Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!
323 thoughts on “Open Thread – Rumble in the CVF Jungle I”
Chris.B.
@ Gabs,
The official sources quote a £4.8 billon cost for Tornado into the 2020′s. You routinely quote £7 billion, which so far appears to be only the work of The Times. Thus, you’re not quoting official sources.
It also emerges that the original Tornado upgrade bill was 1.1 billion of which the Engines would get £650 million, fatigue life would be corrected at a cost of £207 million, rear seat training would get £243 million.
Almost all parts of this upgrade have been cancelled, leaving an expected 300 millions of indispensable interventions.
This also explains why 96 planes are projected to deliver only 18 elements at readiness, probably, due to the relatively low number of them being available for flying at any one time.
The 7.4 / 7.5 billion figure also does not appear just on The Times, but is reported by many more newspapers, including the Daily Mail in its beautiful farewell piece on Harrier (worth conserving even just for the images, by the way).
Before the SDSR was published, a MOD Audit was made, and several details emerged. Including the 7.5 billions Tornado bill and the 2.7 bill for the confirmed Tranche 3A Typhoon buy which could not be cancelled.
Interesting to note how, 5 days prior to SDSR publication, it was widely expected that Tornado would go.
It is very easy to find if you google it.
The 7.5 billion figure was, as far as i’m aware, NEVER denied by the MOD or Government, even when it ended up on all newspapers.
Covers only the logistics relating to the fleet. Expenditure on an aircraft type, i’m sure you know it, is not just about logistics. 4.8 billions come from the contracts with BAE, Rolls Royce and other contractors.
What about training? Crews? Bases? Training sorties? At 22000 sorties a year in average, with a 5000 pounds per hour marginal cost (excluding of course depreciation and capital costs which make that into the better known 35.000 pounds figure) we already log a minimum of 1100 million pounds out to 2021.
We both have incomplete patchworks of information, Chris. 7.5 billion might be the top estimate, and perhaps savings would have been effectively a bit lower.
It is an estimate, after all.
But the 4.8 billion is, on the other hand, merely a component of the overall savings that could be expected.
The 7 billions saving figure came from the MOD, it is not a press invention. And it sure is not mine invention. It is based on rather solid data which suggests it is actually realistic.
DominicJ
The only reason I could think of for saving Tornado, was to avoid burning through Typhoon hours.
However, the T1 Typhoons are all going to be scrapped in a few years anyway, so that doesnt really hold much water, unless a decision has been made to, not, scrap them….
x
£4.8 billion would buy an awful lot of TLAMs.
Gabriele
@X
In 2003 the UK asked for the possible acquisition of 105 TLAM Block IV. Total cost was put at 143 USD million, or 1.361 million dollars per missile including all support. A true bargain. http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/UnitedKingdom_03-36.pdf
Yet only 65 missiles were acquired.
If i have understood the FMSs thingy correctly, the others in the original request are “available” for successive orders – example; for replenishing the stock after Libya – without re-presenting all the paperwork for the buy.
The UK, after all, made a request for 10 Reapers very early, but initially only got 3, and ordered the others in other periods. The last 5, as we know, have yet to arrive.
However, yes. I’ll always support an expansion in the TLAM stock. It always is the first thing that we end up using, yet buying more never seems to gain support.
… Horrendous suspect:
“We have more than 800 Storm Shadows still to use, what the hell!”
But moreover, the point remains:
Even assuming “just” 4.8 billion were saved, say that we used that for: 1.3 per Harrier to 2018 and Ark to 2015 (make that a year longer, an QE arrives, so no gap), 390 millions for weapons integration on F35C (covering Brimstone and Storm Shadow, which got delayed to “one day”), as much for Typhoon accelerated integration, additional funding for more Harriers to be pulled out of the hangars to have a better contingency capability.
Saving remaining, well over 2 billions. Still more than what was obtained with Harrier and Ark.
– The only reference to the £7.5 billion figure in that text is from Lord West of Spithead, or as he’s otherwise been known Admiral Adam West, former First Sea Lord (ret). The MoD only seem to have a figure of £4.8 billion.
“The 7.4 / 7.5 billion figure also does not appear just on The Times, but is reported by many more newspapers, including the Daily Mail…”
– As I said earlier, many papers jumped on the story by the Times and quoted their figure rote. I can find no official source yet which states the £7.5 billion figure.
“Covers only the logistics relating to the fleet… What about training? Crews? Bases? Training sorties?”
– Really? This argument again? How many personnel does it require to operate Ark Royal? How much does it cost to base the crew the Harriers on land when not at sea? How much does Harrier training – widely acknowledged as the most difficult aircraft in the RAF inventory to fly – cost?
“The 7 billions saving figure came from the MOD, it is not a press invention.”
– Then where is this MoD data? If you have it fine. Show it to me.
@ X
With the cutbacks to the Sub fleet thanks to Carriers, we wouldn’t have enough platforms to fire them from
x
No arguments here either.
I am not sure whether SS fired from F35c isn’t just a fudge……
Oh well.
Gabriele
Morons the other Lords and Commons who do not check the goddamn MOD Audit and call Lord West’s bluff, if it is a bluff, then.
Chances are that it is not a bluff.
But of course. The MOD Audit has only been read by parliament members, MOD and others. It is quoted, as i linked, but not accessible to the general public.
So the excuse is always the same: “He is an ex Sea Lord! He is clearly biased! He is saying false things to the Lords in parliament!”
Again, NO ONE in Parliament contested the 7.5 billion figure, and they are in the position of doing it.
You are not, yet you clearly call Lord West a liar.
I’ve supplied evidence. You’ve supplied the old and unimaginative “he is biased”.
If you can sustain your point with a bit more substantial back up, perhaps you should.
DominicJ
Gabriele
The Lords tend to come out with some gibberish.
Put a random word, like Corned Beef, into TheyWorkForYou and see what utter gibberish a Lord has spewed about Corned Beef…..
Gabriele
By the way.
“Really? This argument again? How many personnel does it require to operate Ark Royal? How much does it cost to base the crew the Harriers on land when not at sea? How much does Harrier training – widely acknowledged as the most difficult aircraft in the RAF inventory to fly – cost?”
That’s because you assume that the savings declared for retiring Harrier and Ark Royal do not keep any track of these factors.
On which ground, i do not know.
Logistics of the Harrier, signed in 2009 and to 2018, were worth GBP 574 million [http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/britain-moves-forward-on-harrier-support-agreements-03368/], plus 198 millions to Rolls for the Pegasus engines support, again to 2018/19. http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/news/2009/280109_support_pegasus.jsp
Savings from the Harrier retirement are put at 1.1 billion, roughly.
The difference, of course, tells nothing to you.
Again, morons the government officials that – oh, they are not biased, they do not try to tell everyone how right they were in retiring the Harrier, they are pure and sincere! – do not include all those expenditure voices in their savings estimate and deliberately justify one of the most contested decisions ever on weak and incomplete figures.
Half of the UK population now hates them for scrapping the Harrier and they, poor idiots, also tell them wrong figures. They saved loads of money, but only say they saved a tiny amount, just so they can be hated a little more.
If you think that it makes sense… then your politicians really must all be donkeys.
But then again, it is perfectly logic to say that 7 squadrons of planes with twice the crew and much more ground support technicians cost less than 2 squadrons with less personnel in, so why do i bother…?
We are in the world of the Opposites, and all that say otherwise are obviously and evidently biased.
x
@ Chris B
One would suggest it has more to do with chicanery at the MoD over who does deep strike…….
DominicJ
If we could all pay attention to me for a moment…..
I think I’m on to something here.
Harrier could only really cover Afghanistan, puting everything else on Typhoon.
Thats fine, if we have Typhoon hours to burn, which given the out of service date of the T1′s, is true.
If the T1s are to be kept on long term, husbanding their hours suddenly becomes a priority.
Has anyone heard
CB/X
One of the reasons the destroyers lost land attack missiles was, the carrier handles deep strike.
Chris.B.
@ X
Possible
@ Gabs,
This is why I can’t “debate” with you for long without resorting to getting annoyed and just mocking you. You’re harping on about evidence and facts and how I should support my argument blah, blah, yet we know two things so far;
a) Through Ministerial questioning the cost of keeping Tornado is estimated at £4.8 billion, by ministers who work for the MoD and have seen all the detailed numbers, and have no service bias to prompt them into fudging numbers, and who are not legally permitted to report false answers to other members of the house,
and
b) The only “evidence” you have to rebuke this are a newspaper article, copied by other newspaper articles, and then an off hand and slightly fecious sounding comment during a debate in the Lords by a former First Sea Lord, that dates after the Times article, with no indication of where he acquired said data.
But you’ve not ended there. Oh no.
You’re now trying to argue that;
a) the official reported cost of keeping Harriers and Ark Royals in service accounts for not just support but also personnel and basing,
b) while the figures for Tornado do not, presumably because that doesn’t tally with your argument.
And no one is arguing that Tornado is cheaper, we know it’s not, but the margain by which it is more expensive is considerably less than you are representing and you’re failing to take into account that for the little extra money spent we are getting;
- higher numbers,
- double the service life,
- and the (even you agreed) more capable aircraft,
So my advice to you? Stop digging holes for yourself and go find an online magazine to copy/paste some more material from.
Mark
Its nice that TD created a area for chrisB and gabby to play in.
Remembering of course that the storm shadow cost is total program cost per missile and that tomahawk price is per missile. Also remembering that storm shadow attacks a different target set to tomahawk and further remembering that an a/c can attack a huge variety of target or conduct various other non kinetic missions which is beyond a missile.
x
Is the target set that much different?
Mark
Storm shadow is deep penetrating, TLAM isnt.
DominicJ
Mark
Not sure I’d agree with that really.
True, Storm Shadow is much harder to shoot down, but lack or range means aircraft have to risk themselves as well.
I know what I’d trust to break through a deep air defence.
Chris.B.
“I know what I’d trust to break through a deep air defence.”
A B-2 Spirit…
Storm Shadow has a much shorter range, but still a not insignificant 155 miles. The BROACH warhead is a two stage job, specially designed for penetrating hardened targets; first bang is a shape charge to clear a path, then the big bang comes next.
Price according to ministers (though this data is often not good enough for some it would seem) is £790,000 pound per unit, which is inclusive of VAT and the development costs. Future missiles will likely be cheaper. TLAM block IV is £870,000 a pop now, but with better range. A case of horses for courses I guess.
In excess of 250km (155 miles). Still not a patch on TLAM, but then it’s;
a) much smaller (you can carry two underneath a Tornado)
b) Air deployable, so you can still fly it into range if needed,
c) Different warhead type,
d) Flies faster and incorporates low observability features to improve survivability,
Think Defence
I thought Storm Shadow was a light blue plot, instigated by those naughty chaps at Deep Strike, just to piss off the one true Senior Service and stop them getting more TLAM shaped toys.
We should immediately withdraw Storm Shadow and fit Mk41 VLS on Type 45, CVF, Type 26 and HMS Gleaner so we can get more TLAMS, more I say, MORE
ArmChairCivvy
I was just going to say this “If it’s sub launched it’s about another 350k for the launcher” but Mark got there first…
more exactly it is just for the wrapper, to get the missile through the torpedo tube and to launch properly when it has reached the surface, so add the cost of the missile (they are mass produced, so that helps).
But who wants such expensive, even-though long-ranged missiles that you can’t reload without going to port, or the easy to shoot down SS’s. JASSM can carry a 1,000-pound warhead to an effective range of 200 miles/ 320 km, while transmitting back via a 1-way datalink… having an extremely low radar signature… the USAF sees it playing a critical role against targets defended by sophisticated, long-range air defense systems.
The USAF is JASSM’s main customer, and Australia as well as Finland have ordered it. Orders may also be coming from the Dutch, from South Korea…
Mark
So it’s longer than 155m then as I said it’s range is classified but not as long as tlam.
We have about 200 launch platforms for storm shadow and seven for tlam. Uk has sufficient tlam stocks for any uk only operatiion do we need anymore than that, stock can be replenished quite quickly from us navy stocks.
DominicJ
Acc
We’ve discussed this befiore, I think conventional thinking was 155miles is the SS’s range on its sea skimming terrain following mode.
Whereas 1500miles is a Tomahawk launched from 60,000ft from a mach3 platform following a glide route.
Mark/CB
Cant the broach warhead be fitted to pretty much any (big) missile?
Mark
Dom are you asking can broach be fitted to tlam? If you are only if the yanks want to we can do it independantly. The fact they haven’t done something similar suggest perhaps not.
Chris.B.
Dom,
I’d imagine the actual BROACH warhead itself wouldn’t be compatible due to size and weight issues, but the theory (a two stage warhead) could be adapted to TLAM if needed without too many problems I’d imagine.
And yes, I believe the range is based on a skimming profile. While the precise range is classified as Mark points out, a missile that size travelling at that speed probably won’t go a huge amount beyond 250km in the skimming mode.
What should be born in mind though, before conspiracy theories start reaching their peak, is that Lightning is supposedly going to be able to carry two SS, one on each inner pylon.
I’d guess this is why the Navy isn’t up in arms, because it quietly has designs on being the main user of the weapon in future. And as Mark pointed out, a Lightning firing SS will be able to fly back to CVF and reload for another strike sortie the next day. A full compliment of Lightning’s carrying SS will be able to deliver twice as many cruise missile shots in one mass package as a single Astute, even assuming that the Astute carries nothing but TLAM. When you factor in that the aircraft will likely rotate (not all flying in one mass sortie), the pace they could probably maintain over a weekend (or Day 1 & 2 door kicking) will likely make the yanks SSGN’s look like amateurs in the cruise missile delivery business.
CVF could yet redeem its mahoosive budget.
El Sid
Don’t forget that BROACH is also on JSOW-C, but the USAF explicitly rejected it for their needs.
Mind you, the main problem with BROACH is not delivering it, but getting it to go bang when it gets there….
Jed
DomJ said: “Whereas 1500miles is a Tomahawk launched from 60,000ft from a mach3 platform following a glide route.”
LOL, seriously….. the RB70 Valkyrie somewhat pre-dated the Tomahawk Dom !!
1500nm is range dropped from a B52 at medium altitude and dropping down to “low” altitude, how that differs from it’s terminal approach “terrain following” altitude, and at what distance you switch between such modes, and the effect that has on range is not public “open source” information.
DominicJ
chris b
pretty much what i’d figured, average two launches an hour.
Not quite 72 in 6 minutes, but a relentless assault all the same.
Gabriele
@Chris B.
MOD DOC Audit, note 112 in the link.
Do not try to ignore the fact that the Parliamentary Defence Committee and Lord West himself clearly have a document in their hands that they reference and present it instead merely as the diabolic machination of Lord West, will you?
Try also to not ignore that your 4.8 billion cost is stated very cleary being for LOGISTIC.
It is not the whole story. It is like saying the Army is only made up by the RLC. Same realism.
As to Storm Shadow.
Perhaps it is not clear. I’m not advocating retiring Storm Shadow.
But 900 SS and 65 TLAMs in stock…? That so not makes any sense in light of operations. It just makes NO sense.
“Whereas 1500miles is a Tomahawk launched from 60,000ft from a mach3 platform following a glide route.”
Not really. Also, the ALCM is derived from TLAM concepts and components in some parts, but it is NOT a Tomahawk, and has really little to share with the naval TLAMs, especially with the latest Block IV. It makes no sense to compare them. The TLAM the Uk and US Navy use is not at all air launched.
For the rest, by all means, keep going on with your “sea Lord lies” smart arguments and all that lot.
DominicJ
Gabriele
You do appear to be pushing the borders of gentlemanly conduct here….
Think Defence
If there was a document that actually showed the 7b savings in black and white I would have thought it would have surfaced, or someone would have made an FOI request. FOI and Parliamentary Questions have been asked on this subject, I remember a whole raft of them but I can’t recall seeing anything that cam out in favour of the £7b.
That doesn’t of course mean that such a document never existed because it is likely that the costs of various options would have been investigated, pretty normal really.
I have to say that Lord West does not have a great deal of credibility or reputation for being unbiased, he of talking out of his ermine clad arse on several occasions about the FI etc but giving him the benefit of the doubt and lets just say that 7b is the right number, just for argument sake.
What next, what prompted the Defence Board and SDSR team to reject a cost saving of such magnitude if it was such an easy decision to take and so obvious to everyone that it was a genuine shock horror surprise that they decided not to take it. Lets not also forget that the Tornado fleet was cut pretty heavily which will have also accrued savings.
To get back to the argument, Gabby seems to be saying that the opportunity to save a billion a year over the next 7 was justified and we should have taken it.
Gabby, what do you think the implications of a total withdrawal of Tornado would have been
Chris.B.
@ Gabs,
Your link has no follow on to any actual document. The reference doesn’t lead anywhere. Where is the document that the good Doctor is linking to? I also read just his general comments on the RAF and the Tornado/Harrier decision. He seems particularly misinformed on their capabilities. In fact his whole article on the RAF sounded like a Dark Blue diatribe of the kind I’d expect from you, so I did a bit of research on Dr. Duncan Redford.
Turns out he’s a research fellow at Exeter University. Allow me to quote his complete bio that he provides;
Dr Duncan Redford joined the Royal Navy in 1991. After officer training at Britannia Royal Naval College as well as onboard HMS Broadsword and HMS Boxer, he was selected to attend the Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon, Plymouth where he completed a BA (Hons) in Maritime Defence, Technology and Management. A volunteer for submarine service, he served on HMS Torbay, Tireless and Turbulent between 1996 and 2001. In 2001 Dr Redford left the Navy to study for an MA in War Studies at King’s College London. Having won the Laughton Naval History Scholarship at King’s College London in 2002, he was awarded his PhD in 2006 for his research into ‘The Cultural Impact of Submarines on Britain 1900-1977’. Prior to the award of a Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellowship he was the visiting Lecturer in Naval History at the University of Westminster.
“My research interests centre on the Royal Navy during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I am currently working on a research project funded by the Leverhulme Trust and the University of Exeter examining the role of the Royal Navy in the construction of British national identity between 1870 and 1980″
I’m sure he doesn’t have a horse in this race though….
Think Defence
I see that evidence from Dr Redford also reference the PTT
When I saw that I genuinely had a LOL spit the coffee out type moment
This statement
The MOD DOC audit is also referenced in the analysis of SDSR made by the Parliamentary Defence Committee, even though the document does not appear to be directly accessible to the general public.
Just skim read it, if I was marking that for accuracy and coherence it would get a D-, see me after class!
Its not analysis by the committee Gabby, it’s written evidence submitted by the Dr
ArmChairCivvy
OOpps, looks like I put my entry re:”BROACH is also on JSOW-C, but the USAF explicitly rejected it for their needs” and what the USAF chose instead on the “wrong” thread Air-Land-Sea
- they prioritised stealthiness and range and have JASSM in 320km and 900km versions
Gabriele
Continue to believe in fairy tales, and continue to tell everyone that has had a link to the RN is a biased incompetent. Go right ahead.
“Your link has no follow on to any actual document. The reference doesn’t lead anywhere. Where is the document that the good Doctor is linking to?”
How smart. The MOD Audit was an internal document redacted during the SDSR and containing the options presented to the NSC with their estimated economic implications as valued by NAO and MOD.
It has not been publicly released, and probably never will be made accessible, for obvious reasons.
“can’t recall seeing anything that cam out in favour of the £7b.”
The 7 billions figure DID surface. In parliament, and even on newspapers.
But both these sources you do deny.
The MOD Audit is not released to public. So you can just say that the sources that quote it without showing it are simply biased. That’s it! We decide what’s the truth, and that sets it.
And no, the parliamentary answers about the cost of Tornado are of two kinds, in fact, if you check:
- One kind of answer lists the Rolls Royce and BAE contract and the cost per flying hours, but does not disclose savings estimates “because that would hurt negotiations efforts ongoing about other contracts” or other bullshit like that.
- The other kind, appeared once or twice, contains the “logistic support cost of Tornado was to be 4.8 billion” that Chris continues to bang on, oblivious to the fact that logistics are only part of the costs and thus of the savings.
You can check. The answers to the (many) questions about Tornado are ALWAYS the same answer, told again and again and again, always with “contract negotiations” issues preventing the revelation of savings estimates.
How funny, huh…?
Perhaps they are uneasy with telling people the amounts involved, one might cynically suspect.
“Gabby, what do you think the implications of a total withdrawal of Tornado would have been”
At least one base closed, possibly two, several thousands of redundancies, Leuchars that remains in its place and role, a retirement partially a little longer than with the Harrier for keeping CAS going in Stan to enable the Harriers to prepare to go to Afghanistan in their place. At the Harrier retirement there were at least 62 Harriers still in flying conditions, but with many parked in the hangars, and for what i read at least 50 crews. More than enough to sustain Afghanistan, and there would have been the chance to bring out a few of the many planes parked in the hangars after the (then still recent, and very suspect) cut of a Sqn decided in 2009, to bring the Force at Readiness from 10 back to 18 (the same planned now for Tornado).
Very possibly some of the other cuts would have then be avoided, and there would have been a definite relief on the next planning rounds which instead are currently regarded as Critical, in particular PR12 and PR13.
Capability E for the GR9 would have gone ahead and went online fully by early 2012, perhaps with Brimstone being urgently integrated for Afghanistan (actually, it is not like it is used that much over there, apparently).
Less planes deployed over Libya, but closer to the targets. No Storm Shadow raids, but faster response times and longer time on station, assuming the same availability of AAR but the elimination of the long travel back and forth from Gioia.
Cynically? Probably better kinetic results in some of the worst phases of the Libya war. Remember the reports from Misrata bombed savagely by rocket launchers, with no NATO planes in the area to hit them?
With Harriers a few miles away, that would have not happened.
Capability of deploying at least a small force even in absence of bases retained. No gap in air operations at sea. If the 2014 date is respected, a gap of sole 4 or 5 years in Storm Shadow capability, since after that there will be the Typhoon.
It wouldn’t have been nice. There would have been evident loss in numbers and capabilities, and a lot of job losses. I never did say it would have been nice, nor i did say that Harrier was better than Tornado, nor do i like to propose it, believe it or not.
But it would have been financial realism, and operationally the impact would have been far less severe than you want to imply.
And the risk of 5 years without Storm Shadow is less than the risk of 10 years of incapacity to put fixed wing assets at sea, plainly.
“it was a genuine shock horror surprise that they decided not to take it.”
Your irony pretends to forget that it WAS a surprise when the SDSR came out. Literally days before, the Tornado was set to be grounded.
But of course, i was forgetting! They are all controlled by Navy-biased evil spirits, and they surely faked even the surprise.
“Lets not also forget that the Tornado fleet was cut pretty heavily which will have also accrued savings.”
Again, how expert you are in putting things in the way that best suits you.
The official position of government is that with the SDSR they endorsed a PR10 option that dates back to labour.
In 2009 they announced the cuts to pay for 22 Chinooks and the 7th C17, remember?
The RAF offered to scrap the Harrier (as they had done the year before already). The Navy once again fought to avoid that.
The end result was that one only Harrier squadron was disbanded, with “one or more squadrons of Harriers or Tornado to disband next year”.
As a matter of fact, these cuts did not pay for 22 Chinooks as we know. And cutting two more Tornado squadrons alone would not suffice.
But in the meanwhile the Harrier force at readiness and fleet was scaled down.
And, surprise surprise, the RAF used the just scaled-down Force at Readiness level to justify the Harrier cut, which in addition to the two Tornado sqds was politically big enough to stop more cuts even though the saving was not big enough.
The surprise of these days, you can easily find memory of it if you seek for it.
You can also remember the 1 billion hole in PR11 which was somewhat covered up by the Treasury when Libya popped up, making it impossible to present to the public yet more cuts. But it was there. You did forget it all already? I don’t think so.
And further holes, sized in the billions, are reportedly still riddling the financial plans of the next years.
Militarily, it makes a good deal of sense to retain Tornado, even if it leaves a big and potentially dangerous hole in capability for a long decade.
But financially, no. And no matter how many people you call biased, the reality remains.
Chris.B.
“Continue to believe in fairy tales, and continue to tell everyone that has had a link to the RN is a biased incompetent. Go right ahead.”
– Fairy tales? You have NO LINK to your figures. The only official links are to the £4.8 billion figure, which you deride as being the logistic cost, without understanding that the £900 million figure for Harrier was delivered on the same basis so it too, combined with the manning cost of Ark Royal etc, would be higher.
The only source you have for your £7 billion are two former Naval personnel, who took their respective opportunities to speak on the subject to play down the RAF, before quoting a figure for which there is no evidence to support it. NONE. Not a sentence, not a letter. Nothing.
And you’re accusing other people of believing in fairy tales? It’s just laughable.
Think Defence
If the Dr is quoting an MoD report in his evidence and given that he is not employed by the MoD or a Government Minister or Civil Servant, how does he know what was in the report?
If it was released to the public i.e. him, then surely it would be available for all to see
If it was not released to the public then how does he know what was in it?
x
TD said “I thought Storm Shadow was a light blue plot, instigated by those naughty chaps at Deep Strike, just to piss off the one true Senior Service and stop them getting more TLAM shaped toys.”
I already said that earlier. Keep up!
Think Defence
Cutting, feel wounded now
x
Field dressing or super glue?
Think Defence
I would also add that leaked documents prior to SDSR were ten a penny as the respective services and other vested interests sought to influence and stoke the dissinformation wars.
Does anyone actually believe, apart from certain gullible journalists and bloggers, that these leaks are anything more than shaping the battlefield as it were.
Saying the Tornado option was preferred ‘according to defence sources’ is exactly what a supporter of the opposite camp might say to try and force the issue.
Really, come on, lets not be tragically naive here
To quote the official justification
The overriding factor in deciding between removing either the Tornado GR4 or Harrier was the ability to support operations in Afghanistan. The Harrier fleet would have been too small to support Afghanistan operations at current levels, notwithstanding Carrier Strike and other contingent operations. Conversely, the Tornado GR4 force – even at its reduced size – will be significantly larger than the current Harrier force and would allow continuous UK fast jet close air support to forces in Afghanistan and the ability to support concurrent operations. It also has a number of key capability advantages over the Harrier GR9 including: greater payload and range and integration of capabilities such as Storm Shadow; fully integrated dual mode Brimstone; the Raptor reconnaissance pod; and a cannon. Thus, retaining the more capable Tornado allows continuous fast jet support to forces in Afghanistan and the ability to support concurrent operations. This would not be possible if Harrier were retained and Tornado retired.
As I have always said, it was a bad decision, but ultimately the right one and no matter how one dances around the issue of cost savings the figure is actually irrelevant (and wrong) because as I have also repeatedly said, anyone can save weight by chopping off a leg or in our case easily save 7 billion by flogging of the entire Type 45 fleet.
Harrier and Tornado were not comparable in either capabiliy or sustainability to their OSD so the decision actually made itself.
Even if we could have saved a 700 billion by withdrawing Tornado I think I would rather have CAS/RECCE in the Defence Main Effort with some contingent capability for strike and combat recce in other theatres.
Tornado delivers this, Harrier could not
Mark
I would rather they withdraw from the defence main effort but that’s to political as opposed to uk security requirements. But I see little point in going over this it’s done. It’s like asking for direction and getting told I wouldn’t start from here.
Think Defence
Withdrawing from the DME is not within the gift of the MoD but I would imagine they put supporting it at the top of the list of things to do, thats what people like Gabby and the PTT just don’t get., which is a shame because it diverts energy from more productive engagement. However, I will continually challenge nonsense where I see it
Mark
I agree TD. I would say it wasn’t mod that run the review it was NSC who are to over see future uk security requirements using military force as only one part. Afghan And the scale and type of our commitment was a difficult decision that I believe was ducked for politic reasons only. Helmand and future uk security is not IMO linked.
Gabriele
“I will continually challenge nonsense where I see it”
Well, there is plenty that you did produce yourself:
“Harrier and Tornado were not comparable in either capabiliy or sustainability to their OSD so the decision actually made itself.”
As a matter of fact, the decision did not make itself. The two fleets were compared for months.
Nonsense: if they were equal in capability, they would have been either all Tornado or all Harriers. What the hell does it even mean?
Also, the differences between Harrier and Tornado in roles have actually been reducing in the years, since Tornado, a deep-strike platform, ended up doing CAS 95% of the time.
Sustainability to their OSD.
Again, nonsense.
Both were sustainable. Under many points of view, Harrier was more sustainable, for example since its support contracts were all signed out to planned OSD in 2018, and an extension to 2020 to cover the entry in service of F35 was judged possible. Indeed, there was talk of 2023.
The major BAE contract for Tornado support, worth well over a billion, will have to be renewed in 2015 unless the OSD is advanced further. Which might well happen, to complete the joke.
“Withdrawing from the DME”
Please. Again, this is nonsense. The reduction in the number of airframes available for ops in addition to Afghanistan is not exactly the same thing as the doomsday scenario you imply.
“The link is not working.”
Have you looked down the Notes of the Parliamentary Defence Committee report?
Pretty much none are links, but only static notes. Even several notes about the SDSR.
But the SDSR document does undoubtedly exist, and the DOC Audit must exist in the same way as well, otherwise i doubt they would have made a note about it.
“If the Dr is quoting an MoD report in his evidence and given that he is not employed by the MoD or a Government Minister or Civil Servant, how does he know what was in the report?
If it was released to the public i.e. him, then surely it would be available for all to see”
This is the worst of nonsensical affirmations.
Internal documents like that can be shown to a pretty wide range of people, officially or not. The MOD seeks well-paid consultancy all the time.
He could have been shown the document by anyone inside the MOD involved in the SDSR process, along with quite a few others, for the most diverse reasons.
And that still does definitely not mean that said document would be thrown on the internet for the whole world to see.
This said, it might even be available, at least in part, somewhere. Unlikely, but it might be. And if i find anything about it, i’ll share.
“I would rather have CAS/RECCE”
Yeah, because Harrier cannot deliver that. Especially the second. “Oh, it has not got the RAPTOR!”
But it flew with its own RECCE pod for years over Afghanistan.
Think Defence
Gabby
I don’t mind admitting I talk nonsense on more than many occasions but then I don’t claim some divine insight from my muckers in the stan who fly baggers off the mighty o, or that predicting that night follows day and then telling everyone how clever I am because night did indeed follow day, or don’t deliver a judgement that the gunners are adapting to change better than the rest of the Army because I read it in a magazine.
This is what makes you lose credibility and look like a bit of an obsessive with no real grasp of the underlying principles or realities at hand.
What I do know for a fact is a few things
Harrier has gone so any discussion should be in terms of history
It was a crying shame that it went, it was a very bad decision, increases risk across a number of domains and although we are talking about bits of kit there are real people behind them as well
Finally, the decision was made on the basis of Afghanistan being the first priority. Most fair minded people see this as the case and agree it was a sensible decision with the facts at hand. The broad consensus seems to be that Tornado made more sense from any number of perspectives across the whole of defence, now whilst that consensus might be wrong, you and others think so, I do not.
Anyway, no dramas
Frenchie
I don’t know if this is the right place but I put it there, a cut of one billion pounds more.
“This is what makes you lose credibility and look like a bit of an obsessive with no real grasp of the underlying principles or realities at hand.”
Might be. Probably not, though.
I also do prefer to base myself on evidence, numbers and facts when i talk about reality.
You choose the way of arbitrarily deciding what fits reality and what does not, in this kind of comments. Just as you use “financial reality” as a password that opens all doors, to justify all kind of observations, UNLESS, of course, a financial observation is made about Tornado.
A bit cheap.
“that predicting that night follows day and then telling everyone how clever I am because night did indeed follow day”
The only one prediction i made and got right, which i’m guessing you are referring to, is that about Cats and Traps.
If it was so easy to predict that Prince of Wales would be the one getting the catapults, why didn’t you predict it yourself, instead of bitching about it later?
I don’t think i ever claimed to have the gods giving me the Truth. I’m no prophet. But i have eyes and ears, and i think i can make my observations and guesses, without you having to bitch for it, thank you.
@ Gabs,
The official sources quote a £4.8 billon cost for Tornado into the 2020′s. You routinely quote £7 billion, which so far appears to be only the work of The Times. Thus, you’re not quoting official sources.
@Chris B.
Actually, no. The SDSR DOC Audit was very clear that the expected savings from immediate grounding of Tornado would likely total some 7.5 billion by 2018. This figure was debated in Parliament as well. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101027-0001.htm
The MOD DOC audit is also referenced in the analysis of SDSR made by the Parliamentary Defence Committee, even though the document does not appear to be directly accessible to the general public. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/761/761vw22.htm#note112
It also emerges that the original Tornado upgrade bill was 1.1 billion of which the Engines would get £650 million, fatigue life would be corrected at a cost of £207 million, rear seat training would get £243 million.
Almost all parts of this upgrade have been cancelled, leaving an expected 300 millions of indispensable interventions.
This also explains why 96 planes are projected to deliver only 18 elements at readiness, probably, due to the relatively low number of them being available for flying at any one time.
The 7.4 / 7.5 billion figure also does not appear just on The Times, but is reported by many more newspapers, including the Daily Mail in its beautiful farewell piece on Harrier (worth conserving even just for the images, by the way).
Before the SDSR was published, a MOD Audit was made, and several details emerged. Including the 7.5 billions Tornado bill and the 2.7 bill for the confirmed Tranche 3A Typhoon buy which could not be cancelled.
Interesting to note how, 5 days prior to SDSR publication, it was widely expected that Tornado would go.
It is very easy to find if you google it.
The 7.5 billion figure was, as far as i’m aware, NEVER denied by the MOD or Government, even when it ended up on all newspapers.
The 4.8 figure that you reference, which i’m guessing comes from here: http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Lords/ByDate/20101116/writtenanswers/part005.html
Covers only the logistics relating to the fleet. Expenditure on an aircraft type, i’m sure you know it, is not just about logistics. 4.8 billions come from the contracts with BAE, Rolls Royce and other contractors.
What about training? Crews? Bases? Training sorties? At 22000 sorties a year in average, with a 5000 pounds per hour marginal cost (excluding of course depreciation and capital costs which make that into the better known 35.000 pounds figure) we already log a minimum of 1100 million pounds out to 2021.
We both have incomplete patchworks of information, Chris. 7.5 billion might be the top estimate, and perhaps savings would have been effectively a bit lower.
It is an estimate, after all.
But the 4.8 billion is, on the other hand, merely a component of the overall savings that could be expected.
The 7 billions saving figure came from the MOD, it is not a press invention. And it sure is not mine invention. It is based on rather solid data which suggests it is actually realistic.
The only reason I could think of for saving Tornado, was to avoid burning through Typhoon hours.
However, the T1 Typhoons are all going to be scrapped in a few years anyway, so that doesnt really hold much water, unless a decision has been made to, not, scrap them….
£4.8 billion would buy an awful lot of TLAMs.
@X
In 2003 the UK asked for the possible acquisition of 105 TLAM Block IV. Total cost was put at 143 USD million, or 1.361 million dollars per missile including all support. A true bargain. http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/UnitedKingdom_03-36.pdf
Yet only 65 missiles were acquired.
If i have understood the FMSs thingy correctly, the others in the original request are “available” for successive orders – example; for replenishing the stock after Libya – without re-presenting all the paperwork for the buy.
The UK, after all, made a request for 10 Reapers very early, but initially only got 3, and ordered the others in other periods. The last 5, as we know, have yet to arrive.
However, yes. I’ll always support an expansion in the TLAM stock. It always is the first thing that we end up using, yet buying more never seems to gain support.
… Horrendous suspect:
“We have more than 800 Storm Shadows still to use, what the hell!”
But moreover, the point remains:
Even assuming “just” 4.8 billion were saved, say that we used that for: 1.3 per Harrier to 2018 and Ark to 2015 (make that a year longer, an QE arrives, so no gap), 390 millions for weapons integration on F35C (covering Brimstone and Storm Shadow, which got delayed to “one day”), as much for Typhoon accelerated integration, additional funding for more Harriers to be pulled out of the hangars to have a better contingency capability.
Saving remaining, well over 2 billions. Still more than what was obtained with Harrier and Ark.
Doesn’t it make more sense…? To me, it does.
@ Gabs
“Actually, no. The SDSR DOC Audit was very clear that the expected savings from immediate grounding of Tornado would likely total some 7.5 billion by 2018. This figure was debated in Parliament as well. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101027-0001.htm”
– The only reference to the £7.5 billion figure in that text is from Lord West of Spithead, or as he’s otherwise been known Admiral Adam West, former First Sea Lord (ret). The MoD only seem to have a figure of £4.8 billion.
“The 7.4 / 7.5 billion figure also does not appear just on The Times, but is reported by many more newspapers, including the Daily Mail…”
– As I said earlier, many papers jumped on the story by the Times and quoted their figure rote. I can find no official source yet which states the £7.5 billion figure.
“Covers only the logistics relating to the fleet… What about training? Crews? Bases? Training sorties?”
– Really? This argument again? How many personnel does it require to operate Ark Royal? How much does it cost to base the crew the Harriers on land when not at sea? How much does Harrier training – widely acknowledged as the most difficult aircraft in the RAF inventory to fly – cost?
“The 7 billions saving figure came from the MOD, it is not a press invention.”
– Then where is this MoD data? If you have it fine. Show it to me.
@ X
With the cutbacks to the Sub fleet thanks to Carriers, we wouldn’t have enough platforms to fire them from
No arguments here either.
I am not sure whether SS fired from F35c isn’t just a fudge……
Oh well.
Morons the other Lords and Commons who do not check the goddamn MOD Audit and call Lord West’s bluff, if it is a bluff, then.
Chances are that it is not a bluff.
But of course. The MOD Audit has only been read by parliament members, MOD and others. It is quoted, as i linked, but not accessible to the general public.
So the excuse is always the same: “He is an ex Sea Lord! He is clearly biased! He is saying false things to the Lords in parliament!”
Again, NO ONE in Parliament contested the 7.5 billion figure, and they are in the position of doing it.
You are not, yet you clearly call Lord West a liar.
I’ve supplied evidence. You’ve supplied the old and unimaginative “he is biased”.
If you can sustain your point with a bit more substantial back up, perhaps you should.
Gabriele
The Lords tend to come out with some gibberish.
Put a random word, like Corned Beef, into TheyWorkForYou and see what utter gibberish a Lord has spewed about Corned Beef…..
By the way.
“Really? This argument again? How many personnel does it require to operate Ark Royal? How much does it cost to base the crew the Harriers on land when not at sea? How much does Harrier training – widely acknowledged as the most difficult aircraft in the RAF inventory to fly – cost?”
That’s because you assume that the savings declared for retiring Harrier and Ark Royal do not keep any track of these factors.
On which ground, i do not know.
Logistics of the Harrier, signed in 2009 and to 2018, were worth GBP 574 million [http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/britain-moves-forward-on-harrier-support-agreements-03368/], plus 198 millions to Rolls for the Pegasus engines support, again to 2018/19. http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/news/2009/280109_support_pegasus.jsp
Savings from the Harrier retirement are put at 1.1 billion, roughly.
The difference, of course, tells nothing to you.
Again, morons the government officials that – oh, they are not biased, they do not try to tell everyone how right they were in retiring the Harrier, they are pure and sincere! – do not include all those expenditure voices in their savings estimate and deliberately justify one of the most contested decisions ever on weak and incomplete figures.
Half of the UK population now hates them for scrapping the Harrier and they, poor idiots, also tell them wrong figures. They saved loads of money, but only say they saved a tiny amount, just so they can be hated a little more.
If you think that it makes sense… then your politicians really must all be donkeys.
But then again, it is perfectly logic to say that 7 squadrons of planes with twice the crew and much more ground support technicians cost less than 2 squadrons with less personnel in, so why do i bother…?
We are in the world of the Opposites, and all that say otherwise are obviously and evidently biased.
@ Chris B
One would suggest it has more to do with chicanery at the MoD over who does deep strike…….
If we could all pay attention to me for a moment…..
I think I’m on to something here.
Harrier could only really cover Afghanistan, puting everything else on Typhoon.
Thats fine, if we have Typhoon hours to burn, which given the out of service date of the T1′s, is true.
If the T1s are to be kept on long term, husbanding their hours suddenly becomes a priority.
Has anyone heard
CB/X
One of the reasons the destroyers lost land attack missiles was, the carrier handles deep strike.
@ X
Possible
@ Gabs,
This is why I can’t “debate” with you for long without resorting to getting annoyed and just mocking you. You’re harping on about evidence and facts and how I should support my argument blah, blah, yet we know two things so far;
a) Through Ministerial questioning the cost of keeping Tornado is estimated at £4.8 billion, by ministers who work for the MoD and have seen all the detailed numbers, and have no service bias to prompt them into fudging numbers, and who are not legally permitted to report false answers to other members of the house,
and
b) The only “evidence” you have to rebuke this are a newspaper article, copied by other newspaper articles, and then an off hand and slightly fecious sounding comment during a debate in the Lords by a former First Sea Lord, that dates after the Times article, with no indication of where he acquired said data.
But you’ve not ended there. Oh no.
You’re now trying to argue that;
a) the official reported cost of keeping Harriers and Ark Royals in service accounts for not just support but also personnel and basing,
b) while the figures for Tornado do not, presumably because that doesn’t tally with your argument.
And no one is arguing that Tornado is cheaper, we know it’s not, but the margain by which it is more expensive is considerably less than you are representing and you’re failing to take into account that for the little extra money spent we are getting;
- higher numbers,
- double the service life,
- and the (even you agreed) more capable aircraft,
So my advice to you? Stop digging holes for yourself and go find an online magazine to copy/paste some more material from.
Its nice that TD created a area for chrisB and gabby to play in.
Remembering of course that the storm shadow cost is total program cost per missile and that tomahawk price is per missile. Also remembering that storm shadow attacks a different target set to tomahawk and further remembering that an a/c can attack a huge variety of target or conduct various other non kinetic missions which is beyond a missile.
Is the target set that much different?
Storm shadow is deep penetrating, TLAM isnt.
Mark
Not sure I’d agree with that really.
True, Storm Shadow is much harder to shoot down, but lack or range means aircraft have to risk themselves as well.
I know what I’d trust to break through a deep air defence.
“I know what I’d trust to break through a deep air defence.”
A B-2 Spirit…
Storm Shadow has a much shorter range, but still a not insignificant 155 miles. The BROACH warhead is a two stage job, specially designed for penetrating hardened targets; first bang is a shape charge to clear a path, then the big bang comes next.
Price according to ministers (though this data is often not good enough for some it would seem) is £790,000 pound per unit, which is inclusive of VAT and the development costs. Future missiles will likely be cheaper. TLAM block IV is £870,000 a pop now, but with better range. A case of horses for courses I guess.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110517/text/110517w0001.htm#11051744000014
DomJ
I dont mean harder to shoot down I mean deep penetrating bunker busting. Again its range is classified but not tlam range.
If it’s sub launched it’s about another 350k for the launcher. I would add that very long range tlam also requires very long range intel assets.
“Again its range is classified”
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/Storm-Shadow_ds.pdf
In excess of 250km (155 miles). Still not a patch on TLAM, but then it’s;
a) much smaller (you can carry two underneath a Tornado)
b) Air deployable, so you can still fly it into range if needed,
c) Different warhead type,
d) Flies faster and incorporates low observability features to improve survivability,
I thought Storm Shadow was a light blue plot, instigated by those naughty chaps at Deep Strike, just to piss off the one true Senior Service and stop them getting more TLAM shaped toys.
We should immediately withdraw Storm Shadow and fit Mk41 VLS on Type 45, CVF, Type 26 and HMS Gleaner so we can get more TLAMS, more I say, MORE
I was just going to say this “If it’s sub launched it’s about another 350k for the launcher” but Mark got there first…
more exactly it is just for the wrapper, to get the missile through the torpedo tube and to launch properly when it has reached the surface, so add the cost of the missile (they are mass produced, so that helps).
But who wants such expensive, even-though long-ranged missiles that you can’t reload without going to port, or the easy to shoot down SS’s. JASSM can carry a 1,000-pound warhead to an effective range of 200 miles/ 320 km, while transmitting back via a 1-way datalink… having an extremely low radar signature… the USAF sees it playing a critical role against targets defended by sophisticated, long-range air defense systems.
The USAF is JASSM’s main customer, and Australia as well as Finland have ordered it. Orders may also be coming from the Dutch, from South Korea…
So it’s longer than 155m then as I said it’s range is classified but not as long as tlam.
We have about 200 launch platforms for storm shadow and seven for tlam. Uk has sufficient tlam stocks for any uk only operatiion do we need anymore than that, stock can be replenished quite quickly from us navy stocks.
Acc
We’ve discussed this befiore, I think conventional thinking was 155miles is the SS’s range on its sea skimming terrain following mode.
Whereas 1500miles is a Tomahawk launched from 60,000ft from a mach3 platform following a glide route.
Mark/CB
Cant the broach warhead be fitted to pretty much any (big) missile?
Dom are you asking can broach be fitted to tlam? If you are only if the yanks want to we can do it independantly. The fact they haven’t done something similar suggest perhaps not.
Dom,
I’d imagine the actual BROACH warhead itself wouldn’t be compatible due to size and weight issues, but the theory (a two stage warhead) could be adapted to TLAM if needed without too many problems I’d imagine.
And yes, I believe the range is based on a skimming profile. While the precise range is classified as Mark points out, a missile that size travelling at that speed probably won’t go a huge amount beyond 250km in the skimming mode.
What should be born in mind though, before conspiracy theories start reaching their peak, is that Lightning is supposedly going to be able to carry two SS, one on each inner pylon.
I’d guess this is why the Navy isn’t up in arms, because it quietly has designs on being the main user of the weapon in future. And as Mark pointed out, a Lightning firing SS will be able to fly back to CVF and reload for another strike sortie the next day. A full compliment of Lightning’s carrying SS will be able to deliver twice as many cruise missile shots in one mass package as a single Astute, even assuming that the Astute carries nothing but TLAM. When you factor in that the aircraft will likely rotate (not all flying in one mass sortie), the pace they could probably maintain over a weekend (or Day 1 & 2 door kicking) will likely make the yanks SSGN’s look like amateurs in the cruise missile delivery business.
CVF could yet redeem its mahoosive budget.
Don’t forget that BROACH is also on JSOW-C, but the USAF explicitly rejected it for their needs.
Mind you, the main problem with BROACH is not delivering it, but getting it to go bang when it gets there….
DomJ said: “Whereas 1500miles is a Tomahawk launched from 60,000ft from a mach3 platform following a glide route.”
LOL, seriously….. the RB70 Valkyrie somewhat pre-dated the Tomahawk Dom !!
1500nm is range dropped from a B52 at medium altitude and dropping down to “low” altitude, how that differs from it’s terminal approach “terrain following” altitude, and at what distance you switch between such modes, and the effect that has on range is not public “open source” information.
chris b
pretty much what i’d figured, average two launches an hour.
Not quite 72 in 6 minutes, but a relentless assault all the same.
@Chris B.
MOD DOC Audit, note 112 in the link.
Do not try to ignore the fact that the Parliamentary Defence Committee and Lord West himself clearly have a document in their hands that they reference and present it instead merely as the diabolic machination of Lord West, will you?
Try also to not ignore that your 4.8 billion cost is stated very cleary being for LOGISTIC.
It is not the whole story. It is like saying the Army is only made up by the RLC. Same realism.
As to Storm Shadow.
Perhaps it is not clear. I’m not advocating retiring Storm Shadow.
But 900 SS and 65 TLAMs in stock…? That so not makes any sense in light of operations. It just makes NO sense.
“Whereas 1500miles is a Tomahawk launched from 60,000ft from a mach3 platform following a glide route.”
Not really. Also, the ALCM is derived from TLAM concepts and components in some parts, but it is NOT a Tomahawk, and has really little to share with the naval TLAMs, especially with the latest Block IV. It makes no sense to compare them. The TLAM the Uk and US Navy use is not at all air launched.
For the rest, by all means, keep going on with your “sea Lord lies” smart arguments and all that lot.
Gabriele
You do appear to be pushing the borders of gentlemanly conduct here….
If there was a document that actually showed the 7b savings in black and white I would have thought it would have surfaced, or someone would have made an FOI request. FOI and Parliamentary Questions have been asked on this subject, I remember a whole raft of them but I can’t recall seeing anything that cam out in favour of the £7b.
That doesn’t of course mean that such a document never existed because it is likely that the costs of various options would have been investigated, pretty normal really.
I have to say that Lord West does not have a great deal of credibility or reputation for being unbiased, he of talking out of his ermine clad arse on several occasions about the FI etc but giving him the benefit of the doubt and lets just say that 7b is the right number, just for argument sake.
What next, what prompted the Defence Board and SDSR team to reject a cost saving of such magnitude if it was such an easy decision to take and so obvious to everyone that it was a genuine shock horror surprise that they decided not to take it. Lets not also forget that the Tornado fleet was cut pretty heavily which will have also accrued savings.
To get back to the argument, Gabby seems to be saying that the opportunity to save a billion a year over the next 7 was justified and we should have taken it.
Gabby, what do you think the implications of a total withdrawal of Tornado would have been
@ Gabs,
Your link has no follow on to any actual document. The reference doesn’t lead anywhere. Where is the document that the good Doctor is linking to? I also read just his general comments on the RAF and the Tornado/Harrier decision. He seems particularly misinformed on their capabilities. In fact his whole article on the RAF sounded like a Dark Blue diatribe of the kind I’d expect from you, so I did a bit of research on Dr. Duncan Redford.
Turns out he’s a research fellow at Exeter University. Allow me to quote his complete bio that he provides;
Dr Duncan Redford joined the Royal Navy in 1991. After officer training at Britannia Royal Naval College as well as onboard HMS Broadsword and HMS Boxer, he was selected to attend the Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon, Plymouth where he completed a BA (Hons) in Maritime Defence, Technology and Management. A volunteer for submarine service, he served on HMS Torbay, Tireless and Turbulent between 1996 and 2001. In 2001 Dr Redford left the Navy to study for an MA in War Studies at King’s College London. Having won the Laughton Naval History Scholarship at King’s College London in 2002, he was awarded his PhD in 2006 for his research into ‘The Cultural Impact of Submarines on Britain 1900-1977’. Prior to the award of a Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellowship he was the visiting Lecturer in Naval History at the University of Westminster.
“My research interests centre on the Royal Navy during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I am currently working on a research project funded by the Leverhulme Trust and the University of Exeter examining the role of the Royal Navy in the construction of British national identity between 1870 and 1980″
http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/history/staff/redford/
I’m sure he doesn’t have a horse in this race though….
I see that evidence from Dr Redford also reference the PTT
When I saw that I genuinely had a LOL spit the coffee out type moment
This statement
The MOD DOC audit is also referenced in the analysis of SDSR made by the Parliamentary Defence Committee, even though the document does not appear to be directly accessible to the general public.
Just skim read it, if I was marking that for accuracy and coherence it would get a D-, see me after class!
Its not analysis by the committee Gabby, it’s written evidence submitted by the Dr
OOpps, looks like I put my entry re:”BROACH is also on JSOW-C, but the USAF explicitly rejected it for their needs” and what the USAF chose instead on the “wrong” thread Air-Land-Sea
- they prioritised stealthiness and range and have JASSM in 320km and 900km versions
Continue to believe in fairy tales, and continue to tell everyone that has had a link to the RN is a biased incompetent. Go right ahead.
“Your link has no follow on to any actual document. The reference doesn’t lead anywhere. Where is the document that the good Doctor is linking to?”
How smart. The MOD Audit was an internal document redacted during the SDSR and containing the options presented to the NSC with their estimated economic implications as valued by NAO and MOD.
It has not been publicly released, and probably never will be made accessible, for obvious reasons.
“can’t recall seeing anything that cam out in favour of the £7b.”
The 7 billions figure DID surface. In parliament, and even on newspapers.
But both these sources you do deny.
The MOD Audit is not released to public. So you can just say that the sources that quote it without showing it are simply biased. That’s it! We decide what’s the truth, and that sets it.
And no, the parliamentary answers about the cost of Tornado are of two kinds, in fact, if you check:
- One kind of answer lists the Rolls Royce and BAE contract and the cost per flying hours, but does not disclose savings estimates “because that would hurt negotiations efforts ongoing about other contracts” or other bullshit like that.
- The other kind, appeared once or twice, contains the “logistic support cost of Tornado was to be 4.8 billion” that Chris continues to bang on, oblivious to the fact that logistics are only part of the costs and thus of the savings.
You can check. The answers to the (many) questions about Tornado are ALWAYS the same answer, told again and again and again, always with “contract negotiations” issues preventing the revelation of savings estimates.
How funny, huh…?
Perhaps they are uneasy with telling people the amounts involved, one might cynically suspect.
“Gabby, what do you think the implications of a total withdrawal of Tornado would have been”
At least one base closed, possibly two, several thousands of redundancies, Leuchars that remains in its place and role, a retirement partially a little longer than with the Harrier for keeping CAS going in Stan to enable the Harriers to prepare to go to Afghanistan in their place. At the Harrier retirement there were at least 62 Harriers still in flying conditions, but with many parked in the hangars, and for what i read at least 50 crews. More than enough to sustain Afghanistan, and there would have been the chance to bring out a few of the many planes parked in the hangars after the (then still recent, and very suspect) cut of a Sqn decided in 2009, to bring the Force at Readiness from 10 back to 18 (the same planned now for Tornado).
Very possibly some of the other cuts would have then be avoided, and there would have been a definite relief on the next planning rounds which instead are currently regarded as Critical, in particular PR12 and PR13.
Capability E for the GR9 would have gone ahead and went online fully by early 2012, perhaps with Brimstone being urgently integrated for Afghanistan (actually, it is not like it is used that much over there, apparently).
Less planes deployed over Libya, but closer to the targets. No Storm Shadow raids, but faster response times and longer time on station, assuming the same availability of AAR but the elimination of the long travel back and forth from Gioia.
Cynically? Probably better kinetic results in some of the worst phases of the Libya war. Remember the reports from Misrata bombed savagely by rocket launchers, with no NATO planes in the area to hit them?
With Harriers a few miles away, that would have not happened.
Capability of deploying at least a small force even in absence of bases retained. No gap in air operations at sea. If the 2014 date is respected, a gap of sole 4 or 5 years in Storm Shadow capability, since after that there will be the Typhoon.
It wouldn’t have been nice. There would have been evident loss in numbers and capabilities, and a lot of job losses. I never did say it would have been nice, nor i did say that Harrier was better than Tornado, nor do i like to propose it, believe it or not.
But it would have been financial realism, and operationally the impact would have been far less severe than you want to imply.
And the risk of 5 years without Storm Shadow is less than the risk of 10 years of incapacity to put fixed wing assets at sea, plainly.
“it was a genuine shock horror surprise that they decided not to take it.”
Your irony pretends to forget that it WAS a surprise when the SDSR came out. Literally days before, the Tornado was set to be grounded.
But of course, i was forgetting! They are all controlled by Navy-biased evil spirits, and they surely faked even the surprise.
“Lets not also forget that the Tornado fleet was cut pretty heavily which will have also accrued savings.”
Again, how expert you are in putting things in the way that best suits you.
The official position of government is that with the SDSR they endorsed a PR10 option that dates back to labour.
In 2009 they announced the cuts to pay for 22 Chinooks and the 7th C17, remember?
The RAF offered to scrap the Harrier (as they had done the year before already). The Navy once again fought to avoid that.
The end result was that one only Harrier squadron was disbanded, with “one or more squadrons of Harriers or Tornado to disband next year”.
As a matter of fact, these cuts did not pay for 22 Chinooks as we know. And cutting two more Tornado squadrons alone would not suffice.
But in the meanwhile the Harrier force at readiness and fleet was scaled down.
And, surprise surprise, the RAF used the just scaled-down Force at Readiness level to justify the Harrier cut, which in addition to the two Tornado sqds was politically big enough to stop more cuts even though the saving was not big enough.
The third try in 3 years was finally successful.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8081181/A-fighter-falls-prey-to-politics.html
The surprise of these days, you can easily find memory of it if you seek for it.
You can also remember the 1 billion hole in PR11 which was somewhat covered up by the Treasury when Libya popped up, making it impossible to present to the public yet more cuts. But it was there. You did forget it all already? I don’t think so.
And further holes, sized in the billions, are reportedly still riddling the financial plans of the next years.
Militarily, it makes a good deal of sense to retain Tornado, even if it leaves a big and potentially dangerous hole in capability for a long decade.
But financially, no. And no matter how many people you call biased, the reality remains.
“Continue to believe in fairy tales, and continue to tell everyone that has had a link to the RN is a biased incompetent. Go right ahead.”
– Fairy tales? You have NO LINK to your figures. The only official links are to the £4.8 billion figure, which you deride as being the logistic cost, without understanding that the £900 million figure for Harrier was delivered on the same basis so it too, combined with the manning cost of Ark Royal etc, would be higher.
The only source you have for your £7 billion are two former Naval personnel, who took their respective opportunities to speak on the subject to play down the RAF, before quoting a figure for which there is no evidence to support it. NONE. Not a sentence, not a letter. Nothing.
And you’re accusing other people of believing in fairy tales? It’s just laughable.
If the Dr is quoting an MoD report in his evidence and given that he is not employed by the MoD or a Government Minister or Civil Servant, how does he know what was in the report?
If it was released to the public i.e. him, then surely it would be available for all to see
If it was not released to the public then how does he know what was in it?
TD said “I thought Storm Shadow was a light blue plot, instigated by those naughty chaps at Deep Strike, just to piss off the one true Senior Service and stop them getting more TLAM shaped toys.”
I already said that earlier. Keep up!
Cutting, feel wounded now
Field dressing or super glue?
I would also add that leaked documents prior to SDSR were ten a penny as the respective services and other vested interests sought to influence and stoke the dissinformation wars.
Does anyone actually believe, apart from certain gullible journalists and bloggers, that these leaks are anything more than shaping the battlefield as it were.
Saying the Tornado option was preferred ‘according to defence sources’ is exactly what a supporter of the opposite camp might say to try and force the issue.
Really, come on, lets not be tragically naive here
To quote the official justification
The overriding factor in deciding between removing either the Tornado GR4 or Harrier was the ability to support operations in Afghanistan. The Harrier fleet would have been too small to support Afghanistan operations at current levels, notwithstanding Carrier Strike and other contingent operations. Conversely, the Tornado GR4 force – even at its reduced size – will be significantly larger than the current Harrier force and would allow continuous UK fast jet close air support to forces in Afghanistan and the ability to support concurrent operations. It also has a number of key capability advantages over the Harrier GR9 including: greater payload and range and integration of capabilities such as Storm Shadow; fully integrated dual mode Brimstone; the Raptor reconnaissance pod; and a cannon. Thus, retaining the more capable Tornado allows continuous fast jet support to forces in Afghanistan and the ability to support concurrent operations. This would not be possible if Harrier were retained and Tornado retired.
As I have always said, it was a bad decision, but ultimately the right one and no matter how one dances around the issue of cost savings the figure is actually irrelevant (and wrong) because as I have also repeatedly said, anyone can save weight by chopping off a leg or in our case easily save 7 billion by flogging of the entire Type 45 fleet.
Harrier and Tornado were not comparable in either capabiliy or sustainability to their OSD so the decision actually made itself.
Even if we could have saved a 700 billion by withdrawing Tornado I think I would rather have CAS/RECCE in the Defence Main Effort with some contingent capability for strike and combat recce in other theatres.
Tornado delivers this, Harrier could not
I would rather they withdraw from the defence main effort but that’s to political as opposed to uk security requirements. But I see little point in going over this it’s done. It’s like asking for direction and getting told I wouldn’t start from here.
Withdrawing from the DME is not within the gift of the MoD but I would imagine they put supporting it at the top of the list of things to do, thats what people like Gabby and the PTT just don’t get., which is a shame because it diverts energy from more productive engagement. However, I will continually challenge nonsense where I see it
I agree TD. I would say it wasn’t mod that run the review it was NSC who are to over see future uk security requirements using military force as only one part. Afghan And the scale and type of our commitment was a difficult decision that I believe was ducked for politic reasons only. Helmand and future uk security is not IMO linked.
“I will continually challenge nonsense where I see it”
Well, there is plenty that you did produce yourself:
“Harrier and Tornado were not comparable in either capabiliy or sustainability to their OSD so the decision actually made itself.”
As a matter of fact, the decision did not make itself. The two fleets were compared for months.
Nonsense: if they were equal in capability, they would have been either all Tornado or all Harriers. What the hell does it even mean?
Also, the differences between Harrier and Tornado in roles have actually been reducing in the years, since Tornado, a deep-strike platform, ended up doing CAS 95% of the time.
Sustainability to their OSD.
Again, nonsense.
Both were sustainable. Under many points of view, Harrier was more sustainable, for example since its support contracts were all signed out to planned OSD in 2018, and an extension to 2020 to cover the entry in service of F35 was judged possible. Indeed, there was talk of 2023.
The major BAE contract for Tornado support, worth well over a billion, will have to be renewed in 2015 unless the OSD is advanced further. Which might well happen, to complete the joke.
“Withdrawing from the DME”
Please. Again, this is nonsense. The reduction in the number of airframes available for ops in addition to Afghanistan is not exactly the same thing as the doomsday scenario you imply.
“The link is not working.”
Have you looked down the Notes of the Parliamentary Defence Committee report?
Pretty much none are links, but only static notes. Even several notes about the SDSR.
But the SDSR document does undoubtedly exist, and the DOC Audit must exist in the same way as well, otherwise i doubt they would have made a note about it.
“If the Dr is quoting an MoD report in his evidence and given that he is not employed by the MoD or a Government Minister or Civil Servant, how does he know what was in the report?
If it was released to the public i.e. him, then surely it would be available for all to see”
This is the worst of nonsensical affirmations.
Internal documents like that can be shown to a pretty wide range of people, officially or not. The MOD seeks well-paid consultancy all the time.
He could have been shown the document by anyone inside the MOD involved in the SDSR process, along with quite a few others, for the most diverse reasons.
And that still does definitely not mean that said document would be thrown on the internet for the whole world to see.
This said, it might even be available, at least in part, somewhere. Unlikely, but it might be. And if i find anything about it, i’ll share.
“I would rather have CAS/RECCE”
Yeah, because Harrier cannot deliver that. Especially the second. “Oh, it has not got the RAPTOR!”
But it flew with its own RECCE pod for years over Afghanistan.
Gabby
I don’t mind admitting I talk nonsense on more than many occasions but then I don’t claim some divine insight from my muckers in the stan who fly baggers off the mighty o, or that predicting that night follows day and then telling everyone how clever I am because night did indeed follow day, or don’t deliver a judgement that the gunners are adapting to change better than the rest of the Army because I read it in a magazine.
This is what makes you lose credibility and look like a bit of an obsessive with no real grasp of the underlying principles or realities at hand.
What I do know for a fact is a few things
Harrier has gone so any discussion should be in terms of history
It was a crying shame that it went, it was a very bad decision, increases risk across a number of domains and although we are talking about bits of kit there are real people behind them as well
Finally, the decision was made on the basis of Afghanistan being the first priority. Most fair minded people see this as the case and agree it was a sensible decision with the facts at hand. The broad consensus seems to be that Tornado made more sense from any number of perspectives across the whole of defence, now whilst that consensus might be wrong, you and others think so, I do not.
Anyway, no dramas
I don’t know if this is the right place but I put it there, a cut of one billion pounds more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8884091/Defence-cuts-the-facts.html
Already posted before but it fits together.
http://www.parliamentarybrief.com/2011/10/fao-mr-philip-hammond-secretary-of-state-for-defence#page_1
Gabby
But it flew with its own RECCE pod for years over Afghanistan.
sniper is more of targeting pod it’s equavilant would be the litening pod not raptor. Raptor carries on where the pr9 left.
@Topman
I am aware of what SNIPER is.
In fact I did not mean the Sniper targeting pod, but the Digital Joint Reconnaissance Pod (DJRP).
Not quite as powerful as the RAPTOR, but a good system. Besides, it was handy because it was routinely carried, along with a vast arsenal of weaponry:
GR9 standard Afghan weapons load:
Sniper targeting pod
DJRP
2 Paveway IV
2 CRV7 pods; or 2 Paveway IV; or 2 Maverick; or 1 CRV7 pod and 1 Maverick
http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Lords/ByDate/20101111/writtenanswers/part004.html
@TD
“This is what makes you lose credibility and look like a bit of an obsessive with no real grasp of the underlying principles or realities at hand.”
Might be. Probably not, though.
I also do prefer to base myself on evidence, numbers and facts when i talk about reality.
You choose the way of arbitrarily deciding what fits reality and what does not, in this kind of comments. Just as you use “financial reality” as a password that opens all doors, to justify all kind of observations, UNLESS, of course, a financial observation is made about Tornado.
A bit cheap.
“that predicting that night follows day and then telling everyone how clever I am because night did indeed follow day”
The only one prediction i made and got right, which i’m guessing you are referring to, is that about Cats and Traps.
If it was so easy to predict that Prince of Wales would be the one getting the catapults, why didn’t you predict it yourself, instead of bitching about it later?
I don’t think i ever claimed to have the gods giving me the Truth. I’m no prophet. But i have eyes and ears, and i think i can make my observations and guesses, without you having to bitch for it, thank you.