Defence Review Result at End of October
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Consider the intelligence, diplomatic and political steps that would have to be gone through to even start activating forces.
We were in the midst of the run up to a major exercise and had a steady stream of signals for a couple of weeks reporting exercise incidents which steadily increased the alert state through Simple and Reinforced Alert with reserves being mobilised etc.
In the main brief for the exercise I put up a series of slides showing the escalation. Then I stopped and put up another set of slides showing the real incidents which had occured in the same time period - they were more severe than those for the exercise.
The point being that absolutely nothing had changed in our real world posture at all, we were still at a full peacetime posture - no one doubtless wishing to exacerbate the crisis.
The fallacy of of such plans is that the crisis either explodes out of the blue, or that for various reasons, political and financial, the regeneration never occurs.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Assuming the RN will still continue to blame the RAF for losing CVA1 in the 60/70s by moving Australia, this will make them well balanced - they'll have a chip on both shoulders... 
Torygraph: Navy fury at 'underhand' Army tactics in defence review
Royal Navy chiefs have reacted with fury at the Army over alleged underhand tactics officers used during the defence review claiming it will “never be forgiven or forgotten”.
Torygraph: Navy fury at 'underhand' Army tactics in defence review
Royal Navy chiefs have reacted with fury at the Army over alleged underhand tactics officers used during the defence review claiming it will “never be forgiven or forgotten”.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chips On Shoulders
That is fairly offensive. As I see it lack of 'Promised' RAF capability cost lives down south. Putting the deliberate moving of Australia as a chip on a naval shoulder is not reasonable.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PM leads talks on armed forces cuts
Looks like the next effort to agree the cuts takes place today.
PM leads talks on armed forces cuts - 7 Oct 10
PM leads talks on armed forces cuts - 7 Oct 10
Work by the late Saki Dockrill also demonstrates that:
a) In terms of killing off CVA01, the RAF came some way down the list of culprits. They were behind the FCO, the Treasury and the RN itself - RN staff work was awful (Sec of State sent a fair amount back to be re-written and made more convincing) and failed to persuade the cabinet that the benefit of spending the cash on CVA01 outweighed the savings. The RAF, in justifying the purchase of F-111, produced paperwork which was sufficiently convincing enough to allow the FCO/HMT/cabinet to persuade itself that we could do without carriers. Had the RN come to some arrangement with the RAF over the 'Pike Ships', it might have been different... Granted, the RAF was not averse to seeing the carriers go, but the blame for this cannot be placed on that service's shoulders alone, and even when distributed, the air force should not take the majority of the blame
and
b) That contrary to the allegation that the RAF did in CVA01 to get the F-111, the question as far as the government was concerned was not 'CVA01 or F-111?' but 'Do we buy CVA01 in addition to F-111?' They chose not to.
There is no denying that the air cover the island base strategy promised did not appear in the Falklands (partly because the island base strategy was done for by 1968 and that defence review), but ORAC's point that the RN narrative for nearly 50 years has been that the RAF killed the carrier by moving Australia 200/500/1000 miles to save the F-111 should not simply be labelled 'offensive' because historical myth has been shaped into fact, often by persons with inter-service axes to grind...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Archimedes, I was about to make a similar point.. I too have looked at the history of this as I find it "pretty offensive" that just because I'm in a light blue uniform I must de facto be trying to kill off the carriers by fair means or foul and that I must clearly be prepared to cheat in my staff work to do so.
The interesting thing about your point that the RN could have "come to some arrangement" over the Pike Ships is that in that case the RN were absolutely against the idea that the ships should be used for anything but Fleet Defence and ASUW - the modern idea of Carrier Strike was anathema.
Actually this time round the RAF have not covered themselves in glory by dragging their feet over the legitmate parts of the CV capability development work... but then again certain admirals are making it look like the whole carrier strike thing is a bit of a figleaf to get a maritime capability once more.
And I know that the RN has repeatedly pointed out how "vital" carriers are to UK. They are. So is a decent air defence force, an amphibious capability, and enough surface combatants to actually further our national interest globally. Unfortunately we're at a point where we can't afford all the things that we once thought were vital. I'd just rather have a strong navy and a decent air force rather than hollowing them both out to provide one or two ships which might or might not be in the right place with a really quite small amount of air power. Carriers are a good way of being expeditionary with air power, exerting influence and making statements, but they're by no means the only way.
The interesting thing about your point that the RN could have "come to some arrangement" over the Pike Ships is that in that case the RN were absolutely against the idea that the ships should be used for anything but Fleet Defence and ASUW - the modern idea of Carrier Strike was anathema.
Actually this time round the RAF have not covered themselves in glory by dragging their feet over the legitmate parts of the CV capability development work... but then again certain admirals are making it look like the whole carrier strike thing is a bit of a figleaf to get a maritime capability once more.
And I know that the RN has repeatedly pointed out how "vital" carriers are to UK. They are. So is a decent air defence force, an amphibious capability, and enough surface combatants to actually further our national interest globally. Unfortunately we're at a point where we can't afford all the things that we once thought were vital. I'd just rather have a strong navy and a decent air force rather than hollowing them both out to provide one or two ships which might or might not be in the right place with a really quite small amount of air power. Carriers are a good way of being expeditionary with air power, exerting influence and making statements, but they're by no means the only way.
I've just posted this on the carrier thread.........I thought it would also be applicable here.....
When I first joined the RAF there were 50,000 odd Russian tanks scattered throughout the Warsaw Pact, all facing west, and 8,000 NATO tanks to oppose them. The threat, of a physical invasion of the West, seemed very real - as described in a series of Tom Clancy type novels.
However, I'm now older, and perhaps wiser. I would suggest that anyone should visit some of our worse inner city areas, whether it be London, Manchester, Birmingham or Glasgow. Look around some of the sink estates, at the litter, filth, graffitti and general level of vandalism and depravation. Then ask yourself what country would want to physically invade us and take over the running of that lot, and why for goodness sake....
Wars are often fought in the pursuit of resources. However, as a country Britain has few natural resources left, our oil wealth is about to be expended, mineral wealth is minimal (some unmined coal) and agriculture wise we don't produce enough to feed ourselves. We deal in insurance and burgers, with minimal remaining industrial capacity. Once again, who would want to take over that lot (in terms of a physical invasion).
All of which is not to say that various parties throughout the world might want to "hurt us" - largely on the basis of our (perceived?) historic track record towards various countries/religions/ideologies.
Are our armed forces in future going to be used mainly to ensure we are capable of imposing our beliefs/morals/political systems on various parts of the world - rather than being scaled to protect our nation from realistic threats?
And I've only had one glass of wine so far tonight......
When I first joined the RAF there were 50,000 odd Russian tanks scattered throughout the Warsaw Pact, all facing west, and 8,000 NATO tanks to oppose them. The threat, of a physical invasion of the West, seemed very real - as described in a series of Tom Clancy type novels.
However, I'm now older, and perhaps wiser. I would suggest that anyone should visit some of our worse inner city areas, whether it be London, Manchester, Birmingham or Glasgow. Look around some of the sink estates, at the litter, filth, graffitti and general level of vandalism and depravation. Then ask yourself what country would want to physically invade us and take over the running of that lot, and why for goodness sake....
Wars are often fought in the pursuit of resources. However, as a country Britain has few natural resources left, our oil wealth is about to be expended, mineral wealth is minimal (some unmined coal) and agriculture wise we don't produce enough to feed ourselves. We deal in insurance and burgers, with minimal remaining industrial capacity. Once again, who would want to take over that lot (in terms of a physical invasion).
All of which is not to say that various parties throughout the world might want to "hurt us" - largely on the basis of our (perceived?) historic track record towards various countries/religions/ideologies.
Are our armed forces in future going to be used mainly to ensure we are capable of imposing our beliefs/morals/political systems on various parts of the world - rather than being scaled to protect our nation from realistic threats?
And I've only had one glass of wine so far tonight......
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David Cameron ‘rules out slash and burn defence cuts’
London Evening Standard - 8 Oct 10
I guess that might mean that the FAA won't need the RAF to retain Harriers.
Sanity seems to have prevailed! 
The Prime Minister is understood to have decided that there will be no reduction in the operational strength of the Army while the fighting in Afghanistan continues.
He has also agreed that both of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers will be built and that, instead of implementing widespread and large-scale cuts immediately, a “rolling review” of defence spending will take place over the next two years. Key decisions on the future strength of the Army will also be put off until 2015 — which Mr Cameron has set as the deadline for a British withdrawal from Afghanistan.
He has also agreed that both of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers will be built and that, instead of implementing widespread and large-scale cuts immediately, a “rolling review” of defence spending will take place over the next two years. Key decisions on the future strength of the Army will also be put off until 2015 — which Mr Cameron has set as the deadline for a British withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Plans to use vertical take-off aircraft on the carriers have been abandoned, however, and cheaper jets that take off and land by using a catapult and wire will be used instead. The second carrier might also be converted from its conventional use to operate as a “floating platform” for commandos.
The Navy is also expected to be allowed to buy new frigates for 2020, and the Royal Marines will be retained instead of being merged with the Army's Paratroop Regiment, as some reports had suggested. However, the helicopter budget is expected to be reduced by as much as £1 billion. Ministers are expected to insist that this will not affect operations in Afghanistan.
All the planned changes are subject to confirmation at a final meeting of the National Security Council prior to publication of the defence review.
The Navy is also expected to be allowed to buy new frigates for 2020, and the Royal Marines will be retained instead of being merged with the Army's Paratroop Regiment, as some reports had suggested. However, the helicopter budget is expected to be reduced by as much as £1 billion. Ministers are expected to insist that this will not affect operations in Afghanistan.
All the planned changes are subject to confirmation at a final meeting of the National Security Council prior to publication of the defence review.
Chairing a session of the new National Security Council yesterday he and senior ministers put the final lick of paint to the Strategic Defence and Security Review due to be unveiled on October 19 — a day before the voice of doom of the Treasury, George Osborne, announces the Comprehensive Spending Review.
The timing is the clue. “The review document will be very thin, a statement of intent more than definitive plan for cuts,” a Westminster insider said last night.
The plan now is to have a rolling review looking at all aspects of defence management, the armed forces, and equipment procurement, over the next two years or so. There will have to be some cuts, though nothing on the scale previously suggested. One of the target areas is the helicopter budget. The number of machines will be reduced. The Trident replacement will be delayed by a year or two, but will go ahead in one form or another — as will the aircraft carrier programme, though with a different variant of the Lockheed Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.
These are mere details compared with the overall change of strategy the Prime Minister appeared to agree at the meeting yesterday. What has changed? First the Americans became alarmed that after appearing in Douglas Hurd's words “to punch above its weight,” Britain under the Hurd protégé David Cameron was preparing to punch well below its weight.
Second, defence industry warned Cameron that the Treasury's scorched earth plan for cuts would wreck defence manufacture, which employs directly more than 300,000 skilled personnel.
Finally, the world is a far more dangerous place than even when Mr Cameron went through the door at No 10 in May. Hot spots are breeding, and at least six of them hint of wars and violence that touch vital British interests.
It is no time for British defences and defence capabilities to be lowered — whatever the Treasury audit clerks may say. Mr Cameron appears to have got the message.
The timing is the clue. “The review document will be very thin, a statement of intent more than definitive plan for cuts,” a Westminster insider said last night.
The plan now is to have a rolling review looking at all aspects of defence management, the armed forces, and equipment procurement, over the next two years or so. There will have to be some cuts, though nothing on the scale previously suggested. One of the target areas is the helicopter budget. The number of machines will be reduced. The Trident replacement will be delayed by a year or two, but will go ahead in one form or another — as will the aircraft carrier programme, though with a different variant of the Lockheed Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.
These are mere details compared with the overall change of strategy the Prime Minister appeared to agree at the meeting yesterday. What has changed? First the Americans became alarmed that after appearing in Douglas Hurd's words “to punch above its weight,” Britain under the Hurd protégé David Cameron was preparing to punch well below its weight.
Second, defence industry warned Cameron that the Treasury's scorched earth plan for cuts would wreck defence manufacture, which employs directly more than 300,000 skilled personnel.
Finally, the world is a far more dangerous place than even when Mr Cameron went through the door at No 10 in May. Hot spots are breeding, and at least six of them hint of wars and violence that touch vital British interests.
It is no time for British defences and defence capabilities to be lowered — whatever the Treasury audit clerks may say. Mr Cameron appears to have got the message.
there will be no reduction in the operational strength of the Army
cheaper jets that take off and land by using a catapult and wire will be used instead
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds generally positive... but I didn't see where it said
If that's the best way of getting all the UK airpower we need out of a limited pot then so be it, but I for one think that with an overall reductionin the nmber of jets being flown it would be folly just to assume that there will be dedicated airgroups - we need to explore how to be flexible with the jets we have.
dedicated airgroups operated by FAA
How will the £1 billion reduction in the helicopter budget pan out?
- Chinooks in single figures (down from a proposed 12-24)?
- Merlin HM1 CSP reduction from 30 as smaller surface fleet post SDSR?
- Wildcat SCMR reduction from 28 as smaller surface fleet post SDSR?
- Puma LEP binned completely?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In the Middle
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just about every independent study ever carried out says - for most cost effective operational use keep or purchase the maximum Chinook. Bin Wildcat and Puma update. Only keep Merlin for ASW and ASurf W, they fit on T45. If you have to have rotary AEW then use spare Merlin (RAF Merlins do not have folding tails!)
From the Oral evidence transcript
Really good to see the people in charge of whether you have a job in a couple of months are treating it with the gravity it deserves.
Chair: Now, can I make a plea to you and to all of our witnesses for the lifetime of this Parliament. defence and security review, Ministry of Defence, not MoD, acronyms are a bane in the world and, if they could be kept to a minimum and if you could ensure that anyone who uses them is duly shot at the end of an evidence session, it would be most helpful!
Dr Fox: Having been criticised, Chairman, for using ‘MI’ for ‘myocardial infarction’ at a meeting and there are very few more popular requests you could ask of me!
Dr Fox: Having been criticised, Chairman, for using ‘MI’ for ‘myocardial infarction’ at a meeting and there are very few more popular requests you could ask of me!
£1bn out of helicopters...and Cinderella was so close to getting to the ball. The ugly stepsisters have had their way again as all three services retreat behind their own parochial priorities. The RW shortage is not just for Afghan; the NAO report condemns the UK for a massive disparity between assumption and provision in rotorcraft - FRWS was probably our last chance for a generation to put it right. The really frustrating piece is that the most obvious target for cuts, Wildcat, will likely survive due to effective lobbying - the useful stuff, Chinook and, to a lesser extent, Puma 2, will suffer to maintain the force structure of the AAC and to continue to line the pockets of AW.
It's enough to make you weep...
It's enough to make you weep...
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With talk of another 5 years in 'Stan this is a most unexpected development. One would resonably assume that the Sea Queen still gets replaced by ex RAF Merlin and the SK fleet scrapped. Puma II is almost certainly sat in the doldrums with the sea plug pulled. I reckon the +12 Chinook should still see the light of day to see over the next 5 years abroad. It is sending a signal of what you have got is all you will get for the coming years which will do nothing for contempary capability issues. It will also cause the SH Training pipeline to die a death as there will be an overnight excess of trained SH mates. It is quite bizarre 
Interestingly I poo pooed an overheard comment recently that Benson would close, yet now it appears to be entirely possible. Although I have also heard that Middle Wallop is not in the MFTS plans at all.
Interestingly I poo pooed an overheard comment recently that Benson would close, yet now it appears to be entirely possible. Although I have also heard that Middle Wallop is not in the MFTS plans at all.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder whether the Naval-ised Typhoon plans are being dusted off again??
God alone knows what BAE Systems would charge to fishify a tiffy.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re RW reduction....how much does MoD save if it withdraws from SAR-H i.e. the UK has a totally Coastguard SAR service? I suspect the RN would be happy with this as SAR is a secondary role for RN helos anyway.
The £1Bn reduction also suggests that th esolution will be RAF does heavy, RN does medium and maritime and the Army does utility/attack.
The £1Bn reduction also suggests that th esolution will be RAF does heavy, RN does medium and maritime and the Army does utility/attack.