Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus
Good luck
Yemen and Oman have been in contact with each other for at least one and a half thousand years, but they have, in recent times, come to consolidate a new, and potentially most fruitful relationship
Yemen = Basing in Oman (Thumrait and/or Salalah), nuff said, next......
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Here,there,everywhere
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see the general standard of 'banter' from the fighter control branch hasn't changed
I was there, they never sent the good guys to the island, tw@t or trouble maker?
lj101
I remember being a fighter controller at Saxa Vord in the late 80's when a coach party of 50 OAP's
I remember being a fighter controller at Saxa Vord in the late 80's when a coach party of 50 OAP's
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fire and forget
Oh come on, you can do better than that.
I was fortunate enough to be a last minute replacement for the
original 'tw@t' posted there, as he made a late call (2 weeks notice) that his 'partner' would leave him if he went, his mother was 'dying' of cancer and his 'house move' would collapse.
As for you, I would put my money on the former - just a guess.
Happy days. As i said, nice to see the branch has not changed.
Back on topic eh?
Oh come on, you can do better than that.
I was fortunate enough to be a last minute replacement for the
original 'tw@t' posted there, as he made a late call (2 weeks notice) that his 'partner' would leave him if he went, his mother was 'dying' of cancer and his 'house move' would collapse.
I was there, they never sent the good guys to the island, tw@t or trouble maker
Happy days. As i said, nice to see the branch has not changed.
Back on topic eh?
Last edited by lj101; 22nd Sep 2011 at 07:21.
Jimlad
Along the way I spent quite a lot of time seeing at first hand the damage that CVF was doing to my parent service, and the way the service I love is being destroyed to pay for something that will never do what its sold as being capable of doing.
I'm happy to admit to changing my mind because I saw the hard evidence that showed that damage CVF is inflicting on the wider UK defence community.
Let's be clear about this. CVF/QEC is not inflicting damage on the RN or wider UK defence community. What is inflicting damage on the community (RN and wider) is the legacy of the sh1tfight throughout the noughties regarding the size of the beast compared to CVS. This in turn led to a perception (not supported by any studies btw) that the RN were overegging the requirement, which in turn led to the interminable delays in ordering the ships and the subsequent cost escalation. The vast majority of this is simple programme slip and contract change.
At least as culpable in terms of demands on a declining budget are the following :
Astute (£7Bn+ for four boats I think) - huge cost escalation due to loss of submarine design and build skills post V-class, leading to slippage and embarrassment
Typhoon (£13Bn or more depending on what you read) - huge cost escalation due initially to slippage caused by our Boxhead friends, but then subsequent cost profiling
FRES (£2Bn plus) - SFA delivered thus far (stand to be corrected) and whatever arrives will not be as the requirement. Remember that was driven by C130/A400M airlifting a mech(FRES) battlegroup into theatre!
DIIF of various flavours!!!
ASTOR (no idea of the cost) - personally think it should be retained
FRC (probably over £1bn spent on studies to deliver.....?)
A400M??
The only projects I can think of that have come close to being a success in terms of cost vs contracted performance are the River class (not including Clyde!) and C17.
One last thing. CVF/QEC as built can do what it is badged as doing, given the will to do so. The problem in capability world can be that this years plan becomes the "limit". Plans can be changed, absence of the enabling elements (the platform) cannot.
Along the way I spent quite a lot of time seeing at first hand the damage that CVF was doing to my parent service, and the way the service I love is being destroyed to pay for something that will never do what its sold as being capable of doing.
I'm happy to admit to changing my mind because I saw the hard evidence that showed that damage CVF is inflicting on the wider UK defence community.
Let's be clear about this. CVF/QEC is not inflicting damage on the RN or wider UK defence community. What is inflicting damage on the community (RN and wider) is the legacy of the sh1tfight throughout the noughties regarding the size of the beast compared to CVS. This in turn led to a perception (not supported by any studies btw) that the RN were overegging the requirement, which in turn led to the interminable delays in ordering the ships and the subsequent cost escalation. The vast majority of this is simple programme slip and contract change.
At least as culpable in terms of demands on a declining budget are the following :
Astute (£7Bn+ for four boats I think) - huge cost escalation due to loss of submarine design and build skills post V-class, leading to slippage and embarrassment
Typhoon (£13Bn or more depending on what you read) - huge cost escalation due initially to slippage caused by our Boxhead friends, but then subsequent cost profiling
FRES (£2Bn plus) - SFA delivered thus far (stand to be corrected) and whatever arrives will not be as the requirement. Remember that was driven by C130/A400M airlifting a mech(FRES) battlegroup into theatre!
DIIF of various flavours!!!
ASTOR (no idea of the cost) - personally think it should be retained
FRC (probably over £1bn spent on studies to deliver.....?)
A400M??
The only projects I can think of that have come close to being a success in terms of cost vs contracted performance are the River class (not including Clyde!) and C17.
One last thing. CVF/QEC as built can do what it is badged as doing, given the will to do so. The problem in capability world can be that this years plan becomes the "limit". Plans can be changed, absence of the enabling elements (the platform) cannot.
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
...Typhoon (£13Bn or more depending on what you read) - huge cost escalation due initially to slippage caused by our Boxhead friends, but then subsequent cost profiling...
Originally Posted by House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts 15 Apr 2011
The MoD originally planned to buy 232 aircraft. However, in light of changed operational requirements and significant funding constraints arising from the pressures of the defence budget, it is now ordering 160 aircraft and will retire the 53 oldest aircraft by 2019, leaving a long-term fleet of 107 aircraft. Overall, it is costing the Department £20.2 billion, £3.5 billion more than it first expected, to buy a third fewer aircraft. This is equivalent to the purchase cost of each aircraft rising by 75%, from £72 million to £126 million...
Support costs are budgeted at £13.1 billion, but could be as high as £16.6 billion across the life of the aircraft. The Department has identified potential savings of £3.5 billion to keep support costs within budget...
Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose
So are you saying that CVF is NOT inflicting damage on the wider UK defence community?
Typhoon is now well and truly in service? The CVFs we have to go ahead with because it would be cheaper than cancelling while at this embryo stage. We have to buy 160 Typhoons, simply because its cheaper than buying fewer and the older airframes will be sold on. If you ask me, Typhoon is beating the carriers in the not quite a waste of rations argument at the moment!
Really, the subjective comments about what the UK Defence Community can't do without and can easily dispense with is comically evident on pprune military. We're all up for the Lewis Page award!
FB
Really, the subjective comments about what the UK Defence Community can't do without and can easily dispense with is comically evident on pprune military. We're all up for the Lewis Page award!
FB
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Here,there,everywhere
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lj101
A likely story, but then again 'everyone' had a reason 'why' they got sent
or you would be 'spun a yarn' why 'you' had to go.....the gullible fell for it.
You know what the say "if you can't see the tw@t at the table"
Now back on topic.......
A likely story, but then again 'everyone' had a reason 'why' they got sent
or you would be 'spun a yarn' why 'you' had to go.....the gullible fell for it.You know what the say "if you can't see the tw@t at the table"
Now back on topic.......
Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose
So CVF IS inflicting damage on the wider defence community, but in your opinion, not as much damage as Typhoon.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lj101:
Your ill-informed speculation about my background is inaccurate. Do keep up.
Justanaopinion:
What I said was, we should (from the JOINT point of view) do an investment appraisal. I didn't say it would go one way or the other - deciding not to 'limit ourselves' to the land based option only might similarly be seen as single-service minded - if the best value (including damage to the rest of defence in austere times) was tankers then let's limit ourselves that way. Similarly, if it's better value to have a carrier, then we'll just have to limit ourselves in terms of what our overall joint air capability can do if the JCA force is tied to a ship. There will need to be a compromise somewhere and we should approach it from the point of view of what's best value for defence rather than which service benefits.
I know you are an ATC officer but do keep up.
I realise that your 4 month det in the CAOC has qualified you as an expert
Justanaopinion:
Why would we want to limit ourselves to the land based option only, and not have the flexibility of the sea based option, unless you are being single service minded and not in the best interests of the country?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your ill-informed speculation about my background is inaccurate
F and F
Very good banter, well done.
You know what the say "if you can't see the tw@t at the table
BTT.
FB - The CVF/QEC is proceeding because it is needed and supported as part of Force 2020. The cancellation you refer would be for the second ship, NOT the capability. That you actually need two ships to provide anything like a continuous capability is slowly being acknowledged by MoD/Fox, if you read the various statements. The QECs could well end up going turn and turn about as the CVS operated.
Typhoon was/is actually needed. It would be great if it was carrier-capable, but it's not and cannot be made so easily (or more importantly, cheaply). The thing folk should haul aboard is that it is no more or less needed than CVF/QEC. The AD requirement for which it was procured (standfast the add-on strike capability to replace the Jag) then required something pretty capable. The AD requirement now for UK could be performed by OTS FA18 (or even S**R!!), but Typhoon was in procurement and is good for the UK aerospace industry. This is no different from CVF/QEC, just five years earlier. Had the 1980s Typhoon requirement been far-sighted enough to cover carrier-capability, we would all be in a much happier, less expensive place.
Typhoon was/is actually needed. It would be great if it was carrier-capable, but it's not and cannot be made so easily (or more importantly, cheaply). The thing folk should haul aboard is that it is no more or less needed than CVF/QEC. The AD requirement for which it was procured (standfast the add-on strike capability to replace the Jag) then required something pretty capable. The AD requirement now for UK could be performed by OTS FA18 (or even S**R!!), but Typhoon was in procurement and is good for the UK aerospace industry. This is no different from CVF/QEC, just five years earlier. Had the 1980s Typhoon requirement been far-sighted enough to cover carrier-capability, we would all be in a much happier, less expensive place.
"Had the 1980s Typhoon requirement been far-sighted enough to cover carrier-capability, we would all be in a much happier, less expensive place."
And it would have been a Rafale...
And it would have been a Rafale...
"Had the 1980s Typhoon requirement been far-sighted enough to cover carrier-capability, we would all be in a much happier, less expensive place."
And it would have been a Rafale...
And it would have been a Rafale...
FB - The CVF/QEC is proceeding because it is needed and supported as part of Force 2020. The cancellation you refer would be for the second ship, NOT the capability. That you actually need two ships to provide anything like a continuous capability is slowly being acknowledged by MoD/Fox, if you read the various statements. The QECs could well end up going turn and turn about as the CVS operated.
As for the Typhoon, to lose it would compare with the Navy losing all its T45 Destroyers and the carriers.
FB