British Army’s most senior officer: UAV's over JSF?

[Rubicks13]

Interesting article on General David Richard's statement.

Richards: UAV's over JSF (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a05b47008-b80f-4b89-bc33-fa7f0d824f7d&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

CUBE

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Not just UAVs, UAVs and Tucanos? Someone needs to have a word in this chap's ear and tell him not to make stupid, ill-informed comments like that in public (no offence intended).

[TurbineTooHot]

I'll be interested in the Super Tuc's hot and high performance.

"Sorry chaps, no CAS or ISTAR today, can't get the kites up to the heights you need...."

Or are we to waz about a low level inviting all sorts of SAFire.

"Sorry chaps, no CAS or ISTAR today, too many kites getting shot up."

Maybe a little harsh. Just wonder to what extent the good General is air-educated.


I do agree with him on the ticket price though. We could buy with a better business mind, especially if BAe wasn't the only game in town.....

[Double Zero]

I need hardly mention to readers here ( but will anyway as I'm horrified; could see this sort of thing coming but not to such an extent ) " it is a matter of history that governments & armed forces always prepare for the last / previous war "...

[difar69]

Short sighted, parochial and badly informed. Aligning our forces to cope with our current set of circumstances and arrogantly assuming all future wars will be fought this way is beyond the pale. His disdain for the RN in particular is quite disturbing considering we're an island nation. The world is a dangerous place- we need to be both multirole and flexible across all 3 services. The seeds he is considering sowing could have rather unpleasant outcomes in 25yrs time.....
Has the General considered a career as a politician?

[pr00ne]

Double Zero,

What threat do China or Russia pose to the UK?

None.

Russia, with an economy in worse shape than ours and most of its wealthy citizens domiciled in London, has a primary defence strategy of defending its interests with its strategic nuclear forces. No matter how huge a fleet of Frigates and submarines you have, or endless squadrons of Typhoons and Lightnings you have, you are not going to stop an ICBM strike with them.

China is the most populous nation on the planet and is the current low cost manufacturing home for the western world. Is it going to attack its principal trading partners.

The only other nation that is not down sizing its armed forces drastically is India. China and India share a substantial land border and do not exactly see eye to eye.

Gotcha?

You go figure.

[Sentry Agitator]

Have we really become so short sighted over the last 9 years?

Yes, we do need more troops on the ground as well as the kit and support infrastructure to give those troops the very best protection & capability that we can and if that means more ISR and Counter issues then yes - give it to them. The government (of the day) needs to fund its political crusades appropriately and not just dabble (without funding) at trying to be a world player.

However, when 'the war' is eventually over and the next regional conflict erupts could we do anything without major coalition support? I would suggest that we couldn't now and certainly not in the future when this years PR is announced followed by the post election SDR and further cuts.

We still need to have an indigenous initial entry capability so that we can dominate and control the airspace and sea lanes in order to get those boots back in to any new theatre.

We all know the country is broke but there are plenty of countries with some major R&D programs running. It would be unwise to suggest, as some have, that because some countries are 'friendly' at the moment that they will continue to be so in 15-20 years time. I would envisage the drain on the worlds natural resources giving grounds for some to take action (oil field in the South Atlantic anyone?).

Somebody, somewhere please look at and fund for now but do not forget about looking towards the future. Didn't the same sort of narrow minded thing happen in the 20's and 30's!

SA

[VinRouge]

Pr00ne,

Most socialists are thick but you really push it. China not a threat?

What happens when they turn from a nation of producers into a nation of consumers?

Why are the US getting seriously concerned about China's build-up in blue-water navy capability?

Why has the price of Copper, platinum and steel shot through the roof at a time of record low demand and shipping? Couldn't have anything to do with China stockpiling commodities could it?

With the global currency surplus held by china, they could sink the western world overnight by dumping the Dollar. There is evidence to suggest that they are already doing this, slow time, hence the increase in commodities values. What happens when Chinas energy consumption puts severe pressure on what the western world considers affordable?

Germany was considered a non-threat post WW2. Chinas day as a world hegemony is coming. It may not be with us yet, but it is coming, mark my words.

[minigundiplomat]

Vin,

if China is the threat you would have us believe, then even tripling our current forces to repel them, would be like a mosquito trying to hump an elephant.

[Tourist]

I'd have a lot more time for the **** if he put his money where his mouth is and immediately sold all his main battle tanks as they are currently useless in this time of asymetric warfare.

[Pontius Navigator]

Actually I think Dannatt came up with the idea of making the tankers walk.

[Finnpog]

quote "I'd have a lot more time for the **** if he put his money where his mouth is and immediately sold all his main battle tanks as they are currently useless in this time of asymetric warfare."

Or his GMLRS & Air Defence artillery regiments; supporting REME units, Port regiments (well, if there is no need for a navy, surely no need for this?)

We need it all, just can no longer afford it all - so something will have to give.

[Brewers Droop]

What really concerns me is the fact we once more have our military leaders taking pot shots at each other in full view of the public (or at least thats how it is perceived in this household). For all us sold the dream of "jointery" to once more see single service chiefs using the media to further their single service hobby horses to me is just plain wrong. We all have views on what forces could look like in the future and I am sure some of us will be proved right or wrong when the next unexpected conflict comes along, be it low intensity, high intensity or a hybrid (my favourite word of the moment). The General may be proved right; however, I very much doubt it for reasons already better said than I could on previous posts. However, the point is there is a real opportunity for the three service chiefs (teamwork anyone?) to get together, have some good solid academic debate (not headline grabbing soundbites) and come up with solid unified arguements to defend the total defence pot against the other demands on Government expenditure.

The future role of the UK and the military within it needs some serious debate, we all know that. But using the tactic of "he who shouts loudest" is in no ones interest.

[MTOW]

The Chinese have a saying (more a curse than a saying): "May you live in interesting times."

I know it's unlikely, but imagine how "interesting" it would get for the UK in its current Defence situation (or even moreseo, its Defence situation in five years time) if someone at the top in Argentina decided that now (or then), while the (ever shrinking) UK Defence Forces are pretty stretched elsewhere, would be a really good time to reclaim the Malvinas?

Would I be wrong in thinking that the most likely outcome would be:

(a) (like the last time), they'd take them, (if perhaps at a greater cost in men and materials), and

(b) there'd be no way in the world the UK would have the wherewithal to take them back and Mr Brown (or who whoever is in his chair in five years time) would be forced to accept a rather embarrassing backdown and a search for some face-saving way of saying: "They're yours."?

[pr00ne]

MTOW,

For goodness sake get real! Take a look at the ruinous state of the Argentine economy and the parlous state of the Argentinian armed forces..........

Vin Rouge,

Take a look at where China is situated and its size. Why on earth SHOULDN'T it have a blue water Navy?

India, Japan and the US provide the counter to Chinese ambitions. If those ambitions become at all imperial or expansionist then the cracks in the bloated Chinese state and it's dictatorial status will provide far more of a deterrent than the UK having three more Typhoon squadrons or four more frigates.......

[WeekendFlyer]

MTOW,

i can see your point but the Falklands are defended rather better now than they were in 1982! I think it would be a lot harder to take them over. Provided MPA stayed open, getting re-inforcements in there would not take too long. Agree it would be messy, but the scenario would be very different from last time.

Also, would Argentina try it again? I know the odd politician there sabre-rattles every now and again, but do they seriously have the will to do it?

WF

[enginesuck]

MTOW,

For goodness sake get real! Take a look at the ruinous state of the Argentine economy and the parlous state of the Argentinian armed forces..........

Perhaps staking a claim on the FI/Malvinas would raise national pride and identity for a government who face losing a future election, it wouldnt be the first time.

[Wiley]

I suspect MTOW was more attempting to point out the state of the already stretched UK armed forces (and economy?) today compared to 1982 and whether the UK could (or has the political will to?) mount another invasion force with the capability of retaking (say) the Falklands.

I think it would involve a major "stretch", to put it mildly.

[Cows getting bigger]

"When the war is eventually over...."

So, how long do you think this war will go on for? The reality is that we have developed into a one trick pony and, for now, that pony does the wrong trick. CGS has to say what he is saying. I flew him once on a short trip to the City. As far as senior Army officers are concerned, he was the most balanced, intelligent and down-to-earth chap I have ever had the pleasure of flying.

[Jabba_TG12]

Sorry, more inclined to give credence to MTOW in this case. The islands are better defended than what they were in 82, but not well enough. Too much has been thinned out.

All they would have to do is take MPA. Once they've done that, we are royally screwed. I really wouldnt be surprised to see them having another go in the next 5 years.

CORPORATE was a damn close run thing last time. Theres no way we could do it again now, not a chance. Not to mention the lack of political will. We'd end up giving the islands back to the Argentinians.

[Chicken Leg]

Short sighted, parochial and badly informed. Aligning our forces to cope with our current set of circumstances and arrogantly assuming all future wars will be fought this way is beyond the pale

You're right. Lets risk lives now so that me can better equip ourselves for possible future conflict!

Of course we should plan for the future, but British Servicemen and Women are dieing NOW, because they haven't got what they need in enough numbers. Should we continue to sacrifice them, so that we are better equipped for a war that might never happen? It remindes me of those survival courses I/we did/do; Do you save water for future days (and then die of thirst), or do you take the water you need when you need it, in the hope you have some more later?

Maybe a little harsh. Just wonder to what extent the good General is air-educated

The arrogance! Do you think you get to CGS without understanding a little about Air Power? Air Power supports the land battle; do you really think the bloke who runs that land battle has no understanding of what he can expect by way of support in all areas?

[Ron Fenest]

I have to agree with the posted article, or the sentiment of it at least. It's an old story but the truth of any conflict is that you need boots on the ground to hold it, changing that ground takes time and takes more boots. Supporting those boots has to be the priority..doesn't it?

I can understand the single service cries of unfair! and "how dare the thick Army bloke suggest such a thing" but when most people look slightly beyond their own (possibly) blinkered view I think that deep down they know that the most likely conflicts that our young men and women will be involved in are of the type that we currently have in AFG.

Just my opinion.

[Daf Hucker]

What the hell is CDS doing? Why is he allowing the various chiefs of the armed forces to slag each other's capabilities off? Why isn't he either more vocal in his leadership of the Armed Forces, or telling his subordinate commanders to STFU!

[SRENNAPS]

Some of you here would be interested in reading a 200+ page, glossy magazine, simply called “The British Army”.

There are many fascinating articles within the magazine on just about every aspect of the Army you can think of. However, of interest to this thread (and some others) are the following articles:

“Types of Campaigns the Army must be prepared to fight”
“Understanding the Different Service Perspectives”
“The Joint Force in Current and Future Campaigns”
“An Airman’s View”

I’m afraid that I cannot find anything on the web about the magazine; however the following information may be helpful in locating a copy:

The British Army – Editor Chris Donnelly – Published 2009
Printed by Buxton Press ISBN 978-1-906940-10-2
Published by NewsDesk Communications Ltd - Newsdesk Communications Ltd - Homepage (http://www.newsdeskmedia.com)

Failing that I would ask your GLO or any Army mate you might have.

I highly recommend the read if you can locate a copy!

[Metman]

Chicken Leg, you might be right... but even if we were to spend the money now, we wouldn't get the capability until after we're supposed to be pulling out! By which point the conflict will most likely have changed, and we'll need different kit that we probably got rid of in the rush to pay for kit that we no longer need!

What is the UK military primarily for? To defend the UK and its dependancies and interests. Lets not lose sight of that! Because this high-level infighting is self-defeating, and all 3 services will lose out more than if they all pulled together!

[teeteringhead]

"Divide and conquer" eh? Politicians of all colours must be chuckling now at the in-fighting. CAS's turn next now he's finished writing to the papers about the Mull.......

Just about the right timing for the general public to get royally p!$$ed off with "Defence" and go along with massive Defence Cuts ......:ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

CDS? Fighting to keep his job.

Defence of the Homeland? That will really bring the recruits flocking in.

Replace Tiffin with Guiness will really get people rushing to be pilots; well actually it probably would we there would be more :)

[LowObservable]

Sounds like BCW (Boot Centric Warfare) to me: "If I can't see it from where I'm standing, it doesn't exist."

Or the USAF "space warrior" joke about the Marine out in the hills of Iraq: "What do I need space assets for? All I need is my rifle and this" (holding up his GPS).

The Tucano idea will last as long as it did last time (armed T-28Ds in Vietnam), which is until some talented Dead-Eye Dick figures out how to teach his buddies to hit it. (It won't shoot anything bigger than a .50-cal at the outside, and as the adage has it, if the enemy is in range, so are you.) Bang, bang, and now Woopert on the ground has no CAS and two hostages to worry about.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Crewroom discussion led to the following conclusion - We're not in favour of our guys on the ground not having the right gear. But to do so right now we mortgage defence for the next 10>20 years. Not acceptable so either a) increase funding (unlikely!) or b) pull out of afghan warfighting and leave it to someone who can afford to fight there(or c accept that there will be more casualties (not acceptable!))

[2Planks]

Back to the Falklands. Just check the share price of Desire Oil (who hold a lot of exploration rights around our beloved islands) - its risen a lot recently indicating that commercial exploitation may not be far off. May prompt someone in Buenos Aires to become interested again to restore national pride and fix the economy in one fell swoop......

[glum]

Jabba:
"We'd end up giving the islands back to the Argentinians."

As far as I'm aware, the Falklands were British before Argentina even existed, so less of the 'give them back' drivel please!

[CirrusF]

The Tucano idea will last as long as it did last time (armed T-28Ds in Vietnam), which is until some talented Dead-Eye Dick figures out how to teach his buddies to hit it. (It won't shoot anything bigger than a .50-cal at the outside, and as the adage has it, if the enemy is in range, so are you.) Bang, bang, and now Woopert on the ground has no CAS and two hostages to worry about.


It was interesting even that CGS even mentioned the Super Tincanno - presumably some eager RAF staff college report must have caught his eye. But Super Tincanno still falls into the category of lengthy procurement time, expensive, and large log tail - albeit a bit less than FJ.

If you wanted to go further down the food chain, you could actually look at the mighty AAC Defender - already available, decent mid-level loiter time, and can (you might laugh) carry up to 1100lbs of external stores on wing hardpoints, including cannon-pods and rocket launcher pods, as well as kit to serve in ISR/comms role during loiter, plus flexible enough for other roles too.

Another step down (and bridging the felxibility gap with UAVs - albeit cheaper) could be the DA42M, with which can carry stand-off hellfire missiles, and has a mid-level loiter time limited mainly by pilot endurance, and virtually no infra-red or radar signature. DA42M also much more reliable than UAVs, and has genuine all-weather capability.

They're cheap and evidently capability-handicapped options compared to the full-monty RAF fantasy options which we can't afford - but perhaps they could at least provide some sort of round-the-clock cover until Apache can arrive.

[An Teallach]

Meanwhile, in other news, the MoD's 110,000 civil serpents and agency employees peed themselves laughing.

[CirrusF]

Meanwhile, an equal if not greater number of Taliban are pissing themselves laughing because they're winning the war armed with nothing more than $50 AK47s....

How long does it take a Tornado to get from standby at Kandahar to target on a call for CAS? How long would it take a light COIN aircraft, with decent loiter time above the target to descend from FL100 to engagement?

[airsound]

Various media outlets have reported on speeches given by First Sea Lord (1SL), Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, today, and Chief of the General Staff (CGS), General Sir David Richards, yesterday, comparing their visions of future defence requirements.

Some reports have suggested that the speeches reveal a rift between the Services on the subjects of balance and flexibility of forces, and what threats we are likely to face. The speeches in fact share much common ground, with the two chiefs agreeing on a number of issues from their individual perspectives.

CGS and 1SL agree that the strategic context has changed fundamentally and that the result of the next Strategic Defence Review (SDR) must be to produce a balanced force structure with capabilities that are most relevant to the future. The Armed Forces must continue to be flexible and agile enough to adapt to a variety of threats, including some that cannot be predicted.

CGS and 1SL are both agreed about the need to develop flexible forces, involving all three Services, that are capable of meeting a variety of threats.

Below are excerpts of the two speeches and display how both CGS and 1SL are agreed on the future of the two Services:

CGS: "This is not, as is often suggested, a matter of where the balance of investment should lie between the three Services. Rather this is about ensuring we achieve a balance, across all three and with allies, between our ability to fight a traditional war of air, maritime and ground kinetic manoeuvre and being able to conduct a far more difficult one amongst, with and for the people."

1SL: "A continued emphasis on further developing joint engagement, by which I mean land, sea and air elements, and operations that involve and maximise the contributions of military forces with other agencies and countries, will be increasingly important in a globalised world."

1SL and CGS both emphasised the need to work with and within international alliances and organisations in order to achieve our aims:

CGS: "Alliances are the principal means to compensate for our inability to resource military capability that is less needed in the future but cannot be completely discarded; this is how perceived risk in any particular capability area should be mitigated."

ISL: "Our forces should therefore also be able to be deployed globally and engage in long-term reassurance, stabilisation, training and prevention missions. And they must also have the means to work alongside others - international partners, government departments, civilian agencies and the civilian population. Such forces can do good for the taxpayer on a daily basis."

Both CGS and 1SL are arguing that the SDR will be the means by which the future shape and size of UK defence is decided. That this should be a Foreign-Policy-led process, and that once we have agreed what the nation's security interests are, it will then be necessary to agree how meeting those interests can be accomplished. At this point, the required capability will need to be matched to available resources:

CGS: "Spending on future defence capability is invariably about managing risk, not eliminating it. This thinking shapes rightly our strategic posture. It is how we prioritise some equipment over others, some intelligence and technological advances over others, and some force elements over others. Like any insurance, what this needs is an understanding of what must be covered fully and what can be taken at risk on the basis of alliance or likelihood."

1SL: "In conclusion, I believe that the Defence Review needs to consider focusing on UK Armed Forces, whether maritime, air or land, which are able to be configured to deliver the necessary combat power, but have utility to be able to support the protection and promotion of the national interest more widely."

CGS: "Defence must respond to the new strategic, and indeed economic, environment by ensuring much more ruthlessly that our Armed Forces are appropriate and relevant to the context in which they will operate rather than the one they might have expected to fight in in previous eras. Too much emphasis is still placed on what Secretary Gates calls 'exquisite' and hugely expensive equipment."

1SL: "Alongside a greater understanding of the strategic effect of using our forces more widely, we must also recognise that in an uncertain future where we can’t afford everything we might need, we must instead strive for forces that are flexible - and able, between them, to adapt to operate successfully across the entire spectrum of tasks that might be demanded of them."

Additionally, 1SL had this to say this morning during his speech at the Berwin Leighton Paisner Defence Breakfast:

"Much of what General Richards said last night resonates with what I'm saying today. He speaks about a hi-tech future and the need for cyber-defence, I absolutely support that. That is a battleground this nation needs to be ready to be engaged in in the future far more effectively than we are today. He speaks of flexibility, hybrid warfare and this business of high intensity warfare being a mixture of old style force-on-force and hybrid underplaying of activity. Yes, absolutely right.

"He talks about the need for a wider debate - that's why I am here, to stimulate a wider debate and discussion. He advocates a clear understanding within that debate on how much we can afford to put into defence, I absolutely agree. So whilst there is a desire to show a split between us and feed a frenzy of 'the chiefs are again at loggerheads' - we are not. We are trying to pursue a clear, well-articulated debate on what defence means."

-ends-
(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued Jan. 19, 2010)Methinks they do protest rather a lot. In particular:Some reports have suggested that the speeches reveal a riftSurely not.

plus finally:the Berwin Leighton Paisner Defence Breakfastwtf?? Was there black pudding? I think we should be told....

airsound

[JFZ90]

the Berwin Leighton Paisner Defence Breakfast

WTF indeed.

What was it Sir Bernard used to say - if they deny it, its definately true!

[Double Zero]

Just a thought;

as Iraq is now 'under control' ( I considered it for a holiday or timeshare, but maybe UK South Coast this year ) - and massive U.S. kit in Afghanistan,
how about we concentrate on the Somali pirates - taking the gloves off a little, if that isn't what already happens unofficially - while the U.S. considers yet another war, with Yemen, and we supply support to the ' Stan with UCAV's as the nice American chap says - would save a lot of good people ?!

Incidentally, I heard an interesting piece the other day on Radio 4 by a British ship captain who'd successfully fended off Somali pirates, saying the Somali fishermen are really p'd off with the local pirates for giving them a bad press; I'd heard earlier on seemingly much more authorative military grounds that the pirates are local heroes, distributing undreamt of wealth and actually funding building projects - not that the Somali's actually feel like building anything.

The bad guys in Afghanistan & Yemen / Pakistan need to be taken out for sure, and I'm more than equally sure the flesh is willing, but we only have so many people, and so much kit, so need to do it on our terms / capabilities, not toe to toe on theirs ?

I am still worried by the Army top chap's lack of airpower knowledge though, and before anyone carps up that someone in that position must fully understand, well during 1982 Sandy Woodward was a highly experienced submariner, and one only has to read his and other books to realise he didn't fully comprehend his air assets...

It really needs another kick up the arse for our NATO ' colleagues '.

[XV277]

both CGS and 1SL are agreed

That they should scrap the RAF and let their respective services deal with their air power needs......:)

[CrabInCab]

Quote:
both CGS and 1SL are agreed
That they should scrap the RAF and let their respective services deal with their air power needs......

:zzz:

[gpn01]

So, if I get this right....

The top Army chap says that the Army is a priority and that there's no need for aircraft carriers
The head Navy guy says that the Navy is a priority and we don't need Eurofighters
The Chief RAF man says that the RAF is a priority and why does the Army need so much money

At least the service chiefs are standing up for their respective services (although in fighting isn't going to help the overall cause).

The MoD continues to plunder resources by spending on stuff that's not wanted/needed or by tying in to contracts that benefit the supplier and not the customer
The government has sold off/contracted out many of the critical R&D capabilities that supported the forces in order to raise a bit of money
Gordon Brown sold off the UK's gold bullion reserves when gold was at a low price on the market
The UK spends billions each year on EEU subsidies
The UK will need to budget for coping with up to an extra 10 million immigrants in the next 15 years

Meanwhile the armed forces continue to align themselves (and their spending) with past threats because no one can figure out what future threats will be. Well, at this rate it's not going to be the Chinese, Russians, Japanese or Al-Q but is more likely to be an internal threat as the public turn on the inept government (by which I mean the civil servants as well as the poiliticians). So, lots of spending needed on internal security - CCTV, police, surveillance, UAV's, etc. Oh, hang on, they're doing that already...

Steps off soapbox.....

[groundfloor]

Red jackets against mausers..

Japan is no threat and their aircraft are 2nd rate...

The War to end all wars..

Peace in our time...

TSR2..

Missiles will replace manned aircraft..

:}

[Melchett01]

Quote:
both CGS and 1SL are agreed

That they should scrap the RAF and let their respective services deal with their air power needs......

And that's the problem. Half the time they don't know or more importantly understand what they want. They just think that they can stamp their feet, have a huff about not getting adequate support and all of a sudden either everything will be ok and they will suddenly have every asset in theatre assigned to them, or the RAF will be disbanded and given over to the Army.

It's not politic to say it, but I'm going to anyway. CGS and the rest of the brown jobs need to wake up and realise that Helmand is one small part of one American campaign. The RAF will do its utmost to provide all the support that is needed, above and beyond all personal considerations, in most cases. But at the end of the day, the Army is dealing with Helmand. Most if not all RAF assets in theatre are declared to supporting ALL of RC(S) and in some cases beyond those boundaries.

The sooner CGS et al actually understand air power and the RAF rather than just paying lip service and treating us less like a manservant and more like an equal, then we can start having an informed and constructive discussion. Until then, I'm afraid it's going to be little more than dealing with a small child who wants every toy in the shop and wants it now.

[Tom Laxey]

Yes, it's mad when an Army chief says something like this

Generally the MOD works in quite a 'purple' way, with lots of interaction between the 3 service and civilian staff; 3 separate services is not neccesarily the best way to organise the various functions e.g. there is overlap between land and ship-based aviation, or air support to the battlefield. However the 3 distinct services have a strong history & ethos, and so the system persists, despite its costs.

Now, when these turf wars erupt, it undermines the coherency of the whole system. It is patently absurd to criticise the RAF for buying Typhoons - the RAF would have down-sized or substantially altered its Typhoon procurement plans years ago if it could have done; today it is nearly a done deal (they'll all have been made soon!), and the best thing the Army & RAF can do is work-out how best to use it, rather than whinging.

The problems will come in future; the MOD does plan for future conflicts, which means maintaining the base of technology and programmes that will support the RAF of the future. That will need many, many millions of pounds to be spent on aircraft more advanced than Typhoon, in order to ensure that when UK does need to replace Tornado, Typhoon etc, it has something useful to contribute.

Discussions about Tucanos simply show how bad things have got in MB.

[pr00ne]

Tom Laxey,

You said;

"in order to ensure that when UK does need to replace Tornado, Typhoon etc, it has something useful to contribute."


It has long been stated, and as recently as last month, that the RAF will have a two type fast jet fleet in future, Typhoon and F-35. The UK is heavily involved in both.

After that what else will there be other than UAV's of one sort or another?

[Tom Laxey]

In general, the future is still there even if the RAF has made its choices of fast jets.

The prototype Eurofighter flew, I think, in 1997 (and EAP in 1986). The X-35 flew in 2001. The US are looking at several things following these classes of aircraft. Yes, as you say, mostly unmanned, but that makes little difference to their technology level etc.

It may be true that having bought ~300 new fastjets in 10years, the RAF can't afford 'the future' - as explained here
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/workinggroups/mec/papers/misc/costs.pdf

That doesn't mean the future won't happen, nor does it mean that Typhoon and F35B will be as potent in 2025 as they are (or would be) today.

If X-47B or another US UCAV program comes to fruition, I can't see the MOD being content to say 'we can't afford that' - even though it will be very pricey - which makes such a nonsense of talk of Tucanos and such like.

[Boslandew]

Could we approach this from the other end?

The war in Afghanistan is here and now. I think most informed opinion would accept that it would have a much greater chance of success and save lives if there were more troops, more vehicles better equipped against mines, more helicopters and increased surveillance ability.

Any future conflict is at least as likely to require Afghan style forces as they would be for forces to fight a conventional (21st Century) land, sea or air war. We could not conceivably arm for all possible types of future warfare. Is it better to spend finite resources on actual current needs or save them for unknown future needs? Should we have had fewer fighters in 1940 and lost the Battle of Britain so as to save more money to buy Lancasters later on?

Would it be acceptable to lose this war because we were saving resources to fight future unknown wars?

[Tom Laxey]

@Boslandew, yes that's right, of course.

However I think it is true that when thoroughly questioned, casual statements about Tucanos do not add much.

The MOD knows abour surveillance, that's why it already has UAV programmes such as Watchkeeper, Predator and Mantis. Unfortunately the full capability is not currently available (i.e. Watchkeeper is ?? too small?, Predator is £££, and Mantis is a new UK product, but is immature). I don't think Tucanos fit into this mix well, because in reality I'm not sure they offer much? What is needed is the '24hr' capability but this is v.£££.

The point about the validity of the spending on high-end systems is that once an MOD withdraws from these areas, it is unlikely to return. Nontheless, assuming that the US would provide the RAF with 'high-end' fighter cover for aerial combat, and long-range stealthy bombers early doors, may well be a reasonable assumption that would save the UK money.

[The B Word]

Tom

Two points...

We don't have any Predators - only MQ-9 REAPERs (big difference). Also, the more capable (I emphasize again) REAPERs (not Predators) are approximately 50% cheaper than projected costs for Mantis in 2015+. I know that the uber-expensive Mantis is supposed to be better than Reaper but is it going to be twice as good??? So I refute your claim that "Predator is £££".

So what's my other point I'm driving towards?

If we had considered not spending all our cash on high-tech solutions such as the uber-expensive Typhoons, GR9s and F-35s then we might have got a couple of squadrons of CAS/COIN aircraft to service the Pongo's need in THIS war (not THE war) that could have replaced the "cheap-as-chips" Jag. Something like the Italians are doing with the AMX (see below) in Afghanistan.

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=30646

"Balanced forces" has to be the way to go - not "all our eggs in 1 basket"!!!

[Ivan Rogov]

B Word, do your Reaper/Pred costs reflect total cost including Sats, ground terminals, comms links, sending 200 staff and families to live in the USofA , using 2 man crews (Inc fully trained stick monkey) to constantly fly, borrowing an airbase, piggy backing an OCU (may have changed now)?

Granted it is definitely the right platform right now, but I could see the cousins:
A. Getting fed up of us constantly borrowing stuff and not giving it back.
B. Only be willing to let us use 'our toy' when they say so, stopping any independent Ops.
C. Wanting more space in the system to generate more of their lines.

Isn't Mantis looking to be a bit more advanced with greater autonomy and performance in weather etc? You never know, statistically sooner or later BAe will screw up and build something that does what it's supposed to and arrives on time :E

[strek]

Ivan

You never know, statistically sooner or later BAe will screw up and build something that does what it's supposed to and arrives on time

Thank you for cheering up a particularly dull morning in the land of acquisition, that is lots of poeple managing and businessing and few doing.

I wonder if the great Somerset Helicopter Company could beat them to it?

Off to find a statistician.

Strek

[mick2088]

Uber-expensive Mantis? Up to £12 million for three air vehicles, a ground control station and spares, according to a BAE Systems employee interviewed by an Indian newspaper at Aero India last year. Reaper you'll get two air vehicles, a couple of ground control stations and spares for about £50 million. Unless the cost difference ends up being huge and the BAE Systems chap badly underestimated what a production model will cost (and admittedly BAE has form there), you'll still end up with a twin-engined, longer-ranged Mantis capable of carrying 20%+ more payload than the Reaper and you'll be able to stick any payload in it that you want, maintain and upgrade it yourself without all the annoyance of going through US defence export rules.

[The B Word]

Ivan and Mick

Your data on Mantis being cheaper is incorrect - the figures for your 3 air vehicles, GCS and spares that you quote is about that for a single item from what I have heard! Don't forget that unit price always reflects the size of your order so companies usually don't give out figures without knowing this fact first.

There is no evidence that Mantis will deliver the 4x PWIV and 6x DMB for 24hrs vaunted at Farnborough 2008 from the recent technology demonstration - have a look at the YouTube footage of the first flight and see the take-off run where it used a lot of Woomera's 7800ft runway. That would indicate that it is rather underpowered in its early days and would therefore be difficult to deliver the original performance estimate.

Here is a link YouTube - Mantis Test Flight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QuZrsWG-e0)

From the runway markings it looks like a 5-6000ft take off run - and it was not carrying anything!

So, I would offer that Mantis has a lot more work to done before it offers the performance that you both seem to believe is a given (IMHO).

Mantis might offer something that we might want at the end of this decade, but for now, Reaper delivers exactly want we want, right now. It is also far, far, cheaper than any core equipment program - if you know anyone in DE&S see if you can ask to see their figures.

Finally, when it comes to "upgrading yourself" take a look at Falcon Prowl (http://www.spyflight.co.uk/falcon%20prowl.htm)

This was a UK led initiative.

So in short, I do not agree with your stand point (you may have guessed that).

The B Word

[Tourist]

Boslandew

"Would it be acceptable to lose this war because we were saving resources to fight future unknown wars?"

I don't really think that you have thought about this question.
Perhaps if I rephrase it slightly the answer will become clear.

Would it be acceptable to lose this war that doesn't really matter to the continued survival of our country, and that we are not really sure why we are in apart from to support our buddies, who themselves are a bit ambivalent about it and we could pull out of tomorrow with no more damage and loss of life to our troops other than a bit of pride, because we were saving resources to fight future unknown wars which might actually affect the lives of our nearest and dearest?

[Tom Laxey]

Tourist, that is pretty much the thinking behind my point. I also think that aligns well with what actually happens.

If there is a serious conflict, with a serious country, extra soldiers, armoured lorries and UAV 'drones' won't be much use. The 'cutting edge' always has to be sharp.

Furthermore, the evidence suggests that letting that edge blunt even a little has a big effect. In other words, the 150 Typhoons & 60 (or whatever!) JSFs that the UK would call its cutting edge won't stay potent for ever. However most of this stuff is so blinkin' expensive, that a few clever tweaks to the avionics should keep that fleet 'ticking over' for a while.

That may lead to a trap though - there is only so much benefit to be gained from strapping-on ever more capable pods, and sooner or later the UK would need to 'cut metal' on a new designs of planes - it's known that that's very, very expensive, but also that it takes skills, tools and facilities to do it - which require ongoing investment, even in the lean times we're in.

[mick2088]

The B Word, sorry it probably was a misquoted price that would cover a single UAV only and I don't believe it anyway, but you can't really call it an uber-expensive UAV yet as we don't know what it will cost. The payload figure that I gave though refers to that planned by BAE Systems that might actually be more (or less) on the production model which won't be available until 2015 to enter service anyway if developed. I wasn't actually talking about the here and now - hence why I refer to a "production model" as opposed to the demonstrator that flew last year, which is immature and is not up to full specs. I'd assume if the green light was given to Mantis' full development then a production-type test model would follow that would be completely different anyway. They haven't even decided on what the final engines might be yet, let alone the eventual payload.

At this present moment at time, yes, Reaper is the only choice - it is the only armed UAV in its class available - but over the longer term and in a relatively short period of time there might be better alternatives to Reaper (by which time even the US might also have a replacement in development) so the choice boils down to buying more Reapers now specifically for Afghanistan that won't be delivered until 2011 or 2012, funding and ordering a production Mantis in 2011 to be delivered from 2015 and hope that it meets expectations, or seeing what else comes along in the same period. And yes, Reaper was trialled with a LOROP sensor, supplied by an American company and conducted in conjunction with the Americans using a USAF Reaper and American satellite link. Hardly an autonomous demonstration. But if you wanted to strap any other sensors onto Reaper though you'd have to ask the US for permission first, work with General Atomics to integrate them and use US suppliers like Raytheon for the sensors, something you won't have to do if you have developed the UAV yourself.

[Caspian237]

Tom and Tourist, I agree with your sentiments however need that mean a complete withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan? As I mentioned in another post, if British troop levels were halved in Afghanistan then we would still have more troops there than the next largest contributor Germany. Does having twice the force level in Afghanistan make Britain twice as safe from terrorism as Germany?

Secondly you say that the reasons for being in the conflict are fairly confused. I would put to you that this is the continuation of a 60 or so year obsession of British governments in ensuring American engagement with Europe and to stop them becoming isolationist. The USA is our real insurance in the event of a "serious war" until other arrangements are made with our neighbours, which frankly does not look like anytime soon. If we want to use the Americans as a shield then sometimes they will want to use us as a sword.

[Boslandew]

Tourist

I’m not sure why you should assume I haven’t really thought about the question just because I haven’t reached the conclusion that you have. I’m glad that you have ‘the’ answer but a few facts to support that claim might not come amiss.

In fact, my article was a question, seeking opinion. I’ve always thought it worthwhile to look at both sides of any argument.

However, if we are to take refuge in the purely cynical answer then I don’t know that I have much more to contribute. I am no more gullible than the next man but I do not accept that twenty odd nations, of varying political hues, including the militarily cautious modern Germans, would engage in, and persist with, a military campaign far from home for no reason at all

[Boslandew]

Airpolice

I have no idea about German support - I must ask my german brother-in-law.

With respect, no major public support for the war is not the same thing as there being no reason for fighting it. It is claimed that it is being fought to prevent terrorism on our streets (German/French/Danish streets.) As I said I'm no more gullible than the next man and long ago learnt not to accept government statements at face value. However, I am increasingly suspicious of todays cyniclsm and answers with often nothing to back them up. If the reason given is not true, what proof is there that it isn't?

Why are all those nations there, against the wishes of the population, (let us accept your suggestion that it applies to all countries), if there is no reason?

Incidentally, I'm not out to score points, I'm genuinely looking for the reason why.

[Tourist]

Boslandew

I think you misunderstand me.

I have nothing against the war in Afghanistan, and believe it is very damaging to pull out of a war without winning it.
However, it is all a question of priorities. In the grand scheme of things it is a very piffling little affair (no disrespect to those who have given their lives there-but compare it using any measures you wish versus WW1 and WW2) and our military has to be ready for the next big war or we may lose it. In 200yrs I suspect that schoolchildren will not be hearing about Afghanistan 2000 onwards any more than individual episodes of the Great Game are known to our children today.
What should happen is that we are funded correctly for both, but I suspect that we will never be.

[Tom Laxey]

The UK should be able to fight a war in Afghanistan and have its fast jets.

It is undoubtedly narrow-minded to suggest that UK should cancel fast jet programmes to pay for 'stop gap' solutions for current conflicts. The war in Afghanistan began with precision air strikes, and moved into bunker busting etc. Both Gulf wars began with heavy air strikes, and the RAF maintained no fly zones from the air for years. Therefore all these fast jets would be expected to be well-used, in time. It is just that today COIN is causing all the pain, and Typhoons and JSFs don't look all that much use.

I think it is more accurate to say that UK has the men & equipment for Afghanistan - the armoured vehicles, and UAV drones, but not quite the right stuff, or enough of it. If it is simply a matter of having enough - well, that must be as much the fault of the UKs 'partners' absence, as much as any shortcomings from UK. The MOD knew battlefield airborne surveillance was an issue before Afghanistan (they would have been equally useful in NI), it's just that strategically, the MOD has been slow to spend money on getting UK suppliers to respond. Hence the non-ideal mix of solutions currently trying to do the job. One reason for this is that UAV 'drone' technologies are not that difficult and UK has invested in 'higher end' UAV technologies, which unfortunately would be wasted in Afghan.

[Boslandew]

Tourist

Please see your PM’s

I think the heart of the matter lies in tourist’s last sentence and Tom’s first.

What’s the quote, “we always plan for the last war and not the next”? I believe we should be at least as concerned for the war we are fighting now. Like all questions it’s a question of balance and any absolute answer is going to be wrong. I don’t see it as an ‘either….. or’ situation. I can accept that we might need sophisticated fast jets in the future. I find it difficult to accept that we need 232 Typhoons – what are they all going to do, who are they going to fight, why do we need 232 of them? – at the expense of enough boots and equipment on the ground to win and, incidentally, save lives in the war we are fighting now.

I know that the arithmatic isn’t necessarily this simple but ten less Typhoons, a 4-5% reduction, would surely cover another battle-group in Afghanistan and more helicopters to say nothing of all the body armour and mine-proof vehicles necessary.

Finally, Tom, I must, with respect take issue with your comment about it being ‘undoubtedly narrow-minded’…. I would consider it narrow-minded not to consider all possible options.

[Mick Smith]

Jesus. I would expect the people on this forum to be pro-lots of RAF kit, but this is ridiculous. Richards is simply saying that in future there will be very few countries that will not have looked at the military might of Nato, most of it American, but nevertheless Nato, looked at the insurgents' successes in Iraq and Afghanistan and thought, am I going to try going up against these guys with fast jets, tanks and ships, or am I going to take them on the way AQ in Iraq or the Taliban did?

He is stressing he doesnt want to get rid of fast jets or ships or tanks. He just thinks that with a shrinking budget we need to get rid of a few of those and replace them with the things we happen to be short of to do the counter-insurgency operations that will be a key element not just of our future in Afghanistan but of the most likely threat from our likely enemies. AND he's right.

Stanhope is only interested in protecting the navy's future and the old Cold War balance between services that still exists. Interestingly, CDS and Dalton seem more aware of the arguments.

You lot need to look at how many fast jets you are getting and how many you actually need, and how many transport helicopters you have and how many you actually need.