There will ALWAYS be an England ... ???

[Treetop Flyer]

A British harrier pilot I spoke to said he thinks that the decision to axe the harrier has to do with service rivalries and the Royal Air Force is happy to do away with the joint force harrier and stick it to the Royal Navy and solidify their monopoly on tac air. Killing the Harrier also saves the Tornado fleet temporarily. He also said that this will allow them to close a Harrier base along with the jets to save more money. Supposedly they are planning to get only 40 F-35's and C models at that. This is all just what I heard from one (understandably) disappointed Brit.

 

[A4sForever]

A British harrier pilot I spoke to said he thinks that the decision to axe the harrier has to do with service rivalries and the Royal Air Force is happy to.... stick it to the Royal Navy and solidify their monopoly...

Ditto ... I agree w/ your Limey friend ... and it's very similar to what the USAF tried to do to the USN post-WW2 (thanks to Gen LeMay -- w/ his buddies, a classic proponent of SAC and 'BIG USAF can do anything') ... when time is available, do some 'stupid study' on the proposed fate of the carriers, post Pacific War, in a 'perfect world', according to the USAF. That's one of the reasons the Navy was so willing to fly any mission, bear any burden during Korea when we weren't really equipped for it ...

 

[jarhead]

With what appears to be the Brits backing out of the F-35B and going with the F-35C, I wonder how this is going to affect the F-35B program. I guess one logical result would be the increase in cost for the Corps.

 

[The Crab]

Dont forget the new Nimrod has been binned along with RAF Kinloss, although there is a rumour that returning Army units from Germany will take up the station in about ten years. So we are out of the airborne ASW/ASUW game too, another skillbase that once gone cant easily be replaced. A ridiculous decision considering that the nine aircraft are paid for and the infrastructure is in place at Kinloss. All we are saving is the operating costs. And especially stupid when you consider that since March, and the retirement of the Nimrod MR2, the Russians have been hovering around outside Faslane waiting for our Trident subs to come out .. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...n-subs-stalk-Trident-in-echo-of-Cold-War.html .. we are now a maritime island nation that cant patrol its own waters.

As for the decision to bin the Harrier, I think no one here gets that. I supsect that it came down to a straight choice and the Tornado GR4 is the jet doing CAS in Afghan right now, it replaced the Harrier in the role. If the Argies make a move on the Falkands we only have four Typhoons down there to counter. Harriers might be useful, they certainly were last time. Add in that our transport and Tanker fleet to re-inforce is virtually non existent and its a dire situation. This "review" is a cost saving exercise and nothing more, believe it or not we pay India (a nation building two carriers currently and which has a space and nuclear wepaons program) £800,000,000 per year in aid to help with their "poverty". Foreign aid has been ringfenced in our budget, it cant be touched. But stopping it for ONE year would have saved the jobs of the 17,000 servicemen and woman who will end up in Civvy st.

Lot of angry people here in the UK today, I had a history teacher tell me years ago that the only man to enter Parliament with integrity, honest intentions and a good plan was Guy Fawkes, its hard to disagree with that after yesterday. Our Prime Minister is wittering on about what the threats are for the next ten years, glad he knows. Because if someone had walked up to me in October 2000 and said that in ten years we would have been fighting in Afghanistan for nine I would have not believed them. The echoes of what happened when we binned the last Ark Royal and fixed wing naval aipower are eerie, shortly after the Falklands were invaded and we were lucky to get away with getting them back with the Harriers we are now binning.

But at least we are keeping our sense of humour about it .. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190458541958&afsrc=1

 

[busdriver]

What is the rational for the STOVL version of F-35? I'm not talking about Marines having their own air support, I get that. What I'm saying is what scenario requires fast air support that doesn't also require a carrier air group? I'm not talking real world scenario, just hypothetical.

I'm not knocking Naval based Airpower. Despite the ability of the Air Force to strike any target on the planet from the states, it still doesn't have the same political leverage of parking a carrier off the coast. But when would the Marine fast air be needed, but not warrant a carrier? It seems like old school Harrier guys just want to keep the STOVL capability, when reality may no longer warrant it?

I'm an outsider, so I get it if the Marine Harrier guys scoff at me.

 

[SynixMan]

I'd hazard a guess that it's two fold. First, we have a large investment in the Gator ships designed for helicopters and STOVL fixed wing assets. It would be bad to not utilize ships we've invested in over the past 30 years, plus the America Class LHA coming and designed around the F-35B.

Second, Marines are extremely protective of their organic capabilities. The Air Force or Navy might not meet their needs all the time. And once something is gone, it likely won't come back.

 

[gparks1989]

Second, Marines are extremely protective of their organic capabilities. The Air Force or Navy might not meet their needs all the time. And once something is gone, it likely won't come back.

Question: what needs are filled by the Harrier? Given the fact that we have a large CATOBAR fleet, the rationale for the Harrier seems fuzzy to me. Would the Gator Navy be better served by making it a helo navy? It seems to me that this would give it more flexibility to serve humanitarian missions independently, respond to piracy or generally make an American presence felt. Any conflict that would require large show of Navair power would seem better served by a carrier with fixed wing assets and a gater with rotary wing assets. Having said that, it would be absurd to just get rid of USMC fixed wing assets.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Question: what needs are filled by the Harrier? Given the fact that we have a large CATOBAR fleet, the rationale for the Harrier seems fuzzy to me. Would the Gator Navy be better served by making it a helo navy? It seems to me that this would give it more flexibility to serve humanitarian missions independently, respond to piracy or generally make an American presence felt. Any conflict that would require large show of Navair power would seem better served by a carrier with fixed wing assets and a gater with rotary wing assets. Having said that, it would be absurd to just get rid of USMC fixed wing assets.

They don't float MEU's around the world for humanitarian reasons. They may wind up doing that if the need arises and they don't have anything more important to do, but removing Harriers in favor of more helos to better respond to potential humanitarian crises is just silly. Harriers can do a lot of stuff helos cannot, and the F-35 will be able to do a lot more.

 

[Swanee]

Question: what needs are filled by the Harrier? Given the fact that we have a large CATOBAR fleet, the rationale for the Harrier seems fuzzy to me. Would the Gator Navy be better served by making it a helo navy? It seems to me that this would give it more flexibility to serve humanitarian missions independently, respond to piracy or generally make an American presence felt. Any conflict that would require large show of Navair power would seem better served by a carrier with fixed wing assets and a gater with rotary wing assets. Having said that, it would be absurd to just get rid of USMC fixed wing assets.

Harriers have expeditionary value as well. Look at Bagram in 2002-2003. We needed fixed wing air assets there, but at that time Bagram only had a short amount of usable runway. The Harrier can use that runway and be successful (so can the A-10). If even at the high altitude it couldn't land there vertically...

 

[HAL Pilot]

I'd also say that there are not enough carriers to go around and the large deck amphibs help make up the shortfall. Further, sometimes a CVN with 60-80 aircraft is overkill when an LHA with 6 or so Harriers and a bunch of helos full of Marines more than makes the point.

I've heard the Air Force argument before. I think it was General McPeak who tried it last and lost all credibility with the other service chiefs.

 

[Flash]

I'm not knocking Naval based Airpower. Despite the ability of the Air Force to strike any target on the planet from the states, it still doesn't have the same political leverage of parking a carrier off the coast.

That ability to strike anywhere from the states is a limited one in the big picture and does not have the same flexibility, endurance or responsiveness of a carrier parked off the coast. And as a Prowler guy I can't help but point out that the USAF doesn't have the electronic attack assets that would be necessary for all of those assets to strike well defended areas. Just saying......

The point about the RAF trying to kill off RN aviation seems to have been a recurring issue with the Brits since the RAF absorbed the Navy's RNAS along with the Army's RFC when it was created in 1918 and broached just recently by an RAF chief. From what I have read it seems like the animosity between some RAF and RN personnel, particularly some of the leadership, has a bit more bite to it than it does in the US. I think since the RN Tacair fleet has been so small for so long that it seems it is an easy target for some in the RAF to pick on. I think the difference in the US is that Naval Aviation is so big that it is harder to attack it without getting significant pushback (the USAF often tries though......), especially with much of our leadership wearing wings where in the UK that is not the case. For example, I believe by law US carriers CO's have to be winged, not the case in the RN.

 

[Pepe]

They may wind up doing that if the need arises and they don't have anything more important to do, but removing Harriers in favor of more helos to better respond to potential humanitarian crises is just silly. Harriers can do a lot of stuff helos cannot, and the F-35 will be able to do a lot more.

It's not THAT silly. We park the Harrier guys (and sometimes even the the skidiots) in random places at times to better respond to humanitarian crises out here in WESPAC. It all depends on the mission and the threat level. The Harriers are there for strike, aerial intel, limited anit-air and to make sure we never have too much fuel or deck-space.

 

[SkywardET]

The point about the RAF trying to kill off RN aviation seems to have been a recurring issue with the Brits since the RAF absorbed the Navy's RNAS along with the Army's RFC when it was created in 1918 and broached just recently by an RAF chief. From what I have read it seems like the animosity between some RAF and RN personnel, particularly some of the leadership, has a bit more bite to it than it does in the US. I think since the RN Tacair fleet has been so small for so long that it seems it is an easy target for some in the RAF to pick on. I think the difference in the US is that Naval Aviation is so big that it is harder to attack it without getting significant pushback (the USAF often tries though......), especially with much of our leadership wearing wings where in the UK that is not the case. For example, I believe by law US carriers CO's have to be winged, not the case in the RN.

I don't know that much about British interservice rivalry, but I was quite surprised at the limited nature of the cuts being made by the British given their economic situation. I suspect that many more cuts are to follow in both their military and their public sector. Fewer ships, nuclear missiles, and a smaller army are going to be the future of the British into the indefinite future. It is for similar reasons that I would not be surprised if we lost a quarter or more of our ships and operational squadrons over the next decade.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

It's not THAT silly. We park the Harrier guys (and sometimes even the the skidiots) in random places at times to better respond to humanitarian crises out here in WESPAC. It all depends on the mission and the threat level. The Harriers are there for strike, aerial intel, limited anit-air and to make sure we never have too much fuel or deck-space.

I realize that they are used for humanitarian missions, and Harriers aren't very useful for that. I'm saying the idea of removing Harriers for planning purposes so amphibs will be better suited to respond to humanitarian missions is silly. Humantarian missions are not why we float MEU's around the world. If they were the primary mission, they wouldn't need to bring so many guns.

 

[nittany03]

I don't know that much about British interservice rivalry, but I was quite surprised at the limited nature of the cuts being made by the British given their economic situation. I suspect that many more cuts are to follow in both their military and their public sector. Fewer ships, nuclear missiles, and a smaller army are going to be the future of the British into the indefinite future. It is for similar reasons that I would not be surprised if we lost a quarter or more of our ships and operational squadrons over the next decade.

Judging by the Brit press, it seems nothing is sacred over there. Military, welfare, everything's getting schwacked.