I thought it was the Tornado F3 that only had a single gun and that the GR had 2 except the A variant which lost them to make space for Recce hardware.

Summing up what has been leaked etc I ma actually quite positive. The RN will get it’s 2 carriers, which has been their core capability requirement since 1998 and it looks more and more like they will both eventually be CATOBAR which opens up many possibilities for capability growth over their service lives. It also appears that the F-35C is the front runner for the platform to operate from the Carriers which is actually a gain for the RN and will put the RN’s carrier aviation right back at the top table. I can see little UK only equipment being integrated onto the plane though with maximum use being made of US kit to increase commonality and save money. So I see only ASRAAM, Meteor and Paveway IV being used integrated at most.

The Harriers going early is not a real problem for me and I do not see it as leaving the UK with a huge capability gap. Yes likw the Nimrod MR2 withdrawl it is a gamble but cuts had to be made somewhere. As for the Tornado force, do we still need the same size. I do not think so and I would like to see Marham close leaving the Tornado force concentrated at Lossiemouth and consisting of 3 frontline squadrons and 1 OCU, which is sufficent to maintain a detachment like presently ongoing in Afghanisatan.

Now on to FSTA, I do think we are paying more than we should but the RAF is going to end up with a superb platform and for once have a pretty good idea of the long term support costs a platform is going to incur. I would like to see a higher ratio of planes actually in full time service though.

The big question I would like to see resolved is the future of the Typhoon fleet. If a reduced but of the F-35C is to be made, these will be under to control of the RN with RAF pilots possibly rotated. Therefore the Typhoon is going tobe the core of the future RAF yet deliveries are painfully slow and the capability upgrades moving at a similar pace. Both need to speed up to give the platform its full advertise swing role capability. In addition the Typhoon fleet needs to have the Capacity to undertake its committments. This means tranche 3A must go ahead in full and serious consideration needs to be given to the purchase of some if not all of tranche 3B.

Finally turning to helicopters. I hope the Chinook order is reduced to the 8-12 many people have mentions. In addition I hope the Puma upgrade in cancelled and the Wildcat programme revised. In the latter I think the Wilcat for the Army should be simplifired to be a direct replacement for the AH-9A and not fitted with bells and whistles to try to make it an armed scout. The Apache covers the armed side and UAVs will cover the Scout bit. The Naval Wildcat though should be developed to enable it to act as an armed acout in addition to its maritime role. This would give the RN a very flexible platform able to support operation on land as well, especially in support the RM and negate the need to try to operate the Apache off ships in a role it is not really well suited for. I would like the MoD to hold off on the conversion of Merlins to AEW&C configuration and contimue to operate the Sea King for as long as possible. I think we need to have a good look at what capabilities we are after and to see if a rotary platform is best for the job. With the reduction in the Chinook order I hope serious consideration is given to buying additional Merlins (12-18) in the utility role. With it size and performance it is a good partner to the Chinook and as I have said before these should be fully marinised allow only a minimum modification to be carried out on the existing HC-3s which would then be used on board during a surge but mainly operate as land based in a role similar to now. This should meen that they will recive anti-corrosion protection and avionics upgrades but little else.

Well we will see this week.

The Jericho 2 with a range in excess of 1500 miles can threaten most capital cities in the Middle East, and the Israelis have a stockpile of around 50. It is a very accurate weapon with a low CEP similar to the Pershing 2

In addition the platform used to launch the Offeq Satellites in to orbit, the Shavit if used as a weapon would have a range in excess of 4000milles putting the whole Middle East within range.

Add to this the future deployment of nuclear armed SLCMs and Isreal has a deterent only a true mad man would test, including those who sponsor militant groups. You can be pretty sure if a terrorist group use any WMD within Israel, Israel would retaliate on any country believed to have aided/supported the instigators.

I think a future standard RN Carrier group would be as follows.

CVF
T-45
T-23/26
Astute
Tanker
Stores vessel

The latter two depend on what results for the MARS project as to whether we get two classes of cheap single role platforms or a single class of more expensive support platform. Additional escorts would depend of availability, but if sufficient C2 type platforms are built and additional T-23/26 could be available. Although the RN state that with revised manning and support procedures 4 of the 6 T-45 should be available I think this is wishful thinking so I cannot see more than 1 T-45 being available to escort a CVF at anyone time.

It is intereating that the idea of the Typhoon programme continuing to completion is a possibility. Present orders up to tranche 3A will allow 4 frontline squadrons to be formed if the current planned for stored airframes stands. To stand up a third wing is probably going to require tranche 3B to be purchased.

Remember the original plan was for 7 frontline squadrons, with I think 1 at Conningsby together with the OCU and OEU then 3 each at Leuchars and Leeming. Current order will allow a 2 squadron wing to stand up at Leuchars but because of the airframes diverted to Saudi and not replaced that is it.

With Leeming now a base for the RAF Regiment, with only 100 squadron as a flying unit (UAS excepted) and this unit likely to move to Valley, the question is where would the third Typhoon wing be established. Leuchars and Conningsby can handle the QRA so would Marham be a logical choice as I see Lossiemouth surviving as the sole Tornado base unitl the types final retirement. It is one of the most modern stations having been upgraded to handle the additional 2 Tornado squadrons returned from Germany and has HAS complexes for 2 squadrons.

Additionally if the Harrier Force is being reduced to 1 enlarged unit, in a move similar to the Jaguar in the twilight of its career, couldn’t the Harriers be moved to Marham instead of Wittering as the former would have plenty of capacity and would allow the latter to be closed or handed to the Army. The main logistical problem would be the transfer of the UETF and Simulators but I am sure this would be manageable. The Expeditionary Support Units currently at the latter could then be consolidated at RAF Leeming.

This would leave Kinloss, Lossiemouth and Yeovilton as bases for the FAA to station whatever platform is bought for the CVF. Given the timeframe and size, I would see Lossiemouth being the preferred choice as it will continue to be a Fast Jet operating base, allowing the FAA squadrons to move in as the final Tornado squadrons stand down and with its capacity for 4 squadrons can easily house the FAA FJ fleet.

The remaining FAA rotary assets sould be consolidated at Culdrose, with the RAFs ISTAR assets at Waddington, Heavy lift and Tankers assets at Brize Norton, Rotary assets at Odiham and Training at Valley, Cranwell and Shawbury with the latter tri-service. The ACC would retain Wattisham and Dishforth but would be losing the units (Lynx AH7 and Gazelle) currently in Germany. This would leave the UK with 12 flying stations compared to the current 20 or so.

The one unit I am not sure about are the Communications assets at Northholt. Could this work be carried out by a civilian contractor and/or could the unit relocate to a commercial airport such as Stanstead.

Which version of the Merlin is that landing on the Cavour. It looks like the version we need for the RM aka a marinised troop transport

I understand what people are saying regarding the Mk8 mod1 but it seems the vast majority of western style navies are moving away from 4.5″/5″ weapons except on command units, with the 76mm being the preferred choice, USN being the obvious exception.

The cost of advanced ammunition like sensor fused rounds is not that great and give a major step up in capability allowing the weapons systems to be very effective vs aircraft, ASMs and surface targets. With the 4.5 you are still really firing WWII style rounds. I would not also get fixated on the “It is our system” arguement as in the current climate that is actually a disadvantage with limited market and research. The same can be said for 155mm weapons unless you go for expensive systems like Excaliber but as yet this cannot hit moving targets, so although there is some commonality with land based systems it bring no adavantages except for NGS.

What actual capability does the Mk8 give the RN that another system does not? Yes it has and is being used as a hand me down and has been refurbished to mod1 standard but beside naval gun fire and scaring people conducting illegal activities what else does it bring to the table. A 76mm or 57mm gives a vessel a viable AA defence, excellent protection form fast moving small to medium surface craft and a CIWS. Added to this saving in weight and size and surely there are major advantages for equipping new RN platforms with a weapons system of this sought. This is why many nations are have decided to adopt this class of weapon. So keep the Mk8 mod1 on the T-45 and possibly the 6-8 C1/T-26 but give the C2 and C3 a smaller calibre more flexibel weapon

Following some peoples arguement we would never have switched from .303 to 7.62 as it was our calibre, we knew its capabilites and had the manufacturing and facilities to support it.

I cannot see why many people believe the Mk8 is the right gun for a future platform, often saying that it’s existing support structure means it would be stupid to change weapons. How many Mk8s do we actually have? How many other European navies use the Mk8 and how many use the 76mm or 57mm? How much growth and how many future programmes are there involving the Mk8, 76mm and 57mm? How old are the MK8s currently in service and how much life do they have left in them? Surely for a patrol vessel a medium calibre weapon with a high rate for fire, able to engage both air and surface targets effectively as well as ship to shore and alternative ammunition types shared by many other nations with a correspondingly greater support structure worldwide is a worthwhile alternative?

Whilst the Wildcat is a good platform for the Navy is a platform the Army must have or simply to maintain numbers? Could the order for the Army variant be re-scheduled or cancelled with the requirement re-examined after 2015?