pjhydroOne of the big differences is manning levels and the size (therefore cost) of accomodation built into US ships.
pjhydroWell, you are more optimist than me. I don’t see the RN growing any larger, honestly. Not even with OPVs or other much touted “inexpensive” vessels. I don’t believe to that, sincerely.
I agree, though the report today was worst case thinking, its pointing to the direction the MOD is having to look at….
pjhydroMost of that population inhabits small land areas that don’t take all that much to protect and haven’t been invaded(not counting the Falklands) for over 50 years and are unlikely to be in the forseeable future unless for some reason Russia and China go ape**** on Europe.
Well without wanting to sound like i’m compensating…it ain’t that small, you would need more than an army of 100,00 to protect the UK, but I am assuming that the UK is still interested in defending its wider interests…. would be selfish of us to keep such a good army to ourselves now wouldn’t it?
pjhydroBecause amphibious capability made such a difference in Iraq and Afghanistan? Seriously, the idea of the UK launching a sea-to-land invasion on its own anytime in the forseeable future is ridiculous. If it ever happens it will be a US/NATO-led operation, in which case I doubt HMS Ocean and such would make a huge difference.
And the UK already has assets in Falklands big enough to repel any invasion. One thing you folks keep quiet about during defence cuts and brag about everywhere else is that the UK has one of the top 5 armed forces in the world and is seriously overarmed for a country of its size.
Over-armed for its size?
We are actually 25th in the league table of armed forces by size, with 240,000 personnel. With the worlds 22nd largest population of 62,041,708That equates to one “soilder” per 2758 persons. Hardly earth shattering.
Compared to the US, where there is a soldier for every 210 citizens (309,826,000 people and 1,473,900 active bods), the UK is positively unarmed.
and just for fun the uk has….569,189 persons per UK warship (including RFA)
160,729 persons per Challenger Tank and if we needed to all rally round then 310 of us would have to share each L85A2….
pjhydroJust keep in mind the way Cabinet Govt. works: Sec.of State for Defence does not determine UK Forces’ Tasks and Treasury does not cut…alone.
Agreed.
So: take the 1965-67 austerity: East of Suez. 1965 Cabinet firstly accepted that “our frontiers lie on the Himalayas” and the issue was simply the comparative cost-effectiveness of CVA-01 based on Sembawang or F-111K on Gan/Aldabra/Diego Garcia; 1967 Cabinet decided to let India, Singapore et al pay for their own defence. We did not “lose” F-111K: we declined its Task as “not my job, Guv.”
Shorley shum mishtake? Yes there was a comparison of CVA and F111k, the RAF changing map scales and moving continents to show they could cover it all with F111. Both were lost purely as a cost measure, nobody “declined its task” (very management speak by the way), it just got too expensive to buy either and “the task” was picked up by Vulcan and Buccaneer.
The so-obvious solution is to role- or Task-specialise: such as no UK ISTAR, lots of UK mentoring to put besieged friends in charge of their own affairs. Much maligned, but that is what, say Germany, is valiantly doing in (quiet!) N.Afghanistan. Japan does its share with money.
Intelligence is exactly what the UK does best, it is our niche. At all levels from tactical recce, SF, airborne platforms, sea based systems and the intel services the UK is the EU leader, why would we give that up?
Mentoring would be worthless without mentors skilled in the trades they mentor in….eg rid yourself of ISTAR how do we mentor nations in that? You only become a wanted and trusted mentor when you do the job visibly well and build a reputation. In my current career active teachers are respected and listened to, knobs who quit 10 years ago and run the lecture circuit telling us how to do our jobs are universally loathed and ignored. A toothless UK would be just that….
None of that is for resolution by Sec.of State for Defence. In 1965 the Minister responsible for the Navy chose to resign over chop of CVA-01, but he was intellectually out-of-area: it was Cabinet’s job to decide what they were willing to pay the Navy to do. It wasn’t the Navy’s to tell Cabinet to pay them to do what they wanted to do.
Problem is that leads to all sorts of circular problems. Cabinet decide what they are willing to pay…..Navy says what they can actually do with that money…..cabinet decide on what roles they want…..Navy says what that will cost to do…..Cabinet decides what they are willing to pay…… It becomes a circle of diminishing returns, exactly what has happened over the last few decades.
pjhydroSweden Moves Helos From Piracy Ops to Battle Group
Responding to a domestic aircraft deficit, the Swedish Armed Forces (SAF) has decided to withdraw its two AgustaWestland HKp-15B (AW109-E) helicopters currently deployed on the anti-pirate vessel HMS Carlskrona in the Gulf of Aden.Once repatriated, the HKp-15Bs are to be stationed with the Nordic Battle Group (NBG), which will next go on standby on Jan. 1. At present, the HMS Carlskrona is serving as the flag vessel for the European Union’s (EU) naval force off the coast of Somalia.
As an aside, what is the fit out on the HKp-15B?
pjhydroWhere did you read about planning to use HC3 airframes, may i ask?
Funnily enough I’m looking for the quote and having trouble finding it…did I imagine it? I am sure when the Helicopter review was announced that was what was said…..maybe i’m wrong?
pjhydroTo extend on a discussion developing in CVF Construction thread about the Merlin ASaC…
Could savings be had by pursuing a modular/pallet system for ELINT etc?
Purchase some extra Hercs and then create pallet units to slide in the back of them to perform other tasks such as ELINT. When we don’t need them we have more transport. We could create a SAR pallet to take the pressure off of Nimrod, one Herc could be maintained as the SAR standby aircraft fitted with the relevant kit. just a thought
pjhydroCan we meet current commitments with no Hercules Ks & only 6 tankers? I don’t think we will have any A300MRTT in service by next April. Or are you proposing that we reduce commitments?
If we had a 50% cut like we are debating then (hypothetical of course) then yes commitments would have to drop massively. I would suggest this would be a “capability gap” until the new kit came on line, in part paid for by the immediate reductions.
Even assuming all of Tranche 3a is delivered by 2015, that leaves us a maximum of 160 Typhoons.
If we get rid of all the Tornadoes, we have only those Typhoons & a handful of Harriers, reaching the end of their lives. Is that an adequate air force for this country?
I would be looking towards F35 and UCAVs long term, but if we had a dramatic 50% cut then the aim would be to maintain ability as much as possible. Maintaining Tornado with its two man crew and heavier logistical tail would seem to be out of the question. A wing of Tranche 3 would be used to maintian the strike capability pending later arrival of UCAVs etc as the economy improves.
That small force will have to do everything. How long will they last? We could be flying Tornadoes for another ten years after that, using them for every deployment for which they’re suitable. That would extend the life of the Typhoons.
But if we had half the budget, we could not afford to do what we do now, stark choice but I would go with the newer aircraft, that has half the crew, smaller logistics. The reduction in manpower and bases as a result of getting rid of GR4 would be massive. I would rather keep as many force multipliers in service than cling on to FJs.
pjhydroBecause there would be no ‘waste’. A new LPH could be designed & built for at least a billion quid less than building a third CVF.
Assume we buy BPE, with minimum modifications (UK standard sensors, maybe different engines for maximum commonality with the rest of the fleet – that sort of thing). That would come in at well over a billion quid less than a CVF to buy, It would need 400 fewer crew (there’s a massive saving!), & all its other running costs would be much less than a CVF.
You see? No waste. Instead, massive savings. Less capability, but I thought we were discussing costs. We’re short of money. A third CVF would be nice to have, but for the price of it we could buy & operate a new LPH or LHD plus a couple of frigates.
Fair enough, just a thought!
pjhydroVery true, but i think that, if it can be managed, the HC3 will be used in tactical transport role. There are just 26 airframes, so the Commando Helicopter Force will need them all badly.
The plan was to convert 8/10 of the Merlin HM1 airframes that won’t be upgraded with the CSP program, and i hope it can be done, because doing differently would be a major waste.
All the talk is of the HC3 airframes being used, I think the spare HM1 airframes are going to be just that, spares. At an outside they may be given over to Utility role or used for aircrew training.
pjhydroIf you need to have the ramp open to operate it, I would not want to be in that helicopter at altitude.
I think the idea is the ramp is removed and what is essentially a sealed unit is plugged into the back.
pjhydroTo be honest the ramped ASaC kit might actually be a good value for money sytem. At anyone time we will need perhaps up to five-six airframes, based on 3-4 on the active QE and 2-3 for training. The other airframes can then be used in the utility role, switched over if we need more ASaC etc. The pallet based kit not fitted can still be used for ground instruction and training.
Also means you could send out ASaC capability in the back of a C17 (or Grizzly/Herc???) For instance we have HC3 already in Afghan, we judge we need ASaC so very quickly the pallet is wheeled into a C17. flown where it s needed and fitted to the back of a HC3. Think HMS Ocean on the otherside of the world, crisis arises, we can have improved survalliance kit flown out to it….actually this could be a genius piece of kit and great value.
pjhydroI doubt it, they can’t alter the design to make it a cheap and cheerful LPH like they did with Ocean.
I wouldn’t alter the design, just build a third. All the development and esign costs are done, its just the price of steel and man hours – not inconsiderable but why go to the waste of a new design, development costs and the need to pay for different training. 3 QEs would make the fleet very flexible, one in ‘strike’ on in LPH on in ‘reserve’.
On the Scout thing, I think the idea is that the light scout role is filled by vehicles like Panther, with the ASCOD providing a heavier, more protected scout.
Wheeled scouts are all fine for the rock hard surfaces of afghan, but the British Army made a purposeful decision to move away from wheeled scouts because in most parts of the world they are limited to roads, predictable and useless in the given role.
It’s all very well talking about the examples where CVR(T) was the right sort of weight, but there are also examples of it being used where it was too light and under-protected. That means we’re asking one vehicle to do too many things, so I think the mentality (rightly) is to split it and do it with 2 different vehicles, but because only one came under the FRES programme that has been seen as the ONLY CVRT replacement.
You see I don’t hold with CVRT being “too light”. If you are using it in a light tank role, then yes its far too light most of the time, its the wrong vehicle. If you want a scout in the way the British Army conducts recce (ie covertly) then its perfect. The BA has become corrupted by Afghan where it has found it needs a light tank, has used CVRT in the role and found it wanting – of course they did – but in other scenarios a big 40 ton tank combined with wheeled light recce vehicles is going to put large areas out of bounds, swamps uncrossable, deserts too soft, jungle inpassable, hills too steep. The point of recce is that its fast, unseen and goes anywhere.
pjhydro@Pj: There isn’t a single nation that has ASW capabilities that seems to think that their ASW can be replaced with a few helos flying off a merchant or auxiliary ship. Just because it seems like a good idea on internet forum doesn’t mean you aren’t missing something.
I’m playing a certain amount of devils here BUT the arguement in favour of specialised, underarmed frigates in the style of Type 23 is not very strong. Look at a Type 23 objectively. They Cost £180-200 million a piece(the equivilant will be a lot more now) , they need 180 people to operate them and all they take to sea is 32 short range sams for their own defence, 8 anti-ship missiles that require over the horizon targeting, a sonar and towed array that have limited range and some short range torps. Its a pretty expensive way of getting not very much to sea. As is said so often the primary weapon of a ship like this is its helicopter, most of the actual offensive ASW is invested in the Merlin.
Why do we have such ships? Maybe they are the best (or least worst) option or maybe Navies are just married to the idea of “proper” warships. Most officers aspire to command of a frigate like a T23. Makes it difficult for a Navy to be objective about what is actually the best most effcient way to carry out some tasks. A decent squadron of ASW helicopters is a darn site cheaper than a modern escort ship and probably more effective and certainly more efficient given the smaller compliment involved.
Sign In
