MickWell the inference is that HELIX would get integrated at some point. I suppose it depends how much L-3 UK has sunk on the development work already.
Possibly, but with the cost of developing and fitting Helix to a Nimrod R1 upgrade, had that been pursued, estimated at £400 million when part of the assessment phase was awarded last year (that was due to run until next year), I wonder if it will be worth sitting on the system — unless it is that much better than what is currently in the US Rivet Joints — and then later forking out to put into any RAF RC-135s especially with the way the MoD’s finances are now.
MickSo it’ll basically be the three RC-135 Rivet Joint with the same systems used by the Americans (L-3 Communications Integrated Systems) (rather than Helix) that myself and several others discussed a while back. Maybe Jackonicko should chip in if he’s around as he seemed to know more long before this article was written.
MickI think it just reflects a difficult situation. Whatever they could do there are problems. If it was recruiting jobless Latvians directly from Riga, there could be a public outcry at home asking as to why taxpayers money was being spent on bringing immigrants in when there is high youth unemployment in the UK. And would the armed forces be actually successful advertising for foreign unemployed youths with the offer of a specific role that means being sent to Afghanistan or Iraq? They could spice it up with all sorts of gimmicks like offers of UK citizenship, etc but it might remain problematic to get sufficient recruits to show enough interest, much like the situation that there is now. As I said before, they would probably have to completely relax the entry requirements across the board to make it attractive, so any nationality could go and serve on a Type 45 or fly with the RAF, other than doing some of the more sensitive work. And that could bring up a whole load of problems that could change the UK armed forces beyond recognition. A foreign national then considering a career in his/her own armed forces might decide to choose Britain instead because of better pay and wider opportunities. These countries might then start having difficulties recruiting as they start facing the loss of high-calibre recruits that have come over to the UK instead. This could especially be problematic when many countries like Latvia have recently scrapped conscription in an attempt to develop more professional armed forces. Even Poland wants to scrap conscription.
If it was bringing in a limited amount of domestic conscripts, yes it might be difficult to motivate them and there might be political problems for the reasons you listed. On second thoughts, making 18-year old Brits or similar age by law have to take up education, work, training, community service or the services rather than claiming benefits might be more acceptable to the public than just conscripting them in. But it probably would still be insufficient to ensure that there were enough recruits coming in.
The question was “Why is there any debate about recruiting from abroad anyway?” I didn’t know that it was even being considered. Checking it up, it appears it came about because of the number of Poles going into Army Careers Offices and asking about joining up — Poles living and working in the UK showing an interest, not from abroad, which is completely different especially if they already have a number of years of living here under their belt. I don’t think that would be that would be too controversial and would only require changing the length of time for residency rules.
MickAnd that is assuming that every conscript would be placed in harm’s way and packed off to Afghanistan and Iraq. Personally, I don’t think that the limited use of a limited number of conscripts for some roles or even used for deployments in less hostile areas of the world, therefore freeing up trained regular personnel, would be any different to the growing use of TA or other reserve forces to make up the numbers. Your’e not talking about the type of numbers that were needed during national service of the past. And what’s the difference between saying to an 18-year old that they must be in education of some sort rather than being out of work to they must join one of the services if they are not going to do anything else where they can learn and do something constructive. Depends on what they are used for.
If it’s a question of needing more infantry troops for Afghanistan and Iraq, however, that’s a different matter and I already said that recruiting EU or NATO nationals with previous military experience might be more useful. But to fill the armed forces with foreign nationals though just to make up the shortfall in general shortage in manpower seems a bit radical, especially when there is a percentage of the domestic population that could be tapped into. Maybe if some the other major NATO and EU states shared a bit more of the burden in places like Afghanistan, the UK would not have to look at recruiting from elsewhere.
So is anyone going to answer my earlier question then rather than picking out one sentence?
MickWhy is there any debate about recruiting from abroad anyway? Other than recruiting people within the EU or NATO already with previous military experience, which could be a pretty cost-effective way of getting troops that only need training to get them up to British procedures, etc, I can’t see why it is even being considered. Are defence chiefs that concerned that over the long-term, recruitment is going to get harder that they think they need to start recruiting abroad. Is it to meet the current shortfall in personnel? Surely, there must be a better option like bringing back some form of national service.
MickAgreed that many British young people don’t want to join up, but they still account for the largest percentage of new entrants into the UK armed forces and overall manpower, even if it is short of its required intake at the moment (and this isn’t just restricted to requiring more infantry).
I suppose you could recruit restrictively (ie. Poles and not other nations), but that would open a whole can of worms. Would these Polish nationals have extremely restricted opportunities? These nationals won’t be used to British culture having not lived here even if they can speak English. Then they’d come into a pretty entrenched system that is steeped with British history, regimental traditions, etc and be expected to fit in. There would have to be a bottom-up review that would allow the armed forces to be more flexible with multiculturalism and nationalities then there presently is (because for sure, I can quite imagine you’d get thousands of other nationalities applying to join up if it was open to everyone). The only other option is that they’d have to create a Regiment that was purely restricted to a nationality similar to the Polish Squadrons during WW2, thereby creating a British Foreign Legion. It would also be a nightmare putting all these recruits through security screening prior to joining. And how would they be able to guarantee that someone from outside the UK was in fact not who they said they were, even if they were registered in their own country as a national of that country. Even with Commonwealth citizens there are stringent security requirements for officers, while some can’t serve in certain roles without long-term residency. Ireland I agree is an odd case and may well be something that dates back to when the country gained independence, while the Gurkhas are completely different matter as there is a particular brigade that has been recruiting from Nepal for over 200 years and the brigade follows Nepalese customs and traditions. And as for the non-Commonwealth countries there are close links as former colonies, while I believe Fiji has been suspended from the Commonwealth since its 2006 coup. Other than the Gurkhas, I would guess they probably only account for a small percentage of the UK armed forces strength anyway. The citizen requirements for service are those that I detailed.
I just don’t think it would go down all that well in this country if there was an announcement tomorrow that they were going to open the armed forces to anybody just because they come from EU or NATO member states. The headlines would probably write themselves.
MickThat just wouldn’t happen. There is enough discontent among some of the British population and the media about immigration without “jobless” Latvians using the UK armed forces to escape poverty in their own country. We have pretty high youth unemployment in the UK anyway and there seems to be a growing lobby that are trying to push for a return to national service (although seems pretty unlikely) due to rising youth crime. There’s also too much of a potential security risk. Commonwealth citizen, member of a British overseas territory, long-term residency, even someone protected under the British Nationality Act, however, is a different matter as it currently is. Spend a lengthy spell in the UK, gain UK citizenship, speak fluent English and it shouldn’t really be a problem whatever country the person is from.
MickI think initially the Mantis will fly clean (other than sensors). I read something somewhere that armament could be added, but much much later in the programme. The GBU-12s and Brimstone are therefore purely for effect for the Mantis mock-up on display.
MickAnd I guess that there would be no operational sovereignty issues that might arise with the Reaper. It will be tailored to MoD requirements and they will also have a wider remit for flight testing in the UK, Australia (as will happen with the Taranis) and somewhere like Afghanistan (as was done with the Herti).
MickBAE Systems have now announced more:
http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_10861413322.html
MickWell there’s a deep HALE UAV requirement under Project Dabinett for ISR tasks. But agreed, unless there are problems with the extra Reaper requirement (obviously no orders yet), I can’t see where this project would go if it is an armed UCAV similar to the Reaper. Guess all will be revealed shortly.
MickI suppose it’s been an issue about slowness within industry to appreciate UAV technology. Perhaps the technology was also unrealiable (as shown with Phoenix), a conservative attitude (as you said) and over reliance of building something only when the contract had been signed, as well as skills and supply chain within industry that was more geared-up to building large fixed-wing aircraft. Now that the technology is better, industry together with the military have taken a hard long look at the success of UAVs in operational theatres and realised that these are pretty capable, cheap to develop (£124 million estimated for the Taranis for example), low-operating costs, extremely low risks to service personnel, etc, etc. And there’s the civilian applications, which is equally as exciting. Police forces with small resources that currently buy a single EC135 helicopter or similar to serve a whole regional community that costs alot to maintain and in future they will be able to buy a number of UAVs to do the job at a fraction of the cost. Makes you wonder what kind of airspace there will be over Britain and other countries in about five to ten years time.
MickFinally something really new and surprising 😎 Edging ahead of the US is a bit optimistic, but considering the long hesitation to adopt UAVs displayed by the British armed forces they have played an amazing game of catch-up over the recent years. They are clearly poised to take the lead in Europe when Taranis flies at the very latest.
Hmm… elsewhere in Europe, there is Neuron, scale model demonstrators UCAVs being flown by Dassault Aviation. The EuroHawk (okay Global Hawk-based). Alenia with its range of UAVs, etc. BAE Systems (and other European manufacturers) are certainly not up to US or Israeli standards with UAV technology as yet, but are quickly catching up.
MickBAE Systems still has joint share in Gripen International that markets, sells and supports the Gripen internationally (although it is correct that marketing was handed back to Saab). It also has a 20.5 per cent stake in Saab, a 33 per cent stake in Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH and significant involvement in the F-35. In otherwords, BAE Systems already has some kind of interest in most of the fighters on offer, other than anything that Boeing is offering.
MickForget the media speculation about the French borrowing the British carriers, the big story should be if Scotland ever gains independence, will they pinch a carrier (to be named The Scottish Ship (TSS) Robert the Bruce) for the Scottish Navy (SN) operating F-35Bs assigned to the Scottish Joint Force McDave (SJFMcD), composed of aircrew drawn from the Scottish Air Force (SAF) and the Scottish Fleet Air Arm (SFAA). 😮
Apologies to any Scots…
Sign In
