back to article Falklands hero Marine: Save the Harrier, scrap the Tornado

A Marine general famous as the leader of Britain's heroic commandos and paras during the Falklands War – joined by some retired admirals – has written an open letter to the nation arguing that Prime Minister Cameron's recent decision to scrap the UK's force of Harrier jumpjets and preserve the RAF Tornado bomber fleet was a huge …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. N2

    But

    Politicians make judgement from nice comfortable offices, a long way from the coal face of defence & seldom make the right decisions anyway, who ever is in government.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      RE: But..

      In this case they probably make the judgements of the advice of the military. If the military says it's better to have 19 frigates and a tornado force, than 1 aircraft carrier 10 frigates and a harrier force, then I guess that's what they went for. In purely political terms Ark Royal and harriers are surely more 'sexy' than the alternative so I suggest they took the advice rather than the more sexy alternative. (I'm not saying the military gave the right advice.)

      By the way, we will still have HMS Illustrious don't we? It can be used as a floating base for Apache Helicopter Gunships? In the worst case scenario, could be borrow some harriers from the US Marines?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        WTF?

        Sexy?

        The decision will have been primarily based upon what military supplier is "friendliest" with the procurement mandarins in the MoD.

        Dumping the most versatile (and coolest) aircraft in the world is bonkers unless someone is getting a serious back scratching.

      2. Dave 15

        No, no no

        No, its not 'sexier' to have Tornados that Harriers, the Harriers can be used when the airfields at Port Stanley, or in the UK, Afghanistan or where ever have bloody great holes in them, the Tornados at that point are so much useless scrap metal.

        No we can't rely on the Americans to lend us squat - they didn't in WW2, they didn't during the last Falklands, they never will... especially as (they pointed this out last time) Argentinia is their 'best buddy' in South America.

        No 'Illustrious' can't be used as a base for a bunch of helicopter gunships as they can be shot out of the air by a bow and arrow and are therefore totally useless - certainly no match for either fighter planes or various missiles. We already have a helicopter ship anyway - same hull as lusty.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Disagree

          The US did provide support to the UK in the Falklands war in many ways, most of which cannot be revealed (can't tell I'm afraid) as a result of US assistance in several areas, President Ronald Reagan and the US Defense Secretary received honorary knighthoods.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            US assistance

            It's reasonably well known the US provided the UK with Sidewinder missiles and satellite pictures of the area.

            1. iainr

              wasn't required

              strictly no, the US (actually NATO) agreed that the UK could use sidewinders that were part of the uk's inventory but were committed to NATO.

              I think any satellite intel would have been available anyway because we have an agreement to share stuff like that.

              in terms of materiel technically we got most help from the kiwis who lent a frigate to take over from one of ours in the indian ocean.

        2. Kiwi_MarkLFC
          FAIL

          Not very good at reading comprehension are we!

          1. The poster did not say the Tornados are sexier - he said the Harriers were!

          2. Whether or not an Apache can be shot down by a Bow and Arrow is irrelevent - this has absolutely no bearing on whether than can be launched from HMS Illustrious or not!

          I am guessing you are only 15 and thus typical Gen Y - stupid, lazy, greedy, arrogant and a complete and utter total waste of space!

      3. iainr

        Illustrious

        'lusty is currently in drydock at rosyth undergoing refit, so when she comes out of refit ark royal will go into reserve and then be scrapped rather than having a final refit to take her service life up to when the new carriers appear.

  2. Tim Jenkins

    Latin: decimatio; decem = "ten"

    Kudos to Lewis for the (rare) proper use of 'decimation'; 6 downed GR1s out of roughly 60 deployed in the 1991 Gulf conflict is indeed 1 in 10. Looks like all that expensive education wasn't wasted after all...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_%28Roman_army%29

    (Nice article, BTW)

    1. The Indomitable Gall

      Sorry, no.

      The job of a journalist is to make himself understood by his readers.

      Lewis chose to use a word that many of his readers would misunderstand. At best, that's bad writing. At worst, it's dishonest -- was it his intent to lead people into believing the situation was worse than it is, while not "lying" per se?

      1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: Sorry, no.

        The readers could look it up.

        I think it's better when you're writing to flatter your readers' intelligence rather than patronising them (ie talking down to them) by over-explaining your terms.

        1. Alpha Tony

          lol@Sarah

          Am liking the irony of the overly detailed explanation of 'patronising'

          :D

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Merriam Webster

          (3)

          a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population>

          b : to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession>

          ----

          http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/decimate

          The Cambridge Guide to English Usage states that the nonspecific use of this word to mean devastate or severely reduce the numbers of is ‘nowadays the commonest use of the word in both British and American English, and it’s registered without comment in modern dictionaries.’ It also advises against using numbers with the term, as ‘They are redundant where it means “reduce by one tenth,” and where it doesn't they confound the arithmetic.’ [15]

          The 23 occurrences of decimate in the British National Corpus — compare decimates, decimated, and decimating — almost all clearly accord with the nonspecific sense. The only references to the historical sense are two complaints about modern usage and its critics.

          ----

          However, Lewis is clearly using it in the context of massive losses and further suggests that they were all shot down by anti-aircraft fire, this isn't the case, as only 3 were lost due to Iraqi air defences. It seems the RAF are capable of losing a fifth by simply flying the things.

          This originally cropped up he was claiming decimation due to the use of a particular low level bombing technique, it's even further out in that context.

          Also, he seems to think that the harrier is more capable in hot high conditions than the tornado, it simply isn't - it has the same problems.

          I agree with his conclusions though, keep the harrier, halve the frigates and buy more Chinooks.

          1. Mark 65

            F*ck Merriam Webster

            I've always understood decimation to be

            1. The Roman 1-in-10 version

            2. More recently (in terms of human history) bastardised into meaning massacred/suffered massive losses.

            Version 1 first and foremost though. Given the 6 from 60 another commenter quoted I'd say it's unfair to summise that Lewis was using it in the context of massive losses and would err on the side of him having used it to refer to the 1-in-10 nature of the losses.

            1. Dapprman

              The Origins of Decimate ...

              The origins of the word come from the actions of one Roman General - can't remember who (and when I tried to look it up I found my choice was about 500 years later). A legion had rebelled against it's commander, and as a punishment and a warning to others, the general in question ordered the legion to line up and then for every tenth man to be slain on the spot.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Thumb Down

                bzzzt wrong

                They were ordered to draw lots with the losers having to be killed by their squad mates.

          2. ChrisC Silver badge

            The low-level concept

            @TheJonB:

            "Lewis is clearly using it in the context of massive losses and further suggests that they were all shot down by anti-aircraft fire, this isn't the case, as only 3 were lost due to Iraqi air defences. It seems the RAF are capable of losing a fifth by simply flying the things.

            This originally cropped up he was claiming decimation due to the use of a particular low level bombing technique, it's even further out in that context."

            Quite. 6 aircraft lost during 1500+ flights, with 2 of those losses occurring *after* the move away from low level missions, does not strike me as a particularly resounding condemnation of the use of low-level tactics.

            @Lewis:

            "the idea was that it might get in undetected beneath Soviet radar in a Cold-War-turned-hot scenario, though the decimation of low-flying Tornados by feeble Iraqi defences in 1991 retrospectively cast a lot of doubt on that"

            As has already been pointed out, the Iraqi AAA was hardly what you'd call feeble. In addition, consider that in the Cold War scenario the Tornado would be expected to operate at low level over the European battlefield, a terrain somewhat different (and more amenable to radar avoidance) than the rather featureless deserts of Kuwait and Iraq. The results obtained by many RAF crews during Red Flag competitions suggests low and fast wasn't an entirely dumb concept. The existence of the F-111 also suggests that going in low and fast against Soviet defences wasn't considered an entirely dumb concept by our friends across the pond...

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Other types...

              Actually this makes me wonder how other aircraft types faired.

              I believe 3 B52's were lost, and at least 7 A-10's without counting the ones too damaged to be repaired. But I've no idea how many were deployed, and I could be wrong about those numbers too.

              Is 10% actually an expected attrition rate for aircraft in a first strike against a prepared and substantial air defence?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    Exactly

    I reckon a squadron of Hurribombers could do the job just as well too. Unfortunately the Hurricane is in fairly short supply these days, so Reapers it is.

    Or maybe we could get a few squadrons of used Fairchild A10 Warthogs from the US. Slow but heavily armed and armoured they'd be ideal ground attack aircraft. Awesom cannon on those.

    Either way the Tornado is a waste of time. Isn't it being phased out in favour of six or seven Eurofighters anyway? Better to junk the lot now, keep the Harriers and buy Reapers and A10's.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      A-10

      The A-10 is apparently popular amongst Americans in Afghanistan because it provides effective ground support: some seem to regard it almost as a flying tank because of its robustness and armaments, and I guess there's a reason it's still in active service today after so long.

      Fast jets are all very well, but when you want something loitering in the sky providing effective cover, it doesn't help having the thing shoot over the horizon *again* after having missed - with some expensive missile or overspecified bomb - whatever it was you wanted to hit with old-school dumb projectiles.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Grenade

        Yeessss!

        I'm in Afghan at the moment, and we called in an A-10 this week. It is the bomb (excuse the pun). The sound of the 30mm cannon is *astounding*.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    TL;DR

    I'm sure Lewis' article is all very well and good, but this really isn't rocket science. Lets break it down:

    (1) The only way to save money is to axe an entire fleet, allowing the training and support structure to be removed.

    (2) The harrier fleet is not big enough to meet all our commitments were we to get rid of Tornado.

    And that's it.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I know...

    I know that and "where's the IT angle?" postings are met with "you don't have to read them" responses, but this is supposed to be an IT site. It says so on the masthead. So the question is why let these miltiary stories in because you have staff with an interest in that direction?

    I read phtography sites and you don't get stories about, say, fire engines on there because one of the contributors used to be a fire fighter.

    1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: I know...

      This is The Register.

      I never understand these whinges.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Terminator

      Amazing but true...

      One of the surprising things about military aircraft... the airframe is almost worthless in comparison to the electronics/software payload.

      Not so much aircraft with computers. More high performance computers, with wings and a fuel tank.

      Try to think of it as a flying computer story, and you'll be fine.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Oh well

        "Try to think of it as a flying computer story, and you'll be fine"

        There's an awful lot of hardware out there that's heavilly computerized, so presumably we'll be looking forward to washing machine articles in future?

        In all seriousness though I've heard the same reasoning given for space shuttle related stories, and don't they rely on a load of ancient 80186 computers? Hardly cutting edge. Likewise the Tornado dates, IIRC, to the early seventies. While it's computing hardware has no doubt been upgraded over the decades it would, unlike something like the eurofighter, be capable of flying without all that computing power.

        1. Chris Harden
          FAIL

          Washing Machines?

          http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/09/washing_machine_attack/

        2. annodomini2

          nope

          They're specially made rad hardened 386's

          Main reason being, radiation.

          They were upgraded in the late 90's

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            386!?

            386's? Well in that case they are indeed the highest of tech. Or maybe not.

    3. MeRp
      Thumb Down

      Where's

      The Register angle in your post? I don't see one. If you're going to post in the Register's comment section, please be relevant to the standards and philosophy of The Register.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Terminator

      Flying Appliances

      ...others having already posted sensible replies...

      Think of the story more as human interest, but for humans more interested in hi-tech than their fellow meatbags. Most anyone on this board has likely seen 'True Lies' and the way the Harrier J.J. blazed sky-trails of awesome (and I even hear the Govenator wanted to use a harrier for getting around town, but after he was turned down the Humvee became Arnold's military asset of choice). Think of this as the brave puppy story you'd get at the end of the 10 O'clock news.

    5. sT0rNG b4R3 duRiD
      Headmaster

      You just don't get IT?

      This is El Reg.

      It is probably one of the more relaxed IT news sites.

      Chilled out IT dudes come here. Hoopy Froods, if you must. And yes, they're mostly dudes I would wager.

      What to most boys like or like to talk about?

      Girls, beer, computers, automobiles, things that go boom, girls, football, mobile phones, girls, toys, silly pranks like PARIS, sciency stuff, Terminator, girls...

      Things that they can mentally, if not physically knock one off to.

      El Reg has on many occasion featured many or all of the above.

      I rest my case.

      But feel free to bitch about it. That's another thing this place is for. General bitching and trolling.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    10 or 30 min are both dead meat

    If the Argentinians manage to procure Su-35 from the Russians both are equally dead meat anyway. Both are obsolete by today's standard.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      thing is,

      As annoyed as Argentina may be that we're using the Falklands as an excuse to steal oil off of their coastal waters they arn't likely to go to war nowdays. For example it's no longer run by a military regime that "disappears" people. It's pretty childish for us to continually refer to Argentina with these out of date sterotypes.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Flame

        And that is exactly what worries me

        If it was yet another military dictatorship it would have started the war right here and right now and Britain would have had a chance to win.

        All it was needed to win the previous Falkland war for Argentina was to wait for a year or so. By that time the Exocets would have been fully integrated with their launcher aircraft and the Invincible would have been flying an Australian flag. So Britain would have been unable to mount any effective response short of nuking Buenos Aires. That was not something the hunta in their standard testosterone poisoned brain state would consider. Hence it lost the war.

        A civilian government like the one Argentina has at the moment led by someone as smart as Mrs Kirchner will calculate the right moment and execute it at the right moment. She has already gathered the support of all of Latin America in advance (with the UN letter being a prime example to that). She is buying the right kit from the right suppliers and if she decides to have the Falklands the only thing the British government would be able to do will be if she would like that with a New Georgia garnish or without.

        There is bugger all Britain can do about it at the moment short of stationing half of its Tornado and Eurofighter fleet down there. Not like there will be a war in Europe anytime soon so they might as well project power where such projection is needed instead of being a subsidy for Labour-voting scottish precincts.

      2. Dave 15

        your point?

        A waste - any country can end up with a pretty bad leader - whether this a democracy electing Hitler (and he was elected) or Bush (same here - and he started more than a single war), or whether its a country that is taken over in a military coup we can't rely on other countries staying just as they are now... .especially not when there is a very expensive highly profitable raw material involved.... I wouldn't put it past the USA to be negotiating to buy the oil from Argentinia after a successful invasion the USA felt unable to stop - after all they did try and negotiate with Stalin to ensure the destruction of the British empire that they bled white in WW2 - Stalin didn't play ball so its taken the yanks a little longer to destroy it.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
          Thumb Down

          Fail

          No Hitler was not elected.

          Gb2 schoolbooks

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Acute Vulnerability of the UK

    Economically, defensively, strategically... we're currently more vulnerable than I can ever recall in my lifetime, and probably beyond.

    Critically short of money. With a misconfigured/crippled military. And a strategic dependency on other countries to supply our armed services with aircraft, vehicles, and weapons.

    And meanwhile committed to a pointless, endless, ill conceived war in the middle east.

    So cocking up the battle weary remains of what little defensive capability the UK has seems careless beyond belief.

    1. Magnus_Pym

      Funnily enough...

      ... I can't remember a time when this wasn't the case.

      1. MrCheese
        Unhappy

        Lucky you

        I've always lived in feeble-joke England and it just keeps getting worse

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Happy

      Pah Humbug

      Ironically, isn't that exactly how we started in WWII - underfunded, too-scaled-back military, old technology, economy in the toilet, strategy in disarray?

      We did alright there...once we got through the paying-for-the-war recession that is.

      Maybe we should have another World War?

      1. Dave 15

        We didn't do all right in WW2

        Sold all our gold (cut price) to the Americans

        Sold all our companies (very cut price) to the Americans

        Gave all our bases to the Americans - for free (lend lease my ass)

        Were kicked out of Europe in a couple of hours, out of most of the rest of the world shortly afterwards

        At the time we still had some decent equipment (ask the guys that rejoiced at all the stuff we left behind at Dunkirk)

        We were lucky that the Germans didn't keep bombing our airfields, if they hand't stopped they would have all been out of action and none of our fighters would have been capable of flying - the reason we came up with the Harrier that doesn't need an airfield.

        We were equally lucky that in those days we still had enough of a Royal Navy that we could protect shipments we were reliant on from elsewhere in the world - we don't have that capability now we are more reliant than ever.

        We still in those days were capable of manufacturing the equipment of war - guns, bullets, tanks, lorries, uniforms, these days we've 'outsourced' all of that capability to China, South Africa, Belgium, France and the USA.

        We might as well disband the puny remains of our armed forces - they aren't strong enough to protect us, we can't reinforce them, we have no industry and no money, a government that doesn't give a fig about the country and (just like the previous Labour government) would rather see us ruled from Brussels than London. Frankly actually I think we'd be safe, because apart from the Falklands oil there really is f**** all reason for anyone to invade.

      2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Flame

        Maybe we should have another World War?

        And maybe your an economically illiterate <expletive deleted>?

  8. hugo tyson
    Grenade

    Black Buck

    Lewis writes: Black Buck [...] achieved very little - the Argentine aviators who so menaced the Task Force were based on the mainland, not the islands themselves.

    Well yes, because the runway at Stanley had holes in it, holes made by Black Buck. Otherwise it would have been used by the occupiers - or at least Argentine air defence aircraft would have been there, making the Harriers' task that much harder, and large transports could have been used, to bring in loads of extra equipment, making... &c &c

    1. Dapprman

      Rather far from the truth

      It was only half a hole part way down one side of the runway - and that was repaired within a few hours. It was also too far down to prevent the Argentinians using Port Stanley for their Pucara ground attack aircraft.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      In those days it was too short anyway

      In those days the runway was too short for any of the Argentine fighter aircraft anyway.

      Amidst all strategic mistakes Argenina did the biggest was not to unload all of its runway building equipment at Port Stanley ASAP and extend the runway by any means necessary even if they would have had to redo completely at a later date.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Cost

      Cost of repairing a hole in a runway - £100

      Cost of putting a hole in the runway - priceless.

      Well done the RAF - lol

  9. Dapprman

    I love the muth of the harrier needing no real airbase

    What's always over-looked in those statements is the support requirements for the harrier do as they require lots of heavy equipment, fuel and maintenance gear, much of which is normally shipped in by ... air using freight aircraft (which require long runways).

    1. Alfred

      By air?

      Or indeed, by sea. On ships. Like the one they can happily live on and attack anywhere in the world from.

    2. Dave 15

      Of course it needs fuel, ammo etc. but these can be shipped in by any means

      Including road, boat, ship, even parachute if you're brave....

      The OTHER aircraft can't operate at all - under any circumstance - without long runways. Even the old Hurricane and Spitfire could cope with a reasonably well grassed field if need be - the modern ones can't do that.

  10. Tommoxyz

    An opinion of pilots

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9KvLOyrYKU

  11. LPF

    Jesus wept....

    Why don't they just reduce both fleets a little and colisadate the maintance knowledge in one place. ffs both planes have been in operation for decades.

    As for the Tornado fleet being decimated. well if you call six aircraft lost to various reasons being decimated, then you are a cretin. They were attacking airfields , very heavly defended targets, which no other airscraft apart from the F-117's could attempt it was not until later in the war that everyone realised the iraqis had no medium level SAM defence. Just becuase it was like that once does mean it will always be. Or do you think that you could waltz into saw Russian airspace at medium level and live!

    The biggest problem for the british defence budget is allowing BAE and THALES etc ot massively overcharge and rip this country off!

    1. Tim Jenkins

      </cretin>

      "As for the Tornado fleet being decimated. well if you call six aircraft lost to various reasons being decimated, then you are a cretin"

      Like I said up at the top there, a loss rate of 1 in 10 IS decimation. Just because duh meeja and others often misuse the word (usually confusing it with 'annihilation') doesn't mean we need to resort to name-calling here...

      http://www.raf.mod.uk/gulf/loss.html

    2. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      Cretin?

      As any cretin knows "decimate" means to kill one in ten. So how many tornadoes were operational? And how many were lost?

    3. Dapprman

      It was the payload and tactics that caused the main losses

      Most the Tornado losses during the first gulf war were caused by small arms and AAA, but only because we were still using those JP233 cluster bomb dispensers - that required the plane to fly at a fixed altitude along the runway until the packs were empty. The Iraqi's simply parked their guns at either end and when a tornado went in for a bombing run they just fired in to the air - no need to aim, the pilots were forced to fly through a steel wall with devastating results. Once tactics were changed and more traditional munitions were used, the tornado losses stopped.

      1. ChrisC Silver badge
        FAIL

        Check your facts and stop blaming JP233

        Of the 6 Tornados lost in GW1, only ONE was lost during a JP233 mission, and that loss occurred several minutes AFTER leaving the target area, having successfully and safely completed delivery of the JP233 munitions. The only Tornados to be shot down during weapons delivery were shot down whilst attempting to deliver traditional munitions. Note also that the USAF attacked several airbases using very similar tactics (F-111's dropping Durandals) with a similar absence of losses.

        So the only correct use of the word "devastating" in relationship to the JP233 missions would be if you were using it to describe the effects on those airbases on the receiving end of the JP233 deliveries...

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    History Repeating...

    Currently reading "Downing of Fighter Command" by Vincent Orange and it very much sounds like history is repeating itself. It terms of MPs and officers not listening, empire building, backing the wrong technology or just fudging along without really understanding what's happening on the front line.

    Also seems as if there are still some Trenchardists in office, given they seem have such a strong belief in a bomber...

  13. Mark C 2
    Pirate

    Lewis

    The statement "These raids, though technically-magnificent feats of airmanship, achieved very little" is a load of bollo#ks!

    Black Buck denied the Argies the use of the runway at Port Stanley so their fixed-wing assets had to fly all the way from Argie-land to get on target and thus had only a few minutes to loiter. Tactically that was a VERY big deal.

    Surprised Lewis, didn't you listen at BRNC?

    Ah-har.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Learn to history

      The air field was still used by,

      "Argentine C-130s ... and was also available for Aermacchi MB-339 jets and FMA Pucarás."

      So, no they didn't have much effect beyond propoganda.

      The Argentinians did with draw their Mirage IIIs but only becouse they feared attacks on the mainland (which past when MPs made it clear they didn't intend on attacking the Mainland.)

      So, learn to both internets and, history.

    2. Dapprman

      Read my comments at 15:26

      Black Buck was a morale boosting raid and provided little of tactical value. The Argentinians were never going to use Port Stanley for their air superiority, air defence and strategic aircraft as there was no way to keep the base supplied with all the necessities to keep those planes in the air - due to our blockade. It was used for their counter insurgency/ground attack aircraft and helicopters, both of which required no or little runway, plus as I said earlier, only one bomb clipped the actual runway and that was repaired in hours.

    3. Daniel Pimley

      "Argie-land"

      Please stop reading The Sun, just look at the pictures if you must.

  14. dogged
    Stop

    The reason they want to keep Tornados

    is because the Yanks won't do low-altitude precision bombing runs because their pilots get killed too often.

    "Strategic Defence Review" basically means "what do we have to keep doing so that the Americans don't have to?"

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      WTF?

      "won't do low-altitude precision bombing"

      There are macho crazies who do that sort of thing these days? We have JDAMs, you know,

      As Jeff Huber says "The Intruder and Strike Eagle were designed for nape-of-the-earth radar-evading missions, and nobody goes in low anymore. It’s too easy to run into a cloud of anti-aircraft BBs. The Navy has abandoned the Intruder. The Strike Eagle is still in the Air Force inventory so old navigators can have a fast combat jet to fly in"

      1. dogged
        Unhappy

        "We have JDAMs, you know,"

        Which were, for example, totally ineffective during the firebombing of Baghdad.

        Tornado runs were deemed a better policy as they're more accurate and thus reduce civilian casualties. It was the same in Bosnia and the same in GW1.

        The USA relies on Britain to provide surgical strike capabilities. This is why Britain is "not allowed" to reduce those capabilities.

  15. Dave 15

    CamMORON

    Yup, just as thick as all his predecessors.

    'We have planes on the Falklands so they are well defended' - well they are useful only until Argentina bombs the ***** out of the runway just as we did, then suddenly the planes are so much scrap metal waiting to be collected.

    'We have soldiers on the Falklands' - well they did before, lasted what was it, erm, 30 minutes before surrender? They did worse than the WW2 forces on Crete, Singapore and even North Africa where the forces surrendered to weaker invading forces. (The Germans even remarked on the quality and quantity of stuff left at Dunkirk - in a positive way!)

    Of course the Harrier was conceived based on lessons from WW2 - the RAF was nearly beaten because the Germans were busy destroying the airfields, we were lucky that the Germans moved to other targets or we would have lost. The same thing applies now, only the Harrier is actually any use when the airfields are bombed!

    The current 'naval airpower' relies on the Harrier because a previous idiot government scrapped the only decent sized aircraft carrier we had (another Ark Royal as it happens) and some Naval boffin reqlised that a 'helicopter carrier' was capable of taking the Harrier.

    The Americans bled us dry in WW2 (took ALL our gold and many of our larger more profitable companies at knock down prices) and have since then repeatedly stabbed us in the back (Suez for instance). The Americans and French are both friends of Argentina, we could hardly rely on them to help us out (they have both let us down in the past).

    Now the Falklands are actually defenceless (whatever the claim we would lose them in less than 6 hours).

    The thing most don't realise is that our armed forces couldn't defend the Isle of White for much longer!

    If we aren't going to fund them (and we clearly aren't) we may as well disband them and wait patiently for one of our 'friends' to quietly pass us the vaseline.

    1. Dapprman

      Tactically you're very wrong

      I'm not saying we could hold off a serious invasion however.

      Back when the invasion occurred the sum total UK armed forces in and around the Falklands was one squad of marines in Port Stanley and another on maneuvers else where, plus a naval survey ship round the south side.

      These days were have both Eurofighters and Tornadoes permanently based at Mount Pleasant, with a military grade runway that's made up of quick replacement sections, so any bomb damage can be quickly repaired, plus a permanent army garrison. Also there are submarines on patrol in the waters and proper air defence and naval defence facilities.

      Sure Argentina could invade, and with large enough forces (remember they no longer have a conscript army) they potentially could take the islands, however it would be at heavy losses, some thing they are well aware of. The present Argentinian policy is political and business directed, so it wouldn't surprise me if Rockhopper and Desire Petrochem were to be part bought out by some Argentinian financiers.

  16. Rogerborg

    Well said, Lewis

    Maybe if you'd stayed in the Navy, rather than abandoning Queen and country for the rich, safe pickings of journalism, then your voice might actually carry some weight.

    Sucks to be just another random comentard, doesn't it?

  17. Paul Williams

    The reason the argies wont retake the falklands...

    ...is nothing to do with Harriers, or Tornados. Its to do with the Tomahawk equipped subs in the South Atlantic that we didnt have in 1982.

    How do you think the Argentinian High Command would react when we asked them which window of their headquaretrs they'd like a missile put through?

    Not to mention the Typhoon detatchment on the islands themselves.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Grenade

      Mrs Kirshner already has the answer for you

      Her answers are:

      "What chance does a Tomahawk coming from the sea and visible on any radar quarter of an hour in advance have against a battery of S300 missiles supplied by Mr Medvedev".

      "What chance do 4 Eurofighters stand against 16 Su 35s" supplied by once again Mr Medvedev".

      Err..., I do not like this odds at all. If UK is to station there anything it might as well station a proper fighter detachment and a proper bomber detachment. Not like there will be a war in Europe anytime anyway.

  18. Matthew Glubb
    FAIL

    PLEASE

    When you add footnotes, add them to the page for which they apply.

  19. Daniel 1

    'feeble air defences' eh?

    Anyone claiming that what those Tornados flew into in Iraq were 'feeble air defences' will, I assume, be the first in the queue to volunteer to fly the same missions in a Harrier. The target aquisition radar on an SA 8 has 45 kilometre's range: it takes a Harrier 3 minutes, at top speed, to travel 45 km. Even a ZSU 23-4 can track it's target 20 klicks before it opens fire.

    What's that you say? SA8 is a 36 year old anti aircraft missile system? Well, Harrier is a 40 year old jet... So hop in and give 'em what-for! What would you rather have? A Sopwith Camel? I'm sure you'll do splendidly against them!

    For all the Tornados lost, many more returned to base bearing direct-hits that would have knocked a Harrier clean out of the sky in pieces.

    1. Mips
      Jobs Horns

      Sopwith Camel

      Would probably be splendid, bugger all radar signature and near zero IR.

  20. Ed 11
    Thumb Up

    Like these articles

    Just to counter some earlier posts which seem to dispute whether El Reg should be writing articles about military matters; I'd just like to say how much I enjoy your articles about the military. Please keep writing them.

    Back to topic, I feel it's a massive shame the Harrier is being ditched. I always loved seeing them buzzing over Rutland and like many have said, it's a far more capable and relevent aircraft than the Tornado. The Tornado and Eurofighter are almost indistinguisable in terms of capability, whereas the Harrier offers (offered?) something unique.

    Utterly, utterly cynical ploy on the part of the RAF to ensure the Harriers were back in the UK when the SDR reported.

  21. LPF

    @Tim Jenkins and @Grease Monkey

    Yes if you lose 6 planes out on 60 in one single mission , then yes you fufill the terms of decimated, if however you lose 6 planes out of 60 out of 200+ missions NOT THE SAME THING!!

    Otherwise CRETINS the RAF would have been Decimated in the battle of Britian!

    IMPORTANT FACT!: 10% IN ONE ACTION!! THATS DECIMATION

    See now you tried to act smart and just proved yourselves to be CRETINS! :s

    1. dogged
      Pint

      you forgot your meds again, right?

      Just think of still water and hold on.

  22. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. gpfwestie

      We didn't need to

      Why would we need to fly aircraft there - we had Polaris equipped subs since 1963.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    The title was bombed.

    The reason US can project its power all over the World is because their airborne power can reach any frigging where, except somewhere mainland China (where only nukes can reach without refuelling?). It is achieved by long-range planes, refuelling, or friendly airbases. Call any US carrier a friendly airbase.

    Some Cold War's moves were settled with the withdrawal of US airpower from "friendly" airbases. The Pacific war was won that way. Some called pacific islands as "unsinkable carriers".

    So, UK is scrapping its last carriers, and is scrapping the single plane that can turn any half mile of solid, flat, unbombed ground into friendly airbase. That is bound to work, right?

  24. Dr. Ellen
    Terminator

    Governments

    Every time a government bureau gets more than ten or so years old, it begins trying to destroy what it was originally established to further. That's about how long it takes for the mission-oriented people to be thrown out by the politicans. If something is effective, it <i>has</i> to go.

  25. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Boffin

    People forget *why* the Harrier was conceived.

    It was to meet a NATO requirement in the late 50s/early 60s when it was realised that the Warsaw Pact had the *precise* locations of all those nice new 5000 ft long reinforced concrete runaways for the shiny new Mach2+ fighters and bombers filled away for passing to their assorted bomber, artillery and missile crews. At which point *all* NATO aircraft would become effectively useless. The idea of doing something similar to German aircraft in Africa during WWII was the genesis of the SAS.

    What became the Harrier was not designed to operate in environments too small to *have* a "proper" runway but to operate when the proper runways were destroyed.

    *That* situation continues to this day. Destroy the runways and and your aircraft fleet is f"£ked.

    Except the Harrier and the UK VSTOL version of the JSF.

    True the Harrier is well behind the times. It hasn't had an engine upgrade in decades and it's a maintenance nightmare and it doesn't have the coolness factor of swing wings.

    But it doesn't need a 5000 foot runway in near perfect condition to takeoff and land on.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      MEEEP. Wrong

      The Swedish, Swiss and US Air Forces have/are operated/ing fighters like the F16, the F5 or the Gripen from normal roads. We have more than enough of that here in Germany.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why the three forces?

    Not really up with things military, but by wasn't something more radical considered in an effort to save money? Do you really need three armed forces, one for the land, one for sky and one for the water? Why not have a single armed force, with a single command and control structure?

  27. S Larti
    Thumb Up

    Well said sir!

    Although the RAF still being obsessed with bombers and Cameron turning out to be a tosser hardly surprise me.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Linux

    Breaking windows with golden guineas

    Seen on TV. Tallybin fighter pops up from behind mud wall with £100 AK47. Marines fire £30,000 missile. Kills unpaid gunman and blows hole in mud wall.

    My question. Do you see this as a good use of our defence cash? Even worse maybe we could send in a £15m Tornado flown by two expensive airman to kill said Tallybin.

    Tomorrow someone makes some mud fixes the wall and another Tallybin fighter repeats the process.

    Is this cost effective:? Cos I don't think it makes any sense.

    Surely there has to be a better way to kill these Tallybins.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Flame

      Maybe the primary problem is...

      ...why you want to kill "Tallybin" in the first place?

      Because sundry newspapers were hailing that faggotry as a Good Thing to Do in 2001?

  29. Anton Ivanov

    On the Chinooks - I beg to differ

    The Chinook is _NOT_ the only helicopter capable to carry heavy loads at that altitude.

    With all due respect Lewis, you forgot the helicopter which the yanks grudgingly call to recover the Chinooks when the Chinooks go belly up. The Mi 26. It is capable of flying at that altitude and carrying a Chinook if need be. In fact it has done so already on at least one occasion.

    While it may not be as resistant to small arms fire as the Chinook it is also much cheaper and readily available and can be useful for a lot of missions freeing up the Chinooks for the "hot" ones. It is a pity that it is not being purchased for petty political reasons.

    In fact, all transport helicopters from Mi can fly at that altitude and have flown at that altitude in the past in combat conditions. They are also officially on the NATO procurement list as they are in use and shall remain in use in all of the ex-Warsaw pact. If they are good enough for Czech, Polish, Romanian, Hungarian and Bulgarian armies I really do not see what is so wrong with them for them not to be used by the British army when and where needed.

    So the Chinook is clearly not the only choice here. Neither is the Apache for offensive duties. Nor is the Lynx for multipurpose.

    1. TeraTelnet
      Unhappy

      I would suspect ...

      ... that Lewis was only recognising that the UK military would probably voluntarily disarm before they contracted to purchase from a former Warsaw Pact supplier - which is a shame, because they do needlessly exclude some good kit from consideration.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A question of priorities

    Harriers are great in taking off from a handkerchief, are reliable and can be used from a carrier. But if you think that you need to go on the offensive, e.g. iran nuclear installations, then we are in tornado and cruise missile territory. From the little I know there is a limit to the number cruise missiles that we can launch from a warship/submarine before they need to reload, while tornados can provide continuous surprise attacks - assuming that there is a suitable friendly airstrip with in strike range.

    1. PT

      Re: question of priorities

      "iran nuclear installations" - By God Sir, you've got it! You've stated the clinching argument for saving the Harrier and scrapping the Tornado! Only thus can Britain be saved from involvement in another ill-advised military adventure and multiple decades of impoverishing war.

    2. Dave 15

      reload

      Ships would need to reload with cruise missiles agreed - of course they do.

      Which ever plane flies also has to reload - fuel and ammo - and these need ot be supplied.

      The difference between a ship sending a cruise missile and a ship sending a harrier force is that you can send 12 harriers, get them back, reload them, send them again... repeating until you run out of cheap heavy lumps of explosive metal (bombs)... cruise missles are f***** expensive and much too over the top for most fighting requirements

  31. E 2

    Singapore, and @The Indomitable Gall

    Lewis,

    I must disagree about Singapore.

    I find it very hard to equate the loss of Singapore (to Imperial Japan I assume) to the loss of the Falkland Islands. The Falklands are a bunch of no-account essentially value-less rocks off the coast of a country which is not, never has been, and never will be, worth much in economic terms to Britain.

    Singapore on the other hand was very important indeed to Imperial Britain as an economic entity, as a fortress in the very important sea lanes of south-east Asia, as a staging ground for actions against China through much of the 1800's and early 1900s.

    The Falklands could be turned into a major military fortress, certainly, but to what end?

    The loss of Singapore to Japan was one of the events that lead to the fall of the British Empire: it demonstrated to the subject Asian and African nations that not only was Albion fallible, she could be defeated at one of her strong points or fortresses by a non-European power.

    --

    @The Indomitable Gall,

    Only if you are a journalist of the school that believes it should pander to 7 years olds when writing for adults. I do not think Lewis is a member of that school. I respect him for it. Sarah is quite right that readers can look it up.

    1. Ian Stephenson
      Headmaster

      The Falklands are a bunch of no-account essentially value-less rocks ....

      Valueless?

      That would be why the Argentine government are complaining about the oil drilling?

      Do keep up.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Unhappy

      Valueless?????

      I suppose they are apart from the citizens living there that would like to remain a part of the UK/GB/Commonwealth and don't fancy being Argentine ...... but then again they don't really matter to you.... Sod the IoM and IoW while we are at it

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    18 months?

    I'll give the government 18 months before it starts costing far too much in terms of military lives, police overtime, neo-terrorism and riots in the street.

    (I hope I'm wrong)

  33. Syntax Error
    WTF?

    Who Cares

    I'm interested in IT not the ramblings of some ex-falklands combatant. I want IT on this site. This is also politics.

    1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Who Cares

      Well

      don't

      read

      it

      then

      good

      grief

    2. Dave 15

      Oh please

      Politics affects us all - and IT. The politics of warfare is also important - what arms we get from where makes a difference to who is employed and not.

      When the previous bunch of no hopers decided to buy American instead of British tanks the metal maybe bashed in the UK but the IT won't be. When this no hoper bunch decide to replace British planes with some American junk the IT in those will be developed abroad as well. The politics of the idiot no hoper morons whoh seem to recycle around our useless pox ridden parliament means we all end up with less work, lower pay, less jobs, higher taxes than required.

      Its of VITAL importance.

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Meaning of WAFU?

    I'd been told WAFU was reserved for pilots that failed to land on the deck of the carrier and ended up in the sea. Since they no longer had an aircraft to fly (or were no longer trusted to fly one) and had been fished out of the water, they were wet and fucking useless.

  35. Matthew 4
    FAIL

    BUT...

    Harriers are so easy to shoot down in CODMW2!

  36. Jim Black 1
    Megaphone

    @Dave15

    I wonder what history books you have been reading to have such a hard on for the USA? Certainly not truthful ones.

    You said in WW2 the USA gave Britain nothing. Ask some of your WW2 tank drivers if they drove the "Ronson", aka the Sherman M4 - made in the USA. A lousy tank but better than nothing. The British did not like the tank (nor did the US tank drivers) but we had a design and produced over 45,000 of them during the war. How many of your sailors were manning the 40 destroyers that President Roosevelt had such difficulty getting transferred to the Royal Navy at Churchill's request? He was even approaching impeachment for violating US law. How about the US Navy ships that were prowling the Atlantic ocean in 1940 and 1941 looking for German U-boats, then radioing the position of the U-boat - in the clear, so that the British could intercept the message and know where the U-boats were. There are many more instances. Or perhaps you tend to think in terms of the pejorative phrase allegedly used to describe what was wrong with the Yanks in Britain - "Overpaid, oversexed, and over here."

    In the 1938-1941 time frame, the US political environment was a hot bed of isolationist sentiment. Our Congress had declared we were a neutral nation. The average voter depended on the Atlantic ocean to keep the US out of the "European" war. The contortions of logic and law and even outright lying that the Roosevelt administration went to to provide weapons and supplies to Britain were enormous. Even after the the shock when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, there was one Nay vote in the House of Representatives on whether to go to war with Japan. Do a little research to find out what your own Prime Minister Winston Spencer Churchill had to say about the materials that came from the US to Great Britain.

    As for the gold, I was not aware that the US acquired your gold reserves - never heard that before - but it is customary for a nation to pay for materials with their own currency/gold. You mentioned the overseas bases that Britain lend-leased to the US in exchange for the 40 destroyers - how many of them were outright transferred from Britain to the USA in perpetuity? Specifics, please. And I know that both Britain and France ran up large debts to the USA during WW2 and that some foreign debt was forgiven after the war.

    The British military individuals, at least at the lower ranks, are some of the finest military people in the world and it is a shame that the British politicians are not supporting them as they deserve. I would hope that the British military would be structured in the best way to preserve your national sovereignty as far into the future as possible. That means doing threat analysis and then developing the structure and equipment needed to defeat or fend off the threat. Has that been done? I tend to agree with Lewis to the extent of his agreement with the retired generals and admirals but I am not close enough to put your defense posture under a microscope - Lewis is.

    The question at issue is whether to have speedy bombers or versatile close support aircraft. (Britain bought some CH-47 Chinook helicopters but had a problem getting some software when the US would not allow them access to the source code for computers.) Close support works best in the type of warfare of Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether the speedy and sophisticated aircraft like the F-35 or F-22 will ever have to meet comparable enemy aircraft is not known but seemed unlikely until the rebirth of the Russian military. The B2 has been used but the missions - flying from the US to Afghanistan - are long and costly. The current use of drones, armed and unarmed, is an entirely new factor to be considered. Any arbitrary decision the MOD makes will certainly be wrong.

    Does Britain need a military force? Yes. Loss of sovereignty occurs only once. Only the congenitally stupid or the traitorous could say do away with all your military capability. How you best structure that force is not for me to say but the US is interested in how you do it.

    On the issue of whether the US went to war with Iraq to get the oil, it is instructive that the only Iraqi oil that has reached our shores came through the international oil markets. The Chinese get the bulk of the Iraqi oil and have since the US got the oil fields working again. The US has not made a penny from our invasion.

    1. Gerry Doyle 1

      British Gold

      As to how did the USA 'acquire' British gold reserves, in 1940 they simply sent battleships to the South Atlantic to intercept British gold shipments from South Africa.

    2. Dave 15

      Give?

      The tanks, destroyers and other stuff were SOLD to Britain, not given.

      The payment terms were excessively harsh - most of those destroyers were really only fit for the scrap yard and needed extensive refit before they could be used (as an example).

      There are plenty of sources but http://www.encyclomedia.com/winston_churchill.html includes the comment that American aid was sold to Britain and that by 1941 we had already exhausted gold reserves and overseas assets. Check for the sale of Courtaulds American operations and the price vs value obtained - it was really theft by any other name.

      Another quote for you...

      Help on a larger scale was soon to be forthcoming. Reelected President on November 5th, Mr. Roosevelt suggested almost at once plans to open 'the Arsenal of Democracy' for Great Britain. In March 1941 the cash-and-carry basis of British purchasing in the United States was abolished, and the principle of lend-lease sanctioned by Congress. Later the same month documents handing over bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda and the West Indies were signed.

      from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWlendlease.htm - again not the only place.

      I think you'll find the Americans still have those bases :)

      As for the oil discussion - maybe the Chinese have taken that oil, but that in itself means they haven't been shopping in the same markets - which helps control the price - it is also instructive to look at the money poured into Iraq by various sources and the money taken by American companies in contracts - I think the word profit might apply here.

      I'm not anti-American, have a good number of personal American friends - including some in the American military, but America has for decades done what we should do - its looked after itself. Our politicians seem to think bending over and greasing our backsides for anyone and everyone to s****t and calling it a 'special relationship' is a good thing - it surely isn't.

    3. Dave 15

      another quote...

      (10) Harold Wilson, Memoirs: 1916-1964 (1986)

      Lend-Lease also involved Britain's surrender of her rights and royalties in a series of British technological achievements. Although the British performance in industrial techniques in the inter-war years had been marked by a period of more general decline, the achievements of our scientists and technologists had equalled the most remarkable eras of British inventive greatness. Radar, antibiotics, jet aircraft and British advances in nuclear research had created an industrial revolution all over the developed world. Under Lend-Lease, these inventions were surrendered as part of

      the inter-Allied war effort, free of any royalty or other payments from the United States. Had Churchill been able to insist on adequate royalties for these inventions, both our wartime and our post-war balance of payments would have been very different.

  37. NoMoreWar
    Stop

    Most people don't care and the more problems the war machine has, the better!

    Lewis,

    I know you've chosen a career as a commenter on military matters and you are probably British so your perspective is understandable but I wish you'd consider wider aspects of the issue such as why the UK is in Afghanistan in the first place. Or should that be second place?

    Are you serious when you say "...that without the Harrier carriers the war of 1982 would have been a bloody, disastrous defeat for the UK."? How would defeat in the Malvinas have been disastrous other than for the war dead and injured, and the small number of British who live there? Consider that Thatcher could have been removed earlier and the UK might now have the most technologically advanced coal and steel industry in the world. Imagine if Major had been replaced by someone with a conscience instead of Blair. Someone who might have kept the UK from repeating its Afghan mistakes, not to mention Iraq. Consider what all the wasted lives on both sides could have achieved had they stayed at home.

    By all means keep the superior Harrier for home defense in England if you must and bin the Tornado. Think what could be done with the savings. Just burning the oil to heat hospitals, schools, factories, and homes would be so much better than sending lethal aircraft half way round the world to someone else's country where they are not wanted, not welcome, and not helping.

    The troops, airmen and sailors should go home early for Christmas and leave the Afghanis alone! It's a mess and the UK has no role in its solution without a radical rethink and a commitment to stop killing people and support leaders who do not server their people's interests.

    The Tornado and the Harrier have rained death from above in Afghanistan and elsewhere and gotten its citizens killed into the bargain for no reason that's of use to them.

    The UK can use it's science and tech for good instead of evil. Support the troops by calling for them to be brought home!

    "War is over, if you want it". (John Lennon - a British hero).

    1. Silent but Deadly

      Wrong journal.

      This is the Register. I think you are looking for The Appeaser.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: Most people don't care and the more problems the war machine has, the better!

      ".....The troops, airmen and sailors should go home early for Christmas and leave the Afghanis alone....." Slight problem - we did leave them alone, the West effectively abandoned Afghanistan to the machinations of the Indians and Pakistan as soon as the Russians had left, and all that did was ensure the Taleban got in (courtesy of the Pakistanis) and subsequently let AQ set up shop. AQ then came after the US with 9/11. Since the Taleban wouldn't give up on their jihadi buddies in AQ, the Alliance went in to dismantle the Taleban administration and clear out the AQ camps. We would quite happilly have lect the Afghans to kill each other for years to come, but they chose to side with AQ, whom had no intention of leaving us alone, and hence the reason why our troops, airmen and sailors are there.

      And John Lennon was a drug-addled moron given to ego-massaging politics and grandstanding, definately not a hero in any shape or form.

  38. Goat Jam
    Thumb Up

    Personally

    I reckon they should bring back the Spitfire. Now THAT was a cool airplane.

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Lets Fire An Electronic Cruise Missile

    ..right into the Cloud of Lewis' Arguments.

    1.) "Harrier saved the Fleet in 1982". No, it led to the destruction of HMS Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor and the quite a few more non-trivial ships. An "HMS Kitty Hawk" with her F14s, AIM54 long-range missiles and the HawkEye Radar would have provided Effective Defense. Harriers can operate in a 200 miles Radius, realistically, while the swept-wing F14 can easily do 600 miles. It can do supersonic dashes. And then it launches the AIM54 with 200 miles range. Pretty hard scenario for the FAA to get through.

    Except for carrier landing, the Tornado is a very similar aircraft to the F14.

    And no, contrary to Rolls-Royce propaganda, the Kitty Hawk is not nuclear-powered.

    2.) "Argie Special Ops Could Destroy the Runway". Yes, if the Royal Muppets can't make a fortress out of the airbase. Too busy to fight America's wars somewhere else, I guess. No time to defend British Citizen's on their Property in the South Atlantic....

    For starters, I would

    A) lay a 500 meters-deep minefield around the airbase

    B) buy all sorts of sensors and install them. RADAR, SIGINT, IR, Acoustic, Chemical (yes, troopers and choppers smell !)

    C) construct lots of small bunkers and equip them with copious amounts of ammo and the latest ATGMs.

    D) Have a large number of mobile Exocet launchers mounted on Lorrys at hand.

    E) Have sufficient manning & training for the security force.

    F) Read a book on the Maginot Line. It worked. The french only had not enough money to make it long enough. Airbases are rather small compared to france.

    G) Install several concealed Patriot launchers.

    H) Have copious amounts of Stinger IR missiles at the ready.

    J) Have at least 5 Panzerhaubitze 2000 artillery tanks ready in concealed locations.

    K) Lots of spotters with the best IR equipment and LO crypto links to HQ.

    3.) If they still manage to take out the airbase, use the A330 MRTT tankers, AWACS and Tornadoes to mount an attack and combat air patrols from Ascencion Island. It's 3900 miles, but a single A330 can lift 110 tons of fuel into the air and the Tornado itself has a very long range. Because of the two-seat concept, the pilot can sleep while the WSO looks at the RADAR/monitors everything. A Tornado can operate for days Above The Falklands if enough RAF/RAAF Air Tankers are available.

    Also hand the Tornado pilots some amount of Dextroamphetamine. That makes them stay awake for 60 hours, if required. Not a nice concept, but war is not nice anyway.

    http://misc.thefullwiki.org/Dexedrine

    4.) Attack FAA airbases and Argie Ships with A330 MRTT/Tornado and distance weapons like

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM (Italy and the US currently develop and advanced version)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS.34_Kormoran

    5.) Currently, the ADV Tornado is a much, much better Weapon to defend the Falklands than the Harrier because it has at least three times larger Combat Radius and can at the same time carry four times more weapons. It can do buddy-buddy refueling to extend range. It can do supersonic dashes to intercept fast planes and missiles.

    The two-officer concept means that Human Endurance is not as big a problem as with Harrier and EFA.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      Re: Lets Fire An Electronic Cruise Missile

      I guess we can send you the bill for all this, right?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Go

        Bill ??

        All the equipment is either ordered or already available. UK recently also bought RC135 Rivet Joint a/c to replace Nimrod SIGINT.

        RC135 would certainly play a very important role.

        Also, some more refuelling equipment should be ordered from Cobham for BA's 747s and (future) A380s. They can certainly also ship 100 tons of fuel per plane and sortie. That would be the only extra bill.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Go

        @anon: Ahh, you Mean the Maginot Line ?

        Well, that's not that expensive. Panzerhaubitze 2000 goes at 5 million Euros/piece; Patriot is probably a bit more than that.

        Anyway, much cheaper than flying aircraft of any type.

        The Falklands oil wil pay for that.

    2. Anton Ivanov

      BIG hole in your argument

      The MTBF of a Tornado is only several hours of flight time. Yes, exactly - several hours. That is actually the case with all modern military aircraft except the big bombers and patrol aircraft. It has gone to a point where some have a mandatory replacement on major components like the WHOLE engine after 100-200 flight hours (Mig 25 is the prime example here).The two digit MTBF numbers and four digit number of hours of engine resource achieved by the latest Su-35 and the F-35 are actually heralded as a major achievement by their manufacturers. While most faults are not critical and the plane can continue flying (and does on a casual basis) it has to go back to base where the mechanics will spend half a day crawling all over it.

      So In any case - the Tornadoes are not loitering anywhere anytime and can realistically run only a few Big-Buck style missions from Ascencion before half of BAE's Bristol workforce will be needed down there to fix them up for the next round.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Go

        @Anton Ivanov

        Engine reliability is not the issue in the west. It was an issue with the Mig29, which even had a quick-change (less than one hour) feature. So the NVA and the Soviet Airforce simply stored lots of engines for the Mig29, I guess.

        Western engines easily run 800 hours and the fighters more likely have an MTBF issue with the RADAR.

        But the RR Merlin had serious MTBF issues also and they were simply fixed by running dozens of examples at highest load until they broke. Then disassemble, analyze problem and slightly modify design. After some time, Merlin flew from London to Schweinfurt and back and killed one or two badly trained Luftwaffe youths in the process.

        I can't see why the same would not work with Tornado. And if the BAE guys have to do some overtime in tents on Ascension Island, they finally deliver Value For Money.

        The made the Challenger working also.

        Many circuits in the Tornado could simply be replaced by highly reliable FPGAs at moderate cost.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FPGA

        They can even run Linux these days....

        1. arkhangelsk

          Obvious weak points can be weeded that way

          But sooner or later you run out of those and into a wall because a jet is a very complicated complex of equipment, and though each part is very reliable, there are enough of them that within a few hours, somewhere, one of them will give out from random chance.

    3. gpfwestie

      Except for carrier landing

      "Except for carrier landing, the Tornado is a very similar aircraft to the F14."

      Indeed, we have no carriers to land a Tornado (or F14) on.

      So if we are lucky in the next conflict, we will have an ally who will let us use their airbase.

      Our closest ally in the 80's was the US - they did not allow us to use their runways for the Falkands conflict.

  40. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Are Harriers better than Tornados in Afghanistan

    I am not sure it is a given that the Harrier is a better frame than the Tornando for Afghanistan. From a humble infantry perspective the Tornado can carry more bombs (or surveillance for that matter) for longer and get to me quicker. If Kandahar Airfield is lost (and is hasn't been yet despite no lack of trying on Terry's behalf) there are plentry of reserves in and around Afghanistan. If you're dropping guided bombs from altitude (which is all you really want under the policy of courageous restraint) manouvrability isn't that relevant surely?

    1. Giles Jones Gold badge

      Subsonic vs supersonic

      The Tornado is supersonic, max speed of about 1,500 MPH.

      The Harrier is not supersonic, it's max speed is around 735MPH.

      Not a big deal if you're not fighting other planes, but it's a big deal in air combat.

      As far as vertical take-off planes are concerned, the US have much better options in development. We're actually contributing to the funding as well, see below:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II

    2. gpfwestie

      We're not on our own in Afghanistan

      In Afghanistan, we have air cover from A10's, Strike Eagles etc, we can do without because the US will provide.

      That won't happen if we are in a conflict by ourselves, and no amount of Tornado's sat 4000 miles away will help.

  41. paulc
    FAIL

    Carriers

    If we'd had proper aircraft carriers with gannets and phantoms back in '82, the argies wouldn't have dared... but no, we had those poxy little through-deck cruisers with ski ramps that allowed previous administrations to get away with scrapping the real carriers

    1. gpfwestie

      CAH

      Well we wouldn't even have had them if some clever Navy bod hadn't classified them as 'helicopter carrying heavy cruisers'.

      Aircraft carriers being a dirty word at the time with 'that' government (take a guess).

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      correct

      very very accurate fella!

  42. Clyde

    white poppies

    All this energy and talk about the best way to kill people, dearie me ......

    I'm going to shamelessly put in a plug here for the alternative remembrance day symbol - the white poppy.

    Used in the same way as the traditional red poppies, the white poppy shows support for those who suffered and died in conflict. But at the same time NOT supporting the idea of conflict.

    Most unfortuneately the red poppy has now been hijacked by the bomb 'em shoot-em-up brigade, which is glorified by the tabloids. God only knows what He thinks about all this killing, destruction, and wanton mayhem in His name.

    Anyway, maybe too late for this year, for today, but for next year and thereafter : there are outlets where you can buy a white poppy all over the UK. Go search engine it.

  43. TkH11

    @Dave15

    You say that Americans didn't lend us didly squat, not in WW2 or the Falklands.

    That's not actually true, in a literal sense it is, because they didn't lend equipment to us, we bought it from them. But the thrust of your post was that American's haven't helped us out.

    This isn't true.

    During 1982 in the Falkland's war the American's offered us, expedited the supply of a new version of Sidewinder air to air missile which had a good enough heat seaking head to enable the missle to be launched head on to an oncomming enemy aircraft. This was a brand new and key piece of armament for the harriers which helped us win that war.

    The current version of the sidewinders we had in stock could only be launched from behind an enemy aircraft, in order to detect the hot jet exhaust and tail pipe of the engines.

  44. Mips
    Jobs Halo

    Boys Toys

    Bragging rights strike again.

    Harrier is Navy: Navy guys love it: it can do no wrong.

    Tornado is RAF: Navy guys hate it, say it is no good.

    The facts are ignored. This seems to be the default position in the modern armed services.

    The facts are the Tornado has greater load, speed and duration, however, Harrier will fly from a makeshift runway. But in relation to Afghanistan it is irrelevant that a Harrier can fly from an aircraft carrier. Neither aircraft is particularly good at what it does, Harrier is very much a one trick pony.

    The reality is that the Services cannot support such large forces and to meet the current task the answer is a no-brainer. If we talk about future tasks, about the Falklands and Argentina then we should be talking about how they may be defended not about how they may be won back.

  45. TkH11

    @AC 80186

    There's a reason whyy space shuttles use old technology, because it works.

    It's been proven to work, it's been in service for years before they start to use it.

    Would you risk putting the latest 64 bit Athlon processor in a shuttle?

    The technology is so new. The feature size of the chip is so low, the transistors on the chip are much smaller and therefore less reliable, greater probability of failure.

    Modern electronics with submicron feature sizes won't last as long as above micron feature sizes.

    I recall some years ago seeing a PDP-11 computer in use, the date code on the chips dated back to 1975, the chips had been in operation for 25 years, does anyone honestly think a modern PC would last that long?

  46. J 7

    Harriers don't have guns

    One overlooked problem with Julian Thompson's argument. The most important weapon a close-air-support aircraft can have is a gun. The Sea Harrier had them. The old Falkands -era Harrier GR3 had them. The Tornado has them. The current generation of GR7/GR9 Harriers do not due to technical problems, even though the yanks successfully mated guns to their equivalent AV-8B Harriers

    Its not so long ago that this very website was quoting a British commander as describing the current Harrier's support capabilities as "fucking useless" due to the missing guns. The problem is that combat is at such short range that using bombs or rockets would be too inaccurate, besides which they're a "one shot" weapon: miss and you've nothing left. With a gun you can come back for a second attempt

    In reality the ideal air platform for use in Afghanistan would be a stealthed version of the Argentine Pucara. Take one of those, redesign the fuselage and wings using materials and structures developed from stealth drones and you'd have a stable, accurate weapons platform with little chance of being detected

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Last Time I Checked

      ...laser guided 50kg Bombs would definitely come down very precisely and make two pieces out of any house.

      Tornado can easily carry 15 of these. So you actually have 15 shots. The problem is more that the London bankers have pissed away the money needed to buy the laser designators, secure comms and FLIR cameras.

      1. J 7

        @ Admiral of the pink

        the problem is not bombing houses - its bombing enemy combatants in close hand - to - hand fighting. No tanks in those hills, so the aircraft have to act as airborne support artillery. The blast radius of even a 50kg bomb would in many cases be more than the contact distance between the two sides. Add that to the natural inaccuracy (even LGBs can miss) and the risk of killing your own forces is too high. There have been well documented instances of UK troops pinned down by enemy fire, needing air support and all was available was a bombed-up Harrier - which was rendered impotent by the close contact distance

    2. sT0rNG b4R3 duRiD
      Stop

      Geez Louise....

      Pull back all your assets.

      Just get the lazy yanks to bring in more A-10's to pick up the slack. Seems to me they want this more by and large more than you do.

      Better idea, thinking out of the box.

      How about pulling out of Afghanistan all together. Honestly, what does all that fighting achieve?

      Does it actually kill terrorists? Or create more? Is it like trying to fight an oilrig fire with a water hose? Many many people have died. Must more die in vain?

      Why not get to the root of the problem and deal with it?

      Does anyone truly believe afghanistan is the root of this 'terror' issue? And if it were, would 'pacifiying it' solve the issue? Honestly, what do you hope to achieve in Afghanistan? The soviets couldn't effectively control it then, what makes you think you can do it now?

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        RE: Geez Louise....

        "Pull back all your assets....." Whilst the rest of your post is pretty mindless drivel, the opener is actually a good idea. I would like to see a significant cut in our commitments to correspond with any cuts. We can pull all out forces out of Europe for a start, other than bases that have strategic value (like the Cyprus bases). If the politicians want out troops to do with less then it's only fair to ask our troops to do less. That goes for noddy UN and EU missions as well. I'd also like to see any cuts in foreign aid first before any more cuts at home or to UK forces, which will upest the handwringers, but I'd much rather see my tax money being spent on the problems at home before we go trying to sort out the problems of a largely unthankful World.

        ".....How about pulling out of Afghanistan all together...." That's the plan, only we need to have a stable and democratic Afghan government and some infrastructure in place first. The problem is the fuedal setup in Afghanistan means they argue and bicker like children, with no experience of what democracy actually means, and know they can go on doing so as the Allies will still protect them whilst they do so. To pull out before the country is stable and has a functioning police and army would be to hand the country back to the Taleban on a plate, and then that would mean AQ being back with a protected base to plan more attacks on the West. Simply hoping AQ will ignore us if we leave is just the height of willful stupidity.

        ".....Does it actually kill terrorists?...." The US is too scared of the shades of Viet Nam to post kill ratios, but I'm told our footsloggers alone are killing a lot more Taleban than they kill our troops. And our very restrictive rules of engagement mean they are killing armed Taleban. The locals are used to seeing the Taleban winning, so every time the Taleban lose they get more confident that the Taleban can be beaten. But I'm also told the locals are terrified the Allies will leave before the country is safe. The ironic thing is, if the Taleban actually meant what they say about just wanting foreign troops out ASAP, then all they would have to do is sit back, wait for elections and the Allies to leave, and then attack. The reason they are attacking now is becasue they know the people will fight back if they have an alternative, and because the actions in places like Helmand are seriously damaging their herion-smuggling activities, which is still their main source of cash and influence. And before you start the usual nonsense about how the Taleban willingly destroyed heroin poppy crops when they were in power, they targeted their competitors to cut supply and drive up the market price, meaning the Taleban made more money from their smuggling.

        "....Does anyone truly believe afghanistan is the root of this 'terror' issue?...." No, but "extremist militant Islamism" (AKA jihadism) does seem to be the root of the "terror" issue. And seeing as that's exactly the type of Islam preached by the Taleban and their friends, it would seem a very good idea to keep them from seizing power again.

        "....Honestly, what do you hope to achieve in Afghanistan?...." Peace, democracy and prosperity for the Afghan people. Failing that, the US administration will probably settle for a puppet regime that keeps the Taleban busy. Because we'd rather not be fighting anyone, but we'd much rather be fighting them far away from our homes, and if we can pay someone else to fight them for us so we don't get any of our boys and gals coing home in bodybags then we will. If the Taleban really wanted peace then all they would need to do is surrender their arms, agree to the new Afghan constitutuion, and form a political party to fight elections if they want a say in power. But the reality is the Taleban just want to impose their choices on all Afghans, which is just a recipe for ongoing civil war as the Taleban way was and is not popular with all Afghans. Strange that you don't seem too bothered about asking what the Taleban hope to achieve....

  47. robin penny
    Megaphone

    ****** Petition *******

    Has somebody got the time to set up a petition here:

    petitions.number10.gov.uk

    This is of national importance and the people should have their say.

    I would do it myself, but I wouldn't be very articulate with the wording.

  48. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    One sided argument is one sided

    As somebody with experience coordinating CAS in Afghanistan I can tell you that the Tornado is far more capable one it gets off the ground (the crux of your argument, apparently)

    2 seater means more effective in solo aircraft operations, not one stick monkey getting maxed out.

    Bigger range and loiter time due to bigger tanks.

    Bigger payload and larger range of munitions.

    RAPTOR giving exceptional recon capability.

    Noisier and shit scarier when performing shows-of-force against terry taliban.

    But hey Lewis, don't let balance get in the way of writing your article and your seemingly pointless job at El Reg.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      good points but.....to the post

      1 - Harriers have flown over 3000 sorties and only failed to attend 1

      2 - Tornado have failed to attend over 800 sorties

      3 - 2 Harriers are fired up (prepared for 1 sortie)

      4 - 4 Tornado are fired up to ensure 1 gets in the air

      5 - The turning circle of a tornado is 14 miles (think about that.. aircraft drops one bomb.. then wait wait and continue waiting a few minutes for a second drop)

      6 - The turning circle of a Harrier is 500 metres... think about the turn around time

      7 - the harrier has a sophisticated suite of FLIR forward light infra red (night vision) hard ware and software for surveylance and has camera pods

      8 - Tornado have no flight deck capability

      9 - Harriers do

      10 - Tornado have no in-flight refuelling capability

      11 - Harriers have proved cross functional with Italian & US carriers

      Harriers are versatile exceptional weapons platforms and extremely good Value For Money - People really should think or research before opening their mouths on things they know little or nothing about. That is all!

  49. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    WTF?

    Where to start?

    Firstly, Lewis knows full well that the Chinooks on order will not arrive until after the planned withdrawl from the Afghan, so twelve or twenty-two makes bugger all difference to operations in Afghanistan. This has been pointed out several times by different posters, so I assume the twit spends as little time reading the comments to his own articles as he spends researching them in the first place.

    Secondly, the Argentineans are not particularly keen on a second crack at the Falklands. Their own military has been castrated and is now largely dependent on their neighbours for large operations (their Etendards are now flown from a Brazillian carrier!), and their economy is in even a bigger mess than ours. Then there is the added factor that the general populance was devastated by the losses of the first attempt and wouldn't be too eager to lose more young men. Their main failing in the first attempt was they simply assumed they could move in, sit it out until the Winter, and Britain would fold. This meant they didn't really plan a balanced force, sent no armour other than armoured cars (which stuck to the roads) and Amtraks (which didn't move outside of Stanley). They could have shipped in their AMX light tanks by air if required. But their biggest mistake was thinking the Falklanders would accept them - they were genuinely shocked when the locals told them to bugger off!

    Which underlines another point. The Falklands Islands are a self-governing British Overseas Territory, which means they are British until the locals want independence, and therefore we are committed to defending them. They pay taxes (and with the oil exploration it looks like they will be providing plenty more revenue for HM Treasury) and so therefore have every right to expect the Government to provide them with the best defence possible. In essence, it's just as if the Argentineans threatened to waltz in and take Liverpool, we have a duty to defend the locals from foreign aggression (well, OK, we'd probably quite happilly let them keep Scouserland!).

    But, the chances of an operation in the Falklands look pretty remote just now, much less urgent than the pressing issue of Afghanistan and possibly Iran. Whilst Harrier is arguably as good as the Tornados in the Afghan, if we need to punch holes in Iran we'll need the Tornados. Simple as that. The new carrier(s) won't arrive long until after we've pulled out of the Afghan, and probably not in time for any major confrontation with Iran. But any such likely attack on Iran will be as junior partner to the US, which means there will be plenty of USN carriers if naval air support is required, and bases in Saudi, Quatar, Bahrain and Iraq for Tornados and Typhoons to fly from for other missions (like bombing Iranian nuke facilities).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      Also forgot to mention

      Chinooks and any other military aircraft are just large and expensive paper weights unless you have the pilots to fly them. So 12, 20, or 200 doesn't really matter if the RAF didn't recruit and start training the pilot 4 years ago.

      Oh, that might have required the previous governments to have a foregin policy and defence strategy, rather than a re-election strategy.

  50. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Pirate

    PS - please help these Marines

    I'm sure Lewis will have donated, seeing as he frets so much about "our boys".....

    http://www.thegumpathon.com/index.php

  51. Kingfisher

    Literary Foresight?

    2006 - Patrick Robinson - Ghost Force

    Read this book and you'll see some people clearly saw this coming a long time ago. The similarities to the recent oil exploration/discoveries around the Falklands are spooky to say the least.

    Sure, the plot line is a little far out but the political background and the cuts referred to are frighteningly familiar.

  52. J 7

    @ Robin Penny re petition

    No new petitions allowed and the existing ones have been closed - unless they'd already hit 500 sigs

    see http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/new

  53. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    Classic Case of interservice politics and creative truth telling

    Truth is we need both the harrier and the tornado, but if you HAVE to choose, Harrier are todays threats and tommorows actions, where as the tornado is in use now.

    bottom line is a modern navy vessel is a floating target if it is not covered by ASW helo and Harriers. Look at the mess the argentine airforce did to us with dumb bombs that where not properly fused in many cases. (RN ships have a pathetic point defence capacity, and 40 mile SAMs are useless if it is physically impossible to see the supersonic attack jet below the horizon 20 miles away)

    However the wet type supporters are mis-representing facts. the payload for a tornado is more than a harrier can take on a rolling take off. VTOL/STOVOL payload is minimal. The tornado whilst ideally operated in the locality can be flown on extended operations with a large payload by using air to air refuling (although we have problems with that capability as well)

    The altidue and heat, thin the air, this is a problem for ALL aircraft, not just a tornado, just ask any airline pilot who has flown out of Mexico City. Hence the RAF's pushing the envelope on take off, is probably because the pilot thought it worth the risk in order to arrive on site with a decent amount of payload, rather than just two bombs and have to go home again.

    So expect lots of wheeling out of old war horses to support that services vested interests (RAF and RN/FAA), with mass use not lying, but the creative presentation and misrepresentation of the truth.

  54. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What I'd like to see

    Is Lewis give a quick run through some countries he thinks are doing things right vis a vis their militaries. Obviously none are a precise match for the UK, but it'd be interesting to know if the Germans, Swedes and the like are doing better and spending less.

  55. Sumack

    Don't forget Typhoon

    I support Lewis but a key point he is missing is that in assessing what aircraft are needed it's not just a Harrier vs Tornado debate but it's about the whole RAF inventory.

    All of the weapons carried by Tornado can be carried by later batches of the Typhoon. There are therefore no capabilities that we would be loosing from the RAF inventory if we withdrew Tornado. You would still have a twin engined, high speed combat airctaft capable of carrying LGB's, Storm Shadow, ALARM, etc.

    You do have capabilities in the Harrier that are not available elswhere in the inventory, most particularly the ability to operate from a carrier.

    We are therefore losing more capability by withdrawing the Harrier (whose capabilities are not reflected alswehere in our aircraft inventory) than the Tornado (whose capabilities are available elsewhere in the inventory).

    A sensible review would have:

    1) Scrapped Tornado and used some of the savings to fund more Chinooks, C117's and air to ground capability for the Typhoon and Nimrod

    2) Kept the Harrier

    3) Kept Nimrod (after we've paid all the money for it) but given it an LGB capability so that it could be used in a loitering bomber role in the way in which the US use their B52's and B1's thus giving it more relevance than a purely ASW platform.

    4) Kept Sentinel given its relevance to COIN operations.

    5) Transferred all RAF helicopters to the Army Air Corp and saved all the staff office jobs created by the joint helicopter command.

    Sadly we just got stupid Treasury inspired salami slicing removing a little bit of every type of capability as per every set of defence cuts dressed up as a defience review over the last 20 years.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Pirate

      RE: Don't forget Typhoon

      ".....There are therefore no capabilities that we would be loosing from the RAF inventory if we withdrew Tornado....." Well, there is a big argument for having a two-seater attack plane. For a start, it removes a big workload (navigation, weapon selection, target designation, communication, radar control, counter-measures) from the pilot so he can spend more time head-up and looking out (for other aircraft or just for the ground if flying low). There is also the question of specialist roles such as electronic counter measures aircraft - is is easier to refit a two-seater that was built as a two-seater than to convert the trainer version of a single-seater. Even the Yanks recognise this, their closest strike equivalents to the Tornado (and old Buccaneer) are the F-15E Strike Eagle and F/A-18D, both two-seaters developed (expensively) from their single-seater versions. We could develop the two-seater Eurofighter to provide a similar capability, but that would probably be much more expensive than modifying the Tornados we have now.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Headmaster

        Typhoon T1

        We already have 2 seat version of the Eurofighter, it's the T1 version used for OCU/Training.

        We also spread some of the the cockpit workload by use of fighter controllers, either ground side or on the E3. (something we got good at when we had to use the blue circle fighter, the ADV tornado originally came with concrete instead of a working radar)

        The typhoon also has a lot of automation in the cockpit by comparison to early aircraft, as information overload was something that the RAF & A&AEE has considered a problem since at least the 1980's.

  56. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    Still Saving At The Wrong Place

    According to

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Falkland_Islands

    the British Army on the Islands is a joke. Maybe wikipedia doesn't know all, but if they truely don't have Challengers and ATGM cars/superlight tanks. See this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesel_AWC

    The original problem at the Falklands stemmed from the puny ground force and the same problem seems to exist again.

    If they at least had 100 vehicles carrying 5 TOW or Milan and an MG42 each, it could be a very nasty reception for any attacker.

    Maybe the British Army should learn from the Somalian Militias ? Lots of pickups with MG42s are enough to even boot out Uncle Sam !!

    Maybe there is zero need for Tornado, Eurofighter, Harrier, whatnot etc ?

    Every Falklander (male and female older than 16 years and not medically incapable) must own and be able to operate an MG42 and 10000 rounds of ammo. The most capable get TOWs and Stingers.

    Problem solved.

    1. TonySpoons
      WTF?

      re: Still Saving At The Wrong Place

      MG42s are enough to boot out Uncle Sam? Train every Falklander in the operation of the MG42???

      Go back to Call of Duty Captain McWarHero; Your tactical insight is wasted here.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      ingenious

      very outside the box thinking ..I love it!

  57. Anonymous Coward
    Go

    Anyone Remember the Longbow ?

    All able men were required to have one and train with it regularly. Replace that with the modern equivalent and you are done.

    Switzerland does it to the present day.

  58. E 2

    "Valueless"

    Hmm, I live in Alberta and we've got more oil than the rest of the planet in our green enviro-friendly bird-safe Tar Sands that do not cause genetic damage or birth defects amongst people living in the vicinity. And... why are those people living near our Tar Sands anyway?

    So, OK, there's perhaps a bit of oil near the Falklands. But it's relatively valueless.

  59. Anonymous Coward
    Go

    The Battle Of Mogadishu: A Well-Armed Populace

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29

    "Military fallout

    This section does not cite any references or sources.

    Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2010)

    Chalk Four Ranger returns to base after a mission in Somalia, 1993.

    In a national security policy review session held in the White House on October 6, 1993, U.S. President Bill Clinton directed the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral David E. Jeremiah, to stop all actions by U.S. forces against Aidid except those required in self-defense. He also reappointed Ambassador Robert B. Oakley as special envoy to Somalia in an attempt to broker a peace settlement and then announced that all U.S. Forces would withdraw from Somalia no later than March 31, 1994. On December 15, 1993, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin stepped down, taking much of the blame for what was deemed a failed policy. A few hundred Marines remained offshore to assist with any noncombatant evacuation mission that might occur regarding the 1,000-plus U.S. civilians and military advisers remaining as part of the U.S. liaison mission."

    So I forgot the RPG-7s. But certainly the Falklanders could afford something a slightly better:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust_3

    All those MG42s, Stingers and Panterfausts would be much cheaper than all the airforce and navy flycrafts. Especially if training & maintenance is taken into account.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like