Aircraft Availability
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Shangri-La
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft Availability
It seems to me that the impending vote on whether to bomb Syria is somewhat missing the point in terms of what can be achieved. I have seen various debates in other posts but surely the question is all about availability of serviceable aircraft. According to the Daily Telegraph, the MOD claims to have 136 Tornado aircraft, a number I cannot even begin to believe. Does anyone out there have any inkling of how many are in deployable (as opposed to deplorable) condition?
I think you misunderstand how our modern-day intervention goes. Regrettably we do not modify, maintain, train and deploy aircraft to meet a specific military goal.
Day-to-day we have little or no flesh on the bone and only receive money for a pared-back training capability. When we go on ops the financial gap has to be spanned which gives the Treasury (rather than the MoD) the control on what capability we deploy. It is no exaggeration when I say it can descend into a bartering session in which the MoD is asked what it can do for £X million.
Day-to-day we have little or no flesh on the bone and only receive money for a pared-back training capability. When we go on ops the financial gap has to be spanned which gives the Treasury (rather than the MoD) the control on what capability we deploy. It is no exaggeration when I say it can descend into a bartering session in which the MoD is asked what it can do for £X million.
Whatever the truth of the situation, presentationally to the man in the street I guess it may look a little odd that from a nominal fleet in excess of three figures we apparently struggle to generate 8 deployable airframes at theatre entry standard in order to get a couple into the air.
More Bucks = More Buck Rogers.
We have already demonstrated how many frontline Tornado squadrons we could deploy to the Middle East when the long-term funding was in place (remember 1990?). If we spend less we get less.
CDS's comments regarding the risk of a 'hollowed out force' are also worth a read.
We have already demonstrated how many frontline Tornado squadrons we could deploy to the Middle East when the long-term funding was in place (remember 1990?). If we spend less we get less.
CDS's comments regarding the risk of a 'hollowed out force' are also worth a read.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the truth of the situation, presentationally to the man in the street I guess it may look a little odd that from a nominal fleet in excess of three figures we apparently struggle to generate 8 deployable airframes at theatre entry standard in order to get a couple into the air.
*Other government expenditure is possible, but whichever party is in power has until recently put those budgets above Defence. You get what you pay for
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right JTO, and not just Tornado, a complete force was possible; Air Defence, Strike, Tanker, Recce, Transport, a whole raft of accredited war correspondents...
Don't remember seeing any Harriers though, was the coast too far away?
Don't remember seeing any Harriers though, was the coast too far away?
It is probably fairer to say they also get what another country is prepared to pay for.
About a quarter of the Israeli defence budget is provided by the USA. Beyond the pure cash assistance Israeli enjoys free access to 'other' capabilities.
It must be nice to have such generous friends. We only finished paying the bill the USA charged us for WWII a few years ago.
About a quarter of the Israeli defence budget is provided by the USA. Beyond the pure cash assistance Israeli enjoys free access to 'other' capabilities.
It must be nice to have such generous friends. We only finished paying the bill the USA charged us for WWII a few years ago.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTO,
Apropos your post, during a discussion the other night on that subject, one of the group referred to Israel's support as coming from the "Jewess of A".
I'm not sure what he meant by that.
Apropos your post, during a discussion the other night on that subject, one of the group referred to Israel's support as coming from the "Jewess of A".
I'm not sure what he meant by that.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Do we need 10 or 16 or 24?
Remember this is not a target rich environment. If all 8 deployed aircraft were launched at the same time you would be putting far more systems over the AOR than there are targets. Remember also the Tornado would not be the only British asset hunting camels.
What is needed is a small number of weapons system in the target area 24 hours per day including Fridays; a return to the expensive cab rank system. To maintain one aircraft on call probably needs 3-4 back at MOB.
GW 1 was a short period of intensive operations where much scheduled servicing was deferred. Similarly ship returning after FI needed a lot of maintenance. Similarly the RN had to recover ship from the reserve for sustained operations in the last Cod War, more than one sustained "battle damage".
Remember this is not a target rich environment. If all 8 deployed aircraft were launched at the same time you would be putting far more systems over the AOR than there are targets. Remember also the Tornado would not be the only British asset hunting camels.
What is needed is a small number of weapons system in the target area 24 hours per day including Fridays; a return to the expensive cab rank system. To maintain one aircraft on call probably needs 3-4 back at MOB.
GW 1 was a short period of intensive operations where much scheduled servicing was deferred. Similarly ship returning after FI needed a lot of maintenance. Similarly the RN had to recover ship from the reserve for sustained operations in the last Cod War, more than one sustained "battle damage".
I have often wondered what our armed forces would look like if UK law required our own government to provide such a demonstrable capability against all potential threats. It would certainly help to avoid the current self-imposed nonsense where we can only afford security / capability when the economy is on the up.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what you're after, JTO,is The Naval Defence Act (Two Power Standard) 1889 requiring us to have as many battleships as (Then) Russia and France combined. Sorted. You just had the poor judgement to be born in the wrong century.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all in the scummy papers.
Britain's missing Tornados as No10 wants to send more jets to Syria | Daily Mail Online
8 up to 12. Fair post that PN. If its not a target rich environment why is the UK taking part anyway (apart from than to sooth the egotistical tendencies of the PM, and to shaft and split up Labour)? Always my first question.
Actually don't bother answering I made up my mind days ago. I'll start another thread with the question.
8 up to 12. Fair post that PN. If its not a target rich environment why is the UK taking part anyway (apart from than to sooth the egotistical tendencies of the PM, and to shaft and split up Labour)? Always my first question.
Actually don't bother answering I made up my mind days ago. I'll start another thread with the question.
Hangarshuffle,
With you all the way. Political ego drives the whole thing. No doubt a win on this vote will illicit charges of how wrong they all were 2 years ago. I also wonder how long before the lack of IS targeting leads to mission creep to Assad assets. Somehow, I feel as bad about this as Iraq 2003.
Smudge
With you all the way. Political ego drives the whole thing. No doubt a win on this vote will illicit charges of how wrong they all were 2 years ago. I also wonder how long before the lack of IS targeting leads to mission creep to Assad assets. Somehow, I feel as bad about this as Iraq 2003.
Smudge
HS, I don't know why you feel compelled to kick off another thread re should we/ could we.
I'm with you, no we shouldn't for a myriad of reasons, including the fact that we would be in coalition with both France and Russia. The last time that was the case, the former dropped out and the other threatened its allies at the end. The time before that the latter dropped out and the other ensured that the reckoning would result in yet a further bout of unpleasantness.
Oh, and then there was Suez, a humiliating failure involving the first and exploited to the hilt by the latter. They are both bent on vengeance rather than anything more positive. Let them wreak it themselves.
As someone in Hollywood once said, include me out!
I'm with you, no we shouldn't for a myriad of reasons, including the fact that we would be in coalition with both France and Russia. The last time that was the case, the former dropped out and the other threatened its allies at the end. The time before that the latter dropped out and the other ensured that the reckoning would result in yet a further bout of unpleasantness.
Oh, and then there was Suez, a humiliating failure involving the first and exploited to the hilt by the latter. They are both bent on vengeance rather than anything more positive. Let them wreak it themselves.
As someone in Hollywood once said, include me out!
Political ego drives the whole thing
