RAF combat aircraft numbers

[Il Duce]

Just scanning the Telegraph Business section and there is a comparison table showing figures from 1990 versus 2021. According to the information provided the RAF had this in 1990: 170 Harrier, 100 Phantom, 100 Jaguar and 400 Tornado. I find those numbers difficult to believe, but am willing to be educated. Thoughts, please.

[GeeRam]

The Phantom number of 100 sounds a bit optimistic for 1990...?

They also forgot to mention the Buccaneer, which was still in front line service in 1990.

[Davef68]

Just scanning the Telegraph Business section and there is a comparison table showing figures from 1990 versus 2021. According to the information provided the RAF had this in 1990: 170 Harrier, 100 Phantom, 100 Jaguar and 400 Tornado. I find those numbers difficult to believe, but am willing to be educated. Thoughts, please.
Harrier they must be adding up all the GR5/7s and the remaining GR3s (and possibly the SHARs too)

[minigundiplomat]

Sounds about right.

and the 90,000 members were kept busy with aircraft and wars and stuff - didn’t need to worry about pronouns or whether airman or airwoman was inclusive enough.

[SLXOwft]

Sloppy journalism: looks like they've used this Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_the_British_Royal_Air_Force_at_the_end_of_the_Col d_War

The figures are actually for 1989
Phantom rundown well underway 111 changing to F3, with 1435flt, the OCU, 56 & 74 all being gone by the end 1992 (but they haven't included 74's Js in the total)
Harrier figure is adding the rapidly going out of service GR3/T4s to GR5/GR7 many of the latter still on order - first squadron was declared operational in 1989.
Tornado figures probably include the Italian loan F3s and some double counted by including both UK airframes diverted to other customers and their replacements.:ugh:

[Finningley Boy]

ORBAT RAF 1990 FRONTLINE

11 X Sqns Tornado GR1

7 X Sqns Tornado F3

4 X Sqns F-4 Phantom

3 x Sqns Jaguar

2 x Sqns Buccaneer/Hunter

3 X Sqns Harrier

4 X Sqns Nimrod MR2p

4 X Sqns C-130 C1/3

1 X Sqn Shackleton AEW 2

4 X Sqns Hawk T1/1A

1 X Sqn VC-10 C1

1 X Sqn Tristar CK1

1 X Sqn VC-10 K2

2 X Sqns Chinook C1

2 X Sqns Puma HC1

3 X Sqns Wessex C2

1 X Sqn Wessex HAR 2

1 X Sqn Sea King HAR 3

1 X Sqn Victor K2

1 X Sqn Canberra PR9

1 X Sqn Canberra TT18/T4/B2

1 X Sqn Canberra T17

1 X Sqn Andover CC2/ BAE 125

1 X Sqn BAE 146 (Queen's Flight)

1 X Sqn Nimrod R1

Belize 1417 Flt Harrier GR3 and 1563 Flight Puma HC1

Mount Pleasant 1435 Flight Tornado F3



Strike Command and RAFG units only. Also, OCUs and OEUs not included.

FB

PS To give a further perspective on the strength of HM Forces circa 1990, the Army had assigned to BAOR, 3 X Armoured Divisions and an Artillery Division. Also, an Infantry Division, this last Division was located, in peacetime, in the UK, with a forward HQ at Rheindahlen. The Arty Div was equipped with about three regiments of Lance SSM. These were loaned from the USA and carried tactical nuclear warheads. The Tonka GR1 sqns were also, all nuclear armed, with the British made WE177.

[Il Duce]

FB, very comprehensive list, thanks. Amendment to my opening post: the caption in the paper is "key combat aircraft". Furthermore, their comparison to the RAF's key combat aircraft for 2021 is this: 104 Typhoon, 7 Poseidon, 66 Hawk, 20 A400M and 21 Lightning. I find it an unusual comparison - and if they're going to include, for instance, the A400M in the 2021 figures why no mention of C130s in 1990 (amongst others).

[Asturias56]

In 1990 we were paying just under 6% of GDP for defence - currently just over 3%

Something has to give to get back to 1990 levels

[GeeRam]

FB, very comprehensive list, thanks. Amendment to my opening post: the caption in the paper is "key combat aircraft". Furthermore, their comparison to the RAF's key combat aircraft for 2021 is this: 104 Typhoon, 7 Poseidon, 66 Hawk, 20 A400M and 21 Lightning. I find it an unusual comparison - and if they're going to include, for instance, the A400M in the 2021 figures why no mention of C130s in 1990 (amongst others).

And if you mention A400 in 2021, why no mention of the C-17 as well?


If you think its a bad comparison with 1990, you don't want to look just 15 years before that at 1974.....
77 x squadrons, 12 x OCU's, 9 x MU's and 47 x airfields......

[mopardave]

This is a depressing thread! I wonder what the chances are of a BAOR 2.0 and an RAFG 2.0?

[SLXOwft]

In 1990 we were paying just under 6% of GDP for defence - currently just over 3%

Something has to give to get back to 1990 levels

It is difficult to see what can give except higher taxation, given public expenditure as a percentage of GDP is approx. 25% higher than in 1990 despite the endless drive for year on year cuts outside the protected areas such as health and education. Those two with pensions and benefits consumer c. 70% of public money.

I am interested in the source of your defence spending figures, NATO documents state 2.29% of GDP by UK in 2021 v 4.1% in 1990 alternatively SIPRI's database gives 2.2% (in 2020 - latest available year) v 4% - but UK's current spend is inflated by Forces pension costs.

[trim it out]

This is a depressing thread! I wonder what the chances are of a BAOR 2.0 and an RAFG 2.0?
Further East though, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania etc.

[mopardave]

Further East though, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania etc.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I always wondered why we didn't keep some assets in Germany on a care and maintenance basis.......but then does "care and maintenance" exist anymore? The headlong rush to reap the rewards of the "peace dividend" has surely backfired........big time. :{

[trim it out]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I always wondered why we didn't keep some assets in Germany on a care and maintenance basis.......but then does "care and maintenance" exist anymore? The headlong rush to reap the rewards of the "peace dividend" has surely backfired........big time. :{
We gave back Sennelager in 2020...and then a year later moved back in :rolleyes:

Realistically, do we need British bases abroad, or just APODs/SPODs maintained by Allied nations for forward basing?

[ASRAAMTOO]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I always wondered why we didn't keep some assets in Germany on a care and maintenance basis.......but then does "care and maintenance" exist anymore? The headlong rush to reap the rewards of the "peace dividend" has surely backfired........big time. :{

We can't even manage care and maintenance on our married quarters now!

[mopardave]

We can't even manage care and maintenance on our married quarters now!
and THAT is a scandal!

[Herod]

Don't forget that back in the eighties, basic rate of income tax was, IIRC, some 33%

[Finningley Boy]

FB, very comprehensive list, thanks. Amendment to my opening post: the caption in the paper is "key combat aircraft". Furthermore, their comparison to the RAF's key combat aircraft for 2021 is this: 104 Typhoon, 7 Poseidon, 66 Hawk, 20 A400M and 21 Lightning. I find it an unusual comparison - and if they're going to include, for instance, the A400M in the 2021 figures why no mention of C130s in 1990 (amongst others).
Il Duce,

You're welcome, you'll notice also, the numbers of transport and rotary have remained virtually unchanged. The evisceration has been applied entirely to the actual high-performance combat strength. They may well say reviews are never financially driven cuts, but of course, that's exactly what they are. To apply cuts essentially exclusively to the raison detre, is reckless and has pushed the RAF toward what Trenchard was determined (in opposition to the Navy and Army) it would not be, a military airline service for the army, particularly.

FB

[Old-Duffer]

For the Jaguar, the 'raw number' in 1990 was over 100 but the fleet was in two parts: the short term fleet of unmodified aircraft were stored or in the training schools and the long term fleet of modified (with Fin 1064) aircraft were about 85 single and two seat versions which were 'active'. These aircraft were deployed to 3 sqns and an OCU, undergoing maintenance at Abingdon (and later St A), stored as attrition replacements and doing all sorts of other things. The attack aircraft were either recce capable or not and the OCU had a few single seat aircraft with no refuelling probe, having been returned from India. The dozen or so two seat aircraft had a single gun and no refuelling probe.

Old Duffer

[Asturias56]

There's an article in today's Times saying that to get back to the 1990's defense spend the UK would have to put 4p on income tax - volunteers one step forward!

[Asturias56]

"you'll notice also, the numbers of transport and rotary have remained virtually unchanged. The evisceration has been applied entirely to the actual high-performance combat strength"

but at the time that made eminent sense FB - we haven't faced even a second class airforce for 30 years and almost all actions have been deploying the Army to and within ground operations. Since everyone wanted to cut military expenditure for the "peace dividend" cuts have to fall somewhere - look at the number of RN surface vessels for example. The alternative is to fix the Military Budget at say 5% and spend it and let other items (health Service, Pensions, education...) to manage with less. That makes sense to me but I'm not trying to get elected.

[Shackman]

The number of 'high-performance' combat strength is worryingly small, but if I was CAS I'd be more worried about the lack of bases - 4 front line fast jet stations (one of which also includes the maritime fleet), one transport and one for the rest (RJ etc). Only the rotary world can 'disappear' into the woods etc. Or maybe there IS a cunning plan - which is why I never made CAS!

[trim it out]

The number of 'high-performance' combat strength is worryingly small, but if I was CAS I'd be more worried about the lack of bases - 4 front line fast jet stations (one of which also includes the maritime fleet), one transport and one for the rest (RJ etc). Only the rotary world can 'disappear' into the woods etc. Or maybe there IS a cunning plan - which is why I never made CAS!
They might not find the helicopters in the woods, but they'll find the supporting elements easily enough. Not much is safe from satellites.

[Timelord]

I’m having trouble finding 4 front line FJ bases. Lossiemouth, Conningsby, Marham and…?

[Asturias56]

"Not much is safe from satellites."

or locals complaining on Social Media..................

[trim it out]

"Not much is safe from satellites."

or locals complaining on Social Media..................
:D Excellent point.

[Shackman]

Sorry - accidentally added Leeming.

[Finningley Boy]

Further, Shackman, Asturia 56, trim it out and Timelord, things may change in the months and years ahead.

FB:)

[Finningley Boy]

For the Jaguar, the 'raw number' in 1990 was over 100 but the fleet was in two parts: the short term fleet of unmodified aircraft were stored or in the training schools and the long term fleet of modified (with Fin 1064) aircraft were about 85 single and two seat versions which were 'active'. These aircraft were deployed to 3 sqns and an OCU, undergoing maintenance at Abingdon (and later St A), stored as attrition replacements and doing all sorts of other things. The attack aircraft were either recce capable or not and the OCU had a few single seat aircraft with no refuelling probe, having been returned from India. The dozen or so two seat aircraft had a single gun and no refuelling probe.

Old Duffer
The Jaguar's entry into service, and later the Hawk, saved Abingdon from closure as an RAF Station in the 1970s. The serious cuts then, in the transport fleet, Andover removed from tactical role, Britannia, Comet and Belfast gone, Abingdon was otherwise surplus and would have provided a home to the army earlier.

FB

[The Punter]

The Foreign Aid budget has got up from £3.4 bn 20 years ago to £14 bn today. Money that has ALL had to borrowed plus intrest.

[mopardave]

The Foreign Aid budget has got up from £3.4 bn 20 years ago to £14 bn today. Money that has ALL had to borrowed plus intrest.

Which would be okay if we knew it was being well spent. Imagine what the MOD could do with an extra £10 bn........oh, wait a minute......forget that idea.:{

[The Punter]

Hi Mopardave,
The UN has asked for $1.7 bn in aid for the Ukraine which is about one month's foreign aid budget., money "well spent".:)
The MOD would probably waste it like the Foreign Aid budget.
Example:- buying the Boxer AFV which cannot be transport whole in an A-400:ugh:

[mopardave]

Hi Mopardave,
The UN has asked for $1.7 bn in aid for the Ukraine which is about one month's foreign aid budget., money "well spent".
The MOD would probably waste it like the Foreign Aid budget.
Example:- buying the Boxer AFV which cannot be transport whole in an A-400:ugh:
Like I said mate......if it's money well spent? Procurement seems to be a black hole and yet no one is ever accountable?

[blimey]

Cancelling HS2 would put a few bob in the kitty. Unfortunately the £37bn Test and Trace boat has sailed.

[mopardave]

There's an article in today's Times saying that to get back to the 1990's defense spend the UK would have to put 4p on income tax - volunteers one step forward!

That's a very interesting point. I wonder what a 21st century air force would look like with a budget increase like that? I'm guessing we still wouldn't have anything like the 1990 numbers because even relatively speaking, fifth generation aircraft appear to be exponentially more expensive. 4p........that's eye watering.

[Sideshow Bob]

Never mind the aircraft numbers, where would they get the staff from? When I joined in the mid 80s there was 96000 in the RAF and stiff competition for places due to high unemployment. Today, with low unemployment figures, they struggle to recruit to keep a force of 34000.

[pr00ne]

The Jaguar's entry into service, and later the Hawk, saved Abingdon from closure as an RAF Station in the 1970s. The serious cuts then, in the transport fleet, Andover removed from tactical role, Britannia, Comet and Belfast gone, Abingdon was otherwise surplus and would have provided a home to the army earlier.

FB

No it didn't. I happen to know a little about this as I was "holding staff support" as I awaited my exit from the mob during the work done leading up to the 75 Defence Review. Working with some folk in main building who had previously been involved in the closure of Manby, Oakington and Spitalgate. Abingdon was nothing to do with the Strategic transport fleet at the time of the Mason cuts, and none of the units at Abingdon were slated for closure or even down sizing. The Andovers had departed for Thorney Island years previously, and the units there were all support units; No. 1 PTS, JATE, UKMAMS, RAF Movements School, and London UAS had just moved in with its associated AEF from White Waltham. So the 75 review certainly did not leave Abingdon surplus. The main problem was Brize Norton. With the phasing out of the Britannia fleet, and eventually the Belfasts (they were originally to have stayed and the Hercules fleet been reduced), Brize was left with just what was going to be a much smaller 10 Sqn and the associated VC10 bits of 241 OCU. There was serious consideration to moving 10 Sqn to Lyneham and closing Brize Norton altogether. But the decision (after NATO had complained at the cuts) to retain the Hercules fleet at approx 60, and the VC10 fleet at 13, plus the move of 242 OCU from Thorney island to Lyneham, rendered that proposal unworkable, so the decision was taken instead to move the units from Abingdon into Brize Norton, along with 38 Group TCW from Benson and 115 Sqn from Cottesmore, and move the units from Bicester and Leconfield into the now vacated Abingdon, thus allowing Bicester and Leconfield to close. There was quite a political flurry to enable Labour to announce that they were closing 12 RAF stations, mainly to placate their extreme Left wing who had been promised substantial defence cuts, and to help disguise the fact that there were no actual reductions in front line combat forces.
Thus Bicester, Leconfield and Thorney Island were vacated and were able to be added to the closure list, a silly list really as it included places like Driffield that had been on care and maintenance for decades, Biggin Hill which didn't actually close, West Raynham, which stayed open but the flying units moved out, and Chessington that also didn't actually close for years.
So Abingdon was never under threat of closure, but the mad rush to ensure that Brize Norton stayed open, and to be able to announce a closure list of 12 stations, was the reason for the move of the Abingdon units. I actually staffed a paper that proposed moving the units from Leconfield and Bicester direct to Brize Norton, thus saving quite a bit of relocation expenditure and disruption, but was ignored as I was a Flight Lieutenant fast jet pilot who clearly didn't know what he was talking about...
Sorry about this verbosity, but it was a fascinating and weird time for me, and I was there...

[Herod]

4p........that's eye watering.

My previous. To get back to Cold War levels of tax, you'd need something like 14p Us old folk had it hard. In my day.....(insert appropriate moan)

[BEagle]

Perhaps - but the massive rises in VAT rates since the original 10% rate in 1973 now means that it is the third-largest source of government revenue after income tax and National Insurance....

[Buster15]

Just scanning the Telegraph Business section and there is a comparison table showing figures from 1990 versus 2021. According to the information provided the RAF had this in 1990: 170 Harrier, 100 Phantom, 100 Jaguar and 400 Tornado. I find those numbers difficult to believe, but am willing to be educated. Thoughts, please.

Regarding the Tornado numbers.
The official figures were - IDS 220 ADV 165 making 385. But production ran until 1995/6 and a number of the F2 ADV were withdrawn early. So not 400 jets.

[Finningley Boy]

No it didn't. I happen to know a little about this as I was "holding staff support" as I awaited my exit from the mob during the work done leading up to the 75 Defence Review. Working with some folk in main building who had previously been involved in the closure of Manby, Oakington and Spitalgate. Abingdon was nothing to do with the Strategic transport fleet at the time of the Mason cuts, and none of the units at Abingdon were slated for closure or even down sizing. The Andovers had departed for Thorney Island years previously, and the units there were all support units; No. 1 PTS, JATE, UKMAMS, RAF Movements School, and London UAS had just moved in with its associated AEF from White Waltham. So the 75 review certainly did not leave Abingdon surplus. The main problem was Brize Norton. With the phasing out of the Britannia fleet, and eventually the Belfasts (they were originally to have stayed and the Hercules fleet been reduced), Brize was left with just what was going to be a much smaller 10 Sqn and the associated VC10 bits of 241 OCU. There was serious consideration to moving 10 Sqn to Lyneham and closing Brize Norton altogether. But the decision (after NATO had complained at the cuts) to retain the Hercules fleet at approx 60, and the VC10 fleet at 13, plus the move of 242 OCU from Thorney island to Lyneham, rendered that proposal unworkable, so the decision was taken instead to move the units from Abingdon into Brize Norton, along with 38 Group TCW from Benson and 115 Sqn from Cottesmore, and move the units from Bicester and Leconfield into the now vacated Abingdon, thus allowing Bicester and Leconfield to close. There was quite a political flurry to enable Labour to announce that they were closing 12 RAF stations, mainly to placate their extreme Left wing who had been promised substantial defence cuts, and to help disguise the fact that there were no actual reductions in front line combat forces.
Thus Bicester, Leconfield and Thorney Island were vacated and were able to be added to the closure list, a silly list really as it included places like Driffield that had been on care and maintenance for decades, Biggin Hill which didn't actually close, West Raynham, which stayed open but the flying units moved out, and Chessington that also didn't actually close for years.
So Abingdon was never under threat of closure, but the mad rush to ensure that Brize Norton stayed open, and to be able to announce a closure list of 12 stations, was the reason for the move of the Abingdon units. I actually staffed a paper that proposed moving the units from Leconfield and Bicester direct to Brize Norton, thus saving quite a bit of relocation expenditure and disruption, but was ignored as I was a Flight Lieutenant fast jet pilot who clearly didn't know what he was talking about...
Sorry about this verbosity, but it was a fascinating and weird time for me, and I was there...

I stand corrected, but was not the arrival of the maintenance role and BD repair unit which meant Abingdon had a long term future?

FB

[The Punter]

My previous. To get back to Cold War levels of tax, you'd need something like 14p Us old folk had it hard. In my day.....(insert appropriate moan)
Herod, No combined Tax and NI peaked at 36% it is currently 32%

[pr00ne]

Regarding the Tornado numbers.
The official figures were - IDS 220 ADV 165 making 385. But production ran until 1995/6 and a number of the F2 ADV were withdrawn early. So not 400 jets.

There were additional buys of both ADV and IDS variants for the RAF over and above the original 385. Some may well have fallen foul of the reductions following the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, but the orders were certainly placed, more than one of each variant.

Those totals quoted in the OP certainly bear no relation to the totals in service with the RAF in 1990. But to all those moaning of the loss of numbers in the RAF of now as compared to 1990, EVERY Air Force on the planet has experienced similar reductions, this was not an exercise confined to the uK, or even NATO, it was global.

[pr00ne]

I stand corrected, but was not the arrival of the maintenance role and BD repair unit which meant Abingdon had a long term future?

FB

Abingdon always had a long term future as there were no reductions or closures, planned or actual, in the units resident there. When the focus became concentrating units on the larger stations, the use of stations such as Abingdon enabled the closure of the smaller or more restricted stations, thus achieving the sound bite announcement of "12 RAF stations to close."

[Davef68]

There were additional buys of both ADV and IDS variants for the RAF over and above the original 385. Some may well have fallen foul of the reductions following the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, but the orders were certainly placed, more than one of each variant.
.

Some of those were to replace aircraft diverted to the Saudi contract.

Some sources indicate there were an small number of extra F3s on top of the original 165

[pr00ne]

Some of those were to replace aircraft diverted to the Saudi contract.

Some sources indicate there were an small number of extra F3s on top of the original 165

These were attrition buys of both GR1's and F3's post the initial orders for 220 IDS and 165 ADV.. Saudi aircraft were replaced on production line without additional orders. I don't know what you mean by "some sources" as these were normal commercial contracts announced publicly at the time.

[MJ89]

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/6623/aviation-procurement/news/164989/defence-committee-launches-inquiry-into-aviation-procurement/

Signs of finally looking in the right direction, accepting wrong calls, finally, possibly. hopfully.
the AWACs decision was laughable, f35 order should be over 100 aircraft, was it not 135 originally planned. And major must i think should be keeping all the c130s that are in good nick.
It was Huge mistake giving away the harriers, just as they had brimstone aswell, idiotic, almost TSR2 esk, The idea that everything has to be a 140mil f35 is so stupid. Just imagine the capability boost that the carriers would have with 15 Gr9s on each. with "cheap" lightweight brimstone.




https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x427/brimstone_harrier_1_4e1d57132cad6d0a71e0492e18c0ffe82fa9dbc8 .jpg
no APG-65, or Blue Vixen, but thats another story.
Wonder how many air-frames still exist pelleted in the desert stateside.
Rant over

[Gordon Brown]

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/6623/aviation-procurement/news/164989/defence-committee-launches-inquiry-into-aviation-procurement/

Signs of finally looking in the right direction, accepting wrong calls, finally, possibly. hopfully.
the AWACs decision was laughable, f35 order should be over 100 aircraft, was it not 135 originally planned. And major must i think should be keeping all the c130s that are in good nick.
It was Huge mistake giving away the harriers, just as they had brimstone aswell, idiotic, almost TSR2 esk, The idea that everything has to be a 140mil f35 is so stupid. Just imagine the capability boost that the carriers would have with 15 Gr9s on each. with "cheap" lightweight brimstone.






https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x427/brimstone_harrier_1_4e1d57132cad6d0a71e0492e18c0ffe82fa9dbc8 .jpg
no APG-65, or Blue Vixen, but thats another story.
Wonder how many air-frames still exist pelleted in the desert stateside.
Rant over

I'd be interested to see how far a Harrier could go in that fit.

[MJ89]

Its about having a capability, the option. the numbers. A flight of 4 Gr9s matched with say 3 F35s over Norway now would be quite force rather than, A merlin.

Shermans didnt have the largest gun or kill range but was good enough, and arguably better maybe than the often touted ww2 axis beasts. you have to go with what you got. or you end up with no aircraft to fly off your carriers (that also have no independent defense). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwIlrAosYiM

On that note another comparison is the combat rifle, most engagements are usually well below the medium or max range.

The above load out could easily sacrifice the tank stations and still field 12 brimstone. plus A2A. Cannon

[Buster15]

Cancelling HS2 would put a few bob in the kitty. Unfortunately the £37bn Test and Trace boat has sailed.

As has the reported £39bn Brexit divorce settlement.

[Gordon Brown]

If you’re going to go counter factual then you could retain the Tornado, also have 12 Brimstone, have tanks and therefore some range, and have AAM, and have ALARM and have a real gun rather than a mythical Harrier cannon.

The DI of Brimstone was pretty eye watering. I know the Harrier could go high but it wasn’t the fastest beast in the world even when it was clean, and it didn’t have the best fuel load.

”But what about carrier capability?” Well IMHO the QE or the POW would have to sail right into the Black Sea to allow the old jumping bean to deliver any effect whatsoever, if we take the current unpleasantness as an exemplar. Unless you wanted to send the tankers forward to support them. This current environment is not permissive for FJ, let alone lumbering tankers. It’s not like they can sit in cell above the threat area like they did in the UKs recent wars.

But I am aware that I am biting against the old saw that the RAF should have sacrificed anything to retain the Harrier, so I’ll rest.

[ExAscoteer2]

Harrier never had a RTS for Dual Mode Seeker Brimstone, and only a limited RTS for Single Mode Seeker Brimstone. Additionally it would never have got a RTS for Stormshadow.

So, if you were going to bin an aircraft it made sense to bin Harier and keep Tornado.

Simples.

[MJ89]

If needed the risk is that yes jets would be possibly lost/hit/damaged. What has happened in the last month has proven that the game has changed. This is not a pier 1 v pier 2/3 scenario like the last 30 years.

Fuel wise the harrier could land anywhere, refuel, re-arm, redeploy, it was meant for forward deployment,unlike the tornado. The tankers were on the ground.

pop up out of the forest or launching from carrier, it could launch 18 brimstone :D run away bravely, 18 tanks. gone. Ok abit optimistic but you get the idea

[MJ89]

Harrier never had a RTS for Dual Mode Seeker Brimstone, and only a limited RTS for Single Mode Seeker Brimstone. Additionally it would never have got a RTS for Stormshadow.

So, if you were going to bin an aircraft it made sense to bin Harrier and keep Tornado.

Simples.

The GR9 Point was that it could deploy anywhere in the world, on a carrier, without tanker support, Tornado was replaced by typhoon, which cannot land on a carrier, the f35 was late and we have how many 8-15 usable for the next few years and lost one already.

Im not knocking the f35, worth every penny, but its like the T45 destroyer, plan for 12, order 8, cancel 2........all eggs in one basket. leaving personnel and milti-billion pound carriers at risk, and less options when things go wrong as they have. But the decision makers will carry on thinking they were right even in the face of history(libya) & current events,

Single minded decisions or not thinking with foresight, & throw in over reliance on the USA, all connected.

[Timelord]

The perennial Harrier argument is like the Brexit one - it just won’t go away!

[MJ89]

Main point to be honest was really more focused on the c130s and the f35 order, as that is something to fight for as it were.
With zee Germans cancelling f18 and going with f35/Eurofighter typhoon,any news on the uk Tranche 5 order numbers? with the T1s gone i thought it might open up are larger final order, but since tempests announcement seen or heard nothing. with Ukraine i hope this will quicken things and create some urgency.

[Finningley Boy]

Main point to be honest was really more focused on the c130s and the f35 order, as that is something to fight for as it were.
With zee Germans cancelling f18 and going with f35/Eurofighter typhoon,any news on the uk Tranche 5 order numbers? with the T1s gone i thought it might open up are larger final order, but since tempests announcement seen or heard nothing. with Ukraine i hope this will quicken things and create some urgency.
I would expect the retirement of some Typhoons to be deferred at least. It will be interesting to see if we have a Defence review prompted by current events.

pr00ne

I'm afraid my next magnum opus makes reference to Abingdon during the period in question but its too late for me to alter my take on the station's long term future circa 1975. So if you come by a copy, steam will issue from your ears no doubt. However, I did read somewhere, perhaps a proposal at a far from formed state, that Abingdon was being considered as surplus. to requirements.

FB

[BEagle]

The GR9 point was that it could deploy anywhere in the world, on a carrier, without tanker support, Tornado was replaced by Typhoon, which cannot land on a carrier, the F-35 was late and we have how many 8-15 usable for the next few years and lost one already.

Assuming that the deployment was still needed by the time the carrier moved the Harriers within range of the scene of hostilities!

I'll willingly concede that losing SHAR2 with Link 16 was a daft decision. But GR9 wasn't much cleverer than the Hunter in the A/A role against a capable enemy and was less capable than Tornado in A/G in its latter days, so the decision was sad but inevitable.

[Asturias56]

"on a carrier, without tanker support,"

at 20 kt it takes a while to get there.....................

[Finningley Boy]

Assuming that the deployment was still needed by the time the carrier moved the Harriers within range of the scene of hostilities!

I'll willingly concede that losing SHAR2 with Link 16 was a daft decision. But GR9 wasn't much cleverer than the Hunter in the A/A role against a capable enemy and was less capable than Tornado in A/G in its latter days, so the decision was sad but inevitable.
The Harrier has always had a special place in the Hearts of the British Public and its limited close air support role, made somewhat agreeable to the army. But I recall the specifics were that the Government, bearing in mind SDSR wasn't fiscally driven of course, that only two fixed-wing combat types should survive. The Typhoon was preferred for the chop by critics from outside the RAF, as was even more so, the Tornado. However, whatever the means of launch and recovery, where it matters, aloft, the Typhoon and Tornado GR4, to the best of my knowledge, possessed far superior capabilities and performance. Therefore, not popular with jump jet fans, the Harrier had to go.

FB

[pr00ne]

I would expect the retirement of some Typhoons to be deferred at least. It will be interesting to see if we have a Defence review prompted by current events.

pr00ne

I'm afraid my next magnum opus makes reference to Abingdon during the period in question but its too late for me to alter my take on the station's long term future circa 1975. So if you come by a copy, steam will issue from your ears no doubt. However, I did read somewhere, perhaps a proposal at a far from formed state, that Abingdon was being considered as surplus. to requirements.

FB

No problem at all! Your recent post did not make steam issue from my ears at all, I was just pointing out the facts as I recall them, not having a pop at you as such. As for the current Abingdon, Dalton Barracks, its closure was announced in the "better Defence estate" announcement some years ago, not sure when as that awful example of Tory short termism announced the closure of some 90 sites well before they had even considered where the existing units would be relocated. In fact a recent admission to the defence select committee confessed that the planned savings would be completely missed and that the planned closure programme was in disarray and would most likely not be completed.

[BEagle]

Just after ULAS had relocated from wonderful White Waltham to RAF Abingdon, I recall one of our QFIs saying "Well at least we're safe now - they'll never close Abingdon!".

Sadly, about 25 years later when I was a QFI at ULAS, that's just what 'they' did and we were forced to relocate to RAF Benson. We weren't particularly welcomed and we worked from an abysmal site somewhere behind where the RAFP kept their woolly alligators. Unlike at White Waltham or Abingdon, the flight line couldn't be seen from the QFIs' working site, so was wretched when it came to keeping a fatherly eye on the students when they were taxying in and out.

Apart from the fact that there wasn't even an OM car park at Abingdon, the station itself was perfect for ULAS and OUAS operations, plus the odd fast jet servicing. All gone now it's sadly been squaddified...

I'll never vote Conservative ever again!

[Finningley Boy]

No problem at all! Your recent post did not make steam issue from my ears at all, I was just pointing out the facts as I recall them, not having a pop at you as such. As for the current Abingdon, Dalton Barracks, its closure was announced in the "better Defence estate" announcement some years ago, not sure when as that awful example of Tory short termism announced the closure of some 90 sites well before they had even considered where the existing units would be relocated. In fact a recent admission to the defence select committee confessed that the planned savings would be completely missed and that the planned closure programme was in disarray and would most likely not be completed.
No probs pr00ne, if its accepted I think I've managed to secure a last minute two or three word correction, its amazing how you can change a complete sentence, paragraph even, simply by changing a word or two. As Beagle alludes, the Tories haven't exactly lived up to their oft claimed reputation for being strong on defence. I can't see the Chancellor easily agreeing to any kind of revision of defence spending either. Certainly not that would result in an increase.

FB

[Evalu8ter]

Ah Beags, hapy days at Abingdon. Perhaps the RAF should be bold and take it back……

[Asturias56]

Given its location just south of Oxford it'll go for a Science Park with some "affordable" (cough cough) housing very soon IMHO