Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
RLE
So, WEBF, where should the NAVY take cuts to find £2Bn to pay for Harrier?
Where does the £2Bn figure come from?
Since the RAF has given up on Harrier, all that would be needed would be enough aircraft for one carrier - twelve or so? I suggested that the US may be willing to lease/sell this number of AV8Bs to us in exchange for a greater number of our now stored GR9s for training/attrition replacements/spares, AND continued USMC Harrier embarkations aboard Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth...
Anyway - going back to Libya, some of you might be interested in this article from Information Dissemination - "If We Had a Carrier...." with links to the Guardian...
If the UK had an aircraft carrier, the Guardian wouldn't be reporting how Norway and Denmark have both dropped far more bombs – nearly 700 between them – than the UK in Libya.
This data is also interesting.
Interesting stuff here too:
Elsewhere, the situation in Yemen is getting worse, with a real possibility of a civil war, which would be exploited by Al Qaeda. Think about Yemen's position - next to the Gulf of Aden. This is potentially a huge problem for the West.
If the Arab Spring, the intervention in Libya, and the decline in Yemen occured before the SDSR - would the same announcements have been made?
So, WEBF, where should the NAVY take cuts to find £2Bn to pay for Harrier?
Where does the £2Bn figure come from?
Since the RAF has given up on Harrier, all that would be needed would be enough aircraft for one carrier - twelve or so? I suggested that the US may be willing to lease/sell this number of AV8Bs to us in exchange for a greater number of our now stored GR9s for training/attrition replacements/spares, AND continued USMC Harrier embarkations aboard Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth...
Anyway - going back to Libya, some of you might be interested in this article from Information Dissemination - "If We Had a Carrier...." with links to the Guardian...
If the UK had an aircraft carrier, the Guardian wouldn't be reporting how Norway and Denmark have both dropped far more bombs – nearly 700 between them – than the UK in Libya.
This data is also interesting.
Interesting stuff here too:
It is worth noting the UK Government's prevarication about announcing any intention of deploying sea-based attack helicopters for the Libyan operation despite the French having revealed plans for British Apaches to join their own sea-based Tigers and Gazelles. However, the Government faces a dilemma in committing to the use of attack helos from HMS Ocean:
•It might be asked why the decision was not made when the requirement arose several weeks ago.
•It might be forced to admit that land-based assets are proving inadequate for the job.
•It might be forced to admit the greater utility of certain seaborne air assets.
•If the seaborne helos are tasked in a CAS role similar to fixed wing aircraft, it might be asked why it is deemed more sensible for RAF aircraft to fly 3,000 mile round trips from the UK and 1,200 mile round trips from Italy than for Harriers to fly from a CVS based 20 miles off the Libyan coast.
Outside the UK at least, the French carrier Charles de Gaulle has been reported as "spear-heading" the NATO air effort ever since the withdrawal of USS Kearsarge and her Harrier AV-8Bs conducting two sorties per day thanks to their close proximity to the area of operations.
•It might be asked why the decision was not made when the requirement arose several weeks ago.
•It might be forced to admit that land-based assets are proving inadequate for the job.
•It might be forced to admit the greater utility of certain seaborne air assets.
•If the seaborne helos are tasked in a CAS role similar to fixed wing aircraft, it might be asked why it is deemed more sensible for RAF aircraft to fly 3,000 mile round trips from the UK and 1,200 mile round trips from Italy than for Harriers to fly from a CVS based 20 miles off the Libyan coast.
Outside the UK at least, the French carrier Charles de Gaulle has been reported as "spear-heading" the NATO air effort ever since the withdrawal of USS Kearsarge and her Harrier AV-8Bs conducting two sorties per day thanks to their close proximity to the area of operations.
If the Arab Spring, the intervention in Libya, and the decline in Yemen occured before the SDSR - would the same announcements have been made?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 26th May 2011 at 23:04.
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Military Operations | RAF destroys military vehicle depot in Libya
Regarding the continually made point about the shortcomings of land based aircraft versus the Carrier based Harrier,this makes interesting reading.
FB
Regarding the continually made point about the shortcomings of land based aircraft versus the Carrier based Harrier,this makes interesting reading.
FB
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is some really confused stuff there WEBF.
Firstly, arguing that carriers are needed because the Danes and Norwegians have (apparently) dropped more bombs doesn't make sense... Because they don't have carriers either.
Secondly, the quote from 'Rum Ration' is, at best, scrambled thinking. The poster suggests that Apache is doing the same job as Harrier or Tornado, and thus intimates we should have retained Harrier. First problem there is - if they were doing the same job - then why do we need Harrier if we have Apache. Second problem is... they are not doing the same job, and we have Tornado.
In fact, the deployment proves that an LPH is an essential asset if we want to deploy rotary assets in this way, as helicopters are slow and range-limited. Fast jets are not, and the GR4s (much to the regret of certain individuals) appear to be doing a very good job. As do all the other RN, army and RAF assets deployed...
Firstly, arguing that carriers are needed because the Danes and Norwegians have (apparently) dropped more bombs doesn't make sense... Because they don't have carriers either.
Secondly, the quote from 'Rum Ration' is, at best, scrambled thinking. The poster suggests that Apache is doing the same job as Harrier or Tornado, and thus intimates we should have retained Harrier. First problem there is - if they were doing the same job - then why do we need Harrier if we have Apache. Second problem is... they are not doing the same job, and we have Tornado.
In fact, the deployment proves that an LPH is an essential asset if we want to deploy rotary assets in this way, as helicopters are slow and range-limited. Fast jets are not, and the GR4s (much to the regret of certain individuals) appear to be doing a very good job. As do all the other RN, army and RAF assets deployed...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if the RN can drive the ship and another Service can operate the aircraft....
From the MoD website linked by Fb above:
So DMS is is now an ARM as well. 
The GR4...a true multi-role platform! Well done lads & lasses. 
WEBF - are you still going on about this? Horse and flogging spring to mind.
Originally Posted by MoD
On the same day RAF Tornado and Typhoon jets also attacked a Libyan coastal radar station near Brega, which was destroyed with a single dual-mode seeker Brimstone missile. While the missile is designed for use against vehicles, and usually only used in that role, it was chosen as the most appropriate weapon for a precision strike.
The relatively small warhead on the Brimstone missile meant that the aircrew could destroy the radar unit without destroying the building, and also ensure the risk of death and injury was minimised.
The relatively small warhead on the Brimstone missile meant that the aircrew could destroy the radar unit without destroying the building, and also ensure the risk of death and injury was minimised.
The GR4...a true multi-role platform! Well done lads & lasses. WEBF - are you still going on about this? Horse and flogging spring to mind.
Surely the fact that both the UK and France have decided to deploy attack helicopters demonstrates that both London and Paris want the ability to hit more targets and an increased ability to respond quickly to events on the ground?
On which note, the following article was on BBC News yesterday:
On board France's flagship aircraft carrier off Libya
Note that the Captain of Charles de Gaulle says that it would helped to have other carriers working alongside.
Since Time = Distance/Speed, an aircraft based aboard a carrier that can get close to the shore will always provide a faster response than a land based one based 500+ nautical miles away, regardless of "leg size". You cannot argue with basic Maths.
On which note, the following article was on BBC News yesterday:
On board France's flagship aircraft carrier off Libya
Note that the Captain of Charles de Gaulle says that it would helped to have other carriers working alongside.
Since Time = Distance/Speed, an aircraft based aboard a carrier that can get close to the shore will always provide a faster response than a land based one based 500+ nautical miles away, regardless of "leg size". You cannot argue with basic Maths.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 29th May 2011 at 09:56.
WEBF
Quite possibly you are right. Next step will be boots on the ground 
But I guess you and Sharkey will need to start attacking the Apache as well now as it seems to be able to do the Harrier job without the need for a full size carrier
Surely the fact that both the UK and France have decided to deploy attack helicopters demonstrates that both London and Paris want the ability to hit more targets and an increased ability to respond quickly to events on the ground?
But I guess you and Sharkey will need to start attacking the Apache as well now as it seems to be able to do the Harrier job without the need for a full size carrier
Originally Posted by Wrathmonk
But I guess you and Sharkey will need to start attacking the Apache as well now as it seems to be able to do the Harrier job without the need for a full size carrier
Originally Posted by WEBF
Surely the fact that both the UK and France have decided to deploy attack helicopters demonstrates that both London and Paris want the ability to hit more targets and an increased ability to respond quickly to events on the ground?
On which note, the following article was on BBC News yesterday:
On board France's flagship aircraft carrier off Libya
Note that the Captain of Charles de Gaulle says that it would helped to have other carriers working alongside.
On which note, the following article was on BBC News yesterday:
On board France's flagship aircraft carrier off Libya
Note that the Captain of Charles de Gaulle says that it would helped to have other carriers working alongside.
The requirement is for attack helos and the unique effect they can provide. They have short range and slow legs and therefore need a platform close the theatre to launch from. This is a totally different argument than the FJ one where they have long range and quick legs and so do not need to be so close. Why is this difficult for you to understand?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the FJ one where they have long range and quick legs and so do not need to be so close.
As you are suggesting that Apaches can do the same job as FJ, they might as well replace FJ for all Strike and CAS. Your idea would solve the problem of deploying Typhoons to Afghanistan overnight and be much cheaper.
Nice try, although I would love to see an Apache carrying PW2/3/4 and Stormshadow!The rather tongue in cheek point I was making was that Harrier is constantly being put forward as the only CAS asset that can sit close to a theatre such as Libya and respond to any urgent calls without a 3hr transit etc. Standby for a raft of stats about how expensive it is to 'marinise' Apache, how many groundcrew it requires, the fact the the AAC don't want to go to see etc etc etc.
a powerful piece of the overall capability
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is the beauty of a coalition - not everyone has to have every bit of every capability. Maybe they can lend us some tankers
Pretty impressive.
Or we can stick with the plan to have our two new carriers and, having built a corps of experience with the USN actually have an actual multirole aircraft capable of deploying from land and sea.
Originally Posted by Justanopinion
How fragile is the "long range" of the Jets operating from Italy considering they are entirely reliant on a tanker force that is stretched to say the least? As the French are demonstrating on a daily basis, Jets from a carrier based 20 mins flying time away are a powerful piece of the overall capability.
And despite the protestations, CVS + F35C is not the panacea to all things. It is part of an overal range of capabilities. But again, at what cost? And for only 2 ships. If it was 7 or 8, then I would wholeheartedly support it, but it isn't, it's 2. And that is simply not enough to be effective for all the cost.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And despite the protestations, CVS + F35C is not the panacea to all things.
Again, keep hearing how flexible and agile our forces are but to be dependent on so many other foreign assets seems to disprove this.
Or we can stick with the plan to have our two new carriers and, having built a corps of experience with the USN actually have an actual multirole aircraft capable of deploying from land and sea.
Agree 100%. And to pay for it some things have had to be sacrificed earlier than is desirable and we have to make do as best we can. Fingers crossed for 2020!
If the Royal Navy has no capacity to operate fixed wing aircraft at sea for a decade, then all the skills that are needed will be lost. It is generally reckoned that building these skills up from being non existent to the level we currently have would take approximately ten years – maybe longer. Of course, the pilots can be sent to work with the US Navy or someone else, to build up experience of carrier operations. However, operating fixed wing aircraft (and helicopters to a certain extent) is a whole ship activity. It does not only involve the aircrew and flight deck personnel, but virtually everyone. There is no way we can send hundreds of sailors to work in American carriers, and most of these specialist skills need to be maintained by constant practice. Many are carrier specific.
On the flight deck, aircraft handlers need to be able to speedily and safely move aircraft around the flight deck, both by giving visual cues to pilots and by using vehicles. They also need to be able to deal with any fires or other incidents that might occur. The RN School of Flight Deck Operations at RNAS Culdrose has a dummy deck, dubbed HMS Siskin, where aircraft handlers learn their trade. Real aircraft, including a number of retired Sea Harriers, are used and move under their own power to simulate a carrier deck. However, they cannot simulate the movement of a ship at sea in variable sea conditions, pitching and rolling. Nor can they simulate things such the carrier increasing speed to launch aircraft and the sudden wind over the deck. Getting experience of these things and building experience and confidence requires people to spend time at sea working with aircraft for real. This is a key skill area that will decline very rapidly if we have no flying from carriers.
Other personnel may also need to work on the flight deck, amongst the aircraft. These include the people who maintain the aircraft, and those who fuel and arm them. They too need experience of doing it for real.
Beyond the flight deck, lots of other personnel in different parts of the ship are involved. These include the Navigating Officer and the Officer of the Watch and his/her team on the bridge, who must ensure that the ship is on the right heading for flying operations. The Commander (Air) and his team are responsible for running aviation activities. The marine engineering watchkeepers in the Ship Control Centre are responsible for increasing the speed of the carrier’s engines when needed for launching aircraft, they also carry out adjustments to things such as the ship’s trim, so as to maintain a level deck for flying. There are various sensors, communications systems and landing aids that need to be maintained and operated. All of these are things that demand time spent practising at sea.
Air Traffic Control is of critical importance, as are others who are involved in airspace management. A carrier is unlike any airfield in that she moves. Land based ATC cannot provide the same experience. Her command team must also consider the constraints put on her movements by the maritime environment, by her escorts, and by the need to be aware of the existence of things such as merchant shipping or fishing boats. The aircrew that fly from the deck also need to have an understanding of all these issues. They must also understand how they fit in with the rest of the ship and task group. Finally, no carrier operations mean that in ten years time, there will be no senior naval officers with experience or understanding of these complex issues.
Most of these things cannot be taught on a dummy deck, or in a simulator, but need developing by real flying aboard real decks. The RN has been doing this for many decades, and the experience and expertise, much of it won at great cost, handed down. It seems unlikely that the body of experience would survive a ten year gap of non use. Interestingly, young officers entering the training pipeline to become pilots or observers have been told that to go from scratch to the level of expertise we currently have would take ten years – this is based on the experience of others Navies like those of Spain and Italy who have gained carriers more recently than us.
Some of my comments here are based on what I was fortunate to witness aboard HMS Illustrious in late 2007. Although I had a pretty good idea of what to expect, the number of different parts of ship involved in maintaining safe and effective flying operations took me by surprise. The teamwork was impressive. If a mere [me - a Reservist junior rate] can see this, why does the review turn a blind eye? Whilst in the dinner queue one evening I looked in a magazine I found loafing, there was an article in which a senior aviator (ex Sea Harrier) commented on the danger of future Fleet Air Arm personnel becoming unfamiliar with the shipboard environment and deck operations. My path has crossed with aviation connected personnel at other times, and they have all expressed similar views.
On the flight deck, aircraft handlers need to be able to speedily and safely move aircraft around the flight deck, both by giving visual cues to pilots and by using vehicles. They also need to be able to deal with any fires or other incidents that might occur. The RN School of Flight Deck Operations at RNAS Culdrose has a dummy deck, dubbed HMS Siskin, where aircraft handlers learn their trade. Real aircraft, including a number of retired Sea Harriers, are used and move under their own power to simulate a carrier deck. However, they cannot simulate the movement of a ship at sea in variable sea conditions, pitching and rolling. Nor can they simulate things such the carrier increasing speed to launch aircraft and the sudden wind over the deck. Getting experience of these things and building experience and confidence requires people to spend time at sea working with aircraft for real. This is a key skill area that will decline very rapidly if we have no flying from carriers.
Other personnel may also need to work on the flight deck, amongst the aircraft. These include the people who maintain the aircraft, and those who fuel and arm them. They too need experience of doing it for real.
Beyond the flight deck, lots of other personnel in different parts of the ship are involved. These include the Navigating Officer and the Officer of the Watch and his/her team on the bridge, who must ensure that the ship is on the right heading for flying operations. The Commander (Air) and his team are responsible for running aviation activities. The marine engineering watchkeepers in the Ship Control Centre are responsible for increasing the speed of the carrier’s engines when needed for launching aircraft, they also carry out adjustments to things such as the ship’s trim, so as to maintain a level deck for flying. There are various sensors, communications systems and landing aids that need to be maintained and operated. All of these are things that demand time spent practising at sea.
Air Traffic Control is of critical importance, as are others who are involved in airspace management. A carrier is unlike any airfield in that she moves. Land based ATC cannot provide the same experience. Her command team must also consider the constraints put on her movements by the maritime environment, by her escorts, and by the need to be aware of the existence of things such as merchant shipping or fishing boats. The aircrew that fly from the deck also need to have an understanding of all these issues. They must also understand how they fit in with the rest of the ship and task group. Finally, no carrier operations mean that in ten years time, there will be no senior naval officers with experience or understanding of these complex issues.
Most of these things cannot be taught on a dummy deck, or in a simulator, but need developing by real flying aboard real decks. The RN has been doing this for many decades, and the experience and expertise, much of it won at great cost, handed down. It seems unlikely that the body of experience would survive a ten year gap of non use. Interestingly, young officers entering the training pipeline to become pilots or observers have been told that to go from scratch to the level of expertise we currently have would take ten years – this is based on the experience of others Navies like those of Spain and Italy who have gained carriers more recently than us.
Some of my comments here are based on what I was fortunate to witness aboard HMS Illustrious in late 2007. Although I had a pretty good idea of what to expect, the number of different parts of ship involved in maintaining safe and effective flying operations took me by surprise. The teamwork was impressive. If a mere [me - a Reservist junior rate] can see this, why does the review turn a blind eye? Whilst in the dinner queue one evening I looked in a magazine I found loafing, there was an article in which a senior aviator (ex Sea Harrier) commented on the danger of future Fleet Air Arm personnel becoming unfamiliar with the shipboard environment and deck operations. My path has crossed with aviation connected personnel at other times, and they have all expressed similar views.
I would suggest that basics are basics, regardless of whether the future is V/STOL or involves "Cats and traps". Will there be exchanges for lots of chockheads - moving live jets on deck 24 hours a day in all weather in rough sea states, the people who fuel, arm and work on aircraft on deck - amongst jet blast (and FOD issues) the OOW and bridge team - who have to put the ship in the right place, direction and speed for aircraft to take off or land, Ops Room personnel - who have to operate sensors/weapons and talk to aircraft, maintainers of this equipment, landing aids maintainers, the ME watchkeepers keeping a nice level deck and increasing speed when needed, ATC types, Fighter Controllers, senior Officers in the carrier (Cdr(Air), Lt Cdr(Flying), Captain, XO) - they need to know how to run things, senior Officers elsewhere (MOD, Navy Command, task group commanders) who need to know how aircraft are used as task group weapons, etc?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 31st May 2011 at 16:40. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm involved in the Libya operation right now. I can quite categorically say that everyone who said that we should have binned Tornado and kept Harrier has been comprehensively proved wrong by this operation. If we'd have turned up with lusty or vince instead of the GR4s, we would not have had a seat at the top table. Garibaldi's jets are pretty much lost in the noise. Rafale is doing well, but there are loads of them and interestingly we seem to get more out of the land-based ones that we do out of those coming off CDG.
Lots of data to be studied yet but these are my first impressions from a pretty good place to judge.
Regards,
OA
Lots of data to be studied yet but these are my first impressions from a pretty good place to judge.
Regards,
OA
OA, thanks for the view from the sharp end.
Your quote "Garibaldi's jets are pretty much lost in the noise" is interesting, as that was the feeling when both Lusty and Invincible contributed to to Op S Watch in 97/98. Not meant as a slur, but as an observation from one intimately involved in the HQ at the time.
Your quote "Garibaldi's jets are pretty much lost in the noise" is interesting, as that was the feeling when both Lusty and Invincible contributed to to Op S Watch in 97/98. Not meant as a slur, but as an observation from one intimately involved in the HQ at the time.