Sharkey shows his teeth
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This statistic (30-40% of NATO sorties) has been bandied around quite a bit now. I see the daily OUP ATO briefs and although I would not wish to breach OPSEC, the numbers are much lower.
It may be that someone has mixed up a few figures. I'd say that 30-40% of the fast jet sorties that FRANCE PROVIDES TO NATO are from CDG - given that France stumps up something like 30% of the total FJ sorties, that would make the numbers fit with what I see daily.
Of course, the proportions don't count the ISTAR, Tankers, AWACS etc.
It may be that someone has mixed up a few figures. I'd say that 30-40% of the fast jet sorties that FRANCE PROVIDES TO NATO are from CDG - given that France stumps up something like 30% of the total FJ sorties, that would make the numbers fit with what I see daily.
Of course, the proportions don't count the ISTAR, Tankers, AWACS etc.
Originally Posted by Fire 'n' Forget
40% of the sorties off the CDG, tosh........no doubt a 'stat' that fits.
Originally Posted by NATO Source 16 Jun 2011
"The elephant in the room is the imminent departure of the French carrier, given it has been flying 30-40 percent of all NATO strike sorties," said Tim Ripley, of Jane's Defense Weekly.
"It's a looming problem, so sustaining this operation, particularly if it's going to grind past September or October, is going to be a problem."
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LMAO - as they say these days.
FOD - One fact quoted in the press is unassailable because it agrees with your pov (despite someone who knows saying it is bollox) but another fact quoted in the press must be wrong because it doesn't agree with your pov (but you have no first hand knowledge or facts).
I'm trying to stay even handed here but you aren't helping yourself. If I had to guess, not from the current situation but from past experience with the press, I would say that it is almost certain that both "facts" are either wildly inaccurate or just plain wrong. Perhaps if we all stopped using journos as our "sources" it would make the debate a little more professional, not to mention accurate.
FOD - One fact quoted in the press is unassailable because it agrees with your pov (despite someone who knows saying it is bollox) but another fact quoted in the press must be wrong because it doesn't agree with your pov (but you have no first hand knowledge or facts).
I'm trying to stay even handed here but you aren't helping yourself. If I had to guess, not from the current situation but from past experience with the press, I would say that it is almost certain that both "facts" are either wildly inaccurate or just plain wrong. Perhaps if we all stopped using journos as our "sources" it would make the debate a little more professional, not to mention accurate.
Originally Posted by FODPlod
As Seldomfitforpurpose has implied in the 'Decision to axe the Harriers is Bonkers' thread, the story is tosh (link) as is any suggestion that the RAF could "take up the slack" by flying an extra 35 to 40 sorties per day from Gioia del Colle. Aircraft from Charles de Gaulle have been flying 30-40% of the NATO strike missions over Libya.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FODplod, Seldomfitforpurpose is being sarcastic by saying the story is tosh. I think you better re-read his comments. The clue is in the number of smilies with the sticky out tongue at the end of his post.
Well said JAJ, sortie rate is irrelevant if you only get a few minutes in the AOR from the aircraft. Anyway, I do not for one minute believe that the CdG are launching 30-40% of the sorties. I think I'll go with the Occasional Aviator who looks at the ATO briefs.
Well said JAJ, sortie rate is irrelevant if you only get a few minutes in the AOR from the aircraft. Anyway, I do not for one minute believe that the CdG are launching 30-40% of the sorties. I think I'll go with the Occasional Aviator who looks at the ATO briefs.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hampshire
Age: 54
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RN assault continues, I would urge a view of today's Torygraph letters page. The Adm Woodward really has some great ideas.........,perhaps not. For a man the keeps decrying the 3 castles of single service rivalry and back-biting he seems to be chucking a whole load of spears from his battlement....
If someone smarter than I could find a link I'd be most obliged
If someone smarter than I could find a link I'd be most obliged
Originally Posted by johnnypaveway
The RN assault continues, I would urge a view of today's Torygraph letters page. The Adm Woodward really has some great ideas.........,perhaps not. For a man the keeps decrying the 3 castles of single service rivalry and back-biting he seems to be chucking a whole load of spears from his battlement....
If someone smarter than I could find a link I'd be most obliged
If someone smarter than I could find a link I'd be most obliged
DT letters 5 July 2011: Merging Armed Forces
Ouch! Even I think amalgamating the RAF into the RN and the Army is a step too far. There are complementary roles for all three services but the additional availability of carrier air (with RN/RAF aircrew flying a carrier/land capable a/c) would certainly help ameliorate problems like this when, as is usual, other NATO/EU nations fall short of the requirement. In the past, the USA picked up the slack but it doesn't look like it'll be doing this quite so often in future.
Originally Posted by Atlantic Council 16 Jun 2011
From James Blitz and Ana Fifield, the Financial Times: Military experts say one way of gauging the lack of firepower in the Libya operation is to compare it to Nato’s 1999 air war over Kosovo. The Libya operation on Thursday entered its 78th day – exactly the length of time it took for Nato to remove Serbian forces from Kosovo. But Nato has flown only one-third the number of air sorties over Libya that it did over Kosovo – and hit only a fraction of the targets.
“When Robert Gates argues that the mission is under-resourced, you have to agree with that 100 per cent,” says Ben Barry of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. “It is no surprise that the Gaddafi regime is still able to let rip with rockets and artillery. Yet it is hard to see where the extra Nato firepower is going to come from.”
For the US, the blame lies very much with its European allies. Mr Gates has singled out Germany, Poland, Spain, Netherlands and Portugal for having the means to contribute to the Libya operation but refusing to do so. There is particular anguish over the stance taken by Germany and Poland, given that they have a combined 400 combat jets at their disposal.
In France, some figures in the military establishment believe the British could do more. “The UK are not really putting enough assets into Libya,” says a senior French official.
“We are daily putting between 30 and 35 aircraft into the operation but the British are putting in far less.”
...Norway and Denmark, have provided 12% of allied strike aircraft yet have struck about one third of the targets. Belgium and Canada are also making major contributions to the strike mission. These countries have, with their constrained resources, found ways to do the training, buy the equipment, and field the platforms necessary to make a credible military contribution...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the RAF could resurrect the Marine Craft Branch - and take over the Aviation part of the Royal Navy. The RN will have few qualified fixed wing pilots by the time the Carrier comes on line. 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to have a lot of respect for the RN but that is rapidly disappearing. I know they have felt marginalised by Iraq/Afg as they are all about Land and Air (actually all about intelligence which is purple!) but to keep up these ill-informed, vitriolic attacks is getting a little wearing.
As a starter for ten I would suggest that reading the Defence Reform Review which states that the "three single services are the rocks on which defence is built" would be a good start, but of course the retd Admiral flotilla havent read anything about the current military, or they choose to ignore it.
Admiral Woodward's argument is faintly ridiculous. If we looked at current ops impartially rather than through a dark blue lens (and having had a little too much port) using the supported/supporting methodology we would see:
Air supports Land in Afg, Land supports civil effects (political and stabilisation). So we should all be a joint CS organisation.
In Libya Mar is supporting Air (helicopters are air power, whichever badge is on the side) so the RN should be merged into the RAF. In turn this is in support of a rebel Libyan Land component so we should probably merge into the rebel Libyan Army.
These arguments are clearly as ridiculous (although more logical) than Adm Woodward's.
Glad to hear we don't need an air defence as well, we can tell the govt to stand down the 3x QRAs that we have and not to worry, there's no chance of an attack by air ever again.
Lt Col Pender put it very well in his earlier letter:
Personally I'm with Lt Col Pender and the DRR - in many areas we need to be more joint in order to be more efficient with both resources and operational effect but the 3 single services are the way ahead.
The Senior leadership of the RN's blatant attempt to destroy the RAF is contemptible. They are clearly very worried that there is little reason for the FAA to operate F-35 and have instead decided to go down a "rubbish the RAF at every opportunity" route, otherwise their policy of "sell the family silver to pay for the carriers" could end in them being nothing more than a mobile airfield provider for the RAF. The shame!
[Note - I think the RN should have the carriers, but only if it doesn't strip virtually all other naval capability and I think F-35 should be flown by a joint RN/RAF organisation like JFH but with the RN contributing this time.]
As a starter for ten I would suggest that reading the Defence Reform Review which states that the "three single services are the rocks on which defence is built" would be a good start, but of course the retd Admiral flotilla havent read anything about the current military, or they choose to ignore it.
Admiral Woodward's argument is faintly ridiculous. If we looked at current ops impartially rather than through a dark blue lens (and having had a little too much port) using the supported/supporting methodology we would see:
Air supports Land in Afg, Land supports civil effects (political and stabilisation). So we should all be a joint CS organisation.
In Libya Mar is supporting Air (helicopters are air power, whichever badge is on the side) so the RN should be merged into the RAF. In turn this is in support of a rebel Libyan Land component so we should probably merge into the rebel Libyan Army.
These arguments are clearly as ridiculous (although more logical) than Adm Woodward's.
Glad to hear we don't need an air defence as well, we can tell the govt to stand down the 3x QRAs that we have and not to worry, there's no chance of an attack by air ever again.
Lt Col Pender put it very well in his earlier letter:
the disparate nature of sea, air, and land warfare requires distinct career paths that uncontroversially integrate successfully at senior military headquarters and ministerial levels.
This demarcation reinforces a sensible, not overwhelming, distinctiveness of each Service, and recognises the deep human elements that make for success in battle.
This demarcation reinforces a sensible, not overwhelming, distinctiveness of each Service, and recognises the deep human elements that make for success in battle.
The Senior leadership of the RN's blatant attempt to destroy the RAF is contemptible. They are clearly very worried that there is little reason for the FAA to operate F-35 and have instead decided to go down a "rubbish the RAF at every opportunity" route, otherwise their policy of "sell the family silver to pay for the carriers" could end in them being nothing more than a mobile airfield provider for the RAF. The shame!
[Note - I think the RN should have the carriers, but only if it doesn't strip virtually all other naval capability and I think F-35 should be flown by a joint RN/RAF organisation like JFH but with the RN contributing this time.]
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adm Woodward and Lt Cdr Ward! Last battle fought by these 2 devout sailors was the Falklands almost 30 years ago!
Ignore 'em, they're dyed in the wool and well past their sell by!
Foldie
Ignore 'em, they're dyed in the wool and well past their sell by!
Foldie
Last edited by foldingwings; 6th Jul 2011 at 06:57. Reason: Thanks AP, slip of the pen but then I always believe the what the police tell me in court! Means the crims don't get off easily!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cant be @rsed registering for the FT Trial, but I guess his article is along the lines of:
Harrier Harrier Blah Blah
Boat Boat Blah Blah
Beards Beards Blah Blah
Did I miss anything?
Harrier Harrier Blah Blah
Boat Boat Blah Blah
Beards Beards Blah Blah
Did I miss anything?
Thread Starter
You've got the idea. Full text below:
A Harrier can be on task within 30 minutes of a call - FT.com
From Cmdr Nigel D. MacCartan-Ward.
Sir, With reference to your editorial “Careless talk and UK military” (June 27): it is unfortunate that you should offer an opinion on the capabilities of the aircraft carrier and the Harrier jet and their relevance to the Libya campaign without getting your facts straight.
Indeed, your facts concerning land-based air (Royal Air Force) and sea-based air (Harrier) are diametrically in error.
Launched from a carrier, the Harrier has at least as good firepower as the Tornado and can be on task delivering weapons within 30 minutes of a call for urgent support from ground forces. In stark contrast, the Tornado and other land-based aircraft operating from Italy have a transit time of 1.5 hours to get to the target and require air-to-air refuelling. Further, these land-based aircraft insist on having 24 hours’ notice for close air support missions in support of ground forces.
This major delay puts lives at risk; not just in Libya but also in Afghanistan, where the same appalling procedural practices are employed.
Sharkey Ward,
St George’s, Grenada
Commander, Royal Navy (retd)
A Harrier can be on task within 30 minutes of a call - FT.com
From Cmdr Nigel D. MacCartan-Ward.
Sir, With reference to your editorial “Careless talk and UK military” (June 27): it is unfortunate that you should offer an opinion on the capabilities of the aircraft carrier and the Harrier jet and their relevance to the Libya campaign without getting your facts straight.
Indeed, your facts concerning land-based air (Royal Air Force) and sea-based air (Harrier) are diametrically in error.
Launched from a carrier, the Harrier has at least as good firepower as the Tornado and can be on task delivering weapons within 30 minutes of a call for urgent support from ground forces. In stark contrast, the Tornado and other land-based aircraft operating from Italy have a transit time of 1.5 hours to get to the target and require air-to-air refuelling. Further, these land-based aircraft insist on having 24 hours’ notice for close air support missions in support of ground forces.
This major delay puts lives at risk; not just in Libya but also in Afghanistan, where the same appalling procedural practices are employed.
Sharkey Ward,
St George’s, Grenada
Commander, Royal Navy (retd)
I cant be @rsed registering for the FT Trial, but I guess his article is along the lines of:
Harrier Harrier Blah Blah
Boat Boat Blah Blah
Beards Beards Blah Blah
Did I miss anything?
Harrier Harrier Blah Blah
Boat Boat Blah Blah
Beards Beards Blah Blah
Did I miss anything?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HARRIER weaknesses
For all you know there may be safety cases lurking in the background over the Harrier, just like the MR4A.
Like one single wire from the bottom of the stick to the pfcu for starters, past fan. turbines, feeder tank, cold/hot nozzles and routed through amazingly crammed avionics bays. One single control wire. I can't think of another recent/current RAF fighter/bomber that has NIL redundancy in it's flying controls.....
Like one single wire from the bottom of the stick to the pfcu for starters, past fan. turbines, feeder tank, cold/hot nozzles and routed through amazingly crammed avionics bays. One single control wire. I can't think of another recent/current RAF fighter/bomber that has NIL redundancy in it's flying controls.....
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad Rag,
Sorry but you are off beam here. Yes, the Harrier has a single control run (actually two wires) from stick to PFCU. Much like very other combat jet I know of that have a single cable/rod run to the PFCUs. (same for ailerons and rudder as well, same for nozzle control, same for throttle box), Duplicating rods/cables is a genuine rarity in a combat jet. Single cable/rod runs are actually the norm. That's one reason why why fly by wire was so attractive in the first place, as it offers an easier way to duplicate (or triplicate) control runs.
The Harrier has an extant and thoroughly verified safety case that stands favourable comparison against any other single engined aircraft. Yes, powered lift adds other failure modes, but the very good design of those systems minimised the risks of loss and injury to aircrew. Moreover, all those aircrew who survived low level/slow ejections can be grateful to the Harrier, which drove the original development of a true 'zero/zero' seat.
Diss the jet all you want, it's a free country. Just get the facts right.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Sorry but you are off beam here. Yes, the Harrier has a single control run (actually two wires) from stick to PFCU. Much like very other combat jet I know of that have a single cable/rod run to the PFCUs. (same for ailerons and rudder as well, same for nozzle control, same for throttle box), Duplicating rods/cables is a genuine rarity in a combat jet. Single cable/rod runs are actually the norm. That's one reason why why fly by wire was so attractive in the first place, as it offers an easier way to duplicate (or triplicate) control runs.
The Harrier has an extant and thoroughly verified safety case that stands favourable comparison against any other single engined aircraft. Yes, powered lift adds other failure modes, but the very good design of those systems minimised the risks of loss and injury to aircrew. Moreover, all those aircrew who survived low level/slow ejections can be grateful to the Harrier, which drove the original development of a true 'zero/zero' seat.
Diss the jet all you want, it's a free country. Just get the facts right.
Best Regards as ever
Engines