Tornados to be axed?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
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.
Good money after bad! Video: Indian rocket explodes after take-off - Telegraph
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glad rag
I do think that giving aid to India is now nonsense as indeed do they. However, let's stop short of applauding their failure to become self sufficient in the ability to launch satellites.
India is a Democracy and bar a fixation with buying ships and aircraft in the past from the USSR/Russia as a consequence of US support over the years for Pakistan, it's always likely to be more of a friend than any threat to the UK. It's economic growth is an opportunity for the UK as we have much in common despite the chequered history.
Take it you don't drive a Jag!
I do think that giving aid to India is now nonsense as indeed do they. However, let's stop short of applauding their failure to become self sufficient in the ability to launch satellites.
India is a Democracy and bar a fixation with buying ships and aircraft in the past from the USSR/Russia as a consequence of US support over the years for Pakistan, it's always likely to be more of a friend than any threat to the UK. It's economic growth is an opportunity for the UK as we have much in common despite the chequered history.
Take it you don't drive a Jag!
Graham O
I'll bite.
Wrong. The overspend is created by DPA, now DE&S. A department within the MOD but not within HM Forces. True it is an overspend but that overspend is managed by the "Centre" not the HM Forces.
No-one goes around changing the spec because they want to, nor is it allowed by the various scrutiny elements in the MOD. Before the spec is changed there has to be an endorsed requirement. Lateness of industry to deliver to cost, time or performance can hardly be blamed on the Armed Forces. One of the items singled out by Fox was the A400M - failure to deliver can only really be blamed on Airbus.
The Armed Forces do not deliver new equipment. That is the job of DE&S and industry. As an example, several years ago (2002-ish) I attended a briefing from two major aviation companies, let's call them A and B. Both stated that they would deliver their product within 3 years of contract signature. A couple of nations signed up in the 04/05 time frame, one with company A and one with company B. Now there was obviously an element of a sales pitch from both of them, but as yet neither has delivered any of their product to their customers. Both are late by several years; how can this be the fault of the Armed Forces?
I'll bite.
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.
given the armed forces track record of burning bundles of cash and still not delivering anything to time and cost
Farfrompuken
I'm back and have had the (dis)pleasure with dealing with MOD procurement from 1984 to 2002 on Army and Air Force, so yes, I do know what happens. I knew MOD-PE, DPA, DLO and the whole sorry CADMID process inside and out, SMART procurement with the least smart group of people running it possible and have been through (possibly) more OA and Concept phase work definitions across all three services than a lot of people and are more than aware of where the problems lie. I haven't met a MOD department in nearly 20 years that didn't give a contractor an excuse to be late by either changing the spec or not doing its bit on time (bar once). Sure industry has its problems and is not blameless, but when you give them a chance to worm out of their responsibilities its hardly their fault.
A400M is a good example - if the Airbus consortium were that culpable, then damages would be payable ....... but they are not. Why ? Because at every stage in the process, MOD changed the requirement, giving the contractor a get out clause. The solution - write down what you want and stop changing the spec and then any delays will solely be down to the Contractor. And for the avoidance of doubt ANY change that DE&S ask for is as a result in a new/revised/forgotten requirement from the armed forces. It is not dreamed up by a civilian or civil servant. Maybe not personally someone who flies the thing, but in the uniformed part of the RAF some bloke somewhere has found that they want more, that was not originally asked for.
And as to the rather ridiculous suggestion that DE&S is at fault for procuring the wrong stuff, that again is complete rot. EVERY requirement is defined by representatives of the Armed forces, working in the IPT's so lets not kid ourselves that 'a big boy did it and ran away'.
Its easy for you to be dismissive about my views but the sad fact is that you have no answer to the massive overspend. The bit you still cannot get is not the increase in budget that has been bought in but that no matter how much money is given, and the 'approved' budget increased, the MOD still over spends.
MOD asks for £10 for something and then spends £20 for half the job, and never really seems to be concerned. Then oops, I have more requirements so comes back for a total of £35 now, gets approval for £35 - and then still go on to spend £55.
The original £10 and the extra £15 requested have never been the problem - its the later unplanned £10 and £20 that the taxpayers don't want to pay anymore. Upgrades to budgets have never been a problem - its the repeated bites at the cake for the item already budgeted thats objectionable.
farfrom - you seem to be another that just wants taxpayers to keep paying and for the MOD to be unaccountable.
Back to simple examples, if a builder you were paying did what MOD did, and were that far over budget and years late would you keep feeding them cash ? You wouldn't pay the bill would you ? (although I doubt you will answer the question again).
FWIW I don't want Tornado to be cut back but its getting really hard believing any MOD estimate as it looks like the numbers are being made up every time and actually nobody knows the real cost. The RAF are going to suffer unless someone in the wider MOD sorts the ability to count, out properly.
Graham,
You really don't know what you're talking about do you?
Come back when you have a clue about procurement and the reasons behind the £38bn
You really don't know what you're talking about do you?
Come back when you have a clue about procurement and the reasons behind the £38bn
A400M is a good example - if the Airbus consortium were that culpable, then damages would be payable ....... but they are not. Why ? Because at every stage in the process, MOD changed the requirement, giving the contractor a get out clause. The solution - write down what you want and stop changing the spec and then any delays will solely be down to the Contractor. And for the avoidance of doubt ANY change that DE&S ask for is as a result in a new/revised/forgotten requirement from the armed forces. It is not dreamed up by a civilian or civil servant. Maybe not personally someone who flies the thing, but in the uniformed part of the RAF some bloke somewhere has found that they want more, that was not originally asked for.
And as to the rather ridiculous suggestion that DE&S is at fault for procuring the wrong stuff, that again is complete rot. EVERY requirement is defined by representatives of the Armed forces, working in the IPT's so lets not kid ourselves that 'a big boy did it and ran away'.
Its easy for you to be dismissive about my views but the sad fact is that you have no answer to the massive overspend. The bit you still cannot get is not the increase in budget that has been bought in but that no matter how much money is given, and the 'approved' budget increased, the MOD still over spends.
MOD asks for £10 for something and then spends £20 for half the job, and never really seems to be concerned. Then oops, I have more requirements so comes back for a total of £35 now, gets approval for £35 - and then still go on to spend £55.
The original £10 and the extra £15 requested have never been the problem - its the later unplanned £10 and £20 that the taxpayers don't want to pay anymore. Upgrades to budgets have never been a problem - its the repeated bites at the cake for the item already budgeted thats objectionable.
farfrom - you seem to be another that just wants taxpayers to keep paying and for the MOD to be unaccountable.
Back to simple examples, if a builder you were paying did what MOD did, and were that far over budget and years late would you keep feeding them cash ? You wouldn't pay the bill would you ? (although I doubt you will answer the question again).
FWIW I don't want Tornado to be cut back but its getting really hard believing any MOD estimate as it looks like the numbers are being made up every time and actually nobody knows the real cost. The RAF are going to suffer unless someone in the wider MOD sorts the ability to count, out properly.
Last edited by GrahamO; 21st Feb 2011 at 21:30.
A400M is a good example - if the Airbus consortium were that culpable, then damages would be payable ....... but they are not. Why ? Because at every stage in the process, MOD changed the requirement, giving the contractor a get out clause.
That would be the multinational A400M programme, so its down to the MOD is it? We change "our" requirement and all the other nations just say, oh that's fine then!! 
The one where if we had challenged Airbus and pulled in all the damages they would have gone bust as a company. They threatened to pull the plug on the programme unless they were bailed out - which is why the RAF are only getting 22 of the original 25 aircraft ordered.
Current global events and political changes in the Middle East and N Africa, IMHO bode very badly for future stability and peace globally. There is a real chance that Al-Q and/or Muslim Fanatical elements could fill the power vacuums and become entrenched.
I wonder if the SDSR mandarins saw this little Black Swan event brewing? The pace of global events could even just put a spanner in the works and save the RAF as a sudden capability gap is exposed. I wonder if it's too late to reserect the Harrier and Ark Royal, for I fear without them we could be about to give up our great Nation's defences too readily.
Oil already spiked 6% today on contagion fears and there is a chance that oil could superspike back to $150 plus if this wave of riots spreads to other Oil producing nations. As oil goes up then so markets will tank and the whole recession will be back on, but this time the Feds and the BoE have no dry powder with which to fix the economy. Why do you think we are seeing gains of 6% in a day in oil and silver? The next recession will be much deeper and worse than the 09 lows. Then we will begin to feel the real pain. Most of this was kicked off by QE and Ben Bernanke's insane money printing policies that gave rise to massive food price inflation which acted as the spark to ignite the tinder box across N Africa. The US may now reap the pain of what it has sowed. We could all be doomed. Time to stock up on the tins of food and shotgun cartridges and run to the Scottish Isles!!
I wonder if the SDSR mandarins saw this little Black Swan event brewing? The pace of global events could even just put a spanner in the works and save the RAF as a sudden capability gap is exposed. I wonder if it's too late to reserect the Harrier and Ark Royal, for I fear without them we could be about to give up our great Nation's defences too readily.
Oil already spiked 6% today on contagion fears and there is a chance that oil could superspike back to $150 plus if this wave of riots spreads to other Oil producing nations. As oil goes up then so markets will tank and the whole recession will be back on, but this time the Feds and the BoE have no dry powder with which to fix the economy. Why do you think we are seeing gains of 6% in a day in oil and silver? The next recession will be much deeper and worse than the 09 lows. Then we will begin to feel the real pain. Most of this was kicked off by QE and Ben Bernanke's insane money printing policies that gave rise to massive food price inflation which acted as the spark to ignite the tinder box across N Africa. The US may now reap the pain of what it has sowed. We could all be doomed. Time to stock up on the tins of food and shotgun cartridges and run to the Scottish Isles!!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know what the total cost of TELIC was (as if the lives lost wasn't enough) and the current total for HERRICK?
I'm pretty sure the MoD didn't volunteer to go there, but it sure feels now as if we're bearing the cost for it.
) and the current total for HERRICK?I'm pretty sure the MoD didn't volunteer to go there, but it sure feels now as if we're bearing the cost for it.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the foreign sec was spouting forth about Gadaffi in bound to Venezeula I would suspect the game plans the FCO produced to support SDSR wouldn't pass final disertation at a university.
So Defence planners now need to develop plan B which is well balanced well equipped forces capable of hi-intensity warfighting as COIN may not be the way ahead!
So Defence planners now need to develop plan B which is well balanced well equipped forces capable of hi-intensity warfighting as COIN may not be the way ahead!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graham O
You are starting to sound like a stuck record.. Lets take "EVERY requirement is defined by representatives of the Armed forces, working in the IPT's so lets not kid ourselves that 'a big boy did it and ran away'.". Utter horsepoo. The URD comes from the military but is written by specialist requirement writers, usually DSTL. This is then taken by DPA and turned into the detailed SRD, and is turned into a contract SRD where requirements are traded for cost and time with virtually no service involvement. The budget is also declared for the project at the outset but what usually happens is the money is not avaialble in the years that you want it, so more trading goes on. Normally this means slowing the programme down to meet the cash profile and tends to drive costs up because of marching armies.
Much of what has driven the massive overspend was due to the last SDR. The military tasks were defined but unfunded, so when push came to shove and we took on the medium size conflicts, there were not enough resources to go around. The gap has had to be plugged with a succesion of sticking plaster. Money has been borrowed from ongoing programmes to fund operational needs, extending the programmes and driving costs up. There has not been a stable budget to work to in my lifetime.
You are starting to sound like a stuck record.. Lets take "EVERY requirement is defined by representatives of the Armed forces, working in the IPT's so lets not kid ourselves that 'a big boy did it and ran away'.". Utter horsepoo. The URD comes from the military but is written by specialist requirement writers, usually DSTL. This is then taken by DPA and turned into the detailed SRD, and is turned into a contract SRD where requirements are traded for cost and time with virtually no service involvement. The budget is also declared for the project at the outset but what usually happens is the money is not avaialble in the years that you want it, so more trading goes on. Normally this means slowing the programme down to meet the cash profile and tends to drive costs up because of marching armies.
Much of what has driven the massive overspend was due to the last SDR. The military tasks were defined but unfunded, so when push came to shove and we took on the medium size conflicts, there were not enough resources to go around. The gap has had to be plugged with a succesion of sticking plaster. Money has been borrowed from ongoing programmes to fund operational needs, extending the programmes and driving costs up. There has not been a stable budget to work to in my lifetime.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Press Speculation
Whilst it is clearly the job of a rumour site to pick up on such press releases, but if you track the story it is not new. Starting with the Express article last week, this has merely been circulating around the remainder - Guardian then Mirror. It is rather coincidental however, that a pre planned ITN media day at Marham is stolen by the news breaking again that day. Anyone would think there is a plot.......
This is a concerted attempt to deflect attention from other areas. The constant old news stories about large programme cost overruns is hogging the news. What about the other huge cost drivers? The MoD news machine has lost the plot and is being controlled to avoid political fallout – this has allowed the constant leaking to gain traction and some are using it for their own gain. However, this is short sighted, those who seek to protect their own bloated force structures will die to regret it.
It would be political suicide to remove air support from Afghanistan - either through the consequences to UK troops or the loss of influence with the US and NATO. We don't have much capability left, throwing away the last vestiges of international credibility would be the end of our influence.
If, a single Bde, fixed in a very small battle space, fed by an Army of 94,000, reliant on others to keep it safe, is where we are heading than we deserve everything coming our way!
As the current situation in the Middle East demonstrates we can’t even predict tomorrow, let alone 10 years from now.
This is a concerted attempt to deflect attention from other areas. The constant old news stories about large programme cost overruns is hogging the news. What about the other huge cost drivers? The MoD news machine has lost the plot and is being controlled to avoid political fallout – this has allowed the constant leaking to gain traction and some are using it for their own gain. However, this is short sighted, those who seek to protect their own bloated force structures will die to regret it.
It would be political suicide to remove air support from Afghanistan - either through the consequences to UK troops or the loss of influence with the US and NATO. We don't have much capability left, throwing away the last vestiges of international credibility would be the end of our influence.
If, a single Bde, fixed in a very small battle space, fed by an Army of 94,000, reliant on others to keep it safe, is where we are heading than we deserve everything coming our way!
As the current situation in the Middle East demonstrates we can’t even predict tomorrow, let alone 10 years from now.
Capt Wash
Well said! 
If, a single Bde, fixed in a very small battle space, fed by an Army of 94,000, reliant on others to keep it safe, is where we are heading than we deserve everything coming our way!
As the current situation in the Middle East demonstrates we can’t even predict tomorrow, let alone 10 years from now.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"
So true. UK Fast Air is not in Afghanistan just to support the UK. It has been there from 2004, before the British Army moved into Helmand in 2006, and ever since has been on call to support whoever needs it.
it would be political suicide to remove air support from Afghanistan - either through the consequences to UK troops or the loss of influence with the US and NATO. We don't have much capability left, throwing away the last vestiges of international credibility would be the end of our influence."
Last edited by Justanopinion; 22nd Feb 2011 at 23:59.
@engineer(retard)
I rest my case - blaming everyone after that in the chain and then somehow claiming nobody in the 'service' in involved simply is not true. Perhaps if the military wrote down what they actually wanted in sufficient detail to avoid ambiguity it might be simpler ? I know thats the hard bit but other parts of wider industry seem to manage okay.
Remember to us outsiders, we don't see the chaps in uniform, dstl, the PE/DE&S, as a different bunch. Collectively 'you are the UK MOD' to us, and playing semantics over which part is at fault is unimportant to us taxpayers.
All we know is that the 'MOD collectively' failed to deliver.
I must stress again I have the highest regard for very member of the armed forces - I just wouldn't trust any one with £5 as I know you'd be back a week later for a £10. You have a difficult job and given a choice I would fund a lot more military expenditure but its quite hard to find people supporting that when so much is being wasted. Pointing fingers at the other parts of the MOD is not going solve anything. Personally I would have kept Harrier, ditched half of Tornado, still ditched MRA4 and put all the saved money to the Army guys to save lives.
Maybe I am a stuck record by maybe thats because there are still too many people in the wider MOD unable to accept fiscal responsibility for this debacle and seek to blame everyone except themselves.
The URD comes from the military
Remember to us outsiders, we don't see the chaps in uniform, dstl, the PE/DE&S, as a different bunch. Collectively 'you are the UK MOD' to us, and playing semantics over which part is at fault is unimportant to us taxpayers.
All we know is that the 'MOD collectively' failed to deliver.
I must stress again I have the highest regard for very member of the armed forces - I just wouldn't trust any one with £5 as I know you'd be back a week later for a £10. You have a difficult job and given a choice I would fund a lot more military expenditure but its quite hard to find people supporting that when so much is being wasted. Pointing fingers at the other parts of the MOD is not going solve anything. Personally I would have kept Harrier, ditched half of Tornado, still ditched MRA4 and put all the saved money to the Army guys to save lives.
Maybe I am a stuck record by maybe thats because there are still too many people in the wider MOD unable to accept fiscal responsibility for this debacle and seek to blame everyone except themselves.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justanopinion,
Actually, it wouldn't be political suicide at all.
It would only be a mild ripple in the waters if the UK pulled out something that was unique and couldn't be back filled.
UK fast air is not unique and can (and will) be back filled.
Pulling out 150+ soldiers would create far more of a stir than pulling out the 150+ personnel supporting 8 jets in a pool of many more.
The army/marines will always say they need more air support - and there are endless statistics to show how 'if just one more jet was deployed we'd have met all the requests' - and the reality of the situation is they will get it, mighty Tornado or not.
The PM wants to draw down; enablers will be the first thing to go before the soldiers/marines standing on street corners. That is the unfortunate reality.
Actually, it wouldn't be political suicide at all.
It would only be a mild ripple in the waters if the UK pulled out something that was unique and couldn't be back filled.
UK fast air is not unique and can (and will) be back filled.
Pulling out 150+ soldiers would create far more of a stir than pulling out the 150+ personnel supporting 8 jets in a pool of many more.
The army/marines will always say they need more air support - and there are endless statistics to show how 'if just one more jet was deployed we'd have met all the requests' - and the reality of the situation is they will get it, mighty Tornado or not.
The PM wants to draw down; enablers will be the first thing to go before the soldiers/marines standing on street corners. That is the unfortunate reality.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB11
You've missed the point.
We first went to Afghanistan at relatively short notice with the Harrier to relieve the USMC Harriers. Obviously UK fast air is not unique and can be back filled (although have plenty of evidence to suggest that people on the ground are pretty happy to have UK air support). It is somewhat embarrassing that now we potentially cannot even muster a detachment of 8 jets to support NATO/US efforts.
You've missed the point.
We first went to Afghanistan at relatively short notice with the Harrier to relieve the USMC Harriers. Obviously UK fast air is not unique and can be back filled (although have plenty of evidence to suggest that people on the ground are pretty happy to have UK air support). It is somewhat embarrassing that now we potentially cannot even muster a detachment of 8 jets to support NATO/US efforts.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB, they are not UK enablers, they are ISAF enablers. When the boots are coming off the ground the fast air will still be needed to support the Afghans and their mentors. And as for others providing it, look around and tell me where it will come from. Of course the US will pick up the tab where able, but that is the point are we not a key ally. If the political masters want quick reductions in numbers and costs in terms of lives lost then hand off to the locals and give them air support - just look at how Iraq has played out.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and as for the 150 having a lesser impact if they were airmen and groundcrew. By some estimations on here, 8 jets would be 8% of the total fast air effort (actually in terms of quality and recce capability I would argue its higher than that), 150 soldiers is less than 1.5% of the UK effort alone. You do the maths!
We probably pull out 150 a day on R&R!
We probably pull out 150 a day on R&R!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justanopinion,
I didn't miss the point; you've just made a different one from the original post I commented upon. If all you're saying is that the UK reducing numbers of fast jets makes it difficult to more than 1 deployment at a time with a handful of jets, I agree.
Capt P U G Wash,
Thankyou for the UK/ISAF discriminator; very strategic. The badge sewn onto a nations arm doesn't stop them making national decisions, no matter how much pressure their ISAF buddies place on them. Germany; France; Holland; Denmark; Canada - all making national decisions whilst wearing the ISAF badge. There are more; but I assume you already know that.
Watch carefully as the US works its way through the summer and see quite how important 'ISAF' is to a large majority of nations involved. The widely publicised open press US reduction in US troops (packaged as 'reducing the surge') will see most (all?) nations taking the same dividend - do you seriously think the UK won't do the same?
Some may wish to believe that the UK is the only nation who could possibly do fast air and that nobody else would fill the gap. The reality is that the 150 soldiers/marines that are pulled out really would need to be filled by another nation and it's these troops that make the headlines. They are the ones losing life, not aircrew in fast jets. And before I get the 'they'd lose more life if it weren't for us...' the majority lose life because of IED and direct fire that sadly would happen even if every serviceable Tornado in Afghanistan was airborne. That wasn't a good example, let's say even if every Tornado was airborne. Serviceability just muddies the water.
When the USMC put their recent surge in they didn't bring with them all their air enablers in order that they could keep their total footprint within their manpower cap. They, of all services, value the grunt more than the aircraft.
I'm sure CAS will have reacted as you did to the potential removal of Tornado from HERRICK; he may have even written a passionate letter to CDS making a strong case for the tenets of air power. He may have even used some amazing statistics like you did to somehow demonstrate that 1 Tornado = 10 'other' coalition jets. But he would, wouldn't he? (And good for him, fighting for his fast jet beating heart of the service.)
And we really don't want to get into the somewhat subjective nature of the 'quality' of the Tornado somehow providing a greater percentage of total fast air? If you're going to use a maths statistic, keep it objective.
So yes, you may not like it but for the ISAF commander, troops on street corners are more important than aircrew and maintainers.
He can't fight a campaign with fast jets and no troops but he can do the reverse, even if it's more risky.
I didn't miss the point; you've just made a different one from the original post I commented upon. If all you're saying is that the UK reducing numbers of fast jets makes it difficult to more than 1 deployment at a time with a handful of jets, I agree.
Capt P U G Wash,
Thankyou for the UK/ISAF discriminator; very strategic. The badge sewn onto a nations arm doesn't stop them making national decisions, no matter how much pressure their ISAF buddies place on them. Germany; France; Holland; Denmark; Canada - all making national decisions whilst wearing the ISAF badge. There are more; but I assume you already know that.
Watch carefully as the US works its way through the summer and see quite how important 'ISAF' is to a large majority of nations involved. The widely publicised open press US reduction in US troops (packaged as 'reducing the surge') will see most (all?) nations taking the same dividend - do you seriously think the UK won't do the same?
Some may wish to believe that the UK is the only nation who could possibly do fast air and that nobody else would fill the gap. The reality is that the 150 soldiers/marines that are pulled out really would need to be filled by another nation and it's these troops that make the headlines. They are the ones losing life, not aircrew in fast jets. And before I get the 'they'd lose more life if it weren't for us...' the majority lose life because of IED and direct fire that sadly would happen even if every serviceable Tornado in Afghanistan was airborne. That wasn't a good example, let's say even if every Tornado was airborne. Serviceability just muddies the water.
When the USMC put their recent surge in they didn't bring with them all their air enablers in order that they could keep their total footprint within their manpower cap. They, of all services, value the grunt more than the aircraft.
I'm sure CAS will have reacted as you did to the potential removal of Tornado from HERRICK; he may have even written a passionate letter to CDS making a strong case for the tenets of air power. He may have even used some amazing statistics like you did to somehow demonstrate that 1 Tornado = 10 'other' coalition jets. But he would, wouldn't he? (And good for him, fighting for his fast jet beating heart of the service.)
And we really don't want to get into the somewhat subjective nature of the 'quality' of the Tornado somehow providing a greater percentage of total fast air? If you're going to use a maths statistic, keep it objective.
So yes, you may not like it but for the ISAF commander, troops on street corners are more important than aircrew and maintainers.
He can't fight a campaign with fast jets and no troops but he can do the reverse, even if it's more risky.
You have the Scottish Parliament. Why not secede and keep the assets there. Mr Scottish President I give you the Royal Caledonian Air Force....and Army and Navy....
Seal the border with England and leave it to the brethren from the sub-continent who seem to occupy most of it...
Ulster can go on with its ways and Wales???? Mmmmmmmm. I know the Prince of Wales could become the King of Wales with his consort Queen of Whales...
Seal the border with England and leave it to the brethren from the sub-continent who seem to occupy most of it...
Ulster can go on with its ways and Wales???? Mmmmmmmm. I know the Prince of Wales could become the King of Wales with his consort Queen of Whales...
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Meadows
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warning, mini rant incoming.
First of all I should say that I am (obviously) not a Tornado guy so have no self interest here. On the contrary you could say that they are competitors with my platform. But I have to say that FB11s statements are so stunningly narrow and clearly show that he has no understanding of ops in Afghanistan or Joint military ops anywhere beyond what the Daily Mail supplies (being an airline pilot I have assumed that he doesn't read the Sun).
First, CAS does not make the decision on force mix in theatre, although he will clearly input to the process. If CJO really thought that having 150 troops rather than 150 Tornado personnel would be a vast improvement then he would make changes. I should also point out that an uplift in 150 Army personnel would not mean anywhere near 150 extra "standing on street corners" (noone really stands on street corners anyway, been watching too much Ross Kemp?).
FJs aren't the silver bullet of air power but they do have an important part to play in the fight. If you think that Tornados really haven't saved lives or played a part in the IED fight then you are particularly badly informed and to insinuate as much is pretty insulting to the Tornado force.
Last I would also disagree on your assertion that Land could win the fight without Air but Air couldn't win the fight without Land. Land would have difficulty getting to theatre to start with without Air and even if they could (launch the fleet!) and be entirely resupplied by sea and land I suggest that the fight would already have been lost without the capabilities that the different aspects of Air and Space power bring. Certainly many, many more lives would have been lost. Could Air carry out the Mission without Land? Of course not, although if we had tried that route we wouldn't have 300 dead, but it is clearly a Joint fight needing a range of assets and capabilities. Putting "boots on the ground" in what is a very small part of Helmand, never mind Afghanistan, is not the silver bullet either, despite army PR.
The only genuine capability point to debate about the withdrawal of Tornado from Afghan is whether the role could be filled by other assets such as FJs from other nations or ather assets such as Reaper. There are obviously other aspects such as the political impact, both externally and internally. [Quick Reaper flag wave: One of the advantages of Reaper is that whilst having over 10 times the persistence of Tornado with a larger weapons payload and more sensors it has a theatre footprint of about 2% of Tornado and that is the number everyone cares about].
Rant over and I feel slightly better
.
First of all I should say that I am (obviously) not a Tornado guy so have no self interest here. On the contrary you could say that they are competitors with my platform. But I have to say that FB11s statements are so stunningly narrow and clearly show that he has no understanding of ops in Afghanistan or Joint military ops anywhere beyond what the Daily Mail supplies (being an airline pilot I have assumed that he doesn't read the Sun).
First, CAS does not make the decision on force mix in theatre, although he will clearly input to the process. If CJO really thought that having 150 troops rather than 150 Tornado personnel would be a vast improvement then he would make changes. I should also point out that an uplift in 150 Army personnel would not mean anywhere near 150 extra "standing on street corners" (noone really stands on street corners anyway, been watching too much Ross Kemp?).
FJs aren't the silver bullet of air power but they do have an important part to play in the fight. If you think that Tornados really haven't saved lives or played a part in the IED fight then you are particularly badly informed and to insinuate as much is pretty insulting to the Tornado force.
Last I would also disagree on your assertion that Land could win the fight without Air but Air couldn't win the fight without Land. Land would have difficulty getting to theatre to start with without Air and even if they could (launch the fleet!) and be entirely resupplied by sea and land I suggest that the fight would already have been lost without the capabilities that the different aspects of Air and Space power bring. Certainly many, many more lives would have been lost. Could Air carry out the Mission without Land? Of course not, although if we had tried that route we wouldn't have 300 dead, but it is clearly a Joint fight needing a range of assets and capabilities. Putting "boots on the ground" in what is a very small part of Helmand, never mind Afghanistan, is not the silver bullet either, despite army PR.
The only genuine capability point to debate about the withdrawal of Tornado from Afghan is whether the role could be filled by other assets such as FJs from other nations or ather assets such as Reaper. There are obviously other aspects such as the political impact, both externally and internally. [Quick Reaper flag wave: One of the advantages of Reaper is that whilst having over 10 times the persistence of Tornado with a larger weapons payload and more sensors it has a theatre footprint of about 2% of Tornado and that is the number everyone cares about].
Rant over and I feel slightly better
.