Fedaykinand this article about the RAF on flight global:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/06/24/343632/raf-expects-to-cut-some-aircraft-types.html
not ground breaking but reinforces some points i think.
My gut feeling is the RAF is going to offer up early retirement of the GR4 fleet in exchange for Tranche 3B.
FedaykinYes it does, and hopefully makes people understand RAF spin!
They themselves even admit we have to lose some capability.
RAF spin is no different to Army and Navy spin…
FedaykinYou are in fact making my arguement for me here. I agree, there is redundent capability elswhere, which makes the need to spend £3.6 Billion on 9 airframes particuarly bad waste.
Dont write off the P-3, packed with modern avionics it can still do a good job with any current threat. Germany boughtly all of Hollands airframes and the US will still use it in frontline for at least another 10 years. Granted jets are better then props.
I am not saying these would be better then the MR4, I have never stated that, but for just £600 million it would have saved the taxpayer alot and put money to good use elsewhere in the military.
We have to recognise at some point we cannot always insist on the goldplated solution.
Yes, I am actually criticising the lack of creative thinking and forward planning at the MOD.
In 1996 when we awarded the contract did we really not know about the potential future developments in UAV tech?
In 1996 we could have easily sourced 10 P-3 airframes, upgraded them and had them within service by 2000.
It is now 2010 and we dont have a fully MR4 in frontline service yet.
We are down £3.6 Billion.
Please do not tell me this is good for Britain.
The RAF have even realised this fiasco and switched to an off the shelf US RC-135 to replace the R1s. This is common sense prevailing.
Well the RAF does write off the P3, it would regard it as a significant retrograde step in performance. An upgraded P3 would be barely better in sensor performance to MR2 and significantly inferior in transit performance which is a major requirement for the RAF.
A jet powered ASW aircraft allows you to transit onto station far quicker then a turboprop. With the large area of operation over the North Atlantic and limited number of airframes even when they were procuring over twenty, P3 wouldn’t have cut it.
Anything but a jet would of been unacceptable to the RAF.
I do feel there is an argument for the UK to purchase a number of long range business jets to be operated by the coastguard to take on the long range SAR support and control role much the same as the French and other countries do. This would free up Nimrod for other tasks and extend service life of the airframes.
FedaykinSwerve
I am 100% with you. The MOD and brass are massively overbloated, yet cutting back these alone will not get the savings we need.
Thats what makes the whole governments defence argument scary, they have led us to believe there is this massive back end and top heavy animal we can cut, when in reality there have already been cuts to the back end, cutting that alone will not get the savings we need.
My point about the 7 AWACs. Currently hours spread over the airframes include international tasking as well as UK air defence.We need to ask ourselves can we afford tocarry out international AWACs duties?
If not,cut back the commitment and hence hours needed, as a result, 4 airframes will last as long as 7 and we can make good money on the sale.
In fact the sale and service support contract may get us enough money to pay forthe remaining service lives of the 4 remaining airframes, this helping
Mr Jones the tax payer.Please do not get me wrong, all for buying British when it makes sense, but looking at Nimrod, Astute and Apache re-engining it borders on outrageous. The cost overuns on these programmes could have created many jobs on other areas of even paid for another carrier!
All when there were very viable US alternatives available.
The point Swerve is making is the AWACS, Nimrod, Astute and I’m going to throw in Typhoon are paid for! There is no market for 3 E3D so I don’t see who you think we are going to sell them to. What we would do is push up the operating costs of the remaining four airframes. The only saving you make is on short term operating costs but you in effect write off the capital cost of the equipment and push up the operating costs over the remaining life cycle of the remaining equipment.
FedaykinFella
You are the one who has actually not answered the question in the debate we just had and are heading off. That’s Cool and The Gang, but please don’t throw around insults and at the same time rush off.
What debate?
I explained how your statement was incorrect…you felt otherwise. Nuff said, I have a life beyond this forum and I feel that I have expressed enough on the subject.
If you can’t handle the heat of a web forum then I suggest a different hobby.
FedaykinYes you are being patronising again, but admitting it is the first road to recovery.
Well I save it for people who clearly haven’t got a clue what they are talking about…
Have a nice evening
Fedaykin“dumb statement”
Bet you are a nice boy really. Bless.
School nights rock some times hey?
Hmmm, school was long ago.
But clearly you don’t seem to mind throwing out patronising statements…
You bore me…do some reading, actually learn something and then you might have something reasonable to contribute…oh hang now I’m being patronising again…
FedaykinI tell you what, want to patronise me anymore?
I am well aware of how procurement works and needto spares, training, maintenence.
232 for essentially 2 air defence alert taskings, OCU and a Falklands flight?
Really, are you sure?
Despite 150 odd ADVs managing practically a similar duty.
I know the Typhoons are also meant to replace Jags, but do you want to relook at your numbers regarding needing 232 specifically for UKADR tasking.
If you are feeling nice you may want to do it in a more polite manner too…
Well frankly if you know the score with procurement don’t post such a dumb statement!
FedaykinThats another thing that has to go, the “jobs for the boys” mentality that has plauged MOD procurement for years.
Insisting on British made equipment or British modifications simply in order to preserve strategic capability in manufacturing. At some point we have to decide we simply cannot afford to protect BAE Systems indefinately.
232 Typhoons (if that number is ever inducted), is overkill.
Why do we continue to have such a diverse helicopter fleet?
I know this is being looked at.
In what way is 232 Typhoon overkill? Do you know how fighter procurement works? To meet the OSD (out of service date) we buy enough aircraft to rotate them between squadron use, maintenance and storage. The number procured is barely enough to support north and south QRA, 1435 flight, the OCU and meet the OSD.
The RAF doesn’t operate all those aircraft at the same time, it doesn’t have the pilots or ground crew to do that and they would rapidly run out of serviceable airframes if they could.
The number mapped for procurement is carefully worked out to meet a reasonable OSD. Less aircraft and you have to reduce the flight hours, cut north or south QRA and reduce the time before we have to procure more fighters.
The whole idea of too many Typhoons being procured is being peddled by people not in the know or from the Army/Navy lobbies.
FedaykinLooks like its hitching a lift, lifted onto deck by a crane then parked up.
FedaykinExcellent news!
The first step in banishing the PFI cancer that our armed forces have been condemned with.
Considering engine, transmission and rotor blades are the major fatigue items on a helicopter there is no reason why they couldn’t be operated for a long time to come.
An engine replacement program, fitting of Carson blades and maybe a minor cockpit upgrade.
Actually why not tie any cockpit upgrade with the Chinook HC2 upgrade program? Common systems and economies of scale…common sense me thinks!
FedaykinNice drawing now all they need to do now is to get that Russian Aircraft Carrier fired up. Now here comes to tricky part they still need a functioning engine to make the Varyag work. What about the protection and defensive weapons? Perhaps a purchase of 6-8 Kashstan systems and adding on VLS HQ-16 Sams could help.
Having a Radar, adding the Electronics, and Sensors would be the tricky part the Varyag is such a big ship and much wiring and time is needed to integrate everything all together. In the end of the day China would still have to go back to Soviet Moscow for help in some areas especially a must to acquire the more capable duel rotor Kamov Ka-27/31 Helicopters to defend itself in anti-submarine warfare.
I still think China should just buy the off the shelf Sea Flankers that Russia offered them Su-33 (modernize to least MK3 standards or better) that way they could have a competent aircraft and slowly work their way into maturing their J15 pet project until its ready. Because the last thing they need is a Naval conflict with the USN and having unproven aircraft flopping or engine malfunctions breaking down in a heated exchange if that were to happen it won’t end well.
Why would the PLAN bother with Kashtan when they have Type 730?
China did try to buy the Su-33 but in a number smaller then Russia was prepared to accept. The plan (no pun intended) was for an indiginous type so no big deal in the grand scheme of things.
Fedaykin(Royal) Tournament back
After it was cut be the last Labour government the (Royal) Tournament is back. No RAF, Navy and Royal title hence brackets but nice to see nevertheless. Also it won’t have the proper field gun race but its a start!
Fedaykinhttp://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2010-06/12/content_13657250.htm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2010-06/12/content_13657250_1.htm中国霹雳系列空空导弹发展历程
2010年06月12日 15:55:38 来源：新华网综合
(Chinese article about the Chicom PL-1 to PL-9 AAMs.
Snore.)
A translation would be nice Don, most of us can’t read Chinese.
FedaykinJock Stirrup is going early:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10303009.stm
My main concern with this is we might end up with an orgy of spending on the Army at the price of the Air Force and Navy.
Sign In
