Defence Review - Headlines
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any truth in this?
Does anyone know if there is any truth in this?
British Military Aviation Lists-- B.M.A.L News
British Military Aviation Lists-- B.M.A.L News
Jabba,
Thanks for the explanation ref E-3s.
What would happen if we simply said "We can't afford to run them any more, have the airframes, game over"? They're not going to kick us out of NATO over it, are they?
Thanks for the explanation ref E-3s.
What would happen if we simply said "We can't afford to run them any more, have the airframes, game over"? They're not going to kick us out of NATO over it, are they?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOTD:
Nah, they wouldnt do that.
Where do you think the UK funding comes from to run them? They're a NATO asset, despite wearing a pink and blue roundel. This is what I meant. We bought three out of the 8, NATO paid for the rest.
There is so much smoke and mirrors that you wouldnt believe it, you really wouldnt.
Nah, they wouldnt do that.
Where do you think the UK funding comes from to run them? They're a NATO asset, despite wearing a pink and blue roundel. This is what I meant. We bought three out of the 8, NATO paid for the rest.
There is so much smoke and mirrors that you wouldnt believe it, you really wouldnt.
Jabba,
You're right, especially about the smoke and mirrors - what worries me is that if they haven't done the sums right, there may be further cuts needed to achieve the required savings. I wonder how much worse it may get...
TOTD
You're right, especially about the smoke and mirrors - what worries me is that if they haven't done the sums right, there may be further cuts needed to achieve the required savings. I wonder how much worse it may get...
TOTD
With regard to the NAEWF & E3 question, I was recently informed that 5 of the 8 were bought with NATO money anyway in the first place under the 75%-25% type of deal that NATO is well known for.
That's apart from the fact we only bought 7.
sv
I offer this perspective to anyone seeking solid/specific answers to detailed SDSR questions.....
The decision making process is simple....
The medium level boys (Wg Cdr and Sqn Ldr) write/research lots of papers on options, e.g. not introducing MRA4, which include cost and capability implications.
The big boys (3/4* and politicians) sit in a room and decide which options to impliment - BUT THEY DON'T TELL ANYONE FURTHER DOWN THE CHAIN WHAT THOSE DECISIONS ARE, IN CASE IT LEAKS BEFORE THE MINISTER/PM GETS TO ANNOUNCE IT TO PARLIAMENT/THE MEDIA.
About 30 minutes before the briefing by the Minister/PM the players in the system (e.g. Stn Cdr ISK, RAF Manning) open their sealed envelopes and read the contents, before saying.."oh my god".
So all the people who sort out the detail, RAF Manning, Stn Cdrs, Sqn Cdrs have no time to do any prior preparation, and will spend the next 2 months playing catch up.....
Ask all the questions you want, just don't expect any solid answers for quite a while yet, they have not been worked out so far!!
That is how I see the situation based on previous recent experience, I do not work in a Gp HQ or MOD.... Standing by to be contradicted.
The decision making process is simple....
The medium level boys (Wg Cdr and Sqn Ldr) write/research lots of papers on options, e.g. not introducing MRA4, which include cost and capability implications.
The big boys (3/4* and politicians) sit in a room and decide which options to impliment - BUT THEY DON'T TELL ANYONE FURTHER DOWN THE CHAIN WHAT THOSE DECISIONS ARE, IN CASE IT LEAKS BEFORE THE MINISTER/PM GETS TO ANNOUNCE IT TO PARLIAMENT/THE MEDIA.
About 30 minutes before the briefing by the Minister/PM the players in the system (e.g. Stn Cdr ISK, RAF Manning) open their sealed envelopes and read the contents, before saying.."oh my god".
So all the people who sort out the detail, RAF Manning, Stn Cdrs, Sqn Cdrs have no time to do any prior preparation, and will spend the next 2 months playing catch up.....
Ask all the questions you want, just don't expect any solid answers for quite a while yet, they have not been worked out so far!!
That is how I see the situation based on previous recent experience, I do not work in a Gp HQ or MOD.... Standing by to be contradicted.
View from across the pond, courtesy of the streetwiseprofessor
This was all brought home this afternoon when watching a show on the rise of the Royal Navy (an episode on Sir Francis Drake, the Armada, etc.) and then, in jarring juxtaposition, reading an article on the gutting of that self-same Royal Navy (already a shadow of its former self, as my visit to Portsmouth this June made painfully clear.) Deeming it impossible to afford both a carrier and the planes to fly off it, the Cameron government went with the carrier, axed its Harrier force, and announced plans to operate the carriers as helo ships for 8-10 years before buying F-35s. I would bet dimes to donuts that in 10 years, that purchase decision will be kicked down the road like a rusty can. (An appropriate metaphor, alas, for the “modern” British navy.) The whole decision is an absurdity, a political compromise completely unhinged from any strategic concept.
I’ve often said that the UK is like the Ghost of Christmas Future, giving us a glimpse of what the future holds if we continue down the path we are on now. That’s true of economic policy, social policy, and foreign/military policy. The absurdity of a carrier with no planes should serve to concentrate American minds today on what years of neglect will do.
But it’s even worse than that. When asked: if not Britain, who?, post-1945 the answer was obvious–the US. If you ask today: If not the US, who? the only answer is silence. The silence of a vacuum that will be filled by . . .
I’ve often said that the UK is like the Ghost of Christmas Future, giving us a glimpse of what the future holds if we continue down the path we are on now. That’s true of economic policy, social policy, and foreign/military policy. The absurdity of a carrier with no planes should serve to concentrate American minds today on what years of neglect will do.
But it’s even worse than that. When asked: if not Britain, who?, post-1945 the answer was obvious–the US. If you ask today: If not the US, who? the only answer is silence. The silence of a vacuum that will be filled by . . .
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: North of the UK's no.1 aircraft carrier parking spot
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very wishy-washy official statement from the US DoD:
Statement by Press Secretary Geoff Morrell on the U.K. Strategic Defense and Security Review
<http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13986>
Presumably it's a brave person who points out that with F-35B now being developed purely for the US Marine Corps to replace their AV-8Bs, they're more than likely going to end up with no 'fast air' for their Amphibious Ready Groups in the future. Welcome to the club!
Statement by Press Secretary Geoff Morrell on the U.K. Strategic Defense and Security Review
<http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13986>
Presumably it's a brave person who points out that with F-35B now being developed purely for the US Marine Corps to replace their AV-8Bs, they're more than likely going to end up with no 'fast air' for their Amphibious Ready Groups in the future. Welcome to the club!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,047
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
HMS Prince of Wales............ Rather apt isn't it, full of worldly dreams but f all up top..
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South Oxon
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't it be wise to rather than scrap HMS Ark Royal immedietly as such, to mothball it, so (god forbid) in times of need it is 'on hand' to bolster the Navy, or if the other carrier goes 'tech', Ark Royal can take its place?
Personally i think getting rid of the Harriers or rather a carrier with no Harriers on it is absurd,hyperthetically would it cost a collosal amount to maintain a sqn of Harriers for useage on the 'existing' carrier still so it contains some kind of firepower to defend itself at least aswell as supporting missions where needed until the advent of the JSF etc (my view again is why not buy the cheaper F18)??
My grandfather (was in the Navy) would be turning in his grave to see how the forces and in particular the Navy is now a shadow of its former self. I can understand cuts if its essential but it kinda takes the p*ss really. Only my pennies worth & apologise if this kind of reply has been posted already.
Personally i think getting rid of the Harriers or rather a carrier with no Harriers on it is absurd,hyperthetically would it cost a collosal amount to maintain a sqn of Harriers for useage on the 'existing' carrier still so it contains some kind of firepower to defend itself at least aswell as supporting missions where needed until the advent of the JSF etc (my view again is why not buy the cheaper F18)??
My grandfather (was in the Navy) would be turning in his grave to see how the forces and in particular the Navy is now a shadow of its former self. I can understand cuts if its essential but it kinda takes the p*ss really. Only my pennies worth & apologise if this kind of reply has been posted already.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SDSR - National Alert Status Reviewed.
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats, and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved". Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross". The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940, when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance". The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards". They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender". The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing". Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides".
The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs". They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose".
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Americans meanwhile, and as usual, are carrying out pre-emptive strikes on all of their allies "just in case".
Canada doesn't have any alert levels.
New Zealand has raised its security levels - from "baaa" to "BAAAA". Due to continuing defense cutbacks, New Zealand has only one more level of escalation, which is "I hope Australia will come and rescue us".
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, mate". Three more escalation levels remain: "Crikey!",
"I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is cancelled". So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.
The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards". They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender". The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing". Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides".
The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs". They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose".
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Americans meanwhile, and as usual, are carrying out pre-emptive strikes on all of their allies "just in case".
Canada doesn't have any alert levels.
New Zealand has raised its security levels - from "baaa" to "BAAAA". Due to continuing defense cutbacks, New Zealand has only one more level of escalation, which is "I hope Australia will come and rescue us".
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, mate". Three more escalation levels remain: "Crikey!",
"I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is cancelled". So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A gamble too far?
Defence cuts: The Royal Navy’s decision to bet its future on aircraft carriers could be a gamble too far
The defence review was expected to shred the RAF. But in the end, it was perhaps the Navy that came out worst, suffering proportionately the greatest cuts in personnel — 14 per cent — of any of the three Services. It is tempting to see the shrinking of the Fleet, and Ark Royal’s fate in particular, as metaphors for Britain’s military decline. But in fact, the reason why the Navy may be in trouble is not because it’s losing old aircraft carriers — but because it’s getting two new ones.
“The Navy have bet a good part of the farm on a new carrier capability that isn’t guaranteed to happen,” said Tim Ripley, an analyst with Jane’s Information Group. “They have effectively given up their carrier strike capability now in return for an IOU of carrier strike in the future.”
“The Navy have bet a good part of the farm on a new carrier capability that isn’t guaranteed to happen,” said Tim Ripley, an analyst with Jane’s Information Group. “They have effectively given up their carrier strike capability now in return for an IOU of carrier strike in the future.”
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spending Review 2010: Military chiefs fight cut backs to private education for children - Telegraph, 2:14PM GMT 31 Oct 2010
The top brass in the Army, Royal Air Force and Navy are said to have “pulled out all the stops” to keep the allowance, which can be worth £17,000 per child per year.
Reports this weekend indicated that the Ministry of Defence and Treasury had caved in to the lobbying, although this was denied by senior Ministry of Defence sources.
Reports this weekend indicated that the Ministry of Defence and Treasury had caved in to the lobbying, although this was denied by senior Ministry of Defence sources.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hints as to the replacement plans for the GR4 force with F-35C, and how the numbers will be determined...
DOD Buzz: Drones to Influence U.K. F-35C Buy
The development of next generation combat UAVs along with the health of the Royal Air Force’s current fighter fleet will be key factors in determining how many F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters the United Kingdom buys in the coming years, a senior British defense official said today.
“We know the number of F-35s we need” for a carrier air wing but have yet to decide on how many ground based JSFs are needed to perform “deep and persistent” missions, Gen. Nicholas Houghton, vice chief of the British defense staff said during a presentation in Washington sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
To this end, British officials will weigh progress made in fielding unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) in the next five years against the service lives of the island nation’s fleet of existing fighters when determining Britain’s F-35 buy. These questions will ultimately be answered when the U.K. conducts its next strategic defense revue in 2015, according to the general.
The Royal Air Force plans to eventually operate fly a fleet of Eurofighter Typhoons and F-35s. The Typhoon is already replacing the RAF’s F3 air superiority-variant Tornadoes while the GR4 ground attack variant will eventually be replaced by F-35s.
Meanwhile, a desire for increased range, payload and interoperability with the United States and French navies combined with concerns about rising costs led to last month’s decision by the United Kingdom to swap its planned buy of 138 short take-off and vertical landing F-35B-model JSFs for an unspecified number of F-35C carrier variants, Houghton said.
The desire to keep costs down and get more performance out of U.K. F-35s combined with the fact that British naval aviators could be training for carrier operations on U.S. and French aircraft carriers for the next decade “played into the discussion and ultimately the decision” by London to trade JSF variants, Houghton said.
All of this comes amid reports that the beleaguered fighter program may need as much as $2.5 to $5 billion in additional funding and will face several years worth of delays, with the B-version of the plane slipping by as much as three years.
DOD Buzz: Drones to Influence U.K. F-35C Buy
The development of next generation combat UAVs along with the health of the Royal Air Force’s current fighter fleet will be key factors in determining how many F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters the United Kingdom buys in the coming years, a senior British defense official said today.
“We know the number of F-35s we need” for a carrier air wing but have yet to decide on how many ground based JSFs are needed to perform “deep and persistent” missions, Gen. Nicholas Houghton, vice chief of the British defense staff said during a presentation in Washington sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
To this end, British officials will weigh progress made in fielding unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) in the next five years against the service lives of the island nation’s fleet of existing fighters when determining Britain’s F-35 buy. These questions will ultimately be answered when the U.K. conducts its next strategic defense revue in 2015, according to the general.
The Royal Air Force plans to eventually operate fly a fleet of Eurofighter Typhoons and F-35s. The Typhoon is already replacing the RAF’s F3 air superiority-variant Tornadoes while the GR4 ground attack variant will eventually be replaced by F-35s.
Meanwhile, a desire for increased range, payload and interoperability with the United States and French navies combined with concerns about rising costs led to last month’s decision by the United Kingdom to swap its planned buy of 138 short take-off and vertical landing F-35B-model JSFs for an unspecified number of F-35C carrier variants, Houghton said.
The desire to keep costs down and get more performance out of U.K. F-35s combined with the fact that British naval aviators could be training for carrier operations on U.S. and French aircraft carriers for the next decade “played into the discussion and ultimately the decision” by London to trade JSF variants, Houghton said.
All of this comes amid reports that the beleaguered fighter program may need as much as $2.5 to $5 billion in additional funding and will face several years worth of delays, with the B-version of the plane slipping by as much as three years.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile, more good news.
Pentagon Said to See Higher F-35 Costs, More Delays - BusinessWeek
Interesting IF true on Dave-B delays - harder than ever to see why Dave-B should survive.
S41
Pentagon Said to See Higher F-35 Costs, More Delays - BusinessWeek
Interesting IF true on Dave-B delays - harder than ever to see why Dave-B should survive.
S41