This “first day of war strike capability” is frankly nonsense,

First of all the term “first day of war” is used as a coverall for operations at the begining of a conflict when defences (however modern or old) are at their maximum operating level.

because (a) no manned aircraft will be sent into a high-threat environment until missiles and UCAVs have cleared the way, and

All those operational, tested, mature UCAVs that fill dozens of squadrons in western airforces? I agree with you long term but we are still years, probably a decade from a western airforce fielding a capable UCAV and longer for a significant and useable capability. As for the RN fielding one inside 20 years, not a chance.

So in lieu of that what fires many of those missiles that are clearing the way? The UK will be fighting a very long war if it waits for Astutes to clear the way with TLAM, the rate of fire would be so slow that damage would be repaired in time for your “manned attack”.

To say no manned aircraft would be sent into a high threat environment is i’m afraid nonsense and does not stand up to evidence of recent air campaigns.

(b) no such high-threat environment is conceivable in the foreseeable future, certainly none that would threaten the defence of the UK.

And you know this how? If you can gurantee what the defence situation the UK will be facing in a decade or more then you need to be working at the highest level and saving us a whole lot of money. You can’t know what threats the RN will need to face in 2015 let alone 2025 when the QEs and their compliment of F35s will be fully worked up and be a mature capability.

Could the 1997 SDR have predicted September 11th and the subsequent afghan campiagn?

Besides why the emphasis on “high threat environment” if you go up against older less sophisticated threats why would a lesser aircraft be acceptable?

“Its ok lads you can have this cheaper slightly naffer kit because we have assesed that our potential enemies don’t quite have the highest defence capability….”

Balderdash, F35 will be a quantum leap over anything else the RN could operate, it will mean they can hit the enemy when its defences are at their highest state and give the aircrew a higher chance of coming home to do it again than if they were flying anything else.

Are we back to the “anything but the F35” discussion again? :rolleyes:

But I guess we will still be having it when all the squadrons are commisioned, its flying off QE/PoWs deck and the pilots are saying “F35? dogs balls mate!”….Why does the public not like it? I don’t think I’ve come across a more hated plane that has yet to enter service.

If anything, the real waste of money was not continuing with the original Nimrod plan to build new airframes with modern techniques, allowing us to restart the production line, giving us the ability to provide as many airframes as necessary for both MRA4 and R1, plentiful spares and the possibility of an export or 2.

Never a truer word etc….

You 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.

There is not redundant capability elsewhere, you are being “so last century”. Nimrod is essential, it will be one of the key “nodes” in the UKs networked ISTAR capability. Instead of relying on one airframe or type ISTAR has become delvolved to several types with different complimentary sensors that are now networked together. The Nimrod and E3Ds (which you seem also intent on ridding us of) will be the key comms and co-ordination nodes in the air that will bring all these capabilities together to form the big picture, as well as performing their own roles. No body disagrees that Nimrod is overpriced, but if you divide the cost over the lifetime of the airframes rather than just crudely assessing upfront costs then 3.6 billion over 30-40 years for a top flight world beating ESSENTIAL platform is not that much.

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.

Your first line says it all “can still do a good job with any current threat”. I don’t want just a “good job” with “current threats” I want a world beating, bring our soldiers home at the end of the day, beat all comers including future perceived threats system. Upgraded P3 and Nimrod MR2 were in different leagues frankly, Nimrod MR4 is playing a differnt sport that P3 can’t even understand.

The Germans bought them because they were desperate and very very cheap. The USN would love to have replaced its P3s years ago, like the USAFs tankers the P3 replacement has been a very long time coming. Some of the USNs P3s are falling to bits.

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.

But it would be wasted money, buying a poorer system will waste lives, lose us battles and to keep P3 up to date we would already be looking at a big upgrade or replacement so your £600 mil figure is wrong.

We have to recognise at some point we cannot always insist on the goldplated solution.

Gold plated is such a subjective, loaded term that suggests extras we could do without. The UK can not afford a mass armed forces, we cannot go for quantity. That means every piece of kit has to go further and do more if we are to be the consistent war winners that we are. When you say “goldplated” what you actually means is “we cannot insist on quality solutions” and therefore by implication fob our airman off with any old tut.

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?.

Buying into an entirely new way of doing something when it is so immature is not cheap at all. The cautious approach to UAVs that the UK has followed has kept costs down, encouraged private initative and allowed time for the systems to mature. You can’t plan a defence policy on things that are just in engineers creative minds. The MOD has the security of the UK on its plate, sometimes it can’t be creative, it just has to do and be cautious.

In 1996 we could have easily sourced 10 P-3 airframes, upgraded them and had them within service by 2000.

And be looking at their replacement now and therefore spending more money. As it it MR2 was good for another ten years so getting P3s would have been a waste of money. As other have said the RAF has really waved goodbye to props in big aircraft, it is a huge retrograde step.

It is now 2010 and we dont have a fully MR4 in frontline service yet.

We are down £3.6 Billion.

No one here is going to disagree about that fact it would be nice to have them in service. But its not the end of the world. Red Banner Fleet North is not about to stream through the GIUK gap, other aircraft are doing the overland role and SAR is covered. We can afford a “gap” in capability, in fact its saving a bag of money. The Nimrods are there, they are and will be fantastic and will be with us for decades (unlike a load of rehashed P3s).

Please do not tell me this is good for Britain.

Why not? You realise most of that money did go into the UK economy, its not “lost”. And we are getting the best platform of its type ever built.

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.

No, the RAF have been forced to do this by others. The RAF does not want RC135. 51sqn personnel pretty much told the Chief of the Air Staff to go copulate with himself when he told them. The smater plan would be to use the Nimrod development aircraft which are already paid for or to pick up some cheap modern airliners that can utilise modern, cheap, plentiful, still in production spare parts. By using the 707 (and an older version than the E3Ds) the RAF is going to have to rely on the USAF supply chain entirely for something that until now has been a UK only soverign capability that no other nation could interfere with. Its not common sense, its penny pinching insanity of the highest order.

I am not down with UK equipment, we have some of the best kit in the world. What I am down about is cost overuns that could have been avoided had we not had the cosy little club that the MOD/BAE seem to have goining on.

Unlike the cosy little clubs bewteen governments and industry in every major country? Unfortunately the reality is we have BAE or we lose our sovereign build capability. Look at Holland, you shop elsewhere and you aviation industry vanishes. Its not great but there we are.

What I am down about is there being no budget for body armour and additional helicopters (being rectified now) when the RAF carrying on as if we seriously need 232 Typhoons, or the fact that we spend £400 Million on each MR4.

The lack of body armour is down to bad planning and a long term attitude amongst senior figures in the military (not just the politicos) that body armour was not necesary.

232 Typhoons is not that many when you consider it will pretty much our only FJ type. divide that by three to get an over generous idea of how many will actually be availible on the frontline…ie 77 aircraft. So long term deployable fleet is going to be around 50, not many.

We have some serious world beaters in Challanger 2, Warrior, AS90, Type 42 (when they are finally ready), but no one else can even afford these!

Its also that they are very UK specific, a problem of the British defence industry since the dawn of time. the US is very good at making products others want, we aren’t.

The Spitfire was made in a time when BAE shareholders were not a prime consideration in the decision making process.

No vickers ones were. Nationalise it all then?

We going to play nicely now?

The point I was making about the programme overuns (I know these programmes are paid for/completed) is that we wouldnot have had the overuns in the first place had we gone for US alternatives.

Why not European alternatives? and what do you mean we wouldn’t have had the over-runs? US programmes are whiter than and never get delayed no? pants.

Nimrod – P-3/P-8

We would still be waiting for P8 years from now and any P3 alternative never got off the starting blocks (and frankly is a retrograde step).

Astute – Virgina class

So surrender our soveriegn design and devlopment capability to get a submarine many in the silent service are saying is slightly inferior to Astute.

WAH-64 – AH-64

The delay wasn’t huge (and was mainly to do with crew training and not engines), the cost over runs not great (again mainly the crew training issues) and we have ended up with an apache superior to the original, capable of flying with longbow fitted even in the height of the Afghan summer, which US and dutch apache’s can’t.

Why are you so down on UK equipment? Every nation has cost over runs and delays and UK equipment is very very good, sometimes worth the wait…. Spitfire had all sorts of issues with production delay and was almost cancelled, in your world we would have binned it and bought P-40s…..

USAF is going to want supersonic so T50 or the like made under license.