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

Harrier Pilot attacks Prime Minister on cuts

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 Pilot attacks Prime Minister on cuts

Old 23rd Oct 2010, 10:02
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MARS
Posts: 1,102
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
Jinda,


I am sure they will.............I will watch to see who is smiling. It is valid that the original comment about 3:1 posted by someone else was crude, but if we are talking about the manpower, engineering effort, cost (including future engine upgrades) and associated support to achieve Fe@R, then we indeed do have a valid debate, which it is very easy to 'cuff-off' without supplying any facts. It is a sad fact that much of the chat on these forums, is ill informed and consists of 'you are talking @@@@@@' rather than supplying evidence. Unfortunately much of the evidence could of course, not be provided on such a public forum but, there are some on Pprune, who quite clearly have access to such evidence and it is relatively easy to identify who they are as opposed to the enthusiast or the retired Officer who is being fed single service Dogma and propoganda, without the benefit of an opposing view.

Of course, as always, no offence intended

Widger is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 10:11
  #142 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
nigegilb.

Re 'power projection'. Is it not about time we gave up on 'projecting power' at other countries?

We like it not when they 'project' power at us. In fact, recently we've been attacking them before they even did it, just in case they were thinking of it. Which they may well not have been.

Frankly, I think we've 'projected' enough power over the years and it's about time we knocked it on the head.

It's not big , not clever, pisses a lot of folk off and we can't afford it anyway.

Time to lie low for a bit methinks and not before time.
 
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 10:30
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sock it to them Sharkey Two generations of Harrier pilots attack David Cameron over jets | Politics | The Guardian
david parry is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 10:37
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is sad to see anyone attacking fellow service personnel and then fighting between themselves as to whose toys are better than the other.

We are losing other capabilities than just a specific fast jet type that are as important. Pilots can get a job anywhere - if they are prepared to get off their asses and go look. Other, more specialist individuals will have more difficulty.

A thought for those who will have redundancy forced on them might be better use of your time.
ghostnav is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 10:43
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, BBF, I immediately think of Op Barras when you describe the futility of our desire to project power round the world. An incredible rescue of Royal Irish Rangers who were reportedly raped and tortured by their captors. Ask them if it is a good idea for Britain to retain this capability. In the preceeding weeks Illustrious, Ocean and Sea Harriers were all involved in Op Palliser. I was humbled when I met people from Sierra Leone who were so thankful to British forces for bringing peace to their country.

My opposition to the invasion of Iraq is on the record from the very beginning.
Sadly it is now being used by people like yourself as an excuse to emasculate our war fighting capability. Cameron voted to invade Iraq and also voted to deploy to Helmand. Lay off the Harrier mate, he probably knows a bit more than a career politician about the subject.

Most experts cannot make sense of what we are left with after the axe has fallen. I have to agree, strategic my arrse......

Last edited by nigegilb; 23rd Oct 2010 at 11:42.
nigegilb is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 10:50
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The plot is lost

BB - spot on with your post. The real issue here is that the 'population' has been so totally stuffed by the political leadership of the past 15 years. We are only now picking up the pieces. We are led by a 'not fit for purpose' lot of miscreants. Unfortunately ''we'' are left to get on with the mess, that they created. The guys at the top of the defence sectors, are only carrying out the ministers instructions. Some may be good and well meaning individuals, others may not, however, it is their decisions that now creates the mayhem we see, and the 'discussions' on this forum. The harrier bloke stated his piece - well done - if only more of us had the balls to stand up and state what we really feel regarding the method that this country carries out its business - at home and abroad.
maxred is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 10:57
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ghostnav post 79 and 101 re your "A thought for those who will have redundancy forced on them might be better use of your time"
david parry is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 11:03
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I know Kris and he is a nice genuine guy. Yes, he didn't choose his words as carefully as he should have done. But then again, we've all seen people being shafted by the media in some form or other - hence why I refuse to speak to them anymore! To be fair emotions are pretty fraught in Cott/Witt and people are genuinely fearing for their jobs post April next year. Cut him some slack guys, he has two families he is worried about one at home and the family that is JFH. Everyone in JFH feels betrayed by CAS and his cronies who did play the long game after taking control of the FA2s into what was 3Gp. The writing was on the wall from then on, especially with F***wit Admirals who allowed the RAF to cancel the FA2 (he is married to princess Anne now). As usual we got on with it and flew the GR instead, a highly capable aircraft but single role. But again CAS wins and that too is axed.

The telegraph article is misleading. Yes CAS did put the GR4 into Afg to replace the Harrier so that it would be an easy decision to cancel it. In one fell swoop it caused chaos for the RN FW community for the next 8 years. IMHO there wont be an RN FW community by the time the Lightning (or whatever we are left with after the 2015 SDSR) comes into service. I still cant believe that the Typhoon isn't in front-line service yet (and I don't mean UKQR) when the damn thing flew as a prototype in 1986! It should be in Afg now but isn't because of the reasons above, or maybe that was a ploy to keep GR4 too.... Well done the MoD for taking 25 years to bring a 4th gen fighter into service for 5th gen prices! However, the article says 1 Harrier is as good as 3 GR4. Of course I don't agree with that, but I will say that 1 Harrier is miles better than 1 GR4 at what we are doing in Afg. They are there to do Close Air Support, a role the Tornado was never intended for. The main reason that the Harrier is better in this environment is because it can carry mixed loads of weapons, fly slower (to see what you're after) and can still turn. It can come back to the base with greater asymmetry as it doesn't have to drop pairs of weapons off in order to keep the aircraft balanced. Why do you think the USMC love it so much and are using it in Afg to augment the A10s? I'm not attacking the GR4 which I think is probably one of the finest IDS jets in the world, but it was never intended to be used for what it is doing now. Just my opinion, which no doubt you lot will poo poo anyway....

ABTE
Aim between the eyes is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 11:12
  #149 (permalink)  
Rigger1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I wonder what the outcome would have been (in service) had a junior rank posed such a crass and impertinent question?
 
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 11:43
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Where I rest my head!
Posts: 52
Received 9 Likes on 3 Posts
Who cares - he asked a sensible maybe selfish question because he could. Well done him.

Maybe more of you should do the same instead of sitting back and excepting the cuts.

The French wouldn't write rhetoric they would get on with a plan of cation and stop these defence cuts - especially Harrier.

Stand up and stop it.
WildRover is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 12:11
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: backofbeyond
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good job Mental. Perhaps it may have come across as a little selfish but the simple fact remains this man stood up to the PM when no-one else appears to be doing so. We are losing a major part of our defence capability for a decade and this came, not out of a true defence review, but from a crazed round of defence cuts. Op missions have been flown from the carrier in the Balkans, Iraq, Sierra Leone in the last 2 decades by both RN and RAF Harriers proving the value of the carrier. The Harrier was also put to great use in Kandahar when the runway was too damaged for any other jet was able to fly from it. I was there when an A10 diverted in and was stuck for a week as there was not enough runway for him to get out yet the Harrier continued to operate with full bomb loads using its VSTOL capabilities. He eventually got out on minimum fuel. In fact the runway was not suitable for other fighter types for approx 2 years while it was being rebuilt. Able to operate from the sea and from short strips and field sites, surely this kind of flexibility is required at a time when the World is an uncertain place and there is not much cash around. The Harrier can do a whole range of jobs other jets cannot. We will now have to rely upon the US to come to our aid should anything need sorting in our sphere of influence when host nation support is not available. Oh and we have already had to rely on the yanks for the other crazed decision to get rid of our MPA capability. This is the thin end of the wedge, in 5 years, the government will probably just sell off the carriers anyway.

Before this cost cutting exercise we had already endured years and years of under investment and poor procurement. Much of the latter is due to politicians influencing what we can buy and also introducing crazy rules about who can sell to defence. If you really want agility, buy off the shelf and spend real money on developing hard contracts which do not allow wiggle room which results in delivery late and over budget.
dogstar2 is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 12:16
  #152 (permalink)  
Rigger1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Well done him!.
Crap.


He is a serving Officer and as such needs to act like one, most of us have job security issues, many people in the industry have been unemployed before and who gave a toss about them, no one, you just have to man up and get on with it. For a serving Officer to ask the Prime Minister what he did is just wrong, on so many levels.

And yes I’ve been unemployed, with far bleaker prospects than he has, tough welcome to life, no one ever said it would be easy, time to grow a pair.
 
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 12:22
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Would you rather he was just as obsequious and ineffective as HIS own very senior officers? Who are, of course, awfully good at cynical manipulation (RE Tornado in this case). I wonder if they were also the ones who told Cameron how well the Typhoon was performing in Afghan?

Last edited by nigegilb; 23rd Oct 2010 at 12:32.
nigegilb is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 13:16
  #154 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Nigegilb

I suspect we'd agree on a few things. I'm sorry to see the Harriers (and Shars too) gone.

Shame about the Nimrods, Jags and Sentinel too. The carriers/ JSF issue is just comical and as for 'renewing' the Trident boats? Let's not even go there.

We are no longer, sadly, in charge of our Empire and I think we ought to wind our collective military necks in.

UK forces are paid for from tax- by taxpayers (and soldiers, sailors and airmen are NOT taxpayers, whatever 'deductions' you see on the payslip).

We are paying for Defence. Not offence, policekeeping, Nation building or plain Foreign intervention/ adventure.

Harriers on Carriers do little to protect the Country that could not be done by UK land based aircraft.
On the other hand, they're ideal for a bit of 'power projection- like the new carriers....

I don't blame this pilot for shooting his mouth off, hey- I'd probably do the same in his shoes, maybe even utter the immortal words....

I think Cameron is re-jigging the UK military Forces with a less interventionist policy very much in mind.

There are many who'd support him on that score.
 
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 14:27
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dogstar2

An excellent post!

The Harrier can do a whole range of jobs other jets cannot.
That is its outstanding and unique contribution to our defence capabilities. Not just the ability to use a fragment of runway, but to adapt quickly to previously unforeseen needs. In 1981, RAF Harrier squadrons were trained primarily to support the Army by taking out Russian tanks steaming westwards across the North German Plain. (With 1 Sqn having a supporting role in the mountains and snows of Norway.)

Then, in 1982, a wholly unplanned and unexpected need to support an invasion task force in the Falklands. Brilliant improvisation, mods such as fitting sidewinder for self-defence developed in an impossibly short time, INAS system adapted to shipborne role, etc.

After that, as you said, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and now Afghanistan. Which politicians or planners foresaw any of those events?

And now, we're told that we won't need any carrier borne jets for at least the next 10 years. The mind boggles. (And forget the smokescreen about being able to operate Frog/Yank aircraft off our new white elephants. The Frogs have a long history of unreliability in "cooperative" ventures and the perennial isolationist streak in the US makes them equally unreliable in time of crisis.)

Reminds me of the political money-saving idea after WW1 that there would be no major war for at least 10 years so that capital spending on the Forces was unnecessary. That principle rolled forward right into the mid-1930s before resources were at last devoted to rearmament - in the very nick of time. What makes today's politicians think they have any more reliable view of what the next 10 years holds by way of "unexpected" threats to the UK's security?
Vertico is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 14:55
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BBF, just want to pull you up on a point you made about Cameron being less interventionist, hence the need to re-jig (but still keep the Carriers..).

Frankly. I don't believe a word of it. True Conservatives would have voted against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but this set of Conservative MPs voted like sheep, to go along with the Prime Ministerial spin and lies because they were too afraid to rock the establishment boat. (Intelligence Community, Govt etc). This Conservative party also voted to support US involvement in Afg in 2001, (I had no prob with that one) and again voted to fight a war on two fronts by supporting a poorly thought out and extremely costly deployment to Helmand in 2006. Support was also given for the Kosovo war and other Balkan actions.

Why should we believe a word Cameron says about being less interventionist when on every occasion he was personally given to display his anti-interventionist beliefs he did exactly the opposite?

Worse still, (for his credibility), he is an Atlanticist and he is surrounded by Atlanticists. Fox, Osborne, Gove, Hague to name a few. On his recent visit to America his servile, unquestioning approach was on display when he stated that Great Britain was the junior party to America in the first two years of the war. During this period, an American citizen who wanted to come here and fight Nazis had to give up his American citizenship!

Sorry, I don't believe a word anything Cameron is saying. This review is entirely Treasury led and the next time America shouts jump, I see absolutely nothing in Cameron to suggest his response will be anything other than how high..When Hillary Clinton expressed concern about the depth of British defence cuts the Tories immediately looked to sooth and reassure. Might be an idea to remain useful to the Americans in the process..

Lt Cdr Ward, was quite right to launch a verbal assault on Cameron, a well chosen target in my view.

Last edited by nigegilb; 23rd Oct 2010 at 15:50.
nigegilb is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 15:17
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 1,189
Received 114 Likes on 51 Posts
If you think its a good idea for serving members of HM Forces to lambast the PM in public why didn't you do the same reference your (correctly founded) concerns about foam when you were still serving?
downsizer is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 15:28
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,722
Received 138 Likes on 67 Posts
"He asked a sensible maybe selfish question because he could. Well done him."

I think that was spot on.
You have concerns ask---why not?"
albatross is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 16:03
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,371
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
corporal manslaughter
Snigger! Is he in the same wegiment as General Hindsight?
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2010, 16:20
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What a Blimpish fuss about a perfectly reasonable and understandable question from an individual member of the armed forces - nothing to do with rank - at a public question and answer session arranged by the MoD and at which the media were present at MoD invitation.

If you don't want awkward questions, don't arrange such events.

Personally, I thought the Prime Minister's response was good, and I enjoyed the wry smile from the SoS.
baffman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.