Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
While not wishing to take either side on the new "..is WEBF being oppressed or merely portrayed accurately..." debate that seems to be emerging, I feel I should point out that I think he is likely to be thick skinned enough not to have his life "devastated" by what a few people may, or may not, say about him on pprune!
If he wasn't thick skinned his postings would have dried up years ago....
If he wasn't thick skinned his postings would have dried up years ago....
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus
I am afraid that WEBF is on a par with the members of the Flat Earth Society. He is totally unable to comprehend (or even consider) any viewpoint other than his own.
There are no Harriers in an operational role - nor are there any Aircraft Carriers in the RN capable of operating them without a considerable work up period if they did exist. The two new Carriers destined for the RN are to be mothballed on completion because there are no modern aircraft for them to operate; nor suitably qualified Aircrew to man them - or Maintenance Personnel to maintain them - even if the aircraft were available.
A cynic (like myself) might even query the Contracts to build the new Carriers being granted to Shipyards close to the then Prime Ministers Constituency.
I am afraid that WEBF is on a par with the members of the Flat Earth Society. He is totally unable to comprehend (or even consider) any viewpoint other than his own.
There are no Harriers in an operational role - nor are there any Aircraft Carriers in the RN capable of operating them without a considerable work up period if they did exist. The two new Carriers destined for the RN are to be mothballed on completion because there are no modern aircraft for them to operate; nor suitably qualified Aircrew to man them - or Maintenance Personnel to maintain them - even if the aircraft were available.
A cynic (like myself) might even query the Contracts to build the new Carriers being granted to Shipyards close to the then Prime Ministers Constituency.
Last edited by cazatou; 23rd Oct 2011 at 15:50.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou,
If WEBF is a member of th flat Earth society, at least he is on Earth, your comments betray you extra terrestrial origins!
So Lusty can't operate Harriers (ours or any of our allies, the latter ARE still very much in service) without major work? The alterations to Lusty are in line with those carried out to Ark Royal a few years ago to enhance her abilities as an LPH. After which, she still managed to operate Harriers without a major or even Minor reconstruction and was operating Harriers right up to the (premature) end.
The two new carriers will not be mothballed, they will proceed into service with the RN, at the very least the first ship will relieve HMS Ocean for a few years and the second will complete Cat and Trap in time to operate the F-35C. Or are you expecting them to be cancelled too?
Many posts in the last few days have proved many members here need to take a good look in the mirror, such childish attacks and vitriol in breach of forum rules. Play the ball, not the man. If you don't like what is said on this thread, you are free to leave. If WEBF is a ranting mad man then why are you poking him with metaphorical sticks? Bedlam was closed a long time ago and such behaviour is unbecoming of (supposed) officers and Gentlemen.
If WEBF is a member of th flat Earth society, at least he is on Earth, your comments betray you extra terrestrial origins!
So Lusty can't operate Harriers (ours or any of our allies, the latter ARE still very much in service) without major work? The alterations to Lusty are in line with those carried out to Ark Royal a few years ago to enhance her abilities as an LPH. After which, she still managed to operate Harriers without a major or even Minor reconstruction and was operating Harriers right up to the (premature) end.
The two new carriers will not be mothballed, they will proceed into service with the RN, at the very least the first ship will relieve HMS Ocean for a few years and the second will complete Cat and Trap in time to operate the F-35C. Or are you expecting them to be cancelled too?
Many posts in the last few days have proved many members here need to take a good look in the mirror, such childish attacks and vitriol in breach of forum rules. Play the ball, not the man. If you don't like what is said on this thread, you are free to leave. If WEBF is a ranting mad man then why are you poking him with metaphorical sticks? Bedlam was closed a long time ago and such behaviour is unbecoming of (supposed) officers and Gentlemen.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OWR
Perhaps you should read my post again. I never said that the Carrier could not operate without major work - I said it would require a considerable work up period to enable it to operate Harriers again. Unfortunately, there are no Harriers in RAF or RN service any more. Moreover, I have not seen any statement by HMG of any change to the plan to "Mothball" the new Aircraft Carriers on completion. Equally there does not appear to be any specific "In Service" date for the new aircraft for the Carriers.
Perhaps you should read my post again. I never said that the Carrier could not operate without major work - I said it would require a considerable work up period to enable it to operate Harriers again. Unfortunately, there are no Harriers in RAF or RN service any more. Moreover, I have not seen any statement by HMG of any change to the plan to "Mothball" the new Aircraft Carriers on completion. Equally there does not appear to be any specific "In Service" date for the new aircraft for the Carriers.
"Play the ball, not the man. If you don't like what is said on this thread, you are free to leave."
People have been playing for 10 years, and are getting tired. Also, whether we like it or not, its impossible to discuss SHAR / GR9 anywhere here without WEBF butting in with his tiresome thread diversion tactics. I have no problem with the concept that we have a 'SHAR Thread' for this sort of thing, which I would be unlikely to frequent. I do have a problem when a troll poster deliberately tries to hijack otherwise informative threads in pursuit of a single minded agenda which has long since failed.
People have been playing for 10 years, and are getting tired. Also, whether we like it or not, its impossible to discuss SHAR / GR9 anywhere here without WEBF butting in with his tiresome thread diversion tactics. I have no problem with the concept that we have a 'SHAR Thread' for this sort of thing, which I would be unlikely to frequent. I do have a problem when a troll poster deliberately tries to hijack otherwise informative threads in pursuit of a single minded agenda which has long since failed.
I remember in June 1991 when I was on TLP at Florrenes, Belgium, when the fabled "Sharkey" & his mate arrived. I remember flying to a Dutch Patriot battery to observe the "Harrier attack". The Dutch acquired the low level Harriers at 8Nm. They engaged immediately & would have destroyed the A/C at around 5Nm. So be it.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember flying to a Dutch Patriot battery to observe the "Harrier attack". The Dutch acquired the low level Harriers at 8Nm. They engaged immediately & would have destroyed the A/C at around 5Nm. So be it.
Chip - shoulder - balance - SAMXXV!
Foldie
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do all realise that WEBF last posted on this thread on 20th October?
Between the rest of you, you've kept this thread at or near the top of the list for six days. If none of you had made your posts, all of which were effectively off-topic, the thread would have lapsed and died.
Between the rest of you, you've kept this thread at or near the top of the list for six days. If none of you had made your posts, all of which were effectively off-topic, the thread would have lapsed and died.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Dutch acquired the low level Harriers at 8Nm. They engaged immediately & would have destroyed the A/C at around 5Nm"
No hills in Holland to hide behind
The same would be true of ANY non-stealthy aircraft
No hills in Holland to hide behind
The same would be true of ANY non-stealthy aircraft
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How wonderful.
After a page of berating a certain individual for his impassioned, (if incessant), well intentioned, (if somewhat misguided) posting we get a post from someone who believes that aircraft and aircrew can be judged by their performance against a formidable coalition SAM.
May I be the first to suggest two new threads. The one that everyone else seems to think WEBF should occupy in isolation, and another where we catalogue all aircraft's ability to come second to potent SAMs?
That way we could find a new home for what has to be the most pointless post I have ever read.
After a page of berating a certain individual for his impassioned, (if incessant), well intentioned, (if somewhat misguided) posting we get a post from someone who believes that aircraft and aircrew can be judged by their performance against a formidable coalition SAM.
May I be the first to suggest two new threads. The one that everyone else seems to think WEBF should occupy in isolation, and another where we catalogue all aircraft's ability to come second to potent SAMs?
That way we could find a new home for what has to be the most pointless post I have ever read.
caz
You are right about the lack of Harriers in RN/RAF service, and the in service dates of the new carriers is indeed less than black and white. However, it is less than a year since Harriers last operated from Ark Royal, most of the personnel involved should still be serving and I understand that quite a few transferred from Ark Royal to Illustrious. Therefore, Lusty should still be able to embark foreign Harriers for limited periods to provide continuation training for far more people than can sent on exchange. This is about training the ship and her people (and preserving skills and knowledge for the future) rather than the air group.
Jimlad
No, I don't have Aspergers. I can understand why you might me tempted to think that (obsessiveness and other traits) but it is not due to that. But what makes you think I have no genuine concerns?
The Sea Harrier issue was a major cause of concern to many - because it potentially meant that we would be unable to send maritime task groups anywhere a bit hostile. SHAR left frontline service as the politicians intended, although a few remained in MOD hands - leading to speculation that a few might be regenerated (albeit at a lower level of capability than when in service properly) in a crisis (after all, all sorts of improvisation took place in 1982). Additionally, it was pointed out by some that Harrier GR7/9 is very agile, and can perform a limited air defence role (aided, of course, by shipborne fighter contro and/or ASaCs Sea King or similar). At the time it was said that binning SHAR and going to an all GR7/9 force was the only way for the RN to stay in the fixed wing business.
You may remember that I started the Future Carrier thread to discuss CVF and related issues, as I felt that a new thread was needed to concentrate on the future. Oddly, the lesson that the previous Government moving things to the right made them more expensive seems to have been lost on our current Government.
The issue discussed on this thread is different. The total loss of our carrier capability pretty much ends any ideas of putting a task group anywhere there is a capable opponent. Since we cannot predict the future, this causes some of us to worry. The loss of maritime strike capability is something else to worry about. In Libya submarine fired Tomahawks played a role in destroying Gaddafi's air defence system, and perhaps undertook tasking that might have been done by carrier aircraft. Unfortunately this decade, SSN numbers will drop as the T boats decommission. This is a fact, which will reduce the ability for TLAM armed submarines to make up for the loss in offensive power. Some of the things proposed to help fill the gap, such as marinising more Apaches, have their own problems.
Of course, the biggest worry is of what happens if we have to act independently in future? Or what if a situation carries on for a long period, and it is desirable for French and British carriers to rotate?
Apart from the capability issue, my comments and concerns regarding skills are totally genuine. I have had one or two private conversations with WAFU types over the years, which lead me to think that continued Harrier embarkations will do a lot to mitigate the risk. The key is how the ship and the embarked squadrons integrate.
FnF
So your argument is basically that only those in light blue should be allowed to comment on things? In some of your posts you've talked about "Navy muppets" commenting on things. Should they not be allowed to express an opinion on things relating to shipborne operations?
Here is an article from somebody else that you will probably disagree with - Rear Admiral Chris Parry:
The Royal Navy needs a radical and coherent vision for the future - Defence Management
In the rush to deal with the fiscal 'black hole', alongside a continuing commitment to the campaign in Afghanistan, insufficient attention has been paid to the implications elsewhere of unbalanced decisions, both in relation to current geo-political realities, but also to likely future contexts and trends.
Agree or disagree? After all, Rear Admiral Parry was involved with concepts and doctrine, and did foresee things such as the increase in Somali privacy and the collapse of the financial industry.
Therefore, for practical, presentational and tactical reasons, the RN urgently needs to develop a vision and two operational concepts – one for the period covered by the carrier and naval air 'holiday' and another for when the carrier(s) enter(s) service, with a recognisable migration path linking the two. They particularly need to address the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the carrier programme, as well as outlining a more sophisticated, innovative and agile approach to force generation, procurement and skills development. It would typically need to include operationalised modular and adaptive solutions, the retention of long-lead, but surplus, platforms, smart regeneration programmes and more intelligent use of reserves, especially those who have already acquired advanced skills and experience during previous regular service.
Is the RN/MOD/Defence capable of major innovation, or is the system so process based that ticking the box, and producing the right answer is what matters? Too much Groupthink perhaps? The answer to a question has to be either A or B, not a combination, and certainly not C?
You are right about the lack of Harriers in RN/RAF service, and the in service dates of the new carriers is indeed less than black and white. However, it is less than a year since Harriers last operated from Ark Royal, most of the personnel involved should still be serving and I understand that quite a few transferred from Ark Royal to Illustrious. Therefore, Lusty should still be able to embark foreign Harriers for limited periods to provide continuation training for far more people than can sent on exchange. This is about training the ship and her people (and preserving skills and knowledge for the future) rather than the air group.
Jimlad
No, I don't have Aspergers. I can understand why you might me tempted to think that (obsessiveness and other traits) but it is not due to that. But what makes you think I have no genuine concerns?
The Sea Harrier issue was a major cause of concern to many - because it potentially meant that we would be unable to send maritime task groups anywhere a bit hostile. SHAR left frontline service as the politicians intended, although a few remained in MOD hands - leading to speculation that a few might be regenerated (albeit at a lower level of capability than when in service properly) in a crisis (after all, all sorts of improvisation took place in 1982). Additionally, it was pointed out by some that Harrier GR7/9 is very agile, and can perform a limited air defence role (aided, of course, by shipborne fighter contro and/or ASaCs Sea King or similar). At the time it was said that binning SHAR and going to an all GR7/9 force was the only way for the RN to stay in the fixed wing business.
You may remember that I started the Future Carrier thread to discuss CVF and related issues, as I felt that a new thread was needed to concentrate on the future. Oddly, the lesson that the previous Government moving things to the right made them more expensive seems to have been lost on our current Government.
The issue discussed on this thread is different. The total loss of our carrier capability pretty much ends any ideas of putting a task group anywhere there is a capable opponent. Since we cannot predict the future, this causes some of us to worry. The loss of maritime strike capability is something else to worry about. In Libya submarine fired Tomahawks played a role in destroying Gaddafi's air defence system, and perhaps undertook tasking that might have been done by carrier aircraft. Unfortunately this decade, SSN numbers will drop as the T boats decommission. This is a fact, which will reduce the ability for TLAM armed submarines to make up for the loss in offensive power. Some of the things proposed to help fill the gap, such as marinising more Apaches, have their own problems.
Of course, the biggest worry is of what happens if we have to act independently in future? Or what if a situation carries on for a long period, and it is desirable for French and British carriers to rotate?
Apart from the capability issue, my comments and concerns regarding skills are totally genuine. I have had one or two private conversations with WAFU types over the years, which lead me to think that continued Harrier embarkations will do a lot to mitigate the risk. The key is how the ship and the embarked squadrons integrate.
FnF
So your argument is basically that only those in light blue should be allowed to comment on things? In some of your posts you've talked about "Navy muppets" commenting on things. Should they not be allowed to express an opinion on things relating to shipborne operations?
Here is an article from somebody else that you will probably disagree with - Rear Admiral Chris Parry:
The Royal Navy needs a radical and coherent vision for the future - Defence Management
In the rush to deal with the fiscal 'black hole', alongside a continuing commitment to the campaign in Afghanistan, insufficient attention has been paid to the implications elsewhere of unbalanced decisions, both in relation to current geo-political realities, but also to likely future contexts and trends.
Agree or disagree? After all, Rear Admiral Parry was involved with concepts and doctrine, and did foresee things such as the increase in Somali privacy and the collapse of the financial industry.
Therefore, for practical, presentational and tactical reasons, the RN urgently needs to develop a vision and two operational concepts – one for the period covered by the carrier and naval air 'holiday' and another for when the carrier(s) enter(s) service, with a recognisable migration path linking the two. They particularly need to address the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the carrier programme, as well as outlining a more sophisticated, innovative and agile approach to force generation, procurement and skills development. It would typically need to include operationalised modular and adaptive solutions, the retention of long-lead, but surplus, platforms, smart regeneration programmes and more intelligent use of reserves, especially those who have already acquired advanced skills and experience during previous regular service.
Is the RN/MOD/Defence capable of major innovation, or is the system so process based that ticking the box, and producing the right answer is what matters? Too much Groupthink perhaps? The answer to a question has to be either A or B, not a combination, and certainly not C?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
The Harrier entered Service in 1968 whilst I was on my first Tour (aged 21) based in the Persian Gulf (as it was referred to in those days); I am now an OAP.
Every potential adversary has had plenty of time to devise tactics and weapons systems to counter the aircraft.
The RN and RAF do not have Air and Ground crews current in respect of Harrier Operations - and I strongly doubt whether the Supply system could generate all the equipment required to operate efficiently in a reasonable time frame.
Its all rather reminiscent of the outcry when the last Flying Boats were retired in 1959.
The Harrier entered Service in 1968 whilst I was on my first Tour (aged 21) based in the Persian Gulf (as it was referred to in those days); I am now an OAP.
Every potential adversary has had plenty of time to devise tactics and weapons systems to counter the aircraft.
The RN and RAF do not have Air and Ground crews current in respect of Harrier Operations - and I strongly doubt whether the Supply system could generate all the equipment required to operate efficiently in a reasonable time frame.
Its all rather reminiscent of the outcry when the last Flying Boats were retired in 1959.
caz
Harrier GR9 is/was a different beast to Harrier GR1. Weapons, avionics, and tactics have all advanced hugely, as has the airframe. Why do the US Marine Corps (and others)still consider the AV8B/AV8B+ to be an effective aircraft if things have not advanced in forty odd years?
Are you arguing that nothing is better than something? Are you using strawman arguments?
As for air and ground crews - these people still exist (some facing redundancy sadly), and should remember most things. But in any case, foreign embarkations mean that the service and nation who the aircraft belong to supply the pilots and maintainers. The flight deck crews, and the rest of the ship's company will already exist.
Harrier GR9 is/was a different beast to Harrier GR1. Weapons, avionics, and tactics have all advanced hugely, as has the airframe. Why do the US Marine Corps (and others)still consider the AV8B/AV8B+ to be an effective aircraft if things have not advanced in forty odd years?
Are you arguing that nothing is better than something? Are you using strawman arguments?
As for air and ground crews - these people still exist (some facing redundancy sadly), and should remember most things. But in any case, foreign embarkations mean that the service and nation who the aircraft belong to supply the pilots and maintainers. The flight deck crews, and the rest of the ship's company will already exist.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 3rd Nov 2011 at 11:01.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
I am merely pointing out salient facts - of which the overriding consideration is THERE IS NO MONEY.
The Libyan conflict is over and we must hope that a peaceful transition ensues. The Afghanistan conflict shows little sign of an early end to hostilities and will continue to be a drain on the Nations Budget.
The current furore in respect of the Euro Currency has the potential to bring about a depression similar to that of the 1930's.
I am merely pointing out salient facts - of which the overriding consideration is THERE IS NO MONEY.
The Libyan conflict is over and we must hope that a peaceful transition ensues. The Afghanistan conflict shows little sign of an early end to hostilities and will continue to be a drain on the Nations Budget.
The current furore in respect of the Euro Currency has the potential to bring about a depression similar to that of the 1930's.
