LordJimFocusing on MoD cost and its “Estates”, current financial managment used by Government departments is called Resource Account Budgeting (RAB). Under this the NoD is actually having to refung the Treasury around £1Bn per year from its core budget due to the value of its assets ie equipement and estates. RAB was introduced by Gordon Brown ( a micro management junkie supreme) when he was at the Treasury and it is a massively labour intensive process and one of ther reasons for so many civilian posts within the MoD. In fact when most branches were cutting staff to meet the 20,000 civilian staff reductions during the last decade, Finance Branches were actually increased in size. If this system stays in place there is no way you are going to get a service Man or Woman to do this “Bean Counting” nor are you going to get them to man the commercial branches, letting and managing contracts.
Before we start hacking away again at civilian numbers the MoD and other Government departments need to reform their processes and business practices not the other way round.
LordJimAs people have said there are many capabilities planned for the F-35 but are not funded. Well going on past history the UK is likely to keep many of these on the shelf until a UOR comes along. I have seen quite a few internal load outs for the F-35 but if ASRAAM is carried internally then you lose the AMRAAM if you are caarying other ordonnance. I still think that although the RN would like to operate the F-35 as a fleet defence fighter it will be a bit like the Typhoon in reverce with A2G capabilities given priority over A2A.
With regards to competative pricing, I should have been clearer. Companies when bidding for contracts should offer true prices rather than unrealistic ones witch are usually greatly exceeded. The MoD need to return to fixed price contracts and if UK industry threatens to walk away as they did on Nimrod and Astute then the MoD should let them. In partnership with this the MoD must draw up reasonable specification for kit it wants and once a design is locked down it stays that way until delivery. Finally the MoD must gat away from programmes where manufacture is proceeding at the same time as developement. Industry must accept more of the risk for programmes. One thing I know from experience is that few if any MoD contracts actually have penalty clauses in them. I know problems will arise in any programme but both Industry and the MoD are supposed to identify these at an early stage. If both stick to the CADMID cycle as they are supposed to now thing would be smother. The Mod also has a part to play in this as it has burnt industry’s fingers more than once by stalling programmes before main gate for long periods, sometime cancelling programmes. There is also a tendancy for the MoD to make Industry use its own money to develope Programmes on a verbal promise that they will be purchased at a future date.
The DIS is supposed to soret this out but this will not be completed until after the SDSR. Both Industry and the MoD must work together closely . The Armed forces deserve the best kit that is affordable and not neccessarily the Rolls Royce standard every time. Where another countries platform best meets the UKs requirement then that is what should be purchased. The MoD can no longer afford bespoke solutions except is a very small number of cases. If it affordable to manufacture the kit under licence then fine but the UKs defence industry does not have a get out of jail card with definite MoD contracts. They need to look for products that have export potential looking at what other countries use and attaining commonality. Current programmes such as the ASCOD RV and the Type 26 are key examples. The former has potential with new variants being available to existing ASCOD customers and possibly new ones. Many countries have old AFVs needing replacement or have a requirement for a family of medium weight vehicles. The T26 will probably be the life or death programme for the UKs warship construction industry. We have an opportunity to make a capable AND affordable platform, but the programme must stand up to scrutiny and comparison for foreign designs and programmes.
CADMID;
Capability – Establish a capability need within the Armed Forces.
Assessment – Assess numerous option to meet said capability. Downsize to a number of options that have the best chance of success at meeting the capability requirement.
Developement – Develope the means to meet this Capbility requirement finally settling on a platform that best meets the requirement including all factors such as price, Through life costs, commonality with existing kit if applicable and so on.
MAINGATE
Manufacture – Production.
In Service – The use and support of a platform for its service life including upgrades and other modification.
Disposal – Speaks for itself whether it the destruction, sale an so on.
Finally I must mention the Challenger II. It is probably the world best allround MBT although the US and Isreal make argue the point. If the Government had allowed a number to be deployed to afghanistan there usefulness would have been clear for all to see. A good example id at the moment we are using expensive Javeling ATGW for long range precision attacks. It certainly gets the job done but a HE round form a CR2 can do the job just as well at operational ranges, costing a lot less, and it brings psycological benefits as well being big, noisy and scary to face up to if you are the enemy. Also having 1 or 2 CR2s on overwatch is also very comforting to the troops.
LordJimSkirting the edge of this topic, the way things are going the UK is not going to have any RN amphibious lift capability for much longer relying on the Aux (Bay class) and chartered vessels (Ro-Ro) to move heavy equipment. It will retain a vertical lift capability through the CVFs but amphibious raiding and other landing ops will be a thing of the past.
Basically the RM will become another elite Light Infantry force who together with the paras and SF will be the UKs fire brigades for land ops. Their support units, Artillery , Engineers, etc will be amalgamated into single units to support both and they will share equipment like the vikings (The Broncos or whatever the ATVs the Army bought will be phased out when we leave Afghanistan). The RM will maintain ship board detachments together with SF allowing them to maintain a certain uniqueness but this will be a secondry roll.
LordJimI think the lack of a twin seat F-35 is a story that might run and run. There have been many single seat platforms where there was no twin seat initially but feed back from customers lead to this being rectified. I wouldn’t be surprised if once the F-35 production line is in full swing and if enough people ask about it a twin seater isn’t produced. As has been pointed out already the advantages of such a platform are many though I think it would be limited to the A and C variants as space is already a premium on the B
LordJimI am not surprised that Meteor isn’t being integrated into the F-35 at the moment. The RAF intends the F-35 to fill the roll of the Tornado aand Harrier and so will only need ASRAAM for self defence and can carry AMRAAM if needed. This is why the Harrier never got the ASRAAM as it was not seen as a fighter do the AIM-9 was more than adequate. The only reason for Meteor to be integrated is for air defence and as the RN has got by since the SHAR retired it will have quite a hard time convincing the powers that be that it needs to turn its F-35s in to real fighters.
By the way at present the ASRAAM is only being integrated as an external store as will Brimstone and Storm Shadow. I for one wish the RAF/RN got on board with the US SDB programme as well as other UD ordonnance. With economies of scale US munitions have got to be cheaper than bespoke UK items and it improves interoperability. I know we have a history as a world class arms manufacturer but it isn’t the roll of the MoD to fund BAE Systems. If we have to retain strategic capabilities like ammunition manufacture then make it state owned, although the boat has already sailed on artillery ammunition and charges which we no longer manufacture.
As for UK manufacturers, either thay produce goods at competative prices or they don’t get the contract, simple as that.
LordJimGiven the current state of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, if it became apparent that many more vessels be being brought back in to service and those already available were all being made ready to put to see it would raise quite a few flags in Mons and Brussels let alone those countries in the area. The Russian Navy no longer has the capability to carry out a no notice surge and the Dardanelles are an easy bottleneck to block. Yes the fleet could exist in dribs and drabs, but their passage and destinations would be noted and other navies would increase their posture. Greece and Turkey (If operating togther) have more than enough platfroms to cope with almost any senario and add the Italian and French navies and it becomes a bit onesided in numbers and capability, and the Russians know this.
The Black Sea Dleets main contribution is the power in can project within the Black sea with only Turkey being a major player. Ukraine is a wild card but until it get its own political house in order and decides where its loyalies lay it will remain on the sidelines, of course assuming it isn’t the target of any Russian operation!
LordJimI am not so sure the UK would get stung by developemental costs. THe upgrades to the engine and instalation of IRST are both programmes the USN has an interest in and given how the SecDef is trying to justify cuts etc having a collaboration with the UK might secure these for the USN. The USN id going to need the F-18 E/F/G for along time and will need to get the most out of the platfrom. What the UK must not do is try to add bespoke items that are not absolutely essential. Remember the F-4Js bought after the Falklands. We retained all the US systems down to the flying helmets, so why do any different with any F-18 purchased.
LordJimWell my idea of a worst case senario now looks pretty good compared to what is now being banded about.
LordJimSDSR – Strategic Defence Spending Review
LordJimI think the UK is going to go down the “Generation 4.5” route with the RAF with Typhoon (5 Sqns + OCU) and the Navy with F-18E/F (3 Sqns + OCU). The RAFs STOVL capability will be ditched as not essential and Stealth will be in the “Nice to have if you can afford it” catagory and will wait for a mature UCAV for the RAF and maybe the Navy so possibly a common platform there. Until at least 2020 the UK will not plan for all out high intensity operations or at least that is what the NSC seems to be moving towards in preparation for its briefing of the MoD as to the UKs future role.
I also think the Army is going to get its fleet of medium vehicles mainly to provide a common platform to replace a large number of existing platforms (FV432, CVR(T) for example) that are well past their sell by dates and are increasingly expensive to maintain. In return they are going to lose much of their heavy equipment and related manpower.
LordJimI strongly believe that with the current SDSR looking at our current and future capabilities, what they cost and as to whether we still need them, a STOVL fleet for the RAF is a luxury and niche we can no longer afford. Add to this the fact that the NSC favours the UK retaining its COIN and low intensity intervention roles over high intensity and the need for the F-35 deminishes even more. The need for a stealthy day one striker can be put back until UCAV technology matures.
So the RAF don’t need either a STOVL or stealthy platform therefore the RN is clear to purchase a cheaper CTOL platform and have the CVFs completed in this configuration. The costs of the design change should more than be covered by the cheaper platform operating from it.
If we take the F-18E/F for example, spares will not be an issue as we can link into the US supply chain as we do on the C-17. As for training, well for carrier training we can join the USN programme and use USN vessels for training if a CVF isn’t available, even providing a Squadron as part of a CAW on similar lines to the USMC nowadays. AS for rear seaters, well we are going to have qite a few available as the Tornado fleet draws down so at least a few may move over and fill the immediate need.
With a CTOL CVF we have much greater flexibility into the platforms that operate from it. Firstly superior AEW&C witht he E-2D. Secondly a COD platform would be an option inproving the flexibility of the CVF. Third the F-18E/F can buddy refuel as the USN currently does over Afghanistan and I believe he Rafale has the same capability, or a dedicated Tanker could be developed at a later date in conjunction with either or boht the USN and French Navy. The F-18 has a long way to go as far as growth potential, and the addition of a number of UK specific items would not entail lengthy and costly programmes, with Meteor having the psiiblity of adoption by the USN.
With a STOVL CVF you have to buy the F-35B but unlike countries like Italy and Spain the UK’s CVF could operater CTOL platforms. With a STOVL CVF you are limited in other platforms and their capabilities with an inferior AEW&C platform, no COD capability and no forseeable future platforms either. With the F-18E/F you have the option of purchasing the USN’s F_18 successot after 2020.
LordJimAccording to reports in the media, the National Security Council appears to be favouring retaining the Armed Forces Capabilities to fight COIN operations and mount small scale / short term interventions at the expense of out ability to fight high intensity warfare. Capabilities tied to the latter will either be mothballed, cut back severely or axed all together. So the following are all on the endangered spiecies list;
Presence in Germany reduced to 1 Brigade
Challenger II – 2 Regiments retained (Reg) with a further 2 mothballed/TA
Warrior – 2 Battalions Retained (Reg) with a further 2 mothballed/TA
AS-90 – 1 Regiment retained under TA)
MLRS (Regular Regiment to disband)
Starstreak HVM – Withdrawn
Tornado – All squadrons disbanded over next 5 years
Heavy Armoured Engineering Vehicles – 1 Regiment retained (Reg) with a further Regiment mothballed/TA
Raper FSC – 1 Regiment retained and transferred to RAF Regiment Aux
Remaining C-130K (2 squadrons)
T-22 B3 – Withdrawn immediately
Typhoon Tranche 3B – Cancelled
Typhoon Tranche 1 – No further updates or modifications. To be withdrawn from 2016. Typhoon fleet will consist of T2 and T3A only
The above is a worst case senario as of now but the way things are going and with any Trident replacement having to be funded from the core budget things may get worse. At this rate we will be in the same league as the Netherlands or Belgium other lower tier NATO nations.
LordJimAs far as I know the Typhoon can already self designate and if not already will shortly be able to programme and drop GPS munitions. In fact the EF will be able to operate nearly any munition the IAF may demand. ALARM has already been sold to Saudo Arabia and I am sure the Mk2 will be offered if requested. As far as Anti-Ship weapons, with the Jaguar and SU-30MKI I do not think this ia a role the IAF is planning for the MMRCA at present but cannot see a problem for future integration of any western ASM.
Given the state of the european partners in EF, I can see EF doing everything it can to secure an order from India and I can see the pertners again donating slots to speed delivery. In addition an order would add impetus to the partners programmes to update their existing airframes etc
LordJimRegarding Scotish bases, form the stroies I have heard Kinloss is the main loss with the Nimrod MRA4 being classified as an ISTAR asset and moving to Waddington, Leuchars is safe as it will be the only other base to house the Typhoon after Conningsby. As for Lossiemouth, I have heard that as the base ofr the Carrier platform and with the reduction in Tornado numbers it will be mothballed as a flying station whilst work is do to prepare it for its new arrivals in 6 or seven years.
As a result Marham could become the home of the Tornado with the OCU supplimenting the existing 4 squadrons or replacing one. I have a feeling also that the Harrier force will become a single large unit of around 20 airframes when based back at Wittering, which will close when Lossiemouth reopens. The remaining C-130Ks will go very quickly allowing Lynham to close early as already planned. If the transfer of the Merlins to the RN goes ahead Benson will obviously go.
In the training world I can see training becoming concentrated at Valley, especially with the reduction in Hawk numbers meaning Linton could close and finally the MoD passing all support to the Hawks at FRADU to the private sector.
This will leave the RAF with 7 frontline flying station, and 1 or 2 training units if Navigation and Multi engine stay at Cranwell
LordJimGoing by Liam Fox’s statement ot he Defence Select Committee, it seems that his main priority is to provide savings to support the Governments drive to reduce the Deficit first and carry out the SDSR second. With this in mind I am starting to think that any substance in the SDSR will be fairly short term like cuts in platforms and personnel. There will be quite alot of asperational talk about realigning Britain’s armed forces for the future but these wioll not come into being until the latter half of the decade so will have no real financial impact. It is the same old story really cuts now for new equipment down the road. As a result I think that whatever platform is purchased to operate from the CVFs will not be decided for some time with the main decided being whether the CVF is STOVL or another type. Whether the carrier is STOVL or not the new platforms will probably not enter service intil 2018 at the earliest with Harriers and Helos doing the job up to then even if it means extending the former a few years.
Looking at platforms, another of Liam FOx’s key points was that all capabilities were being looked at with regards to do we need them and what is the cost to develope or maintain them. THis could point to the need for STOVL platforms which on land could be seen as a luxury that are high maintenance and their niche is no longer affordable, therefore the RAF could lose this capability. As a result a joint RN/RAF F-35B purchase becomes less viable and completing the CVFs as CTOL or STOBAR becomes the preferred option and opens up the programme to additional platforms namely the F-18E and Rafale as well as the F-35C. Now the issue is a manned stealth platform a capability we really need or can afford, or would a future purchase of a stealthy UCAV meet the requirement whrn the technology matures? Co-operation with other navies becomes a factor now along with ideas like operating the UK’s carriers in a joint pool with France which would possibly put the Rafale at the top of the list allowing the creation of joint airwings and the sharing of AEW&C platforms.
Given that the operating costs etc of the F-18E and Rafale are well known and the platforms are already in service it could be seen as a lower risk solution with the RAF either purchasing a common stealth UCAV with the RN or once mature a number of the Cheaper F-35As
Sign In
