LordJimHaving worked with the Jaguar for over ten years prior to its early retirement, but mindful my area was the Adour the pylons may have been wired for the ASRAAM as were the Harrier but as with the former you are right, budget cuts prevented its use. Regarding the Harrier, when I asked the Project Team Boss after the retirement of the SHAR why they hadn’t qualified and fitted the ASRAAM his reply was that the Harrier was a bomb truck not a fighter.
I also know that Omani Jaguars have carried AIM-9s on their outboard pylons
LordJimI have to agree that SSNs do make sense when you consider they wat the RAN operates its subs. One platform that might be of interest is the new French SSN under developement to replace the Rubis class. I know little about it but its role and capabilities may suit the RAN.
Leasing a 688 would be a good way of assessing the use and practicality of SSNs in RAN service.
If the RAN put the infrastructure in place to support SSNs I am also sure the USN would be interested in using them, and therefore may help with the contrustion costs and provide technical assistance.
LordJimWhy does Europe need to spend billions of $ on ABM. The missiles being developed by possible hostile nations are only good for targeting cities and at the range required even that would be an achievement. Then there is the payload. If somebody decided to fire a Nuclear/Chemical or Biological warhead then their country would be turned to glass, why else do we have Trident and the French with their SLBMs. If it is conventional it would be 2000lb at the most.
If we must have ABM then as has been said, outfitting warships is the best answer as they have other capabilities as well. With the UKs T-45 (When it actually starts to perform as advertised) together with the platforms deployed by France, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands, Europe would have a viable system after the neccessary upgrades.
On the whole the talk of ABM is going to muddy the waters with regards to the Defence Review. Any new capability is going to come at the expense of an existing one.
What is really P#####g me off is that the goverment willing spent billions support banks as they were deemed esential to the country’s economy yet it hasn’t the ball’s to bail out the MoD for a fraction of that. Yes there have been c##k ups within the MoD but alot of those have been as a result of the Treasury interferring and demanding checks and balances on expenditure that might work for Tescos but do not for Defence Procurement. Defence of the Realm is one of the core obligation for any government.
In addition Defence is one of the few manufacturing industries left, so with the troops getting the kit they need, more jobs supported and created it is a win win situation. The money is there but as I have said a government must have the balls to spend it.
LordJimThis is a game NATO and the USSR now Russia have played for decades and the rules have changed little. The Interceptors were fully armed during the Cold War and probably still are. QRA is good for training and not just the pilots but ground crew and other elements of the UK’s Air Defence Environment (I think that is what it is called from memory)
If the crew of a RuAF Blackjack lost its marbles and made a run at the UK mainland the fighters would try to pursuade it to turn back and maybe fire their guns as a warning as a last resort but that is only a slight possibility. The RuAF crew would have far more to fear from their bosses when they got home.
If however the political climate was heating up and it showed hostile intent and the there would be some very frantic phone calls and then who knows.
LordJimI cannot see the UK being able to fund an Anti-Missile Defence System let alone deply one. If there was a EU or NATO programme them it could be a possibility.
I know people are going on about the negative talk of cuts, cuts and more cuts, but before we think of new capabilities we are going to have to decide which existing one we are going to reduce or loose all together. As I have already mentioned above there is a £37Bn black hole in the MoDs finances and we are also looking at a real time cut in the defence budget of between 15% and 20% over the next four years.
So big decisions need to be made. We are not talking about £50M here and £200M there, whole programmes and capabilities are up for the chop. So what are people ideas of what we should keep, what we can reduce and what should go? Nothing is safe!
LordJimI think we are all in the same ball park here but are quoting different senarios. This is going to be the core of the Defence Review. We can no longer afford to equip are armed forces to face all threats. We have to ask ourselves what is more likely in the next ten years, “Bush” wars against lower tech opponents or high tech, high intensity warefare against a peer opponent.
Now I know one cannot say 100% we will not face the latter but the former is far more likely. Therefore with the limited pot of money surely it is beter to ensure we have the kit neccessary to do the former and in sufficient quantites. Yes we need to retain the latter capability, at a lower capacity, but it needs to be more flexible and be able to be used in other operations.
If, in the former case, our forces come up against a battalion sized force dug in to a fixed position they should have no problem bringing enough firepower down on them to make them keep their heads down or better. Airburst rounds are going to do serious damage unless the opponent has good top cover. Far more than a few rounds would be expended as well and I do not think it would be the case of targetting individual trenches. If the enemy is fixed in position he is dead from a combination or air and ground forces. If he tries to move or disengage things get even worse.
One of the main problem in “Bush” wars is fixing the enemy, if he voluntarily fixes himself to a position he is losing one of his main advantages.
If we are taking Peer opposition then yes it is a whole different ball game but who are we likely to fight in the next ten years that falls into that catagory and wouldn’t the US also be involved? If the world situaion dramatically changes over the next decade then obviously a rethink would be needed, but I am basing my assumptions on current events and possibilities with a health dose of risk assessment.
LordJimGiven the accuracy and warhead flexibility today, a artillery regiement with 2 155mm batteries and 1 GMLRS should be more than enough to break up an attack. Nowadays even towed artillery can do MRSI missions and a combination of airburst, submunitions and smart munitions like BONUS will make anybodies day a bad one. If we are discussiong COld War senarios of massed assauts by enemy armour etc, then the RAF will finally be able to show the full potential of Brimstone as will the Apache’s. Given todays battlefield ISTAR capabilities, fixed or semi-fixed units like SPAA and HQs are exceeding vulnerable to long range artillery like GMLRS and GATAMS which have long range capability, especially the latter.
As for the morale effect, if an enemy knows that once his position is known he is likely to soon be recieving a guided 155mm and GMLRS which will hit the mark puts them in a very unenviable position. They either continue to fight and take the hit or try break contact, both of which benefit the good guys.
Finally Artillery shells, even the hitech ones are generally cheaper than air dropped ordanance and I don’t have the figures but what does a battery of M777 155mm guns cost compared to a Typhoon or F-35. Surely flexible deployable artillery is a reasonalble, cost effective alternative to fixed wing airpower especially as numbers of the latter are going to continue to drop as their price continues to rise.
Yet another essay
LordJimThe Lynx/Future Lynx and Commando Helicopter force would move to RNAS Culdrose, which should have the capacity with the reduction in numbers planned.
The 6 High Intensity Brigades will be more flexible, being able to deploy forces more taylored to a given operation than the current 5 “Heavy” brigades, being able to deploy from a medium battalion level battlegroup to the entire brigade. As I mentioned in earlier posts, the Army is probably going to come out of the review quite well. If the MoD purchases an off the shelf medium platform it could be affordable, that however comes under procurement reorganisation which is a real can of worms.
Yes, together with 16AA and 2Cdo we would end up with more deployable units but that is the idea. Having a bigger pool means you can increase the time between deployments, Have 16AA and 3Cdo available as high readiness units and not rotating through operation like other units. One of the biggest shortfalls resulting from Afghanistan is that with the level of committment v resources, the UK has not the means to handle any other ops of any scale. elite units like 16AA and 3Cdo are high mobile and flexibel frmations ideal for intervention and should not be wasted on peacekeeping/enforcement, but deployed for specific tasks including surges in ongoing ops.
I agree that a pure Peacekeping brigade could be a bad idea which is why I mentioned that it would need additional kit to flesh out its capabilities like SP Mortars etc. Look upon it as a developement of the Saxon equipped units but with more capable hardware. It would be ideal for many tasks from small scale interventions to traditional peacekeeping. They would be trained for warfighting, but equipped with kit more appropriate to the role. As with other formations, units would rotate form Light, to Mechanised/Medium, Armoured Infantry and Mechanised “Peacekeeping”.
I see no real problem having three different platforms in a single Artillery regiment. Modern logistics can handle the movement and tracking, or at least should if the IT works. With modern fire control, fire missions are no longer sustained barrages, and in Afghanistan, most missions are of the destructive type or as a show of force. This leads to reduced ammunition usage. Having 155mm offers greater flexibility in ammunition and more destructive fire. Add to that greater range and the ability to use precision munitions like Exclaiber and you have a real alternative to Air Support with the GMLRS providing the long reach. For large scale operations, brigades could be pick and mix with a regiment leaving ts 105LG behind but having 1 or 2 additional M777 batteries form another regiment attached.
This is another key point. Headquarters, be it Divisional or Battalion level need to be more focused on flexible formations rather than glued to one fixed formation. Therefore in future Brigades could become mearly an adminstrative title with the formations being taylored to each operation and Headquarters being rotated as with any other unit. I also strongly believe that a tier of command should be removed leaving the joint headquarters (at Northwood) but removing High Wycomme etc
IN the 1990’s politicians believed that intervention could be done purely from the air. Afghanistan and Iraq have show that boots on the groud a what really matter and that they need the right equipment and support. The RAF in particular is going to have to accept that its main role for the foreseeable future will be supporting the army and the same for the Navy but a lesser extent. The latter whilst retaining a high end capability centered aroung a CVBG and Amphibious Group needs to taylor its remaining assets to lower level operations. This is why an arguement is forming for the RN to purchase the C2 FSC first to take the pressure of high end units.
Damn I have ended up writing another essay!
PS could you let me have the info on the books you mentioned.
LordJimI can see no reason why Kinloss cannot be closed. Either ARCC can remain but given reorganisation of SAR is undergoing surely it can be moved. I believe it was situated at Kinloss because of the Nimrods, if they move then why not it, plus the MoD has a habit of moving units for no logical reason.
I would also relocate the Harrier Force to RAF Lossiemouth, handing the station over to the Navy. Lossiemouth is already one of the station highlighted as the home of the F-35 force so why not bring things forward. I would move 617 and XV(R) squadrons to RAF Marham disbanding 14 and 12. This would also mean the closure of RNAS Yeovilton.
I would turn RAF Cottesmore into the RAF’s Expeditionary Support Hub allowing the closure of RAF Wittering and RAF Leeming with 100 Squadron moving the RAF Valley to consolidate the Hawk Fleet. I would also move the Red Arrows there for the same reason as Cranwell is already quite crowded.
RAF Lynham is already due to close when the legacy Hercules fleet retires, with the “J” Hercs moving to RAF Brize Norton. I would accelerate this with detachments forward deployed to Cyprus to reduce crowding.
As for the Navy, well although there has been significant investment at Devonport, I would consolidate all submarines as Faslane as this is the only location the SSBNs can be based due to infrastructure amongst other things. Both Portsmouth and Plymouth are needed with the Carriers at the former and the Amphibious units at the latter. Escorts can be split as is convenient and cost effective.
Turning to the Army, First I would move units from Germany back to the UK. Secondly a major restructuring is needed. Firstly the current Divisional HQs for 1st and 3rd Divisions need to be adjusted to make them more flexible and able to deploy and co-ordinate more varied formations.
I would convert the current heavy and medium organisation into 6 Medium Armoured Brigades, each with one Tank Battalion, 1 Armoured Infantry Battalion and 2 Mechanised Infantry Battalions equipped with the “Son of FRES” Pooled support elements would include 2 Artillery Regiment with 3 6 gun AS-90 Batteries and one 8 gun GMLRS battery together with 2 Force Recce Battalions allowing a Company/Squadron to be attached to each brigade. Finally 2 Air Defence Regiments equipped with HVM would be attached rounding out the teeth component.
I would re-role one Light Brigade into a designated peacekeeping formation, equipped with platfoms purchased for Afghanistan and additional platforms to round out its capabilities.
The 3 light artillery regiments would be reorganised fo rthe current 5 105LG batteries into 2 of M777 Light 155mm, 2 of 105LG and 1 of Light GMLRS the latter of which is the UK version based on a Suoercat chassis. All three are air transportable and can be carried underslung by Chinook.
Well that’s just a few ideas.
LordJimThe problem is removing the airborne capability of the Paras making them simply airmobile will save only the smallest of fractions of the amount required, but I agree it is a possibility.
At the moment the Army believes it should be the least affected and is going on a mojor PR drive to let everyone know this. In some ways they are justified as they have been the poor relation to the other 2 services over the past decades. This is due to continue if the current procurement plan continues with the RAF still getting its remaining Typhoons, new helicopters and transports and the Navy in line for its carriers and new escorts. Yet the Army, though inter linked with the other services has borne the brunt of the committments in Iraq and Afghanistan. It needs new equipment and to refurbish and modernise existing kit. It is also campaigning for additional manpower. I think its heavy units are vulnerable to cuts but it will get new medium platforms to replace them and other obsolete kit like the Saxons and CVR(T) family.
So that leaves the Navy and Air Force to bear the brunt of any cuts to programmes and force size. So where would people make such cuts?
LordJimThe threat stealth will pose to all western forces (Land/Sea and Air) will have a major impact on warfare by the second quarter of the century. The Russian PAK-FA will be watched with a microscope to try to determine its capabilities as early as possible. On the plus side it appears to be designed for AA but once the technology is there how long until a Russian Stealth attack/bomber appears?
Locating a CVBG in open ocean is still going to be a problem but once they come in range in order to launch air strikes they vulnerability does increase. With inflight refueling though and the increased strike radius an opponent will still have to search alot of sea to locate them, but the CVBG EM radiation may give them away. I know aircraft can have low probability of intercept radars fitted making them difficult to pin point, but do similar land and sea based systems exist?
Remember the USN has a anti-ship version of the Tomahawk available (Still I think). However being subsonic current and future shipborne air defence systems have seriously affected is effectiveness. Now load out an Ohio SSGN with over 100 and you will definitely give someone a bad headache.
LordJimThe current bases operating the TU-22M3 as of 2009 are as follows;
Russian Air Force
Belaya: 1 Regiment 30 TU-22M3, 3 TU-22MR
Ryazan (Testing Centre): 1 Squadron 8 TU-22M, 4 TU-22M3
Shalkovka: 1 Regiment 30 TU-22M3
Sol’tsi: 1 Regiment 18 TU-22M3
The Soviet Air Force now tasks its TU-22M3 units as Strategic Assets with both nuclear and conventional roles. They no longer have any maritime tasks.
Russian Navy
Olengorsk (Northern): 1 Regiment 23 TU-22M3, 5 TU-22MR
Kamenny Ruchei (Pacific): 1 Regiment 22 Tu-22M3
Both the Northern and Pacific Fleets both have a Regiment of TU-22M3s allocated to them together with a small number of TU-22MR reconnaisance platforms. These are supported by 3 squadrons of TU-142 Bear-F ASW/MR platforms with 1 ataached to the Northern Fleets and the remaining 2 the Pacific. Neither has any attached AAR Support.
Against any navy except the USN this would still be a potent force. Much has been said about the F-18E/F being a poor successor to the F-14A/B/D but when equipped with an extended range variant of the AMRAAM similar in desigh to the Meteor and used in conjunction with the new E-2D Super Hawkeye, the USN will regain its true stand off AA capability. Add to the the improved AEGIS systems on the USN’s CG and DDG escorts and the USN’s Carrier are still very well protected
It could be said that if the USN is forced to stand too far off the coast due to hostile threats then its strike power is reduced to a level that means the opponent has achieved his aim. But in future with TLAM, Stealthy manned and unmanned platforms, supported by superior ISTAR capabilities the USN should be able to maintain the initiative to strike when and where it wishes
LordJimThe idea of a 12 squadron Typhoon force is my ideal solution and wish it would come to pass. I have a strong feeling that in orer to keep operational number up the numbers in storage will be dastically reduced, meaning greater wear and tear on the fleet in the long term
I did mean to type 4 squadron but it ended up typing 3! I agree that actually putting the remaining Harrier squadrons under the FAA and moving them to Yeovilton is a good idea but as the RAF is already giving up its Merlins I am sure they will fight that one. As for Wittering, they redeveloped the base to house the Tactical Support Units. Where are they going to go?
Yes we should be able to mount a Telic sized operation but it is going to take years for the Army especially to recuperate from Afghanistan and new kit needs to be purchased to replace that which is worn out and other kits needs upgrading. Key is the Warrior lethality upgrade programme which has been going at a snails pace. We need new vehicles to replace the FV432 family in support roles and and the CVR(T) needs replacing. In addition stocks of Capital munitions like Javelin, Brimstone, Paveway LGBs need replacing but the money has yet to be agreed.
As for exercises, I think Red Flag and Magic Carpet are safe as there are many factors that support them like working with the US and showing the flag in the middle east etc. What I was really aiming at was the Army’s heavy units which have not been tasked for Afghanistan. It is also a worry that funding to reequip and/or modernised their equipment is under real financial pressure. There are even options being looked at to draw down the Army in Germany! This could be used as an opportunity to reduce them further if I was being pessimistic.
With little chance of extra money I think we are going to have to lower are aspirations.
LordJimI am not infallable, yes I missed on of the Tornado squadrons but 801 squadron was never reformed due to lack of personnel and therefore 800 was renamed and and became the Naval Strike Wing. There were never any plans for a 5th unit. So therefore there are Nos 1 and 3 squadrons and the NSW making 3 with one squadron due to disband No4 as part of the plan to fund the new Chinnoks. 111 Squadron is irrelevant it is purely AD and will probably never deploy operationally again and will be disbanded ASAP. No6 squadron is due to form this year but the final Typhooon squadron will not be operational until 2016 at the earliest.
£40Bn comes from the accepted (Except by the MoD and Government) current £36Bn hole plus the minimum 10% cut in the budget that will be unavoidable in the current climate of needing to cut public spending. The NAO supports this figure. The hole will also increase if programmes are further delayed or number reduced and if the Treasury does not scrap its plans to increase the amount of the Core budget used to fund operations in Afghanistan. Currently there is a cap on UORs that if exceeded the treasury still provides the funds but the MoD has to repay them from the core budget at a later date. If you read the reports from the Defence Select Committee they state that the hole is between £20Bn and 37Bn. The MoD has been fiddling the books as the Iraq enquiry has discovered and having been on the inside I know which side is telling the truth.
I did mean to type ten rather than “to” so you got me there as well
LordJimI am well aware the the UK has fought all ita major wars as part of alliances, what I was reffering to was that we cannot deploy forces on the scale of the operations I mentioned and one of the key lessons learnt in Telic was that Capacity is just as important as Capability.
Currently we have 2/3 Harrier Squadrons and 6 Tornado Squadrons. This is likely to be reduced to 1 or 2 of the former (including RN) and 5 of the latter with the Harriers being exclusively deployed only on the carriers leaving 5 Tornado squadrons to cover all operations deployments. I think a pool of 7 squadrons is more flexible. Also if Belgium and the Netherlands can make deployment with even smaller airforces but a single type add to my arguement.
In future we may only be able to deploy a single squadron on long term operations. The Navy is trying to develope a two stage operating process so ships are either deployed or in port with crews transferring on station. this way they hope to have 4 T-45s available though I am sceptical.
Sure emergencies can arise whilst on exercise but the training budget for anything but Afghanistan has already been butchered and is likely to get worse especially for any unit type not applicable to that theatre.
One simple question, there is a £40Bn+ hole in the defence Budget over the next to years, how do we fill it without further cuts etc?
Sign In
