Having a capable deterrent helps to ensure these tasks can remain 'safe ops' now and hopefully into the future. If they never have to fire a missile in anger they've done their job (of protecting actual sovereign territory) more effectively then if they have had just cause to engage the enemy entering our protected air space. That they are capable and would prevail in such an encounter is the acid test and one I have every confidence they would pass if called on to do so.



Unlike you I really can't get myself all worked up over the fact a plane designed under the banner 'EuroFighter' is at present being used primarily in the role of errrrrr ....... for want of a better word ....... fighter. Establishing air superiority and flying combat air patrols is what I'd expect of a fighter and unsurprisingly (to me at least) that's what it's been tasked to do.

If it had been conceived as the 'EuroBomber' I'd be disappointed how things had progressed to this point.



I can't say I can get myself worked up about that fact either. The Tornado IDS was the 'EuroBomber' concept in action. Has the Tornado GR4 to this point remained in service beyond it's anticipated retirement date? Here's a crazy thought, perhaps the RAF should simply continue to deploy them in the role they excel at while they still have it available.

As for the future is it too late to launch a consultation to see what should eventually replace Tornado? My guess the answer could be Tornado, a multi billion pound refit could then be procured and when the airframes are 90% complete the scrapman gets to come in, erect a few screens and smash them to pieces with his JCB.

Nah that could never happen.

I expect when the Tornado does come to retire a future engagement would shape up something like this

This debt you speak of doesn't appear to be effecting the UK's ability to make huge sandcastles in another Middle-Eastern desert for what could turn out to be yet another open ended commitment.

I too wish the UK government would concentrate on ensuring this island nation cannot become blockaded by nuclear armed submarines but I'm hoping with a bit of luck and fingers crossed we'll be alright.

I agree with you comment.

However the point we were discussing, if you recall, was that you challenged my comment that the Typhoon was making its much delayed (how many years?) debut in a combat situation (ie war situation) So perhaps it would be easier to acknowlege this rather than pretend that flying over the Fauklands and around our coasts is a wartime situation.




Our earlier discussions were regarding the huge cost and technical problems of the Typhoon. My opinion was that it should have been cancelled years ago with the savings used to buy the sort of aircraft more suited to todays conflicts.

The need for a highly manoverable fighter has now diminished. Had the Typhoon been delivered on time and had it not had so many technical problems then we may have had some better value from it. Now the hope is that it can become more effective in ground attack.

May I point out that it is not the Typhoon that has "established air superiority" This position has been achieved by the ground attack from maritime and coalition aircraft including precision work from the ageing Tornado. Now that the no fly zone has been established and Gadaffi has no ability to use his military aircraft the Typhoon takes the stage to police the skies with little chance of "combat" unless it is used in some way for ground attack.




Are you refering to that other huge waste of money the Nimrod that still had over 100 faults (including the same one that cost so many lives when it came down several years ago) even after the latest upgrade. MOD lack of contract management at its very worst. Shame it had such a sad end as it was a very graceful old lady but unfit for purpose. Its origin was the Comet which I flew on in the early 70's (with extra insurance of course)



I know you don't like to speak of the Brown/Balls debt for obvious reasons. Or are you a deficit/debt denier? The additional cost of our Libyan action is being covered by the Treasury reserve, however I would like to see us recover these costs from the Arab League countries or even from the frozen libyan assets.

From the tone of your comments are you saying you would have voted to ignore the pleas from the Libyan protesters as they were about to be massacred?

And would you have voted to ignore our responsibility to the UN resolution?

Germany abstained. D'ya think it'll suffer any ramifications ?

If they won't contribute personnel why not [itheir[/i Eurofighters ?

"Plane Finder" app for the Iphone, lets you track commercial airline flight paths around the world

This roundabout never ends. Which war has the Typhoon missed? The Typhoon has replaced the F3's, with multi-role capability coming on stream and swing-role to follow. The ability to switch from air to air to air to ground while in flight is exactly the type of capability/versatility that will be useful.



Any more stable doors you would like to close. I'm only really interested in the here and now and future requirements and meeting those with wherever possible British design and manufacture albeit as part of a European consortium these days as R&D costs are prohibitive for all but the biggest and wealthiest nations and we're not one of those. (Is it about now you suggest the UK purchase some F22 Raptors and pretend the good old US of A wouldn't dream of selling arms to countries/states in the middle east.)



As I expect it will and then fit nicely in the plan I outlined in the previous post. The sooner the better as far as the treasury is concerned. Although I'd at least like to see Tornado retained in the recce role.



Air superiority is ensuring the skies are kept clear of adversarial planes, whereby if they take to the skies they get taken down by 'allied' fighters. Suppression of surface to air defences obviously plays a large part of that mission also.




The Times Article? I haven't seen it and you haven't as yet expanded much beyond the headline (it's behind a pay-wall online and that's where it can stay for me) however I have found this online with explanation/rebuttals in brackets from someone involved intimately with the project. His comments I've highlighted in red.

Below is the Sunday Times article with considered factual responses in brackets. You will be left in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the MoD, through the 'restricted' document have spread malicious, inaccurate information about the status of the aircraft in an attempt to deflect everyone from the truth.

Nimrods had 'critical fault'
Simon McGee
THE nine Nimrod aircraft cancelled amid a storm of condemnation and at a cost of £4 billion were designed with the same critical safety fault blamed for the downing of an RAF Nimrod in 2006 with the loss of 14 lives. Liam Fox, the defence secretary, has been accused of leaving a "massive gap" in the nation's security by scrapping the fleet of maritime patrol planes. But classified documents seen by The Sunday Times reveal Ministry of Defence (MoD) safety tests conducted last year on the first Nimrod MRA4, built by BAE Systems, found "several hundred design non-compliances". (Non-compliances are a fact of life. They are either agreed, in which case they become part of the updated Design Baseline, or are fixed.)

Among them were problems opening and closing the bomb bay doors, (the Bomb-bay Doors opened fine thank you)failures of the landing gear to deploy (the landing gear never failed to deploy/retract once in the 5 years I flew on the program – there were 2 instances of Nose wheel door indication failure due to incorrectly positioned nosewheel door microswitches – this was partly a result of the original part manufacturer going out of business and the replacement sensors being of a slightly different design, a fact that wasn't picked up until the first occurrence at which point it was fixed)overheating engines (no recollection of any engine overheat during flight trials – there may have been one induced deliberately as part of flight test but I don't think so – utter crap) gaps in the engine walls (true – gaps were found between the engine bay fire wall and surrounding structure. Temporary fix employed to enable flight test to continue whilst reason identified and permanent fix embodied through production) limitations operating in icy conditions (because QinetiQ hadn't finished its final recommendations, that's why it was called an Incremental Release to Service, as QinetiQ provided wider clearances, the RTS expanded) concerns that "a single bird-strike" could disable the aircraft's controls (there was a theoretical possibility that a suicidal albatross could somehow fly directly into the Bomb bay – whilst the doors were open of course – miss the life rafts and everything else in there – and impact a specific area about 6ins long x 4ins wide that may have ultimately had an adverse effect on the aileron system. A cover guard was being designed.)

However, the most serious problem discovered by Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) inspectors at MoD Abbey Wood in Bristol involved a still unresolved design flaw. It concerns the proximity of a hot air pipe to an uninsulated fuel line, widely blamed for an explosion on board Nimrod XV230 on September 2, 2006, near Kandahar airport in Afghanistan. A three-page summary of the faults, labelled "restricted" and written on September 17, last year, stated At this point it became obvious that a design solution would be needed, this was in the process of being worked and agreed. The temporary workround was to isolate the No1 Tank, this would have resulted in a temporary restriction to RAF training flights of around 3 hours duration plus div fuel if only No4 Tanks fuel was carried.)

One more point. Given the investigations into the leaking of documents, that this Government is so concerned about, for example, the dozens of MoD police who are involed in investigating who leaked Liam Fox's letter to the PM, why has there been no announcment of an investigation into the leaking of this 'restricted' document to the Times?

You pay your money and take your choice. Personally I side with the view expressed by someone heavily involved on the project rather than some half-baked, politically motivated propoganda, leaked to the Murdoch press but then I would say that wouldn't I.

____________

Meanwhile beyond dispute is the fact the two 51 Squadron Nimrod R1's operated out of RAF Waddington have been given a, for now at least, 3 month stay of execution (was mentioned in the opening question at this week's PMQs) and are both on station out in the North Africa/Middle East region carrying out their Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance role (one operating out of Seeb in Oman supporting Operation Herrick, and the other from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus believed to be monitoring the situation in Libya.)

The R1's replacement is not scheduled to arrive in service until 2014 (only a three year gap then (if it arrives on time) created by the Treasury driven SDSR of last Autumn, better than a ten year wait I suppose. The SDSR basically took a risk certain assets wouldn't be needed for a few years and within six months it's 'blown up' in their inexperienced, know the cost of everything but the value of nothing, faces and caused a re-think (luckily for the politicians just in time re Nimrod R1 and HMS Cumberland.)

I also note the RAF don't appear to have been heavily engaged in bombing missions since Saturday, while the French have been pretty prominent. I don't suppose them having the Charles De Gaulle sat on station just off the Libyan coast has anything to do with that. I never thought I'd say this but militarily thank f**k for the French.



I imagine my view has been covered already but basically I have said that the deficit needs to be addressed but in a measured way rather than the politically driven 'tax and axe' agenda of the millionaire Tories who by and large have little empathy for what it's like to be working class in this country. Taking money out of the pockets of the cash constrained will create hardship and division as well as taking money directly out of the economy. Not too sure how businesses are expected to grow when their services are no longer affordable with incomes squeezed. I expect the economy will grow but slowly (very slowly) and at a cost of higher unemployment and bigger welfare payments leading to bigger deficits - which in turn will lead to higher taxes and more cuts to essential public services. Although not so essential if you can afford private health insurance and your children are privately educated I suppose.



In my opinion either Gaddafi will prevail in Libya (with much bloodshed) or the country will become split East and West accompanied by a civil war (with much bloodshed.) If the coalition step in as 'the rebels' airforce then it's inevitable (as smart bombs aren't really that discriminating in populated areas) there will be colateral damage (with much bloodshed.) What's the next step, where's the exit strategy? Perhaps we'll end up with a permanently divided country with a NATO policed fortified de-militarised zone.

The reason this roundabout never ends is because you can never concede a point that is lost. It was you that incorrectly challenged my comment that the Typhoon was making its much delayed debut in a combat situation which it is.

You then tried to expand the definition of “combat” and confused it with the non combat ops.

How many combat missions did the Typhoon fly in Afghanistan & Iraq?




No stable doors here. I have long held the belief that the MOD procurement has not been fit for purpose and particularly in the 13 years of the last labour Government who showed no responsible control. To obscure this fact with talk of R&D is nonsense. Much of the huge overspends on defence purchases were down to a lack of professional contract management by the MOD and unsupervised by an over spending government.




The Tornado will have to be retained not just in a recce role but until we can replace it with an aircraft that is as effective for ground attack.



You are being slippery again. You stated that the Typhoon was “establishing air superioriy” This is not correct. The maritime and coalition aircraft including the Tornado fully established the air superiority by ground attack and degraded the Gadaffi regimes abilty to get its planes in the air. Once this had been achieved the Typhoon was introduced with a role with patrols to maintain the air superiority. Quite different roles.

The Tornedos have since moved on to target Gadaffi's tanks etc which are attacking the civillians.




Well we certainly have paid our money - but we have had no choice. At 4.1Bn pounds the Nimrod MRA4 has the distiction of being the most expensive aircraft ever built and there was only one that was airworthy. By comparison the Space shuttle would cost 1.3 Bn if built today!. Even the staggeringly expensive B-2 Stealth bomber only cost 1.3Bn apiece. You could buy a fleet of Space Shuttles or steath bombers for the price we paid to have a converted 1950's vintage airliner.

Remember all the MRA2s are refurbished and re equipped Nimrod MR2s which had already been purchased by the RAF long ago before at infalted prices. Had the project continued we would have received just 9 refurbished Nimrods which would have mean each costing half a billion pounds plus what was paid for it in the first place. One should note that this would have represented a more than quadrupling of the original fixed price agreed per plane in the 1990s. These planes were also no longer state of the art and were the last 9 De Havilland Comet airframes designed in the 1940’s.

The report, by the Defence Equipment and Support Inspectors, was not just in the Sunday Times but also was reported in the House of Commons. Your sole rebuttal is to quote an annonomous internet posting and accept this as “factual responses” over a report by the Inspectors.

So now you believe an annonomous posters to justify your political prejudices. No wonder we disagree on so many things.


____________





And what exactly is a measured way?

The leader of the opposition Mr “DeadEd” Milliband and Mr “Record Debt” Balls have so far been unable to say exactly what cuts they would make yet they oppose every cut that has been proposed. But this seems to satisfy the Labour supporters who seem blissfully unaware of the huge mess the country was left in.

I also expect a very difficult next two years for everyone but at least we now have a Government that is taking responsible action.

You seem to have been quite happy for the last Labour government to have spent record levels - far more than the country could afford, to have wasted billions of public money with a lack of management like the Nimrod debacle yet squeal when the time comes to pay off the debt.


Juan Cornetto wrote


You should check out your sources. The RAF have been out every day and night. The Tornados continue the difficult task of taking out specific targets. Yesterday with Brimstone missiles.

Why was it a much delayed debut? As an air superiority fighter where are the enemy airforces it has avoided?

Typhoon didn't need a conflict to prove itself. It was in service performing the roles it had been tasked to do. And doing so despite your concerns which are many and varied. Doesn't appear to have prevented their relocating to Southern Italy and flying CAP missions within hours of arriving.



I'd rather the Typhoon was tasked to patrol and defend UK airspace both here and over the Falklands than be called upon to take sides in a civil war in North Africa.



None. How many did you expect it to fly?




Yes, I expect so. There again I expected Harrier (and a carrier) could come in useful and a replacement for our only submarine hunter/killer, maritime patrol, long distance search and rescue aircraft would be entering service around the time the aircraft it replaces was going out of service.



Where's the argument. I've agreed suppression of ground forces is part of establishing the no fly zone.



Links to those costs would be a useful addition.

Even if technically correct (based on one complete aircraft) I think the present government canning the project at the 11th hour of production and bringing in the scrapman to destroy the airframes nearing completion has played a major role in the unwanted statistic. The MR4A expected price per unit (at cancellation announcement) of £400m, while ridiculously expensive, is still nowhere near the unit cost of a B2.



So if the whole Nimrod MRA4 was folly from the outset is now the time to remind our viewers who were the Government in charge who took the original decision and who was the defence secretary responsible. I'll let you make the announcement.

And which government has just given a repreive to the two Nimrod R1's they scheduled for the dustbin next Thursday.

As for delays, price overruns etc. that's what happens to just about if not every major defence procurement contract and usually caused by the politicians/MOD while the defence company take the flak and British workers in this case lose their jobs. I doubt anything much will change anytime soon either. It's easy to carp from the sidelines but they'll find it a whole lot tougher to change anything now they think they're running the show. Events dear boy, events.



Good. If it was reported in the House Of Commons I imagine there will be a link to said report. I'll look forward to reading it if and when you produce it. In the meantime the rebuttal I copied appeared to be informed and heartfelt. I've no idea of it's providence but offer it for consideration. As I said you pay your money .....



Measured as in not an unprecedented gamble. When Labour left office the recovery was fragile but at least it was happening. Unemployment had been held down below expectations and economic growth was becoming established.

Since the election and the emergency budget the rate of growth has declined in each quarter (indeed back into negative growth on the last quarter), unemployment is rising (when it should be falling at this point in the recovery and the real cuts haven't even started yet) and the OBR is having to adjust it's growth forecasts and each time they do it goes down.

While the country, a large number of it's citizens and the public services many of those same citizens rely on will be poorer as a result of the decisions being taken, the fundamental question remains, will the pain be worth it in the end, will growth return or is the cure worse than the condition.

One thing's for sure, without some serious growth returns to the economy nothing will add up. With inflation stubbornly above target the pressure will increase on the BOE to start raising interest rates a little and that will do nothing for the recovery, which leaves you wondering what's in store for plan B.



Well done, not childish at all. Who is blissfully unaware? Labour have broadly stated both before the election (as much as the other parties did) and since what they would be doing if they were in office now (it's hardly their fault if some people aren't listening) but here's the thing, they're not in government, they're in opposition which probably explains why people are taking no notice.

Despite now being in opposition if the coalition ever come up with a good idea I'm fairly sure Labour would back it.



Everyone? Hardly everyone. Oh I forgot we're all in this together ....... yeah right.

If their actions ultimately end up responsible for a lot of pain and little gain I trust you'll hold them just as responsible as you do the last government despite their spending programmes being backed penny for penny by Osbourne until 2008 and the banker's crashing the world economy. And here again while the British government (or any other government for that matter) failed to properly regulate the city who was it calling for less regulation.



Have you ever borrowed to invest?




My source was a Kirsty Wark interview with Sir Mike Jackson during Thursday's newsnight on the BBC.

Sorry but I weren't that informed on the situation in Libya to make the call. I heard a lot of what sounded like propoganda on both sides but not much in the way of evidence to back it up. There would be talk of an airstrike and then pan up to show a transport aircraft overflying at 10,000 feet, so it's impossible for me to say. At one point the only thing that was missing from news reports was the mention of a 45 minute capability.

Look this aircraft has taken since the 1980’s to produce and first flew in 1994 and here we are with its combat debut in 2011. I would call this a delayed debut but to avoid conceding a point it appears you would not.

The Typhoon/Eurofighter was designed for cold war combat now no longer needed. The misgivings that I have previously highlighted regarding this aircraft arose because of the long production delays and the many and on-going technical problems. This meant that by the time it was operational with the RAF its original planned role had been diminished and its readiness for combat had been much delayed.

Although you have been impressive with it at airshows and on Youtube it still has some problems. The much hyped 9G spec can cause cracks in the airframe which does not match the strength of the wings. There have been many electrical and software problems that have limited the numbers of operational aircraft available.

The Typhoon is being adapted so that it will be able to have a ground attack role which we hope will prove satisfactory



Irrelevant comment not addressing the point.




You asked me how many wars has it missed. The answer is two!






You are still wriggling. Lets be precise .. ..suppression of ground forces is not just “part of establishing the no fly zone” it is a 100% of it. Until you take out the surface to air missiles, radar, command and control, aircraft on the ground, runways etc etc you do not have a no fly zone. The Typhoon did not take part in this phase at all but you tried to imply that it did. The Typhoons role is to maintain the no fly zone in the most unlikely event of a Gadaffi plane getting off the ground.




When they were scapped the real cost was over 400 BILLION! Plus the orginal cost for each plane. With only one plane airworthy this did make the cost much more than a B2. Had the full 9 planes been completed the cost would have been Half a BILLION each as I said.




What we should also “remind our viewers” is that when the original contract was placed by the Conservatives there was a fixed price per plane. The New Labour free spending “no boom and bust” government managed [or mismanaged] to allow a more than quadrupling of this price with plenty of evidence that the costs could further esculate.





I hope to see future procurement taken away from Civil Servants who have been clearly out of their depth.



So appearing to be “heartfelt” makes it 100% accurate in your eyes does it. It could equally have been written by someone who was bitter at perhaps losing their job and posting their revenge with a political agenda!

I assume you mean “Provenance” unless you are claiming divine "providence"? I know you are a disciple of Broughton who you often say walks on water!
But you are not....Oh my G..?

But you stated these quotes were from someone “involved intimately with the project” and that these were “factual responses”

You said that “Personally I side with the view expressed by someone heavily involved on the project rather than some half-baked, politically motivated propoganda, leaked to the Murdoch press but then I would say that wouldn't I.”

Yes you certainly would say that wouldn’t you. Much better to believe and quote an annonomous posting on the InterWeb than an Inspectors report, reported in the demon Murdoch press [ie.

Nice to see an authentic, open minded non politically motivated response.

By the way does your politics allow you to watch Superleague on that evil Murdoch Sky channel




"Broadly stated" thats one way of describing it!. Labour before the election and at no time since has been drawn on exactly where and by how much they would have made cuts and increased taxes. Which is why DeadEd has no credibility.

Nobody said it would be easy to try and rectify the inherited financial mess left behind by your big spending heros. The recent events in Japan, Libya and the Middle East may well blow the whole world economy off course as the effects on oil and commodity prices continue to rocket but if it does I am sure you will blame it on the Coalition with glee.






I don’t think DeadEd Milliband has decided on his polices yet (almost a year) however he and his opposition chums have backed our role in Libya if thats what you mean by a good idea!




Well we´re certainly in the soup together thanks to Mr “No More Boom and Bust” Brown and Mr Ed”All” Balls leaving us with no money and a maxed up creditcard.



Yes I certainly will.





Yes but always with personal guarantees and in the knowlege and that it would be paid back in a given timescale by myself and not the British public. If not I might have lost both my house and my shirt.

Whereas these politicians can spend our money willy nilly and when the time comes for pay the piper they dissappear to make a fortune making speeches and writing books. 'a la Mr Blair and Mr Brown who has not been seen in the House for almost a year yet still draws his MPs salary and tops up his index linked pension .....what a socialist... what a hypocrite.





Both the BBC and Sky News are showing too much propaganda IMO. They are quite correctly free to challange and criticise our side but unfairly give equal time to censored reports from Abu Haw Haw in Triploi.

It was nice to put a face to a name when he was shown in TV this weekend!

Yes was good putting a face to the name, and stevo alluded to the centre (forgot name already) gave him a good pasting on few occasions so already one of my favorite people!!

You should have watched the clips of the 1961 semi vs Saints to see what he was capable of on the pitch.
I thoroughly enjopyed the reception that all the members of the 1961 team received on Friday night. The only highspot of a totally miserable evening.