Discussion in 'Tanks, planes & ships' started by Old_and_Cold, Mar 27, 2008.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Latest Defence Select Committee report, published here -
Link to report
makes very grim reading.
Grimest bit is the jargon.
If I forget to buy something at the weekly Tesco shopping run I'll have to blame it on the fact that I'm not maintaining a "main gate drumbeat," but I have put a "rehabilitation unit" in place to ensure that this doesn't happen again. I'll also need a "System of Systems Integration (SOSI)" to ensure I'm not entering a "development cul de sac."
Good job we're not in a hurry for FRES, A400, new Nimrod etc etc...
They do admit that Lord Grayson did bring a bit of "poke" (my word; they said it in Civil Service speak) to the procurement system. Pity he's gone.
I thought the Harriers had been pensioned off now, and weren't used for carriers any more.
This is a difficult document to read. What happened to plain English ??
Probably 'We're screwed over again'.
errrr...if it was written in plain english it'd would be too politcially explosive and a bit of a career stopper for a few "Golden boys" in MoD, both green and besuited..........
At least, that's my guess
Only Sea-Harriers have been 'pensioned off'.
The RN and RAF share the Goround Attack version of the Harrier and both are involved in Shorebased and Carrier based ops.
Don't you need a Sea Harrier for an aircraft carrier ?? That would seem logical. Or has the ipod budget precluded that ??
I'm not sure the language is that opaque, certainly in the 'Conclusions and Recommendations'.
'We are disappointed to learn that DE&S is unlikely ....'
'We are concerned to hear that the MoD ....'
'It is disappointing that .... '
'we are surprised that the MoD does not consider it an issue ...'
which by the conventions of these things is pretty pointed.
And you can almost smell the sweat in the transcript of evidence by CDM and his acolytes.
That said, I doubt this report in itself changes anything (there's little in it that wasn't known before) but it does add to the feeling that the 'fantasy defence' bubble must burst soon as the tensions grow between current operations, future programmes, finance and political aspirations.
But doubtless MOD's response will tell us how everything is wonderful ....
Why do we need aircraft carriers?
Why do we need submarine hunting Nimrods?
I see the need for most of the rest but those two seem like white elephants we can ill afford.
The Nimrod does a lot more than just sub hunt. In fact they can 'find' just about anything that can be seen or 'heard' electronically.
And re the Sea Harrier on Carriers, the SeaHarrier was a specific version of the Harrioer with an air-to-air radar which is quite handy when you want to shoot down other aircraft. The normal Harrier does not have a radar, as it is not really required for dropping bombs on targets. This is part of the problem, the carriers (current and future) do not have an aircraft to protect them and so are useless against any enemy who has a credible airforce.
So we can take the Â£3.9Billion and spend it on something else. Like decent accommodation? Abolishing pay as you starve? Offering soldiers a salary that might be slightly comparable with what I can earn in civvy street, thus encouraging me to join up again?
Any other ideas on what we could spend Â£3.9billion on?
Nimrod does a feck more than kill subs kind of handy having a plane that can bimble about the seas that surround us with radar and gubbins onboard.
but a billion and 8 years late time to look for another option
unfortunately there aren't really that many options not only does it have to be able to fly for a long time it also needs to be able to sometimes fly low level
which airliners don't really like doing plus airliners don't come with bomb bays
Ref The Nimrod - The UK is an island and we have nearly been starved out by submarine warfare twice in the last 100 years. It's probably the best ASW/ASuW platform there is.
Also the MR4 is more than just a subhunter. As others have said, its packed full of sensors and carry various weapons. More like a cross between a B-52/RC-135/P-3/Bear.
IIRC the way they're converting the airframe is at the root of the issues. Bit like re-tailoring a bespoke suit as it was explained to me.
One minute you're fighting in the Desert. Next minute the Russians are conducting Naval Exercises in your back yard.
One minute you're on Patrol in Ulster. Next minute some Argie is landing troops on a far flung piece of British Soil.
One minute you're sat at home minding your own busness. The next a man called Hitler invades Poland.
Hopefully you're starting to see why we need to maintain "All" of our capabilities... Politicians will always have verbal disagreements and we will always be the ones who have to square off four benches and do their fighting for them!
No I don't. We don't need 2 big fuck-off aircraft carriers when all they can carry is harrier. Unless we're planning to get involved in a mid-ocean battle, there will always be land nearby to operate more suitable aircraft from.
I don't see the need for our submarines since (with exception of the belgrano- which arguably wasn't required) they haven't sunk anything since world war 2.
With the exception of the falklands (which our intelligence services failed to detect) I'm certain there was more than "1 minute" between the dramatic change in defence requirements.
You may well want to point out that a falklands scenario could happen again but I would suggest to you that a repeat of the falklands war would not receive the support from multicultural, casualty-averse britain. (I know we're losing a lot of good blokes just now, but not nearly on the scale of what happened in 1982)
Separate names with a comma.