Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: EU Region 9 - apparently
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good questions being raised, perhaps there shoud be an end to end review of requirements against the available budget.
Result would be a rowing boat on the Serpentine, carrying a picture of an aircraft, being rowed by CGS. Directed from the bank by Sec State.
Or a review of committed task resource requirements, as was begun at a secret HQ near Gloucester (before it moved).
When they got to a number of personnel in light blue over 75,000 the instruction was to cease and desist, as the political limit had been set at 51,000 (allegedly).
I would venture that the operational needs are far in excess of the total available resources, and therein lies the rub. What can the country afford? or not afford given todays conflicts and tomorrows threats.
We are an Island Nation, therefore need a Navy of our own.
The enemy have aircraft, therefore we need aircaft of our own.
In any conflict we need boots on the ground to retain / maintain and progress a future for that area, therefore we need people of our own in uniform to fill that role.
Result would be a rowing boat on the Serpentine, carrying a picture of an aircraft, being rowed by CGS. Directed from the bank by Sec State.
Or a review of committed task resource requirements, as was begun at a secret HQ near Gloucester (before it moved).
When they got to a number of personnel in light blue over 75,000 the instruction was to cease and desist, as the political limit had been set at 51,000 (allegedly).
I would venture that the operational needs are far in excess of the total available resources, and therein lies the rub. What can the country afford? or not afford given todays conflicts and tomorrows threats.
We are an Island Nation, therefore need a Navy of our own.
The enemy have aircraft, therefore we need aircaft of our own.
In any conflict we need boots on the ground to retain / maintain and progress a future for that area, therefore we need people of our own in uniform to fill that role.
Last edited by L1A2 discharged; 7th Dec 2008 at 22:17. Reason: spillchocker
L1A2 discharged,
"The enemy have aircraft, therefore we need aircaft of our own."
They do? What enemy? Haven't noticed any in Iraq or Afghanistan lately, have you?
We spend £36 Billion pounds a year on defence, plus all UOR's and operational in theatre costs funded out of the contingency reserve. Which other countries on this planet spend more?
What enemy??????????????
"The enemy have aircraft, therefore we need aircaft of our own."
They do? What enemy? Haven't noticed any in Iraq or Afghanistan lately, have you?
We spend £36 Billion pounds a year on defence, plus all UOR's and operational in theatre costs funded out of the contingency reserve. Which other countries on this planet spend more?
What enemy??????????????
It's so confused around here, people are stabbing each other in the chest...
It makes for an interesting picture. If the carriers slide by two years, to the point where they can go to sea from day one with Dave B - or with something else, in the still possible eventuality that Dave B is a lemon - the notion that JFH is a bridge to JSF goes away,
Then, with budgets limited, do I (in Torpy's situation) want to pay money to stretch out an old capability that is going away anyway... or cement in place my Tranche 3 Typhoon?
Maybe someone's looking very hard at what Typhoon can/will be versus Dave B. And one can argue all day about F-35A's performance versus other aircraft, but you can't avoid the implications of the fact that Dave B is almost 8000 pounds bigger in OEW than Typhoon, with the same fuel fraction, a little more thrust, a smaller wing and (in stealth mode) a war-winning 2000 lb offensive load. And, if you read the charts, not that much better in non-stealth mode. In short, a complete, unmitigated pig.
And while the STOVL capability - which adds double-digit per cent to the price tag, costs me 25-30 per cent of my range and halves my internal weapon load - is crucial to a sea-based or joint RAF-Navy force, from the RAF's viewpoint it is marginal. No, this is not an aircraft to operate off roads or a soccer field - it's an F-4-sized jet and every sortie takes a Chinook-load of gas.
Add to this the fact that the UK is locked into Typhoon by the mechanism that the UK, Italy and Spain designed to lock the Germans in, and yes, I'd be guarding my Typhoons too.
Watch the same thing happening in the USAF: is the F-35 so good that we want to mortgage our entire future on it? So few F-22s that we can't afford to develop upgrades, and a new bomber God knows when?
Fasten your seat-belts...
It makes for an interesting picture. If the carriers slide by two years, to the point where they can go to sea from day one with Dave B - or with something else, in the still possible eventuality that Dave B is a lemon - the notion that JFH is a bridge to JSF goes away,
Then, with budgets limited, do I (in Torpy's situation) want to pay money to stretch out an old capability that is going away anyway... or cement in place my Tranche 3 Typhoon?
Maybe someone's looking very hard at what Typhoon can/will be versus Dave B. And one can argue all day about F-35A's performance versus other aircraft, but you can't avoid the implications of the fact that Dave B is almost 8000 pounds bigger in OEW than Typhoon, with the same fuel fraction, a little more thrust, a smaller wing and (in stealth mode) a war-winning 2000 lb offensive load. And, if you read the charts, not that much better in non-stealth mode. In short, a complete, unmitigated pig.
And while the STOVL capability - which adds double-digit per cent to the price tag, costs me 25-30 per cent of my range and halves my internal weapon load - is crucial to a sea-based or joint RAF-Navy force, from the RAF's viewpoint it is marginal. No, this is not an aircraft to operate off roads or a soccer field - it's an F-4-sized jet and every sortie takes a Chinook-load of gas.
Add to this the fact that the UK is locked into Typhoon by the mechanism that the UK, Italy and Spain designed to lock the Germans in, and yes, I'd be guarding my Typhoons too.
Watch the same thing happening in the USAF: is the F-35 so good that we want to mortgage our entire future on it? So few F-22s that we can't afford to develop upgrades, and a new bomber God knows when?
Fasten your seat-belts...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very good points have been raised in this difficult subject.
Have some people though actually forgotten that we are an island nation that is extremely dependent on the sea for our imports to survive? (In fact, probably even more so today than we were during World War 2, as we now have much less available UK manufacturing, farming and fuel resources to draw on, etc!)
Can some people also actually imagine what it would be like to be on any merchant or RN ships that are well away from our UK shores with very little (if any) air support available from our RAF. The situation would not be so bad if the RN had some more capable ships and submarines to help defend itself with, but there are now even fewer of them available to carry out such important escort work and patrols in what seems an ever increasingly dangerous world.
Aircraft carriers are virtually self contained mobile airfield that could and should be capable of operating a wide range of aircraft wherever they are required around the UK or indeed the world. Such aircraft can actually take the battle to the enemy, rather than our current few RN and RFA ships having to try and defeat incoming missiles threats with mostly close range machine guns, and if they are lucky, perhaps with the aid of a relatively short range missile system.
This country does require proper aircraft carriers that have catapults and arrestor wires to enable a wide range of UK (and other friendly nation’s) aircraft to operate from them when required.
If the UK ever becomes the victim of any direct air attacks, then the current few RAF airfields would basically be immovable sitting targets. However, if the UK has very capable and flexible floating airfields (aircraft carriers) then these could be moved (as required) to counter any perceived threats. For example, if required to defend the UK, they could be positioned well out to sea off the UK coast to help provide a proper outer layer of defense for this country, including its RAF airfields. If however that floating airfield was required much further away from the UK, then those carriers can also provide the flexibility and capability wherever it is needed around the world. (This has previously been required and very well demonstrated by this country and many other countries during numerous wars/conflicts!)
Also do not forget that when required, our Naval aircraft can even be completely detached from their Carriers to operate from UK airfields (or anywhere else abroad), as perfectly demonstrated in Iraq, Afghanistan and even during the Battle of Britain, etc.
In summary, in my humble opinion, if this country truly wants real flexibility, capability, cost effectiveness and the ability to survive threats to our vital imports at sea, then we do need some real Aircraft Carriers and the expertise provided by the FAA to counter threats outside of the range of Typhoon/Nimrods, etc. Likewise, if many of our land runways get taken out in a war then it is aircraft such as the Harrier that could remain ideal to help defend our country and forces abroad by operating from roads, forests, small warships, etc.
Have some people though actually forgotten that we are an island nation that is extremely dependent on the sea for our imports to survive? (In fact, probably even more so today than we were during World War 2, as we now have much less available UK manufacturing, farming and fuel resources to draw on, etc!)
Can some people also actually imagine what it would be like to be on any merchant or RN ships that are well away from our UK shores with very little (if any) air support available from our RAF. The situation would not be so bad if the RN had some more capable ships and submarines to help defend itself with, but there are now even fewer of them available to carry out such important escort work and patrols in what seems an ever increasingly dangerous world.
Aircraft carriers are virtually self contained mobile airfield that could and should be capable of operating a wide range of aircraft wherever they are required around the UK or indeed the world. Such aircraft can actually take the battle to the enemy, rather than our current few RN and RFA ships having to try and defeat incoming missiles threats with mostly close range machine guns, and if they are lucky, perhaps with the aid of a relatively short range missile system.
This country does require proper aircraft carriers that have catapults and arrestor wires to enable a wide range of UK (and other friendly nation’s) aircraft to operate from them when required.
If the UK ever becomes the victim of any direct air attacks, then the current few RAF airfields would basically be immovable sitting targets. However, if the UK has very capable and flexible floating airfields (aircraft carriers) then these could be moved (as required) to counter any perceived threats. For example, if required to defend the UK, they could be positioned well out to sea off the UK coast to help provide a proper outer layer of defense for this country, including its RAF airfields. If however that floating airfield was required much further away from the UK, then those carriers can also provide the flexibility and capability wherever it is needed around the world. (This has previously been required and very well demonstrated by this country and many other countries during numerous wars/conflicts!)
Also do not forget that when required, our Naval aircraft can even be completely detached from their Carriers to operate from UK airfields (or anywhere else abroad), as perfectly demonstrated in Iraq, Afghanistan and even during the Battle of Britain, etc.
In summary, in my humble opinion, if this country truly wants real flexibility, capability, cost effectiveness and the ability to survive threats to our vital imports at sea, then we do need some real Aircraft Carriers and the expertise provided by the FAA to counter threats outside of the range of Typhoon/Nimrods, etc. Likewise, if many of our land runways get taken out in a war then it is aircraft such as the Harrier that could remain ideal to help defend our country and forces abroad by operating from roads, forests, small warships, etc.
There's an awful lot of emotive guff talked about carriers.
1) The UK can now longer afford to carry out the full spectrum of military roles and operations, and has to concentrate on those core 'defence of the UK' capabilities that cannot be left to allies, and those that we need every time we go on ops. We cannot retain every niche capability - no matter how well we may have undertaken them in the past.
Britain won't be standing alone, re-fighting the Battle of the Atlantic as the RN bravely defends the convoys against the Hun, nor even against Ivan, since it's been decided that we won't conduct that scale of op alone and autonomously.
2) The UK's aircraft carriers have not been NEEDED since 1982 (they've been used, and they've been useful, but not needed in a "only carriers could do this" way). Even a repeat of the Falklands would not REQUIRE the use of carriers today.
3) In EVERY incident in which UK carriers have been used, land-based air power could have got there quicker, cheaper, and with greater capability once in theatre. (Nor am I overlooking Sierra Leone, when a Jaguar squadron was available on the Azores, with the necessary permissions to operate from Dakar, long before Grey Funnel lines got there.....)
4) While you can never GUARANTEE HNS, I would suggest that if such support is unavailable, the proposed op is probably unsustainable anyway. But if such an op is sustainable, and is stopped only by our lack of carriers, then we have plenty of allies who do have carriers.
5) Aircraft carriers are by no means 'self contained' - they require AD frigates, an SSN, tankers, RFAs, etc. - a small Armada. And they can sustain a relatively modest sortie rate for a relatively short period of time.
6) By canning the carriers now, and JSF, all of the other capability areas that are now being slowly strangled by funding constraints could be afforded - including tankers, SH, SEAD, etc.
1) The UK can now longer afford to carry out the full spectrum of military roles and operations, and has to concentrate on those core 'defence of the UK' capabilities that cannot be left to allies, and those that we need every time we go on ops. We cannot retain every niche capability - no matter how well we may have undertaken them in the past.
Britain won't be standing alone, re-fighting the Battle of the Atlantic as the RN bravely defends the convoys against the Hun, nor even against Ivan, since it's been decided that we won't conduct that scale of op alone and autonomously.
2) The UK's aircraft carriers have not been NEEDED since 1982 (they've been used, and they've been useful, but not needed in a "only carriers could do this" way). Even a repeat of the Falklands would not REQUIRE the use of carriers today.
3) In EVERY incident in which UK carriers have been used, land-based air power could have got there quicker, cheaper, and with greater capability once in theatre. (Nor am I overlooking Sierra Leone, when a Jaguar squadron was available on the Azores, with the necessary permissions to operate from Dakar, long before Grey Funnel lines got there.....)
4) While you can never GUARANTEE HNS, I would suggest that if such support is unavailable, the proposed op is probably unsustainable anyway. But if such an op is sustainable, and is stopped only by our lack of carriers, then we have plenty of allies who do have carriers.
5) Aircraft carriers are by no means 'self contained' - they require AD frigates, an SSN, tankers, RFAs, etc. - a small Armada. And they can sustain a relatively modest sortie rate for a relatively short period of time.
6) By canning the carriers now, and JSF, all of the other capability areas that are now being slowly strangled by funding constraints could be afforded - including tankers, SH, SEAD, etc.
It was once widely reported that the Sea Lords had been given the difficult choice between replacing Trident with another seaborne deterrent system, or getting new carriers. Under this Government the 'or' briefly became an 'and', but perhaps it's time for the Admiral's choice to stand, and for the RN to lose its second choice 'flagship procurement programme'.....
And far from needing an Admiral or two with the "balls to speak out" for narrow RN interests, perhaps we need a few with a wider view of what our wider defence priorities should be, who can shut up and get with the programme?
And far from needing an Admiral or two with the "balls to speak out" for narrow RN interests, perhaps we need a few with a wider view of what our wider defence priorities should be, who can shut up and get with the programme?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko, you present one side of the long entrenched inter-service rivalry argument very clearly. So you don't like carriers. Your suggestion simply eliminates a broad spectrum of capability without replacing it, or even being able to fill the gap left with surplus capability in anothet area.
Why do you believe you are being un-emotive? The Fleet Air Arm suffers from both inter and intra service rivalry, so proponents do occassionally get emotive. Please give me the un-emotive reason why UK keeps legacy equipment like Tornado (GRs and Fs), and what particular use the independent nuclear deterrent serves in your host nation supported world. Indeed everybody else has fighters as well! There are so many UK allies with armed forces who have the similar capabilities and interests, why doesn't the UK simply use theirs and really save mega-billions?
Why do you believe you are being un-emotive? The Fleet Air Arm suffers from both inter and intra service rivalry, so proponents do occassionally get emotive. Please give me the un-emotive reason why UK keeps legacy equipment like Tornado (GRs and Fs), and what particular use the independent nuclear deterrent serves in your host nation supported world. Indeed everybody else has fighters as well! There are so many UK allies with armed forces who have the similar capabilities and interests, why doesn't the UK simply use theirs and really save mega-billions?
DBTW - without getting drawn into the CVF debate at this time of night (in the UK, anyway), the rationale for the F3 being retained is that the UK needs an AD capability, even if it is only to wave at passing Bears sent by Mr Putin, or Mr Minimiedvev.
That covers the need for fighters,since I doubt that even the generally disineterested British public would accept a situation such as that in Iceland, where allies have to provide AD (even if that ally hasn't just used anti-terrorist legislation against the host nation's banks and has been invited to foxtrot oscar...).
As for the GRs, yes, they are legacy equipment, but they have been used rather frequently in recent years, and in general terms, the aircraft's capabilities are not exactly miles away from the Harrier (VSTOL being the obvious exception). For certain scale operations, we simply don't have enough Harriers to fit the bill and need to send other aircraft that can do air-ground.
The question about relying on allies and saving billionsis one best asked of the govt rather than Jacko, but I suspect that the government takes the view that doing so would mean that Britain would be unable to meet the aspirations the government has for Britain to play a key role in coalition operations. Turning up with a few Harriers wouldn't buy the sort of influence desired, I would suggest, whereas turning up with Harrier, GR4 and F3 for Telic, plus the array of supporting air assets gave a certain degree of influence that might not otherwise have been the case (I base that on three separate briefings I've attended, one from a US 3 Star, one from a UK 3 Star and the third from a politician - no names or specifics as all under Chatham House Rule - all of whom suggested pretty much the same thing).
That covers the need for fighters,since I doubt that even the generally disineterested British public would accept a situation such as that in Iceland, where allies have to provide AD (even if that ally hasn't just used anti-terrorist legislation against the host nation's banks and has been invited to foxtrot oscar...).
As for the GRs, yes, they are legacy equipment, but they have been used rather frequently in recent years, and in general terms, the aircraft's capabilities are not exactly miles away from the Harrier (VSTOL being the obvious exception). For certain scale operations, we simply don't have enough Harriers to fit the bill and need to send other aircraft that can do air-ground.
The question about relying on allies and saving billionsis one best asked of the govt rather than Jacko, but I suspect that the government takes the view that doing so would mean that Britain would be unable to meet the aspirations the government has for Britain to play a key role in coalition operations. Turning up with a few Harriers wouldn't buy the sort of influence desired, I would suggest, whereas turning up with Harrier, GR4 and F3 for Telic, plus the array of supporting air assets gave a certain degree of influence that might not otherwise have been the case (I base that on three separate briefings I've attended, one from a US 3 Star, one from a UK 3 Star and the third from a politician - no names or specifics as all under Chatham House Rule - all of whom suggested pretty much the same thing).
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archimedes,
Understood. Very good answer. It's all about capability, what the govt wants to do in terms of force projection, and what the nation can afford. CVF is a capability, just as much as fighters and nuclear bombers.
If we are to remain unemotive, let's not descend into interservice bickering. Every part of the British military plays a part. The CVS's have been in continuous service throughout the period stated by Jackonicko as a time when they have been not required! That's fairly emotive stuff...
Whilst your points about Fighters and Tornadoes are interesting, exactly the same observation Jackonicko makes about carriers can be made about any other element of the armed forces. Let's face it, they have not been defending the UK since WW2 and the fighters have not been needed for air defence of the realm since about 1943, but we still see them as being important. It seems to me that that is why the UK have Armed Forces whereas lesser countries have Defence Forces. The UK doesn't want to fight at home...very sensible!
All the British Armed Forces have been used in other ways since they finished WW2. CVF has been declared as needed up until one RAF flag rank puts the required aircraft forward as a savings measure. Its a political point often made at his level to demonstrate to politicians what their decisions will cost in terms of capability. I hope he is not serious, or that nobody takes him seriously.
My point is that you should fight the cuts because if you lose something, then another capability will be attacked. Armed Forces cost money and the UK is one of the few countries that does it well.
Understood. Very good answer. It's all about capability, what the govt wants to do in terms of force projection, and what the nation can afford. CVF is a capability, just as much as fighters and nuclear bombers.
If we are to remain unemotive, let's not descend into interservice bickering. Every part of the British military plays a part. The CVS's have been in continuous service throughout the period stated by Jackonicko as a time when they have been not required! That's fairly emotive stuff...
Whilst your points about Fighters and Tornadoes are interesting, exactly the same observation Jackonicko makes about carriers can be made about any other element of the armed forces. Let's face it, they have not been defending the UK since WW2 and the fighters have not been needed for air defence of the realm since about 1943, but we still see them as being important. It seems to me that that is why the UK have Armed Forces whereas lesser countries have Defence Forces. The UK doesn't want to fight at home...very sensible!
All the British Armed Forces have been used in other ways since they finished WW2. CVF has been declared as needed up until one RAF flag rank puts the required aircraft forward as a savings measure. Its a political point often made at his level to demonstrate to politicians what their decisions will cost in terms of capability. I hope he is not serious, or that nobody takes him seriously.
My point is that you should fight the cuts because if you lose something, then another capability will be attacked. Armed Forces cost money and the UK is one of the few countries that does it well.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko only gives the anti-carrier mantra. he needs to apply his undoubted intelligence in an unbiased way to the rest of the RAF:
Why are we replacing a CAS aircraft, which is the capability the troops seem to want, with a non-CAS aircraft (which Mark Lankester has revealed as taking huge amounts of money to enable) that the troops don't want?
Why is F3 still in service when the RAF have declared Typhoon operational and on QRA?
What is the GR4 doing in Iraq, there is no role for it? Indeed why do we still have GR4 when Typhoon is declared operational (oh yes, it is not deployable!).
There is only one reason - CAS does not want the RN (or AAC for that matter) flying aircraft....but who keeps crashing aircraft and UAVs at the moment????
Why are we replacing a CAS aircraft, which is the capability the troops seem to want, with a non-CAS aircraft (which Mark Lankester has revealed as taking huge amounts of money to enable) that the troops don't want?
Why is F3 still in service when the RAF have declared Typhoon operational and on QRA?
What is the GR4 doing in Iraq, there is no role for it? Indeed why do we still have GR4 when Typhoon is declared operational (oh yes, it is not deployable!).
There is only one reason - CAS does not want the RN (or AAC for that matter) flying aircraft....but who keeps crashing aircraft and UAVs at the moment????
Bismark
1. We're not. The GR is a an equally capable CAS platform. Mark Lancaster is being fed only one side of the argument. Do you know how much was/has/is being spent on JFH during its time in AFG? I do.
2. You answered the question yourself - insufficient numbers to maintain a 24/7 capability in three locations (don't forget the FI).
3. What role do you think the GR4 is doing in Iraq? More to dropping bombs and firing bullets. Just because the Army are confined to a small AOR doesn't mean the GR4 is.
As for your last statement - pathetic and a slur on the dozens who have lost their lives in aircraft accidents and incidents both on ops and preparing for ops (and to sink to your level haven't two of the last three Harrier crashes been FAA? Of course the Navy have never ran a boat aground, been forced to surrender their iPods etc etc.)
1. We're not. The GR is a an equally capable CAS platform. Mark Lancaster is being fed only one side of the argument. Do you know how much was/has/is being spent on JFH during its time in AFG? I do.
2. You answered the question yourself - insufficient numbers to maintain a 24/7 capability in three locations (don't forget the FI).
3. What role do you think the GR4 is doing in Iraq? More to dropping bombs and firing bullets. Just because the Army are confined to a small AOR doesn't mean the GR4 is.
As for your last statement - pathetic and a slur on the dozens who have lost their lives in aircraft accidents and incidents both on ops and preparing for ops (and to sink to your level haven't two of the last three Harrier crashes been FAA? Of course the Navy have never ran a boat aground, been forced to surrender their iPods etc etc.)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Fallacies:
The island-nation needs sea power mantra is a fallacy. It is a fallacy in that we, with Europe, are part of a global trading system. The only bit of the island philosophy that is true now is the Channel/North Sea/Irish Sea bit. For the rest, we are with Europe and it is Europe that needs to prottect its SLOC and not UK alone. Nor is it simply littoral states that should provide sea power. Some littoral states punch well below their weight, if they punch at all. Naval power should be on a European basis.
Keeping our hand in for CV ops using exchange postings is also a fallacy. Exchange postings are just that. If we have no FAA then there wiill be no relevant exchange postings. By their nature exchange postings are supposedly cost neutral. As we could not exchange we would need secondment instead at an order of cost of perhaps 4 or 5 times salary or more (guessing here).
Back to point one; if we do naval air best then that is what we should strive for and allow or persuade our European partners to provide the screen. For exchange, parlo italiano?
The island-nation needs sea power mantra is a fallacy. It is a fallacy in that we, with Europe, are part of a global trading system. The only bit of the island philosophy that is true now is the Channel/North Sea/Irish Sea bit. For the rest, we are with Europe and it is Europe that needs to prottect its SLOC and not UK alone. Nor is it simply littoral states that should provide sea power. Some littoral states punch well below their weight, if they punch at all. Naval power should be on a European basis.
Keeping our hand in for CV ops using exchange postings is also a fallacy. Exchange postings are just that. If we have no FAA then there wiill be no relevant exchange postings. By their nature exchange postings are supposedly cost neutral. As we could not exchange we would need secondment instead at an order of cost of perhaps 4 or 5 times salary or more (guessing here).
Back to point one; if we do naval air best then that is what we should strive for and allow or persuade our European partners to provide the screen. For exchange, parlo italiano?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
Everyone knows your pro RAF and anti RN stance, as well as your lack of Armed forces service, so I think your totally one sided opinions get taken with a pinch of salt.
Frontseater made a good post (#32) on page 2... which seemed to be taking a fairly neutral stance to look at the issue.
There are good points coming from all sides in this, but Jackonicko, your first few lines said
So just what, in your opinion does the 'core defence of the UK' entail if issues similar to the Falklands will not happen again?
If you want to be totally blinkered and not take lessons from the past, you would have to say terrorism was the biggest threat.
In which case, by your set of arguing principles, not only should we bin the carriers, we could also reduce the surface fleet further and cut huge swathes of personnel from the RAF and close most of the UK bases.
We could then spend some of the money saved on bolstering the numbers in the army, both with more foot soldiers and more army aircrew.
The rest of the money could be spent on increasing the number of security personnel in the UK security services.
Job done. (from a blinkered perspective)
Everyone knows your pro RAF and anti RN stance, as well as your lack of Armed forces service, so I think your totally one sided opinions get taken with a pinch of salt.
Frontseater made a good post (#32) on page 2... which seemed to be taking a fairly neutral stance to look at the issue.
There are good points coming from all sides in this, but Jackonicko, your first few lines said
1) The UK can now longer afford to carry out the full spectrum of military roles and operations, and has to concentrate on those core 'defence of the UK' capabilities that cannot be left to allies,
If you want to be totally blinkered and not take lessons from the past, you would have to say terrorism was the biggest threat.
In which case, by your set of arguing principles, not only should we bin the carriers, we could also reduce the surface fleet further and cut huge swathes of personnel from the RAF and close most of the UK bases.
We could then spend some of the money saved on bolstering the numbers in the army, both with more foot soldiers and more army aircrew.
The rest of the money could be spent on increasing the number of security personnel in the UK security services.
Job done. (from a blinkered perspective)
The UKNDA has just released a (somewhat emotive) statement re the threat to JFH:-
Will anyone actually take any notice?
UKNDA - NEWS RELEASE/ STATEMENT
Sunday 7 December 2008: Release time immediate
Note the date (i.e. the 'infamous' 7th December') of today's Sunday Times' article by Michael Smith. On 7th Dec 1941 - Pearl Harbor - and the US Carriers were only saved because they were out of the Harbour at the time. What a coincidence. This time, if the RAF scrap all 75 of the Nation's Harrier Force, nothing will save the Navy's airpower. This too is a day that will "Live in infamy".
In response to the report in today's Sunday Times (Michael Smith) that, to save money and reduce the size of the two billion pound 'black hole' in the MOD's budget the RAF have offered to scrap the nation's Harrier Force - UKNDA's CEO - Cdr John Muxworthy commented:
The UKNDA has always disavowed inter-service rivalry and in-fighting as being
counter productive. Here is a supreme example that such squabbles are positively destructive of the nation's defences. Latest reports are that the RAF, in a desperate attempt to save money (and, they may hope, some of their threatened second or third tranche of Typhoons) are offering to scrap (!) all 75 of the Nation's Harrier Force - many of which 'belong' to the Royal Navy. All this because of the two billion pound 'black hole' in Defence Funding. The result of any such 'saving' will be that the fixed wing element of the Fleet Air Arm will atrophy and carrier based fixed wing expertise will be lost, perhaps never to be regained. So what price the (again delayed) new
carriers now; methinks there is a 'cunning plot' afoot and they could be the next 'savings measure'.
It is disingenuous to claim that the Royal Navy (or the RAF for that matter) can do without their Harriers because the Joint Strike Fighter is coming along in due time. The JSF is at least eight if not ten or more years hence. What do our two remaining (albeit small) aircraft carriers - HMS ARK ROYAL and HMS ILLUSTRIOUS do in the meantime - throw snowballs at the Argentinians when they next have a go at 'reclaiming' Las Malvinas?
The last time that a First Sea Lord threatened and then actually did resign was almost forty years ago when Denis Healey scuppered the Royal Navy's plans to build more arge carriers. That was a wasted gesture then because the furore was over and forgotten in a week. This time (if the rumour be true) the present Head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, threatens to reign over the issue. He should not be alone in threatening to resign - but so should the Chief of the Defence Staff, Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff as well - in a public display of true Tri-Service solidarity.... a word that a Labour Government should well recognise. If the Harriers go then Britannia will never again rule the waves and Britons, if they do not look to their Armed Forces (and the Royal Navy in
particular) will soon be slaves.
ENDS.
Sunday 7 December 2008: Release time immediate
Note the date (i.e. the 'infamous' 7th December') of today's Sunday Times' article by Michael Smith. On 7th Dec 1941 - Pearl Harbor - and the US Carriers were only saved because they were out of the Harbour at the time. What a coincidence. This time, if the RAF scrap all 75 of the Nation's Harrier Force, nothing will save the Navy's airpower. This too is a day that will "Live in infamy".
In response to the report in today's Sunday Times (Michael Smith) that, to save money and reduce the size of the two billion pound 'black hole' in the MOD's budget the RAF have offered to scrap the nation's Harrier Force - UKNDA's CEO - Cdr John Muxworthy commented:
The UKNDA has always disavowed inter-service rivalry and in-fighting as being
counter productive. Here is a supreme example that such squabbles are positively destructive of the nation's defences. Latest reports are that the RAF, in a desperate attempt to save money (and, they may hope, some of their threatened second or third tranche of Typhoons) are offering to scrap (!) all 75 of the Nation's Harrier Force - many of which 'belong' to the Royal Navy. All this because of the two billion pound 'black hole' in Defence Funding. The result of any such 'saving' will be that the fixed wing element of the Fleet Air Arm will atrophy and carrier based fixed wing expertise will be lost, perhaps never to be regained. So what price the (again delayed) new
carriers now; methinks there is a 'cunning plot' afoot and they could be the next 'savings measure'.
It is disingenuous to claim that the Royal Navy (or the RAF for that matter) can do without their Harriers because the Joint Strike Fighter is coming along in due time. The JSF is at least eight if not ten or more years hence. What do our two remaining (albeit small) aircraft carriers - HMS ARK ROYAL and HMS ILLUSTRIOUS do in the meantime - throw snowballs at the Argentinians when they next have a go at 'reclaiming' Las Malvinas?
The last time that a First Sea Lord threatened and then actually did resign was almost forty years ago when Denis Healey scuppered the Royal Navy's plans to build more arge carriers. That was a wasted gesture then because the furore was over and forgotten in a week. This time (if the rumour be true) the present Head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, threatens to reign over the issue. He should not be alone in threatening to resign - but so should the Chief of the Defence Staff, Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff as well - in a public display of true Tri-Service solidarity.... a word that a Labour Government should well recognise. If the Harriers go then Britannia will never again rule the waves and Britons, if they do not look to their Armed Forces (and the Royal Navy in
particular) will soon be slaves.
ENDS.
Last edited by Lyneham Lad; 8th Dec 2008 at 09:28. Reason: Tidying up the formatting.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF on Carriers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My god! We must be one of the few nations which even considers allowing its Air Force anwhere near the sea! Is not allowing the RAF on carriers a bit like letting retards run the mental hospital!?
While we are at it should the navy not have the Nimrods!
Navy rules, long live the navy
While we are at it should the navy not have the Nimrods!
Navy rules, long live the navy
DBTW
As well as being an aviation writer and enthusiastic amateur airman (PPL, etc), I’m a bit of an aviation enthusiast. You have to be to sustain an interest in all of this for as long as I have.
I doubt you could find an aircraft enthusiast alive who doesn’t like aircraft carriers. Who hasn’t watched ‘Top Gun’ for the carrier and flying scenes? I seize every opportunity to go on board a carrier.
And if we were still in a world where we could afford properly balanced forces, with 35 squadrons of frontline FJs, enough SH, etc. then I’d be fighting for CVF just as hard as anybody else. If we could afford niche capabilities that are ‘often useful’ but seldom actually necessary.
1) Eliminating carriers and carrier aviation does not eliminate a capability. Land-based air can project force – and can actually do so quicker/better/cheaper than a carrier.
2) Merely ‘Playing a part’ is not a ticket to survival. To survive, a military platform/system must play an essential part, and must do so cost-effectively, and paying for that part must not compromise other more useful capabilities. There are plenty of capabilities that have been shed that would be far more useful today than CVS has been – the Jags, Canberra PR9, some of the Hercs we parked, etc.
3) Even if the elimination of carriers marked an erosion of our ability to project power (and given that there are alternatives, it doesn’t) then that would be a better option than cutting the core role of air defence of the UK.
Bismarck
Why are we replacing a CAS aircraft, which is the capability the troops seem to want, with a non-CAS aircraft?
Tornado has a robust CAS capability, and the official line is that replacement of Harrier by Tornado represents only a change of platform, delivering the same capability. The Harrier force is crippled by overstretch and needed to come home. The deployment of Tornado represents a long-planned endex for Harrier. And Harrier is rapidly wearing out. Without replacement rear fuselages and other vastly expensive structural work, these tired airframes are nearing the end of their useful lives. Yes those lives could be extended, but only at a huge cost.
Why is F3 still in service when the RAF have declared Typhoon operational and on QRA?
Because we need a given number of AD Squadrons (in my view more than we now have, but certainly more than four dedicated units). We have just two Typhoon squadrons, and these are supposed to do more than AD. We don’t yet have enough aircraft to retire the F.Mk 3.
What is the GR4 doing in Iraq, there is no role for it? Indeed why do we still have GR4 when Typhoon is declared operational.
Tornado has robust ISTAR and A-G capabilities which are still occasionally needed in theatre. The Typhoon is not YET able to take on all of the A-G tasks of which Tornado is capable. Nor are there sufficient Typhoons in service to replace the old seven squadron F3 force, and the three squadron Jag force, let alone the seven squadron GR4 force.
There is only one reason - CAS does not want the RN (or AAC for that matter) flying aircraft....but who keeps crashing aircraft and UAVs at the moment????
What a load of utter Knob.
Phil Gollin,
“Well, if we don't need Harriers then I presume we don't need Daves - we can get along with Typhoons.
Excellent, more money saved.”
Excellent, more money for tankers, SH, FLynx, SEAD, and everything else we actually NEED.
Anotherthing
“Everyone knows your pro RAF and anti RN stance, as well as your lack of Armed forces service,”
You don’t need to have served as captain of a carrier, or Air Boss to appreciate the usefulness of a carrier, nor its limitations. Nor do you need to have served as an F3 or Typhoon pilot to have some valid opinions on UK AD. Armed forces service as (say) a stacker at Innsworth gives no more appreciation of platforms and procurement than you can get by spending more than 25 years talking to the practitioners of these military arts, many of whom you learned to fly with.
Nor do I have an ‘anti-RN stance’. Criticising one service (and I criticise all three, for different reasons) is not necessarily ‘anti’, so dry your eyes, Princess. It’s criticism, but its constructive and offered with some sympathy, empathy and fondness.
I would not structure UK forces to meet only the terrorist threat – I just would not be willing to distort them to meet one single scenario that is not going to happen again. Even if the Argies cut up rough down South, we now have a proper runway down there, with proper AD. And hopefully the RN won’t collude with the politicians and send the Argies mixed messages about our comittment by withdrawing Endurance, this time……
Lyneham Lad,
I doubt it. Even in the pro-defence community, the UKNDA has precious little credibility. And many of us believe that it’s fatally compromised by being too biased to RN interests.
As well as being an aviation writer and enthusiastic amateur airman (PPL, etc), I’m a bit of an aviation enthusiast. You have to be to sustain an interest in all of this for as long as I have.
I doubt you could find an aircraft enthusiast alive who doesn’t like aircraft carriers. Who hasn’t watched ‘Top Gun’ for the carrier and flying scenes? I seize every opportunity to go on board a carrier.
And if we were still in a world where we could afford properly balanced forces, with 35 squadrons of frontline FJs, enough SH, etc. then I’d be fighting for CVF just as hard as anybody else. If we could afford niche capabilities that are ‘often useful’ but seldom actually necessary.
1) Eliminating carriers and carrier aviation does not eliminate a capability. Land-based air can project force – and can actually do so quicker/better/cheaper than a carrier.
2) Merely ‘Playing a part’ is not a ticket to survival. To survive, a military platform/system must play an essential part, and must do so cost-effectively, and paying for that part must not compromise other more useful capabilities. There are plenty of capabilities that have been shed that would be far more useful today than CVS has been – the Jags, Canberra PR9, some of the Hercs we parked, etc.
3) Even if the elimination of carriers marked an erosion of our ability to project power (and given that there are alternatives, it doesn’t) then that would be a better option than cutting the core role of air defence of the UK.
Bismarck
Why are we replacing a CAS aircraft, which is the capability the troops seem to want, with a non-CAS aircraft?
Tornado has a robust CAS capability, and the official line is that replacement of Harrier by Tornado represents only a change of platform, delivering the same capability. The Harrier force is crippled by overstretch and needed to come home. The deployment of Tornado represents a long-planned endex for Harrier. And Harrier is rapidly wearing out. Without replacement rear fuselages and other vastly expensive structural work, these tired airframes are nearing the end of their useful lives. Yes those lives could be extended, but only at a huge cost.
Why is F3 still in service when the RAF have declared Typhoon operational and on QRA?
Because we need a given number of AD Squadrons (in my view more than we now have, but certainly more than four dedicated units). We have just two Typhoon squadrons, and these are supposed to do more than AD. We don’t yet have enough aircraft to retire the F.Mk 3.
What is the GR4 doing in Iraq, there is no role for it? Indeed why do we still have GR4 when Typhoon is declared operational.
Tornado has robust ISTAR and A-G capabilities which are still occasionally needed in theatre. The Typhoon is not YET able to take on all of the A-G tasks of which Tornado is capable. Nor are there sufficient Typhoons in service to replace the old seven squadron F3 force, and the three squadron Jag force, let alone the seven squadron GR4 force.
There is only one reason - CAS does not want the RN (or AAC for that matter) flying aircraft....but who keeps crashing aircraft and UAVs at the moment????
What a load of utter Knob.
Phil Gollin,
“Well, if we don't need Harriers then I presume we don't need Daves - we can get along with Typhoons.
Excellent, more money saved.”
Excellent, more money for tankers, SH, FLynx, SEAD, and everything else we actually NEED.
Anotherthing
“Everyone knows your pro RAF and anti RN stance, as well as your lack of Armed forces service,”
You don’t need to have served as captain of a carrier, or Air Boss to appreciate the usefulness of a carrier, nor its limitations. Nor do you need to have served as an F3 or Typhoon pilot to have some valid opinions on UK AD. Armed forces service as (say) a stacker at Innsworth gives no more appreciation of platforms and procurement than you can get by spending more than 25 years talking to the practitioners of these military arts, many of whom you learned to fly with.
Nor do I have an ‘anti-RN stance’. Criticising one service (and I criticise all three, for different reasons) is not necessarily ‘anti’, so dry your eyes, Princess. It’s criticism, but its constructive and offered with some sympathy, empathy and fondness.
I would not structure UK forces to meet only the terrorist threat – I just would not be willing to distort them to meet one single scenario that is not going to happen again. Even if the Argies cut up rough down South, we now have a proper runway down there, with proper AD. And hopefully the RN won’t collude with the politicians and send the Argies mixed messages about our comittment by withdrawing Endurance, this time……
Lyneham Lad,
I doubt it. Even in the pro-defence community, the UKNDA has precious little credibility. And many of us believe that it’s fatally compromised by being too biased to RN interests.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
I have heard several posters say that we would not need carriers to fight another Falklands scrap, but your above post is shocking!
Can you please tell me how the runway would be of any use for AD, or anything else in defending the Falklands?
Oh, and just in case it's not blindingly obvious, please allow for the fact that ANY sensible enemy would put it out of action prior to any invasion (on the basis it is our only means of FW aircraft launch).
I think that I have been very naive in believing that you were assuming we would use runways from within Chile etc.
Can you please tell me how the runway would be of any use for AD, or anything else in defending the Falklands?
Oh, and just in case it's not blindingly obvious, please allow for the fact that ANY sensible enemy would put it out of action prior to any invasion (on the basis it is our only means of FW aircraft launch).
I think that I have been very naive in believing that you were assuming we would use runways from within Chile etc.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun
While we are at it should the navy not have the Nimrods!