Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Originally Posted by FODPlod
Archimedes - Your view is one I can respect if not altogether share as Sharkey does make the occasional good point amidst all his hyperbole. I thank you for it.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it looks like the Thais are still using their ex-Spanish AV8-A's
This appears to have been filmed in part on the Chakri Naruebet
Maybe they'd like our Harriers as replacements
PS - its all smoke and mirrors, a bit like our armed forces post-cuts
See this for how they did it
Specsavers, Ferry
PPS I hope that Harrier doing a rolling landing over the bow was part of the special effects. Or are they hinting that Harrier pilots also need to go to SpecSavers?
This appears to have been filmed in part on the Chakri Naruebet
Maybe they'd like our Harriers as replacements
PS - its all smoke and mirrors, a bit like our armed forces post-cuts
See this for how they did it
Specsavers, Ferry
PPS I hope that Harrier doing a rolling landing over the bow was part of the special effects. Or are they hinting that Harrier pilots also need to go to SpecSavers?
Last edited by jamesdevice; 1st Jul 2011 at 16:02.
jamesdevice
Post SDSR, the UK cannot even make that sort of advert.
FL
Nope, didn't see/hear Dr Fox. I expect we would have still deployed a CVS if we could even with Tornado based in Italy - as the carrier based jets can respond more quickly. Talking of which, what is the plan for replacing Charles De Gaulle on station?
high spirits
No idea about statistics. Remember the contribution of Ocean's Jungly Lynx and ASaCs Sea Kings too, and the role of other RN assets. However with respect to the Apache's use, this post (from the thread dedicated to Sharkey Ward) is interesting:
Fact: helicopters, generally, fly slower and lower than fast jets. Fiction: helicopter weapons are smaller and more precise. Rockets and cannon, as deployed on Apache, suffer from greater ballistic dispersion and are, therefore, more likely to cause collateral damage than the highly accurate Storm Shadow missile and Paveway guided bombs currently deployed on Tornado GR4 or Typhoon aircraft operating from Gioia del Colle in southern Italy.
Hellfire, launched from Apache, is exactly the same missile as Brimstone, launched from the deployed fast jets. But unlike the American-built Hellfire, Brimstone has a British-made, more versatile seeker on its Hellfire missile body, thereby providing not only greater accuracy against a raft of different targets, but also making it more flexible. I was involved in the procurement of all of these weapons during a four-year stint at the MOD.
So if instead of Apache we were using Harrier with Paveway IV and Maverick (both CVS cleared, as were other things including dumb bombs and Sidewinders), we would have less collateral risk, yes?
As you know I worry about future carrier crews having the right skill set in the future, hence my detailed comments on this issue. It looks like my opinions are shared by others on this thread with an understanding of carrier operations far better than mine my miles, and indeed the First Sea Lord (note both his recent comments and his evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee). There is much speculation recently that our Reserve forces will get boosted, perhaps keeping capabilities not currently being used in Afghanistan or Libya going. Perhaps the Prime Minister will rethink the problem of not having jets at sea for a decade?
Post SDSR, the UK cannot even make that sort of advert.
FL
Nope, didn't see/hear Dr Fox. I expect we would have still deployed a CVS if we could even with Tornado based in Italy - as the carrier based jets can respond more quickly. Talking of which, what is the plan for replacing Charles De Gaulle on station?
high spirits
No idea about statistics. Remember the contribution of Ocean's Jungly Lynx and ASaCs Sea Kings too, and the role of other RN assets. However with respect to the Apache's use, this post (from the thread dedicated to Sharkey Ward) is interesting:
Fact: helicopters, generally, fly slower and lower than fast jets. Fiction: helicopter weapons are smaller and more precise. Rockets and cannon, as deployed on Apache, suffer from greater ballistic dispersion and are, therefore, more likely to cause collateral damage than the highly accurate Storm Shadow missile and Paveway guided bombs currently deployed on Tornado GR4 or Typhoon aircraft operating from Gioia del Colle in southern Italy.
Hellfire, launched from Apache, is exactly the same missile as Brimstone, launched from the deployed fast jets. But unlike the American-built Hellfire, Brimstone has a British-made, more versatile seeker on its Hellfire missile body, thereby providing not only greater accuracy against a raft of different targets, but also making it more flexible. I was involved in the procurement of all of these weapons during a four-year stint at the MOD.
So if instead of Apache we were using Harrier with Paveway IV and Maverick (both CVS cleared, as were other things including dumb bombs and Sidewinders), we would have less collateral risk, yes?
As you know I worry about future carrier crews having the right skill set in the future, hence my detailed comments on this issue. It looks like my opinions are shared by others on this thread with an understanding of carrier operations far better than mine my miles, and indeed the First Sea Lord (note both his recent comments and his evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee). There is much speculation recently that our Reserve forces will get boosted, perhaps keeping capabilities not currently being used in Afghanistan or Libya going. Perhaps the Prime Minister will rethink the problem of not having jets at sea for a decade?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 2nd Jul 2011 at 22:36.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"our Reserve forces will get boasted"
I'm sure you meant "boosted", but given current politics I feel you may have inadvertently got the correct word!
"Post SDSR, the UK cannot even make that sort of advert."
Yep - that one of the points I was trying to make. The Thais have a carrier flying Harriers. What do they forsee that we don't?
I'm sure you meant "boosted", but given current politics I feel you may have inadvertently got the correct word!
"Post SDSR, the UK cannot even make that sort of advert."
Yep - that one of the points I was trying to make. The Thais have a carrier flying Harriers. What do they forsee that we don't?
Bit of a typo there - but perhaps near to the truth. Meaningless and shallow PR being very much in vogue. Bah!
Anyway, the Ocean based Apaches (and presumably Lynx and Sea Kings) have been busy once again this week:
BRITISH Apache helicopters have launched their fiercest blitz yet on Colonel Gaddafi’s forces... to protect a town of civilians.
The choppers unleashed rockets, missiles and cannon fire to stop troops killing locals in a rebel-held town.
The Apaches were scrambled on Tuesday night, after a Nato spy plane spotted Gaddafi’s men stopping civilians leaving Al Khums.
As they closed in, HMS Liverpool fired illumination artillery rounds.
Major General Nick Pope said: “Apache helicopters, flying from HMS Ocean, struck checkpoints and vehicle patrols which were restricting civilian freedom of movement along the main coastal road around Al Khums.”
They also were in action on Friday: Beeb Story
British Apache helicopters targeted a military base being used by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said. The raid, on Friday night, targeted the al Mayah military camp, near Az Zawiyah, west of the Libyan capital Tripoli. It came as Col Gaddafi threatened to carry out attacks against civilians in Europe unless Nato halts airstrikes...
The word "scrambled" suggests that they were launched at very short notice to deal with urgent targets. If we had Harriers deployed there, they would have done the job. All of this shows the value of shipborne aircraft - which brings me back to my point about the issue of how will Charles De Gaulle be repaced on station.
On another note, at least one person seems to have understood the skills issue elsewhere on PPRuNe.
Anyway, the Ocean based Apaches (and presumably Lynx and Sea Kings) have been busy once again this week:
BRITISH Apache helicopters have launched their fiercest blitz yet on Colonel Gaddafi’s forces... to protect a town of civilians.
The choppers unleashed rockets, missiles and cannon fire to stop troops killing locals in a rebel-held town.
The Apaches were scrambled on Tuesday night, after a Nato spy plane spotted Gaddafi’s men stopping civilians leaving Al Khums.
As they closed in, HMS Liverpool fired illumination artillery rounds.
Major General Nick Pope said: “Apache helicopters, flying from HMS Ocean, struck checkpoints and vehicle patrols which were restricting civilian freedom of movement along the main coastal road around Al Khums.”
They also were in action on Friday: Beeb Story
British Apache helicopters targeted a military base being used by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said. The raid, on Friday night, targeted the al Mayah military camp, near Az Zawiyah, west of the Libyan capital Tripoli. It came as Col Gaddafi threatened to carry out attacks against civilians in Europe unless Nato halts airstrikes...
The word "scrambled" suggests that they were launched at very short notice to deal with urgent targets. If we had Harriers deployed there, they would have done the job. All of this shows the value of shipborne aircraft - which brings me back to my point about the issue of how will Charles De Gaulle be repaced on station.
On another note, at least one person seems to have understood the skills issue elsewhere on PPRuNe.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Foghorn
Clearly, some people weren't listening to Liam Fox's speech the other day when he absolutely slam dunked the Harrier for not having the capability that Tornado does and that was the very reason Harrier was retired from service. Liam Fox categorically stated that the Harrier was, at the time of the SDSR, incapable of holding the HERRICK commitment as well as a no notice Op, which is Libya. Moreover, he said that if we still had a carrier and Harrier, the UK would still have deployed GR4 and Typhoon to GdC.
Liam Fox's words, not mine.
Regards.
Liam Fox's words, not mine.
Regards.
I fear some folks are tending to make incorrect assumptions regarding what our illustrious Government Minister said.
I think we can all accept that different types of aircraft carry different types of ordnance and I suspect our Defence Minister was briefed by his relevant expert before releasing that speech but my question would be,
"So what?"
Is Dr Laim Fox saying the Harrier is not suitable?
Is he saying,
The Harrier could not carry the ordnance required for any close support mission?
Is he saying the Harrier was the only close support aircraft that was available and therefore could not have carried out EVERY task the RAF is required to perform?
I fear it is 'chaff' put out by those that want to avoid this daft situation where we are faced with the stupid situation where a few days ago I watched HMS Illustrious steam by Torbay having just completed a multi million pound refit and CANNOT fulfil her role as an aircraft carrier simply because her cupboard is bare!!!!
NO fixed wing AIRCRAFT.
Is that madness or what? Yes they are available but they are locked away in a garden shed and we cannot have the key!!
Why store them if they are never going to be used?
I am no fan of this type of carrier but if we have it then it just seems perverse not to use it. Having said that I also think it was daft for the RAF to have used the Harrier on their huge concrete motorways!
The Cold War has been dead and buried many, many years ago and when that died the role of a shore based Harrier could probably be claimed to have died with it??
To me the Harrier should have been used in areas where no other type of fixed wing fast jet could operate. ie Those horrible carriers we have\had in our Royal Navy. Where we have huge strips of concrete then use something that could carry more 'Death, Destruction or Deterrent'
Horses for courses and I am baffled as to why this aircraft was used so much by the RAF. Was it the best aircraft for the job, or the only option that was available?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF fight on as rough seas hit French carrier
Todays Snail on Sunday is reporting that the French sortie rate has been reduced due to the sea swell in the med' affecting their carrier operations. This has resulted in the the land based RAF taking on more. Just shows that carriers do have their limits, even in relatively benign oceans such as the med'.
I wouldn't have thought that ops over Libya require rapid response in the same way that ops over Afghanistan do, due to the lack of "friendly" forces on the ground. In any case, if there was a requirement to "scramble" an asset somewhere due to an illegal CP popping up or something like that, I'm sure that the ATO means there's enough aircraft on planned missions that could be redirected.
It's not the type of conflict that requires a GCAS or XCAS asset on permanent standby, is it? If/when we end up with 10 000 troops in Libya who could fall into a contact with Gadaffi's men at any moment, then yes, a closer base/carrier would be handy. But my impression of ELLAMY is that it's pretty task/target-driven, and there's much more planned targeting than CAS going on.
The problem with this whole discussion is that the 2 ops we're currently involved in are very different beasts, and you can't read across lessons from one to the other. Speed of response is very important in Helmand, which is why Apaches indigenous to TFH and GR4s on GCAS are required, but there's nothing there that the Harrier could do better (unless you want to get into the minutiae of exact scramble times and exact serviceability rates, but I doubt you'd have a huge difference even then.)
Claiming that a Harrier on CVS near Libya would be good because of improved response times is meaningless when it's the Afghan conflict that benefits from that. I think in this case I'd prefer the GR4's weapons fit when it comes to the sort of things we're doing over Libya, even if we did have a direct choice between the 2.
It's not the type of conflict that requires a GCAS or XCAS asset on permanent standby, is it? If/when we end up with 10 000 troops in Libya who could fall into a contact with Gadaffi's men at any moment, then yes, a closer base/carrier would be handy. But my impression of ELLAMY is that it's pretty task/target-driven, and there's much more planned targeting than CAS going on.
The problem with this whole discussion is that the 2 ops we're currently involved in are very different beasts, and you can't read across lessons from one to the other. Speed of response is very important in Helmand, which is why Apaches indigenous to TFH and GR4s on GCAS are required, but there's nothing there that the Harrier could do better (unless you want to get into the minutiae of exact scramble times and exact serviceability rates, but I doubt you'd have a huge difference even then.)
Claiming that a Harrier on CVS near Libya would be good because of improved response times is meaningless when it's the Afghan conflict that benefits from that. I think in this case I'd prefer the GR4's weapons fit when it comes to the sort of things we're doing over Libya, even if we did have a direct choice between the 2.
"The Thais have a carrier flying Harriers. What do they forsee that we don't? "
They bought the harriers cheap because they acquired Chakri to act as a counter-piracy and disaster relief vessel. She spends pratically no time at sea, has no real operational role and no operational capability to speak of. She is a very expensive yacht for the Thai Royal Family, flying AV8s that were originally on the Delado (a WW2 escort carrier used by Spain until the mid 80s).
They bought the harriers cheap because they acquired Chakri to act as a counter-piracy and disaster relief vessel. She spends pratically no time at sea, has no real operational role and no operational capability to speak of. She is a very expensive yacht for the Thai Royal Family, flying AV8s that were originally on the Delado (a WW2 escort carrier used by Spain until the mid 80s).
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure some clever dickey earlier on in this thread said that the main advantage of a carrier over an airfield was that in the event of bad weather the carrier simply moved.......... Surely this story is tosh 
I am sure some clever dickey earlier on in this thread said that the main advantage of a carrier over an airfield was that in the event of bad weather the carrier simply moved.......... Surely this story is tosh
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
according to forecasts, the weather off Tripoli seems to be fine at the moment, with 12 mph winds. And I can't see anything to suggest its been bad recently
Only problem would appear to be heat
Only problem would appear to be heat
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again it is sad to read how folks pounce on the very slightest adverse comment regarding the carrier option although we are supposedly discussing the demise of the Harrier.
Is anyone here suggesting that an airbase would never close because of adverse weather conditions? I am guessing it would close the instant the smoke from your beloved Weber barbecues drifted anywhere near the runway
Or can our aircraft deliver their ordnance in every type of weather nature can throw at it?
Yes a carrier would stop flying for safety reasons because of bad weather, but at least it has the option of moving away from a storm, or around the wretched thing.
We all seem to ignore the fact that our aircraft are operating from a location where we are guests. Our hosts can tell us to go away at any time or perhaps put up the rent to an even higher extortionate rate and that appears perfectly acceptable as opposed to opening the garage doors and allowing our captive aircraft the chance to prove themselves more than capable of giving that much needed support.
Regarding the short notice scrambling of aircraft, is anyone here seriously suggesting there are not 'boots' on the ground?
Is anyone here suggesting that an airbase would never close because of adverse weather conditions? I am guessing it would close the instant the smoke from your beloved Weber barbecues drifted anywhere near the runway
Or can our aircraft deliver their ordnance in every type of weather nature can throw at it?
Yes a carrier would stop flying for safety reasons because of bad weather, but at least it has the option of moving away from a storm, or around the wretched thing.
We all seem to ignore the fact that our aircraft are operating from a location where we are guests. Our hosts can tell us to go away at any time or perhaps put up the rent to an even higher extortionate rate and that appears perfectly acceptable as opposed to opening the garage doors and allowing our captive aircraft the chance to prove themselves more than capable of giving that much needed support.
Regarding the short notice scrambling of aircraft, is anyone here seriously suggesting there are not 'boots' on the ground?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again it is sad to read how folks pounce on the very slightest adverse comment regarding the carrier option although we are supposedly discussing the demise of the Harrier.
SFFP/P U G Wash/Neartheend
This page from the Naval Technology website might interest you, as it mentions the systems used to redcue the effects of weather.
The carrier is fitted with the SATRAP computerised, integrated stabilisation system designed to maintain stabilisation to within 0.5° of horizontal, allowing aircraft to be operated up to sea state 5/6.
As well as the carrier's two pairs of active stabilising fins and twin rudders, the system has two computer-controlled compensation units which consist of two rail tracks for trains carrying 22t of deadweight.
These tracks run transversely below the flight deck. This system is designed to compensate for wind and heel and control roll, yaw and surge.
I would go as far as saying a modern carrier can probably operate in worse weather than one in the past - due to advances in technology.
If there is any truth in this story then it suggests a technical fault somewhere - which the Mail reporter seems to have not been told about. Carriers are designed to operate at sea, including rough seas, for example during the 1980s the USN commited no less than eight carriers to the Atlantic Fleet. Not that this stops the anti carrier lobby jumping on the story like a tramp on chips.
Is this story reported by any reliable sources?
Actually - this reinforces my point about carrier flying operations being a whole ship activity - as I mentioned previously.
5F6B
How do you explain this from the Telegraph on 19 April?
To overcome a shortage of Nato combat planes France has provided extra fighters and was moving its Charles De Gaulle aircraft near to Misurata to provide “faster rotations and targeting”, said a source.
Hence the issue of how will CDG be replaced on station (and soon).
This page from the Naval Technology website might interest you, as it mentions the systems used to redcue the effects of weather.
The carrier is fitted with the SATRAP computerised, integrated stabilisation system designed to maintain stabilisation to within 0.5° of horizontal, allowing aircraft to be operated up to sea state 5/6.
As well as the carrier's two pairs of active stabilising fins and twin rudders, the system has two computer-controlled compensation units which consist of two rail tracks for trains carrying 22t of deadweight.
These tracks run transversely below the flight deck. This system is designed to compensate for wind and heel and control roll, yaw and surge.
I would go as far as saying a modern carrier can probably operate in worse weather than one in the past - due to advances in technology.
If there is any truth in this story then it suggests a technical fault somewhere - which the Mail reporter seems to have not been told about. Carriers are designed to operate at sea, including rough seas, for example during the 1980s the USN commited no less than eight carriers to the Atlantic Fleet. Not that this stops the anti carrier lobby jumping on the story like a tramp on chips.
Is this story reported by any reliable sources?
Actually - this reinforces my point about carrier flying operations being a whole ship activity - as I mentioned previously.
5F6B
How do you explain this from the Telegraph on 19 April?
To overcome a shortage of Nato combat planes France has provided extra fighters and was moving its Charles De Gaulle aircraft near to Misurata to provide “faster rotations and targeting”, said a source.
Hence the issue of how will CDG be replaced on station (and soon).
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 4th Jul 2011 at 11:19.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience the roll aboard a proper aircraft carrier was never too much of an issue.. Twas the pitching that would spoil a pilots day, and that even applies to the huge Nimitz class carriers.
I am saying this simply to try and present a balanced presence on this emotional topic and yes carriers are effected by the forces of mother nature and for the conventional aircraft carrier this will always have to be a consideration.
For the vertical landing of an aircraft then I would suggest anywhere aft of perhaps just frrd of amidships would be possible in most seas as contrary to most land lubbers opinions the most stable place on very large ships is possibly the aft area of these vessels (I include Illustrious in this category)
Which means the Harrier should be able to remain operational in seas that would stop flying on conventional carriers. (I am still a fan of the latter)
On any ship the worse place is obviously at the pointy end and in rough weather standing in the cable locker of an aircraft carrier equates to being in a lift that is continually going up and down up........ and down, up.......... and down
I am saying this simply to try and present a balanced presence on this emotional topic and yes carriers are effected by the forces of mother nature and for the conventional aircraft carrier this will always have to be a consideration.
For the vertical landing of an aircraft then I would suggest anywhere aft of perhaps just frrd of amidships would be possible in most seas as contrary to most land lubbers opinions the most stable place on very large ships is possibly the aft area of these vessels (I include Illustrious in this category)
Which means the Harrier should be able to remain operational in seas that would stop flying on conventional carriers. (I am still a fan of the latter)
On any ship the worse place is obviously at the pointy end and in rough weather standing in the cable locker of an aircraft carrier equates to being in a lift that is continually going up and down up........ and down, up.......... and down
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF - If there is any truth in this story then it suggests a technical fault somewhere - which the Mail reporter seems to have not been told about.