RAF to scrap Harriers

[wetdreamdriver]

Here we go again!!! why don't we scrap MPs and MEPs that would save billions!!:}

Harrier jets could be scrapped in RAF spending cuts | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194581/Harrier-jets-scrapped-RAF-spending-cuts.html)

WDD

[whowhenwhy]

We had a similar (identical) thread a few months back and from what I was hearing at the time, I'm amazed that we haven't already announced a date for Harrier to go. Short-termism yes, but financial reality unfortunately.

[ORAC]

Copied from yesterday's Sunday Times: Army faces biggest cuts since Crimea (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6544223.ece)

[taffair traff]

Is anybody familiar with this type of story. Being a "wrinkly", I remember the TSR2 and the Wilson, Healey, Jenkins era!! Save money by buying American!!!! F111, F4s et al!! What a success! Never mind, we may yet save the Harrier if sufficient "expenses" are returned!!!!:ooh::E

[airborne_artist]

I'm surprised that the Army hasn't offered up the public duties battalions, of which there are three; two Foot Guards and one line infantry battalion, currently the Fusiliers.

I'm not suggesting they don't do a good job, and it's a welcome opportunity for the lads serving in those battalions to get some personal/domestic stability, but it would make the point that there really is not much fat left in the Army right now.

[CirrusF]

I'm surprised that the Army hasn't offered up the public duties battalions,

I'm surprised the army is being obliged to offering up anything at all. The army is already generally perceived as bearing the brunt of overstretch, and unlike the other two services, the army has no high-profile extremely expensive procurement programs of controversial worth. I'd have thought Dannat would therefore have more bargaining power with ministers than the other service chiefs.

[c130jbloke]

Everybody is looking at equipment, but start looking at culture too. The PD regts are a good example but why not taking a hard look at every 1* officer and upwards - how much cash would that save when we seem to have more admirals than ships and more air whatevers than squadrons.

Why do you need a Wg Cdr to run a sqn ( and the reds too with just 9 ac ? )
Why do you need a Gp Capt to run a stn ( army units seem to get by with a Lt Col running a barracks )

Will the new CAS offer up 4 or 5 red hawks as part of the cuts :eek: ?

[andyy]

Using Dannat's logic that we are fighting difficult counter insurgency war in Afghanistan and that it's the Infantry that need supporting, I'm assumimg that the Army will be offering to convert a few Cavalry Regts to an Infantry role and scrapping their tanks. No? Why not, CGS seems to be insisting that we need to fight the current war & as their is little utility for tanks at the moment (even though they proved useful in Iraq, not that long ago) it's surely time for the capability to go!!! We'll rebuiild the capability later, when we forcast a need for it. Yes, I know its nonsense but the same argument applies with ASW or AEW etc.

[airborne_artist]

the army has no high-profile extremely expensive procurement programs of controversial worth

FRES is not without problems, though the basic need is not in doubt.

[BEagle]

When I joined the RAF in 1968, there was huge resentment over the Healey/Wislon savaging of P1154, HS681 and TSR2.

But we were just getting the Nimrod, F4, Harrier, Jaguar and Puma - plus Hawk, Jetstream, Bulldog and Gazelle were coming soon for Learning Command. And Buccaneer was replacing the B(I)8 Canberra.

No new AT though, apart from the Andover. But cuts for the Comet, Belfast and Brittania fleets. Even the Basset and Devon were on their way out - with the Pembroke only hanging on by the skin of its teeth due to its photo-recce role in RAFG.....

Ever since then, there has been nothing but cut after cut.

'Capability holiday' my ar$e. When will the Squirearchy stand up, be counted and resign en masse unless the brain dead politicians support their aspirations with susbtance.

Never, if it threatens the "Third star and K" aspirations of your 'Chief Executives', I guess....:mad:

[Archimedes]

Oh good. A chance for another inter-service slanging match on Pprune where fact and common sense take a back seat to prejudice and invective... :ugh:

[Wader2]

Using Dannat's logic that we are fighting difficult counter insurgency war in Afghanistan and that it's the Infantry that need supporting, I'm assumimg that the Army will be offering to convert a few Cavalry Regts to an Infantry role and scrapping their tanks. No? Why not, CGS seems to be insisting that we need to fight the current war & as their is little utility for tanks at the moment (even though they proved useful in Iraq, not that long ago) it's surely time for the capability to go!!! We'll rebuiild the capability later, when we forcast a need for it. Yes, I know its nonsense but the same argument applies with ASW or AEW etc.

Actually Andy I think you may be closer to the truth than you realise.

Swiss Des was livid when he found we had helicopters in Germany that were stuff all use for Herrick and Telic. There has been some argument that we should apply the principles of war - concentration of force, as determined by military requirements rather than economic expedient and political dictat. It was evidence that WW2 was a case in point.

There is not much fat to cut from what we have now but the scared (sic) cows and Torphy's (sic) plans may have to be sacrified. We may need to ignore long industry lead times and admit we will only look at the world policing role and aircraft carriers in 10-15 years time. Typhoon likewise would only be procured as an airframe replacement for GR9/GR4 rather than future proofing.

[ORAC]

Which is a lovely thought, as over 33% of the MOD procurement budget currently goes on R&D.

However, over 40% of all government R&D is from the MOD budget, and is a major part of the funding the government gives to universities, Qinetiq, Bae, Rolls-Royce etc.

They are already squealling like a stuck pig over the UK considering pulling out of buying 24 A400ms, and that's after all the R&D has been spent. Who do you think has the most influence of the Cabinet, them or the Forces?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Perhaps ACM Stirrup should do something useful and make an appointment for a frank and open interview with Aunty Betty. Even that could generate monumental wider problems, outside the Services, though.

Clearly, CAS would save money by gashing his (to him) least valued asset. To retain it for the Carriers, of course, 1SL would need to find nearly the same level of funds to take on the task; while, at the same time, offering his own savings. Clearly, the Navy wouldn’t be able to pay two lots of Dane Geld.

If that qualifies as “inter-service slanging”, so be it.

[cornish-stormrider]

I have read recently, phoenix squadron and it appears to me we are in a similar predicament. The witless expense thieves have empties out the piggy bank and in an effort to try and save a vote will spend any spare change that they can steal from another piggy bank in making enough votes that they don't lose their seat.

I am certainly not disputing the extreme overstretch and hard work but we do not know what is around the corner. Politicians talk (lie) about more money etc but the bottom line is you all are doing far more than ever and still getting smaller. Let us follow this argument along and scrap everything we do not need for the 'stan. YOU WILL NOT SEE THE MONEY FROM IT. Be realistic. And then, when the dust settles and you come back from the 'stan and another little crisis starts up and we have nothing at all to send .........

[c130jbloke]

It's a lovely day where I live, so I sat outside, watched the blue sky, listened to the birds and this thought came to me:

"mmmmm, that Pprune thread about the Harrier and cutbacks and all. I know, maybe the 3 new heads of service will collectively walk into the Marxist's office and collectively tell him to go ram it. The albino with the funny eyebrows will have to chop some nulabour bollocks elsewhere to balance the books. After 12 years of your ****e and the Tory ****e before that, our cupboards are bare."

And now its raining. :ooh:

[Cows getting bigger]

We were saying that during the 90s when Slobodan and his mates were having a ball in the Balkans.

We were saying it in the 80s when we stopped flying every Feb/Mar becuase we had no fuel.

We were also saying it in the 70's when people were made redundant by lottery (well almost).

I think I'll crack a stubby and join C130bloke in the garden.:)

[andyy]

And in the 1970s we were planning cutbacks but needed the RN (and significant others!) in 1982 and for the Armilla patrol.

And in the 1990s we were planning on cutbacks but needed air power (and significant others) in the Balkans and Iraq (and lets not forget Sierra Leone etc) .

And in the 2000s we were planning cutbacks but needed air power and armour in Iraq, & infantry/ close air support/ helos etc in @Stan. (and lets not forget that N subs fired the first UK shots post Sept 11)

And in the 2010's we have cut back but are expected to regenerate & re-train people to operate against..........
......who knows
but the point is that no matter what cut backs we have planned, our armed forces have been in action at some point after.

[NURSE]

Here we go again.

Something does have to give soon and UK armed forces will be left to sort the mess out. The continual cuts of the 70's and 80's lead to the Falklands war then to the splurge of spending as the Govt of the day was humiliated by a 3rd rate power rubbing British troops faces in the dirt. Unfortunatley the Civil service and Govt isn't an orginisation with a memory and they are going down the same path. Yes the Budget is screwed and cuts will have to be found maybe as a cost saving measure 32 Sqn should stop flying Govt ministers round the place or make the House of Commons pay comercial rates for its continued use.

[Warmtoast]

If Graffiti Artist Banksy is to be believed the Army have already made a start with their reductions.

See below!

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/Image1-7.jpg

[Sospan]

Many have stated on here we should seriously look at our senior officers as a potential saving. When you look at the bare bones we can embarrassingly boast 126 Air Officers which comes to a grand total of 177 stars! Coupled with 330 Groupies that makes one scrambled egg per 32 SAC's. Seems to be a little room for leaning there.

[A and C]

I would not want to be at the very top of the armed forces at the moment.

The fact is thay UK PLC is bankrupt, very little money is avalable for anything and the forces are a very easy target when the DHSS bill is going skywards very fast, the health sevice can't be cut for party political reasons and we have some games to pay for.

All the goverment departments will be fighting for a slice of a shrinking pie and guess who cant go on strike and talk directly to the press to sway public opinion.

Time to face it guys, you are in for a kicking.................. I very much regret to say.

[Lima Juliet]

Why do you need a Gp Capt to run a stn ( army units seem to get by with a Lt Col running a barracks )


Outside the "10 second rule I know but..." isn't Middle Wallop run by a full Colonel? :}

Wing by a Wg Cdr...Next you'll be saying that 1Gp and 2Gp should be run by a Gp Capt...:ugh:

Personally I think the Rank levels are commensurate with the amount of responsibility level - however, I do agree that we are too top heavy. :D

LJ

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I know, maybe the 3 new heads of service will collectively walk into the Marxist's office and collectively tell him to go ram it.

Why the 3 service Chiefs? What is CDS drawing his pay for? He is currently displaying all the usefulness of tits on a fish. That said; and another thing (I must buy a pipe), why the hell is CDM drawing 4 Star pay while persistently lurking in the background and avoiding all criticism for programme “re-profiling”, equipment and availability shortfalls and cost over-runs?

We have 5 serving officers of 4 * rank. None of them got to those appointments by being spineless idiots. Is it so beyond their capabilities to draw a diagram for the feckless self-servers in Parliament that Defence capability has been reduced to the point where it is no longer balanced and viable? Cows getting bigger. Yes, we have heard it all before and a "can do" attitude has kept the Government away from embarassment. They must now be made to understand that we are at crush depth.

[NURSE]

Many have stated on here we should seriously look at our senior officers as a potential saving. When you look at the bare bones we can embarrassingly boast 126 Air Officers which comes to a grand total of 177 stars! Coupled with 330 Groupies that makes one scrambled egg per 32 SAC's. Seems to be a little room for leaning there.

Yes but all thease senior officers are essential to keep the Navy/Army/Airforce in readiness for its huge expansion when the government realise we are as important as we think we are! :D

SAC's can be recruited any time but you need senior officers on tap.

[NURSE]

you need 3 service chiefs because we have 3 services and a referee/manager which is why you need a CDS. If the RAF want to delegate their CAS role to one of the other 2 services as a cost cutting measure I'm sure the treasury would be more than happy to help them ;)

[Sospan]

We have 5 serving officers of 4 * rank. None of them got to those appointments by being spineless idiots. Is it so beyond their capabilities to draw a diagram for the feckless self-servers in Parliament that Defence capability has been reduced to the point where it is no longer balanced and viable? Cows getting bigger. Yes, we have heard it all before and a "can do" attitude has kept the Government away from embarassment. They must now be made to understand that we are at crush depth.
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU : Yesterday at 22:13. Reason: Lost Count of 4*s


Now your counting has me confused, do you mean the MOD has 5 X 4* or the RAF ?

DASA makes it 3 within the RAF and 10 within the whole of the MOD.

[EODFelix]

But with the restructuring of TLBs (aka STC and PTC into Air - and similar with Land and Sea) what role for the Service Chiefs? Why not make CinC Air Command CAS with the 2 x 3*s allocated responsibility for Ops and Training/Pers?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Sospan, bore da. You are, of course, right. I meant to say Heads of Service but my 1st para did start “Why the 3 service Chiefs“. From that point, I did mean the 3 Services (3 Heads) and the top Dusty/Stacker (CDM); with CDS being ringmaster of the circus. Sorry if that caused confusion and trust that it didn’t detract from my argument.

[jayc530]

Seems rather strange that there is talk of axing the fleet after this was announce in April - surely they can't be that short sighted... can they?

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | New contract provides support to Harriers (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/NewContractProvidesSupportToHarriers.htm)

[Sospan]

Diolch yn fawr GBZ.

So what's the answer ? Another defence review seems to be the stock answer to many difficult questions recently asked to Air Officers during various briefs. Its clear to all the uncertainty of the next 5 years is having a detrimental effect within the RAF. Each service might well suffer with cancellation of a major procurement program, its just a shame we have to wait for a general election to unmuddy the waters.

Luckily fighting our corner across 3 services we have 502 Officers at one star or above so I am sure things will turn out just fine. :E

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Sospan, â chroeso.

Not directly related to the Harriers being chopped as an economy but, in the office, a couple of the tennis nuts were discussing Wimbledon. The point was that a few £M has been spent on the sun-roof that must require expensive routine maintenance. If there was no significant rain this year, would the MoD have it removed if they were the owners and operators? They might need that saving to fund additional fridges and metered water for the Courts.

[LFFC]

Just noticed this in today's press too:

Royal Navy destroyer put to sea without missiles a 'disgrace' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5602842/Royal-Navy-destroyer-put-to-sea-without-missiles-a-disgrace.html)

The new Type 45s will not have their full capability "until well into the next decade" which will result in the veteran Type 42 destroyers being "patched up and kept in service for longer" at a cost of almost £200 million despite having limited capabilities, it found.

So let's get this straight; the RN not only need the RAF to keep Harriers in service for longer than they are needed so that it can support and preserve the FAA, but they also need the keep Type 42s going for a few years longer?

:uhoh:

[Beatriz Fontana]

LFFC, once I stopped laughing at the quite ludicrous in-service dates, one has to wonder where this very public tri-service spat will lead.

Imagine the scene. SDR10. Bunch of politicians and retired policy wonks decide in a fit of money-saving stupidity to scrap the three services and have one defence force. Shared assets, joint command structure, joint admin and everyone dresses in purple.

Yes it's hot and we've had a few beers in the wardroom tonight already....

[whowhenwhy]

SOSPan you beat me to it - why do we have a CAS and a CinC AIR. There was an obvious requirement when we had Learning Command, Bombe(sorry) Strike Command, RAFG etc, but now???? Before anyone else does, how about drawing some comparisons with other air forces that are NOW about the same size, but with smaller "overheads." Israelis for instance?

[Lima Juliet]

The new Type 45s will not have their full capability "until well into the next decade"

Good God, who's going to provide armed overwatch for the Olympics then? I thought the Senior Service were planning on taking this on? Something about "engaging a cricket ball anywhere in the South East of Britain" rings a bell? :ok:

Better dig out the sharpened mangos, Baldrick...

LJ

[Pheasant]

The new Type 45s will not have their full capability "until well into the next decade"

Isn't this the case for every bit of major equipment when it enters service:

Typhoon
Tornado
Nimrod
ASTOR
Lynx
Merlin
Chinook Mk 3 (oops sorry)
Type 42
Type 22 (Batch 1 & 3)
Subs
...V Force.....Sopwith...Mayfly1...Montgolfier.


We need to get real on T45 comments - it was a political point being made. If Daring gets her missiles by 2011 then by my calendar that is in time for the olympics.

[Juan Houng Lo]

As things go to hell across the globe…

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3421

And the natives grow restless…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/2271140/Argentinas-military-threat-raises-fears-over-Falklands.html

The fearless whistle past the graveyard…

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5991995.ece

[jayc530]

Without manpower, there is no air power.

[Kitbag]

Without manpower, there is no air power.

Shouldn't take the brains of a fast jet pilot to work that one out

[tangoe]

I think you may have overlooked something here..

The new Type 45s will not have their full capability "until well into the next decade" which will result in the veteran Type 42 destroyers being "patched up and kept in service for longer" at a cost of almost £200 million despite having limited capabilities, it found.
My view is that the team responsible for 'engineering' this particular capability shortfall have overcome another, i.e. not having enough boats!

[Yeomen dai]

Disgraceful. why don't we scrap MPs and MEPs that would save billions!!