Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recent events might now rule out the base closures and further reductions to the GR4 fleet being hinted at under PR11.
I am sure the Navy will also and quite correctly be pointing out the worth of some more Frigates if a presence is now needed again in the Med on a permanent basis.
If this does drag on and the RAF can't cope with 8 fast jet Squadrons, the only answer would be to re-activate Harrier as it's all that would be available! That is unless our allies fill the gaps over Afghanistan if we need the aircraft.
I am sure the Navy will also and quite correctly be pointing out the worth of some more Frigates if a presence is now needed again in the Med on a permanent basis.
If this does drag on and the RAF can't cope with 8 fast jet Squadrons, the only answer would be to re-activate Harrier as it's all that would be available! That is unless our allies fill the gaps over Afghanistan if we need the aircraft.
Sharkey seems to have an audience in certain corners of the press so it's a good job some commentators have rebutted his rantings. Seriously, FAA chaps - he is embarrassing you now, someone tell him to stop before his claptrap gets published in the press and he gets ridiculed!
The job would be countering what they'd print, in the minds of a large chunk of the population. I can just imagine the stock public perception then; "Yeah, they're great them little 'arriers, me and my boy saw one at Saathend last year! This government don't know what its doin' an 'at!"
That said, as I've said before here on pprune, like most people here, I think the Illustrious and Ark Royal would have made a worthwhile contribution with the Harriers as a quick response C.A.S. capability, once the carrier(s) reached the med. However, as a superior alternative to the GR4, no way. I've noticed that someone else has picked up on the point that if the GR4s had been given their marching orders in the SDSR, the GR9s would have been way overstretched maintaining a deployment in Afghanistan. Far to stretched for anything else I'd have thought, with only one R.A.F. sqn and a big F.A.A. one called the Naval Strike Wing.
FB
Last edited by Finningley Boy; 21st Mar 2011 at 21:44. Reason: update text
Libya: axed Harriers 'could have saved lives
A former senior Harrier commander tells Channel 4 News the US Navy's use of the jets against Colonel Gaddafi shows the British Government was wrong to scrap Britain's sea-based air power.
The Government is facing renewed calls from former senior military personnel to rethink its programme of defence cuts as operations in Libya threaten to expose Britain's weaknesses.
The decision to scrap the UK's last aircraft carrier, the Ark Royal, along with the Harrier jump jet - the last plane capable of flying from the decks of ships - has been strongly criticised by ex-RAF and Navy commanders.
The lack of a sea-based strike option initially left the RAF with no choice but to fly sorties from bases in the UK, sending Tornado jets on 3,000-mile round trips at a cost of £200,000 per aircraft, according to estimates from analysts.
The RAF bombing raid from RAF Marham in Norfolk on Saturday night is thought to be the longest single sortie since the Falklands War, entailing an eight-hour round trip.
David Cameron has told the House of Commons that two Typhoon jets have now been sent to a military base in southern Italy, 25 minutes flying time from the Libyan coast.
Commodore Steven Jermy, who flew Harriers from HMS Invincible during the Falklands war and was later Strategy Director in the British Embassy in Kabul, said the 600-mile trip from Italy to eastern Libya will make it impossible for the fighters to respond quickly enough to the changing situation.
He told Channel 4 News: "You can't do it like that. It's a ridiculous idea. Speaking as a naval aviator, it is a technical triumph, because it is such a long way.
"But what they are calling a tactical triumph is a reflection of a strategic shortfall.
"The advantage of being 40 miles off the coast is that the aircraft will be on deck alert in ten minutes."
"What we are seeing is that the Americans have got what is essentially an aircraft carrier off the coast. The French will have one in a short time. The best we can do is operate 600 miles away.
"You just can't do it. You can't manage a combat air patrol from that distance. We struggled in the Falklands when we were 150 miles off the coast."
Also discussed here on ARRSE.
Here as well - this one also mentions Nimrod.
In other news, Yemen seems to be slipping towards civil war and becoming a failed state. Another theatre for the war against terror?
Another thought - after this campaign, will there be "lessons learnt"?
A former senior Harrier commander tells Channel 4 News the US Navy's use of the jets against Colonel Gaddafi shows the British Government was wrong to scrap Britain's sea-based air power.
The Government is facing renewed calls from former senior military personnel to rethink its programme of defence cuts as operations in Libya threaten to expose Britain's weaknesses.
The decision to scrap the UK's last aircraft carrier, the Ark Royal, along with the Harrier jump jet - the last plane capable of flying from the decks of ships - has been strongly criticised by ex-RAF and Navy commanders.
The lack of a sea-based strike option initially left the RAF with no choice but to fly sorties from bases in the UK, sending Tornado jets on 3,000-mile round trips at a cost of £200,000 per aircraft, according to estimates from analysts.
The RAF bombing raid from RAF Marham in Norfolk on Saturday night is thought to be the longest single sortie since the Falklands War, entailing an eight-hour round trip.
David Cameron has told the House of Commons that two Typhoon jets have now been sent to a military base in southern Italy, 25 minutes flying time from the Libyan coast.
Commodore Steven Jermy, who flew Harriers from HMS Invincible during the Falklands war and was later Strategy Director in the British Embassy in Kabul, said the 600-mile trip from Italy to eastern Libya will make it impossible for the fighters to respond quickly enough to the changing situation.
He told Channel 4 News: "You can't do it like that. It's a ridiculous idea. Speaking as a naval aviator, it is a technical triumph, because it is such a long way.
"But what they are calling a tactical triumph is a reflection of a strategic shortfall.
"The advantage of being 40 miles off the coast is that the aircraft will be on deck alert in ten minutes."
"What we are seeing is that the Americans have got what is essentially an aircraft carrier off the coast. The French will have one in a short time. The best we can do is operate 600 miles away.
"You just can't do it. You can't manage a combat air patrol from that distance. We struggled in the Falklands when we were 150 miles off the coast."
Also discussed here on ARRSE.
Here as well - this one also mentions Nimrod.
In other news, Yemen seems to be slipping towards civil war and becoming a failed state. Another theatre for the war against terror?
Another thought - after this campaign, will there be "lessons learnt"?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 21st Mar 2011 at 23:33.
All this adds up to WEBF, with the Yemen now and whatever else, is our Armed Forces are too small. Years of overstretch and piecemeal defence cuts since John Major's time at No. 10 are the reason. And its the same old story, nobody could imagine anything coming round the corner, no matter how often something has been found waiting around the corner.
FB
FB
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB,
'the GR9s would have been way overstretched maintaining a deployment in Afghanistan'
In fairness, the GR7/9's were in Afghan 5+ years and so were maintaining a sustained operation!! They were certainly not overstretched and were more than capable maintaining the commitment for another 5+ years.....it's just that they could sustain little more 'capability' (carrier, night LL etc) whilst this commitment continued. A subtle, but important, difference. It is also worth mentioning that, despite being less than 1/2 the size of the GR4 force, JFH could, arguably, field more serviceable ac on an average day!
FWIIW, the two airframes were complementary. GR4, better at deep strike and the all weather LL capability. GR9, better CAS platform and better at ops from austere bases/carriers. I know which platform I would take given the choice but this doesn't make one 'better' than the other. The reason behind the axeing of the GR9 was pure and simple. Not money. Politics.
'the GR9s would have been way overstretched maintaining a deployment in Afghanistan'
In fairness, the GR7/9's were in Afghan 5+ years and so were maintaining a sustained operation!! They were certainly not overstretched and were more than capable maintaining the commitment for another 5+ years.....it's just that they could sustain little more 'capability' (carrier, night LL etc) whilst this commitment continued. A subtle, but important, difference. It is also worth mentioning that, despite being less than 1/2 the size of the GR4 force, JFH could, arguably, field more serviceable ac on an average day!
FWIIW, the two airframes were complementary. GR4, better at deep strike and the all weather LL capability. GR9, better CAS platform and better at ops from austere bases/carriers. I know which platform I would take given the choice but this doesn't make one 'better' than the other. The reason behind the axeing of the GR9 was pure and simple. Not money. Politics.
It was only a few weeks ago that certain posters on here were arguing for the removal of the entire GR4 force rather than JFH as it would save far more money. This would mean returning the GR9 to AFG ops. Not a problem.
Until Libya pops up.
So had that option been taken and the GR4s were now gathering dust in hangers rather than the GR9s we would have had nothing in the way of ground attack (the Typhoon is not there yet) to offer to this coalition.
Perhaps those who made the SDSR decision did have a bit of foresight after all
.
Standby ....
Yeah but ..... no but ..... yeah but
Until Libya pops up.
it's just that they could sustain little more 'capability' (carrier, night LL etc) whilst this commitment continued
Perhaps those who made the SDSR decision did have a bit of foresight after all
.Standby ....
Yeah but ..... no but ..... yeah but
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not the brightest but Mr S Ws figures seem to omit the cost of fuel being burnt by a carrier getting to/from the Med, then sailing around to get enough wind across the deck to fly with. My rough calc’s based on 103 gallons (blame google if I’m wrong) to the mile make it a hefty JPA MMA claim, add all the other carrier running costs and I can't see the there is much in it. Neither Norway or the Greeks have pitched up with a carrier so why should we..... oh yes it’s because we did in ‘82 and so we must keep doing it because its ‘jobs for the boys and their sons’. As I said I'm not the brightest and I’m happy to be mauled by WEBF on any inaccuracies, but perhaps Mr Sh W and Ld W of Spithead need to accept that we have all moved on and so perhaps they should. I suppose being in retirement means you have a lot of time on your hands to ponder life and reminisce. Maybe they would consider contributing something to the MODs save the harrier fund from their not so small, no doubt unaffected by Lord Hutton, pensions. Sorry for getting ‘carriered’ away!!! 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harrier was retired as Tornado was deemed "essential" for Afghanistan. It was not and nor is it now "essential" for Libya any more than Ark Royal and the Harrier would have been. The fact that we have chosen to add Storm Shadow (ground attack?) over and above the much greater number of TLACM's fired by the US Navy (with a couple from the RN) proves nothing we didn't know already. Tornado can "in extremis" fly from the UK and drop Storm Shadow but the Harrier can't. Harriers can fly from ships Tornado can't. Both can do CAS and can patrol a NFZ.
The question remains why HMG decided to dispense with certain capabilities and why CAS and the other Defence Chiefs agreed! The world scenario imagined by SDSR does not exist and Libya confirms that we still want to be a player. Where might the next crisis take place? What size of bladders will RAF pilots need to keep up the charade that we still have all that is really needed?
The question remains why HMG decided to dispense with certain capabilities and why CAS and the other Defence Chiefs agreed! The world scenario imagined by SDSR does not exist and Libya confirms that we still want to be a player. Where might the next crisis take place? What size of bladders will RAF pilots need to keep up the charade that we still have all that is really needed?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The challenge associated with making the SDSR decision was that it was mandated as a digital 'one or the other' even though a reduction in GR4 whilst retaining GR9 was a sensible option and saved significant ££ if it involved closing Lossie.
Most people who have a balanced view (don't feel compelled to reply Wrathmonk) would suggest that the loss of any capability in toto is not a smart move for a country.
And if we'd had nothing to add to this coalition in the way of A/G because the Harriers were fully committed to HERRICK? So what - I don't recall the go/nogo criteria for the beginning of NFZ ops being GR4.
Aircraft would be happily droning around the Med without GR4 having flown a single mission.
But it's very good that they did.
Most people who have a balanced view (don't feel compelled to reply Wrathmonk) would suggest that the loss of any capability in toto is not a smart move for a country.
And if we'd had nothing to add to this coalition in the way of A/G because the Harriers were fully committed to HERRICK? So what - I don't recall the go/nogo criteria for the beginning of NFZ ops being GR4.
Aircraft would be happily droning around the Med without GR4 having flown a single mission.
But it's very good that they did.
FB11,
We are already losing 2 GR4 sqns IN ADDITION TO the GR9 fleet.
We are also already losing Lossie or Leuchars IN ADDITION TO the GR9 fleet.
To generate another £2Bn (the amount saved by chopping Harrier) would have required the GR4 fleet to have been reduced to far below the 5 operation sqns that we are going to be left with as it is.
You clearly seem to believe that GR4 was protected by GR9's demise - this is simply not true.
We are already losing 2 GR4 sqns IN ADDITION TO the GR9 fleet.
We are also already losing Lossie or Leuchars IN ADDITION TO the GR9 fleet.
To generate another £2Bn (the amount saved by chopping Harrier) would have required the GR4 fleet to have been reduced to far below the 5 operation sqns that we are going to be left with as it is.
You clearly seem to believe that GR4 was protected by GR9's demise - this is simply not true.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"to generate another £2Bn the amount saved by chopping Harrier"
It's HMG's use of "lies, damn lies and statistics" that will see an end to the RAF having any meaningful number of FJ aircraft.
SDSR is a busted flush. Are we now acting like a Country that is broke? Will HMG choose to simply ignore events and treat Libya as one off in the otherwise placid world scene it chose to assume would exist until 2020 to justify cuts
Either we are broke and must stop getting involved in world events as a major player to allow reductions in the Defence Budget or we resource as may now be required.
It's HMG's use of "lies, damn lies and statistics" that will see an end to the RAF having any meaningful number of FJ aircraft.
SDSR is a busted flush. Are we now acting like a Country that is broke? Will HMG choose to simply ignore events and treat Libya as one off in the otherwise placid world scene it chose to assume would exist until 2020 to justify cuts
Either we are broke and must stop getting involved in world events as a major player to allow reductions in the Defence Budget or we resource as may now be required.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Line Entry,
You are correct, I was suggesting that the GR4 could have been reduced to below the 5 squadrons that will remain after June this year.
Cue the harmony discussion.
You are correct, I was suggesting that the GR4 could have been reduced to below the 5 squadrons that will remain after June this year.
Cue the harmony discussion.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Perhaps a Navy type can answer this.
When steering a passage repeatedly around the "waaa, bring back the Harrier" buoy should one keep it to the port or starboard?
When steering a passage repeatedly around the "waaa, bring back the Harrier" buoy should one keep it to the port or starboard?
FB11,
Fair play to you, it's a view!
So from a starting point of 5 GR4 op sqns and an OCU, the qustion is how much would you have to lose to fund 2 GR9 op sqns and a small OCU? Bear in mind that by not deleting an aircraft type (and thus having the management/DE&S/BAES overhead), it's not going to be one for one.
So, at very, very, best, we'd have ended up with 2 Harrier sqns and 2 Tornado sqns, all crammed into Marham as we'd have to claim the savings from stopping ops at Wittering.
As you say, cue the harmony (capability/viability/sensibility) discussion...
Fair play to you, it's a view!
So from a starting point of 5 GR4 op sqns and an OCU, the qustion is how much would you have to lose to fund 2 GR9 op sqns and a small OCU? Bear in mind that by not deleting an aircraft type (and thus having the management/DE&S/BAES overhead), it's not going to be one for one.
So, at very, very, best, we'd have ended up with 2 Harrier sqns and 2 Tornado sqns, all crammed into Marham as we'd have to claim the savings from stopping ops at Wittering.
As you say, cue the harmony (capability/viability/sensibility) discussion...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we not missing the point? Reducing the commitments we envisaged our Armed Forces undertaking was the reason given to scale them back at a time of austerity. We did this on the basis that Afghanistan was all we would be up for pre 2015 with some limited scope for the unexpected. That this has arrived now arrived just adds to the overstretch position we were already facing pre Libya.
If the Defence Chief's then play politics to safeguard the long term, it simply allows the Minister of Defence to say "The UK's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) does not need to be revised in light of the recent upheavals in North Africa and has been vindicated in its adaptive approach"
If the Defence Chief's then play politics to safeguard the long term, it simply allows the Minister of Defence to say "The UK's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) does not need to be revised in light of the recent upheavals in North Africa and has been vindicated in its adaptive approach"
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as if to highlight my point about commitments actual or potential
African leaders who oppress their people will find it increasingly hard to “hide from the world”, William Hague told a Times summit today, as he drew a direct comparison between Colonel Gaddafi and President Mugabe. The leaders of Zimbabwe and Sudan should “take heed of events”, Mr Hague said, predicting the “Arab Spring” will spread south of the Sahara and warning them not to try and attempt to hold back the tide of freedom. The Times reported Mr Hague as saying:
Governments that use violence to stop democratic development will not earn themselves respite forever. They will pay an increasingly high price for actions which they can no longer hide from the world with ease, and will find themselves on the wrong side of history
African leaders who oppress their people will find it increasingly hard to “hide from the world”, William Hague told a Times summit today, as he drew a direct comparison between Colonel Gaddafi and President Mugabe. The leaders of Zimbabwe and Sudan should “take heed of events”, Mr Hague said, predicting the “Arab Spring” will spread south of the Sahara and warning them not to try and attempt to hold back the tide of freedom. The Times reported Mr Hague as saying:
Governments that use violence to stop democratic development will not earn themselves respite forever. They will pay an increasingly high price for actions which they can no longer hide from the world with ease, and will find themselves on the wrong side of history
We did this on the basis that Afghanistan was all we would be up for pre 2015 with some limited scope for the unexpected
Reducing the commitments
.