'The UK did not need Harriers over Libya'

23 May 2012

In the second of two articles on commanders' thoughts on Operation Ellamy, Air Commodore Gary Waterfall explains the role of Typhoon, the need for Sentinel and how Britain performed without aircraft carriers

During Operation Ellamy last year, the Royal Air Force went to great lengths to conduct air operations with the high degree of precision that was ultimately achieved despite the lack of ground personnel to aid targeting.

Air Commodore Gary Waterfall, UK air component commander for Op Ellamy, saw the operation as a proving ground for several high-profile, high technology British aircraft, as well as an invaluable learning exercise for the personnel involved.

"We've got an awful lot to learn from any operation, any war that we go and fight, it's very important to reconfigure so that we step into the next war as well prepared as we can be," Waterfall told DefenceManagement.com's Matthew D'Arcy.

"It's very easy to – not to criticise, but to look at all the ways that we should live and we should learn. But actually there's real time to look back at what we achieved: the number of strike sorties that were achieved, the overall air package, the bringing together of all the capabilities such as the Tornado and the Typhoon, in addition the Sentinel really coming of age in terms of providing the commander on the ground as their eyes and the ears in the air.

"It's difficult now to imagine a conflict where the Sentinel wouldn't be put in some sort of prime role, I think."

UN Resolution 1973 allowed NATO to take military action, short of sending in ground troops, to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and protect civilians. This meant that the alliance's surveillance aircraft had to give precise, detailed information to air commanders.

"Clearly it was very difficult for us because without a force on the ground in a traditional conflict sense, where you're aware of the grand scheme of manoeuvre, we were wholly reliant (on airborne surveillance), which is why the Sentinel and the other surveillance aircraft played such an important part," says Air Commodore Waterfall.

"Very quickly it became apparent that, when we were witnessing atrocities occurring on the ground on a minute-by-minute, day-by-day basis, we had to do something about it. It was very clear from that to break out where the targets were and what we had to do to uphold the UN resolution."

As well as surveillance aircraft, Typhoon performed "extremely well" on its first operational deployment outside its Quick Reaction Alert role, Waterfall said.

"It really heralded the dawn of the multirole capability in terms of being able to put bombs on it as well as air-to-air missiles," he said. "Of course, every day, every night throughout the year it's defending the skies here and that's what we are enhancing further for the Olympics as well with the multi-tiered approach. So Typhoon's already on operations, but of course it was the first time we deployed it to an operational theatre and put it in the skies over Libya.

"We are still growing the force, we're still limited in the numbers of squadrons we have got and we are still expanding the force and getting our capability together and we will take all of those important lessons into future decisions as to the impact on the software and putting further developments on the aircraft."

Were operations limited by Typhoon's fledgling air-to-ground capability, which saw it only able to deploy the older Paveway II?

"No, because the Tornado and the Typhoon operated together, and by operating together the sum was very much in excess of the total component part of the two aircraft," he says.

"You had the Typhoon, a 21st-century, capable aircraft with all of its data link - and you had to know exactly where people were at the right time - and using its radar and of course its air-to-air missiles. In addition it had the Paveway bomb. You then marry that with the Tornado with a two-crew concept, people who are battle-hardened in terms of what they had done over Afghanistan and in Telic over Iraq for many, many years; and fusing those two sensors and aircraft together was a really powerful combination.

"The range and the flexible response that the Paveway IV affords you is clearly much better than you can get on Paveway II, which is why many times if we needed to have that range of accuracy we could use the Paveway IV, and if we didn't we could use the Paveway II."

One major criticism of the government at the outbreak of conflict in Libya was that the UK's carrier strike capability had been cut in the Strategic Defence and Security Review just five months earlier. This meant that the RAF was initially flying long-range sorties from UK bases before moving to Italy's Gioia Del Colle air base, a move that was seen as considerably more expensive than operating an aircraft carrier from the Mediterranean.

"I was the Harrier force commander at RAF Cottesmore as the last station commander for the force and then I went out to command operations in Libya," says Air Commodore Waterfall.

"And when you look at the operations over Libya, the United Kingdom played a vital role in amongst the coalition. And within the coalition for that conflict other nations contributed aircraft carriers and the UK didn't. There will be other scenarios, which is why it's important for us to move towards an era of carrier strike from carriers, where we have that capability.

"But for the conflict that we fought there was no need for those aircraft carriers or indeed the Harriers.

"We can all roll out costs to suit our own particular discussions because there are many hidden costs whichever way you look at it. The decision has been made through the SDSR and I think for us all within the Royal Air Force what we now do is look forward to the era of JSF flying off the QE class of carriers at the back end of this decade."

The first part of this article, with opinions from Royal Navy and army commanders, can be found here.

HAVE YOUR SAY

23 May 2012

Doublespeak in any other language. What he is saying is we need carriers and were lucky that this conflict was (more or less)in our back yard. Let's be clear - he is saying if we'd needed a carrier, we'd have needed a Harrier.

Incidentally, I see that people are now selling Nimrod toilet cubicles and other Nimrod components on e-bay. Sic transit gloria mundi, we must say... especially when it seems that even Oman has recently ordered three Airbus maritime reconnaissance planes. What a shame we didn't have a plane or three to sell them but then we don't make maritime reconnaissance aircraft do we...
Michael - Hertfordshire

23 May 2012

"There will be other scenarios, which is why it's important for us to move towards an era of carrier strike from carriers, where we have that capability.

"But for the conflict that we fought there was no need for those aircraft carriers or indeed the Harriers."

I would have to agree but I would add that the importance of air power demonstrated over Libya makes the case for carrier strike force regeneration even more urgent. It enhanced rather than diminished the case for carrier strike even though we were able to mitigate the loss of the GR9 sufficiently with the forces we were able to deploy in this scenario.
Graham - High Wycombe

23 May 2012

Even so Air Commodore,it took some hard bargaining before one of our NATO allies,Italy,agreed to let us base our aircraft on their soil.

They were never very happy with this situation and asked us to leave as soon as it was convenient.

Yes,I think he knows that a few acres of sovereign British territory positioned anywhere you want it,saves us a lot of problems with friends and enemies alike.
michael - notts

23 May 2012

"The range and the flexible response that the Paveway IV affords you is clearly much better than you can get on Paveway II, which is why many times if we needed to have that range of accuracy we could use the Paveway IV, and if we didn't we could use the Paveway II."

I'm struggling to understand why anyone would want to deploy Paveway II in preference to Paveway IV. Might be cheaper but if they are not as accurate, you need to use more to guarantee hitting the target. Therefore you need more sorties or bigger force package which costs more! Utter goobledegook.

As for the carrier strike, he states the bleedin' obvious with "...it's important for us to move towards an era of carrier strike from carriers, where we have that capability." Didn't know you could do carrier strike not from a carrier! What a Donkey.
AW Employee - Yeovil

23 May 2012

Good job we had friendly countries in which to overfly and base our aircraft in eh!!

So an airforce officer says that typhoon did a better job than the harrier could have done,,harrier was designed to support troops on the ground typhoon wasn't, Britain didn't deploy aircraft carriers, we couldn't..we have none,,,and if it is cheaper to opewrate carriers than base land based aircraft in foreign countries, just what the hell are we doing cutting naval aviation before next gen ready to take its place.
JC - UK

23 May 2012

AW Employee - Yeovil

EPW4 is a 500 pound bomb and EPW2 is a 1,000 pounder so it depends if you need the extra bang! They are both as accurate with GPS and laser guidance.

The 'flexible response' is two fold first it reduces the risk of collateral damage so can make a strike possible whereas an EPW2 would carry too much risk to non-combatants and second more EPW4 are carried on one aircraft allowing more targets to be engaged if required.

When the risk of collateral damage is much less and a target requires a larger bomb to destroy it then you use the EPW2.

So the Air Commodore was making perfect sense in his statements.
Graham - High Wycombe

23 May 2012

I'm still struck by the fact that even half way through the conflict, with a base in Italy, there was still the occasional long range sortie for the UK. I'm going to speculate that was due to ammunition?
Henry - Devon, UK

24 May 2012

Henry - Devon, UK

I would speculate it was political, apart from the initial Storm Shadow strike before a base in southern Italy had been established. However once we were based at Gioia Del Colle there was no reason to launch attacks from Marham using Storm Shadow, we could have flown the weapons out in a C130 and then used them from Italy. I feel that the government wanted to head of criticism of the decision to scrap the carrier and the RAF wanted to show its reach.

The Italians were happy to allow us to use the base from the start of the conflict as it was UN sanctioned and I am unaware of any restrictions that were placed upon us.
Graham - High Wycombe

24 May 2012

As usual the RAF is trying to sink the Navy
john walkley

24 May 2012

"But for the conflict that we fought there was no need for those aircraft carriers or indeed the Harriers"

Funny, because I remember the French carrier force being mightily annoyed that they were the only Carrier force able to engage at short notice from the waters off the Libyan coast and all the pressure was on them.

Furthermore, I don't see any 'Italian base' anywhere near the Falklands. The Black Buck missions wasted so much fuel in 82 and were so ineffective, completely missing the runway and not even arming the bombs on one drop!

Pity that the Navy had to carry out the airfield suppression day after day. The Navy not only carried out the task, but did it en-route to their CAP sentry points. Yet the RAF has the temerity to claim that they were essential to the air war in 82.

All they've done is convince the MOD to buy the wrong aircraft and this will cost the nation far more than the politicians believe.

Business as usual for the RAF - Empire building - wasting money - denying the Navy the ability to protect our nation overseas.
Nigelpwsmith - Hemel Hempstead

24 May 2012

"But for the conflict that we fought there was no need for those aircraft carriers or indeed the Harriers.

Yes there was and everyone knows it, so why must this endless waffle go on. Face it, we were very lucky that we had a base near enough to support our aircraft. If it had been somewhere else in the world, we may not have. Where would you base Typhoon and Tornado if we were fighting in the South Atlantic ? Harriers flying fron Ark Royal would have been more effective and flexible and, for all the bean counters, far more cost effective. No matter how much verbal and written crap comes out of the government, they know just how much we needed the Harriers and the Ark, but getting them to admit it is just not going to happen. They can't lie straight in bed, these political clowns, and it's worring, to me at least, when I hear Air Commodores backing the government's bad calls. We need the RAF, we need the Army and we need the Royal Navy, WITH it's aircraft. The defence review was probably the worst thing that happened to our forces and the lengths that some people will go to to try and get people like us that read and write to this forum to actually believe all this bull is getting to be an embarrassment. You were wrong then, you are wrong now and you will continue to make the wrong decisions until someone with the right skills can take the job of defence on. It should be law that no one in government should be allowed to make decisions on defence without ten years training and ten years experience in defence matters. These amateurs are wrecking what has taken hundreds of years to establish.

From the well informed comments on these boards, I can see that no one is really being fooled, so cease and desist immediately.
Ian R - Durham

25 May 2012

Nigelpwsmith - Hemel Hempstead

The very first 1982 BB mission put a bomb on the runway at Stanley and hence ended any chance the RG's could use the metal strips they had there to extend the runway. This stopped any 'splash and go' missions by RG fast jets using Stanley.
Another effect was to protect BA from Vulcan raids the Mirage IIIEA was moved north during the conflict and played little part afterwards (Other reasons were its short range and poor performance against SHARS on 1st May).

Also the other BB missions were using SHRIKE and got one hit on an RG radar not bombs!

Also what about the 10 GR3 Harriers that flew approx 150 missions including all the photo recce that was needed by the ground forces. One also dropped the first laser guided bomb by any British aircraft on 13th June which destroyed an RG 155mm howitzer.

And what about the Puma's and Chinook Bravo November! I suppose you are going to write that out are you!

So don't talk tosh about 82 and the RAF, obviously the RN/FAA were absolutely critical to the outcome but your so navy centric you wouldn't admit the RAF did anything regardless.

And for god's sake when are you going to get into your head that the RAF were not responsible for the choice of F-35B they would prefer the A or C model themselves. However the B model will perform better than you think and is the right choice for the carriers.
Read the RUSI commentary which backs the decision for the carriers

http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4F6C9D5A2F291/

At least they know what they are talking about!

Ian R - Durham

Well we have a base in the South Atlantic called MPA which has Typhoons already based there !

GR9's from the Ark Royal would not have been as effective as the Tornado GR4 & Typhoon over Libya. Many sorties had a mission length of 9 hours with more than 7 over Libya on call.

The Air Commodore is pointing out that we need carrier capability he's not denying it he is just saying we managed well over Libya this time. So stop misquoting and misreading his statements!

------------------

What there are here is a bunch of total navy centric's who are not even bothered to read the article correctly then spewing out a load of preconceived nonsense about what it says and the RAF being responsible for the RN's woes. Grow up!
Graham - High Wycombe

25 May 2012

Waterfall should be ashamed for diminishing the important role played by aircraft carriers in the Libya confrontation. The critical initial operations that destroyed the Libyan air defence infrastructure were carried out by F-18 Growler aircraft deployed forward from a US strike carrier,USMC Harriers from USS Kearsage and, of course, Tomahawk missiles launched from Royal Navy and U.S. Navy warships. Tornado and Typhoon did not arrive in theatre until after the skies over Libya had been secured. UK Harriers launched from HMS Ark Royal would have been far more responsive to the combat situation on the ground and would have saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds.
Sharkey Ward DSC AFC - Royal Navy

25 May 2012

Oh dear, in the case of Op Ellamy RAF aircraft were based in Italy and had to fly 1800 kilometres there and 1800 kilometres back to carry out sorties and drop weapons and costing £70,000 an hour to operate each Typhoon aircraft. A carrier, real flat top or a CVS with organic air assets, could have been sited within 20 miles of the coast of Libya, could react and respond much quicker and would not cost anything like the cost of the RAF operation.

Fact is that we still have 16 overseas dependent territories and just about all of them, standfast Gibraltar, way outside the operating limits of UK-based fixed wing aircraft. That is why we need an aircraft carrier and why we need the right mix of aircraft to operate from such a deck. You cannot operate aircraft close to an area of conflict without a carrier.
Kenneth - Suffolk, East Anglia

26 May 2012

"Well we have a base in the South Atlantic called MPA which has Typhoons already based there !"

Graham, my meaning was if we lost this base, then where would we be. There has been quite a lot recently about losing the base, so I quoted it as a possible example. I didn't really make that clear.
Ian R - Durham.

26 May 2012

p.s. I don't think I slagged off the RAF, for whom I have the greatest respect, along with our other services. It's the constant political interferance that gets me. The politicians are out of their depth but can't admit it.
Ian R - Durham.

26 May 2012

Hmm. Both France and Italy used their carriers off Libya, which is in THEIR backyard. The UK relies on allied airbases and long range flying, when it is not close to home. I'm confused. If the Libyan operation had taken place pre SDSR or earlier, what's the betting HMS Ark Royal, Harriers and all, would have been on station? And what's more if carriers aren't needed, which he's implying, then why build them in the first place? Then of course you have HMS Ocean acting in the role of an attack helicopter carrier with army Apache's. Mad, like the British weather, you never know what you're going to get and its always changing!
Peter Hall - Worksop, UK

28 May 2012

From article: "'The UK did not need Harriers over Libya'..."

ought to have read: 'For its very limited in scope and responsibilities roles in Libya, the UK did not need Harriers very much...'

During the recent Libya operations,the U.S.'s deployment of Harriers- and other types of aircraft- from 'medium sized' aircraft carriers (LHDs) was essential for both strike and rescue-of-allied -forces'-personnel missions...

Aircraft from the USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) competently provided air interdiction, ground attack and close air support for allied forces' operations:
http://www.marines.mil/unit/hqmc/Pages/26thMarineExpeditionaryunitjoinsOdysseyDawn.aspx

The extensive contributions made to the Libya campaign by the Kearsarge and her crew could not have been replicated by US aircraft flying from UK bases...

Anyone who suggests differently is either dishonest or grievously incompetent...
-----------------

"Daring Libya Rescue (using U.S. Marines' Harriers)"-
http://www.wcti12.com/news/30988468/detail.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/nato-asks-us-continue-libya-air-strikes/story?id=13287530
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=59195
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

29 May 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

At the risk of being accused of being Navy centric, you mention in your posting the Royal United services Institute[RUSI].However,you fail to mention that in RUSI and shortly after the Libyan operation,an ex Italian Chief of Defence staff gave a briefing stating that Italy ended up using her Carrier and her Harriers for most of the Elemy sorties.The reason,the sortie rate was greater and it cost a third of the price of using her land based Tornadoes and Typhoons.I rest my case.I have nothing to do with the Navy but I do know that they are best placed to carry out such operations wherever in the world and more effectively given the equipment they deserve.
Howard N. - Farnborough,Hants,UK

29 May 2012

Now that we are starting to see some sound analysis of the Libya campaign, it is increasingly the view that we do not need the carriers. £8Billion for a flat top versus 500 New Schools.

Now the evidence is miltarily that we do not need them when is the wanton hubris going to stop.
Alan - Portsmouth

31 May 2012

AN EVISCERATED, IMPOTENT ROYAL NAVY THAT IS PERMANENTLY BEREFT OF FULL-SIZED AIRCRAFT CARRIERS WOULD INDIRECTLY SEVERELY DAMAGE FUTURE REVENUES TO THE UK TREASURY!!
----------

No (plans for) fixed-wing aircraft carriers ('Flat Tops') in the Royal Navy= the UK's abandonment of its long standing positions of leadership and influence on the world stage...

... leading to incalculable damage to the UK's future trade and internal investment opportunities & interests...

... and the consequential enormous loss of potential future revenues for the UK Treasury... resulting in substantially less monies for new schools/education programmes...
==============

An interesting and very stark contrast to Air Commodore Waterfall's expressed views on 'how the UK managed in Libya 2011 without fixed-wing aircraft aircraft carriers' was recently provided by Colonel Mark Desens, Commander of the US's 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) in his Interview regarding the US's Utilization Of (medium-sized aircraft carriers) LHDs and Harriers in Libya 2011:

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-amphibious-ready-group-arg-and-libya/

Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

01 June 2012

It could never be argued that a carrier just sitting off the coast would not provide better military effect than flying over the Med or Europe from a fixed airfield.

In the context of the article, the title just quotes a comment from a brass hat who in all likelihood couldn't say anything else.

Of course hypothetically, any UK carrier would (or should) have an air group which could deploy light to heavy weapon systems (e.g. Brimstone to Storm Shadow). The recently retired Ark and Harriers did not have the option of heavy weapons; so if the UK still had the Ark with GR9's, then of course the AC would be half right.

One would hope someone in the MoD has some foresight to investigate the heavy weapon options for F-35's which the UK purchases, for example the NSM mod may be of interest in lieu of any domestic equivalent development. A stand-off capability is a must.
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

01 June 2012

Roderick V. Louis is right - I just read the linked article he flagged up that shows how useful it was for the USMC to have Harriers off the coast of Libya.

I have appended the 2 key paragraphs here;

"This is where you start to see the advantages we had by being close to the target area, If I'm coming from Aviano, my data's at least two and a half hours old. Things may well have moved. So now I have to reacquire to do the things I need to do. On the other hand, if you are only 100 miles away, the intelligence update you walked to the aircraft with is only fifteen minutes old as you enter the target area – and your target is right there waiting for you. We enjoyed a very high target to sortie rate because of tactical intelligence advantage.

The litening pod, integrated on the AV-8B Harrier II, is one of the best things ever invented. The beauty of us coming in towards the end of the night is we were able to go do a complete run with a litening pod up and down the roads south of Benghazi, record everything in that battlespace, and do all the processing in quick order aboard the Kearsarge. (…) if you are only 100 miles away, the intelligence update you walked to the aircraft with is only fifteen minutes old as you enter the target area – and your target is right there waiting for you. We enjoyed a very high target to sortie rate because of tactical intelligence advantage."

I wonder if we'll ever know what the RAF's total target to sortie rate was and how they compared with all the other allied air sorties over Libya?

That would be the end of the debate.
Dan - Na

05 June 2012

Is there not some way the Royal Navy could get back some Harriers for operational use up until the two new carriers are operating with what ever ends up flying off them (Typhoons or god forbid F35s)?

Get all the FRS2s out of Navy stores and museums and re-engine them with the 11-69 Pegasus for fleet defence and a few GR9s for close air support. They will see at least 10 years of service. Scrap a few RAF Tornados to pay for this, the Tornado always being too slow, short on range and too warn out to be any use (20 odd re-worked or new build Buccaneers would always be a better option – operationally faster, longer range, capable of carrying more ordinance and more robust, and they can fly off carriers!). Of course BAE are busy closing all the factories so building new anything will shortly not be an option. Time to get rid of the PPE morons running this country.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

17 June 2012

Hmm, ok lets get one thing straight. Despite having the 3rd largest defence budget in the world, the UK - via the RAF only flew 7% of the total Air Sorties flown during the Libyan Conflict - doesn't sound good does it? And in order to fly those we paid the Italians a very large amount of money on a daily basis to use their facilities as well as flying ridiculously long sorties from Marham in a vain attempt to demonstrate we could make do without a carrier! It's obvious to the rest of the world that Carrier strike was far more effective here, but not to the idiots that won't admit they screwed up in Westminster and the MOD!!!
Paul Courtenay - UK

20 June 2012

So Italy,France & America were wrong to have their carriers off Libya were they?
I agree its mad to get rid of Sentinel early.
Its a shame the 1998 FOAS proposal for Typhoon with fuselage stretch, conformal tanks, internal bomb bay, etc never proceded to replace the Tornado.
John Hartley - Woking, Surrey, UK

20 July 2012

Title of this article ought to have read:

'The UK did not need Harriers over Libya nearly as much as much at it needed F-18E/Fs and several responsibly designed and fitted out 'big deck' aircraft carriers...'
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

24 July 2012

Sir,

You appear to have forgotton the use of both RN and Army aircraft in this article based on HM Ships just off the coast. Perhaps inclusion of these assets would have hid your obvious bias towards your own service. The cost of putting the Ships and embarked aircraft 12 miles away from the action and able to respond at very short notice compared with the cost of basing Typhoon and Tornado in a foreign country with all the inclusive costs would be an interesting comparison particularly in these austere times.
David Lilly - UK

28 February 2013

I knew Gary Waterfall when he was a Flight Louie pilot on a Harrier Sqn in Germany, so I'm a tad surprised by his comments. (Expecting a bit of "brand loyalty" so to speak). I was just a JNCO in the RAF so I don't have all the info and background to make INFORMED comments, but I have an opinion, to wit: I believe we need our harriers back, even if only for the interim (or build new ones, give the lads some jobs). I believe putting all our hopes on a new aircraft, untried, untested and still very much in development is folly. I was (un)fortunate enough to be released from service before RAF jets and groundcrews were put to sea, so can't speak from experience but i believe firmly that we NEED a sea-going platform capable of launching and recovering fixed wing aircraft. If that is a purpose built carrier, or a north sea ferry with a flat-top bolted on is immaterial and whether it is pure matelot or a joint force makes no difference. As a Nation we need it.... even if just to save on fuel costs (at todays pump prices!) And flying long boring mind-numbing legs JUST to get to theater, THEN be expected to do a bang up job while suffering from fatigue is surely not good for combat effectiveness??? finally, having worked as a jnr tech on Buccaneers too, I agree with a previous poster about bringing that superlative bomber back into service, updated for the 21st century of course. It was the bizniss, as they say.
ex-cpl rigger - Scotland