Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
It is certainly true that the loss of a UK fixed wing carrier capability has placed significant additional risk to pink bodies when we do rebirth conventional fixed wing carrier aviation in 8 or 9 years.
A 10-year gap from Harrier STOVL ops to future STOVL ops in the F-35B would have been challenging enough to maintain partial currency and then regain full currency; the environmentally brutal F-35B would certainly have been a cold shower.
It is more stark for the F-35C on a conventional deck. The mechanics of a CV deck demand an awareness of a flight deck that will now all but evaporate between now and then.
There is no doubt that some underestimate what effort will be required to produce a safe and assured ship's crew (on, above and below decks) and we have made life much more difficult by not maintaining some element of continuity that we have control over.
As for leasing Harriers, whilst the sentiment is understandable, such an endeavour may be more complex than focussing time, effort and money into those key personnel who will then be able to bring CV expertise into the QE Class (whether it be just QE of hopefully both QE and PW that get cat/trap conversion.)
The US and to a lesser extent France will be key in the UK aspiration to deliver conventional fixed wing from the QE Class as part of the wider joint delivery of effects from the QE platforms.
FB11
It is certainly true that the loss of a UK fixed wing carrier capability has placed significant additional risk to pink bodies when we do rebirth conventional fixed wing carrier aviation in 8 or 9 years.
A 10-year gap from Harrier STOVL ops to future STOVL ops in the F-35B would have been challenging enough to maintain partial currency and then regain full currency; the environmentally brutal F-35B would certainly have been a cold shower.
It is more stark for the F-35C on a conventional deck. The mechanics of a CV deck demand an awareness of a flight deck that will now all but evaporate between now and then.
There is no doubt that some underestimate what effort will be required to produce a safe and assured ship's crew (on, above and below decks) and we have made life much more difficult by not maintaining some element of continuity that we have control over.
As for leasing Harriers, whilst the sentiment is understandable, such an endeavour may be more complex than focussing time, effort and money into those key personnel who will then be able to bring CV expertise into the QE Class (whether it be just QE of hopefully both QE and PW that get cat/trap conversion.)
The US and to a lesser extent France will be key in the UK aspiration to deliver conventional fixed wing from the QE Class as part of the wider joint delivery of effects from the QE platforms.
FB11
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Game Set & Match
France’s Aircraft Carrier Charles de Gaulle Returns from Mission in Libya >> Naval Today
All carriers disappear over the horizon and the next thing you know we start seeing real results.
This thread is dead!
France’s aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle will next week return home for maintenance from its mission supporting NATO airstrikes on Libya, defence minister Gerard Longuet said in an interview Thursday.
The vessel, France’s only aircraft carrier and Europe’s biggest warship, will leave on August 10 to head for its home port of Toulon for several weeks of maintenance work, he told Var-Matin newspaper.
The French navy website however said the work would take several months.
Longuet insisted that France would maintain its commitment to the Libya mission, where since March the alliance has conducted air strikes against Moamer Qadhafi’s forces as part of a UN mandate to protect civilians.
“Qadhafi should not expect any respite,” he said, adding that French warplanes would keep up their strikes and reconnaissance flights from land bases.
Longuet’s announcement came three days after Norway withdrew its final four F-16 fighter jets that have been taking part in the NATO-led mission over Libya.
Italy, Libya’s former colonial ruler, last month scaled back its involvement in the operation by withdrawing the aircraft carrier Garibaldi.
Only eight of NATO’s 28 member states have flown bombing missions since the alliance took command of the operation on March 31: Norway, Britain, France, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Italy and the United States.
London has increased its contribution by adding four Tornado jets, effectively making up for the loss of the Norwegian planes.
The vessel, France’s only aircraft carrier and Europe’s biggest warship, will leave on August 10 to head for its home port of Toulon for several weeks of maintenance work, he told Var-Matin newspaper.
The French navy website however said the work would take several months.
Longuet insisted that France would maintain its commitment to the Libya mission, where since March the alliance has conducted air strikes against Moamer Qadhafi’s forces as part of a UN mandate to protect civilians.
“Qadhafi should not expect any respite,” he said, adding that French warplanes would keep up their strikes and reconnaissance flights from land bases.
Longuet’s announcement came three days after Norway withdrew its final four F-16 fighter jets that have been taking part in the NATO-led mission over Libya.
Italy, Libya’s former colonial ruler, last month scaled back its involvement in the operation by withdrawing the aircraft carrier Garibaldi.
Only eight of NATO’s 28 member states have flown bombing missions since the alliance took command of the operation on March 31: Norway, Britain, France, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Italy and the United States.
London has increased its contribution by adding four Tornado jets, effectively making up for the loss of the Norwegian planes.
This thread is dead!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you go a little bit beyond the purile, there is a point based on the output and comment by SofS on the HoC Defence Committee on SDSR:
"...The Committee is also right to say that Future Force 2020 is only achievable with extra funding. That is why I announced two weeks ago that the military equipment budget will rise in real terms by over £3Bn between 2015 and 2020, with new helicopters being ordered, new money for our armoured vehicles, the Carrier programme and guaranteed spending on the Joint Strike Fighter. Our future equipment programme is no longer an unfunded aspiration but one that provides real money for real equipment..."
What you pick out from that is a commitment to a capability (F-35C and carrier) that needs an intelligent and rational response.
This is a discussion forum that might just allow such comment amongst interested professionals.
If you don't like where the discussion is happening, maybe you could start a thread "The Decision to axe Harrier is bonkers thread is bonkers"
"...The Committee is also right to say that Future Force 2020 is only achievable with extra funding. That is why I announced two weeks ago that the military equipment budget will rise in real terms by over £3Bn between 2015 and 2020, with new helicopters being ordered, new money for our armoured vehicles, the Carrier programme and guaranteed spending on the Joint Strike Fighter. Our future equipment programme is no longer an unfunded aspiration but one that provides real money for real equipment..."
What you pick out from that is a commitment to a capability (F-35C and carrier) that needs an intelligent and rational response.
This is a discussion forum that might just allow such comment amongst interested professionals.
If you don't like where the discussion is happening, maybe you could start a thread "The Decision to axe Harrier is bonkers thread is bonkers"
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discussion eh? Alright then…
This thread (which in my humble opinion is about 53 pages too long) can be distilled into 2 themes:
Libya ops would have been easier with it (looking a bit thin now I suggest)
,,and
Regaining skill sets will be tricky (yes but this would have been the case anyway once we went for the F35C model)
So, whilst we would probably all agree that the latter is going to be challenging, the loss of Harrier is a done deal and we all need to look forward.
Now if you want to spend another 58 pages arguing around the above fill your boots.
...and increased funding for FF2020 is a whole different matter entirely, and, I suggest, a new thread!
I’m off!
This thread (which in my humble opinion is about 53 pages too long) can be distilled into 2 themes:
Libya ops would have been easier with it (looking a bit thin now I suggest)
,,and
Regaining skill sets will be tricky (yes but this would have been the case anyway once we went for the F35C model)
So, whilst we would probably all agree that the latter is going to be challenging, the loss of Harrier is a done deal and we all need to look forward.
Now if you want to spend another 58 pages arguing around the above fill your boots.
...and increased funding for FF2020 is a whole different matter entirely, and, I suggest, a new thread!
I’m off!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of current ops, there appears to be a hospital full of rotting corpses in Tripoli tonight.
No doubt WEBF, et al, will be able to construe a strategic link to the "decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers"" fantasy thread.
After all, it's only a bit of a laugh to these punters.
No doubt WEBF, et al, will be able to construe a strategic link to the "decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers"" fantasy thread.
After all, it's only a bit of a laugh to these punters.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glad rag,
The idea of sarcasm or wit is to use humour in a clever and intelligent way to make your point. All you have done is used the suffering of those caught in the crossfire of a conflict situation to make a leap that nobody had made. Apart from you that is.
jamesdevice
picking up a typo as though that all of sudden completely irradicates the point of the post. Grow up and suggest to Pprune that they offer a spellchecker.
Maybe you could take note of Capt P U G Wash's last comment of his last post and be off with you (if you have nothing constructive to add?)
The idea of sarcasm or wit is to use humour in a clever and intelligent way to make your point. All you have done is used the suffering of those caught in the crossfire of a conflict situation to make a leap that nobody had made. Apart from you that is.
jamesdevice
picking up a typo as though that all of sudden completely irradicates the point of the post. Grow up and suggest to Pprune that they offer a spellchecker.
Maybe you could take note of Capt P U G Wash's last comment of his last post and be off with you (if you have nothing constructive to add?)
I'm Off
Perhaps you should have read the proceeding posts to see what and who it was I was quoting? Thanks for your opinion anyway.
FB11
I seem to remember hearing about RN jet jocks being made redundant so they cannot all have gone stateside? I first heard about the RN guys flying USN Super Hornets in March last year, but I did not put two and two together - perhaps this post by orca gives us a clue as to where the idea came from and for what reason?
Can preparing for the next decade, and being ready for the crises of this one, not be achieved simultaneously?
I can remember sitting in a room in late 2009 and getting a "state of the Navy" type briefing, and hearing the Fleet Air Arm Command Warrant Officer outlining some of the steps (more Harrier embarkations for one) needed to develop the skills needed for CVF, and to give future carrier crews a solid grounding in working with embarked fixed wing aircraft.
jamesdevice
Thanks for spotting the typo. Not even the MOD can delay a ship's commissioning by 900 years.
In a previous post I wondered whether there would be a post Libya review of defence policy (not just with respect to Carriers - but all sorts of things). A recent online article asks a similar question:
An indefensible position - From Total Politics
The report of the defence select committee of 3 August, 2011 considered the impact of the Strategic Defence and Security Review and the National Security Strategy. The chairman of the committee, James Arbuthnot, was withering in his assertion that these represent: “... a clear example of the need for savings overriding the strategic security of the UK and the capability requirements of the armed forces”.
SDSR and the related National Security Strategy did not predict the Arab Spring, intervention in Libya, or other things that have happened since October 2010.
Does the use of Apaches from Ocean (and naval gunfire and SSN launched Tomahawks) represent a continuing need for shipborne assets that can hit targets ashore at short notice?
Perhaps you should have read the proceeding posts to see what and who it was I was quoting? Thanks for your opinion anyway.
FB11
I seem to remember hearing about RN jet jocks being made redundant so they cannot all have gone stateside? I first heard about the RN guys flying USN Super Hornets in March last year, but I did not put two and two together - perhaps this post by orca gives us a clue as to where the idea came from and for what reason?
Can preparing for the next decade, and being ready for the crises of this one, not be achieved simultaneously?
I can remember sitting in a room in late 2009 and getting a "state of the Navy" type briefing, and hearing the Fleet Air Arm Command Warrant Officer outlining some of the steps (more Harrier embarkations for one) needed to develop the skills needed for CVF, and to give future carrier crews a solid grounding in working with embarked fixed wing aircraft.
jamesdevice
Thanks for spotting the typo. Not even the MOD can delay a ship's commissioning by 900 years.
In a previous post I wondered whether there would be a post Libya review of defence policy (not just with respect to Carriers - but all sorts of things). A recent online article asks a similar question:
An indefensible position - From Total Politics
The report of the defence select committee of 3 August, 2011 considered the impact of the Strategic Defence and Security Review and the National Security Strategy. The chairman of the committee, James Arbuthnot, was withering in his assertion that these represent: “... a clear example of the need for savings overriding the strategic security of the UK and the capability requirements of the armed forces”.
SDSR and the related National Security Strategy did not predict the Arab Spring, intervention in Libya, or other things that have happened since October 2010.
Does the use of Apaches from Ocean (and naval gunfire and SSN launched Tomahawks) represent a continuing need for shipborne assets that can hit targets ashore at short notice?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WEBF
SDSR and the related National Security Strategy did not predict the Arab Spring, intervention in Libya, or other things that have happened since October 2010.
Originally Posted by UN resolution passed beginning February 2011
its decision to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and stressing that those responsible for or complicit in attacks targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks, must be held to account,
No doubt our politicians are all now congratulating themselves on a job well done and can now justify the cuts that have been made.
Congratulations to all those NATO forces that took part in assisting the rebels to overthrow the objectionable government of that nation.
Last edited by glojo; 29th Aug 2011 at 13:48. Reason: Scrambled words unscrambled THANK YOU for pointing them out
Glojo
the NSS is not drawn up by Pollies, rather a group of FCO, MoD civvies and military define the "threat" and what we may or may not decide to get involved in. That was done over Summer 2010......and they may well have missed it.
I assume you mean "objectionable government of that nation".....
the NSS is not drawn up by Pollies, rather a group of FCO, MoD civvies and military define the "threat" and what we may or may not decide to get involved in. That was done over Summer 2010......and they may well have missed it.
I assume you mean "objectionable government of that nation".....
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Not a boffin
That was done over Summer 2010......and they may well have missed it.
Thank you VERY much indeed for pointing out my 'objectionable' error. I blame my medication
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
The training and currency issues since the switch to CV variant have in many ways simplified the issues in the post-Harrier era.
We are no longer arguing that we have a gap in continuity from current VSTOL to future STOVL; more that we need (more than ever) to focus and maintain our efforts on 'aircraft operations in the maritime environment' as opposed specifically to Harriers off the Invincible Class (much as that would continue to feed the beast.)
The USN training will encompass more than just pilots. Apparently, there are many more people involved in the flying of aircraft to the deck than just the pilot.
Developing and infusing big deck ops into the best of our current crop of bridge watchkeepers; chock heads; badgers; gollies; clankies; METOCs etc over the next decade is just as important to safely assure the delivery of joint effect from future flat decks.
If there are those reading who don't understand what some of the names above are or what they do, don't worry; there's an organization that does. And they offer courses that some from outside will be invited to take up (the entry criteria is usually to be 18-21 years of age and the course lasts around 20 years of continual assessment.)
FB
The training and currency issues since the switch to CV variant have in many ways simplified the issues in the post-Harrier era.
We are no longer arguing that we have a gap in continuity from current VSTOL to future STOVL; more that we need (more than ever) to focus and maintain our efforts on 'aircraft operations in the maritime environment' as opposed specifically to Harriers off the Invincible Class (much as that would continue to feed the beast.)
The USN training will encompass more than just pilots. Apparently, there are many more people involved in the flying of aircraft to the deck than just the pilot.
Developing and infusing big deck ops into the best of our current crop of bridge watchkeepers; chock heads; badgers; gollies; clankies; METOCs etc over the next decade is just as important to safely assure the delivery of joint effect from future flat decks.
If there are those reading who don't understand what some of the names above are or what they do, don't worry; there's an organization that does. And they offer courses that some from outside will be invited to take up (the entry criteria is usually to be 18-21 years of age and the course lasts around 20 years of continual assessment.)
FB
"That is the impression I get but it would be nice if those that pick our fights are at least capable of expecting the expected reactions of those we threaten?"
Why break the habit of a lifetime.....?
Why break the habit of a lifetime.....?
FB11
That is good to hear.
As Obi Wan Russell notes, if we can embark foreign Harriers aboard Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth from time to time then that will help with the whole ship aspects and keeping as many people as possible with at least a basic skill/experience level, as well as "the best of....".
Back to this decade: Will there be a "lessons learnt" type study post Libya?
Will aspects of the SDSR be looked at again? Will it look at the contribution made by French carrier aircraft? Will it conclude that having only a single carrier is a weakness? Will it admit that if the UK still had that capability, then the Charles De Gaulle could rotate with our carrier? If so, should possible options like the one I suggested here (leasing AV8Bs) be looked at at?
Will they examine the role of Ocean operating Apache in a strike (for want of a better word) role? Proof of the value of shipborne aircraft that can get close to a hostile shoreline? Would having an aircraft with a greater range and weapon load (eg Harrier) have been useful? Would it relieve some of the pressure on the RAF?
Are enough Apaches marinised?
Given that we have shaped defence policy largely around ground conflicts in landlocked places, is the use of naval gunfire and submarine launched Tomahawks going to be noted? How about Gaddafi's use of sea mines (and NATO efforts of clear them)? What about the use of light aircraft for attacking rebel positions? Does the fact that NATO ships have frequently come under rocket attack hold any lessons?
What about ISTAR assets that have been binned or are getting phased out post SDSR? Sentinel? Sea King ASaCs? Nimrod (both types)?
Will this intervention be a one off (assuming that it does not go horribly wrong in the coming months), or will there be others? Can we predict that nothing else will happen? Is the defence budget sufficient for the aspirations and intentions of the Government?
So many questions.....
That is good to hear.
As Obi Wan Russell notes, if we can embark foreign Harriers aboard Illustrious and Queen Elizabeth from time to time then that will help with the whole ship aspects and keeping as many people as possible with at least a basic skill/experience level, as well as "the best of....".
Back to this decade: Will there be a "lessons learnt" type study post Libya?
Will aspects of the SDSR be looked at again? Will it look at the contribution made by French carrier aircraft? Will it conclude that having only a single carrier is a weakness? Will it admit that if the UK still had that capability, then the Charles De Gaulle could rotate with our carrier? If so, should possible options like the one I suggested here (leasing AV8Bs) be looked at at?
Will they examine the role of Ocean operating Apache in a strike (for want of a better word) role? Proof of the value of shipborne aircraft that can get close to a hostile shoreline? Would having an aircraft with a greater range and weapon load (eg Harrier) have been useful? Would it relieve some of the pressure on the RAF?
Are enough Apaches marinised?
Given that we have shaped defence policy largely around ground conflicts in landlocked places, is the use of naval gunfire and submarine launched Tomahawks going to be noted? How about Gaddafi's use of sea mines (and NATO efforts of clear them)? What about the use of light aircraft for attacking rebel positions? Does the fact that NATO ships have frequently come under rocket attack hold any lessons?
What about ISTAR assets that have been binned or are getting phased out post SDSR? Sentinel? Sea King ASaCs? Nimrod (both types)?
Will this intervention be a one off (assuming that it does not go horribly wrong in the coming months), or will there be others? Can we predict that nothing else will happen? Is the defence budget sufficient for the aspirations and intentions of the Government?
So many questions.....
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 1st Sep 2011 at 17:02. Reason: Improvement
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB11. That is, indeed, good to hear. Losing the experience, expertise and skill of handling fixed wing A/C at sea will take significantly more time to recover than an interval between general elections. Those on here who believe that a Carrier is just a floating aerodrome should seriously consider booking themselves in for a reality check.
WEBF. Once again, you make some very good points and ask some very pertinent questions. Perhaps the most salient one is "Is the defence budget sufficient for the aspirations and intentions of the Government". Is two and a small half of GDP really sufficient to even pretend to have an influence on World events? It beats the NATO baseline but the NATO baseline seems to be do sod all until shamed into it; then avoid as far as possible being in harms way. Please understand that I am not criticising NATO. Certain Allies are more than pulling their weight at the moment.
If we don't use foreign Harriers at sea, we will be negligent in retaining an essential national asset: the skills and capabilities of our maritime aviation. We've lost our machines; ENDEX. We really do need the facility of those held by other nations, though. That said, it's still continuation training only. If we need it in a live shooting match that doesn't align with the "other nations'" policies, we are buggered.
WEBF. Once again, you make some very good points and ask some very pertinent questions. Perhaps the most salient one is "Is the defence budget sufficient for the aspirations and intentions of the Government". Is two and a small half of GDP really sufficient to even pretend to have an influence on World events? It beats the NATO baseline but the NATO baseline seems to be do sod all until shamed into it; then avoid as far as possible being in harms way. Please understand that I am not criticising NATO. Certain Allies are more than pulling their weight at the moment.
If we don't use foreign Harriers at sea, we will be negligent in retaining an essential national asset: the skills and capabilities of our maritime aviation. We've lost our machines; ENDEX. We really do need the facility of those held by other nations, though. That said, it's still continuation training only. If we need it in a live shooting match that doesn't align with the "other nations'" policies, we are buggered.
Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn
Are you sure you know exactly what HMS Ocean is contributing right now?
