MOD to be cut by 25%: Coalition says.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If current speculation is to be believed then it doesn't seem as though your "leftfield" predictions will be too far out.
So the future frontline RAF could look something like this then:
Heli's
70'ish Chinooks (assume Puma pensioned off and Merlins to CHF)
A few SK soldiering on in SAR
AT/AAR
22x A400M
7x C-17
14x A330 (FSTA)
FJ
120x Typhoon
50-60x F-35 (some way off and a split buy with RN)
ISTAR
4x E-3D plus 5x Sentinel and a few other bits and bobs
So in terms of MOB's that's Benson or Odiham plus Brize, Coningsby, Leuchars, Lossie and Waddo with presumably Valley and Shawbury retained for training
Mmmm..... Someone somewhere is definitely making an assumption that major state on state warfare is either a) a thing of the past, or b) we'll have enough friends on our side to make our negligible contribution irrelevant.
Or of course we could just nuke them!
So the future frontline RAF could look something like this then:
Heli's
70'ish Chinooks (assume Puma pensioned off and Merlins to CHF)
A few SK soldiering on in SAR
AT/AAR
22x A400M
7x C-17
14x A330 (FSTA)
FJ
120x Typhoon
50-60x F-35 (some way off and a split buy with RN)
ISTAR
4x E-3D plus 5x Sentinel and a few other bits and bobs
So in terms of MOB's that's Benson or Odiham plus Brize, Coningsby, Leuchars, Lossie and Waddo with presumably Valley and Shawbury retained for training
Mmmm..... Someone somewhere is definitely making an assumption that major state on state warfare is either a) a thing of the past, or b) we'll have enough friends on our side to make our negligible contribution irrelevant.
Or of course we could just nuke them!
Last edited by andrewn; 20th Jul 2010 at 14:32.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the same time, the government seem to be putting some distance between the UK and the US in the special relationship, and the US are raising the Falklands issue with the UN Decolonisation committee?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
120 Typhoon...!!!!
Who in their right mind thought that 120 Typhoon is a realistic number of aircraft...? I'm sure it was more originally...!!!
Anyone reading these figures would think that someone was hell bent on supporting their own desires not the needs of the country...!!!
The figures are totally unacceptable...its crass and a downright fraud to let the 'fastjet' mafia control RAF doctrine...!!!
As ex-RAF aircrew myself, I will shed no tears when the axe falls on dozens of pilot positions and jobs for the boys...they have supported their bosses who now will have the honour of killing off the airforce...
5d2d
Anyone reading these figures would think that someone was hell bent on supporting their own desires not the needs of the country...!!!
The figures are totally unacceptable...its crass and a downright fraud to let the 'fastjet' mafia control RAF doctrine...!!!
As ex-RAF aircrew myself, I will shed no tears when the axe falls on dozens of pilot positions and jobs for the boys...they have supported their bosses who now will have the honour of killing off the airforce...
5d2d
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Interesting comments in the MRA4 thread about what to do with all the personnel if Nimrod gets chopped - the answer is fairly obvious. This Government is determined to make its case for reducing costs and lowering spending. I really don't think most people have understood the scale of the changes likely to be introduced as a result of the SDR. Very few Ivory towers will remain intact after this so now is a good time is a good time to assess whether you are really up for a change or not - it's coming anyway.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500d2do
It was originally 250 + 60 options, trimmed to 232 in the SDR, and currently something like 160. I wouldn't be surprised if the post-SDSR Forward Available Fleet (FAF, how ironically appropriate) exceeds about 70 from a long term fleet of around 100 jets.
S41
Who in their right mind thought that 120 Typhoon is a realistic number of aircraft...? I'm sure it was more originally...!!!
S41
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watching the various bits of coverage of Farnborough and Fox's briefings to relieve the utter tedium of more planning, it got us talking in the office, with the conclusion that the coming months would bring nothing but misery for the forces, and the RAF in particular.
Whilst I am all for financial responsibility - along with stringing up the MOD contract writers, I'm afraid that whatever happens in the coming months will be nothing more than short term parochialism by the various chiefs, and especially CDS which will leave the RAF and RN facing a bleak future.
No doubt the SDSR will conclude that we must resource ourselves for The War, and that is all that matters. Anything else is an expensive distraction bordering on irrelevant. But what people must realise is that the force structure for The War was decided years ago. Nothing that CDS and the politicians do now will fundamentally change what we do and how we do it with regard to Afghanistan. The changes that have got kit to the battlefield when and where it was needed came about because of the UOR process, not through any strategic decisions taken on the upper floors of the MOD. Whatever strategic course of action is embarked on now will have little effect on the outcome of the war here in Afghanistan. It will however, have a major impact on how the UK is perceived around the world - with the all the potential security impacts that may bring - and it will impact on how we go about defending ourselves in decades to come.
Way back in the 1970s, a Hansard Committee chaired by Sir Richard Marsh produced a report - Politics and Industry the Great Mismatch. It basically argued that politicians - and in this respect I include CDS et al - are only interested in the short term, where as industry has too look out decades if it is to be successful. I do hope CDS and Fox take the time to read it, it might actually inform their thinking and lead us to a properly balanced and resourced military in coming decades. Otherwise, I fear we will be reduced to a well armed gendarmerie, where the RAF and RN are little more than glorified taxis for the Army.
And with that tuppence worth into the mix, I shall go back to the tedium of my planning and the extra strong Dutch coffee we have on tap (NATO isn't all bad you know!)
Whilst I am all for financial responsibility - along with stringing up the MOD contract writers, I'm afraid that whatever happens in the coming months will be nothing more than short term parochialism by the various chiefs, and especially CDS which will leave the RAF and RN facing a bleak future.
No doubt the SDSR will conclude that we must resource ourselves for The War, and that is all that matters. Anything else is an expensive distraction bordering on irrelevant. But what people must realise is that the force structure for The War was decided years ago. Nothing that CDS and the politicians do now will fundamentally change what we do and how we do it with regard to Afghanistan. The changes that have got kit to the battlefield when and where it was needed came about because of the UOR process, not through any strategic decisions taken on the upper floors of the MOD. Whatever strategic course of action is embarked on now will have little effect on the outcome of the war here in Afghanistan. It will however, have a major impact on how the UK is perceived around the world - with the all the potential security impacts that may bring - and it will impact on how we go about defending ourselves in decades to come.
Way back in the 1970s, a Hansard Committee chaired by Sir Richard Marsh produced a report - Politics and Industry the Great Mismatch. It basically argued that politicians - and in this respect I include CDS et al - are only interested in the short term, where as industry has too look out decades if it is to be successful. I do hope CDS and Fox take the time to read it, it might actually inform their thinking and lead us to a properly balanced and resourced military in coming decades. Otherwise, I fear we will be reduced to a well armed gendarmerie, where the RAF and RN are little more than glorified taxis for the Army.
And with that tuppence worth into the mix, I shall go back to the tedium of my planning and the extra strong Dutch coffee we have on tap (NATO isn't all bad you know!)
One idea that the Guvmint don't appear to have considered is cost savings by co-locating RAF operational units within civilian airports.
There would certainly be some operational hurdles and integration to overcome, and re-location costs, but I can think of a few UK civvy airports where it would be a viable option. I would think it could potentially save forces jobs and allow more assets to be kept operational without the full overheads of having an airfield to maintain. After all it works in other countries ...
There would certainly be some operational hurdles and integration to overcome, and re-location costs, but I can think of a few UK civvy airports where it would be a viable option. I would think it could potentially save forces jobs and allow more assets to be kept operational without the full overheads of having an airfield to maintain. After all it works in other countries ...
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today we have the boots on ground war , all goes well we pull out of Afghan , what will be the need in 2014 for a huge Army when recent history tells us Airpower (Land or Naval Based) starts all wars off, wipes out the bad guys then hands over to the ground troops to clean up. If anything we will need our Naval and deployable assets more than ever , especially with Iran, NK all itching for a slice of war.
Falklands kicks off for example , how the hell are 100,000 troops going to get to Argentina , Walk !
Dont matter anyway ,the decisions have been made
Falklands kicks off for example , how the hell are 100,000 troops going to get to Argentina , Walk !
Dont matter anyway ,the decisions have been made
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Falklands kicks off for example , how the hell are 100,000 troops going to get to Argentina , Walk !
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: On the edge of reality.
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future Conflict
The Uk is dependent on an import of energy and food. Moreover as the Uk's natural gas reserves continue to deplete and given that renewables only continbute partially to the energy mix the level of gas imports will increase significantly over the next 10 years.
We currently rely on piped supplies from Russia who know they have a monopoly on supply to western europe. In order to mitigate this the Uk has built a super-dock at Milford Haven to unload bulk liquified natural gas (LNG) vessels.
LNG is a growth industry. Whereas the gas has up until now been flared off (GOSPs in Basra anyone?) it is now being processed as a valuable resource.
It is highly likely that the Falkland's EEZ contains sizeable quantities of Oil, Gas and Condensate (Wer Gas). Indeed the current drilling campaign has resulted in a oil strike (Sea Lion Well) and a potential gas strike (Liz well). There is much more to come.....
Argentina is currently sufferring blackouts due to a shortage of Gas, this has led to:
Lobbying throughout Latin America to re-open the Malvinas debate.
Illegally blocking vessels from transitting from Argentinian TTW to the Falklands EEZ.
Lobbying of the US administration with regard to the Malvians Debate, resulting in Mrs Clinton making anti-British comments and agreeing to consider referring the Falklands to the UN decolonisation committee. Aside - so much for the Special Relationship. The right to self determination is enshrined in the UN charter, so as long as the populace of the Falkland's wish to remain British, they can.
So what? The idea that every future conflcit will see the UK as a minor coalition partner is flawed. Argentina is watching the Falklands like a hawk and you can bet any decisions will be influenced heavily by the outcome of SDSR. 1982 anyone - decision to cut Endurance, Hermes, Fearless and Intrepid led a perception the UK would not intervene in the Argentine invasion.
The 21st century will be about resource wars - Fossil Fuels, food, water, heavy metals. China has bought a sizable percentage of Africa's mineral wealth, owns most of the far east and is moving into latin america and even Canada. The west will continue to be squezzed out of all but the most basic of manufacturing, which the chinese, having a slave labour force can do more cheaply. Our future is as slave consumers to the Chinese machine.
The smart money is leaving the UK already and moving to the middle and far east. Banking will soon start to avalanche to Dubai and Shanghai at which point the UK will become nothing more that a disney-type theme park.
You don't need a big military to protect that now do you.
We currently rely on piped supplies from Russia who know they have a monopoly on supply to western europe. In order to mitigate this the Uk has built a super-dock at Milford Haven to unload bulk liquified natural gas (LNG) vessels.
LNG is a growth industry. Whereas the gas has up until now been flared off (GOSPs in Basra anyone?) it is now being processed as a valuable resource.
It is highly likely that the Falkland's EEZ contains sizeable quantities of Oil, Gas and Condensate (Wer Gas). Indeed the current drilling campaign has resulted in a oil strike (Sea Lion Well) and a potential gas strike (Liz well). There is much more to come.....
Argentina is currently sufferring blackouts due to a shortage of Gas, this has led to:
Lobbying throughout Latin America to re-open the Malvinas debate.
Illegally blocking vessels from transitting from Argentinian TTW to the Falklands EEZ.
Lobbying of the US administration with regard to the Malvians Debate, resulting in Mrs Clinton making anti-British comments and agreeing to consider referring the Falklands to the UN decolonisation committee. Aside - so much for the Special Relationship. The right to self determination is enshrined in the UN charter, so as long as the populace of the Falkland's wish to remain British, they can.
So what? The idea that every future conflcit will see the UK as a minor coalition partner is flawed. Argentina is watching the Falklands like a hawk and you can bet any decisions will be influenced heavily by the outcome of SDSR. 1982 anyone - decision to cut Endurance, Hermes, Fearless and Intrepid led a perception the UK would not intervene in the Argentine invasion.
The 21st century will be about resource wars - Fossil Fuels, food, water, heavy metals. China has bought a sizable percentage of Africa's mineral wealth, owns most of the far east and is moving into latin america and even Canada. The west will continue to be squezzed out of all but the most basic of manufacturing, which the chinese, having a slave labour force can do more cheaply. Our future is as slave consumers to the Chinese machine.
The smart money is leaving the UK already and moving to the middle and far east. Banking will soon start to avalanche to Dubai and Shanghai at which point the UK will become nothing more that a disney-type theme park.
You don't need a big military to protect that now do you.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I presume we are going to sell of the 24 C-130 J's we have then ?
We don't need all 3 types, we certainly don't need the numbers of A440M and C-130J now we have the C-17s, certainly not after we pull out of Afghanistan. With the C-17 we could get by with either the C-130J or A400M; but we are committed to the A400M and it's larger hold is more suitable for future army vehicles.
So, logically, we use up the hours on the c-130Js then sell them (or trade them in with Boeing for a couple more C-17s, if they're still building them by then.)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AT Mix
Surely a better mix would be a few more C17s say to a total of 10 (maybe 12) and the same number of C130Js or perhaps one or two more and no A400M. Running 3 types is bound to be expensive.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What savings would be made by integrating the Royal Marines into the Army I wonder?
What would be lost? The Navy's soldiers have been doing a fine job for centuries. Why meddle with things to save 10p? They might as well just scrap the RM and make the Paras bigger...
Glad I'm out...
What would be lost? The Navy's soldiers have been doing a fine job for centuries. Why meddle with things to save 10p? They might as well just scrap the RM and make the Paras bigger...
Glad I'm out...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lowlevel UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF is in danger of being destroyed on the ground
The Spectator has chipped with a blog which notes that the service arms have mobilised their writers to prepare a defence. The RAF are alleged to be extracting their brightest and best to manage the fallout from the SDSR. Meanwhile The Times has hosted a set-to between Air-Vice Marshall Tony Mason and Major General Julian Thompson. Have a look at the link for the opening shots.
Meanwhile, you have until 31 July 2010 to add your views to the link for the SDSR Engagement Exercise with the Armed Forces and Civilians.
Meanwhile, you have until 31 July 2010 to add your views to the link for the SDSR Engagement Exercise with the Armed Forces and Civilians.
Last edited by Data-Lynx; 21st Jul 2010 at 16:33. Reason: Add a link.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scrap the nuclear deterrent at the earliest possible date - it's deterring nobody that the Americans don't deter too. I suppose you could retool the Vanguards with Tomahawk if you really wanted to eke out the investment until they rust out but scrapping the missile removes a pricey ongoing expense, while removing a massive one in the future capital spend.
Eviscerating the conventional arms in time of peace to (in part) keep the nuclear option is unwise in peace time, but completely irrational given the current and likely demands on UK Forces.
Eviscerating the conventional arms in time of peace to (in part) keep the nuclear option is unwise in peace time, but completely irrational given the current and likely demands on UK Forces.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They might as well just scrap the RM and make the Paras bigger...
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think the scrapping of the Corps of RM likely but a big Para/RM org much more likely. When you look at who has been at the front of the queue to go to Iraq/Afg both 3 and 16 Bdes feature heavily in the line up. Boat skills will always be needed but parachuting maybe not - so there maybe some retraining required.
...but all bets are off in this SDR and the CS will be led by money.
I want to hear more talk of redundancies
G
...but all bets are off in this SDR and the CS will be led by money.
I want to hear more talk of redundancies
G