Assuming that the leaks are not the usual fire out the worst case scenarios to soften the ground for the real cuts, how would they go aobut chucking the Tornado fleet?

A draw down all at once over a couple of years? piecemeal over ten? Surely to get the savings they are talking about the machines would need to be scrapped relatively quickly.

And if they do scrap Tornado, are they not basically scrapping most of the UK’s attack fleet with it’s precision strike and stand off capabilities, potentially leaving the RAF with 40 odd Harriers and (if lucky) 160 odd Typhoons which will barely be able to defend UK airspace and deploy a decent stirke wing to one carrier.

Won’t then, scapping Tornado early, be tantamount to pulling the teeth completely out of the RAF, or are the RAF banking on getting more F-35s than we think earleir than we think?

basically the ConDem government has lost the plot if it’s planning a cull in the armed forces now, they are already at skeleton capacity in many areas.

I’d much rather risk the consequences of pulling out of Afghanistan now than breaking the armed forces indefinitely upon those particular rocks.

The plan apparently is to retire the Tornado fleet within 5 years.

And yes, the greatest part of the strike fleet of the RAF would go with the Tornado, as would go the ability to use the RAPTOR reconnaissance pod and the ability to launch Storm Shadow. Both these two capabilities are likely to be moved urgently to Typhoons if the Tornado really goes.
The Storm Shadow wasn’t an urgent requirement on Typhoon, but it certainly would become since the planned launch platform is go out of service earlier.

Harriers numbers are a rebus for me. Certainly they are very low, but i’ve seen figures from 36 to 45, and i don’t really know how many are there. They would remain the main strike force of the RAF for some time, since the Typhoons would take up to 2014 to be integrated with the wide range of weaponry needed for full swing role capability.
Harriers are needed because of the carriers, the need to be able to deploy them at sea and conserve STOVL pilots and skills for the F35B when it finally comes.

Typhoon squadrons should be 5, plus an OCU unit. Full swing-role capability is probably to be pursued, so that they can cover both strike and air defence. They certainly have the capability to do so once the weapons are integrated.

And then, one day, the F35B should come. However, they won’t be 150, nor, at what it seems, 138, but possibly as few as 70. Their role will primarily be to deploy on the CVFs, but they’d also represent the strike force of the RAF.

Like it or not, this is the scenario. And it is not so bad a one, all in all. The more F35B can be acquired, though, the better. That is the main point.

I agree that Liam Fox should at the very least draw up two plans one where he cuts 10% or 20% but drops Trident replacement and the other where he funds Trident replacement by cutting the Army and pulling them out of Afghanistan now and force the Prime Minster (PM) and the Cabinet to decide which of the options is more palatable.

The problem is that the PM has a lot less power than many other forms of government, as the Cabinet is almost like a body of equals and the only way the PM can overall an individual without risk is if he has strong backing from his party, however he should certainly step in as the public spat between two senior Conservatives is unseemly and unnecessary and causing certain people (myself included) certain amount of paranoia about the future of the armed forces.

Thank you for the explanation. I thought the PM in the Uk was actually pretty powerful… Anyway, i’m hoping there will soon be a meeting of the government over the issue, as soon as the visit in India is over, if not for anything else at least because the matter is getting embarassing on the press.
Fox needs to be very, very vocal about the situation, and make it clear that things can’t work in this way.
And i’m hoping that some good sense wins, in the end, because Trident is important, but if it has to come at the expense of conventional warfighting force, it is not worth the price at all.

From fridays Times

Surely that figures not right? £7.5bn from axing the Tornado fleet? Even if that does incude a base or two.

It may be a little exagerated. In other sources i’ve seen as little as 3 billions, which looked instead far too little saving to be real. I’m guessing that the truth stays somewhere in the middle, as always.

Other reports also specified that the navy was offering 8 minesweepers for the chop, but had made very clear that if the government does not step down requirements, the Service can’t do with any more ships cut off, so that the escort fleet seemed safe.
On the possible reduction in TYpe 26 numbers we can argue (i hope it is not true, goddamnit, but it could be) but… Type 45? I don’t see cuts to that happening, since all ships are either complete or nearly complete, and since the Cons always opposed the cut of the 7th and 8th vessel.
Now, renounce to a ship ready to serve to obtain ridiculously laughable savings (if any at all) does not look like something they can afford to do. Luckily.

I looked at the RUSI – they rehashed what has been said on a number of occassions. I completely support the idea of having only 4 launch tubes on a sub for nuclear deterrant BUT it must be CASD. I want BAE to start looking at an elongated Astute now and come to the table with plans to implement this.

We have 7 Astute planned at the moment. I want when number 7 is finnished for work to begin on Astute II SSBN.

As i said above, BAe already seems to have proposed that:

From the excellent Navy Matter’s site: (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/fsm.htm)

[…] In order to keep costs down, an all-new submarine design has become considered unlikely for a Vanguard-class replacement and current thinking probably assumes an evolution of the Astute design – indeed BAE Systems Submarines has already examined two variants fitted with an extra hull section. The first includes the fitting external to the pressure hull of sixteen Mark 36 Vertical Launch System tubes for missiles such as Tomahawk, and the second includes four Trident II size (86 inch diameter, 36-feet usable length) missile tubes, installed aft of the fin. The later approach is preferred as the large tubes are extremely versatile, alternative to Trident II SLBM’s they could potentially carry a next generation ballistic missile, a multiple all-up round canister accommodating seven Tomahawk cruise missiles per tube, equipment and swimmer vehicles for special forces, Unmanned Underwater Vehicle’s (UUV’s), deployable decoys and sensors, and even encapsulated Unmanned Air Vehicle’s (UAV’s). While a re-role will not be trivial, the new submarines would certainly be far more flexible than the current SSBN/SSN divide permits.

While utilising a modified Astute design to carry Trident has been much discussed for several years, officials are now (December 2006) making it clear that this is not a trivial exercise, at the very least a major and costly redesign will be required. The final result may have as much similarity to the Astute’s as the Astute’s (originally called Batch 2 Trafalgar’s!) have to the T’s and V’s. […]

Since this was written, though, the UK invested 200 millions in work with the US on a Common Missile Compartment design (the US plans 12 launch tubes) with launch tubes actually far larger than 86 inches.

From DefenseIndustryDaily: (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/CMC-contract-to-Define-Future-SSBN-Launchers-for-UK-USA-05221/)

SSBNs are nuclear missile submarines. The Common Missile Compartment (CMC) sub-program would define the missile tubes and accompanying systems that would be used to launch new ballistic missiles, successors to the current Trident II/ D5 missile fleet used by the USA and Britain. Options include an increased diameter from 2.21m launch tubes to 3.04m, and the missile compartment will reportedly carry just 12 tubes each, as opposed to the current Ohio SSBNs’ 24, or the Vanguard SSBNs’ 16. […]

Jan 28/10: Backward compatibility. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA received a $29.7 million sole source cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for systems engineering services, to help integrate current Trident D5 nuclear missiles into the new submarine’s common missile compartment.

Work will be performed in Sunnyvale, CA (53.38%); Cape Canaveral, FL (40.02%); Magna, Utah (3.54%); Groton, CT (1.55%); Olathe, KS (0.67%); Melbourne, FL (0.50%); Bangor, WA (0.27%); Dallas, TX (0.03%); and Port Washington, NY (0.01%). Work is expected to be complete by the end of FY 2011, on Sept 30/11. The US Strategic Systems Programs in Arlington, VA issued the contract (N00030-10-C-0043).

June 16/10: Northrop Grumman receives a $148.6 million sole-source cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to work on the CMC’s advanced launcher development program for FY 2010-2011. Specific efforts include technical engineering services to support the common missile compartment concept development and prototyping effort.

Work will be performed in Sunnyvale, CA from June 16/10 through June 15/11, with an additional one-year option to June 15/12. The Navy Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) in Arlington, VA manages this contract (N00030-10-C-0024).

May 6/10: General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp. in Groton, CT received a $6.4 million contract modification to design special tooling for the CMC. The award modifies a $76 million contract announced in December 2008 (see Dec 23/08 entry) for engineering, technical services, concept studies and design of the CMC for the United Kingdom Successor SSBN and the Ohio Replacement SSBN. If all options are exercised and funded, the overall contract (N00024-09-C-2100) would have a value of more than $638 million.

Feb 16/10: General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp. in Groton, CT received an $26.3 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-09-C-2100) for continued procurement of common missile compartment prototype material, as well as manufacturing and testing activities for the United Kingdom Successor SSBN and the Ohio Replacement SSBN. Work will be performed in Groton, Conn., and is expected to be complete by January 2012. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract.

The award modifies a $76 million contract announced in December 2008 for engineering, technical services, concept studies and design for the CMC (see Dec 23/08 entry) If all options are exercised and funded, the overall contract would have a value of more than $630 million. GDEB release. […]

It is to be seen if BAe has any chance to take just four of the tubes and their related machinery from this CMC and fit them into a new section that can be added to the Astute.

Actually it looks like only you predicted that, or picked up on stories saying as such.

The reports of RAF offering to scrap Nimrod entirely were on the news in the last week. If you missed them, better for you. It wasn’t a pleasant read.

And the Nimrods are going to keep patroling the sea most of the time. The raf may just send out one to Afghanistan (if there will still be someone in there by that time) to use as ISTAR asset as it did with the MR2 already.
But the change of base does not means the Nimrod magically changes: it is still fitted with ASW sensors mainly, and i don’t see, eventual deployment to Herrick aside, what the hell they could do on land.
When they enter service, they’ll resume flying over the sea.

Hope you are right, since this plan you outlined isn’t that bad. Certainly better than most scenarios had been depicted in doom and gloom colours lately.
Of course… The Nimrods would be a little bit out of area, being based at Waddington, far more distant from their normal area of patrol, but i guess this is little trouble compared to losing them altogether and be left without ocean patrol and anti-submarine recon.

I thought we had already invested our money in the F-35 Programme, is that not the case?

As for the impact on RR we are talking about 135 less sales on more than a decade than currently planned, it is negligible and depending upon the replacement option selected we could deal with the impact.

I am sure the press would make more out of us spending money on fast jets than on buying a different fast jet to the one originally planned, as far as most of the press are concerned, fast jets are a waste of money as we have plenty of them as is.

Politically speaking, if we went for Super Hornet international, then we are still putting the money into a US companies pocket. Plus we would be logical to use a US company for the support of the planes and pay to train with the USN, I suspect that over the long term we would give even more money to the US than with the F-35. It would also be a major coup for the US if the UK was the launch customer for Boeing’s proposed International version of the SH, as it looks like increasingly the non-European customers are being priced out of the market and considering extending the life of their legacy aircraft by upgrading them or replacing them with the latest versions of F-15’s, F/A-18 E/F, Rafales, or the latest flavours Russian fighters and occasionally they buy Typhoon’s, if we went Super Hornet I think a fair number of other countries would as well.

Hell, if we where considering only political options I would be telling David Cameron to tell the Indian Government the UK will buy 70 LCA (N) Mk II with a EJ200 engine if they buy Typhoon for the MMRCA, as this along with the Hawk contract would be good politics and good for UK business.

With regard to the choice of what to fly of the carriers and I hope in the end that the major factor is not price nor are we swayed into a course for political expediency but instead post-SDSR we have a clear strategy and stick with it and spend the money to get the right plane in the correct numbers, which still looks like the F-35B, but I would not be surprised if the F-35B is a casualty of the deficit reduction plans – 😮 apologies to anyone tired of me raising the same point again that there will be either be no F-35B purchase or not enough purchased to be useable 😮

Uk spent a good few billions already into the F35, exactly. A good reason in itself to stick with it, if possible.
But the program is still going on, and the UK still invests in it: the latest, most visible investment was the acquisition of 3 F35B of the test and development fleet, that are going to be shipped to the UK in 2012, i think, to allow RN and RAF to do trials and contribute to the final tests of the plane before it goes into production in series.

You undervalue the press and their capability to attack mostly every move. The fact they hate fast jets altogether does not mean that they’d fail to point out to the billions wasted only to step away from the program and buy an outdated, older design. While, at the same time, attacking the buy of planes in itself.
Then, very likely, crying about lack of kit at the first chance to do so.
Before attacking purchase of “cold-war” kit immediately after. Seriously, press is evil, all over the world. And british press, for what i know about it, is no better than italian press, and possibly even worse on defence aspects. Here, the press tells you what it wants and not what it is true, but at least most press is actually very kind about military equipment buy: the Cavour had lots of space of glory on TV when it was launched, and again when it sailed to Haiti loaded with aid. No one dared attacking its purchase. However, i’m going off on a tangent now.

Buying Super Hornet would make happy only Boeing, not the US Department of Defense that would have to pay the UK part of the F35 program and have the Marines paying an higher unitary cost for their F35B (or the navy paying more for F35C, depending ultimately on what the UK decides to buy). Not to think of LM, RR and all the rest of the group that would be pretty pissed off.
As to the chances of Super Hornet getting any real market in Europe, even if the UK was to buy it… sincerely, i think the Super Hornet international is nearly hopeless. It may cost “little”… but it is out of fashion, and the small european air forces like Danish are more likely to buy/lease Gripens or Typhoons than F18.
Besides, if it was true what you say, that the UK would act as a sponsor for the F18, Eurofighter would bite at the UK hard. They already have to fight off the F35, they would hate to risk losing market.
And the UK industry has the highest possible interest in selling MORE Typhoons, since in the UK the largest part of every Typhoon is built. It would be higly counterproductive to drop out of the F35 share of market (save for RR, there’s no one else in the world that could produce the lift fan) and probably see the large share of work BAe and british industry have for the F35 being relocated to other partner nations, Italy in first line.
It would be two times as counterproductive to do so to buy another direct rival of the Typhoon, risking to damage the export of the Typhoon as well. It would be a suicidal move harming the british aerospace sector deeply.

As to your fears about the consistence of the fleet of planes for the CVFs, i hear you loud. I share your fears, and probably i am even more worried than you, about many aspects of the SDR that i truly don’t agree to.
But the F35 weights politically and economically so much that it protects itself rather well, at least.