Defence Review - Headlines

[Vox Populi]

On Tuesday, the Prime Minister will outline a timetable under which Britain’s one fully operational aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal, is immediately retired. The Navy’s other carrier, HMS Illustrious, will continue to function as a helicopter platform stripped of jets before retiring in 2014.

The first of the new carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, will enter service in 2016, configured to carry helicopters, not jets. The second new carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, will arrive in 2019. At that point, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be put into “extended readiness”, effectively mothballed indefinitely.

• The replacement for the Trident nuclear deterrent will be delayed by a year until after the general election scheduled for 2015. He will insist he remains committed to renewing Trident but will say the delay is needed to save £750 million.

• The Army will lose 7,000 soldiers, more than 100 tanks and 200 armoured vehicles. One armoured brigade will be lost and the end of Britain’s 65-year presence in Germany will be signalled.

• The RAF will keep most of its Tornado fighter-bombers but lose at least 5,000 personnel. Two RAF bases will close and be occupied by soldiers returning from Germany.

• The Navy’s fleet of warships will drop from 24 to 19 and it will lose 4,000 personnel. Harrier jump-jets will be scrapped next year but no F35 Joint Strike Fighters will be available to replace them until 2020.

• Special Forces will receive a significant increase in their budget, allowing them to buy sophisticated communications technology and weapons. Recruitment is also likely to rise.



Navy aircraft carrier will be sold after three years - and never carry jets - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8072041/Navy-aircraft-carrier-will-be-sold-after-three-years-and-never-carry-jets.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

[Ken Scott]

Until 2020, Britain is likely to rely heavily on allies with a carrier strike capability, most significantly France.

Should we end up in another war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands let's hope that the French are on our side then rather than helping get the Super Etendards ready to attack our fleet.

[FFP]

“I can’t see Oman happy to have Tornados flying from its territory to bomb Iran,” said a source

If only we had them and a forward operating base set up in a country next to Iran that could be used...............:ok:

[Archimedes]

Should we end up in another war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands let's hope that the French are on our side then rather than helping get the Super Etendards ready to attack our fleet.

Why should they? :confused: They didn't last time round, despite what some of the press would like us to believe. John Nott described the French as our most important allies in his memoirs (he later qualified this to say that he meant of the the Europeans, but not far behind the US). It may be that one French arms firm 'forgot' about the team of technicians that was there, but the French Secret Service found out, and the directors of the arms company suddenly remembered about the team when President Mitterand personally 'phoned them and politely pointed out that people doing this sort of thing would go to prison (because they were breaking sanctions).

The problem Europeans were the Italians and the Spanish.

Anyway, this story is in the Telegraph, so even if they've got it from the most impeccable sources imagineable, there's probably at least one completely avoidable and spectacular error in there (up alongside the misreporting of Timmo Anderson's lecture last week).

[Whenurhappy]

Slight drift thread, however, I recently attended a briefing by a very senior, very erudite, FR-A officer, who outlined in some detail the assistance France gave to the UK during teh Falklands War, including very specific information on the Exocet missiles. This was in the context of France being a key European player, both in coalitions and (now) within NATO.France and the UK have a very similar strategic position, and putting aside cracks about our 'eternal enemy' (the French make the same joke, too), France should be our strategic partner of choice as we see the growing isolationism in the US - and the mid-Terms are demonstrating this.

[GlobalTravellerAT]

Rather more thread drift but I can't help get annoyed when I read about all these cuts in equipment and personnel only to then read in the same article how we are going to double our aid relief to countries like Somali, Pakistan and the Yemen. This doesn't seem right to me!!!!!

[Tilt&Gain]

Couldn't agree more GT - shouldn't we get our own house in order before trying to sort everyone else's?
I see the plan is to close Lossie and Kinloss at the expense of Leuchars - strange decision. One squadron of Typhoons and broken infrastructure vs 4 (OK, 2 after the cuts) squadrons of GR4s and a station that has had millions spent over the last few years. Discuss?

[Could be the last?]

The golf is better at Leuchars.........:ok:

[NURSE]

so harrier to go after expensive refit and tornado needing another expensive refit not exactly economically sensible!

[NURSE]

on the SF front if you cut the pool of talent available to recruit into our SF group won't the standard fall?

[Mike Oxbig]

I have to agree about the Foreign Aid budget. Surely charity begins at home? Unless it is all to do with 'international standing" or maybe the fact that we can claim foreign aid ourselves if things don't get better?

[Trim Stab]

on the SF front if you cut the pool of talent available to recruit into our SF group won't the standard fall?


That depends how you measure the standard. Pass rate on UKSF selection has become much higher over the past decade or so. Some argue that it has become "easier", but others argue that recruits are better prepared, and equipment is much better. Certainly, the training is now more relevant & better funded than ever before.

[Flyt3est]

I think yet again the key point has been overlooked.. The real underlying issue for me is the appalling way in which MoD procurement is implemented. This will make uncomfortable reading for many, but until Military procurement is carried out by professionals with vast commercial business to business experience, then the Forces will never be properly staffed and equipped. Put simply, the MoD have people in senior decision making positions be they serving officers or Civil servants, who simply have no clue in how to conduct an efficient and effective procurement lifecycle.. Jobs for the boys are costing us dearly. The Military think they are unique and that "Civvies would never understand our needs".. Wrong Popeye!

The Military are quick to criticize contracts like Future Lynx, or FSTA by saying they are over-priced and do not represent good value, and that the contractors are making millions in profits.. Well hello guys, if you allegedly knew all this, why the hell did you sign up to it? The truth is, you did not have the ability to spot the pitfalls, nor did you have the ability to negotiate a good position for yourselves. Defence contractors are not charities, if the Military are dumb enough to sign up to their terms, they will certainly take the money and laugh all the way to the bank.. but who are the fools??

[ORAC]

so harrier to go after expensive refit and tornado needing another expensive refit not exactly economically sensible! Then again, I doubt anyone would be interested in buying retired GR4s, but the GR7/9s could be an attractive proposition for anyone building an LPH class carrier for the first time and/or already operating Shars or Matadors....

[NURSE]

Alot of the procurment cock ups though do originate from services in poor project definition and specific made by officers making assumptions and not writing them into the specifications.
The procurment professional journal my partner gets is littered with MoD cockups mainly traced back to poor definition/specification.
But I do wonder how many professionally qualified procurement officers there are in the defence procurement system. Compared to imperial civil servants with ox/bridge degrees in classics etc!

[Willard Whyte]

Not sure about India, that does seem a bit peverse, but I suppose no harm keeping in bed with what could easily be the world second biggest economy in 30 odd years?

Perhaps we'll be able to reap the benefits of India's indigenous, $Bn+/annum, space program?

[NURSE]

ROFLMAO at representitive of Air League on BBC news channel!

"we should compare ourselves to Germany and Japan not the united states they don't have a nuclear weapon or aircraft carrier between them."

Chooses to forget reason why! they also don't have a seat on the UN security council their armed forces till recently couldn't operate outside the homeland.
if he wants us to compare ourselves to medium sized powers not USA , Russia or China then why not France?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

professionally qualified procurement officers


Because if one could get an NVQ in Defence Procurement and Spotting Evil Industry Lies from the University of East Sh1tforbrains, people so qualified would no doubt be perfect in every way.


Alot of the procurment


At least the Oxbridge Classics graduates could probably spell simple words & phrases...

[footster]

My thoughts go out to all you men and women in the services who once again are being sold down the river and expected to do highly skilled and brave work with inferior or substandard equipment. Thats the thanks you get for serving your country.

[Wassat Noyze]

As a member of the EU, does the UK get tax relief on 'Foreign Aid' :cool:

[NURSE]

totally agree footster the uniformed guys and girls deserve better from the suits allegedelly there to support them.

[Skeleton]

The leaping heap should have leapt the last time around. The fact some nation has a carrier and may want to buy them is a bonus.

[NURSE]

Well back to drawing board with St Athan

[spannermonkey]

Just a small point, if the Harrier is to be scrapped what happens to the 540 million paid to BAe for the life support of the aircraft, do they get to pay it back :}

As others have said, those still serving are going to suffer and this will be a whole lot worse than before. When you now add up the effects of the last 15 - 20 years things do not look good and I am thankful that there are still those willing to put up with numpty seniors, inept MP's, old and tired equipment, poor housing, crappy pay (compared to what you can earn), blah, blah blah.....

Good luck to us all, were gonna need it!

How long before the likes of the stalled ECA-Program actually become a reality and then end up taking on a more 'active' role and the Air Force can no longer carry out its own role.

To sum it up in the words of the Messenger addressing King Leonidas:

This is madness:}:}:}:}:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[dead_pan]

Are we really spending all that money on an aircraft carrier only to have it serve for three years and for it only to be used as a glorified platform for heli ops?? Sounds to me like the navy brass wanted these ships come what may, and regardless of the actual capability they deliver and the impact of their procurement on the surface fleet as a whole.

The 'thinking' behind this review appears to be terribly muddled.

PS Any mention re the Puma fleet?

[Pontius Navigator]

SM, money spent is money gone.

As Cottesmore was already going to close, another 'advantage' in disbanding the Harrier force is the saving in rebasing them at Wittering and building a new mess there.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Any mention re the Puma fleet?

Surely it will be put to bed...can you imagine getting rid of the only FJ which can operate off carriers, keeping the only helo which can't go to sea, while having a carrier which can only operate helicopters...not that maritime ops is the be-all-and-end-all, but that's just one argument against the Puma.

[Flyt3est]

Torque,

Because if one could get an NVQ in Defence Procurement and Spotting Evil Industry Lies from the University of East Sh1tforbrains, people so qualified would no doubt be perfect in every way.


I'll rise above your infantile twaddle and refer you to an earlier post from NURSE in which she hits the nail on the head.. In many cases, the problems stem from assumptions made by those defining the specifications which are not promulgated to the procurement authority.. If you seriously think (As your post suggests in spirit, if not actual word) that Defence contractors should be part of team Military and bend over backwards to make up for the MoD's skillset shortfalls, say, by not maximising an opportunity, then my old chum, you are misguided.

Now I am not suggesting perfection (If I may address your "response" specifically) however the process of procurement is a serious failing in the Military and until that situation is recognised and addressed, then the arguments over value, cutbacks and in appropriate solutions will rage on.

PS.. I am ex-Mil myself. I sympathize and identify with the issues.:ok:

[Sgt.Slabber]

"DEFENCE CUTS:

Plans for a £14bn defence training programme centred on a training college in South Wales are scrapped by the MoD"

No details yet - just on the ticker @ 12.05 - BBC News - Home (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/)

For once, the BBC has it right: "Defence Cuts".

[Postman Plod]

and these are just the cuts that are to affect Defence. What of all the other cuts to come this week??

Why is it the population are the ones being shafted, rather than the bankers who are still raking in billions for their companies, and making massive bonuses? We've bailed them out, so where is the return on our investment?? Oh thats right, going into the bankers pockets in the form of profits and bonuses.

[ORAC]

Details ref St Athan: Termination of the Defence Training Review (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/TerminationOfTheDefenceTrainingReview.htm)

The termination of the Defence Training Rationalisation (DTR) project and the Metrix Consortium's appointment as preferred bidder has been announced by Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox today, 19 October 2010.

The DTR project intended to combine the technical and engineering training for the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force on a single site at St Athan in South Wales. In a written ministerial statement to Parliament today, Dr Fox said:

"The Metrix Consortium was appointed as preferred bidder in January 2007 subject to it developing an affordable and value for money contract proposal.

"Given the significance of this project and the opportunity to provide a world-class training facility, the Ministry of Defence has worked tirelessly to deliver this project.

"However, it is now clear that Metrix cannot deliver an affordable, commercially-robust proposal within the prescribed period and it has therefore been necessary to terminate the DTR procurement and Metrix's appointment as preferred bidder.

"Technical training, collocated on as few sites as possible, remains in our view the best solution for our Armed Forces. Equally, St Athan was previously chosen as the best location on which to collocate that training for good reasons, and we still hope to base our future defence training solution there.

"We will however now carry out some work before finalising the best way ahead; including to confirm both our training and estates requirement, and the best way to structure the solution that will meet them.

"To ensure momentum is not lost, work on the alternative options will begin as soon as possible and we hope to be able to announce our future plans in the spring."

Training will continue to be delivered at current training locations as it would have done under the original PFI (Private Finance Initiative) proposal. These sites are: Arborfield, Blandford, Bordon, Cosford, Cranwell, Digby, Fareham (Collingwood), Gosport (Sultan) and St Athan.

[romeo bravo]

PN - money spent is money gone; not quite true, contracts with BAEs and Rolls Royce for airframe and engines were out to 2018, the OSD for Harrier.

What would be interesting reading is how much we, as taxpayers, have got to now pay out to these companies in the form of compensation for breaking the contracts, because it will be down to the taxpayer to pick up the bill.

As for the move from Cottesmore to Wittering, Cottesmore was/is going to close as a flying station, yes;in fact a satelitte of Wittering from 01 Apr 11. Wittering's building plans for Cottesmore personnel moving in have already started; SLAM buildings, new JRM, new WO/Sgt Mess all progressing well. Contracts for all these would have already been signed; yet more compensation claims against the MOD.

[Jollygreengiant64]

Surely by increasing the money in the RAF and Navy's pockets instead of this foreign aid money, the forces would be able to drop food supplies and whatnot directly to the people who need it. Rather than the whole 'piss it down the drain' currently employed.

[Sgt.Slabber]

Jolly, this the sort of thing you are referring to?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/10/11/AW_10_11_2010_p30-259987.xml&headline=India Nears Fielding Of New SAM Systems

Nice to know that the "ring-fenced" billion or so "we" give to india each year is being put to good use!

[Flying Icecream]

As I have already said ....sorry,postulated (!) on this subject (Carriers,defence cuts ) elsewhere on this site today ; don't believe everything that you read in the newspapers !!
I would suggest that there exists a strong possibility that a senior Royal Naval officer, maybe even from the Royal Marines,has but recently left these shores for The Americas with the object of negotiating for the purchase of a number of FA-18 Super Hornets,to be operated (eventually) from the two new CVAs ,the names of which I DO hope will be changed ( Sorry,Your Majesty / Your Highness , but your names / titles are too long !...something snappy like "Eagle" or "Ark" would be better !)
I would imagine,therefore,that BOTH vessels would be configured with arrestor wires and catapults ; EMALS would be logical, as the ships' propulsion systems will result in the availability of VAST amounts of electricity from gas-turbo and Diesel ICE generators. Auxiliary steam plants have their weaknesses, as per the "Graf Von Spee" !!
As to the operation of 1 CVA as purely a LPH is ludicrous,when one considers that HMS Ocean is a "commercial" design ,sister ships of which could be "knocked up in no time " by any half-decent shipbuilder in the event of a sudden need for such vessels ; the amount of money wasted on the seemingly ENDLESS modifications to HMS Hermes whilst MOD vacillated between designating her either a CVA or a LPH was nothing short of OBSCENE !! We must not let this happen again !
So I guess some lucky, near-future FAA pilots will be spending a year or two across the Pond, MADDL-ing and DLP-ing with the USN, before returning home and buying a house in rural Somerset !! But that's only a supposition,of course !!

[footster]

As i see it if you cant sort out your own country ie giving the men and women of the armed forces the correct and most up to date equipment to protect you and not cut backs and asking more from them how can you sort the worlds problems out. We spend far too much on foreign aid and because of this our own country and defences and those who serve suffer. They have been shafted yet again it is Totally unjust and a disgrace in my eyes.

[Flyt3est]

Postman Plod

Why is it the population are the ones being shafted, rather than the bankers who are still raking in billions for their companies, and making massive bonuses?

:D:D

Now THERE is an uncomfortable question Mr Cameron.. :ok:

[SRENNAPS]

When David Cameron makes his speech at 1530 this afternoon I bet he will start with words along the lines of…”…due to the gross incompetence of the last Labour Government and the 3.3 billion black hole that they left in the Defence Budget, it’s all their fault that we have to make these deep and painful cuts to the Armed Forces…..”
And then he will go on to praise the role of the Armed Forces and the value of them, their commitment and dedication and bla, bla, bla.

And that it: that statement will allow him to get away with it!!!!!!!!

In my opinion at least the last Government was spending money on Defence to make up for the shortfalls created by themselves and cuts that took place well before the Labour Government was elected to power in 1997. The country has become broke, not because of a Labour Government Policy, but because of a meltdown in the free market Banking Sector. That is why every country in the western world is going through this pain. But at the end of the day, money was still being spent on the Armed Forces by the previous Government. I don’t think that can be said now.

Blaming the last Government is in the same principle as blaming Winston Churchill for the fact that the country was broke at the end of the Second World War!!!! (Slight exaggeration I know, but it is the same principle on a much smaller scale).

And let’s face it, if wasn’t for the support reported in the press and even comments made by Hilary Clinton (just how low have we become) the cuts would have been harder and deeper. In the words of Ricky Tomlinson “Personal Intervention by David Cameron, My Ar$$e” This Government finally backed down on deeper cuts because of immense pressure and the bad PR that would have come following ruthless cuts and not because of any other reason.

To cut the Armed Forces to this extent, while we are fighting a war and with the world in such an un-stable situation because of so many political failures is not just bloody stupid it is criminally insane.

Forgets your aircraft, boats and tanks, your carriers, trident and all the other spectacular projects. The real people about to hurt with this Defence Review will be the boots on the ground – pilots, gunners, infantry, paras, engineers, cooks, plods, blunties and everybody else that do the real work, including a lot of civilians.

And the only way for the Armed Forces to ever recover from this will be to have a bloody big, and I mean big, war! Tell you what they would find the money then!

Sorry, I will get down now.

[Sgt.Slabber]

SRENNAPS,

No need to get down, I think. Well said...

As to the GBP 3.3 billion black hole; what happened to the GBP 36 billion version? Cameron, Osborne, et al, just like the ZaNu Labia lot before, are making these numbers up as they go along...

[TBM-Legend]

ah well, bring in the receivers...:ouch:

the pollies [in fishnet stockings] and their pubic service minders need to be keel hauled...

[greenhaven]

...and there goes the MRA4..:ugh:

[Air ops]

Cutting defence budgets when we are most likely for a terrorist attack?
Nice work Cameron.

[aviate1138]

If this coalition has scrapped our defences and left funding for almost useless renewables in place then I might have to stamp my feet quite vigorously and wave a placard or two!

[Toddington Ted]

"The termination of the Defence Training Rationalisation (DTR) project and the Metrix Consortium's appointment as preferred bidder has been announced by Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox today, 19 October 2010."
So it's not all bad news then?!:ok:
Spent my last tour in the Service as a poc between an outstation of the DCAE and this monster; it became clearer to me as time progressed that it was going to be too expensive in the emerging climate of public spending runaway and would not be able to deliver the military contextualisation needed. Now that I'm a Civil Servant (insert filthy/hard working/loyal/muddled as appropriate) I'm rather relieved just to know what the future holds until "the Spring." DTR would have given us a shiny new home, but how many such projects actually end up looking like the architect's drawing?

[Saintsman]

One think that has not been mentioned is why are the things we need to buy so bloody expensive? If we could get them for a reasonable price, the cuts would be a lot less painful.

Why do we need to pay £20 for a washer to go on an aircraft? Does it have to come hermetically sealed in it's own box?

Do we really need everything to have a Mil Spec when an equivalent item works just as well as one designed for civil use but costs half the price?

Do we need to put things through an extensive Boscombe Down trial because 'thats what we've always done'?

Can we not specify what we want from the onset rather than changing our minds every few months and avoid scope creep?

We all have examples where we've said 'How Much?!' Lets address the things like the above and perhaps we'll find a new aircraft no longer costs £80M each and we might be able to afford the Armed Forces that we really need.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

If you seriously think...


I don't. I was simply taking issue with Nurse's rant about qualifications. My point - somewhat tangential to the thread, I admit - was that pinning all our hopes on halfwits with made-up qualifications which at first sight appear relevant, and automatically discounting anyone with an old-fashioned non-vocational degree, is unlikely to deliver the improvement in defence procurement which we all so desperately want and need.

[Postman Plod]

According to this:
BBC News - The UK's defence dilemma (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11567729)

we still have one of the bigger defence budgets in the world, are still spending in the region of 2.5% of our GDP, yet appear to have significantly less in terms of manpower AND equipment than comparable or even smaller nations?

and we're just cutting rather than sorting the actual problems out?!

[dc1968]

“If only ze Englunders had had eine SDR back in 1940 Ja?”

[NURSE]

No but people properley qualified to supervise procurement who know and understand the legalities and who can coach services into writing specifications that are air tight, comprehensive and logical could save both time and money.

and its not made up Qualifications my partner is a member having passed the exams and has worked in procurement in both Industry and Local Government on top of a degree in buissness studies

Home Page - The Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (http://www.cips.org/)

[airpolice]

Is this the same body of Professionals who entered into a contract for Aircraft Carriers where it would now cost more to pull out and get nothing than it would to actually buy the boats?

[NURSE]

Would say like most government departments most procurement officers are not CIPS qualified as there is no requirement to have the CIPS qualifications in Civil service just to pass the Civil service entry exam.

[tucumseh]

No but people properley qualified to supervise procurement who know and understand the legalities and who can coach services into writing specifications that are air tight, comprehensive and logical could save both time and money.

I used to do that. It was pre-requsite to being promoted into MoD(PE) as a civilian project manager. Bloody annoying having to coach someone who is 3 or 4 grades/ranks above you and who doesn't have to sign on every week for Family Income Supplement because he's paid 4 times as much! Nevertheless, the problem these days is that what was once a pre-requisite to getting into procurement, is now little more than an aspiration, if that, to the vast majority in DE&S.

Ask any of the old TTO grades what gave them most pride in their position. The fact they had to pass trade tests every year to maintain their grade and pay. Introduce that requirement into DE&S and watch most squirm.

[MRAF]

Has Hendon got space for a MRA4? Prob not and it will be getting a Harirer.
Perhaps Duxford will take one?

[ORAC]

STV: Strategic Defence Review statement: Live streaming (http://news.stv.tv/politics/203639-strategic-defence-review-statement-live-streaming/)

Watch live coverage from the House of Commons of the cuts to be made by Britain's armed forces.

[Pontius Navigator]

money was still being spent on the Armed Forces by the previous Government but often so late that the costs had gone up and it was money we hadn't got.

Dannatt said a couple of years ago that we had tanks and MLRS that we didn't need. Swiss Des was said to be furious when he found out about the Lynx in Germany that were stuff all use anywhere else.

Yes the MOD has been profligate with spending plans.

Creating Defence Training Estate as a centralised organisation that would save money didn't it just created a larger HQ and reduced the previous organisations not an inch.

[Stratofreighter]

How many Chinooks were going to be procured again?

[Pure Pursuit]

Nimrod & GR9 gone.

Could have been MUCH worse guys....

[RAFEngO74to09]

PM has just announced 12 new helicopters to be procured (presumably Chinook).

[Squirrel 41]

An additional 12, rather than 22.

S41

[ORAC]

In his statement the PM said that the carriers and the F-35C would be introduced at the same time, a late change of mind at the ridicule being experienced?

When talking about AT he mentioned the C-17 and A-400M, but the C-130J was conspicuous by it's absence.

[NURSE]

yes herc to be replaced by A400M

Puma II to continue

[StopStart]

Was long mooted that the C130J would go 10 years early as a sop to pay for the A400M. No particular surprise there.

[Norma Stitz]

Ah....60 Chinooks in total

[Charley]

And Puma refurb still on.

[Squirrel 41]

Cameron responding to Ed Milliband - Puma to be refurbished. Why?

[MRAF]

RIVET JOINT is mentioned on page 6 & 26 as a new capability.


Some good news.

[RAFEngO74to09]

SDSR announcement was streamed live on BBC News website. Headlines:

SSBN Vanguard fleet can be extended to 2028.

Both carriers to be built - one to go in extended readiness - operational carrier to be fitted with CATOBAR and CTOL F-35 to be procured (no qty announced).

RAF to be cut by 5,000 by 2015.

RN to be cut by 5,000 by 2015.

Army to be cut by 7,000 by 2015.

MOD Civilians to be cut by 25,000 by 2015.

12 x Chinooks to be procured.

Harrier GR9 to be retired.

Nimrod MRA4 cancelled.

SF to receive enhancements.

MBTs and artillery to be cut by 40% + total withdrawal from Germany.

Review of Reserves to be conducted by VCDS.

No real surprises - could have been much worse !

[airpolice]

ISK to close by Easter

[Pure Pursuit]

Ed Milliband had nothing to offer!

A few jibes at the fact that details were leaked into the press with no solid rebuke whatsoever.

In other words, he knows that these cuts fall firmly at the feet of the Labour party.

[MRAF]

ASTOR (Sentinel) to go after Afghan Op is finished - Page 27

[Postman Plod]

Page 27 of what?! Have you got a link?? The devil is in the detail, and we've had absolutely no detail!

[mick2088]

MRAF's right. The Sentinel will be binned after it has finished operating in Afghanistan. Confirmation that they will buy the Rivet Joint.

[NURSE]

National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/intelligence-security-resilience/national-security/strategic-defence-security-review.aspx)


Air transport fleet

7 C17
22 A400M
14 A330-FSTA

[Jumping_Jack]

Isn't the cut off for an 'Army' 100,000 personel? So I guess by 2015 we will be the proud owners of the British Defence Force. :{

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Confirmation that they will buy the Rivet Joint.

When this idea was first mooted a while ago, there was a fair amount of dissent from those who claimed to be in the know...

[NURSE]

will rivet joint be on a 707 platform? a converted sentry or an A330

[RAFEngO74to09]

In response to questions, PM announced that there would be no cuts to infantry. Cuts would be confined to divisional & regional HQs, logs & arty.

[Flarkey]

Isn't the cut off for an 'Army' 100,000 personel? So I guess by 2015 we will be the proud owners of the British Defence Force

an army is technically 3 deployable Divisions, so that went years ago!

[Norma Stitz]

RIVET JOINT is on a RC-135 platform....three ex KC-135 tankers are earmarked for conversion for the UK

[NURSE]

how cost effective is it refurbishing a KC135?

[Grabbers]

Have I missed it? Where are the 5000 RAF personnel going from?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Nurse,

I fully share your concerns - see this thread which petered out six months ago...

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/402072-adious-nimrod-r1-all-welcome-older-rivet-joint.html?highlight=Rivet+Joint+Nimrod+R1

[NURSE]

interesting the 12 new chinooks are being linked to the Army

[Postman Plod]

Through ignorance?

So whats the story with the Chinook? Are these new orders, or orders previously announced? Is this a reduction of previously announced orders? Does this cover the HC3?

[NURSE]

there wasn't an order for new chinooks!
there was an aspiration for 22 new chinooks but no contracts or funding allocated by the looks of it.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

The 22 new Chinooks were supposed to be funded from the savings made by introducing the SAR-H programme. Whether this actually works (especially if SAR-H goes ahead with no mil involvement) remains to be seen...

[RAFEngO74to09]

Grabbers asked where the cut of 5000 personnel would come from. A combination of cancellation of Nimrod MRA4, Kinloss not required as an RAF base, disbandment of the Harrier force, Cottesmore not required as an RAF base, ASTOR to be retired when no longer required in Afghanistan (2015 ? if you believe that) and presumably efficiencies in ATAR manning as new aircraft types phase in will all effect the total force numbers required. As always, manning will be controlled though a combination of adjusting retention and recruiting, and probably offers of redundancy.

The RAF has coped with much more draconian cuts before and will rise to the challenge again, although clearly the years ahead will be both difficult and disappointing to some. I once met a former Canberra sqn cdr in the 1980s who recounted how 150 of his fellow aircrew sqn ldrs discovered that their services were no longer required in their current role via a list of names posted on the Officers' Mess notice board ! Clearly many thousands more aircrew and groundcrew were affected by this bolt from the blue. Some will remember the times when the Canberra bomber variants (qty 100s), Belfast (qty 10), Britannia (qty 22) and Argosy (qty 56) fleets disappeared in very short order.

[appleavi8or]

Any news on these little gems?

I assume the Wildcat is going ahead as it would most likely have been mentioned in the PM's speech. Puma 2 seems to have had no mention either - I assume that gets the go-ahead despite rumours of only 12 before today?

Anyone in the know?

[Could be the last?]

The Defence Trg PFI at St Athan has been canx, will this see the demise of MFTS and SARH? I do hope so...............

[RAFEngO74to09]

appleavi8or
Wildcat is going ahead but no numbers mentioned (Page 25).
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf?CID=PDF&PLA=furl&CRE=sdsr

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

will this see the demise of MFTS and SARH?


Don't know about MFTS, but given that no mention was made of a mil SAR capability in the future, one might deduce that SAR-H will in fact go ahead but without any mil involvement, as has been mooted recently...pure speculation of course...


Puma 2 seems to have had no mention either


It did actually, in the Q&A session which followed the main announcement, and it's going ahead.

[LFFC]

Whilst the impact upon the military will be massive, I can't help but feel sorry for our civilian colleagues as well. To lose 25,000 personnel from a total of only 87,000 (http://www.armedforces.co.uk/mod/listings/l0013.html)is quite hideous!

:ouch:

[muttywhitedog]

Have I missed it? Where are the 5000 RAF personnel going from?

The "R" word was mentioned today in our briefing. It was acknowledged that 5000 personnel in 5 years could not be achieved through natural wastage alone.

[Jumping_Jack]

DIN on the subject today mentioned that a Redundancy Package would be announced 'Later today'.

[Cows getting bigger]

I'm missing something. I note more than the occasional throw-way line regarding new ISTAR capabilities (in all three sevices) but it seem a little vague. As for the Nimrod maritime capability being replaced by other assets...............

All the signs of a rush job.:ugh:

[Grabbers]

RAFEngO

Changes on this scale cannot be managed by the usual manning regulators. A redundancy scheme will be run for Service personnel and a paid early release scheme for civilians in accordance with the usual arrangements for such schemes, including - in the case of civilians - consultation with the Trade Unions.

The above taken from the MoD website. I wonder how attractive the redundancy package will be? Not expecting much if I'm honest. I'm also curious as to why the "...150 aircrew sqn ldrs" was highlighted. Are/were they more deserving than the rest?

[RAFEngO74to09]

Grabbers

The story was recounted to me by one of the sqn ldrs involved and I used it to illustrate the enormous scale of the cuts. He didn't mention how many other aircrew and groundcrew were involved but clearly it must have been in the many thousands. Prior to those cuts, RAF strength had been around 100,000, a figure almost unimaginable today.

[grandfer]

Re SAR-H , North Devon MP & Defence Minister Pr#*$k, no I mean Nick Harvey stated in the local rag , North Devon Journal , that the Chiv. SAR Flt could possibly re-locate to Exeter Airport when civilianized , also the Merlin could be used for SAR work ????
:ugh::ugh:

[green granite]

I know this will sound a bit silly, but, assuming a reasonably even amount of cut from each service, if only 3% is saved by culling 2 complete fleets of Aircraft what the heck is the other 97% spent on?

[Grabbers]

RAFEngO

All clear now. Wonder how the Govt will spin the, I anticipate paltry, redundancy package though. :{

[Hilife]

I note a references to Chinook, Merlin, Wildcat and Apache in the SDSR, but not Sea King. Does this infer that the MK4's are to go in 2012 as published and what about those in the SAR role?

[Cannonfodder]

JSP 764
PART 5
COMPENSATION FOR REDUNDANCY -
THE REGULAR ARMED FORCES



Chapter 4
ARMED FORCES REDUNDANCY SCHEME
1975-LEAVERS BETWEEN 6 APRIL 2010 –
31 MARCH 2013
This Chapter is reserved for new rules which are yet to be fully approved.

Oh dear...........:(

[NURSE]

interesting there is no mention of ownership of helecopters as some stuff mentioned under army so will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Wasn't the original plan for the RAF to Relinquish the Merlin force to the Navy when they got the new Chinooks? So with Puma staying and New Chinooks on order that may still be the plan we'll have to see

[Pontius Navigator]

Smacks of the Air Force withdrawing within itself. Maritime supports RN; RN wants CVS at the expense of Army/RAF; RAF cuts MPA. RAF also cuts GR9.

[NURSE]

all the talk of loss of experience on ship operations with withdrawal of harrier. Since we're going back to cat/trap aircraft isn't the Harrier skill set no very relevant?

[Blighter Pilot]

Carriers with no embarked Air Wing - what is the point?

How many Heli Assault/Amphib platforms could we have bought for the price of the 2 carriers?

No embarked air for a decade - lets hope Argentina aren't watching!

[Chris Kebab]

Could a rotary mate explain the logic behind the retention of the Puma upgrade? In the light of everything else it looks a rather strange decision.

Maybe helicopters are simply too sensitive:confused:

[NURSE]

no mention in the whole document on the Commando helicopter force or SAR replacement?

so could be some helicopter cuts hidden away

[NURSE]

Just this once can you show where your analysis of CHF comes from?

[LFFC]

The irony is that we're now looking at redundancies whilst Financial Retention Incentives are still being offered!

I wonder if the RN really need to offer FRIs to fast-jet pilots for an extra 5 years of service, when their next fast-jets are much further in the future than that?

[NURSE]

interesting as 3 commando brigade is spefically mentioned as being one of the high readyness units so your brief puts them reducing by the strength of a full Commando

[RumPunch]

Why are we keeping the E3? I am bemused after today but that one really suprised me. No offence to the guys who work on the E3 but do we need AWACS when the PM spouts of **** about getting rid of the cold war war thinking. :ugh:

[NURSE]

Yes E3 stays it would make more sense to loose 3 E3 airframes to be converted to Rivet Joint

[Sgt.Slabber]

Something else that appears to be "below the line":

Strategic Defence Review: school fees withdrawn from Army Families - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8073831/Strategic-Defence-Review-school-fees-withdrawn-from-Army-Families.html)


The review commits the Ministry of Defence to saving £300 million-a-year from allowances to servicemen and women and civilian staff.

Sources suggested that this would result in significant cuts to the Continuity of Education Allowance, under which children from Forces families can attend independent schools.
Last year, the MoD spent £172.8 million on the allowance, which was claimed by around 6,000 service personnel.
Although some Labour MPs describe the fund as an officers’ perk, the scheme is in fact available to levels of the Armed Forces. Last year nearly 2,500 claimants were below officer ranks.
The allowance enables allows youngsters to remain at the same school in the United Kingdom while their forces parents are being sent to different postings around the world.
A small number of civilian workers employed by the Ministry of Defence are also able to claim the money when they are posted overseas, at a cost to the taxpayer of around £1 million a year.
General Sir Richard Dannatt, the former Chief of the General Staff, has spoken in the past of his support for the scheme.
He said: “The freedom of choice and stability in the formative years of our children that this scheme offers are essential to the wellbeing of our Armed Forces.”

[Mick Smith]

I'm afraid this has been a dreadful example of individual services thinking of themselves and stuff the overall package, with the RAF as much of a villain as the other two services. Until the last moment, the Tornados were going to be withdrawn over the next five years, and then the RAF jumps in and insists it has to keep some, so the RN's Harriers have to go, leaving no aircraft to fly from the carriers. The decision to get rid of Sentinel and keep AWACs also looks like a duff idea. If a fleet had to go it should have been Tornado not Harrier. That at least would have provided a balanced overall package.

[sturb199]

If a fleet had to go it should have been Tornado not Harrier

There was no Harrier fleet left, or at least not one that could sustain any operation (Afghan)!!

[Sky Sports]

As an ex-mil and now a local civvie who has an interest in the base, I was wondering when a decision on the future of RAF Wittering is likely. When are we likely to find out if is staying RAF, switching to Army or closing?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Why are we keeping the E3?


Couldn't agree more - keep Nimrod, bin E-3, put Nimrods into Waddington with other ISTAR assets...never mind eh!

[RumPunch]

From what everyone says the Tornado Fleet was on its last legs anyway, why stretch more out of something thats due to be scrapped soon. Same with Puma extend it after a quick refit. I know we require choppers but in 5 years time at the next conflict we will be relying on something dropping ordanance on targets to make way for our 100,000 Army troops to march in and join us for tea & medals.

[Junglydaz]

"The Merlin force will be upgraded to enhance its ability to support amphibious operations."

This was to happen anyway with the transfer to CHF. It doesn't mention that the MK3 Merlin will be retained by the RAF.

[Ali Barber]

Where will the ships come from to provide the amphibious operations, or are we only covering the Dover - Calais route?

[sturb199]

From what everyone says the Tornado Fleet was on its last legs anyway

I wouldnt say its on its last legs, although it will be very hard to keep it on until it original out of service date of 2020 ish. From what I understood the Harrier was broken due to it been made from composite and been overflown on ops. The Tornado like the MR2 it well over built which has allowed it to be extended well beyond its design flying hour life of 4000 hrs.

[RumPunch]

Cheers Sturb, Im glad of that , Good old British design built to last. If thats the case then its probably good we have the Tornado GR as the Typhoon is not fully capable of much yet.

[Lima Juliet]

Good old British design built to last

Are you on drugs!

"The Tornado IDS is the baseline model that resulted from a 1968 feasibility study undertaken by the Belgian, British, Canadian, Dutch, Italian and West German governments for an advanced warplane to be designed, developed and built as collaborative venture with the object of providing the air forces of the partner nations with a STOL warplane able to undertake the close air support, battlefield interdiction, long-range interdiction, counter-air attack, air-superiority, interception and air defence, reconnaissance and naval strike roles.

Belgium and Canada withdrew at an early date, being followed by the Netherlands at a later date; this left Italy, the UK and West Germany to persevere with project definition from May 1969 and development from July 1970. The resulting MRCA- 75 (Multi-Role Combat Aircraft for 1975) was designed as a high-performance type with a fly-by-wire control system and advanced avionics for extremely accurate navigation and safe flight at supersonic speeds and very low levels in all weathers, this being deemed the only way to ensure pinpoint day/night first-pass attacks with a heavy (and highly diverse) warload against a variety of well defended targets. Design and development of the MRCA-75 was entrusted to Panavia, which was created in 1969 as a joint venture by Aeritalia (now Alenia), BAC (now BAe) and MBB (now DASA), while the parallel engine consortium was created as Turbo-Union by Fiat, MTU and Rolls-Royce. The two main subcontractors were IWKA-Mauser for the cannon and Elliott for the electronics, and government control was provided by the NAMMA organization established in 1970 to supervise each country's contribution, which was fixed at 42.5% each by the UK and West Germany, and 15% by Italy.

[sturb199]

Leon Jabachjabicz

Not sure if your are saying it was not built to last or its not a 'good old British design'. I would agree that it was a multi national design, but it was built to last thats for sure.

[Willard Whyte]

Are you on drugs!

"The Tornado IDS is the baseline model that resulted from a 1968 feasibility study undertaken by the Belgian, British, Canadian, Dutch, Italian and West German governments for an advanced warplane to be designed, developed and built as collaborative venture with the object of providing the air forces of the partner nations with a STOL warplane able to undertake the close air support, battlefield interdiction, long-range interdiction, counter-air attack, air-superiority, interception and air defence, reconnaissance and naval strike roles.

Belgium and Canada withdrew at an early date, being followed by the Netherlands at a later date; this left Italy, the UK and West Germany to persevere with project definition from May 1969 and development from July 1970. The resulting MRCA- 75 (Multi-Role Combat Aircraft for 1975) was designed as a high-performance type with a fly-by-wire control system and advanced avionics for extremely accurate navigation and safe flight at supersonic speeds and very low levels in all weathers, this being deemed the only way to ensure pinpoint day/night first-pass attacks with a heavy (and highly diverse) warload against a variety of well defended targets. Design and development of the MRCA-75 was entrusted to Panavia, which was created in 1969 as a joint venture by Aeritalia (now Alenia), BAC (now BAe) and MBB (now DASA), while the parallel engine consortium was created as Turbo-Union by Fiat, MTU and Rolls-Royce. The two main subcontractors were IWKA-Mauser for the cannon and Elliott for the electronics, and government control was provided by the NAMMA organization established in 1970 to supervise each country's contribution, which was fixed at 42.5% each by the UK and West Germany, and 15% by Italy.

I think you may be taking a light hearted and throwaway comment a bit too seriously.

Feelings are running high tonight, it's time for everyone to calm the **** down methinks!

[Pontius Navigator]

Couldn't agree more - keep Nimrod, bin E-3, put Nimrods into Waddington with other ISTAR assets...never mind eh!

As the E3 is part of NAWF I wonder if that has anything to do with it?
NATO AWACS - Organization Chart (http://www.e3a.nato.int/html/organizations.htm)

[Lima Juliet]

Sturb199

The ones I flew for 1,800hrs+ certainly weren't built to last - that's why there was a fatigue index issue!

LJ :ok:

[4321]

Having now had a chance to look through the full paper the following leapt out:
2.D.5



efficiencies and improvements in military training, including the increased use of simulators for air-crew

cutting over £300 million per year by 2014/15 of service and civilian personnel allowances
Less flying hours and less allowances. I wonder which ones will get the chop!

[rjtjrt]

"It could have been worse".
Spin mechants win when we feel thus.
The spin slime, leak the stuff over a few weeks so we all get accustomed, the anger dissipates, so when the poli gets up the worst of the anger has blown over.
Poli uses weasel words such as "paradigm" and "moving forward" and escape relatively unscathed, replete in the knowledge that at least they will be OK with their retirement benefits.

[RumPunch]

I am fuelled with drink tonight but lets Strike ,I am praying tonight the people that made decisions will regret the biggest blunder in the nations history, tommorow they will get away with it as public anger will take over. :D

[gunbus]

RUMPUNCH

Too bloody right,had a few myself,how to go about it? people have short memories,70 yrs is in the ice age to them,thanks to the commie teachers of the 60&70s.

[XV277]

Sentinel seems slightly strange - another £1b down the drain along with with the £3.5b on Nimrod

[RumPunch]

Are you on drugs!

You are a cock

[fincastle84]

Bloody sorry mate, it's a total stitch up.

Hope your hangover isn't too bad this morning & that light will eventually emerge in the long tunnel ahead.

Spock

[Jabba_TG12]

With regard to the NAEWF & E3 question, I was recently informed that 5 of the 8 were bought with NATO money anyway in the first place under the 75%-25% type of deal that NATO is well known for.

And there was me thinking for years that Maggie had taken a tough decision, kicked Nimwacs into the weeds and bought the right platform out of our own cash, outright.

I think my words, when I found this out were along the lines of:

"What? ....The.... crafty.... b:mad:ds....."

So, we cant bin it, so long as NATO says that it is MMR. And, they're not likely to change that. Not for the foreseeable anyway.

[Grimweasel]

Why, as an Island nation, are we ditching the ASW capability from the RAF?? This sends a clear message to any would be foe, that you can creep up on the UK to within Merlin range (not far) and launch a missile attack on the UK? Why is the MR4A capability being lost? The Russians must be rubbing their hands with glee?? Are we intending to purchase Orions downstream??

[George Zipper]

Our country is a mess. Literally a mess. If you told me we had to raise taxes to fund a defence programme, I genuinely would support the initiative. I guess I'm in a minority.

In reality we are raising taxes and cutting budgets to fund unemployable work-shy slobs living in ghettos, because sorting out our social welfare system falls into the 'too-hard' category and will lose votes.

[Saintsman]

What's going to happen to the aircraft taken out of service? Are they really going to be scrapped - taken down the breakers yard?, sold? or put into storage?

Some have seen better days but MRA4 is 'new' and Sentinal is nearly new. Come five years time when the next defence review is carried out, these assets might be required again. If we had to build from new, we wouldn't really want to wait another 10 years for resurected Nimrod. Even buying something from the US is going to take time. Refurbishing from storage would seem to be a cheaper and quicker option (and it's not as if we'll have no where to keep them :hmm:).

[sturb199]

Leon Jabachjabicz
The ones I flew for 1,800hrs+ certainly weren't built to last - that's why there was a fatigue index issue!

Mm well the ones I have put in 19000 maintenance hours on, are built like brick privvys and whilst they may have had some fatigue issues on the F3 fleet the GR fleet is still marching along.

[NURSE]

Any idea when the specfics will be comming out?

[Trim Stab]

Any idea when the specfics will be comming out?


And when does this come into effect? Have, for example, the Harriers stopped flying immediately?

[Chippyfan]

Does anyone know if there is any truth in this?
British Military Aviation Lists-- B.M.A.L News (http://www.bmal.org.uk/news.htm)

[27mm]

Interesting reading, but judging by the number of typos and spelling mistakes, not credible....

[Willard Whyte]

We were briefed yesterday that Harriers would be grounded by April next year, which fits with the date in CF's link

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Jabba,

Thanks for the explanation ref E-3s.

What would happen if we simply said "We can't afford to run them any more, have the airframes, game over"? They're not going to kick us out of NATO over it, are they?

[Jabba_TG12]

TOTD:

Nah, they wouldnt do that.

Where do you think the UK funding comes from to run them? They're a NATO asset, despite wearing a pink and blue roundel. This is what I meant. We bought three out of the 8, NATO paid for the rest.

There is so much smoke and mirrors that you wouldnt believe it, you really wouldnt.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Jabba,

You're right, especially about the smoke and mirrors - what worries me is that if they haven't done the sums right, there may be further cuts needed to achieve the required savings. I wonder how much worse it may get...

TOTD

[PPRuNeUser0139]

With regard to the NAEWF & E3 question, I was recently informed that 5 of the 8 were bought with NATO money anyway in the first place under the 75%-25% type of deal that NATO is well known for.

If I were you, I'd take your claim that the UK E-3s were part-funded by NATO with an extremely large pinch of salt. The UK paid for its E-3Ds and does not contribute to the NAEW O&S budget - the UK's contribution is "in kind".
That's apart from the fact we only bought 7.
sv

[Talk Split]

Read the RN and JHC briefing note if you need to.

Merlin will go to CHF despite CAS's cheap shot.

[Biggus]

I offer this perspective to anyone seeking solid/specific answers to detailed SDSR questions.....

The decision making process is simple....

The medium level boys (Wg Cdr and Sqn Ldr) write/research lots of papers on options, e.g. not introducing MRA4, which include cost and capability implications.

The big boys (3/4* and politicians) sit in a room and decide which options to impliment - BUT THEY DON'T TELL ANYONE FURTHER DOWN THE CHAIN WHAT THOSE DECISIONS ARE, IN CASE IT LEAKS BEFORE THE MINISTER/PM GETS TO ANNOUNCE IT TO PARLIAMENT/THE MEDIA.

About 30 minutes before the briefing by the Minister/PM the players in the system (e.g. Stn Cdr ISK, RAF Manning) open their sealed envelopes and read the contents, before saying.."oh my god".

So all the people who sort out the detail, RAF Manning, Stn Cdrs, Sqn Cdrs have no time to do any prior preparation, and will spend the next 2 months playing catch up.....

Ask all the questions you want, just don't expect any solid answers for quite a while yet, they have not been worked out so far!! :ugh:



That is how I see the situation based on previous recent experience, I do not work in a Gp HQ or MOD.... Standing by to be contradicted.

[dead_pan]

View from across the pond, courtesy of the streetwiseprofessor


This was all brought home this afternoon when watching a show on the rise of the Royal Navy (an episode on Sir Francis Drake, the Armada, etc.) and then, in jarring juxtaposition, reading an article on the gutting of that self-same Royal Navy (http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=asWaFrjDohCQ) (already a shadow of its former self, as my visit to Portsmouth this June made painfully clear.) Deeming it impossible to afford both a carrier and the planes to fly off it, the Cameron government went with the carrier, axed its Harrier force, and announced plans to operate the carriers as helo ships for 8-10 years before buying F-35s. I would bet (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6007311&noquote=1#) dimes to donuts that in 10 years, that purchase decision will be kicked down the road like a rusty can. (An appropriate metaphor, alas, for the “modern” British navy.) The whole decision is an absurdity, a political compromise completely unhinged from any strategic concept.

I’ve often said that the UK is like the Ghost of Christmas Future, giving us a glimpse of what the future holds if we continue down the path we are on now. That’s true of economic policy, social policy, and foreign/military policy. The absurdity of a carrier with no planes should serve to concentrate American minds today on what years of neglect will do.
But it’s even worse than that. When asked: if not Britain, who?, post-1945 the answer was obvious–the US. If you ask today: If not the US, who? the only answer is silence. The silence of a vacuum that will be filled by . . .

[Norma Stitz]

A very wishy-washy official statement from the US DoD:

Statement by Press Secretary Geoff Morrell on the U.K. Strategic Defense and Security Review
<http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13986>


Presumably it's a brave person who points out that with F-35B now being developed purely for the US Marine Corps to replace their AV-8Bs, they're more than likely going to end up with no 'fast air' for their Amphibious Ready Groups in the future. Welcome to the club!

[NutLoose]

HMS Prince of Wales............ Rather apt isn't it, full of worldly dreams but f all up top..

[Neil Porter]

Wouldn't it be wise to rather than scrap HMS Ark Royal immedietly as such, to mothball it, so (god forbid) in times of need it is 'on hand' to bolster the Navy, or if the other carrier goes 'tech', Ark Royal can take its place?

Personally i think getting rid of the Harriers or rather a carrier with no Harriers on it is absurd,hyperthetically would it cost a collosal amount to maintain a sqn of Harriers for useage on the 'existing' carrier still so it contains some kind of firepower to defend itself at least aswell as supporting missions where needed until the advent of the JSF etc (my view again is why not buy the cheaper F18)??

My grandfather (was in the Navy) would be turning in his grave to see how the forces and in particular the Navy is now a shadow of its former self. I can understand cuts if its essential but it kinda takes the p*ss really. Only my pennies worth & apologise if this kind of reply has been posted already.

[USasBRIEFED]

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats, and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved". Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross". The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940, when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance". The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards". They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender". The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing". Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides".

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs". They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose".

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Americans meanwhile, and as usual, are carrying out pre-emptive strikes on all of their allies "just in case".

Canada doesn't have any alert levels.

New Zealand has raised its security levels - from "baaa" to "BAAAA". Due to continuing defense cutbacks, New Zealand has only one more level of escalation, which is "I hope Australia will come and rescue us".

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, mate". Three more escalation levels remain: "Crikey!",

"I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is cancelled". So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

[LFFC]

Defence cuts: The Royal Navy’s decision to bet its future on aircraft carriers could be a gamble too far (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8083464/PIC-AND-PUBLISH-Defence-cuts-The-Royal-Navys-decision-to-bet-its-future-on-aircraft-carriers-could-be-a-gamble-too-far.html)


The defence review was expected to shred the RAF. But in the end, it was perhaps the Navy that came out worst, suffering proportionately the greatest cuts in personnel — 14 per cent — of any of the three Services. It is tempting to see the shrinking of the Fleet, and Ark Royal’s fate in particular, as metaphors for Britain’s military decline. But in fact, the reason why the Navy may be in trouble is not because it’s losing old aircraft carriers — but because it’s getting two new ones.

“The Navy have bet a good part of the farm on a new carrier capability that isn’t guaranteed to happen,” said Tim Ripley, an analyst with Jane’s Information Group. “They have effectively given up their carrier strike capability now in return for an IOU of carrier strike in the future.”

[LFFC]

Spending Review 2010: Military chiefs fight cut backs to private education for children (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/spending-review/8099987/Spending-Review-2010-Military-chiefs-fight-cut-backs-to-private-education-for-children.html) - Telegraph, 2:14PM GMT 31 Oct 2010


The top brass in the Army, Royal Air Force and Navy are said to have “pulled out all the stops” to keep the allowance, which can be worth £17,000 per child per year.


Reports this weekend indicated that the Ministry of Defence and Treasury had caved in to the lobbying, although this was denied by senior Ministry of Defence sources.

[ORAC]

Hints as to the replacement plans for the GR4 force with F-35C, and how the numbers will be determined...

DOD Buzz: Drones to Influence U.K. F-35C Buy (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/11/01/drones-to-influence-u-k-f-35c-buy/)

The development of next generation combat UAVs along with the health of the Royal Air Force’s current fighter fleet will be key factors in determining how many F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters the United Kingdom buys in the coming years, a senior British defense official said today.

“We know the number of F-35s we need” for a carrier air wing but have yet to decide on how many ground based JSFs are needed to perform “deep and persistent” missions, Gen. Nicholas Houghton, vice chief of the British defense staff said during a presentation in Washington sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

To this end, British officials will weigh progress made in fielding unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) in the next five years against the service lives of the island nation’s fleet of existing fighters when determining Britain’s F-35 buy. These questions will ultimately be answered when the U.K. conducts its next strategic defense revue in 2015, according to the general.

The Royal Air Force plans to eventually operate fly a fleet of Eurofighter Typhoons and F-35s. The Typhoon is already replacing the RAF’s F3 air superiority-variant Tornadoes while the GR4 ground attack variant will eventually be replaced by F-35s.

Meanwhile, a desire for increased range, payload and interoperability with the United States and French navies combined with concerns about rising costs led to last month’s decision by the United Kingdom to swap its planned buy of 138 short take-off and vertical landing F-35B-model JSFs for an unspecified number of F-35C carrier variants, Houghton said.

The desire to keep costs down and get more performance out of U.K. F-35s combined with the fact that British naval aviators could be training for carrier operations on U.S. and French aircraft carriers for the next decade “played into the discussion and ultimately the decision” by London to trade JSF variants, Houghton said.

All of this comes amid reports (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/pentagons-favorite-jet-delayed-as-costs-rise-yet-again/)that the beleaguered fighter program may need as much as $2.5 to $5 billion in additional funding and will face several years worth of delays, with the B-version of the plane slipping by as much as three years.

[Squirrel 41]

Meanwhile, more good news.

Pentagon Said to See Higher F-35 Costs, More Delays - BusinessWeek (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-01/pentagon-said-to-see-higher-f-35-costs-more-delays.html)

Interesting IF true on Dave-B delays - harder than ever to see why Dave-B should survive.

S41

[ORAC]

:ooh::ooh::ooh:

Vice Chief: U.K. F-35 Switch Based on 3 Factors (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4996597&c=EUR&s=TOP)

The United Kingdom's vice defense chief said Nov. 1 that the decision to buy the carrier-based version of the F-35 fighter instead of the vertical-launched variant was primarily based on the cost of the former and better capabilities for the latter.

Calling the move from the F-35B to the C model a difficult one, U.K. Gen. Sir Nicholas Houghton said officials determined the price of the vertical-takeoff-and-landing variant would be too high, especially given his nation's dire fiscal situation.What's more, the U.K. vice defense chief told reporters in Washington before a speech that officials also determined the nation would need the greater "range and payload" planned for the carrier variant.

He also said U.K. defense officials also decided that since key allies like France were slated to buy the carrier variant, following suit would make sense to foster interoperability. To this end, the nation's recently completed strategic defense review states the British military will carry out most future missions and tasks "with alliances and coalitions," Houghton said during his speech.

Going with the carrier variant and Typhoon fighter as the near- and medium-term fleet will allow the U.K. military to transition down the road to upgraded F-35s and possibly unmanned combat aircraft, he said.

That nation's new coalition government used that defense review to announce a list of force structure cuts and budget-cutting moves, including the F-35 change.

Houghton said he feels the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) came out of the review in good shape, despite the nation's far-reaching efforts to bolster its economic outlook. While other U.K. government agencies took big budget hits, he noted the coalition government still plans to spend just over 2 percent annually on defense.

The review, he said, underscores Britian's longtime security relationship with Washington, while setting in motion a "sensible and mature" plan to ramp up military cooperation with France.

He justified the move to this new cross-channel relationship because the U.K. and French militaries are the two "most capable in Europe."

The new defense review sets in motion the development of a British force that will help the U.K. remain Washington's "most capable" ally.

Houghton did offer a caveat, saying America must understand that British officials will not "misuse" their nation's military power, and will use a rigorous process to ensure any such use is "legal." During his session with reporters and during his speech, Houghton several times noted the British public, after the Iraq and Afghanistan experiences, is collectively reluctant to deploy its military.
He made numerous mentions of future missions largely being ones to combat terrorist groups, carry out stability operations, or prevent/contain conflicts.

So is the U.K. pulling back from the global stage? Houghton said U.K. officials plan for the nation to remain a "significant player" armed with the ability to "project power globally."

The vice chief told reporters he does not anticipate another round of hardware cuts "in the immediate coming years." That, however, is directly linked to how the nation deals with its dire fiscal picture, he noted.

Meantime, in an eyebrow-raising remark to reporters, Houghton said if the Pentagon picks an Airbus-made aerial tanker over a Boeing plane, "that would be a good thing." He said such a move would be a marker of "good faith" between Washington and Europe; "it would make commercial sense"; and would foster interoperability between the U.S. military and other allied nations that operate or are buying the Airbus A330 tanker, including the U.K.