It is clear that the capabilities of the UCAV are advancing at a great pace, and soon will have the ability to conduct pretty much all of the air-to-ground mission. The air-to-air mission is another matter though – it would not be rocket science (well, it would, but…) to use something like the Global Hawk as a ‘missileer’, cued by an AWACS aircraft. This, however, does not make it a fighter replacement – the manned fighter maintains an edge in reaction time, and judgement. It is arguable that you could probably design a small UAV, along the lines of an agile Firebee drone, with an AMRAAM and AIM-9X seeker, to ‘turn and burn’. This would allow the unmanned aircraft to do tight turns, somewhere between missile and manned fighter agility (e.g. 15-20g), and potentially make gun kills, potentially saving money. It would effectively be a reusable missile, able to chase down enemy aircraft, then hunt down another etc…

Basically, the Sandys concept that missiles are imminently going to replace everything is wrong. Unmanned aircraft will play an ever increasing role, but will probably just gradually take over missions from manned aircraft.

As for taking Saddam out with a UAV, that does rather ignore the realities of warfare – you can’t just bomb them into submission, this was demonstrated ably by Kosovo, where ground troops were the ultimate arbiters of success.

The problem is really that this is the classic ‘answer to the question nobody asked’. There is no real need for this sort of aircraft, since existing transports and helos can do all the missions that need doing at the moment. For stealthy insertion, it would be better to deliver a small STOL type, with no emphasis on vertical capability, since all this adds is cost! The ability to operate off a normal short length of road is much more useful – possibly even just a stealthy Pilatus PC-12 size aircraft?

Frankly, the best bet in the nearer term might be something more like a bizjet, or bomber. These would have the necessary size to accomodate a proper system, in the nearer term. The idea of putting tactical lasers on fighters is attractive, but we could field similar systems on a slightly larger platform in the nearer term. Obviously the idea of having airborne laser carrying aircraft just ‘sweep’ the skies, shooting down enemy fighters, missiles etc.. is very attractive. The question is how quickly the ABL and other projects turn their hands to anti-aircraft use, and even anti-air-to-air missile use. Just think about getting into a BVR fight with a Flanker, and being able to just shoot down any missiles it sends your way!

I agree that it’s an increase in capability, it was more because six had been the originally planned number, which had been calculated to be the appropriate number for the mission. Four is probably enough, but frankly, six would be better – though I wouldn’t push hard for it. In some senses, I would actually be more tempted to increase the number of Point class RoRos instead. As proven in the Falklands, as long as you have enough landing craft available, you can offload a RoRo perfectly simply (i.e. lower the aft ramp, and simply offload onto the landing craft).

I have no problem with the idea of paying for a proper military, in fact, that is exactly what I am advocating, as I believe I have always made clear. The problem at the moment is a government with no interest in maintaining the military.

I do agree that there are cheaper ways of acheiving some goals, e.g. the Falklands garrison, which is actually a pretty good way of doing it. A modest standing garrison, with the ability to rapidly bring in at least a battalion or two is a great way of doing it. I would obviously wish to see them bolster the air detachment – four Tornados or Typhoons is not enough to keep aircraft available, eight would be a lot better.

In terms of the C3 options, I agree with the idea of a sort of modern Leander, with quite modest normal capability, but with the ability to have much better equipment fitted when needed. For mine warfare, I agree with the idea of replacing the existing small (sub 1000 tons, non ocean capable) minehunters with the C3. A fleet of sixteen or so should be doable, given what they need to replace. I would hope to ultimately replace the Type 23s with a Type 45 derivative, since it is proving to be an excellent design already. A total fleet of eight T-45s, eight ASW-fitted T-45s and sixteen C3s would have the benefit of giving 32 escorts in total, though only sixteen being major escorts. In any major war, the C3s would be able to be upgraded, hopefully having the various OPVs then converted to replace the C3s in the mine warfare role. One of the biggest advantages of the newer ROV-based systems is the ability to fit them to pretty much any ship with enough space.

The real problem, as mentioned by Jonesy, is the submarine force. The subs have proven themselves time and time again as decisive weapons, but there are just so many problems with the Astute, its unclear what to do. If it weren’t for these problems, then the answer might be simple, i.e. build more, but it isn’t. If not for the problems, I might even have advocated what was mooted before, i.e. using Astute as a basis for the new SSBN, using a hull-plug. This could have killed many birds with one stone – heck, you could have even built a few more to serve as SSGNs, but now its difficult to know what to make of it. We need more SSNs, but the Astute program has shown that we have simply lost our way.

It is a great shame that the promise of the new carriers does not bring with it the money to actually buy them, but it is pretty much to be expected. The problem is really a total lack of value placed on the military. They are considered the ultimate un-unionised government workforce, unable to strike, and unable to fight for better pay and conditions. They are always expected to make-do, even if it means putting their lives at risk unnecessarily.

The sad thing is that if the NHS budget had only increased by half as much, and the rest of the money given the the armed forces, then we would notice little difference to the NHS, but a dramatic difference for the armed forces. The other difference would have been to separate out operating budgets, procurement budgets, and funding for combat operations. If each of these was a protected category, then we would see a lot less ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’. It would also have the advantage of forcing the government to actually fund conflicts directly.

Yeah they say lots of things. I’ll believe it when I see it. Like I said, you don’t see Harriers on CVNs so you probably won’t see many (if any) Bs there either. Of COURSE the Marine Hornets have on occasion as they have no alternative. With the LHA-6s starting construction and the already existing Wasp and Tarawa classes it’s not like the Marines won’t have anywhere the fly the Bs from.

The Marines are an integral part of Navy TACAIR, and form an integral part of current and future airwings. This is slated to increase, especially once operations in Iraq draw down, allowing carrier airwings to return to full strength. The Navy simply does not have the units to maintain a full four squadron airwing, as such, they have to add Marine units to the airwing, to keep it at full strength. It is not a matter of ‘on occasion’, it is a standing arrangement.

As for the LHA-6s, they are replacing the Tarawas, at best maintaining amphibious shipping, so it is not a radical shift. Also, with the introduction of the huge V-22 Ospreys, space on board the LHDs and LHAs will be at a premium, so I doubt they will be embarking more F-35Bs than they do currently with the Harriers, i.e. four to eight maximum. The amphibs simply are not intended to be carriers, and the Marines will still rely heavily on the CVNs for air support, and stationing F-35Bs on the carriers is the logical move.

I do agree that its a shame about the system, but to be honest, the project was pretty much doomed by being Swedish – i.e. very difficult to export. It is arguable that they would have been better off trying to develop a surface-to-air version of the Meteor. This would have had great export potential, and be a good rival for the SLAMRAAM or whatever they’re calling it now… It could have been very attractive for nations like the Czech Republic and Poland as an SA-6 replacement.