T'grph: "Forces Prepare For Axe To Fall On Fighter Jet Fleet In Drastic Cuts Package"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by soleil, Jan 25, 2011.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Thought the Govt said that the big load of cuts last time were it. Oh well eh, more fun and games on the Rage Bus maybe :p


    Still think savings should come from the foreign aid budget first of all personally
     
  2. Scouse, gets my vote as well notwithstanding the argument about back door defence diplomacy
     
  3. Got a son who is high up enough in fighter aircraft electronics to sit in all meetings with the Brass.He said that all were shocked at the Harrier and Nimrod cancelation.
    1. Because the Tornados should have been the aircraft to scrap first as they rarely support the ground troops,merely fly over fast to frighten the Tallies where'as the Harriers really pounded the ground.
    2.The new Nimrod has not been flown yet in it's new mode so it's millions and millions down the drain for what?
    Hasten to add these are the words of those at the top table including a lot of senior MOD.
    There should have been more of a fight over these cuts from those in power of our Forces.
    My lad knows in in and outs of it all and he says it's very shortsighted but more than that,it's criminal to our Forces protection.
    Just passing on his view of the meetings.
     
  4. Can someone tell me why we have a Nimrod anymore, and/or, whats the new one for?
     
  5. I think a more pertinent question might be "where does the f8cking money go????!!"

    For clarity - it does not go on projects like CVF & T45, expensive though they are. Nor was it all spunked on Typhoon (or DIIF), nor is it deliberately p1ssed up the wall by DE&S, nor does it all end up in BAE pockets. Obviously, these projects do absorb lots of money, but my point is "what is it actually spent on?" and "where does the rest go?"

    Have had various attempts to rummage round the MoD budgetting systems over the years and was convinced that no-one actually knew where the money went in detail, only that huge amounts of data was processed in teh vain hope that it somehow added up.

    I would suggest that this what needs sorting before any more attacks on the crippled remnants of HM Forces.
     
  6. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    Utter pump. I am sure M_M will back me up, but I know this from seeing daily sitreps and sadly associating with the lightblue romper suit crowd [don't let on but in ones and twos they are ok, bigger groupings...yuk]

    Like many projects that have been axed, its been axed because its a wholesale capability that has been decided we no longer need but more importantly cannot afford. There is no difference to removing SENTINAL from service, or even withdrawing the CVS and LPD for service so recently after refits costing XXX million each. You have to remember as a planner, all money that has been spent (sunk costs) are actually pretty irrelevant, the planners need to look at current and future money that they can influence. NOt good but thats how it tends to work. You cannot apply your normal commercial logic here as we operate under accounting rules that constrain common sense fiscal management whilst being put in place to try to ensure public money is wisely spent.:slow:

    It's quite simply a case of we are were we are. Our Equipment Programme was not properly constructed for succesive generations, we've failed to adequately control escalating costs, in particular defence inflation and more importantly our commitments have veered away from the strategic assumptions against which the EP was made, requiring the frenetic rush to push UORs out of the door, some of which we may be able to take into the core EP some we probably won't and those capabilities will similalry just wither in due course.

    Not_a_boffin you'd be amazed at the way the finances are managed, veering and hauling between underspends, overspends. Not always MoD or DE&S fault, in many instances we are very badly let down by our commerical partners, cannot spend money quickly enough then effectively lose it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2011
  7. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    We have one variant effectivley left the R1 which is an ELINT/SIGINT platform. This will be replaced by the US Rivet Joint capability, which interestingly is being delivered by taking KC-135 tankers then gutting them and rebuilding them as the RJ aircraft. I believe the first one has just recently landed and been hacked apart.

    We are losing the MRA2/MR4A capability which was an ASW/AAW/SAR platform, in these times its actually a bigger loss than many realise.
     
  8. W_D - I'm all too familiar with underspends, savings measures and in-year totals. A complete b8ggers muddle which benefits no-one, least of all the taxpayer.

    I'm far less convinced that the accountants who present/track the budgets, or indeed the desk officers accountable actually know where and on what all the money goes. No, it's not the fault of MoD/DE&S - or at least, not those trying to get things done despite the system.
     
  9. Literally scrapping the Nimrod fleet is an act of gross irresponsibility. But perhaps this is unsurprising, given that they are largely maritime assets, and therefore low priority for the coterie of fast jet pilots who run the RAF. However, the buzz around the Westminster Village is that in the week after the SDSR was finalised and agreed within MoD, but before it was published, the then Chief of the Defence Staff, ACM Sir Jock Stirrup, and possibly the Chief of the Air Staff, ACM Sir Stephen Dalton, went to Downing Street to lobby the PM. If this is correct, the result of this meeting was that the obsolescent Tornado fleet was saved at the expense of the Harriers – reversing a decision already signed up to in the SDSR. It is worth noting that both these officers are Tornado pilots, that to lose the Tornados would mean that there would no longer be any need for RAF fast jet navigators (the Typhoon being single seat), and that they would also achieve the emasculation of the Fleet Air Arm - a standing RAF agenda since 1968.
     
  10. Stow your chips matey, take the weight off your shoulder. The Harriers could have transferred to the navy Budget anytime we wanted. There was no provision, though.

    In the National interest, there is more to offensive air power than CAS in the 'Stan. The brown jobs and booties might value fast mobile artillery but there's a bigger picture out there.

    If you want my agreement though, you have it on the Nimrod 4.
     
  11. On balance, quite agree! Should've opted for the carrier variant of the JSF from the outset. Bigger, faster, longer range, greater payload - and in service sooner and (probably) cheaper. Then no need for Tornado or Harrier (your point re CAS well made). There was also a carrier variant of Typhoon planned, but guess who scuttled sideways to scotch that one?!!
     
  12. I don’t know why I bother sometimes but here goes…

    Seafarer,

    As intimated by WD and PoL, I’m afraid that your son is, with respect, a tad misguided in many regards.

    Factually incorrect. ‘Rarely support the ground troops’?! Exactly what does that mean?! GR4s routinely employ weapons. Indeed, the Dual Mode Brimstone is very much a niche weapon of choice in Theatre due to its low collateral and accuracy. Likewise, GR4 has the option of strafe. Contrary to popular myth, GCAS launches are conducted in a similar timescale to those of the GR9.

    However, ‘pounding the ground’ is only one aspect of fast air’s work on HERRICK and, in a COIN construct, hardly the exemplar of what should be normal business! The GR4 has a much better ISR capability to support ops than the GR9 with the RAPTOR pod viewed on a par with U-2 imagery by the USAF. That brings the UK real influence within IJC in particular.

    Both assets have their pros and cons, but the GR4 is proving highly effective in Afghanistan and the US have requested more are deployed.

    Yes and no. By the time of its cancellation, 4 MRA4 airframes had flown, including the initial ‘productionised’ model which had just been handed over to my Service. However, it had not commenced meaningful work to convert crews because funding had been suspended pending SDSR. The type would have been a superb MPA but poor project management meant it was never to be.

    However, I would concur that the loss of fixed wing MPA is an enormous blow and probably the biggest single loss to the UK from SDSR.

    TS’s paranoid dribblings are even more inaccurate but probably less worthy of response.

    Regards,
    MM
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2011
  13. Purple_twiglet

    Purple_twiglet War Hero Moderator

    "The GR4 has a much better ISR capability to support ops than the GR9 with the RAPTOR pod viewed on a par with U-2 imagery by the USAF. That brings the UK real influence within IJC in particular"

    As a matelot recently returned from theatre, and who had dealings with TORDET in an ISTAR role, I would certainly support MMs comments here - the quality of what the guys can do is stunnning.
     
  14. Thanks Twiggers. To ensure appropriate recognition to Joint efforts, it should be remembered that much exploitation of RAPTOR is conducted at JARIC which has a number of RN analysts.

    Regards,
    MM
     

Share This Page