Events dear boy events

[John Farley]

One of our past Prime Ministers (Macmillan) famously answered in response to a question “Events dear boy events”. Ever since he did that I have always thought if only more politicians used it as a perfectly good reason (not excuse) for changing their mind about something we would all be better served.

There have been some ‘events’ in the military aviation scene recently on both sides of the Atlantic. In case the following letter to the Times (no I did not write it) does not get published I thought it deserved an airing here:

Sir,

Our troops in Afghanistan

It is often said, by the Prime Minister and others, that our troops deserve the best. Mr Cameron has declared his determination to ensure that this happens. It is not, however, happening in Afghanistan, where our soldiers are poorly supported by the Tornado. This is not surprising, as it was not designed to operate in the close air support role and the ‘hot and high’ conditions of Afghanistan. It is understood that one aircraft has been lost, and another very badly damaged, because of the difficulty of operating the Tornado from the one runway available at Kandahar. Because it was not designed for this task the Tornado necessarily takes much longer to get airborne from alert and has a very poor mission reliability, with many planned missions cancelled every month. This has resulted in the US Air Force having to step in, to ensure that our troops get the support where and when it is needed.

This is in stark contrast with the record of the Harrier, which spent five years in Afghanistan and achieved a spotless mission accomplishment record. All this was achieved with far fewer aircrew and engineers than the Tornado requires. The Harrier was designed for close support of ground forces, operating from austere bases, and it is arguably world class for that mission.

Perhaps the time has come to face the realities that a specialist aircraft is needed in such difficult and limited circumstances, and to redeploy the Harriers for at least as long as UK remains in Afghanistan.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Dow

While I think nobody is very likely to stand up in the house and use ‘events’ as a reason for putting out Harriers back in the Stan there is another recent ‘event’ that poses an interesting juxtaposition.

The USMC have recently had to come to terms with a formal slip of the F-35B in-service date of years rather than months and I guess are having to plan their act to accommodate this ‘event’. I also understand that some of their B+ pilots were very impressed with the GR9s performance in recent Red Flags.

So does this mean that the MOD will be able to cut our deficit to the bone overnight by flogging 77 nice jets at a very reasonable price?

I know I put a question mark at the end of the last sentence but I don’t really want PPRuNers to answer because sadly (but realistically) wot we think does not affect the price of fish.

[Lima Juliet]

Mr Dow does have a short memory - I watched a Harrier crash and burn very recently in KAF...
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1601/harriersundaytimes17may.jpg

Plus while we're at it RAPTOR has saved countless lives of UK servicemen by finding IEDs. Plus the Direct FIRES support the 27mm (which the so-called superior CAS Harrier doesn't have) has been used to good effect. Plus the Dual Mode Brimstone shots that Harrier can't do - Maverick has too big a bang for COIN in urban areas. Plus the speed that Tornado can react to a TIC on the other side of the AOR - about 30% faster.

Other than that, I have never read such a load of hoop! The Harrier did a good job as is the Tornado, however, if you really want to see a great armed-ISR on-call machine with mahoosive endurance then the REAPER is the choice of champions. It has dropped more ordinance than both FJs and flown over 18000hrs in support of Herrick in just over 3 years.

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

PS. The Tornado was designed for Nuclear QRA and so sitting GCAS is something it is very well suited to!

[BEagle]

As has been said many times before, when the next enemy has a credible air defence system capable of drone-swatting, anyone stupid enough to think that drones are the be-all and end-all will be right in the cack....

Drones have indeed proved very useful in the current north-west frontier war, but don't let anyone think that they're a universal panacea.

Regrettably, the sandaholic MoD seems more interested in cost saving than operational flexibility.

[Talk Reaction]

LJ agreed. We don't need another argument about who's best which serves no-one and creates ill feeling.

People like Dow should get their facts straight if they want to pretend to offer informed opinion. I suggest you ask your friend with the pen to back up claims of 'very poor mission reliability', 'poorly supported troops' and 'many cancelled missions', and when he/she can't to maybe write a supportive letter of the excellent work being done by ALL of our people from the SAME team! :mad:

Congratulations 14 Sqn on a great job, good luck 12 for a successful and safe tour! :D

[BluntM8]

John,

To quote from the letter you've reproduced, and counter some points.

It is not, however, happening in Afghanistan, where our soldiers are poorly supported by the Tornado
An opinion.

This is not surprising, as it was not designed to operate in the close air support role and the ‘hot and high’ conditions of Afghanistan.
A fact. But was the Harrier designed to operate as organic fleet air defence? Or was it sucessfully adapted to the role later in it's life?

It is understood that one aircraft has been lost, and another very badly damaged, because of the difficulty of operating the Tornado from the one runway available at Kandahar.
It is understood by who? Those who operate Tornado from KAF on a daily basis, who know and understand the reasons these incidents occured, and are fully up to speed on the necessary techniques to mitigate these hazards? Does Mr Dow have access to the causes of these two incidents, or is this simply further conjecture? To pin the blame on the Tornado is to ignore several large parts of the picture.

Because it was not designed for this task the Tornado necessarily takes much longer to get airborne from alert and has a very poor mission reliability, with many planned missions cancelled every month. This has resulted in the US Air Force having to step in, to ensure that our troops get the support where and when it is needed.
Prove it, if you can. Or, more to the point, prove that this is the fault of Tornado. What are you measuring - aircraft launched versus planned sorties? Or air requests serviced? Every unit with a half-awake BALO ought to be submitting air requests for every time they go out on the ground. Rightly, these are prioritised and air support allocated at a level far higher than Tornado Ops in KAF, using a process which really doesn't need to be discussed here. I certainly don't recall any lost sorties during my periods in theatre. Furthermore, does Mr Dow have access to the response times from the 'hooter' to wheels-up? Or is this simply further rehashing of commonly accepted untruths? Statistics are like a lamp post to a drunken man. More for leaning on than illumination.

This is in stark contrast with the record of the Harrier, which spent five years in Afghanistan and achieved a spotless mission accomplishment record.
Again, prove it. With real metrics and real numbers.

All this was achieved with far fewer aircrew and engineers than the Tornado requires. Something to do with the design of the jets differing, maybe? I wasn't aware that the 'footprint' of the deployed unit was a deliverable...

The Harrier was designed for close support of ground forces, operating from austere bases, and it is arguably world class for that mission.
Concur.

Perhaps the time has come to face the realities that a specialist aircraft is needed in such difficult and limited circumstances, and to redeploy the Harriers for at least as long as UK remains in Afghanistan.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Dow


The only point which stands in the letter is that the Harrier was world-class for CAS and did a spectatular job in Herrick. The rest is thinly disguised Tornado-bashing and I challenge him to prove his claims with fact.

Just because Harrier was excellent, it doesn't follow that Tornado cannot do the job adequately, and it is blinkered to deny that there are any areas where Tornado has an advantage.

I'm afraid to say that although the Harrier force seems to have stood down with dignity, it certainally seems it's supporters aren't going to. Yes it was an excellent aircraft, in the finest tradition of many excellent British aircraft which have gone before. Let its departure reflect its service!

Blunty.

And to add, I've not heard anyone from the Tornado world throwing mud at the Harrier force....

[Lima Juliet]

BEagle

As someone who used to fly in a credible air defence system (before we scrapped it) your so called 'drones' would be a low priority target in a full up shooting war (just as much as helos and transports are). The FJ fighters and bombers are the targets of choice in a large COMAO and I would expect Air Superiority to be established quickly by one side or the other - the days of a 4 month struggle for this is long gone.

The 'drones' would either survive until 'Air Superiority' was established or the air war would be over very quickly for us. Then the helos, transports and 'drones' would all be swatted by an umolested enemy fighter sweep.

Interestingly, your 'drones' may well be better at penetrating enemy air defences as they can be built in low observable shapes without nasty RADAR reflective canopy rails and cockpits. Try googling RQ-170 to see a good example.

LJ

[MrBernoulli]

Leon Jabachjabicz,

Slightly off-topic, but I recall watching the video of that Harrier accident. Had not seen the photo you posted above - dramatic! Seems to be taken from quite close range, or with a good telephoto lens. Any details of it's photographer etc? Remarkable image.

[davejb]

Sorry LJ,
I have to agree with Beagle on the drone score - what you are saying is that drones are really useful, and IF you lose the battle for air superiority then you rather accept that there will then be a general swatting down of your drones....

Which is okay if you have air superiority fighters that can contest that first phase, but if you do not then you are relying on a UAV force that you accept will be swatted as and when the opposition choose to do so. Which is no way to run an air war, and will rapidly lead to your losing a ground or naval war. If you head primarily into using drones then your opponent is going to go after them, especially if you have relatively few fighters and helos and transports etc anyhow. (Easier to swat fighters on the ground).

There are roles crying out for UAVs, and there are roles that still require manned aircraft - there is no reason I can imagine to prevent any and all roles eventually falling to UAV for execution as the fields of computing, comms, weapons tech and programming advance, but that's a long way off what we are capable of now.

Dave

[Lima Juliet]

Dave, no need to be sorry mate! A force mix of manned and unmanned is the way to go - both have very distinct advantages. That's why FJs and REAPER do so well together in AFG at present.

[tutgby]

YouTube - A Russian fighter jet has shot down an unmanned reconnaissan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHFDuBWuWME&feature=related)

Easy pickings...

[Justanopinion]

The Harrier incident in KAF was entirely due to pilot error and not A/C performance, photos taken by a french film crew waiting for Mirage take off.

CRV7 was used in the place of the gun and did just fine.

Harrier was to be fitted with Brimstone.

Carried DJRP which also did a fine job of supporting troops with imagery.

[Lima Juliet]

"Easy pickings" - yes, I agree.

No fighter cover for the Georgians and their Hermes 450 TACTICAL UAS (there's a big difference between this 90kt UAS flown by a non-aviator and a Reaper that can fly at 250kts and operated by an experienced aviator).

Absolutely no reaction from the H450 operator. Any experienced combat pilot would have throttled to idle (minimising the IR signature for the IR guided missile) and descended (being a slow speed target in main beam clutter making a radar guided shot tricky). Finally min ranging the weapons opportunities to the MiG driver by breaking towards it.

Sadly I see none of this from the H450 operator (note not pilot) and they just watch the shot coming until it hits them. First rule of air combat is "never ever give up", this joker gave up before the shot was even fired!

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

DJRP is not a match for RAPTOR's superior NIRS rating and CRV7 is not exactly a replacement for a gun (sometimes better sometimes worse).

[teeteringhead]

PS. The Tornado was designed for Nuclear QRA and so sitting GCAS is something it is very well suited to! ... and the Hunter was designed as a high-level interceptor. So what?

[Lima Juliet]

Oh do keep up old chap. Mr Dow said...

Because it was not designed for this task the Tornado necessarily takes much longer to get airborne from alert and has a very poor mission reliability, with many planned missions cancelled every month. This has resulted in the US Air Force having to step in, to ensure that our troops get the support where and when it is needed.

Hence the answer...

PS. The Tornado was designed for Nuclear QRA and so sitting GCAS is something it is very well suited to!

[BOAC]

Does anyone know if the middle initial of the letter-writer was 'V'? ('Bona-mates' will know what I mean):)

[Justanopinion]

LJ

You appeared to be insinuating that the reconnaissance role is something new. I did not state that the DJRP was superior to RAPTOR as it isn't, however for 5 years it provided imagery that was very well received and also will have saved countless lives.

DJRP didn't take up a weapons station.

CRV7 was used very effectively in exactly the same situations as the gun, low collateral, instant response etc.

The average scramble time from pilots in crewroom to wheels up in the Harrier was 12 -15 mins. If Tornado is responding 30% faster then fair play and if you are talking airspeeds then it must be going supersonic?

[Lima Juliet]

Justanopinion

I'm not trying to say that the Harrier has done a bad job it's just that I believe that Mr Dow is wrong in his letter. The Tornado is capable of achieving all of the good work that the Harrier has done prior to retirement from Afghanistan - my points were made to illustrate this.

BTW the way I've made 8 minutes in a Tornado from hooter to take off - the hangar was on the end of the runway though! Plus I'm sure a Harrier would be capable of the same.

Supersonic "yes", although to stay within the RTS you would need to ditch the tanks :E

LJ

[glad rag]

Harrier mafia just can't let it go.:(

[John Farley]

Golly! Turn your back on PPRuNe for a couple of days and it all happens.

So to work:

I am most grateful to Leon Jabachjabicz for his first two posts where he comments on Mr Dow’s memory, shares a truly spectacular picture and mentions nuclear QRA issues. Thank you very much indeed because I feel they are reason enough for me to make some remarks of my own.

A careful read of Mr Dow’s letter makes it clear that he never suggested the Harrier was accident free in Afghanistan but in the context of his topic (Our troops in Afghanistan) he remarked that the aircraft had a spotless mission accomplishment record. I have spoken to Mr Dow and (as I imagined) he was referring to the fact that the force had never failed to launch a serviceable pair when specific air support requests came in. Certainly on a few of those occasions one of the spare aircraft was needed - but then that is what spares are for.

The spectacular accident pic is indeed a classic in demonstrating the piloting demands that the Harrier family of aircraft have placed on their pilots since 1960 – namely with two levers to operate with your left hand it is only a matter of when - not if - one moves the wrong one. In the case of the Tornado accidents Mr Dow mentions, these were associated with runway length and hot and high aspects of performance. A rather different matter from that illustrated by the picture.

In my view to suggest a nuclear QRA capability (that may have considered for a different mark of the aircraft) reads across to a scramble shout of a current GR4 in Afghanistan is definitely dodgy. What matters out there is the time interval between the crew climbing in and being airborne with a fully serviceable set of kit and full fuel. Should runway conditions make it necessary to refuel after takeoff then so far as the troops are concerned the aircraft might as well be still on the ground until that is complete.

For the benefit of readers here who may not have first hand experience in what is involved in an operational scramble, may I make the point that there are two factors. The first is the flying machine and the second is the kit it needs to do its job. To demonstrate the former I got my wheels in the air one day in under a minute from pressing the starter button because all that was needed to do that was the engine and the flying controls. However unless you also have the capability to align and bring up all your operational kit while airborne that means nothing and you might as well have stayed in bed.

Moving on, thank you BluntM8 thank you for your well reasoned post and I would not take issue with your remarks. However although I am in the picture regarding the data and the sources behind Mr Dow’s letter both he and I would never consider putting such in the public domain. I do realise this is a very convenient defence and that it must frustrate many. All I can suggest is that anybody who wants to know the facts might consider contacting Mr Milliband’s office and suggesting he asks appropriate questions at a PMQ session. Once the information is in Hansard I imagine we can debate it here for a long time!

JF

PS Glad rag. I am so pleased you haven’t given up.

[Dr Illitout]

"Harrier mafia just can't let it go"

The thread was started by the Harrier's God Father;)

Rgds Dr I

[Lima Juliet]

I thank Mr Farley for his comment but I do believe that the letter that he refers to is misleading:

In the case of the Tornado accidents Mr Dow mentions, these were associated with runway length and hot and high aspects of performance.

I do believe that the Tornado accidents he refers to do not indicate any superiority of the Harrier over the Tornado. In fact for the one that was lost outside the wire, the very same result would have occured with the Harrier.

Secondly, on the subject of suggesting a nuclear QRA capability reads across to a scramble shout of a current GR4 in Afghanistan is definitely dodgy, I cannot fathom this. Whether sitting RS-whatever in a portacabin in the desert or in a HAS has almost direct read accross and the fact that the INUs (probably the slowest part of any scramble) have been improved over that of the GR1 only serves to improve the situation.

Finally, my experience as an ALO on the ground in Afghanistan was that neither the Harrier, the Tornado or the F-15E were the No1 choice for my land forces. The choice of champions for FIRES support was either the A-10 or AC-130 backed up by an MQ-9 REAPER doing armed-overwatch and a pair of Apaches covering the HAF by UK support helos. This was often much to the annoyance of the Harriers on GCAS, who just weren't wanted :{.

Good day to you Mr Farley.

Mr Jabachjabicz

[John Farley]

Ta Mr J.

We have both had our say which is what I guess PPRuNe is all about

Good day to you too.

J

[Justanopinion]

LJ

Finally, my experience as an ALO on the ground in Afghanistan was that neither the Harrier, the Tornado or the F-15E were the No1 choice for my land forces. The choice of champions for FIRES support was either the A-10 or AC-130 backed up by an MQ-9 REAPER doing armed-overwatch and a pair of Apaches covering the HAF by UK support helos. This was often much to the annoyance of the Harriers on GCAS, who just weren't wanted http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif.

ALO whilst Harrier was operating in theatre? what year was that then? I cannot remember any of us being 'annoyed' when we were not required.

Your background is F4 and F3 navigator? Did you swap to GR4 thus your vast knowledge of FJ ops in AFG theatre?

[Wrathmonk]

I'll start with a :E just to ensure people know I'm being nothing more than a bit of a mischief maker but which fleet were in theatre for this "straight from the frontline" review of the RAF ....

Click here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5371392.stm).

And yes I know it was discussed at length on PPRuNe here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/244984-raf-utterly-utterly-useless-afghanistan-7.html)(was it really over 4 years ago!!!)

A few more :E:E:E and ;););) just in case!

[andrewn]

I'm a little reluctant to enter a debate (and risk disagreeing) with the great man himself but, as you say JF, this is what pprune is all about.

To be honest I found Mr Dow's reasoning, as published, a little hard to follow but in all honesty I think it's likely a moot point anyways:

The world is changing and fast, in particular with regards to the offensive assets employed by the FJ world. There's really only one game in town in the future and that's F-35, and even that's on thin ice. As has been alluded to in other recent threads Typhoon is almost yesterday's news already, Harrier is gone and the Tornado GR force will not be far behind. Like it or not (and I don't) UAV's are here to stay and I only see their capabilities and responsibilities growing in reach and importance.

If we weren't so broke, and if BAE and others hadn't persisted for so long in taking us all for every penny we did have, then I guess the outlook might have been a little brighter!

[Lima Juliet]

Justanopinion

IIRC the Harrier returned to UK at the start of Summer 2009 - that's only 18 months ago!

I fielded the phone calls from the Har Det of 'why don't you use us?" and they were either upset or very highly strung! Sadly my bosses wanted A-10, AC-130 or Apache - persistence on scene was what they wanted and GR9 didn't have that or a SCL that they wanted. The Tornado wasn't much better but it did have 27 mike-mike and RAPTOR gave good imagery without getting too close to the tgt area and spooking it (unlike DJRP).

I'm not trying to say the Fin is way better than your bona jet, it isn't. I'm just trying to add some balance to Mr Dow's letter - which in my opinion is incorrect.

LJ

[just another jocky]

Shame on you Mr Farley, for supporting such a letter. One can understand your endearment for your aircraft, but to attempt to besmirch the outstanding results that the Tornado, it's air and ground crews are achieving is so far beneath you.

To correct some errors from other posts...the DJRP indeed provided good imagery, but it barely scratches the surface of what RAPTOR can do, and RAPTOR can be datalinked if needed so no need to wait for the ac to return to base. Yes, it takes up a weapon station, but that still leaves the pair of aircraft with guns, bombs and missiles, plus an LDP and a full IMC night low level capability (yes, I used it in the mountains of Afghanistan).

Along with most other sqn mates, I myself achieved <15mins from picking up the phone to wheels in the well on GCAS at KAF in the Tornado, and I believe that quite a few recent guys have managed much quicker.

All this talk of poor performance is nonsense. Of course the altitude and summer temperatures have an effect as they would on any aircraft, but it is a known quantity and has little to no effect on a daily basis. I don't believe the BOI results of the 2 losses are public so we shouldn't comment, but neither should we make assumptions as to the causes.

And in terms of reliability....well, there's been at least one GR4 det that launched 100% of tasked sorties, plus quite a few more that were not on the ATO. Airborne cancellelations were very rare, but there was always another aircraft ready on the ground to take its place, and where necessary, did.

There are other points, sadly their classification means they cannot be mentioned. I know what this sounds like, but unfortunately, those casting aspertions clearly are not cleared and so are not aware of what is currently happening in theatre.

Mr Farley, one question: re-read your letter, but instead of Tornado, insert Harrier. How you would feel if someone saids things like that about your ac, things that you knew were untrue? That letter is unworthy of your support and I am very surprised that someone as you would lend such support to it.

[TurbineTooHot]

Jockey,

Thanks for the measured and spot on post buddy.

I was about to flash again as per the other unnecessary harrier thread.

TTH

[glad rag]

PS Glad rag. I am so pleased you haven’t given up.


I'll give you that one, nicely put :ok:

[Jabba_TG12]

"As someone who used to fly in a credible air defence system..."


Exchange tour with the yanks was it, Leon?? :E:}

[just another jocky]

TTH, just read yours posts and the rest of that thread. As you so rightly say...
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.



I was about to flash again as per the other unnecessary harrier thread.

TTH

You should have seen my first draft of my post above. :eek: Perhaps with age comes a little wisdom...well, perhaps for some of us.:rolleyes:

The continual whining by some of the ex-Harrier community does them or their colleagues no service. Turning it into a Harrier vs Tornado game likewise, and pointless. The arguments regarding sustaining carrier ops experience have some worth, but those questions should firmly be asked of the First Sea Lord and his cronies; it is not the job of the RAF to pay for the cock-ups of the Navy (retiring the air defence of their carriers, putting all their eggs in one basket of expensive carriers with little regard to likely timings and/or costs and assuming that the RAF would keep the Harrier in service just for them). They've shot themselves firmly in the foot.

[John Farley]

Thanks chaps.

Good to see the debate is opening up.

Doing that was what Mr Dow's letter was all about.

JF

PS I'm sorry Jockey was not pleased to wake up and find he had a reason to make his points. But there you go - personal stuff has been known to creep into PPRuNe before. J

[just another jocky]

Mr Farley, you post as if I'm not here (not in the room had we been speaking together) in the third person, which is usually considered poor form.....even rude.