PPRuNe Forums - Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)

- - Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers". (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html)

Courtney

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Well said, me old...:D:D:D:D

Although a bit of 'escapism' and 'denial' never hurt me! :ok:

Why didn't the Germans buy Harrier then.. living next to the Warsaw Pact, wouldn't they have appreciated it more than most? And where was the air to ground range in Cyprus - Akamas?

Episkopi Bay I think. :confused: Though I guess that was air to (sea) surface.

I thought the range was inland? Being 1970, it may have been up in the pan handle I guess; Epi was RAF Epi then, so they may have had range clearance.

That Kestrel was a beautiful aeroplane; I like old cars and the original examples that are as the designer intended have an elegance and purity of the line that can only be diluted with time and meddling.

Just to clarify things a bit, the magazine story about intact GR9s was probably true when the piece was written. I never suggested that buying them back would be a good idea or a likely proposal, for all sorts of reasons. However, I still think there are other options (notwithstanding political issues as outlined by Courtney - although I wonder whether our politicians have actually asked) in addition to embarking USMC Harriers, although embarking US or other Harriers would go a long way towards reducing loss of skills post SDSR.

I think Italy and Spain might be willing to lend a few, as their economies are in a worse state than ours. We would only need a few to get some fixed wing carrier aviation going in preparation to CVF/F35B (perhaps a few aircraft attached to NFSF(FW)?), and to maintain some organic capability to extend the teach of naval task groups.

Anyway, the two rumours I heard (one I overheard, the other was told to me) were both credible, from credible sources. Neither mentioned Harrier directly. One of them made a lot of sense, and seemed to fit in with public announcements and the like. The other made some sense, but did not seem to fit with other information and details (round plugs into square holes - which are already occupied), so instead of putting two and two together, I reasoned that it did not add up, which suggests that other things may need to be considered.

Since SDSR, and the start of this thread, things have changed:

1. We have a STOVL future to prepare for
2. The problem of growing the RN fixed wing pilot cadre for the future has started to prove to me difficult
3. The world has changed with the Arab Spring and other international changes
4. HM Government has indicated its willingness to get involved in conflicts this decade: see public comments about Iran or Syria
5. Worryingly, the availability of US Carriers seems to have gone down.

It seems to me that the decision was based on and justified by assumptions, most of which no longer apply, such as the idea that the Harrier force was purely seedcorn for a STOVL future, so when F35C was chosen the Harrier could be safely axed without impacting our ability to prepare for the future or operational capability. We were assured that the politicians had read the tea leaves and saw no new conflicts this decade.

Neither assumption lasted long. Unfortunately, experience tells us that it will take a serious loss with major loss of life to make the politicians decide to do something about it. The politicians may think that having no embarked aircraft for a decade poses no danger to the safety and viability of future carrier operations - but some disagree. Likewise, not everyone sees the lack of carrier capability as a minor issue.

Many PPRuNe threads are about the failure of MOD to mitigate and manage risks, and provide safe and effective aircraft, including the loss of skills of those involved in ensuring aircraft safety. Why does this logic not apply to the very real risk of carrier flight deck crews and others involved in whole ship aspects losing their skills?

Once upon a time, not too long ago, the MOD and RN websites would be full of stories of exercises where a task group went somewhere and the Sea Harriers and Harriers had intercepted other aircraft, attacked targets ashore, flown reece missions, and so on. It was all routine. Now, we get stories of embarked Apaches doing their stuff (but with less range, slower speed, and a smaller weapon load than a fixed wing aircraft), and of a Minehunter trying to defend herself against air attack. But how will Apache cope with enemy MiGs defending the target, or MiGs attacking our ships?

It seems so incoherent. We have STOVL capable ships, STOVL trained pilots and carrier crews, have a STOVL future to prepare for, and STOVL aircraft do exist, meanwhile the politicians speak loudly and seem keen to sign us up to new conflicts.

The politicians could make this into a complete success.

To quote another retired Admiral:

Therefore, for practical, presentational and tactical reasons, the RN urgently needs to develop a vision and two operational concepts – one for the period covered by the carrier and naval air 'holiday' and another for when the carrier(s) enter(s) service, with a recognisable migration path linking the two. They particularly need to address the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the carrier programme, as well as outlining a more sophisticated, innovative and agile approach to force generation, procurement and skills development. It would typically need to include operationalised modular and adaptive solutions, the retention of long-lead, but surplus, platforms, smart regeneration programmes and more intelligent use of reserves, especially those who have already acquired advanced skills and experience during previous regular service.

Makes you think doesn't it? As I said elsewhere, if I wanted to prepare to run a marathon, I would not start by cutting one of my legs off (presumably with the aim of reducing trainer costs by half).

Read the following very carefully.

There is no money.

There; Government policy in a nutshell. They will flog off, scrap or postpone anything and everything which isn't guaranteed to lose them the next election. Any spare cash will be spent on stuff which might win them the next election.

Harriers don't even register.

Foreign policy will continue to be made based on what the military says it can do with what little they have, plus 20% extra when cock-ups occur. This has been true for the last 15 years at least.

Well said Fox3!

WEBF's comments are symptomatic of the mindset that got us into our hole in the first place.

It's always been "Look, for just a LITTLE more money we could have capability X, Y or Z". This absolute inabillity to live within bounded budgets resulted in the loss of Harrier and Nimrod, as well as the decimation of other fleets. Let us hope that devolution of capability budgets in Apr next year will force the Chiefs to adopt a more realitic approach to the new kit we order.

So, WEBF, if you want to be taken seriously and you really consider that the RN needs to field a STOVL capability in the short term, then please asnswer the following question:

What will First Sea Lord cut (because CAS is sure as hell not going to) out of his current ORBAT in order to pay for the equipment you desire?

WEBF, as Fox 3 said:

BBC News - George Osborne: Deficit cut is taking longer than planned

Don't tell me, you're suggesting cost neutral options by "borrowing" foreign assets, really? :ugh:

Not too long ago, F-35B was grounded following a particularly unfavourable QDR report. How to address the issues? No problem. Embark a pair of F-35B’s on USS Wasp for sea trials. The photo shoot which followed was enough to persuade Cameron (no slouch himself when it comes to PR manipulation) to reverse the decision which he had previously reversed, and get back on track with the STORVL. Full circle. Two pilots from the UK are currently training with VMFAT-501. There is a write up in the local rag with this quote from a USMC Colonel:

“The F-35 would not be here today if it wasn’t for the U.K.,”

Thanks for that, Boot, and Britain would not be committed to building two JSF compliant STORVL carriers for the price of three Super Hornet conventional flight deck carriers if it wasn't for the USMC.

The 'No Money' myth is just that -a myth - a sovereign country that prints its own money can never say its got 'no money'

The incoming government in 2010 preferred to take this stance for dogma reasons.

How many billions have been printed and given to the banks under the guise of QE ?

Quote:

“The F-35 would not be here today if it wasn’t for the U.K.,”

Thanks for that, Boot, and Britain would not be committed to building two JSF compliant STORVL carriers for the price of three Super Hornet conventional flight deck carriers if it wasn't for the USMC.

I'm afraid that although that is tempting to believe it is also utter b8llocks. The price of the ships is almost nothing to do with F35, nor contrary to popular belief is it to do with jobs in the constituency next door to Gordon (Saviour of the Financial Universe) Brown.

The price is almost all due to fudge and delay in the programme, due to a combination of somewhat ineffective RN bubbleheads being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the aircraft procurement being transferred to an organisation that doesn't "get" embarked maritime air and an organisation fighting a war and resenting big ticket items that don't immediately fit that war having to be paid for because equipment takes time to procure. All allied to a budgeting balance in MoD MB that is essentially performed using Excel spreadsheets and "silt charts" to move money between years, blithely assuming there will be no consequence.

Could we have got two ships cheaper? Almost certainly, had the above factors been different. Would they have been CTOL ships? Not without either acquiring steam cats from the states and assuming the associated manpower and cost burden, or taking a punt on EMALS much earlier with the risk provision at the time.

Are we right to be buying the ships? Hell yes, because provided they're big enough you can add to the airwing over time as your budgets change. If you don't buy them or build them too small, you're screwed. Endex.

Quote:

Once upon a time, not too long ago, the MOD and RN websites would be full of stories of exercises where a task group went somewhere and the Sea Harriers and Harriers had intercepted other aircraft, attacked targets ashore, flown reece missions, and so on.

The Sea Harrier was retired in 2006. To put that into context, the following was in service in 2006:

Harrier
Jaguar
Nimrod
Tornado F3
HMS Ark Royal
8x Type 42 destroyers
In addition HMS Invincible, HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid had yet to be scrapped.

The following had yet to come into service:

Typhoon
Sentinel
Type 45 destroyers
HMS Astute
4x C17s

It was that long ago!

:ugh:

Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force.

Fleet Air Arm.

Fleet Air Finger.

Fleet Air Relic reduced to whingeing incessantly on PPRuNe.

Mate, seriously, move on. You are humiliating yourself. The Armed Forces don't feature beyond 'minimum spend'. This has been the case, most notably, for the past 5 governments and the current one.

What we have lost. AV8-B Photos. Oshkosh 2011

Lovely but what has that got to do with the UK anymore? All our old ones are sat in bits in a desert in the US.

Thought you might like to see this small selection of Pics from my visit last year to Oshkosh.

ep! Lovely pictures, but the subject was always our second best option when we couldn't get proper fixed wing jets to the job. Their day is now gone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Courtney Mil

Their day is now gone.

Unlike this thread, sadly. :sad:

Its been almost two years since the last flight. They wont be coming back.

Let it go.....

That Ebay photo is the best view i have seen of the leaping heap.