By far my favourite YouTube channel at the moment is that of Lord Hardthrasher, whose quirky approach to British aviation history is really quite refreshing.
I’d be interested in a comparison with Poland’s defence and armament policies. Certainly gets more bang for a smaller budget. I assume if you buy enough kit from one supplier you also build in capacity to maintain and adapt.
France is also a useful comparison - a similar sized economy, population and defence budget that generates an army nearly twice as large as ours, a slightly larger air force and a navy about the same size (depending on how one argues it). And a truly independent nuclear deterrent with that. Are they doing everything right? Clearly not and they have many of the same big political problems as us, but something is working better there - if just more coherent foreign policy priorities.
Just for the record I was 24 years in uniform, 10 in the regular army and 14 in the TA now Army ReserThe first cull has to be of the Top Brass now typified by a Navy with more Admirals than ships.
Just for the record I spent 24 years in uniform - 10 in the regular army and 14 in the TA now Army reserve (AR)
Six points:-
First, the most important first step is to cull the Top Brass, who must carry the can for the current state of our Armed Forces, and are now typified by the Navy having more Admirals than ships.
Annoyingly those now retired made not a squeak while defence spending was slashed over the last 30 years and now take to the airways, to wrongly state IMO, we need to prepare for WW3.
Second, we need to accept that we now need to gracefully leave the world stage and admit that in saving Europe in 1945 we completely over extended ourselves and deserve to enjoy our well earned and deserved retirement.
Third, our defence capability needs to concentrate on our in land defence with no more than an all singing and dancing air portable Brigade with all the most advance kit, weapons and vehicles. To be deployed both in Europe as necessary and abroad to protect all our decreasing but vital national interests ie, Cyprus, Falklands etc.
Fourth, we need a much bigger AR with a unit in every town which is good for internal security and also a useful outlet for the young to serve their country on a part-time basis.
Fifth, recruitment needs to return 'in house' with the emphasis on alpha males and females and to completely abandon all the dumb down rainbow wokery nonsense.
Sixth, army vehicles, Navy ships and RAF planes/drones need to reflect this new reality.
What forces we have can still be amongst the best in the world with an SAS that is second to none.
Ferranti was developing a terrain following radar (TFR) in parallel with the TSR2.
The Americans were also developing their own TFR for F111s.
When the TSR2 was cancelled the UK and Australian governments ordered the F111, but the UK cancelled its order in 1968 due to the F111s poor reliability record (wing titanium pins continually failing throughout many years of service).
Would the Ferranti radar have been available if the TSR2 had remained in developmen?
There is no way of knowing, but it would have been much closer to operational capability in the 3 years between TSR2 cancellation and F111 cancellation.
The Buccaneer operated without TFR but was capable of fighting at very low level without it.
Eventually the RAF ordered the Phantom which was a capable fighter- bomber but would have had a hard time penetrating Russian air defence systems. We also ordered extra Buccaneers for the RAF.
By the way, the UK in WW2 developed jet engine technology (on low priority), computers (on high priority) as well as millimetre wavelength radar and supersonic aerodynamic technology, all handed to the USA for nothing - yet they held back nuclear technology despite helping with the research.
So we had to spend yet more money we didn’t have to develop nuclear weapons and a delivery system.
Even so our advanced technologies were handed over to the USA - gratis.
Amazingly we also started the NHS - whilst paying war debts to the USA!
Usually war victors get compensated by the losers.
The UK got a massive debt around its neck instead.
Throughout the 1950s 60s and 70s the UK had a constant economic battle.
I’ve heard different story’s about the reason for the TSR2s cancellation.
Finances was given as a big reason for the cancellation, but compensation for backing out of the F111 and the eventual purchase of the Phantom/Buccaneer has never been quantified and quite possibly cost us more.
Well said, Pete. It sounds as if you have been reading the wonderful "Empire of the Clouds" which chronicles the UK aviation industry's very long and expensive road to ruin. It is both desperately sad and riotously funny. There is nothing funny about the death toll of the guys trying to fly useless or very advanced planes with poorly understood characteristics. The money pissed down the toilet is insane when you consider how broke the country was.
But there are glorious anecdotes such as the bloke on a Comet test flight who found the floor flexing under his feet during a turn. Structural rigidity was not a strong point. There was the Bristol Britannia flight where they took up some KLM people who were thinking of buying some. It suffered engine failure and landed on the mudflats of the Severn. Everyone waded ashore, very muddy but unhurt. KLM did not buy any. And there was the unbelievably lucky engineer who taxied a Lightening and accidentally took off.
A friend of mine spent time working with civil servants in the MOD. His observation was that the civil service still believes in the Generalist, a person with a degree in English Lit or the Classics, who can do anything. They get moved around every two years. "If you meet a civil servant who knows what he's doing, he's a few weeks from being moved to another job". A team of such people, with a constantly changing cast of characters, is absolutely the worst team to buy complex equipment.
Actually not too long at all. A nice sectoral summary of government incompetence. One notable omission: corruption. But that would take a book - and make you a target.
Israel is able to bomb the shit out of Iran and Hezbollah at the same time, plus field a insurgent ground war on its borders for half of the UKs total defence budget.
Whether you think it is moral or not of Israel to do so, their defence budget certainly is better value for money than ours. They produce some home grown kit and buy the rest from abroad.
F1 teams collectively spend about $4billion a year well above the spend cap but there is only ever 1 winner. 10 teams with varying designs and only 1 can win. They all make huge losses except for Mercedes apparently. Sounds a lot like the British aircraft industry before the mergers that Pete referred to.
The teams also work to a very specific season rules brief unlike defence spending, which as Pete pointed out is changing all the time
“On Thursday, it was revealed that Alonso and fellow driver Lance Stroll were at risk of nerve damage because of the vibrations from their Honda engines.”
I’d be interested in a comparison with Poland’s defence and armament policies. Certainly gets more bang for a smaller budget. I assume if you buy enough kit from one supplier you also build in capacity to maintain and adapt.
France is also a useful comparison - a similar sized economy, population and defence budget that generates an army nearly twice as large as ours, a slightly larger air force and a navy about the same size (depending on how one argues it). And a truly independent nuclear deterrent with that. Are they doing everything right? Clearly not and they have many of the same big political problems as us, but something is working better there - if just more coherent foreign policy priorities.
Just for the record I was 24 years in uniform, 10 in the regular army and 14 in the TA now Army ReserThe first cull has to be of the Top Brass now typified by a Navy with more Admirals than ships.
Just for the record I spent 24 years in uniform - 10 in the regular army and 14 in the TA now Army reserve (AR)
Six points:-
First, the most important first step is to cull the Top Brass, who must carry the can for the current state of our Armed Forces, and are now typified by the Navy having more Admirals than ships.
Annoyingly those now retired made not a squeak while defence spending was slashed over the last 30 years and now take to the airways, to wrongly state IMO, we need to prepare for WW3.
Second, we need to accept that we now need to gracefully leave the world stage and admit that in saving Europe in 1945 we completely over extended ourselves and deserve to enjoy our well earned and deserved retirement.
Third, our defence capability needs to concentrate on our in land defence with no more than an all singing and dancing air portable Brigade with all the most advance kit, weapons and vehicles. To be deployed both in Europe as necessary and abroad to protect all our decreasing but vital national interests ie, Cyprus, Falklands etc.
Fourth, we need a much bigger AR with a unit in every town which is good for internal security and also a useful outlet for the young to serve their country on a part-time basis.
Fifth, recruitment needs to return 'in house' with the emphasis on alpha males and females and to completely abandon all the dumb down rainbow wokery nonsense.
Sixth, army vehicles, Navy ships and RAF planes/drones need to reflect this new reality.
What forces we have can still be amongst the best in the world with an SAS that is second to none.
“Annoyingly those now retired made not a squeak while defence spending was slashed over the last 30 years and now take to the **airways**”
I think it’s only the retired RAF chaps who take to the airways.
The Army and Navy retirees take to the airwaves.
Good point!!!
I apologize for the muddle at the start but as one cannot edit these posts on here I cannot correct it - the first two lines should be deleted.
Ferranti was developing a terrain following radar (TFR) in parallel with the TSR2.
The Americans were also developing their own TFR for F111s.
When the TSR2 was cancelled the UK and Australian governments ordered the F111, but the UK cancelled its order in 1968 due to the F111s poor reliability record (wing titanium pins continually failing throughout many years of service).
Would the Ferranti radar have been available if the TSR2 had remained in developmen?
There is no way of knowing, but it would have been much closer to operational capability in the 3 years between TSR2 cancellation and F111 cancellation.
The Buccaneer operated without TFR but was capable of fighting at very low level without it.
Eventually the RAF ordered the Phantom which was a capable fighter- bomber but would have had a hard time penetrating Russian air defence systems. We also ordered extra Buccaneers for the RAF.
By the way, the UK in WW2 developed jet engine technology (on low priority), computers (on high priority) as well as millimetre wavelength radar and supersonic aerodynamic technology, all handed to the USA for nothing - yet they held back nuclear technology despite helping with the research.
So we had to spend yet more money we didn’t have to develop nuclear weapons and a delivery system.
Even so our advanced technologies were handed over to the USA - gratis.
Amazingly we also started the NHS - whilst paying war debts to the USA!
Usually war victors get compensated by the losers.
The UK got a massive debt around its neck instead.
Throughout the 1950s 60s and 70s the UK had a constant economic battle.
I’ve heard different story’s about the reason for the TSR2s cancellation.
Finances was given as a big reason for the cancellation, but compensation for backing out of the F111 and the eventual purchase of the Phantom/Buccaneer has never been quantified and quite possibly cost us more.
Well said, Pete. It sounds as if you have been reading the wonderful "Empire of the Clouds" which chronicles the UK aviation industry's very long and expensive road to ruin. It is both desperately sad and riotously funny. There is nothing funny about the death toll of the guys trying to fly useless or very advanced planes with poorly understood characteristics. The money pissed down the toilet is insane when you consider how broke the country was.
But there are glorious anecdotes such as the bloke on a Comet test flight who found the floor flexing under his feet during a turn. Structural rigidity was not a strong point. There was the Bristol Britannia flight where they took up some KLM people who were thinking of buying some. It suffered engine failure and landed on the mudflats of the Severn. Everyone waded ashore, very muddy but unhurt. KLM did not buy any. And there was the unbelievably lucky engineer who taxied a Lightening and accidentally took off.
A friend of mine spent time working with civil servants in the MOD. His observation was that the civil service still believes in the Generalist, a person with a degree in English Lit or the Classics, who can do anything. They get moved around every two years. "If you meet a civil servant who knows what he's doing, he's a few weeks from being moved to another job". A team of such people, with a constantly changing cast of characters, is absolutely the worst team to buy complex equipment.
Good article, though over time you're sounding increasingly like Peter Hitchens...
Actually not too long at all. A nice sectoral summary of government incompetence. One notable omission: corruption. But that would take a book - and make you a target.
Israel is able to bomb the shit out of Iran and Hezbollah at the same time, plus field a insurgent ground war on its borders for half of the UKs total defence budget.
Whether you think it is moral or not of Israel to do so, their defence budget certainly is better value for money than ours. They produce some home grown kit and buy the rest from abroad.
Put the Formula 1 guys in charge . World beating tech produced quickly .
F1 teams collectively spend about $4billion a year well above the spend cap but there is only ever 1 winner. 10 teams with varying designs and only 1 can win. They all make huge losses except for Mercedes apparently. Sounds a lot like the British aircraft industry before the mergers that Pete referred to.
The teams also work to a very specific season rules brief unlike defence spending, which as Pete pointed out is changing all the time
Already looks like Aston Martin and their engine supplier Honda have been helping out with the Ajax program.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/articles/cpv8xr8j11mo
“On Thursday, it was revealed that Alonso and fellow driver Lance Stroll were at risk of nerve damage because of the vibrations from their Honda engines.”
Well said Pete.
See also, Dominic Cummings on the absolute state of Ukay defence procurement and (very much to your point) national defence priority planning.