Big Willy Syndrome

[ORAC]

The Grauniad: Britain's armed forces are beset by bureaucracy and big willy syndrome (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2139719,00.html) by Max Hastings

.......I suspect there will be more tears before bedtime about the JSF programme, as the day approaches when cheques must be written for it. Somebody, probably the tenant of 10 Downing Street, will ask why we need this plane in addition to spending almost £20bn on the RAF's Typhoon, once called the Eurofighter. With both the F-35 and the Typhoon, a decade or two from now Britain will have too many fast jets and far too few transport aircraft.

The problem derives, as so often, from a big willy syndrome. Airmen measure their virility in terms of combat aircraft, and fight like tigers to maintain a large inventory. A rational defence review would oblige the RAF to face the reality that it needs a very small number of high-altitude interceptors and a modest force of ground-support aircraft...........

[effortless]

So what is he saying? Give the movers lots of big stuff? Merge with Pickfords? I suppose that he may have a point in that maybe we need loads of cheaper kit and pilots to fly it rather than a few bits of expensive stuff which just won't get everywhere it's needed.

[Maple 01]

Hitler' Hastings has been writing Armycentric* defence drivel for far to long now, isn't it sad that the world's greatest military minds ended up as journalists rather than servicemen/women?:rolleyes:

*just invented a new word, feel free to intergrate it into dull meetings

[Not_a_boffin]

Seems to have been listening to that kn0b Lewis Page as well.

[Squirrel 41]

Some bits of this are very good - and it's good to see it in the Grauniad.

The twin thrusts of the argument - that we need a defence review to sort out a realistic budget or level of Ops/ambition, and that as a government department, the MOD is an expensively disfunctional organisation - seem to me to be spot on. Where it falls apart is in the "Armycentric" approach.

In my view, what needs to be said clearly and coherently is that we need well-equipped, balanced forces, able to project power gloablly and not be reliant on HNS.

Surprisingly, lots of senior people and politicans seem to use words like this, but then miss the next point:

This capability is expensive!

For far too long - and under Tories as well as Labour - there's been a drastic underinvestment in the forces, notably in equipment. In effect, we're using up investment made in the Cold War to fight two hot ones, and the unsurprising result is that things wear out and need to be replaced. In the US this was recognised in the late 90s with the term "block obsolescence", and the result was a reinvestment in equipment (recapitalisation, if you will). Gordon and Tony rightly saw this problem in the NHS and sought to solve it by oodles of dosh: someone needs to make it clear that the MOD needs

(i) recapitalisation
(ii) sized to fit the requirements (in the current world, bigger)
(iii) reform (civil service and procurement, for starters)

Or in other words, leadership. Gordon/David/Ming - the challenge, gentlemen, awaits.

S41

[Captain Kirk]

Hastings is determined to criticise Typhoon and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change his view. However, he got this right:

There are constant complaints that decision-making is too centralised and cumbersome in the hands of the huge corps of MoD civil servants. These people have embraced management-speak in a fashion that promotes fantasy rather than efficiency. The MoD's formal mission statement describes Bill Jeffrey, the unimpressive permanent secretary, as "not only leading the workstream process, but driving it". This gobbledegook is characteristic of a mindset preoccupied with process rather than the pursuit of clear objectives.

Gordon Brown as chancellor was right about one thing concerning the MoD. It is still a metropolis of waste. Lord Drayson, the procurement minister, is a success story aboard what is otherwise an unhappy ship, but he is wrestling with a bureaucracy capable of seeing off Solomon. The service chiefs of staff possess much less executive authority and policy-making influence than the top civilians, most of whom know little or nothing about the armed forces or war-fighting.

We DO need a Defence Review. Max Hastings will not get a say. If we are confident of the contribution that we make to Defence, including the place of Fast Air, then we need not fear the conclusions.

[Not_a_boffin]

Perhaps a more useful exercise than a review (which will pretty much inevitably justify what we have now and add some extra AT/SH/land manoeuvre units) might be a real investigation into where the money actually goes. Anyone who has worked in ABW will be aware that the visibility of what the STP in particular but also EP is actually being spent on is very limited. This has been compounded by RAB which adds all sorts of beanywonderland [(c) GBZ] cost terms which must appear in the budgets, but bear little resemblance to expenditure. One example I came across a couple of years ago was an IPT that supported missile systems. One line item in it's (tens of £M) annual budget equated to 50% of the total and was entitled "Issues to Fleet". Not one person could actually explain what that meant (and no it wasn't something obvious like a custody transfer or expenditure in live-firing - we should be so lucky).

I would suggest that before capability flagellation commences, the cost recording process is sorted first.

[Vortex_Generator]

SQ 41 said "there's been a drastic underinvestment in the forces, notably in equipment."
I would argue that the drastic underinvestment has been in personnel. There is some pretty good quality equipment coming through now and in the near future, but I'm not so sure there will be enough good quality people left to make best use of it!

[Archimedes]

this euro-folly

That, ladies and gentlemen, is why Hastings refuses to do any research about Typhoon. It's a European project, therefore it is a waste of time/scandal/some German stitch up of fair albion and facts that suggest that it might be quite useful simply mustn't be permitted to enter into the equation...

If only he'd bother to expand his knowledge of air power beyond what could be written in capitals on a post-it note...
Did someone once post here something to the effect that he'd admitted that he hated the RAF, or just that the poster thought Hastings loathed the service? I can't recall.

[vecvechookattack]

I have to agree with vortex on that point. Sir Max Hastings has it spot on. Defence spending on equipment has never been higher, last year they spent over 5 billion on new equipment (mainly on that folly the Typhoon _ Sir Max is spot on again)


but defence investment in people has been lacking

[Squirrel 41]

Or indeed, can we please have a real review that fixes things?

N-A-B

I agree, but this is what I mean by a review: setting out the political level aspirations of what we want to be able to do, and then determining the most effective (not most efficient per se) process to deliver it.

Looking at the last four ("New Chapter Describing how to paper over the cracks", "Not very Strategic Defence Review", "Front Line Last", and "Options for Saving Money") and I fully understand the problems with the words "MOD" and "Review"....

VG

I agree but the biggest push factors seem to be operational tempo and administrative b0ll0cks (incl. housing) and whilst I think we can change the world with Pprune, there are certain types of miracle.....!

Seriously, though, "human capital" has to be part and parcel of the renewal of the forces.

S41

[Archimedes]

C'mon, vecvec, why is Typhoon a folly?

Hastings thinks it's a 'high altitude interceptor' akin to something like the
F-104A as originally designed (or perhaps the Lightning) and totally unable to contribute to the land battle. He says it's being 'modified' to do a job for which it was designed for.

What would you have bought in place? I don't mean more airlift (which we need), or more SH (which we need) but to replace the Jag and F3 so that the UK has an up-to-date multi-role capable aircraft. What would you have bought? Hastings never answers this question, so it would be nice to hear the credible alternatives - all of which are more of a 'Cold War dinosaur' than the Typhoon, or less capable, or more expensive or all three.

[LowObservable]

N-a-B,

"Anyone who has worked in ABW will be aware that the visibility of what the STP in particular but also EP is actually being spent on is very limited. This has been compounded by RAB which adds all sorts of beanywonderland [(c) GBZ] cost terms which must appear in the budgets, but bear little resemblance to expenditure."

All mimsy were the borogoves/And the mome raths outgrabe

I think all the pining for Ms Widdecombe has affected your brain...

[LowObservable]

So aircraft carriers are a good idea, but the fighters they are designed to carry are a waste of money?

[ORAC]

I think it's more the 250+ Typhoons to equip 6 Sqns and the expected 150+ F-35s to equip 4 Sqns with a current fleet of less than 70.

That's 400+ to replace current fleets half the size.

I know you have to buy a few extra to cope with attrition, but there is a limit..... :hmm:

You could either:

Half the expected F-35 order to about 90, which would make it difficult to man 2 carriers, plus an OCU/OEU and land based OOA ops.

Or

**** can Typhoon tranche 3 at great penalty expense.

Or

Use tranche 3 to replace tranche 1 aircraft and trade back in for resale (as has recently been suggested) as part of the Saudi deal or to whoever might be interested in them cheap and quick.

Flight International - 30th July:

.......The UK must make an investment decision next year on ordering its first JSFs, and also to meet its commitment to the Tranche 3 production phase of the four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon programme.

However, MoD finance director Trevor Woolley says "no decisions have yet been made" on the final phase of the Eurofighter project. "We have to make decisions on where our priorities lie," he says, adding: "There are always hard choices to be made in defence."

[knowitall]

"I think it's more the 250+ Typhoons"

Try 232

[Not_a_boffin]

Sorry LO

I should simply have posted that MoD has no idea what it's current budget is spent on now. Therefore, changing the budget as the result of any review would be akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

The constant nightmares are clearly affecting my grammar!

[Archimedes]

232 Typhoons to give a force of 137 in-use aircraft (seven x 16 Unit Establishment front line squadrons; the OCU; the OEU plus a couple of trials aircraft). Remaining 95 airframes to be rotated in and out of use/replace lost airframes over the course of the projected minimumprojected 30 years of service.

AIUI, 150 x JCA figure originally included the notion that some of these aircraft might replace some GR4s. There is a requirement for about 60 in use JCA at Lossiemouth, I believe, with the balance being the attrition reserve/means of evening out the FI across the 30+ year service life for the type.

If JCA replaces some GR4s, it'll be as the FCAC(Future Combat Aircraft Capability, IIRC) in two x 8 aircraft (yes, that's right, eight, not 12...) squadrons, but that's not been decided. JCA OEU will be in the US and consist of two aircraft.

[SkyHawk-N]

Maple 01 said;

Armycentric*

*just invented a new word, feel free to intergrate it into dull meetings

Too late, the Yanks got there first. From Google ....

Countering a Strategic Gambit: Keeping US Airpower Employable in a ...
Its armycentric military has not moved beyond its traditional counterlanding mission to thwart the PRC advances in its naval, air, or missile forces.16 ...
www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj05/fal05/martin.html - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

[ORAC]

seven x 16 Unit Establishment front line squadrons Remind me of how many we now plan to operate, is it 6 or 5....?

And, if the GR7/9 sqns are 8/9 ac, and the FCAC sqns will be 8 aircraft, how long will 16 aircraft remain the standard for Typhoon? F3 Sqns averaged 12 (LU sqns got 3 more for QRA).

[Ali Barber]

If we carry out a review now based on our current requirements, we will bin most of the fast jets and get loads of helis and AT. The trouble is we have to look 20-30 years down the line and who knows what scenario we'll face then; maybe someone with a credible fighter capability. It would be a case of "good luck" to the heli and AT guys if we did not own a credible fighter ourselves when it happened.

We need helis, AT and fighters (read fighter/bombers). The collapse of the cold war was not a peace dividend, it was a call for higher defence spending as conflict spread worldwide, but each conflict has been (fortunately) on a smaller scale than global war.

Our reaction has been to cut defence spending - which is not what is in the pink!

[Double Zero]

I have to agree with the main thrust of Hasting's artcle, though I'm sure not everyone finds it easy taking it all in - I wouldn't if in their unenviable position ( An T where are you ?! ).

----

It's never going to be easy to explain to Mr Doberman in the pub we or he has wrongly entered that we need LOTS more tankers & airlift, or else his sh1t kicking fighters won't work.

I followed a US Admirals' entourage when we were trying to flog him Hawks, he remarked " it's easy to get money for the sexy jets, the F-14's & 18's ( as then ) but we have to really push to get training & support equipment ".

Must have worked on that or some close day hence the T-45 Goshawk, but the theory appears standard.

[Two's in]

The life extension of the A-10 by the USAF with the C Model at least demonstrates some recognition that CAS will remain a primary capability in any future conflict. It is hard to see how Typhoon and and F-35 will be pulled down into the mud moving that Jaguar did, and anyone who thinks deploying half a dozen Harriers at a time is a reasonable Force multiplier, must have missed a few Staff College lectures. By all means spend the money on nice pointy jets, but get a reasonable role mix in there. Only the Daily Mail readers believe Backfires over Bognor are the current threat.

[ORAC]

RAND report on Counter Insurgency (COIN) Airlift. (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/rand-on-counter-insurgency-airlift-03561/#more)

Joint Cargo Aircraft (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/joint-cargo-aircraft-we-have-a-winner-03372/#more)

Low Techmology Aircraft and Little Wars. (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj91/spr91/5spr91.htm)

[Big Bear]

Am I missing something. I'm not aircrew so forgive me me for me rather basic view of things and as usual, I wait to be corrected but...

It seems to me that an ac that can transit at high speed to an area where CAS is needed, turn on a sixpence and therefore deliver a sustained attack and then get the hell out of dodge quickly so that it can a. get more stores and b. take itself out of range of Mr Taliban with his shoulder launched bundle of fun, is the perfect CAS weapon.

Too many people are focussing on what Typhoon was originally designed for, not what it has the potential to become. If we narrow our minds now we will never explore the full capability of the platform.

And yes, we need a lot more AT and SH.

Bear

[Pontius Navigator]

an ac that can transit at high speed to an area where CAS is needed, turn on a sixpence and therefore deliver a sustained attack and then get the hell out of dodge quickly so that it can a. get more stores and b. take itself out of range of Mr Taliban with his shoulder launched bundle of fun, is the perfect CAS weapon.

This is one view of CAS, especially in a hostile air environment - enemy air or ground based air defence.

To some extent the get-there-quick from ground alert was also seductive as airborne cab rank was said to be very inefficient. That really arose during Korea when there was no AAR and jet endurance was low.

Now, getting there quick is not getting there quick enough. Endurance with AAR can easily be 7 hours. The CAS ac can deliver ordnance in minutes not 10s of minutes. This is a return to the post-D-day situation where the Typhoon was able to sit over the battle field and respond, weather permitting, immediately.

With a low risk AD environment they can cab rank above the threat. Coupled with long endurance you also need a large weapons load as one or two engagements and you are shot out. The A10 really scores here.

[An Teallach]

Big Willies
I have to agree with the main thrust of Hasting's artcle, though I'm sure not everyone finds it easy taking it all in - I wouldn't if in their unenviable position ( An T where are you ?! ).

There had to be one, Mmmatronnn! Took a long time coming, though! ;)

It's so easy for the MOD bureaucrats, though. The tenor of this thread has gone from RAF v Army v Navy to an argument about the allocation of assets to tasks within the RAF. At every turn, the 3 Services argue about who's to get fecked least, while they bend over and are rogered royally by the bureaucrats and the consultants employed by the bureaucrats to save them risking their careers by actually making a decision about something.

After 4 defence reviews, it never ceases to amaze me that no-one seems to question the ridiculously small proportion of the defence vote that is actually spent on the Armed Forces. If you look at the ORBAT Germany manages to field on a smaller GDP spend it is quite impressive.

Of course, the big question raised by Hastings' article (and one I imagine he'd be horrified at the prospect of) is: Can the European nations each afford to field independent balanced Armed Forces to defend their secular democracies? I'd suggest they can't.

As we reach Oil Peak and enter the Chinese Century, it has become apparent that even the relatively small current deployments (in numbers terms) are sufficient to come close to breaking our 200,000 strong team. Rather than fartarseing around with the septics on their fundamentalist 'crusades', I'd suggest we should be persuading the Russians of their European-ness and getting our act together in Europe.
Just my tuppence worth!

[ManOverhead]

If you want to scare/depress yourself, ask how much Europe spends on Defence compared to what she can field. Then compare that to what the US spends on Defense and can field ....

I saw the figures about 10 years ago - very depressing - we (Europe) spent more but could field far less.

But the thought of trying to get European nations to even slightly collaborate on Defence ....

Wibble

Nurse, my medication, quickly!

[effortless]

I'd suggest we should be persuading the Russians of their European-ness and getting our act together in Europe.

I like this one. Does that mean we could be seeing a purchase order going to Sukoi? At least they may trust us with all the bells and whistles. Whoopsa sory that would mean some airships having to learn a foriegn language and drinking a bit of Vodka

[LowObservable]

Pooh on low-tech Mudfighters, armed trainers, cheap CAS aircraft and the rest. Mudfighter this.

http://www.military.cz/russia/sam/2k22_tunguzka/2s6m_17.jpg

And what about this brilliant monument to Congressional stupidity and corruption, complete with giant missile sucker, cunningly located so the SA-7 will impact right on the pilot's naughty bits?

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050324-F-1234P-027.jpg

If you REALLY don't have an air threat...

http://www.fav-club.com/flash/fn35/fn35.h11.jpg

I'd like to see one of those work over a few Jandaweed...

[brickhistory]

LO,

Nice pictures, but I totally missed your point?!

Re the Piper Enforcer(?), why the diatribe against Congress and corruption (redundant actually)?

Re the AC-47, its VERY big brothers, the AC-130Hs and U's are doing stellar work on operations.

But, they operate in a permissive threat environment. There was one lost in GW1 to a MANPAD.

[Pontius Navigator]

LO, the top one reminds me of a Russian warship. If it'll fit, fit it. If two will fit, fit two.

[F34NZ]

A T's idea of a co-ordinated European military effort has great intellectual and dare I say it emotional appeal, particularly as a reaction to a world which will soon be dominated by three big gorillas : the US, China and eventually India. As a side note, China's population is likely to peak around 2040 so this century should ultimately belong to the US and India.

But...Europe's population, as a whole and broken down by nation, is sensitive to only one aspect of warfare : casualties. We could argue all year about who leads the risk aversion, government or people, but to me it's chicken and egg - ignorant politicos feeding off the ignorance of the electorates and vice versa - and effectively guarantees that even if we did create one big gorilla it'd stamp around making noise but achieving SFA.

As for Russia, with a population falling at about 750k a year and a paranoid government fostering infantile nationalism, you'd have a better chance of getting David Cameron to think than you'd have of making Russia a serious partner in the Euro-gorilla.

As far as big willies go, we are still the fifth or sixth biggest economy in the world and we can afford a full spectrum of capabilities (House !) if we choose to put the money into the kit, the personnel and the aftermath.

Anyone offering short odds on our lot doing that ?

[LowObservable]

If I recall correctly, the Enforcer was rammed down the USAF's throat by Congressional supporters, some of whom were "military reformers" who thought that Western armed forces should look like Tass agency photos of Soviet forces, just smaller and less drunk, and others who were getting campaign dosh from the Enforcer's builders.

The point is that airpower that works in a permissive environment can be countered easily. If my adversary is coming after me with trainers armed with 7.62 and rockets, the 2S6 will merrily rip them limb from limb. It will have a much smaller lethal envelope against a proper fighter, which will bomb the 2S6 into a more harmless condition and then get on with the CAS job.

[TBSG]

Sorry to divert from current flavour of thread, but "232 fleet aircraft for 137 front line aircraft" (Archimedes page 1, slightly paraphrased). 137/232=59%.

Apache - 67 fleet for 48 front line aircraft. 48/67=71%.

Can someone explain the different maths used??

[Blacksheep]

...we need well-equipped, balanced forces, able to project power gloablly (sic)... Do we? Why? To satisfy some political "Big Willy Syndrome"? :rolleyes:

We are an island nation dependent upon imports to maintain our way of life. We face no truly global threat, but we must be able to defend our sea lanes from hostile action. We need to be able to prevent hostile aircraft flying in our skies. We need to be able to repel invaders - by sea or by air. A bit like Sweden or (apart from their lack of shoreline) Switzerland in fact.
If we are to have a Defence Review, the first thing it needs to look at is what our national defence needs really are. Getting us stuck in useless and expensive offensive operations in the armpits of the globe or looking after our own protection?

[scopey]

SO, we shouldn't get involved in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone? Are you glad that we didn't step in when we could have in Rwanda, or that it's taken four years to decide to get involved in Darfur? Should we not be looking at getting involved in places where we can a) do a lot of good and b) we would be welcomed, e.g. Zimbabwe?

Iraq and Afghanistan don't meet those two criteria, which is why they're such a waste of lives. Positive interventionist foreign policy can be ethical and should not be tied to our colonial cousins' misadventures...