Air Corps / Force General Discussion - Aircraft, Manpower, Policy

As I said in the other place, nothing the various actors have done over the last 4 years gives any reason to give them the benefit of doubt, or to do anything but assume the worst unless there's a contract with penalities to force their hands. Fact is, defence spending both Current and Capital with inflation taken into account remains far below LoA2 level and effectively impossible to reach that effective level by 2028, just as the suggested force numbers for LoA2 are now impossible.

In terms of your comment about rumours, fair enough, however its interesting timing that we get a rumour that the 139 replacement is kicked, and then shortly afterwards the announcement that the Air Security Strategy is kicked as well (presuming because the strategy gave another unacceptable answer). We have evidence of how this plays out, Procurement was paused/slowed with the excuse of "wait for the Commissions Report", then "wait for the Implementation Plan", then "wait for the National Development plan", kick after kick after kick. It's very reasonable to assume that now for the AC at least its going to be "we can't buy X, because we have to wait for the Strategy that's waiting on another Strategy, and oh look its time for another review because events have changed".

Even the point about how complex the tech/procurement is… It is for us absolutely, but we are not inventing the wheel, there's feck all reason other than resistance from the stakeholders to explain why procurement of radar systems has taken as long as it has.

And while we here operate with a limited access to details, you'd imagine the EU Commission might have some greater insight into the plans of the Government and even they are yelling at us.

So yeah, I'll stick with the view that the DOD and Co. are acting in bad faith, and short of actual signed and sealed contracts, that they will find creative ways to continue their 100 year policy.

Did it also get fitted with DAS?

Dozens of IMF, OECD, ECB, EU etc. reviews and reports over the last 10 years have recommended that we stop relying on outsized corporation tax receipts to fund huge annual increases in current spending. The Government ignore every single one. They will mention a few words about "financial responsibility" but then do the opposite by allowing departments to routinely overspend and then announce huge spending increases come October time.

We've signed up to all sorts of commitments regarding climate change and the environment. Yet here we are, no chance of meeting our 2030 climate goal and only this week the EU is opening a case regarding our destruction of bogs. The government agree to these things in Brussels with lots of handshakes and photos and clapping themselves on the back, but when it comes to implementing them, interest evaporates.

So the notion that a mildly worded recommendation to increase defence spending, buried in a much broader document is evidence that the government feels under pressure to undo 100 years of sclerotic Defence policy is just not believable.

nah, just everyone laughing in their faces as it’s explained again that we don’t do defence!

Yes but one of those investment plans is currently paying out real money for things..

They've already paid out for major spends like the P8's.

Yep, silly Kiwi's with actual warships, crazy lads…

I see the Brits are still hoping that they might go Babcock for the replacements, but you'd have to imagine the Japanese have the order pretty much in the bag.

Speaking of "largesse", seems that Starmer is now going for a last minute raid on the other departments to fund the DIP, with cuts to the Capital funding of 1% for the departments, cause raiding long term investments has worked so well for the UK since 2010.

https://archive.ph/keBHR

Yeah I posted that in the interesting article thread, as I said, not sure who I admire most, the Minister for having the Brass neck to talk about Defence to a room of nations actually taking defence seriously, or those ministers for keeping a straight face while an Irish minister talks about defence.

Now given them some credit they are sending the Junior Part Time Minster of Defence.

@Negative_G i seen the social media video of your buddys shooting drones out of a 139.

They do that in a built up area there will be some fun.

To return to the topic of if a helicopter replacement is going to happen and if @mupper2 rumour had any basis, something from the Minister's Questions (which I think I'm killing some braincells reading from both sides tbh), apart from saying Sonar is the "Underwater Radar Program"… The Part-Time Minister stated that sonobuoys deployed from helicopters is planned…

Now short of lobbying them out the doors of the 139's, that does suggest there is still some consideration of maritime helicopters, which brings us back to what European options are there?

You should have seen what they were shooting... Rolleyes. Like something you'd buy in eurosavers.

Nothing more than a token tick the box exercise to say the "capability" is achieved.

Of course, as per, there was a limited number of personnel who completed the training. So much like the MV Matthew Op, lets hope nobody is on leave if something goes down.

Would make an interesting PQ all the same.

I mean what could possibly go wrong, rapidly firing unguider 7.62mm rounds in an urban environment from an unstable airborne platform.

Wonder will Jacqui or Helen sign off on the ROE for that one or will it be a repeat of the PC-9s flying around with empty rocket pods.. Looks good for the social media posts though.

Now to be fair, they did actually show the "drones" being used… Not sure it really helps sell the idea that they are taking it seriously but never mind, as you say box ticked, move on.