Towards the next Defence and Security Review
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Towards the next Defence and Security Review
Since they are talking about it in Parliament, why dont we.
House of Commons - Defence Committee - Written Evidence
Some interesting statements WRT where we were, where we are and where we Should be.
I will copy some comments to kick off
and how about.
In the current financial climate realism must also play its part. Therefore, the defence budget as set must be used in the most cost effective way to achieve best 'bang for buck' which will require far more attention to professional programme and project management. For example: why pay in excess of £6bn for the failing F35B when perfectly suitable operational alternatives – French Rafael or US F/A-18E/F Super Hornet – are available now at a third of the cost? Why must MoD persist with its OR restrictive two Fast Jet fleet policy? Why do MoD continue to believe that the Army Reserves, despite all the commercial difficulties for employers, should be used outside their traditional general mobilisation role?
CEC for the fleet and Project Eagle for the E3D must be funded to compensate for the lack of numbers and to keep our weapons systems up to date, relevant and able to integrate with allies.
b. In the case of the RAF medium range Tornado GR4 replacement OR - the F35 of any variant not meeting the specification - the time may be right to consider full development of Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAV) rather than conventional technology.
c. LRMPA capability must be restored.
A lot of common sense in this document, however in some of the others in the link, Complete hoop.
Bannock Sends
House of Commons - Defence Committee - Written Evidence
Some interesting statements WRT where we were, where we are and where we Should be.
I will copy some comments to kick off
ROYAL AIR FORCE
13. The Royal Air Force (RAF) post SDSR 2015 is a conundrum. In fast jet (FJ) terms only a single fleet of circa 100 FGR Typhoon will be available for land operations – and a former Chief of the Air Staff has concluded that this FJ fleet, supported from a total RAF manpower base of 33,000 - more than 50% fewer than at the time of Gulf War I - will restrict forward deployment to a maximum of 3 squadrons (between 30 and 36 aircraft) of Intelligence, Surveillance, Target-acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) capable aircraft. ISTAR, Airborne Early Warning and Control (AWACS), Air to Air Refuelling (AAR) and Air Transport (AT) will be vested in 8 C17, 22 A400m, 14 A330-200, 3 Rivet Joint, and 7 E3D. The future of Sentinel (ASTOR) is still undecided and the effectiveness of the RAF fleet of E3D is steadily being eroded whilst MoD refuses to implement NATO block 40/45 Project Eagle upgrades to the computerised data-link communications suit. Despite a continuing DPA requirement, not least to support the UK independent nuclear deterrent, there are no published plans to back-fill the long range maritime patrol aircraft (LRMPA) gap.and how about.
In the current financial climate realism must also play its part. Therefore, the defence budget as set must be used in the most cost effective way to achieve best 'bang for buck' which will require far more attention to professional programme and project management. For example: why pay in excess of £6bn for the failing F35B when perfectly suitable operational alternatives – French Rafael or US F/A-18E/F Super Hornet – are available now at a third of the cost? Why must MoD persist with its OR restrictive two Fast Jet fleet policy? Why do MoD continue to believe that the Army Reserves, despite all the commercial difficulties for employers, should be used outside their traditional general mobilisation role?
CEC for the fleet and Project Eagle for the E3D must be funded to compensate for the lack of numbers and to keep our weapons systems up to date, relevant and able to integrate with allies.
b. In the case of the RAF medium range Tornado GR4 replacement OR - the F35 of any variant not meeting the specification - the time may be right to consider full development of Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAV) rather than conventional technology.
c. LRMPA capability must be restored.
A lot of common sense in this document, however in some of the others in the link, Complete hoop.
Bannock Sends
Last edited by Bannock; 25th Apr 2013 at 14:17.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The documents does mention ditching Trident but I believe the policy of using Astute against rebelious nations is confined to Ramming them!
Hat, Coat, Taxi.....
Hat, Coat, Taxi.....
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the policy of using Astute against rebelious nations is confined to Ramming them!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Give SH to the army' caught the eye, along with the prodding of Rafael [sic] or F/A-18E/F purchase. Perhaps the authors ought to check what the aeroplanes are actually called, and perhaps briefly address the glaring absence of any wires and catapults on the decks.
At the end of the day, just opinions being expressed by people no better versed than pprune contributors - just with more access to loftier places.
At the end of the day, just opinions being expressed by people no better versed than pprune contributors - just with more access to loftier places.
Your quote is from written evidence presented by DefenceSynergia, a defence think tank whose founders and members all previously belonged to UKNDA.
Unfortunately, before anyone gets their hopes up, it doesn't represent government policy - it's practical value is therefore minimal....
Unfortunately, before anyone gets their hopes up, it doesn't represent government policy - it's practical value is therefore minimal....
Last edited by Biggus; 25th Apr 2013 at 14:59.
'Give SH to the army' - oh dear. Whilst probably a viable thought in the FJ heavy (it seems now....) 70s/80s it would probably signal the end of the '100 year experiment' today. The SH force is now a large proportion of RAF manpower (not to mention, by far, the most decorated...), to lose it would inevitably drive claims for the AT/AAR assets by the RLC and the vestigial FJ by the RN. Not a good idea....
Why would we want to purchase Rafale, which would solely benefit the French aerospace industry, and which we would not have any control over the design or modifications to the airframe?
I love the idea that we can just pitch up, purchase a French jet that doesnt currently meet our requirements and magically walk away with a new cheaper fighter fleet and still have a UK aerospace industry too...
I love the idea that we can just pitch up, purchase a French jet that doesnt currently meet our requirements and magically walk away with a new cheaper fighter fleet and still have a UK aerospace industry too...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would we want to purchase Rafale, which would solely benefit the French aerospace industry, and which we would not have any control over the design or modifications to the airframe?
How much control/input do you honestly think there will be over F35 design and modifications?
"Cos its available now, it works, it can fly from a floating airfield."
If by available now you mean 'French industry can produce 12-14 airframes per year' then I'd read that as 'by the time the contract was placed and airframes delivered, we could have got F35 which we've got far more value in, got far more jobs out of, and will be able to do far more with'.
If we'd ordered Rafale a decade ago then it may have been useful now - today with the timeframe from order to delivery to proper use, it would be better to stick to what we've got planned.
If by available now you mean 'French industry can produce 12-14 airframes per year' then I'd read that as 'by the time the contract was placed and airframes delivered, we could have got F35 which we've got far more value in, got far more jobs out of, and will be able to do far more with'.
If we'd ordered Rafale a decade ago then it may have been useful now - today with the timeframe from order to delivery to proper use, it would be better to stick to what we've got planned.
Kitbag
Available - Sort of, but see above; works - but does not meet our requirement, fly from - not from our floating airfields it can't. 
Cos its available now, it works, it can fly from a floating airfield
Bit of a thread creep but am I wrong in thinking that the QE Class carriers were supposed to be fitted for but not with EMALS . Of course when we wanted to exercise that option it was t diff! If the option was avail then Rafale and/or FA18 would be possible choices.
It remains perfectly possible to fit EMALS (and EAR) to both QE and PoW. They are designed with sufficient space and margins to receive those systems. What the contract does not (and never did) include was the actual detailed design to system level (ie the actual structural seatings, cutting plans, weld procedures, cabling and power management system software) and subsequent supply of the hardware.
For a variety of reasons (some credible, some less so) the "cost of modification" (which may or may not include other elements) for one ship was "estimated" thiis time last year at £1.9Bn which exceeded what MoD was prepared to pay.
Hence the "reversion" to STOVL.
For a variety of reasons (some credible, some less so) the "cost of modification" (which may or may not include other elements) for one ship was "estimated" thiis time last year at £1.9Bn which exceeded what MoD was prepared to pay.
Hence the "reversion" to STOVL.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
full discussion of EMALS etc in the carrier and F35 threads
Intersting that the "Times" had a story on the budget process this week and the current Chancellor (Osbourne) asked a previous Chancellor (Lawson) if his biggest problem would be Tory Ministers asking for cuts - he was told the biggest problem is that Tory Ministers asking for more money for their departments
I suspect the next DSR will be bloody - there isn't any cash left over and the Treasury will want at least another 10% out of the military budget....... something will have to give - Trident Successor or the F-35 is my guess
Intersting that the "Times" had a story on the budget process this week and the current Chancellor (Osbourne) asked a previous Chancellor (Lawson) if his biggest problem would be Tory Ministers asking for cuts - he was told the biggest problem is that Tory Ministers asking for more money for their departments
I suspect the next DSR will be bloody - there isn't any cash left over and the Treasury will want at least another 10% out of the military budget....... something will have to give - Trident Successor or the F-35 is my guess
I read an excellent Telegraph article pointing out some of the issues with us continuing to slash defence budgets.
Link here (bear in mind it's a progressive paywall thing, so will count as one of your "20 a month" or whatever)
Basically, it says that US spending as a proportion of NATO defence spending has increased over the past few decades from 63% to 75%. The US spends 4.8% of GDP on defence; we spend 2%, the rest of Europe's NATO members around 1%.
It accuses us of slashing defence to pay for large welfare systems, and assuming the US will always pick up the slack. In the meantime, with Asian defence spending rising, and China rapidly emerging as a new defence superpower, the US focus is shifting to the Pacific. Gates stated that he doesn't think future Generals will see the US participation in NATO as worth the cost once the Cold War becomes a memory.
Apparently important US defence people have expressed surprise that we're happy to carry a carrier strike and MPA capability gap, with the assumption being they'll just pick up the NATO slack. What if they decide not to?
End of the article:
... perhaps cutting defence isn't such a smart move beyond 2015 after all?
Link here (bear in mind it's a progressive paywall thing, so will count as one of your "20 a month" or whatever)
Basically, it says that US spending as a proportion of NATO defence spending has increased over the past few decades from 63% to 75%. The US spends 4.8% of GDP on defence; we spend 2%, the rest of Europe's NATO members around 1%.
It accuses us of slashing defence to pay for large welfare systems, and assuming the US will always pick up the slack. In the meantime, with Asian defence spending rising, and China rapidly emerging as a new defence superpower, the US focus is shifting to the Pacific. Gates stated that he doesn't think future Generals will see the US participation in NATO as worth the cost once the Cold War becomes a memory.
Apparently important US defence people have expressed surprise that we're happy to carry a carrier strike and MPA capability gap, with the assumption being they'll just pick up the NATO slack. What if they decide not to?
End of the article:
How might this be avoided? Britain has a crucial role to play. The defence and security review of 2010 was designed to keep us above the vital but undefined threshold that makes Britain a worthwhile ally for America, while still making inevitable cuts. The more realistic goal turned out to be ensuring that when we did fall below that line, we would eventually be able to clamber back up again.
In this way, Britain tried to avoid relegation to the free-riders. So we lost our ability to launch strike aircraft from carriers, but we will regain this when the first Queen Elizabeth Class vessel enters service in 2018.
However, the current defence equipment programme assumes that its budget will rise by 1 per cent above inflation after 2015. That may not be a safe bet. True, the Trident issue is something of a red herring: we can maintain the capacity and have a proper military if we really want to spend the money. But there is still a Potemkin village quality about some of our aspirations. The Royal Navy will get two giant carriers, each capable of carrying 36 Lightning II fighters, but only one vessel will be available at any given time – and this will probably have only 12 planes. In theory, Britain will have two platforms capable of embarking 72 fighters; in reality, one will be available with only a sixth of that number of planes.
Put bluntly, Britain is perilously close to joining Europe’s free-riders. If that happens, and a future American president then turns decisively towards Asia, the government responsible will have made a great strategic blunder.
In this way, Britain tried to avoid relegation to the free-riders. So we lost our ability to launch strike aircraft from carriers, but we will regain this when the first Queen Elizabeth Class vessel enters service in 2018.
However, the current defence equipment programme assumes that its budget will rise by 1 per cent above inflation after 2015. That may not be a safe bet. True, the Trident issue is something of a red herring: we can maintain the capacity and have a proper military if we really want to spend the money. But there is still a Potemkin village quality about some of our aspirations. The Royal Navy will get two giant carriers, each capable of carrying 36 Lightning II fighters, but only one vessel will be available at any given time – and this will probably have only 12 planes. In theory, Britain will have two platforms capable of embarking 72 fighters; in reality, one will be available with only a sixth of that number of planes.
Put bluntly, Britain is perilously close to joining Europe’s free-riders. If that happens, and a future American president then turns decisively towards Asia, the government responsible will have made a great strategic blunder.
Not a Boffin
Thanks for the explanation, so it seems that the PofW (the second ever carrier due to have emals) fitted would end up costing more than the first ever carrier to have it (the Gerald Ford). Yet again we would end up with a more expensive and less capable system.
Thanks for the explanation, so it seems that the PofW (the second ever carrier due to have emals) fitted would end up costing more than the first ever carrier to have it (the Gerald Ford). Yet again we would end up with a more expensive and less capable system.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RP I appreciate it is not operable from our current carrier class, then again nothing else worthwhile is either; I suspect F35 is unlikely to be ready for the big boats commissioning by quite a margin and the final costs will be more eyewatering than the catapult conversion quote
VDG, I may have misunderstood you, are you saying that a carrier without a catapult system installed is more capable than one with?
VDG, I may have misunderstood you, are you saying that a carrier without a catapult system installed is more capable than one with?