Remember the massive op 3 years ago to fight through and get the third turbine up to Kajaki dam? Still in pieces with not even the foundations built (which begs the question why move it in the first place). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/13925886
Seriously – what the hell?
I’m really not a high stakes gambler myself. If they (the Guardian), are right about a ROE with more freedom of action, isn’t the North risking an unpredictable response if they do another one of their stupid attacks?
Can anybody explain why members of HM armed forces have to perform as security people at Wimbledon. Watched the tennis today and have seen Army and Navy people, I’m sure I’ve seen RAF as well in the past.
What is going on, WHY, Does the MOD charge the LTA or is it another Freebie. Please let me know.
@Wstr.
Kajaki Dam. The cynic would say that the lack of campaign coherence at the time meant that every UK Brigade commander on arriving in theatre took a few to months to settle in, selected a big project to garner headlines and make his mark, accomplished said project and returned to Whitehall for tea and medals. That is certainly how some of the US generals saw it…
The Kajaki Dam turbine operation certainly does not appear to have been well integrated across all the civil and political lines of operation.
@Kentish Paul. Wimbledon: I think this is a freebie. Service personnel get to go to Wimbledon and in return for dressing up in uniform and some not very onerous duties they get to see some tennis.
The MOD normally charges for such services, either the full rate (cost of wages, training, infrastructure etc) or partial rate (costs accrued that are additional and specific for the task (ie not charging the daily rate of pay etc).
Brian, I had a dabble with image header rotators but wasn’t impressed. Might have another look and see what can be done, its always about balancing snazzy looks with resources though
i did wimbledon for 10 years, it harks back many years some officer was a head honcho and he used the troops as stewards (offical term) when i did it you took leave, some people managed to wrangle some free time out of it, it has been recognised as a great PR tool as joe public love it. (not hard really as the group4 guys are 80%+ students on minimum wage and not interested).
As you have to sort out your own accomm you recieve a substiance allowance from the club to assist, plus a daily food allowance on a swipe card, i won’t quote figures as it’s probably changed from when i did it (1996-2005) The hours are bloody long first brief at 9 so we normally set off to get there at 7 and obviously games went on to 9pm, now i believe they can play till 11pm with the roof there’s about 300 tri service there belive it or not, and although it’s hard work i loved it and i’m not that big a tennis fan. The public (and celebs) were always keen to talk, kids were great and squaddie humour always helped with the occasion.
I could fill this thread with stories, jolly jack doing a sea shanty to 8000, fixing a first ladies shoe, etc etc. good times!!
oh and the MOD don’t charge as it’s all in leave time.
and yes it gets tiring going up and down the entry gate stairs “x” ammount of times a day. (although come day 4 the enthusiasm to watch the tennis wanes)!!
Bob retires with Medal of Freedom; see the list (in his sport, but foreign heads of state or government first)
Tony Blair, 2009
Margaret Thatcher, 1991
Don Luis A. Ferré (1991)
Václav Havel (2003)
John Howard (2009)
Helmut Kohl (1999)
Joseph Luns (1984)
Nelson Mandela (2002)
Wilma Mankiller (January 15, 1998)[57]
Luis Muñoz Marín (1963) – Awarded With Distinction
Angela Merkel (2011)[4]
Mary Robinson (2009)[12]
Carlos P. Romulo (1984)
President Anwar el-Sadat (March 26, 1984, posthumously)[58]
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (2007)
Álvaro Uribe (2009)
Henry J. Friendly (1977)
A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. (1995)
Oliver White Hill (1999)
Frank Minis Johnson (1995)
Irving Robert Kaufman (1987)
Joseph Warren Madden (1947)
Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. (1993, posthumously)
Cruz Reynoso (2000)
Laurence Silberman (2008)
Elbert Tuttle (1981)
John Minor Wisdom (1993)
and then:
Richard Myers, 2005
Omar *Bradley* (1977)
Arleigh *Burke* (1977)
General Wesley Clark (2000)- no WW3!
War Chief Joe Medicine Crow (2009)
Admiral William J. Crowe (2000)
Jimmy Doolittle (1989)
Tommy Franks (2004)
General Lyman Lemnitzer (1987)
Richard B. Myers (2005)
Jan Nowak-Jeziorański (1996)
Peter Pace (2008)
Matthew B. Ridgeway (1986)
Captain Joseph Rochefort (1986, posthumously)
General H. Norman Schwarzkopf (1991)
General John Shalikashvili (1997)
John Paul Vann (1972)
John Vessey (1992)
James E. Webb (1969)
Albert Coady Wedemeyer (1985)
Chuck Yeager (1985)
Admiral Elmo R. *Zumwalt*, Jr. (1998)
Russia’s Defence Minister has just announced that two army brigades will be dedicated to safeguarding their interests in the Arctic;
- can we put Ice Station Zebra on the favourite films’ thread (any Brits in it?)
- of course, if they hadn’t settled with Norway, the number would have been higher (including every coal miner on Svalbard; just like Aramco had 40.000 red necks in the good old days, to defend the oil fields in eastern Saudi Arabia, should that be necessary)
Will Turkey front up and provide a stabilisation force I wonder?
It is also interesting to note that the African Union has called on its members to ignore the arrest warrants. I want to say something pithy about aid money but can’t come up with anything. I fear certain African leaders are beginning to feel emboldened by Chinese “aid.”
At 5.00 nins into the report Sky News Defence Correspodent Neil Patterson says: “The Afghan insurgents are the same as the British…..they will not hesitate to execute that captive.”
Is Sky News saying that British forces in Afghanistan are routinely executing prisoners?
I didn’t realise the French Army deploys or has 112 Puma (or variants of or later versions there of.) That’s enough to move 3 battalions of light infantry. Heck they even have 34 NH90s. Wow. I suppose they do have the space to use them. But, wow.
This is interesting, Eurofighter Typhoon gang in Japan.
I wonder what the chances of Japan going for the Typhoon is.
I suppose such a deal would give Japan a good start into allowing defence exports. With Typhoon they can probably do what they want with it, thus allowing exports of components. Being even more optimistic you could probably get Japan involved in future projects, I’m sure they’ve got some management techniques to help us.
Yeah, the strong links with the US are likely to weigh heavily on any choice Japan makes. Shame. Really we could do with some big deals to offset the cost and start putting British Military manufacturing back in the spotlight…. for the right reasons.
from Rafale News on the Indian contest, quoting an Indian source –
[...] “the line-up, in ascending order of price, shown in parenthesis, is as follows: MiG-35 ($ 45 m), F-16 ($60 m), F/A-18 ($60.5 m), Gripen ($82.2 m), Rafale ($ 85.5 m) and Typhoon ($124 m). [...]
It is difficult to know if the prices of this list can be directly compared. However, given they are more or less acurate, they reveal that the Gripen NG price would be very close to the Rafale. Conversely the Typhoon is quoted 45% higher which is a huge gap.
Interestingly, both the F-16IN and F-18E would have the same price despite being in 2 different weight class. It is also worth noting that they are 42% less expensive than the Rafale, which is exactly the current Euro/dollar ratio. Once again, it would prove that the US aircraft prices are artificially low only due to an underestimated dollar value.”
Any thoughts on these? I didn’t think Typhoon was that more expensive than Rafale.
PS I was at Yeovilton on Saturday where the French managed to put up a Rafale M and a Super Etendard while both types are heavily involved elsewhere. The RAF can’t provide a Typhoon display anywhere this year. Perhaps the French want to show the future of the FAA as it could well be after 2015.
DID. com of today traced this year’s important milestones in the Trident “replacement”:
May 18/11: British go-ahead. “Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox announces government approval hfor the early phase of design to replace the existing Vanguard Class. The new submarines will be powered by a new nuclear propulsion system known as the Pressurised Water Reactor 3, which is more expensive but safer”… so more expensive, at the time of the announcement there was speculation of cutting
Going back to previous year:
Jan 28/10: Backward compatibility.” Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA received a $29.7 million sole source cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for systems engineering services, to help integrate current Trident D5 nuclear missiles into the new submarine’s common missile compartment.”
… so Trident replacement does not need to be about replacing Tridents (if they can be operated safely?) but about just the boats
- I wonder under which assumption the cost projections have been making the rounds?
I see in aviation week that the US is considering scrapping there SSBN replacement program an instead lengthening the virginia ssn and using smaller trident missiles. This could have profound implications for the UK and go somewhat to explain the very slow progress on the UK replacement program. Is astute a similar diameter to the virginia? or are we stuffed if the us follow this route.
Wikipedia (so who knows how accurate it is) says Astute has the same beam as the Virginia class, but is about 12 meters shorter, so it sounds like a much bigger job for us to modify Astute to add a “plug” to handle C-4 sized missiles than it would be for the US to modify the Virginia class.
I saw Think Defence posted a link to the Guardian about Cameron holding papers back from the national Audit Office.
Which reminded me, the NAO stated it would cost £200 million to cancel 1 ship, 1.6 billion for both.
Me thinks the government are bull shitting or hiding something.
That review should be kicked into the long grass by the Government as soon as possible. How on earth can part-time soldiers, trained over relatively small number of sessions per year, compare with fully trained professionals? And that is not to denigrate the work done by the TA in any way.
Just two points. First TA soldiers are paid full-time soldiers’ wages when they are deployed in conflicts. How can that save money? Second, the TA is already struggling to keep up its numbers. How is that problem to be solved without a great deal more expenditure?
@ MikeW – It might depend on the type of unit. I’ve been thinking of TD’s naval division of labour between hard as nail core and security-tasked forward presence. Could the TA act like the “auxiliaries” of the Roman Empire while the Standing army perform the role of the hard as nail legions?
This is obviously from a US perspective but thought people might find it a interesting read;
the army IS going to shrink more than the 7,000 announced once afganistan is rolled up, so just be glad that at least some of the slack is going to be picked up by the TA.
Saving Money: Money is saved because the MOD does not pay for the accomodation of TA personnel, primary healthcare costs and subsidised feeding to name but some of the costs incurred by having regular soldiers.
Training Standards: During the cold war the TA maintained high standards albeit in focused areas. Due to their limited training time they focused training on their specific wartime role, so they can maintain standards but they tend to maintain standards in focused areas; they are just not as flexible as their regular counterparts because they lack the breadth of experience. That said the amount of time regular units spend in the field is much less then many people think nowadays I doubt too if the Review will see themgoing from ‘zero to hero’ and deploying at the drop of a hat. It will aim to close the gap sufficiently between the steady state of a TA individual or sub-unit and their Regular counterpart such that with 4 months training they can step up to the plate on operations; that is achievable for many tasks (TA currently mobilise 4.5 months prior to deployment).
TA Manning: The TA is undermanned partly because its current mismatch between structure and role. Being asked to provide Individual Reinforcements and Individual Augmentees for the Regular Forces does not encourage retention, progression in the TA or TA unit cohesion. It is rare that TA NCOs or Officers exercise command appointments in the field – mostly because they lack the training and experience, so many do one tour and then get out.
However the Review might require a change in TA ethos whereby extra training resources are given to the TA (two weekends a month and one drill night a week?) but that these become mandatory and not discretionary as they currently are. That would require a huge change in TA ethos and it would be interesting to see the impact on TA recruiting and retention from that.
Personally I am excited by what I have heard, but suspect that the government will accept the report but not implement its findings. The Regular Army has always been hostile to the TA if the TA is seen to take resources from it and this case is no different.
Lastly in training standards we might want to reflect that because of litigous and risk averse society it now takes almost as long to conduct what the army calls i-MST (individual-Mission Specific Training) to qualify a soldier to deploy to theatre as it takes to train a unit collectively for deployment; the whole process normally takes 12 months or so… If we could reduce i-MST by either taking more risk or including the i-MST skills in basic soldiering skills then the gap between TA and Regular could be shortened considerably.
“Personally I am excited by what I have heard, but suspect that the government will accept the report but not implement its findings. The Regular Army has always been hostile to the TA if the TA is seen to take resources from it and this case is no different.”
From this perspective, perhaps it is a good thing that the implementation (or otherwise) of this report will be driven from the NSC including Hague and and Cameron seeking an additional settlement, rather than the service heads who would previously sideline the reserves when it comes to apportioning a single settlement?
I believe the plan is that the Reserves money should get ring fenced, a bit like Cardwell did with the RFCAs and TA estate; but I am not convinced that the government will implement the report after accepting it.
Well, that’s me well and truly put in my place! However, I am not that mentally inflexible that I cannot learn something from your comments. To take them one by one:
Gareth
“It might depend on the type of unit. I’ve been thinking of TD’s naval division of labour between hard as nail core and security-tasked forward presence. Could the TA act like the “auxiliaries” of the Roman Empire while the standing army perform the role of the hard as nail legions?”
Yes, I think there might very well be some mileage in this suggestion. I like the idea of a division of labour between “hard as nail core and security-tasked forward presence.” I suppose TA units could perform tasks such as security: the guarding of base camps, headquarters, airbases etc. They could also be involved in logistical support, medical support, communications and so on. However, as for the TA providing, say, front-line infantry in substantial numbers, I think not somehow.
Jedibeeftrix
You might very well be right in your assertion that the Army is going to shrink more than the 7,000 announced once the Afghanistan campaign is over. However, there is a strong possibility that you might be wrong. Opposition to the outcome of the SDSR is growing and the pressure to re-examine that review is increasing. Such opposition has cross-party support from both Tory and Labour MPs. When you consider the fact that the British Army is already committed in Afghanistan and there are other potential crisis areas in Libya, the Falklands, Ireland, the Yemen, etc., then the questions has to be , can they (the Government) really responsibly contemplate cutting the Army any more?
Callum Lane
What a knowledgeable and detailed response to my comments! I take the points made about saving money, training and undermanning – all very convincing and explained in a succint and incisive fashion. Such arguments would almost make me change my mind if it were not for serious doubts about the standards and efficiency of the TA at the moment, given the fact that their training and experience are lacking. I am NOT knocking the TA in the slightest. They do a marvellous job, given the limitations of their training resources and have some marvellous people. However, I do remember attending a military show a few years ago at which TA personnel were attempting to demonstrate the firing of a 105 mm light Gun and making rather heavy weather of it. Now you might say, well, such standards are not necessarily typical of the TA and I would accept that point. However, I am sure that my old man, who was a WO1 in the Artillery for years, would have had a “purpleleptic” fit at the performance. Much more training was needed. I really still feel that there is an element of “getting defence on the cheap” in the move towards placing greater emphasis on reserve forces.
Now, probably TD will have a separate thread on reserve forces and will want discussion of the following point left until that post appears. However, it would be interesting to discover what people’s thoughts are on which equipment could appropriately be transferred to the Terriers from the Regular Army if the review were to be implemented.
@ MikeW – “You might very well be right in your assertion that the Army is going to shrink more than the 7,000 announced once the Afghanistan campaign is over. However, there is a strong possibility that you might be wrong. Opposition to the outcome of the SDSR is growing and the pressure to re-examine that review is increasing.”
If the defence settlement is mirrored in reverse; if we get a 7.5% increase in stead of a cut, and if the treasury funds the acquisition of the trident replacement, and if those real terms increases arrive post 2015……………… then i will be the first to cheer the reversal of planned cuts.
Including the army reduction post afghanistan, but unless all that happens then things have to give.
Thanks for taking the trouble to reply. Does the the defence settlement have to be mirrored in reverse (i.e. does there have to be a 7.5% increase instead of a cut) before planned cuts to Army personnel are reduced or even cancelled? For instance, if an employee of a firm in financial difficulties has to undergo a 10% cut in salary, he might decide to forego both of his two holidays per year. If then the firm hits better times and adjusts his salary reduction to 5%, he might very well decide that he can afford one of the holidays. Surely a restoration of just some of that 7.5% redction would have an effect, wouldn’t it?
I put forward this argument wiothout a trace of irony. My understanding of Mathematics is sadly lacking!
I should just mention that there are replies and thanks to both Gareth Jones and Callum Lane in an earlier comment of mine.
i believe it would have to be reversed, not least because even increasing the budget by 10% (7.5% cut + 2.5% trident), would do no more than fill in the 10% defence procurement deficit identified in the gray report a year ago.
when you add the procurement underfunding and trident replacement costs defence is actually getting a 20% cut, so just stopping the sdsr cut doesn’t really help all of the capabilities that got the axe.
and even then, to fund the more modest ambitions of the sdsr absolutely demands those as yet unconfirmed real-terms defence increases post 2015!
“The reserves cost much less. Run over five years, the cost differential is around one third or, put simply, three for the price of one. Across all three services, putting some of your capacity at lower readiness makes affordable a much greater total capacity. It further demonstrates that the balance in today’s Armed Forces is no longer appropriate, nor affordable.”
First things first. The Telegraph? Are you sure you were in tertiary education for 5 years? On my campus The Grundians were gone by 0900. Yet I could still pick up a Telegraph at lunch. :) ;)
“What is defence?” is a question we really don’t answer here with all Top Trumps discussions on kit. I don’t think it is a question that crosses the minds of many British people. We feel too safe. Further I would say that the establishment likes to down play “nationalism” to the point where to mention it has nearly become taboo. There is a disconnect. Many don’t feel there is a “something” to defend as such. This would be lost on the citizens of many states who know what they are defending and take pride in their part in defending it. Ask a Swiss or an Israeli. It is this idealistic gap that has to be bridged.
Now I believe in two competing defence paradigms. I believe in a strong navy. But I also believe in the idea of the citizen soldier as expounded by Lord Roberts. Back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries there was tension between these two schools of thought. It was believed that supporting the latter undermined the former. But I am not so sure that it ever did. In many ways our defence needs are more like pre-WW1 days, but without the empire to support. We may not be any more dependent on the sea than the other states in Europe but that doesn’t mean we are dependent.
Our army appears to have gained an aura of strategic worth thanks to the Cold War. But isn’t a strategic service. The Army is both too small do its job and too expensive. The question is I suppose what is its job? Post Cold War it seems to be the strong arm of our government as it seeks to mess in the affairs of others. But surely the peoples of the West have lost appetite for these adventures? It seems odd that the most easily understood of the services is used to support the most abstract of government defence policy. If we aren’t fighting these interventionist wars (which do not have support or legitimacy from below) I can’t see there will be a need to train TA soldiers to fill the posts.
Are we safe in the UK? I wouldn’t be without RAF QRA, but there is no air threat and even if there were 4 squadrons couldn’t do much. I think the V-boats are awesome and are necessary, but I can’t see them ever firing a missile in anger (the contrary nature of nuclear deterrence.) And I think by the time the invasion fleet had anchored off our shores the game would have already been called. So are we safe then? I would suggest some of our fellow Brits in the inner cities don’t feel safe. We don’t do politics here so I will stay clear of why they don’t feel safe.
The only way a citizen army will take off is if the citizenry have a belief in what they are defending. Our political elites seem not to care about the country beyond an expedient to get re-elected. And with turn outs at polls falling year on year it seems the people have stopped caring too.
@ x – I have to confess I got the link from TD’s tumblr page :)
Maritime nation vs. Citizen Army appears throughout history in different guises; Athens and Sparta, Britain and France in the Revolutionary/Napoleon age, etc. However you could also argue that the Roman Republic with its citizen Legions wouldn’t have beaten Carthage without building a strong navy and Carthage almost beat Rome by sending a large army across the Alps. You could in theory have both but you may have to decide on which the lion share of your resources goes.
As for the public lacking the appetite for further foreign adventures, you may be right but the Government still has international responsibilities. I’m a fan of the English School of IR and see the International community as a divining body; e.g. you are not a sovereign state because you say you are but because your peers accept you as one. Failure to up hold your responsibilities at this level could have serious consequences.
It is also interesting how a global elite has developed, in both politics and business, as suggested it would by Hedley Bull. This elite might very well have more in common with each other than they do with their fellow citizens/electors. This would/has serious repercussions for democracy at the nation state level.
“I’m a fan of the English School of IR and see the International community as a divining body; e.g. you are not a sovereign state because you say you are but because your peers accept you as one. Failure to up hold your responsibilities at this level could have serious consequences.”
@ Jedi – The English School does tend to divide into sub-schools; the pluralists who like the old ideas of state sovereignty and non-intervention while encouraging international law and norms between states, and the solidaritists how view such things as R2P and humanitarian intervention as the evolution of international law and the new norm.
Why on earth talk about an exchange program now?
We’ve not made the decision on how many we’re having, but it sort of indicates we’re tied to the variant already despite in the review saying we’re getting the C version.
Thoughts people, I’m slightly confused. Sounds like a certain fox may not be that clever.
Paul, its because we are contractually tied to buying a number of B models as part of the development phase. I think the letter is a proposal to still do that but then swap them at a later stage for the C model. I don’t think it will be cost neutral though
“The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) about the withdrawal from service of the Harrier aircraft. The MoD provided some information within the scope of the request, withheld some information and confirmed that some of the information was not held. The complainant asked the Commissioner to investigate the MoD’s response to that part of his request that concerned the cost of maintaining the Harrier in storage. The Commissioner has investigated and finds the MoD in breach of section 16 for failing to provide the complainant with advice and assistance. He requires the public authority to contact the complainant with a view to clarifying this element of his request.”
Seems it was a complaint about an FOI not being answered in full, but I don’t know if the rest of the answers to the original FOI are published anywhere.
So, sent a link to TD today about 40 fld regt RA getting the chop, and 5 batteries going over to light gun, are we missing a trick here, wouldn’t it be better to go to M777, it’s where all the money is going on developing new ammo.
“We mainly won through teamwork, logistics and organisation,” Lloyd says, adding that cunning diplomacy was often used to rule parts of Africa and India. – would a modern version be a Forward Presence Strategy?
Today’s Airforce-technology. com
”
South Korea’s Defence Acquisition Programme Agency has shortlisted Sukhoi’s PAK-FA/T-50 stealth fighter for its FX-III fighter contract.
Flight Global has cited local reports as claiming that PAK-FA will be evaluated against the Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle, Eurofighter Typhoon and Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.”
So… every one around China? India committed, Vietnam probably want theirs from India, ROK would get theirs from Russia (if chosen); getting interesting. And Korea is already flying a top model of F-15
He walked across the areas now contested with tens of thousands of troops… I went to Quetta in 1976 and encountered no resistance
- regardless, a lot of sense in the talk behind jedi’s link
as today is the first of august i would like to continue that great british tradition of offering a “pinch and a punch for the first of the month.”
However due to recent cuts sadly i am fitted for, but not with the ability to pinch and currently inviting to tender people in the punch industry to submit ideas for a punch capability. Leading the race at the moment is a friend of mine who is offering a variation of a punch he used in the 70′s which he thinks he could get to me by around 2016 if i give him all my dinner money for next week upfront.
Sorry thats been overtaken by events MOD have annonced a new BAE sole supplier ‘PISSUP’* Program involving multi national partners to assess future pinch and punch requirements going forward in the post afghanistan, warfighting environment.
The following program goals have been set with the outline funding as follows
1)£40 million has been set aside for assessing the available pinches as against future Uk requirements. By 2015
2)£40 million Developing and ‘leveraging’ future technologies by 2020
3) £40 miilon on the blue sky what is apinch and is it relevent to tomorrows battlefield? question
(ongoing in tandum with above)
4) £40 million on investigating if we could join Europinch in coperation with the French and Germans. But only if they are prepared to make it in imperial rather than metric. 2015 onwards
5)We will follow a twin track approach with Punch replicating the above processe, and funding.
Rumours that BAE have just painted their exisitng pinch/punch in British army cammo and presented the bill have been denied, apparantly a huge amount of ‘integration’ was required involing whole new technolgies.
He asks: “only last summer the conventional wisdom was that the TA were due for another big hit, even though there was not much left to hit. It is good that there has been a volte face but one must wonder at whose behest this damascene conversion took place”
I think we have to credit the coalition here, for in explicitly separating the defence review from the reserves review it prevented the brass from trading in a few ‘worthless’ weekend warriors for ‘real’ tommies.
Just read the summary and conclusions and a couple of sections. I found this one in the section on Nimrod very interesting:
“135. We questioned whether the complex systems envisaged for the Nimrod MRA4 could have been deployed in a different platform such as an Airbus. Professor Julian Lindley-French commented:[146]
A representative of a certain American company asked me whether its platform could take that equipment, and the answer would appear to be yes. Again, what saddened me was that I approached the Dutch and spoke to the French about offsetting operating costs with potential multinational forces. The initial response was very interested; the French told me that they would even offer the Breguet Atlantics that they had in store if we upgraded their electronics suites. I don’t know whether that is possible, but the point is that of the seven military tasks in the SDSR, the MRA4 could have played a very important role in all of them. It was the loss of the enablers, because the single services were forced back to defend their own core competencies by the process, which for me was the biggest failing of the SDSR process. Forget all the strategic stuff: there was a haggle at that last weekend, which was utterly unacceptable in terms of the national strategic requirements.”
“24.
We believe that for an aircraft carrier to be held in a state of extended readiness it
must be fitted with catapults and arrestor gear. (Paragraph 109)”
“112. We note that the MoD is still examining the options to bring into service the Queen
Elizabeth class carriers. We understand that this includes the timing of fitting the catapults
and arrestor gear, including whether one or both carriers should have the system fitted. We
have received no evidence that any analysis has been carried out on the cost and scope of
work required, or on the financial and technical consequences of switching JSF variant at
the time of the SDSR. We expect the MoD to publish its work programme and final
requirements for the conversion of the carriers and JSF by the end of 2012.”
Jedi, its what I have been saying since it was announced.
A decision taken on the whim, no doubt the ministers fell for the bullshit from the service chiefs about it being betterer, ooh, look at the extra range
When the penny drops just how expensive across defence this decision is then something is going to have to give to pay for it
The same committee pushed hard in the hearings for a commitment to have sight of “the plan” this side of Christmas (Ref 112 in the report)
- I don’t think they got it
@ admin – “Jedi, its what I have been saying since it was announced. A decision taken on the whim, no doubt the ministers fell for the bullshit from the service chiefs about it being betterer, ooh, look at the extra range”
my interest was in the use of the plural rather than the change to the “c” version, as you know i have never been too fussed what flew off the damned things as long as we got both.
i even preferred the “b” version precisely because it was more likely that we’d get both with that aircraft.
@ Jedi – I like your idea of a peacekeeping and stability force; do you have any estimates for how much it would cost and what percentage it would be of the DfID budget?
Just watching the Parliamentary Aircraft Carrier Committee session with the Ursula Brennan Permanent Secretary of the MoD (P S), a Rear Admiral and another guy mostly silent, and oh do I hate this committee. Margaret Hodge the chair is absolutely loathsome, you could see she was really pissing off the P S with her absolutely awful mind in regards to the Carrier (+F-35) subject. I really feel for Miss/Mrs(?) Brennan, she looks likes she aged a bit and I think is having to deal with a world that has very little understanding of 21st century armed forces.
The whole committee really did not seem to have any grounding in the spheres surrounding creating an enormous hi-tech warship that has a very significant partner in the JSF project.
Sorry.
I’m appalled with these back-bencher MPs and have more respect and appreciation for the MoD. You might be able to watch the committee session online either BBC Parliament site or iplayer.
Nearly everything these MPs say grinds with me, you’d think if they were on this committee they would know all the basic and medium level details. Thank god this Rear Admiral clearly is a person with a very calm disposition.
Permanent Under-Secretary, I was right the first time, then changed it because Margaret Hodge, vile women, missed out the under, and I trusted her.
Hodge is an ex-minister, laughable! God I hate her.
The Commons select committee I’ve referred to is actually the Public Accounts Committee and not what the programme info told me.
Committee just getting instruction and a tiny telling-off from an NAO lady, I think.
The NAO is good and it seems everyone recognises that, but they and all MPs should remember they’re not experts in the fields they’re auditing and studying.
“The NK famine of 2011 is a famine of NK military, not civilians who have learned to get by the famine through underground market economy. This is because all the civilians who couldn’t survive through black market died during the NK famine of 1995~1996.
This is why Kim Jong Il regime is so desperate to secure food aid for its military, because of the possibility of the troop revolt that would trigger the regime collapse.
Thus any humanitarian food aid to NK goes straight to feed NK troops and sustain the regime, and is actually harming the NK civilians under the tyranny of Kim Jong Il.”
Michael sadly htv-2 developed an unexpected yaw and entered an uncontrollable roll into the sea. Along with the waverider crash earlier this year is unfortunate for hypersonic vehicles
re. some comments regarding Arctic requirements on the Type 26 & India posting: The USA is taking a serious look at the military implications of climate change & some interesting observations and recommendations for naval operations in the Arctic, amongst other things, are to be found in this lengthy document > http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2011/03/10/PrepubAllClimateChange110218.pdf
The US navy also has no surface combat ships hardened for ice operations (read from 2-14 to 2-20).
The report sees need for the US to prepare for a new “great game” in the Arctic (4-10 to 4-12).
Chapter 5 provides an interesting insight to the communication and navigation challenges of operating in the high Arctic. It also has an interesting analysis of the issues involved with antisubmarine warfare in the Arctic (5-13 to 5-18). Of interest is the observation that the US Virginia class of submarines are not as capable at penetrating thick ice as the Los Angeles class. What about Astute?
The Container is only £1,000 maybe we could all club together and get it for him.
Now all he’d need is a swivel chair and a white cat and he can run Think Defence from a place of comfortable, protected safety. I bet it even has a bunk for when he’s had a few too many.
Is your garden big enough?
(incredible, the things they have on that site, check out the very expensive watches!)
If the figures quoted are correct, then at $4m for a refurbed C-1 Tracker, that will have about 10 (speculated) years of service life and can carry out tanking, it’s the deal of the decade. Brazil is certainly showing that with some carefully buying, you can knock together an okay CVBG (compared to other developing nations).
Unfortunately after having a looking in the USN/USAF parts bin (http://www.amarc.info/) there doesn’t seem to be many left. So I would probably have to agree with others and say that buddy refuelling is the most likely. However if costs do start to stack up, with regards to installing tanking capacity to the F-35, then my chosen solution would be a small batch of S-3 Vikings.
The S-3’s were used as tankers with the buddy refuelling system, and the US-3a derivative was a COD version capable of carrying 6 passengers or 4,500lbs of cargo. According to the AMARC website, there are about 100 S-3’s stored there (including 4 US-3 versions). So all we do is pick the best 10 as that allows for: 4x S-3 in service, 2x S-3 for training, 4x S-3 for spares. This then provides the carriers with an emergency tanking capability and it also provides us with a limited (no big ramp) but longer ranged COD than a Merlin HM1.
*also bought under FMS, upgraded to E-2C 2000 standard, pooled training and spares with the French
Considering that the QE Class can only carry around 45ish aircraft max, the 20 aircraft based in the above wing should nicely pad-out the hanger and deck, so they don’t look completely stupid and empty.
The problem is the s3 were retired because they had used up there trap life this can’t really be extended. If it’s deemed necessary for an aar capability on the carrier then cod/aar a/c maybe a better bet. I would also suggest the rn has operated a helicopter from a single frigate far from land much more than the US ever has. Also the range available in the a330 should allow most If not all carrier operations to be conducted. Likewise e3d for AWACS cover
For all those enamoured of the collapsing of the armed forces into a single defence force, the Canadian PM confirms that the Canadian Defence Forces are to be renamed:
Royal Canadian Navy
Canadian Army
Royal Canadian Air Force
Can the A330 cover the air to air refueling needs of a carrier? Closer to land yes, but with problems of overfly permissions and not being able to take on fuel itself, you could get cut short in some areas.
You beat me to posting that. :-). It is quiet interesting/funny to read the comments section, as the views expressed dont seam to stack up with the 2/3 in favour 1/3 against as shown in the poll.
am i just a miserable git or was that a little dig by the BAE man when he said “when the MOD make up their mind about the specs, then we’ll fit it” or as i translated it “coz you’ve changed your mind, and although the design accomodated space for cats and traps, we’re gonna blame you and charge a fortune”
@Jed – I wonder if the Canadian ‘re-naming’ is because it’s genuinely better to have three individual services or because it proved impossible to overcome service inertia and public support for ‘their regiment’ or squadron? No way of getting an unbiased post-mortum of the decision, I suppose?
Nobody has commented on this here so I will. July’s copy of Soldier had an article about the AAC and Apache reaching 100,000 hrs. BUT they article referred to RAF Middle Wallop and RAF Wattisham. Whoops!!!!!!1
@ Jedi – Have been a big fan of the Hybrid airship for a while now, particularly for ASW, MCM, and partol tasks. The larger transport versions are also interesting but despite claims for their survivability I would perfer to keep them away from the front line.
I found out today that back in the ’60s when the Atlantic Steam Navigation Company Ltd (the company that invented the ro-ro ferry using LSTs) had its first purpose built ferries constructed the MoD(N) had input into the design. (Rather like the “new” Atlantic Conveyor (and sisters.)) ASNCo was part of the British Transport Commission and operated large LST for HMG during the Suez Crisis. It was common practice for the Soviets to build “dual” purpose ships; that is to say ones built as merchantmen but with an eye to a military use. This an example of a surviving Soviet RoRo……
It isn’t good news we haven’t heard about the pilot. It is upsetting. It seems the media did their normal trick of spreading the news first and not think about the service families.
A good list of what to shop for if you want an anti-ship capability:
“The Harpoon family’s best known competitor is the French/MBDA *M38/39/40 Exocet, but recent years have witnessed a growing competitive roster at both the subsonic (Israel’s Gabriel family, Russia’s SS-N-27 Klub family, Saab’s RBS15, Kongsberg’s stealthy NSM, China’s YJ-82/C-802 used by Hezbollah in Lebanon), and supersonic (Russia’s SS-N-22 Sunburn/Moskit, SS-N-26 Yakhont, and some SS-N-27 Klub variants, India’s SS-N-26 derived PJ-10 BrahMos) tiers.”
1) looked like most of the fleet, I counted
2 Mistrals
4 LPD’s
3 (I think) LaFayettes
2 Horizons
3 Mine hunters
2 Fleet supply vessels
2-3 of those small frigates they use for colonial duty.
CDG (Looking very tired, rusty forlorn, without a sign of life on board)
Was in port, not looking like it was going anywhere soon-(no commitments? cash strapped?)
2) Generally how small- even the Mistrals looked compared with the Mediteranian Ferries and cruise ships, comming in and out.
Cant help thinking navel designers, and those who commission ships are missing a trick here.
I3) In particular the supply and amphibious ships could be easily converted on the drawing board from commercial designs raft mounted engines and a few extra bulkheads cannot be that expensive.
4)Something or other ‘of the seas’ was in port about 100,000 tons of cruse ship .
It made CDG look like a Row boat. L kept looking at it and thinking how many ship based fighters of your choice you could fit on it?…
I think the posted TD photo proves, as I have suggested, that even for the CSAR capability we have to go begging:
“Apache Helicopter Takes off from HMS Ocean During Operation Ellamy (by Defence Images)
Are those US helcopters on the deck?”
- referring to the two near the aft of HMS OCEAN
Thanks for the Perseus ref (as it was also the name for a cancelled USN asm, the Paris Air Show launch news escaped my attention (USN is now working on LRASM).
The list was about existing asm’s and we just heard (from Paul R) about Klub being available container-packed. Saab is working on a 1000 km ranged version of RBS15 (does not sound like any of the existing clients as it would bypass the sea bordering the client nation).
But back to Perseus, by 2030 AESAs will be cheap as chips: they will put one on the missile, and add a laser radar to complement (all-weather)!
Further, it could be coming to the RN “A team of nine British, French, German and Italian engineers from MBDA, together with representatives from the Royal Navy and the French Navy, has evaluated the requirement and the solution for Perseus from operational analysis through to key performance specifications”
- current Harpoons will expire around 2020, this replacement only becomes available 10 years later
RE “kept looking at it and thinking how many ship based fighters of your choice you could fit on it?…”
- too many! Think if the Canberra had been lost
I find it incredible that USMC packs the whole MEU (including the air component) on one ship. Except that the air component has by now grown so much that even an “America” can’t hold it (hold yes; operate no). Will soon be rectified, if the F35B gets cancelled.
- the above with ref to the leaps&bounds development of asm’s
If you look at any aircraftcarrier even Nimitz Class they are very tight for space. So a lot of design work goes into filling every nook and cranny, designing ‘efficient’ layouts.
Expensive design work.
Wht if we said ‘F**k it’ we will just buy a big boxy hull and for £1billion (remember QM2 only cost half that and she is propper ocean going ship not a floating hotel). And then put 18 or 24 fighter aircraft on it with lots of space for maintenence spares, fuel weapons, Secret squirrels, Small Peruvian Trade delegations etc etc, You know flexibility. It would have double the range and sustainable sorte rate of the CVF, AS SHE IS LIKELY tO ENTER SERVICE AND SPEND MOST OF HER LIFE DEPLOYED.
And would cost half as much to build.
As with other thread, I have just posted, we are reinventing the wheel again. The worlds ship yard now routinely build ships that make Nimtz look average sized at best. There is simply no need to get all specialized and expensive about big hulls.
So I am not talking about filling it with a hundred aircraft just saying:-
You have a millitary cargo, Soldiers, Helicopters, Fixed wing Fuel/stores, cruise missiles whatever.
Pick the Commercial hull of your choice that it will fit in, (available off the shelf from 10,000 to 200,000 tons and fit it in!
Who cares if it leaves a bit of space round the edges.
Look at cost benefit curves and use the available technology to make them quiet, stick in a few more bulkheads and sail away.
There are for example Commercial cargo hulls out there in the 20,000 ton class that do 25 knots and are very sea worthy. Stck the gubbins from a T45 on it and save a hundred million a ship and reduce maintenence costs somewhat.
I thought you were talking about troop carriers, not carriers.
At least for the former, now you know where to order them from. “The Oasis class have surpassed the earlier Freedom class as the world’s largest passenger ships. At 360 m (1,180 feet) in length Oasis is 21 metres (69 ft) longer than the prior largest passenger ship, the Independence of the Seas and classmates. Oasis also is 8.5 metres (28 ft) wider, and with a gross tonnage of 225,282, is almost 45% larger(5,400 passengers).
Like the Freedom class, the Oasis class ships are built by STX Europe (formerly Aker Yards) in Turku, Finland. The first of the Oasis class, priced at US$1.24 billion (€ 900 million) reportedly is the most expensive commercial ship ever built”
- still, don’t put too much at risk at any single point, e.g a vessel
“Priced at US$1.24 billion (€ 900 million) reportedly is the most expensive commercial ship ever built”
Circa £800 mill read em and weep :- we could have 4 and still get change out of the current cvf hull program!
Like I said it applies from TD’s Forward squadron patrol ships, up to super carriers. lets order the hulls and fit them out with bits that go beep and bang in the uk.
RE:”Small Peruvian Trade delegations” – I feel you’re being overly optimistic; what with Ministers wife, sister in law, 20+ other family members, friends, gardener, various pets and Llamas…
There are rumours on the web that Gaddafi is in Zimbabwe. Perhaps it is time to dust of our “how would you invade Zimbabwe?” theories? It will make a change from chasing Argentinians around the South Atlantic. :)
Interesting read; similar idea I put forward for Light Dragoons, except they were intended to be rapid reaction/scout-skirmishers, working with heavier army units.
Of course having some native auxiliaries – sorry, allied forces – on the ground would appear to be helpful.
What are people thought on the UK defence industry?
I’m sure some of you have seen the comments by the Eurofighter bloke, saying it could be our last hurrah.
So do you agree that the UK is lacking in future projects. Ship building and its bit should be ok because of Type 26, but after that work on vanguard replacement?
UK aerospace wise? It seems we’ve got like 2 UAV in service. with another 2 research by BAE, 1 by QinetiQ. Then land based, well the countless posts on here it seems there is always something being researched and made but lacking in output.
Anyone really worried about the lack of projects and commitment from the government(s)
I’m now worrying that while we’re getting joint rivet, I don’t trust the politicians to be able to put our equipment on there.
I find it funny, in the times it talks about UK defence exports to these dictators and us being the second largest defence exporter(!!??!?!?!) it seems the we’re not helping ourselves by always chopping and cutting back projects because it will lead to well um lack of engineers(forced to go into other sectors or retrain) I met a builder, he managed the projects, he use to do be a sparky for missiles!!!!
Its really worrying the state of the projects and political will with them. Nimrod is a great example of that, once they were sorted and in the air, that would have done us well and in the mean time we could have started to design and test commercial airliners for the next platform, make a euro wide project out of it, because it seems the intelligence side of defence comes across as a big mish mash around europe and the world. I think the French would have gone with it (Didn’t they want to use our systems as well?) Screw germany, they’re a nightmare!
Given we really do have the capability and capacity to make good stuff, the problem form the point of view of sustained manufature is that the british armed forces are no too small to sustain a self contained industry.
We have to sell if we want to make projects worthwhile, since we are seemingly institutionaly unable to compromise design objectives, to more achievable levels, and insist on kit that is ‘perfect for our specialised requirements’
It can be a difficult sell abroad, Particulary as we have been unable to keep the prices competative.
We are number 2 in the world, but that is at least in part the result of a number of ‘BIG’ deals almost certainly involving large scale corruption, rather that the steady sales of say Mirage fighter, Meko frigates, type 200 odd subs, or M113 derivatives.
One shining example of what we could do is Japans ship buying and building program.
One desaster is Japans Aircraft buying and buildinng program, the one supplies steady upto date powerfull kit that would be sellable if their constiution allows it, the other provides expensive late into service stuff.
We adopt a policy of ‘No compromise with the customer’ rather than the customer is always right.
ASV awarded MoD unmanned surface vehicle contract
AUGUST 5, 2011
“Portsmouth, UK – ASV Ltd has recently been awarded a contract by the UK Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) for the Provision of Remote Controlled Naval Surface Target Systems and Associated Capabilities.
I can only guess the deal works out cheaper then having to find aircraft. But did we not have any aircraft of our own or a contract already for some simple troop transport?
Some recent words from V Admiral Daly, Deputy Commander of USN Fleet Forces:
“Daly acknowledged that the capability to conduct amphibious assaults has been somewhat diluted. “The demands of land conflicts over the last decade have forced something of a separation between our Navy amphibious forces and the Marines they are designed to carry into combat,” Daly said. “Only by training together, sailing together, fighting together, can we ensure that amphibious warfare remains a premier national capability — so the country is not dependent on overseas bases, and able to conduct forcible entry without a buildup, and without a permission slip.”
- sound familiar?
I first thought we had found someone to take a couple of our part time a330s before we even had them !! I can only assume that with the faster withdrawal of vc10 and tristar or the increases demands of aar in lybia were needing these to cover the cracks in afghan.
on another completely different topic that might be worth a watching the rn have let a film crew go with turbulent to the mid east on tv monday
This must be part of the famous VC10 problem: not too long ago they had to be recertificated to carry passengers.
But it can’t be all bad to have two aircraft that are maintained at the hub (Cyprus) and we only pay for the variable costs. Do they do this leg and RAF the A-stan leg (with aircraft that have defensive aids installed)?
British airship company, Hybrid Air Vehicles, now has its first civilian contract for a 50 tonne, 100 knots craft. This follows on from their 200 tonne lifter for the US Army.
Not news to me. It all depends how much credence you give to the reported “gap” between the Turkish government and the Turkish military. There was a bit of a purge in the army ranks not long back. We shall see.
Recently acquired two books on the Rhodesian SAS and the Selous Scouts; two archetypal counter insurgency forces, whose small numbers managed to have a large effect on the insurgent forces they faced. The latter of these two forces were reknown for their pseudo operations, which involved turning terrorist prisoners into soldiers, who had a very bad affect on enemy morale. Surely this tactic could be used in Afghanistan, such a force deployed along the Pakistan border could help to turn off the tap.
I have a small collection of books on the Rhodesian Bush War. And I agree that many of the tactics and strategies used by that very small army to police a very large could be transferred to Afghanistan. The current British deployment is nearly 3 times of the entire Rhodesian armed forces at the height of their war. They had only a few small helicopters and improvised.
@ All
The thread over on ARRSE about 1QLR is really interesting.
Lately, Gaby mentioned this project. Unlikely to deliver any hardware (like a new naval gun):
Future Maritime Fires
(FMF) Concept Phase
To support the DE&S International,
Guns, Missiles & Rockets (IGMR)
Project Team through the FMF
Concept Phase utilising a
collaborative MOD / Industry
approach
Mitigating the risk of divergence between the
T26 platform and fires solution, leading to
significant cost savings downstream
These two won’t deliver any kit, either, but might save bn’s:
Capability Audit Supporting the Dstl-led project to
improve Capability Audit process.
Specifically: conducting a review
of the current capability structure
to identify and recommend
improvements and conducting a
review of available tools
To enable Cap EP and the MOD Unified
Customer to make informed BOI decisions
across capability stovepipes
———————
Programme Board
Restructuring
To determine the scope,
boundaries and structures of the
Capability Delivery Programmes
required to best deliver the DCDS
(Cap) Capability Portfolio
Identification of the optimal structure to
manage the complex relationships between
programmes to facilitate the realisation of
intended benefits
Two out of these three “Export revenues were predominately from aerospace sales, making up 7.1 billion pounds, or 75 percent of the total. The major earners were BAE Systems’ Typhoon fighter jets and Hawk trainer jets, and AgustaWestland’s EH101 helicopters.” get a lot of flak, for some reason
- then again, this is an industry PR figure: if you export a Typhoon or an EH101, how much of each has been imported (prior)?
ACC
About 70% of the Typhoon value is simply imported
into the UK I believe.
Although I’m not sure where assembly fits into the work share splits, if everyone assembles their own from kits, it will be a bit lower, although not much.
An interesting angle on the (potentially) wider ramifications of the Syria situation; should the “solidarity” of Iran, standing be the side of the challenged regime is rewarded by a (secret) transfer of Yakhont anti-ship missiles:
“AEGIS systems, used on U.S. Navy and many NATO vessels, the European PAAMS, used by the Royal Navy, French and Italian navies and Israel’s new Barak 8 ship air defense system are designed to match such treats. So does Israel’s ‘Magic Wand’ system, employing the Stunner missile interceptor, capable to counter these potent missiles effectively if employed in surface/surface or ship/surface role. However, the majority of smaller naval vessels, still equipped with ‘point defense’ anti-missile systems were not designed to counter such high speed attacks, particularly when it comes in salvos of two or four missile.”
- USN sails there high-value units into the Gulf; I bet RN would hesitate to risk the few that can/ could be deployed (while to CIWSs installed on other vessels are deemed ineffective, or only partially effective)
The Navies of the world are underestimating severely, not just the threat from peer enemies, but the threat form non peer enemies who gain access to high end anti ship missiles.
They are not going to be easy or cheap to counter. BTW I have heard stories that Aegis has struggled against exisitng 2nd gen mislies like OTOMAT, in tests, in the 90′s. (Although I realise it will have been substantially upgraded since then).
ACC
It is of course very possible that Iran could scare the RN out of the Gulf, I doubt the US would see the threat.
Lets say Iran aims big, and knocks out a Wasp and its destroyer escort in a sneak attack.
Can you imagine what the US response would be?
The USNs fighting capability would be untouched, but they’d be out for blood, if they did something really stupid, and destroyed them on the eleventh of september….
The Hormuz scenario (by Ozdemir), extended to any more serious littoral scenario, concludes what is needed for single ships not to be sitting ducks against a submarine threat:
- If there is not a double helicopter capability,
– then ship-launched torpedoes are also required.
Current RN frigates should have one or the other capability expanded when they start to go into refits (Artisan and all that); for the former alternative that would mean sacrificing the manned helo for 2 or more RUAVs
Items highlighted in the immediate aftermath of the SDSR:
two new carriers, with one equipped to allow full interoperability with key allies;interoperable through the choice of “C” with one,and at the most interleaved in deployments with the other (AEW fixed wing assets might broaden that picture later)
• introduction of the more capable carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter instead of the vertical take off variant; looks like we are going to be relieved of our three “B”s, eventually
• six state of the art Type 45 air defence destroyers;Tick!No land-attack or ASW, when it would fit in?
• seven of the most advanced Astute-class hunter-killer submarines in the world;Tick!Maybe even one more if the Trident thing becomes an election issue
• replacing Type 23 frigates with Type 26 frigates and reducing the total number of frigates and amphibious ships;Dove-tailing the T23 refits, the T26 new launches and the related equipment swaps still totally in the dark (from now to through the 2020′s) at least until possible November announcement
• restructuring amphibious shipping to enable the landing of a Commando Group (up to 1,800 personnel);Delivering on related helo assets is still (?) hearsay, even though it looks like progressing
• five Multi-Role Brigades with a range of capabilities to operate across the variety of possible future conflicts;The 3-month review should reveal *if* they will have the kit to cover that spectrum (and *also* by when that might happen)
• a significant increase in Special Forces enabling manpower (medical, signals, logisticians);Isn’t this just restating what the previous Gvmnt had done? Nothing heard (but then again, ‘special’ comes close to ‘secret’)
Just watching Warship on Channel 5 a documentary about HMS Bulwark – lots of interesting things but the most surprising thing is that they have Chinese laundry men presumably on some sort of sub-contract – was rather surprised by that.
Australia has merged all her airborne units into their special forces, with 16 air assault being a defunct formation is it about time all our para battalions became SFSG.
“Thanks to Libya and the pre-mature loss of Ark Royal, some of the serious mistakes made in SDSR have become impossible to ignore – even by the politician’s involved in the decisions.”
“The problem now is to buy enough F-35C’s to form the three front-line squadrons of 12 aircraft that are needed to fill the decks of a QE in a crisis, and for once the RN and RAF will present a unified front!”
Watched most of it last night, the “training” seems distinctly, inaccurate, shall we say?
I’m sure Clarkson used a laser tag type system on a top gear test once, against British Army Snipers.
The Marines who are going to be shot at no doubt take it far more seriously than the ships company who are just out for a jolly, but, It doesnt look that useful, “they die when we get near” sounds bloody dangerous.
So, i keep reading that the US DoD has been told that they have make savings of squillions of dollars (well something in the region of a couple of trillion).
If they had a fire sale or just gave stuff away to get rid of manpower/operating costs, what would the commenters on TD buy/obtain?
@ paul g
V-hulled Strykers
Their stock of Excalibur rounds
Their stock of ATacMS’s
Their F-18Growlers
IP and design drawings for LRASM
- this will be produced as an air-launched weapon (LRASM-A) and a ship-launched weapon (LRASM-B). LRASM-A will concentrate on maintaining a low radar profile, while the –B model will be more about speed.
That way the RAF will get the aircraft that they have secretly lusted after.
Then lot’s of….
S-3 Vikings
Hawkeye’s
C-17′s
CH-53′s
AC-130′s
Newer Tomahawks
Rim-Ram or SeaRam, 30 or 40 systems at least.
Maybe a few Assault Ships, a few LST’s and some Fast Replenishment Ships. Sixteen’ish Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigates (they have 19 of them in service, i think!), would also find a welcome, loving home.
Might also go for nine or ten well maintained, late model, low mileage, Los Angeles Class Attack boats too. If that’s a no go, then i’d definatly take all of the converted Ohio Class instead, with complete weapon loads and 4 or 5 reloads.
Would also be very interested in a squadron of Goshawks and a Training Carrier.
A complete fleet (+ spares), of road Tank Transporters could come in handy as well.
Add all that to ACC’s stupendus list! If they ever decided to just give it away, that is :)
Sorry IXION, didn’t see your list…..definatly grab the M4′s!
I’d grab the M4′s if we let H&K reboot them to 416′s or 417′s I originally posed the question as it occoured to me that we “waste” apache D’s when training students and think it would be feasible to use 2nd hand A versions for the initial training, and then let the students on the D’s when doing the CTR phase at the ‘sham. I knew if i asked it would turn into a “dear santa” special!!! :-)
Isn’t there an advantage in that your very experienced instructors have ready, near instant access to the latest model which has all the newest gadgets?
Emergency happens, the cream of the crop are ready to rock?
instructors, teach the art of flying, which is why after the middle wallop phase students spend a year doing the combat flying phase. tables are slightly turned now as they need these guys to teach (QHI course is nails and your pilot spends a long time out of the loop at shawbury) and therefore quite a few are not getting operational experience, the ones who have that experience, well you don’t won’t to lose that while he/she goes on a QHI course, vicious circle!! (by the way my good friend is an apache instructor, it’s where i hear the gossip, and there’s no way i’m telling a gro bag wearer he was described as “cream of the crop” i’ll never hear the end of it)!!
I heard someone at the company i used to work for describe Lufthansa maintanance personel as “a bunch of anal-retentive robotic perfectionist’s, all of whom do not have the slightest idea that humans are mean’t to have a sense of humour!”.
Therefore, i would grab Germany’s entire inventory, you can keep whatever anyone else has. My stuff will not break down or fall apart, your’s no matter who it’s from, almost certainly will.
@ paul g
It’s a damm strange world. I know someone who’s son is now an instructor on Apache’s. Seven or eight years ago, or more, he (the father), showed me an odd picture of a Lynx in flight.
It is an odd picture cause it’s not immediately apparent that the aircraft is flying upside down. The thin greeny-brownish line at the top of the streaky grey background is actually the ground.
good chance i will know that person, obviously personnal security means we can’t check, shame. The guy i know has just been recognised for his services in training apache pilots. i’ve had a few scoops with the guys in fact i was posted to wallop for a while. the maintainence people didn’t like the lynx going upside down, lots of hours in the servicing bay after that!!
And we think PR11 + PR12 are bad:
“[US]Lawmakers have until this October to submit their recommendations for national security spending cuts to the Super Committee. The bipartisan congressional panel will then have to come up with nearly $1.2 trillion in savings across the government, including DoD.
If the Super Committee cannot hit that $1.2 trillion goal, it will force the White House to trigger an automatic, across-the-board cut to national security spending, which is known as the “doomsday” scenario on the Hill, which some have estimated could hit near between $600 billion and $1 trillion over the next decade.”
This piece came out on Sept 19
(relates to the above contribution in the way that if money is becoming tight, there is more incentive to coordinate the uses of assets with allies; just like in Europe the procurement pressures are driving EU nations together)
“The Air Force is set to release a formal proposals request for the first phase of development for the ground station by the end of this month, he said. A draft version of the proposal is already under review by Northrop program officials, Guerra added.
That said, company engineers are already working a set of open-ended approaches for the new common control station. Those open-ended approaches will make the ground station able to control Air Force, Navy and NATO-owned Global Hawks, Guerra told reporters during the Air Force Association’s annual symposium here.
Northrop officials are in the final stages of closing the NATO deal, in which the alliance will use the Global Hawk as the basis for its new Alliance Ground Surveillance program, Guerra said.
Along with the services and NATO, these new control station will also be able to meet the “unique requirements” of foreign militaries who are looking to get the Global Hawk into their arsenals.”
- Germany and Korea have done deals, Australia and Japan are in negotiation
- we are more likely to cancel the cancelling of Sentinel?
Latest report from rusi on Libya operation http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N4E7B610E8D672/
Makes interesting reading 22000 sorties flown of which 8500 were strike missions. It suggests a large number of sf were on the ground but not to lase targets for. I guess while we need to be cautious that the campaign is still not over we have removed a dictator with a gd level of capability without recourse to large NATO ground forces at a cost the uk about 250m pounds compared to a similar situation in afghan which has so far cost 16b.
Talk about a value laden, agenda setting piece of shit article. “Practise was uncovered”. Uncovered?!
Stupid, comfortable, middle class, latte sipping, blogging, mac using, meat provenance, Islington-ite tossers spewing out invective and shite about things they know nothing about and never have to experience because there’s better men out there to do the dirty work for them.
I’m sure the writer and the film makers feel suitably brutalised after watching “kill TV” and I hope they get some counselling.
@x would it be pessemistic of me to assume that the opening address of any BAe govt talks would include the sentence “we have an idea for a sea typhoon, that would save the jobs, but we need some cash to develop it…………!
I also thought that perhaps going into partnership to build a war plane with a country which is inclined towards passivity, a country that can’t balance its books (in a dodgy way,) and one that was late to NATO whose finances are weak and whose revenue pool is such that it has more in common with a South American state, perhaps wasn’t a very good idea.
I think that would not happen basically because BAE will make more money from F35 sales that any sea tyhoon project. Warton is where nearly all a/c testing is done along with typhoon build so as nimrod testing is not required and typhoon well down the road this maybe a area were reductions are coming. Typhoon production is also nearing the begining of the end and any indian order will be assembled in india we are seeing the beginning of the end for uk assembled military a/c. Brough is much the same mainly hawk work is down there with UK order complete and a assembly line in india the writing has been on the wall for some time.
@mark all good points, but this is BAe we’re talking about!! Plus just how safe is F35, don’t forget italy is a major player and according to reports they are on their arse at the mo, not mention the US DoD being told to look at saving $1-1.5 trillion. it’s called armegeddon day if it’s called.
So no harm in setting the ball rolling, don’t forget this is a company that used the factory in the north east as a bargining tool for FRES SV.
I know that i should already know this by now (thanks to you lot), but i found it very useful in understanding why things cost what they cost. Also i think i’ve finally grasped just how wildly optimistic Gov./MoD scenarios and figures are, when it come to defense planning/spending.
I haven’t actually met the dude i was on about, just know his dad. From some of what he’s said, no secret stuff or anything……they are very, very good, also quite mad :D
F35 is a safe as houses airforces have made it explicit. It forms a major part of there air sea doctrine. They have around 100 a/c in production now. There armour and army will see large reduction possible even a reduction in the carrier to 9. To allow spending on intelligence assets and debt reduction. Ino a 1tr sounds a lot but they 750b a year on
defence + overseas commitments.
As for the italians they moved heaven and earth to get the f35 production line they simply won’t give it up . I believe the only area of there budget they didn’t cut was the equipment budget as they need manufacturing jobs in Italy.
I would say the decision to get out of the a/c business in the nw was taken when they went for f35 and didn’t take up th us offer of final assembly along with allowing bae to sell it’s airbus stake. Some civi testing still goes on at warton. The cuts may have speed up it’s reductions a few years but the nation that help invent aerospace is slowly but surely getting out of the business.
You might want to look at this, cites a report by the UKNDA……personally i think they have been at the Tango again even though they make a lot of sense. Cause no way is any Government going to increase defence spend by 50% with all of the economic problems at the moment, even for a short while!
Well I saw on the BBC some photos of two labour MPs (I didn’t watch the video) probably moaning about the BAE job losses. You can rightfully moan about Nimrod, but did Labour start a new big project in aerospace, like um assembling planes and designing whole aircraft? it would have been nice to see some UAV in services!
I see we’ve submitted our bid for Eurofighter to Japan. Would be great to get it, If Japan wants to design a big spike thing or lumps of concrete on it, they jolly well can, we’re not going to stop them *hint hint america* Could get better if Japan allowed defence exports!
Michael, yes, thanks for that, have been reading it today
I think these former somethings now in the pay of the defence industry actually do more harm than good but there you go, I am sure there motives are good but they seem to have a knack of putting their foot in their mouths, we are not belgium, FI is ripe for the taking etc
Well i’d never heard of the UKNDA thinktank or wotever….but i know who Rose is.
Just thought that it was a bit crazy to want money that does not exist (ok it does but the Gov. have decided to give the money to people in the hopes and expectations that they won’t attack us, which i think will eventually be shown to be the useless idea that it is), so where did these experienced gentlemen expect the Gov. to find the extra 1% of GDP that they are calling for?
They don’t actually say….
This is why i like Think Defence so much, you and many other’s at least try to cost things and also think very hard about where the money will come from. Most here realise that the UK Gov. isn’t about to gut a flagship policy that they repeatedly talk about to anyone who puts a mic in front of them, unless there were an extraordinary threat on the horizon, or a Cold War Mark II or something.
I do think that defence has been cut far to much but the arguments that they are making aren’t good enough at the moment.
Agree with Mark that F35 is “safe as houses”. However, the first rule of military planning is not to take anything for granted. The USMC already took out an insurance against “B” by mixing their order to be Bs and “C”s.
Now the USN has taken their insurance as well. It is very rare to see them as a bidder and the natural interest is of course to keep the F18 production line open as long as possible – even if that is achieved by supplying components to Japan for final assembly. This piece was released yesterday:
“US aerospace/defence firm Boeing has teamed up with the US Navy to offer the company’s Super Hornet design to Japan. If the terms are accepted, the Boeing F/A-18E Block II could potentially become the Japanese Air Self Defence Force’s next frontline combat jet.
In April 2011, a Request For Proposals (RFP) emerged from Japan for the supply of a new jet fighter and, according to Boeing, this gave a 26 September deadline for manufacturers to submit their designs. The Boeing/US Navy Super Hornet proposal represents a response to this RFP and concerns an upgraded version of an aircraft type that the US Navy has deployed to locations the world-over.
The Japanese Air Self Defence Force presently operates a number of US-origin aircraft, including F-15J Eagles and F-4EJ Phantom IIs”
- so the Eurofighter folks weren’t there of their own initiative, but because of the RFP that closed on Monday.
Who knows how good the report is, but the newspaper piece on it puts it in such light that I will rather get a copy of the new RUSI assessment.
RE “It is now quite clear that the vital twin pillars of Britain’s security for the past 50 years, the special relationship with the US and the continuation of an effective Nato, can no longer be guaranteed”
- it is not how much the Europe-part of NATO spends but *how* it is spent
- the new NATO is USA, Oz, Japan with Singapore and India as affiliated members (and Taiwan in the closet). Tot that up against any emerging threats…
Because of NSM, Norway’s take up of F35 has never been in question (it will integrated and F35 will be export promotion for it all over the world). The big debate in Norway has been whether two or three can be carried (due to the small weapons bay).
Here’s another one, showing great promise and test fired for the first time this month:
“Boeing’s CHAMP missile – standing for Counter-Electronics High-powered Microwave Advanced Missile Project – is capable of damaging or incapacitating electronic targets.
CHAMP is designed to attack without causing associated collateral damage, of the kind produced by more traditional weapons…
Keith Coleman, Boeing Phantom Works CHAMP program manager, stated in a 22 September press release
“This demonstration, which brings together the Air Force Research Laboratory’s directed energy technology and Boeing’s missile design, sets the stage for a new breed of nonlethal but highly effective weapon systems.”"
DART for the same gun showed great promise (in a different use)
- I haven’t come across a piece declaring it operational (was meant to go on Commandante class to start with)?
If anyone else has been watching “Warship”, the 20mm gunners seem to have the best job in the world, a recliner seat mounted with a cannon, what an idea!
I can’t tell if any form of EMP falls into directed energy category. The good old-fashioned way was to blow a nuke outside the atmosphere, but over the opponent’s installations or the forces to be “blinded & muted” – not to forget wiping all magnetic media empty
So Liam Fox is saying its the MOD fault
Half of the problems yes, but the other half are the politicians. Blind leading the blind? (In Fox case, a blind man taker over from another blind man)
Couldn’t agree more with what you’ve just said. In fact, I’d attach 85-90% of the blame to the politicians. It was Brown and the last Labour administration which kept altering the amount of money available to the services and making any sensible planning impossible (Take the debacle over FRES). The MOD has been overmanned and has made its mistakes. I certainly wouldn’t exonerate them but compared to politicians they have been relatively innocent.
Sorry, but I can’t argue in a sustained fashion with you on this one, TD, because I am unable to quote chapter and verse. I should have made a note, I suppose, of every time that funding, which seemed to be there at one moment, suddenly and inexplicably evaporated into thin air. I am convinced, for instance, that when FRES UV was cancelled after, what were they called, the “trials of truth” (or some similar pretentious title) that it was because funding was no longer there.
Still, you are in company with “the great and the good” in thinking that the top brass were to blame. Dr. Richard North, no less, took exactly that position. Mind you, I think he had just met some top MOD/Govermnment officials who were convinced that the money was there but that the Army just could not make up its mind as to which vehicle it wanted. I think it was fairly clear to all that they wanted the winner , the Piranha, but it was cancelled.
I am not exonerating the Army completely. Perhaps it is the case that with the Army reduced from 160,000 to 100,000, then the number of really “thinking”, perceptive, intellectual and strategically aware generals has also decreased. Add to that, the increased pressure that officers are under, because of decreased numbers, and you might begin to explain some of the Army’s deficient thinking.
The should have got the RSMs from the infantry, some REME senior NCOs, and a few other senior NCOs from parties with a potential interest (the RA etc.) and took them on a shopping trip. They would have told the generals which vehicle to buy. Simples
I put the ‘big picture’ procurement numbers out to 2035 on the T27 thread (just to highlight the crowding out effect between programmes as time passes).
To continue the same line of thought, would you rather
1. Not build the 4th Vanguard successor (and then not operate it over 30 years)
2. and , instead,take a full extra Tiffie Sqrn (of 14) and operate it over 25 years
3. or, take the full (almost?) order of FRES SV Bloc 1 of 474 vehicles and operate it over 40 years
Manpower, spares, maintenance: all included
One would have to rework the numbers for all of them to be for 25 years, but the orders of magnitude are indicative
What’s expensive to buy upfront, what’s cheap to run (once you have it, as it is not manpower intensive), how long can you expect “it” to be effective and hence not needing to be replaced
- no wonder the new catch word is matching “procurement time profiles” better
Agree with you absolutely, x. It is a long-standing complaint among the ranks (and NCOs too) that they are not consulted often enough. I think that things have improved in recent years, though. For instance, I know that rank and file Royal Engineer soldiers were consulted in some detail as to what equipment they wanted on Trojan.
The major party in the Coalition Gvmnt is learning:
“ministers are clearly rattled by the reaction to the planning shake-up. The rules are to be “redrafted for clarity”, the Times reveals.
According to the paper, Greg Clarke “is in the process of going through the document line by line” with the National Trust”
- they should have had the same approach with SDSR, rather than rushing it to coincide with spending review
- will Dr. Fox get the platform at some stage?
But no one resigns nowadays, Dominic: politicians or military officers. In fact, the last person in the military sphere I can remember resigning was Keith Speed, the Navy Minister, over matters of cuts. I don’t think that sense of honour is around today.
MikeW
As I said, I believe that tells you all you need to know about our generals, and politicians, and, well, civil servants have never resigned, but that just means they’ve always been out for themselves.
Anyway, didnt Robin Cook resign over the Iraq war?
Very like the rockwell ov-10 bronco. Its an interesting idea and could be used in a similar role too the RAFs diamond a/c. If you look thru TDs links in the DESI thread about reaper and the uk going to 3*24hr orbits requiring 44 crews and significant sat infrastructure you can see the possible benefits of this type of a/c.
A thought occurs.
Recently, when stamping on anyone commenting in favour of FRES, I asked, repeatedly, for what purpose does the army need this vehicle? And time after time after time, no one could answer in anything but the blandest generalities.
Now a random comment elsewhere set me thinking, the only part of military spending that everyone (with an opinion worth listening to) seems to agree on, is Vanguard.
Vanguard, is the only piece of military equipment with a clearly stated goal, in the event of nuclear war, slag moscow.
Every other piece of kit in service effectivly lost its goal when the USSR collapsed, and now its up for renewal, its basicaly impossible to justify.
I think the RN should have 12 T45′s with SAMPSON and a further 18 T45 hulls with whatever the Frogs and Italians whacked on their FREMM.
But theres nothing in the SDSR to justify that, theres nothing in the SDSR to justify the 6 T45s we have. Not even “retake the Falklands”, because the SDSR policy is to not lose it in the first place.
The RAF wants 400 fighters, its currently slated to get 240, it’ll probably end up as the 160 Eurofighters and thats it.
But what can it actualy point to to say, see, look at that, thats we need XYZ fighters? Given the Russians cant reach us at all without flying tankers over Europe, what do we even need 160 Fighters for?
The SDSR, for whatever reason, did a spectacular job of not answering that question.
And we wonder why its such a CF
SDSR was nothing other than a budget balancing exercise without making the politics to difficult by making difficult decisions like early withdrawal afghan.
I would say vanguard is indeed difficult to justify today with the advent of abm and this countries now limited convention capability. However it simply allows the political class to appear tough on defence.
“Given the Russians cant reach us at all without flying tankers over Europe”
Is simply not the case russian su-27,33,35 etc have 2000nm range and were design to support russian strategic bomber forces attacks on western European targets including UK. While now old and extremely unlikely russia retains both capabilities.
I have been asking them for the last year on this site and liek you say, you get generalities like, world power, class leading capability, etc etc. But few seem to have any idea about the defensive capability of this sort of kit, (look at the title of this website, bit of a clue).
The only functions of most of the kit we discuss is so we can effectivly stick our noses in other peoples business on the grounds that we should ‘do something’ about whatever.
If we cut out the deployabel brigade rubbish and went with underwater knife fighters, plus a reninforced battle group or two one based on marines, one based on 16 AAB. With the rest of the army deployed and trained for anti terrorist in UK/ Blue helmet/peace keeping abroad.
Then what we would we loose, i mean truly loose, in terms of national security?
According to Wiki, The 27 and 37 have ranges of 3500km. I assume the ranges are takeoff, fly 3500km, land, rather than takeoff, fly 3500km, turn around, fly 3500km back, land.
If I am right,
At the very least, they would need to take off and tanker to the Russian border, but even that puts them in a Falklands situation, fighting at their absolute limit fuel, against a force without fuel constraints, and even worse, with AWACS.
Tornado ADV was built on basicaly that premise, by the time they get into a position to threaten the Navy or the UK, they’ll be so near the end of their reserves that a few long ranged missiles thrown in their general direction will force them to fly home without attacking or press home but run out of fuel well before they get home.
TD
Expecting Cook to resign from the HoC is pushing it a bit, but he should have refused the labour whip.
US “giving” greece 400 abrahms and a load of AAV7′s obviously getting a bit twitchy about turkey. Hope there’s a tesco near the camp with the cheap fuel only way they’ll be able to fill ‘em up!!!
Iran’s Qader Stealth Cruise Missile Enters Service
- Advanced Iranian cruise missile with 124 mile range enters service, as Iran pledges to build up naval assets in the Atlantic…
- launched from ship, land, air
[Armed Forces International Newsletter - Wednesday 05th October 2011 ]
Interesting anti-invasion aspect: ” a load of AAV7′s”
Turkey/ Israel spat is all about making Turkey more credible in the wrestle for regional hegemony with Iran. Egypt (internal turmoil) and Saudi Arabia (concentrating on shoring up near neighbours – there are more people in Yemen than in the Kingdom!)have at least for now withdrawn from the race.
I doubt it very much that Turkey will get its F35s if things continue to proceed as lately.
ACC
Iran has a habit of announcing successful tests of things not even completed on the drawing board, remember their recent missile test, that they had to photoshop because half the missiles didnt even launch?
I’m afraid I must disagree with you about Turkey, According to Madcap Cardigan, Iran is its best friend in the world. The legacy of the Ata Turk is long forgotten.
Why have enemies when you don’t have to?
- just days ago they confirmed participation in the (anti-Iran)missile shield
- not being friends (anymore) with Israel gives you plenty new friends in the region, though
got the link working, wouldn’t load last night, still think if they are giving away 75-100 AAV7′s we should have some, even if it was just convert them to cmmd posts for the beach, better than FFR land rover! It’s BAe kit after all
We think that 2035 is far out in the future (Ch2 and WR OSD dates). The US plan for armour includes 2045 for Abrams.
A small problem; they have enough of them. How to keep a private company line from not closing? Give some out to folks that cannot afford to buy them *today* rather than mothballing them in a desert.
“U.S. authorities approved to grant 400 M1A1 Abrams tanks to the Greek Army, which will include options between simple refurbishment – worth tens of millions dollars for all the tanks- and upgrading to a higher level of operational capability, with a higher corresponding cost.”
- it is that later upgrade that is the key
- also a message to Turkey, to stop flexing their muscles (War on Israel; they should try that!)
Great idea that command post. If we can keep five Leopards going (as Hippos) surely we can have two of those CPs per Commando, rather than getting all the radios wet in Landies?
How hilarious: “ACC
Your not my enemy, but I dont go around saying your my best friend in the world either.”
- I was talking about Turkey’s regional policy (and aspirations)
“Both Cardigan and Dinnerjacket”
- I recognise the first actor; who’s the other one (not DJ, surely)?
Acc
My point was there is a middle ground between being at war and being someones best friend.
Cardigan was quite insistnat on the best friend, noty good friend, not regional partners….
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Madcap Cardigan
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
ImADinnerJacket
Cardigan is mine from, probably this morning, ImADinnerJacket is much older.
some donkey walloper (life guards) nearly set me on fire with 24v in BATUS! he decided to save some time by taking the civvy radios out of the 432 but left the wires hanging down the back which meant when i came to do my bit the positive lead touched the hull and turned it into 1 bar electric heater, oh how i laughed when the batteries blew up around my knees and i inhaled loads of acidic smoke! Still 2 days in hospital with fit nurses!!
Apart from from wading issues i’d feel safer inside an AAV7 with mild steel stopping the shag nasties trying to fill me with smokey holes than green canvas!
Are you telling me painting stuff matt olive green doesn’t make it bulletproof? ;)
I am a big fan of the AAV, but I don’t think it is something I would like to go to war in. But as a protected truck (they can carry 4.5t) or as a vehicle for (civilian evacuation) operations similar to those we have just seen in Libya it is ideal. A forward thinking MoD (with enough amphib lift) would do well to ask the US for a squadron or two’s worth. On a tangent perhaps a battalion’s worth to requip’ a RAC regiment.
Hi TD, just got some bear bones info about the New Employment Model. Draft is released autumn 2012, start to impliment it in 2015, should fully implemented for all by 2025.
@x, good point there, the RAC have proved themselves in the sandpit doing all the driving, commanding of the various vehicles, so why not have a commando sqn (works for the engineers and artillery 59&29 respectivly) can be based at bovvy, underwater knife fighters can have a first wave hit the beach under some form of protection and the tankies can do their job as fire support after dismount.
It would be good to give the tankies something back after working so hard on ops with this massive “your screwed” cloud hanging above them.
I have had similar thoughts, but they don’t go quite as far as dismounts for AAVs.
RM have armour support unit, but 16 AAB just has a recce Sqrn dedicated to them.
I would pool the arrangement, for use as appropriate by either one:
- Vikings (as per today; fully amphibious and good airmobility)
- the new Scimitar Mk2′s & related models (in the long run; good airmobility again)
- AAVs for Command Post (fully amphibious); as their payload is huge, they could also carry a mortar team (or two). In many armies the mortars are directly with the Coy/ Bn HQ element – for tactical reasons which, in this case, would nicely marry up with amphibious & protected transport
The Foxhound/ Jackal patrol & recce story is additional; I don’t think anyone counts them as armour?
Thanks Mark, low tech is the way to go (as evidenced by the immediate loss by Georgia of 4 Hermes drones at the start of hostilities with Russia) and make the capability organic and available in numbers, exemplified by
“two others [Desert Hawk 3 Detachments] are mobile—one with the Brigade Reconnaissance Force, the other with the Warthog group.
“The key with DH3 is it’s quick into action,” says Gray. “It can get into the air in 5-8 min., and we’ve flown almost 2,000 flights on Herrick 14,” the U.K.’s Afghanistan deployment, which began in April.
The aircraft is programmed to return to a given position using GPS. It flies a U‑shaped profile on its way in, enabling it to assess local wind conditions and minimize impact on landing. The modular airframe disperses impact forces by breaking apart.
The new assisted trim landing (ATL) system gives greater control to the user during recovery, including the ability to manually flare for a gentler touchdown. The system was fielded in July.
We can use the Xbox 360 control pad [with ATL]! …”
Next? Perhaps .50cal sniper rifles for the engineers to dispose located mines/ IEDs quickly and safely, from a distance?
ACC
I’m a big fan of really cheap UAV’s.
I know its the example that annoys everyone, but, whats a couple of video cameras and GPS on a small drone. Launch them from a destroyer/frigate to the east of the Falklands, have them over fly the island, and land on a ship to the west, or the other way.
Pop the hard drives, create your own little google earth map.
If the enemy shoots them down,. well, he’s just revealed his position, and they were disposable anyway.
“Next? Perhaps .50cal sniper rifles for the engineers to dispose located mines/ IEDs quickly and safely, from a distance?”
Dont get me started on pointless sacrifice of bomb disposal experts.
This is the point: a layered structure, cross-cueing targets or areas for further investigation:
- DH3s with the troops on the ground
- Watchkeepers on higher and persistent orbit
- Astor or satellites as the next layer
RE ” well, he’s just revealed his position, and they were disposable anyway”
- anyone on the other side, up to some “real” business, could not afford to fire on these assets as the next one would immediately be on their case
- and even if they don’t fire, the probability of detection is high
From that link ” Many Reapers and Predators don’t encrypt the video they transmit to American troops on the ground. In the summer of 2009, U.S. forces discovered “days and days and hours and hours” of the drone footage on the laptops of Iraqi insurgents. A $26 piece of software allowed the militants to capture the video.”
- Tornado is trialling secure coms
- tactical comms system, covering also live video seems undoable (who said secure? Is that also a requirement?)
I see from looking at the “Jane’s Defence Weekly” website that an article (dated October 6th) suggests that a review of the British Army structure could go much further and cut much deeper than was indicated under the SDSR.
Mention is made of extra swingeing reductions in the service’s future force structure and equipment procurement plans, amongst other things. Unfortunately I am not a subscriber to Janes and do not have the full article but they are usually very accurate in the their reporting.
Now, I know that in a way we have been expecting this and there have been several comments on this site regarding the rushed nature and inadequacy of the SDSR. Hoewever, I find myself wondering “What the hell else can they cut?” We are down to the bare bones at the moment and cannot even manage one medium-sized campaign in Afghanistan.
Perhaps the Territorial Army is going to be held up as the solution or magic potion to make up numbers. However for that to work, the remaining regular units will have to be “nails”, superbly trained and equipped. If there are to be even more reductions to equipment programmes how can that happen?
We are skint, let’s face it. So stand by for the TA to be equipped with Bedfords and knackered Landies for another decade! Maybe we should stick on this site to suggesting fantasy fleets, because we’re never going to get something even half-decent in reality until another couple of decades have passed.
Are you joking about Janes?! I get them through Armynet. I would never pay for them. Some of their publications are horrendous and I hold little more store in their defence weekly. Honestly. The equipment publications are little more than the brochure for the kit and the world armies is years out of date and wrong.
So, it looks like I got it wrong. Strange, because what seems like only a few years ago the organization was constantly being described as world-renowned and authoritative!
Anyway, what about the truth or otherwise of the particular story I mention? Nothing in it, do you think? Exaggeration? False?
Like most sources I’d take it with a massive pinch of salt. They still have to fill their column inches. When I got to read all the Janes publications through my Armynet account I was bitterly disappointed. Perhaps once they were good, perhaps some of their publications are stringer than others, but for the fortune they charge I’d expect consistency. There’s more up do date info on wiki. I shit you not.
I personally, and I know several others, don’t treat Janes as any more authoritative as say a broadsheet.
They are certainly expensive, I’ll grant you that!
Maybe I am mistaken but I can’t remember a Jane’s story which has been proven wrong in recent times.
@TD
“Plus of course, I like to think we are pretty accurate around these parts as well.”
Of course you/we are, TD. Never thought or said otherwise. No one’s answered the question yet and I’m off to bed.
“They still have to fill their column inches. ”
- this is the sad truth
- I always had to buy their guides a couple of years old as my pocket money didn’t stretch to new editions… that was in the 60′s/ 70′s, though
Just read this http://uk.news.yahoo.com/iran-tells-turkey-change-tack-face-trouble-141200377.html – seems that Turkey is playing a rather fine political game – on one hand its playing hard ball with Israel (I going to leave aside the reasons for this or say if I think Israel should have apologised) while on the other hand they seem to be alienating Iran – so good chance of more tensions in the region not less!!!
I see where you are going. I would move a whole FRR to 3 Cdo. And do the same for a brigade based on the Parachute Regiment. As I have said many times here I think 16AAB is a waste of resources.
One of the Para battalions should join SFSG, the other go over to 3 commando brigade and be maintained as the Airborne Ready Group, or as a separate entity. 1 rifles should return to the army and to the multi role brigades, if it isn’t chosen for disbandment.
I would suggest that the UK would not want a Nimitz-class. The US method is to be much more manpower intensive and with a ship’s company of 3,200, it would require five times more men than a Queen Elizabeth-class carrier, or sixteen times more men than a Type 45.
At an extremely conservative estimate, the cost of the crew’s wages alone would be £64m per year, before you start operating aircraft from it.
@mr fred,
I’m no ships crewing expert, however i did an exercise in germany (a chuffing big cold war one ie 120,000+) and our FRG (forward repair group) numbered about 30 and the americans were co-located looking after approx same ammount of vehicles had approx 90 guys. They had guys specialise in parts of the engine, ie it took 4 guys to fix faults, ie a guy who only did carbs, one who only did suspension etc etc my point being although there’s more chance of platting snot than us getting a big flat top, would we have the same crewing levels; i think we wouldn’t!
Paul g,
Given that their ships are designed with that level of manning in mind, short-staffing is liable to lead to problems.
The other option is to implement automation into the ship, but then it’s a more costly acquisition. Since we will already have two decent-sized carriers, it would make more sense to just buy another one if we wanted more.
“I would move a whole FRR to 3 Cdo. And do the same for a brigade based on the Parachute Regiment. As I have said many times here I think 16AAB is a waste of resources.”
Sounds quite an interesting idea. Could you expand a little, though? I might be rather obtuse at times (well, most of the time actually) but I thought that 16AAB was a brigade based on the Parachute Regiment. Last time I knew anything about it, it included 2 Para and 3 Para. It has other elements, of course: Army air corps regiments, a 105mm artillery regiment, a recce squadron, an engineer squadron and logistics, signals, REME, medical units, etc. etc.
Do you feel perhaps that some of these supporting resources are being wasted? Do you also feel that your “brigade based on he Parachute Regiment” should be a sixth Multi-Role Brigade? I’d be interested to hear a few more details because my first response was “But surely we need to keep a rapid response force.”
I once had a long chat with the bloke who was responsible for the building the launch tubes in the Vanguards. He was responsible for hatch, tube, and related systems. He visited Electric Boat and found out in the US his job was split between a whole team….
@ Phil
Centre of excellence? Gosh. It is the biggest brigade in the Army. Compare it to the uber-efficient 3Cdo.
Nothing to deep. I just think 3Cdo should have its own organic light armour. The USMC MEUs always deploy with a troop of LAV.
The Parachute Regiment is a prime asset. And it should be put on a footing that mirrors the Royal Marines. In a brigade on its “own” ; a brigade that doesn’t include line infantry battalions. That isn’t to decry the skills or abilities of those line battalions. We don’t have the assets for true helicopter warfare as practised by the US. And line battalions have proven themselves more than up to the task. We don’t have the assets for mass parachute drops either. But what “we” do have is the capability to stage the training and selection programmes for the Parachute Regiment (and airborne support trooping) that sets them apart as an elite. That is what needs to be treasured and invested in (and more intellectually than really in money terms.)
Why would you chop the line battalion? Has it not occurred to you that it is there for a reason?
Centre of excellence it is, for heliborne and parachute operations and rapid reactions thereby.
I really meant to say centre of institutional knowledge, which is a term I have used elsewhere on this site but I was on my iPhone and enjoying a tipple or five.
Right, got you. At first I thought that you were intending to reduce the Paras to more or less “ordinary” infantry and make them available to the new MRBs. I still haven’t fully understood how you intend to organize the support for your “brigade based on the Parachute Regiment”. So would you just strip out the line infantry battalion(s) and the helicopter regiments from 16 AAB? All the other support elements would be kept, would they?
What is essentially being promoted is 2 and 3 Para becoming a Brigade Combat Team, were all members are parachute trained. It would be a mirror image of the US 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team.
@ Phil – “16X is just essentially an admin organisation and centre of excellence to generate two rapid reaction units or a brigade at notice.”
How much is the centre of institutional knowledge worth in comparison to the ability to generate two rapid reaction units or a brigade at notice?
And does one become less relevant or valuable in the absence of the other?
I ask because i believe the split between persistent MRB’s and punitive Airmobile/Amphibious brigades is valuable, but i recognise Jed’s complaint that 16AAB is sat on a vast amount of resource and capability that it cannot use effectively in the conduct of its notional brigade role.
I value 16AAB’s ability to generate two rapid reaction units or a brigade at notice, and would like to see 3Cdo capable of the same, but would we do better to strip a large part of the AAC from it and attach them to the MRB’s?
@ X – “I would move a whole FRR to 3 Cdo. And do the same for a brigade based on the Parachute Regiment. As I have said many times here I think 16AAB is a waste of resources.”
That is a very attractive idea, but i have never had any problems with the presence of line regiments in specialist brigades, because there is a room for line regiments in an organisation with a brigades size and role.
I don’t see the value in moving AAC assets from 16X to the Brigades – it would almost be a paper exercise (since the cabs can be attached to a deployment for exercises / operations) except in one damaging sense – it would break the institutional body of knowledge re: working with helicopters.
You gain nothing (since the units won’t physically move) but loose a lot.
The peacetime organisation of the Army is little more than admin niceties.
Just to follow up my previous comments. On giving the idea some reflection, it perhaps does not seem quite so acceptable.
You assert on the one hand that we don’t have the assets for true helicopter warfare as practised by the US. On the other hand, we don’t have enough heavy tanks, infantry combat vehicles and artillery left (after you have equipped the 5 MRBs) to make your Parachute Brigade into something more akin to a multi-role brigade. So, despite your adding an FRR to the Brigade, it would still essentially be helicopter-based, wouldn’t it? (Chinooks, Pumas, Apaches, etc.) So you’re really back to something like 16AAB.
Or are you talking in terms of their being purely airborne (parachutists), rather than air mobile or air assault?
You could form the aac into self contained battle groups of maybe 8 Apache and 8 Lynx and allow them to be attached to what ever brigade needs aviation assets. as it is 16aab and all it incorporates is to much of a mish mash and far too large.
How is it a mish-mash? The only difference between it and another brigade is that has more helicopter units and I have explained why that is so. And I have also explained that these battle groups as you call them would be a paper exercise since such force packages are already more than capable of being generated – who do you think is boss of the Apache’s in TFH right now?
5 Chinook squadrons (assuming that the two now Merlin HC3 move to the Chinook and the fleet, once expanded, takes on the handy “rule of the five” structure.
5 Lynx MK9A / Wildcat squadrons + one special forces Lynx squadron + 847 Naval Air Squadron
2 Puma squadrons, on five Flights + OCU Flight
2 Regiments parachute capable, two airmobile, currently in 16AA.
My solution:
Combat Aviation Brigades, one for each MRB, plus Commando Helicopter Force (brigade).
Shape:
Commando Helicopter Force
1 x Apache squadron to become the main ship-capable attack helo squadron
847 NAS with 6 Wildcat helos for escort, scout, light utility and other roles, as planned
845 and 846 Squadrons (plus 848 as OCU) with the Merlin HC4 after transfer
The combat aviation brigades would receive the battalions of the current 16AA, so that each CAB would have not just the helos, but an organic air mobile infantry battalion (one more Light Role battalion to be made air mobile), two of which would also be parachute capable.
7 Royal Horse Artillery would break up, and artillery support would be reduced to a battery for each battalion, armed with 120 mm mortars.
The guns would go the MRBs.
16AA is disbanded, colors pass to one of the CABs.
PARA regiment safe, each MRB given an attached air element with strike, find, defend and lift capability.
At any one time, one battalion of infantry, plus a battery of heavy mortars, would be on alert to be airlifted in an area of crisis. The two Parachute-capable battalions would also make it possible to maintain at readiness a parachute intervention.
1 PARA stays with Special Forces Support as now.
Helicopters remain based where they are to keep costs down, but ground personnel is reorganized and an expeditionary structure, a variation of the Expeditionary Wing of the RAF, is used for the CABs.
The Commando Helicopter Force would stay unchanged, with its own ground crews and ways, even though it would still be under JHC.
Reason of the move: the above CAB structure is a mirror of what a long-term, sustainable helicopter force for enduring ops abroad look like for the UK, as a look at the current shape of the Afghanistan helicopter component will prove. It also happens to be the force mix that a deployed MRB is going to realistically need, covering all possible roles.
In practice I’m sacrificing an Army Air Assault Brigade, along with some of its men, units and structures (the current sizes and nature of which leave me unconvinced for several reasons) for reorganizing the air mobile infantry and helicopters to give all MRBs an air maneuver element, ready to deploy, in a self-contained pack, inclusive of airmobile infantry for vertical maneuvers.
I’ve called them brigades for comfort, just because the US do, but the effective nature of the officers assigned to such formations is up to debate.
They would be Joint Helicopter Command managed, for obvious reasons, and might replace the current AAC regiment structure. The helicopters would, ideally, be based together, with each CAB in an home airbase, but this of course is unfeasible, so Apaches would stay in Wattisham, Chinook in Odiham/Benson, Puma in Benson, Merlin at Yeonvilton along with the Wildcat. The Lynx MK9A would probably remain at Dishfort.
For names, badges and ethos of said formations, i’d look, of course, at the past airmobile and para divisions and brigades, mainly. So 6th, 1st and 5th CABs are a very distinct possibility.
In addition there would be:
Joint Special Forces Aviation Wing
Roughly as now structured:
657 AAC (Wildcat helicopters)
651 AAC (Islanders)
7 Squadron RAF (chinooks – would be part of a Combat Aviation Brigade, but also train for SF work; not optimal, but best that can be done)
A squadron of C130 (then A400 Atlas)
Plus the two Puma squadrons, which could still detach a Flight to any deployed Combat Aviation Brigade when necessary, and ideally do some C-SAR work.
So then when 16 aab deploys to helmand they being with them more helicopters? If not the 16 aab is simple just a light formation which is rapidly deployable. It should be streamlined to it core function in the same way 3 commando brigade is only in 16 brigades case it has a battlegroup parachute capable as opposed to amphib. The helicopters can sit away from it in the same way commando helicopter force does. We simply don’t have the helicopter numbers. They should be more independent and higher held than currently
The reason i’m posting you a link to this story is that my computer has developed a rather strange, singleminded glitch…..
If i look at a political or defence story that also allows comments at the Guardian (not any other online paper), my screen flashes for a second after about 10 seconds…..and about 30-45 seconds later i get a warning that Internet Explorer is using lot’s of memory. When it flashes for a split second i get the impression of a fullscreen command prompt window. No idea what it is, however most people who’ve seen it just look at me then walk away with a funny look on their face :)
I’ve tried AVG, Microsoft Security and Wireshark….no luck with any of them. Also it started very recently, i first noticed it after the hacking story broke.
When 16X deployed to Helmand they had in support JHF(A). It had Apache’s. I don’t get what you are trying to say.
“It should be streamlined to it core function in the same way”
It is! The only thing it has different from other Brigades are 2 AAC regiments of Apache which are part of 16X because it is considered, as I have said, a centre of institutional knowledge for AHs to work with ground forces.
To be honest, you could chop them to be under JHC directly but again it really makes no difference at all as it is still inside that body of knowledge.
So I will concede that you could move the AHs to be directly under JHC.
But any further re-organisation is pointless. The Armed Forces just do not work like that, for the same reasons that battlegroups are not formed in peacetime.
Yep but those helicopters stay when 16aab goes those helicopters also fly from ocean in libya no 16 aab. Those same helicopters fly in support of 3 commando.
AH are just as like to operate with 4th armoured as 16aab that what im getting at
JHC in its self needs to move away from 16aab which in itself need to become the airborne equivalent on 3 commando providing the parachute battlegroup.
To many believe 16 aab has all the helicopters rightly or wrongly. The knowledge in JHC need to be independent across the 3 services imo and get helicopters on a long term independent budget replacement stream that can operate on land and sea.
“Well many here as you know would reduce helicopter ownership to two services, those who use them the most with real needs, that is the Army and FAA.”
I think it in the same terms, and it is not a mystery. So, yes. I agree.
“Gabs all a pointless paper exercise.
The choppers are under command of JHC for a reason.
These CABs are effectively what happens when an aviation force package is generated.”
Exactly! We currently get to CABs already, sort of, but effectively by moving through JHC, RAF, Army, FAA and finding an arrangement every time it is necessary, without ever dishing out a proper solution.
And inside/outside, depending on the moment at hand, sits 16AA, and the concept of parachute ready battalion and airmobile infantry and the – not very clear – real link with the choppers. When was last time that 16AA made something genuinely different from what companies of infantry airlifted on Chinooks in Helmand regularly do…?
Outside again, the notion that a brigade is what the UK is likely to employ in the future, eventually, for a while, reinforced with elements from another brigade. But that’s it.
So.
Are we sure the current method of delivery is correct?
Would it not work better if we prepared such aviation packages once and for all, and kept them ready for deploying, in addition to MRBs, as said helicopters are likely to be employed anyway…?
Brigade combat teams, of land (MRB) and air (CABs), meant to operate together.
I might be wrong, of course, but i find it makes sense.
The americans have found the concept to be extremely functional, and i believe the UK could benefit from it as well, even if the sizes of the forces involved are, of course, extremely different.
Yeah those helicopters stay but really it makes no practical difference whatsoever. They are centralised under an air assault brigade so that there is a body of institutional knowledge.
Parcelling out the AH sqns to the brigades is a pointless exercise. We are not the US Army, there is no purpose to putting AHs in every brigade when they deploy as such anyway.
As I have said, apart from 2 AH Regiments, 16X is organised almost exactly the same as an infantry brigade, it has 4 manoeuvre units and the appropriate sized CS and CSS units. And it already provides the ABTF.
Mike W said “Or are you talking in terms of their being purely airborne (parachutists), rather than air mobile or air assault?”
No. The Parachute Regiment and supporting troops who complete the same training are an elite. P Company looks to be nearly as hard as some of the stuff done in Lympstone. The parachute training is more a test of backbone. Yes there may be need at some point to drop a small number of these troops in action but really the UK can’t do it on a such scale that if the capability itself were to disappear it would hardly be notice. No its the men that make the airborne special. Just as Grenadiers and Fusiliers don’t exclusively throw grenades or the Rifles aren’t light infantry or are the only ones to shoot rifles so I don’t see why it is such a jump to detach the idea of the Parachute Regiment from “parachuting” per se yet as I have said keep them as an elite which at the moment is there true worth.
As for you mentioning in reality. Well if we kept our discussion here anchored purely in the day to day realities of the UK’s 21st armed forces there wouldn’t be much of interest to discuss.
As for helicopters the US Army’s budget PA for its helicopters roughly equates to the MoD’s total spend on the RAF. And the Yanks seem to get more bang for their buck too.
“And inside/outside, depending on the moment at hand, sits 16AA, and the concept of parachute ready battalion and airmobile infantry and the – not very clear – real link with the choppers. When was last time that 16AA made something genuinely different from what companies of infantry airlifted on Chinooks in Helmand regularly do…?”
So you’d create permanent staffs and support structures to support a pointless layer of bureaucracy so we can have CABs?
What does 16X provide? Do you think that working with helicopters in such a fashion is downloaded into Officers brains in Sandhurst? It takes expertise, knowledge, experience and organisation and 16X provides this. It generates these things and it gets passed on throughout the Army. Five seperate CABs all doing the same thing and re-learning the same lessons and fighting for resources so they can accomplish the same thing – it would be destructive and erode competencies.
“Are we sure the current method of delivery is correct?
Would it not work better if we prepared such aviation packages once and for all, and kept them ready for deploying, in addition to MRBs, as said helicopters are likely to be employed anyway…?”
SH/AHs are a scarce resource in this mans forces. And it makes no sense to penny packet them. Especially since these CABs wouldn’t deploy as such anyway. It is not a case of “send 20X with a CAB”, it’s a case of “send x capability”.
“The americans have found the concept to be extremely functional”
The US Army has a HUGE helicopter force, spread over several continents and operational groupings, it makes perfect sense to have separate entities. We do not need them and have no use for them.
Sorry but I simple don’t agree. The helicopters should stay with jhc but it should be separate from the brigades. In my view 16aab should be smaller and used as a specialist assault brigade removed from the current roulement process. The army is simply not deployable enough as it currently is and the current structure of this command shows this imo
By the current position 16 aab should sit under air transport command as there like to be in a400ms but that would be considered sily.
“In my view 16aab should [snip] used as a specialist assault brigade removed from the current roulement process.”
This is the intention as far as i am aware, as both 3Cdo and 16AAB will become suppliers of rapid reaction forces with the MRB’s taking over the roulement heavy-lifting.
Or at least, this will finally be implemented when afghanistan isn’t weighing everything down.
16X isn’t part of the roulement anymore. And you can’t slim it down since it has the right slices of support units and it will be supporting two reaction forces.
What would we gain from telling 2 AAC Regiment COs that they have a different boss? I argue nothing at all. I suspect the two regiments are under 16X because they are army units and so it is administratively useful and 16x understands their requirements.
Thank for your detailed reply. It’s all much clearer now.
“As for you mentioning in reality. Well if we kept our discussion here anchored purely in the day to day realities of the UK’s 21st armed forces there wouldn’t be much of interest to discuss.”
Yes, I accept your point. When I wrote that I was more than somewhat sad at the thought of even more cuts.
According to an article on Germany’s enhancements to its Boxers for the sta in this months ‘Land Warfare International” the UK MOD has stateFRES UV will be re-compteted in 2016 for a 2022 in service date – and KMW will submit the Boxer
Stand by for further news of cuts, lads. On reading my copy of “Sapper” today, I discovered that as far as major RE capabilities are concerned, the M3 wide wet gap crossing capability will be placed into extended readiness until 2015.
Alright, so it’s not lost completely, you might say, just placed into extended readiness but it’s yet another capacity gone from present service. To the best of my knowledge, those things were used in Iraq and might be needed again for rapid river crossing. I don’t know whether, after 2015, they will be returned to service or simply withdrawn. The way things are going at the moment, I wouldn’t bet against the latter.
That’s bad news! The M3 is a wonderful piece of kit, and yes, i believe it was used in Iraq, so it is not that much from the last time it was needed.
It really sucks to hear about that. But thanks for letting us know.
By the way, does an online version of “Sapper” exist, like for “Gunner”? I’d love to gaze into it…
@Jed
I had read myself about the requirement for FRES UV being resurrected earlier than 2020, but i had heard 2018.
2016… that’s impressive. Would be a good news if it proved true. Can you post a link to the article…? And thank you for the info in the meanwhile!
Sorry, I don’t know whether there is an online version of “Sapper”. I get my copy by post. I suppose you could try “Google” to see whether it exists.
Yes, it is very bad news but it came from an article by the Engineer-in-Chief, so I assume that it is “gen” information. Never mind, perhaps they will be re-introduce the M3 in 2015, by which time the Army will have evolved to an “adjusted model” following SDSR.
I suppose the Army, like every other institution/organization has to take its share of cuts but really, the kit they are getting rid of! Challys, AS90s, the Fuchs and now the M3s.
I’m not sure either what will happen to 28 Engineer Regiment, the Amphibious Engineers (the “Rubber Ducks”).
My interest in the Army comes from my father who was a WO1 in the Artillery for many years. I follow the fortunes of the Royal Engineers, though, and knew a few officers in that fine Corps.
Phil is right, they can go into controlled storage and the unit re rolled. Remember, these are for wide wet gaps that are likely only to be encountered on those larger operations that we might arguably have a bit of notice.
Like many things, its a shame, but in a world of shit options, understandable
Yes, you are probably both right. I over-reacted a little. Afghanistan, as you say TD, must be the “main effort” but , as the Army re-configures, I don’t think it should be the whole story. Other kinds of war will have to be fought.
But think, if this capacity had been stored in 2003 just after its last use, the army would have saved a few pennies.
How long would it take to relear the usage of such a vehicle?
Weeks? Years?
Yes there certainly are other types of war and thankfully there is plenty of recognition of that amongst the decision makers. But that doesn’t change the fact that Afghan is still main effort and to not adapt to a war almost a decade long would be absurd, like ignoring the second World War and trying to keep colonial postures. Two brigades have just been withdrawn from the Afghan roulement so I guess that’s ramped up pressure on certain other units in the final part of this war. That and the fact that engineers are in big need as we move into new areas in Helmand.
I’m comforted at least by the fact that there seems to be genuine awareness at the top of the Army that lots of roles and missions will have to be re-learned once Afghanistan is over.
There are some plans for resurrection of some more-conventional Army work that was overlooked because of Afghanistan already from next year, and by 2013 both 16AA and 3rd Commando will get back into their natural roles of high readiness formations, with a first MRB to start forming after that.
So, there are at least plans for recovering, in time. These plans will hopefully include the M3 as well.
The definitive loss of the Fuchs is far more disturbing… so i guess that, yes. It is a shame, but at least the Army is keeping them aside for future use.
Thanks for the re-assurance. I feel slightly more optimistic now. Why is it, though, that I still have niggling doubts whether certain key capabilities will ever be restored. The fact, I suppose, that over many years it has been a case of once lost, never re-introduced.
Do you know, Gabby, whether the Fuchs is being retained (stored) for certain?
Perhaps the knowledge can/will be maintained by the TA, as said above this is stuff for “big” wars with hopefully some sort of advance notice.
If it were feasible have a TA unit near a water source (ie river of acceptable size) raise a specialist TA unit, 25% of the M3′s for training and 75% tucked away if the balloon goes up. This, i think is going to be happening to a few niché trades, sadly.
I don’t think that’s a bad thing. It’s the standard model in the US Army to have niche capabilities massively over represented in the reserves. The TA does need to be enhanced for it to work like that though. And for a start that means binning a lot of dead wood and rethinking reserve career paths and development opportunities.
I have said exactly that (AS90 and M230 tracked MLRS into TA rather than lost) many times.
Phil is absolutely right – my old TA unit is the UK’s only Psyops unit, when I joined it was 80% reservist (joint, plenty of RAFR even a Marine Reservist, but no RNR) but in my 6 years the number of regulars was ramped up to handle Afghanistan and Iraq.
However Phil is absolutely right ref a complete revamp and rethinking of the whole role of the TA – especially including career paths, when your cap badged as Royal Corps of Signals, being a “Target Audience Analyst” in Psyops is NOT good for promotion !
“. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region.
The Asia-Pacific has become a key driver of global politics. Stretching from the Indian subcontinent to the western shores of the Americas, the region spans two oceans — the Pacific and the Indian — that are increasingly linked by shipping and strategy. It boasts almost half the world’s population. It includes many of the key engines of the global economy, as well as the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. It is home to several of our key allies and important emerging powers like China, India, and Indonesia.
At a time when the region is building a more mature security and economic architecture to promote stability and prosperity, U.S. commitment there is essential. It will help build that architecture and pay dividends for continued American leadership well into this century, just as our post-World War II commitment to building a comprehensive and lasting transatlantic network of institutions and relationships has paid off many times over — and continues to do so. The time has come for the United States to make similar investments as a Pacific power, a strategic course set by President Barack Obama from the outset of his administration and one that is already yielding benefits.”
Smaller details “We are modernizing our basing arrangements with traditional allies in Northeast Asia — and our commitment on this is rock solid — while enhancing our presence in Southeast Asia and into the Indian Ocean. For example, the United States will be deploying littoral combat ships to Singapore, and we are examining other ways to increase opportunities for our two militaries to train and operate together. And the United States and Australia agreed this year to explore a greater American military presence in Australia”
“Do you know, Gabby, whether the Fuchs is being retained (stored) for certain?”
No, for what i’ve understood, the Fuchs is going definitively. Scrapped without replacement. Which is why i say that it is worrisome for real, more than mothballing M3s.
“I still have niggling doubts whether certain key capabilities will ever be restored.”
Understandable after years of cuts followed always and only by cuts! But for some reason, i’m optimist enough this time, differently from the past. There seems to be a new climate.
“Where is this one ” with a first MRB to start forming after that” from?”
Read it on a British Army analysis on Land Warfare International, i believe it was.
2013 will see both 16AA and 3rd Commando getting back into full readiness for their Rapid Reaction role. (3rd Commando in particular, as i think that at least 40 Commando has still an Afghanistan tour ahead of itself, according to plan)
After that, the Army’s priority is reportedly to restructure a brigade into a SDSR mandated MRB “as soon as possible”.
I am not sure loosing Fuch’s as a vehicle is such a terrible thing – it’s more about the CBRN recce kit ON the vehicle, i.e. I am more worried about loosing the “capability” than the “platform”.
The Fuchs is a “micro-fleet” with all the maintenance hassle that entails. If CBRN kit is retained and at a later date fitted to FRES Scout or FRES SV or even FRES UV variants, then this can be considered a “capability holiday” (Yuk, hate that term) rather than a whole sale scrapping of a an armoured / protected CBRN recce role.
However, as we don’t know what MoD plans are, in detail, for the “lets give them something in order to save them” CBRN role of the RAF Regiment, we will just have to suck it and see.
“The Fuchs is a “micro-fleet” with all the maintenance hassle that entails. If CBRN kit is retained and at a later date fitted to FRES Scout or FRES SV or even FRES UV variants, then this can be considered a “capability holiday” (Yuk, hate that term) rather than a whole sale scrapping of a an armoured / protected CBRN recce role.”
Well, this would change the picture indeed! A capability holiday sucks, but not at all as much as the total loss of said capability. And there would be an obvious commonality advantage.
Trouble is that i dunno if this option has even been considered at all.
But if the CBRN kit goes onto a FRES SV Common Base Platform vehicle as part of RECCE Block 2 or Block 3 orders, well. That’s very, very good.
From Huffington Post
“President Barack Obama said Friday he has dispatched 100 U.S. troops to central Africa to support a years-long fight against a guerrilla group accused of horrific atrocities. Obama said they were sent to advise, not engage in combat, unless forced to defend themselves.
In a letter to Congress, Obama said the troops will act as advisers in a long-running battle against the Lord’s Resistance Army, considered one of Africa’s most ruthless rebel groups, and help to hunt down its notorious leader, Joseph Kony.
The first of the troops arrived in Uganda on Wednesday, the White House said, and others will be sent to South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”
This is not a humanitarian mission (as it is put, to help to root out LRA), but an attempt to put up a flood wall between al-Shabab (in Somalia) and the al-Qaida related groups in countries bordering Libya, and now refreshed with lots of weapons that went AWOL during the civil war there
From what I know, there is indeed a CBRN variant, scheduled as part of the FRES UV, to replace Fuchs. To answer the question of a CBRN on the FRES SV, I think the white cube located at the rear of the ASCOD SV is a CBRN protection.
“To answer the question of a CBRN on the FRES SV, I think the white cube located at the rear of the ASCOD SV is a CBRN protection.”
I believe the rear white box is an Auxiliary Power Unit, for silent running of sensors at engine turned off, actually.
ASCOD SV will have CBRN protection, but not at all any kind of sensor for detecting and mapping CBRN pollution, which is what the Fuchs did.
For the FRES UV CBRN variant, i’ve never heard of that, but if it is true, i welcome the news.
By the way, i see that General Dynamics opened a bid for “Audio Surveillance Equipment” for the Scout.
Any idea? Shooter-detection system? Something more ambitious?
I’m following the story about FRES from the beginning, I can say that the FRES UV is expected to provide 2000 vehicles, but probably much less since the army is reduced to five brigades. The program includes recovery, repair, medical post, ambulance, command and control, driver training, logistic, protected mobility, electronic warfare, mortar, CBRN recce and survey.
It was planned that way at first, but now I don’t know, hopefully.
Like you I’m a fan of the British Army and I want the best equipment for them.
If you really want to do counter-battery for real, you’ll use all available means to locate the enemy pieces:
- not just aerial images and radars (we have them)
- Russians have also acoustic units that work in pairs and can locate a firing 155mm from 20 km away (105mm much less). These units have organic rocket launchers for immediate reaction, but of course also feed the coordinates to the overall artillery command system (which might call tacair in as well)
Yes and no
- they are normally more closely related to normal artillery assets at hand; in the Russian doctrine (of offensive use of artillery) this is a task force specifically assigned to the schwerpunkt to cleanse the area of opposing artillery (before the advance is started).
I don’t think (I might be wrong) the FOVs have such specialised, long range audio surveillance equipment (they are specialised vehicles also in the Russian formations, normally assigned down from the Corps level)
The next “problem” is that Warrior FOVs will be with us for a long time; logic would dictate that they are with armour & AI so that the same mechanics apply. So these new thingies on SV Scouts that we speculating about would be in FRRs/BRRs (exactly the right place for such a function, serving a higher than bn level HQ… we call some types of bn’s regiments, to muddle things further)
What do you think about the FRES “direct fire”, I don’t understand its utility, while the logic there is provided an anti-tank missiles launched to protect the Scouts.
I am not so keen and the Americans have had trouble with the Stryker fire support version (that comes quite close, if not mechanically, at least in “ideology”).
What I would do is continue the missile overwatch tradition (something on the lines of the millimeter wave radar/ missile vehicle the Russians have had a long time, and do the fire support bit with AMOS turrets on some SV Scouts (these units are only meant to do screening and saving themselves from a superior enemy by disengaging when finding such while operating forward).The hard fist formation (of, say, an MRB) will need some MBTs and mobile, protected artillery to carry out its role – I don’t think the fires support variant would be particularly useful for them either. Effectively, a medium tank (which were supposed to be dead except in amphibious and mountain niches).
BTW, the good old Panhard with the 90mm and wheels is ideal for another job (those that exist in the vastness of Africa).Not exactly a medium tank?
Interesting that there is now a belt from Dakar to Djibouti, in which the French hand over to the Americans in Bangui (CAR) where both will have a detachment (this was meant going from West, towards the East).
How big would the dock have to be for it [128 ft (39.2 m), beam of 32 ft (9.8 m) and draft of 9.4 ft (2.85 m)] getting a container put on by crane, rather than wildly bobbing up and down on the side? Are there any such ships in existence; the free height would also be important for the crane operation. Or simply roll-on by trailer?
I wonder if this (from today’s Telegraph) is what was referred to “in code” in the Parliamentary Defence Committee session (uncorrected minutes, to which I have referred to before). Being the settlement for Iraq operations not met from Treasury Reserve but from the core MoD budget?
“A £3.9 billion emergency bail-out for the Ministry of Defence, secured by Mr Fox before he quit, came to light, underlining the parlous state of the department’s finances.”
If it is, then the bail-out term is totally inappropriate (when a debt is settled, this much late – I hope with interest).
-The Treasury charges interest on all assets, so the undue haste of the MoD in getting rid of perfectly good kit, rather than storing them, is very much down to the bean counters being in charge
Good news ” I think that accountancy system has been changed so it isn’t charged anymore.”
- how wrong can one get it – forcing to bin perfectly good and *paid for* assets, that might have a decade left in them, with a modest upgrade perhaps another one
Send reservists to war and this is what happens (they use their noodle, being less preconditioned):
“Staff Sgt. Vincent Winkowski welded two ammo boxes atop one another (with the upper case’s bottom removed), lashed them to an all-purpose ALICE pack frame, and mounted the feed chute assembly from a vehicle-mounted CROWS (Common Remote Operating Weapons Station) to the top of it. This allowed the gunner to carry a full load of ammo—500 rounds—unassisted. Even with ammo, the entire system weighed a mere 43 pounds.
The pack, dubbed The Ironman, proved so reliable in combat that Winkowski submitted the design to Army science advisers who also immediately recognized its value. Within 48 days, the Quick Reaction Cell of the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC) had created an improved, lighter-weight version of the pack.”
Canadian Government announces strategic shipbuilding plan – 15 warships, 6 ice capable patrol ships, 2 ice capable support ships, 1 ice breaker, and some additional coast guard vessls”
Lets see if Gov. actually pays up over future years ! By the way, the dual role, 1st year ice capable patrol ships have been slagged off in many circles for being too much “jack of all trades” – it has been suggested 3 proper ice breakers, and 6 “warm water” patrol vessels would be a better forces structure. But its better than nowt, eh !
Have you seen this grand total so far, or is just the Guardian picking and choosing:
“Hammond insisted that the budget squeeze, and a redundancy programme that will mean up to 60,000 jobs being axed in the coming years, would not prevent Britain having a viable armed forces.”
- civilians included, of course
China is annoyed; just when they had to start to move their “dollar eggs” to another basket
“Chinese premier Wen Jiabao told EU leaders to stop the debt crisis spreading and lectured them on the need to carry out structural reform.
In a telephone conversation with Herman Van Rompuy, European council president, Wen said: “The most urgent task is to take decisive measures to prevent the debt crisis spreading further and avoid financial market turbulence, a recession and fluctuations in the euro.”
” five essentially identical multi-role brigades—will be quietly junked in favour of “tailoring the force for the challenge” around two light and two heavy brigades which will draw on other resources as needed.”
- that’s more like it!
Although a good deal of the “investment in tactical-level networking — a key lesson from Afghanistan — will be given priority”
- great!
“with around 3,000 of its people actively engaged around the world. As well as making future wars less likely, Sir Peter hopes that this will attract bright and culturally sensitive people to an army career. And if the army is called upon to fight in far-flung places, the hope is that it will know more about them than it did when it pitched up in Basra or Helmand.”
- this one, and the enhanced role of reserves, I would put into the “a good idea, hope it can be made to work” category
The MoD wanted to restructure the army into five brigades multi-role, keeping a brigade of high availability for a particular intervention and four in support to provide the ability to support an operation lasting stabilization. Now if the MoD wants to have two brigades with high availabilty and two in reserve it’s better. With the 16AAB, and Royal Marines, that’s four brigades ready for action.
Gents, interesting news on the MRB idea seemingly falling on its arse but I guess these things are like a supertanker, very difficult to change once they have the inertia so who knows where it will end. As we have discussed previously it makes sense in some ways but has flaws in others. I suppose no organisational structure is ever going to be absolutely ideal for every situation but I must admit the idea of going back to heavy and light(ish) brigades sound a good way to go. Although I wonder how much that is to do with equipment costs!
I think in the previous posts on army structure I stated a preference for the light/medium/heavy distinction rather than 5x ‘the same’
the problem with having different brigades is, youre fudged if you need heavy metal, and your ‘duty’ brigade is the shireshire militia in bedfords and without artilery.
Or indeed, you need to peacekeep madrid and all you have is an artilry brigade.
Regarding General Dannatt’s comments, there’s more than one thread to be had from those.
Yes, there’s “scoff at the idea of a Scottish defence force, Part Two”. There’s also some mileage in “what happens with disUK defences if GDP falls by around 10%” and “where does Trident go if it has to leave Faslane and Coulport”.
On the last of those, RUSI’s Malcolm Chalmers has co-written a book (‘Troubled Waters’, reviewed here) and a few papers (this seems to the only free access one available). This story in the Express is also of interest. Finally, Professor Huw Strachan gave an interview to the Herald back in July on the subject. Unfortunately the piece isn’t on the interwebs, but if anyone desperately wants a precis I have the dead tree version filed away and could post a summary here.
how i would love to see the primrose hill set going up to somewhere like the north east a lá the dale farm protesters and trying to prevent thousands of jobs being created. in true batman style there would be plenty of “thwack, whack” and possibily “kapow” as the locals send ‘em packing! (IMHO)
Dominic, you could be right, up to a point. The submarines could move to Devonport without too much trouble, but the submarines aren’t really the problem.
That would be the warheads. There are not so many jobs in playing host to those. Even the idea of nuclear warheads at the end of the street is likely to bring out the NIMBY in many people. And that’s before you consider the likelihood that “New Coulport on the Fal” would involve demolishing people’s houses and massive civil engineering projects.
Angus
Well, I’ve got mates who are originaly from newcastle, but wanted jobs, so arent anymore.
They wouldnt just be campaigning for it, they’d be applying for jobs to implement it.
The UK has hundreds of dead ports, some, like livberpool, and maybe newcastle, are too urbanised, but plenty of others arent.
Nuclear weapons arent a problem to the man in the street. Most people would be happy to store one under their beds if there was a job involved, even just tangenitaly supporting the support staff.
Its easy to be principled when you’ve got a good job. They go out the window when you hit the unemployment line.
It might not even be easy, but its hundreds of miles from impossible
607 Comments
new open thread
OHHHH! Swanky.
TD, the recent posts section could do with being on the left somehow, where it’s easier to see and so new visitors have a better starting point.
Does the edit timer add any overheads? If so for me it can get chopped.
@ All
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/27/singapore-military-to-issue-guns-and-uniforms-ipads-to-incoming/
Still doesn’t top jam in tubes for me.
Remember the massive op 3 years ago to fight through and get the third turbine up to Kajaki dam? Still in pieces with not even the foundations built (which begs the question why move it in the first place).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/13925886
Seriously – what the hell?
I’m really not a high stakes gambler myself. If they (the Guardian), are right about a ROE with more freedom of action, isn’t the North risking an unpredictable response if they do another one of their stupid attacks?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/28/south-korea-north-korea-tension
@ X – any military use for i-pads? Perhaps we could develop a British Army app?
Hello all,
Been away for a bit.
Can anybody explain why members of HM armed forces have to perform as security people at Wimbledon. Watched the tennis today and have seen Army and Navy people, I’m sure I’ve seen RAF as well in the past.
What is going on, WHY, Does the MOD charge the LTA or is it another Freebie. Please let me know.
Paul
RE: I-pad – reminded me of this article about the combat use of moble phone technology;
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/phone.html
@Wstr.
Kajaki Dam. The cynic would say that the lack of campaign coherence at the time meant that every UK Brigade commander on arriving in theatre took a few to months to settle in, selected a big project to garner headlines and make his mark, accomplished said project and returned to Whitehall for tea and medals. That is certainly how some of the US generals saw it…
The Kajaki Dam turbine operation certainly does not appear to have been well integrated across all the civil and political lines of operation.
@Kentish Paul. Wimbledon: I think this is a freebie. Service personnel get to go to Wimbledon and in return for dressing up in uniform and some not very onerous duties they get to see some tennis.
The MOD normally charges for such services, either the full rate (cost of wages, training, infrastructure etc) or partial rate (costs accrued that are additional and specific for the task (ie not charging the daily rate of pay etc).
Callum,
Thanks, I’ve listen’ed to various stories in the past, a lot say they are volunters who do it in their leave time.
Thanks again.
For anyone who likes big numbers http://costsofwar.org/
I like the simple indexed front page, TD; but I think you need an eye-catching visual element to hook the casual passerby.
No! Not a photo of saucy girls, that’s not appropriate; but something…
Brian, I had a dabble with image header rotators but wasn’t impressed. Might have another look and see what can be done, its always about balancing snazzy looks with resources though
i did wimbledon for 10 years, it harks back many years some officer was a head honcho and he used the troops as stewards (offical term) when i did it you took leave, some people managed to wrangle some free time out of it, it has been recognised as a great PR tool as joe public love it. (not hard really as the group4 guys are 80%+ students on minimum wage and not interested).
As you have to sort out your own accomm you recieve a substiance allowance from the club to assist, plus a daily food allowance on a swipe card, i won’t quote figures as it’s probably changed from when i did it (1996-2005) The hours are bloody long first brief at 9 so we normally set off to get there at 7 and obviously games went on to 9pm, now i believe they can play till 11pm with the roof there’s about 300 tri service there belive it or not, and although it’s hard work i loved it and i’m not that big a tennis fan. The public (and celebs) were always keen to talk, kids were great and squaddie humour always helped with the occasion.
I could fill this thread with stories, jolly jack doing a sea shanty to 8000, fixing a first ladies shoe, etc etc. good times!!
oh and the MOD don’t charge as it’s all in leave time.
and yes it gets tiring going up and down the entry gate stairs “x” ammount of times a day. (although come day 4 the enthusiasm to watch the tennis wanes)!!
Paul g,
Thanks for spelling it out.
Bob retires with Medal of Freedom; see the list (in his sport, but foreign heads of state or government first)
Tony Blair, 2009
Margaret Thatcher, 1991
Don Luis A. Ferré (1991)
Václav Havel (2003)
John Howard (2009)
Helmut Kohl (1999)
Joseph Luns (1984)
Nelson Mandela (2002)
Wilma Mankiller (January 15, 1998)[57]
Luis Muñoz Marín (1963) – Awarded With Distinction
Angela Merkel (2011)[4]
Mary Robinson (2009)[12]
Carlos P. Romulo (1984)
President Anwar el-Sadat (March 26, 1984, posthumously)[58]
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (2007)
Álvaro Uribe (2009)
Henry J. Friendly (1977)
A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. (1995)
Oliver White Hill (1999)
Frank Minis Johnson (1995)
Irving Robert Kaufman (1987)
Joseph Warren Madden (1947)
Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. (1993, posthumously)
Cruz Reynoso (2000)
Laurence Silberman (2008)
Elbert Tuttle (1981)
John Minor Wisdom (1993)
and then:
Richard Myers, 2005
Omar *Bradley* (1977)
Arleigh *Burke* (1977)
General Wesley Clark (2000)- no WW3!
War Chief Joe Medicine Crow (2009)
Admiral William J. Crowe (2000)
Jimmy Doolittle (1989)
Tommy Franks (2004)
General Lyman Lemnitzer (1987)
Richard B. Myers (2005)
Jan Nowak-Jeziorański (1996)
Peter Pace (2008)
Matthew B. Ridgeway (1986)
Captain Joseph Rochefort (1986, posthumously)
General H. Norman Schwarzkopf (1991)
General John Shalikashvili (1997)
John Paul Vann (1972)
John Vessey (1992)
James E. Webb (1969)
Albert Coady Wedemeyer (1985)
Chuck Yeager (1985)
Admiral Elmo R. *Zumwalt*, Jr. (1998)
I think the site is broken in IE6, which I’m kinda stuck on at work.
It just has error in tiny writing at tyhe top.
I have that too (at work)
Russia’s Defence Minister has just announced that two army brigades will be dedicated to safeguarding their interests in the Arctic;
- can we put Ice Station Zebra on the favourite films’ thread (any Brits in it?)
- of course, if they hadn’t settled with Norway, the number would have been higher (including every coal miner on Svalbard; just like Aramco had 40.000 red necks in the good old days, to defend the oil fields in eastern Saudi Arabia, should that be necessary)
Some political news about Turkey and Libya.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14009206
Will Turkey front up and provide a stabilisation force I wonder?
It is also interesting to note that the African Union has called on its members to ignore the arrest warrants. I want to say something pithy about aid money but can’t come up with anything. I fear certain African leaders are beginning to feel emboldened by Chinese “aid.”
I think Turkey is busy watching Syria watching them. Can’t imagine them sending troops to Libya in any capacity.
Kinda suprising that the EU doesn’t lay down the law on the arrest warrents, either cooperate or we’ll cut your slice of the goodies.
No more mercs and plasma tv’s etc.
Sky News: I had to listen to this one several times to make sure the reporter said what I thought he said.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/British-Soldier-Is-Found-After-Going-Missing-In-Southern-Afghanistan—Physical-Status-Unknown/Article/201107116023865?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_0&lid=ARTICLE_16023865_British_Soldier_Is_Found_After_Going_Missing_In_Southern_Afghanistan_-_Physical_Status_Unknown
At 5.00 nins into the report Sky News Defence Correspodent Neil Patterson says: “The Afghan insurgents are the same as the British…..they will not hesitate to execute that captive.”
Is Sky News saying that British forces in Afghanistan are routinely executing prisoners?
British army using I-pad app for training;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/10813964
I didn’t realise the French Army deploys or has 112 Puma (or variants of or later versions there of.) That’s enough to move 3 battalions of light infantry. Heck they even have 34 NH90s. Wow. I suppose they do have the space to use them. But, wow.
http://bfbs.com/news/uk/mod-loses-track-military-equipment-worth-%C2%A363-billion-49368.html
BBC are reporting that the Telegraph are saying that Dead Soldiers families phones were hacked by NoW…….
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/26096/
This is interesting, Eurofighter Typhoon gang in Japan.
I wonder what the chances of Japan going for the Typhoon is.
I suppose such a deal would give Japan a good start into allowing defence exports. With Typhoon they can probably do what they want with it, thus allowing exports of components. Being even more optimistic you could probably get Japan involved in future projects, I’m sure they’ve got some management techniques to help us.
You’ve probably seen this but just in case;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8621920/Defence-review-flawed-by-drive-to-cut-costs.html
I wonder what the chances of Japan going for the Typhoon is
I would say slim, they have very strong links with the US, would be a major coup for them if they did.
Yeah, the strong links with the US are likely to weigh heavily on any choice Japan makes. Shame. Really we could do with some big deals to offset the cost and start putting British Military manufacturing back in the spotlight…. for the right reasons.
Interesting….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14060044
Tango6 published this on his blog after seeing the story on Chuck Hill’s.
http://grandlogistics.blogspot.com/2011/07/extreme-fishing-in-gulf-with-royal-navy.html
Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash report ‘clears pilots according to beeb very gd news two air marshalls should hang there head in shame.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14093592
Are we looking at the start of a diplomatic crisis?
The Daily Mail is reporting that the victims of 9/11 had their phones hacked.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/11/phone-hacking-9-11-victims-may-have-had-mobiles-tapped-by-news-of-the-world-reporters-115875-23262694/
I do not believe what i am reading.
from Rafale News on the Indian contest, quoting an Indian source –
[...] “the line-up, in ascending order of price, shown in parenthesis, is as follows: MiG-35 ($ 45 m), F-16 ($60 m), F/A-18 ($60.5 m), Gripen ($82.2 m), Rafale ($ 85.5 m) and Typhoon ($124 m). [...]
It is difficult to know if the prices of this list can be directly compared. However, given they are more or less acurate, they reveal that the Gripen NG price would be very close to the Rafale. Conversely the Typhoon is quoted 45% higher which is a huge gap.
Interestingly, both the F-16IN and F-18E would have the same price despite being in 2 different weight class. It is also worth noting that they are 42% less expensive than the Rafale, which is exactly the current Euro/dollar ratio. Once again, it would prove that the US aircraft prices are artificially low only due to an underestimated dollar value.”
Any thoughts on these? I didn’t think Typhoon was that more expensive than Rafale.
PS I was at Yeovilton on Saturday where the French managed to put up a Rafale M and a Super Etendard while both types are heavily involved elsewhere. The RAF can’t provide a Typhoon display anywhere this year. Perhaps the French want to show the future of the FAA as it could well be after 2015.
The Cypriots operate Mi35. So there is at least one Russian military helicopter operating in the EU. Good for you Cyprus.
DID. com of today traced this year’s important milestones in the Trident “replacement”:
May 18/11: British go-ahead. “Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox announces government approval hfor the early phase of design to replace the existing Vanguard Class. The new submarines will be powered by a new nuclear propulsion system known as the Pressurised Water Reactor 3, which is more expensive but safer”… so more expensive, at the time of the announcement there was speculation of cutting
Going back to previous year:
Jan 28/10: Backward compatibility.” Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA received a $29.7 million sole source cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for systems engineering services, to help integrate current Trident D5 nuclear missiles into the new submarine’s common missile compartment.”
… so Trident replacement does not need to be about replacing Tridents (if they can be operated safely?) but about just the boats
- I wonder under which assumption the cost projections have been making the rounds?
Final flight for the R1?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-14132004
Can somebody more knowledgeable me confirm the state of the StormShadow buy please? Are we still getting 900 or not?
I see in aviation week that the US is considering scrapping there SSBN replacement program an instead lengthening the virginia ssn and using smaller trident missiles. This could have profound implications for the UK and go somewhat to explain the very slow progress on the UK replacement program. Is astute a similar diameter to the virginia? or are we stuffed if the us follow this route.
Hi Mark,
Wikipedia (so who knows how accurate it is) says Astute has the same beam as the Virginia class, but is about 12 meters shorter, so it sounds like a much bigger job for us to modify Astute to add a “plug” to handle C-4 sized missiles than it would be for the US to modify the Virginia class.
I saw Think Defence posted a link to the Guardian about Cameron holding papers back from the national Audit Office.
Which reminded me, the NAO stated it would cost £200 million to cancel 1 ship, 1.6 billion for both.
Me thinks the government are bull shitting or hiding something.
“Me thinks the government are bull shitting or hiding something”
You make it sound like successive British governments have form in this area…..
It appears the MOD are going down the “National Guard” route with the TA;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14171545
Gareth,
That review should be kicked into the long grass by the Government as soon as possible. How on earth can part-time soldiers, trained over relatively small number of sessions per year, compare with fully trained professionals? And that is not to denigrate the work done by the TA in any way.
Just two points. First TA soldiers are paid full-time soldiers’ wages when they are deployed in conflicts. How can that save money? Second, the TA is already struggling to keep up its numbers. How is that problem to be solved without a great deal more expenditure?
@ MikeW – It might depend on the type of unit. I’ve been thinking of TD’s naval division of labour between hard as nail core and security-tasked forward presence. Could the TA act like the “auxiliaries” of the Roman Empire while the Standing army perform the role of the hard as nail legions?
This is obviously from a US perspective but thought people might find it a interesting read;
http://www.g2mil.com/UrbanInf.htm
the army IS going to shrink more than the 7,000 announced once afganistan is rolled up, so just be glad that at least some of the slack is going to be picked up by the TA.
@Mike W.
Saving Money: Money is saved because the MOD does not pay for the accomodation of TA personnel, primary healthcare costs and subsidised feeding to name but some of the costs incurred by having regular soldiers.
Training Standards: During the cold war the TA maintained high standards albeit in focused areas. Due to their limited training time they focused training on their specific wartime role, so they can maintain standards but they tend to maintain standards in focused areas; they are just not as flexible as their regular counterparts because they lack the breadth of experience. That said the amount of time regular units spend in the field is much less then many people think nowadays I doubt too if the Review will see themgoing from ‘zero to hero’ and deploying at the drop of a hat. It will aim to close the gap sufficiently between the steady state of a TA individual or sub-unit and their Regular counterpart such that with 4 months training they can step up to the plate on operations; that is achievable for many tasks (TA currently mobilise 4.5 months prior to deployment).
TA Manning: The TA is undermanned partly because its current mismatch between structure and role. Being asked to provide Individual Reinforcements and Individual Augmentees for the Regular Forces does not encourage retention, progression in the TA or TA unit cohesion. It is rare that TA NCOs or Officers exercise command appointments in the field – mostly because they lack the training and experience, so many do one tour and then get out.
However the Review might require a change in TA ethos whereby extra training resources are given to the TA (two weekends a month and one drill night a week?) but that these become mandatory and not discretionary as they currently are. That would require a huge change in TA ethos and it would be interesting to see the impact on TA recruiting and retention from that.
Personally I am excited by what I have heard, but suspect that the government will accept the report but not implement its findings. The Regular Army has always been hostile to the TA if the TA is seen to take resources from it and this case is no different.
Lastly in training standards we might want to reflect that because of litigous and risk averse society it now takes almost as long to conduct what the army calls i-MST (individual-Mission Specific Training) to qualify a soldier to deploy to theatre as it takes to train a unit collectively for deployment; the whole process normally takes 12 months or so… If we could reduce i-MST by either taking more risk or including the i-MST skills in basic soldiering skills then the gap between TA and Regular could be shortened considerably.
“Personally I am excited by what I have heard, but suspect that the government will accept the report but not implement its findings. The Regular Army has always been hostile to the TA if the TA is seen to take resources from it and this case is no different.”
From this perspective, perhaps it is a good thing that the implementation (or otherwise) of this report will be driven from the NSC including Hague and and Cameron seeking an additional settlement, rather than the service heads who would previously sideline the reserves when it comes to apportioning a single settlement?
I believe the plan is that the Reserves money should get ring fenced, a bit like Cardwell did with the RFCAs and TA estate; but I am not convinced that the government will implement the report after accepting it.
cheers callum.
*fingers crossed*
Well, that’s me well and truly put in my place! However, I am not that mentally inflexible that I cannot learn something from your comments. To take them one by one:
Gareth
“It might depend on the type of unit. I’ve been thinking of TD’s naval division of labour between hard as nail core and security-tasked forward presence. Could the TA act like the “auxiliaries” of the Roman Empire while the standing army perform the role of the hard as nail legions?”
Yes, I think there might very well be some mileage in this suggestion. I like the idea of a division of labour between “hard as nail core and security-tasked forward presence.” I suppose TA units could perform tasks such as security: the guarding of base camps, headquarters, airbases etc. They could also be involved in logistical support, medical support, communications and so on. However, as for the TA providing, say, front-line infantry in substantial numbers, I think not somehow.
Jedibeeftrix
You might very well be right in your assertion that the Army is going to shrink more than the 7,000 announced once the Afghanistan campaign is over. However, there is a strong possibility that you might be wrong. Opposition to the outcome of the SDSR is growing and the pressure to re-examine that review is increasing. Such opposition has cross-party support from both Tory and Labour MPs. When you consider the fact that the British Army is already committed in Afghanistan and there are other potential crisis areas in Libya, the Falklands, Ireland, the Yemen, etc., then the questions has to be , can they (the Government) really responsibly contemplate cutting the Army any more?
Callum Lane
What a knowledgeable and detailed response to my comments! I take the points made about saving money, training and undermanning – all very convincing and explained in a succint and incisive fashion. Such arguments would almost make me change my mind if it were not for serious doubts about the standards and efficiency of the TA at the moment, given the fact that their training and experience are lacking. I am NOT knocking the TA in the slightest. They do a marvellous job, given the limitations of their training resources and have some marvellous people. However, I do remember attending a military show a few years ago at which TA personnel were attempting to demonstrate the firing of a 105 mm light Gun and making rather heavy weather of it. Now you might say, well, such standards are not necessarily typical of the TA and I would accept that point. However, I am sure that my old man, who was a WO1 in the Artillery for years, would have had a “purpleleptic” fit at the performance. Much more training was needed. I really still feel that there is an element of “getting defence on the cheap” in the move towards placing greater emphasis on reserve forces.
Now, probably TD will have a separate thread on reserve forces and will want discussion of the following point left until that post appears. However, it would be interesting to discover what people’s thoughts are on which equipment could appropriately be transferred to the Terriers from the Regular Army if the review were to be implemented.
@ MikeW – “You might very well be right in your assertion that the Army is going to shrink more than the 7,000 announced once the Afghanistan campaign is over. However, there is a strong possibility that you might be wrong. Opposition to the outcome of the SDSR is growing and the pressure to re-examine that review is increasing.”
If the defence settlement is mirrored in reverse; if we get a 7.5% increase in stead of a cut, and if the treasury funds the acquisition of the trident replacement, and if those real terms increases arrive post 2015……………… then i will be the first to cheer the reversal of planned cuts.
Including the army reduction post afghanistan, but unless all that happens then things have to give.
Jedibeeftrix
Thanks for taking the trouble to reply. Does the the defence settlement have to be mirrored in reverse (i.e. does there have to be a 7.5% increase instead of a cut) before planned cuts to Army personnel are reduced or even cancelled? For instance, if an employee of a firm in financial difficulties has to undergo a 10% cut in salary, he might decide to forego both of his two holidays per year. If then the firm hits better times and adjusts his salary reduction to 5%, he might very well decide that he can afford one of the holidays. Surely a restoration of just some of that 7.5% redction would have an effect, wouldn’t it?
I put forward this argument wiothout a trace of irony. My understanding of Mathematics is sadly lacking!
I should just mention that there are replies and thanks to both Gareth Jones and Callum Lane in an earlier comment of mine.
i believe it would have to be reversed, not least because even increasing the budget by 10% (7.5% cut + 2.5% trident), would do no more than fill in the 10% defence procurement deficit identified in the gray report a year ago.
when you add the procurement underfunding and trident replacement costs defence is actually getting a 20% cut, so just stopping the sdsr cut doesn’t really help all of the capabilities that got the axe.
and even then, to fund the more modest ambitions of the sdsr absolutely demands those as yet unconfirmed real-terms defence increases post 2015!
Interesting peice from the Telegraph for those who may have missed it;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8632997/Britain-needs-a-citizen-army-to-fight-its-wars.html
“The reserves cost much less. Run over five years, the cost differential is around one third or, put simply, three for the price of one. Across all three services, putting some of your capacity at lower readiness makes affordable a much greater total capacity. It further demonstrates that the balance in today’s Armed Forces is no longer appropriate, nor affordable.”
@ Gareth J
First things first. The Telegraph? Are you sure you were in tertiary education for 5 years? On my campus The Grundians were gone by 0900. Yet I could still pick up a Telegraph at lunch. :) ;)
“What is defence?” is a question we really don’t answer here with all Top Trumps discussions on kit. I don’t think it is a question that crosses the minds of many British people. We feel too safe. Further I would say that the establishment likes to down play “nationalism” to the point where to mention it has nearly become taboo. There is a disconnect. Many don’t feel there is a “something” to defend as such. This would be lost on the citizens of many states who know what they are defending and take pride in their part in defending it. Ask a Swiss or an Israeli. It is this idealistic gap that has to be bridged.
Now I believe in two competing defence paradigms. I believe in a strong navy. But I also believe in the idea of the citizen soldier as expounded by Lord Roberts. Back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries there was tension between these two schools of thought. It was believed that supporting the latter undermined the former. But I am not so sure that it ever did. In many ways our defence needs are more like pre-WW1 days, but without the empire to support. We may not be any more dependent on the sea than the other states in Europe but that doesn’t mean we are dependent.
Our army appears to have gained an aura of strategic worth thanks to the Cold War. But isn’t a strategic service. The Army is both too small do its job and too expensive. The question is I suppose what is its job? Post Cold War it seems to be the strong arm of our government as it seeks to mess in the affairs of others. But surely the peoples of the West have lost appetite for these adventures? It seems odd that the most easily understood of the services is used to support the most abstract of government defence policy. If we aren’t fighting these interventionist wars (which do not have support or legitimacy from below) I can’t see there will be a need to train TA soldiers to fill the posts.
Are we safe in the UK? I wouldn’t be without RAF QRA, but there is no air threat and even if there were 4 squadrons couldn’t do much. I think the V-boats are awesome and are necessary, but I can’t see them ever firing a missile in anger (the contrary nature of nuclear deterrence.) And I think by the time the invasion fleet had anchored off our shores the game would have already been called. So are we safe then? I would suggest some of our fellow Brits in the inner cities don’t feel safe. We don’t do politics here so I will stay clear of why they don’t feel safe.
The only way a citizen army will take off is if the citizenry have a belief in what they are defending. Our political elites seem not to care about the country beyond an expedient to get re-elected. And with turn outs at polls falling year on year it seems the people have stopped caring too.
Jedibeeftrix
I think I begin to see what you are driving at when you talk about cuts and the amounts needed to restore them. Thanks for explaining.
@ x – I have to confess I got the link from TD’s tumblr page :)
Maritime nation vs. Citizen Army appears throughout history in different guises; Athens and Sparta, Britain and France in the Revolutionary/Napoleon age, etc. However you could also argue that the Roman Republic with its citizen Legions wouldn’t have beaten Carthage without building a strong navy and Carthage almost beat Rome by sending a large army across the Alps. You could in theory have both but you may have to decide on which the lion share of your resources goes.
As for the public lacking the appetite for further foreign adventures, you may be right but the Government still has international responsibilities. I’m a fan of the English School of IR and see the International community as a divining body; e.g. you are not a sovereign state because you say you are but because your peers accept you as one. Failure to up hold your responsibilities at this level could have serious consequences.
It is also interesting how a global elite has developed, in both politics and business, as suggested it would by Hedley Bull. This elite might very well have more in common with each other than they do with their fellow citizens/electors. This would/has serious repercussions for democracy at the nation state level.
Yes I know what you are on about. I have read Bull’s book too.
I think of it as legitimacy from without rather than from within.
Democracy is such an elastically chewy word.. :)
PS: Just went to see if they had Bull’s book on Amazon. There are three reviews. You wouldn’t be last one would you?
“I’m a fan of the English School of IR and see the International community as a divining body; e.g. you are not a sovereign state because you say you are but because your peers accept you as one. Failure to up hold your responsibilities at this level could have serious consequences.”
sounds like R2P writ large.
@x – not to my knowledge!
@ Jedi – The English School does tend to divide into sub-schools; the pluralists who like the old ideas of state sovereignty and non-intervention while encouraging international law and norms between states, and the solidaritists how view such things as R2P and humanitarian intervention as the evolution of international law and the new norm.
many thanks GJ.
The Tipping Point:
http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/
@ Jedi – A very interesting article and a very interesting site. Thanks for the link!
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/9459/over-the-horizon-learning-from-history-in-south-sudan
TD posted a link to
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7128837&c=AIR&s=TOP
Why on earth talk about an exchange program now?
We’ve not made the decision on how many we’re having, but it sort of indicates we’re tied to the variant already despite in the review saying we’re getting the C version.
Thoughts people, I’m slightly confused. Sounds like a certain fox may not be that clever.
Paul, its because we are contractually tied to buying a number of B models as part of the development phase. I think the letter is a proposal to still do that but then swap them at a later stage for the C model. I don’t think it will be cost neutral though
Anyone see any significance in the Iranian Navy sailing the Atlantic?
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7137148&c=SEA&s=TOP
Did anyone pick up on this FoI request?
“The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) about the withdrawal from service of the Harrier aircraft. The MoD provided some information within the scope of the request, withheld some information and confirmed that some of the information was not held. The complainant asked the Commissioner to investigate the MoD’s response to that part of his request that concerned the cost of maintaining the Harrier in storage. The Commissioner has investigated and finds the MoD in breach of section 16 for failing to provide the complainant with advice and assistance. He requires the public authority to contact the complainant with a view to clarifying this element of his request.”
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fs_50371500.ashx
Seems it was a complaint about an FOI not being answered in full, but I don’t know if the rest of the answers to the original FOI are published anywhere.
So, sent a link to TD today about 40 fld regt RA getting the chop, and 5 batteries going over to light gun, are we missing a trick here, wouldn’t it be better to go to M777, it’s where all the money is going on developing new ammo.
the trick you’re missing is that we can’t afford it right now.
“We mainly won through teamwork, logistics and organisation,” Lloyd says, adding that cunning diplomacy was often used to rule parts of Africa and India. – would a modern version be a Forward Presence Strategy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14218909
@ Gareth
If you get banned from the site for heresy don’t come crying to me. :)
“So, as history shows, the success of an army is not just about its size. A small but professional force has often served Britain just as well.”
A useful parallel to draw with today.
Today’s Airforce-technology. com
”
South Korea’s Defence Acquisition Programme Agency has shortlisted Sukhoi’s PAK-FA/T-50 stealth fighter for its FX-III fighter contract.
Flight Global has cited local reports as claiming that PAK-FA will be evaluated against the Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle, Eurofighter Typhoon and Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.”
So… every one around China? India committed, Vietnam probably want theirs from India, ROK would get theirs from Russia (if chosen); getting interesting. And Korea is already flying a top model of F-15
http://www.ted.com/talks/rory_stewart_time_to_end_the_war_in_afghanistan.html
Yep,
He walked across the areas now contested with tens of thousands of troops… I went to Quetta in 1976 and encountered no resistance
- regardless, a lot of sense in the talk behind jedi’s link
more MoD cuts:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8669729/Ministry-of-Defence-to-sack-7000-more-civil-servants.html
also intimates that the army reserves are increasing from 14,000 to 36,000………. poor telegraph reporting i presume?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20737-3d-printing-the-worlds-first-printed-plane.html?full=true
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128234.700-fluid-cloak-to-help-submarines-leave-no-wake.html
Interesting comparison:
http://grandlogistics.blogspot.com/2011/07/squad-mission-support-system.html
my latest will hopefully be relevant to the ongoing ground forces discussion:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/future-army-structure-%E2%80%93-a-call-for-papers-part-3/
first catapault takeoff of the F35c:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/28/f35c_cat_test_shot/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8674166/British-troops-could-spend-year-in-Afghanistan.html
the implication of this is perhaps only four multi-role brigades post 2015, working on a 3:1 deployment ratio with nine month tours!
Nine months tours are likely only for OMLT’s and the some of the HQ functions
good news, cheers admin.
as today is the first of august i would like to continue that great british tradition of offering a “pinch and a punch for the first of the month.”
However due to recent cuts sadly i am fitted for, but not with the ability to pinch and currently inviting to tender people in the punch industry to submit ideas for a punch capability. Leading the race at the moment is a friend of mine who is offering a variation of a punch he used in the 70′s which he thinks he could get to me by around 2016 if i give him all my dinner money for next week upfront.
PAUL G
Sorry thats been overtaken by events MOD have annonced a new BAE sole supplier ‘PISSUP’* Program involving multi national partners to assess future pinch and punch requirements going forward in the post afghanistan, warfighting environment.
The following program goals have been set with the outline funding as follows
1)£40 million has been set aside for assessing the available pinches as against future Uk requirements. By 2015
2)£40 million Developing and ‘leveraging’ future technologies by 2020
3) £40 miilon on the blue sky what is apinch and is it relevent to tomorrows battlefield? question
(ongoing in tandum with above)
4) £40 million on investigating if we could join Europinch in coperation with the French and Germans. But only if they are prepared to make it in imperial rather than metric. 2015 onwards
5)We will follow a twin track approach with Punch replicating the above processe, and funding.
*Pinch/Punch In Sustainable Service User Program
Rumours that BAE have just painted their exisitng pinch/punch in British army cammo and presented the bill have been denied, apparantly a huge amount of ‘integration’ was required involing whole new technolgies.
good article on the TA:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8677098/The-Territorial-Army-still-has-much-to-offer.html
He asks: “only last summer the conventional wisdom was that the TA were due for another big hit, even though there was not much left to hit. It is good that there has been a volte face but one must wonder at whose behest this damascene conversion took place”
I think we have to credit the coalition here, for in explicitly separating the defence review from the reserves review it prevented the brass from trading in a few ‘worthless’ weekend warriors for ‘real’ tommies.
new defence select committee report critical of the sdsr:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/defence-committee/news/publication-of-report3/
Thanks Jedi,
Just read the summary and conclusions and a couple of sections. I found this one in the section on Nimrod very interesting:
“135. We questioned whether the complex systems envisaged for the Nimrod MRA4 could have been deployed in a different platform such as an Airbus. Professor Julian Lindley-French commented:[146]
A representative of a certain American company asked me whether its platform could take that equipment, and the answer would appear to be yes. Again, what saddened me was that I approached the Dutch and spoke to the French about offsetting operating costs with potential multinational forces. The initial response was very interested; the French told me that they would even offer the Breguet Atlantics that they had in store if we upgraded their electronics suites. I don’t know whether that is possible, but the point is that of the seven military tasks in the SDSR, the MRA4 could have played a very important role in all of them. It was the loss of the enablers, because the single services were forced back to defend their own core competencies by the process, which for me was the biggest failing of the SDSR process. Forget all the strategic stuff: there was a haggle at that last weekend, which was utterly unacceptable in terms of the national strategic requirements.”
“24.
We believe that for an aircraft carrier to be held in a state of extended readiness it
must be fitted with catapults and arrestor gear. (Paragraph 109)”
“112. We note that the MoD is still examining the options to bring into service the Queen
Elizabeth class carriers. We understand that this includes the timing of fitting the catapults
and arrestor gear, including whether one or both carriers should have the system fitted. We
have received no evidence that any analysis has been carried out on the cost and scope of
work required, or on the financial and technical consequences of switching JSF variant at
the time of the SDSR. We expect the MoD to publish its work programme and final
requirements for the conversion of the carriers and JSF by the end of 2012.”
Jedi, its what I have been saying since it was announced.
A decision taken on the whim, no doubt the ministers fell for the bullshit from the service chiefs about it being betterer, ooh, look at the extra range
When the penny drops just how expensive across defence this decision is then something is going to have to give to pay for it
The same committee pushed hard in the hearings for a commitment to have sight of “the plan” this side of Christmas (Ref 112 in the report)
- I don’t think they got it
JBT causing trouble – taking in vain the name of the island that must remain unspoken:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/572
:D
@ admin – “Jedi, its what I have been saying since it was announced. A decision taken on the whim, no doubt the ministers fell for the bullshit from the service chiefs about it being betterer, ooh, look at the extra range”
my interest was in the use of the plural rather than the change to the “c” version, as you know i have never been too fussed what flew off the damned things as long as we got both.
i even preferred the “b” version precisely because it was more likely that we’d get both with that aircraft.
:)
@ Jedi
Are you going to push your e-petition over at Phoenix and The Register? ;)
I’m not a member at phoenix, but if someone wants to link it there i would be more than happy for them to do so.
as to the register, i certainly will if an appropriate article comes up.
:)
Some here bite far, far too quickly. :)
I have signed anyway.
Supacat are dangling a new product in front of the MoD – a military version of a Wildcat 4×4 rally off-roader.
I think they might want to make it quieter if it was to end up in service with anyone.
oops, done it again, by taking the name of a warfighter in vain:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2375
@ Jedi – I like your idea of a peacekeeping and stability force; do you have any estimates for how much it would cost and what percentage it would be of the DfID budget?
cheers, and no, i have very little idea other than the reported rough cost of a brigade at £1b/year.
dfid could afford it. ;)
Just watching the Parliamentary Aircraft Carrier Committee session with the Ursula Brennan Permanent Secretary of the MoD (P S), a Rear Admiral and another guy mostly silent, and oh do I hate this committee. Margaret Hodge the chair is absolutely loathsome, you could see she was really pissing off the P S with her absolutely awful mind in regards to the Carrier (+F-35) subject. I really feel for Miss/Mrs(?) Brennan, she looks likes she aged a bit and I think is having to deal with a world that has very little understanding of 21st century armed forces.
The whole committee really did not seem to have any grounding in the spheres surrounding creating an enormous hi-tech warship that has a very significant partner in the JSF project.
Sorry.
I’m appalled with these back-bencher MPs and have more respect and appreciation for the MoD. You might be able to watch the committee session online either BBC Parliament site or iplayer.
Nearly everything these MPs say grinds with me, you’d think if they were on this committee they would know all the basic and medium level details. Thank god this Rear Admiral clearly is a person with a very calm disposition.
Permanent Under-Secretary, I was right the first time, then changed it because Margaret Hodge, vile women, missed out the under, and I trusted her.
Hodge is an ex-minister, laughable! God I hate her.
The Commons select committee I’ve referred to is actually the Public Accounts Committee and not what the programme info told me.
Committee just getting instruction and a tiny telling-off from an NAO lady, I think.
The NAO is good and it seems everyone recognises that, but they and all MPs should remember they’re not experts in the fields they’re auditing and studying.
Sorry for my disjointed writing.
A link http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/publications/
another,
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/
and here’s the bbc Parliament video http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9535000/9535326.stm. the vids 2 hours long but it’s very educational of how these things are: how these back benchers are all the dynamics to do with communication. You get to hear from MoD PUS’s mouth, whaetver I could go on.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?202303-A-videoclip-that-reveales-the-true-nature-of-NK-famine-of-2011
“The NK famine of 2011 is a famine of NK military, not civilians who have learned to get by the famine through underground market economy. This is because all the civilians who couldn’t survive through black market died during the NK famine of 1995~1996.
This is why Kim Jong Il regime is so desperate to secure food aid for its military, because of the possibility of the troop revolt that would trigger the regime collapse.
Thus any humanitarian food aid to NK goes straight to feed NK troops and sustain the regime, and is actually harming the NK civilians under the tyranny of Kim Jong Il.”
Second flight of the Falcon!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/10/us-military-fastest-plane-falcon
Michael sadly htv-2 developed an unexpected yaw and entered an uncontrollable roll into the sea. Along with the waverider crash earlier this year is unfortunate for hypersonic vehicles
Ahh bugger, had high hopes for this one :/
Better luck next time :)
re. some comments regarding Arctic requirements on the Type 26 & India posting: The USA is taking a serious look at the military implications of climate change & some interesting observations and recommendations for naval operations in the Arctic, amongst other things, are to be found in this lengthy document > http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2011/03/10/PrepubAllClimateChange110218.pdf
The US navy also has no surface combat ships hardened for ice operations (read from 2-14 to 2-20).
The report sees need for the US to prepare for a new “great game” in the Arctic (4-10 to 4-12).
Chapter 5 provides an interesting insight to the communication and navigation challenges of operating in the high Arctic. It also has an interesting analysis of the issues involved with antisubmarine warfare in the Arctic (5-13 to 5-18). Of interest is the observation that the US Virginia class of submarines are not as capable at penetrating thick ice as the Los Angeles class. What about Astute?
@TD
Here, i found you your very own comms container.
http://www.edisposals.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/Disposals-Public-Site/en_US/-/GBP/ViewProductDetail-Start;pgid=MieqQ4wkQg8000ArvQ_8K1sp0000LACLyJEC?ProductUUID=%2eT3AqBELz7UAAAEaGx3bFlTk&CatalogCategoryID=kjrAqBELD48AAAD_pWxpc4dz&JumpTo=OfferList
The Container is only £1,000 maybe we could all club together and get it for him.
Now all he’d need is a swivel chair and a white cat and he can run Think Defence from a place of comfortable, protected safety. I bet it even has a bunk for when he’s had a few too many.
Is your garden big enough?
(incredible, the things they have on that site, check out the very expensive watches!)
DOD Buzz is saying the UK is looking into F35 buddy refuelling.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/15/uk-to-study-f-35c-buddy-refueling/
@ Paul R,
That got me thinking and I found this article:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/23/346412/brazilian-navy-buys-traders.html
If the figures quoted are correct, then at $4m for a refurbed C-1 Tracker, that will have about 10 (speculated) years of service life and can carry out tanking, it’s the deal of the decade. Brazil is certainly showing that with some carefully buying, you can knock together an okay CVBG (compared to other developing nations).
Unfortunately after having a looking in the USN/USAF parts bin (http://www.amarc.info/) there doesn’t seem to be many left. So I would probably have to agree with others and say that buddy refuelling is the most likely. However if costs do start to stack up, with regards to installing tanking capacity to the F-35, then my chosen solution would be a small batch of S-3 Vikings.
The S-3’s were used as tankers with the buddy refuelling system, and the US-3a derivative was a COD version capable of carrying 6 passengers or 4,500lbs of cargo. According to the AMARC website, there are about 100 S-3’s stored there (including 4 US-3 versions). So all we do is pick the best 10 as that allows for: 4x S-3 in service, 2x S-3 for training, 4x S-3 for spares. This then provides the carriers with an emergency tanking capability and it also provides us with a limited (no big ramp) but longer ranged COD than a Merlin HM1.
So a regular Carrier Air Wing would have:
1x 12 Plane F-35c Squadron (Fighter/Attack)
1x 2 Plane E-2c Flight* (AEW&C)
1x 2 Plane S-3 Flight (COD, Tanking)
1x 3 Helicopter Merlin HM2 Flight (ASW)
1x 1 Helicopter Merlin HM1 Flight (Plane Guard, SAR)
*also bought under FMS, upgraded to E-2C 2000 standard, pooled training and spares with the French
Considering that the QE Class can only carry around 45ish aircraft max, the 20 aircraft based in the above wing should nicely pad-out the hanger and deck, so they don’t look completely stupid and empty.
The problem is the s3 were retired because they had used up there trap life this can’t really be extended. If it’s deemed necessary for an aar capability on the carrier then cod/aar a/c maybe a better bet. I would also suggest the rn has operated a helicopter from a single frigate far from land much more than the US ever has. Also the range available in the a330 should allow most If not all carrier operations to be conducted. Likewise e3d for AWACS cover
Interesting peice from Information Dissemination; Al-Qieda using the sea for transport/logistics and the idea of Tatical raiding:
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/08/al-qaedas-sapower-strategy.html
For all those enamoured of the collapsing of the armed forces into a single defence force, the Canadian PM confirms that the Canadian Defence Forces are to be renamed:
Royal Canadian Navy
Canadian Army
Royal Canadian Air Force
Back to where they were 30 years ago……
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/08/16/pol-military-renaming.html
Can the A330 cover the air to air refueling needs of a carrier? Closer to land yes, but with problems of overfly permissions and not being able to take on fuel itself, you could get cut short in some areas.
@ Jed
You beat me to posting that. :-). It is quiet interesting/funny to read the comments section, as the views expressed dont seam to stack up with the 2/3 in favour 1/3 against as shown in the poll.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/08/do-you-like-the-new-names-for-canadas-navy-and-air-force.html
Both carriers converted to accommodate JCA – Hat-tip Gabby:
http://bfbs.com/news/scotland/mid-section-royal-navy-aircraft-carrier-move-50688.html
am i just a miserable git or was that a little dig by the BAE man when he said “when the MOD make up their mind about the specs, then we’ll fit it” or as i translated it “coz you’ve changed your mind, and although the design accomodated space for cats and traps, we’re gonna blame you and charge a fortune”
Paul G
“Designed with space for” has a very different dollar implication than “fitted with”.
My rucksack was designed with space for an iPad….
agreed but he still came across as a miserable git!!!!!
@Jed – I wonder if the Canadian ‘re-naming’ is because it’s genuinely better to have three individual services or because it proved impossible to overcome service inertia and public support for ‘their regiment’ or squadron? No way of getting an unbiased post-mortum of the decision, I suppose?
Nobody has commented on this here so I will. July’s copy of Soldier had an article about the AAC and Apache reaching 100,000 hrs. BUT they article referred to RAF Middle Wallop and RAF Wattisham. Whoops!!!!!!1
read the august letters, guess the theme!
Failure of the MOD logistic chain?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mod-supply-chain-at-risk-of-collapse-2340150.html
LM airship:
http://www.reuters.com/video/2011/08/18/lockheed-martin-presents-airship-of-the?videoId=218447366&videoChannel=4000&refresh=true
@ Jedi – Have been a big fan of the Hybrid airship for a while now, particularly for ASW, MCM, and partol tasks. The larger transport versions are also interesting but despite claims for their survivability I would perfer to keep them away from the front line.
It is also a shame the UK didn’t invest in this tech when it was first proposed by SKYCAT;
http://www.worldskycat.com/markets/skypatrol.html
cheers for the link.
I found out today that back in the ’60s when the Atlantic Steam Navigation Company Ltd (the company that invented the ro-ro ferry using LSTs) had its first purpose built ferries constructed the MoD(N) had input into the design. (Rather like the “new” Atlantic Conveyor (and sisters.)) ASNCo was part of the British Transport Commission and operated large LST for HMG during the Suez Crisis. It was common practice for the Soviets to build “dual” purpose ships; that is to say ones built as merchantmen but with an eye to a military use. This an example of a surviving Soviet RoRo……
http://www.fesco.ru/en/assets/fleet-fesco/vessels/fesco-gavriil/
But this example of “dual purpose” happening here is new to me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14602900
Of the few members of the RAF who actually fly, you at least expect this lot to stay in the air.
It isn’t good news we haven’t heard about the pilot. It is upsetting. It seems the media did their normal trick of spreading the news first and not think about the service families.
RIP to the pilot who died.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8714720/Historic-battalions-could-be-lost-in-cuts-warns-general.html
rusi chap on post-gaddafi iraq:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8715119/What-will-Free-Libya-look-like.html
Well the Chinook deal has just been signed for 14 Chinook HC6′s and a 5 year Support Package today for the cost of £1bn.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/22/361090/uk-signs-1bn-deal-for-chinook-hc6-fleet.html
A good list of what to shop for if you want an anti-ship capability:
“The Harpoon family’s best known competitor is the French/MBDA *M38/39/40 Exocet, but recent years have witnessed a growing competitive roster at both the subsonic (Israel’s Gabriel family, Russia’s SS-N-27 Klub family, Saab’s RBS15, Kongsberg’s stealthy NSM, China’s YJ-82/C-802 used by Hezbollah in Lebanon), and supersonic (Russia’s SS-N-22 Sunburn/Moskit, SS-N-26 Yakhont, and some SS-N-27 Klub variants, India’s SS-N-26 derived PJ-10 BrahMos) tiers.”
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/23/361105/maks-russian-firm-debuts-shipping-container-housed-cruise.html
I think Think Defence will be creaming it pants, sadly there are no pictures.
Not directly military but this has potential for a large military impact.
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/08/22/falklands-government-readies-for-a-decision-on-a-new-deep-sea-port
ACC
Do not forget Taiwans’ Hsiung Feng III supersonic
asm. Or Europes proposed Perseus.
Have just returned from a weeks hols.
Went to Toulon. Home port french fleet
Some thoughts: -
1) looked like most of the fleet, I counted
2 Mistrals
4 LPD’s
3 (I think) LaFayettes
2 Horizons
3 Mine hunters
2 Fleet supply vessels
2-3 of those small frigates they use for colonial duty.
CDG (Looking very tired, rusty forlorn, without a sign of life on board)
Was in port, not looking like it was going anywhere soon-(no commitments? cash strapped?)
2) Generally how small- even the Mistrals looked compared with the Mediteranian Ferries and cruise ships, comming in and out.
Cant help thinking navel designers, and those who commission ships are missing a trick here.
I3) In particular the supply and amphibious ships could be easily converted on the drawing board from commercial designs raft mounted engines and a few extra bulkheads cannot be that expensive.
4)Something or other ‘of the seas’ was in port about 100,000 tons of cruse ship .
It made CDG look like a Row boat. L kept looking at it and thinking how many ship based fighters of your choice you could fit on it?…
I think the posted TD photo proves, as I have suggested, that even for the CSAR capability we have to go begging:
“Apache Helicopter Takes off from HMS Ocean During Operation Ellamy (by Defence Images)
Are those US helcopters on the deck?”
- referring to the two near the aft of HMS OCEAN
What do you guys think?
Hi JH,
Thanks for the Perseus ref (as it was also the name for a cancelled USN asm, the Paris Air Show launch news escaped my attention (USN is now working on LRASM).
The list was about existing asm’s and we just heard (from Paul R) about Klub being available container-packed. Saab is working on a 1000 km ranged version of RBS15 (does not sound like any of the existing clients as it would bypass the sea bordering the client nation).
But back to Perseus, by 2030 AESAs will be cheap as chips: they will put one on the missile, and add a laser radar to complement (all-weather)!
Further, it could be coming to the RN “A team of nine British, French, German and Italian engineers from MBDA, together with representatives from the Royal Navy and the French Navy, has evaluated the requirement and the solution for Perseus from operational analysis through to key performance specifications”
- current Harpoons will expire around 2020, this replacement only becomes available 10 years later
Hi Ixion,
RE “kept looking at it and thinking how many ship based fighters of your choice you could fit on it?…”
- too many! Think if the Canberra had been lost
I find it incredible that USMC packs the whole MEU (including the air component) on one ship. Except that the air component has by now grown so much that even an “America” can’t hold it (hold yes; operate no). Will soon be rectified, if the F35B gets cancelled.
- the above with ref to the leaps&bounds development of asm’s
ACC
I think you misunderstand me.
If you look at any aircraftcarrier even Nimitz Class they are very tight for space. So a lot of design work goes into filling every nook and cranny, designing ‘efficient’ layouts.
Expensive design work.
Wht if we said ‘F**k it’ we will just buy a big boxy hull and for £1billion (remember QM2 only cost half that and she is propper ocean going ship not a floating hotel). And then put 18 or 24 fighter aircraft on it with lots of space for maintenence spares, fuel weapons, Secret squirrels, Small Peruvian Trade delegations etc etc, You know flexibility. It would have double the range and sustainable sorte rate of the CVF, AS SHE IS LIKELY tO ENTER SERVICE AND SPEND MOST OF HER LIFE DEPLOYED.
And would cost half as much to build.
As with other thread, I have just posted, we are reinventing the wheel again. The worlds ship yard now routinely build ships that make Nimtz look average sized at best. There is simply no need to get all specialized and expensive about big hulls.
So I am not talking about filling it with a hundred aircraft just saying:-
You have a millitary cargo, Soldiers, Helicopters, Fixed wing Fuel/stores, cruise missiles whatever.
Pick the Commercial hull of your choice that it will fit in, (available off the shelf from 10,000 to 200,000 tons and fit it in!
Who cares if it leaves a bit of space round the edges.
Look at cost benefit curves and use the available technology to make them quiet, stick in a few more bulkheads and sail away.
There are for example Commercial cargo hulls out there in the 20,000 ton class that do 25 knots and are very sea worthy. Stck the gubbins from a T45 on it and save a hundred million a ship and reduce maintenence costs somewhat.
IXION,
I thought you were talking about troop carriers, not carriers.
At least for the former, now you know where to order them from. “The Oasis class have surpassed the earlier Freedom class as the world’s largest passenger ships. At 360 m (1,180 feet) in length Oasis is 21 metres (69 ft) longer than the prior largest passenger ship, the Independence of the Seas and classmates. Oasis also is 8.5 metres (28 ft) wider, and with a gross tonnage of 225,282, is almost 45% larger(5,400 passengers).
Like the Freedom class, the Oasis class ships are built by STX Europe (formerly Aker Yards) in Turku, Finland. The first of the Oasis class, priced at US$1.24 billion (€ 900 million) reportedly is the most expensive commercial ship ever built”
- still, don’t put too much at risk at any single point, e.g a vessel
ACC
“Priced at US$1.24 billion (€ 900 million) reportedly is the most expensive commercial ship ever built”
Circa £800 mill read em and weep :- we could have 4 and still get change out of the current cvf hull program!
Like I said it applies from TD’s Forward squadron patrol ships, up to super carriers. lets order the hulls and fit them out with bits that go beep and bang in the uk.
RE:”Small Peruvian Trade delegations” – I feel you’re being overly optimistic; what with Ministers wife, sister in law, 20+ other family members, friends, gardener, various pets and Llamas…
On a more serious note:
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2011/01/maersk-line-afloat-forward-staging-base_15.html
Or http://thedignifiedrant.blogspot.com/2009/12/forward-to-thousand-ship-american-navy.html
@ Gareth Jones re Peru
You are far too young to know about Michael Bentine’s Potty Time so I will leave it there…..
@ Gareth Jones re Maersk
Wow!
There are rumours on the web that Gaddafi is in Zimbabwe. Perhaps it is time to dust of our “how would you invade Zimbabwe?” theories? It will make a change from chasing Argentinians around the South Atlantic. :)
If you want to go into Zimbabwe, you should have a look at this;
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/08/libya-lessons-supremacy-of-sof-airpower.html
Interesting read; similar idea I put forward for Light Dragoons, except they were intended to be rapid reaction/scout-skirmishers, working with heavier army units.
Of course having some native auxiliaries – sorry, allied forces – on the ground would appear to be helpful.
What are people thought on the UK defence industry?
I’m sure some of you have seen the comments by the Eurofighter bloke, saying it could be our last hurrah.
So do you agree that the UK is lacking in future projects. Ship building and its bit should be ok because of Type 26, but after that work on vanguard replacement?
UK aerospace wise? It seems we’ve got like 2 UAV in service. with another 2 research by BAE, 1 by QinetiQ. Then land based, well the countless posts on here it seems there is always something being researched and made but lacking in output.
Anyone really worried about the lack of projects and commitment from the government(s)
I’m now worrying that while we’re getting joint rivet, I don’t trust the politicians to be able to put our equipment on there.
I find it funny, in the times it talks about UK defence exports to these dictators and us being the second largest defence exporter(!!??!?!?!) it seems the we’re not helping ourselves by always chopping and cutting back projects because it will lead to well um lack of engineers(forced to go into other sectors or retrain) I met a builder, he managed the projects, he use to do be a sparky for missiles!!!!
Its really worrying the state of the projects and political will with them. Nimrod is a great example of that, once they were sorted and in the air, that would have done us well and in the mean time we could have started to design and test commercial airliners for the next platform, make a euro wide project out of it, because it seems the intelligence side of defence comes across as a big mish mash around europe and the world. I think the French would have gone with it (Didn’t they want to use our systems as well?) Screw germany, they’re a nightmare!
http://youtu.be/vSp2l2OkKRA
or http://www.youtube.com/user/BritishForcesNews#p/u/10/vSp2l2OkKRA
PAUL R
Given we really do have the capability and capacity to make good stuff, the problem form the point of view of sustained manufature is that the british armed forces are no too small to sustain a self contained industry.
We have to sell if we want to make projects worthwhile, since we are seemingly institutionaly unable to compromise design objectives, to more achievable levels, and insist on kit that is ‘perfect for our specialised requirements’
It can be a difficult sell abroad, Particulary as we have been unable to keep the prices competative.
We are number 2 in the world, but that is at least in part the result of a number of ‘BIG’ deals almost certainly involving large scale corruption, rather that the steady sales of say Mirage fighter, Meko frigates, type 200 odd subs, or M113 derivatives.
One shining example of what we could do is Japans ship buying and building program.
One desaster is Japans Aircraft buying and buildinng program, the one supplies steady upto date powerfull kit that would be sellable if their constiution allows it, the other provides expensive late into service stuff.
We adopt a policy of ‘No compromise with the customer’ rather than the customer is always right.
New MoD DSTL maritime surface targets:
http://www.unmanned.co.uk/unmanned-vehicles-news/unmanned-surface-vehicles-usv-news/asv-awarded-mod-unmanned-surface-vehicle-contract/
ASV awarded MoD unmanned surface vehicle contract
AUGUST 5, 2011
“Portsmouth, UK – ASV Ltd has recently been awarded a contract by the UK Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) for the Provision of Remote Controlled Naval Surface Target Systems and Associated Capabilities.
French article on CVF, looks intersting, my French is limited.
http://www.dsi-presse.com/?p=3462&cpage=1
The mobile thread popped up on my mobile last night, just thought I’d let you know
The mobile site popped up on my mobile last night, just thought I’d let you know
Well here’s an interesting one apparently the mod is leasing 2 a330 aircraft off cyprus air. Have we low balled the pfi or is this a gap filler
Mark I saw that as well.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/09/02/361544/uk-mod-signs-sub-lease-deal-for-cyprus-airways-a330s.html
I can only guess the deal works out cheaper then having to find aircraft. But did we not have any aircraft of our own or a contract already for some simple troop transport?
Some recent words from V Admiral Daly, Deputy Commander of USN Fleet Forces:
“Daly acknowledged that the capability to conduct amphibious assaults has been somewhat diluted. “The demands of land conflicts over the last decade have forced something of a separation between our Navy amphibious forces and the Marines they are designed to carry into combat,” Daly said. “Only by training together, sailing together, fighting together, can we ensure that amphibious warfare remains a premier national capability — so the country is not dependent on overseas bases, and able to conduct forcible entry without a buildup, and without a permission slip.”
- sound familiar?
Paul R
I first thought we had found someone to take a couple of our part time a330s before we even had them !! I can only assume that with the faster withdrawal of vc10 and tristar or the increases demands of aar in lybia were needing these to cover the cracks in afghan.
on another completely different topic that might be worth a watching the rn have let a film crew go with turbulent to the mid east on tv monday
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-events/royal_navy_submarine.htm
Hi Paul & Mark,
This must be part of the famous VC10 problem: not too long ago they had to be recertificated to carry passengers.
But it can’t be all bad to have two aircraft that are maintained at the hub (Cyprus) and we only pay for the variable costs. Do they do this leg and RAF the A-stan leg (with aircraft that have defensive aids installed)?
FSTA – where are you?
FSTA? Well Cobham has just got the first aircraft to start work on.
British airship company, Hybrid Air Vehicles, now has its first civilian contract for a 50 tonne, 100 knots craft. This follows on from their 200 tonne lifter for the US Army.
http://www.gizmag.com/hybrid-air-vehicles-airship/19746/
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=17391
EU ‘could ignore UK’ on HQ plans
So a veto could end up meaning sod all?
Hi, has anyone seen this yet?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/08/turkey-gaza-warships-escort
It is also being reported in Israel too.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/erdogan-turkey-warships-will-escort-any-future-gaza-aid-flotilla-1.383300#article_comments
Will Turkish and Israeli warships actually start shooting at each other or is it a giant bluff?
Not news to me. It all depends how much credence you give to the reported “gap” between the Turkish government and the Turkish military. There was a bit of a purge in the army ranks not long back. We shall see.
Michael, interesting stuff, lets hope nerves are kept
More sabre rattling
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8750478/Falkland-Islands-under-military-occupation-claims-Argentine-ambassador.html
Recently acquired two books on the Rhodesian SAS and the Selous Scouts; two archetypal counter insurgency forces, whose small numbers managed to have a large effect on the insurgent forces they faced. The latter of these two forces were reknown for their pseudo operations, which involved turning terrorist prisoners into soldiers, who had a very bad affect on enemy morale. Surely this tactic could be used in Afghanistan, such a force deployed along the Pakistan border could help to turn off the tap.
http://www.ccmr.org/public/library_file_proxy.cfm/lid/5619
@ Tom
I have a small collection of books on the Rhodesian Bush War. And I agree that many of the tactics and strategies used by that very small army to police a very large could be transferred to Afghanistan. The current British deployment is nearly 3 times of the entire Rhodesian armed forces at the height of their war. They had only a few small helicopters and improvised.
@ All
The thread over on ARRSE about 1QLR is really interesting.
TD
They must have sent the contaminated fuel to mount pleasant as a first strike.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8754601/Morale-in-armed-forces-plunges-to-new-low.html
Morale
ACC
Re VC10.
Why oh why did we not buy the 4 ex BWIA Tristar 500 for a song? I guess the clunking fist of Gordon was to blame?
Lately, Gaby mentioned this project. Unlikely to deliver any hardware (like a new naval gun):
Future Maritime Fires
(FMF) Concept Phase
To support the DE&S International,
Guns, Missiles & Rockets (IGMR)
Project Team through the FMF
Concept Phase utilising a
collaborative MOD / Industry
approach
Mitigating the risk of divergence between the
T26 platform and fires solution, leading to
significant cost savings downstream
These two won’t deliver any kit, either, but might save bn’s:
Capability Audit Supporting the Dstl-led project to
improve Capability Audit process.
Specifically: conducting a review
of the current capability structure
to identify and recommend
improvements and conducting a
review of available tools
To enable Cap EP and the MOD Unified
Customer to make informed BOI decisions
across capability stovepipes
———————
Programme Board
Restructuring
To determine the scope,
boundaries and structures of the
Capability Delivery Programmes
required to best deliver the DCDS
(Cap) Capability Portfolio
Identification of the optimal structure to
manage the complex relationships between
programmes to facilitate the realisation of
intended benefits
A Good “off the wall” spanner that could be thrown in the works.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8755881/Germany-and-Greece-flirt-with-mutual-assured-destruction.html
“Germany’s EU commissioner Günther Oettinger said Europe should send blue helmets to take control of Greek tax collection and liquidate state assets.”
Ambroses* reaction is telling.
“They had better be well armed.”
*For those of you who dont read AEP at the DT, start.
There lies dam lies and the cost of military hardware
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7656140&c=AME&s=TOP
The amount made by UK defence contractors
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7637327&c=EUR&s=TOP
Two out of these three “Export revenues were predominately from aerospace sales, making up 7.1 billion pounds, or 75 percent of the total. The major earners were BAE Systems’ Typhoon fighter jets and Hawk trainer jets, and AgustaWestland’s EH101 helicopters.” get a lot of flak, for some reason
- then again, this is an industry PR figure: if you export a Typhoon or an EH101, how much of each has been imported (prior)?
ACC The really interesting number would have been how much in tax revenues the uk government makes from those companies.
ACC
About 70% of the Typhoon value is simply imported
into the UK I believe.
Although I’m not sure where assembly fits into the work share splits, if everyone assembles their own from kits, it will be a bit lower, although not much.
An interesting angle on the (potentially) wider ramifications of the Syria situation; should the “solidarity” of Iran, standing be the side of the challenged regime is rewarded by a (secret) transfer of Yakhont anti-ship missiles:
“AEGIS systems, used on U.S. Navy and many NATO vessels, the European PAAMS, used by the Royal Navy, French and Italian navies and Israel’s new Barak 8 ship air defense system are designed to match such treats. So does Israel’s ‘Magic Wand’ system, employing the Stunner missile interceptor, capable to counter these potent missiles effectively if employed in surface/surface or ship/surface role. However, the majority of smaller naval vessels, still equipped with ‘point defense’ anti-missile systems were not designed to counter such high speed attacks, particularly when it comes in salvos of two or four missile.”
- USN sails there high-value units into the Gulf; I bet RN would hesitate to risk the few that can/ could be deployed (while to CIWSs installed on other vessels are deemed ineffective, or only partially effective)
ACC
Your pushing at an open door with me!
The Navies of the world are underestimating severely, not just the threat from peer enemies, but the threat form non peer enemies who gain access to high end anti ship missiles.
They are not going to be easy or cheap to counter. BTW I have heard stories that Aegis has struggled against exisitng 2nd gen mislies like OTOMAT, in tests, in the 90′s. (Although I realise it will have been substantially upgraded since then).
ACC
It is of course very possible that Iran could scare the RN out of the Gulf, I doubt the US would see the threat.
Lets say Iran aims big, and knocks out a Wasp and its destroyer escort in a sneak attack.
Can you imagine what the US response would be?
The USNs fighting capability would be untouched, but they’d be out for blood, if they did something really stupid, and destroyed them on the eleventh of september….
Thesis about operating in confined waters – somewhat flawed IIRC by being biased towards LCS.
http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2009/Jun/09Jun_Ozdemir.pdf
http://defense-update.com/20110914_fire-shadow-afghanistan.html
Interesting……
http://defense-update.com/20110914_st-kinetics-amsafe-join-forces-to-market-tarian-rpg-protection.html
Hi GJ,
The Hormuz scenario (by Ozdemir), extended to any more serious littoral scenario, concludes what is needed for single ships not to be sitting ducks against a submarine threat:
- If there is not a double helicopter capability,
– then ship-launched torpedoes are also required.
Current RN frigates should have one or the other capability expanded when they start to go into refits (Artisan and all that); for the former alternative that would mean sacrificing the manned helo for 2 or more RUAVs
Further significant oil finds in the falklands
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14925620
Items highlighted in the immediate aftermath of the SDSR:
two new carriers, with one equipped to allow full interoperability with key allies;interoperable through the choice of “C” with one,and at the most interleaved in deployments with the other (AEW fixed wing assets might broaden that picture later)
• introduction of the more capable carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter instead of the vertical take off variant; looks like we are going to be relieved of our three “B”s, eventually
• six state of the art Type 45 air defence destroyers;Tick!No land-attack or ASW, when it would fit in?
• seven of the most advanced Astute-class hunter-killer submarines in the world;Tick!Maybe even one more if the Trident thing becomes an election issue
• replacing Type 23 frigates with Type 26 frigates and reducing the total number of frigates and amphibious ships;Dove-tailing the T23 refits, the T26 new launches and the related equipment swaps still totally in the dark (from now to through the 2020′s) at least until possible November announcement
• restructuring amphibious shipping to enable the landing of a Commando Group (up to 1,800 personnel);Delivering on related helo assets is still (?) hearsay, even though it looks like progressing
• five Multi-Role Brigades with a range of capabilities to operate across the variety of possible future conflicts;The 3-month review should reveal *if* they will have the kit to cover that spectrum (and *also* by when that might happen)
• a significant increase in Special Forces enabling manpower (medical, signals, logisticians);Isn’t this just restating what the previous Gvmnt had done? Nothing heard (but then again, ‘special’ comes close to ‘secret’)
We’ll see…
Just watching Warship on Channel 5 a documentary about HMS Bulwark – lots of interesting things but the most surprising thing is that they have Chinese laundry men presumably on some sort of sub-contract – was rather surprised by that.
Tubby
Long lasting situation re laundry goes back to empire etc
Hi Ixion,
I was expecting that with all the cutbacks they would have gotten rid of sub-contracted laundry men by now.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsf/articles/20110919.aspx
Australia has merged all her airborne units into their special forces, with 16 air assault being a defunct formation is it about time all our para battalions became SFSG.
Libya Saves Carrier Strike http://navy-matters.beedall.com/
“Thanks to Libya and the pre-mature loss of Ark Royal, some of the serious mistakes made in SDSR have become impossible to ignore – even by the politician’s involved in the decisions.”
“The problem now is to buy enough F-35C’s to form the three front-line squadrons of 12 aircraft that are needed to fill the decks of a QE in a crisis, and for once the RN and RAF will present a unified front!”
Too right!
Regarding RFA
I thought all (or almost) all RFA were merchant seamen, IE chinese and indian?
Watched most of it last night, the “training” seems distinctly, inaccurate, shall we say?
I’m sure Clarkson used a laser tag type system on a top gear test once, against British Army Snipers.
The Marines who are going to be shot at no doubt take it far more seriously than the ships company who are just out for a jolly, but, It doesnt look that useful, “they die when we get near” sounds bloody dangerous.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8777044/French-army-red-faced-after-command-post-stolen.html
French loose half a million pound cargo container HQ.
Ahh Tom.
You beat me to it!
When i first saw the headline i immediately thought that TD had finally got one what he’s always wanted :)
“When i first saw the headline i immediately thought that TD had finally got one what he’s always wanted :)”
ROFL! :D
my precious
So, i keep reading that the US DoD has been told that they have make savings of squillions of dollars (well something in the region of a couple of trillion).
If they had a fire sale or just gave stuff away to get rid of manpower/operating costs, what would the commenters on TD buy/obtain?
Paul g there P8
Or if they fancied developing this
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/09/images-lockheeds-stealth-c-130.html
Paul G
C117
Lots of trucks
M4 carbines
Container containers
F18′s
pretty much everything so long as it was at fire sale rates.
@ paul g
V-hulled Strykers
Their stock of Excalibur rounds
Their stock of ATacMS’s
Their F-18Growlers
IP and design drawings for LRASM
- this will be produced as an air-launched weapon (LRASM-A) and a ship-launched weapon (LRASM-B). LRASM-A will concentrate on maintaining a low radar profile, while the –B model will be more about speed.
Ixion,
Here’s your wish http://www.nordicshelter.no/produkt/sammenleggbare-containere-multishelter/#2
From 1 to 4 as in “Container containers”
ACC
You can’t put post like that on here.
TD’s heart will never stand the strain of all that excitement!
Can i add to ACC’s list?
All of their remaining B1-B’s!
That way the RAF will get the aircraft that they have secretly lusted after.
Then lot’s of….
S-3 Vikings
Hawkeye’s
C-17′s
CH-53′s
AC-130′s
Newer Tomahawks
Rim-Ram or SeaRam, 30 or 40 systems at least.
Maybe a few Assault Ships, a few LST’s and some Fast Replenishment Ships. Sixteen’ish Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigates (they have 19 of them in service, i think!), would also find a welcome, loving home.
Might also go for nine or ten well maintained, late model, low mileage, Los Angeles Class Attack boats too. If that’s a no go, then i’d definatly take all of the converted Ohio Class instead, with complete weapon loads and 4 or 5 reloads.
Would also be very interested in a squadron of Goshawks and a Training Carrier.
A complete fleet (+ spares), of road Tank Transporters could come in handy as well.
Add all that to ACC’s stupendus list! If they ever decided to just give it away, that is :)
Sorry IXION, didn’t see your list…..definatly grab the M4′s!
I’d grab the M4′s if we let H&K reboot them to 416′s or 417′s I originally posed the question as it occoured to me that we “waste” apache D’s when training students and think it would be feasible to use 2nd hand A versions for the initial training, and then let the students on the D’s when doing the CTR phase at the ‘sham. I knew if i asked it would turn into a “dear santa” special!!! :-)
Isn’t there an advantage in that your very experienced instructors have ready, near instant access to the latest model which has all the newest gadgets?
Emergency happens, the cream of the crop are ready to rock?
@Michael (Civ) – Second the B1Bs for the RAF, plus surplus AV8Bs, oh hang on….
ok
Lets assume the whole world had a fire sale.
What would you grab
From Whom
why
instructors, teach the art of flying, which is why after the middle wallop phase students spend a year doing the combat flying phase. tables are slightly turned now as they need these guys to teach (QHI course is nails and your pilot spends a long time out of the loop at shawbury) and therefore quite a few are not getting operational experience, the ones who have that experience, well you don’t won’t to lose that while he/she goes on a QHI course, vicious circle!! (by the way my good friend is an apache instructor, it’s where i hear the gossip, and there’s no way i’m telling a gro bag wearer he was described as “cream of the crop” i’ll never hear the end of it)!!
@ IXION
I heard someone at the company i used to work for describe Lufthansa maintanance personel as “a bunch of anal-retentive robotic perfectionist’s, all of whom do not have the slightest idea that humans are mean’t to have a sense of humour!”.
Therefore, i would grab Germany’s entire inventory, you can keep whatever anyone else has. My stuff will not break down or fall apart, your’s no matter who it’s from, almost certainly will.
@ paul g
It’s a damm strange world. I know someone who’s son is now an instructor on Apache’s. Seven or eight years ago, or more, he (the father), showed me an odd picture of a Lynx in flight.
It is an odd picture cause it’s not immediately apparent that the aircraft is flying upside down. The thin greeny-brownish line at the top of the streaky grey background is actually the ground.
:D
good chance i will know that person, obviously personnal security means we can’t check, shame. The guy i know has just been recognised for his services in training apache pilots. i’ve had a few scoops with the guys in fact i was posted to wallop for a while. the maintainence people didn’t like the lynx going upside down, lots of hours in the servicing bay after that!!
And we think PR11 + PR12 are bad:
“[US]Lawmakers have until this October to submit their recommendations for national security spending cuts to the Super Committee. The bipartisan congressional panel will then have to come up with nearly $1.2 trillion in savings across the government, including DoD.
If the Super Committee cannot hit that $1.2 trillion goal, it will force the White House to trigger an automatic, across-the-board cut to national security spending, which is known as the “doomsday” scenario on the Hill, which some have estimated could hit near between $600 billion and $1 trillion over the next decade.”
This piece came out on Sept 19
(relates to the above contribution in the way that if money is becoming tight, there is more incentive to coordinate the uses of assets with allies; just like in Europe the procurement pressures are driving EU nations together)
“The Air Force is set to release a formal proposals request for the first phase of development for the ground station by the end of this month, he said. A draft version of the proposal is already under review by Northrop program officials, Guerra added.
That said, company engineers are already working a set of open-ended approaches for the new common control station. Those open-ended approaches will make the ground station able to control Air Force, Navy and NATO-owned Global Hawks, Guerra told reporters during the Air Force Association’s annual symposium here.
Northrop officials are in the final stages of closing the NATO deal, in which the alliance will use the Global Hawk as the basis for its new Alliance Ground Surveillance program, Guerra said.
Along with the services and NATO, these new control station will also be able to meet the “unique requirements” of foreign militaries who are looking to get the Global Hawk into their arsenals.”
- Germany and Korea have done deals, Australia and Japan are in negotiation
- we are more likely to cancel the cancelling of Sentinel?
BAE to cut 3000 UK jobs.
Latest report from rusi on Libya operation http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N4E7B610E8D672/
Makes interesting reading 22000 sorties flown of which 8500 were strike missions. It suggests a large number of sf were on the ground but not to lase targets for. I guess while we need to be cautious that the campaign is still not over we have removed a dictator with a gd level of capability without recourse to large NATO ground forces at a cost the uk about 250m pounds compared to a similar situation in afghan which has so far cost 16b.
check out the comments of the apache pilot, a polite way of telling the journalist to fu*k off and stop asking bone questions!!!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-soldiers-in-afghanistan-shown-war-snuff-movies-2360511.html
Talk about a value laden, agenda setting piece of shit article. “Practise was uncovered”. Uncovered?!
Stupid, comfortable, middle class, latte sipping, blogging, mac using, meat provenance, Islington-ite tossers spewing out invective and shite about things they know nothing about and never have to experience because there’s better men out there to do the dirty work for them.
I’m sure the writer and the film makers feel suitably brutalised after watching “kill TV” and I hope they get some counselling.
Poofters.
I’ve spoken to my pilot friend, and have said i will send a cheque to cover beer for the pilot who gave the “hopefully a 30mm round” answer!!
@x would it be pessemistic of me to assume that the opening address of any BAe govt talks would include the sentence “we have an idea for a sea typhoon, that would save the jobs, but we need some cash to develop it…………!
@ Paul G
You tinker! I had had a very similar thought!
I also thought that perhaps going into partnership to build a war plane with a country which is inclined towards passivity, a country that can’t balance its books (in a dodgy way,) and one that was late to NATO whose finances are weak and whose revenue pool is such that it has more in common with a South American state, perhaps wasn’t a very good idea.
The UK should have built its own ‘plane.
x, paulg
I think that would not happen basically because BAE will make more money from F35 sales that any sea tyhoon project. Warton is where nearly all a/c testing is done along with typhoon build so as nimrod testing is not required and typhoon well down the road this maybe a area were reductions are coming. Typhoon production is also nearing the begining of the end and any indian order will be assembled in india we are seeing the beginning of the end for uk assembled military a/c. Brough is much the same mainly hawk work is down there with UK order complete and a assembly line in india the writing has been on the wall for some time.
apparently Fox’s Defence reforms are in serious danger of succeeding!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8788299/George-Osborne-is-warned-of-disaster-over-welfare-reforms.html
@mark all good points, but this is BAe we’re talking about!! Plus just how safe is F35, don’t forget italy is a major player and according to reports they are on their arse at the mo, not mention the US DoD being told to look at saving $1-1.5 trillion. it’s called armegeddon day if it’s called.
So no harm in setting the ball rolling, don’t forget this is a company that used the factory in the north east as a bargining tool for FRES SV.
oh and after watching the frontline tv programme i’ve cancelled my cheque, the bloke came across as a tool!!
I know that i should already know this by now (thanks to you lot), but i found it very useful in understanding why things cost what they cost. Also i think i’ve finally grasped just how wildly optimistic Gov./MoD scenarios and figures are, when it come to defense planning/spending.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/25/analysing-uk-cost-of-libya-operations
@ paul g
I haven’t actually met the dude i was on about, just know his dad. From some of what he’s said, no secret stuff or anything……they are very, very good, also quite mad :D
Here is a break down of the Data. There wasn’t a link at first.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/sep/26/uk-operations-libya-costs#
Paulg
F35 is a safe as houses airforces have made it explicit. It forms a major part of there air sea doctrine. They have around 100 a/c in production now. There armour and army will see large reduction possible even a reduction in the carrier to 9. To allow spending on intelligence assets and debt reduction. Ino a 1tr sounds a lot but they 750b a year on
defence + overseas commitments.
As for the italians they moved heaven and earth to get the f35 production line they simply won’t give it up . I believe the only area of there budget they didn’t cut was the equipment budget as they need manufacturing jobs in Italy.
I would say the decision to get out of the a/c business in the nw was taken when they went for f35 and didn’t take up th us offer of final assembly along with allowing bae to sell it’s airbus stake. Some civi testing still goes on at warton. The cuts may have speed up it’s reductions a few years but the nation that help invent aerospace is slowly but surely getting out of the business.
@TD
You might want to look at this, cites a report by the UKNDA……personally i think they have been at the Tango again even though they make a lot of sense. Cause no way is any Government going to increase defence spend by 50% with all of the economic problems at the moment, even for a short while!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/27/boost-defence-spending-lose-falklands
Well I saw on the BBC some photos of two labour MPs (I didn’t watch the video) probably moaning about the BAE job losses. You can rightfully moan about Nimrod, but did Labour start a new big project in aerospace, like um assembling planes and designing whole aircraft? it would have been nice to see some UAV in services!
I see we’ve submitted our bid for Eurofighter to Japan. Would be great to get it, If Japan wants to design a big spike thing or lumps of concrete on it, they jolly well can, we’re not going to stop them *hint hint america* Could get better if Japan allowed defence exports!
At least I have some optimism
Michael, yes, thanks for that, have been reading it today
I think these former somethings now in the pay of the defence industry actually do more harm than good but there you go, I am sure there motives are good but they seem to have a knack of putting their foot in their mouths, we are not belgium, FI is ripe for the taking etc
Well i’d never heard of the UKNDA thinktank or wotever….but i know who Rose is.
Just thought that it was a bit crazy to want money that does not exist (ok it does but the Gov. have decided to give the money to people in the hopes and expectations that they won’t attack us, which i think will eventually be shown to be the useless idea that it is), so where did these experienced gentlemen expect the Gov. to find the extra 1% of GDP that they are calling for?
They don’t actually say….
This is why i like Think Defence so much, you and many other’s at least try to cost things and also think very hard about where the money will come from. Most here realise that the UK Gov. isn’t about to gut a flagship policy that they repeatedly talk about to anyone who puts a mic in front of them, unless there were an extraordinary threat on the horizon, or a Cold War Mark II or something.
I do think that defence has been cut far to much but the arguments that they are making aren’t good enough at the moment.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/video-stealth-cruise-missile-hunts-ship/
Kongsberg NSM
Am I sad for smiling and thinking “Wish I could make something like that”
Agree with Mark that F35 is “safe as houses”. However, the first rule of military planning is not to take anything for granted. The USMC already took out an insurance against “B” by mixing their order to be Bs and “C”s.
Now the USN has taken their insurance as well. It is very rare to see them as a bidder and the natural interest is of course to keep the F18 production line open as long as possible – even if that is achieved by supplying components to Japan for final assembly. This piece was released yesterday:
“US aerospace/defence firm Boeing has teamed up with the US Navy to offer the company’s Super Hornet design to Japan. If the terms are accepted, the Boeing F/A-18E Block II could potentially become the Japanese Air Self Defence Force’s next frontline combat jet.
In April 2011, a Request For Proposals (RFP) emerged from Japan for the supply of a new jet fighter and, according to Boeing, this gave a 26 September deadline for manufacturers to submit their designs. The Boeing/US Navy Super Hornet proposal represents a response to this RFP and concerns an upgraded version of an aircraft type that the US Navy has deployed to locations the world-over.
The Japanese Air Self Defence Force presently operates a number of US-origin aircraft, including F-15J Eagles and F-4EJ Phantom IIs”
- so the Eurofighter folks weren’t there of their own initiative, but because of the RFP that closed on Monday.
Hi Michael (Civ) & TD,
Who knows how good the report is, but the newspaper piece on it puts it in such light that I will rather get a copy of the new RUSI assessment.
RE “It is now quite clear that the vital twin pillars of Britain’s security for the past 50 years, the special relationship with the US and the continuation of an effective Nato, can no longer be guaranteed”
- it is not how much the Europe-part of NATO spends but *how* it is spent
- the new NATO is USA, Oz, Japan with Singapore and India as affiliated members (and Taiwan in the closet). Tot that up against any emerging threats…
Hi Paul R,
Because of NSM, Norway’s take up of F35 has never been in question (it will integrated and F35 will be export promotion for it all over the world). The big debate in Norway has been whether two or three can be carried (due to the small weapons bay).
Here’s another one, showing great promise and test fired for the first time this month:
“Boeing’s CHAMP missile – standing for Counter-Electronics High-powered Microwave Advanced Missile Project – is capable of damaging or incapacitating electronic targets.
CHAMP is designed to attack without causing associated collateral damage, of the kind produced by more traditional weapons…
Keith Coleman, Boeing Phantom Works CHAMP program manager, stated in a 22 September press release
“This demonstration, which brings together the Air Force Research Laboratory’s directed energy technology and Boeing’s missile design, sets the stage for a new breed of nonlethal but highly effective weapon systems.”"
Oto Melara Revitalizes Naval Guns With New Multi-mission Ammunition Capabilities
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3af31345cc-be70-41e1-89c2-4e047a2e3c90&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
DART for the same gun showed great promise (in a different use)
- I haven’t come across a piece declaring it operational (was meant to go on Commandante class to start with)?
I don’t know if this is the good place, but http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7803628&c=EUR&s=AIR and Liam Fox will talk wednesday 5 october at the conference to conservative party.
@ ACC – RE: CHAMP. Are we talking an EMP weapon?
If anyone else has been watching “Warship”, the 20mm gunners seem to have the best job in the world, a recliner seat mounted with a cannon, what an idea!
Hi GJ,
I can’t tell if any form of EMP falls into directed energy category. The good old-fashioned way was to blow a nuke outside the atmosphere, but over the opponent’s installations or the forces to be “blinded & muted” – not to forget wiping all magnetic media empty
France Eyes Public-Private Lease for Tanker
interesting to see what price they get. If they like they could take over our lease and we could just buy a few the normal way
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7826438&c=EUR&s=AIR
http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/RUSIBriefingPaperSept2011.pdf
So Liam Fox is saying its the MOD fault
Half of the problems yes, but the other half are the politicians. Blind leading the blind? (In Fox case, a blind man taker over from another blind man)
@PaulR
Couldn’t agree more with what you’ve just said. In fact, I’d attach 85-90% of the blame to the politicians. It was Brown and the last Labour administration which kept altering the amount of money available to the services and making any sensible planning impossible (Take the debacle over FRES). The MOD has been overmanned and has made its mistakes. I certainly wouldn’t exonerate them but compared to politicians they have been relatively innocent.
Sorry Mike, have to disagree with you on FRES, I think the majority of blame should fall on the shoulders of those in uniform
Sorry, but I can’t argue in a sustained fashion with you on this one, TD, because I am unable to quote chapter and verse. I should have made a note, I suppose, of every time that funding, which seemed to be there at one moment, suddenly and inexplicably evaporated into thin air. I am convinced, for instance, that when FRES UV was cancelled after, what were they called, the “trials of truth” (or some similar pretentious title) that it was because funding was no longer there.
Still, you are in company with “the great and the good” in thinking that the top brass were to blame. Dr. Richard North, no less, took exactly that position. Mind you, I think he had just met some top MOD/Govermnment officials who were convinced that the money was there but that the Army just could not make up its mind as to which vehicle it wanted. I think it was fairly clear to all that they wanted the winner , the Piranha, but it was cancelled.
I am not exonerating the Army completely. Perhaps it is the case that with the Army reduced from 160,000 to 100,000, then the number of really “thinking”, perceptive, intellectual and strategically aware generals has also decreased. Add to that, the increased pressure that officers are under, because of decreased numbers, and you might begin to explain some of the Army’s deficient thinking.
The should have got the RSMs from the infantry, some REME senior NCOs, and a few other senior NCOs from parties with a potential interest (the RA etc.) and took them on a shopping trip. They would have told the generals which vehicle to buy. Simples
Have people seen this?
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7826128&c=SEA&s=TOP
I put the ‘big picture’ procurement numbers out to 2035 on the T27 thread (just to highlight the crowding out effect between programmes as time passes).
To continue the same line of thought, would you rather
1. Not build the 4th Vanguard successor (and then not operate it over 30 years)
2. and , instead,take a full extra Tiffie Sqrn (of 14) and operate it over 25 years
3. or, take the full (almost?) order of FRES SV Bloc 1 of 474 vehicles and operate it over 40 years
Manpower, spares, maintenance: all included
One would have to rework the numbers for all of them to be for 25 years, but the orders of magnitude are indicative
What’s expensive to buy upfront, what’s cheap to run (once you have it, as it is not manpower intensive), how long can you expect “it” to be effective and hence not needing to be replaced
- no wonder the new catch word is matching “procurement time profiles” better
@x
Agree with you absolutely, x. It is a long-standing complaint among the ranks (and NCOs too) that they are not consulted often enough. I think that things have improved in recent years, though. For instance, I know that rank and file Royal Engineer soldiers were consulted in some detail as to what equipment they wanted on Trojan.
BAE to break up?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/us-managers-keen-for-baes-chief-to-separate-them-from-uk-parent-2364203.html
The major party in the Coalition Gvmnt is learning:
“ministers are clearly rattled by the reaction to the planning shake-up. The rules are to be “redrafted for clarity”, the Times reveals.
According to the paper, Greg Clarke “is in the process of going through the document line by line” with the National Trust”
- they should have had the same approach with SDSR, rather than rushing it to coincide with spending review
- will Dr. Fox get the platform at some stage?
Mike
If what you say is true, the generals should have resigned.
If they didnt, well, that tells you all you need to know about them.
Seen this? South Africans’ VFM ISTAR/light attack aircraft. Flight International story here, manufacturer’s datasheet.
300kias, 1,150nm on internal fuel, 1 or 2 crew, 550m TORR, 800kg payload. PT6A engine. 20mm gun and hang what you like on the wing.
@DominicJ
But no one resigns nowadays, Dominic: politicians or military officers. In fact, the last person in the military sphere I can remember resigning was Keith Speed, the Navy Minister, over matters of cuts. I don’t think that sense of honour is around today.
MikeW
As I said, I believe that tells you all you need to know about our generals, and politicians, and, well, civil servants have never resigned, but that just means they’ve always been out for themselves.
Anyway, didnt Robin Cook resign over the Iraq war?
@ Alex – Thanks for the link; a very interesting design.
@Alex
Very like the rockwell ov-10 bronco. Its an interesting idea and could be used in a similar role too the RAFs diamond a/c. If you look thru TDs links in the DESI thread about reaper and the uk going to 3*24hr orbits requiring 44 crews and significant sat infrastructure you can see the possible benefits of this type of a/c.
A thought occurs.
Recently, when stamping on anyone commenting in favour of FRES, I asked, repeatedly, for what purpose does the army need this vehicle? And time after time after time, no one could answer in anything but the blandest generalities.
Now a random comment elsewhere set me thinking, the only part of military spending that everyone (with an opinion worth listening to) seems to agree on, is Vanguard.
Vanguard, is the only piece of military equipment with a clearly stated goal, in the event of nuclear war, slag moscow.
Every other piece of kit in service effectivly lost its goal when the USSR collapsed, and now its up for renewal, its basicaly impossible to justify.
I think the RN should have 12 T45′s with SAMPSON and a further 18 T45 hulls with whatever the Frogs and Italians whacked on their FREMM.
But theres nothing in the SDSR to justify that, theres nothing in the SDSR to justify the 6 T45s we have. Not even “retake the Falklands”, because the SDSR policy is to not lose it in the first place.
The RAF wants 400 fighters, its currently slated to get 240, it’ll probably end up as the 160 Eurofighters and thats it.
But what can it actualy point to to say, see, look at that, thats we need XYZ fighters? Given the Russians cant reach us at all without flying tankers over Europe, what do we even need 160 Fighters for?
The SDSR, for whatever reason, did a spectacular job of not answering that question.
And we wonder why its such a CF
DomJ
SDSR was nothing other than a budget balancing exercise without making the politics to difficult by making difficult decisions like early withdrawal afghan.
I would say vanguard is indeed difficult to justify today with the advent of abm and this countries now limited convention capability. However it simply allows the political class to appear tough on defence.
“Given the Russians cant reach us at all without flying tankers over Europe”
Is simply not the case russian su-27,33,35 etc have 2000nm range and were design to support russian strategic bomber forces attacks on western European targets including UK. While now old and extremely unlikely russia retains both capabilities.
@DominicJ
“Anyway, didnt Robin Cook resign over the Iraq war?”
You’re quite right, he did. Forgot him! However,he was very much the exception rather than the rule.
As principled as that was, he didn’t resign his salary, comfy pension and keys to the MP’s toilet did he?
If a senior officer retires he has to do what most of them seem to do these days, join the ranks of Finnmecanica
To be fair to him
(a) technically you can’t retire from the House of Commons but instead become a Crown Steward.
(b) he was elected by the people to represent them why should he resign those duties?
He resigned from his role in any front line decision making in Government but he had no obligation to resign his elected post.
Dominc J
Stop asking questions like that!
I have been asking them for the last year on this site and liek you say, you get generalities like, world power, class leading capability, etc etc. But few seem to have any idea about the defensive capability of this sort of kit, (look at the title of this website, bit of a clue).
The only functions of most of the kit we discuss is so we can effectivly stick our noses in other peoples business on the grounds that we should ‘do something’ about whatever.
If we cut out the deployabel brigade rubbish and went with underwater knife fighters, plus a reninforced battle group or two one based on marines, one based on 16 AAB. With the rest of the army deployed and trained for anti terrorist in UK/ Blue helmet/peace keeping abroad.
Then what we would we loose, i mean truly loose, in terms of national security?
Mark
http://www.freemaptools.com/radius-around-point.htm
According to Wiki, The 27 and 37 have ranges of 3500km. I assume the ranges are takeoff, fly 3500km, land, rather than takeoff, fly 3500km, turn around, fly 3500km back, land.
If I am right,
At the very least, they would need to take off and tanker to the Russian border, but even that puts them in a Falklands situation, fighting at their absolute limit fuel, against a force without fuel constraints, and even worse, with AWACS.
Tornado ADV was built on basicaly that premise, by the time they get into a position to threaten the Navy or the UK, they’ll be so near the end of their reserves that a few long ranged missiles thrown in their general direction will force them to fly home without attacking or press home but run out of fuel well before they get home.
TD
Expecting Cook to resign from the HoC is pushing it a bit, but he should have refused the labour whip.
video of f35b landing on wasp class ship
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7cAmCCmObw
US “giving” greece 400 abrahms and a load of AAV7′s obviously getting a bit twitchy about turkey. Hope there’s a tesco near the camp with the cheap fuel only way they’ll be able to fill ‘em up!!!
Iran’s Qader Stealth Cruise Missile Enters Service
- Advanced Iranian cruise missile with 124 mile range enters service, as Iran pledges to build up naval assets in the Atlantic…
- launched from ship, land, air
[Armed Forces International Newsletter - Wednesday 05th October 2011 ]
Hi paul g,
Interesting anti-invasion aspect: ” a load of AAV7′s”
Turkey/ Israel spat is all about making Turkey more credible in the wrestle for regional hegemony with Iran. Egypt (internal turmoil) and Saudi Arabia (concentrating on shoring up near neighbours – there are more people in Yemen than in the Kingdom!)have at least for now withdrawn from the race.
I doubt it very much that Turkey will get its F35s if things continue to proceed as lately.
ACC
Iran has a habit of announcing successful tests of things not even completed on the drawing board, remember their recent missile test, that they had to photoshop because half the missiles didnt even launch?
I’m afraid I must disagree with you about Turkey, According to Madcap Cardigan, Iran is its best friend in the world. The legacy of the Ata Turk is long forgotten.
Hi DJ,
Why have enemies when you don’t have to?
- just days ago they confirmed participation in the (anti-Iran)missile shield
- not being friends (anymore) with Israel gives you plenty new friends in the region, though
got the link working, wouldn’t load last night, still think if they are giving away 75-100 AAV7′s we should have some, even if it was just convert them to cmmd posts for the beach, better than FFR land rover! It’s BAe kit after all
http://www.defencegreece.com/index.php/2011/10/the-u-s-approved-to-grant-400-m1a1-abrams-to-greece
ACC
Your not my enemy, but I dont go around saying your my best friend in the world either.
Both Cardigan and Dinnerjacket see themselves as the hero that unites islam. They are positivly bat shit.
Hi paul g,
We think that 2035 is far out in the future (Ch2 and WR OSD dates). The US plan for armour includes 2045 for Abrams.
A small problem; they have enough of them. How to keep a private company line from not closing? Give some out to folks that cannot afford to buy them *today* rather than mothballing them in a desert.
“U.S. authorities approved to grant 400 M1A1 Abrams tanks to the Greek Army, which will include options between simple refurbishment – worth tens of millions dollars for all the tanks- and upgrading to a higher level of operational capability, with a higher corresponding cost.”
- it is that later upgrade that is the key
- also a message to Turkey, to stop flexing their muscles (War on Israel; they should try that!)
paul g,
Great idea that command post. If we can keep five Leopards going (as Hippos) surely we can have two of those CPs per Commando, rather than getting all the radios wet in Landies?
Hi DJ,
How hilarious: “ACC
Your not my enemy, but I dont go around saying your my best friend in the world either.”
- I was talking about Turkey’s regional policy (and aspirations)
“Both Cardigan and Dinnerjacket”
- I recognise the first actor; who’s the other one (not DJ, surely)?
Acc
My point was there is a middle ground between being at war and being someones best friend.
Cardigan was quite insistnat on the best friend, noty good friend, not regional partners….
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Madcap Cardigan
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
ImADinnerJacket
Cardigan is mine from, probably this morning, ImADinnerJacket is much older.
PaulG said “better than FFR land rover!”
Me thinks you are no stranger to wading Rovers and the contrary nature of 24v electrics………..
I once set fire to an FFR with dodgy battery 24v connections, oh what fun
And ten you complain when I dont want to give you new toys to play with :)
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FFCA6926-8EA8-44BE-9940-CF9C365F4977/0/tlmoctober2011.pdf
No FRES SV again.
some donkey walloper (life guards) nearly set me on fire with 24v in BATUS! he decided to save some time by taking the civvy radios out of the 432 but left the wires hanging down the back which meant when i came to do my bit the positive lead touched the hull and turned it into 1 bar electric heater, oh how i laughed when the batteries blew up around my knees and i inhaled loads of acidic smoke! Still 2 days in hospital with fit nurses!!
Apart from from wading issues i’d feel safer inside an AAV7 with mild steel stopping the shag nasties trying to fill me with smokey holes than green canvas!
@ Paul G
Are you telling me painting stuff matt olive green doesn’t make it bulletproof? ;)
I am a big fan of the AAV, but I don’t think it is something I would like to go to war in. But as a protected truck (they can carry 4.5t) or as a vehicle for (civilian evacuation) operations similar to those we have just seen in Libya it is ideal. A forward thinking MoD (with enough amphib lift) would do well to ask the US for a squadron or two’s worth. On a tangent perhaps a battalion’s worth to requip’ a RAC regiment.
Hello all, have some Fire Shadow porn:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJDJm3eawcM
Hi TD, just got some bear bones info about the New Employment Model. Draft is released autumn 2012, start to impliment it in 2015, should fully implemented for all by 2025.
@x, good point there, the RAC have proved themselves in the sandpit doing all the driving, commanding of the various vehicles, so why not have a commando sqn (works for the engineers and artillery 59&29 respectivly) can be based at bovvy, underwater knife fighters can have a first wave hit the beach under some form of protection and the tankies can do their job as fire support after dismount.
It would be good to give the tankies something back after working so hard on ops with this massive “your screwed” cloud hanging above them.
@ PaulG
Would they be walloping sea donkeys then?
Hi paul g & x,
I have had similar thoughts, but they don’t go quite as far as dismounts for AAVs.
RM have armour support unit, but 16 AAB just has a recce Sqrn dedicated to them.
I would pool the arrangement, for use as appropriate by either one:
- Vikings (as per today; fully amphibious and good airmobility)
- the new Scimitar Mk2′s & related models (in the long run; good airmobility again)
- AAVs for Command Post (fully amphibious); as their payload is huge, they could also carry a mortar team (or two). In many armies the mortars are directly with the Coy/ Bn HQ element – for tactical reasons which, in this case, would nicely marry up with amphibious & protected transport
The Foxhound/ Jackal patrol & recce story is additional; I don’t think anyone counts them as armour?
Lower-tech UAVs Boost Intel For British
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2011/10/01/DT_10_01_2011_p34-368955.xml&headline=Lower-tech%20UAVs%20Boost%20Intel%20For%20British
Thanks Mark, low tech is the way to go (as evidenced by the immediate loss by Georgia of 4 Hermes drones at the start of hostilities with Russia) and make the capability organic and available in numbers, exemplified by
“two others [Desert Hawk 3 Detachments] are mobile—one with the Brigade Reconnaissance Force, the other with the Warthog group.
“The key with DH3 is it’s quick into action,” says Gray. “It can get into the air in 5-8 min., and we’ve flown almost 2,000 flights on Herrick 14,” the U.K.’s Afghanistan deployment, which began in April.
The aircraft is programmed to return to a given position using GPS. It flies a U‑shaped profile on its way in, enabling it to assess local wind conditions and minimize impact on landing. The modular airframe disperses impact forces by breaking apart.
The new assisted trim landing (ATL) system gives greater control to the user during recovery, including the ability to manually flare for a gentler touchdown. The system was fielded in July.
We can use the Xbox 360 control pad [with ATL]! …”
Next? Perhaps .50cal sniper rifles for the engineers to dispose located mines/ IEDs quickly and safely, from a distance?
ACC
I’m a big fan of really cheap UAV’s.
I know its the example that annoys everyone, but, whats a couple of video cameras and GPS on a small drone. Launch them from a destroyer/frigate to the east of the Falklands, have them over fly the island, and land on a ship to the west, or the other way.
Pop the hard drives, create your own little google earth map.
If the enemy shoots them down,. well, he’s just revealed his position, and they were disposable anyway.
“Next? Perhaps .50cal sniper rifles for the engineers to dispose located mines/ IEDs quickly and safely, from a distance?”
Dont get me started on pointless sacrifice of bomb disposal experts.
This is the point: a layered structure, cross-cueing targets or areas for further investigation:
- DH3s with the troops on the ground
- Watchkeepers on higher and persistent orbit
- Astor or satellites as the next layer
RE ” well, he’s just revealed his position, and they were disposable anyway”
- anyone on the other side, up to some “real” business, could not afford to fire on these assets as the next one would immediately be on their case
- and even if they don’t fire, the probability of detection is high
Trivia question: Who are the only users in the world of a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle – with a folding stock?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/virus-hits-drone-fleet/
Opps!
From that link ” Many Reapers and Predators don’t encrypt the video they transmit to American troops on the ground. In the summer of 2009, U.S. forces discovered “days and days and hours and hours” of the drone footage on the laptops of Iraqi insurgents. A $26 piece of software allowed the militants to capture the video.”
- Tornado is trialling secure coms
- tactical comms system, covering also live video seems undoable (who said secure? Is that also a requirement?)
Didn’t the US have a similar problem in the Balkans, with some people getting drone live feed on their satellite TV’s?
I see from looking at the “Jane’s Defence Weekly” website that an article (dated October 6th) suggests that a review of the British Army structure could go much further and cut much deeper than was indicated under the SDSR.
Mention is made of extra swingeing reductions in the service’s future force structure and equipment procurement plans, amongst other things. Unfortunately I am not a subscriber to Janes and do not have the full article but they are usually very accurate in the their reporting.
Now, I know that in a way we have been expecting this and there have been several comments on this site regarding the rushed nature and inadequacy of the SDSR. Hoewever, I find myself wondering “What the hell else can they cut?” We are down to the bare bones at the moment and cannot even manage one medium-sized campaign in Afghanistan.
Perhaps the Territorial Army is going to be held up as the solution or magic potion to make up numbers. However for that to work, the remaining regular units will have to be “nails”, superbly trained and equipped. If there are to be even more reductions to equipment programmes how can that happen?
We are skint, let’s face it. So stand by for the TA to be equipped with Bedfords and knackered Landies for another decade! Maybe we should stick on this site to suggesting fantasy fleets, because we’re never going to get something even half-decent in reality until another couple of decades have passed.
Or am I getting too depressed?
Are you joking about Janes?! I get them through Armynet. I would never pay for them. Some of their publications are horrendous and I hold little more store in their defence weekly. Honestly. The equipment publications are little more than the brochure for the kit and the world armies is years out of date and wrong.
Yes “The equipment publications are little more than the brochure for the kit ”
- and how it was the (only) “bible” years ago
@Phil and ACC
So, it looks like I got it wrong. Strange, because what seems like only a few years ago the organization was constantly being described as world-renowned and authoritative!
Anyway, what about the truth or otherwise of the particular story I mention? Nothing in it, do you think? Exaggeration? False?
I have always found the FT and Economist to be the most accurate open source publishers.
Like most sources I’d take it with a massive pinch of salt. They still have to fill their column inches. When I got to read all the Janes publications through my Armynet account I was bitterly disappointed. Perhaps once they were good, perhaps some of their publications are stringer than others, but for the fortune they charge I’d expect consistency. There’s more up do date info on wiki. I shit you not.
I personally, and I know several others, don’t treat Janes as any more authoritative as say a broadsheet.
Plus of course, I like to think we are pretty accurate around these parts as well :)
@Phil
They are certainly expensive, I’ll grant you that!
Maybe I am mistaken but I can’t remember a Jane’s story which has been proven wrong in recent times.
@TD
“Plus of course, I like to think we are pretty accurate around these parts as well.”
Of course you/we are, TD. Never thought or said otherwise. No one’s answered the question yet and I’m off to bed.
“They still have to fill their column inches. ”
- this is the sad truth
- I always had to buy their guides a couple of years old as my pocket money didn’t stretch to new editions… that was in the 60′s/ 70′s, though
Just read this http://uk.news.yahoo.com/iran-tells-turkey-change-tack-face-trouble-141200377.html – seems that Turkey is playing a rather fine political game – on one hand its playing hard ball with Israel (I going to leave aside the reasons for this or say if I think Israel should have apologised) while on the other hand they seem to be alienating Iran – so good chance of more tensions in the region not less!!!
@ ACC re amphibious armour for RM
I see where you are going. I would move a whole FRR to 3 Cdo. And do the same for a brigade based on the Parachute Regiment. As I have said many times here I think 16AAB is a waste of resources.
16X is just essentially an admin organisation and centre of excellence to generate two rapid reaction units or a brigade at notice.
One of the Para battalions should join SFSG, the other go over to 3 commando brigade and be maintained as the Airborne Ready Group, or as a separate entity. 1 rifles should return to the army and to the multi role brigades, if it isn’t chosen for disbandment.
It is rumoured that the US may retire the USS George Washington in the next decade.
I wonder how much they would want for it and if they were to sell it, whether we would get into a bidding war with France.
I would suggest that the UK would not want a Nimitz-class. The US method is to be much more manpower intensive and with a ship’s company of 3,200, it would require five times more men than a Queen Elizabeth-class carrier, or sixteen times more men than a Type 45.
At an extremely conservative estimate, the cost of the crew’s wages alone would be £64m per year, before you start operating aircraft from it.
@mr fred,
I’m no ships crewing expert, however i did an exercise in germany (a chuffing big cold war one ie 120,000+) and our FRG (forward repair group) numbered about 30 and the americans were co-located looking after approx same ammount of vehicles had approx 90 guys. They had guys specialise in parts of the engine, ie it took 4 guys to fix faults, ie a guy who only did carbs, one who only did suspension etc etc my point being although there’s more chance of platting snot than us getting a big flat top, would we have the same crewing levels; i think we wouldn’t!
Paul g,
Given that their ships are designed with that level of manning in mind, short-staffing is liable to lead to problems.
The other option is to implement automation into the ship, but then it’s a more costly acquisition. Since we will already have two decent-sized carriers, it would make more sense to just buy another one if we wanted more.
@ x
“I would move a whole FRR to 3 Cdo. And do the same for a brigade based on the Parachute Regiment. As I have said many times here I think 16AAB is a waste of resources.”
Sounds quite an interesting idea. Could you expand a little, though? I might be rather obtuse at times (well, most of the time actually) but I thought that 16AAB was a brigade based on the Parachute Regiment. Last time I knew anything about it, it included 2 Para and 3 Para. It has other elements, of course: Army air corps regiments, a 105mm artillery regiment, a recce squadron, an engineer squadron and logistics, signals, REME, medical units, etc. etc.
Do you feel perhaps that some of these supporting resources are being wasted? Do you also feel that your “brigade based on he Parachute Regiment” should be a sixth Multi-Role Brigade? I’d be interested to hear a few more details because my first response was “But surely we need to keep a rapid response force.”
@ PaulG re American manning levels
I once had a long chat with the bloke who was responsible for the building the launch tubes in the Vanguards. He was responsible for hatch, tube, and related systems. He visited Electric Boat and found out in the US his job was split between a whole team….
@ Phil
Centre of excellence? Gosh. It is the biggest brigade in the Army. Compare it to the uber-efficient 3Cdo.
x, are you looking at apples and apples. Could you compare an Apache to an LCU and who provides 3CDO CS and CSS, just a thought!
@ Mike W
Nothing to deep. I just think 3Cdo should have its own organic light armour. The USMC MEUs always deploy with a troop of LAV.
The Parachute Regiment is a prime asset. And it should be put on a footing that mirrors the Royal Marines. In a brigade on its “own” ; a brigade that doesn’t include line infantry battalions. That isn’t to decry the skills or abilities of those line battalions. We don’t have the assets for true helicopter warfare as practised by the US. And line battalions have proven themselves more than up to the task. We don’t have the assets for mass parachute drops either. But what “we” do have is the capability to stage the training and selection programmes for the Parachute Regiment (and airborne support trooping) that sets them apart as an elite. That is what needs to be treasured and invested in (and more intellectually than really in money terms.)
Yes before anybody says anything I do know there is now a Rifles battalion tacked on to 3Cdo. I would chop that too.
Why would you chop the line battalion? Has it not occurred to you that it is there for a reason?
Centre of excellence it is, for heliborne and parachute operations and rapid reactions thereby.
I really meant to say centre of institutional knowledge, which is a term I have used elsewhere on this site but I was on my iPhone and enjoying a tipple or five.
@x
Right, got you. At first I thought that you were intending to reduce the Paras to more or less “ordinary” infantry and make them available to the new MRBs. I still haven’t fully understood how you intend to organize the support for your “brigade based on the Parachute Regiment”. So would you just strip out the line infantry battalion(s) and the helicopter regiments from 16 AAB? All the other support elements would be kept, would they?
I think it sounds an interesting idea.
What is essentially being promoted is 2 and 3 Para becoming a Brigade Combat Team, were all members are parachute trained. It would be a mirror image of the US 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team.
There is no requirement for a Brigade parachute capability because there are not the resources to do that. So what’s the point of a Parachute Brigade?
@ Phil – “16X is just essentially an admin organisation and centre of excellence to generate two rapid reaction units or a brigade at notice.”
How much is the centre of institutional knowledge worth in comparison to the ability to generate two rapid reaction units or a brigade at notice?
And does one become less relevant or valuable in the absence of the other?
I ask because i believe the split between persistent MRB’s and punitive Airmobile/Amphibious brigades is valuable, but i recognise Jed’s complaint that 16AAB is sat on a vast amount of resource and capability that it cannot use effectively in the conduct of its notional brigade role.
I value 16AAB’s ability to generate two rapid reaction units or a brigade at notice, and would like to see 3Cdo capable of the same, but would we do better to strip a large part of the AAC from it and attach them to the MRB’s?
@ X – “I would move a whole FRR to 3 Cdo. And do the same for a brigade based on the Parachute Regiment. As I have said many times here I think 16AAB is a waste of resources.”
That is a very attractive idea, but i have never had any problems with the presence of line regiments in specialist brigades, because there is a room for line regiments in an organisation with a brigades size and role.
I don’t see the value in moving AAC assets from 16X to the Brigades – it would almost be a paper exercise (since the cabs can be attached to a deployment for exercises / operations) except in one damaging sense – it would break the institutional body of knowledge re: working with helicopters.
You gain nothing (since the units won’t physically move) but loose a lot.
The peacetime organisation of the Army is little more than admin niceties.
@x
Just to follow up my previous comments. On giving the idea some reflection, it perhaps does not seem quite so acceptable.
You assert on the one hand that we don’t have the assets for true helicopter warfare as practised by the US. On the other hand, we don’t have enough heavy tanks, infantry combat vehicles and artillery left (after you have equipped the 5 MRBs) to make your Parachute Brigade into something more akin to a multi-role brigade. So, despite your adding an FRR to the Brigade, it would still essentially be helicopter-based, wouldn’t it? (Chinooks, Pumas, Apaches, etc.) So you’re really back to something like 16AAB.
Or are you talking in terms of their being purely airborne (parachutists), rather than air mobile or air assault?
You could form the aac into self contained battle groups of maybe 8 Apache and 8 Lynx and allow them to be attached to what ever brigade needs aviation assets. as it is 16aab and all it incorporates is to much of a mish mash and far too large.
How is it a mish-mash? The only difference between it and another brigade is that has more helicopter units and I have explained why that is so. And I have also explained that these battle groups as you call them would be a paper exercise since such force packages are already more than capable of being generated – who do you think is boss of the Apache’s in TFH right now?
6 Apache Squadrons + OCU
5 Chinook squadrons (assuming that the two now Merlin HC3 move to the Chinook and the fleet, once expanded, takes on the handy “rule of the five” structure.
5 Lynx MK9A / Wildcat squadrons + one special forces Lynx squadron + 847 Naval Air Squadron
2 Puma squadrons, on five Flights + OCU Flight
2 Regiments parachute capable, two airmobile, currently in 16AA.
My solution:
Combat Aviation Brigades, one for each MRB, plus Commando Helicopter Force (brigade).
Shape:
Commando Helicopter Force
1 x Apache squadron to become the main ship-capable attack helo squadron
847 NAS with 6 Wildcat helos for escort, scout, light utility and other roles, as planned
845 and 846 Squadrons (plus 848 as OCU) with the Merlin HC4 after transfer
Combat Aviation Brigades (general service)(x 5)
1 Apache squadron
1 Chinook squadron
1 Lynx / Wildcat squadron
The combat aviation brigades would receive the battalions of the current 16AA, so that each CAB would have not just the helos, but an organic air mobile infantry battalion (one more Light Role battalion to be made air mobile), two of which would also be parachute capable.
7 Royal Horse Artillery would break up, and artillery support would be reduced to a battery for each battalion, armed with 120 mm mortars.
The guns would go the MRBs.
16AA is disbanded, colors pass to one of the CABs.
PARA regiment safe, each MRB given an attached air element with strike, find, defend and lift capability.
At any one time, one battalion of infantry, plus a battery of heavy mortars, would be on alert to be airlifted in an area of crisis. The two Parachute-capable battalions would also make it possible to maintain at readiness a parachute intervention.
1 PARA stays with Special Forces Support as now.
Helicopters remain based where they are to keep costs down, but ground personnel is reorganized and an expeditionary structure, a variation of the Expeditionary Wing of the RAF, is used for the CABs.
The Commando Helicopter Force would stay unchanged, with its own ground crews and ways, even though it would still be under JHC.
Reason of the move: the above CAB structure is a mirror of what a long-term, sustainable helicopter force for enduring ops abroad look like for the UK, as a look at the current shape of the Afghanistan helicopter component will prove. It also happens to be the force mix that a deployed MRB is going to realistically need, covering all possible roles.
In practice I’m sacrificing an Army Air Assault Brigade, along with some of its men, units and structures (the current sizes and nature of which leave me unconvinced for several reasons) for reorganizing the air mobile infantry and helicopters to give all MRBs an air maneuver element, ready to deploy, in a self-contained pack, inclusive of airmobile infantry for vertical maneuvers.
I’ve called them brigades for comfort, just because the US do, but the effective nature of the officers assigned to such formations is up to debate.
They would be Joint Helicopter Command managed, for obvious reasons, and might replace the current AAC regiment structure. The helicopters would, ideally, be based together, with each CAB in an home airbase, but this of course is unfeasible, so Apaches would stay in Wattisham, Chinook in Odiham/Benson, Puma in Benson, Merlin at Yeonvilton along with the Wildcat. The Lynx MK9A would probably remain at Dishfort.
For names, badges and ethos of said formations, i’d look, of course, at the past airmobile and para divisions and brigades, mainly. So 6th, 1st and 5th CABs are a very distinct possibility.
In addition there would be:
Joint Special Forces Aviation Wing
Roughly as now structured:
657 AAC (Wildcat helicopters)
651 AAC (Islanders)
7 Squadron RAF (chinooks – would be part of a Combat Aviation Brigade, but also train for SF work; not optimal, but best that can be done)
A squadron of C130 (then A400 Atlas)
Plus the two Puma squadrons, which could still detach a Flight to any deployed Combat Aviation Brigade when necessary, and ideally do some C-SAR work.
Gabs all a pointless paper exercise.
The choppers are under command of JHC for a reason.
These CABs are effectively what happens when an aviation force package is generated.
So then when 16 aab deploys to helmand they being with them more helicopters? If not the 16 aab is simple just a light formation which is rapidly deployable. It should be streamlined to it core function in the same way 3 commando brigade is only in 16 brigades case it has a battlegroup parachute capable as opposed to amphib. The helicopters can sit away from it in the same way commando helicopter force does. We simply don’t have the helicopter numbers. They should be more independent and higher held than currently
tend to agree with you Mark, rather that disperse we should concentrate and centralise but that is pretty much where we are now anyway isn’t it?
Except of course its spread over three services, oops, can of worms opening!
Hi TD
I’m not sure what to make of this but my first thought after reading it was “this sounds like the East German Stasi!”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/09/virtual-secret-state-military-industrial
The reason i’m posting you a link to this story is that my computer has developed a rather strange, singleminded glitch…..
If i look at a political or defence story that also allows comments at the Guardian (not any other online paper), my screen flashes for a second after about 10 seconds…..and about 30-45 seconds later i get a warning that Internet Explorer is using lot’s of memory. When it flashes for a split second i get the impression of a fullscreen command prompt window. No idea what it is, however most people who’ve seen it just look at me then walk away with a funny look on their face :)
I’ve tried AVG, Microsoft Security and Wireshark….no luck with any of them. Also it started very recently, i first noticed it after the hacking story broke.
If anyone has any suggestions, i’m all eyes :)
@ TD
Well many here as you know would reduce helicopter ownership to two services, those who use them the most with real needs, that is the Army and FAA.
It is only a minority here, you amongst them, who would shove them all into the one service who doesn’t need or understand them the RAF.
When 16X deployed to Helmand they had in support JHF(A). It had Apache’s. I don’t get what you are trying to say.
“It should be streamlined to it core function in the same way”
It is! The only thing it has different from other Brigades are 2 AAC regiments of Apache which are part of 16X because it is considered, as I have said, a centre of institutional knowledge for AHs to work with ground forces.
To be honest, you could chop them to be under JHC directly but again it really makes no difference at all as it is still inside that body of knowledge.
So I will concede that you could move the AHs to be directly under JHC.
But any further re-organisation is pointless. The Armed Forces just do not work like that, for the same reasons that battlegroups are not formed in peacetime.
Phil
Yep but those helicopters stay when 16aab goes those helicopters also fly from ocean in libya no 16 aab. Those same helicopters fly in support of 3 commando.
AH are just as like to operate with 4th armoured as 16aab that what im getting at
JHC in its self needs to move away from 16aab which in itself need to become the airborne equivalent on 3 commando providing the parachute battlegroup.
To many believe 16 aab has all the helicopters rightly or wrongly. The knowledge in JHC need to be independent across the 3 services imo and get helicopters on a long term independent budget replacement stream that can operate on land and sea.
“Well many here as you know would reduce helicopter ownership to two services, those who use them the most with real needs, that is the Army and FAA.”
I think it in the same terms, and it is not a mystery. So, yes. I agree.
“Gabs all a pointless paper exercise.
The choppers are under command of JHC for a reason.
These CABs are effectively what happens when an aviation force package is generated.”
Exactly! We currently get to CABs already, sort of, but effectively by moving through JHC, RAF, Army, FAA and finding an arrangement every time it is necessary, without ever dishing out a proper solution.
And inside/outside, depending on the moment at hand, sits 16AA, and the concept of parachute ready battalion and airmobile infantry and the – not very clear – real link with the choppers. When was last time that 16AA made something genuinely different from what companies of infantry airlifted on Chinooks in Helmand regularly do…?
Outside again, the notion that a brigade is what the UK is likely to employ in the future, eventually, for a while, reinforced with elements from another brigade. But that’s it.
So.
Are we sure the current method of delivery is correct?
Would it not work better if we prepared such aviation packages once and for all, and kept them ready for deploying, in addition to MRBs, as said helicopters are likely to be employed anyway…?
Brigade combat teams, of land (MRB) and air (CABs), meant to operate together.
I might be wrong, of course, but i find it makes sense.
The americans have found the concept to be extremely functional, and i believe the UK could benefit from it as well, even if the sizes of the forces involved are, of course, extremely different.
16X is part of JHC. Not the other way around.
Yeah those helicopters stay but really it makes no practical difference whatsoever. They are centralised under an air assault brigade so that there is a body of institutional knowledge.
Parcelling out the AH sqns to the brigades is a pointless exercise. We are not the US Army, there is no purpose to putting AHs in every brigade when they deploy as such anyway.
As I have said, apart from 2 AH Regiments, 16X is organised almost exactly the same as an infantry brigade, it has 4 manoeuvre units and the appropriate sized CS and CSS units. And it already provides the ABTF.
Mike W said “Or are you talking in terms of their being purely airborne (parachutists), rather than air mobile or air assault?”
No. The Parachute Regiment and supporting troops who complete the same training are an elite. P Company looks to be nearly as hard as some of the stuff done in Lympstone. The parachute training is more a test of backbone. Yes there may be need at some point to drop a small number of these troops in action but really the UK can’t do it on a such scale that if the capability itself were to disappear it would hardly be notice. No its the men that make the airborne special. Just as Grenadiers and Fusiliers don’t exclusively throw grenades or the Rifles aren’t light infantry or are the only ones to shoot rifles so I don’t see why it is such a jump to detach the idea of the Parachute Regiment from “parachuting” per se yet as I have said keep them as an elite which at the moment is there true worth.
As for you mentioning in reality. Well if we kept our discussion here anchored purely in the day to day realities of the UK’s 21st armed forces there wouldn’t be much of interest to discuss.
As for helicopters the US Army’s budget PA for its helicopters roughly equates to the MoD’s total spend on the RAF. And the Yanks seem to get more bang for their buck too.
“And inside/outside, depending on the moment at hand, sits 16AA, and the concept of parachute ready battalion and airmobile infantry and the – not very clear – real link with the choppers. When was last time that 16AA made something genuinely different from what companies of infantry airlifted on Chinooks in Helmand regularly do…?”
So you’d create permanent staffs and support structures to support a pointless layer of bureaucracy so we can have CABs?
What does 16X provide? Do you think that working with helicopters in such a fashion is downloaded into Officers brains in Sandhurst? It takes expertise, knowledge, experience and organisation and 16X provides this. It generates these things and it gets passed on throughout the Army. Five seperate CABs all doing the same thing and re-learning the same lessons and fighting for resources so they can accomplish the same thing – it would be destructive and erode competencies.
“Are we sure the current method of delivery is correct?
Would it not work better if we prepared such aviation packages once and for all, and kept them ready for deploying, in addition to MRBs, as said helicopters are likely to be employed anyway…?”
SH/AHs are a scarce resource in this mans forces. And it makes no sense to penny packet them. Especially since these CABs wouldn’t deploy as such anyway. It is not a case of “send 20X with a CAB”, it’s a case of “send x capability”.
“The americans have found the concept to be extremely functional”
The US Army has a HUGE helicopter force, spread over several continents and operational groupings, it makes perfect sense to have separate entities. We do not need them and have no use for them.
“P Company looks to be nearly as hard as some of the stuff done in Lympstone”
That’s a subjective statement if ever there was one.
hehh-heh
I exchange diplomatic cables with TD about what could be the hot topics on the army thread
- and you guys start a hot war here, out of sight!
BTW, I’m with Phil on this one
Sorry but I simple don’t agree. The helicopters should stay with jhc but it should be separate from the brigades. In my view 16aab should be smaller and used as a specialist assault brigade removed from the current roulement process. The army is simply not deployable enough as it currently is and the current structure of this command shows this imo
By the current position 16 aab should sit under air transport command as there like to be in a400ms but that would be considered sily.
“In my view 16aab should [snip] used as a specialist assault brigade removed from the current roulement process.”
This is the intention as far as i am aware, as both 3Cdo and 16AAB will become suppliers of rapid reaction forces with the MRB’s taking over the roulement heavy-lifting.
Or at least, this will finally be implemented when afghanistan isn’t weighing everything down.
16X isn’t part of the roulement anymore. And you can’t slim it down since it has the right slices of support units and it will be supporting two reaction forces.
What would we gain from telling 2 AAC Regiment COs that they have a different boss? I argue nothing at all. I suspect the two regiments are under 16X because they are army units and so it is administratively useful and 16x understands their requirements.
@x
Thank for your detailed reply. It’s all much clearer now.
“As for you mentioning in reality. Well if we kept our discussion here anchored purely in the day to day realities of the UK’s 21st armed forces there wouldn’t be much of interest to discuss.”
Yes, I accept your point. When I wrote that I was more than somewhat sad at the thought of even more cuts.
guardian on the impact of libya:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/04/british-army-lost-out-libya
Mike W said “When I wrote that I was more than somewhat sad at the thought of even more cuts.”
I know what you mean. I was a bit sharp. Sorry.
when are you two announcing the engagement, as my kids would say, get a room !!!!! :)
According to an article on Germany’s enhancements to its Boxers for the sta in this months ‘Land Warfare International” the UK MOD has stateFRES UV will be re-compteted in 2016 for a 2022 in service date – and KMW will submit the Boxer
Youch lots of typo’s on my Android slate-pad thingy
So, just to re-iterate, according to the magazine MoD has stated FRES Utility competition will be re-opened in 2016.
Carl Prine live blogging AUSA. Interesting discussion of squads.
Stand by for further news of cuts, lads. On reading my copy of “Sapper” today, I discovered that as far as major RE capabilities are concerned, the M3 wide wet gap crossing capability will be placed into extended readiness until 2015.
Alright, so it’s not lost completely, you might say, just placed into extended readiness but it’s yet another capacity gone from present service. To the best of my knowledge, those things were used in Iraq and might be needed again for rapid river crossing. I don’t know whether, after 2015, they will be returned to service or simply withdrawn. The way things are going at the moment, I wouldn’t bet against the latter.
@Mike W
That’s bad news! The M3 is a wonderful piece of kit, and yes, i believe it was used in Iraq, so it is not that much from the last time it was needed.
It really sucks to hear about that. But thanks for letting us know.
By the way, does an online version of “Sapper” exist, like for “Gunner”? I’d love to gaze into it…
@Jed
I had read myself about the requirement for FRES UV being resurrected earlier than 2020, but i had heard 2018.
2016… that’s impressive. Would be a good news if it proved true. Can you post a link to the article…? And thank you for the info in the meanwhile!
@Gabriele
Sorry, I don’t know whether there is an online version of “Sapper”. I get my copy by post. I suppose you could try “Google” to see whether it exists.
Yes, it is very bad news but it came from an article by the Engineer-in-Chief, so I assume that it is “gen” information. Never mind, perhaps they will be re-introduce the M3 in 2015, by which time the Army will have evolved to an “adjusted model” following SDSR.
I suppose the Army, like every other institution/organization has to take its share of cuts but really, the kit they are getting rid of! Challys, AS90s, the Fuchs and now the M3s.
I’m not sure either what will happen to 28 Engineer Regiment, the Amphibious Engineers (the “Rubber Ducks”).
@ Gabriele
I’ve just googled it and, yes, “Sapper” is now available online in a digital format.
I think the details are given on the Mod.Army website, under Corps of Royal Engineers/ Associations. Best of luck.
Thanks Mike! I’m looking immediately on the army website then!
Because I am feeling generous
http://free.yudu.com/library/17198/Sapper-Magazine-Library
Mike, are you a former Gentleman of the Corps?
28 re roled from an Amphibious Regiment to a Field Engineer Regiment in Options for Change, with just one Amphib squadron, 23 forming as a result
28 also have a couple of field support squadrons and one other field squadron
The M3′s are a decent bit of kit but quite old (94 I think), another reduction in genuine capability, shame
@TD
No, TD, I’m not.
My interest in the Army comes from my father who was a WO1 in the Artillery for many years. I follow the fortunes of the Royal Engineers, though, and knew a few officers in that fine Corps.
Any comments about the loss of the M3?
Just sounds like the Army adapting itself further to Afghan but having the foresight for once to retain a capability that will be needed after-ward.
Encouraging I think since we are fighting a war over there, it needs to come first.
Phil is right, they can go into controlled storage and the unit re rolled. Remember, these are for wide wet gaps that are likely only to be encountered on those larger operations that we might arguably have a bit of notice.
Like many things, its a shame, but in a world of shit options, understandable
Afghanistan is rightly the main effort
@Phil and TD
Yes, you are probably both right. I over-reacted a little. Afghanistan, as you say TD, must be the “main effort” but , as the Army re-configures, I don’t think it should be the whole story. Other kinds of war will have to be fought.
But think, if this capacity had been stored in 2003 just after its last use, the army would have saved a few pennies.
How long would it take to relear the usage of such a vehicle?
Weeks? Years?
Fair point, but we could say that about almost any capability that is not being used in Afghanistan.
Its not just relearning how to use a vehicle, but the whole concept of bridging and ferrying across fast and wide rivers.
Yes there certainly are other types of war and thankfully there is plenty of recognition of that amongst the decision makers. But that doesn’t change the fact that Afghan is still main effort and to not adapt to a war almost a decade long would be absurd, like ignoring the second World War and trying to keep colonial postures. Two brigades have just been withdrawn from the Afghan roulement so I guess that’s ramped up pressure on certain other units in the final part of this war. That and the fact that engineers are in big need as we move into new areas in Helmand.
I’m comforted at least by the fact that there seems to be genuine awareness at the top of the Army that lots of roles and missions will have to be re-learned once Afghanistan is over.
There are some plans for resurrection of some more-conventional Army work that was overlooked because of Afghanistan already from next year, and by 2013 both 16AA and 3rd Commando will get back into their natural roles of high readiness formations, with a first MRB to start forming after that.
So, there are at least plans for recovering, in time. These plans will hopefully include the M3 as well.
The definitive loss of the Fuchs is far more disturbing… so i guess that, yes. It is a shame, but at least the Army is keeping them aside for future use.
It could be worse by far.
16X is already back doing its old job. Ex Joint Warrior 112 is the ABTF exercise which stands up in November.
Gabriele,
Thanks for the re-assurance. I feel slightly more optimistic now. Why is it, though, that I still have niggling doubts whether certain key capabilities will ever be restored. The fact, I suppose, that over many years it has been a case of once lost, never re-introduced.
Do you know, Gabby, whether the Fuchs is being retained (stored) for certain?
@Phil
Thanks too for your information.
Perhaps the knowledge can/will be maintained by the TA, as said above this is stuff for “big” wars with hopefully some sort of advance notice.
If it were feasible have a TA unit near a water source (ie river of acceptable size) raise a specialist TA unit, 25% of the M3′s for training and 75% tucked away if the balloon goes up. This, i think is going to be happening to a few niché trades, sadly.
I don’t think that’s a bad thing. It’s the standard model in the US Army to have niche capabilities massively over represented in the reserves. The TA does need to be enhanced for it to work like that though. And for a start that means binning a lot of dead wood and rethinking reserve career paths and development opportunities.
Hi Gabby,
We’ve seen the announcement of FRRs/BRRs reforming at six month intervals, once they start to get their new kit.
Where is this one ” with a first MRB to start forming after that” from?
Hi Phil, I agree
“. It’s the standard model in the US Army to have niche capabilities massively over represented in the reserves. ”
In our circumstances I would conserve all of AS90 and GMLRS capability, by putting two thirds of it into reserve formations, among other things.
Phil and ACC
I have said exactly that (AS90 and M230 tracked MLRS into TA rather than lost) many times.
Phil is absolutely right – my old TA unit is the UK’s only Psyops unit, when I joined it was 80% reservist (joint, plenty of RAFR even a Marine Reservist, but no RNR) but in my 6 years the number of regulars was ramped up to handle Afghanistan and Iraq.
However Phil is absolutely right ref a complete revamp and rethinking of the whole role of the TA – especially including career paths, when your cap badged as Royal Corps of Signals, being a “Target Audience Analyst” in Psyops is NOT good for promotion !
Two bits from Foreign Policy, by Hillary Clinton:
“. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region.
The Asia-Pacific has become a key driver of global politics. Stretching from the Indian subcontinent to the western shores of the Americas, the region spans two oceans — the Pacific and the Indian — that are increasingly linked by shipping and strategy. It boasts almost half the world’s population. It includes many of the key engines of the global economy, as well as the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. It is home to several of our key allies and important emerging powers like China, India, and Indonesia.
At a time when the region is building a more mature security and economic architecture to promote stability and prosperity, U.S. commitment there is essential. It will help build that architecture and pay dividends for continued American leadership well into this century, just as our post-World War II commitment to building a comprehensive and lasting transatlantic network of institutions and relationships has paid off many times over — and continues to do so. The time has come for the United States to make similar investments as a Pacific power, a strategic course set by President Barack Obama from the outset of his administration and one that is already yielding benefits.”
Smaller details “We are modernizing our basing arrangements with traditional allies in Northeast Asia — and our commitment on this is rock solid — while enhancing our presence in Southeast Asia and into the Indian Ocean. For example, the United States will be deploying littoral combat ships to Singapore, and we are examining other ways to increase opportunities for our two militaries to train and operate together. And the United States and Australia agreed this year to explore a greater American military presence in Australia”
“Do you know, Gabby, whether the Fuchs is being retained (stored) for certain?”
No, for what i’ve understood, the Fuchs is going definitively. Scrapped without replacement. Which is why i say that it is worrisome for real, more than mothballing M3s.
“I still have niggling doubts whether certain key capabilities will ever be restored.”
Understandable after years of cuts followed always and only by cuts! But for some reason, i’m optimist enough this time, differently from the past. There seems to be a new climate.
“Where is this one ” with a first MRB to start forming after that” from?”
Read it on a British Army analysis on Land Warfare International, i believe it was.
2013 will see both 16AA and 3rd Commando getting back into full readiness for their Rapid Reaction role. (3rd Commando in particular, as i think that at least 40 Commando has still an Afghanistan tour ahead of itself, according to plan)
After that, the Army’s priority is reportedly to restructure a brigade into a SDSR mandated MRB “as soon as possible”.
I am not sure loosing Fuch’s as a vehicle is such a terrible thing – it’s more about the CBRN recce kit ON the vehicle, i.e. I am more worried about loosing the “capability” than the “platform”.
The Fuchs is a “micro-fleet” with all the maintenance hassle that entails. If CBRN kit is retained and at a later date fitted to FRES Scout or FRES SV or even FRES UV variants, then this can be considered a “capability holiday” (Yuk, hate that term) rather than a whole sale scrapping of a an armoured / protected CBRN recce role.
However, as we don’t know what MoD plans are, in detail, for the “lets give them something in order to save them” CBRN role of the RAF Regiment, we will just have to suck it and see.
“The Fuchs is a “micro-fleet” with all the maintenance hassle that entails. If CBRN kit is retained and at a later date fitted to FRES Scout or FRES SV or even FRES UV variants, then this can be considered a “capability holiday” (Yuk, hate that term) rather than a whole sale scrapping of a an armoured / protected CBRN recce role.”
Well, this would change the picture indeed! A capability holiday sucks, but not at all as much as the total loss of said capability. And there would be an obvious commonality advantage.
Trouble is that i dunno if this option has even been considered at all.
But if the CBRN kit goes onto a FRES SV Common Base Platform vehicle as part of RECCE Block 2 or Block 3 orders, well. That’s very, very good.
From Huffington Post
“President Barack Obama said Friday he has dispatched 100 U.S. troops to central Africa to support a years-long fight against a guerrilla group accused of horrific atrocities. Obama said they were sent to advise, not engage in combat, unless forced to defend themselves.
In a letter to Congress, Obama said the troops will act as advisers in a long-running battle against the Lord’s Resistance Army, considered one of Africa’s most ruthless rebel groups, and help to hunt down its notorious leader, Joseph Kony.
The first of the troops arrived in Uganda on Wednesday, the White House said, and others will be sent to South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”
This is not a humanitarian mission (as it is put, to help to root out LRA), but an attempt to put up a flood wall between al-Shabab (in Somalia) and the al-Qaida related groups in countries bordering Libya, and now refreshed with lots of weapons that went AWOL during the civil war there
@Gabriele
From what I know, there is indeed a CBRN variant, scheduled as part of the FRES UV, to replace Fuchs. To answer the question of a CBRN on the FRES SV, I think the white cube located at the rear of the ASCOD SV is a CBRN protection.
“To answer the question of a CBRN on the FRES SV, I think the white cube located at the rear of the ASCOD SV is a CBRN protection.”
I believe the rear white box is an Auxiliary Power Unit, for silent running of sensors at engine turned off, actually.
ASCOD SV will have CBRN protection, but not at all any kind of sensor for detecting and mapping CBRN pollution, which is what the Fuchs did.
For the FRES UV CBRN variant, i’ve never heard of that, but if it is true, i welcome the news.
By the way, i see that General Dynamics opened a bid for “Audio Surveillance Equipment” for the Scout.
Any idea? Shooter-detection system? Something more ambitious?
I’m following the story about FRES from the beginning, I can say that the FRES UV is expected to provide 2000 vehicles, but probably much less since the army is reduced to five brigades. The program includes recovery, repair, medical post, ambulance, command and control, driver training, logistic, protected mobility, electronic warfare, mortar, CBRN recce and survey.
It was planned that way at first, but now I don’t know, hopefully.
Like you I’m a fan of the British Army and I want the best equipment for them.
If you really want to do counter-battery for real, you’ll use all available means to locate the enemy pieces:
- not just aerial images and radars (we have them)
- Russians have also acoustic units that work in pairs and can locate a firing 155mm from 20 km away (105mm much less). These units have organic rocket launchers for immediate reaction, but of course also feed the coordinates to the overall artillery command system (which might call tacair in as well)
A forward observation vehicle is made for this right ?
Yes and no
- they are normally more closely related to normal artillery assets at hand; in the Russian doctrine (of offensive use of artillery) this is a task force specifically assigned to the schwerpunkt to cleanse the area of opposing artillery (before the advance is started).
I don’t think (I might be wrong) the FOVs have such specialised, long range audio surveillance equipment (they are specialised vehicles also in the Russian formations, normally assigned down from the Corps level)
The next “problem” is that Warrior FOVs will be with us for a long time; logic would dictate that they are with armour & AI so that the same mechanics apply. So these new thingies on SV Scouts that we speculating about would be in FRRs/BRRs (exactly the right place for such a function, serving a higher than bn level HQ… we call some types of bn’s regiments, to muddle things further)
A FOV is provided in the FRES variants, there will be overlap with the Warrior FOV ?
Hi Frenchie,
It is just my speculation but by having both (by type of bn) we will “save” dozens of FRES SVs for other uses
Thank you ACC :)
What do you think about the FRES “direct fire”, I don’t understand its utility, while the logic there is provided an anti-tank missiles launched to protect the Scouts.
Hi Frenchie,
I am not so keen and the Americans have had trouble with the Stryker fire support version (that comes quite close, if not mechanically, at least in “ideology”).
What I would do is continue the missile overwatch tradition (something on the lines of the millimeter wave radar/ missile vehicle the Russians have had a long time, and do the fire support bit with AMOS turrets on some SV Scouts (these units are only meant to do screening and saving themselves from a superior enemy by disengaging when finding such while operating forward).The hard fist formation (of, say, an MRB) will need some MBTs and mobile, protected artillery to carry out its role – I don’t think the fires support variant would be particularly useful for them either. Effectively, a medium tank (which were supposed to be dead except in amphibious and mountain niches).
BTW, the good old Panhard with the 90mm and wheels is ideal for another job (those that exist in the vastness of Africa).Not exactly a medium tank?
Interesting that there is now a belt from Dakar to Djibouti, in which the French hand over to the Americans in Bangui (CAR) where both will have a detachment (this was meant going from West, towards the East).
France does weigh anything in the world, I don’t want this for the British army, you were always the last bulwark of democracy.
http://articles.maritimepropulsion.com/article/Landing-craft-solution-for-container-transport-7289.aspx
x, a good find
How big would the dock have to be for it [128 ft (39.2 m), beam of 32 ft (9.8 m) and draft of 9.4 ft (2.85 m)] getting a container put on by crane, rather than wildly bobbing up and down on the side? Are there any such ships in existence; the free height would also be important for the crane operation. Or simply roll-on by trailer?
I wonder if this (from today’s Telegraph) is what was referred to “in code” in the Parliamentary Defence Committee session (uncorrected minutes, to which I have referred to before). Being the settlement for Iraq operations not met from Treasury Reserve but from the core MoD budget?
“A £3.9 billion emergency bail-out for the Ministry of Defence, secured by Mr Fox before he quit, came to light, underlining the parlous state of the department’s finances.”
If it is, then the bail-out term is totally inappropriate (when a debt is settled, this much late – I hope with interest).
-The Treasury charges interest on all assets, so the undue haste of the MoD in getting rid of perfectly good kit, rather than storing them, is very much down to the bean counters being in charge
ACC -The Treasury charges interest on all assets
It used to be 8%, but I think that accountancy system has been changed so it isn’t charged anymore.
Good news ” I think that accountancy system has been changed so it isn’t charged anymore.”
- how wrong can one get it – forcing to bin perfectly good and *paid for* assets, that might have a decade left in them, with a modest upgrade perhaps another one
Came across this document recently. A study done in 2000 Recent Combat aircraft life cycle costing developments within dera.
http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-037///MP-037-05.pdf
if anyones interested.
Send reservists to war and this is what happens (they use their noodle, being less preconditioned):
“Staff Sgt. Vincent Winkowski welded two ammo boxes atop one another (with the upper case’s bottom removed), lashed them to an all-purpose ALICE pack frame, and mounted the feed chute assembly from a vehicle-mounted CROWS (Common Remote Operating Weapons Station) to the top of it. This allowed the gunner to carry a full load of ammo—500 rounds—unassisted. Even with ammo, the entire system weighed a mere 43 pounds.
The pack, dubbed The Ironman, proved so reliable in combat that Winkowski submitted the design to Army science advisers who also immediately recognized its value. Within 48 days, the Quick Reaction Cell of the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC) had created an improved, lighter-weight version of the pack.”
Who wants to hump a mortar around anymore http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b12_1304283593
An interesting overview
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-british-army-fights-to-influence-helicopter-training-choices-363505/
acc
or maybe they just watch predater more often?
But what has he done to the ammo http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/8834097/Arnold-Schwarzeneggers-career-in-pictures.html?image=12
Squaddies receive commendation for saving Canuck civvy by treating sucking chest (stab) wounds with……. their credit cards !
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/PeopleInDefence/SoldiersCommendedByCanadianPoliceForSavingStabVictim.htm
GPS parachuting computer: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/parachute-avionics/
Canadian Government announces strategic shipbuilding plan – 15 warships, 6 ice capable patrol ships, 2 ice capable support ships, 1 ice breaker, and some additional coast guard vessls”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/shipbuilding/
Lets see if Gov. actually pays up over future years ! By the way, the dual role, 1st year ice capable patrol ships have been slagged off in many circles for being too much “jack of all trades” – it has been suggested 3 proper ice breakers, and 6 “warm water” patrol vessels would be a better forces structure. But its better than nowt, eh !
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11015/
Written evidence to the Defence select committe on Libyan operations
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/writev/950/lib07.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/writev/950/lib03.htm
CIA fact book leaves us in no doubt where the next blow up will be (defence expenditure as % of GDP):
1 Oman
11.40
2 Saudi Arabia
10.00
3 Qatar
10.00
4 Jordan
8.60
5 Iraq
8.60
6 Israel
7.30
7 Yemen
6.60
8 Eritrea
6.30
9 Macedonia
6.00
- made it here as they have no GDP
10 Syria
5.90
Have you seen this grand total so far, or is just the Guardian picking and choosing:
“Hammond insisted that the budget squeeze, and a redundancy programme that will mean up to 60,000 jobs being axed in the coming years, would not prevent Britain having a viable armed forces.”
- civilians included, of course
I can see our old thread reactivating:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/8833622/Sir-Richard-Dannatt-urges-Alex-Salmond-to-be-honest-over-defence.html
China is annoyed; just when they had to start to move their “dollar eggs” to another basket
“Chinese premier Wen Jiabao told EU leaders to stop the debt crisis spreading and lectured them on the need to carry out structural reform.
In a telephone conversation with Herman Van Rompuy, European council president, Wen said: “The most urgent task is to take decisive measures to prevent the debt crisis spreading further and avoid financial market turbulence, a recession and fluctuations in the euro.”
Found this on ARRSE, sounds like that the MoD might be moving away from five MRB’s to two heavy and two light brigades.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/171249-major-general-nick-carter-future-brit-mil.html
Thanks Tubby,
” five essentially identical multi-role brigades—will be quietly junked in favour of “tailoring the force for the challenge” around two light and two heavy brigades which will draw on other resources as needed.”
- that’s more like it!
Although a good deal of the “investment in tactical-level networking — a key lesson from Afghanistan — will be given priority”
- great!
“with around 3,000 of its people actively engaged around the world. As well as making future wars less likely, Sir Peter hopes that this will attract bright and culturally sensitive people to an army career. And if the army is called upon to fight in far-flung places, the hope is that it will know more about them than it did when it pitched up in Basra or Helmand.”
- this one, and the enhanced role of reserves, I would put into the “a good idea, hope it can be made to work” category
The MoD wanted to restructure the army into five brigades multi-role, keeping a brigade of high availability for a particular intervention and four in support to provide the ability to support an operation lasting stabilization. Now if the MoD wants to have two brigades with high availabilty and two in reserve it’s better. With the 16AAB, and Royal Marines, that’s four brigades ready for action.
If this is true, this sounds much, much better. Don’t hold your breath though!
Gents, interesting news on the MRB idea seemingly falling on its arse but I guess these things are like a supertanker, very difficult to change once they have the inertia so who knows where it will end. As we have discussed previously it makes sense in some ways but has flaws in others. I suppose no organisational structure is ever going to be absolutely ideal for every situation but I must admit the idea of going back to heavy and light(ish) brigades sound a good way to go. Although I wonder how much that is to do with equipment costs!
I think in the previous posts on army structure I stated a preference for the light/medium/heavy distinction rather than 5x ‘the same’
the problem with having different brigades is, youre fudged if you need heavy metal, and your ‘duty’ brigade is the shireshire militia in bedfords and without artilery.
Or indeed, you need to peacekeep madrid and all you have is an artilry brigade.
http://xkcd.com/966/
@ArmChairCivvy:
Regarding General Dannatt’s comments, there’s more than one thread to be had from those.
Yes, there’s “scoff at the idea of a Scottish defence force, Part Two”. There’s also some mileage in “what happens with disUK defences if GDP falls by around 10%” and “where does Trident go if it has to leave Faslane and Coulport”.
On the last of those, RUSI’s Malcolm Chalmers has co-written a book (‘Troubled Waters’, reviewed here) and a few papers (this seems to the only free access one available). This story in the Express is also of interest. Finally, Professor Huw Strachan gave an interview to the Herald back in July on the subject. Unfortunately the piece isn’t on the interwebs, but if anyone desperately wants a precis I have the dead tree version filed away and could post a summary here.
angus.
Half a dozen ports would fight to the death for the right to base the submarines.
Jobs trump the cnd
how i would love to see the primrose hill set going up to somewhere like the north east a lá the dale farm protesters and trying to prevent thousands of jobs being created. in true batman style there would be plenty of “thwack, whack” and possibily “kapow” as the locals send ‘em packing! (IMHO)
Dominic, you could be right, up to a point. The submarines could move to Devonport without too much trouble, but the submarines aren’t really the problem.
That would be the warheads. There are not so many jobs in playing host to those. Even the idea of nuclear warheads at the end of the street is likely to bring out the NIMBY in many people. And that’s before you consider the likelihood that “New Coulport on the Fal” would involve demolishing people’s houses and massive civil engineering projects.
Angus
Well, I’ve got mates who are originaly from newcastle, but wanted jobs, so arent anymore.
They wouldnt just be campaigning for it, they’d be applying for jobs to implement it.
The UK has hundreds of dead ports, some, like livberpool, and maybe newcastle, are too urbanised, but plenty of others arent.
Nuclear weapons arent a problem to the man in the street. Most people would be happy to store one under their beds if there was a job involved, even just tangenitaly supporting the support staff.
Its easy to be principled when you’ve got a good job. They go out the window when you hit the unemployment line.
It might not even be easy, but its hundreds of miles from impossible