Defence Review Result at End of October
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extra Chinooks for the chop?
Are we likely to end up with any extra or are they all for the chop? Still who needs modern fit for role helicopters anyway when according to the minister we can always hitch a lift from our chums!
Extra Chinooks 'not a certainty' - Defence Management
Extra Chinooks 'not a certainty' - Defence Management
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Angleterre
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am told that when a minister bleated in Parliament recently regarding the purchase of 10 x NH90, that he actually meant 10 x Chinook, and that being so, 10 of 22 should have been ringfenced.
If the planned order for 22 CH47 is not completed; & after the spin, hype, rhetoric, call it what you will, over the last many years, that is as good a combat indicator as you are ever going to get that a pull out is imminent. Quite honestly, we cannot afford to be in Afghanistan another day in monetary terms. For sure it is a dilema for a Govt to announce radical cuts across the sectors that effect the public directly whilst maintaining a war machine that comes at a considerable price including that of UK lives.
There can be little argument from across all UK Forces that whilst the situation overseas continues; the new 22 Chinooks, Ground support and Aircrew Trg are essential not just desirable. As such they should be a certainty.
If the planned order for 22 CH47 is not completed; & after the spin, hype, rhetoric, call it what you will, over the last many years, that is as good a combat indicator as you are ever going to get that a pull out is imminent. Quite honestly, we cannot afford to be in Afghanistan another day in monetary terms. For sure it is a dilema for a Govt to announce radical cuts across the sectors that effect the public directly whilst maintaining a war machine that comes at a considerable price including that of UK lives.
There can be little argument from across all UK Forces that whilst the situation overseas continues; the new 22 Chinooks, Ground support and Aircrew Trg are essential not just desirable. As such they should be a certainty.
The AOR in Afghanistan has been reduced and an exit date has been announced (ish). Politically there is enough SH to service the remaining effort, so:
· Stop the Puma 2. Loads of SH experience to convert to Chinook and Merlin and ease springs on those fleets.
· Cancel the Chinook buy.
· Merlin’s stay with the crabs. Why spend the money training navy crews?
· Let the jungly cabs wither on the branch.
With cuts of 25% they have to lose manpower therefore there must be a redundancy package. They will do it at minimal legal cost. The only down side is the public’s perception of getting rid of elements of our over stretched armed forces; but they can live with that seeing as how the rest of the public sector are taking a hit.
· Stop the Puma 2. Loads of SH experience to convert to Chinook and Merlin and ease springs on those fleets.
· Cancel the Chinook buy.
· Merlin’s stay with the crabs. Why spend the money training navy crews?
· Let the jungly cabs wither on the branch.
With cuts of 25% they have to lose manpower therefore there must be a redundancy package. They will do it at minimal legal cost. The only down side is the public’s perception of getting rid of elements of our over stretched armed forces; but they can live with that seeing as how the rest of the public sector are taking a hit.
...but if we scale back on our expeditionary warfare and global policing and the Army takes a cut of 30K troops (as rumoured) then do we really need another 22 Chinooks?? I don't think that we will. I see us pulling out of Afghan within 2-3 years - by which time the first of the new Chinooks would be coming on line. Odiham is not big enough and Benson not much better. I think the right thing to do would be to cancel the order and spend the money on Air Defence capabilities - controversial I know; but overseas forces could be looking at our defence review with glee knowing that we are stupidly going to cancel capabilities for the war that we have not, as yet, seen around the corner - the next global war will be fought over food and natural resources.
RAF to shrink to World War One levels - Telegraph
The Daily Telegraph is reporting on "detailed proposals" it has received:
RAF to shrink to World War One levels - Telegraph
RAF to shrink to World War One levels - Telegraph
When did we have the stealth increase in the size of the RAF to bring it up to 5th biggest in the world?
He's also wrong about 1914 - the RFC mustered a grand total of about 100 aircraft of all types by the end of the year, and the RNAS wasn't much better off - certainly not 200 fighters. And the RAF has been lower than 200 fighters on other occasions - unless you're very slack with the accounting and include inter-war army co-operation types and bombers as 'fighters'...
You'll also note that the article mentions things about meetings to discuss various proposals, which suggests that these aren't as definite or as clear cut as the paper wishes us to believe?
He's also wrong about 1914 - the RFC mustered a grand total of about 100 aircraft of all types by the end of the year, and the RNAS wasn't much better off - certainly not 200 fighters. And the RAF has been lower than 200 fighters on other occasions - unless you're very slack with the accounting and include inter-war army co-operation types and bombers as 'fighters'...
You'll also note that the article mentions things about meetings to discuss various proposals, which suggests that these aren't as definite or as clear cut as the paper wishes us to believe?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoon buy to be reduced to 107 aircraft based at a single station
But binning TGRF suggests keeping Harrier - which suggests that CVS remains and that CVF also remains. If so, not at all sure that this makes too much strategic sense.
And bye-bye Leuchars. Sniff!
S41
Yup
It is far from a "done deal" - I saw some of the options (note they are still just options) and the Secretary of State's direction today. I also understand that a lot of the mates in MoD are going to have a working weekend very soon and are doing 14-16hr days at present
As usual, when you're in the know, you suddenly realise what a load of tripe the TV/Radio/Newspapers are serving up; that's why I don't buy newspapers anymore!
The B Word
PS From what I saw, nothing was sacred apart from the UORs! And they go after Herrick finishes anyway.
It is far from a "done deal" - I saw some of the options (note they are still just options) and the Secretary of State's direction today. I also understand that a lot of the mates in MoD are going to have a working weekend very soon and are doing 14-16hr days at present
As usual, when you're in the know, you suddenly realise what a load of tripe the TV/Radio/Newspapers are serving up; that's why I don't buy newspapers anymore!
The B Word
PS From what I saw, nothing was sacred apart from the UORs! And they go after Herrick finishes anyway.
Well folks,
Many of you may not have read it yet, but today's Telegraph has announced the as yet to be approved cuts in Toy spending. Evidently, there will be 16'000 fewer military personnel altogether. This will break down as 7'000 from the R.A.F. 2'000 from the Navy and Marines and the rest from the Army. Equipment wise, this will mean; only 107 Typhoons, all GR4s to be phased out over 5 years, 5 fewer sea going vessels, including 2 Submarines, and a 40% reduction in Armourde Vehicles and the loss of a 5'000 strong Brigade.
Bases on the chop list include; Lossiemouth and Marham. The report also says this will mean the need for only one Tiffy base. However, Leuchars is not on ze list? The report also claims that we will get the F35, but fewer than 50!?
FB
Many of you may not have read it yet, but today's Telegraph has announced the as yet to be approved cuts in Toy spending. Evidently, there will be 16'000 fewer military personnel altogether. This will break down as 7'000 from the R.A.F. 2'000 from the Navy and Marines and the rest from the Army. Equipment wise, this will mean; only 107 Typhoons, all GR4s to be phased out over 5 years, 5 fewer sea going vessels, including 2 Submarines, and a 40% reduction in Armourde Vehicles and the loss of a 5'000 strong Brigade.
Bases on the chop list include; Lossiemouth and Marham. The report also says this will mean the need for only one Tiffy base. However, Leuchars is not on ze list? The report also claims that we will get the F35, but fewer than 50!?
FB
Well folks,
Many of you may not have read it yet, but today's Telegraph has announced the as yet to be approved cuts in Toy spending. Evidently, there will be 16'000 fewer military personnel altogether. This will break down as 7'000 from the R.A.F. 2'000 from the Navy and Marines and the rest from the Army. Equipment wise, this will mean; only 107 Typhoons, all GR4s to be phased out over 5 years, 5 fewer sea going vessels, including 2 Submarines, and a 40% reduction in Armourde Vehicles and the loss of a 5'000 strong Brigade.
Bases on the chop list include; Lossiemouth and Marham. The report also says this will mean the need for only one Tiffy base. However, Leuchars is not on ze list? The report also claims that we will get the F35, but fewer than 50!?
FB
Many of you may not have read it yet, but today's Telegraph has announced the as yet to be approved cuts in Toy spending. Evidently, there will be 16'000 fewer military personnel altogether. This will break down as 7'000 from the R.A.F. 2'000 from the Navy and Marines and the rest from the Army. Equipment wise, this will mean; only 107 Typhoons, all GR4s to be phased out over 5 years, 5 fewer sea going vessels, including 2 Submarines, and a 40% reduction in Armourde Vehicles and the loss of a 5'000 strong Brigade.
Bases on the chop list include; Lossiemouth and Marham. The report also says this will mean the need for only one Tiffy base. However, Leuchars is not on ze list? The report also claims that we will get the F35, but fewer than 50!?
FB
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe these things have been offered to scare the government into fewer cuts - I mean that would obviously work wouldn't it! The Government would NEVER cut all those things just because they were told they could, would they!
Now where did I put that sarcasm smiley....
Now where did I put that sarcasm smiley....
We have been here before when Portillo was defence minister in the 90s he only asked for a brochure on the F16 and F18 and suggested some RAF ranks could be merged. Bae and the RAF went spare.Soon after a smear campaign shut him up.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be careful....
Xenolith,
Be careful, be very careful indeed.
You sound very much like the RAF that got us into all of that trouble with that 'smash and grab' attempt on the RN Harriers, and look what chumps it made us look and where we are now.
Firstly, if you let the Fisheads 'wither on the branch' then are we the RAF seriously going to pick up the maritime/amphibious rotary expertise - how many of us really know (or care) about boats? Not just the flying from the decks, but also the deck handlers, air operations and air traffickers on board - think about fella, you have just invented a new career stream for the RAF that is already there in the RN! And whatever anyone says there will be a future requirement of force projection from the sea, you can cancel or 'capability holiday' amphibious warfare, but whether a potential disaster relief or a NEO or a full blown campaign that does not have the political host nation support and/or the political will for a full blown theatre entry infrastructure - we will be flying SH from the sea in the future and that is a given.
Secondly, are we able to become the maritime experts? From my part I haven't been on the O Boat for over a year now and that was just playing at it, and I certainly have no enthusiasm to go to sea more often - do you? We could take it on risk and train on our way to the operation, but seriously, post Haddon-Cave, the Puma report etc etc, the first aircraft that crashes into the sea/deck will drive a very public coach and horses through any HMG/HMT/MOD 'take it on risk' policy.
Lastly, your statement about 'Merlin stay with the crabs, why train the navy crews', that statement is gold dust to the Fisheads as they could equally say why not retrain the Sea King Fishead crews direct onto CH47 and retain your amphibious/maritime expertise and save the RAF from having to retrain its (non maritime trained) Puma crews. Made even more relevant if we do keep the new carriers which will be CH47/amphibious capable.
Is your option more joint and adds/retains wider defence capability (cost effectively), or does the one that I have just highlighted above add the value?
As I said, be careful
Be careful, be very careful indeed.
You sound very much like the RAF that got us into all of that trouble with that 'smash and grab' attempt on the RN Harriers, and look what chumps it made us look and where we are now.
Firstly, if you let the Fisheads 'wither on the branch' then are we the RAF seriously going to pick up the maritime/amphibious rotary expertise - how many of us really know (or care) about boats? Not just the flying from the decks, but also the deck handlers, air operations and air traffickers on board - think about fella, you have just invented a new career stream for the RAF that is already there in the RN! And whatever anyone says there will be a future requirement of force projection from the sea, you can cancel or 'capability holiday' amphibious warfare, but whether a potential disaster relief or a NEO or a full blown campaign that does not have the political host nation support and/or the political will for a full blown theatre entry infrastructure - we will be flying SH from the sea in the future and that is a given.
Secondly, are we able to become the maritime experts? From my part I haven't been on the O Boat for over a year now and that was just playing at it, and I certainly have no enthusiasm to go to sea more often - do you? We could take it on risk and train on our way to the operation, but seriously, post Haddon-Cave, the Puma report etc etc, the first aircraft that crashes into the sea/deck will drive a very public coach and horses through any HMG/HMT/MOD 'take it on risk' policy.
Lastly, your statement about 'Merlin stay with the crabs, why train the navy crews', that statement is gold dust to the Fisheads as they could equally say why not retrain the Sea King Fishead crews direct onto CH47 and retain your amphibious/maritime expertise and save the RAF from having to retrain its (non maritime trained) Puma crews. Made even more relevant if we do keep the new carriers which will be CH47/amphibious capable.
Is your option more joint and adds/retains wider defence capability (cost effectively), or does the one that I have just highlighted above add the value?
As I said, be careful
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 8th Aug 2010 at 06:21.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Angleterre
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am hopeful, and perhaps knaively so, that the political spin we are witnessing is far more then eventual reality, for it is good political rhetoric for the subsequent cuts 'not to be as drastic as first anticipated'. I accept though that whatever comes will not be nice and will effectively hand the Falklands to the Argentinians on a silver salver.
Looking on the bright side; Ivan can save some fuel money for there is little point is testing UKAD if there is no challenge to be had, and we may as well offer Faslane as a Russian sub refuel point because then at least we will know when the subs are cruising down the Irish Sea. UK Plc could save a few pennies by chinning off the Commonwealth because there is sod all we can provide that makes the little union flag tucked away in the corner of many worth a dime nowadays.
The real shocker will be when the UK Defence Force replaces all the individual services.
Looking on the bright side; Ivan can save some fuel money for there is little point is testing UKAD if there is no challenge to be had, and we may as well offer Faslane as a Russian sub refuel point because then at least we will know when the subs are cruising down the Irish Sea. UK Plc could save a few pennies by chinning off the Commonwealth because there is sod all we can provide that makes the little union flag tucked away in the corner of many worth a dime nowadays.
The real shocker will be when the UK Defence Force replaces all the individual services.
Despite the fact that the story has it's fair share of spin, it looks like we are headed down the EU Defence Force road. Our contribution will be a few nuclear boats, some Naval assets (possibly one carrier), a small specialised landforce with a limited lift capability and a few high tec FJ aircraft.
Politically, it has been assessed that we are no longer a world power militarily and our future lies as a bit player. Like it or loathe it, it is a logical step in the current climate. The only pothole however, is will the great European experiment survive the current financial crisis? I have my doubts. Also, my experience of NATO is very much one of a paper tiger and I see an EU Defence Force as being very similar.
Unrestricted immigration is another crucial part in this jigsaw. A deliberate policy to further dilute the nationalist parts of the population. Could you ever see conscription happening again in this country? No, we are being merged by stealth to suit the bigger picture.
The three services will remain because, at the moment, it will be politically unacceptable to merge into one. However, with the much needed cull of senior Officers, the top of the pyramid will probably reflect a single entity in all but name.
Still, we are committed now because what is lost over the next 5 years will not be replaced.
I just hope those in power have made the right calls.
Cynical, moi?
Politically, it has been assessed that we are no longer a world power militarily and our future lies as a bit player. Like it or loathe it, it is a logical step in the current climate. The only pothole however, is will the great European experiment survive the current financial crisis? I have my doubts. Also, my experience of NATO is very much one of a paper tiger and I see an EU Defence Force as being very similar.
Unrestricted immigration is another crucial part in this jigsaw. A deliberate policy to further dilute the nationalist parts of the population. Could you ever see conscription happening again in this country? No, we are being merged by stealth to suit the bigger picture.
The three services will remain because, at the moment, it will be politically unacceptable to merge into one. However, with the much needed cull of senior Officers, the top of the pyramid will probably reflect a single entity in all but name.
Still, we are committed now because what is lost over the next 5 years will not be replaced.
I just hope those in power have made the right calls.
Cynical, moi?
I think people talk about the future as if it's a foregone conclusion. We are facing economic difficulties yes. But just because of this, it doesn't mean we're finished as a country as too many people seem far to eager to not just imply, but swear is the case. Nobody knows what the Government agenda is. One thing for sure, more than 30 years ago when I was in the R.A.F. everyone with a British Passport I spoke to was so quick to describe the United Kingdom as a bit player, no longer an Empire or a world power, an insigificant country which carrys no influence any longer. If that was then, then what the hell are we now?
FB
FB
MM4
Sorry didn’t understand any of that.
I did prefix with ‘Politically....’ Pretend you’re a politician who’s got to make drastic cuts, who’s never been in HM Armed Forces, don’t look further than Afghanistan and then read my previous again.
You didn’t mention manning; what’s your take on the manpower cuts?
Sorry didn’t understand any of that.
I did prefix with ‘Politically....’ Pretend you’re a politician who’s got to make drastic cuts, who’s never been in HM Armed Forces, don’t look further than Afghanistan and then read my previous again.
You didn’t mention manning; what’s your take on the manpower cuts?