Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Another urban myth.....busted!
Thanks TEEEJ/RLE, I wasn't aware of that. Serves me right for believing crewroom gossip. Please accept my apologies.
Thanks TEEEJ/RLE, I wasn't aware of that. Serves me right for believing crewroom gossip. Please accept my apologies.
What would a freedom on information act request about the advice taken pre SDSR reveal? Were the subject matter experts regarding carrier operations listened to?
At the decommisioning ceremony, the First Sea Lord spoke of the need to concentrate on recreating carrier strike capability - surely that is what we are throwing away? As a former CVS Captain (during periods of intense operational flying), he must feel incredibly bitter at the way things have turned out, and the way in which those with experience of carrier operations were ignored.
RLE
Is the simulator at Wittering?
At the decommisioning ceremony, the First Sea Lord spoke of the need to concentrate on recreating carrier strike capability - surely that is what we are throwing away? As a former CVS Captain (during periods of intense operational flying), he must feel incredibly bitter at the way things have turned out, and the way in which those with experience of carrier operations were ignored.
RLE
Is the simulator at Wittering?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just Another Jockey stated:-
"If the FAA are so important for the Navy, perhaps they should stump up the costs required to keep the Harrier flying? They seem happy to decimate their surface fleet for 2 carriers, so who'd miss another frigate or sub?"
Given the angst on the two current Nimrod threads one could equally pose a similair question to the Air Force. The cost of the PFI deal to fund the AAR Tanker deal is far greater than the operating costs now deemed too great to bring Nimrod into service
"If the FAA are so important for the Navy, perhaps they should stump up the costs required to keep the Harrier flying? They seem happy to decimate their surface fleet for 2 carriers, so who'd miss another frigate or sub?"
Given the angst on the two current Nimrod threads one could equally pose a similair question to the Air Force. The cost of the PFI deal to fund the AAR Tanker deal is far greater than the operating costs now deemed too great to bring Nimrod into service
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
Would this be the same 1SL who expressed the view at Yeovilton that things would now be better and simpler with the RAF operating the aircraft and the RN operating the ships?
Probably a very stark reminder that the COs of CVS, along with the majority of their (almost exclusively rotary) Cdr (Air)s knew alot about how to pass on snide remarks about slot times and DL technique but absolutely nothing about what strikers did once out of the CCZ.
As for the (dark blue) SO1 and above cadre in MoD and NCHQ, how many are Fixed Wing experienced? I make it 2.
Would this be the same 1SL who expressed the view at Yeovilton that things would now be better and simpler with the RAF operating the aircraft and the RN operating the ships?
Probably a very stark reminder that the COs of CVS, along with the majority of their (almost exclusively rotary) Cdr (Air)s knew alot about how to pass on snide remarks about slot times and DL technique but absolutely nothing about what strikers did once out of the CCZ.
As for the (dark blue) SO1 and above cadre in MoD and NCHQ, how many are Fixed Wing experienced? I make it 2.
Last edited by orca; 4th Feb 2011 at 17:26.
ORCA
Amen shippers. Same 1SL who said "I don't care whose flying the jets as long as we've got the ships" to a FAA audience....?
FW has been betrayed from the very top of the RN, who simply don't understand what we do and how we do it (did). Sadly this probably means that the Crabs have the upper hand, and hopes of seeing a FW FAA return are just a pipe dream.
And for that reason, I'm out.
Amen shippers. Same 1SL who said "I don't care whose flying the jets as long as we've got the ships" to a FAA audience....?
FW has been betrayed from the very top of the RN, who simply don't understand what we do and how we do it (did). Sadly this probably means that the Crabs have the upper hand, and hopes of seeing a FW FAA return are just a pipe dream.
And for that reason, I'm out.
Ark Royal Query
The RN used to have a destroyer (HMS Bristol?????) moored as a sea cadet training facility. This ship provided training facilities for the cadet forces in general and was very popular.
If the RN wants to keep the Ark, why not swop them over and moor Ark Royal alongside as the training ship?
There would be cost differences but not prohibitively so. The carrier would provide a substantial increase in training and accommodation space and the hangar deck would provide 'all weather' training, whilst the flight deck would be available for sports and a raft (no pun intended) of other uses.
Given the speed with which the RN got its act together in 1982, recovery of Ark Royal could be achieved quickly, particularly if any changes made for the training ship role were always considered against her status as an 'immediate reserve'.
Just a thought - splice the mainbrace and all that stuff; off to walk the dogs now.
Old Duffer
If the RN wants to keep the Ark, why not swop them over and moor Ark Royal alongside as the training ship?
There would be cost differences but not prohibitively so. The carrier would provide a substantial increase in training and accommodation space and the hangar deck would provide 'all weather' training, whilst the flight deck would be available for sports and a raft (no pun intended) of other uses.
Given the speed with which the RN got its act together in 1982, recovery of Ark Royal could be achieved quickly, particularly if any changes made for the training ship role were always considered against her status as an 'immediate reserve'.
Just a thought - splice the mainbrace and all that stuff; off to walk the dogs now.
Old Duffer
O-D
I suspect Ark Royal would be too big for Bristol's berth.
In any case, in a sudden crisis we should have a carrier in service - Illustrious is being retained until 2014, when hopfully Queen Elizabeth will enter service. The problem will be whether we can find any Harriers, and people to fly and maintain them.....
orca
Surely any input from anyone with experience of carrier operations would be better than none? I suspect the SDSR had no such input. Even if they lack knowledge of exactly what fixed wing dudes do outside the CCZ, surely they would know enough about what goes on inside it and on the deck/throughout the ship to tell them of how the idea that you can pick up the baton after a decade of having no carrier operations is pure fantasy.
I suspect Ark Royal would be too big for Bristol's berth.
In any case, in a sudden crisis we should have a carrier in service - Illustrious is being retained until 2014, when hopfully Queen Elizabeth will enter service. The problem will be whether we can find any Harriers, and people to fly and maintain them.....
orca
Surely any input from anyone with experience of carrier operations would be better than none? I suspect the SDSR had no such input. Even if they lack knowledge of exactly what fixed wing dudes do outside the CCZ, surely they would know enough about what goes on inside it and on the deck/throughout the ship to tell them of how the idea that you can pick up the baton after a decade of having no carrier operations is pure fantasy.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 10th Feb 2011 at 17:49.
I was in the dockyard at Pompey at the Weekend, it was sad to see Ark Royal tied up, awaiting her fate. Likewise Endurance. I have also been doing other things that have underlined the point about sklls being perishible - and a reminder that the skills needed for fixed wing carrier aviation do not stop at the carrier, with many others in other ships being involved.
Hmmm....
Hmmm....
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the skills needed for fixed wing carrier aviation do not stop at the carrier"
Spot on but re the carrier(s) by going for "cats and traps" we now also need to re-learn skills that were lost in 1978 never mind the ones being lost by chopping the Harrier!
Out of interest, anyone hazard a guess as to who briefed the PM on the use of the US Navy cats and traps lingo
Spot on but re the carrier(s) by going for "cats and traps" we now also need to re-learn skills that were lost in 1978 never mind the ones being lost by chopping the Harrier!
Out of interest, anyone hazard a guess as to who briefed the PM on the use of the US Navy cats and traps lingo
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
""In any case, in a sudden crisis we should have a carrier in service - Illustrious is being retained until 2014, when hopfully Queen Elizabeth will enter service. The problem will be whether we can find any Harriers, and people to fly and maintain them.....""
FYI - the Harrier was over and gone at the end of 15th Dec 2010.(good day, but rather sad)
It is not coming back.......
end of.
FYI - the Harrier was over and gone at the end of 15th Dec 2010.(good day, but rather sad)
It is not coming back.......
end of.
Out of interest, anyone hazard a guess as to who briefed the PM on the use of the US Navy cats and traps lingo?
No idea, but I suspect it wasn't a British Admiral.
Anyway, this story from Robert Fox may be of some interest:
The crisis spreading across the Middle East, particularly the Gulf, as well as the major spring offensive coming up in Helmand, is causing a major rethink, and possible revision, of some of the proposals laid down in last October's Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The vulnerability of Bahrain, a key naval base for western allied operations in the upper Gulf, is causing a rethink of naval strategy. It is the home of the US 5th Fleet, and the British services make a major contribution to the international headquarters there.
The vulnerability of shore naval bases in the Gulf and the Mediterranean has boosted the case for the acquisition of two large aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. Under the defence review the existing light carriers,such as HMS Ark Royal, are being phased out.
No idea, but I suspect it wasn't a British Admiral.
Anyway, this story from Robert Fox may be of some interest:
The crisis spreading across the Middle East, particularly the Gulf, as well as the major spring offensive coming up in Helmand, is causing a major rethink, and possible revision, of some of the proposals laid down in last October's Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The vulnerability of Bahrain, a key naval base for western allied operations in the upper Gulf, is causing a rethink of naval strategy. It is the home of the US 5th Fleet, and the British services make a major contribution to the international headquarters there.
The vulnerability of shore naval bases in the Gulf and the Mediterranean has boosted the case for the acquisition of two large aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. Under the defence review the existing light carriers,such as HMS Ark Royal, are being phased out.
If we run out of friends in the middle east, why would we even be bothered about our ability to project power there? It's not as if they're going to stop selling us oil or gas - we'd just have to pay the same rate the rest of the world pays. Perhaps it's about time we stopped trying to play the big man.
Recent events have proved that unepected events do happen. Regime change may well result in a country being taken over by an unfriendly regime (think back to the Iranian revolution), a failed state situation (Yemen?) or possibly Civil War (Libya?) or simply providing Host Nation Support for Western forces being a politial no-no.
Yet the SDSR assumed that HNS will always be provided during this decade. That assumption doesn't look so sensible now.
Yet the SDSR assumed that HNS will always be provided during this decade. That assumption doesn't look so sensible now.
And even if we still had our slack handful of GR9s what exactly would you recommend doing WEBF???? Come on, let's hear what the mighty armchair Admirals view is. Bet it involves lots of carriers (that we don't have), lots of carrier aircraft (which we don't have), all that require money (which we don't have).
We are not, and haven't been for a very long time, a world power of sufficient might to make "unfriendly regimes" or failed states quiver. Let's leave them be and return UK to being 'Fortress UK'. It's all we can afford at the moment!
And what is wrong with Gib anyway? Flown from there loads of times - ok, it's a short runway (bigger than a carrier....) but there's loads of ramp space!
And Kenya have supported us in HoA ops before so that's Yemen sorted. Next ....
We are not, and haven't been for a very long time, a world power of sufficient might to make "unfriendly regimes" or failed states quiver. Let's leave them be and return UK to being 'Fortress UK'. It's all we can afford at the moment!
And what is wrong with Gib anyway? Flown from there loads of times - ok, it's a short runway (bigger than a carrier....) but there's loads of ramp space!
And Kenya have supported us in HoA ops before so that's Yemen sorted. Next ....
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrathmonk
Lets assume that we don't have the money and will instead defend "Fortress UK". What might RAF fast air contract to on this basis? Even a couple of Squadrons of Typhoons would seem a lot in view of the likely direct threat.
Our politicians have not ceased to appear on TV expressing concern about changes in the structure of other States. It's seems reasonable to assume they still consider armed intervention (or the threat of) might still be needed sometime in the future.
Lets assume that we don't have the money and will instead defend "Fortress UK". What might RAF fast air contract to on this basis? Even a couple of Squadrons of Typhoons would seem a lot in view of the likely direct threat.
Our politicians have not ceased to appear on TV expressing concern about changes in the structure of other States. It's seems reasonable to assume they still consider armed intervention (or the threat of) might still be needed sometime in the future.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Barnsley
Age: 64
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Axing the Harrier
When our Prime Minister David Cameron his mate Mr Foxy stood up and gave their reasons for the recent defence cuts, they both stated they took senior military advice on the Harrier, Nimrod, and other cuts. So if any very senior Military types are reading these threads who think they are politically savvy trying to crawl up the senior political arses you are not. Recent events in the Middle East which let’s be frank have kind of come out of the blue, has somewhat change the picture and its developing fast. Evidence seen on the news this morning as Mr Foxy is trying to shift the blame for the scrapping of Nimrod back on to the MoD and Senior Military advisors, so senior Military advisors be pre-pared to be F**ked up the arse by Political types. I am no expert just an ex SNCO Stacker and I am not here to say if keeping the Harrier is right or wrong, but in this changing times it would be better to have the Harrier rather than not have the Harrier. I am in the Model and Hobby import business and was invited to attend the arrival of a Nimrod MR2 at Elvington Museum which turned up looking like something straight out of the Toy box and clean and full of fuel with fully maintained engines and other oily bits and loads of spares and towing equipment. 4 or 5 of these aircraft have been given to Museums in this condition with nice runways attached, we all had a good chuckle stating if the RAF were in the ****, they could always ask for them back. Stranger things have happened in build up to war and problems; remember the RAF had to go begging to museums and other gaffs to get Vulcan spares just to get a few Vulcan bombers to hit Stanley. What’s going on now between Politicians and Senior Military types is better than a bloody comedy on telly, but it will be no comedy for the boys and girls who will have to do the operation that will come out of this crisis.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrathmonk,
If WEBF was suggesting we should sail carriers around fixing the world, I didn't read it at face value. He simply commented that HNS might be a challenge at this moment in time and possibly for the immediate future.
Maybe the point is that at a time when the UK is highly reliant on bases all through a region that is in a state of flux, we should have options.
If you remove options, you remove choice. You could still play the fortress Britain game but still be able to go and do other things if different decisions had been made - Harrier versus Tornado being but one of them.
We will never just be doing 'island defence'; certainly not while we still aspire to play at the highest level and have national responsibilities around the globe.
SDSR took away, in an almost entirely incoherent way, capabilities that have left many loose ends flapping the wind. Air assets that must have a piece of land to operate from is but one of them, but it doesn't make it any less of a point.
If WEBF was suggesting we should sail carriers around fixing the world, I didn't read it at face value. He simply commented that HNS might be a challenge at this moment in time and possibly for the immediate future.
Maybe the point is that at a time when the UK is highly reliant on bases all through a region that is in a state of flux, we should have options.
If you remove options, you remove choice. You could still play the fortress Britain game but still be able to go and do other things if different decisions had been made - Harrier versus Tornado being but one of them.
We will never just be doing 'island defence'; certainly not while we still aspire to play at the highest level and have national responsibilities around the globe.
SDSR took away, in an almost entirely incoherent way, capabilities that have left many loose ends flapping the wind. Air assets that must have a piece of land to operate from is but one of them, but it doesn't make it any less of a point.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our politicians have not ceased to appear on TV expressing concern about changes in the structure of other States. It's seems reasonable to assume they still consider armed intervention (or the threat of) might still be needed sometime in the future.
Cameron is a wet lipped buffoon who looks like he should be playing a trombone in a Lurpak advert, Hague is little boy lost, you can't even hear him let alone make sense of what he is on about. No British politician has any authority, I doubt they are even real people.