Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers

[Pontius Navigator]

Wrath,

From my lowly position the choices are:

Fight today's war with today's kit and hope that there is time to prepare for tomorrow's war.

or

fight today's war with minimal kit and focus on getting th enew kit for tomorrow's war.

Torpy is quite clearly focussed on getting tranche 3 of the Typhoon come what may.

Now it might be argued that this is at the expense of dark blue naval air aspirations today and possibly even tomorrow if, as an airman, he believes that the best interests of the nation will be served by a flexible air force that can be deployed in a matter of hours anywhere in the world.

There are obviously many counter-arguments but those are my thoughts on where he might be coming from.

[SirPercyWare-Armitag]

The first paragraph of the article gives this away as yet another brilliant RN PR campaign not too dissimilar to the old "leave the docs on the towpath for the Mail to find" routine.
There isnt any money left and scrapping the Harrier sounds like a reasonable way of allowing ALL THREE SERVICES to keep other projects on track, including the carrier. Of course, there will be a small air gap between the GR7/9 leaving service in 2013 and JSF coming online but the issue of losing carrier operations currency is a bit disingenous. I wonder whether or not exchange posts with the US might give a cadre of knowledgeable pilots able to form the basis of an OCU?

"I thought the harrier was the newest of all the CAS Aircraft (save Typhoon)"

That might hold water if we had a dozen CAS platforms but we dont: we have three.

I dont think we should lose the Harrier but if cuts have to be made, where else? If it results in the end of the FAA, is that a major drama? The RAF lost its maritime branch a billion years ago because others could do the job for them and there hasnt been any catastrophic consequences.
This is RN paranoia which has resulted in them spinning a campaign to the detriment of the military as a whole.

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by SirPercyWare-Armitag

The RAF lost its maritime branch a billion years ago because others could do the job for them and there hasnt been any catastrophic consequences.

Actually I think they just went dark blue and every thing was handed over to a contractor. Quite a change for some: they left the RN when the RN disposed of its FTBs and changed to light blue. Then some were able to get their darl blue wooly pulleys out of store and put the light blue ones away.

[Gullwings]

Pontius Navigator

The problem is that Torpy does appear to be focussed on getting tranche 3 of the Typhoon come what may. This may be in the best interest of the RAF but not necessarily of the nation.

The Fleet Air Arm has repeatedly shown that it can be relied upon to be deployed in a matter of hours anywhere in the world. If the nation wants a flexible air force then the FAA should continue to help provide that and the RAF not be allowed to destroy it for its own self interests.

For example, if for any reason, the few Falkland based RAF fixed-wing aircraft are unable to fly in defense of the Falklands (particularly if their runway(s) get damaged) then what UK fixed-wing capability is actually going to be left to help defend and retake the Falklands? Sea Harriers (or other radar equipped Spanish/Italian Harriers) would have been perfect for that type of long distance task but that capability has been lost.

Now it appears that the Fleet Air Arm fixed-wing force and possibly all remaining ground attack Harriers could also be at risk! What will a Typhoon Tranche 3 be able to do to help in another Falklands War type long range situation where friendly airfields are not available?

Have the previous lessons of the Falklands War (and many other wars) been lost on our RAF? Our Fleet Air Arm urgently requires strengthening, not wiping out by some very short sighted people.

Will the new aircraft carriers and JSF arrive on time? I sadly doubt that very much, so we as an island nation, are likely to leave our RN ships and overseas interests very badly exposed by a lack of FAA air defence capability for a long time.

[Wrathmonk]

PN

Trouble is I don't think we have any choice with Typ Tr 3 - we pay regardless! Stitched up would be my view!

Gullwings

Agree we need carrier based aviation - but does it NEED to be FAA? Similarly, if we want to protect the FAA do all Typhoon/Tornado crews need to be RAF? Back to the best person for the job, regardless of cloth.

I really hope this is over enthusiastic journalism - the "me, me, me" (or in this case "RAF, RAF, RAF") is really quite sad

[pr00ne]

Gullwing,

" Now it appears that the Fleet Air Arm fixed-wing force and possibly all remaining ground attack Harriers could also be at risk! What will a Typhoon Tranche 3 be able to do to help in another Falklands War type long range situation...."

Just how will the much vaunted 'Naval Strike Wing' be of any help in that (extremely unlikely) scenario?
What is it, 10 jets and 6 pilots? What is the point...................

There is no rational for spending a single penny on "another Falklands War type long range situation" because there isn't going to be one!

The world has changed, Afghanistan is where we are NOW.

If you still think we face conventional wars against conventional foes try reading "The Utility of Force" by General Sir Rupert Smith, it may just open your eyes.

[Bismark]

Torpy would not be doing this without Stirrup's tacit backing, thus CDS is as compromised as CAS (and it probably goes much deeper into MoD).

Without the FAA in FW aviation you can forget the carriers as there will be no generation of maritime FW air-minded officers and ratings - the RAF will not generate such people because they fundamentally do not want to go to sea.

Which other nation allows their air force to run maritime FW aviation? Even the Italians reverted when they learned the same lesson in the 90s that the RN learned in the 30s - ie the Air Force does not give a s**t about maritime FW.

Shame on Torpy, shame on the RAF - I thought they were better than this. I wonder whether the lower downs in the RAF support their Chiefs?? I wonder what good old Henry Allingham, the last surviving founder member of the RAF (but ex RNAS) thinks of this.

[The Real Slim Shady]

The Harrier.

Operates from woods, runways, roads, PSP, very short damaged bits of asphalt, aircraft carriers, frigates ( albeit with a short range), ramps.

It flies CAS missions, AD missions, Recce.

In short it is FLEXIBLE.

Wasn't the old NATO doctrine "Flexibility is the key to air power"

Which lecture did he sleep through at Staff College?

[Pontius Navigator]

Bismarck,

Rock and a hard place.

Torpy is an airman and would press for Tiffy. CDS is now purple and would, one hopes, consider the balancing act. For Torpy to back off on Tiffy and concede Harrier/CVF if he sincerely believes that Tiffy tranche 3 is correct would be a betrayal of the Air Force.

CDS, on the other hand, balancing the need for a balanced budget and the need to pay for tranche 3 has to make the best of what he has.

That CNS (or whoever) adopts an entrenched position opposite Torpy's is quite properly the correct blue approach for his service.

CDS thus has to opt for one or the other and just because he is light blue/purple does not disqualify him from opting for a light blue solution bitter as that may be for dark blue.

Rock and hard place.

[Chugalug2]

Wrathmonk:

Torpy has already announced his intention to retire at the end of his tenure so can't see this as self advancement within the MOD. He certainly isn't making / won't make friends in UK Defence Companies by reducing fleet sizes either.

I didn't mean advancement within the MOD, if ever there was proof of being promoted to the level of one's own incompetence...as for UK Defence Companies, just let us all wait and see shall we? As to:

The only people who are going to win from such sensationalism are the Army

Faced with a sound bite like "One nation, one Air Force" (now why does that sound familiar?), I'd be worried for the AAC, or are their Corporal pilots untouchables? This is all arrant nonsense, and no way to plan for UK Defence, no matter how out of balance the books are. The government is responsible for making proper provision for our defence. They are encouraged to slash and burn at that provision by apparatchiks like Torpy. If he sees his job as aiding and abetting in that conspiracy he is reneging on his duty to this nation. If someone has to fall on a sword I can't think of a better candidate. As to resources there are always resources, at the moment being poured into the Banks and as always of course Schools and Hospitals. It is for the government to make tough choices, if the choices they make are untenable then it is for the Service Chiefs to resign, en masse if need be, though some might need more persuading than others!
Proone:

There is no rational for spending a single penny on "another Falklands War type long range situation" because there isn't going to be one!

What can one say, other than the words hostage and fortune?

[Lurking123]

The RAF can't get rid of Harrier - how would it survive without Sky Gods?

[Front Seater]

Proone,

Be very careful in saying such things - Falklands or no Falklands lessons learned I would suggest that we have not been prepared for any of the recent conflicts (less Al Faw).

All the more reason to have the flexible option of carrier borne aircraft here and now and for ever more. Science and technology may make carrier borne aircraft obsolete but a (misguided IMHO) assumption that RUSI/CJO/JCDC/FCO et al believe that Afghanistan is 'the' war rather than 'a' war then I believe you may be wrong (however, I hope that you are not).

As to 'colour of cloth' - sorry, I do not buy into that one. As was seen by our attempt to get Apache to sea we relied on significant experience from the dark blue in all trades and all ranks - naval aviation, ships company and dark blue desk wollers. There has to be something of a capability enhancer with those flying, maintaining, operating, guiding, authorising, air worthiness etc etc that really know their work place and environment. Rather than rocking up and pretending to be the Subject Matter Expert in Naval Aviation and pretending to integrate with the Maritime Component.

By all means have a smattering of light blue along the way, and by all means maintain a Joint Force, but the core components should be RN dark blue. I seem to remember on an RAF Flight Safety course (because the Army doesn't have its own) the gun tape of the RAF Harrier CO landing in the drink alonside one of the carriers - about 8 years ago I think (?).

Just as we in the Apache fleet (and also Army Lynx) have opted for our comfort zone of steering well clear of going to sea I personally believe that from where I sit (with absolutely nothing to gain from this dark blue v light blue willy waving competition) I reckon that as soon as the RN handed over its fast jet fleet to the light blue then the RAF would find every possible conceivable excuse why they should not go to sea - and if they were forced to go to sea then it would be on their terms and conditions.

I say this because I know that the RN also gave up fighting for their integral Armed Helicopter capability (847) because they were 'promised' a double earmarked Apache Squadron and funny old thing we too have all of our excuses all lined as to why Apache cannot go to sea.

No wonder the RN appear seen off as we stiffed them with Apache, are probably about to lose out on any dedicated amphib BRH and now looks as though the RAF are trying to 'steal' RN fixed wing through a charade of 'best interests of thenations defence'.

I think I would be paranoid after being let down by the other 2 services and seeing genuine and operationally effective capabilities frittered away by inter service politics all disguised as 'jointery'.

[SirPercyWare-Armitag]

Shame on the RN for leaking this to the press. Again.

Stirrup, Torpey and especially Peach have done more than enough to prove their joint credentials. There are those in the RAF who think they have gone too far in their purple approach, at the risk of compromising the light blue service.

Something in the budget has to give. We may not agree with it but those are the harsh realities of life in this Brownite Socialist Utopia.

We need, first and foremost, to have the funds to support the troops in Afghanistan, at the expense of the RN and RAF if necessary. Something has to be chopped. Carriers or Harriers?

[OKOC]

Thought?!!! If we didn't have PPRuNe to vent our thoughts/concerns/angers and thus assuaging our frustrations, (and a great valve release) where else could we do do this-the bosses office? I doubt it-he/she is too busy. Newspapers-forget it. So win/win isn't it.

Not so quick, who else reads these columns? Loads of people in and not so in power, and of course they are thinking about Defences best interests aren't they? Careful chaps. Sometimes it is best to keep your powder dry and our using the openess of PPRuNe may not serve us in the best way--just a thought.

[orca]

Sir Percy,

Quite agree - we need to support the troops in Helmand first and foremost. So why in God's name are we talking about cutting our only (out and out) CAS platform?

How can anyone of sound mind, in an era famed only for it's surprises and the unexpected, consider getting rid of the one platform that we have that can operate from just about anywhere, in direct support of ground troops?

[soddim]

I am surprised that there is not more campaigning against the procurement of the new aircraft carriers, or is that a step too far in the inter-service contest to get the biggest willy?

We simply cannot afford the support vessels to defend a carrier that might be slowly taking our deployable air power somewhere close enough to the action to do what land based aircraft or RPVs could have done far more quickly and effectively.

If we want to think about another Falklands situation (pie in the sky because we simply do not have and will not get either the surface combat vessels or the merchant fleet to support it) we had better find a way to adequately protect the carriers. That option is far too expensive and manpower intensive.

So why are we simply delaying the carriers or is the planned early demise of the Harrier the way to show that we do not need a seaborne fixed wing aircraft?

[MaroonMan4]

Soddim,

How very tactfully put, but maybe a tad too subtle - of course this is a sad ruse to say in 5 to 10 years time:

' Sir, sir, sir please sir - we dont need aircraft carriers sir'

No but yes but no but sir, listen sir - we haven't needed it for the past 10 years sir since those old Harrier flying machines help pay off your Northern Rock debt sir'

Well sir, lets use that carrier money when you chop it sir for some hospitals or schools or something else that you may want sir'

What a brilliant idea sir, you are clever - absolutely, yes of course the carriers aren't required sir, and no sir, of course we will not let you down and we can truly go anywhere at anytime - short runways, long runways, short distances, long distances, of course sir.

Thank you sir, I knew that you would understand, a tough decision I know sir, but you have made the right one.....

Just sign here sir and I will make it all go away for you.

[exscribbler]

Here we go again! We're back to the old RAF argument that land-based air assets are more effective at power-projection than carrier-based ones. If that's the case, why are the USN and USMC happily building what appears to be an almost complete set of carriers - and the Russians and Chinese are joining in?

Do we know something they don't know? No, we know it pretty well in this country but we (Tory and New Labour alike) we haven't learned from history. We suffered from it after 1 April 1918 (a suitable date for the RNAS) more or less until 1942 when the RN started getting US carrier aircraft.

It continues to this day; Torpy is no more keen on jointery than was the CAS when the nuclear strike capability was transferred from the RAF to the RN all those years ago, so he'd like to gather everything that flies to the bosom of the RAF. That's what Goering did and look what happened to him...

We can afford the T45s (at £560 million each) to defend the carriers; what we can't afford are the serried ranks of Typhoons (at £30 million each) at Coningsby. I have yet to hear Bob Ainsworth say that Typhoon is so capable that we don't need all of them - but he said that about the T45 and a lot of people believed him!

When will we learn? If we want to have a greater say in the world, we need the assets and we need them at sea. If we don't want a greater say then let's have the RN become a coastal defence force, let the RAF have all the aircraft (Coningsby and Waddington should be quite adequate) and stop bloody worrying about what the others think...

[TwoStep]

Here we go again! We're back to the old RAF argument that land-based air assets are more effective at power-projection than carrier-based ones. If that's the case, why are the USN and USMC happily building what appears to be an almost complete set of carriers - and the Russians and Chinese are joining in?

It makes total sense to have the carriers but you have to be willing to spend the money properly like the USN/USMC/China/India and not the half-arsed cheapo attempt that we are turning it into. Why go for Dave B? When the ships are large enough for a catapult and arrestor system, why build the Type 45, a ship eclisped in capability by the Spanish Alvaro de Bazan-class. The 45s won't even have an anti-ship capability. It's just sheer tokenism at a time when we can't afford it, Britain used to the rule the waves, and we can't anymore, carriers are the wrong equipment at the wrong time.

[Jackonicko]

There seem to be several questions here.

1) Do we need carriers in order to have balanced, capable forces which fully meet Britain's strategic/geopolitical/military needs?

2) If economies have to be made, should carriers be a higher priority than land-based air?

3) If we do need carriers, long term, would it be acceptable to have a longer 'capability holiday' than already looks likely? (Remember that Harrier can't go on past 2016/17 without major expenditure - new rear fuselages, etc. and JSF can't be in squadron service until 2018....)

Even if you believe that the answers to the first two questions are "yes" and "yes", it may still be that withdrawing CVS and Harrier now would be a sensible way of easing pressure on an overstretched and overstressed defence budget. Is Harrier likely to be needed to deliver effect again before it is scheduled to retire? When you're not involved in 'cat and trap' type carrier aviation, do you need to maintain a cadre of current operating experience, or is it possible, with STOVL aircraft, to work up a capability again fairly quickly - especially if you've been clever with exchange tours....?

Unless you're going to say that actually we can afford to do everything, and that we're no more than eye blink away from massive tax rises being electorally popular.....

For me, the answers are no, no and of course.