Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

SDSR 15

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 8th Jan 2015, 14:36
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,580
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Cameron has already admitted there's a chance that Defence spending could well drop below the 2% threshold, most recently on the Andrew Marr show if the article in the Telegraph is correct

Defence won't win votes - so Cameron will keep on cutting - Telegraph

So, that's pretty much the first half of the SDSR done - once again the actual situation on the ground so to speak will be ignored in favour of arbitrary cuts. At least we know now, unlike last time where we all initially believed the title, that the SDSR actually stands for Slashing Defence Spending Religiously.

Seems like the only thing that remains to do now is decide which capabilities are for the chop. Should be able to have that done for June and then the politicians can get on with enjoying Wimbledon fortnight in peace if we're just going to ignore the intellectually difficult bit at the start

Last edited by Melchett01; 8th Jan 2015 at 15:00.
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2015, 23:17
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Posting this a couple of months after the last peak of activity on this thread. Much has happened in those months, and Dave, I think, is still rankled about Putin's comments about the UK being a small nation that no-one listens to anymore.

There has been some insightful discussion on SDR 15, very little of which I would disagree with. But would anyone care to change their bets at this stage?

I'd lay better odds on a decent Maritime Patrol investment.
Bigbux is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2015, 00:13
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Strategy: A thermonuclear deterrent only protects the homeland unless there are credible conventional forces to deploy. There aren't now (hence Putin's jibe), and the majority of the voters in the UK prioritise their own circumstances over any foreigners'. Hence, however it's presented, SDSR15 will be a further cut to conventional forces, since they are strategically ineffective anyway. The Reserve Forces can will be kicked another 5 years down the road. That won't work either because the UK job market has completely changed, but the poli's are out of ideas and cash.
The UK could maybe do a Falklands 'one-off', but any long term conflict is bound to be lost, as the last two have been. This is why Putin is in for the long haul in the Ukraine. He doesn't need to win in a month, and it's actually in his interests to take 3-4 years over it. It keeps it all below the level of being worth an attack on Russia.
The UK also now has no economic weight to throw about these days, so independent sanctions aren't an option either. How far the Saudis decide to open their supply valves has about 1,000x the effect of anything the UK can do.
Collaborative economic strategy is the one reason CMD wants to stay in the EU. Bush MkII treated the UK like a poodle, and Obama treats the UK like someone else's poodle, so the UK now only has its social worker calling it 'special'. But the EU, especially migration policy, is screwing the UK voter.....
Which brings us back to why SDSR15 is a cost-cutting exercise only.
New MPA? Friday Jokes thread for that suggestion.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2015, 08:57
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Frensham
Posts: 846
Received 90 Likes on 48 Posts
Does anyone have access to or has read the "Sun exclusive" which reports Osborne has told Cameron Defence spending will be falling to less than 2% despite promises to maintain the Nato minimum.

The Sun

At least some Tories aren't happy with this

Rory speaks on Russia and UK defence spending - Rory Stewart
Wokkafans is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2015, 10:10
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Geardown- embarrassed? Yes; but nothing will happen.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2015, 08:01
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,197
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I don't think the procurement will be quick
Unlike all the others then?
TorqueOfTheDevil is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2015, 11:15
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,580
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
I don't think the procurement will be quick as the Japanese have a towel to throw in as do other countries
Maybe for P8s, but if you're looking for a more immediate fix and can't wait in the P8 queue, then it may be time to consider capability rather than platform and see what that throws up. Just some ideas off the top of my head:

Buy more MQ-9 / some MQ-9 Block 1+ or RQ-4N and park them at Kinloss & St Mawgan for specific MPA duties (can't see the Army being happy about the former, but security needs would have to take priority over inter-service whinging)

Look at alternative manned capabilities as a temporary fix. Aren't Lockheed trying to plug the re-introduction of the S-3 Viking? Didn't the Italians buy some ATR-72s as a stopgap measure?

Upgrade / re-role existing platforms. Convert Sentinel from a bespoke GMTI platform to a MMA platform. But this would be a relatively low tech solution and you would probably still need another platform to do the handle the more advanced and kinetic side of things.

I believe this last option is what will be touted as a solution under SDSR 15 given Philip Dunne's answer to the HoC on 23 Oct when asked about a life extension for Sentinel:

With regards to the signature of contracts for the life extension of the Sentinel aircraft fleet, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 1 September 2014 (Official Report, column 103W). To date, no related costs have been incurred. On current plans, a contract for the development and installation of the maritime capable software upgrade will be let in spring 2015. Sentinel was already fitted with a Dual Mode Radar when it entered service with the Royal Air Force
Whether this is a temporary fix to allow the Govt to say they are re-introducing an MPA capability I don't know, but this would only work if you also have the capability to do something about the threat other than just watching it sink your subs and carrier.
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2015, 20:28
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 655
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
Melchie,

MQ-9, BAMS, ATR 72, Sentinel, E3D etc may be tweakable for an acceptable level of ASuW capability. However, non of the above can do the primary role of an MPA which is ASW.

The paperwork is in place to support the need to regain a national MPA capability but non of us really have a clue how the election/funding/SDSR 15 will pan out.

Fingers crossed for a bright MPA future!
Party Animal is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2015, 21:42
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,580
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Party Animal,

Agreed, but I just can't see how, in the current climate that we will ever regain the sort of MPA capability we once had and will probably - and unfortunately - have to rely on something that is acceptable at best rather than effective.

But even assuming we did get something, the next question would be where to put it! Given the recent history of closing down bases that are viewed as surplus to requirement, I frankly have no idea where you would put an MPA capability these days now that the Engineers are in Kinloss, and St Mawgan and Macrihanish have been sold off.

Best I stop there, the shear short sightedness of it all, as an island nation scrapping our MPA capability and flogging off all the suitable coastal airfields to bucket and spade operators making any sort of capability redevelopment even harder, is enough to make you cry
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2015, 23:02
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 13 Posts
If we get something it will go to Waddington.
typerated is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2015, 23:57
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,580
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Not been to Waddington for a while ..... Just how much more space is left there? Can you really shoe horn another sqn in? And what's the transit time to the likely areas of operation? Doesn't really seem the optimal solution.

But if all eggs in one basket is now the accepted (insane) doctrine, then I guess Waddington is the place to go.
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2015, 02:46
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 655
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
Just an assumption from my part but if Sentinel goes in 2018, that could leave room and a nice shiney sqn building. For live ops, the aircraft would FOB to Lossie or Brize......

Or even the Shetlands depending on the platform procured!
Party Animal is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2015, 07:07
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,796
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
Melchett01 wrote:
Not been to Waddington for a while ..... Just how much more space is left there? Can you really shoe horn another sqn in?
Given that Waddington used to be able to accommodate 4 Vulcan squadrons, each of 10 aeroplanes with a 5 man crew, would it really be a problem for a few P-8 or whatever to be based there? I don't know how many drones are based there at any one time, but they're not that much of an issue.

Or maybe move RAFAT to Leeming and base something else at Scampton?

Transit time to operating areas might be different matter though.... P-8 isn't probe-and-drogue compatible and the RAF doesn't have any boom-equipped tanker assets either, so extending time on task would be...interesting?
BEagle is online now  
Old 28th Feb 2015, 11:14
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
P-8 isn't probe-and-drogue compatible and the RAF doesn't have any boom-equipped tanker assets either,
Perhaps they could hastily retrofit a probe onto the P-8 if it came into RAF service. Call it the P-8P?
incubus is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2015, 12:47
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 327
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
it's not as if we're looking at huge numbers - probably 6 or so P8 (though there's been talk of as few as 4), possibly leased in the short term, and possibly combined with a slack handful of MQ-4C at some point.
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2015, 13:18
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,796
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
incubus wrote:
Perhaps they could hastily retrofit a probe onto the P-8 if it came into RAF service. Call it the P-8P?
Or rather, "Dear Bubba Boeing. Here is a blank cheque. Fill it in with as many noughts as ye shall have need, then fit a probe to the half-dozen P-8s which the RAF can now just about afford".

A small flight of A310s obtained from whoever, modified to boom-only with 4 x ACTs, would probably be less expensive....
BEagle is online now  
Old 28th Feb 2015, 14:09
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'd have thought Lossie would have been high on the list of MPA basing options?
andrewn is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2015, 15:18
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'd have thought Lossie would have been high on the list of MPA basing options?
There is no room at Lossiemouth, Waddington, Marham, Brize Norton or anywhere else for the necessary infrastructure to support an MPA fleet, there is no money to purchase or lease an MPA fleet, there is no desire to purchase or lease an MPA fleet, and once the independent deterrent is allowed to whither there will be no justification for purchasing or leasing an MPA fleet.

The defence of the nation is a crock of poo, only headline grabbing adventures abroad are of any interest to the current breed of politicians.
Kitbag is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2015, 18:21
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
there is no desire to purchase or lease an MPA fleet
Spare me the bullsh*t...the level of cynisism from some of the retired-turned armchair generals on this forum is physically draining. Look around at current affairs; do you seriously consider your assertion that there is no desire for a mpa to be anything other than totally ill-informed nonsense??

No finance for it? Sure, make that argument if you want to, but take your turbo cynical view elsewhere
Bastardeux is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2015, 19:39
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: various
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bastardeux, exactly right.

Getting back into the MPA game is THE big decision of SDSR 15 (the nuclear deterrent piece is separate although naturally linked). There is no doubt that the military want it (by which I mean each individual service). It all comes down to money (which can always be found if necessary- irrespective of the state of national finances) which is ultimately controlled by elected officials who often have other considerations in their minds than what is needed.
RandomBlah is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.