SDSR rumours.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Well Osborne has confirmed one rumour this morning on the Andrew Marr show. F35B purchases to be brought forward to allow a wing of 24 to be deployed carrier based by 2023. Also briefed the Sunday Times.
Osborne pays out for 138 stealth jets
BRITAIN is to buy 138 stealth fighter jets in a £12bn deal that will treble the firepower of the UK’s two new aircraft carriers and put the country on a “full war footing” in the Middle East for a generation.
George Osborne reveals today that the centrepiece of the government’s strategic defence review, to be unveiled tomorrow, will be a commitment to give Britain the world’s second most potent carrier strike force after the United States. In an interview with The Sunday Times, the chancellor said Britain should put aside its qualms about military intervention and be prepared to “project our values” around the world.
Senior government sources said the new aircraft would enable the armed forces to reclaim the Falkland Islands if they were seized by Argentina — something that critics have claimed our navy would be unable to achieve today. They will also give the UK the ability to hit Islamists in Isis territory, as well as other groups, for the next 50 years.
In an acceleration of the F-35 programme, 42 jets will be bought by 2023, with 24 available at that point for frontline squadrons operating from the new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. Before the defence review the government had planned to have eight F-35 jets available for deployment on the new carriers by 2023.
Experts had thought there was no prospect of buying anything close to 138 jets. Ministers had previously committed to deploying 14 jets on each aircraft carrier. The new pledge means they will be able to deploy 39 of the Lightning aircraft if they need to “surge” in an emergency. At least one carrier will be able to deploy all year anywhere in the world and conduct 24-hour air operations.
The first tranche of 24 jets, built by Lockheed Martin, will cost £2.4bn and trebling the number available by 2023 will add £1.2bn to the planned costs over the next 10 years. The final cost of all 138 jets is estimated at £12bn but Treasury officials will not commit themselves to a figure. The rest of the fleet will be built over the coming two decades.
The commitment to the new jets is the most high-profile spending pledge in the defence review, which includes an expansion of the special forces, more drones and plans to press ahead with the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. On Wednesday Osborne will also announce more than £2bn in extra spending for counterterrorism. Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, was instrumental in persuading Downing Street and the Treasury not to confine new spending to homeland security issues but to deliver “hard punch” capabilities on a global scale as well.
The review will, however, include cuts to the Royal Navy and to Ministry of Defence management funding. Some military units will be forced to merge or disband, military bases will be closed and sold off and there will be more outsourcing. There will also be a reduction in training budgets and changes to military terms of service.
“By bringing forward the purchase of the world’s most advanced stealth fighter jets, we will enhance our ability to respond to threats wherever and whenever necessary. Our independent aircraft carrier capability will be second only to our closest allies, the Americans,” Osborne said. “These are versatile multi-role fighter jets, able to engage in air-to-air and air-to-ground combat. And of course, British businesses and workers will benefit from this decision too, which is worth £29bn to the UK supply chain.”
Britain is the second-largest partner in the multinational F-35 programme. BAE makes air frame components in Lancashire, Rolls-Royce makes the lift fan in Bristol and Martin Baker manufactures the ejector seats in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire.
The navy will fare less well. Its plan to field a fleet of 13 new frigates will be scaled back by the defence review on cost grounds. With each of the new Type 26 Global Combat Ships expected to cost more than £500m, navy chiefs have had to accept that they will not be able to replace the Type 23 on a one-for-one basis. Two existing warships, including a £1bn destroyer, are also to be pulled off frontline duty.
Osborne pays out for 138 stealth jets
BRITAIN is to buy 138 stealth fighter jets in a £12bn deal that will treble the firepower of the UK’s two new aircraft carriers and put the country on a “full war footing” in the Middle East for a generation.
George Osborne reveals today that the centrepiece of the government’s strategic defence review, to be unveiled tomorrow, will be a commitment to give Britain the world’s second most potent carrier strike force after the United States. In an interview with The Sunday Times, the chancellor said Britain should put aside its qualms about military intervention and be prepared to “project our values” around the world.
Senior government sources said the new aircraft would enable the armed forces to reclaim the Falkland Islands if they were seized by Argentina — something that critics have claimed our navy would be unable to achieve today. They will also give the UK the ability to hit Islamists in Isis territory, as well as other groups, for the next 50 years.
In an acceleration of the F-35 programme, 42 jets will be bought by 2023, with 24 available at that point for frontline squadrons operating from the new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. Before the defence review the government had planned to have eight F-35 jets available for deployment on the new carriers by 2023.
Experts had thought there was no prospect of buying anything close to 138 jets. Ministers had previously committed to deploying 14 jets on each aircraft carrier. The new pledge means they will be able to deploy 39 of the Lightning aircraft if they need to “surge” in an emergency. At least one carrier will be able to deploy all year anywhere in the world and conduct 24-hour air operations.
The first tranche of 24 jets, built by Lockheed Martin, will cost £2.4bn and trebling the number available by 2023 will add £1.2bn to the planned costs over the next 10 years. The final cost of all 138 jets is estimated at £12bn but Treasury officials will not commit themselves to a figure. The rest of the fleet will be built over the coming two decades.
The commitment to the new jets is the most high-profile spending pledge in the defence review, which includes an expansion of the special forces, more drones and plans to press ahead with the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. On Wednesday Osborne will also announce more than £2bn in extra spending for counterterrorism. Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, was instrumental in persuading Downing Street and the Treasury not to confine new spending to homeland security issues but to deliver “hard punch” capabilities on a global scale as well.
The review will, however, include cuts to the Royal Navy and to Ministry of Defence management funding. Some military units will be forced to merge or disband, military bases will be closed and sold off and there will be more outsourcing. There will also be a reduction in training budgets and changes to military terms of service.
“By bringing forward the purchase of the world’s most advanced stealth fighter jets, we will enhance our ability to respond to threats wherever and whenever necessary. Our independent aircraft carrier capability will be second only to our closest allies, the Americans,” Osborne said. “These are versatile multi-role fighter jets, able to engage in air-to-air and air-to-ground combat. And of course, British businesses and workers will benefit from this decision too, which is worth £29bn to the UK supply chain.”
Britain is the second-largest partner in the multinational F-35 programme. BAE makes air frame components in Lancashire, Rolls-Royce makes the lift fan in Bristol and Martin Baker manufactures the ejector seats in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire.
The navy will fare less well. Its plan to field a fleet of 13 new frigates will be scaled back by the defence review on cost grounds. With each of the new Type 26 Global Combat Ships expected to cost more than £500m, navy chiefs have had to accept that they will not be able to replace the Type 23 on a one-for-one basis. Two existing warships, including a £1bn destroyer, are also to be pulled off frontline duty.
Osborne on Marr just stated 24 F-35 for the QE class carriers. He didn't say each or between them though 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a bit late to the table, but seems quite sensible really.
As for more leaks from the Chancellor after the dire warning from CDS & PUS it really does reveal that there is one rule for them and another for the proletariat, as ninja-lewis suggests, nothing has changed since Yes Minister.
As for more leaks from the Chancellor after the dire warning from CDS & PUS it really does reveal that there is one rule for them and another for the proletariat, as ninja-lewis suggests, nothing has changed since Yes Minister.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The MPA becomes more stealthy by the day...
Fears over RAF bases as MoD reviews plane plans
Scotland on Sunday has learnt that the MoD is opting for RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire instead of reopening RAF Kinloss in Scotland or stationing the aircraft at RAF Lossiemouth, both in Moray.
The news comes amid a row between the MoD and Treasury over which aircraft to buy, with Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne pressing defence secretary Michael Fallon to go for a cheap option.
The MoD is said to want the Boeing P8 Poseidon model, which is seen as the best of its type currently available. The Treasury, though, is pressing for a basic converted Hercules constructed by Lockheed Martin, while a middle option, the Airbus C-295, is also being considered.
It has emerged that this week’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) will not decide on a final model but instead order a competition, which means the MoD is unlikely to get the Boeing, which costs £100 million per plane..........
My understanding is that regardless of the numbers of F35 we purchase, the ability launch them off a fully manned carrier (Carrier Enabled Power Projection)will be virtually impossible; this is due in part to the paucity of RN crew to man the ship - and the trend is for further loss of experienced personnel. An interesting conundrum when the MoD then tries to bring the second carrier on line, whilst still trying to work up the first one.
The point of the comment, regardless of how technically advanced we become, without the operators with the correct level of knowledge and experience, the equipment is useless!
It is hoped that whatever is released tomorrow, it has been refreshed to ensure that it is a realistic proposition addressing all the key elements to do what we are asked. More importantly, that manpower doesn't take another hit! Or B.....
The point of the comment, regardless of how technically advanced we become, without the operators with the correct level of knowledge and experience, the equipment is useless!
It is hoped that whatever is released tomorrow, it has been refreshed to ensure that it is a realistic proposition addressing all the key elements to do what we are asked. More importantly, that manpower doesn't take another hit! Or B.....
The review will, however, include cuts to the Royal Navy and to Ministry of Defence management funding. Some military units will be forced to merge or disband, military bases will be closed and sold off and there will be more outsourcing. There will also be a reduction in training budgets and changes to military terms of service.
Well I guess he had the wisdom to see it coming but was powerless to prevent it.
Ah well, I'll still buy CDS a pint in any case.
Given that fears that the RN were going to get yet another shafting are looking probable and that they look very likely to lose a lot of big hardware, that could be someone's brilliant solution to their manning problem for a new carrier. I can almost sense the glee as the treasury realised that a mass reduction in other surface ships would not only save money, but free up some manpower. Despite the apparent genius in that, it clearly shows that the lunatics really are running the asylum.
The Navy are not going to be happy, but I can imagine the First Sea Lord's options - you want your new carrier group, you have to give up something big.
The Navy are not going to be happy, but I can imagine the First Sea Lord's options - you want your new carrier group, you have to give up something big.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New frigates and destroyers of an in use design are relatively easy to build, man and work up if you need some extra.
New carriers and air group from nothing........not so much
New carriers and air group from nothing........not so much
I've been hearing the words that SDSR might be a 'catastrophic success' in that we'll get the equipment we want but will be unable to man it or train people for it due to previous crass decisions (like MFTS, DCTT, etc...).
Luckily, the madness of the 'single gateway' into the RAF seems to be faltering - why would you attempt to b^gger around with your recruit training system when you know that you're going to undershoot the FF2020 Manpower target in 2016! Furthermore, the MFTS changeover at Cranwell might just bail out some of the training targets for aircrew due to there being an amount of time where the RAF and MFTS are running in parallel - however, log-jams will follow soon after if all of the new jets need manning for ops and not OCUs.
Anyway, we'll see. The best bit of news for me would be the dissolution of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) - fat chance of that happening. They are doing more damage to the RAF than the Luftwaffe did in 1940...
LJ
Luckily, the madness of the 'single gateway' into the RAF seems to be faltering - why would you attempt to b^gger around with your recruit training system when you know that you're going to undershoot the FF2020 Manpower target in 2016! Furthermore, the MFTS changeover at Cranwell might just bail out some of the training targets for aircrew due to there being an amount of time where the RAF and MFTS are running in parallel - however, log-jams will follow soon after if all of the new jets need manning for ops and not OCUs.
Anyway, we'll see. The best bit of news for me would be the dissolution of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) - fat chance of that happening. They are doing more damage to the RAF than the Luftwaffe did in 1940...
LJ
If 42 jets in 2023 is an acceleration, the previous program was remarkably slow. Eight by 2023 would have meant that the CVs would have been dependent on the Marines even for work-up as FJ carriers. But before that we'd been told that there would have been two squadrons and an OCU to support CVs joining the fleet.
It also depends on whether we're talking about buy year or delivery year.
However, it's more likely that the old plan is being spun as an expansion.
It also depends on whether we're talking about buy year or delivery year.
However, it's more likely that the old plan is being spun as an expansion.
Last edited by LowObservable; 22nd Nov 2015 at 16:17.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to allow a wing of 24 to be deployed carrier based by 2023
In 8 years time.
Makes you think when some of the pilots for the beast are still at school smoking behind the bike sheds.
In 8 years time.
Makes you think when some of the pilots for the beast are still at school smoking behind the bike sheds.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: England
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So....what about the capability gap until 2023?
2023 is a long way off....4 years after the GR4 supposedly retires...
1. What will be covering the capability gap left by Tornado?
2. Hmmm...Lots of pilots looking for new jobs after tornado....not enough typhoon cockpits to go around...airlines recruiting and a training system that can't even support the current shortfall....where are all the FJ pilots going to come from to man F35?
Perhaps the venerable GR4 can continue for additional 4 years...best we stop scrapping airframes and train some more WSOs I think!
1. What will be covering the capability gap left by Tornado?
2. Hmmm...Lots of pilots looking for new jobs after tornado....not enough typhoon cockpits to go around...airlines recruiting and a training system that can't even support the current shortfall....where are all the FJ pilots going to come from to man F35?
Perhaps the venerable GR4 can continue for additional 4 years...best we stop scrapping airframes and train some more WSOs I think!
I've been thinking about this over the weekend, not something I try to do very often at weekends, and I've come to the conclusion that there is method in the Government's madness. Rather than appearing to be incompetent in generating a hollow force, the whole point is to re-engineer the demographics of the Forces to save money.
Given the erosion in Ts&Cs, something that looks set to continue, I suspect they are hoping to make the Forces unattractive as a long term career thus saving money on the pay and pensions bill as people gain experience and progress up the ladder. Result, you end up with a high turnover of youngsters who are cheaper and once they've done their few years you hope to retain that experience by locking them into the Reserves. I think the net effect will be to give us a military not too dissimilar to the Swiss, with a very small number of career types who provide the professional cadre and long term leadership to a large number of less experienced, junior types and Reserves.
That the Swiss are effectively a home defence force rather than an expeditionary force means this isn't an appropriate model for the UK to copy, but given the seeming focus on driving people out I just can't think of any other rational explanation.
Given the erosion in Ts&Cs, something that looks set to continue, I suspect they are hoping to make the Forces unattractive as a long term career thus saving money on the pay and pensions bill as people gain experience and progress up the ladder. Result, you end up with a high turnover of youngsters who are cheaper and once they've done their few years you hope to retain that experience by locking them into the Reserves. I think the net effect will be to give us a military not too dissimilar to the Swiss, with a very small number of career types who provide the professional cadre and long term leadership to a large number of less experienced, junior types and Reserves.
That the Swiss are effectively a home defence force rather than an expeditionary force means this isn't an appropriate model for the UK to copy, but given the seeming focus on driving people out I just can't think of any other rational explanation.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchy,
I couldn't agree more. Although I only have a short time left, here at Odiham all we can see is more time away, and not even good times away. I reckon I have spent more time on a boat than the JHC RN contingent within in the last 2 years. Sadly, I think we will be spending even more time bobbing around with the fisheads-as will our F-35 mates.
I could make a cheap shot at Royal Flying Corps, or why bother with the Fleet Air Arm, but I wouldn't wish that lifestyle on any of my light blue colleagues.
As you say, all it will do is incentivise the qualified and experienced to go for the exit at an earlier point in their shorter careers. Treasury may benefit, we certainly will not.
I couldn't agree more. Although I only have a short time left, here at Odiham all we can see is more time away, and not even good times away. I reckon I have spent more time on a boat than the JHC RN contingent within in the last 2 years. Sadly, I think we will be spending even more time bobbing around with the fisheads-as will our F-35 mates.
I could make a cheap shot at Royal Flying Corps, or why bother with the Fleet Air Arm, but I wouldn't wish that lifestyle on any of my light blue colleagues.
As you say, all it will do is incentivise the qualified and experienced to go for the exit at an earlier point in their shorter careers. Treasury may benefit, we certainly will not.
Given the erosion in Ts&Cs, something that looks set to continue, I suspect they are hoping to make the Forces unattractive as a long term career thus saving money on the pay and pensions bill as people gain experience and progress up the ladder. Result, you end up with a high turnover of youngsters who are cheaper and once they've done their few years you hope to retain that experience by locking them into the Reserves. I think the net effect will be to give us a military not too dissimilar to the Swiss, with a very small number of career types who provide the professional cadre and long term leadership to a large number of less experienced, junior types and Reserves.