LordJimI think there is going to be a need to publically stress the link between the F-35 purchase and the new Carriers so it is possible the RN will take the lead with 2-3 frontline and the OCU being predominantly dark blue and 1-2 frontline squadrons being predominantly light blue.
I agree that the airgroup will be taylored to missions but the public are being told they are large Aircraft carriers and they will compare them to the USN. They are going to be extremely flexible platforms but the MoDs PR team needs to begin to explain this more clearly to stop the media in future going on and on about how we operate carriers compared to the US.
LordJimThe word useful is key here. Of course LO is useful but is it a necessity?
Regarding the 3 highly defended targets, I accept GW1 fall into this criteria but although we did lose some aircraft the Coalition had air dominance after a very short time.
In the Balkans I would not call the Serbian air space highly defended and it was not very effective except for when rumours of S-300s appeared and NATO had a minor panic attack. Again the air defence were neutralised on the whole.
I assume the 3rd is GW2, in which cannot Iraq cannot be called highly defended.
In all cases the air defence were destroyed or eliminated and we were working with the US. As I have repeatedly stated I cannot see a single conflict where we would face a High Tech threat alone. We would be part of a coalition. We have to think what we can contribute not on the grounds of matching the US but on complimenting. 4th Gen platforms with top line avionics and ordonnance will do the job 98% of the time. The Typhoon, F-18E, Rafale can handle any expected air opposition especially with F-22 top cover and AWACS support. US F-35s and UCAVs would cover SEAD and LR Missiles will deal with radar and comms.
Mind you all my arguements hinge on the MoD building the CVFs as something other than STOVL. IF they stick to this then the F-35 is the only choice and I hope it lives up to its billing ans if the F-16 story is anything to go by I might begin to be more optimistic heaven forbid.
LordJimThe Nimrod AEW did work if compared to the original specs. However the MoD decided it wanted a platform that matched the Boeing E-3A and that is when things started to go wrong. All 12 airframes were modified and awaiting electronics at Woodford and personnel were being trained. My Uncle was one of the test pilots, who was also responsible for creating the worlds biggest fighter when they fitted AIM-9 to the Nimrod as part of a UOR for the Falklands but thats another story.
I totally agree that it would be idiotic to cancel the MRA4, and in fact given its flexibility and usefulness in deployed Ops additional airframes should be put back in the programme.
With defence always being one of the first ports of call for a Chancellor wanting savings I am not surprised Osborne has gone looking in the cupboard. Fox’s defence of the MoD is a refreshing change and hopefully the Government will realise that the cupboard is bare bar a few scraps in personnel numbers (civilian) thanks to underfunding by the previous Government and mismanagement by senior figures within the MoD.
LordJimI think it it starting to look like the two carriers will never be at sea at the same time. This would allow the number of aircraft purchased for them to be reduced significantly with only one full strength air wing available plus training units, so around 40-50 airframes for the RN, with a smaller number 20-30possibly for the RAF to suppliment the air wing in an emergency. Both serviced would use the same training/evaluation units.
LordJimThere is a precident for cutting the MRA4 at this late stage and that is the Nimrod AEW which also left us with around 12 airframes which had been paid for and large numbers of trained personnel so nothing can be taken for granted.
I know I keep sounding like the bringer of doom but with the current funding hole, lack of new money and the MoD having to start to repay a percentage of UOR costs for equipment that purchased through the system that is not theatre specific ie can be used elsewhere, there are going to be major changes. If salami slicing is off the table then whole programmes are at risk as are existing formations. Cutting Civilian personnel will hardly dent the problem nor will reducing the MoD top brass.
In addition the purchase of spares for platforms not in Afghanistan will be severly curtailed as is standard proctice as will training and flying hours. The Navy will put to see less often and the Army will see the reduced level of training exercises continue of be reduced further.
The Government will try its utmost to hide any cuts, reductions, delays by stating that the armed forces are being transformed ond/or being made more flexible and relevant to todays and future conflicts which the majority of the public will accept. It ain’t going to be pretty but it is going to happen and if Trident is to be paid for by the core budget then it will really be doomsday.
LordJimI understand that we do not own a crystal ball but we cannot afford to equip our armed forces for every eventuallity or always with state of the art equipment when other equipment will still get the job done.
On the first issue if we a worried about everything that might happen we might as well double the number of armoured regiments in the army incase the russian hordes decide to head west.
On the second issue how many potential adversaries could we face alone who are equipped with S-300, S-400 or equivelent SAM systems. I cannot think of one, and anything less capable can be dealt with by current platforms and tactics.
LordJimStealth is almost becoming the 21st century’s new deterence. People keep stating worse case senarios like the UK going up against a top flight opponent in a high intensity war and needing stealth to get through their large state of the art air defence networks. It is like saying we have to have SLBMs to defend against other peoples SLBM/ICBM yet no one has used a nuclear weapon since 1945.
Always wanting the Rolls Royce standard just in case is unaffordable with our current defence funding. Yes they is the very smallest of chances we will fight a high intensity war in the next 25 years but then again the Martians might invade or the US invade Canada. Should we be spending money in case these events come to pass as well.
LordJimWhat I cannot get my head around is that people say that thousands will die if we cur aid to countries like India but India os spending huge amounts on defence and space programmes. Shouldn’t they be looking after their own rather than relying on others. IF they can build and launch satalites they can afford £250M to feed its own population.
The money should go to nations that really need it not allow countries to avoid looking after their own people. The same goes for China, Brazil and other high growth nations.
LordJimI agree that the Chinook is going to be the main helicopter deployed. What whould really help things though is if a method for folding the blades on a chinook was developed. This would not only aid shipborne operations but allow easier airlift into theatres.
The remaining Merlin HC3s would probably form 2 squadron the same size as existing Sea King units. A small follow on buy should also be possible at a later date. 8 HC3s should be sufficient to airlift an RM company, allowing for small scale operations like Sierra Leon for example and the HC3 is an ideal VERTREP platform.
LordJimIn an ideal world the UK Armed Forces would have the bast kit available in the quantities required but for now and at least another decade we are not. For the past decade defence procurement has been based around Capability with little regard for capacity. As a result ther size of our Armed Forces has been repeatedly trimmed down in order to purchase or plan to purchase new state of the art equipment. In order to afford the F-35 this process is going to continue at the further expense of capacity.
Given that we are not going to be involved in any conflict vs a high tech opponent by ourselves in any forseeable future (or at least I cannot think of anyone logically), and given that our current and planed equipment level mean equipment wears out far faster or requires greater time post deployment in overhaul, should we be looking more at increasing capacity even if it means we purchase less state of the art equipment that will do the job for 80% of operations in sufficient quantities.
So following that train of thought a 4th gen CTOL platform would more thatn meet the RNs requirements, yes catapults etc would cost more but this would be partly offset by cheaper aquisition costs of the alteernative platform. As for training well we could join up with the french or the USN withtraininf flights co-located like Germany did with itsd F-4 training programme in the US. We would still benefit for an large support infrastructure, more so with a US option, against producing economies of scale.
The RAF needs to be disconnected for naval operations except Maritime patrol. Yes a purchase of F-35s for both the RAF and RN would provide both with a state of the art platform but do they need it. the RAF could easily get by with additional Typhoons nas as I stated above we are not going to be facing an enemy with S-300/400 or such like alone. I personally would prefer to see the RAF have 8-10 squadron of T3B standard Typhoons than a mixed fleet with F-35s.
Like it or not though we still have the will to be at the top table we do not have SUFFICIENT means to stay at this level without extra resources.
LordJimThe GP was written to show the previous Governments ideas as to where it saw the UKs defence needs based on its foreign policy plans.
With the new Government, foreign policy is bound to change somewhat, with its attitude to Afghanistan a good example. Whilst there will probably not be a public statement regarding new policies, the New Government’s ideas on what its foreign policy will be will have a bearing on the Defence Review, though nowhere near as much as the Treasury’s.
LordJimThe Green Paper released by the previous Government is no longer relevant. The current Government whilst stating that defence will have limited protection form the forthcomiing round of cuts is not going to fill the existing hole in the defence budget or provide any new money. All programmes excluding Trident (Which has little budgetary impact over this partiament) are up for scrutiny. Given public perceptions and Governmental bias, the army is fairly secure and the need to re-equip units replacing out of date and worn out equipment should be addressed. The navy should also feel secure with few if any additional cuts but replacement programmes will be delayed and existing platforms retained for longer. IT is the RAF that will lose the most. It may gain additional rotary and transport assets but its FJ fleets is vulnerable. Future purchases of the F-35 may fill some holes but the Nimrod retirement has set a prescident meaning the Tornado fleet could be greatly reduced and no replacement entering service for 3-4 years. Unfortunately I feel the Typhoon, though an excellent platform has lost the PR battle and will be offered up to ensure additional assets in other tasks and secure the purchase of the F-35 and more UAV and possible UCAVS.
Given current force scales we can no longer meet all the requirements to carry out a large scale operations as has been defined with regards to naval and air assets.
With future funding issues I believe we are looking at a slightly enlarged “Medium Scale” force as our top level short term deployable contingent with additional rotary assets and additional land assets especially specialized units. Of course there would be exceptions but this would partly depend on the treasury’s willingness to provide additional funding for such operations.
Saying that a British Brigade sized Battlegroup is easily equal to one or two divisions in any second or third tier opposition.
I have got to try and stop writing these essays 🙂
LordJimAccording to Jane’s, the MoD plans to reduce the size of the Typhoon fleet by a third by 2015. I assume these are the T1 airframes. But with no replacements ordered for the 24 T2 airframes forwarded to Saudi Arabia this means a reduction from the planned 7 frontline Typhoon squadrons plus OCU to between 4 and 5 plus the OCU. This cut was agreed under the previous Government but I cannot see the current one stopping there. Cuts in both the Harrier and Tornado fleets are forecast. I still find it hard to see why there is a willingness for the RAFs FJ strength is being reduced so much. At this rate we will only have 4-5 Typhoon and 4-5 Tornado Squadrons by 2015 with the joint RAF/RN NSW bringing up the rear and on the way out as the F-35 begins to enter service. That will mean a deployable force of 2 squadrons available for anything but short term operations. This will mean we will be in the same league as Canada and Australia with regards to land based expeditionary aviation.
I suppose it does provide more need for the CVFs and their airwings assuming we actually purchase enought platforms to make them truely viable assets.
LordJimTrying to stop all rocket and mortar attack is the thin end of a dangerous wedge. Avoiding any casualties is becoming more and more the driver behind procurement for the Army. Yes casualties are a sad and emotional occurance but in conflict unavoidable. It has to come down to a cold hard risk assessment.
For the last decade the MoDs procurement planning has been driven by Capability rather than hardware. Well that at least has been the headline yet as always other forces have interferred as they have done with SMART procurement, CADMID and Through Life Management Plans
LordJimCould a F-35B take off using a catapult? Could it be modified to do so? Would that increase its take off load?
Why am I asking this? Well stroies are circulating that the PoW maybe designed as as CTOL carrier with the QE being retro fitted. If the UK split its buy into two with say 30 F-35B followed by a further 30 F-35C, would the “B” variant gain any benefit from using a catapult if able to?
Sign In
