It was only a matter of time............

[Giorgio N]

Having been in Japan recently and seen that they seem to have P3s, (some R1s), E2s, E767s and so on coming out of their ears it is difficult to understand what our approach to defence is, given the similarities between our geographic locations.

Japan has an approach to defence that mainly involves having strong self defence capabilities. Hence they do not have a number of assets that the UK has and that require money. Speaking of money, the budget allocated to defence by the two countries is roughly similar, with Britain's bidget slightly higher. At the same time the Japanese GDP is roughly double.

Japan has no nuclear deterrent, no nuclear powered submarines, no overseas deployment capabilities, no overseas bases to man and defend,

The UK has all of the above and I'm sure that if a governement decided to cut say the nuclear deterrent, most here would voice their indignation. Same if the governement decided to close the overseas bases

It's a matter of choices, for historical reasons Japan has chosen to spend money on certain assets and capabilities, Britain on other assets and capabilities. There is no best choice, it's all down to whatever is perceived as the interest of the nation.

[pigsty]

Japan has an approach to defence that mainly involves having strong self defence capabilities. Hence they do not have a number of assets that the UK has and that require money. Speaking of money, the budget allocated to defence by the two countries is roughly similar, with Britain's bidget slightly higher. At the same time the Japanese GDP is roughly double.

I'd add that Japan has a very strange policy of buying its aircraft two at a time. They might have a requirement for a hundred, but each year's budget allocation will include only a handful. The result is that they can't plan production properly and the price goes up. The most extreme example is the US-1/PS-1, which was generally ordered at the rate of one every other year. And that's before we get onto how the F-2 was, at best, twice as useful as the F-16 it derived from but four times the price ...

[Jinxman]

Japan has an approach to defence that mainly involves having strong self defence capabilities. Hence they do not have a number of assets that the UK has and that require money. Speaking of money, the budget allocated to defence by the two countries is roughly similar, with Britain's bidget slightly higher. At the same time the Japanese GDP is roughly double.

Japan has no nuclear deterrent, no nuclear powered submarines, no overseas deployment capabilities, no overseas bases to man and defend,

The UK has all of the above and I'm sure that if a governement decided to cut say the nuclear deterrent, most here would voice their indignation. Same if the governement decided to close the overseas bases

It's a matter of choices, for historical reasons Japan has chosen to spend money on certain assets and capabilities, Britain on other assets and capabilities. There is no best choice, it's all down to whatever is perceived as the interest of the nation.

Thanks Giorgio,

I see the difference when it is put that way. The UK projects its assets, (at a cost), and Japan doesn't.

cheers

[PLC1966]

Shame we can't adapt a C-130 to do the role.

Theoretically It is possible to throw pallets into a Herc with the appropriate kit....if only the Albert fleet was not knackered. .

[PLC1966]

Japan has an approach to defence that mainly involves having strong self defence capabilities. Hence they do not have a number of assets that the UK has and that require money. Speaking of money, the budget allocated to defence by the two countries is roughly similar, with Britain's bidget slightly higher. At the same time the Japanese GDP is roughly double.

Japan has no nuclear deterrent, no nuclear powered submarines, no overseas deployment capabilities, no overseas bases to man and defend,

The UK has all of the above and I'm sure that if a governement decided to cut say the nuclear deterrent, most here would voice their indignation. Same if the governement decided to close the overseas bases

It's a matter of choices, for historical reasons Japan has chosen to spend money on certain assets and capabilities, Britain on other assets and capabilities. There is no best choice, it's all down to whatever is perceived as the interest of the nation.

I believe that the approach may be linked to terms of surrender at the end of WW II not allowing the Japanese Military to deploy....Hence the Japanese having for example the Japanese Air Self Defence Force. It most definitely was not a matter of choice.

[PLC1966]

The RAF does seem to be lacking a few things at the moment. Most notably a multi-role carrier-bourne aircraft and a long range maritime patrol aircraft. Ironic for what was once the worlds greatest sea fairing nation... Shame the MRA4 was such a disaster, although it was inevitable, trying to convert a 50 year old air frame into a next gen maritime patrol aircraft will obviously incur a huge amount of hidden costs (the basically redesigned the entire airframe).

I personally doubt the RAF's strategic effectiveness in Iraq, who many thousands does it cost to operate a squadron of Tornadoes, plus all the support, as well as a couple FSTA's and then some C-17's just to have blown up a couple pick up trucks with Brimstone missiles that cost £100,000.

Ben

I would suggest we do not need a MultIi-Role Carrier Aircraft at the moment, based on the theory we have no Carriers. The MPA is a major issue though, not least in how it links into V boat movements.

RAF Strategic effectiveness in Iraq, I take it you mean Syria. Somebody must think it is worth it, there are enough nations involved in the escapade. You don't throw jets into a potentially hostile (in a Ground to Air type of way) environment for fun.

[PLC1966]

I reckon Airbus could do so ething very good. Lets face it, the A330 FSTA programme was VERY smooth and the aircraft itself is very good.

Albeit it is a heck of a thing to pull off when a bomb bay needs to be added to the actual airframe. They made the Beluga, so how hard can it be to put the bulge on the underside rather than the top

Ben

The FSTA was not very smooth my friend, and why get involved with an unproven Airbus idea when there is the P-8, already known and used by RAF crews (an RAF crew recently won the top US Navy ASW competition) fitted with avionics we perfected in the MRA4 available off the shelf ?

[PLC1966]

No no plans at all for a MRP however the gov has said that further cuts are needed in the MOD budget

Theirs talk now of deep pay cuts to serving personal

I only left a couple of months ago and there was no talk of pay cuts then. New T&C's but not cuts.

[Procopius]

You don't throw jets into a potentially hostile (in a Ground to Air type of way) environment for fun.

No, but sometimes fast jets are committed to a combat environment for political reasons rather than military ones, as in Rolling Thunder over Vietnam.

I think the parallels between Japan and Britain's military capability are less illuminating, however, than those between Britain and France; Britain is apparently close to overtaking France as Europe's second-largest economy, whereas Japan's GDP is nearly twice that of the UK's. Yet France has developed an indigenous fourth-generation aircraft without need for other partners, a nuclear deterrent not reliant on a third party, built a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and before that maintained two (very small) fleet carriers, and has had a history of overseas military operations not unlike those of the UK in the postwar era, and all of this while spending slightly less on defence (according to most sources) than the UK. What has France had to give up or not give up to achieve this, compared to the UK?

[PLC1966]

No, but sometimes fast jets are committed to a combat environment for political reasons rather than military ones, as in Rolling Thunder over Vietnam. Fair Point, although I go with the nasties finished off over there will not crop up somewhere else school of thought.

I think the parallels between Japan and Britain's military capability are less illuminating, however, than those between Britain and France; Britain is apparently close to overtaking France as Europe's second-largest economy, whereas Japan's GDP is nearly twice that of the UK's. Yet France has developed an indigenous fourth-generation aircraft without need for other partners, a nuclear deterrent not reliant on a third party, built a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and before that maintained two (very small) fleet carriers, and has had a history of overseas military operations not unlike those of the UK in the postwar era, and all of this while spending slightly less on defence (according to most sources) than the UK. What has France had to give up or not give up to achieve this, compared to the UK? The French Government supported their own Defence Industry and carried on having their forces in former colonies therefore producing a need for that home produced equipment.

[Dave Batt]

As for the Nimrod, it was unfortunately never going to get an Air Worthiness Certificate apparently. And even if it had, no Government

would have wanted to be in power if another ever went down after the last Nimrod crash....the red-tops would love it..'lashed up rework of a fifty

year aircraft crashes etc etc...

So what's the age difference between the Comet and the 737?

[tomprobert]

So what's the age difference between the Comet and the 737?

Depends if you're talking 737 Classics or 737NG.

The Comet is a child of the late '40s/early'50s whereas the 737NG upon which Poseidon is based is late '90s/early '00s, so, give or take, 50 years.

[Giorgio N]

I believe that the approach may be linked to terms of surrender at the end of WW II not allowing the Japanese Military to deploy....Hence the Japanese having for example the Japanese Air Self Defence Force. It most definitely was not a matter of choice.

Yes, Japan was forced into adopting a self defence force only by the surrender terms. If Japan had a choice maybe they would have done things differently. In any way over the years Japan has remained loyal to this approach even if today they could well do differently.

My point is mainly that nothing comes free and it's a matter of deciding where money is best spent. The UK has decided over the years to be present in many theatres and to build an independent (or semi-independent) nuclear deterrent. All these things cost money and this money can only come from cutting other assets. Japan, by force or by own will, has not played a major part in the world arena (not militarily anyway) and this has allowed them to employ their resources differently. This is something we "enthusiasts" often forget, we'd like to have 5 carriers, strategic bombers, new helicopters, new frigates, new tanks... but the reality is that often it's one or the other.

No, but sometimes fast jets are committed to a combat environment for political reasons rather than military ones, as in Rolling Thunder over Vietnam.

Unless an armed force is for self defence only, it will always be used as tool to fulfil the political goals of the country or the government of the day. If we accept that war is a continuation of politics with other means, then there are no strictly military reasons but only political ones.

I think the parallels between Japan and Britain's military capability are less illuminating, however, than those between Britain and France; Britain is apparently close to overtaking France as Europe's second-largest economy, whereas Japan's GDP is nearly twice that of the UK's. Yet France has developed an indigenous fourth-generation aircraft without need for other partners, a nuclear deterrent not reliant on a third party, built a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and before that maintained two (very small) fleet carriers, and has had a history of overseas military operations not unlike those of the UK in the postwar era, and all of this while spending slightly less on defence (according to most sources) than the UK. What has France had to give up or not give up to achieve this, compared to the UK?

France achieved all of this at a cost: taxation is quite high in France and public debt is high too. At the same time the French have always developed their weapon systems with an eye to the export potential so that the cost for the public of say a new aircraft would have been partly offset by revenues coming from foreign sales. Now this didn't work that well with the Rafale but worked wonder with the Mirage III and F-1.

The F-1 is quite interesting as when it was adopted many believed that the AdA should have adopted one of the heavier types developed by Dassault. The export potential of these however was considered small while the F-1 would have been more interesting for the existing Mirage III users.

Now compare this to most British types, where little or no consideration was ever given to the export potential... they are different philosophies, each has pros and cons.

[wellsprop]

This whole thing about buying aircraft that are "not British" means we rely on foreigners is a bit of rubbish really. Britain has ALWAYS been a nation of trading, that's how Britain got it's influence, which is very evident to this day.

And if we go back and look at British air power since it's conception, well...

Spad XIII (French)

NA Mustang (US) - Designed for an air ministry spec (eventually had a British designed engine as well as a British designed GGS) the wing designed by a Hungarian aero-dynamicist.

B25

B24

B17

P-47

F-4

F-86

To name but a few, the list goes on and on and on.

Now here's something the purists won't like take the Spitifre; powered by a British RR Merlin (at first) the RR team got themselves a Curtiss V12 engine, took it apart and used a lot of the technology in the Curtiss V-12 in the Merlin. Then take a look at the wing, that truly British elliptical wing, right? Beverly Shenstone (the Spitfire's aerodynamicist) had significant input on the wing had previously worked on the Heinkel He70 and it's elliptical wing, so skills/tech were likely transfered there. The propeller; DH, Rotol and Jablo props were used - Bruno Jablonsky was a German who developed props in Germany before moving to the UK before the outbreak of WWII, some FW's used Jablo props. The cannon, a Hispano 20mm, developed the the Spanish Hispano-Suiza HS.404 auto cannon...

So even the arguably most iconic and the most British aircraft ever to have flown has significant input from foreign engineers.

Edited December 30, 2014 by wellsprop

[Procopius]

This whole thing about buying aircraft that are "not British" means we rely on foreigners is a bit of rubbish really. Britain has ALWAYS been a nation of trading, that's how Britain got it's influence, which is very evident to this day.

As I understand it, the main issues are as follows:

1. That money used to buy foreign equipment is paying for jobs outside of Great Britain, instead of providing jobs for skilled labour at home.

2. That being dependent on a foreign power for military equipment can in some cases limit Britain's freedom of action; by way of example, if Argentina had been able to manufacture its own Exocet-equivalent, instead of being dependent upon the French, its capabilities in the Falklands War would have been vastly different.

3. It is much easier to maintain a complex military industry than it is to restart it from scratch. After the post-WWI naval building holiday, there was immense trouble in designing and building the King George V class battleships, because much of the design expertise had been lost in the decade since HMS Rodney and Nelson were completed.

[magwitch]

Why not make a A400 MRP?

The A400M has taken 32 years to get this far and costs the UK about 140m each. Can you imagine how long it would take and how expensive an MPA variant would be from this point. 300m+? 10 years?

[hovis]

The Japanese are developing the Kawasaki P1 as a new MPA. We should be getting involved and licence building it ourselves. Remember that Japan is an island nation too and the P1 is designed from the outset for the role, unlike the converted airliner P8.

[LeVi Tophatter]

The Japanese are developing the Kawasaki P1 as a new MPA. We should be getting involved and licence building it ourselves. Remember that Japan is an island nation too and the P1 is designed from the outset for the role, unlike the converted airliner P8.

Sadly, an RAF Kawasaki P-1 is all but 'what if' modelling territory for many political reasons. The JSDF have different requirements to us, despite us both being islands and this was a one of the reasons they rejected our Nimrod and went ahead with developing the P-1...

Yep, it's not the most palatable way of showcasing the truth of the matter but then this (to me) is no more embarrassing than HMS Astute running aground during 2010. The sight of Russian Naval vessels on the borderlines of international waters doesn't frighten me at all, it's more a stark reminder of where we and continental Europe stand in the grand scheme of things...

I'd love to have a rant at the politicians too but then I remember, It takes public votes to get 'them' in...

[Nigel Bunker]

hovis, on 11 Dec 2014 - 01:10 AM, said:

The Japanese are developing the Kawasaki P1 as a new MPA. We should be getting involved and licence building it ourselves.

Two points. Firstly it would take years to set up to licence build the P1, time we don't have.

Secondly, according to the BBC Japan correspondent, whilst the Japanese Parliament passed legislation to allow arms exports, it would be political suicide for any ruling party in Japan to allow anything to be exported as the population are largely against exporting arms. And in this context exporting is the same as allowing licence building.

[Ptmvarsityfan]

This whole thing about buying aircraft that are "not British" means we rely on foreigners is a bit of rubbish really. Britain has ALWAYS been a nation of trading, that's how Britain got it's influence, which is very evident to this day.

And if we go back and look at British air power since it's conception, well...

Spad XIII (French)

NA Mustang (US) - Designed for an air ministry spec (eventually had a British designed engine as well as a British designed GGS) the wing designed by a Hungarian aero-dynamicist.

B25

B24

B17

P-47

F-4

F-86

To name but a few, the list goes on and on and on.

Now here's something the purists won't like take the Spitifre; powered by a British RR Merlin (at first) the RR team got themselves a Curtiss V12 engine, took it apart and used a lot of the technology in the Curtiss V-12 in the Merlin. Then take a look at the wing, that truly British elliptical wing, right? The lady aero-dynamicist (forgotten her name) who had significant input on the wing had previously worked on the Heinkel He70 and it's elliptical wing, so skills/tech were likely transfered there. The propeller; DH, Rotol and Jablo props were used - Bruno Jablonsky was a German who developed props in Germany before moving to the UK before the outbreak of WWII, some FW's used Jablo props. The cannon, a Hispano 20mm, developed the the Spanish Hispano-Suiza HS.404 auto cannon...

So even the arguably most iconic and the most British aircraft ever to have flown has significant input from foreign engineers.

Agree that Britain has always used aircraft and engineering ideas from

other nations, as indeed does every country, don't think anyone has

argued that British aircraft were produced in total isolation.

A couple of points, the Spitfire aerodynamicist, Beverley Shenstone,

was a man. See "Spitfire The History" by Morgan and Shacklady for

development of the elliptical wing on the Spitfire. Shenstone admired

the Heinkel 70 on a visit to the Paris Aero Show but it is stated that the

He 70 did not contribute to the final Spitfire wing shape which was

developed independently.

Rolls used an He70 which contributed to Merlin development as

a test bed.

The Curtiss engine referred to is presumably the engine which

powered the Fairey Fox in the mid Twenties. Rolls produced the

Kestrel which was influenced by the Curtiss but much improved.

The DH variable pitch prop was a licensed Hamilton. Hamilton

was influenced by the Hele-Shaw-Beecham v-p prop produced

by Gloster in the Twenties.

The aviation world is interdependent!

Cheers, Paul

[rich2010]

All (some) "politics" aside, why is it assumed that the RAF would operate any new aircraft that are in a maritime area? Is it just because they used to? Is it because they fly things with wings? RAF used to operate Merlins, they don't now/ or soon won't, so the idea of Inter-service role change isn't a new one.

(Not meant to wind anyone up - am genuinely interested.)

[alpine_modeller]

I read there are doubts about the P-8s robustness at low-level.

P-3 is yesteryear technology (ok, didnt stop us running Shackeltons into the ground)

What about we buy some Kawazakis from the Japanese ? They probably would deliver on time too..

[Paul A H]

The A400M has taken 32 years to get this far and costs the UK about 140m each. Can you imagine how long it would take and how expensive an MPA variant would be from this point. 300m+? 10 years?

And the rest. The MRA4 unit cost was £400m + by the time of it's cancellation.

[Dave Batt]

Depends if you're talking 737 Classics or 737NG.

The Comet is a child of the late '40s/early'50s whereas the 737NG upon which Poseidon is based is late '90s/early '00s, so, give or take, 50 years.

Well, to keep matters on a level field I'd have to work on the base aircraft, which I believe was a child of the late 'sixties, so I'd put the age difference as about 15 years. I have a bad habit of over-simplifying matters, but it strikes me as ironic that the totally inadequate British aircraft based on an ancient jet airliner was replaced (under duress?) in a matter of weeks by a super-duper American aircraft that is coincidentally based on an ancient jet airliner.

[pigsty]

All (some) "politics" aside, why is it assumed that the RAF would operate any new aircraft that are in a maritime area? Is it just because they used to? Is it because they fly things with wings? RAF used to operate Merlins, they don't now/ or soon won't, so the idea of Inter-service role change isn't a new one.

Because it always has. That's not to say it makes sense, it's just the British habit. In the US the land-based maritime patrol role is in the Navy's hands. That also goes for Germany, France, the Netherlands, Japan and Russia. In the UK it's for the Air Force, as it is in Canada when they remember they have separate armed forces. Some places have Air Force pilots with Navy crews, and some are even odder. There's no right way to do it. The Merlin is a bit of a special case because helicopters have always led to demarcation disputes. My guess is that something big enough to do maritime patrol wouldn't go to the Fleet Air Arm simply because they don't do stuff that big.