Tornado to be grounded to save money???????

[garethbrum]

It seems clear (no matter what reports one chooses to believe or not) that the RAF have pinned their future firmly on Typhoon and F-35 (think you agree with me there Gareth?)

You know I do - as I said previously, that has been the RAF's clear stated vision for some time - Typhoon and JSF. You don't need to rely on reports for that - Torpy et al said it on numerous occasions and Dalton has said it too.

Q. BRITAIN WANTS 150 F-35S. SOME SAY IT COULD BE BOUGHT IN TWO BLOCKS TO CUT COST. YOUR VIEW?
That may dictate we want a slight variation. We might want more or less, and changes to time scales, but there is nothing I have seen yet that says we are not signed up to the concept of this airplane delivering its capability with the numbers we originally projected. The number is actually part of my drive to get two fleets of fast airplanes for the future - Typhoon and JSF. They have complementary capabilities. JSF represents a capability that we absolutely need, no matter what operation we're talking about.

From an interview here:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4498481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The carriers and A400 are also discussed and he also says of Nimrod MR2:

.............the longer-term cuts are about the longer-term balance of the service. For example, we are bringing the new MRA4 Nimrods into RAF Kinloss, but not introducing them into service until 2012. That will enable us to build up the force over the next two years, so it becomes a proper operational capability in that time. The fact is we are taking the MR2 out of service next month to free up resources and crews as well as save money on support.

Q. DOESN'T THAT LEAVE YOU WITH A GAP WHEN RUSSIAN SUBS ARE MORE ACTIVE?
A. Yes, about three years, and you're absolutely right. We have had to take a judgment that the risk is acceptable with a combination of other assets that are available: frigates, NATO allies, and there are lots of P-3s around Europe at the moment. We have taken the judgment that the risk is acceptable in the short term so that, in the medium term, we get the capability we need.

If anyone here hasn't read it - Dalton's speech to the IISS was also very interesting:

http://www.iiss.org/recent-key-addresse ... en-dalton/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sheff]

Naturally I hope his views on Nimrod are carried-through. Although I think the very idea of any premature withdrawal of Tornado is absurd, I think abandonment of Nimrod would be ludicrous. I suppose a delayed entry into service for Nimrod would be far preferable than no entry at all. Heaven-knows the history of British air power is littered with many bad decisions, but abandoning such a potentially valuable asset like Nimrod would be one of the most ridiculous of all time. As for Tornado, I guess it falls into a very similar category to Jaguar in that it's a brilliantly capable machine which ought to be retained, but if does ultimately have to be sacrificed in order to finance F-35 or even (as mentioned) the F/A-18 then it isn't such a drastic loss. My worry is that the final result might be that the RAF gets neither. As I said before, and although I know some people disagree, I firmly believe that the root cause of the RAF's difficulties lay (yet again) with the Navy and their compulsive self-justification. Historically, the Navy has always had the most political clout and on the evidence available (factual or speculative) it would appear that nothing has changed!

[Thunder]

It's not the Goverment that has suggested grounding the Tornado fleet, this has come from the RAF themselves along with shelving the Nimrod MRA4 idea. The Goverment has asked all departments to re think their budgets from within.

[hertsman]

A link to a short and easily digestible article in Defence Management, that summarises some of the principals and problems that lie behind the discussion in this thread.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/featur ... p?id=14569" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

hertsman

[Sheff]

Olympics should, in the end, turn in a profit.

Off at a slight tangent I agree but I wouldn't bank on that particular hope. Living in Sheffield, I know all about obsessions with daft sports events. Our council financed the World Student Games (whatever they are) and spent a fortune on new sports facilities including a new stadium. The city is still paying for them years later. But hey, let's not expect the Government to devote attention to the economy, the Health Service or our defences when they can waste time and money on a sports event.

[Sheff]

Some good points in that piece:-

Douglas Hurd coined this unfortunate phrase that Britain 'punches above its weight
Douglas didn't coin it but it's certainly very valid.

heads of the armed forces, each with a vested interest in lobbying for changes to benefit their own branch of the armed forces, have been detrimental to any overall sense of strategy or direction
Exactly - as I said in a previous post. This is how the poisonous JSF programme got started in the first place.

situation also persuades all the chiefs of staff to decry the others' programmes because that is the only way to preserve their own
Exactly! Typical inter-service fighting which has gone on for decades.

They [the service chiefs] are, in a simple phrase, trying to fight the sorts of wars that they would like to fight rather than the wars they might have to fight
Exactly! As I said, it's the Navy trying to self-justify, not a realistic appraisal of the country's needs.

[Sheff]

Well I guess a great deal depends on how one sees the future. Personally I've never believed that Britain will ever forge any serious or strong ties with Europe when it comes to defence. There's far too much history between us to suggest that this will ever happen other than in purely symbolic terms. Ultimately, I think our future is in the hands of the US as it has been for more than sixty years in effect. Makes you wonder whether the predictions made by some Buddhist gurus might become true one day. They always claimed that after an awful lot of turmoil, Britain would ultimately become another State of the US - perhaps they might be proved correct in time?!

[hertsman]

Hawks922 post got me thinking about the serious aspects of a European defence policy.

The economic arguments for European collaboration on defence are enticing, especially in the current straitened circumstances we are all in. It is a good idea for one country to e.g. provide a particular system - air-superiority from one and A2A refuelling from another, transport from a third, rather than each nation attempting to provide all these capabilities with the duplication that involves.

The problem comes with the subsequent difficulty of getting multi-lateral political agreement to the deployment of these assets - and what happens if the strike aircraft are committed by their national government, but the A2A stay at home because their government doesn't support the mission? Decisive decision making and prompt commitment to action have not been hallmarks of the European community, other than when they have coat-tailed the US military machine.

I was working in the US a lot in when the situation in the Balkans became critical. Europe talked much but basically sat on it's hands when it came to actually doing anything, at least until the US lead the way. My American colleagues asked me why they had to commit their forces to solve a European problem , and why did the ever-increasing EU powerbloc not fix the problems in it's own back yard? I didn't have much to offer in reply. So only with a Federal Europe does the kind of collaboration I mention above become a realistic proposition. While this may be an aspiration for some, I see too many diverse cultures and vested interests for this to evolve any time soon.

I am sure we will see some attempts at European rationalisation when the SDR is made public, but more likely to be along the lines of agreeing to investigate some specific sharing arrangements that might be workable, than in a truly pan-European strategy. Meantime it remains wise to stay friends with the biggest kid in the school-yard, and the one that might just do something when the bullets start to fly, not just talk about it

hertsman

[Sheff]

Indeed, I think that's the basic problem with multi-national co-operation. The idea sounds good in principle but in practise it is unworkable. You obviously cannot defend your own country by relying upon the co-operation of another. Nato held together during the Cold War simply because it was necessary, particularly for smaller countries who could shelter under the US/UK nuclear umbrella, but I think anyone would accept that the chances of any European co-operation actually functioning now, if it was ever vital, are just about zero. Doubtless the Government will try to convince us that co-operation is a good idea because - at least on paper - it is, but I don't think anyone will believe that the concept is actually viable, other than as a means of saving money. In terms of providing credible defence forces it's just a complete joke. The only reliable means of defence (for the UK) is to maintain its strong ties with the US. Anything else is simply window dressing for domestic and European consumption. Naturally, it means that Britain is effectively obliged to "roll over" and accept US foreign policy almost without question but frankly, what other realistic option do we have?

[T_J]

Euroforces in essence are already here although it doesn't undermine NATO as the main alliance. The UK contributes to many of these Euro forces. What has been established is the likes of Battlegroup of the European Union, EUFOR (European Union Force), Eurocorps, European Air Group, etc. These organisations are military forces combining mostly EU member nations, but available for NATO and UN deployment.

In answer to you question, Hertsman it was NATO that offered assistance to the UN in regards to the Balkans in the 1990s. The UN applied the Security Council resolutions and NATO offered to enforce them with military force. Why did it come as a surprise to many Americans that this meant US military involvement as part of NATO?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlegrou ... pean_Union" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Force" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.eurocorps.org/home_page/home ... efault=ENG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.euroairgroup.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_A ... rt_Command" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.eunavfor.eu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TJ

[hertsman]

T_J,

I have to come clean and admit to being a dyed-in-the-wool Euro-sceptic. I'm afraid I put little faith in any Euro institution and even less when it comes to defence. If we get into a fight the best people to fight for us are ourselves. At present though, it's needs must where the devil drives. I guess, therefore, more collaboration with Europe is a possible outcome from the SDSR, but in my heart of hearts, I wouldn't depend on any of our Euro partners being there when we really, really needed them. The US remains our best bet for a whole range of practical, historical and cultural reasons.

hertsman

[vinnyboy]

Just came on our local news that when the tornado is grounded raf marham in norfolk will probably close What a shame that will be to the local economy and over 1000 personell to be moved elswhere.Really hope that dont happen cant they just put a few typhoons there insetead.

[vinnyboy]

My own opinion? Bin Tornado GR.4 and close Sandringham International - hateful place anyway! [/quote]


Excuse me i say shut down the bases north of the border after all the scots always want to be independent and taking us english guys away will save billions alone

[Sheff]

I agree entirely. The continuing proposition that the Government should "prop-up" Kinloss and Lossie just to placate Scottish politicians is laughable. Clearly, Kinloss is redundant and the notion of keeping it open is just absurd, especially if it is retained only to support a handful of Nimrods (if the RAF ever gets them). It could be argued that Lossie does at least have some value, being well-positioned for training purposes, but I'm inclined to think that it would make perfect sense to close Leuchars and move the Typhoons to Lossie. One assumes that the political pressure to retain Leuchars (somewhat artificially) is as strong as the pressure to retain Kinloss. No logical reason to maintain either station but while there's any political mileage in it, then they will.

As for Marham, its possible closure has been mentioned for a couple of years now and although the local media are doubtless making a story out of nothing, it's pretty obvious that when Tornado goes, Marham will follow. The only real question is when Tornado will go, but we should know the answer to that soon. Same applies to Cottesmore and Wittering. Both are bound to go when the Harrier goes, the only remaining question is where the new carrier aircraft will be based. Obviously, it rather depends if the carrier programme continues and whether the same political pressure will ensure that the aircraft go to Lossie. My hunch is that they will indeed go to Lossie as the political advantages of placating the folks in Morayshire are pretty obvious. However, even if the carriers survive the SDR, I wouldn't put any money on any carrier-based aircraft entering RAF/RN service until they're paid-for and delivered!

[Thunder]

I find the above post rather anti Scottish. You would shut all the bases in Scotland if you had your way, the last time I looked the RAF was the Air Arm of the United Kingdom not England.

There is plenty of reasons for all 3 bases North of the boarder to stay open. The 3 bases at Lossiemouth, Leuchars and Kinloss are the biggest in terms of Airfield area, hangar space, Technical area, and Accommodation (on/off base) within the RAF. All three enjoy remote locations when compared to the English bases, and all three lie within the largest low fly area in Europe, from each of the bases you are immediately in the training areas without an hours transit time each way, which will save money on fuel and airframe hours. The local populations are also more tolerant with the noise pollution than the people of Middle England, so before any of the bases in Scotland are mentioned for closure I think you have to question the reasons why Leeming, Wittering, Barkston Heath, Church Fenton, Topcliffe, Scampton, Leconfield and Benson are still open.

[TankBuster]

Is anywhere safe?... Probably not, every part of the UK's military will be looked at & considered as options for changes whether that is to be closure of bases, loss or gain of aircraft or re-location of squadrons etc remains to be seen.

If areas of the UK's defence can be reasonably reduced and or consolidated to gain a reduction in cost then its going to happen like it or not. We can argue for and against cases for aircraft and bases & training areas etc, oh & the list goes on. Everything is just a number, if theres a cheaper way of doing things then thats the only thing the politicians are interested in. Ruthless it is, but if it costs too much then a cheaper alternative will be sought even if a bases future looks secure today it might not tomorrow, the same goes for our aircraft.


TankBuster

[gamecock]

Gulp!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... evels.html

[garethbrum]

Gulp!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... evels.html

Sigh more like - they've just grouped all the speculation together in one nonsense feature.

[Sheff]

I find the above post rather anti Scottish
No, it's just that Scotland can hardly expect special treatment, and yet the implication seems to be that three major bases should be maintained in Scotland for no obvious reason.

Aeronautical Rescue Co-ordination Centre is based at Kinloss
Fair point but obviously non-flying units can be re-located, as they will be at other bases which will inevitably close. The notion that a base (ie- an airfield and its infrastructure) should be maintained to support half a dozen aircraft would have been ridiculous a decade ago, but in 2012? Surely not.

[headset 57]

I find the above post rather anti Scottish
No, it's just that Scotland can hardly expect special treatment, and yet the implication seems to be that three major bases should be maintained in Scotland for no obvious reason.

Aeronautical Rescue Co-ordination Centre is based at Kinloss
Fair point but obviously non-flying units can be re-located, as they will be at other bases which will inevitably close. The notion that a base (ie- an airfield and its infrastructure) should be maintained to support half a dozen aircraft would have been ridiculous a decade ago, but in 2012? Surely not.

Well we do pay you maintenance money up there from the south east!, and if might find yours a tad anti saxon!...