How does NATO square that particular circle with its E-3 component? Genuine question - there must be instances where not all the participating nations agree on the mission at hand, yet I've never heard of a national caveat preventing their deployment.

Of course, the linked article deals with a European rather than a NATO air force. I dare say the former would be harder to countenance for many than the latter, perhaps.

Mel

There have been issues in the past. Some nations have blocked personnel from flying on some operations. The great thing about having your own force which is a 'contribution in kind' is it can be used for national operations when required.

Wasn't aware there had been such issues Roland, thanks for the info.

I've even heard anecdotally of Turkish and Greek crew members having to be placed on different sorties when certain international sensitivities have flared up. An E3 doesn't function too well if one member of the crew doesn't want to talk to the other! :ouch:

LJ

Interesting Cranwell SDSR debate here from the RAeS... (with the addition of a certain Lewis Page as one of the panelists to stir things up a bit....)


Royal Aeronautical Society | Insight Blog | SDSR 2015 ? Issues, options and implications

Very interesting link. I really don't know how Lewis Page feels that dumping Tornado AND Typhoon and leasing F-18Es would have been a better idea in SDSR10, and now he advocates not developing Typhoon's air-ground capability. With the GR.4 outward bound how can he justify that?

Martin,

Because the man is a blithering idiot, offering a very narrow and tactical "junior officer perspective" - their words not mine - I'd be irritated if I were a junior officer being compared to Page.

He wants to strip all strike and attack from the RAF and hand it to the RN to be done using TLAM, leaving the RAF with I assume just air defence, which when HMS White Elephant (yes I'm being flippant) comes in to service, he would no doubt try and bag the AD capability as well.

In advocating that, he misses the point about airpower for effect across the spectrum of operations. Now I've been out of the recce game for a while, but I'm not sure how a TLAM would contribute to that capability. And if I were PBI on the front lines, I'd be far happier with several tonnes of aeroplane overhead that I could call on as required rather than a one shot TLAM. I could go on, but you no doubt get the point far better than he does.

Sir Brian and Dr Gray I get, but who is Lewis Page, and what qualified him to be invited on the panel?

Genuine question.

I hope Burridge wasn't paid for reading out that 1997 paper. We'd just completed the trials in Cyprus and I was off to Shabbeywood.

What is it that UKIP does propose, Party Animal - there is very little on their web site other than a couple of vague and ambiguous statements to the effect that they will resource fully our military assets? I don't suppose that any party would actually say that they will NOT resource fully our military assets! It would be nice if just one party would come out and make some specific and unambiguous policy statements if only "pour encourager les autres". Right now, we have nothing more than weasel words, evasion and obfuscation from all the parties. Correction: all the parties except those that think that defence can be achieved by everyone sitting round a camp fire singing Kumbaya.

I suspected as much, Melchett, but I thank you for your confirmation and summary, and I agree entirely with you.

A strange debate from the RAeS. I read Lewis Page's book, Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs several years ago and thought that it would be an uncomfortable read for our military commanders. While I don't agree with all his points his basic argument that defence spending is poorly targeted and inefficient is hard to refute. I hope that SDSR addresses this.

I will conceded that point kintyred, but unfortunately the validity of his point is lost in the parochialism oozing out of almost every word he utters or writes to an extent that undermines his credibility. I was always left with the impression that his idea of more efficient spending is to spend more on the Navy.

You're right Melchy, but he does throw some rocks at his own service in his book. And as one who has light blue coursing through my veins, there is much that embarrasses me about my own service. I think that the fundamental problems facing all three services are an unwillingness to face some harsh truths about themselves and a lack of respect for those who pay the piper!

Page loathes about 80% of the RN, so he throws rocks at everyone.

If NATO can run an AWCS operation I can't see why a joint force of P-8's wouldn't work

Split the costs between UK, Norway, Denmark, NL, Spain & Portugual - the belgians never pay for anything and the French..................

planty of bases along the ATlantic seaboard

they don't have to be at every one all the time and what ever you think it's better than what we all have collectively right now

I agree Harry.

Agreed Harry; that way we'd achieve a far more impressive force that the sum of individual national contributions (zero, currently in our case obviously) ...but with the crucial caveat it must be a NATO and not a Euro force!!

Surely it must irritate more than a little that as an island nation we even have to consider that?

It's all well and good saying let's throw our hat in the ring with a NATO or Euro force, but what if the worst hypothetical scenario happens and we suddenly find ourselves facing a hostile force alone, the rest of our partners having fallen or capitulated? Are we then relying on the channel as a defensive measure? Or maybe hoping for a spot of congestion on the motorway outside Dover to slow the enemy up in time for the Home Guard to get together?

I'm sorry, but when it's backs to the wall, there's only one thing you can rely on to safeguard your own interests and that's yourself. Given the links between the MPA fleet and the strategic deterrent, do you really want the safeguarding of that in someone else's hands?

Oran, 1940
Churchill?s Sinking of the French Fleet (July 3, 1940)

Anyway, the chance of getting money out of Spain & Portugal right now is about zero. They'd probably welcome Russian subs as long as they promised to spent a few dollars whilst in port.

Money and certain 'clubs'.

A NATO E-3 force probably stands more chance of being successful as it is mainly engaged in what your man in the street would regard as "non-offensive" work.

(please hold fire electronic warriors - I'm in the realms of public perception here)

So if all we expected an EU MPA force to do was observe - there might be some mileage.

Trouble is - when we want to drop something dangerous we would probably have to have an EU summit first - and still be prepared for some of the crew to conscientiously object when the time came, or be instructed that such action was not in their National interests. - they don't all think like we do.

And as far as supporting our deterrent - I'm not sure I want to share that with some conscript from another Country.

well right now there is NO MPA support fror our deterrent - you have to work in the realms of the possible

A major poll of the UK electorate didn't even have defence in the top 10 concerns this week............... and it went down to around 6% "concerned"

Foreign MPA (even non-existant NATO ones) don't meet the requirement.

"meet the requirement" -

we don't have anything - not even a moth-easten Trislander - doing marine patrols so obviously there is no "requirement" just an "aspiration" from our lords & masters

trying to resurrect the Nimrod means we never will :ugh::ugh::ugh:

How much of that is ignorance though?

I was speaking to a friend just yesterday who knows almost nothing about the military. He genuinely believed we had 'more than twenty, maybe thirty' front line fast jet squadrons, he almost fell out his chair when I told him there were only six.

Rakshasa,

Try telling him the truth. The actual number of frontline fast jet squadrons is 8: 5 Typhoon and 3 Tornado.

Have 12 Squadron and 2 Squadron untangled themselves then?

8 for a year or two proone, no longer than that.

and soon (perhaps very soon) there will be only 5, and that is not going to be enough.

Yes. Because 8 is so much better than 6 when you think the answer is 20+.

Pillock.

If you include the subject's ID when you quote them it would make every thread so much more easy to follow. You know how to do it?

Yes, but I can't be arsed.

try scrolling up half a dozen posts

Willard

Like! :ok: (the one above Courtney's)

Willard Whyte,


Fact is you were both wrong.

Ignoramus.

Ignorami, no?

well nothing much on defence in the Budget today -

"A further £75m from Libor fines to go to charities for regiments which fought in Afghanistan and government to contribute towards permanent memorial to those who died in Afghanistan and Iraq and help renovate Battle of Britain memorials

£25m to support army veterans, including nuclear test veterans"


Not exactly your 2% of GDP...................

HH
But very clever all the same as Osbourne is now using other peoples' money i.e. the fines, to help HMG make the 2% target, although I can't imagine that £75m will go very far in that respect. :rolleyes:

The other day the "Times" pointed out that as a rule of thumb any Budget change that doesn't make a difference of £ 500m in 2015 money is really just noise and don't really make any difference

Something like 80% of Osbourne's Budget changes over the years have been "noise" but he's made more changes than several previous Chancellors put togther

All noise and no trousers

I still don't see any commitment from Osborne to meeting the 2% NATO targets. Apparently all he has committed to is "keeping the country safe".

So if the PM is commited to no further cuts in the Regular forces whilst running a 1% increase in the equipment budget, that doesn't leave much wriggle room. The implication in the PM's statement would seem to point to either Reserves taking a hit, which then drives a proverbial tank through FF2020 assumptions or continued pay and pensions tinkering and ongoing long term pay restraint for the duration of the next Parliament.