Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Not biting! But a 3000 mile round trip - surely that's like saying if you only had just lost your leg but managed to hop to get help it proved that the remaining leg is better?

Anyway - something else to look at: Projection of Maritime Power in Libya

[Justanopinion]

Good job the RAF could conduct 3000nm StormShadow sorties without having to wait for their airfield to steam within range

USMC Harriers operating on night one, no waiting for steaming within range required.

[Wrathmonk]

justanopinion

no waiting for steaming within range required

Granted. And when you have more than one you can afford to have them dotted all around the globe ready to react at a 'moments' notice. But when you have one it's very difficult to be in the right place at the right time particularly when

the Libyan thing seems to have popped up overnight

And to add a bit of balance (from an author who seems to have more 'joint' in his family background than many of the other so-called "balanced" media stories posted on here ....)

Libya crisis could scupper British aircraft carriers once and for all | UK News | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.co.uk

Don't get me wrong - I believe we need the future carrier (but I am also in the -C camp not the -B - sorry to all you viff-viff nozzle-nozzle guys and gals). But we are doing fine without it at the moment (and some would argue better) so there is little point in crying over 'spilt milk'. Move on and be thankful at least one carrier has survived the cuts ..... so far

[WE Branch Fanatic]

But how likely is it that the skills (of many) to operate CVF will exist if we have a decade of having no fixed wing aircraft embarked at sea? The MOD have not figured out how to maintain thse skillsets.

Ergo, we should keep embarking aircraft - and Harriers are the only possible ones.

I never attempted to give an ORBAT - so no need to accuse me of missing land based aircraft off of the list. I didn't mention Submarines either. I do genuinely hope this the two operations regarding Libya do get studied by our policy makers - apart from carriers/Harriers there are other issues:

Frigate/Destroyer numbers
Sentinel, Nimrod R1 and other ISTAR aircraft
AAR aircraft
Host Nation Support (Malta was happy to be used as a base for NEO related activities, but no for combat operations - Italy is happy to supply bases but they are still a long way from the target - I can't believe that we pay to use airfields)
The flexibility and responsiveness of land based aircraft via-a-vis shipborne ones*
The political in fighting within NATO

Most importantly of all, where next?

*Going back to that article (who was it by?), it would appear that not everyone who read it agreed. Certainly not the guy who wrote:

Obviously the author is unaware that 60% of the allied aircraft assigned to the Libya operation are based on aircraft carriers which means that at least 80% of the missions are being flown from them as they have only a fifth of the distance to cover.

If it wasn’t for USMC Harriers, other US Navy and French Navy aircraft the operation would probably be close to a non-starter and much less effective.

[Wrathmonk]

But how likely is it that the skills (of many) to operate CVF will exist if we have a decade of having no fixed wing aircraft embarked at sea? The MOD have not figured out how to maintain thse skillsets.

Sorry, but why should they? We will just have to treat the new carriers as a new capability (they will be considerably different after all - cat'n'trap and all that) and take time working up. The RAF will (hopefully) have to do the same thing with Maritime. And yes I know there is more to operating a carrier than the aircraft but the ships company can keep there hands in on other such necessities as fire fighting etc on smaller tubs. Yes, it will be more time consuming (and probably more expensive) in the longer term but at the moment it is our only option. We cannot afford everything we want - it's part of the reason the whole country is in the mess that it is.

Ergo - we should concentrate on the assets left not dillute them further by having the 'nicities' in life. Like delaying the disbandment of the two GR4 squadrons (who are maintaining their skillsets by doing the business for real not just exercising ....)

Sorry WEBF, but you need to get with the real world. Tomorrows battles are all well and good but we've got to win the current ones first.

[herbie5000]

Wrathmonk

Why should they? Because the USN has offered to help in any way it can and MOD realises that the skill sets required take time to generate now we have switched to cat and trap! This is recognised and you will already find personnel in the states, travelling to the states to make it work as you elude to.

Ref winning the current battle, you will find that the RAF announced the disbandment of 2 GR4 squadrons while at the same time saying no aircrew redundancies. The personnel and equipment from the 2 sqns have been redistributed around the rest of the force. So if the force is struggling to to what it said it could do in SDSR, it is doing so with the same force levels minus 2 badges only!!! Hmmmm maybe the reality of picking an old aircraft which struggles to deliver the serviceability required to meet current demands is coming home to roost! How many have turned back for one reason or another from Marham????? Oh the USMC have only 6 jets on and deliver twice the sortie rate(as does the French), killing same targets and maintain deck alert for JRP! Does the RAF believe Brimstone is now the panacea to all its ills? Think you ll find AV8B not struggling to prosecute targets with GBU-12 and JDAM!!!!!!

Buying back or investing further in the poor decisions from SDSR, Typhoon/GR4, just increase our pain. Typhoon not exactly delivering value for money is it?????

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Wrathmonk

You have ignored exactly what skills I was talking about. I meant things like working with live jet aircraft moving about on deck, with fuel and weaponry being moved, and with personnel throughout the carrier doing their bit. That demands the embarkation of fixed wing aircaft.

Illustrious will remain in service until 2014, Queen Elizabeth should enter service soon after. Therefore, we will have a carrier capable of embarking Harriers (or similar). Why not (if nothing else) embark US, Italian, or Spanish AV8Bs? Or would that be to embarassing for the politicians?

herbie

Are the USMC really delivering twice the sortie rate with only six jets from the USS Kearsarge? That's incredible! As is the (unchallenged) claim that 60% of the aircraft dedicated to this operation are carrier (and amphibious vessel) based, and that these have done 80% of the missions. Do you have a source/link for this?

Surely any post Ellamy review will find it hard to overlook this?

And in local news: Hundreds of West Country Royal Marines and naval personnel heading for Libya

[just another jocky]

Originally Posted by herbie5000

Hmmmm maybe the reality of picking an old aircraft which struggles to deliver the serviceability required to meet current demands is coming home to roost!

Can't let you get away with this "Sharkey-ganda" m8. Shame on you.

Originally Posted by herbie5000

Does the RAF believe Brimstone is now the panacea to all its ills? Think you ll find AV8B not struggling to prosecute targets with GBU-12 and JDAM!!!!!!

Do you uinderstand the concept of Rules of Engagement, Collateral Damage and Risk Estimate Distances? If so, you'd realise what a very silly statement that is.

And shouldn't you really drop the "sortie rate" argument in favour of "time on task". How many times an ac takes off and lands is irrelevant (except that ac tend to go u/s more often when they are shut down), it's how long on task they can stay, which is usually down to availability of AR assets.

[FODPlod]

Originally Posted by Wrathmonk

Originally Posted by justanopinion

no waiting for steaming within range required

Granted. And when you have more than one you can afford to have them dotted all around the globe ready to react at a 'moments' notice. But when you have one it's very difficult to be in the right place at the right time particularly when

the Libyan thing seems to have popped up overnight

But it didn't pop up overnight, did it? Things had already kicked off in Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan and Egypt in January. A properly tooled-up carrier deployed to the Med as a contingency could have been 'acclimatising' off Libya by mid to late Feb.

Cameron proposed a No Fly Zone in the House of Commons on 28 Feb (link). UNSCR 1973 was passed on 17 Mar (link) and the carrier would have been ideally placed to assist NEO and whatever else necessary. Had nothing transpired, it could simply have melted away to continue monitoring events in North Africa/the Middle East while providing valuable intelligence.

[Wrathmonk]

Things had already kicked off in Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan and Egypt in January

But what about all the other countries in that region where nothing had kicked off. Personally I thought Libya was the least likely to cause a problem.

the carrier would have been ideally placed to assist NEO

Now this is getting desperate. Talk about cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. And exactly how would they have helped the NEO of those hundreds of miles inland???? CUMB and C130 was more than sufficient. Remember the use of military in a NEO is the absolute last resort - the fact that they were required showed how badly the Foreign Office were caught napping.

A carrier cannot just slink in and slink out like a sub. It's has all its support vessels as well. Not exactly going to sneak through the Gib gap unnoticed. And as I've said before there is a fine line between forward planning (by deploying forces 'just in case') and being accused of 'looking for a fight' (and pi55ing off the UNSC by assuming what the outcome may be i.e presuming any negotitaions will fail).

It's all academic anyway. Capability gaps are, sadly, the norm now (MPA anyone?) and it's down to the politicians and Defence Council to manage the associated 'risk'. So far I would say they are doing ok - we didn't have a carrier ready and have managed perfectly well without one. When we have a carrier available again (of whatever size) then I'm sure they will consider its use in future operations.

WEBF - I fully appreciate there is more to carrier ops than the aircrew and it may well be that AV8B guests in future exercises. But I'm also sure that the differences between aircraft ops on LUST and QEII are so huge that starting from 'scratch' and getting rid of 'bad habits' from years of Harrier ops would not be a bad thing. We'll just have to agree to disagree! Being a realist I know there is no cash available to reinstate the Harrier (without taking a capability gap or cuts elsewhere within MOD) - as for keeping decks warm I suspect the RN will have to find the cash within their 'slice of the pie' at the expense of something else.

[andyy]

In all the debate about HNS, one thing that seems to be conveniently forgotten is that when you deploy strike a/c to a foreign country, that country has the right to approve the target set, as its also implicated in the event of any subsequent investigation over target selection & collateral damage etc, if all goes pear shaped.

You don't need top involve a third party nation in target approvals if you are flying from a Carrier.

As for the stuff that's been written about speed of reaction Vs a Carriers ability to get on station, then that is a limitation but I'd wager not as much as a limitation as having to negoitate with another Government over target selection. And ISTR the the first allied shots of both the Afghan & Libya conflicts involved UK sub launched TLAMs so it is possible for a maritime strike platform in to be in position in reasonable time, whether thats an SSN or a CV.

[just another jocky]

And ISTR the the first allied shots of both the Afghan & Libya conflicts involved UK sub launched TLAMs so it is possible for a maritime strike platform in to be in position in reasonable time, whether thats an SSN or a CV.

Probably because we have more than 1 SSN.

Luckily it was in the vicinity, as it did manage to beat the Tornados after their 3-hour transit from the UK.

[andyy]

JaJ. Oh dear, you have clearly focused upon the less important of my two points & I clearly mentioned that transit/ reaction times were an issue. That said, after Sept 11 the TLAM shooter did have to transit to be in position to fire & that was acceptable BECAUSE THERE WAS NO HNS at the time.

However, the most important point is that HNS means that the host Govt has to be part of the approvals process for the target set; that isn't the case with carrier strike.

[Sashathehungry]

Just as a point for all those who say 'move on' - I quite agree in the short term that the decision is in no way going to be reversed or anything like that (as I'm sure a lot of CS proponents do), but the point is that if we are going to 'do' FW carrier things properly in future this debate needs to carry on. Otherwise we in the RN and RAF will end up shrugging our shoulders when things get difficult and that won't help anyone.

So whilst a sense of frustration - on this thread in particular - from both sides is palpable, bear in mind that this attitude and...er...commitment will ensure that there as few half measures as possible taken in 2016-2020.

[just another jocky]

andyy...you clearly missed my point that the Stormshadow sorties were flown from the UK (highlighted in my original post) so did not require any non-UK approval (except as part of the NATO targetting process). The wait for the launching system to 'arrive' was only 3 hours, as opposed to however long it took for the SSN to 'arrive'.

Anyway, as sasha points out, this is just stone throwing and rather fruitless. We're all in this deep dark hole together.

[Fire 'n' Forget]

Jesus firing 7 TLAMS lucky if they took out half an SA-5 site !

More for political effect than being military significant.

I love the 'Sharkey-ganda' about the HAR on this thread though, the Navy could have kept and paid for it if they wanted too, they didn't so some people need to look closer to home.

[Tourist]

Defence cuts in doubt over Libya, says military adviser - Telegraph

[WE Branch Fanatic]

But sadly from Friday's Telegraph: Libya forces David Cameron to rethink defence cuts

Restoring the Royal Navy’s Harrier jump jets is also ruled out as prohibitively expensive.

Need it be so?

Also: Nick Clegg: defence adjustments will be needed

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says that it is inevitable that changes will be made to the Strategic Defence Review, while Lord West argues that any additional money should be used to reinstate the Harrier Jump Jet.

On a more controversial note from the Gaurdian: Royal Navy airpower offers a far cheaper option overseas than the RAF

Some of the comments are a bit - err - special. Like the rabid one about the Harrier being rusty (carbon fire doesn't rust surely?) and the ones about anti ship missiles - apart from the fact that ships can shoot missiles down, the whole point of carrier aircraft is to carry firepower over the horizon.... They seem to miss that.

A similar thread on Rum Ration notes that: Hell of a lot of ground running going on at Wittering!!!

Incidentally this force of ships etc has not deployed early because of Libya. Honest!

Wrathmonk

WEBF - I fully appreciate there is more to carrier ops than the aircrew and it may well be that AV8B guests in future exercises. But I'm also sure that the differences between aircraft ops on LUST and QEII are so huge that starting from 'scratch' and getting rid of 'bad habits' from years of Harrier ops would not be a bad thing. We'll just have to agree to disagree! Being a realist I know there is no cash available to reinstate the Harrier (without taking a capability gap or cuts elsewhere within MOD) - as for keeping decks warm I suspect the RN will have to find the cash within their 'slice of the pie' at the expense of something else.

I disagree - or do I? Surely cats and traps are only a means to get aircraft into the air and back on deck, but the whole business of moving aircraft about a moving deck, managing limited deck space and the airspace around the carriers, making sure that the ship is in the right place, at the right speed, on the correct bearing and with a lvel deck, communicating with aircraft, operating and maintaining sensors and landing aids, FOD awareness....... These are the same surely?

Anyway, far more experienced people than I have expressed concern:

Bismark

As I am sure has been said elsewhere, the aircraft and pilots just represent the front end of the carrier strike capability. The idiocy of the SDSR decision, which the PM is about to compound in the FR/UK Defence deal (FT Today), is that we risk losing the capability to operate jets off carriers. All of the expertise on the current CVSs will have gone (we are getting rid of the CVSs), the aircrew will have gone (either PVRd, redundant or moved to other aircraft types, the command experience will have gone (as will the met, ATC, FC, deck handlers, planners etc, etc).

Not_a_boffin

While they may be adept at doing the mission plan, launch, mission, recovery thing, they are unlikely to have a great understanding of how to spot a deck, arrange aircraft for servicing vice maintenance, weapons prep and bombing up and how all the various departments both in the squadrons and on the ship work to deliver the sortie rate. People thinking just about aircrew and (to some degree) chockheads are missing the point - it's the corporate experience of how to put it all together that is about to be lost. Nor can that be maintained at HMS Siskin - that just gives the basics of handling, not the fine art of pulling it all together.

As SDSR says "we need a plan to regenerate the necessary skills"- all I can say is it had better be a f8cking good one, cunning eneough to do more than brush your teeth with!

[Biggus]

....and if it's not a good enough plan, what will we do?

Make the best of a bad job as we usually have to, and will any politician notice, care, or be held responsible? I very much doubt it. So don't expect too much, it can only lead to disappointment!

[TurbineTooHot]

Has anyone told Sharkey et al that those Harriers weren't RN but RAF. To reinstate the Navy's jets would mean resurrecting the SHAR.....

Semantics I realise, but who would pay for them if they were pulled from the shed? RAF says no, so where will the money be found from. Has the RN got the flex in their budget?

I know that an obvious answer would be it's the MOD money and therefore it can go wherever, but we all know it's not as easy as that.

And FFS, where does that senile blinkered idiot Ward get his "facts" from. Answers on a postcard.