We can do FI, Afghanistan and Iraq - 11sqn

[Jackonicko]

Pongo,

Quoting Lewis Page? You're the tit, old boy. He is Generalissimo of the coalition of the witless and you are demonstrably one of his witless admirers. My figures are accurate. His are a mix of invention and mischief.

Page is a biased, anti-RAF, clueless tw@t.

If you want to nail your colours to that mast, go ahead, knock yourself out.

[jwcook]

Jacko I don't know why your holding back so much... that level of cluelessness deserves more... ROTFLMAO!!

I can see myself using "Generalissimo of the coalition of the witless and you are demonstrably one of his witless admirers" bit.. is it copyrighted?

BTW Glad to see it performing it should help with exports etc..

cheers

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Support for the journo..............imagine that.............what a strange stance for most PPrune folk

[Truckkie]

I'll stop taking the meds when I see Typhoons operating in the CAS/XCAS role over the desert supporting our boys on the ground during the many TICs

The only winge with Typhoon is that it's too late, procured before the current operations developed and too expensive.

It might be the best thing since sliced bread on weapons delivery but QRA in the FIs is hardly a combat proving ground, neither are weapon trials in the states.

Bearing in mind that we are comitted to Afghanistan for at least another 10-15 years do we really need 100+ FJs? I only seem to remember seeing around a sqn's worth actually in-theatre.

I think if you ask the blokes with their feet on the ground in the badlands what they would rather have you would probably be suprised.

Is it a sqn of unproven electric jets that may provide support or

More C130s for resupply, admin and op moves? More SH for battlefield support and casevac? More AH for close support? More UAVs for ISTAR and CAS?

We are stuck with a cold war era, expensive legacy fighter which will be pressed into the Ground Attack role (does it have a gun yet?)

For those in the RAF and the wider service who think we will ever be able to mount operations against a credible air threat are seriously deranged. The armed forces are stretched to breaking point engaged in two serious operations. We do not need Typhoon in vast numbers - we need to win the current fights first.

[ZH875]

Originally Posted by Truckkie

We are stuck with a cold war era, expensive legacy fighter which will be pressed into the Ground Attack role (does it have a gun yet?)

It has always had a gun. To be the mass and balance of a gun, with the electric characteristics of a gun, and fit in the place of a gun, you can only fit a gun. Ballast was never an option. Very clever this fly-by-wire stuff.




...It is Ammunition for that gun that we need.....

[jwcook]

Trukkie,

To be honest the Typhoon isn't the best machine for Afghanistan/Iraq where transporters, armoured cars, APC, a-10's, apaches etc are needed... but they were not the equipment needed during the Falklands! sea harriers were just able to suffice, the argument then was we needed two huge carriers, fighters, awacs.


Just having Transport aircraft/a-10's/apaches also wouldn't be too clever in many realistic scenarios involving any half credible opposition air platforms, If you had a couple of those shot down, you'd soon be saying quite rightly where is the air cover...?

Simple answer is that you need is a variety of aircraft and ground forces working together, but its not simple...

Your not going to get shiny new kit for everything every few years, this is a problem with large purchases measured in decades - but this is how it works now!.

Iraq and Afghanistan are conflicts that sprung up out of nowhere, you can only really plan for 'sensible' (in sensible I mean likely) conflicts, to use these theaters to show bad planning of equipment is grossly unfair.

You should really be having a go at those who choose to send forces to fight in stupid places for the wrong reasons, they really should be better at picking their wars only choosing wars that suit the equipment we bought..., and refusing any that are not quite right.. smell iffy, not in our primary interest, just to be in the gang etc

In short Typhoon will provide a broad capability for years to come, and it provides lots more than just shiny new jets, and as for price they work out Cheaper than those 8 Chinooks, so lets see which reach foreign soil first!!.

Cheers

[Jackonicko]

JW,

I waive all copyright on said phrase.

Before I rewrote my post I called Pongo and his mate "the coalition of the unwitting", which was a bit more witty, but was also a bit kind. You need to describe a worse degree of brainlessness when slagging off those who accept Page's lunatic ramblings uncritically.

The figure of £42.4 m per Tranche 2 jet was originally produced by the NAO, when the guidelines of what to include gave what was, as near as damn it, a unit flyaway cost (though in uK terms, this still includes elements that would be kept out of a US unit flyaway figure). This figure of £42 m (£45 m for Tranche 1) tallies with the equivalent official German, Italian and Spanish unit flyaway costs, and is, as you'd expect, slightly lower than the leaked original price for Austria. I have had that price confirmed in writing by the Typhoon IPT, and I have confirmation, in writing, from the IPT (in response to an FOI request) that the current NAO figure does include elements that mean that it is NOT anything like what we'd expect in a unit flyaway or unit production cost.

[Roland Pulfrew]

If any of the Typhoon knockers haven't read Page's book I recommend it as a right riveting piece of ................................... FICTION. The bloke obviously has a chip on his shoulder. The book is full of some truths, half truths, rumour and inaccuracies. It was written to sell, not to report facts. It is written from a narrow perspective. If nothing else it was good for a laugh. And "Yes, I have"!

Anyone who quotes from "theregister.co.uk" is leaving themselves open to ridicule, even at a quick first glance the article highlighted by pongo chap is wrong. The Nimrod MR1 was not mothballed in the way implied in the article. 203 Sqns jets were mothballed after years of service when Britain withdrew from Malta. And then they were supposed to be converted into the AEW3.

Page's assertion on Typhoon costs in that article is based around disingenuous mathematics - I think Jacko's NAO report is a somewhat more reliable source!

And for all those that say we need more of this and more of that NOW (Trukkie) you are probably correct. However you are naive if you think that even if the government gave us the money and said "do it now" that we would see those helicopters or aircraft in anything less than 3, 4, 5 - shall I keep going? - 6 years. You cannot just walk into your local weapons dealer and say I want XX more Hercs and YY more Chinooks please and expect them to be delivered immediately - that is simply naive.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Originally Posted by Truckkie

Bearing in mind that we are comitted to Afghanistan for at least another 10-15 years do we really need 100+ FJs? I only seem to remember seeing around a sqn's worth actually in-theatre.

One would hope that operations to mend something that may have been better left unbroken do not deflect our preparedness for core defence of our national interests. While affording the Typhoons being delivered now may be difficult, there won't be the facilities around to build them 10 to 15 years hence: not unless we increase the programme costs even more.

Originally Posted by Truckkie

We are stuck with a cold war era, expensive legacy fighter which will be pressed into the Ground Attack role (does it have a gun yet?) For those in the RAF and the wider service who think we will ever be able to mount operations against a credible air threat are seriously deranged. The armed forces are stretched to breaking point engaged in two serious operations. We do not need Typhoon in vast numbers - we need to win the current fights first.

Yes, we do need to win the current fight but if only equipping, training and preparing for that means that we lose the next fight that may be of direct national interest, we will have lost. There is a bigger picture; you just have to see it. What do they teach you lads these days?

[Pongochap]

Crab baiting - what fun in the Sun

Ok, how about...

Telegraph

The National Audit Office has estimated that the Typhoon will cost the British taxpayer £19.67 billion, for an anticipated 232 aircraft, making it the most expensive weapons project in British history. In 2004, British overspend on the aeroplane reached £2.3 billion.

Oh no... Lewis Page rules the world!

Ok then NAO

Typhoon is now expected to cost £19,670 million (£2306 million more than approved) and was delivered in June 2003 (54 months later than approved).

JackoF**cko said:

the 232 we're contracted to buy is a shade over £80 m per jet. To get to a unit programme cost of £125 we'd have to slash the purchase to 152 jets (cancel Tranche 3 but still pay for it)

Oooooh look. JSF. Well we definitely need - ah....

Well that's all right then. Bargain. Good to see smart procurement in action.

Anyway, the reason I get frustrated at such 'we're fully operational' nonsense has nothing to do with the money.

Having worked closely with and having the utmost repsect for the GR4 guys and many Yank FJs the grandstanding of the Typhoon fleet is pathetic. Again, all understand the need to maintain FJ, Fleet (and possibly Trident).

It is that you have the audacity to 'big yourselves up' whilst the 'real' military has fought abroad for the last 5 years. What is it - no hotels?

Witless/brainless - you ****.

Well, I'm off on Ops again shortly.

Oooooooh nice desk. Guess I won't be seeing you there.....

Have a nice airshow.... (and it helps if you put the gear down)

[jwcook]

Good luck pongo and keep safe.

Cheers

[davejb]

You should really be having a go at those who choose to send forces to fight in stupid places for the wrong reasons, they really should be better at picking their wars only choosing wars that suit the equipment we bought..., and refusing any that are not quite right.. smell iffy, not in our primary interest, just to be in the gang etc

That's the crux of the whole matter - we're still trying to maintain a balanced self defence force, while the government commit us (seemingly willy nilly) to conflicts that require a different balance of COIN style forces, coincident with the small problem of being able to afford neither.

It's unfortunate that we then tend to tear each other apart, when the problem is simply that we can't do everything we're tasked to accomplish thanks to the politicos who display a wilfull disregard for what is achievable.

Perhaps it would help if we had some 'tear an MPs throat out with your teeth' stickers made up?

Dave

[2Planks]

And also don't forget that the smartest contract lawyers work for industry not the Government so even if we did cancel we'd end up paying anyway...........

[Stitchbitch]

6 x En PW II and a self designating capability? Sounds good, does any other allied single seat fast Jet bring this much to the party? Well done Guys and Girls

Pongochap, good luck & keep your head down out there.

[HEDP]

Question is,

Is it wise to put this much into a single seat platform to bring it to the party?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

EOSM,

Whilst I seldom miss an opportunity to rip the **** out of our green/dark blue brethren I suspect when you sober up you may look at your last post, in the context of this thread, who it was aimed at and where he/she is about to depart to and wonder what possessed you to make such a silly comment

[AR1]

Given that we were pretty sure we could drop a couple of bombs from the 'Bombphoon' why send it to the USA to practice?

We've got the biggest live range in the world, with people on the ground who need the help.

Send it now.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

AR1

Outstanding..............and if we miss the odd time, well who gives a f@ck

[Archimedes]

I think the chaps on the ground would probably want to be certain that the Typhoon was going to deliver as advertised - better to know rather than be 'pretty sure'...

Mr Putin has rather spoiled the deployment to Afghanistan. Gordon's prudent defence spending means that we don't have enough AD squadrons.

Remember that the official government position post SDR and SDR New Chapter (i.e. before the Russians found the fuel and aircrew to resume their
long range flights) was that we'd need at least five AD squadrons to maintain QRA and a satisfactory level of defence of UK airspace in the post Cold War era, and taking account of the post 9/11 threat.

So, logically, we now find ourselves with four AD squadrons (if we include XI) to deal with a far greater set of challenges than the five squadrons deemed necessary to meet a much lower threat level.

It's all very well rehearsing the usual inter-service blue-on-blue and blaming the Typhoon force and the aircraft itself, but the problem, quite simply, is that the government, led by a man who claims that nobody has greater respect for the forces than he does, has left the RAF facing the dilemma of attempting to put one squadron in two places at once, and has helped to ease the problem by delaying the delivery of the Tranche 2 airframes.

It can find the money to bail out a failed bank (to protect votes in its heartlands) and can suddenly discover a few billion to offset the effect of the abolition of the 10p tax band (to protect its core vote), and can double the quango budget over the course of ten years, but it seems unwilling to and incapable of finding the money to provide the kit needed - FJ, AT, SH and the array of kit required by pongochap and his colleagues - despite the fact that it has committed the nation to two wars.

Typhoon isn't the issue here, with respect - it's the way in which the government goes about its business.

And breathe....

[Mr Grim]

6 x En PW II and a self designating capability? Sounds good, does any other allied single seat fast Jet bring this much to the party? Well done Guys and Girls

I know a zero seat turbo jet that can do 4. Is that any use? Oh it also stays on station a lot longer and can do lots of other things.

And costs about 10% of a Typhoon (maybe 20% if you count attrition) to buy and much, much less to operate.