British budget troubles

[Oldgateboatdriver]

So let me get this straight? Royal Navy Aircraft carriers fitted for but not with aircraft.

Seems to me there is a great opportunity here, since in another part of their review the British Government talks about making binding  agreements with other countries for the maintenance of some military capabilities.

First of all, the Queen Elizabeth's have a small operating crew (600 from the Navy). Second of all, they will mothball one right away - if it can't be sold, which is creating a lot of resentment and distress in England, as many supporters see it as a loss of capability they cannot afford. Both may now be built as standard carriers.

What if they could have the best of both world? (I know I am dreaming here) What if Canada told them: you build her as a standard carrier and she remain your property, but instead of mothballing, my Navy will commission her and run her until you decide that you need her back. While I run her, I can do whatever I want with her. When you want her back, I'll bring her back within three months. A deal like that would probably comfort people in British naval circles in the knowledge that they could get her back quickly in full operational order in case of need.

That would give us a carrier for free - save the cost of operations and maintenance. If we made such deal now, we could start purchasing the appropriate planes for the air wing (from current existing models thank you: my choice: 3 x E2 Hawkeyes, 6 x extra ASW helicopters and 24 x F18E/F) in small annual batches.

This would also provide us with a deployable air capability, whether deployed onboard or independently by the air force, that would permit the 65 F35's  to concentrate on defence of our airspace.

Its nice to dream some times.

 

[GAP]

About the only thing we could afford to fly off them is Air Hogs.....

 

[dapaterson]

Given we already rob MHCS PETER to man HMCS PAUL, where would we find the 600 (+/-) to man HMCS BONNIE II?

Where would we find the funds to acquire the air wing (a rough estimate would be $2.5B to purchase, plus operating costs, plus crews)?

The Army is going broke trying to support multiple vehicle fleets acquired without adequate thought to the ongoing support costs; adding HMCS ABLATROSS to the fleet would create the same pressures on the Navy, on top of the personnel pressures (plus increase pressures on the Air Force, to boot).

 

[GAP]

Maybe the Brits have some excess JSS's.....ones that haven't been docked for 10 years...or maybe Canada should check some of the US mothball fleets....

 

[Kirkhill]

Also on offer are:

The Ark Royal;
One of the Ocean (Brand New) or the Illustrious (Recently Refitted);
A Bay Class (Enforcer Clone) LSD(A).

 

[daftandbarmy]

Let's hope that they don't try to sell of any submarines... unless it's to an unfriendly nation  ;D

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Given we already rob MHCS PETER to man HMCS PAUL, where would we find the 600 (+/-) to man HMCS BONNIE II?

Where would we find the funds to acquire the air wing (a rough estimate would be $2.5B to purchase, plus operating costs, plus crews)?

The Army is going broke trying to support multiple vehicle fleets acquired without adequate thought to the ongoing support costs; adding HMCS ABLATROSS to the fleet would create the same pressures on the Navy, on top of the personnel pressures (plus increase pressures on the Air Force, to boot).

I don't know- I kind like the way he thinks.

We could cut a brigade to fund it- it is not like we are going to get invaded anytime soon  > <ducks>

 

[MarkOttawa]

My goodness but Brits can speak bluntly (usual copyright disclaimer):

New aircraft carriers will make us 'laughing stock'
The deputy chairman of the company building the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers has said the programme is a "disaster" that will make Britain "a laughing stock".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8116396/New-aircraft-carriers-will-make-us-laughing-stock.html

Following last month's defence review, one carrier will only operate for three years and will never carry aircraft. The second will not carry planes until at least 2020.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato's secretary-general, has warned Britain's defence cuts were "a matter of concern".

Lord Hesketh, the deputy chairman of Babcock, whose Rosyth yard is building the carriers, said Britain could afford to run both ships – and put aircraft on them from the start – were it not for the "vested interest" of BAE Systems, the prime contractor.

"We are paying twice as much as we should to get half the capability," he said.

The peer, a chairman of the Conservative Foundation, said the £5.2 billion project was a "Loony Tunes" operation that was "about to turn into a classic British disaster".

The main cost of the project is not the ships themselves but the aircraft to fly off them.

The Harrier jump-jet is being scrapped next year and the new carrier aircraft will be the F35 built by BAE and Lockheed Martin. But the F35 will not be ready until 2020, and plans for a jump-jet version have been scrapped – meaning an electric catapult to launch the aircraft will have to be developed at extra cost.

Lord Hesketh said a far quicker and cheaper solution was to adapt the RAF's existing Typhoons for work at sea. But he said this was less remunerative for BAE than buying dozens of new F35s...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[daftandbarmy]

Some good letters in there. I can practically hear the harrumphing from here:

Britain’s truest military allies are in the Commonwealth, not across the Channel
Doubts over Britain's military co-operation with France.
7:01AM GMT 03 Nov 2010
Comments
SIR – While I welcome the spirit of Britain’s co-operation with France, I cannot help but feel that the idea is simply driven by accountants.

This was an opportunity to create a defence strategy based upon the Commonwealth armed forces.

In numerous wars we have already proved the strong battlefield bond of this military alliance, which is composed of members of armed forces modelled on our own, and with whom we share the same language, organisation and values.

Related Articles

Lesson in The Elephant’s Child for Downton doubters 03 Nov 2010
Vince Cable believes British companies can thrive in China - if they are given the chance03 Nov 2010
Norfolk Island gives up independence03 Nov 2010
Watch out for bank-name changes03 Nov 2010
Closer Anglo-French cooperation will make NATO stronger03 Nov 2010
Spiritualist guardian of Indonesian volcano among those killed03 Nov 2010
The savings to be made from common procurement and shared training would have been bountiful.

But most of all, it would have been a meaningful renewal of trust and respect.

Once again, we have turned away from our own.

If I were from Canada, Australia or New Zealand, I would feel this as one in the eye from the old country.

Philip Congdon
La Bastide-d’Engras, Gard, France

SIR – The Anglo-French military “co-operation” (Letters, November 2), which has been on the agenda since the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, is a Trojan horse, promoted by supra-nationalists, to pave the way for an EU army.

Stuart Noyes
Andover, Hampshire


SIR – How quickly the lessons of history are forgotten when political expediency is concerned.

It was not so long ago that I was heading south to the Falklands to help remove the Argentines. Our warfare officer, who we regarded as a brother, was Australian. He fought a gallant but ultimately unsuccessful rear-guard action against his government to avoid removal in Ascension, supported wholeheartedly by us, his fellow officers. I find it difficult not to compare the actions of this gallant and true ally with those of the French, who were doing their utmost to get the Argentines’ Exocets serviceable. Those anti-ship missiles subsequently killed many of my friends and colleagues, while our other old enemies, the Spanish, were making unfriendly noises around Gibraltar.

On a practical note, I would be very interested to know in which language the two navies will communicate.

Lt-Cdr Philip Barber RN (retd)
Norton Juxta Twycross, Warwickshire


SIR – David Cameron has stamped his premiership with the theme of deference. He has deferred to the Liberal Democrats ideologically in all things and to the EU over the budget increase. He identified Britain as junior partner to the United States in the Second World War even before that nation had entered it.

When we now read of an Anglo-French military pact, we can be certain which will be the junior partner. But will America recoil from a Britain that is now to share its deepest military secrets with Paris?

Dr Timothy Bradshaw
Oxford

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8105926/Britains-truest-military-allies-are-in-the-Commonwealth-not-across-the-Channel.html

 

[MarkOttawa]

Sound vaguely familiar (usual copyright disclaimer)?

New leak exposes MoD fury at defence cutbacks
Exclusive: David Cameron's defence review has demoralised the Armed Forces, strained relations with allies and ignored significant military advice, a leaked Ministry of Defence document has disclosed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8141797/New-leak-exposes-MoD-fury-at-defence-cutbacks.html

It was rushed and its handling "badly damaged the confidence and morale of our personnel," the paper says.

The document, seen by The Daily Telegraph, was prepared by a board of military officers and senior officials working for Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, for a secret Whitehall assessment of the process.

The Prime Minister will face questions about the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR)
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf
from senior MPs On Thursday.

SDSR: Lessons Identified, is dated November 3 and marked "Restricted". It describes a process carried out too quickly to take proper account of advice, to consult allies or to win the support of the Forces.

It also criticises the way Mr Cameron and his National Security Council (NSC), a panel of senior ministers, drove the review forward...

It blames orders from NSC officials in the Cabinet Office. "At Cabinet Office direction, there was no pre-briefing of the chain of command and no pre-warning of units affected by the changes," it says.

"The combination of well-sourced media stories on final decisions and these restrictions on internal communications have badly damaged the confidence and morale of our personnel and created a poor baseline for implementation."

The paper says that senior officers warned of the need to engage Services personnel in the process but were ignored. That decision was "clearly a mistake"...

The board suggested that another “six to nine months” should have been spent on “high-level military judgements” deciding which forces, weapons and equipment would be needed.

The board also found:

    * The MoD as a whole “did not fully understand – or accept” the scale of the cuts it was facing. The review should have started with “a more hard-nosed description of the financial challenges”.

    * The Armed Forces had no “meaningful internal thinking” on how to deliver major cuts and effectively blocked “radical” options like restructuring the Army.

    * Some decisions made by Dr Fox’s team were “potentially ambiguous and remain under dispute”, partly because proper notes were not kept.

    * More than 6,000 submissions from voters were simply ignored...

EXTRACTS

    * …. On engaging international partners. A rapid consultation exercise was carried out during the Review. But the responses were received only as decisions were being taken (and collated only as they were being confirmed). It would have been preferable to undertake his exercise in advance of the Review, especially with close allies.

    * In retrospect – and as advised by the Chain of Command at the time – the restrictions on internal briefing were clearly a mistake.

    * Some of the DSG decisions were potentially ambiguous and remain under dispute. It might have been valuable to have a more formal record of decisions, with greater clarity and with that record formally agreed at subsequent meeting. This would have assisted with implementation.

    * There were probably too many areas of study. It was not possible to address the full range of issues raised in the time available. Some studies were discarded relatively quickly because they failed to generate new ideas or identify areas for change. But others were simply put to one side because there was limited time to engage on the full range of issues.

    * On high-level military judgements on future capabilities. The Force Testing process delivered significant insights into future requirements and potential trade-offs. But the sequencing of the SDSR made it difficult to fully exploit these insights in the decision-making process. There is a strong case for running a similar exercise in the six to none months preceding a future review.

    * In general, the preparatory work would have benefited from a clearer and more hard-nosed description of the financial challenges faced by the Department. There is some evidence that the wider Department did not fully understand – or accept – the affordability challenge until late in the process. It was clear that none of the three services had developed meaningful internal thinking on how to deliver a 10 – 20 per cent reduction in their resource baseline. An earlier understanding may have generated more radical alternative ideas...

Mark
Ottawa
 

 

[MarkOttawa]

UK axing of Nimrod--from Defense Industry Daily:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/nimrod-was-actually-a-good-hunter-upgrading-britains-fleet-updated-02442/

...In 2010, those threats became more than real, as Britain decided to give up fixed-wing maritime patrol and anti-submarine aircraft entirely…

Nov 17/10: General Sir David Richards discusses the loss of Britain’s maritime patrol fleet with the House of Commons Defence Committee:

“It hasn’t been a happy acquisition story. Given that its primary role is to do with the deterrent, of which it is one of five layers that do that sort of thing-I am choosing my words clumsily but deliberately-the view was that it was a risk that was acceptable, and we have all signed up to that. I cannot go into the detail of those layers of activity, but people who know much more about it than me were of a view that, in this respect, it was a risk but it was not a gamble…. I think I am right in saying, but I will have to confirm it, that the decision has been taken to take those aircraft out of service and not even to mothball them. The professional military now need to work actively with allies to see how we mitigate that risk…. The French are very keen to find a way to help us through this, and other nations are doing the same [emphasis added[. I think this is going to be a growing part of our lives.”..

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Then there's the...

Harrier’s last sea jump/Maritime patrol (more photos at post)
http://unambig.com/harriers-last-sea-jumpmaritime-patrol/

When the Brits decide you’re for the high jump, the axe falls brutally fast...

...the RAF is also getting out of the maritime patrol business, rather amazing for an island country’s air force. I doubt Canada could go so far (turn the mission over to the US? no way in this country. though the Brits seem willing to rely a lot on the French...). But there is an idea for reducing our Air Force’s requirements for that mission at this post:

    …Civilian maritime patrol Uppestdate
        http://unambig.com/union-selfishness-and-new-air-force-aircraft/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

The Royal Navy’s new flagship is a ferry/Canadian Navy’s new big ships
http://unambig.com/the-royal-navys-new-flagship-is-a-ferrycanadian-navys-new-big-ships/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Then there's the...

Harrier’s last sea jump/Maritime patrol (more photos at post)
http://unambig.com/harriers-last-sea-jumpmaritime-patrol/

Mark
Ottawa

Was the plan to use the jump with the VTOL F35's as well?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Colin P.: Looks like it:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/13/344057/farnborough-bae-to-ramp-up-work-on-jsf-production.html

...

...
Each of the Royal Navy's ski jump-equipped Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers will be able to carry up to 36 F-35Bs...

I assume the carriers will be redesigned without the jump for the F-35C.

Mark

 

[MarkOttawa]

That incredible shrinking RAF (headline rather a stretch):

RAF commander: our air force will be little better than Belgium’s
The head of the RAF’s fighter and bomber force has said that drastic cuts in the Government’s defence review “worry the hell out of me” and would leave the Air Force only “slightly above Belgium” in squadron numbers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8212090/RAF-commander-our-air-force-will-be-little-better-than-Belgiums.html

Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell, commander of the RAF’s No 1 Group, which controls all Britain’s fast jet combat aircraft, said that Britain was likely to end up with only six fighter and bomber squadrons, half its current number.

He warned: “That might not be quite enough.”

Air Vice-Marshal Bagwell’s remarks, in a briefing last week to Defense News, a trade journal, are among the most outspoken by any senior RAF commander.

He warned that even the reductions that have been publicly announced — from 12 fast-jet squadrons to eight — would leave the RAF only “just about” able to do its current tasks, with no leeway for the unexpected...

In the medium-term, over the next seven to 10 years, Air Vice-Marshal Bagwell said, the RAF “will be a six-squadron world; that’s what’s on the books”. He said he expected there to be five squadrons of Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft and just one of the Harrier’s long-term replacement, the Joint Strike Fighter. “I expect a single [JSF] squadron in 2020 and that’s it,” he said.

Asked whether this left the RAF on the same level as Belgium, he replied: “I think we’re slightly above Belgium, and we are not a Belgium-minded country.”

He added: “I might, over the next few years, argue that that might not be quite enough.” As recently as the 1990s the RAF had 30 front-line fast-jet squadrons [emphasis added]... 

An RAF comprising six fast-jet squadrons would be smaller than at any point since its foundation in 1918. It would take British combat air power back to the pre-RAF days of the Royal Flying Corps.

Belgium no longer has a stand-alone air force, but an “air component”, with five fast-jet squadrons. In squadron terms the RAF of 2020 will be only slightly larger, but will still have significantly more aircraft, with an estimated minimum of 135 fast jets to Belgium’s 70.

Air Vice-Marshal Bagwell said that one way around the shortages was to collaborate more with the French [emphasis added].

“It looks like we are going to twin 3 Squadron [a Typhoon squadron] with one of the [French] Rafale [fighter-bomber] squadrons. I’ll make a prediction we will have British officers flying Rafale from a carrier within a few years. I’m quite sure of it.”..

Meanwhile:


U.K. Harrier's Farewell (several photos)
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%3ab362b4a1-5a71-460b-ab7e-f9563c891870&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Mark
Ottawa

 

[StudentGrant]

Nice to see that the Ministry of Defence has now firmed up some of the news around the reductions of its civilian staff. The Central Top Level Budget (a business unit which consists of the civilian departmental HQ, pay and personnel, MOD Police, et al) will cut 40% of there staffing over 4 years. This will include an element of mandatory job losses.

Whilst it would be nice to think that this is a natural product of the SDSR, these cuts will start long before the Defence Business Review (which will determine what work the Department will do) finishes. How ironic it would be if there aren't enough staff (and, more importantly, the right staff in the right place) to do the work....

 

[MarkOttawa]

A real kick in the helmet:

Quarter of RAF trainee pilots to be sacked in defence spending cull
A quarter of RAF trainee pilots are to be sacked in a cost-cutting cull that threatens to leave the Armed Forces short of airmen, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8322136/Quarter-of-RAF-trainee-pilots-to-be-sacked-in-defence-spending-cull.html

Up to 100 student pilots will be told the news on Tuesday with some of them only a few hours away from becoming fully qualified to fly fighters, helicopters and transport aircraft.

The cuts will mean the waste of an estimated £300million already paid for training the pilots, plus the cost of redundancies. The training of RAF pilots can cost up to £4million a man.

There are fears that the sackings will lead to a shortage of helicopter and transport pilots on the front line in Afghanistan.

Tomorrow, one in four of the 400 student pilots will be taken aside to be told their commissions have been terminated when Air Vice Marshal Mark Green, the head of RAF training, visits each of the three flying schools.

Up to 20 trainee fast jet pilots, 30 helicopter pilots and 50 air transport pilots will be axed, The Daily Telegraph understands...

The redundancies come despite fears that many veteran RAF pilots will leave within the next two years to take up airline jobs as the civilian aviation industry recovers from recession.

The RAF has an estimated 210 fully qualified fast jet pilots, more than 200 air transport or surveillance pilots and 220 helicopter pilots.

It says it needs fewer pilots because it has reduced its fleet of fighter aircraft through the axing of 66 Harrier jets. It is also likely to shrink the Tornado fleet by half, to 60. The number of Eurofighter Typhoons will remain at 160 once all the aircraft have been built.

It is expected that up to 20 pilots will be taken from the fast jet training wing at RAF Valley, 30 from helicopter training in RAF Shawbury and between 40 and 50 from air transport at RAF Cranwell. There is now speculation that one or more of the training bases could close.

The cuts are part of 5,000 redundancies being forced on the RAF after the defence review, which will reduce total personnel to 33,000 by 2015. Britain’s Armed Forces will be scaled back over the next decade, leaving it with fewer ships, aircraft and personnel. As well as the RAF redundancies, 7,000 jobs will go in the Army and 5,000 in the Royal Navy...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Tornados stop whirling?

Cuts could cost RAF its fleet of Tornados
Exclusive: MoD spending crisis means planes could be rushed out of service, rather than phased out over several years
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/20/cuts-raf-fleet-tornados

The RAF's entire fleet of Tornado ground attack aircraft could be rushed out of service because of a fresh spending crisis at the Ministry of Defence, the Guardian has learned.

With the department trying to find an extra £1bn savings before the end of the spending round next month, ministers and senior military officials have been presented with a range of unpalatable options.

One involves the immediate withdrawal of the RAF's eight Tornado fighters in Afghanistan, followed by an accelerated withdrawal of the rest of the fleet from service, possibly within three years. Other options include axing thousands more soldiers from non-combat units in the army, or withdrawing more ships from the Royal Navy's already diminished fleet.

"It's a complete mess," said one Whitehall source. "The government wants the military to play a role on the global stage, but the MoD is running out of money to meet its commitments." Any withdrawal from the mission in Afghanistan would cause uproar, but the Tornados are vulnerable because there are only a few of them there, and they could be deemed non-essential: it would still leave more than 100 fast jets from other countries.

Under last year's strategic defence and security review (SDSR), the RAF's 100 or so Tornados were due to be phased out over several years, with the RAF still having a rump of 18 by 2015.

But decommissioning all of them, and more quickly, is now considered a possibility. Under this scenario, the MoD would try to accelerate into service more Typhoon aircraft, the Tornados' long-term replacement. This option may have become more attractive because the MoD is no longer expecting to sell some of its Typhoons to Oman in a £600m deal...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Maritime fighting back:

Military experts' warning over defence spending review
Below is a copy of a letter sent to David Cameron by military experts and retired commanders warning of the risks posed to British forces by the Strategic Defence Spending Review.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8346992/Military-experts-warning-over-defence-spending-review.html

Jan 29th 2011

Dear Prime Minister,

The SDSR was conducted, as it had to be, under the pressure of a financial crisis of unprecedented severity. This led to a very rapid and radical disposal of assets, which, more alarmingly, has demanded the loss of some core strategic capabilities. In our carefully considered view, it is in this latter respect that, in certain key areas, the decisions now about to be implemented merit rapid re-evaluation to avoid the potentially permanent loss of important military capabilities.

The publicly declared proposition that ‘the risks inherent in the currently envisaged Defence structure are acceptable’ seems to us to be unduly trusting in an uncertain, fast moving and dangerous world.

Flexibility is essential and the SDSR report advocates this but cuts the very capabilities that offer it best. Defence in peace means deterrence by showing capability and determination. Failure to do so leads to war e.g. Falklands...

Our focus is the maritime dimension of Defence strategy, the most flexible arm of our military capability. In particular, the retirement of the Joint RN/RAF Harrier Force which could be viewed with equanimity were it not for two profound downstream consequences that strike at the heart of our Defence structure in both the immediate and the longer term.

The first is the deprivation of fixed wing carrier-borne air capability for at least a decade. This not only removes a very important component of the offensive and defensive capabilities of the Fleet but also undermines support of the Army and of the Royal Marines in their amphibious role. This valuable operation can no longer be attempted even against a lightly armed aggressor without considerable risk...

The second is the break in continuity of all sections of the fixed wing element of the Royal Navy and its unique expertise to deliver air power from the sea, with all the wide-ranging tactical and strategic benefits that this prowess can endow...

The operational and financial arguments for maintaining the Harrier in favour of the Tornado are clear to us and to the wider defence community. We therefore wish to bring to your attention a cost-effective option for retaining some Tornadoes and some Harriers, the latter under Royal Naval command, and both in reduced numbers...

A further option (Annex C) is for a mix of Harriers and F18s under naval command while retaining a reduced RAF Tornado force. Either option would help retain a highly desirable operational capability and, in doing so, give a marvellous fillip to morale of the Royal Naval air and ground crews that would be welcomed and, importantly, would ensure their retention in service...

Yours Sincerely,

Dr Duncan Redford BA, MA, PhD, F.R.Hist.S. Centre for Maritime Historical Studies, University of Exeter.

Professor Eric Grove, Any MAs PHDs Professor of Naval History and Director of the Centre for International Security and War Studies, Salford University.

Professor Andrew Lambert BA (Law) MA, PhD. Laughton Professor of Naval History in the Department of War Studies at King's College, London.

Professor N. A. M. Rodger FBA. Any MAs PHDs Senior Research Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford.

Field Marshall the Lord Bramall KG GCB OBE MC JP DL.

General Sir John Waters GCB CBE.

Lieutenant-General Sir Hew Pike KCB DSO MBE.

Major General Julian Thompson CB OBE RM.

Major General Nick Vaux CB DSO RM.

Admiral Sir Raymond Lygo KCB.

Admiral Sir John Treacher KCB.

Admiral Sir John Woodward GBE KCB.

Admiral Sir Jeremy Black GBE KCB DSO.

Admiral Sir Michael Layard KCB CBE.

Admiral Sir Ian Garnett KCB... 

 

Mark
Ottawa