Defence Review Result at End of October
In terms of your historical debate with Squirrel 41 about fighter basing in the 60s, short legged Lightnings, etc...... One point to make is that Lossiemouth was RNAS Lossiemouth until 28 Sep 72, by which time you say the Phantoms had appeared. While this doesn't detract from your arguement about Kinloss vs Leuchars for Lightnings as such, I thought I would throw it into the mix for historical accuracy. 
FB
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The point about the 60-80s is that it was the depth of the Cold War - which could have turned hot.
The AD airfields were on the east coast to face the known threat across the North Sea: Leuchars, Leeming, Binbrook, Coningsy, Wattisham. They were not positioned for the QRA threat.
The difference in reaction time to get to the edge of the UKADR north of Saxa and Polestar was no more than 3-4 minutes, which with normal reaction of about 2 hours+ and a transit time of 1 hour wasn't a factor.
The main limiting factor was the readiness state and transit time for the tanker from Marham or Brize.
The AD airfields were on the east coast to face the known threat across the North Sea: Leuchars, Leeming, Binbrook, Coningsy, Wattisham. They were not positioned for the QRA threat.
The difference in reaction time to get to the edge of the UKADR north of Saxa and Polestar was no more than 3-4 minutes, which with normal reaction of about 2 hours+ and a transit time of 1 hour wasn't a factor.
The main limiting factor was the readiness state and transit time for the tanker from Marham or Brize.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence Review
The tragedy about the current situation is that any government's top priority - Defence of the Realm - has become an 'also ran'. Surely this is the time to correct some of the appalling anomalies that currently exist.
For example, a maritime nation without any long range maritime air - how ludicrous. Apart from all the obvious maritime tasks, there are other key aspects - much is made about preserving the nuclear deterrent but what about its vulnerability? Elsewhere is a thread about Vanguards being shadowed and the Russians (and who knows who else) attempting to record their signatures. Without getting too detailed, MRA4 can cover much greater areas than any surface or subsurface platform in helping preserve the bomber's invisibility.
Then there's the QRA muddle. Although Russian long range patrol aircraft have been probing UK airspace in much greater numbers lately, seeing them off the patch is not the prime QRA raison d'etre these days. If you went to the last Winter Olympics you may have seen or perhaps heard about the Canadian CF18s sitting alert right there on the nearby base, instantly available in case of a 9/11 problem. What about London 2012? Indeed, what about London right now? No good the Typhoon getting to his target when it's already inside the M25, and how far could that target have travelled in the time taken for the Typhoon pilot to leap up from his armchair, scramble the jet and rush on down from the East Midlands? You do the math - it's about 70miles from mid-Channel to Big Ben, by the way.
And let's not forget that the UK has had a war on its hands in every decade since 1945. All of them, by their very nature, "come-as-you-are" events! Let's have no nonsense about 'useless Cold War weapons' - they served us well enough in the Falklands. It is just plain stupid to even attempt to plan for the next war, but that seems to be Dr Fox's aim. Our Nation's defences are in a parlous state. In 1957 we led the world in ground-breaking aerospace technology, all thrown away at a stroke; Dr Fox could just go down in history as Son of Sandys.
For example, a maritime nation without any long range maritime air - how ludicrous. Apart from all the obvious maritime tasks, there are other key aspects - much is made about preserving the nuclear deterrent but what about its vulnerability? Elsewhere is a thread about Vanguards being shadowed and the Russians (and who knows who else) attempting to record their signatures. Without getting too detailed, MRA4 can cover much greater areas than any surface or subsurface platform in helping preserve the bomber's invisibility.
Then there's the QRA muddle. Although Russian long range patrol aircraft have been probing UK airspace in much greater numbers lately, seeing them off the patch is not the prime QRA raison d'etre these days. If you went to the last Winter Olympics you may have seen or perhaps heard about the Canadian CF18s sitting alert right there on the nearby base, instantly available in case of a 9/11 problem. What about London 2012? Indeed, what about London right now? No good the Typhoon getting to his target when it's already inside the M25, and how far could that target have travelled in the time taken for the Typhoon pilot to leap up from his armchair, scramble the jet and rush on down from the East Midlands? You do the math - it's about 70miles from mid-Channel to Big Ben, by the way.
And let's not forget that the UK has had a war on its hands in every decade since 1945. All of them, by their very nature, "come-as-you-are" events! Let's have no nonsense about 'useless Cold War weapons' - they served us well enough in the Falklands. It is just plain stupid to even attempt to plan for the next war, but that seems to be Dr Fox's aim. Our Nation's defences are in a parlous state. In 1957 we led the world in ground-breaking aerospace technology, all thrown away at a stroke; Dr Fox could just go down in history as Son of Sandys.
Then there's the QRA muddle. Although Russian long range patrol aircraft have been probing UK airspace in much greater numbers lately, seeing them off the patch is not the prime QRA raison d'etre these days. If you went to the last Winter Olympics you may have seen or perhaps heard about the Canadian CF18s sitting alert right there on the nearby base, instantly available in case of a 9/11 problem. What about London 2012? Indeed, what about London right now? No good the Typhoon getting to his target when it's already inside the M25, and how far could that target have travelled in the time taken for the Typhoon pilot to leap up from his armchair, scramble the jet and rush on down from the East Midlands? You do the math - it's about 70miles from mid-Channel to Big Ben, by the way.
And let's not forget that the UK has had a war on its hands in every decade since 1945. All of them, by their very nature, "come-as-you-are" events! Let's have no nonsense about 'useless Cold War weapons' - they served us well enough in the Falklands. It is just plain stupid to even attempt to plan for the next war, but that seems to be Dr Fox's aim. Our Nation's defences are in a parlous state. In 1957 we led the world in ground-breaking aerospace technology, all thrown away at a stroke; Dr Fox could just go down in history as Son of Sandys.
And let's not forget that the UK has had a war on its hands in every decade since 1945. All of them, by their very nature, "come-as-you-are" events! Let's have no nonsense about 'useless Cold War weapons' - they served us well enough in the Falklands. It is just plain stupid to even attempt to plan for the next war, but that seems to be Dr Fox's aim. Our Nation's defences are in a parlous state. In 1957 we led the world in ground-breaking aerospace technology, all thrown away at a stroke; Dr Fox could just go down in history as Son of Sandys.
Coningsby is rather central, if we have a hijacked airliner approaching Manchester, for example, then what. Also, for reasons of not knowing quite what to do with defence spending and strategy post collapse of the Berlin Wall, the Government took the decision in the 'options for change' review to close down R.A.F. Wattisham as an Interceptor base. Then again, suicide hijackings were a thing of the future at the time.
FB
a maritime nation without any long range maritime air - how ludicrous
if basing Typhoons, currently at Coningsby, any further south would address the problem of a hijacked airliner approaching London with a noticeaby faster response.
Coningsby is rather central, if we have a hijacked airliner approaching Manchester, for example
Coningsby is rather central, if we have a hijacked airliner approaching Manchester, for example
What we should have arranged to defend the capital against this threat is a brace of Sea Harriers based at London City...
"What we should have arranged to defend the capital against this threat is a brace of Sea Harriers based at London City..."
Fool, you've uttered the SHAR word- now you're going to summon WEBF up and he'll bore us all to death again droning on about that plane
Fool, you've uttered the SHAR word- now you're going to summon WEBF up and he'll bore us all to death again droning on about that plane
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Equipment or Personnel?
Defence spending: thousands of troops to be cut
What a brilliant, new, innovative idea!
Tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen face the axe after ministers concluded that reducing the number of uniformed personnel in the Armed Forces was the best way to save money.
According to the review, employing each uniformed serviceman was 50 per cent more expensive than employing an MoD civil servant, and twice as costly as the average civil servant. Many Armed Forces personnel carrying out administrative roles could be replaced by civilians, ministers were told.
So we're going to save money by reducing the numbers of military people and replace them with civilians.
Well that will be all right then, we'll basically become another arm of the civil service, clock in at 8 go home at 5, if it's not on the job sheet then it will be more than my job's worth to use my initiative to do it. Oh and I must have my NAAFI breaks and weekly round of golf. And as for op tours, well that's fine, just make them a year or 18 months to make best use of those few uniformed personnel that are left.
Unbelievable. We get rid of one set of clowns only for another to come marching in - it's like working in a circus. These idiots haven't got the brains they were born with. If nothing else, this has to be a clear demonstration of the need for all politicians aspiring to serve at Cabinet level having spent time in uniform. Maybe then when they have been on the receiving end of some god-awful decisions will they finally see what the average guy / girl in uniform is trying to make do with. I wonder if Mickey Mouse wears an MOD watch?
Increasing civilianization is not the answer. Getting rid of many of the buffoons up top sitting there riding out their 'careers' until their pension turns up and making no discernible contribution to ops would be a start; improving procurement so it's only half-arsed rather than the total abomination it is now might also help, as would our so called leadership removing it's collective head from its overly padded posterior and coming to visit reality once in a while.
And this evening was going so well. So much for not having a snifter tonight, I think I need one after reading that.
Well that will be all right then, we'll basically become another arm of the civil service, clock in at 8 go home at 5, if it's not on the job sheet then it will be more than my job's worth to use my initiative to do it. Oh and I must have my NAAFI breaks and weekly round of golf. And as for op tours, well that's fine, just make them a year or 18 months to make best use of those few uniformed personnel that are left.
Unbelievable. We get rid of one set of clowns only for another to come marching in - it's like working in a circus. These idiots haven't got the brains they were born with. If nothing else, this has to be a clear demonstration of the need for all politicians aspiring to serve at Cabinet level having spent time in uniform. Maybe then when they have been on the receiving end of some god-awful decisions will they finally see what the average guy / girl in uniform is trying to make do with. I wonder if Mickey Mouse wears an MOD watch?
Increasing civilianization is not the answer. Getting rid of many of the buffoons up top sitting there riding out their 'careers' until their pension turns up and making no discernible contribution to ops would be a start; improving procurement so it's only half-arsed rather than the total abomination it is now might also help, as would our so called leadership removing it's collective head from its overly padded posterior and coming to visit reality once in a while.
And this evening was going so well. So much for not having a snifter tonight, I think I need one after reading that.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could this be the shortest-lived, single-service HQ ever?
New Army's HQ Land Forces base is opened in Andover - 9 Sep 10
New Army's HQ Land Forces base is opened in Andover - 9 Sep 10
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My biggest fear concerns the rumours concerning pensions. Rumours of getting rid of the gratuity package as well as rumours concerning getting rid of AFP75 and 05 and creating a new one which we will all be forced to join.....I think I've stated this before but if they touch one penny of my pension then I'm off....
Vec,
That's probably the reason it's being rumoured; it's a lot cheaper to scare/p*ss people out of the Services rather than pay redundancy. I'm amused to see the Mil/Civvy debate again - haven't we just been through a press attack on the numbers of MoD CS? A lot of them were recruited to replace "expensive" servicemen in previous savings measures. They can't have it both ways....
Alledgedly SHARs at London City was suggested soon after 9/11, CAS at the time nearly had an embolism at the suggestion.....
That's probably the reason it's being rumoured; it's a lot cheaper to scare/p*ss people out of the Services rather than pay redundancy. I'm amused to see the Mil/Civvy debate again - haven't we just been through a press attack on the numbers of MoD CS? A lot of them were recruited to replace "expensive" servicemen in previous savings measures. They can't have it both ways....
Alledgedly SHARs at London City was suggested soon after 9/11, CAS at the time nearly had an embolism at the suggestion.....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unbelievable. We get rid of one set of clowns only for another to come marching in
Very sadly this Government is going to rip the Armed Forces (and other areas) to shreds to save money. This Party will pretty much be able to do what they want because they will always have the excuse to be able to blame the last Government for the mess the country is in (despite the fact that the rest of the free world is also in it). They will even be able to use this excuse to hide their own incompetence; very dangerous!
I think it was a very naïve belief to think that the Tories would be the saviour of the Armed Forces (And I have been a Tory all my life....but I think I understand the world and Politicians a bit better these days).
Apologies Melchett01, this is not a direct dig at your comments. It is just my perception of this Government and the naivety of the country.
Last edited by SRENNAPS; 11th Sep 2010 at 08:39.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the talk of UK bases for the chop, no mention of RAF Mount Pleasant.
Is it a given that that this ongoing memorial to Mrs T must continue, at least until Lady Gaga drops off her perch?
Is it a given that that this ongoing memorial to Mrs T must continue, at least until Lady Gaga drops off her perch?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an Old DIN I know but it gives you an idea of the redundancy packages which will become available
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D9C0F...undancydin.pdf
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D9C0F...undancydin.pdf
SRENNAPS,
I agree entirely. Over the years I have generally found myself more sympathetic to the Tories than any other party, but I have never really believed that their commitment to the Forces was any better than New Labour's. In fact, when it comes to Defence in the round, I find the Tories to be remarkably 2 faced. At least with Labour we knew we were on a hiding to nothing.
However, for Cameron et al to spend all their time in opposition hammering Labour for their performance and then to come in and within weeks start the open and systematic pulling apart of the Forces, it does rather stick in the throat. Making efficiency savings is one thing, but they are rapidly moving into the realm of dismantling the Forces' capability to effectively defend this country, its people and its interests. Look no further than Osborne's insistence that the capital costs for Trident come out of the Defence Vote; if he gets his way that will do nothing other than leave us with a capability based around a handful of SSBNs and the rest of the Forces as little more than a gendarmerie.
And quite frankly, hiding behind their 'its not our fault Guv' line is already growing tiring. I'd be a lot happier if they came out with the truth that they would rather spend the money on building lesbian gym facilities in Mongolia and various other 'worthy' causes in the name of international development than defending the population who put them in power. Unfortunately, actually getting to the crux of the problems of inefficiency, a bloated hierarchy looking for the next stripe / knighthood and appalling procurement is politically far harder than just chopping the bottom end of the foodchain.
I agree entirely. Over the years I have generally found myself more sympathetic to the Tories than any other party, but I have never really believed that their commitment to the Forces was any better than New Labour's. In fact, when it comes to Defence in the round, I find the Tories to be remarkably 2 faced. At least with Labour we knew we were on a hiding to nothing.
However, for Cameron et al to spend all their time in opposition hammering Labour for their performance and then to come in and within weeks start the open and systematic pulling apart of the Forces, it does rather stick in the throat. Making efficiency savings is one thing, but they are rapidly moving into the realm of dismantling the Forces' capability to effectively defend this country, its people and its interests. Look no further than Osborne's insistence that the capital costs for Trident come out of the Defence Vote; if he gets his way that will do nothing other than leave us with a capability based around a handful of SSBNs and the rest of the Forces as little more than a gendarmerie.
And quite frankly, hiding behind their 'its not our fault Guv' line is already growing tiring. I'd be a lot happier if they came out with the truth that they would rather spend the money on building lesbian gym facilities in Mongolia and various other 'worthy' causes in the name of international development than defending the population who put them in power. Unfortunately, actually getting to the crux of the problems of inefficiency, a bloated hierarchy looking for the next stripe / knighthood and appalling procurement is politically far harder than just chopping the bottom end of the foodchain.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts