General Sir Richard Dannatt on radio 4
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only an interested civvy observer but the fascination with AFG concerns me (and yes I did hear Dannatt on R4).
1) Why ARE we there?
2) Regards 9/11, 7/7, "Global War on Terror" et al then I'd like to understand precisly what the link to AFG is NOW (not X years ago)
I'll happily assume that I am considerably less well informed than those on the inside (Dannatt, Chiefs, Govt, etc) yet it all sounds remarkably familiar in that we are planning future capabilities based solely on the present/last conflict with little thought for anything else.
Surely history must have taught us to be prepared for the unexpected rather than the expected, but I guess that costs money and that is in rather short supply, unless you happen to be a bank....
There's obviously a much wider discussion to be had about proper use of available resources particuarly when it comes to procurement, and maybe if this issue was fully addressed then we wouldn't be having to make quite so many painful cuts. I refer, for example, to a previous poster who quoted the usefulness of a full quota of "off the shelf" F/A-18's now as opposed to the likely handful of F-35's we may receive once R&D and delays has swallowed up most of the intended budget.
Just my thoughts.
1) Why ARE we there?
2) Regards 9/11, 7/7, "Global War on Terror" et al then I'd like to understand precisly what the link to AFG is NOW (not X years ago)
I'll happily assume that I am considerably less well informed than those on the inside (Dannatt, Chiefs, Govt, etc) yet it all sounds remarkably familiar in that we are planning future capabilities based solely on the present/last conflict with little thought for anything else.
Surely history must have taught us to be prepared for the unexpected rather than the expected, but I guess that costs money and that is in rather short supply, unless you happen to be a bank....
There's obviously a much wider discussion to be had about proper use of available resources particuarly when it comes to procurement, and maybe if this issue was fully addressed then we wouldn't be having to make quite so many painful cuts. I refer, for example, to a previous poster who quoted the usefulness of a full quota of "off the shelf" F/A-18's now as opposed to the likely handful of F-35's we may receive once R&D and delays has swallowed up most of the intended budget.
Just my thoughts.
Champagne anyone...?
At the risk of getting embroilled in what can only be described as an unarmed battle of wits, let me reiterate the point I was trying to make and perhaps draw us back into the world of pointless but nonetheless reasoned discussion 
Anyone who thinks we don't need fast air is a simpleton. It's one of our core businesses and it's something we have/had a reputation for being quite good at. Notwithstanding that eternal truth, there has to be an understanding that a balanced force must devote equal effort to maintaining it's SH, AT & maritime assets if it is to be of any relevance in a triumverate of armed forces. This current RAF failing by our FJ lords and masters is nicely illustrated by dogstar2's rather patronising comments:
The wider needs of defence? If the RAF could see beyond it's O2 mask it might realise that a balanced, capable force will never exist if the only procurement and EPs it devotes money and effort to are ludicrously expensive and over-specced new jets. The only people that lose sight of the wider needs of defence are our FJ derived high paid help. If we carry on considering that anything peripheral to fast air is an also ran, then we will continue to be an also-ran armed service and air force. It's worth remembering that the RAF's two most decorated sqns are a rotary and an AT sqn. Sqn crews don't rack up those sorts of hauls by being "blind to the wider needs of defence"
Telling me you need 53 jets to keep 6 on standby is all well and good (albeit ludicrous again) and, to be frank, I don't care - but that shouldn't then be carte blanche to blow the entire defence budget on buying the bloody things. If the RAF knows it needs, say, 250 jets to do the job why then does no-one raise the idea of perhaps buying something a bit cheaper that will still do the same job but means that we can actually pay the rest of our bills?
Hard times are a'coming and some tough decisions will have to be made. It's just a pity none of the ones the RAF will make will be rational
Plus ça change I guess....
Anyone who thinks we don't need fast air is a simpleton. It's one of our core businesses and it's something we have/had a reputation for being quite good at. Notwithstanding that eternal truth, there has to be an understanding that a balanced force must devote equal effort to maintaining it's SH, AT & maritime assets if it is to be of any relevance in a triumverate of armed forces. This current RAF failing by our FJ lords and masters is nicely illustrated by dogstar2's rather patronising comments:
I know from my own experience in dusty places that underfunding in one's own area is very frustrating and has effect out on the battlefield. In such a situation it is easy to become blind to the wider needs of defence.
Telling me you need 53 jets to keep 6 on standby is all well and good (albeit ludicrous again) and, to be frank, I don't care - but that shouldn't then be carte blanche to blow the entire defence budget on buying the bloody things. If the RAF knows it needs, say, 250 jets to do the job why then does no-one raise the idea of perhaps buying something a bit cheaper that will still do the same job but means that we can actually pay the rest of our bills?
Hard times are a'coming and some tough decisions will have to be made. It's just a pity none of the ones the RAF will make will be rational
Plus ça change I guess....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got an idea.
If we need these fast jets to defend against the hordes of hijacked aircraft coming our way, can't we just use Hawks rather than Typhoon? I mean, they really are not that tricky to shoot down are they? Do we really need something as zoomy as a Typhoon?
If we need these fast jets to defend against the hordes of hijacked aircraft coming our way, can't we just use Hawks rather than Typhoon? I mean, they really are not that tricky to shoot down are they? Do we really need something as zoomy as a Typhoon?
QRA is not just for intercepting 'lumbering airliners', but must be capable of intercepting a Blackjack or a Backfire as well - something that an asthmatic Hawk might be pushed to achieve.
And even against an airliner target, you may want to get there VERY rapidly, and, once there, to have radar, IFF, and a spectrum of effect.
As to the siren voices calling for something cheaper than Typhoon, what price winning?
Typhoon was developed to be able to win enough of the time against a 'developed Flanker threat' (assuming parity in radar, weapons and training) to guarantee a sustainable exchange rate.
Would we really want to be relying on a legacy platform which would be likely to have its arse handed to it if it encountered an Su-35 or an Su-30MKI?
And the naysayers forget that Typhoon is largely bought and paid for, and that cancellation penalties mean that cutting numbers won't leverage big savings.
Whereas cancelling CVF (and JSF with it) really would save big money, and there has to be scope to save billions by scrubbing Trident and its replacement, and opting for a lower capability, lower-cost deterrent.
There are better targets than FJs for a budgetary axe.
And even against an airliner target, you may want to get there VERY rapidly, and, once there, to have radar, IFF, and a spectrum of effect.
As to the siren voices calling for something cheaper than Typhoon, what price winning?
Typhoon was developed to be able to win enough of the time against a 'developed Flanker threat' (assuming parity in radar, weapons and training) to guarantee a sustainable exchange rate.
Would we really want to be relying on a legacy platform which would be likely to have its arse handed to it if it encountered an Su-35 or an Su-30MKI?
And the naysayers forget that Typhoon is largely bought and paid for, and that cancellation penalties mean that cutting numbers won't leverage big savings.
Whereas cancelling CVF (and JSF with it) really would save big money, and there has to be scope to save billions by scrubbing Trident and its replacement, and opting for a lower capability, lower-cost deterrent.
There are better targets than FJs for a budgetary axe.
Quote:
Mate, I've never been to Staff College although I have over 14years of Air Defence flying experience behind me. So, please take it from me that there is a job to be done with this and it isn't exactly popular with the crews that one day they might have to make a pretty big decision which will change their lives for good (in a bad way!). Not to mention the large amount of civilian casualties.
I was always under the impression that the 'pretty big decision' had to be made over a hotline by a high ranking government minister?
Mate, I've never been to Staff College although I have over 14years of Air Defence flying experience behind me. So, please take it from me that there is a job to be done with this and it isn't exactly popular with the crews that one day they might have to make a pretty big decision which will change their lives for good (in a bad way!). Not to mention the large amount of civilian casualties.
I was always under the impression that the 'pretty big decision' had to be made over a hotline by a high ranking government minister?
Champagne anyone...?
Jacko - ah the siren song of the FJ fan.... "What if?"
There are a thousand what-ifs but one would hope that we have in place intelligent people who could differentiate between the what-ifs and the what-wills. Unless we are conducting national suicide somewhere I can't really see how realistic it is defending ourselves from the latest X-Wing fighter. The only place we realistically risk getting our arses handed to us by "superior" jets is at Red Flag. Who knows perhaps, superior pilots in less awesome jets might actually do the handing - that's certainly never happened before has it...?
It's the constant desire to have the shiniest toy at the party that is crippling us. That desire is founded on the arrogant view that we are important enough on the global stage to warrant it. Canada and Australia seem to cope with F18s - are we that much more special them? Or do they just have a more realistic outlook on life?
NB. As I keep saying, this is all internet hot air. Typhoon is paid for and we're stuck with it and nothing anyone says will change that. One has to wonder about JSF though.....
There are a thousand what-ifs but one would hope that we have in place intelligent people who could differentiate between the what-ifs and the what-wills. Unless we are conducting national suicide somewhere I can't really see how realistic it is defending ourselves from the latest X-Wing fighter. The only place we realistically risk getting our arses handed to us by "superior" jets is at Red Flag. Who knows perhaps, superior pilots in less awesome jets might actually do the handing - that's certainly never happened before has it...?
It's the constant desire to have the shiniest toy at the party that is crippling us. That desire is founded on the arrogant view that we are important enough on the global stage to warrant it. Canada and Australia seem to cope with F18s - are we that much more special them? Or do they just have a more realistic outlook on life?
NB. As I keep saying, this is all internet hot air. Typhoon is paid for and we're stuck with it and nothing anyone says will change that. One has to wonder about JSF though.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all.
I started this thread as I thought some of you may want to hear the generals words directly.
This thread seems to have turned a bit personal and nasty in some posts, and I am not quite sure why. IMHO there do seem to be posters who are very much not in possession of all the facts of modern military workings, yet think they are. I also feel that some posters have become so used to cuts in spending that they cannot see the wood for the trees of the larger defence picture, and so resort to "'we're the most important, cut every one else's equipment" type nonsense which much have become institutional in nature.
I originally said I agreed with the generals verdict on PFI tankers, but did not comment on the 'too many FJ' argument.
Perhaps general Dannatt would like the RAF to cut its FJ fleet, in response to the massive cut in capability he has ordered for the army!
I guess we would need to ask him directly to find out in more detail.
Can I also ask for posters to use the emoticons (smilies) supplied by the site, as they can make a post much easier to understand in its correct context.
For example:
"No - I only got into aviation after I had passed the RAF age limit. Though I don't see what the fuss is about - they are just small, light, agile, VFR aircraft. They are remarkably easy to fly with loads of power reserves, hugely responsive controls, and drag to give speed stability when you need it.."
May sound (in type) as a serious offering, but on an adult site like this, it must surely be a joke or a waaaa, so the use of '
' or '
' would have made things clearer.
Of course, I am hoping that was a humorous comment, and not just complete nonsense
Have a good day everybody
I started this thread as I thought some of you may want to hear the generals words directly.
This thread seems to have turned a bit personal and nasty in some posts, and I am not quite sure why. IMHO there do seem to be posters who are very much not in possession of all the facts of modern military workings, yet think they are. I also feel that some posters have become so used to cuts in spending that they cannot see the wood for the trees of the larger defence picture, and so resort to "'we're the most important, cut every one else's equipment" type nonsense which much have become institutional in nature.
I originally said I agreed with the generals verdict on PFI tankers, but did not comment on the 'too many FJ' argument.
Perhaps general Dannatt would like the RAF to cut its FJ fleet, in response to the massive cut in capability he has ordered for the army!
I guess we would need to ask him directly to find out in more detail.
Can I also ask for posters to use the emoticons (smilies) supplied by the site, as they can make a post much easier to understand in its correct context.
For example:
"No - I only got into aviation after I had passed the RAF age limit. Though I don't see what the fuss is about - they are just small, light, agile, VFR aircraft. They are remarkably easy to fly with loads of power reserves, hugely responsive controls, and drag to give speed stability when you need it.."
May sound (in type) as a serious offering, but on an adult site like this, it must surely be a joke or a waaaa, so the use of '
' or '' would have made things clearer.Of course, I am hoping that was a humorous comment, and not just complete nonsense
Have a good day everybody
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that it seems to be a badly written contract with t'Baron over Tiffin and if we cancel he gets a blank cheque ( from the defence buget) to buy another castle with then it seems to be pretty simples that we need to get something for the money.... We coould always put them on Fleabay after but........
We cannot chop everything else to have the pointy shiny toys so therefore we need to have a certain amount of money.
The Andrew is currently a bit broke too - how would you lot feel if your flight home got DOUBLED in length to save a few quid because this is the reality of every ship out there - save fuel, save fuel, save fuel.
As to the brown units - No-one has the right to bitch about their manning levels apart from one who has been there and been shot at.
The point is that defence has not been given the financing it should have been given for a very long time. Face up to the reality that it needs to be given a much larger cut of a smaller (overall) pie so that we can either have troops and equipment to sustain this level of ops and all our other commitments or we draw down. If we draw down should we lose capabilities needed for us to exist as an independant sovereign nation or the sandpit?
I say we need to fund more, but, all purchases need to be vetted by a yorkshireman who gets to ask lots of difficult questions of the man who wants to buy it.
That way we don't spend umpty billions on a contract we cannot get out of or loads on vehicles that don't work.
Fly safe
We cannot chop everything else to have the pointy shiny toys so therefore we need to have a certain amount of money.
The Andrew is currently a bit broke too - how would you lot feel if your flight home got DOUBLED in length to save a few quid because this is the reality of every ship out there - save fuel, save fuel, save fuel.
As to the brown units - No-one has the right to bitch about their manning levels apart from one who has been there and been shot at.
The point is that defence has not been given the financing it should have been given for a very long time. Face up to the reality that it needs to be given a much larger cut of a smaller (overall) pie so that we can either have troops and equipment to sustain this level of ops and all our other commitments or we draw down. If we draw down should we lose capabilities needed for us to exist as an independant sovereign nation or the sandpit?
I say we need to fund more, but, all purchases need to be vetted by a yorkshireman who gets to ask lots of difficult questions of the man who wants to buy it.
That way we don't spend umpty billions on a contract we cannot get out of or loads on vehicles that don't work.
Fly safe
B Word
I have flown approaches at big airports like Stanstead, Düsseldorf, Schiphol and Atlanta (HJ Intl) and yes you are right about picking your time. However, they are going to need to overpower the crew and then take control of the aircraft in the final 5 minutes of the flight - that's a big call on getting the timing spot on.
I won't go into further detail, but it is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about if you think QRA is any defence against a hijacked bizjet...
If you want to practise an intercept of the bizjet that I fly, just send me a pm and I'll give you the details.
Mate, I've never been to Staff College although I have over 14years of Air Defence flying experience behind me. So, please take it from me that there is a job to be done with this and it isn't exactly popular with the crews that one day they might have to make a pretty big decision which will change their lives for good (in a bad way!). Not to mention the large amount of civilian casualties.
Flying alongside allows you to see the inside of the jet (partially) and also to eyeball the crew to see if they are OK. It also serves to tell any possible hijackers that "the game is up". It takes less than 30 secs to reposition for a good shot position, so why hang back?
Honestly, get yourself to Coningsby or Leuchars and learn; then you might have more credibility to your viewpoint (if indeed it remains the same?).
Last edited by Trim Stab; 17th May 2010 at 19:50.
I've got an idea.
If we need these fast jets to defend against the hordes of hijacked aircraft coming our way, can't we just use Hawks rather than Typhoon? I mean, they really are not that tricky to shoot down are they? Do we really need something as zoomy as a Typhoon?
If we need these fast jets to defend against the hordes of hijacked aircraft coming our way, can't we just use Hawks rather than Typhoon? I mean, they really are not that tricky to shoot down are they? Do we really need something as zoomy as a Typhoon?
The real issue is bizjets - though some here seem to still believe the Typhoon can defend against them...
Trim Stab
Err, also as an AD mate, the final decision always rests with the crew - they always have the final vote! Secondly, FL450 is no problem for an F3 above .95M (personal best is FL560 - but that was outside of Release to Service and I wasn't wearing a pressure jerkin, so pretty unsafe with a few years of hindsight). I knew a Flight Commander in the 90s who got to FL670 (IIRC) but he had a problems with one of his "donks" and came down pretty quick whilst he still had some cabin pressurisation! He was "asked" to leave shortly after.
I used to take Hawks to 48,000ft for pop-surge checking - actually had a full locked-in-surge once and ended up with a bit of pressure breathing. It certainly has the climbe rate and also the speed to keep up with any subsonic "piece of sh!te" bizjet or airliner! Being a subsonic "piece of sh!te" itself!
So as everyone else seems to be saying on here; get yourself a capabilities and limitations brief on fast jets using your position as a "reservist" and learn something before you start spouting again!
IMHO...
The B Word
It's not your decision, so stop bigging yourself up. And if you have fourteen years of experience, you will know that the F3 can't intercept an airliner, let alone a bizjet at FL450...
Actually a Hawk wouldn't be able to intercept an airliner or bizjet - it is too slow and can't climb fast or high enough. The real question is whether you actually need to intercept airliners in the cruise - whether you shoot it down or not, in the view of terrorists they will still have "won".
So as everyone else seems to be saying on here; get yourself a capabilities and limitations brief on fast jets using your position as a "reservist" and learn something before you start spouting again!
IMHO...
The B Word
B Word - I must know you then.
Trim Stab - like B Word said.
On the visit I have PM'd the Military Dialling code to organise your visit, which is "Station Ops" and they can put you in touch with 3 Squadron, 11 Squadron or 29 Squadron's "Ops Desk". Ask to speak to the authoriser on the "ops desk", tell them who you are and then ask if you could possibly come and visit to understand what QRA and FJ ops is all about. I would explain that you are a commercial pilot, but also a military "reservist", and that you want to understand more about these types of ops to further your service knowledge as both a member of the military but also as a civvy pilot. They will expect you to turn up for the visit with a valid ID and in uniform - with a valid ID you will also come with a minimum level of security clearance with which they can pitch a brief at your level.
Sadly, I am on a 3 year ground tour so I cannot "honcho" any visit for you.
Good luck
LJ
Trim Stab - like B Word said.
On the visit I have PM'd the Military Dialling code to organise your visit, which is "Station Ops" and they can put you in touch with 3 Squadron, 11 Squadron or 29 Squadron's "Ops Desk". Ask to speak to the authoriser on the "ops desk", tell them who you are and then ask if you could possibly come and visit to understand what QRA and FJ ops is all about. I would explain that you are a commercial pilot, but also a military "reservist", and that you want to understand more about these types of ops to further your service knowledge as both a member of the military but also as a civvy pilot. They will expect you to turn up for the visit with a valid ID and in uniform - with a valid ID you will also come with a minimum level of security clearance with which they can pitch a brief at your level.
Sadly, I am on a 3 year ground tour so I cannot "honcho" any visit for you.
Good luck
LJ
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: backofbeyond
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop Start,
I really didn't mean to be patronising. My comment was intended to show that we all (including FJ mates) have to make do and mend with kit while on ops when there was much better stuff out there on the market. We are also stretched and have ended up doing back to back tours and struggled to get training done back in the UK before the next op deployment loomed. Not enough aircraft, spares, people etc. The point I was hoping to get over, then, is that we are all in the same position. Certain posters on this thread are just trying to defend their own area. I posted originally because there seemed to be a lot of FJ bashing going on and I wanted to balance that up. But please go back and read the tone of the whole of my thread rather than honing in on a sentence and then using it out of context to parochially snipe at a particular capability. You should note that I have not tried to do down any other capability or force. I have been defending them all. I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT ALL OF OUR CAPABILITIES ARE IMPORTANT. Some are important right now and some will be important in the future. Just because we are currently in Afghanistan does not mean that we should only configure ourselves for Afghanistan.
The big issue for me is that defence seems to have no voice in the UK at the moment while health and education funding were ring-fenced. I think that more influential senior bods and industry types should be pointing out that we are at war, that we all need more kit to do such wars and also that investing in military kit keeps people employed and generates wads of cash when we get secure contracts overseas based on the reputation of the UK armed forces. I don't see that chopping sqns and capabilities is sensible in the long term defence of the country and also (in my rather simplistic economic view of the World) on a job and financial front either. I think the saddest fact of all is that the coming couple of years will see lots of infighting, as demonstrated by this thread, which will damage us all.
I really didn't mean to be patronising. My comment was intended to show that we all (including FJ mates) have to make do and mend with kit while on ops when there was much better stuff out there on the market. We are also stretched and have ended up doing back to back tours and struggled to get training done back in the UK before the next op deployment loomed. Not enough aircraft, spares, people etc. The point I was hoping to get over, then, is that we are all in the same position. Certain posters on this thread are just trying to defend their own area. I posted originally because there seemed to be a lot of FJ bashing going on and I wanted to balance that up. But please go back and read the tone of the whole of my thread rather than honing in on a sentence and then using it out of context to parochially snipe at a particular capability. You should note that I have not tried to do down any other capability or force. I have been defending them all. I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT ALL OF OUR CAPABILITIES ARE IMPORTANT. Some are important right now and some will be important in the future. Just because we are currently in Afghanistan does not mean that we should only configure ourselves for Afghanistan.
The big issue for me is that defence seems to have no voice in the UK at the moment while health and education funding were ring-fenced. I think that more influential senior bods and industry types should be pointing out that we are at war, that we all need more kit to do such wars and also that investing in military kit keeps people employed and generates wads of cash when we get secure contracts overseas based on the reputation of the UK armed forces. I don't see that chopping sqns and capabilities is sensible in the long term defence of the country and also (in my rather simplistic economic view of the World) on a job and financial front either. I think the saddest fact of all is that the coming couple of years will see lots of infighting, as demonstrated by this thread, which will damage us all.
Stoppers,
Canada started receiving its Hornets in 1982. You might well think that the F/A-18 would have been a better, more economically effective alternative to the RAF's Tornado ADVs - which entered service in 1986. I'd suggest that it no longer represents a great choice.
Both Canada and Australia are looking for new fighters, just as we've procured a new one, in the shape of the Typhoon.
It's not a matter of wanting the 'shiniest toy', it's about needing an aircraft that meets the requirement (as did Italy, Spain, Germany, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, the Czechs, Hungary, South Africa and France - all of whom opted for something newer than legacy teen series fighters, and as do Brazil, India, etc.)
And when China, India, Venezuela, Algeria, Malaysia, Vietnam, and their ilk are all already operating advanced, developed versions of the 'Flanker', and with other nations likely to follow suit, this doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I don't think it unreasonable for the UK to have the a more modern, more robust equivalent to the swing role capability that Canada, the USN, the USMC and the USAF had in Desert Storm. I would not wish the RAF to be incapable of countering an air threat.
And as others have pointed out, cancelling Typhoon at this stage does not save money, so harping endlessly on about it is about as fruitful as condemning the fact that we opted for C-130Ks when we could have had HS681s back in 1966.
I was interested in your apparent condemnation of any aspiration to be "important enough on the global stage" - I look forward to your condemnation of the ultimate national status symbol weapons, sub launched ballistic missiles and big new aircraft carriers. Especially since the only justification for Trident is a far more remote "What If" than the what if that justifies UK FJs.
Canada started receiving its Hornets in 1982. You might well think that the F/A-18 would have been a better, more economically effective alternative to the RAF's Tornado ADVs - which entered service in 1986. I'd suggest that it no longer represents a great choice.
Both Canada and Australia are looking for new fighters, just as we've procured a new one, in the shape of the Typhoon.
It's not a matter of wanting the 'shiniest toy', it's about needing an aircraft that meets the requirement (as did Italy, Spain, Germany, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, the Czechs, Hungary, South Africa and France - all of whom opted for something newer than legacy teen series fighters, and as do Brazil, India, etc.)
And when China, India, Venezuela, Algeria, Malaysia, Vietnam, and their ilk are all already operating advanced, developed versions of the 'Flanker', and with other nations likely to follow suit, this doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I don't think it unreasonable for the UK to have the a more modern, more robust equivalent to the swing role capability that Canada, the USN, the USMC and the USAF had in Desert Storm. I would not wish the RAF to be incapable of countering an air threat.
And as others have pointed out, cancelling Typhoon at this stage does not save money, so harping endlessly on about it is about as fruitful as condemning the fact that we opted for C-130Ks when we could have had HS681s back in 1966.
I was interested in your apparent condemnation of any aspiration to be "important enough on the global stage" - I look forward to your condemnation of the ultimate national status symbol weapons, sub launched ballistic missiles and big new aircraft carriers. Especially since the only justification for Trident is a far more remote "What If" than the what if that justifies UK FJs.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko.
"And as others have pointed out, cancelling Typhoon at this stage does not save money, so harping endlessly on about it is about as fruitful as condemning the fact that we opted for C-130Ks when we could have had HS681s back in 1966."
That doesn't stop you "harping endlessly" for the binning of CVF which is in exactly the same position. In both cases, the money is spent, and the only way to get some back is to sell them after receipt. Not a very sensible option for either, as we would only see a fraction back, and in my opinion we need both.
Incidentally, for those getting excited about my suggestion about using the Hawks, I was not being serious, merely trying to point out the silliness of using the Hijack threat to justify a cutting edge fighter necessity. There is a reason to have a decent fighter, but it certainly isn't 9/11
"And as others have pointed out, cancelling Typhoon at this stage does not save money, so harping endlessly on about it is about as fruitful as condemning the fact that we opted for C-130Ks when we could have had HS681s back in 1966."
That doesn't stop you "harping endlessly" for the binning of CVF which is in exactly the same position. In both cases, the money is spent, and the only way to get some back is to sell them after receipt. Not a very sensible option for either, as we would only see a fraction back, and in my opinion we need both.
Incidentally, for those getting excited about my suggestion about using the Hawks, I was not being serious, merely trying to point out the silliness of using the Hijack threat to justify a cutting edge fighter necessity. There is a reason to have a decent fighter, but it certainly isn't 9/11
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The cost of Typhoon is not just on the cost of the additional air frames but on the through life costs - groundcrews etc etc. Although that could be 'saved' by transferring bodies from one type to another which is already being donw with the ADV.
CVF has to be the largest 'future' bill whereas Trident etc is still at the talk stage.
Mind you the Ministry is quite capable of closing a base that hass just been upgraded or binning a complete aircraft tranche that has been similarly updated FA2 and GR3 for instance.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B word,
Although you clearly have a great deal of knowledge, don't damage your street cred by suggesting that a F3 could sit up in block 4 for any length of time whilst maintaining formation on an airliner that is sticking the odd turn in...
Totally agree with you on the 9/11 scenario. It would be a ballsy move to take out the first jet however, the Typhoon would have easily managed the others within the same timeline.
Although you clearly have a great deal of knowledge, don't damage your street cred by suggesting that a F3 could sit up in block 4 for any length of time whilst maintaining formation on an airliner that is sticking the odd turn in...
Totally agree with you on the 9/11 scenario. It would be a ballsy move to take out the first jet however, the Typhoon would have easily managed the others within the same timeline.
PP
I guess you'd need to ditch the tanks to do it in steady state; I've done this many a time on the OCU acting as a high-flyer for a VID at FL420 in K fit. Needs a bit of burner for the somewhat "gingerly" turns, but it can be done at or around .9M-.95M. As you probably know, getting to Block 4 isn't that big a problem even for a L fit jet, but just as you suggest you need to be going a bit quicker than most airliners to stay there (and throwing fuel out the back - just like Typhoon at low level!!!).
I hear you on the Typhoon capability, if that's where you are then you're a very lucky individual...
The B Word
I guess you'd need to ditch the tanks to do it in steady state; I've done this many a time on the OCU acting as a high-flyer for a VID at FL420 in K fit. Needs a bit of burner for the somewhat "gingerly" turns, but it can be done at or around .9M-.95M. As you probably know, getting to Block 4 isn't that big a problem even for a L fit jet, but just as you suggest you need to be going a bit quicker than most airliners to stay there (and throwing fuel out the back - just like Typhoon at low level!!!).
I hear you on the Typhoon capability, if that's where you are then you're a very lucky individual...
The B Word
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the old shed next to the runway...
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will Air Tanker have the aircraft registered in the G-Reg or Z-Reg???
Surley the A330's can be used by no10 in the future??? + Who would want a grey-RAF aircraft in the commercial market??
Surley the A330's can be used by no10 in the future??? + Who would want a grey-RAF aircraft in the commercial market??
