SDSR rumours.

[Bob Viking]

Right then folks. As the date draws ever closer and with this being a rumour site it's time to dig out your best gouge that you've heard.

A bit of blind conjecture and blatant horse crap is always good for the soul so let's let rip and see what actually comes to fruition at the end of the month.

As a starter for ten I'll offer up the formation of a couple of new Typhoon Squadrons.

Any more for any more?!

BV:confused:

[melmothtw]

As a starter for ten I'll offer up the formation of a couple of new Typhoon Squadrons.

To be more than offset buy a significantly reduced F-35 buy no doubt. Wonder which one is buried in the small print.

[side salad]

New glider winch to be installed on the bow of new carriers. Carriers will only operate at weekends as staff cadets still at college Monday to Friday. No serviceable aircraft predicted for a few years anyway. Winches and carriers to be immediately mothballed or turned into travelodge branches and sent to Newquay for the summer trade.

[Planet Basher]

Red Arrows to be amalgamated with the Purple Helmets and the Red Barrows, the will be renamed The Purple Arrow Barrows.

[Biggus]

Why not add your comments/speculation to a thread already running on the SDSR here on pprune,

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/553650-sdsr-15-a.html

Rather than starting a new thread.

[Sun Who]

Why not add your comments/speculation to a thread already running on the SDSR here on PPRuNe,

SDSR 15 (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/553650-sdsr-15-a.html)

Rather than starting a new thread. Yeah! I didn't start that thread all the way back in December last year, just for people to forget about it.;)

Sun.

[Bob Viking]

Thank god you're here to keep us all in check. What was I thinking wasting everyone's time like that. Not to mention using up vital space on the World Wide Web.

The founders of this forum could have saved us all so much bother if they'd just named a thread for each conceivable topic in the early days for us to continue adding to over the subsequent years. Or heaven forbid, from time to time we could start a new one about a similar topic to one that has been discussed previously but with a more up to date slant to it.

It's here now though so we might as well use it.

BV

[Stitchbitch]

Oh dear, looks like the Outrage bus has departed from Valley..:E

Meanwhile, 10 x Hawk T.1 replaced by 3 x black QQ Alfa Jets, F-35 to be downgraded and re engined to increase job share, Kawazaki wins MR contract and anyone interested leaves UK for Australia and NZ. :ok:

[Melchett01]

My SDSR theory:

A. Significant cuts to capability and manpower whilst maintaining an aspiration to mimic the US and be everywhere doing everything, result = the thrashing continues. Or

B. A slight uplift to funding with the result that politicians want to see a return for their investment, even though it's probably just sufficient to get us back to something like 2010 capability levels, result = the thrashing continues.

[Onceapilot]

Russia wins the whole job with an unsolicited bid.:oh:

OAP

[KPax]

How about, build a new 5 storey headquarters at Shawbury for DHFS, have a 1 Star and 2 Group Captains and close the Squadron Ops buildings. Sorry that's not a rumour.

[Mach Two]

None of this is necessarily in SDSR2016, or SDSR2015/16 as some enlightened pundits are quoting. Recent topics "of interest" that may or may not be relevant. The phrase "very expensive" is relevant.

- Trident replacement is very expensive.
- Carriers are very expensive.
- F-35 is very expensive.
- Comprehensive Spending Review follows SDSR.
- The 2% of GDP figure is only a two year commitment.
- Fallon has already laid the ground by outlining a number of low-cost international cooperations that mitigate the effects of smaller national forces and capabilities.
- "And we need to reform our ways of working to bear down on inefficiency and eradicate waste.". Fallon.
- Counter Terrorism spending is ring fenced.
- Typhoon needs to assume all the FJ roles.

Please feel free to add up the numbers. You may find the budget is already overspent. A careless remark at a meeting recently suggested that the Navy is going to have to take a massive hit (more than I could have imagined) to get a single carrier with access to a number of F-35s when required.

The Army is unlikely to see anything surprising, but the large numbers of personnel that need rebasing in the UK is attracting a lot of attention.

Tornado handing over to Typhoon.

That's all I have.

[Cows getting bigger]

New MMA (actually a C130J with a pallet or two) to be based in new facilities at Prestwick (actually, the soon-to-be defunct RN SAR flight).

Northolt to cease fixed-wing flying by 2020 - 32 (TR) Sqn to be relocated, location TBN (in other words, stood down).

GR4 to soldier-on - War on Terror.

Typhoon to whom-of-life programme to be stretched (Value for Money)

F35 numbers to be reviewed.

Air Cadet Gliders to be replaced - Commandant 2 FTS to get a Knighthood.

MFTS to be reviewed.

[Treble one]

As we are getting a couple more Typhoon squadrons BV, can you fix it that 'The Tremblers' are one of them please?


Many thanks
TO

[Roland Pulfrew]

As we are getting a couple more Typhoon squadrons BV, can you fix it that 'The Tremblers' are one of them please?


Rumour has it one of them will be 74 Sqn so that we can give some of the jets some really cool paint schemes to show the public we still are g-r-r-r-e-a-t! ;)

[Bob Viking]

I know nothing of seniority but speaking from a purely selfish standpoint I'd bring back 19 Sqn personally.

BV:ok:

[Hawk98]

Mach, the defence budget is ringfenced until 2020, so 5 years not 2

[Brian 48nav]

They are going to reform the best Herc' Sqn, 48 and base it back in Changi so that there is a decent overseas tour for all the transport guys; might even get rid of those awful glass cockpits and bring back navigators and flight engineers!

Bu**er I just woke up when I fell out of bed!

[Chinny Crewman]

Hawk unfortunately there have been several announcements regarding the budget so I'd take them all with a pinch of salt.
2% of GDP minimum however expect a portion of the security services budget and military pensions to be counted in that. (they aren't now)
1% real term rise in the equipment/procurement budget for the term of this parliament. Based on projections from 2 years ago, how's F35 budget doing? Trident replacement costs recently revised as well.
1% pay rise cap for all public sector workers for the duration of this parliament. Sadly probably the only thing we can trust the politicians to deliver.
As for the review I suspect some regurgitating of old news with lots of buzzwords but nothing substantial and I can not see us getting any sort of MPA although I hope I'm wrong.

[Hueymeister]

2 C-17 to NZ...
It'll all be smoke and mirrors.

[Tashengurt]

I think we all know that if any squadron's going to be stood up it will be 43. I s'pose Tremblers would do at a pinch.

[Easy Street]

If a 3rd F-35B sqn is in the longer-term offing, it seems fairly likely that it would get a FAA numberplate, which means that options for keeping the IX(B) Sqn numberplate alive post-Tornado OSD are few. As a single-digit number with quite extensive senior backing (VCDS and DCom Ops are both former commanders) I suspect that one of the rumoured new Typhoon sqns will take the numberplate, either on disbandment of the third Tornado sqn or at Tornado OSD. Protestations about fighter heritage should be given a stiff ignoring given that Typhoon will shoulder the majority of the RAF's attack duties (with Storm Shadow, Brimstone 2 and Paveway IV) even after F-35 enters service - and let's face it, it's far more likely to use any of those weapons in anger than it is to shoot anything down. I reckon the Air Force Board will take the view that 'hibernating' IX(B) for a potential 4th F-35 squadron is too risky an approach.

31 and 12 Sqns? Looks like the history books beckon, sadly.

[Cows getting bigger]

Sacred cows such as squadron numbers should have been confined to the history books the day the Royal Navy gave-up Greenwich.

I'm sorry, but we're talking about the continuance of the Service, not a few battle honours. :ouch:

[downsizer]

Free socks are a gonner....:(

[Willard Whyte]

An increase in the number of squadrons.

(and a decrease in the number of 'planes per sqn)

[4mastacker]

Introduction of workplace parking charges on a graduated basis. Designated slots charged at 50% of the daily rate of the occupier other wise the nearer to the door/higher the rank, the more you pay. (A new trade group, with a brand new CHQ and 2* post as HoB , to be introduced to regulate on-base parking).

[charliegolf]

From another thread- Cpl's pay for WSOps, leading to a study into the introduction of NCO pilots on the premise that not so much command ability is required in the 21stC; and with the long lost air dropped nuke capability.

Makes sense.

CG

[Willard Whyte]

Introduction of workplace parking charges on a graduated basis. Designated slots charged at 50% of the daily rate of the occupier other wise the nearer to the door/higher the rank, the more you pay. (A new trade group, with a brand new CHQ and 2* post as HoB , to be introduced to regulate on-base parking).

Just contract out parking to NCP or APCOA.


On the subject of Sqn numbers, why not just logicify the whole thing and go for:

0x: fast 'n' pointy
1x: sneaky beaky
2x: fat 'n' heavy
3x: wokka
4x: training

[Ivan Rogov]

The RAF is getting smaller but is trying to behave like it did in the 1980's, IMHO it shot it's self in the foot in SDSR 2010 by keeping too many FJ Sqns and taking too many hits in other areas (I know we lost a fair few FJs). I don't think the whole Force structure looked relevant for future Ops, I think this was proved by the subsequent loss of a couple more Sqns after SDSR as we still looked fat. For example many of our neighbors had already bitten the bullet and done this by halving (or more) their FJ fleets and making sure they were efficient and capable (Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium) also by mixing them with SAM systems, etc. while we persisted with the Battle of Britain concept.
As for Sqn number plates, we are only fooling ourselves by trying to prop up so many on inappropriately on none FL units, if we only put them on FL units we could demonstrate how much we have shrunk and it might be help the public understand what they have e.g: in 1990 we had 50? now we have 15? much like the RN do with ship numbers.
The rivalry of Sqn numbers is becoming corrosive and distracting us from what is important. It's time to try something new, perhaps rotate them every 2 or 3 years (Maybe tie with the new CO?), that would provide good PR opportunities, provide potential confusion to Foreign Int Services on force structure and personnel, chance to clear out dead wood, prevent rivalries becoming damaging and distracting, allow more history to be revisited/discovered, etc.

[Chinny Crewman]

Battle of Britain Flight to be civilianised and given charitable status.

[Chinny Crewman]

Good quality DT rumours here, someone is spinning but quite what I'm not sure;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11981015/Armed-Forces-personnel-to-be-denied-automatic-pay-rises-as-George-Osborne-looks-to-make-efficiency-savings.html

[Haart]

Regardless of the detail, the same political same political spin will surface: budgets down but capabilities will go up. :-/

[Easy Street]

IMHO it shot it's self in the foot in SDSR 2010 by keeping too many FJ Sqns and taking too many hits in other areas (I know we lost a fair few FJs). I don't think the whole Force structure looked relevant for future Ops, I think this was proved by the subsequent loss of a couple more Sqns after SDSR as we still looked fat. For example many of our neighbors had already bitten the bullet and done this by halving (or more) their FJ fleets and making sure they were efficient and capable (Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium) also by mixing them with SAM systems, etc. while we persisted with the Battle of Britain concept.

Where to start with this??!

- The decisions that led to the 'loss of a couple more sqns after SDSR' - reducing the Tornado force from 7 to 5 to 3 squadrons - were all taken as part of that SDSR and its 3-month exercise, they just weren't announced or implemented immediately. But they were all laid out plainly in the classified plans alongside the headline chopping of the Harrier force.

- Keeping 'too many FJ sqns'? Within months of the SDSR, Op ELLAMY showed that we had cut them too far - the op was only possible without impact on Afghanistan because the sixth and seventh Tornado squadrons had not quite shuffled off the parade square yet. Then Op TURUS and Op SHADER forced the reversal of the PR11 decision to FURTHER cut the Tornado force to just 2 squadrons! And now I think pretty much everyone expects that the Typhoon force will grow to compensate for the retirement of Tornado, whereas previously we were going to decline yet again.

- 'Battle of Britain model'? Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands all have the benefit of very small FIRs than can easily be protected by a combination of SAMs and QRA. Plus the latter two are well-surrounded by NATO members and will rarely be responsible for making the first intercept and identification of an unidentified contact. Conversely we have to defend an enormous patch, much of which is over sea, and quite often have to go and make first identifications, both things which SAMs are poor at. So there are very good operational reasons why we haven't copied the F-16/Patriot model.

The logic of SDSR10 and PR11 would have seen our fast jet force reduced from 30 squadrons during Gulf War 1 to just 6 squadrons in 2020. That isn't halving, as in the examples you quoted - it's an 80% reduction. Apart from those capabilities which have been deleted, I think you will struggle to find such a precipitous decline anywhere else in our forces. These cuts have been widely accepted as a mistake in senior circles and SDSR15 is almost certain to see the direction of travel reversed.

If I was looking for imbalances in our force structure, or questions of relevance to future ops, I would be asking what exactly we propose to do with 60 Chinook, a number which was only arrived at as a sop to an angry public during HERRICK. The size of that fleet is a legacy of a particular kind of war, the kind which Robert Gates advised any leader considering to "have his head examined".

[Hueymeister]

George has ideas about incremental pay...

[Finningley Boy]

The RAF is getting smaller but is trying to behave like it did in the 1980's, IMHO it shot it's self in the foot in SDSR 2010 by keeping too many FJ Sqns and taking too many hits in other areas (I know we lost a fair few FJs). I don't think the whole Force structure looked relevant for future Ops, I think this was proved by the subsequent loss of a couple more Sqns after SDSR as we still looked fat. For example many of our neighbors had already bitten the bullet and done this by halving (or more) their FJ fleets and making sure they were efficient and capable (Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium) also by mixing them with SAM systems, etc. while we persisted with the Battle of Britain concept.

No NATO air arm has decommissioned its 'FJ' fleet to the same degree or as quick as the RAF has, apart from the RN and Marineflieger.

Belgium has cut from eight squadrons to four, they have a population of approximately 10 million

We have cut from 30 squadrons (37 if you want to include the OCUs!) to eight squadrons. Now, you work out the sums and tell me who has been the more ruthless in decimating its raison detre for existing, for the FJs, as they simply referred are the principal means of delivering ardnance in just about every way. Further, there is no way that the RAF today acts the way it did in the 1980s, on far to many subjects! Oh we had a maritime fleet of 35 Nimrods back in the day as well, all for ASW, nothing more, another three for elint at Wyton.
If the RAF lose any more FJ squadrons then it may as well be subsumed into the Navy and Army as it can barely justify its independence in a country the size and output of the UK and with the size of the other two services such as they are. RAF manning used to be nearly a third greater than that of the senior service, today they are virtually comparable, the RAF use to stand at slightly more than 50% of the the Army's total strength, today its slightly more than a third and this is after the much hugh and cried cuts to the army's strength. Just observations made in my spare time. By the way, the transport and rotary fleets have maintained numbers quite well and istar, I'm sure is vital, has gone from strength to strength.

FB:)

FB

[BEagle]

Globe Trotter asked:What capacity exists to increase pilot throughput should that be an outcome?

Easy answer to that - none whatsoever. The UK no longer has sufficient aerodromes, training aircraft or QFIs to support anything more then the handful of military pilots undergoing flying training these days....

The last increase I can recall was around the time the Tornado was introduced. Valley was at full stretch and the RAF had 3 TWUs at Brawdy, Chivenor and Lossiemouth. QFIs in non-instructional posts were pulled back to augment UAS training a little later, but there was sufficient capacity in the system to replace them....

Once the UK could afford to give potential pilot recruits 30 hours of PPL-level flying on Flying Scholarship schemes, then either 2½ years at RAFC training to Wings standard - or 3 years at university flying about 30 hours a year at the UAS under regular RAF QFIs.... The JP course was about 140 hours, but reduced to around 120 for UAS graduates.

Since then it's been cut after cut after cut. MoD cannot even manage a fleet of Air Cadet gliders, there are no Flying Scholarships, UASs do so little flying that they're hardly worthy of the title and most of their 'staff' are retread FTRS long out of regular service. Cranwell has a few plastic pigs and a handful of King Airs and the ogre of MFTS is about to put the final nail of the coffin of the once proud RAF flying training system.....

So coping with a pilot training surge requirement? No chance whatsoever

[Chinny Crewman]

The Mk3 Chinooks are going to be sold to save the cost of the Julius upgrade to Mk5.

[Bob Viking]

I would agree with virtually everything you said apart from your final point. It might be via non traditional means but in true military fashion, we will find a way!

BV:cool:

[glad rag]

More like flogging a dead horse!

[BEagle]

Which final point? About the utter bolleaux of MFTS, Ascent and its snake oil salesmen?

Good luck finding enough QFIs who will be happy to move to Anglesey.....

[Bob Viking]

Your final point was that we wouldn't be able to surge and train more. My retort is that by fair means or foul the military will find a way as we always do.

We could spend all weekend arguing about the rights and wrongs of it and how it won't be as good as it was in the good old days but regardless of all that, it'll get done.

BV

[Double Hush]

Correct. HQ CFS have difficulty sourcing QFIs with the requisite background; RAFAT have had to lower the entry standard. The pool of pilots to draw instructors (or display pilots) from is now too small, especially if any kind of expansion is required. Expect to see civvie instructors on Hawks to alleviate the shortage.

[MSOCS]

RAFAT have had to lower the entry standard...

Please elaborate.

[Willard Whyte]

RAFAT have had to lower the entry standard.

Air Transport have always had low standards. How else would I have spent many (fabulously enjoyable) years there.

[Easy Street]

RAFAT have had to lower the entry standard...
Please elaborate.

It used to be the case that Reds candidates had to have completed a front-line tour and have at least 1500 hours fast-jet. The former requirement had obviously been dropped when they started taking ex-creamies mid-way through their first front-line tours, and the latter rather inevitably died a death as a result of a whole generation of pilots being caught up in an hours drought towards the end of the 2000s (the high proportion of aircraft deployed and changes to depth maintenance being the culprits). In any case, that hours bar was going to have to be lowered at some point - 1500 hours will soon be a good career total given the increasing use of simulation (50:50 mix on F-35, for example).

[BEagle]

Easy Street, in which case RAFAT has changed the entry prerequisites, but that doesn't mean that the Team's actual standards will be any lower than hitherto.

[Easy Street]

BEagle - No disagreement here, was just answering the question as put!

AFAIK the other historical requirement, an assessment of Above Average in the air, still stands. But given the change in typical profile of team members it will more often be a 'previously-held' assessment based on A2 QFI status, perhaps gained towards the end of a 'creamie' tour, whereas in days gone by the assessment was just as likely to have been earned (or confirmed) on a front-line type. The relative attributes of 'Above Average' individuals of these two kinds would be a topic of contentious crewroom debate, taking this even further off-thread. I take no position here! :E

[Lima Juliet]

Seeing as the Air Cadet Gliding Organisations are in 'rag order' then I suggest the following might play out. The loss of the Vigilant due to cost of rectification and upgraded engine requirements, which leads to a loss of VGS (and closure of airfields) at:

Abingdon Airfield, Dalton Barracks (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
Arbroath Airfield, RMB Condor (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
Chivenor Airfield, RMB Chivenor (ties in with the loss of SAR so airfield will shut)
RAF Cosford (airfield stays open as UAS/AEF continues)
RAF Halton (airfield stays open as JSAT(G) and Recruit AEF continues)
RAF Henlow (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
RAF Honington (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
Kinloss Airfield, Kinloss Barracks (remains open as crash div for Lossiemouth)
RAF Linton on Ouse (already due for closure under MFTS)
RAF Little Rissington (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
Newtonards Airfield (Vigilants will go from civvy airfield)
RAF Odiham (airfield stays open for JHC activity)
RAF St Athan (recently announced closure as RAF Cosford becomes the centre of RAF tech trg)
Swansea Airport (Vigilants will go from civvy airport)
RAF Topcliffe, Allanbrooke Barracks (this would be the last public funded flying so could see the airfield close)
RAF Tern Hill (airfield stays open for DHFS activities)
RAF Woodvale (airfield stays open for UAS/AEF)

However, RAF Kenley, MDP Wethersfield, RNAS Predannack and RAF Kirknewton currently operate the Viking and are outwith any day to day full-time support from the military. So this could see the Viking introduced at RAF Cosford, RAF Halton, Kinloss, RAF Odiham, RAF Woodvale, RAF Topcliffe and RAF Tern Hill where DIO currently has to support an airfield with other on-going public funded flying.

So savings made through the closure of airfields at:
Abingdon, Arbroath (RMB Condor), RMB Chivenor, RAF Henlow, RAF Honington, RAF Little Rissington, RAF Kenley, RAF Topcliffe, MDP Wethersfield and RAF Kirknewton. The sale of this land could see a nice return of revenue to the Treasury. The sale of St Athan and RAF Linton on Ouse has already been announced.

Future Air Cadet gliding could be available at:

RAF Cosford
RAF Halton
Hullavington Airfield, Buckley Barracks
Kinloss Airfield, Kinloss Barracks
RAF Odiham
RNAS Predannack or RMB Chivenor (TBD)
RAF Syerston (HQ 2FTS)
RAF Tern Hill
Upavon Airfield, Trenchard Lines
RAF Woodvale

With the possibility of opening up Air Cadet gliding on the following sites:

RAF Leuchars (Waterloo Barracks - currently Lossie weather div and home of UAS/AEF and fills loss of Kirknewton)
RAF Leeming (capacity for weekend gliding and fills loss of Linton and Topcliffe)
RAF St Athan - keep an enclave for South Wales for VGS/UAS/AEF

So that's 13 locations delivering gliding with ~80 Vikings. So approximately 4 per VGS and always around 15-20 in servicing.

Then, with MFTS coming on line, then the excess Tutors could go to the AEFs to offer extra flying to the increased numbers of the Air Cadets.

Right, that's the Air Cadets sorted out...

...now for the rest.

I'm hearing rumours on a need to re-open the WSO pipeline and an increase in WSOps plus more pilots (FJ and ME with the possibility of crossing over some RW pilots) and that means the following is most likely coming:

- More Reapers under Project SCAVENGER
- Run on of the Tornado GR4 awaiting delivery of some more Typhoons
- A maritime patrol aircraft (P8 or other)
- MFTS expansion to deliver increased manpower (with more QFIs needed)
- Increase in techies going through RAF Cosford (which is why DCTT Lyneham has ceased)


I think we will see the reduction of Field Sqns in the RAF Regt. I would hope we see Admin branches (Scribbly, Trg and PEd) thinned dwon into FTRS and Civil Service posts.

There you go, that fills my rumours into what I think might happen...whilst watching the Cenotaph Ceremony.

LJ :ok:

[Melchett01]

I would hope we would see the Admin branches (Scribbly, Trg PEd) thinned down in to FTRS and Civil Service posts

Haven't we suffered enough already as a result of the reduction in admin support? We don't need to trash what little support there is left; we'll never get anything out of SHQ before 0900 or after 1500 if you do that. And God forbid you need something urgent on a Friday afternoon if you go down that route!

[Lima Juliet]

Melchy

We're already at that point. All of my admin support is done via email these days - if I go to Handbrake House personally for something it normally results in "can you send me an email" request to further my issue.

If Handbrake House was dissolved into a call centre then I personally would see no difference!

LJ :ok:

[Just This Once...]

I don't think L-J was saying that the requirement for admin role would cease, just questioning why it needs to be a high-churn, low-experience role for regular uniformed personnel.

The sheer amount of administrative support we now move into forward areas has been questioned repeatedly; especially as we seem to have a further army of admin staff back in the UK checking and questioning what is happening on deployed locations. Why do we not do it remotely? Heck, we have already shown that we can operate aircraft remotely!

Even if a small footprint is required in forward roles the use of reservists, FTRA, civil servants and contractors is already well exercised. I have deployed in very forward roles accompanied by individuals who are technically civil servants (albeit rather specialist ones). Meanwhile we have a uniformed scribbly and a uniformed PTI on the more comfortable side of the wire.

Edit: L-J beat me to it.

[Bob Viking]

Good effort. That's more like it. Some rumours we can get our teeth into.

BV

[EnigmAviation]

Leon Jabachjabicz,

Looks like you've been listening at someone's door fairly well up the food chain !

However, due to the need to finance Tax credits it has been announced that all HM Armed services are to be made redundant by April 5th. The new Defence contract is to be awarded to Group 54 or Serko using "Modern apprenticeships" based on advances in technology in shelf stacking training. With CBT future Drone pilots will pay for their own on line courses, and will work part time, with minimum wage supplemented by zero hours contracts at leading supermarkets

Fat jet jocks will be selected from Drone trainees, and given advanced training at John Lewis Partnership - where they are appropriately, never knowingly undersold.

Trucking fleet requirements will be met initially by Ryansquare, who have particular expertise in flying to the world's most remote airfields. Casevac sorties when required will be operated by sqeezyjet as a continuation of their Familiar tourist evacuation expertise.

CAS will still be required, thus HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary will be posted in, as his work with the Police is now completed, and where it has been demonstrated that an Accountancy qualification overrides the need for any process knowledge or qualifications.

It is expected that parallel arrangements will be made to cover Land forces, and Naval in due course, with a possibility that China may be awarded a contract to roll over from the Hinkley Point Nuclear power station, where the double price electricity supply contract will generate some income to finance a new Home Guard and some coastal lifeboats so as to employ as many Redundant Genrals and Admirals as possible.

Any questions Bloggs ?

[Melchett01]

LJ,

True, but who answers (assuming they do!) your emails - a blue suiter or an E1 clerk pretending to be equivalent to a WO and yet who displays all the forethought and initiative of a sloth on strike?

Now I know not all CS are created equally, and there are some who do are cracking job; indeed I was fortunate in my last 2 posts to have a D-band at each location who really did stack up to the Flt Lt equivalent many like to portray. Alas, they are the minority in my experience. I get where you're coming from, but it really does fall into the bracket of be careful what you wish for.

Anyway, if it's rumours we're after, a couple of wholly unsubstantiated but potentially credible rumours:

F-35 buy limited to the absolute minimum to generate and sustain 2 sqns, so 25-30 taking into account OCU, servicing, the odd spare. USMC goes apoplectic as its buy is then put at risk and we come up with some sort of merger agreement to create a joint-combined RAF/RN/USMC operational fleet.

To make up the numbers, cash thrown at Typhoon to give a true swing role capability. T1 Tiffies given an upgrade to generate 2-3 sqns of pure AD ac with little to no attack/interdiction capability. GR4 retired on time and NLT 1 Apr 1918 to coincide with a victory over ISIL parade.

Sentinel and E3 to go to make way for new MPA, potentially Poseidon, but sold by as a MMA platform capable of plugging the gap created by retiring 2 completely unrelated capabilities. Originator of that plan 'retires' and gets a cushy job at Boeing.

2-3 further sqns of Reaper, taking us to 4-5 sqns total, with Sentinel's GMTI role picked up by Reaper and whatever passes for ASaC going forward.

RAF Regt to lose more Field Sqns. Gyms either closed down or opened up as local community facilities to generate revenue for Stations who will be required to produce a surplus each year to return to Centre.

[Lima Juliet]

EnigmAviation

I don't need to listen to doors, the deafening silence makes the situation quite easy to read. I also hear that recruiting is on the 'up and up' due to the recent undershoot of SDSR10's manpower plan. Also that the WSO situation is getting bad for the legacy fleets let alone any new buys (guys are being called that retired 3-4 years ago).

We need some of those disgruntled Air Cadets to join...if only we had some gliding to 'wet their whistle' with!

Personally, I think we have 'screwed the pooch"!

LJ

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Easy answer to that - none whatsoever. The UK no longer has sufficient aerodromes, training aircraft or QFIs to support anything more then the handful of military pilots undergoing flying training these days....

So coping with a pilot training surge requirement? No chance whatsoever


With respect BEagle, this is a rather FW-centric viewpoint. The RAF has some helicopters as well, and a majority stake in a helicopter flying training outfit. Said outfit not only has the ability to cope with a surge in numbers of trainees but - shock horror! - appears to be coping very nicely with just such a surge as we speak.

Now one hears that, beyond Shawbury, there are significant problems delivering new crews to the front line units - but your post relates to training aircraft/empires rather than OCU-level issues. And a nasty cynical person would suggest that any current surge at Shawbury is only to build up a pool of people ready for the train wreck which will be MFTS. But, right now, the rotary side of the sausage machine is in fine fettle. Producing mere chipolatas compared to your heroic FW bratties, of course, but still producing ;).

[Arclite01]

Enigma

We could learn a lot from John Lewis !!

Happy Staff
Well Paid
Shareholders in the solution
Great Customer service
Flexible
Good Quality Products
Competitive prices
Great locations
Thin Management Structure
Rely on staff to act on their own initiative
Career progression


Yeah - we could learn a lot from them.................

Arc

[Proletarian]

Boulmer to close - SABM to Shawbury.

Proletarian

[Cows getting bigger]

Pros (BW?), you've been peddling that one for a few decades. :) Perhaps the new Stn Cdr Boulmer will make it happen?

[teeteringhead]

Leon Future Air Cadet gliding could be available at:

RAF Cosford
RAF Halton
Hullavington Airfield, Buckley Barracks
Kinloss Airfield, Kinloss Barracks
RAF Odiham
RNAS Predannack or RMB Chivenor (TBD)
RAF Syerston (HQ 2FTS)
RAF Tern Hill
Upavon Airfield, Trenchard Lines
RAF Woodvale Not sure why you need Ternhill and Cosford as they are so close. Facilities are so much better at TH, due to their use of the planned-but-never-used permanently detached DHFS Sqn building.

Prole

Although a smaller force (at the moment :eek:) Canada has been training Air Traffickers and "Engagement Controllers" (as they call their FCs/AMBs) together for years.........

[Arclite01]

Teetering

Not sure that SDSR and Air Cadet Gliding futures are necessarily linked per se.............. but

I'd say if it's a winch based operation:

Future Air Cadet gliding could be available at:

RAF Cosford - not really great with an AEF there
RAF Halton - suited
Hullavington Airfield, Buckley Barracks - suited
Kinloss Airfield, Kinloss Barracks - suited
RAF Odiham - not really suited
RNAS Predannack or RMB Chivenor (TBD) - Both !!
RAF Syerston (HQ 2FTS)suited (obviously)
RAF Tern Hill - not really suited
Upavon Airfield, Trenchard Lines - suited
RAF Woodvale - not really suitable with an AEF there

and what about the South East of England ? - bin Kenley and there is no presence there at all.

I do agree that although the cost savings of closing a VGS are small, there are substantial savings from closing the associated infrastructure and land holdings of an airfield.

I would however point out that rarely does airfield type land attached to the Army estate (barracks sites) get released or disposed of as often they see it as a 'training area on their doorstep' - so on that basis there might be a cost reduction to one user but another picks it up and overall no real saving to MoD (although some installations may be demolished/decommed............

I can't see the Army giving up Abingdon Airfield, Ternhill Airfield, Hullavington Airfield, Upavon Airfield, Cottesmore Airfield, Kinloss Airfield, Leuchars Airfield, RM Condor Airfield, Merryfield Airfield etc without a fight for the very reasons I've cited..............

But you make valid basing assumptions for some future sites and also for cost savings.

Arc

[teeteringhead]

On a small point if information Arc, Ternhill Airfield has not gone to the Army; it remains "RAF Ternhill" and is of course used by DHFS Monday-Friday.

You do make valid points.

I agree that Air Cadet gliding won't be part of SDSR per se, but there is some linkage with possible savings to be made as you suggest.

And I guess 2 FTS have had the time to think about it ........... ;)

[Wander00]

Well JL have had a few ex RAF in senior positions over the years, and a former Rock-Ape wg cdr was Chief Exec of Waitrose.

[Phil_R]

Good grief, this thread makes immensely depressing reading from out here in civilian world.

30 squadrons to six? If you wish to imagine me waving a "what happened to all the money" banner, you may.

P

[Melchett01]

Well you've only got to wait until 23 Nov to find out the outcome

Strategic Defence and Security Review: Treasury names the date | Civil Service World (http://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/news/strategic-defence-and-security-review-treasury-names-date)

Interestingly, the SDSR is being announced 2 days before the CSR on 25 Nov. So given the above article states the defence budget is going up in real terms over the course of the Parliament along with a different announcement date mean that we finally have a review based on strategy rather than finance???

Ooooh look, a flying pig.

Worryingly, the article notes significant increases to Intelligence Agency manning. Even though they are funded outside of Defence and are responsible to different departments of state. On that basis, I'm thinking 2% NATO spending will now include an element of the Agencies' funding, that if the equipment programme is now going to be funded and there are no further cuts in Regular manpower, that can only mean one of 2 things: The Reserves plan falls short and the thrashings continue as gaps go unfilled. Or the Reserves are funded and we have to find the cash from the non-equipment budget.

Now if you all wouldn't mind bending over and touching your toes .... that's it, now you might feel a slight sting as the bat goes in and the money comes out ....:(

I'm convinced the only reason for the Treasury to accept a 30% cut is so it can use it as a stick to beat all the other departments with. What really worries me though is, like any bully lashing out, or terrorist, the more they feel backed into a corner the more extreme they are going to become. And at this rate Osborne will be so toxic by 2020 it's Corbyn's to lose!

[Easy Street]

With HMRC having taken a beating for its poor tax-collecting performance in recent years, could I be forgiven for wondering how cuts to the Treasury can do anything but make it even worse?

[The Old Fat One]

And at this rate Osborne will be so toxic by 2020 it's Corbyn's to lose!

Glad somebody noticed.

[Arclite01]

Teetering

I agree about Ternhill :}

I also forgot to mention North Luffenham and Brawdy

Arc

[Arclite01]

Melchett01

Hmmm,

The whole thing that 'naffs me off' about Government is that actually they always look at cuts rather than economic growth so that Tax revenues increase and we can actually spend more on improving longer term plans and facilities/services (not just defence).

Why ? - because cuts is easy - economic growth is hard. And also most of the politicians have never had a job of any substance so just don't 'get' 'economies' or 'business', mind you they have never been 'in the the military' either so they don't get defence, mind you they have never been in the NHS so they don't get medical do they................, Uh Oh - I'm seeing a trend here...............

I really hope SDSR maintains the status quo plus a P8 MPA package (at least 12 aircraft) as a minimum. But then, I'm often disappointed..............

Arc

[kintyred]

Archie,

The government doesn't create economic growth per se, it ensures that the conditions are right for companies and individuals to do that. Spending money to create growth only works in very limited circumstances, for example where a lack of confidence prevents individuals or companies investing. Eventually the money that has been spent has to repaid.....and that's where we are at the moment. Even when the government manages to balance the books we'll still be paying over £60bn a year in interest on our national debt (£1000 a year for every person in the UK). That's a burden that falls on company profits as well as as every individual tax payer and money that can't be spent/invested to create growth.
For too long politians have been bribing us with our own money and this is why we're in the mess we're in now. Nicola Sturgeon still has this mentality and is determined to get her children and grandchildren to pay her bills!

[Rotate too late]

I would respectfully submit, that, if Theresa May's example is anything to go by, the forces are gonna be utterly humped.....that is a technical term by the way....

[GroundStart]

Just putting this one out there as I have heard it from a source within Tiny Tiny Airways (AAC) D4K to be handed to RAF and based with the other ISAR assets. That would then mean a full Regt to be disbanded or re-roled.

[Rotate too late]

Re role to what? And with whom? They've NEVER been able to fully man that role since AH came into being. Not allowing aircrew the option of moving to another type has finally come and bit them in the ass. Wonder if the Frenchies could help....hmmmmmm.

[Melchett01]

Latest rumour on the pay increments - increments to be replaced by a single representative pay band for each rank, set at something like the current level 4.

If correct, then I guess it's a nice pay rise on promotion, especially if you don't hang around but after a few years you'd quickly start to fall behind, especially with the now customary sub-inflationary annual uplift. Equally, with the new annual pension limits, I can see a high flyer getting promoted early and therefore getting quite a jump if a mid-level pay band is implemented ending up with a nice pensions tax bill for their trouble if they exceed the annual allowance. Talk about carrot and stick!

Not sure how accurate, but this is a rumour site and apparently briefed to a chum in the RE yesterday. But it all sounds very painful and hardly retention positive.

[downsizer]

Never used to get an annual pay increment like we do today. Ironic that people are talking of PVRing over the removal of something that people PVRed over when it was introduced!:bored:

[Melchett01]

Downsizer,

Are you talking about junior ranks or officers in the 1960s? I joined in the 90s and the officer pay spine certainly had annual increments then until gp capt I think when they became biennial. I believe the ranks were on bands but received a separate allowance for time served. A look in one of the old AFPRB reports would confirm.

Edited to add - they shouldn't be surprised if people do PVR over pay if this goes ahead. By reducing everything to financial terms and the main effort being to cut costs and save money above all else, they have monetised a way of life and turned it into a job dominated by numbers. Don't be surprised if people decide the numbers don't finally stack up.

[downsizer]

Pay 2000 (which finally came in circa 2002) introduced annual incremental pay rises. Prior to that point we all got large pay rises on promotion. Or at least the non-commisioned cadre did, might have been different for Rodneys....?

There also used to be a time served "increment" at about 12 and 15 years IIRC.

[Willard Whyte]

Certainly not an exhaustive search, but the '93 report (as early as I could easily find) has annual increments (for us Rodneys) (P20). Baldricks got triennial daily rate increments(?) (P21)

Twenty-Second Report 1993 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271970/2150.pdf)

It also includes figures from '92 report (P22 & 23)

Wingcos & GCs got biennial inc. rises, Air Commodes no increments.

[downsizer]

Yeah for Rodneys, Baldricks didn't have them till pay 2000, I think it came out of some Bett report or similar...

[Junglydaz]

Yes, prior to Pay 2000 we were on one single rate (albeit non sea-going WRNS were on a different scale). However we did get Long Service Pay on top of that. It would be interesting to see if that gets brought back too.

[Hawk98]

Just read an article on the BBC about Russian plans for a nuclear torpedo that were accidentally aired on TV, might be wanting that MPA...

[Heathrow Harry]

Today's Times" says Osborne is trying to take control of the Successor SSBN programme away from the MoD - appaerently the Cabinet have no faith they can deliver it on time and on budget

[Pontius Navigator]

Never used to get an annual pay increment like we do today. Ironic that people are talking of PVRing over the removal of something that people PVRed over when it was introduced!:bored:

Always had increments.

Originally Cranwell flt lt had 6 increments. Supplementary flt lt had increments to 38/16. Branch had mark time pay then annual increments.

Around 1972 AFPRB said that with the single list there should only be annual increments for the expected time to next promotion - 6 yrs flt lt - sqn ldr. The existing increments were compressed so the 6 yr man suddenly got 16 yrs of increments. Spec aircrew also had annual increments.

More recently people who didn't know the original rationale started to argue for more annual increments.

[downsizer]

Always had increments.

Originally Cranwell flt lt had 6 increments. Supplementary flt lt had increments to 38/16. Branch had mark time pay then annual increments.

Around 1972 AFPRB said that with the single list there should only be annual increments for the expected time to next promotion - 6 yrs flt lt - sqn ldr. The existing increments were compressed so the 6 yr man suddenly got 16 yrs of increments. Spec aircrew also had annual increments.

More recently people who didn't know the original rationale started to argue for more annual increments.

Officers yes, Airmen no. Didn't come in till pay 2000 for airmen.

[Deskex76]

From the PM's speech at the Guildhall last night:

"...We know we need the ability to carry out airstrikes so this money will provide for more fighter aircraft........ All these measures - and more - come from the choice that we make to spend on our security to deal head-on with the wide range of threats that we face today."

Full text at www.gov.uk/government/speeches/lord-mayors-banquet-2015-prime-ministers-speech

No mention of MPA/MMA.

[ORAC]

AW&ST (Ares) has an SDSR rumour page up and running (http://aviationweek.com/blog/predicting-uk-strategic-defense-and-security-review-rumor-alert). Not much on it, more asking than telling....

".....In that environment of secrecy, this blog will look at some of the talking points which may feature in the SDSR. It should not be taken as fact however, but more of an analysis of rumors, statements and information which has come to light in the last few months. It’s up to you, the reader, to give us kudos if our suppositions come true or indeed throw your thoughts into the mix."

Remark in the comments section that the 8 Merlin airframe upgrades are essential/associated with the ASAC/Crowsnest programme.

MPA/MMA - they're not sure if there will be an order, a completion or a statement of future need.

ISR/ED3 - Both open depending on the above.

"Aviation Week is confident that the Shadow will be retained in the SDSR and Britain will hang on to its Reapers until they are replaced with 20 examples of the certifiable model Reaper purchased under the Protector program.... The future of the Sentinel is far less certain however and much depends on the choice of a maritime patrol/multi-mission aircraft......

Also unclear is the future of the U.K.’s E-3D Sentry...... One suggestion is that if the U.K. invests in the P-8, it could also look the 737 AEW&C solution, because of the commonalities between the airframes."

Typhoon - they reckon they will get the additional 2 squadrons

"The Tranche 1s would be retained for U.K. air defense, training and as red-air aggressors for other units. First evidence of this was the recent transfer of Tranche 1 jets to the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic in September 2015, six years after the first four aircraft were sent down there. Rumor suggests that 30 of around 50 Tranche 1 aircraft will be retained. The biggest challenge for the Royal Air Force will be manning the squadrons however."

F-35 - Pure guess work.

"The secrecy around Britain’s F-35 plans has been a tough nut to crack.......the U.K. defense ministry is currently planning for 48 aircraft for now. However some rumors suggest even this number could fall further and would support the carrier strike capability only..... Whether the SDSR 2015 will provide more clarity on the F-35 plans is unclear, after all, by the time of the next report in 2020, the aircraft will have only just achieved its U.K. initial operating capability from land, based on current timetables."

Helicopters

"Britain has heavily invested in its helicopters during and since the Afghan conflict, so it is difficult to see what changes the SDSR could bring about. Conceivably, the SDSR could impact the numbers of modernized Apache attack helicopter planned. Current planning is for 50 AH-64E-model aircraft down from 65. It could potentially revise plans for the U.K.’s fleet of 60 CH-47 Chinooks, some critics have suggested that the U.K. now has too many Chinooks.......

Defense officials could also retrospectively upgrade some of the eight EH101 Merlin anti-submarine helicopters that were not upgraded to Mk.2 standard. "

[HeldUpByPixies]

Thoughts to the Sea King Mk7 continuing to the planned 2018 date?

How relevant is the job vs the savings in fully closing down the Sea King next year?

[Martin the Martian]

Radio 4 this morning mentioned a huge rise in funding for UK special forces, including apparently new helicopters. Can't find anything about it elsewhere.

[WhiteOvies]

Re: F-35 - Those fighter aircraft Cameron was mentioning, perhaps with T1 Typhoons kept on as well?

8 Merlin to upgrade to Mk2 standard - remember that CROWSNEST, the replacement for the SkASaC and a key component of the future Carrier Strike capability, is a role fit to Merlin Mk 2. Given the sterling and extremely relevant work done by the SkASaC force I do not see them being retired until CROWSNEST is ready to replace them. Investment in ISTAR platforms should cover this capability off.

[Haart]

Is there any room to shrink the footprint of the JHC empire? With half of Merlin departed to the RN, then is a merger of Benson with Odiham not feasible?

[pr00ne]

Haart,

Do you really think you can fit 83 helicopters into either Benson or Odiham? Add in all the other resident units as well, and they just don't fit.

[Lima Juliet]

Pr00ne

Logic like that didn't stop the madness that has become Brize Norton for the Truckies!!! :ugh:

LJ

[NWSRG]

Please forgive my ignorance, but would we not normally seek to upgrade existing airframes to the latest standard? Can these be brought up to Tranche 2 /3 specification?

[Ken Scott]

LJ: what madness? There will only be 7 sqns & 68 large airframes at the Secret Oxfordshire airbase. There's plenty of room......

[Mach Two]

Just jumping back to the pay and retention issues for a moment, I have to report that neither I nor those around me have seen anything just recently that would suggest any work in these areas. To be honest, I wouldn't expect there to be anything much in SDSR; those would probably come later once SDSR has been announced and Manning can then adjust their plan to meet the new requirements and examine what measures might be required.

If your expecting a bonus anytime soon, don't hold your breath.

[Haart]

pr00ne,


OK, fair point so why don’t we nimrod the Puma, eh? We’ve got Chinooks, the whole CHF fleet and whatever they are doing with the Lynx, so let’s delete Puma and save a bit of dosh for more important things. Like aircraft for the superpower rivalry thing.


Or, thinking outside the box, start multi-roling RW as CAS/AI. Because Assad is doing it with his airframes, EPWIV out the rear ramp of a chinnie. Jobs a good’un?

[Jobza Guddun]

Did someone call?

[Martin the Martian]

A few years back, before it became a giant mirror and before it was to be the Very Big Techie School, wasn't there a plan to move the RAF's SH en bloc to Lyneham?

[Melchett01]

Just jumping back to the pay and retention issues for a moment, I have to report that neither I nor those around me have seen anything just recently that would suggest any work in these areas.

I do hope so, both from a purely selfish perspective, but also from the bigger capability perspective. The latest, and what I can only regard as almost intentionally alarmist cost cutting rumour from my end if the trench concerns X-factor. We're running on fumes and the good will tank is empty, that really would kill the Military off in any sense as an option for a sane person looking for a decent career.

[downsizer]

The latest, and what I can only regard as almost intentionally alarmist cost cutting rumour from my end if the trench concerns X-factor.

Frankly I'd be over the moon if it were taken off the air. Mind you, I never watch ITV anyway.

[Melchett01]

You're kidding aren't you? We wouldn't miss it for anything. Working out who's for the chop makes those long meetings on Fridays more bareable

[ORAC]

You attend them with your clothes off? :eek::eek:

[OafOrfUxAche]

Talk about gallows humour...this time next week we'll be looking back fondly on the halcyon days of SDSR 2010. Well, some of us. The rest will be looking outside

[Melchett01]

ORAC,

Don't you have dress down Fridays at your place? They're very liberating and you get a real sense of 'all in it together' when there's no rank involved :ok:


Bloody iPad autocorrect!

[ORAC]

David Cameron and senior ministers to get dedicated plane (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/12004343/David-Cameron-and-senior-ministers-to-get-dedicated-plane.html)

The government will give David Cameron and senior ministers the use of a converted RAF plane for official trips

David Cameron and senior ministers are to be given the use of a dedicated plane for long-distance trips instead of chartered flights.

The government will announce next week that it will spend £10million refitting an RAF plane which is normally used for air-to-air refuelling. Ministers insist that the plane will save the taxpayer up to £775,000 a year on the cost of Downing Street's flights because it will avoid the use of costly charter flights. Downing Street is likely to face criticism over the announcement as it comes ahead of the spending review which will see deep cuts across Whitehall.

It will cost significantly less than Tony Blair's plans for "Blair Force One", which involved the purchase of two private jets for the Prime Minister's use and the Royal Family at an estimated cost of £100million. Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor, blocked the plans and later abandoned them entirely when he became Prime Minister. The Conservatives criticised the idea at the time saying it was the “wrong moment to be splashing out taxpayers' money on funding the government to travel in style".

However a government source insisted that the converted RAF plane will not be "luxurious" in stark contrast to the jets used by other World leaders. The source said: “This is about saving taxpayers’ money. There will be upfront costs but by using a refitted RAF Voyager instead of chartering private aircraft for each long-distance trip, we will save taxpayers around £775,000 a year.”

At present Mr Cameron and senior ministers use Queen's Flight, known as 32 (The Royal) Squadron, for short haul flights and charter commercial flights for long haul trips. Government sources said that the cost of long-haul charter flights can be excessive because they are often arranged at short notice. In January the government spent more than £100,000 sending Mr Cameron to Saudi Arabia to pay his respects following the death of its King.

The converted RAF Voyager A330 is expected to cost £2,000 an hour, compared to the current average cost of £6,700 an hour. The use of the flight is being offered to the Royal Family and when the plane is not in use it will return to military refuelling duties. Government sources said that he plane would have the additional benefit of offering secure communications as well as "defensive aids" in hostile areas.

[NWSRG]

Seems eminently sensible! Wonder could they add a nice paint job...

[Courtney Mil]

...maybe the Queen could use it too and they could call it the Royal Flight. Or is this Dave's Air Force One. Now, what would you call that? :E

[artee]

Piggles?

Or is that disrespectful?

[Haart]

The government will give David Cameron and senior ministers the use of a converted RAF plane for official trips

So how much more could the taxpayer be saved by using Flight Catering? "Orange squash with your meal, Prime Minister? Here's your paper cup..."

[Onceapilot]

ORAC,

The cash numbers are made-up how you wish IMO. Each and every FSTA costs £3,000 every hour of the day, 24/7, 365 days a year for the next 25 years before it turns a wheel. That is £72,000 per day that the aircraft is allocated to a task. Fuel costs around £3,000 per flying hour. Crew cost????? :eek: I think we can guess the pol's have simply decreed "this will happen". Interesting how the "comms" and "defensive aids" have been largely ignored for decades.:oh:

OAP

[Martin the Martian]

artee!

That's another cup of coffee snorted over the keyboard!:D

[Willard Whyte]

So, we've lost a tanker. Out of how many...

[camelspyyder]

It ain't the first.

One was built in factory A, converted to AAR in Factory B, delivered to AirTanker and immediately sent to Factory C for re-civilianising so it could go on long term lease to Thomas Cook or the like.

[Jackonicko]

NWSRG:

In short, the received wisdom is that you can't convert a Tranche 1 aircraft to Tranche 2 standards, let alone Tranche 3.

The aircraft differs in a number of respects, not least in having an entirely different processing infrastructure, which means that Tranche 2 software can't be hosted.

It also could not be economically upgraded to hang a heavy AESA off the front bulkhead, nor does it have adequate electrical power and cooling.

The aircraft can be upgraded to address obsolescence issues, and with that done, could gain all main T2/T3 capabilities via further software drops.

I don't expect that will happen, however, and think it more likely that we'll see two extra squadrons, one at Lossie, one at Coningsby, which will be equipped with obsolescence-addressed T1 jets, used for QRA, A-A, and red air, perhaps with the austere A-G capability stripped away, and quite possibly with aircraft that are not deployed, except to the Falklands. These probably will have further improvements via new drops, but will not get all the P1E/P2E/P3E enhancements.

[NWSRG]

Thanks Jackonicko...

I didn't realise there were such significant differences...pity! Although that must have created a significant capability jump for the later batches...

[Phoney Tony]

MoD team have briefed DoD on SDSR already. Good to see.

[Heathrow Harry]

Beeb starting the "spin"

Defence review to identify new threats and spending priorities - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34867564)

Military chiefs, civil servants and politicians are not always ready or equipped to fight the battles in front of them, let alone the wars of the future.
Think of Iraq and Afghanistan - their crystal ball is often as muddy as yours or mine. While the 2010 Strategic Defence & Security Review (SDSR) did identify terrorism and international military crises as high level (tier 1) threats, there was no specific mention of Russia and so-called Islamic State (IS) did not exist in anything like its present form.
The 2015 SDSR will identify both IS and Russia as tier 1 threats, but they may not be the same threat five years hence.

"In 2010 it was rather assumed the armed forces would get out of Afghanistan and take a bit of a breather," says Michael Clarke, director of the defence think tank Rusi. Instead "the world has shown us the armed forces won't be getting a holiday," he says.
Genuinely strategic?

First, the government should be commended on its commitment to carry out a defence review every five years. Before, defence reviews were done ad hoc. But ministers will still have to overcome a high degree of scepticism as to whether this latest SDSR is genuinely "strategic" or if it matches Britain's global ambitions with the resources needed.

SDSR 2010 may have been strategic in name but it'll be remembered for the savage cuts that followed. It wasn't just the scrapping of iconic names, it left gaping holes in Britain's defences - with no aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy and no maritime patrol aircraft to hunt down Russian submarines.cise and said the UK had to be "more thoughtful, more strategic and more co-ordinated in the way we advance our interests and protect our national security" The Royal Navy also lost thousands of personnel and is now having to recruit marine engineers from foreign navies. In order to man its two new aircraft carriers it'll need another 2,000 sailors but they'll have to manage with fewer, which could mean mothballing other warships.

The armed forces are still licking the wounds inflicted by the 2010 review. Defence Secretary Michael Fallon admits it involved "painful" decisions. But this week he told me: "We're now able to expand the defence budget again... to enhance the capabilities of our armed forces to deal with the increased threats we face." Key to this, he says, has been the commitment to meet the Nato target of spending 2% of the nation's wealth (GDP) on defence. It means there'll be a modest increase in the defence budget over the next five years.

Mr Clarke says while the armed forces might be in a better place this time round "it'll still find it difficult to meet all the commitments the government wants it to meet".

New maritime patrol aircraft will be top of the shopping list. Over the past five years Britain has had to call on the help of the US, Canada and France to hunt for suspected Russian submarines near UK waters. RAF crews have already been training on the US Boeing P8 Poseidon - but it's expensive. Other defence contractors are offering cheaper alternatives. Britain needs new aircraft now, but it has to work out what it can afford. The RAF will also be looking for more frontline fast-jet squadrons. It now has seven squadrons but would like more than a dozen. In the fight against IS it's still having to rely on the ageing Tornado. The life of some of the early Typhoons is likely to be extended to add a few more squadrons, but still probably fewer than the RAF would like.

One key decision will be how many of the new F-35s Britain will buy. The aircraft, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, is already the most expensive defence project ever undertaken by the Pentagon. The UK had originally planned to buy 138, but each jet will cost about £100m. The decision on F-35s is also important for the Royal Navy and its two new aircraft carriers from which they will fly, as are new anti-submarine frigates needed to protect the carriers.

The Navy wants 13 of the new Type 26 frigate. If it has to settle for less that would have a knock-on effect on shipbuilding jobs on the Clyde. The government will also signal its push to renew the fleet of Vanguard submarines which carry the Trident nuclear systems. The cost of building four new submarines will be updated from around £20bn to more than £30bn.

The Army will be looking at how many new armoured "scout" vehicles they'll be getting and new Apache attack helicopters. Although the Army has become less likely to engage in any large-scale conflict on its own, it still needs a range of capabilities to deploy alongside its key ally - the US. The Army also hopes this SDSR will help change public perceptions - that it's not just there to deploy en masse. The Army now sends small teams to trouble spots all over the world to help train and assist fragile states with conflict prevention.

The British Army's 2020 plan
Some regiments will be merged; others face "salami-slicing" The number of regular troops is shrinking, from 163,000 in 1978 to 102,000 in 2010 and 82,000 in 2020
The government has said it does not want whole regiments to be scrapped; some will be merged, others face "salami slicing". The Army will become more reliant on part-time soldiers; the number of reservists will double from 15,000 to 30,000 by 2020 The government says Britain will have an effective, well-equipped fighting force, integrating regulars and reserves Analysts say the Army will have resources for only one major operation at a time and there will be swingeing cuts to support units such as logistics and engineers

In fact, this SDSR will signal a significant break with the past. Mr Clarke says: "What we are seeing is a shift of resources away from fighting major wars towards using the forces in more intelligence-led, cyber-led, Special Forces-led ways for specific operations." The armed forces still want and need their big ticket items like warplanes and warships, but recent events have underlined the shift. In the wake of the Paris attacks, ministers have said the security services will get another 1,900 personnel (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34836925) while there'll be an extra £1.9bn for cybersecurity and another £2bn for Special Forces. The RAF will see the size of its drone fleet double to 20.

It's a sign the military will be involved in more intelligence-led counter-terrorism operations and an indication that, post-Iraq and Afghanistan, politicians are increasingly reluctant to put "boots on the ground". After the brutal cuts of the last SDSR, ministers hope this one will be a positive story. While the Ministry of Defence is still having to make efficiency savings, it's not being asked to make cuts right across the board like many other government departments.

[EGGP]

Beeb starting the "spin"

Defence review to identify new threats and spending priorities - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34867564)Presumably this is why CDS and PUS are upset about leaks and threatening all the boys and girls with being caught and jailed. Butt ummmmm didn't HMG leak the extra dosh for special forces?? silly me one rule for us another for them.

Or are they p*ssed that the MRA /Dave Force 1 news seems to have been leaked????

[Easy Street]

Civil servants, contractors and military personnel must do what they're told (which, as you observe from PUS and CDS's direction, is "STFU"). The risk is that a disgruntled individual, on hearing that the carrier programme is to be deleted (joke!), leaks it to try and provoke a media storm that forces the government to reconsider. That's the kind of toxicity that threats of jail time are intended to prevent. On the other hand, ministers, their special advisers and their parliamentary aides can leak what they want, when they want, since they are the ones either making the decisions or dealing with the political consequences anyway. I suspect the few little tit-bits that have come out so far are in the latter category, mainly because they're all positive. They were probably intended to keep the buildup to SDSR announcement ticking over nicely, providing a stark contrast to the opposition's meltdown over national security as the past week has unfolded. Another aspect is that the politicians would like to have a number of small-to-medium-size good news stories in the newspapers every day for a week (hence the drip-drip of announcements like Protector, Cam Fly With Me, SF funding, etc) rather than save it all up for one massive story on SDSR day, which some voters might overlook and which will quickly become chip paper anyway. It's all about the political narrative and keeping it in people's awarness....

[ninja-lewis]

"That's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he's being charged under section 2A of the Official Secrets Act."

[Chinny Crewman]

Yet more in the press today and whilst you are absolutely correct Easy Street it smacks of hypocrisy and does nothing for the reputation of those in charge.

[ORAC]

Well Osborne has confirmed one rumour this morning on the Andrew Marr show. F35B purchases to be brought forward to allow a wing of 24 to be deployed carrier based by 2023. Also briefed the Sunday Times.

Osborne pays out for 138 stealth jets (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Defence/article1636215.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2015_11_21)

BRITAIN is to buy 138 stealth fighter jets in a £12bn deal that will treble the firepower of the UK’s two new aircraft carriers and put the country on a “full war footing” in the Middle East for a generation.

George Osborne reveals today that the centrepiece of the government’s strategic defence review, to be unveiled tomorrow, will be a commitment to give Britain the world’s second most potent carrier strike force after the United States. In an interview with The Sunday Times, the chancellor said Britain should put aside its qualms about military intervention and be prepared to “project our values” around the world.

Senior government sources said the new aircraft would enable the armed forces to reclaim the Falkland Islands if they were seized by Argentina — something that critics have claimed our navy would be unable to achieve today. They will also give the UK the ability to hit Islamists in Isis territory, as well as other groups, for the next 50 years.

In an acceleration of the F-35 programme, 42 jets will be bought by 2023, with 24 available at that point for frontline squadrons operating from the new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. Before the defence review the government had planned to have eight F-35 jets available for deployment on the new carriers by 2023.

Experts had thought there was no prospect of buying anything close to 138 jets. Ministers had previously committed to deploying 14 jets on each aircraft carrier. The new pledge means they will be able to deploy 39 of the Lightning aircraft if they need to “surge” in an emergency. At least one carrier will be able to deploy all year anywhere in the world and conduct 24-hour air operations.

The first tranche of 24 jets, built by Lockheed Martin, will cost £2.4bn and trebling the number available by 2023 will add £1.2bn to the planned costs over the next 10 years. The final cost of all 138 jets is estimated at £12bn but Treasury officials will not commit themselves to a figure. The rest of the fleet will be built over the coming two decades.

The commitment to the new jets is the most high-profile spending pledge in the defence review, which includes an expansion of the special forces, more drones and plans to press ahead with the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. On Wednesday Osborne will also announce more than £2bn in extra spending for counterterrorism. Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, was instrumental in persuading Downing Street and the Treasury not to confine new spending to homeland security issues but to deliver “hard punch” capabilities on a global scale as well.

The review will, however, include cuts to the Royal Navy and to Ministry of Defence management funding. Some military units will be forced to merge or disband, military bases will be closed and sold off and there will be more outsourcing. There will also be a reduction in training budgets and changes to military terms of service.

“By bringing forward the purchase of the world’s most advanced stealth fighter jets, we will enhance our ability to respond to threats wherever and whenever necessary. Our independent aircraft carrier capability will be second only to our closest allies, the Americans,” Osborne said. “These are versatile multi-role fighter jets, able to engage in air-to-air and air-to-ground combat. And of course, British businesses and workers will benefit from this decision too, which is worth £29bn to the UK supply chain.”

Britain is the second-largest partner in the multinational F-35 programme. BAE makes air frame components in Lancashire, Rolls-Royce makes the lift fan in Bristol and Martin Baker manufactures the ejector seats in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire.

The navy will fare less well. Its plan to field a fleet of 13 new frigates will be scaled back by the defence review on cost grounds. With each of the new Type 26 Global Combat Ships expected to cost more than £500m, navy chiefs have had to accept that they will not be able to replace the Type 23 on a one-for-one basis. Two existing warships, including a £1bn destroyer, are also to be pulled off frontline duty.

[Wokkafans]

Osborne on Marr just stated 24 F-35 for the QE class carriers. He didn't say each or between them though :sad:

[Kitbag]

This (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/11/the-3-things-that-would-make-sdsr-2015-a-winner/) is a bit late to the table, but seems quite sensible really.

As for more leaks from the Chancellor after the dire warning from CDS & PUS it really does reveal that there is one rule for them and another for the proletariat, as ninja-lewis suggests, nothing has changed since Yes Minister.

[OafOrfUxAche]

The MPA becomes more stealthy by the day...

[Heathrow Harry]

I think it was Sir Humphrey Appleby who observed that Ship of State is the only ship which leaks at the top...................

[ORAC]

The MPA becomes more stealthy by the day... Leaks to the Scottish press make it seem like its been put on hold due to arguments between MOD and the Treasury.

Fears over RAF bases as MoD reviews plane plans (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/fears-over-raf-bases-as-mod-reviews-plane-plans-1-3955036)

Scotland on Sunday has learnt that the MoD is opting for RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire instead of reopening RAF Kinloss in Scotland or stationing the aircraft at RAF Lossiemouth, both in Moray.

The news comes amid a row between the MoD and Treasury over which aircraft to buy, with Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne pressing defence secretary Michael Fallon to go for a cheap option.

The MoD is said to want the Boeing P8 Poseidon model, which is seen as the best of its type currently available. The Treasury, though, is pressing for a basic converted Hercules constructed by Lockheed Martin, while a middle option, the Airbus C-295, is also being considered.

It has emerged that this week’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) will not decide on a final model but instead order a competition, which means the MoD is unlikely to get the Boeing, which costs £100 million per plane..........

[Ken Scott]

So the same as an F35 then.

[Could be the last?]

My understanding is that regardless of the numbers of F35 we purchase, the ability launch them off a fully manned carrier (Carrier Enabled Power Projection)will be virtually impossible; this is due in part to the paucity of RN crew to man the ship - and the trend is for further loss of experienced personnel. An interesting conundrum when the MoD then tries to bring the second carrier on line, whilst still trying to work up the first one.

The point of the comment, regardless of how technically advanced we become, without the operators with the correct level of knowledge and experience, the equipment is useless!

It is hoped that whatever is released tomorrow, it has been refreshed to ensure that it is a realistic proposition addressing all the key elements to do what we are asked. More importantly, that manpower doesn't take another hit! Or B.....

[Just This Once...]

The review will, however, include cuts to the Royal Navy and to Ministry of Defence management funding. Some military units will be forced to merge or disband, military bases will be closed and sold off and there will be more outsourcing. There will also be a reduction in training budgets and changes to military terms of service.

CDS's fear that we may end up with a hollowed-out force consisting of nothing but exquisite equipment to provide financial support to the defence industry, but without the people or support required, seems to have become reality.

Well I guess he had the wisdom to see it coming but was powerless to prevent it.

Ah well, I'll still buy CDS a pint in any case.

[Courtney Mil]

Given that fears that the RN were going to get yet another shafting are looking probable and that they look very likely to lose a lot of big hardware, that could be someone's brilliant solution to their manning problem for a new carrier. I can almost sense the glee as the treasury realised that a mass reduction in other surface ships would not only save money, but free up some manpower. Despite the apparent genius in that, it clearly shows that the lunatics really are running the asylum.

The Navy are not going to be happy, but I can imagine the First Sea Lord's options - you want your new carrier group, you have to give up something big.

[Easy Street]

^ CM, indeed.

All that sacrifice by the RN, just to provide the Air Component Commander with another airfield :ok::E

[Tourist]

New frigates and destroyers of an in use design are relatively easy to build, man and work up if you need some extra.

New carriers and air group from nothing........not so much

[Lima Juliet]

I've been hearing the words that SDSR might be a 'catastrophic success' in that we'll get the equipment we want but will be unable to man it or train people for it due to previous crass decisions (like MFTS, DCTT, etc...).

Luckily, the madness of the 'single gateway' into the RAF seems to be faltering - why would you attempt to b^gger around with your recruit training system when you know that you're going to undershoot the FF2020 Manpower target in 2016! Furthermore, the MFTS changeover at Cranwell might just bail out some of the training targets for aircrew due to there being an amount of time where the RAF and MFTS are running in parallel - however, log-jams will follow soon after if all of the new jets need manning for ops and not OCUs.

Anyway, we'll see. The best bit of news for me would be the dissolution of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) - fat chance of that happening. They are doing more damage to the RAF than the Luftwaffe did in 1940...

LJ

[LowObservable]

If 42 jets in 2023 is an acceleration, the previous program was remarkably slow. Eight by 2023 would have meant that the CVs would have been dependent on the Marines even for work-up as FJ carriers. But before that we'd been told that there would have been two squadrons and an OCU to support CVs joining the fleet.

It also depends on whether we're talking about buy year or delivery year.

However, it's more likely that the old plan is being spun as an expansion.

[taxydual]

to allow a wing of 24 to be deployed carrier based by 2023

In 8 years time.

Makes you think when some of the pilots for the beast are still at school smoking behind the bike sheds.

[Fintastic]

2023 is a long way off....4 years after the GR4 supposedly retires...

1. What will be covering the capability gap left by Tornado?
2. Hmmm...Lots of pilots looking for new jobs after tornado....not enough typhoon cockpits to go around...airlines recruiting and a training system that can't even support the current shortfall....where are all the FJ pilots going to come from to man F35?

Perhaps the venerable GR4 can continue for additional 4 years...best we stop scrapping airframes and train some more WSOs I think!

[Melchett01]

I've been thinking about this over the weekend, not something I try to do very often at weekends, and I've come to the conclusion that there is method in the Government's madness. Rather than appearing to be incompetent in generating a hollow force, the whole point is to re-engineer the demographics of the Forces to save money.

Given the erosion in Ts&Cs, something that looks set to continue, I suspect they are hoping to make the Forces unattractive as a long term career thus saving money on the pay and pensions bill as people gain experience and progress up the ladder. Result, you end up with a high turnover of youngsters who are cheaper and once they've done their few years you hope to retain that experience by locking them into the Reserves. I think the net effect will be to give us a military not too dissimilar to the Swiss, with a very small number of career types who provide the professional cadre and long term leadership to a large number of less experienced, junior types and Reserves.

That the Swiss are effectively a home defence force rather than an expeditionary force means this isn't an appropriate model for the UK to copy, but given the seeming focus on driving people out I just can't think of any other rational explanation.

[MaroonMan4]

Melchy,

I couldn't agree more. Although I only have a short time left, here at Odiham all we can see is more time away, and not even good times away. I reckon I have spent more time on a boat than the JHC RN contingent within in the last 2 years. Sadly, I think we will be spending even more time bobbing around with the fisheads-as will our F-35 mates.

I could make a cheap shot at Royal Flying Corps, or why bother with the Fleet Air Arm, but I wouldn't wish that lifestyle on any of my light blue colleagues.

As you say, all it will do is incentivise the qualified and experienced to go for the exit at an earlier point in their shorter careers. Treasury may benefit, we certainly will not.

[PapaDolmio]

Given the erosion in Ts&Cs, something that looks set to continue, I suspect they are hoping to make the Forces unattractive as a long term career thus saving money on the pay and pensions bill as people gain experience and progress up the ladder. Result, you end up with a high turnover of youngsters who are cheaper and once they've done their few years you hope to retain that experience by locking them into the Reserves. I think the net effect will be to give us a military not too dissimilar to the Swiss, with a very small number of career types who provide the professional cadre and long term leadership to a large number of less experienced, junior types and Reserves.

Something I said about 10 years ago. Use and abuse the cannon fodder for 12 years then bin em. Save a fortune on pensions etc.

[Just This Once...]

The trouble with a high turnover of younger servicemen is that it is murderously expensive. The length of training vs return becomes disproportionate, the balance of those in training or instructing vs productive degrades FE@R or requires a manning uplift.

When it comes to aircrew you have to factor in more training aircraft and more OCU aircraft too. We already have fleets that cannot train enough quickly enough to cover their normal loss rate (eg Sentry), so these fleets would simply cease to exist.

The old and bold are cheap and are partially self-funding as they are not drawing their pension or EDP. Sadly a lot of fleets are already diluted and struggle to fill the traditional supervisor and instructional posts.

[Melchett01]

The trouble with a high turnover of younger servicemen is that it is murderously expensive. The length of training vs return becomes disproportionate, the balance of those in training or instructing vs productive degrades FE@R or requires a manning uplift

JTO,

You're basing your argument on logic and long term thinking, neither of which feature in many politicians' calculus. Especially the current lot's thinking which actually mirrors society very well in its desire for instant gratification and an attempt to look good despite the reality of the situation.

In effect, we have a Facebook government for a Facebook generation. Don't be surprised if they haven't considered the long term implications, they're more concerned about getting to the next level on Angry Birds.

[Courtney Mil]

JTO,

You aright on the money there. I was warning about this just about ten years ago, but a troublesome SO1 raising issues was not what was needed despite being able to prove the looming problem mathematically. A year later it was starting to happen. Now it's pretty much irrecoverable.

The FAA fixed wing cadre in isolation is going to face a nightmare, a product of the same decade of decay and the gap between Har and F-35. Will the RAF be called upon to fill the supervisory and dilution gaps? I think their problems in those areas are already bordering on crisis.

[Bannock]

David Cameron: We will defeat terrorism, and the poisonous ideology that fuels it - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12010788/David-Cameron-We-will-defeat-terrorism-and-the-poisonous-ideology-that-fuels-it.html)

From the horses mouth -

"And we will invest in nine maritime patrol aircraft to protect our nuclear deterrent, hunt down hostile submarines and enhance our maritime search and rescue. Not one of these capabilities is an optional extra or an act of vanity. These investments are an act of clear-eyed self-interest to ensure our prosperity and security."

[O-P]

The Telegraph article leads you to believe that the P-8 has been selected...not sure that is true.

[Bannock]

Ahem,,,

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-pledges-178-billion-investment-in-defence-kit

[O-P]

Banncock,

I stand corrected, thank you.

O-P

Guess that's the potential Typhoon sale to Japan f@#ked then.

[HaveQuick2]

Ahem,,,

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-pledges-178-billion-investment-in-defence-kit





So, 9 x P-8, plus the two new Typhoon squadrons, plus the AESA upgrade.

[SVK]

Ok, so that's the good news. I'm genuinely happy. Although I would argue that we are merely repairing some of the damage from SDSR 2010.


Now, I am also genuinely cautious. How are we going to be shafted to pay for it all?

[Cows getting bigger]

Well, the Army appear to be shuffling cap badges (read cuts) and the Royal Navy are probably wondering about the size of the Type 26 fleet.

RAF - There's a hint that Sentinel will go (AESA) which isn't really unexpected.

[TwoTunnels]

Sky News is reporting P-8s to be based at RAF Lossiemouth! If true, that would be a real shame not to co-locate at the ISTAR 'hub'. - I'm sure the Kinloss die-hards will disagree though.

[Onceapilot]

MPA, we should never be without. Navy Carriers, should never have been ordered IMO.

OAP

[ShotOne]

"High turnover of young servicemen murderously expensive.."?? really?.. Why is it cheaper to train someone "old and bold" to fly a P8 or Voyager when a bright-eyed youngster could sit in the seat on less than half the pay? Not saying this is the right thing, JTO but can you justify your statement on financial grounds?

[Ken Scott]

So, 2 Typhoon sqns, say 15 pilots in each, plus the 24 crews for the P8, another 48 pilots plus 24 WSOs..... Don't forget the ground crew to maintain these ac, which are of course legion.

MFTS is going to have to earn its money training up all these pilots & WSOs are going to have to be magicked from somewhere.

Let's hope the cuts side of the seesaw to balance the spending isn't too harsh on T&Cs otherwise there might be a bit of a problem.

[Tourist]

So, who is going to man them?

Some of the back seaters could definitely come from the RN, we have lots of experienced operators, though the P8 tech is rather behind the Merlin.

Front seat?

Well, the RN has about 3 current maritime fixed wing pilots.....

[3 bladed beast]

There's big manning rumours now of problems and getting worse.

As I understand, manning are unable to fill QFI slots at the moment, and I know of several leaving over the coming weeks.

I'm not sure what's gone wrong and when, but for one, I'm definitely fatigued of Ops ( with no end in sight) and the pension change was a big killer for me.

The phrase 'nibbled to death by ducks' comes into mind with the RAF.

That said, I've had a mainly wonderful 17 years, but sadly my time is up.

[Just This Once...]

"High turnover of young servicemen murderously expensive.."?? really?.. Why is it cheaper to train someone "old and bold" to fly a P8 or Voyager when a bright-eyed youngster could sit in the seat on less than half the pay? Not saying this is the right thing, JTO but can you justify your statement on financial grounds?

I don't have the figures to hand but they have been prepped and scrutinised many times over and there are multiple threads to the calculations. But to give a rough order of magnitude to meet a requirement to fill one cockpit seat for 28 years:

Option 1: Fill requirement with pilots serving for no longer than 10 years.
- Allow for 3 years in training / non-productive
- Expect 7 years productive per pilot = 4 pilots required
- 4 pilots at £4M each (not an accurate figure) = £16M training bill

Option 2: Fill requirement and retain pilot for 31 years.
- Allow for 3 years in training / non-productive
- Expect 28 years productive = 1 pilot required.
- 1 pilot at £4M each (as above) = £4M training bill

1 pilot option 'saves' £12M over 28 years.

Or put another way, you could pay that pilot £428,571.42 a year and still save a few pence, even if the other 4 pilots were willing to work 10 years for free.

An extreme example no doubt, but high churn is resource and cash intensive.

[ShotOne]

But does it really cost £4million to train a P8 or Voyager pilot JTO? I deliberately left F35 out since that's outside my field but my employer was involved in training some current RAF Voyager pilots and the bill didn't come to even a small fraction of £4 million. In any case your 28 year pilot (really?) still needs training up on P8/330/F35 which you haven't costed.

Have the services EVER strived for retention? Im not saying it's right, by the way but we used to have National Service pilots and that's back in what many here would call the good old days.

[3 bladed beast]

Shotone

I believe the 4 million rough cost is from IOT to Wings ( maybe completion of first OCU)

When you factor in recruitment costs, Officer training costs, hold, medical, dental, accommodation, pilot training etc etc it does add up very quickly!!!!

Each OCU does obviously cost money, there's no getting away from that.

But simply, if you get 20+ years out of one initial recruitment and training cost, that's alot more cost effective.

Not to mention the experience that's retained, and thus safety.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Not to mention the experience that's retained, and thus safety.


Absolutely right - but try selling that to either the bean counters or the hierarchy.

[Selatar]

Brilliant news regarding the P8s, and the number 9 isn't bad. A sound decision along with the two AD typhoon squadrons. Rough numbers but with 150 per tiffie squadron and what, 400 for the P8s, where the people come from and when will be interesting. Devil in the detail I venture.

Good news so far for the light blue

[Hueymeister]

How many are we buying then?

[cokecan]

138. from the Chancellors lips...

[Finningley Boy]

So where do we imagine the two new Tiffy Squadrons will go then?

In my heart of hearts, I wsh it was Leuchars, but my head insists it will be Leeming.:sad:

FB:)

[Willard Whyte]

Dave: "Bigger Navy, bigger Air Force, better equipped Army".

Difficult to see haow this can be achieved 'quickly', given the lead in time for personnel - and eqipment, for that matter.

Anyhoo, statement at 15:30.

[edwardspannerhands]

Guess if the rumours of x9 P8's going to Lossie are true, then my guess is that will be 15(R) Sqn disbanding and the training of Tonka aircrew being subsumed as a training flight within one of the Marham Sqns. Would free up plenty of real estate capable of accomodating the P8's.

[a1bill]

would you have a link to the announcement ?

[Wokkafans]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-pledges-178-billion-investment-in-defence-kit

More news to be released at 15-30.

[FantomZorbin]

Something about "Jam tomorrow, jam yesterday but never jam today ..." :*

[a1bill]

Wokkafans, Thank you for the link.

[Easy Street]

Guess if the rumours of x9 P8's going to Lossie are true, then my guess is that will be 15(R) Sqn disbanding and the training of Tonka aircrew being subsumed as a training flight within one of the Marham Sqns. Would free up plenty of real estate capable of accomodating the P8's.

Not much guessing is needed when you consider that Tornado retires in 2019, so aircrew training is likely to stop in 2018 (if not earlier). We are unlikely to see any P-8 before then even if we sign the contract tomorrow.

What will be interesting is how tightly they can squeeze any more Typhoon squadrons in at Lossie, as Coningsby is pretty full already and I can't see a third Typhoon base being a cost-effective option. We would then have seven front-line squadrons at Lossie with another independence referendum to come if "Leave" wins the EU referendum. Not to mention the possibility of higher income tax rates in Scotland for the lucky individuals posted up to what will be truly a mega-base. Interesting times ahead.

[edwardspannerhands]

when you consider that Tornado retires in 2019,

Not necessarily - wouldnt be surprised if there's an extension to Tornado OSD as it is the Platform of choice (necessity!) at the minute with Typhoon not being fully capable.

Can see two new Tiffie sqn's being split between Conz & Los but then personnel accomodation could be a major issue.

Maybe the Leeming rumour has some merit with HAS sites and accomodation available.....and there is the other rumour of "Tatty Ton" getting some Tranche 1 Tiffies.

[Finningley Boy]

Tatty Ton?:confused:

FB:)

[edwardspannerhands]

FB

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/84/100_Squadron_RAF_crest.png (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:100_Squadron_RAF_crest.png)

[melmothtw]

when you consider that Tornado retires in 2019,

Not necessarily - wouldnt be surprised if there's an extension to Tornado OSD as it is the Platform of choice (necessity!) at the minute with Typhoon not being fully capable.

Aye, but the whole point of a 2019 OSD for the Tornado is to coincide with the Typhoon becoming fully capable. I think that the extended Typhoon OSD and additional numbers, the 138 F-35s, and the P-8s is Christmas enough for the RAF given how SDSR could have gone...

[teeteringhead]

Would a motto (Tatty Ton's) translating as "Never stir up a hornet's nest" be propitious for Middle East operations ????

Good one for an F-18 Sqn tho' :ok:

[a1bill]

I think this is going to be a live broadcast
Parliamentlive.tv - House of Commons (http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/6d6630c1-efe8-4cbc-8c58-d61dd4d02707)

[Cows getting bigger]

P8s to Lossiemouth. :)

[ORAC]

PM confirming number of F-35s and stating there will be an additional planned squadron. Number plate?

P-8s confirmed going to LM. Going to be crowded.

RN are going to get 13 frigates - but only 8 will be T36, remaining will be lighter multi-purpose and cheaper. Presumably back down to size of former classes an suitable for use on Caribbean station and other flag flying deployments.

[Willard Whyte]

Interesting snippet about HALE drones, something along the lines of "edge of atmosphere... days of endurance... british design...".

(Assuming I heard correctly, it's not appearing on the BBC 'highlights' box - yet)

[Heathrow Harry]

PM pledges £178 billion investment in defence kit

From: Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/prime-ministers-office-10-downing-street), The Rt Hon David Cameron MP (https://www.gov.uk/government/people/david-cameron) and Ministry of Defence (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence) First published:23 November 2015
The Prime Minister will announce a £178 billion investment in defence equipment and support over the next decade .

£12 billion uplift in equipment budget

9 new Boeing P8 maritime patrol aircraft
2 new strike brigades by 2025 for rapid deployment missions both of which will be up to 5,000 strong


The Prime Minister will announce a £178 billion investment in defence equipment and support over the next decade when he unveils the government’s 5 year National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security review in the House of Commons later today.
The £12 billion uplift in funding will be focused on investments that will help to ensure the UK can respond to diverse threats in an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world. These will include:
Aircraft

Nine new Boeing P8 maritime patrol aircraft for maritime surveillance, anti-submarine and anti-surface ship warfare will increase further the protection of our nuclear deterrent and our new aircraft carriers. These roles require an aircraft that can carry torpedoes, as well as being fitted with a broad range of sensors, including radar and sonobuoys, which are operated from the rear of the cabin by a team of specialists. These aircraft will also provide maritime search and rescue and surveillance capabilities over land.
Typhoon

We will be extending the life of our multirole Typhoon for 10 extra years through to 2040, meaning we will be able to create 2 additional squadrons. This will give us a total of frontline 7 squadrons, consisting of around 12 aircraft per squadron. We will also invest in their ground attack capability and fit them with a new active electronically scanned array radar to ensure they can continue to operate in hostile environments in the future.
Strike brigades

We will create 2 new ‘strike brigades’ by 2025 to be rapidly deployable, able to self-deploy thousands of kilometres, and with a much lower logistic footprint. They will use the new Ajax family (previously known as Scout) range of vehicles, comprising 6 variants and almost 600 armoured vehicles.
The Prime Minister is expected to make further announcements later today as he sets out the government’s comprehensive approach to national security, including boosting its soft power and focusing aid on fragile states and regions to tackle the root causes of conflict.
Writing in the foreword to the National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review, the Prime Minister says: Our national security depends on our economic security, and vice versa. So the first step in our National Security Strategy is to ensure our economy is, and remains, strong.
Over the last 5 years we have taken the difficult decisions needed to bring down our deficit and restore our economy to strength. In 2010, the total black hole in the defence budget alone was bigger than the entire defence budget in that year. Now it is back in balance.
By sticking to our long-term economic plan, Britain has become the fastest growing major advanced economy in the world for the last 2 years. Our renewed economic security means we can afford to invest further in our national security.
This is vital at a time when the threats to our country are growing. From the rise of ISIL and greater instability in the Middle East, to the crisis in Ukraine, the threat of cyber attacks and the risk of pandemics, the world is more dangerous and uncertain today than 5 years ago.
So while every government must choose how to spend the money it has available, every penny of which is hard-earned by taxpayers, this government has taken a clear decision to invest in our security and safeguard our prosperity.
As a result, the United Kingdom is the only major country in the world today which is simultaneously going to meet the NATO target of spending 2% of our GDP on defence and the UN target of spending 0.7% of our GNI on development, while also increasing investment in our security and intelligence agencies and in counter-terrorism.
….. At its [the strategy] heart is an understanding that we cannot choose between conventional defences against state-based threats and the need to counter threats that do not recognise national borders. Today we face both and we must respond to both. So over the course of this Parliament our priorities are to deter state-based threats, tackle terrorism, remain a world leader in cyber security and ensure we have the capability to respond rapidly to crises as they emerge.
…. Our armed forces, our police and our security and intelligence agencies put their lives on the line every day. Their service is an inspiration to us all and they are the pride of our nation. Through this National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review we will back them and use our hard-earned economic strength to support our armed forces, and to give those in our police and our security and intelligence agencies who fight terrorism the resources they need to help keep our country safe.

[ORAC]

Willard, from last month...

High-Altitude Drones (http://dronecenter.bard.edu/high-altitude-drones/)

Last month, Steve Whitby, an executive at the french aerospace giant Airbus Defence and Space, briefed reporters with some exciting news. Airbus, he said, had entered into a deal with the British Ministry of Defense, which would buy three of the company’s Zephyr solar-powered, high-altitude, long-endurance drones. However, shortly after news sites began reporting on the news, both the British MoD and Airbus claimed that no such deal had been made. “We would like to clarify our position following the recent media briefing: We have ambitions, and are expecting to secure contracts for Zephyr in the near future,” a spokesperson for the British MoD told Defense News........

cwfbEMe5a4I

Zephyr Solar-Powered HALE UAV, United Kingdom (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/zephyr/)

The Zephyr family of solar-electric-powered unmanned air vehicles is being developed by QinetiQ in the UK with the UK Ministry of Defence, under a jointly funded programme.........

[Willard Whyte]

Yeah, went down to QinetiQ at Farnborough a few years ago, Nov '09 in fact, and saw bits of (one of) the prototypes and a few videos. Missed that article, had other (family) stuff to attend to, didn't realise it had been sold to Airbus Defence and Space in early '13 either.

Hope investment is forthcoming, it's an exciting and important capability to develop, a nod to the future, rather than merely the present.

[Heathrow Harry]

Policy papers at

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-security-strategy-and-strategic-defence-and-security-review-2015

[ORAC]

Willard, here's the real one....

8q8HYQQ46XU

[Willard Whyte]

It's a shame 'we' couldn't have fully developed it in-house. Still, I shouldn't be too negative I s'pose.

[Heathrow Harry]

The Royal Navy

The Royal Navy delivers our nuclear deterrent, projects our maritime power and provides world-class amphibious forces. As part of Joint Force 2025, we will have:
Two new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers, the largest warships ever built for the Royal Navy. These will enter service from 2018, transforming the Royal Navy’s
ability to project our influence overseas. They will form the core of our maritime task group, with one available at all times. We will increase the number of F35 Lightning
aircraft we are buying in the early 2020s to ensure that we make best use of this world-leading capability, and we will buy three new logistic ships to support the fleet,
in addition to the four tankers that will enter service from 2016.

Type 45 destroyers, Type 23 frigates, Astute Class submarines and Mine Countermeasure Vessels. We will maintain one of the most capable anti-submarine
fleets in the world with the introduction of eight advanced Type 26 Global Combat Ships, which will start to replace our current Type 23 frigates in their anti-submarine
role. We will maintain our fleet of 19 frigates and destroyers. We will also launch a concept study and then design and build a new class of lighter, flexible general
purpose frigates so that by the 2030s we can further increase the total number of frigates and destroyers. These general purpose frigates are also likely to offer
increased export potential. We will buy two further new Offshore Patrol Vessels, increasing the Royal Navy’s ability to defend UK interests at home and abroad.

Royal Marines of 3 Commando Brigade who are trained and equipped to provide specialist amphibious and Arctic warfare capabilities. We will enhance a Queen
Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier to support this amphibious capability

[Heathrow Harry]

The Army
4.48
The Army delivers a modern, capable and sophisticated force able to fight independently or alongside our allies, train international partners and contribute to the UK’s
resilience. As part of Joint Force 2025, we will have:

A war-fighting division optimised for high intensity combat operations. The division will draw on two armoured infantry brigades and two new Strike Brigades to deliver a
deployed division of three brigades. We will establish these two Strike Brigades to be able to deploy rapidly over long distances using the new Ajax armoured vehicles and
new mechanised infantry vehicles. They will double the number of brigades ready for operations. With these, and 16 Air Assault Brigade’s very high readiness forces, we
will improve our ability to respond to all likely threats.

Upgraded Apache attack and RAF Chinook support helicopters, and Warrior armoured fighting vehicles. We will extend the life of our Challenger 2 main battle
tanks.

Two innovative brigades comprising a mix of Regulars and specialist capabilities from the Reserves able to contribute to our strategic communications, tackle hybrid
warfare and deliver better battlefield intelligence.
•
A number of infantry battalions reconfigured to provide an increased contributions to countering terrorism and building stability overseas. They will conduct defence engagement and capacity building, providing training, assistance, advice andmentoring to our partners.

[Heathrow Harry]

The Royal Air Force
4.49
The Royal Air Force defends our airspace, projects our air power globally and provides vital intelligence to support operations including counter-terrorism. We will continue to operate
Tornado combat aircraft until they are replaced by Typhoon. As part of Joint Force 2025, we will have:
•
Typhoon and F35 Lightning aircraft, which will ensure that the Royal Air Force can continue to deal with evolving threats. We will establish an additional F35 Lightning
squadron and two additional Typhoon squadrons. We will invest further in Typhoon’s capabilities, including ground attack and a new Active Electronically Scanned Array
radar to ensure that we can continue to operate it until at least 2040. We will maintain our plan to buy 138 F35 Lightning aircraft over the life of the programme.

Complex weapons, including Stormshadow and Brimstone missiles, which offer unrivalled precision. We will continue to invest further in new precision weapons to
sustain our battle-winning capabilities.

More than 20 new Protector armed remotely piloted aircraft, more than doubling the number of the Reaper aircraft which they replace.

Upgraded aircraft to gather intelligence and detect and track targets, both on the ground and in the air. Sentinel will be extended in service into the next decade;
Shadow until at least 2030; and Sentry and Rivet Joint until 2035.

Nine new Boeing P8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft to increase further the protection of our nuclear deterrent and our new aircraft carriers. These aircraft will be based in
Scotland and will also have an overland surveillance capability.

A recapitalised air transport fleet to enable our Armed Forces to intervene globally at speed. By 2016, we will have 14 Voyager air-to-air refuelling aircraft. Our 22 new
A400M Atlas heavy-lift aircraft will enhance our global reach, alongside our eight C17 aircraft. We will upgrade and extend the life of our C130J aircraft, allowing them to
support a range of operations until 2030.

A recapitalised Command Support Air Transport fleet to replace the current aircraft as they reach the end of their life. This will increase their operational utility and ensure
we are able to continue to transport the Royal Family and senior Ministers cost-effectively. We will also adapt one of our existing Voyager aircraft so that, as well as
its primary air tanking role, it can transport senior Ministers securely, delivering better value for money than the current use of charter aircraft. The aircraft would also be
available to the Royal Family.

We will invest in the next generation of combat aircraft technology, in partnership with our defence aerospace industry and our closest allies. We are working with the US to build
and support the F35 Lightning. We will work with France to develop our Unmanned Combat Air System programme, and collaborate on complex weapons.

[alfred_the_great]

PM confirming number of F-35s and stating there will be an additional planned squadron. Number plate?


801 NAS :D

[Bob Viking]

When I started this thread with the tidbit of two new Typhoon Sqns I didn't actually expect us to get them. And more!

A proper F35 buy and P8 as well?!

Even the world weary denizens of this forum must surely find it difficult to whinge today?

I realise it doesn't compare in some people's minds to a bygone era (and we should never make the mistake of comparing ourselves to the USA) but with the kit we're getting we will still have a military to be proud of.

BV:ok:

[Haart]

With 2 more Typhoon sqns (7) Lossie is definitely going to be chocca. How about a cunning solution of P-8s to Lossie, Typhoon back to Leuchars (afld open anyway) and SCOTS DG out of Leuchars to Edinburgh (1SCOTS just vacated Redford Bks, social scene and hunting better for cavalry in Edin/Borders). Everyone a winner.

[ORAC]

P-8s to be "in service" by 2020.

Is that first aircraft delivery, IOC or FOC?

[HaveQuick2]

P-8s to be "in service" by 2020.

Is that first aircraft delivery, IOC or FOC?



First 3 aircraft in service "by the end of this parliament", said call me Dave.

[cokecan]

Typhoon needs to be as far north as it can get, as does P-8 - F-35 doesn't, it already going to Marham, so would it not be a clever plan to split F-35 between Marham and the about-to-be vacated Mildenhall?

[KPax]

Does buying the P8 open the door for Wedgetail as a replacement for E3?

[Navaleye]

Having just spent a week in DC I can share their intent to operate a full squadron of F35s plus MV-22s off the QEs in certain parts of the world. 9 month deployments with a UK CTG are back. Outstanding news.

[pr00ne]

KPax,


No.

In the SDSR document the new OSD for Sentry is clearly stated as 2035.

[typerated]

Can someone explain where the 2 extra Typhoon Sqn appear from?


I was assuming they will be new builds - tranche 3b but I have heard references to keeping tranche 1 going - so are the 2 Sqns just not retiring these older aircraft? How many new aircraft will be built?


Many Thanks


TR

[pr00ne]

typerated,

You have answered your own question!

Previous plans to retire the Tranche 1 have been axed. Now to be refitted and retained alongside existing Tranche 2 and new build Tranche3B.

[edwardspannerhands]

With 2 more Typhoon sqns (7) Lossie is definitely going to be chocca.

Not any more than in was back in the 80's.... ...

2 Buccaneer Op Sqns
1 Buccaneer OCU
1 Jaguar OCu
1 Shackleton Sqn
1 SAR Flt.

Happy Days are here again.........:ok::ok::p:p:D:D

[pr00ne]

edwardspannerhands,

I would say that 5 Typhoon squadrons and the entire Poseidon fleet ( OCU, OEU and 1 or 2 FL sqns?) is a lot more in terms of people and kit than your list, but where is it stated that the two additional Typhoon squadrons WILL be at Lossiemouth?

[camelspyyder]

Typhoon needs to be as far north as it can get, as does P-8 - F-35 doesn't, it already going to Marham, so would it not be a clever plan to split F-35 between Marham and the about-to-be vacated Mildenhall?

The RAF hasn't moved back into many US bases due to the hideous cost of redoing all the infrastructure - its all 110V for a start. Seem to remember a plan for the Harrier force to go to Bentwaters that was scuppered for this reason.

[typerated]

Thanks Pr00ne,


so 2 additional Sqns is really 2 Sqns retained.


I was thinking about the recent redundancies at Salmesbury and Warton. Like most organisations the lads doing the job are top notch even if their management is worthy of criticism.

[camelspyyder]

The ISTAR fleet is ever growing, the sum total of WSOP(EW) trained in the last 5 years is 5 (none of whom have reached the FL yet) with about 100 made redundant. One WSO today proposed keeping me on to 70! I think 55 would be pushing it to be honest.

[edwardspannerhands]

pr00ne

but where is it stated that the two additional Typhoon squadrons WILL be at Lossiemouth?

I believe someone mentioned that a few posts back.

My take is that the 2 extra Sqn's may be split between Lossie and Coningsby, or as I alluded to earlier - maybe the other rumour of Leeming isn't too far fetched (HAS Sites, accomodation etc., readily available).

[pr00ne]

typerated,

"Thanks Pr00ne,


so 2 additional Sqns is really 2 Sqns retained."


No, Typhoon force to go from five to seven operational squadrons, so that IS two additional squadrons.

[Chris Kebab]

...so what year will that actually happen?

[LowObservable]

Is anyone else confusicated by the "added" JSFs in the early 2020s, and what baseline they were added to?

Or is it still two squadrons and an OCU with 45 jets (plus three in the U.S.)?

[Not_a_boffin]

801 NAS :D

Gen dit?

The JF2025 graphic only shows two F35 sqns - assume 617 and 809NAS as announced earlier. The "additional" one appears suspiciously absent....

If it is 801NAS - fantastic news.

[LowObservable]

It's reassuring that you're as confused by this document as I am, Mr B.

[ORAC]

With a full buy of 138 F35s, and assuming 40% for attrition/maintenance/OCU, I make that enough to for 7 Sqns. Assuming both carriers operational with 1x RN* Sqn aboard, that assumes another 2 ashore for work-up, rotation and joint ops deployment. It would therefore seem possible to suggest an RAF wing available for surge carrier ops but otherwise used for current ops - which would fit in with replacing the GR4 wing at MR.

The question then being where will the 2/2 afloat/shore based be based? If would seem sensible to be based down south near the work up areas, but I'm not sure if YVL etc are in the frame to accept them?

*RN meaning RN name-plated. I am assume that, pending a miracle, all with be majority RAF manned for the foreseeable future with just a leavening of RN air and ground crew. How to rectify that economically is, thankfully, not my problem.

[Kitbag]

My understanding of the F-35 Sqn structure is that each sqn will consist of c55% light blue and 45% dark blue irrespective of the number plate. Personally I believe this to be flawed and foolish, but it will go some way to disguising the Navy's' inability to fully man their posts, in much the same way as they struggled with JFH.
As for basing, Marham is likely the only option given the eye watering amounts needing to be invested down there.

[ORAC]

As for basing, Marham is likely the only option given the eye watering amounts needing to be invested down there Assuming 2 Sqns afloat that may only be 5 Sqns of aircraft to shoehorn in - but the families won't be going anywhere. Has MR the married quarters for 7 Sqns worth of air and ground crew?

p.s. As an ex-FC the airspace for ACT/PIs of East Anglia was congested 20 years ago, even after WT shut as an AD base. Fitting in even secondary role AD for the MR on top of CY will be lots of fun. Especially if the USAF decide to replace the F15Cs with F-22.....

[JFZ90]

4.46 We will upgrade our helicopters and transport aircraft so that they can deploy further and faster.

Interesting.

[LowObservable]

The full 138 JSFs are "over the life of the programme" (p31). That's waaaaay out there.

[Kitbag]

Good question, depends how big a sqn is to some extent. If the F-35 is only to be based at Marham how many specialists would buy in the local community

[ORAC]

Buy in the local area, on RN/RAF rankers wages? That's a giggle. As a local you must be aware of the house prices that close to London?

[Hangarshuffle]

I've tried to keep abreast of this debate today and I'm now calling it a night. I'm very wary of Cameron.Some of you are simply swallowing this talk like a gannet fishing in an aquarium. The man has previous on defence, and my honest interpretation of him is he isn't very good at it.
Be wary of him and his intentions. He's had some tough weeks on terrorism, policy and very much on our economy. He is trying to spin out some good intentions. This latest review strikes me as very much cuffed, the way it is penned together. Its very spun.
But please be wary of him. And remember - its your country, your money-not his.
Goodnight.

[Kitbag]

Plenty have done, especially if the other half has a decent income, and if there's nowhere else to be posted 'cos you know the jet. It could be a worthwhile gamble to go somewhere north of the A47, especially if you don't mind tortoise speed internet and no cellphone signal.

[Willard Whyte]

especially if you don't mind tortoise speed internet and no cellphone signal.

Sounds like most RAF bases I was either based at or visited.

[Onceapilot]

Leeming is the place for expansion. Established, under-used, (lots of) room for expansion, central UK. Would be a great place for another 2 Sqdn's of Typhoon and... with a simple expansion to 10,000x200 runway and a large apron, it could be the bolt-hole/second iron in the fire for Brize!!!!:ok:

OAP

[F.O.D]

In fact house prices in Downham Market and the fens are very affordable. Head South to Ely or North to Burnham and the North coast and that is a very different story.

[Brian W May]

I've tried to keep abreast of this debate today and I'm now calling it a night. I'm very wary of Cameron.Some of you are simply swallowing this talk like a gannet fishing in an aquarium. The man has previous on defence, and my honest interpretation of him is he isn't very good at it.
Be wary of him and his intentions. He's had some tough weeks on terrorism, policy and very much on our economy. He is trying to spin out some good intentions. This latest review strikes me as very much cuffed, the way it is penned together. Its very spun.
But please be wary of him. And remember - its your country, your money-not his.
Goodnight.

Hangarshuffle : For what it's worth, my thoughts entirely. Slimey, slippery politicians with always an eye for their well-being/way out as appropriate.

[Bastardeux]

I knew it was only a matter of time before the cynicism of Pprune took hold! The thing I find interesting is that all these plans have been made on an assumption of a flat budget after 2020, so the potential exists for a solid sdsr in 2020 if the 2% commitment is extended to 2025 or further.

[glad rag]

Hangarshuffle : For what it's worth, my thoughts entirely. Slimey, slippery politicians with always an eye for their well-being/way out as appropriate.

An example...

Just remember this is the individual who has stated that F-35 will safeguard 4,500 local jobs....

Or did he????

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/major-investment-to-boost-uk-fast-jet-home-in-east-of-england

[Easy Street]

F-35 squadron numbers - I read the announcement as indicating that there will be two front-line squadrons. Since we already knew that 809 NAS was going to be the OCU, with 617 Sqn the first front-line unit, I think that the speculation over 801 NAS's reappearance is pretty sound. Shame it will be so far away (post-SDSR20!)

As to the number of Typhoon squadrons increasing, this really isn't difficult to understand. Previous plan was to stay at 5 with all the Tranche 1 jets retiring and being replaced by Tranche 3, giving a 5-sqn force of mixed Tranche 2/3 aircraft. New plan is to have 7 sqns, an increase of 2 as announced, by retaining the Tranche 1 aircraft in service. Next question will be how those are mixed in - my money would be on a few of them per sqn for use on QRA and in-house red air. Speculation of a dedicated Typhoon aggressor unit seems a bit, well, aggressive!

All in, a good day for the RAF. On one level, it can be argued that it was a deserved correction to ~15 years of incremental shift towards a land-centric force, which was always an anomaly considering our status as an island trading nation. Therefore I am reluctant to paint this as 'glorious victory', more just an outbreak of common sense!

[glad rag]

Good question, depends how big a sqn is to some extent. If the F-35 is only to be based at Marham how many specialists would buy in the local community

Or as the REAL locals call it, Nor******!

[insty66]

In fact house prices in Downham Market and the fens are very affordable. Head South to Ely or North to Burnham and the North coast and that is a very different story.

The first part will change if this (http://www.aventacapital.co.uk/#!downham-market/c1xhx) happens.

The rest is pretty accurate.

[smujsmith]

Heathrow Harry #194,

Sorry, a bit late to the ball on this;

" A recapitalised air transport fleet to enable our Armed Forces to intervene globally at speed. By 2016, we will have 14 Voyager air-to-air refuelling aircraft. Our 22 new A400M Atlas heavy-lift aircraft will enhance our global reach, alongside our eight C17 aircraft. We will upgrade and extend the life of our C130J aircraft, allowing them to support a range of operations until 2030."

Interesting on the C130J, which I believed were all to be retired, to allow room for the mighty Atlas, and increased Voyager fleet. Is BZN capable of supporting all of these aircraft ? Having seen Lyneham from the air recently, I suspect there's no going back in that direction. Anyone any thoughts ?

Smudge :ok:

[Courtney Mil]

Lord Dannett's take on itis interesting.

SDSR: Lord Dannatt's reaction
The Former Chief of the General Staff salutes "an honest attempted to rectify a past error"

I generally welcome what the Government has done. I think the commitment to two additional squadrons of Typhoon and F35 vertical take off fighter jets recognises the medium- to long-term pressure that the RAF is under. That on top of the The Boeing P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft will significantly boost not only our capability at sea but also our [submarine borne] nuclear deterrent.

As for Land Forces, I particularly welcome the introduction of two new strike brigades, along with kit and vehicles. The only sad thing is that we could have had these 10 years ago. But the additional cash then went into the aircraft carrier programme. The problem is that the decision to go for the carrier – whose cost has now doubled from £3.5bn to £6bn – has run the risk of creating the wrong type of Navy, with the wrong type of craft.

This is an island nation with a history of needing to protect trading routes all over the world. What we have had is a situation where we were equipped with very advanced warships, but only a few of them. So as far as the Navy is concerned, the decision to go down from 13 to 8 Type 26 frigates is a realisation of the very high cost of these particular advanced craft. To patrol the Indian Ocean or the coast off West Africa you need something relatively cheap and cheerful – and more of them.

When it comes to cyber warfare, the important thing is that we are always trying to adapt. For the rank and file, cyber will matter less – the really important thing is that our intelligence and surveillance capabilities are up there with the best.

But there will be costs. We will see a reduction in the civil service and backroom staff. And what hasn’t been discussed today are the terms of service – particularly for those in the Army. The concern is that those people serving won’t have the same security they have had in the past, such as incremental pay rises which have been part and parcel of service. One waits and wonders and hopes that terms of service, when they are announced, possibly on Wednesday as part of the spending review, prove an incentive not a barrier to recruitment.

The world looked very different at the time of the last spending review in 2010. Frankly, we hoped then that the world would become more secure – and that has turned out not to be the case. Today’s SDSR is an honest attempt to rectify that error.

[JFZ90]

Anyone know how the business case stacks up for the P-8 vs what carrying on with MRA4 would have cost?

I know it had a few technical issues to resolve, but most of the £4Bn MRA4 acquisition was done & sunk, and mainly support costs lay ahead.

Now the 9 x P8 buy will face ~£2Bn acquisition all over again PLUS the support and what I assume will be new infra cost. That will be a lot. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just keep going with MRA4? Looks like you could have run the nearly finished MRA4 for 10-15 years for what we're about the spend on just buying P-8. Was it just knee jerk 'blame the last lot' politics?

Woodford must feel a bit sick. Last UK aerospace whole aircraft production capability closed for what - a 5 year payment holiday?

It maybe possible to show that carrying on would have been cheaper long term - and the money to borrow to do it was probably buttons. Sad for UK engineering.

[Not_a_boffin]

F-35 squadron numbers - I read the announcement as indicating that there will be two front-line squadrons. Since we already knew that 809 NAS was going to be the OCU, with 617 Sqn the first front-line unit, I think that the speculation over 801 NAS's reappearance is pretty sound. Shame it will be so far away (post-SDSR20!)
!

Errrr, isn't the OCU 17(R)?

[downsizer]

Not that it will probably affect many on here, but now only OOAs planned to be over 6 months will attract RnR. Standard 6 month or less dets won't.

Another little kick in the TCOS that's been slipped in under the radar.

[downsizer]

Errrr, isn't the OCU 17(R)?

17 is the OEU. Come on!:ok:

[Hawk98]

For a start this is just my opinion as a 17 year old cadet so feel free to correct me where necessary :) But regarding where the 2 new Typhoon sqns will be based, would basing at Boscombe Down be a possibility? It's already down to be a QRA base should the situation require it and there is certainly an RAF FJ absence south of Lincolnshire! As the QRA requirements would imply, its got plenty of HAS', two huge runways and I'm presuming all the other infrastructure that would be required.

Cheers, Tom

[ORAC]

We will upgrade and extend the life of our C130J aircraft, allowing them to support a range of operations until 2030." I would imagine this recognition of the fact that the A-400M won't be qualified to carry out the full range of SF duties till then - and the enhanced support and duties/hours the C-130 force will be obliged to support in the meantime.

A-400M is a bit big for tactical SF Ops anyway. Not saying C-130 is expendable rather than strategic, but........ :hmm:

[Kitbag]

So far there seems to be a positive reaction to the equipment proposals but downsizer raises a vital point; what further changes to TCoS? All the shiny toys will be window dressing if there's no one to operate/maintain/support them. I saw nothing in the main document so would anybody like to take a guess?

[Selatar]

With the RN getting 400 of the 700 new posts, that leaves 300 new posts for the RAF. So 300 to cover:

two typhoon squadrons
an entire MPA force (minus seedcorn)
2x C-130J squadrons that have been extended
Sentinel and shadow squadron folks - largely temp posts
All the RPAS guys (more than you think) - lots of temp posts

and that's not including GR4 not drawing down as planned and f-35 stuff.

I don't see any significant force reductions or fleet retirements to compensate for this?

Me thinks some internal A1 work is required...

Damn good day for the RAF mind.

[Davef68]

Command Transport aircraft to be replaced - explains the new A109 for 32 Sqn, what's the OSD for the 146s?

C130J to be retained until 2030 - rewing program anyone?

[melmothtw]

2022 OSD for the 146s IIRC (the 2 procured for airlift, at least). Rewinging for the C-130s already announced by gov (sort of) -

Photo of Angus RobertsonAngus Robertson SNP Westminster Leader, Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Defence), Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Foreign Affairs)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether a study of the centre-wing box of the C-130J fleet is in progress.
Hansard source
(Citation: HC Deb, 16 March 2015, cW)
Photo of Julian BrazierJulian Brazier The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stte for Defence
A joint UK-Australian study of the centre-wing box of the Hercules C-130J is in progress.
Does this answer the ab

[ORAC]

And the mega bucks to be thrown at the E-3D for upgrades if it has to soldier on to 2035. I would imagine, however, a further shrinkage in the the number of airframes and crews/Sqns with the the rest being stripped for spares.

Assuming the NATO commitment/offset can be met of course - it may/may not be cheaper to run it on rather than fold it and have to fund the NATO E-3A force. I would expect the costs are close, but the flexibility to cover the FI task and OOA would make it preferable.

And, indeed, the 737 Wedgetail may come into the picture as a replacement, but not I imagine for at least a couple of decades until the P-8 bill has wound down.

[Melchett01]

FWIW, I shall continue to be the resident naysayer until all the details are in - I'm afraid I have to agree with Kitbag, Hangarshuffle et al.

This was a very pleasant announcement for a PM who has to sound strong in the midst of a global terrorist crisis and a foreign policy quagmire. Remember we were told before the election that the equipment budget would increase, but nothing about the personnel budget.

If the intent is for the Army not to drop below 82,000 under any circumstance, if SF and the Intelligence Agencies are having a huge (relative to their size) pile of cash thrown at them but the Chancellor still wants to save money, those savings will have to come from somewhere. I still haven't seen a formal breakdown of how we will meet the 2% NATO target going forward, so cynic in me thinks they are going to try and role bits of SIA and DFID funding into it by conflating Defence and hard power with Security and soft power.

Note there was no mention of pay and Ts&Cs today, clearly not the purview of a Strategic Review lest they be accused of a cuts driven review. But if they cut increments, if allowances are revamped (with a move to 5 yr tours and increasing stability I'd wager CEA and HTD look shaky) and if training budgets are cut, we still run the risk of having lots of new kit and insufficient people to operate it. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I've seen too much spin over the years not to look for the googlie when you least expect it.

[LowObservable]

ORAC -

Damn straight re. the E-3Ds. Someone badly needs to evaluate that against the LCC of buying something new.

[The_1]

Melchett - beat me to it ....:{

Great, so finally after the lure of the shiny new toys we're getting into the details that will make or break this plan.

As others have said...a good day on the face of it for the light blue. Now need to see the supporting evidence to see if this plan survives... manning requirements, recruiting plan, T&Cs, impact on career structure, expectation of promotion, how fast can we recruit and train the engineers, prospects for a full career etc

But a message that is being pedalled widely is the need to become more like the likes of BAe and others out there i.e prepared to accept a transient workforce who come and go and are replaced, become leaner, lose any expectation of 'special treatment' on housing, schooling, pension, 'perks', and either like it or lump it i.e accept or walk.

No problems with a tough message or with change...the money is tight and any waste needs to be removed..but is it really wise to present such a stark choice and ignore any bottom-up views. If the wider T&Cs and the overall package is not a decent one, then people will walk. This has always happened but do people understand that when they walk they take experience with them. And experience cannot be recruited. Any gap takes years to fill. Add to this, the apparent move/desire for a workforce that are on short term appointments with no expectation of a 'full career' and this will lead to a RAF that is very different to the one in existence today.

So any thoughts on what needs to change on the personnel/T&Cs side to put the SDSR plan into reality?

[glad rag]

Or to surmise, all the gear but no idea.

[Selatar]

On the face of it, manning the force mix described today with a largely regular uniformed force of 31 800 requires a cunning plan from manning (god help us). It's more than binning a dozen adminers here and a handful of coppers there.

Doing all this whilst "in contact" in Iraq and Syria adds to the fun.

A review (another one) to see if you can make a post civie (not MOD civi as they have been butchered), bin it or contract it out is inbound...

[EGGP]

The messages the civil service are getting is that it will be outsourced , do you seriously think crapita, G4S and their like will provide the service needed....... no I didn't think so.

[Kitbag]

Contracting out leads to contraction of your pool of deployable personnel. Sqns aren't too bad, but what about OOA VAHS sections or all the other supporting roles that make an airfield tick, these tend to be made up of waifs and strays from all those second line bays etc. Bin them and who's going to do the job, the hard pressed sqn guys? And is it really sensible to pull them away from their specialisation to do a generalist task? These days to meet the mandated requirement for Suitably Qualified and Experienced Personnel takes considerable investment at each rank level. That is a tension that the Service cannot resist.

There is a manning problem, TG1 are about to go to 12m PVR notice; not the sign of a healthy manning balance. Some other TGs are in much worse condition. FF2020 manning requirements have already been breached. The 'offer' is no longer enough for a lot of good guys; I've had people who are going to work as train drivers, or renewable techs, or train maintainers, or going into teaching, or maintaining production line equipment. They are all looking at 50-100% salary increase + overtime and they all remember the trauma of the redundancy notices less than 5 years ago.

[Shell Management]

Contracting out what is after all 737 maintenance should be fairly straight forward once a suitable Safety Case has been prepared and compliance monitoring applied.