UK Defence review - what would you do?

OS119

the UK is having a Treasury driven slash and burn exercise - i mean strategic defence review - to determine its defence posture for probably the next 20 years.

if you were advising the UK government, what kind of posture would you be advising them to take, what kind of focus would you suggest the MOD puts on the differing potential types of conflict the UK might find itself - and what would you do with regards to the differing platforms the UK has, and has on order?

oglaigh

*sits back and waits for patsythenazi to arrive and call for the total disbandment of the evil murdering BA*

Fratton Fred

Get rid of legacy RAF fighters and just concentrate on the Typhoons.
Mothball one of the carriers.
Sort out the inefficient MOD Procurement service.
Push some of the contracts overseas and give Babcocks and BAE Systems a scare.

iceage

Well 10.5 Billion blitzed on tankers and transport, so I suppose they need to fuel something so Typhoon will have to stay won't it.

Don't know bout the Carriers but do they need new SSN's hmmm. And the RAF are getting the thinning knife already. The RAF/RN as the "One team" argument might be a goer ...now.

More Heli's, Apaches & chinook without a doubt. More UAV's? know feck all about them but they have proved themselves as capable at surveillance and Intel gathering and now they are applying lethal force to great effect.

Bring forward the planned British withdrawal from Afghanistan by 3 years, be not so quick to jump in with both feet again with the US so to speak, tell the Yanks to sort out their own mess. GB has done its bit in Iraq and now Afghanistan and paid heavily for it and will be paying for years to come.

Oh, and payrises across the board upto WO2. The Lads bloody deserve a decent and realistic wage thats reflects the job they do.

PatsytheNazi

iceage wrote: »

Well 10.5 Billion blitzed on tankers and transport, so I suppose they need to fuel something so Typhoon will have to stay won't it.

Don't know bout the Carriers but do they need new SSN's hmmm. And the RAF are getting the thinning knife already. The RAF/RN as the "One team" argument might be a goer ...now.

More Heli's, Apaches & chinook without a doubt. More UAV's? know feck all about them but they have proved themselves as capable at surveillance and Intel gathering and now they are applying lethal force to great effect.

Bring forward the planned British withdrawal from Afghanistan by 3 years, be not so quick to jump in with both feet again with the US so to speak, tell the Yanks to sort out their own mess. GB has done its bit in Iraq and now Afghanistan and paid heavily for it and will be paying for years to come.

Oh, and payrises across the board upto WO2. The Lads bloody deserve a decent and realistic wage thats reflects the job they do.

I thought that incorporating the RAF into the RN was going to be the main change and money saver ?

"More Heli's, Apaches & chinook without a doubt. More UAV's......and payrises across the board." Sounds like spending money not saving it ?

BTW, I know it's totally remote but just for the hell of it, if Argentina invaded the Falklands now or in say 4 years time, would Britian be able to do a Falklands war 2 or are/would the resources not be there to do a Falklands war 2 ?

OS119

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

BTW, I know it's totally remote but just for the hell of it, if Argentina invaded the Falklands now or in say 4 years time, would Britian be able to do a Falklands war 2 or are/would the resources not be there to do a Falklands war 2 ?

i'm pretty confident that a Falklands 2 could be done now - the RN still has 2 Invincible class carriers, there's enough Harrier GR9's to fill the decks, the Submarine force is in good nick - better than in 1982 - and the Amphibious force is vastly bigger and newer than its predecessor in 1982. there's a potential issue with the escorts, in that the RN has perhaps 1/3rd the number of Frigates and Destroyers it had in 1982 - OTHOH the vessels now in service, the Type 23 ASW Frigates and the Type 45 Air Warfare Destroyers (1 of which is in full service, but 2 more are mission capable in an emergency) are vastly more effective that the ships sent in 1982.

whether it could be done in 4 years is a moot point - if, as expected the Harrier GR9 fleet is scrapped (and the two Invincible carriers would be scrapped as well) then it couldn't be done, the 2 on order carriers won't be finished (if they survive the defence review), and neither would the aircraft to fly off them.

tac foley

OS119 wrote: »

i'm pretty confident that a Falklands 2 could be done now - the RN still has 2 Invincible class carriers, there's enough Harrier GR9's to fill the decks, the Submarine force is in good nick - better than in 1982 - and the Amphibious force is vastly bigger and newer than its predecessor in 1982. there's a potential issue with the escorts, in that the RN has perhaps 1/3rd the number of Frigates and Destroyers it had in 1982 - OTHOH the vessels now in service, the Type 23 ASW Frigates and the Type 45 Air Warfare Destroyers (1 of which is in full service, but 2 more are mission capable in an emergency) are vastly more effective that the ships sent in 1982.

whether it could be done in 4 years is a moot point - if, as expected the Harrier GR9 fleet is scrapped (and the two Invincible carriers would be scrapped as well) then it couldn't be done, the 2 on order carriers won't be finished (if they survive the defence review), and neither would the aircraft to fly off them.

If the Argies tried it on again they might just find BA looking quite a lot different to go home to than when they left it.

tac

punchdrunk

ditch the F-35 for the new carriers,buy super hornets instead
flog the harrier fleet to the Indian Navy
scrap the tornado

Steyr

punchdrunk wrote: »

ditch the F-35 for the new carriers,buy super hornets instead

Loads of Members on UK Forums are saying the exact same thing.

punchdrunk wrote: »

flog the harrier fleet to the Indian Navy

What about sending them to Spain/Italy? What would you do with the Current Carrier Fleet then?

punchdrunk wrote: »

scrap the tornado

Which version? F3 ADV is already well on the way out.

iceage

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

I thought that incorporating the RAF into the RN was going to be the main change and money saver ?

That was my point.

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

if Argentina invaded the Falklands now or in say 4 years time, would Britian be able to do a Falklands war 2

Too bloody right my china. As OS119 has said above, its a completely differant scenario now. A bit more in place this time for sure than the last time (hat doffed to those Marines) let them try and pull that sh*t again.

Fratton Fred

iceage wrote: »

Too bloody right my china. As OS119 has said above, its a completely differant scenario now. A bit more in place this time for sure than the last time (hat doffed to those Marines) let them try and pull that sh*t again.

This time, we have clarkson...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0_Eo2Y770Y

punchdrunk

Steyr wrote: »

Loads of Members on UK Forums are saying the exact same thing.





What about sending them to Spain/Italy? What would you do with the Current Carrier Fleet then?




Which version? F3 ADV is already well on the way out.

yeah you could send the harriers to spain/italy whoever wil pay for them
i'd put the carrier fleet into mothballs until the new ones are built (one of the three already is)
and in the mean time start sending the crews over to the states to learn how to use a real carrier again!

dump the remaining F3's and GR4's let eurofighter take the reigns

it would leave a bit of a capability gap for a couple of years but it has to be done

OS119

dunno, i'm not convinced by the idea that F/A-18E/F/G is going to work out cheaper than JSF to buy (though i think it would be an excellent platform, and actually it could do the job of all the fast jets in the RN/RAF fleet, and a one platform fleet is going to be cheaper and easier to maintain than a two platform fleet) because of the offsets within the JSF programme - so even if JSF ends up costing $130m per airframe, UK PLC gets a wedge of that for each JSF built, regardless of who buys it - some say that if JSF gets to F-16 type numbers then the UK JSF buy will be, in effect, free.

unfortunately thats a mathmatical calculation based on the intricacies of the contract - which of course i don't have.

other than that i'd certainly ditch F-35B and go for the F-35C standard carrier variant - spend £500m upgradng the 2 QE class carriers to catapult/arrestor and save £2bn while getting an aircraft with a greater range and weapons load.

certainly Tornado GR4 looks set for the chop - its due a £10m upgrade per airframe, and its starting to get a bit long in low-level flying hours. personally i'd keep Harrier GR9 and the 2 Invincibles both as an insurance, and to keep currency in carrier aviation. if GR9 and the two carriers go then the FI force will have to be upgraded - the the current deterent is 'we'll give a right shoeing if you try, and we'll be able to take them back', without GR9 half of that deterent goes out the window, so we'd have to make the odds absolutely impossible, rather than slightly possible, followed by a probable retake. that means another 4 Typhoons and another Tanker.

if the market and contracts allowed it i'd go for a single aircraft fast jet fleet - F-35C or F/A-18E/F/G - to do both land and sea based ops for the RAF and RN - both types can do (differently perhaps) of what Typhoon does, and that 10% isn't worth the costs of a two type fleet.

if the two QE class carriers get chopped then the F-35B is dead, it'll be F-35A for the RAF - or even no F-35's and larger Typhoon buy. the RN amphibious fleet (a helicopter carrier, two Assault ships, and four logistcs and assault ships) will go, and the RN would go from a power projection instrument to a ASW fleet with a Submarine force.

and breathe...

tac foley

punchdrunk wrote: »

ditch the F-35 for the new carriers,buy super hornets instead
flog the harrier fleet to the Indian Navy
scrap the tornado

Excellent idea. Now why can't the politicians think of that?

Oh, yes, and get rid of the so-called MoD Procurement executive programme - they have a proven track-record, over at least the last 25 years, of complete and utter c*ck-ups in everything they touch.

tac, who suffered greatly at the pointy end of their 'efforts'

punchdrunk

if you get F35b version your again buying an aircraft with crap payload and short legs,relying on the RAF or US to tanker your aircraft

it also means that when the F35 is out of service in 30 years you again are having to buy SVTOL aircraft,half way through the carriers lifespan
either that or heavily modify a 30 year old ship

if the RN are building such big boats,then why not use the real estate and fit catapults!

Super hornet gives you

A) massive payload
a tanker version
c) an electronics warfare platform (if you upgrade a couple to Growler spec)
D) gives you a twin seat option

F35 in a stealth configuration has crap payload (all the stores have to be carried internally) in a realistic combat configuration it loses it's stealth profile because the weapons themselves are not stealthy....so whats the point!

OS119

i think one of the reasons for persisting with F-35 rather than F/A-18E/F/G is that its an airframe/platform with growth potential - its at the bottom of its capability curve, whereas SH is at about the limit of what its going to be. thats fine in the short to medum term, but both the QE's and the aircraft flying off them are going to be in service for 30 to 40 years - in 40 years SH is going to be prehistoric in terms of its Radar Cross Section.

in my view thats not a reason to not look at the idea of a SH/QE force - but it may well mean having to buy another aircraft for the QE's in 2035. if the mix of offsets/airframe price/tecnology transfer/delays etc make an buy F-35 look crap when we know a bit more about it then i'd happily go for SH, but lets not pretend that SH is JSF for half the price, it isn't.

punchdrunk

problem is F35b is overweight! frankly i think it has "commanche" written all over it

OS119

punchdrunk wrote: »

problem is F35b is overweight! frankly i think it has "commanche" written all over it

yeah, it looks like a disaster to me - its more expensive than the other versions, doesn't fly as far, doesn't carry as much ordanance and is more complicated.

RAF's rationalé for going for a V/STOL platform is a continuation of Harriers' ability to operate from rough, primitive strips - however nothing about F-35B says 'rough, primitive airfields', and lots of NATO AF's were happily operating F-16's from Kandahar and Bagram while the RAF was flogging Harrier GR9 to death and claiming Tornado GR4 couldn't operate from such a 'sparce' airbase.

they are, of course, c0cks...

punchdrunk

the only problem with going hornet is it will leave Ocean with no Jets
but im sure if a conflict rose she could just function as heli carrier in the carrier battle group along side one of the QM class

OS119

punchdrunk wrote: »

the only problem with going hornet is it will leave Ocean with no Jets
but im sure if a conflict rose she could just function as heli carrier in the carrier battle group along side one of the QM class

i'm not so fussed - Ocean isn't long for this world anyway (and there's lots of dark rumours about the recent amphibious ex with Brazil being a sales pitch), and while Ocean can fly Harrier GR9/F-35B it can't really support them - so for instance you could use Ocean as a divert 'airfield' were there to be a fire on one of the carriers, you can't load up with aircraft in Portsmouth and send it half way round the world to operate as a carrier. Falklands 2 with Ocean playing the role of HMS Invincible is a non-runner.

personally i think the outline of Ocean is one of the best value and most flexible platforms the RN has ever had, and i'd like to see two replacements - but she's not a 'real' carrier, even in the context of the Invincible class.

interestingly, i think she'd be the the ideal MRV for the Irish Navy....