Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

£2bn Black Hole

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

£2bn Black Hole

Old 3rd Jun 2008, 23:31
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OP 20 - He's at PJHQ planning for ops. You never know though, we might use the GR4 soon although I would contest your view that it the best CAS platform we own - good but not the best.

Trap One - there is not a runway in the 'Stan long enough for the Jag to get airborne with even what it thinks is a warload,
olderbloke is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2008, 07:22
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Overseas
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't believe the Jag has ever carried a warload

As for the GR4 as the "most capable CAS platform"? Is that with it's one bomb? Not above 25000? Not able to take off fully fuelled in summer? Bitching about having to produce 16 [email protected] from those 7 Sqns?

Sorry, off topic. We all need more money, so (ignoring my banter above!) we need to stop politics and in-fighting getting in the way of us getting what we need from the politicians.
But why start now
LateArmLive is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2008, 08:38
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Olderbloke

Thank God for experts like you.
I wish you were in charge!
BV
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 4th Jun 2008, 09:50
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Smoke and a pancake

"What are you smoking? Jag and AD are about as compatible as F3 and agile fighter".

Well 1st off did I mention Fighter? No the comment was AD as a role. That was in the days when the threat to the UK was big non agile aircraft such as the Bear, Blinder. A pair of 30mm and winders would do a lot of damage to one of those aircraft. Other aircraft with the AD role in a wartime case would have been Hawk 1 less 30mm and no RHWR and Hunter 4 x 30mm but no winders.
can't remember if the TWCU Hunters had RHWR

As for runways not big enough, and Typhoon only forces. Stop thinking as the government wants you to do. Build a long enough runway, buy the aircraft/weapons you need to do the job. Or as CAS refuse to do the job and offer your resignation.

Last edited by trap one; 5th Jun 2008 at 01:43.
trap one is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2008, 21:43
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Olderbloke, sorry to link you in with Latearmlive as I thought you had a good point.

Why does the GR4 need to be in block 2 exactly? - check your theatre manpad threat. Speak to guys that have flown from Tuscon, Arizona in the summer, tooled up with ordinance, about the GR4 hot & high capabilities - oh, that would be me then. Name a better CAS platform that we own, still thinking eh? And if you are thinking Typhoon you're living in cloud cookoo.

Older bloke, I know where the staish is, I know he had to do it and I understand why. He is a very talented guy and there was pressure from above, but thanks for the info anyway.

The GR4 is no longer a GR1, so if you've been out of service for a while, pick up a copy of Jane's or search for info on the upgrade programme especially recent event. It is the most capable platform we have for CAS , and yes, that includes the navs (wso's) who are truly instrumental in the devastating effect this airplane can have.

Incidently chaps, I'm an ex-GR4 pilot so I guess I am a little pro.

Don't want to offend guys, banter aside, I do respect both of your opinions and glad that you have contributed to this discussion.

Op_Twenty is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2008, 21:46
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That last sentence sounds a little patronising - sorry, it wasn't meant to be!
Op_Twenty is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2008, 22:50
  #27 (permalink)  

TAC Int Bloke
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So what AD role did the Jag ever have???!
Live target,

Even more desperate than the MFF Hawks
Maple 01 is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2008, 08:56
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 60
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"a rapidly deployable, supportable, multi-role fast jet is useful for post Cold War ops"

Ah- if only it could fly from a carrier eh Jacko?
Sunk at Narvik is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2008, 00:01
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 56
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I look at this another way. Rest assured, if the MoD/Government are announcing £2Bn cuts/savings, then this is the GOOD news. Delve a little deeper and you expose the REAL problems that beset MoD.

Take BOWMAN and FIST as a simple example. What does BOWMAN deliver? (Or rather, what was it meant to deliver?). Personal Role Radio (the immensely bulky thing that dangles from soldiers), VHF radio (another immensely bulky thingy that the Army’s Director Infantry said he didn’t want in 1999, 5 years before the contract was let, because it was, well, crap. He was right). Personal User Data Terminals (PDAs to you and me, only in technology terms stuck in the mid-90s with no upgrade path). Situational Awareness software run on the PUDT, along with other applications. Oh, and you have to integrate the lot but, as their IPTL once said, we don’t do integration.


So why then is the FIST contractor blowing his trumpet about the latest trials kit which contains, PRR replacement, VHF radio replacement, PUDT replacement and, er, SA replacement.

The only conclusion is that the political imperative has drifted down that “BOWMAN is a success” and, not so quietly in the background, other major programmes are being schemed to replace this successful kit (before its all delivered). The problem is, I guess, that the FIST people may have been doing a wonderful job for some years, but now they’re told “Forget 2009 ISD, you’ve got to stop, regress 10 years and bale out BOWMAN”.

I won’t go on about the links to FRES. Having spent zillions modifying fleets of land vehicles to take BOWMAN (still ongoing probably), another programme to remove it and refit to FRES would make the system topple. That’s what I call lack of programmatic integration.

A bit of simple science. “Live video feeds”. Video consumes bandwidth. We don’t have any to spare. If we free it up for a few video stars, wide bandwidth consumes power. As we’re talking about foot soldiers, and the weight of batteries will slow them down, making them more vulnerable, perhaps the idea is to use FRES as a mobile stores depot dedicated to batteries?
You really don't like Bowman do you ????? It's pity you can't call a PUDT by its correct name... i.e. a Portable User Data Terminal. As for mid 90's technology, name one piece of kit that had its design specs frozen in 2002 that isn't. Come to think of it, most of the new kit I got in 2002, runs at about the same speed as its Bowman equivalent.
MAINJAFAD is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2008, 03:41
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BOWMAN

Better
Of
With
Magellan
And
Nokia
NURSE is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2008, 08:51
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,090
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mainjafad

Hands up, I got the name wrong. Rather academic now, as its being removed from service. Not being able to put very expensive kit to its intended use is getting to be a bit of a habit. See Chinook Mk3.

My point is that perhaps there wouldn't be a £2Bn black hole if we hadn't chucked so much down the drain. Chinook, BMN, Nimrod. Thats very close to £2Bn there in additional costs.

And on the subject of BMN (while there is still some of it left that's not being replaced or upgraded) you are correct that a design frozen in 2002 is going to be slightly older, but the real question is why did they proceed to contract in 2004 knowing (a) the Main User had declared in 1999 that a key component wouldn't be fit for purpose and (b) other programmes had already gained Initial Gate to replace / improve much of it. They delivered on time, so you had the ludicrous situation whereby some users got their BMN replacements or enhancements before they got BMN. Good job it was backwards compatible with Clansman. Wonder if they kept them when BMN was delivered, or did they hand back the more modern kit which worked?

All open source.
tucumseh is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.