Cutbacks, the Silver Lining

[roush]

Surely its not all bad?

1. More Reapers - Good
2. More Helicopters - Good
3. Improved "close combat equipment package" with "state of the art" body armour and night vision goggles being made available to 50% more troops. - Good
4. More Bowman tactical radios for troops and £80m for special forces communications - Good
5. Improvements to the defensive and support arrangements for the RAF Hercules heavy-lift fleet - Not sure what this means but sounds good.
6. More C_IED detection equipment - Good
7. Another C-17 - Good

Isn't this focus on the guys in the field getting shot at exactly what we have all been asking for? We have no money so we need to spend it as best we can.

Hopefully most of the redundancy's will come from AbbeyWood.

[VinRouge]

You missed one.

Lots of MOD CS non-jobs soon to be looking for work.

Not so sure a cut in current capabilities is what we need, especially as we need to be preparing for tommorrows war and not todays distraction.

[Gnd]

Abbey Wood or any of the over manned, bureaucratic PTs inc. MB

[nav attacking]

This is the C17 that Bob has elected to buy:)YouTube - Very good model C-17 in action (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA7QIITy_X0)

[Melchett01]

As usual, the devil will be in the detail. For instance, how much of this shopping list, whilst being funded by MOD core, will come in under the UOR process? The existing Reapers are a UOR programme for Afghanistan, with all the implications that brings for support and long term use outside of Afghan ops.

If this list is being funded as a UOR, then it isn't quite as good as first seems. But which ever way you define at this 'force re-balancing', it is still a reduction in capability brought about by a failure to properly resource, fund and procure capability/

[Lima Juliet]

I'd far rather have a sqn of these providing armed air cover over me in Helmand:

http://www.yannone.org/BlogPics/Reaper.jpg

Than a sqn of Harriers (less persistance, less weapons effect and less boasting!). :ok:

[tucumseh]

While it would be churlish not to say good, we’re getting more kit, it should be recognised that quite a lot are barely recognisable remnants of long overdue programmes that have been frozen and/or cut to the bone. Remember the £1.2Bn “savings” from a couple of years ago? In particular, I recognise one old programme whose ISD was 2000. Another, 2007.

Other parts simply sound like attrition replacements (see the Gray report when discussing BOWMAN and lack of asset accounting).

In other words, some routine, low level work is being spun and delayed for political expediency.

[orca]

Leon,

I'll give you persistence but weapons effect, are you sure? Just have a quick count from the photos. Then ask what weapons those are. As for boasting, a little cruel.

As a complete aside we're ace.

Just off to talk about me for a little while.

[Cpt_Pugwash]

On the negative side, a 2 yr gap in ASW and MR/ISTAR role, with the early retirement of MR2 and delay to MRA4. Minimal savings as we are tied into a maintenance and support contract until 2012.

Frm the announcement ( my bold ):- "We intend to withdraw the Nimrod MR2 force 12 months early and slow the introduction of the MRA4 force. This will have an impact on our use of RAF Kinloss, but there is no change to our assumptions on the future basing of the MRA4 force at this stage. The decision to withdraw MR2 has been taken for financial reasons and is unconnected to the report by Mr Haddon Cave into the circumstances that led to the tragic loss of Nimrod XV230 in Afghanistan: Mr Haddon Cave was very clear in his report that the aircraft remains safe to fly. I will be making a further statement to the House in respect of Mr Haddon-Cave's report tomorrow

Clearly leaving room to manoeuvre, in true Sir Humphrey fashion.

In the words of Cpl. Fraser, "We're all doomed...."

[manxcat]

FWIW

In 2008 the RAF were under-manned and had to recruit 4559 individuals to achieve manning balance by 2011. There was a massive recruiting effort that was so successful it exceeded this number within 12 months. :D. Interesting then to read courtesy of the MOD website that;

The number of Service personnel, who are not critical to current operations, will be reduced by 2,500. This will be achieved by slowing recruitment:ugh:

I know this will not be all light-blue but it will feel like a kick in the teeth for all AFCO recruiters who were beaten with the '4559' stick. :mad:

manxcat

[aw ditor]

Silver lining? Silver tarnishes!

[L J R]

Orca..... MQ-9 Weapns

Quote: =

Available stores include the GBU-12, EGBU-12, and GBU-38 500 lb Joint Direct Attack Munition. The MQ-9 was designed to haul over 3,000 pounds of external ordnance to include the GBU-12, GBU-38, AIM-9 missiles and Small Diameter Bombs and 4 Hellfires

The public domain web is here:

MQ-9 Reaper / Predator B (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/mq-9.htm)

[roush]

VinRouge Wrote:
Not so sure a cut in current capabilities is what we need, especially as we need to be preparing for tomorrows war and not today’s distraction.

So far this distraction has killed 239 of our comrades, more than in Iraq, nearly as many as in the Falklands.
Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country (from BBC website)
USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States): 864* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#American_deaths_outside_ Afghanistan)
UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom): 239
Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada): 132* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#Canadian_death_outside_A fghanistan)
Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany): 40
France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France): 36
Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark): 30
Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain): 26
Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy): 22
Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands): 21
Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland): 15
Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia): 11
Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania): 11
Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia): 7
Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway): 4
Czech Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic): 3
Latvia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia): 3
Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary): 2
Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal): 2
South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea): 2
Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden): 2
Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey): 2
Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium): 1
Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland): 1
Lithuania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania): 1
TOTAL: 1,477

I agree, quite distracting and likely to continue to be a distraction for many more years.

manxcat Wrote:
I know this will not be all light-blue but it will feel like a kick in the teeth for all AFCO recruiters who were beaten with the '4559' stick.

Ah bless, all those Capt Darlings feeling unloved .

I'm obviously in the minority here as, not withstanding the issues raised by Melchett01, I think this is a good direction to be going in. MR2 is broken, MRA4 will not have a capability for the Afghan campaign. In my opinion ISTAR is the key in the C-IED. Comms, armour and helo's are what’s needed as loads and loads of posts on this website have been saying for years. To remain relevant the RAF needs to be able to support the SF and greens and make an impact in trying to reduce the threats that they are facing.

We are not the USAF, we don't have the cash or people to develop everything. Of course we need Maritime, Strike, Helo's, AT, ISTAR etc, and have industry working on the future to all of these, but we are skint.

[163627]

As I understand the announcement the “twenty-two Chinooks” are to be brand new cabs bought direct from Boeing and not someone else’s model D caste-offs. If this is the case will they be the latest F model? For as I understand the situation (but I may be wrong) this is what the production line is now geared up to building and any variations will add to the costs. What will this mean in relation to Project Julius upgrade? Or will there be another MoD bodge followed by a long stay in the snug shed just off the A303? Surely the sensible option would be to buy twenty-two F models then upgrade the rest to the same standard. That way, we get the state of the art latest model that will be identical to the version being bought by all our main allies. Sorry I forgot that’s not the British way, the RAF are only allowed to fly a British only model that’s more expensive and less capable than everyone else’s!

[orca]

LJR,

Thanks old chap. As an operator of one, that looked at the other on a daily basis you will forgive me. In Reaper you have a machine that can carry a 500lb class LGB, or GPS guided weapon, or hellfire. Security implications prevent me from fleshing this out, but i never felt my loadout was inferior when i was sat at the hold watching what they could haul airborne.

Airborne 'top trumps' and reality are subtley different. Why buy PW4 when GBU-12 and it's kids are available? Well, the answer is simply 'weapon effects'.

[Sloppy Link]

Who is going to fly them?

[TyphoonThunder]

With regards to the MR2-MR4 gap, lets just hope there are no long range incidents at sea that require the MR2 guiding on the SAR heli's to the incident. The MR2 going out of service early with no immediate replacement (in the MR4) is to me, the government toying with lives. Although Ainsworth seems confident that other platforms can bridge the gap.

[Jimlad1]

"As usual, the devil will be in the detail. For instance, how much of this shopping list, whilst being funded by MOD core, will come in under the UOR process? The existing Reapers are a UOR programme for Afghanistan, with all the implications that brings for support and long term use outside of Afghan ops. "

Meltchett - that is an extremely good point. Having dealt with Reaper in a previous existence, I don't believe it has gone into core. Therefore MOD isn't paying for these extra airframes, but we do get to find the money to stick it into core when HERRICK ends. Lucky us, we get to make more cuts in a few years time to pay for a capability we're getting now...

Of course the other question not being answered here is "are we doubling the Reaper frames, or the Reaper task lines" - significant capability difference there.

[Golden Legspreaders]

Who is going to fly them?

Ex Harrier, GR4 and Nimrod pilots?

[minigundiplomat]

Who is going to fly them?



Nimrod pilots


No oven, no catering, no heating, and the blades fly round in circles not the aircraft. Cant really see it.

[The B Word]

Airborne 'top trumps' and reality are subtley different.

Sorry mate, I couldn't resist! :E

http://www.ultimate-top-trumps.co.uk/Images/Fighter_Jets_ex.gif

MODEL General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper McDonnell Douglas / BAe Systems AV-8B Harrier II Plus
ORIGIN United StatesUnited States/UK
CONTRACTOR General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Incorporated - USA McDonnell Douglas / Boeing - USA / BAe Systems - UK
TYPEUnmanned Aerial Vehicle V/STOL Strike Aircraft
SERVICE START 2004 1985
CREW 0 (2+ able to booze in Vegas!) 1 (with no mates and nowhere to booze!)
LENGTH 36.09 feet (11.00 meters) 46.33 feet (14.12 meters)
SPAN 65.94 feet (20.10 meters)30.35 feet (9.25 meters)
HEIGHT 36.09 feet (11.00 meters) 11.65 feet (3.55 meters)
EMPTY WT 3,695 pounds (1,676 kilograms)13,977 pounds (6,340 kilograms)
MTOW 10,494 pounds (4,760 kilograms)31,085 pounds (14,100 kilograms)
POWERPLANT 1 x Honeywell TPE331-10GD turboprop engine generating 900shp. 1 x Rolls-Royce Pegasus Mk 105 (F402-RR-408) vectored-thrust turbofan engine delivering 23,500lbf of horizontal thrust.
SPEED 250 kts 578 kts
RANGE (ENDURANCE UNREFUELLED) 1,878 miles (20hrs+) 1,367 miles (3hrs+)
CEILING 50,000 feet+ 50,000 ft

ARMAMENT/SENSOR
Mission-specific ordnance can include any combination of the following:

14x AGM-114 missiles
4x GBU-12
4x GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)
6+ GBU-39B SDB (trial)
4x AIM92 AAM (trial)
2x AIM9M AAM (trial)

MTS-B EO/IR/LRD
Lynx SAR/GMTI
DB110 recce pod (trial)
SIGINT/ESM payload
AIS
Maritime Multi-Mode RADAR
Comms Relay
Other classified payloads

STANDARD GR9:
2 x 30mm ADEN cannons in underfuselage pod fairings (since removed).

OPTIONAL:
2x MK-82 500lb bombs
2x MK-83 1000lb bombs
2x PWIV 500lb laser-guided bombs
2x AGM-65F Maverick Infra-red Guided air-to-surface missiles.
2x AGM-65E Maverick Laser-Guided air-to-surface missiles.
4 x AIM-9M Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles.

SNIPER Targeting POD

Source Websites: General-Atomics, Global Security, RAF, EGLIN AFB, air-attack, harrier.org.uk.

Pretty much a "dead-heat" and then I guess it comes down to the definition of "weapons effect" - if it is "single-shot blast effect" then GR-9 wins, if it is "effect on the enemy" then I opine that MQ-9 wins?

The B Word
(for what its worth - Nerd Alert! :8)

[Gainesy]

my loadout

Orca, you are in danger of being arse-laminated, go have a nice cuppa tea and a read of King and Country.

[Cpt_Pugwash]

The statement made no mention of the Nimrod R1s. If they are kept, then they would bear the costs of the entire support infrastructure, so hardly economic. Yet there is no decision (AFAIK) on the mooted buy of the RC-135, which itself has its own safety issues.
Another "capability holiday" perhaps?

[vecvechookattack]

Who is going to fly them?

Thats all been taken care of. Training commences in the Spring.

The Question should be " Who is going to make them? "

[col ective]

Thats all been taken care of. Training commences in the Spring.
Really, where? I thought the Chinny OCF was creaking at the seams already.

[RileyDove]

What I cannot understand is with 22 more Chinooks in theatre surely the need for CAS (ala Harriers) for them is even more vital. Your putting an expensive asset in the air carrying a large number of troops which is very vunerable to ground fire - sounds like a recipe for disaster . As for the Reaper arguements - they are useful against an enemy that has no air defence system -however we won't always fight battles like that so the idea that they are the be all and end all is farsical.

We will end up post Afghanistan with an air force which is optimised for wars against lightly armed enemies. Hardly a prudent way to plan for future defence -will we then really need a force of seventy Chinooks to support an army that by then will be largely U.K based???

[Wrathmonk]

surely the need for CAS (ala Harriers) for them is even more vital

Isn't that one of the roles of the in-theatre GR4s ....?

they are useful against an enemy that has no air defence system

I thought one of the main arguments FOR the UAV/UCAV/Drones concept(whatever they are called this week) was that they were ideal against an enemy with an air defence system (both ground and air based) as there is no risk to the man/woman in the cockpit. Along with stealth they would be great from Day 1 through to end-op I would have thought. Want to do some sneaky look around say Iran or North Korea (both with potentially good AD setups) prior to a pre-emptive strike. Total cloud cover at say 45K thus negating space based systems. What do you send - manned aircraft or UAV (the later of which probably has the better ISTAR suite)?

[Evalu8ter]

Crews? - no problems, the merry go-round will see the CHF convert to the Merlin and 28/78 convert to CH47. Trade-in the Merlin QHIs early in the piece for a CH47 conversion and blend in some Odi guys.

Who'll build them? - My guess is Boeing; AW will be busy with Algerian orders, Wildcat and Merlin CSP. Depending on the cockpit/avionics selected there might be work for Fleetlands (ie ship F frames over and outfit them here).

More Harriers? - More is always merrier. But, the Chinook is not "very vulnerable" to ground fire as a substantial number of engagements has proven (and, indeed, the historical record shows RW to be far less vulnerable than people generally realise...). I'd like to see a GR4 or GR9 carry on flying after RPG and multiple HMG/SA hits. In addition we have AH - and in many ways it is a better escort than FW. If you're concerned about Red Air then a CAS escort isn't really much help and since we'll have Typhoon to do the OCA/escort job I don't see it as an issue.

Future Wars? - The Chinook has taken part in every campaign the UK has been involved in since 1982; more than certain FJ forces I could mention. Therefore, logically, we'll need them in the future, so this is a prudent purchase.

Enemy Air Defence? - As above, Typhoon to do OCA. The lack of dedicated SEAD has been an ongoing issue for years. No doubt F35 LO tech will help, and RW assets will operate NoE in a non-permissive RF environment.

CH47F? - Not as good as a Julius Chinook in several areas, better in others. A hybrid that combined the best of both would be formidable aircraft.

[Wrathmonk]

Evalu8ter

The Chinook has taken part in every campaign the UK has been involved in since 1982; more than certain FJ forces I could mention

Define 'campaign' in your fairly sweeping statement above please. There have been plenty of campaigns lasting over 10 years that Chinook has not been involved in but plenty of FJ, AT and AAR have been. I'm sure the dark blue would disagree with your view as well! Did Chinook support BANNER or was it just Wessex/Puma (and Sea King)?

[Evalu8ter]

Wrath,
Not intended to be a slight however, since you asked:

Falklands '82, Beruit x2, Banner (NI), Gulf 1 & 2, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Op Haven (Turkey). I'm sure some old sweats will add more. Pretty sure that only the Harrier played in all of these campaigns and yet it seems to be the sacrificial FJ platform at the moment.

No, the Chinook didn't stay & do "no fly zones", but it was doing Haven, Banner and the Falklands at the same time. Chinook was in FRY from 94-02ish, FI 82-07, NI 82 - 08, Iraq 91/92 and 03-05 and AFG 02 and 05-present. Rather more dets than the GR4/F3 force from substantially less ac/sqns with a higher % of the fleet deployed. Oh and Harrier had to withdraw from AFG to "reset" -no such luck for the CH47. Like I said, just an observation.

Wasn't looking to compare with the other "cinderella" fleets in the AT world as the original post seemed to be concerned at the reduction in FJ numbers to invest in the RW fleet.

Yes, some of the FJ fleets worked hard in some of the campaigns (esp the GR4 guys in Iraq), but the original post was meant to rebutt suggestions that investing in more CH47 now was a waste of resources - given the usefullness of the platform I'd suggest that it's money well spent.

So, yes it's been involved in some stage in all of the campaigns - and some it's stayed for a prolonged time.

[Wrathmonk]

Evalu8ter

Don't disagree with the need for more RW, and certainly don't disagree that the RW force of all 3 services have, and continue to be, vastly under resourced for what is expected of them. Trouble is, until recently, they ranked lower than the Mobile Bath and Shower Units when it came to funding priority in a certain RP dept! I did, and still do, disagree with your sweeping statement - semantics it may be but there have been many, many more campaigns (as you put them) than those you have listed, all of which could have probably done with more resources at the time. Some were single service, some joint. Not all of them involved RW. Difference of opinion - it is t'internet after all:p

And I certainly don't want to get into some sort of pi55ing contest at which fleet has worked harder of the past 25 odd years (at least not on this thread!;))

[kiwibrit]

Lots of MOD CS non-jobs soon to be looking for work.As an ex RAF Engineering officer I did a spell as a civil servant - with a letter of delegation for engineering authority and airworthiness responsibility. It was very interesting but hard work. I took the safety responsibility seriously, as well as making sure the front line got the best I could possibly give it. If that sort of post is being cut back, then I think your joy is misplaced.

[Evalu8ter]

Wrath,
Well put! As you have often accurately stated in the past a large portion of RW woes can be laid at the feet of Army RP with a "no tinkering with the cavalry" mindset. Most people, however, equate the RAF SH fleet with AIR money and bemoan the sacrifice of FJ sqns to prop up a land-centric asset. FWIW I don't think the current situation is that, it's just cuts in FJ dressed up as "growth" elsewhere (if you chop FMH to buy the new CH47 then the cost is probably the same) -so spin, spin, spin.

You're also right - "my fleet's better than yours" is best left to happy hour / airshows - let's hope we can share a jar next year!