Good questions being raised, perhaps there shoud be an end to end review of requirements against the available budget.

Result would be a rowing boat on the Serpentine, carrying a picture of an aircraft, being rowed by CGS. Directed from the bank by Sec State.

Or a review of committed task resource requirements, as was begun at a secret HQ near Gloucester (before it moved).

When they got to a number of personnel in light blue over 75,000 the instruction was to cease and desist, as the political limit had been set at 51,000 (allegedly).

I would venture that the operational needs are far in excess of the total available resources, and therein lies the rub. What can the country afford? or not afford given todays conflicts and tomorrows threats.

We are an Island Nation, therefore need a Navy of our own.
The enemy have aircraft, therefore we need aircaft of our own.
In any conflict we need boots on the ground to retain / maintain and progress a future for that area, therefore we need people of our own in uniform to fill that role.

L1A2 discharged,

"The enemy have aircraft, therefore we need aircaft of our own."

They do? What enemy? Haven't noticed any in Iraq or Afghanistan lately, have you?

We spend £36 Billion pounds a year on defence, plus all UOR's and operational in theatre costs funded out of the contingency reserve. Which other countries on this planet spend more?

What enemy??????????????

It's so confused around here, people are stabbing each other in the chest...

It makes for an interesting picture. If the carriers slide by two years, to the point where they can go to sea from day one with Dave B - or with something else, in the still possible eventuality that Dave B is a lemon - the notion that JFH is a bridge to JSF goes away,

Then, with budgets limited, do I (in Torpy's situation) want to pay money to stretch out an old capability that is going away anyway... or cement in place my Tranche 3 Typhoon?

Maybe someone's looking very hard at what Typhoon can/will be versus Dave B. And one can argue all day about F-35A's performance versus other aircraft, but you can't avoid the implications of the fact that Dave B is almost 8000 pounds bigger in OEW than Typhoon, with the same fuel fraction, a little more thrust, a smaller wing and (in stealth mode) a war-winning 2000 lb offensive load. And, if you read the charts, not that much better in non-stealth mode. In short, a complete, unmitigated pig.

And while the STOVL capability - which adds double-digit per cent to the price tag, costs me 25-30 per cent of my range and halves my internal weapon load - is crucial to a sea-based or joint RAF-Navy force, from the RAF's viewpoint it is marginal. No, this is not an aircraft to operate off roads or a soccer field - it's an F-4-sized jet and every sortie takes a Chinook-load of gas.

Add to this the fact that the UK is locked into Typhoon by the mechanism that the UK, Italy and Spain designed to lock the Germans in, and yes, I'd be guarding my Typhoons too.

Watch the same thing happening in the USAF: is the F-35 so good that we want to mortgage our entire future on it? So few F-22s that we can't afford to develop upgrades, and a new bomber God knows when?

Fasten your seat-belts...

Some very good points have been raised in this difficult subject.
Have some people though actually forgotten that we are an island nation that is extremely dependent on the sea for our imports to survive? (In fact, probably even more so today than we were during World War 2, as we now have much less available UK manufacturing, farming and fuel resources to draw on, etc!)

Can some people also actually imagine what it would be like to be on any merchant or RN ships that are well away from our UK shores with very little (if any) air support available from our RAF. The situation would not be so bad if the RN had some more capable ships and submarines to help defend itself with, but there are now even fewer of them available to carry out such important escort work and patrols in what seems an ever increasingly dangerous world.

Aircraft carriers are virtually self contained mobile airfield that could and should be capable of operating a wide range of aircraft wherever they are required around the UK or indeed the world. Such aircraft can actually take the battle to the enemy, rather than our current few RN and RFA ships having to try and defeat incoming missiles threats with mostly close range machine guns, and if they are lucky, perhaps with the aid of a relatively short range missile system.

This country does require proper aircraft carriers that have catapults and arrestor wires to enable a wide range of UK (and other friendly nation’s) aircraft to operate from them when required.

If the UK ever becomes the victim of any direct air attacks, then the current few RAF airfields would basically be immovable sitting targets. However, if the UK has very capable and flexible floating airfields (aircraft carriers) then these could be moved (as required) to counter any perceived threats. For example, if required to defend the UK, they could be positioned well out to sea off the UK coast to help provide a proper outer layer of defense for this country, including its RAF airfields. If however that floating airfield was required much further away from the UK, then those carriers can also provide the flexibility and capability wherever it is needed around the world. (This has previously been required and very well demonstrated by this country and many other countries during numerous wars/conflicts!)

Also do not forget that when required, our Naval aircraft can even be completely detached from their Carriers to operate from UK airfields (or anywhere else abroad), as perfectly demonstrated in Iraq, Afghanistan and even during the Battle of Britain, etc.

In summary, in my humble opinion, if this country truly wants real flexibility, capability, cost effectiveness and the ability to survive threats to our vital imports at sea, then we do need some real Aircraft Carriers and the expertise provided by the FAA to counter threats outside of the range of Typhoon/Nimrods, etc. Likewise, if many of our land runways get taken out in a war then it is aircraft such as the Harrier that could remain ideal to help defend our country and forces abroad by operating from roads, forests, small warships, etc.

There's an awful lot of emotive guff talked about carriers.

1) The UK can now longer afford to carry out the full spectrum of military roles and operations, and has to concentrate on those core 'defence of the UK' capabilities that cannot be left to allies, and those that we need every time we go on ops. We cannot retain every niche capability - no matter how well we may have undertaken them in the past.

Britain won't be standing alone, re-fighting the Battle of the Atlantic as the RN bravely defends the convoys against the Hun, nor even against Ivan, since it's been decided that we won't conduct that scale of op alone and autonomously.

2) The UK's aircraft carriers have not been NEEDED since 1982 (they've been used, and they've been useful, but not needed in a "only carriers could do this" way). Even a repeat of the Falklands would not REQUIRE the use of carriers today.

3) In EVERY incident in which UK carriers have been used, land-based air power could have got there quicker, cheaper, and with greater capability once in theatre. (Nor am I overlooking Sierra Leone, when a Jaguar squadron was available on the Azores, with the necessary permissions to operate from Dakar, long before Grey Funnel lines got there.....)

4) While you can never GUARANTEE HNS, I would suggest that if such support is unavailable, the proposed op is probably unsustainable anyway. But if such an op is sustainable, and is stopped only by our lack of carriers, then we have plenty of allies who do have carriers.

5) Aircraft carriers are by no means 'self contained' - they require AD frigates, an SSN, tankers, RFAs, etc. - a small Armada. And they can sustain a relatively modest sortie rate for a relatively short period of time.

6) By canning the carriers now, and JSF, all of the other capability areas that are now being slowly strangled by funding constraints could be afforded - including tankers, SH, SEAD, etc.

We need an admiral with balls to speak up.

TJB??

It was once widely reported that the Sea Lords had been given the difficult choice between replacing Trident with another seaborne deterrent system, or getting new carriers. Under this Government the 'or' briefly became an 'and', but perhaps it's time for the Admiral's choice to stand, and for the RN to lose its second choice 'flagship procurement programme'.....

And far from needing an Admiral or two with the "balls to speak out" for narrow RN interests, perhaps we need a few with a wider view of what our wider defence priorities should be, who can shut up and get with the programme?

Jackonicko, you present one side of the long entrenched inter-service rivalry argument very clearly. So you don't like carriers. Your suggestion simply eliminates a broad spectrum of capability without replacing it, or even being able to fill the gap left with surplus capability in anothet area.

Why do you believe you are being un-emotive? The Fleet Air Arm suffers from both inter and intra service rivalry, so proponents do occassionally get emotive. Please give me the un-emotive reason why UK keeps legacy equipment like Tornado (GRs and Fs), and what particular use the independent nuclear deterrent serves in your host nation supported world. Indeed everybody else has fighters as well! There are so many UK allies with armed forces who have the similar capabilities and interests, why doesn't the UK simply use theirs and really save mega-billions?

DBTW - without getting drawn into the CVF debate at this time of night (in the UK, anyway), the rationale for the F3 being retained is that the UK needs an AD capability, even if it is only to wave at passing Bears sent by Mr Putin, or Mr Minimiedvev.

That covers the need for fighters,since I doubt that even the generally disineterested British public would accept a situation such as that in Iceland, where allies have to provide AD (even if that ally hasn't just used anti-terrorist legislation against the host nation's banks and has been invited to foxtrot oscar...).

As for the GRs, yes, they are legacy equipment, but they have been used rather frequently in recent years, and in general terms, the aircraft's capabilities are not exactly miles away from the Harrier (VSTOL being the obvious exception). For certain scale operations, we simply don't have enough Harriers to fit the bill and need to send other aircraft that can do air-ground.

The question about relying on allies and saving billionsis one best asked of the govt rather than Jacko, but I suspect that the government takes the view that doing so would mean that Britain would be unable to meet the aspirations the government has for Britain to play a key role in coalition operations. Turning up with a few Harriers wouldn't buy the sort of influence desired, I would suggest, whereas turning up with Harrier, GR4 and F3 for Telic, plus the array of supporting air assets gave a certain degree of influence that might not otherwise have been the case (I base that on three separate briefings I've attended, one from a US 3 Star, one from a UK 3 Star and the third from a politician - no names or specifics as all under Chatham House Rule - all of whom suggested pretty much the same thing).

Archimedes,
Understood. Very good answer. It's all about capability, what the govt wants to do in terms of force projection, and what the nation can afford. CVF is a capability, just as much as fighters and nuclear bombers.

If we are to remain unemotive, let's not descend into interservice bickering. Every part of the British military plays a part. The CVS's have been in continuous service throughout the period stated by Jackonicko as a time when they have been not required! That's fairly emotive stuff...

Whilst your points about Fighters and Tornadoes are interesting, exactly the same observation Jackonicko makes about carriers can be made about any other element of the armed forces. Let's face it, they have not been defending the UK since WW2 and the fighters have not been needed for air defence of the realm since about 1943, but we still see them as being important. It seems to me that that is why the UK have Armed Forces whereas lesser countries have Defence Forces. The UK doesn't want to fight at home...very sensible!

All the British Armed Forces have been used in other ways since they finished WW2. CVF has been declared as needed up until one RAF flag rank puts the required aircraft forward as a savings measure. Its a political point often made at his level to demonstrate to politicians what their decisions will cost in terms of capability. I hope he is not serious, or that nobody takes him seriously.

My point is that you should fight the cuts because if you lose something, then another capability will be attacked. Armed Forces cost money and the UK is one of the few countries that does it well.

Jacko only gives the anti-carrier mantra. he needs to apply his undoubted intelligence in an unbiased way to the rest of the RAF:

Why are we replacing a CAS aircraft, which is the capability the troops seem to want, with a non-CAS aircraft (which Mark Lankester has revealed as taking huge amounts of money to enable) that the troops don't want?

Why is F3 still in service when the RAF have declared Typhoon operational and on QRA?

What is the GR4 doing in Iraq, there is no role for it? Indeed why do we still have GR4 when Typhoon is declared operational (oh yes, it is not deployable!).

There is only one reason - CAS does not want the RN (or AAC for that matter) flying aircraft....but who keeps crashing aircraft and UAVs at the moment????

Bismark

1. We're not. The GR is a an equally capable CAS platform. Mark Lancaster is being fed only one side of the argument. Do you know how much was/has/is being spent on JFH during its time in AFG? I do.

2. You answered the question yourself - insufficient numbers to maintain a 24/7 capability in three locations (don't forget the FI).

3. What role do you think the GR4 is doing in Iraq? More to dropping bombs and firing bullets. Just because the Army are confined to a small AOR doesn't mean the GR4 is.

As for your last statement - pathetic and a slur on the dozens who have lost their lives in aircraft accidents and incidents both on ops and preparing for ops (and to sink to your level haven't two of the last three Harrier crashes been FAA? Of course the Navy have never ran a boat aground, been forced to surrender their iPods etc etc.)

Fallacies:

The island-nation needs sea power mantra is a fallacy. It is a fallacy in that we, with Europe, are part of a global trading system. The only bit of the island philosophy that is true now is the Channel/North Sea/Irish Sea bit. For the rest, we are with Europe and it is Europe that needs to prottect its SLOC and not UK alone. Nor is it simply littoral states that should provide sea power. Some littoral states punch well below their weight, if they punch at all. Naval power should be on a European basis.

Keeping our hand in for CV ops using exchange postings is also a fallacy. Exchange postings are just that. If we have no FAA then there wiill be no relevant exchange postings. By their nature exchange postings are supposedly cost neutral. As we could not exchange we would need secondment instead at an order of cost of perhaps 4 or 5 times salary or more (guessing here).

Back to point one; if we do naval air best then that is what we should strive for and allow or persuade our European partners to provide the screen. For exchange, parlo italiano?

Well, if we don't need Harriers then I presume we don't need Daves - we can get along with Typhoons.

Excellent, more money saved.

.

Jackonicko

Everyone knows your pro RAF and anti RN stance, as well as your lack of Armed forces service, so I think your totally one sided opinions get taken with a pinch of salt.

Frontseater made a good post (#32) on page 2... which seemed to be taking a fairly neutral stance to look at the issue.

There are good points coming from all sides in this, but Jackonicko, your first few lines said So just what, in your opinion does the 'core defence of the UK' entail if issues similar to the Falklands will not happen again?

If you want to be totally blinkered and not take lessons from the past, you would have to say terrorism was the biggest threat.

In which case, by your set of arguing principles, not only should we bin the carriers, we could also reduce the surface fleet further and cut huge swathes of personnel from the RAF and close most of the UK bases.

We could then spend some of the money saved on bolstering the numbers in the army, both with more foot soldiers and more army aircrew.

The rest of the money could be spent on increasing the number of security personnel in the UK security services.

Job done. (from a blinkered perspective)

The UKNDA has just released a (somewhat emotive) statement re the threat to JFH:-

Will anyone actually take any notice?

RAF on Carriers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

My god! We must be one of the few nations which even considers allowing its Air Force anwhere near the sea! Is not allowing the RAF on carriers a bit like letting retards run the mental hospital!?:}

While we are at it should the navy not have the Nimrods!

Navy rules, long live the navy:)

DBTW

As well as being an aviation writer and enthusiastic amateur airman (PPL, etc), I’m a bit of an aviation enthusiast. You have to be to sustain an interest in all of this for as long as I have.

I doubt you could find an aircraft enthusiast alive who doesn’t like aircraft carriers. Who hasn’t watched ‘Top Gun’ for the carrier and flying scenes? I seize every opportunity to go on board a carrier.

And if we were still in a world where we could afford properly balanced forces, with 35 squadrons of frontline FJs, enough SH, etc. then I’d be fighting for CVF just as hard as anybody else. If we could afford niche capabilities that are ‘often useful’ but seldom actually necessary.

1) Eliminating carriers and carrier aviation does not eliminate a capability. Land-based air can project force – and can actually do so quicker/better/cheaper than a carrier.

2) Merely ‘Playing a part’ is not a ticket to survival. To survive, a military platform/system must play an essential part, and must do so cost-effectively, and paying for that part must not compromise other more useful capabilities. There are plenty of capabilities that have been shed that would be far more useful today than CVS has been – the Jags, Canberra PR9, some of the Hercs we parked, etc.

3) Even if the elimination of carriers marked an erosion of our ability to project power (and given that there are alternatives, it doesn’t) then that would be a better option than cutting the core role of air defence of the UK.

Bismarck

Why are we replacing a CAS aircraft, which is the capability the troops seem to want, with a non-CAS aircraft?
Tornado has a robust CAS capability, and the official line is that replacement of Harrier by Tornado represents only a change of platform, delivering the same capability. The Harrier force is crippled by overstretch and needed to come home. The deployment of Tornado represents a long-planned endex for Harrier. And Harrier is rapidly wearing out. Without replacement rear fuselages and other vastly expensive structural work, these tired airframes are nearing the end of their useful lives. Yes those lives could be extended, but only at a huge cost.

Why is F3 still in service when the RAF have declared Typhoon operational and on QRA?
Because we need a given number of AD Squadrons (in my view more than we now have, but certainly more than four dedicated units). We have just two Typhoon squadrons, and these are supposed to do more than AD. We don’t yet have enough aircraft to retire the F.Mk 3.

What is the GR4 doing in Iraq, there is no role for it? Indeed why do we still have GR4 when Typhoon is declared operational.

Tornado has robust ISTAR and A-G capabilities which are still occasionally needed in theatre. The Typhoon is not YET able to take on all of the A-G tasks of which Tornado is capable. Nor are there sufficient Typhoons in service to replace the old seven squadron F3 force, and the three squadron Jag force, let alone the seven squadron GR4 force.

There is only one reason - CAS does not want the RN (or AAC for that matter) flying aircraft....but who keeps crashing aircraft and UAVs at the moment????

What a load of utter Knob.

Phil Gollin,
“Well, if we don't need Harriers then I presume we don't need Daves - we can get along with Typhoons.

Excellent, more money saved.”

Excellent, more money for tankers, SH, FLynx, SEAD, and everything else we actually NEED.

Anotherthing
“Everyone knows your pro RAF and anti RN stance, as well as your lack of Armed forces service,”

You don’t need to have served as captain of a carrier, or Air Boss to appreciate the usefulness of a carrier, nor its limitations. Nor do you need to have served as an F3 or Typhoon pilot to have some valid opinions on UK AD. Armed forces service as (say) a stacker at Innsworth gives no more appreciation of platforms and procurement than you can get by spending more than 25 years talking to the practitioners of these military arts, many of whom you learned to fly with.

Nor do I have an ‘anti-RN stance’. Criticising one service (and I criticise all three, for different reasons) is not necessarily ‘anti’, so dry your eyes, Princess. It’s criticism, but its constructive and offered with some sympathy, empathy and fondness.

I would not structure UK forces to meet only the terrorist threat – I just would not be willing to distort them to meet one single scenario that is not going to happen again. Even if the Argies cut up rough down South, we now have a proper runway down there, with proper AD. And hopefully the RN won’t collude with the politicians and send the Argies mixed messages about our comittment by withdrawing Endurance, this time……

Lyneham Lad,

I doubt it. Even in the pro-defence community, the UKNDA has precious little credibility. And many of us believe that it’s fatally compromised by being too biased to RN interests.

Jacko
 

I have heard several posters say that we would not need carriers to fight another Falklands scrap, but your above post is shocking!
Can you please tell me how the runway would be of any use for AD, or anything else in defending the Falklands?

Oh, and just in case it's not blindingly obvious, please allow for the fact that ANY sensible enemy would put it out of action prior to any invasion (on the basis it is our only means of FW aircraft launch).
I think that I have been very naive in believing that you were assuming we would use runways from within Chile etc.

Good idea, but if the Navy had to pay for Nimrod it wouldn't be able to afford any ships.

Well thats easy! Take current RAF Nimrod funding and give it to the Navy.

Or better still stop spending as much on welfare slime and schools and increase defence spending.

Truth is unless the military were to get a good increase this squabling over tiny ammounts of funding and small ammounts of new technology is just going to get worse!

It would appear that there are still supposedly informed opinions on this forum that indicate the possibility of fighting another Falklands war with the help of carriers and Harriers. Forget it. We simply do not have the surface fighting ships to project power over that distance (or even closer) and we no longer have the merchant fleet to cover the logistics.

Those who remember the Falklands war and were informed at the time will know how far from the action we had to keep the carriers in order to avoid their loss and what heroic individual efforts we had to make to ensure the timely arrival on CAP of Harriers with little time available for combat.

Fortunately, there was no combat as the Argies were too busy concentrating on ground and ship attack to bring air-to-air weapons along but what a different story it would have been if they had.

Whilst the present Harrier aircraft could do better and JSF should further enhance capability, one is still left with the need to use a huge slice of the budget just to defend the carriers.

Projection of ship based naval air power over long distances requires the same level of force and expenditure that we see in the US carrier task forces. We simply cannot afford to do the job properly and the cheap alternative risks heavy and unsustainable losses.

Well, assuming that there is some truth in this story as published on Timesonline; then this is all very sad. I hold our armed services in tremendous regard and to see the levels to which all have been reduced is nothing short of criminal, and yes I would be willing pay an extra penny on income tax if I was assured it would make some difference.

The timing of the Harrier story here makes me think it is a pre-emptive strike on behalf of 1SL, to try and build up some support for Harrier and FAA fixed wing aviation before Herrick becomes the responsibility of Tornado GR4. Will it work? I very much doubt it. Much like the Jag, SHAR’s, most of the AD fleet and many capabilities in other armed services that were once viewed as essential I suspect that the writing is on the wall for Harrier. My hunch is that the decision to cut has already been taken and that it will be announced as soon as it is politically expedient to do so – next Summer with a Apr ’10 close out date anyone? Maybe that’s a bit aggressive but I fear that in these economically challenging times anything is possible.

Is it the right decision? Of course not. I note with interest the use of the term ‘legacy’ by some pruners when referring to Harrier; surely this term is equally appropriate for Tornado GR4 and Typhoon as well as practically every other offensive and defensive platform out there – except may be some UAVs and F/A-22, F-35. Particularly with complex military systems, where they can take so long to reach maturity, I feel that use of the term legacy can be extremely misleading and implies a capability that is either no longer needed or is not fit for purpose any more – neither of which apply to Harrier in my opinion.

The root of all these funding problems is, in my opinion, due firstly to the Government of the days complete lack of respect for our armed services (and I don’t believe any of our political parties is any better than the others); and secondly in the requirement for our Armed Services to support our Defence Infrastructure rather than it being the other way round, as it should be. There is the obvious ludicrousy of spending circa £3.5bn to re-engineer 9-12 40-odd year old Nimrod airframes, plus the many billions that were thrown at Eurofighter in the development/bickering stages and next in line, the carriers. On top of that there is the slow drip-drip supply of funding, most of which the general public don’t have visibility of, which is done purely to allow BAESystems and others to keep the coffers rolling in – anyone remember the Adour 106 re-engine program shortly before Jag was canned or how about the £100 million Capability Upgrade Program on F3 just prior to drawdown, Link-16 on SHAR, the list is pretty much endless and it does add up to a lot of serious cash. GR9, upgraded Pegasus and Harrier obviously being another good example.

Not sure what the answer is though. All I will say is that if 1SL, CAS, CDS, etc still believe that, by taking a capability cut or two today, it will lead to more jam tomorrow then I am sure that they will end up being disappointed.

I think 'legacy' is probably a typical mis-used word and part of the modern business speak that is so infectious.

Typhoon - new, entering service, cutting edge etc etc.

MRA4 - new (really), entering service (mm), cutting edge?

When we look at the GR4 and GR9 these are both newly packaged, like the Nimrod, in old airframes.

The F15E is also termed legacy.

Maybe legacy refers to the old-way of doing business and the new all electronic kit it the future.:8

Barking things happen in times such as these. I genuinely believe losing Harrier would be a mistake. It is in-service, versatile and proven: gambling that we would not need fast(ish) air to be able to operate from rough/short strips is fairly sporting when one looks at the trouble spots in the world.

If we must save money, I would rather risk depleting the AD fleet by grounding F3 now (and deploying Typhoon to FI) than watch a more relevant (at this moment in time) capability be given away like this. Where is the AD threat to the UK at the moment anyway? By the time one exists (and I still can't think of one) the RAF will have its squillionth Typhoon and we will all be safe as bugs in rugs. I wonder how much less safe the ground troops will feel watching Harrier disappear...

We continue to want to do more than we are resourced to do. We love to punch above our weight, but don't want to fund doing so. Perhaps the Forces should be taken out of the loop and some independent body should decide what capabilities we need based on realism, operational priorities and appropriate resourcing?? I fear the reality is more likely to be asking Barack which of our key 'niche' capabilites he would like us to provide to him while we watch others degrade slowly and painfully...

Andrewn
 

Absolutely so IMHO. The really frustrating thing though is that even in the austere years immediately after the second world war when the country was even more broke than it is today the armed forces were (reasonably) well provided for. HM Navy had some ships (even some flat-topped ones) and more ac than the entire RAF today. The army had plenty of infantry, and tanks, artilliary and its regiments where made up of more than one batallion! The RAF had multiple commands, (Fighter, Bomber, Coastal, Transport and Training) and even had multiple air forces, Near East Air Force, RAFG etc.



All this at a time when the country was in an economic mess and when the two-car family was a rarity and rationing had only just ended. Today our polititians tell us that we have had 15 years of continuous economic growth (till mid 2008 at least) and that we have never had more of the population in work (25M ish) and that we remain the fourth largest economy in the world after USA, China, Germany and ahead of France etc. etc. If this is the case why can't we afford to properly equip our forces when they number less than 200,000 compared to over 400,000 30 years ago?

The real question is that without our armed forces being properly funded and therefore capable what business have our polititions (of whatever colour) got strutting the world stage at the UN, G7, or wherever? Our PM, foreign secretary et al might as well go home and leave the soapbox for someone else to stand on!

Defence spending ought to be at c. 5% of GDP in a demoracy at peace and obviously on an "as required" level in time of war.......That way the armed forces are kept trained and equiped to be effective when they are required (always at short notice) and at a size that can sustain its mission. Without the critical mass we might as well give up pretending that we have any right to infuence world events beyond our own borders.

IMHO the world would be a poorer place without the UK's influence to "guide" history and to work with other allied nations. Look at the support the UK gives to the UN and our involvement in Korea for example. If we don't look after ourselves can we really expect our allies (the US/Canada/Australia etc) to carry on alone??

If the government wants to spend it way out of recession it could at least start by spending cash on replacements for Tristar, Hercs, VC10's, Nimrods, CSAR assets, and some more support helos. Then ships for the navy......armoured cars for the army....hospitals for the injured......and all the things we used to have but somehow don't have anymore!

Talk about the "Emperor's New Clothes" - Gordon Brown needs to look at himself in the mirror!:ugh:

MB

Unfortunately, although we live in a relatively threat-free period at least in terms of military threats, intentions can and do change quicker than we can change capabilities. There are too many potentially hostile nations with force levels we could not contend with at present. Although in the past we have generated improved capabilities quickly in time of tension, modern technologies and the ability to use them preclude the rapid expansion that our small force would need.

So are we content to be a small part of a large coalition or do our politicians want us to be able to influence world events as UK PLC?

It appears that they want the latter with a budget more suited to the former. As usual, they live in cloud cuckoo land but are the military chiefs telling them that?

Soddim
 

check your PM's

4th Largest Economy?
 

"population in work (25M ish) and that we remain the fourth largest economy in the world after USA, China, Germany and ahead of France etc. etc."

Ahem. Japan? Economy 2-3 times bigger than UK. Also see:

Britain's economy overtaken by France, new figures show - Telegraph

We're basically a pissant little island off Europe with delusions of great power status and military adequacy waaaaay beyond our meagre capabilities. Don't forget that in PPP terms we're some way behind India and probably a few other countries too.

It sounds as if this is being justified as saving on a major refurb/upgrade cost. Could JFH get 2nd hand USMC aircraft (assuming their tranfer to JSF goes quicker than ours) . If a UK commitment helps keep JSF out of the s**t in the States we should get a good deal on them.

Might even get some with radar, enabling Air to Air to be worked up prior to JSF

I'm a civvie. I'm not an overt patriot. I'm firmly against both the wars the UK is currently fighting. My level of knowledge as regards military fast jets would be absolutely laughable to most here.

But isn't this absolutely ******* bonkers? Surely, dump Tornados before you dump Harriers, but christ, more cuts? It would force me down the "what exactly are my taxes paying for" line of thought, but that's a bit too Daily Mail for me, so I'll just muse on the fact that Harrier seems to be a well tried piece of kit with unique abilities that's recently seen lots of use, and it would seem crazy to dump it before it's replaced.

Or is my laughable level of fast jet knowledge letting me down here? Is it a complete white elephant?

P

Just as an aside, to the best of my knowledge, the case presented by what was DOR(Sea) and later DEC (PS) for the carriers never even considered the F******** as a realistic scenario.

The need was based on European and Asian scenarios, for which the capability was deemed complementary to land-based air.

The other nice thing about them - particularly considering what is currently happening in Peshawar and elsewhere along the LoC is that it brings several thousand tonnes of F44, C4ISTAR, messing, workshops, spares and several hundred tonnes of stuff that goes bang with it, in a controlled, defended environment. Granted, not a vast amount of use in Kandy, but less politically sensitive and vulnerable to cheap attack/denial than other bases out east........

Yes, Not a Boffin, you are quite right, the carriers in a benign air defence environment are a very good way of (slowly) deploying a respectable force and projecting power over long distance.

However, why are we spending such a large slice of our budget on a force incapable of defending itself in a hostile air environment? Do we intend in the future to continue to generate hate in the muslim world and home-grown terrorists by fighting conflicts such as the present day ones in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are we sure that the future is free from the same aggression we faced in the cold war days? Or are we relying on Uncle Sam to protect our carriers?

Personally, having spent years defending UK, I want to see a very capable air defence force in this country able to provide integrity of our own airspace before we start messing about around the world and pissing off the muslims even more. If we want to stop the drugs trade we could do worse than defend our own borders and if we want to exclude terrorists we could do worse than have tight border controls. Let's put our own home defences in order before wasting money projecting power.

As someone who works as Abbey Wood (Not on CVF before you ask) I know the amount of scrutiny that goes into approving these projects, especially one as big as CVF and their need is fully justified. The requirement for them stands, not based on todays operations but of those in 15-50 years. That's what the SAG scenario book is for.

What a shame, only watching, that these same people who know best could not see the need to adequately defend UK airspace in 15 years time or so.

As far as I am aware the Typhoon contact is virtually airtight, so there should be no shortage of UKAD in that timeframe.

PhilR,

Or is my laughable level of fast jet knowledge letting me down here?

If you seriously think that Tornado should be dumped before Harrier, then yes.

It's not just capability - though Tornado has radar, Raptor, a second pair of eyes, is faster, flies further, carries more, and is fully compatible with PWIII. It's about how much life is left in the airframes. It's about seven versus four squadrons......

Harrier will be dumped before it's replaced, unless you're prepared to sell several million pounds on each airframe just to 'sticking plaster' an extended OSD, because Harrier OSD and JSF ISD don't tally. Harrier could get to 2017 before the recent nastiness upped the utilisation rate. Tornado GR's good to 2025.

Madbob,

You're not going to get a defence of Gordon B from me, but I would gently point out that it's the other lot who have done the most damage, and have presided over the biggest cuts in defence forces, programmes and structure.

I would also suggest that comparing the forces c.1952 with the forces today is unprofitable. Defence then was manpower intensive, and top-of-line fighters like the Venom and Hunter were relatively cheap. Even by 1964, when a Ford Cortina cost in the order of £800, a frontline fighter was equivalent to less than a thousand family cars - whereas today's Typhoon is equivalent to more than 3,000!

I like your list of spending priorities - "If the government wants to spend it way out of recession it could at least start by spending cash on replacements for Tristar, Hercs, VC10's, Nimrods, CSAR assets, and some more support helos. Then ships for the navy......armoured cars for the army....hospitals for the injured......and all the things we used to have but somehow don't have anymore!" though I'd head that list with Support Helicopters and tankers. But either way, carriers and JSF don't make the cut beside such 'defence essentials' - and by cancelling them you could afford most of the rest.

Nice to see that the age-old inter-service nonsense is still alive and well. It's also nice to see that Sir Glenn is still maintaining his reputation as a spineless waste of space.

I wonder how the various camps might change their views if JSF finally gets dumped in favour of Typhoons?

Still, it's nice to know that heroic short-termism is still a valued skill down in the corridors of Whitehall. Some things never change.

jackonicko, one can at least acknowledge your professionalism as a journo.

Here we go again...

I trust at least some of you have read the history of the FAA just before WWII ?!

No I am not a forces member, but have worked with all UK ones.

The JSF/B is still dubious, though I expect it will come right in the end, but by that time we might have warp drive...

The obvious thing to do to save money and make the Typhoon look good ( which seem to be the priorities ) - scrap the Tornado F3 completely for a start !

We've only just upgraded the Harrier to GR9 - and I hear from various people at the design & troops in sandy places that it's VERY good.

The Harrier's only enemy has not been the Argentinians or Taliban, it's the northern English ' not made here ' mafia.