pjhydroI think Germany is doing away with conscription, so a good chunk of the 50% cut will be accounted for by this.
No this is much further, big cuts in ship and aircraft numbers that could amount to a 50% cut.
pjhydroWithout doubt my favorite AEW/AWACS project utilizing an MP/ASW airframe –
The Lockheed CL-520 land-based Fleet Air Defense Aircraft study!:dev2:!Regards
Pioneer
I would love to have sat in on the pitch for that…
“so let me get this straight, you want us to take a four engined prop patrol aircraft, make it even slower and less manouverable and then use it as a fighter….?”
“yes Admiral”
pjhydroWhile I agree with what you’re saying to a certain extent, there were legitimate reasons for Options for Change and Frontline First due to the political climate at the time. I can’t say the same about sanctioning a Strategic Defence Review and then ignoring the results to save money.
Oh I agree, i’m no fan of the last labour government, but I really think Options had no legitimate reasoning other than cost cutting behind it, it was just a whole sale cul of the highest order and it ripped the old heart out of the armed forces. The damage done there is what we are still seeing played out now.
pjhydroNo one is trying to overwhelm the USAF superiority in numbers. It’s quite impossible to do that due to the amount of money the US is spending on military issues.
Not what I am saying at all. I’m pointing out that people obsess about F22 Vs T-50 Vs Mrs Miggins Hat etc and that debate matters very little. The biggest advantage the US have is in HOW they do things, not what they do it with. The kit helps, but US kit isn’t always the best, its the system the kit operates within that really matters and here the US is streets ahead of everyone, I would say decades ahead. Others are catching but the US is still innovating and staying several steps ahead.
pjhydroBut Afghanistan is slowly destroying our Armed Forces, wrecking long term procurement planning and shifting its bias towards similar conflicts. Its cost given existing resourses has been too much especially with the previous Government being very tight with the purse strings meaning the core budget had to be used to pay instead of from the reserve as was publicised. I severly doubt we will ever launch an operation of the size of Afghanistan again.
We could launch bigger if it was required, I do think you are being overly pessimistic about the state of the armed forces. Yes things are tighter than they were, though I would point out that it was the previous TWO governments that have caused any rot, the biggest political assaults being Options for Change and Frontline First.
Again the arguement is put that we must plan for fighting state of the art opponenets by ourselves. But I cannot think of one opponent with this capability or who is likely to have in the near future (2020). Even then a combination ot Typhoon, F-18E/Rafale with state of the art ECM and stand off weapons would still do the job unless the arguement is to achieve all future conflicts with Zero casualties. If so then an awful lot of new equipment will also have to be bought for the Army and RM so that they are also 100% protected.
Its not about 100% protection at all, its about ensuring our chances of success are vastly greater than that of any opponent, be they militia with rifles or peer level opponent with Sukhois. By 2030 when F35 is fully inservice and a mature system Typhoon will be looking a bit long in the tooth, viewed the same way we look at Tornado now, 25 years old, doing ok with updates but with not many years left in it. F35 will have been in squadron service for tenish years and be the new bench mark. You can’t rely on old systems, you need to keep up the process of renewal in an air force or you hand over the advantage to your opponents. The future of the RAF/FAA is networked F35s and UCAVs tied together with various aircraft and space based intelligence systems, Typhoon is not going to fit well into that mix.
As for opponents…who knows. The old cliche about defence being like an insurance policy is still a good point…”you look for the cheapest possible cover and think you got a great deal until you come to cash in your policy and find you weren’t covered for that (what ever that is…).”
With the above air assets we will be able to complement the US or other allies in any operation and have the numbers to sustain committments without wearing out out assets.
We are never going to get numbers of any type anyway. Besides fewer F35s can do the work of a greater number of conventional types, so you need to deploy fewer airframes to acheive a given effect anyway.
pjhydroYAY! I knew this thread would bring some of the cooks out of the shadows. The pointless discussion about “who has the best fighter/missile” debate which entirley misses the point that an air-force is a whole package and no Air Force outside of the states is “the whole package”.
It matters not one jot that Russia has built the T-50. It has not forced F22 to do anything. T-50 is a prototype, years from mass production and is only in the early days of testing and even when there are squadrons of them flying over Red Square so what? Its just an aeroplane. The Americans advantage is in their systems and organiastion, thats where any future foe needs to beat them and at present nobody is near it.
pjhydroWas it SOC ((?) and where is he these days anyone heard? is he ok?)) who said the the USN is still the largest airforce in Asia? Enough to make anyone think.
That gives you a hint.
Yes and USAFE is the same size in personnel as the Luftwaffe and is the joint 4th largest Air Force in Europe after AdlA, RAF and the AM. Thats without the rest of the USAF, the whole USN, USMC, CG and Army.
pjhydroThis is so sad. I’m italian, i’m from Italy, and yet i grew in the myth and the glory of the royal navy. I feel so excited just when it comes to learning where HMS Ocean last went, or to know that one of the Vanguards is out in the deep of the sea, i love to see the QEs taking shape and the public in there cares so little for the most glorious of navies in the world… It truly is sad. Unfurtunately, i also know well that you are right.
And after all, it is not like things are that different in here. How many italians do know and care about the italian navy…? Actually probably even less (far less) than the britons that still feel the emotion coming out of the white ensign.
It is not fair, though. The navy spirit shouldn’t be allowed to die away this way. Especially in Englad. England without Royal Navy is no england, come on!But i look forwards to seeing true photos of the plane-crowded decks of Queen Elizabeth and not just the drawings we get now… And i’ll be there when She gets launched, i promise.
Good man!:D
pjhydroGiven how flexible both the CVF and the F-35B has to be I have no problem with carriers sailing around with 1 squadron of F-35B on board for carrier training, a flight of Merlin’s embarked for training in the transport role and four Merlin ASaC.
Given the F-35B squadron need to be both carrier qualified and to be able to operate in land based roles even if there were another 2 – 3 squadrons available there is no guarantee that they would ever operate the CVF’s with a full deck just for training.
If the UK had five or six CVF’s then I would expect one of them to be full loaded out, but then if the UK had five or six CVF’s they would be filling a very different strategic role than to the two we have plans for!
well said. I would imagine that once or twice a year we will see QEs sailing with more than one squadron of F35s for a big exercise and that will be good value for money, maintaining the capability without wasting too much money- exactly how the RN will sell it to the public if it asks (truth always works best).
pjhydroGiven the cuts in public spending which are coming, I think the BBC et all will make sure they do. Having a squadron of nine F35s rattling around in a 65,000 ton carrier will be seen as a criminal misuse of scarce resources, and will probably end up being blamed on the Navy.
I don’t think the BBC is that ‘evil’, my cousin works for them and i’ve not seen her sitting in the corner plotting the downfall of the military (or the right).
The RN will ensure that some great publicity shots of a full looking QE is put out early on and it will be only the likes of me and thee that will spot that the deck has 3 F35s 5 Merlins and 6 chinooks, the public will go “wow thats cool look at all the neat planes” for about 30 seconds then forget all about it, the public and to be honest the average reporter have no idea what a “full CVF” is supposed to look like and for the most part they really don’t care. Most people in the street aren’t even aware we have aircraft carriers now, let alone are building new ones. Ask them what Astute or Daring are and they will stare blankly and as for QEs… “aircraft carrier? I remember that old Ark Royal on that series when I was little…”
pjhydroI’d argue that we can still perform medium operations alone if we push it and that CVF and F35B will make it a lot easier to do this. I also believe it is a capability we still need. There is only so long we can rely on the US to look after our interests before the interests diverge or they simply get sick of us relying on them. It is an attitude that is growing in the states, they no longer see Europe as useful and so see no reason to look after us. It’ll only continue as the power shifts to the East.
Since we can’t find a niche that the US doesn’t already fill (they can fill every niche on their own – not an intentional fat joke btw) it might be better to find a niche amongst our other allies (the reliable ones). That means being able to compliment forces from Europe or the Commonwealth. And when it comes to that, the best areas for us to fill are the high end ones such as carrier ops, as none of our other allies (barring France) do it.
exactly!
pjhydroBut that is the point. Of the western powers only he US is capable of medium or large scale independant operations. We can still conduct small scale operation like Sierra Leon but for anything else we need to be part of a coalition be it UN or NATO. We simply no longer have either the budget of public will to conduct anything else.
That is terribly pessimistic if I may say so. The UK armed forces are far more capable than a small little party like Sierra Leone, that was a tiny, mostly SF op. Look at Afghan, we have over 10,000 troops deployed supported by a sizable air component, much bigger than Sierra Leone and until recently we had Iraq as well – yes the UK was stretched but it shows you we are far more capable than just the tiny operation Palliser.
However we already have very capable ECM/ECCM capabilities and the ALARM is rated as top of the class in SEAD missions. We have never gone done the road of dedicated ECM and SEAD platforms but what we have now is good ans more than capable of defeating soviat era single digit SAMs and their western equivilents.
But we are talking about 2020, not today. You are gambling that nobody else will modernise their forces over the next decade. Will possible foes still have only soviet era single digit SAMs in ten to twenty years? Are you going to gamble our airmens lives and the sucess of future UK ops on that premise?
pjhydroDo I make any sense here?
Regards,
Hammer
Yeah perfectly! I would agree mostly, the Human aspect is crucial and for the moment the high level of overall education in the US favours them, others will catch up but not for a long time yet. China is a long way from having the number of graduates the US has to hand.
pjhydroLots of sense in what you write pj, but i’m not convinced on the “US is better at networked warfare” proposition.
The Swedes for example are pretty good at this, better the than US? I don’t know the answer to that, but there is plenty of evidence that other nations, the French with the Rafale for example, are just as far down the path as the US are.
What gives you the confidence that the US is so far advanced compared to others?
Their vast satellitenetwork, use of UAV/UCAVs, CAOCs, JTACs, Link, CEC…. Yes the turnips have some cracking network stuff, but its mainly centered around air-defence of Ikealand. The frogs have made enroads with the Rafale and the UK has some good netcentric kit, but the US is so far down the road of networking its whole armed forces together that it makes the rest of us look like we are just dabbling.
I’m not anti US, merely anti the mine is better because it is mine (or my favourite) line of “argument” which unfortunately a certain type of more anglo saxon poster seem to be prone to…
Indeed, very true. I don’t want to come across as a gushing Yankophile but I think a lot of people fail to recognise how far ahead they actually are, that the differences between ‘USAF et al’ and other air forces is in orders of magnitude not just a mater of degrees.
A lot of people on here seem to spend hours debating whether the F22 is so fantastic or not, or is stealth a waste of time and they miss the big picture, none of that really matters, in terms of systems integration, networking, types of weapon and effect that can be delivered, overall organisation and planning ability the Americans are streets ahead. Yes individual nations might have the odd bit of better kit, but who cares, they are missing the point.
pjhydroI think we can fairly assume that when and if the CVFs are built, they will sail around looking fairly empty. It seems they will typically carry no more aircraft than a current CVS, despite being three times the size. I doubt the public will be impressed by talk of “surge capacity”, they will see a very expensive asset being extremely under used, and I would be tempted to agree.
Will the public even notice?
Sign In
