To be fair, we could have just upgraded our E3's, exactly the same way as NATO and the US did and carried on operating them into the early 2030's.topman wrote: ↑16 Nov 2023, 10:56I don't think that follows at all. Following the parent fleet can get expensive, see the sentry fleet for example ended up in a bit of state by the end.mrclark303 wrote: ↑16 Nov 2023, 00:50The issue we have is all capabilities are now absolutely bare bones with zero mass anywhere across all three services.SW1 wrote: ↑15 Nov 2023, 21:32A decade plus of failing to maintain e3d to the same international standards as others. A decision to buy p8 without a budget to do it meant it was e3d and sentinel or something else had to go. A failure to adequately resource a decision to proceed with e7 all adds up. You could not wait 10 years without an any form of airborne early warning to tie in with future US decisionsmrclark303 wrote: ↑15 Nov 2023, 21:09What a shame we didn't try to time our order with the NATO/USAF buy and ran on a three E3's for a few more years, or alternatively, just reached a deal for NATO E3 coverage as a stop gap.
We would probably have saved a lot of money and had a common airframe/ radar combo with wider fleet.
The process they embarked on with e7 is not out of the ordinary it’s how every wegdetail conversion around the world was done in the past. The problem was they didn’t have the budget to do it and tried to kid everyone they did and as a result ended up will pay more and take longer as a result. If you don’t have a realistic budget or are not willing to reduce something else to ensure that you do ( priorities again) don’t start it.
Airborne ISR is a constant demand as I said I would have prioritised it. But people do not like to prioritise things they want to do it all and you can’t.
As the secretary of state told the defence select committee today the cost he has for taking the fleet back up to 5 and supporting them for I assume 10 years is an additional £750m pounds. Do you delete a type 26 to pay for 2 extra aews for example these are the choices that need to be decided.
I've just watched the excellent Hypo hysterical History's extensive historical video on both Gulf Wars, on You Tube. One thing that's quite startling in this detailed military review is how astonishing it is regarding the capability we have lost since 2003.
We are today a pale shadow of our 2003 force structure.
Like I said, there is nothing to cut from anywhere now, absolutely no meat on bone.
Loose an T26 and ASW capability is compromised etc, etc, as 8 is the absolute minimum for core tasking, it's the same across absolutely everything, bar military bands and horses!!
Re, the AEW question, is there a reason we couldn't have simply withdrawn our D modems, as planned and paid to base and operate 3 NATO E3's in the UK?
They are after all NATO assets and this is exactly what they are for!
Had we done that ( some dangerous joined up thinking) the RAF could have ordered 5 E7's, alongside a large joint NATO/ USAF order.
The procurement and sustainability savings of the fleet would been 'substantial' and future counter obsolescence upgrades would simply follow the parent fleet.
Following exactly what the Americans do can be quite expensive, they have very deep pockets.
The reality is, they were simply allowed to wither on the vine, as during the Sandbox wars, they were regarded as a niche capability that was hardly needed, so deliberately starved of funds
You can't blame the Americans for that, we simply channeled a huge amount of defence cash keeping pointless, unwinnable operations going, year in, year out and allowed our previously balanced and capable force structure to crack and crumble to dust.