Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK Strategic Defense And Security Review  
User currently offlinebmie70 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 109 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5100 times:

I realise that this is already covered to some extent in the RN Carriers to be CATOBAR thread but I feel that this deserves a new thread now that the review has been published.

It can be downloaded and read at http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum...cuments/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf

From an aviation point of view the effects can be summarised as:
Only one aircraft carrier will operate at a time operating Merlin, Wildcat, Apache and F35C (eventually)
RAF fast jet fleet of Typhoon and F35C (reduced numbers from previous plans)
Harrier removed from service in 2011
Reduced Tornado fleet retained to support Afghanistan ops
14 x A330 to replace Tristar and VC10
Airlift fleet of 7 x C17 and 22 x A400M - withdraw C130J by 2022
12 additional Chinooks
Nimrod MRA4 cancelled
Sentinel withdrawn once now longer required for Afghanistan ops.

I have had a chance to read this in detail so I may have missed some points..

Steve

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5084 times:

Lost in the hardware discussions are the potential political implications. Here is a discussion of some consequences. IMO, the avowed intentions of many NATO nations to cut have serious implications for the long term viability of the alliance.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/10/19/uk-cuts-preview-for-us-csis/



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5068 times:

I wonder what BAE is going to say to its shareholders about its decision to desert the civil field by selling its interest in Airbus. Does not seem like a terribly clever decision even without the costs of these changes being added up.

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5023 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 2):
I wonder what BAE is going to say to its shareholders about its decision to desert the civil field by selling its interest in Airbus. Does not seem like a terribly clever decision even without the costs of these changes being added up.

BAE has American interests such their purchase of United Defence, and a variety of other US defence firms. The loss of revenue from UK MoD will be offset in work from the US and other markets.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4994 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 3):
and a variety of other US defence firms. The loss of revenue from UK MoD will be offset in work from the US and other markets.

Until US cuts take hold. Arguably the US budget position is at least as bad as the UK. And then there is the chance that someone will let the secret out that B stands for British, as it used to do in British Petroleum. If I were a UK firm I would be even more nervous about US markets than I would about the UK.

Meanwhile, Airbus trundles on with fairly good times, certainly a lot "gooder" than the UK defence budget or likely than the US defence budget.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4882 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 1):
Lost in the hardware discussions are the potential political implications. Here is a discussion of some consequences. IMO, the avowed intentions of many NATO nations to cut have serious implications for the long term viability of the alliance.

Exactly. What really is the role of NATO today ? Warsaw pact is gone, and won't be coming back anytime soon if ever. Can NATO justify out of area ops like Afghanistan ? Exactly what is the rationale for fighting a war when an intelligence/covert ops format might be more suitable - and cheaper in lives and treasure ?

Coming significant cuts in the US defense budget, which I think has to be inevitable, will further erode NATO as a fighting force.


Quoting bmie70 (Thread starter):
From an aviation point of view the effects can be summarised as:
Only one aircraft carrier will operate at a time operating Merlin, Wildcat, Apache and F35C (eventually)
RAF fast jet fleet of Typhoon and F35C (reduced numbers from previous plans)
Harrier removed from service in 2011
Reduced Tornado fleet retained to support Afghanistan ops
14 x A330 to replace Tristar and VC10
Airlift fleet of 7 x C17 and 22 x A400M - withdraw C130J by 2022
12 additional Chinooks
Nimrod MRA4 cancelled
Sentinel withdrawn once now longer required for Afghanistan ops.

Other thread on the RN Carriers going to CATOBAR I speculated if the CF might be interested in the Sentinels. Also, if the UK is scaling back its' out of area capability to a degree and the size of deployable forces, will they actually need all 14 A330 MRTTs to support the air element required ?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 4):
Until US cuts take hold. Arguably the US budget position is at least as bad as the UK. And then there is the chance that someone will let the secret out that B stands for British, as it used to do in British Petroleum. If I were a UK firm I would be even more nervous about US markets than I would about the UK.

Again I agree. The UK budget position, from British staff I know here who keep up with the old country, is arguably worse than the US, but that can be a discussiion over a cold beverage, I believe. However you slice it, more defense cuts in the US are coming - the planned F-35 overall purchase being a big target.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11918 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4870 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 4):
Until US cuts take hold. Arguably the US budget position is at least as bad as the UK.

I've been listening to the UK budget cut discussion on BBC world service today, and I'm kind of amazed that an incoming government has such authority to rewrite the budget so thoroughly. Chalk that up to my ignorance of how the UK government works, I suppose.

Even if the much talked about shift towards Republicans and Tea Partiers happens in a few weeks time in the US, I doubt you will hear of government budgets taking a 25% hit over the next four years as I am hearing about in the UK.

In fact if past form holds any US shift towards the conservatives will tend to bolster the defense budget.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 4):
Until US cuts take hold. Arguably the US budget position is at least as bad as the UK.

I've been listening to the UK budget cut discussion on BBC world service today, and I'm kind of amazed that an incoming government has such authority to rewrite the budget so thoroughly. Chalk that up to my ignorance of how the UK government works, I suppose.

Even if the much talked about shift towards Republicans and Tea Partiers happens in a few weeks time in the US, I doubt you will hear of government budgets taking a 25% hit over the next four years as I am hearing about in the UK.

In fact if past form holds any US shift towards the conservatives will tend to bolster the defense budget.

You are not wrong re the UK budget process. I was there the week the allowance means testing and other minor rows broke out. The funny thing was how little the UK seems to have noticed how the colonies have fixed these matters, means testing is hardly a major issue here and our inadequate (by our calculations) superannuation system would have been enough to cover the UK problems and have left something to spare.

But the cuts will be really deep and are likely to be a final test between Keynes and von Hayek. They were great friends, pity they cannot be around to watch the final shoot out as it were of their theories.

As to the US, continuity forecasting would suggest more defence, but every now and again continuity forecasting is VERY wrong. This might just be such an occasion???

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 5):
The UK budget position, from British staff I know here who keep up with the old country, is arguably worse than the US, but that can be a discussion over a cold beverage, I believe.

You are on a promise if we ever get to meet, but I think we have a few items before the dreadful budget positions of the old colonial powers do we not?       This    will have to do for an insufferably smug smiley!!!


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13042 posts, RR: 78
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4730 times:

The cuts would have been much worse if 1) Cameron did not have many in his own party to worry about - not his Lib Dem coalition partners, 2) the heads of the three services had not threatened resignation.

But it's hard to take seriously this intention to go to CATOBAR naval air after such a long 'holiday', IMHO Ark Royal AND the most heavily (and recently) upgraded Harrier GR.9A's should be retained until CVF1-STOVL and heli, is near to completion.

Then operate the GR.9A's off CVF1, until the originally planned out of service date if 2018, by then F-35C's should be arriving and CVF2 - CATOBAR - is near completion.
By then, order a follow on batch of F-35B's for CVF1, to allow fast jet naval air when the CATOBAR CVF2 is in refit, as well as it's large LPH role.

As I stated in the CATOBAR thread, the loss of ANY MPA capability with the axing of Nimrod MRA.4 is a major folly well beyond just defence needs, last time I looked, we were an island.
The last review in 1998 took over a year, this one should have done the same.

At least we'll not have to listen to Tory claims of the 'party of strong defence' any more, it was never true, both major parties have made their share of bad decision's.

Of course spending had to be reduced, the defence budget was in a mess, even more reason to be more considered and time taken.
Just hope the rest of the budgetary cuts in government spending announced today don't cause a double dip recession.

Worth noting that until Nov 2008 - after the crash and bank bail outs, the then opposition, now government, pledged to match the Labour government's spending - so if, as they now claim, it was all the fault of excessive govt spending and not the bankers, how do they square this?
The last government were culpable in not regulating the casino bankers enough, however just months before the crash, the now PM accepted a report by a senior Tory MP for even less regulation of this industry.

The only reason the CVF carriers survived at all, was that the last government, as I mentioned on here at the time, made cancellation contracts more expensive than carrying on with them. There was method in this, had they been axed the industry could not survive the gap until the new Type 26 Frigates start appearing from 2020.
Besides, the Conservative Governments of the 1980's did the same thing when the current Trident Subs were ordered by them, what goes around comes around.....


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4666 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 8):
But it's hard to take seriously this intention to go to CATOBAR naval air after such a long 'holiday', IMHO Ark Royal AND the most heavily (and recently) upgraded Harrier GR.9A's should be retained until CVF1-STOVL and heli, is near to completion.

Then operate the GR.9A's off CVF1, until the originally planned out of service date if 2018, by then F-35C's should be arriving and CVF2 - CATOBAR - is near completion.
By then, order a follow on batch of F-35B's for CVF1, to allow fast jet naval air when the CATOBAR CVF2 is in refit, as well as it's large LPH role.

Hard to fault your thinking on this point, GDB. TheGR.9A upgrade was, IIRC, fairly expensive as well as recent. So all that money just got flushed. I think there is a lot of validity in keeping at least a small fast jet component for RN until either the F-35B or C comes in. The F-35 is the only choice that makes any sense as with 2 carriers in 2 configs, operating 2 types (i.e., F-35B and F/A-18E/F) doe snot make sense. The F-35B & C share some commonality at least, despite my previous caustic comments about this contraption.

Quoting GDB (Reply 8):
As I stated in the CATOBAR thread, the loss of ANY MPA capability with the axing of Nimrod MRA.4 is a major folly well beyond just defence needs, last time I looked, we were an island.
The last review in 1998 took over a year, this one should have done the same.

Is the death of the MRA.4 a result of the very protracted (and still on-going) development phase and I believe the repeated budget-busting for this programme ? Well past the point now, but I always thought the UK would have been better served with a fleet of Orion/Aurora a/c, and could have mod'ed some of the Orions to EP-3 standard for the ELINT role.

For Nimrod R.1 replacements, is the Rivet Joint option still on the table ?



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6726 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4593 times:

I won't list all my points of amazement at the cuts and shifts proposed, my hats off to those of you who can see rhyme and reason.

I somehow get the idea that folks believe that if the economy picks up some capabilities will be restored, if nothing happens, it can start a drive for total disarment, you never know, us colonies and former colonies better start looking to build up our militaries, as mother England won't be coming to our rescue.

Penalties placed in the carrier contract to make it more expensive to cancel, supposedly done to preserve the expertise, why exactly, what is it going to be used for, they certainely won't be building any more carriers before those who built these two have already passed on.
Putting down the Ark Royal immediately to offset the cost of building two new a/c carriers which will sail the seas without a/c, mothball one right after you complete initial deployment and training, better to simply park it once commissioned and save additional funds on crews, helicopters, fuel, maintenance etc. after all, it is not being built to be used.
I say build them both and sell them to France, India, Pakistan, whoever is willing to pay, then you may be able to build more.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4567 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 10):
you never know, us colonies and former colonies better start looking to build up our militaries, as mother England won't be coming to our rescue

Er how about needing to do that in 1941. Churchill's delay in sending Spits to Australia lost the UK quite a bit of traction here especially when they were being more or less wasted over France. So that aspect is not news here, but sailing aircraft carriers without aircraft sounds a bit like the last year of the Empire of the Sun.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):
Is the death of the MRA.4 a result of the very protracted (and still on-going) development phase and I believe the repeated budget-busting for this programme ?

Presumably this was due to problems with the systems rather than the airframe - the airframe having been flying in various manifestations for quite a long time! The problem with that is it presumably will be the end of the groups working on that an more hollowing out of UK technical and industrial capacity. In turn this means that the sector that Cameron is looking to for offsetting the cuts he is imposing will be further weakened.

It would be interesting to know how much of the systems problems with the Nimrod were just poor performance and how much due to changes in specs caused by mission creep.


User currently onlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3471 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4454 times:

With regard to the Nimrod MR4, the writing was on the wall, when the previous govt made the decision to withdraw the MR2 a year early, leaving the UK with no long range ASW until the projected arrival of the MR4. Now that we have no ASW, its easier to say we don't need it for the forseeable future.
The whole programme though is a fiasco made in hell. Take a collection of well worn Nimrods, all either converted from or derived from a 1950's airliner. Throw away the wings and engines, strip the rest down, rebuild, carefully noting that every fuselage is slightly different, and thus keep redesigning the interior as you go, all the while reducing the build number in order to try and cap the cost overruns, and ending up 10 years behind schedule. Then act surprised when the plug is finally pulled.
Many of us will remember as previous disastrous Nimrod conversion programme, thus a 2nd isn't really a surprise.

The carrier programme alterations are also of little surprise, as it should have been catobar to start with, if we wanted vstol, we could have built 30, 000 tonne ships, The only real justification for 65,000 tonnes is for the space for catapults and arrester wires.
At least though at 65,000 tonnes, the navy will finally have carriers which don't rapidly become obsolete due to the growth in aircraft size and weight, a problem which the FAA has had since the end of WW2.

The axing of the Harrier surprises me, the FAA though had already been sold down the river to a certain extent when they got rolled up into joint force harrier a few years back, and lost their FA2's. We can't claim that the axing of the harrier leaves the fleet unable to defend itself, as they can't at the moment anyway.


User currently offlineGarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2579 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4391 times:

Well, one hopes no ships, boats or planes come to strife in the north sea and atlantic waters.
Sans Nimrod, we now only have Seakings for SAR operations which lack the vitaly important endurance of the Nimrod.
Now our waters are also open for anyone to sneek into if they wish.
Cancelling the Nimrod without a replacement in its entirety was the dumbest of all decisions, IMO.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently onlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3471 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4306 times:

Quoting Garpd (Reply 13):
Well, one hopes no ships, boats or planes come to strife in the north sea and atlantic waters.
Sans Nimrod, we now only have Seakings for SAR operations which lack the vitaly important endurance of the Nimrod.
Now our waters are also open for anyone to sneek into if they wish.
Cancelling the Nimrod without a replacement in its entirety was the dumbest of all decisions, IMO.

Totally agree with you, however as I posted earlier, the rot set in when the RAF agreed to withdraw the MR2 earlier this year. Thus as we have no long range ASW at present, it could be claimed that the decision had already been made.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13042 posts, RR: 78
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4288 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 14):
Totally agree with you, however as I posted earlier, the rot set in when the RAF agreed to withdraw the MR2 earlier this year. Thus as we have no long range ASW at present, it could be claimed that the decision had already been made.

It was a political decision in the wake of the loss over Afghanistan of a Nimrod MR.2 in 2006, the subsequent inquest, as much as short term financial.
Still, a big difference in a 2 year gap and forever.

Why do I think some event, military or civil maritime disaster, will end up with a buy of a few P-8s?


User currently onlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4247 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 8):
CATOBAR

Sorry, what's CATOBAR?

I wonder if the time lag between the entry into service of the carrier and the introduction of the F35 can be turned to the services' advantage through the use of USMC and USN aircraft, the idea being that the US military could use their aircraft to train not only pilots, but maintenance personnel and "ground" crews on the new types, so that once the British F-35s are introduced, the transition to the F35 will be a lot quicker.

Over the next few years, if they haven't started already, RAF/RN crews will be travelling to the US, to be trained on the new type and they will be able to participate in this process.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13042 posts, RR: 78
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4234 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 16):
Sorry, what's CATOBAR?

(Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery)


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3506 times:

The Harrier GR.9s depart a British carrier for the last time this Wednesday.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Quote:
The three Harrier GR.9s on the carrier will depart HMS Ark Royal on Wednesday morning for RAF Cottesmore, where the Joint Force Harrier is based. The aircraft fleet is due to be retired formally in the first part of 2011.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6604 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3321 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 18):

And the deed has been done

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11830094



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic UK Strategic Defense And Security Review
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canadian American Strategic Review posted Sun Jan 28 2007 03:32:54 by Connies4ever
RAF And UK Govt Requirments posted Thu Apr 8 2004 14:12:06 by CHRISBA777ER
F-35B And The New UK Carriers posted Sat Feb 22 2003 20:45:05 by Soren-a
JSF's Role With The AF, Navy, Marines And UK posted Fri Apr 12 2002 00:18:32 by STT757
Russia And The Worldwide Defense Market posted Sat Oct 27 2001 05:02:08 by William
UK Defence Cuts - 2nd CV Offered To India posted Wed Sep 22 2010 22:33:02 by Shmertspionem
C-141A Approach And Landing Speeds posted Sun Sep 12 2010 18:06:02 by boeing767mech
Boeing And Northrop To Merge? posted Sun Sep 12 2010 12:29:33 by Flighty
Britain And France To Share Aircraft Carrier? posted Tue Aug 31 2010 16:12:02 by kaitak
Fighter Pilots And Airspace posted Tue Aug 31 2010 06:56:35 by rolypolyman

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format