General Sir Richard Dannatt on radio 4

[barnstormer1968]

Hi all.
First off, I cannot give full details for this topic, as I cannot get proper internet access at the moment, so apologies for that.

Earlier this morning there was an interview on radio 4 with the above general, and he was voicing his opinion on strategy in Afghanistan. One of the other things he mentioned was that he believes that (now there is a new government) there should be a review of the PFI air tanker deal, as it is a disaster (my words, not his). He also said the number of fast jests the RAF has needs to be looked at, as we have too many.

I have to admit, I totally agree with his view on the air tanker deal.

Just thought I would mention this, as he is maybe using the election of the new government to try to move some things on. If you can get access to Iplayer it may be worth looking up the interview (it was on the 'today show')

[Jackonicko]

I suppose it shows that even a blinkered fool like Dannatt can sometimes get it right.

The tanker PFI is a disaster? No sh*t, Sherlock. (But the clever thing is what you do about it now....)

Too many RAF FJs? Two Harrier, two Typhoon, one F3 and seven GR4 Squadrons.

12 Squadrons seems to be below the irreduceable minimum to me, since we need five squadrons for UK AD alone, and since we seem to struggle to maintain a single squadron on a long term enduring operational deployment with 7 GR4 Squadrons..........

It's terrifying that this bloke has such power and influence in the new Government.

[gsa]

number of fast jests the RAF has

Do they supplement the Typhoons?
I listened to it and my interpretation was that yes tankers a farce but there was a need for 3 services and that he said we had too many Tanks, Big guns and Typhoons . So cuts all round then.

[On_Loan]

link to the story on BBC News:

BBC News - Ex-Army chief Dannatt says equipment cuts inevitable (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8682097.stm)

[Trim Stab]

It's terrifying that this bloke has such power and influence in the new Government.


LOL - do you really think you know more about defence than him?

Was he specific about his criticisms of Air Tanker? Were his criticisms aimed at the entire PFI strategy? Or at the execution of the plan?

If you start with the premise that you need to find a way to fly the A330s productively, all year round, virtually round the clock (as they fly in airlines) then you need to build unusual flexibility into their operational capability. It is difficult to see how you could do that other than having the ability to offer them on the civilian charter market when not in use by the RAF. If there is no capability to use them productively on the civilian market in peacetime, then the RAF will still be using them in fifty years time when they are flying dinosaurs - like Tri*.

[barnstormer1968]

Jacko
IMHO you are coming across as a bit bitter recently.

I take it you have met the general several times to come to your conclusion on him (bearing in mind it is a personal, not professional attack).

I didn't get the impression he has only just come to this conclusion, but then the previous government seemed to love PFI's, even if that went against MOD/service advice.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Unfortunately all the services have their own "my service first"/colour blind to navy blue/light blue/green throbbers and Gen (Rtd) Sir Richard Dannatt has long stood (in my ever-so-humble opinion) as one of that particular herd.

Too many fast jets? Aye, Harrier and Tonka not to far-off their use-by date, why not thin them out now and have another defence capability holiday? I'm sure he won't be the first to jump up and down when 'his' boys are screaming out even more for air support in Afgan (the only conflict the MoD is going to face in the next 30 years it seems) when the last few Tonkas sit in bits at Marham worn out and two dozen Tiffys add 'drop bomb on bad guy' to their list, just below Northern QRA, Southern QRA and Falklands Islands QRA.:ugh:

The long, drawn-out process of introducing Bowman/Apache and all number of 'green' projects must surely be an indicator to this buffoon that slightly more complex things such as fighter aircraft able to deal with modern threats are neither cheap, quick to develop nor quick to field, which might be quite an important consideration if Afghanistan doesn't turn out to be the only conflict the British forces face over the next 20 or so years.

Who would have guessed 20 years ago that the British military would upto now have been involved in two major wars involving Iraq, a post-colonial conflict in Africa, two peacekeeping operations in Eastern Europe and a continuing nasty war in an old stamping ground from the days of the Raj?

As others have said, its a crying shame this chap has such a high-profile soapbox to blather his single service mentality from. Him and his ilk are undoing many years valuable work to create a truely 'purple' military, which can only untimately damage to defence capability of this nation.

Oh and ps,

No I haven't met the chap and you're probably (almost definately) right that I know less about defence than him. What I do know though is down at the comparitively lowly levels at which I served, more often than not during my career in Tri-service enviroments, people were trying very hard to get over the idiocy that is single service politics in order that the job could get done. Comments from this chap are no better than those made by light blue bedecked windbags calling for all avaition in the military to be flown by one of their chums rather than the Andrew or TWA.

[Trim Stab]

Unfortunately all the services have their own "my service first"/colour blind to navy blue/light blue/green throbbers and Gen (Rtd) Sir Richard Dannatt has long stood (in my ever-so-humble opinion) as one of that particular herd.


If that is the case, why is he advocating slashing the number of tanks and heavy artillery too?


Who would have guessed 20 years ago that the British military would upto now have been involved in two major wars involving Iraq, a post-colonial conflict in Africa, two peacekeeping operations in Eastern Europe and a continuing nasty war in an old stamping ground from the days of the Raj?



"Options for change" review did just that - and there were pleny of people advocating for a fundamental restructure of the military for several years before that, starting in about 1990 when the Cold War was drawing to a close. Unfortunately we did not go far enough back then with cuts to some of the bigger programmes (eg Eurofighter).

[StopStart]

Have to agree with with his comments about fast jets and the Tanker PFI. Not being truckie-centric and I'm well aware how air power works :hmm: however I would question the need for the x many hundred typhoons we're getting and the bottomless pit that is JSF. The details of the Air Tanker deal are nothing short of hilarious and I can only assume they managed to pin down that awesome PFI deal through one of those daytime TV finance ads..... :ouch:

I've actually spent quite a bit of time chatting with Dannatt and I seriously have to take issue with your comments Jacko me old. The chap is neither blinkered nor a fool and holds pretty broad, sharp opinions on how to deal with our defence spending problems. Big ticket items like Typhoon and JSF need to be properly justified as the financial axe looms but similarly the Army need to look at what they actually need and don't need hence his comments about armour and heavy artillery. Simply saying we need 5 Sqns for UK AD and that's that simply won't wash. A possibly ludditic suggestion might be one up north, one down south and one OCU. Chuck a few jets in storage and go overborne on engineers and pilots on each squadron. And that we can only maintain a small det off the back of 7 GR4 sqns says more about our internal management than it does about the amount of money we have. The inference is we need 100 jets so we can get 2 in the air. A very simplistic view of the world perhaps but to be fair that's all we in the truckie world receive back from our FJ masters. :rolleyes:

The RAF is pouring obscene amounts of money into the whole Typhoon project - not just the aircraft, but basing infrastructure too. That's all well and good but at the other end of the food chain you have projects like Future Brize where there is no money for new builds and some of the workarounds being suggested are nothing short of ridiculous. This isn't petty jealousy just an observation of how skewed the upper echelons are in their appreciation of what is important in today's RAF.

The MoD isn't ringfenced from the forthcoming cuts and the RAF needs to box clever if it wants to avoid being hammered. I don't hold out much hope though - during a recent Airshiporial visit to a secret Wiltshire airbase, the gentleman concerned chose not to address the pressing local matters of dying fleets, closing squadrons, lack of hours, moving stations and missing aircraft upgrades and instead implored us to not worry as "JSF is on it's way!"

Seriously sir, none of us - many with hundreds if not thousands of hours of operationally deployed flying - could care less.

[Trim Stab]

Good post:D:ok:

[gijoe]

Stop,

I echo Trim, a very good post.

Sir Dannatt is a very clever, elqouent and charming gentleman. To say he is thinking one-sidedly shows the limit of one's understanding of the shape that defence is in at the moment.

Tankers - I think we are all agreed.

Jets - Umm, maybe too many and are they suitable for CAS in that 30 year war mentioned above?

Jet Carrying Boats - Got to have them to set up that floating FOB anywhere on the globe. Like it or not the RN will probably keep them.

Tanks - Yesterday's kit and people like the Royal Tank Regiment know this.

Big Guns - Again, probably yesterday's kit. Light and airmobile is probably the way forward. The RA is working on this and has already made a big landgrab on TUAVs.

SH - Need more...still.

AH - Good when it works.

AT - Discussed loads on here and I hope the current models hang in until replacements arrive.

Whether you like it or not there is going to be a big push for UAS.

Overall, you may wear light blue, dark blue or green, this year is going to be painful but it may help us all deliver a better service to those that need it...ie the frontline. This should start with more Streamlining (I am yet to see any benefits of this) and a good pullthrough, with much oil, of DE&S...

g:ok:

[tucumseh]

Stop Start


Excellent.

need to be properly justifiedAnd in that simple statement lies the cause of so many of MoD's problems. The failure to properly justify, to scrutineers.

MoD's own Internal Auditors (DIA) issued a coruscating report to PUS (the Chief Accounting Officer) in June 1996 making 19 recommendations all based on the need to justify, through proper Requirement Scrutiny (see JSP414 and the old PE Finance Handbook). Before anyone thinks this is beancounter work, RS is conducted from the User's viewpoint and is one of the key roles of any Requirements Manager, which nowadays is almost exclusively an SO2 or SO1 post. But if you ever meet one who knows the first thing about RS, let me know. Failing to understand and make one's own case is what lets the beancounters step in and walk all over the Services.

To take one example, implementing Recommendation 15 properly would have nipped many airworthiness problems in the bud, negating the need for Haddon-Cave and the costly retrospective application of mandated regulations. In fact, like Haddon-Cave, most of the 19 Recommendations could be summarised as "Implement existing regulations".

MoD say they do not have this report and cannot say if any of the recommendations have been implemented. (Although clearly one of us has a copy :rolleyes:). What they are quite happy to confirm, however, is that conducting RS in accordance with the regulations remains a disciplinary offence.

Sort that out, save billions, and move on to the NHS "citadel of waste".

[gijoe]

'But if you ever meet one who knows the first thing about RS, let me know. That ignorance and lack of training is what lets the beancounters step in and walk all over the Services.'

Do they?

I don't think they did during my 23 months as an RM on one of the projects detailed above.

If a requirement isn't constructed well enough to convince everyone reading it then that is another story. We are in danger of getting into the UOR vs EP debate here but overall you won't find many RMs that don't have the best interests of the User at heart.

Are they correctly trained or effectively employed? Are the CS that work in DE&S suitable to take on the might of LM, BAe, Westlands, GD etc

Different questions and ones that should be addressed by my well-oiled, 25mm x 25mm comment above.

G:ok:

[tucumseh]

gijoe

I amended my post as I thought I was being too harsh on Service RqMs. As a civvy, I was trained as a RqM, a pre-requisite being many years relevant experience on (in my case) the equipment and aircraft; designing, building, repairing, managing as a project etc. The regulations require a RqM to be an engineer, if only because they also say that he must use his "Engineering Judgement" as the final arbiter in cases of conflict. Another tool to defeat the beancounters.

When these became Service posts, it was immediately obvious most were not trained and very few were engineers. Very quickly, the meat of the jobs defaulted to the civvys anyway (whose terms and conditions state they must be able to do all jobs in the project team if non-engineering / non-civilian staff cannot or will not). That is not the fault of the RqMs. Most, do indeed, have the best interests of their Service at heart. The last time I even bothered "my" RqM he politely asked me to do it myself as I knew how, and he would crack on as IPT Social Secretary. Did a great job as well. Waste of a Colonel's post though.

To your last question. No, the civvys are not trained these days in the way I describe and it is more or less an obligation of the job to allow companies to walk all over you. (A former Chief of Defence Procurement even named a company!). Those who rebel are quickly put down.

[gijoe]

Point taken and agreed - there are aspects of the job that require continuity and other skills, driving DOORs etc. We had a contractor on my team of 6 to do this. There are evdinetly people that are out of their depth in this sort of role.

Another way to look at this question is to ask 'Would you stay there for 5 years to fully learn the trade?' Good for schools, good for Mrs, not moving house again etc

I wouldn't given the current state of DE&S.

G:ok:

PS BEng, MSc, CEng so I hope I brought something useful to the table.

[knowitall]

a few points

1.typhoon has already been cut from 232 to 160...ish

2. does anyone honestly think we'll get anything near 140 jsf?

3. FSTA is a steaming pile of pooh, but what's the alternative

the one thing it has going for it is that it doesn't involve upfront capital expenditure, any alternative is likely to involve spending more money (we don't have) sooner rather than later.
Then there's the issue of cancellation charges for the current contract

its liable to delay tri-stars replacement again not ideal when we already have an AT train crash on the way

[tucumseh]

BEng, MSc, CEng

If you'd worked in MoD(PE) in 1996, under the same CDP I mentioned, you'd have been out on your ear. No need for technical staff on technology programmes.

[Chugalug2]

Hmmm...is that the turning of worms I hear? Time to call out the guard methinks, as it seems there's trouble at t'mill. People talk about inter-service rivalry but the RAF it seems is more afflicted these days by in-service rivalry, with the "Cavalry of the Clouds" as ever keen to maintain their dominance. I too am a mere (ex)-truckie and despair at the way AT and SH, so vital in theatre, have been squeezed by the costly machinations of their more nimble brethren. As usual all this is played out in that den of iniquity, the Ministry of Defence. Tuc has more intimate knowledge of the skulduggery there than most, certainly than I, but unless and until those dark corridors are finally swept clean, needless waste will continue, needless losses will be suffered. When one remembers that it was very much Mountbatten's baby then the built in incompetence and dissembling can perhaps be better comprehended. Nothing less than total reform is needed and (the punch line at last!) it should start with the complete separation from it of the new MAA and the formation of an Independent MAAIB separate in turn from the MAA.

[gijoe]

'If you'd worked in MoD(PE) in 1996, under the same CDP I mentioned, you'd have been out on your ear. No need for technical staff on technology programmes.'

...there were times during my tenure when I would have judged that nothing had changed.

It is a self-licking dinosaur lolly!

:ok:G

[StopStart]

knowitall

1. Good. And if the very electric C130J can manage to generate about 50% of it's fleet on a daily basis then it must be safe to assume that 50 odd (allowing for storage etc) Typhoons smashing round the UKLFS every day isn't an unreasonable request....?

2. Nope, so why not acknowledge it and cut our cloth accordingly?

3. The alternative is we suck it up and buy off the shelf for once. The Australians are doing ok with their 330s and there are plenty of other types out there. The issue of capital expenditure cannot surely raised against the ridiculous through life costs of the PFI? I know the tanker won't get binned and that this all hot internet air but the MoD runs about telling it's employees to be financially sensible and not to get into debt problems and then turns round and signs up to a deal that this lot (http://www.logbookloans.co.uk/) would be proud of. I also still love the hilarious notion that these jets will be revenue generating in their spare time. Seriously, when civvy airlines pare down aircraft weights to the bare minimums to save fuel burn & maximise bum on seats, who on earth is going to want to rent a part time tanker that comes with a couple of tonnes of extra fuel pipework? Still, fair play to whoever got that through as an idea - my only question would be where on earth did they find such a vast quantity of Wool (Eyes), Pulling for the use of?

I gurn about it endlessly at work but the RAF's massive failing in this day age is a) we cling to outdated ideals that we're simply the best air force in the world and b) we therefore deserve to have the very best, gold-plated thing going regardless of cost. My particular aircraft type could be fully "spammed-up" with the kit we're crying out for tomorrow by simply lowering our ludicrous standards slightly and buying off the shelf. Instead we fanny about speccing our own local clobber that is 10 times the price, 5 years late and then not integratable. We need to be realistic about balancing what it is we want to do as an air force against what we need to do and then how much it's actually going to cost.

Until we do that we will continue to exist like penniless, homeless tramps with nothing to our names except a diamond encusted Rolex Oyster watch & a confirmed order for that Sunseeker 46Ft Yacht (payable over 200 years at a £500 a day - starting 2 years after delivery) we really need...

[knowitall]

Stopstart

"The alternative is we suck it up and buy off the shelf for once"

agreed, its a much better idea than this absurd PFI, but we don't have the cash

and even if we did have the cash would you prefer to spend it canceling the pfi or say spend the cash on some chinooks and/or c130j's

[Jackonicko]

Trim Stab,

"LOL - do you really think you know more about defence than him?"

No. Just a damned sight more than you. Though that's really not difficult.

Stoppers,

We must agree to disagree on Dannatt, who is in my view one of the least 'purple' senior officers we've seen in a major post for many years.

"Simply saying we need 5 Sqns for UK AD and that's that simply won't wash. A possibly ludditic suggestion might be one up north, one down south and one OCU. Chuck a few jets in storage and go overborne on engineers and pilots on each squadron."

The current Northern Q arrangement shows that while it's possible to sustain one QRA with one (expanded) squadron, but equally shows that you can't do ANYTHING else with that Squadron. Not supporting the Falklands, not undertaking multi-role training, not being available for deployed ops, and not even able to maintain proper currency in all aspects of the primary role, as the recent accident showed!

That's why you need two squadrons for Northern Q, two for Southern, and one to be able to have the 'slack' for the Falklands etc. Whaddya know? Five squadrons needed for UK (and FI) AD.

And actually, you want enough Typhoons to be able to do the old Jag role, too. Seven squadrons as planned sounds about right.

And you might want enough JSF to replace both Harrier and Tornado GR...... and to be able to generate sufficient FEAR to be able to do another Telic or even another Granby.

[Gnd]

and not even able to maintain proper currency in all aspects of the primary role,

There's the rub, come SDR we might find that the sham of having all these aircraft to do a cold war task will be outed and sense prevail. Similar to Tanks and Arty I guess???
Sounds like self protecting argument to me, not one for the good and benefit of UK PLC?
What comment did John H finish the interview with? Was Dannet ‘an idiot’ with his reply, that will be interesting if true!!!

[Trim Stab]

Trim Stab,


Quote:
"LOL - do you really think you know more about defence than him?"
No. Just a damned sight more than you. Though that's really not difficult.




I am a serving military reservist, will soon deploy to Afghanistan, and deployed to Iraq. You are correct that I therefore don't know very much at all about defence except from my narrow perspective as a junior infanteer - but one thing is for sure I would never be so presumptuous as to imagine that I know more about defence than a former CGS who holds an MC and qualified as a military pilot.

Aren't you just a journalist? Why don't you sign up with the reserve forces and learn something real?


The current Northern Q arrangement shows that while it's possible to sustain one QRA with one (expanded) squadron, but equally shows that you can't do ANYTHING else with that Squadron. Not supporting the Falklands, not undertaking multi-role training, not being available for deployed ops, and not even able to maintain proper currency in all aspects of the primary role, as the recent accident showed!

That's why you need two squadrons for Northern Q, two for Southern, and one to be able to have the 'slack' for the Falklands etc. Whaddya know? Five squadrons needed for UK (and FI) AD.

You have no idea what priorities are do you? We have huge, massive cuts coming. Defending against air attack from a highly unlikely foe is a luxury, not a necessity. There are far higher priorities, as StopStart explained. Please can you give a CREDIBLE argument to justify our current air defence structure and spending? Given your condescending attitude, and lack of personal experience, I presume you have sources high up in the RAF - so let's hear their arguments from you.

[knowitall]

." Defending against air attack from a highly unlikely foe is a luxury, not a necessity."

were you asleep on September 11th 2001?

are you seriously suggesting defending UK airspace is an optional extra?

I suspect if you asked most of the population they'd inform you that the government should cease invading other countries first

I suspect when the government has a long hard think about what its priories are they might not come up the the answer Gen Dannat wants, 2011 is supposed to mark the beginning of our withdrawal from Afghanistan after all.

[Trim Stab]

Seriously, when civvy airlines pare down aircraft weights to the bare minimums to save fuel burn & maximise bum on seats, who on earth is going to want to rent a part time tanker that comes with a couple of tonnes of extra fuel pipework?


You are forgetting that Air Tanker will not have to quote for contracts to the same terms as private charter operators. The capital cost is partly offset by the MOD requirement, the fuel will be available at very preferential rates, there are unusually high contractual guarantees, etc. Merely dismissing those advantages because of the tiny structural disadvantage of a "few tonnes of pipework" is missing the bigger picture.

It is to the advantage of the RAF to use their aircraft productively on the commercial market - whenever appropriate - because it ensures that they are replaced when their productive life ends. The RAF would not have such an outdated AT inventory if its aircraft were (wherever appropriate) subject to commercial competition. Isn't that a good thing?

I am not arguing that the entire PFI Tanker programme is flawless - just that the idea is meritorious. I expect we will see it perfected in the future.

Or do you want to live in a dreamland where RAF AT just spend peacetime on endless training jollies at the taxpayers expense, and end up flying out-dated aircraft as a result?

[Two's in]

." Defending against air attack from a highly unlikely foe is a luxury, not a necessity."

were you asleep on September 11th 2001?

are you seriously suggesting defending UK airspace is an optional extra?

Did I miss the page where someone explained how 9/11 could have been prevented through effective use of Air Defence assets?

[Trim Stab]

What would make sense to me is the early drawdown of the GR4 force once the Typhoon can take on their tasks. For that we need to buy all of the Typhoons ordered. Spend to save.


Except that the Typhoon is an inadequate replacement for GR4. As I have said before, we should have listened to the French during Eurofighter development - then we would have ended up with a strike-biased swing-role fighter that can also operate off carriers instead of being mired in two separate hideously expensive programmes which we (arguably) need, but definitely can't afford.

But having ended up in the situation we are in, we have to compromise - and that inevitably means slashing massively the projected Typhoon fleet. Defence is going to take at least 15% cut in budget over the next few years - so stop dreaming. Where else will the cuts come from if not FJs generally and Typhoon in particular?



Did I miss the page where someone explained how 9/11 could have been prevented through effective use of Air Defence assets?


Exactly - Typhoon is no defence at all against the most likely aerial attack on UK - namely hijack of a business jet. I fly one, and I know how vulnerable we are!

[ExAscoteer]

What are these "endless training jollies at the taxpayers expense" of which you speak?

In my time on Albert (many years ago) overseas sorties were always 'Task Orientated'. Aside from the OCU, 'Overseas Trainers' were the things of dim and distant memory that were spoken of in awe by the more 'senior' sweats.

Indeed most of the 'overseas' flying were Ops: Jural, Warden, Vigour, Grapple, Deny, aside from Excercise commitments, NI commitments and the Akrotiri schedule. I was on the first crew to deploy on Op Jural and regularly exceeded the mandated maximum 16 hour crew duty day - the longest being 22 hours. Please tell me just how that is a "jolly"?

After leaving the fleet to become an Instructor, staying in touch with friends on the fleet, the pace of Ops did not slacken with the ongoing problems in the Balans and the No-Fly Zones in Iraq.

I would warrant that the pace of Ops increased post 2001 with the Afghanistan and Iraq situations.

Given that, could you tell me how the RAF could "use their [AT] aircraft productively on the commercial market"?

[dogstar2]

In the debate for what the country requires for defence we should remember the concept known as 'control of the air'. In Afghanistan now the coalition has almost complete control of the air barring Manpads, small arms and RPG. This allows SH, Air Transport and CAS aircraft to go about their business largely unmolested. More crucially, it allows the ground forces to operate without fear of attack from enemy aircraft. This level of control of the air is a luxury for ground forces. Effectively they have access to CAS on call, rapid medevacs, reliable resupply.

To achieve this as part of an expeditionary operation usually requires a Counter Air Campaign first to neutralise any air threat. This was needed in big campaigns such as the Gulf wars and Kosovo but was also even needed for theatre entry in Afghanistan in 2001 where the air threat was very low (a few low digit SAMs and some Mig 21s but they were there nevertheless and needed to be neutralised to allow all of the other air and ground campaigns to be mounted without interference (see IMINT - Afghanistan (http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/afghan.htm) for some maps and pictures of the strikes throughout Oct 2001). Failure to have enough aircraft to mount a reasonable Counter Air Campaign to gain control of the air comes has serious consequences. The battering the RN ships and ground troops endured in the Falklands from aircraft on the very edge of their radius of action demonstrates the damage that old and basic aircraft can do. Let us imagine a situation where Britain is required to mount a relatively small operation into, for arguments sake, an failing state where rebels/insurgents have access to a sympathising neighbouring (perhaps fundamaentalist) nations attack aircraft with let us say some Mig23s/Hawks/Mig29s/Mig21s as seen in many nations across Africa and the Middle East. To provide the umbrella necessary to protect the CAS/AT/SH aircraft as well as the troops on the ground requires fast jets to be able to mount fighter CAPs at the very least and ideally to set up SEAD missions as well as bombing missions to deny the enemy the use of their aircraft and bases. And yes, this would be required for even a small threat - even light attack aircraft such as the Hawk can do an awful lot of damage to troops, SH/AT as well as ships which might be operating in support of any small task force sent to do a job. Meanwhile the Mig series available in many nations can do much more serious damage. To counter these threats we need modern aircraft which can efficiently target enemy aircraft before they hamper other air and surface operations. The ability to multirole is also important so that they can provide counter air capabilities but also be flexed into other roles such as CAS or Ground Attack to be able to contribute to the counter surface campaign as well either after providing a counter air capability or for situations where counter air really is not required.

"But Britain will never operate except as part of an alliance" I hear people say. Well, how about retaining our own capability. I don't remember any US or European aircraft getting involved in the Falklands. I don't remember any foreign forces fighting in Sierra Leone.

British Interests need to be safeguarded overseas and that could well require theatre entry either as part of a coalition or on our own. We need to maintain a capability to do that. There is a rather simplistic argument going around suggesting that we should only concentrate on Afghan type conflicts. Remember that to get in there round the clock fast jet missions were flown, initially as part of a counter air campaign and then in support of ground operations in the CAS role. In that country, with the luxury of almost complete control of the air, fast jet missions continue to be flown from both land and sea based aircraft - and even with this dedicated support the ground war is proving difficult.

Surely, then, the argument should not revolve around reducing fast jets which currently hold the key to control of the air, but should be centred on having fast jets and also upgrading the woefully inadequate AT and helos. If, as a country, we cannot afford to do this then we need to look seriously at our willingness to take part in overseas adventures (cue the SDR). If we decide then that we can no longer afford to carry out operations overseas, then the argument for fast jets remains. To defend a nation such as the UK we will continue to require a high quality air superiority fighter capability.

Let us not make the mistake of the Fall of France in 1940. The Germans recognised the need for control of the air, the French and allies did not and the Germans were able to maul the allied forces on the ground using air power. We barely had enough for the Falklands. Control of the Air is currently needed and provided for with fast jets. CAS is also provided by fast jets as is vital ISR information. Let us not be duped into making a differential case between SH/AT and fast jets. A balance of all aircraft and capabilities is required. Failure to get this balance right might suit the current situation in Afghanistan but the army will be cursing the lack of presence of the RAF/RN air superiority fighters (The army cursed the RAF for years when they got strafed at Dunkirk) when they get a complete mauling on some foreign beachead from a bunch of third world light attack aircraft which they can do nothing about.

Defence is expensive. The country is broke. Defence does not get votes. Are we to remain expeditionary? If so you need jets. Are we to save cash and be a home defence force? If so you need jets.

[hello1]

I missed Dannatt this morning but there was someone else on R4 offering the view that it would be impossible to maintain the current force in Afghanistan if the Army was cut................ what, are they really suggesting that you need an Army of more than 100K to keep a tenth of that deployed on ops? Tanks and big guns are a smoke screen - it is the manpower costs that dominate with our Land friends so don't be deceived.

Whilst we may be agreed that the FSTA PFI is somewhat sub-optimal, Dannatt needs to bear a couple of things in mind:

- It is subject to a very tight contract.
- There is no point having an Army to fight those wars that he was so happy to enter unless we have the means to get there!

[minigundiplomat]

In the debate for what the country requires for defence we should remember the concept known as 'control of the air'. In Afghanistan now the coalition has almost complete control of the air barring Manpads, small arms and RPG. This allows SH, Air Transport and CAS aircraft to go about their business largely unmolested. More crucially, it allows the ground forces to operate without fear of attack from enemy aircraft.


SH can go about there business unmolested, apart from small arms, RPG and manpads....phew!

Having been in Afghanistan on and off since early 2002, the Taliban Air Force has been a repeated menace.

Thanks for clearing that up. Money well spent obviously!







* I am aware airpower has many uses, but this explanation (or justification) is arse.

[nice castle]

Agreed. That bloke saying SH can mooch about 'largely unmolested' has never, EVER, been there.

Mate, too many textbooks at staff college, you have read.

One other thing, once big fast airliners full of fuel and people smash into big cities creating mayhem, what you need is ac to move people and stuff from a to b to mop up the aftermath, ie AT and SH. Jets? Hmm, fire up the bbq and hit happy hour - do something nice and talk about your aeros sequence or something, we'll shout if we need you.

[Jackonicko]

FJs may be of very limited relevance in Helmand in May 2010, but they were of pivotal import in Granby in '91 and in Telic in '03, when SH and AT were much less so.

And they may well be again, but once cut, it's a capability that cannot easily be restored.

"Where else will the cuts come from if not FJs generally and Typhoon in particular?"

Trident replacement. CVF. Heavy armour. Heavy artillery. Ceremonial troops, with their busbies and breastplates. A withdrawal of all but a skeleton presence in Scotland and Wales and closure of bases in those countries. The TA...... :ok:

Or better still, not from the defence budget at all, but from bloated NHS bureaucracy, education, EU payments, support to asylum seekers et al, coupled with increases in progressive taxation.

[Two's in]

FJs may be of very limited relevance in Helmand in May 2010, but they were of pivotal import in Granby in '91 and in Telic in '03,

Speaking for Granby, If you mean "pivotal" in that 5 days of airfield denial Ops, where an effective Iraqi AAA and SAM curtain totally debunked over 10 years of Low Level attack doctrine, I would have to agree with you, but the first SEAD Ops were prepped by Apache deep strike and consolidated by some very dated B-52 carpet bombing - sure there were lots of FJ's in support but 'pivotal"? - hardly.

As for;

In Afghanistan now the coalition has almost complete control of the air barring Manpads, small arms and RPG.

...Jesus H Christ, that has to be the most oxymoronic statement I have ever read (maybe without the oxy).

[Evalu8ter]

Pivotal FJ in '91 and '03?
Won't comment much on '91 other than to say that D&C seemed horrendously one-tracked (we will go low...and fast...) and procurement was skewed to fulfill the doctrine. The result? Dreadful losses and a rapid switch in tactics. The FJ force has largely been at ML ever since. The USAF backed the right horse with dedicated SEAD and SPJs - we tried to be cheap and it cost us.

Telic 03 was not a FJ-fest from the UK - yes we deployed a comparitively large fleet and the crews flew with courage in the face of the enemy and, sadly, our own GBAD. However, the RAF FJ force were a drop in the ocean compared to the US deployed assets, and the campaign would have been perfectly achievable without them - much like Afg now. JHF on the other hand DID have a pivotal role in the campaign as we flew when and where the US couldn't or wouldn't and attacked targets of true strategic relevance. As the campaign was land-manoeuverist in nature, the CF RW assets were also vital to resupply the ground thrusts into Iraq, often with exposed flanks. Not as glamourous as dropping bombs but far more important to the overall campaign than a bit of tank-plinking...(which, btw, RW did quite a lot of too...).

1982 is a far better exemplar of the absolute need for organic FJ support to win and retain control of the air to allow SH to operate - and even then there were losses. So CVF and F35s all round then?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Am I having one of those strange dreams? I'm finding myself agreeing with Jackonicko on Land and Air environments. :eek:

Anyway; BBC News - Ex-Army chief Dannatt says equipment cuts inevitable (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8682097.stm) Sir Richard said the three branches of the armed forces needed to continue working "superbly together"
I find it interesting and telling that he didn't say "the three armed services".
An irrelivant observation or detection of a Freudian slip?

For the benefit of Trim Stab and others, Gen Dannatt has repeatedly shown that he has a complete grasp of the Land battlespace (should bloody hope so!) but demonstrated a sad grasp of the Air and, particularly, the Sea battlespaces.

[Gnd]

If we get rid of the tradition (kit already paid for by the way) then we will become like the FJ fleet, a boring, self applauding non-necessity; did you forget the RAF dance troop with guns in you blinkered list? The TA will love you and you forgot the RAFR (maybe they don’t deploy like the TA)

If we need FJ in the hundreds - we call the US like everything else? We will all pay for the previous administrations tax and spend policy so look left and right a bit, you might see that we are ALL in this together.

[Trim Stab]

Jackonicko:

Quote:
"Where else will the cuts come from if not FJs generally and Typhoon in particular?"
Trident replacement.


Jackonicko are you seriously proposing that we should do without an independent nuclear deterrent but keep hordes of useless cold war FJs?

ExAscoteer:


Given that, could you tell me how the RAF could "use their [AT] aircraft productively on the commercial market"?


There is no denying that the existing AT fleet is outdated and overstretched. But if initiatives to put the RAF AT fleet on a semi-commercial basis had been taken three or four decades ago, we would almost certainly now have a bigger and more modern fleet. The dual use commercialisation of the Air Tanker fleet is definitely the way forward to maintain RAF wartime frontline capability in the future.

[TwoStep]

The dual use commercialisation of the Air Tanker fleet is definitely the way forward to maintain RAF wartime frontline capability in the future.

Yes, lots of other countries do this because its extremely effective, oh hang on, no they don't because its not. In the same way that no other country bases all its transport assets in one location.

Why does this country feel the need to lead where no-one else will follow...:ugh:

[cornish-stormrider]

Right, STFU all round.

This bitching about who is more important than who, has got to stop. NOW....

Land. the only war to take and hold ground is an army - end of. both other services have to support this with whatever they need, be it bombs or helos or pies.

Sea - we are an island, we have assets very far away and people to look after ergo we need an Andrew.

Air, well duh. If you do not control the air you will lose. therfore we need the RAF.

Just because the FJ mafia are not currently needed to do back to back bombing missions or shoot down the incoming hordes of mig's does not mean we never will.

None of our capabilities can be bought back when needed so we need to bite the bullet and pay for them now.

Remember that money spent in defence keeps the economy moving. The savings need to come from elsewhere so stop runnning around justifying your existence and saying sack him, he's not needed today!

Here's a starter for 10, (and I don't want it to be true)
Another Piper alpha occurs..... What do we do.
Or how about a cruise liner gets hijacked....what do we do
Or how about someone tries a black sunday in 2012 opening ceremony....


None of us know what is coming - do not hemorage capabilities to save a few quid that would be lost in amongst the waste elsewhere

[Wyler]

Well said that man. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Gnd]

CS, good point but I still can not find it in my heart to accept the amount of FJs we may get? Sorry; Dannet or no Dannet, we don't need them.

As for your question - Call the SAS and/or CH-47s with medics? Can't see how 200+ Typhoon will assist any of them?

[Ali Barber]

Been out of the loop for a while, but what happens when the AT fleet is called upon but are unavailable because they're committed to take a bunch of tourists to Torremolinos; and what does Thomas Cook say when their flight to Torremolinos is cancelled because the aircraft is needed on unexpected Ops; and what do the fair trade people say about the lack of an even playing field as the AT fleet's overhead are paid for by HMG?

[StopStart]

C-S, notwithstanding your school-masterly telling off, I'm afraid you're missing the point. No-one is claiming to be any more important than any one else. I would hope that any serving (or indeed ex) member of the RAF would have at least a passing acquaintance with the concepts of airpower. Similarly I would hope that the intelligent folk on here wouldn't subscribe to the current media driven view of a perfect RAF consisting of a 1000 chinooks and a Tristar.

I hope that we all understand that a balanced air force needs it's FJs to kill the flying bad guys, it's SH to take in chaps who'll kill the walking bad guys and then the AT to bring in more good guys and sandwiches and to then take everyone home at the end. Each aspect of that arrangement needs to be properly funded and equipped to ensure it actually works.

It is precisely because this doesn't currently happen that a lot of the RAF gets hacked off listening to Air Officers ramble on about how awesome Typhoon /JSF will be when they know that their own fleets are being starved to fund it. This resentment is further stoked when we find ourselves involved in high tempo ops that are highlighting equipment shortfalls that would be easily addressed were we not tipping all our spare cash into new whizzy super jet.

The issue then that does, in my opinion, need addressing is that of how we spend our limited and increasingly vulnerable pot of cash to ensure we meet these commitments effectively. Do we, for instance, blow 90% of the budget building 100 of our own super duper fighters that can bring down the Death Star using directed thought energy alone and that can also fold time and space if required? Or do we perhaps spent 50% of the budget buying 150 off-the-shelf, swing role FGRs that could quite easily deal with roving Bears, rogue 747s, Umboto Gorge's fleet of Mig 21/23s and any other threat we can realistically expect to come up against? I vote for the latter. Especially as it then leaves enough money for the rest of the air force to equip itself properly.

I've said it before but the RAF really needs to stop thinking it must have the very latest bit of kit and damn the cost. If we compromise everything just so we can be at the cutting edge of all technology then economies of scale will just drive us deeper into the dark recesses of irrelevance. The most awesome jet ever made is pointless if we have no money left over to actually fund the training system that produces the pilot or to pay for his subsequent monthly flying hours. I'd rather be defended by 5 Sqns of, say, F/A18Fs whose pilots got 30 hours a month training than by 2 Sqns of JSF whose pilots got 5.

[dogstar2]

Minigundiplomat and two's in,

I appear to have sparked an idea in your minds that Afghanistan is easy. This is most certainly not the case and I did not intend to suggest that it involves 'mooching about'. I admire the bravery of those who, on a daily basis, go into FOBs under fire. My point was that we have control of the air in that there is no air threat there and there are no super MEZs composed of high order SAMs to contend with. This gives the coalition freedom of action throughout the whole country to . That does not mean that aircraft will not get shot at hence my reference to small arms, RPG and Manpads. Whether we have air supremacy ("that degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference") or air superiority ("That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by opposing air forces.") I leave up to you to decide. I certainly do not want to denigrate the daily acts of bravery by our crews.

My overall point is that we need a wide range of capabilities and a balanced force comprising fast jets, SH and AT to meet the threat which could be thrown at us in the future.

Nice Castle, I should point out that I am not an air superiority fighter guy but a CAS pilot yet I still see the need for air superiority fighters in our range of capabilities. In numerous tours in Afghanistan I have not had to worry about air threat and have been able to stay on station providing CAS, ISR and other capabilities to the lads on the ground. In another scenario with an air threat and increased ground threats, without the umbrella of a concerted counter air campaign to kill fighters and suppress SAMs I would simply not be able to do my job in providing such a service to the chaps on the ground. They would then in turn get schwacked by enemy ground forces as well as by enemy air forces.

So I reiterate that the armed forces should not be trying to fight amongst the different capabilities but standing up and pointing out the importance of the different capabilities and how they all tie in together.

I say again, we need balanced air power in the British armed forces to deal with Afghanistan today but also what may be around the corner. Parochial point scoring will ultimately damage everyone.

PS please do not tar me with that staff college theory brush! I know from my own experience in dusty places that underfunding in one's own area is very frustrating and has effect out on the battlefield. In such a situation it is easy to become blind to the wider needs of defence. I am trying to take a look the whole picture and think that we do still need air superiority fighters (never thought I would say that as a mud mover!) but perhaps Typhoon will actually have more relevance in the future as they are swing role aircraft which can switch between air superiority roles and CAS/ISR etc rather than our other FJ aircraft which are either ground attack or air defence specialised. Perhaps one option would be to accelerate the demise of our single role aircraft such as Harrier and Tornado GR4 and F3 and concentrate our efforts on bringing the Typhoons up to a true swing role capability and ensuring that the JSF does come into service. In that way we would have a modern capability which is able to deal with both air superiority and ground attack in a very flexible manner whilst disposing of our older types.

[The B Word]

Trimstab

BBC News - Canada jets escort passenger plane 'under bomb threat' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8685018.stm)

QED???

The B Word :ok:

[Gnd]

That was 2, what about the other 198???

[The B Word]

Gnd

To have a 24/7 capability in the UK you need a miniumu 6ac (2 on immediate readiness, 2 on reduced readiness and 2 in maintenance) plus 9 crews (allowing for sickness, leave and courses).

If you have Northern, Southern and Falklands Q - that is 18ac, 27 crews plus ground crew. However, for the Falklands you have to man for "harmony", which is 36crews in total - which would make 54crews in total.

Now you need to keep them current, which is 180hrs per crew per year (absolute minimum - should be 220hrs). That's 9,720hrs per year which would need at least another 35 jets to support it.

So that's 54 crews, plus 53 jets plus groundcrew just to do the standing QRA task.

Now do you see why 200 Typhoons don't go very far when you want to do Air Defence, Strike, SEAD and CAS with the same aircraft type?

The B Word :ok:

[Trim Stab]

B Word:

Trimstab

BBC News - Canada jets escort passenger plane 'under bomb threat' (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F1%2Fhi%2Fworld%2Famericas% 2F8685018.stm&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dnewre ply%26p%3D5696496%26noquote%3D1)

QED???

Your point being? What assistance were they to the airline? Absolutely none. The airline had full communications and was in contact with their company opps by satellite phone. Even if they were in any form of distress, how could the escort help? Trying to justify QR assets with specious arguments like that is like (as occasionally happens) firefighters starting fires to justify their overtime.

[The B Word]

Not a lot of use to the Airline, but a lot of use to Ottowa or Toronto or wherever a rogue jet might be 'kamikazied'. They would at first fire warning shots and then they would bring it down before it was flown into someone important. Being in the TA, I am sure you are au-fait with Card Alpha and 'risk to life'?

That said, the naivity in some of your posts sometimes makes me wonder what they teach you in the Reserves!

If you really want to know about QRA then why not invite aircrew from Leuchars or Coningsby to brief at one of your TA nights? You might find it interesting as a part time soldier and also an aviator?

The B Word

[30mRad]

I do wonder what sort of memory Dannatt has. In 2006, the Army were screaming for fast-air to support their Op to the W of Kandahar (name of Op escapes me at the moment!). I worked in the CAOC at the time, and a sizeable chunk of their air requests went unsupported. Granted, when the boys got into trouble, they got the support, but if no shots were fired, plenty went unsupported. I appreciate the campaign has changed focus - McChrystal plan puts a different priority. Now, take a leap forward in time - same problem, different country (plenty to choose from on the E coast of Africa, bit further south in the Gulf, maybe even a little further S than Afghanistan), early days and a more offensive campaign to make ground. Sure Dannatt would want fast-air for his boys then.....?! And while we're at it, Army of 130k (or so), and they struggle to make a 6000 strong det every 6 months. Harmony is hit for plenty of people to make the numbers. So what's Dannatt's plan? Change Harmony? That'll p*55 people off even more. He needs to look at his own mob first before he starts criticising the others.

[penny pincher]

I suggest 30mrad, you check your figures before throwing them around, plus it doesn't necessarily help the thread to descend into those arguments, yes we need Air, no doubt, but, speaking as an AH driver, watching the RAF Top Level Commanders et al throw their weight behind two Aircraft types and F*** the rest hasn't helped the cause. Hopefully SDR will help provide "direction", lord knows it's needed and from there, maybe some harsh decisions will be coming our (purple) way. Yeah Dannat is pro Green, but lets be honest, nobody does PR and publicity like the Crabs, fair play to you.;)

[Trim Stab]

Not a lot of use to the Airline, but a lot of use to Ottowa or Toronto or wherever a rogue jet might be 'kamikazied'. They would at first fire warning shots and then they would bring it down before it was flown into someone important. Being in the TA, I am sure you are au-fait with Card Alpha and 'risk to life'?

As you eloquently point out, QR is of no use whatsoever to airlines (or bizjets, which I fly). We have very adequate navigation and comms systems, with multiple redundancy, and better all weather systems than you. Showing your presence by flying alongside just serves to alarm passengers, not to mention the crew, since we are all aware that we risk being shot down. If you are going to shoot us down, better to hang back out of sight until you really do need to show a presence (definitely not the case in today's example). Showing your presence in an intercept is a cold war tactic that is irrelevant today.

In any case, the times when we are most vulnerable to hijack are when we are on approach to a satellite airport to a major city - have you ever flown 07 ILS to Le Bourget? Or 09 into London City? The view (of potential targets) is astonishing.

If we were hijacked on approach to one of the above airports, your hugely expensive QRA pilots would not even have turned off the DVD player before the hijackers hit the target.

What do they teach you in the RAF? Except to regurgitate self-serving staff college papers?

And instead of just diminishing reserves like me - you should do a study of how often in previous UK conflicts the unorthodox viewpoints and expertise of civilian reserves offered an advantage over our rigidly trained adversaries...

[minigundiplomat]

Dogstar,


I appear to have sparked an idea in your minds that Afghanistan is easy.


I am extremely au fait with Afghanistan, but thanks for clearing up something else I already knew.

[Gnd]

Deliverance,

Get over yourself, the other 90% of the Army have either just got back, having a short rest or preparing to go unless they are on an exchange with the RAF where they will be drinking tea, poncing about and trying to justify the unjustifiable. If that isn’t engaging enough they will be using every working second (all 27 of them in an (FJ) RAF day) to glorify the FJ tarts!!
You are the retard for not having the personality to look at other forces (including the proper RAF) and find out that you are not pulling your weight! Go join SH and see if they like the FJ money pit while in their sh1ty little bunks???

Oh and B, that sound about 1/3 of the SH hours and we don't have 200 Chinnies, Merlin or Puma - not really seeing your point; oh and we don’t sit in nice crew rooms waiting for the balloon to go up either? Now can you see why RW gets fed up with the winging FJ fleet?

Trim, you might be the FJ exception to the rule me thinks!!!

[Trim Stab]

Del Boy, B-Word,

And as Gnd says above, if the Army are even resorting to calling up uneducated mongs like me, don't you think the Army might be a bit overstretched?


Trim Stab, I get it, you are a failed wannabe fighter pilot


No - I only got into aviation after I had passed the RAF age limit. Though I don't see what the fuss is about - they are just small, light, agile, VFR aircraft. They are remarkably easy to fly with loads of power reserves, hugely responsive controls, and drag to give speed stability when you need it..

[The B Word]

Trim Stab - you are so appaulingly informed I'm starting to think that your stance is a bit of "Waaaaa!". :ok:

As you eloquently point out, QR is of no use whatsoever to airlines (or bizjets, which I fly). We have very adequate navigation and comms systems, with multiple redundancy, and better all weather systems than you. Showing your presence by flying alongside just serves to alarm passengers, not to mention the crew, since we are all aware that we risk being shot down. If you are going to shoot us down, better to hang back out of sight until you really do need to show a presence (definitely not the case in today's example). Showing your presence in an intercept is a cold war tactic that is irrelevant today.


Flying alongside allows you to see the inside of the jet (partially) and also to eyeball the crew to see if they are OK. It also serves to tell any possible hijackers that "the game is up". It takes less than 30 secs to reposition for a good shot position, so why hang back?

In any case, the times when we are most vulnerable to hijack are when we are on approach to a satellite airport to a major city - have you ever flown 07 ILS to Le Bourget? Or 09 into London City? The view (of potential targets) is astonishing.
If we were hijacked on approach to one of the above airports, your hugely expensive QRA pilots would not even have turned off the DVD player before the hijackers hit the target.


I have flown approaches at big airports like Stanstead, Düsseldorf, Schiphol and Atlanta (HJ Intl) and yes you are right about picking your time. However, they are going to need to overpower the crew and then take control of the aircraft in the final 5 minutes of the flight - that's a big call on getting the timing spot on.

For example Flight 11 on Sep 11 lost contact with the ATCRU at 0815 and it crashed into the towers at 0846. Even if watching a DVD I would fancy my chances of getting an intercept from Coningsby. Flight 175 veered off planned course at 0842 and crashed at 0903 - 21 minutes is a bit racey but it was 48 minutes after the loss of comms from Flight 11 and aircraft would have already been up for the previous event. Flight 77 lost comms at 0846 and crashed at 0934 - plenty of time! Flight 93 was taken at 0927 and was lost at 1006.

All of these could be intercepted nowadays as our QRA is at better readiness and prepared for this type of event.

What do they teach you in the RAF? Except to regurgitate self-serving staff college papers?

And instead of just diminishing reserves like me - you should do a study of how often in previous UK conflicts the unorthodox viewpoints and expertise of civilian reserves offered an advantage over our rigidly trained adversaries...

Mate, I've never been to Staff College although I have over 14years of Air Defence flying experience behind me. So, please take it from me that there is a job to be done with this and it isn't exactly popular with the crews that one day they might have to make a pretty big decision which will change their lives for good (in a bad way!). Not to mention the large amount of civilian casualties.

Honestly, get yourself to Coningsby or Leuchars and learn; then you might have more credibility to your viewpoint (if indeed it remains the same?).

The B Word

[Gnd]

Trim, best go soon before Dannet closes them down!

[Lima Juliet]

Gnd - you're a very funny man - I kill you last!

Trim Stab - you should listen to B Word as he knows what he is talking about.

By the way, I thought those doors fitted to flight-decks are now designed to hold up for 30 minutes+? So wouldn't there be a lot of warning to the crew that something was going to happen? I believe they're also bullet resistant as well?

Dunno, not an airline expert...Don't think bizjets are included as you only need the reinforced door for 60+ pax (again I standby to be corrected).

LJ

[andrewn]

Only an interested civvy observer but the fascination with AFG concerns me (and yes I did hear Dannatt on R4).

1) Why ARE we there?
2) Regards 9/11, 7/7, "Global War on Terror" et al then I'd like to understand precisly what the link to AFG is NOW (not X years ago)

I'll happily assume that I am considerably less well informed than those on the inside (Dannatt, Chiefs, Govt, etc) yet it all sounds remarkably familiar in that we are planning future capabilities based solely on the present/last conflict with little thought for anything else.

Surely history must have taught us to be prepared for the unexpected rather than the expected, but I guess that costs money and that is in rather short supply, unless you happen to be a bank....

There's obviously a much wider discussion to be had about proper use of available resources particuarly when it comes to procurement, and maybe if this issue was fully addressed then we wouldn't be having to make quite so many painful cuts. I refer, for example, to a previous poster who quoted the usefulness of a full quota of "off the shelf" F/A-18's now as opposed to the likely handful of F-35's we may receive once R&D and delays has swallowed up most of the intended budget.

Just my thoughts.

[StopStart]

At the risk of getting embroilled in what can only be described as an unarmed battle of wits, let me reiterate the point I was trying to make and perhaps draw us back into the world of pointless but nonetheless reasoned discussion :rolleyes:

Anyone who thinks we don't need fast air is a simpleton. It's one of our core businesses and it's something we have/had a reputation for being quite good at. Notwithstanding that eternal truth, there has to be an understanding that a balanced force must devote equal effort to maintaining it's SH, AT & maritime assets if it is to be of any relevance in a triumverate of armed forces. This current RAF failing by our FJ lords and masters is nicely illustrated by dogstar2's rather patronising comments:

I know from my own experience in dusty places that underfunding in one's own area is very frustrating and has effect out on the battlefield. In such a situation it is easy to become blind to the wider needs of defence.

The wider needs of defence? If the RAF could see beyond it's O2 mask it might realise that a balanced, capable force will never exist if the only procurement and EPs it devotes money and effort to are ludicrously expensive and over-specced new jets. The only people that lose sight of the wider needs of defence are our FJ derived high paid help. If we carry on considering that anything peripheral to fast air is an also ran, then we will continue to be an also-ran armed service and air force. It's worth remembering that the RAF's two most decorated sqns are a rotary and an AT sqn. Sqn crews don't rack up those sorts of hauls by being "blind to the wider needs of defence"

Telling me you need 53 jets to keep 6 on standby is all well and good (albeit ludicrous again) and, to be frank, I don't care - but that shouldn't then be carte blanche to blow the entire defence budget on buying the bloody things. If the RAF knows it needs, say, 250 jets to do the job why then does no-one raise the idea of perhaps buying something a bit cheaper that will still do the same job but means that we can actually pay the rest of our bills?

Hard times are a'coming and some tough decisions will have to be made. It's just a pity none of the ones the RAF will make will be rational :{ Plus ça change I guess....

[Tourist]

I've got an idea.
If we need these fast jets to defend against the hordes of hijacked aircraft coming our way, can't we just use Hawks rather than Typhoon? I mean, they really are not that tricky to shoot down are they? Do we really need something as zoomy as a Typhoon?

[Jackonicko]

QRA is not just for intercepting 'lumbering airliners', but must be capable of intercepting a Blackjack or a Backfire as well - something that an asthmatic Hawk might be pushed to achieve.

And even against an airliner target, you may want to get there VERY rapidly, and, once there, to have radar, IFF, and a spectrum of effect.

As to the siren voices calling for something cheaper than Typhoon, what price winning?

Typhoon was developed to be able to win enough of the time against a 'developed Flanker threat' (assuming parity in radar, weapons and training) to guarantee a sustainable exchange rate.

Would we really want to be relying on a legacy platform which would be likely to have its arse handed to it if it encountered an Su-35 or an Su-30MKI?

And the naysayers forget that Typhoon is largely bought and paid for, and that cancellation penalties mean that cutting numbers won't leverage big savings.

Whereas cancelling CVF (and JSF with it) really would save big money, and there has to be scope to save billions by scrubbing Trident and its replacement, and opting for a lower capability, lower-cost deterrent.

There are better targets than FJs for a budgetary axe.

[dctyke]

Quote:

Mate, I've never been to Staff College although I have over 14years of Air Defence flying experience behind me. So, please take it from me that there is a job to be done with this and it isn't exactly popular with the crews that one day they might have to make a pretty big decision which will change their lives for good (in a bad way!). Not to mention the large amount of civilian casualties.


I was always under the impression that the 'pretty big decision' had to be made over a hotline by a high ranking government minister?

[StopStart]

Jacko - ah the siren song of the FJ fan.... "What if?"

There are a thousand what-ifs but one would hope that we have in place intelligent people who could differentiate between the what-ifs and the what-wills. Unless we are conducting national suicide somewhere I can't really see how realistic it is defending ourselves from the latest X-Wing fighter. The only place we realistically risk getting our arses handed to us by "superior" jets is at Red Flag. Who knows perhaps, superior pilots in less awesome jets might actually do the handing - that's certainly never happened before has it...? :hmm:

It's the constant desire to have the shiniest toy at the party that is crippling us. That desire is founded on the arrogant view that we are important enough on the global stage to warrant it. Canada and Australia seem to cope with F18s - are we that much more special them? Or do they just have a more realistic outlook on life? :hmm:

NB. As I keep saying, this is all internet hot air. Typhoon is paid for and we're stuck with it and nothing anyone says will change that. One has to wonder about JSF though.....

[barnstormer1968]

Hi all.
I started this thread as I thought some of you may want to hear the generals words directly.

This thread seems to have turned a bit personal and nasty in some posts, and I am not quite sure why. IMHO there do seem to be posters who are very much not in possession of all the facts of modern military workings, yet think they are. I also feel that some posters have become so used to cuts in spending that they cannot see the wood for the trees of the larger defence picture, and so resort to "'we're the most important, cut every one else's equipment" type nonsense which much have become institutional in nature.

I originally said I agreed with the generals verdict on PFI tankers, but did not comment on the 'too many FJ' argument.

Perhaps general Dannatt would like the RAF to cut its FJ fleet, in response to the massive cut in capability he has ordered for the army!
I guess we would need to ask him directly to find out in more detail.

Can I also ask for posters to use the emoticons (smilies) supplied by the site, as they can make a post much easier to understand in its correct context.

For example:

"No - I only got into aviation after I had passed the RAF age limit. Though I don't see what the fuss is about - they are just small, light, agile, VFR aircraft. They are remarkably easy to fly with loads of power reserves, hugely responsive controls, and drag to give speed stability when you need it.."

May sound (in type) as a serious offering, but on an adult site like this, it must surely be a joke or a waaaa, so the use of ':}' or ':E' would have made things clearer.

Of course, I am hoping that was a humorous comment, and not just complete nonsense:ok:

Have a good day everybody:)

[cornish-stormrider]

Given that it seems to be a badly written contract with t'Baron over Tiffin and if we cancel he gets a blank cheque ( from the defence buget) to buy another castle with then it seems to be pretty simples that we need to get something for the money.... We coould always put them on Fleabay after but........

We cannot chop everything else to have the pointy shiny toys so therefore we need to have a certain amount of money.

The Andrew is currently a bit broke too - how would you lot feel if your flight home got DOUBLED in length to save a few quid because this is the reality of every ship out there - save fuel, save fuel, save fuel.

As to the brown units - No-one has the right to bitch about their manning levels apart from one who has been there and been shot at.

The point is that defence has not been given the financing it should have been given for a very long time. Face up to the reality that it needs to be given a much larger cut of a smaller (overall) pie so that we can either have troops and equipment to sustain this level of ops and all our other commitments or we draw down. If we draw down should we lose capabilities needed for us to exist as an independant sovereign nation or the sandpit?


I say we need to fund more, but, all purchases need to be vetted by a yorkshireman who gets to ask lots of difficult questions of the man who wants to buy it.

That way we don't spend umpty billions on a contract we cannot get out of or loads on vehicles that don't work.

Fly safe

[Trim Stab]

I have flown approaches at big airports like Stanstead, Düsseldorf, Schiphol and Atlanta (HJ Intl) and yes you are right about picking your time. However, they are going to need to overpower the crew and then take control of the aircraft in the final 5 minutes of the flight - that's a big call on getting the timing spot on.

You've never flown those approaches on bizjets though, have you?

I won't go into further detail, but it is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about if you think QRA is any defence against a hijacked bizjet...

If you want to practise an intercept of the bizjet that I fly, just send me a pm and I'll give you the details.



Mate, I've never been to Staff College although I have over 14years of Air Defence flying experience behind me. So, please take it from me that there is a job to be done with this and it isn't exactly popular with the crews that one day they might have to make a pretty big decision which will change their lives for good (in a bad way!). Not to mention the large amount of civilian casualties.



It's not your decision, so stop bigging yourself up. And if you have fourteen years of experience, you will know that the F3 can't intercept an airliner, let alone a bizjet at FL450...


Flying alongside allows you to see the inside of the jet (partially) and also to eyeball the crew to see if they are OK. It also serves to tell any possible hijackers that "the game is up". It takes less than 30 secs to reposition for a good shot position, so why hang back?


Come alongside when you absolutely need to, but not before. Coming alongside for no good reason (as in the Canada intercept yesterday) is just a major distraction for the crew. If we have a real emergency on our hands, or even just a diversion, we have a big workload - last thing we need is somebody flying alongside us, adding in another complication and distraction. So just keep clear until you absolutely have to make a cockpit check.

Honestly, get yourself to Coningsby or Leuchars and learn; then you might have more credibility to your viewpoint (if indeed it remains the same?).

Just tell me when - I'd love to come.

[Trim Stab]

I've got an idea.
If we need these fast jets to defend against the hordes of hijacked aircraft coming our way, can't we just use Hawks rather than Typhoon? I mean, they really are not that tricky to shoot down are they? Do we really need something as zoomy as a Typhoon?


Actually a Hawk wouldn't be able to intercept an airliner or bizjet - it is too slow and can't climb fast or high enough. The real question is whether you actually need to intercept airliners in the cruise - whether you shoot it down or not, in the view of terrorists they will still have "won". If you don't shoot it down, there is nothing at all that an interceptor can do to "assist". The best defence against hijacked airlines is airport security.

The real issue is bizjets - though some here seem to still believe the Typhoon can defend against them...

[The B Word]

Trim Stab

It's not your decision, so stop bigging yourself up. And if you have fourteen years of experience, you will know that the F3 can't intercept an airliner, let alone a bizjet at FL450...


Err, also as an AD mate, the final decision always rests with the crew - they always have the final vote! Secondly, FL450 is no problem for an F3 above .95M (personal best is FL560 - but that was outside of Release to Service and I wasn't wearing a pressure jerkin, so pretty unsafe with a few years of hindsight). I knew a Flight Commander in the 90s who got to FL670 (IIRC) but he had a problems with one of his "donks" and came down pretty quick whilst he still had some cabin pressurisation! He was "asked" to leave shortly after.

Actually a Hawk wouldn't be able to intercept an airliner or bizjet - it is too slow and can't climb fast or high enough. The real question is whether you actually need to intercept airliners in the cruise - whether you shoot it down or not, in the view of terrorists they will still have "won".

I used to take Hawks to 48,000ft for pop-surge checking - actually had a full locked-in-surge once and ended up with a bit of pressure breathing. It certainly has the climbe rate and also the speed to keep up with any subsonic "piece of sh!te" bizjet or airliner! Being a subsonic "piece of sh!te" itself!

So as everyone else seems to be saying on here; get yourself a capabilities and limitations brief on fast jets using your position as a "reservist" and learn something before you start spouting again!

IMHO...:ok:

The B Word

[Lima Juliet]

B Word - I must know you then.

Trim Stab - like B Word said.

On the visit I have PM'd the Military Dialling code to organise your visit, which is "Station Ops" and they can put you in touch with 3 Squadron, 11 Squadron or 29 Squadron's "Ops Desk". Ask to speak to the authoriser on the "ops desk", tell them who you are and then ask if you could possibly come and visit to understand what QRA and FJ ops is all about. I would explain that you are a commercial pilot, but also a military "reservist", and that you want to understand more about these types of ops to further your service knowledge as both a member of the military but also as a civvy pilot. They will expect you to turn up for the visit with a valid ID and in uniform - with a valid ID you will also come with a minimum level of security clearance with which they can pitch a brief at your level.

Sadly, I am on a 3 year ground tour so I cannot "honcho" any visit for you.

Good luck

LJ

[dogstar2]

Stop Start,

I really didn't mean to be patronising. My comment was intended to show that we all (including FJ mates) have to make do and mend with kit while on ops when there was much better stuff out there on the market. We are also stretched and have ended up doing back to back tours and struggled to get training done back in the UK before the next op deployment loomed. Not enough aircraft, spares, people etc. The point I was hoping to get over, then, is that we are all in the same position. Certain posters on this thread are just trying to defend their own area. I posted originally because there seemed to be a lot of FJ bashing going on and I wanted to balance that up. But please go back and read the tone of the whole of my thread rather than honing in on a sentence and then using it out of context to parochially snipe at a particular capability. You should note that I have not tried to do down any other capability or force. I have been defending them all. I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT ALL OF OUR CAPABILITIES ARE IMPORTANT. Some are important right now and some will be important in the future. Just because we are currently in Afghanistan does not mean that we should only configure ourselves for Afghanistan.

The big issue for me is that defence seems to have no voice in the UK at the moment while health and education funding were ring-fenced. I think that more influential senior bods and industry types should be pointing out that we are at war, that we all need more kit to do such wars and also that investing in military kit keeps people employed and generates wads of cash when we get secure contracts overseas based on the reputation of the UK armed forces. I don't see that chopping sqns and capabilities is sensible in the long term defence of the country and also (in my rather simplistic economic view of the World) on a job and financial front either. I think the saddest fact of all is that the coming couple of years will see lots of infighting, as demonstrated by this thread, which will damage us all.

[Jackonicko]

Stoppers,

Canada started receiving its Hornets in 1982. You might well think that the F/A-18 would have been a better, more economically effective alternative to the RAF's Tornado ADVs - which entered service in 1986. I'd suggest that it no longer represents a great choice.

Both Canada and Australia are looking for new fighters, just as we've procured a new one, in the shape of the Typhoon.

It's not a matter of wanting the 'shiniest toy', it's about needing an aircraft that meets the requirement (as did Italy, Spain, Germany, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, the Czechs, Hungary, South Africa and France - all of whom opted for something newer than legacy teen series fighters, and as do Brazil, India, etc.)

And when China, India, Venezuela, Algeria, Malaysia, Vietnam, and their ilk are all already operating advanced, developed versions of the 'Flanker', and with other nations likely to follow suit, this doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I don't think it unreasonable for the UK to have the a more modern, more robust equivalent to the swing role capability that Canada, the USN, the USMC and the USAF had in Desert Storm. I would not wish the RAF to be incapable of countering an air threat.

And as others have pointed out, cancelling Typhoon at this stage does not save money, so harping endlessly on about it is about as fruitful as condemning the fact that we opted for C-130Ks when we could have had HS681s back in 1966.

I was interested in your apparent condemnation of any aspiration to be "important enough on the global stage" - I look forward to your condemnation of the ultimate national status symbol weapons, sub launched ballistic missiles and big new aircraft carriers. Especially since the only justification for Trident is a far more remote "What If" than the what if that justifies UK FJs.

[Tourist]

Jacko.

"And as others have pointed out, cancelling Typhoon at this stage does not save money, so harping endlessly on about it is about as fruitful as condemning the fact that we opted for C-130Ks when we could have had HS681s back in 1966."

That doesn't stop you "harping endlessly" for the binning of CVF which is in exactly the same position. In both cases, the money is spent, and the only way to get some back is to sell them after receipt. Not a very sensible option for either, as we would only see a fraction back, and in my opinion we need both.

Incidentally, for those getting excited about my suggestion about using the Hawks, I was not being serious, merely trying to point out the silliness of using the Hijack threat to justify a cutting edge fighter necessity. There is a reason to have a decent fighter, but it certainly isn't 9/11

[Pontius Navigator]

the binning of CVF which is in exactly the same position. In both cases, the money is spent,

Certainly some money is spent but there will be many more bills needed along the way.

The cost of Typhoon is not just on the cost of the additional air frames but on the through life costs - groundcrews etc etc. Although that could be 'saved' by transferring bodies from one type to another which is already being donw with the ADV.

CVF has to be the largest 'future' bill whereas Trident etc is still at the talk stage.

Mind you the Ministry is quite capable of closing a base that hass just been upgraded or binning a complete aircraft tranche that has been similarly updated FA2 and GR3 for instance.

[Pure Pursuit]

B word,

Although you clearly have a great deal of knowledge, don't damage your street cred by suggesting that a F3 could sit up in block 4 for any length of time whilst maintaining formation on an airliner that is sticking the odd turn in...;)

Totally agree with you on the 9/11 scenario. It would be a ballsy move to take out the first jet however, the Typhoon would have easily managed the others within the same timeline.

[The B Word]

PP

I guess you'd need to ditch the tanks to do it in steady state; I've done this many a time on the OCU acting as a high-flyer for a VID at FL420 in K fit. Needs a bit of burner for the somewhat "gingerly" turns, but it can be done at or around .9M-.95M. As you probably know, getting to Block 4 isn't that big a problem even for a L fit jet, but just as you suggest you need to be going a bit quicker than most airliners to stay there (and throwing fuel out the back - just like Typhoon at low level!!!).

I hear you on the Typhoon capability, if that's where you are then you're a very lucky individual...:{

The B Word

[blackbox]

Will Air Tanker have the aircraft registered in the G-Reg or Z-Reg???

Surley the A330's can be used by no10 in the future??? + Who would want a grey-RAF aircraft in the commercial market??:{

[Pure Pursuit]

Sadly,

I am but a Fighter Controller working underground with no natural light...An Aerospace Battle Mushroom :{

Days to do though, days to do! :):):):)