Defence Review Result at End of October
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft carriers may be axed, Trident safe - defence source
Aircraft carriers may be axed, Trident safe - defence source
The latest from Reuters
The latest from Reuters
(Reuters) - Britain may cancel one or both of its planned new aircraft carriers to cut costs but there are no plans to scale back the country's nuclear deterrent, a senior Ministry of Defence source said on Thursday.
The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the ageing fleet of 106 Tornado fighter planes would be retired by 2020, five years before they are due to leave service.
The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the ageing fleet of 106 Tornado fighter planes would be retired by 2020, five years before they are due to leave service.
Royal Navy may need to borrow US fighter jets
Royal Navy may need to borrow US fighter jets
Click on the link for the full article. Now you see what happens when the Treasury geeks read PPRuNe! 
Britain could be forced to "borrow" American warplanes for its new aircraft carriers as the Armed Forces' core capabilities are eroded by budget cuts. The country could also turn to America for surveillance aircraft if plans to buy new RAF spy planes are scrapped. Furthermore, the Navy may lose its ability to put troops ashore in an amphibious assault.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting read with regards to helecopter cuts
would sugest Seaking will go possibly except AEW, Puma would be a good candidate saving on the refurbishment and concentrating the RAF on Chinook. The Merlin transport fleet should go to FAA to replace Sea King HC fleet and possibly transfare some of the Merlin ASW fleet to AEW role like the Italians already have.
would sugest Seaking will go possibly except AEW, Puma would be a good candidate saving on the refurbishment and concentrating the RAF on Chinook. The Merlin transport fleet should go to FAA to replace Sea King HC fleet and possibly transfare some of the Merlin ASW fleet to AEW role like the Italians already have.
what idiot slashes defence when you're trying to fight a war?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Desert mainly, occasionally arctic and rarely jungle
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Furthermore, the Navy may lose its ability to put troops ashore in an amphibious assault.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
I too hope that you are right as not only do I NOT want to see an increase in my time deployed at sea doing Fishead operations and exercises I do not believe that either SHF HQ could provide the SME advice and embarked staff jobs that CHF currently does.
Are we really kidding ourselves that we in the light blue are both experienced and capable of deliverying rotary power projection from the sea?Let's be honest here, even if the politicians are mad enough to cut all of the UK's amphib capability we all know that rotary lift will still be required to operate from a Fishead boat in the future (second carrier).
I don't want it to be me and I think that I speak for many in light blue-from all branches.
What someone has failed to tell me, or provide any rationale response for is what are the flaws in RWS that was announced in Parliament only 9 months ago that had taken a strategic look at delivering affordable, Treasury agreed, rotary lift out to the 2030-2040 time frame and just about satisfy the recommendations of the pre-Afghanistan 2004 NAO report on Battlefield Helicopters?
The only aspect of RWS that I can see is that the Treasury have directed that both the 'Strategic' and 'Security' elements are to be ignored and that cuts are to be achieved regardless of any potential threat to UK security and the ubiquitous potential use of rotary lift.
Before we start slicing ourselves up should we be asking ourselves what the Treasury has suddenly found wrong with RWS?
I too hope that you are right as not only do I NOT want to see an increase in my time deployed at sea doing Fishead operations and exercises I do not believe that either SHF HQ could provide the SME advice and embarked staff jobs that CHF currently does.
Are we really kidding ourselves that we in the light blue are both experienced and capable of deliverying rotary power projection from the sea?Let's be honest here, even if the politicians are mad enough to cut all of the UK's amphib capability we all know that rotary lift will still be required to operate from a Fishead boat in the future (second carrier).
I don't want it to be me and I think that I speak for many in light blue-from all branches.
What someone has failed to tell me, or provide any rationale response for is what are the flaws in RWS that was announced in Parliament only 9 months ago that had taken a strategic look at delivering affordable, Treasury agreed, rotary lift out to the 2030-2040 time frame and just about satisfy the recommendations of the pre-Afghanistan 2004 NAO report on Battlefield Helicopters?
The only aspect of RWS that I can see is that the Treasury have directed that both the 'Strategic' and 'Security' elements are to be ignored and that cuts are to be achieved regardless of any potential threat to UK security and the ubiquitous potential use of rotary lift.
Before we start slicing ourselves up should we be asking ourselves what the Treasury has suddenly found wrong with RWS?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM4,
What has changed in the last 9 months is that the government has decided to reduce the government deficit by an additional £119bn in this Parliament, with 80% of that coming from spending cuts.
Bob Ainsworth's "policy" of creative accounting, head in sand and hope (aided and abetted by Bill Jeffrey and Jock Stirrup) was always going to hit the fiscal rocks - the NAO's Major Project Report 2009 showed that - and they weren't honest enough before the election to say so.
Instead, they relied on SDSR to square the mahoosive deficit (c. £50bn before the spending cuts) to make all of these unpalatable cuts after the election. I believe it is quaintley called "leadership" in some parts.....
So 70 Chinooks? I rather doubt it.
S41
What has changed in the last 9 months is that the government has decided to reduce the government deficit by an additional £119bn in this Parliament, with 80% of that coming from spending cuts.
Bob Ainsworth's "policy" of creative accounting, head in sand and hope (aided and abetted by Bill Jeffrey and Jock Stirrup) was always going to hit the fiscal rocks - the NAO's Major Project Report 2009 showed that - and they weren't honest enough before the election to say so.
Instead, they relied on SDSR to square the mahoosive deficit (c. £50bn before the spending cuts) to make all of these unpalatable cuts after the election. I believe it is quaintley called "leadership" in some parts.....
So 70 Chinooks? I rather doubt it.
S41
Last edited by Squirrel 41; 26th Aug 2010 at 10:27.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel,
Thank you-so in effect what you are saying is that RWS was doomed from the start and was pure political smoke and mirrors prior to the election?
You also infer therefore that no one is paying one bit of notice to the massive deficit in rotary lift identified and articulated in the PRE-AFGHANISTAN 2004 NAO report?
If I have construed your post correctly then what a waste for all those staff wollas working away on RWS for the last 9 months when those in the know it would never come to fruition.
More importantly it starkly highlights that there is absolutely nothing 'strategic' or 'security' related about this review as RWS present the Treasury with a viable plan out to 2030-2040.
Thank you-so in effect what you are saying is that RWS was doomed from the start and was pure political smoke and mirrors prior to the election?
You also infer therefore that no one is paying one bit of notice to the massive deficit in rotary lift identified and articulated in the PRE-AFGHANISTAN 2004 NAO report?
If I have construed your post correctly then what a waste for all those staff wollas working away on RWS for the last 9 months when those in the know it would never come to fruition.
More importantly it starkly highlights that there is absolutely nothing 'strategic' or 'security' related about this review as RWS present the Treasury with a viable plan out to 2030-2040.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would we save enough if we pulled out from Afg full stop?
Seems that to fight yesterdays war there, we are being asked to sacrifice any equipment modernisation/ replacement to keep up the technological pace for future defence of the realm.
And in the meantime the PM is going on "paternity" leave.
Seems that to fight yesterdays war there, we are being asked to sacrifice any equipment modernisation/ replacement to keep up the technological pace for future defence of the realm.
And in the meantime the PM is going on "paternity" leave.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Defense News: Who'll Fund U.K.'s Next Nuke Subs? Industry Wants to Know
LONDON - Britain's largest defense industry organization wants Prime Minister David Cameron to clarify the government's position on funding the replacements for Britain's Trident nuclear missile submarines.
In an Aug. 25 letter sent to Cameron and released to the media, ADS Chairman Ian Godden said recent official statements appear to call into question the government's commitment to the nuclear deterrent, and to suggest that the cost of the program, dubbed Successor, will fall on the Ministry of Defence and require cuts elsewhere.
It is "vital this confusion is cleared up as soon as possible," Godden wrote. "Uncertainty caused by the statements will be as unsettling for investors as it must surely be for our allies. A decision to move Trident renewals to the defense budget without a commensurate transfer of funding calls into question the integrity of the Strategic Defence and Security Review process and complicates the future funding of our conventional capabilities and our nation's ability to support its allies."
Godden said the issue was of such national significance that the aerospace, defense and security trade body was making the letter public.
Chancellor George Osborne and Defence Secretary Liam Fox are rowing over who should pick up the cost of building a new fleet of nuclear submarines for the Royal Navy. Osborne said the cash would have to be found in the Ministry of Defence budget. Fox argues the government should pick up the tab, as was pledged by the previous Labour Administration who lost power to the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in May.
A government White Paper put the cost of Successor at 15 billion to 20 billion pounds, at 2006 prices. At its height, Trident spending would likely top 2 billion pounds a year. The MoD's entire annual budget currently stands at 36.7 billion pounds.
The MoD recently completed a review of the Successor program to see where it could reduce costs. One of the options looked at was reducing the planned four-boat fleet to three.
The British government is scheduled to publish its defense review at the end of October along with the defense budget figures for the next four years. The MoD is bracing for a 20 percent cut over those four years, even as it faces an unfunded liability of around 37 billion pounds ($57.1 billion) over a decade, Fox revealed in a recent speech. Having to find the billions of pounds needed to replace the Trident subs would exacerbate the expected wide-scale cuts required by the military over the next few years.
LONDON - Britain's largest defense industry organization wants Prime Minister David Cameron to clarify the government's position on funding the replacements for Britain's Trident nuclear missile submarines.
In an Aug. 25 letter sent to Cameron and released to the media, ADS Chairman Ian Godden said recent official statements appear to call into question the government's commitment to the nuclear deterrent, and to suggest that the cost of the program, dubbed Successor, will fall on the Ministry of Defence and require cuts elsewhere.
It is "vital this confusion is cleared up as soon as possible," Godden wrote. "Uncertainty caused by the statements will be as unsettling for investors as it must surely be for our allies. A decision to move Trident renewals to the defense budget without a commensurate transfer of funding calls into question the integrity of the Strategic Defence and Security Review process and complicates the future funding of our conventional capabilities and our nation's ability to support its allies."
Godden said the issue was of such national significance that the aerospace, defense and security trade body was making the letter public.
Chancellor George Osborne and Defence Secretary Liam Fox are rowing over who should pick up the cost of building a new fleet of nuclear submarines for the Royal Navy. Osborne said the cash would have to be found in the Ministry of Defence budget. Fox argues the government should pick up the tab, as was pledged by the previous Labour Administration who lost power to the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in May.
A government White Paper put the cost of Successor at 15 billion to 20 billion pounds, at 2006 prices. At its height, Trident spending would likely top 2 billion pounds a year. The MoD's entire annual budget currently stands at 36.7 billion pounds.
The MoD recently completed a review of the Successor program to see where it could reduce costs. One of the options looked at was reducing the planned four-boat fleet to three.
The British government is scheduled to publish its defense review at the end of October along with the defense budget figures for the next four years. The MoD is bracing for a 20 percent cut over those four years, even as it faces an unfunded liability of around 37 billion pounds ($57.1 billion) over a decade, Fox revealed in a recent speech. Having to find the billions of pounds needed to replace the Trident subs would exacerbate the expected wide-scale cuts required by the military over the next few years.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM4,
The flaw is that it isn't - and probably wasn't ever - the money to pay for the RWS, along with everything else. I don't doubt the bona fides of those involved up to SO1 and possibly 1*. But those in Defence Resources and involved in the PR11 process will have been all too aware of the scale of the deficit and the implications of not hitting the fiscal numbers - and this made all plans, include the RW uplift speculative.
My best guess - and it is no more than informed guesswork - is that the Puma Mk 2 programme will be binned and the Pumas retired, focusing on Chinooks for SH with the Merlins off to CHF, which I (perhaps naively) expect to survive in some form. Reductions to the new build Chinook order will be easy to rationalise if you introduce the following phrases:
- "Reduced operational posture in Afghanistan as part of a phased transition to Afghan security forces"
- "Increased burden sharing with NATO and EU allies allows us to..."
- "Increased reliability leads to enhanced availability as a result of investment in Project JULIUS..."
I'd also not be too surprised if the Chinooks were turned over to AAC as over the next decade the lower rank structure will result in savings (and though they're small, we'll take any we can find.)
Amen to that. From what I hear, SDSR is being done too quickly to be strategic, hence the reason that there's effectively going to be a 12 month extension in the form of the "Defence Reform Unit"to work out how the hell to actually implement the review - not due to report until September 2011, about the time that most of us though that an SDSR done properly would report in the first place. Oh well, roundabouts/swings.
Back to the cricket!
S41
What someone has failed to tell me, or provide any rationale response for is what are the flaws in RWS that was announced in Parliament only 9 months ago that had taken a strategic look at delivering affordable, Treasury agreed, rotary lift out to the 2030-2040 time frame and just about satisfy the recommendations of the pre-Afghanistan 2004 NAO report on Battlefield Helicopters?
My best guess - and it is no more than informed guesswork - is that the Puma Mk 2 programme will be binned and the Pumas retired, focusing on Chinooks for SH with the Merlins off to CHF, which I (perhaps naively) expect to survive in some form. Reductions to the new build Chinook order will be easy to rationalise if you introduce the following phrases:
- "Reduced operational posture in Afghanistan as part of a phased transition to Afghan security forces"
- "Increased burden sharing with NATO and EU allies allows us to..."
- "Increased reliability leads to enhanced availability as a result of investment in Project JULIUS..."
I'd also not be too surprised if the Chinooks were turned over to AAC as over the next decade the lower rank structure will result in savings (and though they're small, we'll take any we can find.)
More importantly it starkly highlights that there is absolutely nothing 'strategic' or 'security' related about this review as RWS present the Treasury with a viable plan out to 2030-2040.
Back to the cricket!
S41
RAF faces tough choices over future air transport fleet
RAF faces tough choices over future air transport fleet
See above link for the full and interesting article.
If the UK's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) is all about "tough choices", then the Royal Air Force's transport aircraft fleet provides a striking example of the dilemma now facing the nation.
With its objective being to deliver massive departmental savings, the Ministry of Defence says: "Work has been set in hand to review all major equipment and support contracts to ensure the future programme is coherent with defence needs and can be afforded."
Chief of the air staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton has voiced his desire to emerge from the process with a more balanced service, and warns that "platform-level" cuts will be a likely consequence of government-enforced cost savings.
"My aim is to come out of the SDSR with two fast-jet, two helicopter and two transport types," he says, referring to the project's expected 10- to 15-year period of regard.
With its objective being to deliver massive departmental savings, the Ministry of Defence says: "Work has been set in hand to review all major equipment and support contracts to ensure the future programme is coherent with defence needs and can be afforded."
Chief of the air staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton has voiced his desire to emerge from the process with a more balanced service, and warns that "platform-level" cuts will be a likely consequence of government-enforced cost savings.
"My aim is to come out of the SDSR with two fast-jet, two helicopter and two transport types," he says, referring to the project's expected 10- to 15-year period of regard.
No mention of training aircraft
And whilst the article focused on the AT fleet I couldn't see mention of the MRA4 either .....
Selective editing by the journalist I suspect.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We should run a book, my guess FWIW is that we (RAF) will end up with -
Typhoon
GR4 (reduced Sqns)
Sentry (4 airframes)
Hercules
A400M (will it replace Hercules eventually?)
C-17
A330
MRA4
Chinook
Loose
F3 (almost gone?)
Harrier
JSF
Sentinel
VC-10
Tristar
Rivet Joint
Puma
Merlin (to navy)
Reaper (on leaving AFG)
Sea King (is SARH lives)
Navy loose the Carriers/JSF, a couple of amphibious ships, Sea King, RM absorbed into Army. Get RAF Merlins.
Army, not too sure? Loose lots of tanks, leave Germany and 25% reduction of manpower post AFG. Get to retain many UORs from AFG (vehicles, weapons, tech, etc.)
No offense meant to any of the services, I'd be interested to hear different view points
Typhoon
GR4 (reduced Sqns)
Sentry (4 airframes)
Hercules
A400M (will it replace Hercules eventually?)
C-17
A330
MRA4
Chinook
Loose
F3 (almost gone?)
Harrier
JSF
Sentinel
VC-10
Tristar
Rivet Joint
Puma
Merlin (to navy)
Reaper (on leaving AFG)
Sea King (is SARH lives)
Navy loose the Carriers/JSF, a couple of amphibious ships, Sea King, RM absorbed into Army. Get RAF Merlins.
Army, not too sure? Loose lots of tanks, leave Germany and 25% reduction of manpower post AFG. Get to retain many UORs from AFG (vehicles, weapons, tech, etc.)
No offense meant to any of the services, I'd be interested to hear different view points
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The sandpit
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoon
Harrier - then JSF
Sentry(min frames)
C-130J - then A400M
C-17
Chinook
Merlin
Reaper
Sentinel
RJ
FSTA
And that's the lot for me!!
Poss keep GR4 till 2015 at min number of frames, bin Puma,MRA4,VC10 and sooner rather than later,
Tristar.
Harrier - then JSF
Sentry(min frames)
C-130J - then A400M
C-17
Chinook
Merlin
Reaper
Sentinel
RJ
FSTA
And that's the lot for me!!
Poss keep GR4 till 2015 at min number of frames, bin Puma,MRA4,VC10 and sooner rather than later,
Tristar.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I'll forecast the following:
Typhoon - 5/6 sqns (fuzzy, mix with F-35B may change, see below)
GR4 - replaced by F-35B + UAV (Global Hawk variant or Taranis?) for both FAA for the carriers and RAF Strike - mix with above TBD.
Sentry/Sentinel - updated to replaced MRA4 and, eventually, R1/RC135
C-130J - replaced by A400M
C-17
Chinook - expand RAF force as heavy lift; other SH roles given to AAC.
Merlin - all passed to RN
VC10/Tristar - replaced by direct buy of 10 FSTA, other 4 sold to French to replace their KC-130F to support the Force de Frappe.
Typhoon - 5/6 sqns (fuzzy, mix with F-35B may change, see below)
GR4 - replaced by F-35B + UAV (Global Hawk variant or Taranis?) for both FAA for the carriers and RAF Strike - mix with above TBD.
Sentry/Sentinel - updated to replaced MRA4 and, eventually, R1/RC135
C-130J - replaced by A400M
C-17
Chinook - expand RAF force as heavy lift; other SH roles given to AAC.
Merlin - all passed to RN
VC10/Tristar - replaced by direct buy of 10 FSTA, other 4 sold to French to replace their KC-130F to support the Force de Frappe.
Imagine for a minute that we went the way of New Zealand -and we bin ALL of our fast jets! I mean, worked for them; lets just support the Army with 'Reaper' and A400M with some RW assets (Chinook). 'We' have 84 F15s sat at RAF Lakenheath courtesy of the USAFE - they'd act as air defence should we need it. Who needs fast air anyway when all we will be doing for the foreseeable future is peacekeeping ops with a big Euro Force?
Think the unthinkable!!
The country is broke- and you can expect rampant inflation and sovereign debt default within 36 months I think (as the MPC really wants inflation to inflate our way out of debt, despite what they release in their minutes - crying wolf!!) - why else would quite a few Goldman's bankers I know of be buying Physical gold - not ETFS or funds, but actual coins and bullion and storing it in the garden/home?? Who bails out the West's Governments when all the toxic crap they still hold, turns sour? God?
Some still fail to fully understand the true mire we are all in thanks to financial weapons of mass destruction peddled by unsuspecting banks in the last decade. Has China been planning all this over the past century or are they just as buggered as the West - the next decade could tell...
Think the unthinkable!!
The country is broke- and you can expect rampant inflation and sovereign debt default within 36 months I think (as the MPC really wants inflation to inflate our way out of debt, despite what they release in their minutes - crying wolf!!) - why else would quite a few Goldman's bankers I know of be buying Physical gold - not ETFS or funds, but actual coins and bullion and storing it in the garden/home?? Who bails out the West's Governments when all the toxic crap they still hold, turns sour? God?
Some still fail to fully understand the true mire we are all in thanks to financial weapons of mass destruction peddled by unsuspecting banks in the last decade. Has China been planning all this over the past century or are they just as buggered as the West - the next decade could tell...