And the Defence Cuts begin - Typhoon slashed, more to follow

#21
ottar said:
We still also needed a replacement for the air-to-air role. Your suggestion would have us developing, purchasing and supporting two different aircraft, a suggestion that is neither cheaper or operationally more effective.
Next to Afghanistan is Iran. How long do you think it would be before they tried an airborne Cornwall incident if we were using a/c that couldn't defend themselves?
.
Are we not buying the F-35B too?. Supersonic fighter bomber that does much the same as a Typhoon, some would say it's actually a better option as a fighter too.

And no one was advocating a plane that couldn't defend itself, even the Jaguar had air to air teeth. However, a suitable replacement for the Jaguar would have been a very good idea. The F-35 will fill that role eventually, but it's a very expensive way of ding it. A Grippen would be a nearer match.
 
#22
gouglyearly said:
The problem is the global economy is in a bad way. We can’t afford to increase the defence budget as much as is needed, because the government has had to bail out all the greedy bankers! This is no shock what so ever. The Navy and RAF are going to continue to get cut. It’ll probably bite us in the arrse in years to come. But what can you do, we need to win in Afghan.
Best - and most succinct - answer I have seen in ages.
whf
 
#23
Kitmarlowe said:
What a clever move.... The first Tranche 1 plnaes go out of service as the last Tranche 3 turns up in service, yet we're binning more Tranche 3 planes.

How mnay Fighter Squadrons for UK AD are there? How many squadrons can be deployed in the next 5 to 10 years to provide Fighter Cover to UK Land Forces? Too many people on here seem to think that because nobody has actually really had a crack at defending their airspace from us in the last 20 years we don't need to bother anymore. But do they really fancy reenacting France 1940 with NO AD whatsoever...?
And thats the point i feel the RAF are still haunted by the fact that without Downing's fore sight the AD battle would have been lost in 1940,and see the AD of the UK as it's main reason for being and as others have said no one can tell what the threat will be in 10 or 15 years from now.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#24
OK, fair enough. Should we ever get into a situation where we need lots of fast multi-role fighters, perhaps we can keep the enemy at bay for the 3-5 years it will take to get them on-stream.

Same with the tanks too. Big land ops? Mind if we wait-out on that one until say, 5 years from the date of order? Thanks.

What, we suddenly need a load of helicopters . . . . lemme see now, software licensing, airframe construction, IT hardware, radar, rotor blades, motors, glass or perspex cockpit screens . . . . . . about 10 mate, and that's if the guys don't get called off on another job y'see - it's that time of year.

So, the message is quite clear. If you're planning to kiss the US's arrse, or start a glory war to bed yourself into power in the UK, make sure you give it 5-10 years of continuing, large amounts of MOD investment, and much more than you'd have had to pay if you'd just bought the fcuking stuff in the first place, or GUARANTEE that you'll lose your job at the next election because of troop losses, bad press and lost kudos with other countries because the armed forces were not able to complete the task convincingly.

That applies to YOU Dave Cameron - don't even THINK of 'doing a Thatcher' or 'Doing Obama up the anus' for kudos unless you've plumped up the military pillows big time.
 
#25
Biped said:
OK, fair enough. Should we ever get into a situation where we need lots of fast multi-role fighters, perhaps we can keep the enemy at bay for the 3-5 years it will take to get them on-stream.
Or perhaps we can watch an see what is emerging, given that our enemies may well work to the same time scales as we do....
 

chimera

LE
Moderator
#26
Alsacien said:
How much lost profit for British business? Redundancies?
Sad though it is, that is a small price to pay if we get a bigger and better Strat Lift and Tactical AT fleet and a more capable JHC.
 

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
#27
chimera said:
Alsacien said:
How much lost profit for British business? Redundancies?
Sad though it is, that is a small price to pay if we get a bigger and better Strat Lift and Tactical AT fleet and a more capable JHC.
I just hope someone bothers to do the math holistically.
As mentioned these decisions only get realised a decade later. Jumping from one short term view to the next probably costs more than anyone bothers to tot up.....
 
#28
Biped said:
OK, fair enough. Should we ever get into a situation where we need lots of fast multi-role fighters, perhaps we can keep the enemy at bay for the 3-5 years it will take to get them on-stream.
Then we can use USAF in the interim, or do you see a conflict where they are unable to deal with the issue and would be overhwelmed were it not for the plucky RAF?

Same with the tanks too. Big land ops? Mind if we wait-out on that one until say, 5 years from the date of order? Thanks.
Big land ops like we fought in 1991 and 2003? After 1991 no-one was dumb enough to think that if they parked all of their tanks in the desert and let us have a go at them with our tanks that they wouldn't get spanked - except Saddam!

What, we suddenly need a load of helicopters . . . . lemme see now, software licensing, airframe construction, IT hardware, radar, rotor blades, motors, glass or perspex cockpit screens . . . . . . about 10 mate, and that's if the guys don't get called off on another job y'see - it's that time of year.
Em, we do need a lot of helicopters but can't afford it because we are spending lots on air-to-air FJs, masquerading as multirole that can match the specific demands of land forces.

So, the message is quite clear. If you're planning to kiss the US's arrse, or start a glory war to bed yourself into power in the UK, make sure you give it 5-10 years of continuing, large amounts of MOD investment, and much more than you'd have had to pay if you'd just bought the fcuking stuff in the first place, or GUARANTEE that you'll lose your job at the next election because of troop losses, bad press and lost kudos with other countries because the armed forces were not able to complete the task convincingly.
Not clear on this para, seems a bit rambling.

That applies to YOU Dave Cameron - don't even THINK of 'doing a Thatcher' or 'Doing Obama up the anus' for kudos unless you've plumped up the military pillows big time.
Agree.
whf
 
#29
Or perhaps we can watch an see what is emerging, given that our enemies may well work to the same time scales as we do....
many dont or buy off the shelf from others and the ones that do are all investing in new airframes right now whilst we are cutting.

Then we can use USAF in the interim, or do you see a conflict where they are unable to deal with the issue and would be overhwelmed were it not for the plucky RAF?
unable to deal or dont want to? why must we rely on the USA to cover our own lack of foresight? are you aware of how much a bum rape we would get from them in return for this cover even if they wanted to do it?

Big land ops like we fought in 1991 and 2003? After 1991 no-one was dumb enough to think that if they parked all of their tanks in the desert and let us have a go at them with our tanks that they wouldn't get spanked - except Saddam!
yes like 2003 and 1991, but with 2 3rds less equipment.

Em, we do need a lot of helicopters but can't afford it because we are spending lots on air-to-air FJs, masquerading as multirole that can match the specific demands of land forces.
no we can afford it, the treasury simply dont want to release the money. and it would still take a good few years to get the personal and software working. you know some squadrons are working at about 20% manpower? we barely have enough to keep our current numbers in the air.

Not clear on this para, seems a bit rambling.
it means cutting now would mean in any future conflict that doesnt fit exactly into a narrow hole we are driving out forces into, would require us to leech of the USA for 5-10 years and invest huge amounts getting production lines working again and catching up on designs and equipment and software that has passed us by in the mean time, whilst paying through the nose because of the urgency instead of already having a decent capability in the first place.


for this forum its strange you are cheering a plane type's effective death in the RAF (tranche 3) when it is the tranche which would help you the most in CAS. whilst leaving the RAF with a larger number of worse equipped tranche 1's, some of which will be going out of service in a few years.
All the while thinking it will get you more equipment. it wont. they will just write it off as savings.
 
#30
msr said:
Biped said:
OK, fair enough. Should we ever get into a situation where we need lots of fast multi-role fighters, perhaps we can keep the enemy at bay for the 3-5 years it will take to get them on-stream.
Or perhaps we can watch an see what is emerging, given that our enemies may well work to the same time scales as we do....

errrrrrrrr...By the time the threat is spotted, it's too f**king late.....
 
#31
ferox_provincia said:
Are we not buying the F-35B too?. Supersonic fighter bomber that does much the same as a Typhoon, some would say it's actually a better option as a fighter too.
Some who? It's better in some areas and inferior in others. Typhoon is already service and has been for a while. F-35B is barely flying and wasn't an itch in its fathers pants when we started on Typhoon. So, not only would we have had 15-20 years with a massive hole in our fast air fleet, we would have a major shortage of ground crew and pilots.

And no one was advocating a plane that couldn't defend itself, even the Jaguar had air to air teeth. However, a suitable replacement for the Jaguar would have been a very good idea. The F-35 will fill that role eventually, but it's a very expensive way of ding it. A Grippen would be a nearer match.
It doesn't matter if it's got teeth, if those teeth are smaller than someone else's. Gripen is inferior to Typhoon. Saab don't pay much tax in the UK and neither do its employees. I'll see your cheaper and raise you unemployment, loss of tax revenue and skills fade. Britain became a leader in the world through innovation, not by following everyone else.

msr said:
Biped said:
OK, fair enough. Should we ever get into a situation where we need lots of fast multi-role fighters, perhaps we can keep the enemy at bay for the 3-5 years it will take to get them on-stream.
Or perhaps we can watch an see what is emerging, given that our enemies may well work to the same time scales as we do....
That would possibly, almost, just about work. Barely. And then only when you know who your enemies are. And only if they are casualty averse. And don't buy off the shelf.
Was Argentina an enemy in 1981? Afghanistan in 2000?
We weren't ready for Germany in 1939 and we had over a decade to prepare, and that wasn't long after the draw down from a major war against them.
 
#32
Alsacien said:
chimera said:
Alsacien said:
How much lost profit for British business? Redundancies?
Sad though it is, that is a small price to pay if we get a bigger and better Strat Lift and Tactical AT fleet and a more capable JHC.
I just hope someone bothers to do the math holistically.
As mentioned these decisions only get realised a decade later. Jumping from one short term view to the next probably costs more than anyone bothers to tot up.....
Someone once commented that HM Treasury is stupid enough to think that spending £5 Billion once a year over 5 years is cheaper than spending £20 Billion in 1 year.
 
#33
br9mp81 said:
Kitmarlowe said:
What a clever move.... The first Tranche 1 plnaes go out of service as the last Tranche 3 turns up in service, yet we're binning more Tranche 3 planes.

How mnay Fighter Squadrons for UK AD are there? How many squadrons can be deployed in the next 5 to 10 years to provide Fighter Cover to UK Land Forces? Too many people on here seem to think that because nobody has actually really had a crack at defending their airspace from us in the last 20 years we don't need to bother anymore. But do they really fancy reenacting France 1940 with NO AD whatsoever...?
And thats the point i feel the RAF are still haunted by the fact that without Downing's fore sight the AD battle would have been lost in 1940,and see the AD of the UK as it's main reason for being and as others have said no one can tell what the threat will be in 10 or 15 years from now.

It's pretty much a given that if you can not contest the airspace overhead you are dead. Would anyone here really fancy moving an Armoured battle group across country under constant Heli and fast jet attack? or enjoy fending off A10's with GPMG and Javelin?
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#34
Here's a really cool idea - if the sh!t ever hits the fan, we can use the septics!!

A bit like lend/lease . . . . . oh, bugger, we can't pay the US in gold reserves anymore, or cash, or bases, or pawned influence . . . .
 
#35
It is difficult to argue that Typhoon as an aircraft is irrelevant in the contemporary operating environment. True it was developed initially as an air superiority aircraft because that was what we needed post Falklands, but that does not make it a poor GR asset. What is preventing it from taking part in current ops is not its capability, but the fact that it is undeployable. It was designed to sit at a well found, well supported, heavily manned cold war RAF station in a temperate climate - about as far removed from Kandahar as you can get. It needs too much support equipment and too much fragile technolgy to stay in the air, the ground support footprint to operate in Afg was simply too large, thus we sent Tornado instead. Rmember CAS' aim as to have Typhoon operating on HERRICK in early 2009.

Typhoon is an exceptional CAS asset, hopefully we will get the chance to prove it before UAVs take over.
 
#36
Right, so we're cutting the Typhoon order to 160 airframes. By my reckoning, that's eight squadrons of 20. I'm no expert, but I was under the dual impressions that:

a) Typhoon isn't supposed to equip eight squadrons

b) RAF squadrons have less that 20 planes

So what's the big deal? We'll have all we need and a bunch for spares, to replace ones that Crabs land after forgetting the.... errr.... wossnames... underneath.... spinny round things... oh yeah- WHEELS!
 
#37
You make this assertion

Bat_Crab said:
It is difficult to argue that Typhoon as an aircraft is irrelevant in the contemporary operating environment.
Then proceed to shred it with your arguments...

Bat_Crab said:
True it was developed initially as an air superiority aircraft because that was what we needed post Falklands, but that does not make it a poor GR asset. What is preventing it from taking part in current ops is not its capability, but the fact that it is undeployable. It was designed to sit at a well found, well supported, heavily manned cold war RAF station in a temperate climate - about as far removed from Kandahar as you can get. It needs too much support equipment and too much fragile technolgy to stay in the air, the ground support footprint to operate in Afg was simply too large, thus we sent Tornado instead. Rmember CAS' aim as to have Typhoon operating on HERRICK in early 2009.
 
#39
vaeviso said:
All joking apart, this is very bad news for the airshow circuit.
Why? It's about all they are good for :)
 
#40
Seems that the press have made a bit of a horlicks in reporting this...

Typhoon isn't being 'slashed' by 50 per cent. The defence 'experts' in the press have mistaken the figure for the overall order with that of the Typhoon forward fleet - i.e. those available for operations & normal training (whether they're serviceable or not is another issue) with the overall buy. Torpy was talking about the forward fleet.

So - new plan is for 123 airframes in the forward fleet. Old plan? 137. Massive, 50% reduction as reported by Sky? Er.... not quite.

The Saudis were granted 24 production slots in the Tranche 2 (T2) assembly line which were assigned to the crustacean chaps; this was going to be made good by extending the T2 production by 24 aircraft before Tranche 3 started.

However, AIUI, those 24 aircraft will now form part of Tranche 3.

According to available (i.e. public domain) figures the RAF has 49/50 Tranche 1 airframes; is in the process of acquiring 65 or so Tranche 2 airframes (should've been 89 with the Saudi order replaced), and has just signed up for 40 Tranche 3 airframes. And on top of that, Tranche 3 has been divided into two - Tranche 3A is what's been signed for today, and Tranche 3B is still, at the moment, on course for negotiation a little further down the line. Production of the Typhoon is going to be ongoing for another few years yet - 2017, I think, is the date BAE give for their production work stopping -, which means that the T3B negotiations can be delayed for a couple more years, along with the expenditure.

So the light blue are signed up for at least 150 aircraft (a number of which they already own), with negotiations for a further 48 airframes to be conducted in due course.

It is possible that they'll end up with 82 fewer airframes than originally planned, but if T3B goes ahead in due course, then they could end up being 20-30 airframes shy of the original target.
 

Top