JonesySens,
On this thread you have a post by someone, going by his location quaintly framed as ‘Rutland’ and by the content of his post, who may be quite closely associated with the issue at hand. His comment is below as I fear you may have overlooked as there are very important points contained in it.
A lot of decisions regarding retirement are due to it having a very low manpower footprint approx 80 at the mo in stan tonkas will take that up to nearer 200, hence the decision to keep them there as long as they have, as well as the runway condition in the stan. Unfortunately with harriers of ops where are the tonka force going to get the extra manpower oh that’ll be the manpower cut from JFH when they return home. Next stop same personnel different platform same hole
Now you say:
The Harrier force was an usefull tool in Cold War times, when the benefits from that did overule their high operating costs. In the meanwhile the UK decesion-maker do see that not any longer.
….yet from the earlier post we see Harrier GR7 having a support requirement in personnel alone less than half that of Tornado and, as also mentioned, a much reduced infrastructure requirement in terms of airstrip and facilities.
High operating costs – not really. Not when compared to Tornado GR4 and with a much wider deployment envelope up to and including in environments where there is no local base-in available via the RN CVS’s.
Anyway you try and cut this Sens the Harrier is the cheaper and more widely deployable option. Which is why it HAS been the deployed option for so many years!.
JonesyThat is what I call a guess or you will not have no problem about a link or scan related to that. 😉
Photo-recce by fast jets was of limited use to stay polite. Even on the ground the opposing fractions were hardly to distinguish. See the need of Operation Barras and the involved forces. A South-African did pilot the single Mi-24 in support of that, when the “Harriers” were to find **** . 😀
OK Sens so now you are blurring the lines between a broad aspect mission to slow down the progress of an entire insurgent element in a country (Operation PALLISER) and a specific single rescue mission (Operation BARRAS). You either do not understand the different application of force necessary between the two, quite dissimilar, taskings or understand it quite well and are simply being disingenuous?.
To be perfectly honest I care little as to which it is. Just understand that attempting to use Op PALLISER as a justifcation for the deletion of the UK Harrier Force says an awful lot more about your poor comprehension of that operation than it does about the UK Harrier Force.
JonesyExactly. It is a oversized helo carrier. What can it do LHD’s can’t ?
It can’t launch F-35C. You know, the model with the long range.
The CVF design (or ordered layout) trades a higher sortie rate and maybe some easier training for the ability of it’s airgroup to perform deep strikes.
In your opinion this is a great idea, I beg to differ.
To even ask the question I’m afraid implies that your grasp of this is marginal at best. What it can do that an LHD cant is achieve the sortie rate defined by UK MoD.
For an LHD to achieve that sortie rate, for the unreplenished period required, it would be roughly CVF sized. Seeings that we have no shortage of vessels capable of docking LCU’s the dock could be deleted to save money fairly painlessly……and……you have….yep…..CVF!!!.
Look up the actual predicted range difference between F-35B and F-35C. External tanks dropped prior to target ingress or Storm Shadow carriage would be more than sufficient to address any range deficiency. Then we have the point that you ignore quite conveniently – a US CVN, on its own, is not going to sit in a high threat littoral mounting deep strikes. Condemning CVF for being equally incapable of the same feat is ludicrous.
JonesyThey have no capability issue, sure. But it shows the Tornado can take over the job.
My point is you have either a capable enemy where you would want more the kind of a fleet carrier (E-2, F-35B, CATOBAR, more escorts), or you have an inferior opponent where a smaller carrier or LHD would be sufficient.
Just what do you think a single US supercarrier is going to do that a single CVF isnt?.
Re-fight the Battle of Midway…against who?.
Sit in India’s or China’s littoral and take on all comers?. Dont be absurd. Even a US CVSG, with just a single CV, would not have the firepower to do more than hit and run – something a CVF group would be every bit as adept at.
CVF, as has been explained more than once, is NOT A FLEET CARRIER. Get it?. If you cant get that through your head go and read up on what the UK Carrier Strike mission is and think on the sense of it for a while.
After you’ve done that have a think about what your country does if it exhausts diplomatic efforts along the lines of its international policy goals. You’ll find the answers are that either (a) it shuts up and sits idle why its policy goals go unachieved or (b) it goes cap in hand to NATO to try and get something done!. For the UK retaining independent force projection capability is a requirement of our declared defence policy. Accept that this does not mean that we are required to assemble a force capable of invading mainland China though!.
Sens,
The Boeing AH-64 is the correct tool for that purpose.
That is, I am guessing, a joke after the performance of the aircraft in the ‘trashfire envelope’ over Iraq. For coercion the GR7, a weapons system that is unreachable, is the correct tool – not an aircraft vulnerable to RPG’s and fortunate AAA.
Not ashamed to claim that. Just a live firing “exercise” for all who were willing to participate in that, like the Harriers in Afghanistan.
Yet in your exercise at least 4 aircraft I can recall were brought down and the crews faced real threats and danger every time they flew in the operational zone. The Harriers have been telling weapons systems in Helmand and the challenges of high accuracy ordnance placement in a zero fault-tolerance environment bring their own stresses. As does the pressure of supporting these aircraft in theatre in the knowledge that an unserviceable aircraft can mean friendly deaths on the ground.
You sound, Sens, like one of these civvy types who, if there is no double-digit SAM threat or state-of-the-art fighter defence to have to defeat, thinks that somehow it ‘doesn’t count’ as combat ops. I suggest you make an effort to find people who’ve been on Ops and talk to them. Expand your frame of reference. Maybe then you won’t talk such utter twaddle on here in future.
JonesyThe ability to fly very long distances at short notice and deliver such a precision weapon has not gone unnoticed though.
Even more important is the presence of a very comprehensive comms fitout and enough space/screens for a strike planning cell on the aircraft to allow for a meaningful CASOM deployment capability.
Problem is its too close to interfering with the FOAS requirement for comfort within RAF circles. If they can dual role Nimrod to accomplish long range precision strike then it might be curtains for extra shiny new aircraft to replace GR4 when the time comes for the venerable Tonka to bow out.
Bad form that Ginger – mustn’t allow the ministry to take the kites away!. In otherwords yes the capability has been noticed and it will be kept as quiet as the light blue can possibly manage it!.
JonesyThe new carriers are overambitious for the UK, if they want to make cuts in the navy, why not get rid of the boomers? Nice boats but totaly one mission minded, they could convert 2 tot tomahawk + SBS ships like the US navy did. As for loosing the nuclear deterrent, why not consider putting nuclear tipped tomahawks on VLS in attack subs? would cost a lot less and you still have nuclear capability.
No they arent over-ambitious for the UK defence budget in general. The Carrier Strike mission is, in fact, a vital component of our expeditionary military capability as it was laid down in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review. Even in absolute funds terms the £3.5bn or so that the carrier will cost isnt that much of an issue and, in pure economics terms, is actually a positive for the UK economy as a whole because the money is, predominantly, going into UK industry.
Compared to some other projects CVF is offering relevent and important capabilities which cannot be delivered by any other UK platform for, what has to be said, is a fair price for hulls likely to be in service for 30 plus years.
Your point on the deterrent is contradictory unfortunately. To be a deterrent the physics package has to be assured of reaching its target. TLAM is interceptable so its not actually a deterrent as Trident is.
It’s been proposed that an aeroballistic weapon, like whatever the US RATTLRS/Hystrike project finally resolves as, could be made to fit in a future SSN hull and therefore do away with the bombers altogether, which has some merit, but we are still a long way off from a deliverable system on that one.
JonesyAs stated – Carriers ordered and responsible for the continuance of 10,000 precious manufacturing sector jobs. No-one is going to be able to cancel these hulls and jeopardise that kind of employment to save a meagre couple of billion (compared to whats doled out in the Social Security budget etc) whatever colour the govt. is after the next general election.
====================================================
Carriers to enter service late
The two new carriers would be the biggest in Royal Navy history
Defence Secretary John Hutton has said that the Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers are likely to enter service a year or two later than planned.
In a statement to MPs, he added there would be no delay in construction – but work would continue at a slower pace, sustaining jobs for longer.
The £4bn shipbuilding project is due to begin next spring.
The announcement affects shipyards in Appledore, in north Devon, Portsmouth, Barrow-in-Furness, Glasgow and Rosyth.
Des Browne gave the green light for the construction of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales in May, when he was defence secretary.
‘Chaos’
Contracts worth about £3.2bn were signed in July and the work is expected to create or make safe a total of 10,000 jobs at the four yards.
BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the government did not view cancelling major defence projects as an option, but considered delays as a way of controlling the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) spiralling budget.
Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock, a member of the Commons Defence Committee, said the MoD was in financial “chaos”.
=====================================================
Harrier is safe until EMALS is proven reliable as we only, realistically have two alternatives for CVF. STOVL or EMALS CATOBAR and for STOVL we’ll need the continuation of the STOVL trained pilot pool we have with JFH now.
JonesyNo match at all really – The Tornado F3 is one the most capable interceptors in service today, a shame the version in service now is 15 years too late (another MOD **** up). An F3 with it’s JTIDS, Foxhunter radar, 4 x AMRAAM, 4 x ASRAAM and massive range – The SeaHarrier was just 50% of a Tornado F3, if you are talking about interception.
That is not the comparison that is appropriate though is it Gate – as I suspect you know full well.
SHAR FA.Mk2 came out against a Tornado F3 that had Skyflash and couldn’t employ AMRAAM as it had no ability to update the missile midcourse. It had Foxhunter which offered little advantage over Blue Vixen and offered nothing spectacular WVR.
Far from being 50% of a Tornado F3, when it first flew, Sea Harrier FA Mk.2 was 60-70% of the interceptor F3 was PLUS 100% more in attack capability. SHAR was the only swingrole capable jet in UK service up to its withdrawal from service.
Harrier GR7/9 is NOT going to be disbanded. The Carriers are NOT going to be scrapped this time…millions in orders have already been placed for equipment which just wouldnt fit on a smaller carrier…a smaller carrier that would not offer the ‘purple’ credentials that justify the CVF in the first place anyway.
We are in silly season boys and girls….the next thing the RAF will be trotting out is the disbandment of the Red Arrows as a costly and unnecessary expense, this is done annually around review time. Its no shocker that the RN have allowed the information out that we are ‘too poor’ to guard the Falklands properly these days at this time of year either.
The Army have it relatively ‘easy’, and please forgive me for putting it that way, at the moment because their relevence is manifest. The RAF somehow have to justify a lot of Typhoons that are plainly unnecessary when tankers, airlift and ISTAR are sorely lacking and the RN has to carry the nuclear deterrent can single-handed and, despite the very obvious seaborne logistics lines to current operational theatres, has to justify everything bar the Royal Marines.
JonesyTrouble is if you dump Tornado you lose Stromshadow, Raptor pod, ALARM and cannon (I understand GR7/9annon not used) – Typhoon is not ready yet for ASM.
Stormshadow is slated for Typhoon already. Acelerate the integration. Likewise the recon pod and ALARM. If the problem is we cant squirrel out of buying Typhoons that we dont need then its time to make the Typhoons more useful. Integrate the legacy systems whilst steadily phasing out GR4. Just winding up the GR4 navigator training programme will save millions.
What can the GR7/9 do that a Tornado can’t with regard to the RAF?
Deploy where there is no guaranteed friendly local base-in?. Utilise austere forward operating locations – the whole point of using the Harrier Force in the ‘ghan in the first place?!.
Too late for a Typhoon N, and it looks like JSF will not be ready. Maybe Rafale (unlikely) or F/A-18E/F (unlikey also) if JSF becomes too delayed.
The news, from General Atomics, on the apparent strides made de-risking EMALS means that the dependence on the STOVL JSF, in operational terms, is diminishing. CVF shifted to the right brings it into alignment with a possible EMALS fit from scratch. That brings a cheap off-the-shelf solution like Rafale or Super Hornet into contention or, with likely willing assistance from our friends in the USN, F-35C acquisition. CATOBAR is, by no means, essential for our Carrier Strike requirement, but, it is wisely being planned for within the CVF design for just such a situation.
It begs the question why the MOD didn’t remove all the GR7/9s from the RAF and transfer some of them to the FAA to operate a mixed force on each carrier, for example 6 GR7/9s performing attack and 6 SeaHarriers performing air defence and recon?
That was nearly the plan as it was implemented at first. Then spurious comments about the limitations of the original FRS1 arframe in terms of hot n’ high deployment start to appear and that re-engining would be unfeasible with the narrower fuselage. Like that was a major requirement for its last decade in service!. Shortly thereafter it falls under 3 Group RAF with the rest of JFH and, mysteriously, the only operational, effective, swingrole fighter in UK inventory is suddenly no more. To the astounding suprise of absolutely no-one associated with the Royal Navy.
JonesyWan,
Many congrats. An additional piece of advice to the general sagacity already on the thread….wait a good couple of years for the next one!. We didnt and have a little girl at 18mnths and another who’s just 4 months old today.
I’m now a believer in perpetual motion. I also know where the idea for the film The Matrix came from!.
Jonesyindia agrees!
Gorshkov: Medvedev on his way, Centre okays price renegotiation
Posted: Dec 03, 2008 at 0106 hrs IST
Delhi: On the eve of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to India, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) on Tuesday gave in to Moscow’s demands and gave the go-ahead to the Defence Ministry to renegotiate the price for aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov. The Russians had been demanding upwards of $2.2 billion for overhauling the 44,500 tonne warship that was commissioned into the erstwhile Soviet Union Navy in 1978. The reworked purchase agreement will be signed in the next three months and the ship is expected in India in 2012.
Top Government sources said the CCS finally decided in favour of purchasing Admiral Gorshkov as it was the best option available to New Delhi with more than 65 per cent of Indian Navy made up of Russian built frigates, destroyers and submarines. Further, any friction with the Russians on the Gorshkov issue could also jeopardise future military hardware purchases, including the Akula-class nuclear submarine. The fact that the Chinese Navy is also expanding at a rapid pace also worked in favour of the Russian ship.
Amazing what can be achieved holding a pair of threes and a determined expression.
JonesyCVA-01 was funded 1963-65 because UK had entered Kuwait (’61), Borneo (’62), Kenya (Jan.64), S.Arabia (Nov.64). It was unfunded when Govt. decided not to do that again, and to make the Rapid Deployment Force more local-to-UK, coalition-centric, air transport delivered/supported. In current jargon-speak, 1998 Strategic Defence Review presented the same thought processes and judged Naval projection made sense. Unspoken was: against, and with, whom? China’s adventurism in oily Spratleys? Nutcase semi-nuclear Iran? Despite Chirac’s opposition, not with Sarkozy’s co-operation? Things change. The carrier Case, in essence, is that we don’t know on whom we may rely, so we must have solo options. But we’re broke. (SecDef MacNamara, 12/64: US) “could not be the gendarmes of the universe”. Far less can we.
The carrier case is well put but should be more properly expanded to ‘we dont know on whom we may rely or for how long we can rely on those we know’. In the situation where local base-in becomes untenable through changing political and cultural scenes in ‘friendly’ states the option could be carrier or go home. If those are your options and the political will has been set for intervention how can ‘go home’ be an option.
If the proposal is to turn the RAF into a global reach force in line with the USAF’s hopes and dreams in that regard the story would be marginally different. It isnt though and shows no sign of becoming so – the RAF is still focussed on Air-Land 87. Sure there has been some tinkering round the edges but it is STILL setup to contest the European air battle and deliver ordnance at ranges sub-strategic. Lee Mallory and his big wings and all that, very good for the RAF self-image, not so good for the old exped warfare what!.
This brings us to your ‘we’re broke’ point. If we cant afford it then why are we building tactical fighters that no-one wants or needs, save for the RAF ‘Eurofighters at any cost’ brigade, you think we cant use a carrier what use a Tranche 3 Typhoon. The next Red Flag where it can get clobbered by Raptors?. Oily Spratly’s – nope can’t get there?. Falklands patrol countering Argentine Fightinghawks?. Keeping those pesky Stuka’s and 109’s off Biggin, Ginger???.
FOAS is/was the important project the RAF can contribute to 98SDR where is it?. Astor/battlefield surveillance likewise key assets the RAF can bring to the party. What did we get….something useful like a Global Hawk derivative able to stay on station 18hrs or more….no a bizjet without AAR capability. Jobs for the boys though. Its a racket Ken no more no less.
JonesyWhat a joke.
Typical airhead gash. The Falklands was an aberration. Does this ring any bells Ken ‘the RAF will cover the fleet wherever it needs to’.
How about the SIOP tasked CVN’s?. After all the Cold War did call for a bit more than just sending the big old heavy bombers in to get shot down the same old way….were you not, in fact, the one castigating the Harrier and the very notion of STOVL because, and please correct me if I paraphrase you wrong, ‘no fixed base would survive to generate the second or third sortie’.
Well Ken if no fixed base would survive where is your local base-in?. Then we come to today bang up to date – they’ve put ex-RN Phalanx guns in to try and interdict the half-hearted flow of indirect munitions falling on Basra airport. How long would you keep your always available local base-in there if the locals got serious about having us leave?.
Lastly what is the value of more expeditionary capability in 2020 than now?. Little thing called the 98SDR….you would be advised to read it before making ludicrous assertions.
JonesyNo, I’m afraid I cannot see the contradiction. The missiles in Poland do not provide complete protection of Europe. They may provide greater protection of Europe than missiles in Scotland but neither provide exactly marvellous ‘shielding’ over Europe as proponents of the system are so keen to point out.
What does it matter what these proponents say?. The simple fact is that missiles in Poland do more to shield Europe than missiles in Scotland. That answers the question why Poland and not Scotland!.
Although it’d be interesting to see why exactly anyone would propose or believe Iran has any reason to shoot a missile at anywhere in Eastern Europe.
I agree. Targets for Iran in Europe are FAR and away more likely to be in western Europe where this system will at least offer some capability. The GBI’s going into Poland wouldnt do anything against missiles re-entering to hit E.European countries anyway – they are midcourse interceptors. To screen E.Europe you would need the terminal phase interceptors like THAAD and the Patriot variants.
Next, the Azerbaijan radar. While it may be sited closer to the border, as it is a VHF facility the tracking it provides is far better than the X-band radars suggested for the Czech Republic.
If you believe that a VHF radar (30-300MHz) is going to be better for tracking a relative small RCS high speed inbound than a high-resolution X-band set then I think its possible you need to re-read your radar fundamentals sources.
Put the SBX in the Mediterranean and supplemental FBX radars in western Turkey and the warning network would be far superior to the current one, which has been analysed as woefully inadequate. Not to mention it wouldn’t be the only radar you could use if the United States showed even the slightest interest in genuine cooperation with Russia over missile defence.
So instead of siting one radar in the Czech Republic you now want to put radar platforms all over the region and steam a dozen AEGIS cruisers round the Black Sea entry and just off the Syrian coastline?. Yes – because that wont look like an American military build up in theatre?!. Who’s analysed the XBR as woefully inadequate….even the diagram you have just reproduced shows that Iranian missiles would fly right at the XBR and would be mid course straight down the radars sightline!.
Next, Turkish missile deployment. Why on Earth are missiles in Turkey somehow unable to counter missiles aimed at the US? As SOC’s extremely helpful map shows:
Quite simply because the Iranian missiles would be overhead of a GBI site on the Turkish Black Sea coast by the time the track was developed and the missiles launch. GBI’s arent going to work well in a tail chase!!!.
Anywhere along Turkey’s northern coast in the western half of the country should be more than sufficient to intercept a missile, and most certainly enough if you were to use the three-stage interceptors from the Alaska system.
Crikey the Russians are having faux kittens about the cut-down 2 stage system planned in poland….now you want to push it to the full 3 stage setup?.
Especially when it’s got much better tracking data available to it. Back it up with Scottish missiles and I can’t see anything getting through to the US. Thus not only do you have a system which provides superior protection of the European continent but redundant protection of the United States – without having to ruin East-West relations like a bull in a china shop.
Or, instead of the US making all sorts of changes to the designed system, perhaps the Russians need to admit that they fully understand that, having a limited BMD system of their own, they know that the Polish GBI’s are no threat to them, their first-strike capability OR their second strike capability. They can stop blaming NATO about former Warsaw Pact countries petitioning it to join and then we can have East-West relations built on a footing slightly more mature than one that panders to irrelevent Russian bloody paranoia!.
JonesyIMHO, the only European country that really needs GBI to protect itself from Iranian attack is Greece. Iran(known as Persia at that time) did attack Greece at Thermopylae(Aug. 480 BC), and Salamis(Sept. 480 BC). But those events occurred over 2,000 years ago.
Does that sentiment track with this article regarding a strike on London perhaps?.
Iranian official calls for attack on UK Lead [-]
http://www.jpost.com/serv…st%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Fearing a US strike on Iran during President George W. Bush’s last months in office, a senior Iranian official has suggested the Islamic regime should target London to deter such an attack.
In an article on the Iranian Web site Aftab last week – translated by the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute – the head of the Europe and US Department in the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Wahid Karimi, said that an attack on London would deter the US from attacking Teheran.
“The most appropriate means of deterrence that Iran has, in addition to a retaliatory operation in the [Gulf] region, is to take action against London,” Karimi said.
In the article, the Iranian official said that an attack might also stem from the fact that presidents in their second terms are “usually adventuresome.”
Citing some examples he said: “US presidents are usually adventuresome in their second terms… [Richard] Nixon, disgraced by the Watergate scandal; [Ronald] Reagan, with the ‘Irangate’ adventure; [and Bill] Clinton, with Monica Lewinsky – and perhaps George Bush, the sitting president, will create a scandal connected to Iran’s legitimate nuclear activity so as not to be left behind.”
He speculated that a US attack on Iran could come between next month’s presidential election and when the new president enters office in January 2009.
“In the worst-case scenario, George Bush may perhaps persuade the president-elect to carry out an ill-conceived operation against Iran, prior to January 20, 2009 – that is, before the regime is handed over and he ends his presence in the White House. The next president of the US will have to deal with the consequences,” he warned.
Admitting that previous Iranian warnings to paralyze “the Jerusalem-occupying regime” to deter “American adventurism” has not worked, Karimi said that “the most appropriate means of deterrence” for Iran would be to attack London.
“If we agree that such a scenario – with America, England and Israel at its center – is conceivable, then it would seem that the most appropriate means of deterrence that Iran has, in addition to a retaliatory operation in the [Gulf] region, is to take action against London. Experience proves that the [part played] by politicians in Tel Aviv and in London, in the [fanning of the] flames against Iran and in the urging of America to strike Iran, is no less than [the part played] by Bush,” he said.
During a visit to Bahrain last Wednesday, the chairman of the Iranian parliament, Ali Larijani, regarded by some as a moderate, rejected claims that his country’s support of militants fighting US forces in Iraq could be considered support for terrorism.
“They are freedom fighters fighting to defend their country and independence, that is not terrorism,” he said.
Larijani, Iran’s former nuclear negotiator, said Iran’s support was part of its commitment in the region to assist its neighbors in fighting occupation, and accused the US, the West and Israel of contradicting the values of freedom and democracy.
He also said that the ties between Teheran and Damascus were strategic, and downplayed any impact that the indirect Syrian-Israeli negotiations might have.
“Despite Israeli talk of peace, they continue to build settlements and none of their alleged peace efforts have been achieved. The real problem is with the Zionist entity because its existence depends on creating conflict in the region,” he said.
In an interview in the al-Wasat newspaper, he attacked US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a personal manner, referring to her not having had children.
“The West needs to reconsider what they say. The top US diplomat Condoleezza Rice, during the Israeli aggression against Lebanon, described the war as ‘the birth pangs of a new Middle East,'” he said. “As a woman who did not try the experience of pregnancy, she seems to not have known that a birth needs longer time than that.”
In addition to supporting Hamas and Hizbullah, Iran has also been supporting the Islamist insurgencies in Iraq and southern Afghanistan, where British troops are based
Now it has to be said that the guy quoted in this is not a member of the Iranian Govt, but, a ‘connected’ think-tank so, whilst not indicating policy options being considered by the current administration, it is indicative of the advice on offer to that administration and its not as benign as some of you would try to make out is it!.
Sign In
