Grim901We do, but they’re all T1 aircraft IIRC and are in use by the opcon unit as trainers.
Perhaps part of 3A could be 2 seaters fitted out in the strike role? The 2 seaters don’t lose anything significant to make the room for that back seat do they (like the Harrier losing the radar space)?
And as far as I know we still don’t actually have that many operational squadrons do we? That could well be the main reason that they aren’t doing anything but QRA yet. The F3 replacement was most urgent so the squadrons go there first. It’s not like we need our top end fast jet for COIN work is it? Tornados will do fine.
Grim901Can we at least try to steer this thread back onto the topic of the forthcoming defence review?
I think the consensus would be that it is far too depressing to talk about…
Grim901“Isn’t the C version the most under threat, the USN don’t seem too keen on it.”
News to me. Last I heard they were unhappy with the delivery timelines, but, they very definitely wanted the capability set?.
They weren’t too keen on the maintenance prices either. It’s the most under threat because the USN is the only customer and they have quite a few reservations coming to light. There was a flurry of articles on it last month.
Grim901Isn’t the C version the most under threat, the USN don’t seem too keen on it.
Grim901I remember a report about a speech in UK parliament where one person defended the keeping up with JSF as, basically:
“you have to understand that, if we drop the partnership in JSF, we might have to buy a french aircraft!”
with strong emphasis on “french”.
I found it quite curious behavior.. I’d think that a person with some sense of responsibility would try to get the best thing for those serving their country, but what bothered him was only the fact that it came from the french…
anyway, if RN drops the JSF (total speculation) the rafale would prpobably be the best choice for them, rather than “navalized” versions that would still have to be developed, tuned and what not… after all, france could’ve built its own aircraft carrier and instead decided to let it be built in UK (I don’t remember hearing many brits complaining about that one, btw). The three carriers may be perfectly identical (except for specific stuff, like electronics etc…), which could eventually simplify the production
1) The design was going to be based on British CVF (quite altered though), but would have been built in France.
2) They’ve deferred the decision to go ahead with the project to 2011 I believe.
3) The only benefits to Britain will be the money they pay for the design if they go ahead.
Personally I wouldn’t mind seeing Rafale flying off CVFs (properly altered – UK gear inside, better name etc :p), it’d be a shame not to use Typhoon or JSF though.
Grim901+1 for what Grim said.
The Times isn’t really worth reading for Defence related matters, to be honest since Murdoch bought it its hardly worth reading at all.
Well thats not true, how else will we know what Murdoch thinks? How will we know what is right and wrong in this crazy world…
😀 Cheers though.
Grim901The way they are going the UK will officially be the next state of the US pretty soon :D:D:D:D
So we can repeat the experience of a declining superpower all over again throughout this century as well? No thanks.
:p
Grim901I wouldn’t put too much stock in what that journalist says to be honest. If you read the rest of his series on the future of defence, he makes some pretty stupid claims.
He says the Marines are the same as infantry, except for their vehicles (completely ignores there many roles outside of what they’ve been forced into in Afghanistan or what those different vehicles are normally for.). He says the GMLRS is not useful for COIN and should be mothballed, despite its current deployment and extensive use in theatre. The list goes on.
Grim901Since a number plate is placed vertically on the carframe, so that it is visible from the side rather than from above, I don’t see how any satellite would manage to get a shot of it.
Am I missing something?
It was more about the scale than actual number plates, but if the the satellite did have the resolution to see something the size of a number plate, it would be possible to get an image unless the satellite was directly overhead. It would be a bit distorted and stretched (to different amounts depending on the angle), but that can be computer corrected.
Grim901You ahve any satellite pictures of a number plate from 200miles up? I don’t know how good US spy sats are, but nothing declassified can actually do that to my knowledge.
Grim901a) They considered it a disaster just after US decided to keep software secret.
b) and c) I am not a Briton so I wont make any comment about government.
Urm, BAE probably don’t give a damn, the UK govt. and MOD are the ones with the problem when it comes to source codes. Well it will matter a bit to BAE because they lose some potential work to LM on possible future upgrades but they still have a massive workshare in the program so I doubt they consider it a disaster.
Grim901Isn’t that 36GW, perceived potential, not actual potential. Turbines are always touted as being about twice as efficient as they really are.
The other problem, surely is time. We will have long exhausted current energy provision before 2050. We need power far sooner than 2050. With current turbine manufacturing capacity added to off-shore build times, again, even if the output figures add up, which I doubt, we will be too late for our needs.
It’s a lot easier to increase building and installing turbines than it is to build nuclear plants. As it stands the nuclear plants that are being given the go ahead will be too late to stop a gap emerging around 2017 in our generating capacity. (Although why we’re contemplating national power cuts and rolling blackouts rather than just ignoring the EU for a couple of years and not shutting down some of our coal plants is beyond me, they’re not even at the end of their lives!).
Grim901@Grim901 – well said, while I am climate change “believer” the fanatics sitting in roads at confrences dressing up as dying seals drives me potty. And as for UEA, daft b****rs the stuff they exagerated supported the claims anyway, prats.
I’m a secondary teechar in a special needs school currently but i’ve done years of mainstream as well as doing teacher training and edu stuff in Tanzania.
@JoeyR – I don’t think you are entirely wrong there, the drive of our energy policy has been pants frankly.
Nuclear used to be the best option but there is one huge problem, an elephant in the room, how much uranium is actually left to dig up? Its a matter of huge debate at the moment. The most pessimistic figure is 60 years at current usage, now thats likely to be wrong but its an indication of the potential problem. Also using uranium means you are dependent on a foreign state for your energy resource and with increased demand for a diminishing stock the cost of producing nuclear is going to go up.
So that leaves us back with two choices to guarantee energy security- re-newables such as wind and tidal which are the most promising for the UK (not a fan of the severn barrage – the environmental damage will be massive to the upper reaches of the river.) and perfecting carbon capture and reopening the coal mines. Neither is perfect, coal stocks are finite (estimates of between 100-300 years) and carbon capture is not perfected, while renewables have all sorts of cost, placement and reliability issues.
The most sensible solution is in the end the fudge the govt eventually came to – use all three! Nuclear and renewables to supply the daily norm and coal-carbon capture for peak times, this all has to be tied to a drive for energy efficiency so we use less over all. Using more than one type of energy source isn’t a luxury, makes good (strategic) sense and if done right will spark off some new industry in the UK.
You made my points on diversity being key to energy security much better than I did, and quicker.
I’m originally a native of the Severn barrage area, and I still think there is a case for it, but if the damage does prove to be too high, there are alternatives, such as a series of large boxes in the estuary, that fill with the tide and empty out (either all at once or some held back to provide more spread out generation) instead of a continuous barrage, or a large number of those fan like turbines that are lowered into the water and spin as the tide flows. Less total output, but the damage to the mudflats would be negated.
Thats alright, i’m used to getting kicked around, part of the job *shakes hand and offers swig of hip flask from desk draw*
Interesting solution to the climate debate an a-level student decided upon a few of years ago made me laugh
“Sir, why don’t we offer all the sceptics free houses.”
“okkkk….????” says I.
“We build them on low lying pacific islands and outside our own costal flood defences – If we are wrong they win a free house in a beautiful location, if we are right they drown.”
😀 Smart kid.
Nice idea.
I think I know the Geography hip flask feeling too (it’s my major at uni, I get constant flak for it + my dad used to teach it too.)
Grim901This isn’t really my area of expertise – not that anything on this site is! – but it is a bit closer, I’m a MEMS engineer with a background in Electronics, I know a few guys, both civil and Electrical working in these areas, in terms of storage battery technology is simply a no go. There is, however, the prospect of the so called hydrogen economy, dependent on the workable solution to a hydrogen fuel cell that could be used as a long term storage for surplus energy form wind conversion.
As for on shore wind storage, I’m not so against it, insofar as Scotland has a third of the UK landmass and only 10% of the population, we have space (and wind) to spare. As for the argument that it spoils the view, it needn’t, while I’m very much utalitarean in my asthetic tastes (it’s why I love the EE lightning!) I imagine it’s simply a case of trying to make the windmills look les simposing on the landscape. Call it rural architecture!
My own area of expertise may provide some help in a green future as we try to minimize the size, and therefore power consumption of many devices, it’s possible that we can reduce the load on the grid to a degree that makes renewable energy much more promising as well.
Ah the Hydrogen economy, it does sound promising, but it would take a massive investment to start up properly. I think to get people on board you’d need an agreement between a couple of large car manufacturers (with a range of Hydrogen fuelled vehicles ready to be launched), a major oil company (e.g BP, to put Hydrogen fuel pumps on all their petrol station forecourts to allow those vehicles to be used), a major energy company (to produce the Hydrogen fuel for BP to sell, with the plant running primarily on renewables such as wind when it’s blowing, or a nuclear plant) and the government to promote the use. That would give the basis of an accessible Hydrogen economy in my eyes.
(Note: The energy company doesn’t necessarily ahve to own both the Hydrogen plant AND the power stations required to power it, a subsidy deal, similar to the one the Aluminium Smelter on Anglesey had with Wylfa nuclear would be beneficial all round).
Once the groundwork is in place, other car and energy companies will begin to follow suit and technology companies will start thinking of ways for the Hydrogen to be used to power other things (but vehicles are an obvious start point).
Wind power onshore in Scotland is okay I think, but I wouldn’t like to see it in much more crowded England. There’s a difference between seeing them in the middle of the English countryside and seeing them on the horizon out to sea.
Where I would advocate onshore wind though, is through the use of microgeneration. Much smaller wind turbines, water turbines in fast moving streams, solar cells on roofs, all feeding either directly into someones house to fill part of their needs or back into the grid when they are generating an excess (night-time etc).
Grim901/mig
Can’t argue with your second paragraph.
Although, on paper, a grid sounds like an interesting solution, I recall the huge black out across most of North West Europe a year or two ago because of the excessive demands being placed on conventional power as the turbines stopped.
If we are agreed that nuclear is the ideal form why do we need to spend resources on a range of alternatives, most of which are either untried or expensive in the actual cost of the energy delivered and in development costs.
Diversity is the key to energy security. You also have to deal with nuclear waste at some point, the renewables can simply reduce that a bit. Decommissioning also become a problem. Whilst I accept it is the best solution for now (until they get Fusion sorted, hurry up ITER), fission still has its problems.
Grim901Deep tidal forces would seem to be the way to go as far as renewables go, locked into a familiar pattern so that regulation doesn’t become a problem, as far as wind is concerned it needn’t be as innefficient as is often quoted, dependent on what kind of storage system we can use.
Doesn’t matter if you believe in global warming or not, I can find plenty of reasons for investing in a source of energy that isn’t dependent on a finite resource sitting in one of the most volatile parts of the planet.
While nuclear must make up the bulk of energy produciton, there is no reason why renewable sources should not contribute to thier maximum potential, for a variety of environmental, moral and political reasons they become attractive, some places will make more use than others, but there is a good argument for the UK, and Scotland in particular, developing these technologies, since we could conceivably lead the world in it’s development and thus would be a boon to industry….
Totally agree, I think that with the large surplus of wind (and by extension wave) and tidal energy we have available, it’d be silly not to use it. The main problem with wind (offshore, I don’t advocate onshore on a large scale at all) is the lack of storage available for when it isn’t blowing, hence the need for access to quick additional capacity (currently only possible with coal/gas fired plants or energy imports). If that was solved I wouldn’t mind so much because we wouldn’t have to replicate capacity.
One wild alternative I thought of would be a pan European grid, with local renewable sources (eg Spanish solar and UK wind) being traded as necessary, so when the wind isn’t blowing in the UK, we use spare Spanish production to bolster our own and vice versa, or even use wind farms in Germany etc. It already happens a little bit, with the UK, Ireland and France buying off each other as necessary. A massive boon to this would be getting a North African nation on board, to give us access to Saharan solar energy. Just throwing the idea out there. It would require a lot of cooperation and international agreement, and quite a bit of investment in the long run but it is feasible.
Sign In
