News Harriers gone, Tornado's next?

[cHodAX]

This is starting to get worrying now, all the harriers have been decommisioned and our only aircrafter carrier is off to be scrapped. Now it seems the cuts have gone so far that we may well be losing our Tornado's as well. With them gone not only will we literally have no means of defending the Falklands or other overseas territories but the mainland will not even have adequate air defence coverage.

These cuts are going too far too fast now.

Cuts could cost RAF its fleet of Tornados | Politics | The Guardian

 

[Sparx]

The thing is Harriers arent as important as they used to be, they are slower than other fighter jets and the only thing they were good at really is verticle take offs. Choppers can do a much better job these days. No point in keeping them for the sake of history reasons

I dont know too much about fighter planes thats something i was told by someone who actually knows alot about that kind of stuff

 

[fettoken]

Aren't the Tornados used for long range air to ground strikes?

 

[Raven]

Scaremongering.

We have plenty of Typhoons. We don't really need ground attack planes, unless we end up attacking Pakistan...Which under both our previous government and America's previous president would have probably been on the cards eventually. As mentioned, the harriers were out of date, we have Apache helicopters now which do a far better job than the harrier did. We also still have the ability to defend the falklands...not that Argentina would be stupid enough to try anything again, their army has barely moved on technologically since the last time the tried.

Cut's need to be made, non essential things will go first. The amount of money pissed up the wall under Labour is frightening, especially in the MOD.

 

[cHodAX]

We use Tornado F3's for air defence, on the mainland and overseas. Those and the few Typhoon's are the only interceptors we have in operation iirc and the remaining Typhoon's on order are years away from being completely fulfilled.

 

[cHodAX]

We also still have the ability to defend the falklands...not that Argentina would be stupid enough to try anything again, their army has barely moved on technologically since the last time the tried.

Without interceptors I would love to know how we defend the Falklands, even better how would we retake the Falklands without the Tornado's ground attack options?

 

[Ch3tan]

We could send some ww2 vets with ww1 tech and still defend the falklands successfully.

This is scaremongering and nothing more.

 

[cHodAX]

We could send some ww2 vets with ww1 tech and still defend the falklands successfully.

This is scaremongering and nothing more.

Really, do you want to sketch that out for us?

Without the interceptors the Falklands are wide open, Argentina might be using 1960's and 1970's equipment but they have quite a bit of it but more importantly they have the capability to put alot of boots on land if we cannot defend the skies while taking out shipping. Also do not forget countries like Venzeula who quite possibly could lend support to Argentina and has already made known that it supports Argentinas's claim on the islands, they have some decent air assets in place such as F16's, Su-30's and 35's. Also don't overlook the support of much of South America as well, you won't find many of those nations who would back our claim in any way shape or form.

If you can't see the risk then I put you firmly in the group with those people who saw zero threat in 1980 and were proven badly wrong just a short time later.

Face facts, the RAF is running about half strength that is was in the early 1980's and the navy is in even worse shape. The last thing we need to be doing is cutting vital air assets to save a billion or two in the long term.

 

[DaGaffer]

Scaremongering.

We have plenty of Typhoons. We don't really need ground attack planes, unless we end up attacking Pakistan...Which under both our previous government and America's previous president would have probably been on the cards eventually. As mentioned, the harriers were out of date, we have Apache helicopters now which do a far better job than the harrier did. We also still have the ability to defend the falklands...not that Argentina would be stupid enough to try anything again, their army has barely moved on technologically since the last time the tried.

Cut's need to be made, non essential things will go first. The amount of money pissed up the wall under Labour is frightening, especially in the MOD.

This is mostly correct except the Harrier had proven itself in Afghanistan because it has excellent "Hot & High" characteristics. The Tornados on the other hand are Cold War relics that never worked as advertised in the first place and should have gone long before the Harriers (they were proven to be a failure in Gulf War 1 ffs). It does mean that the army in Afghanistan are going to have to completely (rather than just mostly) rely on the Yanks for close air support, which is worrying.

The biggest problem with this is that I get the impression there's no longer any strategy involved in the cuts; but this isn't being helped by stupid inter-service rivalries, particularly between the RAF and Navy, protecting crap that helps career prospects (like Tornados and fucking useless Type 45 destroyers) while the PBI get shafted again because there's no money for Chinooks.

 

[DaGaffer]

Without interceptors I would love to know how we defend the Falklands, even better how would we retake the Falklands without the Tornado's ground attack options?

There are already Typhoons in the Falklands. Not many, but enough to cope with anything Argentina could currently throw at them (this has been discussed on here before).

Tornado F3 is an utter joke, always has been.

 

[cHodAX]

There are already Typhoons in the Falklands. Not many, but enough to cope with anything Argentina could currently throw at them (this has been discussed on here before).

Tornado F3 is an utter joke, always has been.

Utter joke compared to what the Russians could put in the air but devastating against anything Argentina or most developing nations could field. My issue is not them being phased out and replaced btw, it is the speed with which it may happen and the gaps it leaves open for the medium term.

Many senior military analysts are expressing the same concerns so I don't think I am out on a limb when I say that this is all going too far too fast.

Completely agree with what you are saying about a lack of any strategy to all this, that is the most worrying aspect of all this really. There just doesn't seem to be a comprehensive plan about where we want our military capabilities to be in the future.

As for the Typhoons in the Falklands, if Venezuela was to loan it's air-air combat assets to Argentina then the Typhoons definately would not be enough even as good as they are, numbers as always would be the issue.

 

[Vae]

Falklands hero Marine: Save the Harrier, scrap the Tornado ? The Register

Cameron cocks up UK's defences - and betrays Afghan troops ? The Register

Lewis Page tends to be very pro buying US off the shelf but, imo, a lot of what he writes makes sense.

 

[cHodAX]

Falklands hero Marine: Save the Harrier, scrap the Tornado ? The Register

Cameron cocks up UK's defences - and betrays Afghan troops ? The Register

Lewis Page tends to be very pro buying US off the shelf but, imo, a lot of what he writes makes sense.

Love this comment, finally someone telling the truth as it was and will be again if we are not careful...

We don't need Thompson and West's firsthand testimony to tell us that without the Harrier carriers the war of 1982 would have been a bloody, disastrous defeat for the UK.

 

[Sparx]

Love this comment, finally someone telling the truth as it was and will be again if we are not careful...

Yes but bear in mind that was almost 30 years ago, technology has moved on since then and so have warfare

 

[megadave]

stop invading other countries and it won't matter, not as if anyone will invade Britain any time soon

 

[cHodAX]

Yes but bear in mind that was almost 30 years ago, technology has moved on since then and so have warfare

No, you cannot project power without a carrier and that is a fact bud. 30 years ago we had carriers and the planes to do the job. The technology always matters but it also comes down to range of assets and their versatility. Without a carrier we cannot retake the Falklands, without Harrier and Tornado we are going to be really stretched if it ever comes to defending those islands again. We are in worse shape now than 30 years ago, less planes, less ships, less soldiers and no carriers.

Mark my words, if we strike a big oil-field down there we are going to have problems.

 

[DaGaffer]

Britain could never fight the Falklands War again the way it did in 1982, but this isn't down to current cuts, its been the case for over 20 years. However, unlike last time, the Falklands are properly garrisoned and if anything Argentine military capability has gone backwards since then; they have the lowest military budget in South America. Yes, they could get kit "on loan" from Chavez, but its a pretty remote possibility, and to actually have an impact such a loan would need total surprise (or the British can simply reinforce) which isn't going to happen because the Americans would tell us way in advance. And don't forget, even if Argentina had a buttload of Sukhois their army is decades behind the British in equipment, doctrine and most importantly, combat experience. Compared to Afghanistan the Falklands would be a fun day out at the beach.

 

[Sparx]

I cant imagine they would have made the cuts without high level military advice before hand, and i dont mean low ranking officers here. Id tend to listen to them over anyone else.

It also ties into what the government want to do and make the Military more a coalition working with other European forces than our own Military. Not something i agree with but i can see what they are trying to do

Wasnt there something recently about sharing Carriers with France to cut costs?

 

[cHodAX]

Well as Lewis Page said...

We here on the Reg defence desk recently spoke to a British infantry officer whose men had lately played the part of Argentine special forces in a security exercise at the UK airbase on the Falklands, RAF Mount Pleasant. He said that he and his troops had easily penetrated the base perimeter and had they really been hostile would have found it a simple matter to put Mount Pleasant and its aircraft out of play for some time - easily enough time for an Argentine main force to arrive and land, for instance.

Falklands hero Marine: Save the Harrier, scrap the Tornado ? The Register

And there you have it, our airbase vunerable and the only thing stopping that Argentines from walking in tomorrow. It isn't that hard to remove the threat of a static target with proper planning, that is why carriers are so damn effective because they are a hard target to take down when in a carrier group. An airfield does not have the benefit of a massive ocean to operate and move around in.

 

[cHodAX]

I cant imagine they would have made the cuts without high level military advice before hand, and i dont mean low ranking officers here. Id tend to listen to them over anyone else.

It also ties into what the government want to do and make the Military more a coalition working with other European forces than our own Military. Not something i agree with but i can see what they are trying to do

Wasnt there something recently about sharing Carriers with France to cut costs?

The EU will not back us over the Falklands, the Yanks will leave us twisting in the wind as well. Maggie was able to get the job done in 1982 because we had the carriers and planes, what we did back then is no longer possible but we are also removing the tools we need to get the islands back should be lose them.

 

[Sparx]

I dont think you can base so much money on the off chance of one situation occurring which everyone is doing. Its like the snowplow theory, you cant spend billions of pounds on the off chance its going to snow for 3 days a year

Id rather see that money going to something more useful than defending a tiny island in the middle of nowhere.

The Falklands war means alot to me as it was not only my regiment heavily involved but my company (F Company) which was a part of one of the major turning points in the battle. Mount Tumbledown, we took it with no ammunition at all, 3 miles up hill clearing bunkers with bayonettes only. So it means alot to keep it but not enough to spend billions on it on the off chance

Got to keep spending to todays battles. Im sure when desert warfare is no longer the flavour of the month we will adjust accordingly

 

[cHodAX]

I dont think you can base so much money on the off chance of one situation occurring which everyone is doing. Its like the snowplow theory, you cant spend billions of pounds on the off chance its going to snow for 3 days a year

Id rather see that money going to something more useful than defending a tiny island in the middle of nowhere.

The Falklands war means alot to me as it was not only my regiment heavily involved but my company (F Company) which was a part of one of the major turning points in the battle. Mount Tumbedown, we took it with no ammunition at all, 3 miles up hill clearing bunkers with bayonettes only. So it means alot to keep it but not enough to spend billions on it on the off chance

Got to keep spending to todays battles. Im sure when desert warfare is no longer the flavour of the month we will adjust accordingly

What if the oilfields exist and are worth trillions to our economy? The potential is there, that is why they are test drilling, the experts believe there is alot of oil under the seabed in that region.

 

[Sparx]

Yes and when that happens and we can farm it the budgets will be readjusted as it can be justified spending the money and we will have carriers once more. Its not as if once they are gone we can never have them again. Until that happens spend the money elsewhere.

Does anyone know the figure of maintaining carriers for 3 years based on how much it would be to replace when needed?

 

[cHodAX]

Yes and when that happens and we can farm it the budgets will be readjusted as it can be justified spending the money and we will have carriers once more. Its not as if once they are gone we can never have them again. Until that happens spend the money elsewhere.

Does anyone know the figure of maintaining carriers for 3 years based on how much it would be to replace when needed?

The thing is once we lose them it is going to be very difficult to take back and could take a decade, during which time Argentina gets to press its claims further and will have the backing of almost all the south and latin American nations. Going back to 1982 we got very little support when the invasion occured, since then many times we havebeen pressed on the issue of soveriegnty and around the world the general notion is that those islands infact belong to Argentina in all but name. The rest of the world wants a settlement that sees us out of the south atlantic.

No point letting shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, defend the island properly and if need be scrap Tornado rather than Harrier which will be at least £6 billion cheaper to keep running up until 2025.

 

[Sparx]

I wasnt talking about losing the islands i was talking about bringing carriers back

Its not as if we wont have the capabilities anyway. We have other aircraft that can do the job better than harriers. And bringing new aircraft that can be used on other countries carriers i think people are worrying over something not quite as troubling as everyone thinks

Europe has also come a long way since 1982 and we would get more help now than in the past

EDIT: also the Harriers were at the end of their time, they needed updated anyway, why keep an outdated fleet on the off chace of attack, you have to look at other attacks and judge for them not just one.

If we had vehicles especially suited for one type of attack for every possible situation there would be no money left in the country for anything else

 

[cHodAX]

I wasnt talking about losing the islands i was talking about bringing carriers back

Its not as if we wont have the capabilities anyway. We have other aircraft that can do the job better than harriers. And bringing new aircraft that can be used on other countries carriers i think people are worrying over something not quite as troubling as everyone thinks

Europe has also come a long way since 1982 and we would get more help now than in the past

Spain won't help, they have the horn for Messi too much, bit like that bandit Marc.

 

[Sparx]

Im not sure i managed to fit the word attack into that post enough

 

[Sparx]

Also the Falklands wasnt just won with the use of Harriers, it was also down the great work of the Army. Read up on Mount Tumbledown, That fight was more about troops on the ground than air support. With help from Yarmouth and Active gun support, as well as helicopter support for transport

 

[cHodAX]

Also the Falklands wasnt just won with the use of Harriers, it was also down the great work of the Army. Read up on Mount Tumbledown, That fight was more about troops on the ground than air support. With help from Yarmouth and Active gun support, as well as helicopter support for transport

Yep I am well aware bud, can't land troops properly if you don't control the skies though, we lost Ardent/Sheffield/Glasgow/Glamorgan plus alot of support ships were hit from air launched missles and bombs. The skies are the key to holding those islands.

 

[Sparx]

Dont forget now we have increased from a platoon of marines on the island to a garrison with RAF base. We have a much larger active presence than 1982. So many factors are different now than then. As much as would like the harriers to stay is think they have made the correct choice for now. At least that money can go towards wars we are actually involved in at the moment, hopefully saving thousands of lives currently rather than what ifs