Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last Harrier pilot
And on the same spelling/grammar theme, a very USMC article about the last flight in a Harrier by a UK pilot.
Note my use of regular sized font illustrating a calm and reasoned post.
http://www.thewindsockonline.com/OLI...&view=ZW50aXR5
Note my use of regular sized font illustrating a calm and reasoned post.
http://www.thewindsockonline.com/OLI...&view=ZW50aXR5
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope they hermetically seal that flight suit before putting it in the museum... I am surprised there is anything left to see...his flight suits usually rot away having been in contact with 100% gingerness! Did he actually say the bit about doing his duty to his country and the rest of the world? 
What an opening line!
For more than 50 years the United Kingdom has been a helping asset in the development of one of the most versatile aircraft in the world, the AV-8B Harrier.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Walter's Ash
Age: 59
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More Internecine Bickering!
I see our fearless leaders continue their somewhat juvenile internecine bickering in the open press….
Firstly, from July’s JDW (an internationally respected serious defence journal) we have the serving AOC 1 Gp AVM Bagwell at RIAT taking a direct anti-French /anti-carrier swipe in the article “Royal Air Force Downplays Carrier Aviation”….in particular, his final (rather facile IMHO) comment must have impressed our French allies…oh, and of course, the dark blue sister service already convinced that the RAF is out to kill Carrier Strike!!
“If you want to strike at lunchtime or midnight, then go to the Charles de Gaulle,” he said “[However] if you want it 24 hours a day, then come to the Royal Air Force.”
And secondly,
Another classic riposte regarding the millions currently being spent on Italian hotels:
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=17125
MoD spends millions on Italian hotels
09 August 2011
Figures released by the Ministry of Defence have revealed a £1.3m monthly spend on hotels for personnel currently based in Italy.
BFBS reported that an average of £1,315,000 had been spent every month for around 1000 service personnel working to carry out air strikes against Colonel Gaddafi's forces in Libya.
And it was said this figure did not include the cost of food.
Costs of the Libya air campaign have been criticised by naval supporters, who have argued it would be far cheaper to carry out attacks with Harrier jets and aircraft carriers.
In April, Rear Admiral Terry Loughran, the former commander of HMS Ark Royal, told Defencemanagement.com: "If you had Ark Royal and the Harriers we would be so much better placed with the Libya no fly zone
"To take one Typhoon, dropping one Paveway bomb…it had to be accompanied by a Tornado, had to be accompanied by an in-flight refuelling aircraft…the total fuel bill was half a million pounds. If you had done the same thing with Harriers and a carrier it would be £80,000."
The news follows earlier revelations in July that the MoD had spent over £98m on hotel accommodation between 2008 and 2010.
…and so, there we have it….the constant drip feed (drivel) from both sides (although I am surprised that serving officers are allowed to get away with it….) while our people are in harm’s way!
Frankly….pathetic!
H-W
Firstly, from July’s JDW (an internationally respected serious defence journal) we have the serving AOC 1 Gp AVM Bagwell at RIAT taking a direct anti-French /anti-carrier swipe in the article “Royal Air Force Downplays Carrier Aviation”….in particular, his final (rather facile IMHO) comment must have impressed our French allies…oh, and of course, the dark blue sister service already convinced that the RAF is out to kill Carrier Strike!!
“If you want to strike at lunchtime or midnight, then go to the Charles de Gaulle,” he said “[However] if you want it 24 hours a day, then come to the Royal Air Force.”
And secondly,
Another classic riposte regarding the millions currently being spent on Italian hotels:
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=17125
MoD spends millions on Italian hotels
09 August 2011
Figures released by the Ministry of Defence have revealed a £1.3m monthly spend on hotels for personnel currently based in Italy.
BFBS reported that an average of £1,315,000 had been spent every month for around 1000 service personnel working to carry out air strikes against Colonel Gaddafi's forces in Libya.
And it was said this figure did not include the cost of food.
Costs of the Libya air campaign have been criticised by naval supporters, who have argued it would be far cheaper to carry out attacks with Harrier jets and aircraft carriers.
In April, Rear Admiral Terry Loughran, the former commander of HMS Ark Royal, told Defencemanagement.com: "If you had Ark Royal and the Harriers we would be so much better placed with the Libya no fly zone
"To take one Typhoon, dropping one Paveway bomb…it had to be accompanied by a Tornado, had to be accompanied by an in-flight refuelling aircraft…the total fuel bill was half a million pounds. If you had done the same thing with Harriers and a carrier it would be £80,000."
The news follows earlier revelations in July that the MoD had spent over £98m on hotel accommodation between 2008 and 2010.
…and so, there we have it….the constant drip feed (drivel) from both sides (although I am surprised that serving officers are allowed to get away with it….) while our people are in harm’s way!
Frankly….pathetic!
H-W
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Internecine
All wasn't lost, I understand and agree with pathetic.
“If you want to strike at lunchtime or midnight, then go to the Charles de Gaulle,” he said “[However] if you want it 24 hours a day,* then come to the Royal Air Force.”
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, don't believe everything you read in the papers (journals), if you read the article carefully you will see that this was a briefing at RIAT where Typhoon was being pitched against Rafale - any UK taxpayer should be interested in that deal going the right way.
But why should anyone here be surprised that after over 4 months of constant retired dark blue sniping, their commander stood up for his light blue boys and girls on ops. FoDplods last comment being a classic example of the sort of sniping they have to endure.
Before we take a pot shot against one article in a specialist magazine, we should balance it against the constant briefing in the open press against Tornado and Typhoon; this thread serves as a useful reminder of the history of that sniping.
But why should anyone here be surprised that after over 4 months of constant retired dark blue sniping, their commander stood up for his light blue boys and girls on ops. FoDplods last comment being a classic example of the sort of sniping they have to endure.
Before we take a pot shot against one article in a specialist magazine, we should balance it against the constant briefing in the open press against Tornado and Typhoon; this thread serves as a useful reminder of the history of that sniping.
Last edited by Capt P U G Wash; 15th Aug 2011 at 19:04.
The Ark Royal and Harriers may have been cheaper, and as effective, I don't know. However, it's a totally pointless discussion.....
AS THE ARK ROYAL AND HARRIERS HAVE GONE, AND WON'T BE COMING BACK!!! LIVE WITH IT!
AS THE ARK ROYAL AND HARRIERS HAVE GONE, AND WON'T BE COMING BACK!!! LIVE WITH IT!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Walter's Ash
Age: 59
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt P U G Wash,
Thank you for your comment, however I must strongly disagree with your assertion that, because retired officers from any service provide opinion (whether agreed with or not), it is somehow acceptable for a serving very senior RAF officer to make “on-the record” derogatory and disparaging remarks regarding another nation’s and service’s military capabilities – it is not, and was (IMO) frankly unprofessional!
The attitude in some quarters that somehow two wrongs will make a right (…they said ‘x’ so we’ll counter with ’y’) is a ridiculous strategy which lacks maturity and says more about the proponent rather than the intended target – not a trait I would wish to see displayed regularly by our leaders.
H-W
Thank you for your comment, however I must strongly disagree with your assertion that, because retired officers from any service provide opinion (whether agreed with or not), it is somehow acceptable for a serving very senior RAF officer to make “on-the record” derogatory and disparaging remarks regarding another nation’s and service’s military capabilities – it is not, and was (IMO) frankly unprofessional!
The attitude in some quarters that somehow two wrongs will make a right (…they said ‘x’ so we’ll counter with ’y’) is a ridiculous strategy which lacks maturity and says more about the proponent rather than the intended target – not a trait I would wish to see displayed regularly by our leaders.
H-W
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hardly,
if you believe everything just as it is reported then you are more naive than your years should suggest. And it wasn't just retired officers - 1SL made the comment twice, once to the media briefing that caused the PM to get so upset, and also in front of the HCDC. If your location is an indication of where you work then go and ask just how many FOI requests and PQs have been asked by prominent retired dark blue on this issue over the last five months and you will better understand just how one sided and vicious this has been (although not always in the open press).
Moreover, you only need to take a casual glance across the web to find a number of articles/posts by serving French officers against Typhoon. I understand from the article that this RIAT briefing was in front of many Indian Journalists and so was probably a bit of a sales pitch - google the indian papers and see what a dramatic positive effect it had there. The French Admirals who were coaxed into helping the RN's cause by a number of high profile briefings to UK press were actually using the opportunity to subtley take a pop at Typhoon (now do you see how the game is played) - those who have abetted this angle against Typhoon need to ask what impact they might have had on the UK economy.
You have a point about the tit for tat approach: however, this campaign against the RAF has been more tit than tat!
if you believe everything just as it is reported then you are more naive than your years should suggest. And it wasn't just retired officers - 1SL made the comment twice, once to the media briefing that caused the PM to get so upset, and also in front of the HCDC. If your location is an indication of where you work then go and ask just how many FOI requests and PQs have been asked by prominent retired dark blue on this issue over the last five months and you will better understand just how one sided and vicious this has been (although not always in the open press).
Moreover, you only need to take a casual glance across the web to find a number of articles/posts by serving French officers against Typhoon. I understand from the article that this RIAT briefing was in front of many Indian Journalists and so was probably a bit of a sales pitch - google the indian papers and see what a dramatic positive effect it had there. The French Admirals who were coaxed into helping the RN's cause by a number of high profile briefings to UK press were actually using the opportunity to subtley take a pop at Typhoon (now do you see how the game is played) - those who have abetted this angle against Typhoon need to ask what impact they might have had on the UK economy.
You have a point about the tit for tat approach: however, this campaign against the RAF has been more tit than tat!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Walter's Ash
Age: 59
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Pug,
An interesting point of view indeed....
I am entirely aware why other senior officers received censure for their remarks (I understand this has not been the case for AOC); entirely in line with the asertion that serving senior officers must exercise appropriate care and wisdom when expressing any public comment. I do remain surprised (..and not naively
) that these particular remarks were made in an open forum and certainly do not agree that they can be justified because it was a (rather unedifying) Typoon sales pitch!
I'll leave it there...
H-W
An interesting point of view indeed....
I am entirely aware why other senior officers received censure for their remarks (I understand this has not been the case for AOC); entirely in line with the asertion that serving senior officers must exercise appropriate care and wisdom when expressing any public comment. I do remain surprised (..and not naively
) that these particular remarks were made in an open forum and certainly do not agree that they can be justified because it was a (rather unedifying) Typoon sales pitch!I'll leave it there...
H-W
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and what censure was that or should it be......?
It has been interesting to see how much more spine has been exhibited by senior policemen recently after the criticism of their handling of the riots.
Perhaps this warrants a whole new thread (this one has run its course) about whether HM Forces should serve in silence. Regrettably, the high degree of political control exerted over recent years has made the undergournd briefings worse. Agree with them or not, at least this time someone put their name to their comments.
It has been interesting to see how much more spine has been exhibited by senior policemen recently after the criticism of their handling of the riots.
Perhaps this warrants a whole new thread (this one has run its course) about whether HM Forces should serve in silence. Regrettably, the high degree of political control exerted over recent years has made the undergournd briefings worse. Agree with them or not, at least this time someone put their name to their comments.
Neartheend
SDSR came close to saying we don't need a Navy.
shawshank
Thanks for the extra large font. Yes, I am aware that the Harrier GR9 is gone - but that is why some of us have suggested other options.
I also understand that fixed wing carrier aviation is not currently an option - although it would be useful if it was.
FnF
Do you never use links or quotes?
FB11
Interesting article. Why are no more RN/RAF pilots going on exchange with USMC Harrier units? After all, RN and RAF exchange guys have flown all sorts of aircraft that were unlikely to be operated by the UK. A certain RN ex Buccaneer driver (and he flew the Wasp and Sea King before that) flew the A7 Corsair with the USN before returning to convert to the Sea Jet - he later was a squadron CO, and CO of several ships and made Flag Rank. Others have flown all sorts of USN and USMC aircraft.
hoodie ae al
Well, the SDSR decision didn't help image wise, did it?
Capt P U G Wash
But why should anyone here be surprised that after over 4 months of constant retired dark blue sniping, their commander stood up for his light blue boys and girls on ops. FoDplods last comment being a classic example of the sort of sniping they have to endure.
Surely that was just banter? Anyway it is not just the RAF that has been on ops - what about Ocean being used in a strike role she was not designed for, with Apache being embarked for longer than ever planned for, and doing strike roles it was not intended for. Her ASaCs Sea Kings seem to have been frequently used to support RAF/NATO strikes - I think it ironic that a shipborne ISTAR asset is used like this, in the light of the "we don't need a carrier" attitudes that prevail. Likewise illuminations rounds fired from HMS Liverpool or other warships. See Libya: Operations Updates.
Liverpool (and Iron Duke and Sutherland when they stood in for her) have fired many HE 4.5" rounds too, as well as conducting boarding operations and controlling allied aircraft.
If a carrier (of sorts) is needed to support ISTAR assets, and surface warships are need to fire illumination rounds, then why not fly the missions from the carrier?
Capt P U G Wash
And it wasn't just retired officers - 1SL made the comment twice, once to the media briefing that caused the PM to get so upset, and also in front of the HCDC. If your location is an indication of where you work then go and ask just how many FOI requests and PQs have been asked by prominent retired dark blue on this issue over the last five months and you will better understand just how one sided and vicious this has been (although not always in the open press).
Are you saying that the First Sea Lord should not tell the truth to the Defence Committee? 1SL pointed out that losing the carrier strike capability causes huge problems for the Royal Navy, and indeed the UK as a whole.
Pointing out that carrier aircraft aboard a carrier just of the coast can hit targets faster than land based ones (and without needing tanker support) is pointing out the obvious. The cost argument makes more sense if we remember that we are deploying a LPH or CVS anyway to support helicopters, and have other warships committed - it means that those assets are there anyway.
If NATO now has to hunt for Scud launchers, then this capability (carrier strike) gap can only cause more problems.
SDSR came close to saying we don't need a Navy.
shawshank
Thanks for the extra large font. Yes, I am aware that the Harrier GR9 is gone - but that is why some of us have suggested other options.
I also understand that fixed wing carrier aviation is not currently an option - although it would be useful if it was.
FnF
Do you never use links or quotes?
FB11
Interesting article. Why are no more RN/RAF pilots going on exchange with USMC Harrier units? After all, RN and RAF exchange guys have flown all sorts of aircraft that were unlikely to be operated by the UK. A certain RN ex Buccaneer driver (and he flew the Wasp and Sea King before that) flew the A7 Corsair with the USN before returning to convert to the Sea Jet - he later was a squadron CO, and CO of several ships and made Flag Rank. Others have flown all sorts of USN and USMC aircraft.
hoodie ae al
Well, the SDSR decision didn't help image wise, did it?
Capt P U G Wash
But why should anyone here be surprised that after over 4 months of constant retired dark blue sniping, their commander stood up for his light blue boys and girls on ops. FoDplods last comment being a classic example of the sort of sniping they have to endure.
Surely that was just banter? Anyway it is not just the RAF that has been on ops - what about Ocean being used in a strike role she was not designed for, with Apache being embarked for longer than ever planned for, and doing strike roles it was not intended for. Her ASaCs Sea Kings seem to have been frequently used to support RAF/NATO strikes - I think it ironic that a shipborne ISTAR asset is used like this, in the light of the "we don't need a carrier" attitudes that prevail. Likewise illuminations rounds fired from HMS Liverpool or other warships. See Libya: Operations Updates.
Liverpool (and Iron Duke and Sutherland when they stood in for her) have fired many HE 4.5" rounds too, as well as conducting boarding operations and controlling allied aircraft.
If a carrier (of sorts) is needed to support ISTAR assets, and surface warships are need to fire illumination rounds, then why not fly the missions from the carrier?
Capt P U G Wash
And it wasn't just retired officers - 1SL made the comment twice, once to the media briefing that caused the PM to get so upset, and also in front of the HCDC. If your location is an indication of where you work then go and ask just how many FOI requests and PQs have been asked by prominent retired dark blue on this issue over the last five months and you will better understand just how one sided and vicious this has been (although not always in the open press).
Are you saying that the First Sea Lord should not tell the truth to the Defence Committee? 1SL pointed out that losing the carrier strike capability causes huge problems for the Royal Navy, and indeed the UK as a whole.
Pointing out that carrier aircraft aboard a carrier just of the coast can hit targets faster than land based ones (and without needing tanker support) is pointing out the obvious. The cost argument makes more sense if we remember that we are deploying a LPH or CVS anyway to support helicopters, and have other warships committed - it means that those assets are there anyway.
If NATO now has to hunt for Scud launchers, then this capability (carrier strike) gap can only cause more problems.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 16th Aug 2011 at 09:32.