Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
A year ago last Thursday I was sitting on a train, rather bored, and was pleased when I looked at the Daily Telegraph and found Thomas Harding's story about the RNR/Harrier proposal, which was a real proposal (been discussed on this thread) but was sadly vetoed by the politicians, presumably as it would either be too embarrassing (it might look like a U turn), or because HMG really wanted to sell the jets.
But it proved that Their Lordships were willing to think outside the box.
In any unexpected crises requiring carrier aviation, we might be able to think outside the box and just about pull something out of the hat, but it would be a great deal easier if we started doing this in peacetime, as I suggested on the previous page. Since NFSF(FW) still exists (and so does the RNR Air Branch - including fixed wing (ex SHAR) jocks and maintainers), why not piggy back a limited/Reserve led capability onto them? Since Harrier GR9 has gone, we would either have to borrow Harriers from someone else, or look at regenerating the Sea Harrier.
As you know I am talking about intact aircraft that are powered up and used for Dummy Deck training, or ones that are stored or on sale as "ready to fly" - not gate guardians. Since MOD owns these aircraft, and the personnel already exist, and the infrastructure exists (Yeovilton, NFSF(FW), Regular and Reserve WAFUs, and so on.) This would be totally different to last years proposal to retain and operate twenty or so Harrier GR9s, and much cheaper.
This proposal would be to regenerate TWO ready to fly (so the advert says) Sea Harriers (and a T8 trainer perhaps?), and to regenerate other aircraft if needed. I have no idea why some people think that this would be as expensive as retaining an entire fleet. Please explain why using assets the MOD owns anyway, and personnel that serve regardless of the SDSR decision, and infrastructure that still exists, would cost so much?
If the costs of the RNR Air Branch are part of the £19 million annual cost of the entire RNR, then it suggests that this could be very cost effective.
I know that defence is very process centred, but need it be so? In 1982, a great deal of improvisation took place, aircraft and ships had new equipment fitted, ships were brought out of mothballs or from the scrapyard, helicopters were re-roled and so on. Many peacetime bureaucratic practices were binged. Why can't we do this in peacetime? Why are we incapable of thinking outside the box?
Current Government policy seems to be based on crossing fingers and thinking wishfully.... I don't think we will have too wait long for crises to come along.
On which note, HMG seems to be planning to evacute ex pats from Spain should their banking system fail. If Spain does suffer this, will they be looking to see what they can sell (AV8B+s perhaps?)
But it proved that Their Lordships were willing to think outside the box.
In any unexpected crises requiring carrier aviation, we might be able to think outside the box and just about pull something out of the hat, but it would be a great deal easier if we started doing this in peacetime, as I suggested on the previous page. Since NFSF(FW) still exists (and so does the RNR Air Branch - including fixed wing (ex SHAR) jocks and maintainers), why not piggy back a limited/Reserve led capability onto them? Since Harrier GR9 has gone, we would either have to borrow Harriers from someone else, or look at regenerating the Sea Harrier.
As you know I am talking about intact aircraft that are powered up and used for Dummy Deck training, or ones that are stored or on sale as "ready to fly" - not gate guardians. Since MOD owns these aircraft, and the personnel already exist, and the infrastructure exists (Yeovilton, NFSF(FW), Regular and Reserve WAFUs, and so on.) This would be totally different to last years proposal to retain and operate twenty or so Harrier GR9s, and much cheaper.
This proposal would be to regenerate TWO ready to fly (so the advert says) Sea Harriers (and a T8 trainer perhaps?), and to regenerate other aircraft if needed. I have no idea why some people think that this would be as expensive as retaining an entire fleet. Please explain why using assets the MOD owns anyway, and personnel that serve regardless of the SDSR decision, and infrastructure that still exists, would cost so much?
If the costs of the RNR Air Branch are part of the £19 million annual cost of the entire RNR, then it suggests that this could be very cost effective.
I know that defence is very process centred, but need it be so? In 1982, a great deal of improvisation took place, aircraft and ships had new equipment fitted, ships were brought out of mothballs or from the scrapyard, helicopters were re-roled and so on. Many peacetime bureaucratic practices were binged. Why can't we do this in peacetime? Why are we incapable of thinking outside the box?
Current Government policy seems to be based on crossing fingers and thinking wishfully.... I don't think we will have too wait long for crises to come along.
On which note, HMG seems to be planning to evacute ex pats from Spain should their banking system fail. If Spain does suffer this, will they be looking to see what they can sell (AV8B+s perhaps?)
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 19th Dec 2011 at 17:18. Reason: Certain respondents appear to have trouble reading
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm Sell off or to be more accurate give away our well maintained, relatively low mileage Harrier fleet and buy the Spanish AV8B's. I bet we would get them at an even cheaper price!!!!
IF and it is a big if, If Spain were to sell those aircraft then does anyone seriously believe they will be sold at less than £1.6m each?
May I tactfully suggest that our politicians contrary to what they want us to believe are a form of life that loves self publicity. Is it right to suggest that before making any decisions they will seek advice to see how this will effect their career\image? Would the Minister of Defence agree to buying these aircraft for perhaps double the price of those that they sold! How would the opposition react? Would they agree with the idea? What about our press, media, TV satire shows?
I'm sure any politician would enjoy that experience. It aint gonna happen, but these are just my scatty thought.
I admire your stance, I admire the way you refuse to give in, but the tide has already peaked, it has come in, collected our harrier fleet and washed them down the plug-hole!! It is over, we lost that battle and now we need to ensure we get the two promised cat and trap carriers with a well thought out, well balanced air group!!!
IF and it is a big if, If Spain were to sell those aircraft then does anyone seriously believe they will be sold at less than £1.6m each?May I tactfully suggest that our politicians contrary to what they want us to believe are a form of life that loves self publicity. Is it right to suggest that before making any decisions they will seek advice to see how this will effect their career\image? Would the Minister of Defence agree to buying these aircraft for perhaps double the price of those that they sold! How would the opposition react? Would they agree with the idea? What about our press, media, TV satire shows?
I'm sure any politician would enjoy that experience. It aint gonna happen, but these are just my scatty thought.I admire your stance, I admire the way you refuse to give in, but the tide has already peaked, it has come in, collected our harrier fleet and washed them down the plug-hole!! It is over, we lost that battle and now we need to ensure we get the two promised cat and trap carriers with a well thought out, well balanced air group!!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear WEBF, still peddling the RNR "proposal" guff I see?
It was NEVER going to happen; JHF was canned as an immediate way of making a relatively significant saving. That saving predominantly comes from supportability, infrastructure and operational costs.
NONE of the above savings would have been realised with your/the Guardians RNR proposal. And, NO, we are not going to be buying AV-8B's from Spain (even if they were suddenly for sale).
It's GONE, GONE, GONE, and it ain't coming back (sadly).
FYI - I'm currently making an Airfix kit of a GR5, suggest you do the same, it's a useful way of relieving boredom, and if you build enough you'd have your own JHF (in miniature of course)
It was NEVER going to happen; JHF was canned as an immediate way of making a relatively significant saving. That saving predominantly comes from supportability, infrastructure and operational costs.
NONE of the above savings would have been realised with your/the Guardians RNR proposal. And, NO, we are not going to be buying AV-8B's from Spain (even if they were suddenly for sale).
It's GONE, GONE, GONE, and it ain't coming back (sadly).
FYI - I'm currently making an Airfix kit of a GR5, suggest you do the same, it's a useful way of relieving boredom, and if you build enough you'd have your own JHF (in miniature of course)
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when I was a kid had a real rarity - an Airfix kit of a P1154
Wish I still had that - could probably get as much for it as the government got selling the Harriers to the Marines
Wish I still had that - could probably get as much for it as the government got selling the Harriers to the Marines
For all the flak you get on this thread WEBF, I mostly agree with you. I especially understand the comment about the CGS (now CDS) ever since his speech before the United Strategic Studied Institute (I believe its called) through to his latest comments on defence in light of such matters of the euro-zone, he strikes me as someone utterly convinced of the threat from cyberspace, global warming, Chinese funds and terrorists with passports. However, his seeming dismissal of more conventional considerations seems almost politically motivated. Even the very assets which would be and in some cases, are deployed in interventions in basket-case countries and most effectively so, he wants to dismiss or marginalised to the point of no point.
While the General's assessment of things like cyber threats and so forth are serious enough, this alone is not a decisive means of vanquishing a nation or continent. It is just another arrow in the arsenal.
Yes you're right the Harriers shouldn't have gone, but nor should either of the other two!
FB
While the General's assessment of things like cyber threats and so forth are serious enough, this alone is not a decisive means of vanquishing a nation or continent. It is just another arrow in the arsenal.
Yes you're right the Harriers shouldn't have gone, but nor should either of the other two!
FB
jamesdevice,
"when I was a kid had a real rarity - an Airfix kit of a P1154.."
Afraid that you most certainly did not! Airfix never kitted the P1154, ever.
"when I was a kid had a real rarity - an Airfix kit of a P1154.."
Afraid that you most certainly did not! Airfix never kitted the P1154, ever.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
""Afraid that you most certainly did not! Airfix never kitted the P1154, ever. ""
Oh yes they did - and I had one!
I suspect it was an extreme short run production and may have missed the records.
At a rough guess, around 1967/8. It depicted the single-seat RAF version
Oh yes they did - and I had one!
I suspect it was an extreme short run production and may have missed the records.
At a rough guess, around 1967/8. It depicted the single-seat RAF version
Thread drift to Airfix....
James, would you be confusing the P1127 with the P1154?
Airfix certainly made the former, but never the latter.
As far as I can recall, whilst the '1154 has been kitted, this was either a vac-form, or resin kit, from one of the specialist cottage industry suppliers....
Airfix certainly made the former, but never the latter.
As far as I can recall, whilst the '1154 has been kitted, this was either a vac-form, or resin kit, from one of the specialist cottage industry suppliers....
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's right. Which means those who fly and maintain aircraft will have to look to thier laurels as the best modellers and spotters often know more than 'we' professionals
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not an expert on this, but wasn't the picture I posted and 1154? And I stole the picture from and unoffical Airfix site, so I thought that was proof that the beast did, in fact, exist.
andrewn and others
My suggestion is totally different to the proposal last year. As you know I am talking about intact Sea Harrier aircraft that are powered up and used for Dummy Deck training, or ones that are stored or on sale as "ready to fly" - not gate guardians. Since MOD owns these aircraft, and the personnel already exist, and the infrastructure exists (Yeovilton, NFSF(FW), Regular and Reserve WAFUs, and so on.) This would be totally different to last years proposal to retain and operate twenty or so Harrier GR9s, and much cheaper.
This proposal I mentioned here would be to regenerate TWO ready to fly (so the advert says) Sea Harriers (and a T8 trainer perhaps?), and to regenerate other aircraft if needed. I have no idea why some people think that this would be as expensive as retaining an entire fleet. Please explain why using assets the MOD owns anyway, and personnel that serve regardless of the SDSR decision, and infrastructure that still exists, would cost so much.
If the costs of the RNR Air Branch are part of the £19 million annual cost of the entire RNR, then it suggests that this could be very cost effective.
I know that defence is very process centred, but need it be so? In 1982, a great deal of improvisation took place, aircraft and ships had new equipment fitted, ships were brought out of mothballs or from the scrapyard, helicopters were re-roled and so on. Many peacetime bureaucratic practices were binned. Why can't we do this in peacetime? Why are we incapable of thinking outside the box?
Art Nalls shipped his SHAR stateside, performed various local modifications, gets little or no support from BAE Systems, etc. The RN Historic Flight operates not only WWII propeller driven aircraft, but also a Sea Hawk. I presume that this is on the military register. Various military aircraft are privately operated for display or other purposes - including Hunters, a Buccaneer, a Sea Vixen, and Gnat, and others. None of these operators has a budget of hundreds of millions.
Even if it was at low readiness, this would provide a capability that would give something else for any Argentine hot heads to think about, as it could be generated/regenerated faster than Argentina can generate a credible invasion fleet. It may also be of use in other crises, in the Arabian Gulf perhaps?
Agree - but he's got the Prime Minister's ear.
My suggestion is totally different to the proposal last year. As you know I am talking about intact Sea Harrier aircraft that are powered up and used for Dummy Deck training, or ones that are stored or on sale as "ready to fly" - not gate guardians. Since MOD owns these aircraft, and the personnel already exist, and the infrastructure exists (Yeovilton, NFSF(FW), Regular and Reserve WAFUs, and so on.) This would be totally different to last years proposal to retain and operate twenty or so Harrier GR9s, and much cheaper.
This proposal I mentioned here would be to regenerate TWO ready to fly (so the advert says) Sea Harriers (and a T8 trainer perhaps?), and to regenerate other aircraft if needed. I have no idea why some people think that this would be as expensive as retaining an entire fleet. Please explain why using assets the MOD owns anyway, and personnel that serve regardless of the SDSR decision, and infrastructure that still exists, would cost so much.
If the costs of the RNR Air Branch are part of the £19 million annual cost of the entire RNR, then it suggests that this could be very cost effective.
I know that defence is very process centred, but need it be so? In 1982, a great deal of improvisation took place, aircraft and ships had new equipment fitted, ships were brought out of mothballs or from the scrapyard, helicopters were re-roled and so on. Many peacetime bureaucratic practices were binned. Why can't we do this in peacetime? Why are we incapable of thinking outside the box?
Art Nalls shipped his SHAR stateside, performed various local modifications, gets little or no support from BAE Systems, etc. The RN Historic Flight operates not only WWII propeller driven aircraft, but also a Sea Hawk. I presume that this is on the military register. Various military aircraft are privately operated for display or other purposes - including Hunters, a Buccaneer, a Sea Vixen, and Gnat, and others. None of these operators has a budget of hundreds of millions.
Even if it was at low readiness, this would provide a capability that would give something else for any Argentine hot heads to think about, as it could be generated/regenerated faster than Argentina can generate a credible invasion fleet. It may also be of use in other crises, in the Arabian Gulf perhaps?
Originally Posted by FB
However, his seeming dismissal of more conventional considerations seems almost politically motivated. Even the very assets which would be and in some cases, are deployed in interventions in basket-case countries and most effectively so, he wants to dismiss or marginalised to the point of no point.
"This proposal I mentioned here would be to regenerate TWO ready to fly (so the advert says) Sea Harriers (and a T8 trainer perhaps?), and to regenerate other aircraft if needed. I have no idea why some people think that this would be as expensive as retaining an entire fleet. Please explain why using assets the MOD owns anyway, and personnel that serve regardless of the SDSR decision, and infrastructure that still exists, would cost so much"
Oh lord, is the lunatic still clinging to this fantasy?
Look WEBF, I don't know much about the technicalities of aircraft servicing, but I do know that whether you use 1,10 or 100 aircraft, you need in place a training pipeline to keep people up to date on skills, you need spare parts, you need maintenance regimes, you need to ensure the aircraft is serviceable, that it can fly safely without putting its operator or people on the ground at risk, etc etc.
All of this takes time and costs lots of money, money that we do not have. Thats why Harrier went - because the savings of reducing FE@R is far less than the savings from binning a whole fleet.
The reality is (and I say this as a serving RN Reservist), that the idea of using the RNR air branch is utter lunacy. They are great guys are filling in spots on an adhoc basis, and providing really useful individual reinforcements. The branch isn't designed or trained to run an aircraft squadron though.
First issue - manpower. RNR manpower is spread across the country, and people have varying levels of commitment. What happens when the person who is the key maintainer of widget X, without which the aircraft cannot fly, is ill, goes on holiday or simply cant be arsed to drive from Newcastle to Culdrose? What happens when he retires or leaves?
You ignore the simple reality that RNR Air Branch works because it acts as a capture trap for some people leaving the FAA who'd like to keep their links. Right now we have a rapidly decreasing number of people with harrier experience, and a major amount of skill fade as people forget how bits worked. To be certain that you'll capture every skill set required to keep a SHAR airborne, you need to bring them together and recruit a squadron, run refresher training and have a lot of spare people in place to mitigate against people leaving. Also, remember that no new training is being done - there is no fresh blood in the pipleline to replace old blood - the moment someone decides to leave, that is it, we've lost irreplacable skills and won't be able to train new skills.
The other major issue is training - how do you propose to square off the training required to do this, with the fact that many RNR members (particularly air branch) are busy in the week with their day job. Do you propose to say to Fleet programmers, "terribly sorry chaps, can't do deck landing trials today, OM Bloggs cant do training as he is working elsewhere" - that is the reality of reserve training - its done in discrete small sections, and not as a formed unit because its very difficult to get a whole unit together to do anything. The number of people you'd need to get an RNR SHAR flying is probably in the tens, if not low hundreds. Don't forget one reason why Skyhook was never adopted in the 1980s was because they found that maintaining 1 harrier required 90% of the maintenance staff of 9 harriers and it was far more effective to do so on one platform.
The reality is that the RNR option never stood a chance because it would never have worked in any credible way. Short of giving everyone a 10 year FTRS contract and banning them from leaving, you have no way of guranteeing the fleet would be able to operate beyond the first year, and then you'd be reliant on an ever older workforce who may well want to leave to service your planes.
Bad idea at the time, bad idea now. Then again, I dont expect you to listen to any of this - you never do.
Oh lord, is the lunatic still clinging to this fantasy?
Look WEBF, I don't know much about the technicalities of aircraft servicing, but I do know that whether you use 1,10 or 100 aircraft, you need in place a training pipeline to keep people up to date on skills, you need spare parts, you need maintenance regimes, you need to ensure the aircraft is serviceable, that it can fly safely without putting its operator or people on the ground at risk, etc etc.
All of this takes time and costs lots of money, money that we do not have. Thats why Harrier went - because the savings of reducing FE@R is far less than the savings from binning a whole fleet.
The reality is (and I say this as a serving RN Reservist), that the idea of using the RNR air branch is utter lunacy. They are great guys are filling in spots on an adhoc basis, and providing really useful individual reinforcements. The branch isn't designed or trained to run an aircraft squadron though.
First issue - manpower. RNR manpower is spread across the country, and people have varying levels of commitment. What happens when the person who is the key maintainer of widget X, without which the aircraft cannot fly, is ill, goes on holiday or simply cant be arsed to drive from Newcastle to Culdrose? What happens when he retires or leaves?
You ignore the simple reality that RNR Air Branch works because it acts as a capture trap for some people leaving the FAA who'd like to keep their links. Right now we have a rapidly decreasing number of people with harrier experience, and a major amount of skill fade as people forget how bits worked. To be certain that you'll capture every skill set required to keep a SHAR airborne, you need to bring them together and recruit a squadron, run refresher training and have a lot of spare people in place to mitigate against people leaving. Also, remember that no new training is being done - there is no fresh blood in the pipleline to replace old blood - the moment someone decides to leave, that is it, we've lost irreplacable skills and won't be able to train new skills.
The other major issue is training - how do you propose to square off the training required to do this, with the fact that many RNR members (particularly air branch) are busy in the week with their day job. Do you propose to say to Fleet programmers, "terribly sorry chaps, can't do deck landing trials today, OM Bloggs cant do training as he is working elsewhere" - that is the reality of reserve training - its done in discrete small sections, and not as a formed unit because its very difficult to get a whole unit together to do anything. The number of people you'd need to get an RNR SHAR flying is probably in the tens, if not low hundreds. Don't forget one reason why Skyhook was never adopted in the 1980s was because they found that maintaining 1 harrier required 90% of the maintenance staff of 9 harriers and it was far more effective to do so on one platform.
The reality is that the RNR option never stood a chance because it would never have worked in any credible way. Short of giving everyone a 10 year FTRS contract and banning them from leaving, you have no way of guranteeing the fleet would be able to operate beyond the first year, and then you'd be reliant on an ever older workforce who may well want to leave to service your planes.
Bad idea at the time, bad idea now. Then again, I dont expect you to listen to any of this - you never do.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
Thinking outside the box will not magic up the funding this would need. None of the Armed Forces have people just lying around doing nothing who could rebuild a fleet of aircraft in their spare time. Any fleet of aircraft has a minimum viable size in order to make it cost effective, let alone make it worth establishing the whole support organization that it requires. There is no economy of scale in 2 sea jets and a T4.
Having scrapped the jet (and a few more since), no politician is about to turn around and say that maybe we shouldn't have lost the capability after all. They certainly would never suggest that the MoD regeberates a capability on the cheap and the MoD would never say yes to such a suggestion anyway. In these days of cuts and reductions any new (or regenerated) capability HAS to be fully costed and funded and properly supported. If any of the forces were even to hint that it could generate something for nothing, the Government would be absolutely justified in looking very carefully at the spare capacity with a view to identifying further cuts.
I'm not Navy, but I can't imagine it's very different from my light blue environment. I don't see much spare fat around me now and the big reductions haven't even started to bite yet.
I don't think it's a goer, WEBF. There are plenty of more relevant capabilities that we need to get going in the fast jet world that we're struggling to fund. I can't see your nostalgia flight getting off the ground. I was as sorry as the next man to see SHAR/Harrier go, but it has gone, bonkers or not.
Thinking outside the box will not magic up the funding this would need. None of the Armed Forces have people just lying around doing nothing who could rebuild a fleet of aircraft in their spare time. Any fleet of aircraft has a minimum viable size in order to make it cost effective, let alone make it worth establishing the whole support organization that it requires. There is no economy of scale in 2 sea jets and a T4.
Having scrapped the jet (and a few more since), no politician is about to turn around and say that maybe we shouldn't have lost the capability after all. They certainly would never suggest that the MoD regeberates a capability on the cheap and the MoD would never say yes to such a suggestion anyway. In these days of cuts and reductions any new (or regenerated) capability HAS to be fully costed and funded and properly supported. If any of the forces were even to hint that it could generate something for nothing, the Government would be absolutely justified in looking very carefully at the spare capacity with a view to identifying further cuts.
I'm not Navy, but I can't imagine it's very different from my light blue environment. I don't see much spare fat around me now and the big reductions haven't even started to bite yet.
I don't think it's a goer, WEBF. There are plenty of more relevant capabilities that we need to get going in the fast jet world that we're struggling to fund. I can't see your nostalgia flight getting off the ground. I was as sorry as the next man to see SHAR/Harrier go, but it has gone, bonkers or not.