Fox SDR interview with the Times

[typerated]

Full spiel at Troops could be cut as Fox sharpens his axe - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7149004.ece)


The number of uniformed personnel in the three services is 190,000, with the army at its smallest since Waterloo. Any further reductions could lead to a revolt by Tory backbenchers.
Fox refused to say which equipment programmes would be axed, but he offered some broad hints. There was good news for the Royal Navy, with Fox suggesting the number of ships had already been cut too much. “We’re going to have an increased maritime role because if you look at issues like energy security and piracy, that’s already pushing us in one direction,” he said.
The RAF is likely to have fewer fast jets designed to challenge Russian bombers over the North Sea, but more helicopters for moving troops and equipment in Afghanistan.
Posing the key questions for the review, Fox said: “Have we cut the surface fleets too much in order to buy high-end capability? In terms of the air force, have we previously concentrated too much on fast jets compared to lift capability?”
Fox said too little had changed in the MoD since the fall of the Berlin Wall more than two decades ago. “This is the review that has to kiss goodbye to the cold war,” he said.

[ghostnav]

I presume that to know what is happening in the Armed Forces and what our future might be (if there is one), one will have to read the newpapers!

[The B Word]

Sadly, if you want to fly fast jets in the future then I fear this is what you will be doing...

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frtypen/Fotos/bae/Taranis/TaranAr.JPG

No more turning upside down, no more sticking your tongue out a the world and no more Ping golf clubs and Breitling watches...

...unless Flight's "April Fool" comes to fruition!

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=33512
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=33514

The future of the RAF Combat Air is going to be Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) or "Drones" just to keep BEagle happy! :ok:

[BEagle]

'RPA' - yet another new abbreviation from the Royal Aeromodelling Force's drone brigade? What happened to RPV, UAV, UCAV, UAS etc?

Sandaholics and other blinkered air-to-mud afficionados might think that drones are the magic bullet of the future, but there are many, many roles for which they are totally unsuited.

[Lima Juliet]

Beags

The USAF would probably beg to differ and, like it or not, they tend to set the trend for the Western Air Forces.

Take a look at http://www.aiaa.org/documents/industry/presentations/LtGen_Deptula_Keynote_TEDays2010.ppt

Lt Gen Deptula is no idiot. He is a FJ combat pilot and was the senior air campaign planner for Gulf War One. The slides in the link above to look at are Slides 22, 23, 24 and 25.

Here's a list of functions they're pressing for within 10-15 years or so:

EW
ISR
CAS
Comms
AAR
Air Interdict
SEAD
Aeromed Evac
CSAR/JPR
DCA
OCA
AT
Huminatarian Aid
Strategic Attack

Just as the Nav/WSO were digging their heels in 10 years ago with the advent Typhoon, C17 and C130J, the Pilot in an aircraft is going to have to go through the same thing and join the Navs/WSOs flying in a "box".

I'll introduce myself to you in my Bowler Hat at the Cenotaph in 15 years time and maybe we can share a beer on the "Moon on the Mall" to see who's right!

Aye

LJ

PS. They went to "RPA" about 6 months ago, ahead of the RAF!

[Lima Juliet]

PPS

For the FJ mates look at slide 28.

400kts, 5,000lbs of payload, ECM, AIM-120, JAGM, Laser Guided Rocket and a turreted cannon - enough to make me weep with envy! :{

LJ

[The B Word]

BEagle

I understand that RPA and RPAS (S for System) is de-rigeur for MQ-1 and MQ-9 to stop the confusion that many people have of "machines autonomously killing combatants". Stating they are "remotely piloted" stops this confusion.

The terms UAV and UAS (although I still think that is University Air Sqn!) are still in for the simpler and "less-piloted" aircraft such as Desert Hawk 3 and H450 or WATCHKEEPER.

The RPA also needs an Instrument Rated Pilot to fly it under IFR or it has to stay in segregated airspace - not much use for something with the reach of a MQ-1 or MQ-9!!!

But, for you Sir, I guess we'll have to stick to "Drones". :E

The B Word

[Lima Juliet]

Still if FJ mates are to fly "Drones" then this part of life will not change...

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/rma/lowres/rman2466l.jpg

[mra4eng]

No.

UAV stands for Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles which is (much) further advanced to the remotely controlled drones. With UAV's, the mission is "keyed in" and the vehicle goes off and completes the mission all by itself.

Taranis is a UAV.

[andrewn]

Wrong! the 'A' in UAV refers to Aerial not autonomous. We're there now with Aerial but still some way off with genuine and useful autonomous capabilities. Taranis is a a demonstrator, nothing more....

[Donna K Babbs]

With comments from Liam Fox like:

apart from Britain's nuclear deterrent, nothing would be ruled out from consideration in the review

and

We’re going to have an increased maritime role because if you look at issues like energy security and piracy, that’s already pushing us in one direction

...we surely need to keep the Nimrod MRA4.

As a fundamental part of MT1.2 with an extremely capable radar and EW sensor, with excellent endurance, not to mention its long-range search and rescue capability, it would be incredibly stupid not to ensure that the platform is brought into operational service.

[Neptunus Rex]

I am sure that the Nimrod MRA 4 will be a great aircraft. The problem will be the numbers. If the fleet were doubled it might be getting close to a reasonable operational capability.

[heights good]

"Still if FJ mates are to fly "Drones" then this part of life will not change..."

Pilots for conversation..................... :E