On the list of inexplicable decisions spewed forth from the SDSR is to withdraw Harrier and reduce Tornado.
So is this a sensible decision?
Of course not, it would have been much more sensible to stick with the plan, reducing Tornado and Harrier in line with the introduction of F35 and Typhoon. A two type fleet has long been the accepted strategy and it makes a lot of sense, maintaining the carrier strike capability, albeit at a modest level and using a combination of Typhoon and F35 to provide air defence, interdiction, CAS and ISR in the long term. Armed UAV’s would also be inserted into a future strategy, perhaps changing the numbers of system integration of both the two planned types, but essentially it was a sensible and coherent plan.
The problem with sensible plans though is they have to be funded, so in a decision reminiscent of asking which leg you would like chopping off, a decision had to made.
Neither option is in any way shape or form desirable.
In the context of the SDSR, the first priority is Afghanistan and quite rightly so. Are those Admirals really suggesting that Afghanistan should not be first, second and last?
Brimstone, a valuable low collateral weapon, only the Tornado can currently carry it but the Harrier could be converted but this would add an additional cost even though some of the work has been done.
The CRV-7 rocket pod is only carried by Harrier, although the Apache can and does also carry CRV-7
The Tornado also brings Storm Shadow and a 27mm cannon to the party. The former isn’t much use in Afghanistan but the latter definitely is and Harrier has neither. If we are engaged in any offensive air operation in the next 5 years outside Afghanistan and beyond that Storm Shadow would be a serious capability loss although it could be integrated onto Typhoon.
The Harrier uses the Sniper targeting pod and the Digital Joint Recce Pod but the Tornado can carry the enormously valuable RAPTOR pod and the Litening III targeting pod. RAPTOR is on par with the capabilities offered by the U2 and has the advantage of being able to be data-linked to the ground for immediate image analysis and exploitation.
Tornado can also carry the ALARM anti radar missile, unlike the Harrier and has a radar, again, unlike the Harrier.
The Harrier can also use more austere runways (as proven to be a decisive capability at Kandahar) and can of course operate from our Illustrious class ‘aircraft carriers’, what is left of them.
Training aircrew is twice as expensive for Harrier but Tornado needs two, flight costs per hour are similar but Harrier is actually the most expensive at £37k per hour compared to the Tornado at £35k
The Tornado was supporting operations in Iraq so it made sense to deploy the GR9 to Afghanistan, it not being very sensible to have two fast fleets in the same theatre for the same task. GR9’s have performed magnificently well in Afghanistan, absolutely no doubt, feedback seems to be that for the pure CAS role, it has many advantages over Tornado. But Tornado delivers military affect beyond CAS, especially in the ISR realm.
Tornado has significantly greater range and speed than the Harrier and the second crew member, whilst self evidently expensive, adds a great deal to current missions.
Both types have seen extensive action but Tornado can carry out a greater range of roles than Harrier although in some it could be reasonably argued that Harrier is ‘better’
One of the reasons that the GR9 was replaced with the GR4 in Afghanistan was in order to retain carrier operation skills and exercises in the MoD news feed confirm this. It must also be said that Joint Force Harrier had been flogged to the point of exhaustion in Afghanistan and to put it bluntly, needed time to recuperate and recover, in all senses. Could we really have relied on the 2 squadron JFH to cover the role of Tornado in Afghanistan for the next 5 years?
I am not sure.
And ultimately, it was this that was the deciding factor.
The Tornado has a larger fleet and more sustainable aircrew capacity for supporting Afghanistan, this trumps the loss of maritime strike and some of the other finer points of weapon carriage and CAS performance differences.
The Tornado fleet isn’t being maintained at a high level though, it looks like it is being reduced to the bare minimum (18 airframes at readiness) to solely support operations in Afghanistan to the 2015 time frame, with some small additional contingent, and likely rapidly retired after that. Hopefully, Typhoon will be available in sufficient numbers and with the appropriate system integrations. We may find ourselves in a position of only having a reduced Typhoon fleet until F35C comes into service post 2020/2024.
The decision is not about absolute savings, quite clearly getting rid of Tornado would have saved more but which saves us money whilst being able to maintain operations in Afghanistan and beyond.
To spice things up we have had a passionate defence and appeals from various quarters, supporting their favoured option. Also as usual, the ‘ex somethings’ in the Royal Navy seem to be most vocal so it might be worthwhile looking at some of their claims.
The latest example is a post from Vice Admiral John McAnally at the Phoenix Think Tank. It is very rare that I reference another blog but some of the contradictions are not to be missed.
- Claiming that in using the Afghanistan issue we are institutionalising preparing for the last war, what, eh, it’s a war that we are busy actually fighting now and will be for the next 5 years. How is that the next war?
- Using the Falklands as a justification, please, this is getting silly now, surely that is preparing for the last war!
- The same site argues that STVOL is rubbish when it is the F35B doing it in order to talk up the F35C yet when it comes to the Harrier, it is an essential capability
- Claims that a Harrier can carry Storm Shadow with only a little extra investment, really?
- It then fills a whole basket of dubious claims like the Typhoon costing £200m each
- And finally, insists that we retain a capability that hasn’t been used in any serious way for in excess of 30 years in favour of an aircraft that has seen more or less constant use for 2 decades in multiple theatres across a range of CAS, interdiction, SEAD and other missions.
So in the context of no decision being actually very sensible, the decision to retain Tornado at the expense of Harrier is at least understandable, despite what a bunch of ex Navy officers might think. One might argue that the deletion of MRA4 would actually have a rather greater impact on maters nautical than Harrier but that’s just my humble opinion.
Harrier:
No modern avionics, low survivability against light damage, short range, old; generally a short-range ground-attack aircraft against low capability OPFOR
Tornado:
Almost no modern avionics, low survivability against modern threats, optimised for low-level attack (a largely outdated concept), old, fuel costs roughly as high as for Typhoon training; a bomb truck, but against sophisticated OPFOR not good for much more than launching stand-off missiles.
Typhoon:
90′s technology multi-role combat aircraft which is better and more multi-role in later batches and didn’t get all planned missiles integrated yet.
We can expect improvement programs for Typhoon, for export if nothing else. There are enough typhoons for pretty much all jobs and it’s a reasonable choice for the 2010′s and early 2020′s.
The problems are really Meteor development, munitions integration, early Batch deficiencies and the lack of a successor for the mid-2020′s when PAK-FAs will be more numerous than Typhoons and the American 90′s tech stealth extremist aircraft will long since be countered technologically, too.
May one ask why more CAS isn’t being performed by Apache?
If it is too slow to use against the Taliban it would have been absolutely useless against the Soviets.
There is no point in discussing Tornado v Harrier even though your argument is as compelling as ever. Then again the same could be said of GrandLogistic’s views on his site.
I suppose Tornado will be better for flying from Djibouti when we follow the US into Yemen. That is the French let use there bases, though I bet it will be unsurprisingly outside the remit of the mutual defence treaty.
I doubt Typhoon will ever get to Afghanistan……….
Has Apache’s availability got any better since 2007?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568987/Half-of-Army-gunships-are-grounded.html
At least the RR engines means that ours get to keep all their toys, unlike the US ones that have had to leave their Longbow bits at home.
AIUI a particular problem with using Apache for COIN is that when they hear them coming they just blend in with the civvies, whereas they have less time to do that with FJ’s. It’s much harder for a couple of T-80′s to blend in with the surrounding Ladas.
A demonstration of RAPTOR can be found here :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8295387.stm
It’s also claimed that they can read the time on the Big Ben clockface from Southampton – so you can watch people without them knowing you’re there.
Also worth noting that the £35k vs £37k includes depreciation, the marginal cash costs will be much lower (and potentially could favour one or the other). I’m still interested in this reengining which seems to be the big difference according to the Times letter – is this fitting Typhoon EJ-200′s or something? I note :
http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Lords/bydate/20101108/writtenanswers/part002.html
“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what would be the cost of providing new engines for Tornadoes to get them through to their planned exit from service.[HL3336]
Lord Astor of Hever: There are no plans to replace the Tornado GR4 engine before the aircraft’s current out of service date of 2025. Therefore the cost of providing new engines has not been investigated.
Under the capability upgrade strategy (pilot) programme approved in December 2007, 96 Tornado GR4 aircraft will receive capability upgrades between 2011 and 2014 at an estimated cost of £303 million. This number of aircraft is sufficient to maintain the operational capability of the Tornado GR4 forward available fleet until 2025. There are currently no plans for the aircraft to receive any further capability upgrades after 2014.”
That was on Monday. So the admirals’ figure for £1.4bn of new engines appears to be total tosh.
My money, all 50p, is on us retaining Typhoon after 2020, with no other fast jets on land or at sea. With a national (public and private) debt of GBP 4.5 trillion (twice GDP) we’re screwed, and Whitehall’s still catching up with economic reality.
Maybe the Typhoons will get Caesar radar, conformal tanks and thrust vectoring added. Probably not, with only export models enjoying these. (When it comes to the generation of aircraft after Typhoon, everyone will be buying Indian or Chinese…)
Just a thought, TD – how about a Think Defence debate on what the UK’s defence posture would look like, with, say, half the current budget? What do we *really* need? What would things look like if we suffered major national decline and faced domestic instability, fuel shortages and a dinky little tax base?
I don’t think it’s an extreme probability that drastic cuts will continue, especially not if we double dip or endure a decade of stagflation. Look at the way Argentina fell in the 20th Century – one decade a beacon of prosperity and liberalism, then in succeeding ones an economic basket case.
mmmm’ why did you call the post Tornado versus Typhoon when it just perpetuates the Tornado versus Harrier argument ?
Tornado and Harrier are very different types of aircraft, originally designed for very different tasking – as per usual I will blame the politicians, we should not be discussing which one is better than the other, it SHOULD NOT be an issue, just cut the DfID budget enough to keep the Harrier in service with the RN until its replacement is ready !
However I do take issue with: “In the context of the SDSR, the first priority is Afghanistan and quite rightly so.”
Why is this quite rightly so ? If the government flatly refuses to fund the armed forces on a war footing, perhaps it could pay of even more of its deficit by withdrawing from Afghanistan completely and immediately ??
“Are those Admirals really suggesting that Afghanistan should not be first, second and last?” – what Admirals have the temerity to question the governments foreign policy, how dare they !!
Sven
Your completely wrong, the average Harrier GR9 is actually a younger airframe than Tornado, and how does it not have modern avionics exactly ? However I agree that the RAF could survive just fine on a fleet of 200 Typhoons – preferably having sold on the Tranche 1 airframe and completed the pre-planned procurement of Tranche 3B – again preferably with all the enhancements mentioned by Matt.
Finally – x, I agree ref Apache. Probably same cost based fleet management issues, would be nice if we could recast Apache Longbow as scout/recce in place of Lynx Wildcat and buy another 60 or so Apache without the radar (could Westland re-open the line ???)
Ramblings complete now………
Ooops yes, forgot to mention – the constant harping back to Falklands by retired Admirals.
I suggest its more about the ability to do something on our own, than the actual retaking of the Falklands.
Yes its true that comments about leaving ourselves wide open to the Argentinians for ten years can be interpreted as silly but stranger things have happened:
My joining of the cold war RN was postponed because all the instructors where “down south” fighting a ‘hot war’. When I did join the Argentine (Exocet and CAS) threat was added to the Soviet Threat, and yet I spent most of my naval career in the Gulf – who didn’t see that one coming either……. never expected to be sweeping Iraqi mines, escorting tanker convoys through the straits of Hormuz, or going to war to liberate Kuwait !
However, as I say, I think their comments are more about the capabilities to do something as big and as complicated as Operation Corporate, on our own. We can argue all day about the carriers, but getting rid of a Bay class for example is plain stupid, for the saving it hardly seems worth it.
So harping on about the Falklands is not so much planning for the last war, as planning for to use sovereign, full spectrum, ‘conventional’ war fighting capabilities on our own, to achieve or own objectives. If your happy with coalition or Euro-ops, then no worries……
Jed; “old” and “younger than xy” are not logically excluding each other.
Even if the relative age was of relevance as you suppose; please not that I argued pro-”Typhoon only”. The correct comparison would thus have been Harrier2 vs. Typhoon, which turns Harrier2 into the clearly older aircraft.
Harrier2 lacks modern avionics because it doesn’t have them. Its equipment is largely 1980′s technology. The Sniper pod (which will cost one of few pylons) won’t change that it’s got no SAR and GMTI radar modes (having no radar), no ECM to speak of, no HMD or other modern avionics features.
Sven – OK point taken ref Typhoon, however just because Harrier has no radar does not mean it is devoid of modern avionics – by the way it does have ECM, both threat warning and one of only UK tactical aircraft (until Typhoon) to have built in jammer ! And yes, I believe the HMD was integrated after Jaguar was decommissioned.
Anyway, I agree, Typhoon is more modern than the ‘legacy types’ but we aint got enough of them yet.
Jed, well spotted my friend!
Now corrected, too many sherries I think
The Question should not be, “does the strategy fit afghanistan”, but “Does Afghanistan fit the strategy”.
The British will be pulling out of Afghanistan before 2015 even if The Mayor of Kabul is shooting Taliban from behind his desk.
In the long term, its irrelevent.
Tornado Brimstone is as replaceable by Apache Hellfire as Harrier Rocket is replaceable by Apache Rocket.
The Tornado 27mm cannon is equaly overshadowed by the Apache 30mm cannon.
Its also barely used, 292 rounds were fired in iraq the first part of 2008, 1256 rockets were used in the same period in Afghanistan.
The chances of an offensive air operation in the next 5 years are virtualy nil, but thats further arguement for pulling Tornado now and bringing the Typhoons up to spec.
Raptor fits on a drone and is supposed to be added to Typhoon. Alarm and Radar are also Typhoonable.
I think Harrier would have been stretched, but its not alone.
Typhoon is coming on stream and can deal with some of the load.
But my point stands
The Comparison is not Harrier to Tornado.
Its Harrier and Typhoon to Tornado and Typhoon.
The “advantages” of Tornado are meaningless, because they wont be capability gaps *Overall*. Because they will be done (better) by the Eurofighter.
The Disadvantages of Tornado are real disadvantages, because its stuff Typhoon doesnt do either.
Imagine the debate was GMLRS, AS-90, 105 Light Gun.
We wouldnt be argueing ditch the light gun because AS 90 is better.
It is better, but GMLRS and AS90 isnt as good as GMLRS and LG.
The best aircraft we can have is undoubtably Typhoons upgraded to T3 with a full weapons loadout.
To pay for that, we would need to pull Tornado.
With the change left over, we can operate Harrier.
Admin, I think you asked the wrong question here as all we seem to have got is a willy waving contest between to two aircraft (and alot of that was inaccurate).
The real issue is that by removing the Harrier before its replacement we lose ALL the skills associated with Carrier operations. That is the major issue. In my view we simply needed to scale back the numbers of both Tornado and Harrier (Golden Fleets if you will) to support Afghanisan and keep our Carrier skills going. The second thing is to make sure we get enough Typhoons and equip them fully so they can take over from the Tornado.
With regard to the Russian 5th gen fighter PAK-FA. I doubt whether this is more than an aircraft that looks like an F22, rather than a true competitor, even if it is, A fully developed Typhoon, with CAESAR, Thrust verctoring EJ270 and Meteor would give it a run for its money. Failing that (have a look at page 8 of this months Airforces magazine. It seems we brits have been developing a Stealthy airframe as part of the Tornado replacement (AST 425), so it might not be all UCAVs after Tornado/Typhoon afterall.
Phil, which bits were innacurate?
To all, I agree that it is not a decision we should have to make, as I said, its like chossing a leg to chop off but chose we do so although I can see the pros and cons of both, the Tornado does seem the most logical
The Typhoon banner had me puzzled too.
If a choice had to be made retaining Tornado stacks up: it offers more utility and has a longer forward in service life span than Harrier. If Tornado had been sacrificed to allow the navy to use Harrier until the arrival of the F35, what use would be the Harriers when the navy handed them back to the RAF in eight or nine years time? And could we conceive the RAF living just with Typhoon for that period.
Obviously much depends on what you think happens next. Some people seem to be thinking and hoping that the F35 is going to serve in land-based RAF as well as on carriers with the navy. I tend to think not, at least in the foreseeable future; the current government has signalled the F35 purchase (an expensive aircraft) will be the bare minimum to equip the carriers. So unless there is a big step up in funding for jets by a future government (unlikely) the RAF will not receive anything in the initial order for F35. If the RAF is to order any new jets in the next 10 years it is more likely to be an inventory top-up of the relatively cheaper Typhoon – if the production line is still open to supply them.
“So in the context of no decision being actually very sensible, the decision to retain Tornado at the expense of Harrier is at least understandable”
Sadly agreed.
Richard W
The Tornado offers more utility than the Harrier, but neither exist in isolation, which provides utility not provided by Typhoon?
The Tornado Fleet probably has more hours left in it, but are already planning on storing half the Eurofighter buy, we dont have a shortage of airframes, but a shortage of funds to run them.
Neither Harrier nor Tornado has a life cycle that extends beyond 2020, whether the airframes can fly or not, no ones going to pay to put them in the air.
If the RAF isnt happy with T3 Typhoons fully integrated with our weapons fit, sack officers until someone with a brain steps up.
Your right about F35 though, everyone seems to have missed that the final order will be 80 max, enough for two carrier air groups, its much more likely to be 40, enough for two carrier air squadrons and spares.
The “best” outcome remains Airforce with 200+ T3 Typhoons with full weapons loadout.
FAA with the minimum operational Harrier wing, replaced with F35C/Rafel around 2020, hopefully 80-90 to allow a carrier tasking and a land/carrier tasking.
As for PAK-FA
I simply refuse to believe this thing exists.
As they say it does
It was initialy planned in the 80′s, like Raptor / Lightening II / Typhoon. At this point, the USSR was a generation behind us technologicaly, as demonstrated by the Israel/Syria conflict over Beka
The USSR collapsed and military spending more or less ceased for a decade, whilst the western programs continued apace.
Russia had a bit of a gas boom 2000-2010 and military spending increased, but enough to make up 10 years lost and a 10 year handicap?
Well, no.
Because its desperatly looking around for a partner, India is considering putting in $6bn of development money.
Development money? Isnt this thing already flying?
Well, something is flying, so are these fancifal F35 beating stats measured from whats flying now, or what they hope it will do after $12bn of further funding?
I’d guess the latter.
So, all going well, Russia will be introducing an F35 type plane, in a decade, given likely funding problems and development problems, more like two decades.
I would be surprised if Typhoon is out of service before Russia fields another fast jet.
TD
Have to say that the cost per hour figures put out for MP’s look very suspect.
One basic question is what is the background to these figures, are they historical cost or are they replacement cost?
If they are replacement cost then I wonder what they are using?
Old design / old costs bulked up for inflation?
Old design but built today?
A new aircratf dumbed down to old standards?
Finally a new aircraft with modern capabilities?
As always with accountancy the answer is what you want it to be. Reality, well that is another mnatter and when the truth is out the stuff is built and paid for.
Hi all,
Not been commenting much recently as there are so many people more knowledgeable than myself making valid contributions. Despite the benefits of reduced types, I agree with Phil D that a small golden fleet of each type would have been preferable. At the same time, the whole Typhoon fleet should be upgraded to T3b with Conformal tanks, full weapons integration and thrust vectoring to enable the retirement of the Tornados as soon as possible afterwards.
Again, despite not wanting to quote Lewis Page – here is his take on it – http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/10/thompson_et_al_call_for_harrier/ – apart from the comments about the fleet numbers, he makes a few valid points.
G
Page says Harrier?
Looks like Tornado was the right choice after all.
I will not discuss the Page page, I would be unable to control the language used.
George, don’t feel constrained on commenting, eveyone is welcoming here
Fat Bloke, the term words used to qualify the flight per hour costs are
These figures include forward and depth servicing, fuel costs, crew costs, training costs, cost of capital charge, depreciation and amortisation.
@ Mat – “Just a thought, TD – how about a Think Defence debate on what the UK’s defence posture would look like, with, say, half the current budget?”
Five multi-role brigades
4x squadrons of AD typhoon
2x squadrons of swing-role typhoon
1x flight of FI typhoon (all perfectly doable with 160 airframes)
6x destroyers
9x frigates
Mat, interesting question on what would the MoD with half the budget but the really interesting point around that would be is it business as usual with half the cash or a complete rewrite of all assumptions and obligations, industrial strategy, treat obligations, foreign policy objectives for example. Way back when we first started discussing the possible future direction of the SDSR I posed such a question, would a budget cut of a third actuall force serious change and innovation. In some ways the SDSR cuts weren’t deep enough because they allowed the MoD and Government to avoid posing any difficult questions and just, as per every other defence review in recent times, salami sliced, fudged difficult issues (Trident for example) and generally shrink without change
Its a good idea for a series of posts though
So, presumably the Storm Shadow is going to be integrated onto the Typhoon once Tornado is retired?
thats the plan Dom, all it needs is some money!
TD said “Now corrected, too many sherries I think”
He says with Christmas approaching; will you get Lewis Page in as cover?
Perhaps we should scarp both Harrier and Tornado. Get some RAF/FAA over to the US to be trained on F16. Pay the US some money to refurb’ some F16, some spares, ordnance, and AVCAT. And then add these onto US squadrons in A-stan. Perhaps we could even pay US maintainers a bounty to do extra tours in A-stan. That way “we” are pulling our weight and aren’t spending too much. Heck we may even get more than 10 airframes up and running.
X
10 airframes is an airfield limit and a funding limit, not an RAF one.
Khandahar is one of the busiest runways in the world, we could build a second strip and maintain 30 Tornados in theatre no problem. No one wants to pay for a second runway and the extra flight time though.
Thee have been plans for an improved runway at Bastion I think for some time. Maybe now with the US there it will happen
@ DomJ
I know Khandhar is busy and short of space. But I didn’t realize that the space issue was the reason why we only had ten airframes. Perhaps what is needed is a plane able to take off from shorter runways…….
TD
Consequently it is missing the most important part:
Accounting basis – Historical cost or replacement cost?
Without that info the figures are about as useful as a bucket of warm spit.
I also wonder why they are using both depreciation and amortisation?
Depreciation – Is there a “Glass’s Guide” for fast jets?
Forward Servicing – Planned maintenance?
Deep Servicing – Renewal / upgrade?
What is the working life of a Tornado?
3000 hours in the air?
Harrier any different?
I take in the Tornado engine replacement would be classed as “Deep” if it was ever going to happen, not that it will as it would put up the cost of a Tornado hour and that doesn’t seem to the answer required.
Finally who is this guy Lewis Page?
Why is he so universally disliked on here?
FBOT
“Accounting basis – Historical cost or replacement cost?
Without that info the figures are about as useful as a bucket of warm spit.”
The Cost of maintenance and fuel is the actual cost of maintenance and fuel.
Theres nothing historic or replacement there.
What exactly are you trying to say?
“I also wonder why they are using both depreciation and amortisation?”
“Depreciation and Amortisation is probably a single catagory, rather than “depreciation” and “Amerotisation”.
“Depreciation – Is there a “Glass’s Guide” for fast jets?”
Pretty much, most combat jets are expected to last 6000 hours, but an hour cruising at altitude is a loss less wear than an hour afterburning at 30 ft.
“Forward Servicing – Planned maintenance?
Deep Servicing – Renewal / upgrade?”
Other way round, forward servicing will be general maintenance at the airfield, deep servicing will be taken apart and properly serviced.
“What is the working life of a Tornado?
3000 hours in the air?
Harrier any different?”
Most are designed for 6000 hours, but thats an average.
“I take in the Tornado engine replacement would be classed as “Deep” if it was ever going to happen, not that it will as it would put up the cost of a Tornado hour and that doesn’t seem to the answer required.”
Deep maintenance is when new engines would be fitted yes, but its also when replacement engines are fitted, a fast jet engine doesnt last 6000 hours.
Lewis Page.
He’s a self important little twit who thinks he knows better than anyone else in the entire world, when in reality, he’s a Carrier Fanboi.
He thinks the escort fleet should be scrapped and ASW/AAW should be handled by carrier based helicopters and fast jets.
He refuses to accept that 5 ASW Merlins running 24/7 would cost more than the current escort fleet to run.
DJ @ 4.15
Historical cost accounting and replacement cost accounting are two different ways of looking at the cost picture of an asset.
Very important when you are trying to do a financial analysis of a 25yr old plane vs a 10yr old plane. What value do you associate to the different planes, what they cost to buy or what they would cost to replace.
25yr old plane = £6mill each
10yr old plane = £25mill each
Both are sunk costs so how do offer a level playing field for the analysis? However their useful lives will be different and that needs to be taken on board.
Consequently historical cost accounting and replacement cost accounting would provide two different answers when applied to the Harrier vs MRCA / Tornado issue.
Servicing, Deep vs Forward, I got it right even if I don’t know the exact lingo.
Engine replacement: 3000 hours life vs 6000 hrs for the airframe then the issue becomes like for like against an upgraded unit, as the subject of Tornado and engines was raised by a Harrier partisan the issue is a bit clouded to my outside eyes to say the least.
Therefore I am looking for some background and context to appraise that particular claim.
Finally any thoughts as to what will happen to the Harriers being retired early?
Any thoughts on their potential value and who would buy them, India?
Admin:may have been a tad OTT with Alot inaccurate… more like a bit/some….
No HMS (Helmet Mounted Display) has the HMS from the Jaguar upgrade (fitted before it was scrapped early asa well).
No modern avionics.. As part of the GR7/9 upgrade it got an extensive avionics upgrade which enable it to carry a much greater range of weapons
which leads me on to my final point. I believe that the GR9 can take the Brimstone weapon (it uses the same interface as for Maverick!!
My main point is that we need both, they compliement each other and to make willy waving comparisons does not address the real issue. It should not have been a choice of one over the other. They do fifferent things, its just that in Afghanistan they doe the sane thing and even here they compliment each other. A mixed fleet would be better than one type.
Thanks Phil, I have seen pictures of Harrier with Brimstone so they must have done at least the basic carriage trials but not sure how far they went. It was certainly the intention to fit Brimstone, mentioned several times in Hansard.
On your main point, I agree, we do need both
Whatever the merits of the cost per hour claim or how it is made up, the fact remains that it is the way the MoD measures it and reports it to Parliament. It will also be consistent across all types.
Anyone suggesting we should use Apache in Afghan for close air support is once again back in fantasy world. Troops on the ground desperate for air support, Apache can only do 160kts, a fast jet is the only option. Apache is armoured, but at such low speeds it won’t take too many Stinger/SA7′s to knock it down. Helicopters are vulnerable in Afghanistan – ask the Russians.
TD, another good post, thank you. I’m still disappointed by the comments of various Admirals regarding the state of the fast jet fleet and the insistence on retaining Harrier, but it’s not like I can do anything about it, is it? Personally I am beginning to envy the Fleet Air Arm – how many exchanges to the USN and MN are going to be in the offing over the next 10 years? Want to bet that money has been put aside to train our people on their carriers?
“The Tornado also brings Storm Shadow and a 27mm cannon to the party. The former isn’t much use in Afghanistan but the latter definitely is and Harrier has neither.”
On the point of the 27mm cannon , have the MoD ever looked at using the gun the USMC put on their Harriers?
Hi Gareth, Harrier used to have a pair of cannons but they were deleted a very long time ago. I can’t see any reason why not but again, costs
Quick dip back into fantasy forces – it’s a crying shame we never bought the AV-8B Harrier II+ (or called it GR10 or FA3 or something) – full on bomb truck with an air defence radar and provision for AMRAAM. Could have had the bomber and the air defence fighter at the same time.
FBOT
Lewis Page
Unpopular with many “experts” because
1. He goes back to basics. Very much of the “what’s the easest way to get x amount of destruction onto the enemy in a cost effective way” – every other consideration is largely irrelevent.
2,He askes some VERY awkward questions about the methods used.
For example, (and I paraphrase):-
He questions the point/ cost effectiveness of specialised frigate/ destroyer class warships.
Why for example spend 100′s of millions trying to create a 28 knot capable 5,000 mile range, beautifuly hydrodynamic high quality specialist weilded gas turbine powered frigate hull; when you can buy off the shelf (say) a point class (with more power) that can do 25 knots and go 12-18,000 miles unrefueled for say 75 mill a pop built in a commercial shipyard, (and repairable in any shipyard in the world).
Onto which you can drop say a load of anti sub helicopter, or a Aegis radar and shed loads of missiles? (A Strategy not that far from Japan/Korea’s v large destroyers).
Thats enough to REALLY get up the nose of the RN and it’s supporters who believe in ‘Proper’ warships that are fit to be crewed by the square jawed succesors to Nelson and Fisher .
OH YEA and why just exactly do we have, (nearly) more admirals and commodores than actual warships.
He opines that Tanks and heavy armour are dinosours on the modern battlefield. Even in afghan.
That vastly to much of the Army (and other forces) are shiny arsed “Powerpoint Warriors”.
Obsessed with saving ‘their’ regiments./Squadrons/division of the Navy.
Ditto more Generals that actual combat brigades let alone divisions?
Why do the RAF have it’s own private army, and why about 70 odd RAf on the ground for every aircraft in the air?
Dito Air marshals – what is a WING Commander doing in charge of a squadron?
3. Why is the britsh defence budget essentialy pi**ed up the wall by BAE, and some unarguably incompetant procurement of which CVF is just the latest.
SO he gets up the nose of everyone, with an axe to grind on behalf of every service.
Read Lions Donkeys and Dinosours by that author.
NO, I do not agree with everything he says, nor some of his conclusions.
But he does ask some VERY awkward questions.
SOME, of those who oppose/ rubbish him, have never really engaged with his arguments, and can barely contain their appoplectic rage at him for example; suggesting that a Navy does not need frigates, the Army Tanks and Heavy Artillery, and the RAF Tornados. Insted of considering his arguments this is taken as showing how little he knows about anything.
After all the only ‘proper’ way to shoot down an aircarft is with a fighter.
The only ‘proper’ way to sink a Destroyer is with another destroyer.
The only ‘proper’ way to destroy a tank is with another tank.
FBOT
Having posted this I suspect I will now be subject to a verbal kicking to which the term ‘SH*TSORM” could be applied.
QED
i have an inherited copy of lions led by donkeys, i really should read it one day.
IXION
I think it is his attitude and style of writing that really wind people up. He does make some good points and some really bad ones but he makes them all in a slightly condascending “i know best” manner. This winds people up, especially Senior Naval Officers who don’t see why somebody who left the RN as a very Junior SO2 should be able to question their judgement and do so in such a manner.
To answer the point about Ships, your point class would then need to be fitted with a combat system to operate all the kit you have put on it or modified to have a flight deck fitted. Its RCS would be huge (remeber this is a DD replacement not a carrier) the engines welded directly onto the deck plates and merchant props would be very noisy and its thermal signature massive.
The Japanese “Destroyers” are actually LPH’s, the new one is 248M long and displaces 24,000 tonnes and has had the aft vls silo removed. The Japanese SDF is not allowed to call them LPHs or carriers as they are not classed as defensive weapons under the treaty drawn up at the end of WW2.
All politicians are the same.
I perhaps over simplified, or the post would have just gone on and on.
Senior Naval officer are heavily critised in the book, (and elswhere), neither the rank of the critic, nor a sly tone, should of itself invalidate his criticisms. Sometimes it is the little boy who points out the King has no clothes.
Aegis type (or type 45) combat management system do cost a packet far more than the hulls they sit on, but why pay so much for the hull? Radar X section good point (But at wild guess I recon shipyards can do angles). Current designs of Russian submarines have been made significantly quieter by “Commercialy available” technology. OK maybe cargo ships are too noisy; but Modern Cruise liner customers do not appreciate having their filling shaken out, and they can be made very quiet.
I was talking of the ‘Prince’ class, and Kongo Class which are reported as being based on the almost mythical
‘Commercial standards’.
BTW I’m not sure that Ships Radar cross section or ITR singnitures are that important.
After all it’s radar will be sending out “Bloody great here I am” signal”.
That quote was made in relation to the F22 and I have never understood as to how any thing that emmits directional radio transmissions can be stealthy.
Admin, the Harrier Gr9′s of 41(R) Sqn was just testing brimstone on the harrier airframe, flying with dud rounds under the wing… soon after, this review came and put a halt to it… but indeed; its laughable some thoughts storm shadow was gonna be implemented on it XD
I agree, it would have been better to reduce the number of tornadoes and retain a reduced number of harriers; but then again smaller numbers means higher maintenance costs… sadly its not a perfect world.
I also agree on the confusing nature of the Naval ex-sometimes ranting about the harrier… the huge loss to the Navy was the loss of Nimrod, their SSBN’s and any subs will now have a harder job getting safely out to sea… heck, we’ve lost that capability now, and with the glacial replacement of the Nimrod R1…our armed forces will see what the nations univercities will see…a huge brain drain and loss of skills….who knows what the cost will be to regain them when the placements come…if they come…
Ixion
If you read the stuff I put into the general SDSR topic 5 / Navy you will see that I have similar thoughts on what the future holds for naval architecture.
My main point is that we are currently in the middle of a size revolution, a step change to larger warships on the basis that the value proposition has been transformed in the last 20 years due to the increase in the speed of commercial shipping, design re-use and increased chunking and modularity.
All this falls onto the lessons of the Falklands where 50kg of rocket fuel took out a Type 42. It was a case of compare and contrast with the USS Spruance that was twice the size and looked as if it had room to grow compared to the RN design which looked as if someone had tried to pour a gallon in a pint pot.
Fragile was the only way I could describe all the post 1965 RN designs and given that the maxim about the bomber always getting through seemed to work in the Falklands meant that we seemed to have designed our ships with an in built glass jaw that got worse as time moved on.
Leander = More robust than T21′s.
Counties = More robust than T42′s.
This is the reasoning behind my points about building large boxy hulls with armour and deep A/Tor bulkheads to make the ships both more capable and more robust.
My thoughts are that you would build the hull and marine systems to a sailable condition but with appropriate voids and then add in all the weapons systems in containers with just the connections to be joined before the vessel is ready to go.
If the weapons systems are seperate from the basic hull and can be retrieved in a controlled fashion then the weapons containers can be mixed and matched throughout a ships life.
To my mind the C3 vessel should be a 6’000 ton £50mill colonial sloop with an update package available at a limited fixed cost to make it more useful if that is what is required.
On the man himself I have found a couple of his articles and he seems to be a bit of an iconoclast but his job has been made easy by a military establishment that likes its gold braid and its cushy desk jobs.
Finally come aircraft stuff:
How many Tornado squadrons do we have?
Bombers?
F3 / Fighters?
How many Harrier squadrons do we have?
How many Typhoon squadrons do we have?
I too don’t understand whay it had to be one or the other, Harrier of Tornado?
Is the RAF / military establishment so inflexible that there was no other way?
All PATS @ 8.35
How much space does a battle management system take up?
Not the desks consoles for the grunts to stare at clourful screens, just the hardware that makes up the system?
4′ x 4′ x 4′?
8′ x 8′ x 8′?
8′ x 8′ x 20′?
Any idea what the processing power is behind the system?
I think that the weapon system load of any ship should be laid out on the floor of a large hangar so that the scale of the issue can be appreciated without crys of “but we’re special”
Also if the only reason the the top brass don’t like Mr Page is that he is different from them suggests that they have much to hide and have become very sheltered in their outlook.
FBOT said “50kg of rocket fuel took out a Type 42.”
True. But consider,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_%28FFG-31%29
And is Leander a fair comparison for T21? Shouldn’t you be comparing Leander with T22? Same result though!!
Sorry to come to this late. Just some random musings on all your random debates, there seems to be three strandas here atleast!
.
Bromstone/Stormshadow seem to be mentioned in the choice to keep either Harrier or Tornado, I suspect it wasn’t a high priority capability in the decision making as the Taleban seem to be a little light on MBT’s, so complaining about keeping Harrier because it isn’t type certified on Brimstone, is like complaining that Johnny Taleban is lacking capability because he doesn’t possess any heavy artillery!
If the ex-RN whosits *really* wanted to keep JFH so that the FAA could maintain Fast Jet skills, then maybe the MoD should see how much of the ongoing costs could be met by reducing the number of Admirals to, say, 1 per RN fleet plus one each for every HQ installation?
Staying on the RN, surely the “open letter” was only written because now that Harrier is disappearing, the CVFs are looking increadibly shaky as there are no actual aircraft to fly from them? And as the “whole point” of the RN is to get as many Grey Boats into the water as possible . . .
Re, Lewis Page. The man has all the wordsnithing skills of a tabloid journalist which isn’t surprising as he writes for the tech. worlds version of The Sun! Maybe if he posted on this blog, then he would come accross differently. Come to think of it, maybe Lewis is already moving among the Great and Good of TD under a nom-de-plume alredy!
FBOT, I like your points about using commercial techniques in military equipment, but it’ll never happen. Military equipment just isn’t made in the quantities that would benefit from a rigorous application of production-line/detail-design techniques. The likes of BAE are more like Thomas Chippendale than IKEA. After all, all those pictures of Wellingtons and B-17′s coming off production lines in Vickers and Boeing were abberations caused by “surge production” during wartime. Once hostilities ended we went back to making planes at 1-4 per year and ships 1 every two!
DD @ 11.07
“we’re special” = The cry throughout the ages of the myopic, the one club golpher and the economically illiterate.
As some US guy said, allow military inflation to run wild and you are unilaterally dis-arming yourself.
Soon we will have a navy that consists of a rowing boat with a shotgun, a picture of a Trident missile and the band of the Royal Marines.
Trend the navy both in ship numbers and warm bodies and it all gets a bit fuzzy on the 17th April 2036.
X @ 10.45
Fair point but he made it home.
Did the warhead commit suicide and did a reactive armour job on the missile fuel tank at the point of entry.
My point on this what would have happened if the missile had hit the USS Spruance?
Has anyone put reactive armour on the side of a ship?
Any thoughts on the Soviet blind alley that was the system before reactive armour?
Went by the name of “Drozd”?
more suited to a ship than a tank?
@DominicJ:
“As for PAK-FA
I simply refuse to believe this thing exists.
As they say it does
It was initialy planned in the 80′s, like Raptor / Lightening II / Typhoon. At this point, the USSR was a generation behind us technologicaly, as demonstrated by the Israel/Syria conflict over Beka”
I think you mix PAK-FA up with MiG 1.42.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIG_1.42
PAK-FA appears to be a child of the mid or late 90′s, is as such comparable to the F-35 (originated in early 90′s concept, not 80′s as well) and younger than the F-22.
Bekaa was about 70′s technology and Syrian incompetence, not about West/East technology. In fact, the Russians were introducing the AA-11 with helmet visor at that time and were thus technologically vastly superior WVR. The West was still using Sparrow (and the Frenchmen had only their Super 530), which allowed for at most engaging one fighter with it before the enemy would be in dogfight. The Russians could have sent MiG-21 as first fodder wave and would then have slaughtered F-15 and F-16 with AA-11 from their MiG-29, overall kill ratio could easily have been 2:1 in favour of reds.
THAT was the situation of the early 80′s state-of-the-art.
The HV+AA-11 shock of 1991 (Eastern German missiles and MiG-29 fell into FRG hands) wasn’t highly publicized, but it was as huge as the Sputnik shock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vympel_R-73