Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Is it just me - or is Lord Dannatt missing the point in this article?
Those countries further away, such as the United States and the United Kingdom must, self-evidently, forward deploy to host airbases but many participants can operate from their home bases. This calls into discussion the role and utility of aircraft carriers.
Does it? What about transit times, or the possibility of HNS being withdrawn? And how suitable is flying missions over a range of 500+ miles for time critical close air support, or policing the skies against sudden MiG activity?
Even mention of those two words can become emotional, but logic has a place here. Many types of aircraft are required to conduct a no fly-zone.
There is a requirement for ground attack and air to air combat aircraft and they can, and will, be flown by the United States, and perhaps from France, from aircraft carriers.
Yes, perhaps Italy and Spain too, using the AV8B+? In fact, isn't the US Marine Corps operating the AV8B+ there from an amphibious vessel?
But many of the aircraft such as AWACs command and control and surveillance aircraft can only be flown from land bases, as must the air to air refuelling tankers that will need to sustain the smaller fast jests on combat air patrol.
Of course carrier based ones are nearer to the area of oprations and need less AAR support. And carriers do contribute to command and control, and survellience.
So the UK's contribution of some 24 Typhoon and Tornado aircraft, both with longer endurance and a heavier weapons payload than Harrier, does not make recent decisions in the Strategic Defence and Security Review look as silly as some would have us believe.
Errr well surly the point is that the Harrier can operate from a ship (or just about anywhere) and therefore range is not really an issue?
Of course, the presence of HMS Ark Royal and a complement of Harriers would have been useful, but are they essential? In this case, the short answer is no, but whether we can wait nearly ten years for their replacements – only time will tell.
Time will indeed tell. What are the chances that other things will happen in the next few years?
Those countries further away, such as the United States and the United Kingdom must, self-evidently, forward deploy to host airbases but many participants can operate from their home bases. This calls into discussion the role and utility of aircraft carriers.
Does it? What about transit times, or the possibility of HNS being withdrawn? And how suitable is flying missions over a range of 500+ miles for time critical close air support, or policing the skies against sudden MiG activity?
Even mention of those two words can become emotional, but logic has a place here. Many types of aircraft are required to conduct a no fly-zone.
There is a requirement for ground attack and air to air combat aircraft and they can, and will, be flown by the United States, and perhaps from France, from aircraft carriers.
Yes, perhaps Italy and Spain too, using the AV8B+? In fact, isn't the US Marine Corps operating the AV8B+ there from an amphibious vessel?
But many of the aircraft such as AWACs command and control and surveillance aircraft can only be flown from land bases, as must the air to air refuelling tankers that will need to sustain the smaller fast jests on combat air patrol.
Of course carrier based ones are nearer to the area of oprations and need less AAR support. And carriers do contribute to command and control, and survellience.
So the UK's contribution of some 24 Typhoon and Tornado aircraft, both with longer endurance and a heavier weapons payload than Harrier, does not make recent decisions in the Strategic Defence and Security Review look as silly as some would have us believe.
Errr well surly the point is that the Harrier can operate from a ship (or just about anywhere) and therefore range is not really an issue?
Of course, the presence of HMS Ark Royal and a complement of Harriers would have been useful, but are they essential? In this case, the short answer is no, but whether we can wait nearly ten years for their replacements – only time will tell.
Time will indeed tell. What are the chances that other things will happen in the next few years?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 29th Apr 2011 at 12:09.
Honestly, listen to yourself. You sound like a naughty boy trying to make excuses to his parents...
"But...... but...... but....."!
Just accept that this conflict does nothing to advance the case for your beloved carriers. There is a case for them; this ain't it. Sigonella and Trapani are open for unrestricted operations, are only 40 minutes' flying time from Tripoli, and there are numerous large airfields all over Southern Europe from which "Janes' All the World's Tankers" can fly. Getting all uppity over the volume of fuel used is pointless - the cost of splurging on fuel for a few months is far less than the cost (over the life of a carrier) of maintaining deck landing skills, fleet defence, yada yada yada...
Besides, keep Harrier = no Tornado = no Storm Shadow and no ALARM. Harrier could never have carried SS; apparently the STOL flaps were too big.
"But...... but...... but....."!
Just accept that this conflict does nothing to advance the case for your beloved carriers. There is a case for them; this ain't it. Sigonella and Trapani are open for unrestricted operations, are only 40 minutes' flying time from Tripoli, and there are numerous large airfields all over Southern Europe from which "Janes' All the World's Tankers" can fly. Getting all uppity over the volume of fuel used is pointless - the cost of splurging on fuel for a few months is far less than the cost (over the life of a carrier) of maintaining deck landing skills, fleet defence, yada yada yada...
Besides, keep Harrier = no Tornado = no Storm Shadow and no ALARM. Harrier could never have carried SS; apparently the STOL flaps were too big.
Harrier could never have carried SS; apparently the STOL flaps were too big.
. Outrigger Oloes had to be disconnected and the jet jacked up.
WEBF,
Surely if the "Carrier" was to be depended upon, we'd have to allow sailing time from wherever it might have been when all kicked off. If we're going to have aircraft carriers, they'd need to be of at least the Charles de Gaul class. Not the light Invincible class with ski-jumps for the much celebrated Harriers. Far too much is said about what it can /could do. This again is the argument that the Navy can and should take over the core role of the R.A.F. And too many subjectively minded people, who I'd have thought would know better, reckon a small number of shipborne puffer jets will effectively do it. No need for Tornados and Typhoons? You've got to be joking.
FB
Surely if the "Carrier" was to be depended upon, we'd have to allow sailing time from wherever it might have been when all kicked off. If we're going to have aircraft carriers, they'd need to be of at least the Charles de Gaul class. Not the light Invincible class with ski-jumps for the much celebrated Harriers. Far too much is said about what it can /could do. This again is the argument that the Navy can and should take over the core role of the R.A.F. And too many subjectively minded people, who I'd have thought would know better, reckon a small number of shipborne puffer jets will effectively do it. No need for Tornados and Typhoons? You've got to be joking.
FB
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly picked up earlier but I couldn't find anything.
The following links take you to written submissions put before the Defence Select Committee regarding the Tornado versus Harrier decision. Although they were submitted in January, they have only just been released in the last batch of publications put on line on Monday 14th March.
You'll see that the first one contains a request '...that the Select Committee examine the rationale and decision-making that resulted in the removal of the Harrier from RAF and RN service. While the initial recommendation by MoD to Ministers, that the Harrier should retained and the Tornado force be cut, was based upon the effectiveness, efficiency, and service record of the Harrier, the subsequent recommendation by the Chief of the Defence Staff, in person to the Prime Minister, was counter to the overall aim of economy. It was not a recommendation that sprang from experience of the operational versatility of the Harrier, it ignored the facts about the economic performance of the aircraft, and that CDS' advice sought to overturn the considered views given earlier to Ministers.'
The strategic defence and security review and the national security strategy
The strategic defence and security review and the national security strategy
Open press. Their comments, not personal opinions of the thread-posting masses. Make your own mind up.
The following links take you to written submissions put before the Defence Select Committee regarding the Tornado versus Harrier decision. Although they were submitted in January, they have only just been released in the last batch of publications put on line on Monday 14th March.
You'll see that the first one contains a request '...that the Select Committee examine the rationale and decision-making that resulted in the removal of the Harrier from RAF and RN service. While the initial recommendation by MoD to Ministers, that the Harrier should retained and the Tornado force be cut, was based upon the effectiveness, efficiency, and service record of the Harrier, the subsequent recommendation by the Chief of the Defence Staff, in person to the Prime Minister, was counter to the overall aim of economy. It was not a recommendation that sprang from experience of the operational versatility of the Harrier, it ignored the facts about the economic performance of the aircraft, and that CDS' advice sought to overturn the considered views given earlier to Ministers.'
The strategic defence and security review and the national security strategy
The strategic defence and security review and the national security strategy
Open press. Their comments, not personal opinions of the thread-posting masses. Make your own mind up.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Meadows
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holy crap. That submission, which is of course one persons agenda, is clearly written by someone with no clue about aircraft, specifically Harrier, Tornado and UAVs (not to mention Afghanistan). Hopefully it got laughed out of any serious discussion but I suspect the author doesn't care, the ill informed will believe it and the author will score brownie points (as I suspect it was written by a 9 year old girl with access to Top Trumps).
It scares me that politicians might read that and take it seriously.
It scares me that politicians might read that and take it seriously.
Indeed Mr Grim. So full of statements with no factual basis or evidence, subjective rather than objective and a clear bias. It is utter tosh (mind you, look at what Mr Farley has previosuly stated, not sure who Mr Dow is). 
Do we have any politicians capable of reading?
Do we have any politicians capable of reading?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only if faced with the harsh financial choice of ditching one type for another to save money did the last October's decision make sense. However, should that question have been asked if it required adoption of a dubious threat analysis that put Afghanistan at the top at least until 2015 and a more benevolent global environment than has already proven to be the case? We do need to think again in the light of events.
In passing it's also worth pointing out that even though the UK launched Tomahawks from a sub in the Med and Stormshadow from Tornado's flying from the UK, the real clout on day one was from the US Armed Forces. Are we ever likely to act on our own again in future?
FYI. Harriers are now flying over Libya, there just not ours!
From Joint Force Maritime Component Commanders Odyssey Dawn Public Affairs
USS KEARSARGE, At Sea (NNS) -- U.S. Navy EA-18G Growlers from coalition bases and U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers aboard USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) launched March 20, in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn, to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973, which is centered on protecting Libyan citizens from further harm.
The Growlers provided electronic warfare support over Libya while Harriers from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) conducted strikes against Muammar Gaddafi's ground forces and air defenses, joining an international effort to halt an offensive against the Libyan populace.
In passing it's also worth pointing out that even though the UK launched Tomahawks from a sub in the Med and Stormshadow from Tornado's flying from the UK, the real clout on day one was from the US Armed Forces. Are we ever likely to act on our own again in future?
FYI. Harriers are now flying over Libya, there just not ours!
From Joint Force Maritime Component Commanders Odyssey Dawn Public Affairs
USS KEARSARGE, At Sea (NNS) -- U.S. Navy EA-18G Growlers from coalition bases and U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers aboard USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) launched March 20, in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn, to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973, which is centered on protecting Libyan citizens from further harm.
The Growlers provided electronic warfare support over Libya while Harriers from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) conducted strikes against Muammar Gaddafi's ground forces and air defenses, joining an international effort to halt an offensive against the Libyan populace.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Grim,
Indeed, but of course 'fact' to one is 'propaganda' to another.
If what is reported to the Committee is indeed tripe, I'm sure that it will be very clear to them. But it is always amusing that no sooner does someone write something that doesn't fall in with the perception of others it's that they 'know nothing about aircraft' or 'written by children.'
The good thing is that those who were actually involved will know what was or wasn't said/done/written and will either be laughing at the ridiclulous assertions or sweating and waiting for the phone call.
Indeed, but of course 'fact' to one is 'propaganda' to another.
If what is reported to the Committee is indeed tripe, I'm sure that it will be very clear to them. But it is always amusing that no sooner does someone write something that doesn't fall in with the perception of others it's that they 'know nothing about aircraft' or 'written by children.'
The good thing is that those who were actually involved will know what was or wasn't said/done/written and will either be laughing at the ridiclulous assertions or sweating and waiting for the phone call.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Being a mere ex-Stacker I've obviously not had the benefit of the inner workings of operational plannning etc but even using the limited knowledge gleened from the internet and crewroom chit chat even I can note a few issues with this statement.
- Typhoon not developed for GA? So it wasn't purchased to replace both the F3 (an AD aircraft) and the Jaguar (definately not an AD a/c) then?
- Geometry of the a/c prevents a good view of the ground? Anyone who has actually sat in the cockpit of a Typhoon in use, rather than at a static display at an airshow or whilst playing Microsoft FS care to comment?
- When carrying GA weaponry (which apparently it wasn't designed for) the Typhoon is only subsonic. Don't all GA a/c that carry their weapons externally have to transit subsonically, due to RTS issues for their carriage (CoG shifts, etc, etc)?
- If the events of the last week prove anything its that we can't base assumptions on what has gone on before but strange that the author mentions the last 15 years. During the last 15 years the Tornado force has carried out, quite successfully, operations that it and the Typhoon are currently being asked to undertake in Libya.
What realistic self-defence option for the fleet did the GR9, with a couple of Sidewinders strapped on, really offer? No radar, limited legs and slow. Didn't the fleet lose its last credible form of self-defence by a/c when the Admirals coughed up the FA2?
Wasn't the T45 supposed to provide all the AD needs the fleet would require until the introduction of the JSF?
The decision by the Government was in favour of retaining some Tornado aircraft and the Typhoon. This latter aircraft is not suited to ground attack roles for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it was not developed to undertake them.
The geometry of the aircraft prevents a good view of the ground.....
....and when carrying ground attack weaponry the aircraft is only subsonic.
For these reasons a pairing of Tornado and Typhoon is not ideal neither is designed for the type of operations that the government is likely to wish to undertake in the near future if those of the last fifteen years are any indication of what may be required of the RAF and RN
The decision by the government has also denied the fleet any means of self-defence by aircraft.
Wasn't the T45 supposed to provide all the AD needs the fleet would require until the introduction of the JSF?
Most of that argument is of course utter b8ll8cks. GR9 would only be of use in a cab-rank on-call CAS situation, where no-fly has morphed into no-drive armour at "civilians". CVS with a dozen or so would have been useful for that, but Kearsage is already there doing it. We could have had Ark or Lusty (if they weren't de-storing or in refit), moving a couple of weeks ago to do this (adding a bit of coercion to the effect), but not to be.
Nonetheless, T45 is not capable of providing Fleet AD alone. The only people who ever assumed this were the CS-types. No-one in Dark Blue was ever comfortable with it, but went along on the basis F35 ISD would be early-ish in the teens, NOT somewhere out towards 2020.
Nonetheless, T45 is not capable of providing Fleet AD alone. The only people who ever assumed this were the CS-types. No-one in Dark Blue was ever comfortable with it, but went along on the basis F35 ISD would be early-ish in the teens, NOT somewhere out towards 2020.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up t' north
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jockey:
Could it be this Mr. Dow?
The Early Years Of The Pegasus
WhatLarks
So full of statements with no factual basis or evidence, subjective rather than objective and a clear bias. It is utter tosh (mind you, look at what Mr Farley has previosuly stated, not sure who Mr Dow is).
The Early Years Of The Pegasus
WhatLarks
For all its worth, I didn't think the Harriers would go altogether, I always thought that simply to get rid of one thing or another was not a good idea. I can certainly see the obvious contribution that Harrier GR9/9As operating from carrier decks would make to the current situation in the mediterranean, but if the option (as was the case) for the R.A.F. to lose all their Tornados, then the best of the worst range of choices was made in retaining the Tornado and sacrificing the Harrier. As said earlier, the French have the minimum realisitic carrier as it carry's both Fighter (Rafale) and Attack Aircraft (Super Etendard). Harriers on their own are too limited.
FB
FB
For those in need of some light entertainment, have a read of the increasingly delusional Sharkey Ward's blog on the Tornado's contribution to Op ELLAMY; Sharkey appears to have turned environmentalist and is outraged by the fuel consumption of the recent missions:
Sharkey's World
He also appears to have a naval logistician buddy called Grand Logistics who makes more of the same points throughout a series of poorly-researched blogs; at least his numbers are pulled from Google, and not out of his @rse like Sharkey's:
grandlogistics.blog-spot.com/2011/03/royal-air-force-tornados-bomb-libya.html
(Link won't work automatically; cut-and-paste the address and delete the hyphen between the words "blog" and "spot")
Sharkey seems to have an audience in certain corners of the press so it's a good job some commentators have rebutted his rantings. Seriously, FAA chaps - he is embarrassing you now, someone tell him to stop before his claptrap gets published in the press and he gets ridiculed!
Sharkey's World
He also appears to have a naval logistician buddy called Grand Logistics who makes more of the same points throughout a series of poorly-researched blogs; at least his numbers are pulled from Google, and not out of his @rse like Sharkey's:
grandlogistics.blog-spot.com/2011/03/royal-air-force-tornados-bomb-libya.html
(Link won't work automatically; cut-and-paste the address and delete the hyphen between the words "blog" and "spot")
Sharkey seems to have an audience in certain corners of the press so it's a good job some commentators have rebutted his rantings. Seriously, FAA chaps - he is embarrassing you now, someone tell him to stop before his claptrap gets published in the press and he gets ridiculed!
Last edited by Easy Street; 21st Mar 2011 at 18:43.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have been here before in 1982 with Black Buck. At that time RN Sea Harriers were already in situ and capable of bombing the runway at Stanley. The argument was that the "Strategic" use of airpower from a Vulcan bomber strike scared the Junta and deflected Mirages to cover Buenos Aires.
This time around it's because? Well top of the list, it allowed us to demonstrate the RAF still had a long range strike (as well as CAS) capability thus validating SDSR in respect of the retention of Tornado.
In the meantime, was it not the case that much earlier on Saturday, the French Air Force had already stopped the Colonels tanks in their tracks (pardon the pun) near Bengazi before any missions were launched by the UK and USA to take out his air defence radars nationwide?
This time around it's because? Well top of the list, it allowed us to demonstrate the RAF still had a long range strike (as well as CAS) capability thus validating SDSR in respect of the retention of Tornado.
In the meantime, was it not the case that much earlier on Saturday, the French Air Force had already stopped the Colonels tanks in their tracks (pardon the pun) near Bengazi before any missions were launched by the UK and USA to take out his air defence radars nationwide?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: the earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For my 10p worth I think we're slightly missing the point here. You will find very few people in the know who would argue that Harrier should have been kept in place of Tornado. The GR4 guys have demonstrated that there is still a role and requirement for DTS, and one that the GR9 could not have filled.
But there is also clearly a role that fixed wing naval air power can play. The USMC are demonstrating this right now. The key argument is for balenced forces. I find it interesting the Gen Dannett is questioning weather we will be able to revive our carrier capability in 10 years. The answer is almost certainly no. Ironic, therfore, that he argued in the Telegraph prior to SDSR that we could and we should reduce FJ numbers as a result.
Having cut further to the bone then any recent government has done in years, this government is now calling on the very forces that it is reducing to conduct yet another Op. HMS Cambletown, Reduced Astute (Trafalger replacements), Nimrod, Sentinal, Harrier and yes...even Tornado. This is not a Harrier v Tornado argument IMHO. Both have a role to play. The real argument is weather the assumptions made in the SDSR were correct. The answer must be no. If we want to be a world player, as the PM seems to want, we need the forces to back it up. Simples.
But there is also clearly a role that fixed wing naval air power can play. The USMC are demonstrating this right now. The key argument is for balenced forces. I find it interesting the Gen Dannett is questioning weather we will be able to revive our carrier capability in 10 years. The answer is almost certainly no. Ironic, therfore, that he argued in the Telegraph prior to SDSR that we could and we should reduce FJ numbers as a result.
Having cut further to the bone then any recent government has done in years, this government is now calling on the very forces that it is reducing to conduct yet another Op. HMS Cambletown, Reduced Astute (Trafalger replacements), Nimrod, Sentinal, Harrier and yes...even Tornado. This is not a Harrier v Tornado argument IMHO. Both have a role to play. The real argument is weather the assumptions made in the SDSR were correct. The answer must be no. If we want to be a world player, as the PM seems to want, we need the forces to back it up. Simples.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AutoBit
Totally agree with your post.
Initial use of the Tornado proved the point of keeping it rather than Harrier for the major scenario where the GR9 was known to be deficient. The fact that CAS is now being provided by carrier borne US Marine Corps Harrier's is water under the bridge. SDSR meant we decided to delete that capability last October! That always meant we would need to rely on others until we could get HNS and force re-positioning sorted out to then deploy nearer the scene.
As to the re-generation of carrier air that is as much to do with politics than anything else. If recent events lead to a change in the defence need and the political will is there, it could be restored by 2015 when QE completes. I really see no point using Illustrious and re-activating some GR9's. The UK could have a carrier deployable SEAD/AAR/Fighter and Strike capability in the Super Hornet leaving the RAF to buy the F-35C at a later date or even move to the A Model to fit in with the USAF if it can keep finding aircrew with wonder bladders
Totally agree with your post.
Initial use of the Tornado proved the point of keeping it rather than Harrier for the major scenario where the GR9 was known to be deficient. The fact that CAS is now being provided by carrier borne US Marine Corps Harrier's is water under the bridge. SDSR meant we decided to delete that capability last October! That always meant we would need to rely on others until we could get HNS and force re-positioning sorted out to then deploy nearer the scene.
As to the re-generation of carrier air that is as much to do with politics than anything else. If recent events lead to a change in the defence need and the political will is there, it could be restored by 2015 when QE completes. I really see no point using Illustrious and re-activating some GR9's. The UK could have a carrier deployable SEAD/AAR/Fighter and Strike capability in the Super Hornet leaving the RAF to buy the F-35C at a later date or even move to the A Model to fit in with the USAF if it can keep finding aircrew with wonder bladders
Last edited by draken55; 21st Mar 2011 at 20:45.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: the earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the real point is how long is this going to last? The last time we did this (N Iraq/Bosnia) we had FA2, F3, GR7, GR1/4 and Jags. I dont know the exact numbers but I think it was something like 17 front line FJ Sqns. Those NFZs lasted up to 10 years. We're now commiting to a second Op with 8 FJ Sqns, of which 2 will be on Ops at anyone time, 2 just returned and 2 getting ready to go. Lets not even mention northern/southern Q and the Falklands and contingent training. It all gets very tight.
Sure we may reduce the commitment to Flts, but is this really the time to be reducing FJ numbers. I think not.
Sure we may reduce the commitment to Flts, but is this really the time to be reducing FJ numbers. I think not.
Don't have an issue with the TGRF flying long range missions with Stormshadow to be honest.
If you only have x Tomahawks in your inventory but you have y Stormshadows where y is > x then why not pickle some of y off?
Likewise why bother carting said Stormshadows all the way to an airfield thats closer to the release point prior to loading them onto your Tonka when you could just use said Tornado to carry them to the release point in one go. Having released them why land somewhere else when you could get back home and reload?
Simple math not RAF politics/willy waving imho.
If you only have x Tomahawks in your inventory but you have y Stormshadows where y is > x then why not pickle some of y off?
Likewise why bother carting said Stormshadows all the way to an airfield thats closer to the release point prior to loading them onto your Tonka when you could just use said Tornado to carry them to the release point in one go. Having released them why land somewhere else when you could get back home and reload?
Simple math not RAF politics/willy waving imho.