Defence Futures – Starters for Ten

18 thoughts on “Defence Futures – Starters for Ten”

1. Jed November 8, 2009 at 4:07 pm

   Qoute: “If you want to comment, can I ask that you don’t comment on the individual ideas but add to the shopping list with your own ideas” – LOL !

   Good, because you were right to call some of these ideas harebrained, and I really want to give some of them a good kicking !
2. Jed November 8, 2009 at 4:09 pm

   Sorry, multiple comments postings again… last comment was meant to be good humored, because you also present some ideas I completely agree with.
3. admin November 8, 2009 at 4:19 pm

   I know some of them probably do need a good kicking but some of them are deliberately hairbrained in order to stimulate discussion!

   In all seriousness though

   The options for a bit of salami slicing here and a nick there have well and truly left the building.

   Radical thinking is required
4. jed November 8, 2009 at 4:21 pm

   Sorry one more comment – although I agree that the possibility of large scale state on state military actions appear to be reduced by globalisation, as a link back to your previous posts in this series I actually don’ think that long term COIN operations are necessarily the way of the future either. I say this because of the budgetary and other implications that Afghanistan has had on the British forces and the impact it should have, but does not seem to have had on Parliament. Do we, as a nation really have aspirations to be involved in more ‘nation building’ type affairs ? Or a you counting all possible small scale, conventional interventions as ‘counter-insurgency’ ? For example we could get involved in Zimbabwe at the behest of the UN, or in Somalia as part of GWOT (and anti-piracy) but there is no actual insurgency to counter in these scenarios, and more importantly no ‘nation building’ – as Euan said in his comment to an earlier post, perhaps we should concentrate on raining down hellfire on our foes. Its cheap and easy compared to building them back up again afterwards ! (although it may be construed as morally bankrupt, but some one has to pay hard cash to back up a states morality).
5. Euan Stewart November 8, 2009 at 8:37 pm

   Hmmm! the first time i read that my brain just skipped over the Naval bit, i got to the end and was thinking *no naval stuff?*. Then i noticed, i think my subconscious was trying to help. You are right there are some hair brained schemes.

   To add to the shopping list, Air: Buy global hawk and have various variants. Buy more A400M if it ever delivers. Buy in large numbers e.g. 160+ light/medium helicopters, example would be AW149.

   Land: investment in tracked hybrid drive vehicles.

   Sea: Invest in area surveillance capabilities, invest in both manned and unmanned underwater capabilities. Go to town on command structure. Expand the Royal Marines to around 10-12 thousand members, with an increase in the special forces component.

   Also in the Naval realm i would create an actual coastguard service that would be armed to an extent and have it’s own assets. This coastguard would incorporate border control, customs, fisheries, search and rescue and various other jobs. Basically it would do most of the functions needed within the UK EEZ alone, as it would be primarily civilian manned it should lower costs.

   There is more floating around in my head but that is just a few points i decided to note down.
6. jed November 9, 2009 at 1:25 am

   OK then, here is what I thought of as some modest capabilities while watching a particularly boring OHL hockey game this afternoon (with a suitably military aspect, the Brampton Battalion beating the London Knights 2-0…..).

   Land: Introduce 120mm mortars. As Force Recon Regts now provide exactly half of our armoured forces, and the old CVR(T) establishment included the Striker anti-tank missile version but no mortars, I will explain my thinking. The modern 120mm turret mounted breach loading mortar can be used in direct infantry support against buildings, direct anti-tank by launching laser guided missiles from its smooth bore tube, or in-direct anti-tank with IR guided top-attack rounds. Add to these the standard modern complement of precision guided (SAHL), cargo (sub-munitions) and extended range mortar ammunition and you have a very flexible weapon system. As the Force Recon units have been given a ‘Medium Armour’ role with recent doctrine, a FRES (Mortar) variant of the CV90 seems to fill the ticket. The Patria AMOS twin barrel system has already been fitted to this chasis, but for maximum flexibility it may require the BAe (Royal Ordnance / Delco) manned turret. There are also 100+ FV432 which carry 81mm mortars for Armoured Infantry (Warrior IFV) battalions, so replace those too….

   Finally, we have a lot more Challenger II’s in inventory than can possibly be in use by 5 armoured regiments, so refit some of them with a 120mm mortar in place of the 120mm rifled gun, and fit a 40mm Auto-grenade launcher as the co-axial armament. The armoured regiments could mix and match, taking whichever version of the Challenger meets the current battle field scenarios.

   On the infantry side, create Special Operations Forces group with 3 x Para Regt’s in ‘Ranger’ role, the Strategic Recce Regt and the Special Forces Support Group.

   Air: Retire Tornado early, buy more Typhoon Tranche 3B as all two seaters with the conformal fuel tanks. Ditch the F35 (but see Maritime section below).

   Ditch A400M (with the obvious reduced commitment to provide airlift) and buy a few more C17′s plus some C130J configured as tankers, allowing all Chinook / Merlin to be fitted for in-flight refueling probes.

   Make RAF Regiment the Joint Personnel Recovery (CSAR) unit UNLESS – give all medium lift helicopters to the Army Air Corps.

   Buy Merlin to replace Puman and Sea King HC4 (junglies) – should be some savings from simplified logistics of training and supporting a single type.

   Convert more Nimrods to MK4 – need at least 18 (they are multi-role ISTAR platforms, not just maritime surv/ASW) and modify 3 more airframes to replace R1′s – we have already invested in the R & D and development, might as well lever the sunk costs.

   Maritime: Figure out which is going to cost less, cancelling the CVF and paying penalties, but buying 3 Cavour class straight from Italian shipyards, OR following through with the CVF’s. Buy just enough F35′s to equip 1 x CVF with a full air wing, plus a training sqdn.

   Commit to at the absolute minimum 28 major surface vessels, to consist of:
   8 x T45 Air defence destroyers
   8 x T45 derivative ASW destroyers as FSC C1(no Samson PAAM’s using Herkules / SAAM instead, no long range 3D volume search radar, but T2087 towed array and 16 x NSM3 missiles) – lever the costs in T45 R & D and manufacturing, and reduce through life costs through commonality.
   12 x Abasalon Class as FSC C2. CB90E’s, 2 x Merlin class helo, plus elevator from hanger to flex deck for additional FireScout UAV. Less flexible-flex deck, but more fixed accommodation and large sick bay. CAAM as anti-air missile.

   Develop CIWS based on old Phalanx mounts equipped with 40mm Case Telescoped Ammunition Canon.

   Replace Sea King AEW & C with a Merlin variant. Introduce Maritime FireScout.

   Add 1 x Army Commando Battalion to 3 Commando Brigade. Increase Brigade Patrol Troop to reinforced Company size. Buy some larger, commercially available hovercraft (British Griffon G8100TD as used by Swedish forces). Establish Riverine squadron with Combat Boat 90H.

   Absolutely setup a para-military Coast Guard to do everything Euan mentions.
7. Jed November 9, 2009 at 7:05 pm

   An Englishman in a Rafale: Flight International test pilot rates the Rafale: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/09/334383/flight-test-dassault-rafale-rampant-rafale.html

   Perhaps we should just make sure the CVF’s gas turbine exhaust can heat some water to make steam and fit the same catapults as on the Charles de Gaul and buy some Rafales – I bet it would be an order of magnitude cheaper than F35 !
8. Euan Stewart November 9, 2009 at 8:33 pm

   Jed i’ve just read that flight test thanks for the link. Seems like an excellent aircraft as to be expected from Dassault, it would be interesting to read a direct comparison between the Rafale and Eurofighter.

   As it stands i would imagine that the Rafale has a better electronic systems fit out as they have only got to please one primary customer. The Eurofighter seems to be strangled by customers not agreeing on upgrades for the aircraft. Hopefully customers either forge ahead or people start agreeing soon.

   In regards to the point about the CVF the gas turbine exhaust could not be used to heat water afaik as you need high pressure steam. We don’t even need to buy the Rafale to save money even if we just switched our order to the F-35C we could save some money. The Rafale would still be a good choice but we get no industrial or commonality benefit from buying it whereas we are involved in the F-35 program and could buy B versions at a later date.

   In regards to the Blog post, I’m not a huge follower of the land warfare side of things. I think that Mech forces should be moved towards hybrid drive veichles and i would advocate re-starting the BAE Hagglands SEP program to replace the majority of the vehicle fleet. One point though is im no big fan of the wheeled APC’s as they have problems off-road and will not cope well with weight gain. Canada especially found this problem the hard way and had to deploy the ancient M113 gavins. We were lucky in a way that we had the Royal Marines with the Viking. Therefore i don’t think we should join the bandwagon of Wheeled APC’s, tracks are much better especially modern band tracks.
9. Jed November 9, 2009 at 9:10 pm

   Euan I am with on tracks versus wheels. Restarting SEP is a good idea, but just going with CV90 for FRES would be cheaper, that’s kind of the point of the original post.

   Same with Rafale, it would be way cheaper than F35C and what savings would benefits do we actually accrue from the “industrial participation” ? Interoperability is not a big deal, NATO standards and all that.

   Add one to my wishlist – a version of Meteor that has dual mode guidance – the passive radar homing of the ALARM and the imaging infra-red seeker of the ASRAAM – could be used for SEAD, anti-ship even passive long range air-to-air engagements.

   Cost cutting – really, no I mean really shut down all involvement in Roysth dockyard, and to just to keep the Scots happy, shut Portsmouth naval base as well – I hate Pompey ! (ex-Guzz rating…).
10. Euan Stewart November 9, 2009 at 11:20 pm

    The Problem i see with CV-90 is it is not that far advanced from what we have, if we went straight to electric drive we would be one of the first nations to do so. Electric drive vehicles should be easy enough to get done especially if the SEP program had proven the technology. It’s also Swedish so i would have more faith in it actually working we would also not be alone in the program. So if we restarted it im sure the Swedes would want in and it would be popular in the export market.

    Just going for the CV-90 would be cheaper yes and it is battle proven in A-stan etc. I still think taking the leap would be better and cheaper in the long run and could pay off if exports are secured.

    The Industrial Advantages are quite substantial as we will make all the rear fuselage sections for every single F-35 which could be thousands of them. Whereas we would make very little of the Rafale if any at all, i would also be suprised if the French would agree to much technology transfer. The F-35C if we bought it and got catapults for the carriers would mean we could train with the USN quite easily as their blokes could look after the aircraft. Or we could simply send the pilot and he could use USN aircraft i bet we could save money that way:D

    Add one to the evolved Meteor, i like it and could work well maybe save some cash. Don’t know how feasible it would be though main advantage of the ALARM vs HARM is that ALARM has a parachute and i doubt Meteor could be equipped with one.

    Oi! Jed im Scottish. The RN needs Rosyth now the carriers are getting built one of the few places that can dry dock the CVF and the only one equipped to do it. I suggest you read Navy Matters and look for the CVF pages and look at “Basing and Support”.

    I would rather keep all the bases as they are, mainly as i want to expand the RN so would maybe need the room. If a dry dock could be built at one of the 3 Naval bases for the CVF then we don’t need rosyth but i doubt it would be cheaper.
11. Jed November 10, 2009 at 2:44 am

    Euan me old matey – no offense meant, I was Rosyth based too, and also did a stint at Faslane (and my Mum is from Perth !). But if we don’t build CVF’s then they should really shut it properly this time.

    Yes I would like to see the RN returned to a larger size and then it would need all its dockyards, I am so old I joined my first ship in Chatham(!) but I don’t see it happening.

    Would the JSF consortium be able to withdraw our participation from building it at this point, even if we dont build any ? I am not at all impressed with the defence industrialization strategy, something we have not specifically addressed yet, but if we are saying we can’t have all capabilities, and we must do things more cheaply, then cutting out the ‘first day of war’ stealth of the F35 is a big deal. Exactly how many jobs and what ‘strategic’ industrial capabilities would that impact ? Anyway, lets face it, we will be lucky to have stretched River class OPV’s flying FireScout UAV’s never mind carriers with Rafales !!!

    I also totally understand your point ref SEP and electrics, but again FRES has been a long and ridiculously drawn out disaster and the Cavalry squaddies need something now.

    Up the Scots !
12. Euan Stewart November 10, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    I wasn’t in the Navy im afraid Jed, im just someone who has a strong interest and has family that have been in the Navy. I live across the Clyde from Faslane so i get the nice views of the mountains.

    In many respects Rosyth should be let go of to save much needed money but i would imagine it would be difficult to do. For a start what are we going to do with all the old subs rotting away in the harbour and where will we put the others soon to join them. If CVF is cancelled which i doubt then the subs should be moved ideally disposed of. However if CVF is built we will need rosyth to maintain the shiny new carriers and i would even go so far as to have them based there. Why? simply so that they are close to where the can get fixed.

    I would also make the argument the best place to base the CVF class would be the Clyde at Faslane, if you know the facilities around the area you will see why.

    The F-35 argument is as you pointed out not really that big of a deal as at this rate there will be no navy to support. I do hold out some hope if some smart choices are made about new frigates etc in the coming years, smart low risk buys would be ideal. Such as a T45 C1 derivative, Absalon C2 derivative and simply buying the VT C3 proposal which is based on another proven hull.

    FRES im coming round to as you suggest a simple off the shelf buy of a well proven system in use in Afghanistan etc already. Especially since it is operated by the Swedes who have a very very solid decision making ability that 90% of the time choses the best kit.
13. Richard Stockley November 16, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    Amalgamate all services into one defence force for starters. Time to get rid of the entrenched three services mentality and reform the whole lot on the lines of the USMC. One service, less politics.
14. Euan Stewart November 16, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    Hmmm! I’m not a fan of the idea if I’m honest the Admin of the site knows my views on this area and I’ve covered them in the “Defence Futures – Ideas, Suggestions and Hair Brained Schemes” comments, I could send you something I’ve written that outlines some of my views that I sent to the Admin to have a read of. That and the comments should give you a pretty good idea of where my opinions lie.
15. Jed November 17, 2009 at 1:55 am

    Richard – Yuck ! I have worn Navy blue and the Black berret of the Royal Corps of Signals (TA) and say its a horrible idea and while trashing hundreds of years of tradition that do actually mean something to most service personnel, I doubt its ability to remove the politics. The Canadian Armed Forces seem to be as rife with political in-fighting as any Roman senate ! As for basing things on the USMC – oh yeah, there is no way you could have got me shouting “Uh-haaar’ all the time…:-)
16. Euan Stewart November 18, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    Jed i agree with you on this history means quite a bit to service members. I also doubt a joint armed forces ability to put aside differences and politics the service politics will still exist.
17. DominicJ November 19, 2009 at 7:47 am

    I believe there is quite a lot of merit in the idea of creating a fourth service.
    That way the RAF can dream about fighting its air war with 60,000 Migs, the Army can dream about its master plan to strategicaly envelope the Soviet Tank Guards and crush them in a single hammer blow, the Navy can, dream of being the floating RAF, and then we can have a fourth service that is set up to do something relevent.

    There will still be turf problems, the only way I can see them going is if senior officers have to have served in all three branches.
    A Jet Pilot come supreme commander is always going to prioritise airpower, a marine light infantry and a tank commander heavy armour.
18. Euan Stewart November 19, 2009 at 3:46 pm

    Dominic what would this 4th service be, what would they do, what resources would they have?