Tornados to be axed?

[typerated]

Cuts could cost RAF its fleet of Tornados | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/20/cuts-raf-fleet-tornados)

Oh dear. Surely there are other things to chop first?

[GreenKnight121]

Buried in that report is the line "because the MoD is no longer expecting to sell some of its Typhoons to Oman in a £600m deal".

In other words, "Instead of Tornado GR.4 carrying on until F-35C starts to arrive, more Tornado squadrons will re-equip with Typhoon than previously planned, with some of those operating the 'obsolete by 2015' tranche 1 aircraft to transition to F-35C".



Reads a little differently that way, doesn't it?

[Finnpog]

There is some brutal financial thinking going on somewhere - and I am not advocating it.

Delete the Tonka GR fleet and not only are there savings in equipment and associated pilots and maintenance folk, will this not also remove the Nav branch too, particularly after the last course has just finished (other thread)?

There have been enough comments / threads on here that the incoming Tornado was no match for the Buccaneer, I just hope that there is no similar cock up with the newer and shinier and better Typhoon being less capable in the Strike & CAS roles than the swing-winged beastie.

Is there something else at work going on in the shadows and this is not just a case of balancing the books? Has someone swallowed the sales patter (or the directorship) of "the Fj future is bright, it's unmanned' and is now working the deliver that new vision?:ugh:

[GrahamO]

Its much simpler than that ...... my interpretation anyway.

In SDSR, someone in the MoD/RAF came up with a budget for the Tornado fleet going forward, and its not exactly decades ago that this was done, so most 'threat assessment changes' excuses are out of the window.

Here we are 12 months or so later, and 'a hole' in the budget has been found aka 'oops we forgot to include this and that' in the budget.

Tradition would have been that the taxpayer paid more, as if the budget was somehow irrelevant, thereby contributing is some way to wards the £38 Billion MOD overspend.

My guess is that someone may have been told, that they have a budget - work within it.

Thats not brutal financial thinking - its asking people to honour their promises and estimates, and to stop using the Exchequer as if its a bottomless pit of cash for the RAF.

[Mr Grim]

Unfortunately Typhoon isn't particularly good at anything yet (standfast the air display circuit). So the obvious question is what do we use for CAS in Afghanistan?

We could try to get Typhoon cleared for a bunch of weapons asap but there are problems with that, not least the cost as we would have to go outside the multi-national programme. A choice of 1000lb class weapons really isn't going to be very useful. Gun, anyone? ANd then there are the other commitments such as QRA (perhaps we could lose a QRA station?)

The other option is probably unpalatable for the RAF - just use Apache and Reaper. The TFH area is so small these days that Apache could cover it and Reaper could remain the UK's theatre wide CAS capable asset, supporting TFH if tasked. BUT no FJ in the fight?!?

We live in interesting times.

[tramps]

From the RAF Air Power Review Autumn/Winter 2010
Quote "The ability to project power from the air and space to influence the behavior of people or the course of events".
In today’s world, it is a regrettable fact that there are many conflicts and fragile cease-fires waiting to explode into fighting, not just in the Gulf area but in Asia, Africa, and even within Europe. The RAF must be ready to deliver flexible air power anywhere in the world. AGILE ADAPTABLE CAPABLE” Unquote :ok:

So...... we have lost the Harriers, the Nimrods and are now, seemingly, about to lose the Tornados:}. We have a rapidly degenerating and hugely overworked, Transport / SH fleet, the SARF is in disarray, RAF personnel at maximum stretch and the MOD announcing redundancies.....:eek: Priceless.....

... well certainly to a mr mahahmoud a-mad-inejad and all those others who may be contemplating conflicts, as well as all those fragile cease-fires that are waiting to explode into fighting, not just in the Gulf area :uhoh:but in Asia, Africa, and even within Europe, (and let’s not forget NI and the Falkland Islands)

Comforting though, that can hold our heads high and sing ‘Rule Britannia’ as, at least, we still have a ‘full strength’ RN..........No?:ooh:
Oh b*llocks!

Mr Cameron and Mr Fox, where on earth are you taking us?:E

[Bismark]

Whilst sad in its way, I think this may demonstrate the futility of prejudice over good sense. The RAF were determined to get rid of the Harrier (and thus the RN from FW aviation) to the extent they were willing to follow the financial nonsense of a £7Bn requirement (GR4) vs a £1Bn one (GR9) in so doing removing the one capability that may prove useful on the current ME/N Africa meltdown - ie carrier air power. UK FW in Afgh is a sideshow as it can be replaced by a myriad of other nations aircraft.

If you place this alongside the Sunday Times article by Mick Smith where he alleges the RN are looking to replace the Nimrod capability (presumably with leased P3s or something similar flown by the FAA), and the RN are now the only Service training Observers/Navs and WSOps/Aircrewmen, then the RAF have really got themselves in a fix.

[GrahamO]

... well certainly to a mr mahahmoud a-mad-inejad and all those others who may be contemplating conflicts, as well as all those fragile cease-fires that are waiting to explode into fighting, not just in the Gulf area http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gifbut in Asia, Africa, and even within Europe, (and let’s not forget NI and the Falkland Islands)

Somehow I doubt the strength (or not) of the Royal Air Force will be part of their decision making process. Its whether the US will react that matters and nothing else.

Don't kid yourself that our ability to project force will scare any of the locals. You're trying to apply logic to a non-logical bunch.

[green granite]

Is this the next step towards deleting the RAF and ending up as was originally, army and navy only?

[NURSE]

"From the RAF Air Power Review Autumn/Winter 2010
Quote "The ability to project power from the air and space to influence the behavior of people or the course of events".
In today’s world, it is a regrettable fact that there are many conflicts and fragile cease-fires waiting to explode into fighting, not just in the Gulf area but in Asia, Africa, and even within Europe. The RAF must be ready to deliver flexible air power anywhere in the world. AGILE ADAPTABLE CAPABLE” Unquote"

Ehmmm is that when the Aircraft is overhead? because when its in base rearming refueling its threatening no one and influencing nothing thats the lesson learnt right back to the 1920's

[draken55]

"Unfortunately Typhoon isn't particularly good at anything yet"

Which if true just sums up the whole problem. Joe public in the UK would be staggered to find out that this was the case given the cost of the programme to date! How on earth would they then react to being informed that Tranche 1 aircraft are approaching obsolesence:*

[Clearedtoroll]

its asking people to honour their promises and estimates, and to stop using the Exchequer as if its a bottomless pit of cash for the RAF


GrahamO, that's probably how the Treasury looks at things and - as such - I think your point is important. However, I disagree with your basic assessment.

The first financial black hole is procurement, and in my experience the basic reason for that is politics a long way outside of the control of the MoD. Essentially, the insistence of the government of the day to buy British - such that no major projects ever go to true competitive tender - means that cost overruns are inevitable; there is just no incentive for cutting costs. That's not in any way a criticism of the defence industry, who exist to make money for their shareholders as best they can. Neither am I suggesting that it isn't occasionally appropriate to subsidise the UK defence industry... But the current Defence Industrial Strategy is an expensive fudge.

The second problem is that governments set out planning assumptions for what they ask the Services to do, and then ask the MoD to do something else entirely. The Services are flexible and can do that... But it costs. There are two basic approaches to funding public services: you can decide something is desireable, work out what the country can afford, and fund the service as best you can. Or you can decide something is essential and fund what it costs. But you can't have it both ways: deploying forces because it's apparently essential and funding them as if it's apparently desireable is always going to end in a budget and/or capability train wreck.

[andyy]

By Mr Grim:

"So the obvious question is what do we use for CAS in Afghanistan?"


Last time I looked, the Afghanistan ops were being prosecuted by multinational forces therefore we use FJ airpower supplied by others, indeed as we already do in many circumstances.

Should have kept GR9 & binned Tornado anyway.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

This is a no brainer, just privatize the military.

Then put the tender out to the lowest bidder....

Thats the new way of thinking.

Glf

[SirPercyWare-Armitag]

It seems all too clear that whilst the MOD remains focussed on Afghanistan, the Government is looking at post-Afghanistan and that means placing UK security and resilience as a priority, over and above armed intervention elsewhere in the world.

Seems probable that there is no appetite for operations like Iraq and Afghanistan any more and that the "force for good" expeditionary type doctrine will be quietly shelved as undesirable and unaffordable.

[30mRad]

Mr Grim,

You say:


The other option is probably unpalatable for the RAF - just use Apache and Reaper. The TFH area is so small these days that Apache could cover it and Reaper could remain the UK's theatre wide CAS capable asset, supporting TFH if tasked. BUT no FJ in the fight?!?



You are technically correct on the landmass that is TFH, but the air and aviation assets deployed to the Theatre are not there for sole UK use and are there as part of the coalition. So by removing the UK Fast Air, you increase the demand on the already too small (mostly US) fast air, resulting in even more reduced support to ground forces (of all nations). Apache and Reaper provide excellent support, but cannot provide all of the capability of a fast-jet (not just GR4 but any FJ).

We could try to get Typhoon cleared for a bunch of weapons asap but there are problems with that, not least the cost as we would have to go outside the multi-national programme. A choice of 1000lb class weapons really isn't going to be very useful. Gun, anyone? ANd then there are the other commitments such as QRA (perhaps we could lose a QRA station?)

You raise the key issue here - QRA. If we replace the GR4s in Afghanistan with Typhoons (which btw has all the necessary air-to-ground clearances - see the press from early last year) of the right tranche, it is my understanding that we could not then provide QRA in the Uk and the Falklands. See the Govt's SDSR quote on defence of national territory and their view of the Falklands: they are not going to increase risk in either area!

So, we lose GR4 sharpish, we don't back fill the capability we have provided the coalition,ground forces (from all nations) go unsupported (haven't got enough Reaper or Apache) and troops suffer injuries/fatalities as a result. Difficult to prove but if guys are in contact and do not get any kind of air/aviation support to suppress the enemies fire......

Now I know politicians are weasels and would wriggle out of it with clever spin, but this is a real possibility.

[Tester_76]

If we replace the GR4s in Afghanistan with Typhoons (which btw has all the necessary air-to-ground clearances - see the press from early last year)

Since when has Typhoon had a full clearance for air to surface other than 1000lbs and PWII (inc. enhanced variants)?

[500days2do]

William Hague was quized this morning on the decision to repatriate UK nationals from Libya and was quite vague in his responce, nothing unusual there, but I wonder what assets are left in the pot should we need to pull out from the various political hot-spots. Maybe a round-robin by one of the many AT assets we have available....

:ugh:

5d2d

[F3sRBest]

Should have kept GR9 & binned Tornado anyway

Great analysis! :ugh:

[draken55]

"by removing the UK Fast Air, you increase the demand on the already too small (mostly US) fast air"

Would be interested in your definition of small. The US Navy has a carrier on station and USAF also has FJ assets. Can around a hundred fast jets be described as too small?

Paragraph four from the story attached sheds more light on the subject.

BBC News - USS Abraham Lincoln provides air support to Afghanistan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12323351)

[andyy]

F3 - I didn't pretend it was an anlaysis, it's an opinion based on the reported savings from binning GR9 quoted at £1Bn Vs the reported savings from binning Tornado at £9Bn.

Tornado now seems under threat as well, but if we'd got a rid of the GR4 we could have saved a net £8Bn (plus whatever savings from cancelling the FJ Navigator training) but probably kept a decent CAS platform that is also capable of deploying to sea, if necessary. Flexibility is the key to air (& sea) power!

[Bob Viking]

I'm with you. Not just from a financial standpoint but on a capability basis as well. GR9 would seem to fit our national interest better than GR4. That is not to say I think the GR4 is not useful (I think we should have both) but if I had to choose that's how I'd have done it!
BV:8

[30mRad]

Tester 76


Since when has Typhoon had a full clearance for air to surface other than 1000lbs and PWII (inc. enhanced variants)?


My understanding is that it has PWIV and PW2 clearance but no dumb 1000 lb clearance. V happy to be corrected if it is just PW2 and dumb 1000lbs.

Draken55


Would be interested in your definition of small. The US Navy has a carrier on station and USAF also has FJ assets. Can around a hundred fast jets be described as too small?


It's not the number of aircraft, but the availability and time available on station. The Teddy Roo may be on station, but they do not provide the on station time that in country assets can (even with tanking) - same applies to the Charles de Gaulle. Something to do with the way ships operate with jets embarked....?! The other matter is the number of individual requests for fast-jet (or more specifically a capability that the fast air provides) by ground units. When these are added to the urgent requests on the day ie tasks or troops in contact that have a higher priority there are a significant number of requests going unsupported. In addition, you might have 100 aircraft on the books, but spread those across a 24 hour period and you're prob looking at something like 20 or so available at any one time. This is not me making a case for fast air - sure the boys would rather spend the time at home than in Afghanistan - but facts should not be ignored!

[Jumping_Jack]

Tiffy...not PWIV....only just done unguided weapons release test.

[draken55]

"you might have 100 aircraft on the books, but spread those across a 24 hour period and you're prob looking at something like 20 or so available at any one time"

If that's so, why has the RAF deployed such a small force? You are making a case for more fast air in addition to US Navy assets and the USAF Eagles deployed at Bagram. If it's persuasive and based on facts, why have we sent so few Tonka's?

[30mRad]

Draken 55


If that's so, why has the RAF deployed such a small force? You are making a case for more fast air in addition to US Navy assets and the USAF Eagles deployed at Bagram. If it's persuasive and based on facts, why have we sent so few Tonka's?


It's more than USAF Eagles and USN assets: French and Italian also involved. The limitation is imposed by the Govt - they will not endorse more than a certain number of UK mil personnel in Afghanistan (not sure if the figure is publicly reported) and so the balance of how that number is allocated to different roles etc means we're stuck with what we have got! I disagree with your assertion that I am making a case for more fast air. I'm not fussed either way, so long as the man who makes that decision is aware of the impact on the boots on the ground......

[draken55]

30mRad

My apologies but I remain a little confused as you say you are not fussed but then imply there is some impact due to a lack of fast air.

If the man who makes such decisions is, at the end of the day our PM, I would be staggered if he was willing to put the life's of troops at risk to save the cost of deploying more aircraft when there is a well argued case for them being needed.:confused:

[30mRad]

Draken 55,

There will be an impact, whether I am fussed or not is tertiary! Let's leave it at that: there will be an impact, and someone needs to accept that responsibility :ok:


the man who makes such decisions is, at the end of the day our PM


And he is advised by Liam Fox, who is advised by.......and there is the problem! :ugh:

[draken55]

30mRad

Agreed:)

[ghostnav]

Sad that this government seems to be doing a better job of destroying the RAF than the Luftwaffe. At the same time we are so short of cash, we continue to give money away through Overseas Aid.

[GrahamO]

Sad that this government seems to be doing a better job of destroying the RAF than the Luftwaffe. At the same time we are so short of cash, we continue to give money away through Overseas Aid.Sorry but that not true.

The Armed Forces have run up an overdraft of £38 Billion ! Thats overspend against that which was budgeted.

While some of that is undoubtedly due to requirement creep brought on by a changing threat assessment, the majority is just through wanting to change the spec on new toys and being overspent and late.

If every asset ordered had been delivered to time and budget, then we would be cancelling exclusively in-service systems when in the main, we are cancelling systems which are years late and are still not working as intended. There seems to be the occasional belief expressed on the BB that the procurement guys and the government order 'stuff' without being asked to do so by anyone. Every procurement comes from a staffed requirement from the relevant armed force responsible and so in these cases, its the RAF who changed the requirement, not some faceless bureaucrat.

The overseas aid bit I agree with in principle however given the armed forces track record of burning bundles of cash and still not delivering anything to time and cost, is it no wonder that the Exchequer trust the MoD as much as a rabbit trusts a fox ? Some people are clearly having a hard time adapting to the concept of working to a budget which is not bottomless.

[Farfrompuken]

Graham,

You really don't know what you're talking about do you?

Come back when you have a clue about procurement and the reasons behind the £38bn

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

See the Govt's SDSR quote on defence of national territory and their view of the Falklands: they are not going to increase risk in either area!


Which is why they have kept both carrier-borne FJs and Nimrod...

[UAV689]

Itv just ran a report on the tonkas, saying they are on the way out and more students to get the axe than previously announced.

Reporter still managed to get a ride in one tho!!

[Uncle Ginsters]

So, following an SDSR (which was nothing more than a cuts exercise) that took less than 4 months to complete, we're now faced with a chain of knee-jerk actions to snip away further where the original assessment failed...great.

As for overseas aid - how about £300m (i believe) to India. India currently buying 10 C17s @~£180m each while we struggle on with 7...just one example of many, i'm sure.

[draken55]

"Itv just ran a report on the tonkas, saying they are on the way out" "Reporter still managed to get a ride in one tho!!"

To-days Guardian article and this ITV report suggest this "bad news" story might well be spin with PR11 in mind. It's just too much of a coincidence given the preparation needed to arrange a visit to Marham involving a Reporter getting airborne. Imagery showing the worth of the Tonka in the Reece role in Afghanistan was added just to finish the pitch.:hmm:

The risk is that giving current Ministers an unpalatable option might backfire if they then take it!:uhoh:

[Doctor Cruces]

My belief is that our beloved air force is being run down so it can be either privatised or turned over to a charity to run.

Doc C

[UAV689]

"Doctor Cruces My belief is that our beloved air force is being run down so it can be either privatised or turned over to a charity to run.

Doc C"

Perhaps it is more big society? Volunteer airforce?

With the speed the middleast is exploding can we afford to cut more? Then again the average jo doesn't care or grasp what is happening. Was trying to talk to my assistant at work about it and she didn't even know anything was going on out there!!! With the majority of people thinking like this it is no wonder the government can cull the military.

I doubt it will be just the RAF. As soon as Afgan is over (ever) the army will be shrunk big time.

[Bismark]

Which is why they have kept both carrier-borne FJs and Nimrod...

er, I think that is because the then CDS and CAS recommended binning the Harrier. The RAF needs to take a good hard look at itself.

[The Fin]

I can't help thinking that the whole Harrier debate is maybe a little past its sell by date now. Not only that, but singing the praises of one thing, whatever it is has to be fair game - slagging off something that day in, day out is providing life saving air power all over Afghanistan (in a similar way to other FJ) is disrespect in the extreme to those people flying the missions, maintaining the aircraft and working everywhere to keep them in good shape. Please think about that before diving in to rubbish someone/something.

For my tuppence worth, let's face it, most things in most places could be done by someone else - yep, there's a carrier available, the world's biggest Air Force to draw on but the same logic says there's also a gigantic US Army to do everything ours does and a Navy the same. The deal would appear to be that UK wants to contribute a bit on every front to demonstrate coalition comittment. Therefore, we need some FJ to put in the mix -maybe tokenism but in a similar proportion to every other Service's contribution perhaps.

Yikes! Sometime since I posted last, I'm a listen don't talk normally so please be gentle...

[glad rag]

Sad that this government seems to be doing a better job of destroying the RAF than the Luftwaffe. At the same time we are so short of cash, we continue to give money away through Overseas Aid.

:D:D:D

Good money after bad! Video: Indian rocket explodes after take-off - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-video/8225049/Indian-rocket-explodes-after-take-off.html)

[draken55]

glad rag

I do think that giving aid to India is now nonsense as indeed do they. However, let's stop short of applauding their failure to become self sufficient in the ability to launch satellites.:=

India is a Democracy and bar a fixation with buying ships and aircraft in the past from the USSR/Russia as a consequence of US support over the years for Pakistan, it's always likely to be more of a friend than any threat to the UK. It's economic growth is an opportunity for the UK as we have much in common despite the chequered history.

Take it you don't drive a Jag!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Graham O

I'll bite.

The Armed Forces have run up an overdraft of £38 Billion ! Thats overspend against that which was budgeted.

Wrong. The overspend is created by DPA, now DE&S. A department within the MOD but not within HM Forces. True it is an overspend but that overspend is managed by the "Centre" not the HM Forces.

While some of that is undoubtedly due to requirement creep brought on by a changing threat assessment, the majority is just through wanting to change the spec on new toys and being overspent and late.

No-one goes around changing the spec because they want to, nor is it allowed by the various scrutiny elements in the MOD. Before the spec is changed there has to be an endorsed requirement. Lateness of industry to deliver to cost, time or performance can hardly be blamed on the Armed Forces. One of the items singled out by Fox was the A400M - failure to deliver can only really be blamed on Airbus.

given the armed forces track record of burning bundles of cash and still not delivering anything to time and cost

The Armed Forces do not deliver new equipment. That is the job of DE&S and industry. As an example, several years ago (2002-ish) I attended a briefing from two major aviation companies, let's call them A and B. Both stated that they would deliver their product within 3 years of contract signature. A couple of nations signed up in the 04/05 time frame, one with company A and one with company B. Now there was obviously an element of a sales pitch from both of them, but as yet neither has delivered any of their product to their customers. Both are late by several years; how can this be the fault of the Armed Forces?

[GrahamO]

Farfrompuken

Graham,

You really don't know what you're talking about do you?

Come back when you have a clue about procurement and the reasons behind the £38bnI'm back and have had the (dis)pleasure with dealing with MOD procurement from 1984 to 2002 on Army and Air Force, so yes, I do know what happens. I knew MOD-PE, DPA, DLO and the whole sorry CADMID process inside and out, SMART procurement with the least smart group of people running it possible and have been through (possibly) more OA and Concept phase work definitions across all three services than a lot of people and are more than aware of where the problems lie. I haven't met a MOD department in nearly 20 years that didn't give a contractor an excuse to be late by either changing the spec or not doing its bit on time (bar once). Sure industry has its problems and is not blameless, but when you give them a chance to worm out of their responsibilities its hardly their fault.

A400M is a good example - if the Airbus consortium were that culpable, then damages would be payable ....... but they are not. Why ? Because at every stage in the process, MOD changed the requirement, giving the contractor a get out clause. The solution - write down what you want and stop changing the spec and then any delays will solely be down to the Contractor. And for the avoidance of doubt ANY change that DE&S ask for is as a result in a new/revised/forgotten requirement from the armed forces. It is not dreamed up by a civilian or civil servant. Maybe not personally someone who flies the thing, but in the uniformed part of the RAF some bloke somewhere has found that they want more, that was not originally asked for.

And as to the rather ridiculous suggestion that DE&S is at fault for procuring the wrong stuff, that again is complete rot. EVERY requirement is defined by representatives of the Armed forces, working in the IPT's so lets not kid ourselves that 'a big boy did it and ran away'.

Its easy for you to be dismissive about my views but the sad fact is that you have no answer to the massive overspend. The bit you still cannot get is not the increase in budget that has been bought in but that no matter how much money is given, and the 'approved' budget increased, the MOD still over spends.

MOD asks for £10 for something and then spends £20 for half the job, and never really seems to be concerned. Then oops, I have more requirements so comes back for a total of £35 now, gets approval for £35 - and then still go on to spend £55.

The original £10 and the extra £15 requested have never been the problem - its the later unplanned £10 and £20 that the taxpayers don't want to pay anymore. Upgrades to budgets have never been a problem - its the repeated bites at the cake for the item already budgeted thats objectionable.

farfrom - you seem to be another that just wants taxpayers to keep paying and for the MOD to be unaccountable.

Back to simple examples, if a builder you were paying did what MOD did, and were that far over budget and years late would you keep feeding them cash ? You wouldn't pay the bill would you ? (although I doubt you will answer the question again).

FWIW I don't want Tornado to be cut back but its getting really hard believing any MOD estimate as it looks like the numbers are being made up every time and actually nobody knows the real cost. The RAF are going to suffer unless someone in the wider MOD sorts the ability to count, out properly.

[Roland Pulfrew]

A400M is a good example - if the Airbus consortium were that culpable, then damages would be payable ....... but they are not. Why ? Because at every stage in the process, MOD changed the requirement, giving the contractor a get out clause.

Oh really:rolleyes: That would be the multinational A400M programme, so its down to the MOD is it? We change "our" requirement and all the other nations just say, oh that's fine then!! :ugh: The one where if we had challenged Airbus and pulled in all the damages they would have gone bust as a company. They threatened to pull the plug on the programme unless they were bailed out - which is why the RAF are only getting 22 of the original 25 aircraft ordered.

[Grimweasel]

Current global events and political changes in the Middle East and N Africa, IMHO bode very badly for future stability and peace globally. There is a real chance that Al-Q and/or Muslim Fanatical elements could fill the power vacuums and become entrenched.

I wonder if the SDSR mandarins saw this little Black Swan event brewing? The pace of global events could even just put a spanner in the works and save the RAF as a sudden capability gap is exposed. I wonder if it's too late to reserect the Harrier and Ark Royal, for I fear without them we could be about to give up our great Nation's defences too readily. :(

Oil already spiked 6% today on contagion fears and there is a chance that oil could superspike back to $150 plus if this wave of riots spreads to other Oil producing nations. As oil goes up then so markets will tank and the whole recession will be back on, but this time the Feds and the BoE have no dry powder with which to fix the economy. Why do you think we are seeing gains of 6% in a day in oil and silver? The next recession will be much deeper and worse than the 09 lows. Then we will begin to feel the real pain. Most of this was kicked off by QE and Ben Bernanke's insane money printing policies that gave rise to massive food price inflation which acted as the spark to ignite the tinder box across N Africa. The US may now reap the pain of what it has sowed. We could all be doomed. Time to stock up on the tins of food and shotgun cartridges and run to the Scottish Isles!!

[Uncle Ginsters]

Does anyone know what the total cost of TELIC was (as if the lives lost wasn't enough:() and the current total for HERRICK?

I'm pretty sure the MoD didn't volunteer to go there, but it sure feels now as if we're bearing the cost for it.:mad:

[NURSE]

Given the foreign sec was spouting forth about Gadaffi in bound to Venezeula I would suspect the game plans the FCO produced to support SDSR wouldn't pass final disertation at a university.
So Defence planners now need to develop plan B which is well balanced well equipped forces capable of hi-intensity warfighting as COIN may not be the way ahead!

[engineer(retard)]

Graham O

You are starting to sound like a stuck record.. Lets take "EVERY requirement is defined by representatives of the Armed forces, working in the IPT's so lets not kid ourselves that 'a big boy did it and ran away'.". Utter horsepoo. The URD comes from the military but is written by specialist requirement writers, usually DSTL. This is then taken by DPA and turned into the detailed SRD, and is turned into a contract SRD where requirements are traded for cost and time with virtually no service involvement. The budget is also declared for the project at the outset but what usually happens is the money is not avaialble in the years that you want it, so more trading goes on. Normally this means slowing the programme down to meet the cash profile and tends to drive costs up because of marching armies.

Much of what has driven the massive overspend was due to the last SDR. The military tasks were defined but unfunded, so when push came to shove and we took on the medium size conflicts, there were not enough resources to go around. The gap has had to be plugged with a succesion of sticking plaster. Money has been borrowed from ongoing programmes to fund operational needs, extending the programmes and driving costs up. There has not been a stable budget to work to in my lifetime.

[Capt P U G Wash]

Whilst it is clearly the job of a rumour site to pick up on such press releases, but if you track the story it is not new. Starting with the Express article last week, this has merely been circulating around the remainder - Guardian then Mirror. It is rather coincidental however, that a pre planned ITN media day at Marham is stolen by the news breaking again that day. Anyone would think there is a plot.......

This is a concerted attempt to deflect attention from other areas. The constant old news stories about large programme cost overruns is hogging the news. What about the other huge cost drivers? The MoD news machine has lost the plot and is being controlled to avoid political fallout – this has allowed the constant leaking to gain traction and some are using it for their own gain. However, this is short sighted, those who seek to protect their own bloated force structures will die to regret it.

It would be political suicide to remove air support from Afghanistan - either through the consequences to UK troops or the loss of influence with the US and NATO. We don't have much capability left, throwing away the last vestiges of international credibility would be the end of our influence.

If, a single Bde, fixed in a very small battle space, fed by an Army of 94,000, reliant on others to keep it safe, is where we are heading than we deserve everything coming our way!

As the current situation in the Middle East demonstrates we can’t even predict tomorrow, let alone 10 years from now.

[30mRad]

Capt Wash

If, a single Bde, fixed in a very small battle space, fed by an Army of 94,000, reliant on others to keep it safe, is where we are heading than we deserve everything coming our way!


As the current situation in the Middle East demonstrates we can’t even predict tomorrow, let alone 10 years from now.


Well said! :ok:

[Justanopinion]

"it would be political suicide to remove air support from Afghanistan - either through the consequences to UK troops or the loss of influence with the US and NATO. We don't have much capability left, throwing away the last vestiges of international credibility would be the end of our influence."
So true. UK Fast Air is not in Afghanistan just to support the UK. It has been there from 2004, before the British Army moved into Helmand in 2006, and ever since has been on call to support whoever needs it.

[GrahamO]

@engineer(retard)

The URD comes from the military

I rest my case - blaming everyone after that in the chain and then somehow claiming nobody in the 'service' in involved simply is not true. Perhaps if the military wrote down what they actually wanted in sufficient detail to avoid ambiguity it might be simpler ? I know thats the hard bit but other parts of wider industry seem to manage okay.

Remember to us outsiders, we don't see the chaps in uniform, dstl, the PE/DE&S, as a different bunch. Collectively 'you are the UK MOD' to us, and playing semantics over which part is at fault is unimportant to us taxpayers.

All we know is that the 'MOD collectively' failed to deliver.

I must stress again I have the highest regard for very member of the armed forces - I just wouldn't trust any one with £5 as I know you'd be back a week later for a £10. You have a difficult job and given a choice I would fund a lot more military expenditure but its quite hard to find people supporting that when so much is being wasted. Pointing fingers at the other parts of the MOD is not going solve anything. Personally I would have kept Harrier, ditched half of Tornado, still ditched MRA4 and put all the saved money to the Army guys to save lives.

Maybe I am a stuck record by maybe thats because there are still too many people in the wider MOD unable to accept fiscal responsibility for this debacle and seek to blame everyone except themselves.

[FB11]

Justanopinion,

Actually, it wouldn't be political suicide at all.

It would only be a mild ripple in the waters if the UK pulled out something that was unique and couldn't be back filled.

UK fast air is not unique and can (and will) be back filled.

Pulling out 150+ soldiers would create far more of a stir than pulling out the 150+ personnel supporting 8 jets in a pool of many more.

The army/marines will always say they need more air support - and there are endless statistics to show how 'if just one more jet was deployed we'd have met all the requests' - and the reality of the situation is they will get it, mighty Tornado or not.

The PM wants to draw down; enablers will be the first thing to go before the soldiers/marines standing on street corners. That is the unfortunate reality.

[Justanopinion]

FB11

You've missed the point.

We first went to Afghanistan at relatively short notice with the Harrier to relieve the USMC Harriers. Obviously UK fast air is not unique and can be back filled (although have plenty of evidence to suggest that people on the ground are pretty happy to have UK air support). It is somewhat embarrassing that now we potentially cannot even muster a detachment of 8 jets to support NATO/US efforts.

[Capt P U G Wash]

FB, they are not UK enablers, they are ISAF enablers. When the boots are coming off the ground the fast air will still be needed to support the Afghans and their mentors. And as for others providing it, look around and tell me where it will come from. Of course the US will pick up the tab where able, but that is the point are we not a key ally. If the political masters want quick reductions in numbers and costs in terms of lives lost then hand off to the locals and give them air support - just look at how Iraq has played out.

[Capt P U G Wash]

...and as for the 150 having a lesser impact if they were airmen and groundcrew. By some estimations on here, 8 jets would be 8% of the total fast air effort (actually in terms of quality and recce capability I would argue its higher than that), 150 soldiers is less than 1.5% of the UK effort alone. You do the maths!

We probably pull out 150 a day on R&R!

[FB11]

Justanopinion,

I didn't miss the point; you've just made a different one from the original post I commented upon. If all you're saying is that the UK reducing numbers of fast jets makes it difficult to more than 1 deployment at a time with a handful of jets, I agree.

Capt P U G Wash,

Thankyou for the UK/ISAF discriminator; very strategic. The badge sewn onto a nations arm doesn't stop them making national decisions, no matter how much pressure their ISAF buddies place on them. Germany; France; Holland; Denmark; Canada - all making national decisions whilst wearing the ISAF badge. There are more; but I assume you already know that.

Watch carefully as the US works its way through the summer and see quite how important 'ISAF' is to a large majority of nations involved. The widely publicised open press US reduction in US troops (packaged as 'reducing the surge') will see most (all?) nations taking the same dividend - do you seriously think the UK won't do the same?

Some may wish to believe that the UK is the only nation who could possibly do fast air and that nobody else would fill the gap. The reality is that the 150 soldiers/marines that are pulled out really would need to be filled by another nation and it's these troops that make the headlines. They are the ones losing life, not aircrew in fast jets. And before I get the 'they'd lose more life if it weren't for us...' the majority lose life because of IED and direct fire that sadly would happen even if every serviceable Tornado in Afghanistan was airborne. That wasn't a good example, let's say even if every Tornado was airborne. Serviceability just muddies the water.

When the USMC put their recent surge in they didn't bring with them all their air enablers in order that they could keep their total footprint within their manpower cap. They, of all services, value the grunt more than the aircraft.

I'm sure CAS will have reacted as you did to the potential removal of Tornado from HERRICK; he may have even written a passionate letter to CDS making a strong case for the tenets of air power. He may have even used some amazing statistics like you did to somehow demonstrate that 1 Tornado = 10 'other' coalition jets. But he would, wouldn't he? (And good for him, fighting for his fast jet beating heart of the service.)

And we really don't want to get into the somewhat subjective nature of the 'quality' of the Tornado somehow providing a greater percentage of total fast air? If you're going to use a maths statistic, keep it objective.

So yes, you may not like it but for the ISAF commander, troops on street corners are more important than aircrew and maintainers.

He can't fight a campaign with fast jets and no troops but he can do the reverse, even if it's more risky.

[TBM-Legend]

You have the Scottish Parliament. Why not secede and keep the assets there. Mr Scottish President I give you the Royal Caledonian Air Force....and Army and Navy....:ok::ok::ok:

Seal the border with England and leave it to the brethren from the sub-continent who seem to occupy most of it...:E:E

Ulster can go on with its ways and Wales???? Mmmmmmmm. I know the Prince of Wales could become the King of Wales with his consort Queen of Whales...:hmm:

[Mr Grim]

Warning, mini rant incoming.

First of all I should say that I am (obviously) not a Tornado guy so have no self interest here. On the contrary you could say that they are competitors with my platform. But I have to say that FB11s statements are so stunningly narrow and clearly show that he has no understanding of ops in Afghanistan or Joint military ops anywhere beyond what the Daily Mail supplies (being an airline pilot I have assumed that he doesn't read the Sun).

First, CAS does not make the decision on force mix in theatre, although he will clearly input to the process. If CJO really thought that having 150 troops rather than 150 Tornado personnel would be a vast improvement then he would make changes. I should also point out that an uplift in 150 Army personnel would not mean anywhere near 150 extra "standing on street corners" (noone really stands on street corners anyway, been watching too much Ross Kemp?).

FJs aren't the silver bullet of air power but they do have an important part to play in the fight. If you think that Tornados really haven't saved lives or played a part in the IED fight then you are particularly badly informed and to insinuate as much is pretty insulting to the Tornado force.

Last I would also disagree on your assertion that Land could win the fight without Air but Air couldn't win the fight without Land. Land would have difficulty getting to theatre to start with without Air and even if they could (launch the fleet!) and be entirely resupplied by sea and land I suggest that the fight would already have been lost without the capabilities that the different aspects of Air and Space power bring. Certainly many, many more lives would have been lost. Could Air carry out the Mission without Land? Of course not, although if we had tried that route we wouldn't have 300 dead, but it is clearly a Joint fight needing a range of assets and capabilities. Putting "boots on the ground" in what is a very small part of Helmand, never mind Afghanistan, is not the silver bullet either, despite army PR.

The only genuine capability point to debate about the withdrawal of Tornado from Afghan is whether the role could be filled by other assets such as FJs from other nations or ather assets such as Reaper. There are obviously other aspects such as the political impact, both externally and internally. [Quick Reaper flag wave: One of the advantages of Reaper is that whilst having over 10 times the persistence of Tornado with a larger weapons payload and more sensors it has a theatre footprint of about 2% of Tornado and that is the number everyone cares about].

Rant over and I feel slightly better :).

[andyy]

By Mr Grim:

"[Quick Reaper flag wave: One of the advantages of Reaper is that whilst having over 10 times the persistence of Tornado with a larger weapons payload and more sensors it has a theatre footprint of about 2% of Tornado and that is the number everyone cares about]".

Now that is actually one of the most interesting pieces of info that has been posted on here in a long time.

If the UK want to deliver effects (whilst having little money!), then surely it should concentrate on things that it can do (almost) uniquely. So, we could withdraw Tornado & still play a significant role in coalition (& national) ops by an uplift of Reaper???

(keeping other assets such as Apache, ASaC7, Chinook etc in theatre as well)

[peppermint_jam]

CJO is an ex tonka Nav, we're safe!

[FB11]

Mr Grim,

I'm glad you feel better. I'd forgotten that I'd put my ATPL in my profile - how funny. I was determined not to let my Link-Up money go to waste.

As I dodge the spittle emanating from your (mini?) rant, a few points of clarification.

1. I am quite aware that fast jets can come to the aid of soldiers and marines. The majority of times, when ISAF troops die, they don't and couldn't have had any effect. That's not to suggest fast jets aren't important, just that they can't stop an AK47 round or 99% of IEDs. I am also aware that fast jets offer a range of effects from shows of presence (much safer than shows of force) to delivery of kinetic effect. I get it.

None of the above mandates that fast jet support needs to be provided by Tornado.

2. I'm not being derogatory towards Tornado aircrew. They are doing the best they can with their aircraft. I'm comfortable enough with my experience to acknowledge the difference between objective comment about the hardware we use and the reason for the Tornado Force being in theatre.

3. I didn't say Land could win without air, I said that you can't win a conflict with air but no land, you can the other way around. This was meant to try and help you understand that when our PM makes a decision to reduce forces and he's told by CDS that force density can not be reduced (because ISAF tells him this in case Capt P U G Wash is lurking) then he will look to reduce those assets that offer him redution without adversely impacting his Main Effort. Tornado maintainers don't do clear and hold operations. There are other nations (including increasing the ratio of total missions flown from US carriers in support of ISAF ops) that will fill the void.

4. The comment on your misunderstanding of air versus land: 'although if we had tried that route we wouldn't have 300 dead' - Did you really mean to write that? I hope that was you at the peak of your (mini) rant and that you don't really believe that.

5. Assuming you are genuinely something to do with UAV, (on the fast jet versus IED piece) you more than most should know that there are far better ways to detect and prosecute IED emplacers or IED locations than a Tornado with RAPTOR. It's not a reason to keep it in theatre above troops on the ground.

6. Reaper get's my vote. A mere 2% of Tornado footprint? Don't let CAS here you talking about such things. They'll burn you at the stake.

[Capt P U G Wash]

Ok, let us just for one minute assume that this is about the correct operational decision rather than financial politics back at home (which of course it is, and that is the tragedy of this thread)

The decision to transition is an operational decision, which has now been hijacked by politics. No soldier, airman or sailor would set a date for victory!
What is clear, however, is that the key to transition is a hand off to Afghan Security Forces (ANSF) (with a suitably democratic government in charge – and that may be the tricky bit). Last time I looked the ANSF are lacking a few key capabilities – boots is not one of them. Unless you want to recreate the Alamo all over the country, the way that you de-risk transition is to provide those capabilities for them. Now that the UK is in charge of just 3 districts, and that they are the one’s likely to transition early (because they are the key population and wealth generating areas in Helmand), then the logic flow is that it is troop numbers that go first; the enablers will take a lot longer, because they will need to enable someone else.
Unless of course you declare a false victory and leave the Afghans to themselves (or the US to clear up the mess) – now when would we ever do that!
As for FB’s specific points:
1. The presence of fast air forces behaviours in the enemy which allow us to fight the way we do – we are not the ones hiding in other countries and behind women and children. If you remove it he gets more freedom of action – beware unintended consequences. One of the challenges for air is proving what happens when you don’t do something – gutsy move Mav! Ask the Taliban what scares them the most and it will probably be Special Forces and air strikes from “nowhere”. Tornado does that better than most and buys us huge respect as a result.
2. They have turned it into one of the most capable and respected platforms in theatre despite the limitations on design.

3. Your black and white: air vs land comparisons are old school and airmen made a similar mistake the other way around after the Gulf War. The fact is that the balance is dependent on the situation. I suggest a land locked, large country with poor communication networks absolutely needs air. You forget how we defeated the Taliban regime. If soldiers don’t need air support perhaps they should stop putting in more requests than we can meet. I accept that the UK can decide unilaterally and we could behave like those countries you mentioned – is that were you think we should head – in which case why are we taking a disproportionate number of casualties (let’s stop that as well if that is your thesis). You seem to imply that 150 UK soldiers will have a greater coalition impact than 8 fast jets – I just plain disagree.
4. As I said above, you will never know what might have happened if something was different. However, perhaps you can explain why air support was called for so many times to disengage if the troops could have just walked away. Do you honestly believe that the casualty count and the delays to live saving MEDEVAC would have been the same?
5. There are lots of ways to detect all sorts of things (and an IED is one of the trickiest), but you make the false assumption that the device is the only target in the chain…. If you know your sensors, then you will know how good it is compared to anything else out there…..period.
6. 2% of UK in theatre maybe, but a very big footprint and cost elsewhere and totally reliant on US assistance. That said, it is a superb system for this theatre; however they are too slow to react to many of the target sets and too few to cover the requests. In addition, CAS knows how good they are, they are his. He likes the blend of capabilities they provide and wants more; but he also knows what fast air brings, just as our US cousins do. One thing that is underplayed is the benefit of fast air based in country; they provide 24/7 alert capabilities with a quick response. UAVs and Carrier air in the Indian Ocean do neither. If it is flexible and agile you want, you have to accept that fast air provides.
This thread is not really about Tornado options (which would be barking mad to take), it is about the future of UK defence capabilities. Perhaps the armchair theorists and even some retired (may be even serving) soldiers have operated under total air supremacy for too long. At this rate we better start reading the Taliban tactics manual because we will need it.

[Wyler]

It has nothing to do with capabilities and everything to do with politics.

The combined numbers of the RAF and RN, post cuts, would not fill a single Premiership Football Stadium.

M&S employs more people then the RAF.

Dave Cameron wants nothing more than a basic UK Defence Force. He wants that to guard against terrorist attack. He wants that because he knows that a major attack at home will bring his Government down. He cares about obtaining power and keeping it. Nothing more. He is a politician and that's his job.

So keep talking about capabilities, Covenants, Morale, respect and Fast Air etc all you want.

They are not listening.

They don't really care.

[just another jocky]

Wyler, unfortunately I agree with you. :sad:

Mr Grim...agree with what you say, but statistics can be misleading: "10 times the persistence of Tornado". Well I flew over 6 hours in theatre (others have flown longer), so does the Reaper have a 60-hour loiter capability? Don't answer that, I know it's classified. ;)

There are (as always) a lot of folk posting here who know bugger-all about what's going on in theatre, or about the processes involved yet sounding as if they are an informed opinion. Yet another sign of the gradual demise of this forum. :zzz:

[engineer(retard)]

GrahamO

"I rest my case - blaming everyone after that in the chain and then somehow claiming nobody in the 'service' in involved simply is not true. Perhaps if the military wrote down what they actually wanted in sufficient detail to avoid ambiguity it might be simpler ? I know thats the hard bit but other parts of wider industry seem to manage okay."

I've worked on both sides of the fence and the rules are different. Unless you are buying on an MOD contract, you can buy what you need. Otherwise, you have to comptete it. If left to the military, the URD would state something like " Get me 24 F-15E, the same model as USAF". However, the rules do not allow that and the URD has to provide capability based statements. You might have an 8 setting dinner set in mind when you set your URD but get provided with an ASDA party pack after the trading, dilution and intepretation of the URD.

[FB11]

This is really hard work.

Capt P U G Wash,

Do you run the Media Handling Course? Your ability to answer - bridge and communicate away from the points I raise to sell Tornado is quite alarming (do you see what I did there?)

You general comments about transition are all super. What capabilities we will be allowed to leave behind once combat ops cease (due to cost and what the emerging Defence Strategic Direction guides us towards) may or may not include fast jets. As a balanced force, of course it should. They do not need to be Tornado.

Your points:

1. I agree. They don't need to be Tornado. There are plenty of other aircraft that deliver munitions from nowhere. Folks reading might think that you're over egging Tornado capability.

2. Good for them. But they don't need to be in theatre.

3. It's not my doctrine. I'm not suggesting anyone be so blinkered as to be black and white about anything. I'm not saying that you don't need aircraft. The point of me entering this debate was to hopefully have a more intelligent debate than someone spouting AP3000 at me. When the Army are asked what they lose first, their response will be that as long as they get fast jet support - or just air support of any kind that fulfils their requirements for fires - from someone they'd prefer to lose non-combat personnel before they lose combat numbers. Go and speak to an Army bloke, he's the one that drives UK doctrine whether the RAF or Navy like it or not.

I'm glad you disagree with the (incorrect) assertion that 150 troops gives the same or better effect as 8 GR4. I disagree too. It is clearly not comparing apples with apples and you have misunderstood the point and ABC'd to a whole new bit of PR.

4. I agree. I've never disagreed. But they don't need to be Tornado.

5. I'm not making a false assumption - where did I say it was the only device in the chain? Tornado being in theatre is not the reason we're successful against IEDs.

6. Couldn't agree more. Which is why (I assume) the USMC is investing in heavily in Bastion to ensure that its fast air is really on the doorstep where it's needed (as opposed to being XX minutes away.)

"This thread is not really about Tornado options..." Oh, I thought it was. ('Tornados to be axed' is the name of the thread?)

What this thread most certainly is not about is a PR campaign to keep Tornado in theatre by spinning capabilities that can and will be achieved by other platforms if the tough decisions on manpower reductions need to be made.

I reiterate: If we could keep UK fast jets in theatre, we should keep them. But let's not for a minute pretend that other assets couldn't mitigate the capabilities provided by Tornado even if that increased some risk.

[Capt P U G Wash]

I am glad I am making it hard for you, but that is the point it should be hard rather than the simplistic arguments that make the press. A bit more time and a bit more thinking and our lords and masters won't make the wrong long term decision. I hope!

[Clearedtoroll]

I didn't say Land could win without air, I said that you can't win a conflict with air but no land, you can the other way around


I challenge that... Land forces are - in general - vital, and I'm not for a second going to suggest otherwise. Usually, winning a conflict is about holding ground and for that you clearly need boots and so in most circumstances your comment holds true.

But, why are we in Afghanistan? Perhaps the valid reason for going in was to stop the Taleban providing support for Al Qaeda... The revisionist policy to start nation-building, enhance womens' rights etc (for which we need boots on the ground) is all very laudable but isn't why we are there, except when the government is trying to sell our efforts to a doubting public. I think we probably achieved the original objective a long time ago, and will probably never achieve the second. So can we afford to care if the Taleban run Afghanistan? I would argue not, as long as they don't support terrorist networks. I am no personal expert on the Taleban, but I have heard some interesting arguments from those that are that the Taleban per se have no particular ambitions outside of the AFPAK tribal areas.

So (oversimplifying a little!) why don't we just use a mix of fast + persistent air to ensure our interests as best we can and get boots out? Perhaps SF would be useful as well, but essentially I am suggesting no permanent boots on the ground. And then pursue much the same policy in Yemen, Somalia or wherever we really need to be to deal with the threat. To do that (and other conflicts where we will need boots, or don't yet know what we need), we need a balanced mix of sea, land and air power.

So I am not making an argument for Tornado over another type of fast air, or RAF over RN or army. I could equally happily make an argument for sea power, especially with regards to Yemen and Somalia. I am instead saying that this boots-on-the-ground philosophy has its place but it is beginning to sound more like dogma than doctrine. It's expensive in lives and cash, and it's right that it should be debated. I find it worrying that those who dare to do so are quite often met with ridicule rather than reasoned debate.

Finally, this afternoon I heard a discussion on R4 about a proposed no-fly zone over Libya... Unlikely, but perhaps SHAR, carriers, Typhoon, AAR and AWACS might be useful, all assets we have either cut or have been belittled incessantly recently. But not boots. Point? We never know what is going to happen next, and we need balanced forces within a realistic budget to be ready for that.

[30mRad]

FB11


....keep Tornado in theatre by spinning capabilities that can and will be achieved by other platforms if the tough decisions on manpower reductions need to be made.


I think you'll find there is no "spin" on capabilities. The capabilities provided by Tornado cannot be achieved by other platforms - RAPTOR, Brimstone, canon and PWIV. Other platforms can provide similar but not to the same degree in a combined effect - REAPER has PWIV and Hellfire, but once they're used as I understand it the platform doesn't return for a re-load, it stays on various other tasks. Whether you like it or not, it offers a fast, layered and multi-effect capability. And the bottom line, is that should GR4 be pulled form Theatre there will be a gap across the board.


I reiterate: If we could keep UK fast jets in theatre, we should keep them. But let's not for a minute pretend that other assets couldn't mitigate the capabilities provided by Tornado even if that increased some risk.


There is also a more strategic part to this. It may only be 8 ac (alongside the AH, CH47, SKASaCs, C130 etc) but it actually allows the UK significant access and leverage at key levels with-in the CAOC and higher. It is not just about a (relatively) large number of people only providing a (relatively) small number of fast jets. Same deal for the Army too - Nick Carter as Comd RC(S) last year for example. That would have been a large number of HQ staff that could have been used for combat ops, but the strategic leverage it gives UK plc means you have to balance.

Pull GR4, replace by Typhoon offering the same capability, replace by Harrier, replace by F15E, F18 or the like, but don't pull the GR4 and lose all of the above.

[ECAM_Actions]

Odd that no-one mentioned scrapping The Red Arrows, considering they offer precisely zero to the defense of this country, and is just an expensive, exclusive club for The Few.

Could save an instant £10 Million plus per year by scrapping that lot!

Will also do wonders for the environment by not spewing tons of diesel all over the countryside every year. Global warming anyone? :E

ECAM Actions.

[just another jocky]

FB11 - you do talk complete cock! :zzz:

30mRad - agreed, but the point is, none of those platforms offers what GR4 does. But if those who make these decisions are prepared to accept the risk, that's their choice (responsibility).

[30mRad]

ust Another Jocky

30mRad - agreed, but the point is, none of those platforms offers what GR4 does. But if those who make these decisions are prepared to accept the risk, that's their choice (responsibility).

I fully agree - and tried to make that point more subtely (clearly failed :() Wouldn't it be nice if someone was prepared to take that responsibility publicly rather than hide behind spin :ugh:

[engineer(retard)]

"Go and speak to an Army bloke, he's the one that drives UK doctrine whether the RAF or Navy like it or not."

If that was true, ships and aircraft would be getting mothballed and scrapped. Ok I see your point.

[Rulebreaker]

Surely we cant just increase reapers at the drop of a hat there must come a point were we run out of satellite band width and it cost rather a lot for one of those satellites unless weve stashed one down the back of the sofa and not told anyone. We can deploy FJ without such considerations is that not part of there selling point.

[Green Flash]

Another consideration re sat comms is solar activity. One big CME and the sats would be deaf, blind and dumb, unless they are very well shielded.

[Capt P U G Wash]

a gust of wind is usually enough!

[E L Whisty]

I am wondering whether this thread illustrates the point of why the MoD is so utterly incompetent. Wandering off the point, arrogant point scoring, intellectual posing - I know more about how the system works better than you do - do us a favour and grow up, some of you!

The reason that we might lose GR4s, have lost Harriers, carriers, a shed load of other stuff and lack the military capability to rescue Brits from Libya is because the MoD has overspent by £38 billion and that is because...?

Nothing to do with the most wicked, mendacious, selfish, arrogant, corrupt and spiteful government ever, getting us into a **** load of wars and then refusing to pay for them? All because a public school educated toff and spiv wanted Mick Jagger's job but figured the best way to get rich was to take over the Labour party. He lies through his teeth as first, through to last, resort but depends on a one eyed Scottish psycho who hates everything but especially the forces, in order to avoid confrontation with the real commies in his party. (Plus Prescott but then every king needs his fool). So 'show me the money' Bliar does as he is told and delivers calculated insult upon insult by appointing a succession of their most gullible 'useful idiots' to be Secretary of State for (not giving money to) Defence.

And the forces, most culpably their senior commanders, put up with this for 13 years and now, boo hoo, we can't afford the kit so we blame each other. Where were the resignations? Youngsters can die for our country but careers are sacrosanct. The leadership in the armed forces was abandoned decades ago and was replaced by something much more useful (career wise) - management.

The defence of this realm is not in peril - it has been destroyed. By a lot of spineless careerists who would not be able to find 'principle' in the index of a 4 page book entitled 'Stuff That Real Leaders Need to Know' by B Aldrick, Wibble Press, publishers, BlackAdder & Sons.

[GrahamO]

@E L Wisty

So at what point does it become the fault of the people who overspent by the £38 billion ? The £38 billion is not the cost of operations in the wars to which you allude - most overspend is entirely unrelated I understand ?

Your point about politicians is possibly accurate but they didn't actually order more than they could afford or could actually be delivered ? Whilst they may be guilty by omission of not controlling the spending of others, they did not actually cause the waste to be spent.

Its like blaming a cake shop owner for allowing a fat bloke to buy cake and make himself obese.

Those that stuff their face with cake that they cannot afford, or have the money with which to pay, cannot blame the person who takes away their credit cards and puts them on a diet.

[Capt P U G Wash]

EL and Graham O,

The men you are looking for are the Defence Secretaries (and there were a few in this period) - they made the decisions and carried the can (or should have). But then they were watched by the PM and HMT, and they in turn were put under pressure by the opposition who howled every time somebody tried to underfund defence as it fought two simultaneous wars - neither of which met the grand design.

Can you blame the senior officers (who are mostly untrained in the dark arts of contracts and projects) for keeping their hand in the cookie jar whilst it was still open? Quite a few people in this country were doing the same in the years of (perceived) plenty.

Nobody has covered themselves in glory, but you can't just pin this on a few. The bankers p***ed more than this away in a few weeks - what happened to them?

[GrahamO]

@Capt P U G Wash

You are correct - blame if it can be called that sticks to all of us. We are all culpably guilty to some extent. My strength of feeling really comes not from a desire to apportion blame to one or more specific individuals, but to ensure that those who may try and blame everyone else except themselves, see that they are as culpable as the rest to some extent.

Those who cry, as an earlier post on another thread so did, that this countries defences have been weakened solely by nefarious politicians, need to recognise that some chaps in uniform were as equally responsible.

Yes, this countries defences have been weakened undoubtedly, but as to whether the fault lies in a reduction of available front line aircraft due to budget cutbacks at the whim of a politician or that the organisation that is responsible overall for defence is just a tad porky, in the wrong shape (too fat in some places and too skinny in others) and has eaten all the cakes and those of others, and subsequently cannot fit in the cockpit (read budget for this ) remains debatable.

[E L Whisty]

Christ on a bike - are you two intellectuals 'communications consultants' for the MoD?

[Red Line Entry]

Unfortunately, GrahamO, your voice was entirely lacking from the Defence Board for the past decade. There was no-one around that table who looked at the (obvious) disparity between financial committment and expected funding and enforced change.

But hang on, there were people who had that mandate: first of all there were the 3 NEDs (OK, they're outsiders so no-one is going to listen to them). However, there WAS CDS and PUS.

In my view Boyce, Walker and (especially) Stirrup & Jeffrey spectacularly failed in their duty to identify a strategic threat to future military capability and take action. That this threat came from the protectionism and bad behaviour of the individual Service chiefs does not excuse their negligence.

[E L Whisty]

RLE - good stuff.

Spreading or sharing blame or citing 'the system' is a typical response of the political classes. The real problem is that the military and the civil service have become politicised to an obscene degree over the last 30 years. It was probably ever thus but it started sticking in my throat in the early 80s. It might seem obvious but politics is an ignoble pattern of behaviour and is well below the standards that should be expected of officers.

I read, from time to time, in the press and blogs, that there are inter-service rivalries. In my last job, it was quite strong at the SO 1 and 2 level and I was always keen to point it out. If it goes on at the level of the men you mention, it is a disgrace. Their duty is to stamp that stupidity out.

The responsibility for the state of UK defence lies squarely with, as you say, defence chiefs and the senior ministers. In some cases, notably Brown, the deliberate destruction is, IMHO, tantamount to treason.

One would wish that there is hope but, sadly, we have a publicity obsessed government who do not share my shame at the pathetic state of our defences. What can you say to somebody when they say, about Libya - 'Where were the RAF?'?

[biscuit74]

E L Whisty : "If it goes on at the level of the men you mention, it is a disgrace. Their duty is to stamp that stupidity out."

Very well said. The senior officers reponsible for this shambles should be ashamed. Disgraces to their uniforms in my view - their duty was to do the best for the troops whose interests they represented and to ensure that their country had & continued to have the best possible defence consistent with perceived and predicted threats and budgetary constraints.

Once the military become politicised at high level - as with the Civil Service, it seems duty becomes secondary to self interest.

[ECAM_Actions]

I'm just a civvy, but from where I'm sat the destruction of the armed forces over the last decade is an outrage.

Forgive my ignorance on such matters, but when we lose just about the entire RAF front line to an 18% cut in budgets, where the hell is the other 82% of the budget going?! :eek:

There are plenty of other things that could be cut or taxed first in order to reduce the deficit. So what if a tax on bankers mean they leave the country! I say GOOD - they destroyed this place - we don't need them around!

The PM doesn't pay tax on his income - that should be corrected immediately. Next, a 50% cut in salary for all MPs, and scrap the expenses. That will sort out who really wants the job, and we might end up with people who give a damn about the country instead.

Cutting the public sector is a welcome move, but they are targetting the wrong people. Cuts should start at the top with the managers that are earning £200,000/year to not do very much. If they were paid £50,000/year it would still be too much.

As it is, it would appear the defense cuts have affected the British response to getting people out of Libya. My opinion there is get air superiority and get our people out. Unfortunately we are engaged in wars we don't need to be engaged in, and so can't defend our people against a real threat.

This turned into a bit of a rant.

The whole way this country has been run over the last decade and a bit has culminated in the mess we are in now, and the present Conservative government (I know it is a coalition but we are only kidding ourselves if we think the Lib Dems have any real say in this) are doing a dandy job of finishing it off.

ECAM Actions.

[Phil_R]

but from where I'm sat the destruction of the armed forces over the last decade is an outrage...

Well, quite.

P

[Climebear]

ECAM Actions

As it is, it would appear the defense cuts have affected the British response to getting people out of Libya.

Unfortunatley there is no evidence of this at all. There is nothing to suggest that the UK Armed Forces have been unable to meet any request made my the FCO to support the FCO-led evacuation operation. The first option in any evacuation is to use civilian means the last is the use of military assets. From the open source evidence available, the current criticism has more to do with the FCO's civil contingeny plan and/or decision making process than it does with the UK military involvement.

[ECAM_Actions]

Sorry for stating the obvious Phil R... I'm just lost for words.

From the open source evidence available, the current criticism has more to do with the FCO's civil contingency plan and/or decision making process than it does with the UK military involvement.That is true. Though we couldn't park a fleet of Harriers off the coast even if we wanted to. According to some British who are out there, talking on the radio this morning, the people in Libya generally want to help anyone who is not Libyan get out safely. The problem is those who couldn't care less. At least if we had some credible force waiting they might just think twice before doing anything (though it would seem at present, they haven't, fortunately).

ECAM Actions.

[Phil_R]

No apologies necessary. I was - uncharacteristically, I admit - being entirely straightforward.

[GrahamO]

I would have thought in my uninformed way, that an evacuation plan using civilian assets requires some kind of NFZ as any Insurance company would refuse to insure a repatriation flight into a potentially hostile zone ? Would you lend your aircraft to someoen to fly into potentially hostile skies, or land at an airport controlled by the less than stable?

Would it matter if there are a dozen civilian aircraft on the UK tarmac waiting to go, if their owners refuse to let the government use them without insurance ? Somehow I doubt the government would want to take the risk themselves ?

[E L Whisty]

Climebear, sorry, bollocks!

Yesterday, Hague was saying that 2 civvy lines declined to accept an invitation to fly to Tripoli. The 3rd option had a sick jet that took 10 hours to fix.

Ergo, civvy options ran out.

In a '**** together operation' there would have been military assets ready to take over, immediately, in case 'contractors' ran out of trust / patriotism / backbone / technical competence.

The plain facts are that UK government could not organise a pissup in a brewery, dependence on civilian contractors is a Blairite con and the MoD does not have the resources to do much other than the outrageously stretching tasks they are already assigned.

I am outraged and ashamed that a nation that I have loved and served has been allowed to become a laughing stock. Banana republic is a distant aspiration!

So back to the point, the reason we do not have enough jets, boats, tanks, guns, highly trained psychos who smash up bars in seconds and BFO stuff that makes johnny foreigner tremble in fear is because our politicians are immoral arses and our military leaders are too cowardly to tell them so!

[Wrathmonk]

GrahamO

Have a read of this - click here (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/95CD1C65-5C59-4F25-A37B-615ED5A43AD0/0/jwp3_51.pdf) (it's long and very dull!)

Can't guarantee its the latest version (it is from the MOD online library after all) but it will answer all your questions (although it is written from the military perspective). Key to it is :

HMG discharges its responsibilities for the protection of British citizens overseas through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) assisted by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) as required.

It also states

The military option is invariably seen as the last resort and thus any FCO request to deploy a JTF may not, from a military perspective, be the best timing

And in theory this is still a 'peaceful' evacuation so whatever non-military plans were in place have clearly failed. Stand by for a willy waving contest between the FCO and the MoD!!

Perhpas the previous government, having sucked up to Col G, thought Libya was a stable country!!

[biscuit74]

Good grief, Wrathmonk - that is some document. No wonder they can't get anything done. Is that verbosity typical?

By the time they've hauled that out, dusted it off, worked through it, figured it out, dealt with the caveats and slopy shouldering, and sorted the correct thing to do, the emergency will be ancient history !

Meantime, our French colleagues had their military nip in, pick up anyone standing under a French flag at Tripoli, plus anyone else who wanted on the plane, and legged it back out smartish. As did the Dutch - and perhaps the Germans ? Seems to me we look pretty stupid.

Thanks Messrs Cameron & Hague.....

"A willy waving contest" - nice one - and probably what will happen.

[Climebear]

OFF TOPIC

ECAM Actions

Though we couldn't park a fleet of Harriers off the coast even if we wanted to.

True but then neither can Poland and they still managed to evacuate their nationals (and some of ours) before the UK. I agree I doubt that we would have the assets to conduct a NEO in an all but permissive environment or anything like an intervention in another nation's affairs. However, (as far as I know) the UK Government is not intending to conduct either of these. The UK military is doing (as it has in the past) what is required of it by the UK government.

E L Whisty

What a delightful turn of phrase. Your point that nothing was ready to go when the civvy options ran out (although, I note, the other nations and the oil companies still managed to get charter aircraft to fly in and out of Tripoli) confirms my point that this demonstrates in failures of the 'FCO's civil contingeny plan and/or decision making process'.

Of course you may my sit on the COBRA committee or be part of the DCMO and know better; however, from the evidence available through open source it would appear that the UK Armed Forces provided the capability that was requested by the FCO when the FCO requested it.

For my part I do agree that we are taking enormous risks with our - lack of - military capability. However, this particular instance does not demonstrate it. Until we can, then the Treasury will continue to cut. Unfortunately the country is broke; therefore, the Government has decided to cut expenditure in order to balance the books. In doing so it has had to accept that it does so at risk. ie:

a. fewer FCO people to organise evacuations.

b. fewer military assets to conduct evacuations when civil contingeny plans prove insuficient (possibly as a result of a.).

The nasty thing about 'risks' (things that may happen) is that they have an annoying habbit of becoming 'issues' (things that are happening). If you can't afford to mitigate a risk then you, invariably, end up spending a lot more to put right an issue.

Back in 1988 a young Climebear played a very minor part in Exercise PURPLE WARRIOR in West Scotland that was based on a NEO involving a naval task group, 2 brigades (3 Cdo Bde and 5 (AB) Bde), significant air (C130s, numerours helicopters, 1(F) Sqn Harriers, 43(F) Sqn Phantoms...), quite an undertaking. Fast forward to 2006 when an older and more cynical Climebear is involved in the contingency planning for a real NEO (albeit that it wasn't required in the end) he finds that he only has one ship (albeit a big one) with a handful of RMs and a few small boats, 1 infantry battallion (with additional combat support elements), and (perhaps) a handful fo helicopters to play with. I would imagine that the same planner today would have significantly fewer assets.

The military fall back is not, therefore, the get-out-of-jail-free card that it once was; I would contend that it may well never be again. This is similar to the vast majority of countries around the world. Therefore, the UK will need to adjust its mindset accordingly and either make decisions to evacuate earlier and use civil means(even if this could compromise strategic intent), or work with other nations (though this too has its problems - it's hard enough getting the UK government to decide to call an evacuation, just imagine, say, trying to get all of the EU governments (each with their own levels of strategic interest in the subject country) to decide). I just hope that the UK Armed Forces don't find themselves involved in a NEO in a hostile environment; but, until we get to the situation when our Chiefs have to say no, then the Government isn't going worry about the level of risk it is currently carrying.

OFF TOPIC

[Uncle Ginsters]

In a '**** together operation' there would have been military assets ready to take over, immediately,

What if there were, but they were not called upon? What does that say about the FCO?

[NURSE]

I do wonder if we'd been a few years down the line would "Airtanker" put its assets into harms way to do a services assisted evacuation?

[E L Whisty]

NURSE - keep wondering. Meanwhile, those of us who have post-grad degrees in the blindingly bleeding obvious will tell you that governments negotiate contracts with privately owned companies. On the other hand, tasty dudes in uniforms respond instantly to orders. (Sorry - I understand that you were being subtle).

UG - it tells you that the FCO is utterly incompetent and is led by a posing Yorkshire twerp who has built a career on impressive rhetoric but bugger all achievement. A foreign secretary who has as his 'leader', I have come to realise, a silly little boy whose only function in life was to become a template for 'Tim Nice but Dim'. Jeez, what a shower of 'administrative genius with a mastery of detail'.

Climebear - the last time a senior officer used the 'delightful turn of phrase' dit to me, he meant that my career was about to reach its limit. He was wrong but he did rise to 3 star and was one of the 'military' lackeys who allowed the political shysters to destroy the defence of this realm. So, I am sorry if 'bollocks' makes you splutter into your lemon tea but I get really, seriously, dismayed about living in a nation that invades other countries because of lies, destabilises them, resulting in the deaths of thousands of children just so that some underachieving arseh*les can think that they are 'great men'. And then they, deliberately, renege on the deal to pay for what they have bought.

So, in the great scheme of things, writing 'bollocks' on a publicly accessible internet forum, is, IMHO, a little less offensive to human culture than what we have allowed our 'leaders' to do to our, once great nation.

[Heathrow Harry]

I have some issues with all this panic about evacuating Brits from Libya

No-one, and I mean no-one, ever went to Libya without knowing what sort of place they were going to - the oil field trash (the correct technical term within the oil business I hasten to add) especially

They decided to go and they are/were very well remunerated for the risks - and most of them try and avoid UK tax on it too

When the brown stuff hits the fan it ill becomes them to squawk and scream for help IMHO

[Willard Whyte]

HH, does the same go for civvies who are dumb enough to go sailing off the coast of Sudan, or backpack through some 4th world country? Just because they get paid (well) to work there makes them no less entitled to HMG's assistance.

On the other hand if a well funded Armed Forces meant having BP logos painted on the side of our vehicles then I'm all for it. Might have to tone down the yellow for reasons of stealth though.

[NURSE]

yes Carrying a british Passport entitles you to the protection of the British government......On paper as the people you're dealing with in some foreign land are from the Foreign office.
Allegedley Mrs Thatcher once said of the foreign office that they had the best minds in the civil service it was just a pity they weren't working for Britain.

[E L Whisty]

Good point, Harry.

On the other hand, my children have frequently made very silly mistakes but I have always tried to rescue them from the consequences of their folly.

Nations are made from families. Families are made by love.