SDSR - The alternative view...
Thread Starter
SDSR - The alternative view...
Let's face it, the Country is skint and spending needs to come under control thanks to the previous clowns in government. I actually think that the SDSR is pretty good from the Govt given a "hospital pass" from the previous encumbents! Here's my two-penneth:
RN
Kept the 2 "big ticket" items alive with CVF and Trident. Well played as the "smaller ticket" items will be played for at a later date?
Saving money right now by ditching Ark Royal and/or Lusty or Ocean.
Saved the Royal Marines
Army
Merging the many Division HQs into one - just like Navy and Air did some time ago.
Get rid of lots of tanks that have done c0ck all for years!
Reduce artillery numbers - unguided munitions are becoming a thing of the past.
Reduce their uniformed Admin overhead - about time too, the RN and RAF did this 15 years ago.
RAF
Reducing HQ Air by 25%.
Ditching the lame duck, and from what I hear, questionably safety audited MRA4.
Ditching single role capabilities like Sentinel after Afghan ops are over to be replaced by undisclosed multi-role capability.
Ditching GR9 - that only went on ops twice using VSTOL in Sierra Leone and Falklands, the rest of the time using CTOL.
Winding back RAF Regt a little bit - how on earth can we justify the current levels of FP after Afghanistan is over?
Rationalising the SH and AT fleets.
Joint stuff
Rationalising the Defence Estate - long overdue!
Manpower - the emotive bit!
Civil Servants - shock of 1/3rd to go, but let's face it long overdue. I know Service Guys at DE&S in departments with 20-odd people in it who exclaim they have no idea what they all do/achieve! For example, what does the Program Support Function actually do!!! Why do we still have service travel cells with 2-3 civil servants when we can easily book online using a Wg Cdr's or Gp Capt's corporate GPC? I would suggest that many savings can be made - just depends on the Unions!!!
RN - 5,000. Hard, but I suggest achievable when you look at maybe 20% redundancy and the rest natural wastage/low recruiting.
Army - 7,000. As said above, plenty of fat to be trimmed within the Army's Admin overhead.
RAF - 5,000. Hard, but again achievable like the Navy.
I suspect that there will be jobs in and around the new force structure under private support contracts; so with a nice redundacy package and immediate pension this might not be so bad.
From an RAF perspective, at least all the "let's chop the RAF and give it to the RN and Army b0ll0x went away". I honestly believe that this is the best we could have hoped for and I believe that the Govt and Def Chiefs have got it about right.
So there you are, I thought I would post an alternative view - it makes a change from my usual whining and whinging!
Standing by for incoming!!!
LJ
RN
Kept the 2 "big ticket" items alive with CVF and Trident. Well played as the "smaller ticket" items will be played for at a later date?
Saving money right now by ditching Ark Royal and/or Lusty or Ocean.
Saved the Royal Marines
Army
Merging the many Division HQs into one - just like Navy and Air did some time ago.
Get rid of lots of tanks that have done c0ck all for years!
Reduce artillery numbers - unguided munitions are becoming a thing of the past.
Reduce their uniformed Admin overhead - about time too, the RN and RAF did this 15 years ago.
RAF
Reducing HQ Air by 25%.
Ditching the lame duck, and from what I hear, questionably safety audited MRA4.
Ditching single role capabilities like Sentinel after Afghan ops are over to be replaced by undisclosed multi-role capability.
Ditching GR9 - that only went on ops twice using VSTOL in Sierra Leone and Falklands, the rest of the time using CTOL.
Winding back RAF Regt a little bit - how on earth can we justify the current levels of FP after Afghanistan is over?
Rationalising the SH and AT fleets.
Joint stuff
Rationalising the Defence Estate - long overdue!
Manpower - the emotive bit!
Civil Servants - shock of 1/3rd to go, but let's face it long overdue. I know Service Guys at DE&S in departments with 20-odd people in it who exclaim they have no idea what they all do/achieve! For example, what does the Program Support Function actually do!!! Why do we still have service travel cells with 2-3 civil servants when we can easily book online using a Wg Cdr's or Gp Capt's corporate GPC? I would suggest that many savings can be made - just depends on the Unions!!!
RN - 5,000. Hard, but I suggest achievable when you look at maybe 20% redundancy and the rest natural wastage/low recruiting.
Army - 7,000. As said above, plenty of fat to be trimmed within the Army's Admin overhead.
RAF - 5,000. Hard, but again achievable like the Navy.
I suspect that there will be jobs in and around the new force structure under private support contracts; so with a nice redundacy package and immediate pension this might not be so bad.
From an RAF perspective, at least all the "let's chop the RAF and give it to the RN and Army b0ll0x went away". I honestly believe that this is the best we could have hoped for and I believe that the Govt and Def Chiefs have got it about right.
So there you are, I thought I would post an alternative view - it makes a change from my usual whining and whinging!
Standing by for incoming!!!
LJ
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Soft ones are registry staffs at MOB, mess staffs that have not been contractorised yet, stores, MT?
Or hard ones such as the HQ staffs at DTE and DE etc?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 62
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon,
Thank you for showing some moral courage and speaking against the tide of angst. Whilst it is tragic news for a chunk of our personnel, it could have been much, much, much worse. I agree with you. At the risk of being branded a toady I think CAS has played a blinder in the face of Army and Navy leaking and backstabbing and much ill-informed nonesense. The RAF of 2020 owes a great deal to Sir Steve and the others that have worked so hard over the last few months.
****ty times... but let's see what happens to the police etc
Thank you for showing some moral courage and speaking against the tide of angst. Whilst it is tragic news for a chunk of our personnel, it could have been much, much, much worse. I agree with you. At the risk of being branded a toady I think CAS has played a blinder in the face of Army and Navy leaking and backstabbing and much ill-informed nonesense. The RAF of 2020 owes a great deal to Sir Steve and the others that have worked so hard over the last few months.
****ty times... but let's see what happens to the police etc
Thread Starter
North Front
Thanks mate - for what its worth I could be one of the 25% at Air Cmd that gets the chop! But hey, we'll all find jobs if we're worth our salt; which I believe all service folk truly are.
LJ
Thanks mate - for what its worth I could be one of the 25% at Air Cmd that gets the chop! But hey, we'll all find jobs if we're worth our salt; which I believe all service folk truly are.
LJ
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: X:0 Y:0 Z:0 (relative to myself obviously)
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
leon said...
is this a 'real rumour' or have you just made it up? The sdsr does not even hint at any replacement for sentinel or any other big grey over budget recently cancelled project. (other than RJ)
Ditching single role capabilities like Sentinel after Afghan ops are over to be replaced by undisclosed multi-role capability
Thread Starter
It will also have strategic surveillance and intelligence platforms as part of our broader ISTAR capability, including: E-3D Sentry AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) to provide airborne command, control and surveillance; Rivet Joint signals intelligence aircraft to provide independent strategic intelligence gathering; and a range of remotely piloted air systems.
The U.K. MoD has recently launched its Scavenger ISTAR requirement with the aim of down-selecting a winning UAV design in 2012. The UAV will be optimised for deep and persistent ISTAR beyond the UK’s existing General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper armed UAV. The down-select will, of course, depend on the outcome of the UK’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), which is due to be concluded by September 2010. Scavenger will be a sub-element of a wider ISTAR project, now known as Soloman, but previously entitled Dabinett and intended to improve the analysis and dissemination of intelligence.
SOURCE:Flight International
Northrop Grumman eyes UK Global Hawk sale
By Andrew Doyle
Northrop Grumman is looking at innovative financing options in an effort to further its "aspiration" of selling Global Hawk unmanned air systems to the UK, despite looming cuts to the country's defence budget.
The US company expects to hold discussions with UK Ministry of Defence officials at this month's Farnborough air show about the potential use of the Global Hawk to meet UK surveillance requirements.
Ian Milne, Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems vice-president for the UK, Scandinavia and the Baltics, says the company is prepared to look at a service-provision arrangement as the UK's tight defence budget may preclude an outright sale.
Could the Global Hawk meet the UK's Scavenger requirements ?
The large UAV platform is being offered in competition with several others to meet the UK's Scavenger requirement, which seeks a persistent intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capability to enter use from around 2015 to 2018.
The Global Hawk has already been selected by NATO, and the Euro Hawk version being developed together with EADS to meet Germany's signals intelligence needs recently had its first flight.
"If you look at the range of roles that the Global Hawk is currently doing, from broad area maritime surveillance using SAR/GMTI radars, to SIGINT packages, to lots of other things, there may well be an opportunity in the future if the UK decides a substantial UAV could take on some of these roles," says Milne.
For a UK acquisition of Global Hawk, he says there are "innovative business models we could consider, rather than saying 'here is the unit price, goodbye'. Maybe we could do some form of power-by-the-hour, or surveillance-by-the-square-kilometre. This is something that the company is going to have to offer if it is to address markets that are fiscally stretched, such as the UK."
Northrop believes that the long-endurance multi-intelligence vehicle hybrid airship - recently selected by the US Army - could also be a candidate for Scavenger. The company is partnered with UK-based Hybrid Air Vehicles for the project.
Northrop Grumman eyes UK Global Hawk sale
By Andrew Doyle
Northrop Grumman is looking at innovative financing options in an effort to further its "aspiration" of selling Global Hawk unmanned air systems to the UK, despite looming cuts to the country's defence budget.
The US company expects to hold discussions with UK Ministry of Defence officials at this month's Farnborough air show about the potential use of the Global Hawk to meet UK surveillance requirements.
Ian Milne, Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems vice-president for the UK, Scandinavia and the Baltics, says the company is prepared to look at a service-provision arrangement as the UK's tight defence budget may preclude an outright sale.
Could the Global Hawk meet the UK's Scavenger requirements ?
The large UAV platform is being offered in competition with several others to meet the UK's Scavenger requirement, which seeks a persistent intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capability to enter use from around 2015 to 2018.
The Global Hawk has already been selected by NATO, and the Euro Hawk version being developed together with EADS to meet Germany's signals intelligence needs recently had its first flight.
"If you look at the range of roles that the Global Hawk is currently doing, from broad area maritime surveillance using SAR/GMTI radars, to SIGINT packages, to lots of other things, there may well be an opportunity in the future if the UK decides a substantial UAV could take on some of these roles," says Milne.
For a UK acquisition of Global Hawk, he says there are "innovative business models we could consider, rather than saying 'here is the unit price, goodbye'. Maybe we could do some form of power-by-the-hour, or surveillance-by-the-square-kilometre. This is something that the company is going to have to offer if it is to address markets that are fiscally stretched, such as the UK."
Northrop believes that the long-endurance multi-intelligence vehicle hybrid airship - recently selected by the US Army - could also be a candidate for Scavenger. The company is partnered with UK-based Hybrid Air Vehicles for the project.
More info to read between the lines...
DATE:13/07/10
SOURCE:Flight International
FARNBOROUGH: UK unmanned air vehicles
By Craig Hoyle
The RAF expects to continue flying its Reapers for as long as UK forces remain in Afghanistan, but the MoD has already outlined its plans to acquire a replacement persistent intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capability to enter use around 2015-17. Current offerings could include BAE Systems' Mantis, the EADS UK-promoted X-UAS/Talarion and General Atomics' Predator C/Avenger designs.
SOURCE:Flight International
FARNBOROUGH: UK unmanned air vehicles
By Craig Hoyle
The RAF expects to continue flying its Reapers for as long as UK forces remain in Afghanistan, but the MoD has already outlined its plans to acquire a replacement persistent intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capability to enter use around 2015-17. Current offerings could include BAE Systems' Mantis, the EADS UK-promoted X-UAS/Talarion and General Atomics' Predator C/Avenger designs.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A fair counterpoint, well played.
However, there are two very serious issues that get a decided thumbs-down in terms of capability.
1. No Maritime Patrol capability. As an island nation, that's just plain stupid. As the nuclear deterrent rests on submarines that must deploy from a single base on patrol, and when that single base is in a confined channel, the deletion of this capability severely compromises the credibility of the deterrent. If Ivan truly wanted to kick off, all he has to do is deploy his submarines against the departing patrol boat to nullify any response. What are we going to do? Hastily re-arm one of the other boats and launch an attack from the surface in Faslane? When Faslane has just been nuked?
2. A decade of no offensive aircraft at sea. We'd have been better off putting a few million into HMS Belfast to at least give a gunboat diplomacy option. A lot more credible than an aircraftless carrier in five years.
Other than that, not a bad defence, but those two holes are gaping wounds with not so much as a bandaid in sight for one, and the promise of a prosthetic in 10 years time for the other.
However, there are two very serious issues that get a decided thumbs-down in terms of capability.
1. No Maritime Patrol capability. As an island nation, that's just plain stupid. As the nuclear deterrent rests on submarines that must deploy from a single base on patrol, and when that single base is in a confined channel, the deletion of this capability severely compromises the credibility of the deterrent. If Ivan truly wanted to kick off, all he has to do is deploy his submarines against the departing patrol boat to nullify any response. What are we going to do? Hastily re-arm one of the other boats and launch an attack from the surface in Faslane? When Faslane has just been nuked?
2. A decade of no offensive aircraft at sea. We'd have been better off putting a few million into HMS Belfast to at least give a gunboat diplomacy option. A lot more credible than an aircraftless carrier in five years.
Other than that, not a bad defence, but those two holes are gaping wounds with not so much as a bandaid in sight for one, and the promise of a prosthetic in 10 years time for the other.
Willard - I would love to think you're right, but I can't help but suspect that we'll end up with a PoS like Mantis, rather than something "foreign" (and proven, and cheaper, and better, and so on....)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French defence minister Herve Morin recently told the French parliament that the country is quite keen to work with the UK to develop a "remotely piloted air system" that would also meet that Scavenger requirement. They appear to be also keen on buying the Reaper as a short-term solution until such a system is available. Probably can now discount everything else on that list now other than the only twin-engined offering that isn't the Talarion or American.
1. No Maritime Patrol capability. As an island nation, that's just plain stupid. As the nuclear deterrent rests on submarines that must deploy from a single base on patrol, and when that single base is in a confined channel, the deletion of this capability severely compromises the credibility of the deterrent. If Ivan truly wanted to kick off, all he has to do is deploy his submarines against the departing patrol boat to nullify any response. What are we going to do? Hastily re-arm one of the other boats and launch an attack from the surface in Faslane? When Faslane has just been nuked?
2. A decade of no offensive aircraft at sea. We'd have been better off putting a few million into HMS Belfast to at least give a gunboat diplomacy option. A lot more credible than an aircraftless carrier in five years.
Leon,
I broadly agree with you, but I do think the cuts could have been far better targeted. Getting rid of the Nimrod while keeping E-3 and Red Arrows? I have nothing against either Reds or Sentries, but an MPA is surely much more use to us?
B Word,
Several problems with your suggestion: the RN SK5s are all about to be scrapped, and the E-3 is highly unlikely to see use as a SAR C2 platform due to the difficulty of holding a high readiness (I was told this by an E-3 wallah recently). Even if they managed to get on scene, they would be nowhere near as proficient at providing top cover as a Nimrod crew due to lack of experience/training at the role. Maybe we could have a whip round and send some copies of the IAMSAR manual to Waddington?
I broadly agree with you, but I do think the cuts could have been far better targeted. Getting rid of the Nimrod while keeping E-3 and Red Arrows? I have nothing against either Reds or Sentries, but an MPA is surely much more use to us?
B Word,
Several problems with your suggestion: the RN SK5s are all about to be scrapped, and the E-3 is highly unlikely to see use as a SAR C2 platform due to the difficulty of holding a high readiness (I was told this by an E-3 wallah recently). Even if they managed to get on scene, they would be nowhere near as proficient at providing top cover as a Nimrod crew due to lack of experience/training at the role. Maybe we could have a whip round and send some copies of the IAMSAR manual to Waddington?
TOTD
Ok, how about Merlin HAS1 (or are they called HM1 yet?) - sorry forgot the SK pingers were OSD soon. As for readiness for E-3D - 120 is readily achievable, I know, I've done it! (can do 60 at a push or even 30 from the jet - with crew fatigue limfacs). On scene they have a multitude of HF/VHF/UHF/SATCOM plus AUTOCAT and datalinks - plus they have qualified controllers to control rescue helicopters and aircraft using one of the most powerful surveillance radars you can get. C2 is the E-3D's raison-d'etre and so I see no issues. As for experience, I would estimate the average E-3D crew has 3 or 4 ex-Nimrod guys on board its normal crew of 18. The trouble for the E-3D is that they can't be everywhere at once so if you task it for SAR standby then you can't sit QRA, go to Afghanistan or do normal NATO AEW duties (and the odd Red Flag etc...) - too few crews and not enough aircraft. I guess the planners will need to decide where the priority lay?
the RN SK5s are all about to be scrapped, and the E-3 is highly unlikely to see use as a SAR C2 platform due to the difficulty of holding a high readiness (I was told this by an E-3 wallah recently). Even if they managed to get on scene, they would be nowhere near as proficient at providing top cover as a Nimrod crew due to lack of experience/training at the role
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ
"Ditching the lame duck, and from what I hear, questionably safety audited MRA4."
There was no question about the safety audit process, it was carried out with due diligence and some issues were raised. These issues were being worked to an agreed resolution (they actually accrued to a less than 10 minus 15 event but the project decided they should be looked at anyway) in line with current MAA advice and in the spirit of post-HC guidance. The project was trying to do the right thing. If we (MRA4) have been sacrificed for 'doing the right thing' then there is no point in continuing. I would much prefer to end my RAF career doing the right thing, rather than continuing to 'make do' and hoping I won't get caught out.
P.S
The B Word
How many times are you allowed to fire up that big 'ol AEW radar (with a martime mode that is as subtle as "F&*K me, there's a contact on the surface") dish in peacetime?
As a recently made redundant maritime puke of 20 years, if you f^&k3rs could have done our job, we would have been out of business years ago.
It's arseh*les like you who get promoted and end up making ****e policy decisions that have no basis in anything other than your own, selfish interests.
There was no question about the safety audit process, it was carried out with due diligence and some issues were raised. These issues were being worked to an agreed resolution (they actually accrued to a less than 10 minus 15 event but the project decided they should be looked at anyway) in line with current MAA advice and in the spirit of post-HC guidance. The project was trying to do the right thing. If we (MRA4) have been sacrificed for 'doing the right thing' then there is no point in continuing. I would much prefer to end my RAF career doing the right thing, rather than continuing to 'make do' and hoping I won't get caught out.
P.S
The B Word
How many times are you allowed to fire up that big 'ol AEW radar (with a martime mode that is as subtle as "F&*K me, there's a contact on the surface") dish in peacetime?
As a recently made redundant maritime puke of 20 years, if you f^&k3rs could have done our job, we would have been out of business years ago.
It's arseh*les like you who get promoted and end up making ****e policy decisions that have no basis in anything other than your own, selfish interests.
Last edited by ShortFatOne; 20th Oct 2010 at 00:50.
Thread Starter
Shortfatone
Sorry poor use of "audit". From what I understand, the audit picked up a bunch of issues that never should have been there in the first place. I've heard some real horror stories but I don't know what truth is attached to them - care to shed any light?
There are, however, some irefutable facts surrounding MRA4:
12 years late
Hugely over budget
1st and only aircraft delivered last March
Hardly turned a wheel up until now (October)
Didn't go to RIAT or Farnnorough (even prototype with TPs)
I smell something fishy and it's not a kipper!
LJ
Sorry poor use of "audit". From what I understand, the audit picked up a bunch of issues that never should have been there in the first place. I've heard some real horror stories but I don't know what truth is attached to them - care to shed any light?
There are, however, some irefutable facts surrounding MRA4:
12 years late
Hugely over budget
1st and only aircraft delivered last March
Hardly turned a wheel up until now (October)
Didn't go to RIAT or Farnnorough (even prototype with TPs)
I smell something fishy and it's not a kipper!
LJ
Handbags at dawn, eh?
By the way, I never said it would totally replace an MPAs bespoke capabilities, but it can offer some offset to the huge capability gap the loss of MRA4 will leave. If we had used the lessons we learned with Nimwacs and gone for a better idea than MRA4 then I suggest this whole sorry mess wouldn't be happening right now - quite simply the MoD/RAF backed a loser with MRA4.
Plenty of jobs coming up for ISTAR Aircrew and Engs on Support Helos, Reaper, RIVET JOINT, Shadow and Scavenger over the next few years; you'll just need to uproot from Morayshire to take them.
PS You can turn the AN/APY on and off, as and when - I don't get your point? It is designed for high level work and is optimised for a wide area picture, if that's what you're getting at.
By the way, I never said it would totally replace an MPAs bespoke capabilities, but it can offer some offset to the huge capability gap the loss of MRA4 will leave. If we had used the lessons we learned with Nimwacs and gone for a better idea than MRA4 then I suggest this whole sorry mess wouldn't be happening right now - quite simply the MoD/RAF backed a loser with MRA4.
Plenty of jobs coming up for ISTAR Aircrew and Engs on Support Helos, Reaper, RIVET JOINT, Shadow and Scavenger over the next few years; you'll just need to uproot from Morayshire to take them.
PS You can turn the AN/APY on and off, as and when - I don't get your point? It is designed for high level work and is optimised for a wide area picture, if that's what you're getting at.