Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fod, I will give you some help with your maths. This continual theoretical charge per hour you quote is not allowing you or others to understand the economics of the carrier debate.
As for sorties flown, I have seen the real figures and they are below yours; moreover, and most importantly, the sorties are short and provide limited strike time and therefore tend to focus on pre-planned targets to guarantee success
Under current resource charging you can attribute a “full charge” to every hour by adding up the entire procurement bill and dividing by the hours flown (the 70k you quote). But as the aircraft goes on in life it gets cheaper. Exactly the same principle is used for carriers, but is never quoted. Typhoon or Tornado are no less paid for than the Harriers or carriers – aside from future running and development costs.
For this you should be using the nominal charge of about £4k per hour. Put that figure in your sums and see what you come up with. I will help; it blows the cost argument clear out of the water,
And that is the point missed by all those who try to compare a full capital charge against nominal annual running costs. The Treasury know the real numbers hence the reason why we are where we are….you will just have to learn to accept that. Bottom line is that more money was saved in the critical years for the least loss of capability. It is clear you don’t agree with the latter, but you will just have to take HMT’s word for the former.
As for sorties flown, I have seen the real figures and they are below yours; moreover, and most importantly, the sorties are short and provide limited strike time and therefore tend to focus on pre-planned targets to guarantee success
Under current resource charging you can attribute a “full charge” to every hour by adding up the entire procurement bill and dividing by the hours flown (the 70k you quote). But as the aircraft goes on in life it gets cheaper. Exactly the same principle is used for carriers, but is never quoted. Typhoon or Tornado are no less paid for than the Harriers or carriers – aside from future running and development costs.
For this you should be using the nominal charge of about £4k per hour. Put that figure in your sums and see what you come up with. I will help; it blows the cost argument clear out of the water,
And that is the point missed by all those who try to compare a full capital charge against nominal annual running costs. The Treasury know the real numbers hence the reason why we are where we are….you will just have to learn to accept that. Bottom line is that more money was saved in the critical years for the least loss of capability. It is clear you don’t agree with the latter, but you will just have to take HMT’s word for the former.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We live in the Twenty First Century. After four months of Operations, I find it amazing that we cannot provide sufficient F34 / JP1 to operate 30 ish Typhoon, Tornado, Grippen out of a frontline NATO base.
Turnround and response times would half. Operational efficiency would increase.
Thank God DC did not commit us to fighting the Syrian Air Force
Turnround and response times would half. Operational efficiency would increase.
Thank God DC did not commit us to fighting the Syrian Air Force
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"PARIS—The French navy will withdraw its aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle from Libyan seas on Aug. 10 for maintenance
So it now appears that the L'armée de l'air is to continue air ops in leu of the CdeG.
Are we seeing the start of a phased French withdrawal from the NATO campaign?
FODPlod
Yes, but surely aircraft for aircraft the Harrier is faster and has a better weapon load, so even a smaller number of Harriers would be extremely useful? Which reminds me....a number of pages ago someone suggested that the Prime Minister himself had enquired about restoring some Harriers and the carrier capability, only to be given a negative reply. Therefore I might raise my suggestion again.
It occurs to me that if we could supply a number (most/all of them) of our now stored Harrier GR9s to the US, and continue to offer the USMC a chance to carry out embarkations of a dozen or so Harriers, we may be able to purchase or lease a number of AV8B (AV8B+ if we're lucky) aircraft in a quid pro quo type arrangement. Hopefully any such deal would include some sort of Memorandum Of Understanding (like the agreements used to support Italian and Spanish Harriers) in order to prevent the UK to incur major support costs, but would offer the following advantages:
1. The UK would still be able to respond to crises in which carrier aviation is useful.
2. The RN would maintain the skills needed to run a carrier with jets on deck (see here or here), and would maintain a cadre of both Pilots and Engineers to work with these aircraft, avoiding the need to start from scratch later on this decade.
3. If we could get AV8B+s then it would give the Navy a capability that it lost when the Sea Harrier was retired in 2006. We would therefore be in a far better position to provide air defence for a maritime task group, or to participate in policing a no fly zone.
4. We would no longer have to pay for storing retired aircraft, and the Government would be justified in portraying this as a step forward.
5. Our potential adversaries would have something to think about - prevention (deterrence) being better than cure.
6. The defence relationship with the US would be strengthened, as would the defence relationship with France as Illustrious would be able to relieve Charles De Gaulle in x months time.
Illustrious is likely to be sent to relieve Ocean as a platform for Apache in any case, not that this is without difficulties.
Seldomfitforpurpose
The French Government is unlikely to publically say that CDG's withdrawal will comprimise the mission, is it? How do you compensate for losing 15-20 aircraft near to the target with just six based further away? In any case I think she is carrying more helicopters than usual which has reduced the number of jets she can carry.
As for the WSJ article - is it 100% reliable? I would suggest not - as it claims that CDG had been doing counter piracy operations in the Indian Ocean prior to March, when in fact she had been deployed to provide air support for ground forces in Afghanistan. Indeed, she was escorted for at least some of the time by HMS Cumberland, another victim of the SDSR axe. I wonder if the sailors were struck by the irony? Then on her way home, she was diverted with Libyan operations....
Perhaps the WSJ has an agenda? There is a debate in the US over the future of the US Armed Forces too.
dalek
What frontline NATO base?
caz
Plan? What plan?
glad rag
CDG has been deployed almost constantly since October.
As these Apaches must be from the five embarked in HMS Ocean, think what extra capability a dozen or so Harriers could have brought to the party.
It occurs to me that if we could supply a number (most/all of them) of our now stored Harrier GR9s to the US, and continue to offer the USMC a chance to carry out embarkations of a dozen or so Harriers, we may be able to purchase or lease a number of AV8B (AV8B+ if we're lucky) aircraft in a quid pro quo type arrangement. Hopefully any such deal would include some sort of Memorandum Of Understanding (like the agreements used to support Italian and Spanish Harriers) in order to prevent the UK to incur major support costs, but would offer the following advantages:
1. The UK would still be able to respond to crises in which carrier aviation is useful.
2. The RN would maintain the skills needed to run a carrier with jets on deck (see here or here), and would maintain a cadre of both Pilots and Engineers to work with these aircraft, avoiding the need to start from scratch later on this decade.
3. If we could get AV8B+s then it would give the Navy a capability that it lost when the Sea Harrier was retired in 2006. We would therefore be in a far better position to provide air defence for a maritime task group, or to participate in policing a no fly zone.
4. We would no longer have to pay for storing retired aircraft, and the Government would be justified in portraying this as a step forward.
5. Our potential adversaries would have something to think about - prevention (deterrence) being better than cure.
6. The defence relationship with the US would be strengthened, as would the defence relationship with France as Illustrious would be able to relieve Charles De Gaulle in x months time.
Illustrious is likely to be sent to relieve Ocean as a platform for Apache in any case, not that this is without difficulties.
Seldomfitforpurpose
The French Government is unlikely to publically say that CDG's withdrawal will comprimise the mission, is it? How do you compensate for losing 15-20 aircraft near to the target with just six based further away? In any case I think she is carrying more helicopters than usual which has reduced the number of jets she can carry.
As for the WSJ article - is it 100% reliable? I would suggest not - as it claims that CDG had been doing counter piracy operations in the Indian Ocean prior to March, when in fact she had been deployed to provide air support for ground forces in Afghanistan. Indeed, she was escorted for at least some of the time by HMS Cumberland, another victim of the SDSR axe. I wonder if the sailors were struck by the irony? Then on her way home, she was diverted with Libyan operations....
Perhaps the WSJ has an agenda? There is a debate in the US over the future of the US Armed Forces too.
dalek
What frontline NATO base?
caz
Plan? What plan?
glad rag
CDG has been deployed almost constantly since October.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=WE Branch Fanatic;6628293]
"seldomfitforpurpose
The French Government is unlikely to publically say that CDG's withdrawal will comprimise the mission, is it? How do you compensate for losing 15-20 aircraft near to the target with just six based further away? In any case I think she is carrying more helicopters than usual which has reduced the number of jets she can carry.
The article quotes a 6 for 6 swap on the FJ front no doubt there are plenty more land based replacement for the other types on board
As for the WSJ article - is it 100% reliable? I would suggest not - as it claims that CDG had been doing counter piracy operations in the Indian Ocean prior to March, when in fact she had been deployed to provide air support for ground forces in Afghanistan. Indeed, she was escorted for at least some of the time by HMS Cumberland, another victim of the SDSR axe. I wonder if the sailors were struck by the irony? Then on her way home, she was diverted with Libyan operations....
Perhaps the WSJ has an agenda? There is a debate in the US over the future of the US Armed Forces too."
Your now accusing someone else of having an agenda, bit rich don't you think
"seldomfitforpurpose
The French Government is unlikely to publically say that CDG's withdrawal will comprimise the mission, is it? How do you compensate for losing 15-20 aircraft near to the target with just six based further away? In any case I think she is carrying more helicopters than usual which has reduced the number of jets she can carry.
The article quotes a 6 for 6 swap on the FJ front no doubt there are plenty more land based replacement for the other types on board
As for the WSJ article - is it 100% reliable? I would suggest not - as it claims that CDG had been doing counter piracy operations in the Indian Ocean prior to March, when in fact she had been deployed to provide air support for ground forces in Afghanistan. Indeed, she was escorted for at least some of the time by HMS Cumberland, another victim of the SDSR axe. I wonder if the sailors were struck by the irony? Then on her way home, she was diverted with Libyan operations....
Perhaps the WSJ has an agenda? There is a debate in the US over the future of the US Armed Forces too."
Your now accusing someone else of having an agenda, bit rich don't you think
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fodplod
My main point is why the hell are they flying 1200nm round trip sorties anyway, when there are at least three airfields within half that range?
Even if there was initially only F44 stored at Sigonella, the capability of providing temporary storage on base has been available since WW11.
About 10kms from Sigonella is the civilian airfield at Fontanarossa. Sixth biggest airfield in Italy and no doubt storing vast amounts of Jet A1.
Yes it would be better if we could operate GR9 from HMS Ocean some 50nms or so from the coast, but I am afraid that is now in the realms of Science Fiction. It is just not going to happen.
If NATO could lean on Malta to provide facilities, that would really help.
My main point is why the hell are they flying 1200nm round trip sorties anyway, when there are at least three airfields within half that range?
Even if there was initially only F44 stored at Sigonella, the capability of providing temporary storage on base has been available since WW11.
About 10kms from Sigonella is the civilian airfield at Fontanarossa. Sixth biggest airfield in Italy and no doubt storing vast amounts of Jet A1.
Yes it would be better if we could operate GR9 from HMS Ocean some 50nms or so from the coast, but I am afraid that is now in the realms of Science Fiction. It is just not going to happen.
If NATO could lean on Malta to provide facilities, that would really help.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but surely aircraft for aircraft the Harrier is faster and has a better weapon load
BTW you must be running on duracells as any other battery would have given out long ago.
Rather than sell the Harriers to the US, they should be cut up, and the sooner the better. We might lose a few bob on the sale but at least this thread would finally die the death (just like the Nimrod threads did when the MRA4s got the chop), and that would surely be a fair trade off...
More sorties have been conducted by Apaches from Ocean, supported by other assets - see here.
Maj Gen Nick Pope, spokesman for Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards, said the Airborne and Surveillance Sea Kings – better known as Baggers throughout the Royal Navy – had provided crucial support to these and other NATO operations over Libya during the past few days.
Can anyone see problem here? One of the two frontline ASaCs squadrons is aboard Ocean, the other is in Afghanistan. What happens if the Libyan operations are still going on in a few months time.
Would Harrier need the same level of support from the Baggers and (Jungly Lynx)?
Turning to the skills issue, this story about HMS Dauntless conducting trials with a pair of Lynx demonstrates that operating aircraft at sea, particularly multiple ones, involves all sorts of issues:
“To operate two helicopters successfully, there are times when the flight deck is out of action because of the helicopter on deck – it’s known as ‘blacking’ the deck."
“It only becomes an issue if one of the helicopters has a problem airborne and needs to land quickly and the deck is ‘blacked’ by the other aircraft."
“Multi aircraft operations from single spot ships can be challenging if the procedures are not properly understood by all those involved with flying – they need to become instinctive."
“Operating in the middle of the ocean with nowhere else to go if there are serious problems with either the helicopter or ship are the things that make these types of operations so challenging.”
Challenging with a pair of relatively slow moving aicraft. Now consider the issues with operating multiple helicopters AND multiple jets. That is where corporate experience becomes important.
Also regarding skills, the RN website has a page that talks about the Harrier....
The unique performance characteristics of the Harrier allowed continued operation from both ashore and afloat utilising existing platforms and infrastructure, and providing a bridge in capability pending the entry into service of the Joint Strike Fighter during the next decade.
Hmmm
Maj Gen Nick Pope, spokesman for Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards, said the Airborne and Surveillance Sea Kings – better known as Baggers throughout the Royal Navy – had provided crucial support to these and other NATO operations over Libya during the past few days.
Can anyone see problem here? One of the two frontline ASaCs squadrons is aboard Ocean, the other is in Afghanistan. What happens if the Libyan operations are still going on in a few months time.
Would Harrier need the same level of support from the Baggers and (Jungly Lynx)?
Turning to the skills issue, this story about HMS Dauntless conducting trials with a pair of Lynx demonstrates that operating aircraft at sea, particularly multiple ones, involves all sorts of issues:
“To operate two helicopters successfully, there are times when the flight deck is out of action because of the helicopter on deck – it’s known as ‘blacking’ the deck."
“It only becomes an issue if one of the helicopters has a problem airborne and needs to land quickly and the deck is ‘blacked’ by the other aircraft."
“Multi aircraft operations from single spot ships can be challenging if the procedures are not properly understood by all those involved with flying – they need to become instinctive."
“Operating in the middle of the ocean with nowhere else to go if there are serious problems with either the helicopter or ship are the things that make these types of operations so challenging.”
Challenging with a pair of relatively slow moving aicraft. Now consider the issues with operating multiple helicopters AND multiple jets. That is where corporate experience becomes important.
Also regarding skills, the RN website has a page that talks about the Harrier....
The unique performance characteristics of the Harrier allowed continued operation from both ashore and afloat utilising existing platforms and infrastructure, and providing a bridge in capability pending the entry into service of the Joint Strike Fighter during the next decade.
Hmmm
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 15th Aug 2011 at 20:26.
One of the two frontline ASaCs squadrons is aboard Ocean, the other is in Afghanistan. What happens if the Libyan operations are still going on in a few months time.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF Have you been on holiday, its been a whole 3 days since you last posted. I thought you were only worried about the Harriers now it seems you are worried about the baggers. I know, why not create a thread entitled.... decision to axe the RN is 'bonkers'. It'll save you time in the long run and just think of all the hyperlinks and quotes you could use for that one. 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
THE HARRIER IS NO LONGER AN OPTION FOR UK FORCES!!!!!
FIXED WING CARRIER BORNE AVIATION IS NOT CURRENTLY AN OPTION FOR THE UK ARMED FORCES.
The RN sold its soul in order to guarantee the new carriers.
No amount of hypothesizing on PPRUNE will change this. Do us all a favour and stop bleating on about it.
THE HARRIER IS NO LONGER AN OPTION FOR UK FORCES!!!!!
FIXED WING CARRIER BORNE AVIATION IS NOT CURRENTLY AN OPTION FOR THE UK ARMED FORCES.
The RN sold its soul in order to guarantee the new carriers.
No amount of hypothesizing on PPRUNE will change this. Do us all a favour and stop bleating on about it.
Last edited by shawshank; 13th Aug 2011 at 15:12.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears the RN has finally lowered its sights to something more affordable.
The First Sea Lords' Flag Lieutenant, Lt Oliver Clark-builds the latest Type 45.
The First Sea Lords' Flag Lieutenant, Lt Oliver Clark-builds the latest Type 45.
THREE new state-of-the-art Type 45 destroyers have been built for the Royal Navy – but unfortunately they were all made from plastic.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Here,there,everywhere
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
Know when to give up, there was a point when people could see your point of view and reasoning. However you have tipped the seesaw too far and you are becoming a laughing stock with your copy & paste and needless 'bumps' to keep this on front page. If it was important the mods would have made it a sticky.......they haven't
Give it up or go and find Sharkey with a bottle of whiskey ( preferably on the isle of St Kilda)
Know when to give up, there was a point when people could see your point of view and reasoning. However you have tipped the seesaw too far and you are becoming a laughing stock with your copy & paste and needless 'bumps' to keep this on front page. If it was important the mods would have made it a sticky.......they haven't
Give it up or go and find Sharkey with a bottle of whiskey ( preferably on the isle of St Kilda)