I know its in awfully bad taste but there are lots of what if’s that will be answered towards the end of this month when the SDSR and CSR is published.
Time to put your predictions into the comments and I will publish them before, let’s test the Mystic Meg powers f the Think Defence readerships.
So, don’t tell me what you think should happen, tell me what you think WILL happen.
This might be on the choice of strategy, will it just be a salami slicing fudge, what Regiments/Corps are going to be amalgamated, future equipment projects, current operational commitments, ceremonial and display, acquisition, the civil service, outsourcing and resource sharing with the French!
What new and tasty bones we will be thrown to throw us off the scent of the reality, that being a reduction in budget and further decimation of capabilities.
One final sweepstake, how many times will the following words be used
- Cold War
- Adaptable
- Agile
- Challenge
Type 22s gone.
Type 42s gone.
1 x T23 lost
2 x SSNs motheballed.
1 x River Class mothballed.
Endurance scrapped.
1 x Vanguard mothballed (as re-fit schedule allows.)
Last Astute (7) cancelled.
None of the weapons from 22s or 42s refitted to Daring to costly.
1 x CVF to be shared with the French on a turn and turn about basis using Rafael.
RAF to take over FAA and AAC, This saves Ocean but costs an LPD now with second LPD to pay off early. 1 x Bay put up for sale.
Parachute Regiment and RM merged moved into an enlarged SF command. Amphibious capability to be wound up.
RAF gains extra A400m as air transport becomes the service to provide strategic movement.
Regimental system brought to an end. Trickle drafting for both infantry and cavalry.
Ghurkas paid off over the next decade. Recruiting from the Commonwealth halted.
RAF Regiment to remain as a corner stone of British Defence.
RAF Police get more Alsations.
3 2nd Battalions of the Guards to be re-activated.
Red Arrows get Eurofighters.
I was with you 100% until the ridiculous notion of the Red Arrows getting Typhoon, surely they will be F35C
X, you owe me a new keyboard!!! tea duly sprayed,and bite taken until reaching RAF regt bit. I think you got your TLA’s the wrong round it’s RAF merged into AAC and FAA, (which really would be funny, “please hand in ties and shoes here”).
Any specific EU defence commitments will be chopped. Fox is after all very eurosceptic.
HMS Ocean’s future and replacement are looking increasingly in doubt. This would be a huge hit for the Royal Navy, they need at least 1 dedicated, medium tonnage helicopter carrier, its just vital to how well we are able to carry out amphibious operations.
At the moment for a small scale intervention we need 2 aircraft carrying ships, one for fixed one for rotary, so we can choose 2 of Illustrious, Ark Royal and Ocean, but with only 2 CVF’s both MUST be operational, leaving no flexibility for maintenance or down time.
On the basis that the cuts are not as severe as we think
1 CVF built, corvettes built as a sop to keep the penalties down for scrapping the 2nd carrier
3 oldest T42′s binned immediately, followed by the other 2 within 18 months.
T22 gone immediately.
T23 without the 2087 sonar phased withdrawal over 36 months.
2 oldest Trafalgars canned.
HMS Ocean sold, but LPD’s kept in rotation like we did for Intrepid/Fearless.
2 Bays mothballed
Endurance scrapped but replaced initially by a lease
MCMV’s halved
Initial F35′B’ buy as low as 36
The new model army will get all it needs because its the lovechild of the two Daves… Cameron & Richards.
The RAF get the weekends off. So no change there then.
“Any specific EU defence commitments will be chopped. Fox is after all very eurosceptic.”
Fox is skeptical of the political project of ever-deeper-union, i think you’ll find that he and many others are deeply pragmatic about getting the best value from EU as a tool of diplomatic leverage.
http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR8.pdf
http://www.defenceviewpoints.co.uk/articles-analysis/the-new-british-government-and-european-defence-cooperation-problem-or-opportunity
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/936/
most of that is bilateral stuff with france, but i consider it to be the pragmatic end of EU cooperation.
I predict
Both Queen Elizabeth’s Completed and kept
Ocean paid off but both Albion’s kept
Type 22 to go immediately
1 type 23 paid off
Endurance gone
1 SSN to go
MRA4 to go
All Tornado’s to go immediately
GR9 to go after afghanistan
7th armoured brigade to go
1 Uk armoured Divison to go
RAF to be left with 160 Typhoons and no other aircraft except F35B
Reduced purchase of F35B maybe 80 or so probably to be run by RAF.
Astute 7 canceled
Red Arrows to stay because we need them so much LOL.
I do predict that the result of SDSR will be enough to split the fragile coalition leading to another general election. I think Fox’s letter was his opening shot in the final battle of the coalition that will likley end with David Cameron on his arse. Here is hoping.
The changes would be:
RAF
Fast Jets:
No purchase of JSF (whatever extra capability they might offer over is not worth the cost).
All Harriers are notionally designated for ‘carrier use only’. As such they come under navy governance although no actual transfer from the RAF occurs for cost reasons. Active numbers drop to 24 active aircraft being the most the navy can currently embark (the rest remaining in inventory for rotated use later).
The Typhoon and Tornado fleets combined reduce to an active 180 aircraft, roughly 120 Typhoon air defence and 60 Tornado ground attack. However, if there is truth in the rumour that the penalties in the Typhoon procurement agreements virtually force the RAF to purchase further Typhoons, then the Tornados are retired as soon as Typhoon numbers are available to replace them; Typhoon is developed to serve in a ground attach role. Thereafter the RAF operate a single fast jet.
Transport:
If it is possible to withdraw from the A400 without substantial penalty then the fleet consolidates around the Hercules and C17. Small additions are made to both fleets, purchasing secondhand Hercules if necessary. If the A400 is locked in then either the Hercules or C17 fleets will be axed. Which would be axed depends on which would give the greatest saving. If the A400 survives look for joint support arrangements with France. Look also for the UK leasing further A400 from France.
Rotary:
12 additional Chinook’s are purchased as proposed by the last government, but the further 10 options are allowed to lapse. The Puma upgrade is cancelled in favour of bare minimum life extension work to retain overall helicopter numbers pending delivery of the extra Chinooks. All RAF rotary assets transfer to the army – since there is no logic in the RAF being the keepers of assets that exist only for the benefit of the army. The RAF ceases to operate helicopters.
MRA4 – this survives because: it provides capability worth having, one air craft has already been delivered (and paid for), and with only a total of nine aircraft involved the balance are already in production so there is virtually no saving to be had in cancelling it.
Rivit – cancelled if it is not locked in. An unfortunate but not ruinous loss. Find cheaper ways to do signals intelligence.
Unmanned – a fleet of 20 unmanned armed aircraft with UK control is established
Other – Two RAF bases close. RAF regiment merges with army. Red Arrows seek commercial sponsorship.
NAVY
Two carriers built, government unconvinced but with everyone else wanting them they bow to political pressure, but one immediately put into reserve and to later serve as part time replacement for Ocean.
The decision on JSF (which would not now be for more than 60 aircraft) is deferred until fixed costs are known and technology access rights are agreed. Other options to ‘remain open’ – to leverage the down the price of the JSF.
Astute numbers stopped at six although for inventory purposes the two youngest Trafalgar class submarines allowed to remain active to give nominal sub fleet of eight.
In short term reduce frigate/ASW fleet to Type 23 only, but genuine intention to ultimately replace these with 20 of a new type of general purpose ship although for budget reasons these will not materialise until 2022.
Port facilities reduce to Faslane and Portsmouth only.
ARMY
Everything from Germany returns to the UK when cost effective and practical to do so (no particular benefit but it is what the government said they would do and keeps the money within the UK).
The RAF regiment merges with infantry and ex RAF rotary assets merge with army air cor. (no new cost as these were already accounted for).
Reduce heavy brigades by 50 per cent eg reduce active Challenger numbers to say 100 with the balance going into inventory. Establish genuine contingency plans to scale-up active numbers in these brigades as and when required using TA type of reserves.
Initiate study of tasks undertaken by non-combat capable employees including those in MoD, with view to eliminating as many non combat positions as possible.
Similarly initiate a wholesale bonfire of multiple UK based commands and administrative structures.
For every three positions eliminated above increase the infantry/special forces by one, and the TA by one.
Net result – paid regular army numbers reduce, but numbers of infantry combat capable personnel on strength increases, as does the strength of the TA.
Continue to improve numbers of medium weight firepower and IED proof vehicles by small purchaes. Further helicopters desired but no decision made.
Big row over who pays for horses, bandsmen and ceremonial parades in London.
NUCLEAR
Life extend Trident to match US.
A few random “headline” predictions:
Both carriers completed/kept
F-35 orders cancelled entirely, F-18 variants for RN and RAF
7 Astutes will go ahead
Endurance scrapped
One Type 42 and one Type 22 gone immediately
One of the two MCMV squadrons wound down
Tornados binned immediately
C-130 numbers reduced early
Annual ‘bounty’ cut for the TA, RNR, RMR, RAuxAF
“What new and tasty bones we will be thrown to throw us off the scent of the reality, that being a reduction in budget and further decimation of capabilities.”
Lots of talk about sexy new UAVs and other unmanned tech, a handful of new helicopters, hints of a return to SSK and Corvette building in collaboration with other broke (sorry I mean strategically engaged) partner nations.
A few random “headline” predictions:
Both carriers completed/kept
F-35 orders reduced to 54
7 Astutes will go ahead
Endurance scrapped
One Type 42 and one Type 22 gone immediately, rest to go in the next three years.
One of the two MCMV squadrons wound down
Tornados binned immediately
C-130 numbers reduced early
Andy said “Ocean paid off but both Albion’s kept”
Yes because we could just use CVF as LPH. I can see the Yanks liking that one. We really would have the capacity to lift the whole of 3Cde into a theatre providing we had enough helicopters. When I say whole of 3Cde I mean minus that Rifles battalion. The Yanks appreciate boots on the ground, but I don’t think they like other airforces in their sky.
I only suggested Ocean stopping more for illogical reasons; it is a helicopter carrier. And as we all know who come here helicopters are magic devices that answer all defence problems. And I wonder if Their Lordships are blinded more by her form factor than her usefulness. Not to say Ocean hasn’t been useful; if it were up to me we would buying another or something like a Mistral. My idea would be a lob sided decision, your suggestion is more balanced and logical.
Without wishing to play fantasy fleets I wonder if it would make sense to move Ocean over to the RFA to replace my beloved Argus. Her large ops space could be converted into a hospital. Nice big hanger to ferry helicopters in. Good accommodation. etc. etc.
I just can’t make my self play this game, but repeat after me in appropriate Scots accent”:
“We’re doomed I tell ya, D O O M E D …..”
As for bringing back the Army from Germany. I know a lot of defence real estate has been sold since the end of the Cold War. But is it me but there seems to be a large number of ex-RAF bases still on the books? I was surprised to see on the TV Biggin Hill still had buildings; are the runways and outer fields built on. Surely with the building trade in the doldrums we should invest in these bases with new family accommodation, barracks etc.? Just a thought. Spending money to save money isn’t something HMG understands.
It also worth noting the not inconsiderable amount of revenue British forces are worth to the German exchequer which will now be spent at home.
Jed said “I just can’t make my self play this game,”
I am surprised by the amount of optimism displayed here.
I had forgotten about MCMV believing their numbers to be at a minimum anyway. And MCMV is supposedly one of the RN’s areas of excellence.
I think we will lose one of the E class hydro graphic vessels too.
We are doomed. But It isn’t the cuts that really annoy me so much as the stupid arse about face decisions. For example if I were a betting man I would bet on the RAF Regiment being left alone before I would bet on the Royal Marines surviving. The Household division will get away scot free. The RAF say Typhoon is ground attack capable, but you never here mention of fitting the things with a gun… I am going to stop, we are doomed.
“The Yanks appreciate boots on the ground, but I don’t think they like other airforces in their sky.”
assumptions are a dangerous thing:
http://www.defenceviewpoints.co.uk/reviews/when-will-our-military-weakness-outweigh-our-political-usefulness-to-the-usa
Jed I’m Scottish so “We’re doomed I tell ya, D O O M E D …..” IIRC you also have some Scots blood in you.
Anyhow I think we are in such a bloody mess and with all the rubbish circling the internet and press I’ll be keeping my random thoughts floating around in my head. However I do think some people are pretty accurate although I would love it if we were all wrong and the Conservatives listen to their core.
Euan – Aye but only half, on my mothers side, I could wear the fine colours of Guthrie tartan, if I could afford to ! Although I am a born and bred member of the Peoples Socialist Republic of East Yorkshire
(and now a wannabe Cannuck)
But back on topic, the reason we are all doomed is because the cuts will be done with no strategic impetus at all, I am fairly sure it will just be stupid salami slicing which will leave use with forces appropriate for the so called “Belgium Option” (which in itself is not a bad thing) but that successive governments will continue to trot out that horrendous crap about “punching above our weight” and thus continue to involve our forces in all sorts of stupid operations.
Jedibeeftrix said “assumptions are a dangerous thing:”
That is a bit strong. Admittedly it was the effective head of the USAF saying those things. But he would hardly go and say air power is unimportant and therefore the contributions of our allies are unimportant too. And you have to also factor in the background of the article’s author. I think I will stand by what I said for the time being. Come back with another two articles and I will be swayed.
You have to ask what carries more political weight with the US electorate. US controlling the air element, or the sight of allied troops on the ground being shot at, facing the same risk as US troops. From political point of view it is better for UK I would suggest it is the former. We can’t match the US in numbers or tech or budget, but the UK can gain more “influence” by being seen to contribute towards the riskier end of ops.
Perhaps you should go and look at RAF ops in Gulf War 1. And see where the RAF fitted in and what they did.
And I am always troubled when I read anything that mixes air power and cyberspace. What does cyberspace have to do with air power? I think this the RAF looking for a role. If RAF technicians are naturally suited to becoming cyber warriors what about the equally technically capable Royal Navy technicians and what about GCHQ?
And I don’t like it when “air power” and RAF are used as interchangeable terms. Further the USAF isn’t the US’s only air service. The USAF track record at co-operating with the USN/USMC isn’t exactly “A1″ let alone the air service of other states. And lastly it was the RN who were the first British armed service to make use of satellites not the RAF. It could be argued that satellites (in the future) will actually make the need for intelligence gathering by aircraft redundant.
I should whing on about the use of guided artillery rounds replacing swathes of CAS duties….
(PS There is lot more space above the sea so surely outer space is navy territory?
)
“That is a bit strong. Admittedly it was the effective head of the USAF saying those things. But he would hardly go and say air power is unimportant and therefore the contributions of our allies are unimportant too.”
There was no offence meant.
And I agree that the notion of the RAF assuming responsibility for cyber activities just because the USAF does is a very tenuous link in the face of UK defence requirements.
Sorry Jedibeeftrix, we need joke-sarcasm-tags !!!
This is becoming a theme here as can be seen in the “Taste of the Future” that the armed services like an organism (or meme) are by nature in the survival game. They seek to continue. Allied to this is a sense of culture. Perhaps having seen youngsters join all three services I am bit more aware of the cultural differences between the blue, light blue and green. I know I am navy fan but I sincerely think the RAF out of three is the one with the most fragile raison d’etre. I think the majority have trouble with this because we live in an airborne world. The masses fly everywhere, therefore aeroplanes must be important. But it ain’t that simple.
x, as an army tech i’m offended you missed us out!!!
not really however we did have some severe teflon heads. Ref Argus haven’t they just finished a (expensive) refit on that?
My favourite quote from a joint ex with the light blue “today son you will be digging in not checking in”
The RAF are going to use the Typhoon’s gun as ot realised removing ot was almost as costly, though ot is intended as a Air to Ground weapon.
I do remember seeing a photshop picture of a Red Arrow with commercial sponsorship, it had “Virgin” in big white letters on the underside of the wing!
Yes Argus has just been in re-fit. But when has the MoD ever shied away from throwing away money it has just invested?
Suggesting they move Ocean over to the RFA was me just playing fantasy navy. Though younger than Argus she is getting on. And I wonder how easily she could be converted over to a more “merchant” style lean manning. As slow as she is she is too good to get rid off.
I bet the MoD would get a good price for Ocean from somewhere like Indonesia.
interestingly, admin is causing trouble here:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/14502
it is an interesting debate he has started, and it will be interesting to see what results.
Yes, I just get the feeling that the RN feel victimised and constantly talking up how much they have been cut
On CVF, yes, must admit that even since my last post on this I am wavering, I previously thought they were well justified given where we are but am thinking that the wider ongoing impact is getting to the point where we should have a serious second think
When you get the Unions, Alex Salmon, Vince Cable and various retired Admirals talking from the same song sheet alarms bells should be ringing
I think ThinkDefence will be asked to go and fetch his hat!!
They swear a lot over there don’t they?
I like the idea of the Army becoming a rapid reaction force a la USMC.
The CVF will allow us to go anywhere.
Nobody asks the Army to deploy in Transit mini-buses……
Just came across this interesting article,
Britain In Search of a Grand Strategy
via Zenpundit at:
http://zenpundit.com/?p=3552
Me, I think the thread’s been on a downward grade since its high point: “RAF Police get more Alsatians.” That’s quality
Nice to see (though I am merely a lurker there) that a few of the more thoughtful “pro-RN” have showed up over at the Warships board (why does one have to be pro-RN? I do think that, more than anything else, may be a measure both of actual diminishment among the services, and of the 20th century’s, extremely costly, trend to wards landward operations, the strongest persistent trend that way that a British state has seen since the 13-1400s.) Trying to wade through the swamp created by four or five opposing overgrown schoolchildren have created on a perfectly good board seems to be getting harder.
Although I will take issue with the “no one is ever coerced by a carrier.” For a good stretch of Dec 1941-early 1942, which seemed like a strategic lifetime, three nations with vast past or contemporary (1940s) naval power were beaten senseless by the IJN’s carriers. (I think one of the young grad students over at the Phoenix site once said the IJN’s air arm was maybe the most strategically effective air force of the first half of WWII. I think that’s one of the most intelligent and reasoned arguments that’s been made over there.) Then there’s the raft of “Third World dictators”: Iraq’s Kassem and the Guatemalans in the days of “proper” British carriers (not to mention that FAA and RAF fighters, jointly, did much more damage to Nasser’s air force than the V-bombers. It’s not the RAF’s personnel or assets I have trouble with, it’s the empire-building fantasies of the air marshals.) Of course the Argentine air arms (Fuerza Aera and fleet), which had some genuine quality in them, were beaten exclusively (Black Buck, in operational terms, was long-distance artillery) by carrier-based aircraft flown by two services off glorified ASW platforms. On the American side, I’ll start the bidding with Qaddafi (much more strategic effect from repeated carrier group ops than that F-111 raid) and go from there when I have time to pull up enough USNI operational stats.
The crucial problem with these particular carriers is that it’s another case (dovetail the defence-industry thread) of BAe being a standout as both bad and foolish actors, and of NuLabour being the same. And that’s all down to airframes: not building “Sea Typhoon” was idiocy. We’ve already heard Jed’s argument for “all that’s needed” for a decent expeditionary air group in the immediate frame (out to, say, 2025-30.) A first iteration of naval Typhoon would have fit fine, and been better “pure” fighters, and given greater commonality with the RAF (even to the point where the crabs would have a stronger, not a weaker, case to move in on naval fast air.) Now it’s all hamstrung on the F-35 process, at a time of egregious cuts. There, in retrospect, a modified Cavour and Albions designed with stores and facilities (mess, gym, etc.) to handle “hot bunking” to double the normal (non-overload) carrying capacity of green death, would have been better. You might get three of each and do very nicely. As it is, you really need to be able to build two proper battle groups (two air wings of decent size, plus two extra, dedicated LHDs, and escorts ’round them) to not be seen clearly as a legless horse.
Well, I’ve already semi-derailed the topic here, so I’ll back away from the topic saying three things:
1) Setting up a pool about what and how badly things will go wrong is a particularly British institution, and especially one that belongs to the parts of the recent past in which British industry (not so much “the Empire,” but working industry) was systematically dismantled. Forums like this, and there seem to be a fair number on the British patch, seem to me part of a very different solution. The last SDR in ’98 didn’t turn out as planned — reality was much worse. There’s no need to hang heads about the new one. It’s a matter of spending the next two, five, ten years clawing back in the opposite direction. Places like this shop actually are a good start. There’s not so much experience at that in British politics as in North American or European politics. But I think there will be soon — and again, places like TD show that there’s common “purple” ground on which to build. (The purple that really matters, in the end is political, not inter-service
But it’s also probably good to get this out of our system here.
2) I’ll say it again — the British state was formed around figuring out the political justifications and leverage for taxing the least useful (visibly productive) concentrations of wealth to provide for common security and national power. And Thomas Cromwell and Pitt the Younger aren’t likely to have their posters up on any dreamy Young Fabian’s wall
Two strong new taxes on the financial sector. One funds defence procurement, subject to the necessary and needed reforms of the procurement process. The other one funds a new microlending institution (a lefty suggesting this? Somewhere Norman Tebbitt is smiling 
for aid both foreign *and* domestic. Bangladesh and Tyneside both need the help, and other places besides.
3) Just to get into the spirit, much as the Premier League era has arguably ruined the English, and perhaps also the Scottish, national sides, perhaps PFIs could move on to corporate sponsorship of operational formations? RAF Leuchars brought to you by Carling? The Royal Logistics Corps (Stig’s Own)? (mustn’t cut out the Beeb) Forward the ASDA Fusiliers? And just think how, before the last consolidations, the whole garden-centre industry could’ve taken turns with the Royal Green Jackets ….
X,
They do indeed swear a lot over there. Evidence that the saying “swearing like a sailor” came from somewhere real
“They swear a lot over there don’t they?”
Patience has been severely tested over the past month, apologies on their behalf.
“I previously thought they were well justified given where we are but am thinking that the wider ongoing impact is getting to the point where we should have a serious second think”
The only ‘danger’ they represent is if we attempt to create a fudge that preserves a strong army army AND a strong navy, but the same could equally be said about the extra combat brigade that would not otherwise be kept.
“Major war capability did not become obsolete with the end of the Cold War. The ‘north German plain’ symbol is the cliche and soundtrack of a dangerous complacency.”
Two obvious lessons to be drawn from this, the first true, the second false:
1. That everything will be a coalition circle-jerk in future.
2. By implication, that it will be major land war.
@ jackstaff
I know you are joking about PFI but perhaps PMCs are the way to go. You should read Tim Spicer’s “An Unorthodox Soldier: Peace and War and the Sandline Affair” which gives a unique perspective on PMCs. I wondered the other day if the best people to advice us on how the army should be run is the SAS/SBS………
We should be reminded that government sponsored militarises in history have been more the exception than the rule.
Lastly I apologise for being voluminous in comments, slightly left field, and having an odd sense of humour. I will try to curb all these from now.
I know admin once told me “Friends don’t let friends quote Lewis Page” but I thought I would share this from “theregister” website (it is more of an IT/technology site – I am an IT Manager in my day job) as many of you might not have seen it:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/06/carriers_nsc_comment/
As I have commented elswhere on this site it appears the RN are proposing to half the fleet to keep the carriers. Genuinely turning the fleet into 2 carrier battle groups and exactly B****r all else, no minesweepers no C1/C2 etc, marines and amphib transport gone.
Ancient Greek Proverb: -
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad
This is a little off topic but I hope you’ll grant me some latitude.
The following is not my predictions with respect to SDSR but rather an extract from my submission to the MoD (sent in mid July) regarding my thoughts and proposals on SDSR.
“Royal Air Force
Nimrod R1 Replacement
Under Project Airseeker it is proposed to replace the 3 Nimrod R1 aircraft by 3 Boeing RC135 Rivet Joint aircraft at a cost of £1,400 million. The RC135s will be converted from KC135 tanker aircraft built in the 1960s and will be re-engined with CFM-56 engines for commonality with the Boeing E3D Sentry AWACS aircraft already in service with the RAF.
The RAF currently operates 7 Boeing E3D Sentry aircraft (a number which has not been reduced since they were originally ordered in the late 1980s). I would suggest that it would be more cost effective to use 3 of these E3Ds as the base for the Rivet Joint ELINT aircraft. The UK already owns the airframes which are not as ancient as the KC135s and would not require to be re-engined. The RAF would still retain 4 AWACS aircraft, a number that the French air force finds sufficient.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
The UK has committed to the Watchkeeper programme to provide its principal UAV capability. This programme utilises a modified and improved version of the Hermes 450 as its air vehicle. There would seem to be no justification in the RAF continuing to purchase and operate (from Las Vegas, Nevada) the Predator/Reaper UAV which is in the same category as the Hermes 450.
If the RAF wishes to develop and maintain a capability in operating UAVs then this can be achieved by establishing a joint Army/RAF organisation to operate and deploy Watchkeeper, following the precedents set by Joint Helicopter Command and Joint Force Harrier.
Fast Jets
The UK is contractually committed to the purchase of a substantial number (originally 232) Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft and to date has ordered 160. The current plan is to supplement these with the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) for which the F35B JSF is the presumed choice. Originally the planned JSF purchase was 150 aircraft, subsequently reduced to 138 and now rumoured to be approximately 60. The RAF also operates some 140 Tornado GR4 aircraft and circa 60 Harrier GR9 aircraft (to be replaced by JCA). It is fair to say that such a number of fast jets is not required and cannot be afforded.
I understand that 160 Typhoons allows for 5 frontline squadrons each of 15 aircraft together with a flight for The Falklands, an OCU, an OEU and sufficient extra aircraft to enable airframes to be rotated in and out of service to balance flying hours across the whole fleet and thus enable the aircraft to meet its scheduled out-of-service date.
I propose that the Tornado GR4 fleet be retired as soon as sufficient Typhoons with full (as opposed to austere) A2G capability are in service. The future fast jet fleet to consist of 150 front line aircraft split between Typhoon and JCA in a ratio of 6 Typhoon squadrons to 4 JCA squadrons or 5 squadrons of each, depending upon the contractual details with regard to Typhoon Tranche 3B.
(For comments on choice of aircraft for JCA please see under Royal Navy.)
Support Helicopters
The RAF currently operates 3 support helicopter types: Chinook (46 in service); Merlin (28 in service); Puma (33 in service). In January of this year it was announced that the Merlins were to be transferred to the Royal Navy and that 22 extra Chinooks would be ordered (plus 2 attrition replacements) to give an eventual fleet of 70. This was followed in March by an order for 10 Chinooks.
70 Chinooks would be nice to have but can we afford them and do we have enough crews to operate them given that the commander of Joint Helicopter Command said, earlier this year that he was short of crews with the increase of the fleet arising from the addition of the Mark 3 Chinooks?
I propose that the Pumas be retired and their crews convert to the Chinook and that the number of extra Chinook to be ordered be reduced to 10.
Royal Navy
Assuming that the decision is taken in the course of the SDSR to retain the 2 new aircraft carriers, there two programmes I will comment on: the Future Surface Combatant (FSC) and the JCA.
FSC
The S2C2 Pathfinder identified 2 classes of vessel to replace Type 22 and Type 23 frigates:
a Force Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Combatant (known as C1)
a Stabilisation Combatant (C2).
C1 is optimised for war fighting and would operate as an integral part of the maritime strike group or amphibious task group, offering high-end ASW, land attack and coastal suppression.
C2 would meet the policy requirement for operations in support of small-scale stabilisation operations, sea line protection and chokepoint escort.
A contract has recently been awarded for the assessment phase for the Type 26 combat ship. This would appear to be aimed at the C1 requirement as outlined above.
I do not question the need for the Type 26 but rather my query is one of priority.
ASW is currently provided by Type 23 frigates of which 8 of 13 are fitted with the latest sonar equipment. The earliest out of service date (OSD) for a Type 23 is 2023 with the OSD for the first of the final 8 planned for 2028. The requirement for Type 26 as a replacement though important would not appear to be urgent. On the other hand, as events such as piracy off Somalia and the kidnapping of a naval boarding party off the coast of Iran have demonstrated, there is a current need for a vessel to meet the C2 requirement.
I would suggest that the Danish Absalom class combat support ships provide an excellent model for a C2 vessel in terms of both capability and value for money and consideration should be given either to buying the design rights or designing and building a British equivalent.
JCA
The current assumption is that the JCA requirement will be met by the F35B stovl variant of the US Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). There are numerous reasons for this choice but the main technical driver is the requirement to operate from the new carriers which are not fitted with catapults.
There are however two major problems with this choice of aircraft. The first is that, despite Lord Drayson’s best efforts, it would appear that we will not be obtaining the same version of the aircraft as US forces but will instead get an inferior export or international version. The second is cost.
According to the Pentagon’s Selected Acquisition Report in April of this year, the estimate for Average Procurement Unit Cost for the aircraft had risen from the original $59 million to $93 – 112 million. Furthermore once known extra development costs and testing costs have been added , the UPC is estimated to rise to $158 million (all figures in 2010 dollars).
Can we afford it, do we need it?
We already possess in the Typhoon a state of the art combat aircraft, the problem is carrier operability and the lack of any viable alternatives. Both the American F18 and the French Rafale require a catapult launch whilst a navalised Typhoon would be both a risky and doubtless costly development. Recently, however a new contender has appeared in the form of a navalised version of the Saab Gripen NG, the Sea Gripen, which is being offered to both Brazil and India.
According to Saab, (as reported in JDW) the current “land” Gripen needs only some rudimentary changes to make it carrier compatible, principally a strengthened undercarriage and bigger brakes as the structure of the Gripen NG is already designed to be robust enough for carrier operations. The STOL capability of the aircraft means that it could be configured initially to operate from the Royal Navy carriers using the STOBAR method. At a later date, should funds permit, catapults (EMALS) could be fitted to the carriers and Sea Gripen could be operated in CATOBAR mode.
So far as land based operations are concerned, the Gripen is designed to operate from Sweden’s public road system and so will offer the RAF the capability of operating from austere strips, a capability which is currently offered by the Harrier but which will not be offered by the F35B.
The Gripen possesses substantial British content which could be considerably increased if the F414 engine were replaced by a version of EJ200. This would also simplify logistics through commonality with Typhoon.
Gripen offers value for money; 24 are currently being offered to Romania at a UPC of $55 million.
British Army
Procurement
So far as the procurement of army equipment is concerned, I feel that any comment I might make would, in light of the Gray Report, be superfluous. In the same vein, there surely is no valid reason why the army should not adopt Whole Fleet Management for its Armoured Fighting Vehicle fleet. But again this point has been made more eloquently in the July edition of the Defence Analysis Newsletter.
Future Army Structure (FAS)
The FAS reforms which were begun under General Jackson were further evolved under his successor General Dannatt with FAS Next Steps and latterly have been endorsed by General Richards.
In brief, FAS provides for the army to be structured into 6 homogeneous or component brigades where the components consist of – an armoured regiment, a force reconnaissance regiment, an armoured infantry battalion, a mechanised infantry battalion, 2 light infantry battalions and supporting units. Each brigade can be scheduled for deployment on operations for a period of 6months once in every 3 years.
In addition to the component brigades, the army has available 2 specialist entry formations, 16 Air Assault Brigade (16 AAB) and 3 Commando Brigade (3 Cdo Bde) and Special Forces.
The problem would seem to be that there are not enough units established to man the above structure and even if there were enough, there is insufficient funding to adequately equip them all. As an example, the 6 component brigades each require 2 cavalry regiments and yet, discounting HCMR, there are only 11 currently established and one of these is assigned to NBC duties.
If we are to retain 6 fully equipped and manned component brigades we need to seek savings from other formations.
With respect to 2 of these formations the UK has what might be termed a comparative advantage.
3 Cdo Bdg
possesses historical expertise
benefits from significant recent investment in amphibious vessels
has the geographical advantage of ready access to international waters
Special Forces
display a renowned expertise
enjoy a high demand for their services
In comparison to the above, 16 AAB seems to be a “nice to have” asset rather than an essential requirement. It is a comparatively expensive formation, requiring a substantial number of helicopters which are both in short supply and costly to fly and maintain.
I propose therefore that 16AAB be disbanded in order to free up manpower, equipment and funding to support the remaining formations. “
MQ-9 Reaper is a beyond line of sight armed multi-sensor ISR Remotely Piloted Air System that flies at 250kts, weighs 5,000kgs and can operate up to 50,000ft.
WATCHKEEPER is a line of sight un-armed 2-sensor ISR Unmanned Air System. It is a modified Israeli Hermes 450 that weighs 450kgs, flies at 80-90kts and manages to get to about 15,000ft.
Now do you see why we need both? Reaper is a strategic asset whereas WATCHKEEPER is a tactical asset.
Oh, and I believe the RIVET JOINTs cost over half that amount. Plus, the E-3D would be very costly to modify and the RJ is a different type of Boeing (707-320 vs 717). We all know that low volume aircraft manufacture is both expensive and high risk – remember NIMWACS and the recent MRA4 (which is hugely over budget and 11 years late!!!).
Nuff said?
If we’re having a sweepstakes, I’d like to lay on two outside chances that would be nice to see but highly unlikely:
1) CallMeDave takes a powder on doctrine-by-press-conference, and instead asks for a broad strategic assessment to be read by the excellent red-headed actress Christina Hendricks, in the altogether, while standing in a vat of the chocolate Cadbury’s (sorry, HersheyCadburyWhatever, grr…) uses to make Bournville bars.
2) In one of the most obscure but satisfying parliamentary rituals, George Osborne is pantsed, chased through a maze by the mascots of defunct regiments, then hoisted up a flagpole by an RAF colour guard while singing an a capella version of “The Foreskin Fusiliers.”
Unlikely to be much more juvenile than the actual roll-out. And a good deal more pleasant.
X,
Spicer’s book is an interesting read, and it’s certainly a potential component of what’s going on these days. I tend to be allergic to it for philosophical reasons, because it dismantles what a professional, constitutional, national military is there to do and how it is (theoretically, all things being equal and all politicians being absent
to function. In real-world terms, it may be necessary to get a handle on the process rather than shun it or crack down on it. Now, PFIs I am really allergic to (and glad to see a really tripartisan rash of similar responses) but I would prefer to see the nation rather than, say, some rogue FTSE 100 member, benefit from those kinds of specialised talents. (I know from an old American contact, good licensed practical nurse who’d been a medic in 5th Special Forces Group in the Gulf, that Coca-Cola has one of the world’s best commando units, after years of kidnap attempts in emerging markets.)
Gaz,
Thank you for your critique of my SDSR submission but you seem to have rather missed the point.
Reaper and Watchkeeper are both UAVs with substantially overlapping capabilities. The Reaper air vehicle may offer superior performance to the WK450 but the air vehicles are only a part of the whole system. More importantly, the UK has invested £700 million in Watchkeeper (which is a fully supported system). Reaper is being purchased one airframe at a time.
Post SDSR such expensive duplication cannot be afforded – Reaper must go.
I don’t know why you believe Rivet Joint will cost half the amount I have quoted. £1.4 billion is the official programme cost for Project Airseeker.
The fact that C 135 and E3D are based on slightly different Boeing models is true but irrelevant. The requirement is for a Nimrod R1 replacement. The airframe needs to accommodate sensors, a crew of 15 – 20 operators at work stations which require cabling and supporting furnishings for long range / endurance ELINT missions. My submission proposes the use of aircraft already owned and operated by the RAF (and has the by-product of reducing the size and cost of the AWACS fleet). Obviously if the cost of conversion was very high then that would negate the advantages of the approach. You claim E3D would be very costly to modify. Why?
Incidentally, the condescending tone of your comment is not helpful to furthering the debate.
Fellas, I have put a lot of work into Think Defence and especially creating an environment where points can be debated and newcomers are warmly welcome regardless of their subject knowledge.
The aim of Think Defence is to further debate and improve awareness of issues we all hold dear
So lets play nice eh!
Hi Gaz
I think Percontator has a point, we have a number of E3D Sentry’s standing idle in hangers because of the reduced need for them. So if we can acutally use them again would be a good thing, I dont think the cost would be huge to convert them, considering we are going to pay Boeing to convert a basic airtanker into a state of the art ELINT aircraft, now the Sentry has already been converted with the electrical generators, power transmission systems and databuses.
I believe there was talk of upgrades to the Sentry fleet, better avionics etc if this could be combined to a common fleet would be the way to go, and i dont know if this possible but fit the RR Trent engines for comminality with the FSTA.