GrahamO,

Quite, and that is why I infer that senior heads will enentually roll. Senior Commanders need skills quite different from those necessary in their early career. In wartime they may need to be warriors, but in peacetime they need the skills of CEOs, with specialists supporting them. Perhaps to attain G/Cpt, an MBA should be mandatory?

One of the themes running through this thread is an acceptance of the status quo, even a clinging to the heretofore. Duncan Sandys predicted unmanned aircraft in 1957: his timing was wrong, but it seems his vision was correct. The CAS needs in part to be concentrating on what the RAF will look like in 10, 20, 30 years time and planning for that.

Alas it's in the detail...
 

GrahamO

I totally agree with your sentiments, although having complained this week about the costs incurred in project overrun et al, HMG then goes and does what all PM's hate....change the scope of the project at hand.How can a rushed cost saving exercise dressed up as a Defence Review ever give all involved a warm fuzzy feeling about the future. I would imagine the fuss being caused this week over a poor show in returning UK nationals home will be nothing compared to the angst and pain caused by an ill thought out, about turn on how we run the NHS. Off topic I know, but everyone is affected by that decision directly and the media will have a huge array of disgruntled people to run that story...

5d2d

207592 wrote:-
"Quite, and that is why I infer that senior heads will enentually roll. Senior Commanders need skills quite different from those necessary in their early career. In wartime they may need to be warriors, but in peacetime they need the skills of CEOs, with specialists supporting them."

it is interesting that, when a serious war breaks out, the majority of the Top Brass are in their late 50's & 60's due to the normal promotion ladder

Within a few months they are normally found totally wanting and are removed and replaced by commanders in their late 30's and 40's. This has happened over a couple of hundred years in armed forces all across the globe

We could do worse than to lay off every senior officer over 50 - I doubt we'd notice

207592

Sandys believed that missiles would replace aircraft end of story. The vision, if there was one, was that this would then allow HMG to cancel every aircraft type we had under development in 1957 bar the Lightning and Buccaneer, to concentrate instead on cheaper missiles.

ICBM's did supplement manned bombers in the USA and replace the V-Force in the UK for the nuclear deterrent role but in all other respects I consider that he got it as wrong as was possible. By the way, in 1957 he also seemed to ignore that no other country had reached the same conclusion as the UK. It was bye to the Fairey Delta and hello Mirage:sad:

Now UAV's are seen as the cheaper alternative to manned fast air which might be plausible in certain scenarios but less so in others. I certainly don't see an outright of end to manned fast jet aircraft in the short to medium term. Sandys missile only vision remains wrong.

As for the RAF being around in ten, twenty or thirty years, that depends on having a sponsoring Nation State. As things stand, might be as well planning to be the Northern element of the EU Air Defence Component:E

you can buy a hell of a lot of drones for one F-22

I know its not very exciting sitting in a caravan playing Big Boys Flight Simulator when you could be zooming around at tax payers expense but I'm afraid that's the way it's going

HH

Horses for courses with a mix of manned aircraft and UAV's being the most viable route to follow in the near to medium term. Oh and don't let anyone find out where your caravan is parked;)

It strikes me that UAVs are only useful against a technologically unsophisticated enemy.

I'd bet my last dime that the boys at Spadeadam would have a pretty easy time jamming most UAV's, even the sophisticated ones like Global Hawk.

Their "interference" would be enough both to upset the UAV's mission (stop the flow of data back to the ground rx) and possibly to disrupt receipt of its autopilot/command systems dealing with navigation/control either enough to cause it to crash, or to deviate off its intended course.

What's the survivability of a UAV compared to a manned (womanned) ac in say a Red Flag environment?

MB

Drones will work in a low threat environment, where 'work' is defined as doing a range of things that we certainly find useful. There are a number of things that manned aircraft do that nobody, as far as I am aware, has managed to outfit and program a drone to do. I suspect that there are jobs that need doing that drones will never be able to do.

This isn't be all that odd, no weapons system yet has been able to do everything - drones are no different. Whether a drone will survive in a high threat environment is more open to argument, I can think of several ways of disabling or destroying a UAV, ranging from the hard kill of employing somebody in a P-51 to go shoot them from the sky to the softer but also permanent kill of attacking the command link, or tossing a grenade into the control van. (Okay, it'll work the first time, after that I'll need a hilltop and a mortar).

I find it sad, more than anything, that people seem determined to see the evolution of combat as something that involves discrete steps rather than a continuum of change... I bet the countries that blend UAV use in with regular manned aircraft will do rather better than those who go UAV and sod the pilot.

Dave

And back on Topic!

... errr yes. The Air Secretary (for the light blue) - or whatever he's called now. Is it DCOS Manning or similar ........:confused:

Yes, sorry -
I was just following an argument!

So, ahem, I think something sensible ought to be done - figure out the cost of helping these guys enter civvy life as pilots, then decide to do the decent thing for at least those in the latter stages of training. Ifr absolutely necessary HMG could always call it a student loan, and seek to have it repaid as and when they became civvy airline pilots. Comitment works both ways, after all...

Dave

"the countries that blend UAV use in with regular manned aircraft will do rather better than those who go UAV and sod the pilot".

A mix of types is required that are fit for purpose rather than having bells and whistles for the sake of it. Post 2020 we might need the Typhoon to fly from land bases and Super Hornet from the carrier(s) both working with UAV's and the F-35C depending on the threat. Super Hornet can be bought wired for EW and to provide AAR both of which are force enhancing. Follow the RAAF's sound choice but then add the availability of the carrier(s) to solve the HNS issue.:D

Other than for training and for any real need, I see no point in having the
F-35C deployed all of the time carrier(s) are at sea. It's just to expensive:eek:

Compensation
 

Davegb's idea is capital! Ensure that redundant students with requisite hours and experience leave with at least a PPL and advance loans for the more advanced to qualify as commercial pilots. That should ease the pain.

Errrr, am I missing something? Ideal though it sounds, where is the money coming from to advance anyone a loan for anything? Aren't we bankrupt? Isn't that what all of this is about?

Nice idea guys, but about as useful right now as suggesting we keep everyone and buy some more aircraft for them to fly...

If you really think the country is that broke, then there are an awful lot of other things that need to be cut too, with something like £660 bn spent in 2010 and £680 or so forecast for 2011 it'd be a drop in the ocean. The "Nimrod cost" for one year would cover it quite easily, with plenty left over for a new set of plasma TVs for the HQs.

It's a 'one off' cost, where we'd be helping high quality people make up for wasting the early years of their lives on something the MoD mismanaged. On the plus side, unlike most such handouts, the result would be a bunch of guys earning darn good wages and feeding a substantial amount back in taxes year after year.

Try not to think in such short terms,
Dave

I'm Off

A truly "bankrupt" country would not be able go on spending hundreds of millions on a NHS, supporting banks and helping out other countries.

Defence funding is, as always, down to political priorities. Last October the deficit and not Defence was the priority in this country. Bar Afghanistan, SDSR painted a pretty rosy picture of the world until 2020 to then justify cuts. Recent events in the Middle East have now shown that the Treasury/FCO/MOD assumptions are flawed and need to be reviewed or at least should by any responsible Government with interests in the areas now likely to be affected.

Can HMG really carry on as if nothing has changed?:hmm:

Yes, hence the ringfencing of the DFID budget.

I'm not suggesting that the government will back out of ALL existing/future financial commitments. Merely that you are suggesting that what is effectively goodwill payments and loans to allow people to pay for licences, be made to allow our former employees to progress in another field. The UK government are not committed to this, they are not funded for this, and this will be viewed as extra spend that is not required due to existing redundancy legislation. If you therefore think that there is a cat in hell's chance that they will even consider this then I'm afraid I think you are being quite naive.

Nice idea, can't afford it.