Fury at Def Sec over Helicopter Shortage
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: not here
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue gents is that all the services have capability gaps. Merlin CSP and FLynx will leave the RN with no grey fleet 2012 - ? apart from the bags (ASaC). Their upgrade/ lifex has been in the pot for years. I'm sure the other Services have their long term plans c0cked around by budget cuts
.
Culdrose and Yeovs are fairly quiet airfields at present with all their frontline squadrons deployed whether in Stan (Junglies and baggers), Gulf of Oman (lynx and Merlin). They are doing what is tasked.
I'm sure the troops in Stan need more SH, but as the govt insists on fighting many wars on many fronts everyone is now seeing the awful truth of 'stretch'.
In fighting does not help. Look outside your own domain and see where all the other services are being deployed, then we can constructively move forward.
.Culdrose and Yeovs are fairly quiet airfields at present with all their frontline squadrons deployed whether in Stan (Junglies and baggers), Gulf of Oman (lynx and Merlin). They are doing what is tasked.
I'm sure the troops in Stan need more SH, but as the govt insists on fighting many wars on many fronts everyone is now seeing the awful truth of 'stretch'.
In fighting does not help. Look outside your own domain and see where all the other services are being deployed, then we can constructively move forward.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is that prioritising the spending of money on RN priorities like Merlin CSP and FLynx has taken all of the money from the helicopter pot, leaving the more urgent, more important requirement (to address the shortfall in helicopter lift) unfulfilled and unfunded.
The point is that (again and again) the Admirals seem to have been able to shout loudest and to get their priorities (which are often exceptionally costly) funded - often at the expense of higher priority capabilities. And with CVF, JCA, and Trident replacement, I predict that it will continue to happen.
That's great for the RN, but disastrous for the UK.
The point is that (again and again) the Admirals seem to have been able to shout loudest and to get their priorities (which are often exceptionally costly) funded - often at the expense of higher priority capabilities. And with CVF, JCA, and Trident replacement, I predict that it will continue to happen.
That's great for the RN, but disastrous for the UK.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly at the back end of Radio 4 Today programme this morning a Mr Pickup (a lecturer from Sandhurst, ex Lt Cdr) attempted to defend the whole Battlefield Helicopter issue by saying that it 'takes time' to procure helicopters and it is not realistic to expect an instant solution in this area.
So why wasn't the decision way back with FASH/SABR,and if not then at the second 'warning sign' of the NAO report? As does the belief that a decision on an increase to Battlefield Helicopter capability does not need to be made now and can wait for the Defence Review.
18 months for the review, followed by another 18 months (at best) of rapid procurement, still puts us 3 years away from any increase in lift potentially coming out of MoD.
Whereas today, if a decision was made it would be extremely interesting to see how quickly the Puma and Sea King forces could re-role to provide a capability for current operations, and be in a position to potentially expand when (not should or if) the Defence Review echo the NAO report 10 years later and also state the requirement for more Battlefield Helicopters for the wider future strategic defence of our nation across the entire spectrum of conflict.
Timely decision making followed by swift execution to deliver a capability is what is required, not paralysis by analysis hoping that the media will drop the bone and find something else to focus its attention on.
So why wasn't the decision way back with FASH/SABR,and if not then at the second 'warning sign' of the NAO report? As does the belief that a decision on an increase to Battlefield Helicopter capability does not need to be made now and can wait for the Defence Review.
18 months for the review, followed by another 18 months (at best) of rapid procurement, still puts us 3 years away from any increase in lift potentially coming out of MoD.
Whereas today, if a decision was made it would be extremely interesting to see how quickly the Puma and Sea King forces could re-role to provide a capability for current operations, and be in a position to potentially expand when (not should or if) the Defence Review echo the NAO report 10 years later and also state the requirement for more Battlefield Helicopters for the wider future strategic defence of our nation across the entire spectrum of conflict.
Timely decision making followed by swift execution to deliver a capability is what is required, not paralysis by analysis hoping that the media will drop the bone and find something else to focus its attention on.
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 10th Jul 2009 at 13:42.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So . . . why are we in this position, in somebody else's sandpit?
If our lads and lasses weren't there in the first place, they wouldn't be suffering OPERATIONAL shortages such have been detailed here.
Notice how the key characters have slunk away . . . free, safe and secure in writing their memoirs and receiving their pensions, not a trace of sand on them and their offspring - squeaky clean.
God I sound like Michael Moore.
If our lads and lasses weren't there in the first place, they wouldn't be suffering OPERATIONAL shortages such have been detailed here.
Notice how the key characters have slunk away . . . free, safe and secure in writing their memoirs and receiving their pensions, not a trace of sand on them and their offspring - squeaky clean.
God I sound like Michael Moore.
If I was feeling mischevious tonight, I would suggest journalists should go and watch "air force Afghanistan" and spot the bit where the RAF 1* asks General Petraeus (on his way to London) to lobby the UK to provide more helicopters of all types.
RAF most senior officer in Afghanistan admits helo shortage - now there would be a good headline!
RAF most senior officer in Afghanistan admits helo shortage - now there would be a good headline!
If I was feeling mischevious tonight, I would suggest journalists should go and watch "air force Afghanistan" and spot the bit where the RAF 1* asks General Petraeus (on his way to London) to lobby the UK to provide more helicopters of all types.
RAF most senior officer in Afghanistan admits helo shortage - now there would be a good headline!
RAF most senior officer in Afghanistan admits helo shortage - now there would be a good headline!
Especcially as he was doing so while wearing a poppy... Meaning the lack of has been felt for at least 9 months.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Temporarily unsure of precise position
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't know what the fuss is about. Personally I'm hugely reassured that our new SecDef has the intelligence and clarity of vision to see what every Brigade Commander since Brigadier Butler could not - that the numbers and capabilities of UK SH in Helmand are quite adequate, thank you very much. For Uncle Bob to be better able to grasp military realities than experienced and very capable Brigade Commanders, after so little time in the job, surely demands our unswerving respect! It would also be scandalous to suggest that the UK Government would ever jeopardise our troops lives by buying lightly-armoured vehicles such as Viking in preference to vastly more expensive support helicopters.
Or b)....
Or b)....
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Whilst I enjoy having a crack at the RN as well as the next right thinking RAF/ex-RAF man the complete failure to provide decent SH assets isn't really their fault.
JHC and the assets contained within/required for are now and have been for a number of years at the whim of HQ LAND, the budget for said assets is also controlled by HQ LAND and it is the heads of shed within its predominately brown CoC that have failed to budget for or push the case for SH assets. It could be that as long as SH assets are operated by RAF/RN squadrons they will continue to be under-resourced, perhaps because elements within LAND consider them not 'their' assets.
That said though ultimately the government should be taking the lead, over-ruling any possible 'cap badge blinkers' and ensuring that the funds to support the task requested of the Armed Forces to untake are provided. The term 'on the cheap' would apply aptly to this governments approach to Afghanistan if it weren't that as a matter of fact its been so costly, in the lives of brave service personnel.
JHC and the assets contained within/required for are now and have been for a number of years at the whim of HQ LAND, the budget for said assets is also controlled by HQ LAND and it is the heads of shed within its predominately brown CoC that have failed to budget for or push the case for SH assets. It could be that as long as SH assets are operated by RAF/RN squadrons they will continue to be under-resourced, perhaps because elements within LAND consider them not 'their' assets.
That said though ultimately the government should be taking the lead, over-ruling any possible 'cap badge blinkers' and ensuring that the funds to support the task requested of the Armed Forces to untake are provided. The term 'on the cheap' would apply aptly to this governments approach to Afghanistan if it weren't that as a matter of fact its been so costly, in the lives of brave service personnel.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But how exactly is it wrong?
I'm saying that of the £3.1-3.2 Bn allocated for Future Rotorcraft, almost £2 Bn has already been allocated to Merlin CSP and FLynx.
Is that wrong? Is that what you call 'retarded'?
I'm suggesting that upgrading the grey Merlins and replacing the excellent grey Lynx 8s is a lower priority than replacing the Pumas and Commando Sea Kings.
Is that wrong? Is that what you call 'retarded'?
It's not a case of 'hating' the Navy, just recognising that RN programmes are taking a massive share of scarce funding, and that some of those programmes are of questionable relevance to ongoing ops.
Is that wrong? Is that what you call 'retarded'?
I'm suggesting that upgrading the grey Merlins and replacing the excellent grey Lynx 8s is a lower priority than replacing the Pumas and Commando Sea Kings.
Is that wrong? Is that what you call 'retarded'?
It's not a case of 'hating' the Navy, just recognising that RN programmes are taking a massive share of scarce funding, and that some of those programmes are of questionable relevance to ongoing ops.
8 guys dead in Helmand in 24 hours.
RIP Guys.
Thank you Jacko for steering the thread back to rotary. Of this thread, at least 3 pages are full of posts justifying either carriers or typhoons.
That is why we have too little SH. The RAF are only interested if it's fast and pointy, the RN only interested if it floats or belongs to someone else.
Whatever the solution to the current shortage of SH, it's criminal that it is so late in coming, and needs to be pretty damn quick.
RIP Guys.
Thank you Jacko for steering the thread back to rotary. Of this thread, at least 3 pages are full of posts justifying either carriers or typhoons.
That is why we have too little SH. The RAF are only interested if it's fast and pointy, the RN only interested if it floats or belongs to someone else.
Whatever the solution to the current shortage of SH, it's criminal that it is so late in coming, and needs to be pretty damn quick.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
But Jacko, 5 years ago was too late.
The lead in times of 'big ticket' military expenditure projects is decades. Your own, much loved Typhoon had its contracts to purcahse signed, sealed and delivered in the 90s and the planning and budget allocation for the Merlin CSP and F/Lynx were also likewise put in place many years back.
As I said, the blame (in part) lies with LAND for failing to put a strong case forward many years ago for suitable funding when they became the lords and masters of JHC. They've never really seemed to accept ownership proper of RAF/RN SH, mainly I believe because the RN/RAF operate them and as a result they've been the poor relation in LAND. But overwhelmingly the blame lies with the government for failing to take heed of those on the ground in Afghanistan in lieu of those Whitehall warriors fighting purely for their capbadge rather than the 'bigger picture', failing to over-rule such petty politics and failing to provide the resources required to do the job asked.
You can almost forgive a brown suited organisation for a lack of airmindedness but I cannot forgive the government for sending service personnel overseas into a war without the means to carry out the task.
Lives are being lost so that Mr Brown can play the world stage on the cheap.
The lead in times of 'big ticket' military expenditure projects is decades. Your own, much loved Typhoon had its contracts to purcahse signed, sealed and delivered in the 90s and the planning and budget allocation for the Merlin CSP and F/Lynx were also likewise put in place many years back.
As I said, the blame (in part) lies with LAND for failing to put a strong case forward many years ago for suitable funding when they became the lords and masters of JHC. They've never really seemed to accept ownership proper of RAF/RN SH, mainly I believe because the RN/RAF operate them and as a result they've been the poor relation in LAND. But overwhelmingly the blame lies with the government for failing to take heed of those on the ground in Afghanistan in lieu of those Whitehall warriors fighting purely for their capbadge rather than the 'bigger picture', failing to over-rule such petty politics and failing to provide the resources required to do the job asked.
You can almost forgive a brown suited organisation for a lack of airmindedness but I cannot forgive the government for sending service personnel overseas into a war without the means to carry out the task.
Lives are being lost so that Mr Brown can play the world stage on the cheap.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe there would be more SH if the RAF hadn't sulked when it got Merlin then spent years trying to prove how it didn't work only for its deployment to Bosnia and Iraq to prove otherwise!
As for money wasted I think Chinook HC3 is an excellent case in point one of the most Botched procurements in history.
The Sea/Land/Air arguments are proving a distraction the underlying problem is caused by successive govts cutting budgets but the eager spaniel of the Armed forces working harder and harder to please its uncaring masters to the point it exhausts itself the sooner the chiefs of staff stop playing Political games to win favour for next CDS the better I would sugest they resign on mass at the same news conference with Bob in attendence.
As for money wasted I think Chinook HC3 is an excellent case in point one of the most Botched procurements in history.
The Sea/Land/Air arguments are proving a distraction the underlying problem is caused by successive govts cutting budgets but the eager spaniel of the Armed forces working harder and harder to please its uncaring masters to the point it exhausts itself the sooner the chiefs of staff stop playing Political games to win favour for next CDS the better I would sugest they resign on mass at the same news conference with Bob in attendence.