pjhydroErm you’ve have only outlined what is actually happening anyway!
but these older types which are schedulled to leave service over the next few years won’t even touch the sides when it comes to a treasury cull.
I was talking about binning the Pumas, 125s, 146s, A109E, Herk Ks and VC10s by next April, not over the next decade, in the next 6 months.
Tornado GR4? At the moment nothing has been decided, I was saying bin them soon as is practical, ie as Tranche 3 comes in, so GR4s gone by 2015.
I make that 13 squadrons binned, mostly for good and of course with base closures on top ie, Benson, Marham or Lossie….Cuts in personnel would be considerable.
pjhydropolitically speaking South Vietnam was abandoned by the US, Korea was the same a draw, despite the US defeated the North Korean army.
Yes politically speaking and without getting into the wider debate of vietnam US air power was undefeated.
In 2010 many nations have satelites, and a military electronic infrastructure, however you need harware, F-22s F-15s etc etc.
Yes they do and many nations have ice cream factories too. You are entirely missing the point, the level at which the US “network”operates at is far beyond what other nations can do at the moment. The level of integration of US forces is decades ahead. What that means is arguing about the strengths of one particular type of platform (eg F22 Vs T-50) is a pointless exercise, neither platform is good enough to convey a war winning advantage on its own and for the US it is their system of systems that wins through.
In Taiwan the US has its hands tight, facing China straight will mean total war and with a power that has the combine power of France, Italy, England and Germany and economy pretty stronger than Japan, Germany and England togather.
Russia is different a weaker economy but lots of nukes.
I’m not aware that war with these two nations is on the cards (particularly Russia) I think Russia flatters itself in beliving that it is actually an opponent of the US (or that the US views it as such). As for china, its highly unlikely BUT I would not bet on the chinese air force to win a conventional contest (to be frank they would be unlikely to win a nuclear one either.)
Wars are win in the ground and air superiority is only useful against nation states, Afghanistan was an example of that for the Soviets.
North Vietnam was very protected by China and Russia that is the reason the US had its hands tight.
The SOviets in AFghan? I’nm afraid thats an example of what happens when a poorly trained low morale army is sent into such a meat grinder of a conflict. Air superority is always useful in any conflict, it allows freedom of movement. The US tied its own hands in Vietnam, i’m afraid it was more than capable of overwhelming the north in the air and did so on a regular basis.
pjhydroThe Arrival of weapons systems like the T-50 means in a proxy war, the F-22 might become unable to obtain air supremacy, this is the real meaning of air supremacy, in a total war ICBM and SLBM will anihilate the entire PLAAF, Russian air force and USAF for sure, here what really counts is proxy wars where SAMs T-50s, F-22, F-35 might face each other and give the victory.
This is the fallacy of kit bringing you victory. The T-50 does not end American air supremacy at all. The F22 is not what American air supremacy is invested in, it is a small factor that adds a certain amount of advantage, but take awau the F22 and American Air Power is still the most powerful by far, the F22 is not the whole linch pin, it just conveys a level of ability in that field. The huge intelligence gathering ability, command and control network, massive satelite network and overall logistics and organisational skill that sets the Americans apart.
Iraq and Serbia are two wars where Russia was unable to do anything to show its influence, Vietnam was different, the Soviet union was all the time making things difficult for the US, Korea was the same where basicly China stop the advance of the “UN forces” .
But in vietnam the Americans had essentially Air supremacy, they could fly where they liked. Same in Korea in the end, the Allies had control of the air and were not properly challenged.
Russia and China are trying to eliminate the F-22 obstacle in order to be able to use action and win a proxy war.
Russia is using the T-50 for that and China is using the JH-7 and J-10B in a possible proxy war in Taiwan where the US might only watch but still will deliver F-16s or even F-35s
I’m sorry but you are totally deluding yourself if you think a single aircraft is some sort of panacea.
pjhydroI should think retrofitting the Type 45s with sonar and torpedo tubes would be cheaper than building a separate ASW class. And isn’t the real ASW capability in the Merlin helos?
Exactly!
pjhydroJust concentrating on the RAF-
definate keeps
– Nimrod, Sentry, Sentinal, Reaper, Shadow, RC135.
All of the Typhoons, Hercules J, C17, FSTA (possibly not current deal?), chinook, Grizzly
immediate definate bins
-Puma, 32 sqn, Hercules K, VC10s
To be binned in longer term
– Tornado GR4 (hence keeping all Typhoons), Tristar (obviously)
Harriers and Merlins to FAA
pjhydroHunter. As used and proved in Borneo, Aden and of course by the Rhodesians. Also had the advantage that it could switch back to other roles instantly, such as fighter, recce, strike….
pjhydroWell of course, we still could afford it but we choose to spend it on other things.
UK defence spending as a % of GDP has shrunk 2/3rds since 1980, yet for much of the last 30 years the UK economy was in a lot healthier shape than it was then. No cold war as well of course. Where are those Reds when you need them, eh?
And those were the days when starting salary of a private was barely above “minimum wage”, tanks cost tupence and you could get a squadron of helicopters from a £1 note and still have fare for yer bus ride home….
pjhydro[QUOTE=Grim901;1613589]Well then lets just hope no one ever tries to sink the CVF’s with a submarine since you both just suggested replacing our future ASW escorts with AAW ships.QUOTE]
There is an arguement that escorts are the worst solution to ASW, rubbish sonar range, weapons carried by a helicopter anyway. The best ASW solution is a squadron of helicopters…they can technically be carried by a merchant ship or an RFA….
pjhydroagreed with Swerve.
A mini CVF it is then :P!
or with the economies of scale in our favour order a third QE…..
pjhydroMoney that will be taken back out of the local economy in short order from the troops wages that they will spend that is currently going into the german economy.
Could not agree more.
40 Ton?! Thats about four times the weight of a CVR(T) and just under 2/3 the weight of a Challenger…..on a vehicle thats supposed to be a scout!!
I think its nuts, its a complete change in philosophy for the British Army, a move away from covert recce towards the overt cavalry style of the US Army.
In the Balkans the weight and size of CVRT proved crucial, there were roads, mountain passes and bridges that nothing bigger than 10 tonnes could get down or over. Then there is the Falklands experience, ASCOD will never be able to cross the bogs and swamps that CVRT didn’t even notice. 40 tonnes really limits your scouting ability, I think those in armour procurement have been seduced by the sight of all those M3s….
pjhydroYawn.
You guys and your funny toys. Its amazing how quickly nationalistic fever takes over in a thread like this and like a religion people make sweeping, unsupported and pointless statements about whose shiny aeroplane is better than whose….fortunately the running of real air forces is left to others.
Honestly guys it doesn’t matter if the F22 was painted yellow and fired custard pies and the T-50 can make the pilot a esspresso while he quitely plays with himself….a good plane not a good air force maketh.
pjhydroAlternatively they could scrap the Type 26 and instead build a sizable fleet of corvettes and PT boats for coastal defence. The Type 45s could be modified with harpoons to serve as escorts for the CVF along with missile defence.
Who are the sloops (corvette) and MGBs (PT) to be used against? surely an extravagance in these austere times…:D
pjhydroTo destroy the Serb military – why would NATO need to ‘destroy’ the Serb
military? How was NATOgoing to assess the completion of the destruction of the Serb military, what yardsticks or benchmarks were going to use – ten serb tanks, a hundred?
Right…..ok…..The aim was just pressure to force Serbia to do what NATO wanted, which it did so it worked…..
pjhydroI leave you all alone for a few hours and it decends into a pissing competition…who cares how old or good or not F117 is? who gives a monkeys if S300 is great or rubbish or better with brass knobs on, you are totally missing the point…
NATO was entirley overwhelming over the Balkans in the 1990s not because of the aircraft it deployed – to be honest some of them were rubbish on an individual basis – but because they operated under the umbrella of the US command system with all its planning, organisation and experience.
Yes numbers of course helped, yes individual platforms brought their advantages but you could have deployed a massive force of just “stealth fighters” and had they been operating without the USAFs C4I system they would not have done as a good a job (and perhaps failed) as more “obsolete” types operating within the C4I system.
pjhydroNo, six Type 45s were ordered.
Of those, the Royal Navy has three –
Two have been commissioned.
One is undergoing sea trials.The remaining three have not been delivered yet –
Two have been launched, & are fitting out.
One is building, to be launched in a couple of months.
My first thought on this is to cancel Type 26 and order the other 6 Type 45s, the twelve hulls would constitute my ‘escort force’. Harpoons, phalanx etc taken from 42s, 23s and 22s as they decomission.
Sign In
