But that Cameron all over. Never thought things through. See Retiring the Harriers, and Carriers. Police Crime Commissioners, which turned out to be yet another cushty job for a Politician.
Yes a lot of good UK workers were laid off and let down by the so called job center ! But not the first time I and others have been laid off because of the wank UK Gov ! :(
@@madsteve9 spot on and at the same time he cut police which drew them towards regionalisation to make economies of scale and then PCCs drew them to localisation I.e the opposite direction. He was just posh utter idiot and the worse PM ever just ahead of Theresa May - both spectacular failures.
1 - the Nimrod was RAF, not RN. 2 - I suspect it's combat range is rather more than 222 km as you say a minute in..... that would allow it about 30 minutes of flight before having to land.
Im ex Nimrod ground crew and have quite a few air miles on them. A typical sortie was about 6 hours . We could go A to B from St Mawgan to Cyprus in a couple of hours but to justify the stop over for a weekend in Limasol we needed to actually do a patrol on behalf of one of our allies. We often did weekend trips where we patrolled the areas off South France for the French and land at Gib' then next day patrol the Med ' on behalf of Italy or Greece before stopping at Akrotiri. All good fun
@@allano937 Brings back memories. Flying out of Moffett (US, California, San Francisco Bay area) on Fridays during the spring, we would head up to Lake Tahoe on a "pilot trainer", shoot one low approach into Tahoe airport without landing, then fly all around the lake checking out the ski resorts, before heading back to give the snow report to everyone about to head out for the weekend.
@@allano937 I'm ex Nimrod aircrew actually, hence my desire to correct a couple of misstatements. typical sorties for crew training were 6, then there were operational sorties, and sometimes longer training flights, that would run 8-9 hrs normally, although we did manage 10hr 15 or so from Ascension once. (I never did one of the 18hr or so AAR sorties thankfully) Ex120/206
@@mikearmstrong8483 Lol, as a former crew member of the P3, 20 hour endurance? The longest mission flight I can remember in 16 years of flying was 12 hours. Most missions were 6-10 hours. Keep in mind the average pre flight brief was 2 hours and post flight debrief 2 hours. If the flight was armed and tactical, that required a 4 hour preflight. The plane might be able to endure 20 hours but the crew can not. BTW there is not enough room aboard the aircraft for two separate crews.
To think the millions wasted on Nimrod with 60s era aircraft . Had friends who worked at Marconi in mid 1980s doing IT development for Nimrod. Lots of hours but very little worked. Could have bought off the shelf US equipment, eg Lockheed P3 Orion and let Lockheed pay development costs. All about UK politicians worried about UK job protection.
Well, I think You ask the question backwards. The critical factor or bottleneck is not the number of aircraft; but the number of trained crew. The airframe and engines are 737 (i.e. a commercial plane). If you think an airline is just going to order more aircraft to have a sufficient number - you are wrong. Of course the aircraft needs maintainance, but it is much more a question of getting into the operating area. The real benefit of the P-8 is its high transit speed - it actually gets to work quicker and can thus hang around quite a bit longer. The problem is: What area of the ocean are you interested in keeping under surveillance. With a higher transit speed there is more usefull work pr. flight hour.
If the aircraft has f.i. 3 hours in the operating area; but have 4 hours to and fro. You need 8 crews to cover 24/7 with one aeroplane. If you can get out and back in 2 hours - and can thus hang around for 5 hours - you only need 5 crew for the same surveillance.
Pity you show a photo of a non maritime Nimrod at 0.34 How do I know? it has 51 Sqn Goose on the Fin, 51 Sqn flew Nimrod R1s not MR1s the other clue is the number of Aerials
@@ImminentDefence The difference in the role of MR and R Nimrods were massive. The R is really a sneeky beaky type. The SAS of the RAF almost :) I was not allowed within 50 feet of an R1 and one the few times I saw them visit St Mawgan they were parked on the pan with MR2 either side to hide them from view best we could.
The E-7 Wedgetail is going to replace the AWACS. It is a 737 airframe like the P8. It is called Wedgetail because it was first built by Boeing for the Royal Australian Airforce. The Wedgetail is a native Australian eagle.
Combat range of 222 km thus time on station of about four hours... I very confused. Maybe I heard that wrong; the range doesn’t sound like it’s close to correct...and four hours at about 300 kts is of course 1200 nautical miles...600 out 600 back. Again, very confused...
Welcome to the exclusive club…As a proud Australian; I’m led to believe; that the RAAF, are incredibly happy with this aircraft platform. According to media reports, we will acquire more!
Poseidon Problems 1) Boeing have done the very minimum possible to alter what is a Boeing 737, optermissed for Maritime Patrol, Reconnaissance and Attack mission. 2) Boeing, have been lazy and installed the USAF Boom version for Inflight Refueling system. The RAF & US Navy both use the Probe & Drogue system. So Poseidon has a Max operational flight time of 4 hours. 3) Boeing, hasn't redesigned the Wings for Low Level operations. Weapons and Life Raft Rescue Pods will have to be deployed from 30,000 feet. 4) Boeing, hasn't changed to a 4 Engine Setup for safe over water deployment. The Aircraft uses 2 GE/Safran, CFM International CFM56 Turbofans, producing 27,300lbs of thrust each = 54,600lbs Max Total. Not, 4 Rolls-Royce -Deutschland BR700 Pearl Turbofans, between 14,700 to 21,000lbs of thrust each depending on version = 84,000lbs Max Total. Can safely turn off 2 Engines, and fly on 1. 5) It can only deploy weapons designed for the US Navy. So, if the operator wishes to use alternates, it will have to pay Boeing extra to integrate them. 6) The Kawasaki P1 is a better Airframe. But Poseidon has the Maritime Operating System of the cancelled BAE Nimrod MRA4, installed, together with updated Sensors, Communications and Link. 7) UK problem. Their are only 9. Talking to ex RAF Nimrod crew, all say, we need, a Northern Squadron, a Southern Squadron, plus aircraft for OCU, Reserves, and for long term Overseas deployment. Plus ideally, 1 Airframe, assigned to Qinetiq, to monitor wear & tear and trial system updates (usually the oldest airframe in terms of flight hours). So, at least 30. 8) UK Problem. There is no current Southern RAF Base. Money would have to be spent, recommissioning, either RAF St Mawgan, which is now Newquay Airport (North Cornwall). Find room either RNAS Culdrose (West Cornwall) or RNAS Yeovilton (Somerset). Or buy or lease Plymouth City Airport formerly RAF Robough (Devon). 9) UK Problem. Defense budget. Even with the increase. And even with some MP's saying money from the Overseas Aid Budget, should go to pay for additional Strategic & Tactical Transport Aircraft & Helicopters / 2 new Helicopter / Assault Carriers (LPD). ***** 10) UK Problem There's never any joined up long term thought about what do we want the military to do, and what is needed in terms of Aircraft / Bases / Training / Manpower. The service Chiefs are quite happy to take on stuff, thinking they have a promise from a Politician over the future. Iraq, for the RAF, was supposed to lead to, a new Strike Jet to replace Tornado. Probably a 2 seat strike version of the Typhoon, around 110. 48 to 60 Airbus A400M Atlas. 72 Boeing Chinook. 9 BAE Nimrod MRA4 (using the unused AEW airframes), with new builds to follow. A full 12 aircraft squadron of Boeing C-17 Globemasters. Lockheed Martin F-35 to replace the Jaguar & Harrier fleets, with roughly 120. 24 Airbus A330 Voyager Tankers & Transporters. Split 12) 2 point Tankers with Large Starboard Cargo Doors. 12) 3 point Tankers, with a small 40 passenger capacity. The British Army was to get new lightweight air portable Battle Tanks weighing around 40 tonnes each. A new Utility Helicopter bigger than Lynx, (able to do the Combat Search & Rescue mission). Updated Boeing AH 64 Apache, replaced on a 1 for 1 basis. With the Manpower to be between 108,000 to 125,000. The Royal Navy, 12 Type 45 Destroyers, 2 Carriers, each with 36 Lockheed Martin F-35 B's, plus, Osprey Tankers, (and possibly an AEW version of the Osprey), Merlin Maritime Patrol and ASac Helicopters. 12 Type 26 Frigates, 6 Attack Submarines, with a follow on for 6 more of an even more advanced design after the 4 Tridents are completed.
I'll quickly comment on the stuff about the aircraft. Won't really go into your comment on the state of the British Armed Forces xD In regards to the aircraft Boeing having done the very minimum to optimize the aircraft, you are right, that is a cost-saving measure. The implementation of a Boom system instead of a Probe and drogue system for the UK was again a cost-saving measure. Save money and buy the exact same as the US instead of having Boeing develop another one. Not boing being lazy, rather them accommodating a customer. The US Navy doesn't mind the Boom system because they know that wherever they go a USAF tanker aircraft won't be far. In regards to the wings, yes they aren't optimized for low-level operations, but that doesn't mean they cannot fly there, just not as good/efficient. I assume the 30000 feet number was just an exaggeration, but obviously, weapons or life raft pods would not be deployed at that altitude. Those are the altitude for commercial flights or maybe a surveillance flight. In regards to the engines, whilst 4 would be nice and allows as you say for the aircraft to switch some engines off, it doesn't stop the operational capability or massively hinder it in any way. Your point about weapons is a bit of a crap one tbh, of course, Boeing would have to be paid to work. The same would have to be done if we kept the Nimrod MRA4 or if we purchased the Kawasaki. The money would just go to different companies. I wouldn't really call that a problem, more just a reality of how military contracts work. I appreciate your points though and it's interesting to see someone else's opinion :)
@@ImminentDefence The 30,000 feet was an actual quote about deploying an Anti Submarine Torpedo and all the specialised aerofoil equipment that is going to be needed to make deploy. The standard, Low Level Parachute drop won't work. *** As for UK specific weapons. What usually happens is Qinetiq, trials it and then if it effects the airframe, the manufacturer is paid to alter it. But, what should be as simple as new weapon being fitted to a pylon. Boeing can choose to mess about, and even refuse to authorise it for deployment. Literally the entire RAF & RN Maritime Warfare Weapons could be thrown away if the US Navy doesn't also operate them. **** I know Curtis LeMay wanted a faster refueling system for his SAC Bomber Force, but the Boom System, is very dangerous. So many crashed Bombers with Live Nuclear Weapons. I still can't believe, that we have agreed to accept the P-8 without having an Air to Air refueling Probe fitted.
@@madsteve9 You obviously don't know anything about what you're talking about. The Poseidon will operate at a higher level than Orion did, but not that much higher. And it will be able to deploy weapons and such at those levels, not 30000 ft. Using Boom refueling make more sense as aircraft of that type already use it. It's not an issue getting fuel from Airforce tankers. The Navy only uses the Drouge method because a boom is really impractical for carrier aircraft and you can change Buddy Stores gear to different aircraft. And I would contend that the Boom system is a lot safer that the Drouge system. And you have to go WAY back to Curtis LeMay on safety issues?? Why don't you look at the accident rate for military (and civilian) aircraft WAY back then and what it is today. There's a vast difference.
@@johnknapp952 Boom refuelling. This was created after a request of Curtis E LeMay of SAC, for faster refuelling of the Airborne Alert Bomber Force. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling#Flying_boom
@@johnknapp952 Their were a few Broken Arrow incidents directly related to accidents with the Tanker's Boom, going through the Bombers Airframe. Then Nuclear Weapons have to be recovered, with Radioactive Fissile Material having to be recovered.
Nimrod just looked the part. These 737s just look boring. It doesn't even have the "sting in the tail" which gives an ASW aircraft it's distinct appearance.
Typical of our goverments military funding we scrap something that has taken years to develope and replace it with something that only does half the things the original did. tsr2 ready to go into production light years ahead of any thing else available and we scrap it and use inferior aircraft ,we build 2 aircraft carriers that dont have catapults so are only of any use to vstol aircraft namely the f35 which has been found lacking in nearly all of its specifications what good is a jet if it cant fly to its true potential ,ie structual failure on the f35 if goes supersonic for any length of time and naval destroyers that cant operate in warm water without needing an engine change ,
TSR2 was nowhere near production. It would have taken five more years to get it to squadron and it was already way over budget before they'd ironed out the bugs.
just coming through the tech issues and were flying just as the Gov cancelled the contract. Endurance 4 time that of P8 I sure it was a political decision but a lot of the platform was remade during the upgrade British capability in aviation lost again
Boeing 737s fly across the America. It is a seven hour flight from Miami to Seattle, a similar distance as London to Toronto. 222 km won't fly you to Houston from Dallas. How did Southwest Airlines shuttle work if it couldn't fly that far?
@@ronclark9724 I would assume becasue the anti submarine mission mentioned requires flying low and due to the increased air density will cause greater fuel burn per hour, hence decreasing the range. If flown at higher altitude, similar to what commerical jets woudl fly at, which as far as I know is sufficient for surface vessel support, overwatch and patrol, the endurance will be much greater. This isn't even taking into account AAR capability
These are Operated by the RAF not the RN and so we’re the Nimrods , etc . As for bases Nimrods had better range and yet still had bases at Kinloss Scotland and St. Mawgan in Cornwall. Should have sorted out Bae and got the Nimrod 4 sorted out ! Yet again bought and now dependent on the Americans! This was exactly why the Nimrod was built, to prevent this happening! Way ahead of anything the Americans had at the time ! Our own government and Bae too much time messing about. We were way in front of the Americans and we let them run on ahead of us ! Mostly through bickering and indecision !
@@russellmarmon2847 firstly did you read what I wrote, his party gutted it and he's responsible for mutiple cuts and as I say they realise much to late how idioticly stupid that was and then spend money on their friends and donors. So yeah I will blame him, if he follows through, I'll ask why haven't you done more and why has most of the money gone to his friends and not the best equipment. Labour has consistently proposed more funding, especially in the last election, the amount of money and investment the tories have "promised" was joint lowest.
@@Alex-cw3rz UK has just jumped 2 places from 6 to the fourth largest military spending overtaking Russia and France so I think for such a small nation our spending and affordability in this current climate is commendable.
@@russellmarmon2847 so you've just shifted the goalposts completely, firstly our projected is 4th and it's country dropping their budgets, not a great shift from us, especially when compared to past expenditure as I said. This is also projected and Boris Johnson, he lies constantly, I have little hope he will spend that much, especially as he has announced nothing we will have more of.
I am sure that price involves the whole package: simulator, and spare parts... Most likely also involving a finance package over a score of years as well... Most American Foreign Military Sales involves financing...
Have a wonderful salute to you I. Adeel son by Riaz Mahmood already have Raf Raees career Airforce would please paid me officer requirements why I. In Lahore Pakistan
As always these videos end up diverging into saying we need double of everything lol. like we are some spotty teen playing football manager with infinite money cheat turned on but I guess that's part of the fun of being an armchair General or Admiral.
@@bobdylan7120 The US GDP is huge. 2.1%is $1.0-trillion. As much as the next 10-nations combined spend on defense. The US military is bloated and wasteful.
Chamberlain bought us time...oh dear..do you not read history...if we had stopped appeasement when Hitler moved in 1936 remilitarising the Rhineland the Germans would have been stopped, in 1938 another opportunity with the Anschluss, then Czech occupation...If France and U.K. had moved on any of these occasions...Germany was certainly not ready Chamberlain certainly bought time unfortunately for the Germans.......so don’t spout such utter nonsense
Unfortunately, as shown by the Japanese failure to sell submarines to Australia, the Japanese military industrial complex is not geared up for exports... Nor do the Japanese desire to invest significantly to do so...
Hope these expensive American aircraft are as good as the British built Nimrod's and variants they replaced and that the expensive American maintenance contracts use most of the defence budgets. Lol
They should have been British...... Cheapskate bastards in the MOD took the easy way out and just rejected the British Aircraft industries and lets face it would you like to fly in a tweaked 737 max? No me neither
@@henryvagincourt4502 the Boeing 737-800 is shite, it has serious issues, they would have been better flying an Airbus at least then they wouldnt have to worry about it failing mid mission.
Cameron was crazy to cancel the new Nimrod without a replacement lined up.
But that Cameron all over. Never thought things through. See Retiring the Harriers, and Carriers.
Police Crime Commissioners, which turned out to be yet another cushty job for a Politician.
An island nation not having a proper maritime patrol aircraft for a decade was a barking decision!
Cameron was "Tim nice but dim" made real
Yes a lot of good UK workers were laid off and let down by the so called job center ! But not the first time I and others have been laid off because of the wank UK Gov ! :(
@@madsteve9 spot on and at the same time he cut police which drew them towards regionalisation to make economies of scale and then PCCs drew them to localisation I.e the opposite direction. He was just posh utter idiot and the worse PM ever just ahead of Theresa May - both spectacular failures.
Oh the good old days when Britain not only made it's own stuff but was also the best in the world at it!
I’m so glad I found this channel
Awesome.. we now operate the P-8A with our RNZAF 👍✈️🇳🇿
1 - the Nimrod was RAF, not RN. 2 - I suspect it's combat range is rather more than 222 km as you say a minute in..... that would allow it about 30 minutes of flight before having to land.
Im ex Nimrod ground crew and have quite a few air miles on them. A typical sortie was about 6 hours . We could go A to B from St Mawgan to Cyprus in a couple of hours but to justify the stop over for a weekend in Limasol we needed to actually do a patrol on behalf of one of our allies. We often did weekend trips where we patrolled the areas off South France for the French and land at Gib' then next day patrol the Med ' on behalf of Italy or Greece before stopping at Akrotiri. All good fun
@@allano937
Brings back memories. Flying out of Moffett (US, California, San Francisco Bay area) on Fridays during the spring, we would head up to Lake Tahoe on a "pilot trainer", shoot one low approach into Tahoe airport without landing, then fly all around the lake checking out the ski resorts, before heading back to give the snow report to everyone about to head out for the weekend.
@@allano937 I'm ex Nimrod aircrew actually, hence my desire to correct a couple of misstatements. typical sorties for crew training were 6, then there were operational sorties, and sometimes longer training flights, that would run 8-9 hrs normally, although we did manage 10hr 15 or so from Ascension once. (I never did one of the 18hr or so AAR sorties thankfully) Ex120/206
Slow down mate and just talk slower!!!
Sorry to say endurance is not enough!!!
God, his vocabulary is horrendously inaudible!!
@@julianhweatherall2253 Needs to be at least 20 hours at a low speed!!!! about 200 kts with refueling if necessary.
@@johngadsby6599
"At least 20 hours at a low speed."
Are you referring to the plane's endurance or his rapid speech?
@@mikearmstrong8483 Ha Ha the aircraft endurance of course.
@@mikearmstrong8483 Lol, as a former crew member of the P3, 20 hour endurance? The longest mission flight I can remember in 16 years of flying was 12 hours. Most missions were 6-10 hours. Keep in mind the average pre flight brief was 2 hours and post flight debrief 2 hours. If the flight was armed and tactical, that required a 4 hour preflight. The plane might be able to endure 20 hours but the crew can not. BTW there is not enough room aboard the aircraft for two separate crews.
You are right we need more to be able to defend our country by ourselves. We should not have to rely on our French and American allies.
Great video!
These aircraft are not operated by the Royal Navy but by the Royal Air Force !
It was so sad that the Nimrod was scrapped after being developed over a number of years. But it looks like the Poseidon is a good replacement.
About 20 times Better !
To think the millions wasted on Nimrod with 60s era aircraft . Had friends who worked at Marconi in mid 1980s doing IT development for Nimrod. Lots of hours but very little worked. Could have bought off the shelf US equipment, eg Lockheed P3 Orion and let Lockheed pay development costs. All about UK politicians worried about UK job protection.
It has the Nimrod MRA4's Maritime systems. That is why the RAF / MoD wanted it. But they are $200 Million each.
Well, I think You ask the question backwards.
The critical factor or bottleneck is not the number of aircraft; but the number of trained crew.
The airframe and engines are 737 (i.e. a commercial plane). If you think an airline is just going to order more aircraft to have a sufficient number - you are wrong.
Of course the aircraft needs maintainance, but it is much more a question of getting into the operating area.
The real benefit of the P-8 is its high transit speed - it actually gets to work quicker and can thus hang around quite a bit longer. The problem is: What area of the ocean are you interested in keeping under surveillance.
With a higher transit speed there is more usefull work pr. flight hour.
If the aircraft has f.i. 3 hours in the operating area; but have 4 hours to and fro. You need 8 crews to cover 24/7 with one aeroplane. If you can get out and back in 2 hours - and can thus hang around for 5 hours - you only need 5 crew for the same surveillance.
cool video, i agree we need more than 9. but am hoping we do get more in next few years. and 9 is just the first batch of them :)
@Mark Hepworth I know lol wishful thinking :)
Pity you show a photo of a non maritime Nimrod at 0.34 How do I know? it has 51 Sqn Goose on the Fin, 51 Sqn flew Nimrod R1s not MR1s the other clue is the number of Aerials
Ahh thanks for letting me know! I’ll be sure to consider it if I make any future videos on the aircraft
@@ImminentDefence The difference in the role of MR and R Nimrods were massive. The R is really a sneeky beaky type. The SAS of the RAF almost :) I was not allowed within 50 feet of an R1 and one the few times I saw them visit St Mawgan they were parked on the pan with MR2 either side to hide them from view best we could.
And the R1 carried no MAD detector, so the rear protrusion was shorter.
Nimrod wasn't the Royal Navy's anything.
Nice info. You speak way to fast. I tried to follow you on some E-7 that was also was built on the 737 frame. I have no clue of what you are saying.
The E-7 Wedgetail is going to replace the AWACS. It is a 737 airframe like the P8. It is called Wedgetail because it was first built by Boeing for the Royal Australian Airforce. The Wedgetail is a native Australian eagle.
First I've heard of the MK54 Torpedo. I used the MK 46 back in my ASW days with SH-2F helos. And knew of the MK 50. Still all are based on MK 46.
You flew shtoofs? What were you tracking; pleisiosaurs? 😆
Combat range of 222 km thus time on station of about four hours... I very confused. Maybe I heard that wrong; the range doesn’t sound like it’s close to correct...and four hours at about 300 kts is of course 1200 nautical miles...600 out 600 back. Again, very confused...
Why is the sound so poor?
Royal is always Royal ♥🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳India is also having 8 no. P8...to counter Carona Chinees submarines 👍
Welcome to the exclusive club…As a proud Australian; I’m led to believe; that the RAAF, are incredibly happy with this aircraft platform.
According to media reports, we will acquire more!
$200 Million each !
pause, take a breath ..slow down..
So to get this straight we got rid of 26 Nimrods that are more capable, and then spent billions on 9 American planes that aren't as good.
They were ancient and had reached a tech problem point.
Really poor audio
Don’t they loan them off the U.S or they brought them ?
The UK purchased them. But they share weapon stocks with the US
@@ImminentDefence ah ok then
Poseidon Problems
1) Boeing have done the very minimum possible to alter what is a Boeing 737, optermissed for Maritime Patrol, Reconnaissance and Attack mission.
2) Boeing, have been lazy and installed the USAF Boom version for Inflight Refueling system. The RAF & US Navy both use the Probe & Drogue system. So Poseidon has a Max operational flight time of 4 hours.
3) Boeing, hasn't redesigned the Wings for Low Level operations. Weapons and Life Raft Rescue Pods will have to be deployed from 30,000 feet.
4) Boeing, hasn't changed to a 4 Engine Setup for safe over water deployment.
The Aircraft uses 2 GE/Safran, CFM International CFM56 Turbofans, producing 27,300lbs of thrust each = 54,600lbs Max Total.
Not, 4 Rolls-Royce -Deutschland BR700 Pearl Turbofans, between 14,700 to 21,000lbs of thrust each depending on version = 84,000lbs Max Total. Can safely turn off 2 Engines, and fly on 1.
5) It can only deploy weapons designed for the US Navy. So, if the operator wishes to use alternates, it will have to pay Boeing extra to integrate them.
6) The Kawasaki P1 is a better Airframe. But Poseidon has the Maritime Operating System of the cancelled BAE Nimrod MRA4, installed, together with updated Sensors, Communications and Link.
7) UK problem. Their are only 9.
Talking to ex RAF Nimrod crew, all say, we need, a Northern Squadron, a Southern Squadron, plus aircraft for OCU, Reserves, and for long term Overseas deployment.
Plus ideally, 1 Airframe, assigned to Qinetiq, to monitor wear & tear and trial system updates (usually the oldest airframe in terms of flight hours).
So, at least 30.
8) UK Problem. There is no current Southern RAF Base.
Money would have to be spent, recommissioning,
either RAF St Mawgan, which is now Newquay Airport (North Cornwall).
Find room either RNAS Culdrose (West Cornwall) or RNAS Yeovilton (Somerset).
Or buy or lease Plymouth City Airport formerly RAF Robough (Devon).
9) UK Problem. Defense budget.
Even with the increase.
And even with some MP's saying money from the Overseas Aid Budget, should go to pay for additional Strategic & Tactical Transport Aircraft & Helicopters / 2 new Helicopter / Assault Carriers (LPD).
*****
10) UK Problem
There's never any joined up long term thought about what do we want the military to do, and what is needed in terms of Aircraft / Bases / Training / Manpower.
The service Chiefs are quite happy to take on stuff, thinking they have a promise from a Politician over the future.
Iraq, for the RAF, was supposed to lead to,
a new Strike Jet to replace Tornado. Probably a 2 seat strike version of the Typhoon, around 110.
48 to 60 Airbus A400M Atlas.
72 Boeing Chinook.
9 BAE Nimrod MRA4 (using the unused AEW airframes), with new builds to follow.
A full 12 aircraft squadron of Boeing C-17 Globemasters.
Lockheed Martin F-35 to replace the Jaguar & Harrier fleets, with roughly 120.
24 Airbus A330 Voyager Tankers & Transporters. Split 12) 2 point Tankers with Large Starboard Cargo Doors. 12) 3 point Tankers, with a small 40 passenger capacity.
The British Army was to get new lightweight air portable Battle Tanks weighing around 40 tonnes each.
A new Utility Helicopter bigger than Lynx, (able to do the Combat Search & Rescue mission).
Updated Boeing AH 64 Apache, replaced on a 1 for 1 basis.
With the Manpower to be between 108,000 to 125,000.
The Royal Navy,
12 Type 45 Destroyers,
2 Carriers, each with 36 Lockheed Martin F-35 B's, plus, Osprey Tankers, (and possibly an AEW version of the Osprey), Merlin Maritime Patrol and ASac Helicopters.
12 Type 26 Frigates,
6 Attack Submarines, with a follow on for 6 more of an even more advanced design after the 4 Tridents are completed.
I'll quickly comment on the stuff about the aircraft. Won't really go into your comment on the state of the British Armed Forces xD
In regards to the aircraft Boeing having done the very minimum to optimize the aircraft, you are right, that is a cost-saving measure.
The implementation of a Boom system instead of a Probe and drogue system for the UK was again a cost-saving measure. Save money and buy the exact same as the US instead of having Boeing develop another one. Not boing being lazy, rather them accommodating a customer. The US Navy doesn't mind the Boom system because they know that wherever they go a USAF tanker aircraft won't be far.
In regards to the wings, yes they aren't optimized for low-level operations, but that doesn't mean they cannot fly there, just not as good/efficient. I assume the 30000 feet number was just an exaggeration, but obviously, weapons or life raft pods would not be deployed at that altitude. Those are the altitude for commercial flights or maybe a surveillance flight.
In regards to the engines, whilst 4 would be nice and allows as you say for the aircraft to switch some engines off, it doesn't stop the operational capability or massively hinder it in any way.
Your point about weapons is a bit of a crap one tbh, of course, Boeing would have to be paid to work. The same would have to be done if we kept the Nimrod MRA4 or if we purchased the Kawasaki. The money would just go to different companies. I wouldn't really call that a problem, more just a reality of how military contracts work.
I appreciate your points though and it's interesting to see someone else's opinion :)
@@ImminentDefence The 30,000 feet was an actual quote about deploying an Anti Submarine Torpedo and all the specialised aerofoil equipment that is going to be needed to make deploy.
The standard, Low Level Parachute drop won't work.
***
As for UK specific weapons. What usually happens is Qinetiq, trials it and then if it effects the airframe, the manufacturer is paid to alter it.
But, what should be as simple as new weapon being fitted to a pylon. Boeing can choose to mess about, and even refuse to authorise it for deployment.
Literally the entire RAF & RN Maritime Warfare Weapons could be thrown away if the US Navy doesn't also operate them.
****
I know Curtis LeMay wanted a faster refueling system for his SAC Bomber Force, but the Boom System, is very dangerous.
So many crashed Bombers with Live Nuclear Weapons.
I still can't believe, that we have agreed to accept the P-8 without having an Air to Air refueling Probe fitted.
@@madsteve9 You obviously don't know anything about what you're talking about. The Poseidon will operate at a higher level than Orion did, but not that much higher. And it will be able to deploy weapons and such at those levels, not 30000 ft.
Using Boom refueling make more sense as aircraft of that type already use it. It's not an issue getting fuel from Airforce tankers. The Navy only uses the Drouge method because a boom is really impractical for carrier aircraft and you can change Buddy Stores gear to different aircraft. And I would contend that the Boom system is a lot safer that the Drouge system.
And you have to go WAY back to Curtis LeMay on safety issues?? Why don't you look at the accident rate for military (and civilian) aircraft WAY back then and what it is today. There's a vast difference.
@@johnknapp952 Boom refuelling.
This was created after a request of Curtis E LeMay of SAC, for faster refuelling of the Airborne Alert Bomber Force.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling#Flying_boom
@@johnknapp952 Their were a few Broken Arrow incidents directly related to accidents with the Tanker's Boom, going through the Bombers Airframe.
Then Nuclear Weapons have to be recovered, with Radioactive Fissile Material having to be recovered.
Nimrod just looked the part. These 737s just look boring.
It doesn't even have the "sting in the tail" which gives an ASW aircraft it's distinct appearance.
Yes, and that too!
Nice
Typical of our goverments military funding we scrap something that has taken years to develope and replace it with something that only does half the things the original did. tsr2 ready to go into production light years ahead of any thing else available and we scrap it and use inferior aircraft ,we build 2 aircraft carriers that dont have catapults so are only of any use to vstol aircraft namely the f35 which has been found lacking in nearly all of its specifications what good is a jet if it cant fly to its true potential ,ie structual failure on the f35 if goes supersonic for any length of time and naval destroyers that cant operate in warm water without needing an engine change ,
Which is why the F-35 is so popular. With Israel and Japan who, facing immediate threats, chose the as-35.
TSR2 was nowhere near production. It would have taken five more years to get it to squadron and it was already way over budget before they'd ironed out the bugs.
Tim Hancock
It was worth it. They would’ve been sold to so many countries and they would’ve been in RAF service for many decades.
Does the uk own the Poseidon or rent them off the us
They own them :)
@@ImminentDefence thanks for the info as I wasn't sure
Mis spelling of 'Metre'.
Sorry but my elbows ache trying to keep up with this. 😳😳😳
great video
Cheers :)
No inflight refueling?. Piss poor.
The P8 is capable of in flight refueling
just coming through the tech issues and were flying just as the Gov cancelled the contract. Endurance 4 time that of P8 I sure it was a political decision but a lot of the platform was remade during the upgrade British capability in aviation lost again
Combat range of 222km seems poor
That's because he misspoke ...
@@ThePhoenix198 ......
Boeing 737s fly across the America. It is a seven hour flight from Miami to Seattle, a similar distance as London to Toronto. 222 km won't fly you to Houston from Dallas. How did Southwest Airlines shuttle work if it couldn't fly that far?
@@ronclark9724 I would assume becasue the anti submarine mission mentioned requires flying low and due to the increased air density will cause greater fuel burn per hour, hence decreasing the range. If flown at higher altitude, similar to what commerical jets woudl fly at, which as far as I know is sufficient for surface vessel support, overwatch and patrol, the endurance will be much greater.
This isn't even taking into account AAR capability
These are Operated by the RAF not the RN and so we’re the Nimrods , etc . As for bases Nimrods had better range and yet still had bases at Kinloss Scotland and St. Mawgan in Cornwall.
Should have sorted out Bae and got the Nimrod 4 sorted out ! Yet again bought and now dependent on the Americans!
This was exactly why the Nimrod was built, to prevent this happening!
Way ahead of anything the Americans had at the time !
Our own government and Bae too much time messing about.
We were way in front of the Americans and we let them run on ahead of us ! Mostly through bickering and indecision !
Turkey tf 2000 destroyer
Sums up the tories to a tea, cut spending, realise that doesn't work and then give away billions to your mates and lobbyist.
Dont include Boris Johnson Conservative government he is spending a huge amount to modernise our military more than any recent governments.
@@russellmarmon2847 firstly did you read what I wrote, his party gutted it and he's responsible for mutiple cuts and as I say they realise much to late how idioticly stupid that was and then spend money on their friends and donors. So yeah I will blame him, if he follows through, I'll ask why haven't you done more and why has most of the money gone to his friends and not the best equipment. Labour has consistently proposed more funding, especially in the last election, the amount of money and investment the tories have "promised" was joint lowest.
@@Alex-cw3rz UK has just jumped 2 places from 6 to the fourth largest military spending overtaking Russia and France so I think for such a small nation our spending and affordability in this current climate is commendable.
@@Alex-cw3rz Labour are disgusting along with the rest of the left
@@russellmarmon2847 so you've just shifted the goalposts completely, firstly our projected is 4th and it's country dropping their budgets, not a great shift from us, especially when compared to past expenditure as I said. This is also projected and Boris Johnson, he lies constantly, I have little hope he will spend that much, especially as he has announced nothing we will have more of.
£3bn for 9 aircraft... that is some inflated price tag
I am sure that price involves the whole package: simulator, and spare parts... Most likely also involving a finance package over a score of years as well... Most American Foreign Military Sales involves financing...
@@ronclark9724 + It does, including a full support package and of course the backing of the USAF.
Have a wonderful salute to you I. Adeel son by Riaz Mahmood already have Raf Raees career Airforce would please paid me officer requirements why I. In Lahore Pakistan
They are very, very good at what they do.
As always these videos end up diverging into saying we need double of everything lol. like we are some spotty teen playing football manager with infinite money cheat turned on but I guess that's part of the fun of being an armchair General or Admiral.
Speak more slowly !!!!
A nation spending more money on military defense than social uplift is approaching spiritual doom--Martin Luther King, Jr.
@@bobdylan7120 The US GDP is huge.
2.1%is $1.0-trillion.
As much as the next 10-nations combined spend on defense.
The US military is bloated and wasteful.
Cameron, worst Tory PM in living memory. At least Chamberlain bought us time.
Chamberlain bought us time...oh dear..do you not read history...if we had stopped appeasement when Hitler moved in 1936 remilitarising the Rhineland the Germans would have been stopped, in 1938 another opportunity with the Anschluss, then Czech occupation...If France and U.K. had moved on any of these occasions...Germany was certainly not ready Chamberlain certainly bought time unfortunately for the Germans.......so don’t spout such utter nonsense
@@alanwayte432 How could Chamberlain have prevented the annexation of the Rhineland 1936 when he did not become PM until May 1937?
They should have bought the Japanese aircraft .
We should’ve made our own.
Unfortunately, as shown by the Japanese failure to sell submarines to Australia, the Japanese military industrial complex is not geared up for exports... Nor do the Japanese desire to invest significantly to do so...
Another Fantastic weapon system from our Great American Ally ! : )
Another waste of millions
Hope these expensive American aircraft are as good as the British built Nimrod's and variants they replaced and that the expensive American maintenance contracts use most of the defence budgets. Lol
Nimrod is 10 times better than this overpriced crap
They should have been British...... Cheapskate bastards in the MOD took the easy way out and just rejected the British Aircraft industries and lets face it would you like to fly in a tweaked 737 max? No me neither
freddielaker2 + For once cock, the MoD bought something that works, now doesnt that make a change!
@@henryvagincourt4502 the Boeing 737-800 is shite, it has serious issues, they would have been better flying an Airbus at least then they wouldnt have to worry about it failing mid mission.