Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Shefford, Beds, UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst we are all discussing the merits/otherwise of carriers perhaps the issue of self defence is still pertinent especially when the world's largest navy gets caught with its trousers down.
On the lines of the original thread:
Despite the merits’ or otherwise of GR9 hours v Typhoon or F35A v F-35B discussed thus far, I feel that the incessant leaking by the senior Service is counter productive, both to their cause and that of the military as a whole.
It has a corrosive effect between the Services and leads to all sorts of allegations of Machiavellian plots against one Service by another. I doubt very much that there is a single head of Service that sits ruminating over his frosties in the morning about how he can 'screw over' the other services. Call it naive if you wish but I do feel that the level of paranoia displayed on here for the last 8 pages is the result of the constant drip of leaks and misinformation purveyed by those that should know better.
As for falling on his sword, if the Head of the RN has really threatened to resign then why has he made no public commentary on it in the same way that Dannett did (Torpy not included as I'm referring to leaders with balls) rather than leaking it through unattributed sources?
On the lines of the original thread:
Despite the merits’ or otherwise of GR9 hours v Typhoon or F35A v F-35B discussed thus far, I feel that the incessant leaking by the senior Service is counter productive, both to their cause and that of the military as a whole.
It has a corrosive effect between the Services and leads to all sorts of allegations of Machiavellian plots against one Service by another. I doubt very much that there is a single head of Service that sits ruminating over his frosties in the morning about how he can 'screw over' the other services. Call it naive if you wish but I do feel that the level of paranoia displayed on here for the last 8 pages is the result of the constant drip of leaks and misinformation purveyed by those that should know better.
As for falling on his sword, if the Head of the RN has really threatened to resign then why has he made no public commentary on it in the same way that Dannett did (Torpy not included as I'm referring to leaders with balls) rather than leaking it through unattributed sources?
Last edited by In Tor Wot; 15th Dec 2008 at 20:54.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel that the incessant leaking by the senior Service is counter productive, both to their cause and that of the military as a whole.
ITW,
Of course you are assuming it was a Navy leak...?
Just because one is paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you! If we're honest, there is form in this area, albeit abetted in previous instances by the dark blue exec branch......
Suspicion breeds confidence
It doesn't matter how you look at it, the argument is nonsensical. If you lose your old carriers 3 years before the new ones arrive, then you lose the skills to operate them. The press would have a field day if this actually happened. I hear that the RN has talked to the USMC about having guest squadrons on board more frequently. But ultimately, if the RAF doesn't want its Harriers then, give them to the RN.
Naveleye
If the Harriers were given back to the RN what do you suggest the RN gives up to pay for them (after all this is all about money isn't it ...?). Another T45 or two? Howabout the deterent? And how would you suggest the RN man the Harrier force as I understand it isn't meeting its 50/50 share at the moment. Unless of course you reduced its size .... which is what CAS may be looking to do.
I know this is a rumour site, and its how many keep in touch with current policy (!) but how about we wait for the ground truth. Just a thought.
If the Harriers were given back to the RN what do you suggest the RN gives up to pay for them (after all this is all about money isn't it ...?). Another T45 or two? Howabout the deterent? And how would you suggest the RN man the Harrier force as I understand it isn't meeting its 50/50 share at the moment. Unless of course you reduced its size .... which is what CAS may be looking to do.
I know this is a rumour site, and its how many keep in touch with current policy (!) but how about we wait for the ground truth. Just a thought.
Suspicion breeds confidence
How much would it really cost?
The a/c are paid for, the spares are paid for. Its the RAF want rid of its Sqns, so be it. I'm sure the NSW could maintain a 9 a/c sqn at Yeovilton without billions being spent. But as you say, it may all be hot air.
The a/c are paid for, the spares are paid for. Its the RAF want rid of its Sqns, so be it. I'm sure the NSW could maintain a 9 a/c sqn at Yeovilton without billions being spent. But as you say, it may all be hot air.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 37
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incorrect
Soddim, 
Sea Harrier DID provide the outer pickets.
Argentine forces WERE instructed to turn back if confronted by the SeaJet and a USN report DID find that almost 472 bombs were dropped premeturely to allow the A-4's to escape the CAP.
The SeaJet presence DID prevent exocet attack, simply because they were there - the main reason I will admit for their lack of use against the task force was that the task force was stationed out of range of the Etendards.
Yes, 17 bombs got through, simply because they came through 800 squadrons CAP stations, who were flying at 10,000 feet, and the Blue Fox could not 'look down' over land - therefore they missed them, and often splashed the offending A-4's once they'd already made their run.
And once again, the bombs did not fuse because they were beneath the minimum release height when dropped, not giving them times to arm themselves - and that this WAS because they could not fly higher for fear of Blue Fox pickup from the 801 pilots flying on low CAP's and the ships radar/sea dart sea slug missile systems.
This was all backed up by Argentine Pilots AFTER the war. 21 aircraft were shot down by Sea Harriers - more than any other part of the force.
I freely admit i'm 21 and was not at the Falklands, and that I've taken my information from pilots who WERE there - but I very much doubt you were a combat pilot down there at the time, so don't try pull that one either.
Sea Harrier DID provide the outer pickets.
Argentine forces WERE instructed to turn back if confronted by the SeaJet and a USN report DID find that almost 472 bombs were dropped premeturely to allow the A-4's to escape the CAP.
The SeaJet presence DID prevent exocet attack, simply because they were there - the main reason I will admit for their lack of use against the task force was that the task force was stationed out of range of the Etendards.
Yes, 17 bombs got through, simply because they came through 800 squadrons CAP stations, who were flying at 10,000 feet, and the Blue Fox could not 'look down' over land - therefore they missed them, and often splashed the offending A-4's once they'd already made their run.
And once again, the bombs did not fuse because they were beneath the minimum release height when dropped, not giving them times to arm themselves - and that this WAS because they could not fly higher for fear of Blue Fox pickup from the 801 pilots flying on low CAP's and the ships radar/sea dart sea slug missile systems.
This was all backed up by Argentine Pilots AFTER the war. 21 aircraft were shot down by Sea Harriers - more than any other part of the force.
I freely admit i'm 21 and was not at the Falklands, and that I've taken my information from pilots who WERE there - but I very much doubt you were a combat pilot down there at the time, so don't try pull that one either.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This rather looks like its part of the same campaign!
Ex-Defence chief in call to cut new aircraft carrier order down to one - The Scotsman
Ex-Defence chief in call to cut new aircraft carrier order down to one - The Scotsman
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Nostinian.
Not only has our once great RN and FAA lost proper fixed-wing aircraft carriers and fighters to help defend maritime forces, civilian ships, this country and also to support other forces world-wide. It has also lost a high percentage of extremely experienced and capable fixed-wing pilots who carried out ‘combined’ fighter, strike and reconnaissance roles! Did these pilots leave because they disliked the FAA? No, I suspect that most left because they could see the way the RAF has been progressively trying to get rid of them, their aircraft, ships and excellent FAA culture.
Not only that, but I suspect that many left because they were spending so much time away from their families, mainly due to their very much in demand flexibility and capability around the world in so many wars and conflicts, etc. (So much for FAA fixed-wing aircraft and aircraft carriers no longer being required by this country according to ‘some’ very biased RAF contributors on this website!)
Furthermore, what a master stroke it was to also remove the FAA Harrier pilots, maintainers and their aircraft out of their only FAA base at Yeovilton, to an RAF base a very long way from there! That must have no doubt been a further ‘final straw’ kick in the teeth for many of them and their families! Well done to the powers to be for that, the millions of pounds spent training and gaining such very experienced aircrew, maintainers and capability has no doubt been very much appreciated by many airlines around the world that are now employing them!! What a great loss to our nation for which the true cost is conveniently never captured and made public by the bean counters. (Or highlighted in newspaper articles, such as the one previously mentioned in this thread!)
Not only does the RN carry out much maritime work that the other forces cannot do, it also helps to carry out much of the other UK armed forces world-wide commitments. (Even when far away from the sea!) Such a flexible, capable and ‘can do’ force should be enhanced by this nation and not progressively destroyed and left very vulnerable to ever increasing air and submarine threats, etc.
It sadly currently seems that one of the RN/FAA worst threats today actually comes from within our own country. This from some rather biased and blinkered RAF supporters who are managing to do what many enemies have failed to do in the past. That is to destroy some of its best capabilities and reduce the morale of its crews. Our potential enemies are no doubt laughing at this crazy situation!
Not only has our once great RN and FAA lost proper fixed-wing aircraft carriers and fighters to help defend maritime forces, civilian ships, this country and also to support other forces world-wide. It has also lost a high percentage of extremely experienced and capable fixed-wing pilots who carried out ‘combined’ fighter, strike and reconnaissance roles! Did these pilots leave because they disliked the FAA? No, I suspect that most left because they could see the way the RAF has been progressively trying to get rid of them, their aircraft, ships and excellent FAA culture.
Not only that, but I suspect that many left because they were spending so much time away from their families, mainly due to their very much in demand flexibility and capability around the world in so many wars and conflicts, etc. (So much for FAA fixed-wing aircraft and aircraft carriers no longer being required by this country according to ‘some’ very biased RAF contributors on this website!)
Furthermore, what a master stroke it was to also remove the FAA Harrier pilots, maintainers and their aircraft out of their only FAA base at Yeovilton, to an RAF base a very long way from there! That must have no doubt been a further ‘final straw’ kick in the teeth for many of them and their families! Well done to the powers to be for that, the millions of pounds spent training and gaining such very experienced aircrew, maintainers and capability has no doubt been very much appreciated by many airlines around the world that are now employing them!! What a great loss to our nation for which the true cost is conveniently never captured and made public by the bean counters. (Or highlighted in newspaper articles, such as the one previously mentioned in this thread!)
Not only does the RN carry out much maritime work that the other forces cannot do, it also helps to carry out much of the other UK armed forces world-wide commitments. (Even when far away from the sea!) Such a flexible, capable and ‘can do’ force should be enhanced by this nation and not progressively destroyed and left very vulnerable to ever increasing air and submarine threats, etc.
It sadly currently seems that one of the RN/FAA worst threats today actually comes from within our own country. This from some rather biased and blinkered RAF supporters who are managing to do what many enemies have failed to do in the past. That is to destroy some of its best capabilities and reduce the morale of its crews. Our potential enemies are no doubt laughing at this crazy situation!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF launches dogfight for control of navy’s aircraft - The Times 21 Dec 08
Looks like the earlier reports didn't go far enough!
Perhaps when faced with calls from within the Army and RN to disband the RAF, Sir Glenn decided to come out fighting!
Looks like the earlier reports didn't go far enough!
The RAF is trying to take over the Royal Navy’s historic Fleet Air Arm and assume control of all army helicopters in a plan to cut more than £1 billion from the defence budget.
The navy clashed with the air force at a meeting of senior officials last week. Its admirals are furious about a campaign, waged under the slogan “one nation, one air force” which would see the Fleet Air Arm scrapped in 2013, a few months before its centenary.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, chief of the air staff, is proposing to scrap all 75 Harrier jump jets shared between the navy and the air force. Helicopters operated by the Army Air Corps, formed in 1957, would also come under RAF control. Its aircraft include Apache gunships which support troops on the front line, although transports such as the Chinook are already flown by the RAF.
The changes would leave the navy with no planes for its carriers until the new Joint Strike Fighter is introduced, which is unlikely before 2017. RAF chiefs want their pilots to fly the new aircraft from the carriers.
The navy clashed with the air force at a meeting of senior officials last week. Its admirals are furious about a campaign, waged under the slogan “one nation, one air force” which would see the Fleet Air Arm scrapped in 2013, a few months before its centenary.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, chief of the air staff, is proposing to scrap all 75 Harrier jump jets shared between the navy and the air force. Helicopters operated by the Army Air Corps, formed in 1957, would also come under RAF control. Its aircraft include Apache gunships which support troops on the front line, although transports such as the Chinook are already flown by the RAF.
The changes would leave the navy with no planes for its carriers until the new Joint Strike Fighter is introduced, which is unlikely before 2017. RAF chiefs want their pilots to fly the new aircraft from the carriers.
Last edited by LFFC; 21st Dec 2008 at 07:33.
Wasn't in MB at the time but wasn't the formation of JFH a deal brokered by the then CNS with a view to saving RN money and therefore protect other parts of the "core" Navy?
"Perhaps when faced with calls from within the Army and RN to disband the RAF, Sir Glenn decided to come out fighting!"
Quite possibly; it's a game that two or three can play. "One nation, one air force" might not even be a bad idea. If you look at the way that the Marine Air tail is wagging the USAF/USN fighter-force dog in the US, you have to wonder.
Quite possibly; it's a game that two or three can play. "One nation, one air force" might not even be a bad idea. If you look at the way that the Marine Air tail is wagging the USAF/USN fighter-force dog in the US, you have to wonder.
This rather looks like its part of the same campaign!
Ex-Defence chief in call to cut new aircraft carrier order down to one - The Scotsman
Ex-Defence chief in call to cut new aircraft carrier order down to one - The Scotsman
Unbelievable
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one tries to be totally objective there is much logic in the provision of all air power from an independent air force. The Army and the Navy are utterly professional in their own roles and, similiarly, so is the Air Force in theirs. To assume that within any one of the three services one could muster and maintain the level of expertise and experience to perform satisfactorily the role of any of the other two services diminishes the credibility of separate armed services.
The RAF is not clamouring for tanks or ships so why do the other two services want their own air power. They should accept that if they want air support and don't get it there is a very good reason - someone else needs it more. In these austere times it is vital to apportion one's resources so that they can be shared according to the priorities of the moment - not held in reserve by a force that does not need it at the time or equipped solely for naval or land force support.
The only sensible alternative is a combined force structure. I spent some 36 years learning to do my single service job and was still learning when I left. OK, some are slower than others to grasp the knowledge and to cope with rapidly changing technology, but I could not envisage a combined service doing any one of the single service roles in the same professional way.
The RAF is not clamouring for tanks or ships so why do the other two services want their own air power. They should accept that if they want air support and don't get it there is a very good reason - someone else needs it more. In these austere times it is vital to apportion one's resources so that they can be shared according to the priorities of the moment - not held in reserve by a force that does not need it at the time or equipped solely for naval or land force support.
The only sensible alternative is a combined force structure. I spent some 36 years learning to do my single service job and was still learning when I left. OK, some are slower than others to grasp the knowledge and to cope with rapidly changing technology, but I could not envisage a combined service doing any one of the single service roles in the same professional way.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soddim
"but I could not envisage a combined service doing any one of the single service roles in the same professional way."
Bollocks.
The Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy. Very few would contend that they are anything other than the finest man for man regular soldiers in the world.
The FAA is part of the Navy. Find me an unbiased observer anywhere in the world who won't rank a Naval Aviator above a Airforce pumper in any countries military. I know that you crabs on here will never admit it, but if you ask the customer, either RM or army, who they would like to be supported by, and the answer will nine times out of ten be the RN.
"They should accept that if they want air support and don't get it there is a very good reason - someone else needs it more."
Or the RAF are, as usual, and not willing to go the extra mile to make others lives a bit easier as the RN (in)famously does. I have heard lots of abuse thrown at the RNs habit of being slightly more flexible with the rules in order to get the job done, but at the end of the day we are the service the customer prefers.
"In these austere times it is vital to apportion one's resources"
Very true, and both the FAA and AAC make every penny go so much further it isnt funny. The Army gets banter for treating their helicopters like landys, but their footprint is vanishingly small compared to the RAF, and even the FAA to be honest.
"but I could not envisage a combined service doing any one of the single service roles in the same professional way."
Bollocks.
The Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy. Very few would contend that they are anything other than the finest man for man regular soldiers in the world.
The FAA is part of the Navy. Find me an unbiased observer anywhere in the world who won't rank a Naval Aviator above a Airforce pumper in any countries military. I know that you crabs on here will never admit it, but if you ask the customer, either RM or army, who they would like to be supported by, and the answer will nine times out of ten be the RN.
"They should accept that if they want air support and don't get it there is a very good reason - someone else needs it more."
Or the RAF are, as usual, and not willing to go the extra mile to make others lives a bit easier as the RN (in)famously does. I have heard lots of abuse thrown at the RNs habit of being slightly more flexible with the rules in order to get the job done, but at the end of the day we are the service the customer prefers.
"In these austere times it is vital to apportion one's resources"
Very true, and both the FAA and AAC make every penny go so much further it isnt funny. The Army gets banter for treating their helicopters like landys, but their footprint is vanishingly small compared to the RAF, and even the FAA to be honest.
By far the worst aspect of this inter-Service internecine fighting (becoming a fight to the death?) is that the Service Chiefs are doing the Government's dirty work for them. It is a classic example of the 'divide and conquer' tactic and there is no-one better than Nu Labour in applying it. If we are to preserve (or better, achieve) the Armed Forces that the UK needs and deserves, the Service Chiefs need (for once) to put down their back-stabbing daggers and turn their forward-facing armament onto the Treasury and Downing St.
Blimey, I've read some ill-informed, un-substantiated stove-piped bollox by cold war warriers on this forum over the years but Tourist has now reset the standard! Are you the "leak" in MB? Nothing personal but between you and WEBF you are putting the FAA back into the Dark Ages!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies, Gentlemen, PLEASE....
Internecine punch-ups are *really* unhelpful. And as a crab, I can see the arguments for passing SH to the AAC, in the same way that the RAAF did with the UH-60s and CH-47s in the 1980s. No disrespect to the SH mob, but given who the primary customer is, it may make sense for field Army to run this themselves. And for good measure, I'd probably pass the RAF Regiment across to the Army as well. (Kevlar hat on for incoming.)
Similarly, the FAA notwithstanding, it is quite true that if you've got to save a lot of money from aircraft - which is a political decision that I don't agree with, incidentally - then binning the GR9 before the long-term support contract is signed and before the major structural work is done, is probably the best way forward. Again, not saying that this is the right thing, but if these are the political parameters (other savings - e.g. CVF, Trident, being off the table), then it will (i) save the most cash and (ii) the GR4s could (at a pinch) do the majority of the GR9 job, whereas the reverse is not true.
So *IF* the decision is made to bin the GR9s in 2011/2013/whenever - again, a decision I would oppose - it should not be assumed that it is a nefarious anti-RN plot.
And on a point of pedantry, the FAA is not celebrating its' centenary in 2013: the RNAS became the RAF on 1 Apr 1918, with the FAA not reverting to RN control until 1939.
S41
(Edited for spollink)
Internecine punch-ups are *really* unhelpful. And as a crab, I can see the arguments for passing SH to the AAC, in the same way that the RAAF did with the UH-60s and CH-47s in the 1980s. No disrespect to the SH mob, but given who the primary customer is, it may make sense for field Army to run this themselves. And for good measure, I'd probably pass the RAF Regiment across to the Army as well. (Kevlar hat on for incoming.)
Similarly, the FAA notwithstanding, it is quite true that if you've got to save a lot of money from aircraft - which is a political decision that I don't agree with, incidentally - then binning the GR9 before the long-term support contract is signed and before the major structural work is done, is probably the best way forward. Again, not saying that this is the right thing, but if these are the political parameters (other savings - e.g. CVF, Trident, being off the table), then it will (i) save the most cash and (ii) the GR4s could (at a pinch) do the majority of the GR9 job, whereas the reverse is not true.
So *IF* the decision is made to bin the GR9s in 2011/2013/whenever - again, a decision I would oppose - it should not be assumed that it is a nefarious anti-RN plot.
And on a point of pedantry, the FAA is not celebrating its' centenary in 2013: the RNAS became the RAF on 1 Apr 1918, with the FAA not reverting to RN control until 1939.
S41
(Edited for spollink)