UK fighter numbers to reach all-time low with loss of Tornados and early Typhoons in
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sometimes crosses my mind that as the number of airframes gets smaller and smaller it becomes more worthwhile for any potential adversary to try and take out some of them on the ground "at home"
with 20 B-2's for example if you could take out even 3 or 4 on the ground you'd have really compromised USAF capabilities
we'd look a bit silly if someone takes out 10 Typhoons
numbers have a force of their own
with 20 B-2's for example if you could take out even 3 or 4 on the ground you'd have really compromised USAF capabilities
we'd look a bit silly if someone takes out 10 Typhoons
numbers have a force of their own
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Harry.
If you consider how the B2's are based and where then it's quite possible to render the entire force unusable without damaging even one aircraft.
If you consider how the B2's are based and where then it's quite possible to render the entire force unusable without damaging even one aircraft.
...That's why I think we are struggling so much these days; the political perception appears to be that the major threat, for now, isn't state on state (it isn't necessarily even Russia long term, I'd be looking at China and Iran for state on state issues), the government deems security and terrorism as the major threat and is investing heavily on countering it up stream through the work of the FCO and agencies like DFID and downstream through the work of the police and security services. And none of that sadly requires large numbers of fast jets (or tanks and destroyers for that matter).
The turn of world events suggests that, shift of emphasis notwithstanding, things aren't quite in kilter as they stand (and as they will be in 2019 when front line FJ strength dips to just 6 sqns on current plans); and that a little rebalancing is needed in a positive direction if we're not to continue running on fumes. I doubt many would realistically suggest veering back towards the 30 or so sqns we had only a couple of decades ago, but an establishment of say 9 sqns (5 Typhoon, four F35) by the early-mid 2020s (supplemented in the short term by the temporary stand-up of a sixth Typhoon sqn via retaining some Tranche 1s) would put things into slightly better balance, and shouldn't be entirely unrealistic as an SDSR outcome.
Anyway that's my two penn'orth for what little it's worth. Other views are available.
Last edited by Frostchamber; 26th Jul 2015 at 10:39.
The last time we were down to this level was in 1936. Something happened a few years after that. Exactly what escapes me.
''Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it''. George Santayana.
''Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it''. George Santayana.
with 20 B-2's for example if you could take out even 3 or 4 on the ground you'd have really compromised USAF capabilities
Good point, Melchett, particularly when thinking about the Taliban raid on Camp Bastion. Begs the question as to where you concentrate your ground defences on ops; aircraft or personnel?
If you want military interventions, Prime Minister, you'll need more of a military
“Whether it’s in Iraq, Syria, Libya or elsewhere — as Prime Minister, if I believe there is a specific threat to the British people, would I be prepared to authorise action to neutralise that threat? Yes, I would.”
It is almost two years since David Cameron lost a vote on intervening in the Syrian war and he has barely spoken about foreign affairs since. He is now slowly returning to the subject, making the case for pursuing Islamic State in Syria. The recent murder of 30 British holidaymakers in Tunisia was almost certainly planned in Isis’s Syrian stronghold of Raqqa. The Prime Minister is making the fairly simple case that the military ought to be able to pursue the enemy.
But there is no chance of the RAF ‘neutralising’ the threat. For all his interventionist instincts, the Prime Minister has spent five years imposing deep cuts on the armed forces; by some estimates, he has reduced the UK fighting capability by up to a third.
This week, we learnt that the RAF’s fleet of fighter aircraft is to shrink to its smallest in history. Gen Sir Nick Houghton, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has warned that the RAF is ‘at the very limits of fast-jet availability and capacity’. It’s odd that the Prime Minister is so eager to join the Americans in bombing the Syrian side of the border when Britain has been able to make so little difference in northern Iraq.
The RAF is able to spare just eight Tornados, themselves two years away from being in a museum, and a generation behind the American F-22s they fly beside. Only two can fly at any one time, dropping only 5 per cent of the bombs. Britain’s impact has been welcome, but marginal. We should not pretend that our presence in Syria would be any less marginal.
Cameron cannot blame parliament: our weakness is due to the decisions that he has taken, which our allies have watched with dismay. As the American magazine Foreign Policy pointed out recently, Britain is shrinking its army to the same size as the New York police department. We bloat the foreign aid budget and reduce the Foreign Office budget by a fifth. We lay off Gurkhas while doubling handouts to Nepal. This week, George Osborne defended the aid budget by saying that he wants to ‘make sure that we are saving lives’.
Aid is good at allowing politicians to make pious statements about their generosity with other people’s money. The aid budget has risen by £3.5 billion under Osborne, while £5.4 billion has been cut from defence. We’re now very good at finding mates for rare Madagascan fish; not so good at helping Kurds fight Isis (so far, we have only managed to spare 40 heavy machine-guns).
The Chancellor has promised not to let military spending slide below 2 per cent of economic output, the Nato minimum. A welcome pledge, but it won’t bring the military (or its capabilities) back to where things were when he took office. Only years of investment could achieve that.
The Prime Minister needs to remember this when making speeches: the RAF is now smaller than the force that was at the disposal of his predecessors. With his spending decisions, he has forfeited the right to talk about ‘closing down ungoverned spaces’ in the Sahara or ‘neutralising’ the threat from Isis. The sad truth is that we no longer have a military strong enough to do so.
It is almost two years since David Cameron lost a vote on intervening in the Syrian war and he has barely spoken about foreign affairs since. He is now slowly returning to the subject, making the case for pursuing Islamic State in Syria. The recent murder of 30 British holidaymakers in Tunisia was almost certainly planned in Isis’s Syrian stronghold of Raqqa. The Prime Minister is making the fairly simple case that the military ought to be able to pursue the enemy.
But there is no chance of the RAF ‘neutralising’ the threat. For all his interventionist instincts, the Prime Minister has spent five years imposing deep cuts on the armed forces; by some estimates, he has reduced the UK fighting capability by up to a third.
This week, we learnt that the RAF’s fleet of fighter aircraft is to shrink to its smallest in history. Gen Sir Nick Houghton, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has warned that the RAF is ‘at the very limits of fast-jet availability and capacity’. It’s odd that the Prime Minister is so eager to join the Americans in bombing the Syrian side of the border when Britain has been able to make so little difference in northern Iraq.
The RAF is able to spare just eight Tornados, themselves two years away from being in a museum, and a generation behind the American F-22s they fly beside. Only two can fly at any one time, dropping only 5 per cent of the bombs. Britain’s impact has been welcome, but marginal. We should not pretend that our presence in Syria would be any less marginal.
Cameron cannot blame parliament: our weakness is due to the decisions that he has taken, which our allies have watched with dismay. As the American magazine Foreign Policy pointed out recently, Britain is shrinking its army to the same size as the New York police department. We bloat the foreign aid budget and reduce the Foreign Office budget by a fifth. We lay off Gurkhas while doubling handouts to Nepal. This week, George Osborne defended the aid budget by saying that he wants to ‘make sure that we are saving lives’.
Aid is good at allowing politicians to make pious statements about their generosity with other people’s money. The aid budget has risen by £3.5 billion under Osborne, while £5.4 billion has been cut from defence. We’re now very good at finding mates for rare Madagascan fish; not so good at helping Kurds fight Isis (so far, we have only managed to spare 40 heavy machine-guns).
The Chancellor has promised not to let military spending slide below 2 per cent of economic output, the Nato minimum. A welcome pledge, but it won’t bring the military (or its capabilities) back to where things were when he took office. Only years of investment could achieve that.
The Prime Minister needs to remember this when making speeches: the RAF is now smaller than the force that was at the disposal of his predecessors. With his spending decisions, he has forfeited the right to talk about ‘closing down ungoverned spaces’ in the Sahara or ‘neutralising’ the threat from Isis. The sad truth is that we no longer have a military strong enough to do so.
Pretty much sums it up.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
When the Chancellor is saying "expect 25 to 40% cuts over 4 years, standfast NHS and certain education budgets", then I am in no doubt that there will be redundant airmen, squadrons and airfields.
What I don't quite get is that if the UK has affirmed its commitment to 2% of GDP on defence, then 25% cuts over 4 years doesn't add up, given that the 2% is currently struggling to be met, and has to include things like intelligence agencies to get to the 2%. Perhaps he is expecting GDP to fall...
Roadster,
I think you've misunderstood. With the 2% commitment, Defence has joined the hallowed ranks of the 'protected' budgets alongside Health, Education and International Development.
I think you've misunderstood. With the 2% commitment, Defence has joined the hallowed ranks of the 'protected' budgets alongside Health, Education and International Development.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So maybe there is/will be money available to be shifted onto doing some sensible things rather than knee-jerk cuts, in Defence anyway.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
actually he's promised a small increase in military expenditure
but the trick is what he's loading int to the pot as "military expendiure...."
Also, in real terms, the cost of kit goes up much faster than just about anything else in the economy so we're still in for major cutbacks IMHO
but the trick is what he's loading int to the pot as "military expendiure...."
Also, in real terms, the cost of kit goes up much faster than just about anything else in the economy so we're still in for major cutbacks IMHO
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Roadster,
I think you've misunderstood. With the 2% commitment, Defence has joined the hallowed ranks of the 'protected' budgets alongside Health, Education and International Development.
I think you've misunderstood. With the 2% commitment, Defence has joined the hallowed ranks of the 'protected' budgets alongside Health, Education and International Development.
Britain will meet a Nato promise to spend 2 per cent of national income on defence this parliament only by adding the budgets of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ into the mix for the first time, an authoritative study reveals today.
The Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) worked out that the proportion of money spent on defence would have fallen to 1.85 per cent of gross domestic product by the end of the decade without the inclusion of spy agency funds when calculating the Nato figure......... Professor Malcolm Chalmers, director of research and policy at Rusi and author of the report, set out how Britain had expanded a range of items included in the Nato formula to ensure it remains one of only five member states due to meet the 2 per cent target this year.
The 28-nation alliance has a list of criteria that countries are allowed to include when calculating defence expenditure, but until now the Ministry of Defence had not added war pensions, civil servant pensions, money charged from rent of MoD property and cash spent on United Nations peace-keeping missions. The inclusion of these items — legitimate under Nato rules — inflated Britain’s defence spending total by £2.8 billion, Mr Chalmers said.
Even if the government continued to include these new sources of funds each year, by 2020 or 2021 it would again fall to below the 2 per cent threshold, he said. This is because the chancellor only committed to increasing the core defence budget — the real benchmark for what a country spends on its armed forces — by 0.5 per cent each year at a time when the economy is forecast to grow annually at 2.4 per cent. The almost five-fold difference in growth rate will create a shortfall of £2.7 billion in 2019-2020 and £3.5 billion the following year when calculating defence spending as a proportion of 2 per cent of GDP, according to Mr Chalmers.
The intelligence fund, which covers the costs of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, is set to total about £2.2 billion in the year to March 2021. A joint security fund that has been created by Mr Osborne is due to total £1.5 billion that same year. These two pots of cash would be enough to close the gap to the end of parliament, the Rusi report said..........
The Times: Spy funds help Britain meet Nato cash pledge
Britain will meet a Nato promise to spend 2 per cent of national income on defence this parliament only by adding the budgets of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ into the mix for the first time, an authoritative study reveals today.
The Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) worked out that the proportion of money spent on defence would have fallen to 1.85 per cent of gross domestic product by the end of the decade without the inclusion of spy agency funds when calculating the Nato figure......... Professor Malcolm Chalmers, director of research and policy at Rusi and author of the report, set out how Britain had expanded a range of items included in the Nato formula to ensure it remains one of only five member states due to meet the 2 per cent target this year.
The 28-nation alliance has a list of criteria that countries are allowed to include when calculating defence expenditure, but until now the Ministry of Defence had not added war pensions, civil servant pensions, money charged from rent of MoD property and cash spent on United Nations peace-keeping missions. The inclusion of these items — legitimate under Nato rules — inflated Britain’s defence spending total by £2.8 billion, Mr Chalmers said.
Even if the government continued to include these new sources of funds each year, by 2020 or 2021 it would again fall to below the 2 per cent threshold, he said. This is because the chancellor only committed to increasing the core defence budget — the real benchmark for what a country spends on its armed forces — by 0.5 per cent each year at a time when the economy is forecast to grow annually at 2.4 per cent. The almost five-fold difference in growth rate will create a shortfall of £2.7 billion in 2019-2020 and £3.5 billion the following year when calculating defence spending as a proportion of 2 per cent of GDP, according to Mr Chalmers.
The intelligence fund, which covers the costs of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, is set to total about £2.2 billion in the year to March 2021. A joint security fund that has been created by Mr Osborne is due to total £1.5 billion that same year. These two pots of cash would be enough to close the gap to the end of parliament, the Rusi report said..........
Britain will meet a Nato promise to spend 2 per cent of national income on defence this parliament only by adding the budgets of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ into the mix for the first time, an authoritative study reveals today.
The Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) worked out that the proportion of money spent on defence would have fallen to 1.85 per cent of gross domestic product by the end of the decade without the inclusion of spy agency funds when calculating the Nato figure......... Professor Malcolm Chalmers, director of research and policy at Rusi and author of the report, set out how Britain had expanded a range of items included in the Nato formula to ensure it remains one of only five member states due to meet the 2 per cent target this year.
The 28-nation alliance has a list of criteria that countries are allowed to include when calculating defence expenditure, but until now the Ministry of Defence had not added war pensions, civil servant pensions, money charged from rent of MoD property and cash spent on United Nations peace-keeping missions. The inclusion of these items — legitimate under Nato rules — inflated Britain’s defence spending total by £2.8 billion, Mr Chalmers said.
Even if the government continued to include these new sources of funds each year, by 2020 or 2021 it would again fall to below the 2 per cent threshold, he said. This is because the chancellor only committed to increasing the core defence budget — the real benchmark for what a country spends on its armed forces — by 0.5 per cent each year at a time when the economy is forecast to grow annually at 2.4 per cent. The almost five-fold difference in growth rate will create a shortfall of £2.7 billion in 2019-2020 and £3.5 billion the following year when calculating defence spending as a proportion of 2 per cent of GDP, according to Mr Chalmers.
The intelligence fund, which covers the costs of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, is set to total about £2.2 billion in the year to March 2021. A joint security fund that has been created by Mr Osborne is due to total £1.5 billion that same year. These two pots of cash would be enough to close the gap to the end of parliament, the Rusi report said..........
Nah, here's what "they" are thinking.
You maintain 4 SLBMs and 2 big carriers to pretend you're just like America only smaller and more polite, you buy lots of drones to kill people who wear tea towels and tend goats 3,000 miles away while the ones who live 30 miles away furtively plot your destruction, and you maintain one squadron of ridiculously expensive Typhoons to fly formation with Russian Bears 50 miles from Blackpool with each QRA aircraft carrying 20% of the RAF's entire war reserve of air-to-air missiles so that the Daily Mail can post photos of them with the caption "RAF Fends Off Russian Intruder".
The army basically becomes the SAS plus a few extra men in hairy hats who "guard" HRH. There's your future armed forces.
PS - anyone still remember Front Line First ?
You maintain 4 SLBMs and 2 big carriers to pretend you're just like America only smaller and more polite, you buy lots of drones to kill people who wear tea towels and tend goats 3,000 miles away while the ones who live 30 miles away furtively plot your destruction, and you maintain one squadron of ridiculously expensive Typhoons to fly formation with Russian Bears 50 miles from Blackpool with each QRA aircraft carrying 20% of the RAF's entire war reserve of air-to-air missiles so that the Daily Mail can post photos of them with the caption "RAF Fends Off Russian Intruder".
The army basically becomes the SAS plus a few extra men in hairy hats who "guard" HRH. There's your future armed forces.
PS - anyone still remember Front Line First ?