RAF Dropping to 6 Fast-Jet Units
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NA,
Yes, I think that's right. The Saudis have Tr2 jets, and the Omanis are apparently holing out for Tr3 (sensibly, I would in their position) which will amusingly mean that the Saudis don't even have the poshest Typhoons in the Gulf, let alone elsewhere.
And this could leave the UK with a long term "fleet" of just over 90 Tr3 / mod Tr2 Typhoons after the Tr1 jets go in the middle of this decade. A sorry state indeed. The issues are compounded if there are any further export sales.
S41
Yes, I think that's right. The Saudis have Tr2 jets, and the Omanis are apparently holing out for Tr3 (sensibly, I would in their position) which will amusingly mean that the Saudis don't even have the poshest Typhoons in the Gulf, let alone elsewhere.
And this could leave the UK with a long term "fleet" of just over 90 Tr3 / mod Tr2 Typhoons after the Tr1 jets go in the middle of this decade. A sorry state indeed. The issues are compounded if there are any further export sales.
S41
Getting more life and more value for money from Tranche 1 is good for the tax-payer.
If the delay in getting Tranche 3 means that the expense of a Typhoon replacement is deferred, that's good, too.
I remain convinced that the plan to simply scrap Tranche 1 Typhoons is not financially prudent or a sensible use of taxpayers' money.
Tranche 1 contains most of the two-seaters, so should be retained to avoid the insanity of training on single-seaters at the OCU.
When Austria was going to be buying a mix of Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 jets, EF GmbH was going to upgrade the T1s to T2 standard at its own expense - the new processors and AESA ready front bulkhead thus can't be too big or expensive a job to incorporate.
And if that is not the case, then retain T1 jets purely for training, export support, and for high fatigue sorties (like Binbrook used its Lightning F.Mk 3s).
And if Greg Bagwell's estimate of the direct operating costs of Typhoon are correct, then paint nine of the single seaters red and give 'em to the Reds!
If the delay in getting Tranche 3 means that the expense of a Typhoon replacement is deferred, that's good, too.
I remain convinced that the plan to simply scrap Tranche 1 Typhoons is not financially prudent or a sensible use of taxpayers' money.
Tranche 1 contains most of the two-seaters, so should be retained to avoid the insanity of training on single-seaters at the OCU.
When Austria was going to be buying a mix of Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 jets, EF GmbH was going to upgrade the T1s to T2 standard at its own expense - the new processors and AESA ready front bulkhead thus can't be too big or expensive a job to incorporate.
And if that is not the case, then retain T1 jets purely for training, export support, and for high fatigue sorties (like Binbrook used its Lightning F.Mk 3s).
And if Greg Bagwell's estimate of the direct operating costs of Typhoon are correct, then paint nine of the single seaters red and give 'em to the Reds!
Suspicion breeds confidence
I agree with Jacko that we should get maximum value out of the kit we have. Binning T1s at such an early stage is madness given huge sums the tax payer has already forked out.
The reality is what the country needs now is exports. What it doesn't need is more cold war jets. The more Typhoons we sell the more we can backfill with newer better and more flexible F35s downstream. There is no air threat to the UK and the risk in manageable.
The reality is what the country needs now is exports. What it doesn't need is more cold war jets. The more Typhoons we sell the more we can backfill with newer better and more flexible F35s downstream. There is no air threat to the UK and the risk in manageable.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds good Jacko,
and I almost agree with the idea of painting 9 of them red - provided the rest of the RAF has rather more than 6 Sqns.
It's a bit of an inversion of commonsense, that selling our best fighters (arguably - the Harrier/SHAR/F3/Typhoon punchup will be in the ante room at 1900) to Johny Foreigner is somehow good for Britain... that'll be one of those capability holidays, the 'capability' in question being sanity, I imagine. Looks like 'good for BAe' rather than good for Britain or the RAF, and it's a sad day when we need to take a back seat to ensure we get the table crumbs later on.
I do, as a pedantic type, have to take exception to
WHEN there is a perceived air risk to the UK, and it is actually realised, then it will be far too late to re-equip and train, you have to HAVE an effective air defence BEFORE you know there is a threat.
Also, you cannot manage a risk you cannot quantify or identify, so I'd love to know where you get 'manageable' from.
Mind you, at least we have some semblance of an air defence system, which is more than can be said of maritime defence these days.
I still don't think having 6 fast jet sqns and 1 slow jet display sqn is particularly healthy....it looks like the early 30's all over again.
Dave
and I almost agree with the idea of painting 9 of them red - provided the rest of the RAF has rather more than 6 Sqns.
It's a bit of an inversion of commonsense, that selling our best fighters (arguably - the Harrier/SHAR/F3/Typhoon punchup will be in the ante room at 1900) to Johny Foreigner is somehow good for Britain... that'll be one of those capability holidays, the 'capability' in question being sanity, I imagine. Looks like 'good for BAe' rather than good for Britain or the RAF, and it's a sad day when we need to take a back seat to ensure we get the table crumbs later on.
I do, as a pedantic type, have to take exception to
There is no air threat to the UK and the risk in manageable.
Also, you cannot manage a risk you cannot quantify or identify, so I'd love to know where you get 'manageable' from.
Mind you, at least we have some semblance of an air defence system, which is more than can be said of maritime defence these days.
I still don't think having 6 fast jet sqns and 1 slow jet display sqn is particularly healthy....it looks like the early 30's all over again.
Dave
Contrary to Baggers' outburst we could look at these figures taken from World Air Forces - December 2009 - Pictures & Photos on FlightGlobal Airspace
UNITED KINGDOM
ROYAL AIR FORCE
Type Active (Ordered)
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
Eurofighter Typhoon 42 (91+35*)
F-35B (2+147*)
Harrier GR7/9 62
Tornado F3 21
Tornado GR4 99
TRAINING AIRCRAFT
Eurofighter Typhoon 15 (8+13*)
Harrier T10/12 8
Tornado GR4 18
TRAINING FJs
Hawk T1 76
Hawk T2 11 (+6 stored) (11)
Total for 2009 265 FL FJs Active + 93 Rear Echelon FJs
Total after 2010 SDSR + previous options = circa 150 FL FJs + 93 Rear Echelon FJs
On Order Total to go on the 2009 figures is 147 Typhoons and 149 F-35 plus 11 Hawk 128s
Expected by 2018-20 circa 150 Typhoon, 60-100 F-35C and 28 Hawk 128 => (implies) 6x Typhoon Sqns, 4x F-35 Sqns and 2x “Reserve” Hawk 128 Sqns. GR4 will be scrapped by then…but at least 2x RPAS/UAS Sqns of MQ-9 Reaper or whatever Project SCAVENGER delivers.
Now I don't see that as being "just about the same as Belgium" who in 2009 had just 56 active F-16 MLUs - so it just doesn't compare with our post SDSR of about 150 combat aircraft (Typhoon and Tornado). I would see us temporarily at the same level of the Italians and within a couple of years back at parity with France and Germany (yes, I know what we used to have but we can't afford it anymore!).
I know that I am not AOC 1Gp (who probably has a finer amount of detail), but 8x RAF FJ sqns, 2x RN FAA sqns, 2x RAF RPAS sqns and possibly 2x RAF Hawk 128 Reserve Sqns isn't a complete disaster for the future of UK Combat Aircraft capability.
LJ
UNITED KINGDOM
ROYAL AIR FORCE
Type Active (Ordered)
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
Eurofighter Typhoon 42 (91+35*)
F-35B (2+147*)
Harrier GR7/9 62
Tornado F3 21
Tornado GR4 99
TRAINING AIRCRAFT
Eurofighter Typhoon 15 (8+13*)
Harrier T10/12 8
Tornado GR4 18
TRAINING FJs
Hawk T1 76
Hawk T2 11 (+6 stored) (11)
Total for 2009 265 FL FJs Active + 93 Rear Echelon FJs
Total after 2010 SDSR + previous options = circa 150 FL FJs + 93 Rear Echelon FJs
On Order Total to go on the 2009 figures is 147 Typhoons and 149 F-35 plus 11 Hawk 128s
Expected by 2018-20 circa 150 Typhoon, 60-100 F-35C and 28 Hawk 128 => (implies) 6x Typhoon Sqns, 4x F-35 Sqns and 2x “Reserve” Hawk 128 Sqns. GR4 will be scrapped by then…but at least 2x RPAS/UAS Sqns of MQ-9 Reaper or whatever Project SCAVENGER delivers.
Now I don't see that as being "just about the same as Belgium" who in 2009 had just 56 active F-16 MLUs - so it just doesn't compare with our post SDSR of about 150 combat aircraft (Typhoon and Tornado). I would see us temporarily at the same level of the Italians and within a couple of years back at parity with France and Germany (yes, I know what we used to have but we can't afford it anymore!).
I know that I am not AOC 1Gp (who probably has a finer amount of detail), but 8x RAF FJ sqns, 2x RN FAA sqns, 2x RAF RPAS sqns and possibly 2x RAF Hawk 128 Reserve Sqns isn't a complete disaster for the future of UK Combat Aircraft capability.
LJ
Interesting figures above Leon. What hasn't been mentioned by anyone reading the last rites of the R.A.F. and all is the fact that the same report about Air Vice Marshal Bagwell's prophecy for the future, once again took only the most negative chunks of the story. He also suggested there could be a few more F35Cs added to the line up indue course. It was also stated that a number of Senior R.A.F. Officers have spoken of upwards of 100 x F35Cs in due course. Indeed, it's all number crunching. It's the same as statistics. They sy you can prove whatever you want with statistics!
FB
FB
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Age: 14
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once numbers go down, the chances of them going back up again are very slim. The government will simply decide that if we could do without them before, we can do without them in the future. With regards to the consequences of cuts, politicians don't care because they don't suffer the consequences. If a few thousand British troops die because they send them out on ships without AEW or on land without the right armoured support for that theatre, then they make some nice gestures and some nice sounding statements and they are off the hook. Ultimately its a balance of cost savings vs casualties, and the PM and his family are unlikely to be one of those casalties, but if you are a marine or soldier you might well be
I believe there is much, much more to converting a Tr1 Tripehoon to a Tr2 than loading a bit of modified software and a bracket change for a new radar.
Indeed, so much work that I don't think it can be done "economically". (which might well be a ball/deal-breaking decider in the future)
Heavier Airframe = more powerful engines, new heavier capability Landing Gear, new landing gear support structures, possibly new wings for new structures....and if that work is done by the slowest workers in UK (possibly by someone "oop noorth") - that would be about 2+ years per AC.
Thats beginning to sound like a whole fleet of "Nimrod" Mods to me.
...now - when did you want these for?
It might preserve a failing old industry for a few years though?
Indeed, so much work that I don't think it can be done "economically". (which might well be a ball/deal-breaking decider in the future)
Heavier Airframe = more powerful engines, new heavier capability Landing Gear, new landing gear support structures, possibly new wings for new structures....and if that work is done by the slowest workers in UK (possibly by someone "oop noorth") - that would be about 2+ years per AC.
Thats beginning to sound like a whole fleet of "Nimrod" Mods to me.
...now - when did you want these for?
It might preserve a failing old industry for a few years though?
I understand that the Government are going to insist on a whole new approach to procurement in future. In other words, BAE Systems can kiss ta ta to its favoured status. Instead of paying them huge amounts for a less than the best offering which is ; over due, over original price agreement and under spec we will in future buy the best kit going (within budget of course) straight off the the shelf. That'll be the U.S. shelf of course!
FB
FB
Sadly FB I do not share your confidence.
See here Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 Aircraft News from Flightglobal for the latest venture to keep both BAES and Dassault afloat
We'll know either way whether your right or wrong in 2011 I guess?
The B Word
See here Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 Aircraft News from Flightglobal for the latest venture to keep both BAES and Dassault afloat
We'll know either way whether your right or wrong in 2011 I guess?
The B Word
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTEI understand that the Government are going to insist on a whole new approach to procurement in future. In other words, BAE Systems can kiss ta ta to its favoured status. Instead of paying them huge amounts for a less than the best offering which is ; over due, over original price agreement and under spec we will in future buy the best kit going (within budget of course) straight off the the shelf. That'll be the U.S. shelf of course[/QUOTE]
I truly wish you were correct, but this sounds like total b******s - Bae has a fair amount of political clout - if I had to back BAe or Cameron to survive the next 2 years I know who I'd put my money on (at incredibly short odds too - bookmakers aren't stupid). The government might well try to act tough, but it won't work.
Despite a substantial amount of political rhetoric over decades I can't, offhand, recall a single initiative that ever delivered anything like it's promised results. You only have to look at our railroads and the NHS to get a good idea of how well things go with a bit of political input on the 'lean and mean' side.
If the government REALLY want to improve things, then the banking fiasco, bailing out our neighbours, and a good half dozen other big ticket ideas could be sorted - the defence budget is a tiny bit of our annual spend, you don't save money by watching the pennies while the pounds roll out unchecked.
Fiddling while Rome burns...
Dave
I truly wish you were correct, but this sounds like total b******s - Bae has a fair amount of political clout - if I had to back BAe or Cameron to survive the next 2 years I know who I'd put my money on (at incredibly short odds too - bookmakers aren't stupid). The government might well try to act tough, but it won't work.
Despite a substantial amount of political rhetoric over decades I can't, offhand, recall a single initiative that ever delivered anything like it's promised results. You only have to look at our railroads and the NHS to get a good idea of how well things go with a bit of political input on the 'lean and mean' side.
If the government REALLY want to improve things, then the banking fiasco, bailing out our neighbours, and a good half dozen other big ticket ideas could be sorted - the defence budget is a tiny bit of our annual spend, you don't save money by watching the pennies while the pounds roll out unchecked.
Fiddling while Rome burns...
Dave
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: ISLE OF MAN
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
depressing....
whilst burning CD's to my server this evening, I spent an hour or two musing over this site.
Aerial Views Of UK Airports & Airfields
When you think about what was built in the expansion period, maintained during the cold war, and then gradually wound down, maybe only over a mere thirty years, is pretty hard to comprehend.
there are airfields which you can't even see anymore, and some with battered runways with chicken sheds on them. At least they still fly in some shape or form from some, like Wickenby. 1125 men lost their lives flying from that field alone.
Its a changing world, that is for sure. Can you imagine trying to catch up now, to an emerging threat in Europe.........
Aerial Views Of UK Airports & Airfields
When you think about what was built in the expansion period, maintained during the cold war, and then gradually wound down, maybe only over a mere thirty years, is pretty hard to comprehend.
there are airfields which you can't even see anymore, and some with battered runways with chicken sheds on them. At least they still fly in some shape or form from some, like Wickenby. 1125 men lost their lives flying from that field alone.
Its a changing world, that is for sure. Can you imagine trying to catch up now, to an emerging threat in Europe.........
Standto,
Its something I've often pondered over. When I joined the R.A.F. its membership routinely slagged off the Labour Government (well all governments) for the poor shape it was in. My own Brother called it the Royal Flying Club! That was back in 1977. And everbody felt that expansion was what we needed then. When I think of all the bases that have closed since then its mind boggling; Abingdon, Wattisham, Coltishall, Finningley, Church Fenton, Chivenor, Brawdy, Kinloss, Cottesmore with Lyneham plus two more due to close. Also, Scampton close and popened up again. St. Mawgan has closed to all intents and purposes and Honington and Wittering are no longer operational airfields as such. Overseas, everything in Germany has now gone; Bruggen, Laarbruch, Wildenrath and Gutersloh.
Mind you, the future is full of surprises old boy!
FB
Its something I've often pondered over. When I joined the R.A.F. its membership routinely slagged off the Labour Government (well all governments) for the poor shape it was in. My own Brother called it the Royal Flying Club! That was back in 1977. And everbody felt that expansion was what we needed then. When I think of all the bases that have closed since then its mind boggling; Abingdon, Wattisham, Coltishall, Finningley, Church Fenton, Chivenor, Brawdy, Kinloss, Cottesmore with Lyneham plus two more due to close. Also, Scampton close and popened up again. St. Mawgan has closed to all intents and purposes and Honington and Wittering are no longer operational airfields as such. Overseas, everything in Germany has now gone; Bruggen, Laarbruch, Wildenrath and Gutersloh.
Mind you, the future is full of surprises old boy!
FB
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah bugger, it was all going so well until...
"The more Typhoons we sell the more we can backfill with newer better and more flexible F35s downstream"
Another true believer........
Another true believer........
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we will in future buy the best kit going (within budget of course) straight off the the shelf. That'll be the U.S. shelf of course
Ah, the old "Sovereignty" debate.
Did you know that most Western Military aircraft contain many International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR - which restricts export to some degree) restricted items? - for example the GPS anti-spoofing modules that most military aircraft carry are ITAR protected. Aerospace is now Global and so Sovereignty comes less and less applicable. Another good example is fighter aircraft tyres, none are produced in the UK, in fact I believe Typhoon's tyres are made by "Kumho" - a Korean manufacturer that is one of the five companies worldwide qualified to produce and export aircraft tires. How do we get around having enough spare tyres to ensure that the Koreans can't stop us doing the "Queen's business"? We stockpile them!
Look at BAESYSTEMS, a Global Company of 107,000 workforce - some 44,000 work in the USA alone plus another 5,000 in Saudi Arabia. I believe at the last count the UK workforce was less than 30,000. If you want to buy one of these fancy unmanned aircraft from BAESYSTEMS in the USA (BAE Systems - Welcome) - guess what? Some of it is ITAR protected! In fact most of the unmanned air system modems and satellite hardware is also ITAR protected.
270v DC generation and servo actuators are currently the sole preserve of US industry - ITAR protected. They're used on F-22, F-35 and also B787 and Airbus A380.
So with all that in mind, buying from BAESYSTEMS or other UK manufacturers these days does not guarantee Sovereign Operations as we used to know it - but hey that's globalisation for you!
The B Word
Did you know that most Western Military aircraft contain many International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR - which restricts export to some degree) restricted items? - for example the GPS anti-spoofing modules that most military aircraft carry are ITAR protected. Aerospace is now Global and so Sovereignty comes less and less applicable. Another good example is fighter aircraft tyres, none are produced in the UK, in fact I believe Typhoon's tyres are made by "Kumho" - a Korean manufacturer that is one of the five companies worldwide qualified to produce and export aircraft tires. How do we get around having enough spare tyres to ensure that the Koreans can't stop us doing the "Queen's business"? We stockpile them!
Look at BAESYSTEMS, a Global Company of 107,000 workforce - some 44,000 work in the USA alone plus another 5,000 in Saudi Arabia. I believe at the last count the UK workforce was less than 30,000. If you want to buy one of these fancy unmanned aircraft from BAESYSTEMS in the USA (BAE Systems - Welcome) - guess what? Some of it is ITAR protected! In fact most of the unmanned air system modems and satellite hardware is also ITAR protected.
270v DC generation and servo actuators are currently the sole preserve of US industry - ITAR protected. They're used on F-22, F-35 and also B787 and Airbus A380.
So with all that in mind, buying from BAESYSTEMS or other UK manufacturers these days does not guarantee Sovereign Operations as we used to know it - but hey that's globalisation for you!
The B Word