It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Time the UK goverment updated their airfleet?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Retirement of the Sea Harrier. The aircraft has been retired, yes, because they are not needed now and funding could be better spent elsehwere, but they havent just been thrown in the bin.


Can’t you see how short sighted that is though? The RN and MoD as a whole accepts that the outer layer of air defence provided by fighters capable of BVR engagements is critical to the expeditionary stance that it has taken yet the RN has to face a gap in that capability, why? What evidence is there for this notion that it’s just because there are changes going on or rubbish like that? And no the SHARs will not be placed in storage; they’ll be sold off and/or scrapped.

Here’s an example, CIWS, they “weren’t needed” until of course the Falklands happened.


The Navy has AA cover in the form of the soon to be introduced Type-45


In 2009, three years away and even then it won’t provide near the same capability as a fast jet flying at 30000 feet.


It also has new attack submarines soming in the form of the Astute Class.


Which again have been cut back even though the SDR (from which the current expeditionary stance comes from) set 10 as the minimum requirement. Although this is one of the less militarily damaging cuts it does threaten the UK’s ability to design and produce SSNs since there may be gaps in between the design/production of ships which could lead to the haemorrhaging of vital skills.


The RAF, I think we all know about them too.


Yeah like the Jaguars that have been scrapped years before the Typhoons begin to replace them (they’ll replace the F3s first), or the aging tanker/transport aircraft that are becoming increasingly unavailable while replacements are having to be pushed back further and further because of budget constraints.


Procurements are at an all time high, with a new "SMART" procurement process put in to enable things to be delivered at a lower cost.


Have you ever read the NAO’s reports? Smart procurement is no being implemented anywhere near to the degree it should be. As for procurements being at an all time high, there are certainly a lot of programmes going on but perhaps you should look at how many are having to be scaled down, cut back and pushed back.


What your getting confused over are the Tabloid


I don’t read newspapers, I read Jane’s, FI, MoD releases, NAO reports, Defence Select Committee reports, I talk to service personnel etc. It’s certainly not the tabloids that are harping on about the problems; the best they can do is get all hot and bothered about land rovers and Scottish Regiments which are frankly the least of our problems.

I don’t advocate trying to spend the same as the US, all I am saying is that the UK can afford more than is currently being spent and there is clear evidence that that money is needed given the stance the UK government has taken and the operations it has started.




posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   


Well of course, ex-senior military personnel, I assume that is your definition of a totally non-interested party?


And yours is being an ex Labour Supporter an all eh?

Think you need to stop with the personal attacks and get real yourself dude.




It would seem consistent with your apparant view that they never be put 'in harms way' by the democratically elected political leadership of this country tho.


And why should they fight someone else's war? Give me a good reason.



Or give the UK Armed forces more of a Budget to work with rather than cut back on their budget over all.


I was using that as a general comment over the aging fleet off aircraft the Uk has and the Underresources they have also over not having enough manpower, you are the one who has distorted what I have posted.



Irrespective of how you believe they went out there the fact is that they are now out there (in both Iraq and Afghanistan) under formal and agreed UN mandate.


Does not matter, the politicians knew for a fact that they were not just going over to just do peacekeeping.





Well coming from a 'military family' of several generations myself I am well aware that there is a grave risk in this repeated nonsense that the only voice that should count is a military one.

They aren't exactly what you call impartial.

Their proper place is to advise the political leadership, nothing more.


I could care less wether you come from a military family or not, btw I come from one also that is besides the point.

I think they are more qualified to give an answer than so called politicians who are not there on the ground seeing what is happening first hand.

They are.


[edit on 6-9-2006 by spencerjohnstone]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
And yours is being an ex Labour Supporter an all eh?


- Eh?
What are you talking about now?
What has that to do with anything substantive, hmmm?


Think you need to stop with the personal attacks and get real yourself dude.


- Feel free to point out any "personal attacks".


And why should they fight someone else's war? Give me a good reason.


- They are there to do the bidding of the democratically elected political leadership (a leadership endorsed by returning to government only recently at a general election).

That's how it is, are you really claiming not to know this?


I was using that as a general comment over the aging fleet off aircraft the Uk has and the Underresources they have also over not having enough manpower, you are the one who has distorted what I have posted.


- Read your own words.
You claimed there had been budgetary cuts.
That was wrong and false and it was pointed out.


Does not matter, the politicians knew for a fact that they were not just going over to just do peacekeeping.


- That's mere opinion, not a fact.

The fact remains they are there now under proper UN mandate (in both Afghanistan and Iraq).

So what is your suggestion for how to proceed now (given that not one of the major parties is calling for a withdrawal), hmmm?


I could care less wether you come from a military family or not, btw I come from one also that is besides the point.


- Sorry sj, must have misread you.
I thought you were implying that a military background gave extra weight to an opinion or was of some sort of extra 'value'.



I think they are more qualified to give an answer than so called politicians who are not there on the ground seeing what is happening first hand.


- Well you seem to be in need of a little reality check.

The military can inform the political leadership, nothing more.

The military are subordinate, they don't run the UK it is the democratically elected political leadership that does, thank God.

......and like I said, this stopped being ATS aircraft matter (if it ever was) and became a UK politics matter long ago.


[edit on 6-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
One thing I have read and cannot understand, indeed which I suspect is incorrect, is that bit about the stored Sea Harriers being re-activated in time of need.

Who would fly them? The only candidates I can think of are the existing JFH pilots who would be completely unfamiliar with the BVR A2A role and in any case would only be swapping a longer ranged and more heavily armed GR.9 for a BVR capable Shar 2. No point in this as it doesn't represent any sort of force multiplier.

As far as I know the Shar 2 is currently on offer for sale to India and anyone else who wants them, I believe Thailand is seen as a possibility as they currently fly ex-Armada AV-8A Matador's.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Well, I was indeed wrong about the Harriers it seems (I don't "do" planes so much, I am an Army/Navy buff), but the drawn down Chally's etc are indeed kept in storage. Whilst the on-paper MBT tank amount may appear rather small, the actual amount of Chally's we have is much more substantial.

I just assumed that the Harriers would also be kept in storage, but as the saying goes, assumption is the mother of all fudge ups.

My bad



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey......and like I said, this stopped being ATS aircraft matter (if it ever was) and became a UK politics matter long ago.




And that's not the way it should go...unless a move to the appropriate PTS forum is what the OP wants (?)

Let's stay on the topic...is it time the airfleet was upgraded, nevermind the political BS?



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join