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
Events dear boy events
One of our past Prime Ministers (Macmillan) famously answered in response to a question “Events dear boy events”. Ever since he did that I have always thought if only more politicians used it as a perfectly good reason (not excuse) for changing their mind about something we would all be better served.
There have been some ‘events’ in the military aviation scene recently on both sides of the Atlantic. In case the following letter to the Times (no I did not write it) does not get published I thought it deserved an airing here:
Sir,
Our troops in Afghanistan
It is often said, by the Prime Minister and others, that our troops deserve the best. Mr Cameron has declared his determination to ensure that this happens. It is not, however, happening in Afghanistan, where our soldiers are poorly supported by the Tornado. This is not surprising, as it was not designed to operate in the close air support role and the ‘hot and high’ conditions of Afghanistan. It is understood that one aircraft has been lost, and another very badly damaged, because of the difficulty of operating the Tornado from the one runway available at Kandahar. Because it was not designed for this task the Tornado necessarily takes much longer to get airborne from alert and has a very poor mission reliability, with many planned missions cancelled every month. This has resulted in the US Air Force having to step in, to ensure that our troops get the support where and when it is needed.
This is in stark contrast with the record of the Harrier, which spent five years in Afghanistan and achieved a spotless mission accomplishment record. All this was achieved with far fewer aircrew and engineers than the Tornado requires. The Harrier was designed for close support of ground forces, operating from austere bases, and it is arguably world class for that mission.
Perhaps the time has come to face the realities that a specialist aircraft is needed in such difficult and limited circumstances, and to redeploy the Harriers for at least as long as UK remains in Afghanistan.
Yours faithfully,
Andrew Dow
While I think nobody is very likely to stand up in the house and use ‘events’ as a reason for putting out Harriers back in the Stan there is another recent ‘event’ that poses an interesting juxtaposition.
The USMC have recently had to come to terms with a formal slip of the F-35B in-service date of years rather than months and I guess are having to plan their act to accommodate this ‘event’. I also understand that some of their B+ pilots were very impressed with the GR9s performance in recent Red Flags.
So does this mean that the MOD will be able to cut our deficit to the bone overnight by flogging 77 nice jets at a very reasonable price?
I know I put a question mark at the end of the last sentence but I don’t really want PPRuNers to answer because sadly (but realistically) wot we think does not affect the price of fish.
There have been some ‘events’ in the military aviation scene recently on both sides of the Atlantic. In case the following letter to the Times (no I did not write it) does not get published I thought it deserved an airing here:
Sir,
Our troops in Afghanistan
It is often said, by the Prime Minister and others, that our troops deserve the best. Mr Cameron has declared his determination to ensure that this happens. It is not, however, happening in Afghanistan, where our soldiers are poorly supported by the Tornado. This is not surprising, as it was not designed to operate in the close air support role and the ‘hot and high’ conditions of Afghanistan. It is understood that one aircraft has been lost, and another very badly damaged, because of the difficulty of operating the Tornado from the one runway available at Kandahar. Because it was not designed for this task the Tornado necessarily takes much longer to get airborne from alert and has a very poor mission reliability, with many planned missions cancelled every month. This has resulted in the US Air Force having to step in, to ensure that our troops get the support where and when it is needed.
This is in stark contrast with the record of the Harrier, which spent five years in Afghanistan and achieved a spotless mission accomplishment record. All this was achieved with far fewer aircrew and engineers than the Tornado requires. The Harrier was designed for close support of ground forces, operating from austere bases, and it is arguably world class for that mission.
Perhaps the time has come to face the realities that a specialist aircraft is needed in such difficult and limited circumstances, and to redeploy the Harriers for at least as long as UK remains in Afghanistan.
Yours faithfully,
Andrew Dow
While I think nobody is very likely to stand up in the house and use ‘events’ as a reason for putting out Harriers back in the Stan there is another recent ‘event’ that poses an interesting juxtaposition.
The USMC have recently had to come to terms with a formal slip of the F-35B in-service date of years rather than months and I guess are having to plan their act to accommodate this ‘event’. I also understand that some of their B+ pilots were very impressed with the GR9s performance in recent Red Flags.
So does this mean that the MOD will be able to cut our deficit to the bone overnight by flogging 77 nice jets at a very reasonable price?
I know I put a question mark at the end of the last sentence but I don’t really want PPRuNers to answer because sadly (but realistically) wot we think does not affect the price of fish.
Mr Dow does have a short memory - I watched a Harrier crash and burn very recently in KAF...
Plus while we're at it RAPTOR has saved countless lives of UK servicemen by finding IEDs. Plus the Direct FIRES support the 27mm (which the so-called superior CAS Harrier doesn't have) has been used to good effect. Plus the Dual Mode Brimstone shots that Harrier can't do - Maverick has too big a bang for COIN in urban areas. Plus the speed that Tornado can react to a TIC on the other side of the AOR - about 30% faster.
Other than that, I have never read such a load of hoop! The Harrier did a good job as is the Tornado, however, if you really want to see a great armed-ISR on-call machine with mahoosive endurance then the REAPER is the choice of champions. It has dropped more ordinance than both FJs and flown over 18000hrs in support of Herrick in just over 3 years.
LJ
Plus while we're at it RAPTOR has saved countless lives of UK servicemen by finding IEDs. Plus the Direct FIRES support the 27mm (which the so-called superior CAS Harrier doesn't have) has been used to good effect. Plus the Dual Mode Brimstone shots that Harrier can't do - Maverick has too big a bang for COIN in urban areas. Plus the speed that Tornado can react to a TIC on the other side of the AOR - about 30% faster.
Other than that, I have never read such a load of hoop! The Harrier did a good job as is the Tornado, however, if you really want to see a great armed-ISR on-call machine with mahoosive endurance then the REAPER is the choice of champions. It has dropped more ordinance than both FJs and flown over 18000hrs in support of Herrick in just over 3 years.
LJ
As has been said many times before, when the next enemy has a credible air defence system capable of drone-swatting, anyone stupid enough to think that drones are the be-all and end-all will be right in the cack....
Drones have indeed proved very useful in the current north-west frontier war, but don't let anyone think that they're a universal panacea.
Regrettably, the sandaholic MoD seems more interested in cost saving than operational flexibility.
Drones have indeed proved very useful in the current north-west frontier war, but don't let anyone think that they're a universal panacea.
Regrettably, the sandaholic MoD seems more interested in cost saving than operational flexibility.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ agreed. We don't need another argument about who's best which serves no-one and creates ill feeling.
People like Dow should get their facts straight if they want to pretend to offer informed opinion. I suggest you ask your friend with the pen to back up claims of 'very poor mission reliability', 'poorly supported troops' and 'many cancelled missions', and when he/she can't to maybe write a supportive letter of the excellent work being done by ALL of our people from the SAME team!
Congratulations 14 Sqn on a great job, good luck 12 for a successful and safe tour!
People like Dow should get their facts straight if they want to pretend to offer informed opinion. I suggest you ask your friend with the pen to back up claims of 'very poor mission reliability', 'poorly supported troops' and 'many cancelled missions', and when he/she can't to maybe write a supportive letter of the excellent work being done by ALL of our people from the SAME team!
Congratulations 14 Sqn on a great job, good luck 12 for a successful and safe tour!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mornington Crescent
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
To quote from the letter you've reproduced, and counter some points.
An opinion.
A fact. But was the Harrier designed to operate as organic fleet air defence? Or was it sucessfully adapted to the role later in it's life?
It is understood by who? Those who operate Tornado from KAF on a daily basis, who know and understand the reasons these incidents occured, and are fully up to speed on the necessary techniques to mitigate these hazards? Does Mr Dow have access to the causes of these two incidents, or is this simply further conjecture? To pin the blame on the Tornado is to ignore several large parts of the picture.
Prove it, if you can. Or, more to the point, prove that this is the fault of Tornado. What are you measuring - aircraft launched versus planned sorties? Or air requests serviced? Every unit with a half-awake BALO ought to be submitting air requests for every time they go out on the ground. Rightly, these are prioritised and air support allocated at a level far higher than Tornado Ops in KAF, using a process which really doesn't need to be discussed here. I certainly don't recall any lost sorties during my periods in theatre. Furthermore, does Mr Dow have access to the response times from the 'hooter' to wheels-up? Or is this simply further rehashing of commonly accepted untruths? Statistics are like a lamp post to a drunken man. More for leaning on than illumination.
Again, prove it. With real metrics and real numbers.
Something to do with the design of the jets differing, maybe? I wasn't aware that the 'footprint' of the deployed unit was a deliverable...
Concur.
The only point which stands in the letter is that the Harrier was world-class for CAS and did a spectatular job in Herrick. The rest is thinly disguised Tornado-bashing and I challenge him to prove his claims with fact.
Just because Harrier was excellent, it doesn't follow that Tornado cannot do the job adequately, and it is blinkered to deny that there are any areas where Tornado has an advantage.
I'm afraid to say that although the Harrier force seems to have stood down with dignity, it certainally seems it's supporters aren't going to. Yes it was an excellent aircraft, in the finest tradition of many excellent British aircraft which have gone before. Let its departure reflect its service!
Blunty.
And to add, I've not heard anyone from the Tornado world throwing mud at the Harrier force....
To quote from the letter you've reproduced, and counter some points.
It is not, however, happening in Afghanistan, where our soldiers are poorly supported by the Tornado
This is not surprising, as it was not designed to operate in the close air support role and the ‘hot and high’ conditions of Afghanistan.
It is understood that one aircraft has been lost, and another very badly damaged, because of the difficulty of operating the Tornado from the one runway available at Kandahar.
Because it was not designed for this task the Tornado necessarily takes much longer to get airborne from alert and has a very poor mission reliability, with many planned missions cancelled every month. This has resulted in the US Air Force having to step in, to ensure that our troops get the support where and when it is needed.
This is in stark contrast with the record of the Harrier, which spent five years in Afghanistan and achieved a spotless mission accomplishment record.
All this was achieved with far fewer aircrew and engineers than the Tornado requires.
The Harrier was designed for close support of ground forces, operating from austere bases, and it is arguably world class for that mission.
Perhaps the time has come to face the realities that a specialist aircraft is needed in such difficult and limited circumstances, and to redeploy the Harriers for at least as long as UK remains in Afghanistan.
Yours faithfully,
Andrew Dow
Yours faithfully,
Andrew Dow
Just because Harrier was excellent, it doesn't follow that Tornado cannot do the job adequately, and it is blinkered to deny that there are any areas where Tornado has an advantage.
I'm afraid to say that although the Harrier force seems to have stood down with dignity, it certainally seems it's supporters aren't going to. Yes it was an excellent aircraft, in the finest tradition of many excellent British aircraft which have gone before. Let its departure reflect its service!
Blunty.
And to add, I've not heard anyone from the Tornado world throwing mud at the Harrier force....
BEagle
As someone who used to fly in a credible air defence system (before we scrapped it) your so called 'drones' would be a low priority target in a full up shooting war (just as much as helos and transports are). The FJ fighters and bombers are the targets of choice in a large COMAO and I would expect Air Superiority to be established quickly by one side or the other - the days of a 4 month struggle for this is long gone.
The 'drones' would either survive until 'Air Superiority' was established or the air war would be over very quickly for us. Then the helos, transports and 'drones' would all be swatted by an umolested enemy fighter sweep.
Interestingly, your 'drones' may well be better at penetrating enemy air defences as they can be built in low observable shapes without nasty RADAR reflective canopy rails and cockpits. Try googling RQ-170 to see a good example.
LJ
As someone who used to fly in a credible air defence system (before we scrapped it) your so called 'drones' would be a low priority target in a full up shooting war (just as much as helos and transports are). The FJ fighters and bombers are the targets of choice in a large COMAO and I would expect Air Superiority to be established quickly by one side or the other - the days of a 4 month struggle for this is long gone.
The 'drones' would either survive until 'Air Superiority' was established or the air war would be over very quickly for us. Then the helos, transports and 'drones' would all be swatted by an umolested enemy fighter sweep.
Interestingly, your 'drones' may well be better at penetrating enemy air defences as they can be built in low observable shapes without nasty RADAR reflective canopy rails and cockpits. Try googling RQ-170 to see a good example.
LJ
Leon Jabachjabicz,
Slightly off-topic, but I recall watching the video of that Harrier accident. Had not seen the photo you posted above - dramatic! Seems to be taken from quite close range, or with a good telephoto lens. Any details of it's photographer etc? Remarkable image.
Slightly off-topic, but I recall watching the video of that Harrier accident. Had not seen the photo you posted above - dramatic! Seems to be taken from quite close range, or with a good telephoto lens. Any details of it's photographer etc? Remarkable image.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry LJ,
I have to agree with Beagle on the drone score - what you are saying is that drones are really useful, and IF you lose the battle for air superiority then you rather accept that there will then be a general swatting down of your drones....
Which is okay if you have air superiority fighters that can contest that first phase, but if you do not then you are relying on a UAV force that you accept will be swatted as and when the opposition choose to do so. Which is no way to run an air war, and will rapidly lead to your losing a ground or naval war. If you head primarily into using drones then your opponent is going to go after them, especially if you have relatively few fighters and helos and transports etc anyhow. (Easier to swat fighters on the ground).
There are roles crying out for UAVs, and there are roles that still require manned aircraft - there is no reason I can imagine to prevent any and all roles eventually falling to UAV for execution as the fields of computing, comms, weapons tech and programming advance, but that's a long way off what we are capable of now.
Dave
I have to agree with Beagle on the drone score - what you are saying is that drones are really useful, and IF you lose the battle for air superiority then you rather accept that there will then be a general swatting down of your drones....
Which is okay if you have air superiority fighters that can contest that first phase, but if you do not then you are relying on a UAV force that you accept will be swatted as and when the opposition choose to do so. Which is no way to run an air war, and will rapidly lead to your losing a ground or naval war. If you head primarily into using drones then your opponent is going to go after them, especially if you have relatively few fighters and helos and transports etc anyhow. (Easier to swat fighters on the ground).
There are roles crying out for UAVs, and there are roles that still require manned aircraft - there is no reason I can imagine to prevent any and all roles eventually falling to UAV for execution as the fields of computing, comms, weapons tech and programming advance, but that's a long way off what we are capable of now.
Dave
Dave, no need to be sorry mate! A force mix of manned and unmanned is the way to go - both have very distinct advantages. That's why FJs and REAPER do so well together in AFG at present.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Harrier incident in KAF was entirely due to pilot error and not A/C performance, photos taken by a french film crew waiting for Mirage take off.
CRV7 was used in the place of the gun and did just fine.
Harrier was to be fitted with Brimstone.
Carried DJRP which also did a fine job of supporting troops with imagery.
CRV7 was used in the place of the gun and did just fine.
Harrier was to be fitted with Brimstone.
Carried DJRP which also did a fine job of supporting troops with imagery.
"Easy pickings" - yes, I agree.
No fighter cover for the Georgians and their Hermes 450 TACTICAL UAS (there's a big difference between this 90kt UAS flown by a non-aviator and a Reaper that can fly at 250kts and operated by an experienced aviator).
Absolutely no reaction from the H450 operator. Any experienced combat pilot would have throttled to idle (minimising the IR signature for the IR guided missile) and descended (being a slow speed target in main beam clutter making a radar guided shot tricky). Finally min ranging the weapons opportunities to the MiG driver by breaking towards it.
Sadly I see none of this from the H450 operator (note not pilot) and they just watch the shot coming until it hits them. First rule of air combat is "never ever give up", this joker gave up before the shot was even fired!
LJ
No fighter cover for the Georgians and their Hermes 450 TACTICAL UAS (there's a big difference between this 90kt UAS flown by a non-aviator and a Reaper that can fly at 250kts and operated by an experienced aviator).
Absolutely no reaction from the H450 operator. Any experienced combat pilot would have throttled to idle (minimising the IR signature for the IR guided missile) and descended (being a slow speed target in main beam clutter making a radar guided shot tricky). Finally min ranging the weapons opportunities to the MiG driver by breaking towards it.
Sadly I see none of this from the H450 operator (note not pilot) and they just watch the shot coming until it hits them. First rule of air combat is "never ever give up", this joker gave up before the shot was even fired!
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 15th Jan 2011 at 21:02.
Gentleman Aviator
PS. The Tornado was designed for Nuclear QRA and so sitting GCAS is something it is very well suited to!
Oh do keep up old chap. Mr Dow said...
Hence the answer...
Because it was not designed for this task the Tornado necessarily takes much longer to get airborne from alert and has a very poor mission reliability, with many planned missions cancelled every month. This has resulted in the US Air Force having to step in, to ensure that our troops get the support where and when it is needed.
PS. The Tornado was designed for Nuclear QRA and so sitting GCAS is something it is very well suited to!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ
You appeared to be insinuating that the reconnaissance role is something new. I did not state that the DJRP was superior to RAPTOR as it isn't, however for 5 years it provided imagery that was very well received and also will have saved countless lives.
DJRP didn't take up a weapons station.
CRV7 was used very effectively in exactly the same situations as the gun, low collateral, instant response etc.
The average scramble time from pilots in crewroom to wheels up in the Harrier was 12 -15 mins. If Tornado is responding 30% faster then fair play and if you are talking airspeeds then it must be going supersonic?
You appeared to be insinuating that the reconnaissance role is something new. I did not state that the DJRP was superior to RAPTOR as it isn't, however for 5 years it provided imagery that was very well received and also will have saved countless lives.
DJRP didn't take up a weapons station.
CRV7 was used very effectively in exactly the same situations as the gun, low collateral, instant response etc.
The average scramble time from pilots in crewroom to wheels up in the Harrier was 12 -15 mins. If Tornado is responding 30% faster then fair play and if you are talking airspeeds then it must be going supersonic?
Justanopinion
I'm not trying to say that the Harrier has done a bad job it's just that I believe that Mr Dow is wrong in his letter. The Tornado is capable of achieving all of the good work that the Harrier has done prior to retirement from Afghanistan - my points were made to illustrate this.
BTW the way I've made 8 minutes in a Tornado from hooter to take off - the hangar was on the end of the runway though! Plus I'm sure a Harrier would be capable of the same.
Supersonic "yes", although to stay within the RTS you would need to ditch the tanks
LJ
I'm not trying to say that the Harrier has done a bad job it's just that I believe that Mr Dow is wrong in his letter. The Tornado is capable of achieving all of the good work that the Harrier has done prior to retirement from Afghanistan - my points were made to illustrate this.
BTW the way I've made 8 minutes in a Tornado from hooter to take off - the hangar was on the end of the runway though! Plus I'm sure a Harrier would be capable of the same.
Supersonic "yes", although to stay within the RTS you would need to ditch the tanks
LJ
