Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Will news regarding the Harrier sale ever be released officially by MOD? Is the US really getting a bargain? Are we receiving anything in return - perhaps to help fill the shortfall in maritime force projection capability?
Quite a big difference though. The old Ark and her Phantoms and Buccs left RN service in 1978, but the RN was back in the fixed wing game within two years with Invincible and Sea Harrier. And it was going from cat/trap operations to simpler STOVL operations. This time there is going to be a gap of at least nine years, with far more of an issue with losing experienced personnel, and we are going from STOVL to nothing for a decade then to cats/traps.
The 1970s run down of the FAA was a major cause of loss of aviation related knowledge and expertise in the wider RN.
Absolutely - which is why I think continued embarkations of US/Italian/Spanish Harriers will help, after all only a finite number of people can be sent on exchange.
But apart from the issue of skills and preparing for the future - what happens in the crises of this decade? What if we find ourselves in a situation where we really do need carrier aviation? What fallback is there? SDSR did not foresee Libya, and NATO succeeded largely by luck. I would hope that the contribution made by shipborne aircraft is pointed out to politicians. Where is next?
I can remember the 1990s, when the carriers seemed to be in continual demand, with deployments to the Adriatic and several to the Middle East in responses to crises, and finally a return to the Adriatic during the Kosovo campaign. Then Sierra Leone in 2000, where Illustrious had to wait for the slower Ocean to catch up. Will THIS decade be more like 1990-2000, or more like 2000-2010 (land based conflicts against a non state opponent)?
Dangerous times ahead - dangerous times in which to have this capability gap. The UK has an unfortunate track record of disposing of things and then finding out the hard way they we still need them.
Originally Posted by foldingwings
Same outcry when Bucc/Phantom Ops ceased but it didn't stop the Harrier/SHAR success from carriers in subsequent years. It will be the same again when the wheel spins back to the position the FAA were in in the 70s (when they relied on RAF crews to sustain their fixed wing capability).
The 1970s run down of the FAA was a major cause of loss of aviation related knowledge and expertise in the wider RN.
Originally Posted by Engines
Getting to an embarked F-35 capability will be huge challenge for the people now in harness, best of luck to them all.
But apart from the issue of skills and preparing for the future - what happens in the crises of this decade? What if we find ourselves in a situation where we really do need carrier aviation? What fallback is there? SDSR did not foresee Libya, and NATO succeeded largely by luck. I would hope that the contribution made by shipborne aircraft is pointed out to politicians. Where is next?
I can remember the 1990s, when the carriers seemed to be in continual demand, with deployments to the Adriatic and several to the Middle East in responses to crises, and finally a return to the Adriatic during the Kosovo campaign. Then Sierra Leone in 2000, where Illustrious had to wait for the slower Ocean to catch up. Will THIS decade be more like 1990-2000, or more like 2000-2010 (land based conflicts against a non state opponent)?
Dangerous times ahead - dangerous times in which to have this capability gap. The UK has an unfortunate track record of disposing of things and then finding out the hard way they we still need them.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 25th Nov 2011 at 21:11. Reason: What's going on with the PPRuNe clock?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK sells 72 retired Harrier jump jets for $180m to US
Mr Luff told parliament: "We have agreed the sale of the final 72 Harrier aircraft frames and associated parts which will be used as a major source of spares for the US Marine Corps Harrier AV-8B fleet of aircraft."
The deal represented "a good deal both for UK taxpayers and the US government," he said.
Mr Luff said that adding the savings made from retiring the Harrier fleet, their sale saved the UK about £1bn.
.
.
Mr Luff said that Harriers had served the UK "with great distinction" but retiring them "eight years earlier than planned was the right decision".
He said: "Had we taken the decision in the SDSR to decommission Tornado instead we would not have been able to carry out the missions that were required simultaneously in Libya and Afghanistan.
"It was essential to retire older, less capable aircraft to allow us to invest in more modern, cutting-edge fast jets.
"As our operations over Libya proved, we have the capability to project decisive air power and can utilise our extensive basing and over-flight rights to great effect."
The deal represented "a good deal both for UK taxpayers and the US government," he said.
Mr Luff said that adding the savings made from retiring the Harrier fleet, their sale saved the UK about £1bn.
.
.
Mr Luff said that Harriers had served the UK "with great distinction" but retiring them "eight years earlier than planned was the right decision".
He said: "Had we taken the decision in the SDSR to decommission Tornado instead we would not have been able to carry out the missions that were required simultaneously in Libya and Afghanistan.
"It was essential to retire older, less capable aircraft to allow us to invest in more modern, cutting-edge fast jets.
"As our operations over Libya proved, we have the capability to project decisive air power and can utilise our extensive basing and over-flight rights to great effect."
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"a good deal both for UK taxpayers and the US government,"
This reminds me of when we sold our gold reserves which at the time was described as a great deal and very beneficial for our nation.
Are we going to make a profit on this sale or is it a 'Give Away' clearance that gets rid of an embarrassing issue that is so controversial.
I accept the harrier decision has been made but by getting rid of these aircraft it is now definitely FINAL
The US see the sense in having these aircraft and are now taking advantage of our crass decision, I bet their military are laughing all the way to the bank at this bargain of a lifetime.
I have no idea of the figures involved but from previous government experience with the selling of gold we do have previous for giving things away at ridiculously low prices.
The decision was final when JFH stood down.
As for price, they're worth what someone will pay for them. Given that the AV8B frame is partly of US design, I suspect ITAR would be called if we tried to sell them to anyone else and therefore no cash in. To the US they're worth $180M. As reclaimed scrap they'd bring a lot less.
Take it or leave it will be their position.
As for price, they're worth what someone will pay for them. Given that the AV8B frame is partly of US design, I suspect ITAR would be called if we tried to sell them to anyone else and therefore no cash in. To the US they're worth $180M. As reclaimed scrap they'd bring a lot less.
Take it or leave it will be their position.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Very Much a Boffin
As for price, they're worth what someone will pay for them. Given that the AV8B frame is partly of US design, I suspect ITAR would be called if we tried to sell them to anyone else and therefore no cash in. To the US they're worth $180M. As reclaimed scrap they'd bring a lot less.
Take it or leave it will be their position
Take it or leave it will be their position
totally agree with your very wise words but surely there are two sides to that argument. We have the spare parts that are needed to keep the AV8B's in the air!
Accept our price or go without is another way of looking at this but clearly we prefer giving these aircraft away.
72 aircraft PLUS spares all for the grand sum of £116 million seems like a bargain and what spares are we talking about ? Questions have already been asked about the excellent XR Targeting Pod. Will that be included in this sale?
Take it or leave it is indeed an excellent point and congratulations to the US for getting such a great bargain, £1.6m per aircraft plus spares.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Back on topic. I wonder how things would have turned out if ASRAAM had been properly integrated in to the GR7/9. As below.
A Harrier GR7 armed with an ASRAAM weapon system. - Image - Naval Technology
The Navy lost interest in the Crab Harrier because it was so limited in anything apart from mud moving. Giving it something approaching an air to air capability would have made them much more useful as a joint asset. JFH was doomed before it started. Everyone knows it.
A Harrier GR7 armed with an ASRAAM weapon system. - Image - Naval Technology
The Navy lost interest in the Crab Harrier because it was so limited in anything apart from mud moving. Giving it something approaching an air to air capability would have made them much more useful as a joint asset. JFH was doomed before it started. Everyone knows it.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Portsmouth MPs support RN shocker!
Perhaps Penny Mordaunt MP should ask her own party about SDSR decisions rather than wasting the MoD's time. What with Lord West and Mike Hancock MP in harness, it looks like the RN could form their own Coalition Political party to rival the Raving Monster Looney Party!
Backwards PLT, slightly uncalled-for rant. Naveleye is entitled to an opinion too, whether you agree with it or not.
Anyway, putting ASRAAM on a fast, very capable, air-to-ground platform does not make it an effective fighter. Still have to find, ident and target the foe - even good DL won't do everything for yuo. And how well doers it work IMC? The fleet needs effective air defence as part of its layered system.
Apart from anything else, it's too late now. Let's just hope the next jet does everything that is required - and why shouldn't it? In fact, let's just hope we get our carrier and the jets to go on it. And without too many delays!
Sorry, the timing error on PPRuNe has put this ahead of B PLT's post, below... I'll try to move it down later if I can. (The fault has been reported and they are on the case.)
Anyway, putting ASRAAM on a fast, very capable, air-to-ground platform does not make it an effective fighter. Still have to find, ident and target the foe - even good DL won't do everything for yuo. And how well doers it work IMC? The fleet needs effective air defence as part of its layered system.
Apart from anything else, it's too late now. Let's just hope the next jet does everything that is required - and why shouldn't it? In fact, let's just hope we get our carrier and the jets to go on it. And without too many delays!
Sorry, the timing error on PPRuNe has put this ahead of B PLT's post, below... I'll try to move it down later if I can. (The fault has been reported and they are on the case.)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backwards PLT,
Firstly, one person posting under a name that has the word 'Naval' in it doesn't mean they single handedly now represent the RN and FAA that you rather bizarrely state has 'such a bad name at the moment'. A couple of examples to back up what on earth such a glib statement means would be useful. PM me if you prefer.
Secondly, he's right if you take the simple short statement he made at face value. To those in the RN still looking to maintain organic air defence capability - a perfectly reasonable desire - the GR did not fit the bill. I don't agree that ASRAAM was the answer but it would have increased the capability. The rest of the (years) of debate since FA2 demise is well documented throughout these pages.
Have a read of your 'semi-intelleigent' sentence again and see if it applies to you.
FB11
Firstly, one person posting under a name that has the word 'Naval' in it doesn't mean they single handedly now represent the RN and FAA that you rather bizarrely state has 'such a bad name at the moment'. A couple of examples to back up what on earth such a glib statement means would be useful. PM me if you prefer.
Secondly, he's right if you take the simple short statement he made at face value. To those in the RN still looking to maintain organic air defence capability - a perfectly reasonable desire - the GR did not fit the bill. I don't agree that ASRAAM was the answer but it would have increased the capability. The rest of the (years) of debate since FA2 demise is well documented throughout these pages.
Have a read of your 'semi-intelleigent' sentence again and see if it applies to you.
FB11
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye can I suggest that if you can't say something at least semi intelligent it would be better to just not post? Your post is a perfect example of what gives the RN and FAA such a bad name at the moment.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
approaching an air to air capability would have made them much more useful as a joint asset. JFH was doomed before it started. Everyone knows it.
The death of this aircraft was made by those who made the decision to create JFH. I understand the reasons but may not agree with them, could it be that this aircraft simply did not have the legs to be the complete package the Fleet Air Arm should have had? (It was the ONLY aircraft capable of operating from our toy carriers).
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right, Captain. Again, I think we may all be violently agreeing. Frankly, sod the expence, you either do global military properly or withdraw into 'self defence of the homeland'. The defence budget is VERY expensinsive, thet's the nature of the beast. Government need to decide wht they want (or can afford) to do and then fund it accordingly. But the bottom line is: don't try to do it on the cheap or push the MoD into having to do ops that the equipment blantantly won't cope with.
The arguement isn't between tribes, it's all the tribes squabbling over insuffient resources. Maybe that's just how it is these days. But, I say again, the politicians need to decide how big an actor on the world stage they want to PAY to be.
[Eited: This refers to the post below. Damn that PPRuNe time warp!!!]
The arguement isn't between tribes, it's all the tribes squabbling over insuffient resources. Maybe that's just how it is these days. But, I say again, the politicians need to decide how big an actor on the world stage they want to PAY to be.
[Eited: This refers to the post below. Damn that PPRuNe time warp!!!]
Last edited by APG63; 26th Nov 2011 at 20:25.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we accept we are getting at least one carrier then I am in the corner that would suggest the aircraft would be used mainly to project power, unless we take on an enemy capable of attacking the battle group that the carrier is a part of.
The T45 is an untested warship that at the moment certainly talks a good fight and if it performs as expected then it would be a force not to be taken lightly but until that day then a harrier in the air is better than an Apache on the Ocean
Okay, okay, I accept the harriers are gone but this thread is still alive and kicking
The T45 is an untested warship that at the moment certainly talks a good fight and if it performs as expected then it would be a force not to be taken lightly but until that day then a harrier in the air is better than an Apache on the Ocean
Okay, okay, I accept the harriers are gone but this thread is still alive and kicking
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Organic Fixed Wing Air Defence for CVS?
If the aircraft are the key Air defence mechanism for the CVS, then what is the Type 45 for? If we can only "routinely embark up to a dozen JSF - how many of those will be tied up defending the ship - are we heading for another self licking lollipop?
Rather than going over old, and irreversible, ground, what is the Defence argument for ship-borne fixed wing air defence?
Rather than going over old, and irreversible, ground, what is the Defence argument for ship-borne fixed wing air defence?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C PUG W
It's really funny how everyone in the world agrees air power is important, and then those with an "air force bent" in this vitriolic debate seem to imply air defence at sea is somehow less important than air defence ashore. Either air power in a military context is essential or it is not!
When forces are deployed forward on ships they should have air cover. It really is a no brainer.
Anyone who advocates differently is effectively saying we need no air power at all. Air force advocates need to really think about what they are arguing against. This discussion is not about RAF and RN. It is not about who won the Battle of Britain or who defeated the U Boat threat. It is not even about the Falklands! It is about projecting force, and protecting our deployed forces wherever they go. Right now, deployed forces at sea are unprotected...even with the much vaunted Type 45 destroyers nearby.
When forces are deployed forward on ships they should have air cover. It really is a no brainer.
Anyone who advocates differently is effectively saying we need no air power at all. Air force advocates need to really think about what they are arguing against. This discussion is not about RAF and RN. It is not about who won the Battle of Britain or who defeated the U Boat threat. It is not even about the Falklands! It is about projecting force, and protecting our deployed forces wherever they go. Right now, deployed forces at sea are unprotected...even with the much vaunted Type 45 destroyers nearby.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having re read my post it occurs to me that it could have been worded better. I didn't mean to imply that the RN/FAA have a bad name but rather a vocal minority, almost all of whom are not current RN and almost none of whom are current FAA, seem to be determined to make the RN/FAA look a little silly with, at best, semi-informed opinions on subjects that they clearly don't know much about, even if they did several decades ago.
DBTW hits the nail on the head - it is all about power projection. Air defence, wherever it is based, is an enabler and RAF types tend to get a little dismissive of Air defence in the RN because before JFH the carriers were seen as very much a self licking lollipop (what is the carrier for - to carry harriers; what are the harriers for - to protect the carrier). Whilst this is a massive simplification there is a large element of truth to it - the RN really had no way of projecting power at range.
And because I can't stop myself - putting an IR missile, no matter how good the missile is, on a subsonic aircraft with no radar is of limited utility beyond enhanced self defence. Paticularly if the bad people decide to fly in a cloud.
DBTW hits the nail on the head - it is all about power projection. Air defence, wherever it is based, is an enabler and RAF types tend to get a little dismissive of Air defence in the RN because before JFH the carriers were seen as very much a self licking lollipop (what is the carrier for - to carry harriers; what are the harriers for - to protect the carrier). Whilst this is a massive simplification there is a large element of truth to it - the RN really had no way of projecting power at range.
And because I can't stop myself - putting an IR missile, no matter how good the missile is, on a subsonic aircraft with no radar is of limited utility beyond enhanced self defence. Paticularly if the bad people decide to fly in a cloud.