Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers

Old 7th Dec 2008, 00:14
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nr Salisbury UK
Posts: 97
Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers

Here we go:

Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers - Times Online

It's gonna get personal....
seanbean is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 02:36
  #2 (permalink)  

Rebel PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 46
Posts: 2,821
the way things are going HM Forces will consist of chaps in funny hats at the Palaces and the Vanguards.

Trident won't sink one Somali pirate, keep the Argentines off the Falklands or shoot one Taliban in Helmand.
MarkD is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 04:36
  #3 (permalink)  
KeepItTidy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
So let me see , if the head of a force like the Navy throws his dummy and resigns , surely thats like so immature and he has a responability to lead his people , if he quits he lets the goverment win. Good old Navy , bring out sweets,a pirate video and they will be back in favour again , the navy should be thankfull Johnny Depp has done them so much favours yet asked for nowt in return.

With a commander like that , what hope is left
 
Old 7th Dec 2008, 05:25
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 57
Posts: 552
Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, chief of air staff, is attempting to push through proposals to scrap the 75 Harrier jump jets currently shared between the navy and the air force.
.... You know, I thought for a while there that Torpy was quite switched on when it came to jointery. Assuming that this is accurate journalism then its quite obvious he is a complete tosser. I thought the harrier was the newest of all the CAS Aircraft (save Typhoon)

Torpy believes that the lack of a carrier-borne attack aircraft until the first of the new aircraft carriers comes into service, now 2015 at the earliest, will not be a problem.
Right we got rid of the old ark when? end of '78 and what happened at the beginning of '82?

He argues that with the main focus of UK military operations for the next decade likely to be land-locked Afghanistan, there is no current need for carrier-borne aircraft.
...Again cut you capabilities and you open yourself to other problems of an international nature.

When the new carriers come into service the RAF can fly the Joint Strike Fighters that are currently due to fly off them.
HA HA HA HA HA HA - by that time the RN wont have any current F/W deck experience and the crabs wont have the 1st idea either - also with his utterly stupid slogan “one nation, one air force” he obviously intends to take the RN's R/W assets over. I wonder how he will convice his team (about 6000 at a rough estimate) to commit to going to sea? Iwonder how much that will cost in terms of Recruitment / Training / Retention Bonuses / and PVR rates.

See here
Jointery - Going to Sea - E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network forums

Conclusion - 1966 all over again
althenick is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 05:53
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Now I certainly do not love the Navy or the fast jet community, but what I do have is an interest in the defence of the country and also from the 'shop floor' level making sure that my tiny voice is heard when I see inter service politics and 'land grabs'/feathering of nests interfering with future defence policy - after all I am a tax payer and British citizen as well!

If I can see that this is all about inter service rivalry then I hope to God that CDS and the MoD do (but then again current CDS is a fast jet mate, so they are probably all in together!). Of course we are going to offer up Harrier as a cost savings measure to the beancounters - the sacrificial lamb that on the surface saves money in a time when normally the Services are 'bleating' to save and not cut - so a service that offers a cut is a PR coup with much chance of getting through the media/political spotlight.

However, take a step back and look at the motive. If we the RAF sacrifice our Harrier force and take the pain (limited 'pain' really as we now just backfill our other fast jet slots to full manning - smoke/mirrors and makes top brass look good with manning levels) then that is job done in removing the Fisheads from fixed wing aviation. Land have already done it with the Commando capability, Strike can now reign supreme in the fixed wing world if they manage to bluff this one through.

As I said, I have no love for the Navy whatsoever and they can keep the O Boat, but I do recognise that if we as a country think that we are just going to be able to drop an essential defence capability and pick it back up again in 10 years then MoD are certainly not looking at long term strategic capability, but short term money in the bank to pay off their huge debt.

As to my senior officers - shame on you for even believing that you could pull this one off without it going unnoticed by the masses. As to the chief fishead falling on his sword - good on him if that is what it takes to make people sit up and listen. How many times on this web site have we scoffed at senior officers that have left the service with a fat pension and a place in the Lords that then decide to have some moral fibre, a backbone with integrity.

I know that times are tight and the Govt is forcing increasing budget restraints/constraints in every area, but please can someone stop this inter service playground squabbling - Joint Force Harrier, Joint Helicopter Command-if we have to go Joint, then make it Joint, not a platform to increase any one Services area of influence or size. The powers that be have directed that we go Joint in key areas - so lets do it and not view the Joint aspect as a method of expanding empires or ensuring any one colour of uniforms survival. If decisions were made on capability and adding value to Defence rather than what colour uniform will fly or operate the capability, then I am sure that efficiencies and resources would be made.

How much effort is being spent in 'staffing' inter service political survival rather than supporting the boys/girls actually doing the business frontline today, and just as importantly for the conflicts that have yet to confront us in the decades ahead

Sorry for a Sunday emotion, but I see Jointery working on the coal face really well - and not just Afghanistan. What is really evident is the single service mentality in supposedly 'Joint' organisations that is making those at the bottom of the pile roll their eyes as 'mum and dad' argue in the safety of their offices not over key important decisions for future capabilies but more on how to dress up an argument/policy to ensure that it favours one service or the other.

Either do Jointery properly or go back to the Secretary of State for Defence and say it is not working (as per the Canadians) - please do not attempt petty little manoeuvres that make us all look very unprofessional.


Last edited by MaroonMan4; 7th Dec 2008 at 06:56.
MaroonMan4 is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 06:28
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 71
Posts: 531
How the hell does Torpy think we could have fullfilled our obligations in Afghanistan when the US Marines moved out of Kandahar 5 years ago. (Whether or not we should be there at all is a totally diffferent point). The runway was too short for anything other than the Harrier. Having it there we were able to supply the support the ground troops needed. Now the runway has been improved the Harrier is being replaced by the Tonka.

But just wait for the next world trouble spot which needs air support from marginal runways. Guess which aircraft will be used.

The more I read about Torpy, the more I think he was a lousy choice as CDS.

Last edited by beerdrinker; 7th Dec 2008 at 06:49.
beerdrinker is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 07:47
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 91
Beerdrinker, if you wish your comments to be taken with any credibility, you really should get your facts straight; Glen Torpy is not CDS, he's CAS.
Firestreak is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 07:54
  #8 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,646
Simple really.

Torpy is all for jointery with new toys, so Dave after tranche 3 Tiffy. Rather have 21st century jets than jets from the middle of the last century.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 08:08
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,120
And now we see the real reason for rushing a LL AI platform into the battle in Helmand, in place of the ML CAS thoroughbred that's been doing the job excellently since 2004.

It will cost the taxpayer millions to get the TGRF to a state whereby it will be adequate at the role in Afghanistan. And all to protect the spine of the air force, and banish the FW FAA to the dust bin of history.

So let's now start talking straight. The GR9 CAS/ COIN platform par excellence is not being pulled out of KAF for re-generation, CVS qualifications or harmony reasons. It's being withdrawn from a war for which it is ideally suited, so that it is seen as not being at war, so that the favoured platform of the higher echelons is seen as the panacea (that it certainly isn't), and then the puffer jet can be sidelined and euthanised.

How long has this been the plan? Have we and parliament been lied to for some time?
orca is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 08:34
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 71
Posts: 531
FS,

Sorry - finger trouble.
beerdrinker is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 09:05
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
As I posted on this thread not too long ago http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post4548163

"Elmo you plonker,
The RN desperately does not want the Harriers out of Afghanistan.
Once they are out and not displaying their usefullness on a daily basis, they are a lot easier to quietly dispose of by the RAF under some "costly", "old" , "outdated", "short range" type bollocks arguments.
This is the opening gambit of a beautifully cynical plan to wipe out the RN's fixed wing fleet for good.
The RAF may have lost a very hard fought battle to scupper the carriers, but they have not given up the war..........."

Whilst I usually enjoy being correct, in this case I was hoping I was wrong
Tourist is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 09:40
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Close by!
Posts: 316
Because everything in the papers is true isn't it?

There aren't half some paranoid folk around.

I took the article as a "let's get our side across before anything happens" message.

When we do see a FJ type go I don;t think it'll be Harrier.
insty66 is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 09:47
  #13 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,646
There are two view points here.

The airman's short term pain for long term gain, ie retire an old tired workhorse and gain a shiney new toy in a few years time.

The politician's short term gain, ie retire an old tired workhorse now and a long term gain by defering or scraping the shiney new toy in the future.

A bird (harrier) in the had is worth two in the bush (george)
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 09:48
  #14 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,193
maybe he ought to resign over having so mismanaged the future of the navy, particularly surrendering the flexibility of the frigate fleet in pursuit of the ever receding carrier mirage, that they can't even provide a Falklands Guard Ship any more?

Don't throw stones when you live in a greenhouse...
ORAC is online now  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 10:10
  #15 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,646
Orac, hammer, rivet, head, hit.

The same could, in the future, be said for light blue.

Dark blue, instead of keeping its 20th century warships has, as you said, been chasing a 21st century mirage.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 10:48
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,335
Here we go again .... The only people who are going to win from such sensationalism are the Army (who must be pi55ing themselves laughing watching the other two Services tear each other apart) and the government (who are more than happy for Chiefs to resign because they know there's another yes man waiting his chance).

The following is all my personal opinion. The Tornado is up to the job in AFG. The Harrier is fast becoming a one trick pony and it needs time back home to regenerate and reconstitute its broader military skills i.e aviation from the carrier. If it was to stay out in AFG any longer there is a real chance that they would never regain deck currency period. And the beancounters would start to question the need for carriers in the present and in the future. So not only would the new carriers be delayed (another thread on that topic) but also rather than run on the current CVs, given we don't have enough assets to keep the decks warm (because they're busy on ops) lets bin them early as well. And then we don't need JCA so lets buy more Typohoon (and that keeps BAE happy, and jobs in UK etc etc). So, again a personal view, bringing the Harriers home, and perhaps reducing the fleet size (I wouldn't advocate a complete disbandment for the reasons I've already stated) would support the procurement of the future carriers (again, which I believe we need) and JCA.

I also don't give a fig who crew JFH or JCA. Best person for the job.

I reckon the SofS will call his bluff - if CNS resigns then he will be replaced with a yes man who will have no choice but to support whatever proposals are put on the table (including those affecting the wider Navy, not just the FAA). If he doesn't resign then he will just be seen as a spoilt brat - I'll scream and scream until I get my own way. If he really wanted to make a point he should have had the balls to walk around the 5th floor, resign with no prior notice and then "leaked" his reasons/concerns to the press. His pension is both vast and secure and there will be all sorts of companies looking to welcome a man of such principles on to their board.

Of course, if he had nothing to do with the leak and it was done by a "well meaning" staff officer or civil servant then I suspect CNSs bacon and eggs will not be going down to well this morning!
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 10:54
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 40
Posts: 733
I like the way the DT story ignores the fact that the RN has already got 4 warships in the FI! (tanker, large helo capable patrol vessel, Ice patrol ship and a Bay class).
Jimlad1 is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 12:07
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
I am sure I recall just a few months ago Ivan flexing his muscles with threats of Cold war II. How quickly we forget that there is more to world politics then Iraq & Afghanistan.

Like it or loathe it, Harrier is essential for any conventional warfare and therefore an equally essential part of the warfighting inventory of the UK. It would be wrong to reduce the force without a Combat Ready VSTOL replacement in place.
Tiger_mate is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 12:18
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 78
Posts: 4,203
Once again Torpy shows himself to be the government's lackey, prepared to compromise the defence of his nation in the interests of short term financial savings which will rebound disastrously on us in the future, probably sooner than later. The same short sighted thinking has resulted in the complete compromise of UK military airworthiness over the past twenty years. That he does this at the supposed cost to a sister service rather than his speaks volumes for his limited grasp of the realities and does the Royal Air Force that he supposedly leads no favours. Shame on him and good for the Navy's boss, prepared to put his service before his own self advancement. Like Speaker Martin the CAS has been too long in this place...
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2008, 13:06
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,335
Chugalug

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'm also intrigued by your comment

limited grasp of the realities
Surely the reality is the MOD are broke and somehow, somewhere we have got to make painful savings in order to both support/fight/win the current conflicts and protect from the future conflict. As the books clearly don't balance what would you suggest? Just curious as to how you would do things differently.

As they say don't bring problems bring solutions. And these armchair solutions can't involve more money because there isn't any. And there won't be any under any future government either. At somestage we have to repay the VAT cut etc and, sadly, I suspect this will be through a cut in public spending rather than personal tax rises because guess which one costs more votes. Again, cuts in Health, Social Services and Education are not very voter friendly. As for Defence ....
Wrathmonk is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.