The Shar Decision - Questioning "Their Lordships"`
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reasons why the Nimrod is useless at Anti Submarine Warfare are down to the laws of physics.
Consider a Nimrod flying along at 200 feet. It fires a sonabouy out the back into the sea. These things are pretty heavy and by the time it hits the water we're talking about a lot of kinetic energy here.
The submarine CAN HEAR the sonabuoy hitting the water with its sonar, and calls a 'splashdrop'. Not only that, but it can also get a range in yards and a bearing to the sonabuoy.
Its not rocket science....!
Consider a Nimrod flying along at 200 feet. It fires a sonabouy out the back into the sea. These things are pretty heavy and by the time it hits the water we're talking about a lot of kinetic energy here.
The submarine CAN HEAR the sonabuoy hitting the water with its sonar, and calls a 'splashdrop'. Not only that, but it can also get a range in yards and a bearing to the sonabuoy.
Its not rocket science....!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alibi
I don't know where you get your info from but it is not as simple as all that. A submarine at slow speed will always have an advantage but at higher speeds it becomes blind and probably won't hear a sonobuoy hit the water. Also the buoys aren't that heavy and they are slowed down by paravanes, don't see many sycamore seeds hitting the floor with a big thud!! Anyway during wartime we would only be in the business of tracking a submarine for as long as it would take to get a weapon on it, ROE allowing! ASW isn't just about passive accoustics there are many more ways to skin the cat.
Finally as all of us in the nimrod world have been trying to say the Nimrod isn't just an ASW platform. That is just one of its many roles.
Nuff said! (please)
I don't know where you get your info from but it is not as simple as all that. A submarine at slow speed will always have an advantage but at higher speeds it becomes blind and probably won't hear a sonobuoy hit the water. Also the buoys aren't that heavy and they are slowed down by paravanes, don't see many sycamore seeds hitting the floor with a big thud!! Anyway during wartime we would only be in the business of tracking a submarine for as long as it would take to get a weapon on it, ROE allowing! ASW isn't just about passive accoustics there are many more ways to skin the cat.
Finally as all of us in the nimrod world have been trying to say the Nimrod isn't just an ASW platform. That is just one of its many roles.
Nuff said! (please)
You chaps like to pipe in about our defense matters..so here goes
Jacko
I agree that the emphasis is no longer on the sea lanes and now focused on the littorals. That being agreed upon, you profer that it is cheaper to deploy a squadron of FJ's as opposed to firing up the boat and sailing. Again we agree on the facts of the statement but differ on its value. What has greater staying power? When do you stop counting in money and start counting in flesh. Placing a squadron of jets in a host country(along with the logistical tail) exposes you to political whims of that country.
With ethnic groups not contained by borders, political support for action in a third country may be subject to differing political views and objectives. Types of mil ops may be limited by political pressure to non combat, SAR type ops, logistics, etc.(sound familier?)
Staying power requires you to bring your airport on the roof of your house. Time and again you retreat to fiscal considerations.
Instead, think of a cost to benefit analysis weighted in blood instead of pounds. What provides you with the best chance for victory. Go big, go smart or stay home in times of war, if only I could get my own government to understand this.
Jacko
I agree that the emphasis is no longer on the sea lanes and now focused on the littorals. That being agreed upon, you profer that it is cheaper to deploy a squadron of FJ's as opposed to firing up the boat and sailing. Again we agree on the facts of the statement but differ on its value. What has greater staying power? When do you stop counting in money and start counting in flesh. Placing a squadron of jets in a host country(along with the logistical tail) exposes you to political whims of that country.
With ethnic groups not contained by borders, political support for action in a third country may be subject to differing political views and objectives. Types of mil ops may be limited by political pressure to non combat, SAR type ops, logistics, etc.(sound familier?)
Staying power requires you to bring your airport on the roof of your house. Time and again you retreat to fiscal considerations.
Instead, think of a cost to benefit analysis weighted in blood instead of pounds. What provides you with the best chance for victory. Go big, go smart or stay home in times of war, if only I could get my own government to understand this.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Caribbean
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Response to the Nimrod boys et al
Ppruners all and “light blue” proponents in particular!
It would appear that, on the face of some of your reactions, a number amongst you believe that the ongoing £2.4 billion update for the Nimrod is money well spent. Privately, I can only surmise that, at over £100 million per aircraft, there must have been serious operational problems to overcome – otherwise the update could not have been justified. (QED)
In the light of past erroneous claims by the Air Staff concerning the warfighting effectiveness of various AFD air weapons systems, I remain hard to convince. Please allow me to explain my doubts with a couple of anecdotal remarks.
1. In the late seventies/early eighties, the JP233 weapon system cost the nation in excess of £10 billion (R & D). Why it was approved is because the AFD stated that it was going to be a viable weapon system against the Warsaw Pact. To some of us professionals, it was clear then and it is clear now that the proposed low-level delivery profile against WP airfields would have spelt certain death for the Tornado GA boys – and for supporting tanker crews – probably well before they had reached their targets. This view was, in the main, substantiated when JP233 was used in anger for the first time against the very much less capable Iraqis who had far less sophisticated ground-to-air defences than those of the WP. The weapon proved a miserable failure – leading to the downing, capture and degradation of several “caterpillar club” aircrew. All in all, it must be seen as an ill-advised weapon system that was approved by Ministers on the very strong but blatantly misguided assurances of the Air Staff.
2. The Nimrod MR1 was unquestionably ineffective as an ASW weapons platform at least up to the mid eighties. During this era of its early operational impotency, the Air Staff continued to proclaim it as “an effective ASW weapons system”; so “good” was it that they were actually telling Ministers that the Fleet no longer needed ASW frigates or helicopters – “the MR1 could do the job instead”. Now, unless a magic wand had been waved to make the MR1 effective (and there is no such wand available), one may only class this as a dangerously ill-advised deception by those at the top. One might even describe it as a very large “porky”.
3. . The Minister for the Armed Forces recently stated in the House that the Tornado F3 is fully operational and is fitted with AMRAAM – implying that the F3/AMRAAM system is fully operationally effective. The House also heard from Ingram that F3 update costs were not yet available – then in almost the same breath, it was admitted that the present update would cost about £120 million. (Which one do we believe?) By chance, this figure approximates to “what will be saved by withdrawing the Sea Harrier FA2 from service early”. What is the logic behind losing the best BVR capable fighter in Britain’s inventory, the FA2, and basing one’s hopes on “a song and a prayer” that will not be easily deployable? On the face of it, and in the light of the Government’s stated Defence Policy (expeditionary force operations without prepositioning; minimal air threat to the UK; minimal submarine threat in UK waters), we appear to have a few ultra expensive “white elephants” here that consume a large share of the Defence Budget without either,
a. having a significant operational role under the new DP, or,
b. without having the capability to meet that role if it was pertinent to the DP task”.
What of the next British expeditionary force that has to act independently of US Naval Air Power (do note the word, ‘Naval’)? Who will provide air defence for the Task Force ships, amphibious forces or our Land Forces ashore?
Certainly not the land-based Tornado F3 with its many limitations!
Certainly not the land-based Eurofighter with its yet to be developed BVRAAM weapon system!
And certainly not the land-based Nimrod! Supporting the Fleet for just a fraction of its transit time to a trouble spot is just not acceptable – when you guys go back to your digs, the front line carries on with the war.
There is no magic expertise being applied here – just common sense, physics, aerodynamics and a recognition of Government Defence Policy.
“Come back” if you wish – but don’t expect a reply if you revert to emotional and rather uncalled for outbursts/personal attack – that only convinces me that I have a point!
(And, yes! If the New York Police Department can hide its failures/shortfalls using the infamous “code of silence”, why not the RAF?)
AWI.
Edited upon advisement from a reliable source for legal reasons. Admin.
It would appear that, on the face of some of your reactions, a number amongst you believe that the ongoing £2.4 billion update for the Nimrod is money well spent. Privately, I can only surmise that, at over £100 million per aircraft, there must have been serious operational problems to overcome – otherwise the update could not have been justified. (QED)
In the light of past erroneous claims by the Air Staff concerning the warfighting effectiveness of various AFD air weapons systems, I remain hard to convince. Please allow me to explain my doubts with a couple of anecdotal remarks.
1. In the late seventies/early eighties, the JP233 weapon system cost the nation in excess of £10 billion (R & D). Why it was approved is because the AFD stated that it was going to be a viable weapon system against the Warsaw Pact. To some of us professionals, it was clear then and it is clear now that the proposed low-level delivery profile against WP airfields would have spelt certain death for the Tornado GA boys – and for supporting tanker crews – probably well before they had reached their targets. This view was, in the main, substantiated when JP233 was used in anger for the first time against the very much less capable Iraqis who had far less sophisticated ground-to-air defences than those of the WP. The weapon proved a miserable failure – leading to the downing, capture and degradation of several “caterpillar club” aircrew. All in all, it must be seen as an ill-advised weapon system that was approved by Ministers on the very strong but blatantly misguided assurances of the Air Staff.
2. The Nimrod MR1 was unquestionably ineffective as an ASW weapons platform at least up to the mid eighties. During this era of its early operational impotency, the Air Staff continued to proclaim it as “an effective ASW weapons system”; so “good” was it that they were actually telling Ministers that the Fleet no longer needed ASW frigates or helicopters – “the MR1 could do the job instead”. Now, unless a magic wand had been waved to make the MR1 effective (and there is no such wand available), one may only class this as a dangerously ill-advised deception by those at the top. One might even describe it as a very large “porky”.
3. . The Minister for the Armed Forces recently stated in the House that the Tornado F3 is fully operational and is fitted with AMRAAM – implying that the F3/AMRAAM system is fully operationally effective. The House also heard from Ingram that F3 update costs were not yet available – then in almost the same breath, it was admitted that the present update would cost about £120 million. (Which one do we believe?) By chance, this figure approximates to “what will be saved by withdrawing the Sea Harrier FA2 from service early”. What is the logic behind losing the best BVR capable fighter in Britain’s inventory, the FA2, and basing one’s hopes on “a song and a prayer” that will not be easily deployable? On the face of it, and in the light of the Government’s stated Defence Policy (expeditionary force operations without prepositioning; minimal air threat to the UK; minimal submarine threat in UK waters), we appear to have a few ultra expensive “white elephants” here that consume a large share of the Defence Budget without either,
a. having a significant operational role under the new DP, or,
b. without having the capability to meet that role if it was pertinent to the DP task”.
What of the next British expeditionary force that has to act independently of US Naval Air Power (do note the word, ‘Naval’)? Who will provide air defence for the Task Force ships, amphibious forces or our Land Forces ashore?
Certainly not the land-based Tornado F3 with its many limitations!
Certainly not the land-based Eurofighter with its yet to be developed BVRAAM weapon system!
And certainly not the land-based Nimrod! Supporting the Fleet for just a fraction of its transit time to a trouble spot is just not acceptable – when you guys go back to your digs, the front line carries on with the war.
There is no magic expertise being applied here – just common sense, physics, aerodynamics and a recognition of Government Defence Policy.
“Come back” if you wish – but don’t expect a reply if you revert to emotional and rather uncalled for outbursts/personal attack – that only convinces me that I have a point!
(And, yes! If the New York Police Department can hide its failures/shortfalls using the infamous “code of silence”, why not the RAF?)
AWI.
Edited upon advisement from a reliable source for legal reasons. Admin.
Last edited by Capt PPRuNe; 15th Jun 2002 at 00:08.
Alpha,
I knew you were misguided, but not that you were either deliberately prevaricating or deluded, or a fool. Just to set the record straight, I'd challenge four of your glib arguments.
1) JP233. Loss rates when using it were very low - only one of six RAF Tornados lost in action during Granby was on a JP233 mission and that was hit by a SAM while outbound, well outside the target area, having achieved its objective. Of the other four lost at low level two were lofting 'dumb' 1,000-lb bombs (the profile that your precious FA.Mk 2s would have used under the same circumstances) and one was downed by the premature explosion of its own bombs when these 'bumped' on release.
It was hardly the "miserable failure" which you aver, and one which did not "lead to the downing, capture and degradation of several “caterpillar club” aircrew". In fact two aircrew Flt Lt David W and Flt Lt Robert Stuart were captured, but (uniquely as Iraqi PoWs) according to official accounts were 'treated well in an Iraqi hospital' before being repatriated. Oh yes, and the Russians feared it, and it drove the GSFG drive to the establishment of highway strips co-located with most of the main airfields in East Germany.
2) Nimrod. a) don't bore me with your ill-founded nonsense about the MR.Mk 1, which has been adequately countered here and elsewhere. b) your allegations about MR1 are as factually inaccurate as those about JP233 c) you ignore the MR2 and d) most of the cost of MRA 4 will improve the aircraft's capability in other areas and roles (eg Storm Shadow).
3) Tornado. You are out of date and inaccurate about F3's current capability, as has been hinted at on these fora by current F3 aircrew, who one might expect to be rather more 'up to speed' than a super-annuated ex RN pilot who is lounging around in the sun (perhaps you should wear a hat?). The F3 was 'held back' in Desert Storm because of others (including F-14 aircrew) aver that the reason was a desire to maintain a USAF kill monopoly. The F3 is not agile. The F3 lacks thrust at medium level. But the radar is very good, and with JTIDS and a back-seater the aircraft's BVR capability is respectable enough. Repeating your nonsense does not make it any closer to the truth.
You claim to be "one of that strange breed that wants operationally and cost-effective weapon systems for Britain" yet you denigrate the Jaguar (cost effective if nothing else), ignore the F3's multi-role and SEAD potential and yet harp on and on about single-role Sea Harriers and Carriers (gold plated and highly expensive solutions).
4) Eurofighter's costs are transparent and are available easily from the NAO. £61 m apiece including R&D, £42 m without. Not £93 m.
Westy,
You make good points, as ever, but have the advantage of being from a country which CAN AFFORD carrier air power (which we cannot) and which is used to carrying out sustained operations where carriers may enjoy some of the advantages you claim. Fast Jet squadron deployments suit our pocket and more short term approach rather better.
JN
Edited upon advisement by a reliable source for legal reasons. Admin
I knew you were misguided, but not that you were either deliberately prevaricating or deluded, or a fool. Just to set the record straight, I'd challenge four of your glib arguments.
1) JP233. Loss rates when using it were very low - only one of six RAF Tornados lost in action during Granby was on a JP233 mission and that was hit by a SAM while outbound, well outside the target area, having achieved its objective. Of the other four lost at low level two were lofting 'dumb' 1,000-lb bombs (the profile that your precious FA.Mk 2s would have used under the same circumstances) and one was downed by the premature explosion of its own bombs when these 'bumped' on release.
It was hardly the "miserable failure" which you aver, and one which did not "lead to the downing, capture and degradation of several “caterpillar club” aircrew". In fact two aircrew Flt Lt David W and Flt Lt Robert Stuart were captured, but (uniquely as Iraqi PoWs) according to official accounts were 'treated well in an Iraqi hospital' before being repatriated. Oh yes, and the Russians feared it, and it drove the GSFG drive to the establishment of highway strips co-located with most of the main airfields in East Germany.
2) Nimrod. a) don't bore me with your ill-founded nonsense about the MR.Mk 1, which has been adequately countered here and elsewhere. b) your allegations about MR1 are as factually inaccurate as those about JP233 c) you ignore the MR2 and d) most of the cost of MRA 4 will improve the aircraft's capability in other areas and roles (eg Storm Shadow).
3) Tornado. You are out of date and inaccurate about F3's current capability, as has been hinted at on these fora by current F3 aircrew, who one might expect to be rather more 'up to speed' than a super-annuated ex RN pilot who is lounging around in the sun (perhaps you should wear a hat?). The F3 was 'held back' in Desert Storm because of others (including F-14 aircrew) aver that the reason was a desire to maintain a USAF kill monopoly. The F3 is not agile. The F3 lacks thrust at medium level. But the radar is very good, and with JTIDS and a back-seater the aircraft's BVR capability is respectable enough. Repeating your nonsense does not make it any closer to the truth.
You claim to be "one of that strange breed that wants operationally and cost-effective weapon systems for Britain" yet you denigrate the Jaguar (cost effective if nothing else), ignore the F3's multi-role and SEAD potential and yet harp on and on about single-role Sea Harriers and Carriers (gold plated and highly expensive solutions).
4) Eurofighter's costs are transparent and are available easily from the NAO. £61 m apiece including R&D, £42 m without. Not £93 m.
Westy,
You make good points, as ever, but have the advantage of being from a country which CAN AFFORD carrier air power (which we cannot) and which is used to carrying out sustained operations where carriers may enjoy some of the advantages you claim. Fast Jet squadron deployments suit our pocket and more short term approach rather better.
JN
Edited upon advisement by a reliable source for legal reasons. Admin
Last edited by Capt PPRuNe; 15th Jun 2002 at 00:11.
Alphaleaderuk
It would appear that your "beef" is with the entire RAF, or at least the Air Force Board, and their apparent conspiracy to do away with the RN! Not too sure about that, way above my pay scale. I must at this stage admit to being light blue, I also have a very small brain - but heres a thought or two.
One of your arguements for doing away with the Nimrod is the stated low risk of hostile submarines in UK waters, not quite sure how that lines up with the predominant ASW role of the RN. I am no expert on the maritime world, just have a general servicewide grasp of such matters. However, how would you answer the question "DOES THE UK REQUIRE EFFECTIVE ASW FORCES?".
If your answer is yes, then provided the Nimrod is effective in ASW it has a role to play in the UKs armed forces. (The Nimrod boys on this thread all seem to be saying the MR2 is at least as effective as ASW helos, the MRA4 will be better still - AND THE NIMROD DOES A LOT MORE THAN ASW!!). If your answer is no then as well as doing away with the Nimrod (ignoring its other roles!) we can also do away with Merlin helos, Towed array frigates, and the ASW carriers that carry lots of ASW helos and your shiny Sea Harriers!
Personally I think the MRA4 should become the closest UK equivalent of the B-52, carrying shed loads of smart ordinance for use in a variety of different conflicts. (Yes I read Tom Clancy) It should have lots of loiter time, throw weight etc, all those good buzz words. The future is in smart long range weapons on more general purpose aircraft - converted biz jets would probably do. Maybe BEagles A400s could do it as a secondary role!!!??? But the Air Force Board won't wear that because they would probably have to give up some of their Tonkas in exchange - now that is a conspiracy for you!!
It would appear that your "beef" is with the entire RAF, or at least the Air Force Board, and their apparent conspiracy to do away with the RN! Not too sure about that, way above my pay scale. I must at this stage admit to being light blue, I also have a very small brain - but heres a thought or two.
One of your arguements for doing away with the Nimrod is the stated low risk of hostile submarines in UK waters, not quite sure how that lines up with the predominant ASW role of the RN. I am no expert on the maritime world, just have a general servicewide grasp of such matters. However, how would you answer the question "DOES THE UK REQUIRE EFFECTIVE ASW FORCES?".
If your answer is yes, then provided the Nimrod is effective in ASW it has a role to play in the UKs armed forces. (The Nimrod boys on this thread all seem to be saying the MR2 is at least as effective as ASW helos, the MRA4 will be better still - AND THE NIMROD DOES A LOT MORE THAN ASW!!). If your answer is no then as well as doing away with the Nimrod (ignoring its other roles!) we can also do away with Merlin helos, Towed array frigates, and the ASW carriers that carry lots of ASW helos and your shiny Sea Harriers!
Personally I think the MRA4 should become the closest UK equivalent of the B-52, carrying shed loads of smart ordinance for use in a variety of different conflicts. (Yes I read Tom Clancy) It should have lots of loiter time, throw weight etc, all those good buzz words. The future is in smart long range weapons on more general purpose aircraft - converted biz jets would probably do. Maybe BEagles A400s could do it as a secondary role!!!??? But the Air Force Board won't wear that because they would probably have to give up some of their Tonkas in exchange - now that is a conspiracy for you!!
So if we go with stuffing the Nimrods with missiles, then could that to some extent replace one of the other classes of aircraft? As the long-range strike stuff would be done by cruise missiles fired from MR4As, wouldn't that affect the GR4's role? Or is that c**p? It certainly fits with the general philosophy of expeditionary forces, mobility and the like.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the shar
what you must remember about the navy is that the navy is all about ships! this may come as a shock to navy aircrew but when it come to making cuts they will cut aviation first its as simple as that. surely the time has come to put all aviation under raf control? after all the raf was formed as an amalgamation of the navy and army.
"So if we go with stuffing the Nimrods with missiles, then could that to some extent replace one of the other classes of aircraft?"
Or replace Tomahawk carrying submarines?
Rather than disbanding the RAF why not re-introduce the RAF Marine Branch and put all RN assets under AFB control?
Or replace Tomahawk carrying submarines?
Rather than disbanding the RAF why not re-introduce the RAF Marine Branch and put all RN assets under AFB control?
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that there's a good deal of wilful ignorance of the basics of this argument here, in favour of single-service, or even single-aircraft side issues.
The UK Government, rightly or wrongly, has decided that its Services will, within the constraints of the Defence Budget, arrange themselves to be capable of, and ready for, expeditionary warfare. Fundamental to that capability (in the Government's view) is the Navy's ability to project carrier groups to areas of foreign-policy interest.
It is surely, then, totally illogical for the Government to now announce that those carrier groups will be denied the only airborne air defence assets they can currently rely on? It is irrelevant what other capabilities might or might not be sacrificed to keep the carrier-borne AD assets. It is certainly not helpful to use the argument as a cover to attack other branches and resources of the Services.
If this capability is genuinely useful and desirable, then the case should be made for its retention - and for the provision of extra funds to do so if necessary. It should not be the cause of a 'turf war' between the stormtroopers of the various interest-groups within the armed forces.
We are, I believe, all on the same side. Aren't we?
The UK Government, rightly or wrongly, has decided that its Services will, within the constraints of the Defence Budget, arrange themselves to be capable of, and ready for, expeditionary warfare. Fundamental to that capability (in the Government's view) is the Navy's ability to project carrier groups to areas of foreign-policy interest.
It is surely, then, totally illogical for the Government to now announce that those carrier groups will be denied the only airborne air defence assets they can currently rely on? It is irrelevant what other capabilities might or might not be sacrificed to keep the carrier-borne AD assets. It is certainly not helpful to use the argument as a cover to attack other branches and resources of the Services.
If this capability is genuinely useful and desirable, then the case should be made for its retention - and for the provision of extra funds to do so if necessary. It should not be the cause of a 'turf war' between the stormtroopers of the various interest-groups within the armed forces.
We are, I believe, all on the same side. Aren't we?
It isn't policy to do any of these things autonomously, without allied support. If it was then we'd need adequate SEAD of our own and an F-15 class air superiority fighter every time we deploy a GR4, a Harrier or a Jag. Instead we rely on the Spams or the Dutch or whoever for fighters, and on the Germans and Spams for SEAD. It's not ideal, it 'goes against the grain' but it works.
In just the same way, in those rare circumstances where we need Fleet Air Defence, we'll expect to get it from our Allies. Not an ideal solution, but it's only a capability gap, pending introduction of FCBA, anyway. And if we had to get rid of one frontline fast jet type, Sea Harrier was the one to lose. It's a shame, and we'd be better off keeping it, but that's not an option, financially.
Simple as that.
In just the same way, in those rare circumstances where we need Fleet Air Defence, we'll expect to get it from our Allies. Not an ideal solution, but it's only a capability gap, pending introduction of FCBA, anyway. And if we had to get rid of one frontline fast jet type, Sea Harrier was the one to lose. It's a shame, and we'd be better off keeping it, but that's not an option, financially.
Simple as that.
Despite my problems, my commitment to the RN and to the Crown continues....
From the Daily Telegraph
The Government did not consult Britain's closest military allies or Nato about its plans to axe the Fleet Air Arm's Sea Harriers, the Ministry of Defence has admitted.
Ministers have argued that from 2006, when the Harriers are due to be withdrawn in a cost-cutting measure, the Navy would be able to dispatch a task force with air defence provided by a "coalition" aircraft carrier.
But the MoD has now admitted, after questioning by Tory MPs, that no advance discussions were held with America, France, Spain, Italy and Germany before the decision was announced on Feb 28.
Neither were discussions held with Lord Robertson, the Nato secretary general, Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces minister, said in a Commons written reply.
The decision to withdraw what the Navy regards as Britain's best all-weather fighter is known to have caused alarm among senior officers of the US Navy and US Air Force.
Without the Sea Harriers, the Navy could not unilaterally deploy a task force from 2006 until at least 2012 when the planned new Anglo-American Joint Strike Fighter is introduced.
Ministers have argued that they cannot envisage Britain participating in any military action between 2006 and 2012 when the Navy would not be acting in partnership with allies.
But Mr Ingram admitted the MoD had kept its close allies in the dark about the decision and they would be informed officially only in Britain's annual submission to the Nato defence planning questionnaire.
From the Daily Telegraph
The Government did not consult Britain's closest military allies or Nato about its plans to axe the Fleet Air Arm's Sea Harriers, the Ministry of Defence has admitted.
Ministers have argued that from 2006, when the Harriers are due to be withdrawn in a cost-cutting measure, the Navy would be able to dispatch a task force with air defence provided by a "coalition" aircraft carrier.
But the MoD has now admitted, after questioning by Tory MPs, that no advance discussions were held with America, France, Spain, Italy and Germany before the decision was announced on Feb 28.
Neither were discussions held with Lord Robertson, the Nato secretary general, Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces minister, said in a Commons written reply.
The decision to withdraw what the Navy regards as Britain's best all-weather fighter is known to have caused alarm among senior officers of the US Navy and US Air Force.
Without the Sea Harriers, the Navy could not unilaterally deploy a task force from 2006 until at least 2012 when the planned new Anglo-American Joint Strike Fighter is introduced.
Ministers have argued that they cannot envisage Britain participating in any military action between 2006 and 2012 when the Navy would not be acting in partnership with allies.
But Mr Ingram admitted the MoD had kept its close allies in the dark about the decision and they would be informed officially only in Britain's annual submission to the Nato defence planning questionnaire.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 24th Jun 2002 at 22:23.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This pissing contest between Nimrod/Tornado etc is rather missing the point and I think that the dark blue do themselves no favours every time they suggest an RAF asset is scrapped in favour of a naval one. As a light blue bod, I am alarmed by the govts comment that it can not envisage going sausage side after 2006 without some form of air cover ie US. We suffer under a govt who is famous for sending us away sans gucci kit but this takes the buscuit. The Sea Harrier is an integral part of layered defence for the Fleet. I don't want to be deployed on a ship that is simply defending itself with missiles or cannon. This is the govt trying to take the forces back to the dark ages.
I agree totally High Spirits.
The letters/postings I have written have made this point. As you may know my career has suffered something of a disaster lately, but I still feel loyalty and commitment to service, nation and Crown.
My long letter on the SHAR Wars thread explored some of the problems of relying entirely on ship based defences. Or other peoples' air defence assets. Particulary when you consider that none of our allies have been consulted.
Cutting one asset to spend the money on another (which, basically, is what has happened to the Sea Harrier) is like not buying a hammer for your new tool kit so you can buy an extra spanner.
The letters/postings I have written have made this point. As you may know my career has suffered something of a disaster lately, but I still feel loyalty and commitment to service, nation and Crown.
My long letter on the SHAR Wars thread explored some of the problems of relying entirely on ship based defences. Or other peoples' air defence assets. Particulary when you consider that none of our allies have been consulted.
Cutting one asset to spend the money on another (which, basically, is what has happened to the Sea Harrier) is like not buying a hammer for your new tool kit so you can buy an extra spanner.
Yes, WEBF, but if experience shows that you use your toolkit only for working on your car, maybe the extra spanner is what you need - specially since a brand new hammer is already on order and you can borrow the neighbours in the interim.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus - your understanding of the RN's role is about a decade out of date. I trust you have not had time to read about British Defence Policy of late because you have had your head stuck in your aircrafts TACMAN and your FRC's lately.
When I first saw this post I thought "Wow people are making a stand against the appaling decision". However as usual it has developed into nothing more than an RN v RAF slanging match.
So perhaps its time to state some objective facts:
1. FA2 = best AD aircraft in UK inventory.
2. F3 = Red Air Mig 23 simulator for rest of NATO (takes two to fly it versus the former Warsaw pacts one).
3. No ASW threat to UK waters. Those who know anything about ASW will tell you anout 75% of submarine detections are made visually, by lookouts on ships or by helo crews. I cant remember one exercise where any MPA has made the initial detection. And the best thing to counter a submarine is another submarine. The RN has some quite good ones, and the best submariners in the world inside them.
4. Nimrod is a good ASuW assett. Its speed, loiter time, radar and comms fit is excellent for this role. Lets keep some for this job. But not spend £100 million per aircraft on the off chance of getting a detection when someone looks out of the galley window.
5. If we want to talk about efficiencies (those who sing this as the Jaguars strength) lets look at the big picture. The RAF has 3 aircraft types doing the same role. I dont even think the USAF has this luxury! Multi role is the only way to go.
6. All this is pointless anyway - the ministers will never go back on their decision. Those who stay better start keeping their fingers crossed and looking for lucky charms. Because if I worked in long term plans in Argentine military I would be looking at what I might be capable of doing in about 2007/8. Gives me a nice run in to train and procure.... Those who dont stay, see you in the airlines.
When I first saw this post I thought "Wow people are making a stand against the appaling decision". However as usual it has developed into nothing more than an RN v RAF slanging match.
So perhaps its time to state some objective facts:
1. FA2 = best AD aircraft in UK inventory.
2. F3 = Red Air Mig 23 simulator for rest of NATO (takes two to fly it versus the former Warsaw pacts one).
3. No ASW threat to UK waters. Those who know anything about ASW will tell you anout 75% of submarine detections are made visually, by lookouts on ships or by helo crews. I cant remember one exercise where any MPA has made the initial detection. And the best thing to counter a submarine is another submarine. The RN has some quite good ones, and the best submariners in the world inside them.
4. Nimrod is a good ASuW assett. Its speed, loiter time, radar and comms fit is excellent for this role. Lets keep some for this job. But not spend £100 million per aircraft on the off chance of getting a detection when someone looks out of the galley window.
5. If we want to talk about efficiencies (those who sing this as the Jaguars strength) lets look at the big picture. The RAF has 3 aircraft types doing the same role. I dont even think the USAF has this luxury! Multi role is the only way to go.
6. All this is pointless anyway - the ministers will never go back on their decision. Those who stay better start keeping their fingers crossed and looking for lucky charms. Because if I worked in long term plans in Argentine military I would be looking at what I might be capable of doing in about 2007/8. Gives me a nice run in to train and procure.... Those who dont stay, see you in the airlines.
Timzsta
Thank you for your reply, as I told you I have a very small brain, and am more than willing to listen and be informed. As I said my knowledge of maritime is limited - all I was trying to do was point out what I considered was an illogical arguement by Alphaleaderuk reference the Nimrod and the UKs requirement for ASW assets.
I am not an air defender either, but for what it is worth my opinion is that with its potent mixture of radar and weapons the Shar IS THE BEST AIR DEFENCE AIRCRAFT THE UK HAS! My knowledge of the RN and its capabilitys is general, but I believed - rightly or wrongly - it was largely slanted towards ASW, with the Type 23/Merlin combination forming over half the surface assets. This opinion may well be wrong - I am more than willing to be re-educated. Perhaps I should go away and do some research before I dare to post again! I have not had time to read about British Defence Policy of late because I have been too busy doing my job in an overstretched and undermanned part of the RAF (which I am sure applies equally to the RN and Army), where none of the flight commanders ever turn down tasking (no one gets promoted by saying no) whilst trying to prevent my marriage and family life from going down the tubes - besides which it is a boring read, and you can't just flip to the back page to see if the butler did it!!!
I have no wish to get into a slanging match, and have nothing at all against the RN (I do actually have this strange concept that we are ALL ON THE SAME SIDE!!!), but feel I should point out that I made no comments defending the F3 or on the value of the Jaguar. The F3 may or may not be a valuable asset, once again I am not in a position to say - other light blue guys have defended it - but I do remember reading once that it is far easier to turn a good fighter into a bomber (F-15 for example) than a good bomber into a fighter (the RAF tried that with the Blenheim in 1940!!!).
Thank you for your reply, as I told you I have a very small brain, and am more than willing to listen and be informed. As I said my knowledge of maritime is limited - all I was trying to do was point out what I considered was an illogical arguement by Alphaleaderuk reference the Nimrod and the UKs requirement for ASW assets.
I am not an air defender either, but for what it is worth my opinion is that with its potent mixture of radar and weapons the Shar IS THE BEST AIR DEFENCE AIRCRAFT THE UK HAS! My knowledge of the RN and its capabilitys is general, but I believed - rightly or wrongly - it was largely slanted towards ASW, with the Type 23/Merlin combination forming over half the surface assets. This opinion may well be wrong - I am more than willing to be re-educated. Perhaps I should go away and do some research before I dare to post again! I have not had time to read about British Defence Policy of late because I have been too busy doing my job in an overstretched and undermanned part of the RAF (which I am sure applies equally to the RN and Army), where none of the flight commanders ever turn down tasking (no one gets promoted by saying no) whilst trying to prevent my marriage and family life from going down the tubes - besides which it is a boring read, and you can't just flip to the back page to see if the butler did it!!!
I have no wish to get into a slanging match, and have nothing at all against the RN (I do actually have this strange concept that we are ALL ON THE SAME SIDE!!!), but feel I should point out that I made no comments defending the F3 or on the value of the Jaguar. The F3 may or may not be a valuable asset, once again I am not in a position to say - other light blue guys have defended it - but I do remember reading once that it is far easier to turn a good fighter into a bomber (F-15 for example) than a good bomber into a fighter (the RAF tried that with the Blenheim in 1940!!!).
It has been claimed that I have had a disagreement with an ex Sea Harier ace. If this is true I apolegise. I think that most of the RN/ex RN people on PPRuNE agree broadly with most of my points. I apolegise for any inaccuracies that my postings may contain.
On a slight tanget, local news reported the other night that there are plans to make Yeovilton (not just the FAA museum but large parts of the base, including the SHAR hangers) open to the public. Whats that all about? And how can it work, considering issues such as security, public safety, FOD etc?
On a slight tanget, local news reported the other night that there are plans to make Yeovilton (not just the FAA museum but large parts of the base, including the SHAR hangers) open to the public. Whats that all about? And how can it work, considering issues such as security, public safety, FOD etc?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeovilton
it is mod policy (and its been a policy for as long as ive been in the mob) that mod assets within reason can be used by civilians. to give you an example when the open golf was on at leuchars we took over 100k in landing fees from the likes of monty, tiger, the golden bear etc. after all as a tax payer would you be happy at all the stuff paid for by you, such as the gym and swimming pool not being used to their full extent? and as for security believe it or not airfields are at less risk than barracks in towns.