Jump to content

Defence review 2021 (was - RAF Hercules to be withdrawn?)


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

At this time the RAF have a total of 675 Aircraft of all types and including those in storage and reserves and includes 179 Grob Tutors, so not a lot. This number does not include AAC, RN and other Establishments including Test and Development,

 

Link to the info

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft

 

There are 171 Aircraft slated to be got rid of by 2025, but this Gov is strapped for cash expect them removed quicker, so this defense cut if getting rid of about 25% of all RAF Airframes, in percentage terms possible the worst ever.

 

They have got rid of more in the past but we have a much larger force.

 

As I stated on a earlier post this is a gamble the Gov is prepared to take over the next 10 years until newer Aircraft come into service.

 

I joined the RAF as a Boy Airmen (16) in 1976, and we had over 1,000 front line combat aircraft, including Harrier, Phantom, Jaguar, Lightning, Buccs, and still a good few Hunters and within a few years Tornado's, we also had about 110,000 RAF personnel.

 

By the time I left in 2002 we have about 41,000, and a lot less Aircraft, All I saw in almost 26 years of service was cut and cut after cut.

 

I have seen time after time aircraft and system removed from service with haste due to money.

 

In the end you can have all the tech you want but folks seem to have forgotten that Conventional Forces buys you time, time to get more forces, time to get round the table before having to used Nukes.

 

It is also very disturbing that we are increasing our Nuke Warhead Stock pile by about 30% from 180 to about 240.

 

TIME TIME TIME STRAIGHT TO THE BUCKETS OF SHUNSHINE 

Edited by TIGER HOBBIESLIMITED
  • Like 2
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TIGER HOBBIESLIMITED said:

 

It is also very disturbing that we are increasing our Nuke Warhead Stock pile by about 30% from 180 to about 240.

 

 

That was the headline grabber. But are we in a positio to in reality. There are a lot of problems in actually delivering that increase. Note the 6th para in this article.

https://rusi.org/commentary/going-ballistic-uk-proposed-nuclear-build

 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@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 1
Link to post
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 post
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 post
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 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Slater said:

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

 

Once I've completed all of the necessary courses I can graduate to the level of "armchair expert" :)

Link to post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 07/04/2021 at 16:07, spruecutter96 said:

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. 

 

 

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!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
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...