Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrathmonk
Libya might indeed have been that one off unexpected case if we also had signs of our politicians cutting back on rhetoric that might lead to further unexpected events. Instead they now seem to be looking for them!
So as well as the Falklands what about the wider Middle East and then Africa, in particular Zimbabwe
Libya might indeed have been that one off unexpected case if we also had signs of our politicians cutting back on rhetoric that might lead to further unexpected events. Instead they now seem to be looking for them!
So as well as the Falklands what about the wider Middle East and then Africa, in particular Zimbabwe
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Helpful Stacker,
You'll find that the discussion is not centred on bringing Harrier back but on the decision to axe. I believe there's a clue in the title of the thread.
Red Line Entry,
I am quite confident we'd have ended up with more than 2 Tornado squadrons until Typhoon came of age (and was able to shoot Storm Shadow) but you are spot on to identify that it is not one for one.
So much so that the figures - with the caveat that the total savings against Tornado did not all come in years 1-4 where the line was drawn - supported a return to 3 front line squadrons of GR9 and as few squadrons of GR4 as could maintain the required assets to support a couple of contingent short term ops.
But there in lies the rub. Forget the conspiracy of short term manipulation of the figures to ensure GR4 looked cheaper than GR9 in years 1-4; the savings made over a longer period by reducing GR4 and keeping GR9 were significantly higher than the maximum of £2bn saved by retiring Harrier now.
Tornado is an old aircraft getting older that has fleet within fleets; obselecence and airframe life issues, all needing to be paid for at some stage. We continue to push out our liability to the later years in the hope we can find money to pay the bills and now we find ourselves with a £30+ billion black hole.
You'll find that the discussion is not centred on bringing Harrier back but on the decision to axe. I believe there's a clue in the title of the thread.
Red Line Entry,
I am quite confident we'd have ended up with more than 2 Tornado squadrons until Typhoon came of age (and was able to shoot Storm Shadow) but you are spot on to identify that it is not one for one.
So much so that the figures - with the caveat that the total savings against Tornado did not all come in years 1-4 where the line was drawn - supported a return to 3 front line squadrons of GR9 and as few squadrons of GR4 as could maintain the required assets to support a couple of contingent short term ops.
But there in lies the rub. Forget the conspiracy of short term manipulation of the figures to ensure GR4 looked cheaper than GR9 in years 1-4; the savings made over a longer period by reducing GR4 and keeping GR9 were significantly higher than the maximum of £2bn saved by retiring Harrier now.
Tornado is an old aircraft getting older that has fleet within fleets; obselecence and airframe life issues, all needing to be paid for at some stage. We continue to push out our liability to the later years in the hope we can find money to pay the bills and now we find ourselves with a £30+ billion black hole.
Perhaps a Navy type can answer this.
When steering a passage repeatedly around the "waaa, bring back the Harrier" buoy should one keep it to the port or starboard?
When steering a passage repeatedly around the "waaa, bring back the Harrier" buoy should one keep it to the port or starboard?
FB
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB11
"the savings made over a longer period by reducing GR4 and keeping GR9 were significantly higher than the maximum of £2bn saved by retiring Harrier now."
I would be interested to see how you worked that out. Intuitively it does not ring true as you would be maintaining 2 sets of post design support and supply chains instead of 1. Even prior to the introduction of contractorisation, the through life cost of these activites was at least equal to the procurement costs of the airframes. To me the cheapest option would be only 1 aircraft type, regardless of which one it was.
regards
retard
"the savings made over a longer period by reducing GR4 and keeping GR9 were significantly higher than the maximum of £2bn saved by retiring Harrier now."
I would be interested to see how you worked that out. Intuitively it does not ring true as you would be maintaining 2 sets of post design support and supply chains instead of 1. Even prior to the introduction of contractorisation, the through life cost of these activites was at least equal to the procurement costs of the airframes. To me the cheapest option would be only 1 aircraft type, regardless of which one it was.
regards
retard
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So looking forward the logical conclusion must be that Tornado will go just as soon as Typhoon works in all the required roles, say around 2015. Perhaps after one deployment to Afghanistan before we leave, to combat test?
Chances of Tonka upgrades between now and 2015 nil.
A one FJ RAF. Superb!
Chances of Tonka upgrades between now and 2015 nil.
A one FJ RAF. Superb!
Two key issues with Typhoon taking over from Tornado:
This is the first one - getting GR4's current 'core' loads of DMS Brimstone, PW4 and Storm Shadow onto Typhoon by 2015 would (I think) need a requirement change. "Requirement change" is a dirty word right now; let's see how much BAE wish to charge us for the privilege, should it even be possible. Then of course there is RAPTOR, which some have mooted will be replaced by a UAV-based solution - timeline unknown.
The second issue is the number of deployable aircraft. We would have to build Typhoon up to the point where it can sustain UK and FI QRA and retain the ability to support an enduring deployed op, plus at least one (preferably 2) short-term ops. Can it be done by 2015? I don't know, but instinctively it seems unlikely.
as soon as Typhoon works in all the required roles, say around 2015
The second issue is the number of deployable aircraft. We would have to build Typhoon up to the point where it can sustain UK and FI QRA and retain the ability to support an enduring deployed op, plus at least one (preferably 2) short-term ops. Can it be done by 2015? I don't know, but instinctively it seems unlikely.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineer(retard)
I didn't work any of the figures out. People far more intelligent than I will ever be did the sums. It's all in the presentation.
As an example of how 'Eats shoots and leaves' comes in to play, look at the following statement:
"The Tornado flies mores hours per airframe per month than the Harrier did."
This could mean:
1. Tornado is a better, more available aircraft than a Harrier.
2. Tornado needs to fly more hours per month to achieve the same task time as Harrier.
3. Tornado needs to fly more hours per month to achieve less task time as Harrier.
4. Tornado simply has a requirement from the CAOC to fly X hours per month vice Y for the Harrier and neither is better or worse than the other because either jet could fly double the amount of hours per month - it just happens to be the agreed hours at any one time.
Spin is inevitable when you pitch service against service and there is always someone who will stoop lower to achieve aims other than providing flexible capability at the front line at the lowest cost.
I'm sure the Select Committee will publish their findings soon.
I didn't work any of the figures out. People far more intelligent than I will ever be did the sums. It's all in the presentation.
As an example of how 'Eats shoots and leaves' comes in to play, look at the following statement:
"The Tornado flies mores hours per airframe per month than the Harrier did."
This could mean:
1. Tornado is a better, more available aircraft than a Harrier.
2. Tornado needs to fly more hours per month to achieve the same task time as Harrier.
3. Tornado needs to fly more hours per month to achieve less task time as Harrier.
4. Tornado simply has a requirement from the CAOC to fly X hours per month vice Y for the Harrier and neither is better or worse than the other because either jet could fly double the amount of hours per month - it just happens to be the agreed hours at any one time.
Spin is inevitable when you pitch service against service and there is always someone who will stoop lower to achieve aims other than providing flexible capability at the front line at the lowest cost.
I'm sure the Select Committee will publish their findings soon.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineer (retard)
Let's accept that it could be a "requirement change" to modify Tranche 1 Typhoon, but for later versions too? Were they not always to be swing role?
What concerns me is that any question to find out when Typhoon will be fully capable receives no clear answer. The same thing happened with the issue of fitting an AESA radar. US Industry seems to have had no trouble re-fitting AESA to Super Hornet and now is offering to upgrade legacy Hornets. Why do we have these problems?
Perhaps we hoped that Quatar would pay for the R&D cost and are now stuffed?
Must Tornado be retained and more money spent to keep it viable until the F-35C arrives or will we just drop some more capabilities to have a common one FJ Fleet?
Sorry if this has gone a bit off thread
Let's accept that it could be a "requirement change" to modify Tranche 1 Typhoon, but for later versions too? Were they not always to be swing role?
What concerns me is that any question to find out when Typhoon will be fully capable receives no clear answer. The same thing happened with the issue of fitting an AESA radar. US Industry seems to have had no trouble re-fitting AESA to Super Hornet and now is offering to upgrade legacy Hornets. Why do we have these problems?
Perhaps we hoped that Quatar would pay for the R&D cost and are now stuffed?
Must Tornado be retained and more money spent to keep it viable until the F-35C arrives or will we just drop some more capabilities to have a common one FJ Fleet?
Sorry if this has gone a bit off thread
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Draken
I was not querying the Typhoon/Tornado mix but the cheaper Tornado/Harrier fleet that FB11 was alluding to. Having put together in-service support costs on a number of occassions, I would only be able to balance the books by dropping some zero's.
If you have to cut costs, then a single fleet is cheaper than two of broadly similar types. The decision is only which gives you a sustainable capability. My understanding is that with 27 aircraft the harrier fleet was not large enough to sustain planned let alone unplanned operations.
I was not querying the Typhoon/Tornado mix but the cheaper Tornado/Harrier fleet that FB11 was alluding to. Having put together in-service support costs on a number of occassions, I would only be able to balance the books by dropping some zero's.
If you have to cut costs, then a single fleet is cheaper than two of broadly similar types. The decision is only which gives you a sustainable capability. My understanding is that with 27 aircraft the harrier fleet was not large enough to sustain planned let alone unplanned operations.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineer
When the Harrier Force had 3 Frontline Squadrons it was able to sustain Afghanistan and still take part in other exercises; for example deploying on Illustrious off the coast of Oman for 6 weeks or taking part in Neptune Warrior/Wycombe Warrior and Noble Award embarked over a period of 7 weeks.
If we had gone down the route as stated by FB11, surely that would have given us a much more flexible force
supported a return to 3 front line squadrons of GR9 and as few squadrons of GR4 as could maintain the required assets to support a couple of contingent short term ops
If we had gone down the route as stated by FB11, surely that would have given us a much more flexible force
Let's accept that it could be a "requirement change" to modify Tranche 1 Typhoon, but for later versions too? Were they not always to be swing role?
Last edited by Easy Street; 23rd Mar 2011 at 20:48.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"they always were planned to be swing role; however, the sequence in which each weapon is to be integrated and the target dates for each weapon were agreed as part of the contract. Changing the sequence or the dates could well result in a bill from BAES"
So do we now have the reason why the Qatar deal has fallen through? They don't want to buy an aircraft unless it can do what we say it's capable of and we are unable to demonstrate it's full potential. Who can blame them!
And HMG budgeted to receive their order
So do we now have the reason why the Qatar deal has fallen through? They don't want to buy an aircraft unless it can do what we say it's capable of and we are unable to demonstrate it's full potential. Who can blame them!
And HMG budgeted to receive their order
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street
It's not compulsory reading! If he upsets you best to avoid. Many others do find some of his points interesting and he has a valid one with the PR spin on the destruction of the Libyan Air Force.
On a separate note but picking up on my earlier post, the likely move of Qatar's Mirages to Corsica indicates to me that France is again in the van for a FJ order and not the UK. In this respect the actions of the Armee de l'air outside Benghazi last Saturday will have further boosted their confidence in French technology. As per the media:-
Asked why the American and British forces did not hit the Libyan air defenses before the French jets flew into the operational area, Teisseire said: "If the joint staffs acted in this way together, it was because they together thought it was the right way to go.
"The actions were coordinated. The French aircraft were in the zone and completed a first mission in the face of an acknowledged threat to the civilian population," he said.
Was the Growler also involved or did the French do it all or just ignore any possible threat to their aircraft?
It's not compulsory reading! If he upsets you best to avoid. Many others do find some of his points interesting and he has a valid one with the PR spin on the destruction of the Libyan Air Force.
On a separate note but picking up on my earlier post, the likely move of Qatar's Mirages to Corsica indicates to me that France is again in the van for a FJ order and not the UK. In this respect the actions of the Armee de l'air outside Benghazi last Saturday will have further boosted their confidence in French technology. As per the media:-
Asked why the American and British forces did not hit the Libyan air defenses before the French jets flew into the operational area, Teisseire said: "If the joint staffs acted in this way together, it was because they together thought it was the right way to go.
"The actions were coordinated. The French aircraft were in the zone and completed a first mission in the face of an acknowledged threat to the civilian population," he said.
Was the Growler also involved or did the French do it all or just ignore any possible threat to their aircraft?
I suspect the involvement of any jamming or other self-protection measures will be kept firmly under wraps!
I only posted Sharkey's link because his blog has a habit of turning into opinion pieces in the press, usually by Lord West, but Cdre Jermy was quoted reciting a recent one. These typically go unanswered as the RAF has a distinct lack of retired senior officers willing to stand up for their old service. Hence some informed rebuttal in his comments page might at least add a bit of balance to whatever appears next in the Telegraph...
This stuff does matter, because a surprising amount of political decisions are based on the public perception of the matter at hand, rather than the actual facts behind them.
I only posted Sharkey's link because his blog has a habit of turning into opinion pieces in the press, usually by Lord West, but Cdre Jermy was quoted reciting a recent one. These typically go unanswered as the RAF has a distinct lack of retired senior officers willing to stand up for their old service. Hence some informed rebuttal in his comments page might at least add a bit of balance to whatever appears next in the Telegraph...
This stuff does matter, because a surprising amount of political decisions are based on the public perception of the matter at hand, rather than the actual facts behind them.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French did go in before the TLACM and Storm Shadow attacks later in the day. We also know they had to do so to stop the Colonel's forces advancing any closer to the City and that this could not be delayed to allow time for the stand off attacks aimed at providing clear skies.
As to the utility of land based air power, Andrew Brookes of the Air League has been interviewed on the BBC and a number of retired RAF Officers have been on TV and the Radio from John Nichols upward! I have no recollection of any comments from Royal Navy spokespersons about the use of HMS Triumph other than the PM naming it as the sub that fired our modest contribution to attacks using cruise missiles.
Judging from to-days news coverage, the Media and Public have already moved on!
As to the utility of land based air power, Andrew Brookes of the Air League has been interviewed on the BBC and a number of retired RAF Officers have been on TV and the Radio from John Nichols upward! I have no recollection of any comments from Royal Navy spokespersons about the use of HMS Triumph other than the PM naming it as the sub that fired our modest contribution to attacks using cruise missiles.
Judging from to-days news coverage, the Media and Public have already moved on!