More cuts

[Bus429]

Sunday Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6396312.ece) reports more cuts, postponement or temporary deployment (only) of a variety of systems and platforms.
The "Have your say" comments include a telling response from a serving soldier.

[Melchett01]

Will someone please tell me just where does all this stop? How much more capability do we have to lose before somebody stands up and says 'No, this is enough'. This is starting to make Churchill's wilderness years look like a period of rampant defence spending.

And would the Secretary of State - or any other member of this spineless, morally bankrupt administration give me a truthful answer to the following question:

Why, if the defence budget has increased year on year since you have been in power, have there been significant cuts and enforced reductions on every single unit I have served on since I joined the RAF in 1998?

[general all rounder]

I can answer why cuts happen even though Defence spending goes up although the Minister probably wouldn't. It's simple really. On average the economy as a whole grows by something like 2-3% and the increase in the Defence budget usually reflects this to rise at about 2-3% with occasional exceptions. Defence costs on the other hand go up on average by 7%. This is because of pay rises (which we always like to be a bit higher than inflation and inflation is sometimes higher than economic growth) and the replacement of old equipment with new supposedly more capable equipment - the research and development costs for new equipment have to absorbed by the defence budget(and what can be exported).

So the budget goes up by say 3% and the government can say that it has made a modest increase in Defence spending but as our costs have gone up by 7% there is still a need to find about 4% of cuts - every single year. It does not of course take the brains of an Archbishop, or even a Prime Minister, to realise that this cannot go on for ever. But as we know for sure now, politics has nothing to do with resolving difficult problems faced by the nation and everything to do with protecting the lifestyle of its practitioners.

[VinRouge]

I personally think we will see the UK pull out of afghanistan under the Tories; they have commented they will only commit us to conflicts we have capacity for, unfortunately, with the torrid state of the economy (thanks mssrs Brown and Blair) I cant imagine that involves us staying there.

Telegraph was reporting the other day defence is no longer a no-go for cutbacks when they get in; at current debt levels, if we want to run a balanced budget, tax would have to be raised BY 42 pence in the pound just to break even! :ugh:

[davejb]

It's very very simple.
Going to war (or whatever euphemism is preferred - personally I think organised bodies of troops shooting people constitutes war) is expensive compared to preparing(ish) for war. You can prepare for a war in sunny climes by busing people to the seaside, but to actually be at war in sunny climes you have to go there, support the troops logisitically, and provide all sorts of expensive things like real ammo. (Unlike exercise, where you shout 'bang').

Our economy is a basket case, like many of the western economies, and will require a substantial amount of clever thinking to ensure we survive, economically, as a relatively significant power into the 21st century. Unfortunately we have Mr Darling taking care of that currently, but it's not really fair to single him out as I doubt there is a single first class brain in the whoile of parliament.

This is known as 'Draper's* theory' (in colloquial terms, 'you're screwed').

So it'd probably be a good idea if we pulled back to the extent of protecting our landmass from external threat, and stopped trying to play on the international stage - whatever the moral or morale involved we can't actually afford it.

(*Named after Professor Sir Stephen J Draper, chair of applied screwdrivers, Magdelene College, Shepherd's Bush Polytechnic).

[StopStart]

Notwithstanding the credit crunch, collapse of western democracy and the imminent collision of the Earth with the Sun, what exactly are these cuts and how do they affect "us"?

Cancellation of three of the new Nimrod MRA4 surveillance aircraft

Surely this has been an ongoing saga of budget oevrruns and changing specs for donkeys years? I assume no one is surprised by this cutback? Whilst the Nimrod does a mighty fine surveillance job over the desert I'm pretty sure the job could be done by much cheaper, more efficient, in-theatre assets. Anyway I thought the main job of this thing was catching submarines, pirates and mermaids?

A decision on the replacement for Nimrod R1 radio monitoring version of the Nimrod has been postponed

I thought we were leasing RCs or something?

The Soothsayer communications intelligence programme

Another project that is eating money and turning out no effective results. Unknown if it ever will. Keep tipping money in or make an "early" call on it?

Project Eagle, an upgrade to the RAF’s E-3D Awacs aircraft

Good. Whilst I don't wish to appear short-termist there are plenty of other front line aircraft being operationally thrashed into an early grave right now that are crying out for mods and kit and aren't even getting a look in. £400M on the E3? Give me strength....

The RAF’s Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle

Ok, you got me with this one. I thought the radio controlled cessnas were the future of air warfare. Or is there some clever dodge going on to save money in the short term...? :hmm:


Ultimately Defence is always going to suffer in times of recession (except in terms of manning) and hard decisions have to be made. Imagine the furore if in ten years time £1Bn had been spent trying on another NimWACS style debacle? We'd all be in up in arms. None of these cuts represents an immediate loss of battlefield capability :hmm:

[Lima Juliet]

I wish my Cessna had 900 shaft horsepower, a synthetic aperture radar, GMTI, an EO turret, 2x 500lb LGBs, 4x Hellfires, a cruise speed up to 240kts and the ability to climb to block 4+!

By the way, in case Terry reads this thread, the Grim Reaper will be still be visiting you sometime soon and is not plannimg to go anywhere as the article suggested.

[swampy_lynx_puke]

When fighting COIN there is often an over-reliance upon 'technical' means to gather intelligence. There is a (mistaken) belief that technology can overcome a relatively low tech enemy, reducing the risk of suffering own and colateral casualties. Unfortunately this is not the case, there is no effective alternative to properly equipped, trained and supported 'boots on the ground', in this kind of warfare.
If these project cuts allow badly needed cash to properly support ground forces in the current high intensity COIN op in Afghanistan then cuts to high-tech C4ISTAR projects which have limited utility or relevance to current ops must be seen as a less bad option. (I'm not entirely convinced that Reaper fully fits this bracket, though).
I know the argument that these cuts will impact on future capability. However, the crocodile nearest the canoe is in Afghanistan, and that's the operation that we must correctly resource right now. This would appear to be the reasoning behind this decision - for once, it would appear to be a sensible call - standfast Reaper.

[Mr Grim]

Leon

You forget on task for 14 hrs+, provide a picture to virtually anyone on the planet who needs it (including the troops in contact ofc) and probably more SA and comms than any other asset in theatre. And other stuff.

Now why would we want any of that?

I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist but this particular decision looks very weird. FJ/multi vested interests anyone? Or is it just plain old stupidity?

Of course, I am biased.

[BEagle]

And when you have to fight an enemy who can field a few old MiG 17s or similar, you can kiss your expensive drones goodbye!

[GreenKnight121]

So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.
- Sun Tzu

I say: Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle.-- Sun Tzu


The cuts announced make it much harder for the UK forces to know anything about the enemy forces and their disposition... unless they ask the Americans to get the info for them.



StopStart, the 3 RC-135s were to be the replacement for Nimrod R1... but recently there was a proposal to refurbish the 3 test MR4 aircraft with the surveillance suite intended for the R1 replacement.

So the decision on whether to lease or refurbish is what is being postponed.

[Desert Diner]

I can answer why cuts happen even though Defence spending goes up although the Minister probably wouldn't.

You could also add that in time of war, you probably expand more ammo/ordnance in a week (which needs to be replaced in a hurry) than you will in years of peace time training.

[Lima Juliet]

Beagle

And when you have to fight an enemy who can field a few old MiG 17s or similar, you can kiss your expensive drones goodbye!

Take a look at this...

YouTube - Russian MIG 29 fighter shot down UAV above Georgia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49n1JuWAmc)

...by the look at it you are right. But a second watch will reveal that the Hermes 450 pilot did b@gger all to defensively fly...no attempt to min range the A-A missile...no attempt to jink...no attempt to slow down or descend to low level...just flew straight and level and soaked it up - what a muppet! (must have been trained by the Royal Artillery!). He obvoiusly knew it was there as the sensor operator tracked the MiG29 and the missile to target. The fact that there is a pilot in the loop on Reaper is its best quality and I would hope that our Reaper pilots would never fly straight and level if they knew they were being attacked - there is every chance that a Reaper could fight its way to target (some of the USAF pictures show AIM-9 fitted as well, see below). I seem to remember a USAF Predator video on You Tube showing it trying use a Hellfire against a MiG in Iraq (sadly the Hellfire misguided).

http://soundofscience.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/reaper.png

So Beagle, old fruit, I do not support your argument that UAVs, UASs or RPAs are only good for permissive air environments...

LJ:ok:

[Easy Street]

LJ,

What if the fighter attacks from above the drone? Which I believe is where fighters generally like to come from? Unscheduled coffee break for the drone driver I would think, unless his sensor can see through the airframe...:hmm:

Easy

[Lima Juliet]

To quote Captain Manwaring "Well done Easy, I wondered when you were going to spot that one..." :8

Granted attack from on high is an issue at close range but the L16 datalink picture will allow you to cue the sensor from many miles out if there is badness approaching - you can also point the nose up as well as down :ugh:

Finally lots of radar guided missiles do not like lots of lookdown against slow-speed targets - it tends to generate lots of clutter on the radar.

If I had to generate tactics to get a UAV, UAS, RPV or as Beagle insists on calling it "a drone" I'm pretty sure I could come up with some sneaky ideas to get it to target in a "non-permissive" environment. I seem to remember a West German lad got a Cessna 150 to Moscow through a pretty impressive Soviet Integrated Air Defence System and associated SAMs in the 80s...

I really think that this argument is the "dead duck" :ok:

LJ