Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Caz
I think you'll find he's changed his tune (post 1402) to wanting temporary foreign (ie IT, SP, USMC) embarkations, rather than the regeneration of AV8 production lines or purchase of (non-existent surplus) AV8B+.
I think everyone (including WEBF) understands that there is no money in the near term to regenerate JFH. Which btw doesn't mean the decison to gash the capability wasn't "bonkers", it's merely a recognition of a fait accomplis.
You are therefore unlikely to get an answer to your question "where are the qualified pilots coming from?"
Incidentally, you should be aware that in terms of "cancelling the carriers", the penalty clause you refer to pertained to PoW, rather than the pair.
I think you'll find he's changed his tune (post 1402) to wanting temporary foreign (ie IT, SP, USMC) embarkations, rather than the regeneration of AV8 production lines or purchase of (non-existent surplus) AV8B+.
I think everyone (including WEBF) understands that there is no money in the near term to regenerate JFH. Which btw doesn't mean the decison to gash the capability wasn't "bonkers", it's merely a recognition of a fait accomplis.
You are therefore unlikely to get an answer to your question "where are the qualified pilots coming from?"
Incidentally, you should be aware that in terms of "cancelling the carriers", the penalty clause you refer to pertained to PoW, rather than the pair.
Taking up the earlier "support" red herring; even the current RFA could support a Carrier; if necessary, all the way from UK, Gib. Cyprus, ASI.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
teeteringhead
IIRC it was sent in the early months of WW2 when WSC was First Lord of the Admiralty but I doubt that he sent that message. More probably it was penned by some Reservist recalled from retirement.
IIRC it was sent in the early months of WW2 when WSC was First Lord of the Admiralty but I doubt that he sent that message. More probably it was penned by some Reservist recalled from retirement.
ES
The nice thing about the QEC design is that in contrast to CVS, it was designed to do "proper" strike ops from the off. Obviously, the number and type of weapons are not for publication here, but believe me, 20 PWIV a day is well within the capabilities of the platform to be sustained for a significant number of days. The required made-up loads for RAS would also fit within the current AOR, never mind the proposed QEC support solid store ship.
As far as access into the Gulf goes, if one is going after bucket of sunshine facilities, one might suggest that suppression of coastal ASM batteries would be very high on the target list early in the campaign, as would tagging the Kilos. We seem to have battered GaDaffyDucks anti-access forces early doors in Ellamy, which was a "limited" op. I doubt half-measures would be applied for ImADinnerJacket.
You could then decide whether to leave the Logs area outside Hormuz (and rotate the carrier groups off-line for solid RAS) or bring em in and RAS inside. Personally would probably go for the former, as it allows a stand-down in a lower threat environment. Note that filling a carrier group slot with a UK ship would allow the USN to rotate a CVN off line for RAS - real value added to the party.
The nice thing about the QEC design is that in contrast to CVS, it was designed to do "proper" strike ops from the off. Obviously, the number and type of weapons are not for publication here, but believe me, 20 PWIV a day is well within the capabilities of the platform to be sustained for a significant number of days. The required made-up loads for RAS would also fit within the current AOR, never mind the proposed QEC support solid store ship.
As far as access into the Gulf goes, if one is going after bucket of sunshine facilities, one might suggest that suppression of coastal ASM batteries would be very high on the target list early in the campaign, as would tagging the Kilos. We seem to have battered GaDaffyDucks anti-access forces early doors in Ellamy, which was a "limited" op. I doubt half-measures would be applied for ImADinnerJacket.
You could then decide whether to leave the Logs area outside Hormuz (and rotate the carrier groups off-line for solid RAS) or bring em in and RAS inside. Personally would probably go for the former, as it allows a stand-down in a lower threat environment. Note that filling a carrier group slot with a UK ship would allow the USN to rotate a CVN off line for RAS - real value added to the party.
"Which given that we were reliant on shore access weekly to top up the RFA to RAS for the extant ELLAMY task group..."
The RN confirmed this in a press release a couple of weeks ago talking about the RFA effort, noting the weekly RAS runs to do top ups, noting the reliance on a land and air based supply chain into the ports and so on.
I'm not disputing that the RN can and does do long term stuff at sea, my point is that with only three store ships (of which one or two is only ever likely to be at sea), it becomes ever harder to sustain these ops, and that all these ops are ultimately reliant on land basing to support themselves.
Unfortunately, I have seen stunningly naive people post on t'internet the assumption that RFA's have magic, near tardis like holds capable of sustaining indefinitely, and that simply isnt the case.
As for the Falklands, the UK relied on Ascension as a major factor in the supply chain, plus a long line of dozens of tankers going to / from the task force with supplies. If we hadnt have had Ascension, then I would suggest 82 would have been nearly impossible to achieve.
The RN confirmed this in a press release a couple of weeks ago talking about the RFA effort, noting the weekly RAS runs to do top ups, noting the reliance on a land and air based supply chain into the ports and so on.
I'm not disputing that the RN can and does do long term stuff at sea, my point is that with only three store ships (of which one or two is only ever likely to be at sea), it becomes ever harder to sustain these ops, and that all these ops are ultimately reliant on land basing to support themselves.
Unfortunately, I have seen stunningly naive people post on t'internet the assumption that RFA's have magic, near tardis like holds capable of sustaining indefinitely, and that simply isnt the case.
As for the Falklands, the UK relied on Ascension as a major factor in the supply chain, plus a long line of dozens of tankers going to / from the task force with supplies. If we hadnt have had Ascension, then I would suggest 82 would have been nearly impossible to achieve.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the 60 or so Harriers like these?
[yes, really. I probably have helped morph quite a few of those into their GR9 state in a past life]
FB11
That is good to hear. However, more training will make the whole process easier - so embarkations of foreign (or other) Harrier can only help the transition to CVF easier. Not so long ago the Telegraph quoted a senior (sic) RN Officer concerned about flight deck crews and others losing the skills needed to handle fixed wing aircraft on deck - source.
It leaves the capability issue though. In fact it might increase American perceptions that we are not pulling out weight, particularly as the numbers of Tomahawk capable submarines dwindles later this decade.
GBZ
Privately operated Harriers? Art Nalls does it with his Sea Harrier, without support from BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, and so on.
If that was feasible it would sort of discredit the MOD line that the Reservist/Harrier proposal (which I learned of from the Telegraph last December, and assumed was an attempt to demonstrate the seriousness of Their Lordships' concerns, but was a real proposal) was too expensive. Having said that, a private operator can probably do things less expensively then the MOD. After all no private company would do business like Government - Resource Accounting and Budgeting, ordering people to destroy spares, people being disciplined for saving money, budgets having to be used up by the end of the financial year.
Presumably RN/RNR personnel would also be involved?
cazatou
Have all the GR9s been destroyed? (Before a sale was arranged - should we add business basics to a list of things not understood by politicians?) Are there none intact? Any AV8Bs we might lease/barrow/buy (ideally with support - perhaps a MOU from the US or share facilities with Italy/Spain) anywhere? Any other Harrier/Sea Harrier type aircraft that could easily be made airworthy?
As for personnel - don't ask me, but since the RNR proposal was serious, and the RN was planning on sending guys stateside pre SDSR (and it was assumed that Harrier would stay in service) there must have been sufficient Pilots and others to make the plan feasible (I assume that it would have been a Regular/Reserve mix). Ergo, these people do exist.
But hey - no money for Harriers (does anyone know exactly what costs a small private/RNR force would cost), but endless money for a two week event so people can run around a track..... at roughly £250k per competitor.
FODPlod
Is that a recent picture?
Jimlad/N_a_b/FODPlod/GBZ
Somewhere I have a pamphlet produced by the RN in late 2003, about the maritime aspects of Operation Telic. It mentions the task group (including Ark Royal and Ocean) going from Gibraltar to the NAG without putting into port. This suggests either total reliance on RFAs and chartered shipping, or that certain Gulf states (who were unwilling to take part in the invasion) would allow logistics to flow from their ports. Allowing a few supplies to go from your ports/airfields is one thing, allowing tooled up combat aircraft to operate from them is another.
That is good to hear. However, more training will make the whole process easier - so embarkations of foreign (or other) Harrier can only help the transition to CVF easier. Not so long ago the Telegraph quoted a senior (sic) RN Officer concerned about flight deck crews and others losing the skills needed to handle fixed wing aircraft on deck - source.
It leaves the capability issue though. In fact it might increase American perceptions that we are not pulling out weight, particularly as the numbers of Tomahawk capable submarines dwindles later this decade.
GBZ
Privately operated Harriers? Art Nalls does it with his Sea Harrier, without support from BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, and so on.
If that was feasible it would sort of discredit the MOD line that the Reservist/Harrier proposal (which I learned of from the Telegraph last December, and assumed was an attempt to demonstrate the seriousness of Their Lordships' concerns, but was a real proposal) was too expensive. Having said that, a private operator can probably do things less expensively then the MOD. After all no private company would do business like Government - Resource Accounting and Budgeting, ordering people to destroy spares, people being disciplined for saving money, budgets having to be used up by the end of the financial year.
Presumably RN/RNR personnel would also be involved?
cazatou
Have all the GR9s been destroyed? (Before a sale was arranged - should we add business basics to a list of things not understood by politicians?) Are there none intact? Any AV8Bs we might lease/barrow/buy (ideally with support - perhaps a MOU from the US or share facilities with Italy/Spain) anywhere? Any other Harrier/Sea Harrier type aircraft that could easily be made airworthy?
As for personnel - don't ask me, but since the RNR proposal was serious, and the RN was planning on sending guys stateside pre SDSR (and it was assumed that Harrier would stay in service) there must have been sufficient Pilots and others to make the plan feasible (I assume that it would have been a Regular/Reserve mix). Ergo, these people do exist.
But hey - no money for Harriers (does anyone know exactly what costs a small private/RNR force would cost), but endless money for a two week event so people can run around a track..... at roughly £250k per competitor.
FODPlod
Is that a recent picture?
Jimlad/N_a_b/FODPlod/GBZ
Somewhere I have a pamphlet produced by the RN in late 2003, about the maritime aspects of Operation Telic. It mentions the task group (including Ark Royal and Ocean) going from Gibraltar to the NAG without putting into port. This suggests either total reliance on RFAs and chartered shipping, or that certain Gulf states (who were unwilling to take part in the invasion) would allow logistics to flow from their ports. Allowing a few supplies to go from your ports/airfields is one thing, allowing tooled up combat aircraft to operate from them is another.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 12th Nov 2011 at 21:27. Reason: Keyboard dyslexia
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
How about a 2 week event that will be broadcast Worldwide 24 hrs a day and bring many tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of extra visitors to the UK?
Couple that with World Wide Television and Film work which will earn further large sums of money. UK has done it before - remember that the first post WW2 Olympic Games were staged in a bomb battered UK where everyday goods were still rationed.
How about a 2 week event that will be broadcast Worldwide 24 hrs a day and bring many tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of extra visitors to the UK?
Couple that with World Wide Television and Film work which will earn further large sums of money. UK has done it before - remember that the first post WW2 Olympic Games were staged in a bomb battered UK where everyday goods were still rationed.
WEBF wrote
It would date from around March/April 2011. See Sun article.
£750m Harriers idle as Top Guns struggle in Libya | The Sun |News|Campaigns|Our Boys
Is that a recent picture?
£750m Harriers idle as Top Guns struggle in Libya | The Sun |News|Campaigns|Our Boys
Couple that with World Wide Television and Film work which will earn further large sums of money. UK has done it before - remember that the first post WW2 Olympic Games were staged in a bomb battered UK where everyday goods were still rationed.
None of yer new modern fangled stuff, we 'ad proper olympics wen ah wer lad!
FB
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See, it all works out in the end!! (nearly)
Defense News Mobile
WASHINGTON and LONDON - Britain has agreed to sell all of its 74 decommissioned Harrier jump jets, along with engines and spare parts, to the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps - a move expected to help the Marines operate Harriers into the mid-2020s and provide extra planes to replace aging two-seat F-18D Hornet strike fighters.
Rear Adm. Mark Heinrich, chief of the U.S. Navy's Supply Corps, confirmed the two-part deal Nov. 10 during a conference in New York sponsored by Bank of America Merrill Lynch in association with Defense News.
Heinrich negotiated the $50 million purchase of all Harrier spare parts, while Rear Adm. Donald Gaddis, the U.S. Navy's program executive officer for tactical aircraft, is overseeing discussions to buy the Harrier aircraft and their Rolls-Royce engines, Heinrich said.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence in London confirmed the Disposal Services Agency was in talks with the U.S. Navy for the sale of the Harriers. The deal had yet to be concluded, he said Nov. 11.
Rear Adm. Mark Heinrich, chief of the U.S. Navy's Supply Corps, confirmed the two-part deal Nov. 10 during a conference in New York sponsored by Bank of America Merrill Lynch in association with Defense News.
Heinrich negotiated the $50 million purchase of all Harrier spare parts, while Rear Adm. Donald Gaddis, the U.S. Navy's program executive officer for tactical aircraft, is overseeing discussions to buy the Harrier aircraft and their Rolls-Royce engines, Heinrich said.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence in London confirmed the Disposal Services Agency was in talks with the U.S. Navy for the sale of the Harriers. The deal had yet to be concluded, he said Nov. 11.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"a move expected to help the Marines operate Harriers into the mid-2020s and provide extra planes to replace aging two-seat F-18D Hornet strike fighters."
Sounds like a plan "B" instead of the F-35B
Sounds like a plan "B" instead of the F-35B
The fat lady may well be warming up her vocal chords but what a bargain for the Americans:
If this deal goes ahead, we will be meekly accepting a ten year capability gap (and the loss of associated expertise) by 'giving away' our only remaining carrier-borne FJ which we not only invented but is still regarded as a uniquely valuable platform by the US, Spain, Italy, India and even Thailand.
As they say, go figure.
...The Harrier IIs, built between 1980 and 1995, "are still quite serviceable," he said. "The aircraft are not that far apart. We're taking advantage of all the money the Brits have spent on them. It's like we're buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it."
Operationally, Nordeen said, "these are very good platforms. They need upgrades, but on bombing missions they have the ability to incorporate the Litening II targeting pod [used by U.S. aircraft]. They're good platforms. And we've already got trained pilots."...
Operationally, Nordeen said, "these are very good platforms. They need upgrades, but on bombing missions they have the ability to incorporate the Litening II targeting pod [used by U.S. aircraft]. They're good platforms. And we've already got trained pilots."...
As they say, go figure.
Perhaps there was/is/could have been something in my suggestion of a lease* - mentioned back on this post here? Leasing ten or so jets (and support MOU) in exchange for 74 would still result in the USMC getting over sixty more than they have now.
Worryingly, the Chief of Defence Staff has been talking about plans for conflict with Syria and/or Iran. Surely SDSR said that this could not happen this decade?
*Probably not if you are a politician.
Worryingly, the Chief of Defence Staff has been talking about plans for conflict with Syria and/or Iran. Surely SDSR said that this could not happen this decade?
*Probably not if you are a politician.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF and FODPlod,
The significant cost of 'contract' Harriers would better focussed on paying for CV deck and operational experience (current and proposed) over the next decade.
Keeping a STOVL carrier warm is somewhat valid if the future is F-35B. But. Isn't it more of an unwanted distraction if those same people you want to keep warm in some kind of deck ops on a CVS with a rented Harrier doing circuits might be better employed in a CVN or CDG doing what we will actually be doing in 2020(ish)?
What was that great scene in Saving Private Ryan where the American and the German were fighting in a house (with another American burbling at the foot of the stairs)? In the final throws of the fight, they end up on the floor with a dagger between them; German holding it - American fending it off by holding the German's arm. Finally, the German overcomes the American and slowly the dagger pierces the American's heart with the German whispering 'shush....shush...' as the American's life ebbs away (German walks down the stairs past the other American and buggers off.)
Maybe it really is time for this thread to quietly die now? It's just not helping.
FB11
P.S I don't know who the German would be (F-35C?) or even the blubbering American (F-35B?) but the rest of the scene sort of fits.
The significant cost of 'contract' Harriers would better focussed on paying for CV deck and operational experience (current and proposed) over the next decade.
Keeping a STOVL carrier warm is somewhat valid if the future is F-35B. But. Isn't it more of an unwanted distraction if those same people you want to keep warm in some kind of deck ops on a CVS with a rented Harrier doing circuits might be better employed in a CVN or CDG doing what we will actually be doing in 2020(ish)?
What was that great scene in Saving Private Ryan where the American and the German were fighting in a house (with another American burbling at the foot of the stairs)? In the final throws of the fight, they end up on the floor with a dagger between them; German holding it - American fending it off by holding the German's arm. Finally, the German overcomes the American and slowly the dagger pierces the American's heart with the German whispering 'shush....shush...' as the American's life ebbs away (German walks down the stairs past the other American and buggers off.)
Maybe it really is time for this thread to quietly die now? It's just not helping.
FB11
P.S I don't know who the German would be (F-35C?) or even the blubbering American (F-35B?) but the rest of the scene sort of fits.
FB
Quite amazing memory - you are 14 years younger than myself and I was only 2 years old at the time.
Quite amazing memory - you are 14 years younger than myself and I was only 2 years old at the time.
I always listen closely to what the older generation have to say!
Of course I now pass on to younger folks than me what I've been told!
FB
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
If this deal goes ahead, we will be meekly accepting a ten year capability gap........
Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers"?
Decision to axe Harrier has been made!
Last edited by The Helpful Stacker; 14th Nov 2011 at 12:17.