nocutstoRAFMy gut feeling is the RAF is going to offer up early retirement of the GR4 fleet in exchange for Tranche 3B.
This quite likely the appropriate forum to expose my ignorance. According to the RAF Handbook 2010 (pages 115 -119) the fast jet squadrons are as follows:
No 1 (F) Squadron – Harrier
No 2 (AC) Squadron – GR4
No 3 (F) Squadron – Typhoon
No 4 (R) Squadron (Harrier Conversion Unit) – Harrier
No 6 Squadron – Typhoon
No 9 Squadron – GR4
No 11 Squadron – Typhoon
No 12 (B) Squadron – GR4
No 13 Squadron – GR4
No 14 Squadron – GR4
No 15 (R) Squadron (National Tornado Operation Conversion Squadron) – GR4
No 17 (R) Squadron (Typhoon Operational Evaluation Unit) – Typhoon
No 29 (R) Squadron (Typhoon Operational Conversion Unit) – Typhoon
No 31 Squadron – GR4
No 41 (R) Squadron (Fast-Jet and Weapons Evaluation Unit) – Harriers & GR4
No 111 Squadron – F3
No 617 Squadron – GR4
Front line squadrons – 12, split as 1 Harrier, 1 F3, 7 GR4, 3 Typhoon
Non-front line squadrons – 5
(I have assumed that Flight 1435 and the Tornado Detachment in Afghanistan are detached from established squadrons)
The figures given in Parliament give the totals as Jan 25th 2010 as:
Harrier – 71
Tornado F3 – 54
Tornado GR4 – 137
Typhoon 62
TOTAL 324
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100125/text/100125w0003.htm
I know the figures given to Parliament includes planes which are spares but I am having a little trouble reconciling the figures to the number of squadrons for example there are 137 GR4 spread over 7 front-lines squadron (and 1 and a half non-front line squadrons) which means an average of 16 planes per squadron (137/8.5 = 16.12), which I thought seemed too high as I understood a typical squadron size is 12 air craft does this mean the rest are spares in storage to allow rotation of the aircraft or that squadron sizes are typically larger than 12?
nocutstoRAFMany do advocate just that – we cant afford defence so scrap the lot of it because we’ll never be invaded and, even if we do, well….we’ve always won in the past and the US will be there to call on. Pure Guardian-reader logic.
The truth of the matter is that, if we behave like this, the global community sees the UK as a nation unwilling to meet its commitments, acting in bad faith towards its friends and allies and cutting off those who depend on it for their safety. Would you do business with a person who you saw as willing to back out on their friends and partners and willfully leave people in the lurch?. Personally I wouldn’t.
That scales up to the national level too. Its a widely accepted fact that meeting our obligations over the Falklands brought real, tangible, benefits to Britain. We were seen as a people willing to make the highest sacrifices to keep our word. Those who would oppose us were taught something of our resolve and those who had agreements with us felt safer in those relations and more disposed to enhance them.
When we have an annual surplus, in the bloated Social Security budget, of about £8bn in unclaimed benefits then, yes, we can afford those commitments as the price of abrogating them will, indirectly, be far higher.
I totally agree with the sentiment that if we reduced our armed forces by a large amount that we would be seen as breaking our moral compact with NATO, the EC (under the Lisbon Treaty), the Commonwealth and our overseas dependencies.
By the way I am just left of centre when it comes to economic policies, but I firmly step to the right when comes to defence (I want a guaranteed ring fence defence budget equal to 2% GDP, and combat operations to be cover out of a central reserve not the defence budget) and I find the argument of turning UK into a self defence force is flawed as we are not equipped to be a self defence force and we would need to spend a lot in the next decade to have the right force mix while no longer enjoying the protection of NATO
nocutstoRAFYou seem to have a vague understanding of the word ‘commitment’ there Flanker. It doesn’t matter what ‘worth’ they have if we have committed to a defence agreement in good faith. To back out of those agreements would cost us far more, showing bad faith to allies, than the amount to keep a duty aircraft carrier operational.
Besides CVF is designed, like the T45’s, to be a lot more economical than its predecessors. The guideline was to have 2 CVF’s running on the same budget as the 3 CVS’s. We have managed to deploy the CVS’s quite ably for more than two decades so the CVF shouldn’t be an issue. Dont be so quick to believe the media rubbish!
It terms of monetary value surely the cost would be higher if we cancelled the CVF’s (and presumably did not purchase F-35’s) as we need to be able to meet our NATO commitments and in the longer term this would have been more than covered by a maritime expeditionary force cantered around our CVF’s and amphibious lift and if you move away from that then you need to massively expand the army and the heavy lift capacity of the RAF and deploy a continental style army (to be fair I stolen this line of thinking from recent RUSI papers http://www.rusi.org).
Unless the idea is to pull out of NATO and become like Switzerland (i.e. neutral) which only makes sense if we give up our nuclear deterrent, any overseas territories, pull out of the EC, end our involvement in the Commonwealth and generally ignore the world.
nocutstoRAFThought these might be of interest (of course you may all have seen them already)
A prediction of the level of cuts post the emergency budget by Prof Malcolm Chalmers
http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C233A1FC3171/
He believes it will be a cut of 15% mostly from personnel not equipment. Nothing really new as I seen similar speculation in the newspapers.
This paper written after the election by Michael Codner (who does have a Navy background) is very interesting:
http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/fdr6.pdf
I read the article to mean that the future force structure should be based around a strong defensive force to protect the UK and its overseas territories and then an expeditionary force and that the size and configuration of this expeditionary force is what the SDSR will decide – they will either focus on developing a more continental style army or it will be maritime focused with the Army becoming increasingly agile special forces and the navy expanding under the maritime model.
Interestingly in either option he foresees the scale back of heavy armour and the rationalisation of the helicopter types deployed and an expansion in their number.
Any how it is IMHO worth reading and personally I hope they go for the maritime expeditionary force model!
nocutstoRAFGripen instead of F-35? For who? Sea gripen is vaporware and no way is the RN going to kick in for it’s development AND EMCATs for the CVFs, I could perhaps see a place in the RAF for an EJ200 engined Gripen NG, but frankly I can’t see any savings in buying gripens that wouldn’t be made by the RAF just moving over to a 100% Eurofighter fleet.
I was mostly making a joke with my last sentence! I have seen too many people on this forum go all protective about the F-35 far in excess of what is needed to not feel the sudden urge to poke a little at them! I like the F-35, but personally think that given its troubles the US will either cancel F-35B or more likely C or postpone the in-service date of B or C to focus on the F-35A’s and the costs will be about 20-30% higher than what LM say and the programme about 18 months – 2 years behind schedule.
I was interested that the topic of SDSR was discussed with Swedish Defence Minister as they went through a similar process last year and wondered if could lead to some clues to what is going to happen. Do you think there are any clues to what the UK will do from the reforms the Swedish have made?
I know LM says that over the long term the F-35A will drop to around $60 million a plane (using this as the benchmark for the cost of the F-35B) but I am not convinced that the MoD is buying this and given the scale of the cuts along with the fact that in their minds the MoD must be expecting that once the cuts are made not to be seeing any real major increases in budget post 2015, they are going to be looking at cheaper alternatives.
With regard to Sea Gripen I think that depends a lot on what the SDSR decides the CSV’s are for (are they intending just to use the CSV’s to support amphibious operations for example) and how risky they see F-35.
Obviously you are right about EMALs it is high risk, likely to be expensive but in theory should be in service by 2015 so it is possible to go down the route of EMALs – however if the carriers are only meant to carry aircraft providing CAP and CAS then would not a STOBAR carrier be feasible and the cost increases marginal?
I have no idea how much the development costs of the Sea Gripen would be, but for STOBAR version we could share the costs with India if India went with the Sea Gripen for their requirements – which seems still to be a possibility (unless you can point me to better source).
Obviously the main problem with STOBAR is the range of the Sea Gripen would be quite limited as would the amount of weapons carried.
nocutstoRAFSwerve
As you know, cutting expenditure does not stop new procurment projects
Given that only 20% of the defence budget is for purchasing new equipment and the cuts are expected to be in the order of 25% and I doubt very much defence spending will ramp up once finances are back in shape to today’s levels any time soon after 2015 there is going to be a big cut in capabilities, a big cut in current equipment and numbers, as if it costs a lot to maintain it will be de-mobbed, mothballed or retired early (assuming we can live with a capability gap between now and the second half of this decade).
Obviously there will be savings once we start to withdraw from Afghanistan, but reducing the size of the armed forces will be necessary to make most of the savings and the scale of cuts may mean radical changes.
For example (and I am not suggesting that I want this to happen) would there be any savings if they started to retire GR4 from 2015 rather than 2024, with the 5 odd squadrons of GR4 being replaced along with the Harriers so that the current forces are reduced by a lower number of F-35B squadrons by say 2018/19?
nocutstoRAFWhat is going on, first a program on Daring and now one on Astute? Are the government preparing us for a massive Navy spending spree so they’re pumping out lots of propaganda on the subject?
….I really wish they were.
In trailer I swear I saw a Chinnock along with a very large jet engine and as this is a three part series maybe part two is How not to buy a Helicopter 🙂
nocutstoRAFApologies,willput my pedantic hat on, Russia AND Japan.
We dont know how many China have in service.
My point is 4 is more then enough for UK air defence,unless we want to carry on trying to be the worlds policeman.
Buying F-35s “more slowly”?
No one seems serious about genuine cuts.
Thought this was interesting and possible a sign of the direction the UK is going to go (meeting between Liam Fox and the Swedish Defence Minister) as they discussed the SDSR!
Maybe we are going to buy Gripen instead of F-35 :diablo: just suggesting this will upset some :dev2:
nocutstoRAFNo, I’m arguing that some of the specific cuts suggested would save little or nothing, at the expense of considerable losses in capacity.
We need to make cuts which save significant amounts of money, and lose as little capacity as possible. e.g. bin FRES, & invest part of the savings in upgrading & extending the lives of current AFVs. Mothball spare Challenger 2s. Reduce E-3 flying hours. Buy F-35 as slowly as possible. Stop running lots of abortive procurement projects. Etc.
I personally can understand the points you are making (and truth be told the real savings is in personnel numbers as the make up a significant portion of the Defence budget ~ 36% of total budget for military and civilian personnel versus 20% of total budget for new equipment http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR_5.pdf)
Assuming that the remaining 44% is for running costs of the bases and equipment and the savings of 25% will be split evenly across the three major areas of costs (i.e. if you have a budget of ~£40 billion you would have roughly have £14.4 billion for personnel going to £10.8 billion, £8 billion for new equipment dropping to £6 billion, and £17.6 billion for running costs reduced to £13.2 billion), where do you see the cuts falling with regard to the saving of £2 billion per annum for new equipment?
nocutstoRAFI have raised this issue before and will try one last time to see if anyone has any good ideas. Todays budget left the MoD having its budget for the next four years cut by up to 25%. Liam Fox has stated that the MoD may get off slightly better but it is up against other departments also not “Protected” which have a higher public/political profile.
Given there is already a £35Bn hole in the procurement budget major cuts in procurement and existing platforms are now inevitable.
So what platforms and capabilities are the most vulnerable given that everything bar Trident have their heads on the block?
Not all doom and gloom, the capital budget for this financial year (April 10 – March 11) is up for Defence.
See page 43 – increase in Capital funds for Defence from 9.2 to 10.1 Billion.
In answer to your other part of your post: if I had to guess it will be non-carrier fast jets being cut, given that Liam Fox has already said that he thinks that the Royal Navy has too few ships as is (sadly cannot find the link again, will post it if I find it again). As for the carriers they are currently being built and a lot of the costs already committed, and the carriers can at least be relevant to amphibious assault, and area which I think will be considered as necessary post SDSR.
nocutstoRAFWildcat still carries a section, it’s being classed as a scout so they don’t have to procure a replacement for the gazelle
I thought a section was between 8 – 10 squaddies and according to AugustaWestland the Wildcat can carry a maximum of seven squaddies – of course I might have the wrong number of squaddies to a section.
http://www.agustawestland.com/product/aw159
I had read but cannot find the link again that if the Wildcat carries a door gunner it can only carry 5 squaddies.
Now found the link: http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/03/the-advent-of-future-lynx-taking-a-backwards-step-into-the-future/
nocutstoRAFI fear that the SDR will take some time to compile, will indeed take a comprehensive look at the taskings, force structure and resources required and then fudge it with a conclusion that Britain will continue to try and do everything, yet not provide the funding and thus resources to support this.
Although i don’t agree with all elements (US helicopters! tsk tsk :mad:) nocutstoRAF post #680 seems rather sensible with regard to the objectives and taskings for the UK military.
I think finances are so dire that MoD should avoid sentimentality and buy the best value for money helicopter to provide medium lift on the battlefield (especially if it is true that the Wildcat cannot carry as many squaddies as the Lynx and is being re-cast as a scout – which clearly makes sense with a nose mounted sensor rather than mast mounted one :confused: )
nocutstoRAFYeah, it can’t possibly be because your MoD botched the procurement beyond all recognition. :rolleyes: It’s likely that America is still trying to get back at you for…something, I guess.
Your MoD tried to save some money by doing the software integration themselves, but couldn’t and then just wanted Boeing to hand over the source codes.
I work for a software company. You don’t hand over your source code lightly and you don’t do it for free.
You’re the first person I’ve run into that’s tried to spin this as Boeing fault. Do a little bit of research. Your own government has called it, “One of the most incompetent procurements of all time.”
Wikipedia alone would have told you all this in seconds.
Americans started Wikipedia though, so I wouldn’t expect you to trust it.
Here are a few BBC & Times articles from the past few years, however, since the sad history of this debacle has been well-known by most for some time.
BBC: Chinook blunder ‘left RAF short’
Times: £500m ‘wasted’ on Chinooks that have never flown
Times: Missing software kept Chinook Mk3 helicopters in Wiltshire hangarCheers,
Logan
Taking my own backside in my hands in case it is flamed 😀
Procurement is a nightmare for suppliers at the best of times, and the worst thing about incompetent procurement is you cannot tell the buyer their specification is wrong otherwise your bid is non-compliant.
However a lot of clever suppliers can make a good profit from incompetent buyers once the Buyer realise the mistake as you make them pay a premium price to correct the error in their procurement (I have certain seen this happen with an overseas Government sub-contract awarded to a company I worked for a few years ago). That is why MoD should be paying for either the most experienced supply chain managers they can find or bring in specialist buying services from a third party and only use uniformed personnel to comment on if specification in the RfP meets their respective services needs (rather than letting them manage the procurement process).
Not saying Boeing charged a higher premium for their time than if they had tendered for sensible specification (as I am pretty certain that it was not the case) but that if I was Boeing I would have seen that I had the MoD over a barrel when it came to the negotiation for additional services.
nocutstoRAFBut the Nimrods job is being done by smaller cheaper aircraft and UAVs now, its not needed in Afghan…. just playing devils advocate but the fact that Nimrod has been delayed, an aircraft we are told we are desperate for and has been delayed this long already, pending the review is eyebrow raising….
I have faith (or maybe a desperate hope) that various transcripts I have read of Liam Foxs various speeches that he is a) reasonably well informed about military matters and therefore not easily swayed by the Army, and he is b) looking at the bigger picture.
The bigger picture is of course, IMHO, where everyone differs in opinion of what is needed. I think that there is a risk that we will be in conflict with countries who technologically are near peer, but who operate smaller forces, while others think that counter-insurgency against irregular forces is all we will see for the next 20 years (even if we pull out of Afghanistan next year).
As I have a few minutes left of my lunch break I will expound a bit (sorry! 🙂 ):
My big picture is to restructure the forces to protect UK and our overseas territories from air and land attack, provide special forces and commando style forces for NATO operations, but leave peace keeping and the long term occupation to others, to be able to deploy forces quickly to counter local tensions.
In addition I think there should be a significant amount of resources dedicated to anti-piracy and prevent trafficking of drugs and weapons. I also think that as a bare minimum the UK should be able to deploy an expeditionary force strong enough to deter aggression from smaller regional powers and hold the line from larger regional powers if attacked until NATO can reinforce them.
Therefore: I hope that we see some sort of force restructuring (merge joint helicopter command, RAF regiment and Royal Marines into the Army), better ways of procuring equipment, the RN getting its carriers, even if they are converted to be commando carriers with capacity only carry enough fighters to provide CAP, getting a replacement for HMS Ocean, getting a 1:1 replacement of RN frigates and some 3,000 tonne light frigate/corvette’s to chase pirates.
In addition I like to see AirTankers deal canned and the RAF to own it refuelling aircraft. I am not to fussed about if we get the F-35 or not, as long as the RAF gets an aircraft it can operate from austere or hastily built short airfields and the FAA gets something can fly off a carrier (others have persuaded me for Sea Gripen). I accept overall the RAF is going to loose fast jets, but hopefully not more than 2 squadrons. I think that the UK needs to purchase a large batch of helicopters from the US by-passing a UK manufacturer to keep costs down.
As my lunch break is over I will spare everyone from further musings!
nocutstoRAFOn a more direct defence review note, Nimrod intro is delayed again and there is a strange comment in the ministers statement….
“He also said that “some ad hoc capability” would be available before this date but that “all major equipment projects will be assessed as part of the comprehensive strategic defence and security review the Government are conducting”.”
Filed Under Military Aviation News.
http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=2161&thisSection=military
So Nimrod is “in the review” then and perhaps has been delayed because it might not make it? Pure rumour control and conjecture on my part of course…
I think Nimrod is okay as Nimrod has proven very useful in Iraq and Afghanistan and clearly useful in a wide range of roles including in providing air support for counter-insurgency operations. I think the carriers are okay but I think the role the will be expected to fill will be different post the SDSR – and this will be reflected in the air craft purchased to fly from them.
Sign In
