Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
God...not again! Please STOP!
ORAC if you read the article carefully, it quite clearly points out the reduction in funding for all three Services and the main thrust is that it is very easy to forget the contribution the RN has made to Herrick amongst others, against the very hard and swinging cuts over the last decade "selling off the family silver". It also states that the divisive sniping and fighting has GOT TO STOP or both the RN AND the RAF will suffer. So it is not a diatribe against the RAF.
On the subject of cuts, IMHO, the RAF has spent on Typhoon and everything around it, at the expense of AT and SH, (for good reasons at the time)that is the issue and not anything to do with RN interference. The RN in contrast, has experienced great pain in re-configuring its forces to meet a 21st century threat, the CVF are one element in that re-configuration.
Everyone in every Service is in a whole world of pain, that could be resolved by the treasury stumping up just a fraction of what was spent on the Banks. Save your bile for the government, that is where the battle lies and demonstrating to the public what each and every arm of the MOD brings to the table.
So all you armchair staff officer's out there, stop trying to yank everyones chain because there are some very high quality individuals out there, of all colours of cloth, trying to make things work for the benefit of all parts of the MOD.
P.S anyway..you read the Grauniad not the Torygraph!
ORAC if you read the article carefully, it quite clearly points out the reduction in funding for all three Services and the main thrust is that it is very easy to forget the contribution the RN has made to Herrick amongst others, against the very hard and swinging cuts over the last decade "selling off the family silver". It also states that the divisive sniping and fighting has GOT TO STOP or both the RN AND the RAF will suffer. So it is not a diatribe against the RAF.
On the subject of cuts, IMHO, the RAF has spent on Typhoon and everything around it, at the expense of AT and SH, (for good reasons at the time)that is the issue and not anything to do with RN interference. The RN in contrast, has experienced great pain in re-configuring its forces to meet a 21st century threat, the CVF are one element in that re-configuration.
Everyone in every Service is in a whole world of pain, that could be resolved by the treasury stumping up just a fraction of what was spent on the Banks. Save your bile for the government, that is where the battle lies and demonstrating to the public what each and every arm of the MOD brings to the table.
So all you armchair staff officer's out there, stop trying to yank everyones chain because there are some very high quality individuals out there, of all colours of cloth, trying to make things work for the benefit of all parts of the MOD.
P.S anyway..you read the Grauniad not the Torygraph!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The running down of the RN is just the begining. Will you sit up and take notice when JSFis binned as there are no carriers to operate it of?
Once the harrier retires will that become a "capability holiday"? And of course as MR2 Nimrod becomes less and less servicible the argument that we don't need maritime patrol aircraft and rescue support would be better served with a Hercules of yes and of course SAR provision is now a Coastguard function so why does the RAF & RN have a SAR element at all? And of course in his civilised world we don't need air defence assets GBAD will have already gone so 4-6 Sqns of Typhoons could then disappear. And the Tornado replacement is it needed Typhoon seams to be coping OK. A400M well with the delays we've shown that the existing c130J/C17 fleet can cope so we'll cut that. The article is right the treasury and the current government see the UKDF as a source for budget cuts for money to go to more visible and politically sensitive projects.
One lesson of the Falklands hasn't been learned by the Armed forces. The reason defence planning was changed post 82 was the humiliation of the Govt by picture of British servicmen having their faces rubbed in the dirt. The only thing that will change the govt/treasury attitude to the armed forces is those same armed forces getting a good kicking infront of the worlds media.
Once the harrier retires will that become a "capability holiday"? And of course as MR2 Nimrod becomes less and less servicible the argument that we don't need maritime patrol aircraft and rescue support would be better served with a Hercules of yes and of course SAR provision is now a Coastguard function so why does the RAF & RN have a SAR element at all? And of course in his civilised world we don't need air defence assets GBAD will have already gone so 4-6 Sqns of Typhoons could then disappear. And the Tornado replacement is it needed Typhoon seams to be coping OK. A400M well with the delays we've shown that the existing c130J/C17 fleet can cope so we'll cut that. The article is right the treasury and the current government see the UKDF as a source for budget cuts for money to go to more visible and politically sensitive projects.
One lesson of the Falklands hasn't been learned by the Armed forces. The reason defence planning was changed post 82 was the humiliation of the Govt by picture of British servicmen having their faces rubbed in the dirt. The only thing that will change the govt/treasury attitude to the armed forces is those same armed forces getting a good kicking infront of the worlds media.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: England
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence unfairly penalised
The most scandalous aspect of the defence cutbacks expected over the next 5 years is that defence spending didn't benefit from the splurge of increased spending during the public sector boom years '00-'07, but is expected to play full part in the cutbacks that are the consequences.
All sorts of capabilities and skills are likely to be lost if the some of the predictions come true. A key culprit is the escalation in the costs of military development programs, and the inability of small buyers like the UK to exploit significant economies of scale, such as those enjoyed by US, and Euro projects. We are moving through 'smart procurement', that's now too expensive, to a situation where the only economically viable route is to let industry develop concepts on its own (e.g. Mantis, Talarion ..), and buy Off the shelf. But, what sort of 'cutting-edge' will our troops get if it's left to the defence equipment market?
All sorts of capabilities and skills are likely to be lost if the some of the predictions come true. A key culprit is the escalation in the costs of military development programs, and the inability of small buyers like the UK to exploit significant economies of scale, such as those enjoyed by US, and Euro projects. We are moving through 'smart procurement', that's now too expensive, to a situation where the only economically viable route is to let industry develop concepts on its own (e.g. Mantis, Talarion ..), and buy Off the shelf. But, what sort of 'cutting-edge' will our troops get if it's left to the defence equipment market?
As long as Iran continues to rattle its 'Sabres' then I reckon we'll be safe - if not? - bring on the redundancies - I'm sick of it all now and just want to retire to the Isle of Mull and have a small holding and stick my V's up to the world!!
Do we jump now or wait for the payoff?? Joining the job market along with 15K Navy and 20K RAF personnel may be a tad testing - may the best man win!!
Grim
Do we jump now or wait for the payoff?? Joining the job market along with 15K Navy and 20K RAF personnel may be a tad testing - may the best man win!!
Grim
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is going to hit them like a speeding train.
Army faces biggest cuts since Crimea - Times Online 21 Jun 09
General Sir David Richards, the incoming head of the army, offered to sacrifice The Green Howards, the regiment of General Sir Richard Dannatt, the current head of the army.
The plan was discussed at a high-level meeting of the army, the navy and the RAF in Whitehall last Tuesday. The defence ministry said this weekend it could not discuss the proposed cuts because next year’s planning round was “ongoing”.
The RAF proposed the scrapping of Harrier jump jets while the navy proposed axing Type42 destroyers early, and putting back the replacement for its frigates for 20 years.
“This is the opening move in what could be the bloodiest spending round yet,” a senior defence source said. “All three services will get new defence chiefs over the next two months. This is going to hit them like a speeding train.”
The plan was discussed at a high-level meeting of the army, the navy and the RAF in Whitehall last Tuesday. The defence ministry said this weekend it could not discuss the proposed cuts because next year’s planning round was “ongoing”.
The RAF proposed the scrapping of Harrier jump jets while the navy proposed axing Type42 destroyers early, and putting back the replacement for its frigates for 20 years.
“This is the opening move in what could be the bloodiest spending round yet,” a senior defence source said. “All three services will get new defence chiefs over the next two months. This is going to hit them like a speeding train.”
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big guns don't win today's wars - Telegraph
Big guns don't win today's wars
The nature of modern conflict means our Armed Forces urgently need a major overhaul. Thomas Harding anticipates a battle in which the Army must triumph
Flags will fly high and proud this weekend at some 200 ceremonies across Britain to mark the inaugural Armed Forces Day. The nation will have the chance to demonstrate its gratitude to those who have fought and died in its name; everyone from young men and women who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan to the veterans of conflicts long ago.
But away from this feelgood ceremony there is a campaign that needs to be fought, not against the Taliban, but between the dinosaurs and Young Turks in the military. The outcome will determine whether the Armed Forces are left burnt out in the wadis of Helmand or evolve into a sharpened and highly effective tool to fight the wars of the future.
It is becoming clear that there is simply not enough money available to fulfil the separate aspirations of all three Services. To paraphrase Gen Sir David Richards, who spoke at the Royal United Services Institute on Wednesday, we can do many things inadequately or a few things well, but to try both will end in failure.
Gen Richards, who will become the head of the Army in August, has adroitly opened the debate on the future of our Armed Forces and put forward his view of what that future should be. Be in no doubt, a radical departure is proposed, and at a time when both major political parties appear bankrupt of defence policies.
In his three years as commander in chief of Land Forces based in Salisbury Plain, Gen Richards has gathered around him some of the most dynamic military thinkers (and not just from the Army) to thrash out the immediate future of defence. They know that its experience in Iraq has left the Army shattered in body and mind and that Afghanistan could prove more burdensome still.
What Gen Richards is suggesting is that the military be put on a new footing to fight the wars in front of it and not those of yesterday. Old-fashioned wars between countries are unlikely; the future is about counter-insurgency battles, of the kind being fought in Afghanistan, with the Army taking the lead and the RAF and Royal Navy providing support. It is the "horse and tank moment" of the Thirties: whether to stick with the old or forge ahead with the new (Hitler, unlike Britain, went with the tank and bulldozed through Europe).
The seeds of revolution first appeared in the US earlier this year when, during a Senate recess, Robert Gates, the defence secretary, announced that the modernisation of non-nuclear forces "should be tied to the capabilities of known future adversaries – not by what might be technologically feasible for a potential adversary, given unlimited time and resources". The message to the Pentagon was clear: fight today's war, not one against some imaginary enemy of the future.
In the same breath, he cancelled a large tranche of state-of-the-art F-22 Raptor fighters that have cost $10 billion but may well never encounter an opponent worthy of combat.
Where does this new mindset leave the three Services in Britain? Unfortunately, with a limited pool of cash the laws of survival apply, and the Services have reverted to unhelpful tribalism. The RAF will not give up its attachment to strategic bombing and the Royal Navy ardently clings to its aircraft carriers, advanced destroyers and fighter wing. There are many unglamorous parts of the Air Force that quietly go about achieving a great deal – from air transport to helicopters and surveillance. But those leading the RAF are fighter pilots who are loath to yield to the realities in front of them.
It's a big ask, but the idea of putting fighter pilots in a single engine, turbo-prop aircraft such as the Super Tucano has to be contemplated (it did, after all, feature in the latest James Bond film). Aircraft like the Tucano are cheap, low-tech and highly effective, as many South American drug barons have discovered. They provide surveillance, along with an armament of bombs and machine guns and an ability to loiter overhead for a long time, and they are also easy to maintain.
It will take courage for someone in the RAF hierarchy to advocate using the Tucano (cost £6 million) over the Eurofighter Typhoon (cost £65 million) but it is the type of thinking now required. The problem today is the RAF's attachment to fast jets. Either it goes for the Typhoon or for the US-made Joint Strike Fighter, but the defence budget cannot sustain both.
Fast jets are also a problem for the Navy, as its new aircraft carriers would be redundant without them. Do we need the carriers? Yes, in order to protect amphibious operations and to back up the US worldwide, but not at the size requested and a cost of £20 billion.
Like the RAF, the Navy's budget is taking too big a slice out of the defence cake. Yes, it has the world's most advanced destroyer in the Type 45 – it is able to take out a cricket ball travelling at three times the speed of sound, which might be useful when England next play Pakistan in a Test but it is not much help in winning over the populations of the Swat Valley or Helmand.
Similarly, do we really need submarines as advanced as the Astute class, soon to come into service? Well, yes, if you need to protect a large aircraft carrier that needs to carry heaps of fast jets that can doe_SLps what? Fly low over an Afghan village in a show of force?
There is a growing argument among reformists in the Navy that we need more ships but smaller and more versatile ones, corvettes perhaps, that can still fly the flag but will also carry helicopters, troops and a modicum of firepower.
Also bankrupt is the idea that if we prepare and equip for high intensity warfare we will be able to fight low-intensity conflicts effectively. The Challenger 2 tank is almost an irrelevance today; the Warrior armoured vehicle has been found vulnerable and unwieldy and both send the wrong message in attempting to win over local populations. The Royal Artillery will also have to evolve because lobbing a 155mm shell into populated areas is doesn't endear them to the locals.
What the Army also has to absorb is that it has to take ownership of all three parts of the "clear, hold, build" counter-insurgency strategy, rather than rely on other government agencies to do the latter. A brigade of engineers needs to be formed from both the Territorial Army and regular forces that can go into tough areas and build roads, bridges, schools and hospitals without worrying about the "health and safety" personnel issues.
To that end, a wish-list of 600 pieces of armoured building and digging equipment should be purchased immediately. The cost? Some £210 million, the equivalent of three Typhoons – which gives an indication of how unbalanced the Forces are today.
If the Army wins the argument that it should be backed up by the other two Services then it, too, has some tough choices. The decision will have to be taken on whether we have an Army entirely configured for counter-insurgency (to fight the proxy or bush wars of today) or whether we muddle through, retaining something close to a conventional Army with tanks and artillery.
While many will have welcomed General Sir Richard Dannatt's speaking up for the Army during his period in charge, until very recently his office has been an obstacle to change. For too long, he advocated the need for the 3,500 wheeled armoured vehicles known as Fres (Future Rapid Effect Systems) and insisted that the Army keep the Future Lynx helicopter at a time when bigger battlefield helicopters, able to ferry more troops, were desperately needed on the front line.
In fairness, he was dealt one of the hardest hands of any incoming chief of the general staff. The Iraq insurgency was raging with no end in sight, and the woefully equipped force of paratroopers had already been despatched to Helmand when he took office in 2006. But there has also been a failure on the part of the Ministry of Defence to get a coherent message out to Downing Street and the Treasury about precisely what it wants and why. The money and the will are apparently there, but simply asking for extra cash without giving a coherent business plan smacks of arrogance.
There has been a suggestion from Downing Street that the forces would get the requested extra 2,000 troops for Afghanistan if more integrated operations were carried out with the Americans, such as this week's Operation Panther's Claw, in which 350 troops of the Black Watch were dropped into Babaji, north of Lashkar Gah in Helmand. The Prime Minister will not simply sign off extra troops in order to keep our numbers above those of the Americans in Helmand. But the current military and civil service leadership in the MoD appears incapable or unwilling to sell its ideas.
Reformers in the military will be up against "bed blockers" at the top, who do not seem to recognise the need for change. But once they are removed and once a new government is persuaded that the Ministry of Defence is aiming to fight the wars of today, we are likely to see major changes in the configuration of our Armed Forces.
The nature of modern conflict means our Armed Forces urgently need a major overhaul. Thomas Harding anticipates a battle in which the Army must triumph
Flags will fly high and proud this weekend at some 200 ceremonies across Britain to mark the inaugural Armed Forces Day. The nation will have the chance to demonstrate its gratitude to those who have fought and died in its name; everyone from young men and women who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan to the veterans of conflicts long ago.
But away from this feelgood ceremony there is a campaign that needs to be fought, not against the Taliban, but between the dinosaurs and Young Turks in the military. The outcome will determine whether the Armed Forces are left burnt out in the wadis of Helmand or evolve into a sharpened and highly effective tool to fight the wars of the future.
It is becoming clear that there is simply not enough money available to fulfil the separate aspirations of all three Services. To paraphrase Gen Sir David Richards, who spoke at the Royal United Services Institute on Wednesday, we can do many things inadequately or a few things well, but to try both will end in failure.
Gen Richards, who will become the head of the Army in August, has adroitly opened the debate on the future of our Armed Forces and put forward his view of what that future should be. Be in no doubt, a radical departure is proposed, and at a time when both major political parties appear bankrupt of defence policies.
In his three years as commander in chief of Land Forces based in Salisbury Plain, Gen Richards has gathered around him some of the most dynamic military thinkers (and not just from the Army) to thrash out the immediate future of defence. They know that its experience in Iraq has left the Army shattered in body and mind and that Afghanistan could prove more burdensome still.
What Gen Richards is suggesting is that the military be put on a new footing to fight the wars in front of it and not those of yesterday. Old-fashioned wars between countries are unlikely; the future is about counter-insurgency battles, of the kind being fought in Afghanistan, with the Army taking the lead and the RAF and Royal Navy providing support. It is the "horse and tank moment" of the Thirties: whether to stick with the old or forge ahead with the new (Hitler, unlike Britain, went with the tank and bulldozed through Europe).
The seeds of revolution first appeared in the US earlier this year when, during a Senate recess, Robert Gates, the defence secretary, announced that the modernisation of non-nuclear forces "should be tied to the capabilities of known future adversaries – not by what might be technologically feasible for a potential adversary, given unlimited time and resources". The message to the Pentagon was clear: fight today's war, not one against some imaginary enemy of the future.
In the same breath, he cancelled a large tranche of state-of-the-art F-22 Raptor fighters that have cost $10 billion but may well never encounter an opponent worthy of combat.
Where does this new mindset leave the three Services in Britain? Unfortunately, with a limited pool of cash the laws of survival apply, and the Services have reverted to unhelpful tribalism. The RAF will not give up its attachment to strategic bombing and the Royal Navy ardently clings to its aircraft carriers, advanced destroyers and fighter wing. There are many unglamorous parts of the Air Force that quietly go about achieving a great deal – from air transport to helicopters and surveillance. But those leading the RAF are fighter pilots who are loath to yield to the realities in front of them.
It's a big ask, but the idea of putting fighter pilots in a single engine, turbo-prop aircraft such as the Super Tucano has to be contemplated (it did, after all, feature in the latest James Bond film). Aircraft like the Tucano are cheap, low-tech and highly effective, as many South American drug barons have discovered. They provide surveillance, along with an armament of bombs and machine guns and an ability to loiter overhead for a long time, and they are also easy to maintain.
It will take courage for someone in the RAF hierarchy to advocate using the Tucano (cost £6 million) over the Eurofighter Typhoon (cost £65 million) but it is the type of thinking now required. The problem today is the RAF's attachment to fast jets. Either it goes for the Typhoon or for the US-made Joint Strike Fighter, but the defence budget cannot sustain both.
Fast jets are also a problem for the Navy, as its new aircraft carriers would be redundant without them. Do we need the carriers? Yes, in order to protect amphibious operations and to back up the US worldwide, but not at the size requested and a cost of £20 billion.
Like the RAF, the Navy's budget is taking too big a slice out of the defence cake. Yes, it has the world's most advanced destroyer in the Type 45 – it is able to take out a cricket ball travelling at three times the speed of sound, which might be useful when England next play Pakistan in a Test but it is not much help in winning over the populations of the Swat Valley or Helmand.
Similarly, do we really need submarines as advanced as the Astute class, soon to come into service? Well, yes, if you need to protect a large aircraft carrier that needs to carry heaps of fast jets that can doe_SLps what? Fly low over an Afghan village in a show of force?
There is a growing argument among reformists in the Navy that we need more ships but smaller and more versatile ones, corvettes perhaps, that can still fly the flag but will also carry helicopters, troops and a modicum of firepower.
Also bankrupt is the idea that if we prepare and equip for high intensity warfare we will be able to fight low-intensity conflicts effectively. The Challenger 2 tank is almost an irrelevance today; the Warrior armoured vehicle has been found vulnerable and unwieldy and both send the wrong message in attempting to win over local populations. The Royal Artillery will also have to evolve because lobbing a 155mm shell into populated areas is doesn't endear them to the locals.
What the Army also has to absorb is that it has to take ownership of all three parts of the "clear, hold, build" counter-insurgency strategy, rather than rely on other government agencies to do the latter. A brigade of engineers needs to be formed from both the Territorial Army and regular forces that can go into tough areas and build roads, bridges, schools and hospitals without worrying about the "health and safety" personnel issues.
To that end, a wish-list of 600 pieces of armoured building and digging equipment should be purchased immediately. The cost? Some £210 million, the equivalent of three Typhoons – which gives an indication of how unbalanced the Forces are today.
If the Army wins the argument that it should be backed up by the other two Services then it, too, has some tough choices. The decision will have to be taken on whether we have an Army entirely configured for counter-insurgency (to fight the proxy or bush wars of today) or whether we muddle through, retaining something close to a conventional Army with tanks and artillery.
While many will have welcomed General Sir Richard Dannatt's speaking up for the Army during his period in charge, until very recently his office has been an obstacle to change. For too long, he advocated the need for the 3,500 wheeled armoured vehicles known as Fres (Future Rapid Effect Systems) and insisted that the Army keep the Future Lynx helicopter at a time when bigger battlefield helicopters, able to ferry more troops, were desperately needed on the front line.
In fairness, he was dealt one of the hardest hands of any incoming chief of the general staff. The Iraq insurgency was raging with no end in sight, and the woefully equipped force of paratroopers had already been despatched to Helmand when he took office in 2006. But there has also been a failure on the part of the Ministry of Defence to get a coherent message out to Downing Street and the Treasury about precisely what it wants and why. The money and the will are apparently there, but simply asking for extra cash without giving a coherent business plan smacks of arrogance.
There has been a suggestion from Downing Street that the forces would get the requested extra 2,000 troops for Afghanistan if more integrated operations were carried out with the Americans, such as this week's Operation Panther's Claw, in which 350 troops of the Black Watch were dropped into Babaji, north of Lashkar Gah in Helmand. The Prime Minister will not simply sign off extra troops in order to keep our numbers above those of the Americans in Helmand. But the current military and civil service leadership in the MoD appears incapable or unwilling to sell its ideas.
Reformers in the military will be up against "bed blockers" at the top, who do not seem to recognise the need for change. But once they are removed and once a new government is persuaded that the Ministry of Defence is aiming to fight the wars of today, we are likely to see major changes in the configuration of our Armed Forces.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to say I fundementaly disagree with the above analysis. Configuring an armed forces to fight COIN operations is a receipe for disaster as who says the next operation we get involved in will be COIN and trying to fight a medium intensity war with armed forces who are to lightly equipped would be disasterous.
I find it interesting that the argument is being put forward that we will only ever fight as a side show of the US. I seam to remember a certain John Nott beleivin we would only ever fight under the auspes of NATO before the Falklands were invaded.
I like his assertion about the Royal Artillery and 155mm I note the US and Canadians are deploying a light weight 155mm gun Designed by Vickers with great effect whilst we stick to the same light gun that went to the falklands in 82 and lacks punch and reach.
Now yes the argument about Typhoon vs S tucano is interesting could a super Tucano carry suficient weapons/fuel to have a viable loiter time and capability? didn't think so.
I
I find it interesting that the argument is being put forward that we will only ever fight as a side show of the US. I seam to remember a certain John Nott beleivin we would only ever fight under the auspes of NATO before the Falklands were invaded.
I like his assertion about the Royal Artillery and 155mm I note the US and Canadians are deploying a light weight 155mm gun Designed by Vickers with great effect whilst we stick to the same light gun that went to the falklands in 82 and lacks punch and reach.
Now yes the argument about Typhoon vs S tucano is interesting could a super Tucano carry suficient weapons/fuel to have a viable loiter time and capability? didn't think so.
I
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The problem is that we need quite a lot of most things, and the training to use them well. Some surprising organisations have had to re-learn what they'd forgotten - like desert ops, which Hereford had forgotten before GW1, hence putting in foot patrols into the Iraqi desert, which was a disaster.
Setting up three or four squadrons just for COIN would take at least six years - maybe more.
But to be training for such a huge range of operational tasks, in all the different terrains takes lots of manpower - you don't turn mountain troops into jungle troops in a long weekend, aside from the variations in kit required.
If HMG wants the Services to be a global police force in addition to protecting our borders, interests and trade routes then they need to be prepared to pay for it, and right now that seems to be the last thing any politician is prepared to have an open discussion about.
Setting up three or four squadrons just for COIN would take at least six years - maybe more.
But to be training for such a huge range of operational tasks, in all the different terrains takes lots of manpower - you don't turn mountain troops into jungle troops in a long weekend, aside from the variations in kit required.
If HMG wants the Services to be a global police force in addition to protecting our borders, interests and trade routes then they need to be prepared to pay for it, and right now that seems to be the last thing any politician is prepared to have an open discussion about.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preparing for a future war with a limited budget is wholly unaffordable.
The message to the Pentagon was clear: fight today's war, not one against some imaginary enemy of the future.
While we managed to more or less catch up with successes like the Canberra and Hunter the US was able to field the B29/50 against the Lincoln. The F4 against the Sea Vixen and Javelin. The 707 against the Britannia and so on.
We should simply face up to realities. To say we need a Navy because we are an island nation and there is piracy in the Indian Ocean is a nonsense. As far as oil is concerned we are no more reliant on SLOC than any other European state. In this case we need a European Navy equipped with the right ships for SLOC protection and a CVS is not one of them.
As for Typhoon against Tucano:
Now yes the argument about Typhoon vs S tucano is interesting could a super Tucano carry suficient weapons/fuel to have a viable loiter time and capability? I didn't think so.
Tucano (cost £6 million) over the Eurofighter Typhoon (cost £65 million)
Also, like the RN, you can only be in one place at one time with one aircraft, but with 10?
BTW, I had this argument with an Air Commodore 45 years ago when I was going for a PC
and I lost then.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry - but I can't resist it.
What about a Turbo-Prop version of the DH Hornet?
Made from renewable resources (wood), range 2500 NM's, 4 x 20mm cannon + 2000lbs+ bombs or rockets.
Aaah de Havilland
What about a Turbo-Prop version of the DH Hornet?
Made from renewable resources (wood), range 2500 NM's, 4 x 20mm cannon + 2000lbs+ bombs or rockets.
Aaah de Havilland
The RAF will not give up its attachment to strategic bombing
As pretty as the DH Hornet (aka 'termite queen') was, I thought that conventional wisdom favoured flat trajectory rockets for 'w*g bashing' (as it used to be termed in far-off non-PC days) rather than 20mm shells or conventional bombs.
Personally I'd like to see a few thermobaric weapons used to smear the inside of caves with a pinkish brown sludge.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Browsing through Robert jackson's book Avro Vulcan, as one does, I chanced up on one Vulcan that had been used for 27mm cannon trials.
Now THAT would have been interesting.
A Canberra with 4x30 or Hunter even, but what could you put on a Vulcan? A four pack of A-10 cannon?
Now THAT would have been interesting.
A Canberra with 4x30 or Hunter even, but what could you put on a Vulcan? A four pack of A-10 cannon?
Some surprising organisations have had to re-learn what they'd forgotten - like desert ops, which Hereford had forgotten before GW1, hence putting in foot patrols into the Iraqi desert, which was a disaster.
I was under the impression that B20 went on foot against the advice of the Sqn Cdr and RSM?
Either forgotten or ignored, it was a good example of failure to heed the past resulting in tragedy.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
Sorry - 10 Demerits.
Hornets were deployed in FEAF from March 1951 until June 1955 (33 and 45 Sqns) and were used primarily for rocket strikes against terrorists - although they could alternatively carry 2000lbs of bombs. Their fixed weapon armament was 4x20mm cannon. With a range of 3,000 miles that would give them a reasonable loiter time n'est pas?
Sorry - 10 Demerits.
Hornets were deployed in FEAF from March 1951 until June 1955 (33 and 45 Sqns) and were used primarily for rocket strikes against terrorists - although they could alternatively carry 2000lbs of bombs. Their fixed weapon armament was 4x20mm cannon. With a range of 3,000 miles that would give them a reasonable loiter time n'est pas?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Temporarily unsure of precise position
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta say - I expected better from Thomas Harding, who usually delivers balanced analysis. The theory that "old-fashioned wars between countries are unlikely" and consequently that counter-insurgency is all we'll ever do in future is based on spurious logic and b*gger-all evidence!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know, I'm fairly sure the 51% of people who think defence should be cut aren't actually thinking of defence in general terms. I think they're probably thinking in very specific terms, along the lines of "Why are we spending billions on a weapons system that we will NEVER use, when we have weapons systems that we ARE using that are woefully underfunded and under-resourced".... In other words getting rid of Trident in favour of conventional forces. That certainly IS one part of our defence budget that we will not use without the Americans, so why bother?!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We won WW2 didn't we, despite being "unprepared". We regained the Falklands also, despite being "unprepared".
The problem with trying to think too far into the future is that when we get it wrong, we end up with massively expensive high-tech "solutions" to a non-existent problem with are impossible to cut - eg Typhoon.
When we have reacted at the last minute to a need, used lots of improvisation and creativity, and have ended up with an excellent cost-effective solution - WW2 was full of examples.
If we had been "prepared" the RAF might have relied on squadrons of Gloster Gladiators - and the Spitfire and Hurricane might never have been developed with the same precipitation. Who would have won B of B?
More recently, there have been examples of reaction to current need which have produced excellent results - eg Sentinel (rapidly adapted from a civilian airframe), the DA42s now in Iraq, the new army vehicles now being deployed in Afghanistan, and I'm sure the RN has some ruggedised iPods on the way.
Might be worth giving some thought to improving response times in quick reaction procurement. There might be an argument that being prepared for quick-reaction procurement is the way to win future conflicts.
The problem with trying to think too far into the future is that when we get it wrong, we end up with massively expensive high-tech "solutions" to a non-existent problem with are impossible to cut - eg Typhoon.
When we have reacted at the last minute to a need, used lots of improvisation and creativity, and have ended up with an excellent cost-effective solution - WW2 was full of examples.
If we had been "prepared" the RAF might have relied on squadrons of Gloster Gladiators - and the Spitfire and Hurricane might never have been developed with the same precipitation. Who would have won B of B?
More recently, there have been examples of reaction to current need which have produced excellent results - eg Sentinel (rapidly adapted from a civilian airframe), the DA42s now in Iraq, the new army vehicles now being deployed in Afghanistan, and I'm sure the RN has some ruggedised iPods on the way.
Might be worth giving some thought to improving response times in quick reaction procurement. There might be an argument that being prepared for quick-reaction procurement is the way to win future conflicts.
Last edited by CirrusF; 26th Jun 2009 at 19:19.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few good points
- Do we really need a regiment of Guards to be present at buck palace?
- Do we really need a sqdn of Hawks dedicated to Air displays?
- Do we really need 2 dedicated Aircraft carriers when 2 more flexible LHD's would do the same job and more?
- Do we really need a major warship patroling the caribbiean for coke smugglers when a smaller and cheaper (PFI?) patrol craft would do?
- Do we require 232 Typhoons?
-Does the RN need JSF when a Harrier 2+ would probably do?
Also
Could Current platforms be cost effectively put to good use eg...
- Converting RN Jetstreams to take over some SAR duties that NImrod currently does?
- Tucano , as previously discussed. and hawk
Do we really need to buy equipment with bells on it when there are cheaper and just as effective products of the shelf?
Just some thoughts
ATN
- Do we really need a regiment of Guards to be present at buck palace?
- Do we really need a sqdn of Hawks dedicated to Air displays?
- Do we really need 2 dedicated Aircraft carriers when 2 more flexible LHD's would do the same job and more?
- Do we really need a major warship patroling the caribbiean for coke smugglers when a smaller and cheaper (PFI?) patrol craft would do?
- Do we require 232 Typhoons?
-Does the RN need JSF when a Harrier 2+ would probably do?
Also
Could Current platforms be cost effectively put to good use eg...
- Converting RN Jetstreams to take over some SAR duties that NImrod currently does?
- Tucano , as previously discussed. and hawk
Do we really need to buy equipment with bells on it when there are cheaper and just as effective products of the shelf?
Just some thoughts
ATN
althenick
Just to get the flaming going ....
Bullet 1 - Don't thinks it's a regiment! And if it is they still take their turn on the op deployment plot so no money saving to be had. I note you didn't question the need for QCS. Or the Kings Troop.
Bullet 2 - The Reds do more than Airshows - there is the broader UK plc for one (which begs the question, of course, is who pays ....). Again you don't question the need for BBMF or the fact that we still havw HMS Victory on the MOD books (I think but stand ready to be corrected). Again, peanuts when it comes to money saving.
Bullet 3 - Could do with one and take the 'risk' when it's in for it's 5-yearly refit.
Bullet 4 - Yes, because again it does more than just taking down drug runners. And not just the cockers-p circuit either. Think humanitarian relief. And doesn't it also hold a FI reinforcement commitment?
Bullet 5 - No. That's why the UK are no longer buying 232 (and haven't been for some whilse). Think its in the mid 120's (see here).
Bullet 6 - And lets dust off the Jaguars to replace the Tornado as well.
Bullet 7 - AAR for the long range / long endurance sorties could be sporty.
Bullet 8 - Could use the Tucano for the Reds. Personally, as a COIN platform I think they would not be a good idea. Too smaller weapon load and whilst you could have loads more that means more pilots. And they don't come cheap or (as soon as the outside market picks up) readily available.
What about Trident?
Trouble is in these 'short of cash' times in which we live every Service thinks they are the really important one be it fighting the current war, defending London from tennis balls in 2012, having a capability to defend the Falklands - the list is almost endless and written to justify the individual Chief's personal interests. What we really need is a proper Defence Review rather than just trying to change the covers on the deck chairs. Start with a blank bit of paper, define what is required of the Armed Forces and equip from there. Difficult when we are fighting a war granted.
Just to get the flaming going ....
Bullet 1 - Don't thinks it's a regiment! And if it is they still take their turn on the op deployment plot so no money saving to be had. I note you didn't question the need for QCS. Or the Kings Troop.
Bullet 2 - The Reds do more than Airshows - there is the broader UK plc for one (which begs the question, of course, is who pays ....). Again you don't question the need for BBMF or the fact that we still havw HMS Victory on the MOD books (I think but stand ready to be corrected). Again, peanuts when it comes to money saving.
Bullet 3 - Could do with one and take the 'risk' when it's in for it's 5-yearly refit.
Bullet 4 - Yes, because again it does more than just taking down drug runners. And not just the cockers-p circuit either. Think humanitarian relief. And doesn't it also hold a FI reinforcement commitment?
Bullet 5 - No. That's why the UK are no longer buying 232 (and haven't been for some whilse). Think its in the mid 120's (see here).
Bullet 6 - And lets dust off the Jaguars to replace the Tornado as well.
Bullet 7 - AAR for the long range / long endurance sorties could be sporty.
Bullet 8 - Could use the Tucano for the Reds. Personally, as a COIN platform I think they would not be a good idea. Too smaller weapon load and whilst you could have loads more that means more pilots. And they don't come cheap or (as soon as the outside market picks up) readily available.
What about Trident?
Trouble is in these 'short of cash' times in which we live every Service thinks they are the really important one be it fighting the current war, defending London from tennis balls in 2012, having a capability to defend the Falklands - the list is almost endless and written to justify the individual Chief's personal interests. What we really need is a proper Defence Review rather than just trying to change the covers on the deck chairs. Start with a blank bit of paper, define what is required of the Armed Forces and equip from there. Difficult when we are fighting a war granted.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point 1 Guards and Ceremonial. The ceremonial side is tradition for the army stretching back centuries something the RAF doesn't have so why do the RAF need QCS? There are 3 companies who's role is ceremonial from Gren Gds, Scots Gds and Coldm Gds plus the Household Cavalry mounted regiment and Kings troop. All soldiers allocated to thease units are fully trained soldiers who can be used as reinforcements for operational taskings note many of the men in fancy uniforms on Trooping the colour also were weaing campaign medals. It also allows the Guards to have spare troops that can take some of the pressures of consatant deployments allowing troops to recover from wounds/illness but still bing useful. They not only do the ceremonial bit but also alot of keeping the armed forces in the public eye with kings troop appearing at shows up and down the country doing the Musical ride and the musical ride of the Household Cavalry doing the same thing. The Bns rotate into the role and it gives them a break from ops.
Point 2. yes there is a need for the red arrows as has been stated and the BBMF. But the resources put into the individual aircraft display teams and role demonstrations could be much better used. I note the Fleet Air arm historic flight and I think the AAC historic flight pilots aren't fully assigned to those teams.
Point 3. without the carriers there is no reason to have JSF. There is an excellent LPH HMS ocean we could do with a second and some more modern helecopters to fly from it.
Point 4 the Carribean Guard ship does more than just chase drug runners it also provides support in Humanitarian disasters, Acts as guard ship to our dependant territories and is also a good recruiting and retention tool for overstretched sailors. we actually need more frigate and destroyer type ships in the RN as over the recent past the Navy has cut to far to buy favour with the treasury for the carriers (which I strongly suspect will be cancelled after the next election no matter who gets in) yes a corvette type vessel would be useful. But the Navy is currently renting opv's 4(including the FIOPV) that replaced 7 vessels. BTW sometimes the Carribean GS is an RFA
Point 5. Typhoon actually may soon be the only show in town if JSF is cut and Typhoon devlops into the full multirole aircraft its ment to be. If it does work why not get rid of the Tornado GR4.
point 6. JSF is ment to be replacing the whole harrier fleet not just the FAA. I would sugest if the carrier program goes then JSF will go as well. The Navy should have bought Harrier II airframes and built Sea Harrier FA2 round them instead of trying to to modernise the FRS1 but that point has been past.
Point 7 Nimrod provides alot more than SAR support why do you think its been orerating ver Afghanistan and Iraq some of its roles there will never be discussed. We actually could do with expanding the current buy of Nimrod.
Point 8. The Airbus tanker looks like it will be a great platform for AAR/transport how we are getting them is ridiculous we should have bout them outright from the start instead of PFI (Pay for it indefinitly). Ad it will be probably in service for 20-30 years. A400m on the other hand we should never have gone into and bought more C17's and C130J's
Tucano on the frontline Hmmmmm..... think this is a non starter though Hawk might be a better option if we're getting a dedicated COIN platform.
There are alot of programmes that we could have spent better and bought of the shelf Chinook HC3 being 1. I can't believe that the CVRT hasn't been replaced by a variant of The Mowag Piranah like the Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, Irish, Americans I could go on have done. When we buy of the shelf we seam to do OK things like Minimi and the 40mm GL its when we try and devlop kit that it goes wrong Bowman and SA80 being prime examples.
Yes the UK armed forces are short of cash having been starved of it and expected to do al manner of military adventures. We have had to waste huge sums of money on theatre spefic vehicles for thease operations which we will be stuck with and more general purpose items have been put on the Back Burner and will never now see full potential as the money need for them has already been spent on sticking plaster fixes to theatre specific problems.
Point 2. yes there is a need for the red arrows as has been stated and the BBMF. But the resources put into the individual aircraft display teams and role demonstrations could be much better used. I note the Fleet Air arm historic flight and I think the AAC historic flight pilots aren't fully assigned to those teams.
Point 3. without the carriers there is no reason to have JSF. There is an excellent LPH HMS ocean we could do with a second and some more modern helecopters to fly from it.
Point 4 the Carribean Guard ship does more than just chase drug runners it also provides support in Humanitarian disasters, Acts as guard ship to our dependant territories and is also a good recruiting and retention tool for overstretched sailors. we actually need more frigate and destroyer type ships in the RN as over the recent past the Navy has cut to far to buy favour with the treasury for the carriers (which I strongly suspect will be cancelled after the next election no matter who gets in) yes a corvette type vessel would be useful. But the Navy is currently renting opv's 4(including the FIOPV) that replaced 7 vessels. BTW sometimes the Carribean GS is an RFA
Point 5. Typhoon actually may soon be the only show in town if JSF is cut and Typhoon devlops into the full multirole aircraft its ment to be. If it does work why not get rid of the Tornado GR4.
point 6. JSF is ment to be replacing the whole harrier fleet not just the FAA. I would sugest if the carrier program goes then JSF will go as well. The Navy should have bought Harrier II airframes and built Sea Harrier FA2 round them instead of trying to to modernise the FRS1 but that point has been past.
Point 7 Nimrod provides alot more than SAR support why do you think its been orerating ver Afghanistan and Iraq some of its roles there will never be discussed. We actually could do with expanding the current buy of Nimrod.
Point 8. The Airbus tanker looks like it will be a great platform for AAR/transport how we are getting them is ridiculous we should have bout them outright from the start instead of PFI (Pay for it indefinitly). Ad it will be probably in service for 20-30 years. A400m on the other hand we should never have gone into and bought more C17's and C130J's
Tucano on the frontline Hmmmmm..... think this is a non starter though Hawk might be a better option if we're getting a dedicated COIN platform.
There are alot of programmes that we could have spent better and bought of the shelf Chinook HC3 being 1. I can't believe that the CVRT hasn't been replaced by a variant of The Mowag Piranah like the Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, Irish, Americans I could go on have done. When we buy of the shelf we seam to do OK things like Minimi and the 40mm GL its when we try and devlop kit that it goes wrong Bowman and SA80 being prime examples.
Yes the UK armed forces are short of cash having been starved of it and expected to do al manner of military adventures. We have had to waste huge sums of money on theatre spefic vehicles for thease operations which we will be stuck with and more general purpose items have been put on the Back Burner and will never now see full potential as the money need for them has already been spent on sticking plaster fixes to theatre specific problems.