Big Willy Syndrome
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we carry out a review now based on our current requirements, we will bin most of the fast jets and get loads of helis and AT. The trouble is we have to look 20-30 years down the line and who knows what scenario we'll face then; maybe someone with a credible fighter capability. It would be a case of "good luck" to the heli and AT guys if we did not own a credible fighter ourselves when it happened.
We need helis, AT and fighters (read fighter/bombers). The collapse of the cold war was not a peace dividend, it was a call for higher defence spending as conflict spread worldwide, but each conflict has been (fortunately) on a smaller scale than global war.
Our reaction has been to cut defence spending - which is not what is in the pink!
We need helis, AT and fighters (read fighter/bombers). The collapse of the cold war was not a peace dividend, it was a call for higher defence spending as conflict spread worldwide, but each conflict has been (fortunately) on a smaller scale than global war.
Our reaction has been to cut defence spending - which is not what is in the pink!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Willies
I have to agree with the main thrust of Hasting's artcle, though I'm sure not everyone finds it easy taking it all in - I wouldn't if in their unenviable position ( An T where are you ?! ).
----
It's never going to be easy to explain to Mr Doberman in the pub we or he has wrongly entered that we need LOTS more tankers & airlift, or else his sh1t kicking fighters won't work.
I followed a US Admirals' entourage when we were trying to flog him Hawks, he remarked " it's easy to get money for the sexy jets, the F-14's & 18's ( as then ) but we have to really push to get training & support equipment ".
Must have worked on that or some close day hence the T-45 Goshawk, but the theory appears standard.
----
It's never going to be easy to explain to Mr Doberman in the pub we or he has wrongly entered that we need LOTS more tankers & airlift, or else his sh1t kicking fighters won't work.
I followed a US Admirals' entourage when we were trying to flog him Hawks, he remarked " it's easy to get money for the sexy jets, the F-14's & 18's ( as then ) but we have to really push to get training & support equipment ".
Must have worked on that or some close day hence the T-45 Goshawk, but the theory appears standard.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
The life extension of the A-10 by the USAF with the C Model at least demonstrates some recognition that CAS will remain a primary capability in any future conflict. It is hard to see how Typhoon and and F-35 will be pulled down into the mud moving that Jaguar did, and anyone who thinks deploying half a dozen Harriers at a time is a reasonable Force multiplier, must have missed a few Staff College lectures. By all means spend the money on nice pointy jets, but get a reasonable role mix in there. Only the Daily Mail readers believe Backfires over Bognor are the current threat.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I missing something. I'm not aircrew so forgive me me for me rather basic view of things and as usual, I wait to be corrected but...
It seems to me that an ac that can transit at high speed to an area where CAS is needed, turn on a sixpence and therefore deliver a sustained attack and then get the hell out of dodge quickly so that it can a. get more stores and b. take itself out of range of Mr Taliban with his shoulder launched bundle of fun, is the perfect CAS weapon.
Too many people are focussing on what Typhoon was originally designed for, not what it has the potential to become. If we narrow our minds now we will never explore the full capability of the platform.
And yes, we need a lot more AT and SH.
Bear
It seems to me that an ac that can transit at high speed to an area where CAS is needed, turn on a sixpence and therefore deliver a sustained attack and then get the hell out of dodge quickly so that it can a. get more stores and b. take itself out of range of Mr Taliban with his shoulder launched bundle of fun, is the perfect CAS weapon.
Too many people are focussing on what Typhoon was originally designed for, not what it has the potential to become. If we narrow our minds now we will never explore the full capability of the platform.
And yes, we need a lot more AT and SH.
Bear
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
an ac that can transit at high speed to an area where CAS is needed, turn on a sixpence and therefore deliver a sustained attack and then get the hell out of dodge quickly so that it can a. get more stores and b. take itself out of range of Mr Taliban with his shoulder launched bundle of fun, is the perfect CAS weapon.
To some extent the get-there-quick from ground alert was also seductive as airborne cab rank was said to be very inefficient. That really arose during Korea when there was no AAR and jet endurance was low.
Now, getting there quick is not getting there quick enough. Endurance with AAR can easily be 7 hours. The CAS ac can deliver ordnance in minutes not 10s of minutes. This is a return to the post-D-day situation where the Typhoon was able to sit over the battle field and respond, weather permitting, immediately.
With a low risk AD environment they can cab rank above the threat. Coupled with long endurance you also need a large weapons load as one or two engagements and you are shot out. The A10 really scores here.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Willies
I have to agree with the main thrust of Hasting's artcle, though I'm sure not everyone finds it easy taking it all in - I wouldn't if in their unenviable position ( An T where are you ?! ).
I have to agree with the main thrust of Hasting's artcle, though I'm sure not everyone finds it easy taking it all in - I wouldn't if in their unenviable position ( An T where are you ?! ).
It's so easy for the MOD bureaucrats, though. The tenor of this thread has gone from RAF v Army v Navy to an argument about the allocation of assets to tasks within the RAF. At every turn, the 3 Services argue about who's to get fecked least, while they bend over and are rogered royally by the bureaucrats and the consultants employed by the bureaucrats to save them risking their careers by actually making a decision about something.
After 4 defence reviews, it never ceases to amaze me that no-one seems to question the ridiculously small proportion of the defence vote that is actually spent on the Armed Forces. If you look at the ORBAT Germany manages to field on a smaller GDP spend it is quite impressive.
Of course, the big question raised by Hastings' article (and one I imagine he'd be horrified at the prospect of) is: Can the European nations each afford to field independent balanced Armed Forces to defend their secular democracies? I'd suggest they can't.
As we reach Oil Peak and enter the Chinese Century, it has become apparent that even the relatively small current deployments (in numbers terms) are sufficient to come close to breaking our 200,000 strong team. Rather than fartarseing around with the septics on their fundamentalist 'crusades', I'd suggest we should be persuading the Russians of their European-ness and getting our act together in Europe.
Just my tuppence worth!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Adminisphere: FL Nosebleed
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to scare/depress yourself, ask how much Europe spends on Defence compared to what she can field. Then compare that to what the US spends on Defense and can field ....
I saw the figures about 10 years ago - very depressing - we (Europe) spent more but could field far less.
But the thought of trying to get European nations to even slightly collaborate on Defence ....
Wibble
Nurse, my medication, quickly!
I saw the figures about 10 years ago - very depressing - we (Europe) spent more but could field far less.
But the thought of trying to get European nations to even slightly collaborate on Defence ....
Wibble
Nurse, my medication, quickly!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd suggest we should be persuading the Russians of their European-ness and getting our act together in Europe.
Pooh on low-tech Mudfighters, armed trainers, cheap CAS aircraft and the rest. Mudfighter this.
And what about this brilliant monument to Congressional stupidity and corruption, complete with giant missile sucker, cunningly located so the SA-7 will impact right on the pilot's naughty bits?
If you REALLY don't have an air threat...
I'd like to see one of those work over a few Jandaweed...
And what about this brilliant monument to Congressional stupidity and corruption, complete with giant missile sucker, cunningly located so the SA-7 will impact right on the pilot's naughty bits?
If you REALLY don't have an air threat...
I'd like to see one of those work over a few Jandaweed...
Guest
Posts: n/a
LO,
Nice pictures, but I totally missed your point?!
Re the Piper Enforcer(?), why the diatribe against Congress and corruption (redundant actually)?
Re the AC-47, its VERY big brothers, the AC-130Hs and U's are doing stellar work on operations.
But, they operate in a permissive threat environment. There was one lost in GW1 to a MANPAD.
Nice pictures, but I totally missed your point?!
Re the Piper Enforcer(?), why the diatribe against Congress and corruption (redundant actually)?
Re the AC-47, its VERY big brothers, the AC-130Hs and U's are doing stellar work on operations.
But, they operate in a permissive threat environment. There was one lost in GW1 to a MANPAD.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
LO, the top one reminds me of a Russian warship. If it'll fit, fit it. If two will fit, fit two.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: where the streets have no IEDs. Yet.
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A T's idea of a co-ordinated European military effort has great intellectual and dare I say it emotional appeal, particularly as a reaction to a world which will soon be dominated by three big gorillas : the US, China and eventually India. As a side note, China's population is likely to peak around 2040 so this century should ultimately belong to the US and India.
But...Europe's population, as a whole and broken down by nation, is sensitive to only one aspect of warfare : casualties. We could argue all year about who leads the risk aversion, government or people, but to me it's chicken and egg - ignorant politicos feeding off the ignorance of the electorates and vice versa - and effectively guarantees that even if we did create one big gorilla it'd stamp around making noise but achieving SFA.
As for Russia, with a population falling at about 750k a year and a paranoid government fostering infantile nationalism, you'd have a better chance of getting David Cameron to think than you'd have of making Russia a serious partner in the Euro-gorilla.
As far as big willies go, we are still the fifth or sixth biggest economy in the world and we can afford a full spectrum of capabilities (House !) if we choose to put the money into the kit, the personnel and the aftermath.
Anyone offering short odds on our lot doing that ?
But...Europe's population, as a whole and broken down by nation, is sensitive to only one aspect of warfare : casualties. We could argue all year about who leads the risk aversion, government or people, but to me it's chicken and egg - ignorant politicos feeding off the ignorance of the electorates and vice versa - and effectively guarantees that even if we did create one big gorilla it'd stamp around making noise but achieving SFA.
As for Russia, with a population falling at about 750k a year and a paranoid government fostering infantile nationalism, you'd have a better chance of getting David Cameron to think than you'd have of making Russia a serious partner in the Euro-gorilla.
As far as big willies go, we are still the fifth or sixth biggest economy in the world and we can afford a full spectrum of capabilities (House !) if we choose to put the money into the kit, the personnel and the aftermath.
Anyone offering short odds on our lot doing that ?
If I recall correctly, the Enforcer was rammed down the USAF's throat by Congressional supporters, some of whom were "military reformers" who thought that Western armed forces should look like Tass agency photos of Soviet forces, just smaller and less drunk, and others who were getting campaign dosh from the Enforcer's builders.
The point is that airpower that works in a permissive environment can be countered easily. If my adversary is coming after me with trainers armed with 7.62 and rockets, the 2S6 will merrily rip them limb from limb. It will have a much smaller lethal envelope against a proper fighter, which will bomb the 2S6 into a more harmless condition and then get on with the CAS job.
The point is that airpower that works in a permissive environment can be countered easily. If my adversary is coming after me with trainers armed with 7.62 and rockets, the 2S6 will merrily rip them limb from limb. It will have a much smaller lethal envelope against a proper fighter, which will bomb the 2S6 into a more harmless condition and then get on with the CAS job.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Between the devil and the deep blue sea
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to divert from current flavour of thread, but "232 fleet aircraft for 137 front line aircraft" (Archimedes page 1, slightly paraphrased). 137/232=59%.
Apache - 67 fleet for 48 front line aircraft. 48/67=71%.
Can someone explain the different maths used??
Apache - 67 fleet for 48 front line aircraft. 48/67=71%.
Can someone explain the different maths used??
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...we need well-equipped, balanced forces, able to project power gloablly (sic)...
We are an island nation dependent upon imports to maintain our way of life. We face no truly global threat, but we must be able to defend our sea lanes from hostile action. We need to be able to prevent hostile aircraft flying in our skies. We need to be able to repel invaders - by sea or by air. A bit like Sweden or (apart from their lack of shoreline) Switzerland in fact.
If we are to have a Defence Review, the first thing it needs to look at is what our national defence needs really are. Getting us stuck in useless and expensive offensive operations in the armpits of the globe or looking after our own protection?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Usually under a big yellow bird....
Age: 42
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SO, we shouldn't get involved in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone? Are you glad that we didn't step in when we could have in Rwanda, or that it's taken four years to decide to get involved in Darfur? Should we not be looking at getting involved in places where we can a) do a lot of good and b) we would be welcomed, e.g. Zimbabwe?
Iraq and Afghanistan don't meet those two criteria, which is why they're such a waste of lives. Positive interventionist foreign policy can be ethical and should not be tied to our colonial cousins' misadventures...
Iraq and Afghanistan don't meet those two criteria, which is why they're such a waste of lives. Positive interventionist foreign policy can be ethical and should not be tied to our colonial cousins' misadventures...
Last edited by scopey; 4th Aug 2007 at 17:32. Reason: Faff
