Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a great believer in that saying,
I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?
Ignorant folks sometimes tell me to 'Get out more' or 'Get a life'
They say these things without having a clue of my circumstance or possibly the hurt those remarks might cause.
Why not say nothing and let folks voice their opinions, why insult?
I for one accept the harriers are gone and will probably never be seen on our flight decks ever again, but if other folks feel the need to try and revoke that decision then power to their elbow.
Regarding the excellent points about the skills required to man an aircraft carrier then sadly I am in the corner that believes the launching and recovery of fast jets from a carrier via the use of cats and traps is a completely different skill set than that required for STOVL operations and being current on that skill is not a ha'pence of use when we finally get this F-35C or F-18
Training the pilots is the easiest task, getting a foreign power to train up the 'on deck' ship's company is something else and I doubt there is a single person left in the Royal Navy that has this type of experience, but that is a different topic.
I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?
Ignorant folks sometimes tell me to 'Get out more' or 'Get a life'
They say these things without having a clue of my circumstance or possibly the hurt those remarks might cause.
Why not say nothing and let folks voice their opinions, why insult?
I for one accept the harriers are gone and will probably never be seen on our flight decks ever again, but if other folks feel the need to try and revoke that decision then power to their elbow.
Regarding the excellent points about the skills required to man an aircraft carrier then sadly I am in the corner that believes the launching and recovery of fast jets from a carrier via the use of cats and traps is a completely different skill set than that required for STOVL operations and being current on that skill is not a ha'pence of use when we finally get this F-35C or F-18
Training the pilots is the easiest task, getting a foreign power to train up the 'on deck' ship's company is something else and I doubt there is a single person left in the Royal Navy that has this type of experience, but that is a different topic.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glojo,
On your last paragraph, it is a different topic and the UK is indeed very focused on it.
Over the next decade - with the predominance starting earlier in the period - the UK will send key individuals who either have experience or will get it later to the USA to be fully integrated into the US CVN or associated Carrier Air Wing.
These individuals, taken from all ranks, rates and competencies, will form the nucleus of the safe and assured delivery of fixed and rotary wing from the UK Queen Elizabeth Carriers from the next decade onwards.
Particular focus will be on the 'air department' where those skills not practiced by UK personnel since 1978 (cats/traps etc.) will be key.
FB11
On your last paragraph, it is a different topic and the UK is indeed very focused on it.
Over the next decade - with the predominance starting earlier in the period - the UK will send key individuals who either have experience or will get it later to the USA to be fully integrated into the US CVN or associated Carrier Air Wing.
These individuals, taken from all ranks, rates and competencies, will form the nucleus of the safe and assured delivery of fixed and rotary wing from the UK Queen Elizabeth Carriers from the next decade onwards.
Particular focus will be on the 'air department' where those skills not practiced by UK personnel since 1978 (cats/traps etc.) will be key.
FB11
Slight change of subject..................
I've been told by a mate at Wyt. that the USA disposal deal has stalled! I believe the problem is they thought they would get the lot for peanuts, and now have decided that they can't afford them!!!!
Teamchief
Interesting stuff.
glojo
As FB11 says, only working with the Americans and French can train RN personnel for working with catapults and arresting gear. CVS/Harrier cannot, as CVS has neither cats nor traps, nor does Harrier use them.
However, continued Harrier embarkations would mean that chockheads and others on the deck of Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth do get exposure of working with jet aircraft, which I believe is an issue causing some concern (as mentioned here). Additionally, continued fixed wing flying will maintain skills far beyond the flight deck, for example the ship handling and communications aspects.
Earlier on it was reported that the idea of a small number of Harriers being operated by RNR Pilots to ensure continued periodic fixed wing embarkations was dismissed as not practical, too expensive, and not representing good value for money. If it really is uneconomic to operate small numbers of military jets, then how come there are a few Hunters (for example) in private hands? Not only do these include several private operators, but also ones being operated privately to provide training services by Hawker Hunter Aviation?
In an environment where governments and contractors have to balance ever-spiralling defence costs with budgetary constraints, HHA offers turn-key trials and aerial training support platforms to ease the task and budgetary pressure on front line assets.
Surely these operators would not exist it was prohibitively expensive. I am not talking about deployable assets that can go to sea for lengthy periods, merely a training asset to mitigate against skills loss amongst RN carrier crews.
Interesting stuff.
glojo
As FB11 says, only working with the Americans and French can train RN personnel for working with catapults and arresting gear. CVS/Harrier cannot, as CVS has neither cats nor traps, nor does Harrier use them.
However, continued Harrier embarkations would mean that chockheads and others on the deck of Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth do get exposure of working with jet aircraft, which I believe is an issue causing some concern (as mentioned here). Additionally, continued fixed wing flying will maintain skills far beyond the flight deck, for example the ship handling and communications aspects.
Earlier on it was reported that the idea of a small number of Harriers being operated by RNR Pilots to ensure continued periodic fixed wing embarkations was dismissed as not practical, too expensive, and not representing good value for money. If it really is uneconomic to operate small numbers of military jets, then how come there are a few Hunters (for example) in private hands? Not only do these include several private operators, but also ones being operated privately to provide training services by Hawker Hunter Aviation?
In an environment where governments and contractors have to balance ever-spiralling defence costs with budgetary constraints, HHA offers turn-key trials and aerial training support platforms to ease the task and budgetary pressure on front line assets.
Surely these operators would not exist it was prohibitively expensive. I am not talking about deployable assets that can go to sea for lengthy periods, merely a training asset to mitigate against skills loss amongst RN carrier crews.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 15th Oct 2011 at 21:45.
There is a big difference between tooling around in Hunters and Harriers. If you don't understand that, I suggest you stop posting here - you are wasting your time.
There is also a big difference between
and actually having the capability to deploy a worthwhile force to CVS/F for any period of time. Have you forgotten how little deck time JFH got between 04-09? The fish-heads said we were so out of currency that we were "dangerous." I believe you may have agreed at the time.....
And that was a professional force of 3 Sqns of full-time Harrier pilots, maintainers and support staff.....
Your idea will never work. The Harrier is gone from UK service. It will not come back. Fact.
There is also a big difference between
a few Hunters (for example) in private hands
And that was a professional force of 3 Sqns of full-time Harrier pilots, maintainers and support staff.....
Your idea will never work. The Harrier is gone from UK service. It will not come back. Fact.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps we should start some new threads:
Decision to axe Nimrod R1 is bonkers
Decision to withdraw F3 early is bonkers
Decision not to buy enough T45s is bonkers
Decision not to buy enough Typhoon is bonkers
Decision not to buy enough JSF is bonkers
Decision to reduce the Tornado fleet is bonkers
Decision to reduce the AAR force is bonkers
Decision to retire Sentinel in 2015 is bonkers
etc etc
for all the good it will do...
Decision to axe Nimrod R1 is bonkers
Decision to withdraw F3 early is bonkers
Decision not to buy enough T45s is bonkers
Decision not to buy enough Typhoon is bonkers
Decision not to buy enough JSF is bonkers
Decision to reduce the Tornado fleet is bonkers
Decision to reduce the AAR force is bonkers
Decision to retire Sentinel in 2015 is bonkers
etc etc
for all the good it will do...
Ok then OA, commence starting new threads.....
You didn't even mention:
Decision to retire Nimrod MR2 early is bonkers.
Decision to withdraw all MPA capability is bonkers.
Decision to retire Ark Royal is bonkers.
Decision to close Lyneham is bonkers.
....and I'm not even warmed up yet!!
You didn't even mention:
Decision to retire Nimrod MR2 early is bonkers.
Decision to withdraw all MPA capability is bonkers.
Decision to retire Ark Royal is bonkers.
Decision to close Lyneham is bonkers.
....and I'm not even warmed up yet!!
LAL
Thanks. I am aware of the difference between a deployable unit (with the demands of keeping up to speed with operation stuff) and a UK based training outfit with no front line role. I unaware, however, of what the rejected RNR/Harrier idea (which the First Sea Lord backed) proposed. Was it to provide a capability that was deployable but at lower readiness, or merely to provide embarkations for training purposes limited periods?
If it was the later, then the operation of fast jets by commercial operators (such as Hawker Hunter Aviation, or Serco operating the FRADU Hawks from Culdrose in support of FOST) prove that it can be done. Also there is a privately operated Sea Harrier - dismantled and shipped stateside by Art Nalls, and now flying on the US airshow circuit.
MG/fw/OA/5F6B/Biggus/james/BomberH
I never realised that book burning was so popular!
Many of the things you have outlined were indeed bonkers, in fact some of them got a mention on this thread. However, the last minute decisions which led to the axing of Harrier (source: here) were particularly poor. Indeed, the First Sea Lord has publicly stated that the problems caused by losing CVS/Harrier were/are his most serious concern post SDSR. Surely discussing the implications for the future, and ways to cope with the risks, is perfectly legitimate?
On the training issue, personnel exchanges with the US Navy (and France too?) will give Pilots experience of big deck conventional carrier operations, and is the only way (as glojo and FB11 note) of training RN personnel in operating catapults, arresting gear, and so on.
However, only a few individuals can be trained that way. Since we will have a flattop in service for most of the decade (Illustrious until 2014, Queen Elizabeth soon(?) after that), we could embark foreign Harriers. Embarking foreign Harriers (in the absence of our own) would give experience of working with jets at sea to a greater number of personnel - chockheads and others on the flightdeck, the OOW, Navigating Officer, and others responsible for the navigation and ship handling aspects, and many others.
Some of the comments from politicians suggest that they did not really understand how much activity is need by the ship to support aviation. The Telegraph recently quoted a senior (sic) naval officer:
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.
The other issue is capability. Do we need to address the shortfall in maritime strike capability? If we do, then how? Some regenerated Harriers? What about some regenerated Sea Harriers from Culdrose (idea <100% serious)? Marinise more Apaches perhaps? Or lease some AV8Bs with a nice support MOU (as I suggested)?
Some of you might be tempted to say increase the TLAM capability. Not a bad idea, except that this decade SSN numbers will fall below seven, as we simply cannot build Astute boats as fast as the Trafalgar class are paid off.
This is what I was trying to say on the previous page.
Here is something that might interest some of you: a Talk Radio show from the United States that discusses the Lessons from Libya.
The loss of the RN's carrier capability, the SDSR, and our Prime Minister are only mentioned in passing, However, much mention is made of shipborne aviation by both the French Navy and the USMC. Again they note that operating from a ship ten minutes away from the coast does have advantages over bases much further away - including greater responsiveness and a faster decision making cycle. Much is made of organic C4ISTAR.
After Libya, where will the next operation be? Probably a littoral one - which is unfortunate as SDSR seems to have been based on land operations in landlocked places. Will our Government be willing to do a post Libya "lessons learnt" study?
Thanks. I am aware of the difference between a deployable unit (with the demands of keeping up to speed with operation stuff) and a UK based training outfit with no front line role. I unaware, however, of what the rejected RNR/Harrier idea (which the First Sea Lord backed) proposed. Was it to provide a capability that was deployable but at lower readiness, or merely to provide embarkations for training purposes limited periods?
If it was the later, then the operation of fast jets by commercial operators (such as Hawker Hunter Aviation, or Serco operating the FRADU Hawks from Culdrose in support of FOST) prove that it can be done. Also there is a privately operated Sea Harrier - dismantled and shipped stateside by Art Nalls, and now flying on the US airshow circuit.
MG/fw/OA/5F6B/Biggus/james/BomberH
I never realised that book burning was so popular!
Many of the things you have outlined were indeed bonkers, in fact some of them got a mention on this thread. However, the last minute decisions which led to the axing of Harrier (source: here) were particularly poor. Indeed, the First Sea Lord has publicly stated that the problems caused by losing CVS/Harrier were/are his most serious concern post SDSR. Surely discussing the implications for the future, and ways to cope with the risks, is perfectly legitimate?
On the training issue, personnel exchanges with the US Navy (and France too?) will give Pilots experience of big deck conventional carrier operations, and is the only way (as glojo and FB11 note) of training RN personnel in operating catapults, arresting gear, and so on.
However, only a few individuals can be trained that way. Since we will have a flattop in service for most of the decade (Illustrious until 2014, Queen Elizabeth soon(?) after that), we could embark foreign Harriers. Embarking foreign Harriers (in the absence of our own) would give experience of working with jets at sea to a greater number of personnel - chockheads and others on the flightdeck, the OOW, Navigating Officer, and others responsible for the navigation and ship handling aspects, and many others.
Some of the comments from politicians suggest that they did not really understand how much activity is need by the ship to support aviation. The Telegraph recently quoted a senior (sic) naval officer:
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.
The other issue is capability. Do we need to address the shortfall in maritime strike capability? If we do, then how? Some regenerated Harriers? What about some regenerated Sea Harriers from Culdrose (idea <100% serious)? Marinise more Apaches perhaps? Or lease some AV8Bs with a nice support MOU (as I suggested)?
Some of you might be tempted to say increase the TLAM capability. Not a bad idea, except that this decade SSN numbers will fall below seven, as we simply cannot build Astute boats as fast as the Trafalgar class are paid off.
This is what I was trying to say on the previous page.
Here is something that might interest some of you: a Talk Radio show from the United States that discusses the Lessons from Libya.
The loss of the RN's carrier capability, the SDSR, and our Prime Minister are only mentioned in passing, However, much mention is made of shipborne aviation by both the French Navy and the USMC. Again they note that operating from a ship ten minutes away from the coast does have advantages over bases much further away - including greater responsiveness and a faster decision making cycle. Much is made of organic C4ISTAR.
After Libya, where will the next operation be? Probably a littoral one - which is unfortunate as SDSR seems to have been based on land operations in landlocked places. Will our Government be willing to do a post Libya "lessons learnt" study?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the RNR harrier idea was conceived mostly to mess with Crabs for entertainment, though when they looked at the numbers to maintain a very limited capability (1 bomb 1 missile type) at reasonably long readiness state it nearly progressed into more than that due to the very surprisingly low cost.
