More Defence Cuts Planned

[Styron]

Link to Story http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/12262172?source=Evening%20Standard

Fighter jets and bombers head for scrapheap
By Andrew Gilligan, Evening Standard
30 July 2004

The Government is secretly planning a massive round of further defence cuts - even greater than those announced last week, an Evening Standard investigation has found.

Dozens of fighter planes and bombers could be cut from the RAF strike force in addition to the 50 Tornado and Jaguar jets axed last week.

The cuts will come through a scaling-down - or even the complete-cancellation - of future aircraft orders, leaving the RAF fast jet fleet less than two-thirds of its present size.

All three services will suffer cuts to helicopter fleets, delays to equipment programmes and further tri-service mergers. The threats to single-service training colleges at Dartmouth, Cranwell and Sandhurst have not been ruled out. Last week's cuts reduced the RAF to 178 fast jet aircraft - 52 air defence fighters, and 126 ground attack bombers. But in an almost unnoticed table published with the announcements, the MoD states that the armed forces will require only 84 fast jets - 20 fighters and 64 bombers.

In practice, generating 84 active fighters and bombers may require an operational fleet of about 130 jets to allow for maintenance, training and accidents - a further reduction, even allowing for the cuts last week, of at least 50 aircraft.

The figure has even more serious implications for the new jets being ordered by the RAF. Britain has ordered 232 Eurofighters - and is also planning to take up to 150 of the US-designed Joint Strike Fighter for the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers.

"The numbers just don't add up," said Andrew Brookes, air analyst at the International Institute of Strategic Studies. "There is no way that you will need 382 fast jets to generate 84 active aircraft. Something big is going to go."

Analysts say the options for the MoD are to reduce the Eurofighter order, abandon its commitment to the Joint Strike Fighter, or scrap its plans for a future offensive aircraft system.

Each of these options is fraught with problems. Britain is locked into a contract for 232 Eurofighters, which are built by a four-nation consortium. The UK could only reduce the number of aircraft through a complete renegotiation with the other countries involved.

Pulling out of the Joint Strike Fighter would risk

wasting the ?1.3 billion Britain has spent on the project. It would also leave the Royal Navy with nothing to put on its new aircraft carriers - unless the Eurofighter, currently unsuitable for operations at sea, can be converted to a carrier aircraft.

"It is a classic mess," said Mr Brookes. "They'll try and muddle through, but I don't see any way out of it."

Huge cuts are also expected in Britain's future helicopter programme. Helicopters play a vital role on the battlefield and in transporting troops, but a report by the National Audit Office said there were shortfalls of up to 87 per cent in helicopter capabilities during the Iraq war.

Last week, the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, announced that the Government would spend ?3 billion over the next 10 years on a new fleet of helicopters to replace the services' ageing Lynxes, Pumas and Sea Kings. But senior MoD sources have told the Standard the figure was originally ?4.18billion - almost 40 per cent higher - and a frantic search for cuts in the new helicopter programme is under way.

"We may well end up scrapping one pro --gramme altogether, with devastating results for British industry and for the forces," said one source involved.

Britain was due to buy the Future Lynx helicopter, made by the Westland plant in Yeovil, Somerset. Senior MoD officials now want to cancel this order altogether, which could put Westland out of business.

The Standard has also learned that the MoD is carrying out six further studies of possible areas for cuts, including logistics and tri-service defence training. Although the singleservice colleges at Dartmouth, Cranwell and Sandhurst survived last week's cuts unscathed, one source said their future could still not be guaranteed.

The MoD today said it was fully committed to the Eurofighter and Joint Strike Fighter.

[althenick]

I don't believe it myself, but if indeed it is the case though then the reductions would surely bring the very existence of the RAF into question? Are we heading for a 2 service defence organisation? (Or Even 1!) sooner rather than later.

[Archimedes]

I'd have to check, but I seem to think that the figure of 84 was to meet operational requirements - it doesn't include the OCUs, and if my memory serves me - which it probably doesn't - it presupposes that there are additional units (and thus aircraft) which will be carrying out their usual routine, having either just returned from an operational tour or in preparation to go. The chart is rather ambiguous.

Far be it for me to suggest that someone on the Standard has looked at Jackonicko's post raising this on the day of the announcment, and has then interpreted it in a certain way, but....

[Styron]

The Standard may well have misinterpreted the figures submitted by the MoD, but the quote from Andrew Brookes from the International Institute of Strategic Studies adds some weight and credability to their story.

"The numbers just don't add up," said Andrew Brookes, air analyst at the International Institute of Strategic Studies. "There is no way that you will need 382 fast jets to generate 84 active aircraft. Something big is going to go."

[Archimedes]

I wouldn't dispute that, Styron - but the figures are so ambiguous (they're meant to look impressive and authoritative, but no-one I know can quite make sense of how they were arrived at or what exactly they mean...) that the Standard's doom and gloom in short term might well be misplaced.

The point is that if, as I've been led to believe, the 84 aircraft are those on operations (meeting the various contingencies laid out in the appendices of Buff's Guide to Future Defence) rather than the entire FJ fleet, you need more aircraft. However, the MoD hasn't made this clear, nor is it clear how many aircraft will be 'at home' rather than deployed on another of Tony's Grand Adventures.

I've said on another thread that I suspect that the RAF will find that the GR4 is retired on schedule and its roles will be taken on by Typhoon and JSF, leaving the RAF with a two-type FJ fleet; since the 382 airframes planned (and the JSF figure of 150 is - or was until recently - an aspiration rather than a firm plan) don't all arrive at once, the figures do begin to fit a little better.

Despite that 'Glass Half Full' view, I would not be the slightest bit surprised if the 84 aircraft was the reality, with Hoon cunningly hiding this from parliament in his speech...

[soddim]

I have heard several knowledgeable sources say that the big cuts were to be delayed until after the next election. Makes sense but we just have to hope that this government is not in power to make them.

[Maple 01]

soddim,

Remind me who was in power during the

a. Nott cuts
b. Options for change
c. Frontline first

-Nick

[ShyTorque]

The country is going bust but they won't admit it. Our money is being squandered elsewhere.

e.g. Free haircuts for poodles. Oh sorry, that was the manifesto of the Raving Monster Loony Party. Did they win the last election? :rolleyes:

[Styron]

Look on the bright side, this Goverment is probably doing itself more harm than good by treating communities and servicemen in this way.

Instead of just making announcements about bases, equipment and training they have been so vague, secretive and slow that they have only inspired more rumours and anxieties amongst communities and servicemen.

The one great thing is though that these communities are often in Labour seats and given the current swing towards the LibDems, they just might teach this Goverment a lesson when it comes to the ballot box.

Gordon Brown has a number of Defence sites including Rosyth in his constituency, whilst Blair's seat in Sedgefield is not too far from Catterick and Leeming.

Let the Goverment drag it out and cause grief and anxiety and perhaps we can return the favour when it comes to our vote.

However one thing that is clear is that by not addresing the issues and securing the minds of those who rely on Military bases
to support there communities, the Govt are becoming unpopular in all communities with bases or industries relying on Defence input around the country rather than just the communities that the MOD reviews will effect.

[soddim]

Maple 01

At least the Tory party paid MOD the costs of their forays into battle.

This lot lie to get authority from Parliament to go to war and then refuse to cough up the cost of it all.

On top of that, they are squandering more money than it would cost to maintain strong defence forces and they are cutting at precisely the wrong time when the forces of evil are striking with increasing unpredictability.

The only really important insurance to protect our way of life is our defences.

[pr00ne]

Soddim,

Beware of being granted what you wish for!

If the Tories make it back in, which lets face it is NOT going to happen, you'll see a real increase in the level of cuts as they are going to squeeze public spending, freeze all expenditure by Govt departments AND announce large tax cuts.

Now, that would personally suit me down to the ground, as I would be one of the few to benefit personally, but it would be wrong and the defence budget would suffer accordingly.

I think folk are right to be suspicious of the possibility of more cuts, and Hoon and co need to clear up some real ambiguities in the announcement of July 21st, but please do not pretend that by voting the Tories in this will somehow all go away, it wouldn't, it would get far far worse!

[BEagle]

Pr00ne - well perhaps.

But the fact is that lying pieces of $hit like Bliar and Buff have got the Armed Forces into their present funding predicament through their unbridled enthusiasm to lick Mad George's bum on each and every occasion and have, as a result, embroiled our overstretched forces in various actions for which no proper budget (or end-game) had ever been set.

[Jackonicko]

Whereas the force level figures at the time of SDR was of aircraft to be 'available' for deployment those given this time are aircraft capable of being deployed and at readiness.

But how many aircraft would you need 'on charge' to be able to deploy 84?

[NURSE]

and if the rumoured cuts in transpot helecopters happen how will the new light role forces move in a timley manner to defeat the threat the improved ISTAR assets have identified or get out of the way of the forces they cannot match? espically without CAS or air superiority.

[soddim]

pr00ne,

You are right. There is little hope of the election of an honest government.

However, should curly tailed dogs fly and they do get in and make similar defence cuts at least they might refrain from strutting the World stage and joining Bush et al in pi**ing the rest of the World off with no forces left to put where their mouth is.

[pr00ne]

Soddim and BEagle,

I fear that, with the present rationale for the size of the defence budget, if the miitary were NOT rushing around the world as " a force for good" then there would be absolutely nothing left bar maybe a squadron or two for home based QRA, a Trident submarine or two, and that would be it!

Without the current range of Bush/Blair "adventures" I see there being a watertight treasury case made that we simply have no more need for a military beyond the very basic demands of last ditch home defence.

An immediate cut in Gov't expenditure of say, "£20 Billion?, Oliver Letwin would jump at that.

A worrying quandry..................................................... .....

[soddim]

pr00ne,

It is indeed a worrying quandry. But how do we convince the 'man, sorry, person in the street' that we might need to spend some money on armed forces as well as DSS benefits?

I recently watched our erstwhile civilian organisations engaged in a 'terrorist attack aftermath' scenario and I am convinced that most of them would be dead before they were able to offer NBC protected support to the casualties. Yet we are apparently happy to discharge well-trained and equipped armed forces personnel to reduce defence expenditure.

Our AD force is already ill-prepared to perform what has always been considered to be a pre-requisite of air superiority - the integrity of our homeland airspace. If terrorists mounted a single aircraft attack we might just cope but two aircraft at once from different directions? Sorry, Tony, just can't cope. And just how long would it take to intercept a light civilian twin taking off from an airport in France near the channel inbound London with no clearance?

Furthermore, imagine the situation if a friendly european nation wanted a slice of anything still left worth having in this country - like, say, a few barrels a day of north sea oil - don't laugh, the current middle east unrest is due to American dependance on this black gold. Would we be able to defend UK against attack by a any other european country (just one) when we are reduced to just three Tornado F3 squadrons? Best we keep our nukes.

As far as I am aware we still don't have our boats back from Iran and today I read that they are pressing ahead full steam trying to get a nuke again. If our transatlantic cousins don't sort that out, could we? Could we sort Mugabe out if the SA government didn't want us to. Could we stop the Argies from taking the FI? Is there going to be anything left in the World that we can do without american help if our interests are threatened?

Maybe the scenarios are a little far-fetched but we need at least some minimum level of defence to defend the DSS benefits that the person in the street gets drunk on every Saturday night.

[TC27]

Gilliagan...MOD.......:ooh:

[Jackonicko]

Yes, how true. Because'Gilliagan' made it all up. This crowd of hyenas aren't involved in butchering the forces with a cynical, ill-considered, cost-driven package of cuts.

And let's noy forget that this slimy journo scum is not the very man who so cruelly and maliciously smeared our dear leader with the accusation that he 'over-egged' the WMD aspect of the case for war against Iraq.......

That Tony knew (or should have known) that the Dodgy Dossier was complete bollocks.

[TC27]

Your right, politicians are almost as bad as journalists!

[SRENNAPS]

Styron - I agree entirly with your words. However I feel that todays government really dont need to rely on, (or care) about a mere 180000 service voters to be re-elected.

What worries me is that I had my 3rd RO interview the other day by a Grp Capt. The subject of defence cuts came up. He expressed his total agreement with them and that there was no logic or justification in a maintaining a large force. He expressed astonishment that I said we dont seem to learn from history.

He went on to say that dangers such as Falklands, Iraq GW1,Balkans, etc etc, could never happen again. His Quote - "We Live in a different world".

Do our lords and master really belive this or do they just suck up to any politician in power.

[soddim]

Oh dear, it just gets worse. When RAF gp capts are so thick that they are no longer even looking out for their pensions, the service is in real trouble.

[SRENNAPS]

Soddim
I'm not sure Grp Capt's are thick, but they are certainly better politicians than they use to be. ie they know where they can go in this game.

[Blacksheep]

Running down the defence forces because "they aren't needed these days" is dangerous. Such action changes the strategic situation and invites trouble. If that lesson wasn't learned in 1939, then the Falklands should have been a forceful reminder. The Falklands are far away and we can pretend that we don't need to be able to act that far away again, but backing ourselves against a wall at home, to the extent that we can hardly even deal with internal security, isn't an option. Five rounds each and share the flak jackets? Disgraceful!

But pr00ne's comment above had me thinking. Looking up some details on one of my dad's old ships I happened upon information about a fleet of LSTs that until 1970 could transport 30,000 troops and 4,000 tanks and armoured vehicles and disgorge them onto any sloping beach anywhere in the world as and when required. These landing ships were operated as civilian ships in the 'Empire' series under a contract that included terms by which they would drop everything and perform the military function when necessary (the crews were mostly reservists) I never knew they existed before. It was a bit like the USA's arrangement with some of the B747s operated by civil air carriers such as Pan Am and TWA. The landing ships were laid off in the 1970's - now wouldn't they have been the business for the Falklands? In fact, would Galtieri ever have invaded knowing that such a fleet existed?

The Swiss armed forces are minimalist, but every manjack of the population has a solid reserve commitment. Israel and Singapore have similar national service arrangements - almost everyone is a lifetime reservist with mandatory annual training. So why not reduce parts of the permanent military forces to a 'backbone' level supported by territorial volunteers utilising aircraft, ships and vehicles contracted to civilian firms.

For example, In the seventies I served at Brize Norton where our VC10 and Britannia aircraft spent weeks on the ground in between flights because we kept enough available to meet a treaty obligation to reinforce the Far East with a stated number of troops within 24 hours. The crews worked regular enough hours, but the aircraft were mostly 'sleepers' kept ready for emergency. They could easily have been 'territorialised' and earned their keep.

With a bit of proper forethought on defence spending it might be possible for the governemt to both have its cake and eat it too - cutting the cost of defence while actually increasing the force available.