Defence cuts.
19 October 2010, 07:04 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 October 2010, 09:38 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Anyone mentioned the helicopters yet?
Cameron said before they came into power that Labour were abismal or words to that effect because the troops in Afgan didnt have enough helicopters, they need 20, so what do they do? 12.... bravo.
Tanks will be going into war stock, along with artillery, so it will still be there, just not costing as much to run whilst in moth *****, your downside is that you may well lose your armoured divisions, any tank crew will be hard to replace, looks like training will be limited and they will be tank hopping (and anyone who has served in the army will know that you only sign for one vehicle and all the equipment that goes with it, that could be interesting if they have to share
)
Tony
Cameron said before they came into power that Labour were abismal or words to that effect because the troops in Afgan didnt have enough helicopters, they need 20, so what do they do? 12.... bravo.
Tanks will be going into war stock, along with artillery, so it will still be there, just not costing as much to run whilst in moth *****, your downside is that you may well lose your armoured divisions, any tank crew will be hard to replace, looks like training will be limited and they will be tank hopping (and anyone who has served in the army will know that you only sign for one vehicle and all the equipment that goes with it, that could be interesting if they have to share
)Tony
19 October 2010, 09:42 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh (ish)
Posts: 8,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone mentioned the helicopters yet?
Cameron said before they came into power that Labour were abismal or words to that effect because the troops in Afgan didnt have enough helicopters, they need 20, so what do they do? 12.... bravo.
Tanks will be going into war stock, along with artillery, so it will still be there, just not costing as much to run whilst in moth *****, your downside is that you may well lose your armoured divisions, any tank crew will be hard to replace, looks like training will be limited and they will be tank hopping (and anyone who has served in the army will know that you only sign for one vehicle and all the equipment that goes with it, that could be interesting if they have to share )
Tony
Cameron said before they came into power that Labour were abismal or words to that effect because the troops in Afgan didnt have enough helicopters, they need 20, so what do they do? 12.... bravo.
Tanks will be going into war stock, along with artillery, so it will still be there, just not costing as much to run whilst in moth *****, your downside is that you may well lose your armoured divisions, any tank crew will be hard to replace, looks like training will be limited and they will be tank hopping (and anyone who has served in the army will know that you only sign for one vehicle and all the equipment that goes with it, that could be interesting if they have to share
)Tony
19 October 2010, 09:50 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
they will keep them in war stock, like alot of things, clothes, rifles, ration packs, trucks, landrovers etc, they all sit there, thats why you can pick up a very low mileage vehicle thats 30 years old from the MOD for like 2k with naff all miles on, storage is the way ahead (though it was the tories last time that sold off most of HM forces gear at bargain prices 
)Tony
20 October 2010, 11:35 AM
#36
Basically yes, they wont sell them to anyone you know they will keep them in war stock, like alot of things, clothes, rifles, ration packs, trucks, landrovers etc, they all sit there, thats why you can pick up a very low mileage vehicle thats 30 years old from the MOD for like 2k with naff all miles on, storage is the way ahead (though it was the tories last time that sold off most of HM forces gear at bargain prices )
Tony
they will keep them in war stock, like alot of things, clothes, rifles, ration packs, trucks, landrovers etc, they all sit there, thats why you can pick up a very low mileage vehicle thats 30 years old from the MOD for like 2k with naff all miles on, storage is the way ahead (though it was the tories last time that sold off most of HM forces gear at bargain prices )Tony
20 October 2010, 11:39 AM
#37
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an improved supply chain is the way forward, as is a better strategic understanding of requirements holistically across the entire MOD rather than on a service by service basis (as it's done today).
20 October 2010, 11:44 AM
#39
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sit back and wait for industry to step in and sort the mess out, then things will finally improve
20 October 2010, 01:57 PM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's all part of the Euro Weenies long range plans. Ensure that NO EU country can operate independently thus even more reason for the EU to exist 'for the security of its members'! This has been going on for years, so if you think Cameron and his cronies are cutting defense for the sake of the 'budget' you're sadly mistaken. It's all to do with his *mates* across the channel.
Dave
Dave
20 October 2010, 03:12 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: At the diesel pump...
Posts: 8,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What scares me is without a carrier we can't defend the fleet. If HMS Bulwark is deploying its contingent there is no air cover available. I wouldn't want to depend on choppers.
Wasn't that long ago that the carriers were the core of a certain strike force that went to war over a certain small island just of the coast of a South American country.
Wasn't that long ago that the carriers were the core of a certain strike force that went to war over a certain small island just of the coast of a South American country.
20 October 2010, 03:26 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westhill, Aberdeenshire
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What scares me is without a carrier we can't defend the fleet. If HMS Bulwark is deploying its contingent there is no air cover available. I wouldn't want to depend on choppers.
Wasn't that long ago that the carriers were the core of a certain strike force that went to war over a certain small island just of the coast of a South American country.
Wasn't that long ago that the carriers were the core of a certain strike force that went to war over a certain small island just of the coast of a South American country.
20 October 2010, 04:03 PM
#43
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I were at Kinloss I'd hardly be surprised, it's been an almost certainty that it would go (as MR4A) - it's another platform that's unaffordable but the project is at a point where it can be scrapped and incur minimal damage.
Funny thing is we have a carrier with no aircraft, whereas the French have surplus aircraft for a carri..... naah, can't be can it?
Funny thing is we have a carrier with no aircraft, whereas the French have surplus aircraft for a carri..... naah, can't be can it?
20 October 2010, 04:29 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 3,213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What scares me is without a carrier we can't defend the fleet. If HMS Bulwark is deploying its contingent there is no air cover available. I wouldn't want to depend on choppers.
Wasn't that long ago that the carriers were the core of a certain strike force that went to war over a certain small island just of the coast of a South American country.
Wasn't that long ago that the carriers were the core of a certain strike force that went to war over a certain small island just of the coast of a South American country.
J.
20 October 2010, 05:21 PM
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
20 October 2010, 06:44 PM
#48
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 October 2010, 07:28 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It bleddy well can! Strange that isn't it? Go see ... http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/201...-tell-you.html ... and follow the links to previous *agreements* that have been made in the spirit of *EU cooperation*. As I said, it's all a feckin great stitch-up!
Dave
Dave
20 October 2010, 08:14 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What should I read though? The opinion of a anti-EU website which as usual will have added 2 + 2 and come up with 'it's all a plot to steal my country by them evil eurocrats'?
Come on if I tried that trick you'd be all over it, it really isn't hard to find a conspiracy on the internet is it?
Come on if I tried that trick you'd be all over it, it really isn't hard to find a conspiracy on the internet is it?
21 October 2010, 10:32 AM
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
What should I read though? The opinion of a anti-EU website which as usual will have added 2 + 2 and come up with 'it's all a plot to steal my country by them evil eurocrats'?
Come on if I tried that trick you'd be all over it, it really isn't hard to find a conspiracy on the internet is it?
Come on if I tried that trick you'd be all over it, it really isn't hard to find a conspiracy on the internet is it?
Dave
21 October 2010, 11:16 AM
#53
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Somerset
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
never mind all that gumpf of a similar important note is that they have reviewed the redundancy package, under the 2006 regs i would have got 26 months pay as a final package, now after the 'REVISED' terms i get 3, feckin great, time to start paying of my bills
21 October 2010, 11:50 AM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly I accept we need to cut due to Labours mismanagement.
So Harrier is scrapped.
HMS Ark Royal is gone.
40% of tanks/artillery is gone.
Lots of personel junked.
Still getting those 2 carriers though.
New nimrod gone.
Trident replacement postponed.
But it means HMS Illustrious will have no planes! So we have no aircraft that can take off and land from carriers for 10 years (until JSF comes in), then they will sell? one of the new carriers straight away, leaving no carriers when the ONE carrier is being refitted or repaired.
I have to say why the **** are they not scrapping the tornado? The harrier is way more flexible because of the carrier capability. Just stupid. Tornado is at least as out of date if not more, the GR1 is just a bomb truck - which harrier can do surely?
Any military peeps there?
So Harrier is scrapped.
HMS Ark Royal is gone.
40% of tanks/artillery is gone.
Lots of personel junked.
Still getting those 2 carriers though.
New nimrod gone.
Trident replacement postponed.
But it means HMS Illustrious will have no planes! So we have no aircraft that can take off and land from carriers for 10 years (until JSF comes in), then they will sell? one of the new carriers straight away, leaving no carriers when the ONE carrier is being refitted or repaired.
I have to say why the **** are they not scrapping the tornado? The harrier is way more flexible because of the carrier capability. Just stupid. Tornado is at least as out of date if not more, the GR1 is just a bomb truck - which harrier can do surely?
Any military peeps there?
When it comes to scrapping aircraft, the politicians are chasing their own priority which is saving cash of course. Defence is a secondary requirement to them when there appears to be no immediate threat in that respect so they will as ever be prepared to gamble that the aircraft required against such a threat won't be needed in the forseeable future, or at least when they are in power so that the blame should it happen eventually won't be laid at their feet!
Thus they feel that they can chop the Harrier which was such a decisive factor in the Falklands War and of course possess a carrier without aircraft for the moment! It is almost laughable but so serious in fact! What a great idea to combimne military forces with the French of course!
We shall know soon enough what they really intend to do anyway, then it will hit the fan I think.
21 October 2010, 12:00 PM
#55
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Harrier would likely have cost £80m - £100m a yearly support packages to keep operational, that's between £500m to £800m between now and JSF becoming operational in 2018. The Harrier became a ground attack platform and had no gun, so in theatre was about as much use as a chocolate fire guard.
21 October 2010, 12:25 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Harrier would likely have cost £80m - £100m a yearly support packages to keep operational, that's between £500m to £800m between now and JSF becoming operational in 2018. The Harrier became a ground attack platform and had no gun, so in theatre was about as much use as a chocolate fire guard.
Fixed wing is there to drop bombs.
21 October 2010, 12:31 PM
#57
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 October 2010, 12:37 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US version of the Harrier has a sodding gun and I can't believe it would cost a fortune to install them or use the Aden cannon which was on the old Harrier.
Sounds like bollox to me.
21 October 2010, 12:41 PM
#59
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The decision is based on the likely £4 Billion pound support service for primary and major maintenance to 2018 and the £0.5 - £1Billion pound cost of future upgrades, so cutting circa £5 Billion for something that can be replaced overnight by Tornado fast jets seems a reasonable and decisive move to me.
21 October 2010, 12:58 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: here
Posts: 10,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"VIFF"ing. Catches most slanty eyed, beardy, darkskinned, foreign language speaking foreigners out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonne...-8B_Harrier_II
The Yanks are keeping them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonne...-8B_Harrier_II
The Yanks are keeping them.
Our Harrier GR7 and GR9s cannot carry radar guided AMRAAM so cannot do any meaningful air to air. They can't even carry ASRAAM so have to rely on legacy sidewinders which are way behind the technology of russian made missiles. They would be easy pickings.
Also, our Harriers cannot take off or land from a carrier with a heavy payload and when operating in higher temperature climates the situation gets far worse.
VSTOL is great for airshows and that's about it.
We should have kept our Sea Harriers though.