Tornado to be grounded to save money???????

[willow70]

As the last few governments have bankrupted the country we should cut back and bin some of the ridiculously expensive
projects F35 etc and specialize in cheaper projects like small turboprop coin aircraft which we could produce and sell.

[T_J]

Sheff wrote

Clearly we don't, and the FAA hasn't provided any significant fixed-wing contribution to our operations around the world since 1982! It's ludicrous how the Navy are still peddling the notion that we should be sending carriers with either Harriers or F-35s around the world. For what, precisely? What vital world role is ever going to require a dozen aircraft (at best) on a carrier? It's absolutely absurd and comical.

You are forgetting the Sea Harrier contribution to combat air patrols over Kosovo in 1999. The carriers operated from the Adriatic during the period when the main Italian airfields were maxed out. Prior to that the Sea Harriers were involved in combat air patrols over Bosnia during the early and mid 1990s. Carrier and Sea Harriers and Harriers were also deployed for operations in Sierra Leone. In the case of Sierra Leone the carrier usage got round all the diplomatic problems of finding suitable airfields in that volatile region.

It is called multi-national joint operations with an effective fighting force, be it under NATO or a UN mandate. Of course the US carrier force far outstrips the other NATO carrier capable forces, but the European carrier forces are still part of that NATO contribution and available for out of area joint operations. For example the Italian Navy deployed their carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi with its AV-8Bs to provide close air support to ground forces in Afghanistan.

The plan is to equip the Spanish, Italian and UK carrier fleet with F-35B. The F-35B capabilites far outstrip the Harriers and provides NATO commanders with a superior available fighting force. The air planners have at their disposal a flexible carrier based low observable platform able to undertake joint operations. That flexibility allows first day operations against an integrated air defence system through to later stage close air support.

TJ

[swingy]

With a bit of luck this government will be out by the end of October

That's the most ridiculous comment yet on this thread.

In your opinion. Others who are loosing their jobs because of the policies of these idiots would disagree with you.

[benyboy]

With a bit of luck this government will be out by the end of October

That's the most ridiculous comment yet on this thread.

In your opinion. Others who are loosing their jobs because of the policies of these idiots would disagree with you.

Also why do you want to continue living under an unelected goverment ?

[Sheff]

T_J I take your point but I guess you have to draw a distinction between what is politically expedient and what is actually necessary. Agreed that Sea Harriers have participated in various operations but has any of it been necessary? Nope, it's been a case of using assets simply because we have them, in effect doing it because we can, not because we have to. In every post-Falklands example there has been no situation where British carrier power has been a vital asset (and it was only vital to the Falklands conflict because of governmental short-sightedness). Nice to have it of course but necessary? Of course not. Point is, we're at a stage where we can no longer afford to maintain capabilities which are anything other than vital. Carriers (and virtually all British naval power) is a relic of the Cold War. Naturally there are many situations where one could claim that carrier power might be needed but in reality there is no situation of direct threat to the UK, which needs carrier power. It's a luxury which we have struggled to maintain since the 1960's and it seems even less sustainable now. But having said that, the Navy will doubtless paint a very different picture in the darker recesses of Whitehall!

[HighlandSniper]

Also why do you want to continue living under an unelected goverment ?

Another ill informed and pointless statement - every member of the present Government has been legally elected. A coalition government is a legitimate and constitutional means of governing the country.

Here in the UK we don't directly elect the Prime Minister, we elect individual members of Parliament and thus the governing party(s), cabinet and prime minister. Thus the present Coalition Government is fully elected.

Had they immediately endorsed a programme of defence spending, my guess is that you'd be all over them like a rash.

I don't like the prospect of the likely cuts any more than anyone else, but I'm not listening to too many rumours or making speculative and ill-informed posts. I'm going to wait and see what is said once the SDR has been made public.

[TankBuster]

With a bit of luck this government will be out by the end of October

That's the most ridiculous comment yet on this thread.

In your opinion. Others who are loosing their jobs because of the policies of these idiots would disagree with you.

I have to agree that this government will make things far worse than the previous one. I am convinced that we will see the RAF and AAC aircraft eventually sharing a base or bases somewhere, in order to save more money.

Similair things are already happening where I work... I work for Essex fire service and what we are now having to deal with is that some police stations are being marked for closure & the police staff are being moved into the fire stations to share the buildings with us and have them as joint police and fire stations. Not a popular move at all, but again it is all being done to save money.
Off topic I know, but if it can be done with public services then it can be done with the armed forces.

Taken from the Essex FBU site...

The Tiptree Project

All Fire Stations beware! This is the future for Essex Fire & Rescue Service as our identity, neutrality, and public high regard is dissolved in a mad plan to merge Police and Fire Stations across the County at no less than 13 sites. The scheme has been labelled "maverick" by the Police Chief leading the first three month trial at Tiptree Fire Station.

The trial will see 11 Police Officers and PCSOs move from their current site containing bespoke interview rooms, secure front desk, offices, storage and changing facilities, and rest room into Tiptree Fire Station where they will be provided with two desks in communal areas open to both Service personnel and public alike.

There has been no regard for the feelings of Fire Station personnel, or the Police. There has been no consultation with ECFRS personnel or the Fire Brigades Union, and consultation with the public has virtually been non-existent.

Tiptree already host personnel from Tollesbury Fire Station who do not have adequate facilities and now it seems Tiptree will have to relocate themselves when it is no longer possible to train at their home station.

The FBU believe this is the start of a major reduction in service provided to Essex taxpayers in rural areas with increased response times inevitable from both the Police and the Fire Service.



Of note, the trial period is still ongoing but behind the scenes feasibility studies have been sneakily carried out at other fire stations and it is likely that other station shares will be implemented before the trial period is over.

I dont think we would have seen this cluster nuts develop under a Labour government.

TankBuster

[garethbrum]

I think it's very disgraceful about what's happening in the case of Tornados to be grounded and that goes for military aircraft in previous years

A/ They haven't been grounded, or scrapped for that matter. We don't know what's going to happen yet!

B/ You can't keep everything flying for ever!

[HighlandSniper]

I think it's very disgraceful about what's happening in the case of Tornados to be grounded and that goes for military aircraft in previous years

A/ They haven't been grounded, or scrapped for that matter. We don't know what's going to happen yet!

B/ You can't keep everything flying for ever!

Hallelujah - at last some sense on this pointless thread.

[tonkatom]

i feel we should all have a say on this,first they needlessly get rid of two harrier squadrons and now threaten the work horse of the raf.the one aircraft that i have truely enjoyed watching and following in all the years.
not only that but the old raf,the smokey,loud giant finned tonka!
will be a sad day when the tornado goes,and i dont feel that day will be too far away!as usual the goverment intervine with not only our money but our pleasures in life.
what a country!

[HighlandSniper]

i feel we should all have a say on this,first they needlessly get rid of two harrier squadrons and now threaten the work horse of the raf.the one aircraft that i have truely enjoyed watching and following in all the years.
not only that but the old raf,the smokey,loud giant finned tonka!
will be a sad day when the tornado goes,and i dont feel that day will be too far away!as usual the goverment intervine with not only our money but our pleasures in life.
what a country!

I think you need to stop and take a reality check.

• Nothing is set in stone, there is nothing more than rumour at present.
• The Government has no concern for our hobby, it's defence they are concerned with. The RAF, FAA & AAC are part of our Nation's defence and not service providers for your hobby.
• If our country is so bad, close the door behind you as you leave.
• The SDR will be published in October - until then there is nothing but rumour and speculation.

Threads like this bring out the worst on this forum - whilst I am as concerned as the next man about the anticipated defence cuts, the pointless speculation gets us nowhere. I find it incredible that some posters seem more concerned with what they perceive as an attack on their hobby, than the defence of The United Kingdom.

No amount of speculation and rumor mongering is going to make the slightest difference - wait and see.

[ddodd000]

Hi,
first posting so please don't bite me head off. There was recently a contract signed under the coaliton government for the Tonka to have an upgrade on the Brimstone as will the Harrier, and this won't be completed until 2012 so there seems to be life left in both platforms. See attached link http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... rnado.html

As for opinions on the current coalition government its a grey area whether it is a true elected government because we operate under a first-past the post system and no political party won outright and with no party acheiving this we now have a government of convenience and like the current defence situation who knows what the future holds.

Anyway a really enjoy this forum even if it as taken along time to finally get round to make a posting. Lets not get to heated about this subject and continue to enjoy our hobby through the good and bad times.

Cheers.

[Unknown74]

HighlandSniper good at last to see someone on this topic board using a bit of sense, like your style mate. top marks. As you say and I've been making the point all along until we know what the report actually says there is no point in all this pointless speculation..........

Let's just be patient and wait and see.

[swingy]

Let's just be patient and wait and see.

Oh don't be like that this is all highly entertaining.

[HighlandSniper]

Let's just be patient and wait and see.

Oh don't be like that this is all highly entertaining.

I'm afraid that's not how I see it at all - it's a matter of national security and defense, it has nothing whatsoever to do with entertainment. The unfortunate thing is that a considerable number of our membership appear to think that military aircraft exist solely for their amusement - rather sad really as typified in the absurd comment posted earlier ... ...

as usual the goverment intervine with not only our money but our pleasures in life.

[Sheff]

I'm prompted to add that most of my comments have referred to fact, not rumour. Obviously, nobody can make any judgement about SDR until the results are published but it seems entirely reasonable to question the wisdom of offering both Tornado and Nimrod for disposal - whether it actually happens or not. Obviously, anything which we might say or think is ultimately of no consequence as we have no influence upon the Government's thinking, but it can sometimes be satisfying to say what one thinks, n'est-ce pas?!

I would add though that criticism of the Government in a wider sense doesn't have much relevance to this thread. It is pointless to dwell upon the country's financial situation or the reasons for it. The point is, we are broke, and the MoD is obliged to make huge savings. The issue is how these savings are made and whether the right decisions are being made?

[garethbrum]

Come come Sheff. Surely you're just speculating just like the rest - furnishing us with your opinion doesn't make it factual!

"But now we've reached a situation where the RAF has put Nimrod on the proverbial table as a potential sacrifice" - have we?

"Offering to sacrifice Nimrod and Tornado (and - by implication - Harriers and some Typhoons)" - have we??

"..but the RAF's offer to dispose of Nimrod and Tornado is more than a rumour - it's an offer that is on the table according to Janes" - ah yes, according to a journalist! Being in Jane's doesn't make it fact, that's the issue this whole subject, there is no fact on cuts as yet.

"The reality is that so few aircraft would be available that there's little point in having any at all." - no fan of JSF but not sure how you can predict that?

"There's no doubt that in reality Britain has no need for carriers of any sort" - that's just your opinion, not a fact. Others can see why lil old GB should maintain an ability to project power in that way.

"The Navy cannot remain in the fixed-wing business nor should it." - as above.

"But the real tragedy is that the Navy's obsession with F-35 infected the RAF too and now that the RAF has the new toy in their grasp, they too seem determined to keep it at all costs, without any clear vision of what we really need." - surely the RAF vision has been to fly just two main fast jets for some time now - JSF and Typhoon. As I said, I'm no fan of JSF but that has certainly been the long term aim for quite a while.

Cheers

Gareth

[Sheff]

Er, okay, I'll answer as concisely as I can:-

Surely you're just speculating just like the rest - furnishing us with your opinion doesn't make it factual
Offering an opinion isn't speculation. My point was that the offer to dispose of Tornado and Nimrod isn't a rumour, so presumably it is reasonable to offer an opinion about it.

But now we've reached a situation where the RAF has put Nimrod on the proverbial table as a potential sacrifice - have we?
Yes.

Offering to sacrifice Nimrod and Tornado (and - by implication - Harriers and some Typhoons)" - have we??
Yes.

The reality is that so few aircraft would be available that there's little point in having any at all." - no fan of JSF but not sure how you can predict that?
Do the math. Work-out how many aircraft the RAF is likely to get and then - based on history - extrapolate a figure for how many aircraft will be serviceable at any given time.

"There's no doubt that in reality Britain has no need for carriers of any sort" - that's just your opinion, not a fact.
Er, yes, I would have thought that was obvious. But if you think that opinion is wrong, then look at the history of the past 30-40 years and establish precisely when we've needed carrier power. I would suggest that if one excludes the Falklands (which was a situation created by Governmental stupidity) there has not been any need for carrier power since 1956 - and even that was hardly a case of national expediency. Using carrier power because we have it is one thing - using it because we need to is another. On this basis it is clearly unaffordable which is why MPs on both sides of the House are almost all set-against the new carriers.

Being in Jane's doesn't make it fact
Think it probably does, actually.

"The Navy cannot remain in the fixed-wing business nor should it." - as above.
Obviously my view, and one shared by an awful lot of people. It's self-evident to anyone (outside the Navy) if one looks at the finances we have and the foreign policy we've adopted.

surely the RAF vision has been to fly just two main fast jets for some time now - JSF and Typhoon
Yes - I think I said that. Point is, the whole notion of adopting F-35 came from the Navy and without their obsession with it (for obvious reasons) the RAF would probably have never even looked at it. Now the notion of operating just F-35 and Typhoon has become paramount - to the exclusion of everything else and as I said, this is a very risky attitude as the final result may well be that the RAF ends-up with just Typhoon.

Hope that clarifies everything.

[Gary]

Interesting story in the Sunday times. Saying the Navy is expected to swap the JSF for F/A-18 Super Hornet. I know it's all hearsay until the SDR, but at least its a positive (ish) story for once lol

Navy jet switch to save £10bn

Published: 1 August 2010

The Joint Strike Fighters, costing £100m each The Royal Navy is set to save £10 billion on the defence budget by dropping plans to buy a fleet of fighter jets costing £100m each for its new aircraft carriers.

It is expected to swap an order for 138 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) for a version of a cheaper aircraft currently flown off US carriers, the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet.

The cost-saving move was considered at a meeting last weekend between Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and services chiefs to discuss cuts.

“JSF is an unbelievably expensive programme,” said a senior defence source. “It makes no sense at all in the current climate, and even if we continued with it we cannot afford the aircraft we said we would buy.”

The JSF, built by Lockheed Martin, Boeing’s main American rival, would have been the most expensive single project in the defence budget, with costs already put at £13.8 billion and rising. The aircraft were set to replace Harrier jump jets flown by the RAF and Navy.

[PR9]

B/ You can't keep everything flying for ever!

Although they were scheduled to be in service until at least 2040.

30 years in advance would be a hell of a gap.