Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foldingwings:
i'm posting to this thread with some reluctance, as it's been filled with some pretty emotive stuff. I actually agree with many on the key point - that the Harrier is gone, it's time to move on, and get ready for the future. I didn't agree with the decision, but it wasn't mine to make, it's made and that, sadly, is that.
However, I am going to step in here because we now have some efforts to rewrite the facts to suit people's arguments. I don't mind losing an argument - that's life, I've lost plenty. But I am not going to sit around and let this sort of stuff go unchallenged.
I'm not going to enter the 'Tornado as a ground attack aircraft' argument save to point out that the AV-8B/GR7 was actually designed as a CAS aircraft, with a huge cockpit and specially optimised wing to facilitate visual identification of targets and loiter on task. The GR1 (and GR4) is a very, very good strike aircraft which was built for low level attack at high speed. You can use ANY jet for CAS, it all depends how you decide to do 'CAS'. I don't think that a GR4 can do 'CAS' the way the GR7 was designed to do it - but it doesn't mean it can't hit targets precisely. Shades of the USAF A-10/F-16 argument here. Probably moot, anyway.
First point, and I quote:
The Invincible-class carriers' magazines were not explosive licenced to carry many of the modern weapons available to the Harrier when it was in Service
This is plain wrong. As I was working at Strike and closely involved with the deployment of GR7 to CVS, I can confirm that all weapons cleared for the aircraft were licensed for carriage, stowage and use. Interestingly, the article makes no mention of the fact that Harrier could carry and deploy Maverick, an exceptionally accurate weapon - one the Tornado can not.
Here's the main issue, and I quote:
The Navy Board, with Prime Minister Brown's encouragement, took the decision alone to scrap the Sea Harrier early thereby accepting a 'capability holiday' in providing air defence of the Fleet until the Future Carriers came into service. That decision heralded the death knell for the Harrier Force and, when push came to shove under the Conservative mandated SDSR, the RAF Harriers, with their expensive, extensive and complex logistic chain, were quite rightly identified as the RAF aircraft that would release the greatest savings.
This, again, is plain wrong. Comically wrong.
The decision to scrap Sea Harrier in 2002 was taken by the RAF Board, as they owned the aircraft at the time, having assumed ownership and control of the aircraft on formation of JFH in 2000. The Navy Board certainly agreed to the measure, which was required to generate funds to support the GR7 to 9 upgrade, which had run way over budget. (Oh, and Brown didn't take over as PM until 2007).
The decision to scrap Sea Harrier was stated and understood (by the Navy) at the time to ensure the survival of JF Harrier, with GR9s to provide the maritime strike capability. The SDSR decision to scrap Harrier was driven by many things, but an 'expensive, extensive and complex logistic chain' was certainly not one of them. As an HQSTC staff officer, I knew the relative logistic footprints for Harrier and Tornado, and the words 'expensive, extensive and complex' would certainly apply to both.
As I said, I agree that it's now time to move on - but let's at least tell the truth as we start out.
Next bit - having a pop at Apache. Again, I don't agree with knocking the job our people are doing. I know some of the professionals flying Apache, and the last thing they would do is to try to 'big up' their specialist sorties and ops. But when I see stuff like this:
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 and/or Typhoon aircraft
Yes, unguided rockets and cannon are less accurate than a guided weapon. But we're not comparing like with like here. While we are talking accuracy, though, the accuracy of rockets and cannon from an Apache is better than from a Tornado or Typhoon - that's because overall dispersion on target is made up of a number of factors, not just ballistic dispersion. The Apache has an extremely accurate and sophisticated target identification and aiming system for both rockets and guns, and because it flies slower, suffers from much smaller aiming errors. There's other stuff involved, but not for this forum. PM me if you'd like to learn about it.
Hellfire vs Brimstone - like to know where you worked at MoD, possibly alongside me (?). Once a target is seeker locked, actual target accuracy depends as much on missile control and dynamics as anything else - and these are the same for both. Hellfire from an Apache is plenty good enough to do what was required of it in Libya, just like GPS guided bombs from Tornadoes. And if you really want accurate attack on multiple targets, Longbow radar plus up to 16 missiles sounds like a nice thing to have, even if Tornado can't do it...
Look, I agree that it's time for this thread to fold - we all have better things to do. But don't go making up 'facts' to support arguments - there's been far too much of that stuff at all levels over the past year.
Best Regards as ever to those actually doing the job at the front line,
Engines
i'm posting to this thread with some reluctance, as it's been filled with some pretty emotive stuff. I actually agree with many on the key point - that the Harrier is gone, it's time to move on, and get ready for the future. I didn't agree with the decision, but it wasn't mine to make, it's made and that, sadly, is that.
However, I am going to step in here because we now have some efforts to rewrite the facts to suit people's arguments. I don't mind losing an argument - that's life, I've lost plenty. But I am not going to sit around and let this sort of stuff go unchallenged.
I'm not going to enter the 'Tornado as a ground attack aircraft' argument save to point out that the AV-8B/GR7 was actually designed as a CAS aircraft, with a huge cockpit and specially optimised wing to facilitate visual identification of targets and loiter on task. The GR1 (and GR4) is a very, very good strike aircraft which was built for low level attack at high speed. You can use ANY jet for CAS, it all depends how you decide to do 'CAS'. I don't think that a GR4 can do 'CAS' the way the GR7 was designed to do it - but it doesn't mean it can't hit targets precisely. Shades of the USAF A-10/F-16 argument here. Probably moot, anyway.
First point, and I quote:
The Invincible-class carriers' magazines were not explosive licenced to carry many of the modern weapons available to the Harrier when it was in Service
This is plain wrong. As I was working at Strike and closely involved with the deployment of GR7 to CVS, I can confirm that all weapons cleared for the aircraft were licensed for carriage, stowage and use. Interestingly, the article makes no mention of the fact that Harrier could carry and deploy Maverick, an exceptionally accurate weapon - one the Tornado can not.
Here's the main issue, and I quote:
The Navy Board, with Prime Minister Brown's encouragement, took the decision alone to scrap the Sea Harrier early thereby accepting a 'capability holiday' in providing air defence of the Fleet until the Future Carriers came into service. That decision heralded the death knell for the Harrier Force and, when push came to shove under the Conservative mandated SDSR, the RAF Harriers, with their expensive, extensive and complex logistic chain, were quite rightly identified as the RAF aircraft that would release the greatest savings.
This, again, is plain wrong. Comically wrong.
The decision to scrap Sea Harrier in 2002 was taken by the RAF Board, as they owned the aircraft at the time, having assumed ownership and control of the aircraft on formation of JFH in 2000. The Navy Board certainly agreed to the measure, which was required to generate funds to support the GR7 to 9 upgrade, which had run way over budget. (Oh, and Brown didn't take over as PM until 2007).
The decision to scrap Sea Harrier was stated and understood (by the Navy) at the time to ensure the survival of JF Harrier, with GR9s to provide the maritime strike capability. The SDSR decision to scrap Harrier was driven by many things, but an 'expensive, extensive and complex logistic chain' was certainly not one of them. As an HQSTC staff officer, I knew the relative logistic footprints for Harrier and Tornado, and the words 'expensive, extensive and complex' would certainly apply to both.
As I said, I agree that it's now time to move on - but let's at least tell the truth as we start out.
Next bit - having a pop at Apache. Again, I don't agree with knocking the job our people are doing. I know some of the professionals flying Apache, and the last thing they would do is to try to 'big up' their specialist sorties and ops. But when I see stuff like this:
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 and/or Typhoon aircraft
Yes, unguided rockets and cannon are less accurate than a guided weapon. But we're not comparing like with like here. While we are talking accuracy, though, the accuracy of rockets and cannon from an Apache is better than from a Tornado or Typhoon - that's because overall dispersion on target is made up of a number of factors, not just ballistic dispersion. The Apache has an extremely accurate and sophisticated target identification and aiming system for both rockets and guns, and because it flies slower, suffers from much smaller aiming errors. There's other stuff involved, but not for this forum. PM me if you'd like to learn about it.
Hellfire vs Brimstone - like to know where you worked at MoD, possibly alongside me (?). Once a target is seeker locked, actual target accuracy depends as much on missile control and dynamics as anything else - and these are the same for both. Hellfire from an Apache is plenty good enough to do what was required of it in Libya, just like GPS guided bombs from Tornadoes. And if you really want accurate attack on multiple targets, Longbow radar plus up to 16 missiles sounds like a nice thing to have, even if Tornado can't do it...
Look, I agree that it's time for this thread to fold - we all have better things to do. But don't go making up 'facts' to support arguments - there's been far too much of that stuff at all levels over the past year.
Best Regards as ever to those actually doing the job at the front line,
Engines
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
Thank you for your comments for which I am grateful. I am pleased you agree with my view that we should all move on.
I based my comments on 35 years as a QWI, Weapons Effort Planner and a 4-year tour in MOD (OR51(Air)) where I was the officer responsible for the SRs and part of the contract signing team with MOD(PE) for all the then new and now contemporary Air-to-Surface weapons!
I grant you it was some years ago and things may have changed but I stand by the letters published which you should actually read in context with the crap that had been published the previous week rather than take them in isolation.
Sorry that I cannot stop longer to reply but I need to move on which, for me, is a 3-day golfing break in Northumberland! Got to pack or I'll miss the first tee time!!!
Foldie
PS
I rest my case! All weapons cleared does not mean all weapons available, which leaves the Tornado with the more useful capability! CVS, had the Harrier not withdrawn itself from the Storm Shadow (SR(A)1236) programme, was not cleared to carry SS in its magazine!
Thank you for your comments for which I am grateful. I am pleased you agree with my view that we should all move on.
I based my comments on 35 years as a QWI, Weapons Effort Planner and a 4-year tour in MOD (OR51(Air)) where I was the officer responsible for the SRs and part of the contract signing team with MOD(PE) for all the then new and now contemporary Air-to-Surface weapons!
I grant you it was some years ago and things may have changed but I stand by the letters published which you should actually read in context with the crap that had been published the previous week rather than take them in isolation.
Sorry that I cannot stop longer to reply but I need to move on which, for me, is a 3-day golfing break in Northumberland! Got to pack or I'll miss the first tee time!!!
Foldie
PS
all weapons cleared for the aircraft were licensed for carriage, stowage and use
Last edited by foldingwings; 26th Sep 2011 at 06:58.
Foldie,
I could be wrong, but I thought the Typhoon was only cleared to deliver Paveway II, I appreciate it'll eventually carry the lot, but in Libya while the GR4 was carrying all available Ground Attack Ordinance, the Tiffy was restricted to helping out where it could.
And Engines, old plum,
Surely the Sea Harrier was wholly a Naval asset?! Therefore up to the Admiralty to decide whether to hang onto it or not?!
FB
I could be wrong, but I thought the Typhoon was only cleared to deliver Paveway II, I appreciate it'll eventually carry the lot, but in Libya while the GR4 was carrying all available Ground Attack Ordinance, the Tiffy was restricted to helping out where it could.
And Engines, old plum,
Surely the Sea Harrier was wholly a Naval asset?! Therefore up to the Admiralty to decide whether to hang onto it or not?!
FB
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB,
Correct but I was using a generic argument in considering accuracy of FJ weapons v Apache weapons!
I also agree your thinking on SHAR assets, they may have been tasked under JFH (note that the J stands for Joint) but they belonged to the Navy and the Navy (unlike the FAA) see 'jets on board' as a firepower extension rather than an air asset! Which is why they used to (and would probably still do) bitch and moan when they were placed under the Op Cmd of the JFACC (been there, on board and seen it happen).
Now for 5 games of golf!
Foldie
Correct but I was using a generic argument in considering accuracy of FJ weapons v Apache weapons!
I also agree your thinking on SHAR assets, they may have been tasked under JFH (note that the J stands for Joint) but they belonged to the Navy and the Navy (unlike the FAA) see 'jets on board' as a firepower extension rather than an air asset! Which is why they used to (and would probably still do) bitch and moan when they were placed under the Op Cmd of the JFACC (been there, on board and seen it happen).
Now for 5 games of golf!
Foldie
Foldie
CVS may not have been certified to carry SS in its mags, but that is a matter of procedure rather than an impossibility. AOR certainly was (I've seen the trials and carriage documentation) and although the AURC makes things tricky in terms of the size of the thing, it can be done - and done better in the new ships designed to accommodate it.
Would you care to comment on how many of the air-to-surface weapons you were responsible for pushing through included the requirement for shipboard carriage, handling and use - including EMI/EMC? Clearly for "jointery" it should be all of them one would have thought. I raise this as I seem to recall that one of the weapons being touted as a game changer over Libya was going to have major EMI/EMC issues aboard CVS and Ocean. May have been "fixed" by now, but surely should have been compatible from the off?
CVS may not have been certified to carry SS in its mags, but that is a matter of procedure rather than an impossibility. AOR certainly was (I've seen the trials and carriage documentation) and although the AURC makes things tricky in terms of the size of the thing, it can be done - and done better in the new ships designed to accommodate it.
Would you care to comment on how many of the air-to-surface weapons you were responsible for pushing through included the requirement for shipboard carriage, handling and use - including EMI/EMC? Clearly for "jointery" it should be all of them one would have thought. I raise this as I seem to recall that one of the weapons being touted as a game changer over Libya was going to have major EMI/EMC issues aboard CVS and Ocean. May have been "fixed" by now, but surely should have been compatible from the off?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folding,
Hope you had a good golf break. Thanks for the reply. I can imagine the 'context', but I'd like to know whether you agree with the factual points I made about the letters. No matter what the 'context', best if we all stick to facts. Please let me know if you think I've got any wrong.
One thing you (and others) seem to have an issue with is ownership of SHAR at the time of the decision to retire them early. Let's just be clear on this one.
By that time (2002) they were RAF aircraft. They had been transferred from the FAA section of the Military Aircraft Register to the RAF section in 2000. They were funded by the RAF, tasked by the RAF and controlled by the RAF, as part of 3 Group. Their Ops and Engineering control was set up at Strike in 2000. I helped do that. (I also remember an early RAF request to remove the 'Royal Navy' lettering from their tail fins soon afterwards...) The decision to retire them early was taken following an RAF decision in late 2001 to offer them up as a savings measure against RAF budgets, especially the GR7 to 9 upgrade programme, which had run way over budget.. The Navy agreed, having been assured that GR7/9s would be made available to set up two RN badged units. (Finningley boy, old fruit, please let me know whether you know any different. PM me if you like).
Weapons stowage on CVS - please let me clarify. What i said was that all weapons cleared for the Harrier had been cleared for stowage on CVS. At the time, the difference between Tornado and GR7 was that Tornado was further down the road to getting Brimstone - GR7 was next in line, as far as I remember. SS - I was in DA Arm when Harrier withdrew from SS, mainly on grounds of cost and practicality - it was just too big a weapon for the aircraft. As a result, there was no effort that I knew of to get it on board CVS. AOR would be required to transport the thing to places foreign, but it was never 'on' for CVS, due to small magazines and handling facilities. I served on all three and used Sea Eagle, which was a tight squeeze. Not a boffin - sorry, not 'tricky' just not on at all - and not required if the aircraft wasn't going to carry it.
It's interesting, though, that no one seems to want to mention the Maverick capability that Harrier had that Tornado doesn't - specifically bought as an accurate air to ground missile with a larger and more versatile warhead than Brimstone, with 'pilot in the loop' to reduce collateral damage.
Many thanks and best regards as ever to those doing the job these days,
Engines
Hope you had a good golf break. Thanks for the reply. I can imagine the 'context', but I'd like to know whether you agree with the factual points I made about the letters. No matter what the 'context', best if we all stick to facts. Please let me know if you think I've got any wrong.
One thing you (and others) seem to have an issue with is ownership of SHAR at the time of the decision to retire them early. Let's just be clear on this one.
By that time (2002) they were RAF aircraft. They had been transferred from the FAA section of the Military Aircraft Register to the RAF section in 2000. They were funded by the RAF, tasked by the RAF and controlled by the RAF, as part of 3 Group. Their Ops and Engineering control was set up at Strike in 2000. I helped do that. (I also remember an early RAF request to remove the 'Royal Navy' lettering from their tail fins soon afterwards...) The decision to retire them early was taken following an RAF decision in late 2001 to offer them up as a savings measure against RAF budgets, especially the GR7 to 9 upgrade programme, which had run way over budget.. The Navy agreed, having been assured that GR7/9s would be made available to set up two RN badged units. (Finningley boy, old fruit, please let me know whether you know any different. PM me if you like).
Weapons stowage on CVS - please let me clarify. What i said was that all weapons cleared for the Harrier had been cleared for stowage on CVS. At the time, the difference between Tornado and GR7 was that Tornado was further down the road to getting Brimstone - GR7 was next in line, as far as I remember. SS - I was in DA Arm when Harrier withdrew from SS, mainly on grounds of cost and practicality - it was just too big a weapon for the aircraft. As a result, there was no effort that I knew of to get it on board CVS. AOR would be required to transport the thing to places foreign, but it was never 'on' for CVS, due to small magazines and handling facilities. I served on all three and used Sea Eagle, which was a tight squeeze. Not a boffin - sorry, not 'tricky' just not on at all - and not required if the aircraft wasn't going to carry it.
It's interesting, though, that no one seems to want to mention the Maverick capability that Harrier had that Tornado doesn't - specifically bought as an accurate air to ground missile with a larger and more versatile warhead than Brimstone, with 'pilot in the loop' to reduce collateral damage.
Many thanks and best regards as ever to those doing the job these days,
Engines
What i said was that all weapons cleared for the Harrier had been cleared for stowage on CVS
Cleared for stowage on CVS is fairly useless when you can't lift the damn things off the ramp, as is the case with PW3.
with 'pilot in the loop' to reduce collateral damage.
This thread still gets an impressive number of views, although I am a little surprised that there was not much response to the RUSI paper and the analysis offer by Dr Willett et al.
Engines
I did mention Maverick back here - including the ability to hit maritime targets.
Wrathmonk
We? If you mean NATO, then the argument does not work, since Charles De Gaulle played an important role, and no doubt saved many red faces in London. Also, Joe Public hopefully understands that an attack helicopter lacks the range, speed, and weapon load of a jet.
By the way - Ocean sized vessels? Bit like the Harrier carrying ones SDSR said we did not need?
I have been keen to flag up the issue relating to future carrier related skills in many posts on this thread. There is no need for me to post a link or a lengthy quote, however...
Yesterday this issue was flagged up by the Telegraph:
Royal Navy sackings 'will lose aircraft carriers skills forever'
The lack of adequately training personnel could delay the carrier coming into service by another three or four years, the Navy commander has said.
Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.
It seems odd that many in the media and public do not seem to accept that basics (like handling jets on deck) are indeed basics. We need to embark (foreign) Harriers aboard Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth as often as possible.
Slightly off topic, it would appear that there are plans to increase the size of the RNR Air Branch. However, since the RN will not have any more aircraft I wonder why this is. I know there was talk of using Reservists to keep certain capabilities and skills alive for future regeneration, but that idea seems to have been axed.
Engines
I did mention Maverick back here - including the ability to hit maritime targets.
Wrathmonk
For example, Joe Public will see that we have successfully engaged in Libya without a full size carrier. You say that Apaches on OCEAN sounds very similar to Carrier Strike. Perhaps. So the beancounters could argue (for it is they that have the real control over our future capabilities) that do we really need up to 2 huge carriers or shoukd we build them, sell them and reinvest part of the income in two smaller OCEAN size vessels and pocket the difference.
By the way - Ocean sized vessels? Bit like the Harrier carrying ones SDSR said we did not need?
I have been keen to flag up the issue relating to future carrier related skills in many posts on this thread. There is no need for me to post a link or a lengthy quote, however...
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?
Royal Navy sackings 'will lose aircraft carriers skills forever'
The lack of adequately training personnel could delay the carrier coming into service by another three or four years, the Navy commander has said.
Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.
It seems odd that many in the media and public do not seem to accept that basics (like handling jets on deck) are indeed basics. We need to embark (foreign) Harriers aboard Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth as often as possible.
Slightly off topic, it would appear that there are plans to increase the size of the RNR Air Branch. However, since the RN will not have any more aircraft I wonder why this is. I know there was talk of using Reservists to keep certain capabilities and skills alive for future regeneration, but that idea seems to have been axed.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 1st Oct 2011 at 19:17.
WEBF
We as in UK military have achieved our part of the "victory" in Libya without a BFO carrier. The public may find it very hard therefore to understand why we need two BFO carriers when little OCEAN size ones appear to have been fine in supporting the other services (and nations). Remember, we live in a world of hindsight!!
Also, could you expand on this comment please as I'm not sure what you are getting at:
We as in UK military have achieved our part of the "victory" in Libya without a BFO carrier. The public may find it very hard therefore to understand why we need two BFO carriers when little OCEAN size ones appear to have been fine in supporting the other services (and nations). Remember, we live in a world of hindsight!!
Also, could you expand on this comment please as I'm not sure what you are getting at:
If you mean NATO, then the argument does not work, since Charles De Gaulle played an important role, and no doubt saved many red faces in London.
Originally Posted by Wrathmonk
We as in UK military have achieved our part of the "victory" in Libya without a BFO carrier...
Originally Posted by The Times 29 Sep 2011
Denmark’s armed forces have had almost as much success in Libya as the RAF and the Royal Navy, The Times can reveal. A strike force of four Danish jets has hit almost as many targets in Libya as all of Britain’s much larger contingent of warplanes and ships...
Denmark’s six F16 jets — two are kept in reserve — have hit 913 targets since the campaign began in March. Britain’s 16 Tornado jets, four Typhoon fighters and a unit of Apache attack helicopters, as well as at least two Royal Navy warships, hit 970...
Mind you, the Danes were operating from Sigonella which is slightly more than half the distance from Libya as Gioia del Colle. Think how much more an air group on board a BFO carrier (or even a CVS) stooging just off the Libyan coast could have achieved. Just as well that the Charles de Gaulle was there to take up the slack.
Then again, "the public", might think we are better off not buying 2 expensive carriers and JSF, and we should get also rid of the Tornados and Typhoons and just buy lots of F-16s instead...!!
FOD Plod
Pure numbers are meaningless - it's all about quality vs quantity (a phrase you may have heard ....) otherwise you'll be telling me an MRLS salvo that turns a 1km x 1km square to dust taking out hundreds of targets in one fell swoop is better than an SF sniper who takes out a single, but critical, commander with a single shot.
You are Lord West and I claim my £5.
Pure numbers are meaningless - it's all about quality vs quantity (a phrase you may have heard ....
) otherwise you'll be telling me an MRLS salvo that turns a 1km x 1km square to dust taking out hundreds of targets in one fell swoop is better than an SF sniper who takes out a single, but critical, commander with a single shot.
I suppose we beat the Danes
I think we should focus more on the comments of the Officer mentioned in the Telegraph article by Thomas Harding, that we stand at risk of losing all the skills needed to support fixed wing aviation at sea. This is similar to what many others have said (and I have mentioned in many posts), but the politicians have put their fingers in their ears.
Periodic embarkations of US, Italian, or Spanish Harriers aboard Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth will do a lot to keep basic skills alive. Without the basics, the much harder CTOL F35C operations will be much harder to adapt to.
I also think my question about plans to increase the size of the RNR Air Branch, and the thought of using Reservists (of all three services) to keep certain capabilities ticking over is still pertinent, even if this idea was dismissed. Perhaps we could think outside the box and barrow somebody else's Harriers for short periods? Or, in the light of the Arab Spring and Libya, and the potential for other surprises perhaps loan/barrow/lease some on a permanent basis?
Periodic embarkations of US, Italian, or Spanish Harriers aboard Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth will do a lot to keep basic skills alive. Without the basics, the much harder CTOL F35C operations will be much harder to adapt to.
I also think my question about plans to increase the size of the RNR Air Branch, and the thought of using Reservists (of all three services) to keep certain capabilities ticking over is still pertinent, even if this idea was dismissed. Perhaps we could think outside the box and barrow somebody else's Harriers for short periods? Or, in the light of the Arab Spring and Libya, and the potential for other surprises perhaps loan/barrow/lease some on a permanent basis?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 4th Oct 2011 at 18:21.
Wrathmonk
Dr Fox found £1.5 billion back in July! As for my (not mine alone) ideas:
There would be no real costs involved here, as it would not involve us having our own Harriers. The ships will still exist, they will still have crews, and will still go to sea, so this would be a cheap way of maintaining fixed wing skills (and helping our defence relationships).
The idea of retaining a number of Harriers for the RNR Air Branch was dismissed on cost grounds, However, if we could borrow somebody else's then the support costs become virtually zero. My understanding was that most fixed wing RNR pilots were attached to the RN Flying Standards Flight (Fixed Wing), could this not still be the case? Could we not use other countries simulators and other facilities?
The lease proposal that I suggested would include a Memorandum of Understanding and keep support costs as low as possible by not having a need for a Design Authority or IPT, and even using our allies' training facilities.
Anyway, going back to that Telegraph article:
Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.
Is that the cost of NOT taking measures to retain skills? Save now, pay in lives, injuries, aircraft losses, and ship damage later?
This week there has been this article from the Guardian that seems to question the land centric nature of the SDSR:
With tough decisions on defence spending still likely, Libya has clearly demonstrated that traditional air and maritime tasks should not be consigned to a cold war era. After a decade focused on the importance of land operations, Libya has returned naval and air capabilities to the fore. As such, Gaddafi is not the only colonel who has lost influence over the past six months.
Dr Fox found £1.5 billion back in July! As for my (not mine alone) ideas:
Periodic embarkations of US, Italian, or Spanish Harriers aboard Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth will do a lot to keep basic skills alive. Without the basics, the much harder CTOL F35C operations will be much harder to adapt to.
I also think my question about plans to increase the size of the RNR Air Branch, and the thought of using Reservists (of all three services) to keep certain capabilities ticking over is still pertinent, even if this idea was dismissed. Perhaps we could think outside the box and barrow somebody else's Harriers for short periods?
Or, in the light of the Arab Spring and Libya, and the potential for other surprises perhaps loan/barrow/lease some on a permanent basis?
Anyway, going back to that Telegraph article:
Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.
Is that the cost of NOT taking measures to retain skills? Save now, pay in lives, injuries, aircraft losses, and ship damage later?
This week there has been this article from the Guardian that seems to question the land centric nature of the SDSR:
With tough decisions on defence spending still likely, Libya has clearly demonstrated that traditional air and maritime tasks should not be consigned to a cold war era. After a decade focused on the importance of land operations, Libya has returned naval and air capabilities to the fore. As such, Gaddafi is not the only colonel who has lost influence over the past six months.
On the subject of the RNFSF (Fixed Wing), the recent redesign of the RN website (which also deletes carriers and removes virtually all references to the Harrier - shades of George Orwell) has removed the RNFSF(FW) page (it was listed under RNAS Yeovilton). However, a quick look on Google suggests that they did survive SDSR as these pictures prove.
Pre SDSR RNFSF(FW) parented all fixed wing RNR Pilots. If it still exists then the infrastructure exists to support RNR Harrier flying or other options (see above ideas) - we would just need to borrow someone's Harriers. FR20 does advocate an expanded RNR Air Branch.
On the skills issue, I would point out that the more you look into it the more there is. For example, a lot of the procedures for communicating with fixed wing aircraft are quite elaborate.
This open source US publication talks about some of the issues involved with aviation operations at sea. As does this one. Given that a ship moves, flying operations and ship handling are things that place constraints on each other and need to be coordinated.
The whole ship aspects seem to be forgotten about far too often, but are key to safety. The current CVS/Harrier/STOVL skillset are just basics when compared to the CTOL skills needed in the future, but without lots of people with experience of the basics then transitioning to catapaults and arrestor gear (and aircraft that do not not stop before landing) can only be much more difficult. Aircraft will still need moving around on deck, the ship will still need to be on the right course/speed, to name to aspects, regardless of carrier type.
As I have said before: 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 with 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?
Cats and traps are of course a different matter, and that expertise does not currently exist in the RN, and it cannot be practised without a carrier so equipped. But surely other skills do exist, and could (should) be retained with continued fixed wing embarkations?
Pre SDSR RNFSF(FW) parented all fixed wing RNR Pilots. If it still exists then the infrastructure exists to support RNR Harrier flying or other options (see above ideas) - we would just need to borrow someone's Harriers. FR20 does advocate an expanded RNR Air Branch.
On the skills issue, I would point out that the more you look into it the more there is. For example, a lot of the procedures for communicating with fixed wing aircraft are quite elaborate.
This open source US publication talks about some of the issues involved with aviation operations at sea. As does this one. Given that a ship moves, flying operations and ship handling are things that place constraints on each other and need to be coordinated.
The whole ship aspects seem to be forgotten about far too often, but are key to safety. The current CVS/Harrier/STOVL skillset are just basics when compared to the CTOL skills needed in the future, but without lots of people with experience of the basics then transitioning to catapaults and arrestor gear (and aircraft that do not not stop before landing) can only be much more difficult. Aircraft will still need moving around on deck, the ship will still need to be on the right course/speed, to name to aspects, regardless of carrier type.
As I have said before: 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 with 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?
Cats and traps are of course a different matter, and that expertise does not currently exist in the RN, and it cannot be practised without a carrier so equipped. But surely other skills do exist, and could (should) be retained with continued fixed wing embarkations?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 11th Oct 2011 at 21:38.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloody Hell, WEBF! That's lucky! This thread almost got stuck on Page 2 until you brought it back again! Four days between your posts and no intervention from anybody else! That's dedication for you!
GET A LIFE!
Foldie
PS. Could a Mod not close WEBF's self-licking lollipop and allow him to get over himself!
GET A LIFE!
Foldie
PS. Could a Mod not close WEBF's self-licking lollipop and allow him to get over himself!
