Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: High in the Afghan Mountains
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ali Barber - be fair, the SDSR was based on saving as much as possible while avoiding massive loss of votes; it had nothing to do with planning assumptions, forecasts of requirement of likely global hotspots.
Given that there are no (positive) votes to be had from Defence, the SDSR assumption (save cash - quick) is still very valid. You're confusing it with the ANNOUNCED assumptions (for Mail/Sun readers) which were some vague tosh about requirements, balanced capabilities and looking after 'Our Boys'. So Harriers (expensive), Carriers (expensive) were cast away; Nimrod R1 (expensive = due to be binned) was retained because it would have cost lives (or is that votes?) to retire it.
Given that there are no (positive) votes to be had from Defence, the SDSR assumption (save cash - quick) is still very valid. You're confusing it with the ANNOUNCED assumptions (for Mail/Sun readers) which were some vague tosh about requirements, balanced capabilities and looking after 'Our Boys'. So Harriers (expensive), Carriers (expensive) were cast away; Nimrod R1 (expensive = due to be binned) was retained because it would have cost lives (or is that votes?) to retire it.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rector 16
Harrier - expensive - binned
Tornado - more expensive - not binned.
Not sure of the logic for the SDSR saving as much as possible.
But a nice quote to end this short post:
Air Marshall Trenchard to the first course of the RAF Staff College (1922):
‘Your pilots may fly in better formation than anyone else’s pilots. Ask yourself are you running them at a less cost than anybody else?’
Harrier - expensive - binned
Tornado - more expensive - not binned.
Not sure of the logic for the SDSR saving as much as possible.
But a nice quote to end this short post:
Air Marshall Trenchard to the first course of the RAF Staff College (1922):
‘Your pilots may fly in better formation than anyone else’s pilots. Ask yourself are you running them at a less cost than anybody else?’
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: High in the Afghan Mountains
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB11 - good quote. I'd also like to offer sqn Ldr (later MRAF 'Bomber') Harris who said 'serving in the services in the immediate aftermath of a war is not an exciting or particularly pleasant experience'. Substitute 'aftermath of war' with 'aftermath of SDSR' and I see his point.
Ah the Harrier cheaper/dearer/cheaper/dearer than Tornado argument - always glad to see that one again! The truth is that nobody has any idea which one is more expensive given sunk costs, capabilities, engine contracts, jobs in Industry, etc etc. We could argue about oranges v apples until the cows land, but I doubt that we'd get a clear definition of costs (or indeed value) on which to agree. Bottom line, we had to bin one FJ type and for some political reason best known to 'Our Dave' he went with binning the Harrier (quite probably the toss of a coin). I'm sure that it made political sense - and to be fair to the PM, the voters don't really seem to care what he does with Defence do they?
Ah the Harrier cheaper/dearer/cheaper/dearer than Tornado argument - always glad to see that one again! The truth is that nobody has any idea which one is more expensive given sunk costs, capabilities, engine contracts, jobs in Industry, etc etc. We could argue about oranges v apples until the cows land, but I doubt that we'd get a clear definition of costs (or indeed value) on which to agree. Bottom line, we had to bin one FJ type and for some political reason best known to 'Our Dave' he went with binning the Harrier (quite probably the toss of a coin). I'm sure that it made political sense - and to be fair to the PM, the voters don't really seem to care what he does with Defence do they?
JAJ
I think the comments regarding CSAR make the assumption that Harrier would have operated from a carrier. In addition to being nearer and therefore more responsive, the carrier would be able to carry helicopters including Jungly Sea King, Merlin, and Apache.
Oddly, the current Cougar deployment (nothing to do with Libya, honest, despite being brought forward by a couple of months) includes a pair of SK4 from 845 NAS and a pair of Lynx AH7 from 847 NAS...
I can see us getting drawn into this more and more.
AB
So I wasn't the only one to think that the SDSR predicted a decade in which nothing would happen.
R16/FB11
The story goes that the SDSR review had recommended larger cuts to the Army, but someone called Dave had decided that large cuts to Army manpower whilst Afghan operations are taking place would be bad PR and cost votes, so he demanded that the RN and RAF bear the brunt instead - despite of the SDSR process.
I do not believe that there was much critical thinking regarding these cuts.
I think the comments regarding CSAR make the assumption that Harrier would have operated from a carrier. In addition to being nearer and therefore more responsive, the carrier would be able to carry helicopters including Jungly Sea King, Merlin, and Apache.
Oddly, the current Cougar deployment (nothing to do with Libya, honest, despite being brought forward by a couple of months) includes a pair of SK4 from 845 NAS and a pair of Lynx AH7 from 847 NAS...
I can see us getting drawn into this more and more.
AB
So I wasn't the only one to think that the SDSR predicted a decade in which nothing would happen.
R16/FB11
The story goes that the SDSR review had recommended larger cuts to the Army, but someone called Dave had decided that large cuts to Army manpower whilst Afghan operations are taking place would be bad PR and cost votes, so he demanded that the RN and RAF bear the brunt instead - despite of the SDSR process.
I do not believe that there was much critical thinking regarding these cuts.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 14th Apr 2011 at 09:35.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing not many people have talked about is the Harrier's ability to operate from short strips in the Libya scenario. Whilst I happy to see that we're not exactly hurting for the lack of it (although stand by looking at Telegraph article today on lack of bombing ability on the Tiffie) if a short runway made itself available for use ashore (in Libya), would the tornado be able to make any use of it? Rough strip ops etc? Very close to the battlefield and GCAS availability would be possible using the GR9. I suppose I'm hinting at the situation that was extant early on in Herrick.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Sasha, I think the costs associated would prohibitive and the security risks a nightmare to set one up from scratch. It wont happen also because the UK Govt want a greater number of NATO partners to commit ac to the NFZ. Increasing our own numbers wont encourage them to do that.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
When was the last time Harriers actually deployed 'in the field' a'la rough strip, hides, TFHE kit and techies hiding their Samsonite suitcases in 12x12s as was common place in the 80s?
As much as Kandahar was/is descriibed in the early days as being 'rough' comparitively speaking it was far more well found than the conditions the likes of the GR3s were used to operating under.
As much as Kandahar was/is descriibed in the early days as being 'rough' comparitively speaking it was far more well found than the conditions the likes of the GR3s were used to operating under.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When was the last time Harriers actually deployed 'in the field' a'la rough strip,
As much as Kandahar was/is descriibed in the early days as being 'rough' comparitively speaking it was far more well found than the conditions the likes of the GR3s were used to operating under.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread just gets better and better...
There are a lot of people here making some very bold and usually derogatory statements about different aircraft about which they clearly have very little knowledge or experience of. People should more careful about saying things like "in my experience..." when it's pretty clear that you actually have no experience whatsoever of what you think you're talking about!
Sadly the SDSR forced us to lose either the GR4 or the GR9; from the RAF's perspective I think the right decision was made, but from Defence's viewpoint the outcome was perhaps not so good. If we had similar numbers of GR4 and GR9 then the result might have been very different, but we will never know - it's just a shame that a decision to cut one of the fleets had to happen. It will be too politically embarrassing to reverse the decision, even though there are 79 serviceable jets sat in the hangars at Cott.
As an aside, the GR9 in the middle of an Afghan summer's day could get airborne from KAF in under 3000 ft with a full war load that was at least equal to the GR4's current payload and with better endurance. And it could just as easily have flown a 3000 mile round trip to drop some bombs on our favourite Colonel, albeit only if Libya had kicked off before 15 Dec 10. Sadly, the GR4 is now more capable than the RAF's soon-to-be-scrapped Harrier.
There are a lot of people here making some very bold and usually derogatory statements about different aircraft about which they clearly have very little knowledge or experience of. People should more careful about saying things like "in my experience..." when it's pretty clear that you actually have no experience whatsoever of what you think you're talking about!
Sadly the SDSR forced us to lose either the GR4 or the GR9; from the RAF's perspective I think the right decision was made, but from Defence's viewpoint the outcome was perhaps not so good. If we had similar numbers of GR4 and GR9 then the result might have been very different, but we will never know - it's just a shame that a decision to cut one of the fleets had to happen. It will be too politically embarrassing to reverse the decision, even though there are 79 serviceable jets sat in the hangars at Cott.
As an aside, the GR9 in the middle of an Afghan summer's day could get airborne from KAF in under 3000 ft with a full war load that was at least equal to the GR4's current payload and with better endurance. And it could just as easily have flown a 3000 mile round trip to drop some bombs on our favourite Colonel, albeit only if Libya had kicked off before 15 Dec 10. Sadly, the GR4 is now more capable than the RAF's soon-to-be-scrapped Harrier.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fwiw I've got no experience, but I do have a mind capable of rational thought, at least I think I have. I'd say the deep strike capability of GR4 and Stormshadow would be a massive loss had the 'govern'ment coin fallen the other way. GR4 can do most of the Harrier job, I'm not sure Harrier can do most of the Tornado job up to 2020. GR4 and SS would be crucial in a 'real' war, not to mention the SEAD role with ALARM.
A controversial point, but taking in to account there are Typhoons at MPA, other than a Falklands scenario against a really pikey adversary, what would we achieve in a real war with only 15 Ground Attack Harriers aboard a floating target that's akin to having all your eggs in 1 basket. How many sorties are achievable with only 15 a/c, not taking in to account attrition and serviceability issues. How much of an impact could they really have considering the massive cost of the whole operation i.e. the carrier, support vessels, defence vessels etc against the risk of 1 exocet rendering the whole basket useless.
I reckon 'they' made the right decision, although if they didn't continually waste our taxes, maybe the decision would never have had to have been made in the first place. I'd personally rather we keep the flexible kit that we can utilise in a real shooting war against serious adversaries, as it can also be used in small (politician ego) wars too.
A controversial point, but taking in to account there are Typhoons at MPA, other than a Falklands scenario against a really pikey adversary, what would we achieve in a real war with only 15 Ground Attack Harriers aboard a floating target that's akin to having all your eggs in 1 basket. How many sorties are achievable with only 15 a/c, not taking in to account attrition and serviceability issues. How much of an impact could they really have considering the massive cost of the whole operation i.e. the carrier, support vessels, defence vessels etc against the risk of 1 exocet rendering the whole basket useless.
I reckon 'they' made the right decision, although if they didn't continually waste our taxes, maybe the decision would never have had to have been made in the first place. I'd personally rather we keep the flexible kit that we can utilise in a real shooting war against serious adversaries, as it can also be used in small (politician ego) wars too.
Last edited by Thelma Viaduct; 13th Apr 2011 at 22:02.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Justanopinion - As an ex-Tac Fuels type I remember the.North Luffenham exercises well.
From my memory the runway sweepers pitched up well before any aircraft did and swept the tarmac to within an inch of its life, very little support was put onto the ground other than us fuels types and a small amount of force protection bods and the Harriers were generally all back at Cott/Witt at cease of play for the day, unless an unservicability struck, in which case we were left with the aircraft until the morning whilst the pilot and groundcrew jumped in an LDV goeshomeybus.
I'm not saying that if the ball dropped they wouldn't have been able to do the job for real in a fashion but the '9-5 war' antics didn't inspire too much confidence.
From my memory the runway sweepers pitched up well before any aircraft did and swept the tarmac to within an inch of its life, very little support was put onto the ground other than us fuels types and a small amount of force protection bods and the Harriers were generally all back at Cott/Witt at cease of play for the day, unless an unservicability struck, in which case we were left with the aircraft until the morning whilst the pilot and groundcrew jumped in an LDV goeshomeybus.
I'm not saying that if the ball dropped they wouldn't have been able to do the job for real in a fashion but the '9-5 war' antics didn't inspire too much confidence.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helpful Stacker
Bored now.
That was your experience.
The jets and personnel would also (ie Macrahanish) deploy "properly" to the field, not 9 - 5 and guess what, had no issues operating from tents etc. They also flew from the traditional tin strips at N Luffenham as it was practice for both the Royal Engineers in putting the stuff down and aircrew in flying from them.
Kandahar was the most fodded airfield you could operate from in the early days and again, the jet operated without incident.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your
but again, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Bored now.
That was your experience.
The jets and personnel would also (ie Macrahanish) deploy "properly" to the field, not 9 - 5 and guess what, had no issues operating from tents etc. They also flew from the traditional tin strips at N Luffenham as it was practice for both the Royal Engineers in putting the stuff down and aircrew in flying from them.
Kandahar was the most fodded airfield you could operate from in the early days and again, the jet operated without incident.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your
do the job for real in a fashion but the '9-5 war' antics didn't inspire too much confidence.
I see Sharkers is getting print space in the papers again. Just read his unchallenged verdict on the Tiffy in the Daily Mail, which in turn is making as much as possible out of an MPs report from the Public Account's Committee which points up how much money has been spent on the Typhoon and the "catalogue of MOD blunders" like how only eight pilots are, so far, cleared to carry out ground attack missions etc etc. In other words, all about yesterday rather than about today and tomorrow. But together with the comments from Sharky, be on the look out for bone headed rabble rousing calls in the tabloids for Harriers to be brought back and Typhoon canned instead! 
FB
FB
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB
If you a have a look at to-days Telegraph you will see a story suggesting the Typhoon attack that destroyed two T-72 tanks was a PR stunt. The tanks were already abandoned and in any event, a Tornado was needed to designate the target. The implication was that this mission was to "prove" the air to ground capability of the Typhoon in advance of the Public Accounts Committee Meeting! We all know that the Tiffy has a way to go on that one.
Facts are we have chopped the Harrier, an aircraft that could self designate targets and use all current weaponary bar Stormshadow so perhaps Ward has a point. This mission harked back to GW1 with Buccs being used to designate for the Tornado!
Also, do we really need a £ 70 Million aircraft to attack tanks over Libya?
If you a have a look at to-days Telegraph you will see a story suggesting the Typhoon attack that destroyed two T-72 tanks was a PR stunt. The tanks were already abandoned and in any event, a Tornado was needed to designate the target. The implication was that this mission was to "prove" the air to ground capability of the Typhoon in advance of the Public Accounts Committee Meeting! We all know that the Tiffy has a way to go on that one.
Facts are we have chopped the Harrier, an aircraft that could self designate targets and use all current weaponary bar Stormshadow so perhaps Ward has a point. This mission harked back to GW1 with Buccs being used to designate for the Tornado!
Also, do we really need a £ 70 Million aircraft to attack tanks over Libya?
Draken, the alternative is to have the £70,000,000 a pop aircraft as an interceptor (please don't try to reason its not needed, like sharky might do) and an expense outlay for something else to blow up tanks just in the event of this kind of scenario.
FB
FB
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SDSR retained Tornado for this scenario and the aircraft is well equipped do so. High profile use of the tiffy now is an obvious attempt to "prove" the aircraft has air to ground utility as well as AD.
The obvious conclusion I would take is that Tornado will soon be in line for the chop so that the RAF can justify the Typhoon fleet being purchased. That will be sooner rather than later.
The obvious conclusion I would take is that Tornado will soon be in line for the chop so that the RAF can justify the Typhoon fleet being purchased. That will be sooner rather than later.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just_Another_Jockey wrote
Yes the carrier would probably be in place. Whilst the politicos are talking, a carrier can be off the coast having being diverted from (it's admittedly nicer-sounding) Gin Cruise to loiter off the said coast (known as poise in military-speak I think).
Something like:
Hague: David, there seems to be a bit of bother in North Africa.
PM: OK, well while we see what happens we'll send CVS/CVF to the Med, they can carry on training there (not needing to rotate back to the UK every 2 months) and we'll see how it pans out.
Hague: Good idea PM, that allieviates the need for HNS, although the French and Italians are still quite friendly.
Although this conversation probably didn't happen, re-deploying ships around the world to potential conflict zones happens on a regular basis. These deployments can be covert or overt depending on the effect that the UK wants to achieve.
This post is not in any way knocking the GR4/Jet boys, (although I second the point that destroying 2 tanks in an abandoned tank park using a GR4 to designate is not exactly combat-proven A-G capability) but about the flexibility, endurance and efficiency of a self-sufficient carrier-based task force.
It's the selective facts that trouble me. You can say "wait 48 hours to launch a few Stormshadows....", but you then assume the carrier is in place and not on another gin cruise around tropics. I think we should all try and stop these selective truths and leave Sharkey to corner the market in them. 
Something like:
Hague: David, there seems to be a bit of bother in North Africa.
PM: OK, well while we see what happens we'll send CVS/CVF to the Med, they can carry on training there (not needing to rotate back to the UK every 2 months) and we'll see how it pans out.
Hague: Good idea PM, that allieviates the need for HNS, although the French and Italians are still quite friendly.
Although this conversation probably didn't happen, re-deploying ships around the world to potential conflict zones happens on a regular basis. These deployments can be covert or overt depending on the effect that the UK wants to achieve.
This post is not in any way knocking the GR4/Jet boys, (although I second the point that destroying 2 tanks in an abandoned tank park using a GR4 to designate is not exactly combat-proven A-G capability) but about the flexibility, endurance and efficiency of a self-sufficient carrier-based task force.
I don't follow Draken? The Typhoon is still the primary interceptor, if the R.A.F.are looking to get rid of the GR4, they'll need to line up a replacement! No? This has got nothing to do with trying to prop up the Typhoon. If they could, they'd leave the Typhoon as an nterceptor and look for a replacement for the GR4s. Bearing in mind the cost involved and the fact that the Typhoon is, as you say at the start of its career in mud moving (rather than at its best ever) and is still needed for its primary purpose of shooting down stuff, which would you rather do? Disband the Typhoons and bring the Harrier GR9 back, which can do ground attack nearly as well as the Typhoon can do Air Superiority, and Air Superiority nearly as well as the C130!
FB
FB
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB
The Typhoon is the Tornado replacement! Post 2020 the F-35C will/might add to that mix. The point I was trying to make was that having lost the Harrier to hold on to Tornado, rapid development of Typhoon in the AG role, even if it's more perception than fact puts the Tornado at risk of being chopped sooner.
Faced with reduced numbers of Typhoons or chopping Tornado sooner to secure more "swing role" aircraft, you know what will happen!
The Typhoon is the Tornado replacement! Post 2020 the F-35C will/might add to that mix. The point I was trying to make was that having lost the Harrier to hold on to Tornado, rapid development of Typhoon in the AG role, even if it's more perception than fact puts the Tornado at risk of being chopped sooner.
Faced with reduced numbers of Typhoons or chopping Tornado sooner to secure more "swing role" aircraft, you know what will happen!