Tories prove RW are stupid - order spy planes that don't work with RAF's in-flight refuelling system

Tories order spy planes that don't work with RAF's in-flight refuelling system

The jets could be forced to turn back during missions to track lurking Russian submarines as they need a top-up every four hours.

REUTERS/Greg Wood
Sub hunter: A US Navy P-8 Poseidon aircraft
Airhead defence chiefs have admitted ordering nine spy planes that are incompatible with the RAF’s in-flight ­refuelling tankers.

It means the P-8A Poseidons, intended to track Russian submarines lurking off the UK coast, could be forced to turn back during missions as they need a top-up every four hours.

Defence Minister Philip Dunne said: “The P-8A uses the ‘boom and receptacle’ method of
in-flight refuelling.

“As such, the P-8A will not be able to refuel from RAF Voyagers, which use a different configuration for air-to-air refuelling.”

Prime Minister David Cameron revealed plans to order the jets – a version of Boeing’s 737 short-to-medium-haul passenger jet – in November’s Strategic Defence and Security Review.


The news came five years after the Government scrapped the Nimrod, forcing Britain to rely on Nato allies in the hunt for Kremlin boats.


REUTERS/David Moir
Axed: A Nimrod patrol jet
The Poseidons will be based at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland and fly sorties in the North Atlantic.

But they will not come into service until at least 2019 or 2020 – meaning Tory defence cuts will have left Britain unable to patrol its own waters from the air for nearly 10 years.

Shadow Defence Secretary Maria Eagle said: “Tory cuts to defence will have resulted in the UK being without maritime patrol capabilities for almost a decade.

“Now we learn that the aircraft chosen by ministers to plug their own gap will not work with the RAF’s air-to-air refuelling planes.

"This is yet more damning evidence of the Government failing to properly join up its defence policies.”


BBC
Damning: Shadow Defence Secretary Maria Eagle
Mr Dunne claimed the Government picked the model because it met the Ministry of Defence’s “key user requirements”.
A spokesman for the MoD added: “The P-8 was selected because it will provide the ­capability we need in the ­timescale we require.

"It has sufficient fuel capacity to conduct its primary missions without the need for air-to-air refuelling.”


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tories-order-spy-planes-dont-7053700



FUCKING DOH!

Well there a very misleading article if ever there was one.
No maritine patrol capaibilities?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Royal_Navy_deployments

Seems the regressive left are thicker than I thought

Misleading thread title.

Perhaps you should complain about this one then:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t12875-scienitists-on-the-verge-of-curing-regressive-leftism#252650


LOL

sassy wrote:Perhaps you should complain about this one then:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t12875-scienitists-on-the-verge-of-curing-regressive-leftism#252650


LOL

I most certainly will! That extra "i" in "scientists" is deplorable.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:Perhaps you should complain about this one then:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t12875-scienitists-on-the-verge-of-curing-regressive-leftism#252650


LOL

I most certainly will! That extra "i" in "scientists" is deplorable.

My, what a little hypocrite you are.

Even if it is a fact that you know other people know already, because you have discussed it with them.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I most certainly will! That extra "i" in "scientists" is deplorable.

My, what a little hypocrite you are.

Even if it is a fact that you know other people know already, because you have discussed it with them.

Goodness Sassy, you have even less sense of humour than me!

What have I discussed with someone? That second sentence didn't make much sense.

That I have discussed with someone, not you lol and the 2nd sentence was meant to go on a post I put on the 9/11 thread   Oops.

sassy wrote:That I have discussed with someone, not you lol and the 2nd sentence was meant to go on a post I put on the 9/11 thread   Oops.

Fair enough.