ArrowsWell frankly if you know the score with procurement don’t post such a dumb statement!
“dumb statement”
Bet you are a nice boy really. Bless.
School nights rock some times hey?
ArrowsAs for an “Army” lobby, right now they are the ones doing the fighting and dying and the ones we need to badly support more. I think it is about time we paid attention to any “lobby” that asks for semi-decent body armour and heli lift compared, but no, what do they know right?
Just waiting for the”but we dont want to fight the last war”, that train is never late……
ArrowsIn 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.
I 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…
ArrowsThats 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.
ArrowsThe USSR ceased to exist 19 years ago. Japan has 13 E-2 & 4 E-3. China probably has more than us.
Apologies,willput my pedantic hat on, Russia AND Japan.
We dont know how many China have in service.
My point is 4 is more then enough for UK air defence,unless we want to carry on trying to be the worlds policeman.
Buying F-35s “more slowly”?
No one seems serious about genuine cuts.
ArrowsCutting E-3 numbers is a total non starter, it is the bare minimum to meet our current requirements.
I can see however the Army the Army losing 2 C2 Regiments and 2 Armoured Infantry Battalions, but not to save money, but together with the exisiting Mechanised (Saxon) Battalions being re-roled as Medium Armour units forming 2 Medium Brigades.
I doubt anyone will want to buy the surplus C2s so they will probably be a source of spares. Jordan does have a tendancy to purchase ex British Army armour (C1) so there is a small possibility there and Oman might want to equip a second Armoured Battalion with C2s though they would in both cases require modification. It would all depend on the price.
No one bar the US and USSR has as many AWACs as we do.
7 E-3 were purchased so we could provide UK defence and contribute one to NATO.
If we get rid of our NATO contribution this is no major loss.
ArrowsPJHydro and Swerve
I think we are having two arguments here.
I think the UK will inevitably have to lose some capability whilst you are arguing any cuts would lose capability. We need to be prepared for this.
Less tanks and having just 150 would leave us with one deployable armoured regiment. We are in investing in lighter armoured vehicles, so naturally we can do with less tanks.
4 AWACs is enough for one to be in the air permantly or to be deployed.
With regards to sorties off one base. Maybe we can take some lessons from the USAF and Luke AFB?
As I said, we can have detachments at Leachuers for Northern Q and have Coningsby as a main base.
France may be a buyer or we can sell them to a country with no AWACs (with US approval) that is in the market for an AWACs plane.
Spain, Jordan, Malaysia, Oman, Italy spring to mind….
Essentially their are two view points. We can try and carry on trying to do everything with fewer resources or we can start specialising in some areas and give up capability.
For example in Telic it was our air refuelling and special forces that the US appreciated most.
Not our frigates, not our carriers, not our AWACs.
ArrowsISLAMABAD: Pakistan Air Forces is all set to receive four latest F-16 Block 52 jets from US at Shahbaz Airbase in this week.
US will deliver 18 F-16 jets to Pakistan and four of them will reach Shahbaz Airbase, Jacobabad this week.
Shahbaz Airbase has been converted into latest operational airbase before arrival of these jets. Eight pilots of PAF have already completed their F-16 training in US.
Sources said that US is also providing additional technical assistance to PAF regarding F-16 jets. The addition of these jets will boost the operational capabilities of the air force.
ArrowsIf you look at my post I never mentioned Hamas.
Its always the groups on the fringe, who are willing to take big risks. Just 2 weeks ago 4 Islamic Jihad members were killed during a naval commando raid near Gaza/Israel sea border. Israel has a lot more to loose than Iran by any attack. Iran will simply restart the whole process again, might thake them few more years but they will get the bomb.
I agree. They have less to lose.
Yes, looks like we may now have to start learning to live with a nuclear Iran.
I dont think it will be the nightmare scenario everyone makes it out to be.
However, it will undoutedly shift the balance of power in the region and tilt it away from Israel.
Perhaps more importantly, Israeli talk of not allowing a nuclear armed Iran will be seen as just that. Talk. They could not stop it.
This may actually embolden the likes of Egypt and Saudia Arabia
ArrowsSo if Norway wanted to contribute Gripens to a NATO mission, Sweden could actually effectively veto such a contribution if it is carrying out all maintenence!?
ArrowsYes we need 380+ C2, we actually only have around 200 in service at any one time anyway, the rest are already in mothballs.
E3 numbers make little or no difference, we’ve bought 7, the only savings which can be made without cutting the capability completely are in reducing operational tempo.
Private training doesn’t cost less and is usually not as good.
As for centralising aircraft, a good many of our bases are already filled to capacity, and anyway, you never put all your eggs in one basket.
Really? Do we need 200 in front line service? Telic was 2 Armoured regiments and squadrons from one more.
Can we not cut the 380 figure by half and also replace the other tanks with lighter vehicles that can be transported more easily and we can use in other places?
Will GW1 and GW2 happen again? If so we can provide support with units other then heavy tanks.
Selling off 3 E-3s and not requiring basing and crew will earn us money and save alot in the long run. Mean we will also only have to upgrade 4 in future and not 3.
Agree, private training possibly not as effective sometimes.
All our eggs in one basket? We have to do that sometimes, it is a hard choice but we need savings. If we can put all tanker/tranports at Brize, and all MPAs at Kinloss, why not all Typhoons at Coningsby?
ArrowsIf one takes a very cursory look a the most significant military events for the UK in the last decade what does one see? It sees that the UK forces participated in virtually the full spectrum of land warfare. And Air and Naval support was essential in each of these conflicts. Here is just a sample.
- In Iraq the UK committed the bulk of its heavy mechanized forces to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The whole range of British military power was on offer, from naval fire support to Storm Shadow strikes on the first night of the war.
- In Sierra Leone UK forces using amphibious capability and air support intervened in the civil war in that country and saved UK military personel held hostage.
- In Afghanistan they have been involved in the war from the outset with significant amounts of air power brought to bear supporting Marines, light infantry and special forces like the SAS and SBS.
- Long range airlift has been essential in just about every conflict. They have had to procure UAV/UCAV capability.
Fighting the last war is the mistake the French made with the Maginot Line. You have to fight future conflicts. The last ten years has seen the UK military fight in just about every type of conflict imaginable save for nuclear war. It is very safe to assume that in the next twenty all of these types of conflict will still be possible. It is hard to see the need for preparedness for the Iraq/Afghanistan/Sierra Leone scenarios not being needed.
Organic air power, airlift, well equipped land forces and an independent reconaissance capability are the bare minimums the British need to fund if they have any pretensions to consider themselves worthy of a seat on the UN Security Council in the years ahead.
True, but was Sierra Leone and Iraq vital to UK security?
Also, we no have to come to the conclusion that we simply cannot afford the full spectrum of capabilities. For example we can share air refuelling and EW with close allies. Do we really need 3 battalions of Paras and 3 battalions of Marines?
Can we make do with 4 E-3s rather then 7?
The F-35 makes sense for the RN, but can we cut the RAFs share? After all Harrier type ops were designed around German airfields being destroyed.
Do we need 380 odd Challanger 2s?
Can we rotate infantry regiments for Household ceremonial duties rather then getting the Guards to always have a unit there?
RN and RAF units still dedicated to EW/Enemy training, can we privatise?
Can we centralise all GR4 units at ones base?
Likewise with Typhoon and only keep a small detachment at Leachuers for Northern Q?
ArrowsA MI-35 carries a section but is still classed as a gunship. Obviously in these times we have to do more with less, but Wildcat can do a much better scout job then Gazelle.
ArrowsYou answered your own question Quadbike, Isreal is in a big PR mess.
When even Turkey turns against it it makes things even harder for King Abdullah as now he has even less room to manouvre vis a vis Jordanian public opinion. In the past he could argue his air force could not defend itself or that it was in Jordanian interests, now that much of world opinion has turned against Israel and even Turkey attacks it diplomatically he will find it hard to NOT resist IDF overflights. This is where Israel (I do not even think Nentenyahu realises yet), has really lost out and shot itself in the foot.Even moderate Arabs will find it hard not to put up stern resistance in case of hostile action. Even states scared of a nuclear Iran can no longer (even implicitly) support a raid.
Buran
Hamas are VERY PR savvy, Israel will be the first to admit this. Alot of what has happened recently has been Israels own bungling, and alot of it down to good PR. They are not just a bunch of brainless armed gangsters as many in IDF will tell you…
ArrowsJordan AF is no walk over, and remember, RJAF is well trained and equipped with MLU’d F-16s armed with AMRAAM.
That is no walkover, and remember, they dont have to even destroy the whole IDF package.
If the IDF strike package is disrupted, a few jets shot down and air refuellers forced to divert, this may well be enough to cancel the raid.
Sign In
