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

Harrier dispute between Navy and RAF chiefs sees Army 'marriage counsellor' called in

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.

Harrier dispute between Navy and RAF chiefs sees Army 'marriage counsellor' called in

Old 14th Mar 2009, 10:57
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 65
Posts: 237
Can someone suggest a sensible reason why the Harriers have to use up their fatigue life when there are plenty of GR.4s around ?

.
phil gollin is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2009, 11:03
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
In it's current state, the GR4 is not a suitable for the task?
Tourist is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2009, 12:13
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Wales
Posts: 80
The Navy run Harrier at 1 Gp?

"Commander R. C. Payne, Royal Navy, to be promoted acting captain and to be Captain Harrier/Jaguar within Headquarters 1 Group in succession to Captain H. S. Brown, MBE, Royal Navy, with effect from June 2009"

Service appointments: Navy - Times Online

And Jags too ( if we had any) according to the appointment
Beancountercymru is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2009, 13:06
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Nice to see Donald Gosling promoted. Single-handedly done the most for RN morale of anyone I have met. And all from his own pocket.

A little off topic, I know.
Tourist is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2009, 12:01
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 65
Posts: 237
In it's current state, the GR4 is not a suitable for the task?

I thought the whole point was that the GR.4 now was thought quite capable of cruising at medium level in Afghanistan and losing off precision guided weapons.

.
phil gollin is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2009, 13:03
  #166 (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: 16,648
Originally Posted by insty66 View Post
PN,

Not sure what you're saying.

Is it that the Tonka guys are worried their desert isn't "hard" enough? Or that some one else thinks what the Tonka is currently doing not "hard" enough?

So do we agree that:

Harrier needs a break?

The only British Military air platform that can be deployed instead of it is the GR4?
Insty, yes. IMHO, those not in a fight are often ashamed that they are not there helping. Just a thought, but the GR4 pain is spread much less widely than the Harrier pain and I am guessing that the GR4 guys would feel sidelined, especially if the Telic deployment winds down.

As for the second bit, that someone else thinks the Tonka is not doing enough, I could not possibly comment except that the use-it or lose-it argument might apply.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2009, 13:05
  #167 (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: 16,648
Originally Posted by phil gollin View Post
Can someone suggest a sensible reason why the Harriers have to use up their fatigue life when there are plenty of GR.4s around ?

.
Outstanding post. It took only 6 minutes for a catch.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2009, 18:28
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 60
Posts: 539
Harrier Fatigue Consumption

I thought that one of the reasons for the GR5/7/9 having a carbon fibre airframe (apart from weight-saving) was that it was not supposed to suffer "fatigue" in the same way as a tin wing.

MB
Madbob is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2009, 23:59
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: LONDON
Posts: 107
ZZZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by ATFQ; 5th Jun 2016 at 06:56.
ATFQ is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2009, 08:00
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,337
There is more to calculating the out of service date than aircraft fatigue. Availability of "obsolete" spares for an aircraft no longer in production (for instance) [and why, when they extended the PR9 they were forced to either rob museum displays or individually craft spare bits].
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2009, 08:35
  #171 (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: 16,648
Originally Posted by Wrathmonk View Post
There is more to calculating the out of service date than aircraft fatigue. Availability of "obsolete" spares for an aircraft no longer in production (for instance) [and why, when they extended the PR9 they were forced to either rob museum displays or individually craft spare bits].
Indeed it is often the inocuous bits that 'last for ever' that break. Floor panels suddenly wear out. Catches fatigue. Fasteners don't. Etc etc. All fixable but all add to the technical burden.

A silly one on the Nimrod force was light bulbs. For much of the year the aircraft flew in daylight. Come the winter and all was gloom in the cabin until litterally dozens of pea bulbs etc were changed.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2009, 07:22
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Strong buzzes up in town that either Anderson or Torpy will resign next week.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2009, 08:38
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 50
Posts: 386
"Retire honourably after more than 30 years service to the crown" sounds so much nicer though.

It is a shame that this became a "resigning" issue in the first place.
Finnpog is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2009, 17:53
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Walter's Ash
Age: 55
Posts: 47
Angry Intellectual Capacity!!!!

Afternoon all, seething H-W here - have never posted before but felt moved to today!! One of the chaps at the HQ reports strong 'rumour' of a written statement from CAS provided during Army bloke's recent review into Harrier manning that says something like ...."the only RAF officers that have the intellectual capacity to make it to 3* and above are FJ pilots...". If this statement is true I, along with many others (non-FJ pilot gods) who grind along supporting our service, deserve to be "highly disappointed"!!! Anyone else heard 'bout this?? H-W
SL Hardly-Worthitt is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2009, 17:56
  #175 (permalink)  
Gnd
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 54
Posts: 597
Whoa - nice fish - should go down well when they finally get round to disbanding the RAF!!!!
Gnd is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2009, 20:59
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Yes, I have heard it.
It was CAS's reason for requiring all military fixed wing to be RAF to give them a big enough pool to choose the CASs of the future from.
Tourist is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2009, 23:05
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Walter's Ash
Age: 55
Posts: 47
If there is any truth to this it beggars belief!!
SL Hardly-Worthitt is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2009, 23:46
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 50
Posts: 386
This arrogance does more than beggars belief!

I'll state now that I am on no way anti RAF. I grew up as an air force brat and wore blue uniforms as a child and an adult.

Unfortunately, the RAF has no higher purpose than to field aircraft into the sky. This is the raison d'etre of the whole organisation, with every trade solely geared to support or enable that function. Hence, the GD Pilot could be seen as the pinnacle of all career roles.

The selection process sees the FJ types as the top of the tree with everyone else as "almost rans".

If true, this CAS arrogance is only one step away from God-ship in making their successors in their own image.

Only FJ types good enough to be 3 star plus? What horlicks!

There is no need to have the FJ skill set as a pre-requisite to be a highly effective Air officer. There are many officers who (if the system allowed) could rise effectively to the top - admittedly they wouldn't have the badge on the chest but I am sure that they would have the mental wherewithal to refute the CAS's opinion.

As there are on line references to at least two Royal Marines officers who after qualifying as Commandos and leaders of ground combat troops have since qualified as Harrier pilots, then it could be said that the CAS might lack the wraparound 'warfighter' experience of these mates who have clearly demonstrated their intellectual prowess to exceed their Corps ceiling for promotion and take over as potential CAS's in the future.

If true, then he should be birched for denigrating the rest of the service IMO.
Finnpog is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2009, 23:55
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
But if you consider what we do does he not have a point?
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2009, 04:30
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: World Citizen
Posts: 49
I find it hard to believe that CAS made these ill-judged comments about only FJ Pilots having the capacity for 3* & above, as this hardly squares with AM Peach (is he CJO yet) & the next DCINC Pers both being Navs (albeit FJ), appointments with which he surely had some influence. Also, weren't 2 of the last 3 CINC STC/Air non FJ?

Is this just a case of the RN winning the PR battle? And don't they pick their 4* on the ability to drive ships, when those currently gaining frontline experience are either aircrew, or RM? There was a RM 3* at MoD (& PJHQ immediately before that) who was well respected & I'm told hugely talented, but could never (allegedly) go any higher, to hold either 1SL or VCDS posts, due to his green uniform.

Last edited by NP20; 21st Mar 2009 at 06:06.
NP20 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.