Tornados to be axed?
F3 - I didn't pretend it was an anlaysis, it's an opinion based on the reported savings from binning GR9 quoted at £1Bn Vs the reported savings from binning Tornado at £9Bn.
Tornado now seems under threat as well, but if we'd got a rid of the GR4 we could have saved a net £8Bn (plus whatever savings from cancelling the FJ Navigator training) but probably kept a decent CAS platform that is also capable of deploying to sea, if necessary. Flexibility is the key to air (& sea) power!
Tornado now seems under threat as well, but if we'd got a rid of the GR4 we could have saved a net £8Bn (plus whatever savings from cancelling the FJ Navigator training) but probably kept a decent CAS platform that is also capable of deploying to sea, if necessary. Flexibility is the key to air (& sea) power!
Last edited by andyy; 21st Feb 2011 at 15:24.
andyy
I'm with you. Not just from a financial standpoint but on a capability basis as well. GR9 would seem to fit our national interest better than GR4. That is not to say I think the GR4 is not useful (I think we should have both) but if I had to choose that's how I'd have done it!
BV
BV
Tester 76
My understanding is that it has PWIV and PW2 clearance but no dumb 1000 lb clearance. V happy to be corrected if it is just PW2 and dumb 1000lbs.
Draken55
It's not the number of aircraft, but the availability and time available on station. The Teddy Roo may be on station, but they do not provide the on station time that in country assets can (even with tanking) - same applies to the Charles de Gaulle. Something to do with the way ships operate with jets embarked....?! The other matter is the number of individual requests for fast-jet (or more specifically a capability that the fast air provides) by ground units. When these are added to the urgent requests on the day ie tasks or troops in contact that have a higher priority there are a significant number of requests going unsupported. In addition, you might have 100 aircraft on the books, but spread those across a 24 hour period and you're prob looking at something like 20 or so available at any one time. This is not me making a case for fast air - sure the boys would rather spend the time at home than in Afghanistan - but facts should not be ignored!
Since when has Typhoon had a full clearance for air to surface other than 1000lbs and PWII (inc. enhanced variants)?
Draken55
Would be interested in your definition of small. The US Navy has a carrier on station and USAF also has FJ assets. Can around a hundred fast jets be described as too small?
Last edited by 30mRad; 21st Feb 2011 at 15:19. Reason: edited for spelling!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"you might have 100 aircraft on the books, but spread those across a 24 hour period and you're prob looking at something like 20 or so available at any one time"
If that's so, why has the RAF deployed such a small force? You are making a case for more fast air in addition to US Navy assets and the USAF Eagles deployed at Bagram. If it's persuasive and based on facts, why have we sent so few Tonka's?
If that's so, why has the RAF deployed such a small force? You are making a case for more fast air in addition to US Navy assets and the USAF Eagles deployed at Bagram. If it's persuasive and based on facts, why have we sent so few Tonka's?
Draken 55
It's more than USAF Eagles and USN assets: French and Italian also involved. The limitation is imposed by the Govt - they will not endorse more than a certain number of UK mil personnel in Afghanistan (not sure if the figure is publicly reported) and so the balance of how that number is allocated to different roles etc means we're stuck with what we have got! I disagree with your assertion that I am making a case for more fast air. I'm not fussed either way, so long as the man who makes that decision is aware of the impact on the boots on the ground......
If that's so, why has the RAF deployed such a small force? You are making a case for more fast air in addition to US Navy assets and the USAF Eagles deployed at Bagram. If it's persuasive and based on facts, why have we sent so few Tonka's?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30mRad
My apologies but I remain a little confused as you say you are not fussed but then imply there is some impact due to a lack of fast air.
If the man who makes such decisions is, at the end of the day our PM, I would be staggered if he was willing to put the life's of troops at risk to save the cost of deploying more aircraft when there is a well argued case for them being needed.
My apologies but I remain a little confused as you say you are not fussed but then imply there is some impact due to a lack of fast air.
If the man who makes such decisions is, at the end of the day our PM, I would be staggered if he was willing to put the life's of troops at risk to save the cost of deploying more aircraft when there is a well argued case for them being needed.
Last edited by draken55; 21st Feb 2011 at 16:27.
Draken 55,
There will be an impact, whether I am fussed or not is tertiary! Let's leave it at that: there will be an impact, and someone needs to accept that responsibility
And he is advised by Liam Fox, who is advised by.......and there is the problem! 
There will be an impact, whether I am fussed or not is tertiary! Let's leave it at that: there will be an impact, and someone needs to accept that responsibility
the man who makes such decisions is, at the end of the day our PM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad that this government seems to be doing a better job of destroying the RAF than the Luftwaffe. At the same time we are so short of cash, we continue to give money away through Overseas Aid.
Sad that this government seems to be doing a better job of destroying the RAF than the Luftwaffe. At the same time we are so short of cash, we continue to give money away through Overseas Aid.
The Armed Forces have run up an overdraft of £38 Billion ! Thats overspend against that which was budgeted.
While some of that is undoubtedly due to requirement creep brought on by a changing threat assessment, the majority is just through wanting to change the spec on new toys and being overspent and late.
If every asset ordered had been delivered to time and budget, then we would be cancelling exclusively in-service systems when in the main, we are cancelling systems which are years late and are still not working as intended. There seems to be the occasional belief expressed on the BB that the procurement guys and the government order 'stuff' without being asked to do so by anyone. Every procurement comes from a staffed requirement from the relevant armed force responsible and so in these cases, its the RAF who changed the requirement, not some faceless bureaucrat.
The overseas aid bit I agree with in principle however given the armed forces track record of burning bundles of cash and still not delivering anything to time and cost, is it no wonder that the Exchequer trust the MoD as much as a rabbit trusts a fox ? Some people are clearly having a hard time adapting to the concept of working to a budget which is not bottomless.
See the Govt's SDSR quote on defence of national territory and their view of the Falklands: they are not going to increase risk in either area!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK, Paris, Peckham, New York
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Itv just ran a report on the tonkas, saying they are on the way out and more students to get the axe than previously announced.
Reporter still managed to get a ride in one tho!!
Reporter still managed to get a ride in one tho!!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, following an SDSR (which was nothing more than a cuts exercise) that took less than 4 months to complete, we're now faced with a chain of knee-jerk actions to snip away further where the original assessment failed...great.
As for overseas aid - how about £300m (i believe) to India. India currently buying 10 C17s @~£180m each while we struggle on with 7...just one example of many, i'm sure.
As for overseas aid - how about £300m (i believe) to India. India currently buying 10 C17s @~£180m each while we struggle on with 7...just one example of many, i'm sure.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Itv just ran a report on the tonkas, saying they are on the way out" "Reporter still managed to get a ride in one tho!!"
To-days Guardian article and this ITV report suggest this "bad news" story might well be spin with PR11 in mind. It's just too much of a coincidence given the preparation needed to arrange a visit to Marham involving a Reporter getting airborne. Imagery showing the worth of the Tonka in the Reece role in Afghanistan was added just to finish the pitch.
The risk is that giving current Ministers an unpalatable option might backfire if they then take it!
To-days Guardian article and this ITV report suggest this "bad news" story might well be spin with PR11 in mind. It's just too much of a coincidence given the preparation needed to arrange a visit to Marham involving a Reporter getting airborne. Imagery showing the worth of the Tonka in the Reece role in Afghanistan was added just to finish the pitch.
The risk is that giving current Ministers an unpalatable option might backfire if they then take it!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK, Paris, Peckham, New York
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Doctor Cruces My belief is that our beloved air force is being run down so it can be either privatised or turned over to a charity to run.
Doc C"
Perhaps it is more big society? Volunteer airforce?
With the speed the middleast is exploding can we afford to cut more? Then again the average jo doesn't care or grasp what is happening. Was trying to talk to my assistant at work about it and she didn't even know anything was going on out there!!! With the majority of people thinking like this it is no wonder the government can cull the military.
I doubt it will be just the RAF. As soon as Afgan is over (ever) the army will be shrunk big time.
Doc C"
Perhaps it is more big society? Volunteer airforce?
With the speed the middleast is exploding can we afford to cut more? Then again the average jo doesn't care or grasp what is happening. Was trying to talk to my assistant at work about it and she didn't even know anything was going on out there!!! With the majority of people thinking like this it is no wonder the government can cull the military.
I doubt it will be just the RAF. As soon as Afgan is over (ever) the army will be shrunk big time.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is why they have kept both carrier-borne FJs and Nimrod...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help thinking that the whole Harrier debate is maybe a little past its sell by date now. Not only that, but singing the praises of one thing, whatever it is has to be fair game - slagging off something that day in, day out is providing life saving air power all over Afghanistan (in a similar way to other FJ) is disrespect in the extreme to those people flying the missions, maintaining the aircraft and working everywhere to keep them in good shape. Please think about that before diving in to rubbish someone/something.
For my tuppence worth, let's face it, most things in most places could be done by someone else - yep, there's a carrier available, the world's biggest Air Force to draw on but the same logic says there's also a gigantic US Army to do everything ours does and a Navy the same. The deal would appear to be that UK wants to contribute a bit on every front to demonstrate coalition comittment. Therefore, we need some FJ to put in the mix -maybe tokenism but in a similar proportion to every other Service's contribution perhaps.
Yikes! Sometime since I posted last, I'm a listen don't talk normally so please be gentle...
For my tuppence worth, let's face it, most things in most places could be done by someone else - yep, there's a carrier available, the world's biggest Air Force to draw on but the same logic says there's also a gigantic US Army to do everything ours does and a Navy the same. The deal would appear to be that UK wants to contribute a bit on every front to demonstrate coalition comittment. Therefore, we need some FJ to put in the mix -maybe tokenism but in a similar proportion to every other Service's contribution perhaps.
Yikes! Sometime since I posted last, I'm a listen don't talk normally so please be gentle...