Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
You cannot say that Harrier would be more effective than Apache in respect of the current (or future) Operations because Harrier no longer forms part of the British Military Inventory.
You cannot say that Harrier would be more effective than Apache in respect of the current (or future) Operations because Harrier no longer forms part of the British Military Inventory.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
caz
Yes he can.
Just because something is no longer available does not mean you cannot point out how stupid it is not to have it available.
For example, I believe that V22 would be a more effective SKASAC replacement than Merlin.
It ain't going to happen, but there is nothing wrong with making the statement.
Yes he can.
Just because something is no longer available does not mean you cannot point out how stupid it is not to have it available.
For example, I believe that V22 would be a more effective SKASAC replacement than Merlin.
It ain't going to happen, but there is nothing wrong with making the statement.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
As a KOS I have heard these opinions many times - for example when the Nimrod entered service and the Shackleton with its very impressive endurance of over 20 hours was retired. We had to devise a short course at the School of Refresher Flying for very experienced Maritime Pilots who had never flown a Jet engined aircraft before. Now, of course, the Nimrod has gone - as has "all through Jet Training".
Thanks to the previous Administration the coffers are bare and the UK Forces are engaged in Operations on more than one front. We have to "cut our coat according to our cloth".
As a KOS I have heard these opinions many times - for example when the Nimrod entered service and the Shackleton with its very impressive endurance of over 20 hours was retired. We had to devise a short course at the School of Refresher Flying for very experienced Maritime Pilots who had never flown a Jet engined aircraft before. Now, of course, the Nimrod has gone - as has "all through Jet Training".
Thanks to the previous Administration the coffers are bare and the UK Forces are engaged in Operations on more than one front. We have to "cut our coat according to our cloth".
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saudi might allow basing. They aren't a fan of AQiAP.
So couldn't having a Plan B that required no diplomatic 'favours' be considered more essential, rather than desirable?
Just a thought.
.. and yes i understand there is no money and Harrier gone blah blah.
"So couldn't having a Plan B that required no diplomatic 'favours' be considered more essential, rather than desirable?"
You make the dangerous assumption that the Suez Canal will be open for transit in your 'Meinst Uber Carrier can rule ze vorld' scenario. If thats closed then the carrier will turn up several months late...
In reality, the UK is highly unlikely to unilaterally bomb yemen, and as such, it is likely that any operation would be done within the confines of a multi-national coalition, which would almost certainly include a local friendly nation, such as KSA, Oman or UAE, all of which the UK has a close relationship with.
Perhaps before we come up with the next unlikely scenario, could someone point out any situation where the UK has been denied host nation basing for a military operation since WW2? Struggling to think of anywhere off the top of my head...
You make the dangerous assumption that the Suez Canal will be open for transit in your 'Meinst Uber Carrier can rule ze vorld' scenario. If thats closed then the carrier will turn up several months late...
In reality, the UK is highly unlikely to unilaterally bomb yemen, and as such, it is likely that any operation would be done within the confines of a multi-national coalition, which would almost certainly include a local friendly nation, such as KSA, Oman or UAE, all of which the UK has a close relationship with.
Perhaps before we come up with the next unlikely scenario, could someone point out any situation where the UK has been denied host nation basing for a military operation since WW2? Struggling to think of anywhere off the top of my head...
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimlad
One of yours from 2006 - Change of heart?
In 2001 when Afghanistan kicked off, which of those mentioned allied countries allowed strike missions to be launched from their soil?
The VC10 tankers operating out of one of those countries mentioned were only supporting the USN fast jets as er, they didn't need permission to launch off their own ships.
As usual we send a carrier because its the best unit for the job, despite there being an RAF base only a few hundred miles away. Yet more evidence as to why carriers are essential in the modern world.
Ain't it great- we can sit offshore and support, while the RAF is unable to land at the airport with its much vaunted 24/7 capability due to it being bombed. Red faces in Strike perchance?
Ain't it great- we can sit offshore and support, while the RAF is unable to land at the airport with its much vaunted 24/7 capability due to it being bombed. Red faces in Strike perchance?
In 2001 when Afghanistan kicked off, which of those mentioned allied countries allowed strike missions to be launched from their soil?
The VC10 tankers operating out of one of those countries mentioned were only supporting the USN fast jets as er, they didn't need permission to launch off their own ships.
Originally Posted by Jimlad1
...Perhaps before we come up with the next unlikely scenario, could someone point out any situation where the UK has been denied host nation basing for a military operation since WW2? Struggling to think of anywhere off the top of my head...
Italy was in the balance a few times: "Italy threaten to ban coalition forces in Libyan bombing" (link) and "Italy calls for an end to NATO's bombing campaign in Libya." (link)
Malta was a no-go from the start: "Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said no coalition forces would be allowed to stage from military bases in Malta, but Maltese airspace would be open to international forces involved in the intervention." (link)
Cyprus wasn't happy so we respected their stance: "Cyprus opposes British bases role in airstrikes." (link)
Malta was a no-go from the start: "Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said no coalition forces would be allowed to stage from military bases in Malta, but Maltese airspace would be open to international forces involved in the intervention." (link)
Cyprus wasn't happy so we respected their stance: "Cyprus opposes British bases role in airstrikes." (link)
FODPlod
Still managed it though
! As we did in Gulf War 2 when the Saudis did not want bombing sorties launched from their territory - just went elsewhere (Kuwait / Qatar etc) and carried on (for 8+ years) with barely a blip.
Still managed it though
! As we did in Gulf War 2 when the Saudis did not want bombing sorties launched from their territory - just went elsewhere (Kuwait / Qatar etc) and carried on (for 8+ years) with barely a blip.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
could someone point out any situation where the UK has been denied host nation basing for a military operation since WW2?
Struggling to think of anywhere off the top of my head
Then again, there is also the possibility of bases and overflight being refused as on the previous occasion bombing raids were flown against Libya. For Operation EL DORADO CANYON in 1986, 18 USAF F-111F Aardvarks had to fly from the UK and route around France, Spain and through the Straits of Gibraltar because France, Spain and Italy denied overflight rights and use of their bases (never happens, right?). This added 1,300 miles (2,100 km) to the trip each way and 6-7 hours flight time demanding astronomical AAR (28 tankers). Only eight of the 18 F-111Fs hit the correct targets. Five were forced to abort the mission and one was shot down.
In the same operation, the US Navy launched 14 A-6E Intruders and 6 A-7E Corsairs from the carrier USS America plus 6 F/A-18 Hornets from the carrier USS Coral Sea (both in the Mediterranean) to bomb radar and anti-aircraft sites in Benghazi before attacking the Benina and Jamahiriya barracks in Tripoli. Two of the A-6Es were forced to abort the mission but all 26 a/c returned to their carriers safely after dropping 72 x 500 lb bombs and firing 12 Shrike and 36 HARM anti-radar missiles.
Top cover was provided by several F-14 Tomcats and four E-2C Hawkeye airborne C2 and AEW a/c, all flying from carriers.
In the same operation, the US Navy launched 14 A-6E Intruders and 6 A-7E Corsairs from the carrier USS America plus 6 F/A-18 Hornets from the carrier USS Coral Sea (both in the Mediterranean) to bomb radar and anti-aircraft sites in Benghazi before attacking the Benina and Jamahiriya barracks in Tripoli. Two of the A-6Es were forced to abort the mission but all 26 a/c returned to their carriers safely after dropping 72 x 500 lb bombs and firing 12 Shrike and 36 HARM anti-radar missiles.
Top cover was provided by several F-14 Tomcats and four E-2C Hawkeye airborne C2 and AEW a/c, all flying from carriers.
lj101
Again, had no effect on the conduct of the overall operation/conflict (other than longer sorties for those based in Kuwait (and these sorties didn't require refuelling either - not sure the same could be said for Jaguar sorties had they been launched from Incirlik.....)).
Again, had no effect on the conduct of the overall operation/conflict (other than longer sorties for those based in Kuwait (and these sorties didn't require refuelling either - not sure the same could be said for Jaguar sorties had they been launched from Incirlik.....)).
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Here,there,everywhere
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so here we go again, navy muppets banging on about the same arguments just replace Libya/FRY/Afg with Yemen now 
Can the usual suspect just go to xx page of this thread and cut/paste the overflight/basing arguments and save us the bother ?
And just to keep it on topic here is a picture of a harrier with Brimstone load, pity it don't exist, no money, no harrier, no carrier deal with it
[/IMG]
Can the usual suspect just go to xx page of this thread and cut/paste the overflight/basing arguments and save us the bother ?
And just to keep it on topic here is a picture of a harrier with Brimstone load, pity it don't exist, no money, no harrier, no carrier deal with it
[/IMG]
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrath
I never said it did.
... and the GR4 has done/continues to do a great job.
Last time i checked mine was light blue.
Good to see the general standard of 'banter' from the fighter control branch hasn't changed.
Again, had no effect on the conduct of the overall operation/conflict (other than longer sorties for those based in Kuwait (and these sorties didn't require refuelling either - not sure the same could be said for Jaguar sorties had they been launched from Incirlik.....)).
... and the GR4 has done/continues to do a great job.
Ok so here we go again, navy muppets banging on about the same arguments just replace Libya/FRY/Afg with Yemen now
Good to see the general standard of 'banter' from the fighter control branch hasn't changed.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF:
I still maintain that Tornado is more effective than Harrier would have been, with greater speed, range and weapon load.
Also yes, Yemen would be difficult to get to. I'm not sure what lj101's point is, first it's that you can't count on being able to overfly other countries, then uses Afghanistan as an example of where you would have to have used carrier air.... don't you have to overfly other countries to get there from the sea? And actually, although the USN launched a lot of TLAMs and flew a lot of fast jet sorties, about 80% of the ordnance (by tonnage) dropped during those initial weeks was from aircraft that took off from CONUS or sovereign bases, as was almost all of the ISR product.
Which brings me to my main point - if we don't have suitable basing, then having a CVS with some jets on it isn't going to help in somewhere like Yemen - where will the ISR, tankers, AWACS etc come from? How will you develop targets?
Carriers are needed for influence, but when you actually want to run an air campaign you need tarmac somewhere. It's really not about the jets - what we really need to do from a UK Joint point of view is run an investment appraisal of buying carriers against spending the same amount on some additional tankers.....
I still maintain that Harrier would be more effective than Apache, with greater speed, range, and weapon load.
Also yes, Yemen would be difficult to get to. I'm not sure what lj101's point is, first it's that you can't count on being able to overfly other countries, then uses Afghanistan as an example of where you would have to have used carrier air.... don't you have to overfly other countries to get there from the sea? And actually, although the USN launched a lot of TLAMs and flew a lot of fast jet sorties, about 80% of the ordnance (by tonnage) dropped during those initial weeks was from aircraft that took off from CONUS or sovereign bases, as was almost all of the ISR product.
Which brings me to my main point - if we don't have suitable basing, then having a CVS with some jets on it isn't going to help in somewhere like Yemen - where will the ISR, tankers, AWACS etc come from? How will you develop targets?
Carriers are needed for influence, but when you actually want to run an air campaign you need tarmac somewhere. It's really not about the jets - what we really need to do from a UK Joint point of view is run an investment appraisal of buying carriers against spending the same amount on some additional tankers.....
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still maintain that Tornado is more effective than Harrier would have been, with greater speed, range and weapon load.
what we really need to do from a UK Joint point of view is run an investment appraisal of buying carriers against spending the same amount on some additional tankers
Why would we want to limit ourselves to the land based option only, and not have the flexibility of the sea based option, unless you are being single service minded and not in the best interests of the country?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear occasional aviator
I know you are an ATC officer but do keep up.
That is true - you can not.
Because in this case - strike missions from their soil NOT ALLOWED, overflight WERE.
I realise that your 4 month det in the CAOC has qualified you as an expert but having sat at the other end trying to get the damn thing in place, you would be surprised at what we were asked to achieve from the UK from our lordships. Seriously, it was a joke. But not a funny one.
Get it now?
I know you are an ATC officer but do keep up.
you can't count on being able to overfly other countries
then uses Afghanistan as an example of where you would have to have used carrier air.... don't you have to overfly other countries to get there from the sea?
I realise that your 4 month det in the CAOC has qualified you as an expert but having sat at the other end trying to get the damn thing in place, you would be surprised at what we were asked to achieve from the UK from our lordships. Seriously, it was a joke. But not a funny one.
Get it now?
"One of yours from 2006 - Change of heart?"
Yes actually. I grew up, saw the costs, did a couple of operations in uniform (which included a lot of time working with RN / RAF aviation assets) and then worked trying to try to put together an affordable equipment plan. Along the way I spent quite a lot of time seeing at first hand the damage that CVF was doing to my parent service, and the way the service I love is being destroyed to pay for something that will never do what its sold as being capable of doing.
I'm happy to admit to changing my mind because I saw the hard evidence that showed that damage CVF is inflicting on the wider UK defence community.
Yes actually. I grew up, saw the costs, did a couple of operations in uniform (which included a lot of time working with RN / RAF aviation assets) and then worked trying to try to put together an affordable equipment plan. Along the way I spent quite a lot of time seeing at first hand the damage that CVF was doing to my parent service, and the way the service I love is being destroyed to pay for something that will never do what its sold as being capable of doing.
I'm happy to admit to changing my mind because I saw the hard evidence that showed that damage CVF is inflicting on the wider UK defence community.