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

Times details proposed UK defence cut options

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.

Times details proposed UK defence cut options

Reply

Old 12th Jan 2018, 16:33
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,086
Times details proposed UK defence cut options

Apparently offered to the new Defence Secretary (and so probably leaked from his office):-

Option 1

59 cap badges removed
Combine 3Commando & 16 Air Assault
remove 7 Class 23 Frigates plus Bulwark & Albion
All 62 Wildcats
All 23 Puma
6 Apache
11 T4 Merlin
Retire Tornadoes early
Cut Ajax Armoured vehicle fro, 589 to 509

Option 2

39 cap badges removed
Remove 3 light infantry regiments and 3 cavalry regiments
Combine 3Commando & 16 Air Assault
remove 2 Class 23 Frigates plus Bulwark & Albion
All 23 Puma
8 Apache
Retire Tornadoes early
Cut Ajax Armoured vehicle fro, 589 to 509
Warrier Upgrade reduced

Option 3
42 cap badges removed
Remove 3 light infantry regiments and 3 cavalry regiments
Remove one strike Brigade
remove 2 Class 23 Frigates plus Bulwark immediately & Albion in 2023
All 23 Puma
All 62 Wildcats
All C130 Hercules
Cut Ajax Armoured vehicle fro, 589 to 509
Warrier Upgrade reduced
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 17:07
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 14,666
Puma and Herc fleet huh..... It's getting to a point where it would be easier to list what he intends to keep.

I do wonder what exactly he expects the RN to protect the carriers with when they come on stream.
NutLoose is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 17:25
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,086
No -that's NOT the current Defence Secretary's proposals - they are the ones presented to him when he got the job in December according the teh Times.

Presumably they are the ones circulating as part of the Defence Review/Security Review that have been causing all the problems - and you can see why.

Elsewhere in the paper one of the more libertarian/right wing columnists stated it really is a choice between a Eurocentric, anti-Russian, strategy with the Army based in (say) Poland) or a marine based long distance intervention armed forces. We can no longer do both and we can't paper over the cracks saying we can any longer.............

Could be a very rough 2018 I'm afraid as I can't see anything about Mrs May that suggests she has a clue about the issues
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 19:38
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,643
This is a link to the actual infographic in The Times...



I reckon that Puma and Wildcat will be gonners. Tornado GR4 OSD brought forward. Procurement of Poseidon and Protector slowed - same initial delivery dates but slower subsequent deliveries. Gazelle is also a gonner so you do have to wonder if the AAC will be tenable with just Apache. There will likely be RAF Regt Sqns in the cap badge loss.

Really surprised to see that Watchkeeper isn’t on the list as well.
Lima Juliet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 19:45
  #5 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 71
Posts: 2,672
There was me thinking that the first duty of a government was the protection of the State and its citizens. Silly, I know.
Herod is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 20:03
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 975
Cut , cut , cut... Got sod all to do with Beagles favourite subject, but a strong defence is only possible with a strong economy.. That Gentlemen is the truth and our economy is a lot weaker that many on here think it really is.
Alber Ratman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 20:05
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 975
Originally Posted by Herod View Post
There was me thinking that the first duty of a government was the protection of the State and its citizens. Silly, I know.

Party before Country.. Always has been..
Alber Ratman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 20:23
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,391
Originally Posted by Alber Ratman View Post
Cut , cut , cut... Got sod all to do with Beagles favourite subject, but a strong defence is only possible with a strong economy.. That Gentlemen is the truth and our economy is a lot weaker that many on here think it really is.
Sixth largest economy in the world and sixth/fifth (or there abouts on both counts) largest defence budget even accounting for a somewhat anaemic economy.

Given that, why can we not afford to defend the country properly? Or would it be more accurate to ask why do politicians choose not to defend the country properly?
Melchett01 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 20:35
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 14,666
That doesn't read right, if you chop just the Puma and that equates to 2000 RAF, how does Puma AND Herc equate to 1500 ? scrap Puma and retire Tonkas early equates to even less at 1250 RAF.


It does make you wonder, waste all that money on Puma upgrade and then scrap it. Surely the fleet utilisation of Chinook will go up as it tries to take up the slack, as will operating costs as a wildcat or Puma must be cheaper to operate than Chinook, and surely a lot of the Navy stuff will not be compatible with operating with and hangering a larger helicopter such as Merlin? Or am I missing something?
NutLoose is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 21:28
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 975
Originally Posted by Melchett01 View Post
Sixth largest economy in the world and sixth/fifth (or there abouts on both counts) largest defence budget even accounting for a somewhat anaemic economy.

Given that, why can we not afford to defend the country properly? Or would it be more accurate to ask why do politicians choose not to defend the country properly?
Because they are incompentent? Anyone that says Boris Johnson is competent, I would advise to go and see a doctor. Jeremy Hunt should have walked this week. My wife had to see the horrors of an NHS hospital acceptance ward this week. Her mother was told she had stage 4 cancer by a junior doctor in a corridor, next to other patients. Nowhere else free to go and do so. The sodding Government fine Hospital trusts as they cannot fulfil ****** targets. Madness. Corbyns lot are just as bad a thought of course. Need a RAF led Government.. Decent Man Management.
Alber Ratman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 21:31
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 223
I was with you till that last bit....
Rotate too late is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 21:32
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,036
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
It does make you wonder, waste all that money on Puma upgrade and then scrap it.
Money already spent is of no consequence as it neither saves you anything or cost you anything
Davef68 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 21:35
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,391
Originally Posted by Davef68 View Post
Money already spent is of no consequence as it neither saves you anything or cost you anything
Unless you’ve spent it on a capability you use now and will continue to need in the future.
Melchett01 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 21:44
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,034
As Tornado is due to retire in March 2019 (just 14 months’ time) and what little maintenance remains is already on contract, chopping it ‘early’ will save practically nothing. I call BS...
Easy Street is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 22:20
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 805
Looking from afar, it looks like UK Defence Force will in future be 2 very nice large aircraft carriers, and rest of the 3 services hollowed out.
rjtjrt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 22:44
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,391
Originally Posted by rjtjrt View Post
Looking from afar, it looks like UK Defence Force will in future be 2 very nice large aircraft carriers, and rest of the 3 services hollowed out.
Or as the now retired Com JFC described, Belgium with nukes. Just as well our nuclear delivery system isn’t air based from a carrier. At current rates our carriers could well end up being a military version of a taxi service for those nations who have invested properly. Unfortunately, it seems our Emperors really aren’t too bothered about their new clothes; but they still want the biggest and most expensive wardrobe to impress the neighbours.
Melchett01 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2018, 22:49
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 1,935
Or maybe it's just inaccurate nonsense as everything else the Times has had to say about defence has been...
pr00ne is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Jan 2018, 05:27
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 331
Originally Posted by Jambo Jet View Post
ISTAR fleet safe then?
I’d like to see what they think could be cut from that. Couple of Sentrys perhaps but, see any squadrons being chopped.

GR4 will be the sacrificial lamb imho.
Pure Pursuit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Jan 2018, 07:46
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 6,880
Hmmm, chopping great chunks out of the helicopter force just as a new training system is starting up with an expensive new contract where the company are paid by the number of students which we suddenly won't need..............
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Jan 2018, 09:14
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 74
Posts: 6,154
Good job we still have the Scouts! (Boy Scouts that is)
Wander00 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service