Events dear boy events
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good afternoon everyone
Golly! Turn your back on PPRuNe for a couple of days and it all happens.
So to work:
I am most grateful to Leon Jabachjabicz for his first two posts where he comments on Mr Dow’s memory, shares a truly spectacular picture and mentions nuclear QRA issues. Thank you very much indeed because I feel they are reason enough for me to make some remarks of my own.
A careful read of Mr Dow’s letter makes it clear that he never suggested the Harrier was accident free in Afghanistan but in the context of his topic (Our troops in Afghanistan) he remarked that the aircraft had a spotless mission accomplishment record. I have spoken to Mr Dow and (as I imagined) he was referring to the fact that the force had never failed to launch a serviceable pair when specific air support requests came in. Certainly on a few of those occasions one of the spare aircraft was needed - but then that is what spares are for.
The spectacular accident pic is indeed a classic in demonstrating the piloting demands that the Harrier family of aircraft have placed on their pilots since 1960 – namely with two levers to operate with your left hand it is only a matter of when - not if - one moves the wrong one. In the case of the Tornado accidents Mr Dow mentions, these were associated with runway length and hot and high aspects of performance. A rather different matter from that illustrated by the picture.
In my view to suggest a nuclear QRA capability (that may have considered for a different mark of the aircraft) reads across to a scramble shout of a current GR4 in Afghanistan is definitely dodgy. What matters out there is the time interval between the crew climbing in and being airborne with a fully serviceable set of kit and full fuel. Should runway conditions make it necessary to refuel after takeoff then so far as the troops are concerned the aircraft might as well be still on the ground until that is complete.
For the benefit of readers here who may not have first hand experience in what is involved in an operational scramble, may I make the point that there are two factors. The first is the flying machine and the second is the kit it needs to do its job. To demonstrate the former I got my wheels in the air one day in under a minute from pressing the starter button because all that was needed to do that was the engine and the flying controls. However unless you also have the capability to align and bring up all your operational kit while airborne that means nothing and you might as well have stayed in bed.
Moving on, thank you BluntM8 thank you for your well reasoned post and I would not take issue with your remarks. However although I am in the picture regarding the data and the sources behind Mr Dow’s letter both he and I would never consider putting such in the public domain. I do realise this is a very convenient defence and that it must frustrate many. All I can suggest is that anybody who wants to know the facts might consider contacting Mr Milliband’s office and suggesting he asks appropriate questions at a PMQ session. Once the information is in Hansard I imagine we can debate it here for a long time!
JF
PS Glad rag. I am so pleased you haven’t given up.
So to work:
I am most grateful to Leon Jabachjabicz for his first two posts where he comments on Mr Dow’s memory, shares a truly spectacular picture and mentions nuclear QRA issues. Thank you very much indeed because I feel they are reason enough for me to make some remarks of my own.
A careful read of Mr Dow’s letter makes it clear that he never suggested the Harrier was accident free in Afghanistan but in the context of his topic (Our troops in Afghanistan) he remarked that the aircraft had a spotless mission accomplishment record. I have spoken to Mr Dow and (as I imagined) he was referring to the fact that the force had never failed to launch a serviceable pair when specific air support requests came in. Certainly on a few of those occasions one of the spare aircraft was needed - but then that is what spares are for.
The spectacular accident pic is indeed a classic in demonstrating the piloting demands that the Harrier family of aircraft have placed on their pilots since 1960 – namely with two levers to operate with your left hand it is only a matter of when - not if - one moves the wrong one. In the case of the Tornado accidents Mr Dow mentions, these were associated with runway length and hot and high aspects of performance. A rather different matter from that illustrated by the picture.
In my view to suggest a nuclear QRA capability (that may have considered for a different mark of the aircraft) reads across to a scramble shout of a current GR4 in Afghanistan is definitely dodgy. What matters out there is the time interval between the crew climbing in and being airborne with a fully serviceable set of kit and full fuel. Should runway conditions make it necessary to refuel after takeoff then so far as the troops are concerned the aircraft might as well be still on the ground until that is complete.
For the benefit of readers here who may not have first hand experience in what is involved in an operational scramble, may I make the point that there are two factors. The first is the flying machine and the second is the kit it needs to do its job. To demonstrate the former I got my wheels in the air one day in under a minute from pressing the starter button because all that was needed to do that was the engine and the flying controls. However unless you also have the capability to align and bring up all your operational kit while airborne that means nothing and you might as well have stayed in bed.
Moving on, thank you BluntM8 thank you for your well reasoned post and I would not take issue with your remarks. However although I am in the picture regarding the data and the sources behind Mr Dow’s letter both he and I would never consider putting such in the public domain. I do realise this is a very convenient defence and that it must frustrate many. All I can suggest is that anybody who wants to know the facts might consider contacting Mr Milliband’s office and suggesting he asks appropriate questions at a PMQ session. Once the information is in Hansard I imagine we can debate it here for a long time!
JF
PS Glad rag. I am so pleased you haven’t given up.
Last edited by John Farley; 16th Jan 2011 at 11:52. Reason: typo
I thank Mr Farley for his comment but I do believe that the letter that he refers to is misleading:
I do believe that the Tornado accidents he refers to do not indicate any superiority of the Harrier over the Tornado. In fact for the one that was lost outside the wire, the very same result would have occured with the Harrier.
Secondly, on the subject of suggesting a nuclear QRA capability reads across to a scramble shout of a current GR4 in Afghanistan is definitely dodgy, I cannot fathom this. Whether sitting RS-whatever in a portacabin in the desert or in a HAS has almost direct read accross and the fact that the INUs (probably the slowest part of any scramble) have been improved over that of the GR1 only serves to improve the situation.
Finally, my experience as an ALO on the ground in Afghanistan was that neither the Harrier, the Tornado or the F-15E were the No1 choice for my land forces. The choice of champions for FIRES support was either the A-10 or AC-130 backed up by an MQ-9 REAPER doing armed-overwatch and a pair of Apaches covering the HAF by UK support helos. This was often much to the annoyance of the Harriers on GCAS, who just weren't wanted
.
Good day to you Mr Farley.
Mr Jabachjabicz
In the case of the Tornado accidents Mr Dow mentions, these were associated with runway length and hot and high aspects of performance.
Secondly, on the subject of suggesting a nuclear QRA capability reads across to a scramble shout of a current GR4 in Afghanistan is definitely dodgy, I cannot fathom this. Whether sitting RS-whatever in a portacabin in the desert or in a HAS has almost direct read accross and the fact that the INUs (probably the slowest part of any scramble) have been improved over that of the GR1 only serves to improve the situation.
Finally, my experience as an ALO on the ground in Afghanistan was that neither the Harrier, the Tornado or the F-15E were the No1 choice for my land forces. The choice of champions for FIRES support was either the A-10 or AC-130 backed up by an MQ-9 REAPER doing armed-overwatch and a pair of Apaches covering the HAF by UK support helos. This was often much to the annoyance of the Harriers on GCAS, who just weren't wanted
.Good day to you Mr Farley.
Mr Jabachjabicz
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ
ALO whilst Harrier was operating in theatre? what year was that then? I cannot remember any of us being 'annoyed' when we were not required.
Your background is F4 and F3 navigator? Did you swap to GR4 thus your vast knowledge of FJ ops in AFG theatre?
Finally, my experience as an ALO on the ground in Afghanistan was that neither the Harrier, the Tornado or the F-15E were the No1 choice for my land forces. The choice of champions for FIRES support was either the A-10 or AC-130 backed up by an MQ-9 REAPER doing armed-overwatch and a pair of Apaches covering the HAF by UK support helos. This was often much to the annoyance of the Harriers on GCAS, who just weren't wanted 
.
.
Your background is F4 and F3 navigator? Did you swap to GR4 thus your vast knowledge of FJ ops in AFG theatre?
I'll start with a 
just to ensure people know I'm being nothing more than a bit of a mischief maker but which fleet were in theatre for this "straight from the frontline" review of the RAF ....
Click here.
And yes I know it was discussed at length on PPRuNe here (was it really over 4 years ago!!!)
A few more and 
just in case!
just to ensure people know I'm being nothing more than a bit of a mischief maker but which fleet were in theatre for this "straight from the frontline" review of the RAF ....Click here.
And yes I know it was discussed at length on PPRuNe here (was it really over 4 years ago!!!)
A few more
and just in case!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a little reluctant to enter a debate (and risk disagreeing) with the great man himself but, as you say JF, this is what pprune is all about.
To be honest I found Mr Dow's reasoning, as published, a little hard to follow but in all honesty I think it's likely a moot point anyways:
The world is changing and fast, in particular with regards to the offensive assets employed by the FJ world. There's really only one game in town in the future and that's F-35, and even that's on thin ice. As has been alluded to in other recent threads Typhoon is almost yesterday's news already, Harrier is gone and the Tornado GR force will not be far behind. Like it or not (and I don't) UAV's are here to stay and I only see their capabilities and responsibilities growing in reach and importance.
If we weren't so broke, and if BAE and others hadn't persisted for so long in taking us all for every penny we did have, then I guess the outlook might have been a little brighter!
To be honest I found Mr Dow's reasoning, as published, a little hard to follow but in all honesty I think it's likely a moot point anyways:
The world is changing and fast, in particular with regards to the offensive assets employed by the FJ world. There's really only one game in town in the future and that's F-35, and even that's on thin ice. As has been alluded to in other recent threads Typhoon is almost yesterday's news already, Harrier is gone and the Tornado GR force will not be far behind. Like it or not (and I don't) UAV's are here to stay and I only see their capabilities and responsibilities growing in reach and importance.
If we weren't so broke, and if BAE and others hadn't persisted for so long in taking us all for every penny we did have, then I guess the outlook might have been a little brighter!
Justanopinion
IIRC the Harrier returned to UK at the start of Summer 2009 - that's only 18 months ago!
I fielded the phone calls from the Har Det of 'why don't you use us?" and they were either upset or very highly strung! Sadly my bosses wanted A-10, AC-130 or Apache - persistence on scene was what they wanted and GR9 didn't have that or a SCL that they wanted. The Tornado wasn't much better but it did have 27 mike-mike and RAPTOR gave good imagery without getting too close to the tgt area and spooking it (unlike DJRP).
I'm not trying to say the Fin is way better than your bona jet, it isn't. I'm just trying to add some balance to Mr Dow's letter - which in my opinion is incorrect.
LJ
IIRC the Harrier returned to UK at the start of Summer 2009 - that's only 18 months ago!
I fielded the phone calls from the Har Det of 'why don't you use us?" and they were either upset or very highly strung! Sadly my bosses wanted A-10, AC-130 or Apache - persistence on scene was what they wanted and GR9 didn't have that or a SCL that they wanted. The Tornado wasn't much better but it did have 27 mike-mike and RAPTOR gave good imagery without getting too close to the tgt area and spooking it (unlike DJRP).
I'm not trying to say the Fin is way better than your bona jet, it isn't. I'm just trying to add some balance to Mr Dow's letter - which in my opinion is incorrect.
LJ
Shame on you Mr Farley, for supporting such a letter. One can understand your endearment for your aircraft, but to attempt to besmirch the outstanding results that the Tornado, it's air and ground crews are achieving is so far beneath you.
To correct some errors from other posts...the DJRP indeed provided good imagery, but it barely scratches the surface of what RAPTOR can do, and RAPTOR can be datalinked if needed so no need to wait for the ac to return to base. Yes, it takes up a weapon station, but that still leaves the pair of aircraft with guns, bombs and missiles, plus an LDP and a full IMC night low level capability (yes, I used it in the mountains of Afghanistan).
Along with most other sqn mates, I myself achieved <15mins from picking up the phone to wheels in the well on GCAS at KAF in the Tornado, and I believe that quite a few recent guys have managed much quicker.
All this talk of poor performance is nonsense. Of course the altitude and summer temperatures have an effect as they would on any aircraft, but it is a known quantity and has little to no effect on a daily basis. I don't believe the BOI results of the 2 losses are public so we shouldn't comment, but neither should we make assumptions as to the causes.
And in terms of reliability....well, there's been at least one GR4 det that launched 100% of tasked sorties, plus quite a few more that were not on the ATO. Airborne cancellelations were very rare, but there was always another aircraft ready on the ground to take its place, and where necessary, did.
There are other points, sadly their classification means they cannot be mentioned. I know what this sounds like, but unfortunately, those casting aspertions clearly are not cleared and so are not aware of what is currently happening in theatre.
Mr Farley, one question: re-read your letter, but instead of Tornado, insert Harrier. How you would feel if someone saids things like that about your ac, things that you knew were untrue? That letter is unworthy of your support and I am very surprised that someone as you would lend such support to it.
To correct some errors from other posts...the DJRP indeed provided good imagery, but it barely scratches the surface of what RAPTOR can do, and RAPTOR can be datalinked if needed so no need to wait for the ac to return to base. Yes, it takes up a weapon station, but that still leaves the pair of aircraft with guns, bombs and missiles, plus an LDP and a full IMC night low level capability (yes, I used it in the mountains of Afghanistan).
Along with most other sqn mates, I myself achieved <15mins from picking up the phone to wheels in the well on GCAS at KAF in the Tornado, and I believe that quite a few recent guys have managed much quicker.
All this talk of poor performance is nonsense. Of course the altitude and summer temperatures have an effect as they would on any aircraft, but it is a known quantity and has little to no effect on a daily basis. I don't believe the BOI results of the 2 losses are public so we shouldn't comment, but neither should we make assumptions as to the causes.
And in terms of reliability....well, there's been at least one GR4 det that launched 100% of tasked sorties, plus quite a few more that were not on the ATO. Airborne cancellelations were very rare, but there was always another aircraft ready on the ground to take its place, and where necessary, did.
There are other points, sadly their classification means they cannot be mentioned. I know what this sounds like, but unfortunately, those casting aspertions clearly are not cleared and so are not aware of what is currently happening in theatre.
Mr Farley, one question: re-read your letter, but instead of Tornado, insert Harrier. How you would feel if someone saids things like that about your ac, things that you knew were untrue? That letter is unworthy of your support and I am very surprised that someone as you would lend such support to it.
TTH, just read yours posts and the rest of that thread. As you so rightly say...
I was about to flash again as per the other unnecessary harrier thread.
TTH
You should have seen my first draft of my post above. 
Perhaps with age comes a little wisdom...well, perhaps for some of us.
The continual whining by some of the ex-Harrier community does them or their colleagues no service. Turning it into a Harrier vs Tornado game likewise, and pointless. The arguments regarding sustaining carrier ops experience have some worth, but those questions should firmly be asked of the First Sea Lord and his cronies; it is not the job of the RAF to pay for the cock-ups of the Navy (retiring the air defence of their carriers, putting all their eggs in one basket of expensive carriers with little regard to likely timings and/or costs and assuming that the RAF would keep the Harrier in service just for them). They've shot themselves firmly in the foot.
I'm sorry to see the Harrier go. I really am. But pointless attempts to bring it back by trying to reduce confidence in a very capable aircraft through untruths and twisted "facts" are not the way. Can we draw this to a close.
I was about to flash again as per the other unnecessary harrier thread.
TTH
Perhaps with age comes a little wisdom...well, perhaps for some of us.The continual whining by some of the ex-Harrier community does them or their colleagues no service. Turning it into a Harrier vs Tornado game likewise, and pointless. The arguments regarding sustaining carrier ops experience have some worth, but those questions should firmly be asked of the First Sea Lord and his cronies; it is not the job of the RAF to pay for the cock-ups of the Navy (retiring the air defence of their carriers, putting all their eggs in one basket of expensive carriers with little regard to likely timings and/or costs and assuming that the RAF would keep the Harrier in service just for them). They've shot themselves firmly in the foot.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks chaps.
Good to see the debate is opening up.
Doing that was what Mr Dow's letter was all about.
JF
PS I'm sorry Jockey was not pleased to wake up and find he had a reason to make his points. But there you go - personal stuff has been known to creep into PPRuNe before. J
Good to see the debate is opening up.
Doing that was what Mr Dow's letter was all about.
JF
PS I'm sorry Jockey was not pleased to wake up and find he had a reason to make his points. But there you go - personal stuff has been known to creep into PPRuNe before. J
Mr Farley, you post as if I'm not here (not in the room had we been speaking together) in the third person, which is usually considered poor form.....even rude.
