|
so how many fighter squadrons are there in the United States of Europe.
Boys this is where it is all headed for you guys. |
"In the immediate aftermath of the SDR being published, the First Sea Lord posted a "heads up" on the Navy's website and referred to the "Naval Service" far more than Royal Navyhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/cwm13.gif"
Slight thread drift, but the phrase 'Naval Service' refers to both the RN, and other parts of it, such as the RNR and RFA and so on - its an all ecompassing title. |
jimlad1
Appreciate that and yes a bit off subject but with the decline in RN escorts, RFA's are now in effect being used as warships to counter piracy. They operate helos and have room for Marines so why the distinction? Why not incorporate whats left of the RFA into the RN proper. Manpower shouldn't be an issue and civvies would then be out of the firing line! Oh and if bases are an issue for a declining RAF how does the Navy justify Devonport? The implications of having fewer platforms in the air and at sea are throwing up all manner of issues for the Government to handle. At the moment they seem to want to put things out to pasture but that's just leading to mass speculation in the Press and continued uncertainty for those who could be affected:confused: |
so how many fighter squadrons are there in the United States of Europe. Boys this is where it is all headed for you guys. |
I take it whoever drafted this farce didn't see the article last night about Russia increasing it's military spending by over $300 Billion then?
|
What report is that then Daddy-oh?
FB:) |
I think it was on Newsnight last, immediately before it showed Putin singing 'Blueberry Hill. I think the figure was 40 Trillion Roubles. That'll buy a lot of T-tanks & Migs.
|
Well so long as they don't buy any new Submarines we'll be fine.
FB:) |
Well so long as they don't buy any new Submarines we'll be fine. I'm sure it will all be fine. Reaper is the answer to everything don't you know. |
There's a maritime version of the reaper! Aah, that'll be why Cameron so confidently announced the cancellation of the MRA4.:ok:
FB:) |
There's a maritime version of the reaper! http://www.katzy.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/grim.gif |
This just hits it on the head how we are regarded... It seems to me that many people in the military need to have it explained to them just how invisible they are. I mean nothing by this statement other than what it literally means; when something is your job and your life it seems globe-spanningly important, but the only people I know who are or were in the military are people I've met through this very forum and none of my friends know any military people nor are they specifically aware of what capabilities exist. I say this now because I had to explain it to one of those people just a couple of days ago, but it seems to me that most of the UK population have absolutely no idea what sort of cuts have been made to UK forces since Gulf 1. There is in general an impression that there's a large, capable fighting force out there, with only the haziest understanding of its extent; there is an assumption that it can handle what it needs to handle, without much understanding of what it can really do. I'm sure a lot of people would be unutterably horrified at the discovery that fast jet forces will be one-sixth of their pre-Gulf levels in a few years, but I suspect that as long as the Red Arrows and the marching bands exist, this will go entirely unremarked. Therefore the fairly gentle reminder to the public from the military of just how bad things have become, which spawned this discussion, is highly appropriate and should be reinforced at every opportunity. P |
I wish one of those investigative TV programme producers would do an exposé showing how the state of UK military aviation has atrophied over the last 50 years - in terms of aircraft numbers, manning strength and aerodromes.
Or even just a comparison of 1990, 2000 and 2010. Throwing away the UK's Harrier force, Nimrod force, the creeping cancer of contractorisation in flying training, AT/AAR, SAR - where will the rot stop? And yes, I know that drones are quite clever, but they are not a universal panacea. Good luck to all those who still have a job in military aviation! |
So, out of our first 1-20 numbered Sqns we have lost 1,4,20 and 5 to go soon. What I am asking is how many Typhoon Sqns or whatever have yet to form? Nowhere near enough to accommodate the four Sqn number plates available methinks. Are we going to go further down the road of making Sqns out of would not have been considered years ago to make us look good on paper, some would say we already have when you look at some of our ‘Sqn’ credentials. Maybe if we just numbered real front-line Sqns from 1 upwards Jo public would then realise what few assets we really have!
Nb. I have a lorry driver friend who runs 6 trucks, all numbered, the highest being 17 at the moment. Every time he changes one it gets a different number on the cab door, he just laughs and says it’s to make customers think he is a lot bigger than he actually is................. The RAF, public and world stage come to mind! |
BEags,
Have you written to your MP recently, expressing your alarm? Perhaps you could also pass on our concerns? Phil-R Among the residents of my locality, there is a general apathy to matters of defence. Raising the debate invariably attracts responses such as 'well you would say that, wouldn't you', 'so what, defence has to suffer just like the rest of us', and a polite, accepting 'shrug'. There is a low boredom threshold over the state of military issues whereas, unsurprisingly, immigration, health and policing attract immediate and stong vocal attention. I fear that unless and until a direct and recognisable threat to the UK population emerges, the passion of those who have little or no connection with uniform won't be aroused. And then it will all be too late. Quite alarming really. |
dctyke,
Please don't forget that those sqns numbered 1 - 20 were the first RFC Sqns; the first RNAS Sqns - with equal historical influence, I would argue - were renumbered in 1918, starting with the soon to be disbanded No 201 Sqn. Duncs |
Bagwell said the RAF would likely axe its 55 Tranche 1 Typhoons by mid-decade because it would cost too much to bring them up to the required multirole standards offered by Tranche 2 and Tranche 3. That would mean the RAF Typhoon fleet would top out at 107 machines. But the Typhoon fleet could shrink even further, Bagwell said. The "great unknown in the plans is the awful lot of potential export customers," he said. The proposed deal with Oman is in the final stages of negotiation; discussions are now underway about where those dozen or so aircraft might come from. The RAF's Typhoon force could fall further if the planes are diverted from the Air Force's order and are not replaced. Difficulties in Britain's 72-plane sale to Saudi Arabia are creating more uncertainty. The first 24 are being diverted from the RAF's Tranche 2 order, and the service is to get more Tranche 3 aircraft instead. The other 48 are to be assembled in Saudi Arabia as part of an effort to build up local industry. But industry sources said the plan has run into difficulties that raise questions about how Britain will fill the Saudi order. Bagwell said options could include taking additional aircraft from the RAF production run and replacing them later. "Should we get the buybacks out of Saudi Arabia and Oman as planned, we will be back to the number of Typhoons I need," he said. "At the moment, if I don't get the [Omani] buyback and this is under discussion ... it could take me down to 95 aircraft." BAe Systems looks set to land a huge order for Typhoon fighter jets from Oman that could be worth up to £1.2 billion to the defence giant. According to a source, the Gulf state has written to the government and asked for a squadron of aircraft, amounting to between 12 and 15 planes..............Oman plans to buy third-generation typhoons, which have far superior technological capability to their predecessors. ..........Oman's order will be deducted from the 40 Tranche 3 fighters ordered for the RAF.... |
Good news. Exportsare good.
|
Surely those same (Good) exports will mean keeping the (bad) Tranche 1 for some while longer? Especially during the delivery period of the Exports to wherever.
That same period will also mean far less engine and airframe spares for RAF use as the export stock will take precedence (again) and may even affect some role equipment too. Don't forget these abominable foreigners will have money to get what they want and he who pays industry up-front gets their service first. On the subject of the US of Europe's Air Force - I wonder what type will be chosen for all USEAF Defence squadrons to have? Rafale anyone? It fits on French Carriers and in 12 years time, maybe it'll fit on "ours" too? |
Good news. Exportsare good. FB:) |
Do I understand it correctly that the RAF will be flying Tranche 1 aircraft whilst the Omanis will be flying Tranche 3?
:confused: |
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 |
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! |
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. |
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 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. :confused: 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!:ok:
FB:) |
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? |
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!:ok:
FB:) |
What it doesn't need is more cold war jet |
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 :ugh: We'll know either way whether your right or wrong in 2011 I guess? The B Word |
That'll be the U.S. shelf of course |
[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 |
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......... |
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!:ok: FB:) |
...and they were only the flying stations!
|
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........:rolleyes: |
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:36. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.