nocutstoRAFI agree, but ony time will tell about the result if russia achieves its goal or wins the case, they have already notified China and are making new regulations for Russian companies exporting weapons in order to avoid what Russia considers violations of Russian IP rights.
What Russia probably has learnt is to improve the military tech transfers and weapons sales it currently does.
It could be argued that Russian’s goals have already been achieved – while they have not stopped China becoming a exporter of military aircraft – the planes that China seems to be planning to export – the FC-1/JF-17 Thunder and a version of the J-10B, are not directly evolved from Russian fighters and the FC-1 certainly brings in money for Russian industry due to the fact they use the Klimov RD-93.
It will be interesting to see if China can sell the FC-1 or the future export version to J-10B to countries who might be considering the Mig-29M or the Mig-35.
nocutstoRAFBut thats the issue and part of the reason an RAF exists. Who gets priority? In a war if the RN has all the ADF assests who protects the army from air attack? The RN would argue its ports and shipping get priority surely?
Then what about ISTAR? Whe gets the Nimrods? Well the Navy obviously but what if the Army wants to use them overland? Who gets the E3 sentries? Sentinal? Shadow? Tankers divided evenly or kept together? Whole training and support networks will be duplicated if you are not careful. Giving all air assests to the RAF solves a lot of these problems though creates others (does the RAF give two hoots about CAS and Maritime ops? for instance)
I think there is always going to be issues of priorities which ever model of ownership you go with. I would imagine the main problem of RAF owning everything that fly’s would be as you say a lack of interest in CAS, maritime ops, or transport operations. That is likely why for 70 odd years the three services have been separate.
May be the structure should be about function – you have two “unified forces” – British Defence Force and a British Expeditionary Force and split the RAF, RN and Army between the two “unified forces” with equipment optimised to each role. I suspect this would massively increases the risk of overlap of mission and increase the need for more resources (men, money and equipment) rather than reduce it.
nocutstoRAFLikely, though there is the UCAV thang on the horizon, manned FJs days are numbered in a lot of roles and money needs to be freed up for that.
I have been dying to ask this question for a while – Fifth Gen fighters are in part defined by there stealth abilities, and I get how a UCAV as a smaller platform would be as stealthy if not more stealthy that Fifth Gen fighters but surely a UCAV will degrade its stealth capabilities as soon as they uplink to their base stations for updates on the target – or would the narrow beam comms be difficult to detect? Also, how truly autonomous can something like Taranis really be, I know it is meant to be able to defend itself, but how would it make complex decisions?
nocutstoRAFMy main concern is that although I believe there are issues that need immediate attention in the short term, the only areas that are going to see any benefits from the SDR are those directly relevant to Afghanistan. Programmes that are actually in production should be safe or at least suffer only minor cuts, but it is going to be longer term programmes that will be dropped or delayed. The F-35 should survive but at only 60-70 purchased. In fact the RAF seems to be the major target, with the RNs major programmes such as the CVF and new FFGs safe, but the latter will have minimum impact on the budget over the next few years. So that leave further cuts in the fast jet force, probably seeing the Tornado force cut in half by 2015 as the Typhoons come on stream being totally phased out along with the remaining Harriers by 2020 with the introduction of the F-35. That would leave the UKs fast jet strength at between 9 and 12 squadrons. Barely enough to meet its existing committments but then again it has been stated that all committments bar one are up for re-evaluation.
In the end I see the UKs Armed Forces being turned into a “Fire Brigade” able to deploy force rapidly for a short term operation but not for long term operations like we are currently involved in in Afghanistan, that will be the job for others.
I was fairly pessimistic until I read the text of the speech on the MoD website, now I have a glimmer that there is at least a strategy – the speech talks about structural changes in the medium and long term, trying to guarantee budgets for 10 years rather than the usual 4 year budget cycle, no immediate cuts in numbers. It sounds like they will at least try to avoid death by a hundred cuts, and from what I read it certainly sound like they will consider a radical reconfiguration of forces to a different role – for example you could consider Liam Fox’s comments about the RN to mean he will keep the total number of ships roughly the same as now or slightly higher, but move to a much greater emphasis on ocean-going patrol vessels.
I think the number of fast jet squadrons will drop (I thought the OSD for Tornado was 2025 and MoD had put place contracts to support the Tornado until then), likely a couple of squadrons of Tornados after the SDSR.
I think the biggest loss to the RAF will be the F-35 – I think there is a real danger it will simply be cut, as by the time they set the budgets in October for the next four years there will simply not be enough certainty over the costs to proceed, and I think more than anything the Government wants to know exactly what everything will cost them. While they could wait to start procurement of the F-35 until 2015 they cannot really wait to make decisions about changing the QE to CATOBAR until then (I will leave others to debate if that happens what the best alternative will be). I also think that Tranche 3B of Eurofighter is either going to be cancelled or delayed until as late as possible – maybe post the retirement of the Tornado
Unless the Government is spinning things it is likely that UK will start to pull back their troops from 2011/12 I hope this will mean that Afghanistan will not distort to much the review
nocutstoRAFI agree with you, it is possible each side understood something different, that is the reason the Russian side notified China their point and were willing to have friendly talks at the highest political level to solve the issue.
Beijing has been accused of illegally using designs before, with claims that it previously cloned the Russian Su-27SK long-range combat fighter jet.
China bought the aircraft from Russia in the 1990s, and later licensed the production on its own territory. Eventually Russian-produced components in the jets were substituted with Chinese, and finally the deal was called off by Beijing. Then China presented its version of the Sukhoi fighter called J-11B, which Moscow called a violation of its rights for intellectual property
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-04-20/russian-arms-copycat-china.html?fullstory
Earlier, Russia has accused China of violating international agreements in connection with forgery of Russian Su-27
While I am not disputing that what happened is exactly as you say, and I am aware of some cases of Chinese “IP Piracy” I also am aware of Chinese companies legitimately acquiring licences (i.e. the purchase of a licence for the Rover 75 by SIAC is an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_Group).
I think it is very telling that the contract has not been published, as if Sukhoi does believe the contract has been materially breached then even it is meant to be confidential there would be no harm in publishing extracted clauses to defend their position.
Of course I am mainly going to favour information I find in the UK aviation magazines (sorry but as a Brit that is what I am biased to believe) and I have certainly read an article (I think it was Combat Aircraft Monthly) which suggested that the dispute was originally one about if radar upgrades were included or not, which prompted China to develop their own avionics, even though the eventually resolved the issue amicably with Sukhoi. I also know that Russian aircraft companies are very sensitive about the issue of IP, due to a number of third parties upgrade older aircraft, such as Mig-21’s there were no clear contracts in place regulating such practices.
I have personally only been involved in one contractual dispute, where the client’s contract represented ~10% of the UK turnover of a multi-national, and we had to terminate the contract. I understood the contract was still in place and that payments were still being made – if this is true (and I can only speak from a background of English law) then the situation very much favours the Chinese as this would in effect be seen in an English court as Sukhoi accepting by practice a variation to the contract.
PS People might notice I talked about civil engineering expertise in another thread just in case people think I am talking out of my hat my background is – BSc (Hons) in Chemistry, a Masters in Materials Science, I was funded by British Energy Generation http://www.british-energy.com/ to do a PhD researching structure-property relationships in graphite moderators, then I worked at the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) http://www.trl.co.uk first in the Pavements section as a researcher, and project manager (looking at maintenance issues of asphalt surfacing over jointed concrete roads and runways/taxiways), then in the international division as bid manager. I then worked at Mott Macdonald, http://www.mottmac.com/ as a contract manager in the Railways Division, then (skipping my feeble attempt to become a teacher) I now work at the University of Kent in the Research Services negotiating research contracts and calculating the cost and price of research.
nocutstoRAFI’m glad that you don’t agree with it. I loathe the idea of the UK becoming a vassal state of the USA. I suggest to all those that advocate it that they should emigrate to the USA & apply for citizenship, as it’s clear that they despise the UK & love the USA.
Off topic – I went to America once (Charleston, South Carolina) despite the language in common it felt more different to the UK than visits to Berlin or Galicia (a region in the northwest of Spain, not on the normal tourist track).
On topic – given that the US has more frequent defence reviews (compared to the UK in recent years) are there any lessons we can learn, or is it like comparing apples to oranges
nocutstoRAFIf you are going to save money from an air point of view the three main options for consolidation are-
1) scrapping the RAF and splitting it between the FAA and AAC (RFC and RNAS?!) and giving the marines to the army. Two services with all the troops in one team and floaty things in the other. This view sees aircraft as just a vehicle, an adjunct to the main means of armed force which in this view are ships and troops.
2) scrapping the FAA and and AAC and making all air matters an RAF matter. which is the position between the Wars in the 1920s and 30s. This view sees aircraft as a force and weapon in their own right and not just a supporting vehicle to the other services.
I think that given the political situation that 1 is more likely than 2, I have nothing really concrete to base this on other than that a) it was mooted recently by the head of the RAF, and b) beyond the air policing/air defence (which I guess you would logically have to give to the RN) – I have the feeling from the AirForces Monthly and Combat Aircraft Monthly and the RAF handbook that Afghanistan seems to have focused the RAF on supporting Army operations.
I think giving air policing/defence to the RN might help reduce duplication of role, as they would have to have “naval” airfields flying Typhoons and their replacement, and the only overlap would be between the army’s ground attack/strike platforms and the navy’s carrier embarked attack/strike platforms. Obviously some things like flight training and in-flight refueling might make more sense if carried out jointly, and the RAF Regiments would join the army, which IMHO makes sense.
nocutstoRAFIts also a view that american stuff is some how always better, certainly not the case at all and European equipment is often much better, not always but tying ourselves to one procurement route would be bad.
As for training with the US and adopting their structures and doctrine…NO! The US Armed forces are a fine body of chaps and chappesess, but they are a bulk continental army based on a totally different doctrine. UK armed forces are a small expeditionary force trained overall to higher average standard but unable to launch mass continental army style ops. The UK and US compliment each other in our alliance just fine as we are.
Just to mention no argument from me – I was just pointing out that I have seen lots of “lets be like the US” type posts -I think that what we should be saying is lets be the best armed forces we can deliver configured for the threats we face within the budget available. One of the areas I would be interested in debating is does the UK need the best equipment to do the job, or does it need a mix of the best for the job in certain roles, and adequate filling the rest of the equipment mix.
nocutstoRAFHow many Mavericks can 2 A-10s carry?:rolleyes:
I have enjoyed reading this thread – personally I am a little indifferent to if GAU-8/A can kill modern MBT’s or not, it certainly can kill armoured vehicles, and I want to be about 50ft below ground in bunker with several meters of reinforced concrete if A-10 is strafing me, and not driving around in MBT modern or not (and I am surrendering if I am stuck in APC). 😉
However, to be Mr. Picky, and sorry if someone else has said this but the quote is: “During Desert Storm’s ground offensive, a two-ship formation of A-10s performing CAS destroyed 23 tanks and damaged another 10 over three sorties in a single day, often while under nearly continuous antiaircraft artillery (AAA) fire.” I have marked in bold the bit that makes it clear that it was three sorties to kill 23 tanks and damage another 10, rather than a single sortie.
By the way has anyone got access to Warthog: Flying the A-10 in the Gulf War , by William Smallwood as the author of the “Neglected Air Force Combat Missions” http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/sum03/ireton.html, reference Smallwood’s book to support the claim of 23 tank kills from 3 sorties by 2 ship formations.
nocutstoRAFThat’s an argument for a restructuring of the armed forces. I suspect it’s part of the trend to argue that the entire British armed forces should be turned into something resembling the USMC, with the navy & air force existing mainly to move the ground troops around, & provide tactical fire support when they get there.
Well I have certainly seen people argue that the UK should abandon its own defence procurement, re-structure along US lines, train with the US armed forces for maximum interoperability and just buy US equipment – that is an idea that personally I am against all the time that UK and US interests can conflict (such as Falkland Islands).
nocutstoRAFNot from me. I agree – though I’d still call it a ‘Marine Commando Brigade’, albeit part of the army. When marines were permanently based on board ship, as snipers, boarding parties, & security detachments, there was a sound argument for them to be part of the navy. When they became soldiers with an amphibious landing speciality, they should, logically, have been transferred to the army.
Taking the idea to the next step, the Joint Helicopter Command should transition to being part of the Army as well. I am not so sure about the Marines becoming Army, simply because I have not had a chance to research it as an idea, but I am fully supportive of either a separate but unified “Royal Helicopter Force” or with the Joint Helicopter Command becoming part of the Army.
nocutstoRAFI have been reading this thread with interest. I just like to chip is some related experience.
My job involves negotiating contracts for research projects, and I along with my tech transfer colleagues deal with a lot of IP negotiations. While I am no lawyer I do need to understand contract law and the causes of conflict in contracts. The biggest one is where one party thinks their contract means one thing and the other party thinks it means something else. This is especially true when you are negotiating under a different countries legal system.
In most contractual disputes there is a period of both sides claiming they are right, and when it goes to arbitration or court it is then up to the arbitrators or the judges to decide. Rarely in those situations is anyone happy with the outcomes.
Not saying that this applies here, but one possible argument is we are simply seeing a contractual dispute between Sukhoi and the Chinese Government where the contract is not clear enough about IP rights. I am guessing that the Chinese Government were granted a license for the source code and any dispute is likely to centre around if this allowed them to modify source code just for weapon integration or to allow the integration of new avionics.
nocutstoRAFI just can’t see Russia being okay with an Israeli assault/invasion of Iran. I think the Kremlin is going to be exceedingly suspicious of any invasion of Iran by anyone not in coalition with CIS forces.
However given the reality of the way the UN Security Council works, Israel will not ask for permission and just launch an attack – this will upset certain countries but the USA will not allow the UN Security Council to sanction Israel, and about the only way that Russia can show their displeasure would be to provide arms to Iran.
nocutstoRAFHow is this a good thing exactly?
Sorry – my sentence meant to come from an Iranian point of view – not one I personally agree with, but I was speculating on the way I think things could go – i.e. Israel decides to neutralise Iran nuclear facilities, Iran spins the situation so that it drives a wedge between USA and Gulf States, and should Iran shoot down Israel fighters then from the point of view of Iran its a victory.
Maybe I should have made it clear that for all these reasons I think that Israel will consider any such attack just too risky.
PS this is still all personal and quite strong opinion on my behalf. It is possible the reality is that Israel attacks, Iran makes outrageous and nasty comments, makes threats that upset the Gulf States rather than brings them on side, and gets itself more sanctions.
nocutstoRAFI definitely can’t see this happening.
Fingers crossed that the proposed ‘joint development’ of a MALE UAV does produce a workable relationship and product though. Also we’re co-operating on the FASGW (heavy) programme for Sea Skua replacement.
While I know the UK and France have had a troubled history recently with joint procurement programmes, I do know that France has made similar sorts of deals before and David Cameron has strongly hinted that aside from the US the country we should be closest to terms of defence is France.
Sign In
