LOL folks. Face it! With the individual European nation state defence & security budgets alone you will not achieve a satisfactory solution any more!

Talking about the CVF: With only two surface groups an opponent just has to rattle his sabres every few month and the RN sends a group – for how long? What’s that called? Strategic attrition? Of course you can always keep them at home – call it “Home Fleet” 😀 – so both are available if the SHTF somewhere in a strange faraway land and you have to take back an island or something. Not what I call “power projection”, btw. Philbob is right with his 5 carriers, as 5 is the absolute minimum overall number necessary to keep a “Yankee Station” style presence over a longer period of time.

Well we can’t afford 5 carriers, so we will do what we can with 2 carriers, as 2 carriers is still infinitely better than zero carriers. The fact we cannot afford 5 carriers does not mean we should surrender our defence to a “United Europe”. I do not feel any more “European” than I do “Asian” or “German”.

To which I would respectfully point out that the last time a carrier presence had to be sustained indefinitely probably was yankee station in the vietnam war!.

War is not the same now as then. Carriers were the only, significant, source of tacair at the start of the afghan campaign. The carrier only phase only lasted a few weeks though and then forward basing was established.

CVF is designed along that principle. The ability to generate 1500 sorties over the course of a month, with precision weapons, is anticipated to be sufficient to service the heaviest target list we would run up against alone!. If we haven’t done enough to secure an air-head ashore or attrited the hell out of the opposition after that sortie volume we are probably in the mire already!

Some people are never satisfied. As you say 2 CVF is a major improvement in capability, whatever way people try to twist it.

Re the nuclear deterrent. No-body ever mentions the elephant in the room – the Uk will maintain an independent nuclear deterrent as long as FRANCE does the same. There is no way UK politicos will allow the French to be the only uclear country in the EU. Indeed, the other EU countries would not be too keen on that either.

Hopefully we will retain it as long as ANYONE has it, though the French are of particular concern politically.

In all seriousness are we not more likely in the future to need either different or, even better, an additional nuclear deterrent? Iran’s slow, sure and likely unstoppable acquisition is going to open the door to everyone having them.

At that point I would like the option of having a deterrent we can wave in our foes faces (yes it would be on the basis of my one is bigger and better than yours), submarines invisibly deployed under the Artic ice sheet are not quite as impressive (though a lot surer) than the PM ordering the Nuclear Strike Squadron to embark on QE to rain hot nuclear death on any jumped up dictator with a modified scud with a crude nuke attached who thinks that one of our overseas territories would make a nice addition and that we will not defend them as “the tin pot dictator” has managed to scrape together a kilo of weapons grade uranium wrapped in plastic explosives and ballistic missile system from the 70’s to launch them.

While this is an argument for why we still need a continuous deterrent at sea, it is also an argument for the UK to get its own version of ASMP because unless you are Russia (or possibly China) you are not necessarily going to be able to verify that our subs are at sea.

Oh I’m fully in favour of making some gravity bombs as well. We’ve made an infrastructure investment in a new warhead production plant at Aldermaston, so lets make use of our investment and get some extra warheads.

You mean a decision on the UK’s nuclear deterrent is a matter for the French?

No. Nukes are the daddy of all weapons, load up a Vanguard to treaty limits then sail it out to sea, in under hour it can take any country and wipe out pretty much everything it has worth bothering with, leaving it sewer like shell. The UK does not want the French to have this awesome power, with the UKs most potent power being a handful of conventional cruise missiles on an attack submarine, the same goes for the Americans, Russians ect. Its completely irrelevant whether anyone is going to use the stuff of not, its the fact that they would have the capability to ultimately stand up to a superpower and command that respect.

Yeap they should have held off retiring Sea Harriers till the GR9 conversion program was completed rather than putting all 7 Harrier & SHAR squadrons into one unit with only about a quarter of the airframes available. To be honest they should really added radar to some of the GR9’s when doing the conversions, partly to retain the skills till the F-35 was ready.

BTW on the Radar issue i did write to the MoD about it when the SHARs were earmarked for early retirement. The answer then was the money and that the Type 45’s would be able to provide adaquate defence till the JCA arrived – right before they wimnped out on ordering the remaining ships !!!.

G

Be nice if they didn’t cut anything, but they do. Retaining the RADAR skills for the Harrier pilots and ground crew for F35 isn’t too important IMO, considering the RADAR experience exists in other areas (Typhoon) and can be used when forming the new squadrons.

Shouldn’t need much fighter cover really, as the Argies are unlikley to be able to maintain a a credible, continuous air defence reaction force AND be able to get them airborne in time for when the Tornados are overhead. Its always easy to overestimate the enemies capability 🙂

As for what can be delivered, it varies depending on what tankers are available, which combat aircraft and how much fuel/munitions each will carry. A good option might be to have two tankers for every group of aircraft, one to tank them mid way there, and another to tank them mid way back. Remember the effect we can achieve now with the same poundage dropped is way higher than in 1982, Paveways and Storm Shadows will let us do more damage to their key capabilities, even if the payload size isn’t as impressive as a Vulcan. Realistically, lets not forget the RAFs big investment in things like ASTOR, so we have a good of idea of what we are going to hit on the runs, and how we are going to conduct the offensive.

We also have TLAM if we need it. Ultimately though, the Argies dont have any decent aircraft and what they do have is unlikely to have great availability. Their forces have next to zero money, they are little more than a peacekeeping and self defence force. They aren’t capable of taking the Falklands, or even posing a threat.

Well when the RAF deployed 4 Typhoons down there a couple of months back to replace the F3’s they made it sound like a mammoth achievement that required a huge amount of planning and effort (they almost made it sound harder than deploying a carrier task force around the world) which didn’t instil me with much confidence in their ability to do anything useful down there in a conflict. This could all obviously just have been the RAF trying to sound useful down there since the Falklands are largely seen as the RN’s problem but it was likely also at least partially true.

My idea for the RAF would be to try and make a return to the only thing they do that the AAC and Fleet Air Arm don’t do, long range strike, which is why i’d make a larger AAR capable UCAV like Taranis their main aim. That would allow them to stay much more relevant. It should also eliminate some of the inter service rivalry if the RAF are only expected to use fighters for defence.

Actually it was quite an achievement as they flew from the UK direct to Falklands without stopping IIRC, which is pretty good going. This is going from Ascension to Falkland, much shorter distance, but its a return trip!

i had a crazy thought about this.
Taranis is billed as being able to fly across continents (which means they want to have a look at long-legged UCAV ops).

What if somewhere in the RAF high command there is a shadow group of officers who want to ensure that they will never have to get as close to disaster as Operation Blackbuck nearly did….

What if Taranis is the start of the RAF justifying itself with a global reach? Afterall UCAV and Stormshadow (SSEP?) would be perfect for the mission.

But then i’ve just read Grim901 and realised he beat me to it! There goes my conspiracy theory down in flames (or should that be starved of fuel?)

Taranis just has long range because it doesn’t have a pilot, and so there is lots of spare space. I doubt it could fly to the Falklands from Ascension and back with bombs onboard, and its not cleared for any weapons anyway. Taranis is a 2/3rd scale demonstrator, it won’t be striking anything in a major war, its far too precisious, though it could be deployed beiefly in somewhere like A’stan to do some operational evaluation. The production aircraft, whenever it comes about, obviously could, but I can’t see that being for a fair few years yet so its a bit early to start spec’ing out what its range will be.

Right now only an Air Transport Command. Officially operational since a few days, HQ’d in the Netherlands.

Similar plans for sealift under way, currently planned to be HQ’d in Athens.

Expeditionary capability is the last step. A realistic first step would be aerospace defence, especially BMD.

The institutional European unification process in the (supra)national security sector is driven by the civil/police/paramil side, with organisations like FRONTEX.

But the real driver are budgets and the inability of the inidividual European nation states to field meaningful forces on their own. For those not willing to be dominated by the U.S. (or Russia, or China, or XXX) a unified European defence capbility is the logical way ahead to field full-spectrum forces that are capable to defend Europe’s interests (and yes, this includes nuclear arms – but it will take a long time till the discussion arrives there).

Another driver is of course the industry. Consolidation leads to the need for higher output volumes, which can only be absorbed my a pool of customers. That de-facto standardization will also drive things towards a unified force.

One thing is sure: The political side will not set any useful steps, the process will be driven by outside factors – “Flucht nach vorne”.

Did you ever consider, for a moment, that the European Union may actually be seen a dominating force that a country may want to avoid, and that not all countries populations may want to be part of your superblock? Taking the UK as an example context, how is the EU some saviour from domination, whereas the USA is some dominant force to fear? It is the EU that year on year imposes its will on the British people, the USA doesn’t impose anything upon the UK.

As for this idea that we can negotiate as a block, thats great and all, but why should we surrender our independence, and live under that monster of EU regulation? I’d much rather take our chances alone, than be stuck in the EU with the mainlanders. The idea of being insignificant alone is really just hot air, peddled by pro-integrationists to leverage that good old persuasion tactic… fear!

Also we’d like a refund, payable in gold preferably or perhaps steel/aluminium/rare earth metals ect, you can keep your Euros 😉

I think its important to remember when looking at cuts that cutting existing kit doesn’t really save us much, the operational costs are quite small relative to procurement costs. Its also extremely unlikely anything cut now, will ever be replaced “when the finances improve”, the money will be given to other departments. If Tornado goes, its unlikely they will be replaced, so the real cut is actually ~140 Tornado + ~140 strike UCAV.

As for selling anything, most of this kit would go for next to nothing.

Lads on the front line? In quotation marks? Suggesting that is exactly what I said?

Actually I said ‘Lives’ on the front line but lets play it your way.

Over the past 10 years we have seen about 330 dead in Afghanistan and about 180 in Iraq aloong with numbers of wounded running into their thousands. Too often they were due to equipment shortfalls and shortcomings. Often because local industries demanded that they build the equipment that (in quotation marks) “the Lads” were required to use.

It is great if the equipment comes in on time and on budget (you didn’t put that in quotation marks did you?) but it is essential that the equipment is fit for purpose and there is enough of it. If it isn’t then tough, some people are going to have to find another job then, arn’t they? I had to when factory after factory closed down in the Midlands and I was forced into the IT service trade, so forgive me if I remain unphazed when I hear about factories closing. I generally assume now, because generally I am right, that the factory in question was out of date and uncompetitive. It was most likely not supplying demand. I still earn enough to keep the tax man happy, surely so can the former employees of the doomed industries. Don’t give us bleeding hearts bloke, millions of Midlanders got sweet FA when they couldn’t get factory work anymore, don’t ask me to care anymore for anybody else.

My point however is that more fighter jets isn’t going to stop them coming back dead from cowardly enemy fire or IEDs.

I had no idea that the LCA had ever been considered by the UK do you have any tips where I might look to find out more? My suggestion is based on politics and keeping British money in Britain rather than capabilities as I think that the LCA is the wrong aircraft for the FAA (a STOBAR light fighter would have to short a range, and not be able carry a lot of ordnance) and I only see the need for it for the RAF if they needed a cheaper jet for CAS and COIN.

Saying all that if jointry is what you want and you still intend to fill the JSA role, then as a outside option you could offer to licence the LCA from HAL, pay for the engine development in return for India selecting Typhoon for the MRCA. This a) results in JCA being fully built in the UK with the only money going out of the economy being for the license fee and any systems selected for a non-UK supplier, b) guarantee’s jobs at RR and BAE, c) gives the UK a strong position to negotiate with the other partners in the Eurofighter consortium for modifications to either workshare or future commitments, as UK would have made a pretty large financial sacrifice to secure the MRCA order.

Take a look at the Typhoons history, LCA started out as a European light fighter, its had British, French and Swedish involvement. The LCA has changed somewhat, but the basics are still quite similar 🙂

The UK does not need a fleet of coin aircraft nor cheap ones, the number of fast jets deployed to A’stan is pretty small. Whilst an alternative aircraft instead of JSF may be cheaper, we won’t be getting more of them, don’t be under the illusion that budget saved is budget kept, it will be going straight into the NHS and foreign aid. Regarding LCA workshare, even with a Typhoon order, is not going to sustain like a JSF contract will. Regarding the Typhoon consortium, we won’t get a dime. I don’t mean to sound harsh, just realistic.

As for a coin aircraft, that requirement is filled by Reaper type aircraft, and the are much better for the role.

Bager I see your argument. You are saying that the cost of developing and fitting the catapult system will wipe out the savings made by purchasing the Super Hornet or the F35C. I am not convinced because I haven’t seen any relative numbers, the cost of one option relative to the other but it might not be the point. I think the point is that the government might not see it that way and once they have made their mind up it doesn’t matter what industry or the armed forces think or even need.

How much did the governmnet throw at the banks to stop them folding? How many of us thought it could be far better utilised? How many of us wondered why they could find this cash for the banks but not for the ‘lads’ on the ground as one poster so dismissively called them.

It was politics that did for the last of the big old carriers, it was politics that did for the British lead in jet engine, radar and computer technology, it was politics that all but did for the British aviation industry and it is politics that will decide what will happen with SDSR. Worst of all they freely admit this time that it IS driven by the need to save money and to hell with operational requirements.

I am not saying I want them to buy Hornets, I wish they would make a decision and stick to it but politics prevents that. Their ‘studies’ are usually done over a pint down the pub, drafted on the back of a fag packet and finalised in their spare time. If the first pass indicates that the Super Hornet buy is the cheapest option that is the one they will go for. It doesn’t matter wether it is right or not, they won’t figure in every implication, they can’t be bothered. They will always take the easy route, the one where the least work is reqyuired. They won’t listen to the experts, they won’t listen to you and they won’t listen to me. They will bulldoze it through so they can get on with what they regard as more interesting pass-times.

All I am saying is that if they do choose the Super Hornet I will count the Royal Navy very lucky. It could be a whole lot worse.

They didn’t “give” the banks any money, they stabilised some risky assets, to prevent a massive collapse of the banking system which would have trashed out ability to pay for anything! Most of the money will be taken back over time and they’ll probably end up making a profit, but it won’t be for many years yet. Theres less growth, less gdp, less money for stuff in general.

I’d also subscribe to F35B + CVF being the cheapest option. Also, with F35, the UK could buy extra aircraft in the future, so attrition reserves aren’t so important, whereas Typhoon/Tornado have a more limited length run. As for politics, not much we can do about the fact that the govt gives away as much in foreign aid as it does on defence, such is what happens when there are so many hippy types with a soft spot for poor people. I’d much rather spend the money on defence personally, most of those poor countries hate us with a passion or go against our ideals on things like womens rights anyway.

UK F-35 share is not contingent on orders – the contracts with BAE have already been signed.

I know, but “if its too good to be true” and all that. However if you think they are going to be cool with us taking a massive slice of the cake for an order of 3 aircraft, you’re very optimistic!

I cannot but worry that if the RAF agree to can their GR4’s to guarantee a buy of F-35B’s, buy all the F-35B’s out of their budget, that they are going to want to control them, shut out the FAA, and treat the carriers as mobile airstrips that they deploy from only when they have to (i.e. when they have no bloody choice). This seems likely if the initial buy of F-35B’s is only sufficient to stand up two or three squadrons in total.

I wonder if you are the RN with a pro-Navy Secretary for State for Defence what you might come up with to guarantee that FAA gets priority for the new fighters and they get to be embarked and at least one squadron stays embarked at all times.

Not more worried about them agreeing to cut the GR4 on condition of getting JSF, then JSF get trimmed down anyway? I don’t trust the government, Clegg will chop chop chop, he hates the military, he’ll no doubt use the cuts and subsequent reallocation to the foreign aid budget on campaign literature the next time around as well. The best thing about these cuts I see is the bureaucrats being cut, they say 30% to 50%, I’d rather see 60% and start with the highest earners.

The real problem here is a lack of accountability. If we get into a war and we don’t have the kit, the politician that caused it gets off free. This should not be the case, any lives lost or damaged done as a result of their negligence should be punished harshly to prevent a repeat.

Sharing a carrier with France? Very unlikely as it would be effectively useless in many of the times when we really NEED a carrier. Take a look at the Iraq war. Would France have been OK with the UK sending a carrier to Iraq? Secondly the French want to put the ASMP-A missile on their carriers, would the UK be OK with France launching a nuclear strike from a joint ship? It also goes against UK policy of withdrawing nukes from surface ships post ~1991. Then there is the whole aspect of it being a target in a war, would the public be ok losing 1000 British sailors for a French island? 1000 coffins filled with RN sailors will go down like a hog roast at Hanukkah, especially when the find out the islands population is less than the number of coffins lined up on TV.

Leasing is surely nonsense, there will be no spare airframes.

France has one air group and one carrier so if the UK was to build both carriers and buy just the one air group then the French air group could deploy on the UK’s spare carrier when Charles de Gaulle is in refit. This would give the EU two deployable carriers and air groups available at short notice all the time and would make a fair bit of sense.

Of course this would only be possible if the UK carriers are CATOBAR. It would also make it logical for the UK to buy Rafale and run a joint Hawkeye force with France. This would be good for Europe but probably too much for the present Eurosceptic administration to stomach.

Likely the current stories are just ill researched rubbish.

I couldn’t care less what the EU wants. F35B makes great sense in EU terms, since it makes the UK forces even harder to harmonise, and amen to that. The EU is one big con, the French always talk of “sharing” and the “greater good” when its British tax money, British subsidies and British public services on the line, but when its French stuff on the line oh how they change their tune! Will they give up CAP subsidies? Like hell. But they still want Britain to give up their rebate.

Secondly, the carriers don’t both have 100% availablility, they won’t both always be available for service. So when de Gaulle goes into refit, one CVF could also be in refit, and so can the French still borrow the carrier? Nay. So who gets the one available carrier? As for a Rafale run, a fleet of Rafale costs a lot more than a CVF and don’t forget to consider the workshare issues. The UK will almost certainly lose the F35 workshare (some 10% IIRC), they say its independent of an order, but if it came to it I suspect things would be a little different! The workshare from a Rafale order, for BAE/RR would be tiny, effectively zero, meanwhile D’Assault would get a massive boost. Come the next round of aircraft procurements (UCAVs) and inevitable joint projects, the French will be in a much stronger position and will as per last time, demand a greatly disproportionate slice of the cake for themselves. You think the French care if BAE is reduced to a D’Assault subcontractor? Do they hell, more work for the French when its all said and done. As it was last time, the French would have been quite happy with the whole of Europe buying Rafale and Mirage off the shelf from them! Take a look at what they are doing to the city of London! As for the UK building the CVF, I doubt we’d even get to do that, the French shipyards would want at least a 1/3rd. So net result:

1. UK aero industry loses JSF workshare and probably thousands of jobs
2. UK aero industry is in a much weaker negotiating position come UCAVs so billions more goes to the French that would otherwise go back into the British economy
3. The UK get 2/3s of the CVF, French shipyards take 1/3rd
4. French get 90% of Rafale workshare
5. Typhoon export prospects will be harmed seriously (you think the French won’t milk that on the export market? There goes even more money and jobs!)