RAF to shrink to WWI levels

lurker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
74
Likes
2
Might as well add that Britain has to be careful with protecting the Falkland islands

I wonder how things would play out if Argentina decided to claim them by force again in the next couple years...

I've read that the islands have been better fortified since then so that it would be more difficult to invade but...
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,882
Likes
48,595
Country flag
London to reduce fighter jets numbers

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/London_to_reduce_fighter_jets_numbers_999.html

A significant number of weapons and troops face being cut in a strategic defense and security review Britain will unveil this fall.

Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper says it has seen proposals by the British Defense Ministry detailing cuts of up to 16,000 personnel, hundreds of tanks, dozens of fighter jets and five ships.

Britain's last defense review was done in 1998, years before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The new one comes the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is looking to cut defense spending by 10-20 percent as part of a wider effort to rein in the national budget.

The British air force will be hardest hit, the newspaper writes, losing 7,000 troops and 295 aircraft, leaving the British with fewer fighter aircraft than at any point since 1914. As much as 120 Tornado fighter-bombers could be scrapped as their overhaul would be too expensive. The measure would save as much as $11.7 billion, the newspaper writes. Moreover, the number of Eurofighter Typhoons could be cut by 53 to 107 planes.

The British army could lose 5,000 troops and as much as 40 percent of its fleet of 9,700 armored vehicles, including Challenger 2 tanks, Warrior infantry fighting vehicles and AS90 self-propelled howitzers. Eventually, the army will be reduced to 100,000 troops.

The British navy would face cuts of two nuclear submarines, three amphibious ships and more than 2,100 officers, sailors and marines, the newspaper said.

Another costly program -- Britain's nuclear deterrent, a submarine-launched missile system called Trident -- is still hotly debated. The renewal of Trident was agreed to in 2007 and is due by 2024. Yet in light of constrained budgets, the $32 billion program is even more controversial.

While the Conservatives in their campaign supported the full renewal of Trident, the Liberal Democrats said they want a cheaper way to defend Britain. Critics of the system argue it is a remnant of the Cold War, adding that decision to renew it was rushed through Parliament to help BAE Systems, the British company that builds the submarines.

A Defense Ministry spokesman who responded to the proposals detailed by the newspaper said Defense Secretary Liam Fox had "made it clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a Strategic Defense and Security Review will be concluded in the autumn and speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded."
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Scrap Red Arrows, says home MP



Jonathan Edwards MP of Wales said the Red Arrows' £8.8m budget could be 'put to better use'


An MP has called for the Red Arrows air display team to be disbanded and money spent instead on equipment for troops.

Jonathan Edwards, Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, said the RAF unit cost taxpayers £8.8m a year.

He said: "Personally I think it is money that could be put to better use."

A spokesman for the RAF in Wales said the Red Arrows were a "flag-waver" and no comment could be made until the outcome of the ongoing defence review.

After asking a parliamentary question, Mr Edwards was told the Red Arrows provide "no direct operational role".

Plaid Cymru put in a Freedom of Information request to discover the display team's running costs.

Mr Edwards said: "We have to get realistic about public expenditure. I find the priorities of this government totally bizarre.

"I fail to see how cutting front line service, for example the £34m that is being cut from Dyfed-Powys Police Authority which represents my constituency, can be done when millions is wasted elsewhere.

RED ARROWS 2009/10

* Pilots/technicians: £4.6m
* Aviation, fuel: £1.2m
* Dye: £400,000
* Maintenance: £2.6m
* Total: £8.8m

"I for one would rather see public money used to ensure that police remain on the beat."

He added that he failed to see why the Red Arrows should be excluded from the debate about public service cuts when "the Welsh budget is itself suffering a £162.5m hit".

The Red Arrows, based at Scampton in Lincolnshire, use Hawk T1 jets, the RAF's advanced trainer.

Advanced pilot training using Hawks is carried out at RAF Valley on Anglesey.

The base's No 4 Flying Training School operates about 70 Hawks.

A spokesman for the RAF in Wales said: "There will be speculation about display teams.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-10927410
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,249
Country flag
i know but this definitely adds fuel to the fire...doesn't it...??our AC project will take some time....INS Virat is already retiring so why not...have one more AC to showoff our power-costly but why not...??!!

and about it been costly....we gave $2B for a piece of scrap....we are getting better worth for our money.....

Gorshkov will be more than 70% brand new once the re-working is done according to Yantar Shipyard head. It will be refitted with spanking new radar systems, CIWS and other defense systems alongside the ability to carry MiGs and Kamovs. British would sell its AC at 5 times its actual prices and that is not worth our time and money. If our Sarkari dodos buy British AC, the IAC-2 will be threatened and Indian Navy will aggressively counter this decision, due to its dedication to indigenous stuff.
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,249
Country flag
Funny, there are threats to our territories as well as our strategic interests. Chavez may turn expansionist which threatens Guyana and any Caribbean possession, China or Indonesia could spread into the Pacific Island chains, several of our islands off Africa are claimed by neighboring nations. Clipperton has been invaded by Mexico. Illegal fishing and whaling of French Antarctic waters goes on every day because we can't afford to patrol it. Strategic interests span all over the world from the Far side of the Atlantic to the remotest regions of the Pacific and Antarctic.
But in that case, the priority is always to defend mainland France than what has been a part of your empire centuries ago isn't it? Especially at this time. Considering your on and off routine of joining and then getting out of NATO, I think French government should make up their minds. If your concern is your colonies around the world, then you should forget NATO as no one is actually attacking your mainland and therefore you can simply keep one carrier in mainland's waters while deploying the remaining in South Atlantic and Pacific respectively.

Committing to NATO binds you to its obligations and therefore your far flung islands and islets remain under threat.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Since there is no threat to mainland France, our focus is on expeditionary capabilities. We do just as much with UN peacekeeping as we do with NATO. Even more so, we have our own independent operations. NATO will not last as our de Gaullist nature tells us, we must be ready to act alone. That is why our military technology is the most independent in Europe. We never left NATO as an alliance, just its command structure. Rejoining it is a move to build more clout in European defence policy. As the US moves its centre of importance from Europe to where it really needs to focus, France will be in the position to dictate what Europe should do. The position is, build a European military. Committing to NATO provides us valuable operational experience, Afghanistan is a baptism of fire for all our new weapons: Rafale, AASM, Tigre HAP, Sperwer Mk2, Caeser, VBCI, and soon FELIN. It is the only place we can test systems in a real war environment. Without it, we end up like China with a bunch of untested systems and unproven operational doctrine. For the cost of €500 million a year, Afghanistan is worth the extra expenditure. Committing to NATO does not bind us to its obligations, we can withdraw our forces at any time. The Dutch have already withdrawn and refused anything to Afghanistan saying its mission is over. Any NATO member can say the same. When it no longer suites our purpose, we too will withdraw.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
RAF faces tough choices over future air transport fleet
By Craig Hoyle

If the UK's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) is all about "tough choices", then the Royal Air Force's transport aircraft fleet provides a striking example of the dilemma now facing the nation.

With its objective being to deliver massive departmental savings, the Ministry of Defence says: "Work has been set in hand to review all major equipment and support contracts to ensure the future programme is coherent with defence needs and can be afforded."

Chief of the air staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton has voiced his desire to emerge from the process with a more balanced service, and warns that "platform-level" cuts will be a likely consequence of government-enforced cost savings.

"My aim is to come out of the SDSR with two fast-jet, two helicopter and two transport types," he says, referring to the project's expected 10- to 15-year period of regard.

While public attention has so far been focused on the likely effect of such a strategy on the UK's manned combat aircraft inventory, through the rumoured retirement of its BAE Systems Harrier GR7/9 or Panavia Tornado GR4 fleets, the possible implications for its air transport assets have not been aired widely.

But with the Boeing C-17 strategic airlifter and Lockheed Martin C-130J tactical transport already in use and Airbus Military's A400M due to enter operational service in 2015, one must fall casualty of the budgetary bloodletting if Dalton's vision is to be realised.

Three into two: which of the RAF's transport types will survive?



Totalling more than 70 airframes, the RAF's current air transport and tanker inventory spans seven platform types, also including the older C-130K, Lockheed TriStar and Vickers VC10, plus BAe 125s and BAe 146s flown by its 32 (The Royal) Sqn.

Under current plans, the service's K-model Hercules will be replaced by the delayed A400M, and its TriStars and VC10s succeeded by modified Airbus A330-200s via the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) programme. These processes should replace 36 aircraft with the same number - 22 and 14, respectively - and reduce the type-count by only one.

Four of the UK's remaining 14 C-130Ks (below) will be retired in the 2011-12 financial year, with the rest to go in 2012, when their home base at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire will also close. Its 24 C-130Js will be relocated at its air transport super-base at Brize Norton in Oxfordshire.

Set to remain in use until 2030, the C-130J fleet has been a workhorse in Afghanistan, where it performs short-haul transport tasks - typically moving around 2,000 coalition personnel and supplies each week, predominantly from Kandahar airfield. Combined with having made regular rough field landings, also during the UK's involvement in Iraq, the type, although younger than 15 years old, is already showing worrying signs of premature ageing.

A report published by the UK National Audit Office in June 2008 warned that the effects of deployed operations were so severe that wing replacement work could be required on some of the RAF's C-130Js from 2012 - one year before a bilateral fatigue study being conducted with Australia was due to conclude.

With other upgrade activities required in 2011-12, retirement of the last C-130Ks and the late arrival of the A400M, the RAF would be "unlikely to be able to sustain the current tactical capability", the audit office's June report said.

The RAF currently operates seven transport aircraft types

Unlike several of its partner nations on the A400M, the UK has so far made no interim arrangement to cover for the programme's roughly three-year delay. Indeed, its commitment to continue with the programme, as outlined in a March heads of agreement document, will see its original 25-aircraft purchase cut to 22 to compensate for increased costs.

Although suggestions persist that the UK could withdraw from the project entirely, Dalton and several senior politicians have backed the A400M, which made its first visit to Brize Norton on the eve of the Farnborough air show in July.

The UK had already spent more than £850 million ($1.3 billion) on the A400M by early this year, according to figures released by its Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) organisation. The RAF now expects to receive its first example in 2014, and the type should enter operational use the following year, before achieving full capability from around 2018.

Plans for the A400M's arrival are already gaining traction, with discussions having been held with Airbus Military over a proposed joint support model for the planned 72 transports to be acquired by France and the UK. The latter also in mid-July issued an invitation to negotiate to Airbus Military and its partner Thales Training and Simulation for a proposed synthetic training service worth more than £400 million.

New training facilities will be built at Brize Norton under the proposed deal, which will support the instruction of pilots, loadmasters, maintainers and other personnel until at least 2030. Contract signature is expected in October 2011.

Another Airbus Military product, the A330-200 multi-role tanker/transport, is also approaching a key milestone before the first delivery in 2011 under the FSTA programme.

The first of two aircraft to have undergone modification at EADS's Getafe site near Madrid (below) will make its flight debut in tanker guise during September. The first aircraft is on track to arrive at Brize Norton in October 2011, and the EADS UK-led AirTanker Services consortium has completed major construction work on a new two-bay hangar and training building at the site.

Powered by two Roll-Royce Trent 772Bs, the aircraft will have a single-class cabin configuration with 291 seats. This will enable the A330 to initially be concentrated on air transport tasks, with its air-to-air refuelling capability not due to be used before late 2014. Full service provision is scheduled for mid-2016, AirTanker says, with around 500 military and civilian staff and sponsored reservists to eventually operate and support the types.

Half of the FSTA fleet will be two-point tankers equipped with Cobham 905E wing pods, while the remainder will also have a centreline hose drum unit to support larger aircraft, such as the A400M. The type will arrive with a 111t fuel capacity, achieved using the A330's existing fuel tanks.

Cobham Aviation Services will modify the UK's remaining 12 aircraft at its Bournemouth airport site in Dorset over a five-year period from the end of 2011. By earlier this year it had 35 employees working on the programme in Getafe in preparation for the activity.

The first two, Airbus-modified, aircraft will be used to support certification tasks, including from Qinetiq's Boscombe Down site in Wiltshire. Work to bring the A330 to the military configuration includes modifying 10 of its 25 civil-standard computers, and adding 31 new ones. New communications, navigation and datalink equipment is also introduced, with the tanker conversion process adding 10.9t to its empty weight, Airbus says.

Contracted only in March 2008, the private finance initiative FSTA deal has been the subject of considerable scrutiny, due to its estimated £13 billion cost over 24 years. With the project mentioned frequently as a potential casualty of the SDSR process, the MoD and industry have been pursuing possible ways of safeguarding the strategically vital air-to-air refuelling mission.

One suggestion to have been explored involves a potential bilateral arrangement with France, which has for several years been investigating ways of acquiring its own fleet of A330-based tankers. With a possible reduction in fast jet numbers on the horizon, the UK could require fewer tankers, potentially freeing up contracted airframes for French use.

This could prove an attractive proposition for both parties, although it would entail complex contractual renegotiation on issues such as the French air force's need to acquire aircraft with refuelling booms: equipment not selected for the RAF. An agreement would also further strengthen the proposed joint support model to be put in place for the nations' A400Ms.

The RAF's 101 Sqn retired two of its VC10s in April, after they had amassed a combined 81,500 flying hours. The 13 that remain in use will undergo a phased drawdown until the type's retirement in December 2013, some 47 years after the service placed the Rolls-Royce Conway-powered airliner into use.

VC10s are now deployed to the Gulf region and to the Falkland Islands (above), and also support quick reaction alert duties in the UK. However, new operating guidelines introduced earlier this year as a result of the Haddon-Cave review have severely restricted its ability to carry passengers.

The last of the RAF's TriStars - six tankers and three transports - are due to leave use in 2016, as the FSTA fleet should reach full operational capability. Now providing vital personnel lift via the UK's "airbridge" with Afghanistan, the ex-British Airways and Pan Am aircraft are the subject of a modernisation package being performed by Marshall Aerospace. Intended to tackle obsolescence issues and ensure compliance with civil operating regulations, the work introduces new communication and navigation equipment and cockpit avionics.

Providing support for operations in Afghanistan remains a massive undertaking for the air transport fleet, which must support the movement of around 230,000 passengers a year from Brize Norton. Despite the age of its assets and the limited number of airframes that are available, the RAF says 83% of flights typically leave on time.

One type which appears certain to be safe through the defence review and subsequent cuts is the C-17, six of which are in use with the RAF's 99 Sqn. The UK is the leading international operator of the Boeing product, and will in December take delivery of its seventh example, three months ahead of schedule. Pictured below, UK7 recently underwent major join at the company's Long Beach manufacturing site in California, and is now moving along the assembly line.

The RAF's C-17s provide the backbone for the delivery of essential equipment such as support helicopters to and from Afghanistan, and also support tasks such as the evacuation of wounded personnel. The fleet has also been used to support humanitarian missions, for example delivering supplies in response to the earthquake in Haiti earlier this year, and tents following the recent devastating floods in Pakistan.

"Given the very weak state of our worn-out C-130J fleet and the delay before the delivery of the first A400Ms, no matter what SDSR provides, the RAF should have more C-17s," says Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at London-based BGC Partners. The service has previously expressed a wish to field more of the type, which can carry more than three times the payload of a C-130J and over twice that of the A400M. However, this must be traded against its comparatively high per-hour operating cost, detailed by DE&S as £42,000, versus £12,000 for the C-130J.

Elsewhere, although the RAF's six BAe 125s and two BAe 146s have over the last few years expanded their duties from providing Royal and VIP transport services to also operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, their 2022 out-of-service dates could again come under review.

But Air Vice Marshal Steven Hillier, air officer commanding the RAF's 2 Group organisation, argues that the 32 Sqn aircraft have delivered "strategic-level effect" by having been adapted to non-traditional tasks. "Flying a regional commander to a meeting in a [BAe] 125 with three crew can cut six weeks of relationship-building" in Afghanistan, he noted earlier this year.

The outcome of the SDSR process is likely to emerge around October, and only at this point will the future mix of the RAF's air transport fleet be confirmed.

A decision to cancel outright either the A400M or FSTA programmes is hard to imagine, or would indicate an acceptance by the UK government that the nation will have to significantly downgrade its ability to deploy and support its military forces on a global scale. Tough choices indeed.

RAF faces tough choices over future air transport fleet
 

ashdoc

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
2,980
Likes
3,682
Country flag
dude....than i think even french should follow suit....neither britain is going to invade them....nor is germany and also not soviet union....
but still it spends considerable amount to defence forces....so its not practical to decline your armed forces...
Indeed, France should also cut down on their defense spending.

Both France and UK spend more than twice the amount as India on defense. India has been invaded 5 times since independence, so we need a strong defense. Same cannot be said for any West European country.
armed forces are based on threat perception ....... yes.........but they are also based on state of the economy.

british economic condition is not as good as france..........france certainly has more money to spend on defence ,as it can afford it.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
armed forces are based on threat perception ....... yes.........but they are also based on state of the economy.

british economic condition is not as good as france..........france certainly has more money to spend on defence ,as it can afford it.
Well even India can afford to spend more on defense, as our economy is larger than either Britain or France. But the question is can the money be better spent elsewhere?
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Well even India can afford to spend more on defense, as our economy is larger than either Britain or France. But the question is can the money be better spent elsewhere?
Since when did the Indian economy exceed France or UK?
 
Last edited:

ashdoc

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
2,980
Likes
3,682
Country flag
Well even India can afford to spend more on defense, as our economy is larger than either Britain or France. But the question is can the money be better spent elsewhere?
france has been a major military power for long........it certainly wants to maintain its position.

in order to influence the happenings of the globe ,military power is necessary , and france will not let go of it.

britain has also been a major military power for a long time now..........it certainly wants to maintain its position too.

sure both countries can use the money for better purposes , but that will take a radical change in the attitude and foreign policies of both countries ,which has been shaped since the days when they were ruling half the world..........thats not gonna happen.

difference is that france has the money to back its aspiration to be major military power , while britain hasn't..........
 

samarsingh

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
141
Likes
26
They can afford cuts in defence spending. They still have Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders to fight for them should the need arise
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
PPP don't mean squat for an army made of foreign weapons. India's nominal GDP is $1.4 trillion. France nominal GDP is more than twice that.
So what if India's weapons are foreign-made? The main expenses for an armed force are not the procurement of new weapons but the maintenance of existing ones. And since nearly all maintenance, etc. is conducted by domestic Indian firms, PPP is a more accurate measure.

And if you want to talk about India's ability to purchase abroad, India's forex reserves are twice the size of France.
List of countries by foreign exchange reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
So what if India's weapons are foreign-made? The main expenses for an armed force are not the procurement of new weapons but the maintenance of existing ones. And since nearly all maintenance, etc. is conducted by domestic Indian firms, PPP is a more accurate measure.
PPP can only be calculated in the measure of wages, and even then they are paid well for India. You still have to buy spares from countries and whatever you make yourself still has to buy the raw materials and energy to make it at market prices. The Indian PPP is not an accurate measure for defence spending when it is 3 times its nominal value. HAL makes much of Su-30MKI but it is still skyrocketing in price. Perfect example of why PPP cannot be used.

And if you want to talk about India's ability to purchase abroad, India's forex reserves are twice the size of France.
List of countries by foreign exchange reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So what? France buys 95% of its weapons in the Eurozone. It doesn't have anything to do with cost, it is a transfer of value when you buy in a foreign currency. You may gain, you may lose depending on the value of your reserves compared to your own currency.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top