(from Flight International)
“….Chief of the air staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton has voiced his desire to emerge from the process with a more balanced service, and warns that “platform-level” cuts will be a likely consequence of government-enforced cost savings. “My aim is to come out of the SDSR with two fast-jet, two helicopter and two transport types,” he says, referring to the project’s expected 10- to 15-year period of regard….”
Two fast jets: Typhoon and F-35, presumably
Two helicopters: Chinook and what?? (Aren’t the Merlins going to the Navy/Marines, to replace the Sea King Junglys? And the Pumas won’t be around much longer.)
Two transports: C-17 and A400M? (C-130s on the way out? Isn’t the A400M a bit big to be the smallest transport aircraft available?)
Future of the RAF transport fleet?
…
….Harrier has to stay in place for now…..
The only reason the Harriers will be kept is because nothing else can operate off the Navy’s carriers, present or future, so in that case, maybe the whole of the Harrier Force should be transferred to the Fleet Air Arm?
…
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. …
If additional strategic airlift is required, perhaps the UK should consider joining the NATO shared strategic airlift programmes. As for tactical transport, smaller aircraft such as the C-27J, C-295 or CN-235 – that are cheaper to operate – could be bought to supplement the Hercules, rather than spending money on new wings. [/QUOTE]
…
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…?
Maybe there’s some confusion here between the MR4 and the RAF’s order for three RC-135s to replace Nimrod R1s? As for the MR4s, they are by far the most expensive aircraft ever bought for the RAF, and I would guess they would be extremely expensive to operate. If they are to be retained – personally I am unconvinced – then the order should be reduced by one or two in order to fund the purchase of 6-8 twin-turboprop Maritime Patrol Aircraft, to do 90% of the work of the Nimrod at 10% (?) of the cost.
… Better to phase off part of the Sentry, then. NATO has its own 15-strong fleet….
Sensible suggestion. Seems to be duplication there at the moment.
What about training aircraft? For a start, aren’t the Tucanos due to be replaced fairly soon? Will there be any funds to pay for new trainers? Secondly, if the RAFs fleet is to be drastically reduced, does that not mean an equivalent reduction in the training requirement, including the number of Tucanos or their replacements, Hawks, etc.?
Interesting reading, SDSR briefing paper for MPs
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snia-05592.pdf
An extension of the current 6 month deployment is likely; after all, the US military do 12 month deployments in Afghanistan.
From a cynical point-of-view, getting rid of the Gurkhas might be seen as the least damaging option from a party political perspective. Personally I would abolish some of the cavalry regiments, which are just state-subsidised gentlemens’ clubs, but they have a lot of clout in the halls of power.
Most likely, no. I’m pretty sure they couldn’t. And anyway, i’m surprised that a proposal to arm Tucano planes was considered serious enough for the UK to stay in the air so long. Personally, i think it is… totally absurd a proposal for a whole series of reasons.
1) The RAF has Tucano planes, but they are used for training and i doubt they could be used for any other role, so NEW Tucano would have to be bought.
2) The RAF Tucanos have no weapons capability, nor any credible self-protection electronic suite. Even to fight guerrilla, a Tucano would need to be integrated with weaponry, from Paveway IV to Brimstone to rocket and gun pods, and armed with sensors that allow the usage of this weaponry. All this would have to obviously be paid for, and a series of electronic countermeasures would also need to be added onto the planes.Result is: buy new planes, integrate weaponry and defenses, and run a “Counterinsurgency” air squadron. Savings over using Tornado and Harrier already available? None, in the short term. To be precise, money (a lot of it) would have to be spent creating this capability.
Same thing would happen using the Hawk or any other “unexpensive” platform.
The hope is to realize “savings” on fuel and running costs.The most concrete result, anyway, is that there would be even less money to spend on actual planes like the F35, which will be able to do anything from High-Intensity Warfare to Counterinsurgency work.
While the Tucano would be a flying coffin if used against any sort of even weak air defence system and thus is good just for Afghanistan (and not without serious risks either).

It’s the Super Tucano the General was talking about, not the earlier Tucano trainer used by the RAF. The Super Tucano has been evaluated recently by the US Navy as a COIN aircraft to support Special Forces, under the ‘Imminent Fury’ programme; they seem to be very happy with it. It flies almost as fast as the A-10, which as we all know, has been extremely popular and successful in Afghanistan.
….And anyway, arguably, the best platform to support from the air an operation like Afghanistan would be a bunch of AC130 Spectre working together in a network with a number of Fire Shadow loitering ammunitions and possibly other drones like Predators.
That would offer:
A) Endurance on the field to ensure the lads on the ground are covered constantly, true 24/24 hours, 7/7 days.
B) Intelligence and overhead observation of the battlefield
C) Selective precision effect against a range of targets, with the ability to go from pin-point accuracy strikes in villages to a potentially devastating barrage of fire to quickly erase any serious resistance or moving group of enemies.
Not sure, but I think the AC-130 is limited to night ops only, because it’s too vulnerable in daytime.
Roll-out of the RAF’s first A330 Tanker/Transport

Russian subs stalk Trident in echo of Cold War
Russian submarines are hunting down British Vanguard boats in a return to Cold War tactics not seen for 25 years, Navy chiefs have warned.
Funny how stories like this tend to appear when there’s a Strategic Defence and Security Review underway……:diablo:
Anyone know if the favourite aircraft of the Chief of the Defence Staff – the Super Tucano – could land and take-off on the CVF?
…….
What exactly are those metal cables jutting out of the sides of the deck? I’ve seen them on pretty much all modern CATOBAR and STOBAR carrier designs. I initially thought they were related to the arrested recovery system, but that probably isn’t the case.
Maybe they’re something to do with the tennis courts 😀
The air search radar on CVF will be the ARTISAN, a derivative of SAMPSON that’s also been earmarked for the Type 26 frigates. You can see it in the model; it’s the single-faced rotating antenna on the rear island.
As for the SAMs, there’s definitely a lot of space considering these will be 65000 ton ships with only 40-50 aircraft embarked, but I doubt it’ll have anything more than a point defence system. Probably the CAMM, which will also be used on the Type 26.
This image from some years ago shows that the initial plan was to fit Sampson on the CVFs.

Spain sees its STOVL-capable LHD as a supplement to a real carrier, not an alternative. It’s officially stated policy that it will only operate in the carrier role when the real carrier is in refit or repair.
Italy has a real carrier with a secondary LPH/amphibious transport role. It doesn’t have a STOVL-capable LHA/LHD, though it plans to build one, to supplement the main carrier. CVF will be real carriers with a secondary LPH role. There’s not so much difference.
Except for the fact that CVF is more than twice the tonnage (and cost?) of the Spanish and Italian carriers.
Perhaps the reason this choice between carriers or amphibious ships is having to be faced is that the Navy made a big mistake in not opting for multi-purpose ships that could fulfil both roles, such as the USN LHA/LHD types, or the similar if smaller ships built by Spain and Italy. It seems the RN never really gave up on CVA-01…
They’re very small. 200 kg MTOW.
True, but unless they’re regarded as disposable, why would you need to carry six of them? The German Braunschweig corvettes will carry two each.

AFAIK, national airspace just extends out to 12 miles from the coast, same as territorial waters.