One of the main issues in the forthcoming cuts, sorry, strategic realignement is the numers of Typhoons we're ordering.
I have this one simple question, which if there are any brave enough to stick their heads above the parrapets, I would love the no-good waste of space expensive chisselling bean counters and number crunchers to think about (I would say answer but I'll retire before I get a straight one).
Our original order was for 232 airframes, a combination of AD, offensive support/recce as the Jag replacement, 2-seat trainers and probably a few for reserves. Apparently we no longer need this many.
The Swedish airforce have a requirement for 200+ Grippens. Although very professional and capable, they do not do the World Policeman thing nearly as much as UK Plc (nos combat ac deployed to Gulf 1/2, Balkans, Afghanistan etc etc ). If the Swedish govt thinks it needs 200+ to maintain a credible defence of Sweden combined with its other commitments without all the levels of commitment UK plc provides around the world, why oh why do our bean counters think we don't need 232 ac any more.
And before the bean counters kick-off about ex Cold War ac, out of date blah blah blah, think about this lot:
1. Yes it was designed as a Cold War weapon. Yes the Sovs aren't playing anymore. They aren't playing at all which means their kit is being flogged off around the world, and we still end up facing it when we go on ops. If DROC had kicked off, are the bean counters aware of how many FULCRUMS and FROGFOOTS there are in Central Africa. Or in any other s**t hole we're likely to end up in, more often than not crewed by ex-Sov pilots making some money. Hmmm me thinks not. The threat is still there for the Typhoon to face.
2. It was designed as an air superiority fighter which we don't need anymore. True, reading the small print in the late 90s SDR, UK AD had been pushed down the bottom of the list of priorities. After all, where will the air threat come from now there are no Sovs coming over the Kola??? As such lets cut down and not get the final tranche because we need OS rather than AD ac/ Hmmm, which is the tranche that is optimised for ground attack/offensive ops that we are doing lots of these days. Oh that will be the one you are cutting.
3. We DO still need an AD capability, albeit for deployed ops. It's all well and good sticking the Pongos on a beach and telling them to crack on. Not going to happen until we have total air superiority. And before you all quote Iraq, it doesn't count when the enemy pack up and go home before kick-off - that's a rarity
And when we do go off on ops and the Pongos are getting a pasting against a state that actually decides to fight, whether that be in FROGFOOTS or anything else, can I please be there when the bean counters tell them they will have to put up with it because the fiscal planning didn't take into account Umongo-Bongo land using their air assets when we invaded so there's no air cover.
4. Plus many other logical arguments that the military shouldn't have to spell out in words of less than on syllable.
This round of cuts has to be the most ludicrous and short sighted bit of thinking it has ever been my privilege to see. When will the accountants and civil servants realise that you cannot put a cash value on defence. The sort of value they need to realise investing in defence brings is the ability to get to their comfy Whitehall office without being gassed on the tube, or go on holiday without being hijacked en route.
So I go back to my original question. If Sweden thinks it needs 200+ Grippen, any chance of a re-think on our cutting the numbers of Typhoons?
Answers on a postcard to T Bliar, 10 , The Funny Farm, London
Last edited by CatpainCaveman; 22nd Jun 2004 at 23:59.