It was 30 years ago today

You have all the answers, none very clear and none of the points are fully addressed as evidenced by the fact that every question is dodged rather than answered. Very political, very bullish, you’d make a fine government spin doctor. It really is like hitting your head against a wall and with an attitude like this the war in AFG really is a lost cause as is the long term future of the British armed forces.

Quite the contrary, i have identified two programmes that will/are increasing the number of helicopters in the overall fleet and a further one that will increase the availability of the existing fleet and its utility in the Afghan operation. You made every effort to suggest that these programmes did not eist when in reality they blatantly do. As is shown by your decision to post the above. Furthermore that statement suggests that you have very little understanding of the Afghanistan campaign.

You have all the answers, none very clear and none of the points are fully addressed as evidenced by the fact that every question is dodged rather than answered. Very political, very bullish, you’d make a fine government spin doctor. It really is like hitting your head against a wall and with an attitude like this the war in AFG really is a lost cause as is the long term future of the British armed forces.

The only extra Merlins I have read about are the ones we bought off Denmark, the replacements on order belong to the Danes. If there is another order for the British armed forces I haven’t read about it anywhere, Wiki tells me about the order I already know about.

The Merlins purchased from Denmark were additional to the original UK requirement and purchased direct from the production line, consequently they represent an additional order, it is impossible to represent tham in any other light.

Laurence you haven’t addressed my question. 8 Chinnoks that should have been in service years ago are being brought up to useable condition at huge extra cost. This is not an increase in airlift capability in as much as it is not over and above the original requirement.

Wrong, the criticism included the fact the Chinook airframes were un-airworthy. The fleet that was criticised did not include those airframes as they were out of service. I addressed this previously. Consequently they are additions to the active uable fleet. The extra Chinooks are not being added ‘at considerable extra cost’, it will be cheaper at this stage to modify the aircraft rather than discard them and order new ones.

Any re-engineering work on any airframe will take airframes out of service for an unspecified period of time therefore reducing the airlift capability. If any airframes are required to replace service losses and the intended replacement is in for re-engineering you’re out of luck until the work is completed.

I addressed this in my previous post.

What is needed is more helicopters in the field, the number of airframes there is dictated by the total available including those being used for training purposes, maintenence reserve purposes, work-a-day purposes and now re-engineering purposes. Seeing as the overall number of airframes is undergoing an increased number of tasks, the number available for immediate field use in, for example, AFG will effectively by reduced.

This has also been addressed, the re-engined Lynxs will provide additional fleet flexibility thus increasing availability of aircraft for theatre deployments. Bothe additional Merlins and Chinnoks are tro enter the fleet also (as previously mentioned).

The Chinook upgrade starts with the unused special forces airframes, these will then be rolled back into the fleet, thus not reducung the overall available airframe count.

The Lynx was borderline unusable in Afghanistan due to its lack of hot and high capability (reports that it could only fly between dusk and dawn) so not only will the upgrade increase life but effectively provide more uasable airframes.

The extra Merlins have been widely reported.

Furthermore of the helicopter fleet only a small proportioin of the helicopter fleet is deployed at any one time with types being rotated in and out of theatre thus further reducing the effects of taking airframes mout for reconditioning.

The only extra Merlins I have read about are the ones we bought off Denmark, the replacements on order belong to the Danes. If there is another order for the British armed forces I haven’t read about it anywhere, Wiki tells me about the order I already know about.

Laurence you haven’t addressed my question. 8 Chinnoks that should have been in service years ago are being brought up to useable condition at huge extra cost. This is not an increase in airlift capability in as much as it is not over and above the original requirement.

Any re-engineering work on any airframe will take airframes out of service for an unspecified period of time therefore reducing the airlift capability. If any airframes are required to replace service losses and the intended replacement is in for re-engineering you’re out of luck until the work is completed.

What is needed is more helicopters in the field, the number of airframes there is dictated by the total available including those being used for training purposes, maintenence reserve purposes, work-a-day purposes and now re-engineering purposes. Seeing as the overall number of airframes is undergoing an increased number of tasks, the number available for immediate field use in, for example, AFG will effectively by reduced.

And I only use AFG as an example because other tasks have not been catered for such as unforseen circumstances such as possible future conflicts or disaster relief. Thats when we get back to struggling to cover all bases and your argument that seems to suggest that we don’t need to.

It also covers my argument that the defence budget is mismanaged to a shocking degree, just getting that right might even negate an increased defence budget but it’s not going to happen is it?

But again that doesn’t provide more Chinook airframes. In fact it takes airframes out of service whilst they are being modified to bring all of them up to a common standard.

Do you have a link for the extra Merlin order?

The Lynx re-engining will indeed improve the lift of the individual airframe but will not improve the overall airlift capability. Again the airlift capability will be reduced for a time whilst new engines are fitted.

The Chinook upgrade starts with the unused special forces airframes, these will then be rolled back into the fleet, thus not reducung the overall available airframe count.

The Lynx was borderline unusable in Afghanistan due to its lack of hot and high capability (reports that it could only fly between dusk and dawn) so not only will the upgrade increase life but effectively provide more uasable airframes.

The extra Merlins have been widely reported.

Furthermore of the helicopter fleet only a small proportioin of the helicopter fleet is deployed at any one time with types being rotated in and out of theatre thus further reducing the effects of taking airframes mout for reconditioning.

But again that doesn’t provide more Chinook airframes. In fact it takes airframes out of service whilst they are being modified to bring all of them up to a common standard.

Do you have a link for the extra Merlin order?

Have a look at the wicki entry for Merlin it’s under there, we got six from somewhere (Denmark?) and ordered replacements for them.

That is only a very small part of the Chinook programme, the entire fleet is now being recaptalised and brought to a common standard. The extra Merlins were ordered aster the 2006 report and the Lynx re-engining will dramatically increase lift by increasing type availability and increasing lift capacity in hot and high evrionments like Afghanistan. All three remedial actions having been announced AFTER the one report that you so cling to.

But again that doesn’t provide more Chinook airframes. In fact it takes airframes out of service whilst they are being modified to bring all of them up to a common standard.

Do you have a link for the extra Merlin order?

The Lynx re-engining will indeed improve the lift of the individual airframe but will not improve the overall airlift capability. Again the airlift capability will be reduced for a time whilst new engines are fitted.

If you go to user Cp you can add a user to your ignore list, I believe this will have the desired effect.

On other forums it is possible to tag another user as a ‘foe’ or ‘enemy’ so that (when logged on) there posts do not display. Does anybody know if this is possible on this board?There are some genuine nuggets of interest of provocative ‘what if’ threads as well though and I’d rather not just stop coming here and missing out entirely

+1

Some poeple here like the sound of their own words and one upmanship more than intelligent discourse.

Those kinds of flame wars should be elsewhere and not clogging up what i find is usually a very informative and interesting board.

On other forums it is possible to tag another user as a ‘foe’ or ‘enemy’ so that (when logged on) there posts do not display. Does anybody know if this is possible on this board?

I ask because there have been more than a few ‘he said’ ‘she said’ spats going on on here recently and (as a bystander*) I find them dull. Judicious use of ‘foe’ tagging by one or both parties might make these go away with neithe rparty feeling the need to lose face or conceded a point just because they cannot be othered to carry on arguing in the face of an (two?) entrenched poistion(s). And likewise maybe stop the spats going on long after any factual or interesting content has dried up.

There are some genuine nuggets of interest of provocative ‘what if’ threads as well though and I’d rather not just stop coming here and missing out entirely.

Just a thought.

Al

*or maybe not mayhap I’m just as guilty

Err.. no, it just get’s tedious arguing with a brick wall and I have a life to be getting on with.

Err.. yes, hence why you stopped.:D

Err.. no, it just get’s tedious arguing with a brick wall and I have a life to be getting on with.

I seriously can’t be bothered debating with someone so unwilling to see the facts, and who displays such a scant knowledge of naval tactics and indeed construction, never mind the pressing needs of the UK Armed Forces if they’re to continue conducting operations at the current tempo.
However it is refreshing to meet someone so divorced from the realilties of the modern world, sir I congratulate you.

In short you have nothing to contribute and you and your mis-informed argument have been thoroughly routed.

I seriously can’t be bothered debating with someone so unwilling to see the facts, and who displays such a scant knowledge of naval tactics and indeed construction, never mind the pressing needs of the UK Armed Forces if they’re to continue conducting operations at the current tempo.
However it is refreshing to meet someone so divorced from the realilties of the modern world, sir I congratulate you.

Right so since the 2006 report we’ve gained how many helicopters exactly? 6 Merlins from the Danish. And the Chinook are being bought to a common standard, doesn’t actually increase the amount of lift though does it? Meanwhile the replacement programme for the Puma and Sea King HC.4 has been pushed further right while the airframes suffer reduced availabilty due to their age. I’m not saying things aren’t beeing done to address the problem, but it’s not enough especially if you’re engaged in two land wars.

Except the UK is only involved in one, pull out from Iraq is immenent. And what part of availability confuses you? More inaccuracies from you.

Presumably the same people we’ve got the LPDs etc. to power project against. If you ask anyone in the RN if they have enough FF/DD for the current level of task the answer will be no.

You are very silly, intervention almost always occurs in failed states of the variety that do not have any air force capability or naval capability beyond small boats with RPG’s. Again who are you proposing the UK start a war with?

Would that be the fleet large parts of which are reaching their OSD without replacement and are therefore being flogged on for even longer? Or the substitution of an LPD for APT(N) and APT(S) the first of which it’s barely suitable for and the second of which it’s particularly unsuited for. Has the RN coped, yes, just, but the fleet isn’t being replaced at the rate needed to maintain the capability. I’ll reitierate the MARS pioint, the tankers which are required to sustain the power projection capability aren’t being replaced for at least 7 years, their planned OSD is this year and next. Consequently a number of vessels will soldier on well past their prime with a knock on effect on availability and power projection.

OSD’s are largely arbitary, a sshift in maintenance schedul and an extra refit can and will sustatin those vessels. Again more misunderstanding from you.
A fairly juvenile ad hominem attack, where’s your justification for that statement?

I’d wager I have a better idea than you, with your everything’s fine approach, and a more thorough knowledge of the day to day realities of the current ongoing programmes. And I’m not alone in my thinking as the recent report by the UKNDA, the Secretry of State for Defence and Chief of Defence Staff have all stated that the current Defence Budget is inadequate to meet present commitments and to provide for future contingencies. But then they’re probably confused as well. If you’re waiting to find out who the enemy is before arming to fight them then it’s probably too late.

It is quite clear that you have no idea, you have yet to justify your claims and have shown little knowledge of the subject area.

That is only a very small part of the Chinook programme, the entire fleet is now being recaptalised and brought to a common standard. The extra Merlins were ordered aster the 2006 report and the Lynx re-engining will dramatically increase lift by increasing type availability and increasing lift capacity in hot and high evrionments like Afghanistan. All three remedial actions having been announced AFTER the one report that you so cling to.

Right so since the 2006 report we’ve gained how many helicopters exactly? 6 Merlins from the Danish. And the Chinook are being bought to a common standard, doesn’t actually increase the amount of lift though does it? Meanwhile the replacement programme for the Puma and Sea King HC.4 has been pushed further right while the airframes suffer reduced availabilty due to their age. I’m not saying things aren’t beeing done to address the problem, but it’s not enough especially if you’re engaged in two land wars.

Defend yourself against what? Who is the RN going to be engaging with who poses a serious threat? This is the question you keep refusing to answer!

Presumably the same people we’ve got the LPDs etc. to power project against. If you ask anyone in the RN if they have enough FF/DD for the current level of task the answer will be no.

Funny the RN has coped well enough with the existing fleet as it is, has it not?

Would that be the fleet large parts of which are reaching their OSD without replacement and are therefore being flogged on for even longer? Or the substitution of an LPD for APT(N) and APT(S) the first of which it’s barely suitable for and the second of which it’s particularly unsuited for. Has the RN coped, yes, just, but the fleet isn’t being replaced at the rate needed to maintain the capability. I’ll reitierate the MARS pioint, the tankers which are required to sustain the power projection capability aren’t being replaced for at least 7 years, their planned OSD is this year and next. Consequently a number of vessels will soldier on well past their prime with a knock on effect on availability and power projection.

Actually you are very confused.

A fairly juvenile ad hominem attack, where’s your justification for that statement?

The fact is that you have no idea what you are talking about, you dont know what programmes are ongoing, you keep trying to find mythical enemys (and failing) and seem confused by every subject you touch upon.

I’d wager I have a better idea than you, with your everything’s fine approach, and a more thorough knowledge of the day to day realities of the current ongoing programmes. And I’m not alone in my thinking as the recent report by the UKNDA, the Secretry of State for Defence and Chief of Defence Staff have all stated that the current Defence Budget is inadequate to meet present commitments and to provide for future contingencies. But then they’re probably confused as well. If you’re waiting to find out who the enemy is before arming to fight them then it’s probably too late.

[QUOTE=SkippyBing;1374435]

Well the Chinook programme apart from being an example of how not to buy a helicopter has taken ~£400M and 8 years to make 8 aircraft serviceable. The only additional Merlins I’m aware of are the six received from Denmark in ’07 and are already in service and the Lynx engine upgrade doesn’t increase the number of helicopters and hardly provides extra lift. The Defence Select Committee identified a 17% shortfall in helicopter lift in ’06 when we were doing less and so far only a piecemeal attempt at solving the problem has been made, while the F Lynx order was for less aircraft than the originally stated numbers, which were insufficient in the first place.

That is only a very small part of the Chinook programme, the entire fleet is now being recaptalised and brought to a common standard. The extra Merlins were ordered aster the 2006 report and the Lynx re-engining will dramatically increase lift by increasing type availability and increasing lift capacity in hot and high evrionments like Afghanistan. All three remedial actions having been announced AFTER the one report that you so cling to.

As for my obsession with numbers, if you’re claiming to be the second most powerful navy in the world it helps to have more than a handful of vessels, the ‘quantity has a quality of it’s own’ argument. Sure the PLAN may not have anything of the capability of the T45, but there’re only going to be six of those which rather limits their geographic coverage no matter how good they are. Your insistance that a large amphibious force constitute power projection is rather simplistic, on their own the UK’s force of LPD’s and LPH have very little in the way of self-protection. You can’t seriously argue a power projection capability if you can’t defend yourself, hence my concern over FF/DD numbers. Othere wise you could just as well use cruise liners and ferries for force projection.

Defend yourself against what? Who is the RN going to be engaging with who poses a serious threat? This is the question you keep refusing to answer!

And I wan’t confused, I was referring to the Sherman/Tiger exchange ratio in Normandy as was obvious in the context of the quote I used from you and the fact that neither type existed in 1940.

Actually you are very confused.

I’m well aware of the programmes currently being undertaken by MoD and the numerous problems therein, you apparant belief that they’re going to make up for the current and future shortfalls displays a naive willingness to believe MoD spokesmen. Meanwhile the MARS programme has been slipped right by around 7 years which on it’s own raises major questions over the ability of the RN to project power worldwide, a requirement of the SDR which is a cornerstone of the doctrine which according to you is driving MoD procurement.

Funny the RN has coped well enough with the existing fleet as it is, has it not?

The fact is that you have no idea what you are talking about, you dont know what programmes are ongoing, you keep trying to find mythical enemys (and failing) and seem confused by every subject you touch upon.

Chinook recapitalisation programme underway and additional Mermins on order as well as aLunx re-engining project undwerway.

Well the Chinook programme apart from being an example of how not to buy a helicopter has taken ~£400M and 8 years to make 8 aircraft serviceable. The only additional Merlins I’m aware of are the six received from Denmark in ’07 and are already in service and the Lynx engine upgrade doesn’t increase the number of helicopters and hardly provides extra lift. The Defence Select Committee identified a 17% shortfall in helicopter lift in ’06 when we were doing less and so far only a piecemeal attempt at solving the problem has been made, while the F Lynx order was for less aircraft than the originally stated numbers, which were insufficient in the first place.

As for my obsession with numbers, if you’re claiming to be the second most powerful navy in the world it helps to have more than a handful of vessels, the ‘quantity has a quality of it’s own’ argument. Sure the PLAN may not have anything of the capability of the T45, but there’re only going to be six of those which rather limits their geographic coverage no matter how good they are. Your insistance that a large amphibious force constitute power projection is rather simplistic, on their own the UK’s force of LPD’s and LPH have very little in the way of self-protection. You can’t seriously argue a power projection capability if you can’t defend yourself, hence my concern over FF/DD numbers. Othere wise you could just as well use cruise liners and ferries for force projection.

And I wan’t confused, I was referring to the Sherman/Tiger exchange ratio in Normandy as was obvious in the context of the quote I used from you and the fact that neither type existed in 1940. I’m well aware of the programmes currently being undertaken by MoD and the numerous problems therein, you apparant belief that they’re going to make up for the current and future shortfalls displays a naive willingness to believe MoD spokesmen. Meanwhile the MARS programme has been slipped right by around 7 years which on it’s own raises major questions over the ability of the RN to project power worldwide, a requirement of the SDR which is a cornerstone of the doctrine which according to you is driving MoD procurement.

Harry, I’m not saying there are other LPDs etc. with more than a CIWS, that’s not my point. My point is you need a balanced fleet to project power to protect the HVUs and MEUs, and that our current level of FF/DDs is proportionaly too small for that.

As for the Harriers embarking having talked to guys in the NSW they’re worried about the lack of deck time they’re getting and the effect it’s having on the CVS’s capability. It’s all very well letting the USMC and the Spanish operate off our decks but its’ indicative of a shortage of domestic organic air assets.

Oh that’s alright then, and something better wouldn’t have been useful in Iraq either. Strange how there’s still a massive deficit in helicopter lift, although I’m sure you’ll tell me that’s fine too.

That’s not a capability that’s listing hulls. The CVS haven’t worked up properly with a UK fixed wing CAG in ages, the seven amphibs are all very good but have little in the way of self defence capability which if you’re going to project power would indicate some escorts might be in order. Tomahawk firing SSNs are great once the war has started but are self defeating if you’re working on gunship diplomacy. The escorts are the weak link, they’re overworked and there aren’t enough, hence my earlier statement that the RN isn’t a balanced fleet. The PLAN has more weapons carrying platforms which could make life very difficult if they didn’t want the RN to project power somewhere. You can’t power project with a fleet of amphibious ships alone.

I was of course responding to your comment on operations in Normandy, as you could tell from the quote I used in my response which last time I checked was in ’44 not ’40. Now stop sounding like an MoD spokesman and tell me which other European nation is commited to operations on the scale we are that’s suffering the same funding shortfall.

pardon they have quite frequently the last to excises had a UK harrier CAG on the CVS. which was oh only a couple of months ago

pray do tell us of an amphibs with more than a CIWS which the what the RN amphibs have.

LOLOL So you’d agree the T-72B would swamp and roll over the M1 Abrams like nothing eh? 😀

Ad that tells us how many Tigers were in France in 1940 does it?:rolleyes: