Help focus the cuts on the right areas
You'd think that the current UK CAS setup in Afghanistan is failing, judging from the frequency with which people snipe at it! So, rather than have 3rd parties pontificate about the various shortcomings of the GR4 / Reaper combination, let's hear from any of the following:
a) A mover who thinks that GR4's apochryphal "massive logistics tail" is preventing other vital supplies from reaching KAF
b) A JTAC who has 'winchestered' a Reaper or both elements of a GR4 formation and has been unable to obtain further CAS support almost immediately
c) A JTAC who would rather have unguided rockets back, instead of a laser-guided missile and a gun
d) A JTAC who finds it difficult to communicate with a WSO or sensor operator who is 100% focussed on the ground situation, and would rather go back to talking to a single pilot who is simultaneously monitoring his targeting pod picture, keeping an eye on his junior wingman and trying to avoid all the UAVs? (I think it's fair to say that 100% of a WSO's capacity trumps 25% of a single pilot's capacity - just!)
If no-one answers, can we assume that our CAS/CCA provision (not forgetting the AH64!) is up to the task and find a different argument for keeping our ship-based jumping bean?
Eureka! Ship-based! That's what'll save it! ermm...
I would argue that the American experience in Afghanistan shows that you don't need specialised CAS aircraft. The busy, highly kinetic northern taskings are filled almost exclusively by F15E and F16 out of Bagram. Any complaints about the service they provide? Why would the US replace their flexible, capable aircraft with a one-trick pony such as a Super Tucano? (the answer is that it wouldn't be a replacement, but an addition!)
a) A mover who thinks that GR4's apochryphal "massive logistics tail" is preventing other vital supplies from reaching KAF
b) A JTAC who has 'winchestered' a Reaper or both elements of a GR4 formation and has been unable to obtain further CAS support almost immediately
c) A JTAC who would rather have unguided rockets back, instead of a laser-guided missile and a gun
d) A JTAC who finds it difficult to communicate with a WSO or sensor operator who is 100% focussed on the ground situation, and would rather go back to talking to a single pilot who is simultaneously monitoring his targeting pod picture, keeping an eye on his junior wingman and trying to avoid all the UAVs? (I think it's fair to say that 100% of a WSO's capacity trumps 25% of a single pilot's capacity - just!)
If no-one answers, can we assume that our CAS/CCA provision (not forgetting the AH64!) is up to the task and find a different argument for keeping our ship-based jumping bean?
Eureka! Ship-based! That's what'll save it! ermm...
I would argue that the American experience in Afghanistan shows that you don't need specialised CAS aircraft. The busy, highly kinetic northern taskings are filled almost exclusively by F15E and F16 out of Bagram. Any complaints about the service they provide? Why would the US replace their flexible, capable aircraft with a one-trick pony such as a Super Tucano? (the answer is that it wouldn't be a replacement, but an addition!)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last JTAC who I saw posting on here did say exactly that. Neither he nor I were saying current CAS isn't up to the job, but that it wasn't the best available.
Very familiar with RAPTOR. on its own it doesn't justify the jet. it has advantages over DJRP, but not enough to justify the entire platform.
Very familiar with RAPTOR. on its own it doesn't justify the jet. it has advantages over DJRP, but not enough to justify the entire platform.
ZM,
This is not a personal attack - but I suggest you wake up and smell the roses. People can discuss as much as they want which is the most effective CAS platform, whether new aircraft should be bought, etc, but they are largely academic discussions.
We are as broke as a broke thing, and I expect SDR to cut deep into our capabilities. Cameron wants to have stopped fighting and only be mentoring in Afghanistan by 2013, Obama wants out even earlier. Introducing any new aircraft type wouldn't happen in time, and we have no money for it, even if it would prove more cost effective in the long term. Instead a scythe will be taken to the current fleets that provide the UK with CAS capability.
Actually, thinking about it again I'm talking rubbish. I have just posting on another thread that this is pprune - not the real world. So carrying on discussing ideal CAS options to your hearts content!
This is not a personal attack - but I suggest you wake up and smell the roses. People can discuss as much as they want which is the most effective CAS platform, whether new aircraft should be bought, etc, but they are largely academic discussions.
We are as broke as a broke thing, and I expect SDR to cut deep into our capabilities. Cameron wants to have stopped fighting and only be mentoring in Afghanistan by 2013, Obama wants out even earlier. Introducing any new aircraft type wouldn't happen in time, and we have no money for it, even if it would prove more cost effective in the long term. Instead a scythe will be taken to the current fleets that provide the UK with CAS capability.
Actually, thinking about it again I'm talking rubbish. I have just posting on another thread that this is pprune - not the real world. So carrying on discussing ideal CAS options to your hearts content!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Angleterre
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Invite the Argentinians to a Fire Power demo in 'Stan to demonstrate the effectiveness of Pucara to the world.
US provide AT cause we wouldn't. No UK cost.
Gets them to play in 'stan. win-win.
Gets them to set aside the Malvinas with +PR. win-win.
Avoids the drama associated with single engined lightweight CAS suffering an engine failure. win-win.
Quite possibly the best aircraft for the role already in service.
I should be a politition.
Ican doodah gizzajob.
US provide AT cause we wouldn't. No UK cost.
Gets them to play in 'stan. win-win.
Gets them to set aside the Malvinas with +PR. win-win.
Avoids the drama associated with single engined lightweight CAS suffering an engine failure. win-win.
Quite possibly the best aircraft for the role already in service.
I should be a politition.
Ican doodah gizzajob.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding CAS, I have just had a flight of 2 OV10s fly overhead. One understands that Boeing intends to go ahead with production of them as the OV X. Announced at the Singapore air show as I recall.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I remember COIN was one of the questions in the B-exam 45 years ago. Cheap, cheerful, and plentiful versus expensive, sexy, and few. The OV was around then IIRC and the Vietnam war was ramping up.
I guess the major limitations then were slow transit speeds, lower bomb loads, and greater exposure to enemy fire. The Sky Raider over came some of these limitations.
We no longer have a trip-wire strategy and possibly only need multi-capable invervention forces to hold the line for a year or so. Accepting there is no cash in the kitty, we would keep things like a COIN capability on the shopping list, along with mine- protected vehicles etc, ready to ramp up production and bring in to service in a couple of years.
Rather than invest in amphibious warfare ships that will probably be in the wrong place at the right time we could concentrate on STUFT instead as there will always be cruise ships at Southampton capable of carrying 3-4,000 troops (assuming we have that many).
We could apply a similar logic to helicopter carriers and accept that a single fixed-wing carrier could not apply airpower without shore based support.
The surface fleet could be optimised for close in defence against coastal SSK and light attack craft and have a limited AAW capability for the protection of STUFT.
Only long-lead items like the RN Escort vessels, RAF intervention capability and aviation R&D would be funded. The Army has probably written off its heavy armour already and MLRS is also a gold-plated asset. Heavy artillery too is probably over-kill for the moment so it would be better to maintain multi-role production capability rather than buying expensive equipement.
I guess the major limitations then were slow transit speeds, lower bomb loads, and greater exposure to enemy fire. The Sky Raider over came some of these limitations.
We no longer have a trip-wire strategy and possibly only need multi-capable invervention forces to hold the line for a year or so. Accepting there is no cash in the kitty, we would keep things like a COIN capability on the shopping list, along with mine- protected vehicles etc, ready to ramp up production and bring in to service in a couple of years.
Rather than invest in amphibious warfare ships that will probably be in the wrong place at the right time we could concentrate on STUFT instead as there will always be cruise ships at Southampton capable of carrying 3-4,000 troops (assuming we have that many).
We could apply a similar logic to helicopter carriers and accept that a single fixed-wing carrier could not apply airpower without shore based support.
The surface fleet could be optimised for close in defence against coastal SSK and light attack craft and have a limited AAW capability for the protection of STUFT.
Only long-lead items like the RN Escort vessels, RAF intervention capability and aviation R&D would be funded. The Army has probably written off its heavy armour already and MLRS is also a gold-plated asset. Heavy artillery too is probably over-kill for the moment so it would be better to maintain multi-role production capability rather than buying expensive equipement.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Battle Royal' as Forces chiefs clash over cuts
The chiefs of the three Armed Forces will clash today in a “battle royal” to decide which aircraft, warships and tanks will go in the coming round of defence cuts.
Interesting times!
Today's “away-day” meeting will see the RAF under intense pressure to sacrifice some of its fast jets, potentially losing both fast jets and transport aircraft. The Navy might lose control of the Royal Marines as the price of its new aircraft carriers.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Elephant in the room...
... is that we appear to be debating the mutual exclusivity of GR4 vs GR9 as a solution to cost cutting.
Surely this is too simplistic, given the Tornado mud force's relative numerical strength over JFH.
If we were to cut the Tonka fleet in half or more, (let's say) then surely we'd save more than if we completely axed our only shipborne fixed wing capable ac?
As each ac appears to have roles that the other cannot fulfil, surely we wouldn't be daft enough to drop either type before a replacement is available? (I know, I know it's already been done; SHAR and capability gaps etc. etc.)
...but surely!?!
Would it not be more logical to keep the Harrier fleet and its cadre of maritime aviators and significantly reduce The Tornado fleet as required to make the savings? Whilst keeping both fleet's core capabilities. The required simplification of types could be achieved when JSF and Typhoon reach maturity.
Finally, if we decide to axe the the Harrier force, then wtf are we buying 2(*) carriers for??? Once that decision is made, the logical argument for Fixed wing maritime aviation is perhaps lost.
I'm just not sure if scrapping the Harrier force would be a wise move,
...shares in Desire Petroleum you see!
* advisory only.
Surely this is too simplistic, given the Tornado mud force's relative numerical strength over JFH.
If we were to cut the Tonka fleet in half or more, (let's say) then surely we'd save more than if we completely axed our only shipborne fixed wing capable ac?
As each ac appears to have roles that the other cannot fulfil, surely we wouldn't be daft enough to drop either type before a replacement is available? (I know, I know it's already been done; SHAR and capability gaps etc. etc.)
...but surely!?!
Would it not be more logical to keep the Harrier fleet and its cadre of maritime aviators and significantly reduce The Tornado fleet as required to make the savings? Whilst keeping both fleet's core capabilities. The required simplification of types could be achieved when JSF and Typhoon reach maturity.
Finally, if we decide to axe the the Harrier force, then wtf are we buying 2(*) carriers for??? Once that decision is made, the logical argument for Fixed wing maritime aviation is perhaps lost.
I'm just not sure if scrapping the Harrier force would be a wise move,
...shares in Desire Petroleum you see!
* advisory only.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Another S**thole
Age: 51
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My personal take on SDSR potential for the Forces:-
RAF:-
Immediate withdrawal of Harrier GR9 with the associated closure of RAF Wittering - saving money on the Cottesmore transfer.
GR4 fleet reduced further to allow transition to Typhoon GA and JCA.
Last Typhoon trance cancelled/mothballed and JCA order drastically reduced.
FSTA PFI re-examined and contract amended/reduced.
A400M cancelled.
VC10 withdrawn immediately.
E3D withdrawn immediatley.
RJ order re-examined.
Extra buy of C130J and C17.
Increased UAV/ISR procurement.
Expansion of RAF Regt Field Sqns to support future FP requirements.
Cancellation of Puma upgrade.
Withdrawal of Sentinel.
Sea King SAR extended.
Royal Navy:
Withdrawal of Harrier removes the requirement for CVF.
New carrier build amended/reduced iaw with reduced JCA buy.
Second carrier to become heli/amphib support.
Convential submarine fleet reduced.
Sea King/ Lynx roles and numbers reduced.
Army:
MBTs scrapped/sold
Heavy Artillery/Mobile Artillery scrapped - except GMLRS.
Rebrigading to Mechanized Infantry with associated light armour.
Removal of the Airborne Role - Air Mobile remains.
Any other thoughts?
RAF:-
Immediate withdrawal of Harrier GR9 with the associated closure of RAF Wittering - saving money on the Cottesmore transfer.
GR4 fleet reduced further to allow transition to Typhoon GA and JCA.
Last Typhoon trance cancelled/mothballed and JCA order drastically reduced.
FSTA PFI re-examined and contract amended/reduced.
A400M cancelled.
VC10 withdrawn immediately.
E3D withdrawn immediatley.
RJ order re-examined.
Extra buy of C130J and C17.
Increased UAV/ISR procurement.
Expansion of RAF Regt Field Sqns to support future FP requirements.
Cancellation of Puma upgrade.
Withdrawal of Sentinel.
Sea King SAR extended.
Royal Navy:
Withdrawal of Harrier removes the requirement for CVF.
New carrier build amended/reduced iaw with reduced JCA buy.
Second carrier to become heli/amphib support.
Convential submarine fleet reduced.
Sea King/ Lynx roles and numbers reduced.
Army:
MBTs scrapped/sold
Heavy Artillery/Mobile Artillery scrapped - except GMLRS.
Rebrigading to Mechanized Infantry with associated light armour.
Removal of the Airborne Role - Air Mobile remains.
Any other thoughts?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The sandpit
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure that Sentinel will be withdrawn and can't see us getting rid of all the E3s just yet but apart from that I can see your prediction coming to fruition. What about MRA4....take it on risk???
Champagne anyone...?
Blighter 
Immediate withdrawal of Harrier GR9 with the associated closure of RAF Wittering - saving money on the Cottesmore transfer.
GR4 fleet reduced further to allow transition to Typhoon GA and JCA.
Not convinced - I think it might GR9 remains & GR4 goes offset/sweetened by an increased Typhoon buy further down the line...
Last Typhoon trance cancelled/mothballed and JCA order drastically reduced.
JCF ordered halved I reckon although I suspect there might be a sneaky offer of half of the buy to the FAA...if covered from the RN budget.
FSTA PFI re-examined and contract amended/reduced.
Reckon this is tied up tighter than a tight thing. Be interesting to see if it could be amended however to get an earlier in service date for the non-centreline jets without the wing pods. i.e. get them in as military airliners and then fit wing pods as and when whilst in service. Would enable early binning of the TriStar
A400M cancelled.
This is the interesting one (if you're a dull truckie obviously) and impossible to call. Was interesting to see the figures Fox was quoting re numbers of Hercules when discussing fleet sizes. He's either being fed by an idiot, a liar or an agenda.
VC10 withdrawn immediately.
We need to maintain an AAR capability. Suspect VC10 will be drawn down to AAR only and a minimum fleet to support critical tasking.
E3D withdrawn immediatley.
We need to maintain an independent AWACS capability however a fleet of 7 aircraft is about 50% bigger than we need for core business. Fleet reduction required
RJ order re-examined.
If this platform will genuinely replace the R1 in toto then it's a capability we need. If however it's a half arsed attempt at avoiding having to properly replace the R1 then bin it and rethink.
Extra buy of C130J and C17.
An area of personal interest If the A400 goes then an eventual fleet of 10 C17 has to be a sensible target to aim for. An extra buy of C130J would only be necessary I think (biased) if the UK Armed Forces actually became serious about FW support to UKSF. In an ideal world you'd have a small fleet (5/6) frames operated and owned outwith 2 Gp and working within a USAF AFSOC style set up alongside similar "minded" assets. Would reap huge capabilities for a relatively small outlay. Sadly not pointy or jet powered thus never happen..
Increased UAV/ISR procurement.
It's the future! Get in now kids while the water's still warm!
Expansion of RAF Regt Field Sqns to support future FP requirements.
Yup but they'd have to sell it well to avoid being consumed by the army.
Cancellation of Puma upgrade.
Bye!
Withdrawal of Sentinel.
Don't see that happening any time given how Network ISTAR Centric Enabled Buzzword Buzzword Capabilities we've apparently become
Sea King SAR extended.
Got to be cheaper than a civvy contract but is there scope for the yellow hatters to also have a standby green hat and develop a core CSAR capability akin to the USAF's HH-60s?
Immediate withdrawal of Harrier GR9 with the associated closure of RAF Wittering - saving money on the Cottesmore transfer.
GR4 fleet reduced further to allow transition to Typhoon GA and JCA.
Not convinced - I think it might GR9 remains & GR4 goes offset/sweetened by an increased Typhoon buy further down the line...
Last Typhoon trance cancelled/mothballed and JCA order drastically reduced.
JCF ordered halved I reckon although I suspect there might be a sneaky offer of half of the buy to the FAA...if covered from the RN budget.
FSTA PFI re-examined and contract amended/reduced.
Reckon this is tied up tighter than a tight thing. Be interesting to see if it could be amended however to get an earlier in service date for the non-centreline jets without the wing pods. i.e. get them in as military airliners and then fit wing pods as and when whilst in service. Would enable early binning of the TriStar
A400M cancelled.
This is the interesting one (if you're a dull truckie obviously) and impossible to call. Was interesting to see the figures Fox was quoting re numbers of Hercules when discussing fleet sizes. He's either being fed by an idiot, a liar or an agenda.
VC10 withdrawn immediately.
We need to maintain an AAR capability. Suspect VC10 will be drawn down to AAR only and a minimum fleet to support critical tasking.
E3D withdrawn immediatley.
We need to maintain an independent AWACS capability however a fleet of 7 aircraft is about 50% bigger than we need for core business. Fleet reduction required
RJ order re-examined.
If this platform will genuinely replace the R1 in toto then it's a capability we need. If however it's a half arsed attempt at avoiding having to properly replace the R1 then bin it and rethink.
Extra buy of C130J and C17.
An area of personal interest
If the A400 goes then an eventual fleet of 10 C17 has to be a sensible target to aim for. An extra buy of C130J would only be necessary I think (biased) if the UK Armed Forces actually became serious about FW support to UKSF. In an ideal world you'd have a small fleet (5/6) frames operated and owned outwith 2 Gp and working within a USAF AFSOC style set up alongside similar "minded" assets. Would reap huge capabilities for a relatively small outlay. Sadly not pointy or jet powered thus never happen.. Increased UAV/ISR procurement.
It's the future! Get in now kids while the water's still warm!
Expansion of RAF Regt Field Sqns to support future FP requirements.
Yup but they'd have to sell it well to avoid being consumed by the army.
Cancellation of Puma upgrade.
Bye!
Withdrawal of Sentinel.
Don't see that happening any time given how Network ISTAR Centric Enabled Buzzword Buzzword Capabilities we've apparently become
Sea King SAR extended.
Got to be cheaper than a civvy contract but is there scope for the yellow hatters to also have a standby green hat and develop a core CSAR capability akin to the USAF's HH-60s?
But I doubt anyone bothered to research the capability offered by these 2 aircraft. The Texan is the better option, but the Supertucano is still credible.
Credible enough that US politicians have been brought in to fight the Tucano as a 'not made here' option.
Credible because it has a better, better integrated and built in gun.
Are you sure the Texan is the 'better option' or is this the usual uncritical slack-jawed and awestruck reaction to US kit because it's American?
Just askin'?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some may find the comments in this blog of interest - they certainly echo my own fears regards the likely outcome of SDSR:
Round One in the SDSR | Kings of War
Let's hope our leaders (Political and Military) have the foresight to see past the current conflict, and recognise that in all likelihood not all future conflicts will be the same.
Round One in the SDSR | Kings of War
Let's hope our leaders (Political and Military) have the foresight to see past the current conflict, and recognise that in all likelihood not all future conflicts will be the same.
George Osborne: Trident is not exempt from budget cuts
Telegraph On-Line this afternoon:-
George Osborne: Trident is not exempt from budget cuts.
See link for the full article. If accurate, the inter-Service squabble over funding will reach dizzying new heights 
(or they will for once take action in unison - military coup anyone? 
)
Flippant mode OFF: It beggars belief that the capital cost of Trident be added to the existing MOD budget whilst simultaneously imposing swingeing cuts on said budget. What on earth would we be left with?
George Osborne: Trident is not exempt from budget cuts.
George Osborne has stoked a Cabinet row over funding for the Trident weapons system by insisting that Britain’s nuclear defence was not exempt from budget cuts.
snip.
In words which are likely to infuriate Dr Fox, he added: “All budgets have pressure. I don’t think there’s anything particularly unique about the Ministry of Defence. “I have made it very clear that Trident renewal costs must be taken as part of the defence budget.”
snip.
In words which are likely to infuriate Dr Fox, he added: “All budgets have pressure. I don’t think there’s anything particularly unique about the Ministry of Defence. “I have made it very clear that Trident renewal costs must be taken as part of the defence budget.”
(or they will for once take action in unison - military coup anyone? ) Flippant mode OFF: It beggars belief that the capital cost of Trident be added to the existing MOD budget whilst simultaneously imposing swingeing cuts on said budget. What on earth would we be left with?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No cuts to SH or AT?
Why not?
According to Dave we won't be fighting in the 'stan post 2012/3, and will be out not long after.....so why such a big AT/SH fleet post 2013?
And for what its worth I'm not saying they should be cut - but I am asking the question!
According to Dave we won't be fighting in the 'stan post 2012/3, and will be out not long after.....so why such a big AT/SH fleet post 2013?
And for what its worth I'm not saying they should be cut - but I am asking the question!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Another S**thole
Age: 51
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so why such a big AT/SH fleet post 2013?
We will need a large enough SH fleet to support all operations