Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Mummy please make this thread go away.
The leaping heap has leapt. Its not coming back. It would be on no sensible persons top ten aircraft I want to bring back. Useless in its day, useless now. Move on.
It's the naughty step for you.
The leaping heap has leapt. Its not coming back. It would be on no sensible persons top ten aircraft I want to bring back. Useless in its day, useless now. Move on.
It's the naughty step for you.
Gentleman Aviator
Useless in its day, useless now. Move on.
[BANTER] We all know that without the SHARs from Lusty in the Adriatic, there would have been no way of providing air defence .... er .... for Lusty in the Adriatic....
[/BANTER]
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Useless in its day, useless now.
It would be a complete waste of money, time and effort to bring back any form of Harrier now. As a nation we will have at least one carrier in the near future and F35/SuperHornet is where all the effort should be made with regard to that carrier.
WEBFoot,
Good.
Was intended as humour to highlight the obsurdity of regenerating ANY old type that we have already scrapped.
Maybe, but the dynamics on a flight deck with Harriers is very different to running cats. I guess that's why the First Sea Lord has gone to have a look.
Anyways, it's all to early yet. There is a long while to wait before we even see the carrier(s), probably only one, and what jet we put on it (if F35C can't catch a cable, it may not be the one for us).
Did I mention SuperHornet?
P.S. Justanopinion, well said.
Originally Posted by WEBF
...made me think.
...my counter proposal is to regenerate a squadron of F4s
...Surely basics like moving the jets around a moving deck are the same? (refering to cat and trap vs STOVL)
Anyways, it's all to early yet. There is a long while to wait before we even see the carrier(s), probably only one, and what jet we put on it (if F35C can't catch a cable, it may not be the one for us).
Did I mention SuperHornet?
P.S. Justanopinion, well said.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: bomber county
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is all cr*p! It degenerated into the world of absolute fantasy and farce months ago yet tries to pass off as serious debate led by someone who has his head buried firmly in the sand who takes increasingly wacky banter and can't see it for the p*ss take that it is.
Please, close this thread. By all means, open a thread to accommodate insane ramblings but, for the sake of credibility, shut this down as it no longer exists as a sensible sharing of opinions that it once purported to do.
Please, close this thread. By all means, open a thread to accommodate insane ramblings but, for the sake of credibility, shut this down as it no longer exists as a sensible sharing of opinions that it once purported to do.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst the Harrier is not longer part of the inventories of the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy, it still remains an effective combat aircraft for a number of countries.
It is actually quite ironic that we have grown used to operating airframes / equipment that are older than their crews, that the planes we have trashed are some of the youngest or most recently revamped ( Nim, Wagwah etc) - however I suppose the mrethodology is the same as renovating airbases
It is actually quite ironic that we have grown used to operating airframes / equipment that are older than their crews, that the planes we have trashed are some of the youngest or most recently revamped ( Nim, Wagwah etc) - however I suppose the mrethodology is the same as renovating airbases
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tx, USA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Omnibus Princeps....
Lament her early passing; accept that the decision was a very, very close call and lets move on. She will always be an icon and a representation of great engineering and incredible, exceptional people. Lest we forget, but please lets move on.... enough is enough
Regards,
BD
Lament her early passing; accept that the decision was a very, very close call and lets move on. She will always be an icon and a representation of great engineering and incredible, exceptional people. Lest we forget, but please lets move on.... enough is enough
Regards,
BD
In retrospect...
Now we have decided that the future is F35B and STOVL, not F35C and CTOL. If F35B had been the selected version all along, how would that have changed the SDSR decision making?
My thoughts are here in the "No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?" thread.
I always thought that having no embarked fixed wing aviation on RN decks for a decade, and then picking up the baton and going for Gold was going to be risky. I still think there are many basics common to both STOVL and CTOL deck operations - including the mechanics of working with live jets on a moving deck, getting the ship on the right course and speed, and various other things that have to be done.
I wonder if the decision have anything to do with feasibility issues (remember the A in SMART stands for Attainable), or even the issue of capability this decade? If we had known the future was STOVL - would the same SDSR decisions have been made? Presumably the things put in place to train RN Pilots and others in CTOL operations will have to change now? This latest decision gives us the opportunity to recover the capability earlier - possibly very soon. Also we can embark (US/Italian/Spanish) Harriers aboard Lusty/Queen Elizabeth.
I have offered my own ideas and suggestions, before this decision. They can be easily found in the thread - even from page one. This decision could justifiably be portrayed as a win in terms of both new carriers being operational, and in being able to get back the carrier strike capability imminently.
I don't want to detract from the "No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?" thread - but what do we need to do now?
BTW I have found an old briefing paper on CVF: FLEET HEADQUARTERS CARRIER STRIKE BRIEFING
My thoughts are here in the "No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?" thread.
I always thought that having no embarked fixed wing aviation on RN decks for a decade, and then picking up the baton and going for Gold was going to be risky. I still think there are many basics common to both STOVL and CTOL deck operations - including the mechanics of working with live jets on a moving deck, getting the ship on the right course and speed, and various other things that have to be done.
I wonder if the decision have anything to do with feasibility issues (remember the A in SMART stands for Attainable), or even the issue of capability this decade? If we had known the future was STOVL - would the same SDSR decisions have been made? Presumably the things put in place to train RN Pilots and others in CTOL operations will have to change now? This latest decision gives us the opportunity to recover the capability earlier - possibly very soon. Also we can embark (US/Italian/Spanish) Harriers aboard Lusty/Queen Elizabeth.
I have offered my own ideas and suggestions, before this decision. They can be easily found in the thread - even from page one. This decision could justifiably be portrayed as a win in terms of both new carriers being operational, and in being able to get back the carrier strike capability imminently.
I don't want to detract from the "No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?" thread - but what do we need to do now?
BTW I have found an old briefing paper on CVF: FLEET HEADQUARTERS CARRIER STRIKE BRIEFING
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably the things put in place to train RN Pilots and others in CTOL operations will have to change now?
Last edited by Pheasant; 24th May 2012 at 15:13.
Are we sending people stateside for the whole eight or so years?
I cannot help thinking that it would be helpful to have some RN jets (other than the NFSF(FW) Hawks) that are UK based to give flying posts back in the UK. As for recruiting new Pilots and building a cadre for F35/CVF, I suspect that having jets in the UK would help with this too - with a capability (at least partly) now.
The assumption that we would not need carrier aviation this decade now seems so out of date, what with discussion of posible options including sending the RN to the Middle East in response to hostilities breaking out with Iran.
We live in interesting times.
I cannot help thinking that it would be helpful to have some RN jets (other than the NFSF(FW) Hawks) that are UK based to give flying posts back in the UK. As for recruiting new Pilots and building a cadre for F35/CVF, I suspect that having jets in the UK would help with this too - with a capability (at least partly) now.
The assumption that we would not need carrier aviation this decade now seems so out of date, what with discussion of posible options including sending the RN to the Middle East in response to hostilities breaking out with Iran.
We live in interesting times.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 2nd Jun 2012 at 15:03.
From MOD news recently: Royal Navy unveils carrier training facility
To keep up with the state-of-the-art technology on board sailors and engineers will be trained in a £1m building at HMS Collingwood in Fareham, Hampshire, which has been set out in the same way as an operations room on board the new carrier.
The personnel will be trained on the new mission system which links all the combat, communications and visual surveillance systems together by a fibre-optic network - these are usually separate on warships, allowing for a much more integrated way of working.
So Warfare Branch and Weapon Engineering types will be training for CVF, but not fixed wing pilots or deck crews?
I still think that the Government could make this into a success story, by leasing a few AV8Bs from the US (also worth considering other options and issues mentioned on this thread), and possibly either extending the life of HMS Illustrious post 2014, and/or speeding up the build and entry into service of HMS Queen Elizabeth. Additionally a radar equipped jet would help make up for the loss of ISTAR capability when Sea King ASaCs is retired before a replacement system is ready.
Things have changed since October 2010, not only the switch back to F35B for CVF and the need to prepare for a STOVL future, but also the world has changed - for the worse. The Harrier is the only type of aircraft (until F35B comes along) that can do STOVL shipborne operations, a capability I believe we need NOW. The US Marine Corps intend to carry on operating the AV8B into the next decade - and until 2025 or later if necessary.
Back on 17 December 2010, vecvechookattack wrote:
Why is this not happening? Would embarking foreign Harriers be too embarrassing for the Government?
As an aside, I think that there will soon be an announcement in parliament regarding our Reserve forces and there future. What else might be announced? Last year's FR20 paper suggested using the Reserves to retain capabilities for the future, and recommended an enlarged RNR Air Branch. It also made other slightly odd and not very practical suggestions such as a coastal security role and a Caribbean based counter narcotics role, without going into the practical details. We are recruiting hundreds of extra Reservists, although there will be fewer RFAs and Chartered Vessels to provide force protection for, less ships/aircraft needing logistical support, and a reduced need for communications or other support. Perhaps an enlarged air branch (working with regular personnel as part of an enlarged NFSF(FW) perhaps?) is part of the way forward - with borrowed Harriers?
Meanwhile, on this thread I wondered how Italy and Spain retained their Harrier fleets. Here is an interesting article about the Italian Navy and their Harriers:
A tale of two Harriers: How Italy held on to carrier strike
In the case of Harrier, an important difference is that the Italian Harriers are of the AV8B+ type, and thus are fully multirole: they have radar, anti-air missiles and guided weapons for strike missions. The Harrier GR9 notoriously had no radar and no AMRAAM - those capabilities were lost years ago with the Sea Harrier. The multirole capability of the AV8B+ makes it easier for the Navy to argue for their retention.
Another crucial difference is that the Italian Harrier squadron is under full navy control thanks to a law approved on 26 January 1989 specifically to allow the Navy to add a fixed wing jet capability "for air defence of the fleet and the support to naval and amphibious operations". The Royal Navy lost control of its Harriers with the formation of the Joint Force with the RAF, a measure which was part of the Labour defence review in 1998 and that brought the Harriers under RAF Group 1 command. The Navy effectively lost control of them and of their fate at that moment. Just a decade later, in 2008, the First Sea Lord had to threaten resignation to stop the RAF from withdrawing the Harrier force, but by 2010 it was a done deal.
Significantly, the Italian Navy is fighting hard to avoid walking down the same path. The defence review decided that Italy will only order 90 F-35s, down from 131 once planned. The navy won't get the 22 F35-B it had hoped for, but just 15, with 15 more going to the air force, which had once hoped for 40. It is anticipated that the two squadrons will be based on in Grottaglie, current home of the navy's Harriers. There will be collaboration, but the air force call for a "joint force" was rebutted, with the Navy and ministers agreeing that the British experience is a good example of what not to do. The navy squadron will continue to cover the unique requirement for air support at sea and will be under full naval control. Airframes will be shared if and as necessary to ensure that the Cavour carrier can get its full complement of 14.
Finally, the decisive difference is political and strategic. Successive Italian governments have agreed that the armed forces buy Italy respect and political influence. Contributions to multinational efforts are seen as a major element in Italy's foreign policy. As a consequence, the armed forces' strategy has been focused on expeditionary operations, with the navy to the fore thanks to the new carrier Cavour and its larger, more capable future complement of F35Bs and plans for much more capable amphibious forces. Even in a time of cuts, attention was paid to go ahead as regularly as possible with the necessary investments.
In the UK, the focus on expeditionary operations is also proudly declared, but it remains hard to see where the expeditionary focus is when the amphibious fleet is reduced; the only real deployable, independent air element available is removed, tying any future operation to the availability of foreign bases and overflight permissions; and the maritime patrol aircraft are also gone, making it much more risky to send the fleet into hostile waters. It is worth noting that the navy is also crucial to operations that aren't strictly naval campaigns; it was thanks to 60 UK-chartered merchant ships and 4 RFA Ro-Ro vessels that over 90 per cent of the equipment the UK used in Iraq in 2003 reached the theatre of war, under Royal Navy escort due to maritime terrorism fears.
To keep up with the state-of-the-art technology on board sailors and engineers will be trained in a £1m building at HMS Collingwood in Fareham, Hampshire, which has been set out in the same way as an operations room on board the new carrier.
The personnel will be trained on the new mission system which links all the combat, communications and visual surveillance systems together by a fibre-optic network - these are usually separate on warships, allowing for a much more integrated way of working.
So Warfare Branch and Weapon Engineering types will be training for CVF, but not fixed wing pilots or deck crews?
I still think that the Government could make this into a success story, by leasing a few AV8Bs from the US (also worth considering other options and issues mentioned on this thread), and possibly either extending the life of HMS Illustrious post 2014, and/or speeding up the build and entry into service of HMS Queen Elizabeth. Additionally a radar equipped jet would help make up for the loss of ISTAR capability when Sea King ASaCs is retired before a replacement system is ready.
Things have changed since October 2010, not only the switch back to F35B for CVF and the need to prepare for a STOVL future, but also the world has changed - for the worse. The Harrier is the only type of aircraft (until F35B comes along) that can do STOVL shipborne operations, a capability I believe we need NOW. The US Marine Corps intend to carry on operating the AV8B into the next decade - and until 2025 or later if necessary.
Back on 17 December 2010, vecvechookattack wrote:
Originally Posted by vvha
We still need FDO's and flight deck crews. HMS Illustrious will still be embarking Fixed wing aircraft upto and until 2014.
As an aside, I think that there will soon be an announcement in parliament regarding our Reserve forces and there future. What else might be announced? Last year's FR20 paper suggested using the Reserves to retain capabilities for the future, and recommended an enlarged RNR Air Branch. It also made other slightly odd and not very practical suggestions such as a coastal security role and a Caribbean based counter narcotics role, without going into the practical details. We are recruiting hundreds of extra Reservists, although there will be fewer RFAs and Chartered Vessels to provide force protection for, less ships/aircraft needing logistical support, and a reduced need for communications or other support. Perhaps an enlarged air branch (working with regular personnel as part of an enlarged NFSF(FW) perhaps?) is part of the way forward - with borrowed Harriers?
Meanwhile, on this thread I wondered how Italy and Spain retained their Harrier fleets. Here is an interesting article about the Italian Navy and their Harriers:
A tale of two Harriers: How Italy held on to carrier strike
In the case of Harrier, an important difference is that the Italian Harriers are of the AV8B+ type, and thus are fully multirole: they have radar, anti-air missiles and guided weapons for strike missions. The Harrier GR9 notoriously had no radar and no AMRAAM - those capabilities were lost years ago with the Sea Harrier. The multirole capability of the AV8B+ makes it easier for the Navy to argue for their retention.
Another crucial difference is that the Italian Harrier squadron is under full navy control thanks to a law approved on 26 January 1989 specifically to allow the Navy to add a fixed wing jet capability "for air defence of the fleet and the support to naval and amphibious operations". The Royal Navy lost control of its Harriers with the formation of the Joint Force with the RAF, a measure which was part of the Labour defence review in 1998 and that brought the Harriers under RAF Group 1 command. The Navy effectively lost control of them and of their fate at that moment. Just a decade later, in 2008, the First Sea Lord had to threaten resignation to stop the RAF from withdrawing the Harrier force, but by 2010 it was a done deal.
Significantly, the Italian Navy is fighting hard to avoid walking down the same path. The defence review decided that Italy will only order 90 F-35s, down from 131 once planned. The navy won't get the 22 F35-B it had hoped for, but just 15, with 15 more going to the air force, which had once hoped for 40. It is anticipated that the two squadrons will be based on in Grottaglie, current home of the navy's Harriers. There will be collaboration, but the air force call for a "joint force" was rebutted, with the Navy and ministers agreeing that the British experience is a good example of what not to do. The navy squadron will continue to cover the unique requirement for air support at sea and will be under full naval control. Airframes will be shared if and as necessary to ensure that the Cavour carrier can get its full complement of 14.
Finally, the decisive difference is political and strategic. Successive Italian governments have agreed that the armed forces buy Italy respect and political influence. Contributions to multinational efforts are seen as a major element in Italy's foreign policy. As a consequence, the armed forces' strategy has been focused on expeditionary operations, with the navy to the fore thanks to the new carrier Cavour and its larger, more capable future complement of F35Bs and plans for much more capable amphibious forces. Even in a time of cuts, attention was paid to go ahead as regularly as possible with the necessary investments.
In the UK, the focus on expeditionary operations is also proudly declared, but it remains hard to see where the expeditionary focus is when the amphibious fleet is reduced; the only real deployable, independent air element available is removed, tying any future operation to the availability of foreign bases and overflight permissions; and the maritime patrol aircraft are also gone, making it much more risky to send the fleet into hostile waters. It is worth noting that the navy is also crucial to operations that aren't strictly naval campaigns; it was thanks to 60 UK-chartered merchant ships and 4 RFA Ro-Ro vessels that over 90 per cent of the equipment the UK used in Iraq in 2003 reached the theatre of war, under Royal Navy escort due to maritime terrorism fears.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 27th Sep 2012 at 15:07.
Post April 2013, the First Sea Lord will own the budget for Navy capability.
Why not write to him with your ideas for additional Naval air power in the pre-Lightning years and explain how he will pay to implement them?
Why not write to him with your ideas for additional Naval air power in the pre-Lightning years and explain how he will pay to implement them?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and explain how he will pay to implement them?
The train has left the station, the station has been closed down and the line is covered in grass and weeds.
Move along