3rd rate force?

[green granite]

In an article today, the Sunday Times says that we will shortly have less attack aircraft than Sweden, 120 as opposed to 121 in Sweden. It goes onto suggest that with so few pilots now needed for fast jets it would be cheaper to train them at the NATO facility in the States and then shut Valley saving even more money, it notes that the SAR training unit there is due to close shortly.

US 3150
China 3000
Russia 2180
India 600
France 300
Italy 227
Spain 140
Sweden 121
UK 120
Belgium 72

Cant link you to the article as it's subscription only.

[cazatou]

GG

The Swedes also use their motorways as runways with purpose built turnround sites that look like rest areas. Landed at one a couple of times in 1969.

[Jimlad1]

A more sensible comparison would be to look at front line strength in service, and also whether they can be deployed or not. You can make up anything with statistics, and it looks like the Sunday Times has ignored the Typhoon in its calculations, which adds another 140, to take us up to 260, or just above Italy.

I'd be dubious about the article anyway as it lists 72 F16s in 2005 for Belgium, but thats the entire fleet strength (which according to Wikipedia is cutting to 60 in 2-3 years time anyway), and not the front line strength (which is apparently 2 squadrons totalling 16 aircraft designated to NATO).

I can't be bothered to trawl through the other stats, but if we're listed as having 120 jets, when it should read 200 plus, and if the author can't tell the difference between total fleet size and available fleet, then I wouldnt rate it too highly.

[green granite]

and it looks like the Sunday Times has ignored the Typhoon in its calculations, which adds another 140, to take us up to 260, or just above Italy.

You obviously did not read the article or at least not very well.

" The actual total - 48 Tornadoes and 72 Typhoons - is much lower than expected."

[Jimlad1]

Didnt read the article as I dont have a ST subscription.

Actually your point merely serves how innacurate the article is - the list looks like its using UK front line squadron strength, but then lists it against full fleet strength for other nations. (According to Wiki we have 82 Typhoons in service at present with 160 in total planned)

As I noted - Belgian has got about 60 F16s, but only about 16-20 of them are in front line available service at any time. Similarly, it compares us to Sweden, but the Swedes have got 130 odd fighters in their full fleet according to WIKIINT, and are likely to drop to 100 odd, or possibly only 60 under current plans. Similarly, the article lists the Italian total fleet strength of 227 aircraft, and not the front line strength.

So, this article is innacurate as it is comparing our front line available strength against the total strength of other nations. A much more sensible (and far less printworthy) article would have compared like for like which would show very different stats.

I'm well aware that I could be wrong here, but my understanding on FE@R is that until about 2015, we're looking at approximately 40-45 GR4 in the FE@R calculations, but dropping significantly once HERRICK is over. I'm not sure what FE@R Typhoon is calculated at, but think I saw 16 here for overseas trips, plus the UK Air Defence & FI commitments, which take it up to around 70 front line aircraft.

Will publicly apologise and eat my salty blue beret if I'm wrong though :E

[cazatou]

Quote

"according to Wikipedia"

That's got to be Gospel then!!

[Two's in]

Are you suggesting that the Times has used erroneous statistics to make a political point? Surely the very idea that a Newspaper from the same stable as The Sun, The News of the World, and the magnificent Fox News, lacks complete editorial independence from its antipodean organ grinder is preposterous.

[TEEEJ]

From Chapter 4 UK Defence Statistics 2010

Table 4.13 Aircraft Holdings in the UK, Germany, Cyprus and Gibraltar within the scope of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, at 1 January each year

UKDS 2010 - Chapter 4 - Formations, Vessels, Aircraft and Vehicles of the Armed Forces (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2010/c4/table413.php)

Table 4.9 Aircraft fleets by type of aircraft for the Royal Air Force Air Command including Operational Conversion Units and Training Aircraft, at 1 April each year

UKDS 2010 - Chapter 4 - Formations, Vessels, Aircraft and Vehicles of the Armed Forces (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2010/c4/table409.php)

Table 4.10 Aircraft fleets by type of aircraft in the Joint Helicopter Command and Joint Force Harrier, at 1 April each year

UKDS 2010 - Chapter 4 - Formations, Vessels, Aircraft and Vehicles of the Armed Forces (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2010/c4/table410.php)

Table 4.15 Declared Attack Helicopters and Combat Aircraft Holdings and Ceilings by country within the scope of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, at 1 January 2010

UKDS 2010 - Chapter 4 - Formations, Vessels, Aircraft and Vehicles of the Armed Forces (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2010/c4/table415.php)

From

UKDS 2010 (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2010/ukds.php)

TJ

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

3rd rate force? Yes, probably, but what we have now is an armed forces that reflects the size of our country and not the size of an Empire which we once had.

[Finningley Boy]

We down-sized to a military capability commensurate with our station in the world minus the empire in 1968. Since the end of the Cold War we've disbanded, shall we say units we could argue existed purely to make up our commitment to maintaing the line in Germany. Since then, while doing our bit for the sake of oor future and democracy, we've had troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and.... We've had immense success at the Treasury in cutting slashing and lopping of chunks of the Armed Forces ever since.:=

FB:)

[Trim Stab]

We've had immense success at the Treasury in cutting slashing and lopping of chunks of the Armed Forces ever since


HMG has actually invested heavily since the end of the Cold War in areas that are important in countering asymmetric threats that we now face - SIS, MI5, GCHQ, and UKSF have all had increasing annual budgets since about 1995.

We may have a fewer aircraft now in proportion to our European allies compared to twenty years ago - but that is because they have all been very slow and inefficient in readjusting spending priorities compared to UK.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

We may have a fewer aircraft now in proportion to our European allies compared to twenty years ago - but that is because they have all been very slow and inefficient in readjusting spending priorities compared to UK.

Shouldn't there be one of those smiley things after that?

In the old days, there used to be competition over who had the the most ironclads/dreadnaughts. Is the competition now who can cut their Budgets the most and fastest? One of those aims looks more flawed than the other.

If the Sunday Times is using flawed stats to sell tickets to Joe Public for a trip on the outrage bus, is that such a bad thing?

[Jayand]

3rd rate, thats a bit optimistic.

[cazatou]

"We downsized - - in 1968"

Well, I spent 1968 in Sharjah where we had a Sqn of Mk 1 Andovers, a Sqn of Wessex and a sizeable Shackleton Detatchment. We also had RAF Airfields at Masirah and Salalah and SOAF was RAF Manned. There were 2 FGA Hunter Sqns at Bahrain plus Comms aircraft. I think that you will find that these Sqns and the Far East ones did not withdraw until 1969/70.

[dalek]

The Swedes have been able to outgun us for quite a long period of time.
They had a large force of the excellent Draken.
They kept some of these going for a considerable time after the introduction of the Viggen.
It is only fairly recently that they cut on a large scale.

[Finningley Boy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trim Stab
We may have a fewer aircraft now in proportion to our European allies compared to twenty years ago - but that is because they have all been very slow and inefficient in readjusting spending priorities compared to UK.

Shouldn't there be one of those smiley things after that?

In the old days, there used to be competition over who had the the most ironclads/dreadnaughts. Is the competition now who can cut their Budgets the most and fastest? One of those aims looks more flawed than the other.

If the Sunday Times is using flawed stats to sell tickets to Joe Public for a trip on the outrage bus, is that such a bad thing?




Well I've not only bought a ticket for the outrage bus, but a first class one for the clinically depressed one. I'm afarid I can't help seeing the R.A.F. past through flame rose tinted bins. I still daydream about the Silver Jubilee show at Finningley in 1977 and devote time to trying to figure how the clock can be wound all the way back there.:sad:

However, Trim Stab old fruit, surely the point is that while these new concerns are demanding of attention enough. The truth is they are additional concerns to address, not replacement ones?:uhoh:

FB:)

[Finningley Boy]

[QUOTE][/Well, I spent 1968 in Sharjah where we had a Sqn of Mk 1 Andovers, a Sqn of Wessex and a sizeable Shackleton Detatchment. We also had RAF Airfields at Masirah and Salalah and SOAF was RAF Manned. There were 2 FGA Hunter Sqns at Bahrain plus Comms aircraft. I think that you will find that these Sqns and the Far East ones did not withdraw until 1969/70.QUOTE]

My point here is the die was already cast. To say 1968 was probably being to specific. What I meant was that throughout the 1950s and '60s, the British military presence abroad was withdrawn for the most part. Indeed, a few outposts lingered right up to the 1990s. Look at Hong Kong. However, by 1968 the bulk had, if not already been withdrawn, was on the cards to. All largely to do with Healey's 1966 defence review I understand.

FB

[jindabyne]

Sorry to be pedantic caz, 'twas in 1971 - eg, 8 & 208 Sqns left Bahrain towards the end of that year.

[A4scooter]

According to The telegraph the UK had the 3rd largest defence budget globally.
Ignoring countries such as China and India etc. where wages would be far lower than those of western nations enabling them to have money available for equipment for a similiar budget where does our money go?
Either our equipment is far superior to that of the French or Japan for example or those who procure our equipment are been ripped off.

[Trim Stab]

However, Trim Stab old fruit, surely the point is that while these new concerns are demanding of attention enough. The truth is they are additional concerns to address, not replacement ones?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif


Yes, but we have to make a choice of where to spend limited resources.

The only deadly attacks on UK soil since WW2 have come from terrorists, and that is likely to remain the case for the foreseable future. MI5 are the lead defence agency for that threat. They have an budget of approx £400m. They have gone on record that part of the reason the 7/7 bombers slipped through the net is because they did not have enough resources to follow up every single lead.

We could double or triple the annual budget of MI5 by cutting (if it were possible) only a small fraction of our air defence budget.

We have to prioritise spending on the real threats that face us in the future, not on historic threats no matter how much "nostalgia" we may have for them.

[davejb]

We have to prioritise spending on the real threats that face us in the future, not on historic threats no matter how much "nostalgia" we may have for them.

It's not nostalgia (okay, for some it is), it's also a matter of understanding that should a conventional threat loom over the horizon then you have to build up to a war footing on a pre-existing base capability. If you run the conventional forces down too far then IF a conventional threat arises it will take too long (if it's possible at all) to rebuild to face it.

Terrorism does not provide the same 'game over' threat that another mad git from the continent or beyond could provide (even OUR customs guys would spot THAT big a nuke in a backpack)...and I would have thought counter terrorism spending was likely to prove a diminishing returns scenario where beyond a certain point you advance capability at a steadily declining pace while costs balloon. Which isn't to say that we are spending up to that point currently, of course.

'Real threats that face us in the future' - if there is one salient point that history has reinforced over and over again it is that THE big threats are never what was expected or planned for.... hence the need to provide a well rounded defence, both via MI5 and conventional forces. When the budget cannot support what we need then (a) Shoot anyone who has been in the last 3 or 4 cabinets - it's their fault, (b) Shoot the FSA for being a toothless regulator, (c) pull back across the board if necessary, but retain core competencies in all areas...because when the 'who'd have thought it' threat appears you then have at least a cadre to build on.

Given the current dire straits we should not be involved overseas full stop, we should be building a conventional defence of the UK - it is sheer stupidity to involve ourselves overseas when we cannot even protect our own coastline... if the bloody Vikings reappeared tomorrow they'd be 50 miles inland before we even realised it'd happened.

Dave

[cazatou]

Jindabyne

Thanks for the correction - afraid I had to dash off to the Caribbean at that time to suppress Secession by one of our Colonies. Well, somebody had to do it - and the landing strips weren't long enough for Fast Jets!!

It was on my second Detatchment there that I was asked the most stupid question I have ever been asked. Having just staggered off the back end of a Hercules after a 12 hr Atlantic crossing, a Sqn Ldr came up to us and said "Are you the crew that's come to do the Tour of the Caribbean? "

Well, what would your answer be?

PS The Itinerary

Antigua - Barbados - St Vincent - Dominica - Antigua - Dominica - St Lucia - Trinidad - Grenada - Guyana - Trinidad - Guyana - St Vincent - Barbados - St Lucia - Antigua - St Kitts - Antigua.

The VIP ( Deputy Foreign Secretary) invited the entire crew to the House of Lords for Lunch as a "Thank You".

[Guzlin Adnams]

MIS budget £400m. Remind me, how much do we pump into the Euromoneypit every year. It's not the budget from fast air (or come to think of it any air) that should be plundered. I'm sure I heard that there's a good documentary on soon concerning the final destination of too much of our Euro contribution.:mad:

[Dan Winterland]

Sounds a bit like 1934 when we had 12 fighter Squadrons. Anyone remember what happened after that?

[BEagle]

Err, are you sure Dan? Anyway, according to RAF Timeline 1930-39, here's some of what happened next:

July 1934: A major expansion of the RAF is announced, with the number of Home Defence squadrons increased from 52 to 75, and bringing the total first-line strength to 128 squadrons within five years.

May 1935: The British Government votes to treble the number of frontline military aircraft available to defend UK soil. This adds up to an increase of 1500 aircraft of all types.

July 1935: A Royal Review of the RAF carried out by King George V at Duxford and Mildenhall includes a flypast of 350 aircraft.

July 1936: As a result of RAF expansion, the Air Council decides to re-organised the Air Defence of Great Britain into four specialised Commands.

July 1936: The RAFVR is formed. Volunteers are recruited for a minimum of 5 years, receiving flying training at weekends and during an annual 15 day camp. By September 1939, the RAFVR had 63000 men trained as pilots as well as in medical and technical trades.

December 1937: The first Hurricanes enter service with 111 Squadron at Northolt.

June 1938: The first Spitfires enter service with 19 Squadron at Duxford.

January 1939: RAF now has 135 squadrons (74 bomber, 27 fighter, 12 army co-operation, 17 reconnaissance, 4 torpedo-bomber and 1 communications). In addition to this, the RAuxAF has a further 19 squadrons (3 bomber, 11 fighter, 2 army co-operation and 3 reconnaissance).

:rolleyes:

Fast forward to 1 December 1962 when the RAF had 22 squadrons of V-bombers alone.... I wonder what the strength of the RAF will be on the 50th anniversary of that date?

[Finningley Boy]

1 December 1962 when the RAF had 22 squadrons of V-bombers alone.... I wonder what the strength of the RAF will be on the 50th anniversary of that date?

22 Typhoon airframes alone!:}

FB:uhoh:

[cazatou]

BEagle

An impressive list EXCEPT by the outbreak of WW2 the numbers of available Fighter and Bomber aircraft had increased - but those aircraft (apart from the Hurricane, Spitfire and Wellington) were not fit for purpose.

A late friend of mine (Ken Makin) volunteered to serve with 601 Sqn Aux AF as an AC2 WOp/AG and took part in the first raid on Germany - which was an attack by 25 and 601 Sqn Blenheim 1F's on the German Naval Base on the island of Borkum on 28 November 1939.

25lb Cooper Bombs left over from WW1 and 303 calibre machine guns made little impact on the Ferro - Concrete defences. Luckily there were no aircraft losses.

AC2 Makin survived the war uninjured and by VE day (when he was still on Operations in the Far East) was a Flt Lt with DFC - he retired as a Sqn Ldr; a total of 11 promotions.