UK - More defence cuts
Ditching the excellent SHAR 2 with its AMRAAM / Blue Vixen / JTIDS capabilities denied the fleet any viable medium range AD assets - the plastic bomber was barely any better than the Scimitar in that respect....
Mud moving was better left to the Tornado as the Harrier GR9 didn't really have any USP in that respect.
Mud moving was better left to the Tornado as the Harrier GR9 didn't really have any USP in that respect.
The content of each Capability was flexible, and varied month-by-month depending on Force Priorities. There was a document called the "Capability Release Plan" (CRP) which defined the current view of each Capability against a fixed set of dates for DACPA, MAR Recs and RTS. This document would include both "funded" and "aspirational" content, but they were clearly seperated to avoid confusion. There were always two versions of it - the "Currently contracted" and the "Current Aspiration" version - the latter was to provide a "heads up" to everyone of what the plan might change to in the near future so that if the change would cause a problem or conflict the Management Team could be informed before committing to it. Every month the joint management team would meet to consider the latest force priority changes and how they could be accomodated. Things would swap around in discussion with Forward until the best compromise on operational need versus design/production capacity versus spend profile could be achieved, and at that point a new COntracted CRP would be issued, and thgings that didn't make the cut would appear in the new "aspirational" CRP.
This was done because we both (IPT and industry) recognised that operational needs would change through the course of the programme, so rather than bitch about it we set up a contractual/management construct which incorporated the required flexibility. Most of the changes were minor, but there were some biggies. You mention Brimstone being in Cap C - IIRC that was true at the end. But the initial programme had Brimstone in Cap B and Maverick* was in Cap D, because at that time Fwd thought Brimstone was the greater need. But they changed their minds due to changes in the way the war was running and wanted Maverick urgently, so we have the famous "Maverick-Brimstone Swap" which pulled Mav back to Cap B and pushed Brimstone out to Cap D.
No, the full CR&J trials had been completed and signed off (that was the report the TA showed Gerald Howarth), and the integration was complete only needing the relevant code to be bunged into the next OFP increment IIRC.
PDR
* The major bits of it - various different Mav modes and sub-types moved around the CRP all the time because there were so many of them!
This was done because we both (IPT and industry) recognised that operational needs would change through the course of the programme, so rather than bitch about it we set up a contractual/management construct which incorporated the required flexibility. Most of the changes were minor, but there were some biggies. You mention Brimstone being in Cap C - IIRC that was true at the end. But the initial programme had Brimstone in Cap B and Maverick* was in Cap D, because at that time Fwd thought Brimstone was the greater need. But they changed their minds due to changes in the way the war was running and wanted Maverick urgently, so we have the famous "Maverick-Brimstone Swap" which pulled Mav back to Cap B and pushed Brimstone out to Cap D.
The ground fitment trials were as far as it ever got and there was a long and expensive road ahead, due to a number of issues, that meant it probably only ever sat upon a dream sheet along with some photos of the dummies on a jet.
PDR
* The major bits of it - various different Mav modes and sub-types moved around the CRP all the time because there were so many of them!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ditching the excellent SHAR 2 with its AMRAAM / Blue Vixen / JTIDS capabilities denied the fleet any viable medium range AD assets - the plastic bomber was barely any better than the Scimitar in that respect....
Mud moving was better left to the Tornado as the Harrier GR9 didn't really have any USP in that respect.
Mud moving was better left to the Tornado as the Harrier GR9 didn't really have any USP in that respect.
Total agreement Beagle, we both know the decision/reason was to give the carriers of the time something to do.
Sounds familiar doesn't it....
Thanks PDR, that’s something I didn’t know - I always thought the Caps were set. Anyway, Cap D eventually delivered and had no SS. Even the CR&J you memtion is some way off anywhere near being even IOC. Do you think the CR&J trials revealed the thermal and vibration issues I heard rumour about and hence the idea was shelved (again)?
It still doesn’t answer the bring-back question even with the GR9’s increased performance. If we were going to operate them from land only then there isn’t much point is there? It always amused me about the Harrier GR in that we never really embarked it on Ops apart from on CORPORATE - for TELIC, HERRICK and ALLIED FORCE it was land based and it wasn’t ready for GRANBY either. It kind of makes you think why bother? The SHAR on the other hand seemed to be always embarked for Ops?
It still doesn’t answer the bring-back question even with the GR9’s increased performance. If we were going to operate them from land only then there isn’t much point is there? It always amused me about the Harrier GR in that we never really embarked it on Ops apart from on CORPORATE - for TELIC, HERRICK and ALLIED FORCE it was land based and it wasn’t ready for GRANBY either. It kind of makes you think why bother? The SHAR on the other hand seemed to be always embarked for Ops?
Are you sure? That is entirely contrary to my recollection! Can you provide any link or evidence? Genuine question, not trolling....
And if that wasn't enough - to play in a NATO battlespace the SHAR needed SIFF. To have SIFF it needed a colour display (the monochrome one would have been far too cluttered), and at that time there was no colour display that would fit into the cockpit without either major structural changes to the cockpit, bulges on the outside of the aeroplane or both. The options were (again) deemed way above what the FAA could afford.
But that issue aside, there was a view that carrier-based bombers were a highter priority than carrier-based fighters. The argument went something like this:
Most of the likely military ops scenarios would be located in places where there could be land-based airfields in adjacent countries. Basing fighters on these airfields is not a problem because fighters are "good guys" who only shoot down baddies. Bombers are different. They may well be "Good guys" but they drop bombs on people in ground installations, and those people may well be firends/relatives of those living next to the airfield. This makes basing bombers in adjacent countries rather a sensitrive issue (vis the NATO bombers stationed in Turkey during GW2). So it can be preferable to base your fighters ashore but keep your bombers on carriers, over the horizon and out of sight of the locals.
Mud moving was better left to the Tornado as the Harrier GR9 didn't really have any USP in that respect.
PDR
Misbriefings after the 2010 SDSR were pretty common. If you dig into Hansard you'll find a PPS to a junior defence minister talking in the House about MRA4 saying "To be honest we're still wondering if it was ever going to fly!", which must have come as a bit of a shock to those who had flown them through hindreds of hours of development test flying, never mind the detail that at the time it was less than three months to the delivery of the first three aircraft...
PDR
PDR
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish I could, but unfortunately I'm not one of those people who keeps copies of company/customer documents in boxes in the loft at home. The Harrier stuff is all filed away in deep archives or deleted now. I'm pretty sure about my recollection because (as I said) it embarrassed the MP who visited, showing that he had been misbriefed.
Misbriefings after the 2010 SDSR were pretty common. If you dig into Hansard you'll find a PPS to a junior defence minister talking in the House about MRA4 saying "To be honest we're still wondering if it was ever going to fly!", which must have come as a bit of a shock to those who had flown them through hindreds of hours of development test flying, never mind the detail that at the time it was less than three months to the delivery of the first three aircraft...
PDR
Misbriefings after the 2010 SDSR were pretty common. If you dig into Hansard you'll find a PPS to a junior defence minister talking in the House about MRA4 saying "To be honest we're still wondering if it was ever going to fly!", which must have come as a bit of a shock to those who had flown them through hindreds of hours of development test flying, never mind the detail that at the time it was less than three months to the delivery of the first three aircraft...
PDR
PDR
Please do, because I can recall no flight, release or jettison trials, nor it being in the RTS. Thats not to say I might not be wrong of course...
It turns out my memory was flawed and I was talking twaddle! The incident with the MP happened and no one can remember which weapon it was about, but it definitely wasn't SS.
Apols!
PDR
Apols!
PDR
The aircraft orders are drying up so there is no future workload for manufacturing. Attempts to get orders have limited success. So what is the company supposed to do - just keep everyone on and ignore reality? Is that really what you are suggesting? It's just as well there are a few "clever suits with PCs" around to mitigate that sort of stupidity
You may feel differently - I take it you are a former CEO of Carrillion...
PDR
PS: On a purely pedantic point if the workforce was merely decimated it would only reduce manufacturing capacity by 10% because that's what "to decimate" actually means.
Attempts to get orders have limited success.
Mantis was a classic example of this. The customer kept telling the manufacturer what it wanted, those requirements were ignored, so the customer went to a foreign manufacturer that listened and they are now on contract to deliver a certifiable product that will give the customer what it wanted. Indeed that same foreign company invested its own money into developing its own product, knowing that it would sell (and it has, like hot cakes!) by understanding what its customer base wanted.
During my quarter of a century as a customer I have seen this time and again from various UK defence contractors and all of them have either gone bust or been bought out by other companies. The orders were there for the taking but eventually went to other non-UK companies as ours were either unwilling to listen to their customers or wanted way above the market rate.
The B Word
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meant to respond to this but forgot - apols.
The aircraft orders are drying up so there is no future workload for manufacturing. Attempts to get orders have limited success. So what is the company supposed to do - just keep everyone on and ignore reality? Is that really what you are suggesting? It's just as well there are a few "clever suits with PCs" around to mitigate that sort of stupidity
You may feel differently - I take it you are a former CEO of Carrillion...
PDR
PS: On a purely pedantic point if the workforce was merely decimated it would only reduce manufacturing capacity by 10% because that's what "to decimate" actually means.
The aircraft orders are drying up so there is no future workload for manufacturing. Attempts to get orders have limited success. So what is the company supposed to do - just keep everyone on and ignore reality? Is that really what you are suggesting? It's just as well there are a few "clever suits with PCs" around to mitigate that sort of stupidity
You may feel differently - I take it you are a former CEO of Carrillion...
PDR
PS: On a purely pedantic point if the workforce was merely decimated it would only reduce manufacturing capacity by 10% because that's what "to decimate" actually means.
However, a look on the MB thread gives an inkling of the repercussions of loss (decimation) of all facets of corporate knowledge...