tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post6926143033064421548..comments2024-02-29T11:45:01.870+01:00Comments on UK Armed Forces Commentary: Fleet Air Arm, RAF, the past and the futureGabrielehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-44399512069658875982011-04-30T15:53:57.969+02:002011-04-30T15:53:57.969+02:00I see what you mean now. I've read some of the...I see what you mean now. I've read some of the things you mention, the abort rate is as good as harrier if not better. It's not really a formal report per se more a set of statistics. <br /><br />The risks he speaks of are no different from any other a/c. They issues are fairly easily risk managed, especially with reagard to the climate, it's been going pretty much non stop, as a fleet, in the desert since 1991.<br />Some individual a/c will have issue some fleet wide, but they are no different from c130/tristar/hawk etc. <br />I'm sorry but since I don't think the maintaince schedules are open source, it's probably best if I don't put them, for reasons obvious.Topmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-66455167746575699212011-04-30T14:40:18.160+02:002011-04-30T14:40:18.160+02:00Mark Lancaster in the debate makes his point build...Mark Lancaster in the debate makes his point building on an internal report that he and the minister have at hand, but that is not released publically. <br /><br />For what i understand from their exchange, the report includes both indications of mission aborts and also a risk log inclusive of several areas in which the Tornado has problems. <br />The report might be classified, i do not know... for sure it is not shown, and there are no links to it. <br />I've tried searching on my own for data about mainteinance needs and other figures, but for Tornado GR4 is not easy at all to find them, and for now i got nothing really useful at hand. <br /><br />As for the RFA thing, i guess much depends on what "limited" means. For me, for example, Libya is a limited operation. A pretty small one, indeed, considering the consistency of the force deployed.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-8956662653477107262011-04-30T14:34:48.741+02:002011-04-30T14:34:48.741+02:00Having spoken to someone who deals first hand with...Having spoken to someone who deals first hand with the supply train for the RFA he says only for limited ops and the carrier would be depend on land bases and ports in Italy which it would need to sail back to, fairly often for supplies. <br /><br />Could you explain what you mean be risk logs? <br />You mean how often they have a ground abort or how often they require maintenance such as a minor?Topmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-60486131359905857452011-04-30T13:58:17.238+02:002011-04-30T13:58:17.238+02:00I believe they still could sustain Illustrious eve...I believe they still could sustain Illustrious even if it had Harriers on board. Then again, it depends on how ambitious the operation is, because the number of sorties flown and weapons released is obviously determinant in terms of logistics. <br /><br />Could you link me to the document with the Tornado risk logs...? I found lot of stuff on the Harrier GR9, but little about Tornado.<br />For example, i know that the Harrier GR9 used to hit Minor Mainteinance periods every 780 flying hours and Major Mainteinance every 2800 hours, but i was unable to find figures released for Tornado. <br />In absence of first hand evidence, i must of course keep faith to the words of MPs and ministers. One has to assume that they know the documents they quote (ideally).Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-31917435978498591822011-04-30T00:31:02.496+02:002011-04-30T00:31:02.496+02:00Yes they do, but I'm not sure they could susta...Yes they do, but I'm not sure they could sustain a carrier and it's needs on a long op. <br /><br /><br />I read the link about the MPs debate. You comment on seeing the stats about Tornado ground aborts, having seen them first hand the figures he uses are rubbish. It's nowhere near that high.Topmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-60709211653788588692011-04-30T00:09:22.966+02:002011-04-30T00:09:22.966+02:00The RFA has shrunk a lot, but so has the RN and ev...The RFA has shrunk a lot, but so has the RN and everything else, and not just in the UK. The RFA continues to support navy ops from the Falklands to the Gulf to the Caribean. <br /><br />And into the med as well.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-90748243891524938322011-04-30T00:07:17.290+02:002011-04-30T00:07:17.290+02:00If you want a navy and not a coastguard, your ship...If you want a navy and not a coastguard, your ships need to be around, and supply ships are required to enable that.<br /><br />I agree but that isn't the case any more, the RFA isn't large enough to do such things anymore. They cost money with no carrier you can get rid and save money. <br /><br />The idea was to mainly use them with ss from land avoiding the bring back issue. Maybe they did lie who knows, but that's the way with trials they don't always work.Topmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-65822109115380511502011-04-29T23:55:55.445+02:002011-04-29T23:55:55.445+02:00"Escort" is a bit airy a cost source. It..."Escort" is a bit airy a cost source. It is highly unlikely that HMS Ark Royal would have had, for LIbya, a true escort. It would have been guarded by one of the other ships in the area at the most, be it HMS Cumberland until it was around the area or HMS Liverpool now. <br /><br />And supply ships also would arguably be around all the same: Fort Rosalie is heading in the Med with HMS Ocean and the other amphibs. <br />If you want a navy and not a coastguard, your ships need to be around, and supply ships are required to enable that. <br /><br />Carrier or not. <br /><br />If the enemy was dangerous enough that a real escort was needed, arguably it would likely be equipped with weaponry capable to make land bases vulnerable as well, and defences would have to be stepped up for the airport as well. <br /><br />On the bring-back problem, allow me to express my doubts. <br />Never heard of Harrier GR9s forced to drop laser-guided bombs into the sea because of insufficient power. You might have better sources than me about the weapon integrationg process, but it appears that something is wrong if in 2003 the study says it can be done and the upgrade is approved and financed and then everything proves not to work. <br /><br />Then someone lied back when the MOD was presented a plan that included Storm Shadow in order to get the funding. <br />Because the performances of the Harrier, the power of the MK107 engine and the weight of Storm were both well known, and it hardly was possible to screw up the calculations so monumentally.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-88160674798093358282011-04-29T23:44:14.274+02:002011-04-29T23:44:14.274+02:00Like I say bring back was the big thing, if the we...Like I say bring back was the big thing, if the weapon wasn't dropped could a Harrier come back and land with ss still fitted? The indication was no, the weapon would have to be ditched even with the 107 it still wasn't great. <br />Plus it fairly unlikely all 9 would be launched. Costs wise very difficult to pin these things down, aar is expensive but then so is a carrier with it's escorts and supply ships.Topmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-12159173742141667332011-04-29T23:24:43.829+02:002011-04-29T23:24:43.829+02:00I might reply that Storm Shadow was and is not nec...I might reply that Storm Shadow was and is not necessary for Afghanistan, and while it was used in the opening phase of Libya's ops, i would have rather taken a gap of four years in Storm Shadow use, until it was ready for use on the Typhoons, that ten years of capability gap in carrier strike, while simultaneously realizing savings too small to balance the MOD books. <br /><br />Libya might have "saved" the Tornado for now, but if you are a follower of the military situation of the UK you will know that as part of the PR11 and the famous "additional billion in cuts" the complete retirement of Tornado GR4, or at least the reduction of the fleet to no more than 60 (same number of the GR9 Harriers, ironically) was envisaged. <br />And this barely months after the SDSR. <br /><br />And while Harrier struggled to deal with a weapon as big and heavy as SS, it could be done. <br />Which is something no one says, while instead banging on about "Tornado's got Storm SHadow, Brimstone and RAPTOR". <br /><br />9 Harrier GR9, each with a Storm Shadow, flying from Ark Royal close to shore could have done the "first night" strike that took a 3000 miles flight from Marham and the whole air to air refuelling force of the RAF to do. <br />They could have done it for less cost, and they could have done it twice or maybe even twice in the space of the first day, delivering more missiles and impact and a comparable, if not lower cost.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-68752717210906563552011-04-29T22:59:01.619+02:002011-04-29T22:59:01.619+02:00It was more of a physical thing and time. Part of ...It was more of a physical thing and time. Part of the aircraft had to be dismantled every time to load and download it off the aircraft.<br />At the time Harrier was in Afghan so long range deep strike weapons weren't a priority it was all UORs for Afghan. The descision was made in the light of that, it could have but it was all about priorities and with Tornado already fully able to carry it it wasn't thought a major issue. There was also the issue with 105 engines and it's bring back. 107 were in the pipeline but not enough at the time. It had to be counter balanced on the opposite wing, as it has no useful centre line pylon. <br />It may look like a fit up now, but looked at in the light of the time and the issues then, it is not really a flyer.Topmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-82154839291442730582011-04-29T22:29:32.901+02:002011-04-29T22:29:32.901+02:00Glad you came over to give a look around then.
A ...Glad you came over to give a look around then. <br />A failed ground trial was enough to stop the whole integration programme...? Evidently there wasn't a true will to bring it forwards, because i highly doubt it was something unsurmontable. <br /><br />According to many sources included http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-30.html, the integration work for SS and Brimstone were still possible to complete, and it was reported to the SDSR committee. <br /><br />As to the Tornado move being planned well before it actually happened, it is true. Indeed, the switch was late compared to the plan, when it finally could happen. But still, it just don't feel like it was a completely clear and honest thing. <br /><br />But that's me, i guess.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-49087132899779330272011-04-29T22:19:28.027+02:002011-04-29T22:19:28.027+02:00Hi, saw your link on TD. Just to add some info, th...Hi, saw your link on TD. Just to add some info, the StormShadow trial on Harrier didn't continue because it failed it's ground trial and didn't progress to the flying stage. The MPs saying Tornado was moved in to avoid being cut isn't correct the change over in afghan was on the books since 2008 was when I heard of it, maybe it was even 2007.topmannoreply@blogger.com