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

[garethbrum]

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.

You continue to speak as if certain things are cast in stone Sheff and I just don't think there is currently any factual basis for that or any point presenting them as such. An opinion might not be speculation but presenting if it were something we should all accept as being factual is just wrong.

Are you telling us that it's fact only because you read it in Jane's or the Times from a "leaked document".

Presumably a cut in the amount of uniforms the RAF buys isn't as newsworthy as the GR.4 or Nimrod fleet however? A very simplistic example but you know what I mean and I guess no one bothers to leak that kind of document to the press as they are all put together so they can be reviewed as per the process.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that nothing of that sort is going to happen, no one can deny there clearly will be heavy cuts and it might end up affecting Nimrod and GR.4, but it just doesn't make any sense for anything to have been decided / offered up until everything has been examined.

Cheers

G

[garethbrum]

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.

I was referring to:

.....and that goes for military aircraft in previous years

Tornado GR.4 is scheduled to continue until 2020 / 2022 - that's what OC XV(R) told me last year in a published interview.

[GOOSE]

FighterControl is happy to let this thread run and for members to debate and air their opinions.

Please keep it on topic and non-insulting.

Thank you all for your continued maturity and understanding.

[Richard B]

Yes debate is good Pub banter,
we read it dailey in the papers and debate the news of the world at work at home and on forums etc,

If the news papers can speculate on a global bases then little old FC can also,
fact or fiction debate and speculation makes the world go round,

You do have to look at the tabloids for info, there is no smoke without fire,the SDR must be well in the final stages. we all know the press are allways
digging around and into places for info.

The SDR is ongoing as we speak and many things have been put forward and could even be set in stone already.
info will leak out,fact.

The SDR paper is not just going to appear 1 day next month etc, its been or being drawn up now, and info is being leaked.

We do have to wait and see the final paper when it's released, we can speculate and voice our opinons thou.
in the mean time with what snippets are floating around in the press and media etc.

[Thunder]

Good news that the Defence chiefs are actually thinking about purchasing a cheaper and probably more adaptable platform than the F-35

Now how about a F-15U " British Eagle" to replace the Tornado.

[Phixer74]

Hi All,
You will find that alot of the leaks to the press especially the non tabloid ones will be sanctioned by the one of the three service chiefs to further their own service position with the SDR, it has happened every time we have had a defence review.
The Army are very good at getting publicity especially about what is happening in Afghanistan and their big role in what's going on out there, there isn't much on the news about the RN or RAF out there at the moment.
The RN and RAF will no doubt take the biggest financial hit from the SDR as they have the larger projects apart from the Army vehicle project that won't effect our immediate war fighting at the moment, the RN and Army also tend to have more political friends who will campaign for their own service priorities.
Whatever comes out in the SDR it will have been a struggle between the service chiefs and MOD staff to make the required savings and one or two services will be hit hard to make the savings, so leaks will keep coming till the ink is dry on the SDR.

My views anyway, Best Wishes

[T_J]

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.

I don't know where you got the 2040 date from? The out of service dates are a regular question raised in Parliament. 2025 from the following 2009 written answers.

http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/C ... rt022.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=10505" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TJ

[T_J]

As already pointed out by Goose.

Don't enjoy a particular thread? Don't click on it.

No attempt should be made to stifle such debates. Let the debate continue!

TJ

[Sheff]

Garethbrum - I haven't suggested that anything is "cast in stone" other than that Nimrod and Tornado have evidently been offered-up for disposal (and that Harrier has already been similarly identified in the past). That much we do know, although this obviously doesn't mean that they definitely will be abandoned. You might choose to doubt Janes, but I've never had any reason to doubt them or their journalists and management. I think we can safely accept that the report was true. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[tonkatom]

to Highland spring,
When was the last time this country had to defend itself?other countries do the defending against us,and yes it is a attack on our hobby.This hobby is some peoples best interest and spend a lot of time and money on it.
i agree nothing is in stone but look at the nimrod and the jaguar.The jaguar was a very capable aircraft,and should still be in sevice today.with the way things our in the world and in this country, the tornados will be next,maybye not soon but definetly before there expirey date.

[RichC]

Chaps,
Can we have a discussion here without the insults.... it is afterall, a debate but we don't need the personal 'touches' getting involved.

Its an interesting thread, it airs peoples opinions and differing views, whether they are correct or not. Try not to get angry if someone is assuming something, it's what we all do.
We are all assuming on this thread as there is no official release yet but i'm sure some of the journalistic views are in some way probably on the ball... we'll just have to wait and see if they are not. Doesn't stop us all joining in and having a lively debate. It is something, afterall which will affect our hobbies big time. We all have the right to opinionate and discuss and for that matter, wonder what is right or wrong, even speculate.

Have fun

[tonkatom]

have tried doing that but always get someone to put you down on youre opinions or claim to know more??im happy tho!

[Blackcat1]

I only started this thread to see if members have heard anymore from what i read on ceefax. It's a good discussion but as Rich said, discuss it without insults please, i have changed the exclamation point to a question mark on the subject, sorry if i gave the impression that it was set in stone!!

Thanks

[POL]

to Highland spring,
When was the last time this country had to defend itself?other countries do the defending against us,and yes it is a attack on our hobby.This hobby is some peoples best interest and spend a lot of time and money on it.
i agree nothing is in stone but look at the nimrod and the jaguar.The jaguar was a very capable aircraft,and should still be in sevice today.with the way things our in the world and in this country, the tornados will be next,maybye not soon but definetly before there expirey date.

I do not wish this to be seen as an attack on the above poster, nor do I wish to insult aforementioned poster, however...

1) I don't think anyone in the MoD/government gives a damn about us spotters/photographers/model builders/radio enthusiasts/etc. - Our hobby is built around the aircraft, not vice versa!
2) Just think, you won't have to spend as much time and money as there won't be as much around!
3) The Jaguar, no matter how capable it was, was too expensive and maintenance hungry to run, so it was axed. If there isn't the money to run something, it can't just be invented, it's simple realism.
4) The Tornado F.3's are falling apart, something that is blatantly obvious, the GR.4's aren't really faring much better, and it's only because there is/was so many surplus bits of aircraft they managed to keep them running this long. Had the JSF or Sea Typhoon or even the Rafale been in service now as a replacement, would you still say the retirement of the Tornado GR.4, and most likely the Harrier GR.7/GR.9's, be too soon? No, you probably wouldn't.


Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter regarding the post above, to be honest maybe this thread does need locking until after the SDR?!

[RichC]

Why does it need locking just because you don't agree on something someone has posted beforehand?
Its a discussion about something which is going to affect our hobby whether you like it or not. I don't understand why people are getting so upset over someones words on a forum just because they are stating their opinion.

If you don't want to discuss the topic further, click on another topic and discuss that instead. Leave this thread to those who do wish to discuss it (without any hassle)...

The fact that it is to do with the Tornado is a major point of discussion. It's a very capable aircraft, a much loved aircraft and an aircraft we all see most of the time flying around or hearing it. It's done us good in several wars and still continues to do the job very well. Of course people want to discuss it and of course it will make people bite but that's the way it is.

Again, can we carry on without the "hassle" please.

[MacksAviation]

No don't lock the thread its the best laugh I've had in ages.

It's not surprising that the 'spotter' gets a bad name reading some of these comments.

ITS A HOBBY for god sake !! nothing more nothing less get a life !!

[Sheff]

I agree entirely. There seems to be a continual misunderstanding of what a forum is supposed to be for. It's supposed to be a place where information and opinions/viewpoints can be expressed. The process should presumably involve other posters adding their own views or offering reasons why they disagree/agree with others? Insults achieve nothing. Naturally, I'm happy to accept that my views might turn-out to be completely wrong but I don't see why this should prohibit me from saying what I happen to think. On that basis we might as well stop posting anything. If you disagree with me then say so, but please explain why - don't just throw some thinly-veiled insult back! (sorry- some of this might not make sense now as some previous posts have been moderated!)

I accept that my thoughts on the RAF's future do sound very negative, but this is because the RAF's future does look very bleak. It's utterly pointless to pretend otherwise. As I've said before, from an enthusiast's viewpoint, the best one can do is to appreciate what is out there while it lasts. But from a wider viewpoint (ie- a non-enthusiast viewpoint) the RAF's future does look very dark. Nimrod may well survive even if it has (or hasn't) already been offered for disposal. Likewise Tornado may survive until 2025 as was envisaged, although I don't think many people still believe that this is now likely - I certainly don't. It seems clear (no matter what reports one chooses to believe or not) that the RAF have pinned their future firmly on Typhoon and F-35 (think you agree with me there Gareth?) which (as I've said) seems like a very risky policy. If other aircraft have been offered-up for disposal in order to protect these two key programmes, the proverbial genie is out of the bottle and having stated that Nimrod and Tornado are clearly not regarded as vital assets (okay, assuming that the reports are correct as I'm sure they are) then it's impossible to withdraw the statement. If the latest reports are correct and the F-35 has finally been dumped (hoorah - at last!) then one can see how the Treasury will be inclined to impose the view that Nimrod and Tornado (and presumably Harrier) can still be abandoned, if the RAF have freely admitted that they were willing to abandon them (in order to finance the F-35). The only logical argument the RAF could respond with is that without F-35 there would be insufficient combat aircraft - they obviously could not claim that without F-35 they suddenly need Nimrod again! So, it seems obvious that the Treasury might well simply suggest that more Typhoons be brought into service to make-up for the F-35's abandonment. The result would be that Nimrod, Tornado, Harrier and F-35 go, and the RAF has to rely on Typhoon as its only combat aircraft. Think you can hopefully see the logic of this scary predicament?! My basic point here is that if the RAF have stated that these types could be withdrawn (and as I've said there's absolutely no reason to doubt Janes on this), they cannot reverse that view if/when they are informed that F-35 is no longer on the table. They are either disposable or they're not - they can't have it both ways depending on whether they get F-35.

I suppose a great deal depends on the validity of these new reports about the F/A-18. If this is now really a viable option, then perhaps the RAF might be able to lay claim to a sizeable batch of these, although I guess it's difficult to see how they could portray the aircraft as being significantly superior to Typhoon. If Hornets for the RAF looks unlikely then we would be effectively talking about just a small batch of F/A-18s purely for the Navy which seems very unlikely. A larger Joint Force would seem far more practical. Still, if these new reports are accurate, then it does imply that there is still some effort to retain the carriers even though so many MPs are firmly set against them. Maybe the option of cheaper F/A-18s might be enough to save the carriers but one has to wonder at what cost to the rest of our capabilities. The carriers are phenomenally expensive to buy and operate and if they are to survive it can only be because of huge pressure from the Navy. It would be particularly worrying if this massive chunk of the defence budget is given to the Navy and the RAF is forced to make huge cuts in order to balance the books. That would be an act of supreme political stupidity. But I guess nothing should surprise us. Even now it seems clear that the services are busy fighting amongst themselves to get the "best deal" that they can, regardless of the country's real needs. The Navy has never got over the trauma of the 1960s and they still seem hell-bent on getting back into the "serious" carrier business at all costs, even though there is no logical reason to imagine that we will ever have any real need for such capabilities. As ever it seems that the Navy is protecting its power at all costs - regardless of the country's predicament. It has always been thus. It will be truly worrying if, after this saga unfolds, the Navy is left to sail the seas with a dozen Hornets on their shiny new carriers, while the RAF waves goodbye to Tornado, Nimrod, Harrier and F-35, and faces a bleak future reliant upon only the Typhoon. We've seen a hint of the potential risks of reliance upon a single aircraft type just a week back...

Oh dear - what a horrible mess!

[garethbrum]

It seems clear (no matter what reports one chooses to believe or not) that the RAF have pinned their future firmly on Typhoon and F-35 (think you agree with me there Gareth?)

You know I do - as I said previously, that has been the RAF's clear stated vision for some time - Typhoon and JSF. You don't need to rely on reports for that - Torpy et al said it on numerous occasions and Dalton has said it too.

Q. BRITAIN WANTS 150 F-35S. SOME SAY IT COULD BE BOUGHT IN TWO BLOCKS TO CUT COST. YOUR VIEW?
That may dictate we want a slight variation. We might want more or less, and changes to time scales, but there is nothing I have seen yet that says we are not signed up to the concept of this airplane delivering its capability with the numbers we originally projected. The number is actually part of my drive to get two fleets of fast airplanes for the future - Typhoon and JSF. They have complementary capabilities. JSF represents a capability that we absolutely need, no matter what operation we're talking about.

From an interview here:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4498481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The carriers and A400 are also discussed and he also says of Nimrod MR2:

.............the longer-term cuts are about the longer-term balance of the service. For example, we are bringing the new MRA4 Nimrods into RAF Kinloss, but not introducing them into service until 2012. That will enable us to build up the force over the next two years, so it becomes a proper operational capability in that time. The fact is we are taking the MR2 out of service next month to free up resources and crews as well as save money on support.

Q. DOESN'T THAT LEAVE YOU WITH A GAP WHEN RUSSIAN SUBS ARE MORE ACTIVE?
A. Yes, about three years, and you're absolutely right. We have had to take a judgment that the risk is acceptable with a combination of other assets that are available: frigates, NATO allies, and there are lots of P-3s around Europe at the moment. We have taken the judgment that the risk is acceptable in the short term so that, in the medium term, we get the capability we need.

If anyone here hasn't read it - Dalton's speech to the IISS was also very interesting:

http://www.iiss.org/recent-key-addresse ... en-dalton/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sheff]

Naturally I hope his views on Nimrod are carried-through. Although I think the very idea of any premature withdrawal of Tornado is absurd, I think abandonment of Nimrod would be ludicrous. I suppose a delayed entry into service for Nimrod would be far preferable than no entry at all. Heaven-knows the history of British air power is littered with many bad decisions, but abandoning such a potentially valuable asset like Nimrod would be one of the most ridiculous of all time. As for Tornado, I guess it falls into a very similar category to Jaguar in that it's a brilliantly capable machine which ought to be retained, but if does ultimately have to be sacrificed in order to finance F-35 or even (as mentioned) the F/A-18 then it isn't such a drastic loss. My worry is that the final result might be that the RAF gets neither. As I said before, and although I know some people disagree, I firmly believe that the root cause of the RAF's difficulties lay (yet again) with the Navy and their compulsive self-justification. Historically, the Navy has always had the most political clout and on the evidence available (factual or speculative) it would appear that nothing has changed!

[Thunder]

It's not the Goverment that has suggested grounding the Tornado fleet, this has come from the RAF themselves along with shelving the Nimrod MRA4 idea. The Goverment has asked all departments to re think their budgets from within.