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.

Interesting assessment Jim.

As for Northolt, I work ‘next door’ so get a daily view or life there. I would be very suprised if they close Northolt. Its essentially become the Military super base for London, Uxbridge has closed so units from there have moved on and forgeting 32 sqn for a moment the “Northolt Station Flight” is based where it needs to be. There is also the BFPO here, EOD for London and of course a major crisis in the capital requiring “military intervention” would really need a good secure airfield.

As for 32 sqn being ‘privatised’….you could but it would be difficult to deploy abroad in a crisis as they regularly do, the unsung, unseen sqn beavering away in the background of many recent conflicts.

Stay on topic please, chaps.

Hint: Modern Military Aviation. 🙂

Thanks

GA

Without wishing to incurr the wrath of the moderators…surely talking about military procurement, decision making, platforms such as naval vessels that aircraft operate from is staying on topic. Or can we only discuss military avaition in the very strictist, limited terms (ie wings and serial numbers) and never mention anything related. I would have thought everything we have talked about here is military aviation related and a topic such as “UK Defence Review” is impossible to discuss in isolation.

But maybe i’m wrong.

Precisely, which was the “intention” behind FOAS, it was never one platform or an aircraft design, it was a well thought out ‘concept of systems’ designed to a achieve and effect.

Reminds me of a reply I heard from an AVM years ago to the question of “why do we need tankers?” – “Because we designed our aeroplanes are too small for the job.”

Here’s what I’m wondering about: if the primary function of an AAW destroyer in a carrier task group is to provide air defence for the group, by means of its radars and missiles, would it be possible to install those radars and missiles on the carrier itself, thus eliminating the need for a separate dedicated AAW ship?

In a word, yes. The issues come around space and confliction. Missile silos take up deck space and if you need to fire off dozens of large AAMs suddenly, what about the aircraft flying nearby?

It also means that a task group has to have a carrier present for airdefence. Witha seperate AAW vessel you can have a degree of air cover for a small task group without the need for a carrier.

I don’t think senior officers ever failed to point out what they needed to get the job done. Either publicly or privately, they always present their facts.
Politicians then regularly ignore the warnings.

Thats not how it works. The Politicians say what they would like to do and the military tell them what is possible. This is the great lie/mythology of the last decade – that it is all the politicians fault, its not. The ridiculous “can do spirit” of the UK military has played a big part in the various ****-ups of the last decade.

If the PM says I’d like to do X the military give him the options and what the likely outcomes would be for each scenario. What is becomimg apparant is that the senior chumley warners very much exaggerated what was possible in order to get a good mission and the lads on the ground paid the price.

The politicians can only act on the advice of their experts.

And when the military is given a mission, it has to do with what it’s got. You really think they can say “no, we can’t”…? They have to obbey and find a way to do the job.

Thats exactly what their job is, “sorry sir if you want to do that you need more…” they don’t have to obey and find a way, in fact within the British constitutional arrangement the military do not have to follow the politicians orders at all, the CinC is the queen, she just defers her power to the PM in that respect, but that fact does act as a safeguard.

Surely the best way to deal with fast boats is to send you Lynx after them with LMM, rocket pods or even a mini-gun? I thought (no evidence to back this up just a gut feeling) that the whole reason why they where developing LMM in the first place was deal with these types of threats.

In addition, if you really need to deal with them up close and personal, then surely something like the Sigma A2 which mounts a 30 mm bushmaster plus 7 LMM is a better way to deal with them than a 57 or 76 mm gun?

However I do see one flaw – if we all have our way then there will be more ships needing MK8’s than MK8’s currently in service (in terms of handing them down), would it make sense to make small run of additional MK8 or would we be better of at looking at different calibres then?

They would recondition current Mk8s rather than buy new. They are not worn out, not been fired that often. Think of all the Mk8s on T42s, T22B3 and T23s. Replace some of the moving parts etc Probably no need to buy new…if you go down the Mk8 route.

Swedish Combat Boats Loaned Overseas

Two Swedish Combat Boat 90s (StridsBåt 90, CB 90) have been loaned to the UK and the Netherlands for six months.

The boats have been rebuilt so that they can be taken aboard major warships. The possibility of military cooperation with the two countries is expected to increase as a result of the loan.

“It is a way for Sweden to be able to support military operations,” Kristofer Gattberg, project manager at the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (Forsvaretsmaterielverk, FMV), told the TT news agency.
Full Story

Rumour control says that the RN would like CB90s or derivative as replacement for P2000s and Scimitar class in the med.