SDSR rumours.
2022 OSD for the 146s IIRC (the 2 procured for airlift, at least). Rewinging for the C-130s already announced by gov (sort of) -
Photo of Angus RobertsonAngus Robertson SNP Westminster Leader, Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Defence), Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Foreign Affairs)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether a study of the centre-wing box of the C-130J fleet is in progress.
Hansard source
(Citation: HC Deb, 16 March 2015, cW)
Photo of Julian BrazierJulian Brazier The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stte for Defence
A joint UK-Australian study of the centre-wing box of the Hercules C-130J is in progress.
Does this answer the ab
Photo of Angus RobertsonAngus Robertson SNP Westminster Leader, Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Defence), Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Foreign Affairs)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether a study of the centre-wing box of the C-130J fleet is in progress.
Hansard source
(Citation: HC Deb, 16 March 2015, cW)
Photo of Julian BrazierJulian Brazier The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stte for Defence
A joint UK-Australian study of the centre-wing box of the Hercules C-130J is in progress.
Does this answer the ab
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And the mega bucks to be thrown at the E-3D for upgrades if it has to soldier on to 2035. I would imagine, however, a further shrinkage in the the number of airframes and crews/Sqns with the the rest being stripped for spares.
Assuming the NATO commitment/offset can be met of course - it may/may not be cheaper to run it on rather than fold it and have to fund the NATO E-3A force. I would expect the costs are close, but the flexibility to cover the FI task and OOA would make it preferable.
And, indeed, the 737 Wedgetail may come into the picture as a replacement, but not I imagine for at least a couple of decades until the P-8 bill has wound down.
Assuming the NATO commitment/offset can be met of course - it may/may not be cheaper to run it on rather than fold it and have to fund the NATO E-3A force. I would expect the costs are close, but the flexibility to cover the FI task and OOA would make it preferable.
And, indeed, the 737 Wedgetail may come into the picture as a replacement, but not I imagine for at least a couple of decades until the P-8 bill has wound down.
FWIW, I shall continue to be the resident naysayer until all the details are in - I'm afraid I have to agree with Kitbag, Hangarshuffle et al.
This was a very pleasant announcement for a PM who has to sound strong in the midst of a global terrorist crisis and a foreign policy quagmire. Remember we were told before the election that the equipment budget would increase, but nothing about the personnel budget.
If the intent is for the Army not to drop below 82,000 under any circumstance, if SF and the Intelligence Agencies are having a huge (relative to their size) pile of cash thrown at them but the Chancellor still wants to save money, those savings will have to come from somewhere. I still haven't seen a formal breakdown of how we will meet the 2% NATO target going forward, so cynic in me thinks they are going to try and role bits of SIA and DFID funding into it by conflating Defence and hard power with Security and soft power.
Note there was no mention of pay and Ts&Cs today, clearly not the purview of a Strategic Review lest they be accused of a cuts driven review. But if they cut increments, if allowances are revamped (with a move to 5 yr tours and increasing stability I'd wager CEA and HTD look shaky) and if training budgets are cut, we still run the risk of having lots of new kit and insufficient people to operate it. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I've seen too much spin over the years not to look for the googlie when you least expect it.
This was a very pleasant announcement for a PM who has to sound strong in the midst of a global terrorist crisis and a foreign policy quagmire. Remember we were told before the election that the equipment budget would increase, but nothing about the personnel budget.
If the intent is for the Army not to drop below 82,000 under any circumstance, if SF and the Intelligence Agencies are having a huge (relative to their size) pile of cash thrown at them but the Chancellor still wants to save money, those savings will have to come from somewhere. I still haven't seen a formal breakdown of how we will meet the 2% NATO target going forward, so cynic in me thinks they are going to try and role bits of SIA and DFID funding into it by conflating Defence and hard power with Security and soft power.
Note there was no mention of pay and Ts&Cs today, clearly not the purview of a Strategic Review lest they be accused of a cuts driven review. But if they cut increments, if allowances are revamped (with a move to 5 yr tours and increasing stability I'd wager CEA and HTD look shaky) and if training budgets are cut, we still run the risk of having lots of new kit and insufficient people to operate it. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I've seen too much spin over the years not to look for the googlie when you least expect it.
Last edited by Melchett01; 23rd Nov 2015 at 20:46.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Ulaan Bator
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like it or Lump it
Melchett - beat me to it ....
Great, so finally after the lure of the shiny new toys we're getting into the details that will make or break this plan.
As others have said...a good day on the face of it for the light blue. Now need to see the supporting evidence to see if this plan survives... manning requirements, recruiting plan, T&Cs, impact on career structure, expectation of promotion, how fast can we recruit and train the engineers, prospects for a full career etc
But a message that is being pedalled widely is the need to become more like the likes of BAe and others out there i.e prepared to accept a transient workforce who come and go and are replaced, become leaner, lose any expectation of 'special treatment' on housing, schooling, pension, 'perks', and either like it or lump it i.e accept or walk.
No problems with a tough message or with change...the money is tight and any waste needs to be removed..but is it really wise to present such a stark choice and ignore any bottom-up views. If the wider T&Cs and the overall package is not a decent one, then people will walk. This has always happened but do people understand that when they walk they take experience with them. And experience cannot be recruited. Any gap takes years to fill. Add to this, the apparent move/desire for a workforce that are on short term appointments with no expectation of a 'full career' and this will lead to a RAF that is very different to the one in existence today.
So any thoughts on what needs to change on the personnel/T&Cs side to put the SDSR plan into reality?
Great, so finally after the lure of the shiny new toys we're getting into the details that will make or break this plan.
As others have said...a good day on the face of it for the light blue. Now need to see the supporting evidence to see if this plan survives... manning requirements, recruiting plan, T&Cs, impact on career structure, expectation of promotion, how fast can we recruit and train the engineers, prospects for a full career etc
But a message that is being pedalled widely is the need to become more like the likes of BAe and others out there i.e prepared to accept a transient workforce who come and go and are replaced, become leaner, lose any expectation of 'special treatment' on housing, schooling, pension, 'perks', and either like it or lump it i.e accept or walk.
No problems with a tough message or with change...the money is tight and any waste needs to be removed..but is it really wise to present such a stark choice and ignore any bottom-up views. If the wider T&Cs and the overall package is not a decent one, then people will walk. This has always happened but do people understand that when they walk they take experience with them. And experience cannot be recruited. Any gap takes years to fill. Add to this, the apparent move/desire for a workforce that are on short term appointments with no expectation of a 'full career' and this will lead to a RAF that is very different to the one in existence today.
So any thoughts on what needs to change on the personnel/T&Cs side to put the SDSR plan into reality?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the face of it, manning the force mix described today with a largely regular uniformed force of 31 800 requires a cunning plan from manning (god help us). It's more than binning a dozen adminers here and a handful of coppers there.
Doing all this whilst "in contact" in Iraq and Syria adds to the fun.
A review (another one) to see if you can make a post civie (not MOD civi as they have been butchered), bin it or contract it out is inbound...
Doing all this whilst "in contact" in Iraq and Syria adds to the fun.
A review (another one) to see if you can make a post civie (not MOD civi as they have been butchered), bin it or contract it out is inbound...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Northwest
Age: 64
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The messages the civil service are getting is that it will be outsourced , do you seriously think crapita, G4S and their like will provide the service needed....... no I didn't think so.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contracting out leads to contraction of your pool of deployable personnel. Sqns aren't too bad, but what about OOA VAHS sections or all the other supporting roles that make an airfield tick, these tend to be made up of waifs and strays from all those second line bays etc. Bin them and who's going to do the job, the hard pressed sqn guys? And is it really sensible to pull them away from their specialisation to do a generalist task? These days to meet the mandated requirement for Suitably Qualified and Experienced Personnel takes considerable investment at each rank level. That is a tension that the Service cannot resist.
There is a manning problem, TG1 are about to go to 12m PVR notice; not the sign of a healthy manning balance. Some other TGs are in much worse condition. FF2020 manning requirements have already been breached. The 'offer' is no longer enough for a lot of good guys; I've had people who are going to work as train drivers, or renewable techs, or train maintainers, or going into teaching, or maintaining production line equipment. They are all looking at 50-100% salary increase + overtime and they all remember the trauma of the redundancy notices less than 5 years ago.
There is a manning problem, TG1 are about to go to 12m PVR notice; not the sign of a healthy manning balance. Some other TGs are in much worse condition. FF2020 manning requirements have already been breached. The 'offer' is no longer enough for a lot of good guys; I've had people who are going to work as train drivers, or renewable techs, or train maintainers, or going into teaching, or maintaining production line equipment. They are all looking at 50-100% salary increase + overtime and they all remember the trauma of the redundancy notices less than 5 years ago.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contracting out what is after all 737 maintenance should be fairly straight forward once a suitable Safety Case has been prepared and compliance monitoring applied.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Mos Eisley
Age: 48
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Woodford must feel a bit sick. Last UK aerospace whole aircraft production capability closed for what - a 5 year payment holiday?[QUOTE]
Apart from Westland. And it doesn't matter how close the MRA4 was to completion if it was never going to meet airworthiness regulation, which seemed to be the elephant in the room five years ago.
[QUOTE]regarding where the 2 new Typhoon sqns will be based, would basing at Boscombe Down be a possibility? It's already down to be a QRA base should the situation require it and there is certainly an RAF FJ absence south of Lincolnshire! As the QRA requirements would imply, its got plenty of HAS', two huge runways and I'm presuming all the other infrastructure that would be required.[QUOTE]
Very unlikely. Every fleet has been rationalised into the fewest possible number of bases in recent years, therefore setting up the Typhoon shop at Boscombe for only 2 sqns would be a significant U-turn. Other problems include integrating permanent QRA into an R&D airfield and the distance to both ranges and likely targets.
Apart from Westland. And it doesn't matter how close the MRA4 was to completion if it was never going to meet airworthiness regulation, which seemed to be the elephant in the room five years ago.
[QUOTE]regarding where the 2 new Typhoon sqns will be based, would basing at Boscombe Down be a possibility? It's already down to be a QRA base should the situation require it and there is certainly an RAF FJ absence south of Lincolnshire! As the QRA requirements would imply, its got plenty of HAS', two huge runways and I'm presuming all the other infrastructure that would be required.[QUOTE]
Very unlikely. Every fleet has been rationalised into the fewest possible number of bases in recent years, therefore setting up the Typhoon shop at Boscombe for only 2 sqns would be a significant U-turn. Other problems include integrating permanent QRA into an R&D airfield and the distance to both ranges and likely targets.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Ulaan Bator
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The grass can always look greener.
Any salary increase has to be taken in the round - the complete package of housing, transport, medical, dental, job security, the responsibility, the chance of promotion, the fun, the recognition, the cameraderie, job satisfaction, chance to do AT and representative sport, the challenge, the access to top class gym facilities, and ultimately the feeling that once is doing something worthwhile for others etc when making comparisons
But as I was alluding to in my earlier post, the notion that the Armed Forces was more than just a typical civvie job seems to be being eroded deliberately. To what harm? and what needs to be done for most impact and to enable the SDSR equipment buys?
Any salary increase has to be taken in the round - the complete package of housing, transport, medical, dental, job security, the responsibility, the chance of promotion, the fun, the recognition, the cameraderie, job satisfaction, chance to do AT and representative sport, the challenge, the access to top class gym facilities, and ultimately the feeling that once is doing something worthwhile for others etc when making comparisons
But as I was alluding to in my earlier post, the notion that the Armed Forces was more than just a typical civvie job seems to be being eroded deliberately. To what harm? and what needs to be done for most impact and to enable the SDSR equipment buys?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any salary increase has to be taken in the round - the complete package of housing, transport, medical, dental, job security, the responsibility, the chance of promotion, the fun, the recognition, the cameraderie, job satisfaction, chance to do AT and representative sport, the challenge, the access to top class gym facilities, and ultimately the feeling that once is doing something worthwhile for others etc when making comparisons
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Northwest
Age: 64
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To what harm? and what needs to be done for most impact and to enable the SDSR equipment buys?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok greener.
Any salary increase has to be taken in the round - the complete package of housing, transport, medical, dental, job security, the responsibility, the chance of promotion, the fun, the recognition, the cameraderie, job satisfaction, chance to do AT and representative sport, the challenge, the access to top class gym facilities, and ultimately the feeling that once is doing something worthwhile for others etc when making comparisons
But as I was alluding to in my earlier post, the notion that the Armed Forces was more than just a typical civvie job seems to be being eroded deliberately. To what harm? and what needs to be done for most impact and to enable the SDSR equipment buys?
Any salary increase has to be taken in the round - the complete package of housing, transport, medical, dental, job security, the responsibility, the chance of promotion, the fun, the recognition, the cameraderie, job satisfaction, chance to do AT and representative sport, the challenge, the access to top class gym facilities, and ultimately the feeling that once is doing something worthwhile for others etc when making comparisons
But as I was alluding to in my earlier post, the notion that the Armed Forces was more than just a typical civvie job seems to be being eroded deliberately. To what harm? and what needs to be done for most impact and to enable the SDSR equipment buys?
S-D
?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I can see one of the Tranche 1 Sqns will be for RAFAT at Scampton, maybe both.
In fairness to today's announcements we need to see the detail of the spending round out of MOD. Does the froth hide an ugly side of cuts to other capability? For example where does the manpower come from to man 2xTyphoon Sqns + 9 MPA Sqn, plus run on of Shadow, C130J etc.
In fairness to today's announcements we need to see the detail of the spending round out of MOD. Does the froth hide an ugly side of cuts to other capability? For example where does the manpower come from to man 2xTyphoon Sqns + 9 MPA Sqn, plus run on of Shadow, C130J etc.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine this recognition of the fact that the A-400M won't be qualified to carry out the full range of SF duties till then - and the enhanced support and duties/hours the C-130 force will be obliged to support in the meantime.
A-400M is a bit big for tactical SF Ops anyway. Not saying C-130 is expendable rather than strategic, but........
A-400M is a bit big for tactical SF Ops anyway. Not saying C-130 is expendable rather than strategic, but........
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely - it will be interesting to see whether the RAF is able to tap into the rather healthy market of 737 servicing - or whether the self-emptying cargo hold will present a barrier to cheaper maintenance.
Defence Review: Fighting old battles? - BBC News
That won't go down well in Portsmouth. Where's the 'crying with laughter' emoticon when you need it?
Originally Posted by Mark Urban
Despite the commitment to a new class of general purpose frigate (the Type 26), confirmed today, the Royal Navy would also struggle to assemble enough escorts for its new carriers to protect them from submarine attack. The new carriers, rather, can now be seen clearly as floating runways to strike non-state enemies or mid-sized military powers (such as Libya in 2011 or Syria, nearly, in 2013), or for other uses such as flying helicopters to evacuate British nationals or to deliver disaster relief. They will have to operate relatively close to shore, because of the limited range of the F35 and helicopters that will be embarked, and doing that against a major military power would be too risky with the level of protection the Royal Navy could give them: no admiral will want to risk the loss of a ship named HMS Queen Elizabeth.