Defence Review - Headlines
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what everyone says the Tornado Fleet was on its last legs anyway
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers Sturb, Im glad of that , Good old British design built to last. If thats the case then its probably good we have the Tornado GR as the Typhoon is not fully capable of much yet.
Good old British design built to last
"The Tornado IDS is the baseline model that resulted from a 1968 feasibility study undertaken by the Belgian, British, Canadian, Dutch, Italian and West German governments for an advanced warplane to be designed, developed and built as collaborative venture with the object of providing the air forces of the partner nations with a STOL warplane able to undertake the close air support, battlefield interdiction, long-range interdiction, counter-air attack, air-superiority, interception and air defence, reconnaissance and naval strike roles.
Belgium and Canada withdrew at an early date, being followed by the Netherlands at a later date; this left Italy, the UK and West Germany to persevere with project definition from May 1969 and development from July 1970. The resulting MRCA- 75 (Multi-Role Combat Aircraft for 1975) was designed as a high-performance type with a fly-by-wire control system and advanced avionics for extremely accurate navigation and safe flight at supersonic speeds and very low levels in all weathers, this being deemed the only way to ensure pinpoint day/night first-pass attacks with a heavy (and highly diverse) warload against a variety of well defended targets. Design and development of the MRCA-75 was entrusted to Panavia, which was created in 1969 as a joint venture by Aeritalia (now Alenia), BAC (now BAe) and MBB (now DASA), while the parallel engine consortium was created as Turbo-Union by Fiat, MTU and Rolls-Royce. The two main subcontractors were IWKA-Mauser for the cannon and Elliott for the electronics, and government control was provided by the NAMMA organization established in 1970 to supervise each country's contribution, which was fixed at 42.5% each by the UK and West Germany, and 15% by Italy.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon Jabachjabicz
Not sure if your are saying it was not built to last or its not a 'good old British design'. I would agree that it was a multi national design, but it was built to last thats for sure.
Not sure if your are saying it was not built to last or its not a 'good old British design'. I would agree that it was a multi national design, but it was built to last thats for sure.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you on drugs!
"The Tornado IDS is the baseline model that resulted from a 1968 feasibility study undertaken by the Belgian, British, Canadian, Dutch, Italian and West German governments for an advanced warplane to be designed, developed and built as collaborative venture with the object of providing the air forces of the partner nations with a STOL warplane able to undertake the close air support, battlefield interdiction, long-range interdiction, counter-air attack, air-superiority, interception and air defence, reconnaissance and naval strike roles.
Belgium and Canada withdrew at an early date, being followed by the Netherlands at a later date; this left Italy, the UK and West Germany to persevere with project definition from May 1969 and development from July 1970. The resulting MRCA- 75 (Multi-Role Combat Aircraft for 1975) was designed as a high-performance type with a fly-by-wire control system and advanced avionics for extremely accurate navigation and safe flight at supersonic speeds and very low levels in all weathers, this being deemed the only way to ensure pinpoint day/night first-pass attacks with a heavy (and highly diverse) warload against a variety of well defended targets. Design and development of the MRCA-75 was entrusted to Panavia, which was created in 1969 as a joint venture by Aeritalia (now Alenia), BAC (now BAe) and MBB (now DASA), while the parallel engine consortium was created as Turbo-Union by Fiat, MTU and Rolls-Royce. The two main subcontractors were IWKA-Mauser for the cannon and Elliott for the electronics, and government control was provided by the NAMMA organization established in 1970 to supervise each country's contribution, which was fixed at 42.5% each by the UK and West Germany, and 15% by Italy.
"The Tornado IDS is the baseline model that resulted from a 1968 feasibility study undertaken by the Belgian, British, Canadian, Dutch, Italian and West German governments for an advanced warplane to be designed, developed and built as collaborative venture with the object of providing the air forces of the partner nations with a STOL warplane able to undertake the close air support, battlefield interdiction, long-range interdiction, counter-air attack, air-superiority, interception and air defence, reconnaissance and naval strike roles.
Belgium and Canada withdrew at an early date, being followed by the Netherlands at a later date; this left Italy, the UK and West Germany to persevere with project definition from May 1969 and development from July 1970. The resulting MRCA- 75 (Multi-Role Combat Aircraft for 1975) was designed as a high-performance type with a fly-by-wire control system and advanced avionics for extremely accurate navigation and safe flight at supersonic speeds and very low levels in all weathers, this being deemed the only way to ensure pinpoint day/night first-pass attacks with a heavy (and highly diverse) warload against a variety of well defended targets. Design and development of the MRCA-75 was entrusted to Panavia, which was created in 1969 as a joint venture by Aeritalia (now Alenia), BAC (now BAe) and MBB (now DASA), while the parallel engine consortium was created as Turbo-Union by Fiat, MTU and Rolls-Royce. The two main subcontractors were IWKA-Mauser for the cannon and Elliott for the electronics, and government control was provided by the NAMMA organization established in 1970 to supervise each country's contribution, which was fixed at 42.5% each by the UK and West Germany, and 15% by Italy.
Feelings are running high tonight, it's time for everyone to calm the **** down methinks!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
NATO AWACS - Organization Chart
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: norfolk
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devil is in the detail !
Having now had a chance to look through the full paper the following leapt out:
2.D.5
cutting over £300 million per year by 2014/15 of service and civilian personnel allowances
Less flying hours and less allowances. I wonder which ones will get the chop!
2.D.5
- efficiencies and improvements in military training, including the increased use of simulators for air-crew
cutting over £300 million per year by 2014/15 of service and civilian personnel allowances
Less flying hours and less allowances. I wonder which ones will get the chop!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It could have been worse".
Spin mechants win when we feel thus.
The spin slime, leak the stuff over a few weeks so we all get accustomed, the anger dissipates, so when the poli gets up the worst of the anger has blown over.
Poli uses weasel words such as "paradigm" and "moving forward" and escape relatively unscathed, replete in the knowledge that at least they will be OK with their retirement benefits.
Spin mechants win when we feel thus.
The spin slime, leak the stuff over a few weeks so we all get accustomed, the anger dissipates, so when the poli gets up the worst of the anger has blown over.
Poli uses weasel words such as "paradigm" and "moving forward" and escape relatively unscathed, replete in the knowledge that at least they will be OK with their retirement benefits.
Last edited by rjtjrt; 19th Oct 2010 at 23:56. Reason: Spelling and context
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am fuelled with drink tonight but lets Strike ,I am praying tonight the people that made decisions will regret the biggest blunder in the nations history, tommorow they will get away with it as public anger will take over. 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: quintesential little englander lost in a vacuum of post aviation bewilderment
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RUMPUNCH
Too bloody right,had a few myself,how to go about it? people have short memories,70 yrs is in the ice age to them,thanks to the commie teachers of the 60&70s.
Too bloody right,had a few myself,how to go about it? people have short memories,70 yrs is in the ice age to them,thanks to the commie teachers of the 60&70s.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumpunch
Bloody sorry mate, it's a total stitch up.
Hope your hangover isn't too bad this morning & that light will eventually emerge in the long tunnel ahead.
Spock
Hope your hangover isn't too bad this morning & that light will eventually emerge in the long tunnel ahead.
Spock
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the NAEWF & E3 question, I was recently informed that 5 of the 8 were bought with NATO money anyway in the first place under the 75%-25% type of deal that NATO is well known for.
And there was me thinking for years that Maggie had taken a tough decision, kicked Nimwacs into the weeds and bought the right platform out of our own cash, outright.
I think my words, when I found this out were along the lines of:
"What? ....The.... crafty.... b
ds....."
So, we cant bin it, so long as NATO says that it is MMR. And, they're not likely to change that. Not for the foreseeable anyway.
And there was me thinking for years that Maggie had taken a tough decision, kicked Nimwacs into the weeds and bought the right platform out of our own cash, outright.
I think my words, when I found this out were along the lines of:
"What? ....The.... crafty.... b
ds....."So, we cant bin it, so long as NATO says that it is MMR. And, they're not likely to change that. Not for the foreseeable anyway.
Why, as an Island nation, are we ditching the ASW capability from the RAF?? This sends a clear message to any would be foe, that you can creep up on the UK to within Merlin range (not far) and launch a missile attack on the UK? Why is the MR4A capability being lost? The Russians must be rubbing their hands with glee?? Are we intending to purchase Orions downstream??
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oop North
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our country is a mess. Literally a mess. If you told me we had to raise taxes to fund a defence programme, I genuinely would support the initiative. I guess I'm in a minority.
In reality we are raising taxes and cutting budgets to fund unemployable work-shy slobs living in ghettos, because sorting out our social welfare system falls into the 'too-hard' category and will lose votes.
In reality we are raising taxes and cutting budgets to fund unemployable work-shy slobs living in ghettos, because sorting out our social welfare system falls into the 'too-hard' category and will lose votes.
What's going to happen to the aircraft taken out of service? Are they really going to be scrapped - taken down the breakers yard?, sold? or put into storage?
Some have seen better days but MRA4 is 'new' and Sentinal is nearly new. Come five years time when the next defence review is carried out, these assets might be required again. If we had to build from new, we wouldn't really want to wait another 10 years for resurected Nimrod. Even buying something from the US is going to take time. Refurbishing from storage would seem to be a cheaper and quicker option (and it's not as if we'll have no where to keep them
).
Some have seen better days but MRA4 is 'new' and Sentinal is nearly new. Come five years time when the next defence review is carried out, these assets might be required again. If we had to build from new, we wouldn't really want to wait another 10 years for resurected Nimrod. Even buying something from the US is going to take time. Refurbishing from storage would seem to be a cheaper and quicker option (and it's not as if we'll have no where to keep them
).
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon Jabachjabicz
Mm well the ones I have put in 19000 maintenance hours on, are built like brick privvys and whilst they may have had some fatigue issues on the F3 fleet the GR fleet is still marching along.
The ones I flew for 1,800hrs+ certainly weren't built to last - that's why there was a fatigue index issue!