Defence Review Result at End of October
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue with Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) is a known problem, and has been understood as such for many years. A cornerstone of the system was an understanding that the MoD budget is scaled for peacetime operations and training, and that combat operations and specific spending are funded from the Treasury Reserve. This was eroded over a number of years, but the main point to take away is that UORs were never funded as core capability unless the MoD found the money from somewhere else to pay for them.
Does this mean that I want to go to war without the UORs? Obviously not. But what our over-reliance on UORs actually shows is that the conventional procurement system is dysfunctional. I (guess, I don't know) that the rebaselining of capability of bringing UOR capabilities into core will be one of the most difficult elements of the SDSR process. Good luck to all involved....
Does this mean that I want to go to war without the UORs? Obviously not. But what our over-reliance on UORs actually shows is that the conventional procurement system is dysfunctional. I (guess, I don't know) that the rebaselining of capability of bringing UOR capabilities into core will be one of the most difficult elements of the SDSR process. Good luck to all involved....
Champagne anyone...?
I wouldn't be surprised if absolutely cock all of substance is announced at the end of October. A few broad brush statements but that'll be it. There simply hasn't been a realistic amount of time devoted to this. Reckon we won't see hard "facts" announced until into the new year.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stoppers,
What will be annouced is the equipment funding profile for the next decade and the budget to 2015-16. You can't do this without a plan of how to meet it given the scale of the cuts even a 15% headline reduction would require - a result of the massive unfunded liabilities in the existing programme. So I'm confident that they'll have to outline something reasonably crunchy, including the overall personnel numbers - a key cost driver.
Nurse wrote:
Don't we all! 
But real changes will require changes in the requirements community as well as sorting out the "issues" with DE&S - which I think is probably more sinned against than sinning. And no, I'm not at ABW; but if you're given an unimplementable plan, it shouldn't be a surprise if you can't implement it.... 
S41
What will be annouced is the equipment funding profile for the next decade and the budget to 2015-16. You can't do this without a plan of how to meet it given the scale of the cuts even a 15% headline reduction would require - a result of the massive unfunded liabilities in the existing programme. So I'm confident that they'll have to outline something reasonably crunchy, including the overall personnel numbers - a key cost driver.
Nurse wrote:
I hope SDR10 will address the procurment issue once and for all (not holding my breath though).
But real changes will require changes in the requirements community as well as sorting out the "issues" with DE&S - which I think is probably more sinned against than sinning. And no, I'm not at ABW; but if you're given an unimplementable plan, it shouldn't be a surprise if you can't implement it.... S41
Harrier123, like you I smell the coffee on pension changes, I wonder what the reaction of AF Pay review Body would be. IIRC they reduce our salary to represent the contributions that we would have had to pay. So 3 % contribution = 3% pay rise recommendation?
Having looked after the UOR process for a while, I think its one of the best parts of the DE&S - it does a great job. While a lot of people see it as a means of correcting shortfalls which should have been funded, I think its also been very good at meeting requirements which never could have been anticipated because they might involve kit bought via UORs and using equipment & TTP changes, which in turn people found that an enhancement would make even better.
My real concern is the UOR to Core figure - by my reckoning we've got roughly 2 brigades of kit at UOR TES levels - not all of this is great for wider operations - (one reason UORs are so fast is that you know the exact parameters of the operating environment, which isn't the case with wider equipment programme). This means that post HERRICK we either have to integrate it all into service, which will cost a lot of money to not only kit out these brigades, but also establish proper holdings and supply chains, and kit for the total deployable force.
If we're not going to kit the army as a whole up to UOR TES standard, then we need to ask what is the point of the wider number of brigades -we'll essentially end up with a 'home and away' team, with varying levels of capability.
The problem is that to my knowledge, the funding isn't there to bring the UORs into core, so what do we want to stop funding in order to keep the capability that we've acquired over the last few years (e.g. Predators etc).
My real concern is the UOR to Core figure - by my reckoning we've got roughly 2 brigades of kit at UOR TES levels - not all of this is great for wider operations - (one reason UORs are so fast is that you know the exact parameters of the operating environment, which isn't the case with wider equipment programme). This means that post HERRICK we either have to integrate it all into service, which will cost a lot of money to not only kit out these brigades, but also establish proper holdings and supply chains, and kit for the total deployable force.
If we're not going to kit the army as a whole up to UOR TES standard, then we need to ask what is the point of the wider number of brigades -we'll essentially end up with a 'home and away' team, with varying levels of capability.
The problem is that to my knowledge, the funding isn't there to bring the UORs into core, so what do we want to stop funding in order to keep the capability that we've acquired over the last few years (e.g. Predators etc).
UK QRA and MPA QRA
3 or 4 Sqns of Typhoon and 1 OCU. Total active airframes c. 65 of 105 long term (Tranche 2/Tranche 3a) fleet. Tranche 3b dead. AMRAAM sufficient, Meteor integration completed but procured to stores if the contract is tight enough to make it more expensive to bin than to procure. Otherwise, stick with AIM-120 and ASRAAM. 2 Sqns + OCU at CGY, 1 or 2 at Kinloss; maintain MPA. Close Leu and Leeming unless A6 hub becomes J6 hub.
3 or 4 Sqns of Typhoon and 1 OCU. Total active airframes c. 65 of 105 long term (Tranche 2/Tranche 3a) fleet. Tranche 3b dead. AMRAAM sufficient, Meteor integration completed but procured to stores if the contract is tight enough to make it more expensive to bin than to procure. Otherwise, stick with AIM-120 and ASRAAM. 2 Sqns + OCU at CGY, 1 or 2 at Kinloss; maintain MPA. Close Leu and Leeming unless A6 hub becomes J6 hub.
FB
Stoppers - you are pretty much correct when you say:
"I wouldn't be surprised if absolutely cock all of substance is announced at the end of October. A few broad brush statements but that'll be it. There simply hasn't been a realistic amount of time devoted to this. Reckon we won't see hard "facts" announced until into the new year......"
In fact that is the official line. From what has been released recently, open source, it would appear that the SDR will announce the big picture stuff, and the Defence Reform Unit has until Sep 2011 to turn that into detailed policy. Output from the DRU will be on a drip feed basis rather than nothing until Sep 2011 and then everything at once. Even then, policy announced by Sep 2011 might take some time to impliment....
See page 19 para 6.....
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpap...snia-05592.pdf
"I wouldn't be surprised if absolutely cock all of substance is announced at the end of October. A few broad brush statements but that'll be it. There simply hasn't been a realistic amount of time devoted to this. Reckon we won't see hard "facts" announced until into the new year......"
In fact that is the official line. From what has been released recently, open source, it would appear that the SDR will announce the big picture stuff, and the Defence Reform Unit has until Sep 2011 to turn that into detailed policy. Output from the DRU will be on a drip feed basis rather than nothing until Sep 2011 and then everything at once. Even then, policy announced by Sep 2011 might take some time to impliment....
See page 19 para 6.....
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpap...snia-05592.pdf
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB
The HAS complex is essentially obsolete - indeed, 56(R) and then 43(F) operated from the flightline at Leuchars on the technical site with the jets in the big hangars. The basic point is that Kinloss is 100nm up-"threat" and there's no point in keeping two full bases for 2 small Sqns as well as ISK for the (tiny) MPA force.
Given the MPA footprint already at ISK/EGQK compared with the much smaller requirements for QRA, then the operational logic of ISK is clear. Leuchars would become Dundee St. Andrews International Airport, but it would be worth paying for the retention of the RHAG / barrier as a Wx div.
I loved Leuchars - brilliant people, great place - so it hurts like hell to suggest it goes; but needs must. I'll raise a glass to 111(F)'s lonely northern vigil with the mighty swing-wing flick-knife of death, but they've proved that northern QRA can been done with a single Sqn (and I know it sucks, people...). Needs must, I'm afraid.
S41
I'm not sure I follow the logic of closing Leuchars, which has a HAS complex, and moving the Typhoons to Kinloss?
Given the MPA footprint already at ISK/EGQK compared with the much smaller requirements for QRA, then the operational logic of ISK is clear. Leuchars would become Dundee St. Andrews International Airport, but it would be worth paying for the retention of the RHAG / barrier as a Wx div.
I loved Leuchars - brilliant people, great place - so it hurts like hell to suggest it goes; but needs must. I'll raise a glass to 111(F)'s lonely northern vigil with the mighty swing-wing flick-knife of death, but they've proved that northern QRA can been done with a single Sqn (and I know it sucks, people...). Needs must, I'm afraid.
S41
The HAS complex is essentially obsolete - indeed, 56(R) and then 43(F) operated from the flightline at Leuchars on the technical site with the jets in the big hangars. The basic point is that Kinloss is 100nm up-"threat" and there's no point in keeping two full bases for 2 small Sqns as well as ISK for the (tiny) MPA force.
Given the MPA footprint already at ISK/EGQK compared with the much smaller requirements for QRA, then the operational logic of ISK is clear. Leuchars would become Dundee St. Andrews International Airport, but it would be worth paying for the retention of the RHAG / barrier as a Wx div.
I loved Leuchars - brilliant people, great place - so it hurts like hell to suggest it goes; but needs must. I'll raise a glass to 111(F)'s lonely northern vigil with the mighty swing-wing flick-knife of death,
Given the MPA footprint already at ISK/EGQK compared with the much smaller requirements for QRA, then the operational logic of ISK is clear. Leuchars would become Dundee St. Andrews International Airport, but it would be worth paying for the retention of the RHAG / barrier as a Wx div.
I loved Leuchars - brilliant people, great place - so it hurts like hell to suggest it goes; but needs must. I'll raise a glass to 111(F)'s lonely northern vigil with the mighty swing-wing flick-knife of death,
And anyway they would need to be a little more central these days with the concerns over terrorist hijackings of airliners. Quite simply, there is no pressing need to move the Typhoons away from Leuchars. I think it;s a possibility that Kinloss could in fact become the R.A.F. Base that becomes a garrison for Army units returning from Germany, along with Cottesmore. I can also see the remainder of the Harrier Force moving back to Yeovilton, with the Naval emphasis to the fore. Then Wittering can also house returning Army units. I can see the Tornado GR4 being reduced over time and disappearing earlier than planned. As for the F35, I think this is the hardest thing to second guess. They could regard it as a Harrier/ Tornado replacement? Then of course there is Taranis? I would ask what the possibility is of any of these becoming a cheaper alternative to Trident? Something which I think Dr. Liam Fox is going to need to think far more deeply about.
FB
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a thread running earlier this year on RAF basing options
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...s-close-3.html
interesting to see if our opinions have changed.
P.S. RAF is Royal Air Force
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...s-close-3.html
interesting to see if our opinions have changed.
P.S. RAF is Royal Air Force
Project TARANIS is a technology demonstrator aimed at giving us technological options in around 15 years time (2025). That is around GR4's planned out of service date. Bringing it in earlier would result in a rushed, immature and possibly misunderstood capability which I suggest that we want to avoid.
The B Word
The B Word
along with Cottesmore
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB
You're missing my point - Leuchars is in comparatively the wrong place vs Kinloss and it is probably more valuable as real estate. I'd be astonished if there were three RAF bases in Scotland post review, and with Lossie pencilled in for JSF, and given the investments made at Kinloss for MPA ops, it makes more sense to close Leuchars.
And anyway, Leuchars' runway has just been expensively redone which is always a leading indicator for imminent closure....
Wrath
You're assuming that Harrier survives. I can't see why it will under the current circumstances, so if it goes the depth line goes with it too.
S41
You're missing my point - Leuchars is in comparatively the wrong place vs Kinloss and it is probably more valuable as real estate. I'd be astonished if there were three RAF bases in Scotland post review, and with Lossie pencilled in for JSF, and given the investments made at Kinloss for MPA ops, it makes more sense to close Leuchars.
And anyway, Leuchars' runway has just been expensively redone which is always a leading indicator for imminent closure....
Wrath
You're assuming that Harrier survives. I can't see why it will under the current circumstances, so if it goes the depth line goes with it too.
S41
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Bases vacated will be useful to house the Army units brought back from Germany. Since they will mostly be Light role without heavy armour bases at Leuchars and Kinloss/Lossiemouth are fine. there is 1 Brigade accomadated in Scotland. Leeming, Cottesmore,Marham there's another one in England.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having a HAS complex never saved St Mawgan!
Post SDR there won't be three RAF bases imo, Lossie proposed future base for F35 and has two runways, named possible virgin galaxy space port (large income). Kinloss, one runway loads of geese! Leuchars needs lots of updating.
Crucially kinloss and lossie are in the solid constituancy of SNP MP's which cynically says to me that the tories won't give a toss about shutting one/two of them!
Post SDR there won't be three RAF bases imo, Lossie proposed future base for F35 and has two runways, named possible virgin galaxy space port (large income). Kinloss, one runway loads of geese! Leuchars needs lots of updating.
Crucially kinloss and lossie are in the solid constituancy of SNP MP's which cynically says to me that the tories won't give a toss about shutting one/two of them!
Sorry if this has already been done elsewhere, but could we start a list of which RAF airfields are considered safe from closure? It may not take long to compile this list...I offer Valley, Brize and Waddington for starters.
S41
I'm assuming nothing - just questioning the validity (i.e. cost) of a 'move the Harriers to Yeovilton' statement. Sadly, I suspect you are right and JFH will fold early. Personally I'd rather see it reduced to a single joint sqn, with an embedded Training Flight, and stick with its original OSD. That way there is a fighting chance one carrier will survive and that all the FAA chaps filling their boots with deck landings in the States won't be totally wasted.
TofD
I'd add Northolt and Honington to your list. Those up for the chop will be all those that have recently had the married quarters or Messes renovated (that will be a small list then).
I'm assuming nothing - just questioning the validity (i.e. cost) of a 'move the Harriers to Yeovilton' statement
. Sadly, I suspect you are right and JFH will fold early. Personally I'd rather see it reduced to a single joint sqn, with an embedded Training Flight, and stick with its original OSD. That way there is a fighting chance one carrier will survive and that all the FAA chaps filling their boots with deck landings in the States won't be totally wasted.TofD
I'd add Northolt and Honington to your list. Those up for the chop will be all those that have recently had the married quarters or Messes renovated (that will be a small list then
).
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ToD
Absolutely safe?
Boulmer + 1 CRC somewhere else
Brize Norton
Cranwell (DIOT / AWC)
Coningsby
Halton (?? Presumably NCO training)
Kinloss (MPA/SAR Coord/Northern Q)
Lossiemouth (GR4 / Dave)
Northolt (especially after property centralisation under MoDEL)
Shawbury
Waddington (ISTAR / AWC)
Wyton (DIS New Defence Intelligence hub for RAF Wyton: key.Aero, key.Aero)
Policy choices
Valley / Linton / Church Fenton - not necessarily, depends on UKMFTS
High Wycombe - who needs Groups now, let alone after these cuts? Would prefer to see the streamlined remains of Air Cmd to somewhere central - eg Scampton. HW is very valuable real estate, as is Halton.
Odiham - to AAC?
Scampton - retains CRC, and could accommodate Air Command
Leeming & Honington will depend on A6 and Regiment respectively.
Unsafe, IMHO
Benson - Puma 2 unlikely to survive and Benson prime real estate.
Brampton - already slated for closure and sale in 2012
Henlow - lodger units able to be accommodated elsewhere
Marham / Leuchars - see previous posts
Just my 0.02
S41
Absolutely safe?
Boulmer + 1 CRC somewhere else
Brize Norton
Cranwell (DIOT / AWC)
Coningsby
Halton (?? Presumably NCO training)
Kinloss (MPA/SAR Coord/Northern Q)
Lossiemouth (GR4 / Dave)
Northolt (especially after property centralisation under MoDEL)
Shawbury
Waddington (ISTAR / AWC)
Wyton (DIS New Defence Intelligence hub for RAF Wyton: key.Aero, key.Aero)
Policy choices
Valley / Linton / Church Fenton - not necessarily, depends on UKMFTS
High Wycombe - who needs Groups now, let alone after these cuts? Would prefer to see the streamlined remains of Air Cmd to somewhere central - eg Scampton. HW is very valuable real estate, as is Halton.
Odiham - to AAC?
Scampton - retains CRC, and could accommodate Air Command
Leeming & Honington will depend on A6 and Regiment respectively.
Unsafe, IMHO
Benson - Puma 2 unlikely to survive and Benson prime real estate.
Brampton - already slated for closure and sale in 2012
Henlow - lodger units able to be accommodated elsewhere
Marham / Leuchars - see previous posts
Just my 0.02
S41