Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers
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
*casts a line, waits for a second, and gets the most almightly BITE*
nah thier good points, but the best part of this discussion is that whichever side you're on, you'll be pretty firmly entrenched. And I don't think the Rocks really justify even their small price tag - having met them, I know just how much extra kit the RAF buys them just to use up their budget.
nah thier good points, but the best part of this discussion is that whichever side you're on, you'll be pretty firmly entrenched. And I don't think the Rocks really justify even their small price tag - having met them, I know just how much extra kit the RAF buys them just to use up their budget.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonico- Again the GR.9 programe has not been run to provide the RAF and Navy with an aircraft that has a shelf life of only 3 1/2 years from the last one to leave the line. Similarily the extension of life directly reflects very much based on the fatigue life and hours on the airframe. With some aircraft at 4,000 hrs and others a considerably less it doesn't take a genius to deduce that they will not all be life ex at the same time.
A sensible choice would be to reduce the number in service by say 30% and turn the high hr machines into spares/war reserve. As for replacement rear fuselages -seven from memory have been made by BAe - the number made is in direct relation to how many are actually needed otherwise it would have just been a random number plucked out of fresh air.
So again whilst your IPT contact might have been pesimistic -don't for one minute think that 1 Billion of your hard earned taxes is needed to keep her in the air past 2013.
A sensible choice would be to reduce the number in service by say 30% and turn the high hr machines into spares/war reserve. As for replacement rear fuselages -seven from memory have been made by BAe - the number made is in direct relation to how many are actually needed otherwise it would have just been a random number plucked out of fresh air.
So again whilst your IPT contact might have been pesimistic -don't for one minute think that 1 Billion of your hard earned taxes is needed to keep her in the air past 2013.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
Thank you for giving me such a very good laugh this Christmas. I do hope that 'Tourist' can provide one of his excellent translations of some of the rubbish that you have stated.
How on earth did the RN/FAA/RM/RFA/Army possibly win a major sea, land and air campaign in the Falklands, 8000 miles away, with such relatively small resources, poorly trained and inexperienced non-RAF officers, techicians, etc? Obviously in your very blinkered eyes that must have just been down to some very good luck and due to the fact that a relatively few number of RAF personnel were also there to save the day! You really are a joke and an insult to this countries armed forces. (To put it politely!!)
By the way, I am not in anyway knocking those RAF guys who were actually there in the thick of it during that war and did a very good job. I am sure however that they would be honest enough to say that the other forces coped extremely well in some extremely difficult worse case scenarios, without the rapid and flexible world-wide support that the RAF had previously said it could provide!
With your kind of stuck up, arrogant and ‘the RAF are greater than everyone else’ attitude, is it no wonder that the other services do not want the RAF trying to run their air own assets!
You are also good at twisting around what people are 'supposed' to have stated. However, I only hope that our politicians, non-biased forces personnel and the general public read this thread carefully and sensibly to see both sides of the argument and make their own minds up as to what is actually best for this Nation.
May I also take this opportunity to wish everyone a Very Merry and Safe Christmas, wherever you are in the world.
Thank you for giving me such a very good laugh this Christmas. I do hope that 'Tourist' can provide one of his excellent translations of some of the rubbish that you have stated.
How on earth did the RN/FAA/RM/RFA/Army possibly win a major sea, land and air campaign in the Falklands, 8000 miles away, with such relatively small resources, poorly trained and inexperienced non-RAF officers, techicians, etc? Obviously in your very blinkered eyes that must have just been down to some very good luck and due to the fact that a relatively few number of RAF personnel were also there to save the day! You really are a joke and an insult to this countries armed forces. (To put it politely!!)
By the way, I am not in anyway knocking those RAF guys who were actually there in the thick of it during that war and did a very good job. I am sure however that they would be honest enough to say that the other forces coped extremely well in some extremely difficult worse case scenarios, without the rapid and flexible world-wide support that the RAF had previously said it could provide!
With your kind of stuck up, arrogant and ‘the RAF are greater than everyone else’ attitude, is it no wonder that the other services do not want the RAF trying to run their air own assets!
You are also good at twisting around what people are 'supposed' to have stated. However, I only hope that our politicians, non-biased forces personnel and the general public read this thread carefully and sensibly to see both sides of the argument and make their own minds up as to what is actually best for this Nation.
May I also take this opportunity to wish everyone a Very Merry and Safe Christmas, wherever you are in the world.
Gullwings,
What are you, a 12-year old spotter?
I'm please that you choose to harp on about the Falklands, which I'm old enough to remember, and which occurred when I was occasionally wearing RAF uniform, and occasionally flying HM's aeroplanes.
The Falklands war took place 26 years ago (halfway back to the Battle of Britain, and nearer in time to VE day than to today). Ancient history, in other words.
It was the last occasion when carriers were actually essential - and it was the last occasion when land based air power couldn't do it better, quicker and cheaper.
Carriers are an inflexible, slow, vulnerable and expensive way of delivering air power, a nice-to-have niche capability that we don't need and can't afford, and which threaten to distort the UK's forces and actually weaken the capability areas we actually need and use.
But which the Admirals won't give up without a fight.
So please don't lecture me on the 'good of the nation'.
What are you, a 12-year old spotter?
I'm please that you choose to harp on about the Falklands, which I'm old enough to remember, and which occurred when I was occasionally wearing RAF uniform, and occasionally flying HM's aeroplanes.
The Falklands war took place 26 years ago (halfway back to the Battle of Britain, and nearer in time to VE day than to today). Ancient history, in other words.
It was the last occasion when carriers were actually essential - and it was the last occasion when land based air power couldn't do it better, quicker and cheaper.
Carriers are an inflexible, slow, vulnerable and expensive way of delivering air power, a nice-to-have niche capability that we don't need and can't afford, and which threaten to distort the UK's forces and actually weaken the capability areas we actually need and use.
But which the Admirals won't give up without a fight.
So please don't lecture me on the 'good of the nation'.
Last edited by Jackonicko; 25th Dec 2008 at 00:02.
Carriers are an inflexible, slow, vulnerable and expensive way of delivering air power, a nice-to-have niche capability that we don't need and can't afford, and which threaten to distort the UK's forces and actually weaken the capability areas we actually need and use.
Sierra leone wasn't that long ago either.
Lets not forget the Humanitarian Op Tellar in Nicaragua.
You often mention that we are planning our Aircraft for tomorrow so why shouldn't we do the same for the Fleet?
As to the Officers remark, re-read the post and you will see it mentions the "Top Heavy" Officers of all 3 services. We do have far too many.
The chain of command understands and knows how to use air power. It does not mis-use assets, and does not allow aircraft to be diverted to act as the Colonel's taxi.
Taxi for one to the IOW, ring any bells.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
There are too many aspects in your piece above to put in quotes but a response is needed.
Throughout you arguments you seem to imply that the cost of deploying land based air power is minimal and certainly nowhere near as expensive as by sea - no one has yet shown this to be true. I seem to recall in the distant past that to deploy a "fighting squadron" of Jags to Denmark took more than the entire RAF AT fleet and that was just to get them there. Resupply continued to take up most of the AT. In a day one scenario it is likely to take up to 2-3 weeks to establish an RAF fighting Sqn in a tactical FOB with sufficient stores and weapons. The whole point of the carrier concept is that it is available, fully resourced, on day one - and in the previous period it has been stationed for coercive effect whilst diplomacy has its go. Precisely why the US have up to 5 CVNs stationed around the world on a permanent basis (and MEBs for that matter) - the USAF simply can't get there for the day one situation (well not every time).
As far as the Strategic Deterrent goes it is the Government that decides whether it wants one and how best to deploy it - just how would the RAF or Army do this......and does it want to anyway? Simple fact....all the nations with a Strategic Nuclear Deterrent deploy it by submarine, if there was a better way I am sure they would do it.
In our financially constrained times just what are our AD sqns defending against? What is the threat? And since when is Tornado a CAS aircraft?
There are too many aspects in your piece above to put in quotes but a response is needed.
Throughout you arguments you seem to imply that the cost of deploying land based air power is minimal and certainly nowhere near as expensive as by sea - no one has yet shown this to be true. I seem to recall in the distant past that to deploy a "fighting squadron" of Jags to Denmark took more than the entire RAF AT fleet and that was just to get them there. Resupply continued to take up most of the AT. In a day one scenario it is likely to take up to 2-3 weeks to establish an RAF fighting Sqn in a tactical FOB with sufficient stores and weapons. The whole point of the carrier concept is that it is available, fully resourced, on day one - and in the previous period it has been stationed for coercive effect whilst diplomacy has its go. Precisely why the US have up to 5 CVNs stationed around the world on a permanent basis (and MEBs for that matter) - the USAF simply can't get there for the day one situation (well not every time).
As far as the Strategic Deterrent goes it is the Government that decides whether it wants one and how best to deploy it - just how would the RAF or Army do this......and does it want to anyway? Simple fact....all the nations with a Strategic Nuclear Deterrent deploy it by submarine, if there was a better way I am sure they would do it.
In our financially constrained times just what are our AD sqns defending against? What is the threat? And since when is Tornado a CAS aircraft?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Falklands war took place 26 years ago (halfway back to the Battle of Britain, and nearer in time to VE day than to today). Ancient history, in other words.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoted post just goes to show the idiotic...
.........posting on this forum
Putin's Arctic invasion: Russia lays claim to the North Pole - and all its gas, oil, and diamonds | Mail Online
In our financially constrained times just what are our AD sqns defending against?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
In our financially constrained times just what are our AD sqns defending against? What is the threat?
Amongst other things. How easily we forget.
ORAC.....Do you really believe that the present day RAF could defend against a hijacked aircraft turning off the ILS at LHR and flying into the Houses of Parliament or Canary Wharf? They would have about 1 min to react I reckon. And god forbid, if ever we have to scare off the Russians. Best defence we have against them is to keep buying their gas.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....and who would make the decision in time? Horrific though 9/11 was I am not sure anything could have stopped it given the circumstances...politicians will always hesitate.
Re the Artic....what has that got to do with air defence of the UK? I suspect the US and Canadians have a greater interest in this bit of real estate.
Re the Artic....what has that got to do with air defence of the UK? I suspect the US and Canadians have a greater interest in this bit of real estate.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did the 9-11 hijacked aircraft do anything like that? There are many anti-hijack precautions apart from the RAF and one hopes it is no longer easy to get a civilian aircaft so close to the target without warning.
One thing is for sure, without the RAF and the boys and girls sitting on QRA and maintaining the aircraft right now, there would be no last line of defence.
Thankyou to QRA today for helping to keep us safe so that we can all enjoy Christmas in peace.
One thing is for sure, without the RAF and the boys and girls sitting on QRA and maintaining the aircraft right now, there would be no last line of defence.
Thankyou to QRA today for helping to keep us safe so that we can all enjoy Christmas in peace.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: gloucester
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting comments,
Maybe the reason that somebody has suggested that the RAF take on the armys helicopters is that they have realised that the AAC's servicability rate for it's helicopters is appalling.
How many Apache's are in storage due to lack of pilots/trainning/management/engineers/spares etc etc.
How many of the 100's of lynx are declared operational on a daily basis?
There is a fundamental difference in the way the two services opperate both with merits, but in this day and age, can we really afford to have aircraft sat about U/S while feildcraft, weapons trainning and drill take priority.
In an ideal world yes.... but that world has long since gone.
Maybe the reason that somebody has suggested that the RAF take on the armys helicopters is that they have realised that the AAC's servicability rate for it's helicopters is appalling.
How many Apache's are in storage due to lack of pilots/trainning/management/engineers/spares etc etc.
How many of the 100's of lynx are declared operational on a daily basis?
There is a fundamental difference in the way the two services opperate both with merits, but in this day and age, can we really afford to have aircraft sat about U/S while feildcraft, weapons trainning and drill take priority.
In an ideal world yes.... but that world has long since gone.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
while trying not to seem dim ( Happy Christmas to all by the way ! ) if 'we' can afford £400 billion to help out selfish, useless bankers ( please regard that as rhyming slang ) then apparently we can certainly afford the 2 carriers, but probably not the 80 plus admirals....
while trying not to seem dim ( Happy Christmas to all by the way ! ) if 'we' can afford £400 billion to help out selfish, useless bankers ( please regard that as rhyming slang ) then apparently we can certainly afford the 2 carriers, but probably not the 80 plus admirals....
Mick,
Easy - I took such exams before I was senile, and usually when sober.
Never post when drunk, especially when you're not used to it.
I meant Suez, of course, and then got mentally sidetracked.
With my arithmetic and your knowledge of defence we're a powerful combination.
Timex,
Don't make me go over Sierra Leone again, per-lease. (Carrier got there first because they held back the Jag squadron on the Azores, with basing permission for Dakar. And tell me again what weapons the Harrier brought to that fight? What was that again? Sudden aircraft noise?). As for Telic, it was quite possible without carriers, as Granby showed.
Bismarck,
You quote one example, I could quote plenty of others - the speed with which the Jags got on Granby, out to Italy for the Balkans stuff, and the lack of support required. Sierra Leone, if you like. And Typhoon could do it with an even leaner tail.
Whereas your CVS/CVF, SSN, AD destroyer, RFAs, oilers and the like take much longer, and cost far more.
Re the deterrent, in the post Cold War world, I'd have been happy seeing it as a secondary capability, split between some sub-launched Tomahawks and a nuclear-tipped Storm Shadow. Enough to deter, cheap enough to afford.
If the Navy want to provide the gold plated (and arguably less than nationally autonomous solution) than that's a Navy priority, and gold plated carriers as well seems a bit much.
Easy - I took such exams before I was senile, and usually when sober.
Never post when drunk, especially when you're not used to it.
I meant Suez, of course, and then got mentally sidetracked.
With my arithmetic and your knowledge of defence we're a powerful combination.
Timex,
Don't make me go over Sierra Leone again, per-lease. (Carrier got there first because they held back the Jag squadron on the Azores, with basing permission for Dakar. And tell me again what weapons the Harrier brought to that fight? What was that again? Sudden aircraft noise?). As for Telic, it was quite possible without carriers, as Granby showed.
Bismarck,
You quote one example, I could quote plenty of others - the speed with which the Jags got on Granby, out to Italy for the Balkans stuff, and the lack of support required. Sierra Leone, if you like. And Typhoon could do it with an even leaner tail.
Whereas your CVS/CVF, SSN, AD destroyer, RFAs, oilers and the like take much longer, and cost far more.
Re the deterrent, in the post Cold War world, I'd have been happy seeing it as a secondary capability, split between some sub-launched Tomahawks and a nuclear-tipped Storm Shadow. Enough to deter, cheap enough to afford.
If the Navy want to provide the gold plated (and arguably less than nationally autonomous solution) than that's a Navy priority, and gold plated carriers as well seems a bit much.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also Jacko, they may have been able to get there, but did they have the support required to actually do anything, ie bombs, bullets, planning facilities, accomodation.
ie, all the stuff that va carrier turns up with day one ready to go for extended ops
ie, all the stuff that va carrier turns up with day one ready to go for extended ops