JSF - industrial implications
Thread Starter
JSF - industrial implications
First we had the Dutch expressing grave misgivings over the value of the JSF programme, and more recently the Norwegians.
Just to add to the mix, we now have the following (taken as extracts from the UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE to the Defence Committee by Sir Richard Evans, on Wednesday 5 May 2004).
Sir Richard Evans: ........ It is and I do not think we should have any illusions. The great threat to the technological base here in foreign terms is coming from the Americans because they are investing such huge amounts of money into R&T and it is why a lot of our companies are actually investing shareholders' funds today, not here in the UK but actually in America buying American assets. If this process continues without the actions that we have described or outlined or provided for in this industrial policy paper, if we actually do not do that, the UK is simply going to become the American metal basher. There will be no intellectual capability here in the UK in terms of the very high value-added content of programmes that this country has built up over so many years and that is why the big JSF was such a massive disappointment for us. That decision - and we should have no illusions - took us out in the UK from the common aircraft business and we will live to regret it, I can assure you.
..........There are always going to be areas where - and I suspect increasingly so - the right thing for the UK to do is to buy off the shelf. I just want to make sure that in other areas we would - and certainly in my company I would think that is the wrong thing to do - have a proper debate about it and, if we ultimately do decide to do it, we do it for the right reasons and then, if we do do that, we actually get the maximum amount of gain out of the decision for the UK. I am sorry to keep coming back to it, but I think JSF is a classic example. It is no good when you have signed up and paid your cheque over then trying to go back to negotiate the release of technology. It is absolutely not the way to do it and I absolutely subscribe to the fact that there are cases where it is absolutely proper to buy off the shelf, but I would also like other governments to share that view...........
......... Again if I can keep harping back to JSF, the fact of the matter is that it will be on JSF and there will probably be two or three major updates throughout the large programme and we know that one of those updates will be undertaken by Lockheed back in America and not here in the UK...........
One simple question. Is it worth it?
and just to show that it\'s not a raging technical success, either:
11 May 2004 : Column 221W
Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current weight of the standard take-off vertical landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter is; what the required weight at in-service date is; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Ingram: Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) requirements are defined in terms of aircraft performance, which is the product of many factors, including weight, drag, and engine thrust. At current engine thrust and drag values, the Short Take Off/Vertical Landing variant of the JSF is some 3300 lbs overweight to meet its stipulated overall performance levels. Work is in hand in the United States to examine options to ensure that the overall performance requirements are met, addressing all possible options including a significant reduction in aircraft weight. This work will not mature in detail until early 2005, although an interim assessment of likely outcome in summer 2004 will enable performance against the United Kingdom\'s Key User Requirements to be preliminarily evaluated at that time.
Just to add to the mix, we now have the following (taken as extracts from the UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE to the Defence Committee by Sir Richard Evans, on Wednesday 5 May 2004).
Sir Richard Evans: ........ It is and I do not think we should have any illusions. The great threat to the technological base here in foreign terms is coming from the Americans because they are investing such huge amounts of money into R&T and it is why a lot of our companies are actually investing shareholders' funds today, not here in the UK but actually in America buying American assets. If this process continues without the actions that we have described or outlined or provided for in this industrial policy paper, if we actually do not do that, the UK is simply going to become the American metal basher. There will be no intellectual capability here in the UK in terms of the very high value-added content of programmes that this country has built up over so many years and that is why the big JSF was such a massive disappointment for us. That decision - and we should have no illusions - took us out in the UK from the common aircraft business and we will live to regret it, I can assure you.
..........There are always going to be areas where - and I suspect increasingly so - the right thing for the UK to do is to buy off the shelf. I just want to make sure that in other areas we would - and certainly in my company I would think that is the wrong thing to do - have a proper debate about it and, if we ultimately do decide to do it, we do it for the right reasons and then, if we do do that, we actually get the maximum amount of gain out of the decision for the UK. I am sorry to keep coming back to it, but I think JSF is a classic example. It is no good when you have signed up and paid your cheque over then trying to go back to negotiate the release of technology. It is absolutely not the way to do it and I absolutely subscribe to the fact that there are cases where it is absolutely proper to buy off the shelf, but I would also like other governments to share that view...........
......... Again if I can keep harping back to JSF, the fact of the matter is that it will be on JSF and there will probably be two or three major updates throughout the large programme and we know that one of those updates will be undertaken by Lockheed back in America and not here in the UK...........
One simple question. Is it worth it?
and just to show that it\'s not a raging technical success, either:
11 May 2004 : Column 221W
Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current weight of the standard take-off vertical landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter is; what the required weight at in-service date is; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Ingram: Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) requirements are defined in terms of aircraft performance, which is the product of many factors, including weight, drag, and engine thrust. At current engine thrust and drag values, the Short Take Off/Vertical Landing variant of the JSF is some 3300 lbs overweight to meet its stipulated overall performance levels. Work is in hand in the United States to examine options to ensure that the overall performance requirements are met, addressing all possible options including a significant reduction in aircraft weight. This work will not mature in detail until early 2005, although an interim assessment of likely outcome in summer 2004 will enable performance against the United Kingdom\'s Key User Requirements to be preliminarily evaluated at that time.
Thread Starter
A better way? Bin the £6 Bn + white elephant carriers, bin JSF and spend the money on tankers, SEAD, recce, C-17s and loadsagripens.....?
As long as the UK remains as part of some joint effort with the US or other reasonably equipped force your idea will float(yeah, its intended) God help you if you have to strike out alone saving the sheepherders again, or even the ex pat farmers.
That's essentially the self fulfilling prophecy you would create with the load out you propose.
That's essentially the self fulfilling prophecy you would create with the load out you propose.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cannot believe that Dick Evans concern is viewed with credibility in this argument - after all, he must be a little biased??
Fact is, his company has had many opportunities to come up with the "high value added" goods but has failed dismally and cost taxpayers and the military dearly. What is the point of trying to maintain an aircraft company that cannot produce a specified product on time and on cost or even nearly?
The growing pains of JSF are a major worry but where is the baron's last bungle or the one before?
Would you buy a used car or even a new one from the chap who sold you a pup last time?
Fact is, his company has had many opportunities to come up with the "high value added" goods but has failed dismally and cost taxpayers and the military dearly. What is the point of trying to maintain an aircraft company that cannot produce a specified product on time and on cost or even nearly?
The growing pains of JSF are a major worry but where is the baron's last bungle or the one before?
Would you buy a used car or even a new one from the chap who sold you a pup last time?
Thread Starter
Without carriers we couldn't do the Falklands without US or coalition support.
Without recce, SEAD, tankers and airlift we couldn't do anything without allies support. Period.
Without recce, SEAD, tankers and airlift we couldn't do anything without allies support. Period.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is vertical t/o &-or landing such a big thing for the Brits??
Yes, Harrier was a cool ideal - in that an empty one can hover (briefly).
But why does the Jo average tax payer think that this is what it can do all the time (& in summer too!) - and that wars may be won because of it.
Agree that some of the internal avionics and weapons that happen to be fitted to same are cool, but the hoverrrinnn thing is, well mystifying me. And therefore, (apart from the fact that the RN carriers are too small) why get a JSF that can hover??
JSF looks like a nice toy, but surely putting one on a small piece of tin in an ocean will not utilise its full potential....
tin hat on now.......
.
Yes, Harrier was a cool ideal - in that an empty one can hover (briefly).
But why does the Jo average tax payer think that this is what it can do all the time (& in summer too!) - and that wars may be won because of it.
Agree that some of the internal avionics and weapons that happen to be fitted to same are cool, but the hoverrrinnn thing is, well mystifying me. And therefore, (apart from the fact that the RN carriers are too small) why get a JSF that can hover??
JSF looks like a nice toy, but surely putting one on a small piece of tin in an ocean will not utilise its full potential....
tin hat on now.......
.
Jacko
You know far better about the state of the UK's defense needs than I. My comments are general observations that speak of losing the capability of projecting force in an autonamous operation. If you believe that losing an all around generalist capability and specializing as part of some greater operation is worth it, then I will leave it you and yours to debate.
You know far better about the state of the UK's defense needs than I. My comments are general observations that speak of losing the capability of projecting force in an autonamous operation. If you believe that losing an all around generalist capability and specializing as part of some greater operation is worth it, then I will leave it you and yours to debate.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I may be allowed to insert my 2c worth into this spiralling-out-of-control machine...
There is always 2 sides to any argument.
I will concede that the JSF was a fantastic idea in its inception - produce a more affordable version of the F/A-22 for dissemination to allies, while allowing the U.S. to maintain its techology gap to facilitate its standing as the only power in the Western world with the ability to pose a threat to any spot on the globe.
While this idea - and I admit, the syntax of the aforementioned was harsh - is good in theory, we then face the real question of who is to benefit the most.
As an Aussie, our defence force has a vested interest in seeing projects born through Boeing thrive. The benefits of this partnership are debatable, but that is for another time...
The strategic gain that this aircraft will give to the U.S. is questionable.
Let's have a little bit of a squiz as to why...
The F/A-22 Raptor will be a high-impact weapon in any scenario that we can imagine - its attributes are not on trial here, but the question for mine is thus...
As the Raptor is proving to be a strong performer, and morphing through upgrades/insight into an aircraft that can perform throughout the gamut from ACM to Ground Attack to - and I admit I am not sure on this last point - recce, then what place does the JSF hold on the operational ladder than a runner-up that realistically was always optioned to be cancelled if it proved to be too much of a burden fiscally and under the scrutiny of Congress??
This leads to the obvious question...
If the support isn't going to forthcoming for this aircraft from its home-production country, and the U.S. is being so frugal in allowing other nations to have impact on its production variables, then do we really believe that we have a concrete contract-filler coming to our respective countries to fill the capability gaps that are starting to gape for all of us??
My concern would be quelled much more if more countries saw fit to invest at least some cosmetic interest in proposals to the U.S. Government/Defence Department that a watered-down version of the F/A-22 be researched for export to its allies.
We were never going to get the same version of the JSF anyway -what is the harm in lowering production/flyaway costs on one aircraft, thereby doing the U.S. a favour, rather than be passengers in a program that none of us have real power to influence and watch the Raptor flourish??
I have no doubt that most of us would be willing to accept a lower-stealth version of the Raptor, with subsequent software differences to make interoperability more able...
What do others think??
Happy to hear any informed arguments of support or blatant disagreement...
There is always 2 sides to any argument.
I will concede that the JSF was a fantastic idea in its inception - produce a more affordable version of the F/A-22 for dissemination to allies, while allowing the U.S. to maintain its techology gap to facilitate its standing as the only power in the Western world with the ability to pose a threat to any spot on the globe.
While this idea - and I admit, the syntax of the aforementioned was harsh - is good in theory, we then face the real question of who is to benefit the most.
As an Aussie, our defence force has a vested interest in seeing projects born through Boeing thrive. The benefits of this partnership are debatable, but that is for another time...
The strategic gain that this aircraft will give to the U.S. is questionable.
Let's have a little bit of a squiz as to why...
The F/A-22 Raptor will be a high-impact weapon in any scenario that we can imagine - its attributes are not on trial here, but the question for mine is thus...
As the Raptor is proving to be a strong performer, and morphing through upgrades/insight into an aircraft that can perform throughout the gamut from ACM to Ground Attack to - and I admit I am not sure on this last point - recce, then what place does the JSF hold on the operational ladder than a runner-up that realistically was always optioned to be cancelled if it proved to be too much of a burden fiscally and under the scrutiny of Congress??
This leads to the obvious question...
If the support isn't going to forthcoming for this aircraft from its home-production country, and the U.S. is being so frugal in allowing other nations to have impact on its production variables, then do we really believe that we have a concrete contract-filler coming to our respective countries to fill the capability gaps that are starting to gape for all of us??
My concern would be quelled much more if more countries saw fit to invest at least some cosmetic interest in proposals to the U.S. Government/Defence Department that a watered-down version of the F/A-22 be researched for export to its allies.
We were never going to get the same version of the JSF anyway -what is the harm in lowering production/flyaway costs on one aircraft, thereby doing the U.S. a favour, rather than be passengers in a program that none of us have real power to influence and watch the Raptor flourish??
I have no doubt that most of us would be willing to accept a lower-stealth version of the Raptor, with subsequent software differences to make interoperability more able...
What do others think??
Happy to hear any informed arguments of support or blatant disagreement...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this talk about JSF and STOVL being the cheap option is beginning to look like fudge to me. Surely if the UK get into bed with the French Ala’ CVF then wouldn’t it be cheaper to design 1 CVF type? (ie CATOBAR) and buy either the naval Variant of JSF, (Most expensive) Rafale, (Perish the thought!) or Mr B Liar could stick his nose firmly ‘twixt the crack Gee Dubya’s @rse, and request that we be allowed to build Super Hornet under licence. (IIRC we did the same with Sea King and the results with a British Avionics suite was regarded as far better than the original US Design). It may not be as stealthy as JSF but it would have an excellent Weapons fit (Eurofighter Radar etc) You can argue how Cr@p Super Hornet is until the cows come home but I reckon the Avionics pretty much maketh the Aircraft theses days not the Airframe. (Sea Harrier is a classic example) Plus it has 2 engines (The more engines the better when at sea I believe) and a much longer range all for 57Million USD.
Jackonicko wrote
“A better way? Bin the £6 Bn + white elephant carriers, bin JSF and spend the money on tankers, SEAD, recce, C-17s and loadsagripens.....?”
Here’s an even better idea – Bin the RAF, divide the squadrons up between the other two services According to requirement. Sack all the Air Marshals and their Lackeys. Get rid of all the MU’s, and rationalise the squadron structures so that common working (and therefore support and training) practices can be implemented with the other 2 services. Offer the rest of the RAF People the option to either transfer to one of the other 2 services with no loss of pay or Rank. Or offer them the same post in a Light – Blue suit for the rest of their career. No doubt some of you will say that it would have a bad effect on morale in the Armed services – NOT TRUE – I reckon it would improve by about 331/3%
…Sorry Jacko, But if you can shoot from the hip then so can I.
Jackonicko wrote
“A better way? Bin the £6 Bn + white elephant carriers, bin JSF and spend the money on tankers, SEAD, recce, C-17s and loadsagripens.....?”
Here’s an even better idea – Bin the RAF, divide the squadrons up between the other two services According to requirement. Sack all the Air Marshals and their Lackeys. Get rid of all the MU’s, and rationalise the squadron structures so that common working (and therefore support and training) practices can be implemented with the other 2 services. Offer the rest of the RAF People the option to either transfer to one of the other 2 services with no loss of pay or Rank. Or offer them the same post in a Light – Blue suit for the rest of their career. No doubt some of you will say that it would have a bad effect on morale in the Armed services – NOT TRUE – I reckon it would improve by about 331/3%
…Sorry Jacko, But if you can shoot from the hip then so can I.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Responding to what LJR wrote:
"Why is vertical t/o &-or landing such a big thing for the Brits??
Yes, Harrier was a cool ideal - in that an empty one can hover (briefly)."
- Without sounding at all patronising, I think one can hazard a guess as where you live.... LJR, one of the remarkable things about the Harrier for the Brits (quite apart from the fact that it is British - contrary to the story perpetuated in the Smithsonian Institute!) is that it remains a unique and unparallelled aircraft.
- It can be deployed our relatively small RN carriers, ships taken up from trade (STUFT) and recover to the same, as well as the odd passing freighter, as did happen in 1983.
- It therefore represents the perfect aircraft to be used for support of local conflict, being versatile enough to be able to be deployed at sea, or ashore in conditions which would be denied to most other types of aircraft.
- Not only is it used by the UK, but you will find that it is employed in Spain (AV-8 Matador), India (Sea Harrier variant) as well as by the US Marines. I believe that even Guv'nor Arnie would love to have one, to park in his garage next to his HumVee (!)
- Bearing in mind that this is based upon a late 1950's early 1960's airframe, the concept is totally sound and in fact far more in tune with the requirements of modern-day littoral operations ie sitting offshore and dealing with small to medium size wars, rather than the great big ones envisaged in the 50's,60's,70's,80's etc.
- As was aptly demonstrated in the Falklands; it can stop in mid-air (betchya Raptor would love to do that); it could be shipped on board Ro-Ro's redesigned as temporary carriers/transporters and could operate off the grassy runways on the islands themselves.
LJR asked: But why does the Jo average tax payer think that this is what it can do all the time (& in summer too!) - and that wars may be won because of it.
- Firstly, the RAF/Fleet Air Arm are justly proud to show off something which is to date pretty well unique the Russians attempted to copy one themselves, but as it didn't have the vectored thrust technology "Hose Nose" it was a pretty poor relation (it relied on a trap door behind the pilot to suck the air in and blow down hard!)
- As for the US, they themselves bought the export production version which was built under license from us (so the Brits did manage to sell coals to Newcastle).
- Regarding the weather: where we live, we can do the "hoverrrin thing" all year round, because the weather never much gets above 25C (77F), unlike some hotter countries, which I can think of.....
Agree that some of the internal avionics and weapons that happen to be fitted to same are cool, but the hoverrrinnn thing is, well mystifying me. And therefore, (apart from the fact that the RN carriers are too small) why get a JSF that can hover??
- The internal avionics are pretty good, and do take a very heavy workload off the pilot, Blue Fox/Vixen is adequate and with the AIM9-M (which was sold to us by the US in 1982) it held it's own against Mirage/A-4's head-on.
- As to the carriers, given my choice, I'd opt for a dozen medium sized escort carriers of similar size to the Invincibles rather than one or two Super Carriers the size of Manhattan
- why, because it is much more consistent with our philosophy of scalability and proportionality; you don't need such in depth defence to screen them; you can deal with more than one trouble spot in the world at any one time; if you lose one, the asset loss is not so great;
JSF looks like a nice toy, but surely putting one on a small piece of tin in an ocean will not utilise its full potential....
- I agree wholly with your last comment; why do it indeed!
tin hat on now.......
Best regards
Ironclad
"Why is vertical t/o &-or landing such a big thing for the Brits??
Yes, Harrier was a cool ideal - in that an empty one can hover (briefly)."
- Without sounding at all patronising, I think one can hazard a guess as where you live.... LJR, one of the remarkable things about the Harrier for the Brits (quite apart from the fact that it is British - contrary to the story perpetuated in the Smithsonian Institute!) is that it remains a unique and unparallelled aircraft.
- It can be deployed our relatively small RN carriers, ships taken up from trade (STUFT) and recover to the same, as well as the odd passing freighter, as did happen in 1983.
- It therefore represents the perfect aircraft to be used for support of local conflict, being versatile enough to be able to be deployed at sea, or ashore in conditions which would be denied to most other types of aircraft.
- Not only is it used by the UK, but you will find that it is employed in Spain (AV-8 Matador), India (Sea Harrier variant) as well as by the US Marines. I believe that even Guv'nor Arnie would love to have one, to park in his garage next to his HumVee (!)
- Bearing in mind that this is based upon a late 1950's early 1960's airframe, the concept is totally sound and in fact far more in tune with the requirements of modern-day littoral operations ie sitting offshore and dealing with small to medium size wars, rather than the great big ones envisaged in the 50's,60's,70's,80's etc.
- As was aptly demonstrated in the Falklands; it can stop in mid-air (betchya Raptor would love to do that); it could be shipped on board Ro-Ro's redesigned as temporary carriers/transporters and could operate off the grassy runways on the islands themselves.
LJR asked: But why does the Jo average tax payer think that this is what it can do all the time (& in summer too!) - and that wars may be won because of it.
- Firstly, the RAF/Fleet Air Arm are justly proud to show off something which is to date pretty well unique the Russians attempted to copy one themselves, but as it didn't have the vectored thrust technology "Hose Nose" it was a pretty poor relation (it relied on a trap door behind the pilot to suck the air in and blow down hard!)
- As for the US, they themselves bought the export production version which was built under license from us (so the Brits did manage to sell coals to Newcastle).
- Regarding the weather: where we live, we can do the "hoverrrin thing" all year round, because the weather never much gets above 25C (77F), unlike some hotter countries, which I can think of.....
Agree that some of the internal avionics and weapons that happen to be fitted to same are cool, but the hoverrrinnn thing is, well mystifying me. And therefore, (apart from the fact that the RN carriers are too small) why get a JSF that can hover??
- The internal avionics are pretty good, and do take a very heavy workload off the pilot, Blue Fox/Vixen is adequate and with the AIM9-M (which was sold to us by the US in 1982) it held it's own against Mirage/A-4's head-on.
- As to the carriers, given my choice, I'd opt for a dozen medium sized escort carriers of similar size to the Invincibles rather than one or two Super Carriers the size of Manhattan
- why, because it is much more consistent with our philosophy of scalability and proportionality; you don't need such in depth defence to screen them; you can deal with more than one trouble spot in the world at any one time; if you lose one, the asset loss is not so great;
JSF looks like a nice toy, but surely putting one on a small piece of tin in an ocean will not utilise its full potential....
- I agree wholly with your last comment; why do it indeed!
tin hat on now.......
Best regards
Ironclad
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is of course another solution - get rid of the RN and give the carriers to the RAF who actually know how to run an airfield.... The saving in Stars alone would pay for running JSF. I reckon about 8 FF/DD in total, 2 x SSN per carrier and Bob's your uncle. Put the Mineswipers out to contract, civilianise the hydrographic fleet who are virtually civvies anyway, and make the Royal Marines part of the RAF Regiment. Simple really - after all the RAF does have a history of running boats.......
Tin Hat and Flak Jacket at Immediate Readiness !
Tin Hat and Flak Jacket at Immediate Readiness !
Thread Starter
Top idea Bats,
Air power is the key nowadays, so you only need one service. Boats are just transport anyway, so you wouldn't even need to resurrect the Marine branch, just put a couple of SACs from Brize Norton's MT section in charge of each carrier and SSN and one for the FFs and DDs.
And what is the point of Pongoes? Shift them all over to the Rocks (an Army Captain is equivalent to a Chief Tech, I guess........). It would dilute the educational average and the average IQ a bit, and you'd need to teach the officers some basic table manners, but it shouldn't be too hard.
Air power is the key nowadays, so you only need one service. Boats are just transport anyway, so you wouldn't even need to resurrect the Marine branch, just put a couple of SACs from Brize Norton's MT section in charge of each carrier and SSN and one for the FFs and DDs.
And what is the point of Pongoes? Shift them all over to the Rocks (an Army Captain is equivalent to a Chief Tech, I guess........). It would dilute the educational average and the average IQ a bit, and you'd need to teach the officers some basic table manners, but it shouldn't be too hard.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: MBZ 124.2
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But isn't this debate engendered simply because we are either:
a. over committed
b. under resourced
and certainly a combination of both compounded by rising costs of technology. And everyone is scrabbling for the scraps that fall from B Liar's table.
A statistic I heard the other day......if you spent US$26,000,000 per day for every day since Jesus Christ died it wouldn't match what the USA has spent on defence (defense(!)) since WW2.
Wouldn't it be nice if a few of their Airships, Admirals and Generals said "Bollocks to this. If you are not going to fund us we're off!" Still, there's the pension and directorships in defence industries to think of, not to mention 'expert' roles on late night current affairs programmes.
PS Ex pat Brit - but the same arguments hold good for Oz
a. over committed
b. under resourced
and certainly a combination of both compounded by rising costs of technology. And everyone is scrabbling for the scraps that fall from B Liar's table.
A statistic I heard the other day......if you spent US$26,000,000 per day for every day since Jesus Christ died it wouldn't match what the USA has spent on defence (defense(!)) since WW2.
Wouldn't it be nice if a few of their Airships, Admirals and Generals said "Bollocks to this. If you are not going to fund us we're off!" Still, there's the pension and directorships in defence industries to think of, not to mention 'expert' roles on late night current affairs programmes.
PS Ex pat Brit - but the same arguments hold good for Oz
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now were just getting silly arent we? (But i suppose I asked for it!) Look at it this way. The RN and Army do very different jobs with (mainly) different requirements in the way of aircraft. The RAF's Bread and butter is in support of the other 2 services. Take away the F3's (or eurofighter) AWACS and maybe the Tankers. And what have you got left? Strike squadrons which are usually coordinted By Khaki or dark blue. Nimrod (RN) AC Squadrons (Army Cooperation - says it all doesn't it?)
I'm quite sure a battle commander would like to have ALL his battlefield air assets under his direct control rather than having to go up a chain of command and ask for them. I mean where the hell is the efficiency in that???? Same with the fish heads. Why should they have to go up the stairs just to ask for MPA/Strike support? They learned that lesson in WW2 when the put coastal command under the direct control of the Admiralty (I thought they had re-learned the lesson with the Creation of FOMA but the RAF brass managed to maneover that post out - Clever Blighters!)
Ideally (If Mr Brown wasn't hell bent on mispending My hard earned "donation") I would like to see the RAF get out of the above mentioned, Retain its fighters/ Tankers/ Awacs / and transport capability but also get a long range bombing platform Ala' The B2 Spirit. It could be paid for/ cost offset by getting rid of Trident and giving the RAF control of the Nuclear deterrent. Then Cancel the Astute program and convert the Trident SSBN's to SSGN's the loss in terms of personell would be no great loss as they are in the main civil servants.
Hey I can dream can't I? - But for the future you have to admitt, with current and future manning levels, is there justification in retaining 3 seperate services? get rid of one and bang goes a lot "Support" (Suits)
I'm quite sure a battle commander would like to have ALL his battlefield air assets under his direct control rather than having to go up a chain of command and ask for them. I mean where the hell is the efficiency in that???? Same with the fish heads. Why should they have to go up the stairs just to ask for MPA/Strike support? They learned that lesson in WW2 when the put coastal command under the direct control of the Admiralty (I thought they had re-learned the lesson with the Creation of FOMA but the RAF brass managed to maneover that post out - Clever Blighters!)
Ideally (If Mr Brown wasn't hell bent on mispending My hard earned "donation") I would like to see the RAF get out of the above mentioned, Retain its fighters/ Tankers/ Awacs / and transport capability but also get a long range bombing platform Ala' The B2 Spirit. It could be paid for/ cost offset by getting rid of Trident and giving the RAF control of the Nuclear deterrent. Then Cancel the Astute program and convert the Trident SSBN's to SSGN's the loss in terms of personell would be no great loss as they are in the main civil servants.
Hey I can dream can't I? - But for the future you have to admitt, with current and future manning levels, is there justification in retaining 3 seperate services? get rid of one and bang goes a lot "Support" (Suits)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deliverance,
I'm not a crab basher OK? - All's i'm saying is that given the current Manpower levels in the 3 services one has to wonder weather there is any gain to be had in keeping them apart. Now from what I Know (i'm an ex Civil Servant - But i'm cured now!) from experience is that the RAF...
a/ Are the most civilian-like of all the services. (No bad thing if you're looking in from the civil service - good people to do business with)
b/ Are the most likely to say Can't do - (Found that out in Pitreavie and Kinloss)
and
c/ (For the life of me I don't know why) Are/were the the most technologicaly backward of the services (I was in the RN Equivilent of RAFSEE at the time.)
Point c/ has no doubt been resolved since all three support systems (For comms at least) have now been amalgamated. Point b/ however does seem to be a sticking point. I don't know if this is a good example but I happen to spend a lot of time in Lossiemouth - and when i'm there I drink in the Various pubs around town. I try to avoid the "Off Camp Mess's" because I like to drink with folk to don't talk about they're work all day. However I'm pleased to say that a few of the lads from the camp do end up in the "Golden Triangle" (The Steamboat/Harbour Bar/Brander) and as the beer flows one gets some real insight into the mindset of your average Crab wrt going to sea. Almost all of them asked do not want to go near either JSF or JHC because of the Sea going factor. My own Brother (Corpral at Waddington) feels pretty much the same. And who can blame them? They didn't sign up for Rum, Bum, and Baccy did they? So I don't think i'd be far of the mark when I guess that JFH is quite probably having worse retention snags as compared to the rest of the RAF. Probably JHC too. The only way I can see round this is to bring the RAF out of both of these area's. Which by the time you've done that - you have to ask is it really worth retaining a 3rd service. For that matter why not just have 1?
I'm not a crab basher OK? - All's i'm saying is that given the current Manpower levels in the 3 services one has to wonder weather there is any gain to be had in keeping them apart. Now from what I Know (i'm an ex Civil Servant - But i'm cured now!) from experience is that the RAF...
a/ Are the most civilian-like of all the services. (No bad thing if you're looking in from the civil service - good people to do business with)
b/ Are the most likely to say Can't do - (Found that out in Pitreavie and Kinloss)
and
c/ (For the life of me I don't know why) Are/were the the most technologicaly backward of the services (I was in the RN Equivilent of RAFSEE at the time.)
Point c/ has no doubt been resolved since all three support systems (For comms at least) have now been amalgamated. Point b/ however does seem to be a sticking point. I don't know if this is a good example but I happen to spend a lot of time in Lossiemouth - and when i'm there I drink in the Various pubs around town. I try to avoid the "Off Camp Mess's" because I like to drink with folk to don't talk about they're work all day. However I'm pleased to say that a few of the lads from the camp do end up in the "Golden Triangle" (The Steamboat/Harbour Bar/Brander) and as the beer flows one gets some real insight into the mindset of your average Crab wrt going to sea. Almost all of them asked do not want to go near either JSF or JHC because of the Sea going factor. My own Brother (Corpral at Waddington) feels pretty much the same. And who can blame them? They didn't sign up for Rum, Bum, and Baccy did they? So I don't think i'd be far of the mark when I guess that JFH is quite probably having worse retention snags as compared to the rest of the RAF. Probably JHC too. The only way I can see round this is to bring the RAF out of both of these area's. Which by the time you've done that - you have to ask is it really worth retaining a 3rd service. For that matter why not just have 1?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not wanting to go to sea does not make the force a can't do outfit.
As for combining into a single service, just ask the Canadians how much they like it.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the forces are unique in that we do not deal with the ordinary and that things like regimental/squadron/service history are important factors in maintaining motivation and morale in difficult circumstances. Fortunately that does not have a monetary value, else that would probably be sold off as well
