Board logo

Scraping the Tornado force ? --- barking mad.
britishtrident - 21/2/11 at 07:21 PM

It looks like Ant and Dec want to leave the RAF without any aircraft.

The services have are being slowly reduced to a force that makes Dad's Army look well armed.

scrappy_7 - 21/2/11 at 07:34 PM

I agree first they get rid of harriers then they scarp brand new nimrods and now tornados, still ive gott a few r.c. planes if they need to borrow them

MikeR - 21/2/11 at 08:00 PM

I thought the harriers made sense as the airframes were out of hours - therefore they'd all need expensively replacing anyway.

Whats the deal with tornado? is their a link to the story?

stevebubs - 21/2/11 at 08:08 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/20/cuts-raf-fleet-tornados

tegwin - 21/2/11 at 08:32 PM

Its crazy... when you look at the percentage of GDP that we spend on deffence its TINY..... and yet making any cuts to our military will have HUGE impacts on our ability to keep some sort of standing on the world stage...

It actually makes me quite nervous that, should something kick off we would be totally unable to defend ourselves..

JeffHs - 21/2/11 at 08:39 PM

Perhaps they'll want it back soon?

Davegtst - 21/2/11 at 09:01 PM

quote:
Originally posted by tegwin

It actually makes me quite nervous that, should something kick off we would be totally unable to defend ourselves..


Kinda reminds you of 1939.

britishtrident - 21/2/11 at 09:30 PM

quote:
Originally posted by JeffHs
Perhaps they'll want it back soon?






Sadly that is one niche that is better covered by RC drones -----

[Edited on 21/2/11 by britishtrident]

TPG - 21/2/11 at 09:40 PM

The problem is short sightedness. There is no current massive threat to the UK with regards to modern air war.Thats the thinking.Remember all the QRA squadrons? The threat deminished and so the numbers were reduced.Same thought process is still in place sadly.
All our efforts (Regardless of views) are in areas that have no fast air. All our requirememts are deemed to be met by rotary wing.(Again regardless of views).There were no jets used in N.I.A couple of sorties may have gone out that way for one reason or another. Same with the Falklands.The fast air cover is now smaller.The old aggressors have no major military inforstructure in place as before.It'll be done by politics with a nod to wards oil now.As a disscusion point,It has been said that Blair,Brown,Cameron and his puppet would never fight properly for the 'islands.Over to you class.
Its a similair situation as someone said earlier ref 1938."No,if we ignore it "another" large force will not mass against us and therefore we don't need a massive standing army/airforce".........Ho Hum.
Where a big repulsing force will be got from when it is needed?Anybodys guess.Espiecally if the carriers are with another country because it their turn...."Boxing days not christmas day! Is it!"
I think "they" jumped at the chance of a carrier share because we are overdue to sink their fleet again
There you go.I've wandered off topic.

britishtrident - 21/2/11 at 09:58 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
I thought the harriers made sense as the airframes were out of hours - therefore they'd all need expensively replacing anyway.

Whats the deal with tornado? is their a link to the story?



The RN Sea Harriers had just completed a major update and life extension programe when they were scrapped some some aircraft were only built in the late 1990s --- Labour can take the blame for scrapping those in 2006, intending to cover the gap in naval air cover with the RAF Harrier GR9 which are less capable air to air and air to surface ship

The RAF Harriers GR9s were the later composite big wing BAE/Boeing Harrier II design which had been continuously updated and were scheduled to retire in 2018-2020.
The RAF Harrier II fleet had under gone continuous life extension & improvement programs since they were introduced BAE had only complete a contract to deliver new Harrier rear fuselages in 2007.


[Edited on 21/2/11 by britishtrident]

Ninehigh - 22/2/11 at 07:52 AM

If it keeps up like this we'll all have to defend ourselves with our pitchforks and scythes, oh hang on that blade is too long

britishtrident - 22/2/11 at 08:59 AM

Don't worry the country is safe all remaining members of all three armed forces will today recieve a text message instructing them how to tie a kitchen knife to broom handle to make a pike.

Phew it is a good job the guys at the MOD have mobile contracts that give them unlimited free texts ;-)

[Edited on 22/2/11 by britishtrident]

MikeR - 22/2/11 at 09:45 AM

quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
I thought the harriers made sense as the airframes were out of hours - therefore they'd all need expensively replacing anyway.

Whats the deal with tornado? is their a link to the story?


[bits removed]
The RAF Harriers GR9s were the later composite big wing BAE/Boeing Harrier II design which had been continuously updated and were scheduled to retire in 2018-2020.
[bits removed]

[Edited on 21/2/11 by britishtrident]


Oh bugger. I thought it was the complete opposite therefore supported the scrapping move. Well, its ok, who needs an armed force to protect itself and help protect / restore order around the world???? ..... obviously not us

vinny1275 - 22/2/11 at 10:25 AM

quote:
Originally posted by scrappy_7
I agree first they get rid of harriers then they scarp brand new nimrods and now tornados, still ive gott a few r.c. planes if they need to borrow them


Brand new? Nimrods? Airframes from the 50's, with no spares readily available (there was a whole industry which made parts as required, as a part from one aircraft might not fit another) - we're much better off without those. They could put the electronics into a 737 and we'd have a much better capability.... Or, use new electronics and not the 12 year old stuff that was going in the Nimrods in a 737, and save a few hundred million quid - per aircraft! Same with the A400M - we could already have been flying a fleet of brand-new C-17s and C130s for a fraction of what we've spent on the A400M, which is 5 years behind and 600 million quid over budget, and won't be able to fly into hostile areas like Afghanistan!

britishtrident - 23/2/11 at 12:45 PM

The Comet based Nimrod was a crazy idea from the original MR1 it should have been based on a more modern design even then, the MRA4 just showed none of the lessons had been learned from the Nimrod AEW3 fiasco. But lets Remember the MR1/ MR2 & R1 were good and faithful servants often effective in tasks they were designed for. The MRA4 was bought and paid for and the gap left in UK defence is huge so why destroy them so quickly other than for reasons of political doctrine.

This even more worrying when the RAF's Raytheon Sentinel battlefield surveillance aircraft are also being withdrawn --- these advanced aircraft are around 5 years old !