Defence Review Result at End of October
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VR
"Fear"
Presumably of the consequences of having to admit just how screwed we really are, and (worse) of the press finding out...
OA
I half agree - we are choosing not to afford the force size we collectively desire, which is always going to end with tears before bedtime. Oh well.
CATOBAR with Dave-C was always the right answer, as was Dave-C for the RAF for fleet commonality (shades of F-4K / Phantom FG Mk. 1 for sceptics of a certain age?). But do we really think that we're to have a front line of 120 Dave-C plus 100 Tiffies? I rather doubt it, or at least not anytime soon.
And in the meanwhile sans Harrier, HMS QE can be the most grossly oversized LPH in modern history. Perhaps that nice Mr. Nalls can be persuaded to fly his SHaR off it?
As for a "force" of 15 FF/DD - (presumably 6 x T45 and 9 x T23)? Really?
But at least if we're binning Harrier to keep GR4 for a little longer, then there is some sanity prevailing. Not much, but some...
S41
"Fear"
Presumably of the consequences of having to admit just how screwed we really are, and (worse) of the press finding out...
OA
I half agree - we are choosing not to afford the force size we collectively desire, which is always going to end with tears before bedtime. Oh well.
CATOBAR with Dave-C was always the right answer, as was Dave-C for the RAF for fleet commonality (shades of F-4K / Phantom FG Mk. 1 for sceptics of a certain age?). But do we really think that we're to have a front line of 120 Dave-C plus 100 Tiffies? I rather doubt it, or at least not anytime soon.
And in the meanwhile sans Harrier, HMS QE can be the most grossly oversized LPH in modern history. Perhaps that nice Mr. Nalls can be persuaded to fly his SHaR off it?
As for a "force" of 15 FF/DD - (presumably 6 x T45 and 9 x T23)? Really?
But at least if we're binning Harrier to keep GR4 for a little longer, then there is some sanity prevailing. Not much, but some...
S41
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S41 - yes, F-35C is better than F-35B... but if we only buy 50 frames, it will be a challenge to keep one carrier's air group going. The RAF won't have any - and so there won't be any fleet commonality.
Agree though, that keeping GR4 rather than Harrier is a no-brainer.... cut the small force of less versatile jets that are more expensive to run rather than the bigger force of faster, longer-range jets with a greater weaponload. Although I'm sure many will see it just as the RAF being spiteful about the carriers.
Agree though, that keeping GR4 rather than Harrier is a no-brainer.... cut the small force of less versatile jets that are more expensive to run rather than the bigger force of faster, longer-range jets with a greater weaponload. Although I'm sure many will see it just as the RAF being spiteful about the carriers.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the numbers being bandied around are correct then the case for binning GR4 entirely must be compelling (in terms of realising £ savings); however from an offensive capability point of view then that leaves us, well.... with nothing Unless of course I'm missing something and we have Typhoon aircraft, pilots and infrastructure aplenty all trained and ready to go in 'swing role'. As far as I'm aware Typhoon is at best unproven in this arena and at worst simply not ready and available in anything like sufficient numbers to both cover AD and the Stan or any other unforeseen requirements.
But I trust Dave has his finger firmly on the pulse here and will make all the right decisions.....
Not long to go now.
But I trust Dave has his finger firmly on the pulse here and will make all the right decisions.....
Not long to go now.
..and more expensive? and with less weaponload?
Would love to see the facts behind the more expensive claim.
Suggest you FOI total cost of GR9 det in Kandahar for 5 years, vs total cost of GR4 det so far. Then try another line of attack.
Would love to see the facts behind the more expensive claim.
Suggest you FOI total cost of GR9 det in Kandahar for 5 years, vs total cost of GR4 det so far. Then try another line of attack.
Sammy
From some DASA stats I saw a while back the "Full Cost" of a GR9 per flying hour is in the region of £35k, whereas GR4 is less than £30k - the exact figures, I believe were 'Restricted-Commercial'. Typhoon was 3 times the amount at around £90k!!!
Don't forget "Full Costs" includes everything needed to support that flying hour (Med Centres, ATC, Fire Cover, Bird Scaring, etc...etc...)
I reckon that GR9 must be more expensive due to the cost of putting flaps of leather on all those flying boots!
LJ
From some DASA stats I saw a while back the "Full Cost" of a GR9 per flying hour is in the region of £35k, whereas GR4 is less than £30k - the exact figures, I believe were 'Restricted-Commercial'. Typhoon was 3 times the amount at around £90k!!!
Don't forget "Full Costs" includes everything needed to support that flying hour (Med Centres, ATC, Fire Cover, Bird Scaring, etc...etc...)
I reckon that GR9 must be more expensive due to the cost of putting flaps of leather on all those flying boots!
LJ
Sammy
From some DASA stats I saw a while back the "Full Cost" of a GR9 per flying hour is in the region of £35k, whereas GR4 is less than £30k - the exact figures, I believe were 'Restricted-Commercial'. Typhoon was 3 times the amount at around £90k!!!
From some DASA stats I saw a while back the "Full Cost" of a GR9 per flying hour is in the region of £35k, whereas GR4 is less than £30k - the exact figures, I believe were 'Restricted-Commercial'. Typhoon was 3 times the amount at around £90k!!!
FB
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
From some DASA stats I saw a while back the "Full Cost" of a GR9 per flying hour is in the region of £35k, whereas GR4 is less than £30k - the exact figures, I believe were 'Restricted-Commercial'. Typhoon was 3 times the amount at around £90k!!!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it matters a jot if GR9 is cheaper to operate than GR4. With 2 front line squadrons left, and the Navy's oft-mentioned need to keep practicing carrier based ops, the force is too small to sustain any sort of operation now.
If you want to keep UK fast jets in Afghanistan, you keep the GR4 in some capacity. In any terms, trading a deployable force that's doing the job as we speak for one that seem to exist purely to keep the FAA current on carrier ops seems a bit silly.
If you want to keep UK fast jets in Afghanistan, you keep the GR4 in some capacity. In any terms, trading a deployable force that's doing the job as we speak for one that seem to exist purely to keep the FAA current on carrier ops seems a bit silly.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: davey jones bathroom cabinet
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please forgive the first post straight in on the back of a well established thread.
The savings being thrown around in the press are 1 Billion for JFH and 7.5 Billion for the GR4 force. Harrier OSD 2018, GR4 OSD 2025, 3 Harrier Squadrons, 8 GR4 Squadrons. so Based on 8 years for the 3 JFH and 15 years for the 8 GR4s gives 41.7 Million per year for a Harrier Squadron and 62.5 Million per year for a GR4 Squadron. I assume the figures include the potential savings in basing and infrastructure as well as the previously mentioned full per hour costs.
If we are going to continue to invest in the FGR capability for Typhoon then the argument to keep the GR4 simply to keep UK jets in KAF holds no sway. They'll have to pull their weight sometime.
Please note that the savings figures are from the national press.
The savings being thrown around in the press are 1 Billion for JFH and 7.5 Billion for the GR4 force. Harrier OSD 2018, GR4 OSD 2025, 3 Harrier Squadrons, 8 GR4 Squadrons. so Based on 8 years for the 3 JFH and 15 years for the 8 GR4s gives 41.7 Million per year for a Harrier Squadron and 62.5 Million per year for a GR4 Squadron. I assume the figures include the potential savings in basing and infrastructure as well as the previously mentioned full per hour costs.
If we are going to continue to invest in the FGR capability for Typhoon then the argument to keep the GR4 simply to keep UK jets in KAF holds no sway. They'll have to pull their weight sometime.
Please note that the savings figures are from the national press.
point8lookup,
I follow your reasoning with the relative costs of GR4 and GR9 to OSD - however, the variable that you missed out is the number of MOBs. GR9 is technically down to 1 MOB now - given that Cottesmore has already had the death sentence, the savings presented in the current round don't account for closing it (a decision that has already been taken). My understanding is that Wittering would not be closed even if the GR9 fleet were to be scrapped (as it's the A4 hub), so the figure of £1bn for closing JFH doesn't include any savings on real estate. GR4 still has 2 MOBs, and a large chunk of the £20m/yr/sqn difference you calculate will be down to running those 2 bases. A lot of that difference would be wiped out if the GR4 force collapsed into a single MOB.
Latearmlive / Sammysu,
It's pretty obvious that GR9 is more flexible than GR4 when it comes to basing options. However, in terms of roles, GR4 clearly surpasses GR9 when it comes to AI (5 x PW4; Stormshadow; speed/range), SEAD, Recce (RAPTOR / DJRP / LIII, speed/range)... which only leaves CAS as a debating point. I would contend that 2 PW4, 3 DMS Brimstone and a gun trumps any combination of PW4, CRV7 and Mav that you care to offer. Having a dedicated sensor operator makes GR4 a superior NTISR platform and better able to act as an airborne coordinator / comm relay. Link 16 and VMF are funded and only 12-18 months away. Plus the GR4 force is big enough to sustain a standing CAS operation whilst maintaing competence in other roles (including full NVG qualification, which is much easier to achieve with the starting point of Auto TFR). Balancing up the basing (GR9) vs range of capabilities (GR4), I think Occasional Aviator has it right.
If the GR9 fleet does close, do you think any of the pilots would swallow their pride and become 2-seat losers?
I follow your reasoning with the relative costs of GR4 and GR9 to OSD - however, the variable that you missed out is the number of MOBs. GR9 is technically down to 1 MOB now - given that Cottesmore has already had the death sentence, the savings presented in the current round don't account for closing it (a decision that has already been taken). My understanding is that Wittering would not be closed even if the GR9 fleet were to be scrapped (as it's the A4 hub), so the figure of £1bn for closing JFH doesn't include any savings on real estate. GR4 still has 2 MOBs, and a large chunk of the £20m/yr/sqn difference you calculate will be down to running those 2 bases. A lot of that difference would be wiped out if the GR4 force collapsed into a single MOB.
Latearmlive / Sammysu,
It's pretty obvious that GR9 is more flexible than GR4 when it comes to basing options. However, in terms of roles, GR4 clearly surpasses GR9 when it comes to AI (5 x PW4; Stormshadow; speed/range), SEAD, Recce (RAPTOR / DJRP / LIII, speed/range)... which only leaves CAS as a debating point. I would contend that 2 PW4, 3 DMS Brimstone and a gun trumps any combination of PW4, CRV7 and Mav that you care to offer. Having a dedicated sensor operator makes GR4 a superior NTISR platform and better able to act as an airborne coordinator / comm relay. Link 16 and VMF are funded and only 12-18 months away. Plus the GR4 force is big enough to sustain a standing CAS operation whilst maintaing competence in other roles (including full NVG qualification, which is much easier to achieve with the starting point of Auto TFR). Balancing up the basing (GR9) vs range of capabilities (GR4), I think Occasional Aviator has it right.
If the GR9 fleet does close, do you think any of the pilots would swallow their pride and become 2-seat losers?
Last edited by Easy Street; 17th Oct 2010 at 00:18.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold on.... If I read you right earlier ORAC, you said the Navy is about to lose most of its ASW capability? Which is a capability the RAF is possibly also about to lose?
Thank god submarines are no longer a threat to anything then!!! Thank god we don't have a nuclear deterrant or anything we need to look after! Thank god we're not an island nation! Thank god our carriers will be able to protect themselves!
Thank god submarines are no longer a threat to anything then!!! Thank god we don't have a nuclear deterrant or anything we need to look after! Thank god we're not an island nation! Thank god our carriers will be able to protect themselves!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
point8 wrote:
Firstly, .8 welcome to the forum. The problem is that the costs are not linear- if they were then a single Harrier T-bird could be really affordable as a banker's taxi - but the problem is that beyond basing mentioned by EasySt, there's all of the type specific training and overhead that is borne by increasingly fewer jets - making the last one you cut by far the most expensive one.
As a result, far more money is saved by cutting an entire fleet, and all of associated support and training.
S41
The savings being thrown around in the press are 1 Billion for JFH and 7.5 Billion for the GR4 force. Harrier OSD 2018, GR4 OSD 2025, 3 Harrier Squadrons, 8 GR4 Squadrons. so Based on 8 years for the 3 JFH and 15 years for the 8 GR4s gives 41.7 Million per year for a Harrier Squadron and 62.5 Million per year for a GR4 Squadron. I assume the figures include the potential savings in basing and infrastructure as well as the previously mentioned full per hour costs.
As a result, far more money is saved by cutting an entire fleet, and all of associated support and training.
S41
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watching George Osborne chatting about RN options on Andrew Marr earlier, I got the impression that no final decision has yet been made on what's going to be flying off 'the things' (nice to know he has grasped the more difficult technical terms). Either that, or he has forgotten what he agreed.
Here's a different take.
Will a mere 8% cut provide any incentive for DE&S to stop knowingly wasting money?
The headline Defence Budget is nearly £40Bn, but not all is equipment costs. An 8% cut applied to the equipment budget is about a Billion a year, perhaps less. Savings of that order, without affecting Operational Effectiveness, are relatively easy. In fact, 30% savings have been described as a "routine expectation of any project manager". I wonder how many project managers / project teams in DE&S have this expectation imposed upon them?
Only a couple of years ago, an unsolicited proposal to save over £100M on the support of one project alone, per year, was met with disdain and rejected as not worth the effort by MoD's Commercial Director. In fact, the contractor was shown the door and warned as to their future conduct. (How dare they identify efficiencies. That merely raises the bar for other teams. We can't have that).
It's about people. Ditch those who don't do their job properly. A root and branch review of DE&S and the wider Acquisition structure is required. For a start, there are Treasury agreed Grade Descriptions for every Civil Service grade in MoD. Not job descriptons, but the grade as a whole. How many typical project managers in DE&S meet the minima? Perhaps a dozen or so I reckon and all, by definition, will be retiring soon. Most don't meet the minima for 2 or 3 (or even 5) grades below them. No more promotions or pay rises until you retrospectively attain these core competencies and applied experience. And don't get me started on the number of grades and ranks above project managers who have no responsibiity or accountability, make no decisions, yet are paid more to, for all practical purposes, report to the project manager. As Shell Management has said elsewhere, I know of very few commercial entities who would dream of such a structure. There is much to admire about Bernard Gray's report.
Will a mere 8% cut provide any incentive for DE&S to stop knowingly wasting money?
The headline Defence Budget is nearly £40Bn, but not all is equipment costs. An 8% cut applied to the equipment budget is about a Billion a year, perhaps less. Savings of that order, without affecting Operational Effectiveness, are relatively easy. In fact, 30% savings have been described as a "routine expectation of any project manager". I wonder how many project managers / project teams in DE&S have this expectation imposed upon them?
Only a couple of years ago, an unsolicited proposal to save over £100M on the support of one project alone, per year, was met with disdain and rejected as not worth the effort by MoD's Commercial Director. In fact, the contractor was shown the door and warned as to their future conduct. (How dare they identify efficiencies. That merely raises the bar for other teams. We can't have that).
It's about people. Ditch those who don't do their job properly. A root and branch review of DE&S and the wider Acquisition structure is required. For a start, there are Treasury agreed Grade Descriptions for every Civil Service grade in MoD. Not job descriptons, but the grade as a whole. How many typical project managers in DE&S meet the minima? Perhaps a dozen or so I reckon and all, by definition, will be retiring soon. Most don't meet the minima for 2 or 3 (or even 5) grades below them. No more promotions or pay rises until you retrospectively attain these core competencies and applied experience. And don't get me started on the number of grades and ranks above project managers who have no responsibiity or accountability, make no decisions, yet are paid more to, for all practical purposes, report to the project manager. As Shell Management has said elsewhere, I know of very few commercial entities who would dream of such a structure. There is much to admire about Bernard Gray's report.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watching George Osborne chatting about RN options on Andrew Marr earlier, I got the impression that no final decision has yet been made on what's going to be flying off 'the things' (nice to know he has grasped the more difficult technical terms). Either that, or he has forgotten what he agreed.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: davey jones bathroom cabinet
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SEAD and AI; ALARM and stormshadow are both supposed to be integrated into typhoon.
I remember the questions that were being asked before GR4 was due to take over from 7/9 on the afghan tasking. Things like response times, AAR altitudes, fuel use, mission abort rate, servicability and detachment footprint were arguments against the deployment but the question quickly evolved from what is best? To what is acceptable? The FAF were doing it with super e and F1-no pod 1 bomb. So as the question moves beyond capability comparison it comes down to efficiency savings: if wittering has to stay open as an A4 hub, why not keep jets there? Are there any other similar arguments for keeping lossie/marham open?
I remember the questions that were being asked before GR4 was due to take over from 7/9 on the afghan tasking. Things like response times, AAR altitudes, fuel use, mission abort rate, servicability and detachment footprint were arguments against the deployment but the question quickly evolved from what is best? To what is acceptable? The FAF were doing it with super e and F1-no pod 1 bomb. So as the question moves beyond capability comparison it comes down to efficiency savings: if wittering has to stay open as an A4 hub, why not keep jets there? Are there any other similar arguments for keeping lossie/marham open?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mick,
He did indeed say that, but he prevaricated and ducked the question so much, I wondered if the plan was so cunning, that it hadn't yet been finalised in all its glory. I get the feeling that we'll be delivered the stopgap measure that was mooted here a month or two back, but delivering that piece of news on Marr was probably a bit too much for the Sunday morning market, and unless delivered in a controlled manner, would simply lead to a swathe of slow news day 'make do and mend' horror stories involving '30 year old' American aeroplanes.
He did indeed say that, but he prevaricated and ducked the question so much, I wondered if the plan was so cunning, that it hadn't yet been finalised in all its glory. I get the feeling that we'll be delivered the stopgap measure that was mooted here a month or two back, but delivering that piece of news on Marr was probably a bit too much for the Sunday morning market, and unless delivered in a controlled manner, would simply lead to a swathe of slow news day 'make do and mend' horror stories involving '30 year old' American aeroplanes.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed he was ducking and diving not wanting "preempt" what will be announced. But I thought that because he was ducking and diving to the questions, Marr pushed him and got a few replies that could be taken as that they plan something for the aircraft carriers, yes maybe a stop-gap measure that might also provide a reasoning for retiring the Harriers prematurely. I inserted [cunning] in a kind of nod to Baldrick as we all know how stupid his plans were.