Ah, so that’s where Lewis is now…..November 24, 2015 Tim WorstallNewspaper Watch10 CommentsThe SDSR means we will be better able to fight today’s enemies previousWell done to the Telegraph here, oh Very Well Done!nextMy word, isn’t this absolutely disgusting! 10 thoughts on “Ah, so that’s where Lewis is now…..” So Much For Subtlety November 24, 2015 at 9:22 am Alas, the Tellie seems to have neutered him. After all, what does the SDSR actually mean? Not a single new soldier. Despite the regiments being abolished and otherwise gutted of manpower over the past decade. Giving the Royal Navy too many of the new frigates it wants to play with. Despite them having no useful function at all. Continuing to support the bloated, corrupt and incompetent aircraft manufacturers in the US and Europe by buying more of the Typhoons which we might need if they were reasonably priced and the F-35s which are junk. The only thing they are promising to do that is actually useful is to double the number of drones – from 10 to 20. It is yet another pork barreling exercise that is good for the Brass but will get squaddies killed. Jason Lynch November 24, 2015 at 9:57 am SMFS, Just what do you think our current set of frigates do from day to day, and why – if they have no useful function at all – does every significant OPDEF cause NCHQ to shake at the foundations? What makes the F-35 “junk” and how do you expect to operate inside S-400 range rings without it? It’s genuinely depressing to see such uninformed posturing advanced as fact. Mr Ecks November 24, 2015 at 4:30 pm JSIN LINXH: DU U S.P.E.K IN A.C.R.O.N YMS(tm) ALL DE T.I.M.E U CSMF POS. So Much For Subtlety November 24, 2015 at 10:09 pm Jason Lynch – “Just what do you think our current set of frigates do from day to day, and why – if they have no useful function at all – does every significant OPDEF cause NCHQ to shake at the foundations?” I think they are very expensive cruise liners for the officers who want to see the Caribbean before retiring to a desk job. They might have had a function if a non-nuclear war had broken out with the USSR. Although I doubt it. They clearly have no function in the war on terror. “What makes the F-35 “junk” and how do you expect to operate inside S-400 range rings without it?” There is zero chance the British will be operating inside S-400 range any time soon. But even if it is so, Lewis’ article claims this will help with the war on terror. Not many S-400s being deployed by ISIS. They are junk because they are turkeys. They are underpowered, over-promised, over-priced and it is yet to be clear if their guns will work. “It’s genuinely depressing to see such uninformed posturing advanced as fact.” Good for you. Jason Lynch November 24, 2015 at 11:36 pm SMFS, Do you actually want to learn, or are you comfortably locked into your prejudices? Seriously, it’s quite shocking to see so much ignorance advanced with such confidence. I wondered whether to bother with a reply – you’re starting from such false premises, so loudly and proudly (or trolling so poorly) that there really seems no point trying to correct it. So Much For Subtlety November 24, 2015 at 11:41 pm Jason Lynch – “It’s genuinely depressing to see such uninformed posturing advanced as fact.” Oh, and in passing, Pot; Kettle; Afro-Caribbean. There is such a wealth of information now on how bad the F-35 is, including the fact that Lockheed is faking the results, the guns won’t work until 2018 or so, the helmets continue to malfunction – and my favourite, its fuel needs to be cooled for the plane to work – that you would have to have your head in the sand not to notice. Even Wikpedia does. As the Airforce itself says, it is a plane that can’t turn, can’t climb, and can’t run. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/genuinely-bad-news-about-the-f-35-and-the-a-10/384721/ So Much For Subtlety November 24, 2015 at 11:44 pm Jason Lynch – “I wondered whether to bother with a reply – you’re starting from such false premises, so loudly and proudly (or trolling so poorly) that there really seems no point trying to correct it.” So you are going to double down with a second insult-rich content-free waste of bandwidth? Well done, dear boy, well done. It is this sort of pigheaded stubbornness that made the British Army great. Damn the guns, eh? Jason Lynch November 25, 2015 at 12:06 pm SMFS, If you compare the F-35 to the A-10, you’re really showing yourself trapped in the “moar dakka-dakka!” school of military thought (as exemplified by “saving the regiments” – why? it’s regimental identity that’s brought us Coffeegate and #JeSuisWebber) The A-10 is not, and never really has been, a particularly effective platform, despite a vocal constituency supporting it (just as a similarly loud mob used to insist that the US Navy would be doomed, doomed forever I say, by a lack of big-gun battleships – and we’re talking 1990s here. It was designed to replace the A-1 Skyraider in Vietnam, arrived too late for that job, and then got advertised as the ultimate tank-killing platform for the Central Front. However, Israeli experience in 1973 demonstrated that flying low and slow over Soviet-style forward air defences, trying to strafe individual tanks, equalled a very quick death. It’s particularly telling that the Israeli Air Force, licking its wounds after Yom Kippur, still facing massed Soviet-style armour with mobile air defence (the role the A-10 was always claimed as ideal for) and with a blank FMS cheque from the US, never once considered the A-10 as remotely useful, choosing the high-tech fast jets that the Lightweight Fighter Mafia claimed were useless (and went on to smash the Syrian IADS and win the air war over Lebanon 82-0 in 1982, using that useless high-tech junk). And so the A-10 was hastily moved to Reserve units, where it provided patronage for politicians and a relatively inexpensive, yet highly entertaining, platform for part-time pilots with poor AFV recognition skills, hence its longevity. (Doesn’t hurt that it’s a robust airframe with a virtually infinite fatigue life). It did very poorly in 1991’s outing against Iraq, taking heavy losses despite handling only the least challenging targets in a much safer environment than it was meant to survive. Most recently it’s being hailed as “the ultimate CAS platform” because helmet-cam of an A-10 gun run looks impressive: the actual effect on the enemy is rather less so, though, and the aircraft’s low speed has led to harrowing situations where units under fire have taken fatal casualties live over the radio while they’re waiting for the 240-knot A-10 to crawl into engagement range. But, it’s got lots of titanium armour (that doesn’t stop it being shot out of the sky rather efficiently) and a Big Gun (that isn’t actually very effective) so the fanboys get all sweaty over it. While it has some utility in particular niches – though usually requiring a lot of support from other assets – the reason the USAF is eager to get rid of it, is that it costs more than it’s worth and does nothing that other platforms can’t cover. The F-35 – like any other complex system – is finding faults and issues as it’s moving towards service entry. This is, somehow, supposed to be unique and damning, so we should stick to older, proven, trouble-free aircraft like the F-15 (which at service entry ate a set of engines every twenty hours), the F-16 (which picked up the nickname “Lawn Dart” because so many crashed in its early years) or the fabled A-10 (nearly cancelled, because gun-gas ingestion into the engines proved such a serious problem) There’s an entire lobbying industry devoted to either boosting the F-35 to implausible heights, or condemning it as a flying Ford Edsel, depending on which manufacturer you’re working for. It’s worth acquainting oneself with a little more detail than Interweb blogging before going absolutely firm on a conclusion. sackcloth and ashes November 25, 2015 at 11:41 pm ‘If you compare the F-35 to the A-10, you’re really showing yourself trapped in the “moar dakka-dakka!” school of military thought (as exemplified by “saving the regiments” – why? it’s regimental identity that’s brought us Coffeegate and #JeSuisWebber)’ I think I’d attribute that to incompetent leadership and forgetting what your service is actually for, seeing as the capbadge concerned are the REME. The A-10 is not, and never really has been, a particularly effective platform’. I have friends who served in Afghanistan who would ask what your credentials are to make that statement. ‘It did very poorly in 1991’s outing against Iraq, taking heavy losses despite handling only the least challenging targets in a much safer environment than it was meant to survive’. There were a total of four combat losses of A-10s during the 1991 Gulf War (out of 250+ planes committed), 3 if you add the planes that returned to base but were then written off (that should make you feel fuzzy and warm as a pilot – a plane that stays together after getting shot up like a John Woo hero). The RAF, in contrast, lost six of their Tornados. In return, A-10s destroyed 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other vehicles, and 1,200 artillery tubes. That’s really shit, isn’t it? ‘The F-35 – like any other complex system – is finding faults and issues as it’s moving towards service entry’. It’s US$163bn over budget, is seven years late in delivery, and the test pilots are being ordered by the USAF brass not to say anything about what an utter liability it is, and it can’t even do Offensive Counter-Air (that’s the Top Gun shit for the non-specialists out there): http://uk.businessinsider.com/f-35-cant-fight-at-long-range-2015-7?r=US&IR=T http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130306/DEFREG02/303060011/F-35-Report-Warns-Visibility-Risks-Other-Dangers So Much For Subtlety November 25, 2015 at 11:46 pm Jason Lynch – “If you compare the F-35 to the A-10” If. As I don’t it is irrelevant. Yet again all you do is waste bandwidth with insult and a complete lack of facts. You objected to what I said originally, but you have not provided one single reason to take you seriously much less dispute what I said. Why are you wasting my time? “The A-10 is not, and never really has been, a particularly effective platform” Who gives a sh!t? When someone defends the A-10, which I actually do, we can have this conversation. As Britain does not fly it, and has never flown it, and will in all likelihood never will fly it, why bring it up? Oh that’s right, you have nothing relevant to say on a topic where you know I am right. “The F-35 – like any other complex system – is finding faults and issues as it’s moving towards service entry.” This sounds like a press release from Haig’s HQ about the Somme. All the chaps fought bravely and all Arms combined together jolly well as we move towards Berlin. I assume BAe writes your pay cheques. “It’s worth acquainting oneself with a little more detail than Interweb blogging before going absolutely firm on a conclusion.” It is indeed. What a shame you appear to know you are on a hiding to nothing and that is why you provide none – nothing but insult, snark and sneer. It is a piece of crap. It should be cancelled. But even if it is not, it won’t help against ISIS. It costs too much for one thing. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.