which is a the time when the phased phasing out of even the newest Tiffies will start to bite.AndyC wrote: 2039 if they are ordered at six per year.
- new tricks in the bag, starting from mid '30s?
which is a the time when the phased phasing out of even the newest Tiffies will start to bite.AndyC wrote: 2039 if they are ordered at six per year.
Sadly or not depending on where you work, I believe the plan is to operate the radar remotely.indeid wrote:More importantly the RAF has regained the option of a punishment tour for naughty boys and girls.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -k032r68d3
So, to take it out requires only a frogman, through a torpedo tube, rather than bothering with a platoon in black rubber dinghies, in black outfits and faces part-painted with charcoal?topman wrote: the plan is to operate the radar remotely.
What would you bin to pay for them?AndyC wrote:The Hawk T1 will have served the Red Arrows for 41 years by 2020, surely that's long enough.
They are meant to show the cutting edge of British technology and yet are closer to obsolescence. Trying to get another 10 years out of this aged air frame cannot be right.
Instead the MoD should back BAE's future by ordering Advanced Hawks that have the latest equipment and electronics and will save jobs in this important hi-tech area. After all if the 'home' government won't buy this aircraft, what chance is there for exports?
Otherwise the MP's are right that there is a very real prospect that the UK won't have the ability to build this sort of aircraft by 2030!
- will t not be a three-way circulation of planes, with the Norgies included?AndyC wrote: decision to make RAF Lossiemouth the base for maritime patrol and to welcome its use by the US Navy
- Bulgaria has one that was designated for squadrons to challenge the 6th Fleet, just by hopping over the mountains... could take 21 of them (squadrons; not planes)AndyC wrote: identify at least ten ex-Warsaw Pact airfields in Eastern Europe, not currently used by a local air force
The quote is from someone on an internet forum. Neither option is cheap, Coningsby and lossie require additional spending to make them capable and then there's airspace issues. I'm not sure Leeming was the worst option. Adding an extra sqn to each typhoon base will bring it's own issues.AndyC wrote:Basing
• The creation of an additional three frontline Typhoon Squadrons presents a challenge as to where they should be located. In a less financially challenging period an additional main operating base would probably have been the solution and I originally supported RAF Leeming. However, as Air Marshal Bagwell puts it this would “cost a pretty penny” http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/v ... 7&p=797623
Could beAndyC wrote:• £400 million for 16 new long-range Protector UCAV.
There is now a firm order for 16 Protector's (down from 20) with an option to buy 10 more. I have assumed that the 16 are for land operations and reduced from 20 due to the devaluation of the Pound. I have also assumed that the 10 on option will be reduced to 8 for the same reason and be the over-the-sea version.Could be
- 4 down from the original 20,
- or the said four already paid for,
- or, moving 4 of the base version towards desiderata (i.e. the 8 of over-the-sea version)??
The Equipment Plan is always published behind the times. So the latest version starts in April 2016 but was only published in January 2017. At that time (April 2016) the contract for Poseidon had not been signed so it is an Uncommitted item. The next Equipment Plan should look very different after all of the contracts signed in the 2016/17 financial year.How can the P-8 money be uncommitted? Or are we talking about a second batch, also of 9? And with the 9+9 on the books, the integration of a British torp on them is no longer madness and a waste of money?
Thanks Andy, for the clarifications.AndyC wrote:I am still assuming that we will only buy 9 Poseidon but as far as I can tell the cost of integrating Storm Shadow and Sting Ray is not substantially different from having to buy a stock of SLAM-ER and Mark 54 torpedoes so we might as well go ahead and use our existing British weapons.
I like your optimism (that market would be UK & Norway... who, for the N. Atlantic pool the infra and logistics with the USA. So for one mission line - no one can say, a priori, for how long that would need to be maintained, any one of those three a/c markings could turn up on the tarmac, for a quick turn-around).AndyC wrote: it should be possible to fit it to Sting Ray at minimal extra cost and certainly if Lockheed Martin want to maximise sales outside the US it would be in their interest to develop this compatability.
This system and the changes to it since inception have been copied directly from banking (credit risk, more specifically).AndyC wrote:there is
specific risk provision of £10.95bn over ten years. The overall level of funding held for risk
at the end of ABC16 is an increase on the previous year’s figure of £10.3bn. The QRPC
process continues to provide a significant focus on whether project teams are holding the
right level of risk provision and to ensure that they are retiring risk appropriately. When
considered alongside the £5.25bn contingency provision
V important point (noting the unmanned air combat platform efforts, on the side).Lord Jim wrote:possibly from Anglo-French co-operation, but the two are opposing interests especially from a US standpoint so they are likely to fight dirty to reduce the possibility of any next gen combat aircraft being built in Europe. Given the small size of such a programme to replace the Typhoon and Rafale (probably less than 300 airframes in total)
Are we thinking of hitting ships, or, using these few planes (cfr. can maintain one task line) as intercontinental bombers?AndyC wrote:with SLAM-ER. Its range of 170 miles/270 kilometres is well within the range of the latest S-400 and S-500. This would expose what is essentially a Boeing 737 to a great deal of risk that it’s not equipped to handle.
Even without extending its range Storm Shadow has a longer reach than these SAMs and would provide a greater degree of safety.