Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Travelodge account holder
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely no need to worry about hotels and all that faff - isn't there some sort of Expeditionary Air Wing concept that transports all it needs to plan and execute an ATO without HNS..?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Spirits
Until 1978 this Country could deploy a carrier like this one. A self contained air force requiring no HNS and with it's it's own organic FJ, AEW and AAR aircraft. The Ark Royal and Illustrious were a shadow of what could once be undertaken but sufficed as we were not going to be involved in out of area deployments. History proved otherwise. Then ignoring this recent history, SDSR suggested that we would face no threat requiring carrier strike until 2020. Political events since now suggest that this was a brave assumption!
At present we are deploying a small number of fast jets. How many aircraft does the RAF now need to maintain the 8 or so being used in Afghanistan and say twenty ish for Libya? The answer seems to be rather a lot. The Expeditionary Air Wing concept fails if ill equipped to be able to deploy quickly and continue to function overseas for a sustained period of time.
So although I still consider that the Ark Royal/Harrier GR9 combination was not essential for the Libya op, the longer this deployment lasts, the more their deletion is going to be noticed. And heaven help us if events take a turn for the worse anywhere else where HNS and allied support could be even more of an issue.
Until 1978 this Country could deploy a carrier like this one. A self contained air force requiring no HNS and with it's it's own organic FJ, AEW and AAR aircraft. The Ark Royal and Illustrious were a shadow of what could once be undertaken but sufficed as we were not going to be involved in out of area deployments. History proved otherwise. Then ignoring this recent history, SDSR suggested that we would face no threat requiring carrier strike until 2020. Political events since now suggest that this was a brave assumption!
At present we are deploying a small number of fast jets. How many aircraft does the RAF now need to maintain the 8 or so being used in Afghanistan and say twenty ish for Libya? The answer seems to be rather a lot. The Expeditionary Air Wing concept fails if ill equipped to be able to deploy quickly and continue to function overseas for a sustained period of time.
So although I still consider that the Ark Royal/Harrier GR9 combination was not essential for the Libya op, the longer this deployment lasts, the more their deletion is going to be noticed. And heaven help us if events take a turn for the worse anywhere else where HNS and allied support could be even more of an issue.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Draken,
I don't disagree with the carrier... What does rile me is my Service being blamed for the demise of RN carrier aviation in some crap conspiracy theory. The Mod is flat stony broke. A structural deficit of an entire years Defence budget. I think that the carrier gap is criminal but that does not entitle people to blame the RAF out of convenience because they wont face up to the reality that it is due to a lack of money for Defence, not single Service parochialism.
I don't disagree with the carrier... What does rile me is my Service being blamed for the demise of RN carrier aviation in some crap conspiracy theory. The Mod is flat stony broke. A structural deficit of an entire years Defence budget. I think that the carrier gap is criminal but that does not entitle people to blame the RAF out of convenience because they wont face up to the reality that it is due to a lack of money for Defence, not single Service parochialism.
High Spirits
Whilst I agree with your sentiments, I would like to say that I don't believe that MOD is broke - we're getting circa £35Bn from the Govt this year. It's just that we're squandering it at a horrific rate - I saw a UK defence company last year getting £14.5M for a contract for a "risk reduction study" for a future project - I reckon I could have written it for £500k given the chance and that would have been a rip off!
I am still gob-smacked that our defence budget is in the Top 5 but our capabilities are in the Top 20 - something is going drastically wrong, from 3-4 stars who seem paralysed from making a decision to 75,000 civil servants with at least 50,000 of which would have been the wheezy losers at school (about as much common sense and get-up-and-go as a wet fish).
This malaise set in within the military when we stopped letting warfighters get to the top and pushed for the perceived all important "political animal".
Banging my head and going to bed
LJ
Whilst I agree with your sentiments, I would like to say that I don't believe that MOD is broke - we're getting circa £35Bn from the Govt this year. It's just that we're squandering it at a horrific rate - I saw a UK defence company last year getting £14.5M for a contract for a "risk reduction study" for a future project - I reckon I could have written it for £500k given the chance and that would have been a rip off!
I am still gob-smacked that our defence budget is in the Top 5 but our capabilities are in the Top 20 - something is going drastically wrong, from 3-4 stars who seem paralysed from making a decision to 75,000 civil servants with at least 50,000 of which would have been the wheezy losers at school (about as much common sense and get-up-and-go as a wet fish).
This malaise set in within the military when we stopped letting warfighters get to the top and pushed for the perceived all important "political animal".
Banging my head and going to bed
LJ
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Spirits
To a large extent we agree but you have to bear in mind that in the UK that we still have doctrinal issues over what should really be a question of a practical nature. Perhaps this started with Lord Trenchard who himself called "for the replacement of land and sea forces by air power", which he maintained, "could do the same job at less cost". A read of the Libya thread on this site reveals many believe that air power alone can still achieve the desired result at less cost in financial and human terms, at least to us. Land or Sea based I don't think this will ever prove to be the case short of all out conflict between States.
So I don't believe a politician went to CAS and demanded the removal of an entire aircraft type. All the evidence is that CAS offered the Harrier (and LRMPA) to retain Tornado and Typhoon as this was the right answer for the RAF at a time when cuts were being demanded. It discarded years of Nimrod experience and also left the Navy without aircraft for it's carriers but thanks to the slash and burn rationale behind SDSR this call was made. In any event Carrier Strike was not about Maritime Air Power but Power Projection pure and simple and the latter remains for many the RAF's prime function. Pending the F-35 the Harrier could not be the answer to that question in the meantime!
In the next few years we will make do with what we have with Typhoon perhaps advancing more quickly to become a genuine swing role aircraft thanks to the impact of the Libya ops. I can see a Typhoon deployment to Afghanistan in a year or so and then a hastened drawdown of Tornado as the next RAF contribution to reduce the MOD's structural deficit.
As to the creation of that MOD deficit, it just too depressing but let's just say that in common with most Government spending it's shocking how much is wasted! We spend piles, often for no obvious return in terms of new and working kit.
To a large extent we agree but you have to bear in mind that in the UK that we still have doctrinal issues over what should really be a question of a practical nature. Perhaps this started with Lord Trenchard who himself called "for the replacement of land and sea forces by air power", which he maintained, "could do the same job at less cost". A read of the Libya thread on this site reveals many believe that air power alone can still achieve the desired result at less cost in financial and human terms, at least to us. Land or Sea based I don't think this will ever prove to be the case short of all out conflict between States.
So I don't believe a politician went to CAS and demanded the removal of an entire aircraft type. All the evidence is that CAS offered the Harrier (and LRMPA) to retain Tornado and Typhoon as this was the right answer for the RAF at a time when cuts were being demanded. It discarded years of Nimrod experience and also left the Navy without aircraft for it's carriers but thanks to the slash and burn rationale behind SDSR this call was made. In any event Carrier Strike was not about Maritime Air Power but Power Projection pure and simple and the latter remains for many the RAF's prime function. Pending the F-35 the Harrier could not be the answer to that question in the meantime!
In the next few years we will make do with what we have with Typhoon perhaps advancing more quickly to become a genuine swing role aircraft thanks to the impact of the Libya ops. I can see a Typhoon deployment to Afghanistan in a year or so and then a hastened drawdown of Tornado as the next RAF contribution to reduce the MOD's structural deficit.
As to the creation of that MOD deficit, it just too depressing but let's just say that in common with most Government spending it's shocking how much is wasted! We spend piles, often for no obvious return in terms of new and working kit.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon,
We are broke. Overspent by billions due to profligacy under the last govt. I hasten to add under previous Defence Chiefs aswell (of all 3 Services) who allowed this deficit to build up whilst pretending that all was well in the house of cards. Look at Defence spending as a proportion of GDP over the years.
Draken,
CAS was told to save money along with the other Service chiefs. That money had to come from somewhere. That does not mean that some sort of conspiratorial stitch up exercise went on with Harrier. RAF aircrews were put out of cockpits aswell as RN aircrew. The cuts have induced an unbelievable paranoia at all levels.
It's time to get over it and move on to the next crisis in Defence. Harrier is not coming back rightly or wrongly.
We are broke. Overspent by billions due to profligacy under the last govt. I hasten to add under previous Defence Chiefs aswell (of all 3 Services) who allowed this deficit to build up whilst pretending that all was well in the house of cards. Look at Defence spending as a proportion of GDP over the years.
Draken,
CAS was told to save money along with the other Service chiefs. That money had to come from somewhere. That does not mean that some sort of conspiratorial stitch up exercise went on with Harrier. RAF aircrews were put out of cockpits aswell as RN aircrew. The cuts have induced an unbelievable paranoia at all levels.
It's time to get over it and move on to the next crisis in Defence. Harrier is not coming back rightly or wrongly.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'm not RAF or RN, but I do read history, and the FAA has traditionally been in the sights of the RAF, equally traditionally meeting the challenge when things hit the fan.
Wether that was the case recently is open to question, but I never cease to be amazed more people who should know better do not seem to recognise the GR9 is / was a precision Strike aircraft, ie exactly what is required right now.
Flying exotic agile fighters long distances to drop the odd bomb, apparently requiring a Tornado to illuminate the target, seems an awkward and expensive way of doing things compared to flying off Ark Royal relatively close by ( yes I know about fast attack boats etc ).
It also seems conveniently forgotten that we still have Illustrious, left without fixed wing aircraft; as it looks very like the Queen Elizabeth will be for quite some time !
Wether that was the case recently is open to question, but I never cease to be amazed more people who should know better do not seem to recognise the GR9 is / was a precision Strike aircraft, ie exactly what is required right now.
Flying exotic agile fighters long distances to drop the odd bomb, apparently requiring a Tornado to illuminate the target, seems an awkward and expensive way of doing things compared to flying off Ark Royal relatively close by ( yes I know about fast attack boats etc ).
It also seems conveniently forgotten that we still have Illustrious, left without fixed wing aircraft; as it looks very like the Queen Elizabeth will be for quite some time !
Double Zero, you've just entered the fray which you've criticised in the same post. If the GR9 is a precision strike aircraft, just what is the GR4? A Search and Rescue launch!?
For the umpteenth time, in case you've missed previous posts, nobody here in the for, or against camp, was happy to see the Harrier go, but something had to go, for purely financial reasons ok. That means the R.A.F. who's assets were concerned and who had to get rid of one of three FJ types, had to decide.
So to analyze dispassionately; The Typhoon, brand new, still to reach full all round development as both an air to air fighter and an air to ground attack aircraft and performance wise, I don't care what the Sharkeys and the Tabloids of this world have to say, the Typhoon loops and rolls rings galore around any Harrier. Its still being delivered, I don't think the air staff were keen to get rid of that somehow.
With the GR4, its more of a numbers game and sustainability. They have 136 of them to some 45 to 65 Harriers, a rough estimate I know, but depending on which source you read, the quote is always different. The Harrier has a lesser range and payload. A matter of fact. Its not as fast, would you care to know. And if the air staff decided to retain it over the GR4, the Navy would have half of them. This would be rather like the Army reducing from 36 to 6 Infantry Battalions and using 6 of them to replace the Royal Marines. The Army are the principal land force, the R.A.F. are.... well believe it or not, the principal air force!
The R.A.F. has had to put up with attempts from the other two services to have its assets subsumed for decades!
The Carriers would, all are agreed have been a nice edge, but not the principal means of delivering an air offensive ability. The cost of running the carriers would actually out strip the current deployment, because to be as effective as is claimed, there'd need to be more than one at sea at any one time, and not just with close air support Harriers either. If we can get that in addition, great. As it is, I'll bet you Tornados and Typhoons will be on the spot far sooner than the Ark or Illustrious can steam into range. They fly around the world a lot quicker. The carriers would come into their own if we were going to bomb the Marianas!
FB
For the umpteenth time, in case you've missed previous posts, nobody here in the for, or against camp, was happy to see the Harrier go, but something had to go, for purely financial reasons ok. That means the R.A.F. who's assets were concerned and who had to get rid of one of three FJ types, had to decide.
So to analyze dispassionately; The Typhoon, brand new, still to reach full all round development as both an air to air fighter and an air to ground attack aircraft and performance wise, I don't care what the Sharkeys and the Tabloids of this world have to say, the Typhoon loops and rolls rings galore around any Harrier. Its still being delivered, I don't think the air staff were keen to get rid of that somehow.
With the GR4, its more of a numbers game and sustainability. They have 136 of them to some 45 to 65 Harriers, a rough estimate I know, but depending on which source you read, the quote is always different. The Harrier has a lesser range and payload. A matter of fact. Its not as fast, would you care to know. And if the air staff decided to retain it over the GR4, the Navy would have half of them. This would be rather like the Army reducing from 36 to 6 Infantry Battalions and using 6 of them to replace the Royal Marines. The Army are the principal land force, the R.A.F. are.... well believe it or not, the principal air force!
The R.A.F. has had to put up with attempts from the other two services to have its assets subsumed for decades!
The Carriers would, all are agreed have been a nice edge, but not the principal means of delivering an air offensive ability. The cost of running the carriers would actually out strip the current deployment, because to be as effective as is claimed, there'd need to be more than one at sea at any one time, and not just with close air support Harriers either. If we can get that in addition, great. As it is, I'll bet you Tornados and Typhoons will be on the spot far sooner than the Ark or Illustrious can steam into range. They fly around the world a lot quicker. The carriers would come into their own if we were going to bomb the Marianas!
FB
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The carriers would come into their own if we were going to bomb the Marianas!"
The Marianas being a 14000m trench in the Pacific, I'm assuming you're referring to the Malvinas, or Falkland Islands?
The Marianas being a 14000m trench in the Pacific, I'm assuming you're referring to the Malvinas, or Falkland Islands?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buy more reapers - from the Grauniad:-
The technology
The US-manufactured General Atomics Reaper is currently the RAF's only armed unmanned aircraft. It can carry up to four Hellfire missiles, two 230kg (500lb) bombs, and 12 Paveway II guided bombs. It can fly for more than 18 hours, has a range of 3,600 miles, and can operate at up to 15,000 metres (50,000ft).
The Reaper is operated by RAF personnel based at Creech in Nevada. It is controlled via a satellite datalink. Earlier this year, David Cameron promised to increase the number of RAF Reapers in Afghanistan from four to nine, at an estimated cost of £135m.
The MoD is also funding the development by BAE Systems of a long-range unmanned aircraft, called Taranis, designed to fly at "jet speeds" between continents while controlled from anywhere in the world using satellite communications.
The technology
The US-manufactured General Atomics Reaper is currently the RAF's only armed unmanned aircraft. It can carry up to four Hellfire missiles, two 230kg (500lb) bombs, and 12 Paveway II guided bombs. It can fly for more than 18 hours, has a range of 3,600 miles, and can operate at up to 15,000 metres (50,000ft).
The Reaper is operated by RAF personnel based at Creech in Nevada. It is controlled via a satellite datalink. Earlier this year, David Cameron promised to increase the number of RAF Reapers in Afghanistan from four to nine, at an estimated cost of £135m.
The MoD is also funding the development by BAE Systems of a long-range unmanned aircraft, called Taranis, designed to fly at "jet speeds" between continents while controlled from anywhere in the world using satellite communications.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
uffington,
thanks for that; never thught I'd be agreeing with the Sun !
Slightly surprised to see the tanks left on, I suppose it's as good a place as any to keep them.
Couldn't see any sign of u/c locks either, hopefully just out of sight ?
thanks for that; never thught I'd be agreeing with the Sun !
Slightly surprised to see the tanks left on, I suppose it's as good a place as any to keep them.
Couldn't see any sign of u/c locks either, hopefully just out of sight ?
From the Sun story:
"HMS Illustrious is being refitted as a helicopter carrier - but she could be ready to operate Harriers again by Christmas."
Surely as soon as she rejoins the fleet she will be able to - after all V/STOL aircraft do not need equipment for launching and recovery?
Anyway, enough silly banter - Italian hotel bills or floating cocktail parties.
To quote myself (with edits):
"HMS Illustrious is being refitted as a helicopter carrier - but she could be ready to operate Harriers again by Christmas."
Surely as soon as she rejoins the fleet she will be able to - after all V/STOL aircraft do not need equipment for launching and recovery?
Anyway, enough silly banter - Italian hotel bills or floating cocktail parties.
To quote myself (with edits):
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......
What if we made our GR9s available to the US for attrition replacements, training, and spares, and offered them continued embarkations, in exchange for ten or so AV8B+s - a real multi role aircraft (with radar)?
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.
Enforceing the No Fly zone - Libya- Flight Operations USS Kearsarge Part 2 of 2
Oh look, a Harrier landing on a ship....
Libye : Rafale porte avions Charles de Gaulle Libya
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 off 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......
What if we made our GR9s available to the US for attrition replacements, training, and spares, and offered them continued embarkations, in exchange for ten or so AV8B+s - a real multi role aircraft (with radar)?
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.
Enforceing the No Fly zone - Libya- Flight Operations USS Kearsarge Part 2 of 2
Oh look, a Harrier landing on a ship....
Libye : Rafale porte avions Charles de Gaulle Libya
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 off 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; 12th Aug 2011 at 09:18.
high spirits
Come on - you know the rules. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. And, anyway, I believe after seeing this incident the 1SL is now demanding four carriers to be built so that he can have an alternate landing deck available should the primary deck be 'blacked'.
He's even prepared to demand the cancellation of F35 to protect his (now) 4 carriers!
And to keep WEBF happy that I'm not thread drifting - in answer to Q10 I suspect it's people looking in for their morning chuckle to see what the latest armchair general/admiral/air marshal 'good idea' is! Or worse, a lazy journo looking for a bollox story!
Of course he conveniently ignores the two land bases supporting Harrier. Oh and the oiler and supply ships. Oh and the organic defence surface vessels and their sustainment.
He's even prepared to demand the cancellation of F35 to protect his (now) 4 carriers!And to keep WEBF happy that I'm not thread drifting - in answer to Q10 I suspect it's people looking in for their morning chuckle to see what the latest armchair general/admiral/air marshal 'good idea' is! Or worse, a lazy journo looking for a bollox story!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: High in the Afghan Mountains
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
1. No - it was all about saving money. We hadn't seriously used a carrier for 7 years on Ops and the new ones were frighteningly expensive. Fully accept the argument about cost/value, but I refer you to my first sentence.
2. No - Policy remains saving cash.
3. They would if anyone believed the SDSR assumptions were anything other than a thin veneer of tosh on a cash-saving Review.
5. We'd use another country. Spain looks good, Corsica would work, Crete at a stretch. Someone would certianly ask an Arab/N African state.
7. That would be too embarassing. Rather points to the truth of the cost-driven v strategy-driven review.
8. US not flying bombing missions. In any case, why would UK Govt provide deck for US Air Ops - not politically a vote-winner.
Did you really believe that the SDSR was driven by strategic planning assumptions?
1. No - it was all about saving money. We hadn't seriously used a carrier for 7 years on Ops and the new ones were frighteningly expensive. Fully accept the argument about cost/value, but I refer you to my first sentence.
2. No - Policy remains saving cash.
3. They would if anyone believed the SDSR assumptions were anything other than a thin veneer of tosh on a cash-saving Review.
5. We'd use another country. Spain looks good, Corsica would work, Crete at a stretch. Someone would certianly ask an Arab/N African state.
7. That would be too embarassing. Rather points to the truth of the cost-driven v strategy-driven review.
8. US not flying bombing missions. In any case, why would UK Govt provide deck for US Air Ops - not politically a vote-winner.
Did you really believe that the SDSR was driven by strategic planning assumptions?
Its just been on the news, some may already be aware of this, that NATO air strikes are being bankrolled by the United Arab Emirates and Qatar!?
What price Sharkey's glumness now?!
FB
What price Sharkey's glumness now?!
FB
bomb the Marianas!
Besides, who'd want to drop a torpedo into Marianas Trench...
