Defence Cuts

[rksl-rock 1301]

that's good but i was speaking more about the 'bigger' vessels ;)

Nuclear fuel maybe cleaner but its vastly more expensive in the short term. Maintence and decommissioning is a nightmare as both the French and US have found.

But I do agree, with the UK's CVF especially. Something that size with the new generation of reactors. Its a missed oppurtunity. But right now the bean couters are focusing on short-medium term costs.

[biggerdave 56]

Because the west, in general, is now making the same mistakes Germany did during WW2, wasting mind boggling amounts of money on "wonder weapons" (the XM25, along with the replacement for the AAVP7 come to mind, though I'm sure there's others). Thankfully we're not on the same level of conflict (or the same level of crazy) as Herr. H was, but the way things are going these days... you can never be too certain...

[spooky lynx 73]

I understand why they retired the Harriers but I dont think it was the correct choice since it basically removes any sort of naval strike capability from the UK forces. Which was large part of the UK's ability to project force anywhere in the world.

All this looks almost like massive decrease of Russian armed forces since 1992.

Technically its a good cost saving idea since the Harrier is so maintenance intensive. It just has far too many issues to list especially when dropped into the type of sustained ops in Afghanistan. The fatigue life and spares issues alone mean that the aircraft were 'wearing' out far faster than was financially acceptable.

And what about its maneuvreability at low-level altitudes and rather small dimensions? And the most significant advantage - short or vertical take-off that is very useful in afghan terrain?

The Tornado, while just as maintenance prone has a larger fleet and a larger pool of qualified crew. Making it easier to use on larger sustained ops over time. But in terms of close air support role, its just not as flexible in my opinion.

It's quite a big target for insurgents air defence, like Su-17 was in 1980-1989. And it's too fast for CAS in mountain terrain where targets are well fortified and hidden.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Because the west, in general, is now making the same mistakes Germany did during WW2, wasting mind boggling amounts of money on "wonder weapons"

Except the F35 isn't a Wunderwaffe. It was designed to be an F22 lite, F16 (cheap), Harrier all in one.

The problem with U.S. defense contractors, and probably very true for most other countries, is that they don't and are not allowed to operate in a normal market setting. If they did, you would probably see Lockheed operating much more efficiently and profitable like the Ford Motor Company. Currently most of the defense companies are monopolies and they lobby extensively.

We know, however, that Keynesians on the Hill don't care about how much something cost, because the people that are involved in the production of that item benefit everyone (strong defense, steady incomes and taxes). Or so their absurd theories go.

[Daniel 0]

Except the F35 isn't a Wunderwaffe. It was designed to be an F22 lite, F16 (cheap), Harrier all in one.

So trying to be three aircraft in one doesn't constitute a Wunderwaffe? :p

The problem with U.S. defense contractors, and probably very true for most other countries, is that they don't and are not allowed to operate in a normal market setting.

This is unfortunately very true, it certainly applies to defence companies outside the US.

[rksl-rock 1301]

All this looks almost like massive decrease of Russian armed forces since 1992.

Quite, but that was mostly down to the collapse of the USSR's hold of the states it was made up from. The reduction of Soviet bloc forces has been mostly due to the former bloc nation's defense budgets being slashed due to the increased costs involved in securing a "new" nation's structure and independence. Give it 10-20 years to stabilise and you will see the larger states rearming just like Russia is now doing. Its a common and obvious model.

And what about its maneuvreability at low-level altitudes and rather small dimensions? And the most significant advantage - short or vertical take-off that is very useful in afghan terrain?

Manoeuvrability has become almost irrelevant in the current (US led) doctrine. Fixed wing CAS strikes are done from ~3-5000+ ft AGL. The exceptions are when cannon are used or the situation requires a show of force. And then they are very tightly constrained, limited to very tight approach and exit corridors and a min altitude of 500ft.

The Harrier's small dimensions are working against it in the Afghan theatre too. "Small" means limited fuel and bomb load. Which means less time over the target area. Shorter ranges mean more tankers and support which means more expense etc. Larger aircraft can stay over the battlefield for longer and carry more weapons. They make more economic and practical sense.

The STOL capability was useful in the very early winter days with limited runways but since 2003 its almost pointless. The runways at Bastion and Kandahar are almost the equal of any major runway in the world now. In the summer the STOL/vectored take off is not even used due the ambient air temp and altitude making the air far harder to claw lift from the hot and thin air at lower speeds.

The Harrier's STOL capability at sea relies on ~30kts wind over the deck and 50 degrees of vectored thrust. On a land based airfield, without a similar wind its take off roll is 3+ times the distance its famed for. Increase the altitude and ambient air temp/pressure and its not really a "short" take off anymore compared to the performance at sea level.

It's quite a big target for insurgents air defence, like Su-17 was in 1980-1989. And it's too fast for CAS in mountain terrain where targets are well fortified and hidden.

Which is the why they drop precision weapons from 15,000 to 3,000 AGL at ~250-400 kts. But let me also remind you that the Tornado especially is designed as a low level Interdiction aircraft. It handles very well at low level in most speed regimes. While it wasn't intended for CAS it is proving it can do the role. Especially with the new Dual Mode Brimstone.

Edited December 13, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[biggerdave 56]

Except the F35 isn't a Wunderwaffe. It was designed to be an F22 lite, F16 (cheap), Harrier all in one. .

I wasn't really talking about the F-35, I was talking about stuff like EATR (the robot, that eats), the "smart" ammo for XM-25, flying humvees, personal transport torpedoes, "gay bombs" and whatever other madcap stuff the DARPA is trying to build that we don't know about! :butbut:

[4 IN 1 0]

Well, why dont they just fire all their services man and disband the military all together? This will save even more, right? RIGHT?????

[spooky lynx 73]

I read all that is written about this cuts and remember my childhood. In early 90-s we were told that we don't need powerful army because cold war is over and there would be no treats at all an nowhere, we don't need that 'huge' and 'enormous' amount of military hardware, infrastructure and well-trained personnel, we don't need single engine jets (MiG-23/-27, Su-17) because they are totally unsafe... And then war in Caucasian region has started.

[Baff1 0]

Manoeuvrability has become almost irrelevant in the current (US led) doctrine. Fixed wing CAS strikes are done from ~3-5000+ ft AGL. The exceptions are when cannon are used or the situation requires a show of force. And then they are very tightly constrained, limited to very tight approach and exit corridors and a min altitude of 500ft..

British troops in Afghanistan said that the thing they most appreciated was the strafing runs.

I think there is a still a very big argument for slower aircraft in CAS.

In the Vietnam War jets were replaced by propeller driven Skyraiders.

In my mind it's simply a question of budget. The RAF want's multi-role because it can't afford the optimum system for every job it might be called upon to do.

---------- Post added at 01:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:39 PM ----------

I read all that is written about this cuts and remember my childhood. In early 90-s we were told that we don't need powerful army because cold war is over and there would be no treats at all an nowhere, we don't need that 'huge' and 'enormous' amount of military hardware, infrastructure and well-trained personnel, we don't need single engine jets (MiG-23/-27, Su-17) because they are totally unsafe... And then war in Caucasian region has started.

Last time it happened here, the Falklands War broke out straight away.

They had to de-mothball the navy almost the same day they had disbanded loads of it.

I also think that once you keep and maintain an army, there is an element of Catch 22 to it. In order for it to be a kick arse army, it needs to be involved in wars. To some extent it's a self-fulfilling proficy. The more superior your army to others, the more likely you are to call on it.

The better you wish your army to be, the more often they will need to fight.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Baff1