Interesting analysis on the latest growth in russian activity in the north. I’m hoping the SDSR is keeping an eye on this kind of considerations too, especially in relation to suggestions of cutting on the Nimrod fleet while using “C130 to keep up sea patrolling” (gods, Ainsworth, that was the least credible idiocy you ever dared selling away).

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/197663/-Arctic-battle-between-Scotland-and-Russia/

AFAIK the BAe 146 isn’t used in Afghanistan. The much smaller BAe 125 is used for moving senior officers around quickly.

Elsewhere, although the RAF’s six BAe 125s and two BAe 146s have over the last few years expanded their duties from providing Royal and VIP transport services to also operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, their 2022 out-of-service dates could again come under review.

But Air Vice Marshal Steven Hillier, air officer commanding the RAF’s 2 Group organisation, argues that the 32 Sqn aircraft have delivered “strategic-level effect” by having been adapted to non-traditional tasks. “Flying a regional commander to a meeting in a [BAe] 125 with three crew can cut six weeks of relationship-building” in Afghanistan, he noted earlier this year.

It seems to suggest the 146 was used as well. In any case, i stick to my earlier analysis.

For VIP transport, a turboprop designed for cargo has considerable disadvantages compared to a jet. Its only advantage that I can think of is that it can get into rougher airfields.

The BAe 146 is much quieter, especially for passengers, & a lot faster. It has excellent short field performance for a passenger jet, & hot and high performance. That’s why it’s used by operators flying into mountain airports with short runways, & places requiring steep approaches for noise reasons – especially if they also have a short runway. It’s no longer in production, & there are plenty of spare aircraft, largely because the niches it excels in are shrinking in commercial use. But given that, why retire a superior aircraft for the role, & replace it with an inferior (for the task) and more expensive (because it would have to be bought new), one?

The argument for replacing it is that it is thirsty, slow, & short ranged compared to something like the Global Express – but that is not an argument for the C-27J in the VIP transport role.

I suggested it in a pure speculative idea for 2022 when the Bae is supposed to go out of service. I did not say to replace the planes early and spend money now.
For the rest of the points, i can agree with you, but i also have to say that, if the military always has got to do more with less, the VIPs should accept flying in a (possibly) slightly less comfortable plane.
The advantages i envision are that the C27J has a full-force electronic countermeasures system (not bad when you are flying around VIPs and even better if you use it in Afghanistan to move officers around), is less fuel-starving, has got more range, is more modern and more agile. But moreover, a small fleet of C27J would be far more useful to the military as well.

This said, i don’t think the C27J is that bad a VIP transport either.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Lithuania%20-%20Air%20Force/Alenia%20C-27J%20Spartan/1692793/M/&width=640&height=439&photo_nr=&sid=&set_photo_album=hide

Lithuanian “Air Force One” VIP module installed in military tactical airlifter C27J is an example of a possible solution.

Una “pillola” sul C-27J lituano presente alla statica: all’interno della fusoliera erano inseriti dei moduli per il trasporto passeggeri realizzati dalla Geven, industria italiana di Nola. Questi moduli erano del tipo VIP molto curati e insonorizzati per 6 posti (uno) e due normali da 9 posti ciascuno per un totale di 24 passeggeri; per i C-27J sono previsti tre moduli normali per 27 passeggeri.

From http://cca.analisidifesa.it/it/magazine_8034243544/numero80/article_705440083720663526471637247382_0802122365_1.jsp

It says that the Lithuanian C27J at the Bourget show in 2007 was shown with 3 modules for VIP transport inserted in the fuselage. The VIP modules are produced by Geven, an italian industry of the city of Nola, and they are soundproofed. There’s a more luxury 6-seats module or a 9-seats kind, and the C27J can be fitted with up to 3 nine-seat modules for a total transport capability of 27 VIPs.
So, there could be maximum useage of the planes, removing the VIP modules when they aren’t needed.

Morocco was the first non-NATO buyer, and with 130 million euro bought 4 planes and a complete VIP pallet configuration.

Again, as i said, mine was pure speculation. In the future of an air force maimed by cuts and insufficient budgets, i’d want every plane to be as relevant as possible.

the same article points out that the UK has already spent in excess of £800 million on the FLA/A400M. I can’t see them knocking that on the head unless they blame it all on labour….

f35 has always been safe in my view, and unless you think the RAF is going for an F18/Typhoon mix then they are doing what they always said they would do and sticking with the Typhoon and Lightning.

is it the case that all merlins are going naval? they have been doing very well haven’t they?

What will do the tanking? Is it going to be an anglo french a330 mix as suggested in that article?

The Merlins go naval but stay Utility platforms. There’s no capability gap created by such a move, and the Commandos would get a far better platform at the same time. The choppers, after all, will be used how and when they are needed, so being RAF or Navy manned won’t affect that too much. Once the HC3 are navalized, they’ll be a lot more flexible, being able to operate from ships as well. And being the Merlins merely 28, yes, all must go to the navy and possible be centered on RNAS Culdrose, with the possible closure of RAF Benson or its use for Chinooks if they really are to become 70: Odhinam would have trouble taking all of them.

The air tankers are the A330 of the FSTA contract. I don’t see true changes happening to that with the first two planes about to be handed to the RAF. The agreement will possibly involve selling hours of usage of the air tankers of the RAF to the Armeè de l’Air, which will postpone its own buy of new A330, possibly as many as 14. A larger “pooling” of air tankers may be obtained with time as cooperation expands and the french get their new planes, but that is a future development yet to be seen.

I doubt the little Bae 146 and Bae 125 are at serious risk, also. In future, to replace them, but this is only an idea of mine for a future that is quite far if they retire in 2022, it may be interesting to replace them all with a small cargo plane like the C235 or C27J which could have wider use for military ops as well as VIP transport and such, and also offer lower fuel cost and major survivability.

No, I am not suggesting over the horizon with Mexeflotes!

OTH with helicopters (for unloading of troops) & the landing craft (for equipment). The Mexeflotes would operate from closer in, in the next phase. And it isn’t my suggestion, it’s official policy, & what is trained for. Everything I’ve said is drawn from official documents & from descriptions of actual operations & exercises. It is not speculation.

Yeah, of course it is. But you are talking about a plan drafted on the assumption to operate:

HMS Ocean or a carrier in LPH role
At least one of the Albions for Command and Control and beach assault
At least one, or better a couple of Bays

no less than 6 LCU MK10 and 8 or more LCVP MK5 plus helicopters and mexeflotes for later phase.

In an assault landing operation, the first wave of troops are landed on the beach by landing craft from the LPDs – HMS Albion and/or Bulwark – and by a “vertical assault” on vital points somewhat inland by helicopters from the LPH (e.g. HMS Ocean), to establish a beachhead and landing zone. The LSD(A)’s are initially positioned about 20nm offshore and remain over-the-horizon during the first wave assault, they may use landing craft and helicopters to help offload the second wave and subsequent waves of troops and equipment from themselves. When the beach area and landing zone have been finally confirmed as secure, the LSD(A)’s will approach the landing zone and from just one or two thousand yards off-shore will deploy Mexeflotes (motorised pontoons) to assist in the quick and efficient offloading of the heavy vehicles and equipment that they carry. Once a harbour has been secured, Point Class “Ro-Ro” Strategic Transport’s and ships taken up from trade (STUFT) will bring in further reinforcements and re-supply the force.

What i say is that all this WILL be fantasy if the proposed cuts to the amphibious ships is accepted, and selling the idea of still having any significant amphibious assault capability would be bold to say the least.
The “Helicopter assault” is used to capture strategic points behind the beach and build up a first defensive perimeter to protect the landing of the true, heavy force on the beach. A true amphibious ops can’t be done with helicopters alone.

If the rumours are to be believed then amphibious over the beach operations are to be binned as part of the SDSR with troops being inserted by helicopter. If that is the case then there is no need ofr Albion or Bulwark and wiht a CVF doing the work, no replacement for Ocean. What needs to be retained is sea lift of heavier items and logistic support and that is the role of the Bay class.

I think we are basically all in agreement that the forthcomming SDSR is not actually a review of out defence needs but more a case of what is the bare minimum we can operate with until the county gets it finances in order or at least that is the Treasury’s main driver. The problem is goingto be ling term however as unless we resort to almost total off the shelf purchases in the future any new programmes are goign tto be decades away from delivering new platforms. Can the UK’s defence industry survive without the MoD? Will this actually be the kick in the butt industry needs to begin to look at exportable platforms that the MoD could use rather than the other way around?

With the rumoured cuts and reorganisations I just hope that we bring our boys and girls back from Afghanistan ASAP, put up a “Do not disturb”, sign and hope the balloon dosen’t go up anytime soon in a location we have to respond to.

Actually, the Albion and Bulwark with their combined 8 LCU MK10 and 8 LCVP Mk5 and the capability to transport each a “standard” payload of 6 Challenger tanks, 6 L118 and 67 other vehicles are the best way to bring heavy equipments and vehicles ashore.
A Bay carries merely a single LCU, is nearly toothless in terms of defence, and is designed to come in as an harbor is secured, to land additional vehicles once an area has been secured, using mexeflotes. The Point class RO-RO ships follow in after a port has been captured or work has been carried out to make the unloading possible.

I have very high doubts on the possibilities of the Bay class to do much on their own. They simply haven’t been designed nor envisioned to do it. Also, launch a serious number of Vickings ashore to give some armour mobility and support to the boys as they jump out of the choppers will be a true challenge with the Bays alone.
Anyway, anyway. It already happened once, if i recall correctly. Fearless was going to be scrapped in the 80′. We all know what happened.

As to:

Loathe to post this here incase Ligers temper gets even worse but here goes –

‘Plan to share aircraft carriers with France’

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk…e-2066267.html

It is clear that i’m not being clear in my points, then. As it is, it simply can’t be done to share Queen Elizabeth and CdG. One is VTOL, the other CATOBAR. Result: french planes stay at home when CdG is at home, Uk planes stay idle when QE is in dock.
And i seriously don’t believe in the seriousness of having CdG going out at sea doing anything of serious interest for the UK, since it will always have to do something of french interest first. It is just a mutual, ridiculous excuse to allow PoW to be scrapped and PA2 to never be built. Everyone loses.

It would make sense if:
QE is fitted with CATOBAR systems and goes F35C/Super Hornet, and PoW is completed without CATOBAR fit, is used as an Ocean replacement, but retains the capability to be fitted with cats herself later on.
At this point, and provided a clear agreement with obligations in terms of mutual assistance that covers even Falklands-and-similar scenarios, the carrier-pooling makes actual sense and i’m totally for it. Actually, i suggested this kind of collaboration months ago, when i was the pessimist one and people on these forums was cheerfull and happy forecasting a SDSR that exists only on Mars. Not to be rude, and i apologize if i sound like one at times, but seriously.

All of those listed together are unlikely – but worse cuts would be paying of the frigates early with no plan to replace all of them, cutting 10 – 20% of the army, cutting the TA back drastically.

Each of the cuts you mention, individually make sense.

Take the carriers – if you cut PoW then you are in the same position as the French, not a bad position to be in IMO.

Cut half the amphibious assault (I not sure I ever seen anything more than loose 3 amphibious assault ships) – makes sense if it allows us to keep PoW, only starts to be nasty if taken with the loss of PoW.

F-35B numbers to drop or be replaced with F/A-18’s – to be honest I think this is a done deal and I think inevitable. It would only be problem if they could not get any funds to buy any new fighters – I think we will all have to live with 3 – 4 front line squadrons of F-35’s (or whatever) replacing GR4’s and Harriers. Lets hope when there is a upturn in finances the UK is one of the first to implement UCAV’s.

IMO the Army have agreed to cut one Armoured Brigade to get FRES Scout, and I assume they will pursue a direct fire version of ASCOD as part of making the army lighter and more manoeuvrable.

I thought the armoured vehicles were to be re-capitalised? Well I take it you are right there. With regard to artillery I think that the Army is eyeing up single module GMRLS systems on a lighter tracked vehicle which has a shared chassis with one of the FRES utility options, or maybe something like the Turkish 70mm rocket system, along with mobile howitzer’s like NEMO, to emphasise air transportability – I think this will be the mantra of the future can you get it on A400M or a C-5 to get it in theatre quickly – if not then bin it.

No disrespect to the Ghurkha’s but they now cost nearly as much as UK regiment and rather the preserve the number of UK regiments and if this means an end to the Ghurkha’s then this is better than say the loss of 1 or 2 battalion’s of the Rifles.

While vehicle mounted Starstreak have been phased out I have not seen anything to suggest the man-portable system is in danger, and while it leaves a capability gap it is one they are planning to fill with CAMM – unless you have seen something that counters this.

Finally (as I running out of steam writing such a long response) – I think that if Afghanistan has resulted in the requirement for armoured vehicles to become larger and heavier (certainly this is what I have seen with the requirements for FRES) then it is possible that the C-130J will not be able to cope with the larger and heavier vehicles and it would make sense to sell them while we can get a good price for them to help fund the A400M purchase.

Actually, your indications on artillery are dreams, unfortunately. the LIMAWS requirement died long ago, the replacement of the L118 with M777 is not going to happen anytime soon, and the AS90 is not going to be replaced, but simply lost. One day, MAYBE, there’ll be a resurrection of a LIMAWS-like requirement. For now, there’s the risk to see even the GMLRS being cut, from regular regiment to a TA formation, listening to the reports.

Cutting Ocean, Albion and Bulwark is not HALF the amphibious capability. You grossly overvalue the Bay class vessels. Losing Albion and Bulwark is a major blow to the power projection capability, and in fact it is one of the cuts i truly hope WON’T happen.
The RN amphibious capability can survive losing Ocean if PoW is safe.
But losing Albion and Bulwark as well would spell the end of any ambition of amphibious operation any harder and larger than driving a mexeflote into Haiti’s bays to bring aid.

In fact, my hope is that 8 Sandown minesweepers and possibly two Trafalgar class SSNs and HMS Ocean and the Royal Marines going to the army will be enough of a cut for the Navy to save 6 Astutes, Albion and Bulwark and both carriers, so that 1) A carrier is always available and 2) the PoW can do Ocean’s work too when needed. 7th Astute is dead, however. Bye Bye HMS Ajax.

Cuts to the F35: ok, i never made a mystery that it would happen. But 50 F35B wouldn’t be enough to fill up even just one of the carriers, once an OCU and OEU and reserve are made up.
If truly there’s any chance to save something going CATOBAR, first choice should be the F35C, but if decent numbers keep being impossible to obtain, Super Hornet is still a good choice. This i can accept.

Tranche 3B of Typhoon: it is dead from years, even if not officially. I won’t bitch about this. Selling 24 of the T1 to Oman or Qatar would also be acceptable. Drop all the T1 and lose Leuchars is a bit of a disaster instead, and I hope it is avoided.

Tornado: cut on them in 5 years. I love the Tornado, but this is really the most consistent cut that can be done, and it does not leave too much of a gap overall. Harrier has to stay in place for now. I highly doubt that leasing US Marines harriers would provide any saving at all. And embarking US planes on Illustrious to keep pilots and ship personell training would keep some basic expertise alive, but leave the UK for years without even the ridiculous carrier strike capability currently at hand. Also, that would leave no Harrier to deploy to the frontline.

Building just Queen Elizabeth, especially in a VTOL config, would put the UK in the same condition of France, true.
The same ****ty condition that makes the French navy beg and cry to get a second hull in the water as soon as possible, that is. (decision expected in 2011… Would they help funding PoW instead, if CVFs goes CATOBAR? If the “wish for collaboration” exists, hopefully they would, and it would be advantageous for both countries)

CAMM was expected to replace Rapier, and at the earlier in 2018. OK, i accept the cut to HMV, and the fact that just one unit of Rapier will survive, it seems, in a RAF Regiment squadron, but this is… like… almost nothing in terms of air defence, i must notice.
I hope one day we’ll have THOR turrets with Starstreak II or even better LMM missiles that can be used as SHORAD and also to strike surface targets too. A THOR turret mounted, say, on top of a Jackal would make an awesome asset: in Afghanistan soldiers keep wasting Javelin missiles, but a LMM would do the work better and at a range nearly 3 times as great.

FRES Scout: you give it as safe, but it is not. And if it is, anyway, the numbers will be sharply smaller than those the army hopes for. Hopefully, the Warrior upgrade will come, too. And not in the next decade, but soon enough, possibly.

Puma choppers and Gazelle choppers: sacrificed immediately to save money and avoid cuts to other fleets, more active and relevant. Nothing to counter here, this is a point I’m making from the very first moment.

C130s are not just about moving vehicles around. Vehicles are the smallest part of the logistic load to support an operation. With the desperate need for strategic airlift increasing again and again, the RAF should try and secure the much desired 8th C17 (the press today suggested (FINALLY) aid money being used strategically fitting to national security targets, a new C17 could be something the Aid department can co-fund) and retain the C130J. The A400M can move vehicles and heavy loads, and leave the 130 moving pallets, spare parts, ammo, everything else. They sure wouldn’t stay idle, there’s no doubt on it.

Gurkhas: I agree with your point, and I think that it may be an acceptable cut, better than others suggested. BUT: infantry is in high request, and you’ll need someone to take the place of the Gurkhas in Afghanistan rotational tours.
Also, I’m less worried for the Gurkhas. I thought on it, and there’s no way they get chopped: there would be too much bitching about letting Nepalese people without jobs, money, homes, and without the british army pensions and the right to come in the UK. This will ensure no one dares doing it. More likely, it’ll be the Black Watch that goes… Ridiculously enough, it’ll make less noise if people losing jobs are UK people. A lot less noise than it would be for the Gurkhas.

Nimrod MR4: retain it. The idea of the “US surveillance planes” doing the work of Nimrod as the press has been bragging is A LIE. A blatant fantasy. You see the US deploying a squadron of patrol planes in the UK to do the SAR support, EEZ management and ASsW and ASW work of the Nimrods…? They could eventually do it, but you’d have to pay the cost, thus there’s no sense in suggesting such a thing. Better to phase off part of the Sentry, then. NATO has its own 15-strong fleet, and the US have their own. France has some too. France and UK could, I suggest, collaborate on joint training and mainteinance, where possible, for the Sentry. This is another cut I propose myself. I’m not against cuts, I’m for cuts with a sense, that possibly don’t shred entire capabilities throwing the UK 60 years back in time.