Nick: My comments were hardly a rant, merely a humorous observation of current trends.

As for being the cutting edge, I have to question that –

The Army is overstretched, has low stock volumes (much more important than many people think, since it restricts major operations to those that are planned for), and still relies on much outdated equipment. The Phoenix UAV still has not be replaced (Watchkeeper is behind schedule due to budgetary pressure), Bowman still has not fully replaced existing radios, and deployment of an equivalent to FBCB2 has not happened.

The Navy is heading for a good, but small force – two large carriers are great, but only six Type 45s is nowhere near enough, the Type 22 Batch 3 and Type 23 replacement program is stationary. The UK is headed for a top heavy Navy, with a few major units, but with less than twenty surface combattants (6 T-45, and probably 12 frigates), and perhaps six Astutes. The carriers are not likely to be allowed to deploy with a proper airwing, due to budget cuts (Merlins for MASC instead of Hawkeyes, using recycled ASaC-7 equipment).

Basically, it boils down to this: the UK has a bigger, better equipped military than many forces that deploy much less, but for the level of British commitments and activity, the UK does not spend enough on equipment. The UK genuinely needs to increase spending to match requirements, not have the budget dictating everything (it is supposed to be give and take, i.e. the military pushes for a lot, the Treasury offers less, and it all settles somewhere in the middle, not just being told ‘no’ by the Treasury every time).

I would have to say 6th generation will probably not be a massive leap forward –

– More stealthy, not just to radar, but IR and visually
– More internal weapons carriage, with both A2A and A2G capabilities
– Probably an airborne version of the THEL laser
– All round IR coverage
– Satcomms link, allowing downlinking of satellite imagery, allowing the radar to be off for stealthy transits, and an ‘extra’ flightcrew to help with targetting, from the ground
– Probably a CEC (co-operative engagement capability) like on Navy ships, allowing the manned fighter to designate both air and ground targets, allowing a manned fighter to use UCAVs as extra ‘hardpoints’, hitting dozens of targets on a single sortie, without needing to carry the munitions itself

I suspect we will not see any change in policy unless something radical happens, i.e. someone who actually respects the military being elected – unfortunately, that is very much a forlorn hope. Replacement of current aircraft is not possible in the current budget environment – one of the nasty tricks used by the Treasury and MoD is to force the military to retire existing kit in hopes of new kit, and once the old kit is retired, and the four horsemen of the apocalypse have not come, they point to that fact as proof that there is not need for a replacement!

The Gazelles have proven themselves useful in peacetime, but as the Falklands showed, they are hopeless when it comes to real combat. They should be replaced, but with something a bit more capable. The use of COMR aircraft is acceptable for overseas detachments, like Belize, Cyprus and Brunei, but it is not acceptable for the majority of combat missions. I would like to see them actually buying the necessary number of helicopters to do the job – like the Americans have done with the ARH and LUH competitions.

The Army needs the following (in my opinion anyway):

– Chinooks or Merlins, without having to rely on RAF aircraft
– More Apaches, which are proving their worth in Afghanistan
– A proper utility helicopter, not the tiny Lynx, preferably something larger, like the AW-149 (which is going to be built here anyway, so should not be too unacceptable politically).
– UAVs, and quickly, since they are proving their worth in Iraq for the Americans, but British feet dragging means that they will not be around for a while yet in any numbers. Also, it must be recognised that UAVs become outdated quickly, and proposing to use the Watchkeeper UAVs for 30 years is ridiculous, since they will be the Phoenix UAV of their day by then.

Unfortunately, short of giving the forces 3% GDP, not 2.2% as currently, none of this will be possible, and more instances of a ‘budget driven operation’ will happen. This is not good for UK forces, and unfortunately, it will cost lives – lack of air support, lack of proper supplies, lack of training, all driven by budget.

It might have been better to have 8 Type 82s, and two versions of the Type 22 – AAW (in place of the Type 42) as well as the ASW version. All three (Types 82, 22-AAW and 22-ASW) would use a standard arm launcher, preferably similar (but more reliable) to the American Mk26 – with the 82s acting as cruisers, with two twin-arm launchers, and the two versions of the 22s using a single twin-arm launcher. That way, both SeaDart and Seawolf would use a common launcher, boosting export chances. Even just the two different versions of the Type 22 would have been better than the Type 42s.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if not for the Labour government in the ’60s, especially without the new carriers being cut.

The reasoning behind going for a UK version of the Mk26 twin-arm launcher was because of the problems with the proprietary launchers, as Tinwing says, the Seaslug armed ships became obsolete, in large part because they could not fire newer missiles. With a common launcher design between the different types, new missiles can be designed to fit the old launchers, as long as you leave space for the new equipment to support the new missiles. As for the idea behind a common Type 22 for AAW and ASW (different ships, same hull design), it is partly because of the Falklands – Type 42 was out of production, so the lost ships could not be replaced, but the Type 22 was still in production. With a common hull design, you could rush the AAW version into service, followed by some ASW versions, and if any are sold or lost, they can simply be replaced, for the length of the entire production run.

Thanks glitter, now you mention it, I do seem to remember reading something along those lines. I had a feeling there was something about France only being willing to do it if they could get a third party like Chile to agree to take them. Good tanks, though I have never been much of a fan of a three man crew for tanks, and in particular the lighter weight of the Leclerc.

I do not think too many conclusions can be drawn from which types were purchased – if you look, they bought equipment from just about everyone, which is normal practice for mid-east procurement. They buy some from the US, some from France, and some from the UK, it does not necessarily mean much. Also, with a lot of oil money available, the time was right for them to replace a huge portion of their fleet. This is probably just the first stage – there has been talk of Erieye radars, and a larger Typhoon order.

I would be somewhat surprised if they bought Leclercs though, they seemed to be heading for a high-low mix of Abrams and Khalids. As for subs, I hope they get some better captains, after the incident with the new frigate…

I would not be surprised if this was actually a gesture – i.e. ‘look, we have such a long list of targets that even our current huge stockpile will not quite cover it!’. Also, no matter how big a war reserve you carry, logic has always dictated immediate replacement of what you draw down from stocks, so you always maintain a suitable reserve.

Jack: it makes some sense, since the JDAM purchases are part of the defense aid provided, same with a lot of munitions – why buy your own product in preference to those provided for free, unless there is a real benefit.

Very well put Vaiar!