Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Force Structure or Mass, are they important - are they finally viewed as important?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Force Structure or Mass, are they important - are they finally viewed as important?

Old 13th Aug 2015, 22:38
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,175
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Force Structure or Mass, are they important - are they finally viewed as important?

I am becoming increasingly confused and dispirited as I try to get my head around the subject of maintaining what we might once have called Fast Jet ‘force structure’ and what we now seem to be referring to as ‘mass’ in the face of an increasingly unstable and unpredictable world on the one hand, and relentless downward pressure on the defence budget on the other – with defence inflation complicating matters by ensuring that the defence pound will inevitably go less far today than it did a few years ago.

I can appreciate that with more efficient logistics and engineering, it may be possible to generate greater FE@R (Force Elements At Readiness) than was once the case – though I worry that the greater flexibility offered by service personnel (especially in wartime or on deployment) may have been lost in the pursuit of the most cost effective delivery of more predictable peacetime operational output.

I can appreciate that a target that would have required a dozen fast jets armed with conventional ‘dumb’ bombs, CBUs, dispenser weapons, and/or early generation ASMs might today be taken care of by a pair of Typhoons armed with Paveway IV, or F-15s armed with SDBs, or whatever.

And I can see that five squadrons of Typhoons to P3E standard, with Meteor for A-A, and with PWII, PWIV, Brimstone and Storm Shadow will be a much more capable force than today's Typhoon force, though in terms of mass, there will be no increase.

I get it that we may need less FJs than we would have needed in 1989, and I wouldn’t see a return to an RAF with 30 FJ squadrons as being either possible, practical or even desirable.

But when you need two simultaneous ‘shows of force’ by low flying FJs or four Fast Jet deployments in four different places, or you’re still going to need two individual aircraft or four lots of aircraft.

And for some roles and/or activities there must surely be an irreduceable minimum number of aircraft/squadrons required.

Until quite recently, people (and quite senior people) would say that you needed five frontline FJ forces just to do UK AD, Northern Q, Southern Q, the Falklands and a bare minimum of deployed AD. Many people I’ve spoken to over the years suggested that this was actually less than the minimum requirement, and that the old late Cold War UK AD force of two AD wings North and South (four in total, with eight squadrons) was a more sensible number for peacetime AD duties.

A very senior officer told me at the end of the Cold War that cuts were coming, because the public had been promised, and had been encouraged to expect, a ‘Peace Dividend’. He expressed the view that actually, they should have been warned to expect force structure increases in some areas, because the world would be more unstable and more dangerous, as the rival super-powers invariably loosened their grip on their client states, and as the lids came off some simmering troublespots. His point was that UK AD (like most parts of the British Armed Forces) had been scaled to meet peacetime requirements, and to ‘buy a little time’ for negotiation in the event of hostilities with the USSR and/or Warsaw Pact, prior to an eventual escalation to nuclear war.

Others pointed out that even relatively small (but carefully planned) increases in activity by Soviet long range reconnaissance aircraft could run the risk of running the RAF out of QRA aircraft, and I remember reading some horrific figures about how many Lightnings would be involved in the event of a determined push by a surprisingly small number of hostiles, or about times when the UK did almost run out of QRA F-4s (I think I remember reading the latter on PPRuNe).

If anyone would care to remind me of these stories, I’d be very grateful.

Was my source being unduly pessimistic or cynical? Should we be sanguine that a planned force of six FJ squadrons will be more than capable of fulfilling peacetime requirements and any likely contingency?

Or should we face the fact (if indeed it is a fact) that a current frontline FJ force of five Typhoon squadrons and three Tornado units is stretched to capacity by the routine peacetime AD commitments, plus a small number of relatively small-scale and low-intensity overseas commitments?

How worried should we be about the reduction to a maximum of six fast jet squadrons in 2019 (the three Tornado squadrons will be replaced by a single F-35 (admittedly large) frontline unit whose operational output will initially be fairly modest)? These units will comprise 107 Tranche 2 and 3 Typhoons and about a dozen or at most two dozen F-35Bs. Eight squadrons seems barely sufficient now, and god alone knows how the UK would cope if we ever needed to conduct a Corporate or Granby scale of operation – something that I suspect most of the UK public would assume that we would (or should) still be able to do.

Could five Typhoon squadrons be sustained if the 40 or so remaining Tranche 1 aircraft are retired at the same time, as is currently planned?

Is there any merit in the idea that the Tranche 1 Typhoons should be retained in order to buttress force structure/mass (perhaps allowing the formation of Squadrons six and seven, or perhaps merely to allow the overall Typhoon force to achieve a later OSD?)? My understanding is that the improvements that would be required to overcome the obsolescence issues facing the Tranche 1 sub-fleet could be addressed fairly cheaply, and that an eight-to-ten year life extension to those aircraft would make the upgrade ‘cost effective’.

Can we really be looking at retiring Typhoons many of which are only a third of the way into their planned fatigue lives?

Or should we be encouraged by the way in which politicians have actually started talking about mass? By the way in which No.12 Squadron was retained and then extended? Should we expect a modest increase in squadron or aircraft numbers in SDSR? (Keeping T1 Typhoons would seem to be the simplest, cheapest and politically expedient method of boosting numbers, surely?).
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2015, 23:48
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Cynic's view.

1982 - Maggie's Cabinet was over half ex-Servicemen.
Today's Cabinet has (I think) one. The only thing the SofS for Defence has fought is 3 elections (Sevenoaks isn't a fight for a Conservative ). They would not even understand the content of your post. They care less. Why else appoint someone whose specialist area is children's nurseries? Defence is a budget item, and one that doesn't win many votes.

At the end of the Cold War, my reasons for leaving were:
1) A Peace dividend is a good thing, but it will be massively overdone and the UK will not have a credible Force capable of winning conflicts.
2) Post Cold War the UK will get into stupid regional wars which do not matter.
3) Civilianisation of the Armed Forces will destroy morale, training,and flexibility.

I have subsequently met two others who put exactly the same thing on their PVRs. I would think there are many others. Your VSO would be one of them.

We told you so.

You need new politicians (and I mean all of them).
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2015, 04:49
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: england
Posts: 851
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
They are making it up as they go along.
hunterboy is online now  
Old 14th Aug 2015, 05:52
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by hunterboy
They are making it up as they go along.
Be grateful & thank the Lord Harry that they are planning it to this level of detail.

I thought that they were just winging it, and shooting from the hip (knee-jerky fashion or should that be 'gangsta-style'? )
Finnpog is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2015, 06:06
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I left the RAF in the early 80's because my late wife and I decided that settled education for our soon to be teenagers was a more important requirement. As separation from the family and boarding schools were not in our plan.....I left on my 38/16 point. My "tempter" to stay in was a posting to the first Tornado Squadron (The Dambusters at that time) but it was not enough to change my mind.
At that time I had no thoughts of the break up of the RAF, nor had I considered any effects of the peace dividend...I was pleased that a personal decision had been made and lacked the ability (or desire) to make dark warnings for the future. Consequently I am awed at the forsight of many contributors here and elsewhere and with the benefit of hindsight must totally agree with Fox's "cynical" view.
I went on to join the team at Warton Flt Ops and continued flying and possibly benefited from the "peace dividend".....lots of work for us!
I think Jacko's summation is very well presented and thought provoking and I hope there are many well informed responses to it.
Sadly I'm so out of date I couldn't begin to comment, other than to say the whole Military looks to me, to be in a right mess!
Romeo Oscar Golf is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2015, 14:21
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can we really be looking at retiring Typhoons many of which are only a third of the way into their planned fatigue lives?

Or should we be encouraged by the way in which politicians have actually started talking about mass? By the way in which No.12 Squadron was retained and then extended? Should we expect a modest increase in squadron or aircraft numbers in SDSR? (Keeping T1 Typhoons would seem to be the simplest, cheapest and politically expedient method of boosting numbers, surely?).
I think this is probably a big question on the minds of many conducting the SDSR. Upgrading them would require a relatively modest up front investment, but would buy a lot of bang for our bucks; it would also fulfil what looks like a capability gap that will open up before the F35 reaches its ever delayed operational status. Personally, I'm very interested to see the total number of F35s we will settle on...I'm virtually certain it won't ever be abandoned because it's a political impossibility, but the buy could be scaled back so drastically that it is, to all intents and purposes, ditched.
Bastardeux is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2015, 15:23
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 1,041
Received 13 Likes on 5 Posts
Politically it might appear better if the T1 jets were sold to a 3rd party and the upgrade costs used to purchase additional new build ac. Baes insist that they're cheaper to build now, and it would extend OSD, provide a more coherent fleet and buy an extra few years for Baes / HMG to find new export orders before the line has to close. F35 numbers are hard to predict; the initial buy will be far smaller than the 130 jet figure, but given that the line (like the F16's) will be open for decades to come, attrition buys and a modest fleet increase could see the total tail numbers approach 100 over the next 25-30 years.

The only realistic way for the FJ world to expand would be to have a "Tier 2" capability (eg Scorpion/Gripen) to do any sustainment activity after the 'A team' have shaped the battlefield accordingly.
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2015, 16:16
  #8 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
About 1987/88
. . . when the UK did almost run out of QRA F-4s (I think I remember reading the latter on PPRuNe).
SNAF sent 4 pairs of Bear Foxtrot south through the Faroes Gap at 30 minute intervals, they then transitted via the Denmark Strait back north. As you surmised, that dragged QRA to the max, UK and Iceland with maxi tanker support
IIRC a home bound T* from Akrotiri, with pax, was also used for tanker - tanker top up.

Now if things had got really busy . . . .
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2015, 18:15
  #9 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,874
Received 60 Likes on 18 Posts
If the UK wants to continue to punch at or above its weight in global conflicts, the numbers are laughably short of a real capability. In the world of Dave and all his cronies (and not just the current bunch of Tories), their goal seems to be to make the UK Air capability marginally more effective than that of Botswana, but not quite up there with Taiwan. Still, people keep voting for this, so it must be what they want right?
Two's in is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2015, 18:46
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Politically it might appear better if the T1 jets were sold to a 3rd party and the upgrade costs used to purchase additional new build ac. Baes insist that they're cheaper to build now, and it would extend OSD, provide a more coherent fleet and buy an extra few years for Baes / HMG to find new export orders before the line has to close. F35 numbers are hard to predict; the initial buy will be far smaller than the 130 jet figure, but given that the line (like the F16's) will be open for decades to come, attrition buys and a modest fleet increase could see the total tail numbers approach 100 over the next 25-30 years.

The only realistic way for the FJ world to expand would be to have a "Tier 2" capability (eg Scorpion/Gripen) to do any sustainment activity after the 'A team' have shaped the battlefield accordingly.
You are correct, assuming someone will buy them off us, plus we could spend the money from the sale on some new builds too.

the 2 tier idea is partially why I foresee us buying a minuscule number of F35s...they'll be able to pave the way through the really nasty stuff on day 1 (at least until stealth countermeasures proliferate) and then the rest of the FJ force could hoof in behind them and quaff all the information they datalink to them. It would need yet another carrier configuration change though!
Bastardeux is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2015, 19:38
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 327
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
The initial planned uptake of F35, linked to the carriers, is 48 airframes. On Typhoon, given the immediate pressure on numbers, wouldn't the simplest route be to retain some T1s in the shortish term to stand up an extra sqn or two and use them purely for AD? That could serve as a temporary measure pending adding an extra sqn or two of F35 from the mid 2020s, at which point the T1s could go leaving a force structure of say 5 Typhoon sqns (T2s and T3s) and 4 sqns of F35.
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2015, 21:49
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 64
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All well and good reducing the numbers down to a peace time (?) level (well it's not really, but hey... who are we to say...) but what about attrition rates/replacements if things start to get 'interesting'. Simple fact is, we won't be able to just go and get more frames off the shelf, they take too long to build.

Same goes for the crews to operate them, as an example, looking at the interesting thread on here 'Gaining An R.A.F Pilots Brevet In WW11' describing the training methods/time scale in a time when the country was short of crews, in given circumstances again, how long would it take to train a crew to a sufficient level that they could operate a fast jet beyond a smoking pile 300 mtrs from the end off the runway?

TBH, the same arguments, complexity of kit vs quick build time for replacements/re-inforcement and the time taken training operators to a level where they can operate the kit efficiently stands across all three services.

Last edited by Always a Sapper; 15th Aug 2015 at 21:54. Reason: A realisation one should have paid attention during the english lessons at school!
Always a Sapper is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.