Tornados to be axed?
 

Cuts could cost RAF its fleet of Tornados | Politics | The Guardian

Oh dear. Surely there are other things to chop first?

Buried in that report is the line "because the MoD is no longer expecting to sell some of its Typhoons to Oman in a £600m deal".

In other words, "Instead of Tornado GR.4 carrying on until F-35C starts to arrive, more Tornado squadrons will re-equip with Typhoon than previously planned, with some of those operating the 'obsolete by 2015' tranche 1 aircraft to transition to F-35C".



Reads a little differently that way, doesn't it?

There is some brutal financial thinking going on somewhere - and I am not advocating it.

Delete the Tonka GR fleet and not only are there savings in equipment and associated pilots and maintenance folk, will this not also remove the Nav branch too, particularly after the last course has just finished (other thread)?

There have been enough comments / threads on here that the incoming Tornado was no match for the Buccaneer, I just hope that there is no similar cock up with the newer and shinier and better Typhoon being less capable in the Strike & CAS roles than the swing-winged beastie.

Is there something else at work going on in the shadows and this is not just a case of balancing the books? Has someone swallowed the sales patter (or the directorship) of "the Fj future is bright, it's unmanned' and is now working the deliver that new vision?:ugh:

Its much simpler than that ...... my interpretation anyway.

In SDSR, someone in the MoD/RAF came up with a budget for the Tornado fleet going forward, and its not exactly decades ago that this was done, so most 'threat assessment changes' excuses are out of the window.

Here we are 12 months or so later, and 'a hole' in the budget has been found aka 'oops we forgot to include this and that' in the budget.

Tradition would have been that the taxpayer paid more, as if the budget was somehow irrelevant, thereby contributing is some way to wards the £38 Billion MOD overspend.

My guess is that someone may have been told, that they have a budget - work within it.

Thats not brutal financial thinking - its asking people to honour their promises and estimates, and to stop using the Exchequer as if its a bottomless pit of cash for the RAF.

Unfortunately Typhoon isn't particularly good at anything yet (standfast the air display circuit). So the obvious question is what do we use for CAS in Afghanistan?

We could try to get Typhoon cleared for a bunch of weapons asap but there are problems with that, not least the cost as we would have to go outside the multi-national programme. A choice of 1000lb class weapons really isn't going to be very useful. Gun, anyone? ANd then there are the other commitments such as QRA (perhaps we could lose a QRA station?)

The other option is probably unpalatable for the RAF - just use Apache and Reaper. The TFH area is so small these days that Apache could cover it and Reaper could remain the UK's theatre wide CAS capable asset, supporting TFH if tasked. BUT no FJ in the fight?!?

We live in interesting times.

From the RAF Air Power Review Autumn/Winter 2010
Quote "The ability to project power from the air and space to influence the behavior of people or the course of events".
In today’s world, it is a regrettable fact that there are many conflicts and fragile cease-fires waiting to explode into fighting, not just in the Gulf area but in Asia, Africa, and even within Europe. The RAF must be ready to deliver flexible air power anywhere in the world. AGILE ADAPTABLE CAPABLE” Unquote :ok:

So...... we have lost the Harriers, the Nimrods and are now, seemingly, about to lose the Tornados:}. We have a rapidly degenerating and hugely overworked, Transport / SH fleet, the SARF is in disarray, RAF personnel at maximum stretch and the MOD announcing redundancies.....:eek: Priceless.....

... well certainly to a mr mahahmoud a-mad-inejad and all those others who may be contemplating conflicts, as well as all those fragile cease-fires that are waiting to explode into fighting, not just in the Gulf area :uhoh:but in Asia, Africa, and even within Europe, (and let’s not forget NI and the Falkland Islands)

Comforting though, that can hold our heads high and sing ‘Rule Britannia’ as, at least, we still have a ‘full strength’ RN..........No?:ooh:

Oh b*llocks!

Mr Cameron and Mr Fox, where on earth are you taking us?:E

Whilst sad in its way, I think this may demonstrate the futility of prejudice over good sense. The RAF were determined to get rid of the Harrier (and thus the RN from FW aviation) to the extent they were willing to follow the financial nonsense of a £7Bn requirement (GR4) vs a £1Bn one (GR9) in so doing removing the one capability that may prove useful on the current ME/N Africa meltdown - ie carrier air power. UK FW in Afgh is a sideshow as it can be replaced by a myriad of other nations aircraft.

If you place this alongside the Sunday Times article by Mick Smith where he alleges the RN are looking to replace the Nimrod capability (presumably with leased P3s or something similar flown by the FAA), and the RN are now the only Service training Observers/Navs and WSOps/Aircrewmen, then the RAF have really got themselves in a fix.

Quote:

---

... well certainly to a mr mahahmoud a-mad-inejad and all those others who may be contemplating conflicts, as well as all those fragile cease-fires that are waiting to explode into fighting, not just in the Gulf area http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/worry.gifbut in Asia, Africa, and even within Europe, (and let’s not forget NI and the Falkland Islands)

---

Somehow I doubt the strength (or not) of the Royal Air Force will be part of their decision making process. Its whether the US will react that matters and nothing else.

Don't kid yourself that our ability to project force will scare any of the locals. You're trying to apply logic to a non-logical bunch.

Is this the next step towards deleting the RAF and ending up as was originally, army and navy only?

"From the RAF Air Power Review Autumn/Winter 2010
Quote "The ability to project power from the air and space to influence the behavior of people or the course of events".
In today’s world, it is a regrettable fact that there are many conflicts and fragile cease-fires waiting to explode into fighting, not just in the Gulf area but in Asia, Africa, and even within Europe. The RAF must be ready to deliver flexible air power anywhere in the world. AGILE ADAPTABLE CAPABLE” Unquote"

Ehmmm is that when the Aircraft is overhead? because when its in base rearming refueling its threatening no one and influencing nothing thats the lesson learnt right back to the 1920's

"Unfortunately Typhoon isn't particularly good at anything yet"

Which if true just sums up the whole problem. Joe public in the UK would be staggered to find out that this was the case given the cost of the programme to date! How on earth would they then react to being informed that Tranche 1 aircraft are approaching obsolesence:*

GrahamO, that's probably how the Treasury looks at things and - as such - I think your point is important. However, I disagree with your basic assessment.

The first financial black hole is procurement, and in my experience the basic reason for that is politics a long way outside of the control of the MoD. Essentially, the insistence of the government of the day to buy British - such that no major projects ever go to true competitive tender - means that cost overruns are inevitable; there is just no incentive for cutting costs. That's not in any way a criticism of the defence industry, who exist to make money for their shareholders as best they can. Neither am I suggesting that it isn't occasionally appropriate to subsidise the UK defence industry... But the current Defence Industrial Strategy is an expensive fudge.

The second problem is that governments set out planning assumptions for what they ask the Services to do, and then ask the MoD to do something else entirely. The Services are flexible and can do that... But it costs. There are two basic approaches to funding public services: you can decide something is desireable, work out what the country can afford, and fund the service as best you can. Or you can decide something is essential and fund what it costs. But you can't have it both ways: deploying forces because it's apparently essential and funding them as if it's apparently desireable is always going to end in a budget and/or capability train wreck.

By Mr Grim:

"So the obvious question is what do we use for CAS in Afghanistan?"


Last time I looked, the Afghanistan ops were being prosecuted by multinational forces therefore we use FJ airpower supplied by others, indeed as we already do in many circumstances.

Should have kept GR9 & binned Tornado anyway.

Privatise
 

This is a no brainer, just privatize the military.

Then put the tender out to the lowest bidder....

Thats the new way of thinking.

Glf

It seems all too clear that whilst the MOD remains focussed on Afghanistan, the Government is looking at post-Afghanistan and that means placing UK security and resilience as a priority, over and above armed intervention elsewhere in the world.

Seems probable that there is no appetite for operations like Iraq and Afghanistan any more and that the "force for good" expeditionary type doctrine will be quietly shelved as undesirable and unaffordable.

Mr Grim,

You say:

You are technically correct on the landmass that is TFH, but the air and aviation assets deployed to the Theatre are not there for sole UK use and are there as part of the coalition. So by removing the UK Fast Air, you increase the demand on the already too small (mostly US) fast air, resulting in even more reduced support to ground forces (of all nations). Apache and Reaper provide excellent support, but cannot provide all of the capability of a fast-jet (not just GR4 but any FJ).

You raise the key issue here - QRA. If we replace the GR4s in Afghanistan with Typhoons (which btw has all the necessary air-to-ground clearances - see the press from early last year) of the right tranche, it is my understanding that we could not then provide QRA in the Uk and the Falklands. 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!

So, we lose GR4 sharpish, we don't back fill the capability we have provided the coalition,ground forces (from all nations) go unsupported (haven't got enough Reaper or Apache) and troops suffer injuries/fatalities as a result. Difficult to prove but if guys are in contact and do not get any kind of air/aviation support to suppress the enemies fire......

Now I know politicians are weasels and would wriggle out of it with clever spin, but this is a real possibility.

Since when has Typhoon had a full clearance for air to surface other than 1000lbs and PWII (inc. enhanced variants)?

Wriggle room...
 

William Hague was quized this morning on the decision to repatriate UK nationals from Libya and was quite vague in his responce, nothing unusual there, but I wonder what assets are left in the pot should we need to pull out from the various political hot-spots. Maybe a round-robin by one of the many AT assets we have available....

:ugh:

5d2d

Great analysis! :ugh:

"by removing the UK Fast Air, you increase the demand on the already too small (mostly US) fast air"

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?

Paragraph four from the story attached sheds more light on the subject.

BBC News - USS Abraham Lincoln provides air support to Afghanistan