Harrier dispute between Navy and RAF chiefs sees Army 'marriage counsellor' called in

[rock45]

Harrier dispute between Navy and RAF chiefs sees Army 'marriage counsellor' called in


The Defence Secretary John Hutton has been forced to call in an Army general to act as a “marriage counsellor” to resolve a bitter dispute between the heads of the Royal Navy and RAF over the future of the Harrier jump jet.


By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:32PM GMT 04 Feb 2009

Harrier jump jet, Air Marshal Torpy suggested that the Ministry of Defence could save £1 billion if the Harrier was phased out of service. Photo: PA


The relationship between the First Sea Lord, Sir Jonathon Band, and the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Glenn Torpy has become “poisonous” due to a disagreement over the aircraft that is jointly run by both services.
Frustrated at the lack of compromise between the two military leaders, Major General Paul Newton, an Army officer with no flying background, has been appointed to resolve the dispute.
Air Marshal Torpy suggested that the Ministry of Defence could save £1 billion if the Harrier was phased out of service within the next five years with the closure of Joint Force Harrier with its 50 Navy and RAF pilots.
This would have signalled the end of the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm, regarded as the most professional of all air forces, despite the two new aircraft carriers entering service by the end of the next decade.
Admiral Band was incensed by the proposal, which would have meant there would be no Navy pilots to fly off the carriers, and threatened to resign.
But Air Marshal Torpy is thought to have the backing of the Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Jock Stirrup, who was also an RAF pilot.
“Relations between Torpy and Band have become very bitter and very poisonous,” claims a defence source. “General Newton is being used as a marriage counsellor to ensure that the rowing does not become public.”
Major Gen Newton, Director of Development, Concepts and Doctrine in the MOD, is expected to agree with the Navy that a small force of sea-going pilots is vital to Britain’s interests if it wants to project power abroad when he presents his report to a meeting of MoD chiefs today (weds).
There is a suggestion now that Air Marshal Torpy will resign if the Navy wins the bitter turf war, according to Whitehall sources.
The Naval Strike Force will probably become the main Harrier force preparing pilots to fly the ‘fifth generation’ Joint Strike Fighter made in America.
The sticking point for the RAF is that only half of the 150 British JSF are likely now to be ordered with the Navy getting the majority. This would mean the RAF would struggle to get a full replacement for fourth generation Eurofighter Typhoon leaving them without a cutting edge aircraft
A senior Army officer described the dispute as “a bunch of overgrown school boys arguing over who gets to play on a new toy”.
The internecine battles being fought between the Services over a limited defence budget are said to be at the most bitter since the “east of Suez” defence cuts of the Sixties.
The RAF argues that with Afghanistan land-locked and the new carriers not coming into service until at least 2016 there is no current need to have carrier-borne fighters. Once the ships become operational, the RAF would be able to fly off them.
The savings would come through the maintenance contract that has yet to be signed with BAE Systems and by closing RAF Cottesmore when the Harrier force is based.
An MoD spokesman said: “The First Sea Lord and Chief of the Air Staff are committed to working together for the benefit of the Armed Forces and will continue to do so in the future.”“During any planning round a number of options are considered to ensure our spending plans are matching our priorities and delivering value for money. But we do not provide a running commentary on this process. At this stage no decisions have been made.”



Link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-sees-Army-marriage-counsellor-called-in.html

 

[BritinBritain]

Typical.

If the Harrier is scrapped before the new carriers come into service, the Royal Navy won't have a carrier force. A very dangerous posistion to be in. To coin a phrase from "Remember the Alamo", "Remember the Falklands"

It never ceases to amazes me that such senior (experienced?) officers can be so blinkered.

 

[rock45]

Carriers

Are the Royal Navy's carrier operational? Are they in for deep repairs I found this slightly older article I posted in a different forum. I may have posted here as well.

Sorry but I have to ask if you only have two carriers how could you put both in for repairs/upgrades at the same time? Am I reading this wrong?

Navy's aircraft carriers face delay
By Sylvia Pfeifer, Defence Industries Correspondent

Published: February 21 2008 02:00 | Last updated: February 21 2008 02:00

The construction of the Royal Navy's two aircraft carriers could be delayed by up to 12 months as the Ministry of Defence faces an estimated budget shortfall of £2bn over the next three years.

One of the recommendations presented to senior defence officials and service chiefs yesterday was that the MoD agree a manufacturing contract with the industry alliance building the ships within weeks but delay construction.

If the government goes ahead with the plan, it would set alarm bells ringing in Britain's shipyards. The yards have been hiring in anticipation of the £4bn project and could have to lay off key workers.

Sources close to the talks believe that by agreeing the contract the MoD would be able to limit any political fallout from subsequent delays.

Signing the contract now would also allow the shipbuilding joint venture between BAE Systems and VT Group to go ahead. The two companies have been poised to agree the project for several weeks but have been waiting for the green light from government.

BAE said: "Negotiations regarding the proposed joint venture with VT are at an advanced stage . . . The signature of the joint venture agreements is also dependent upon the signature of contracts for the aircraft carriers and we are working closely with the MoD to ensure that these are placed as soon as possible."

link
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/38549932-e03e-11dc-b0d7-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

 

[mmarsh]

The problem is that this isn't 1980 and so the Harrier even upgraded really is obsolete now. Aside from ground support it would be easy meat for any 4th Generation Fighter not to mention modern Air Defense systems. The original design dates from the 1960s. Don't get me wrong the harrier was a fine aircraft in its day, and preformed well in the Falklands, but its time for it to be retired. What the Royal Navy Needs is the F-35.

 

[BritinBritain]

The problem is that this isn't 1980 and so the Harrier even upgraded really is obsolete now. Aside from ground support it would be easy meat for any 4th Generation Fighter not to mention modern Air Defense systems. The original design dates from the 1960s. Don't get me wrong the harrier was a fine aircraft in its day, and preformed well in the Falklands, but its time for it to be retired. What the Royal Navy Needs is the F-35.

Yes the Royal Navy does need the F35, but at the moment they dont have the carriers for the aircraft.

While the Harrier is indeed an older design, and against more modern aircraft would have one hell of a fight on its hands, as ground support its still very much an option. Better to have the Harrier, then have no carrier air cover at all.

No this isnt 1980, but the Falklands was a wake up call as to the importance of a carrier fleet. Who knows what some looney tunes government have got in store where even an outdated aircraft would do the job.

Many quite rightly thought that the Fleet Air Arm Swordfish torpedo bomber during WW2 was well outdated, which indeed it was, but the aeroplane did its job.

I remember a dogfight between out dated (Jordanian?) Hawker Hunters and Israeli Mirages, neither could get on the others tail. A Hunter was only shot down, because he broke from the fight and headed home. A Mirage using his higher speed, caught up and nailed the Hunter with an air to air.

In conclusion, the Harriers should be kept in service until the new Queen Elizabeth class carriers are brought into service.

My opinion for what its worth.

 

[03USMC]

The problem is that this isn't 1980 and so the Harrier even upgraded really is obsolete now. Aside from ground support it would be easy meat for any 4th Generation Fighter not to mention modern Air Defense systems. The original design dates from the 1960s. Don't get me wrong the harrier was a fine aircraft in its day, and preformed well in the Falklands, but its time for it to be retired. What the Royal Navy Needs is the F-35.

As a fighter/interceptor the AV8 never was at the top of the heap, even new.

As a ground attack aircraft that can deploy with an expeditionary force and needs far less infrastructure to operate with and be effective. The AV8 is still viable especially in a CAS role for manuver elements.

 

[mmarsh]

Even in the AtG role, the Harrier is a liability. It has the rader signature of a house, its slow, its turn ratio is inferior, limited range, and it can only be armed with only short range AtA weaponry. This means it is incapable of the Navy's most important critical role, which is Fleet Defense. You cannot get CAS support to the boots on the ground if the carriers got sunk before they reached the combat zone.

This means that British Aircraft Carriers must remain in range of RAF land-base Aircraft such as Tornadoes and Typhoons. Thats a serious handicap because the British might not have airbases nearby in a potential conflict zone.

This is exactly the scenario of the Falklands War, but in that war the Harrier got two breaks, First it was facing Generation III aircraft like the Mirage F1 flown by inferior pilots, and secondly, neither AtA nor SAM systems were as deadly as they are today. BVR (beyond Visual Range) combat barely existed in early 1980s.

Furthermore the first delivery's of the F-35 start in 2010, thats only in 1 year although I admit that I am unsure which version will go first (probably the land-based, although that's a pure guess). The point is, I don't see a financial incentive for the British to invest a fortune in maintaining a plane we all agree is in need of replacement.

 

[03USMC]

But without the Carriers that can launch and retrieve the F35's the RN is going to have to use AV8's in it's air arm role. So until the the RN gets tose carriers it has to have something, and AV8's are better than nothing.

As far as your theory of boots on ground and CAS I'll bow to your boots on ground and TACP expierance. Just know that most CTF's are not unescorted carriers and CAS assets can get in country all sorts of ways.

1 year? Yeah and then how long until the carriers are operational? So RN gets rid of AV8's and relies on the RAF to provide air cover umbrellas means they might as well stay in port for a couple of years.

 

[BritinBritain]

The first Queen Elisabeth class carrier isnt due to enter service 2014 at the earliest and 2016 at the latest. The Prince of Wales carrier isnt due until between 2016 and 2018.

The present Royal Navy carriers as far as I am aware, are too small and would not be able to handle the F35's even if they were brought into service next week.

Any fleet without air cover is a sitting target, even with modern SAM's. Yes I agree the Harrier is outdated, but until the new carriers are brought on line equiped with F35's, the Harriers are still a viable option and better then no air cover at all.

As for Argentine pilots being inferior, I've heard reports to the reverse.

What many people are not aware of, there was a supersonic version of the Harrier on the drawing board, for some weird reason, HM Government binned it.

http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_p1154.htm

I've just come across other information regarding upgrading the Harrier in case of JSV cancellation.

http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/JSF_HarrierIII.htm

 

[rock45]

Pilots

Not that I support Argentina role in the war be any means but I do think their pilots were brave. There training was pretty good for the level of aircraft and weapons they had at the time.

This guy from Argentina posted once that the Mirage III's didn't have radar warning devices on them. They didn't even know they were being painted by radar so the Harries could really get into good positions for firing the 9L Siderwinder for so many kills.

This is among other things a small air war with basically shot range aircraft involved. Argentina's fighters only had minutes over the target area at times and the Harries just didn't have the legs to go after the Argentineans from the operational area.

I do believe England used the Harries in a very effective manor and had good trained pilots and support personnel. The end results the Harries did a very good job and perform very well.

Back to the topic I think its sad that the UK's Navy is in this situation in the first place. I think fighting in two wars and so many needs up and down their military it's a chancy investment. On the whole and for the platform lack of future which is important to me that if I were forced to, it would be on the cut list.

BritinAfrica I see your point having nothing in case something comes up is a shitty situation to be in. It goes deeper to the factory personnel who produce the engines and tons of other people invloved all get hurt in this type of a cut. It's also an important part of the Royal Navy's histroy slipping away.

 

[BritinBritain]

Back to the topic I think its sad that the UK's Navy is in this situation in the first place. I think fighting in two wars and so many needs up and down their military it's a chancy investment. On the whole and for the platform lack of future which is important to me that if I were forced to, it would be on the cut list.

Quite frankly this is normal with British Governments, no matter which party is in power. Defence cut backs leaving the military in a weak posistion, then when the crap hits the fan they run around like headless chickens.

As always its the military that saves their skins, being pure bloody minded.

The sad part is, various governments never seem to learn until its too late.

 

[mmarsh]

But without the Carriers that can launch and retrieve the F35's the RN is going to have to use AV8's in it's air arm role. So until the the RN gets tose carriers it has to have something, and AV8's are better than nothing.

As far as your theory of boots on ground and CAS I'll bow to your boots on ground and TACP expierance. Just know that most CTF's are not unescorted carriers and CAS assets can get in country all sorts of ways.

1 year? Yeah and then how long until the carriers are operational? So RN gets rid of AV8's and relies on the RAF to provide air cover umbrellas means they might as well stay in port for a couple of years.

This is not a question of my lack of personal experience (which I readily admit). Its really a question of you not knowing basic History and Geography as the British were confronted with this exact scenario only 30 years ago. We are talking about the UK, which is much smaller, has less resources, and has far smaller global presence compared to the USA. Next time read a book before making arrogant and sarcastic personal remarks.

A carrier airwing is the primary defense of any carrier. Its DDG+FG escort is its last line of defense, and often its not enough. The theory that a ship or its escort can defend itself without air cover was proved wrong in WWII and its still wrong today. Just ask the crews of HMS Antelope, Sheffield, Ardent, Coventry, and Fearless on that one.

In 1982 the RN knew that if the British Carriers were unable to reach the Falklands the Royal Marines would have been without Combat Air Support as the only landmass in the South Atlantic belonged to the enemy. The British High Command therefore they had to make a risky gamble that the carrier fleet would reach the Falklands undetected. The gamble paid off, but if it hadn't there would have been no air support and its doubtful the RN would have ever retaken the Falklands.

Secondly, I never said the RN should scrap the the Harrier totally, the point I was suggesting they make do with what they have and not invest too heavily in old technology as the Harrier quite an expensive aircraft to operate. They might have to do with fewer operational aircraft. Remember this is money spent on old tech that could be used elsewhere.

Lastly, even with a commission date of 2014 we are talking about a small amount of time. It took them 10 years just to get the CVF paperwork signed. So it does make sense for the RN to think about cutting back on its current force, 5 years is nothing. And if there is a looming crisis they can always increase the building speed (at a cost) as they did in the prelude to WWII.

BritinAfrica

When I said the Argentian pilots were inferior I meant compared to the British, not they were bad. The fact that they sunk 5 warships isnt a bad tally, but I dont think they were the same caliber as the Harrier pilots.

 

[BritinBritain]

A carrier airwing is the primary defense of any carrier. Its DDG+FG escort is its last line of defense, and often its not enough. The theory that a ship or its escort can defend itself without air cover was proved wrong in WWII and its still wrong today. Just ask the crews of HMS Antelope, Sheffield, Ardent, Coventry, and Fearless on that one.

In 1982 the RN knew that if the British Carriers were unable to reach the Falklands the Royal Marines would have been without Combat Air Support as the only landmass in the South Atlantic belonged to the enemy. The British High Command therefore they had to make a risky gamble that the carrier fleet would reach the Falklands undetected. The gamble paid off, but if it hadn't there would have been no air support and its doubtful the RN would have ever retaken the Falklands.

You have really answered your own question on that one. Without the Harrier, Britain would never have been able to retake the Falklands

Secondly, I never said the RN should scrap the the Harrier totally, the point I was suggesting they make do with what they have and not invest too heavily in old technology as the Harrier quite an expensive aircraft to operate. They might have to do with fewer operational aircraft. Remember this is money spent on old tech that could be used elsewhere.

The Royal Navy cannot afford to be without an effective air arm, and yes, even today the Harrier is still effective albeit as ground support. Rather then having to reply purely on helicopter support, I'd welcome a squadron or two of Harriers in support. One of the beauties of the Harrier is, it doesnt have to rely on carriers, even container ships could be used for launching and recovery. Despite its faults, its still a viable aircraft. The RN cannot always rely on support from RAF ground based aircraft, such as the Tornado or the new Typhoon. Without a doubt, the Royal Navy still needs the Harrier.

Lastly, even with a commission date of 2014 we are talking about a small amount of time. It took them 10 years just to get the CVF paperwork signed. So it does make sense for the RN to think about cutting back on its current force, 5 years is nothing. And if there is a looming crisis they can always increase the building speed (at a cost) as they did in the prelude to WWII.

5 years is a long time wait if the manure hits the fan, and even if building speed increased, it could be too late. Its better to have something on hand, even if its not ideal. Yes the RN does need the F35, but the problem is, when are they going to get it?

BritinAfrica

When I said the Argentian pilots were inferior I meant compared to the British, not they were bad. The fact that they sunk 5 warships isnt a bad tally, but I dont think they were the same caliber as the Harrier pilots.

I agree, the Harrier pilots put up an amazing show against the Argentine Mirages using a slower but more maneuverable aircraft. One such maneuver was viffing which resulted in a Harrier shooting down a Mirage.

In conclusion, I would say that the Harrier despite its age, is still a viable aircraft for the RN Fleet Air Arm.

 

[BritinBritain]

Are the Royal Navy's carrier operational? Are they in for deep repairs I found this slightly older article I posted in a different forum. I may have posted here as well.

Sorry but I have to ask if you only have two carriers how could you put both in for repairs/upgrades at the same time? Am I reading this wrong?

To answer Rocks question,

HMS Hermes Flagship of the Falklands Fleet was sold off to India in 1986. Active in service as INS Viraat.

As far as I am aware the Royal Navy still has 3 carriers in its fleet,

HMS Illustrious
The carrier set sail from Portsmouth on 21 January 2008 as head of the multi-national Task Group 328.01, under Operation Orion 08, which from January to May 2008 will carry out exercises and diplomatic visits to twenty ports in the Mediterranean, Africa, the Middle East, and south-east Asia. However, on 23 January, whilst still off the coast of southern England, she sailed back to Portsmouth for repairs to a minor fault in a meat freezer. It was felt to be important to repair this before sailing to a warmer climate, and Navy spokesman Anton Hanney stated that flying in an emergency plumber whilst she was underway would be more expensive than turning back whilst Illustrious was still in the English Channel. She sailed back out at 1pm on 24th and made up the lost 24 hours. Her ports of call included Valletta, Malta 26–29 February 2008
This 2008 assignment was filmed and shown on Channel 5 as the 6-part tv documentary Warship transmitted on Mondays from May 19th 2008 This documentary aimed to show life on-board the now-ageing carrier in much the same way that the Ark Royal was shown in the 1976 Sailor. HMS Illustrious was commanded by ex-Chatham commanding officer Captain Steve Chick CBE BSc, who had also commanded HMS Chatham during the 2005 BBC documentary named Shipmates.
By the end of July, she had returned to Portsmouth where she took part in the 2008 navy open-day. She proved to be popular with visitors and the queue to tour her was long. On-board, she displayed a life-size model of the F-35B Joint Combat Aircraft which will replace the Harriers currently used by the ship

HMS Ark Royal
Ark Royal, commanded by Captain Alan Massey, took part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq where her complement singularly consisted of helicopters rather than her usual mix of helicopters and Harrier aircraft. During operations in the war two Westland Sea King helicopters, from 849 Naval Air Squadron, collided in mid-air with the loss of one American and six British lives.
Ark Royal is expected to remain in service until 2016, at which time she will be replaced with HMS Prince of Wales. This new vessel is expected to displace three times that of the Invincible class and offer a steep change in operational capability.
Her current commanding officer (since 31 July 2008 ) is Captain John Clink. He relieved Captain Mike Mansergh who had been CO since August 2006.
Ark Royal was a participant in Exercise Joint Warrior 08-2, 04 - 17 October 2008. She arrived at Liverpool docks on 16 January 2009, during which time the public were allowed to tour the ship. She left Liverpool again on 19 January 2009.


Laid up: HMS Invincible
On 6 June 2005 the Ministry of Defence announced that HMS Invincible would be inactive until 2010, available for reactivation at 18 months' notice. She was decommissioned on 3 August 2005. HMS Illustrious succeeded Invincible as the service's flagship. The Royal Navy maintain that Invincible can be deployed should the need arise and that navy policy assumes that it is still an active aircraft carrier.

 

[mmarsh]

BritinAfrica

You missed the point, I was addressing USMC03 comment that CAS assets can always be brought in from elsewhere besides carriers. Yet this was exactly the problem the RN had in the Falklands because all they had WAS the carriers, there was no land assets available. Which is why the Argentinians made them a priority target, because if they had taken them out the British would have had no air assets available. My problem with the harrier is it simply cannot do its primary job, which isnt CAS, its protecting the mothership whether that happens to be a harrier or a containership. Its renders the whole point of a carrier pointless, if its own aircraft cannot protect the ship afloat. This was exactly the problem of the Yak-38 and Yak-141.

The only real asset, as I see it of the Harrier has today is that there is that there simply nothing else. And again I am not saying scrap it althogether, but since this is a budget battle the RN should perhaps consider reducing the number of operational aircraft, espicially as of this year the RN has only have two carriers. Thats 24 aircraft per carrier.

 

[BritinBritain]

BritinAfrica

You missed the point, I was addressing USMC03 comment that CAS assets can always be brought in from elsewhere besides carriers. Yet this was exactly the problem the RN had in the Falklands because all they had WAS the carriers, there was no land assets available. Which is why the Argentinians made them a priority target, because if they had taken them out the British would have had no air assets available. My problem with the harrier is it simply cannot do its primary job, which isnt CAS, its protecting the mothership whether that happens to be a harrier or a containership. Its renders the whole point of a carrier pointless, if its own aircraft cannot protect the ship afloat. This was exactly the problem of the Yak-38 and Yak-141.

The only real asset, as I see it of the Harrier has today is that there is that there simply nothing else. And again I am not saying scrap it althogether, but since this is a budget battle the RN should perhaps consider reducing the number of operational aircraft, espicially as of this year the RN has only have two carriers. Thats 24 aircraft per carrier.

OK, what actually is the Harriers primary job? Protecting the fleet?
As far as I am aware, the Harrier has been fitted with BVR air to air. By reducing the numbers of Harriers in Service would endanger the fleet if any were lost in air combat.

Personally I still firmly believe that the Harrier is still a viable option, even if the Harrier cannot protect the carrier from airborne enemy aircraft, I would assume that the carrier would operate with other carriers such as the US Navy, and would also operate as ground attack in support of ground troops. Yes the aircraft is getting more and more expensive to maintain, but in the big scheme of things, its a drop in the bucket.

I WILL agree with you, the Harrier does need replacing, but not until the F35's and carriers are available. As I mentioned before, there is an alternative in the pipe line, incase for some reason the F35 is cancelled, by bringing on line Harrier 111.

HMS Hermes which has been sold to India and renamed INS Viraat and are also operating Harriers.

Even if the US marines scrapped their Harriers tomorrow, they could operate the F35 (assuming they were built) because the USN operates the ships needed for such aircraft. The RN doesnt at the moment.

I fully understand the reason why RN chiefs are upset with the RAF over this issue.

 

[rock45]

India's INS Viraat

A little side note since you mentioned the INS Viraat, I think India lost 16 Harriers in accidents already out the 32 they bought. I'll have to back track I posted an article about a while back that made me think of it.

 

[BritinBritain]

A little side note since you mentioned the INS Viraat, I think India lost 16 Harriers in accidents already out the 32 they bought. I'll have to back track I posted an article about a while back that made me think of it.

I must admit (from what I have heard and read) the Harrier is a very difficult aircraft to fly.

 

[mmarsh]

BritinAfrica

The Harriers principal job was is to protect the fleet...in 1970. Unfortunately it has been surpassed by 2 generations of aircraft development. Nor does the Harrier have BVR capability as it cannot fire missiles other than AIM-9L and M Sidewinders which are strictly short range self defense weapons.

I also disagree with your statement about rapid construction. Both the British and the French were able to rapidly complete the construction of new Battleships in time for WWII. The Battleship Strasbourg for example was fully completed in two years. A US Liberty Cargo ship was once built in 3 days. These rapid construction programs are costly but are perfectly feasible.

Also keep in mind the Invincible class carries as many choppers as they do Harriers. In fact for the invasion of Iraq they ONLY carry helicopters, no harriers were on board. As it stands now the Invincable is really more useful as a LPH than as a CV.

Keep in mind that Invicible has already been decommisioned, Illustrious will be decommisoned in less than 3 years and Ark Royal in 6. Frankly the chances of the UK needing CV within that time is astronomically small.

 

[Partisan]

BritinAfrica


The only real asset, as I see it of the Harrier has today is that there is that there simply nothing else. And again I am not saying scrap it althogether, but since this is a budget battle the RN should perhaps consider reducing the number of operational aircraft, espicially as of this year the RN has only have two carriers. Thats 24 aircraft per carrier.

This is the perennial military problem, never enough equipment of the right type, so it solved in the age old fashion, we put our bodies in the way and make our minds work to get the job done.

Personally I'm ashamed that the RN has been decimated, I remember seeing that it had 33 surface ships and 35 Admirals - something wrong with that!

Yes the Harrier isn't great, but it is multi capable and it is what we, the British have, to project Naval air power, let's just hope that no one hostile reads this thread.