LordJimI was using Medium AFV’s and C2 as examples of NON “Gold Plated” equipment.
I was using the examples of Operations Corporate, Granby and Telic as examples of size. Of course we could not fight another corporate as we did in 82 why would you even think that!?
We already have many knackered airframes and aircrew as you put in ther Tornado and Harrier fleets. Having a single type fleet gives you a larger pool of airframes and aircrew to man and maintain deployments.
We cannot send three squadrons to Afghanistan even now, the Harrier fleets is in recuperation and their is not enough theatre specific kit to support three Tornado squadron. Any how why would we, there is already more than enough fast air available to cover any eventuality as all nations pool their aircraft to respond to all request from groud troops. If it was an emergency the last thing we would do is still send planes to Reg Flag, Maple Flag ar any other exercise. One of the first things to go when money is tight are exercises. Remember the last major joint exercise the uK staged was almost a seven years ago in Oman!
LordJimWithout giving up fuel the Typhoon could carry 4 ASRAAM and 6 AMRAAM though 4 or the latter is more common. It could carry more it it used Multiple Ejector Racks. How does the F35 carry 14 to 16 and on which hard points?
LordJimAs I have already said with the funding canyon all existing plans (Except Trident) are up in the air. The Tornadoes are doing a good job in Afghanistan but if the choice is keep them and lose 2 to 3 squadrons of Typhoons and the money to bring them up to T3 standard I believe the latter would be the preferred option.
As for the F35, well there is no way the UK is going to purchase the numbers quoted. There will never be a reasonably possible senario where a CVF has to operate at high temp for 12 months, remember in 82 the Taskforce was only a few weeks away from breaking down when the conflict ended. In addition we cannot afford 2 air wings and the majority of training will possibly done in the US, buying in to their training programme.
Money is going to be very very tight. Hopefully the one thing that will come out of the SDR will be the end of keeping procurement programmes in limbo as there is insufficient money to proceed but no political will to cancel them. A number of “Gold Plated” programmes will have to fo or expectations lowered, the Army’s Medium AFVs and the Navy’s C2 being prime examples. For the RAF 7 Squadrons of Typhoons should meet existing requirements.
The days of mounting operations Granby or Telic let alone Corporate are over. We will still have a world class Armed Forces but will have to act in partnership with others. We are exceedingly unlikely to ever go up against another Country in high intensity conflict without being part of a coalition including the US.
We would all like more money for defence but it isn’t going to happen, if anything things are going to get worse.
LordJimBasicaly with the huge shortfall in funding for defence over the next decade there are going to be major cuts, with the Army doing the best, retaining its manpower and re-equipping with vehicles more suited to operations of a medium to low intensity. Heavy high intensity units will have to be sacrificed to pay for this and free up manpower. The main mechanism for the will be the draw down of BOAR units. A small number may be retained for a time, maybe a Brigades worth.
The RAF would rather have Typhoons than Tornadoes so in order to have the maximum 7 squadrons the Tornado fleet will be retired early with the T3 taking over its role. There will only ever be one Airwing of F-35Bs plus a training unit. So at most 3 squadrons with only one deployed on the CVF in peace time increasing to two for exercises and three for a time limited surge
For the Navy, C1 will be purchased but only around 6 platforms. The remaining platforms will be more global patrol vessels with just enough systems and weapons to be the job. Ocean will not be replaced with the active CVF filling in by reducing its strike capacity for more Helicopters when required.
With cuts of over £40Bn over the next decade and little likelyhood of real increases after that our Armed Forces are going to change radically. The Chiefs may not like it but there is little they can do. If they go public they will be replaced by other who will tow the line. Other spending priorities have greater public support and always will.
I have seen many shortsighted and poor decision made by the MoD from the inside. With infighting going on any future Government will ba able to pit one branch against another. I am actually a supporter of a strong defence but after what I have seen and witnessed over the past decade and a half I fear the worst. I would love to be proved wrong but where is the moey going to come from?
LordJimIt always annoys me how the media make a hash of any discussion regarding Defence. They are obsessed with having a balance view and always has one or two “Experts” who believe we should transfer the defence budget to Health, Education and Welfare. As a result the debate never gets to the real issues, which is a shame as this was a real opportunity.
Myself, well I still cannot see how the next Government is going to square the circle as the Defence Budget is already too small and all parties are stating that further cuts of approximately 10% are inevitable! The priority for the Budget will be Afghanistan until at least 2015 with more and more funds from the core budget being used to support operations given the track record of the Treasury in restricting funds from the Reserve whenever possible.
My other Bug Bear the the MoD’s and Governments fixation with “Capability”. I was working in the MoD when this doctrin was introduced and at the time it seemed a good idea but it has been corrupted. There has been a total disconnect with capacity. New capabilities are good PR material but rarely is ther a mention as to the numbers. This is especially true with UORs where just enough equipment is purchased for operation and limited training packages.
They way forward as I see it is that the Army will be trained and equipped for low and medium intensity warfare losing much of its heavy units, these being replaced by medium equivilents despite many of the lessons learnt in recent years. The reserves/TA will be even more intergrated into regular units possibly providing upto 30% of their strength on operations
The RAF will be reduced to between 8 and 10 fast jet squadrons including those jointly operated with the RN but will get more Medium and Heavy Helicopters, Transports and ISTAR platforms. A reserve of pilots for not fast jet operations could be formed to ease shortaged for Transports and Helicopter operations
The Navy with have sufficent high end platforms for one deployed Carrier Group and Amphibious Group. Its remaining platforms with be mainly for policing and patrol duties with the minimum fit to carry out this role, Think along the lines of the enlarged T21 frigates equipped with current or planned systems such as CAAM, but no CIWS or ASM. The Royal Marines will have an increased reserve/TA component providing the majority % of the operational support units.
Will should still retain the capacity to work with the US and other allies but will rely on other for High Intensity forces, with are troops providing second echelon formations to hold and stabilise areas. This will still show the flag and the quality of are aervice men and women will keep us at the top table, if only because other nations have had to reduce their capacity and capabilities as well.
LordJimEverytime I view this forum I am amazed at some of the discussions. The Typhoon has already provided the RAF with a quantum leap in capabilities over the Tornado F3 and Jaguar GR3A it is replacing. Yes both platforms ended up a quite capable especially the Jaguar though this was let down badly by the performance of the Adour Mk106. Yes both should have been retained until sufficient Typhoons were available to replace them but that was a decision driven by Political/funding issues.
The Jaguar proved to the RAF that a Single Seat platform could provide the capabiltiy to deliver Guided Munitions effectively. Its HMD and IDM made it a great platform and its ease of maintenance made it ideal for deployments. The Typhoon will do all of the above and then some. As has been said repeatedly above, the slow delivery and developement has really hurt the Typhoon programme as has insufficient spares that has also affected availability. Remember it is going to take over a decade to deliver the RAF’s 5 to 7 squadrons!
However though single seat operations are fine I personally think two heads are better than one on attack and interdiction missions. Converting the T3 orders into two seaters with CFTs should be the way to go and ideally add a further 3 squadrons in a T4 to replace the Tornado force.
In the 21st Century all platforms need to be swing role for the majority of Airforces. Funds are simply not there for a multitude of platforms. Countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway etc have shown this is a viable practice to operate a single swing role platform. For example, in the RAF’s case the single seat platforms would be air to air first and attack second with the twin seaters the reverse.
Give the F-35s to the Navy and let the RAF become a Typhoon only force of around 8 to 10 squadrons and the RAF will have a first rate versitile force for the 21st Century able to any role requested of it, if the SDR allows funds to be made available to allow the platform to reach its potential!
LordJimI go back to my original point, the existing equipment programme is unaffordable with a black hole of between £24 and £37 billion. There is not going to be any new money/increase until at least 2020.
The GR4 is very vulnerable as it is seen as a Cold War Platform and remember the Harrier force is losing a squadron and they haven’t even finished the GR9 programme yet. Tranche 1 was a 60:40 split between twin and single seaters, so the F1s can be cut and the T2s left unmodernised with only limited operational worth. T3A is really only replacing the T2 platforms sold to Saudi so we are only getting around 15 new planes then and if the Governmnet decides to pay the penalty short term to cut long term costs then T3b is a target.
As for the Navy well they are more likely to get what was C2 speced platforms than C1 speced, say a straight swap in capability with the Type 23. The bare minimum to do the job. As stated above the budget is bust until 2020 at the earliest.
Yes FRES was a disaster but its successor is no better. Given the current procurement process and lack of funds, A new Recce vehicle is years away, remember the Army’s core budget is having to partly pay for the platforms bought for Afghanistan and all their maintenance costs come from the Army’s budget. MRAVs are a short term fix and only suitable for a limited number of roles. In the mean time we have tanks for which we no longer produce the ammo for, and IFVs that are worn out and in deparate need of upgrading and refurbishment. So no new AFVs then until 2020.
IF the Defence review was going to be threat led I wouldn’t worry but the Treasury has already planted its flag. Both main parties have irng fenced Ohter departments so the MoD is going to have to bite the bullet. Their are savings to be made in Civilian manning levels but no where near enough to fill the hole and the same goes for PFIs etc. With no new money cuts are unavoidable.
Having worked in the MoDs supply branch for 12 years and seeing how changes were brought in, the short termism etc, political interference, though overmanned the MoD staff do a good job when allowed to. The current Government is the main cause to the delays and over runs on projects due to decisions made for political gain rather than the benefit of the MoD, and don’t think common sence has anything to do with the process. No programme is safe.
LordJimI used to think that the Gov would sort out its defence funding once we were involved in a war where, regretably, large number of servicemen and women would come home in body bag as a result of lack oft resources and equipment. how niave was I, this Gov actually carried on cutting the budget when we are a war. If I could I would charge the Gov with negligence for endangering the lives of our armed forces above what can be expected due to their poor management and duty of care.
LordJimHas the RN actually carried out any naval gunfire support since the Falklands War?
LordJimGiven that the Chinook production line is full meaning we won’t get the new airframes until 2015, unless Westlands set up a licenced production line, How soon would we be able to get additional Merlins as the production line is still up and running (I think)?
LordJimI must admit I can see the logic in Mr Hastings arguement. For years the RAF and Navy have been the beneficiaries of big budget programmes as both airpower and anval power were seen as the conerstones of overseas operations during the nineties and early 21st century. No one planed for aither a long ground war in Iraq or Afghanistan.
As a result the Army has been severely neglected and reduced in size and has had to rely on UORs to bring it up a sembalance of war fighting ability. Those programmes that were to fill holes in its capabilities have been underfunded and dragged out, with many never entering service. Good examples are Bowman, very late and overbudget, FRES as disaster, replacement for the “Snatch landrover” where the MoD stuck its head in the sand and refused to admit it wasn’t suitable, I could go on and on.
The Army need serious reorganisation and greater funding I agree but both the RAF and Navy have been reduced by almost 40% over the same timeframe. The key issue in the comming review is that resources and funding must match the policy. The MoD has had to do a “Loaves and Fishes” act for far to long. If we have to reduce our international footprint to balance the books that is fine by me. If we want to play with the big boys that the money and resources have to be found. There is no “Third” way.
LordJimTo deploy one squadron for six months you need three to four squadrons. Not because of the aircraft but in order to rotate the pilots and ground crew. To keep a carrier on station for six months is going to need at least three carriers and additional crew and airwing personel to rotate the them as well.
I agree the Navy seems to have alot of its assets constantly deployed but there are not alot of them as was pointed out. Unfortunately in the real world priorities for funds seem to be Army UORs, Airforce UORs, Army Core, Airforce Core and finally Navy Core. Yes the navy is getting its new carriers but will funding be available for them to be properly used or simply as a way to show the flag on tours.
I know my posts on this are quite negative but having been on the inside for twelve years I have seen how things are and cannot see a real light at the end of the tunnel for defence spending.
Afghanistan is going to wreck this countries armed forces with them having a load of kit that isn’t properly supported or isn’t needed afterwards. In the mean time major programmes have been cancelled or delayed to a point they are no longer viable or affordable. It has been stated that after operations end in Afghanistan it will take over a decade for the Army alone to regain its balance and to do that it will have to take the bulk of funds available meaning the RAF and Navy will have to wait even longer.
Until the British Public are willing to see Defence spending increas at the cost of increases in Health and Education, and Pigs will learnt fly first, the future is going to be grim even with w review.
LordJimThe RAF cannot deploy every bird overseas, we do not have the support elements to do so and all deep maintenance must be carried out in the UK. IF we are lucky we could deploy 50% for a short period. Yes money has alot to do with it I agree, but the Armed Forces are partly to blame due to their “Can Do” mentality meaning that many of the cracks are covered up.
If the Armed Forces rigidly adhered to the time intervals forces could be deployed,things would rapidly grind to a halt. As it is you have soldiers from Artillery and Armoured Regiments being used as infantry in Afghanistan to maintain numbers!
We have obtained some excellent kit over the past decade but always in ever shrinking numbers. This is storing up a whole lot of hurt for the future as this kit will be worked too hard and wear out faster leading to the need for block replacement sooner rather than later. Also much of the new equipment hace been bought under UORs at inflated prices with no proper support chain. It allow the Gov to say we are providing the kit the troops need now but creates long term problems.
IF the up comming defence review is actually done properly there may be hope, but the 1998 review was and then the Treasury/Gordon Brown got his cleaver out and tore it up.
What is really need is for the Armed Forces to start saying we can’t do this task ot that task because we haven’t got the proper equipment or manpower.
We need some mechanism that stops the Government abusing the Armed Forces. My preferred option is to have the Government responsible for policy but an independant body to decide and insure the Armed Forces have the funding and equipment to carry said policy out. The same would go for Health and Education and it would mean only affordable option we made and reduce the opportunity for “Spin” and stop the handing out of billions in knee jerk reactions to problems that emerge. There would be a time lag initially but if this means we reduce operations in the sort term to get the right sized Armed Forces so be it
I have had my rant and will leave it there for now
LordJimWhen the F-35 is in full production I will be very surprised if it costs less than the Typhoon, Rafale and F-18E/F. But until the actual costs are revealed at that time no one can say for definite one way or the other except as pure spin.
LordJimBut even in its initial form the F-16 carried 4 x AIM-9. Yes the F-35 can carry more than 2 AIM-120 but to do that it has to carry external ordinance and bang goes its reason for being ie stealth. IF it was to be a fighter first more effort would have been put into its AtoA internal loadout at the expence of AtoG.
If its sensors work as advertised it will be a great attack platform able to defend itself, but too expensive and compromised by the need for stealth. LO UCAVs are surely a better bet for day one and SEAD operations.
As for non-stealth platforms, with the West’s overwelming battlespace management abilities, it can be sure of at least air superiority over any potential foe. We are not going to go to war with either Russia or China and those nation we may end up fighting may have the odd S-300 or even S-400 system but not many and they will be identified, neutralised or avoided.
In fact can anyone suggest a nation who we might come into conflict with that has an Air Defence capability now or in the near future that cannot be overcome by the current assets deployed by the West?
Sign In
