Tornado jets could be scrapped

HAVE YOUR SAY

Problem is until the Typhoon has been fully developed in the air to ground role the UK will be without an effective strike aircraft.
The Harrier is only good for close support and the Typhoon is still rather 'austere' at the moment.
Graham - High Wycombe

The article fails to mention capability. Typhoon although on a capabilty expansion programme still falls short of Tornado. Harrier at the end of its life is less capable. In addition, the RN have a vested interest in keeping Harrier for as long a possible to underpin the case for carrier borne airpower.
Barry - Huntingdon

Sounds like a good idea. The Harriers are doing a good job in the current battle fields. It gives us a wider capability to balance Harrier with Typhoon than Tornado. Lets make the most of our new jets !
Tom - Oxford

This could be an opportunity for the RAF.
By retiring the Tornado fleet and saving £7.5 Billion the RAF would potentially have the money to purchase Tranche 3B of Typhoon. This would then facilitate the sale of the Tranche 1 aircraft to Oman and would give the RAF a modern fast jet fleet of Typhoon T3a and T3b aircraft. The Harrier GR9 aircraft remaining would start to withdraw from service in 2014 as the JSF was inducted into the FAA and RAF. Therefore by 2018 the RAF could be a two frame fast jet force of roughly 200 aircraft, piloted by RAF and FAA pilots.
The RAF could also defer the purchase of the A400M until 2018 and in the interim purchase further C-17 and C-130 aircraft plugging the short fall in tactical and strategic lift. These new aircraft purchased in the short term could be shared with FAF (French Air Force) who are having their own problems with their defence budget. By sharing this capability more money could be saved.
Lee Hannaford - Cheltenham

To those who think this an 'opportunity' think again. The money saved will not go back into defence it will represent a cut and only part of the cuts to come.

The only hope is that it will allow justification of an upgrade program for Typhoon to give it a capability that matches or exceeds that of the Tornado GR4.

That brings us back to another lead story namely Trident. The only hope of saving our conventional forces is to stop 'cold war' Continuous At Sea Deterrence in favour of reducing the Vanguard class to three with two operational crews at the ready. This with possibly a SLEP would push back the decision on replacement by 15 years and save approximately £11bn over that period. That is the money that can be redirected to conventional forces.

Read the RUSI paper on Continuous At Sea Deterrence

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/CASD.pdf

They argue that CASD is outdated and no longer necessary.
Graham - High Wycombe

'An anonymous source reportedly told the newspaper that despite the proposed heavy reductions, Fox would not consider merging the RAF with another service, describing the move as "a bridge too far for any government".'

So much for the radical, no-sacred-cows promise of a few weeks ago. Another example of situating the estimate and thus missing the real opportunities.

Cagulae - UK

sold down the river by traitors
but who cares, they are not the ones who are fighting and dying,
but then we deserve what we get,
we voted for them on a promise, and are not getting shafted, they turned out to be as bad as labour, i just hope some of us are still around in 5 years time, to kick this lot out, and put in a real party, [if we can find one] traitors all of them, but then who am I , just a poor bloody Englishman that no one cares about anymore, there only interest is Europe,

criss of herts - london

criss of herts - london, this is 'Defence Management' not a UKIP forum keep it to yourself will you.

Graham - High Wycombe

I find this quite disgraceful! I have served in the RAF 3 times during my lifetime with the majority of this serving at Tornado units. Most recently i worked at an RAF unit that is the "home of the Tornado" as a civilian contractor. The logic of outsourcing a lot of the Tornado fleets' servicing requirement was that the previous government had ALREADY committed to save billions from the RAF budget. Take into account the war thats still raging and the loss of several front-line units already (one day my colleagues and i took it upon ourselves to name the RAF bases that had closed during our 15 to 22 years fo service-we counted 16 closures PLUS), will we have an effective air force in the near future? quote "whoever controls the skys, controls the ground)? Its disgraceful. They should either scrap the unneccessary Trident programme (doubtful given that this is great for american business) OR close some more schools, police stations?? Remember i started this post with the fact that the RAF has done its "share" of cuts already?........
ash styles - kent

They will scrap the Tornado, then cut Typhoon to around 110. Then scrap the deterrent, battle tanks, future helicopter orders.Then the Army will be cut to 75,000. The A400M cancelled. A few C-130J ordered as a fig leaf, but the C-130J cannot carry the new Scout vehicle, so that might be scrapped too.
The T26 frigate put back a decade.
Then around 2017 war will break out & we will lose. Politicians will say "nobody warned us". Some will be gullible enough to believe them.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

Good idea!

The Tornado is old, with a operational life approaching 30 years. It's design was always compromised by politics, too small and short ranged, a mini TSR2 to suit German requirements.

The Typhoon has no design compromises, and was designed as a high performance fighter in the mould of the F15, which as history shows makes it easy to convert it to a superb strike aircraft as well.

Plus retiring the Tornado enables the full order of Typhoons to be purchased for the RAF and therefore boosts UK industry.

The Harrier is un-matched in the tactical support role, with even the JSF not matching it in many ways (another aircraft compromised by its daft requirement & politics).

All we need now is a naval version of the Typhoon to be developed and the RAF & RN will both possess the worlds best combat all round aircraft. And all whilst saving money!
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

Love the comment on Harriers doing a good job in the current battle fields. I didn't know there was a war in Leics!! The Harrier is sat at home as it is old, tired, under armed (not even a gun)and ready to be replaced already. The GR4 is in theatre and oing a fine job flying for longer with a much more up to date and larger payload. There is no replacement in sight either as it doesn't need one for years!
Steve

The Harriers are a RN/ RAF asset, so these should be off the agenda, until a viable alternative (i.e. F-35B-C) is available and properly commissioned. The GR2-4 aircraft have always had a tenuious strike capability compared to other aircraft types.

T3 Typhoons should have the programme to enhance their air-to-ground offensive capability fast-tracked, including maritine strike. Exactly how do the RAF do this currently though??

It is sad that the bases required for any future Typhoon / F-35 / Nimrod / Helicopter squadrons are going to be closed, it just hightlights the lack of reserve the UK has as well.

It is amazing that the politicans and the normal joe public have no grasp that the service people of the country are technically at war, and basically need to have cake stalls to fund themselves .... a true user pays society.

I hope in a time of all of war these smae politicians and non supporters of defence are put in the front line to 'bullet-sponge' for the professionals behind. Disgraceful.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

What would you prefer - a functional RAF or Trident nuclear weapons?
Jim Stafford - Windsor

The decision to ground any raf aircraft is as short sighted as the shocking 1957 white paper or whatever it was compiled by that twit sandys. It's nearly as bad as helen clark's decicision to emasculate the rnzaf in 1999
BRUCE WILLIAMS - TAURANGA NEW ZEALAND

For those that think the RAF has done its share of the cuts already should have another look. An Air Force is more than just a fast jet fleet and sometimes I think the upper echelons of the RAF forget that. By holding on to platforms that cost a lot of money to make theatre ready (£138 Million spent making 8 Tornado's theatre ready for Herrick) because it is either
a: Afraid to deploy Typhoon (Typhoon was due to go then withdrawn) or
b: needs to show that Tornado still works and that the RAF no longer sees the Harrier as part of its future plans.
If the RAF are as forward thinking as they say they are then a reduction in the numbers of GR4 aircraft would release RDEL now that could be transferred to CDEL and newer aircraft that are cheaper to run could be purchased. From being an air force whose aircraft are spread over nearly 4 decades they could become one where the fast jet fleet is less than 10 years old. They could then stop putting stories in the news about cutting Nimrod MRA4 (Almost fully paid for) and start planning for the fact that every service is going to have to get rid of a sacred cow.
Remember this is an air force where the fast jet is the answer to all the questions. As AM Anderson stated "Tornado fast air in Afghanistan is a lot more effective because you can have it over a target area in 15 minutes. Something you cannot do with a COIN Tucano etc".
However if he were to look at the bigger picture he would realise that in 5 years when we start handing over to the Afghan military we cannot hand over a Tornado GR4 (£33,000 p/h to operate - 4 years training before LCR) but a simpler to operate, easier to maintain Tucano (of which we have a few sitting at Linton) could be transferred and operated by a fledging air force that has been trained to operate the type.
Trident by the way is a strategic deterrent. It is a single platform that affects all the centres of gravity. It gives the United Kingdom its seat at the UN Security Council, it gives us a say in the world. Boots on the ground, ships and lots of aircraft do not. Just ask Pakistan (Big standing Army, big Air Force), India (Big standing Army, big Air Force), Iran (Big standing Army, big Air Force) etc I could go on. All countries that are either seeking or have a nuclear weapon. A big army with "boots on the ground" wasn't enough.
Lee Hannaford - Cheltenham

I heard somewhere that 12 UK pilots were going to the States to be trained on F18 Navy Hornets. Did I dream this?
John Cassford - ex R.O.C.

I can't believe someone said the tornado is more capable than the harrier, when the harrier was on op herrick it had 100% sortie rate plus they were doing scrambles at 15 mins notice, tornados don't do this they just do pre determined mssions. Someone said the tornado had better weapons most of these were used on the harrier, also what's the point of hAving the best weapon when it takes 3 torndados running just to get one flying. Another sombre note which I hope I wrong but there seems to be a lot more casulties since the harrier pulled out of herrick. So the harrier has proved itself again it still works why change it. The harrier was chosen to go to afghan first because it can do everything.the only reason why it was pulled out was because jock stirrop perferred tornados noes he's retired they look at scrapping the torndados why can't they make decisions on a/c capabilies rather than who's in charge at Whitehall or downng street
Johnny - Oakham

Graham - High Wycombe
this was not a ukip story mate, im sorry if you felt offended, its a shame when you except that politicians are the very best, as you seem to,. if its wrong to condemn the politicians on here, then who do we blame, the MOD, perhaps, come on graham if you think the politicians are that good, then why are you commenting on defence, as far as I am concerned, the politicians off all parties are guilty, and people should understand that, they are the only reason we are all in this mess in the first place, but if you think politicians should not be mentioned, only military incompetence, without political influence, then so be it, but i will continual to condemn those who should be condemned, for the defence of this country, and everyone who lived here, but i respect your love of politicians,
as much as my love of the British military , and those poor soldiers dying for the holy words of [we cant afford it], thank you.
as for ukip, I don't vote for them, like most, I voted conservative, and feel let down, ok with you,
criss of herts - london

So what about the new type 45s being put into service with the royal navy, is this a good thing, to have unarmed destroyers on active service, is this then the norm to come, perhaps the type 26 will come as unarmed to, or do i have this wrong, and the navy fully intends to fit these ships with a system before the ships are required , if needed to be sent into a war zone
criss of herts - london

criss of herts - london
It is one thing to criticise politicians for their decisions on defence matters which is perfectly acceptable on this forum. It is another thing to use this platform to push your views on EU membership etc. There is a fine line but in my opinion you crossed it (more than once) hence my comment to you.
Graham - High Wycombe

Graham - High Wycombe
well i wouldn't worry abt it mate,
as for Europe, again you fail to understand, that this country CAN afford the defence budget, the money for Euro membership should be used for the defence of this country, we have great minds, but idiots to implement them, just look at the type 45, and perhaps the type 26, the delay on the carriers are costing us dear, if we are gong to have the best, then we must have the money to pay for the best,, and the last item is this, WE cannot have both, the nuclear subs and a navy. the politicians must be made aware that the government must pay for the subs, and leave the forces to the MOD, if the government makes the MOD pay for the subs, then you can say goodbye to the navy,, and for what its worth i think the people protesting to the government will persuade them to pay for the subs, and the navy will be left alone, sometime letting them know does help, thanks
criss of herts - london

I can see a rationale to withdraw (sorry for the posh word for scrap) the Tornado F3's...which in any case were a Thatcher era stop gap after the Lightnings were withdrawn, and before we got the Eurofighter (now Typhoon), but to reduce our strike capability (Tornado GR4's), and the marine / battlefield flexibility of the Harrier is total nonsense. Neither should the RAF and RN have to battle each other over resources. If we lower our defences, our enemies will strike when we have little or no capability to strike back. If the proposed cuts go ahead, what about next time? In retropsect the Falklands war was a close run thing, when the Argentines played their cards while our capabilities were patchy - Vulcans being scrapped, Endurance withdrawn, poor inflight refueling capability, no AEW for the RN, no fixed wing carriers - which all had to be remedied or patched over at short notice in an ad-hoc way. The question has to be asked - why is the choise all the Harriers or all the Tornados must go.....surely a sensible evalution is required, to maintain a balance of equipment and capability. The real question to be asked is what is the purpose of the RAF and RN? Coastal defense only, or to project UK power and protect UK global interests in times of crisis? If only the former is true - lets just have a few coastal patrol boats, and a few light attack aircraft, if the later is true then we must maintain viable armed forces, both sea, air , and land - with the manpower and tools to do the job. {Ex-RAF technician 1975~1989}
John - Shrewsbury

To John Cassford - ex R.O.C.

Looks like you heard correctly:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/rn-re-evaluating-f-35c-10562/


Graham - High Wycombe

The Tornado GR4 is a true bomber, unlike the Harrier and Typhoon. The GR4 is the only capable aircraft of delivering Strom Shadow...none of the others can. Only this govt., could have come up with a stupid idea. I can understand losing the F3 as this is slowly being replaced by the Typhoon. The GR4 is true interdiction.
Kirk - UK

Kirk - UK

You are correct in what you say at the moment however the as you probably know, the plan is to update the Typhoon (including Storm shadow) will give it similar or better interdiction capabilities than the GR4.

However that will probably not be complete until around 2015 so withdrawing the GR4 has always been a matter of timing. I suspect the RAF will lose half the GR4 squadrons in the SDSR and either Lossiemouth or Marham will close with the remaining GR4's removed around the middle or later part of the decade when it will be deemed that the Typhoon has reached sufficient development and perhaps the F-35 (hopefully not the B model) will be in or approaching service although in smaller numbers than currently planned.
Graham - High Wycombe

The question to be answered is could the RAF provide the scale, variety and level of air support of operations tasked of them by Governments with only the Typhoon and Harrier as their 'combat' aircraft. Quantity has a quality of its own. Force levels must always relate to tasking (present and future) and I believe that the RAF combat front-line without Tornado GR4 would lack the depth, sustainability and ability to maintain operations at current levels. So my response to this proposal would be to ask the politicians what tasks they would be willing to delete.The elastic has been stretched tautly enough already. If you want further cuts, reduce the tasking. You cannot have it both ways. One other factor in all this is never to forget that every man and woman in uniform is a volunteer. If 'Defence' is to be cut back, there comes a point when skilled and educated people will no longer see it as a worthwhile career, then you really will have a problem!
Alasdair Campbell - Bath UK

i agree with the sentiment the the tornado GR4 is the most likely to be culled in this new age defence "clubbing" affair, but the money saved must be injected into worth while platform for our homeland defence and secuirty. the Harrier force is truely a tri-service asset and as such should be off the agenda but defence needs and common sence rarely go hand in hand as i have seen many times in my career in the navy. The uk needs a balanced armed forces and with the threats looming from asia and a resurgent russia over the next decade any other type of defence is sheer folly
Rob - Barnstaple, Commando Lopgistic regiment RM