Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if the object is simply to retain skills, then the obvious solution is to reactivate Ark Royal, regenerate a squadron of Sea Harriers, loan them to the Indians with a joint manning agreement to act as a ship protection force off Somalia
With the Indians pro-active take on the piracy problem, and the coming need for air support in protecting aid supplies into Somalia I can see this as a cost-effective way of helping the UN aid effort
The Al-Quaeda affiliates threats re supplying aid suggest that this time around serious air support is going to be needed in getting food into the starving parts of Somalia
With the Indians pro-active take on the piracy problem, and the coming need for air support in protecting aid supplies into Somalia I can see this as a cost-effective way of helping the UN aid effort
The Al-Quaeda affiliates threats re supplying aid suggest that this time around serious air support is going to be needed in getting food into the starving parts of Somalia
Why recommission the Ark Royal when we have the Illustrious at sea and having just completed a major refit?
Why opt for the SHAR when there might be better Harrier types to perform the role that is required?
I am against giving aid to Somalia.... By giving this aid are we taking away the responsibility of that government to fulfil its obligations? It is the Somali people that are dying and should it be the Somali government buying this food! If we give it for free then the incumbent government can spend this money on either themselves or for the buying of arms etc. As soon as this aid comes over the horizon, most will be seized by War Lords which in turn then sell it on the black market, which then allows these war lords to buy more arms, materials, boats etc to carry out acts of either terrorism or piracy.
Is there an easy option? I witnessed the incoming aid during that first Ethiopian famine and despite all the swearing of so called pop stars this aid very rarely got out into the areas where it was most needed.
With hindsight our politicians made a HUGE mistake by scrapping the carriers\harriers but we are where we are and spending a fortune using the Tornado. Hindsight is a talent that is no good to man or beast. It is a skill developed by arm chair critics but wise people can learn by their, or others mistakes. Wise, brave people can sometimes admit to getting a decision completely wrong and rectify that mistake, but this mistake might be too big and demand the heads of those that suggested this was a good option!
Just my thoughts that should be viewed as questions rather than statements of fact
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest the Ark because Illustrious at present has a use as a replacement for Ocean, and the recent Illustrious refit allegedly removed much of her ability to support fixed wing aircraft
I suggest regenerating Sea Harries because the Indians already fly those (though an earlier version) so there would be more commonality than using Harriers
As for Somalia - I tend to agree, but the fact is the UN is going to try and get food in there somehow and will hit problems with the local terror groups. But even if you ignore that, having a flat deck off the Horn of Africa would be a good deterrent to the pirates. We've got the carrier sitting doing nothing, India has the manpower, we both have the aircraft. Put it all together into a jointly manned project to maintain skills
I suggest regenerating Sea Harries because the Indians already fly those (though an earlier version) so there would be more commonality than using Harriers
As for Somalia - I tend to agree, but the fact is the UN is going to try and get food in there somehow and will hit problems with the local terror groups. But even if you ignore that, having a flat deck off the Horn of Africa would be a good deterrent to the pirates. We've got the carrier sitting doing nothing, India has the manpower, we both have the aircraft. Put it all together into a jointly manned project to maintain skills
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest the Ark because Illustrious at present has a use as a replacement for Ocean, and the recent Illustrious refit allegedly removed much of her ability to support fixed wing aircraft
I suggest regenerating Sea Harries because the Indians already fly those (though an earlier version) so there would be more commonality than using Harriers
As for Somalia - I tend to agree, but the fact is the UN is going to try and get food in there somehow and will hit problems with the local terror groups. But even if you ignore that, having a flat deck off the Horn of Africa would be a good deterrent to the pirates. We've got the carrier sitting doing nothing, India has the manpower, we both have the aircraft. Put it all together into a jointly manned project to maintain skills
I suggest regenerating Sea Harries because the Indians already fly those (though an earlier version) so there would be more commonality than using Harriers
As for Somalia - I tend to agree, but the fact is the UN is going to try and get food in there somehow and will hit problems with the local terror groups. But even if you ignore that, having a flat deck off the Horn of Africa would be a good deterrent to the pirates. We've got the carrier sitting doing nothing, India has the manpower, we both have the aircraft. Put it all together into a jointly manned project to maintain skills
I had no idea Illustrious was modified to take away her fixed wing capability...
I agree about her going to replace Ocean but is that more of a 'bodge' to justify her still being in commission? (question)
I saw HMS Bulwark anchored in the bay over the week-end and is that ship a better option for taking the place of Ocean whilst she is in refit?
I understand what you are saying about the SHAR and hopefully others will contribute regarding the suggestion.
If for purely serviceability issues our harrier fleet cannot be put back into service then I guess it is game over but my thoughts are this is not the case and they have been removed for other reasons
(can't make up my mind what one I should use)
and the recent Illustrious refit allegedly removed much of her ability to support fixed wing aircraft
And a Q for WEBF himself
We would therefore be in a far better position to provide air defence for a maritime task group
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bulwark has no hangar so extended helicopter ops with her are a problem, even though thats not stopped the Navy trying it with Albion in the Med and Red Sea over the last few months. Hate to think what state the airframes will be in when they get back - though at least she has been carrying marinized Lynx.
Anyway, Bulwark is scheduled to replace Albion when she gets mothballed in the next couple of months
Anyway, Bulwark is scheduled to replace Albion when she gets mothballed in the next couple of months
I'm afraid the "allegedly" part of it is just that. Utter hoop.
No FW-required systems have been removed from Illustrious, indeed the only A&As of note include enhancements to air weapons mags. If by removing FW operating ability, they mean, we've taken the ASE and other "portable" stores off, then the fix is simple. Next time she's alongside, put them back in the ship.
As for the point re T45, "layered defence" is a principle of all military ops. Always shoot the archer, not the arrow is another basic principle which the "Capability" Types seem to have forgotten. T45 will never (either by nature of the threat or by RoE constraints) be able to provide all the air defence required. That does not mean that the aircraft on the ship will need to be there solely for AD, you can vary teh posture relatively easily - particularly if you have a multi-role type like FA18, F35 or SHAR.
The analogy for a land-base is to assume that because you have the Rock Apes and HESCO revetments (or HAS) that you will never need E3 or Rapier (or DCA fixed-wing for that matter).
No FW-required systems have been removed from Illustrious, indeed the only A&As of note include enhancements to air weapons mags. If by removing FW operating ability, they mean, we've taken the ASE and other "portable" stores off, then the fix is simple. Next time she's alongside, put them back in the ship.
As for the point re T45, "layered defence" is a principle of all military ops. Always shoot the archer, not the arrow is another basic principle which the "Capability" Types seem to have forgotten. T45 will never (either by nature of the threat or by RoE constraints) be able to provide all the air defence required. That does not mean that the aircraft on the ship will need to be there solely for AD, you can vary teh posture relatively easily - particularly if you have a multi-role type like FA18, F35 or SHAR.
The analogy for a land-base is to assume that because you have the Rock Apes and HESCO revetments (or HAS) that you will never need E3 or Rapier (or DCA fixed-wing for that matter).
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 25th Jul 2011 at 12:45.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent point about having a garage (hanger space) so could we simply have the Illustrious carry both?
Illustrious is a far better option than the Ark... That ship will need a very expensive refit to get her to a similar operational standard and would we need both ships or could Illustrious deploy land forces as well as fixed wing?
HMS Centaur embarked an extra helicopter squadron plus 45 Cdo Royal Marines to help subdue a mutiny... I am only saying this to highlight how a fixed wing carrier can be adapted to carry out more than one role.
As usual I am in full agreement with Not-a-Boffin and experience shows that a surface ship alone is not capable of offering total air cover. Hopefully we have learned valuable lessons from our last major conflict and we needed air power... we needed ships to carry that air power.
Illustrious is a far better option than the Ark... That ship will need a very expensive refit to get her to a similar operational standard and would we need both ships or could Illustrious deploy land forces as well as fixed wing?
HMS Centaur embarked an extra helicopter squadron plus 45 Cdo Royal Marines to help subdue a mutiny... I am only saying this to highlight how a fixed wing carrier can be adapted to carry out more than one role.
As usual I am in full agreement with Not-a-Boffin and experience shows that a surface ship alone is not capable of offering total air cover. Hopefully we have learned valuable lessons from our last major conflict and we needed air power... we needed ships to carry that air power.
Why does it seem that some in MOD have been keen to portray Illustrious' conversion to a helicopter carrier as being a major and ireversible act? After all, she didn't have or need catapaults or arrestor gear to operate Sea Harrier/Harrier. More smoke and mirrors?
With respect to Libya, see this Telegraph article: The Libyan campaign is running into the sand
But Mr Cameron imagined he could replicate Tony Blair’s achievements in taking on and defeating rogue dictators. So he ignored the advice – and is now discovering the hard way that being a wartime leader can be a very lonely business. He quickly learnt that few Nato leaders shared his enthusiasm for regime change in Tripoli, but arguably his lowest moment came during President Obama’s recent state visit to Britain. Desperate for more air power to put Gaddafi’s forces on the defensive, the Prime Minister virtually begged the president to deploy more drones. Having invested so much political capital in Libya, Mr Cameron pleaded, he badly needed to get a result. Mr Obama, who has been perplexed by his counterpart’s obsession with the country from the start, was unmoved, and refused to allow US forces anything more than a supporting role.
Many would argue that Mr Cameron has got his just desserts for his cavalier treatment of the Armed Forces during last year’s botched Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), which saw a wide range of key capabilities cancelled simply to cut costs, rather than to improve the defence of the realm. The reason the French have been able to fly three times more combat sorties than the RAF is that they can still call on the services of an aircraft carrier, while, thanks to Mr Cameron, HMS Ark Royal and its Harriers have been consigned to the scrapheap – not to mention our Nimrod surveillance aircraft and other essential military enablers.
Oh dear Mr Cameron, perhaps you should consider the idea in my above post?
Meanwhile, you may recall that the First Sea Lord said that supporting the Libyan effort would mean taking ships away from other tasks. Well, it has happened already - with the frigate Sutherland being diverted there. In fact the entire deployment of the Response Force Task Group has been disrupted by responding to events.
With respect to Libya, see this Telegraph article: The Libyan campaign is running into the sand
But Mr Cameron imagined he could replicate Tony Blair’s achievements in taking on and defeating rogue dictators. So he ignored the advice – and is now discovering the hard way that being a wartime leader can be a very lonely business. He quickly learnt that few Nato leaders shared his enthusiasm for regime change in Tripoli, but arguably his lowest moment came during President Obama’s recent state visit to Britain. Desperate for more air power to put Gaddafi’s forces on the defensive, the Prime Minister virtually begged the president to deploy more drones. Having invested so much political capital in Libya, Mr Cameron pleaded, he badly needed to get a result. Mr Obama, who has been perplexed by his counterpart’s obsession with the country from the start, was unmoved, and refused to allow US forces anything more than a supporting role.
Many would argue that Mr Cameron has got his just desserts for his cavalier treatment of the Armed Forces during last year’s botched Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), which saw a wide range of key capabilities cancelled simply to cut costs, rather than to improve the defence of the realm. The reason the French have been able to fly three times more combat sorties than the RAF is that they can still call on the services of an aircraft carrier, while, thanks to Mr Cameron, HMS Ark Royal and its Harriers have been consigned to the scrapheap – not to mention our Nimrod surveillance aircraft and other essential military enablers.
Oh dear Mr Cameron, perhaps you should consider the idea in my above post?
Meanwhile, you may recall that the First Sea Lord said that supporting the Libyan effort would mean taking ships away from other tasks. Well, it has happened already - with the frigate Sutherland being diverted there. In fact the entire deployment of the Response Force Task Group has been disrupted by responding to events.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 27th Nov 2012 at 08:41.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear Mr Cameron, perhaps you should consider the idea in my above post?
I am told by a recently PVR'd Group Captain who had been at MOD for > 8 years that the question regarding bringing back the Harrier (for Libya) WAS asked by Cameron etc, the answer from the MOD was that it was not possible... and this was back in March/April time. The reasoning being that the training required to bring people back, train them up etc would have taken too long.
May or may not be true, but (IMHO) the Group Captain in question was a decent bloke that had no reason to make it up. He was head hunted recently, offered a civilian job on the Monday, PVR'd on the Tuesday, and sat in his new office 12 days later.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi lj,
In my experience we can get an expert to justify just about any circumstance we care to put forward. We have only very recently withdrawn the harrier and stood down all those personnel responsible for servicing that type of aircraft and to suggest we could not very quickly get these skills back onto a front line capability is perhaps being a little dis-ingenuous.
Is the government suggesting those personnel with these skills have had a part of their memory removed? Yes they may well need to re-qualify but is that going to take MONTHS!! My thoughts are that this is an insult to these highly skilled, dedicated crafts personnel. Yes it would take years to recruit civilians and train them to work on these aircraft. How long would it take a highly qualified pilot with hundreds, if not thousands of hours on this type of aircraft to re-qualify?
I guess I could tell the Prime Minister that the Ark Royal is in desperate need of a major, and very expensive refit and at this current time it is not a viable option to put her back in commission. Without an aircraft carrier there is not a need to bring back the harrier...
Illustrious???? You never asked about the Illustrious Prime Minister and what you do not know, you cannot talk about, but yes she is operational, she is at sea, she can deploy to the coast of Libya and yes we have warships shelling installations in the coastal towns of that country so we are confident we can operate our carrier within easy strike distances of the harriers. But if anyone asks about that ship then simply tell them she will be needed to replace the Ocean.
I hate using the Falklands as an example but the SS Canberra was a beautiful, luxury cruise liner but in just THREE DAYS.... Yes three days she was converted into a troop ship complete with a flight deck capable of receiving sea king helicopters, plus all the abilities to be able to refuel at sea. How long would that normally take?? I am certain we could all easily find experts that would be talking about months or even longer to carry out this type of work, but when push comes to shove we will walk on water!!
This all smells of someone somewhere making a decision to scrap harriers and now come hell or high water our Prime Minister will not back down and admit that in HIND SIGHT..... This decision might need reviewing.
Let's all keep insulting each other and not bother with using the best options that might even at this late hour still be available. I hate those that use hind sight to criticise those that have to make horrible decisions. This however might not be 'hind sight' The situation is still ongoing, we are still flying over a thousand miles to get to and from a target rather than having an airfield 30 - 50 miles from the theatre of current operations.
In my experience we can get an expert to justify just about any circumstance we care to put forward. We have only very recently withdrawn the harrier and stood down all those personnel responsible for servicing that type of aircraft and to suggest we could not very quickly get these skills back onto a front line capability is perhaps being a little dis-ingenuous.
Is the government suggesting those personnel with these skills have had a part of their memory removed? Yes they may well need to re-qualify but is that going to take MONTHS!! My thoughts are that this is an insult to these highly skilled, dedicated crafts personnel. Yes it would take years to recruit civilians and train them to work on these aircraft. How long would it take a highly qualified pilot with hundreds, if not thousands of hours on this type of aircraft to re-qualify?
I guess I could tell the Prime Minister that the Ark Royal is in desperate need of a major, and very expensive refit and at this current time it is not a viable option to put her back in commission. Without an aircraft carrier there is not a need to bring back the harrier...
Illustrious???? You never asked about the Illustrious Prime Minister and what you do not know, you cannot talk about, but yes she is operational, she is at sea, she can deploy to the coast of Libya and yes we have warships shelling installations in the coastal towns of that country so we are confident we can operate our carrier within easy strike distances of the harriers. But if anyone asks about that ship then simply tell them she will be needed to replace the Ocean.
I hate using the Falklands as an example but the SS Canberra was a beautiful, luxury cruise liner but in just THREE DAYS.... Yes three days she was converted into a troop ship complete with a flight deck capable of receiving sea king helicopters, plus all the abilities to be able to refuel at sea. How long would that normally take?? I am certain we could all easily find experts that would be talking about months or even longer to carry out this type of work, but when push comes to shove we will walk on water!!
This all smells of someone somewhere making a decision to scrap harriers and now come hell or high water our Prime Minister will not back down and admit that in HIND SIGHT..... This decision might need reviewing.
Let's all keep insulting each other and not bother with using the best options that might even at this late hour still be available. I hate those that use hind sight to criticise those that have to make horrible decisions. This however might not be 'hind sight' The situation is still ongoing, we are still flying over a thousand miles to get to and from a target rather than having an airfield 30 - 50 miles from the theatre of current operations.
I suspect that the problem lies more in the Design authority and support areas where the contracts with BAES were terminated and folk paid off. They ain't service personnel and therefore can't be "recalled" and once they leave, being skilled types, funny old thing they tend to get well paid jobs that they ain't going to leave for a couple of years extra on Harrier support. Without DA and ILS you won't get a safety case for the bird and without that it doesn't matter how many aircrew and maintainers you've got.
The Harriers have gone. It wasn't (IMHO) the right decision. But they aren't coming back. Neither is Ark. Endex.
We have to live with the consequences and more pertinently the consequences of sh1t-stirring for the sake of it. I have yet to see a polly change their mind after having their noses rubbed in the smelly stuff.
Would much rather ensure that the F35C integration and plan for service is progressed properly.
The Harriers have gone. It wasn't (IMHO) the right decision. But they aren't coming back. Neither is Ark. Endex.
We have to live with the consequences and more pertinently the consequences of sh1t-stirring for the sake of it. I have yet to see a polly change their mind after having their noses rubbed in the smelly stuff.
Would much rather ensure that the F35C integration and plan for service is progressed properly.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: High in the Afghan Mountains
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'But Mr Cameron imagined he could replicate Tony Blair’s achievements in taking on and defeating rogue dictators'
I think that I missed something in the past 20 years - which dictators did Tony take on and defeat? At a stretch you could include Saddam (but I think that the US might take exception to the idea that it was Tony wot dun it), you could certainly include the unelected leader (= dictator?) Brown, but after that I'm struggling to recall any other examples.
I think that I missed something in the past 20 years - which dictators did Tony take on and defeat? At a stretch you could include Saddam (but I think that the US might take exception to the idea that it was Tony wot dun it), you could certainly include the unelected leader (= dictator?) Brown, but after that I'm struggling to recall any other examples.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not-a-Boffin
Wise words as usual and I guess I just want what is best for our service personnel no matter what colour their uniform.
I am venting my frustrations at the ridiculous, inept, incompetent **** spineless attitude of politicians that put career before country. What is best for 'me' as opposed for what is best for Great Britain.
I am now in rant mode!!
Six months ago our politicians MUST have known it was highly probable we would be better served if we had a carrier on station in the Mediterranean in the ensuing months? (question)
Was our involvement in this latest conflict against Libya something that was unexpected, I think not??? (question)
In February of this year the United Nations passed a strongly worded resolution that included these actual words
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya = posh name for Libya
These resolutions are not wrote on the back of a fag packet.. They take time to draw up and no doubt politicians are advised!!!
Where were the UK aircraft coming from to impose this resolution? RAF Marham?? (All but a 4000 mile round trip)
During these early discussions the Royal Navy had the capability to provide a platform for our brave RN and RAF pilots to operate from and having an airfield just FIFTY. MILES off the coast of Libya is surely a much better option than what we started with and even what we now have?
So yes now we are in late July it is possibly too late, but when this was being discussed in late 2010 was it then too late? I say late 2010 as I am of the opinion that there would be much discussion and planning prior to the passing of that resolution.
Are we seriously going to pretend HMS Ocean was always going to deploy with those Apache helicopters because of the previously planned exercise??
If I am told this was indeed a pure coincidence then I will very respectfully ask how many times prior to this 'exercise' has the Apache deployed on a Royal Navy ship? I stand to be corrected but I will suggest this was the first time.
Deep breaths... calming down.
The Ark is DEFINITELY finished and I fear you are also correct regarding the harrier. I have had my rant, wasted my breath, had a smile and hopefully folks will now shoot me down in a pile of manure
The Ark is dead, Long live the new Ark!
Equipping both Royal Navy and Royal Air Force with the F-35C is to me a no brainer type decision and I will never understand the reasoning for the two different types!!
More bang for the buck and far more flexibility in the usage.
Wise words as usual and I guess I just want what is best for our service personnel no matter what colour their uniform.
I am venting my frustrations at the ridiculous, inept, incompetent ****
spineless attitude of politicians that put career before country. What is best for 'me' as opposed for what is best for Great Britain. I am now in rant mode!!
Six months ago our politicians MUST have known it was highly probable we would be better served if we had a carrier on station in the Mediterranean in the ensuing months? (question)
Was our involvement in this latest conflict against Libya something that was unexpected, I think not??? (question)
In February of this year the United Nations passed a strongly worded resolution that included these actual words
to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians
These resolutions are not wrote on the back of a fag packet.. They take time to draw up and no doubt politicians are advised!!!
Where were the UK aircraft coming from to impose this resolution? RAF Marham?? (All but a 4000 mile round trip)
During these early discussions the Royal Navy had the capability to provide a platform for our brave RN and RAF pilots to operate from and having an airfield just FIFTY. MILES off the coast of Libya is surely a much better option than what we started with and even what we now have?
So yes now we are in late July it is possibly too late, but when this was being discussed in late 2010 was it then too late? I say late 2010 as I am of the opinion that there would be much discussion and planning prior to the passing of that resolution.
Are we seriously going to pretend HMS Ocean was always going to deploy with those Apache helicopters because of the previously planned exercise??
If I am told this was indeed a pure coincidence then I will very respectfully ask how many times prior to this 'exercise' has the Apache deployed on a Royal Navy ship? I stand to be corrected but I will suggest this was the first time.
Deep breaths... calming down.
The Ark is DEFINITELY finished and I fear you are also correct regarding the harrier. I have had my rant, wasted my breath, had a smile and hopefully folks will now shoot me down in a pile of manure
The Ark is dead, Long live the new Ark!
Equipping both Royal Navy and Royal Air Force with the F-35C is to me a no brainer type decision and I will never understand the reasoning for the two different types!!
More bang for the buck and far more flexibility in the usage.
N_a_b
If we leased/bought/otherwise obtained some American AV8Bs, complete with a Memorandum Of Understanding for support, in exchange for our axed GR9s, would we need a UK Design Authority? Italy and Spain operate small AV8B+ fleets by means of a MOU arrangement, so why can't we?
I think the politicians have changed there mind at least once - in 1982.
If we leased/bought/otherwise obtained some American AV8Bs, complete with a Memorandum Of Understanding for support, in exchange for our axed GR9s, would we need a UK Design Authority? Italy and Spain operate small AV8B+ fleets by means of a MOU arrangement, so why can't we?
It is me, or are some people saying that all the skills and experience needed for Harrier have been lost in a few months, but losing skills and experience (see my comments here or here, or perhaps those of Bismark or Not_a_boffin) amongst carrier personnel over the next decade will present no problem?
We need to carry on embarking jets as often as we can. The Future Reserves 2020 paper mentions the RNR Air Branch being expanded to support FAA activities. Sadly it makes no mention of the RNR/Harrier proposal. It does talk about using Reserves for the regeneration of capabilities and the whole force concept.
FODPlod
Noooooo! The Sea Harriers at the RNSFDO Dummy Deck now provide our only means of training chockheads. After March 2006 (when the Sea Jet ceased flying) there was speculation from some about whether they could be regenerated is a crisis - this of course depended on the UK operating other Harriers. Oddly, when the Indian Navy wanted to buy some stored Sea Harriers in early 2009, MOD said no.
During the discussion over the Sea Harrier some argued that as the future was going to involve ground attack it was the GR7/9 that we needed, not the Sea Harrier. Some of the same people are now saying we saying we should get rid of Harrier GR9 as it is not a real fighter.
Engines/SammySu
Thank you for helping to address some of the myths regarding this subject, on both the physical state of the aircraft and on the level of CVS experience amongst Harrier pilots. I wonder if these myths played a part in decision making?
Out of interest I hear the jets are being ground run at the beginning of August to keep them serviceable for sale.
If they are as knackered as some suggest, who would want to buy them? Perhaps they really are going to the US as a spares source, in which case I might raise my suggestion again.
It occurs to me that if we could supply a number (most of them) of our now stored Harrier GR9s to the US, and continue to offer the USMC a chance to carry out embarkations of a dozen or so Harriers, we may be able to purchase or lease a number of AV8B (AV8B+ if we're lucky) aircraft in a quid pro quo type arrangement. Hopefully any such deal would include some sort of MOU in order to prevent the UK to incur major support costs, but would offer the following advantages:
1. The UK would still be able to respond to crises in which carrier aviation is useful.
2. The RN would maintain the skills needed to run a carrier with jets on deck, and would maintain a cadre of both Pilots and Engineers to work with these aircraft, avoiding the need to start from scratch later on this decade.
3. If we could get AV8B+s then it would give the Navy a capability that it lost when the Sea Harrier was retired in 2006. We would therefore be in a far better position to provide air defence for a maritime task group, or to participate in policing a no fly zone.
4. We would no longer have to pay for storing retired aircraft, and the Government would be justified in portraying this as a step forward.
5. Our potential adversaries would have something to think about - prevention (deterrence) being better than cure.
6. The defence relationship with the US would be strengthened, as would the defence relationship with France as Illustrious would be able to relieve Charles De Gaulle in x months time.
The use of Ocean as a platform for Apaches operating in a strike role seems to show that a maritime strike capability is needed for what the Government wants the Armed Forces to be capable of doing. Now there is talk of Illustrious relieving Ocean - for which her post refit work up will need to be rushed, with Apaches embarking and learning to operate from her deck. Note the use of the word STRIKE.
As far as I am aware, the Apache has mostly used the Hellfire missile against regime targets. However, the limited range and higher level vulnerability of a helicopter (compared to a fast jet) has meant it has not gone too far inshore. Harrier would bring extra speed and range to the mission, and greater firepower - Maverick and Paveway IV. With Sidewinders it could also play a part in looking out for rogue aircraft.
I was in Portsmouth the other week and saw Illustrious entering harbour with at least one Apache on deck and I thought "Libya". I have seen/heard other things which suggest MOD is expecting a long campaign in Libya.
We need to carry on embarking jets as often as we can. The Future Reserves 2020 paper mentions the RNR Air Branch being expanded to support FAA activities. Sadly it makes no mention of the RNR/Harrier proposal. It does talk about using Reserves for the regeneration of capabilities and the whole force concept.
FODPlod
Noooooo! The Sea Harriers at the RNSFDO Dummy Deck now provide our only means of training chockheads. After March 2006 (when the Sea Jet ceased flying) there was speculation from some about whether they could be regenerated is a crisis - this of course depended on the UK operating other Harriers. Oddly, when the Indian Navy wanted to buy some stored Sea Harriers in early 2009, MOD said no.
During the discussion over the Sea Harrier some argued that as the future was going to involve ground attack it was the GR7/9 that we needed, not the Sea Harrier. Some of the same people are now saying we saying we should get rid of Harrier GR9 as it is not a real fighter.
Engines/SammySu
Thank you for helping to address some of the myths regarding this subject, on both the physical state of the aircraft and on the level of CVS experience amongst Harrier pilots. I wonder if these myths played a part in decision making?
Out of interest I hear the jets are being ground run at the beginning of August to keep them serviceable for sale.
If they are as knackered as some suggest, who would want to buy them? Perhaps they really are going to the US as a spares source, in which case I might raise my suggestion again.
It occurs to me that if we could supply a number (most of them) of our now stored Harrier GR9s to the US, and continue to offer the USMC a chance to carry out embarkations of a dozen or so Harriers, we may be able to purchase or lease a number of AV8B (AV8B+ if we're lucky) aircraft in a quid pro quo type arrangement. Hopefully any such deal would include some sort of MOU in order to prevent the UK to incur major support costs, but would offer the following advantages:
1. The UK would still be able to respond to crises in which carrier aviation is useful.
2. The RN would maintain the skills needed to run a carrier with jets on deck, and would maintain a cadre of both Pilots and Engineers to work with these aircraft, avoiding the need to start from scratch later on this decade.
3. If we could get AV8B+s then it would give the Navy a capability that it lost when the Sea Harrier was retired in 2006. We would therefore be in a far better position to provide air defence for a maritime task group, or to participate in policing a no fly zone.
4. We would no longer have to pay for storing retired aircraft, and the Government would be justified in portraying this as a step forward.
5. Our potential adversaries would have something to think about - prevention (deterrence) being better than cure.
6. The defence relationship with the US would be strengthened, as would the defence relationship with France as Illustrious would be able to relieve Charles De Gaulle in x months time.
The use of Ocean as a platform for Apaches operating in a strike role seems to show that a maritime strike capability is needed for what the Government wants the Armed Forces to be capable of doing. Now there is talk of Illustrious relieving Ocean - for which her post refit work up will need to be rushed, with Apaches embarking and learning to operate from her deck. Note the use of the word STRIKE.
As far as I am aware, the Apache has mostly used the Hellfire missile against regime targets. However, the limited range and higher level vulnerability of a helicopter (compared to a fast jet) has meant it has not gone too far inshore. Harrier would bring extra speed and range to the mission, and greater firepower - Maverick and Paveway IV. With Sidewinders it could also play a part in looking out for rogue aircraft.
I was in Portsmouth the other week and saw Illustrious entering harbour with at least one Apache on deck and I thought "Libya". I have seen/heard other things which suggest MOD is expecting a long campaign in Libya.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 12th Aug 2011 at 10:20.
Fair point re the provision of DA. However, given that there appear to be four (yes four!) TAV8A at AMARC according to this
http://www.amarc.info/
not holding my breath that they're overflowing with surplus cabs. In fact, that probably explains why they're after ours. Personally, I think we should be more interested in the S3Bs.......
As for Corporate, I think there's a slight difference between losing British sovereign territory in a war the country was largely supportive of and the prosecution of a NFZ / low-level CAS campaign in an operation the country is largely indifferent (rightly or wrongly) to.
http://www.amarc.info/
not holding my breath that they're overflowing with surplus cabs. In fact, that probably explains why they're after ours. Personally, I think we should be more interested in the S3Bs.......
As for Corporate, I think there's a slight difference between losing British sovereign territory in a war the country was largely supportive of and the prosecution of a NFZ / low-level CAS campaign in an operation the country is largely indifferent (rightly or wrongly) to.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Not-a-Boffin,
I was only using the Falklands conflict to highlight what can be done to get the right equipment to those that need it. Yes it was a 'popular' conflict and had lots of support but that is not my point. To convert a luxury liner to a troop ship with a strengthened flight deck, fit RAS equipment, electronic communications etc etc in just three days shows what can be done when the orders are given.
I agree that if we have not got the spares or the pilots then the harrier is dead and gone but is that what SammySu is saying?
I take your point about the indifference of our country regarding this conflict but my concerns are for those that are doing the fighting. They deserve the best we have and if it takes a few days of intensive labour to get the correct equipment up and running then it would be money well spent.
Reference Sammysu's excellent post and the point regarding Carrier Night Qualification.. I guess it has always been the case...
More carrots in the diet will no doubt resolve that problem
Or move the carrier to a different time zone where it will be daylight!!
I was only using the Falklands conflict to highlight what can be done to get the right equipment to those that need it. Yes it was a 'popular' conflict and had lots of support but that is not my point. To convert a luxury liner to a troop ship with a strengthened flight deck, fit RAS equipment, electronic communications etc etc in just three days shows what can be done when the orders are given.
I agree that if we have not got the spares or the pilots then the harrier is dead and gone but is that what SammySu is saying?
I take your point about the indifference of our country regarding this conflict but my concerns are for those that are doing the fighting. They deserve the best we have and if it takes a few days of intensive labour to get the correct equipment up and running then it would be money well spent.
Reference Sammysu's excellent post and the point regarding Carrier Night Qualification.. I guess it has always been the case...
More carrots in the diet will no doubt resolve that problem
Or move the carrier to a different time zone where it will be daylight!!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Did I Tell You I Was A Harrier Pilot
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If you follow the links in WEBF's quote in his post above, some of the links go back to older WEBF posts which are also massive quotations of even older WEBF posts, with massive quotes containing links to even older posts.......
If I keep on following the links, will I get lost forever and never be able to find reality again?
If I keep on following the links, will I get lost forever and never be able to find reality again?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North West England
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should buy F-35s' off the shelf:-
Or not - I believe they use the same OBOGS:-
First it was oxygen problems. Then there was treatment for "physiological symptoms." And now the news is that toxins are keeping the F-22s down.
But that doesn't mean we have definitive answers yet. Toxins in the cockpit? Yes. Where are they coming from? There is still debate over that.
According to the Air Force Times, blood tests of F-22 pilots showed a host of chemicals, including anti-freeze, propane and burned polyalphaolefin, a synthetic oil, after flights where they reported experiencing cognitive problems.
These toxins, along with carbon monoxide, may be causing hypoxia, which is a lack of oxygen. Hypoxia can cause reduced brain function and memory loss. F-22 pilots reported being unable to remember how to change radio frequencies and scraping treetops when approaching the runway.
In November 2010, an F-22 crashed in Alaska and the pilot, Capt. Jeffrey Haney, was killed. Sources told the Air Force Times that in his final radio calls he sounded drunk, a symptom of hypoxia.
Back in May, we wrote about the grounding of the F-22 fleet and asked why these widespread problems were not detected in testing. It may be that the problem is still with the On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS), but the source of the toxins is unclear.
As one POGO commenter recently mentioned, one possibility is that what’s happening here “isn’t too different from running your car engine while the garage door is closed.”
From the Air Force Times:
“Part of the problem, at least for pilots flying from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, where many of the known incidents have occurred, may be the startup procedures used in winter, one source said.
“Because of the harsh climate, pilots often start their jet engines inside a hangar before taking off. That could allow exhaust gases to be trapped in the building, sucked back into the engines, and ingested into the bleed air intakes that are located within the engines’ compressor sections that supply the OBOGS, sources said.
“On the other hand, a different source told the Air Force Times that “many of the hypoxia incidents have occurred well into flights or even during a day’s second mission, long after the plane has left the Elmendorf hangar.”
“Either way, considering that, on average, one F-22 costs $350 million and each hour of flight costs $44,000, ensuring that they can fly is both a safety and a budgetary concern.
The F-22 fleet was grounded 86 days ago. If the oxygen problems are not solved in the next 124 days, all F-22 pilots will have to be re-qualified. That process could take four to six weeks, according to the Air Force Times. And since all of the pilots would need to be re-qualified, non-current pilots would be qualifying each other, which would add to the delays.
If that happens, the F-22s and their pilots might not be ready to fly until January 2012.
For now, pilots are putting in more time at the gym, practicing in simulators, and taxiing to the end of the runway and then returning to the hangar.
But the questions POGO's Director of Investigations Nick Schwellenbach had about the program two weeks ago are still unanswered.
What did the Air Force know before the recent groundings? As Bloomberg noted, there were nine instances from June 2008 and February of this year that triggered an earlier safety investigation into the Honeywell oxygen system. Then five more since February leading to the latest investigation and groundings.
Plus, there is the possibility that the November 2010 crash and death were related to the oxygen system, although we do not know if the accident investigation is pointing that way or not yet.
Were there inklings of oxygen system problems before June 2008? What did the earlier oxygen safety investigation find? Why are problems in this critical life support system only now coming to light?
Or not - I believe they use the same OBOGS:-
First it was oxygen problems. Then there was treatment for "physiological symptoms." And now the news is that toxins are keeping the F-22s down.
But that doesn't mean we have definitive answers yet. Toxins in the cockpit? Yes. Where are they coming from? There is still debate over that.
According to the Air Force Times, blood tests of F-22 pilots showed a host of chemicals, including anti-freeze, propane and burned polyalphaolefin, a synthetic oil, after flights where they reported experiencing cognitive problems.
These toxins, along with carbon monoxide, may be causing hypoxia, which is a lack of oxygen. Hypoxia can cause reduced brain function and memory loss. F-22 pilots reported being unable to remember how to change radio frequencies and scraping treetops when approaching the runway.
In November 2010, an F-22 crashed in Alaska and the pilot, Capt. Jeffrey Haney, was killed. Sources told the Air Force Times that in his final radio calls he sounded drunk, a symptom of hypoxia.
Back in May, we wrote about the grounding of the F-22 fleet and asked why these widespread problems were not detected in testing. It may be that the problem is still with the On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS), but the source of the toxins is unclear.
As one POGO commenter recently mentioned, one possibility is that what’s happening here “isn’t too different from running your car engine while the garage door is closed.”
From the Air Force Times:
“Part of the problem, at least for pilots flying from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, where many of the known incidents have occurred, may be the startup procedures used in winter, one source said.
“Because of the harsh climate, pilots often start their jet engines inside a hangar before taking off. That could allow exhaust gases to be trapped in the building, sucked back into the engines, and ingested into the bleed air intakes that are located within the engines’ compressor sections that supply the OBOGS, sources said.
“On the other hand, a different source told the Air Force Times that “many of the hypoxia incidents have occurred well into flights or even during a day’s second mission, long after the plane has left the Elmendorf hangar.”
“Either way, considering that, on average, one F-22 costs $350 million and each hour of flight costs $44,000, ensuring that they can fly is both a safety and a budgetary concern.
The F-22 fleet was grounded 86 days ago. If the oxygen problems are not solved in the next 124 days, all F-22 pilots will have to be re-qualified. That process could take four to six weeks, according to the Air Force Times. And since all of the pilots would need to be re-qualified, non-current pilots would be qualifying each other, which would add to the delays.
If that happens, the F-22s and their pilots might not be ready to fly until January 2012.
For now, pilots are putting in more time at the gym, practicing in simulators, and taxiing to the end of the runway and then returning to the hangar.
But the questions POGO's Director of Investigations Nick Schwellenbach had about the program two weeks ago are still unanswered.
What did the Air Force know before the recent groundings? As Bloomberg noted, there were nine instances from June 2008 and February of this year that triggered an earlier safety investigation into the Honeywell oxygen system. Then five more since February leading to the latest investigation and groundings.
Plus, there is the possibility that the November 2010 crash and death were related to the oxygen system, although we do not know if the accident investigation is pointing that way or not yet.
Were there inklings of oxygen system problems before June 2008? What did the earlier oxygen safety investigation find? Why are problems in this critical life support system only now coming to light?
Last edited by Gaz ED; 28th Jul 2011 at 16:53. Reason: Wrong Plane! D'oh!