UK F-35B ABOARD SHIP: HARMONY?

[Wingless Walrus]

I understand that the F-35B pilots aboard UK aircraft carriers will consist of RN and RAF pilots.

Harmoy policy defining how long service personnel spend 'away' from home shores on duty was very different for RN and RAF, the RAF period 'away' being about half of that of RN at one point. The last I heard, the RAF period was 4 months; I believe Tornado crews did 3 months in Afghanistan?

RN pilots usually stayed with the ship for its cruise duration; going out with the ship and coming back with the ship.

As a cruise can last 9 months or more, will RAF F-35B pilots be rotated back to Blighty midway through the cruise?

[MPN11]

An interesting question. People didn’t join the RAF to live in a tiny tin cabin for months on end, although I did survive my 3 months in an ISO container on Coastel 1 at Stanley!

* Fortunately it was 2-bunk with en-suite, and my fellow occupant was one of my ATCOs doing 24h on, 24h off, so it was quasi private during the few hours I wasn’t in the Tower.

[VinRouge]

Harmony has little to do with tour length, its the number of days away on operations, supporting operations or in the workup to operations in a rolling 20 month period. Typical harmony figures during TELIC/HERRICK were around 250-300 days for AT Force. I think Rotary force did more and FJ was about the same for the guys around that time.

The RAF has harmonised tour lengths a few years ago, now all blue suiters can expect a 6 month Tour length. However, its worth noting that as most of us operate as a non-formed deployable unit, we very often do long stints, but shorter than a DWR away multiple times. I have in effect been on R0 equivalent for the past 10 years (albeit not looking at a 6 monther when called forwards). I suppose if you do a single 9-monther per FL tour, thats going to work out at about that figure? However, the flat top I cant see being at sea for a continuous 9 months, so people I am sure will get chance to skip off the tub at some point or other during that time if needs be. Simulator currency I expect will require at least one return home from the harrier/tonkka force during HERRICK although could be wrong on this!

One of the reasons the pongos can ram it when giving blue suiters bants about tour length. I often respond with "Oh tell me, which HERRICK deployments did you do", swiftly followed with, "that's nice - I did all of them".

[Easy Street]

Last time I was close to this, it had been agreed that RN harmony figures would be applied to all in the Lightning Force if required for delivery of the Carrier Strike capability. No idea whether that policy remains in place.

The comment about some RAF fleets doing 'only' 3 or 4 month deployments is neither here nor there. The repetition rate of those deployments can be very high. Each Tornado Force squadron has done 6 months on ops in the last 12, and the Typhoon Force practically the same when MOD-directed overseas exercises are factored in.

Both services will suffer in the long run for the outsourcing of so many 'shore postings' such as training establishments; harmony figures used to be considered a medium-term management aid rather than a career-average measure, and running them close year after year is not a recipe for retention. But then, I can't help whether there is now an unspoken strategy of leading people towards shorter, more intense regular careers. There would be many benefits to doing so; trouble is, such a strategy needs recruiting (Capita... ) and training (MFTS...) systems that work well, and a risk appetite that can accommodate larger numbers of less-experienced workers at first line. Hmm!

[muppetofthenorth]

I understand that the F-35B pilots aboard UK aircraft carriers will consist of RN and RAF pilots.

Harmoy policy defining how long service personnel spend 'away' from home shores on duty was very different for RN and RAF, the RAF period 'away' being about half of that of RN at one point. The last I heard, the RAF period was 4 months; I believe Tornado crews did 3 months in Afghanistan?

RN pilots usually stayed with the ship for its cruise duration; going out with the ship and coming back with the ship.

As a cruise can last 9 months or more, will RAF F-35B pilots be rotated back to Blighty midway through the cruise?

It appeared to work well enough with JFH back in the day, what did they do about it?

[orca]

I believe we called it ‘Getting on with the job in hand!’.

A bit of a non-issue.

[Wingless Walrus]

I first heard of Harmony in regard to the Harrier/Tornado issue when it was raised some years ago, in parliamentary records of debates.

My curiosity was pricked regarding F-35B after thumbing more parliamentary records below on the Harrier/Tornado issue:

Defence Committee - Additional (Unprinted) Written Evidence
The Strategic Defence and Security Review and the National Security Strategy
(2011)
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/761/761vw01.htm

This is a treasure trove of information on the Harrier/Tornado and Nimrod issues (the later study acknowledges they were both the wrong decision and derides the manner in which the decisions were taken).

Looking at Appendix 1, parts near the bottom are very interesting, especially regarding the Harrier/Tornado decision.

Annex C: What is Lost by Withdrawing the Harrier?
Annex D: Retention in Service Cost Comparison—Tornado v. Harrier
Annex B: JOINT FORCE HARRIER—MIGRATION TO FUTURE JOINT COMBAT AIRCRAFT

Annex D makes specific reference to Harmony policy differences and acknowkedges this will have a significant impact on operations and strategy.

I was curious as to how this would affect carrier F-35B force and if there would be impact on normal peace time carrier operations. Concerns raised were that there would be more inconvenience and cost caused by the difference in harmony policy. 'Blooded' crews would be replaced by 'newbies', which would dilute effectiveness of the crews for a period, plus the cost and effort to replace crews mid-cruise.

I know the F-35 simulator has been praised highly, but I assumed it would still take a new crew time to qualify and acclimatise to carrier operations. I was also curious as to normal non-combat peace time cruises; would RAF crews rotate mid-cruise?

The concerns raised seemed sound, especially when considered over the life-time of carrier cruises, where the cumulative additional cost of replacing crews mid-cruise could be a significant sum.

How will this be handled in peace time and in combat; will RAF F-35B pilots be rotated mid-cruise?

[Saintsman]

People didn’t join the RAF to live in a tiny tin cabin for months on end

I agree, if I'd wanted to go to sea, I would have joined the Navy.

[orca]

I think that by the time you factor in real world considerations such as how often the RN can afford to go how far; how many countries you actually want your F35s to exercise over; which exercises you want to go to; where and when you’ll be doing other stuff like Red Flag etc - you might find it’s all a bit academic and not much of a factor.

You may find that RN retention drives carrier battle rhythm more than RAF Harmony after a couple of cranks of the handle.

The simple answer is probably ‘They will have to follow Harmony guidelines’.

[orca]

Saintsman - I absolutely take your point, but anyone joining any service post 1982, and possibly before, must surely have countenanced the possibility or even probability of having to use (and therefore exercise etc) the sea base.

[Archimedes]

Defence Committee - Additional (Unprinted) Written Evidence
The Strategic Defence and Security Review and the National Security Strategy
(2011)
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/761/761vw01.htm

This is a treasure trove of information on the Harrier/Tornado and Nimrod issues (the later study acknowledges they were both the wrong decision and derides the manner in which the decisions were taken).

Looking at Appendix 1, parts near the bottom are very interesting, especially regarding the Harrier/Tornado decision.

Annex C: What is Lost by Withdrawing the Harrier?
Annex D: Retention in Service Cost Comparison—Tornado v. Harrier
Annex B: JOINT FORCE HARRIER—MIGRATION TO FUTURE JOINT COMBAT AIRCRAFT

Annex D makes specific reference to Harmony policy differences and acknowkedges this will have a significant impact on operations and strategy.

I was curious as to how this would affect carrier F-35B force and if there would be impact on normal peace time carrier operations. Concerns raised were that there would be more inconvenience and cost caused by the difference in harmony policy. 'Blooded' crews would be replaced by 'newbies', which would dilute effectiveness of the crews for a period, plus the cost and effort to replace crews mid-cruise.

I know the F-35 simulator has been praised highly, but I assumed it would still take a new crew time to qualify and acclimatise to carrier operations. I was also curious as to normal non-combat peace time cruises; would RAF crews rotate mid-cruise?

The concerns raised seemed sound, especially when considered over the life-time of carrier cruises, where the cumulative additional cost of replacing crews mid-cruise could be a significant sum.

How will this be handled in peace time and in combat; will RAF F-35B pilots be rotated mid-cruise?

You need to bear in mind that the above sections you focus upon were largely the work of that unbiased analyst Sharkey Ward. That is not to say that the annexes don't contain valid points (for they do), but they were part of an increasingly unsubtle 'we hate the RAF' campaign which was in many ways hugely counter-productive. This was perhaps best demonstrated when Admiral Zambellas made it very clear that any naval officers, retired or serving, who attempted a repetition of the 2010 efforts would find themselves on the naughty step.

Although published by the committee, this is because it's evidence - and that can be submitted by anyone (I'm being generic here, not talking about this submission) ranging from the person recognised as the world's leading authority on the subject through to some fruitloop with a computer who writes their submission while wearing a tin-foil hat to stop the CIA from reading their brainwaves.

I'm not, for clarity, saying that the submission is/was worthless, merely that you ought not to take it as gospel given that there was a very, very deep dark blue bias towards the way in which certain statistics, etc, were interpreted.

[Timelord]

An interesting question. People didn’t join the RAF to live in a tiny tin cabin for months on end.


Careful, last time anyone suggested that, MSOCS described them as “trade unionised landlubbers only concerned with their own comfort........the services would be better off without them”

[MPN11]

I agree, if I'd wanted to go to sea, I would have joined the Navy.
I didn’t really want to, but joined anyway as a prospecive helicopter pilot ... as with my eyesight and rules at the time, it was my only route to a flying career. I frankly doubt I would have enjoyed it, but it was a trade-off, I guess. My subsequent failure led to the air conditioned comfort of an RAF Control Tower, which was also much safer!! ;)

[Wingless Walrus]

I think that by the time you factor in real world considerations such as how often the RN can afford to go how far; how many countries you actually want your F35s to exercise over; which exercises you want to go to; where and when you’ll be doing other stuff like Red Flag etc - you might find it’s all a bit academic and not much of a factor.

You may find that RN retention drives carrier battle rhythm more than RAF Harmony after a couple of cranks of the handle.

The simple answer is probably ‘They will have to follow Harmony guidelines’.

orca -
thanks for explaining why Harmony in practical scenario is nothing to worry about.


Archimedes -
I take your point that the selection of Annexes were from the RN side (Admiral Sandy Woodward & colleagues). I read them in context with the other witness evidence which suppported the Harrier cause, as did the conclusion of the Defence Committe (below). I am aware of claims made in both directions (RN/RAF) about the impartiality of evidence. I would like to know the 'ins and outs' of this case, but that is another thread.

"The Defence Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Ministry of Defence and its associated public bodies."

Defence Committee - Sixth Report
The Strategic Defence and Security Review and the National Security Strategy
(2011)
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/761/76102.htm#evidence

Conclusions and recommendations

Item 26 (Harrier)
We regret that it has been removed from service. We acknowledge the many pieces of evidence that called for the reintroduction of the Harrier Force. However we agree with our witnesses who stated that it is too late to do so due to the cost, industry losing the relevant personnel and the pilots being redeployed.

Item 28 (Nimrod)
We deeply regret the decision to dispense with the Nimrod MRA4 and have serious concerns regarding the capability gaps this has created in the ability to undertake the military tasks envisaged in the SDSR. This appears to be a clear example of the need to make large savings overriding the strategic security of the UK and the capability requirements of the Armed Forces. We are not convinced that UK Armed Forces can manage this capability gap within existing resources.

[Timelord]

I just wrote a long post defending the Tornado vs Harrier and condemning the MRA4 but then deleted it. All these things have been done to death on these forums and always descend into RN vs RAF. Let’s move on. JOINT force Lightning will surely do a great job.

[Easy Street]

I read them in context with the other witness evidence which suppported the Harrier cause...

It’s usually a good idea to read evidence for both sides of the argument...

...which suppported the Harrier cause, as did the conclusion of the Defence Committe (below).

No, it didn’t:

Item 26 (Harrier)
We regret that it has been removed from service.

Look up ‘regret’ in the dictionary. It doesn’t mean they thought the decision was wrong. Sad? Yes. Should Harrier have been retained if more money was available? Probably yes. Should Harrier have been retained instead of Tornado with the funds available? You can’t infer that from what’s written. Politicians are good with language, it’s their job.

Anyway, if we are going to pointlessly pick over the bones of an 8-year-old decision, I’d point out that the concurrent engagement of Tornados in Libya and Afghanistan mere months later proved the decision correct. Sharkey’s mildly amusing calculations on the relative cost of carrier ops versus HOTAC and fuel burned in transit from land bases are irrelevant: the simple fact is that the Harrier Force lacked the mass to mount two simultaneous operations. Indeed it had only recently been withdrawn from *one* in order to regenerate. The committee will have been well aware of that background and the impact it had on the MOD’s decision.

[Wingless Walrus]

Not being 'plugged in' anymore to those that are 'in the know', a Defence Committee report isnt a bad place to start looking for information.

Archimedes helpfully pointed out that the three annexes listed may contain biased inaccurate views. I was making the point that I did not only look at those views but the overall evidence within the report.

It is a good idea to look at both sides of any argument and that is why I read the report, which I assume has done just that. If it hasnt looked at more than one side of an argument then its conclusions are inconclusive.

The argument in this case was the loss of Harrier; that issue the committee commented on. They gave no conclusion there on Tornado.

The report assessed whether it was possible to reinstate the Harrier into service and took evidence for and against that option. The report concluded that the Harrier had passed the point of no return.

The report or an associated document also raised the issue of whether the government at that time had provided sufficient funds to achieve what it said it wanted to achieve strategically. The Committee looking into reinstating Harrier does not automatically mean they considered scrapping Tornado. They are looking at the loss of Harrier within the strategic goals given at that time.

The committee specifically looked at removal of Harrier. They give no hint of support to the decision to remove Harrier. They did consider the option of reinstating it.

Considering all these points in context with each other, the Committee expressing regret in this context could also be diplomatic 'speak' for saying they did not agree with removing Harrier given the strategic objectives of that time (that doesnt mean they are saying that all Tornado's should have been scrapped instead).

I mentioned in my comments that I dont have the answer to this issue ("I would like to know the 'ins and outs' of this case, but that is another thread."). I am inclined to agree with the sentiments of Timelord; another thread would probably quickly descend into a raging volcano.

My thanks to everyone who gave useful insight in this thread.

orca has answered the question of this thread quite clearly. I am happy with that.