Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. Harriers' integration did not use the full interface and was done fast and dirty
I fully agree Harrier could have received clearance for carriage, release and jettison of SS and Brimstone - it's just a question of who was willing to pay for it.
Cap Eb testing which had begun and was to be integrated included Brimstone and in a mixed configuration too which is still unmatched by any current UK airframe.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of full integration I meant -ah knackers I can't say any more!!
Harrier interface was not the full 1760 interface, it was tailored to Harrier and not done to the 1760 standard.
That is not to say it didn't work, it means it was a Harrier specific fit. All the usual PW4 bells and whistles were available to it. As Terence found out, to his cost........
Harrier interface was not the full 1760 interface, it was tailored to Harrier and not done to the 1760 standard.
That is not to say it didn't work, it means it was a Harrier specific fit. All the usual PW4 bells and whistles were available to it. As Terence found out, to his cost........
On the subject of Typhoon and Litening pod during Op Ellamy.
The MoD has released some images of Typhoon, serial ZJ924, in Italy.
Interesting that no Litening Pod is fitted on Typhoon ZJ924? The centre-line stores position is empty. Usually a fuel tank or Litening pod is carried. No images have been released of the other Typhoon on the mission.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafi...llery8_big.jpg
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafi...llery9_big.jpg
From
RAF - Typhoon and Tornado
Enhanced Paveway II is dual mode with GPS and Laser guided.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/fea...s01_055757.pdf
Looks like they were doing buddy-buddy targeting on a joint Typhoon/Tornado mission?
RAF - News by Date
TJ
The MoD has released some images of Typhoon, serial ZJ924, in Italy.
Interesting that no Litening Pod is fitted on Typhoon ZJ924? The centre-line stores position is empty. Usually a fuel tank or Litening pod is carried. No images have been released of the other Typhoon on the mission.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafi...llery8_big.jpg
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafi...llery9_big.jpg
From
RAF - Typhoon and Tornado
Enhanced Paveway II is dual mode with GPS and Laser guided.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/fea...s01_055757.pdf
Looks like they were doing buddy-buddy targeting on a joint Typhoon/Tornado mission?
RAF - News by Date
TJ
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hula Hoop
Well said herbie5000 - hopefully that will shut a few people up!
just another jockey, I don't think anyone is doubting your Tornado credentials - more the "hoop" that comes out of peoples' keyboards relating to aircraft that those people have no experience of, and being on the same det or reading Jane's All The World's Aircraft does not count as experience.
GR4 mates should be careful of thinking that they won in the SDSR. I'm sure that they all breathed a massive sigh of relief when the announcement was made. Were it not for the fact that the PM stepped in at the last minute to reduce the amount of savings that the MOD had to make, then the "result" would more than likely have been very different. And if the Harrier had survived to the Tornado's demise, I can pretty much guarantee that you would not have found Harrier mates on here slagging off the GR4 or trying to defend why the Harrier survived. Capability didn't come into it - it was so obviously a numbers game, especially after IV(AC) was disbanded, although it more recently appears that they got their numbers wrong. Fortunately though, this time round, Libya appears to have saved the MOD from even more painful cuts in PR11 and publicly the GR4s and Typhoons are currently doing a great job together - well done! I only wish I was there as well.
The argument is over because the King is dead. Long live the King.
just another jockey, I don't think anyone is doubting your Tornado credentials - more the "hoop" that comes out of peoples' keyboards relating to aircraft that those people have no experience of, and being on the same det or reading Jane's All The World's Aircraft does not count as experience.
GR4 mates should be careful of thinking that they won in the SDSR. I'm sure that they all breathed a massive sigh of relief when the announcement was made. Were it not for the fact that the PM stepped in at the last minute to reduce the amount of savings that the MOD had to make, then the "result" would more than likely have been very different. And if the Harrier had survived to the Tornado's demise, I can pretty much guarantee that you would not have found Harrier mates on here slagging off the GR4 or trying to defend why the Harrier survived. Capability didn't come into it - it was so obviously a numbers game, especially after IV(AC) was disbanded, although it more recently appears that they got their numbers wrong. Fortunately though, this time round, Libya appears to have saved the MOD from even more painful cuts in PR11 and publicly the GR4s and Typhoons are currently doing a great job together - well done! I only wish I was there as well.
The argument is over because the King is dead. Long live the King.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it can kinda use the ASRAAM BVR
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...near-miss.html
Braking Stop
My take on it is that both the Harrier and the GR4 lost two front line squadrons. The difference of course is that for the Harrier that was the entire fleet. The bit that is putting peoples backs up are the views from certain corners (who also have naff all in the way of experience [but perhaps choose a nom de PPRuNe that would suggest otherwise, current company excepted (I think)]
) that put forward the view that the entire GR4 force should have been sacrificed to maintain JFH (or, perhaps, to be more precise fixed wing FAA
). In an ideal world the Jag would not have gone until the Typhoon was fully ground attack capable and the GR9/GR4 would remain at its pre-SDSR (i.e 2008) strength until F35B (or C) came online (and the same could be said for MR2/MRA4, VC10/FSTA, C130/A400 etc etc). Sadly, thanks to some woeful mismanagement across the entire MOD, we do not live in a perfect world and we must get on with life with what we've got. It would have been nice if we had cut our cloth accordingly as far as world domination/policing is concerned but such is life.
The Army must be praying that we put boots on the ground in Libya .... but not until 2015! But if they do go in at what expense will it be to the broader defence .... i.e F35C
Who would work in RP
GR4 mates should be careful of thinking that they won in the SDSR. I'm sure that they all breathed a massive sigh of relief when the announcement was made.
) that put forward the view that the entire GR4 force should have been sacrificed to maintain JFH (or, perhaps, to be more precise fixed wing FAA). In an ideal world the Jag would not have gone until the Typhoon was fully ground attack capable and the GR9/GR4 would remain at its pre-SDSR (i.e 2008) strength until F35B (or C) came online (and the same could be said for MR2/MRA4, VC10/FSTA, C130/A400 etc etc). Sadly, thanks to some woeful mismanagement across the entire MOD, we do not live in a perfect world and we must get on with life with what we've got. It would have been nice if we had cut our cloth accordingly as far as world domination/policing is concerned but such is life.The Army must be praying that we put boots on the ground in Libya .... but not until 2015! But if they do go in at what expense will it be to the broader defence .... i.e F35C
Who would work in RP
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pious...if you are going to throw stones, at least throw them accurately. Check out any of my previous posts, it's quite simple!
Or if you can't be arsed, I'd suspect >20 years flying the GR1/4, >3000hours on type, GW1/2/Herrick.....
Your choice.
Or if you can't be arsed, I'd suspect >20 years flying the GR1/4, >3000hours on type, GW1/2/Herrick.....
Your choice.
What if you meet someone with equal experience but a difference of opinion, how will you ever cope in the real world?
Just inflate your head and float away
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that in case the windscreen is dirty?
to self.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps because the man with the RPG is taking a hell of a chance. Won't the rebels, in this case, need to get within range first of all?
Perhaps you should think what war is meant to be about.
The simple rule for users of RPG's is 'don't miss with your first shot', which means being close. If a chap isn't sufficiently motivated by his cause to take his (quite reasonable, 90%+ first round hit probability) chance against a moving T-72 at 100m, why they hell are you zooming around the sky doing his work for him?
War by proxy rarely brings about lasting change. You'd have thought the west would have realised this by now.
Perhaps you should think what war is meant to be about.
The simple rule for users of RPG's is 'don't miss with your first shot', which means being close. If a chap isn't sufficiently motivated by his cause to take his (quite reasonable, 90%+ first round hit probability) chance against a moving T-72 at 100m, why they hell are you zooming around the sky doing his work for him?
War by proxy rarely brings about lasting change. You'd have thought the west would have realised this by now.
Pious - it was a statement of fact.
As they say, opinions are like arseholes; everyone has one.
It is clear, to those who know the facts, that many others don't yet they still opine as if they did. I was merely pointing this out. I apologise if it came across as arrogant, that was not my intention.
As they say, opinions are like arseholes; everyone has one.
It is clear, to those who know the facts, that many others don't yet they still opine as if they did. I was merely pointing this out. I apologise if it came across as arrogant, that was not my intention.
Hanoijane,
Your RPG philosophy has got to be the worst explanation in order to counter the need for aircraft in a war zone ever. To follow your logic, the rebels would of course demonstrate far greater zeal and commitment to the cause if they endeavoured to get within arms length of their opponents and throttle them. No need for guns either then.
The reason the aircraft are there at all, is because the rebellion against the mad duck (Gadaffi Duck, geddit) would be over by now and some rather spiteful and begrudging reprisals brought to bear on the survivors, if it wasn't for the "just in the nick of time" arrival of air to ground ordinance.
There is a little more to this than demonstrating one's ardour and passion and willingness to suffer all for the cause!
FB
Your RPG philosophy has got to be the worst explanation in order to counter the need for aircraft in a war zone ever. To follow your logic, the rebels would of course demonstrate far greater zeal and commitment to the cause if they endeavoured to get within arms length of their opponents and throttle them. No need for guns either then.
The reason the aircraft are there at all, is because the rebellion against the mad duck (Gadaffi Duck, geddit
) would be over by now and some rather spiteful and begrudging reprisals brought to bear on the survivors, if it wasn't for the "just in the nick of time" arrival of air to ground ordinance.There is a little more to this than demonstrating one's ardour and passion and willingness to suffer all for the cause!
FB
Guest
Posts: n/a
The reason the aircraft are there at all, is because the rebellion against the mad duck (Gadaffi Duck, geddit) would be over by now and some rather spiteful and begrudging reprisals brought to bear on the survivors
You conveniently ignore the possibility that this may have been a reasonable outcome.
The sole reason you're there is to secure what's perceived as being the best interests of the west in the region. Nothing more. Stop pretending you have any idea of what you're replacing Gadaffi with. Because you don't.
) would be over by now and some rather spiteful and begrudging reprisals brought to bear on the survivorsYou conveniently ignore the possibility that this may have been a reasonable outcome.
The sole reason you're there is to secure what's perceived as being the best interests of the west in the region. Nothing more. Stop pretending you have any idea of what you're replacing Gadaffi with. Because you don't.
Hanoijane my old Tangarine,
Now your addressing the political chestnut of the situation rather than the military one. As for the old "the rebels may contain Al Queda, Taliban, Hezbolah and other types of nuts" chestnut, you're probably right. But.... that's our glorious leaders' problem. Eventually someone else's admittedly, but a different debate from how one goes about defeating a military opponent.
FB
Now your addressing the political chestnut of the situation rather than the military one. As for the old "the rebels may contain Al Queda, Taliban, Hezbolah and other types of nuts" chestnut, you're probably right. But.... that's our glorious leaders' problem. Eventually someone else's admittedly, but a different debate from how one goes about defeating a military opponent.
FB
Last edited by Finningley Boy; 16th Apr 2011 at 09:43.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The military situation is pretty much the same as the political one. You're using the wrong tools to crack a nut.
Politically, there were smarter ways to protect your interests. Less obvious ways than scampering off to the UN.
Militarily, you're using completely inappropriate levels of military technology to bludgeon a far less sophisticated adversary. It's making you look like a bully. And a not very competent one at that.
You're in great danger of, once again, winning the war and losing the peace. Don't you ever get tired of this?
Politically, there were smarter ways to protect your interests. Less obvious ways than scampering off to the UN.
Militarily, you're using completely inappropriate levels of military technology to bludgeon a far less sophisticated adversary. It's making you look like a bully. And a not very competent one at that.
You're in great danger of, once again, winning the war and losing the peace. Don't you ever get tired of this?
The military situation is pretty much the same as the political one. You're using the wrong tools to crack a nut.
Politically, there were smarter ways to protect your interests. Less obvious ways than scampering off to the UN.
Militarily, you're using completely inappropriate levels of military technology to bludgeon a far less sophisticated adversary. It's making you look like a bully. And a not very competent one at that.
You're in great danger of, once again, winning the war and losing the peace. Don't you ever get tired of this?
Politically, there were smarter ways to protect your interests. Less obvious ways than scampering off to the UN.
Militarily, you're using completely inappropriate levels of military technology to bludgeon a far less sophisticated adversary. It's making you look like a bully. And a not very competent one at that.
You're in great danger of, once again, winning the war and losing the peace. Don't you ever get tired of this?
FB
Guest
Posts: n/a
Who? Me personally?
No, not you, you silly sausage. I'm sure it's someone elses fault. After all, no-one in the UK is actually responsible for anything anymore, are they?
Which neatly brings us back to the point of this thread... another 'bonkers' decision for which no-one is to blame.
Are you beginning to sense a pattern in decision making - strategic, political or military - here?
No, not you, you silly sausage. I'm sure it's someone elses fault. After all, no-one in the UK is actually responsible for anything anymore, are they?
Which neatly brings us back to the point of this thread... another 'bonkers' decision for which no-one is to blame.
Are you beginning to sense a pattern in decision making - strategic, political or military - here?
Perhaps we could try to get back on topic?
1. Was the decision to go without the carrier strike capability for a decade made upon a policy of non intervention?
2. Does the intervention in Libya (note the enthusiasm of our Prime Minister) signal a change of policy? If so, do the SDSR decisions need to be looked at again? The last letter I received from the Minister made specific mention of SDSR highlighting non combatant evacuation operations as something we need to be able to do - but surely we are going far beyond a NEO now?
3. Do the ongoing changes in the Middle East and North Africa render the SDSR assumptions null and void?
4. What percentage of sorties being flown over Libya are by shipborne aircraft? Are there verifiable statistics?
5. What would happen if Italy decided to no longer allow their bases to be used for offensive missions?
6. Long term strategy is that we should have carrier strike capability in 2020. Without embarking jets over the next few years, is that feasible? Plots can be sent on exchange with the Americans or French, as can a FEW others, but what about the large numbers of aircraft handlers who need exprience of working with live jet aircraft on deck, the OOW and bridge personnel, navigator, ATC and fighter controllers, not to mention Marine Engineering watchkeepers, personnel to operate and maintain sensors, communications systems, and landing aids....amongst others, not to mention the Captain, Cdr(Air) and other members of the command team.
How will their skills be maintained? How will the corporate experience be retained? (MOD does not know.)
7. Since Illustrious is being retained until 2014, and Queen Elizabeth should enter service in 2014 (or so), most of this decade we should be able to embark Harriers from the US, Italy, or Spain. Will we? Or would that be too embarrassing for the Government?
8. Apparently (according to the Minister) Italy and Spain retain smaller Harrier fleets than us at lower cost because they have a Memorandum of Understanding (with the US?). Why can't we do the same? In recent years the USMC has embarked AV8Bs (ok AV8B+ I know) aboard Illustrious or Ark Royal to have a period of flying, the RN has benefited from having jets embarked during the period of the Harrier commitment to Afghanistan, and the USMC has had a ship where their Harriers were the main focus instead of playing second fiddle to the helicopters.
I see little benefit in writing/emailing the Minister again (doesn't stop others though), but why do we not sign a MOU giving the USMC a period of training with their jets embarked for up to a month, perhaps a couple of times year, in exchange for a loan/lease of ten or so AV8B(+)s?
9. What is happening with our seventy odd Harrier GR9s? They still exist......
10. Does the massive number of views that this thread has been getting mean that politicians, journalist, academics, etc., are reading?
11. See RN Year Zero
Even in the few months since SDSR was announced there have been several happenings with the potential for strategic shock (a topic that we have discussed here before). These include North Korea’s shelling of South Korea, the civil unrest in North Africa, Egypt and the wider Arab world, and the continuing world financial crisis. It is, by definition, harder to predict what strategic shocks may occur in the future, but, as Colin Gray has reminded us in his book, ‘Another Bloody Century’, there will be war of one sort or another. To meet these dangers, the UK’s Naval Staff is predicting change, yes, but change in straight-line, uniform ways.
12. These two videos may interest you.
Oh look, a Harrier landing on a ship....
Sensible responses that deal with points 1-12 will be appreciated, as opposed to personal attacks on retired Officers commenting in the media, or going of on a tangent. If YOU are a journalist or politician, why not contact the MOD and/or No10 Downing Street and see if you can get any answers.
1. Was the decision to go without the carrier strike capability for a decade made upon a policy of non intervention?
2. Does the intervention in Libya (note the enthusiasm of our Prime Minister) signal a change of policy? If so, do the SDSR decisions need to be looked at again? The last letter I received from the Minister made specific mention of SDSR highlighting non combatant evacuation operations as something we need to be able to do - but surely we are going far beyond a NEO now?
3. Do the ongoing changes in the Middle East and North Africa render the SDSR assumptions null and void?
4. What percentage of sorties being flown over Libya are by shipborne aircraft? Are there verifiable statistics?
5. What would happen if Italy decided to no longer allow their bases to be used for offensive missions?
6. Long term strategy is that we should have carrier strike capability in 2020. Without embarking jets over the next few years, is that feasible? Plots can be sent on exchange with the Americans or French, as can a FEW others, but what about the large numbers of aircraft handlers who need exprience of working with live jet aircraft on deck, the OOW and bridge personnel, navigator, ATC and fighter controllers, not to mention Marine Engineering watchkeepers, personnel to operate and maintain sensors, communications systems, and landing aids....amongst others, not to mention the Captain, Cdr(Air) and other members of the command team.
How will their skills be maintained? How will the corporate experience be retained? (MOD does not know.)
7. Since Illustrious is being retained until 2014, and Queen Elizabeth should enter service in 2014 (or so), most of this decade we should be able to embark Harriers from the US, Italy, or Spain. Will we? Or would that be too embarrassing for the Government?
8. Apparently (according to the Minister) Italy and Spain retain smaller Harrier fleets than us at lower cost because they have a Memorandum of Understanding (with the US?). Why can't we do the same? In recent years the USMC has embarked AV8Bs (ok AV8B+ I know) aboard Illustrious or Ark Royal to have a period of flying, the RN has benefited from having jets embarked during the period of the Harrier commitment to Afghanistan, and the USMC has had a ship where their Harriers were the main focus instead of playing second fiddle to the helicopters.
I see little benefit in writing/emailing the Minister again (doesn't stop others though), but why do we not sign a MOU giving the USMC a period of training with their jets embarked for up to a month, perhaps a couple of times year, in exchange for a loan/lease of ten or so AV8B(+)s?
9. What is happening with our seventy odd Harrier GR9s? They still exist......
10. Does the massive number of views that this thread has been getting mean that politicians, journalist, academics, etc., are reading?
11. See RN Year Zero
Even in the few months since SDSR was announced there have been several happenings with the potential for strategic shock (a topic that we have discussed here before). These include North Korea’s shelling of South Korea, the civil unrest in North Africa, Egypt and the wider Arab world, and the continuing world financial crisis. It is, by definition, harder to predict what strategic shocks may occur in the future, but, as Colin Gray has reminded us in his book, ‘Another Bloody Century’, there will be war of one sort or another. To meet these dangers, the UK’s Naval Staff is predicting change, yes, but change in straight-line, uniform ways.
12. These two videos may interest you.
Sensible responses that deal with points 1-12 will be appreciated, as opposed to personal attacks on retired Officers commenting in the media, or going of on a tangent. If YOU are a journalist or politician, why not contact the MOD and/or No10 Downing Street and see if you can get any answers.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 17th Apr 2011 at 21:19.
No, not you, you silly sausage. I'm sure it's someone elses fault. After all, no-one in the UK is actually responsible for anything anymore, are they?
Which neatly brings us back to the point of this thread... another 'bonkers' decision for which no-one is to blame.
Are you beginning to sense a pattern in decision making - strategic, political or military - here?
Which neatly brings us back to the point of this thread... another 'bonkers' decision for which no-one is to blame.
Are you beginning to sense a pattern in decision making - strategic, political or military - here?
The pattern emerging is that every time our dear leaders determine defence policy based upon what they believe will happen, something else happens instead.
FB