futures are inevitably linked to the only aircraft they can fly (the Harrier - F35B cannot operate from CVS). Therefore new ships are required and the fact is that new carriers need to be significantly bigger than the CVS, partly because of the aircraft and partly to ensure the deck has enough room to operate a useful number of aircraft. The sorties required were all supported by campaign-level OA, which drove the rate and therefore the deck park requirement and hence the size of the ship.

At this point it should be pointed out that a conventional carrier (or larger STOVL ship) might not be tied to a single aircraft type - size has a flexibility all of its own - something which is often overlooked. Indeed, the biggest objection to the carriers has always appeared to be based on their size, as opposed to their cost. Should we be paying £5Bn for two CVF? Hell, no - we could and should have got them for around £3.5Bn the pair (assets that will last 50 years and operate at least two generations of aircraft). The reason we didn't get them for that price is largely to be laid at the door of Cyclops, although the actual root cause is the failure to update the long-term costing lines originally generated for the ships circa 1998 when they were 40000 te concept designs costed at £2.7Bn. Is there an alternative - unfortunately not (the spanish and italians must be sweating a bit now Dave B is at risk, the Indians and Chinese on the other hand have no such problems).

Those concept designs were based on fitting aircraft into a ship (ie how many can you fit on the deck and in the hangar), rather than decks designed to generate sorties. Once the more detailed studies began, it quickly became clear that larger ships were needed and at that point, the LTC lines should have been updated. They were not (a MoD MB failing) and in 2003 the result was that when BAE / Thales came back with a price of £3.2bn, panic ensued. Four years was then spent trying to fit the budget cost-effectively (they couldn't). Result, lots of folk wanting to cover their @rses, while cost escalated (nothing ever gets cheaper by deferral). Lord Drayson eventually blackmailed the remaining shipbuilding industry into consolidation (the Maritime Industrial Strategy) through use of the carrier contract as a none-too-subtle blunt instrument at which point it became inevitable that the remaining industry would only sign up with some eye-watering cancellation clauses. Ironically, at this point, Cyclops belatedly realised that his constituency had a vested interest in the ships being built and started being supportive - just in time to pick up the sobriquet "Gordons carriers". In truth, were it not for the fact that they're being assembled in Rosyth, he would not have given 1% of two-thirds of a flying f8ck whether they were built or not, which brings us back to the reason for where we are now.

SDR98 endorsed the carriers (as has SDSR) - it's just that Cyclops never wanted to pay for them and the navy has paid a blood price ever since trying to keep the programme, as there is literally nowhere else to go. Either we have a global navy (and armed force for that matter) capable of doing at least some things alone, or we collapse on home defence in which case OPV, MCMV and SSK for the navy, Tiffy, Sentry and a few tankers for RAF (no need for strike or long-range AT), plus a home defence force for the army. Anything else is to become another nations political fig-leaf, nothing more, nothing less.

foldingwings

28th Oct 2010, 19:20

Not a Boffin,

If you subscribe to the idea that power projection

As I said:

Global Power Projection - a game we can no longer afford to play, in my opinion

But thanks for the other interesting aspects of the debate.

Foldie

Bennyclub

28th Oct 2010, 19:50

As Cameron said, "we should be rightly proud of our ability to punch above our weight". Well, if we take this analogy. We may have lost our jab, right upper cut and left hook, but we still have a puncher's chance if we connect with a hay maker. Over to you Mr Oppenheimer..................

draken55

28th Oct 2010, 20:07

Have I missed something? Did the PM not state that Tornado only remains to cover the Afghanistan deployment. That being the case, the remainder of the Fleet after the initial drawdown (half the current Squadrons) gets chopped in 2015 when we leave.

Also and now we have opted for the F-35C, does it not make sense for this to be the version adopted (bar the USAF and Marine Corps) by other NATO allies and Australia? This would allow co-operation with other friendly nations as well as the US and French, further building on the point made by the PM and considered so important that it was worth delaying the carrier(s) to alter their design at an estimated cost of £500 Million. :confused:

F3sRBest

28th Oct 2010, 20:18

after the initial drawdown (half the current Squadrons)

Did I also miss something?? :sad:

WE Branch Fanatic

28th Oct 2010, 20:25

Looks like tha Navy has been doing some sort of exercise in the Solent:

Pompey news (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Royal-Navy-shows-off-its.6603026.jp)

RN website: RN Warships Demonstrate Awesome Capability (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-events/rn-live/all-news/rn-warships-demonstrate-awesome-capability/*/changeNav/6568)

Commanding Officer of HMS Albion Captain James Morley said: “This is a staged event to show our industry partners, national and international audiences exactly what we can do. It is important for us to show what we can deliver and the aim is to develop the understanding of how we work together and how we are configured to deal with a crisis.

“Afghanistan is the focus for the Services at the moment, and we have hundreds of Royal Navy sailors working out there right now, but we must also be ready as a country should a crisis happen elsewhere in the world and this demonstrates to our guests our enormous capability in doing so.”

I thought the Prime Minister had looked into the future and saw no crises for ten years?

Anyway, I hear the MOD refused permission for Ark Royal or the Harrier to take part.

Obi Wan Russell

28th Oct 2010, 20:26

Not A Boffin:

You say F-35B cannot be operated from a CVS, on what do you base this? It's academic now as we aren't getting any 'Bs anymore, but this myth has been doing the rounds for a while. A couple of years ago I was visiting Lusty and got chatting with some of her officers and crew about this. At the time they had a full sized mock up of the F-35B on board so I asked the obvious questions: Can you handle the real thing?

Yes they can, the Lightning fits on the lifts (it's a bit of a squeeze length wise but in rough weather they would just load it on diagonally), and it's empty weight is well within the 18.5 tonne limit for the lifts. The Lightning is substantially heavier than the Harrier when fully loaded but not proportionally larger. The Harrier has a spot factor of 0.89 and the F-35B has a spot factor of about 1.05. If you can get 12 Harriers aboard a carrier plus helos, you can also get 12 Lightnings aboard to replace the Harriers, not 8 or 6.

But as I said, it's all academic now.

draken55

28th Oct 2010, 20:35

My mistake as according to Air Forces Monthly:-

"Despite the Harrier being axed entirely, the Tornado force will also be reduced by two squadrons and one of the two operating bases, either RAF Lossiemouth in Moray or RAF Marham in Norfolk, will be surplus to requirements".

When we are out of Afghanistan, does that not mean the end for Tornado in 2015 around the time of the next Review?

:oh:

Squirrel 41

28th Oct 2010, 21:16

Mr Boffin,

Many thanks for a most interesting piece. Am confused by this though:

mainly because their futures are inevitably linked to the only aircraft they can fly (the Harrier - F35B cannot operate from CVS).

and

the spanish and italians must be sweating a bit now Dave B is at risk

How much bigger is Principe de A and Cavour than a CVS? Not a flame, but thought that they are a much of a muchness. Confused (as usual, no?).

S41

F3sRBest

28th Oct 2010, 21:27

draken,

lots of ifs, buts and maybes in that....

Not_a_boffin

28th Oct 2010, 22:17

Obi-Wan & S41

It's not a myth. Numerous "can Dave fit on CVS" studies were done circa 1998 and repeated in the very early noughties. All concluded that F35 ops from CVS would be extremely tenuous. Just because you can physically fit the thing on does not mean that you can operate it (here we go with RVLs again).

As an example, think about vertical recovery with any sort of bring-back. Pegasus develops around 106kN of thrust on four separated nozzles, F-135 generates upwards of 170kN (and that still wasn't enough, hence the RVL idea) on a single nozzle (albeit with a fan as well). What's that going to do to a deck not designed for it? The technical term is buckle it to b8ggery. Never mind the damage it does to the deck crews who have to be in proportionally closer proximity.

As for our Spanish & Italian friends, PdA is of similar vintage to the CVS (and Garibaldi) and will go the same way. Cavour and the new Spanish ship (King Juan Carlos?) have been designed from the off to accommodate Dave-type thrust. However, neither ship has ever been conceived to offer more than a minimal FW capability - nor could such easily be accommodated in Sp/It infrastructure. However, no FW at all (should Dave B bite the dust) really does leave them limited to LPH within land-based air cover, which is pretty minimal. Do the fuel calcs to keep a two or four ship from a land base sufficiently close to a moving maritime force (even with tanker support) with adequate reaction time and it's eye-watering. That's one reason CVS grew SHAR, but also why a larger vessel is required to avoid the old self-licking lollipop charge and provide meaningful strike.

CVF is large enough to carry a CAG to defend against a credible threat and provide real punch - remember that you can veer and haul between DCA, OCA and strike as allowed by the threat. You can buy aircraft and train aircrew within a relatively short period (even if you are the MoD!) However, a largish ship generally takes 3-4 years to complete detailed design, with another six or so to build. A shortage of airframes is easier to fix than a shortage of ship.

Bismark

29th Oct 2010, 08:26

However, a largish ship generally takes 3-4 years to complete detailed design, with another six or so to build. A shortage of airframes is easier to fix than a shortage of ship.

But what is missing in 2020 is the crews on the ships with any experience of aviation - from the CO downwards....I am sure the MAA will have something to say about that, indeed I wonder whether they are doing anything about it at the moment?

teeteringhead

29th Oct 2010, 10:24

Basic problem is that we have in UK Inc what my Great Uncle Johnnie would have called:

"Champagne tastes and four ale money" - (Four ale being 4d a pint beer)

there's allus lots of "nice to have" but we must (another GUJ dit) "cut our coat according to our cloth!" :(

Not_a_boffin

29th Oct 2010, 11:08

But what is missing in 2020 is the crews on the ships with any experience of aviation - from the CO downwards....I am sure the MAA will have something to say about that, indeed I wonder whether they are doing anything about it at the moment?

Absolutely - but that is a different (no less important) problem with a different solution.

XV277

29th Oct 2010, 11:50

Ironically, at this point, Cyclops belatedly realised that his constituency had a vested interest in the ships being built and started being supportive - just in time to pick up the sobriquet "Gordons carriers". In truth, were it not for the fact that they're being assembled in Rosyth, he would not have given 1% of two-thirds of a flying f8ck whether they were built or not, which brings us back to the reason for where we are now.

Which is fine, except for the fact that Rosyth wasn't in his constituency. It's in Dunfermline West, not Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (or his former one of Dunfermline East)

XV277

29th Oct 2010, 11:55

As an example, think about vertical recovery with any sort of bring-back. Pegasus develops around 106kN of thrust on four separated nozzles, F-135 generates upwards of 170kN (and that still wasn't enough, hence the RVL idea) on a single nozzle (albeit with a fan as well). What's that going to do to a deck not designed for it? The technical term is buckle it to b8ggery. Never mind the damage it does to the deck crews who have to be in proportionally closer proximity.

Word from friends who work at Rosyth was that it was a concern even with CVF. Lack of suitable deck paint being mentioned.

Not_a_boffin

29th Oct 2010, 12:16

1. Close enough for Gordon to give a sh1t.
2. The issue with deck paint is the erosion rate of CAMREX under that sort of concentrated jetblast. F135 would make the current issues with 3 & 4 spots on CVS look like trivia.

LowObservable

29th Oct 2010, 14:20

Mr Boffin

Excellent stuff as always. Clearly being free of certain previous commitments and statements relative to Ms Widdecombe and SRVL has lightened your spirits.

The issue of thermal and mechanical damage related to F-35B VL operations remains unresolved. The JPO and LockMart say "no significant difference from Harrier" while the people responsible for the flat bits that the jet will land on are calling for 100-foot-square pads of continuously reinforced high-temperature concrete (the stuff you make pizza ovens from) on land, and magic cooling pads on decks.

Meanwhile, the people that should be providing adult supervision over all the above groups are not banging heads together and telling people to come up with a single consistent answer.

I suspect that is because they are afraid that the correct answer is the wrong one, which would mean that F-35B would be as welcome on a CVN as an outbreak of plague, and that any effort to operate austere-base from anywhere ending in -stan would come to an abrupt halt in a cloud of molten asphalt and supersonic chips of concrete.

And if it turns out that an attempt to assuage the Guadalcanal complex of the Navy's army's air force was a technical nonstarter from the beginning (at least with stealth added to the equation) then we have invested a good deal for a negative return. And when I say "a good deal" I mean two new engines, the entire CDA X-plane program, the weight-reduction effort, the manufacturing complexities and delays arising therefrom, and the performance compromises inherent from trying to stuff the ten pounds of USAF/Navy requirements into the five-pound sack labeled STOVL.

Not to mention the fate of the pilots who, somewhere along the line, will have to eject when the engine quits.

/weeps softly, bangs head on desk

etartar

29th Oct 2010, 15:01

The decision tree for a modern Carrier Force has got to be more then "we just want a carrier" for the simple reason the "what kind" part of the answer no longer is small, not to complex, or cheap, perhaps even affordable considering today's budgets. All of our countries now have much smaller armed forces but still retain the same numbers of generals and admirals who only think on the scale of their own rank based on World War II force structures. Navy's change, and just as the aircraft carrier edged out the battleship after Pearl Harbor the modern Nuclear CVN BattleGroup has come to a point where you need so much organic to the formation just to survive the hordes of potential land-sea-air launched cruise missiles and asymmetric fast-movers along with real anti-carrier aircraft and submarines that no treasury has enough gold to sustain even a properly configured "one and only". Modern, right now and beyond, strategic naval warfare has moved its center-of-gravity and critical importance to the submarine force, especially the ones like the Virginia Class in production with the USN. The naval forces do not need more Admirals, it does not require larger staffs, but it needs a strategic undersea component if for no other reason short of deep space, it is the only real environment that "stealth" can play a reasonable and affordable role. The "Admiral factor" alone prevents the US Navy and the Royal Navy from making that transition because the knowledge necessary to make such a decision has been there for some time now. And nothing - really nothing else, would scare the bejeezus out of the Chinese, North Koreans, or Iranians more if they knew un-detectable Wolf-Packs of Virginia Class boats were patrolling along with Boomers well within range of their leadership bunkers.

Now all that said - the surface Navy needs to be interoperable with allies and littoral in composition and weaponry simply because there is still need of such capability - and focused on the COIN warfare realities not to be confused or diluted by some dream of World War conventional warfare force structures at a time when most countries are broke. The CVN strategic force was best served with the F-14 and A-6, there was at least a hint of a 1000 NM, but even that became unsustainable. The F-35 is not only a "joke" to our citizens it is a criminal malfeasance against the honor and integrity of the sworn oath of our governments to protect us in the most sensible way. When will we wake up.

Not_a_boffin

29th Oct 2010, 15:32

Pontius Navigator

29th Oct 2010, 15:40

Not a fan of F35 then etartar? Or Admirals for that matter?

Undetectable SSN may well be this very minute lurking in the oceans around the world, but they don't appear to be stopping NK and Iran from their ongoing level of mischief........

And the CVN group do?

As both exist which actually creates that deterrence?

Indeed are either NK or Iran deterred?

Impiger

29th Oct 2010, 17:34

The sound of chickens coming home to roost around the Naval Staff must be deafening! I'm no expert in maritime force projection but I'd have thought a slightly larger number of DD/FF would give ones Navy a better all round and balanced capability, greater relevence and utility than one in service CVS (with or without F35). All this bunk about not needing basing rights or overflight rights is just horse. Unless your prospective enemy has a coastline you need overflight rights for a TLAM let alone an aeroplane. Ships need dip clear for passage through certain waters and I recall the Naval commander from Gulf War II saying he couldn't have sustained his force without the berthing rights in the Gulf or the airbridge (which yes needed dip clear). I'm sorry matelots but you've sold your souls for a grand gesture of the most foolhardy kind.

Not_a_boffin

29th Oct 2010, 19:17

PN - my point was not that NK or Iran are deterred, merely that SSN clearly don't do that alone.

Impiger - A fleet of DD/FF has little in terms of balanced capability because it cannot go anywhere where there is an air threat, unless it has maritime air cover - something that has proved virtually impossible to supply from land cost-effectively. That air threat could be as low capability as a Thai carrier with AV8As, but because (relatively) it can command the maritime airspace, it trumps a T45 or a helo carrier because it can hold the helo at threat. A DD/FF force is therefore limited to an area of influence not much further than the horizon. There is no use for a DD/FF heavy force with no maritime air. The nearest example is the JMSDF and they are structured to defend the sea of Japan and not much else. We (allegedly) don't have a threat to home waters anymore, certainly not one that justifies hordes of DD/FF.

LBL - I don't think the basics quite stack up like that - we had that attitude in the 30s and it didn't work then either. Largely for the reasons outlined above. Works on a simplistic level, but falls apart when you ask questions like "OK air type, how long do you want to spend at sea?" or, "OK Jack, it's Firebase f8ckwit for you for the next five years".

Pontius Navigator

29th Oct 2010, 19:35

PN - my point was not that NK or Iran are deterred, merely that SSN clearly don't do that alone.

You might be correct but you have no evidence that SSNs alone are not deterring them, or that they are being deterred at all.

Not_a_boffin

29th Oct 2010, 19:57

I don't doubt for a moment that the crevice (a filthy word) that the RN finds itself in wrt the FAA is exercising many minds in Fleet HQ and elsewhere. I think if the RN had retained the budget to order F35, it would have done so in a heartbeat - but remember where JCA came from. The original designation was FCBA (Future Carrier-Borne Aircraft) which was eventually canned and combined with FOAS to produce JCA -principally because Typhoon (and admittedly Astute) was gobbling up the procurement budget in the early noughties (a pretend filthy word), leaving no room for anything else.

WE Branch Fanatic

29th Oct 2010, 20:43

Impiger

Unless your prospective enemy has a coastline you need overflight rights for a TLAM let alone an aeroplane. Ships need dip clear for passage through certain waters and I recall the Naval commander from Gulf War II saying he couldn't have sustained his force without the berthing rights in the Gulf or the airbridge (which yes needed dip clear). I'm sorry matelots but you've sold your souls for a grand gesture of the most foolhardy kind.

Really?

In any case, a quick Google search reveals that there are 47 landlocked nations in the world, and the majority of course do have coastlines. Here are some fun links:

List of countries by length of coastline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_length_of_coastline)

List of landlocked countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landlocked_country)

LBL

I think that the RN did lobby hard to retain Harrier. Remember, a previous attempt was made to scupper it by certain senior RAF bods. I actually think the loss of Harrier took Their Lordships by suprise.

....together with the necessary forward thinking of retaining the highly skilled maritime airmen and ground trades until it arrives). Has the RN done this-no. The RN just sees a really big surface vessel that could be used for lots of useful stuff. Hence the RN(highest ranks) don't give a t@ss about harrier.
i think they have not thought this through at all-and even worse have forgotten the people and specialists that will be lost as a result. The RN may then have to turn to the RAF to provide the necessary tradesmen/handlers/pilots?

Thy won't have the right skill set, not being used to working on a moving carrier deck. Both the First Sea Lord and CINCFLEET have commanded a CVS, and I am unwilling to accept that anyone who has experienced the inique environment of a carrier who think that you can not use that skill set for the best part of a decade and then pick up the baton and carry on. I wonder who suggested that it was? Ignorance wins...

The message sent by 1SL to all personnel last week acknowledged the challenge.

N_a_b

I don't doubt for a moment that the crevice (a filthy word) that the RN finds itself in wrt the FAA is exercising many minds in Fleet HQ and elsewhere.

I expect it is! I think crevice is puting it mildly. Who was it who wrote the review? Did any naval aviation profesionals get consulted?

WE Branch Fanatic

29th Oct 2010, 21:00

WE-not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the RN personnel, not having utilised and practised the seagoing ac handling skills and anomolies would not be able to pick up where they left off(or their replacements)?

Not easily, they won't.

Or are you saying that the RAF crews wouldn't be able to learn that trade craft as well as the RN new recruits(?)

They would have to start from scratch too!

LateArmLive

29th Oct 2010, 21:21

colonel cluster

29th Oct 2010, 21:59

LateArmLive, I call your Wah!

Seriously, have you ever embarked on a Carrier? The JEngO of the RAF Harrier Squadron that embarked when i was part of the ships company tried to call a halt to proceedings as he was concerned that the aircraft were parked too close together, and was supported by his senior NCOs! (That was 4 years ago, well after the RAF first started embarking for short periods).

In the current mantra of crawl, walk, run, we have never seriously got above a jog wrt to GR7/9 embarkations.

Still, the Government have made their decision, we just have to find the way to keep the skills needed to do it again. That isn't going to be easy!

whowhenwhy

30th Oct 2010, 07:01

Based on what I saw at COT earlier this year (late spring) I'd say that the Harrier fleet was on the bare bones of its arse then. Hangars full of very broken jets that everyone agreed were only good enough for scrap having come back from theatre. 12-15 airframes that were considered bust beyond economical repair... Given the small fleet size compared to GR4 and all of the other capability arguments (not least being Storm Shadow) losing Harrier was an easy choice. It's cr@p but there you are. We now need to hope that our lords and masters are making the right decisions about HQ structures etc so that we can make the best of what we've got!

orca

30th Oct 2010, 09:22

Does anyone know what our published FE@R is to be post SDSR? I remember from my days at Gp that it used to be sub 90. But then we got rid (sort of) of F3 and reduced Harrier to 10, now zero. Has the Typhoon compensated for this, or are we somewhere in the fifty to sixty ball park?

Also, has anyone seen any figures on force structure? I am guessing that having four times as many Cdres as operational hulls, or 20 plus Wg Cdrs for every deployable FJ might be over egging things somewhat.

BrakingStop

30th Oct 2010, 12:12

FE@R will be 46 - 16 Typhoon and 30 GR4, although I'll be amazed if this can actually be achieved...

LowObservable

30th Oct 2010, 12:17

Mr Boffin

Interesting reasoning. Perhaps the naming of the second CVF is a reminder of the negative consequences of relying on land-based air cover.

WE Branch Fanatic

30th Oct 2010, 16:08

But it really isn't that hard flying off a deck. No crosswind, no need to worry about divs, and if the weather is poor - ask the driver to go somewhere else. As for the engineers - it's just like working on land except a bit more cramped. All your spares etc are located within a 400yd radius, as is all your team and pretty much everything else you need. The aircraft parkers can practice on a dummy deck if they want. It really is not that hard.

Maybe it isn't that hard because of all the experience? The Dummy Deck at Culdrose can simulate the deck, however they cannot simulate the motion of the deck at sea or the ship steaming into the wind - which is what flight deck crews need to be able to deal with. What about other parts of the ship that are involved? From the bridge to the watchkeepers in the ship control centre, or the operators and maintainers of various sensors, communications systems, and landing aids, how will the hard won corporate experience be maintained?

RileyDove

30th Oct 2010, 16:20

Whowhenwhy - the aircraft in the hangar at Cott were not worn out from Afgahnistan -if anything the experience updated and prolonged the fleet.
A small number of aircraft in the hangar you saw were stored but some of these machines were not continued with on the Jump line because of the withdrawl of aircraft from the fleet last year.
People are quick to spout utter nonsence about how the aircraft were worn out -nothing could be further from the truth -some of the machines having done sub 3000 hrs -lower than the GR.3s that they replaced .

Wrathmonk

30th Oct 2010, 18:00

N-a-B

A fleet of DD/FF [destroyers/frigates] has little in terms of balanced capability because it cannot go anywhere where there is an air threat, unless it has maritime air cover

Isn't air defence the primary role of the Type 45? Isn't it part of the requirement to protect the Carrier? As I understood it the JSFs [Joint Strike Fighter aka Dave] primary role, as far as the UK was concerned, was ground attack and that all its embarked FE @ R [Force Elements at Readiness] would be assigned missions to meet that assumption (particularly if only 12 are being embarked at anyone time :eek:). So if the Type 45 is good enough to protect the carrier without a traditional flying AD [air defence] assets available then why can a DD/FF mix (without the carrier) not go anywhere there is an air threat?

Have I missed something? I appreciate you do expand on it further but (given the assumed role of Dave) does this mean that an

air threat ... as low capability as a Thai carrier with AV8As, ... can command the maritime airspace, it trumps a T45 or a helo [read JSF] carrier because it can hold the helo at threat

Surely a helo carrier or carrier with JSF in the ground attack role are no different (in that they offer no additional AD to the Type 45). Again, I appreciate the JSF is multi role but if they've got to maintain deck alert 24/7, sufficient to deter even a limited threat, there ain't going to be much left over for ground attack.

PS - not a fishing expedition, I am genuinely puzzled (not difficult).

PPS - Abbreviations expanded on for fear of flaming by the Abbreviation Police .....;)

glad rag

30th Oct 2010, 18:12

The JEngO of the RAF Harrier Squadron that embarked when i was part of the ships company tried to call a halt to proceedings as he was concerned that the aircraft were parked too close together, and was supported by his senior NCOs

Are you not mistaking that with the fact they'd parked them arse over the water, the problem being to attach the powerset you would have to be an air walker?

whowhenwhy

30th Oct 2010, 18:35

RileyDove, if it's wrong then I take it back, but can only go on what I was told by a number of different sources.

Not_a_boffin

30th Oct 2010, 19:31

Wrathmonk

The only people who thought T45 was able to defend a naval force on it's own were the window-lickers in the Treasury and CS in the MoD who had to sell the "taking risk on retirement of SHAR". You'll note that none of the naval folk involved pretended for one minute that they were happy with the idea. Particularly now as we're only getting six T45, not the eight planned at the time.

A T45 has 48 Aster cells, which based on a couple per inbound allows 24 engagements. Nearly thirty years ago, a relatively unsophisticated force was capable of generating several waves of over twenty aircraft per day, sustained over a couple of weeks despite some fairly heavy losses. How long to empty the silos - particularly if your opponent is adept at feinting - ie forcing a SAM launch without pressing the attack? What if your RoE prevent use of PAAMS (or Sea Viper as we're now supposed to call it) in automatic mode?

The point about FW air is that it can identify inbounds and confirm intent, intercept to warn off, or spash if required. Most crucially of all, it allows you to kill the archer, not the arrow, which is usually the most efficient way of defence. All of this applies equally to aircraft defending land as well as a maritime force. From another perspective, one does not try to do SEAD by killing the SAM, you go after the launcher and the C2, similarly the artillery battery is the target, not the projectile if you want to counter artillery.

The point about a helo carrier & AV8As owning the airspace is that just by fitting a 20mm pod to the aircraft, you make it a lethal threat to a helo force, which cannot therefore probe beyond the cover of it's own force SAM (and deconfliction there would be a bitch). The naval force can therefore no longer see over the horizon - which reduces threat warning, decreases the arc a SAM ship can defend and generally makes the force AAWC very unhappy. This also allows threat air a lot more freedom in approach, flight plan etc all of which significantly reduces the effectiveness of the defences.

As for all JSF only doing strike, I suspect that reflects the single role mentality prevalent in some quarters. No-one really thinks Dave is just a bomb truck do they? Naval aircrew and aircraft are usually expected to operate in different roles, even if they don't necessarily excel in one. The ability of CVF to accommodate 30+ FW allows a small number to be allocated to deck alert or rotated through CAP, while the remainder deliver strike (or Surface Warfare, or OCA for that matter). The proportion allocated between DCA and other missions can vary according to the threat at the time. AD fighters can do OCA and escort strikes, they don't just sit and defend the ship 24/7. I assume the same applies to land-based air - some fighters are presumably tasked to defend strike aircraft bases when there is an air threat, surely?

Maritime forces need layered defences, FW & AEW to engage the threat at long range and kill it before the more complex problem (high-speed weaving missiles) becomes an issue. If it does, then that's what your SAM and CIWS systems do. Same applies to land, read E3, Ground-based radar,Tiffy and Rapier (what's left of it), plus rock apes for a different threat.

Hope that clarifies things.

Aim between the eyes

30th Oct 2010, 19:36

Late Arm Live, how many DLs have you got??? Operating from ships as either a fast jet or helicopter is never that simple especially when blue water with no divs. This is core corporate experience we are losing here and it's the accident rate that will tell the story when we try to start this up again. If we get the chance... :sad:

LateArmLive

30th Oct 2010, 20:05

Late Arm Live, how many DLs have you got???

Over 50. I still consider myself a beginner, but it didn't take that long to learn really. I can only talk about Harrier II, but it is generally easier than landing on a mexe. There was, however, an element of tongue-in-cheekness in my previous post. But only an element ;)

Not a boffin makes some excellent points in his post, but sadly they are also very expensive points. We cannot afford all of these (necessary, IMO) toys. Without them, we can't operate these new carriers safely or effectively. So, that leaves us with 2 carriers, no AEW, no FJ (be they OCA/DCA/AI/CAS) or AAR assets. And to achieve this, we offered up how many FF/DD? :confused:

davejb

30th Oct 2010, 20:54

Notaboffin
:D:D:D:D:D

A CV is a high value target, and to carry out offensive ops it needs, itself, to be safe. Due to the high (extortionate?) cost of such HVUs we cannot afford to get the defence wrong once - in other words our political (power projection is a political tool) tool must be almost guaranteed safe to operate before we deploy it. That requires the fleet centred on the CV to have effective AEW and CAP, tanker (force mutliplier) and ASW, after these self defence mechanisms are in place the rest of the air arm is offensive and does the power projection, probably under the umbrella of local (at least) air superioty gained by the air war part.

A surface mounted SAM platform is an inner ring defence asset, which should be taking out whatever leaks through the outer rings - relying on surface ships to totally counter an air threat is the sort of stuff that was (rightly) ridiculed in the 1920's, and took 2 decades to permeate through the ossified brains of the battleship mafia.

I am amazed that the gunnery officer appears to still be ascendant in the modern RN, after all it's some 90 years since Billy Mitchell proved the fallacy of the 'ships can defend themselves against aircraft' argument.

Dave

Aim between the eyes

30th Oct 2010, 21:56

Late Arm Live. There are many of your contemporaries who have been too confident and f*cked up what should have been a simple DL. Speak to some of your (current) execs. 50 does not an expert make. Even with 1000 percent more landings than you (Rotary and FJ), I do not consider myself anything like an expert. Your tongue in cheek banter accepted as at least you've done a few! I guess it's academic for your fleet now anyway, but don't make light of the price paid by FAA pilots in blood for the last 101 years! As for Dave, a computer isn't going to save you when the OOW has sailed into a fog bank, you've dumped down to hover weight and don't have the fuel to divert. Experience will.... :=

Not_a_boffin

30th Oct 2010, 23:03

Gents

I very much doubt it's a gunnery officer that is ascendant. I think you'll find it's a non-naval service or CS type that can't quite understand why more than one type of asset/system is required in "capability world".

As for DD/FF offered up, they're unfortunately irrelevant if you don't have the capital ships to back them up. As I've said before, either keep the three maritime pillars, or home defence with SSK, OPV & MCMV and the equivalent for RAF and army. Nothing else makes strategic or financial sense.

orca

31st Oct 2010, 07:37

Billy Mitchell actually proved that given time and assets, it's possible to sink a ship that isn't defending itself or exercising damage control.

The point however stands, as demonstrated countless times since, that air power can be used to sink ships, although in fairness a sub-surface weapon is needed to do the job properly. An air launched weapon tends to just make it burn until everyone gets off.(Academic - I accept).

Here's a thought. JCA is a first day of the war fighter, the bad guys and their missile firers will probably be in static bases, as air forces tend to be. Would, in a Falklands style conflict, all these 'ships are easy to sink' arguments hold sway if we TLAM'd and PW4'd the living be-jesus out of their immovable, airfields/ weapon dumps/ POL on day one? We could do it cued by google earth, while they were still trying to find us using recently acquired MRA4.

Good fishing by the way, LAL, worked in the end!!

ICBM

31st Oct 2010, 09:14

Aim,

I've witnessed a few FAA pilots who've f*cked it up too but that's not the point; Carrier aviation is, without doubt, a challenging and dangerous environment and as you well know can quickly degrade into the latter at the most inopportune times. RAF and FAA guys that I've witnessed aboard HMS's finest over the past 10 years have invariably acted professionally, approached CVS Ops with due diligence, caution and respect and have therefore built up a good deal of experience of operating STOVL at sea. Mistakes have been made, fortunately not often catastrophic and fortunately have been learned from.

As for Dave, a computer isn't going to save you when the OOW has sailed into a fog bank, you've dumped down to hover weight and don't have the fuel to divert. Experience will....

Confuses me this does....

Dave is the CV variant, not STOVL so references to hover weight and lack of fuel (c.19,500lb total internal fuel) are moot, to a point anyway. By the time CV Dave operates from QE Class we'll have Ship JPALS with autoland (a la ACLS), hands-off to the deck so again, your fog bank argument is being dealt with for the future.

Corporate conventional carrier ops are something only a select few in British Defence have any experience with. I'd wager that the most experienced CATOBAR operators are currently in the RAF (via exchanges on Hornet, Super H and Tomcat) IMHO. In x years time when the MoD are learning how to project Carrier Strike, most, if not all, will be starting from a basic level and working up as safely as possible. In the meantime the RN will operate at sea without any FW until around 2020. :D

Aim between the eyes

31st Oct 2010, 12:38

ICBM,

I think we are in agreement. It is the professionalism that has saved the day through practice and experience. To lose that skill for 10 years affects not only the aircrew but the ships crew as well. Yes I admit I had referred to Dave being STOVL instead of the CV we have now changed the order to, but the point remains the same if you are blue water or out of range of a decent div. Oh and by the way witnessing is not the same as doing. ;)

How much do you really know about our RAF/RN guys flying F18 and AV8B for the US on exchange? We have to pay for that privilege as it's not really an exchange (not many USN pilots doing the same over here). When we originally looked at the costings for this back in 2005 the US wanted to charge us $2mil per pilot per year. A bargain in my opinion but then again i'm not a beancounter REMF. Work out how much it costs for just 20 pilots for 10 years and that's at the 2005 price, not the price we are paying now. Do you really think the UK is going to pay for pilots to keep current in the US for ten years??? Don't be so naive. :=

ABTE

Not_a_boffin

31st Oct 2010, 12:47

Orca

Ships can be easy to sink if you can find and hit them repeatedly. Once found and hit, eventually enough HE will overcome any amount of armour / damage control, either by fire, structural failure, ingress of oggin or death of ships company. The trick is to find, identify and attack the ship first, which is not as easy as is often made out.

Therein lies the fundamental difference between a land base and a sea base. One can move (and therefore makes targetting difficult) and one cannot (therefore easier to target and suppress, but harder to completely disable). Artillery or Frog-type missile fire can effectively close a base without scratching anything in a HAS, in the same way that firing a bucket load of Seersucker, Yakhont, etc will eventually do for a naval force.

As for the Day 1 campaign, I suspect you'd want to do that anyway (but may not be allowed - see RoE), but in any case you'd have to be 100% sure against a wide target set. It's also unlikely anyone with military skills greater than Saddam would sit in their bases fat dumb and happy waiting for a GPS delivery of nasties.

ICBM - unfortunately, while your point re CV ops might be true, I'd put a fair bit of money that the guys who've done exchange tours have not done time in CATCC, Wings / Little F (Air & mini-boss in USN), handlers office or the squadron engineering and logs posts.

While they may be adept at doing the mission plan, launch, mission, recovery thing, they are unlikely to have a great understanding of how to spot a deck, arrange aircraft for servicing vice maintenance, weapons prep and bombing up and how all the various departments both in the squadrons and on the ship work to deliver the sortie rate. People thinking just about aircrew and (to some degree) chockheads are missing the point - it's the corporate experience of how to put it all together that is about to be lost. Nor can that be maintained at HMS Siskin - that just gives the basics of handling, not the fine art of pulling it all together.

As SDSR says "we need a plan to regenerate the necessary skills"- all I can say is it had better be a f8cking good one, cunning eneough to do more than brush your teeth with!

LowObservable

31st Oct 2010, 12:49

"By the time CV Dave operates from QE Class we'll have Ship JPALS with autoland (a la ACLS), hands-off to the deck so again, your fog bank argument is being dealt with for the future."

Very important. Note that the goal for UCAV (which nobody considers that hard) is equivalent safety to manned ops in clear daylight weather. However, it's therefore going to be safer at night and in poor viz, because the system isn't visual.

As for reliability: the jet is already completely reliant on computers and sensors to fly. The DGPS on the carrier is simple and light and can be duplicated to the ends of the earth.

Also, unlike ACLS, the system does not scream LOOK AT ME I'M A CARRIER all over the RF spectrum.

Logic drives you to all-automatic landings, all the time. Far less cost, far less wear and tear on the jets, and much easier for mixed sea-based/land-based forces.

Aim between the eyes

31st Oct 2010, 13:07

LO,

I get your point about auto-land but you cant always rely on it. Chances are that some part of it (ship/aircraft) will fail some of the time and you're back to manual. Again, chances are it will be blue water/no div in black as a witches t*t weather. Do you really want the guys/gals to not bother practicing manual landings??? :uhoh: Come on man are you really that naive as well? :ugh:

vecvechookattack

31st Oct 2010, 14:12

When does the Harrier stop flying? Anyone know the time frame?

LateArmLive

31st Oct 2010, 14:15

Middle of December. At the moment..........:{

WE Branch Fanatic

31st Oct 2010, 15:07

Meanwhile - You couldn't make it up (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325224/US-want-aircraft-carrier-Thames-Estuary-London-Olympics-2012.html)

process monkey

31st Oct 2010, 17:18

You could. Most of your posts are works of fiction.

LowObservable

31st Oct 2010, 18:29

Aim - Fully auto landings are, I agree, a stretch. However, they don't involve anything on the airplane that isn't already there, and without which the pointy end would not continue to stay in front. The jet is being controlled by computers which do their best to provide the flightpath that the pink squishy thing in the cockpit says that it wants.

The carrier end of the system is pretty simple - GPS receivers located several hundred feet apart and using that differential signal to compute exact positions - and can be made highly redundant.

At a certain point the risk of an accident due to an autoland failure will be less than the known rate of accidents and incidents in carrier landing training.

engineer(retard)

31st Oct 2010, 18:58

If its in the Mail it must be true :rolleyes:

oldnotbold

1st Nov 2010, 08:09

Admiral Woodward & Sharkey Ward Petition to save the Harrier

After the Prime Minister made public the appalling decision to withdraw the Harrier from Naval and RAF service, my son Kris managed to raise the issue with him and in doing so hit the headlines. We wish to put pressure on the Prime Minister and the government to reverse this dreadful decision and I am now writing to you with some urgency to ask your assistance by signing the petition online at:

Saving the Harrier (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/primeminister/)

If we do not retain the Harrier in service we shall lose all the expertise that is so necessary for operating from an aircraft carrier (over 90 years of dedication, huge combat success and the loss of countless lives in peace time and in war will have been in vain). Such expertise cannot be “reinvented” overnight. It would probably take decades to achieve this.
Hopefully, you will feel it appropriate to help publicise this petition request as a matter of urgency and pass it on to all your friends and colleagues and ask them to do the same.

http://www.uknda.org/plug...id=732&catid=-1&

F3sRBest

1st Nov 2010, 12:23

Whilst noble in themsleves do you really expect this is going to make ANY difference? Or is it just to make the Harrier Mafia feel better?

orca

1st Nov 2010, 13:16

Not a boffin. Thanks for the reply, which appears to be saying exactly what I did. The point of having an LO strike asset is that it is exactly what you need in the situation you describe, an enemy unwilling or not stupid enough to take the first hit. You go to a MarStrike war with offensive ROE, not without.

The only part of your statement that I wouldn't mind discussing further is 'that ships can be easy to sink when hit repeatedly'. Let's just say you do have a surpic asset (which the Uk now doesn't - as an aside), which finds the enemy, and you are able to target the enemy ships, and you are able to pick out the juicy one, and you do get past the long/medium range SAMs and then the short range ones and then your weapon gets past CIWS, I completely agree with you. If you do it repeatedly then the ship would sink. Not sure i consider this easy and believe me i have tried it plenty of times using a whole variety of weapon systems. Anywhere other than the extreme littoral there is nowhere to hide, above the ocean in a manned platform you aren't going to have a great day. Mass attacks by sea skimmers would hurt any fleet, but a modern one toting PAAMs or Standard, with sea wolf and goalkeeper behind it are going to extract quite a toll on inbound aircraft.

That's not to say a fleet is impervious, just that to really get in and do damage you probably want to co-ordinate a mass missile (let's say twenty plus weapons) arrival with sub-surface attack and leave aeroplanes out of it, nowadays.

So the threat to CVF would be anyone who could do that at the planned stand off range. Still doesn't quite fit into my idea of easy.

BUCC09

1st Nov 2010, 13:38

We wish to put pressure on the Prime Minister and the government to reverse this dreadful decision

Agreed, the short term gain will be a long term loss. Can you help refresh my memory. At the time JFH was first mooted, I'm certain I read in the Telegraph that Sea Harrier pilots had written an open letter on the subject. What were the results of that letter. Do you know if any of the SHAR veterans refused to move.

WE Branch Fanatic

2nd Nov 2010, 18:46

From James Daly's blog on History: Defence Review – correspondence with my MP (http://dalyhistory.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/defence-review-correspondence-with-my-mp/)

Not_a_boffin

2nd Nov 2010, 20:01

Orca

You're right - I believe we're agreeing furiously! Ships are only easy to sink if you can target them, ID them and then get through the defences. That's a lot of ifs......

Identifying a surface contact (particularly with EMCON) is by far the hardest part if the ship / force is clever. However, once found, ID'd and fixed it's a simple matter of effort applied. Plan Hammerhead or equivalent would tend to bring matters to a head more quickly, but the same effect can be achieved by a relatively small series of attacks sustained over a long period until silos/mags are exhausted - particularly if the maritime force can't see OTH or is unable to whittle down the oppo.

Navaleye

2nd Nov 2010, 21:18

The Head of the Indian Air force says he doesn't want the Harriers, describing them as "iffy" and ""obsolete"

FT.com / Asia-Pacific / India - Indian air chief dismisses UK?s ?iffy? Harriers (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e2e365f6-e6a1-11df-99b3-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss)

and maybe we can put this on HMS QE when she comes into service?

Sea Harrier ZH809 at SFDO Culdrose | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dyvroeth/3635694273/)

david parry

3rd Nov 2010, 18:23

Sorry my Bad, had a post today, that the guys have been briefed today that the Harrier is staying

SL Hardly-Worthitt

3rd Nov 2010, 20:37

Sorry my Bad, had a post today, that the guys have been briefed today that the Harrier is staying
:confused:
David - could you provide more info please.
TVM H-W.

Fire 'n' Forget

3rd Nov 2010, 21:55

ORCA

That's not to say a fleet is impervious, just that to really get in and do damage you probably want to co-ordinate a mass missile (let's say twenty plus weapons) arrival with sub-surface attack and leave aeroplanes out of it, nowadays.

So the threat to CVF would be anyone who could do that at the planned stand off range. Still doesn't quite fit into my idea of easy.

So the Brahmos missile 290km range/Mach 3 that can be launched from Su-30,Submarine,Surface,land would likely do it then?

Then you have Brahmos II coming ?

vecvechookattack

3rd Nov 2010, 22:14

So the Brahmos missile 290km range/Mach 3 that can be launched from Su-30,Submarine,Surface,land would likely do it then?

Then you have Brahmos II coming ?

Thats very true but you have to remember who paid for Brahmos, who developed it and where that technology came from. On top of that you also need to remember who operates the Brahmos (II) ....

glad rag

3rd Nov 2010, 23:11

Oh, you're so on it vech..................:cool:

hanoijane

4th Nov 2010, 04:10

If I had my way we'd forgo a couple of the Kilos we have on order if you'd give us your 'iffy' Harrier fleet :-)

TEEEJ

4th Nov 2010, 14:37

End of an era today for 41(R) Squadron, RAF Coningsby, and their operation of Harriers. Three 41(R) Squadron Harriers GR9s have completed a number of flypasts before landing at RAF Cottesmore.

TJ

vecvechookattack

4th Nov 2010, 18:10

First squadron loses its Harriers: key.Aero, Military Aviation (http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=2688&thisSection=military)

effects

4th Nov 2010, 18:10

overhead Farnborough taken from home at 1210, probably the last time I will see a 'leapin heap' airborne.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1122/5145792550_7a969bf423.jpg

Fire 'n' Forget

4th Nov 2010, 18:29

Vec

Thats very true but you have to remember who paid for Brahmos, who developed it and where that technology came from. On top of that you also need to remember who operates the Brahmos (II) ....

Well they are on the open market, I believe Malaysia are also buying the missile to arm the next generation of patrol vessels instead of exocet.

anyway back on subject :ok:

dctyke

4th Nov 2010, 18:33

1(f) Stands down 15 Dec 2010 and formally disbands 27 Jan 2011!

Easy Street

5th Nov 2010, 00:19

Surely we are not going to put the 1(F) numberplate to bed for 10 years until F35 starts arriving?

I truly hope that 1 and 4 avoid the ignominious fate of 92 Sqn (and others) and end up with their badges being carried by front-line aircraft.

Wholesale renumbering time? Any suggestions?

dctyke

5th Nov 2010, 07:07

The 1 (f) Sqn standard will be placed in the Rotunda of College Hall Officers' Mess, RAFC Cranwell. The number plate is protected thus, it will stand-up in due course.

orca

5th Nov 2010, 16:02

Fire 'n' Forget

Yep, sounds like a Brahmos would be ideal, get some of those inbound for a multi axis attack and you're in business. Is your point that the existence of this weapon makes sinking carriers a piece of p*ss? Is the logical extrapolation that we shouldn't get CVF because actually one could take a hit one day?

I'll agree if the whole find, fix, track, target bit of the evolution is easy, that you can find the target at the ranges you quote, relay that position to the firing unit and the weapon gets to the target, never gets seduced and achieves a kill; while the goodies don't manage to interrupt the kill chain at any point.

No-one is recommending chopping Typhoon because some plonker invented the SA-20, or getting rid of the infantry because recent research suggests that 7.62 rounds can actually kill one person each, and the baddies have loads.

I would hate to be on a warship if someone with a force capable of the whole targeting cycle had the Brahmos, but who actually does have all the elements and can actually put it all together?

Sorry if i've mis-interpreted your post.

TrickyTree

5th Nov 2010, 18:51

I'm very sad about all of this. As a (very) young jelly-tot I assisted in the very first see-in of a Harrier GR5 delivered from Dunsfold to Wittering. Subsequently , in between swingy-wingy tours, I served on 233 OCU, 1(F) Sqn, IV(AC) Sqn and 20(R) Sqn (well, HaMS, actually).

I now work on something considerably faster and pointier but a part of me will always be Harriers. They can take away the aeroplanes, they can disband the squadrons, but they can't take away the (glorious) memories*.

*That, as one of my learned colleagues pointed out the other day, is what Alzheimer's is for!

glad rag

5th Nov 2010, 18:59

They can take away the aeroplanes, they can disband the squadrons, but they can't take away the (glorious) memories.

Bit of a bad day all round, what with the Ark de-commissioning parade today.....

david parry

5th Nov 2010, 20:23

G R the old ARK..memories http://usera.imagecave.com/scouse/ARKRGH(1).jpg

draken55

5th Nov 2010, 20:49

http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j420/draken55/AirBritain004.jpgDavid,

What a superb photo montage.

I wonder how the F-35C will stand up to life on the ocean wave. With it's stealth and electronic qualities, it may not take kindly to the odd dunking. Could need some gaffer tape around the canopy as did the SHAR in 1982.

I have no doubt we will still be able to buy it of course:ok:

Aim between the eyes

5th Nov 2010, 22:13

SHAR still needed gaffer tape around the canopy in 2006. So did the starter module on port side. Worked a treat though. Simple solutions the best :)

oldnotbold

6th Nov 2010, 03:13

Defence And The Strategic Deficit

Annonymous Author: Defence And The Strategic Deficit By…. The Phoenix Think Tank (http://thephoenixthinktank.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/annonymous-author-defence-and-the-strategic-deficit-by/)

Lower Hangar

6th Nov 2010, 13:42

Cling film over the DNC was used in 1982 as sliding the canopy open on FRS1 'dumped' a cupful of water over the fibre optic numerics.

Pontius Navigator

6th Nov 2010, 15:41

. . . still needed gaffer tape
Man who invents gaffer tape that will stick to wet surfaces will make a fortune.

WE Branch Fanatic

9th Nov 2010, 22:22

Getting back to Harriers, one of the many discussions continues over on the Daly History Blog (http://dalyhistory.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/lord-west-decision-to-scrap-harrier-bonkers/#comment-2354).

If you look at the comments, you will see the thoughts of an ex SHAR driver and CO.

Likewise, if you look at the petition and see who has signed, you will see many people who do have experience of carrier operations, which I very strongly suspect the SDSR authors do not. To think that you could have no carrier flying for ten years, and then suddenly pick up the baton.

About three years ago I was aboard Illustrious whilst she was doing fixed wing flying work ups. Whilst in the dinner queue one evening I found a magazine loafing. There was an article by a senior aviator (no names - but I guess he should be quite well known amongst FAA types) commenting that there was a danger of future FAA personnel being able to operate from land but becoming unfamiliar with the shipboard environment and deck operations. I guess his views were not asked for!

rogersj1

9th Nov 2010, 22:29

totally agree it is bonkers, the thing that most annoys me is the fact they are keeping the naval ships that harriers can land on :ugh: just doesnt make economic sense to scrap the harrier and keep the ship that it can land on :*

ORAC

10th Nov 2010, 09:04

Letter from ex-navy bigwigs in the Times complaining about the Harrier getting the chop and saying the Tornado should have gone instead, quoting risk to falklands. Blunt rebuttal from MOD minister stating current war is Afghanistan and there aren't enough Harriers to cover the requirement.

1st Sea Lord also complains about the Nimord being chopped.

Times is a pay to see site, also covered in the Torygraph: Scrapping flagship carrier 'makes no sense' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8121882/Scrapping-flagship-carrier-makes-no-sense.html)

Jabba_TG12

10th Nov 2010, 10:06

ORAC:

"Defending the intervention this morning, Lord West said he feared the letter would make him "persona non grata" in defence circles but "there comes a time when something is so crucial to your country that you have to say it." "

Funny how it always seems to happen once the pension is safe. I cant take West seriously, truly I cant. In contrast though, Stanhope says:

“I am very uncomfortable at losing Nimrod. I am happy to say that publicly”

Regardless of the wrongs and rights which have been extensively debated on pprune, at least he's prepared to say publicly what he thinks on equipment/capability matters outside of his service. I could speculate that he was either over-ruled from on high at a political level or his voice was just not loud enough. But that is all it would be, speculation.

However, I dont disagree with the broad thrust of the rest of the letter, certainly regarding FI and said as much months ago and was intrigued to see Sandy Woodward saying a similar thing, along similar lines a couple of weeks ago. "Practically inviting" is maybe a bit melodramatic, but considering this was an open letter for dumbed-down mass consumption, maybe these were the types of terms that needed to be used.

Part of the reply, carefully crafted as it was, was true - the lack of Harrier in itself, in isolation does not necessarily mean that the islands are any more at risk. That would only be the case if there was ever necessity for a CORPORATE II.

Reinforcement in tension/TTW would probably - almost certainly - alleviate the threat, but its whether that capability is going to be available, almost instantly deployable and the big if, if Argentina does go for it, just how much warning you're going to get of any potential attack.

Woodward's scenario is plausible I think, although his "without a shot being fired" is maybe stretching it a tad. There are only (x) Tiffys at the moment and the SSN cant be everywhere, particularly if its being hunted itself.

And, given the geography and geology of the islands, without giving anything away, I think most of us who have been there often enough know exactly where the blind spot is.

Lose MPA and you lose the Islands. :(

ORAC

10th Nov 2010, 10:31

The entire argument is illogical and fallacious.

It would be nonsensical to use a carrier to defend the Falklands, that is better done using MPA - which is why it was built. You can't maintain a carrier force down there for any length of time and sending one takes to long, it is much easier to reinforce MPA at short notice if an emergency arises.

The second scenario is what action can be taken if the Falklands are invaded again and held by the Argentine armed forces. In this situation they will hold MPA and can, unlike in the last war, reinforce with both AD and attack aircraft. They will therefore be operating from a home base rather than at the limits of their range.

Against this, assuming we were capable of assembling a fleet, we would be able to provide a carrier borne force of around 12 GR7/9 non-radar equipped ground attack aircraft, with the fleet having to operate at range from the islands for their own protection - and hence outside any friendly radar cover. Frankly, they'd be blown out of the sky.

This isn't the 1980s, there are no SHARs, and the enemy would be in a far better position.

WE Branch Fanatic

10th Nov 2010, 10:34

The Falklands isn't the only possible scenario where the UK could need carrier aviation.

Wrathmonk

10th Nov 2010, 10:49

And again, sadly, the RN have been shot in the foot by their own kind .... I fear all this will do is get Joe Public asking questions again how it can be cheaper to build a carrier you are never going to use than to scrap it (and I've heard all the reasons at length....).

Whilst West may not have made the decision to scrap SHAR he became 1SL very soon after and, as far as I can tell, did nothing to try to overturn the decision .... he (IMHO), like many other very senior Naval officers, were prepared to sell their souls in order to get their new carriers (and, with AFG nowhere on the horizon, probably thought they would also get the bells and whistles to go with them).

Edited, having just seen WEBFs subsequent post, to add :

It may not be the only scenario but it's the only one that could possibly be "sold" to the public in order to whip up support - there is no appetite (or money!) whatsoever for any more "world policing" or "power projection" or "intervention". Once AFG is over I think you will find a lot of ships, boats, planes and troops at home doing not a lot! I'm not even sure there would be a great rush for humanitarian ops either (just a few hints that perhaps the 'non-swimmers' sort them out!;))

WE Branch Fanatic

10th Nov 2010, 11:58

And what about unexpected crises? Things like the dispute of Iran nuclear programme hotting up, with Iran attacking shipping in response to an Israeli attack or the use of sanctions against Iran, or Al Qaeda's presence in places like Yemen or Somalia?

And of course, there's going to be the issue of maintaining the skills to run a carrier. Over a decade with no carrier flying and then you pick up the baton? Really?

Not_a_boffin

10th Nov 2010, 11:59

If "they" can close MPA and successfully invade so could we. No-one is suggesting (I hope) that a carrier presence is how to defend FI. However, the deterrent effect of a carrier to such an adventure is that eventually we could come south, do as we did last time and close MPA (initially TLAMed, but subsequently cratered). With a decent carrier we'd be in a much better position than last time and CVS still offers ASaC (in the immediate future).

Without that option, it's game over boys. You can't get UNSC to back sanctions against I'm A Dinnerjacket and his bucket of sunshine band, so getting them to tell Johnny Gaucho to play nice is probably a non-starter too.

And yes, the FI is far from the only use of carrier air. The skill fade / loss argument is a far more compelling case, as is the answer to the question "Right X,Y,Z squadron RAF, please prepare for a two month deployment aboard HMS QE in support of JTFEX 15-01 please...."

ORAC

10th Nov 2010, 12:26

The number of aircraft/effort over target to close an airfield like MPA, and keep it closed, far exceeds that available from a carrier like Ark Royal, and assumes either air superiority and/or stand-off weapons to prevent a catastrophic loss rate. The handful of TLAMS available would not suffice.

ASaC is rotary with a very limited ceiling/radar horizon and speed. Even assuming that any ship was risked to carry one within radar range of the island, as soon as it went active it would be a sitting duck unable to run.

Not_a_boffin

10th Nov 2010, 14:13

Effect on MPA depends entirely on timing and targetting.

Vulnerability of ASAC depends entirely on threat by which I assume you mean f/w - don't have LR SAM last time I looked. ASaC is still a huge improvement over coverage last time round. Spotted NGS is also pretty good for shutting a runway - don't recall too many successful instances of operating FW under barrage...

ORAC

10th Nov 2010, 14:20

Notice the navy had a few problems with enemy bombers last time, in spite of their SAW defences. This time they wouldn't be operating at the limits of their range, would presumably have their fuzing sorted out, and would have a supply of newer generation Anti-ship missiles.

Want to risk any of the few remaining ships close enough inshore for artillery practice?

Aim between the eyes

11th Nov 2010, 10:51

ORAC,

Absolutely! As servants of HM, we will go and do whatever she asks of us via the idiots in Whitehall. Of course we have an opportunity to object (through our chain of command), but when the chips are all down we do as we are told.

I've always found your posts very informative but seriously mate, try not to be such a glass half empty person ALL the time. :ok:

Regards,

ABTE

just another jocky

11th Nov 2010, 12:52

As it's the Navy that needs to keep Harrier flying, shouldn't they take financial responsibility for it?

draken55

12th Nov 2010, 14:57

Doubt they could. In a jointy world, it's not for the Navy to tell the RAF what to do with it's aircraft.

Also, had the RAF wanted Nimrod, I doubt the Government would have agreed even if something else were offered in lieu. The programme was just to big a stick with which to hit the the previous Government the MOD and BAe! Even the leak of what Liam Fox thought about the loss of Nimrod could not persuade Osborne and Cameron to act otherwise.:rolleyes:

WE Branch Fanatic

13th Nov 2010, 22:24

Defence cuts are an enormous gamble, says Lord Boyce (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11741834)

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy has accused Lib Dem defence minister Nick Harvey of getting his facts wrong when he said the government would save more by scrapping Harriers than Tornados.

Mr Murphy called on the government to publish all the advice it received on the issue to end "confusion".

He said: "Serious people have raised serious concerns about the government's decision to scrap Harriers and all ministers have succeeded in doing is add to the confusion.

"It's now time to publish the MoD advice and full costs of terminating the Harrier fleet and suspend the decision until we have had a proper debate."

But in an interview earlier this week, Lib Dem minister Nick Harvey appeared to suggest that the government would save more by scrapping Tornados.

Jim Murphy has written to Mr Harvey, asking the minister: "Given the importance of this issue, will you publish all of the costings that led to this decision being taken?"

My thoughts:

1. The Service chiefs have to toe the party line. End of story.
2. Focussing on the Falklands is a huge error.
3. Who advised the Government that it would be possible to have a decade with no carrier flying, and then suddenly pick up the baton and carry on? Anyone fancy doing a FOI request to see if the views of experienced naval aviation experts were sought?

Here is a video of the debate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_9184000/9184735.stm).

I think one of the problems wih our system of Government is that new politicians take charge, who haven't been in office for over a decade, and then they start cutting straight away - not just in defence. Also I wonder why the document outlining future threats made no mention energy security (think Gulf of Aden, West Africa, and Arabian Gulf/Sea - and yes, Al Qaeda seeks to disrupt energy supplies, and Iran has threatened to do so)?

Oh - Just seen this from the Telegraph: Head of Navy made last minute plea to save Harriers from scrap-heap (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8131298/Head-of-Navy-made-last-minute-plea-to-save-Harriers-from-scrap-heap.html)

In a tense meeting, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, told Mr Cameron that he "could not endorse as his military advice" the decision to axe the Harriers and considered it a "political, not military decision."

ORAC

14th Nov 2010, 07:15

I think the response from edmundbear in the comments to that Telegraph article covers it's errors and inadequacies.

The article is obviously a briefing from dark blue sources who are doing themselves no favours. The government cannot be seen to change their mind or they risk the entire SDSR outcome being questioned, all this and like briefings will do is infuriate the ministers and make the navy staff ever more mistrusted.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

14th Nov 2010, 09:25

Chaps, Johnny G doesn't need to make all that significant effort to retake FI; with or without help from other South Americans. He simply needs to make a sufficiently robust argument that minerals extracted from the "disputed" Falklands sea area are Contraband. He can then legally harass as much of the support shipping and facilities as he wants.

I think we are becoming dangerously fixated on a CORPORATE re-run rather than a "cod war" one.

glad rag

14th Nov 2010, 10:57

I think the response from edmundbear in the comments to that Telegraph article covers it's errors and inadequacies.

Indeed, a very poorly written article.
However despite the above gentleman's balanced corrections and reply, with the finger being pointed squarely at the last PM, the partisan (telegraph inspired) sniping continues at the WRONG targets, AS USUAL.

:ugh:

WE Branch Fanatic

14th Nov 2010, 15:23

I am still convinced that no thought has been given to maintaining the skills needed to run a carrier. The First Sea Lord has experience of commanding a CVS and therefore would have been concerned about skills loss. If nothing else, morale may be helped by hearing that our corner was fought.

Wrathmonk

14th Nov 2010, 16:01

The First Sea Lord has experience of commanding a CVS

That speaks volumes .... prepared to sell out the rest of the RN / FAA in order to save the carrier ... in much the same way that it could also be seen that the RAF hierachy seems hell bent on selling out some of its key capabilities to protect its FJ fleet :}

WE Branch Fanatic

15th Nov 2010, 22:57

Why does it speak volumes? The fact that he did command a CVS does suggest that he knows something about carrier operations (unlike the SDSR authors), but it wasn't his only command - he was originally a submariner, and has commanded two submarines (an SSK then a SSN) and a frigate.

Vortex what...ouch!

15th Nov 2010, 23:04

Are you still bleating about your extensive naval experience having been booted out yourself? Give it a rest will you. :=

Edited to change preaching to bleating, which is more appropriate.

Wrathmonk

16th Nov 2010, 08:03

It speaks volumes, WEBF, because the RN are in the position they are in (pretty much carriers and Trident and seemingly not enough of everything else) because the RN grown ups have sacrificed all sorts of capability (starting with SHAR....) in order to have the 'prestige' of two big carriers. They have let personal sentimentality, and their vanity to maintain their legacy, cloud their judgement - all IMHO opinion of course. Not on my watch and all that.

Sadly they then try to blame everyone but themselves and fools believe them.

Sunk at Narvik

16th Nov 2010, 08:15

Given the lengthy gestation period of the QE's, the constant challenges, redesigns, changes in Minister etc etc I find it hard to believe that some folks still regard the ships as vanity projects.

Its taken twelve years to get from the SDR 98 decision to here. Either case for sensibly sized carriers is sound, or it isn't. If it wasn't they would have been cancelled years ago. I don't buy the blather put up by the Govt about them being to expensive to cancel..thats just a smokescreen..if there was no case for carriers in the UK's future Orbat, Cameron would have dinged them...yet only last night at the Guildhall he was emphasising that by 2020 we'd have a strike carrier in the armoury.

The real risk he's running is that nothing much will happen before 2020 that requires unilateral action by the UK.

D O Guerrero

16th Nov 2010, 08:26

Snagged - I couldn't disagree more with your last sentiment. What exactly is being watered down? What's actually happening is that the RN is having the legs cut from under it. What is left is a grossly asymmetric force which doesn't really know what its there for. SSBNs and CVF are left as huge vanity projects while the necessary assets to defend them at sea (and make the viable) are being pared to the bone. Utter madness - glad I'm out of it, but not glad to be relying on it for our security.
Edit- where's your post gone?!

just another jocky

16th Nov 2010, 09:38

I don't buy the blather put up by the Govt about them being to expensive to cancel

Whether you "buy it" or not is pretty irrelevant, fact is the contract cancellation fees would be more than the completion costs. The desire would appear to have been there to cancel them, but they wont because of the cost.

The Navy shot itself in the foot; they wanted too much and had not enough to pay for it. In an ideal world, we would have carriers and Harriers, but it isn't. We have to cut our cloth etc etc.

Jig Peter

16th Nov 2010, 14:46

Keeping the Harriers going until the first carriers arrive might be a bit of a stretch, despite the good old British tradition of not retiring an aircraft type till it's done at least 50 years' service ...

WE Branch Fanatic

18th Nov 2010, 23:32

JP

Harrier OSD was meant to be 2018 - discussed here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/332929-harrier-osd-2018-a.html). Support contracts also went to BAE Systems and Rolls Royce. I wonder if these contracts have cancellation clauses or anything?

I don't know why these clauses are seen in such a negative light. If you buy an insurance policy and then cancel it, you have to pay a fee.

Vortex

Most of my comments are based on what I've learnt from others, including when I was briefly aboard a CVS about three years ago whilst she was doing fixed wing flying work ups. It was revealing how many parts of ship were involved in directly supporting flying operations. I remember that some senior FAA types were expressing concerns over skill fade/loss back then.

Anyway: New leak exposes MoD fury at defence cutbacks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8141797/New-leak-exposes-MoD-fury-at-defence-cutbacks.html)

Exclusive: David Cameron's defence review has demoralised the Armed Forces, strained relations with allies and ignored significant military advice, a leaked Ministry of Defence document has disclosed.

glad rag

19th Nov 2010, 01:05

Who cares what frenzy the telegraph is beating itself into

What is done is done.

All you can do is serve ( or get a f*****g life ) and catch the s****y end of the stick if it's your turn.

:)

just another jocky

19th Nov 2010, 10:23

Far too many folk around here seem to believe what they read/hear in the press. :=

WE Branch Fanatic

23rd Nov 2010, 20:47

From Con Coughlin in the Telegraph: If we can afford to bail out Ireland, we can afford to keep Ark Royal and the Harriers (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100064930/if-we-can-afford-to-bail-out-ireland-we-can-afford-to-keep-ark-royal-and-the-harriers/)

adminblunty

23rd Nov 2010, 21:53

It seems the RN want Harriers, shiny new CVs, JSF, T45, SSN, SSBN, Nimrod, new helicopters etc etc. Does the RN propose to give up anything it actually owns/funds? mmmmm no seems to be the answer. As for regenerating the capability to mount carrier operations, we the Americans, Japanese, Spanish, Russians, Indians etc all managed to build a carrier capability from nothing the first time around, I don't see why we can't do it again. I'm sure our allies/friends operating carriers will lend us a hand when the time comes.

WE Branch Fanatic

25th Nov 2010, 21:46

Have you been living on another planet? The RN has been savagely over the last decade.

Another Telegraph link: HMS Ark Royal: Their final mission (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8158181/HMS-Ark-Royal-Their-final-mission.html)

WE Branch Fanatic

26th Nov 2010, 22:22

It seems that the Harrier GR9 support contracts with BAE Systems and Rolls Royce do (did?) contain cancellation clauses - see here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/376555-nimrod-mra-4-a-71.html#post6085683).

The Harrier GR.9 and Nimrod MRA.4 projects carry the biggest risk to the MoD, he said. BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce signed support contracts worth GBP574 million and GBP198 million respectively for the RAF/Royal Navy Harrier force only last year. Both contracts have eight years left to run, so the MoD will likely face a substantial bill to compensate the companies for their termination.

I don't think our Prime Minister is very good with details, like how to retain the skills to run carrier operations, or what happens should unexpected events occur. Good at the PR stuff though, although not good enough to win a majority in the election

And Navy News reports the last take off from Ark Royal: Harriers pay 'emotional' farewell to Yeovilton (http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/985-harriers-pay-emotional-farewell-to-yeovilton.aspx)

regt52

26th Nov 2010, 23:28

- Harriers routed into Spade with 80 minutes play time - to work with Forward Air Controllers undertaking Combat Ready Assessment prior to deploying on Operations

- I would qualify that as a 'Mission' ?

iRaven

26th Nov 2010, 23:43

Regt52

Well said. :D

What's better, sending the Harrier Force on extended "Gardening Leave" as BigGreenGilbert suggests or squeeze some valuable Air-Land Integration training out of the capability until the end of the year (which is what SDSR called for) plus some PR. Let's face it the Harrier has been a great advert for a British Aircraft Industry (that sadly no longer exists), so why shouldn't it get the opportunity to say "goodbye" along with the flat-tops??

No brainer, really - unless, of course you have no brain!

iRaven

orca

27th Nov 2010, 03:33

Perhaps an interesting time to start the following debate:

How many controls or hours of support do the land forces need in their work up to Herrick? how many will they now get?

Given that in slack handfuls the air component has never filled all these CAS VULs, to which you can add JFACTSU and SF tasking, what is the plan to replace the harrier contribution which was running far higher than the 30% 'fair share' (Harrier 18 Fear, Tornado 40 - but with the boys deployed) or so of the task at times?

I am not for one second saying keep the harrier. I'm living in the now, I just wonder if the full implications have been appreciated and mitigated against.

Wrathmonk

27th Nov 2010, 08:11

How many controls or hours of support do the land forces need in their work up to Herrick? how many will they now get?

Perhaps they could incorporate some (more?) into the 'Tac Weapons' Syllabus (after all a vast majority of the instructors at Valley are soon to be former Harrier pilots ....) and the Tornado OCU.

Granted it may not be working with a 'sensor' in the Tac Wpns side (unless the new Hawk can carry one - I don't know) but I'm assuming that talking eyes on and talking a sensor on is similar (although I stand to be corrected!).

just another jocky

27th Nov 2010, 09:37

(although I stand to be corrected!).

You will be, with quotes like that! :}

Of course the repercussions of losing the majority supplier of CAS trg to Land has been considered, but I guess it was deemed not a large enough factor.

I wonder if some of the tasking could be taken up by the private sector? :oh:

Wrathmonk

27th Nov 2010, 14:02

jocky

Fair point, I was thinking of it from a very parochial pov.:O

WE Branch Fanatic

3rd Dec 2010, 23:26

Will a private company also provide aircraft to provide experience of working with aircraft on a carrier deck?

This week, the Prime Minister was willing to devote several days of his time, and £15 million of public funds to the unsuccesful bid to hold the 2018 Football World Cup. Priorities?

500N

4th Dec 2010, 00:32

WE Branch Fanatic

The WC brings $ into the country, I don't think you can compare the two.

I am not saying that the Harriers etc should have been scrapped,
but you can't not bid for something if you want it.

WE Branch Fanatic

5th Dec 2010, 21:15

Would the PM have put so much time (and the taxpayer's dough) into the World Cup bid if it hadn't had the same PR aspect to it?

Can other organisations or companies ask the PM to help them bid? Thought not.

KeyPilot

12th Dec 2010, 09:55

Out of interest, anyone know (i) how old the GR9/9A frames are (oldest-newest) and (ii) what the intended disposal route is?

vecvechookattack

14th Dec 2010, 17:45

Any truth in the rumour that the RN are going to fund the re-introduction of the GR9 manned by reservists? Would make perfect sense to me

WE Branch Fanatic

15th Dec 2010, 22:39

Vec

Today's Telegraph had an article along these lines by Thomas Harding, but I cannot find it on the website.

Wokkafans

15th Dec 2010, 22:47

WBF

That'll be this article:

Counting them all out - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/8204798/Counting-them-all-out.html) :ok:

Love to see it happen but somehow doubt it will.:sad:

Squirrel 41

15th Dec 2010, 23:32

Reserve GR9s for fun and games?

No chance. It would mean effectively keeping all of the engineering and infrastructure costs with the savings being only on the number of hours flown. And with all due respect to the Bona-Mates out there, how many hours are you going to need to be safe, let alone combat ready?

Not going to happen.

S41

Finningley Boy

15th Dec 2010, 23:45

Farewell to the people's fighter jet then!:sad:

FB

althenick

16th Dec 2010, 00:00

WE Branch Fanatic

16th Dec 2010, 21:28

Wokafans

Mr Harding's article was a bit longer. Here it is, typed in long hand:

Navy Chiefs' plan to save jump jets

A last-ditch attempt has been made by the Royal Navy to save Harriers from the axe, with a proposal to allow reservist pilots to fly them.

As the last flight of the jump jets takes place at RAF Cottesmore today a plan, said to be backed by the First Sea Lord, has been put forward to preserve a rump of 20 Harriers.

Navy chiefs have warned of an "unbridgeable skills gap" for pilots needed to fly the Joint Strike Fighter off the new aircraft carriers that will come into service in 2020 if carrier training is stopped. Without the ability to fly off carriers for the next 10 years, Navy pilots will lose the skill of landing on rolling decks in bad weather and deck crews will not get the practice they needed to safely launch and recover aircraft.

The decision to scrap the Harrier in favour of the RAF's Tornados in the strategic defence review infuriated the Navy.

But hopes of saving the Harrier, of which there are 65 serviceable aircraft in total, will be raised at a meeting of the defence board in January.

A proposal will be made to allow Royal Navy Reserve pilots to continue flying the planes at weekends from Yeovilton, Somerset.

Senior naval officers say the RAF is rushing to retire the Harriers to make the defence review decision a "fait accompli" before alternatives are put in place.

S41

Fun and games? Or preserving the skills needed for running a fixed wing carrier (deck crews, bridge and navigating personnel, various watchkeepers in places like the Operations Room and Ship Control Centre, and so on)? Maybe even maintaining an ability to do something if the politicians' crystal ball is wrong?

RNR pilots did fly the Harrier, and the Sea Harrier before that. Other aircraft types as well, and at sea. As for the cost - long term (to 2018) support contracts were signed last year. The contracts included cancellation clauses so is not a case of zero aircraft equals zero cost. Reducing the number of aircraft to be supported back might be no (or not much) more expensive than ripping up the contracts. What if we worked more closely with Italy or Spain? If the GR9 is similar to the AV8B+ then perhaps they can help with support? We might be shoring up their economies very soon....

althenick

... Since Lusty has been chosen over Ocean for the axe then there would be little point as it wouldn't get to sea

Yes there would be! Lusty will be kept until 2014, so the RN will still have a platform that can take fixed wing aircraft. Not sure when Queen Elizabeth enters service, but hopefully it won't be too long after that. When Ark Royal entered Pompey for the last time the Captain commented (on TV) on the new carriers arriving "in four years time.....". As for Ocean, she is due a refit. I think that I read that she's getting an extensive (£100 million?) refit. If the Phalanx was removed from the front of the flight deck, surely she could operate Harriers (ignoring speed and reliability issues for now)?

When I read the above article yesterday it brightened up a dull day. Back in March I heard a senior RN Officer commenting that a possible SDSR outcome was to hand "not needed right now" capabilities to Reservists. He wasn't thinking of Harrier, I suspect.

Red Line Entry

16th Dec 2010, 21:43

Keeping the Harrier flying by reservists would be the worst of both worlds. Not only would we have lost the capability, but we would lose the savings that are being made by scrapping the fleet. That would mean other platforms would have to make even more savings!

Those who think we could run them on for a song are deluding themselves. Have you any idea the numbers of people involved in keeping a type airworthy, supplied and maintained? Those on the stn are just the tip of the iceberg.

draken55

16th Dec 2010, 21:59

Red Line Entry

Your argument seems based on the presumtion that Harrier was chopped to save money. SDR stated it was about capability. We have all seen estimates indicating more could have been saved by dropping Tornado but the type is needed for Afghanistan and to give the RAF a manned deep strike platform until the F-35C arrives.

If the Navy can come up with a workable plan and budget to run on the Harrier using the RNR and the Government can be persuaded (which I agree may be doubtful) why are you bothered. The operational SHAR force was never more than two small Squadrons for three carriers before it was chopped in 2006 so in theory at least only some of the very best airframes that would otherwise be sold or scrapped would be needed to retain core deck flying and aircraft handling skills.

Unless of course there is another agenda:suspect:

ORAC

17th Dec 2010, 07:32

If the admirals can persuade the PM to ante up an extra £1.5Bn to keep a non-operational GR9 reserve going, more power to their elbow.

I'd just point out that amount would also probably be enough to save the MRA4, which would offer a for more useful, and unique, capability than the GR9 - and mainly for the benefit of the navy.

draken55

17th Dec 2010, 07:43

Orac

Since we don't know the number of pilots and airframes involved, this figure is a guess. Let's just wait and see.

As to the Nimrod, is this the start of the RAF now planning to invoice the other services for work it does for them:rolleyes: Might as well let the Army take over JHF on that basis. MPA run in future by the Navy? Why not when the RAF seems less interested in fighting to retain "non core" activities!

Red Line Entry

17th Dec 2010, 07:52

draken,

Thank you for your gracious edit which removed the implication that I personally had a secret agenda.

To me it is all about the money. We know that the Defence Plan was tens of billions over the expected budget for the next ten years, SDSR has had to reign in our current and future expenditure to match our likely income. The key then is to decide what capabilities to reduce and by how much.

My point is that once all the arguments had been completed (and let's not go through all that again please), it was decided to remove the GR9 capability. To then attempt to 'buy it back' will cost tens of millions that will have to be found from elsewhere (anyone who thinks Defence will get an extra wedge of cash for Harrier from the PM is delusional). Taking the cash from elsewhere will have a detrimental effect on that other capability.

Another point is that the annual Planning Round doesn't normally finish until about February, so if things are progressing as normal, Main Building will be in the heart of the Stage 3 process and still running all sorts of options for further savings. Who says Fast Jet capability isn't going to be hit further?

draken55

17th Dec 2010, 09:16

Red Line Entry

Re the Harrier, I do think there was another agenda at play but it was not yours;)

As for the money argument, we will have to disagree. Money, more of it or less, has always been used as the prime factor by politicians when implementing their vision. This time around, along with spending announcements in other areas like Higher Education made since the Election, the SDSR was as much about flagging up issues with the greatest PR impact to let the Public be in no doubt as to the depths of "our financial crisis", as it was defence.

Since SDSR was published, money has been found to be available from our heavily indebted economy to assist with the bale out of other EU Countries. This fits in with a political vision of what the EU is or should become so this should be no surprise nor should the move to greater European co-operation on defence matters at the expense of national capability.

vecvechookattack

17th Dec 2010, 09:24

Just heard this morning that there is a possibility of the RN Hawks moving from Culdrose to Newquay..(RNAS St Mawgan)...
Whats wrong with Yeovilton....Are these people mad? Why would you do that? Why move the Hawks to St Mawgan instead of Yeovilton... Another nail in the Fleet Air Arms Coffin?

In affectionate memory of the Fleet Air Arm
Sadly passed away in the Autumn of 2010
Deeply lamented by a large circle of sorrowing
friends and acquaintances
RIP
The body will be cremated and the ashes taken
to RAF Cranwell

TEEEJ

17th Dec 2010, 13:16

KeyPilot wrote,

Out of interest, anyone know (i) how old the GR9/9A frames are (oldest-newest) and (ii) what the intended disposal route is?

See following links for delivery/build dates for Harrier serials running from ZD318 to ZH665.

UK Serials (http://www.ukserials.com/)

http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_production.htm

From

http://www.harrier.org.uk/index.html

TJ

BEagle

17th Dec 2010, 14:19

vec, quite so. Additionally, St. Mawgan has a worse weather factor then Culdrose. Yeovilton would be a much better move - along with 24 Harriers.

Deck operating skills must be maintained; the aircraft should be assigned to Illustrious, then reassigned to the new carrier - and kept in service until F-35C or Sea Hornet E/F/G are delivered....

...and then I woke up.

Squirrel 41

17th Dec 2010, 14:42

The more interesting question is whether Culdrose SFDO is going to be maintaining fixed wing skills as well as rotary in the next decade?

I can't imagine that there's any financial flex to allow for the retention of the GR9s in the RN's budget. And if there is, I would expect it (rightly) to go into retaining another couple of escorts.

S41

draken55

17th Dec 2010, 15:15

S41

The number of escorts needed has been determined by the SDSR. The Navy does not have the choice of finding money to keep two more.

So if the Navy was able to find savings that might be used to fund the retention of some GR9's possibly flown by RNR pilots and persuade the MOD and the politicians to allow this, it could be done.

I am not a betting man but...................:oh:

vecvechookattack

17th Dec 2010, 16:02

The more interesting question is whether Culdrose SFDO is going to be maintaining fixed wing skills as well as rotary in the next decade?

They ought to. We still need FDO's and flight deck crews. HMS Illustrious will still be embarking Fixed wing aircraft upto and until 2014.

Not_a_boffin

17th Dec 2010, 19:00

Only a complete moron would bin the aircraft handling and FDO courses entirely just because there may be 5 year gap between Lusty decommissioning and QE commissioning.......oh, I see.

WE Branch Fanatic

18th Dec 2010, 23:37

But surely.....

Lusty will stay until 2014. Queen Elizabeth (not being fitted with cats or traps) should be ready in 2015-6....

I also seem to remember that Ocean is meant to be able to carry Harriers, but not operate them (there's a Phalanx in the way). Her last refit cost £40 million. Her planned refit is sat to cost £100 million - that's a lot of upgrades and additions.

As for the poo-pooing of the ideas regarding Reservists and Harriers:

1. How much of the projected costs are fixed, regardless of aircraft numbers?
2. How much cost is there per aircraft?
3. How closely are costs and flying hours related?
4. How many costs are due to personnel?

So a much smaller number of aircraft, with smaller numbers of personnel (many of them Reservists so not paid 365 days per year unless mobilised or on FTRS), and reduced flying hours.... We are now talking about a significantly lower figure than that quoted for three full time squadrons.

MarkD

20th Dec 2010, 03:51

I don't suppose there are any Harriers that could be sent to LHR as mobile taxiway / stand ice melters? :ok:

Jumping_Jack

20th Dec 2010, 10:40

Ken Scott

20th Dec 2010, 10:50

Whilst doing some Christmas shopping at the weekend I came across the MOD action figure range in a toy shop. The 'Attack fighter' (Harrier) now seems a little incongrous - I trust they'll be producing a model based on Typhoon/ F35 to replace it, or will they keep selling them (if they actually sell well?) Perhaps a future collector's item, from the days when the RAF/RN had aircraft?

There was also a SAR crewman - another future collector's item?!

gareth herts

20th Dec 2010, 12:30

So, latest rumour doing the rounds is that the Harrier is no longer certified to fly, but is now in completely the wrong place for disposal storage. Any truth in this? Apparently Staish at Cot has stated that his stn closes on 31 Mar, if any Harriers are there at that stage it will be for DE to look after them!!

Gp Cpt Gary Waterfall said on Wednesday:

"My immediate concentration now is the closing down of the airbase here and in the New Year we turn our attention to the ceremonial closing of the squadrons. The disposal decision regarding the aircraft has not been made so what we'll be doing is putting the aircraft in to a storage type condition so that when that decision is made they will be in an ideal state to allow them to move on."

glad rag

20th Dec 2010, 12:53

Quite illuminating that some would rather keep an (:() outdated(:() capability rather than support the guardianship of the strategic deterrence fleet......................................

and same say there is an agenda at play ?

:cool:

Al R

21st Dec 2010, 12:41

As an aside, some footage here of a Harrier going under a bridge in what looks like London; pilot by the name of.. 'John Farley'?

BBC News - Archive: New British Harrier Jump Jet unveiled (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11996312)

A likely tale. :hmm:

Justanopinion

21st Dec 2010, 13:03

glad rag

Since when was the Harrier an outdated capability?

Justanopinion

21st Dec 2010, 13:44

Ignoring the fact it has been removed from service.....!

glad rag

21st Dec 2010, 19:13

Have you quite finished? :p

SLLC

21st Dec 2010, 21:24

Looks like Menai Bridge to me. Requires careful lining up down the straights, but just about doable (in the sim). Good to see JF back in the cockpit if only in the dome. Still can't quite get over seeing 30 serviceable jets on the line last Wednesday (14 spares, none required). Bonkers indeed.

Reinhardt

22nd Dec 2010, 07:02

South of the Channel, France still has a credible Naval Aviation, for some years to come - one big nuclear carrier, the "Charles de Gaulle" currently bombing Afghanistan from offshore Pakistan - and three helicopters carriers (Ocean-type vessels)

Aircraft on-board are Rafale (one squadron) and Super-Etendard (two squadrons) plus a small squadron of Hawkeye - all from the french Marine Nationale, not the Air Force.

Just food for thought.

cazatou

22nd Dec 2010, 08:31

Reinhardt

Thought it had been unusually quiet here recently - the Church on the hill of the local town makes an ideal LL turning point.

WE Branch Fanatic

24th Dec 2010, 22:16

According to this Navy News article (http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1019-national-elf-service-comes-to-the-rescue-on-hms-scott.aspx), Charles de Gaulle is currently being escorted by HMS Cumberland - soon to be decommisioned. I wonder if anyone is struck by the irony of being tasked to support carrier operations in support of NATO in Afghanistan, since our defence review has concluded we do not need carriers as Afghanistan is the priority?

I also remember that in October/November 2001 US Marine Corps AV8Bs did indeed fly sorties over Afghanistan from amphibious vessels.

Of course, the future is JOINT = LAND = ARMY.

:ugh:

Finningley Boy

25th Dec 2010, 11:23

I understand R.A.F. Harriers were just beginning ops from the decks of the Carriers about the time of the initial operations against the Taliban in 2001. They weren't involved though as I recall?:confused:

FB:)

Obi Wan Russell

25th Dec 2010, 12:28

RAF Harrier sqns were deploying alongside the FAA's SHAR sqns aboard our carriers from the mid to late 90s, usually seven of each supported by 3 Sea King AEW2s and 6 Sea King HAS6 to form a balanced and capable air group. Should have stuck with that pattern.:*

Finningley Boy

25th Dec 2010, 17:01

Yes but we didn't need it apparently!?:ok:

FB:)

CISTRS

27th Dec 2010, 06:13

Posted by XV277
Word from friends who work at Rosyth was that it was a concern even with CVF. Lack of suitable deck paint being mentioned.

Can anyone tell us why the new dockyard crane for Rosyth assembly of the carriers has been made in China? :8

http://royal-navy.org/lib/index.php?title=Rosyth_prepares_for_Royal_Navy_supercarriers

Not_a_boffin

27th Dec 2010, 11:10

Because that's where they make them? Not anything that's available in UK, maybe even W Europe (I think it's outside Liebherr's range).

And it's f8cking late! Should have arrived in August, but delays on the tidal entry work prevented ship being able to enter the basin.

WE Branch Fanatic

27th Dec 2010, 11:46

FB

We didn't need what? Ignoring exercises, show the flag activities, and SAR operations.....

For a large part of the 1990s, the main UK military effort was in Bosnia. A carrier was deployed continuously in the Adriatic for those years, with both Sea Harriers and Sea Kings doing all sorts of stuff, including enforcing the no fly zone over Bosnia, doing reece, and ground attack - the Sea Harrier participated in NATO air attacks against the Bosnian Serbs in 1995. On here, many have been dismissive of the small number of aircraft (six Sea Jets) embarked, but turn a blind eye to the fact that the RAF contributions ashore had similar numbers of aircaft, but without the mobility or swing role. The embarked ASW and AEW Sea Kings also contributed to operations. Remember, Yugoslavia did have an air force and a navy.

In the late 90s carriers took part in various other activities, including helping police the no fly zone over Southern Iraq and at least a couple of stand offs with Saddam Hussein. I think that RAF Harrier GR7s were embarked for the first time during one of these crises, hence the inclusion of the Joint Force Harrier concept in the 1998 SDR. After Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, HMS Invincible was sent to the Arabian Gulf as (so the media said) there was a missile threat to the RAF base in Kuwait and the UK wanted another option. On her way back to the UK, Invincible got diverted to the Adriatic to participate in the Kosovo operations.

In 2000, the UK intervention in Sierra Leone involved HMS Illustrious with both types of Harrier embarked, a fact that may not have registered with the UK commander ashore, Brigadier David Richards (now a Knight, a General, and CDS). The political and psychological messages sent by deploying large warships close to land should also be remembered, as well as constant presence, large numbers of helicopters, command and control facilities, medical facilities, and others. I seem to remember that Illustrious made a high speed dash across the Atlantic, but had to wait for the slower Ocean to catch up.

In 2001, Illustrious once again deployed with both Harrier types embarked, for the SAIF SARREA II exercise in Oman. Following the 9/11 attacks in the United States, she was retasked to act as a helicopter carrier (Ocean needed to return to the UK for maintenance) and disembarked her fixed wing aircraft (and grey Sea Kings?). No land based UK fast jets took part in the initial strikes against the Taliban either, although submarines did.

In 2003, Ark Royal acted as a LPH for the invasion of Iraq. The Iraqi air force was mostly dead and burried after over a decade of sanctions and a no fly zone, and Kuwaiti/Bahraini/Qatari airbses were used by the US/UK/Australians. Not that that stopped the US Navy from deploying FIVE carriers.

Since then, our main military involvement has been Iraq and Afghanistan. Apart from the lack of an opponent with an air force or navy, they both lack any length of coastline, Afghanistan being land locked, Iraq having only a tiny coastline - not that this prevents carrier based aircraft operating in both places. Yet we seem to have fallen into a trap, with many believing that:

a)All future operations will be in land locked places.
b)There will never be an enemy navy or air force to worry about.

Apart from needing to retain skills for when CVF arrives, what about the spread of the war on terror to Yemen or Somalia, renewed Argentine aggresion in the South Atlantic, UK involvement in Korean crises, or the political stand off over Iran's nuclear programme getting hotter and turning into a re-run of the 1980s tanker war?

Or what about the crisis in the Ivory Coast? I can see a non combatant evacution operation coming up. But wait - that's how the intervention in Sierra Leone started. It would be s terrible thing to have a Chinook/Jungly Sea King shot down by a MiG from a third world air force (yes, the Ivorian air force has MiGs).

On which note, here is a nice PDF document (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/95CD1C65-5C59-4F25-A37B.../jwp3_51.pdf) on NEO Operations. Note the picture of Ocean.

CISTRS

28th Dec 2010, 03:15

The Rosyth dockyard Goliath crane has been made by ZPMC in China. It is not a standard product, and as such it could have been made by any suitable fabrication yard or shipyard in UK. Extensive and expensive supervision by the UK contractor has been necessary to ensure compliance with the specification and welding standards.

ZPMC are specialists in container cranes. Their other products are general steel fabrication. They have recently fabricated the new seismically upgraded Oakland Bay Bridge for San Francisco and a Shiploader Wharf for Port Hedland, Australia.

Pity we have exported our bread and butter work to China.

Not_a_boffin

28th Dec 2010, 17:43

It is not a standard product, and as such it could have been made by any suitable fabrication yard or shipyard in UK.

Steelwork, maybe (but not cost-effectively) - control systems and running gear, definitely not. Class supervision to ensure build compliance is standard - just see how many surveyors Lloyds, ABS, DNV etc have in China.

Suspect that a turnkey was required, hence go to a specialist crane manufacturer that can design and build one-offs like this. Babcocks have enough on their plate stitching the ship together, without that. Even Harlands cranes were made in Germany back in the 60s.

Al R

28th Dec 2010, 18:00

Not_a_boffin,

Off the shelf sir? Suits you sir.

Cranes, China cranes, cranes Manufacturers, China cranes catalog (http://www.made-in-china.com/productdirectory.do?subaction=hunt&style=b&mode=and&code=0&comProvince=nolimit&order=0&isOpenCorrection=1&word=cranes&by=%2Fproductdirectory.do)

250 Metres tall..

Tower Crane (Q6015) - China Tower Crane,Construction Machine,Building Machinery in Construction Machinery (http://lionetmq.en.made-in-china.com/product/VotJPLWxaXkq/China-Tower-Crane-Q6015-.html)

WE Branch Fanatic

28th Dec 2010, 21:24

Any chance of getting back to the topic of Harrier? In all the excitement over cranes, my comments got left behind..

FB

We didn't need what? Ignoring exercises, show the flag activities, and SAR operations.....

For a large part of the 1990s, the main UK military effort was in Bosnia. A carrier was deployed continuously in the Adriatic for those years, with both Sea Harriers and Sea Kings doing all sorts of stuff, including enforcing the no fly zone over Bosnia, doing reece, and ground attack - the Sea Harrier participated in NATO air attacks against the Bosnian Serbs in 1995. On here, many have been dismissive of the small number of aircraft (six Sea Jets) embarked, but turn a blind eye to the fact that the RAF contributions ashore had similar numbers of aircaft, but without the mobility or swing role. The embarked ASW and AEW Sea Kings also contributed to operations. Remember, Yugoslavia did have an air force and a navy.

In the late 90s carriers took part in various other activities, including helping police the no fly zone over Southern Iraq and at least a couple of stand offs with Saddam Hussein. I think that RAF Harrier GR7s were embarked for the first time during one of these crises, hence the inclusion of the Joint Force Harrier concept in the 1998 SDR. After Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, HMS Invincible was sent to the Arabian Gulf as (so the media said) there was a missile threat to the RAF base in Kuwait and the UK wanted another option. On her way back to the UK, Invincible got diverted to the Adriatic to participate in the Kosovo operations.

In 2000, the UK intervention in Sierra Leone involved HMS Illustrious with both types of Harrier embarked, a fact that may not have registered with the UK commander ashore, Brigadier David Richards (now a Knight, a General, and CDS). The political and psychological messages sent by deploying large warships close to land should also be remembered, as well as constant presence, large numbers of helicopters, command and control facilities, medical facilities, and others. I seem to remember that Illustrious made a high speed dash across the Atlantic, but had to wait for the slower Ocean to catch up.

In 2001, Illustrious once again deployed with both Harrier types embarked, for the SAIF SARREA II exercise in Oman. Following the 9/11 attacks in the United States, she was retasked to act as a helicopter carrier (Ocean needed to return to the UK for maintenance) and disembarked her fixed wing aircraft (and grey Sea Kings?). No land based UK fast jets took part in the initial strikes against the Taliban either, although submarines did.

In 2003, Ark Royal acted as a LPH for the invasion of Iraq. The Iraqi air force was mostly dead and buried after over a decade of sanctions and a no fly zone, and Kuwaiti/Bahraini/Qatari airbses were used by the US/UK/Australians. Not that that stopped the US Navy from deploying FIVE carriers.

Since then, our main military involvement has been Iraq and Afghanistan. Apart from the lack of an opponent with an air force or navy, they both lack any length of coastline, Afghanistan being land locked, Iraq having only a tiny coastline - not that this prevents carrier based aircraft operating in both places. Yet we seem to have fallen into a trap, with many believing that:

a)All future operations will be in land locked places.
b)There will never be an enemy navy or air force to worry about.

Apart from needing to retain skills for when CVF arrives, what about the spread of the war on terror to Yemen or Somalia, renewed Argentine aggresion in the South Atlantic, UK involvement in Korean crises, or the political stand off over Iran's nuclear programme getting hotter and turning into a re-run of the 1980s tanker war?

Or what about the crisis in the Ivory Coast? I can see a non combatant evacution operation coming up. But wait - that's how the intervention in Sierra Leone started. It would be s terrible thing to have a Chinook/Jungly Sea King shot down by a MiG from a third world air force (yes, the Ivorian air force has MiGs).

On which note, here is a nice PDF document (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/95CD1C65-5C59-4F25-A37B.../jwp3_51.pdf) on NEO Operations. Note the picture of Ocean - if that Phalanx was moved then she would have a through deck. Hmm.

Wrathmonk

28th Dec 2010, 21:57

If this thread is about Harriers then shouldn't it be moved to the Aviation History and Nostalgia forum .......?:E

The SHAR has gone, the GR9/T10 has gone. Both of them have done fantastic jobs in the past but, rightly or wrongly (and that discussion has been done to death several times over on this board....), they are no more. None of them are coming back however long and hard you scream and scream and scream. The F35B has been canned in favour of the F35C so who cares about moving the Phalanx on Ocean. It's irrelevant. Time to move on. :ugh:

I'd write to the Telegraph if I were you.

Oh - and be grateful that the Carriers didn't go the same way!;)

QEC

28th Dec 2010, 22:02

"Steelwork, maybe (but not cost-effectively)"

Whyever not?

Not_a_boffin

28th Dec 2010, 23:23

Cost per tonne fabricated steel in UK is many times that in PRC (and still much more than Korea, Singapore and Japan, not to mention Brazil). Tends to be down to labour cost (inc overhead) rather than efficiency.

CISTRS

29th Dec 2010, 07:51

Class supervision to ensure build compliance is standard - just see how many surveyors Lloyds, ABS, DNV etc have in China.

These QA surveillance firms in China are staffed by local Chinese inspectors. The Rosyth crane had Scotsmen crawling over it. The Fab Yard QA function was not devolved to one of these companies.

Cost per tonne fabricated steel in UK is many times that in PRC (and still much more than Korea, Singapore and Japan, not to mention Brazil). Tends to be down to labour cost (inc overhead) rather than efficiency.

Don't forget Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia. Maybe we should have outsourced the carriers to the far east? That would keep me busy for a while.

Peace :)

Finningley Boy

29th Dec 2010, 10:03

WE Branch Fanatic,

You've simply misunderstood my attempt at ironic humour!:ok:

But thank for posting the justification for carriers, its an interesting read!:)

FB:)

WE Branch Fanatic

30th Dec 2010, 20:55

Wrathmonth

I refer you to the discussion here on page 9 (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-9.html#post6126432) onwards.

As others have noted, keeping the ability to skills to run fixed wing flying at sea prior to CVF is going to be a huge challenge. Hence ideas such as a small number of Harriers being retained and operated mostly by Reservists, and being interested in being able to embark US, Italian or Spanish Harriers. This is why possible modifications to Ocean are of interest.

There is also the issue of not being defeated by a third world air force.

Squirrel 41

30th Dec 2010, 23:14

WEBF,

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I doubt that there are many posters here who don't fundamentally agree with you. Yes, it would have been more sensible for GR9 / GR9A to run on with ARKR and LUST to seamlessly transition to the QE Class with Dave-C and cats'n'traps. :D

And to make sure we had two full airwings with 120 RN Dave-Cs. :cool: And to have 4+ E-2Ds on order. And 4 C-2 CoD birds. And 6 more T45s, an FF/DD force of 32 - 35 hulls, around 12 Astute SSNs .... oh, and some of those Nimrod MPA thingys would probably help maritime picture building stuff and whatever else it is that they were supposed to do, too. :*

And, and, and... and quite a lot of other things that it is pointless talking about because it simply isn't going to happen. Did you not read SDSR? :hmm:

Specifically on CVS.

Q: In real world terms, how effective would 8 FA2s and 8 GR9s off a CVS BG be today?

S41's Cynical Answer (and I'm delighted to be corrected):

A: Well (other than depending how warm it is outside, how much land-based tanker support you need, how much offensive EW kit you could carry and how much offboard cueing you required) it'd be fine if you were going to take a crack at someone without an IADS, with targets quite close to the coast and preferably where it doesn't get too hot (all that ambient temperature for bring-back malarky).

It's no good harking back to the "glory days in the Adriatic" unless you appreciate the amount of support that the CVSs received from land-based jets in Italy, France and Germany. This isn't to say that Fisheads and WAFUs don't do a good job - they do - it's merely to gently point out that CVSs were so small that they were very limited in what they could do - and the RN wrung every last ounce of capability out of these limited platforms, but they were still limited.

In other words, at best, a nice to have.

We stopped funding the majority of "nice to haves" quite a long time ago, and have been cutting real capability left and right for several years - or did you miss that. This is the major reason I have a problem with Trident replacement - it's a really expensive "nice to have" that is costing lots of real capability (and will continue to do so for another decade or so.) And yes, as I've said before, I'd bin the Reds to make this point.

S41

WE Branch Fanatic

2nd Jan 2011, 13:27

S41

Happy New Year. To an extent I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

I did try to read the SDSR paper but gave up as it was poorly written, full of contradications, based on wishful thinking, and lacked detail. I did watch Dr Fox looking increasingly angry as the Prime Minister announced the review. I also read the post SDSR message from the First Sea Lord who acknowledged the risks and problems losing carrier aviation for a decade would cause.

I also remember hearing a senior RN Officer talking back in March. He stated the the decisions being taken over the next few months would affect the UK for decades. He also suggested that it was possible that some capabilities not currently needed could be taken over by Reservists - this was a general comment and NOT aviation related per se.

I remember being aboard Illustrious several years ago during a period of Harrier flying. Whilst waiting in the scran queue, I found a naval aviation magazine. Inside was an article by a senior aviator - an experienced Sea Harrier pilot, stating that there was a danger of naval aviators losing familiarity with the shipboard environment, and of carrier personnel losing the skills needed for fixed wing operations.

A number of times I have heard and seen the expert opinion, based on the experience of other navies, that it takes about ten years to go from scratch to having our current level of expertise at conducting fixed wing carrier flying operations - a point that the SDSR ignores. That is why this is such a huge issue.

It is rumoured that one of the reasons that so many Challenger II MBTs and 155mm guns are being retained is because the Generals worried about skill fade, but persumably feel no need to consider the problems of the other Services.

orca

3rd Jan 2011, 07:50

For a variety of perfectly obvious reasons skill fade will be an issue. However, let us be quite clear, keeping a small number of reservists pseudo-current in VSTOL jets will not have any benefits whatsoever. If you want to operate cat and trap then that is the experience you must build and you must do it for a relevant cadre of pilots, i.e. pay for young pilots to get it with the two possible providers.

There are enough (very disappointed) stovies around to populate any unit set up to keep the fleet current without looking in the reservist locker.

If the new carriers are to be out of the blocks in 2018 and the oldest product we're looking for is a 40 year old Cdr (Air)/ Wings/ Air Boss then the oldest guy we should be looking for at the moment is 33. (Plus or minus years depending on how much wee you want Wings to smell of)...(then minus a couple for programme slips). Why on earth pay for post 38 reservists to fly anything?

And that's the bow wave, if you think that a 2018 F-35 'graduate' JP might currently be 18 and a non-grad as young as 15 you get an idea about who we should be giving hours to.

The two actual players in this game wouldn't dream of letting someone run the deck or Air Group without having flown cat and trap themselves. You also need big deck experience throughout the whole ship. So you might want to consider identifying the people who will actually matter as much as the pilots and get them overseas as well. Let's go for FDO (currently a non-selected CW candidate), CFD (a killick handler), cats and traps man, Wings (Air Boss in USN parlance), F (First tour rotary), little F (Shawbury or Linton), SATCO (Lt ATC at Yeovs) and DATCO (no yet joined up) as the barest of minima.

I am convinced that we have created a mountain to climb, but feel it would still be a considerable hill-shaped obstacle if we arrived at its foot with CVS/ GR9.

WE Branch Fanatic

3rd Jan 2011, 16:11

For a variety of perfectly obvious reasons skill fade will be an issue. However, let us be quite clear, keeping a small number of reservists pseudo-current in VSTOL jets will not have any benefits whatsoever.

We will have to wait and see what proposals, if any, come out. I don't think this would be feasible without at least a small cadre of personnel being kept full time. I read the article thinking that it was proposed to keep Harrier personnel (presumably RAF as well as RN). It would provide a capability to embark some fixed wing aircraft aboard Illustrious until 2014, Queen Elizabeth from 2014 (hopfully until 201x), and so on. Remember reservists can be mobilised for operations or deployments. I suspect this isn't going to be a crisis free decade.

If you want to operate cat and trap then that is the experience you must build and you must do it for a relevant cadre of pilots, i.e. pay for young pilots to get it with the two possible providers.

Agreed. But surely with former pilots from both services - they'll be at least a few of them that are not going stateside or across the Channel. And what of the skills of chockheads (need experience of moving live jet aircraft around a pitching and rolling deck), personnel involved in fueling, maintaining, and arming them, the Officer of the Watch and bridge/navigation team who need experience of working with flying going on, and so on and so on?

Apart from being a sign of desperation, this idea is less to do with the specifics of future cat and trap operations and more to do with the general basic skills involved in dealing with fixed wing aircraft at sea, and the teamwork needed. I think the term is Corporate Memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_memory).

As an aside, a Google search found this website (Save The Harriers (http://www.savetheharriers.com/media/)) as well as other (http://www.google.co.uk/#q=save+the+harrier+reservists&hl=en&prmd=ivns&ei=7QEiTaHHEIWbOvuJke0I&start=10&sa=N&fp=42df9320e81e9757) results.

WE Branch Fanatic

7th Jan 2011, 20:48

BTW here is a link to the Air Branch magazine (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/linkedfiles/upload/pdf/air_branch_mag_2010_website.pdf) - PDF.

Also in HTML format (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YPfc-jhfvnIJ:www.royal-navy.mod.uk/linkedfiles/upload/pdf/air_branch_mag_2010_website.pdf+%22RNR+air+branch%22+magazin e&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk).

Lima Juliet

7th Jan 2011, 20:50

WE BF

Your link doesn'a work...

Error 404 : Page not foundSorry, the page you requested was not found. It is possible you typed the address incorrectly, or that the page no longer exists.

WE Branch Fanatic

10th Jan 2011, 23:14

LJ

I edited the above post so that the link works. Thanks for letting me know.

The linked magazine talks about corporate experience and the run up to the new carriers. Actually that is painful to read now. However, it does make they point that they (RNR WAFUs) are useful, and indeed can be safely entrusted with aircraft, and fill flying and other billets. The Army used to have an AAC unit (7 Regt(V) - Gazelles) that employed TA (ex regular) pilots.

Reservists can do things - it is what we are here for.

Meanwhile - a quick look at the Telegraph website shows this story:

Royal Navy's Falklands ship turned away by Brazil (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8251130/Royal-Navys-Falklands-ship-turned-away-by-Brazil.html)

Spot the obvious mistake! Anyway, Argentine Super Étendard continue to embark on Sao Paulo (ex Foch). Argentina seems to be upping the ante - what message did the SDSR send them?

XV277

11th Jan 2011, 00:14

Re Ocean - it may be an apocryphal story, but at the time she was being built, someone who worked in the shipyard told me that her deck lifts were too narrow to carry Harriers - and that was a deliberate decision.

Any truth?

XV277

11th Jan 2011, 00:31

LJ

Meanwhile - a quick look at the Telegraph website shows this story:

Royal Navy's Falklands ship turned away by Brazil (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8251130/Royal-Navys-Falklands-ship-turned-away-by-Brazil.html)

Mmm, I see the Telegraph's ship identification is up to usual Journo standard.

Squirrel 41

11th Jan 2011, 07:22

Mmm, I see the Telegraph's ship identification is up to usual Journo standard.

Bay class? Hmm, it's a grey floaty thing... all the same, right? :hmm:

S41

WE Branch Fanatic

12th Jan 2011, 23:26

The Air Branch magazine made a number of references to Naval Flying Standards Flight (Fixed Wing) (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/establishments/naval-bases-and-air-stations/rnas-yeovilton/naval-flying-standards-flight-fixed-wing/index.htm). Any idea what the plan is for them post SDSR?

I too was suprised by the mistake made by the Telegraph. Hopefully their reporting (such as comments about the Harriers and Reservists proposal being put to the Defence Council in January - reported on 15 Dec 10) is based on real ideas and proposals. It is meant to be a quality newspaper.

When does the Defence Council meet?

Now here is something that has been confusing me. The Navies of Italy and Spain both operate Harriers, but both of them have much smaller numbers of aircraft that the UK does (did). How could they do that without it being prohibitively expensive? I really do not understand the line of argument that claims that a smaller number of aircraft, flying less hours, is just as expensive as a larger one. Is it because of RAB? Is it due to personnel needed for support (which would explain proposals involving Reservists)? Have we operated and supported Harrier in a particularly expensive way?

Wrathmonk

13th Jan 2011, 08:29

How could they do that without it being prohibitively expensive

Are you sure they're not prohibitively expensive? Have their Armed Forces got an equipment programme that due to mimanagement at the highest levels (for example - slip the programme to the right so 'it's not on my watch') like ours? Have they got other broader budgetary problems that need sorting out without resorting to being bailed out bu the EU i.e they are having to rob Peter (JFH / MRA4 / T45 etc) to pay Paul (Carriers / JSF / NHS / Social Welfare / Aid to former countries of the Empire / bail out the banks)?

WE Branch Fanatic

15th Jan 2011, 19:24

Surely you're not suggesting that the cost of operating a few Harriers is the source of all the economic woes of the UK/Italy/Spain?

By the way, I have noticed that my previous attempts to post a link to the RNR Air Branch magazine failed, due to an unwanted full stop at the end. How ironic!

Here it is again (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/linkedfiles/upload/pdf/air_branch_mag_2010_website.pdf) in PDF format, and it should work.

Additionally, relooking at the page on the MOD website that detailed cuts to the surface fleet (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/ChangesToRoyalNavysSurfaceFleetAnnounced.htm) - I notice the following:

The White Paper announced that the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal would be decommissioned, and, accordingly, she will finally be withdrawn from service at the end of this month.

It also announced that either her sister ship HMS Illustrious or the Landing Platform Helicopter ship HMS Ocean would be withdrawn from service following a short study into which of these two ships was better able to provide the capability we require over the next few years.

This work has now been completed and it has been decided that HMS Ocean should be retained to provide our landing platform helicopter capability for the longer term.

HMS Illustrious will be withdrawn from service in 2014, once Ocean has emerged from a planned refit and been returned to a fully operational state. This will ensure that we retain the ability to deliver an amphibious intervention force from the sea and maintain an experienced crew to support the later introduction into service of the new Queen Elizabeth Class carrier.

Experienced in what? Flying operations?

Maybe I was being hard of understanding, but when the SDSR was announced by the Prime Minister (with an angry looking Dr Fox sitting next to him) it was intended to get rid of either Illustrious or Ocean straight away?

Mick Smith

16th Jan 2011, 00:41

Surely the bottom line on this stupidity is that the Harrier mission availability in Afghanistan was 95 per cent while the Tornado mission availability is 50 per cent. No wonder Fox sat there with anger etched across his face and Stanhope didnt discover the Harrier was axed until the day of the announcement, having thought it was saved! At least two Tornados lost on the runway at Kandahar because they couldnt even get off the ground and the crews had to eject, and this inability to do the job comes at what cost to lives in the field? Then Cameron gets up and says that it is the best aircraft for Afghanistan - on the say-so at the last minute of Stirrup, surely the worst chief of defence staff in history. The RAF Tornado mob seem to live in an Alice in Wonderland world!

t0rnad0

16th Jan 2011, 01:57

95 v 50.... Might want to check your figures chap.

Also I suspect that a few people I know would be mildly perturbed to say the least were you to tell them about the "cost to lives in the field" resulting from their "inability to do the job".

Squirrel 41

16th Jan 2011, 10:38

WEBF,

Please listen.

The cost of maintaining a fleet has two elements:

- Variable cost based on the number of aircraft, aircrews, amount of flying, number of bases (including CVS)

- Fixed cost based on the cost of support (design, commercial, training, tactics, certification and engineering), and at least one base, at least one simulator

The cost per flight hour is the (Variable cost + Fixed Cost) / (Total Number of hours per year).

You can drive down the variable costs by reducing numbers and flying hours, but the Fixed costs remain, um, fixed. So if you were to cut Harriers one airframe at a time, the most expensive one would be the last one, because Fixed costs are an increasingly large percentage of the overall cost.

Therefore (as I've said before) the savings are made when you cut an entire fleet because the Fixed element goes as well. Having two small fleets (eg Tornado + Harrier) requires two lots of the fixed costs, driving the overall cost up.

So please; you, along with many of us, lament Harrier's passing. But if you're going to (pointlessly) rage against the dying of the light, at least do so from a position informed by the facts.

S41

TurbineTooHot

16th Jan 2011, 11:33

Mr Smith.

I've held my tongue long enough over this, and I think my learned colleague tOrnadO was very restrained in suggesting that you check your facts.

I've never heard such utter s**T dressed up as informed opinion. Where the f:mad:k do you get your "facts" from eh?

50%, really. The GR4 services 50% of the ATO and GCAS tasks? Are you sure. Was this so when you were there? Were you there?

Two jets lost on the runway cos they couldn't get airborne cos they're unfit? Got that from the BOI findings did you? Or the same pit of inadequacy that you took your serviceability claims.

And as for costing lives, I won't even dignify that.

I realise this is a rumour forum, but there's a difference between rumour and lies. That's right, lies. Bottom line.

Wrathmonk

16th Jan 2011, 11:39

TTH

He's a journo (or hack as he describes himself in his profile).

I refer you to the "warning" at the bottom of each page (although I gather Mick Smith is his real name ....) :

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions

It could be that Mr Smith is throwing such outrageous figures about in the hope that someone will be outraged enough to (accidentally) give him the real figures that would not be available through official channels! And thereby another hack has an "exclusive"!;)

WEBF

I'm not suggesting that at all. But they do contribute towards the problems caused by the free spending, high borrowing former government. Something has got to give to save money and, like it or not, the Harrier (along with many other things across all the Whitehall departments) fell the wrong side of the cut. And I still believe that had the contracts for the carrier not been written the way they were at least one of them would have been axed as well.:eek:

engineer(retard)

16th Jan 2011, 12:33

And if we had lost a carrier then perhaps there might have been enough in the pot to retain the Harrier. Who knows how the sums were cut.

Capt P U G Wash

16th Jan 2011, 13:37

This has been the subject of much interest in Parliament. These 2 links provide a bit more balance to the comments of Mr Smith:
Lords Hansard text for 18 Nov 201018 Nov 2010 (pt 0001) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101118w0001.htm)
Lords Hansard text for 4 Nov 201004 Nov 2010 (pt 0001) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101104w0001.htm)

andrewn

16th Jan 2011, 19:20

Quote from MickSmith with regards to GR4:
Then Cameron gets up and says that it is the best aircraft for Afghanistan

Actually on the day in question DC stood up and said what a wonderful job TYPHOON was doing in AFG - which kind of says it all really!!

Mick Smith

17th Jan 2011, 00:02

Actually on the day in question DC stood up and said what a wonderful job TYPHOON was doing in AFG - which kind of says it all really!!

Actually, he didn't. This is what he said.

The Royal Air Force will also need to take some tough measures in the coming years to ensure a strong future. We have decided to retire the Harrier, which has served this country so well for 40 years. It is a remarkably flexible aircraft, but the military advice is clear: we should sustain the Tornado fleet as that aircraft is more capable and better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan.

The figures for Harrier mission availability came from a senior naval officer. The figures for Tornado availability came from a senior RAF officer. My comment did not blame and should not be taken as blaming Tornado air crew for the situation. Why would they be to blame for the limitations of the aircraft? It merely questioned the sense of the current situation and the continued arguments from the Tornado side that the aircraft is, to use the prime minister's words, "more capable" of operating in Afghanistan than Harrier.

TurbineTooHot

17th Jan 2011, 09:11

Pugwash,

What balance is that fella? The one that says (Quoting Lord Astor so neatly batting off Lord West):

"The most operationally relevant measure is flying hours delivered per aircraft per month. On that basis, Tornado GR4s in Afghanistan are providing approximately 12 per cent more flying hours per aircraft per month than were provided by Harrier."

Smith. Wonderland looking like a reasonable place to operate after all then.

The relentless questioning from Lord West seemed a little late also.

I'm not surprised that you got info from a Senior Navy Officer, and I'm willing to bet your Senior RAF Officer would have hailed from the Harrier fraternity. No?

Please, don't be persuaded that the GR4 isn't up to it, less capable or costs lives by folks with an agenda which has passed its "use by" date.

I'm sorry to see the Harrier go. I really am. But pointless attempts to bring it back by trying to reduce confidence in a very capable aircraft through untruths and twisted "facts" are not the way. Can we draw this to a close.

jindabyne

17th Jan 2011, 09:18

Mr Smith

During my time in the RAF and in aviation marketing I encountered many writers: a few were outstandingly good, some were mediocre, and a small minority so appalling that they were denied access and interview. I have to say that your recent posts appear to place you in the latter category.

just another jocky

17th Jan 2011, 09:36

Mr Smith, actually DC did say "Typhoons" in Afghanistan, I even recall my reaction upon hearing it (spilled coffee everywhere).

Could you please explain your comments below:

Surely the bottom line on this stupidity is that the Harrier mission availability in Afghanistan was 95 per cent while the Tornado mission availability is 50 per cent.

What was the source of your information, did you substantiate those claims before posting them here bearing in mind the Hansard quotes above or are you really, along with being a journalist, a sciolist too and hence a likely troll and worthy of being banned from this place?

ORAC

17th Jan 2011, 09:45

Mr Smith would, from his own mouth, appear to be either misrepresenting the PMs words, or illiterate.

He quotes the PM as saying: "...we should sustain the Tornado fleet as that aircraft is more capable and better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan."

He then states: "the aircraft is, to use the prime minister's words, "more capable" of operating in Afghanistan than Harrier."

Which, of course, is not what he said at all.

The PM makes two statements, both of which can be argued as being justified.

1. The Tornado is more capable.
2. The Tornado is better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan.

The first is justifiable on the grounds the overall performance of the Tornado and its available systems and weapons availability. That extends beyond those required for Afghanistan.

The second is justifiable on the basis on the numbers of available squadrons, aircraft and crews. The Tornado force has sufficient to enable operations in Afghaistan to be supported indefinitely while continuing to support other training and exercises and the potential to support other crises. The Harrier force does not. Quantity, as they say, has a quality all of its own.

Now you can argue each of those claims till the cows come home. But that's not the same as misrepresenting the position as stated by the PM.

Compressorstall

17th Jan 2011, 10:21

In the current financial climate, we stand more chance of bringing back hanging than we do the Harrier. Its premature retirement is a great shame and like many servicemen, I hope that it will not prove to be an unwise cut, but like everything else, I have had to accept it and move on. Surely we could actually move on and read the happy stories of the Harrier -all marks - from the posters here, rather than the tabloid-esque gloom and doom - I get enough of that at work.

This perhaps highlights something else too. The RAF at the moment is turning itself inside out as some seek to support THE war, others seek to demonstrate their relevance in a cash-strapped organisation and most worry whether they will have a job to look forward to. It is up to our leaders to reassure us that there is a way forward, but I'm not sure they know what that is since they are at the beck and call of accountants who know how much everything costs, but put little value on capability and who come almost daily to ask for more reductions when they realise they have failed to balance the books. So we sit in the dark a little bit longer, listening to more and more rumour about cuts and how we will all be worse-off. Future Force 2020 might sound sexy, but does anyone feel reassured by that? However, are we in this mess because we are no good at writing contracts, or because the accountants are no good at understanding what we do?

WE Branch Fanatic

17th Jan 2011, 23:39

S41

The cost of maintaining a fleet has two elements:

- Variable cost based on the number of aircraft, aircrews, amount of flying, number of bases (including CVS)

- Fixed cost based on the cost of support (design, commercial, training, tactics, certification and engineering), and at least one base, at least one simulator

The cost per flight hour is the (Variable cost + Fixed Cost) / (Total Number of hours per year).

You can drive down the variable costs by reducing numbers and flying hours, but the Fixed costs remain, um, fixed. So if you were to cut Harriers one airframe at a time, the most expensive one would be the last one, because Fixed costs are an increasingly large percentage of the overall cost.

I don't mean to be a clever dick, but since the support contracts that were signed contained cancellation clauses the fixed cost will never be zero, so dividing this non zero figure by zero gives an infinite cost. Is cost per flying hour the most useful measure?

Also, I wonder if the fixed costs are as fixed as they might appear...

Engineering Support: Apart from the fact less aircraft need less maintenance, would BAES and RR charge the same to support a smaller number of aircraft? Ignoring the cancellation fees, I would imagine that the costs of say an avionics upgrade consists of the non recurrent engineering costs (design, development etc) and the cost per aircraft. Given a reduced role, would as much support be needed anyway? Therefore - money is saved.

Bases: The proposal to use Reservists to support Harrier (remember this was suggested elsewhere) included the idea of moving to Yeovilton, therefore the base closures are unaffected (and Yeovilton already exists). Therefore - money is saved.

Simulator: Assuming that it isn't possible to move the simulator, can it be retained in its current location, kept as a MOD owned enclave? This has been done on other MOD sites? Could Spanish or Italian simulators be used? What proportion of simulator costs are down to people? Ex WAFU Reservists are used as simulator instructors at Yeovilton and Culdrose, could they be employed for this? If so then - money is saved.

I have no knowledge of what proposals or representations have been, or will be, made to the defence board. However, the retention of Illustrious until 2014 suggests that some lobbying has taken place, and this is a time for thinking outside of the box if we want to reduce the risk of a strategic shock this decade and to retain basic competence in fixed wing flying at sea.

WE Branch Fanatic

28th Jan 2011, 12:36

Just a thought - what is happening to Cottesmore/Wittering (where the simulator is)? If it is being retained by the MOD (home to an Army unit returning from Germany perhaps) then keeping it in situ will be much easier.

The defence council were meant to meet this month. Supposedly this proposal was going to be on the table. Given the fact that the Government has had numerous U turns over a wide range of issues, would modifying certain aspects of policy regarding future carrier aviation (like trying not to lose skills) really be a major embarassment - given that they appear to have bodged the sums and need to have another defence review?

just another jocky

28th Jan 2011, 15:20

WEBF - I don't think the MoD will ever get rid of Wittering. I believe the agreement from the original owner was that it would have to be converted back to farmland before they would take it back. It is not ours to sell.

There are rumours of the flying at Wyton (57(R) Sqn Elementary Flying Training, Cambridge & London UAS's and 5 AEF) moving up to Wittering.

grandfer

28th Jan 2011, 16:54

I've said this before on other threads , that if we , as a country , can afford over £13bn. on 2 weeks of sports (?) in next years Olympics , then why can't we afford to defend this country & its surrounding islands & seas properly ? £13bn. would have kept Nimrod flying + the Harrier force with loads left for other projects !:mad::mad::mad:
Seeing the near criminal slaughter of the Nimrod airframes on TV & the pictures of our Harrier force hangared with years of service left in the airframes made my blood boil !
(Hang on , I'll go & sit in a darkened room to cool down , if I can :mad::mad::ugh:)

WE Branch Fanatic

29th Jan 2011, 11:27

I wonder how much current decision making is based on experience and knowledge, and how much is based on ignorance and a certain defence advisor who seems to disregard things outside his field of expertise?

What if the SO1 level experts at Navy Command HQ, MOD, and the Cdrs(Air) of the carriers (and previous Cdrs(Air) and CVS Captains) had actually been listened to, would things be different?

just another jocky

29th Jan 2011, 16:20

If the FAA are so important for the Navy, perhaps they should stump up the costs required to keep the Harrier flying? They seem happy to decimate their surface fleet for 2 carriers, so who'd miss another frigate or sub?

Red Line Entry

29th Jan 2011, 16:28

JA Jocky,

The deal with Wittering is that there is a portion of the airfield that has to be offered back to the original owners at a price that is well below current market. However, this condition expires in 2022. No further conditions exist about state of land, returning to agriculture etc.

seekayess

29th Jan 2011, 19:41

I received this pic thru email -- looks like Photoshop-ped effort.

Can anyone confirm if this fly past actually took place?

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/2551/flypast.jpg (http://img522.imageshack.us/i/flypast.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

TEEEJ

30th Jan 2011, 01:05

Just Another Jocky,

To expand on Red Line Entry's post

The question of RAF Wittering and Burghley Estates was answered during 2009 in a Freedom of Information request.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E0B3C38A-D23C-4D33-AF3F-51A034AADF10/0/reqdec09_2.pdf

Answer: (Taken from FB cache of person that filed the Freedom of Information request - See bold in reference to land issue)

I have just received an official MoD response to a Freedom of Information request:

Your correspondence dated 17 December 2009 has been considered to be a request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Environmental Regulations 2004.

The Secretary of State for Defence announced in the House of Commons on 15 December 2009, that key adjustments will be made to the current Defence programme to enhance the support to our personnel on operations in Afghanistan, and announced that Joint Force Harrier will be reduced by one Squadron. It was therefore necessary to look at the continuing requirement to maintain two Harrier bases in the UK, which in the final analysis could no longer be justified. This resulted in the closure of RAF Cottesmore and the consolidation of the Harrier force at RAF Wittering.

The decision to close RAF Cottesmore rather than RAF Wittering was made for a number of reasons. Firstly, RAF Wittering is the better suited from an operational perspective. The infrastructure such as runway configuration and Harrier operating surfaces at RAF Wittering was considered to meet the longer term needs of the RAF more effectively than that of RAF Cottesmore. The financial case also supported the closure of RAF Cottesmore rather than Wittering for a number of reasons; for example there are two Harrier simulators based at RAF Wittering which would be expensive to relocate and in addition to its function as a flying station, in recent years, RAF Wittering has become a major logistical hub, and relocating this element would be costly.

The land comprising RAF Wittering - which is identified as a "core site" in the Defence Estate Development Plan 2009 - is owned freehold by MOD. The Core Estate consists of locations that are either large bases or groups of sites that have an indefinite operational future; or individual core sites, which are expected to support defence outputs for at least 15 years. The majority of the land was purchased from the Burghley estate between 1924 and 1966, with a right for the estate to repurchase several parcels of land should the site become surplus to defence requirements and be sold (other than as an airfield or for other Government use) prior to 31 July 2022. There are no plans to dispose of RAF Wittering.

TJ