Why the raf can’t deliver the punch cameron wants in syria
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
the astronomical cost of converting QEC that was supposedly fitted, "for, but not with" cat and trap capability was much harder in the post-2010 SDSR reality when they realised it wasn't exactly as Aircraft Carrier Alliance had said.
This is the sort of thing that makes those of us on the outside beat our heads against the wall.
Who is being hilti-gunned to the underside of a Challenger tank for their part in this? Why is it OK for businesses to screw over the MoD, and thus J. Taxpayer, in this way
the astronomical cost of converting QEC that was supposedly fitted, "for, but not with" cat and trap capability was much harder in the post-2010 SDSR reality when they realised it wasn't exactly as Aircraft Carrier Alliance had said.
This is the sort of thing that makes those of us on the outside beat our heads against the wall.
Who is being hilti-gunned to the underside of a Challenger tank for their part in this? Why is it OK for businesses to screw over the MoD, and thus J. Taxpayer, in this way
"for, but not with" was invented by some politician.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overall, I think we are quite well off at the moment expect for the scale issue.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Remember the Typhoon gun fiasco - not required to save money. But it would cost more to design it out. So leave the design and fit ballast. But it would cost more to design ballast. So fit a gun as ballast but not pay for a support system.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The contract didn't specify a requirement for cat and trap, at that time or in future.
"for, but not with" was invented by some politician.
"for, but not with" was invented by some politician.
Last edited by MSOCS; 29th Nov 2015 at 17:33. Reason: sp
There are some very creative and well considered posts here. But, sadly, not very well informed.
I hope I haven't missed a tongue in cheek jokette again. Sorry if I have, but here's another side to that story.
The word came from the MoD that the SHAR was going to be scrapped. Even we landlubbers asked how the fleet was going to be provided with air defence cover. Much to our surprise, it transpired that we were going to provide it. In UK waters, not a problem - all my UK tours were on SACLANT assigned sqns so we had done that, assuming the ship didn't shoot us down.
When we asked (of our friends in the "Big House") what the hell was going on, it eventually transpired that the MoD's lack of action had resulted in "ministerial" decisions that were not open to discussion. There were no answers to how we were supposed to take over fleet defence when the fleet wasn't within range of land based AD.
It may suit some of you to dream of a very clever RAF conspiracy to imasculate the RN or the FAA, but you could not be farther from the truth. You may be surprised to learn how much support there was from the RAF to maintain a capability that we knew we could not possibly take over. The GR9 never even entered into the argument.
Originally Posted by Pontious Nav
Oh, I thought the RAF persuaded the RN they their GR 9 was better than their updated FA2, and then disbanded the JFH, so really it was the RAF that screwed the pooch.
The word came from the MoD that the SHAR was going to be scrapped. Even we landlubbers asked how the fleet was going to be provided with air defence cover. Much to our surprise, it transpired that we were going to provide it. In UK waters, not a problem - all my UK tours were on SACLANT assigned sqns so we had done that, assuming the ship didn't shoot us down.
When we asked (of our friends in the "Big House") what the hell was going on, it eventually transpired that the MoD's lack of action had resulted in "ministerial" decisions that were not open to discussion. There were no answers to how we were supposed to take over fleet defence when the fleet wasn't within range of land based AD.
It may suit some of you to dream of a very clever RAF conspiracy to imasculate the RN or the FAA, but you could not be farther from the truth. You may be surprised to learn how much support there was from the RAF to maintain a capability that we knew we could not possibly take over. The GR9 never even entered into the argument.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM, from my point of view, very low down in the food chain, cancellation of SHAR was to free up funds for JSF; their Lordships made that decision and have continued to prioritise funds to LII over other needs.
Yes, Kitbag, I think you have a point there. In the days when spending on projects was taken "at risk" (meaning they didn't have the funding for a particular part of a project, but hoped that it may eventually come through) the thinking you suggest did happen. At the time, Typhoon was soaking up massive amounts of the Defence Budget. But so were a number of new programmes, JSF included. And that is where the silly old git Sharkey is aiming his ill-informed rabid rants. He might be better placed aiming at the politics behind the programmes than at the arms that operate them.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe Ward has a point? Even in the scummy papers...
Britain's missing Tornados as No10 wants to send more jets to Syria | Daily Mail Online
The Mail on Sunday pulled no punches and is right to publish this story.
The coming strike will be conducted by Tornado, but by a relatively small number from an ever reducing force.
Familiar to every serving RAF member here I'm sure but don't moan at me, it's illuminating to civilians like myself.
Talk of a "marginal" contribution. Will the effect of the strikes themselves be worth the blood price we will surely pay on our own streets or elsewhere British people are to be found and easily attacked?
An ex-AVM says the attacks can not be maintained at any level of intensity to the detriment of the enemy.
I could post this in any one of three or four running threads on here.....the air attacks just don't add up to the risk they incur, or are worth the wrath we will incur later.
* Just a point of order, way up back in the posts above someone said a carrier was delayed from sailing because of a faulty radar. I think that was Invincible in February or March of 1998 whilst on some another anti Iraq operation. I'd have to check my diary, which I don't have with me. The port was Dubai. The radar was the heavy duty looking long range radar above the bridge (forget type name).We were at sea. As I re-call retainer bolts had sheared due to sea motion? (STBC there). However we were alongside DB within a short time, a new part flown out, a crane hired and the radar self- changed by the WE Department within a pretty short period -2 days alongside, maybe a slight delay sailing at night due to the cross wind? Very impressive, the way that obstacle was overcome. Back on operations shortly thereafter. Was never a massive lover of CVS but it or they are a part of my professional past-life for better or worse. HS.
The Mail on Sunday pulled no punches and is right to publish this story.
The coming strike will be conducted by Tornado, but by a relatively small number from an ever reducing force.
Familiar to every serving RAF member here I'm sure but don't moan at me, it's illuminating to civilians like myself.
Talk of a "marginal" contribution. Will the effect of the strikes themselves be worth the blood price we will surely pay on our own streets or elsewhere British people are to be found and easily attacked?
An ex-AVM says the attacks can not be maintained at any level of intensity to the detriment of the enemy.
I could post this in any one of three or four running threads on here.....the air attacks just don't add up to the risk they incur, or are worth the wrath we will incur later.
* Just a point of order, way up back in the posts above someone said a carrier was delayed from sailing because of a faulty radar. I think that was Invincible in February or March of 1998 whilst on some another anti Iraq operation. I'd have to check my diary, which I don't have with me. The port was Dubai. The radar was the heavy duty looking long range radar above the bridge (forget type name).We were at sea. As I re-call retainer bolts had sheared due to sea motion? (STBC there). However we were alongside DB within a short time, a new part flown out, a crane hired and the radar self- changed by the WE Department within a pretty short period -2 days alongside, maybe a slight delay sailing at night due to the cross wind? Very impressive, the way that obstacle was overcome. Back on operations shortly thereafter. Was never a massive lover of CVS but it or they are a part of my professional past-life for better or worse. HS.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
CM, sorry, got you again. Check the small print. Just suggesting how some bearded fish might claim.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No HS, Ward is aiming at the wrong target, and has consistently done so, blurring the causes of the emasculation of the FAA with piss poor political decision making. In another thread there was mention of the deployed Air Power for GW1;
from the RAF web site.
Not possible now, the loss of critical mass is eye watering
Within 48 hours of the Governments decision to send large-scale forces to the Gulf, a squadron of RAF Tornado F3s arrived in Saudi Arabia and two hours later they flew their first operational sorties. Within a further two days, a squadron of Jaguar fighters-bombers arrived, together with half a squadron of VC10 tanker aircraft and soon after they were joined by half a squadron of Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft.
The RAF build-up continued throughout the closing months of 1990 and by mid-January 1991 our strength in the Gulf stood at some 18 Tornado F3 fighters, about 46 Tornado GR1/1A strike/attack and recce aircraft, 17 tankers, three Nimrods, 12 Chinooks, 19 Pumas, seven Hercules and one BAe125. It continued to increase during the conflict as Buccaneers and further Tornado GR1s arrived in theatre. Other RAF operational units deployed to the Gulf included two RAF Regiment Wing HQ, two Rapier Squadrons and four Light Armour/Field Squadrons.
The RAF build-up continued throughout the closing months of 1990 and by mid-January 1991 our strength in the Gulf stood at some 18 Tornado F3 fighters, about 46 Tornado GR1/1A strike/attack and recce aircraft, 17 tankers, three Nimrods, 12 Chinooks, 19 Pumas, seven Hercules and one BAe125. It continued to increase during the conflict as Buccaneers and further Tornado GR1s arrived in theatre. Other RAF operational units deployed to the Gulf included two RAF Regiment Wing HQ, two Rapier Squadrons and four Light Armour/Field Squadrons.
Not possible now, the loss of critical mass is eye watering
Well, it's a fun debate, but we are ranging a little bit away from the bearded idiot's latest rabid rant.
From a purely personal point of view, I seriously dislike the tribal RAF/RN/ARMY bolleaux. The only way the UK Armed Forces are going to continue to be a world beating force is by working together. Inside the MoD/Public boundary that is what is happening.
From a purely personal point of view, I seriously dislike the tribal RAF/RN/ARMY bolleaux. The only way the UK Armed Forces are going to continue to be a world beating force is by working together. Inside the MoD/Public boundary that is what is happening.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
CM, 
, in this age the RN cannot operate on its own. When it had its own port facilities, stores, harbours and airfields it could rely on SLOC but no longer. Critical supply needs go by air etc etc
, in this age the RN cannot operate on its own. When it had its own port facilities, stores, harbours and airfields it could rely on SLOC but no longer. Critical supply needs go by air etc etc
nurse, the screens
I don't think the guys and girls have lost their way. And, despite "successive governments" they have some pretty impressive kit that some of us here would have dreamed of.
Some here may feel otherwise. The bearded idiot clearly does.
Some here may feel otherwise. The bearded idiot clearly does.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Mail on Sunday pulled no punches and is right to publish this story."
that would be the Mail on Sunday that always calls for tax cuts yes?
maybe a one off tax on newspaper proprieters is called for to be spent on the Tornado force?
that would be the Mail on Sunday that always calls for tax cuts yes?
maybe a one off tax on newspaper proprieters is called for to be spent on the Tornado force?
Quote:
"Talk of a "marginal" contribution. Will the effect of the strikes themselves be worth the blood price we will surely pay on our own streets or elsewhere British people are to be found and easily attacked?"
We have to hope that either the report is exaggerated, and/or that there would be a way round the shortage. Imagine the propaganda value to Daesh of the UK being seen once again to be disorganised, divided and impotent. You are assuming that they would be less likely to attack an enemy that has equivocated in a manner they would perceive as weakness and decadence. Many would take a different view.
"Talk of a "marginal" contribution. Will the effect of the strikes themselves be worth the blood price we will surely pay on our own streets or elsewhere British people are to be found and easily attacked?"
We have to hope that either the report is exaggerated, and/or that there would be a way round the shortage. Imagine the propaganda value to Daesh of the UK being seen once again to be disorganised, divided and impotent. You are assuming that they would be less likely to attack an enemy that has equivocated in a manner they would perceive as weakness and decadence. Many would take a different view.