Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Admirals urge rethink on Harrier and Ark Royal cuts

1984ReturnsForReal_2
1984ReturnsForReal_2 Posts: 15,431 Forumite
edited 10 November 2010 at 1:04AM in Debate House Prices & the Economy
I suppose these guys just really haven't got a clue what they are talking about but they have been on this very board, happened across my posts & thought well actually 1984 does have a point.
A group of former Royal Navy admirals have called for the decision to scrap the aircraft carrier Ark Royal and the fleet of Harrier jets to be reversed.

The cuts were announced as part of the government's Strategic Defence Review.

In a letter to the Times, the group says defence cuts will leave the "newly valuable" Falkland Islands open to attack and call the plan to axe the Harrier fleet "financially perverse".



It seems George Osbourne, Nick Clegg & David Cameron have indeed set up a little pervert ring. :p


Link for £145.50 per year http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11723589



The decision to scrap a fleet of fast jets and Britain’s flagship aircraft carrier makes no financial sense and leaves the Falkland Islands vulnerable to a new attack by Argentina, a group of senior, retired commanders claim today. The officers, including Lord

Link if you want to pay a quid. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/
Not Again
«13

Comments

  • Andy_L
    Andy_L Posts: 12,958 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    There are 2 problems with scrapping harrier (and neither of them is losing the Falklands)

    1. The navy loses the "corporate memory" of how to operate jets of a carrier & thus it takes them far longer to relean those skills & become proficient at using CVH/JSF (or whatever jet we end up buying)

    2. In 10 years whoevers in charge then says "well, you've managed 10 years without carrier jets, why do we need to buy them now?" and the Navy end up with no fast-jets and a surface fleet that, for the past ~20 years the've cut to the bone on the promise of 2 aircraft carriers.

    Oh and, just becasue I can, lets play the man not the ball, Admiral West..ah yes..the chap who was in charge of the Navy when they scrapped the Sea Harrier.
  • mbga9pgf
    mbga9pgf Posts: 3,224 Forumite
    Point 1 is a fully intended outcome, as the RAF see the FAA as a distraction and only want light blue suiters manning aircraft on the carriers.

    Point 2 wont happen. Contracts are already written that are more costly to leave than to carry on with.
  • Andy_L
    Andy_L Posts: 12,958 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 10 November 2010 at 10:39AM
    Point 1 - The RAF, as individuals, don't particularly want to serve on carriers. The navy had the option to take over the Harrier Force 2-3 years ago & said no

    Point 2 - I thought that was only for the carriers, we're free to walk away from any purchase of JSF
  • Pete111
    Pete111 Posts: 5,333 Forumite
    Mortgage-free Glee!
    I personally think there is a case for keeping the harrier due to it's versatility over the Tornado.

    However, I very much doubt the Argentines have any cabability to take the Falklands again - especially with Typhoons based there as well as a shed load more troops than we had in the early 80's.

    I've just been to Argentina and though it was very nice in parts, nothing I saw was indicative of a country cabable of fighting it's way out of a paper bag let alone mounting a sucessful seaborne invasion against a well armed, trained and dug in foe with 4th generation Air and Sub support. I understand they basically have the same military equipment as they had in the 80's - ie utterly obsolete

    The argument that we would not be able to mount a sucessful recapturing of the falklands is valid but ultimately irelevant in 2010.
    Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger
  • mbga9pgf
    mbga9pgf Posts: 3,224 Forumite
    edited 10 November 2010 at 12:15PM
    Andy_L wrote: »
    Point 1 - The RAF, as individuals, don't particularly want to serve on carriers. The navy had the option to take over the Harrier Force 2-3 years ago & said no

    Point 2 - I thought that was only for the carriers, we're free to walk away from any purchase of JSF

    Point 1 - the individuals might not want to. What an individual in the forces wants, and what the organisation wants are often 2 different things. Thats why we get the X factor in our pay.

    Point 2 - Nope. Besides, Rolls would go bust if we walked away from the project. Do you think the US would continue to use a UK manufacturer of engines over a US manufacturer if the UK decided not to buy any? How much of JSF is designed and built by the french and germans? None. Why? They arent buying any.
    I personally think there is a case for keeping the harrier due to it's versatility over the Tornado.

    Only in the current conflict.

    Storm shadow.
    IMC low level.
    Range.
    Variety of weapons carriage.

    all of these things the tonka has over harrier, which, imho, impresses in airshows and did a fantastic job of CAS/recce in afghanistan, but is as much use as a chocolate fireguard in the long range interdiction/deep strike role that is strategic in nature and thus must be maintained as a capability.
  • Pete111
    Pete111 Posts: 5,333 Forumite
    Mortgage-free Glee!
    mbga9pgf wrote: »
    Point 1 - the individuals might not want to. What an individual in the forces wants, and what the organisation wants are often 2 different things. Thats why we get the X factor in our pay.

    Point 2 - Nope. Besides, Rolls would go bust if we walked away from the project. Do you think the US would continue to use a UK manufacturer of engines over a US manufacturer if the UK decided not to buy any? How much of JSF is designed and built by the french and germans? None. Why? They arent buying any.



    Only in the current conflict.

    Storm shadow.
    IMC low level.
    Range.
    Variety of weapons carriage.

    all of these things the tonka has over harrier, which, imho, impresses in airshows and did a fantastic job of CAS/recce in afghanistan, but is as much use as a chocolate fireguard in the long range interdiction/deep strike role that is strategic in nature and thus must be maintained as a capability.

    I thought Typhoon was being fitted out for ground attack etc to cover this? Or are they shorter ranged etc?
    Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger
  • mbga9pgf
    mbga9pgf Posts: 3,224 Forumite
    Typhoon isnt battle tested in those roles.

    Also, refer to my original point 1.

    By getting rid of harrier, the RAF indirectly get rid of the FAA. The FAA are now having to go across to the US on exchange to maintain skillsets that otherwise would perish. I very much doubt they can maintain the fast jet pilot numbers that willjustify their training system.. hence the fast jet FAA will cease to exist. The navy dont (and wont) have any chaps on tornado/typhoon as there is no maritime link. Indeed, the existence of the FAA in future years will be probably limited to rotary IMHO.
  • Pete111
    Pete111 Posts: 5,333 Forumite
    Mortgage-free Glee!
    mbga9pgf wrote: »
    Typhoon isnt battle tested in those roles.

    Also, refer to my original point 1.

    By getting rid of harrier, the RAF indirectly get rid of the FAA. The FAA are now having to go across to the US on exchange to maintain skillsets that otherwise would perish. I very much doubt they can maintain the fast jet pilot numbers that willjustify their training system.. hence the fast jet FAA will cease to exist. The navy dont (and wont) have any chaps on tornado/typhoon as there is no maritime link. Indeed, the existence of the FAA in future years will be probably limited to rotary IMHO.

    Fair enough. I guess there is unlikely to be a cost cutting decison that all the top brass are completely happy about - lets just hope we don't make the wrong choice!

    However, to go back to my earlier post saying that the falklands will be at risk smacks of scaremongering of the worst order IMHO.
    Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger
  • Andy_L
    Andy_L Posts: 12,958 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Pete111 wrote: »
    I thought Typhoon was being fitted out for ground attack etc to cover this? Or are they shorter ranged etc?

    They are but, until more are bought into servce, there aren't enough of them to fulfill the requirements - all those in service are comitted to training, development and air defence of the UK & Falklands
  • Andy_L
    Andy_L Posts: 12,958 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    mbga9pgf wrote: »
    Point 2 - Nope. Besides, Rolls would go bust if we walked away from the project. Do you think the US would continue to use a UK manufacturer of engines over a US manufacturer if the UK decided not to buy any? How much of JSF is designed and built by the french and germans? None. Why? They arent buying any.

    Based on procrument history the US won't buy the General Electric/Roll-Royce engined version regardless of what we do, they're like that.

    As a Tier 1 partner we've bought into the development cost so we get money/workshare of any sales regardless of our own purchases
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 240.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.6K Life & Family
  • 254K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.