• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Harrier to go....Ark Royal to go....Nimrod MR4 scrapped..

T

trevytt2004

Charter Member
I know...maybe the not right place, but i'm pissed....annoyed....amazed.....concerned.

The long awaited British Defence Review has been announced.

The Harrier's are going to be scrapped, along with the new upgraded Nimrod Mr4's and to add to that, the HMS Ark Royal.

Where do we get these politians from????

RAF Kinloss is now at stake, i guess same for Wittering.

Taken from the BBC website:

RAF Kinloss is set to close after ministers cancelled orders for the new Nimrod as part of the UK government's defence review.
Nine of the MRA4 surveillance aircraft were due to be based in Moray.
RAF Kinloss station commander Group Captain James Johnston said there was disbelief when the announcement was made.
The future of nearby RAF Lossiemouth, home to Tornado squadrons, remains uncertain.
However, there was better news for shipbuilding in Govan and Rosyth, with orders for two new aircraft carriers going ahead.
The Spending Review: Making It Clear


Prime Minister David Cameron said that as a result of the cancellation of the Nimrod replacement, RAF Kinloss would no longer be required.
It is understood that the Ministry of Defence could retain the site and may eventually use it as a barracks for soldiers returning from Germany.
Defence sources say the troops would not arrive until about 2015 at the earliest.
A final decision has not yet been taken about RAF Lossiemouth.
It has been feared that the Tornado aircraft currently based at RAF Lossiemouth could be transferred to RAF Marham.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said: "Cancelling the Nimrod aircraft of course has a knock-on effect on the bases in Moray, but it's not the end of the story.
"We're not going to abandon the families and communities which are dependent for their jobs and their livelihoods on those bases."
Moray's two RAF bases contribute more than £150m to the local economy annually and support 5,700 jobs, according to a report in August by consultants hired by Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE).
Safeguard jobs Staff at Kinloss and Lossiemouth were briefed on developments after the prime minister's statement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-11565829#story_continues_2
Despite the major cuts, the coalition government formally confirmed that it is going ahead with the order for the two new aircraft carriers.
The decision will safeguard thousands of jobs on the Clyde and the Forth.
Mr Clegg said: "The workers are delighted to have heard we have now confirmed that the two aircraft carriers will go ahead because that means their jobs and skills are being safeguarded for the future."
Angus Robertson MP, the SNP's Westminster leader, said: "The Ministry of Defence should retain both RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth, and it also has a responsibility to be clear to the Moray community and service families about their plans.
"The importance of both bases to the local economy and society is massive.
"Should they close it is the equivalent to 700,000 job losses in Greater London."
 
I feel your pain, mate!
Same s%^t is going on here.

Hope NATO and the US is going to intervene with our governments in order to set the priorities straight.
How can Western nations cut back on defense budgets while their troops are still fighting on (sometimes) several fronts, and in such unstabile times?

What if Churchill announced dramatic defense cutbacks just prior to D-Day?

It does not make sence at all, and we will (the population of the Western countries cutting back heavily on the defense budgets) be presented a huge bill at the day we need our armed forces the most. And how will this influence loyalty to those victomized by these cutbacks, when later called upon?


Hope we will see better day's soon.

Untill then, let's just upkeep the virtual strength of our armed forces in our hobby; FSX :salute:
 
Warrant said:
That's a matter of opinion, my friend.
Click to expand...

Just think....axe our main aircraft carrier......build 2 new ones, place one of the new ones on dry dock and have no fixed wing aircraft available till 2019.

All we need is a conflict to occur where we need to sail to....remember the Falklands......At least then, the Harriers saved our butts. Now what happens????

Nato won't save us....no way. They didn't assist in 82 and there will always be a reason why assistance won't be coming again. The announcements today are ludicrous. Our main early airborne patrol has been removed with the removal of the 'rod. The Harriers, well i bet our ground troops just over joyed at this news. Imagine the US Marines loosing their AV-8's.

No-one likes conflict, but when we are involved with so many operations around the world, it seems a little stupid to cut back like this...
 
Well, look on the bright side, at least we will have two nice new aircraft carriers, but hang on a minute! No aircraft to fly from them for nearly a decade. We are going to be a laughing stock! The bad guys must be shaking in their boots “watch out here comes the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers! Don’t panic, they have no airplanes, ha,ha ha). Pathetic.

Ian.
 
The Harriers, well i bet our ground troops just over joyed at this news. Imagine the US Marines loosing their AV-8's.
Click to expand...

I know from experience, ground troops are extremely happy to see these guy's (or any other bomb carrying fighter) around when in demand. It literally means; survival/victory...or not!

Hope wisdom will take over from short term political financial solutions.

Besides that, the loss of the Ark Royal, the Harrier, and that butt-ugly Nimrod will be a huge miss. The first two also for our nation, since our maritime operations are pretty much combined.

Perhaps one could make group effort to make a nice North Sea scenery with the types combined as AI, just for old times sake.

:jump:
 
What I seriously do not understand is the thinking behind axing yet more aircraft from the inventory - I mean in WW2 they built aircraft in days, the designs not taking decades as they do today.

Just supposing in 15 years time the UK is under threat from a conventional power battle of Britain style, we do not have the manufacturing plants to replenish our peacetime attrition let alone combat losses.

They're too short sighted it seems.

As for aircaft carriers without planes, thats just plane ridiculous. No fleet air defence, yeah thats sensible.

Frankly the labour government kept their over spends on projects quiet, and could have minimised the impact. Now the Conservatives are about to slash a capability you cannot replace quickly.

Of course, I'm just an arm chair observer, they obviously think they know best.
 
centuryseries said:
What I seriously do not understand is the thinking behind axing yet more aircraft from the inventory - I mean in WW2 they built aircraft in days, the designs not taking decades as they do today.

Just supposing in 15 years time the UK is under threat from a conventional power battle of Britain style, we do not have the manufacturing plants to replenish our peacetime attrition let alone combat losses.

They're too short sighted it seems.

As for aircaft carriers without planes, thats just plane ridiculous. No fleet air defence, yeah thats sensible.

Frankly the labour government kept their over spends on projects quiet, and could have minimised the impact. Now the Conservatives are about to slash a capability you cannot replace quickly.

Of course, I'm just an arm chair observer, they obviously think they know best.
Click to expand...

A great observation with one more remark: Training!
Good equipment can be replaced, but for decent operability, well trained and experienced operators are indispensable. Guess what, you do not grow them over night. and once gone....they are gone!
 
I was mentionning to Dino Cattaneo yesterday on another post :

Dino, before choosing of putting your work priorities on a future FSX F-35B or a future FSX F-35C check the news on british newpapers for the next few weeks.

In fact, most recent rumors in Great Britain is that :

1.
Both "Queen Elizabeth" and "Prince of Wales" future aircraft carriers ( FAC )
will be saved under current defense budget reviews.

and ..... surprise :

2.
Both of these FAC's will be equipped with 2 x catapults and 4 x arrestor cables
to support a future combined Royal Navy/Royal Air Force fleet of ...... F-35C !!!!!!

Lets wait and see !!!

Now its official :

Take a look on page 23 of UK's Defense review here :

http://www.dsi-presse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/DefenceReview.pdf

This could probably means the beginning of the end for the STOVL F-35B.
It will permit Lockheed Martin to save the JSF program.

One of the two new carrier vessel will be sold and before this reselling, US and French
naval combat aircraft will use them from specific "interoperability" defense agreements :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...d-after-three-years-and-never-carry-jets.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ts-to-use-British-Navy-aircraft-carriers.html

Most likely buyer for this vessel could very well be ........France !!!! to replace
the smaller Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier that is, once again, currently back
to the port of Toulon for repairs.

This being said ..............
Dino will have to work on a FSX F-35C instead of a more complex FSX F-35B.
:kilroy:
VaporZ
 
I guess this is what happens when you get into bed with the liberals, you used to be able to rely on the conservatives to be pro-defense and it was those socialists you had to watch out for.

On the other hand Ark Royal must be getting on a bit by now and will be replaced with two carriers, the Harrier was already phased out of RN service and was due to be replaced by a variant of the F35 (C?) and the Nimrod was based on one of the first jet airliners, so even with amazing tech there were equal or more capable aircraft out there.

This is one of those times when the aircraft/ships a lot of us grew up with are going to become museum pieces to be replaced with shiny new things. Like the phasing out of the Lightning and Concorde, the Harrier will always be an iconic aircraft, hopefully the F35 is just as good.

I saw my first F22 at the weekend and it reminded me of a few years ago when the idea of stealth fighters at squadron strength was just fantasy and here it was parked on the ramp with lots of people walking past as if it was nothing special.

Comparing today with WW2 is a bit of a stretch, particularly as you could build half a dozen spitfires for the price of a modern jet and flying and fighting in them was a lot simpler without all the electronics and battlefield threats there are now.

The Falklands is a good example of why capability shouldn't be lost though, NATO didn't assist in '82 and the US and NATO had no intention of assisting had last years escalations amounted to anything, so fixed-wing naval assets are absolutely essential even in 2010.
 
The strange thing for me is that Tony Blair (socialist) was far more supportive of our military than this new Conservative government. Our security now will suffer because of irresponsible bankers causing a recession that the ordinary Joe and his national security will pay for. The Liberals in the Lib/Con alliance will love it of course because they are traditionally against the military.
Cameron reminds me of Chamberlain...although Munich hasn't arrived yet.
 
One of the two new carrier vessel will be sold and before this reselling, US and French
naval combat aircraft will use them from specific "interoperability" defense agreements
Click to expand...

Whish our government would decide to join in with the British Navy and make the second carrier a "joint" programme. It would ensure the build of the second carrier for the Royal Navy, and the Netherlands for an extra "bite" on expeditionary matters (as described in the strategic vision for the Dutch Armed Forces, agreed on by the Dutch parliament).

Aaaah, whisfull and simple thinking........
 
Well this doesn't supprise me one bit but don't worry about us being defenseless, one big difference between then and now is our Tomahawk cruise missles and the new Astute class nuclear attack submarines, our navy is one of the most modern as is our army, it's a shame about the nimrod and the harrier but we must look forward and not dwell on the past, the world is very different now and our armed forces have never been so well off if you ask me! It could be much worse!
 
Roger said:
The strange thing for me is that Tony Blair (socialist) was far more supportive of our military than this new Conservative government. Our security now will suffer because of irresponsible bankers causing a recession that the ordinary Joe and his national security will pay for. The Liberals in the Lib/Con alliance will love it of course because they are traditionally against the military.
Cameron reminds me of Chamberlain...although Munich hasn't arrived yet.
Click to expand...

Roger, i could not agree more! Well said.
 
I liked Tony Blair he did alot from Anglo American relations as well as having the balls to rid the world of some very unsavory people, however Brown the one eyed Scottish idiot on the other hand was a number cruncher and had no idea of leading a country and I'd rather have Cameron than him anyday!
 
peter12213 said:
I liked Tony Blair he did alot from Anglo American relations as well as having the balls to rid the world of some very unsavory people, however Brown the one eyed Scottish idiot on the other hand was a number cruncher and had no idea of leading a country and I'd rather have Cameron than him anyday!
Click to expand...

Well Pete you've got him and you're welcome to him. Brown was the best chancellor we've had, but I agree he never should have pushed for the top job.
 
To be honest Roger mate I'd rather have him than brown yes but I don't like any of them to be honest and I didn't vote for any of them in the last election, I just don't trust polititians and this thread is why!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top