Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • LordJim
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jul 2005
    • 343

    Going by Liam Fox's statement ot he Defence Select Committee, it seems that his main priority is to provide savings to support the Governments drive to reduce the Deficit first and carry out the SDSR second. With this in mind I am starting to think that any substance in the SDSR will be fairly short term like cuts in platforms and personnel. There will be quite alot of asperational talk about realigning Britain's armed forces for the future but these wioll not come into being until the latter half of the decade so will have no real financial impact. It is the same old story really cuts now for new equipment down the road. As a result I think that whatever platform is purchased to operate from the CVFs will not be decided for some time with the main decided being whether the CVF is STOVL or another type. Whether the carrier is STOVL or not the new platforms will probably not enter service intil 2018 at the earliest with Harriers and Helos doing the job up to then even if it means extending the former a few years.

    Looking at platforms, another of Liam FOx's key points was that all capabilities were being looked at with regards to do we need them and what is the cost to develope or maintain them. THis could point to the need for STOVL platforms which on land could be seen as a luxury that are high maintenance and their niche is no longer affordable, therefore the RAF could lose this capability. As a result a joint RN/RAF F-35B purchase becomes less viable and completing the CVFs as CTOL or STOBAR becomes the preferred option and opens up the programme to additional platforms namely the F-18E and Rafale as well as the F-35C. Now the issue is a manned stealth platform a capability we really need or can afford, or would a future purchase of a stealthy UCAV meet the requirement whrn the technology matures? Co-operation with other navies becomes a factor now along with ideas like operating the UK's carriers in a joint pool with France which would possibly put the Rafale at the top of the list allowing the creation of joint airwings and the sharing of AEW&C platforms.

    Given that the operating costs etc of the F-18E and Rafale are well known and the platforms are already in service it could be seen as a lower risk solution with the RAF either purchasing a common stealth UCAV with the RN or once mature a number of the Cheaper F-35As

    Comment

    • Liger30
      Armed Forces supporter
      • Jul 2010
      • 901

      RE: Tornado conversion - I thought the Typhoon was difficult to convert due to the placement of the intakes (underneath the fuselage) but imagined Tornado with the side intakes, and the swing wing for good low speed stability that it simply would be a matter of stripping back the fuselage, adding strengthened undercarriage and tail, maybe changing the air intakes to a corrosion resistant material, and then running the planes through several years worth of testing.
      I won't say it is technically unfeasible. It may even be, but it would require too much work and money even if it was possible. Besides, trying to convert old, already used planes soon to be obsolete for such a stressing job would not pay off.
      But the Sea Typhoon was a serious option. From Richard Beedall's Navy Matters (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm)

      "The only STOBAR aircraft type to be considered by the FCBA/JCA studies was a marinised Eurofighter Typhoon EF2000. Initial pre-feasibility studies were undertaken in early 1996 by British Aerospace's (now BAE Systems) Military Aircraft and Aerostructures Department to consider a Eurofighter Typhoon (N) (possible service name - Sea Typhoon). These looked promising and in 1997 a further 27 month contract was let to study in more detail both catapult-launched (CTOL) and STOBAR variants, these would have in common a strengthened undercarriage and an arrestor hook, and possibly a larger thicker wing with power folding and more powerful vectored thrust EJ200 engines. Both variants would have required a large conventional carrier design equipped with an angled flight deck and arrested wires for landing.

      The UK was not the only potential customer for a navalised Typhoon, Eurofighter GmbH (the consortium which builds and sells Typhoon) is reported to have briefed the Italian Navy during 2000 about a low-cost, reduced weight, arrestor landing/angled deck variant of the Typhoon that could operate from the Italian Navy’s new 25,000 tonnes carrier, Conte di Cavour, which is due to enter service in 2006/7. The company has also offered another customer (probably India) a “more radically modified naval version of the aircraft”, presumably the STOBAR variant studied for the UK.

      BAE Systems continued with varying amounts of enthusiasm (apparently depending on its likely JSF workshare at the time!) to push Typhoon (N) as an alternative to JSF, stressing the Typhoon's higher speed, range and payload, although admitting it would be less stealthy. A Typhoon (N) would also have the advantage of considerable commonality with the 232 Eurofighter Typhoon's already planned for the RAF.

      BAE Systems suggested that costly airframe strengthening and a new undercarriage for Typhoon (N), as traditionally required for aircraft "navalisation" of a land based aircraft, could be avoided by using sophisticated computer controlled precise landing systems and other aids to reduce arrested landing stresses to within existing Typhoon limits - which are far below those currently normal for hard carrier operations. Apparently even giant fans blowing air over the aft flight deck and in to the final landing approach were considered! But these BAE's idea's do not seem to have been accepted by the MOD, indeed they would appear to be a rather risky cost reduction measure which have become a source of major problems in the future, e.g. preventing flight operations in heavy seas or leading to costly repairs of prematurely fatigued aircraft.

      During 1999-2000 a fully navalised STOBAR Typhoon seemed to be the only real competitor to JSF for the JCA order, but in January 2001 (just prior to the UK signing a MoU for the JSF SDD phase - see below) reports appeared in the UK press that it had been eliminated on cost and safety grounds, e.g. the flight deck clearance of external weapons was considered dangerously low for the robust nature of carrier launch and landing events, and the canards dangerously restricted the pilots view during high angle of attack carrier landings.

      In May 2001 Sir Robert Walmsley, Head of the Defence Procurement Agency, when asked about the possibility of a navalised Eurofighter if JSF was cancelled said: "It is not currently designed so that it could use a carrier. We could change the design but we would be faced with a huge piece of work. The materials would probably have to be changed in order to avoid corrosion; the weight of the undercarriage would have to be doubled to support carrier landing which would eat into the payload margin; and the wing roots would have to be strengthened in order to take the full inertia forces on landing. That sounds to me like a very substantial redesign. It is always possible, but it would cost a huge amount of money and it would certainly add very considerably to the cost of the aircraft"."

      As to the whole matter of the F35: it all depends on how much RAF wants STOVL capability, because the navy would reportedly be happy to switch to F35C.
      If RAF wants Stealth STOVL, it is F35B, because there's no alternative at all.
      If RAF is content with just Stealth, the F35C may be valued, but always in a budgetary way, and choosen only if a way to save money can be found.

      There's not going to be separate buys. What the RN gets is what the RAF gets. And definitely there will not be a mixed buy of different planes/versions.
      And the RAF is not interested in F18 and Rafale, so unless extreme pressure is made on the service for budgetary questions, the F35 is what will be bought. In reduced numbers, perhaps in the C config, more likely in B config, but F35.

      A drone would first have to be planned, designed, agreed upon and then, hardest of all, PAID FOR AND ACQUIRED. So, for now, we are far away from that.
      "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

      Comment

      • Stryker73
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jun 2010
        • 274

        Regarding F35 numbers, it is difficult to see what short term savings can be made here.

        Of the proposed 138, in the procurement schedule over half of that number are not due to be procured until after 2023. Who is to say what the financial position of the UK will be in 13 years time?

        By 2019, I think I saw that only approximately 36x F35 were due to be in service anyway. If you intend to cut that number then you really don't have enough for your airwing (which will no doubt be shared between the 2 CVF depending on which is operating at any given time)

        Comment

        • Liger30
          Armed Forces supporter
          • Jul 2010
          • 901

          Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
          Regarding F35 numbers, it is difficult to see what short term savings can be made here.

          Of the proposed 138, in the procurement schedule over half of that number are not due to be procured until after 2023. Who is to say what the financial position of the UK will be in 13 years time?

          By 2019, I think I saw that only approximately 36x F35 were due to be in service anyway. If you intend to cut that number then you really don't have enough for your airwing (which will no doubt be shared between the 2 CVF depending on which is operating at any given time)
          Hope cannot hurt. It would be very nice to get 138... but i wouldn't hope too much on that. Money is not going to be abundant at the MOD anytime soon.
          "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

          Comment

          • nocutstoRAF
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • May 2010
            • 954

            With regard to the Sea Typhoon - based on comments posted by other's who all seem to know more about this sort of thing than I do - the idea of a Sea Typhoon was pretty much discounted due to the amount of work involved.

            The impression I have with regard to the F-35B is that it is not so much it's LO status that the RAF want, but it's flexibility due to it's STOL abilities (the fact that they can operate from the carriers and austere airfields) combined with its advanced sensor technology and it network capabilities. The F-35B offers a bunch of advantages aside from it LO that is impossible to get all of them from any other aircraft on the market
            If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

            Comment

            • Liger30
              Armed Forces supporter
              • Jul 2010
              • 901

              Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
              With regard to the Sea Typhoon - based on comments posted by other's who all seem to know more about this sort of thing than I do - the idea of a Sea Typhoon was pretty much discounted due to the amount of work involved.

              The impression I have with regard to the F-35B is that it is not so much it's LO status that the RAF want, but it's flexibility due to it's STOL abilities (the fact that they can operate from the carriers and austere airfields) combined with its advanced sensor technology and it network capabilities. The F-35B offers a bunch of advantages aside from it LO that is impossible to get all of them from any other aircraft on the market
              In terms of sensors, we certainly have to agree, even if the amazing avionics of the F35 have not been truly tested yet, and we base ourselves on industry promises for now...
              The RAF wasn't too hot about F35 however, it seems its interest went up only lately, and i think the LO still has its importance in the RAF plans for the future.
              "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

              Comment

              • nocutstoRAF
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • May 2010
                • 954

                I think LO might be an area which the UK might have to compromise - it looks like that Converteam have got EMCAT working and the MoD has to make 10 - 20% cuts against a background of procurement cost overruns, if say 70 F-35B's cost 7.5 billion but say 70 F/A-18 E/F costs 5 billion then I can see that despite all of the logic that says that the MoD, RN and RAF have planned their strategy around the F-35B there they will go with the cheaper aircraft.

                (I am of course in a pessimistic mode and I am hoping someone like pjhydro will pop up and let me know just how unfounded my pessimism is )
                If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                Comment

                • Stan hyd
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • May 2009
                  • 605

                  nice little piece about catapults on the CVF

                  http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jn...0726_1_n.shtml

                  Comment

                  • StevoJH
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jun 2008
                    • 1024

                    Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                    I think LO might be an area which the UK might have to compromise - it looks like that Converteam have got EMCAT working and the MoD has to make 10 - 20% cuts against a background of procurement cost overruns, if say 70 F-35B's cost 7.5 billion but say 70 F/A-18 E/F costs 5 billion then I can see that despite all of the logic that says that the MoD, RN and RAF have planned their strategy around the F-35B there they will go with the cheaper aircraft.

                    (I am of course in a pessimistic mode and I am hoping someone like pjhydro will pop up and let me know just how unfounded my pessimism is )
                    Forget pessimism, The thing is, even if they are cheaper to procure, will they be cheaper to maintain and operate? Possibly not.

                    Remember that by going to the Super Hornet you are adding at least 50-100 more crew to each ship. The construction of the ships will take longer as they will need to be modified, or they will require very expensive refits just a couple of years into their lives.

                    So you are adding, crew costs, training costs, maintenance costs for the additional equipment, Modification costs for the carrier. Once all those add up, the super hornets are probably no cheaper.
                    Can't wait to join the 'real' world. Hopefully only one week to go....

                    Comment

                    • nocutstoRAF
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • May 2010
                      • 954

                      Well StevoJH I hope you are right - but I cannot help fear that bean counters at the MoD might prefer a lower upfront costs against a higher lifetime cost for their carrier fighters.

                      I do not think there would be a delay as Converteam seems to have scaled up EM catapult to fit into the space on QE that is reserved for it. I was unaware of needing extra ground crew for CATOBAR carrier, but I was certainly aware that you need to fly more ofter if you are on flying off a CATOBAR carrier to practice your launch and landings, and there is a lot more wear and tear on the plane due to the strains of launching from a catapult and the high angle of attack landings with an arrestor wire.
                      Last edited by nocutstoRAF; 28th July 2010, 07:17.
                      If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                      Comment

                      • Liger30
                        Armed Forces supporter
                        • Jul 2010
                        • 901

                        There's also to consider the political cost of renouncing to F35: UK is the main partner of the program after the US, is expected to buy a considerable number of planes and most of all has invested and keeps investing massive amounts of money in the program.

                        At home, renouncing to the F35 would lead to:
                        A) press articles outraged by the billions "wasted" developing a plane that wasn't purchased (regardless of the fact that the press itself was the greatest support of cutting the F35 order)
                        B) articles on the impact on Rolls Royce for the lost order
                        C) articles on general incompetence of the MOD and articles calling the CVFs "useless white elephants without planes"

                        Abroad, the US would be very, very upset at having to step in to cover the UK's share of investment for the final phase of the program, and this could have very serious political consequences. There would be also a hit on the image of trustable partner and technologically leading nation of the UK, with many possible disadvantages coming from it.

                        Stepping away from the F35 wouldn't be easy.
                        And i admittedly hope it is difficult even to just cut down the order, so a decent fleet is acquired.
                        "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                        Comment

                        • nocutstoRAF
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • May 2010
                          • 954

                          I thought we had already invested our money in the F-35 Programme, is that not the case?

                          As for the impact on RR we are talking about 135 less sales on more than a decade than currently planned, it is negligible and depending upon the replacement option selected we could deal with the impact.

                          I am sure the press would make more out of us spending money on fast jets than on buying a different fast jet to the one originally planned, as far as most of the press are concerned, fast jets are a waste of money as we have plenty of them as is.

                          Politically speaking, if we went for Super Hornet international, then we are still putting the money into a US companies pocket. Plus we would be logical to use a US company for the support of the planes and pay to train with the USN, I suspect that over the long term we would give even more money to the US than with the F-35. It would also be a major coup for the US if the UK was the launch customer for Boeing's proposed International version of the SH, as it looks like increasingly the non-European customers are being priced out of the market and considering extending the life of their legacy aircraft by upgrading them or replacing them with the latest versions of F-15's, F/A-18 E/F, Rafales, or the latest flavours Russian fighters and occasionally they buy Typhoon's, if we went Super Hornet I think a fair number of other countries would as well.

                          Hell, if we where considering only political options I would be telling David Cameron to tell the Indian Government the UK will buy 70 LCA (N) Mk II with a EJ200 engine if they buy Typhoon for the MMRCA, as this along with the Hawk contract would be good politics and good for UK business.

                          With regard to the choice of what to fly of the carriers and I hope in the end that the major factor is not price nor are we swayed into a course for political expediency but instead post-SDSR we have a clear strategy and stick with it and spend the money to get the right plane in the correct numbers, which still looks like the F-35B, but I would not be surprised if the F-35B is a casualty of the deficit reduction plans apologies to anyone tired of me raising the same point again that there will be either be no F-35B purchase or not enough purchased to be useable
                          If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                          Comment

                          • Liger30
                            Armed Forces supporter
                            • Jul 2010
                            • 901

                            Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                            I thought we had already invested our money in the F-35 Programme, is that not the case?

                            As for the impact on RR we are talking about 135 less sales on more than a decade than currently planned, it is negligible and depending upon the replacement option selected we could deal with the impact.

                            I am sure the press would make more out of us spending money on fast jets than on buying a different fast jet to the one originally planned, as far as most of the press are concerned, fast jets are a waste of money as we have plenty of them as is.

                            Politically speaking, if we went for Super Hornet international, then we are still putting the money into a US companies pocket. Plus we would be logical to use a US company for the support of the planes and pay to train with the USN, I suspect that over the long term we would give even more money to the US than with the F-35. It would also be a major coup for the US if the UK was the launch customer for Boeing's proposed International version of the SH, as it looks like increasingly the non-European customers are being priced out of the market and considering extending the life of their legacy aircraft by upgrading them or replacing them with the latest versions of F-15's, F/A-18 E/F, Rafales, or the latest flavours Russian fighters and occasionally they buy Typhoon's, if we went Super Hornet I think a fair number of other countries would as well.

                            Hell, if we where considering only political options I would be telling David Cameron to tell the Indian Government the UK will buy 70 LCA (N) Mk II with a EJ200 engine if they buy Typhoon for the MMRCA, as this along with the Hawk contract would be good politics and good for UK business.

                            With regard to the choice of what to fly of the carriers and I hope in the end that the major factor is not price nor are we swayed into a course for political expediency but instead post-SDSR we have a clear strategy and stick with it and spend the money to get the right plane in the correct numbers, which still looks like the F-35B, but I would not be surprised if the F-35B is a casualty of the deficit reduction plans – apologies to anyone tired of me raising the same point again that there will be either be no F-35B purchase or not enough purchased to be useable
                            Uk spent a good few billions already into the F35, exactly. A good reason in itself to stick with it, if possible.
                            But the program is still going on, and the UK still invests in it: the latest, most visible investment was the acquisition of 3 F35B of the test and development fleet, that are going to be shipped to the UK in 2012, i think, to allow RN and RAF to do trials and contribute to the final tests of the plane before it goes into production in series.

                            You undervalue the press and their capability to attack mostly every move. The fact they hate fast jets altogether does not mean that they'd fail to point out to the billions wasted only to step away from the program and buy an outdated, older design. While, at the same time, attacking the buy of planes in itself.
                            Then, very likely, crying about lack of kit at the first chance to do so.
                            Before attacking purchase of "cold-war" kit immediately after. Seriously, press is evil, all over the world. And british press, for what i know about it, is no better than italian press, and possibly even worse on defence aspects. Here, the press tells you what it wants and not what it is true, but at least most press is actually very kind about military equipment buy: the Cavour had lots of space of glory on TV when it was launched, and again when it sailed to Haiti loaded with aid. No one dared attacking its purchase. However, i'm going off on a tangent now.

                            Buying Super Hornet would make happy only Boeing, not the US Department of Defense that would have to pay the UK part of the F35 program and have the Marines paying an higher unitary cost for their F35B (or the navy paying more for F35C, depending ultimately on what the UK decides to buy). Not to think of LM, RR and all the rest of the group that would be pretty pissed off.
                            As to the chances of Super Hornet getting any real market in Europe, even if the UK was to buy it... sincerely, i think the Super Hornet international is nearly hopeless. It may cost "little"... but it is out of fashion, and the small european air forces like Danish are more likely to buy/lease Gripens or Typhoons than F18.
                            Besides, if it was true what you say, that the UK would act as a sponsor for the F18, Eurofighter would bite at the UK hard. They already have to fight off the F35, they would hate to risk losing market.
                            And the UK industry has the highest possible interest in selling MORE Typhoons, since in the UK the largest part of every Typhoon is built. It would be higly counterproductive to drop out of the F35 share of market (save for RR, there's no one else in the world that could produce the lift fan) and probably see the large share of work BAe and british industry have for the F35 being relocated to other partner nations, Italy in first line.
                            It would be two times as counterproductive to do so to buy another direct rival of the Typhoon, risking to damage the export of the Typhoon as well. It would be a suicidal move harming the british aerospace sector deeply.

                            As to your fears about the consistence of the fleet of planes for the CVFs, i hear you loud. I share your fears, and probably i am even more worried than you, about many aspects of the SDR that i truly don't agree to.
                            But the F35 weights politically and economically so much that it protects itself rather well, at least.
                            Last edited by Liger30; 28th July 2010, 08:08.
                            "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                            Comment

                            • nocutstoRAF
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • May 2010
                              • 954

                              Just a quick reply:

                              RE: development cost of the F-35B, I understood from the comments of the head of the RAF that we had paid all the development costs we agreed to and we were taking part in the evaluation programme but that was where our commitments end, if the F-35B in the evaluation programme did not perform as expected we had no commitment to buy any F-35's.

                              RE: My SH comments - Boeing pays US taxes and employs US employee's and this means that certain members of congress and senate are going to go to bat for the UK if we buy SH international (or whatever unique UK version that if it happened the RAF would go for), especially if it leads to sales to non-European countries buying solely on the basis that Boeing's marketing people can point to a large Western military power deciding to operate them. Yes Eurofighter consortium and the countries funding the plane might be miffed but lets face it the Typhoon and SH are different planes with different roles and costs and if evaluation includes tech transfer then the SH is going to lose.
                              If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                              Comment

                              • nocutstoRAF
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • May 2010
                                • 954

                                Just seen this story based on comments made by Sir Richard Dannatt to the Iraq enquiry:

                                http://www.defencemanagement.com/new...y.asp?id=13629

                                To quote the key part:

                                Dannatt was also critical of the "internal machinations" which resulted in the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) in-service date being pushed back from 2007 to 2015.

                                "It has now moved so far to the right that it is effectively a dead programme," he said. "The money that might have gone into the FRES programme substantially went into the carrier programme."


                                I am glad Liam Fox blocked has so far blocked him from getting a role in the Government as was the original plan, if Dannatt was in charge he would be cancelling the carriers to buy a new scout mainly because the British Army has some sort of "scout" envy that Scimitar does not match up to US armoured reconnaissance vehicles (yes I know the Scimitar are reaching the end of their service life but you cannot let a small fact that like that ruin the point I wanted to make).
                                If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                Comment

                                • Liger30
                                  Armed Forces supporter
                                  • Jul 2010
                                  • 901

                                  Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                                  Just seen this story based on comments made by Sir Richard Dannatt to the Iraq enquiry:

                                  http://www.defencemanagement.com/new...y.asp?id=13629

                                  To quote the key part:

                                  Dannatt was also critical of the "internal machinations" which resulted in the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) in-service date being pushed back from 2007 to 2015.

                                  "It has now moved so far to the right that it is effectively a dead programme," he said. "The money that might have gone into the FRES programme substantially went into the carrier programme."


                                  I am glad Liam Fox blocked has so far blocked him from getting a role in the Government as was the original plan, if Dannatt was in charge he would be cancelling the carriers to buy a new scout mainly because the British Army has some sort of "scout" envy that Scimitar does not match up to US armoured reconnaissance vehicles (yes I know the Scimitar are reaching the end of their service life but you cannot let a small fact that like that ruin the point I wanted to make).
                                  Dannatt is crazy, if you ask me.
                                  Was it for him, he'd pretty much give up every military capability in order to have a massive, useless army blocked on the home island and pretty much incapable to go anywhere because there would be no air force nor a navy.

                                  His hate for the navy in particular, and for the aircraft carriers, suggests he's of so narrow and shortsighed ideas that was i the minister for defence, he would be leaving the armed forces as soon as possible, before he can do some truly serious damage.
                                  Boots on the grounds are nice and shiny, but they are not what the UK really needs for the future, past Afghanistan. And anyway, even sacrificing the carriers as he's so keen to suggest, he wouldn't obtain to enlarge the army at all, and it would be a total lose for everyone.

                                  Dannatt is dangerously Army-Focused. He accused admirals to be obsessed with ships, but for what he says, Dannatt is the only one top brass really intent on protecting his own service no matter the cost.
                                  The worst possible man to put in a leading position of Armed Forces shaping for the future. He may be good to command the army, even to lead Afghanistan efforts... But never listen to him when it comes to planning the Armed Forces structure for the future.
                                  His answer would be "SOLDIERS, SOLDIERS, SOLDIERS!!!" regardless of any reasoning.
                                  "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                  Comment

                                  • nocutstoRAF
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • May 2010
                                    • 954

                                    Just to mention Sir Richard Dannatt has left the Army, he is likely to become a Peer and there was originally plans to make him a defence minister once he was raised to the House of Lords, but I did read a story (in the Guardian I think) which said that Liam Fox was opposed to any such move.
                                    If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                    Comment

                                    • swerve
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jun 2005
                                      • 13612

                                      From what I've read of his public statements, Dannatt has never learned not to assume that the next war will be the same as the current one. If he was a general in 1940, he'd be preparing for a few years in the trenches.
                                      Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                      Justinian

                                      Comment

                                      • Stryker73
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2010
                                        • 274

                                        The money that might have gone into the FRES programme substantially went into the carrier programme."


                                        Is this even FACT? That there was specific money set aside for FRES that went directly into the carrier programme.

                                        Dannat seems ridiculously army centric. Still, General Richards doesn't sound a lot better great army man though he undoubtedly is.

                                        Comment

                                        • nocutstoRAF
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • May 2010
                                          • 954

                                          Originally posted by swerve View Post
                                          From what I've read of his public statements, Dannatt has never learned not to assume that the next war will be the same as the current one. If he was a general in 1940, he'd be preparing for a few years in the trenches.
                                          I think all the top brass suffer from that particular problem the only difference for the RN is that how they want to fight the last war is relevant for the most part to today, particularly given how far they have been cut back.
                                          If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X