Future of the FAA
God help me, but the RN doesn't consist solely of the FAA.....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latearmlive spotted the flaw,
and God help me but having read
...I find myself agreeing with VVHA, which is surely a sign of madness!
Since 1939 offensive ops have been carrier centred - now some of us think that the SSN probably trumps a carrier, and is a lot less vulnerable, so we maybe don't quite understand why the RN wants to end up as two carriers with a dozen jets on board, limited AEW to make things 'frisky' - nothing like a pop up contact within ASM range to speed the day up - supported by two fisheries protection vessels, 6 RIBs, an SSN that the computer insists is landlocked, and an urge to retire the only helo that did anything useful (from a force protection point of view).
I (honestly) wish you the best of luck, despite being crabair in my former life, as ex maritime I spent 100% of my study time looking at ships (mainly, it must be said, with a view to sinking them). You need CAP, you need a better AEW platform, and then you need something that's good at bombing people. As best I can see, this defence review and your leadership did very little to provide any of these.
I think you've been stuffed - and like many maritime blokes this gives me no joy at all.
Dave
*Edited repeatedly due to problems with the quote function <g>
and God help me but having read
God help me, but the RN doesn't consist solely of the FAA.....
Yes it does...The fishheads are merely there to drive the flightdeck around.... Without WAFUs there is no need for any fishheads....
Yes it does...The fishheads are merely there to drive the flightdeck around.... Without WAFUs there is no need for any fishheads....
Since 1939 offensive ops have been carrier centred - now some of us think that the SSN probably trumps a carrier, and is a lot less vulnerable, so we maybe don't quite understand why the RN wants to end up as two carriers with a dozen jets on board, limited AEW to make things 'frisky' - nothing like a pop up contact within ASM range to speed the day up - supported by two fisheries protection vessels, 6 RIBs, an SSN that the computer insists is landlocked, and an urge to retire the only helo that did anything useful (from a force protection point of view).
I (honestly) wish you the best of luck, despite being crabair in my former life, as ex maritime I spent 100% of my study time looking at ships (mainly, it must be said, with a view to sinking them). You need CAP, you need a better AEW platform, and then you need something that's good at bombing people. As best I can see, this defence review and your leadership did very little to provide any of these.
I think you've been stuffed - and like many maritime blokes this gives me no joy at all.
Dave
*Edited repeatedly due to problems with the quote function <g>
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Yeovil
Age: 53
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
God help me, but the RN doesn't consist solely of the FAA.....
Yes it does...The fishheads are merely there to drive the flightdeck around.... Without WAFUs there is no need for any fishheads....
God help me, but the RN doesn't consist solely of the FAA.....
Yes it does...The fishheads are merely there to drive the flightdeck around.... Without WAFUs there is no need for any fishheads....
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the thread was?
Well it's good to see that this has descended into the usual childish antics of the worst elements of our services.
I can understand why people are so emotive about this topic - let's face it jobs are on the line and most of us joined because we felt a calling to one service or another and, having spent more than a decade serving HMQ, unsurprisingly I for one feel rather attached to my particular shade of uniform.
I'm genuinely sad to see the swingeing cuts being applied to all three services and I can see quite easily how the government have been led into the decisions they have taken (not wanting to cut the Army dramatically while we are in Afghanistan) - bar one; the loss of JFH and a total loss of Capability is a little odd, not to say stupid. But underneath this Capability Gap are real people - pilots, maintainers, chockheads - maybe even ATCO and Fighter Controllers. People with families, lives, mortgages etc. I think that needs to be put into perspective - whatever side of the fence you are on.
As for this debate about 'who gets what' I feel it is time to put a little information in to the mix. The RN (who, when I joined had over 40 Frigates (FF) and Destroyers (DD) and a whole lot more other stuff (3 CVS, lots of Patrol Boats etc)) are now forced into a situation where we have, rpt, have to service our commitments with 19 FF/DD rather than the 23 we currently possess. The fact that it is incredibly hard on materiel and people to generate these platforms for real, operational tasks, globally appears to have been lost in all this - fish-heads we may be but don't lose sight of the fact that the RN is deployed world-wide doing the same jobs we always did (maritime counter-narcotics, anti-piracy, maritime interdiction, defence diplomacy - all of those MT that were there years ago and are still here today (stand-fast the change in nomenclature)) but as per usual we do them with little fuss and bother. The loss of the Harriers (both light and dark blue) is a devastating blow to our ability, as a country, to project power around the globe. Hang on to that thought. The current 'Maltese Breaststroke' being conducted by CAS/ACAS in order to ensure the RAF keeps all the toys has been a piece of Staff-Work to behold, perhaps proving that the brightest (but perhaps morally bankrupt) 4* indeed work in the RAF. Losing CHF will be so non-sensical; chopping another Capability just so everyone flies wearing the same bar-codes? Why is that supposedly a 'saving in efficiency'? CHF have long prided themselves on their ability to fly off anything in pretty much any climate - backed up by real-world exercises in real-world temperatures - anyone who thinks that modelling/simulators can replace actually operating the kit is a fool - plain and simple. And I'd be happy to stand up and debate it before you think that's an empty statement. There are so many examples and the money poured into 'Versatile Training' is eye-watering - enough to have funded JFH until 2016 I would hazard a guess at.
This review has been cost-led. End of. I hope no-one here would challenge that. After the mess the CoS and DE&S have left us in (ministers come and go, the MoD Civil Servants and Senior Officers are to blame, IMHO) we need to make what we do affordable. As a committed, dark blue fan of FW Ops of a CV I would rather have seen us bin QELZ and PWLS and Harrier forever rather than the way we are going; this continuing, hollowing-out of Capability - don't forget there is still Planning Round 11 to finish and then 12 to look forward to - not forgetting any further In-Year-Savings.
I realise that I might be said to be harking on about 'RN-centric' stuff but I really feel for everyone in the next 6 months - redundancies will be upon us in Q2 of 2011 and one suspects the marketplace isn't the healthiest it has ever been.
I will leave you with one thought; can you picture the conversation with CDS/CAS vs the PM if our friends in the South Atlantic decide 25 May 2011 is a good time to re-take Los Malvinas? Let's not kid ourselves that APT(S)/Typhoon is a credible defence to a well planned, well executed, multi-axis attack. Like it or not, GR4 and Typhoon won't be tanking their way from Ascension to save the day - any hope of doing that again will have been shuffled off into the hands of the bean-counters at the behest of the 'One Nation, One Air Force' crowd. I'm 99.9% sure I'm talking bolleux. Let's hope I am.
I can understand why people are so emotive about this topic - let's face it jobs are on the line and most of us joined because we felt a calling to one service or another and, having spent more than a decade serving HMQ, unsurprisingly I for one feel rather attached to my particular shade of uniform.
I'm genuinely sad to see the swingeing cuts being applied to all three services and I can see quite easily how the government have been led into the decisions they have taken (not wanting to cut the Army dramatically while we are in Afghanistan) - bar one; the loss of JFH and a total loss of Capability is a little odd, not to say stupid. But underneath this Capability Gap are real people - pilots, maintainers, chockheads - maybe even ATCO and Fighter Controllers. People with families, lives, mortgages etc. I think that needs to be put into perspective - whatever side of the fence you are on.
As for this debate about 'who gets what' I feel it is time to put a little information in to the mix. The RN (who, when I joined had over 40 Frigates (FF) and Destroyers (DD) and a whole lot more other stuff (3 CVS, lots of Patrol Boats etc)) are now forced into a situation where we have, rpt, have to service our commitments with 19 FF/DD rather than the 23 we currently possess. The fact that it is incredibly hard on materiel and people to generate these platforms for real, operational tasks, globally appears to have been lost in all this - fish-heads we may be but don't lose sight of the fact that the RN is deployed world-wide doing the same jobs we always did (maritime counter-narcotics, anti-piracy, maritime interdiction, defence diplomacy - all of those MT that were there years ago and are still here today (stand-fast the change in nomenclature)) but as per usual we do them with little fuss and bother. The loss of the Harriers (both light and dark blue) is a devastating blow to our ability, as a country, to project power around the globe. Hang on to that thought. The current 'Maltese Breaststroke' being conducted by CAS/ACAS in order to ensure the RAF keeps all the toys has been a piece of Staff-Work to behold, perhaps proving that the brightest (but perhaps morally bankrupt) 4* indeed work in the RAF. Losing CHF will be so non-sensical; chopping another Capability just so everyone flies wearing the same bar-codes? Why is that supposedly a 'saving in efficiency'? CHF have long prided themselves on their ability to fly off anything in pretty much any climate - backed up by real-world exercises in real-world temperatures - anyone who thinks that modelling/simulators can replace actually operating the kit is a fool - plain and simple. And I'd be happy to stand up and debate it before you think that's an empty statement. There are so many examples and the money poured into 'Versatile Training' is eye-watering - enough to have funded JFH until 2016 I would hazard a guess at.
This review has been cost-led. End of. I hope no-one here would challenge that. After the mess the CoS and DE&S have left us in (ministers come and go, the MoD Civil Servants and Senior Officers are to blame, IMHO) we need to make what we do affordable. As a committed, dark blue fan of FW Ops of a CV I would rather have seen us bin QELZ and PWLS and Harrier forever rather than the way we are going; this continuing, hollowing-out of Capability - don't forget there is still Planning Round 11 to finish and then 12 to look forward to - not forgetting any further In-Year-Savings.
I realise that I might be said to be harking on about 'RN-centric' stuff but I really feel for everyone in the next 6 months - redundancies will be upon us in Q2 of 2011 and one suspects the marketplace isn't the healthiest it has ever been.
I will leave you with one thought; can you picture the conversation with CDS/CAS vs the PM if our friends in the South Atlantic decide 25 May 2011 is a good time to re-take Los Malvinas? Let's not kid ourselves that APT(S)/Typhoon is a credible defence to a well planned, well executed, multi-axis attack. Like it or not, GR4 and Typhoon won't be tanking their way from Ascension to save the day - any hope of doing that again will have been shuffled off into the hands of the bean-counters at the behest of the 'One Nation, One Air Force' crowd. I'm 99.9% sure I'm talking bolleux. Let's hope I am.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I have repeatedly seen the comment, from many dark blue types and their supporters, that 'we couldn't do the Falklands again" due to the present hollowing out of the navy.
So the argument above is specious, as keeping the Harriers wouldn't have enabled another campaign to recover the Falklands, and it would take too long for a CVS to get their to stop one - whilst rapid air reinforcement could - and is the established plan for doing so, otherwise the government wasted a lot of money on MPA and the garrison.
Meanwhile, keeping 6 GR4 sqns, with spare airframes for rotation, provides a force able to maintain the Afghan campaign, plus other exercises and operations, till their planned OSD, something 3 GR7/9 sqns could not.
So the argument above is specious, as keeping the Harriers wouldn't have enabled another campaign to recover the Falklands, and it would take too long for a CVS to get their to stop one - whilst rapid air reinforcement could - and is the established plan for doing so, otherwise the government wasted a lot of money on MPA and the garrison.
Meanwhile, keeping 6 GR4 sqns, with spare airframes for rotation, provides a force able to maintain the Afghan campaign, plus other exercises and operations, till their planned OSD, something 3 GR7/9 sqns could not.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Falklands keep getting a run in this debate, however......
One lesson from the Falklands that doesn't appear to be have been learned is that the entire Argentine surface navy stayed in port. This included an operational fixed wing carrier.
The reason was the presence of two UK nuclear submarines which emphasised the threat by sinking the Belgrano. The Argentine navy didn't have this capability hence the UK carriers survived.
The UK still has that capability.
One lesson from the Falklands that doesn't appear to be have been learned is that the entire Argentine surface navy stayed in port. This included an operational fixed wing carrier.
The reason was the presence of two UK nuclear submarines which emphasised the threat by sinking the Belgrano. The Argentine navy didn't have this capability hence the UK carriers survived.
The UK still has that capability.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: lahndahn
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very eloquent and insightful post from Process Monkey. He alluded to the future in his post. THIS IS NOT OVER YET. PR11 has yet to complete, it appears PR12 may be even worse and SDSR 2015 is yet to come. The RN has been mauled yet again and some valuable RAF capabilities have been lost but, lets be clear, there is worse to come. It is likely that in the next 10 years, GR4, Sentry, Puma and a whole host of other capabilities will go. Anyone who is not "special" or operating UAVs will be a financial liability. Those left in after the upcoming round of redundancies, will be working in an RN/RAF/Army, totally different from the one which they joined. Allowances will be squeezed, Harmony will be more strict, Redundancy (don't forget there are 3 tranches) will be less valuable etc etc.
IMHO, JCA will never fly of CVF. The government quite clearly does not want it and the RAF will fight to kill it off in SDSR 2015/2020. The very existence of CVF with Dave is in itself a threat to RAF based around Typhoon. The RN will consist of DD/FFs and a few Submarines and the RAF will be based around Typhoon/Dave with a growing number of UAVs. Only Truckies and SH will remain manned after 2020. The Army will be smaller, much smaller.
Those who get out now, will be the lucky ones, those who stay, will be wishing they had gone earlier. Defence is not a vote winner and the next general election will be very interesting. Once the UK has left AFG, then the big cuts will come. Even with the 'lunatic' decisions that have been made already, there are still ŁBillions left to save and the New Employment Model will have these pages alight with rage!
Am I being over dramatic or realistic? Time will tell. For those of you who are still left in, I wish you well and hope you make the right decision based on the evidence.
IMHO, JCA will never fly of CVF. The government quite clearly does not want it and the RAF will fight to kill it off in SDSR 2015/2020. The very existence of CVF with Dave is in itself a threat to RAF based around Typhoon. The RN will consist of DD/FFs and a few Submarines and the RAF will be based around Typhoon/Dave with a growing number of UAVs. Only Truckies and SH will remain manned after 2020. The Army will be smaller, much smaller.
Those who get out now, will be the lucky ones, those who stay, will be wishing they had gone earlier. Defence is not a vote winner and the next general election will be very interesting. Once the UK has left AFG, then the big cuts will come. Even with the 'lunatic' decisions that have been made already, there are still ŁBillions left to save and the New Employment Model will have these pages alight with rage!
Am I being over dramatic or realistic? Time will tell. For those of you who are still left in, I wish you well and hope you make the right decision based on the evidence.
ORAC
The focus on a future Falklands scenario is indeed a bit odd, but since the retirement of the Sea Harrier, many have said that Harrier GR9 + Sea King ASACS would be as capable as Sea Harrier FRS1 with no AEW.
Also surely deterring future agression consists of showing political interest/will, have forces to defeat a suprise attack, and have the means to reinforce/send a task group?
What about future events in the Gulf of Aden (targets in Yemen or Somalia) or perhaps the stand off with Iran over their nuclear programme? From the border with Iraq to the one with Pakistan, Iran has something like 1400 miles of coast - all of which us next to busy shipping routes. Now imagine that Srael has attacked and all the Gulf states are refusing to let their airfields be used by the West, or possibly the UN security council has voted for sanctions, enforced by maritime interdiction operations. Iran vows to strike at the forces stopping and searching vesels. They've threated some mining.
Because of the length of coast, and the sheer number of ports, the forces doing MIOPS are spread thinly. A small UK, consisting of a frigate, a destroyer, and some MCMVs, is operating some distance from the nearest allied air base, but only a few minutes flying time from an Iranian airfield. Strict ROE are in force to prevent a Iran Air 655 tragedy.
What appears to be a large aircraft is approaching the group, which has no way of intercepting it or getting a positive ID. Minutes later, a salvo of anti ship missiles is inbound. Has this been a good day for the "no unexpected events are predicted for ten years" defence policy?
They can also no longer drop LGBs on hostile vessels, and helicopters can only operate under the protection of ships' weapons.
The focus on a future Falklands scenario is indeed a bit odd, but since the retirement of the Sea Harrier, many have said that Harrier GR9 + Sea King ASACS would be as capable as Sea Harrier FRS1 with no AEW.
Also surely deterring future agression consists of showing political interest/will, have forces to defeat a suprise attack, and have the means to reinforce/send a task group?
What about future events in the Gulf of Aden (targets in Yemen or Somalia) or perhaps the stand off with Iran over their nuclear programme? From the border with Iraq to the one with Pakistan, Iran has something like 1400 miles of coast - all of which us next to busy shipping routes. Now imagine that Srael has attacked and all the Gulf states are refusing to let their airfields be used by the West, or possibly the UN security council has voted for sanctions, enforced by maritime interdiction operations. Iran vows to strike at the forces stopping and searching vesels. They've threated some mining.
Because of the length of coast, and the sheer number of ports, the forces doing MIOPS are spread thinly. A small UK, consisting of a frigate, a destroyer, and some MCMVs, is operating some distance from the nearest allied air base, but only a few minutes flying time from an Iranian airfield. Strict ROE are in force to prevent a Iran Air 655 tragedy.
What appears to be a large aircraft is approaching the group, which has no way of intercepting it or getting a positive ID. Minutes later, a salvo of anti ship missiles is inbound. Has this been a good day for the "no unexpected events are predicted for ten years" defence policy?
They can also no longer drop LGBs on hostile vessels, and helicopters can only operate under the protection of ships' weapons.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 31st Oct 2010 at 11:38.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, the old "We'll reinforce using the Air Bridge" gag......and if they take MPA? Oh, appears your argument fell over at the first hurdle. I'm gob-smacked some of you actually will run this tripe. Did you get through ACSC just gaffing off the whole idea of Theatre Entry and lack of Host Nation Support?
As I say, it's the 0.1%..........
As I say, it's the 0.1%..........
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Numbers talk. There aren't enough GR7/9s to support 2 campaigns. If the force is committed to support Afghanistan then the possibility of a second combat capable force at the same time is zero. So forget any fantasy of a carrier force in the Gulf or anywhere else. I repeat - THERE AREN'T ENOUGH AIRCRAFT.
The only possibility of the UK supporting the Afghanistan campaign plus having a small, and I mean small, extra force able to cover any emergency such as having to reinforce MPA was by keeping the GR4s.
If one force had to go, binning the Harrier was the right, and only, choice.
So weep for the FAA and their future if you wish, but please look at the facts and don't let another generation of Navy staff go forward with a chip on their shoulders about how the RAF "did in" the Harrier just to spite them.
The only possibility of the UK supporting the Afghanistan campaign plus having a small, and I mean small, extra force able to cover any emergency such as having to reinforce MPA was by keeping the GR4s.
If one force had to go, binning the Harrier was the right, and only, choice.
So weep for the FAA and their future if you wish, but please look at the facts and don't let another generation of Navy staff go forward with a chip on their shoulders about how the RAF "did in" the Harrier just to spite them.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cobblers....
Right. Let's talk FE@R shall we? For the uninitiated, that's Force Elements at Readiness. Go ask the RAF how many Typhoon they could get serviceable on any given day last week. Serviceable and 'operational'. Ask how many GR4 were serviceable and operational, including in KAF. Might be sobering for all the money the taxpayer has spent.
Harrier may not have been a panacea but last time I checked it only had one person in the cockpit, they were operationally experienced in Afghanistan and ........they can fly off an aircraft carrier. Which is the only reason why the RAF wants rid of them. And any of you who don't believe that are utter fools. Sorry but there it is - and the CAS/preceding CAS and CDS are all ex-GR Tornado.........at least have the good grace to admit a game well played. But don't try and dress this up as Capability led because that would be an insult.
Harrier may not have been a panacea but last time I checked it only had one person in the cockpit, they were operationally experienced in Afghanistan and ........they can fly off an aircraft carrier. Which is the only reason why the RAF wants rid of them. And any of you who don't believe that are utter fools. Sorry but there it is - and the CAS/preceding CAS and CDS are all ex-GR Tornado.........at least have the good grace to admit a game well played. But don't try and dress this up as Capability led because that would be an insult.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Ask how many GR4 were serviceable and operational, including in KAF. Might be sobering for all the money the taxpayer has spent.
Harrier may not have been a panacea but last time I checked it only had one person in the cockpit, they were operationally experienced in Afghanistan and ........they can fly off an aircraft carrier. Which is the only reason why the RAF wants rid of them. And any of you who don't believe that are utter fools.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chips...Shoulders...
Which I suppose will make a pleasant change, handing over the relay baton (or should that be chip?) to the RN.
After all, for a whole career generation of Light Blue sharp and pointy ("no one who is not an FJ pilot has the mental wherewithall to make it at Flag / Air / Field rank" IIRC) drivers - Op Corporate must sit in the corporate memory as a burning reminder that they weren't invited to the party and not necessary to victory.
Let's not forget the heavy RAF commitment from the Nimrod, AT, AAR, Canberra, Vulcan, Harrier & Chinook fleets, plus Rocks with Rapier - together with all of Ascension...
...but without intending to decry any individual - it was after all a command decision - where were the Phantom, Buccaneer or Jaguar fleets?
(PS - I do appreciate the commitment to RAFG strike & NATO).
I'll just transition to Bikini State Amber now, and await the incoming.
After all, for a whole career generation of Light Blue sharp and pointy ("no one who is not an FJ pilot has the mental wherewithall to make it at Flag / Air / Field rank" IIRC) drivers - Op Corporate must sit in the corporate memory as a burning reminder that they weren't invited to the party and not necessary to victory.
Let's not forget the heavy RAF commitment from the Nimrod, AT, AAR, Canberra, Vulcan, Harrier & Chinook fleets, plus Rocks with Rapier - together with all of Ascension...
...but without intending to decry any individual - it was after all a command decision - where were the Phantom, Buccaneer or Jaguar fleets?
(PS - I do appreciate the commitment to RAFG strike & NATO).
I'll just transition to Bikini State Amber now, and await the incoming.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allegedly, there was an alternate plan that had Buccs and Phantoms on standby and that fleet limitations due to weather prevented that plan being actioned. Alternatively, if you have a chip on your shoulder you could claim it was the RN trying to buy the show that prevented their deployment.
After all, for a whole career generation of Light Blue sharp and pointy ("no one who is not an FJ pilot has the mental wherewithall to make it at Flag / Air / Field rank" IIRC) drivers - Op Corporate must sit in the corporate memory as a burning reminder that they weren't invited to the party and not necessary to victory
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason that the Harrier was cancelled is because of RAPTOR. It was an entire toss of a coin with the decision made at the last minute... The Tornado has RAPTOR and so won the vote
And it's established in HERRICK today. And if you got rid of the GR4 force then there would have been 3-4 times as many people to re-train/pay off/chop.
It's a tough decision, but it's been made. Some dark days ahead for the FAA
It's a tough decision, but it's been made. Some dark days ahead for the FAA
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRITAIN’S FAST JET FORCES – NATIONAL INTEREST VERSUS VESTED INTEREST.
BRITAIN?S FAST JET FORCES ? NATIONAL INTEREST VERSUS VESTED INTEREST. The Phoenix Think Tank
Admiral Woodward & Sharkey Ward Petition to save the Harrier
After the Prime Minister made public the appalling decision to withdraw the Harrier from Naval and RAF service, my son Kris managed to raise the issue with him and in doing so hit the headlines. We wish to put pressure on the Prime Minister and the government to reverse this dreadful decision and I am now writing to you with some urgency to ask your assistance by signing the petition online at:
Saving the Harrier
If we do not retain the Harrier in service we shall lose all the expertise that is so necessary for operating from an aircraft carrier (over 90 years of dedication, huge combat success and the loss of countless lives in peace time and in war will have been in vain). Such expertise cannot be “reinvented” overnight. It would probably take decades to achieve this.
Hopefully, you will feel it appropriate to help publicise this petition request as a matter of urgency and pass it on to all your friends and colleagues and ask them to do the same.
http://www.uknda.org/plugin_news.asp...=732&catid=-1&
BRITAIN?S FAST JET FORCES ? NATIONAL INTEREST VERSUS VESTED INTEREST. The Phoenix Think Tank
Admiral Woodward & Sharkey Ward Petition to save the Harrier
After the Prime Minister made public the appalling decision to withdraw the Harrier from Naval and RAF service, my son Kris managed to raise the issue with him and in doing so hit the headlines. We wish to put pressure on the Prime Minister and the government to reverse this dreadful decision and I am now writing to you with some urgency to ask your assistance by signing the petition online at:
Saving the Harrier
If we do not retain the Harrier in service we shall lose all the expertise that is so necessary for operating from an aircraft carrier (over 90 years of dedication, huge combat success and the loss of countless lives in peace time and in war will have been in vain). Such expertise cannot be “reinvented” overnight. It would probably take decades to achieve this.
Hopefully, you will feel it appropriate to help publicise this petition request as a matter of urgency and pass it on to all your friends and colleagues and ask them to do the same.
http://www.uknda.org/plugin_news.asp...=732&catid=-1&
oldnotbold
Isn't that the same article that you linked to yesterday on one of the many other Harrier / Carrier threads? You may also need to post it on the Future Carriers thread.
Perhaps its time to merge all the carrier / Harrier threads ....
Isn't that the same article that you linked to yesterday on one of the many other Harrier / Carrier threads? You may also need to post it on the Future Carriers thread.
Perhaps its time to merge all the carrier / Harrier threads ....
Gentleman Aviator
eng(ret) ..Op Corporate
... not in any way like 847 instead of 72 then ........
you could claim it was the RN trying to buy the show that prevented their deployment.