Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".

Old 16th Dec 2010, 21:28
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,808
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
Wokafans

Mr Harding's article was a bit longer. Here it is, typed in long hand:

Navy Chiefs' plan to save jump jets

A last-ditch attempt has been made by the Royal Navy to save Harriers from the axe, with a proposal to allow reservist pilots to fly them.

As the last flight of the jump jets takes place at RAF Cottesmore today a plan, said to be backed by the First Sea Lord, has been put forward to preserve a rump of 20 Harriers.

Navy chiefs have warned of an "unbridgeable skills gap" for pilots needed to fly the Joint Strike Fighter off the new aircraft carriers that will come into service in 2020 if carrier training is stopped. Without the ability to fly off carriers for the next 10 years, Navy pilots will lose the skill of landing on rolling decks in bad weather and deck crews will not get the practice they needed to safely launch and recover aircraft.

The decision to scrap the Harrier in favour of the RAF's Tornados in the strategic defence review infuriated the Navy.

But hopes of saving the Harrier, of which there are 65 serviceable aircraft in total, will be raised at a meeting of the defence board in January.

A proposal will be made to allow Royal Navy Reserve pilots to continue flying the planes at weekends from Yeovilton, Somerset.

Senior naval officers say the RAF is rushing to retire the Harriers to make the defence review decision a "fait accompli" before alternatives are put in place.


S41

Fun and games? Or preserving the skills needed for running a fixed wing carrier (deck crews, bridge and navigating personnel, various watchkeepers in places like the Operations Room and Ship Control Centre, and so on)? Maybe even maintaining an ability to do something if the politicians' crystal ball is wrong?

RNR pilots did fly the Harrier, and the Sea Harrier before that. Other aircraft types as well, and at sea. As for the cost - long term (to 2018) support contracts were signed last year. The contracts included cancellation clauses so is not a case of zero aircraft equals zero cost. Reducing the number of aircraft to be supported back might be no (or not much) more expensive than ripping up the contracts. What if we worked more closely with Italy or Spain? If the GR9 is similar to the AV8B+ then perhaps they can help with support? We might be shoring up their economies very soon....

althenick

... Since Lusty has been chosen over Ocean for the axe then there would be little point as it wouldn't get to sea

Yes there would be! Lusty will be kept until 2014, so the RN will still have a platform that can take fixed wing aircraft. Not sure when Queen Elizabeth enters service, but hopefully it won't be too long after that. When Ark Royal entered Pompey for the last time the Captain commented (on TV) on the new carriers arriving "in four years time.....". As for Ocean, she is due a refit. I think that I read that she's getting an extensive (£100 million?) refit. If the Phalanx was removed from the front of the flight deck, surely she could operate Harriers (ignoring speed and reliability issues for now)?

When I read the above article yesterday it brightened up a dull day. Back in March I heard a senior RN Officer commenting that a possible SDSR outcome was to hand "not needed right now" capabilities to Reservists. He wasn't thinking of Harrier, I suspect.

Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 10th Jul 2011 at 11:51.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2010, 21:43
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Their Target for Tonight
Posts: 582
Received 28 Likes on 4 Posts
Keeping the Harrier flying by reservists would be the worst of both worlds. Not only would we have lost the capability, but we would lose the savings that are being made by scrapping the fleet. That would mean other platforms would have to make even more savings!

Those who think we could run them on for a song are deluding themselves. Have you any idea the numbers of people involved in keeping a type airworthy, supplied and maintained? Those on the stn are just the tip of the iceberg.
Red Line Entry is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2010, 21:59
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Red Line Entry

Your argument seems based on the presumtion that Harrier was chopped to save money. SDR stated it was about capability. We have all seen estimates indicating more could have been saved by dropping Tornado but the type is needed for Afghanistan and to give the RAF a manned deep strike platform until the F-35C arrives.

If the Navy can come up with a workable plan and budget to run on the Harrier using the RNR and the Government can be persuaded (which I agree may be doubtful) why are you bothered. The operational SHAR force was never more than two small Squadrons for three carriers before it was chopped in 2006 so in theory at least only some of the very best airframes that would otherwise be sold or scrapped would be needed to retain core deck flying and aircraft handling skills.

Unless of course there is another agenda

Last edited by draken55; 17th Dec 2010 at 07:35. Reason: Missed a word
draken55 is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2010, 07:32
  #164 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,234
Received 1,502 Likes on 679 Posts
If the admirals can persuade the PM to ante up an extra £1.5Bn to keep a non-operational GR9 reserve going, more power to their elbow.

I'd just point out that amount would also probably be enough to save the MRA4, which would offer a for more useful, and unique, capability than the GR9 - and mainly for the benefit of the navy.
ORAC is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2010, 07:43
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Orac

Since we don't know the number of pilots and airframes involved, this figure is a guess. Let's just wait and see.

As to the Nimrod, is this the start of the RAF now planning to invoice the other services for work it does for them Might as well let the Army take over JHF on that basis. MPA run in future by the Navy? Why not when the RAF seems less interested in fighting to retain "non core" activities!
draken55 is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2010, 07:52
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Their Target for Tonight
Posts: 582
Received 28 Likes on 4 Posts
draken,

Thank you for your gracious edit which removed the implication that I personally had a secret agenda.

To me it is all about the money. We know that the Defence Plan was tens of billions over the expected budget for the next ten years, SDSR has had to reign in our current and future expenditure to match our likely income. The key then is to decide what capabilities to reduce and by how much.

My point is that once all the arguments had been completed (and let's not go through all that again please), it was decided to remove the GR9 capability. To then attempt to 'buy it back' will cost tens of millions that will have to be found from elsewhere (anyone who thinks Defence will get an extra wedge of cash for Harrier from the PM is delusional). Taking the cash from elsewhere will have a detrimental effect on that other capability.

Another point is that the annual Planning Round doesn't normally finish until about February, so if things are progressing as normal, Main Building will be in the heart of the Stage 3 process and still running all sorts of options for further savings. Who says Fast Jet capability isn't going to be hit further?
Red Line Entry is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2010, 09:16
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Red Line Entry

Re the Harrier, I do think there was another agenda at play but it was not yours

As for the money argument, we will have to disagree. Money, more of it or less, has always been used as the prime factor by politicians when implementing their vision. This time around, along with spending announcements in other areas like Higher Education made since the Election, the SDSR was as much about flagging up issues with the greatest PR impact to let the Public be in no doubt as to the depths of "our financial crisis", as it was defence.

Since SDSR was published, money has been found to be available from our heavily indebted economy to assist with the bale out of other EU Countries. This fits in with a political vision of what the EU is or should become so this should be no surprise nor should the move to greater European co-operation on defence matters at the expense of national capability.
draken55 is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2010, 09:24
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just heard this morning that there is a possibility of the RN Hawks moving from Culdrose to Newquay..(RNAS St Mawgan)...
Whats wrong with Yeovilton....Are these people mad? Why would you do that? Why move the Hawks to St Mawgan instead of Yeovilton... Another nail in the Fleet Air Arms Coffin?


In affectionate memory of the Fleet Air Arm
Sadly passed away in the Autumn of 2010
Deeply lamented by a large circle of sorrowing
friends and acquaintances
RIP
The body will be cremated and the ashes taken
to RAF Cranwell
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2010, 13:16
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,307
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
KeyPilot wrote,

Out of interest, anyone know (i) how old the GR9/9A frames are (oldest-newest) and (ii) what the intended disposal route is?
See following links for delivery/build dates for Harrier serials running from ZD318 to ZH665.

UK Serials

http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/hi...production.htm

From

http://www.harrier.org.uk/index.html

TJ
TEEEJ is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2010, 14:19
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
vec, quite so. Additionally, St. Mawgan has a worse weather factor then Culdrose. Yeovilton would be a much better move - along with 24 Harriers.

Deck operating skills must be maintained; the aircraft should be assigned to Illustrious, then reassigned to the new carrier - and kept in service until F-35C or Sea Hornet E/F/G are delivered....

...and then I woke up.
BEagle is online now  
Old 17th Dec 2010, 14:42
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The more interesting question is whether Culdrose SFDO is going to be maintaining fixed wing skills as well as rotary in the next decade?

I can't imagine that there's any financial flex to allow for the retention of the GR9s in the RN's budget. And if there is, I would expect it (rightly) to go into retaining another couple of escorts.

S41
Squirrel 41 is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2010, 15:15
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
S41

The number of escorts needed has been determined by the SDSR. The Navy does not have the choice of finding money to keep two more.

So if the Navy was able to find savings that might be used to fund the retention of some GR9's possibly flown by RNR pilots and persuade the MOD and the politicians to allow this, it could be done.

I am not a betting man but...................
draken55 is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2010, 16:02
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The more interesting question is whether Culdrose SFDO is going to be maintaining fixed wing skills as well as rotary in the next decade?
They ought to. We still need FDO's and flight deck crews. HMS Illustrious will still be embarking Fixed wing aircraft upto and until 2014.
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2010, 19:00
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 513
Received 156 Likes on 83 Posts
Only a complete moron would bin the aircraft handling and FDO courses entirely just because there may be 5 year gap between Lusty decommissioning and QE commissioning.......oh, I see.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2010, 23:37
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,808
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
But surely.....

Lusty will stay until 2014. Queen Elizabeth (not being fitted with cats or traps) should be ready in 2015-6....

I also seem to remember that Ocean is meant to be able to carry Harriers, but not operate them (there's a Phalanx in the way). Her last refit cost £40 million. Her planned refit is sat to cost £100 million - that's a lot of upgrades and additions.

As for the poo-pooing of the ideas regarding Reservists and Harriers:

1. How much of the projected costs are fixed, regardless of aircraft numbers?
2. How much cost is there per aircraft?
3. How closely are costs and flying hours related?
4. How many costs are due to personnel?

So a much smaller number of aircraft, with smaller numbers of personnel (many of them Reservists so not paid 365 days per year unless mobilised or on FTRS), and reduced flying hours.... We are now talking about a significantly lower figure than that quoted for three full time squadrons.

Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 24th Sep 2012 at 17:29.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2010, 03:51
  #176 (permalink)  

Rebel PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 50
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't suppose there are any Harriers that could be sent to LHR as mobile taxiway / stand ice melters?
MarkD is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2010, 10:40
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So, latest rumour doing the rounds is that the Harrier is no longer certified to fly, but is now in completely the wrong place for disposal storage. Any truth in this? Apparently Staish at Cot has stated that his stn closes on 31 Mar, if any Harriers are there at that stage it will be for DE to look after them!!

As I said, rumour only so that little lot could be complete bolleaux!
Jumping_Jack is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2010, 10:50
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,074
Likes: 0
Received 126 Likes on 26 Posts
Whilst doing some Christmas shopping at the weekend I came across the MOD action figure range in a toy shop. The 'Attack fighter' (Harrier) now seems a little incongrous - I trust they'll be producing a model based on Typhoon/ F35 to replace it, or will they keep selling them (if they actually sell well?) Perhaps a future collector's item, from the days when the RAF/RN had aircraft?

There was also a SAR crewman - another future collector's item?!
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2010, 12:30
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: All over the place
Age: 51
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So, latest rumour doing the rounds is that the Harrier is no longer certified to fly, but is now in completely the wrong place for disposal storage. Any truth in this? Apparently Staish at Cot has stated that his stn closes on 31 Mar, if any Harriers are there at that stage it will be for DE to look after them!!
Gp Cpt Gary Waterfall said on Wednesday:

"My immediate concentration now is the closing down of the airbase here and in the New Year we turn our attention to the ceremonial closing of the squadrons. The disposal decision regarding the aircraft has not been made so what we'll be doing is putting the aircraft in to a storage type condition so that when that decision is made they will be in an ideal state to allow them to move on."
gareth herts is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2010, 12:53
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quite illuminating that some would rather keep an () outdated() capability rather than support the guardianship of the strategic deterrence fleet......................................

and same say there is an agenda at play ?

glad rag is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.