Jump to content

Defence review 2021 (was - RAF Hercules to be withdrawn?)


Paul821

Recommended Posts

@TIGER HOBBIESLIMITED very well said. Completely agree and it’s such a sad state of affairs. 
 

I really don’t get the need for increasing the nukes, how many do we need? If someone isn’t deterred by 180 will another 50 or 60 make any difference?! Realistically the only potential targets are hostile states, against whom you would hope conventional forces could buy time for negotiations to avoid mutually assured destruction. With only a handful of jets and choppers, no tactical transports or AEW cover and barely enough troops to muster a changing of the guard we don’t really have much of a bargaining chip. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Slater said:

I don't think the USAF knows what an E-3 replacement is going to look like yet. For all we know, it may be a drone, an upgraded E-7, or something else. 

 

Very much a layman's view, I wonder if one of the challenges is going to be what airframe is selected to replace the venerable 707/E-3 and I suppose the same question will eventually be asked about the RC-135, E-4B and E-6B fleets.

 

Conscious that many operators are already using platforms based on regional airliners or larger business jets and the next generation of electronics and sensors will probably be more compact than those used by the E-3 and, hence, they may have lower power and cooling system requirements; based simply on the size/capacity or the airframe and its range/endurance might the natural alternatives be a derivative of Boeing's 737 or KC-46/767 or even Airbus' A320 family ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2021 at 12:49 PM, Lord Riot said:

We have a commitment to defend the NATO region if required because no single European nation can deter potential Russian aggression alone. It’s kept peace in Europe since WW2. If NATO dissolved there would be too many opportunities and temptations for undesirable regimes or organisations to get unpleasant ideas.

Whilst I know where these comments are coming from, the idea that the COMBINED armed forces of Europe could stem a Russian invasion is, very frankly, a ridiculous one. The conflict would be escalated to low-yield, tactical nukes in the first 2 or 3 days. What happens after that, I don't even like to contemplate, to be honest.

 

Chris.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard E said:

 

Very much a layman's view, I wonder if one of the challenges is going to be what airframe is selected to replace the venerable 707/E-3 and I suppose the same question will eventually be asked about the RC-135, E-4B and E-6B fleets.

 

Conscious that many operators are already using platforms based on regional airliners or larger business jets and the next generation of electronics and sensors will probably be more compact than those used by the E-3 and, hence, they may have lower power and cooling system requirements; based simply on the size/capacity or the airframe and its range/endurance might the natural alternatives be a derivative of Boeing's 737 or KC-46/767 or even Airbus' A320 family ?

 

 

Well, it's not easy being a layman, but somebody's gotta do it :D

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2021 at 1:50 PM, spruecutter96 said:

Whilst I know where these comments are coming from, the idea that the COMBINED armed forces of Europe could stem a Russian invasion is, very frankly, a ridiculous one. The conflict would be escalated to low-yield, tactical nukes in the first 2 or 3 days. What happens after that, I don't even like to contemplate, to be honest.

 

Chris.  

 

Soviet doctrine was to hugely outnumber the west in order to throw as much as it could at NATO and grab as much territory as possible before the first nuke was flung by either side. These days Russia, though it still outnumbers NATO, does not have the quantitative advantage that it used to enjoy and it has a lot more land to cross -some of which belongs to nations that spent fifty-odd years under Moscow's thumb and will sure as heck not be willing to do so again.

 

 

Edited by Truro Model Builder
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2021 at 10:48 PM, Truro Model Builder said:

some of which belongs to nations that spent fifty-odd years under Moscow's thumb and will sure as heck not be willing to do so again.

 

Jokes about NATO needing to invite the Poles to pause at the gates of Moscow should WW3 kick off while obviously flippant, are underpinned by a clear recognition of what the Poles think about the Russians (hence the old joke that a Polish general, asked which front would be the main effort should Germany and Russia attack simultaneously, said 'The German front, obviously: business before pleasure'. The joke is also told with the Russians being the first to be dealt with, which perhaps tells us something... )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2021 at 8:01 PM, EwenS said:

Not sure “impressed” is necessarily the case. When faced with serviceability issues on the E-3, I’m sure every commander would rather have a nice new aircraft that could be relied on. Hence the liking for the E-7 is my understanding. 

Hmmm but if you ask them if they'd rather have 3! E-7 or 5 E-3s the answer might be different...

One of 3 generally in deep maintenance, so unavailable as quick  surge capability... :(

you lose flexibility already on paper, not only due to the hard reality!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just finished reading a book about the "cobbled together" Sea Harrier squadron that was established and sent to fight in the Falklands conflict, in the space of about four weeks (I think the book is called "Harrier 809" - very well worth a read, BTW).

 

Unfortunately, our politicians never learn and are only interested in making decisions that will further their own careers. When the UK engaged in the Falklands conflict, the British fleet found they had several very large gaps in their defensive capabilities (a viable AEW system being the worst), which directly resulted in avoidable deaths. Still, at least the politicians and bean-counters were happy and secure, eh? It never ceases to amaze me how truly short-sighted and incompetent our "ruling classes" really are... 

 

Chris. 

 

 

Edited by spruecutter96
Amending some information.
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paul821 changed the title to Defence review 2021 (was - RAF Hercules to be withdrawn?)

As this thread seems to have developed a life well beyond my original questioning of a supersonic A-400, I thought it might be time to change the title to something that reflect the content.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
9 hours ago, Beermonster1958 said:

Never a truer word. And yet, we still vote for them...
!

There's an old adage that asks : "Who is the more foolish? The fool or, the fool that follows him?"

They get away with their mind boggling incompetence and short sightedness because matters pertaining to the armed services are not vote winners - and they know it!

 

 

That's the end of the politics please.  Yes, I know it's hard to separate the two subjects, but this post for example wasn't even trying.  No-one wants to go for a 31 day lie-down, I'd hope? :shrug:

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
51 minutes ago, Muzz said:

Apparently Hawk T1 out of service brought forward to 31 March 2022!

Partly true although the Red Arrows will continue with the T.1 until 2030. Sadly though it does mean the end of 736 NAS and 100 Sqn RAF (at least for now(.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, canberraman said:

Partly true although the Red Arrows will continue with the T.1 until 2030. Sadly though it does mean the end of 736 NAS and 100 Sqn RAF (at least for now(.

 

Mark

Yeh I was aware the Reds were continuing with theirs. But the Review originally said in March that the withdrawal of the T1 in the training role would be prior to 2025, which it certainly will be now!

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2021 at 3:58 PM, junglierating said:

Stick Puma for early release too (2023)....so I have been informed....mind you bittersweet that one for me.

 

Fear God honour the king ...etc

 

 

Rumours ive heard is as early as March next year or December next year, due to then being back from Afghan now not much point keeping them going much longer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That rather depends upon how much it costs to keep some clapped-out airframes flying around for no good reason, and for how long.   Not that this would do much for the morale of the people involved in "keeping the capability current", or their retention rate.  How many dedicated people do you need to maintain capability?  Given that the current Armed Forces are unable to recruit enough people now for what they do need to keep doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
40 minutes ago, Beermonster1958 said:

I think your answer lies in the phrase "freeing resources for the Wedgetail which is set to enter service in 2023".

The implication perhaps being that if said said resources were not "freed", their in-service entry might be delayed?

Personally and, going by previous experience, I fully expect the (expected) in - service date to be pushed back, probably (as per usual) for "financial" reasons or, whatever other seemingly plausible reason that may be concocted by the relevant authorities.

 

John

Yeah :D exactly this line of arguments is what I dislike so much!

either you need capability, than better have it seamless or you do not..... obviously it was necessary to accompany QEII on its way out... first deployment of the Sentry since 2016!  but why not on its way back? is it going to be safer then? or are others doing its job then?

the planes are obviously not broken, but would need an upgrade,... that does not mean they would not work! better have something inefficient then nothing, no?

 

whatever, sad to see them go, the E-3D and E-3F are the most interestingly looking AWACS out there, and and they were amongst the more capable ones....  :(

RAF_Sentry_Return_Final_Operational_Miss

https://i1.wp.com/theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/RAF_Sentry_Return_Final_Operational_Mission_1.jpg?ssl=1

 

good luck to the Wedgetail in service date! (IOC? FOC?, 1 new and 2 used planes smell like a myriad of upcoming problems, obsolence, alignment needs, etc.... we will see! )

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2021 at 8:27 PM, Max Headroom said:

And how much does it cost to rebuild a capability from scratch as opposed to keeping the capability current in the first place?

 

Trevor Bean-Counter 

 

 

Precisely. From my own experience, in a different sphere to this, it costs much more - assuming it can even be done. 

 

Sometimes once the background capability to make complex item  things is lost it cannot be regained, We many learn new ways to achieve much the same ends but expertise lost may be totally gone.  That is a major worry.

 

Additionally, while 'legacy' processes and procedures may be acceptable, re-inventing them once lost may not be straightforward under more modern legal and HSE systems. 

 

 

As a simple, silly, example, imagine trying to persuade legislators and safety people to accept cars and trucks, buses as we happily run them today in our cities. "Sorry - you want us to let you run large metal boxes weighing several tonnes at speed right alongside - within a foot or so - of people walking, with no protections?  And these large metal boxes are manually controlled by people with a very limited training and check system, and may contain large quantities of highly flammable fluids.  Yeyyyes." 

Sounds mad, , put like that, doesn't it?

 

 

John B  

(PS - I am a keen car driver, motorcyclist and pilot. I just like to be clear about what we really do ! )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But remember the RAF Wedgetail crews have been training with the RAAF since 2018 in all roles within the aircraft. So not only are the various skill sets being maintained, they are being gained and maintained on the aircraft type the RAF will get in 2023.

https://www.airinternational.com/article/raf-crews-begin-wedgetail-training

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/raf-personnel-command-australian-e-7-wedgetail-aircraft/

 

The concern must be using STS instead of Marshalls for the conversion process, a decision that seems to have been made late in the day, as well as using 2 10-11 year old airframes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Getting back to the C-130J, I see from the current Private Eye that 'The RAF's fleet of C-130J "Super Hercules" planes has gone on sale, despite fears this will leave the UK struggling for military transport capacity.' Apparently they are due to be withdrawn next year, leaving the RAF with C-17 and A400M as their transports. I never thought I'd see an RAF without C-130s of one type or another.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...