Petition to Save the Harrier
 

Admiral Woodward & Sharkey Ward Petition to save the Harrier

After the Prime Minister made public the appalling decision to withdraw the Harrier from Naval and RAF service, my son Kris managed to raise the issue with him and in doing so hit the headlines. We wish to put pressure on the Prime Minister and the government to reverse this dreadful decision and I am now writing to you with some urgency to ask your assistance by signing the petition online at:

Saving the Harrier

If we do not retain the Harrier in service we shall lose all the expertise that is so necessary for operating from an aircraft carrier (over 90 years of dedication, huge combat success and the loss of countless lives in peace time and in war will have been in vain). Such expertise cannot be “reinvented” overnight. It would probably take decades to achieve this.
Hopefully, you will feel it appropriate to help publicise this petition request as a matter of urgency and pass it on to all your friends and colleagues and ask them to do the same.

http://www.uknda.org/plug...id=732&catid=-1&

Whilst noble in themsleves do you really expect this is going to make ANY difference? Or is it just to make the Harrier Mafia feel better?

Not a boffin. Thanks for the reply, which appears to be saying exactly what I did. The point of having an LO strike asset is that it is exactly what you need in the situation you describe, an enemy unwilling or not stupid enough to take the first hit. You go to a MarStrike war with offensive ROE, not without.

The only part of your statement that I wouldn't mind discussing further is 'that ships can be easy to sink when hit repeatedly'. Let's just say you do have a surpic asset (which the Uk now doesn't - as an aside), which finds the enemy, and you are able to target the enemy ships, and you are able to pick out the juicy one, and you do get past the long/medium range SAMs and then the short range ones and then your weapon gets past CIWS, I completely agree with you. If you do it repeatedly then the ship would sink. Not sure i consider this easy and believe me i have tried it plenty of times using a whole variety of weapon systems. Anywhere other than the extreme littoral there is nowhere to hide, above the ocean in a manned platform you aren't going to have a great day. Mass attacks by sea skimmers would hurt any fleet, but a modern one toting PAAMs or Standard, with sea wolf and goalkeeper behind it are going to extract quite a toll on inbound aircraft.

That's not to say a fleet is impervious, just that to really get in and do damage you probably want to co-ordinate a mass missile (let's say twenty plus weapons) arrival with sub-surface attack and leave aeroplanes out of it, nowadays.

So the threat to CVF would be anyone who could do that at the planned stand off range. Still doesn't quite fit into my idea of easy.

Agreed, the short term gain will be a long term loss. Can you help refresh my memory. At the time JFH was first mooted, I'm certain I read in the Telegraph that Sea Harrier pilots had written an open letter on the subject. What were the results of that letter. Do you know if any of the SHAR veterans refused to move.

From James Daly's blog on History: Defence Review – correspondence with my MP

Orca

You're right - I believe we're agreeing furiously! Ships are only easy to sink if you can target them, ID them and then get through the defences. That's a lot of ifs......

Identifying a surface contact (particularly with EMCON) is by far the hardest part if the ship / force is clever. However, once found, ID'd and fixed it's a simple matter of effort applied. Plan Hammerhead or equivalent would tend to bring matters to a head more quickly, but the same effect can be achieved by a relatively small series of attacks sustained over a long period until silos/mags are exhausted - particularly if the maritime force can't see OTH or is unable to whittle down the oppo.

The Head of the Indian Air force says he doesn't want the Harriers, describing them as "iffy" and ""obsolete"

FT.com / Asia-Pacific / India - Indian air chief dismisses UK?s ?iffy? Harriers

and maybe we can put this on HMS QE when she comes into service?

Sea Harrier ZH809 at SFDO Culdrose | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Sorry my Bad, had a post today, that the guys have been briefed today that the Harrier is staying

:confused:
David - could you provide more info please.
TVM H-W.

ORCA


So the Brahmos missile 290km range/Mach 3 that can be launched from Su-30,Submarine,Surface,land would likely do it then?

Then you have Brahmos II coming ?

Thats very true but you have to remember who paid for Brahmos, who developed it and where that technology came from. On top of that you also need to remember who operates the Brahmos (II) ....

Oh, you're so on it vech..................:cool:

If I had my way we'd forgo a couple of the Kilos we have on order if you'd give us your 'iffy' Harrier fleet :-)

End of an era today for 41(R) Squadron, RAF Coningsby, and their operation of Harriers. Three 41(R) Squadron Harriers GR9s have completed a number of flypasts before landing at RAF Cottesmore.

TJ

overhead Farnborough taken from home at 1210, probably the last time I will see a 'leapin heap' airborne.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1122/...7a969bf423.jpg

Vec

Well they are on the open market, I believe Malaysia are also buying the missile to arm the next generation of patrol vessels instead of exocet.

anyway back on subject :ok:

1(f) Stands down 15 Dec 2010 and formally disbands 27 Jan 2011!

Surely we are not going to put the 1(F) numberplate to bed for 10 years until F35 starts arriving?

I truly hope that 1 and 4 avoid the ignominious fate of 92 Sqn (and others) and end up with their badges being carried by front-line aircraft.

Wholesale renumbering time? Any suggestions?

The 1 (f) Sqn standard will be placed in the Rotunda of College Hall Officers' Mess, RAFC Cranwell. The number plate is protected thus, it will stand-up in due course.