Why does it have to be us (the UK) that gets involved? If we haven't got the tools needed for the job then lets front up and say so and let someone else do the job. It seems like some people are keen to engage UK military forces in another operation (from the comfort of their armchair I hasten to add) purely to justify the retention (or early regeneration) of a particular capability.

At least that's how it seems to me .....:sad:

WEBF

You cannot say that Harrier would be more effective than Apache in respect of the current (or future) Operations because Harrier no longer forms part of the British Military Inventory.

caz

Yes he can.

Just because something is no longer available does not mean you cannot point out how stupid it is not to have it available.

For example, I believe that V22 would be a more effective SKASAC replacement than Merlin.

It ain't going to happen, but there is nothing wrong with making the statement.

Tourist

As a KOS I have heard these opinions many times - for example when the Nimrod entered service and the Shackleton with its very impressive endurance of over 20 hours was retired. We had to devise a short course at the School of Refresher Flying for very experienced Maritime Pilots who had never flown a Jet engined aircraft before. Now, of course, the Nimrod has gone - as has "all through Jet Training".

Thanks to the previous Administration the coffers are bare and the UK Forces are engaged in Operations on more than one front. We have to "cut our coat according to our cloth".

Yes - they MAY. But equally, they may NOT.

So couldn't having a Plan B that required no diplomatic 'favours' be considered more essential, rather than desirable?

Just a thought.

.. and yes i understand there is no money and Harrier gone blah blah.

and it may be over quickly or it may last 10+ years like Iraq and Afghanistan. In which case you need a shedload of carriers and harriers.

"So couldn't having a Plan B that required no diplomatic 'favours' be considered more essential, rather than desirable?"

You make the dangerous assumption that the Suez Canal will be open for transit in your 'Meinst Uber Carrier can rule ze vorld' scenario. If thats closed then the carrier will turn up several months late...

In reality, the UK is highly unlikely to unilaterally bomb yemen, and as such, it is likely that any operation would be done within the confines of a multi-national coalition, which would almost certainly include a local friendly nation, such as KSA, Oman or UAE, all of which the UK has a close relationship with.

Perhaps before we come up with the next unlikely scenario, could someone point out any situation where the UK has been denied host nation basing for a military operation since WW2? Struggling to think of anywhere off the top of my head...

Jimlad

One of yours from 2006 - Change of heart?

In 2001 when Afghanistan kicked off, which of those mentioned allied countries allowed strike missions to be launched from their soil?

The VC10 tankers operating out of one of those countries mentioned were only supporting the USN fast jets as er, they didn't need permission to launch off their own ships.

No need to go back to WW2. Re basing for strike missions against Libya in 2011:

FODPlod

Still managed it though;)! As we did in Gulf War 2 when the Saudis did not want bombing sorties launched from their territory - just went elsewhere (Kuwait / Qatar etc) and carried on (for 8+ years) with barely a blip.

Turkey - 2003 - Jaguars NOT allowed to launch missions into Iraq

Maybe that's because as you are quite a young civil servant whom works in the MOD, you think you know alot, but in reality, you don't.

Then again, there is also the possibility of bases and overflight being refused as on the previous occasion bombing raids were flown against Libya. For Operation EL DORADO CANYON in 1986, 18 USAF F-111F Aardvarks had to fly from the UK and route around France, Spain and through the Straits of Gibraltar because France, Spain and Italy denied overflight rights and use of their bases (never happens, right?). This added 1,300 miles (2,100 km) to the trip each way and 6-7 hours flight time demanding astronomical AAR (28 tankers). Only eight of the 18 F-111Fs hit the correct targets. Five were forced to abort the mission and one was shot down.

In the same operation, the US Navy launched 14 A-6E Intruders and 6 A-7E Corsairs from the carrier USS America plus 6 F/A-18 Hornets from the carrier USS Coral Sea (both in the Mediterranean) to bomb radar and anti-aircraft sites in Benghazi before attacking the Benina and Jamahiriya barracks in Tripoli. Two of the A-6Es were forced to abort the mission but all 26 a/c returned to their carriers safely after dropping 72 x 500 lb bombs and firing 12 Shrike and 36 HARM anti-radar missiles.

Top cover was provided by several F-14 Tomcats and four E-2C Hawkeye airborne C2 and AEW a/c, all flying from carriers.

lj101

Again, had no effect on the conduct of the overall operation/conflict (other than longer sorties for those based in Kuwait (and these sorties didn't require refuelling either - not sure the same could be said for Jaguar sorties had they been launched from Incirlik.....)).

Ok so here we go again, navy muppets banging on about the same arguments just replace Libya/FRY/Afg with Yemen now :hmm:

Can the usual suspect just go to xx page of this thread and cut/paste the overflight/basing arguments and save us the bother ?

And just to keep it on topic here is a picture of a harrier with Brimstone load, pity it don't exist, no money, no harrier, no carrier deal with it :}
http://i1100.photobucket.com/albums/...t/95017cef.jpg[/IMG]

Yup

As per the thread. Bonkers.

Wrath

I never said it did.

... and the GR4 has done/continues to do a great job.

Last time i checked mine was light blue.

Good to see the general standard of 'banter' from the fighter control branch hasn't changed.

WEBF:

I still maintain that Tornado is more effective than Harrier would have been, with greater speed, range and weapon load.

Also yes, Yemen would be difficult to get to. I'm not sure what lj101's point is, first it's that you can't count on being able to overfly other countries, then uses Afghanistan as an example of where you would have to have used carrier air.... don't you have to overfly other countries to get there from the sea? And actually, although the USN launched a lot of TLAMs and flew a lot of fast jet sorties, about 80% of the ordnance (by tonnage) dropped during those initial weeks was from aircraft that took off from CONUS or sovereign bases, as was almost all of the ISR product.

Which brings me to my main point - if we don't have suitable basing, then having a CVS with some jets on it isn't going to help in somewhere like Yemen - where will the ISR, tankers, AWACS etc come from? How will you develop targets?

Carriers are needed for influence, but when you actually want to run an air campaign you need tarmac somewhere. It's really not about the jets - what we really need to do from a UK Joint point of view is run an investment appraisal of buying carriers against spending the same amount on some additional tankers.....

Yemen = Basing in Oman (Thumrait and/or Salalah), nuff said, next......



Not forgetting that the French fly out of Djibouti.

More effective how? In 2004 the Tornado would have been unable to take off and land in Kandahar. Not very effective. Tornado, Harrier and Apache are (were) all complimentary, not more effective than one another.

We are getting at least 1 Carrier and the CARRIER version of JCA.

Why would we want to limit ourselves to the land based option only, and not have the flexibility of the sea based option, unless you are being single service minded and not in the best interests of the country?

Oh dear occasional aviator

I know you are an ATC officer but do keep up.

That is true - you can not.

Because in this case - strike missions from their soil NOT ALLOWED, overflight WERE.

I realise that your 4 month det in the CAOC has qualified you as an expert but having sat at the other end trying to get the damn thing in place, you would be surprised at what we were asked to achieve from the UK from our lordships. Seriously, it was a joke. But not a funny one.

Get it now?