Defence Cuts
Guest
Posts: n/a
Defence Cuts
The Sunday Times:
June 3 2001 BRITAIN
Ministers plan big new defence cuts
James Clark, Home Affairs Correspondent
MINISTERS are secretly planning swingeing cuts to flagship military projects after the election in an attempt to balance the defence budget.
Senior officers have been surprised to learn that new aircraft carriers, the joint strike fighter (JSF) replacement for the Harrier, several transport aircraft and at least one missile project may be abandoned.
Officials have to find savings of hundreds of millions of pounds from the £23 billion defence budget. Many important projects promised to the forces during Labour's 1998 strategic defence review are now under threat.
As well as the planned carrier fleet, JSF and the Tracer missile system, armoured regiments face cutbacks and mechanised infantry face "reorganisation".
Most of these projects secured the support of senior officers during the defence review, but any attempt to scrap them could lead to a breach with ministers and would be a stern first test for the new chief of defence staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce.
The review has been prompted by what a senior Ministry of Defence (MoD) source called "a cashflow crisis".
He said: "The problem is that we're procuring things so much faster than we used to and we suddenly find ourselves with lots of bills to pay earlier than expected - bulges in expenditure. That means looking again at our long-term acquisitions."
However, Tories claim the plans are evidence of the determination of the chancellor, Gordon Brown, to claw back cash from defence.
Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory defence spokesman, said: "This is armed forces on the cheap. Labour have been lying through their teeth about defence for four years and this will send our armed forces into a state of crisis."
The news of planned cuts comes as another report, by two senior figures at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies (RUSI), claims that £8 billion plans to introduce two new super-carriers in 2012 will never happen.
Sir Michael Alexander, former ambassador to Nato and chairman of the RUSI, and Sir Timothy Garden, former assistant chief of defence staff, said: "There can be little chance that the carriers envisaged will ever be built."
Meanwhile, Washington appears to be getting cold feet about the JSF aircraft, which is a joint project with Britain. The plane is planned to replace the ageing Harrier jump-jet and would fly from the new carrier fleet, but withdrawal of US cash would stop it.
Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, secured the first rise in the defence budget for more than a decade last year. An MoD source close to him insisted yesterday: "This will not be about great cuts. It is a sensible review of where we are going, a procurement health check if you like." But he refused to rule out the axeing of projects.
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 03 June 2001).]
June 3 2001 BRITAIN
Ministers plan big new defence cuts
James Clark, Home Affairs Correspondent
MINISTERS are secretly planning swingeing cuts to flagship military projects after the election in an attempt to balance the defence budget.
Senior officers have been surprised to learn that new aircraft carriers, the joint strike fighter (JSF) replacement for the Harrier, several transport aircraft and at least one missile project may be abandoned.
Officials have to find savings of hundreds of millions of pounds from the £23 billion defence budget. Many important projects promised to the forces during Labour's 1998 strategic defence review are now under threat.
As well as the planned carrier fleet, JSF and the Tracer missile system, armoured regiments face cutbacks and mechanised infantry face "reorganisation".
Most of these projects secured the support of senior officers during the defence review, but any attempt to scrap them could lead to a breach with ministers and would be a stern first test for the new chief of defence staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce.
The review has been prompted by what a senior Ministry of Defence (MoD) source called "a cashflow crisis".
He said: "The problem is that we're procuring things so much faster than we used to and we suddenly find ourselves with lots of bills to pay earlier than expected - bulges in expenditure. That means looking again at our long-term acquisitions."
However, Tories claim the plans are evidence of the determination of the chancellor, Gordon Brown, to claw back cash from defence.
Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory defence spokesman, said: "This is armed forces on the cheap. Labour have been lying through their teeth about defence for four years and this will send our armed forces into a state of crisis."
The news of planned cuts comes as another report, by two senior figures at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies (RUSI), claims that £8 billion plans to introduce two new super-carriers in 2012 will never happen.
Sir Michael Alexander, former ambassador to Nato and chairman of the RUSI, and Sir Timothy Garden, former assistant chief of defence staff, said: "There can be little chance that the carriers envisaged will ever be built."
Meanwhile, Washington appears to be getting cold feet about the JSF aircraft, which is a joint project with Britain. The plane is planned to replace the ageing Harrier jump-jet and would fly from the new carrier fleet, but withdrawal of US cash would stop it.
Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, secured the first rise in the defence budget for more than a decade last year. An MoD source close to him insisted yesterday: "This will not be about great cuts. It is a sensible review of where we are going, a procurement health check if you like." But he refused to rule out the axeing of projects.
[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 03 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just as interesting is the Sunday Telegraph survey of issues likely to persuade a voters choice. Defence would influence the choice of only 1 - 2% of those questioned.
I'll get my coat.....
[This message has been edited by Sonic Boozer (edited 03 June 2001).]
I'll get my coat.....
[This message has been edited by Sonic Boozer (edited 03 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's tommy this and tommy that etc...
I honestly think that a large proportion of the public must believe that well trained armed forces can be magiced out of the ether at will when needed. It's either that or the mentality of 1938 (I think?) of small countries a long way away of which we no little..and care less. Except if something must be done, when of course there must be lots of military types sitting around, doing very little, who could just dash over and sort it out.. for a few years...
I honestly think that a large proportion of the public must believe that well trained armed forces can be magiced out of the ether at will when needed. It's either that or the mentality of 1938 (I think?) of small countries a long way away of which we no little..and care less. Except if something must be done, when of course there must be lots of military types sitting around, doing very little, who could just dash over and sort it out.. for a few years...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps the problem is that we don't really have a Defence Policy - what are the Armed forces for? In an ideal world the Government would set military tasks and objectives. Then the Service chiefs would say what and how much equipment was required to perform those tasks. Finally the Government would supply the funds to buy and maintain the equipment, and to recruit, employ AND retain the number of people needed to operate and service it
Guest
Posts: n/a
1. Tracer is not a missile programme.
2. Future carrier programme can by no means be called 'super carriers' - they will not be big enough and will (probably) not have capability for deep water ops. Their size is limited by, amongst many other things, the lack of dry dock facilities for anything 'super' size. (Even the US have problems with the big CVNs).
3. We do not need JSF - it will be very expensive and will give less bang per quid than a mixed wing of new build F18 (2 seat) and naval Hawk. There is a love affair with VSTOL/STOVL, probably because the Harrier mates are sharp guys who have got on well in the services. It is really only the marines who need it. (I know it helps launch and recovery rates a tad but not much).
This is only my opinion and I never flew carrier ops but I also think that asking govt. for expensive toys leaves us vulnerable to getting no toys.
QT
2. Future carrier programme can by no means be called 'super carriers' - they will not be big enough and will (probably) not have capability for deep water ops. Their size is limited by, amongst many other things, the lack of dry dock facilities for anything 'super' size. (Even the US have problems with the big CVNs).
3. We do not need JSF - it will be very expensive and will give less bang per quid than a mixed wing of new build F18 (2 seat) and naval Hawk. There is a love affair with VSTOL/STOVL, probably because the Harrier mates are sharp guys who have got on well in the services. It is really only the marines who need it. (I know it helps launch and recovery rates a tad but not much).
This is only my opinion and I never flew carrier ops but I also think that asking govt. for expensive toys leaves us vulnerable to getting no toys.
QT
Guest
Posts: n/a
Qwin:-
1. Tracer not a missile program - Agreed.
2. What capability do you need for "deep water" operation? What criteria are you basing this statement on? The US NAVY do not own or write the book on modern Carrier Ops.
I suggest we are looking at a CV/CVN of 70,000 tons plus, with an embarked wing of 30-50 Aircraft.
We do have the dry dock capability for such a vessel. I am assured that there are at least 2 locations in the UK. Both civil yards but so what?
3. Yes we do need JSF or an aircraft of that equivalent capability. Look at the Payload/range, plus all the current technology. Why F-18? Why 2 seat? F-18's a dog in comparison to JSF, and it's a 25 yr old dog in Design terms. OK, the F-18E/F may have something, but JSF is still a better option. Buccaneer would be a better option than F-18C/D J.
Naval Hawk! Do you mean T-45? No weapons, No sensors, and no space or payload for them either, and an airplane already operating in it's useful margin. Unless you know something about the program I don't I suggest, this is a non-starter.
We have a Governmen, that knows precisely nothing about defense issues and cannot debate them. A CV is priority 450 on their horizon. If we don't ask we'll never get.
1. Tracer not a missile program - Agreed.
2. What capability do you need for "deep water" operation? What criteria are you basing this statement on? The US NAVY do not own or write the book on modern Carrier Ops.
I suggest we are looking at a CV/CVN of 70,000 tons plus, with an embarked wing of 30-50 Aircraft.
We do have the dry dock capability for such a vessel. I am assured that there are at least 2 locations in the UK. Both civil yards but so what?
3. Yes we do need JSF or an aircraft of that equivalent capability. Look at the Payload/range, plus all the current technology. Why F-18? Why 2 seat? F-18's a dog in comparison to JSF, and it's a 25 yr old dog in Design terms. OK, the F-18E/F may have something, but JSF is still a better option. Buccaneer would be a better option than F-18C/D J.
Naval Hawk! Do you mean T-45? No weapons, No sensors, and no space or payload for them either, and an airplane already operating in it's useful margin. Unless you know something about the program I don't I suggest, this is a non-starter.
We have a Governmen, that knows precisely nothing about defense issues and cannot debate them. A CV is priority 450 on their horizon. If we don't ask we'll never get.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In an era of ferocious over-stretch, carriers look like an increasingly poor, and non-cost-effective way of deploying a fast jet squadron to where it needs to be. Apart from the Falklands, land-based air power can usually get there, and if it can't then leave it to the French and the US. By not procuring these leviathans, we stand a chance of being able to acquire sufficient FJs, AHs, support helicopters, tankers and transports to do the bulk of our operational requirements properly. Who knows, maybe they could even by the tankers and C-17s instead of leasing them.
With four Trident submarines, national prestige does not rely on having, or not having, a pair of carriers - especially if acquiring them means that everything else has to be cut to the bone.
With four Trident submarines, national prestige does not rely on having, or not having, a pair of carriers - especially if acquiring them means that everything else has to be cut to the bone.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps we are about see the cancellation of all the manned aircraft projects, destruction of jigs and plans paving the way for the age of UAVs and smart missiles.
Didn't a labour Govt do that before?
(Edited for grandma)
[This message has been edited by Grey Area (edited 04 June 2001).]
Didn't a labour Govt do that before?
(Edited for grandma)
[This message has been edited by Grey Area (edited 04 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Grey Area,
I think your getting a litle muddled up with a certain TORY Government that cancelled all manned aircraft projects and announced that the future lay with the Guided Missile and decimated conventional forces and reserves.
The Labour administration that you are confusing with the above may well have cancelled TSR2/P1154 and HS681 but it did order hundreds of F-4's C-130's Harriers,Jaguars Buccaneers and Nimrods.
Gainesy/JN,
Those 4 bomber boats are the ONLY defence we have against the only serious threat that could be posed against this country, that of nuclear missile attack or ballistic missile attack with other 'nasties' replacing the instant sunshine.
The threat of retaliation is all that we have as we have no other way of stopping even a V2 type attack, with all the nutters in the world arming to the teeth with nasties would you feel safe without a 'bomber' or two?
My V force background in no way influences the above.
------------------
If the suit fits.........
I think your getting a litle muddled up with a certain TORY Government that cancelled all manned aircraft projects and announced that the future lay with the Guided Missile and decimated conventional forces and reserves.
The Labour administration that you are confusing with the above may well have cancelled TSR2/P1154 and HS681 but it did order hundreds of F-4's C-130's Harriers,Jaguars Buccaneers and Nimrods.
Gainesy/JN,
Those 4 bomber boats are the ONLY defence we have against the only serious threat that could be posed against this country, that of nuclear missile attack or ballistic missile attack with other 'nasties' replacing the instant sunshine.
The threat of retaliation is all that we have as we have no other way of stopping even a V2 type attack, with all the nutters in the world arming to the teeth with nasties would you feel safe without a 'bomber' or two?
My V force background in no way influences the above.
------------------
If the suit fits.........
Guest
Posts: n/a
....and just for the additional record it was a Labour Government that cancelled the last big carrier programme...see the corking
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bu...52/sectcvf.htm
for info, and imagine just how different the Falklands could have been!
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bu...52/sectcvf.htm
for info, and imagine just how different the Falklands could have been!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lo and Slow
CVN would not be a starter in my opinion, for political and technical reasons unless we could buy US reactors off the shelf. Look at C de Gaulle with its multiple submarine originated reactors. I would bet money that CVF will have gas turbines and that, for lots of reasons, they will be the engines going into type 45.
70 000 tonnes is a very big ship which we could not afford or dock. We are looking at something similar to C de G in size. Dry docks for carriers need much greater floor strength than commercial ships because carriers are very dense with much machinery installed whilst commercials have cargoes (or pax) which can be offloaded before docking. There are draught issues in approach to the dock also.
Deep water ops require organic AEW and anti-sub as well as depth air defence, i.e. CAP. Conops for deep water is that the carrier is centre of the fleet. US CVNs carry fuel, weapons and supplies for their escorts and can rush off to a task, operate unsupported whilst escorts catch up. CVF will have organic AEW and anti-sub but not enough depth, I believe. With the limit on size there would not be enough air assets to mount deep AD and have offensive air capability unsupported from land. It is questionable whether there is a capability requirement for deep water anyway - who is the threat?
Modern fighters are reaching limits in terms of structures and aerodynamics. I note that you do not advocate navalised Typhoon - you have probably seen it land at high AoA and questioned who wants to try to land on a ship he cannot see. Better engines and avionics, sensors etc. would make a new model F18 valuable & attractive. 2 crew because the challenge of the digitized battlespace is information overload.
I did not mean T45. Something a bit newer would make a punchy escort / air defender of Hawk. Also, there would be considerably less tech. risk with both. JSF is doing well but there are still a lot of engineering unknowns to iron out.
An air wing of around 40 would provide good capability, not great but good, at considerably less cost than JSF.
To those who advocate subs - we are not doing too well with them at the moment. By their very nature they cannot do something carriers can - show presence, or talk softly whilst carrying a big stick! They cannot carry troops, evacuate refugees, conduct AD and ASW ops, cross deck with other nations etc.
To those who think we can deploy FJ squadrons - think about how many C130s we have and how many trips they need to deploy and support a fighter squadron - and all the other elements that would be calling for transport. What about ground elements? We are not just providing a capability to do Kosovo again.
The politicians need to be advised by the military what is the best cost effective way to provide the means to do the things the country needs to do. We need to think and communicate in a joined up manner and understand the technical issues that drive the design of equipment in order to compel them to make sensible decisions. If they don't make the right decisions let it be because they are wrong, not because they act on poor advice.
Again, all above is mere opinion and I only know what I have thought for myself. I am no expert by any means - just interested in the technical issues and in the defence of the interests of this sceptred isle.
CVN would not be a starter in my opinion, for political and technical reasons unless we could buy US reactors off the shelf. Look at C de Gaulle with its multiple submarine originated reactors. I would bet money that CVF will have gas turbines and that, for lots of reasons, they will be the engines going into type 45.
70 000 tonnes is a very big ship which we could not afford or dock. We are looking at something similar to C de G in size. Dry docks for carriers need much greater floor strength than commercial ships because carriers are very dense with much machinery installed whilst commercials have cargoes (or pax) which can be offloaded before docking. There are draught issues in approach to the dock also.
Deep water ops require organic AEW and anti-sub as well as depth air defence, i.e. CAP. Conops for deep water is that the carrier is centre of the fleet. US CVNs carry fuel, weapons and supplies for their escorts and can rush off to a task, operate unsupported whilst escorts catch up. CVF will have organic AEW and anti-sub but not enough depth, I believe. With the limit on size there would not be enough air assets to mount deep AD and have offensive air capability unsupported from land. It is questionable whether there is a capability requirement for deep water anyway - who is the threat?
Modern fighters are reaching limits in terms of structures and aerodynamics. I note that you do not advocate navalised Typhoon - you have probably seen it land at high AoA and questioned who wants to try to land on a ship he cannot see. Better engines and avionics, sensors etc. would make a new model F18 valuable & attractive. 2 crew because the challenge of the digitized battlespace is information overload.
I did not mean T45. Something a bit newer would make a punchy escort / air defender of Hawk. Also, there would be considerably less tech. risk with both. JSF is doing well but there are still a lot of engineering unknowns to iron out.
An air wing of around 40 would provide good capability, not great but good, at considerably less cost than JSF.
To those who advocate subs - we are not doing too well with them at the moment. By their very nature they cannot do something carriers can - show presence, or talk softly whilst carrying a big stick! They cannot carry troops, evacuate refugees, conduct AD and ASW ops, cross deck with other nations etc.
To those who think we can deploy FJ squadrons - think about how many C130s we have and how many trips they need to deploy and support a fighter squadron - and all the other elements that would be calling for transport. What about ground elements? We are not just providing a capability to do Kosovo again.
The politicians need to be advised by the military what is the best cost effective way to provide the means to do the things the country needs to do. We need to think and communicate in a joined up manner and understand the technical issues that drive the design of equipment in order to compel them to make sensible decisions. If they don't make the right decisions let it be because they are wrong, not because they act on poor advice.
Again, all above is mere opinion and I only know what I have thought for myself. I am no expert by any means - just interested in the technical issues and in the defence of the interests of this sceptred isle.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry Jacko, Saif Sarrea II......
(still not sured if that's how you spell it)
Biggest deployment of UK forces since Gulf/WWII depending on who you listen to - must be costing a fortune......
[This message has been edited by Chinese Vic (edited 04 June 2001).]
(still not sured if that's how you spell it)
Biggest deployment of UK forces since Gulf/WWII depending on who you listen to - must be costing a fortune......
[This message has been edited by Chinese Vic (edited 04 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
If they have any crews NOT PVR'ing after the penny-pinching concerning their accommodation during this ex., I'd be very surprised. Yes - our grunt chums may well live in field conditions in the field when they have to, but to accommodate peacetime aircrew in multi-man tents camped out on a very busy international airport in the heat of the Gulf summer because they don't want to spend money on the plentiful, high quality accommodation readily available is man mis-management of the most scandalous nature. From what some have said, there's every chance of all the air assets stopping flying very early on as everyone is only too well aware of CDT/CRP regulations and WILL be applying them very strictly.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Did anyone realy believe that B liar and co would build the two shiney new carriers the promised in SDR to placate the navy!
We're all doomed. Euro not-so-rapid non-reaction force here we come.
Is it time to take up the battle cry of the French throughout history...we are betrayed! Run away!
We're all doomed. Euro not-so-rapid non-reaction force here we come.
Is it time to take up the battle cry of the French throughout history...we are betrayed! Run away!
Guest
Posts: n/a
TL THOU,
Who was it who was voted back into power in 1969 and still did nothing to keep the carrier force going, yes you've got it, the Tories! CVA was cancelled in 1966, the Tory administration reduced the conventional carrier fleet by 50% when they scrapped Eagle in 1972.
More to the point I think that the RAF deserve more credit for canning CVA than the Labour Govt of the time. The Air Marshals fought tooth and nail to axe the fixed wing FAA and it was they who claimed it wasn't needed.
The Conservative Party are the friend of the military only when in opposition and unable to actually do anything, as soon as they are in power it's the same old same old.
They dithered and procastinated about the Sea Harrier until a LABOUR Government eventually ordered it! Who canned Bulwark in 1981? Maggie!
'Sharkey' Ward (ex-Lt Cdr) disagrees with you about the value of the conventional carrier in the Falklands by the way. He reckoned that the SHAR/CVS combination was superior to the Phantom/Buccaneer/conventional carrier in the context of South Atlantic ops, and he should know, he flew 'em both.
As I said earlier, the RAF is dying by it's own (very senior) hand!
------------------
If the suit fits.........
Who was it who was voted back into power in 1969 and still did nothing to keep the carrier force going, yes you've got it, the Tories! CVA was cancelled in 1966, the Tory administration reduced the conventional carrier fleet by 50% when they scrapped Eagle in 1972.
More to the point I think that the RAF deserve more credit for canning CVA than the Labour Govt of the time. The Air Marshals fought tooth and nail to axe the fixed wing FAA and it was they who claimed it wasn't needed.
The Conservative Party are the friend of the military only when in opposition and unable to actually do anything, as soon as they are in power it's the same old same old.
They dithered and procastinated about the Sea Harrier until a LABOUR Government eventually ordered it! Who canned Bulwark in 1981? Maggie!
'Sharkey' Ward (ex-Lt Cdr) disagrees with you about the value of the conventional carrier in the Falklands by the way. He reckoned that the SHAR/CVS combination was superior to the Phantom/Buccaneer/conventional carrier in the context of South Atlantic ops, and he should know, he flew 'em both.
As I said earlier, the RAF is dying by it's own (very senior) hand!
------------------
If the suit fits.........