RAF in poor shape

[Steel_Tomb]

This is a real problem, the MoD is apparently considering a £2bil cut in the defence budget next year. The UK's armed forces are operating in two theaters, with other numerous over seas commitments i.e. the Falklands with less equipment. In the "good old days" of the Cold War there were some 30 operational fast jet squadrons in the RAF, now I believe there are less than ten.

The Navy, although equiped with RAF harriers, has no potent airborne fighter like the Phantom's from the previous generation of carriers (HMS Ark Royal and HMS Eagle). The senior service is also suffering from a very old fleet, which is in desperate need of replacement. Granted the Type 45's are entering service which is great news, but their numbers are too few to be an effective platform.

The Army is also suffering from a lack of equipment. When my dad was deployed to Iraq, he had to borrow an armoured jacket off another squadron member. He had to do the same with his sidearm, which didn't even have a full magazine... he was "only" medical staff... but even so thats a piss poor show. Last year the AAC's Apache's ran out of Hellfire's because we hadn't stockpiled enough.

Where is our nations military heading? Do they not realise that we are seriously under equipped? The Battle Of Britain was only won by a whisker... they caught us unprepared then and we're in an even worse shape now. Considering how this country used to have the biggest Navy in the world, one of the finest Air Forces and an Army to be proud of... it wonders where we're going.

I'm looking to join the military myself, and I really respect everyone in the UK's armed forces for making a bloody good job out of a bad situation. The Government have a f**king big debt to pay to these men and women, and they can't even be bothered to get the right equipment for them. The MoD budget equates to something like 3% of the UK's GDP... three f**king percent!


Source: http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9007

Over half of fighter jets not fit for purpose

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Over half of the RAF's fighter aircraft fleet is considered either unfit for service or unable to serve in the forward fleet according to the MoD.

Despite spending hundreds of millions of pounds in the procurement of Typhoons and urgent operational requirements for Harriers, Hawk T1s and Tornados, approximately 46 per cent of the entire fighter jet fleet, is considered "fit for purpose." In total this amounts to 219 planes.

Of the remaining 54 per cent, or 237 planes, 61 are in the forward fleet but are undergoing minor maintenance or upgrades while 186 are in the "depth fleet", meaning the planes are undergoing extensive upgrades or repairs and would not be able to respond to operational requirements.

Some of the shortages of planes were astounding. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on the procurement of the 53 Typhoons but only 20 of the aircraft are considered "fit for purpose."

Only 61 out of 138 Tornado GR4s are considered fit for purpose as well. Only the Harrier fleet with 44 out of 74 planes, has well over half of its planes fit for duty.

The irony is that the Harrier fleet is to be withdrawn from Afghanistan this summer and replaced by the GR4s.

So far commanders in Afghanistan have not raised concerns over shortages of fast jets due to contributions from the Royal Navy and other NATO allies. But the shortage is already evident here in Britain. Last year a Russian bomber nearly entered British airspace when the RAF had trouble finding a pair of Tornados fit to scramble the aircraft.

As the fleet continues to age, the number of planes ready for operations will only decrease.

[Oberon]

Aye, it is a piss-poor state of affairs, but there are greater priorities in the UK! Such as moats, second homes....
We're doomed.

[AVGWarhawk]

We will be along shortly to take your land. Is it so smart to advertise this as the defense management did? If it were I things of this nature would be fixed very quietly.

[Steel_Tomb]

When you consider how many billions the Governments been chucking away left right and centre you wonder why they dont chuck say an extra 10 billion quid at the defence budget... amongst the hundreds of billions of pounds they've borrowed I doubt they'd miss it!

This is the bit that REALLY worries me:

"Last year a Russian bomber nearly entered British airspace when the RAF had trouble finding a pair of Tornados fit to scramble the aircraft."

Back in the Cold War that thing wouldn't have even made it past Norway without interception...

[mr chris]

Ah it is a very poor show. But what do you expect from a bunch of muppets that expect more to be done with less cash and less people year on year.
All the while they are claiming cash for mortgages that do not exist.

The kit is getting out to the people on the ground but to late and in to few numbers.

I was out in Iraq last year gotta to say the was plenty of kit and most of it was new and very good kit for the theatre.
But that was 5 years after the war started. You would expect to go to war with the right kit not get the right kit just before you are buggering off.

Pay was a is a big issue. 2 years ago the forces lowest ranks were given a pay rise of 14.5% until then a Pte solider on a op tour was getting paid less than a traffic warden for put his life on the line for his country.

Also housing in the forces is not that great but getting better.
To be fair to the government they have spent big on this but only after decades of underfunding. Also i doubt this would have happened had not the last and current head of the army brought this to the attention on the media.

Take My house here in Cyprus as a example. Built in the early 60's and has a asbestos roof!!!
oh and couple that with that all you have keep the house cool with summer temps of nearly 40 degrees week in week out is a measly fan in each room.
Having the windows open with no net is a no no as your house will then be full of mozzies and cockroaches and other insects. also my kitchen has started to be over run by ants the size of cats as the back wall has small holes in it.

[Stealhead]

Yeah I recall the RAF members at Ramstein AB Germany where I was there in the enlisted dorms for the USAF the RAF lived on the 4th floor opposite the side I lived on. They where lucky the dorms we had where one person to room with a shared bathroom back to back with the next room so if you got along well with your "piss mate" you had a giant double room.

Some of the RAF members did not like us Airmen and the friendlier RAF memebers said it was because we got higher pay in the same basic rank than a Brit did.At the same time they dont consdier that we are much farther away from our families than a brit in germany is. To me it was silly if we where RAF wed all be the same you cant get mad when somone from another nations military gets higher pay.

Seeing as the British military dose not have as large a budget as the US dose I would expect that they have a bit less of the best and newest kit. But the US military is not much better the droms I lived in for 8 months while in tech school had no A/C and this was in Texas in the summer time Id guess that hte dorms had been there since the 60s.

To me part of being in the military is dealing with the old stuff and keeping it going you have to roll with the punches I guess like those before you did.

[Jimbuna]

This doesn't actually suprise me when I consider the fact that a female colleague of mine had to send her son a decent pair of boots when he was posted to Afghanistan nearly two years back.

The Labour government have got this country in a right royal state but I fear even worse is to come when/if the Conservatives get in next year.

The days when the sun never set on the British Empire are now simply distant memories of myth and legend

[SteamWake]

Maybe you can get the US to lend or lease you some equipment....

Oh wait wrong war.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

This is a real problem, the MoD is apparently considering a £2bil cut in the defence budget next year. The UK's armed forces are operating in two theaters, with other numerous over seas commitments i.e. the Falklands with less equipment. In the "good old days" of the Cold War there were some 30 operational fast jet squadrons in the RAF, now I believe there are less than ten.

The Navy, although equiped with RAF harriers, has no potent airborne fighter like the Phantom's from the previous generation of carriers (HMS Ark Royal and HMS Eagle). The senior service is also suffering from a very old fleet, which is in desperate need of replacement. Granted the Type 45's are entering service which is great news, but their numbers are too few to be an effective platform.

The Army is also suffering from a lack of equipment. When my dad was deployed to Iraq, he had to borrow an armoured jacket off another squadron member. He had to do the same with his sidearm, which didn't even have a full magazine... he was "only" medical staff... but even so thats a piss poor show. Last year the AAC's Apache's ran out of Hellfire's because we hadn't stockpiled enough.

Where is our nations military heading? Do they not realise that we are seriously under equipped? The Battle Of Britain was only won by a whisker... they caught us unprepared then and we're in an even worse shape now. Considering how this country used to have the biggest Navy in the world, one of the finest Air Forces and an Army to be proud of... it wonders where we're going.

I'm looking to join the military myself, and I really respect everyone in the UK's armed forces for making a bloody good job out of a bad situation. The Government have a f**king big debt to pay to these men and women, and they can't even be bothered to get the right equipment for them. The MoD budget equates to something like 3% of the UK's GDP... three f**king percent!


Source: http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=9007

Over half of fighter jets not fit for purpose

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Over half of the RAF's fighter aircraft fleet is considered either unfit for service or unable to serve in the forward fleet according to the MoD.

Despite spending hundreds of millions of pounds in the procurement of Typhoons and urgent operational requirements for Harriers, Hawk T1s and Tornados, approximately 46 per cent of the entire fighter jet fleet, is considered "fit for purpose." In total this amounts to 219 planes.

Of the remaining 54 per cent, or 237 planes, 61 are in the forward fleet but are undergoing minor maintenance or upgrades while 186 are in the "depth fleet", meaning the planes are undergoing extensive upgrades or repairs and would not be able to respond to operational requirements.

Some of the shortages of planes were astounding. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on the procurement of the 53 Typhoons but only 20 of the aircraft are considered "fit for purpose."

Only 61 out of 138 Tornado GR4s are considered fit for purpose as well. Only the Harrier fleet with 44 out of 74 planes, has well over half of its planes fit for duty.

The irony is that the Harrier fleet is to be withdrawn from Afghanistan this summer and replaced by the GR4s.

So far commanders in Afghanistan have not raised concerns over shortages of fast jets due to contributions from the Royal Navy and other NATO allies. But the shortage is already evident here in Britain. Last year a Russian bomber nearly entered British airspace when the RAF had trouble finding a pair of Tornados fit to scramble the aircraft.

As the fleet continues to age, the number of planes ready for operations will only decrease.

That is the direct result of going liberal, and all your money goes to the people, not where it should. Pure democracies can't exist. Eventually the voters realize that they can vote money for themselves, and in doing so, bankrupt the system. You are almost towards going to a pure oligarchy, regardless what fancy name they give it from labor to socialism to communism, but you will probably collapse before that time. This will cause anarchy which will firmly push into a pure oligarchy. You still have a foot in the democracy camp and that will be your undoing. Only way for a truly prosperous nation, as history shows time and time again, is a Republic. You my friend are no longer even close to a Republic. The rise of Rome was based on a Republic. The fall of Rome was based on a Monarchy.

That's what keeps scaring me in the US. They keep calling our Republic a Democracy on the news. Our founding fathers created a Republic, not a Democracy. As anyone can tell you that knows the five types of Government are, a Democracy (mob rule) is only a transition stage. It cannot truly exist for long term. It is either a transition to a Monarchy or an Oligarchy, or a transition to a Republic, and I can tell you, we are not heading towards a Republic regardless what our country was founded on.

A new world order is upon us. But we deserve it. The people of any nation get the government they deserve....

-S

[Oberon]

I'm going to wind up stirring up a whole next of flaming vipers by saying this, and probably start a fourteen page thread which will no doubt dissolve into a Nobama war, however...

You still have a foot in the democracy camp and that will be your undoing. Only way for a truly prosperous nation, as history shows time and time again, is a Republic. You my friend are no longer even close to a Republic. The rise of Rome was based on a Republic. The fall of Rome was based on a Monarchy.

Although the era of the Empires is past, Britain has in the past been a rather powerful entity, one could say in terms of influence it was almost on the terms of Rome at one point in time, and throughout this time the Empire was lead by a Monarch, even before the lessening of the monarchical powers and the end of the Divine Right of Kings after the Civil Wars. There was only one time in the past seven hundred years (that I am aware of) where Britain was a republic, and that was during the Cromwell years, which were renown for their austerity and paranoia and eventually led to the return of the king, and although the era of the Empire has passed, as has the era of the Empires, is it not that all things come to pass, be it Rome, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, or the ancient republics in Athens or Sparta.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Monarchist or Socialist or any other '-ist', if anything I think that the most productive societies are that with less freedom of expression, however how you view this depends on how much importance you place on the rights of the individual versus the needs of the state. I agree that a monarchical or democratic system is not the most effective system for production and progress, however I do not think that it is quite as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

[Jimbuna]

*Grabs the first seat in the front row*

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I agree that a monarchical or democratic system is not the most effective system for production and progress, however I do not think that it is quite as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

And you're absolutely correct, it is not quite that simple. There are examples of very prosperous states that are nearly totalitarian. Singapore comes to mind, as do certain members of OPEC.

The key to a prosperous country is economic success, moreso even than a proper government. It's just a lot easier to achieve economic success with a proper government, one that keeps its' nose out of trade and doesn't incur expenses that it pays by leeching off of industry.

During England's heydey, her lifeblood was trade, global and virtually unhindered. She engaged in many costly wars, and there was a lot of military spending, but innovation was fostered and free trade was the rule.
The problems began when England began using protectionist trade practices to cement her position as the foremost nation in the world.
England, like many other empires, didn't learn the lesson of the Red Queen, that one must run to stay in place. Her attempt to maintain a monopoly on the industrial revolution didn't stop the Americans from obtaining the Bessemer steel process, nor did it stop the Germans from surpassing England's industrial output. As her economic power waned, she pursued the same course of action that nearly every fallen empire has; military interventionism. Between the mid-19th and early 20th centuries, The Royal Navy tripled in size, and on the eve of World War 1, George VI repeatedly turned a deaf ear to Wilhelm II's pleas for peace.

Britain's zeal for war with Germany and Austria-Hungary was born of a desire to eliminate her continental competitors, but the war, coupled with her weakening economy, paved the way for the fall of the empire and accomplished little.

Despite this, Britain pursued the same policy in WW2. The popular view is that Britain's role in WW2 was forced upon her, but nothing could be further from the truth. One only has to read a few of Churchill's musings on Germany to see that there was a warhawk movement that desired war with Germany under any pretext and for no other reason than to break the power of continental Europe and regain supremacy. The Polish war guarantee was a complete farce. Neither England nor France had any means to protect Poland from Germany, and Germany wasn't intent on attacking Poland, anyway. The only thing it wanted was the return of Danzig, a city that was German and wanted to be returned to Germany.
There is more, so much more, but I'm a little pressed for time.

In any case, we all know what the results of England's brave and noble intervention on Poland's behalf; the rise of the Soviet superpower and thirteen eastern European nations enslaved behind the iron curtain for the better part of a century, including Poland. England turned to socialism and languished for decades, and remains crushed under ww2 debt to this day despite economic reforms.

The nice thing about all that is that it's like a crystal ball for what will happen to the U.S. We've already taken great measures to ruin our economic viability through protectionism and government-heavy trade policy, and it could be said that Iraq was the first of the wars we will start in an attempt to use military force to maintain our position. Personally, I don't think the Iraq War is the first, but we'll see. Anyhow, we eagerly await the day when we can't afford to build anything larger than a frigate.
We didn't want to learn from history, and tried to cover up what lessons could be gleaned from it with propaganda, so now we shall repeat it.

[Max2147]

I think Britain's "fall" actually had more to do with factors outside of her control.

I could explain it all myself, but instead I'll just direct everybody to one of the greatest books I've ever read: Dreadnought by Robert K. Massie. It's superbly written, and it contains a lot of interesting naval history as well. It's the story of Anglo-German relations from the birth of Queen Victoria to the start of World War I, but it also sheds a lot of light on how Britain's world domination through "Splendid Isolation" crumbled.

The question with the US in the future is how well we react to changing economic needs. When the world switched from wood to coal and steel, Britain lost her huge superiority but was able to stay as a leading global power. When the world switched from coal and steel to oil, Britain couldn't hold on anymore because she didn't have oil at home. Today the world is switching from oil to who knows what, whether we like it or not. The key question for the US is how it copes with that transition.

But getting back to Britian, I have to wonder if she's really fallen. Sure she isn't a superpower anymore, but what does that really count for? Britain still enjoys a remarkably high standard of living. By most standards, Britons' lives aren't demonstrably worse than Americans' lives, and your average Brit is certainly better off than your average Russian, even though the US and Russia are both far more powerful on a global stage than Britain.

My point is that the health of a country and that country's power are not one and the same. For any country power ought not to be an ends in itself - the ultimate goal of any government must be to provide prosperity for its people. Sometimes global power can be a means to achieve that ultimate ends, but it's not the only means. Some nations have power but not prosperity (USSR was a good example), and some nations can have prosperity but not power (New Zealand in today's world). But ultimately you want to make your country a nice place to live, and I'd rather live in New Zealand today than in the USSR at any time in its history.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I think I will read that book, then. I think my Dad has a copy of it at his place. I could always use a little more perspective.

However, I disagree with you assumptions about modern-day Britain, Max.
SUre, Britain is better off than most of the world, but then again most of the world lives in destitute poverty. Hardly a benchmark for success, and compared to Americans they are demonstrably worse off, imo. Beginning with the absurd taxes they pay for government services that are no more effective than their American counterparts(save rail transport), and lower average wages, most Britons enjoy a mediocre standard of living, at best. Everything is expensive and most people drive tiny cars and live in tiny homes. At least, that was the impression I got each time I visited. My first apartment was about the size of most of the homes I saw and I payed for that on a Home Depot sales associate's salary with plenty to spare.

That said, I do not equate power with prosperity, far from it, so I agree with you there. I only mention the gap between the power Britain once held and the power it has now as an example of just how far and how quickly a great nation can fall when it practices poor economic policy.
Certainly, there are examples of prosperous but relatively powerless nations. Switzerland is one, as are Japan and S. Korea, all of which are based on lassiez-faire economies.

Applied to America, Britain's example would turn us into another Russia in the short term. A huge nation with vast resources that has been economically pulverized by its' own government and a haven for black market activity. The standard of living would probably be higher than in Russia for a variety of reasons, but not much higher. In any case, the question is not whether the U.S. as a country will adapt to changing economic needs, but whether the U.S. will allow its' market to adapt to those changing needs. The protectionist measures we have implemented over the past few decades and the increasing demand for state intervention in, and even control of industries tells me that we will not.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

That is the direct result of going liberal, and all your money goes to the people, not where it should. Pure democracies can't exist. Eventually the voters realize that they can vote money for themselves, and in doing so, bankrupt the system. You are almost towards going to a pure oligarchy, regardless what fancy name they give it from labor to socialism to communism, but you will probably collapse before that time. This will cause anarchy which will firmly push into a pure oligarchy. You still have a foot in the democracy camp and that will be your undoing. Only way for a truly prosperous nation, as history shows time and time again, is a Republic. You my friend are no longer even close to a Republic. The rise of Rome was based on a Republic. The fall of Rome was based on a Monarchy.

That's what keeps scaring me in the US. They keep calling our Republic a Democracy on the news. Our founding fathers created a Republic, not a Democracy. As anyone can tell you that knows the five types of Government are, a Democracy (mob rule) is only a transition stage. It cannot truly exist for long term. It is either a transition to a Monarchy or an Oligarchy, or a transition to a Republic, and I can tell you, we are not heading towards a Republic regardless what our country was founded on.

A new world order is upon us. But we deserve it. The people of any nation get the government they deserve....

-S

If you're referring to Plato's Republic, it's hardly a republic in the modern sense, or even what the Founding Fathers created.

Plato's Republic was simply a dictatorship by a wise man. The problem with that is that everybody fancies himself a wise man, but few men are truly wise.